Learned legal scholars and Supreme Court Justices disagree. What is your background and what law degrees do you hold?
Pray tell, in what state do you hold membership in the bar? No law student could ever finish law school with the sort of attitude you possess. As I said in a previous post, the purpose of law school is to ingrain in the student the habit of always being able to argue either sides of an issue. The law is not black or white, but maintenance of the status quo is the guiding principal of english common law. You should be able to argue the opposite point.
Thank you Judge Wopner. All these crazy citizens now know the true error of their ways. Those stupid fools, why can't they understand that the bill of rights applies to individuals except for the second amendment? No matter, the argument is over. Now we have three sentences extracted from three different cases over a span of 80 years. Nevermind the dissenting opinions from those cases.
Know two things there bubba:
1) One thing you will learn in law school is no single issue is ever clear cut, especially with something as controversial as gun control. There is always a way to argue the issue. You should actually practice a little jurisprudence by attempting to craft an argument for the right to bear arms. Personally, the long history of gun ownership in this nation is reason enough. Look up the meaning of Stare decesis et non quieta movere. Gun ownership is and always has been a right since the Republic was founded. Semantics may be used to craft a new argument, but history cannot be changed despite what you may think.
2) It doesn't matter what you believe the law is. The reality is there are 200 million guns in this country, and tens of millions of well armed citizens, not to mention humanity's most power army ever which happens to vote entirely Republican, which disagrees with you. When the revolution comes, you will be among the first to die.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the programs the Gates foundation supports. Their #1 concern is population growth. That right there should tell you the gates support corporate fascism, the essence of modern day liberalism.
The reality is today, large companies support both parties. This is why the Green party exists.
Since public records exist on corporate controbutions, please provide some kind of source to this claim.
The link for the motherboard in the story points to a refurbished motherboard which also costs $200!
I have built systems for the last ten years not because of the geek factor, but because most premanufactured systems are crap, and the ones that aren't cost way too much money.
given that I think most are looking for quality, who would put a refurbished motherboard in their system, let a lone a $200 one.
I hope someone else can try this. I just downloaded this software and it works correctly for email that comes through a regular POP server, but it has no effect on hotmail. I figured as much because filters do not work on hotmail folders either. Now, perhaps I am doing something wrong, but the software works exactly like any other filter. You mark an email by hitting a block button and it moves it to a spam folder. In fact, it creates a spam folder for you.
The Lexus ES300 really was nothing more than a Toyota Camry. I have seen the engines myself, and they are totally identical. The cars even looked the same. Slightly different body, but obviously the same.
I don't know about today, as I don't own a car anymore and now despise them. But what I do know is that in the very recent past, Toyota simply rebranded the cars as being lexus when they were nothing more than regular toyotas.
Doesn't anyone remember the Acura commercial like 8 years ago showing ripping on Toyota for this?
Anyway, I don't know about 120 years ago, but today doc workers are in the top 1% of american wage earners.
This is a good point, but this wasn't the case at that point. Many of these brick row houses of which I speak are decidedly modest, even compared to other homes of the day which are nearby. Many of the more elegant homes are much larger, and have more ornate facades. Most of these meager brick townhomes do not even have facades. They are functional, not lavish. They weren't living in shacks or in tenaments, but they were certainly not the wealthiest bunch. I would say they were decidedly middle class.
But you are right, I had no idea up until the recent dock worker strike in california that they made so much.
The problem here is, you're browsing society at +5. The average 19th century house was built with the same surly, I-could-give-a-rat attitude that you find in many modern subcontractors. Or it was a bunch of logs thrown together, or even a construction based primarily on dirt. Not surprisingly, the average 19th century house is now rubble.
No, I think not. The problem is you are a product of a school system that teachs that humans are inherently corrupt and that mediocrity is human nature, except when they submit to an authoritarian power which knows better than they do. You are obviously from a suburban part of the world and have probably never even been to a neighborhood which existed in the 1880's let alone the 1920's. Walk into the Brooklyn Historical Society, or come to a neighborhood known as Cobble Hill, which was even in the 1970's a working class neighborhood. You will find brick town houses of relatively spacious size that look much as they did 120 years ago. These same brick houses which were once the homes of shippers who worked at the Brooklyn docks now go to rich financiers for well over $1 million. Yes, I love in Brooklyn. I am not even going to bother finding you references on this, if you can't come to the nations pre-emininent city and learn a little history, a quote won't matter to you one bit.
The houses you describe were generally the houses of the relatively wealthy. They would be the ones with the money to hire the best builders, and to maintain those houses properly. The amazing quality of the construction you're claiming is most likely a myth.
Relative to Africa? Yeah, maybe. But I think a dock worker who built a house now affordable only to the top.5% of the US population speaks for itself. And as far as the quality of construction, I would like to see your plywood home last for 100+ years.
Similar things could be said about your "average" fifteen year old infantryman. I doubt there were many to begin with. Even at the very end of the war, I don't believe they were drafting anyone under the age of 17. Since few people who were fifteen when the Civil War started even have grandchildren still living today, any letters you find were probably saved because they were particularly impressive.
This is where you astonish me. Do you really think I would just spout this shit out of my ass? This proves more than anything you have been brainwashed by the school system. 17? Coincidentally almost the age of adulthood today. Bad news jack. Another great step in the forced schooling enslavement was an attempt to increase childhood, so as to rob the youth of their opportunity to organize and revolt. 20th century rebellious youth did precious little compared to the "adolescents" of the 19th century. They did great stuff like stage the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Why do you think they use the term "rebellious" anyway?
Read upon Admiral Farragut. Admiral Farragut captured his first British ship during the War of 1812 at the ripe old age of eleven. He gained his first command at twelve. Granted he was young for his age. But my point is this, if you think 17 was the LOW end of infantrymen, let alone sailors... You know absolutely nothing of military history. But, this proves the system works. 12 year olds 200 years ago had no problems staging revolutions. 12 year olds today are barely off their mother's tit, and are more concerned with toys that the glory of war. You my friend, are exactly the young man JP Morgan wanted. Someone unwilling and incapable of waging war. A true bitch, forever a slave to the system.
Nor did literacy always imply fluency. I've had reason to read over quite a few nineteenth century documents. These people were, to put it mildly, not a generation of Edgar Allen Poes. For every person who could dash off a clear, insightful set of coherent sentences, there were a dozen who could just barely get the point across. Don't tell me that any fifteen year old in the nineteenth century could write better than 99% of Slashdot, because reading their journals is *exactly* like reading Slashdot.*
As a student of history, and someone who has spent much time reading civil war letters, I could not disagree with you more. But given your overall ignorance of the entire century you have exhibited thus far, I will give you one last change for redemption. Perhaps you can give me an example of this poor writing, so I can see for myself.
