This was uncharacteristic for Reagan, but he made this mistake in an attempt to address the Black Panther Party threat.
The "threat" being people with guns using them to defend themselves from government oppression, just as intended by the authors of the Second Amendment -- but since there were *black* people, and leftist black people at that, that was obviously a no go in Reagan's mind.
Now we do; yet, the left continues to push waiting periods.
Actually I find that the more someone identifies as "left" -- rather than "liberal" or "Democractic" or some weaker adjective -- the more likely they are to favor private gun ownership. It's pretty much a philosophical requirement for Marxists to be armed; while anarchists (in the true, libertarian socialist sense) don't believe in police forces or armies, and so are ready and willing to have ordinary citizens armed.
Gun control actually doesn't break down very well along left/right lines; it aligns more directly with rural/urban.
I don't favor waiting periods, but I hardly find them the most outrageous infringement on our liberties. They're way, way down the list.
The mainstream of the Democratic Party thinks that I have no 1st amendment rights when I band together with like-minded citizens to further a political objective.
Money is not speech, and a corporation is not "banding together with like-minded citizens", it's a legal entity created by the state.
Trying to cover corporate bribery as a free speech issue is disgusting. Citizen's United is the Dred Scott decision of the 21st Century; liberty will not breathe free on these shores until it is overturned.
If you think Democrats are friendly towards the notion of the 2nd amendment I invite you to relocate to New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey or California. Come and see what Democrats do to the 2nd amendment when they have unchecked power.
Funny you should mention California there and blame the Democrats for gun control. Check your history about Ronald Reagan and the Mulford Act.
Voting for a third party is (unfortunately) a pretty ineffectual protest move.
Not at all. When a third part starts to get recognition, one of the major parties swoops in to steal its ideas.
Few members of the Progressive Party (the "Bull Moose" guys) were ever elected to office, but much of their platform ended up being implemented. The GOP has picked up some talking points from the Libertarians -- though of course, only those related to keeping the privileges of the capitalist class intact, not those about keeping the state out of your private life. And Kerry and Obama both ran more to the left after Gore lost votes to Nader in 2000.
(Note that Gore should have beaten Bush like a gong in 2000, by a margin that made the theft of the election impossible; and that Gore still got more votes than Bush in Florida. Nader is not responsible for Gore's poor campaign or for his failure to fight for the rights of Florida voters.)
(Indeed, had Obama run his administration more in line with the way he campaigned, he might have had much more of his base turn out on Tuesday. One of these days, Democrats might learn that tacking to the right does not get them support from either the left or the right. (Of course, the question of whether Obama's campaign was a genuine reflection of his desires and he's tacking right for what he thinks are practical purposes, or whether he's just another moderate conservative running as a Democrat as a cynical political ploy, in the mode of Clinton, remains to be seen.))
Want to lose your 10th amendment rights? Vote for any of the above....
The Tenth amendment is about government powers, not people's rights. Perhaps you meant the Ninth?
Or perhaps you've been confused by the "tenthers" out there who don't comprehend that taxing, spending, and regulating interstate commerce are explicitly Constitutional federal powers.
Re:Python is the Lisp of the 21st century
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
I'll force my compilers and editors to deal with tabs if it makes the code easier to read and maintain, thank you very much....I'll adhere to the principle "code needs to be maintainable, and not just by the person who originally wrote it." A much more practical maxim.
But in fact, tabs make it harder for others to maintain your code. Some tools treat a tab as "insert n spaces here". Some treat a tab as "move to the next tab stop, 8 spaces over". Some treat a tab as "move to the next tab stop, a configurable number of spaces over."
For code that's can be read and maintained by everyone, there is only one standard that works: code indented by spaces, wrapped to 80 characters in a fixed width font. No, I'm not shrinking my font to deal with your wider text -- using big fonts is why my eyesight is still decent at age 40. Yes, that ties us to a standard that goes back to the age of punched cards; consider it an homage to the Grand Old Days or yore and be proud.
This is the difference between the purpose of a public education (ideas established in the later industrial revolution)
I think I agree with your distinction of "university education" versus "industrial education"; but I don't think it's accurate to conflate public education with "industrial education". The idea of public education predates the industrial revolution -- Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of public education, for example.
It certainly may be the case that public education has been twisted and perverted to be more of a system for producing workers than citizens -- though that was not my experience in the Baltimore County Public Schools of the 1970s and 80s. Indeed, I think that the public education I received was more geared towards developing independent critical thought, than the education I would have received in the private alternatives -- which were Catholic schools, military-style academies, or boarding schools.
