You start off-kilter and just careen into a ditch of dumbness...
1. Here is one mathematical model of a way that memories could work.
The researchers did *not* start with that at all...
Here's where they started, from TFA:
Tononi’s key idea is that consciousness is phenomenon in which information is integrated in the brain in a way that cannot be broken down.
"cannot be broken down" but it can be modeled in a way that proves the theory
Here's how, note the distinction, from TFA:
Maguire and co begin with a couple of thought experiments that demonstrate the nature of integrated information in Tononi’s theory. They start by imagining the process of identifying chocolate by its smell. For a human, the conscious experience of smelling chocolate is unified with everything else that a person has smelled (or indeed seen, touched, heard and so on).
This is entirely different from the process of automatically identifying chocolate using an electronic nose, which measures many different smells and senses chocolate when it picks out the ones that match some predefined signature.
Here's why their model is not as you say...it is a different *schema* of a model, not just a variation of an existing schema...context is different completely:
It must allow the reconstruction of the original experience but without storing all the parts.
That leads to a problem. This kind of compression inevitably discards information. And as more information is compressed, the loss becomes greater.
Their model was an intentionally "lossy" model..."lossy" is something we usually use algorythms to **avoid**...this use is new...it is not as complex as our brain, but it **does model a 'lossy' continuous memory/recall system that is integrated**
Another way to think of the difference is Vector vs Raster graphics. Vector is infinitely scalable and perfectly lossless, but Raster is lossy.
This research proves that our brains process like a Vector graphics program, and the memory of our brains limits us just as the RAM of a computer limits how fast a Vector editing program takes to render a change in scale of the image.
And after you include however-many extraterrestrial intelligences there might be, all across the Universe, well,
Then you're in science fiction land...woo hoo! I like scifi as much as the next/.er but your imaginations of the possible existence of a civilization that can fully digitize continuous data is worthless to a **scientific discussion**
That's the problem. Hard AI, "teh singularity", and the "question of consciousness" are so polluted in the literature by non-tech philosophers throughout history that the notion of ***falsifiability*** of computation theory get's tossed aside in favor of TED-talk style bullshit.
Falsifiability kills these theories *every time* and hopefully this research in TFA will help break the cycle.
To be science it must be able to be tested. It must be a premise that is capable of being proven or disproven. "hard AI" proponents like Kurzweil and the "singularity" believers ignore this part of science.
I'd suggest it...if you're the kind that likes good weather, beautiful scenery (of geological and human kind), being accepted as 'weird' w/o question by your neighbors, awesome restaurants, legal weed, and a big metro area just over the hill and across a federal wetland area 35 miles away...
The misconception some have is that since Boulder is in Colorado that its somehow very 'wintery'...nothing could be further from the truth...it has a wet warm winter...but snow will stay on the ground...300+ days of sun and the altitude makes it feel warmer
If you can work downtown near Pearl Street you can get a really cool place where you can walk to work like a big city feel almost but in a hippie town...its great
RMS can both be oversimplifying a complex issue AND a major contributor to FOSS software....BOTH CAN BE TRUE
If you don't get that, unfortunately that means you're still one of the suckers. Sorry.
yeah...no shit sherlock
***anything*** we do on a networked computer is vulnerable
ANYTHING
I've understood that since my dad (who was a cryptographer in the Navy in the 70s) explained how punch-card authentication works during the first Reagan Administration
So...yes...I fscking understand it
What I **don't** understand is the BINAR
1. use only free software 2. you are a "sucker" (aka you're an idiot)
It's bullshit........I like using the damned internet....I fscking *know* how trackable everything is...I used to be a network admin....
Just like we put our lives in other driver's hands every time we drive....using a networked computer is inherenly risky
If RMS wants to be consistent then HE COULDN'T EVER DRIVE ON A CITY STREET
You poor kid. Would the other kids not play with you as a child?
yes! since age 5 I was kept in a burlap sack and only allowed out to code and poop...my only human contact until after college was a dog groomer my keepers paid to shave my head every 6 months
but for real...it was the people that made it actually fun...I had two great supervisors and...well the company was in downtown Boulder, CO on the main walking mall area...so lunch breaks were fantastic
wow he actually answered my question...I thought this part was interesting:
In this way (and in many other ways), our food supply mimics our energy supply. It won't be until we literally run out of petroleum sources that electric cars will become commonplace.