A company like Ford would do anything they could to develop a substantial innovation over GM and DB.
Do you really believe that??? After one hundred years of designing automobiles we can get little more than a slightly more efficient engine and airbags? Cars are perhaps the best example of how industries conspire to maintain the status quo. I highly doubt the average citizen of 1902 would honestly believe automobile engineering would have accomplished so little in a century.
To me, this seems like a blatant troll, but some moderators apparently do not agree.
How long can America keep pumping out students whose test scores are in the cellar for industrial nations and expect to maintain an edge in technology? As it stands, a lot of our brains are already imported from India and China.
I live in CA, which should stand as a dire warning to the rest of the country: They limit their property taxes, their schools go underfunded, and as a result California natives largely end up working to repair the cars and wash the floors of the well-educated from elsewhere.
The US needs to get serious about education, and fast. With the tech boom and the world shinking as it is, this is a really bad time to be stupid.
I hear this stuff all the time, and used to believe it myself on occasion. Its simply not true. The educational system was NEVER intended to make people smart, it was intended to make the intelligent human masses comfortable working in factories doing boring, repetitive work and acquiesing to the demands of leaders. Education as we know it, is a system which originated in fascist germany as a way to school better, more obedient and selfless soldiers.
Make no mistake. Schools are doing EXACTLY what they were designed to do. Think about it. Have you ever gone to a neighboorhood in the US which was constructed in the 19th century? How is it houses were constructed to be not only durable, but beautiful as well? The parks, museums, sculptures... All built long before public schools. Have you ever read civil war letters? The average 15 year old infantryman in the civil war writes far better than 99% of the people who post on slashdot. Could you imagine any book by Charles Dickens being on the bestseller list today? Why are so many schools named after the industrial magnates of yesteryear, like Carnegie, Colgate... Why were so many colleges funded by the industrial elite?
If you really think about it, it just doesn't add up. Schools make you DUMB, this is what they were supposed to do. It makes a people easier to control, and less prone to nasty rebellions. Humans are innately intelligent, it is only warping their minds through years of social conditioning they became mad, lost, and inhuman. Carnegie, JP Morgan, Frick, all of them sat around and thought about how to make free men content to work in their god foresaken factories, and like it. They made it so, and now we are living with that legacy.
The forced educational system must come to an end, it is time for this system of class control to collapse and for the average american to recapture the American dream that was stolen from him by the fascist powers of a century ago. We sit here and rip on the US educational system, even though the educational system is the single largest industry in the United States, both in capital expenditures and employment percentages. How is it people in India and China can do as well as us, even in the midst of an anarchy which can barely pave roads let alone build schools. They are better because they are NOT schooled.
To all who are interested, I highly suggest you read the online version of a book entitled The Underground History of American Education by one John Taylor Gatto. The book gives a well written account of exactly how the free minds of the United States were perverted into the drones we have today. It is rare I read a book that is truly eye opening, but this book will make it all make sense.
Unfortunately, I work for a company that makes stock option plan management software. This company will of course, remain unnamed. However, I deal with this shit, each and every day of my life. I thus can't resist but point out how rediculous your post is.
Cashing in options on insider info is totally illegal. That's insider trading, bud.
Insider trading does not APPLY to stock options. Stock options are NOT stocks. They are options! (duhhh!) AKA derivative securities. They derive their value from future ownership. You can exercise stock options whenever they vest. It is theoretically possible someone could then sell those stocks at some future pivotal state, but I can tell you that 95%+ of optionees do same day sales, as soon as the stock in the money. That being the case, insider trading is pretty much impossible since they are waiting a long time for those options to vest. Note, that is a figure I observe after having see hundreds of databases in my days.
If your broker has proof you have the options, he should have NO PROBLEM shorteslling the stock the second you call him to do it, and then you replace the short with your options. THAT is how you get current market price on options, without risk.
I don't play the market in that fashion myself. But most stocks that are underwater are flat... You aren't going to make any money shorting the stock because the value isn't going to be changing. Its already worthless, especially today.
What does short selling have to do with stock options? Absolutely nothing Short selling, by the very definition is selling of stock you do not own. Usually, it is stock owned by the broker or from another client. This stock is lended to you, and you promise to buy it in the future. It is a loan, and a gamble. As any true loan, it can be called by the owner. So you can't keep it forever. But to make a long story short, when you buy back the stock if the price is lower than the day you borrowed it, the difference is credited to your account. If the price is higher than the day you borrowed it, you owe the difference. Read more here.
Exercising options on the open market and then holding the stock is a BAD idea.... there is a taxable benefit on the difference between what you paid and fair market value of the stock. It's not considered capital gains.. which means if the stock goes down, you get a capital loss, but you can't offset your tax obligation.
This is what really proves you don't know anything about stock options. Congress has allowed for the first $100,000 of stock acquired in a calender year to be sold tax free if they are held for the minimum required time of one year after date of vesting. These are called Incentive Stock Options, or ISO's. Options in excess of $100,000 a year are called NQ's, or non-qualified, because they don't qualify for the tax benefit. Read more about the IRS code at Findlaw.
Go with the short.
I hope you read up a little more on short selling. You my actually make some money some day, if you ever have the credit or collateral to do so.
Of course, your 300 square foot "apartment" costs $2000 a month. At least I can get a 400 square foot studio in manhattan with a seperate bathroom for $1200 a month.
The reason bandwidth is so cheap in Tokyo is everything else is so expensive no one would purchase it if it cost more. I guarantee that if you were to get a similar apartment in Manattan with a full T1 @$500/month, it would still be cheaper than in Tokyo. And you would be living in a much cooler and cosmopolitan city.
The reality is in densely populated areas, bandwidth is obviously much cheaper and available, because distance is the dominant cost factor in laying line, not to mention maintaining it.
Oh, balls. Some of the very best episodes-- "Darmok,"
I like all the other episodes you have mentioned, they are some of my favorites... But Darmok I never quite liked. The whole story seemed completely bizarre, it was a good idea on paper I am sure... But in practice. They universal translator is able to translate all the words perfectly but the semantics were trashed.
Not only that, the ridiculous way the alien kept saying "darmok at tenagra" over and over and over again. I had nightmires from that episode. Shit, I still have nightmares ten years later.
I am stuck on a planet, all alone... with some fat alient screaming at me constantly "darmok at tenagra" looking at me why I don't understand his babbling.
