"1. I find it offensive, and I think it says more about you than me, that you suggest that the copy was pirated. It was not."
So you went out and purchased a $999 license plus the appropriate number of CALs and you just gave up and installed the free linux solution? Forgive me if I say you're full of it.
"2. Of course it is easy to share folders. However, if you have some computers with Windows for workgroups. some with security domains etc, you can *not* just share folders."
Let me get this straight: You're running a domain controller in your home? An active directory implementation? So you could figure out AD but not how to share folders with it? And even if you have 1 PC on a domain (say, a laptop that you bring home from work) and the rest of your PCs on a workgroup, all you need to do is share folders. Period. The only caveat is going into the user management console, create a local account, and use that account to log in from client PCs. And by the way, "windows for workgroups" hasn't been around since 1993. I think you meant that some PCs were part of a workgroup, no?
IIS is easy to set up and run if you dont need any features. Try to set up IIS with multiple domain names, and right security levels for the different parts. Try to do simple load balancing. Try to do simple packet mangling. Or rewrite requested URLs on the fly
Uhh... This is still pretty easy. Setting up multiple domains with their individual settings is done thru the very first IIS management dialog. You don't even need to change tabs.
Load balancing is actually pretty easy in IIS6. Using Microsoft DFS for data sync among the nodes, it's pretty simple to setup basic round-robin load balancing.
And URL rewriting isn't even supported by IIS directly. You have to use an ISAPI filter. You can write your own, or use one of the dozens of free, downloadable rewriters like Op_URL or IIS Rewrite.
And let me get this straight: You needed web server load balancing & URL rewriting on your _HOME SERVER_?
The server roles wizard is about as easy as it gets, so blaming that for the problem is 1) just a guess on your part and 2) not in conflict with my original point that a Server OS is for professional admins, not Mr. Home NetworkGuy.
Not to mention, you can click a checkbox on it and it never gets displayed again.
And you're right, "My Computer" is hidden. In fact, the screen is blank of all icons except the Recycle Bin. Windows XP is the same way. Adding these icons is pretty simple, but in any event the start menu was still there.
If this guy had trouble getting to a folder that he could right click and share, it should be obvious that he is in no way qualified to administer a server.
Like others have said: This is Microsofts fault how?
IIS isn't that difficult. Changing the setting from integrated windows security is, seriously, 2 or 3 clicks from the control panel.
And what do you mean you couldn't get the file server to work? That's as simple as SHARING A FOLDER and giving it appropriate security settings.
And no, it's not "idiot proof" but you're talking about a SERVER PRODUCT. A standard license runs for $999. It's meant for PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, it's NOT meant for the home. Thus, WHS.
And by the way, had you actually paid $999 for the legit license (which, I'm guessing, you didn't) you could've called Microsoft and gotten help. I don't know what's worse, complaining about pirated software not working right (assuming you didn't buy the license), or giving up on $999 software after, apparently, hardly giving it a shot (assuming you did buy the license).
The term "socialism" was first used in the context of early-19th century Western European social critics. In this period, socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social experiments associated primarily with British and French thinkers--particularly Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, and Saint-Simon. These social critics saw themselves as reacting to the excesses of poverty and inequality in the period, and advocated reforms such as the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the transformation of society into small communities in which private property was to be abolished. Outlining principles for the reorganization of society along collectivist lines, Saint-Simon or Owen sought to build socialism on the foundations of planned, utopian communities.
The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a distinct movement. People chose to use one or the other on the basis of perceived attitude to religion. In Europe, communism was considered to be the more atheistic of the two. In England, however, that sounded too close to communion with Catholic overtones; hence atheists preferred to call themselves socialists.[2]
Early socialists differed widely about how socialism was to be achieved; they differed sharply on key issues such as centralized versus decentralized control, the role of private property, the degree of egalitarianism, and the organization of family and community life. Moreover, while many emphasized the gradual transformation of society, most notably through the foundation of small, utopian communities, a growing number of socialists became disillusioned with the viability of this approach and instead emphasized direct political action.
After all, saying that a Lexus isn't perfect makes me a BMWTroll. Saying that Linux isn't perfect makes me a Windows troll. Saying that Windows isn't perfect makes me a ? Linux troll?
Your comment was so stupid that even YOU had to regret it afterwards.
