"It is not given." - Yes it is. You even admit it when you say that life+ 70 years is too long.
It is not given, the life +70 has to do with the duration not with copyrights themselves.
If copyright never causes any harm then inifinte would be fine.
Perhaps you don't understand the differences, but there is one. Then again I suppose you don't think there's a difference between killing when your life is threatened and when it's not.
I used to have ZoneAlarm as well. IMHO it is much better at configuring things like JavaScript access, etc. It has a very intuitive interface and is easily customizable.
Yea, I loved how ZoneAlarm was configurable. I had it set by default to block all Java, objects, and scripts then when I came across a website I wanted to allow them I could quickly configure it. If I wanted to, and I did a number of tymes, I could temporarily let a website use them. How well do NoScript and Flashblock work though in Firefox 2.0.0.6? That's what I'm using. I could upgrade to Firefox 3 but I wonder if I can still use my current version.
I use NoScript and Flashblock and find it works well. With both you can easily enable javascript if needed (for the likes of digg, etc.) while still stopping horrible flash advertisements showing up.
Does Flashblock allow you to set what websites use Flash and which ones are blocked from using it? I don't mind Flash. What I don't like is when a site or page requires Flash, such as when the entire site is Flash, or when it makes it bandwidth hungry but isn't really needed.
I think there is some kind of Flash malware distribution scheme going on that tells you that you need to update your Flash player even though you have the latest version. Here's a link to an article on it: http://blogs.adobe.com/psirt/2008/08/verifying_installers.html I don't know that this is what's happening with you though.
I don't think that that's happening either, the Adobe page says it's on social networking sites but the only ones I use or visit are Photo.net,/., and Yahoo! I rarely visit Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, or others.
it copied "http://www.evil.com/ to my clipboard. Any app I pasted into pasted that url. I tried many apps to copy something to the clipboard but it remained evil.
The article says in one place you have to restart, and in another you have to close your browser window. I found that closing safari was not sufficient, and I had to quit safari to successfully copy different data into my clipboard with other apps.
Using Firefox quiting wasn't enough, but logging out of the user then logging back in worked. That's another good reason to have a non superuser, non admin user user profile.
Now the course I took wasn't a web-development course(at least not directly it was about the over-all design and not the tools used) and didn't have time to teach nor the prerequisite of knowing html so flash was the most expedient option.
Flash is easier to learn than html? I admit I've never learned Flash but html is easy.
Also, I doubt the massive population of Linux users running IE and Safari are going to be affected.
TFA, I know this is/. and people don't but you can learn a lot if you read the articles, says it targets "Mac, Windows and Linux users running Firefox, IE and Safari"
The Internet is becoming less accessible to me as the years go by.
It's less accessible to a lot of people.
There is no need for Flash or Java or JavaScript (to navigate to a URL for example).
When I used Windows I used the ZoneAlarm firewall which allows users to set what websites can use java, objects, and scripts and which can't. However a year ago I switched to OS X and a version isn't made for Macs. I heard NoScript does the same but I haven't tried it yet, and I need to have javascript turned on. My ISP provides webmail as well as filtering. If a message's sender isn't in you online address book, it transferred to a "suspicious" folder which is only accessible online. However webmail requires javascript.
When a Web site says Flash, JavaScript, Silverlight, Internet Explorer or anything else is required then that Website is never again visited.
Even though I have the latest Shockwave and Flash installed I keep having websites say I need to download one or the other to use the site.
Well, there you go. That's an axiom on which we disagree. Libertarians are opposed to the very notion of taxes; the rest of us are not.
No, in general libertarians aren't opposed to taxes. I have no problem with property taxes, sales tax, or user fees. CATO has a policy analysis of The Economic Impact Of Replacing Federal Income Taxes With a Sales Tax. The study predicted such a shift would increase US living standards by at least 7%. Mind you, some libertarians don't like sales taxes but others do. For instance here's one person's Libertarian Taxation Theory. At the top, the most desirable tax is the user fee. From there he lists Taxes on negative externalities, Resource usage fees, Land value tax, consumption taxes, production taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and the worst, estate taxes.
Taxing also hurts the economy, because of taxes people can't spend as much, increasing consumer spending will create jobs.
No, it'll mainly just move jobs around.
Yeah, jobs were shifted around. Because big agricultural businesses like ADM and Cargill get billions of dollars in subsidies a small farmer can't compeat and so is forced to move to the city. The only ones who benefited though is ADM and Cargill.
Medicare, and divert that money into private insurance, then the people who work for Medicare (directly or as private contractors) will have to find work with private insurers instead.
First off, nobody deserves a dime of the public dole. All the government owes anyone, and everyone, is opportunity. If they a get employment with a private company good for them. And with government out of medical and health care more jobs with private insurers will be created.
Oh and while I'm at it I'll deal with health or medical insurance. I wouldn't totally get rid of a health care safety net. I'd let a free market in medical care. Let walk-in clinics to open on a street corner, or in the middle of a block of residences. Allow Physician Assistants and Nurse practitioners to practice under the supervision of a doctor. Then allow people to open and deposit money into Health Savings Accounts to pay medical costs out of pocket. For insurance itself, instead of only giving employers tax benefits for offering insurance give everyone else the same benefits if they buy insurance on their own. Say an employer gets a $3000 tax break for offering insurance, allow the employer to pay employees $3000 more without either one paying more taxes. People could then go and buy their own insurance thus creating competition. Insurance issuers will lower their prices to get as many insurance buyers as they can. To deal with those people who are denied health insurance or can't afford said insurance require health insurance policy issuers to pay into a fund that will issue them insurance. Said fund can be administered by something like Blue Cross and Blue Shield and not the government.
You're still confusing the average with the individual. Even if we assume that the economy would be "better" with no income tax -- a claim for which there's little evidence
There is no confusion. As for no evidence the economy would be better if there were no income tax, read the study I provided the link to above. There is evidence, whether you will accept it or not is another matter but the evidence does exist.
some people would you like to think the Baby Boomers retiring will destroy Social Security, but the data simply doesn't
I believe that people who want (truely want) to be artists would find a way of doing it without needing the shackle the planet. The people who can't do it are those that don't really want to do it - drive and passion are what matter.