Ahh, ok. but good story. Too bad we never saw those aliens again. I would have liked to hear more of their craziness.
OS/2 also was able to alienate many power users because of the install process. It was FAR worse than Debian, and we all know how many people complain about that. I was a very competant OS/2 user (and DOS/ Win3.11 for that matter). When I went to install my CD-ROM drive on a stable OS/2 Warp (that's 3.0 unless otherwise specificed, for you younguns), the OS ended up formatting my hard drive and doing a fresh install -- WITHOUT MY CONSENT! My backups were as good as my temper was short. I took my backups, good all the data I needed, and went to DOS/Win3.11 until I could get NT 3.51.
This is complete utter nonsense. By late 1994 early 1995, almost all cdroms were IDE. IDE cdroms did not require special installation, and were recognized by the base IDE device driver that runs your hard drive. Not only that, formatting the boot partition, like in any other operating system, cannot occur. Not only that, but OS/2 never had a bootable cdrom, so you would have had to boot from disk in order to format your boot partition.
The installation program was very weak when supporting proprietary hardware, but the base install was cake. Remember, because OS/2 supported FAT AND HPFS, the installer would ask you if you want to format it FAT, HPFS, or not at all. To suggest it just formatted your drive is insane.
I ran OS/2 from 1991 until 1998, even had a 3 note BBS running on an OS/2 box for four years. The installer was cumbersome, but it was ahead of what was in Windows 3.1. Should it have come with more drivers? Yes. Was it bad because it didn't? Of course not. You simply had to use a 80 line config.sys file.
Could you imagine the uproar if every bullet in America had to be registered with the government?
Yes, absolutely. You will find these kinds of arguments supported more by people who favor gun ownership as a means of revolutionary capacity than by people who think a gun toting populace reduces crime.
Especially when you believe the general population should be able to own automatic and high powered weaponry, you realize you need some kinds of controls. The best method is to serialize or register the bullets. If I could legally go buy a automatic rifle or shot gun (street sweeper), I would have absolutely no problems registering the ammunition.
The reason Israel and Switzerland are different is because there guns ARE for waging war, not for fighting crime. The reality is in a civil society, even in America, most criminals are crazy anyway. Crime is relatively rare, despite what the media says. Gun ownership is really irrelevant, as crime is not going to be affected either way.
So, why put an XScale in a desktop system?? Ideas anyone??
Given the rather high cost of this device, I would venture to say the primary purpose of this device is for folks who REALLY need one, say developers of software for the Xscale processor. With all the PDA makers switching the Xscale, and ATI making their PDA graphics chips, some might think these things will take off.
Why not emulate it? AFAIK, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to emulate RISC processors on the x86 architecture. Perhaps it is even difficult to emulate one risc architecture on top of another, such as Xscale on PowerPC.
One thing is for sure, at that price, this is a vertical market product. Not many people need it, but those who do will pay a lot for it.
I'm not sure how you define "function" in this context. If it comes to war-- which is what I assume you're talking about, what with the "nuked off the face of the earth" thing and all-- the several states will be utterly defenseless. An occupying force could march into any state capitol in the country, gun down the legislature, and take control with virtually no organized opposition.
I think you don't give states enough credit. I picked california as my example because it is so large. If you don't think a political entity with 40 million people can't muster up at least 1 million soldiers in times of need, well I can't change your mind.
And let's not forget something that's even more critical than defense: the economy. Our economy is managed-- to the extent that it's managed at all-- from a central bank in Washington. That bank issues all U.S. currency, and backs it. If it disappeared... well, chaos.
This is why I mentioned Rome. Very similar situation as far as currency. I don't want to get into an argument over monetary policy, but to suggest a modern economy is absolutely dependent on a central bank is just not being honest. There are valid arguments for having truly valuable currency or the artificial sort we have today... But to say one system works and the other doesn't. What I am saying is this breakdown in the social structure will not occur immediately, rather it will be gradual. But even when a central bank, people get by. Look at Argentina. Their currency is worthless, for months they couldn't even remove it from their banks. What do you think they have been doing for the last year? This is a huge topic, but I predict central banking as we know it today will be gone within the decade.
And finally, just to pick one example of many, one that, as a restaurant owner, is near and dear to my heart, we have the USDA and the FDA. There are essentially no state-scale systems for the inspection, grading, and certification of foodstuffs. If the Federal government were to evaporate, we'd be back in the days of unregulated food production. Could we live with it? Sure. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to.
This is certainly a benefit of sorts. But states can easily manage it if the needs arise. I eat a very strict diet of only fruit, nuts, and raw fish. I try and eat organic. The only standard to which I adhered was the Organic Foods act of 1990 passed by the California legislature. It wasn't until this year the FDA had a standard on what is organic. Fish isn't even inspected. Inspection is not necessary, and if people want it its not hard. It sounds crazy, but humans got by just fine without food inspection for a long, long time. Look at photos of folks from the 1880's. They look a lot more human than the hideous blobs that populate our nation today. Huge quantities of wheat opioid peptides are refined and added to foods to make them addictive, and to placate the masses. 15% of children today are asthmatic due to the respiratory suppression caused by these glutomorphine molecules of wheat origin. Even though plenty of medical literature exists indicating this fact, the federal government has yet to even issue an advisory on this fact.
The FDA has absolutely no interest in the general health and welfare of the people. Food is just one more tool of control exercised by your beloved federal government.
Oh, and your thing about "a radical difference in behavior, speech, mannerism, dress?" Utter crap. There are essentially no cultural differences between any two points in this country, notwithstanding differences that are based on factors that transcend geography, such as race or ethnicity. You can get on a plane and go from Miami to Houston to Phoenix to San Francisco to Denver to Omaha to Chicago to Detroit to Boston to Richmond to Atlanta and back to Miami and not find any significant differences between any of them
If you really believe that, you must live in the suburbs and only travel to suburban areas. Some of these cities you mention are thoroughly monoculture. But, Miami? Have you even been there? Nearly half the people don't even speak english. I live in Brooklyn, NY and I can say with absolute certainty that the way people dress, behave, and conduct themselves is quit different here than Los Angeles or Miami. These differences are certainly not vast, but they increasing, and in fifty years I would venture to say New York, Los Angeles, and Miami will be far more different than you or I can imagine.
I have to say my main focus was legal. As I work with tax law on a daily basis as part of my wretched employment, I can say with absolute certainty that California is a like a whole other country. I would say that is more to my point.
