In your dreams. It will never happen as long as Bush is afraid of Sharon.
You remember when the israeli tanks rolled into palestine and bush told sharon to pull out? Do you remember what sharon said? He said "israel will pull out if and when it wants to". Do you remember what bush said in response? He said nothing!
You think bush can tell sharon to remove settlements? No way.
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
here you can read some more of Mussolini's thoughts on fascism including such tidbits as
BTW. More then one person has been rounded up and taken away to concentration camps for reasons you and I know nothing about. Just because Bush has not yet made you disappear for posting here that does not mean he can't or won't. He has killed lots of people in texas, he has "disappeared" hundreds of people in the US. What makes you think you are immune?
That's because unix was multi user multi tasking operating system 20 years ago. Unix networking 20 years ago was better then windows networking today. How long did it take for MS to even start using TCP/IP?
It is to Microsofts shame that it took them decades to write a multi tasking operating system and they had to buy citrix to come up with something even resembling multi user. Until windows 2000 windows was a single user operating system!. Imagine that!
Ever use roaming profiles? What kind of a half assed crap is that?
I suspect that you simply don't want to see innovations so you don't. Let me point out a few examples.
Does Zope contain any innovations? You bet your ass it does.
Does postgres contain innovations? Of course it does if you don't believe me look up the chapters on user defined operators and loadable stored procedure languages. Postgres Rule system is so innovative MS grafted something like it into SQL server 2000.
Is the fact that mysql has multiple table types that can be extended innovative? Sure it is.
Is knoppix innovative?
Are mozilla tabs innovative? They are to me. In fact mozilla is chuck full of innovation like XUL and XP-COM.
I won't even go into nessus, apt, iptables, freenet, hibernate, cocoon, eMule, apache2, logrotate, or a hundred other applications that are stunning examples of innovative thinking.
In fact your typical debian install has more innovation in it then any windows ever had.
"Once there, they did the same thing anybody alive would have done, tried to remain on top."
I really don't think this is true. I don't think everybody is as greedy and evil as the MS execs are. You seem to think that there are no ethical business people in the world but I don't agree with you.
The vast majority of business owners would not resort to illegal tactics to improve or sustain their market share. Sure Enron, MS, Worldcom and a handful of businesses are perpetrating fraud and crimes but it's not fair to taint every business person with the same brush.
""Woo I hate Microsoft! Everybody like me because I appear smarter for it!""
""Well, MS could sell you a product and then sue you!" "
MS spreads the same FUD. It's simply trying to counterattack when you are under attack. What should the people do? just bend over and take it when MS launches an attack on you?
1) Ms puts things in their EULA so that they won't have to provide support. 2) No one ever reads EULA. 3) People misunderstant the EULA 4) MS will never enfor the EULA. 5) You can ignore the parts the of EULA you don't like. 6) The EULA is unenforcable.
and finally.
7) Use another product.
Hey! Number 7 is what this topic was all about in the first place.
". If a co-worker of mine like to talk about about the intrinisic inferiority of blacks, or about how whites were all racists, I would have a different opinion of them that would change my relationship to them. "
There is a concept in law called a hostile workplace. For example a woman sued her employer because there were pictures of nude women plastered all over her workplace and won. More relevant to the topic a bunch of black employees sued a company (the name escapes me at the moment) for plastering slave paraphanlia all over the workspace.
It's illegal for an employer to make or let a workplace become hostile to a subset of employees. You don't have to wish for that world it exists now.
"If the contract was terminated due to Theo's comments, which I think is still undemonstrated,"
certainly nobody in the govt is dumb enough to say that they pulled the funding due to his political beliefs let alone put it in writing. I think it's obvious to most people why the funding was pulled though.
" Are you honestly saying that you feel that anyone should be able to express their beliefs anywhere, at any time, with no financial repercussions from any government agency? "
First of all you are changing the subject. You switched from your boss creating a hostile workplace for you (which is illegal and you can sue him because of it) to cutting off govt funding but I'll answer it anyway.
It depends doesn't it. If you are scientist who gets a grant to work on an aids virus should your funding be pulled because you are a democrat and a republican took over the white house? As a democrat the doctor would most likely disagree with the republican president right? The doctor might even actually express his disagreement right? Should the govt pull funding for aids research because the doctor dared to say he wished a democrat won or that the tax cut is sure to help the rich most? Most rational people would think that this was wrong.