But then, I was in a lot of "gifted and talented" classes, in the very early days of BCPS's GT program, so my experience might not be representative. Plus, it was the touchy-feely 1970s.
Most people cannot even get Fascism right. They think it's just "totalitarianism" or "corporations owning the government" (I've even had teachers say it is just "militant nationalism") rather than understanding that it is a fusion of right-wing and left-wing thought into a more advanced form of Socialism which attempts to achieve Socialist ends through a more market-oriented system (where the state generally directs, but doesn't explicitly own, private business through regulation).
You are indeed right that most people cannot even get Fascism right...and then you go on to demonstrate that you don't have it right yourself.:-)
"Socialist ends" would be a system where the workers -- rather than a minority class of capitalists -- own the means of production. Fascism, with its strong anti-union stance, is radically anti-socialist, which is why capitalists like Henry Ford admired Hitler and Mussolini at first.
It doesn't mean that I go out and go "hey, that new Lexus ad was really cool, I guess I'll go and buy one". Who in his sane mind would follow that train of logic?
Enough people do it to make it worthwhile for Lexus to run the ad. Of course, those same people also say "Advertizing doesn't effect *me*."
More importantly, does it really matter? Plenty of people are boring, have limited interests and are very good at what they do.
If the point of education is to produce competent employees who are "good at what they do", so that they can by efficient cogs in the machinery of production/consumption, then no, it doesn't really matter.
If the point of education is to produce well-rounded, intellectual-capable human beings, so that they can be effective citizens of a great democratic nation, then yes, it does matter. Boring people of limited interests show a failure of such a system.
You do know that's what physics is all about, right?
Any physics problem that is capable of anything but an approximate solution which relies on either simplifying assumptions or numerical methods, is not about the real world.
"It might be noted here, for the benefit of those interested in exact solutions, that there is an alternative formulation of the many-body problem, i.e., how many bodies are required before we have a problem? G.E. Brown points out that this can be answered by a look at history. In eighteenth-century Newtonian mechanics, the three-body problem was insoluble. With the birth of general relativity around 1910 and quantum electrodynamics in 1930, the two- and one-body problems became insoluble. And within modern quantum field theory, the problem of zero bodies (vacuum) is insoluble. So, if we are out after exact solutions, no bodies at all is already too many!" -- Richard D. Mattuck, A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in the Many-Body Problem
The same ones who have already bought into buying ad time in streaming shows on Hulu, Comedy Central, etc.
Streaming, though, is a PITA: 5 to 10% of the time I hit some "rebuffering" nonsense, and pausing a show often breaks stupid Flash players. Also it makes me consume bandwidth while I'm watching, rather than have the shows I want updated at 4am while I'm asleep and my net connection otherwise unused. Plus, streaming versions on the website are often delayed a week. These are all strong incentives to go download a torrent -- which pays the studios nothing.
It would indeed serve the studios much better to make official versions available for immediate download, with minimal advertizing -- maybe 15 seconds at the front, 15 seconds at the end, and 15 seconds at halftime for an "hour" long (42 minutes real time) show -- dedicated to a single sponsor. (This is a little different than the plan in TFA.)
Now, whether this would have saved Caprica, I don't know, never watched it. It's interesting that a pilot for a different BSG prequel, Blood and Chrome, has been green-lighted.
Sorry to pull you back to the real world... any patent that has been issued and has not expired or invalidated, is valid. It's a simple as that.
If a patent is issued in error or in contravention of the law, it's not valid. It's as simple as that.
If you think it's not valid for whatever reason, you will have to ask a judge to invalidate it. And until they agree with you and invalidate the patent, it is valid.
No, upon the judge finding it invalid the government will start treating it as invalid. It was invalid all along.
It's like unconstitutional laws: segregation and the "separate but equal" doctrine didn't suddenly become unconstitutional when the courts woke up in the 1950s and 60s. They were unconstitutional since Amendment XIV was ratified. Court rulings don't change basic facts, they change what facts the government will admit to as being true.
That's just the publication of source code. You certainly can't - for example - provide/run an application/service that infringes the patents, copyrights, etc... of another party just because it's open source.
Publishing source code is providing an application. Perhaps not in a convenient form, but if it's useful enough than a significant number of people will build it themselves -- or people located in nations that are less restrictive of such things will compile it and distribute binaries. You're not going to make money at it, of course.
