Because most people who call themselves liberterians are actually republicans who don't want to admit it. Quiz any liberterian and you'll find out the following.
1) They mostly vote for republicans. 2) They sometimes (rarely) vote for liberterians. 3) They have never voted for a democrat and never would no matter who ran or what their positions were.
Q) Of all the candidates with a remote chance of winning which one is the most "liberterian"?
A) Howard Dean.
You think any liberterian would vote for Howard Dean? Not in your dreams.
Your Mom is not going to be able to do all that. Just install Mozilla Tunderbird and tell her to click the option that says "don't display remote images in email and news".
Maybe that explains why you are stalking me. Cool I can go for a little hero worship. I don't even mind that you are jerking your little pud while reading my posts and thinking of how wonderful it would be to receive me in all your orifices.
"It might be said that the communist manifesto is more Christian than democracy."
Really? I have never heard anybody say that. Sure if I had to choose I might say that the communist ideal is closer to christianity, there is no doubt about that. There is also little doubt that capitalism and satanism are almost exactly the same philosophy.
The big difference between communism and christianity is that communism mainly concerns itself with economics. Christianity as preached by Christ OTOH distains economics and distains wealth or thinking about wealth. In this reagard the GNU manifesto is much closer to christianity then communism is. The GNU manifesto is about freedom not economics.
I suppose you could say that. I meant other ideologies. The people on any given project may be democrats, republicans, jews, muslims, atheists, communists, anarchists, liberterians, socialists or what have you.
There are no shortage of "isms" which divide people and yet they can all work towards a common goal.
OSS is indeed a gift to the world in every sense of the word.
Also have you ever read the credit list from a large project? It reads like a world phone book. People from all over the world, all religions, all races, all idiologies working together to make something. It would be remarkable in and of itself but the fact that they are doing it for free makes it nothing short of miraculous.
"Might the GNU project be better served if their leaders would stop worrying about whether it should be called GNU/Linux and get back to the technical side of things?"
Absolutely not. Without ideology GNU is no different then MS or SCO. Besides all things are political today. Do you listen to music? do you go to the movies? Do you use software? Guess what you are engaging in political behavior.
Actually there is probably an easy way to accomlish that. For example.
Let's say there was no incme tax. Let's say instead that there was a national sales tax. We could simply exempt anything that costs less than $500 (or some other arbitrary number) and I think it would care of that. Most poor people don't ever buy things that cost over $500.00 and even on the rare occation that they did (let's say a car or something) they could pay the tax. It would be rare enough not to hurt too much.
I guess it's easy to call people names when you are not standing in front of them. Come over here and call me a bed wetter to my face then you'll be the one pissing in his pants when I break your face.
The reason a progressive tax exists is because the middle class and the poor do not make enough money to fund the expenditures of the country. If you had a flat tax you could not afford to invade iraq, or subsidize farmers, or give sweetheart deals to haliburton.
Joe Next door makes 30K per year as a teacher. He gets taxed 10% and now has 27K per year to make it. Ouch man that hurts, he could have really used that extra 3K to pay for rent or food.
Joe Milionaire makes 30 Million per year. He pays 10% and now has 27 million per year to make it. I wonder how he will ever survive on that kind of money.
Can the lawyer be sued for deliberately misrepresenting the law in public forums and articles? In other words does the lawyer have a reasponsibility to the legal system not to lie about what a certain law says.
I ask this because the SCO lawyers have said the GPL is invalid because fair use says you can only make one copy while the GPL says you can make as many copies as you want.
Now I am not a lawyer but I know this guy is lying. Not only is he lying but he is confusing copyrights with licences.
Can the American Bar association do anything to this lawyer who is either dumber then a rock or clearly unethical?
"It seems as though we're talking about two different levels of "relative" here."
I don't think so. You (and I) clearly think morals are relative. In other words they are a product of concensus to some extent. Otherwise they would be dictated by God and there would be no argument.
"This really is something Greer should have seen coming."
He probably did see it coming. If he did see it coming and did it anyway then he is braver then 99% of the people in America. I don't know if given the same circumstances I would be as brave as he was (I hope I would be) but then again I don't have his resume.