And those who want something for free are freeloaders.
copyright does harm me, I have to be careful about what code I see, I can't work on certain projects because of other projects I have worked on. Because it can establish liability without any evidence for a copyright infringement suit. Fundamentally my thoughts are impinged on by copyright, and if you can't see that that is an appalling violation of a person then it's tough for me to convince you.
That has nothing to do with copyright, that's about legal maneuvering. So long as something is not copied word for word, or line for line it is not infringement. With software, copying a program would be infringement however if a program does the same thing as another but is programmed differently I don't consider that infringement. If ReactOS is able to create a Windows clone without using MS code I don't consider that infringement. All that is is copying functionality, which should not be able to be copyrighted. At least to me copyright infringement is word for word, byte for byte, or for music note for note copying. Maybe that's where our differences are, I believe as long as you create something with such copying but you deliver the same functionality it's not infringement. I also believe in fair use however at least here in the US some businesses are trying to stop that even. Witness what the RIAA did to some mother. I don't recall any names or the case but this mother put a video of her baby dancing to some music on YouTube, or another file sharing website. Here it is, Mother takes on Universal over baby video.
That harm occurs is a given
It is not given.
"But I can't see how a 14 year term, or 7 years today, harms anyone." - Ok, so what you're saying is that copyright of 70 years hurts people and copyright of 14 years doesn't?
Let's put it this way, once an artist creates a blockbuster having a copyright term longer than they will live gives them no incentive to create more. It also makes it hard for others to create derivative work. Barring copying harms no one but barring fair use and derivative work could lead to harm.
Copyright causes harm no matter how short or long - copyright causes benefits no matter how short or long.
I agree copyright cause benefits but disagree it causes harm.
Since I don't believe it would be entirely fair to remove all copyright, I would happily accept a copyright of 14 years (It's still a massively long time) but it lessens the harm. It balances it.
And as I said earlier, I'd be willing to reduce copyright terms to 7 years. From when whatever it is is published or available to the general public. For instance Tolstoy or Trotsky, I don't recall which but both were good writers, spent 7 years to write a book. I'd start the 7 year term from when the book was published.
Unfortunately I've always been discussing the situation as it is now. Copyrights are going as far as life + 95 years... I mean seriously? Life is long enough, too long in fact, but more than the average human lifespan after your death?
Agreed!!! In the UK copyright is life +95? That's worse than it is in the US, and I thought the US was bad.
"What reasons have you given? I don;t recall any." - just go back and read the comments, there are plenty in there. I know you may not or do not agree with them, but they are there.
You're right I don't agree there's any harm from copyrights. The only harm is on how the laws are written, such as making copyright terms too long.
"Without a market little would be created." - Circular again, it kinda hints that you can't see a way to create without imme
No, they use FUD to scare people. Linux and Open Office infringe on 238 Microsoft patents? They keep saying that but they have not named one patent that was infringed.
A lot of crap comes out of Ballmer's mouth. But look at what they do, not what they say.
Sometimes all that's needed is loud enough a noise level, look at SCO and how they scared some companies into paying for licenses.
history proved Microsoft was right -- a browser is an entirely proper and expected tool of a complete operating system.
Browsers have nothing to do with operating systems. That is, operating systems do not need a web browser built in. However that's not all of it. The original agreement between MS and the Justice Department was that MS would not include a web browser with Windows but MS did anyway. They then tried to say Windows needed Internet Explorer but that was shown false when someone else removed IE from Windows. According to Wiki IE 4 was integrated with Windows Explorer. CNet describes how IE can be removed from XP. And there are more of those.
On the other hand, Apple has been more monopolistic and anti-consumer than Microsoft ever dreamed of being.
In what way? Not selling the Mac OS to cloners? Apple makes money not just on their OS, heck the last tyme I looked at the price of a Windows upgrade it was something like $200 but I can buy Apple's new OS Leopard for $130. Apple also makes money on their hardware. Apple sales a compleat computer system that just works. Apple only prevents, er tries to prevent, people from installing Mac OS on non Apple computers. I can however install Ubuntu on a Mac, well maybe not me personally but Apple doesn't stop people from doing it. Apple even released a tool that allows people to install other OSes on Macs.
Maybe you mean the iPod and iTunes. However virtually any digital music can be installed on an iPod. And iTunes music can be installed on virtually any digital music player. iTunes makes it easy to burn music to CD even, and it can import any CD music. Or maybe you mean the iPhone. There I agree having to use ATT instead of another cellphone operator sucks, and I disagree with it but everyone who buys one knows this. Or maybe you mean Zune and Plays for sure, but those are from Microsoft not Apple.
If you read a little more in-depth, you'll see they are striving for NT compatibility, which is about 15 years old. XP/2003/Vista are just different versions of NT.
I search the front page and saw nothing about NT 4. Looking at the FAQ all they say about NT is that it is more stable. Okay, I see it on the about page. However why would anyone want to "re-implement NT?" My version, running on a DEC Alpha which was late to the game, is more than 10 years old. MS stopped supporting it in 2000. I know, I tried to run Windows Update but MS's update site said it was no longer supported. I ended up taking the Alpha to the Geek Squad, before Best Buy bought them, to have it upgraded. And paid almost $200 for it.
And how many lawsuits has Microsoft filed against the WINE guys? How about CodeWeavers, which allows Microsoft Office to run under Linux? How about the SAMBA guys?
And I assure you, a significant number of people will be using XP for the next 3-5 years. Considering the vast majority of applications and hardware still run on Win2K, I don't think it'll be a huge problem.
And how long will they get support from MS? MS keeps extending support but for how much longer?
Sorry about the time taken to reply - I've been ill.
Hope it wasn't bad.
"I will make the argument the lack of copyright can cost lives, without copyright an artist may not be able to feed their family." - I agree with you here, that not having copyright might cause an artist to not be able to feed his or her family, and true it might cost lives in that scenario. My counter would have to be that the artist decided to be an artist, it was not forced on them - they made the choice to starve
So only the rich can be artists then.
If X works in another industry that does not require copyrights to exist then lack of copyright would mean nothing. But what if that industry was actively harmed by copyright, then copyright would cause that person to not be able to feed their family.
And what industry is that? One that freeloads?
My contention is that copyright does help some people, yes, but it harms others in order to help those people.
I've asked before, who is harmed by copyrights?
Numerous IT employees are shafted in their job seeking ability due to the fact that the area they've spent years gaining experience in they can't work in, because they've seen the source code of a competitor...