Look, I can't help it that you're so vapid that you mindlessly absorb and parrot press releases.
The good news for me is that if you've exhibited such over the top fanboyism that you've destroyed any shred of credibility you might have had.
"That's funny because I was under the impression that socialism was embraced as a form of government WELL BEFORE Marx every published his theory."
Well, then you're under the wrong impression. Before Marx published his work socialism was nothing but an idea bantered about by european scholars. Marx and Engels were the first to roll it all up into a cohesive political theory. Thus the distinction between utopian socialists and scientific socialists. There was no party aparatus or other political organization. Just dinner party talk for the European intelligentsia. In fact, it wasn't until the 1870s that any real political power was held by socialist parties.
Which is close enough to roll into the nice round number of 100 years. Deal with it. If you want to correct me to 137 years, be my guest, but it's worth pointing out that if you want to be pedantic, you ought to be _correct_.
<i>"You've essentially just argued that a market where the government gets to decide who can and can't participate (since the government dictates who is and is not a citizen as well as imposing the arbitrary rule that only citizens are allowed to participate) and other people can forcibly prevent you from participating (I don't think many slaves volunteered for the position) can be considered "free".</i>
Are you serious? Your idea of a free market is that non-citizens can hop off the boat and open a business, no questions asked? So by your measure there has never been a free market in the history of the world?
In every civilization since Greece (and probably even before that) there has been distinction in privilege of those that are citizens and those that are not. And as far as I know, removing the concept of citizenship has never even been a part of the libertarian platform?
Either you are so far off the deep end that you actually think that the concept of citizenship is too much government regulation, or you are just bullshitting because you dug yourself into a hole and feel you have to defend your (under-thought) arguments.
Instead of accepting that there are certain trade-offs and short-commings in every single product ever made, including the iPod and yes, the iPhone, you try to rationalize thru tortured arguments how a flaw is actually not a flaw at all. That there are no tradeoffs (this is apple damnit! Jobs! Reality Distortion!!!).
I swear I think Apple Fanboyism is a slight form of mental retardation.
Here's a fact: If you have an iPhone, or a cPhone or a qPhone or any other kind of phone, you will, many times during your ownership, DIAL NUMBERS WITH IT.
And being able to feel the keys when you do is better than not being able to feel the keys. In fact, if keypads of this sort were actually superior to traditional keypads, we'd see them used with PCs. But the truth is that they're NOT superior. They are very much INFERIOR. But, trade-offs must be made. This is one that Apple chose.
Yes, it's a cool phone. But you people are like rabid dogs.
Here's a clue: You will see improvements on the iPhone over the years. This very fact should tell you that the iPhone is not perfect. It's good--better than many others--but not perfect.
According to Grok, there's no case I can find of someone being forced to turn over an encryption key. This is not analagous to personally identifiable things like DNA or blood. This is analagous to "Tell me where the house was where your buried the body." Unless you're getting immunity, you don't have to implicate yourself. if I had access to Lexis still I'd search there but unfortunately I don't.
Also the key escrow database, as you mentioned, was _proposed_. When it actually exists, please let me know. Also, when every PC has a clipper chip installed, also, let me know. Until then what I said stands: you can use technology, like encryption, to circumvent the government. They can use technology to in return.
This is like the dawn of the gunpowder age, where somebody says "I see no reason why the government NEEDS a gun. They're doing just fine keeping the peace with long bows and broad swords." Of course, of governments didn't arm themselves with the mainstream weaponry of their day, they probably wouldn't exist for very long. Technology is todays 'mainstream weaponry.'
This idea that small incremental advances will someday spawn a police state is just fantasy in my opinion. Like I said before (twice): Every totalitarian regime in history had no problem operating without technology.
Seriously, you're suggesting that having DBs full of DNA, phone records, facial recognition signatures, etc, will somehow create a police state where one would not otherwise exist. That a leader in some future day would say "You know, the rule of law is nice and all, and the whole government of the people is an interesting concept, but since we've already got these databases anyway we ought to just oppress everyone."
That has to be your argument. Because if your agrument is that a future leader(s) will steer the country into a police state as part of his evil plan or something (a'la hitler, stalin, etc), then who cares if the databases exist today? If this guys idea really is to build a 1984, you don't think he could easily create these databases, networks, etc? The databases are not the hard part of totalitarianism. The technology is trivial.
