Capitalism is the idea that people are free to participate economically however they see fit. No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to buy a product or service. You do so of your own free will after (hopefully) use some of your scarce brain cells to compare your options. And if you don't like your options, you're free to create your own, market it, and try to put your competition out of business.
Communism is the idea that we are all in this together...and that nobody under any circumstances should ever try to achieve, succeed, stand out, or try to do better than anyone else. If you do, you receive no reward, just the "thanks" of "society"...which on a large scale means practically nothing. You can work harder, but you gain no benefit for doing so. In fact, quite the contrary: you can slack all day and, in a truly Communist society, you rate no penalty. After all, if you own nothing, nothing can be taken from you. Sounds like a wonderful place to live if you're lazy or unable to compete. It also sounds like a great place for Capitalists to completely dominate in the long run, as the non-competing Communists will simply stagnate. I think that's already happened somewhere...hmmm...well, it'll come to me sooner or later.
We are the evil ones. The world should fight tooth and nail against us until we change or die, because it's the right thing to do.
You smug, stupid bastard. You sit there typing on a computer invented in a capitalist company, running software created by capitalists, surfing an Internet created by capitalists. Nearly every facet of the comfortable life you currently live can be traced to an invention, product, or service created by capitalists. Yet you're too stubborn and naive to be the slightest bit grateful. You should (but won't) try to consider what this world might be like if all the capitalists and their competitive natures were removed from it, and you were forced to live in the Dark Ages once more. Alas, people far smarter and more mature than you prevent such a catastrophe from occurring, and you no doubt despise them for it.
Anyone who brings 'human nature' into a political argument is a drooling retard. Just because YOU are an ultra-competitive asshole, don't project your weakness onto everyone else.
Spoken like a true slacker! Yes, if you can't compete with your betters, by God you should tear them down and keep them from ever performing better than the lowest common denominator of society! Yes! That's the way to a glorious human future where everyone is completely equal.
Go read "Harrison Bergeron" and try...try...try to understand the utter foolishness of your comment.
That's socialism. Communism is a derivative of socialism, and I'm yet to see it done in a non-authoritarian style.
The fact that such a dreamy concept as Communism has failed to come about spontaneously -- despite being espoused by many throughout history -- might tip you off to the idea that Communism doesn't -- and can't -- work. It requires too many people to be too selfless, and that goes completely against human nature. As a general rule, people are unable to visualize "the good of society" above "the good of the self."
Now if you can find some way to breed humans that think like a little ant colony then perhaps you're making progress towards the dream of Communism. I, for one, find such a concept repellent.
We are in anything but the "perfect capitalist society." In fact, the very industry you're using as an example -- the U.S. car industry -- is perhaps the most anti-capitalist example you could come up with. Rife with union rules, strangled by regulation, and slathered with a healthy dose of stupid management, the U.S. car industry is a shining example of what happens when capitalism is ignored in favor of politics.
The U.S. car industry as we have known is hopefully going to die. It deserves to die so something better can succeed it. That's the essence of capitalism: bad ideas and methods fail, better ones rise to replace them. The only thing that can stop this natural -- and long overdue -- process is government taking it over. It will still fail even after that, just like Social Security is going to fail. But it will fail long after the current administration is out of office, and they'd rather prop up UAW votes now in favor of screwing the taxpayer later.
Everyone with a bit of knowledge knows that democracy only works in populations up to about 6500 people.
No, democracies only work until a politician comes along that says "hey, if 51% of you vote for me, I'll raise taxes on the other 49% so you can just lay around all day and do nothing."
Once voters figure out they can use the ballot box to raid someone else's wallet, there is no turning back. With the latest election, we have officially reached -- and passed -- that point. It's all downhill from here until one day, the tax burden on the few remaining people in the productive class becomes too crushing for them to consider it worthwhile to produce. Thus, they give up and join the moochers, and the whole damn thing collapses.
Yes the insane or otherwise unpredictable... It's easy to label the "enemy" as such, but the fact is that they have to be somewhat competent and predictable to run a country... if not a bit paranoid.
So by your reasoning, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were all "competent...if not a bit paranoid." I'm sure the millions who died under their "competent" rule feel so much better knowing that their murderers were just "a bit paranoid" instead of being sociopathic megalomaniacs.
Look, Kim Jong-il is a barking mad nutjob. But he happens to be a barking mad nutjob with nukes, an enormous army, and a secret police apparatus that would make the KGB look like Amnesty International. He maintains his power not by being a "competent" leader but by torturing and murdering anyone who shows the slightest shred of disloyalty to his regime. To call him "competent" and "a bit paranoid" is, quite frankly, offensive to the very terms.
You are, of course, completely forgetting that unless you drive a race car to work, the compression ratio is set to work with gasoline, not alcohol. And it makes no economic sense for any car company to make a vehicle that runs only on ethanol because of the scarcity of ethanol infrastructure.
Now if you're a tuner, drive a turbocharged car, and don't mind fiddling with programming a waste gate, you can raise your effective compression basically by letting the turbo spin a bit more before opening the waste gate. But I'd posit that there are very few gas-power turbo cars out there right now (most are diesel), and an even smaller number of those care to fool around with tuning for ethanol.