This argument always conveniently ignores that the big corporations would not exist if the government was not involved in the market.
Oh, I know that quite well. You'll get the occasional Libertarian who argues for the abolition of corporations, though nothing like that is part of the party's platform. You'll also find a handful who agree that copyrights and patents are government interference and should be abolished -- but again, not part of the platform.
You'll find find few -- if any -- big-L Libertarians who understand that land deeds, and therefore all material property -- ultimately made from elements extracted from the land -- rests on government involvement.
No government, no property in the capitalist sense. That's why "libertarian capitalism" of the sort put forth by the Libertarian Party is inherently contradictory.
Of course, given the time-lines involved, the first nuke might have ended up being used over Berlin.
The first nuke was slated for Japan as early as May 1943, though most of the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project didn't know that. Whether that choice was due more to racism or to legitimate strategic concerns is an open issue.
The bias that you will find is that big media is in big cities, and therefore often reflects a more urban worldview -- more likely to be anti-gun, for example, and more likely to be tolerant of diversity. (With the obvious exception of Fox, which has chosen to pitch their infotainment to the red state demographic.) But the media is as leftist as the corporations that own it -- i.e., not at all.
It used to be that liberal meant more freedoms, both economically and personally. Using that definition libertarians are the most liberal of parties. It is only in the last few years that liberal has become synonymous with the progressive movement, which isn't even liberal at all because most support less freedoms both personally and economically.
The Libertarian Party is not classically liberal. It's idea of "economic freedom" is plutocracy, a reduction in effective freedom for most people. As Kim Stanley Robinson put it, "That's libertarians for you -- anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
The Progressive movement was intended -- and we can certainly debate how well this end was served -- to increase the freedom of individual persons by reducing the power of corrupt big businesses. To them, your right to (for example) sell tainted food and drugs ended where people's health began just as your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
There are two dimensions economic and personal freedoms. Either you want more state control of economic matters or you want more freedom in economic matters. Either you want more state control of personal matters or you want less.
While the "two dimensional" Nolan chart makes a nice recruiting tool for the Libertarian Party, it's not much more realistic than the two party approach. It completely ignores libertarian socialism for example -- and since the Libertarians pretty much outright stole their name from this movement, perhaps that's no accident.
Deregulating big business and handing power to corporate plutocracy is not "more freedom in economic matters", it actually lets powerful interests decrease your freedom.
There are at least five big questions in politics:
Should the state dictate, or at least encourage or favor certain personal choices -- family, religion, sex, drug use, etc. -- or should it take a "do your own thing, man" approach?
How should we deal with criminals -- harsh punishments, or rehabilitation?
Should the benefits of our economic resources -- the "means of production" -- accrue to a minority (capitalism), or be democratic (socialism)?
Should decisions about production and consumption be centralized (controlled market) or de-centralized (free market)?
Should our nation attempt to dominate others, or mind its own business?
That's not even counting the one big issue in American politics today: are you part of the reality-based community, or not? More and more, dialog on the conservative side is dominated by out-and-out nutcases: birthers, creationists, climate science deniers, homophobes, et cetera. Sure, on the left you have the occasional truther or Maoist, but they're not generally being promoted as serious candidates for office. The GOP's been leaving rationality behind since the Reagan era.
That being the case, it's no wonder that the tech sector -- generally more educated folks -- leans left. If and when rational conservatives come back into dominance in the GOP, you might see more techies tilt less to the left.
I have no idea what a teabagger or Randroid will say next -- they always manage to surprise me with some random nonsense -- but you are giving us all a fine example of what an immature person who's unwilling to admit to an error says.
I regret that I have to embarrass you by pointing out your immature behavior here, but it's the only way I have available to help you grow. Your passion might serve you well once you grow up (and whether you're 16 or 60, I don't know which, you've clearly got to do some more of that), but for now you'd be well-served to listen more carefully, speak less quickly, and learn a bit about the world around you and other people. Next time perhaps you'll restrain your zeal to put people into easily-labeled boxes and avoid the fallacies of extended analogy and ad hominem attack you've illustrated for us so well in this thread. Till next time, best wishes.
Which implies that you DID read a lot of Ayn Rand as a lonely insecure teenager.
No, actually, it doesn't. I came rapidly to the assessment that she was full of shit the first time I cracked one of her books. And that was several years after I'd gone from lonely insecure teenager to lonely insecure college student -- this is/., after all. (I'm feeling much better now, thanks -- young geeks out there, it does get better.)
