It is possible to attain more dramatic results with intensified efforts over longer periods of time; military boot camps are one example (although heavier recruits do sometimes require extended stays in order to lose the necessary weight). If you had 6 - 12 months of nothing but exercise for 12 hours per day then you too would see dramatic results. Of course, most of us have neither the time nor the willpower to achieve such results and so we compromise. The other unfortunate reality about exercise is that continued effort is required to maintain gains or else the pounds will creep back on in proportion to the reduced maintenance efforts. A better approach, IMHO, would be to decide how much time one is willing to spend per week exercising and then work on spending that time as productively as possible. For most people even a few hours per week of exercise would be substantially better than what they are doing right now; which is to say practically nothing. Even if exercise doesn't reduce much weight it still has health benefits compared to a completely sedentary lifestyle.
Most computers can be hard shutdown in seconds by cutting the power. It would be extremely difficult to sneak up on someone fast enough, particularly in their own residence, to prevent them from flipping the power switch.
It is said the software can decrypt passwords and access otherwise inaccessible files
This is probably true if one depends upon Microsoft products for their security (ha). However, I would wager that the sorts of people that COFEE is typically used against are not depending upon the built-in Microsoft file encryption for their security needs. They probably use open-source security tools (non-Microsoft browser with private browsing, TrueCrypt or other Full Disk Encryption software, and hidden partitions/OS). There are generally two types of people in this world when it comes to security; (1) those who don't give a shit and don't use any security beyond writing their user account password on a sticky note and posting it on their monitor AND (2) those who care deeply about their security and privacy and take the time to research, acquire, and use the best available technology and tools. Slashdot has many of the later and few, if any, of the former. I have never met anyone who is lukewarm on security; they either care and are all in or they respond, "what's that" when asked about basic computer security. The "what's that" crowd are the same people who's used computer gets shipped to Africa, complete with original hard drive and old bank spreadsheets (which they thought were "deleted"), and then wonder how their identity was stolen.
Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
There are tag teams like that all across the United States; but probably more frequently in blue states as opposed to red states. We had a guy come through our town here in California a while back doing the same thing. He was a traveling ADA lawsuit "salesmen". He would come into your town (like he did ours) sue as many local businesses as he could (most would just settle) and then move on. In California, the only way that these people can eventually be stopped is if the courts identify them as vexatious litigants. Of course, that doesn't prevent the next ADA client and a new lawyer from picking up where the previous crews left off. People like this give the ADA a bad name. They make it harder for subsequent disabled people coming through town who may get less sympathy or even face outright hostility because of the lawsuits.
Laying physical lines, whether that is copper or fiber or something else, requires physical space which means digging up streets, acquiring easements, putting up poles, etc. Because there is a limited amount of physical space in most places to put competing lines (i.e. the "infrastructure") and upfront capital investment costs are high these types of businesses trend towards monopoly situations naturally. It is better to encourage faster build out through legalization and regulation of the situation. Although I generally consider myself to be libertarian this is one of the few areas where I would say that government, through court enforcement of the regulated monopoly, has a useful role to play.
The problem is not the government granted monopoly of the physical infrastructure per se. It could be argued that this is a case of Natural Monopoly. The problem comes from allowing the same company with the natural infrastructure monopoly to also offer service to endpoint customers over that infrastructure. The ownership of the lines and the sale of service operating on those lines should be kept separate as a legal condition of holding the government granted natural infrastructure monopoly.
Particularly any advantage provided by wealth or the lack thereof.
Why should we single out wealth as an unacceptable advantage. Is it fair for some children to be born with great musical talent or athletic ability but not for others to be born into families with significant stores of wealth, perhaps in the form of stocks or bonds that they can pass on to their children? I do not see the value in making this sort of distinction: that "natural" talents are OK, but inherited wealth is not. Actually it is interesting that you brought this up, because Milton Friedman addressed precisely this topic in Free to ChooseVolume 5: Created Equal. For a followup on our education system check out Volume 6: What is Wrong with our Schools (sadly, not much has improved in the nearly thirty years since that video was produced).
For instance, notice that you will often hear about reducing government by eliminating capital gains tax. But never eliminating income tax and increasing capital gains tax thus eliminating punishment for production and shifting the tax burdern entirely to those with disposable income and in proportion to that disposable income. Or eliminating all fees for government services and instead funding them entirely through the tax system that is supposed to pay for government services.