This has been interesting, but I'm done now. It's clear to me that you're not approaching this in a rational way. The template for your worst fears is a 60 year old book. It's an excellent story, one of my personal favorites, but it's no more likely to become a reality than Planet of the Apes or Soylent Green.
And I truly mean it that so many people who think like you are CRYING WOLF. By blowing up something trivial like a computer analyzing phone records to look for nefarious patterns, you will get peoples attention. But the next time you blow up over something, you'll get a little less attention, and a little less, and on and on and on. So much so that if a Stalin v2.0 does come forward, he'll use your tinfoil-hattery against you to debase all of your claims.
Have a good one, man. And watch out for that Canadian currency. I hear they're trying to bug you. Probably trying to figure out your encryption keys.
Dude, that's 15" not 17. Besides, you don't have to take my word for it. There is nothing to "face." A date restricted usenet search gives you all the info you need to know.
No, I'm just "wrong" because you don't agree. That is a common slashdot technique.
First, Socialism was not embraced as a form of government the same year that Marx published his theory. Second, Even if it happened that same year, it is 150 years. I'm OK with rounding. Especially when we're working on a timeline of many thousands of years. The pedantry you illustrated in that criticism is like a neon sign flashing "Don't listen to me. I'm just a useless dolt." (Hey, I didn't say it. The neon sign did).
Third, in the feudal times you mention you weren't a proper citizen unless you were part of the "land owning class" or nobility. So that is a given. A free market in a country only applies to that countries citizens, no? If you could implement free markets in America, would you let just any foreign citizen walk off the boat and open up a Jamba Juice franchise?
Fouth, despite my tasteless joke in the previous post, slaves were a _product_ in the free market. And in fact they illustrate it nicely. You could buy, sell, or trade a slave whenever you want. That paints a vivid picture about exactly how unregulated that market was.
In summary, your entire statement is nothing more that supposition and conjecture, interlaced with flat out assholeness. The regulated market is far from perfect. There are plenty of areas where regulation should be eased to ensure things operate smoothly. However, you completely fail to understand the respective benefits and shortcomings of the regulated market and capitalism, not to mention basic history.
The success of the freemarket can be measured by look at the whole of human history prior to the 20th century.
There were thousands of years when all you needed to be, say, a shop keeper was a shop to keep. No business license or sales tax or liability insurance or health codes.
Socialism and a regulated market economy are inventions of the past 100 years. Maybe it's just a total coincidence that during this time a middle class emerged, but I really doubt that.
We did it your way for 10,000 years. Now it's time to try it our way.
Everyone of your arguments immediately merges into hyperbole. Having cameras in public places is nowhere near the same as having troops on every corner. But it's worth saying that in isreal, they _do_ have troops in every corner and their citizens live free and prosperous lives.
You expect the citizenry to live in the 21st century but the government to stay in the 1950's.
You gloss over the fact that every single police state in the history of the world operated _without_ the high technology that you're worried about. That the correlation between high tech and state oppression only exists in fiction.
You readily admit that you're paranoid. The definition of paranoia is "extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others." And yes, that does fit with what you're saying. Because never in our history has the government used high technology to oppress us.
And as for the NSA wiretaps, you really go off the deep end here. It's important to remember that if the Bush administration went to a FISA court after they began the program, the court would have approved it. They've _never_ denied a request in their history. So the only problem here is that they did not, in fact, seek out the rubber stamp that they were sure to get. I hate bush as much as the next guy, but being irrational and paranoid does nothing to help your cause. You just marginalize yourself. People can't care about what you're saying if they can't relate to you.
I mean, the wiretaps themselves are only of overseas calls. Do you realize that NSA/Echelon has been monitoring underseas cables for well over a decade now? The only difference here is that the actual "tapping" occurs inside America as opposed to the waters just outside of America. And in both cases, only calls that get flagged are stored. The rest are only stored temporarily while they're being processed, at least that's how Echelon worked. A computer screens the calls for known voices, patterns and words. A computer. Not a person. The percentage of calls actually being heard by a person are minute. And lets not forget: this only applies to overseas calls. Do you think that 1/2 dozen other governments aren't also tapping your call? Of course they are.
