Hahaha you think anyone can be rich now? Economic mobility is long dead, the best predictor of income today isn't your skills but your father's income. There are no more opportunities to become rich today than there were for peasants to become royalty through a coup or military conquest 300 years ago. The royalty of old could only dream of the level of inequality and unaccountability that benefits our new capitalist hyper-royalty.
I do wish that someday, after we've invented Star Trek-level technologies like warp drive and fusion power and ideally some kind of teleportation, everyone should be able to go to the moon. But in our era? Fuck no! Hideous inequality that devastates society is required for any one person to be able to afford to go to the moon. The number of people who could afford such a thing is a gauge of how sick a society is. Thus I wish that nobody should be able to go except in a publicly funded effort for the benefit of the public, such as the original moon landing. What's actually psychopathic is to wish that anyone should be able to extract enough money from their society to be able to afford such a thing at this time.
You're the biggest idiot and loser of them all, you lick the gilded jackboot that stomps on the face of humanity.
I'm the loser? Man, you need to invest in a mirror. You are a liar and I can prove it. You say nobody can become rich.. Okay, explain Zuckerberg, JK Rowling, Musk.. Explain them, asshole. Those are just the ultra-rich.. The "holy-shit-thats-a-lot-of-money" rich. We'd have one hell of a list if we made a simple $100,000,000 our bottom limit.
I recall hearing somewhere that a college degree will add about $1,000,000 to your earnings over a normal lifetime. That's not rich? Go ask the guy in the 3rd world if that's rich or not. He'll laugh you out of the room.
200 years ago about 95% of the world's population lived in poverty. Today it's about 50%. What happened? Oh yeah, Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution.
The royalty of old could only dream of the level of inequality and unaccountability that benefits our new capitalist hyper-royalty.
Are you on drugs? Seriously, are you on drugs?
Royalty could have you executed at whim. Royalty owned EVERYTHING, including your fucking liberal life. Royalty was above the law. The rulers of nations were HEREDITARY. I can point out any number of rich people and politicians sitting in prison, today, because they fucked over people. Fraud, theft... You name it... Today we put those people in PRISON. 200 years ago you went to prison if you angered the King, not because you had fucked over some peasant.
We haven't been to the moon in my entire fucking lifetime, and I'm not a young person. So, here's a company that's going to go to the moon (or so they claim) and it's not going to cost me a FUCKING DIME. Musk proved that you can go to space for way cheaper than what governments have been paying, so a private company is going to take it one step further.. And you have a problem with that because you are a cunt. You are so cunty that you'll cut off your nose to spite your face. You are so cunty that you won't let these rich people SPEND some of that money and get it back into the ECONOMY where it is going to create a shitload of JOBS.
What is a trip to the moon going to cost? $10M.... $100M??? It's going to be a lot.... and there will be THOUSANDS OF JOBS to make it happen. Thousands of STEM jobs.. Jobs that pay really well..... But... you don't want that...
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I see that huge yacht that Larry Ellison owns and I think "Man, that employed a lot of people just to build it. Those 150 people who operate it have one heck of a nice job.. He's not making any money with that yacht, he's just spending it.... And he's spending a lot...All that money flowing right back into the economy.... 150 people with jobs that take them all over the world...
You'd rather the yacht and associated jobs didn't exist..... Because you are a cunt..
Yes runaway inequality will lead us to a hyper-unequal hell unless we stop it with measures such as progressive taxation, as was done in the New Deal era. Thanks for reminding everyone.
We already have progressive taxation. Ya know, that's why you have to look up your tax rate on the chart... It's evil and it's immoral. Fair would be a single PERCENTAGE for everyone.. But that's not good enough for you jealous assclowns.. 10% of $1000 is a hell of a lot less than 10% of $1,000,000,000.
Apparently the free market thinks that J.K. Rowling is the greatest writer in human history, and Logan Paul or Kim Kardashian are more productive than most of the humans alive right now. Clearly this is horseshit.
I was kinda hoping you'd say that.. I suspected it, but it's nice to have the confirmation that YOU have decided what is correct and what is incorrect. Fuck the people who vote with their dollars, you and you alone will decide who is a good writer or who is most productive.
Oh noes, sounds hard, better stick to the status quo of runaway inequality leading us to a class of idle space royalty ruling over a planet of slums! Just kidding, many other systems work better, including tightly regulated capitalism with income redistribution.