And who are these people, other than those who signed an NDA, Non Disclosure Agree, or a non compeat agreement? Perhaps someone who was paid by one business then took what they wrote to another?
You don't actually believe that copyright is victimless?
I do believe copyrights don't harm anyone other than freeloaders, and no one has convinced me otherwise. Even though I've asked, you're free to try. I agree too long of a copyright term does cause harm but not copyright themselves. I think this copyright term of life plus 50, or 70 or whatever, is very bad. But I can't see how a 14 year term, or 7 years today, harms anyone.
even if you don't agree with them you have to accept that they do receive harm - anything else is not being honest.
They caused harm first. Ah, I see. A person shouldn't be locked up when they kill someone because it causes them harm.
The reason I assumed you were talking about patents
All along this has been about copyrights, I just mentioned patents as an aside not as the main point. I wrote a bunch of sentences about copyright but only one or two about patents.
I do not believe that copyright has done anything to promote progress. I gave reasons for this
What reasons have you given? I don;t recall any.
unfortunately you've not yet provided counter arguments to how copyright promotes progress.
I will now. Do you think George Lucas would have spend millions of dollars to make "Star Wars" without copyrights? Or Steven King write all his books? Or Margaret Mitchell write "Gone With The Wind"? I bet most of what's been written, books, movies, and songs, never would have been written without copyrights. It's the rare individual who will spend years and millions of dollars to write something of they didn't think they could make money.
Thanks for looking up the quote fron the US constitution, I half remembered it but couldn't find it easily.
I recall the url but even if I didn't I've still got it bookmarked, along with hundreds of others. Actually that one rather easy to recall, www.usconstitution.gov.
useful arts would be items around science and engineering, right?
It does say writings and discoveries not just discoveries. Like you Thomas Jefferson opposed copyrights. However corresponding with his friend James Madison he eventually came to believe copyrights could help progress. Once he was convinced he calculated they should last 14 years, which was the original copyright term, with one 14 year extension possible.
providing a legal mechanism to create a market where no ma
In that case, if Libertarians had had their way, you would've been lucky that he was on the clock when he hit you. What if he hadn't, and he didn't have enough assets of his own to compensate you for your injury? Tough luck for you, I guess.
No, because this wasn't his first accident he wouldn't have been driving. Legally at least. As it was, though the state he fled from had a warrant out for his arrest he was able to get a driver's license in the state I lived in at the tyme.
Yes, really. Just because the economy was improving doesn't mean everything was fine; an improvement in the average doesn't translate to an improvement in every single person's life. If private charity and the market had been providing for everyone, there would've been no demand for social programs.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is never right, and that's exactly what government does when it taxes your income. Taxing also hurts the economy, because of taxes people can't spend as much, increasing consumer spending will create jobs. As it is now, billions of tax payer dollars goes to hugh corporations as subsidies. For instance Cargill, a private corporation, and Archer Daniel Midland (ADM) receives billions of dollars in farm subsidies. People talk about welfare but what is rarely ever heard about is the corporate welfare that goes on. ADM has been called a corporate "welfare queen". Over Bush's veto congress passed $300 Billion in farm subsidies. Yet it's not small farmers who are being helped with these subsidies, one farmer called leaving his farm to his children "child abuse". The average age of a farmer in the US is 53, younger people are leaving even though some want to keep farming. They can't compeat with large agricultural corporations who receive massive subsidies.
Investing for your retirement is a good idea, obviously, and I'm fortunate enough to be able to do it myself. But not everyone can afford to invest, and not everyone who does invest will come out ahead.
With lower or no income tax, the economy would be better thus increasing people's pay. With higher pay people would be able to invest more, which would increase employment and again pay. The one place I would tax income is on corporations and maybe on the dividends they pay out to stockholders. I admit many libertarians wouldn't tax corporations but I would. They have limited liability and they should pay for that privilege. Then I'd have user fees and maybe a pollution tax. A fuel tax for instance, drivers would pay a tax on fuel which would then be used to pay for roads. Roads are another place I disagree with other libertarians, at least some want to privatize roads but the USA Constitution specifically gives the federal government the authority to build roads.
I'll also admit I agree that as it is now not everyone will come out ahead. But I place that squarely on education and government. From what I've seen and heard for years school doesn't teach economics and finance much anymore. When I was in 9th grade a teacher I had for civics had us students play a game for some weeks. He had us pretend we had $25,000 to invest and we could invest it however we wanted. During class we'd look through the financial section of the newspaper and decide what we wanted buy and sale, say I may pick to sale the stocks in X I own then buy stocks in Y. The next day I'd look at the selling price of X, then multiply that by the number of stocks I owned in X. Then I'd look at the selling price of Y and divide how much money I had by the amount to see how many stocks of Y I could buy. And that was in a public school. Now, I have not heard of anything
Say what you want about Microsoft, but they have rarely, if ever, used lawsuits as a weapon against competitors
No, they use FUD to scare people. Linux and Open Office infringe on 238 Microsoft patents? They keep saying that but they have not named one patent that was infringed. Actually they got that 238 from a study that said 238 patents might be infringed, might not does. Meanwhile it's Microsoft that's a convicted monopoly not Apple. And MS supports other's who do sue businesses. MS paid SCO who sued IBM and others.
See these guys. They've been working on a Windows clone for 10 years now, and not a peep out of Microsoft
Ten years? According to the link, they're working on Windows® XP/2003 compatibility. Neither XP nor 2003 are ten years old. Ten years ago MS's server OS was Windows NT4, my left knee is touching my PC with NT4 Workstation installed. I've had it 10 1/2 years. Windows 2003 was introduced April 24, 2003, a little over 5 years ago. However I bet many programs for XP and 2003 won't run on Vista, or the next Windows.
And they're getting close to a usable beta release.
And when they do either MS will have broken Windows or they'll slap a lawsuit on ReactOS. Even if they don't who will still be using either Windows?
Don't be ridiculous. Without government regulation, companies naturally grow into monopolies, like they did in the 1900s.
You're the one being ridiculous, it was government that created most of those monopolies during the 1900s. Pretty much the same can be said of those in the 1800s. It was government that gave the railroads the right of way along with the telephone and cable companies for instance. It was also government that gave corporations their corporate charters and then did not revoke those corporate charters when the corporation no longer served the common good. Libertarians on the other hand know what to do about the concentration of power in corporate hands.