So once again, we go back to privacy. Do you have an expectation of privacy when making an overseas call, especially to a middle east/african country? And more specifically: I've never in my life called any overseas country outside of Europe. I suspect that most Americans could say that.
So really, how does this affect Americans? The problem I have is just the Bush hubris of "we don't need no stinkin permission." But it's worthwhile to remember that if they did ask permission, they would've gotten it.
You criticize my argument as being "don't be afraid." Your argument--you fully admit-- is "be irrationally afraid." You make this giant leap between Gitmo and wiretapping and totalitarian 1984ish control. And by being a chicken little here, you are doing a disservice to everyone. Because if the day does come that they really cross the line with something, it will be impossible to rally the citizenry. They've been hearing the quacks say that every use of technology in government is oppression for 20 years, so what would be different than? You're crying wolf here and it doesn't help anybody.
The idea that government has to prove that it needs cameras is silly. Besides, you've yet to give me any actual reason why you think you have a right not to be filmed in public places. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. The only thing that comes close is the 4th amendment that guarantees people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Secure in your person does not mean that the government has no right to look at you or screen your face against a DB of known criminals.
Seriously, if you hate technology this much, I hear there's a cabin in the deep woods in Montana that was vacated about a decade ago.
Slashdot Mirror
"that's what SHE said!"
Don't you dare...
"1. I find it offensive, and I think it says more about you than me, that you suggest that the copy was pirated. It was not." So you went out and purchased a $999 license plus the appropriate number of CALs and you just gave up and installed the free linux solution? Forgive me if I say you're full of it.
"2. Of course it is easy to share folders. However, if you have some computers with Windows for workgroups. some with security domains etc, you can *not* just share folders." Let me get this straight: You're running a domain controller in your home? An active directory implementation? So you could figure out AD but not how to share folders with it? And even if you have 1 PC on a domain (say, a laptop that you bring home from work) and the rest of your PCs on a workgroup, all you need to do is share folders. Period. The only caveat is going into the user management console, create a local account, and use that account to log in from client PCs. And by the way, "windows for workgroups" hasn't been around since 1993. I think you meant that some PCs were part of a workgroup, no?
IIS is easy to set up and run if you dont need any features. Try to set up IIS with multiple domain names, and right security levels for the different parts. Try to do simple load balancing. Try to do simple packet mangling. Or rewrite requested URLs on the fly
Uhh... This is still pretty easy. Setting up multiple domains with their individual settings is done thru the very first IIS management dialog. You don't even need to change tabs.
Load balancing is actually pretty easy in IIS6. Using Microsoft DFS for data sync among the nodes, it's pretty simple to setup basic round-robin load balancing.
And URL rewriting isn't even supported by IIS directly. You have to use an ISAPI filter. You can write your own, or use one of the dozens of free, downloadable rewriters like Op_URL or IIS Rewrite.
And let me get this straight: You needed web server load balancing & URL rewriting on your _HOME SERVER_?
Oh please........
The server roles wizard is about as easy as it gets, so blaming that for the problem is 1) just a guess on your part and 2) not in conflict with my original point that a Server OS is for professional admins, not Mr. Home NetworkGuy.
Not to mention, you can click a checkbox on it and it never gets displayed again.
And you're right, "My Computer" is hidden. In fact, the screen is blank of all icons except the Recycle Bin. Windows XP is the same way. Adding these icons is pretty simple, but in any event the start menu was still there.
If this guy had trouble getting to a folder that he could right click and share, it should be obvious that he is in no way qualified to administer a server.
That's fine. Although, I would add one more for redundancy.
Like others have said: This is Microsofts fault how?
IIS isn't that difficult. Changing the setting from integrated windows security is, seriously, 2 or 3 clicks from the control panel.
And what do you mean you couldn't get the file server to work? That's as simple as SHARING A FOLDER and giving it appropriate security settings.
And no, it's not "idiot proof" but you're talking about a SERVER PRODUCT. A standard license runs for $999. It's meant for PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, it's NOT meant for the home. Thus, WHS.
And by the way, had you actually paid $999 for the legit license (which, I'm guessing, you didn't) you could've called Microsoft and gotten help. I don't know what's worse, complaining about pirated software not working right (assuming you didn't buy the license), or giving up on $999 software after, apparently, hardly giving it a shot (assuming you did buy the license).