Considering your Teabagger/Randroid comments...
I tell you that I loathe Rand, and you call me a Randroid. I not only criticize teabaggers on my blog but go out counter-protest them in person, but you call me a teabagger.
You classification system is broken. The world does not work the way you think it does. Please try actually listening to what people are saying before you start labeling them. Thank you.
"The Courts are stupid! I KNOW more about the LAW than they do!" Hate to tell you this, but, no, you DON'T know more than the Courts.
I didn't say I knew more about the law than the courts; but I will say that there are areas of the law where the courts are not part of the reality-based community. For example I know that denying people the right to have their vote counted, as the court decided in Bush v. Gore, is not an application of the principle of equal protection. I know that corporations are not citizens and that corporate personhood is a steaming crock of shit, despite the Citizens United decision. I'll go out on a limb and guess that there is at least one case decided by the Roberts court that you think they got completely wrong.
Teabagger/Randroid conflates the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during WWII with a question about the number of toilets in a home.
As I said, I am neither a teabagger nor a Randroid; and further, you have just committed the fallacy of the extended analogy
You continue to dig yourself into a deeper hole. It's time to be quiet now before you make a greater fool of yourself.
The Zaurus line was more popular in Japan than here (in the US). I was using my Zaurus sl-5500 until I bought a Nokia N810.
Still use my Zaurus SL-C3000 as my mobile writing platform. Clamshell form factor, bigger than a cellphone so typing is easier, smaller than a netbook so it fits in your pocket -- wish somebody made something similar today.
Slashdot Mirror
The "threat" being people with guns using them to defend themselves from government oppression, just as intended by the authors of the Second Amendment -- but since there were *black* people, and leftist black people at that, that was obviously a no go in Reagan's mind.
Actually I find that the more someone identifies as "left" -- rather than "liberal" or "Democractic" or some weaker adjective -- the more likely they are to favor private gun ownership. It's pretty much a philosophical requirement for Marxists to be armed; while anarchists (in the true, libertarian socialist sense) don't believe in police forces or armies, and so are ready and willing to have ordinary citizens armed.
Gun control actually doesn't break down very well along left/right lines; it aligns more directly with rural/urban.
I don't favor waiting periods, but I hardly find them the most outrageous infringement on our liberties. They're way, way down the list.
Money is not speech, and a corporation is not "banding together with like-minded citizens", it's a legal entity created by the state.
Trying to cover corporate bribery as a free speech issue is disgusting. Citizen's United is the Dred Scott decision of the 21st Century; liberty will not breathe free on these shores until it is overturned.
Funny you should mention California there and blame the Democrats for gun control. Check your history about Ronald Reagan and the Mulford Act.
Not at all. When a third part starts to get recognition, one of the major parties swoops in to steal its ideas.
Few members of the Progressive Party (the "Bull Moose" guys) were ever elected to office, but much of their platform ended up being implemented. The GOP has picked up some talking points from the Libertarians -- though of course, only those related to keeping the privileges of the capitalist class intact, not those about keeping the state out of your private life. And Kerry and Obama both ran more to the left after Gore lost votes to Nader in 2000.
(Note that Gore should have beaten Bush like a gong in 2000, by a margin that made the theft of the election impossible; and that Gore still got more votes than Bush in Florida. Nader is not responsible for Gore's poor campaign or for his failure to fight for the rights of Florida voters.)
(Indeed, had Obama run his administration more in line with the way he campaigned, he might have had much more of his base turn out on Tuesday. One of these days, Democrats might learn that tacking to the right does not get them support from either the left or the right. (Of course, the question of whether Obama's campaign was a genuine reflection of his desires and he's tacking right for what he thinks are practical purposes, or whether he's just another moderate conservative running as a Democrat as a cynical political ploy, in the mode of Clinton, remains to be seen.))
The Tenth amendment is about government powers, not people's rights. Perhaps you meant the Ninth?
Or perhaps you've been confused by the "tenthers" out there who don't comprehend that taxing, spending, and regulating interstate commerce are explicitly Constitutional federal powers.
But in fact, tabs make it harder for others to maintain your code. Some tools treat a tab as "insert n spaces here". Some treat a tab as "move to the next tab stop, 8 spaces over". Some treat a tab as "move to the next tab stop, a configurable number of spaces over."