While it might be a bit of a shift in the conversation, I feel that I should point out that many libertarians also support the Fair Tax Bill which, by replacing Federal income taxes with a national sales tax, would accomplish, among other things, precisely what you suggest; taxing consumption and spending but not income from productive effort undertaken in the economy through labor, saving, or investing.
I don't hear many gun shop owners opposed to the need for an expensive commercial license to run a gun shop for instance. These licenses are always priced just right to assure someone living paycheck to paycheck can't worm his way up the ladder easily but low enough not to be a problem for already established business or those with investment level means.
There is a similar situation with taxi cab medallions, but again who limits entry into those fields? It is usually groups of individuals lobbying for their own regulation (i.e. the cosmotologists) through government intervention. If the government refused to intervene or instead issued licenses to anyone who could show reasonable competence without unnecessary restrictions then we wouldn't have these types of artificial scarcities.
Almost every time I hear a criticism of the free market there is always, at the heart of the problem, the government. Sometimes it takes a bit of digging to reveal the role of the government in the "market failure" but it is almost invariably some government policy creating the distortion.
The elimination of gun control and reduction of the commerce clause power to actual interstate commerce would be a start.
Many libertarians would agree with and support those goals with the caveat that some controls on personal armament are necessary in order to protect the peace and progress of society at large. For example, vehicle mounted heavy machine guns and howitzers probably don't pass the personal defense, target shooting, or hunting tests and even the NRA does not advocate for NO restrictions whatsoever on personal gun ownership.
Provisions for petitioned constitutional amendment and lawmaking (and eliminating) would be another step in the right direction.
Many laws now feature sunset clauses which recognize the their time limited nature. IMHO, this is a step in the right direction.
The Constitution itself is a bit tougher. Most libertarians would be hesitant to tamper with the amendment process or even the Constitution in general. For the most part the Constitution, excepting certain anachronistic passages such as the 3/5 compromise, is a remarkably concise and well written legal document; truly one of the great masterpieces of Western civilization and legal thought. Alterations to it should be undertaken carefully if they are undertaken at all. Hence, the stringent requirements for Amendments put in place by the founding fathers in order to make it difficult, although not impossible, to alter. Besides, the Constitution is really more of an expression of our ideals and who we are as a people rather than spelling out the details necessary for day to day governance; that is why we have the Legislative branch and laws after all.
The current financial crisis directly contradicts your proposition. The governments removed regulation that was supposed to keep the big players honest. As a consequence, everybody and their mother speculated with money that wasn't theirs, investing in schemes they did not understand. When everything came crashing down like a house of cards they looked for the government to help them out. Hypocrisy at its worst.
It might seem to be so at first glance, but the problem lies not with the free market, as some are quick to say, but with the money supply itself; the one part of the financial system which is essentially NOT free. I agree that regulation is necessary as long as we wish to maintain the fictions inherent in the present system of government fiat money and fractional reserve banking. However, I do not believe that that is the best monetary system; hence my dissent against regulation as being necessary in all cases because of a "failure" of the free market. The failure lies in the monetary system itself which underpins everything and is ultimately controlled by the government. Without fiat money (backed by nothing except more fiat money) and fractional reserve banking, the expansion of credit which created the present crisis would not have been possible.
The government mandates that the fiat money is legal tender for all debts public and private AND they grant some private entities, namely the banks, special privileges to loan out more money than they actually have...fractional reserves and therein lies the problem. Each new boom cycle contains in itself the seeds of the next bust. If the money supply were truly free, backed by commodities stored in reserve for the money in circulation and payable on demand, and fractional reserve banking was not allowed then the boom bust bubble cycle would no longer be possible because we would not be able to get so far ahead of our means.
The goal isn't to make everybody equal, it's to give everybody a fair shot at success as far as this is possible.
So you say, but it is not possible to give everyone the same chance at success because we are not all possessed of equal talents, drive or ability. The best that can be achieved is for the government not to stand in anyone's way. Everyone has the right to an opportunity for success, but chance is not the same for all and using the power of government coercion in a misguided attempt to make it so will not benefit society in the long run.
And you're deluding yourself if you think Europe is any more corrupt than the US.