You must be paranoid, because that canadian currency line was a joke, not an attack on you.
Here you go jackass:
The term "socialism" was first used in the context of early-19th century Western European social critics. In this period, socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social experiments associated primarily with British and French thinkers--particularly Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, and Saint-Simon. These social critics saw themselves as reacting to the excesses of poverty and inequality in the period, and advocated reforms such as the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the transformation of society into small communities in which private property was to be abolished. Outlining principles for the reorganization of society along collectivist lines, Saint-Simon or Owen sought to build socialism on the foundations of planned, utopian communities.
The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a distinct movement. People chose to use one or the other on the basis of perceived attitude to religion. In Europe, communism was considered to be the more atheistic of the two. In England, however, that sounded too close to communion with Catholic overtones; hence atheists preferred to call themselves socialists.[2]
Early socialists differed widely about how socialism was to be achieved; they differed sharply on key issues such as centralized versus decentralized control, the role of private property, the degree of egalitarianism, and the organization of family and community life. Moreover, while many emphasized the gradual transformation of society, most notably through the foundation of small, utopian communities, a growing number of socialists became disillusioned with the viability of this approach and instead emphasized direct political action.
I don't have time to prove my point to some dude who I couldn't care less about. I am sure about this, I don't really care if you are.
But I'm sure that wikipedia, infoplease, brittanica, or any other reference could shed some light on the subject for you.
Actually, before Marx wrote his manifesto, communism and socialism were interchangeable. They meant the same thing.
"Socialism" was the preferred choice in England because "communism" sounded too much like "communion," as in holy.
I don't blow her.
She blows me.
Yes, of course, no problem.
After all, saying that a Lexus isn't perfect makes me a BMWTroll. Saying that Linux isn't perfect makes me a Windows troll. Saying that Windows isn't perfect makes me a ? Linux troll?
Your comment was so stupid that even YOU had to regret it afterwards.
Look, I can't help it that you're so vapid that you mindlessly absorb and parrot press releases.
The good news for me is that if you've exhibited such over the top fanboyism that you've destroyed any shred of credibility you might have had.
Thanks for marginalizing yourself!
"That's funny because I was under the impression that socialism was embraced as a form of government WELL BEFORE Marx every published his theory."
Well, then you're under the wrong impression. Before Marx published his work socialism was nothing but an idea bantered about by european scholars. Marx and Engels were the first to roll it all up into a cohesive political theory. Thus the distinction between utopian socialists and scientific socialists. There was no party aparatus or other political organization. Just dinner party talk for the European intelligentsia. In fact, it wasn't until the 1870s that any real political power was held by socialist parties.
Which is close enough to roll into the nice round number of 100 years. Deal with it. If you want to correct me to 137 years, be my guest, but it's worth pointing out that if you want to be pedantic, you ought to be _correct_.
<i>"You've essentially just argued that a market where the government gets to decide who can and can't participate (since the government dictates who is and is not a citizen as well as imposing the arbitrary rule that only citizens are allowed to participate) and other people can forcibly prevent you from participating (I don't think many slaves volunteered for the position) can be considered "free".</i>
Are you serious? Your idea of a free market is that non-citizens can hop off the boat and open a business, no questions asked? So by your measure there has never been a free market in the history of the world?
In every civilization since Greece (and probably even before that) there has been distinction in privilege of those that are citizens and those that are not. And as far as I know, removing the concept of citizenship has never even been a part of the libertarian platform?
Either you are so far off the deep end that you actually think that the concept of citizenship is too much government regulation, or you are just bullshitting because you dug yourself into a hole and feel you have to defend your (under-thought) arguments.
Instead of accepting that there are certain trade-offs and short-commings in every single product ever made, including the iPod and yes, the iPhone, you try to rationalize thru tortured arguments how a flaw is actually not a flaw at all. That there are no tradeoffs (this is apple damnit! Jobs! Reality Distortion!!!).
I swear I think Apple Fanboyism is a slight form of mental retardation.
Here's a fact: If you have an iPhone, or a cPhone or a qPhone or any other kind of phone, you will, many times during your ownership, DIAL NUMBERS WITH IT.
And being able to feel the keys when you do is better than not being able to feel the keys. In fact, if keypads of this sort were actually superior to traditional keypads, we'd see them used with PCs. But the truth is that they're NOT superior. They are very much INFERIOR. But, trade-offs must be made. This is one that Apple chose.
