Agreed, and sorry about that. I try not to stoop to that level, but thuggish, fraudulent, and illegal behavior has this tendency to anger me, and, when angry, I become rather less articulate.
And if I don't want to advertise my computer's susceptibility to.NET-based malware? If I don't want to run embedded Mafia$oft crap in Firefox, which is probably 50% or more of why I use it in the first fracking place?
And what the frack is Firefox doing allowing "extensions" to be installed behind my back in the first place??? Are they purposely trying to piss me off, or did they have controls in place to prevent this, which M$ managed to somehow bypass? If the latter, why isn't there already a patch available and why wasn't I asked to install it???
Granted, it's partly my employer's fault for forcing me to use M$ operating systems in the first place . . . but I'm beyond pissed off at M$ at this point, and if the Mozilla folks don't have a DAMN good explanation for how and why this happened, and how they will prevent it from ever happening again, then I will begin a search for alternatives.
I'm just old enough (barely) to remember the phrase "Japanese imported junk." You don't hear that a lot anymore.
Japan's rise to economic superpower status was a testament to the character of the Japanese people themselves, who always have been honest, smart, hard-working, and willing to save and invest now in order to prosper later. China shares many of these same advantages, plus many of its own: a much larger population, much more natural resources, less history of military expansionism and empire-building, and, ironically, one of the highest levels of economic freedom in the world. It will go far, provided it does not fall into the trap of militarism or another Hundred Flowers fiasco.
Would untreated sewage flowing onto Cleveland, Ohio's only large public beach (Edgewater Park) qualify? If so, we have a winner. Dying rust-belt cities like Cleveland or Detroit are not drastically different than what I have seen of comparably sized cities in Africa, South America or the poorer parts of Asia. The extremes of poverty may not be as great, and the life expectancy is a little higher (only because we don't have comparable rates of AIDS infections yet), but the climate of hopelessness, violence, and despair is at least as bad as in any of those places, and perhaps worse.
Jesus taught that the first and greatest commandment was to love God with all our being, and our neighbor, defined subsequently to include those who are different than us, as ourselves. THAT is the basis of all genuine law. You will find that when followed even semi-consistently, this law produces drastically different and preferable results than the one you would like us to believe.
Hang on, I thought you said "There are rules, even in war"?
Yup; they mostly concern protection of noncombatants, which the English occupying forces were not.
Plus, as far as we were concerned, it was you who was unlawful.
Law is universal, and is discovered, not made. The Declaration of Independence sums up our position pretty well (not perfectly, but well). It was the British who were mainly in the wrong with respect to the Americans, and not the reverse. We did not travel to the British Isles and attempt to dominate and enslave your society. (Sadly, we have done this to other nations, once we were big/powerful enough to do so, but that is something I would condemn, not defend.)
Plus, the whole country had been stolen in the first place -- pretty much in living memory -- from its indigenous peoples.
That's the closest you come to having a point. It's much more complex than that, because many Native American tribes were nomadic; many did not have a concept of "ownership," and some states, notably Pennsylvania, did a much better job of working with and respecting the rights of the native tribes than did others. Nonetheless, overall, I agree that we did not live up to the ideals of our founding documents, even at the time they were put forth. You didn't mention slavery but that's an even better example of said failure, and one your society managed to abolish sooner, more completely, and with vastly less bloodshed than ours. Thankfully, the ideals themselves, for the most part, were sound. We would do well to try to live up to them, this time on both sides of the pond (your total surveillance society being in many respects even more Orwellian than our own).
You appear to be assuming that the so-called "safety net" actually protects people, instead of enslaving them. Some of us who live in or near the places where that so-called "safety net" is popular have a different opinion. It subsidizes, institutionalizes, and entrenches poverty-causing behaviors, and poverty itself, in ways that never, ever fail to destroy people, families, and entire communities. I might not resent paying for it as much if I thought it genuinely helped, but it doesn't. It just ensures a steady supply of Democratic votes from people who otherwise probably wouldn't give two craps about a political system that fails them to an even greater extent than it does the rest of us. If we wanted to reduce poverty, we would promote free enterprise and free markets, regulated ONLY to the extent necessary to protect life, liberty and property; then we would try to find ways to train and otherwise encourage people to gain marketable skills so they wouldn't *need* handouts anymore. Clinton, for all his flaws, appeared to genuinely recognize this, and his welfare reform policies did make baby steps in the right direction (but only baby steps, which subsequently have been reversed). I would be impressed if Obama did the same, but it remains to be seen whether he'll do the right thing or the easy thing.