I don't think so. The Europeans are probably just more sophisticated in their corruption and better at sweeping it under the rug (they have had much more practice than their bumbling American counterparts). In Europe, where redistribution is the norm rather than the exception, even otherwise honest people are pressed to cheat in order to protect a more equitable split of their income from the taxman.
If you look at the statements of the Libertarians during the Bush administration I think you will find that we criticized Bush for many of the same reasons that we now criticize Obama. Excessive government spending is undesirable whether it comes from the Democrats or the Republicans. It should also be pointed out that Libertarian != Republican. Our position is distinct from that of the Republican Party in many important ways, particularly with regard to social policies. For example, the war on drugs.
As for the banks, you will find that many Libertarians are NOT friends of government fiat currency and fractional reserve banking. In fact, we tend to favor commodity backed currency (gold in particular, but other valuable commodities too).
Remember that slogan "everyone is equal under the law"? You need regulation to enforce that.
By equalizing outcomes at the point of the sword? That is the problem with "the government has to step in" argument because it necessarily advocates the use of violence to redistribute wealth. The government controls the army, the police, and the means of extreme violence; that is the ultimate source of government power. This is what we Libertarians object to, the use of violence to alter the outcome in an otherwise voluntary system.
How, pray tell, do you maintain this idiotic notion that the USA doesn't suffer from high prices?
High in whose estimation? If prices are higher than they otherwise would be because of poor government policies, as they often are in Europe, then that is an issue. I have a few Italian friends with family still living over in Italy and they tell stories of how prices for even the basic necessities are rising much faster than wages. For example, a quart of milk might cost between 6-8 Euros while wages may be only 4-5 Euros per hour after taxes at the minimum. In Italy they talk about the "third week problem" where a household has spent all of its available income for the month before the third week arrives. Perhaps now you can see why so many honest and hard working Italians have come to America instead of remaining in Italy.
Please try to understand that Libertarians have positions distinct from that of the Republicans or the Conservatives. We have many of the same goals that most Americans have; The difference is that we do not believe that using the power of government, which is to say the power of force, to achieve those goals is the right approach. The desire for the government to "step in" is perhaps understandable because many people are impatient for "good things" to be done, but ultimately the government will fail to deliver on those promises and we will be right back where we started (or worse) instead of making persistent and steady, if slow, progress towards those goals.
I like the model used by The Economist and the Wall Street Journal, where much of the content is available free and is actually original journalism or thorough research which proves the quality of the publication in general and makes the paid "premium" content all the more attractive. If the content is good enough then people will pay provided that the price is reasonable, but it must consistently add value and rise above the muck that is simply replaying the Reuters or BBC news wires split into too many pages of advertisements.
Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been.
Which brings up a good point about the socialist policies and larger centralized governments typically favored in European Democracies. The more that power and national wealth are centralized in the hands of the national government the greater the incentive and opportunity for corruption, patronage, and undue insider influence to occur. In fact, many of the wealthy families of Europe have maintained their fortunes, at least in part by, successfully manipulating these national governments through patronage and corrupt bargains with government officials and elected representatives. This is one of the reasons why the Libertarians amongst us oppose the massive expansion of the Federal Government here in the United States and increased government spending; we do not believe that the corruption which exists in Europe is a desirable import for the United States. Those who believe that they will "punish the wealthy" need only look to Europe to see that the wealthy will largely keep their wealth while the middle class chafes under high unemployment, high prices for consumer goods and high taxes.
I'd personally rather spend more of my time designing applications and less time hammering out the plumbing.
This can already be achieved through use of proper abstractions, design patterns, and Inversion of Control containers. I would argue that this is a more modern and elegant solution than the sorts of "code generation" proposed by the CASE tools. IMHO, automatic code generation is often a brute force solution to problems where better abstractions would result in a more elegant and simple solution. Personally, I prefer elegance in code rather than ugly brute force tool use, but maybe that is just me.
Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the future
This is not always as easy as it first sounds. Often, the state of the object as it existed at some point in the past must be preserved, even if that is not the present state of the object as of that date in the past. If you are confused, then take a look at Martin Fowler's article on Temporal Objects for an introduction to how deep the rabbit hole goes with "effective dating".
Any interface that allows a user to create a new database entry MUST provide a method to merge duplicate entries.
