Insurance is not a replacement for limited liability. In fact, they do opposite things. Limited liability prevents lawsuits and other buesiness costs from hurting investors more than the value of the stock; insurance manages medium size losses (above the deductible but below the cap). However, insurance does not handle truly large losses. Further, insurance doesn't protect from judgements; it merely pays them (up to the cap). If the insurance company goes out of business after you pay the premium and before you try to collect, you are still liable for the cost of the judgement--even if you purchased sufficient insurance.
"Your fears only make sense in an envirornment where the billion dollar lawsuit against the company exits. Under a Libertarian leadership thing such as that wont exist...Uner a libitarian style system you blame the person who's at fault, not the entity with the deepest pockets."
Why not? What changes? Same juries. Same precedent. Same judges (low turnover in judges, who would take fifty years to replace). Absent passing special laws (new regulation) to *prevent* such decisions, there is nothing that can be done here.
The intent of the current system is to blame those at fault; the issue that arises is that there is often multiple levels of fault. If there is a defect in the brakeline of the example SUV, who is at fault? The engineer who designed it? The company? The stockholders? The dealer for selling a defective vehicle? The user for buying it? All of them?
The current system places the blame upon the company. The reason for this is that the company hired the engineer (or engineers), QA staff, and allocated resources (i.e. they could have added an additional QA person who might have caught the problem; or simply given existing staff more time to find problems). In other words, the company is in the best position to resolve the problem.
Even in situations like rollover, the company is *still* in the best position to solve the problem. Presumably they have been getting reports that indicate that many people are driving their vehicles improperly. What are they doing to prevent this? In their marketing, do they indicate that SUVs are only for good drivers (as opposed to trying to sell them as a replacement for station wagons)? Do they explain the design limitations to purchasers? Or do they in fact advertise SUVs as *safer* than other vehicles?
"When you place the ideal of the free market above everything else"
Libertarians do not place the ideal of the free market above everything else; they place the ideal of *freedom* above everything else.
Badnarik does have a solution to the Enron, etc. issue: pierce the corporate veil and allow damages to be recovered from stockholders and former employees. A similar solution is possible for your baby seal issue: sell the seals to private owners. Then if a corporation clubs your baby seal to death, you can sue them. This is as effective as anything the government can do to the *corporation*.
"smaller changes that they can implement at the city/county levels?"
Sure. Someone else mentioned a Libertarian sheriff who stopped prosecuting local drug cases. Other issues would be a school board that outsources to privately run schools. I believe that if this were done properly, state and federal funds could still be collected. A township commission could privatize water, sewage, trash, etc. The biggest problem is that many local expenses are state or federally subsidized. If local municipalities privatize, they may not be able to get their "share" of those funds.
The other reason to run a presidential candidate is that in some states, parties only appear on the ballot if they took a certain percentage of the presidential vote in recent elections. Appearing on the ballot gives access to various public funds that would not otherwise be on the ballot.
"The rich are already sending there[sic] children to privates schools"
It's also worth noting that even in public schools, there are large gaps between schools. Richer neighborhoods can support better schools than poorer neighborhoods.
There are real issues here, but they are not issues relevant to a presidential race. States and local taxes supply far more of school budgets than does the federal government. No, a purely private system won't guarantee equal access to education for all children, but then the current system does not do so either.
"If every airport was different, and every town was a new adventure to fly to then the cost of travel would be considerably more as airline pilots would be required to learn a new standard set of rules for each airport and for each place."
By this argument, the government should take over Microsoft and bar competitors (Sun, Red Hat, Apple, etc.). It can be presumed that in the absence of a mandated standard, airports will create a private standard for those things that need to be standardized (like the computing industry has standardized TCP/IP and HTML).
In regards toll roads, it is worth noting that no toll road receives federal funds. They may or may not receive state funds (the state's choice). I think that it is pretty safe to say that they do not generally receive county or municipal funds. As regards regulation, would you pay to drive on a lousy road? I wouldn't. I would take a different route. If sufficient people do this, then the toll road goes bankrupt and either closes or is bought out by an owner who will fix it up (or the original owner fixes it).