Here we have one example of a situation that will allow some of these rich people, that you hate so much, to spend some of that "hoarded wealth" and get it back into the economy. But, of course you have a problem with that. How many jobs do you think this is going to create? Tens of thousands? Can't be super easy to get a rocket all the way into the moon.. The cost will likely be billions.. Billions that will be spent employing an awful lot of people.. From the guy designing the rocket all the way down to the guy working in the foundry that makes the metal components.
Hahaha what a horseshit hypothetical scenario. In real life, price increases much more sharply than skill, that Harvard doctor would be 10x+ more expensive than the "shitty state school doctor" (good job hiding your snobbish elitism BTW, I barely noticed). So I might well not choose the Harvard doctor.
Wealth concentration can be stopped by governments, and can maximize happiness for the most people, rather than our current situation of making most people as miserable and stressed as possible to maximize the happiness of an elite few - an incredibly wasteful tradeoff.
Who's the idiot? You think wealth concentration can be stopped by governments... That's one of the places the wealth concentrates you complete fucking asshole.. Obama is worth around $40,000,000 dollars.. He was supposed to be your (liberals) "man of the people". Yeah, he's right down there in the trenches with the rest of you....
Elitism? maybe... I'm nowhere near what would qualify as "rich". However, Harvard has developed quite the reputation for producing excellent doctors.. (and lawyers). If I had some condition that required brain surgery I would want the best possible person, that I could afford, to be doing the work. The more "in demand" someone is, the more they get to charge. Do you think Harvard's reputation is unfounded? What about Yale? There's a reason the Ivy league schools have their reputation. THEY HAVE EARNED IT. They take the best and the brightest and they educate and train the hell out of them. They produce people of serious skill. Do they have a monopoly on it? Of course not, but they have one hell of a success rate. They have been consistent. If it makes me an elitist to recognize that some people have more skill or more education of more intelligence than others, then I'm fine with that title. We aren't all equal in our ability. Sorry Charlie, them's the breaks.
The $1 wasn't meant to represent an actual number, asshole. It was meant to show that even liberals would, if they could afford it, choose the more highly skilled person if money wasn't an option. I get that
There will always be a few with more/most. That's how it works, asshole.. Some few percentage of the population will always be smarter, or faster, or more inventive, or sexier.. These traits will help them get ahead.. They'll be able to send their children to better schools.. Those kids will do better. They will earn more.. And the cycle will continue.
Society rewards achievement. Those who achieve more will be rewarded.. Nobody forced anyone else to buy a Harry Potter book.. People bought them consensually because they WANTED to. So, she's a billionaire now... She didn't make it because she's a shitty writer.. Apparently enough people think she's a FANTASTIC writer... They rewarded her with their money.
You go figure out a system that doesn't strip people of their basic human rights and that deals with the "problem" of reward for performance and you'll win the goddamn Nobel peace prize.
By the way, you are a fucking hypocrite.. You all are.. I know for a fact that given the choice (with only a $1 difference in price) you would spend the $1 more to have a brain surgeon who trained at Harvard operate on you versus some asshole who trained at "Insert Shitty State School Name Here"
Well, being willing to spend even $1 more for something to obtain a better quality product will eventually send that $1 all the way to the top where it will concentrate. That is until you cunts can introduce what you are really after.. Equality of Misery...
You are a fucking tool. 300 years ago only the nobility and royalty could be rich.. Now anyone can and you are still unhappy.
You are also a psychopath. Instead of wishing that LOTS of people could afford to go to the moon, like a normal person with normal feelings, you wish that NOBODY could afford to do it.. like a fucking psychopath.. Ya know the type... "If I'm not rich, nobody should be".
You're the kind of cunt that thinks sex is dirty and disgusting because you aren't getting any.
If someone who had never been to Scotland, while living in Germany descended from Indian parents called themselves a Scotsman I'd probably say they were wrong too.
If someone can declare themselves to be a woman, while in possession of X and Y chromosomes, then an Indian living in Germany can call himself a Scotsman.
To any liberals reading this: Yes... This is how dumb your gender argument sounds.
First... It's barren, not Barron.
Second, if someone is spending their own money, why do you give a fuck?
I particularly enjoy how you have decided what is more important.