In the end @stake is the real big loser here. They lose a brilliant mind and they are shown to be the lame ass ass kissers that they are. I imagine that really bright people will not be applying there after this incident.
"Hey, how come I get stuck with the bad examples (homosexuality being "evil", stealing being "OK") and you get the good ones?;-)"
Well I wasn't going to make myself look bad was I.
"But that still doesn't make it OK to force your moral views onto another. It's not about "relativism"; it's about liberty."
My point is that either morals are relative or they are absolute. If they are absolute then I am not forcing them on you god is. If there is only set of morals then eveyone is expected to live by the same set of morals.
"not to mention the fact that they don't have the rights to bear arms under the current government so you are pretty off topic."
They have arms. They have guns. Those weapons of course are useless against helicopter gunships and missiles and tanks so they get killed by the thousands and live under the occupation of another country and people.
I suspect your shotguns and pistols will be just as useless against an invader or the US army if push came to shove.
Oh come on now. Arew you seriously telling me that unless it's in the bill of rights then you don't have the right? You don't have the right to go to the bathroom? You don't have the right to breathe? Or perhaps it's covered by
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
You are playing a stupid game in trying to justify unequal treatment of people. Why not deny the homosexuals the "right" to go the bathroom? Since going to the bathroom is not a right then you can deny the homosexuals the privledge of going to the bathroom. Why not prevent the homosexuals from crossing the steet? I don't see a right to cross the street in the constitution do you? How about the right to sit down when you are tired I didn't see that there either. Come to think of it I also don't see a right to sleep in the consitution either let's deny people the "privledge" of going to sleep.
Slashdot Mirror
People keep saying this to you but it does not seem to sink in.
Commercial speech is not the same. It can and has been regulated. Spam is commercial speech.
"Republicans ... beloved of Libertarians ... why?"
Because most people who call themselves liberterians are actually republicans who don't want to admit it. Quiz any liberterian and you'll find out the following.
1) They mostly vote for republicans.
2) They sometimes (rarely) vote for liberterians.
3) They have never voted for a democrat and never would no matter who ran or what their positions were.
Q) Of all the candidates with a remote chance of winning which one is the most "liberterian"?
A) Howard Dean.
You think any liberterian would vote for Howard Dean? Not in your dreams.
Your Mom is not going to be able to do all that. Just install Mozilla Tunderbird and tell her to click the option that says "don't display remote images in email and news".
You can tell Mozilla mail not to display remote images in mail and news. It's under privacy->images.
Yet another reason why Mozilla rules.
Braver then you apparently.
"You are my hero."
Maybe that explains why you are stalking me. Cool I can go for a little hero worship. I don't even mind that you are jerking your little pud while reading my posts and thinking of how wonderful it would be to receive me in all your orifices.
"It might be said that the communist manifesto is more Christian than democracy."
Really? I have never heard anybody say that. Sure if I had to choose I might say that the communist ideal is closer to christianity, there is no doubt about that. There is also little doubt that capitalism and satanism are almost exactly the same philosophy.
The big difference between communism and christianity is that communism mainly concerns itself with economics. Christianity as preached by Christ OTOH distains economics and distains wealth or thinking about wealth. In this reagard the GNU manifesto is much closer to christianity then communism is. The GNU manifesto is about freedom not economics.
I suppose you could say that. I meant other ideologies. The people on any given project may be democrats, republicans, jews, muslims, atheists, communists, anarchists, liberterians, socialists or what have you.
There are no shortage of "isms" which divide people and yet they can all work towards a common goal.
People call it communist because they are unable to hold complex thoughts in their heads.
For me the GNU manifesto is pretty damned close to the sermon on the mount. It's more Christian then communist.
I know you meant to be funny but...
OSS is indeed a gift to the world in every sense of the word.
Also have you ever read the credit list from a large project? It reads like a world phone book. People from all over the world, all religions, all races, all idiologies working together to make something. It would be remarkable in and of itself but the fact that they are doing it for free makes it nothing short of miraculous.
If that is not love then what is?
"Might the GNU project be better served if their leaders would stop worrying about whether it should be called GNU/Linux and get back to the technical side of things?"