Overall a really good take on my question about scalability...it's a long, long slog but we can win
It shows one can pass HR's buzz-word filters without lying and STILL be a dumbshit.
right???
holy crap you guys...
seriously...
I used to do db admin w/ a 800K contact database for a magazine publishing and tradeshow company including a call center...it was actually a fun job! we did all kinds of data 'pulls' for all departments...we were 'data services'...we used all kinds of programs, Oracle, the M$ products, even some programs we patched together
That was many years ago...
I'm wondering how you guys take it? What is the hiring process?
Given your comment, what happens after passing the HR buzz=word filter? Does the person in charge of the new hire define the job requirements or who? Who has the final say in hiring?
RMS: Nonfree software is likely to spy on its users, or mistreat them in other ways. It is software for suckers.
Yeah, that bothered me too...
It shows reductive thinking...over-simplifying into a binary some behavior that is more complex
Here are RMS's options for users of software:
1. Use all free software 2. You are a sucker
choose one
It's kind of pitiful actually...right?
It's like the notion that someone could understand how non-free software can be anti-user yet still choose to use the software is not possible in RMS-land
Does anyone know him personally on here?
Can any/.'ers talk some sense into the man? He seems awesome wrapped in neckbeard
Also, given his long standing support to Left wing causes, what exactly does he have against Stalin to call cellphones 'Stalin's dream'?
any "Left wing" person in US political terms would absolutely hate totalitarian dictators like Stalin because Stalin was an authoritarian regime's totalitarian dictatorial leader...
"left wing" means **anti-totalitarian**
but yeah, Stallman's explanations put him in a bad light, that I agree with
literally, if you happen to live on a coast or in pollution-ravaged Chinese cities
you *sigh* because of this???
It's Weather, not Climate.
then it gets upmodded???
this is why we fail...too many arguments about people on the same side for no reason....we get tangled in trying to *convince* people with language of something they don't have an opinion on...GOP-tards and polluting corporations will *never* just admit they were wrong...it wont happen
*pollution hurts the environment*
therefore it must be regulated
end of story...the rest is just academics smelling their own farts or GOP and their corporate masters working their propaganda machine
you're just another GOP-troll...your beliefs are nonsense and you need to change or stop posting on/....you ignored this, the most **crucial** part of my comment, because it proves your ideology is bullshit:
if you give an example it will either be a "declared" war or not...either way, you have to explain why US governmnet killing in warfare is different for declared and non-declared 'war'
so, you say "WWII"...thats not a complete answer...you have to be *consistent*
what about non-state actors? like...idk...terrorists who do not claim any affiliation with a military of a nation-state?
do we just let them do whatever they want?
are you saying the US military cannot kill unless it is a person of a regular military of a nation-state the US Congress has officially declared war upon?
IF SO HOW THE FSCK DO WE BATTLE NON-STATE ACTORS LIKE TERRORISTS
You are afraid of this question...in your rules the US military could not take action against terrorists that could be lethal
to play God by taking someone's life without first putting any person anywhere on trial for a crime in front of a jury and once declared guilty, they can then be executed by whatever means allowed by the law. Anything less than that is unAmerican
anything less than what you describe is "unAmerican"
so if we apply your standard consistently, no war or US military action has EVER been up to your standards!
am I wrong? then tell me what war/military action WAS up to your standards! if you give an example it will either be a "declared" war or not...either way, you have to explain why US governmnet killing in warfare is different for declared and non-declared 'war'
so let's hear it you know it all...let's apply your standard...it will fail b/c you are either a pacifist or it's a question of *when* to use lethal force...that's it
maybe i'm just arguing semantics, but here is where you give them a pass:
That's basically a non-starter in today's capitalism
says who?
that's an honest question...how could we test the falsifiablility of your statement that "having vision is basically a non-starter"?
how can we know that is true? what conditions would have to be present?
is there something systemic that physically prevents a company from having vision and, as you say:
It sounds like you're advocating for some sense of social responsibility outside the market.
My answer is that only by looking purely at the short-term outcome could you arrive at their business model. So it does make sense to have "no vision" if you only look at short-term consequences.
We know that there are more than short-term consequences, so **on a long enough timeline** every short-sighted company will adapt or fail.
but to be honest, I think we agree...so maybe my comment is entirely semantic
Rand Paul is a yes-man who will say anything to get elected.