I couldn't give a crap one way or the other as long as my taxes aren't being spent on it.
barren (brn)
adj. Not producing offspring.
adj. Incapable of producing offspring.
adj. Lacking vegetation, especially useful vegetation.
This has nothing to do with theory. Again, communism is fundamentally a democratic process run by the proletariat. Neither the USSR and China have not been run as Democracies. What Stalin, Putin, Mao or Xi says, goes.
Of course it does... Communism, as you describe it, is only theory. It has never been put into practice. Communism, as I describe it, is the only way it has ever been implemented.
If you don't understand that.. then we are going to have one hell of a difficult time communicating.. I operate in the real world. Not in some fantasy that only exists in a book... I don't mean that tongue-in-cheek. I mean it quite literally.
For the love of god... Show me one instance of Communism that was implemented as you describe.. You cannot can you? If 100% of "communist" countries operate a certain way, THAT is communism. I don't disagree that it wasn't implemented as Marx laid out. But that doesn't matter. NOBODY has implemented it that way. It was implemented in a certain way and that's what it is. If you could show me one single instance of a communist country that was implemented as Marx described, I'd agree with you 100%. But it's 100% the way I describe it, and 0% the way you and Marx describe it.
By the way, fascists don't nationalize private business. Hitler was a fascist, he didn't seize private enterprise, well... except from the Jews.. But that's a different can of worms.. He knew you had to have private enterprise to fund the government and the socialist programs that he did implement.
I'd also argue that that is about the sole practical difference between how Communism and Fascism are IMPLEMENTED. One has private enterprise, one does not. Both are dictatorships IN PRACTICE. In fact, if China continues down the road they are on they'll be more closely aligned with Fascism than Communism as they are allowing more and more private business.
Those two ideologies cannot be implemented any other way. If they could, there would be at least one instance where they had, most likely. Any system of government that does not account for human nature is a STUPID form of government... And in Communism, as described by Marx, that is one of the fundamental flaws.. Of course, the other one is that socialism is fucking evil.. But I suspect if I start in on that your head will explode.
Mao said he was a communist but did not run a communist country. He took complete control and ownership of all property in the country. That's the opposite of communism; where the proles are meant to have ownership and control via a Democratic process.
Okay.. Communists take control of private property.. 100% of communist countries have done that. (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, etc..)
Fascists don't... (German, Italy, Spain).
It doesn't matter what the theory is, it matters what the application is.
Both ideologies have centralized planning to a degree, but the implementation is vastly different.
He's absolutely right though.. There is indoctrination happening... When I was much younger, there was NOT this level of politics in school.. I couldn't tell you if a given teacher was a Democrat or a Republican or a fucking Communist because they didn't tell you, they didn't push an ideology... They taught you how to read, write, and do 'rythmatic..
At best you could make an educated guess from how they dressed (business like or hippy) but that was about it..
By all means use Windows. I'm not a zealot and think a person should use what they want to use or what works best for them. I still have a Windows 7 PC. It does some things that I haven't been able to accomplish on Linux (running Photoshop for one example). And yes, Linux does not have drivers for all brand new devices/peripherals. Although, it is fairly easy to find out if a particular device does have driver support or not. Most of the time, if the hardware is common (printer, etc), the driver will appear eventually.
But.... if you are going to use Windows you will have to resign yourself to the fact that you don't/can't know everything it is doing. I think it is somewhat fair to say that at this point maybe MS doesn't exactly have your best intentions at heart.. Windows 10 seems to be on track to be a walled garden and an ad delivery system. It's not exactly there yet, but I don't think it's hyperbole to say that it is at least at few steps down that path. MS is certainly back up to their old tricks with Edge and Windows 10. We've seen the pop-ups that claim that using anything besides Edge is somehow "insecure". I personally think that is a load of bullshit and is a very typical MS tactic. They've been pulling this crap since the DR-DOS days...
I do believe that Linux is the better choice, all things being equal. i.e. If what you need to do can be accomplished in both, then I would recommend Linux. The Linux live-cds / thumbdrives have made testing hardware configurations pretty easy.
I am 100% Linux (or modified Linux) for my business. I absolutely will not trust MS / Windows with anything critical. Your mileage / opinion may be different, and that's fine. But for me, Linux (Debian and RouterOS) have proven themselves over and over again for stability and reliability. Yeah, I have to go through an extra step or two when choosing hardware, but I'm okay with that.