Again, combine this with effective dating and you have an interface that is so advanced that it will probably confuse most users even if it is technically implemented correctly.
computer assisted ERP is one of those ideas that sounds good in principle, but often falls short in practice. Not everyone using the ERP system is going to be an engineer after all; so it is unreasonable to expect that level of sophistication and understanding, even though that may be necessary in order to get real value out of an ERP system.
Second question, how long do you think gasoline prices in the US will stay where they are?
Perhaps longer than you might otherwise believe. There are costs associated with owning a private vehicle, above and beyond the price of gasoline, that put such ownership out of reach for substantial numbers of people living outside the United States; especially in developing nations where such personal non-work vehicles remain a luxury. In Europe, where high taxes and extensive regulations are the rule rather than the exception, private vehicle ownership and its attendant fuel use is also discouraged. The high European gasoline taxes act like a subsidy for US gasoline consumers because they artificially reduce gasoline demand in Europe below what it would be if the taxes weren't so high. In fact a combination of these factors has helped the US to enjoy relatively lower gasoline prices for decades or at least low compared to what they might otherwise be in the absence of European taxes or more substantial consumer growth in developing nations. These factors may change going forward (Indian and Chinese consumers may own and operate more vehicles in the future, but I doubt that the European nations will cut the gas levies), but IMHO the change may not come as quickly as you seem to be suggesting.
I remember reading about buses that captured braking energy by compressing nitrogen gas and then using it immediately to help get rolling again.
Its called a pneumatic actuator and it is not a new idea. One of the major disadvantages of these pneumatic actuators is the release of compressed gases back into the atmosphere and the associated staccato noise. If you want to have an idea of how that sounds then just remember the last time you heard a pneumatic jackhammer being used or a jake brake engaged by a trucker on a downhill grade. There is also the additional weight and mechanical complexity of having this system and connecting it to the drive shaft so that it can drive or add power to the next standing start. This might make sense in a large commercial vehicle, like a bus or commercial truck, but probably not as much in a smaller passenger vehicle where weight, size, complexity and cost are more determining factors.
Exactly. The Prius boosters here on Slashdot are always talking up hybrid cars and the alleged "savings" that can be achieved by owning a hybrid vehicle, but they often leave out of the discussion opportunity costs and present value of future savings vs increased upfront costs. Hybrids have never penciled out so far, even during the peak gas prices of the summer of 2006. IMHO, there is no way that a strictly economic argument can be made for driving a hybrid car right now; Those who chose to drive one anyway do so for other reasons, mainly having to do with economic utility (i.e. enjoyment they derive from having that "green chic" look and feel). If one derives enough additional pleasure from hybrid or electric vehicle ownership to make up the difference in cost then it might be worth it for that individual, but can anyone here honestly say that they derive thousands of dollars worth of additional enjoyment from "being green" and driving an electric or hybrid vehicle? I know that I can't and so I don't own one.
The problem with the "well-rounded" argument is that eventually it becomes impossible to achieve a higher level in science without intensive focus, study and specialization; largely to the exclusion of other distractions. Many non-engineers have difficulty understanding the sort of mental commitment that comes with pursuing a professional career in science or engineering. They simply refuse to believe that one's career can use up so much of ones otherwise "free" time (my former personal trainer was in this category), but that is the discipline that we must accept in order to meet the demands of our chosen profession. Otherwise, what is the point? We might as well get our MBAs, sell rip-off "investments" and then laugh at the suckers who trusted us with their money in the first place around drinks at a tropical resort.
We need to invest in our future by investing in our brightest minds and steering them towards occupations where they can make a lasting difference in the world.
They present US system of primary and secondary education basically ensures that this never happens. Here in the US we are so concerned about equality of outcome in education that we often fail to direct the needed resources towards advancing the most promising students to their full potential. Instead, smart kids who would pass on their own anyway are neglected while remedial students are brought up to minimum standard. In practice this means that by the time the dumbest students are barely caught up there is nothing left in the budget to advance the smart ones. Other countries identify promising students through various testing methods and then spend more on them and less on others. This may be more efficient, but it is politically quite impossible here in the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
It is possible to attain more dramatic results with intensified efforts over longer periods of time; military boot camps are one example (although heavier recruits do sometimes require extended stays in order to lose the necessary weight). If you had 6 - 12 months of nothing but exercise for 12 hours per day then you too would see dramatic results. Of course, most of us have neither the time nor the willpower to achieve such results and so we compromise. The other unfortunate reality about exercise is that continued effort is required to maintain gains or else the pounds will creep back on in proportion to the reduced maintenance efforts. A better approach, IMHO, would be to decide how much time one is willing to spend per week exercising and then work on spending that time as productively as possible. For most people even a few hours per week of exercise would be substantially better than what they are doing right now; which is to say practically nothing. Even if exercise doesn't reduce much weight it still has health benefits compared to a completely sedentary lifestyle.
Most computers can be hard shutdown in seconds by cutting the power. It would be extremely difficult to sneak up on someone fast enough, particularly in their own residence, to prevent them from flipping the power switch.
It is said the software can decrypt passwords and access otherwise inaccessible files
This is probably true if one depends upon Microsoft products for their security (ha). However, I would wager that the sorts of people that COFEE is typically used against are not depending upon the built-in Microsoft file encryption for their security needs. They probably use open-source security tools (non-Microsoft browser with private browsing, TrueCrypt or other Full Disk Encryption software, and hidden partitions/OS). There are generally two types of people in this world when it comes to security; (1) those who don't give a shit and don't use any security beyond writing their user account password on a sticky note and posting it on their monitor AND (2) those who care deeply about their security and privacy and take the time to research, acquire, and use the best available technology and tools. Slashdot has many of the later and few, if any, of the former. I have never met anyone who is lukewarm on security; they either care and are all in or they respond, "what's that" when asked about basic computer security. The "what's that" crowd are the same people who's used computer gets shipped to Africa, complete with original hard drive and old bank spreadsheets (which they thought were "deleted"), and then wonder how their identity was stolen.
Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
There are tag teams like that all across the United States; but probably more frequently in blue states as opposed to red states. We had a guy come through our town here in California a while back doing the same thing. He was a traveling ADA lawsuit "salesmen". He would come into your town (like he did ours) sue as many local businesses as he could (most would just settle) and then move on. In California, the only way that these people can eventually be stopped is if the courts identify them as vexatious litigants. Of course, that doesn't prevent the next ADA client and a new lawyer from picking up where the previous crews left off. People like this give the ADA a bad name. They make it harder for subsequent disabled people coming through town who may get less sympathy or even face outright hostility because of the lawsuits.
Isn't that where Gabriel of Sedona resides?
Laying physical lines, whether that is copper or fiber or something else, requires physical space which means digging up streets, acquiring easements, putting up poles, etc. Because there is a limited amount of physical space in most places to put competing lines (i.e. the "infrastructure") and upfront capital investment costs are high these types of businesses trend towards monopoly situations naturally. It is better to encourage faster build out through legalization and regulation of the situation. Although I generally consider myself to be libertarian this is one of the few areas where I would say that government, through court enforcement of the regulated monopoly, has a useful role to play.
The problem is not the government granted monopoly of the physical infrastructure per se. It could be argued that this is a case of Natural Monopoly. The problem comes from allowing the same company with the natural infrastructure monopoly to also offer service to endpoint customers over that infrastructure. The ownership of the lines and the sale of service operating on those lines should be kept separate as a legal condition of holding the government granted natural infrastructure monopoly.
Particularly any advantage provided by wealth or the lack thereof.
Why should we single out wealth as an unacceptable advantage. Is it fair for some children to be born with great musical talent or athletic ability but not for others to be born into families with significant stores of wealth, perhaps in the form of stocks or bonds that they can pass on to their children? I do not see the value in making this sort of distinction: that "natural" talents are OK, but inherited wealth is not. Actually it is interesting that you brought this up, because Milton Friedman addressed precisely this topic in Free to Choose Volume 5: Created Equal. For a followup on our education system check out Volume 6: What is Wrong with our Schools (sadly, not much has improved in the nearly thirty years since that video was produced).
For instance, notice that you will often hear about reducing government by eliminating capital gains tax. But never eliminating income tax and increasing capital gains tax thus eliminating punishment for production and shifting the tax burdern entirely to those with disposable income and in proportion to that disposable income. Or eliminating all fees for government services and instead funding them entirely through the tax system that is supposed to pay for government services.