Really? I don't see Democrats wanting to censor porn or fine a broadcaster for a "wardrobe malfunction".
No, but as soon as their masters at the RIAA/MPAA want some web site taken down for posting not copyrighted content, but instructions on where to find it, or instructions on how to modify your own property to get around DRM protections, the Democrats are all too happy to oblige.
I haven't heard of this happening, when did it?
It's all about who their masters are. The Democrats' masters are the MAFIAA. The Republicans pander to the Religious Right.
Republicans don't pander to the MAFIAA? Though Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act it was the Republican majority in congress that passed it to him.
They don't censor things because they actually care (remember, these people are all sociopaths, who only care about
Ah, in calling Democrat sociopaths, now you're showing your sociopathy.
I don't doubt that. It's funny how people will stick to philosophies and political parties that work against their own interests, isn't it?
It's not against my interest at all. If Libertarians had had their way it would have been the employer of the driver who hit me who would have had to pay not the government, ie taxpayers. Fact is is that employer, the person who hit me was working and driving a company vehicle, got off with a light slap. What's worse is that he had a record of causing accidents and one state had a warrant issued for his arrest. And that's with Democrats and Republicans in control not Libertarians.
There were charities before any of our social programs existed; voluntary donations weren't enough then, nor are they now.
Oh, really? President Roosevelt signed into law Social Security in 1935 during the Great Depression yet the economy was already improving as was employment. I suggest you look at these 2 charts of the economy and employment between 1920 and 1940. The worst year for employment and the economy was 1932-33, two plus years before Social Security.
Why would I? Social Security is a form of insurance, not an investment.
Why would you what? Plan your own retirement? So you don't have to sponge, depend, on others when you retire. It's everyone's responsibility to make sure they have enough. Heck by the tyme the last Baby Boomers retire Social Security probably will be broke. By spending all your money while you work and not saving any for retirement all you are doing is leaving a hugh Amount Due bill for future generations. Which is the opposite of how it should be. I don't recall exactly what he said but Sidney Poitier's character in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", one of my favorite movies, tells his dad it's his, dad's, responsibility to do everything he can for his child because he brought him into the world and he will have the same responsibility if he ever has children.
Do you think that 10% figure is a guarantee of some sort?
No I don't however over longer periods of tyme, decades, the financial markets do better. Heck you can 5% investing in bonds, which are guarantied. And remember, I only said invest for 7 years, however someone who goes to college and gets a Bachelor's degree and start working at the age of 22 can save and invest for 43 years (instead of 7 years), 'til the age of 65 and do a lot better. And before the person retires their home should be paid for. You might, as others have, say that the stock market could crash. Yeap it sure can, and depending on how old you are when it happens you could very well have plenty of tyme to recover. If you're old and close to retirement then you should have a good chunk of your investment portfolio in bonds, which as I said above are guarantied. If a business goes bankrupt the first people to get money are those who hold secured financial instruments, which bonds are.
If you invest wisely, maybe you'll earn that much, or maybe you'll choose wrong and lose it all.
If you invest wisely you won't put all your eggs in one nest. You'll have money spread out. Even though I'm middle aged if I could invest now I'd put most of the money in aggressive growth stocks, more than one in more than one industry or sector. I'd put the next biggest chunk in growth stocks, again more than one in more than one sector. Then I put a little in income and value stocks. Of course I'd do all this after I had 6 months living expenses in the bank. Say basic expenses are $2,000 a month, mine are about half that, I'd have maybe $6000 in cash and another $6000 in a 3 month CD.
I wish I were, but sadly I'm not.
But you are, no Libertarian I know would let others starve, unless it was their own fault. All I know help those they can who are willing. I
You clearly know nothing of the history of the Vietnam War. During the Eisenhower administration, there were a handful of CIA propagandists serving the Diem regime, that's it.
It's you who obviously don't know the history of the Viet Nam War. Eisenhower sent US Air Force Officer Edward Lansdale to recruit, train, and arm opponents of The Geneva Conference agreement between France and South Viet Nam on one side and North Viet Nam on the other. The agreement was that the two Viet Nams would hold voting on whether to remain separated or to reunite.
Kennedy, who basically bought into the Cold War policy of Eisenhower, drew the line against Communism in Vietnam since the Bay of Pigs was a colossal failure
Kennedy escalated it but Ike started US involvement in Viet Nam.
You wanted to slime Republicans but just made yourself look ignorant instead. Use facts next time.
You're the one spreading slime, I suggest you check the facts.
Oh, and here's another fact: it was a Republican president who finally withdrew all American troops from Vietnam.
Ending the Vietnam War was the only good thing Nixon did. Otherwise he was a crook and liar. For instance did you know Nixon set up his own Presidential Commission to study whether hemp, aka marijuana, should be legalized? Well he did however he said no matter what the commission decided he would not legalize it which is exactly what they decided.
No, I don't think so. You would've had health care and food stamps, but you would've been worse off overall (since you still have to pay rent, utilities, transportation, etc., not to mention the money you'd like to spend on entertainment and other luxuries).
Perhaps I should have said if I had had an accident I would have been better off by quiting work. Well I later found out. Almost 12 years ago I did have an accident. I was lain off from my last job and was in college when I was hit while riding my bike after my classes. I suffered a permanent disability and have been collecting Social Security Income for more than 11 years. I absolutely hate needing it, having paid into it when I did work makes it barely bearable.
While Teddy Roosevelt may have indeed expanded government, it was back in 1901-1909. I believe the Roosevelt you were referring to was good ole Franklin D.
Both Roosevelts expanded government. When I said Teddy did, though I didn't say it, I was thinking about his Trust Busting. Teddy went after several monopolies from JP Morgan to John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Teddy also sent in the Marines to fight the Barbary Privates in the Med. There was justification for that though, pirates had taken American citizens hostages as well as attacked US ships. Actually he did the same thing Thomas Jefferson did.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is not given." - Yes it is. You even admit it when you say that life+ 70 years is too long.
It is not given, the life +70 has to do with the duration not with copyrights themselves.
If copyright never causes any harm then inifinte would be fine.
Perhaps you don't understand the differences, but there is one. Then again I suppose you don't think there's a difference between killing when your life is threatened and when it's not.
Bye.
Falcon
AdBlock Plus + OpenDNS = I haven't seen an ad online in over 9 months.
Hosts file = I haven't seen ads I didn't want to see in years. And I didn't have to install anything.