"If so, I would assume that you would support the government continuing to provide grants to a body whose president publicly stated a stance of violent purging of minorities, so long as this statement were made after funding were initially granted."
This happens all the time. Hell ex members of the KKK are in congress. Ever hear of david duke? How many racist statements have you heard from politicians themselves? look up some choice quotes by Conrad Burns when you get a chance. Look at the association between Bob Barr and a white supremecist organization called Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), I don't even need to mention trent lott do I? There are tons of organizations and so called think tanks that are thinly veiled white supremecists that get tons of money from the govt.
"I don't agree with, but as a philanthropist neither would I be obligated to provide or continue to provide you with money or other support to further your cause."
The key phrase here is "support to further your cause". You are extremely confused about what this money was for. The money was granted to make a more secure operating system not to advance some pet cause of Theo. Well maybe that's not quite right because making a more secure operating system is theo's cause I guess. Theo cares about making more secure operating systems, he has a proven track record of building them. The govt pulling that funding was exactly like my example above with the aids research.
There is no other way to parse this. What the govt did was wrong, petty, shameful, and disgusting. Sure it was legal but it was not right.
" I was not afraid to speak my mind lest I be fired."
And later you say.
"I expect that personal relations witht that person would have been strained, which would make it more difficult for me to do my job. I would possibly have had more difficulty getting a raise."
I think you are rationalizing here. Clearly you would have been punished in some way for expressing yourself.
"you don't want to answer the question of why I would be expressing those views to my boss on company time in the first place."
Because you are a human being. Were you ever afraid of expressing your views on last weeks episode of friends, or the lakers game, or whether it was too hot or too cold outside? Chances are that you were perfectly free to express your views on last nights game but would be punished if you expressed your views on religion or politics. This is wrong.
" I'd like to know how you think the military can maintain an effective chain of command, etc. if people are free to mouth off in this way."
In no way or shape or form is the military a just or a democratic institution. The military is a dictatorship of the most opressive kind. As a soldier you could be court marshalled for getting a sun burn (it's called damaging govt property). As a soldier you are the property of the govt and have to do whatever they say, whenever they say, however they say. Ask any soldier they'll tell you. I myself was in the military and speak from direct experience when I say that you give up a whole slew of rights when you join including your right to free speech.
I could not find the murder numbers. Let's presume for the sake of argument that they are three times longer for murder on average. That puts it at right about 23 years. I guess that sound right. A murderer is sentenced to 25 years in prison. But how long does he serve? My guess is that it's about half.
"Europe has higher crime rates than the US?"
It's called sarcasm you should look into it. Europe has lower rates of crime across the board including murder.
"Arabs will matter, in about 50 years once they've become civilized."
I figured you were one of those peole who did not consider arabs human beings. I was right.
"The guy who murdered him got like 23 years in prison. Thats friggin pathetic. "
Is it? Here is a quote from the Dept of Justice Dept of Justice
# Of the 68,533 defendants convicted and sentenced during 2001, 74% were sentenced to a term of probation (either alone or in conjunction with probation), 17% were sentenced to probation (either alone or with incarceration), and 4% were sentenced to pay a fine alone.
# The average prison sentence imposed during 2001 was 57 months. Defendants convicted of violent felonies (91 months), weapons felonies (87 months), and drug felonies (74 months) received the longest prison terms, on average.
In case you are mathametically challenged 91 months is about seven and a half years. BTW that's just the sentencing not the actual time served which is probably a lot less.
"Europeans just aren't serious about crime. They're afraid of the death penalty and of harsh sentences."
Oh yes, that probably explains why europe has much higher crime rates then the US right?
"I guess human lives don't matter when its murder. Heck not even a high profile politician's life matters."
" Well, you can claim that my boss intimidated me. I certainly didn't feel intimidated."
Well certainly you were afraid to speak your mind lest you get fired. That's intimidation to me.
"But I think it's unfair to characterize people who disagree as "intimidated."
I did no such thing. I simply said that if you disagree and then are punished for disagreeing then it's intimidation.
The workplace is a tyranical organization. Your boss is your god and king, his word is the law. There is nothing resembling liberty and democracy in the corporate world. This is why it's so easy to quash dissent and exact obedience in the workplace.
What is really funny is that recent world events have been caused by the US govt itself. I am not talking about 9/11 (that was not a world event after all) but the subsequent actions of the Bush Administration in marginalizing the UN and invading and occupying Iraq.