Yes, it's a cool phone. But you people are like rabid dogs.
Here's a clue: You will see improvements on the iPhone over the years. This very fact should tell you that the iPhone is not perfect. It's good--better than many others--but not perfect.
Now get over it.
According to Grok, there's no case I can find of someone being forced to turn over an encryption key. This is not analagous to personally identifiable things like DNA or blood. This is analagous to "Tell me where the house was where your buried the body." Unless you're getting immunity, you don't have to implicate yourself. if I had access to Lexis still I'd search there but unfortunately I don't.
Also the key escrow database, as you mentioned, was _proposed_. When it actually exists, please let me know. Also, when every PC has a clipper chip installed, also, let me know. Until then what I said stands: you can use technology, like encryption, to circumvent the government. They can use technology to in return.
This is like the dawn of the gunpowder age, where somebody says "I see no reason why the government NEEDS a gun. They're doing just fine keeping the peace with long bows and broad swords." Of course, of governments didn't arm themselves with the mainstream weaponry of their day, they probably wouldn't exist for very long. Technology is todays 'mainstream weaponry.'
This idea that small incremental advances will someday spawn a police state is just fantasy in my opinion. Like I said before (twice): Every totalitarian regime in history had no problem operating without technology.
Seriously, you're suggesting that having DBs full of DNA, phone records, facial recognition signatures, etc, will somehow create a police state where one would not otherwise exist. That a leader in some future day would say "You know, the rule of law is nice and all, and the whole government of the people is an interesting concept, but since we've already got these databases anyway we ought to just oppress everyone."
That has to be your argument. Because if your agrument is that a future leader(s) will steer the country into a police state as part of his evil plan or something (a'la hitler, stalin, etc), then who cares if the databases exist today? If this guys idea really is to build a 1984, you don't think he could easily create these databases, networks, etc? The databases are not the hard part of totalitarianism. The technology is trivial.
This has been interesting, but I'm done now. It's clear to me that you're not approaching this in a rational way. The template for your worst fears is a 60 year old book. It's an excellent story, one of my personal favorites, but it's no more likely to become a reality than Planet of the Apes or Soylent Green.
And I truly mean it that so many people who think like you are CRYING WOLF. By blowing up something trivial like a computer analyzing phone records to look for nefarious patterns, you will get peoples attention. But the next time you blow up over something, you'll get a little less attention, and a little less, and on and on and on. So much so that if a Stalin v2.0 does come forward, he'll use your tinfoil-hattery against you to debase all of your claims.
Have a good one, man. And watch out for that Canadian currency. I hear they're trying to bug you. Probably trying to figure out your encryption keys.
Dude, go search Groups. I'm really tired of this game.
Do you fertilize your ignorance or did it grow this large naturally?
Dude, that's 15" not 17. Besides, you don't have to take my word for it. There is nothing to "face." A date restricted usenet search gives you all the info you need to know.
::Yawn::
Oh yea, you're totally right. Things were much much better when there were 3% super rich and 97% super poor.
Chances are you are sitting squarely inside that middle class, so forgive the humor I derive from your very parochial rant.
No, I'm just "wrong" because you don't agree. That is a common slashdot technique.
First, Socialism was not embraced as a form of government the same year that Marx published his theory. Second, Even if it happened that same year, it is 150 years. I'm OK with rounding. Especially when we're working on a timeline of many thousands of years. The pedantry you illustrated in that criticism is like a neon sign flashing "Don't listen to me. I'm just a useless dolt." (Hey, I didn't say it. The neon sign did).
Third, in the feudal times you mention you weren't a proper citizen unless you were part of the "land owning class" or nobility. So that is a given. A free market in a country only applies to that countries citizens, no? If you could implement free markets in America, would you let just any foreign citizen walk off the boat and open up a Jamba Juice franchise?
Fouth, despite my tasteless joke in the previous post, slaves were a _product_ in the free market. And in fact they illustrate it nicely. You could buy, sell, or trade a slave whenever you want. That paints a vivid picture about exactly how unregulated that market was.
