The theologans would argue god gave us free choice. God supposedly already knows what we're going to do but gives us the chance to do it anyway. Of course to a being that exists supposedly outside of time, it's a non issue.
It would have to be view independent. That's not possible, nor is sampling the necessary background from the exact perspective you would need to to generate an inverse. Essentially, the invisibility cloth would need to be smart enough to know exactly where you are and generate the exact image for *each eye*. Projecting two different images to two different locations from the same surface would require the surface to be dynamic and holographic. computation of the inverse image would have to be instant and perfect. Such computational power, materials, cameras, etc, do not exist and likely never will.
The problem to controlling the dialogue is when somebody in power gets to decide what is offensive and say's "you can't say that", it creates a chilling effect where everybody else wonders "can I say this or that". Eventually things polarize, everybody starts to think the same way, and things get very boring indeed (as the open commerce of ideas is compromised). Offense is necessary to create balance and flex rights, online and elsewhere. Without black, there is no white.
And "slippery slope", logical fallacy or not, fits in this situation. Chilling effects exist, as does the tendency of people in power to not only want to keep power, but increase it. Control over communication is the greatest power there is, and why nobody should have it.
And Ted bundy's argument wasn't flawed because of the slippery slope, but because most people look at pictures of nudes or even hardcord do not progress down his path. He was looking for a way to excuse what he did by blaming it on something else, just like a drunk driver blames his actions on a nonexistent "disease"
what does any of this have to do with socialism? Libertarians, (many of those "teabaggers" are just a upset as anybody else, probably more, at intrusion into personal privacy.)
Theft? A person who purchases a kindle and "e-books" from Amazon under their licensing agreement agrees to that licensing agreement. A person consents that the device may be rendered unusable at any time. Solution: don't buy a device with DRM, and don't complain if you do and you get shafted.
Yes, this is prone to abuse. No, it can not be effectively audited by the public without "compromising" (or even "jeopardizing") "the mission". The only relief comes from the knowledge, that any evidence illegally collected still can not be used against anyone in the court of law...
Yeah. Tell that to the renditions and the prisoners in Gitmo.
Um. Not that it really matters since we're not A-rabs. We can trust that our current government will use the information to protect us citizens and never abuse such unlimited power like has happened many times before(see J Edgar Hoover)! Right? Even if you do trust the current administration, would you really trust a not-so honest leader with that kind of power, or an honest person with that power for too long? Sure ATT got caught, but how many other "secret rooms" are there in phone companies across the United states? Without secure long distance communication, the possibility of an effective revolution might be effectively hindered if not outright made impossible (Should the need ever arise, not that it's now... goodness knows we're just doing just fine and dandy). Essentially, i'm arguing that control over communication constitutes the destruction of a "failsafe" in our system similar to that of the second amendment (a way to get out of a dictatorship, should it ever arise).
Imagine for shits and giggles that some president decides that it is necessary, after a conveniently timed terrorist attack (see Kristallnacht), to institute martial law. No, I'm not implying anybody in the govt did 9/11, but I am saying if there was another attack from inside or outside, I'm guessing most citizens would willingly, without question give over their privacy and liberty to be safe from either a fabricated, or a real enemy (who we've been working very hard increasing recruiting and general middle east sympathy for)
In any case, it isn't a matter of the ethics of the leader or the party politics in my mind, it's the existence of the type of control over communication far too powerful to be acceptable in a democracy. You might think the people will stand up against this tyranny but the truth is most are quite comfortable with big brother watching out for their well being (they're only after the terrorists, right). The problem there is that "terrorist" is a very vague, scary term that can easily be adapted to apply to any number of groups that the government might not like. And K street is not a secret. Until you're part of that increasingly large designation of "terrorist" you probably won't mind, but you will eventually, when they come around for you. IMO people have got to stand up en-masse and start speaking out before the government is given an excuse to shut you up. They could call it "fermenting dissent during a national crisis" or some such. It isn't like the cages aren't already purchased(and I cited an extremely conservative source that would not normally be known to criticize bush). The existance of these camps seems to disturb a lot of people but for some odd reason gets very very little MSM exposure (as even Michael Savage, who I personally detest, noted).
Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson
A few years ago, while i was still actively writing on slashdot, i was part of a listserv calling themselves the Trekkers. If you read my posts from a few years back you will see me mentioning a break with my parents, a school, and a somewhat unpleasant aftermath. I was in a school very similar to the one, whose parent company, WWASP, she sued. A full court transcript can be found http://www.isaccorp.org/documentsnz.asphere as well as some background information on Sue Scheff (who filed the lawsuit).
She contacted me online prior to this trial after she found me on a WWASP affiliated forum raising hell on my own. She called me on the phone to make sure i was not a program staff member.
After that i was a member of their list for a while but neglected it after it turned into a constant drama session, ranting and raving and arguing between parents over how to do this and that. At the same time that she was claiming to be out to take down abusive schools, it turns out, she was starting her own little referral service of her own, raking in the dough on her own. She betrayed the trust and used us all as tools of propoganda so she could win a case and/or hurt her foe. Since she lied about so many things, it is difficult to guage whether her motives were sincere. Whatever the case, she began referring more Children to abusive programs (although she claims she had no knowledge of this there is evidence to the contrary.)
If you read the court transcripts you will find that Ironically, she used "slander" on the internet as a tactic of her own, posting with multiple user names, weaving conversations with herself. She claimed this was done to create awareness when on the side she was setting up her own business. Her lawyer went on and on about free speech and all that. Now she sues a homeless woman for 11 million. As if the program the woman's child went to didn't rob her of enough of her money.
Disposing of inconvenient children is quite an industry in the United States. Each year, thousands of kids are shipped off to schools in the US and abroad (especially third world countries where restrictions on humane treatement are more lax). Slander is often a convenient method to shut up ex-students and parents who will not stay silent knowing what they know.
I used to believe litigation against slander served a purpose, but i would rather live in a completely sceptical, free society, where anything is said, and everything is questioned.
So then the question then becomes: Can fight fear with a false sense of security? If the fight is against terror, why is that exactly what is pushed down our throats by the media. What happened to the stiff upper lip?
Given the W Brother's subsequent "V for Vendetta", im not quite sure he did misunderstand the quote. Religious references in the film could be red herrings, especially when the message would be so subversive otherwise. I think they threw caution to the wind with "V"
I used to work for a defense dept contractor and while I was there I realised that the goal was to sell the "customer" (ie. the DOD / pentagon) a product at the highest markup possable.) Why does the DOD pay, for example, 1600 dollars for a 256MB compact flash card (two years ago, when a comporable product was $29 at a local Circuit City)?
Because:
A: The DOD largely has no idea what they are purchasing, yet have unlimited funds. The brass just want shiny new (functionality optional) things that go beep and have lots of blinking lights. So why do they purchase these things that they do not necessarily want or need:
B: Because when the brass at the pentagon retire, they go into the private sector and sell this equipment to all their old buddies who are more than willing to get ripped off knowing that they will get their turn when they retire. Some of the stuff just rots in warehouses for years as surplus, after which many techs "inherit" old equipment the customer no longer "needs" and has never used. We are not talking dinkie little pieces of equipment. Some examples: Cisco 6509e's in racks, fully loaded with gigabit, fiber, and ws-sup720 management blades.
This brings me to Microsoft: people in the DOD who i have dealt with generally do not trust free things, they equate price with quality. The general theory seems to be that if enough money is thrown at a problem, it will be solved eventually. The idea of open source irks their paranoid, secretive sensibility and they are not the most flexible of people. Microsoft also gives contractors lots of support opportunities, for example, the small contractor i worked for market their "secured" version of windows running on their servers, the differences were very very superficial but the "custom software work" allowed them to charge significantly more, at the same time giving the "customer" a sense of exclusivity. Keep in mind the customer was ultimately billed for the OEM copy of windows as well since the PCs were bought and sold several times under different customer names. I cannot emphazize the incompetance present in the creation of the "products" for the "customer", yet quality is not an issue here, selling points and price are. With the amount of windows licences sold with the hundreds of computers "upgraded"
What i am trying to point out is that there is a circular system of government - contractor back rubbing where money is dumped by the millions into frivilous, useless shit, while the troops in iraq go without body armor. Meanwhilst, the top brass whine to congress that they need more money. Where is the oversight? Congressmen don't want to piss off their constituents since large contractors are smart enough to build defense industry plants in their key districts. If the congressmen pulled the funding to the DOD, thier supporters would lose jobs, and re-election would be greatly complicated. Defense is a very large industry.
It's also worth noting that in some translations it is "six hundred, threescore, and six" Look on the back of a dollar bill on the bottom of the pyramid of the great seal. See the numbers.
1000, 600 , 100, 60 , 10, 6 .
Now consider a cataclysmic attack against the united states prompting national ID tags. An implant could be heralded as the ultimate in security and convenience. You must be a terrorist if you don't want to get an implant.
check out washington post from Friday January 27, 2006. Page A5 top right corner. Look closely at the background. they use Nessus, Ethereal, Nmap, Cain & Abel, Metasploit, Snort and Kismet. They are Snorting bittorrent, smtp, as well as many others. Dubya is a liar and a traitor to the fourth amendment of the constitution forbidding illegal search and seisure.
I apologise if the insinuation of bullshit offended you
"Stage one is when you drag the file and it copies any hidden info without showing you the details."
You do not drag a file. You drag a folder that has an icon representative of the program and files contained within. The folder merely has a.app extention. No hidden info is copied. Alt click on the app and browse the contents.
When i define install, i define it in the sense most unix users would think: make install (stuff goes in --prefix=whateveryouputhere) Simply executing an application on OSX cannot modify the system unless you authenticate (even as admin). It can place configuration files in your user's home directory but that does not install the application on the computer. I could (and regularly do) run applications off my iPod without having to install them since everything they need is self-contained. You cannot simply double click on "setup.exe" on a PC and run the application. On the OSX platform there are very few applications that demand that they be installed.
I call bullshit. A program on OSX that requires installation usually includes an installer (now granted some installers are triggered by dragging. You are informed of this though). Even if you are logged on as the admin you must authenticate before the system allows the installer to do anything to the system. One can, however install most programs simply by dragging them wherever.
Keep in mind if you want to install a program for all users (by dragging into/Applications) you will have to authenticate. Or you could just install it for your user by dragging it to the desktop / user's applications folder.
The grandparent is correct. These "Programs" are simply folders containing the executable and files the program might use.
OSX is designed not to let stupid users / admins do stupid / hasty things to the whole system. Sure there is lots going on behind the scenes all the time but it is documented well. When all else fails there is always the terminal to take a peek.
Many of the founding fathers were Freemasons(Qabalistic magick etc...) and/ or Deists(~I am god and so are you~). Christians they were not.
more information can be found here: http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html although i first learnt of this through my catholic high school's history class. It's good they left at least that part of history intact.
When they are referring to "God" they are referring to one's self. Most of them if not all believed Christianity to be a perversion of the original teachings of Jesus. They would not be happy to see where this country has gone.
I am American but spent a good time growing up in Europe. I would actually have to aggree with your position. There is the "bling bling" and a much higher level of commercial obsession in the US than in europe.
I would say it is a cultural difference more than anything else. We are told from birth that we are the greatest country in the world. That kind of indoctrination breeds self-rightious nationalism. Not patriotism. There is a difference between elevating the self, and elevating the self over others. We too easily forget that we are all in this together.
I'm proud to be an American, for what our country stands for (or at least, stood for). And I would be doing my country a disservice if I did not point out flaws when i percieve them.
There's nothing the governement can do to stop people posting information
Oh yeah. I used to think the same thing. Let me ask you this. Where are indymedia's servers now? Oh yeah.
What is being pushed on the people is not choice, but the illusion that you only have two choices: Democrat or Republican. Both political parties pretty much have an ogilopoly. Public portrayal of animosity between the parties does not change the fact that both parties together have absolute power. If people started investigating other options or (holy shit) having opinions of their own, it would pose a threat to both parties. If people held their leaders accountable independantly, without the potential of corruption in major media, it would pose a major threat to politicians in both parties. Washington is a cesspool and if everybody shot their mouth off about what they knew, and massive corruption was exposed on all political sides, the consequences would be... Well. Justice by the people (who at that point would (hopefully) make informed decisions.
Before this article i would have argued for a pure democracy. It would work in countries where people actually think critically. Unfortunately our wonderful educational system ensures there are a whole lot of idiots. College costing as much as a new house does not help either.
Slashdot Mirror
Occam's razor is flawed because "simpler" is relative.
The theologans would argue god gave us free choice. God supposedly already knows what we're going to do but gives us the chance to do it anyway. Of course to a being that exists supposedly outside of time, it's a non issue.
It would have to be view independent. That's not possible, nor is sampling the necessary background from the exact perspective you would need to to generate an inverse. Essentially, the invisibility cloth would need to be smart enough to know exactly where you are and generate the exact image for *each eye*. Projecting two different images to two different locations from the same surface would require the surface to be dynamic and holographic. computation of the inverse image would have to be instant and perfect. Such computational power, materials, cameras, etc, do not exist and likely never will.
pot, not pets. cannabis, not canines. reread.
The problem to controlling the dialogue is when somebody in power gets to decide what is offensive and say's "you can't say that", it creates a chilling effect where everybody else wonders "can I say this or that". Eventually things polarize, everybody starts to think the same way, and things get very boring indeed (as the open commerce of ideas is compromised). Offense is necessary to create balance and flex rights, online and elsewhere. Without black, there is no white.
And "slippery slope", logical fallacy or not, fits in this situation. Chilling effects exist, as does the tendency of people in power to not only want to keep power, but increase it. Control over communication is the greatest power there is, and why nobody should have it.
And Ted bundy's argument wasn't flawed because of the slippery slope, but because most people look at pictures of nudes or even hardcord do not progress down his path. He was looking for a way to excuse what he did by blaming it on something else, just like a drunk driver blames his actions on a nonexistent "disease"
what does any of this have to do with socialism? Libertarians, (many of those "teabaggers" are just a upset as anybody else, probably more, at intrusion into personal privacy.)
Theft? A person who purchases a kindle and "e-books" from Amazon under their licensing agreement agrees to that licensing agreement. A person consents that the device may be rendered unusable at any time. Solution: don't buy a device with DRM, and don't complain if you do and you get shafted.
Yeah. Tell that to the renditions and the prisoners in Gitmo.
Um. Not that it really matters since we're not A-rabs. We can trust that our current government will use the information to protect us citizens and never abuse such unlimited power like has happened many times before(see J Edgar Hoover)! Right? Even if you do trust the current administration, would you really trust a not-so honest leader with that kind of power, or an honest person with that power for too long? Sure ATT got caught, but how many other "secret rooms" are there in phone companies across the United states? Without secure long distance communication, the possibility of an effective revolution might be effectively hindered if not outright made impossible (Should the need ever arise, not that it's now... goodness knows we're just doing just fine and dandy). Essentially, i'm arguing that control over communication constitutes the destruction of a "failsafe" in our system similar to that of the second amendment (a way to get out of a dictatorship, should it ever arise).
Imagine for shits and giggles that some president decides that it is necessary, after a conveniently timed terrorist attack (see Kristallnacht), to institute martial law. No, I'm not implying anybody in the govt did 9/11, but I am saying if there was another attack from inside or outside, I'm guessing most citizens would willingly, without question give over their privacy and liberty to be safe from either a fabricated, or a real enemy (who we've been working very hard increasing recruiting and general middle east sympathy for)
In any case, it isn't a matter of the ethics of the leader or the party politics in my mind, it's the existence of the type of control over communication far too powerful to be acceptable in a democracy. You might think the people will stand up against this tyranny but the truth is most are quite comfortable with big brother watching out for their well being (they're only after the terrorists, right). The problem there is that "terrorist" is a very vague, scary term that can easily be adapted to apply to any number of groups that the government might not like. And K street is not a secret. Until you're part of that increasingly large designation of "terrorist" you probably won't mind, but you will eventually, when they come around for you. IMO people have got to stand up en-masse and start speaking out before the government is given an excuse to shut you up. They could call it "fermenting dissent during a national crisis" or some such. It isn't like the cages aren't already purchased(and I cited an extremely conservative source that would not normally be known to criticize bush). The existance of these camps seems to disturb a lot of people but for some odd reason gets very very little MSM exposure (as even Michael Savage, who I personally detest, noted).
please forgive the caps, I will explain:
A few years ago, while i was still actively writing on slashdot, i was part of a listserv calling themselves the Trekkers. If you read my posts from a few years back you will see me mentioning a break with my parents, a school, and a somewhat unpleasant aftermath. I was in a school very similar to the one, whose parent company, WWASP, she sued. A full court transcript can be found http://www.isaccorp.org/documentsnz.asphere as well as some background information on Sue Scheff (who filed the lawsuit).