It is true that privatization can cut services to unprofitable areas. However, why are we providing services to areas that don't need them? In particular, why do I have to pay extra to support these services?
"strikes are sometimes legitimate methods of communication which would be impossible without public streets and sidewalks"
Only if the employer is the private owner. If the union owns the strike area, then the reverse applies (it would actually strengthen their position). If someone else owns the strike area, they would tend to let the union use it in return for a fee (possibly something that the union pays *before* the strike, in case of a strike). For the employer to prevent that, they would have to outbid the union at *each* possible strike location.
Even if the employer purchases all the areas around the place of employment, that just expands the perimeter.
"black people might still only be 3/5ths of a person"
Black people weren't 3/5ths of a person, slaves were. The fact that all slaves were black is irrelevant, since the reverse was not true (all blacks were not slaves). A free black *always* counted as 1 person. Once the slaves were free, they immediately counted as whole persons; the 14th amendment simply cleaned up the language.
It's also worth noting that even if the 16th amendment was not properly ratified, it doesn't matter. Courts had already ruled that incomes could be taxed, overturning the same decisions the amendment overturned.
"2) An education: *Statistically*, you need *money* to get a good education (again, no special cases). It is *possible* to get a good education when you're poor, but not nearly as likely, for a wide variety of reasons."
I worked my way through college with a minimum wage job and no financial aid (other than Stafford loans, which anyone of below average income can get). Not an ivy league college, but still top 100. More expensive colleges tend to offer more financial aid in compensation.
This is also not to mention many jobs that require no more than a high school eduction. One example is electrician. Union members typically top out at $25+/hour, a better rate than many college graduates of similar age (23). In fact, I know of one case of a person with a degree in psychology who still became an apprentice electrician. The beginning pay was as good and the future income was better.
It's also worth noting that there are a number of jobs that include educational benefits. Including pretty much all jobs at universities.
GP: "The long term capital gains tax rate is 15%, substantially lower than the 25, 28, 33, and 35% tax brackets that affect people making $29,000 and up."
P: "...to encourage investing in the long term, something that is not limited to the wealthy (and if it is, how do you think they got that way?) "
Not limited? Those already in the 15% tax bracket (or lower) don't get a tax break at all. If you really wanted to encourage long term investing, you would set the rate the same as for wages and other income but allow people to deduct money they invest from current income and then tax the *entire* sale (not just the nominal capital gain). This would help *everyone* who invests; not just those in the higher tax brackets. This would also help in that it no longer benefits capital gains more than dividends, rent, or interest (capital gains is not the only benefit from investment).
The lower rate for "long term" capital gains rate is really most supportive of *medium* term capital gains. Once you get the max discount, it stops. One is then best off selling and buying something new to restart the clock. Remember, the original point of the discount is to counteract the fact that inflationary gains (the increase in nominal price just to keep pace with inflation). Once one reaches the max discount, this justification ends. By contrast, deducting at purchase and taxing at sale eliminates the taxation of inflationary gains for all time periods *exactly* and benefits all income levels.
In regards social security, the point is not how much one gets (which doesn't need to change at all). The point is that a flat tax of 28% (which is the lowest current tax rate for higher incomes, as enforced by the Alternative Minimum Tax) is actually the marginal rate people *currently* pay who are in the 15% tax bracket (counting the employer contribution as part of their income and taxes). Thus, the flat tax does not actually shift the burden from rich to poor, it simply better reflects the *actual* rates that each are paying now.
The claim in the summary wasn't "More CG scenery than ever before;" it was "Unlike anything you've ever seen before." The first claim is true and worthy of note; the second is not and is worthy of only scorn.
