Please explain how the mercury teleports from inside the glass of the iridescent light bulb into the veins of the children, and how comes my iridescent bulbs have kept working for years now despite being presumably devoid of mercury by now due to this process? Or does the study you're referring to begin with something to the effect of: "If you break the glass and drink the contents..."?
If you have an arbitrary random variable with a finite variance, then a law of large numbers will tell you that it converges to a Guassian under repetition.
No it doesn't. Throw a singe dice a million times: it'll have a flat distribution of values. Now if you have a set of two or more dices, then yes, their combined value does follow Gaussian distribution, because it is a sum of multiple arbitrary variables; however, a single arbitrary variable may or may not be.
But in the case of the CDS, the failure rate is being used as an input to the model that is used to price the swap.
So basically you need quantum mechanics to handle this. You know, observation changes the system... And of course you need to assume that these quarks are really nasty and out to screw you.
So I guess economical mathematics is like trying to use physics with the Dark Side of the Force.
Of course, Fisher would object, as it would make it easier for unfit people to reproduce,
It is impossible for the unfit to reproduce by definition: anything that manages to reproduce is fit.
but I think that natural selection in the human race is a lost cause anyway.
So? Artificial genetic engineering is far superior anyway. We are fast reaching the point where we need to decide what we want to be, rather than what the nature/God/whatever made us. Our technology is already godlike by most ancient standards; it is fast becoming godlike by any standards.
I can build this box, and have the future of media and news, but I'm breaking federal laws to have it work.
So?
The Panacea of information that is seen in every star-trek tv show and movie CAN be a reality today. but rampant greed and control-mongers make it impossible.
It is true. Just ignore your fear and embrace it.
The "free stuff" is either locked to being viewed on a PC, or so low resolution that it's not worth watching.
BullShit (I use dvdauthor and qdvdauthor myself when dealing with older systems, having a perverse thing for XML files and pain).
BTW. My country's (Finland) Pirate Party just got enough support to become an official party. It didn't do it in time to make for the EU parliament, so I'll just have to vote for it in the next national parliament elections. What have you done for the bright future today?
Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities. Well the thing is they could have done a lot. Why hasn't this happened? Because instead of moving from some people having horse-drawn carriages or draft horses and wagons, we've moved to every person having a car.
I don't know about you, but my hometown is an almost idyllic mix of apartment buildings and small forests, with trees lining every roadway; you can hardly take a walk here without a rabbit or two crossing your trail. There's more life here than in a forest, and that's all because of automobile, since everything doesn't have to be within walking distance, so you have room for these things. Oh, and the railway goes through here too, linking us to our capital.
Our buildings don't look majestic like the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building. Now they're either plain, steel and glass boxes, or twisted grotesques like Frank Gehry's works.
Our buildings could look majestic, for whatever value of majestic you prefer. If they don't, then that's something that needs to be taken up with the architects. Technology alone, however, would allow us to erect buildings the size of mountains.
And the people of the 50's? Where are our moon bases? Where are our ships patrolling Saturn? The answer is, we got to the moon, and then said "been there, done that".
Seriously, thought: it turns out that some things are harder and some easier than the people in the 50's thought. Imagine that. We'll get to the Moon again, and this time for keeps; and we'll get to Saturn eventually. Future didn't "fizzle", it looks bright; it's simply that miracles arrive in different order than people thought.
As a practical example: would the people of the 50' seriously thought that I, a guy from Finland, which is a country in Northern Europe, would be having a conversation - in an international forum that's cheap enough to upkeep that it's paid by advertizing - with North Americans, Indians, and pretty much all other nationalities of the Earth? And have the entire collected knowledge of humanity on my fingertips while doing it? And being able to link to that knowledge to specify just what I mean?
See, if they'd set the limit variable to compensate for misinformation, which can easily be revealed mathematically if you use a derivative variation of the linguistic quantification operator, you can reverse the polarity of your crappy searches and essentially find what you're locking for in reduced time exponential to the search hits of the internet's tangent.
Hmm... If you piped the output of a random generator to that algorithm, would you have an automated philosopher/scientist? I mean, a random generator isn't being intentionally misleading, so it should be a piece of cake.
Epic troll is epic:). It pleases me to see that some still practice the ancient art; however you failed to get modded up:(. But I'll play along:
These people are being persecuted because of their beliefs and their willingness to stand up for their beliefs.
When your beliefs include killing all who oppose you, it's only fair that you get the same in return, no? Not that Wikipedia banning you from editing is the same, but still.
Do you know which Jews made it through the Holocaust unscathed? It was the ones that joined up with the Nazis as soldiers and police. Through their complicity, these Jews were responsible for the millions that were slaughtered in the camps.
Actually, it was the ones who escaped early. Nazis weren't interested in having Jews as soldiers or police, or in any other position for that matter. Jews were already being soldiers, police and all other imaginable things prior to Nazis taking power; it was the Nazis who removed them from these positions.
What the heck does this have to do with Scientology, thought?
I think South Park said it best... DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM! And it said the same thing about both because honestly, there is no real difference in believing in lord Xenu and believing in reading a secret book out of a magic hat.
Actually, Xenu is the devil in Scientology, the evil guy who blew people up in volcanoes and then forced their ghosts to watch bad cinema, which is why said ghosts cling to you to this day. It reads almost like a bad science fiction novel. Imagine that.
All kidding aside, there's a difference between prosecuting the individuals responsible for breaking the law, and shutting down an entire religion. That France can shut down Scientology (a cult which I abhor) just because they don't consider it a religion would be a violation of Jefferson's concept of a "wall of separation between church and state" that both liberals and libertarians love in the USA. It certainly opens up a nice loophole, whereby other religions can be attacked based on arbitrary definitions of "religion".
They aren't attacking Scientology, they're attacking The Church of Scientology. The former is a religion/cult/whatever, the latter is an organization. All this is really about is that France is accusing CoS of being a criminal organization, like the Mafia. Surely Jefferson wouldn't argue that Mafia should be off the hook if they declare themselves a Church? Quite on contrary, such a declaration shouldn't have anything to do with any accusation someone might level against them, right?
I'm not sure how lack of Wikipedia access is comparable to being thrown in a death camp, but perhaps someone with more perspective can tell me.
The Church of Scientology can access Wikipedia just fine, they just can't edit it. So this is basically analogous to having your story submits summarily rejected by a newspaper because you've submitted so much crap in the past.
And no, that's not really equivalent to being sent to a death camp, but then again, scientologists aren't exactly known for their sanity or truthfulness, that being one of the reasons why they're being banned.
It's not "pirating is communism". Communism, actually, is producing what you deem "right" and expecting your customer to buy it because you deprive him from any alternatives. Ask anyone who grew up in the "Soviet states".
Communism, in theory, means that the means of production are communally owned. Communism, in a country that claims to be communistic or socialistic, means whatever the leaders happen to be doing. And communism, on Slashdot, means a boogeyman that eats your children if everything isn't run by an unregulated corporation.
In previous Sims you could, but had to be roundabout about it: for example, set the kitchen on fire so they'll burn, don't buy any food and let them starve, keep them from sleeping and then have them take a swim so they'll fall asleep in the pool. Or just sell the pool ladders while they're there >:). In Sims 2, you could also keep them from getting into their coffin if they're vampires, so they'll die from sunburn. Or the ever-popular trick of selling the only door of the room they're in, thus imprisoning them inside and letting them starve.
But no, you can't blow their brains out:(. This is a family-oriented game of wholesome entertainment, after all. So any teenager Sim who wants the orphan scholarship for university needs to be clever about killing their parents.
Can you fuck your dog?
Sadly, no. Sims 2 had the "romance" life goal of fucking as many people as possible for aspiration points, thought. That was pretty ballsy of EA, now that I think of it, especially since all Sims are bisexual. It wouldn't be that big of a stretch to go from nymphomania to zoophilia.
Can you construct an atomic bomb and detonate it?
No, the engine couldn't handle it. But Sims set in the world of Fallout would be really, really cool:). So would a fantasy world, too.
What we have is a guerrilla war against hackers where they are effectiely shielded in most cases by the ISP and their own country's law enforcement. The end result is almost an unwinnable war.
What you have is a few teenagers writing graffiti on the army bulletin board located outside the base. And yes, the War on Vandals is likely unwinnable. However, you might try declaring War on Exaggeration.
We won in Vietnam by separating the combatants from the civilians.
Well said. If GP was correct, the US wouldn't have much to show for the trillions it spends. Since they have the capability to destroy the planet several times over, obviously the money was well spent.
You lost Vietnam war and haven't captured Osama yet.
Besides, how do you know the US has the capability to destroy the planet several times over? The army can't be trusted to be unbiased on their reporting, because they have an obvious incentive to make it seem that funding was well-spent rather than wasted, even if this is not the case.
Besides, I'd say that being able to destroy the planet several times over means that you've wasted most of that money, unless you expect your enemy to spontaneously resurrect;).
You forgot that in this conflicts, both sides are heavily infected with religion (a disease that gets you, when you try to make life ok, when it isn't), and are even more manipulated by churches.
Fundamentalist atheists are funny in their quest to make the religious seem evil, stupid or mentally ill, never realizing that it makes them seem like the worst of the zealots. Not that I care - it makes from great comedy, at least here on the Internet where the flames stay metaphorical:).
I see "terrorists" and "neocons" as people that desperately need help, and are misunderstood as evildoers by those, who still cling to outdated concepts like guilt. (Everyone does what he does, because he thinks this is morally the right and a good thing, and/or because he is forced to do it. You can always track back the "guilty" for generations and whole centuries. It's all just causality. Blaming somebody helps nobody. It just makes things worse.)
Unfortunately, being a helpless victim of causality myself, I can't help but think that someone who kills random people to further his political goals is indeed evil, and thus I shouldn't be blamed on it. Not that you have any choice in the matter either.
Anyway, you are wrong: people often do things they know to be morally wrong (in their personal moral code, which usually aligns with the people around them), and feel guilt because of that. That guilt then acts as negative reinforcement to cause adjustment of either behaviour or moral code. Guilt is not outdated; guilt is one of the feedback loops which keep humans working, along with pain. And just as with pain, it's unpleasant but necessary - a person unable to feel pain is unlikely to survive until adulthood due to constant injury, and people who are unable to feel guilt are commonly known as sociopaths and cause tremendous damage to the society around them.
Finally, aren't you ignoring the obvious solution: Simply nuke Middle-East. No one could blame us as evildoers, since we did what we thought was morally right, are merely victims of causality with no ability to influence our actions, and guilt is an outdated concept so we shouldn't have any? Or can we agree that murdering random civilians to meet your goals is - to use such an outdated concept - evil?
Because if just about everyone starts using encryption, the people handling serious matters (like terrorism or child-porn) will have their task rendered nigh-impossible.
Terrorism isn't a serious issue. It's flashy, but I have bigger chances of dying from being struck by lighting than from terrorism. Child porn isn't a serious issue either: it's a few perverts masturbating to my baby pictures - or, as the case seems to be nowadays, a 17-year old viewing a picture of another 17-year old naked. In any case, neither in any case justifies snooping all traffick; in fact I'd go so far as to call such a response insane.
Right now they focus on encrypted data, but if everything goes encrypted, they will never be able to decrypt everything.
That's kind of the point, now isn't it? And a good reason to set everything to use SSL or some other encryption scheme whenever possible.
In the age of the web 2.0 we still do not have a meta-government made by the people to the people. With principles like radical transparency, like the ones we learned from editing wikipedia.
That's precisely because we learned out lessons from Wikipedia;). Seriously, do you really want an edit war and occasional trolling on lawbooks?
No, the biggest difference was that Soviet Union concentrated on keeping people from leaving, while the USA concentrated on keeping countries from leaving. That's the whole point behind Domino Theory and Cuban embargo, Vietnam war, and various CIA-organized coups.
You can't email a token to someone. A token is something you have, a password is something you know.
But you can examine the token and email its description in sufficient detail for the recipient to construct an object that's recognized as the original token by the security system. For all intents and purposes this equals emailing the token.
As a practical example, the "teeth" in physical keys encode a password/code in such a way that they can interact with the lock. This code can be used to construct a duplicate key by a locksmith, even without access to a physical key. In fact, there was a fiasco with Diebold publishing a photo of the key they used with their electronic voting machines, which had enough detail to allow the key to be duplicated.
No, it ALWAYS meant 'planned economy' and that implies a planner.
No, the idea of communism is that people should own the means of production they use and get the fruits of their labour in full, rather than work as wage slaves to capitalists for a small fraction of said fruits. The communal ownership aspect is the result of combining the goal with the fact that it takes hundreds of people to run a factory.
To make that work requires force, and the only entity which can use force is the State.
If my choices are working in a factory or starving to death, and the factory-owner demands that I perform sexual services for him as a condition to being allowed to work there, I'd say that I was forced to perform them, for any reasonable definition of force.
As a side note, this is the biggest failing of libertarianism and similar schools of thought: they regard only violence as force.
And that is why the Internet is about as far from.communism as you can get and the article is either idiocy or pushing a political agenda. There is no central planning on the Internet, which is why it works so well.
Internet is as close to a communist society as has ever existed. Everything gets produced by individual craftsmen, who get full credit for their production. Larger projects, such as Wikipedia, are made by people cooperating voluntarily, rather than because of a threat of violence or starvation. And yeah, there is no central planning.
Voluntary cooperation is as American/Capitalist/etc as Mom, Apple Pie and (until recently) Chevy.
The whole point of communism was to free people from being forced to work for capitalist, and allow them to voluntarily cooperate instead. That's what the "the only thing they have to lose is their chains" thing was referring to. But of course the capitalists didn't much like this idea, and have engaged in a campaign of misinformation ever since.
The thing to keep in mind is that Russia and China were dictatorships to begin with. They didn't become tyrannies under communism, but simply continued their long traditions of less than benevolent rulership.
I fear people that say we need collectivism to protect us from ourselves because people are naturally evil and need to be controlled.
I don't need protection from myself. I do need protection from the rest of you.
All that hear is projection; the only way I can understand a persons position that people left to their own free will are destined to evil is a reflection of themselves,
In my case, it's based on experience and observed behaviour, not any hypothetical situations but ones that actually happened.
and quite possibly needs to be protected from themselves because they have so sense of self worth or personal responsibility.
That would be a natural result of growing up in a jungle and not being the biggest gorilla around.
I, for one, prefer the optimistic image that people have it within their own capacity to be rational, if encouraged and given the opportunity to do so.
Rational does not imply nice.
If people are irrational, corrupt, and corrosive to society, how could we ever trust such people to pick quality leaders?
We can't, especially since all the potential leaders are just as vile as everyone else. However, moving the power center further away from myself lets me hide in the crowd, and including bureaucratic inefficiencies makes the inevitable oppression happen slower, so I can dodge it easier.
Basically, a government is unlikely to bother picking on me personally, while my neighbour is not. That's because a government sees me as a statistic, while my neighbour sees me as a punching bag or a personal slave, depending on his particular breed of evil (thug or CEO).
The term "anarchism" literally means "without rulers". As I said, this is the only defining characteristic of anarchism, and free-market anarchism certainly qualifies.
All anarchistic societies are going to have a free market by definition, since free market simply means that anyone can freely buy and sell goods and services from anyone else without needing the permission of a king, guild or anyone else, and no such entity exists in anarchism. However, no anarchistic society is going to be capitalistic, as it's mighty difficult to acquire significant amounts of capital when no such entity is enforcing property laws either. Sure, you could enforce them communally, but that sets you right back to enforcing someone's rules over someone else's will, at which point the society is no longer anarchistic.
In any case, I believe that the increased minituarization, automation and AI will eventually lead us to non-capitalistic free market anarchism. It might take centuries, but once your personal collection of nano-assemblers and 3D printers can produce anything you want, from more such assemblers to robot servants, there's really no reason why you would work for a corporation rather than simply get together with some friends and cooperate over common interests - which is what things like Wikipedia basically is.
Capitalism is simply a phase a society goes through in the early stages of industrialization, when you need huge factories with massive machines and hundreds if not thousands of workers to utilize mass production effectively, and will eventually disappear as ever-better tools once again make individual craftsmen as or nearly as productive as factory workers. We're already seeing this in the realm of software, but physical production will follow.
Everyone is evil in the Ultimate Marvel universe. The only difference is that villains are malicious psychopaths and the heroes merely utterly ruthless. That's Marvel's idea of mature content and realistic human behaviour: Bastard Syndrome taken to its logical conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain how the mercury teleports from inside the glass of the iridescent light bulb into the veins of the children, and how comes my iridescent bulbs have kept working for years now despite being presumably devoid of mercury by now due to this process? Or does the study you're referring to begin with something to the effect of: "If you break the glass and drink the contents..."?
No it doesn't. Throw a singe dice a million times: it'll have a flat distribution of values. Now if you have a set of two or more dices, then yes, their combined value does follow Gaussian distribution, because it is a sum of multiple arbitrary variables; however, a single arbitrary variable may or may not be.
So basically you need quantum mechanics to handle this. You know, observation changes the system... And of course you need to assume that these quarks are really nasty and out to screw you.
So I guess economical mathematics is like trying to use physics with the Dark Side of the Force.
It is impossible for the unfit to reproduce by definition: anything that manages to reproduce is fit.
So? Artificial genetic engineering is far superior anyway. We are fast reaching the point where we need to decide what we want to be, rather than what the nature/God/whatever made us. Our technology is already godlike by most ancient standards; it is fast becoming godlike by any standards.
So?
It is true. Just ignore your fear and embrace it.
Bull Shit (I use dvdauthor and qdvdauthor myself when dealing with older systems, having a perverse thing for XML files and pain).
BTW. My country's (Finland) Pirate Party just got enough support to become an official party. It didn't do it in time to make for the EU parliament, so I'll just have to vote for it in the next national parliament elections. What have you done for the bright future today?
I don't know about you, but my hometown is an almost idyllic mix of apartment buildings and small forests, with trees lining every roadway; you can hardly take a walk here without a rabbit or two crossing your trail. There's more life here than in a forest, and that's all because of automobile, since everything doesn't have to be within walking distance, so you have room for these things. Oh, and the railway goes through here too, linking us to our capital.
Our buildings could look majestic, for whatever value of majestic you prefer. If they don't, then that's something that needs to be taken up with the architects. Technology alone, however, would allow us to erect buildings the size of mountains.
However, I'd argue that both Burj Dubai and Taipei 101 look just fine.
Burt Rutan is working on it.
Seriously, thought: it turns out that some things are harder and some easier than the people in the 50's thought. Imagine that. We'll get to the Moon again, and this time for keeps; and we'll get to Saturn eventually. Future didn't "fizzle", it looks bright; it's simply that miracles arrive in different order than people thought.
As a practical example: would the people of the 50' seriously thought that I, a guy from Finland, which is a country in Northern Europe, would be having a conversation - in an international forum that's cheap enough to upkeep that it's paid by advertizing - with North Americans, Indians, and pretty much all other nationalities of the Earth? And have the entire collected knowledge of humanity on my fingertips while doing it? And being able to link to that knowledge to specify just what I mean?
The Internet is something the people in the 50's didn't even dream of. Asimov came closest, with AC in "The last Question". But even he predicted a single computer, rather than the Internet.
Hmm... If you piped the output of a random generator to that algorithm, would you have an automated philosopher/scientist? I mean, a random generator isn't being intentionally misleading, so it should be a piece of cake.
Epic troll is epic :). It pleases me to see that some still practice the ancient art; however you failed to get modded up :(. But I'll play along:
When your beliefs include killing all who oppose you, it's only fair that you get the same in return, no? Not that Wikipedia banning you from editing is the same, but still.
Actually, it was the ones who escaped early. Nazis weren't interested in having Jews as soldiers or police, or in any other position for that matter. Jews were already being soldiers, police and all other imaginable things prior to Nazis taking power; it was the Nazis who removed them from these positions.
What the heck does this have to do with Scientology, thought?
Actually, Xenu is the devil in Scientology, the evil guy who blew people up in volcanoes and then forced their ghosts to watch bad cinema, which is why said ghosts cling to you to this day. It reads almost like a bad science fiction novel. Imagine that.
They aren't attacking Scientology, they're attacking The Church of Scientology. The former is a religion/cult/whatever, the latter is an organization. All this is really about is that France is accusing CoS of being a criminal organization, like the Mafia. Surely Jefferson wouldn't argue that Mafia should be off the hook if they declare themselves a Church? Quite on contrary, such a declaration shouldn't have anything to do with any accusation someone might level against them, right?
The Church of Scientology can access Wikipedia just fine, they just can't edit it. So this is basically analogous to having your story submits summarily rejected by a newspaper because you've submitted so much crap in the past.
And no, that's not really equivalent to being sent to a death camp, but then again, scientologists aren't exactly known for their sanity or truthfulness, that being one of the reasons why they're being banned.
Communism, in theory, means that the means of production are communally owned. Communism, in a country that claims to be communistic or socialistic, means whatever the leaders happen to be doing. And communism, on Slashdot, means a boogeyman that eats your children if everything isn't run by an unregulated corporation.
In previous Sims you could, but had to be roundabout about it: for example, set the kitchen on fire so they'll burn, don't buy any food and let them starve, keep them from sleeping and then have them take a swim so they'll fall asleep in the pool. Or just sell the pool ladders while they're there >:). In Sims 2, you could also keep them from getting into their coffin if they're vampires, so they'll die from sunburn. Or the ever-popular trick of selling the only door of the room they're in, thus imprisoning them inside and letting them starve.
But no, you can't blow their brains out :(. This is a family-oriented game of wholesome entertainment, after all. So any teenager Sim who wants the orphan scholarship for university needs to be clever about killing their parents.
Sadly, no. Sims 2 had the "romance" life goal of fucking as many people as possible for aspiration points, thought. That was pretty ballsy of EA, now that I think of it, especially since all Sims are bisexual. It wouldn't be that big of a stretch to go from nymphomania to zoophilia.
No, the engine couldn't handle it. But Sims set in the world of Fallout would be really, really cool :). So would a fantasy world, too.
What you have is a few teenagers writing graffiti on the army bulletin board located outside the base. And yes, the War on Vandals is likely unwinnable. However, you might try declaring War on Exaggeration.
You didn't win in Vietnam, you lost and fled.
You lost Vietnam war and haven't captured Osama yet.
Besides, how do you know the US has the capability to destroy the planet several times over? The army can't be trusted to be unbiased on their reporting, because they have an obvious incentive to make it seem that funding was well-spent rather than wasted, even if this is not the case.
Besides, I'd say that being able to destroy the planet several times over means that you've wasted most of that money, unless you expect your enemy to spontaneously resurrect ;).
Fundamentalist atheists are funny in their quest to make the religious seem evil, stupid or mentally ill, never realizing that it makes them seem like the worst of the zealots. Not that I care - it makes from great comedy, at least here on the Internet where the flames stay metaphorical :).
Unfortunately, being a helpless victim of causality myself, I can't help but think that someone who kills random people to further his political goals is indeed evil, and thus I shouldn't be blamed on it. Not that you have any choice in the matter either.
Anyway, you are wrong: people often do things they know to be morally wrong (in their personal moral code, which usually aligns with the people around them), and feel guilt because of that. That guilt then acts as negative reinforcement to cause adjustment of either behaviour or moral code. Guilt is not outdated; guilt is one of the feedback loops which keep humans working, along with pain. And just as with pain, it's unpleasant but necessary - a person unable to feel pain is unlikely to survive until adulthood due to constant injury, and people who are unable to feel guilt are commonly known as sociopaths and cause tremendous damage to the society around them.
Finally, aren't you ignoring the obvious solution: Simply nuke Middle-East. No one could blame us as evildoers, since we did what we thought was morally right, are merely victims of causality with no ability to influence our actions, and guilt is an outdated concept so we shouldn't have any? Or can we agree that murdering random civilians to meet your goals is - to use such an outdated concept - evil?
Terrorism isn't a serious issue. It's flashy, but I have bigger chances of dying from being struck by lighting than from terrorism. Child porn isn't a serious issue either: it's a few perverts masturbating to my baby pictures - or, as the case seems to be nowadays, a 17-year old viewing a picture of another 17-year old naked. In any case, neither in any case justifies snooping all traffick; in fact I'd go so far as to call such a response insane.
That's kind of the point, now isn't it? And a good reason to set everything to use SSL or some other encryption scheme whenever possible.
That's precisely because we learned out lessons from Wikipedia ;). Seriously, do you really want an edit war and occasional trolling on lawbooks?
No, the biggest difference was that Soviet Union concentrated on keeping people from leaving, while the USA concentrated on keeping countries from leaving. That's the whole point behind Domino Theory and Cuban embargo, Vietnam war, and various CIA-organized coups.
That's capitalistic efficiency for you ;).
But you can examine the token and email its description in sufficient detail for the recipient to construct an object that's recognized as the original token by the security system. For all intents and purposes this equals emailing the token.
As a practical example, the "teeth" in physical keys encode a password/code in such a way that they can interact with the lock. This code can be used to construct a duplicate key by a locksmith, even without access to a physical key. In fact, there was a fiasco with Diebold publishing a photo of the key they used with their electronic voting machines, which had enough detail to allow the key to be duplicated.
No, the idea of communism is that people should own the means of production they use and get the fruits of their labour in full, rather than work as wage slaves to capitalists for a small fraction of said fruits. The communal ownership aspect is the result of combining the goal with the fact that it takes hundreds of people to run a factory.
If my choices are working in a factory or starving to death, and the factory-owner demands that I perform sexual services for him as a condition to being allowed to work there, I'd say that I was forced to perform them, for any reasonable definition of force.
As a side note, this is the biggest failing of libertarianism and similar schools of thought: they regard only violence as force.
Internet is as close to a communist society as has ever existed. Everything gets produced by individual craftsmen, who get full credit for their production. Larger projects, such as Wikipedia, are made by people cooperating voluntarily, rather than because of a threat of violence or starvation. And yeah, there is no central planning.
The whole point of communism was to free people from being forced to work for capitalist, and allow them to voluntarily cooperate instead. That's what the "the only thing they have to lose is their chains" thing was referring to. But of course the capitalists didn't much like this idea, and have engaged in a campaign of misinformation ever since.
The thing to keep in mind is that Russia and China were dictatorships to begin with. They didn't become tyrannies under communism, but simply continued their long traditions of less than benevolent rulership.
I don't need protection from myself. I do need protection from the rest of you.
In my case, it's based on experience and observed behaviour, not any hypothetical situations but ones that actually happened.
That would be a natural result of growing up in a jungle and not being the biggest gorilla around.
Rational does not imply nice.
We can't, especially since all the potential leaders are just as vile as everyone else. However, moving the power center further away from myself lets me hide in the crowd, and including bureaucratic inefficiencies makes the inevitable oppression happen slower, so I can dodge it easier.
Basically, a government is unlikely to bother picking on me personally, while my neighbour is not. That's because a government sees me as a statistic, while my neighbour sees me as a punching bag or a personal slave, depending on his particular breed of evil (thug or CEO).
All anarchistic societies are going to have a free market by definition, since free market simply means that anyone can freely buy and sell goods and services from anyone else without needing the permission of a king, guild or anyone else, and no such entity exists in anarchism. However, no anarchistic society is going to be capitalistic, as it's mighty difficult to acquire significant amounts of capital when no such entity is enforcing property laws either. Sure, you could enforce them communally, but that sets you right back to enforcing someone's rules over someone else's will, at which point the society is no longer anarchistic.
In any case, I believe that the increased minituarization, automation and AI will eventually lead us to non-capitalistic free market anarchism. It might take centuries, but once your personal collection of nano-assemblers and 3D printers can produce anything you want, from more such assemblers to robot servants, there's really no reason why you would work for a corporation rather than simply get together with some friends and cooperate over common interests - which is what things like Wikipedia basically is.
Capitalism is simply a phase a society goes through in the early stages of industrialization, when you need huge factories with massive machines and hundreds if not thousands of workers to utilize mass production effectively, and will eventually disappear as ever-better tools once again make individual craftsmen as or nearly as productive as factory workers. We're already seeing this in the realm of software, but physical production will follow.
Everyone is evil in the Ultimate Marvel universe. The only difference is that villains are malicious psychopaths and the heroes merely utterly ruthless. That's Marvel's idea of mature content and realistic human behaviour: Bastard Syndrome taken to its logical conclusion.