" suspect Mr De Raadt would have had much success if the project had no been so blatantly international "
Wow. Stunning. In this global marketplace the Americans are still this xenophobic.
What the liberterians don't realize is that the size of the govt is big because people want it that way. From subsidized milk and wheat to school loans to interstate highways. If the govt ended welfare and food stamps the streets would be filled with homeless, beggars, and criminals and the people would scream for more police and for the govt to "do something". One thing for sure your average american taxpayer has no interest in thinking outside of themselves or sacrificing or giving of themselves.
As for business being more efficient that's no surprise. Business can pick and choose who they serve the govt has no choice, they have to serve everybody equally. For example if fedex decides that adak alaska is not worth serving anymore they can drop that route. By concentrating only those routes that are profitable they make money. The rest of the people can eat shit as far as they are concerned. Not only that but they can also charge people in alaska 10 times what they charge the people in california. The govt does not have either of these luxuries. The govt seems more inefficient but that's because you are comparing apples to oranges.
Also consider this. 75% of all businesses fail. Imagine if 75% of all govt programs failed too. What would that be like. Of the remaining 25% most of them change their business plan at least once or twice. They may merge with other companies , change product lines, drop customers they don't like and all kinds of other stuff. The govt is not allowed to do any of that. The social security administration can not all of a sudden decide that there is no profit in giving money to old people and decide to sell golf clubs instead.
It is a bad thing. If you don't believe me ask Osama Bin Laden.
"You tell Joe Sixpack that nearly %40 of his income is used to support the farmers, the seniors, the loggers, the ranchers, and a bunch of near-do-well politicans. You also explain to him while taking nearly half of his paycheck that the country is so far in debit that, in essence, his children will be sold into slavery to pay it off."
What you don't get is that the joe sixpack would have to pay for it one way or another anyway. They would have to pay for it in incresed food costs, increased cost of materials (wood, minerals etc), they would have to support their elderly parents themselves, they would have to pay somebody to clean their streets and to hire security guards to patrol their streets. Also once the welfare gets cut off and all the state mental hospitals let go of the insane the crime rate will skyrocket meaning joe will have to buy exra guns and alarms as well as more insurance.
"Drugs, prostitution, and cloning almost seem trite in comparison."
Maybe to you. But to the majority of Americans these are (along with abortion and education) the issues which cause them to go to the polls.
"You might want to also explain to him conservation of energy/matter "
Try explaining Joe sixpack anything. He is a dolt.
"And when your done, you can explain to him exactly who is to blame for this mess."
He won't listen because he is responsible. He wants services but doesn't want to pay taxes. If the services go away he will yell and scream like there is no tommorow.
"You are living in a dream world if you think the current structure can be maintained indefinitely."
It can. It's called deficit spending. The entire economy is a shell game anyway, it's not like it has pysical laws. For example we can bomb iraq with taxpayers money and then let American companies get contracts to rebuild it. This will stimulate the economy. Since we can bomb whoever we want, whenever we want we can continue this game for a hundred years.
"And when the best and the brightest decide to abandon ship, who will be paying your social security?"
I see no evidence of this. The only people leaving the country are the pakistanis and other arabs who are rightfully concerned about getting shipped off to the concentration camps.
Yes go tell all the seniors they have to give up social security and medicare. Go tell the farmers they will have to give up the subsidies. Go tell the loggers they will have to build their own roads into the forrest. Go tell the ranchers they will have to pay market rate for grazing fees. Go tell the miners they will have to pay market rates for land. Go tell the the veterans that their benefits are going to get cut.
And when you are done with all that go tell the rest of America that you are going to legalize drugs, prostitution, selling of organs and body parts, cloning and every other repugnant thing they are freaked about.
The liberterians are living in a dream world if they think they can ever be running the country.
Slashdot Mirror
In your dreams. It will never happen as long as Bush is afraid of Sharon.
You remember when the israeli tanks rolled into palestine and bush told sharon to pull out? Do you remember what sharon said? He said "israel will pull out if and when it wants to". Do you remember what bush said in response? He said nothing!
You think bush can tell sharon to remove settlements? No way.
Here is a quote from Benito Mussolini
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
here you can read some more of Mussolini's thoughts on fascism including such tidbits as
BTW. More then one person has been rounded up and taken away to concentration camps for reasons you and I know nothing about. Just because Bush has not yet made you disappear for posting here that does not mean he can't or won't. He has killed lots of people in texas, he has "disappeared" hundreds of people in the US. What makes you think you are immune?