It is also worth noting that innovative does not necessarily mean good. The CG in Daredevil and the later Matrix movies may have been innovative, but it sucked (as contrasted with the bullet time of the first Matrix movie, which was cool looking and *fit the plot*). The plot of the original Star Wars movie (A New Hope) was extremely derivative but very cool; only Empire Strikes Back matched it among the other movies.
I haven't seen Sky Capt., so I can't really comment on it. However, from what I've seen in people's comments, they remind me a lot of those about Cabin Fever, Last Action Hero (which I actually liked, but many did not), and Not Another Teen Movie: each very aware of its genre, but not of interest on its own (unlike Pulp Fiction, Scream, True Lies, etc.; all of which are equally aware of their genre but interesting to the general watcher as well).
I'm less concerned about Windows Update getting pwned and more concerned that having IE installed on my system will allow someone to pwn me when I'm *not* using Windows Update. The beauties of OLE means that other applications can run IE at unpredictable times. My firewall is set never to trust IE, but I would rather just not have it at all.
My current windows update method is to run it on a separate partition and download the update (rather than install through Windows Update). Most would probably find this excessive however.
"With words, you can say something that has never been said before to describe precisely what you're feeling. I don't see pictures doing that."
But who does? When did you last see someone say, "These words are meant as a joke. Please don't take them seriously." in the midst of a sarcastic comment. Emoticons and other such symbols serve to provide important clues as to what someone intends. Yes,;) or:wink: do not express the exact emotion; however, they do express that the poster is less than serious when their words can be taken either way. Note also that it took two sentences of words to provide as much info as the emoticons. Yes, one could write additional sentences to more fully express one's feelings, but who bothers? Are you really claiming that you would write a whole paragraph to explain your feelings about a single sentence?
In terms of limiting one's range of expression, you are forgetting something. Nothing says that you can't use words *as well as* emoticons. If there is no emoticon expressing what you want to say, then you can always use words there. Further, regular use of emoticons makes people *expect* to need to express their feelings. Without emoticons, they might not consider trying to express feelings. This happened frequently in early usenet. Sarcastic posts were easily misunderstood.
The first version should be 0 -- programmers should always count in computer numbers.
Seriously, Firefox may be as ready as any IE release, but that does not make it production software; it just means that IE has never been QAed properly. Fractional (below 1) versions make version 1.0 meaningful. What should we follow the MS scheme: version 1 is utter junk; 2 is better but still lousy; 3 is mostly usable; 3.x and higher are the first versions that are expected to succeed? That's just version inflation.
CMU students have something of a history of painting vandalism: this might actually happen. Didn't RTFA, but it would be funny if the building was put where the fence (repainted about once a week by CMU organizations with agendas to push) was the last time that I was there.
Consumers would only pay if all the companies have to pay the settlement. Since only one company does, the company itself will have to pay the settlement. If it tried to pass the cost on to consumers, it would lose market share. Otoh, the fine will be paid to the government, which will benefit all consumers.
The RIAA settlement was different. It was a class action suit run by private lawyers and prosecuted against an entire industry. Your criticism would be much more accurate against it.
"Yes, these wonderful lawyers who are doing this for the little people like you and me. The fact that they're making millions of dollars is inconsequential to them."
Government lawyers are well paid (compared to other professions), but not at the same level as those in private practice. Further, they don't work on commission; at best, they might get a raise for successfully prosecuting the case. The millions go to their employer (the government), not to them.
On the five discs at a time plan (about $35), I could get thirty movies a month. Just a little over a $1 a movie. Why would I pay four to nine times as much for a movie that I'm never going to watch again? Sure, if you only watch four or five movies a month or plan on watching the movie again, buying is just as effective as Netflix. However, most people who use Netflix do not just watch four or five movies a month.
I would think that the reason would be even simpler than the interface. I would rather download than receive by mail for the simple reason that a download takes just a few hours. Mail takes a day to get there, a day to process, and a day to to go back out. Further, downloads don't get lost in the mail, scratched, broken, etc.; one can't run out of download copies and cause you to wait until a new copy gets back in inventory.