He plagiarized his speeches...not just copying...but his *whole ideology* is just a pastiche of calculated "outsider" positions that appeal to the lizard brain of certain conservatives.
Ron Paul & Rand Paul are dupes who can be consistently relied upon to set their hair on fire whenever the Bush/Illuminati need to distract white male voters.
Whether the pilot is in a cubicle in Arizona or in the cockpit of the aircraft is absolutely immaterial.
We kill terrorists. We cant (rationally ahem: 'war on drugs') declare war against something unless it is a civil body politic with a government.
No one, except true pacifists, is always against the US killing terrorists...so that means it's a question of *when* to use lethal force In all military action there is a threat of collateral killing.
Nothing new to see here...except GOP trolls trying anything they can to make Obama look bad.
Test these criticisms for logical consistency...they fail...a missile is a missile whether a drone or piloted craft shot it.
Since when is just not using something a solution to a problem of artificial scarcity?
The whole problem is that the App does what it is supposed to do...the system works...it's that for purely abstract economic beliefs the makers of the App make arbitrary intrusions into your personal information
The whole problem is that people look at this relationsship and **do not see a problem of design**...instead the other option is to, essentially, "fsck off"
No. Stop using this logic when discussing the solution to a systemic problem *forever*...you're just wasting everyone's time
The factors of production for any product, even an Android App, can be controlled and manipulated...
These Apps dont just appear magically...people have to spend alot of time and intention to make them...even the ridiculous shitty ones
Someone must make the time/effort to make the App...**that person** or the people directing them...they **chose** to make theirs system abusive by violating user privacy
Your "just don't use it" retort is a nothing response...its' not an argument or counterpoint...just a contextless expression of an obvious and non-viable option within the context of the discussion
If the car is going the wrong way, you can surely *get out of the car*...or you can...you know...turn the car around in the right direction
I agree with your distribution but I disagree with how you define your first category & your numberic distribution
1. "those who dont care" is wrong...virtually ***everyone*** cares about getting screwed over by a corporation
the problem is the reporters, editors who chose news stories, and the non-tech people who read the information **don't undrestand that they are getting screwed**
and that's just the people who still feel it is within their power to change if they *are* getting screwed
that's your problem...you say they "don't care" but really they've "given up" or never were empowered in the first place!
2. "those who are against it" is figured like this: n - [guilty greedy fucks] - [those who are unaware of how it affects them] = those who are against it
THIS IS ABOUT EDUCATION...SPREAD THE WORD...**VOTE FOR POLITICIANS WHO FAVOR NET NEUTRALITY**....CALL YOUR CONGERSSMAN AND DEMAND REAL NET NEUTRALITY BILL IN THE HOUSE
did you hear me?
demand the Republican-controlled house pass a law encoding it...that is how our system is designed to work
I won't discount that there may have been some libertarians at Occupy rallies
yeah, at Occupy Portland it was a group of 4-5 poly-sci majors dressed in business clothes walking around with "Ron Paul 2012" signs
see, "what is a libertarian?"
then it's chaos...
there are popular definitions, dictionary definitions, academic definitions...then the interest groups who use wedge issues that link certain policies to "libertarian" in popular media...arg!!
chaos! a full-on linguistic apocalypse
so then, it becomes a nothing word...sort of like a quantum particle in a state of quantum flux...Schodinger's Libertarian if you will
it's not until the "libertarian" is forced to **define policies they support** that we open up the system and see if the Cat is really a democrat or republican or just ignorant of how the government works in general
Another person that doesn't understand Libertarian ideals.
Yes, *theoretically* ideas that we would call "libertarian" exist, and politicians who try to enact those ideas into *policy* could be called libertarian...but virtually all of those people doing that are...gasp!...democrats
The few 'independents' in our Congress both caucus with the democrats
It's about popular vs academic definitions...take "socialism"...by academic definitions, everyone in America is a socialist...we have gas/water/road/electricity socialism...there are other examples...
Others have elucidated the errors of "Libertarians" in politics today...but for my part anyone who claims to be a "Libertarian" these days is really just a Republican in disguise or a total self-righteous dupe being lead around by the nose by the GOP's masters
Slashdot Mirror
You start off-kilter and just careen into a ditch of dumbness...
The researchers did *not* start with that at all...