For code that's can be read and maintained by everyone, there is only one standard that works: code indented by spaces, wrapped to 80 characters in a fixed width font. No, I'm not shrinking my font to deal with your wider text -- using big fonts is why my eyesight is still decent at age 40. Yes, that ties us to a standard that goes back to the age of punched cards; consider it an homage to the Grand Old Days or yore and be proud.
I think I agree with your distinction of "university education" versus "industrial education"; but I don't think it's accurate to conflate public education with "industrial education". The idea of public education predates the industrial revolution -- Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of public education, for example.
It certainly may be the case that public education has been twisted and perverted to be more of a system for producing workers than citizens -- though that was not my experience in the Baltimore County Public Schools of the 1970s and 80s. Indeed, I think that the public education I received was more geared towards developing independent critical thought, than the education I would have received in the private alternatives -- which were Catholic schools, military-style academies, or boarding schools.
But then, I was in a lot of "gifted and talented" classes, in the very early days of BCPS's GT program, so my experience might not be representative. Plus, it was the touchy-feely 1970s.
You are indeed right that most people cannot even get Fascism right...and then you go on to demonstrate that you don't have it right yourself. :-)
"Socialist ends" would be a system where the workers -- rather than a minority class of capitalists -- own the means of production. Fascism, with its strong anti-union stance, is radically anti-socialist, which is why capitalists like Henry Ford admired Hitler and Mussolini at first.
Enough people do it to make it worthwhile for Lexus to run the ad. Of course, those same people also say "Advertizing doesn't effect *me*."
If the point of education is to produce competent employees who are "good at what they do", so that they can by efficient cogs in the machinery of production/consumption, then no, it doesn't really matter.
If the point of education is to produce well-rounded, intellectual-capable human beings, so that they can be effective citizens of a great democratic nation, then yes, it does matter. Boring people of limited interests show a failure of such a system.
Any physics problem that is capable of anything but an approximate solution which relies on either simplifying assumptions or numerical methods, is not about the real world.
"It might be noted here, for the benefit of those interested in exact solutions, that there is an alternative formulation of the many-body problem, i.e., how many bodies are required before we have a problem? G.E. Brown points out that this can be answered by a look at history. In eighteenth-century Newtonian mechanics, the three-body problem was insoluble. With the birth of general relativity around 1910 and quantum electrodynamics in 1930, the two- and one-body problems became insoluble. And within modern quantum field theory, the problem of zero bodies (vacuum) is insoluble. So, if we are out after exact solutions, no bodies at all is already too many!" -- Richard D. Mattuck, A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in the Many-Body Problem
The same ones who have already bought into buying ad time in streaming shows on Hulu, Comedy Central, etc.
Streaming, though, is a PITA: 5 to 10% of the time I hit some "rebuffering" nonsense, and pausing a show often breaks stupid Flash players. Also it makes me consume bandwidth while I'm watching, rather than have the shows I want updated at 4am while I'm asleep and my net connection otherwise unused. Plus, streaming versions on the website are often delayed a week. These are all strong incentives to go download a torrent -- which pays the studios nothing.
It would indeed serve the studios much better to make official versions available for immediate download, with minimal advertizing -- maybe 15 seconds at the front, 15 seconds at the end, and 15 seconds at halftime for an "hour" long (42 minutes real time) show -- dedicated to a single sponsor. (This is a little different than the plan in TFA.)
Now, whether this would have saved Caprica, I don't know, never watched it. It's interesting that a pilot for a different BSG prequel, Blood and Chrome, has been green-lighted.
If a patent is issued in error or in contravention of the law, it's not valid. It's as simple as that.
No, upon the judge finding it invalid the government will start treating it as invalid. It was invalid all along.
It's like unconstitutional laws: segregation and the "separate but equal" doctrine didn't suddenly become unconstitutional when the courts woke up in the 1950s and 60s. They were unconstitutional since Amendment XIV was ratified. Court rulings don't change basic facts, they change what facts the government will admit to as being true.
Publishing source code is providing an application. Perhaps not in a convenient form, but if it's useful enough than a significant number of people will build it themselves -- or people located in nations that are less restrictive of such things will compile it and distribute binaries. You're not going to make money at it, of course.
Oh, I know that quite well. You'll get the occasional Libertarian who argues for the abolition of corporations, though nothing like that is part of the party's platform. You'll also find a handful who agree that copyrights and patents are government interference and should be abolished -- but again, not part of the platform.
You'll find find few -- if any -- big-L Libertarians who understand that land deeds, and therefore all material property -- ultimately made from elements extracted from the land -- rests on government involvement.