A better question is why someone would use the mail system when downloads are available. Bad news for the USPS but good news for consumers.
From your link: "I used the built-in Cookie Manager in Firefox/Mozilla and was able to delete my protected cookies. What's up?
The built-in Cookie Manager has no support for the cookie protection system that I created for CookieCuller. I didn't add it to the built-in Cookie Manager because I wanted to create an Extension, not a total replacement."
This is exactly the problem that the previous poster was having: accidentally clearing cookies by hitting the wrong button when going to clear cache. Now, if there is a CacheCuller, then that would probably solve the problem (the clear cache button being easily confused with the clear cookie button). This won't, because it doesn't remove the troublesome button. The problem is clearing the cache without clearing the cookies, not clearing cookies selectively (which is what the extension seems to handle).
Personally, I don't care what color it is. I just find the IT tan to be way too bright. I'm currently using the Apache colors which I find ugly but readable.
It is not like the terrorists are limited to a small set of names! They'll just pick another name at random (just like they picked John Lewis and Edward Kennedy) and keep going."
Yes, because one can just whip up a fake ID and change the name on the reservation on arrival at the airport. Try it sometime. "Oh, John Lewis is on the no-fly list? Let's use the Thomas Kennedy ID instead." It's not even close to at will. They are limited to the names for which they have IDs. It is certainly theoretically possible to to have IDs that are only used to make the reservation and board the plane. However, there is no guarantee that the fake IDs won't be discovered after making the reservations and before boarding the plane--unbeknownst to them (until stopped by security). If nothing else, it forces them to generate more fake IDs, increasing the chances that the person who makes the IDs will get caught.
Slashdot Mirror
Insurance is not a replacement for limited liability. In fact, they do opposite things. Limited liability prevents lawsuits and other buesiness costs from hurting investors more than the value of the stock; insurance manages medium size losses (above the deductible but below the cap). However, insurance does not handle truly large losses. Further, insurance doesn't protect from judgements; it merely pays them (up to the cap). If the insurance company goes out of business after you pay the premium and before you try to collect, you are still liable for the cost of the judgement--even if you purchased sufficient insurance.
"Your fears only make sense in an envirornment where the billion dollar lawsuit against the company exits. Under a Libertarian leadership thing such as that wont exist...Uner a libitarian style system you blame the person who's at fault, not the entity with the deepest pockets."
Why not? What changes? Same juries. Same precedent. Same judges (low turnover in judges, who would take fifty years to replace). Absent passing special laws (new regulation) to *prevent* such decisions, there is nothing that can be done here.
The intent of the current system is to blame those at fault; the issue that arises is that there is often multiple levels of fault. If there is a defect in the brakeline of the example SUV, who is at fault? The engineer who designed it? The company? The stockholders? The dealer for selling a defective vehicle? The user for buying it? All of them?
The current system places the blame upon the company. The reason for this is that the company hired the engineer (or engineers), QA staff, and allocated resources (i.e. they could have added an additional QA person who might have caught the problem; or simply given existing staff more time to find problems). In other words, the company is in the best position to resolve the problem.
Even in situations like rollover, the company is *still* in the best position to solve the problem. Presumably they have been getting reports that indicate that many people are driving their vehicles improperly. What are they doing to prevent this? In their marketing, do they indicate that SUVs are only for good drivers (as opposed to trying to sell them as a replacement for station wagons)? Do they explain the design limitations to purchasers? Or do they in fact advertise SUVs as *safer* than other vehicles?
"When you place the ideal of the free market above everything else"
Libertarians do not place the ideal of the free market above everything else; they place the ideal of *freedom* above everything else.
Badnarik does have a solution to the Enron, etc. issue: pierce the corporate veil and allow damages to be recovered from stockholders and former employees. A similar solution is possible for your baby seal issue: sell the seals to private owners. Then if a corporation clubs your baby seal to death, you can sue them. This is as effective as anything the government can do to the *corporation*.