Just because the government makes mistakes does not mean the free market doesn't, there's plenty of mistakes both of them make and I wish the anti-government types would realize just how many free market failurs there out out there.
The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail. This is actually a good thing, as it weeds out (most of) the idiots, making room for others with better ideas to flourish. There is no permanent winner, as even today's top of the heap must innovate and compete or risk being dethroned tomorrow. Even Microsoft, for all its seeming omnipotence and monopolistic behavior, would have failed long ago had it not finally gotten off its duff to address -- however imperfectly -- things like Linux, OS/2, WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and so forth. It's not perfect, and such "market evolutionary pressure" doesn't always happen quickly, but if left alone (i.e. free of government interference) it will always self-correct and product a superior situation.
Government, on the other hand, has no such failsafe. Inefficient, ineffective, insufficient programs are the norm, not the exception. Why? Government is the only state-sanctioned monopoly that can have no real competition, short of a voter revolution. If government fails to make its budget, it does not go bankrupt, it merely raises taxes until the numbers meet up again. Or prints money and waits for hyperinflation to effectively shrink a multi-trillion dollar debt while utterly destroying the life savings of its citizens. Or both, as we're eagerly doing today under Obamanomics. But short of going belly up entirely and leaving people in anarchy, government never has to worry about going out of business. It just has to worry about getting 51% of the voters to force the other 49% to pay more taxes to support them. And unlike a free market, government can legally use force to make you participate in their shoddy products and Ponzi schemes like Social Security. Free markets must convince you to voluntarily consume their products instead of a competitor's.
If someone is obviously and intentionally harassing someone else, I have no problem with them having legal recourse.
Oh really? Define "obviously and intentionally harassing" in a legalistic manner that is so clear cut that it cannot be abused, misused, or given an extremely broad interpretation? If I post a scathing blog indicting the Ku Klux Klan and a Klan member finds it harassing, can my blog be shut down? Last year, the Canadian government prosecuted someone for "hate speech" because they were critical of Islam, and some Muslims found it offensive. Do you really want to start down this road?
Folks like you scare me. You think just because *you* can easily define things like "harassment" that everybody else conforms to your definition of the word. You don't think beyond your own idea of the concept, and you're willing to trade First Amendment protections because of it. Frightening. Truly frightening.
"So, if the government forcibly took $500 million from working families nationwide to spend on unneeded pork project in some Congress-critter's district what would you buy and how would you build it?
"socialism" doesn't mean what the bulk of americans (ie "you") think it means. Most of Europe, Canada and South America are "socialist".
Oh, you mean those bastions of freedom, economic liberty, and developers of science like Europe (see France's unemployment riots, Germany's massive debts, the UK's slide from Empire to Third Rate Nation), Canada (whose citizens, fed up with "universal" healthcare, head south of the border to get critical medical care whenever they can), and South America (home to dictators, thugs, corruption, drugs, and crushing poverty). Yep! SOCIALISM! Gimme more of that!
I had several years where I didn't work and was free to do whatever I pleased. I volunteered with homeless advocacy groups and soup kitchens for 35 hours a week. It was some of the most fun I've had in my life.
Now try doing it 40 hours a week, every week, for the rest of your life. Suddenly your little "project" isn't so appealing anymore.
I give to charity, but I do it of my own free will to the charities I deem worthy of my time and money. If you feel differently, fine, that's your right. But don't come knocking on my door telling me how I need to be altruistic according to your standard, or Obama's standard, or anyone else's.
I probably pay more in taxes than you make in a year. When you get to the point where you're paying as much into the system as I am -- and getting as little out of it as I do -- then you can lecture me. Until then, shut the hell up and enjoy your free ride at my expense.
Liberals did not want the USA to lose, we believed the USA was likely to, and for that reason pursuing it was a bad policy.
Funny how Obama voted against the surge, then refused to acknowledge the success of it. Now he's redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. What makes him able to redeploy said troops? The success of the surge...you know, the one he voted against. The one Reid said had "failed." The one Pelosi and Murtha condemned. It would be damned hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
Whether you want to acknowledged it or not, there is a real difference between the liberal fear (circa 2000) that George Bush would pursue policies that would prove disastrous to the United States, and the current behavior of the Right, cheering for Democrats to fail so they can regain power.
You're right, there's a huge difference. Liberal ranting circa 2000 made it quite clear that America would fail anything it tried, so long as Bush was the one trying it. After all, Bush Stole The Election(tm)! He must be opposed! If the Democrats tried similar policies, however, they would, of course, wildly succeed. Really quite objective when you think about it. Not. Of course, you're forgetting that practically every Democrat in Congress at the time -- including our current Secretary of State -- voted in favor of giving Bush war powers. What did they think Bush was going to do, waggle his finger at Saddam and say "you've been a bad boy"?
As for the "current behavior of the right," the only thing we're hoping for is that Obama and the Democrats go ahead and overreach (which Democrats always do) sooner rather than later. Then we can make sure Phenomena Obamana is a one-term aberration before we cross so far into the socialist worker's paradise that it takes decades and a revolution to get us back out again. But with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, Obama has proven he can do an enormous amount of damage in a very short period of time. Don't think so? Just wait. You'll be paying for it shortly in the form of higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates, and stagnant economic growth. And your kids will be paying for it. And if Obama sticks around for another four years, their kids will likely be paying for it as well, assuming we're not all owned lock stock and barrel by the Chinese by then. You'll get your "Universal Health Care", and it will be the best lowest-common-denominator care you can find, on par with the likes of third-world nations like Mexico, home of the swine flu. Liberal ideology has never squared all that well with reality, but that doesn't keep you from trying anyway, does it?