Agreed. As a libertarian I have many problems with the left, but I'm completely with them on some points: openness in government (and in software), ending the Iraq war ASAP, not subsidizing corporations (but not excessively regulating them either), rolling back if not eliminating completely the so-called "war on drugs," and generally rolling back as many as possible of the civil rights abuses of the Bush era. And I'll give Obama credit where credit is due, although I don't necessarily expect that will happen all the time.
It's not sufficient to be willing to die following orders. You must also be willing to die for disobeying immoral orders. Otherwise you're just a mercenary.
I agree, and I try to explain this to young people considering a military career. Given that the main purpose of the U.S. military today is not to defend this or any other country, but rather to illegally occupy and/or commit aggression against other countries, it seems not only likely but almost unavoidable that anyone entering the service today will be confronted with illegal orders, and with them, the unenviable choice of either committing a crime, or being dishonorably discharged or worse (possibly murdered). The only way to avoid that choice is to avoid military service, so that is what I always recommend. I would recommend it ONLY if our country was being unjustly attacked by a foreign government or its military, and, for at least the past 67 years (arguably at least for much longer), that has not happened.
I grew up in the 70s, when times were pretty tough (worse than today, though probably not as bad as they will get soon). The lessons I learned then are very applicable today. I learned that even if you have a job today, you might not tomorrow or next year. Even if you get another job it might be right away, and might not pay as well. Things might cost a lot more tomorrow or next year than they do today. Some jobs and skillsets become obsolete, though others will likely take their place. Those other skills might require additional education or training. We don't exactly know what tomorrow will look like, so it's a good idea to live within your means, save and invest (wisely) what you can, pay cash up front when you can, borrow only if you must and only as little as possible, pay it back as quickly as possible, and always be prepared to change your skillset, your education, your location, your lifestyle, or whatever else might need to change so that you and your family can survive during the difficult times and prosper during the better ones. These lessons have served me well, and continue to do so. I don't know how long I'll have a job, and it will suck for me and my family when I lose it (which I probably will eventually). But we've done everything we could to prepare, so when that time comes, hopefully we will be able to weather the storm, and possibly even be in a position to help others around us, rather than having to depend on others or on a "government" that exacerbates the problem by borrowing from the future incomes of our children and grandchildren in order to perpetuate its own power along with an ultimately unsustainable corporatist/fascist (not genuinely capitalist or free-market) economy.
Because culling the lowest 5-10% performing staff is good for the overall business, and now is the perfect time to do that because the story of your job cuts will get lost among all the other stories about job cuts and not cause you as much bad publicity.
Not always. First, it is very hard to measure developer productivity. There's no guaranteed way to do it and thus no way to guarantee that the supposed 5-10% you are cutting are truly the 5%-10% worst performing people. There's no way to guarantee that the knowledge they have is not crucial to the business, or even to the performance of the other 90-95%. And as other posters have mentioned, layoffs do tend to hurt morale and thus performance. I recognize that all businesses need to minimize their costs, but layoffs are not always the best way to do that, assuming a company was properly staffed in the first place, and there are associated costs to the company as well as to the individual that are not always being considered.
Huh, Bush is still alive after committing many acts of treason and assaults on the constitution. I guess your oath doesn't actually mean shit to you. Give up that nonsense. You have failed utterly to defend either the people of this nation or its constitution.
If it were up to me he would have been tried, convicted, removed from office, and turned over to representatives of the people he helped to murder, LONG AGO.
Unfortunately I do not have the power to make this happen by myself. I would need a substantial number of other people, preferably including active-duty military, to stand with me.