Here's where they started, from TFA:
"cannot be broken down" but it can be modeled in a way that proves the theory
Here's how, note the distinction, from TFA:
Here's why their model is not as you say...it is a different *schema* of a model, not just a variation of an existing schema...context is different completely:
Their model was an intentionally "lossy" model..."lossy" is something we usually use algorythms to **avoid**...this use is new...it is not as complex as our brain, but it **does model a 'lossy' continuous memory/recall system that is integrated**
Here's more on Integrated Information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Another way to think of the difference is Vector vs Raster graphics. Vector is infinitely scalable and perfectly lossless, but Raster is lossy.
This research proves that our brains process like a Vector graphics program, and the memory of our brains limits us just as the RAM of a computer limits how fast a Vector editing program takes to render a change in scale of the image.
Then you're in science fiction land...woo hoo! I like scifi as much as the next /.er but your imaginations of the possible existence of a civilization that can fully digitize continuous data is worthless to a **scientific discussion**
That's the problem. Hard AI, "teh singularity", and the "question of consciousness" are so polluted in the literature by non-tech philosophers throughout history that the notion of ***falsifiability*** of computation theory get's tossed aside in favor of TED-talk style bullshit.
Falsifiability kills these theories *every time* and hopefully this research in TFA will help break the cycle.
To be science it must be able to be tested. It must be a premise that is capable of being proven or disproven. "hard AI" proponents like Kurzweil and the "singularity" believers ignore this part of science.
So happy to see this research
I'd suggest it...if you're the kind that likes good weather, beautiful scenery (of geological and human kind), being accepted as 'weird' w/o question by your neighbors, awesome restaurants, legal weed, and a big metro area just over the hill and across a federal wetland area 35 miles away...
The misconception some have is that since Boulder is in Colorado that its somehow very 'wintery'...nothing could be further from the truth...it has a wet warm winter...but snow will stay on the ground...300+ days of sun and the altitude makes it feel warmer
If you can work downtown near Pearl Street you can get a really cool place where you can walk to work like a big city feel almost but in a hippie town...its great
RMS can both be oversimplifying a complex issue AND a major contributor to FOSS software....BOTH CAN BE TRUE
yeah...no shit sherlock
***anything*** we do on a networked computer is vulnerable
ANYTHING
I've understood that since my dad (who was a cryptographer in the Navy in the 70s) explained how punch-card authentication works during the first Reagan Administration
So...yes...I fscking understand it
What I **don't** understand is the BINAR
1. use only free software
2. you are a "sucker" (aka you're an idiot)
It's bullshit........I like using the damned internet....I fscking *know* how trackable everything is...I used to be a network admin....
Just like we put our lives in other driver's hands every time we drive....using a networked computer is inherenly risky
If RMS wants to be consistent then HE COULDN'T EVER DRIVE ON A CITY STREET
b/c...you know..."risk"
yes! since age 5 I was kept in a burlap sack and only allowed out to code and poop...my only human contact until after college was a dog groomer my keepers paid to shave my head every 6 months
but for real...it was the people that made it actually fun...I had two great supervisors and...well the company was in downtown Boulder, CO on the main walking mall area...so lunch breaks were fantastic
wow he actually answered my question...I thought this part was interesting:
Overall a really good take on my question about scalability...it's a long, long slog but we can win
right???
holy crap you guys...
seriously...
I used to do db admin w/ a 800K contact database for a magazine publishing and tradeshow company including a call center...it was actually a fun job! we did all kinds of data 'pulls' for all departments...we were 'data services'...we used all kinds of programs, Oracle, the M$ products, even some programs we patched together
That was many years ago...
I'm wondering how you guys take it? What is the hiring process?
Given your comment, what happens after passing the HR buzz=word filter? Does the person in charge of the new hire define the job requirements or who? Who has the final say in hiring?
Yeah, that bothered me too...
It shows reductive thinking...over-simplifying into a binary some behavior that is more complex
Here are RMS's options for users of software:
1. Use all free software
2. You are a sucker
choose one
It's kind of pitiful actually...right?
It's like the notion that someone could understand how non-free software can be anti-user yet still choose to use the software is not possible in RMS-land
Does anyone know him personally on here?
Can any /.'ers talk some sense into the man? He seems awesome wrapped in neckbeard
the idea of correcting a question is fine...or at least could be acceptable...and it is done by unscrupulous politicians constantly
the problem is *how*...he said enough to indicate that he has *some* capacity for human interaction and what is considered socially acceptable
he didn't have be a dick about it and correct the text of the question in that manner...nor was a preamble explanation needed...
he should have just corrected it like this: "If you are asking {new nomenclature} then X...if not then Y"
whether or not you agree with that, it's clear that the overall tone was a bit pompous and overly self-aware...
like most neckbeards
any "Left wing" person in US political terms would absolutely hate totalitarian dictators like Stalin because Stalin was an authoritarian regime's totalitarian dictatorial leader...
"left wing" means **anti-totalitarian**
but yeah, Stallman's explanations put him in a bad light, that I agree with
literally, if you happen to live on a coast or in pollution-ravaged Chinese cities
you *sigh* because of this???
then it gets upmodded???
this is why we fail...too many arguments about people on the same side for no reason....we get tangled in trying to *convince* people with language of something they don't have an opinion on...GOP-tards and polluting corporations will *never* just admit they were wrong...it wont happen
*pollution hurts the environment*
therefore it must be regulated
end of story...the rest is just academics smelling their own farts or GOP and their corporate masters working their propaganda machine
you're just another GOP-troll...your beliefs are nonsense and you need to change or stop posting on /....you ignored this, the most **crucial** part of my comment, because it proves your ideology is bullshit:
so, you say "WWII"...thats not a complete answer...you have to be *consistent*
what about non-state actors? like...idk...terrorists who do not claim any affiliation with a military of a nation-state?
do we just let them do whatever they want?
are you saying the US military cannot kill unless it is a person of a regular military of a nation-state the US Congress has officially declared war upon?
IF SO HOW THE FSCK DO WE BATTLE NON-STATE ACTORS LIKE TERRORISTS
You are afraid of this question...in your rules the US military could not take action against terrorists that could be lethal
you laid out a standard here:
anything less than what you describe is "unAmerican"
so if we apply your standard consistently, no war or US military action has EVER been up to your standards!
am I wrong? then tell me what war/military action WAS up to your standards! if you give an example it will either be a "declared" war or not...either way, you have to explain why US governmnet killing in warfare is different for declared and non-declared 'war'
so let's hear it you know it all...let's apply your standard...it will fail b/c you are either a pacifist or it's a question of *when* to use lethal force...that's it
maybe i'm just arguing semantics, but here is where you give them a pass:
says who?
that's an honest question...how could we test the falsifiablility of your statement that "having vision is basically a non-starter"?
how can we know that is true? what conditions would have to be present?
is there something systemic that physically prevents a company from having vision and, as you say:
My answer is that only by looking purely at the short-term outcome could you arrive at their business model. So it does make sense to have "no vision" if you only look at short-term consequences.
We know that there are more than short-term consequences, so **on a long enough timeline** every short-sighted company will adapt or fail.
but to be honest, I think we agree...so maybe my comment is entirely semantic
Rand Paul is a yes-man who will say anything to get elected.
He plagiarized his speeches...not just copying...but his *whole ideology* is just a pastiche of calculated "outsider" positions that appeal to the lizard brain of certain conservatives.
Ron Paul & Rand Paul are dupes who can be consistently relied upon to set their hair on fire whenever the Bush/Illuminati need to distract white male voters.
These are missiles fired from aircraft.
Whether the pilot is in a cubicle in Arizona or in the cockpit of the aircraft is absolutely immaterial.
We kill terrorists. We cant (rationally ahem: 'war on drugs') declare war against something unless it is a civil body politic with a government.
No one, except true pacifists, is always against the US killing terrorists...so that means it's a question of *when* to use lethal force
In all military action there is a threat of collateral killing.
Nothing new to see here...except GOP trolls trying anything they can to make Obama look bad.
Test these criticisms for logical consistency...they fail...a missile is a missile whether a drone or piloted craft shot it.
You're giving ISP's a pass.
I agree, that yes, ISP's are so anti-user that they will do everything to nickel and dime them
However, it's wrong to just abdicate any notion of a public company having ***VISION*** to be a better/different company
Your comment is true, but it doesn't **have** to be...that's what you miss
ISP's like Comcast will do this with mathematical certainty....unless we regulate it.