Absolutely not. Without ideology GNU is no different then MS or SCO. Besides all things are political today. Do you listen to music? do you go to the movies? Do you use software? Guess what you are engaging in political behavior.
Huh? I don't think so.
Actually there is probably an easy way to accomlish that. For example.
Let's say there was no incme tax. Let's say instead that there was a national sales tax. We could simply exempt anything that costs less than $500 (or some other arbitrary number) and I think it would care of that. Most poor people don't ever buy things that cost over $500.00 and even on the rare occation that they did (let's say a car or something) they could pay the tax. It would be rare enough not to hurt too much.
Too cowardly even to use his pseudonym. Typical republican. Talks shit but won't lift a finger to do anything and scared of his own shadow.
I guess it's easy to call people names when you are not standing in front of them. Come over here and call me a bed wetter to my face then you'll be the one pissing in his pants when I break your face.
The reason a progressive tax exists is because the middle class and the poor do not make enough money to fund the expenditures of the country. If you had a flat tax you could not afford to invade iraq, or subsidize farmers, or give sweetheart deals to haliburton.
You have to get the money from someplace.
Let's see now.
Joe Next door makes 30K per year as a teacher. He gets taxed 10% and now has 27K per year to make it. Ouch man that hurts, he could have really used that extra 3K to pay for rent or food.
Joe Milionaire makes 30 Million per year. He pays 10% and now has 27 million per year to make it. I wonder how he will ever survive on that kind of money.
Can the lawyer be sued for deliberately misrepresenting the law in public forums and articles? In other words does the lawyer have a reasponsibility to the legal system not to lie about what a certain law says.
I ask this because the SCO lawyers have said the GPL is invalid because fair use says you can only make one copy while the GPL says you can make as many copies as you want.
Now I am not a lawyer but I know this guy is lying. Not only is he lying but he is confusing copyrights with licences.
Can the American Bar association do anything to this lawyer who is either dumber then a rock or clearly unethical?
No but it was possible.
"It seems as though we're talking about two different levels of "relative" here."
I don't think so. You (and I) clearly think morals are relative. In other words they are a product of concensus to some extent. Otherwise they would be dictated by God and there would be no argument.
Bush said repeatedly that Saddam had to "disarm" we now know that he was not armed in the first place.
"This really is something Greer should have seen coming."
He probably did see it coming. If he did see it coming and did it anyway then he is braver then 99% of the people in America. I don't know if given the same circumstances I would be as brave as he was (I hope I would be) but then again I don't have his resume.
In the end @stake is the real big loser here. They lose a brilliant mind and they are shown to be the lame ass ass kissers that they are. I imagine that really bright people will not be applying there after this incident.
Dude it's in your sig. Only MS trolls get upset at the $. It doesn't bother anybody else. Why should it bother you?
"Hey, how come I get stuck with the bad examples (homosexuality being "evil", stealing being "OK") and you get the good ones? ;-)"
Well I wasn't going to make myself look bad was I.
"But that still doesn't make it OK to force your moral views onto another. It's not about "relativism"; it's about liberty."
My point is that either morals are relative or they are absolute. If they are absolute then I am not forcing them on you god is. If there is only set of morals then eveyone is expected to live by the same set of morals.
"not to mention the fact that they don't have the rights to bear arms under the current government so you are pretty off topic."
They have arms. They have guns. Those weapons of course are useless against helicopter gunships and missiles and tanks so they get killed by the thousands and live under the occupation of another country and people.
I suspect your shotguns and pistols will be just as useless against an invader or the US army if push came to shove.
Oh come on now. Arew you seriously telling me that unless it's in the bill of rights then you don't have the right? You don't have the right to go to the bathroom? You don't have the right to breathe? Or perhaps it's covered by
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
You are playing a stupid game in trying to justify unequal treatment of people. Why not deny the homosexuals the "right" to go the bathroom? Since going to the bathroom is not a right then you can deny the homosexuals the privledge of going to the bathroom. Why not prevent the homosexuals from crossing the steet? I don't see a right to cross the street in the constitution do you? How about the right to sit down when you are tired I didn't see that there either. Come to think of it I also don't see a right to sleep in the consitution either let's deny people the "privledge" of going to sleep.