All your rebutalls can be summed up by one simple sentence.
Steve Ballmer is a liar.
I figured the rest of the world would have figured it by now but apparently not.
This man is a habitual and pathalogical liar as are the rest of the MS execs.
What kind of a same person claims that AD is innovation? NDS came first, it's based on LDAP and kerberos. What kind of an innovation is that.
That's because unix was multi user multi tasking operating system 20 years ago. Unix networking 20 years ago was better then windows networking today. How long did it take for MS to even start using TCP/IP?
It is to Microsofts shame that it took them decades to write a multi tasking operating system and they had to buy citrix to come up with something even resembling multi user. Until windows 2000 windows was a single user operating system!. Imagine that!
Ever use roaming profiles? What kind of a half assed crap is that?
I suspect that you simply don't want to see innovations so you don't. Let me point out a few examples.
Does Zope contain any innovations? You bet your ass it does.
Does postgres contain innovations? Of course it does if you don't believe me look up the chapters on user defined operators and loadable stored procedure languages. Postgres Rule system is so innovative MS grafted something like it into SQL server 2000.
Is the fact that mysql has multiple table types that can be extended innovative? Sure it is.
Is knoppix innovative?
Are mozilla tabs innovative? They are to me. In fact mozilla is chuck full of innovation like XUL and XP-COM.
I won't even go into nessus, apt, iptables, freenet, hibernate, cocoon, eMule, apache2, logrotate, or a hundred other applications that are stunning examples of innovative thinking.
In fact your typical debian install has more innovation in it then any windows ever had.
"Once there, they did the same thing anybody alive would have done, tried to remain on top."
I really don't think this is true. I don't think everybody is as greedy and evil as the MS execs are. You seem to think that there are no ethical business people in the world but I don't agree with you.
The vast majority of business owners would not resort to illegal tactics to improve or sustain their market share. Sure Enron, MS, Worldcom and a handful of businesses are perpetrating fraud and crimes but it's not fair to taint every business person with the same brush.
""Woo I hate Microsoft! Everybody like me because I appear smarter for it!""
It's not about being smarter, just more moral.
""Well, MS could sell you a product and then sue you!" "
MS spreads the same FUD. It's simply trying to counterattack when you are under attack. What should the people do? just bend over and take it when MS launches an attack on you?
Nice set of arguments there.
1) Ms puts things in their EULA so that they won't have to provide support.
2) No one ever reads EULA.
3) People misunderstant the EULA
4) MS will never enfor the EULA.
5) You can ignore the parts the of EULA you don't like.
6) The EULA is unenforcable.
and finally.
7) Use another product.
Hey! Number 7 is what this topic was all about in the first place.
". If a co-worker of mine like to talk about about the intrinisic inferiority of blacks, or about how whites were all racists, I would have a different opinion of them that would change my relationship to them. "
There is a concept in law called a hostile workplace. For example a woman sued her employer because there were pictures of nude women plastered all over her workplace and won. More relevant to the topic a bunch of black employees sued a company (the name escapes me at the moment) for plastering slave paraphanlia all over the workspace.
It's illegal for an employer to make or let a workplace become hostile to a subset of employees. You don't have to wish for that world it exists now.
"If the contract was terminated due to Theo's comments, which I think is still undemonstrated,"
certainly nobody in the govt is dumb enough to say that they pulled the funding due to his political beliefs let alone put it in writing. I think it's obvious to most people why the funding was pulled though.
You don't have to go to france. Most of the world can't stand us anymore.
" Are you honestly saying that you feel that anyone should be able to express their beliefs anywhere, at any time, with no financial repercussions from any government agency? "
First of all you are changing the subject. You switched from your boss creating a hostile workplace for you (which is illegal and you can sue him because of it) to cutting off govt funding but I'll answer it anyway.
It depends doesn't it. If you are scientist who gets a grant to work on an aids virus should your funding be pulled because you are a democrat and a republican took over the white house? As a democrat the doctor would most likely disagree with the republican president right? The doctor might even actually express his disagreement right? Should the govt pull funding for aids research because the doctor dared to say he wished a democrat won or that the tax cut is sure to help the rich most? Most rational people would think that this was wrong.