While it might be a bit of a shift in the conversation, I feel that I should point out that many libertarians also support the Fair Tax Bill which, by replacing Federal income taxes with a national sales tax, would accomplish, among other things, precisely what you suggest; taxing consumption and spending but not income from productive effort undertaken in the economy through labor, saving, or investing.
I don't hear many gun shop owners opposed to the need for an expensive commercial license to run a gun shop for instance. These licenses are always priced just right to assure someone living paycheck to paycheck can't worm his way up the ladder easily but low enough not to be a problem for already established business or those with investment level means.
There is a similar situation with taxi cab medallions, but again who limits entry into those fields? It is usually groups of individuals lobbying for their own regulation (i.e. the cosmotologists) through government intervention. If the government refused to intervene or instead issued licenses to anyone who could show reasonable competence without unnecessary restrictions then we wouldn't have these types of artificial scarcities.
Almost every time I hear a criticism of the free market there is always, at the heart of the problem, the government. Sometimes it takes a bit of digging to reveal the role of the government in the "market failure" but it is almost invariably some government policy creating the distortion.
The elimination of gun control and reduction of the commerce clause power to actual interstate commerce would be a start.
Many libertarians would agree with and support those goals with the caveat that some controls on personal armament are necessary in order to protect the peace and progress of society at large. For example, vehicle mounted heavy machine guns and howitzers probably don't pass the personal defense, target shooting, or hunting tests and even the NRA does not advocate for NO restrictions whatsoever on personal gun ownership.
Provisions for petitioned constitutional amendment and lawmaking (and eliminating) would be another step in the right direction.
Many laws now feature sunset clauses which recognize the their time limited nature. IMHO, this is a step in the right direction.
The Constitution itself is a bit tougher. Most libertarians would be hesitant to tamper with the amendment process or even the Constitution in general. For the most part the Constitution, excepting certain anachronistic passages such as the 3/5 compromise, is a remarkably concise and well written legal document; truly one of the great masterpieces of Western civilization and legal thought. Alterations to it should be undertaken carefully if they are undertaken at all. Hence, the stringent requirements for Amendments put in place by the founding fathers in order to make it difficult, although not impossible, to alter. Besides, the Constitution is really more of an expression of our ideals and who we are as a people rather than spelling out the details necessary for day to day governance; that is why we have the Legislative branch and laws after all.
The current financial crisis directly contradicts your proposition. The governments removed regulation that was supposed to keep the big players honest. As a consequence, everybody and their mother speculated with money that wasn't theirs, investing in schemes they did not understand. When everything came crashing down like a house of cards they looked for the government to help them out. Hypocrisy at its worst.
It might seem to be so at first glance, but the problem lies not with the free market, as some are quick to say, but with the money supply itself; the one part of the financial system which is essentially NOT free. I agree that regulation is necessary as long as we wish to maintain the fictions inherent in the present system of government fiat money and fractional reserve banking. However, I do not believe that that is the best monetary system; hence my dissent against regulation as being necessary in all cases because of a "failure" of the free market. The failure lies in the monetary system itself which underpins everything and is ultimately controlled by the government. Without fiat money (backed by nothing except more fiat money) and fractional reserve banking, the expansion of credit which created the present crisis would not have been possible .
The government mandates that the fiat money is legal tender for all debts public and private AND they grant some private entities, namely the banks, special privileges to loan out more money than they actually have ...fractional reserves and therein lies the problem. Each new boom cycle contains in itself the seeds of the next bust. If the money supply were truly free, backed by commodities stored in reserve for the money in circulation and payable on demand, and fractional reserve banking was not allowed then the boom bust bubble cycle would no longer be possible because we would not be able to get so far ahead of our means.
As Mohandas Gandhi said, "There are none as blind as those who will not see."
The goal isn't to make everybody equal, it's to give everybody a fair shot at success as far as this is possible.
So you say, but it is not possible to give everyone the same chance at success because we are not all possessed of equal talents, drive or ability. The best that can be achieved is for the government not to stand in anyone's way. Everyone has the right to an opportunity for success, but chance is not the same for all and using the power of government coercion in a misguided attempt to make it so will not benefit society in the long run.
And you're deluding yourself if you think Europe is any more corrupt than the US.
I don't think so. The Europeans are probably just more sophisticated in their corruption and better at sweeping it under the rug (they have had much more practice than their bumbling American counterparts). In Europe, where redistribution is the norm rather than the exception, even otherwise honest people are pressed to cheat in order to protect a more equitable split of their income from the taxman.