They barely attempt to cover it up now...this is due to the fact that they are a publicly held corporation
ridiculous news stories, anti-logic Congress Bills, TED Talks, and unfortunately alot of published research in the Social Sciences
it's about the editorial function...something bean counters and oligarchs both see as unecessary...
apply to coding appropraitely...the paralells of system dynamics are everywhere
Since when is just not using something a solution to a problem of artificial scarcity?
The whole problem is that the App does what it is supposed to do...the system works...it's that for purely abstract economic beliefs the makers of the App make arbitrary intrusions into your personal information
The whole problem is that people look at this relationsship and **do not see a problem of design**...instead the other option is to, essentially, "fsck off"
No. Stop using this logic when discussing the solution to a systemic problem *forever*...you're just wasting everyone's time
The factors of production for any product, even an Android App, can be controlled and manipulated...
These Apps dont just appear magically...people have to spend alot of time and intention to make them...even the ridiculous shitty ones
Someone must make the time/effort to make the App...**that person** or the people directing them...they **chose** to make theirs system abusive by violating user privacy
Your "just don't use it" retort is a nothing response...its' not an argument or counterpoint...just a contextless expression of an obvious and non-viable option within the context of the discussion
If the car is going the wrong way, you can surely *get out of the car*...or you can...you know...turn the car around in the right direction
I agree with your distribution but I disagree with how you define your first category & your numberic distribution
1. "those who dont care" is wrong...virtually ***everyone*** cares about getting screwed over by a corporation
the problem is the reporters, editors who chose news stories, and the non-tech people who read the information **don't undrestand that they are getting screwed**
and that's just the people who still feel it is within their power to change if they *are* getting screwed
that's your problem...you say they "don't care" but really they've "given up" or never were empowered in the first place!
2. "those who are against it" is figured like this: n - [guilty greedy fucks] - [those who are unaware of how it affects them] = those who are against it
THIS IS ABOUT EDUCATION...SPREAD THE WORD...**VOTE FOR POLITICIANS WHO FAVOR NET NEUTRALITY**....CALL YOUR CONGERSSMAN AND DEMAND REAL NET NEUTRALITY BILL IN THE HOUSE
did you hear me?
demand the Republican-controlled house pass a law encoding it...that is how our system is designed to work
what party opposes Net Neutrality?
always Republicans
ugh...TFA asks a potentially interesting question but they use all the wrong language and context to frame the question
the "iPad" is a touch-screen computer...so is the iPhone...same with Android touch screen phones and tablets
it's all small, thin computers of various dimensions with *touch screen interface* not a keyboard
another difference is **connectivity**
they can connect to WiFi, Bluetooth, "3g" cellular, "4g" cellular...some can do all...some a combination of
Kindle is another type...it has different specs and a special network (whispernet)...but it's *all the same*
so the difference is **connectivity**...not size or marketing function
that's where we have to start...now...what was the fsking question? how to sell more widgets? the "future" of a particular brand?
prediction: people will use computers and want then to be more portable and more capable
any questions?
yeah, at Occupy Portland it was a group of 4-5 poly-sci majors dressed in business clothes walking around with "Ron Paul 2012" signs
see, "what is a libertarian?"
then it's chaos...
there are popular definitions, dictionary definitions, academic definitions...then the interest groups who use wedge issues that link certain policies to "libertarian" in popular media...arg!!
chaos! a full-on linguistic apocalypse
so then, it becomes a nothing word...sort of like a quantum particle in a state of quantum flux...Schodinger's Libertarian if you will
it's not until the "libertarian" is forced to **define policies they support** that we open up the system and see if the Cat is really a democrat or republican or just ignorant of how the government works in general
total bullshit...this is what Libertarians do...they construct fantasies about how they **wish** things went and then act as if its true
there were virtually zero Libertarians at Occupy
stop it...forever...your ideas are total shit & it's obvious you're in a political fantasy world
Yes, *theoretically* ideas that we would call "libertarian" exist, and politicians who try to enact those ideas into *policy* could be called libertarian...but virtually all of those people doing that are...gasp!...democrats
The few 'independents' in our Congress both caucus with the democrats
It's about popular vs academic definitions...take "socialism"...by academic definitions, everyone in America is a socialist...we have gas/water/road/electricity socialism...there are other examples...
Others have elucidated the errors of "Libertarians" in politics today...but for my part anyone who claims to be a "Libertarian" these days is really just a Republican in disguise or a total self-righteous dupe being lead around by the nose by the GOP's masters