"If so, I would assume that you would support the government continuing to provide grants to a body whose president publicly stated a stance of violent purging of minorities, so long as this statement were made after funding were initially granted."
This happens all the time. Hell ex members of the KKK are in congress. Ever hear of david duke? How many racist statements have you heard from politicians themselves? look up some choice quotes by Conrad Burns when you get a chance. Look at the association between Bob Barr and a white supremecist organization called Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), I don't even need to mention trent lott do I? There are tons of organizations and so called think tanks that are thinly veiled white supremecists that get tons of money from the govt.
"I don't agree with, but as a philanthropist neither would I be obligated to provide or continue to provide you with money or other support to further your cause."
The key phrase here is "support to further your cause". You are extremely confused about what this money was for. The money was granted to make a more secure operating system not to advance some pet cause of Theo. Well maybe that's not quite right because making a more secure operating system is theo's cause I guess. Theo cares about making more secure operating systems, he has a proven track record of building them. The govt pulling that funding was exactly like my example above with the aids research.
There is no other way to parse this. What the govt did was wrong, petty, shameful, and disgusting. Sure it was legal but it was not right.
You say.
" I was not afraid to speak my mind lest I be fired."
And later you say.
"I expect that personal relations witht that person would have been strained, which would make it more difficult for me to do my job. I would possibly have had more difficulty getting a raise."
I think you are rationalizing here. Clearly you would have been punished in some way for expressing yourself.
"you don't want to answer the question of why I would be expressing those views to my boss on company time in the first place."
Because you are a human being. Were you ever afraid of expressing your views on last weeks episode of friends, or the lakers game, or whether it was too hot or too cold outside? Chances are that you were perfectly free to express your views on last nights game but would be punished if you expressed your views on religion or politics. This is wrong.
" I'd like to know how you think the military can maintain an effective chain of command, etc. if people are free to mouth off in this way."
In no way or shape or form is the military a just or a democratic institution. The military is a dictatorship of the most opressive kind. As a soldier you could be court marshalled for getting a sun burn (it's called damaging govt property). As a soldier you are the property of the govt and have to do whatever they say, whenever they say, however they say. Ask any soldier they'll tell you. I myself was in the military and speak from direct experience when I say that you give up a whole slew of rights when you join including your right to free speech.
Once again I don't want my country run like that.
I could not find the murder numbers. Let's presume for the sake of argument that they are three times longer for murder on average. That puts it at right about 23 years. I guess that sound right. A murderer is sentenced to 25 years in prison. But how long does he serve? My guess is that it's about half.
"Europe has higher crime rates than the US?"
It's called sarcasm you should look into it. Europe has lower rates of crime across the board including murder.
"Arabs will matter, in about 50 years once they've become civilized."
I figured you were one of those peole who did not consider arabs human beings. I was right.
"The guy who murdered him got like 23 years in prison. Thats friggin pathetic. "
Is it? Here is a quote from the Dept of Justice Dept of Justice
# Of the 68,533 defendants convicted and sentenced during 2001, 74% were sentenced to a term of probation (either alone or in conjunction with probation), 17% were sentenced to probation (either alone or with incarceration), and 4% were sentenced to pay a fine alone.
# The average prison sentence imposed during 2001 was 57 months. Defendants convicted of violent felonies (91 months), weapons felonies (87 months), and drug felonies (74 months) received the longest prison terms, on average.
In case you are mathametically challenged 91 months is about seven and a half years. BTW that's just the sentencing not the actual time served which is probably a lot less.
"Europeans just aren't serious about crime. They're afraid of the death penalty and of harsh sentences."
Oh yes, that probably explains why europe has much higher crime rates then the US right?
"I guess human lives don't matter when its murder. Heck not even a high profile politician's life matters."
No humans don't matter if they are arabs.
" Well, you can claim that my boss intimidated me. I certainly didn't feel intimidated."
Well certainly you were afraid to speak your mind lest you get fired. That's intimidation to me.
"But I think it's unfair to characterize people who disagree as "intimidated."
I did no such thing. I simply said that if you disagree and then are punished for disagreeing then it's intimidation.
The workplace is a tyranical organization. Your boss is your god and king, his word is the law. There is nothing resembling liberty and democracy in the corporate world. This is why it's so easy to quash dissent and exact obedience in the workplace.
I for one do not want my country run like that.
Yes it's funny but it's also true.