Find any Democrat of any national significance who has actually made a statement about wanting a collapse, please.
Which proves nothing other than the fact that said Democrats are smart enough to know that saying what they actually are thinking (and planning...and implementing as we speak) would be counterproductive to their ultimate goals, that being converting the U.S. into a socialist worker's paradise.
The pity is, while we, the most capitalistic and wealthy nation on the planet, are rushing headlong towards something resembling socialism (which has never brought any country that ever tried it to anything remotely resembling the wealth an stature the U.S. has enjoyed for nearly a century), the former socialist and communist nations are rushing headlong towards something resembling capitalism. The end result will be a diminution of U.S. economic, political, and military power throughout the globe, a power vacuum that will be filled by other nations far less savory than ours. Perhaps that's why the countries who stand the most to gain from our downfall are the ones cheering the loudest for our newest, youngest, most inexperienced, most liberal President.
We've had to listen to them for 8 years now. Look where that got us.
Our current economic woes are rooted in a mortgage crisis. Perhaps you've never heard of the Community Reinvestment Act, passed by the Clinton administration? Or maybe you've heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Perhaps you've never heard of connections between Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and folks like, say, Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Banking Committee? I'm sure you've heard of Barack Obama, who got tons of campaign contributions from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, right? Of course, if you bothered to look, you'd know what I'm talking about. Or perhaps you have looked and are practicing the art of willful ignorance.
Regardless, while the Republicans certainly share some blame for the current crisis (i.e. not stopping Democrats from fomenting it), the Democrats are squarely to blame for creating the mortgage meltdown. But I'm sure it's more comforting for you to just blame Republicans.
As for the foreign situation (i.e. Iraq), I can blame Bush/Cheney for not pursuing it strongly enough (i.e. enough troops). However, they were fighting a two-front war: one in Iraq, the other in America against a liberal press and a Democratic Party that would rather America lose a war than have a Republican get credit for winning one.
As others have pointed out, there could be good reasons for what Bush did and for why Obama is continuing it.
Funny that I didn't hear a much of this when Bush was President and Obama was a Senator. Funny how your perspective changes when your guy is in power. Hint: it's called hypocrisy.
I don't happen to believe that those reasons could really justify wholesale spying on Americans, but apparently both administrations do.
A gross mis-characterization. Perhaps you're unaware that the "F" in "FISA" stands for "Foreign." In order to be "spied upon" as you put it, the American half of the conversation must be being held with a foreign party known or suspected to be involved in terrorism. It cannot be used to spy on your conversation with Grandma about what to have for Sunday dinner, despite your most urgent attempts to paint it as such. Here's another hint: if you have to mis-characterize your point in order to make it effective, perhaps your point is ineffective to begin with?
Please explain why this should be seen as opportunism rather than simply a reversal of opinion when presented with the all the information that most people will never know about.
And where were you when all the "Bush Lied! Kids Died!" crowd were chanting how Chimpy W. Hitler was shredding the Constitution and sending black helicopters in the night to trample on unsuspecting Americans? Funny how you got all rational when your guy got in the office. Again, the hint: it's called hypocrisy.
It seems to me that they've overstepped their authority granted by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, which is the arbiter of the Constitution in America, disagrees with you. Somehow I think they know a bit more on the subject than you do.
Makes me wonder what's going on that we don't know about and why they see something like this as necessary. Maybe we're in even worse shape than it looks.
Perhaps we are. Maybe that's why Bush had the policies in place that he did. Which means you and your ilk have been ridiculously off-base in criticizing him for it over the last eight years. Worse, by weakening Bush's political support, you've (by proxy) weakened American foreign policy, which in turn weakens American power, which in turn invites rogue nations to get bolder and more strident. In essence, by doing your "patriot dissent" song and dance, you've made the world a more dangerous place. Gee, how can I ever thank you?
Agreed. Owning up to your mistakes, whether you're a company or an individual, is a sign of dependability and reliability. I don't know about you, but for me that's a major factor when I purchase something.
But that's the point: Intel hasn't owned up to any mistake. It's issued a new firmware with the nebulous comment that it "increases performance." There's no mention of it fixing anything that was wrong. Intel remains publicly mute on anything being wrong with the prior firmware despite numerous benchmarks and tests showing otherwise.
If this is "owning up to your mistakes" then I'm going to have to change the definition of the phrase.
Let's face it: It was 1994. Most folks were running simple spreadsheets and simple games on Windows 3.11 at the time. The odds that they would have actually been doing enough floating point number crunching to actually hit the thing was about the same as hitting the lotto while being struck by lightning.
While you're correct that "most folks" were not going to encounter the bug, the very people that needed the (then) high-end performance of a Pentium were the ones most likely to encounter it. I was rendering 3D animations on 3D Studio for DOS back then, and it was amazingly heavy on the FPU.