Bush's administration is the only credible threat our nation or our constitution has faced in many years and you've clearly done nothing. Well, it seems likely that you collaborated with the traitors at best, but don't you fucking dare pretend you've done shit for this country.
Actually, EVERY administration in my lifetime, and going back long before then, has trashed the Constitution. Bush may be the worst to date. We'll see how long that record holds. But, again, I am just a person. I am not God. I do not have the power to remove someone from office by myself.
As to your accusation that I have done less than everything I could to fulfill my oath, I am guilty as charged. I have tried, though, and I continue to try. I hope you and everyone else do the same. It would take a LOT of people standing together to have even a CHANCE at throwing the heartless, demonic scumbag "leaders" out on their rears, and, even harder still, restoring something resembling liberty and justice to our nation. But that is what needs to happen. It's the only chance we, or those who come after us, will ever have.
Whereas bombing the crap out of cities from your ivory tower aircraft, with clusters, bunker-busters, etc., is morally upright?
Absolutely not. WW2-style bombardment of cities results in countless civilian deaths, and IS a war crime (one which all sides have committed with impunity, but that doesn't make it right). Not to mention that it also is cowardly and counterproductive.
I would bomb industrial targets (factories, railroads, etc.) if necessary and pursuant to a lawful order to do so, but such a lawful order would have to honor the Geneva conventions and therefore spare noncombatants insofar as possible. This does present a dilemma . . if you warn people, you're also warning their SAM batteries. The conventions DO NOT require that we do this. Thus I don't recommend being in a factory producing munitions for a government that attacks my country. I feel awful for those who do so anyway . . I know they are probably not there by choice. But war, even fought legitimately, requires horrible choices. That's one very fucking good reason not to start one (and yes, I know our "government" has usually been the aggressor in recent military history).
Never forget that the USA is founded upon guerilla warfare against the British.
Against an unlawful British occupying force. They were legitimate targets. And yes, I know that the Iraq situation is comparable, as much as it pains me (there are people I know and care about deeply fighting on BOTH sides of that conflict).
I've taken an oath to defend the people and Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to the best of my ability I will continue to do exactly that. Right now, that does not necessarily need to entail armed resistance, but the time is approaching when it very possibly might.
There are rules, even in war. These rules are there for a reason, and they make sense. For instance, you do not target innocents, including women, children or any other noncombatants. You do what you can to protect them even in the unfortunately all too common situation where the enemy hides among them. You do not target a medic or an enemy soldier already too badly wounded to continue to fight, or one who had surrendered. You honor the customs and laws of war, interpreted and applied as generously as is consistent with the safety of your unit, as well as the overarching goal of establishing a just peace based on genuine freedom. Unnecessary cruelty, destruction, and violence are all CONTRARY to that goal, and that is part of the reason why these rules exist and are followed by all civilized nations.
I will second that . . . . Postgres is very close to an enterprise-class RDBMS, lacking only a very few features such as out-of-the-box replication (almost all of which exist from third party sources). There are multiple companies that offer commercial support. It has always been fast, featureful, and most importantly robust, but until recently the Windows versions had a reputation for being difficult to set up and configure. This has become much easier (almost effortless) in recent years, especially if you use PGAdmin or one of the other available GUI tools. I can't think of any situation in which I'd prefer MSSQL over Postgres. If you haven't checked it out I'd highly recommend it.
I agree. What the "puritans" don't get is that you can't change people's hearts by persecuting them, imprisoning them, subjecting them to prison rape, and marking them as eeeevil "sex offenders" for life.
As a theist (but not a Muslim) let me give one answer. I make no claim that it is necessarily the only, best, or definitive one. And I promise not to break your legs if you disagree.:)
What made you pick that particular god, why are you an Athiest when it comes to (say) the Hindu gods?
First of all, I have been given evidence that demonstrates to my satisfaction that God, as described in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Is. Much of that evidence is not provable using the scientific method and would not satisfy most people who have not already been granted Faith (also as defined by the Jewish and Christian Scriptures). But I have found it both convincing and sufficient.