"smaller changes that they can implement at the city/county levels?"
Sure. Someone else mentioned a Libertarian sheriff who stopped prosecuting local drug cases. Other issues would be a school board that outsources to privately run schools. I believe that if this were done properly, state and federal funds could still be collected. A township commission could privatize water, sewage, trash, etc. The biggest problem is that many local expenses are state or federally subsidized. If local municipalities privatize, they may not be able to get their "share" of those funds.
The other reason to run a presidential candidate is that in some states, parties only appear on the ballot if they took a certain percentage of the presidential vote in recent elections. Appearing on the ballot gives access to various public funds that would not otherwise be on the ballot.
"The rich are already sending there[sic] children to privates schools"
It's also worth noting that even in public schools, there are large gaps between schools. Richer neighborhoods can support better schools than poorer neighborhoods.
There are real issues here, but they are not issues relevant to a presidential race. States and local taxes supply far more of school budgets than does the federal government. No, a purely private system won't guarantee equal access to education for all children, but then the current system does not do so either.
"Do you feel there are seperate factions inside the party with different goals?"
There are separate factions in *all* parties with different goals. Why would this stop you from voting Libertarian? I.e. what difference does it make?
"If every airport was different, and every town was a new adventure to fly to then the cost of travel would be considerably more as airline pilots would be required to learn a new standard set of rules for each airport and for each place."
By this argument, the government should take over Microsoft and bar competitors (Sun, Red Hat, Apple, etc.). It can be presumed that in the absence of a mandated standard, airports will create a private standard for those things that need to be standardized (like the computing industry has standardized TCP/IP and HTML).
In regards toll roads, it is worth noting that no toll road receives federal funds. They may or may not receive state funds (the state's choice). I think that it is pretty safe to say that they do not generally receive county or municipal funds. As regards regulation, would you pay to drive on a lousy road? I wouldn't. I would take a different route. If sufficient people do this, then the toll road goes bankrupt and either closes or is bought out by an owner who will fix it up (or the original owner fixes it).
It is true that privatization can cut services to unprofitable areas. However, why are we providing services to areas that don't need them? In particular, why do I have to pay extra to support these services?
"strikes are sometimes legitimate methods of communication which would be impossible without public streets and sidewalks"
Only if the employer is the private owner. If the union owns the strike area, then the reverse applies (it would actually strengthen their position). If someone else owns the strike area, they would tend to let the union use it in return for a fee (possibly something that the union pays *before* the strike, in case of a strike). For the employer to prevent that, they would have to outbid the union at *each* possible strike location.
Even if the employer purchases all the areas around the place of employment, that just expands the perimeter.
"black people might still only be 3/5ths of a person"
Black people weren't 3/5ths of a person, slaves were. The fact that all slaves were black is irrelevant, since the reverse was not true (all blacks were not slaves). A free black *always* counted as 1 person. Once the slaves were free, they immediately counted as whole persons; the 14th amendment simply cleaned up the language.
It's also worth noting that even if the 16th amendment was not properly ratified, it doesn't matter. Courts had already ruled that incomes could be taxed, overturning the same decisions the amendment overturned.
" The Reform party helped get Clinton elected, by drawing votes in 1992 from Bush to Perot."
No, the reform party voters split about 50/50 in for whom they would have voted without Perot. The same thing with Nader in 2000.
"2) An education: *Statistically*, you need *money* to get a good education (again, no special cases). It is *possible* to get a good education when you're poor, but not nearly as likely, for a wide variety of reasons."
I worked my way through college with a minimum wage job and no financial aid (other than Stafford loans, which anyone of below average income can get). Not an ivy league college, but still top 100. More expensive colleges tend to offer more financial aid in compensation.
This is also not to mention many jobs that require no more than a high school eduction. One example is electrician. Union members typically top out at $25+/hour, a better rate than many college graduates of similar age (23). In fact, I know of one case of a person with a degree in psychology who still became an apprentice electrician. The beginning pay was as good and the future income was better.
It's also worth noting that there are a number of jobs that include educational benefits. Including pretty much all jobs at universities.
GP: "The long term capital gains tax rate is 15%, substantially lower than the 25, 28, 33, and 35% tax brackets that affect people making $29,000 and up."
P: "...to encourage investing in the long term, something that is not limited to the wealthy (and if it is, how do you think they got that way?) "
Not limited? Those already in the 15% tax bracket (or lower) don't get a tax break at all. If you really wanted to encourage long term investing, you would set the rate the same as for wages and other income but allow people to deduct money they invest from current income and then tax the *entire* sale (not just the nominal capital gain). This would help *everyone* who invests; not just those in the higher tax brackets. This would also help in that it no longer benefits capital gains more than dividends, rent, or interest (capital gains is not the only benefit from investment).
The lower rate for "long term" capital gains rate is really most supportive of *medium* term capital gains. Once you get the max discount, it stops. One is then best off selling and buying something new to restart the clock. Remember, the original point of the discount is to counteract the fact that inflationary gains (the increase in nominal price just to keep pace with inflation). Once one reaches the max discount, this justification ends. By contrast, deducting at purchase and taxing at sale eliminates the taxation of inflationary gains for all time periods *exactly* and benefits all income levels.
In regards social security, the point is not how much one gets (which doesn't need to change at all). The point is that a flat tax of 28% (which is the lowest current tax rate for higher incomes, as enforced by the Alternative Minimum Tax) is actually the marginal rate people *currently* pay who are in the 15% tax bracket (counting the employer contribution as part of their income and taxes). Thus, the flat tax does not actually shift the burden from rich to poor, it simply better reflects the *actual* rates that each are paying now.
The claim in the summary wasn't "More CG scenery than ever before;" it was "Unlike anything you've ever seen before." The first claim is true and worthy of note; the second is not and is worthy of only scorn.
It is also worth noting that innovative does not necessarily mean good. The CG in Daredevil and the later Matrix movies may have been innovative, but it sucked (as contrasted with the bullet time of the first Matrix movie, which was cool looking and *fit the plot*). The plot of the original Star Wars movie (A New Hope) was extremely derivative but very cool; only Empire Strikes Back matched it among the other movies.
I haven't seen Sky Capt., so I can't really comment on it. However, from what I've seen in people's comments, they remind me a lot of those about Cabin Fever, Last Action Hero (which I actually liked, but many did not), and Not Another Teen Movie: each very aware of its genre, but not of interest on its own (unlike Pulp Fiction, Scream, True Lies, etc.; all of which are equally aware of their genre but interesting to the general watcher as well).
I'm less concerned about Windows Update getting pwned and more concerned that having IE installed on my system will allow someone to pwn me when I'm *not* using Windows Update. The beauties of OLE means that other applications can run IE at unpredictable times. My firewall is set never to trust IE, but I would rather just not have it at all.
My current windows update method is to run it on a separate partition and download the update (rather than install through Windows Update). Most would probably find this excessive however.
"With words, you can say something that has never been said before to describe precisely what you're feeling. I don't see pictures doing that."
;) or :wink: do not express the exact emotion; however, they do express that the poster is less than serious when their words can be taken either way. Note also that it took two sentences of words to provide as much info as the emoticons. Yes, one could write additional sentences to more fully express one's feelings, but who bothers? Are you really claiming that you would write a whole paragraph to explain your feelings about a single sentence?
But who does? When did you last see someone say, "These words are meant as a joke. Please don't take them seriously." in the midst of a sarcastic comment. Emoticons and other such symbols serve to provide important clues as to what someone intends. Yes,
In terms of limiting one's range of expression, you are forgetting something. Nothing says that you can't use words *as well as* emoticons. If there is no emoticon expressing what you want to say, then you can always use words there. Further, regular use of emoticons makes people *expect* to need to express their feelings. Without emoticons, they might not consider trying to express feelings. This happened frequently in early usenet. Sarcastic posts were easily misunderstood.