I will say however I think you are right in a general sense, there are important reasons for our federal government to remain. I may not agree with them, but they may be compelling enough to keep this nation together for a while longer. I think history is on my side however. Time and time again, countries have tried to manage huge empires encompassing hundreds of millions of people over huge areas and they fail, each and every time. The dream of universal government and humanity cannot happen, it is our nature which drives us apart.
The sitting government was completely intolerable, and totally unable to manage the colonies at a 4 month remove, and the revolutionary cause ran deep enough that entire MILITARY DIVISIONS were influenced to take up arms against their command (necessary for revolution, and the single missing ingredient today).
This is of course why the vast majority of our army is stationed over seas. It would be very easy for the military to organize as a revolutionary army if they were all within US borders. But, when spread all over the world it is all but impossible to get the critical mass necessary to affect change. Combine that with a general population prevented from owning weapons of war, and revolution is no longer possible.
I hope that single ingredient is added someday. Revolution will come, its only a matter of time.
This is certainly true. The most brilliant system however is the federal system which underlines the republic. Since the FBI was created in the wake of the fraud that was World War I, the federal government has systematically overstepped the boundries placed upon it by the constitution.
I am not going to spend too much time discussing my personal historical feelings, but maintaining virtually autonomous states seems redundant to most people, including most Americans. But, when the revolution comes, the state governments will continue even if Washington DC is nuked off the face of the earth.
The founding fathers very well knew the size of the United States, and knew that while they were creating a New Rome, their empire would suffer the same fate. Instead of fracturing in haphazard ways as did Europe with the collapse of the empire, the United States is completely capable of functioning without a central authority.
What the bureaucrats don't realize is how truly irrelevant they are. Their days are numbered. I believe a violent revolution will not occur in the US, but will evolve much as the evolution of Europe. Soon, Washington DC will become completely irrelevant to the average citizen, just as Rome became irrelevant to the citizens of Gaul as France was born. Any student of US law will realize the radical differences between California and New York will only amplify in time. There is already a radical difference in behavior, speech, mannerism, dress... Hell, California is already larger than many, if not most, European nations. Just a thought.
But make no mistake, trade is the key to wealth. If you want to generate wealth you have to produce or deliver goods where they are scarce. This means that wealth is very limited without trade, because you quickly exhaust the available demand.
So, what will happen once we supply all the world with everything they want? What will we do then? Perhaps then these third world countries will try and pave their streets, make their homes out of lasting materials, stop having hordes of children?
What you are misunderstanding is I oppose a corporate-fascist command economy approach to trade. I have no doubt the Amish trade amongst themselves, but they certainly do not trade with people from India or anywhere else outside of their local community, with one exception: fuel oil, although they prefer kerosene. My point is the purpose of life is to live comfortably, support your family, and be part of a community of which you are proud. Foreign trade has its place, surplus wealth should be traded in whatever its form. BUT local interest come first. Creating wealth is done locally, with only frivolous items available from foreign markets. The Amish are the example I cite because outside of medical care and fuel, they are completely self sufficient as a local community.
This is the ultimate failure of 20th century capitalism, because it is not based on the principals of frugality, modesty, and hard work exemplified by Ralph Waldo Emersen. 20th century capitalism created public schools to turn free men into drones, willing and desperate to serve a master. It used government controls to manipulate markets and induce dependence upon the state, principally under welfare.
The is coming, and will come in your life time, where the means of production will become so efficient and technologically advanced that man's basic needs will be extraordinarily cheap. When life need not be spent earning a living, what will wealth be? These are the questions that make it quite clear the incapacity of economic theory to answer the questions that will face us in the future. What will happen? I do not know.
You advocate a return to the (fictious) time of no one answering to anyone (sort of pseudo-anarchy). At the same time you freely admit that poor countries are only poor because the have no system of justice of property rights.
Please explain how you came to that conclusion. Because I personally want to be self sufficient does not mean I believe the nation as a whole could or should do so. Its called simple honesty. We all have personal biases that may cloud what we say, I merely attempt to make that known. Rather than wishing to be part of some corporate fascist state slaving away for the 450 square foot apartment in which I currently reside, I would rather be free. It is from that vantage point I speak. And you are right, it is pseudo-ficticious... it is an ideal, something that may not be perfectly attainable, but one for which I believe all people should strive. I will say we were closer to that ideal in 1850 than today.
As a matter of policy, I don't believe we should turn third world countries into export economies, it is that simple. Countries should focus on trading amongst themselves and raising the standard of living of their own residents, then perhaps focus on exporting their surplus.
Without property rights, poor countries focus on the bare necessities of survival (subsistence farming) or a quick buck (opium). Perhaps if they had title to their land, they would work hard to build a more permanent home, or pave their streets, invest in electricity, plumbing, all the staples of civilization common to Europe and America. Being that I support property rights, anarchy could be hardly a system of government I desire.
Of course, this is all based on the fallacy that a nation REQUIRES an export driven economy to prosper, which is ludicrous. How did the United States or Australia for that matter prosper when they never have relied on agricultural exports as a foundation of their economy? The south had cotton and tobacco yes, but the north got by pretty well eating their own damn food.
It is an absolute MYTH that trade is a necessary part of a thriving economy. People need to create value locally. They can build better houses, create better laws, mine locally... They don't need us anymore than we need them, which in our case in the United States is not at all. We have always supplied our own people with all the food they need in abundance. The only reason we export food is because we produce so much.
We subsidize our farmers because we want to protect the agricultural way of life, and to insure we do not become reliant on a foreign source of food. There is nothing more damaging to a nation than to become dependent on a foregin source of key resources. If you think oil is a problem, food is much worse.
What you miss is these countries are poor because they have no system of justice or property rights. No one bothers doing anything like large scale agriculture or any other economic activity because there is no inscentive. These countries are subsistance farmers or they grow REAL cash crops like coca or the opium poppy. Everything else just isn't worth it. Most crops require careful cultivation and investment in the land to grow enough to make a profit. This investment is not feasible when a virtual anarchy exists.
Personally, I wish there were far fewer people in the world so the United States could become an agricultural economy again. I would join the Amish in a heartbeat if they didn't believe in god. I don't want to buy anyone elses shit, and I don't want to sell any of my shit. The world used to be that way, before this corporate fascist system of capitalism was implimented by the rich industrialists and their progressive puppets around the turn of the century. Now we are all just slaves, spending half our productive lives going through indoctrination in schools before we become employees in the system we call the global economy. I want my own life, my own future. I don't want to answer to anyone, and I don't want anyone to answer to me. It used to be this way...
Slashdot Mirror
Learned legal scholars and Supreme Court Justices disagree. What is your background and what law degrees do you hold?