So your boss intimidated you into submission and silence. Just the DARPA is trying to indimidate Theo.
What is really funny is that recent world events have been caused by the US govt itself. I am not talking about 9/11 (that was not a world event after all) but the subsequent actions of the Bush Administration in marginalizing the UN and invading and occupying Iraq.
" suspect Mr De Raadt would have had much success if the project had no been so blatantly international "
Wow. Stunning. In this global marketplace the Americans are still this xenophobic.
A couple of points.
What the liberterians don't realize is that the size of the govt is big because people want it that way. From subsidized milk and wheat to school loans to interstate highways. If the govt ended welfare and food stamps the streets would be filled with homeless, beggars, and criminals and the people would scream for more police and for the govt to "do something". One thing for sure your average american taxpayer has no interest in thinking outside of themselves or sacrificing or giving of themselves.
As for business being more efficient that's no surprise. Business can pick and choose who they serve the govt has no choice, they have to serve everybody equally. For example if fedex decides that adak alaska is not worth serving anymore they can drop that route. By concentrating only those routes that are profitable they make money. The rest of the people can eat shit as far as they are concerned. Not only that but they can also charge people in alaska 10 times what they charge the people in california. The govt does not have either of these luxuries. The govt seems more inefficient but that's because you are comparing apples to oranges.
Also consider this. 75% of all businesses fail. Imagine if 75% of all govt programs failed too. What would that be like. Of the remaining 25% most of them change their business plan at least once or twice. They may merge with other companies , change product lines, drop customers they don't like and all kinds of other stuff. The govt is not allowed to do any of that. The social security administration can not all of a sudden decide that there is no profit in giving money to old people and decide to sell golf clubs instead.
" As if ideological purity were a bad thing."
It is a bad thing. If you don't believe me ask Osama Bin Laden.
"You tell Joe Sixpack that nearly %40 of his income is used to support the farmers, the seniors, the loggers, the ranchers, and a bunch of near-do-well politicans. You also explain to him while taking nearly half of his paycheck that the country is so far in debit that, in essence, his children will be sold into slavery to pay it off."
What you don't get is that the joe sixpack would have to pay for it one way or another anyway. They would have to pay for it in incresed food costs, increased cost of materials (wood, minerals etc), they would have to support their elderly parents themselves, they would have to pay somebody to clean their streets and to hire security guards to patrol their streets. Also once the welfare gets cut off and all the state mental hospitals let go of the insane the crime rate will skyrocket meaning joe will have to buy exra guns and alarms as well as more insurance.
"Drugs, prostitution, and cloning almost seem trite in comparison."
Maybe to you. But to the majority of Americans these are (along with abortion and education) the issues which cause them to go to the polls.
"You might want to also explain to him conservation of energy/matter "
Try explaining Joe sixpack anything. He is a dolt.
"And when your done, you can explain to him exactly who is to blame for this mess."
He won't listen because he is responsible. He wants services but doesn't want to pay taxes. If the services go away he will yell and scream like there is no tommorow.
"You are living in a dream world if you think the current structure can be maintained indefinitely."
It can. It's called deficit spending. The entire economy is a shell game anyway, it's not like it has pysical laws. For example we can bomb iraq with taxpayers money and then let American companies get contracts to rebuild it. This will stimulate the economy. Since we can bomb whoever we want, whenever we want we can continue this game for a hundred years.
"And when the best and the brightest decide to abandon ship, who will be paying your social security?"
I see no evidence of this. The only people leaving the country are the pakistanis and other arabs who are rightfully concerned about getting shipped off to the concentration camps.
Wow now that's what I call innovation. Before you know it all those OSS projects will start using text files too.
Does anybody use BIND anymore? I thought by now everybody had switched to tinydns.
Yes go tell all the seniors they have to give up social security and medicare. Go tell the farmers they will have to give up the subsidies. Go tell the loggers they will have to build their own roads into the forrest. Go tell the ranchers they will have to pay market rate for grazing fees. Go tell the miners they will have to pay market rates for land. Go tell the the veterans that their benefits are going to get cut.
And when you are done with all that go tell the rest of America that you are going to legalize drugs, prostitution, selling of organs and body parts, cloning and every other repugnant thing they are freaked about.
The liberterians are living in a dream world if they think they can ever be running the country.
"Whay are we stuck making laws about the laws about the laws about the laws about when the DMCA is applicable?"
because the people who make the laws are lawyers themselves.