All OS's will have security issues from time to time and Linux is no exception, but the reaction times (in my experience) seem to favor Linux when one measures the time from exploit to patch. There certainly are also far more attacks on Windows. Certainly part of that is because it is a much larger target audience, but I'm sure some of it is due to design deficiencies. Windows has an awful large burden of legacy code or legacy compatibility to lug around. Linux not so much..
I would recommend taking another look at Linux, specifically Linux Mint.. It's one hell of a nice OS. It might change your view on Linux.. You can get a Live CD for it, so it's a painless test process.
I'm very happy that I made the switch (mostly) to Linux about two decades ago (Debian 2.2 if memory serves).. I have never regretted it. I do still have to keep that one laptop with Win7 around, but its days are numbered. Once support for Windows 7 ends I will not upgrade to a newer MS OS. Worst case scenario; I'll buy one last Win7 license and install it in a VM.
Many Linux distributions offer paid support. (Redhat is one).. So, you can pay for windows and get free support, or get free Linux and pay for support...
Bullshit.. In CA (for one example) what you bring to the table is yours. You only own things jointly if they were purchased AFTER the marriage. You can also exclude a spouse from a purchase made after marriage. Why don't you look things up before spewing?
My statement is 100% accurate. A husband and wife MIGHT own something jointly and they might not. It's not a mandatory situation.
Slashdot Mirror
You still own the land in an easement. An easement just gives another party the right to access the land, most often to pass through it..
You don't buy a domain name.. At best you lease it.. Miss your payments, just once, and it goes back into the pool.
I you bought it, you wouldn't have to keep making payments on it.
When you buy a house, at some point, you send the bank a final check... Then no more payments...
Hahaha you think anyone can be rich now? Economic mobility is long dead, the best predictor of income today isn't your skills but your father's income. There are no more opportunities to become rich today than there were for peasants to become royalty through a coup or military conquest 300 years ago. The royalty of old could only dream of the level of inequality and unaccountability that benefits our new capitalist hyper-royalty.
I do wish that someday, after we've invented Star Trek-level technologies like warp drive and fusion power and ideally some kind of teleportation, everyone should be able to go to the moon. But in our era? Fuck no! Hideous inequality that devastates society is required for any one person to be able to afford to go to the moon. The number of people who could afford such a thing is a gauge of how sick a society is. Thus I wish that nobody should be able to go except in a publicly funded effort for the benefit of the public, such as the original moon landing. What's actually psychopathic is to wish that anyone should be able to extract enough money from their society to be able to afford such a thing at this time.
You're the biggest idiot and loser of them all, you lick the gilded jackboot that stomps on the face of humanity.
I'm the loser? Man, you need to invest in a mirror. You are a liar and I can prove it. You say nobody can become rich.. Okay, explain Zuckerberg, JK Rowling, Musk.. Explain them, asshole. Those are just the ultra-rich.. The "holy-shit-thats-a-lot-of-money" rich. We'd have one hell of a list if we made a simple $100,000,000 our bottom limit.
I recall hearing somewhere that a college degree will add about $1,000,000 to your earnings over a normal lifetime. That's not rich? Go ask the guy in the 3rd world if that's rich or not. He'll laugh you out of the room.
200 years ago about 95% of the world's population lived in poverty. Today it's about 50%. What happened? Oh yeah, Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution.
The royalty of old could only dream of the level of inequality and unaccountability that benefits our new capitalist hyper-royalty.
Are you on drugs? Seriously, are you on drugs?
Royalty could have you executed at whim. Royalty owned EVERYTHING, including your fucking liberal life. Royalty was above the law. The rulers of nations were HEREDITARY. I can point out any number of rich people and politicians sitting in prison, today, because they fucked over people. Fraud, theft... You name it... Today we put those people in PRISON. 200 years ago you went to prison if you angered the King, not because you had fucked over some peasant.
We haven't been to the moon in my entire fucking lifetime, and I'm not a young person. So, here's a company that's going to go to the moon (or so they claim) and it's not going to cost me a FUCKING DIME. Musk proved that you can go to space for way cheaper than what governments have been paying, so a private company is going to take it one step further.. And you have a problem with that because you are a cunt. You are so cunty that you'll cut off your nose to spite your face. You are so cunty that you won't let these rich people SPEND some of that money and get it back into the ECONOMY where it is going to create a shitload of JOBS.