In summary, your entire statement is nothing more that supposition and conjecture, interlaced with flat out assholeness. The regulated market is far from perfect. There are plenty of areas where regulation should be eased to ensure things operate smoothly. However, you completely fail to understand the respective benefits and shortcomings of the regulated market and capitalism, not to mention basic history.
I feel dirty making this joke but wth.
"And where exactly would you say that slaves fit into the free market?"
In the produce section?
You're saying that "Replacing a keypad with a virtual keypad" is an apt analogy to "Replacing keypad input with mouse input" ???
.... wait for it... a TOUCHSCREEN KEYPAD.
An appropriate analogy would be replacing a computer keyboard with
Do you fertilize your ignorance or does it grow that large naturally?
The success of the freemarket can be measured by look at the whole of human history prior to the 20th century.
There were thousands of years when all you needed to be, say, a shop keeper was a shop to keep. No business license or sales tax or liability insurance or health codes.
Socialism and a regulated market economy are inventions of the past 100 years. Maybe it's just a total coincidence that during this time a middle class emerged, but I really doubt that.
We did it your way for 10,000 years. Now it's time to try it our way.
No, I got your point, but it's a bad analogy.
Next we can talk about how this is just like VHS v. BetaMax, eh?
"Guess who won in the end?"
Really? So did you use an on-screen keyboard that you clicked with your mouse? That's interesting to hear.
So, -5 Horrible Analogy. That's 60% horrible analogy, 40% blindAppleWorship.
Dude, you're over the edge.
Everyone of your arguments immediately merges into hyperbole. Having cameras in public places is nowhere near the same as having troops on every corner. But it's worth saying that in isreal, they _do_ have troops in every corner and their citizens live free and prosperous lives.
You expect the citizenry to live in the 21st century but the government to stay in the 1950's.
You gloss over the fact that every single police state in the history of the world operated _without_ the high technology that you're worried about. That the correlation between high tech and state oppression only exists in fiction.
You readily admit that you're paranoid. The definition of paranoia is "extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others." And yes, that does fit with what you're saying. Because never in our history has the government used high technology to oppress us.
And as for the NSA wiretaps, you really go off the deep end here. It's important to remember that if the Bush administration went to a FISA court after they began the program, the court would have approved it. They've _never_ denied a request in their history. So the only problem here is that they did not, in fact, seek out the rubber stamp that they were sure to get. I hate bush as much as the next guy, but being irrational and paranoid does nothing to help your cause. You just marginalize yourself. People can't care about what you're saying if they can't relate to you.
I mean, the wiretaps themselves are only of overseas calls. Do you realize that NSA/Echelon has been monitoring underseas cables for well over a decade now? The only difference here is that the actual "tapping" occurs inside America as opposed to the waters just outside of America. And in both cases, only calls that get flagged are stored. The rest are only stored temporarily while they're being processed, at least that's how Echelon worked. A computer screens the calls for known voices, patterns and words. A computer. Not a person. The percentage of calls actually being heard by a person are minute. And lets not forget: this only applies to overseas calls. Do you think that 1/2 dozen other governments aren't also tapping your call? Of course they are.
So once again, we go back to privacy. Do you have an expectation of privacy when making an overseas call, especially to a middle east/african country? And more specifically: I've never in my life called any overseas country outside of Europe. I suspect that most Americans could say that.
So really, how does this affect Americans? The problem I have is just the Bush hubris of "we don't need no stinkin permission." But it's worthwhile to remember that if they did ask permission, they would've gotten it.
You criticize my argument as being "don't be afraid." Your argument--you fully admit-- is "be irrationally afraid." You make this giant leap between Gitmo and wiretapping and totalitarian 1984ish control. And by being a chicken little here, you are doing a disservice to everyone. Because if the day does come that they really cross the line with something, it will be impossible to rally the citizenry. They've been hearing the quacks say that every use of technology in government is oppression for 20 years, so what would be different than? You're crying wolf here and it doesn't help anybody.
The idea that government has to prove that it needs cameras is silly. Besides, you've yet to give me any actual reason why you think you have a right not to be filmed in public places. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. The only thing that comes close is the 4th amendment that guarantees people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Secure in your person does not mean that the government has no right to look at you or screen your face against a DB of known criminals.
Seriously, if you hate technology this much, I hear there's a cabin in the deep woods in Montana that was vacated about a decade ago.
And as for your encryption issues: