I am aware that it is not a grenade, but as you say, I don't want to inhale the smoke, and I would prefer to be more than 16" away from it when it pops. I am not some 14 year old dumbass making a YouTube video who doesn't care if they take years off their life by inhaling diluted lithium ion battery fumes...
I have owned an iPhone 3GS, 4, 4S, 5, 6, and 6 plus all bought by me brand new at the AT&T store or Apple store. All of them are going strong still (the 3GS and 4/4S are being used as iPods) with the exception of my 5. A few months back, I noticed that the battery in my 5 had swollen to the point that the front screen had bowed out and popped off of the bezzel in places. The phone was still on at that point. I turned it off and took it out back and put it inside my old BBQ, since it could explode or catch fire inside of a sheet metal enclosure like that without any risk of further fire or damage. I called Apple and they told me to bring it in and get the battery replaced for $100... I haven't done it yet because there is no way I am going to put that thing in my car or pick it up with anything but welding gloves. I am sure that the battery is just about ready to pop. So now I have an iPhone 5 in my old BBQ. I was half hoping it would explode so I could just throw it away (I don't want to start a fire in the trash or trash truck, so I can't just toss it like it is now). If I lived out in the sticks, I would just put a bullet through it, but I can't do that in a residential neighborhood. But yeah, that iPhone 5 was pristine, not a scratch on it and I was the original owner. The battery failed on it's own, after less use than my 3GS or my 4/4S.
And what you have going on is a pretty cool community event, and I wouldn't knock it. However, what you are describing is not really the movie theater business, it is a community get together that also happens to involve watching a movie. 99.9% of movie theaters are owned/run by mega corps that want to push the masses into/out of the theater as fast as possible and don't really care that much beyond making money and avoiding public scandal or negative online reviews.
Or you go hardball with them and get a copy of the agreement and then tell them that either they strip out the language or you will go to the press and tell the 10 o'clock news that they are anti freedom of speech and trying to violate laid off employees first amendment rights and holding their severance packages hostage. Most companies fear bad press to begin with (which is why the clause was in there to begin with). My response has and always will be any contract beyond a standard NDA ends the day they stop paying me, as that is clearly the extent of our relationship.
Apparently we need a US Supreme Court ruling (again?) that you cannot sign away your constitutional rights, and all of these contracts are abusive. It would also be nice to have a federal law that says that any contract found to be abusive of constitutional laws in court is not only void, but also automatically awards the victim $100k per abusive clause, with no limit on damages. As soon as the cost outweighs the benefit, businesses will stop this bullshit. It's the same thing as non-competes.
Movie theaters are an antiquated, expensive relic of the past that are beyond sub optimal for watching movies today. Anyone who says otherwise is a shill for the movie industry. The movie theater used to be the only way to watch moving pictures, but then came TV, but TV sets were small for decades (20" was standard, 32" was a major luxury and the aspect ratio was wrong for watching movies). This is no longer the case. Then sound systems (Dolby Surround, DTS) were better in theaters, but that too faded. "But you can watch with your friends; its an experience." they argue. However, my living room couches seat 5 with fold down arm rests and reclining seats.
So in summary, the benefits of movie theaters used to be:
1. Bigger screen (Now my 65" 4k $900 flat screen from 10' away is a much better and immersive viewing experience). 2. Better sound (My 7.1 system sounds just as good, with added benefit that I can avoid ruptured eardrums and hearing damage). 3. More immersive (at home I don't have to put up with all the jackholes texting and receiving phone calls or just talking to the person next to them in the middle of the movie, plus I can pause the movie to use the bathroom). 4. Cost (This was never better with the theater, but clearly even worse these days. Taking the family to the theater sets me back $70 just for the tickets for a family of 4, then add drinks, candy and popcorn and you are over $150, or my entire home theater cost me about $1600 once and I can buy the UHD multi-format for $30. That pays for it'self in less than 20 movies)...
Every single reason to go to the movie theater is gone, except for their exclusivity window prior to disc release. As far as I can tell, the only reason that movie theaters exist is people with poor self control that can't wait for the Bluray release and teenagers who want a place away from their parents to make out. If you take away the first category and the theaters close, the teens will just go back to parking at make-out point...
I understand that old men with no clue have upheld software patents, but my argument is based around the plain language reading of the law that defines what can be patented. The law requires that only processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter can be patented. Software does not fall under one of these categories... http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/r...
Most legal scholars agree there is a strong argument against any software being granted a patent because there is no physicality to software, it is in essence a purely theoretical thing and therefore falls under copyright. You can patent the hardware that the software runs on, but the software it'self is an algorithm. It is knowledge (as evidenced by being able to be copied with no physical form). Unfortunately, software megacorps have wormed their way into the patent office, because patents give you an exclusivity that extends to the concept, rather than that specific work only... But that doesn't mean that software patents aren't actually a violation of basic patent law requirements. It just means that we have incompetents running the USPTO and sitting on the bench (big surprise).
No, this is just another in a long line of examples that software is not, nor has it ever been, patentable (based on the requirements for patents), regardless of what the USPTO says. Software should and must eventually be reverted to the realm of copyright. When this will happen is anyone's guess, but the sooner it happens, the better for us all...
1. That CO2 levels in the atmosphere may actually be lower than they were 100 years ago (environmentalists have cherry picked the data available) historically measured CO2 levels were as high as 650PPM less than 200 years ago.
2. CO2 levels are the limiting factor for plant grown (i.e. plant life explodes to capture CO2 as concentrations rise insignificantly).
3. That "global CO2 levels" are actually a single monitoring station in Hawii where the concentrations can vary 600PPM IN A SINGLE DAY...
I just got tired of pointing out the facts and poked fun for once.
Why don't you just hide and watch. After 4 years of Trump we can decide if we want 4 more or someone else. Considering the failure that Obama care is, he can hardly do worse than BHO.
Incidentally, the poor might get tax cuts if they actually paid any taxes to begin with...
Oh really, so I just imagined all of the left wing nut jobs running around with their hair on fire about CO2 emissions then? Not sure where you have been for the last 8 years.
You have been lied to. Wikipedia is perpetrating the lie; it is not infallible. What you describe/cite is a redefinition lie created by the liberal fascists in academia. They twisted the true political spectrum to fit their agenda and confuse the reality of the villains in WW2. The original (true) political spectrum is arranged by power concentrated in the government and looks like this:
Left wing: most/all the power concentrated in government: socialism, totalitarianism, fascism, communism, monarchy, oligarchy, etc. to varying degrees. Modern left wing progressives continually push further left in the true sense.
Centrist: some power to centralized government, some power retained by individuals: Most conservatives and Republicans, most Democrats from 40 years ago and back from there (JFK, etc).
Right wing: zero or minimal government with very little power or no power over individuals: Anarchists, Libertarians
If you pause for a moment and use your own rational thought, you will recognize the irrefutable logic of the original political spectrum, (as well as the reason why the communists/progressives wanted to redefine it.) It is hard to win an argument when you are a far left kook arguing for ideas that have lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and caused WW2 - against a centrist moderate arguing for the status quo.
You have been lied to. I applaud the creativity of the liar who came up with that idea to feed to you, but it is just a permutation of a redefinition lie created by the liberal fascists in academia. They twisted the true political spectrum to fit their agenda and confuse the reality of the villains in WW2. As you note, from your own rational thought, fascism and communism both behave nearly identically, which is why they are grouped together on the true, original political spectrum. The original (true) political spectrum is arranged by power concentrated in the government and looks like this:
Left wing: most/all the power concentrated in government: socialism, totalitarianism, fascism, communism, monarchy, oligarchy, etc. to varying degrees. Modern left wing progressives continually push further left in the true sense.
Centrist: some power to centralized government, some power retained by individuals: Most conservatives and Republicans, most Democrats from 40 years ago and back from there (JFK, etc).
Right wing: zero or minimal government with very little power or no power over individuals: Anarchists, Libertarians
1. Fascist in modern language is a word used to describe people who don't tolerate opposing view points (not the historical fascist party of Italy, whose Wikipedia article you cited). It gained modern use first in Italy when Mussolini consolidated industry under the control of the government, regardless of business owners wishes. That is the penultimate of big government (every boss is a government stooge, and you have to work for one in order to eat) with zero tolerance for other opinions.
Nazi is more specific and is tied to racism as well as intolerance to alternative views.
2. This is not an argument or evidence, I assume you cede the fact, but it makes you uncomfortable to be wrong?
3. As part of the colloquial Right wing, I challenge you to find 5 pictures of blatantly racist banners at tea party events who were not ejected by the majority and/or later outed as left wing plants (if racism is rampant in the Right wing, it should be easy). Also, the right has no problem with the 1,000,000 plus LEGAL immigrants into the US EACH YEAR, so to say that we are xenophobic is just a flat lie. I hope you don't actually believe that, because it is just sad to be so deceived. We only want our laws to be enforced and the stream of illegal drugs, aliens and criminals to stop across our southern border.
Furthermore, the Right wing had zero problem with Muslims until they started killing us. Then we used our superior mental faculties to decide that letting people into your country who want to kill you, rape your women and enslave your children is a bad thing (ask the Germans and French how mass Muslim immigration is working out for them). We don't personally dislike every Muslim, but we believe they should be under high scrutiny since they belong to a group with a subset that wants to murder us all based on their religious beliefs. If there is any question on the matter, they should be denied entry on a person by person basis. The fact that you are incapable of grasping this simple fact demonstrates some deep brainwashing indeed, and calls into question your basic survival instincts...
4. You only have two options, rule of law or rule of man. If you live under rule of law, and the laws are just, you are in a good place. Everyone's rights are protected, and people who hurt others are punished. If you live under rule of man, (AKA Monarchy) whatever the king (or Pope) says goes. You could be going along just fine, and then the king is having a bad day and you juts happen to piss him off, and you get executed as an example not to piss of the king. Pretty shitty way to live.
Wikipedia is never enough if you don't have a clue about reality to begin with, especially when Wikipedia is written by the same brainwashing academics who started the process when you went to college...
You have been lied to. What you describe is a redefinition lie created by the liberal fascists in academia. They twisted the true political spectrum to fit their agenda and confuse the reality of the villains in WW2. The original (true) political spectrum is arranged by power concentrated in the government and looks like this:
Left wing: most/all the power concentrated in government: socialism, totalitarianism, fascism, communism, monarchy, oligarchy, etc. to varying degrees. Modern left wing progressives continually push further left in the true sense.
Centrist: some power to centralized government, some power retained by individuals: Most conservatives and Republicans, most Democrats from 40 years ago and back from there (JFK, etc).
Right wing: zero or minimal government with very little power or no power over individuals: Anarchists, Libertarians
Please cite which policies (exactly) were uniquely right wing in the Nazi or Fascist Italian party. Nationalism, rule of law, and racism/anti-gay are not uniquely tied to any part of the political spectrum (take a look at Communist China, communist Russia, North Korea, etc.). Furthermore, nationalism and rule of law are not inherently bad, it just depends on how they are implemented and for most countries to survive long term, both must be present.
You might want to crack a history book now and then, you might learn something. Being a bigoted elitist doesn't make you right, it just makes you ignorant and obnoxious as evidenced by your ad homonym with zero facts to back it up.
The US is not perfect, nor is the world. Those places were a disaster and often a war zone before the US got involved. Results have not always been ideal, but OTOH that is just the reality of the world. Show me any other country that has done more good for the world. Show me any other country that has failed less in trying to do good around the world. Our intentions have always been to protect the innocent and try to foster freedom. Iraq is the way it is today because Islam is incompatible with freedom and justice. They are savages with a worldview stuck at 600AD.
We took out an evil dictator (Saddam) who was threatening the west and attempting to acquire nuclear weapons (we exported over 200 TONS of yellow cake uranium after the Iraq war, along with the equipment used to refine it to weapons grade). When we left Iraq, we left them with their own military, a democratically elected government and their freedom. The fact that it collapsed speaks to their shortcomings, not our own. In the future, with any Muslim majority country, if they attack us, we should just bomb them to oblivion and go home, since they are not capable of living under freedom anyway and they only respect force.
Please feel free to list which freedoms Trump has taken away. Which amendments he has violated. He has reafirmed his protection of the 2nd amendment, and the first amendment freedom of religion. He has appointed a constructionist to the supreme court, meaning that your rights as defined by the words written in the constitution will be guaranteed for years to come...
OTOH, the violator in chief was Barak Hussain Obama:
Infringed on the 2nd ammendmet by trying to make some ammo illegal using the BATF, tried to get more gun grabbing regulations, lied about buying guns at gun shows, attacked guns and legal gun ownership every mass shooting event during his tenure. Allowed guns to be illegally sold to Mexican drug cartels with no plan or method of tracking the guns for the sole purpose of creating a false flag crisis in southern border states to facilitate further gun regulations and/or confiscation.
Allowed freedom of religion to be infringed by gay rights activists (1st amendment) by not upholding DOMA and not bitch slapping Oregon state for persecuting Christian bakery owners who refused to participate in Gay weddings. Forced Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraceptive coverage against their religious beliefs and charter... I could go on
America is not perfect, but in the place that you currently reside, the state can decide tomorrow to take all your possessions away and throw you in jail or execute you and not only cant you do anything about it, but what they are doing is perfectly legal in that place. A gilded cage is still a cage, you just happen to be too stupid to see it.
Incarceration rates are irrelevant. What is relevant is if the people incarcerated are there justly because they broke laws that protect the rights of others (not the ability of the state to oppress it's people). The reality is more along the lines of: China executes a lot more people than the US, and doesn't generally spend too much at catching thieves, rapists and murderers, so they often get away, and when they are caught, they get executed because incarceration is expensive.
In the US, we have a justice system designed to catch and punish anyone who breaks the law, and we only rarely execute even the most heinous of criminals compared to the rest of the world or 70 years in our own past history (and no, the EU is not the rest of the world, they are about 15% of the world).
My heart is heavy that any adult individual living in a presumably free society is incapable of grasping such a simple concept... It shows just how effective the brainwashing at universities is that such a simple logical chain of thought evades you.
The Nazis put anyone who didn't do exactly as they were told in concentration camps. It doesn't mean that they didn't get their power by spouting the socialist progressive fascist line. What they did to consolidate their power is irrelevant to our discussion, how they came to power in a free society should be on everyone's mind right now with all the little fascist brown-shirts in the media and colleges lying, rioting and assaulting people to suppress truth and freedom of speech. History repeats.
Of course, but what about long term viability? They have pissed off their OS market for the sake of pushing out Windows 10 artificially rapidly and in a shape that suits their needs over their customers. They have abandoned any kind of mobile phone market, their tablets are a joke, the Xbone lost the current console generation to PS4, anyone who chooses windows server software needs their head examined, etc. etc.
Their stock prices are high right now because they have been laying people off and screwing over their customers for the short term buck. That was the core to my point. Non-original-owner MBA CEOs pump up the company's stocks for 5-7 years to get huge bonuses, exercise all their company stocks, pull the ripcord on their golden parachute and then the company death spirals for the next 10 years.
However, it usually is the MBAs fault and the near term gains philosophies they practice coupled with their ludicrous salary and golden parachutes. Look at HP and Yahoo as two examples. HP in particular was run for decades by it's founders. When they passed away, they started with a parade of MBA CEOs focused on short term gains and pumping up the company stock at the expense of long term viability. They bought a series of other companies, wasting massive amounts of capitol in spectacular failures, cut and spun away core businesses and now HP and Yahoo are barely profitable with no real prospects going forward. But nearly all of the MBA CEOs got their hundred million dollar compensation packages and are siting on their private yacht somewhere in the Bahamas, set for life. Until we modify C-level compensation to align what is good for CEOs with what is good for the long term profitability of the company, we will continue to see this kind of behavior...
After Steve Jobs was forced out at Apple the first time, it was a similar story, and the only reason they are so huge now is he came back. Since Jobs death, Apple has again begun the slow stagnation/decline, it is just going to coast a lot farther with all that cash in the bank.
Microsoft is the same story, Ballmer presided over stagnation, but Satya Nadella violated the one rule that Bill Gates and all true entrepreneurs understand: you don't screw over your customers, especially if you need them down the line. You can screw over the competition all you want, but always try to be fair with your customers.
How Satya Nadella is still CEO is beyond me. He has ruined Windows 10 (spyware, mandatory updates, etc.), Skype, Office 365 (it is now not software, it is a service), Xbox one/xbox marketplace, and the list goes on.
I get what MS wants out of windows 10 in terms of their monetization, but until they fix all the undesirable crap they jammed into 10, I won't be upgrading. Competent users demand things like privacy (MS, GTFO of my personal files and activities, wasn't this MS' criticism of gmail/google?), reliability (let me choose to update or not, especially if your shit update breaks things), and usability. Thus, they have lost me as a customer. When/if they break my windows 7 machine, I will buy an Apple and game exclusively on console and MS will not see another dime from me, ever. Maybe when they go bankrupt some smaller companies will tear apart their corpse and resurrect an updated version of Windows 7. I might buy that.
If you think Win8 is not a complete disaster at launch, I suspect you are actually on 8.1. Windows 8 on release was nearly as big of a disaster as Vista, if not bigger. Was it functional? Yes, it was, but it was a hot mess of an interface and in terms of usability it was an unmitigated disaster, which is a must work for most users, especially if you were on Windows 7 and comparing the usability between 7 and 8...
Slashdot Mirror
I am aware that it is not a grenade, but as you say, I don't want to inhale the smoke, and I would prefer to be more than 16" away from it when it pops. I am not some 14 year old dumbass making a YouTube video who doesn't care if they take years off their life by inhaling diluted lithium ion battery fumes...
I have owned an iPhone 3GS, 4, 4S, 5, 6, and 6 plus all bought by me brand new at the AT&T store or Apple store. All of them are going strong still (the 3GS and 4/4S are being used as iPods) with the exception of my 5. A few months back, I noticed that the battery in my 5 had swollen to the point that the front screen had bowed out and popped off of the bezzel in places. The phone was still on at that point. I turned it off and took it out back and put it inside my old BBQ, since it could explode or catch fire inside of a sheet metal enclosure like that without any risk of further fire or damage. I called Apple and they told me to bring it in and get the battery replaced for $100... I haven't done it yet because there is no way I am going to put that thing in my car or pick it up with anything but welding gloves. I am sure that the battery is just about ready to pop. So now I have an iPhone 5 in my old BBQ. I was half hoping it would explode so I could just throw it away (I don't want to start a fire in the trash or trash truck, so I can't just toss it like it is now). If I lived out in the sticks, I would just put a bullet through it, but I can't do that in a residential neighborhood. But yeah, that iPhone 5 was pristine, not a scratch on it and I was the original owner. The battery failed on it's own, after less use than my 3GS or my 4/4S.
And what you have going on is a pretty cool community event, and I wouldn't knock it. However, what you are describing is not really the movie theater business, it is a community get together that also happens to involve watching a movie. 99.9% of movie theaters are owned/run by mega corps that want to push the masses into/out of the theater as fast as possible and don't really care that much beyond making money and avoiding public scandal or negative online reviews.
Or you go hardball with them and get a copy of the agreement and then tell them that either they strip out the language or you will go to the press and tell the 10 o'clock news that they are anti freedom of speech and trying to violate laid off employees first amendment rights and holding their severance packages hostage. Most companies fear bad press to begin with (which is why the clause was in there to begin with). My response has and always will be any contract beyond a standard NDA ends the day they stop paying me, as that is clearly the extent of our relationship.
Apparently we need a US Supreme Court ruling (again?) that you cannot sign away your constitutional rights, and all of these contracts are abusive. It would also be nice to have a federal law that says that any contract found to be abusive of constitutional laws in court is not only void, but also automatically awards the victim $100k per abusive clause, with no limit on damages. As soon as the cost outweighs the benefit, businesses will stop this bullshit. It's the same thing as non-competes.
Movie theaters are an antiquated, expensive relic of the past that are beyond sub optimal for watching movies today. Anyone who says otherwise is a shill for the movie industry. The movie theater used to be the only way to watch moving pictures, but then came TV, but TV sets were small for decades (20" was standard, 32" was a major luxury and the aspect ratio was wrong for watching movies). This is no longer the case. Then sound systems (Dolby Surround, DTS) were better in theaters, but that too faded. "But you can watch with your friends; its an experience." they argue. However, my living room couches seat 5 with fold down arm rests and reclining seats.
So in summary, the benefits of movie theaters used to be:
1. Bigger screen (Now my 65" 4k $900 flat screen from 10' away is a much better and immersive viewing experience).
2. Better sound (My 7.1 system sounds just as good, with added benefit that I can avoid ruptured eardrums and hearing damage).
3. More immersive (at home I don't have to put up with all the jackholes texting and receiving phone calls or just talking to the person next to them in the middle of the movie, plus I can pause the movie to use the bathroom).
4. Cost (This was never better with the theater, but clearly even worse these days. Taking the family to the theater sets me back $70 just for the tickets for a family of 4, then add drinks, candy and popcorn and you are over $150, or my entire home theater cost me about $1600 once and I can buy the UHD multi-format for $30. That pays for it'self in less than 20 movies)...
Every single reason to go to the movie theater is gone, except for their exclusivity window prior to disc release. As far as I can tell, the only reason that movie theaters exist is people with poor self control that can't wait for the Bluray release and teenagers who want a place away from their parents to make out. If you take away the first category and the theaters close, the teens will just go back to parking at make-out point...
I understand that old men with no clue have upheld software patents, but my argument is based around the plain language reading of the law that defines what can be patented. The law requires that only processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter can be patented. Software does not fall under one of these categories... http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/r...
Most legal scholars agree there is a strong argument against any software being granted a patent because there is no physicality to software, it is in essence a purely theoretical thing and therefore falls under copyright. You can patent the hardware that the software runs on, but the software it'self is an algorithm. It is knowledge (as evidenced by being able to be copied with no physical form). Unfortunately, software megacorps have wormed their way into the patent office, because patents give you an exclusivity that extends to the concept, rather than that specific work only... But that doesn't mean that software patents aren't actually a violation of basic patent law requirements. It just means that we have incompetents running the USPTO and sitting on the bench (big surprise).
No, this is just another in a long line of examples that software is not, nor has it ever been, patentable (based on the requirements for patents), regardless of what the USPTO says. Software should and must eventually be reverted to the realm of copyright. When this will happen is anyone's guess, but the sooner it happens, the better for us all...
And you fail to research and learn:
1. That CO2 levels in the atmosphere may actually be lower than they were 100 years ago (environmentalists have cherry picked the data available) historically measured CO2 levels were as high as 650PPM less than 200 years ago.
2. CO2 levels are the limiting factor for plant grown (i.e. plant life explodes to capture CO2 as concentrations rise insignificantly).
3. That "global CO2 levels" are actually a single monitoring station in Hawii where the concentrations can vary 600PPM IN A SINGLE DAY...
I just got tired of pointing out the facts and poked fun for once.
Why don't you just hide and watch. After 4 years of Trump we can decide if we want 4 more or someone else. Considering the failure that Obama care is, he can hardly do worse than BHO.
Incidentally, the poor might get tax cuts if they actually paid any taxes to begin with...
Oh really, so I just imagined all of the left wing nut jobs running around with their hair on fire about CO2 emissions then? Not sure where you have been for the last 8 years.
You have been lied to. Wikipedia is perpetrating the lie; it is not infallible. What you describe/cite is a redefinition lie created by the liberal fascists in academia. They twisted the true political spectrum to fit their agenda and confuse the reality of the villains in WW2. The original (true) political spectrum is arranged by power concentrated in the government and looks like this:
Left wing: most/all the power concentrated in government: socialism, totalitarianism, fascism, communism, monarchy, oligarchy, etc. to varying degrees. Modern left wing progressives continually push further left in the true sense.
Centrist: some power to centralized government, some power retained by individuals: Most conservatives and Republicans, most Democrats from 40 years ago and back from there (JFK, etc).
Right wing: zero or minimal government with very little power or no power over individuals: Anarchists, Libertarians
If you pause for a moment and use your own rational thought, you will recognize the irrefutable logic of the original political spectrum, (as well as the reason why the communists/progressives wanted to redefine it.) It is hard to win an argument when you are a far left kook arguing for ideas that have lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and caused WW2 - against a centrist moderate arguing for the status quo.
You have been lied to. I applaud the creativity of the liar who came up with that idea to feed to you, but it is just a permutation of a redefinition lie created by the liberal fascists in academia. They twisted the true political spectrum to fit their agenda and confuse the reality of the villains in WW2. As you note, from your own rational thought, fascism and communism both behave nearly identically, which is why they are grouped together on the true, original political spectrum. The original (true) political spectrum is arranged by power concentrated in the government and looks like this:
Left wing: most/all the power concentrated in government: socialism, totalitarianism, fascism, communism, monarchy, oligarchy, etc. to varying degrees. Modern left wing progressives continually push further left in the true sense.
Centrist: some power to centralized government, some power retained by individuals: Most conservatives and Republicans, most Democrats from 40 years ago and back from there (JFK, etc).
Right wing: zero or minimal government with very little power or no power over individuals: Anarchists, Libertarians
1. Fascist in modern language is a word used to describe people who don't tolerate opposing view points (not the historical fascist party of Italy, whose Wikipedia article you cited). It gained modern use first in Italy when Mussolini consolidated industry under the control of the government, regardless of business owners wishes. That is the penultimate of big government (every boss is a government stooge, and you have to work for one in order to eat) with zero tolerance for other opinions.
Nazi is more specific and is tied to racism as well as intolerance to alternative views.
2. This is not an argument or evidence, I assume you cede the fact, but it makes you uncomfortable to be wrong?
3. As part of the colloquial Right wing, I challenge you to find 5 pictures of blatantly racist banners at tea party events who were not ejected by the majority and/or later outed as left wing plants (if racism is rampant in the Right wing, it should be easy). Also, the right has no problem with the 1,000,000 plus LEGAL immigrants into the US EACH YEAR, so to say that we are xenophobic is just a flat lie. I hope you don't actually believe that, because it is just sad to be so deceived. We only want our laws to be enforced and the stream of illegal drugs, aliens and criminals to stop across our southern border.
Furthermore, the Right wing had zero problem with Muslims until they started killing us. Then we used our superior mental faculties to decide that letting people into your country who want to kill you, rape your women and enslave your children is a bad thing (ask the Germans and French how mass Muslim immigration is working out for them). We don't personally dislike every Muslim, but we believe they should be under high scrutiny since they belong to a group with a subset that wants to murder us all based on their religious beliefs. If there is any question on the matter, they should be denied entry on a person by person basis. The fact that you are incapable of grasping this simple fact demonstrates some deep brainwashing indeed, and calls into question your basic survival instincts...
4. You only have two options, rule of law or rule of man. If you live under rule of law, and the laws are just, you are in a good place. Everyone's rights are protected, and people who hurt others are punished. If you live under rule of man, (AKA Monarchy) whatever the king (or Pope) says goes. You could be going along just fine, and then the king is having a bad day and you juts happen to piss him off, and you get executed as an example not to piss of the king. Pretty shitty way to live.
Wikipedia is never enough if you don't have a clue about reality to begin with, especially when Wikipedia is written by the same brainwashing academics who started the process when you went to college...
You have been lied to. What you describe is a redefinition lie created by the liberal fascists in academia. They twisted the true political spectrum to fit their agenda and confuse the reality of the villains in WW2. The original (true) political spectrum is arranged by power concentrated in the government and looks like this:
Left wing: most/all the power concentrated in government: socialism, totalitarianism, fascism, communism, monarchy, oligarchy, etc. to varying degrees. Modern left wing progressives continually push further left in the true sense.
Centrist: some power to centralized government, some power retained by individuals: Most conservatives and Republicans, most Democrats from 40 years ago and back from there (JFK, etc).
Right wing: zero or minimal government with very little power or no power over individuals: Anarchists, Libertarians
Please cite which policies (exactly) were uniquely right wing in the Nazi or Fascist Italian party. Nationalism, rule of law, and racism/anti-gay are not uniquely tied to any part of the political spectrum (take a look at Communist China, communist Russia, North Korea, etc.). Furthermore, nationalism and rule of law are not inherently bad, it just depends on how they are implemented and for most countries to survive long term, both must be present.
You might want to crack a history book now and then, you might learn something. Being a bigoted elitist doesn't make you right, it just makes you ignorant and obnoxious as evidenced by your ad homonym with zero facts to back it up.
The US is not perfect, nor is the world. Those places were a disaster and often a war zone before the US got involved. Results have not always been ideal, but OTOH that is just the reality of the world. Show me any other country that has done more good for the world. Show me any other country that has failed less in trying to do good around the world. Our intentions have always been to protect the innocent and try to foster freedom. Iraq is the way it is today because Islam is incompatible with freedom and justice. They are savages with a worldview stuck at 600AD.
We took out an evil dictator (Saddam) who was threatening the west and attempting to acquire nuclear weapons (we exported over 200 TONS of yellow cake uranium after the Iraq war, along with the equipment used to refine it to weapons grade). When we left Iraq, we left them with their own military, a democratically elected government and their freedom. The fact that it collapsed speaks to their shortcomings, not our own. In the future, with any Muslim majority country, if they attack us, we should just bomb them to oblivion and go home, since they are not capable of living under freedom anyway and they only respect force.
Please feel free to list which freedoms Trump has taken away. Which amendments he has violated. He has reafirmed his protection of the 2nd amendment, and the first amendment freedom of religion. He has appointed a constructionist to the supreme court, meaning that your rights as defined by the words written in the constitution will be guaranteed for years to come...
OTOH, the violator in chief was Barak Hussain Obama:
Infringed on the 2nd ammendmet by trying to make some ammo illegal using the BATF, tried to get more gun grabbing regulations, lied about buying guns at gun shows, attacked guns and legal gun ownership every mass shooting event during his tenure. Allowed guns to be illegally sold to Mexican drug cartels with no plan or method of tracking the guns for the sole purpose of creating a false flag crisis in southern border states to facilitate further gun regulations and/or confiscation.
Allowed freedom of religion to be infringed by gay rights activists (1st amendment) by not upholding DOMA and not bitch slapping Oregon state for persecuting Christian bakery owners who refused to participate in Gay weddings. Forced Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraceptive coverage against their religious beliefs and charter... I could go on
This is just off the top of my head, a more extensive list and explanation can be found here: http://www.washingtonexaminer....
America is not perfect, but in the place that you currently reside, the state can decide tomorrow to take all your possessions away and throw you in jail or execute you and not only cant you do anything about it, but what they are doing is perfectly legal in that place. A gilded cage is still a cage, you just happen to be too stupid to see it.
Incarceration rates are irrelevant. What is relevant is if the people incarcerated are there justly because they broke laws that protect the rights of others (not the ability of the state to oppress it's people). The reality is more along the lines of: China executes a lot more people than the US, and doesn't generally spend too much at catching thieves, rapists and murderers, so they often get away, and when they are caught, they get executed because incarceration is expensive.
In the US, we have a justice system designed to catch and punish anyone who breaks the law, and we only rarely execute even the most heinous of criminals compared to the rest of the world or 70 years in our own past history (and no, the EU is not the rest of the world, they are about 15% of the world).
My heart is heavy that any adult individual living in a presumably free society is incapable of grasping such a simple concept... It shows just how effective the brainwashing at universities is that such a simple logical chain of thought evades you.
The Nazis put anyone who didn't do exactly as they were told in concentration camps. It doesn't mean that they didn't get their power by spouting the socialist progressive fascist line. What they did to consolidate their power is irrelevant to our discussion, how they came to power in a free society should be on everyone's mind right now with all the little fascist brown-shirts in the media and colleges lying, rioting and assaulting people to suppress truth and freedom of speech. History repeats.
Of course, but what about long term viability? They have pissed off their OS market for the sake of pushing out Windows 10 artificially rapidly and in a shape that suits their needs over their customers. They have abandoned any kind of mobile phone market, their tablets are a joke, the Xbone lost the current console generation to PS4, anyone who chooses windows server software needs their head examined, etc. etc.
Their stock prices are high right now because they have been laying people off and screwing over their customers for the short term buck. That was the core to my point. Non-original-owner MBA CEOs pump up the company's stocks for 5-7 years to get huge bonuses, exercise all their company stocks, pull the ripcord on their golden parachute and then the company death spirals for the next 10 years.
However, it usually is the MBAs fault and the near term gains philosophies they practice coupled with their ludicrous salary and golden parachutes. Look at HP and Yahoo as two examples. HP in particular was run for decades by it's founders. When they passed away, they started with a parade of MBA CEOs focused on short term gains and pumping up the company stock at the expense of long term viability. They bought a series of other companies, wasting massive amounts of capitol in spectacular failures, cut and spun away core businesses and now HP and Yahoo are barely profitable with no real prospects going forward. But nearly all of the MBA CEOs got their hundred million dollar compensation packages and are siting on their private yacht somewhere in the Bahamas, set for life. Until we modify C-level compensation to align what is good for CEOs with what is good for the long term profitability of the company, we will continue to see this kind of behavior...
After Steve Jobs was forced out at Apple the first time, it was a similar story, and the only reason they are so huge now is he came back. Since Jobs death, Apple has again begun the slow stagnation/decline, it is just going to coast a lot farther with all that cash in the bank.
Microsoft is the same story, Ballmer presided over stagnation, but Satya Nadella violated the one rule that Bill Gates and all true entrepreneurs understand: you don't screw over your customers, especially if you need them down the line. You can screw over the competition all you want, but always try to be fair with your customers.
How Satya Nadella is still CEO is beyond me. He has ruined Windows 10 (spyware, mandatory updates, etc.), Skype, Office 365 (it is now not software, it is a service), Xbox one/xbox marketplace, and the list goes on.
I get what MS wants out of windows 10 in terms of their monetization, but until they fix all the undesirable crap they jammed into 10, I won't be upgrading. Competent users demand things like privacy (MS, GTFO of my personal files and activities, wasn't this MS' criticism of gmail/google?), reliability (let me choose to update or not, especially if your shit update breaks things), and usability. Thus, they have lost me as a customer. When/if they break my windows 7 machine, I will buy an Apple and game exclusively on console and MS will not see another dime from me, ever. Maybe when they go bankrupt some smaller companies will tear apart their corpse and resurrect an updated version of Windows 7. I might buy that.
If you think Win8 is not a complete disaster at launch, I suspect you are actually on 8.1. Windows 8 on release was nearly as big of a disaster as Vista, if not bigger. Was it functional? Yes, it was, but it was a hot mess of an interface and in terms of usability it was an unmitigated disaster, which is a must work for most users, especially if you were on Windows 7 and comparing the usability between 7 and 8...