What is a trip to the moon going to cost? $10M.... $100M??? It's going to be a lot.... and there will be THOUSANDS OF JOBS to make it happen. Thousands of STEM jobs.. Jobs that pay really well..... But... you don't want that...
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I see that huge yacht that Larry Ellison owns and I think "Man, that employed a lot of people just to build it. Those 150 people who operate it have one heck of a nice job.. He's not making any money with that yacht, he's just spending it.... And he's spending a lot...All that money flowing right back into the economy.... 150 people with jobs that take them all over the world...
You'd rather the yacht and associated jobs didn't exist..... Because you are a cunt..
Yes runaway inequality will lead us to a hyper-unequal hell unless we stop it with measures such as progressive taxation, as was done in the New Deal era. Thanks for reminding everyone.
We already have progressive taxation. Ya know, that's why you have to look up your tax rate on the chart... It's evil and it's immoral. Fair would be a single PERCENTAGE for everyone.. But that's not good enough for you jealous assclowns.. 10% of $1000 is a hell of a lot less than 10% of $1,000,000,000.
Apparently the free market thinks that J.K. Rowling is the greatest writer in human history, and Logan Paul or Kim Kardashian are more productive than most of the humans alive right now. Clearly this is horseshit.
I was kinda hoping you'd say that.. I suspected it, but it's nice to have the confirmation that YOU have decided what is correct and what is incorrect. Fuck the people who vote with their dollars, you and you alone will decide who is a good writer or who is most productive.
Oh noes, sounds hard, better stick to the status quo of runaway inequality leading us to a class of idle space royalty ruling over a planet of slums! Just kidding, many other systems work better, including tightly regulated capitalism with income redistribution.
Here we have one example of a situation that will allow some of these rich people, that you hate so much, to spend some of that "hoarded wealth" and get it back into the economy. But, of course you have a problem with that. How many jobs do you think this is going to create? Tens of thousands? Can't be super easy to get a rocket all the way into the moon.. The cost will likely be billions.. Billions that will be spent employing an awful lot of people.. From the guy designing the rocket all the way down to the guy working in the foundry that makes the metal components.
Hahaha what a horseshit hypothetical scenario. In real life, price increases much more sharply than skill, that Harvard doctor would be 10x+ more expensive than the "shitty state school doctor" (good job hiding your snobbish elitism BTW, I barely noticed). So I might well not choose the Harvard doctor.
Wealth concentration can be stopped by governments, and can maximize happiness for the most people, rather than our current situation of making most people as miserable and stressed as possible to maximize the happiness of an elite few - an incredibly wasteful tradeoff.
Who's the idiot? You think wealth concentration can be stopped by governments... That's one of the places the wealth concentrates you complete fucking asshole.. Obama is worth around $40,000,000 dollars.. He was supposed to be your (liberals) "man of the people". Yeah, he's right down there in the trenches with the rest of you....
Elitism? maybe... I'm nowhere near what would qualify as "rich". However, Harvard has developed quite the reputation for producing excellent doctors.. (and lawyers). If I had some condition that required brain surgery I would want the best possible person, that I could afford, to be doing the work. The more "in demand" someone is, the more they get to charge. Do you think Harvard's reputation is unfounded? What about Yale? There's a reason the Ivy league schools have their reputation. THEY HAVE EARNED IT. They take the best and the brightest and they educate and train the hell out of them. They produce people of serious skill. Do they have a monopoly on it? Of course not, but they have one hell of a success rate. They have been consistent. If it makes me an elitist to recognize that some people have more skill or more education of more intelligence than others, then I'm fine with that title. We aren't all equal in our ability. Sorry Charlie, them's the breaks.
The $1 wasn't meant to represent an actual number, asshole. It was meant to show that even liberals would, if they could afford it, choose the more highly skilled person if money wasn't an option. I get that
Say's who? What would make it "better"?
DECREED, moron. You the same idiot that can't spell BARREN?
For the second time, you idiot, IT IS SPELLED BARREN.
Do you cut/paste your comments?
There will always be a few with more/most. That's how it works, asshole.. Some few percentage of the population will always be smarter, or faster, or more inventive, or sexier.. These traits will help them get ahead.. They'll be able to send their children to better schools.. Those kids will do better. They will earn more.. And the cycle will continue.
Society rewards achievement. Those who achieve more will be rewarded.. Nobody forced anyone else to buy a Harry Potter book.. People bought them consensually because they WANTED to. So, she's a billionaire now... She didn't make it because she's a shitty writer.. Apparently enough people think she's a FANTASTIC writer... They rewarded her with their money.
You go figure out a system that doesn't strip people of their basic human rights and that deals with the "problem" of reward for performance and you'll win the goddamn Nobel peace prize.
By the way, you are a fucking hypocrite.. You all are.. I know for a fact that given the choice (with only a $1 difference in price) you would spend the $1 more to have a brain surgeon who trained at Harvard operate on you versus some asshole who trained at "Insert Shitty State School Name Here"
Well, being willing to spend even $1 more for something to obtain a better quality product will eventually send that $1 all the way to the top where it will concentrate. That is until you cunts can introduce what you are really after.. Equality of Misery...
You are a fucking tool. 300 years ago only the nobility and royalty could be rich.. Now anyone can and you are still unhappy.
You are also a psychopath. Instead of wishing that LOTS of people could afford to go to the moon, like a normal person with normal feelings, you wish that NOBODY could afford to do it.. like a fucking psychopath.. Ya know the type... "If I'm not rich, nobody should be".
You're the kind of cunt that thinks sex is dirty and disgusting because you aren't getting any.
You are an idiot.
Can't even fathom the conversation you would have had with Christopher Columbus..
Piss off, hippie.
If someone who had never been to Scotland, while living in Germany descended from Indian parents called themselves a Scotsman I'd probably say they were wrong too.
If someone can declare themselves to be a woman, while in possession of X and Y chromosomes, then an Indian living in Germany can call himself a Scotsman.
To any liberals reading this: Yes... This is how dumb your gender argument sounds.
I love it.. I just love all the butthurt liberals.. You guys make my day.
Robots are made with silicon.... Silicone is what fake titties are made of.. Well, I suppose you could have robots with both......
First... It's barren, not Barron.
Second, if someone is spending their own money, why do you give a fuck?
I particularly enjoy how you have decided what is more important.
I couldn't give a crap one way or the other as long as my taxes aren't being spent on it.
barren (brn) adj. Not producing offspring. adj. Incapable of producing offspring. adj. Lacking vegetation, especially useful vegetation.
This has nothing to do with theory. Again, communism is fundamentally a democratic process run by the proletariat. Neither the USSR and China have not been run as Democracies. What Stalin, Putin, Mao or Xi says, goes.
Of course it does... Communism, as you describe it, is only theory. It has never been put into practice. Communism, as I describe it, is the only way it has ever been implemented.
If you don't understand that.. then we are going to have one hell of a difficult time communicating.. I operate in the real world. Not in some fantasy that only exists in a book... I don't mean that tongue-in-cheek. I mean it quite literally.
For the love of god... Show me one instance of Communism that was implemented as you describe.. You cannot can you? If 100% of "communist" countries operate a certain way, THAT is communism. I don't disagree that it wasn't implemented as Marx laid out. But that doesn't matter. NOBODY has implemented it that way. It was implemented in a certain way and that's what it is. If you could show me one single instance of a communist country that was implemented as Marx described, I'd agree with you 100%. But it's 100% the way I describe it, and 0% the way you and Marx describe it.
By the way, fascists don't nationalize private business. Hitler was a fascist, he didn't seize private enterprise, well... except from the Jews.. But that's a different can of worms.. He knew you had to have private enterprise to fund the government and the socialist programs that he did implement.
I'd also argue that that is about the sole practical difference between how Communism and Fascism are IMPLEMENTED. One has private enterprise, one does not. Both are dictatorships IN PRACTICE. In fact, if China continues down the road they are on they'll be more closely aligned with Fascism than Communism as they are allowing more and more private business.
Those two ideologies cannot be implemented any other way. If they could, there would be at least one instance where they had, most likely. Any system of government that does not account for human nature is a STUPID form of government... And in Communism, as described by Marx, that is one of the fundamental flaws.. Of course, the other one is that socialism is fucking evil.. But I suspect if I start in on that your head will explode.
Mao said he was a communist but did not run a communist country. He took complete control and ownership of all property in the country. That's the opposite of communism; where the proles are meant to have ownership and control via a Democratic process.