If you look at the statements of the Libertarians during the Bush administration I think you will find that we criticized Bush for many of the same reasons that we now criticize Obama. Excessive government spending is undesirable whether it comes from the Democrats or the Republicans. It should also be pointed out that Libertarian != Republican. Our position is distinct from that of the Republican Party in many important ways, particularly with regard to social policies. For example, the war on drugs.
As for the banks, you will find that many Libertarians are NOT friends of government fiat currency and fractional reserve banking. In fact, we tend to favor commodity backed currency (gold in particular, but other valuable commodities too).
Remember that slogan "everyone is equal under the law"? You need regulation to enforce that.
By equalizing outcomes at the point of the sword? That is the problem with "the government has to step in" argument because it necessarily advocates the use of violence to redistribute wealth. The government controls the army, the police, and the means of extreme violence; that is the ultimate source of government power. This is what we Libertarians object to, the use of violence to alter the outcome in an otherwise voluntary system.
How, pray tell, do you maintain this idiotic notion that the USA doesn't suffer from high prices?
High in whose estimation? If prices are higher than they otherwise would be because of poor government policies, as they often are in Europe, then that is an issue. I have a few Italian friends with family still living over in Italy and they tell stories of how prices for even the basic necessities are rising much faster than wages. For example, a quart of milk might cost between 6-8 Euros while wages may be only 4-5 Euros per hour after taxes at the minimum. In Italy they talk about the "third week problem" where a household has spent all of its available income for the month before the third week arrives. Perhaps now you can see why so many honest and hard working Italians have come to America instead of remaining in Italy.
Please try to understand that Libertarians have positions distinct from that of the Republicans or the Conservatives. We have many of the same goals that most Americans have; The difference is that we do not believe that using the power of government, which is to say the power of force, to achieve those goals is the right approach. The desire for the government to "step in" is perhaps understandable because many people are impatient for "good things" to be done, but ultimately the government will fail to deliver on those promises and we will be right back where we started (or worse) instead of making persistent and steady, if slow, progress towards those goals.
I like the model used by The Economist and the Wall Street Journal, where much of the content is available free and is actually original journalism or thorough research which proves the quality of the publication in general and makes the paid "premium" content all the more attractive. If the content is good enough then people will pay provided that the price is reasonable, but it must consistently add value and rise above the muck that is simply replaying the Reuters or BBC news wires split into too many pages of advertisements.
Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been.
Which brings up a good point about the socialist policies and larger centralized governments typically favored in European Democracies. The more that power and national wealth are centralized in the hands of the national government the greater the incentive and opportunity for corruption, patronage, and undue insider influence to occur. In fact, many of the wealthy families of Europe have maintained their fortunes, at least in part by, successfully manipulating these national governments through patronage and corrupt bargains with government officials and elected representatives. This is one of the reasons why the Libertarians amongst us oppose the massive expansion of the Federal Government here in the United States and increased government spending; we do not believe that the corruption which exists in Europe is a desirable import for the United States. Those who believe that they will "punish the wealthy" need only look to Europe to see that the wealthy will largely keep their wealth while the middle class chafes under high unemployment, high prices for consumer goods and high taxes.
I'd personally rather spend more of my time designing applications and less time hammering out the plumbing.
This can already be achieved through use of proper abstractions, design patterns, and Inversion of Control containers. I would argue that this is a more modern and elegant solution than the sorts of "code generation" proposed by the CASE tools. IMHO, automatic code generation is often a brute force solution to problems where better abstractions would result in a more elegant and simple solution. Personally, I prefer elegance in code rather than ugly brute force tool use, but maybe that is just me.
Please mod the parent up. When does virtualization become like the hypervisor OS dog chasing its own tail?
Virtualization can be valuable in this context yes, but with proper Test Driven Development, Inversion of Control containers, and object mocking frameworks it should be possible to do most of the testing without having to spin up an entire virtual simulation of the execution environment. Combine this with build and deployment scripting and continuous integration for a really first-class development operation.
Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the future
This is not always as easy as it first sounds. Often, the state of the object as it existed at some point in the past must be preserved, even if that is not the present state of the object as of that date in the past. If you are confused, then take a look at Martin Fowler's article on Temporal Objects for an introduction to how deep the rabbit hole goes with "effective dating".