Falcon
A better way to fix it would be a good /etc/hosts file that blocks all adservers and malware.
I find it it amusing /.ers don't know about hosts files. I've used one for years.
Falcon
Why block Flash from .doubleclick.com when you can block .doubleclick.com itself?
Falcon
Its more of a thing that n00bs use, rather than competent people.
I'd think you'd have to be more competent to use Flash than to use html. Now using something like Dreamweaver doesn't take as much skill.
Falcon
On my setups (Firefox 3.0.1 on Slackware & Tiger, Safari 3.1.2 on Tiger), closing the tab is sufficient to make it go away.
My setup is Firefox 2.0.0.6 running on 10.4.11 and I had to logout of my user account then log back in. Simply quiting Firefox didn't work.
Falcon
I used to have ZoneAlarm as well. IMHO it is much better at configuring things like JavaScript access, etc. It has a very intuitive interface and is easily customizable.
Yea, I loved how ZoneAlarm was configurable. I had it set by default to block all Java, objects, and scripts then when I came across a website I wanted to allow them I could quickly configure it. If I wanted to, and I did a number of tymes, I could temporarily let a website use them. How well do NoScript and Flashblock work though in Firefox 2.0.0.6? That's what I'm using. I could upgrade to Firefox 3 but I wonder if I can still use my current version.
Falcon
I use NoScript and Flashblock and find it works well. With both you can easily enable javascript if needed (for the likes of digg, etc.) while still stopping horrible flash advertisements showing up.
Does Flashblock allow you to set what websites use Flash and which ones are blocked from using it? I don't mind Flash. What I don't like is when a site or page requires Flash, such as when the entire site is Flash, or when it makes it bandwidth hungry but isn't really needed.
Falcon
I think there is some kind of Flash malware distribution scheme going on that tells you that you need to update your Flash player even though you have the latest version. Here's a link to an article on it:
http://blogs.adobe.com/psirt/2008/08/verifying_installers.html I don't know that this is what's happening with you though.
I don't think that that's happening either, the Adobe page says it's on social networking sites but the only ones I use or visit are Photo.net, /., and Yahoo! I rarely visit Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, or others.
Falcon
it copied "http://www.evil.com/ to my clipboard. Any app I pasted into pasted that url. I tried many apps to copy something to the clipboard but it remained evil.
The article says in one place you have to restart, and in another you have to close your browser window. I found that closing safari was not sufficient, and I had to quit safari to successfully copy different data into my clipboard with other apps.
Using Firefox quiting wasn't enough, but logging out of the user then logging back in worked. That's another good reason to have a non superuser, non admin user user profile.
Falcon
Now the course I took wasn't a web-development course(at least not directly it was about the over-all design and not the tools used) and didn't have time to teach nor the prerequisite of knowing html so flash was the most expedient option.
Flash is easier to learn than html? I admit I've never learned Flash but html is easy.
Falcon
Also, I doubt the massive population of Linux users running IE and Safari are going to be affected.
TFA, I know this is /. and people don't but you can learn a lot if you read the articles, says it targets "Mac, Windows and Linux users running Firefox, IE and Safari"
Falcon
The Internet is becoming less accessible to me as the years go by.
It's less accessible to a lot of people.
There is no need for Flash or Java or JavaScript (to navigate to a URL for example).
When I used Windows I used the ZoneAlarm firewall which allows users to set what websites can use java, objects, and scripts and which can't. However a year ago I switched to OS X and a version isn't made for Macs. I heard NoScript does the same but I haven't tried it yet, and I need to have javascript turned on. My ISP provides webmail as well as filtering. If a message's sender isn't in you online address book, it transferred to a "suspicious" folder which is only accessible online. However webmail requires javascript.
When a Web site says Flash, JavaScript, Silverlight, Internet Explorer or anything else is required then that Website is never again visited.
Even though I have the latest Shockwave and Flash installed I keep having websites say I need to download one or the other to use the site.
Falcon
Well, there you go. That's an axiom on which we disagree. Libertarians are opposed to the very notion of taxes; the rest of us are not.
No, in general libertarians aren't opposed to taxes. I have no problem with property taxes, sales tax, or user fees. CATO has a policy analysis of The Economic Impact Of Replacing Federal Income Taxes With a Sales Tax. The study predicted such a shift would increase US living standards by at least 7%. Mind you, some libertarians don't like sales taxes but others do. For instance here's one person's Libertarian Taxation Theory. At the top, the most desirable tax is the user fee. From there he lists Taxes on negative externalities, Resource usage fees, Land value tax, consumption taxes, production taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and the worst, estate taxes.
Taxing also hurts the economy, because of taxes people can't spend as much, increasing consumer spending will create jobs.
No, it'll mainly just move jobs around.
Yeah, jobs were shifted around. Because big agricultural businesses like ADM and Cargill get billions of dollars in subsidies a small farmer can't compeat and so is forced to move to the city. The only ones who benefited though is ADM and Cargill.
Medicare, and divert that money into private insurance, then the people who work for Medicare (directly or as private contractors) will have to find work with private insurers instead.
First off, nobody deserves a dime of the public dole. All the government owes anyone, and everyone, is opportunity. If they a get employment with a private company good for them. And with government out of medical and health care more jobs with private insurers will be created.
Oh and while I'm at it I'll deal with health or medical insurance. I wouldn't totally get rid of a health care safety net. I'd let a free market in medical care. Let walk-in clinics to open on a street corner, or in the middle of a block of residences. Allow Physician Assistants and Nurse practitioners to practice under the supervision of a doctor. Then allow people to open and deposit money into Health Savings Accounts to pay medical costs out of pocket. For insurance itself, instead of only giving employers tax benefits for offering insurance give everyone else the same benefits if they buy insurance on their own. Say an employer gets a $3000 tax break for offering insurance, allow the employer to pay employees $3000 more without either one paying more taxes. People could then go and buy their own insurance thus creating competition. Insurance issuers will lower their prices to get as many insurance buyers as they can. To deal with those people who are denied health insurance or can't afford said insurance require health insurance policy issuers to pay into a fund that will issue them insurance. Said fund can be administered by something like Blue Cross and Blue Shield and not the government.
You're still confusing the average with the individual. Even if we assume that the economy would be "better" with no income tax -- a claim for which there's little evidence
There is no confusion. As for no evidence the economy would be better if there were no income tax, read the study I provided the link to above. There is evidence, whether you will accept it or not is another matter but the evidence does exist.
some people would you like to think the Baby Boomers retiring will destroy Social Security, but the data simply doesn't
I believe that people who want (truely want) to be artists would find a way of doing it without needing the shackle the planet. The people who can't do it are those that don't really want to do it - drive and passion are what matter.
And those who want something for free are freeloaders.
copyright does harm me, I have to be careful about what code I see, I can't work on certain projects because of other projects I have worked on. Because it can establish liability without any evidence for a copyright infringement suit. Fundamentally my thoughts are impinged on by copyright, and if you can't see that that is an appalling violation of a person then it's tough for me to convince you.
That has nothing to do with copyright, that's about legal maneuvering. So long as something is not copied word for word, or line for line it is not infringement. With software, copying a program would be infringement however if a program does the same thing as another but is programmed differently I don't consider that infringement. If ReactOS is able to create a Windows clone without using MS code I don't consider that infringement. All that is is copying functionality, which should not be able to be copyrighted. At least to me copyright infringement is word for word, byte for byte, or for music note for note copying. Maybe that's where our differences are, I believe as long as you create something with such copying but you deliver the same functionality it's not infringement. I also believe in fair use however at least here in the US some businesses are trying to stop that even. Witness what the RIAA did to some mother. I don't recall any names or the case but this mother put a video of her baby dancing to some music on YouTube, or another file sharing website. Here it is, Mother takes on Universal over baby video.
That harm occurs is a given
It is not given.
"But I can't see how a 14 year term, or 7 years today, harms anyone." - Ok, so what you're saying is that copyright of 70 years hurts people and copyright of 14 years doesn't?
Let's put it this way, once an artist creates a blockbuster having a copyright term longer than they will live gives them no incentive to create more. It also makes it hard for others to create derivative work. Barring copying harms no one but barring fair use and derivative work could lead to harm.
Copyright causes harm no matter how short or long - copyright causes benefits no matter how short or long.
I agree copyright cause benefits but disagree it causes harm.
Since I don't believe it would be entirely fair to remove all copyright, I would happily accept a copyright of 14 years (It's still a massively long time) but it lessens the harm. It balances it.
And as I said earlier, I'd be willing to reduce copyright terms to 7 years. From when whatever it is is published or available to the general public. For instance Tolstoy or Trotsky, I don't recall which but both were good writers, spent 7 years to write a book. I'd start the 7 year term from when the book was published.
Unfortunately I've always been discussing the situation as it is now. Copyrights are going as far as life + 95 years... I mean seriously? Life is long enough, too long in fact, but more than the average human lifespan after your death?
Agreed!!! In the UK copyright is life +95? That's worse than it is in the US, and I thought the US was bad.
"What reasons have you given? I don;t recall any." - just go back and read the comments, there are plenty in there. I know you may not or do not agree with them, but they are there.
You're right I don't agree there's any harm from copyrights. The only harm is on how the laws are written, such as making copyright terms too long.
"Without a market little would be created." - Circular again, it kinda hints that you can't see a way to create without imme
No, they use FUD to scare people. Linux and Open Office infringe on 238 Microsoft patents? They keep saying that but they have not named one patent that was infringed.
A lot of crap comes out of Ballmer's mouth. But look at what they do, not what they say.
Sometimes all that's needed is loud enough a noise level, look at SCO and how they scared some companies into paying for licenses.
history proved Microsoft was right -- a browser is an entirely proper and expected tool of a complete operating system.
Browsers have nothing to do with operating systems. That is, operating systems do not need a web browser built in. However that's not all of it. The original agreement between MS and the Justice Department was that MS would not include a web browser with Windows but MS did anyway. They then tried to say Windows needed Internet Explorer but that was shown false when someone else removed IE from Windows. According to Wiki IE 4 was integrated with Windows Explorer. CNet describes how IE can be removed from XP. And there are more of those.
On the other hand, Apple has been more monopolistic and anti-consumer than Microsoft ever dreamed of being.
In what way? Not selling the Mac OS to cloners? Apple makes money not just on their OS, heck the last tyme I looked at the price of a Windows upgrade it was something like $200 but I can buy Apple's new OS Leopard for $130. Apple also makes money on their hardware. Apple sales a compleat computer system that just works. Apple only prevents, er tries to prevent, people from installing Mac OS on non Apple computers. I can however install Ubuntu on a Mac, well maybe not me personally but Apple doesn't stop people from doing it. Apple even released a tool that allows people to install other OSes on Macs.
Maybe you mean the iPod and iTunes. However virtually any digital music can be installed on an iPod. And iTunes music can be installed on virtually any digital music player. iTunes makes it easy to burn music to CD even, and it can import any CD music. Or maybe you mean the iPhone. There I agree having to use ATT instead of another cellphone operator sucks, and I disagree with it but everyone who buys one knows this. Or maybe you mean Zune and Plays for sure, but those are from Microsoft not Apple.
If you read a little more in-depth, you'll see they are striving for NT compatibility, which is about 15 years old. XP/2003/Vista are just different versions of NT.
I search the front page and saw nothing about NT 4. Looking at the FAQ all they say about NT is that it is more stable. Okay, I see it on the about page. However why would anyone want to "re-implement NT?" My version, running on a DEC Alpha which was late to the game, is more than 10 years old. MS stopped supporting it in 2000. I know, I tried to run Windows Update but MS's update site said it was no longer supported. I ended up taking the Alpha to the Geek Squad, before Best Buy bought them, to have it upgraded. And paid almost $200 for it.
And how many lawsuits has Microsoft filed against the WINE guys? How about CodeWeavers, which allows Microsoft Office to run under Linux? How about the SAMBA guys?
Microsoft would be stupid to try to stop people from buying Office. However Microsoft did step on SAMBA's toes.
And I assure you, a significant number of people will be using XP for the next 3-5 years. Considering the vast majority of applications and hardware still run on Win2K, I don't think it'll be a huge problem.
And how long will they get support from MS? MS keeps extending support but for how much longer?
Falcon
Sorry about the time taken to reply - I've been ill.
Hope it wasn't bad.
"I will make the argument the lack of copyright can cost lives, without copyright an artist may not be able to feed their family." - I agree with you here, that not having copyright might cause an artist to not be able to feed his or her family, and true it might cost lives in that scenario. My counter would have to be that the artist decided to be an artist, it was not forced on them - they made the choice to starve
So only the rich can be artists then.
If X works in another industry that does not require copyrights to exist then lack of copyright would mean nothing. But what if that industry was actively harmed by copyright, then copyright would cause that person to not be able to feed their family.
And what industry is that? One that freeloads?
My contention is that copyright does help some people, yes, but it harms others in order to help those people.
I've asked before, who is harmed by copyrights?
Numerous IT employees are shafted in their job seeking ability due to the fact that the area they've spent years gaining experience in they can't work in, because they've seen the source code of a competitor...
And who are these people, other than those who signed an NDA, Non Disclosure Agree, or a non compeat agreement? Perhaps someone who was paid by one business then took what they wrote to another?
You don't actually believe that copyright is victimless?
I do believe copyrights don't harm anyone other than freeloaders, and no one has convinced me otherwise. Even though I've asked, you're free to try. I agree too long of a copyright term does cause harm but not copyright themselves. I think this copyright term of life plus 50, or 70 or whatever, is very bad. But I can't see how a 14 year term, or 7 years today, harms anyone.
even if you don't agree with them you have to accept that they do receive harm - anything else is not being honest.
They caused harm first. Ah, I see. A person shouldn't be locked up when they kill someone because it causes them harm.
The reason I assumed you were talking about patents
All along this has been about copyrights, I just mentioned patents as an aside not as the main point. I wrote a bunch of sentences about copyright but only one or two about patents.
I do not believe that copyright has done anything to promote progress. I gave reasons for this
What reasons have you given? I don;t recall any.
unfortunately you've not yet provided counter arguments to how copyright promotes progress.
I will now. Do you think George Lucas would have spend millions of dollars to make "Star Wars" without copyrights? Or Steven King write all his books? Or Margaret Mitchell write "Gone With The Wind"? I bet most of what's been written, books, movies, and songs, never would have been written without copyrights. It's the rare individual who will spend years and millions of dollars to write something of they didn't think they could make money.
Thanks for looking up the quote fron the US constitution, I half remembered it but couldn't find it easily.
I recall the url but even if I didn't I've still got it bookmarked, along with hundreds of others. Actually that one rather easy to recall, www.usconstitution.gov.
useful arts would be items around science and engineering, right?
It does say writings and discoveries not just discoveries. Like you Thomas Jefferson opposed copyrights. However corresponding with his friend James Madison he eventually came to believe copyrights could help progress. Once he was convinced he calculated they should last 14 years, which was the original copyright term, with one 14 year extension possible.
providing a legal mechanism to create a market where no ma
In that case, if Libertarians had had their way, you would've been lucky that he was on the clock when he hit you. What if he hadn't, and he didn't have enough assets of his own to compensate you for your injury? Tough luck for you, I guess.
No, because this wasn't his first accident he wouldn't have been driving. Legally at least. As it was, though the state he fled from had a warrant out for his arrest he was able to get a driver's license in the state I lived in at the tyme.
Yes, really. Just because the economy was improving doesn't mean everything was fine; an improvement in the average doesn't translate to an improvement in every single person's life. If private charity and the market had been providing for everyone, there would've been no demand for social programs.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is never right, and that's exactly what government does when it taxes your income. Taxing also hurts the economy, because of taxes people can't spend as much, increasing consumer spending will create jobs. As it is now, billions of tax payer dollars goes to hugh corporations as subsidies. For instance Cargill, a private corporation, and Archer Daniel Midland (ADM) receives billions of dollars in farm subsidies. People talk about welfare but what is rarely ever heard about is the corporate welfare that goes on. ADM has been called a corporate "welfare queen". Over Bush's veto congress passed $300 Billion in farm subsidies. Yet it's not small farmers who are being helped with these subsidies, one farmer called leaving his farm to his children "child abuse". The average age of a farmer in the US is 53, younger people are leaving even though some want to keep farming. They can't compeat with large agricultural corporations who receive massive subsidies.
Investing for your retirement is a good idea, obviously, and I'm fortunate enough to be able to do it myself. But not everyone can afford to invest, and not everyone who does invest will come out ahead.
With lower or no income tax, the economy would be better thus increasing people's pay. With higher pay people would be able to invest more, which would increase employment and again pay. The one place I would tax income is on corporations and maybe on the dividends they pay out to stockholders. I admit many libertarians wouldn't tax corporations but I would. They have limited liability and they should pay for that privilege. Then I'd have user fees and maybe a pollution tax. A fuel tax for instance, drivers would pay a tax on fuel which would then be used to pay for roads. Roads are another place I disagree with other libertarians, at least some want to privatize roads but the USA Constitution specifically gives the federal government the authority to build roads.
I'll also admit I agree that as it is now not everyone will come out ahead. But I place that squarely on education and government. From what I've seen and heard for years school doesn't teach economics and finance much anymore. When I was in 9th grade a teacher I had for civics had us students play a game for some weeks. He had us pretend we had $25,000 to invest and we could invest it however we wanted. During class we'd look through the financial section of the newspaper and decide what we wanted buy and sale, say I may pick to sale the stocks in X I own then buy stocks in Y. The next day I'd look at the selling price of X, then multiply that by the number of stocks I owned in X. Then I'd look at the selling price of Y and divide how much money I had by the amount to see how many stocks of Y I could buy. And that was in a public school. Now, I have not heard of anything
Say what you want about Microsoft, but they have rarely, if ever, used lawsuits as a weapon against competitors
No, they use FUD to scare people. Linux and Open Office infringe on 238 Microsoft patents? They keep saying that but they have not named one patent that was infringed. Actually they got that 238 from a study that said 238 patents might be infringed, might not does. Meanwhile it's Microsoft that's a convicted monopoly not Apple. And MS supports other's who do sue businesses. MS paid SCO who sued IBM and others.
See these guys. They've been working on a Windows clone for 10 years now, and not a peep out of Microsoft
Ten years? According to the link, they're working on Windows® XP/2003 compatibility. Neither XP nor 2003 are ten years old. Ten years ago MS's server OS was Windows NT4, my left knee is touching my PC with NT4 Workstation installed. I've had it 10 1/2 years. Windows 2003 was introduced April 24, 2003, a little over 5 years ago. However I bet many programs for XP and 2003 won't run on Vista, or the next Windows.
And they're getting close to a usable beta release.