Okay.. Communists take control of private property.. 100% of communist countries have done that. (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, etc..)
Fascists don't... (German, Italy, Spain).
It doesn't matter what the theory is, it matters what the application is.
Both ideologies have centralized planning to a degree, but the implementation is vastly different.
You're right about Mao though. But he was a fascist, not a communist and certainly not a Democratic Socialist.
Fuck yeah! Haven't gotten to see the No-True-Scotsman fallacy in a long time. Thank you! (seriously).
Mao said he was communist, he ran a communist country, his successors are communists.. But no.. he was a fascist, because you know better...
Thanks man.. I really needed that laugh, for real.
He's absolutely right though.. There is indoctrination happening... When I was much younger, there was NOT this level of politics in school.. I couldn't tell you if a given teacher was a Democrat or a Republican or a fucking Communist because they didn't tell you, they didn't push an ideology... They taught you how to read, write, and do 'rythmatic..
At best you could make an educated guess from how they dressed (business like or hippy) but that was about it..
Now? Yeah, it's way different..
coddle
v. To cook in water just below the boiling point: coddle eggs.
v. To treat indulgently; baby.
I don't think you meant "cuddled"
By all means use Windows. I'm not a zealot and think a person should use what they want to use or what works best for them. I still have a Windows 7 PC. It does some things that I haven't been able to accomplish on Linux (running Photoshop for one example). And yes, Linux does not have drivers for all brand new devices/peripherals. Although, it is fairly easy to find out if a particular device does have driver support or not. Most of the time, if the hardware is common (printer, etc), the driver will appear eventually.
But.... if you are going to use Windows you will have to resign yourself to the fact that you don't/can't know everything it is doing. I think it is somewhat fair to say that at this point maybe MS doesn't exactly have your best intentions at heart.. Windows 10 seems to be on track to be a walled garden and an ad delivery system. It's not exactly there yet, but I don't think it's hyperbole to say that it is at least at few steps down that path. MS is certainly back up to their old tricks with Edge and Windows 10. We've seen the pop-ups that claim that using anything besides Edge is somehow "insecure". I personally think that is a load of bullshit and is a very typical MS tactic. They've been pulling this crap since the DR-DOS days...
I do believe that Linux is the better choice, all things being equal. i.e. If what you need to do can be accomplished in both, then I would recommend Linux. The Linux live-cds / thumbdrives have made testing hardware configurations pretty easy.
I am 100% Linux (or modified Linux) for my business. I absolutely will not trust MS / Windows with anything critical. Your mileage / opinion may be different, and that's fine. But for me, Linux (Debian and RouterOS) have proven themselves over and over again for stability and reliability. Yeah, I have to go through an extra step or two when choosing hardware, but I'm okay with that.
All OS's will have security issues from time to time and Linux is no exception, but the reaction times (in my experience) seem to favor Linux when one measures the time from exploit to patch. There certainly are also far more attacks on Windows. Certainly part of that is because it is a much larger target audience, but I'm sure some of it is due to design deficiencies. Windows has an awful large burden of legacy code or legacy compatibility to lug around. Linux not so much..
I would recommend taking another look at Linux, specifically Linux Mint.. It's one hell of a nice OS. It might change your view on Linux.. You can get a Live CD for it, so it's a painless test process.
I'm very happy that I made the switch (mostly) to Linux about two decades ago (Debian 2.2 if memory serves).. I have never regretted it. I do still have to keep that one laptop with Win7 around, but its days are numbered. Once support for Windows 7 ends I will not upgrade to a newer MS OS. Worst case scenario; I'll buy one last Win7 license and install it in a VM.
Many Linux distributions offer paid support. (Redhat is one).. So, you can pay for windows and get free support, or get free Linux and pay for support...
What is the problem?
I agree.. It's linux's fault it can't open old windows files.. Just like it's Windows fault that it can't read punch cards from the IBM mainframe era.
Can't read a punch card? Windows sucks!
You have a problem with accountants? I get the lawyer hatred... But accountants?
Bullshit.. In CA (for one example) what you bring to the table is yours. You only own things jointly if they were purchased AFTER the marriage. You can also exclude a spouse from a purchase made after marriage. Why don't you look things up before spewing?
My statement is 100% accurate. A husband and wife MIGHT own something jointly and they might not. It's not a mandatory situation.