The first version should be 0 -- programmers should always count in computer numbers.
Seriously, Firefox may be as ready as any IE release, but that does not make it production software; it just means that IE has never been QAed properly. Fractional (below 1) versions make version 1.0 meaningful. What should we follow the MS scheme: version 1 is utter junk; 2 is better but still lousy; 3 is mostly usable; 3.x and higher are the first versions that are expected to succeed? That's just version inflation.
CMU students have something of a history of painting vandalism: this might actually happen. Didn't RTFA, but it would be funny if the building was put where the fence (repainted about once a week by CMU organizations with agendas to push) was the last time that I was there.
And the article is about CMU: named after a steel magnate (Andrew Carnegie) and a rich judge (Thomas Mellon).
Consumers would only pay if all the companies have to pay the settlement. Since only one company does, the company itself will have to pay the settlement. If it tried to pass the cost on to consumers, it would lose market share. Otoh, the fine will be paid to the government, which will benefit all consumers.
The RIAA settlement was different. It was a class action suit run by private lawyers and prosecuted against an entire industry. Your criticism would be much more accurate against it.
"Yes, these wonderful lawyers who are doing this for the little people like you and me. The fact that they're making millions of dollars is inconsequential to them."
Government lawyers are well paid (compared to other professions), but not at the same level as those in private practice. Further, they don't work on commission; at best, they might get a raise for successfully prosecuting the case. The millions go to their employer (the government), not to them.
On the five discs at a time plan (about $35), I could get thirty movies a month. Just a little over a $1 a movie. Why would I pay four to nine times as much for a movie that I'm never going to watch again? Sure, if you only watch four or five movies a month or plan on watching the movie again, buying is just as effective as Netflix. However, most people who use Netflix do not just watch four or five movies a month.
I would think that the reason would be even simpler than the interface. I would rather download than receive by mail for the simple reason that a download takes just a few hours. Mail takes a day to get there, a day to process, and a day to to go back out. Further, downloads don't get lost in the mail, scratched, broken, etc.; one can't run out of download copies and cause you to wait until a new copy gets back in inventory.
A better question is why someone would use the mail system when downloads are available. Bad news for the USPS but good news for consumers.
From your link: "I used the built-in Cookie Manager in Firefox/Mozilla and was able to delete my protected cookies. What's up?
The built-in Cookie Manager has no support for the cookie protection system that I created for CookieCuller. I didn't add it to the built-in Cookie Manager because I wanted to create an Extension, not a total replacement."
This is exactly the problem that the previous poster was having: accidentally clearing cookies by hitting the wrong button when going to clear cache. Now, if there is a CacheCuller, then that would probably solve the problem (the clear cache button being easily confused with the clear cookie button). This won't, because it doesn't remove the troublesome button. The problem is clearing the cache without clearing the cookies, not clearing cookies selectively (which is what the extension seems to handle).
Personally, I don't care what color it is. I just find the IT tan to be way too bright. I'm currently using the Apache colors which I find ugly but readable.
" Argh! You don't seem to be getting the point.
It is not like the terrorists are limited to a small set of names! They'll just pick another name at random (just like they picked John Lewis and Edward Kennedy) and keep going."
Yes, because one can just whip up a fake ID and change the name on the reservation on arrival at the airport. Try it sometime. "Oh, John Lewis is on the no-fly list? Let's use the Thomas Kennedy ID instead." It's not even close to at will. They are limited to the names for which they have IDs. It is certainly theoretically possible to to have IDs that are only used to make the reservation and board the plane. However, there is no guarantee that the fake IDs won't be discovered after making the reservations and before boarding the plane--unbeknownst to them (until stopped by security). If nothing else, it forces them to generate more fake IDs, increasing the chances that the person who makes the IDs will get caught.