She contacted me online prior to this trial after she found me on a WWASP affiliated forum raising hell on my own. She called me on the phone to make sure i was not a program staff member.
After that i was a member of their list for a while but neglected it after it turned into a constant drama session, ranting and raving and arguing between parents over how to do this and that. At the same time that she was claiming to be out to take down abusive schools, it turns out, she was starting her own little referral service of her own, raking in the dough on her own. She betrayed the trust and used us all as tools of propoganda so she could win a case and/or hurt her foe. Since she lied about so many things, it is difficult to guage whether her motives were sincere. Whatever the case, she began referring more Children to abusive programs (although she claims she had no knowledge of this there is evidence to the contrary.)
If you read the court transcripts you will find that Ironically, she used "slander" on the internet as a tactic of her own, posting with multiple user names, weaving conversations with herself. She claimed this was done to create awareness when on the side she was setting up her own business. Her lawyer went on and on about free speech and all that. Now she sues a homeless woman for 11 million. As if the program the woman's child went to didn't rob her of enough of her money.
Disposing of inconvenient children is quite an industry in the United States. Each year, thousands of kids are shipped off to schools in the US and abroad (especially third world countries where restrictions on humane treatement are more lax). Slander is often a convenient method to shut up ex-students and parents who will not stay silent knowing what they know.
I used to believe litigation against slander served a purpose, but i would rather live in a completely sceptical, free society, where anything is said, and everything is questioned.
So then the question then becomes: Can fight fear with a false sense of security? If the fight is against terror, why is that exactly what is pushed down our throats by the media. What happened to the stiff upper lip?
If thermite is mixed with nanoparticles of aluminium, it can be used as an explosive.
Given the W Brother's subsequent "V for Vendetta", im not quite sure he did misunderstand the quote. Religious references in the film could be red herrings, especially when the message would be so subversive otherwise. I think they threw caution to the wind with "V"
I used to work for a defense dept contractor and while I was there I realised that the goal was to sell the "customer" (ie. the DOD / pentagon) a product at the highest markup possable.) Why does the DOD pay, for example, 1600 dollars for a 256MB compact flash card (two years ago, when a comporable product was $29 at a local Circuit City)?
Because:A: The DOD largely has no idea what they are purchasing, yet have unlimited funds. The brass just want shiny new (functionality optional) things that go beep and have lots of blinking lights. So why do they purchase these things that they do not necessarily want or need:
B: Because when the brass at the pentagon retire, they go into the private sector and sell this equipment to all their old buddies who are more than willing to get ripped off knowing that they will get their turn when they retire. Some of the stuff just rots in warehouses for years as surplus, after which many techs "inherit" old equipment the customer no longer "needs" and has never used. We are not talking dinkie little pieces of equipment. Some examples: Cisco 6509e's in racks, fully loaded with gigabit, fiber, and ws-sup720 management blades.
This brings me to Microsoft: people in the DOD who i have dealt with generally do not trust free things, they equate price with quality. The general theory seems to be that if enough money is thrown at a problem, it will be solved eventually. The idea of open source irks their paranoid, secretive sensibility and they are not the most flexible of people. Microsoft also gives contractors lots of support opportunities, for example, the small contractor i worked for market their "secured" version of windows running on their servers, the differences were very very superficial but the "custom software work" allowed them to charge significantly more, at the same time giving the "customer" a sense of exclusivity. Keep in mind the customer was ultimately billed for the OEM copy of windows as well since the PCs were bought and sold several times under different customer names. I cannot emphazize the incompetance present in the creation of the "products" for the "customer", yet quality is not an issue here, selling points and price are. With the amount of windows licences sold with the hundreds of computers "upgraded"
What i am trying to point out is that there is a circular system of government - contractor back rubbing where money is dumped by the millions into frivilous, useless shit, while the troops in iraq go without body armor. Meanwhilst, the top brass whine to congress that they need more money. Where is the oversight? Congressmen don't want to piss off their constituents since large contractors are smart enough to build defense industry plants in their key districts. If the congressmen pulled the funding to the DOD, thier supporters would lose jobs, and re-election would be greatly complicated. Defense is a very large industry.
1000, 600 , 100, 60 , 10, 6 .
Now consider a cataclysmic attack against the united states prompting national ID tags. An implant could be heralded as the ultimate in security and convenience. You must be a terrorist if you don't want to get an implant.
look at the great seal on the back of any dollar bill
1000's place:
600
100's place:
60
10's place:
6
Six hundred, three score, and six.
Right. Forgot to mention the mentioned photo was taken during Dubya's recent tour of the pentagon.
check out washington post from Friday January 27, 2006. Page A5 top right corner. Look closely at the background. they use Nessus, Ethereal, Nmap, Cain & Abel, Metasploit, Snort and Kismet. They are Snorting bittorrent, smtp, as well as many others. Dubya is a liar and a traitor to the fourth amendment of the constitution forbidding illegal search and seisure.
I apologise if the insinuation of bullshit offended you
"Stage one is when you drag the file and it copies any hidden info without showing you the details."
You do not drag a file. You drag a folder that has an icon representative of the program and files contained within. The folder merely has a .app extention. No hidden info is copied. Alt click on the app and browse the contents.
When i define install, i define it in the sense most unix users would think: make install (stuff goes in --prefix=whateveryouputhere) Simply executing an application on OSX cannot modify the system unless you authenticate (even as admin). It can place configuration files in your user's home directory but that does not install the application on the computer. I could (and regularly do) run applications off my iPod without having to install them since everything they need is self-contained. You cannot simply double click on "setup.exe" on a PC and run the application. On the OSX platform there are very few applications that demand that they be installed.
I call bullshit. A program on OSX that requires installation usually includes an installer (now granted some installers are triggered by dragging. You are informed of this though). Even if you are logged on as the admin you must authenticate before the system allows the installer to do anything to the system. One can, however install most programs simply by dragging them wherever.
Keep in mind if you want to install a program for all users (by dragging into /Applications) you will have to authenticate. Or you could just install it for your user by dragging it to the desktop / user's applications folder.
The grandparent is correct. These "Programs" are simply folders containing the executable and files the program might use.
OSX is designed not to let stupid users / admins do stupid / hasty things to the whole system. Sure there is lots going on behind the scenes all the time but it is documented well. When all else fails there is always the terminal to take a peek.
Many of the founding fathers were Freemasons(Qabalistic magick etc...) and/ or Deists(~I am god and so are you~). Christians they were not.
more information can be found here: http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html although i first learnt of this through my catholic high school's history class. It's good they left at least that part of history intact.
When they are referring to "God" they are referring to one's self. Most of them if not all believed Christianity to be a perversion of the original teachings of Jesus. They would not be happy to see where this country has gone.
"Also, we have this belief (perpetuated by big business, maybe?) that private industry can do anything better than the government."
Is there really a difference anymore?
I am American but spent a good time growing up in Europe. I would actually have to aggree with your position. There is the "bling bling" and a much higher level of commercial obsession in the US than in europe.
I would say it is a cultural difference more than anything else. We are told from birth that we are the greatest country in the world. That kind of indoctrination breeds self-rightious nationalism. Not patriotism. There is a difference between elevating the self, and elevating the self over others. We too easily forget that we are all in this together.
I'm proud to be an American, for what our country stands for (or at least, stood for). And I would be doing my country a disservice if I did not point out flaws when i percieve them.
There's nothing the governement can do to stop people posting information
Oh yeah. I used to think the same thing. Let me ask you this. Where are indymedia's servers now? Oh yeah.
What is being pushed on the people is not choice, but the illusion that you only have two choices: Democrat or Republican. Both political parties pretty much have an ogilopoly. Public portrayal of animosity between the parties does not change the fact that both parties together have absolute power. If people started investigating other options or (holy shit) having opinions of their own, it would pose a threat to both parties. If people held their leaders accountable independantly, without the potential of corruption in major media, it would pose a major threat to politicians in both parties. Washington is a cesspool and if everybody shot their mouth off about what they knew, and massive corruption was exposed on all political sides, the consequences would be... Well. Justice by the people (who at that point would (hopefully) make informed decisions.
It all depends on the Supreme Court justices appointed. Any system can be broken.
Before this article i would have argued for a pure democracy. It would work in countries where people actually think critically. Unfortunately our wonderful educational system ensures there are a whole lot of idiots. College costing as much as a new house does not help either.