Pray tell, in what state do you hold membership in the bar? No law student could ever finish law school with the sort of attitude you possess. As I said in a previous post, the purpose of law school is to ingrain in the student the habit of always being able to argue either sides of an issue. The law is not black or white, but maintenance of the status quo is the guiding principal of english common law. You should be able to argue the opposite point.
Thank you Judge Wopner. All these crazy citizens now know the true error of their ways. Those stupid fools, why can't they understand that the bill of rights applies to individuals except for the second amendment? No matter, the argument is over. Now we have three sentences extracted from three different cases over a span of 80 years. Nevermind the dissenting opinions from those cases.
Know two things there bubba:
1) One thing you will learn in law school is no single issue is ever clear cut, especially with something as controversial as gun control. There is always a way to argue the issue. You should actually practice a little jurisprudence by attempting to craft an argument for the right to bear arms. Personally, the long history of gun ownership in this nation is reason enough. Look up the meaning of Stare decesis et non quieta movere. Gun ownership is and always has been a right since the Republic was founded. Semantics may be used to craft a new argument, but history cannot be changed despite what you may think.
2) It doesn't matter what you believe the law is. The reality is there are 200 million guns in this country, and tens of millions of well armed citizens, not to mention humanity's most power army ever which happens to vote entirely Republican, which disagrees with you. When the revolution comes, you will be among the first to die.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the programs the Gates foundation supports. Their #1 concern is population growth. That right there should tell you the gates support corporate fascism, the essence of modern day liberalism.
The reality is today, large companies support both parties. This is why the Green party exists.
Since public records exist on corporate controbutions, please provide some kind of source to this claim.
gigantic, based on the same root as giga
The link for the motherboard in the story points to a refurbished motherboard which also costs $200!
I have built systems for the last ten years not because of the geek factor, but because most premanufactured systems are crap, and the ones that aren't cost way too much money.
given that I think most are looking for quality, who would put a refurbished motherboard in their system, let a lone a $200 one.
I hope someone else can try this. I just downloaded this software and it works correctly for email that comes through a regular POP server, but it has no effect on hotmail. I figured as much because filters do not work on hotmail folders either. Now, perhaps I am doing something wrong, but the software works exactly like any other filter. You mark an email by hitting a block button and it moves it to a spam folder. In fact, it creates a spam folder for you.
ES300
The Lexus ES300 really was nothing more than a Toyota Camry. I have seen the engines myself, and they are totally identical. The cars even looked the same. Slightly different body, but obviously the same.
I don't know about today, as I don't own a car anymore and now despise them. But what I do know is that in the very recent past, Toyota simply rebranded the cars as being lexus when they were nothing more than regular toyotas.
Doesn't anyone remember the Acura commercial like 8 years ago showing ripping on Toyota for this?
Barney Splat! all the way. That was the only door game I had on my system. That game fucking ruled.
Anyway, I don't know about 120 years ago, but today doc workers are in the top 1% of american wage earners.
This is a good point, but this wasn't the case at that point. Many of these brick row houses of which I speak are decidedly modest, even compared to other homes of the day which are nearby. Many of the more elegant homes are much larger, and have more ornate facades. Most of these meager brick townhomes do not even have facades. They are functional, not lavish. They weren't living in shacks or in tenaments, but they were certainly not the wealthiest bunch. I would say they were decidedly middle class.
But you are right, I had no idea up until the recent dock worker strike in california that they made so much.
The problem here is, you're browsing society at +5. The average 19th century house was built with the same surly, I-could-give-a-rat attitude that you find in many modern subcontractors. Or it was a bunch of logs thrown together, or even a construction based primarily on dirt. Not surprisingly, the average 19th century house is now rubble.
.5% of the US population speaks for itself. And as far as the quality of construction, I would like to see your plywood home last for 100+ years.
No, I think not. The problem is you are a product of a school system that teachs that humans are inherently corrupt and that mediocrity is human nature, except when they submit to an authoritarian power which knows better than they do. You are obviously from a suburban part of the world and have probably never even been to a neighborhood which existed in the 1880's let alone the 1920's. Walk into the Brooklyn Historical Society, or come to a neighborhood known as Cobble Hill, which was even in the 1970's a working class neighborhood. You will find brick town houses of relatively spacious size that look much as they did 120 years ago. These same brick houses which were once the homes of shippers who worked at the Brooklyn docks now go to rich financiers for well over $1 million. Yes, I love in Brooklyn. I am not even going to bother finding you references on this, if you can't come to the nations pre-emininent city and learn a little history, a quote won't matter to you one bit.
The houses you describe were generally the houses of the relatively wealthy. They would be the ones with the money to hire the best builders, and to maintain those houses properly. The amazing quality of the construction you're claiming is most likely a myth.
Relative to Africa? Yeah, maybe. But I think a dock worker who built a house now affordable only to the top
Similar things could be said about your "average" fifteen year old infantryman. I doubt there were many to begin with. Even at the very end of the war, I don't believe they were drafting anyone under the age of 17. Since few people who were fifteen when the Civil War started even have grandchildren still living today, any letters you find were probably saved because they were particularly impressive.
This is where you astonish me. Do you really think I would just spout this shit out of my ass? This proves more than anything you have been brainwashed by the school system. 17? Coincidentally almost the age of adulthood today. Bad news jack. Another great step in the forced schooling enslavement was an attempt to increase childhood, so as to rob the youth of their opportunity to organize and revolt. 20th century rebellious youth did precious little compared to the "adolescents" of the 19th century. They did great stuff like stage the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Why do you think they use the term "rebellious" anyway?
Read upon Admiral Farragut. Admiral Farragut captured his first British ship during the War of 1812 at the ripe old age of eleven. He gained his first command at twelve. Granted he was young for his age. But my point is this, if you think 17 was the LOW end of infantrymen, let alone sailors... You know absolutely nothing of military history. But, this proves the system works. 12 year olds 200 years ago had no problems staging revolutions. 12 year olds today are barely off their mother's tit, and are more concerned with toys that the glory of war. You my friend, are exactly the young man JP Morgan wanted. Someone unwilling and incapable of waging war. A true bitch, forever a slave to the system.
Nor did literacy always imply fluency. I've had reason to read over quite a few nineteenth century documents. These people were, to put it mildly, not a generation of Edgar Allen Poes. For every person who could dash off a clear, insightful set of coherent sentences, there were a dozen who could just barely get the point across. Don't tell me that any fifteen year old in the nineteenth century could write better than 99% of Slashdot, because reading their journals is *exactly* like reading Slashdot.*
As a student of history, and someone who has spent much time reading civil war letters, I could not disagree with you more. But given your overall ignorance of the entire century you have exhibited thus far, I will give you one last change for redemption. Perhaps you can give me an example of this poor writing, so I can see for myself.
A company like Ford would do anything they could to develop a substantial innovation over GM and DB.
Do you really believe that??? After one hundred years of designing automobiles we can get little more than a slightly more efficient engine and airbags? Cars are perhaps the best example of how industries conspire to maintain the status quo. I highly doubt the average citizen of 1902 would honestly believe automobile engineering would have accomplished so little in a century.
To me, this seems like a blatant troll, but some moderators apparently do not agree.
C'mon, this is obvious:
How long can America keep pumping out students whose test scores are in the cellar for industrial nations and expect to maintain an edge in technology? As it stands, a lot of our brains are already imported from India and China.
I live in CA, which should stand as a dire warning to the rest of the country: They limit their property taxes, their schools go underfunded, and as a result California natives largely end up working to repair the cars and wash the floors of the well-educated from elsewhere.
The US needs to get serious about education, and fast. With the tech boom and the world shinking as it is, this is a really bad time to be stupid.
I hear this stuff all the time, and used to believe it myself on occasion. Its simply not true. The educational system was NEVER intended to make people smart, it was intended to make the intelligent human masses comfortable working in factories doing boring, repetitive work and acquiesing to the demands of leaders. Education as we know it, is a system which originated in fascist germany as a way to school better, more obedient and selfless soldiers.
Make no mistake. Schools are doing EXACTLY what they were designed to do. Think about it. Have you ever gone to a neighboorhood in the US which was constructed in the 19th century? How is it houses were constructed to be not only durable, but beautiful as well? The parks, museums, sculptures... All built long before public schools. Have you ever read civil war letters? The average 15 year old infantryman in the civil war writes far better than 99% of the people who post on slashdot. Could you imagine any book by Charles Dickens being on the bestseller list today? Why are so many schools named after the industrial magnates of yesteryear, like Carnegie, Colgate... Why were so many colleges funded by the industrial elite?
If you really think about it, it just doesn't add up. Schools make you DUMB, this is what they were supposed to do. It makes a people easier to control, and less prone to nasty rebellions. Humans are innately intelligent, it is only warping their minds through years of social conditioning they became mad, lost, and inhuman. Carnegie, JP Morgan, Frick, all of them sat around and thought about how to make free men content to work in their god foresaken factories, and like it. They made it so, and now we are living with that legacy.
The forced educational system must come to an end, it is time for this system of class control to collapse and for the average american to recapture the American dream that was stolen from him by the fascist powers of a century ago. We sit here and rip on the US educational system, even though the educational system is the single largest industry in the United States, both in capital expenditures and employment percentages. How is it people in India and China can do as well as us, even in the midst of an anarchy which can barely pave roads let alone build schools. They are better because they are NOT schooled.
To all who are interested, I highly suggest you read the online version of a book entitled The Underground History of American Education by one John Taylor Gatto. The book gives a well written account of exactly how the free minds of the United States were perverted into the drones we have today. It is rare I read a book that is truly eye opening, but this book will make it all make sense.
Unfortunately, I work for a company that makes stock option plan management software. This company will of course, remain unnamed. However, I deal with this shit, each and every day of my life. I thus can't resist but point out how rediculous your post is.
Cashing in options on insider info is totally illegal. That's insider trading, bud.
Insider trading does not APPLY to stock options. Stock options are NOT stocks. They are options! (duhhh!) AKA derivative securities. They derive their value from future ownership. You can exercise stock options whenever they vest. It is theoretically possible someone could then sell those stocks at some future pivotal state, but I can tell you that 95%+ of optionees do same day sales, as soon as the stock in the money. That being the case, insider trading is pretty much impossible since they are waiting a long time for those options to vest. Note, that is a figure I observe after having see hundreds of databases in my days.
If your broker has proof you have the options, he should have NO PROBLEM shorteslling the stock the second you call him to do it, and then you replace the short with your options. THAT is how you get current market price on options, without risk.
I don't play the market in that fashion myself. But most stocks that are underwater are flat... You aren't going to make any money shorting the stock because the value isn't going to be changing. Its already worthless, especially today.
What does short selling have to do with stock options? Absolutely nothing Short selling, by the very definition is selling of stock you do not own. Usually, it is stock owned by the broker or from another client. This stock is lended to you, and you promise to buy it in the future. It is a loan, and a gamble. As any true loan, it can be called by the owner. So you can't keep it forever. But to make a long story short, when you buy back the stock if the price is lower than the day you borrowed it, the difference is credited to your account. If the price is higher than the day you borrowed it, you owe the difference. Read more here.
Exercising options on the open market and then holding the stock is a BAD idea.... there is a taxable benefit on the difference between what you paid and fair market value of the stock. It's not considered capital gains.. which means if the stock goes down, you get a capital loss, but you can't offset your tax obligation.
This is what really proves you don't know anything about stock options. Congress has allowed for the first $100,000 of stock acquired in a calender year to be sold tax free if they are held for the minimum required time of one year after date of vesting. These are called Incentive Stock Options, or ISO's. Options in excess of $100,000 a year are called NQ's, or non-qualified, because they don't qualify for the tax benefit. Read more about the IRS code at Findlaw.
Go with the short.
I hope you read up a little more on short selling. You my actually make some money some day, if you ever have the credit or collateral to do so.
Of course, your 300 square foot "apartment" costs $2000 a month. At least I can get a 400 square foot studio in manhattan with a seperate bathroom for $1200 a month.
The reason bandwidth is so cheap in Tokyo is everything else is so expensive no one would purchase it if it cost more. I guarantee that if you were to get a similar apartment in Manattan with a full T1 @$500/month, it would still be cheaper than in Tokyo. And you would be living in a much cooler and cosmopolitan city.
The reality is in densely populated areas, bandwidth is obviously much cheaper and available, because distance is the dominant cost factor in laying line, not to mention maintaining it.
I swear I saw advertisements for DirecTV DSL just the other day. Is this sudden or what?
Oh, balls. Some of the very best episodes-- "Darmok,"
I like all the other episodes you have mentioned, they are some of my favorites... But Darmok I never quite liked. The whole story seemed completely bizarre, it was a good idea on paper I am sure... But in practice. They universal translator is able to translate all the words perfectly but the semantics were trashed.
Not only that, the ridiculous way the alien kept saying "darmok at tenagra" over and over and over again. I had nightmires from that episode. Shit, I still have nightmares ten years later.
I am stuck on a planet, all alone... with some fat alient screaming at me constantly "darmok at tenagra" looking at me why I don't understand his babbling.
Ahh, ok. but good story. Too bad we never saw those aliens again. I would have liked to hear more of their craziness.
OS/2 also was able to alienate many power users because of the install process. It was FAR worse than Debian, and we all know how many people complain about that. I was a very competant OS/2 user (and DOS/ Win3.11 for that matter). When I went to install my CD-ROM drive on a stable OS/2 Warp (that's 3.0 unless otherwise specificed, for you younguns), the OS ended up formatting my hard drive and doing a fresh install -- WITHOUT MY CONSENT! My backups were as good as my temper was short. I took my backups, good all the data I needed, and went to DOS/Win3.11 until I could get NT 3.51.
This is complete utter nonsense. By late 1994 early 1995, almost all cdroms were IDE. IDE cdroms did not require special installation, and were recognized by the base IDE device driver that runs your hard drive. Not only that, formatting the boot partition, like in any other operating system, cannot occur. Not only that, but OS/2 never had a bootable cdrom, so you would have had to boot from disk in order to format your boot partition.
The installation program was very weak when supporting proprietary hardware, but the base install was cake. Remember, because OS/2 supported FAT AND HPFS, the installer would ask you if you want to format it FAT, HPFS, or not at all. To suggest it just formatted your drive is insane.
I ran OS/2 from 1991 until 1998, even had a 3 note BBS running on an OS/2 box for four years. The installer was cumbersome, but it was ahead of what was in Windows 3.1. Should it have come with more drivers? Yes. Was it bad because it didn't? Of course not. You simply had to use a 80 line config.sys file.
Could you imagine the uproar if every bullet in America had to be registered with the government?
Yes, absolutely. You will find these kinds of arguments supported more by people who favor gun ownership as a means of revolutionary capacity than by people who think a gun toting populace reduces crime.
Especially when you believe the general population should be able to own automatic and high powered weaponry, you realize you need some kinds of controls. The best method is to serialize or register the bullets. If I could legally go buy a automatic rifle or shot gun (street sweeper), I would have absolutely no problems registering the ammunition.
The reason Israel and Switzerland are different is because there guns ARE for waging war, not for fighting crime. The reality is in a civil society, even in America, most criminals are crazy anyway. Crime is relatively rare, despite what the media says. Gun ownership is really irrelevant, as crime is not going to be affected either way.
So, why put an XScale in a desktop system?? Ideas anyone??
Given the rather high cost of this device, I would venture to say the primary purpose of this device is for folks who REALLY need one, say developers of software for the Xscale processor. With all the PDA makers switching the Xscale, and ATI making their PDA graphics chips, some might think these things will take off.
Why not emulate it? AFAIK, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to emulate RISC processors on the x86 architecture. Perhaps it is even difficult to emulate one risc architecture on top of another, such as Xscale on PowerPC.
One thing is for sure, at that price, this is a vertical market product. Not many people need it, but those who do will pay a lot for it.
I'm not sure how you define "function" in this context. If it comes to war-- which is what I assume you're talking about, what with the "nuked off the face of the earth" thing and all-- the several states will be utterly defenseless. An occupying force could march into any state capitol in the country, gun down the legislature, and take control with virtually no organized opposition.
I think you don't give states enough credit. I picked california as my example because it is so large. If you don't think a political entity with 40 million people can't muster up at least 1 million soldiers in times of need, well I can't change your mind.
And let's not forget something that's even more critical than defense: the economy. Our economy is managed-- to the extent that it's managed at all-- from a central bank in Washington. That bank issues all U.S. currency, and backs it. If it disappeared... well, chaos.
This is why I mentioned Rome. Very similar situation as far as currency. I don't want to get into an argument over monetary policy, but to suggest a modern economy is absolutely dependent on a central bank is just not being honest. There are valid arguments for having truly valuable currency or the artificial sort we have today... But to say one system works and the other doesn't. What I am saying is this breakdown in the social structure will not occur immediately, rather it will be gradual. But even when a central bank, people get by. Look at Argentina. Their currency is worthless, for months they couldn't even remove it from their banks. What do you think they have been doing for the last year? This is a huge topic, but I predict central banking as we know it today will be gone within the decade.
And finally, just to pick one example of many, one that, as a restaurant owner, is near and dear to my heart, we have the USDA and the FDA. There are essentially no state-scale systems for the inspection, grading, and certification of foodstuffs. If the Federal government were to evaporate, we'd be back in the days of unregulated food production. Could we live with it? Sure. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to.
This is certainly a benefit of sorts. But states can easily manage it if the needs arise. I eat a very strict diet of only fruit, nuts, and raw fish. I try and eat organic. The only standard to which I adhered was the Organic Foods act of 1990 passed by the California legislature. It wasn't until this year the FDA had a standard on what is organic. Fish isn't even inspected. Inspection is not necessary, and if people want it its not hard. It sounds crazy, but humans got by just fine without food inspection for a long, long time. Look at photos of folks from the 1880's. They look a lot more human than the hideous blobs that populate our nation today. Huge quantities of wheat opioid peptides are refined and added to foods to make them addictive, and to placate the masses. 15% of children today are asthmatic due to the respiratory suppression caused by these glutomorphine molecules of wheat origin. Even though plenty of medical literature exists indicating this fact, the federal government has yet to even issue an advisory on this fact.
The FDA has absolutely no interest in the general health and welfare of the people. Food is just one more tool of control exercised by your beloved federal government.
Oh, and your thing about "a radical difference in behavior, speech, mannerism, dress?" Utter crap. There are essentially no cultural differences between any two points in this country, notwithstanding differences that are based on factors that transcend geography, such as race or ethnicity. You can get on a plane and go from Miami to Houston to Phoenix to San Francisco to Denver to Omaha to Chicago to Detroit to Boston to Richmond to Atlanta and back to Miami and not find any significant differences between any of them
If you really believe that, you must live in the suburbs and only travel to suburban areas. Some of these cities you mention are thoroughly monoculture. But, Miami? Have you even been there? Nearly half the people don't even speak english. I live in Brooklyn, NY and I can say with absolute certainty that the way people dress, behave, and conduct themselves is quit different here than Los Angeles or Miami. These differences are certainly not vast, but they increasing, and in fifty years I would venture to say New York, Los Angeles, and Miami will be far more different than you or I can imagine.
I have to say my main focus was legal. As I work with tax law on a daily basis as part of my wretched employment, I can say with absolute certainty that California is a like a whole other country. I would say that is more to my point.