The fact that it was fixed AND QA'd in 3 weeks proves it was easy to fix!
You're assuming it's really fixed. Or that it was fixed without introducing new, yet-to-be-discovered problems. Technological history is replete with examples of "quick fixes" that ultimately had ancillary negative impacts. What if Intel fixed the issue by altering the wear leveling algorithm...thus shortening the projected life of the device? We wouldn't know about it until much later, and by then it would be too late.
Note I'm not saying this is the case. Far from it. I'm just saying that it comes down to two possibilities:
- it was a quick fix that will have no detrimental effects to the product, which somehow magically escaped Intel's legendarily effective quality control processes and made it into a flagship product.
- it was not a quick fix, it was a rushed fix that may have not solved the problem (it may only delay the onset) and may ultimately cause other issues we have yet to encounter or even understand.
Sulu: (low voice) Phasers locked. Khan: Time's up, Admiral! Kirk: Here it comes. Now, Mr. Spock.
That "here it comes" was just priceless. I know everyone makes fun of the obligatory "KHAN!" scream, but ST:II was full of excellent dialogue. Of course, having Ricardo Montalban did wonders for the movie every time he uttered a line. Probably the best ST villain ever. All the "take over the world" or "destroy the world" plots are pretty hollow, but revenge is indeed a dish best served...cold.
What happened to all the good writers who gave us ST:II, ST:VI, and ST:FC? Were they fired for an excess of talent and replaced with worthless hacks from the Batman-and-Robin school of screenwriting?
You know, I was not a big Bush fan, but I also never drank the kool-aid that he's the devil incarnate either. Now that we're seeing Obama adopt some of the same positions after a careful and studied review of the facts available to the Office of the President, there are two possibilities to consider. (1) Obama is Bush III. (2) zOMG just because Bush did it doesn't automatically make it wrong and evil.
Then you should consider listening to the conservatives next time, as they saw this coming a mile away. As a Libertarian, I'm not the slightest bit surprised to see Obama take this stance. His entire -- but brief -- political career is replete with examples of such opportunism.
Sorry to be such a cynic, but the truth hurts. See my tagline.
Alternatively, use an OS that runs the apps you need. If that is not a solution, then write to the devs!
Writing devs doesn't do a darned bit of good. You need to demonstrate that there are enough paying customers on a given platform to defray the costs of developing for and supporting that platform. They tried Linux, and they couldn't make money doing it. The WINE solution is perfectly usable and was superior to the Linux client in performance anyway.
Folks need to understand that supporting a platform is a decision based on economics, not religion, geek street cred, or write-in campaigns. Put your dollars (or euros, or whatever) on the line and you'll get the support you want. If not, don't blame the devs.
Once you arm yourself, you ARE by definition now a threat to everyone else.
How is someone a threat just by being armed? You're confusing ability with intent. I have the *ability* to kill you with my bare hands. Is my existence now a threat to you? To everyone? See how completely stupid your argument seems when faced with something as uncomfortable as a logical analysis?
Your idiocy reminds me of a female reporter interviewing a Boy Scout scoutmaster about teaching Scouts how to use a rifle on a rifle range. She was aghast that chillllllldrreeeenn were handling firearms. The scoutmaster responded (quite reasonably) that scouts were being taught gun safety, marksmanship, and respect of firearms. She then blurted "but you're equipping them with the skills needed to be mass murderers!" The scoutmaster responded (again, quite reasonably) that the reporter was "equipped" to be a prostitute, so by her own logic she must *be* a prostitute. There was no further comment from the female reporter.
Thus my position is that the doctrine of self defense is actually antithetical to the best interests of all individuals in the real world.
OK, fine. Go practice your "position" in a nice, peace-loving country like Iran or North Korea. You'll be killed (because self-defense is "antithetical" to you) and we won't have to worry about your emotional angst cluttering up the real world. And if we all did exactly what you suggest (give up the doctrine of self-defense) then the world would be taken over by the North Korea types and we'd all be in barbaric despotism. You have the ability to throw stones (metaphorically, of course, since I know you abhor any type of violence) at the system *because* the system exists to protect your right to throw stones (again, I apologize for the horrific display of metaphorical violence in this sentence). If the system of self-defense were removed, your ability to dissent would go right along with it. You strive for a nirvana that is not possible, the place where all the lunches are free and nobody ever has to pay the tab.
Stalin had a wonderful phrase that described people like you: useful idiots. The sad thing is, I bet you vote.
we still have a President that believes he has the authority to spy on us
Actually, it's not just the President, it's also the Supreme Court. Or haven't you heard that it upheld FISA? Quit frothing. The government has no right or desire to spy on you. It does have the right to listen in on phone calls made from outside the U.S. to parties inside the U.S. if and when the call originates from a known or suspected terrorist. If you're getting calls from Al Queda, I don't give two damns what your end of the conversation sounds like but I damn sure want the other end listened to. If you don't like that, don't get calls from terrorist and you'll be just fine.
"Domestic Spying." What a load of crap. It's neither domestic nor is it spying. Quit trying to make it something it's not in order try and stir people up.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism is the idea that people are free to participate economically however they see fit. No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to buy a product or service. You do so of your own free will after (hopefully) use some of your scarce brain cells to compare your options. And if you don't like your options, you're free to create your own, market it, and try to put your competition out of business.