Second, although I have been exposed to other religious traditions to some small extent, and I have found things to admire in many of them, I have not found any compelling reason in any of these to question what I already believe to be true, including my belief (shared by Jews and Muslims) that God is One. It certainly is possible that had I been raised in the Hindu tradition, I would believe, to at least some degree, as do Hindus. However, I wasn't.
Finally, I represent somewhat of a minority view even among Christians, in that I believe that God is Sovereign. He does as He wishes, and owes us no explanation whatsoever. Furthermore, much of the explanation He does offer to us is accessible only to those who already believe Him . . those who have repented (turned away) from their sins and believed that Jesus Christ is Lord, that He was sent by the Father to die for the sins of all who believe, and that He rose from the dead.
I realize this sounds ridiculous to those who do not believe it. But to those who do, obviously, it is not. It is not worth my time nor yours to try to argue that God can be found through Science. He can and frequently does reveal Himself in this manner, but, more frequently, He does not. I don't know why. If I ever meet Him (if I am among those whom He chose to redeem, something I frankly do not know), I will ask Him.
What I do know is that if you do wish to know God, and seek Him with all your heart, you will find Him. It might be through science, or any number of other ways. At some point in your life, you might come to find that whatever you do believe isn't enough. Perhaps at the end of a career, or a relationship, or a stage in your life, or maybe even at the end of life itself. You might find that science and reason, while immensely valuable, do not have all the answers you need at that point. At that time, I hope you will remember to seek Him. I can't prove that He is there, but you can't prove, or know with certainty, that He isn't. You lose absolutely nothing by keeping an open mind and an open heart, and you might instead gain more than you can possibly imagine now.
The distinction between "manufacturing" and "service" jobs is somewhat artificial. Every step in the manufacturing process is a service. Finding raw materials is a service. Getting them out of the ground is a service. Refining them is a service. Transporting them from place to place is a service. Assembling them together into a finished product is a service. Making the machines to do so is a service. All of these are services; "manufacturing" is simply a convenient shorthand to describe those services whose end result is an assembled physical product, as opposed to the many other services whose end result is not.
Thus, the fact that we have a service-based economy is not in and of itself a problem, provided that our services are sufficiently valued in world markets to purchase the manufactured goods we need as well as the other necessities and wants of life. It is a problem ONLY if our skills, or the products that are created using those skills, are no longer sufficiently valuable to earn us the kind of living we want, in which case, the obvious remedy (which scales up) is to learn new skills.
Microsoft committed significant amounts of fraud in order to acquire and maintain its monopolies. Many libertarian commentators failed to recognize this, because the nature of the fraud (mostly lying about its APIs, file formats and such) was somewhat technical in nature and not readily understood by non-technical people. Also, Microsoft used the force of government to empower the BSA mafia (apologies to the real Mafia) to enforce contracts that were of highly questionable validity in the first place, and arguably to commit extortion as well.
In my interpretation of a libertarian society Microsoft would not have been forced to disclose this information, but would have had to do so accurately if it did so at all. It could have chosen to disclose truthfully - in which case interoperability would have prevented the monopoly - or it could have chosen not to disclose at all, in which case there would be no Windows-only third-party software, and again no monopoly. It is only because it was allowed to fraudulently advertise specific details about its APIs, file formats, etc., and then break those just enough to prevent competition (but not enough to prevent third-party software from being written), that it gained and maintained a monopoly position in spite of having a fairly crappy product.
And, of course, this analysis assumes for sake of argument that current IP laws and practices would exist in a libertarian society, as would limited liability for corporations. Libertarians are divided on both issues, but I'm strongly against both at least in their current form, and without them, my case would become even stronger. Without limited liability, investors would be far more cautious about investing in companies that act unethically or illegally. And without software patents (among other IP abominations) reverse-engineering would probably have broken the MS monopoly much sooner than it did.
But the future spending would have the "multiplier" as well. They cancel each other out. Read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" for more info (there is a free version online but I don't have the link handy ATM).
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, and sorry about that. I try not to stoop to that level, but thuggish, fraudulent, and illegal behavior has this tendency to anger me, and, when angry, I become rather less articulate.
And if I don't want to advertise my computer's susceptibility to .NET-based malware? If I don't want to run embedded Mafia$oft crap in Firefox, which is probably 50% or more of why I use it in the first fracking place?
And what the frack is Firefox doing allowing "extensions" to be installed behind my back in the first place??? Are they purposely trying to piss me off, or did they have controls in place to prevent this, which M$ managed to somehow bypass? If the latter, why isn't there already a patch available and why wasn't I asked to install it???
Granted, it's partly my employer's fault for forcing me to use M$ operating systems in the first place . . . but I'm beyond pissed off at M$ at this point, and if the Mozilla folks don't have a DAMN good explanation for how and why this happened, and how they will prevent it from ever happening again, then I will begin a search for alternatives.
I feel like kneecapping someone. :(
I have stuff in my refrigerator that's 1.83M years old, you insensitive clod!
4) Alaskans are used to being maximally self-reliant, and the rest of us would be well-advised to follow their example.
I'm just old enough (barely) to remember the phrase "Japanese imported junk." You don't hear that a lot anymore.
Japan's rise to economic superpower status was a testament to the character of the Japanese people themselves, who always have been honest, smart, hard-working, and willing to save and invest now in order to prosper later. China shares many of these same advantages, plus many of its own: a much larger population, much more natural resources, less history of military expansionism and empire-building, and, ironically, one of the highest levels of economic freedom in the world. It will go far, provided it does not fall into the trap of militarism or another Hundred Flowers fiasco.
Would untreated sewage flowing onto Cleveland, Ohio's only large public beach (Edgewater Park) qualify? If so, we have a winner. Dying rust-belt cities like Cleveland or Detroit are not drastically different than what I have seen of comparably sized cities in Africa, South America or the poorer parts of Asia. The extremes of poverty may not be as great, and the life expectancy is a little higher (only because we don't have comparable rates of AIDS infections yet), but the climate of hopelessness, violence, and despair is at least as bad as in any of those places, and perhaps worse.
Jesus taught that the first and greatest commandment was to love God with all our being, and our neighbor, defined subsequently to include those who are different than us, as ourselves. THAT is the basis of all genuine law. You will find that when followed even semi-consistently, this law produces drastically different and preferable results than the one you would like us to believe.
Hang on, I thought you said "There are rules, even in war"?
Yup; they mostly concern protection of noncombatants, which the English occupying forces were not.
Plus, as far as we were concerned, it was you who was unlawful.
Law is universal, and is discovered, not made. The Declaration of Independence sums up our position pretty well (not perfectly, but well). It was the British who were mainly in the wrong with respect to the Americans, and not the reverse. We did not travel to the British Isles and attempt to dominate and enslave your society. (Sadly, we have done this to other nations, once we were big/powerful enough to do so, but that is something I would condemn, not defend.)
Plus, the whole country had been stolen in the first place -- pretty much in living memory -- from its indigenous peoples.
That's the closest you come to having a point. It's much more complex than that, because many Native American tribes were nomadic; many did not have a concept of "ownership," and some states, notably Pennsylvania, did a much better job of working with and respecting the rights of the native tribes than did others. Nonetheless, overall, I agree that we did not live up to the ideals of our founding documents, even at the time they were put forth. You didn't mention slavery but that's an even better example of said failure, and one your society managed to abolish sooner, more completely, and with vastly less bloodshed than ours. Thankfully, the ideals themselves, for the most part, were sound. We would do well to try to live up to them, this time on both sides of the pond (your total surveillance society being in many respects even more Orwellian than our own).
You appear to be assuming that the so-called "safety net" actually protects people, instead of enslaving them. Some of us who live in or near the places where that so-called "safety net" is popular have a different opinion. It subsidizes, institutionalizes, and entrenches poverty-causing behaviors, and poverty itself, in ways that never, ever fail to destroy people, families, and entire communities. I might not resent paying for it as much if I thought it genuinely helped, but it doesn't. It just ensures a steady supply of Democratic votes from people who otherwise probably wouldn't give two craps about a political system that fails them to an even greater extent than it does the rest of us. If we wanted to reduce poverty, we would promote free enterprise and free markets, regulated ONLY to the extent necessary to protect life, liberty and property; then we would try to find ways to train and otherwise encourage people to gain marketable skills so they wouldn't *need* handouts anymore. Clinton, for all his flaws, appeared to genuinely recognize this, and his welfare reform policies did make baby steps in the right direction (but only baby steps, which subsequently have been reversed). I would be impressed if Obama did the same, but it remains to be seen whether he'll do the right thing or the easy thing.
Agreed. As a libertarian I have many problems with the left, but I'm completely with them on some points: openness in government (and in software), ending the Iraq war ASAP, not subsidizing corporations (but not excessively regulating them either), rolling back if not eliminating completely the so-called "war on drugs," and generally rolling back as many as possible of the civil rights abuses of the Bush era. And I'll give Obama credit where credit is due, although I don't necessarily expect that will happen all the time.
It's not sufficient to be willing to die following orders. You must also be willing to die for disobeying immoral orders. Otherwise you're just a mercenary.
I agree, and I try to explain this to young people considering a military career. Given that the main purpose of the U.S. military today is not to defend this or any other country, but rather to illegally occupy and/or commit aggression against other countries, it seems not only likely but almost unavoidable that anyone entering the service today will be confronted with illegal orders, and with them, the unenviable choice of either committing a crime, or being dishonorably discharged or worse (possibly murdered). The only way to avoid that choice is to avoid military service, so that is what I always recommend. I would recommend it ONLY if our country was being unjustly attacked by a foreign government or its military, and, for at least the past 67 years (arguably at least for much longer), that has not happened.
To give an illegal order is itself a crime, and in practice is sometimes also punished by summary execution.
I grew up in the 70s, when times were pretty tough (worse than today, though probably not as bad as they will get soon). The lessons I learned then are very applicable today. I learned that even if you have a job today, you might not tomorrow or next year. Even if you get another job it might be right away, and might not pay as well. Things might cost a lot more tomorrow or next year than they do today. Some jobs and skillsets become obsolete, though others will likely take their place. Those other skills might require additional education or training. We don't exactly know what tomorrow will look like, so it's a good idea to live within your means, save and invest (wisely) what you can, pay cash up front when you can, borrow only if you must and only as little as possible, pay it back as quickly as possible, and always be prepared to change your skillset, your education, your location, your lifestyle, or whatever else might need to change so that you and your family can survive during the difficult times and prosper during the better ones. These lessons have served me well, and continue to do so. I don't know how long I'll have a job, and it will suck for me and my family when I lose it (which I probably will eventually). But we've done everything we could to prepare, so when that time comes, hopefully we will be able to weather the storm, and possibly even be in a position to help others around us, rather than having to depend on others or on a "government" that exacerbates the problem by borrowing from the future incomes of our children and grandchildren in order to perpetuate its own power along with an ultimately unsustainable corporatist/fascist (not genuinely capitalist or free-market) economy.
Because culling the lowest 5-10% performing staff is good for the overall business, and now is the perfect time to do that because the story of your job cuts will get lost among all the other stories about job cuts and not cause you as much bad publicity.
Not always. First, it is very hard to measure developer productivity. There's no guaranteed way to do it and thus no way to guarantee that the supposed 5-10% you are cutting are truly the 5%-10% worst performing people. There's no way to guarantee that the knowledge they have is not crucial to the business, or even to the performance of the other 90-95%. And as other posters have mentioned, layoffs do tend to hurt morale and thus performance. I recognize that all businesses need to minimize their costs, but layoffs are not always the best way to do that, assuming a company was properly staffed in the first place, and there are associated costs to the company as well as to the individual that are not always being considered.
Huh, Bush is still alive after committing many acts of treason and assaults on the constitution. I guess your oath doesn't actually mean shit to you. Give up that nonsense. You have failed utterly to defend either the people of this nation or its constitution.
If it were up to me he would have been tried, convicted, removed from office, and turned over to representatives of the people he helped to murder, LONG AGO.
Unfortunately I do not have the power to make this happen by myself. I would need a substantial number of other people, preferably including active-duty military, to stand with me.
Bush's administration is the only credible threat our nation or our constitution has faced in many years and you've clearly done nothing. Well, it seems likely that you collaborated with the traitors at best, but don't you fucking dare pretend you've done shit for this country.
Actually, EVERY administration in my lifetime, and going back long before then, has trashed the Constitution. Bush may be the worst to date. We'll see how long that record holds. But, again, I am just a person. I am not God. I do not have the power to remove someone from office by myself.
As to your accusation that I have done less than everything I could to fulfill my oath, I am guilty as charged. I have tried, though, and I continue to try. I hope you and everyone else do the same. It would take a LOT of people standing together to have even a CHANCE at throwing the heartless, demonic scumbag "leaders" out on their rears, and, even harder still, restoring something resembling liberty and justice to our nation. But that is what needs to happen. It's the only chance we, or those who come after us, will ever have.
Whereas bombing the crap out of cities from your ivory tower aircraft, with clusters, bunker-busters, etc., is morally upright?
Absolutely not. WW2-style bombardment of cities results in countless civilian deaths, and IS a war crime (one which all sides have committed with impunity, but that doesn't make it right). Not to mention that it also is cowardly and counterproductive.
I would bomb industrial targets (factories, railroads, etc.) if necessary and pursuant to a lawful order to do so, but such a lawful order would have to honor the Geneva conventions and therefore spare noncombatants insofar as possible. This does present a dilemma . . if you warn people, you're also warning their SAM batteries. The conventions DO NOT require that we do this. Thus I don't recommend being in a factory producing munitions for a government that attacks my country. I feel awful for those who do so anyway . . I know they are probably not there by choice. But war, even fought legitimately, requires horrible choices. That's one very fucking good reason not to start one (and yes, I know our "government" has usually been the aggressor in recent military history).
Never forget that the USA is founded upon guerilla warfare against the British.
Against an unlawful British occupying force. They were legitimate targets. And yes, I know that the Iraq situation is comparable, as much as it pains me (there are people I know and care about deeply fighting on BOTH sides of that conflict).
I can do that without cocaine, you insensitive clod!
I've taken an oath to defend the people and Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to the best of my ability I will continue to do exactly that. Right now, that does not necessarily need to entail armed resistance, but the time is approaching when it very possibly might.
There are rules, even in war. These rules are there for a reason, and they make sense. For instance, you do not target innocents, including women, children or any other noncombatants. You do what you can to protect them even in the unfortunately all too common situation where the enemy hides among them. You do not target a medic or an enemy soldier already too badly wounded to continue to fight, or one who had surrendered. You honor the customs and laws of war, interpreted and applied as generously as is consistent with the safety of your unit, as well as the overarching goal of establishing a just peace based on genuine freedom. Unnecessary cruelty, destruction, and violence are all CONTRARY to that goal, and that is part of the reason why these rules exist and are followed by all civilized nations.
I will second that . . . . Postgres is very close to an enterprise-class RDBMS, lacking only a very few features such as out-of-the-box replication (almost all of which exist from third party sources). There are multiple companies that offer commercial support. It has always been fast, featureful, and most importantly robust, but until recently the Windows versions had a reputation for being difficult to set up and configure. This has become much easier (almost effortless) in recent years, especially if you use PGAdmin or one of the other available GUI tools. I can't think of any situation in which I'd prefer MSSQL over Postgres. If you haven't checked it out I'd highly recommend it.
I agree. What the "puritans" don't get is that you can't change people's hearts by persecuting them, imprisoning them, subjecting them to prison rape, and marking them as eeeevil "sex offenders" for life.
As a theist (but not a Muslim) let me give one answer. I make no claim that it is necessarily the only, best, or definitive one. And I promise not to break your legs if you disagree. :)
What made you pick that particular god, why are you an Athiest when it comes to (say) the Hindu gods?
First of all, I have been given evidence that demonstrates to my satisfaction that God, as described in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Is. Much of that evidence is not provable using the scientific method and would not satisfy most people who have not already been granted Faith (also as defined by the Jewish and Christian Scriptures). But I have found it both convincing and sufficient.
Second, although I have been exposed to other religious traditions to some small extent, and I have found things to admire in many of them, I have not found any compelling reason in any of these to question what I already believe to be true, including my belief (shared by Jews and Muslims) that God is One. It certainly is possible that had I been raised in the Hindu tradition, I would believe, to at least some degree, as do Hindus. However, I wasn't.
Finally, I represent somewhat of a minority view even among Christians, in that I believe that God is Sovereign. He does as He wishes, and owes us no explanation whatsoever. Furthermore, much of the explanation He does offer to us is accessible only to those who already believe Him . . those who have repented (turned away) from their sins and believed that Jesus Christ is Lord, that He was sent by the Father to die for the sins of all who believe, and that He rose from the dead.
I realize this sounds ridiculous to those who do not believe it. But to those who do, obviously, it is not. It is not worth my time nor yours to try to argue that God can be found through Science. He can and frequently does reveal Himself in this manner, but, more frequently, He does not. I don't know why. If I ever meet Him (if I am among those whom He chose to redeem, something I frankly do not know), I will ask Him.
What I do know is that if you do wish to know God, and seek Him with all your heart, you will find Him. It might be through science, or any number of other ways. At some point in your life, you might come to find that whatever you do believe isn't enough. Perhaps at the end of a career, or a relationship, or a stage in your life, or maybe even at the end of life itself. You might find that science and reason, while immensely valuable, do not have all the answers you need at that point. At that time, I hope you will remember to seek Him. I can't prove that He is there, but you can't prove, or know with certainty, that He isn't. You lose absolutely nothing by keeping an open mind and an open heart, and you might instead gain more than you can possibly imagine now.
The distinction between "manufacturing" and "service" jobs is somewhat artificial. Every step in the manufacturing process is a service. Finding raw materials is a service. Getting them out of the ground is a service. Refining them is a service. Transporting them from place to place is a service. Assembling them together into a finished product is a service. Making the machines to do so is a service. All of these are services; "manufacturing" is simply a convenient shorthand to describe those services whose end result is an assembled physical product, as opposed to the many other services whose end result is not.
Thus, the fact that we have a service-based economy is not in and of itself a problem, provided that our services are sufficiently valued in world markets to purchase the manufactured goods we need as well as the other necessities and wants of life. It is a problem ONLY if our skills, or the products that are created using those skills, are no longer sufficiently valuable to earn us the kind of living we want, in which case, the obvious remedy (which scales up) is to learn new skills.
Microsoft committed significant amounts of fraud in order to acquire and maintain its monopolies. Many libertarian commentators failed to recognize this, because the nature of the fraud (mostly lying about its APIs, file formats and such) was somewhat technical in nature and not readily understood by non-technical people. Also, Microsoft used the force of government to empower the BSA mafia (apologies to the real Mafia) to enforce contracts that were of highly questionable validity in the first place, and arguably to commit extortion as well.
In my interpretation of a libertarian society Microsoft would not have been forced to disclose this information, but would have had to do so accurately if it did so at all. It could have chosen to disclose truthfully - in which case interoperability would have prevented the monopoly - or it could have chosen not to disclose at all, in which case there would be no Windows-only third-party software, and again no monopoly. It is only because it was allowed to fraudulently advertise specific details about its APIs, file formats, etc., and then break those just enough to prevent competition (but not enough to prevent third-party software from being written), that it gained and maintained a monopoly position in spite of having a fairly crappy product.
And, of course, this analysis assumes for sake of argument that current IP laws and practices would exist in a libertarian society, as would limited liability for corporations. Libertarians are divided on both issues, but I'm strongly against both at least in their current form, and without them, my case would become even stronger. Without limited liability, investors would be far more cautious about investing in companies that act unethically or illegally. And without software patents (among other IP abominations) reverse-engineering would probably have broken the MS monopoly much sooner than it did.
And from whom, exactly, would you get the $1 million per person?
But the future spending would have the "multiplier" as well. They cancel each other out. Read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" for more info (there is a free version online but I don't have the link handy ATM).