I will say however I think you are right in a general sense, there are important reasons for our federal government to remain. I may not agree with them, but they may be compelling enough to keep this nation together for a while longer. I think history is on my side however. Time and time again, countries have tried to manage huge empires encompassing hundreds of millions of people over huge areas and they fail, each and every time. The dream of universal government and humanity cannot happen, it is our nature which drives us apart.
The sitting government was completely intolerable, and totally unable to manage the colonies at a 4 month remove, and the revolutionary cause ran deep enough that entire MILITARY DIVISIONS were influenced to take up arms against their command (necessary for revolution, and the single missing ingredient today).
This is of course why the vast majority of our army is stationed over seas. It would be very easy for the military to organize as a revolutionary army if they were all within US borders. But, when spread all over the world it is all but impossible to get the critical mass necessary to affect change. Combine that with a general population prevented from owning weapons of war, and revolution is no longer possible.
I hope that single ingredient is added someday. Revolution will come, its only a matter of time.
This is certainly true. The most brilliant system however is the federal system which underlines the republic. Since the FBI was created in the wake of the fraud that was World War I, the federal government has systematically overstepped the boundries placed upon it by the constitution.
I am not going to spend too much time discussing my personal historical feelings, but maintaining virtually autonomous states seems redundant to most people, including most Americans. But, when the revolution comes, the state governments will continue even if Washington DC is nuked off the face of the earth.
The founding fathers very well knew the size of the United States, and knew that while they were creating a New Rome, their empire would suffer the same fate. Instead of fracturing in haphazard ways as did Europe with the collapse of the empire, the United States is completely capable of functioning without a central authority.
What the bureaucrats don't realize is how truly irrelevant they are. Their days are numbered. I believe a violent revolution will not occur in the US, but will evolve much as the evolution of Europe. Soon, Washington DC will become completely irrelevant to the average citizen, just as Rome became irrelevant to the citizens of Gaul as France was born. Any student of US law will realize the radical differences between California and New York will only amplify in time. There is already a radical difference in behavior, speech, mannerism, dress... Hell, California is already larger than many, if not most, European nations. Just a thought.
But make no mistake, trade is the key to wealth. If you want to generate wealth you have to produce or deliver goods where they are scarce. This means that wealth is very limited without trade, because you quickly exhaust the available demand.
So, what will happen once we supply all the world with everything they want? What will we do then? Perhaps then these third world countries will try and pave their streets, make their homes out of lasting materials, stop having hordes of children?
What you are misunderstanding is I oppose a corporate-fascist command economy approach to trade. I have no doubt the Amish trade amongst themselves, but they certainly do not trade with people from India or anywhere else outside of their local community, with one exception: fuel oil, although they prefer kerosene. My point is the purpose of life is to live comfortably, support your family, and be part of a community of which you are proud. Foreign trade has its place, surplus wealth should be traded in whatever its form. BUT local interest come first. Creating wealth is done locally, with only frivolous items available from foreign markets. The Amish are the example I cite because outside of medical care and fuel, they are completely self sufficient as a local community.
This is the ultimate failure of 20th century capitalism, because it is not based on the principals of frugality, modesty, and hard work exemplified by Ralph Waldo Emersen. 20th century capitalism created public schools to turn free men into drones, willing and desperate to serve a master. It used government controls to manipulate markets and induce dependence upon the state, principally under welfare.
The is coming, and will come in your life time, where the means of production will become so efficient and technologically advanced that man's basic needs will be extraordinarily cheap. When life need not be spent earning a living, what will wealth be? These are the questions that make it quite clear the incapacity of economic theory to answer the questions that will face us in the future. What will happen? I do not know.
You advocate a return to the (fictious) time of no one answering to anyone (sort of pseudo-anarchy). At the same time you freely admit that poor countries are only poor because the have no system of justice of property rights.
Please explain how you came to that conclusion. Because I personally want to be self sufficient does not mean I believe the nation as a whole could or should do so. Its called simple honesty. We all have personal biases that may cloud what we say, I merely attempt to make that known. Rather than wishing to be part of some corporate fascist state slaving away for the 450 square foot apartment in which I currently reside, I would rather be free. It is from that vantage point I speak. And you are right, it is pseudo-ficticious... it is an ideal, something that may not be perfectly attainable, but one for which I believe all people should strive. I will say we were closer to that ideal in 1850 than today.
As a matter of policy, I don't believe we should turn third world countries into export economies, it is that simple. Countries should focus on trading amongst themselves and raising the standard of living of their own residents, then perhaps focus on exporting their surplus.
Without property rights, poor countries focus on the bare necessities of survival (subsistence farming) or a quick buck (opium). Perhaps if they had title to their land, they would work hard to build a more permanent home, or pave their streets, invest in electricity, plumbing, all the staples of civilization common to Europe and America. Being that I support property rights, anarchy could be hardly a system of government I desire.
Of course, this is all based on the fallacy that a nation REQUIRES an export driven economy to prosper, which is ludicrous. How did the United States or Australia for that matter prosper when they never have relied on agricultural exports as a foundation of their economy? The south had cotton and tobacco yes, but the north got by pretty well eating their own damn food.
It is an absolute MYTH that trade is a necessary part of a thriving economy. People need to create value locally. They can build better houses, create better laws, mine locally... They don't need us anymore than we need them, which in our case in the United States is not at all. We have always supplied our own people with all the food they need in abundance. The only reason we export food is because we produce so much.
We subsidize our farmers because we want to protect the agricultural way of life, and to insure we do not become reliant on a foreign source of food. There is nothing more damaging to a nation than to become dependent on a foregin source of key resources. If you think oil is a problem, food is much worse.
What you miss is these countries are poor because they have no system of justice or property rights. No one bothers doing anything like large scale agriculture or any other economic activity because there is no inscentive. These countries are subsistance farmers or they grow REAL cash crops like coca or the opium poppy. Everything else just isn't worth it. Most crops require careful cultivation and investment in the land to grow enough to make a profit. This investment is not feasible when a virtual anarchy exists.
Personally, I wish there were far fewer people in the world so the United States could become an agricultural economy again. I would join the Amish in a heartbeat if they didn't believe in god. I don't want to buy anyone elses shit, and I don't want to sell any of my shit. The world used to be that way, before this corporate fascist system of capitalism was implimented by the rich industrialists and their progressive puppets around the turn of the century. Now we are all just slaves, spending half our productive lives going through indoctrination in schools before we become employees in the system we call the global economy. I want my own life, my own future. I don't want to answer to anyone, and I don't want anyone to answer to me. It used to be this way...