Communism is the idea that we are all in this together...and that nobody under any circumstances should ever try to achieve, succeed, stand out, or try to do better than anyone else. If you do, you receive no reward, just the "thanks" of "society"...which on a large scale means practically nothing. You can work harder, but you gain no benefit for doing so. In fact, quite the contrary: you can slack all day and, in a truly Communist society, you rate no penalty. After all, if you own nothing, nothing can be taken from you. Sounds like a wonderful place to live if you're lazy or unable to compete. It also sounds like a great place for Capitalists to completely dominate in the long run, as the non-competing Communists will simply stagnate. I think that's already happened somewhere...hmmm...well, it'll come to me sooner or later.
We are the evil ones. The world should fight tooth and nail against us until we change or die, because it's the right thing to do.
You smug, stupid bastard. You sit there typing on a computer invented in a capitalist company, running software created by capitalists, surfing an Internet created by capitalists. Nearly every facet of the comfortable life you currently live can be traced to an invention, product, or service created by capitalists. Yet you're too stubborn and naive to be the slightest bit grateful. You should (but won't) try to consider what this world might be like if all the capitalists and their competitive natures were removed from it, and you were forced to live in the Dark Ages once more. Alas, people far smarter and more mature than you prevent such a catastrophe from occurring, and you no doubt despise them for it.
Anyone who brings 'human nature' into a political argument is a drooling retard. Just because YOU are an ultra-competitive asshole, don't project your weakness onto everyone else.
Spoken like a true slacker! Yes, if you can't compete with your betters, by God you should tear them down and keep them from ever performing better than the lowest common denominator of society! Yes! That's the way to a glorious human future where everyone is completely equal.
Go read "Harrison Bergeron" and try...try...try to understand the utter foolishness of your comment.
That's socialism. Communism is a derivative of socialism, and I'm yet to see it done in a non-authoritarian style.
The fact that such a dreamy concept as Communism has failed to come about spontaneously -- despite being espoused by many throughout history -- might tip you off to the idea that Communism doesn't -- and can't -- work. It requires too many people to be too selfless, and that goes completely against human nature. As a general rule, people are unable to visualize "the good of society" above "the good of the self."
Now if you can find some way to breed humans that think like a little ant colony then perhaps you're making progress towards the dream of Communism. I, for one, find such a concept repellent.
We are in anything but the "perfect capitalist society." In fact, the very industry you're using as an example -- the U.S. car industry -- is perhaps the most anti-capitalist example you could come up with. Rife with union rules, strangled by regulation, and slathered with a healthy dose of stupid management, the U.S. car industry is a shining example of what happens when capitalism is ignored in favor of politics.
The U.S. car industry as we have known is hopefully going to die. It deserves to die so something better can succeed it. That's the essence of capitalism: bad ideas and methods fail, better ones rise to replace them. The only thing that can stop this natural -- and long overdue -- process is government taking it over. It will still fail even after that, just like Social Security is going to fail. But it will fail long after the current administration is out of office, and they'd rather prop up UAW votes now in favor of screwing the taxpayer later.
Everyone with a bit of knowledge knows that democracy only works in populations up to about 6500 people.
No, democracies only work until a politician comes along that says "hey, if 51% of you vote for me, I'll raise taxes on the other 49% so you can just lay around all day and do nothing."
Once voters figure out they can use the ballot box to raid someone else's wallet, there is no turning back. With the latest election, we have officially reached -- and passed -- that point. It's all downhill from here until one day, the tax burden on the few remaining people in the productive class becomes too crushing for them to consider it worthwhile to produce. Thus, they give up and join the moochers, and the whole damn thing collapses.
Yes the insane or otherwise unpredictable... It's easy to label the "enemy" as such, but the fact is that they have to be somewhat competent and predictable to run a country... if not a bit paranoid.
So by your reasoning, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were all "competent...if not a bit paranoid." I'm sure the millions who died under their "competent" rule feel so much better knowing that their murderers were just "a bit paranoid" instead of being sociopathic megalomaniacs.
Look, Kim Jong-il is a barking mad nutjob. But he happens to be a barking mad nutjob with nukes, an enormous army, and a secret police apparatus that would make the KGB look like Amnesty International. He maintains his power not by being a "competent" leader but by torturing and murdering anyone who shows the slightest shred of disloyalty to his regime. To call him "competent" and "a bit paranoid" is, quite frankly, offensive to the very terms.
You are, of course, completely forgetting that unless you drive a race car to work, the compression ratio is set to work with gasoline, not alcohol. And it makes no economic sense for any car company to make a vehicle that runs only on ethanol because of the scarcity of ethanol infrastructure.
Now if you're a tuner, drive a turbocharged car, and don't mind fiddling with programming a waste gate, you can raise your effective compression basically by letting the turbo spin a bit more before opening the waste gate. But I'd posit that there are very few gas-power turbo cars out there right now (most are diesel), and an even smaller number of those care to fool around with tuning for ethanol.
Just because the government makes mistakes does not mean the free market doesn't, there's plenty of mistakes both of them make and I wish the anti-government types would realize just how many free market failurs there out out there.
The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail. This is actually a good thing, as it weeds out (most of) the idiots, making room for others with better ideas to flourish. There is no permanent winner, as even today's top of the heap must innovate and compete or risk being dethroned tomorrow. Even Microsoft, for all its seeming omnipotence and monopolistic behavior, would have failed long ago had it not finally gotten off its duff to address -- however imperfectly -- things like Linux, OS/2, WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and so forth. It's not perfect, and such "market evolutionary pressure" doesn't always happen quickly, but if left alone (i.e. free of government interference) it will always self-correct and product a superior situation.
Government, on the other hand, has no such failsafe. Inefficient, ineffective, insufficient programs are the norm, not the exception. Why? Government is the only state-sanctioned monopoly that can have no real competition, short of a voter revolution. If government fails to make its budget, it does not go bankrupt, it merely raises taxes until the numbers meet up again. Or prints money and waits for hyperinflation to effectively shrink a multi-trillion dollar debt while utterly destroying the life savings of its citizens. Or both, as we're eagerly doing today under Obamanomics. But short of going belly up entirely and leaving people in anarchy, government never has to worry about going out of business. It just has to worry about getting 51% of the voters to force the other 49% to pay more taxes to support them. And unlike a free market, government can legally use force to make you participate in their shoddy products and Ponzi schemes like Social Security. Free markets must convince you to voluntarily consume their products instead of a competitor's.
If someone is obviously and intentionally harassing someone else, I have no problem with them having legal recourse.
Oh really? Define "obviously and intentionally harassing" in a legalistic manner that is so clear cut that it cannot be abused, misused, or given an extremely broad interpretation? If I post a scathing blog indicting the Ku Klux Klan and a Klan member finds it harassing, can my blog be shut down? Last year, the Canadian government prosecuted someone for "hate speech" because they were critical of Islam, and some Muslims found it offensive. Do you really want to start down this road?
Folks like you scare me. You think just because *you* can easily define things like "harassment" that everybody else conforms to your definition of the word. You don't think beyond your own idea of the concept, and you're willing to trade First Amendment protections because of it. Frightening. Truly frightening.
"So, if the government forcibly took $500 million from working families nationwide to spend on unneeded pork project in some Congress-critter's district what would you buy and how would you build it?
There, I fixed that for you.
"socialism" doesn't mean what the bulk of americans (ie "you") think it means. Most of Europe, Canada and South America are "socialist".
Oh, you mean those bastions of freedom, economic liberty, and developers of science like Europe (see France's unemployment riots, Germany's massive debts, the UK's slide from Empire to Third Rate Nation), Canada (whose citizens, fed up with "universal" healthcare, head south of the border to get critical medical care whenever they can), and South America (home to dictators, thugs, corruption, drugs, and crushing poverty). Yep! SOCIALISM! Gimme more of that!
I had several years where I didn't work and was free to do whatever I pleased. I volunteered with homeless advocacy groups and soup kitchens for 35 hours a week. It was some of the most fun I've had in my life.
Now try doing it 40 hours a week, every week, for the rest of your life. Suddenly your little "project" isn't so appealing anymore.
I give to charity, but I do it of my own free will to the charities I deem worthy of my time and money. If you feel differently, fine, that's your right. But don't come knocking on my door telling me how I need to be altruistic according to your standard, or Obama's standard, or anyone else's.
I probably pay more in taxes than you make in a year. When you get to the point where you're paying as much into the system as I am -- and getting as little out of it as I do -- then you can lecture me. Until then, shut the hell up and enjoy your free ride at my expense.
Liberals did not want the USA to lose, we believed the USA was likely to, and for that reason pursuing it was a bad policy.
Funny how Obama voted against the surge, then refused to acknowledge the success of it. Now he's redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. What makes him able to redeploy said troops? The success of the surge...you know, the one he voted against. The one Reid said had "failed." The one Pelosi and Murtha condemned. It would be damned hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
Whether you want to acknowledged it or not, there is a real difference between the liberal fear (circa 2000) that George Bush would pursue policies that would prove disastrous to the United States, and the current behavior of the Right, cheering for Democrats to fail so they can regain power.
You're right, there's a huge difference. Liberal ranting circa 2000 made it quite clear that America would fail anything it tried, so long as Bush was the one trying it. After all, Bush Stole The Election(tm)! He must be opposed! If the Democrats tried similar policies, however, they would, of course, wildly succeed. Really quite objective when you think about it. Not. Of course, you're forgetting that practically every Democrat in Congress at the time -- including our current Secretary of State -- voted in favor of giving Bush war powers. What did they think Bush was going to do, waggle his finger at Saddam and say "you've been a bad boy"?
As for the "current behavior of the right," the only thing we're hoping for is that Obama and the Democrats go ahead and overreach (which Democrats always do) sooner rather than later. Then we can make sure Phenomena Obamana is a one-term aberration before we cross so far into the socialist worker's paradise that it takes decades and a revolution to get us back out again. But with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, Obama has proven he can do an enormous amount of damage in a very short period of time. Don't think so? Just wait. You'll be paying for it shortly in the form of higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates, and stagnant economic growth. And your kids will be paying for it. And if Obama sticks around for another four years, their kids will likely be paying for it as well, assuming we're not all owned lock stock and barrel by the Chinese by then. You'll get your "Universal Health Care", and it will be the best lowest-common-denominator care you can find, on par with the likes of third-world nations like Mexico, home of the swine flu. Liberal ideology has never squared all that well with reality, but that doesn't keep you from trying anyway, does it?
Find any Democrat of any national significance who has actually made a statement about wanting a collapse, please.
Which proves nothing other than the fact that said Democrats are smart enough to know that saying what they actually are thinking (and planning...and implementing as we speak) would be counterproductive to their ultimate goals, that being converting the U.S. into a socialist worker's paradise.
The pity is, while we, the most capitalistic and wealthy nation on the planet, are rushing headlong towards something resembling socialism (which has never brought any country that ever tried it to anything remotely resembling the wealth an stature the U.S. has enjoyed for nearly a century), the former socialist and communist nations are rushing headlong towards something resembling capitalism. The end result will be a diminution of U.S. economic, political, and military power throughout the globe, a power vacuum that will be filled by other nations far less savory than ours. Perhaps that's why the countries who stand the most to gain from our downfall are the ones cheering the loudest for our newest, youngest, most inexperienced, most liberal President.
We've had to listen to them for 8 years now. Look where that got us.
Our current economic woes are rooted in a mortgage crisis. Perhaps you've never heard of the Community Reinvestment Act, passed by the Clinton administration? Or maybe you've heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Perhaps you've never heard of connections between Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and folks like, say, Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Banking Committee? I'm sure you've heard of Barack Obama, who got tons of campaign contributions from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, right? Of course, if you bothered to look, you'd know what I'm talking about. Or perhaps you have looked and are practicing the art of willful ignorance.
Regardless, while the Republicans certainly share some blame for the current crisis (i.e. not stopping Democrats from fomenting it), the Democrats are squarely to blame for creating the mortgage meltdown. But I'm sure it's more comforting for you to just blame Republicans.
As for the foreign situation (i.e. Iraq), I can blame Bush/Cheney for not pursuing it strongly enough (i.e. enough troops). However, they were fighting a two-front war: one in Iraq, the other in America against a liberal press and a Democratic Party that would rather America lose a war than have a Republican get credit for winning one.
As others have pointed out, there could be good reasons for what Bush did and for why Obama is continuing it.
Funny that I didn't hear a much of this when Bush was President and Obama was a Senator. Funny how your perspective changes when your guy is in power. Hint: it's called hypocrisy.
I don't happen to believe that those reasons could really justify wholesale spying on Americans, but apparently both administrations do.
A gross mis-characterization. Perhaps you're unaware that the "F" in "FISA" stands for "Foreign." In order to be "spied upon" as you put it, the American half of the conversation must be being held with a foreign party known or suspected to be involved in terrorism. It cannot be used to spy on your conversation with Grandma about what to have for Sunday dinner, despite your most urgent attempts to paint it as such. Here's another hint: if you have to mis-characterize your point in order to make it effective, perhaps your point is ineffective to begin with?
Please explain why this should be seen as opportunism rather than simply a reversal of opinion when presented with the all the information that most people will never know about.
And where were you when all the "Bush Lied! Kids Died!" crowd were chanting how Chimpy W. Hitler was shredding the Constitution and sending black helicopters in the night to trample on unsuspecting Americans? Funny how you got all rational when your guy got in the office. Again, the hint: it's called hypocrisy.
It seems to me that they've overstepped their authority granted by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, which is the arbiter of the Constitution in America, disagrees with you. Somehow I think they know a bit more on the subject than you do.
Makes me wonder what's going on that we don't know about and why they see something like this as necessary. Maybe we're in even worse shape than it looks.
Perhaps we are. Maybe that's why Bush had the policies in place that he did. Which means you and your ilk have been ridiculously off-base in criticizing him for it over the last eight years. Worse, by weakening Bush's political support, you've (by proxy) weakened American foreign policy, which in turn weakens American power, which in turn invites rogue nations to get bolder and more strident. In essence, by doing your "patriot dissent" song and dance, you've made the world a more dangerous place. Gee, how can I ever thank you?
Agreed. Owning up to your mistakes, whether you're a company or an individual, is a sign of dependability and reliability. I don't know about you, but for me that's a major factor when I purchase something.
But that's the point: Intel hasn't owned up to any mistake. It's issued a new firmware with the nebulous comment that it "increases performance." There's no mention of it fixing anything that was wrong. Intel remains publicly mute on anything being wrong with the prior firmware despite numerous benchmarks and tests showing otherwise.
If this is "owning up to your mistakes" then I'm going to have to change the definition of the phrase.
Let's face it: It was 1994. Most folks were running simple spreadsheets and simple games on Windows 3.11 at the time. The odds that they would have actually been doing enough floating point number crunching to actually hit the thing was about the same as hitting the lotto while being struck by lightning.
While you're correct that "most folks" were not going to encounter the bug, the very people that needed the (then) high-end performance of a Pentium were the ones most likely to encounter it. I was rendering 3D animations on 3D Studio for DOS back then, and it was amazingly heavy on the FPU.
The fact that it was fixed AND QA'd in 3 weeks proves it was easy to fix!