No government, no property in the capitalist sense. That's why "libertarian capitalism" of the sort put forth by the Libertarian Party is inherently contradictory.
The first nuke was slated for Japan as early as May 1943, though most of the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project didn't know that. Whether that choice was due more to racism or to legitimate strategic concerns is an open issue.
Actually that does matter. In Bernstein v. United_States the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that source code is Constitutionally protected speech.
Except that that's not true -- media leans right. The "liberal media" myth is a straight-up GOP propaganda ploy that's served them very well.
The bias that you will find is that big media is in big cities, and therefore often reflects a more urban worldview -- more likely to be anti-gun, for example, and more likely to be tolerant of diversity. (With the obvious exception of Fox, which has chosen to pitch their infotainment to the red state demographic.) But the media is as leftist as the corporations that own it -- i.e., not at all.
The Libertarian Party is not classically liberal. It's idea of "economic freedom" is plutocracy, a reduction in effective freedom for most people. As Kim Stanley Robinson put it, "That's libertarians for you -- anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
The Progressive movement was intended -- and we can certainly debate how well this end was served -- to increase the freedom of individual persons by reducing the power of corrupt big businesses. To them, your right to (for example) sell tainted food and drugs ended where people's health began just as your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
While the "two dimensional" Nolan chart makes a nice recruiting tool for the Libertarian Party, it's not much more realistic than the two party approach. It completely ignores libertarian socialism for example -- and since the Libertarians pretty much outright stole their name from this movement, perhaps that's no accident.
Deregulating big business and handing power to corporate plutocracy is not "more freedom in economic matters", it actually lets powerful interests decrease your freedom.
There are at least five big questions in politics:
That's not even counting the one big issue in American politics today: are you part of the reality-based community, or not? More and more, dialog on the conservative side is dominated by out-and-out nutcases: birthers, creationists, climate science deniers, homophobes, et cetera. Sure, on the left you have the occasional truther or Maoist, but they're not generally being promoted as serious candidates for office. The GOP's been leaving rationality behind since the Reagan era.
That being the case, it's no wonder that the tech sector -- generally more educated folks -- leans left. If and when rational conservatives come back into dominance in the GOP, you might see more techies tilt less to the left.
Which of course explains why Reagan, Nixon, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger came from there.
There are still bond issues and ballot questions to vote on. And you can write in candidates if you don't like any of the choices given.
I have no idea what a teabagger or Randroid will say next -- they always manage to surprise me with some random nonsense -- but you are giving us all a fine example of what an immature person who's unwilling to admit to an error says.
I regret that I have to embarrass you by pointing out your immature behavior here, but it's the only way I have available to help you grow. Your passion might serve you well once you grow up (and whether you're 16 or 60, I don't know which, you've clearly got to do some more of that), but for now you'd be well-served to listen more carefully, speak less quickly, and learn a bit about the world around you and other people. Next time perhaps you'll restrain your zeal to put people into easily-labeled boxes and avoid the fallacies of extended analogy and ad hominem attack you've illustrated for us so well in this thread. Till next time, best wishes.
No, actually, it doesn't. I came rapidly to the assessment that she was full of shit the first time I cracked one of her books. And that was several years after I'd gone from lonely insecure teenager to lonely insecure college student -- this is /., after all. (I'm feeling much better now, thanks -- young geeks out there, it does get better.)
I tell you that I loathe Rand, and you call me a Randroid. I not only criticize teabaggers on my blog but go out counter-protest them in person, but you call me a teabagger.
You classification system is broken. The world does not work the way you think it does. Please try actually listening to what people are saying before you start labeling them. Thank you.
I didn't say I knew more about the law than the courts; but I will say that there are areas of the law where the courts are not part of the reality-based community. For example I know that denying people the right to have their vote counted, as the court decided in Bush v. Gore, is not an application of the principle of equal protection. I know that corporations are not citizens and that corporate personhood is a steaming crock of shit, despite the Citizens United decision. I'll go out on a limb and guess that there is at least one case decided by the Roberts court that you think they got completely wrong.
As I said, I am neither a teabagger nor a Randroid; and further, you have just committed the fallacy of the extended analogy
You continue to dig yourself into a deeper hole. It's time to be quiet now before you make a greater fool of yourself.
Still use my Zaurus SL-C3000 as my mobile writing platform. Clamshell form factor, bigger than a cellphone so typing is easier, smaller than a netbook so it fits in your pocket -- wish somebody made something similar today.