Any interface that allows a user to create a new database entry MUST provide a method to merge duplicate entries.
Again, combine this with effective dating and you have an interface that is so advanced that it will probably confuse most users even if it is technically implemented correctly.
computer assisted ERP is one of those ideas that sounds good in principle, but often falls short in practice. Not everyone using the ERP system is going to be an engineer after all; so it is unreasonable to expect that level of sophistication and understanding, even though that may be necessary in order to get real value out of an ERP system.
Second question, how long do you think gasoline prices in the US will stay where they are?
Perhaps longer than you might otherwise believe. There are costs associated with owning a private vehicle, above and beyond the price of gasoline, that put such ownership out of reach for substantial numbers of people living outside the United States; especially in developing nations where such personal non-work vehicles remain a luxury. In Europe, where high taxes and extensive regulations are the rule rather than the exception, private vehicle ownership and its attendant fuel use is also discouraged. The high European gasoline taxes act like a subsidy for US gasoline consumers because they artificially reduce gasoline demand in Europe below what it would be if the taxes weren't so high. In fact a combination of these factors has helped the US to enjoy relatively lower gasoline prices for decades or at least low compared to what they might otherwise be in the absence of European taxes or more substantial consumer growth in developing nations. These factors may change going forward (Indian and Chinese consumers may own and operate more vehicles in the future, but I doubt that the European nations will cut the gas levies), but IMHO the change may not come as quickly as you seem to be suggesting.
I remember reading about buses that captured braking energy by compressing nitrogen gas and then using it immediately to help get rolling again.
Its called a pneumatic actuator and it is not a new idea. One of the major disadvantages of these pneumatic actuators is the release of compressed gases back into the atmosphere and the associated staccato noise. If you want to have an idea of how that sounds then just remember the last time you heard a pneumatic jackhammer being used or a jake brake engaged by a trucker on a downhill grade. There is also the additional weight and mechanical complexity of having this system and connecting it to the drive shaft so that it can drive or add power to the next standing start. This might make sense in a large commercial vehicle, like a bus or commercial truck, but probably not as much in a smaller passenger vehicle where weight, size, complexity and cost are more determining factors.
Exactly. The Prius boosters here on Slashdot are always talking up hybrid cars and the alleged "savings" that can be achieved by owning a hybrid vehicle, but they often leave out of the discussion opportunity costs and present value of future savings vs increased upfront costs. Hybrids have never penciled out so far, even during the peak gas prices of the summer of 2006. IMHO, there is no way that a strictly economic argument can be made for driving a hybrid car right now; Those who chose to drive one anyway do so for other reasons, mainly having to do with economic utility (i.e. enjoyment they derive from having that "green chic" look and feel). If one derives enough additional pleasure from hybrid or electric vehicle ownership to make up the difference in cost then it might be worth it for that individual, but can anyone here honestly say that they derive thousands of dollars worth of additional enjoyment from "being green" and driving an electric or hybrid vehicle? I know that I can't and so I don't own one.
Do the layers of indirection really matter if the result is the same?
The problem with the "well-rounded" argument is that eventually it becomes impossible to achieve a higher level in science without intensive focus, study and specialization; largely to the exclusion of other distractions. Many non-engineers have difficulty understanding the sort of mental commitment that comes with pursuing a professional career in science or engineering. They simply refuse to believe that one's career can use up so much of ones otherwise "free" time (my former personal trainer was in this category), but that is the discipline that we must accept in order to meet the demands of our chosen profession. Otherwise, what is the point? We might as well get our MBAs, sell rip-off "investments" and then laugh at the suckers who trusted us with their money in the first place around drinks at a tropical resort.
We need to invest in our future by investing in our brightest minds and steering them towards occupations where they can make a lasting difference in the world.
They present US system of primary and secondary education basically ensures that this never happens. Here in the US we are so concerned about equality of outcome in education that we often fail to direct the needed resources towards advancing the most promising students to their full potential. Instead, smart kids who would pass on their own anyway are neglected while remedial students are brought up to minimum standard. In practice this means that by the time the dumbest students are barely caught up there is nothing left in the budget to advance the smart ones. Other countries identify promising students through various testing methods and then spend more on them and less on others. This may be more efficient, but it is politically quite impossible here in the United States.