You're assuming it's really fixed. Or that it was fixed without introducing new, yet-to-be-discovered problems. Technological history is replete with examples of "quick fixes" that ultimately had ancillary negative impacts. What if Intel fixed the issue by altering the wear leveling algorithm...thus shortening the projected life of the device? We wouldn't know about it until much later, and by then it would be too late.
Note I'm not saying this is the case. Far from it. I'm just saying that it comes down to two possibilities:
- it was a quick fix that will have no detrimental effects to the product, which somehow magically escaped Intel's legendarily effective quality control processes and made it into a flagship product.
- it was not a quick fix, it was a rushed fix that may have not solved the problem (it may only delay the onset) and may ultimately cause other issues we have yet to encounter or even understand.
Or how about:
Sulu: (low voice) Phasers locked.
Khan: Time's up, Admiral!
Kirk: Here it comes. Now, Mr. Spock.
That "here it comes" was just priceless. I know everyone makes fun of the obligatory "KHAN!" scream, but ST:II was full of excellent dialogue. Of course, having Ricardo Montalban did wonders for the movie every time he uttered a line. Probably the best ST villain ever. All the "take over the world" or "destroy the world" plots are pretty hollow, but revenge is indeed a dish best served...cold.
What happened to all the good writers who gave us ST:II, ST:VI, and ST:FC? Were they fired for an excess of talent and replaced with worthless hacks from the Batman-and-Robin school of screenwriting?
You know, I was not a big Bush fan, but I also never drank the kool-aid that he's the devil incarnate either. Now that we're seeing Obama adopt some of the same positions after a careful and studied review of the facts available to the Office of the President, there are two possibilities to consider. (1) Obama is Bush III. (2) zOMG just because Bush did it doesn't automatically make it wrong and evil.
Then you should consider listening to the conservatives next time, as they saw this coming a mile away. As a Libertarian, I'm not the slightest bit surprised to see Obama take this stance. His entire -- but brief -- political career is replete with examples of such opportunism.
Sorry to be such a cynic, but the truth hurts. See my tagline.
Alternatively, use an OS that runs the apps you need. If that is not a solution, then write to the devs!
Writing devs doesn't do a darned bit of good. You need to demonstrate that there are enough paying customers on a given platform to defray the costs of developing for and supporting that platform. They tried Linux, and they couldn't make money doing it. The WINE solution is perfectly usable and was superior to the Linux client in performance anyway.
Folks need to understand that supporting a platform is a decision based on economics, not religion, geek street cred, or write-in campaigns. Put your dollars (or euros, or whatever) on the line and you'll get the support you want. If not, don't blame the devs.
Odd question: does the USB device need to be on in order to charge? I ask because 100mA will eventually charge anything that's not consuming power.
Once you arm yourself, you ARE by definition now a threat to everyone else.
How is someone a threat just by being armed? You're confusing ability with intent. I have the *ability* to kill you with my bare hands. Is my existence now a threat to you? To everyone? See how completely stupid your argument seems when faced with something as uncomfortable as a logical analysis?
Your idiocy reminds me of a female reporter interviewing a Boy Scout scoutmaster about teaching Scouts how to use a rifle on a rifle range. She was aghast that chillllllldrreeeenn were handling firearms. The scoutmaster responded (quite reasonably) that scouts were being taught gun safety, marksmanship, and respect of firearms. She then blurted "but you're equipping them with the skills needed to be mass murderers!" The scoutmaster responded (again, quite reasonably) that the reporter was "equipped" to be a prostitute, so by her own logic she must *be* a prostitute. There was no further comment from the female reporter.
Thus my position is that the doctrine of self defense is actually antithetical to the best interests of all individuals in the real world.
OK, fine. Go practice your "position" in a nice, peace-loving country like Iran or North Korea. You'll be killed (because self-defense is "antithetical" to you) and we won't have to worry about your emotional angst cluttering up the real world. And if we all did exactly what you suggest (give up the doctrine of self-defense) then the world would be taken over by the North Korea types and we'd all be in barbaric despotism. You have the ability to throw stones (metaphorically, of course, since I know you abhor any type of violence) at the system *because* the system exists to protect your right to throw stones (again, I apologize for the horrific display of metaphorical violence in this sentence). If the system of self-defense were removed, your ability to dissent would go right along with it. You strive for a nirvana that is not possible, the place where all the lunches are free and nobody ever has to pay the tab.
Stalin had a wonderful phrase that described people like you: useful idiots. The sad thing is, I bet you vote.
we still have a President that believes he has the authority to spy on us
Actually, it's not just the President, it's also the Supreme Court. Or haven't you heard that it upheld FISA? Quit frothing. The government has no right or desire to spy on you. It does have the right to listen in on phone calls made from outside the U.S. to parties inside the U.S. if and when the call originates from a known or suspected terrorist. If you're getting calls from Al Queda, I don't give two damns what your end of the conversation sounds like but I damn sure want the other end listened to. If you don't like that, don't get calls from terrorist and you'll be just fine.
"Domestic Spying." What a load of crap. It's neither domestic nor is it spying. Quit trying to make it something it's not in order try and stir people up.
Not an engineer by any measuring stick I know of.
So being a nuclear engineer isn't being an engineer in your book? What's next? Is oral sex not really sex?
Oh, sorry...right party, wrong president.