And when they do either MS will have broken Windows or they'll slap a lawsuit on ReactOS. Even if they don't who will still be using either Windows?
Falcon
Don't be ridiculous. Without government regulation, companies naturally grow into monopolies, like they did in the 1900s.
You're the one being ridiculous, it was government that created most of those monopolies during the 1900s. Pretty much the same can be said of those in the 1800s. It was government that gave the railroads the right of way along with the telephone and cable companies for instance. It was also government that gave corporations their corporate charters and then did not revoke those corporate charters when the corporation no longer served the common good. Libertarians on the other hand know what to do about the concentration of power in corporate hands.
Libertarian nuts like you
You're the nut. Bye
Falcon
Really? I don't see Democrats wanting to censor porn or fine a broadcaster for a "wardrobe malfunction".
No, but as soon as their masters at the RIAA/MPAA want some web site taken down for posting not copyrighted content, but instructions on where to find it, or instructions on how to modify your own property to get around DRM protections, the Democrats are all too happy to oblige.
I haven't heard of this happening, when did it?
It's all about who their masters are. The Democrats' masters are the MAFIAA. The Republicans pander to the Religious Right.
Republicans don't pander to the MAFIAA? Though Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act it was the Republican majority in congress that passed it to him.
They don't censor things because they actually care (remember, these people are all sociopaths, who only care about
Ah, in calling Democrat sociopaths, now you're showing your sociopathy.
Falcon
I don't doubt that. It's funny how people will stick to philosophies and political parties that work against their own interests, isn't it?
It's not against my interest at all. If Libertarians had had their way it would have been the employer of the driver who hit me who would have had to pay not the government, ie taxpayers. Fact is is that employer, the person who hit me was working and driving a company vehicle, got off with a light slap. What's worse is that he had a record of causing accidents and one state had a warrant issued for his arrest. And that's with Democrats and Republicans in control not Libertarians.
There were charities before any of our social programs existed; voluntary donations weren't enough then, nor are they now.
Oh, really? President Roosevelt signed into law Social Security in 1935 during the Great Depression yet the economy was already improving as was employment. I suggest you look at these 2 charts of the economy and employment between 1920 and 1940. The worst year for employment and the economy was 1932-33, two plus years before Social Security.
Why would I? Social Security is a form of insurance, not an investment.
Why would you what? Plan your own retirement? So you don't have to sponge, depend, on others when you retire. It's everyone's responsibility to make sure they have enough. Heck by the tyme the last Baby Boomers retire Social Security probably will be broke. By spending all your money while you work and not saving any for retirement all you are doing is leaving a hugh Amount Due bill for future generations. Which is the opposite of how it should be. I don't recall exactly what he said but Sidney Poitier's character in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", one of my favorite movies, tells his dad it's his, dad's, responsibility to do everything he can for his child because he brought him into the world and he will have the same responsibility if he ever has children.
Do you think that 10% figure is a guarantee of some sort?
No I don't however over longer periods of tyme, decades, the financial markets do better. Heck you can 5% investing in bonds, which are guarantied. And remember, I only said invest for 7 years, however someone who goes to college and gets a Bachelor's degree and start working at the age of 22 can save and invest for 43 years (instead of 7 years), 'til the age of 65 and do a lot better. And before the person retires their home should be paid for. You might, as others have, say that the stock market could crash. Yeap it sure can, and depending on how old you are when it happens you could very well have plenty of tyme to recover. If you're old and close to retirement then you should have a good chunk of your investment portfolio in bonds, which as I said above are guarantied. If a business goes bankrupt the first people to get money are those who hold secured financial instruments, which bonds are.
If you invest wisely, maybe you'll earn that much, or maybe you'll choose wrong and lose it all.
If you invest wisely you won't put all your eggs in one nest. You'll have money spread out. Even though I'm middle aged if I could invest now I'd put most of the money in aggressive growth stocks, more than one in more than one industry or sector. I'd put the next biggest chunk in growth stocks, again more than one in more than one sector. Then I put a little in income and value stocks. Of course I'd do all this after I had 6 months living expenses in the bank. Say basic expenses are $2,000 a month, mine are about half that, I'd have maybe $6000 in cash and another $6000 in a 3 month CD.
I wish I were, but sadly I'm not.
But you are, no Libertarian I know would let others starve, unless it was their own fault. All I know help those they can who are willing. I
You clearly know nothing of the history of the Vietnam War. During the Eisenhower administration, there were a handful of CIA propagandists serving the Diem regime, that's it.
It's you who obviously don't know the history of the Viet Nam War. Eisenhower sent US Air Force Officer Edward Lansdale to recruit, train, and arm opponents of The Geneva Conference agreement between France and South Viet Nam on one side and North Viet Nam on the other. The agreement was that the two Viet Nams would hold voting on whether to remain separated or to reunite.
Kennedy, who basically bought into the Cold War policy of Eisenhower, drew the line against Communism in Vietnam since the Bay of Pigs was a colossal failure
Kennedy escalated it but Ike started US involvement in Viet Nam.
You wanted to slime Republicans but just made yourself look ignorant instead. Use facts next time.
You're the one spreading slime, I suggest you check the facts.
Oh, and here's another fact: it was a Republican president who finally withdrew all American troops from Vietnam.
Ending the Vietnam War was the only good thing Nixon did. Otherwise he was a crook and liar. For instance did you know Nixon set up his own Presidential Commission to study whether hemp, aka marijuana, should be legalized? Well he did however he said no matter what the commission decided he would not legalize it which is exactly what they decided.
Falcon
No, I don't think so. You would've had health care and food stamps, but you would've been worse off overall (since you still have to pay rent, utilities, transportation, etc., not to mention the money you'd like to spend on entertainment and other luxuries).
Perhaps I should have said if I had had an accident I would have been better off by quiting work. Well I later found out. Almost 12 years ago I did have an accident. I was lain off from my last job and was in college when I was hit while riding my bike after my classes. I suffered a permanent disability and have been collecting Social Security Income for more than 11 years. I absolutely hate needing it, having paid into it when I did work makes it barely bearable.
Falcon
While Teddy Roosevelt may have indeed expanded government, it was back in 1901-1909. I believe the Roosevelt you were referring to was good ole Franklin D.
Both Roosevelts expanded government. When I said Teddy did, though I didn't say it, I was thinking about his Trust Busting. Teddy went after several monopolies from JP Morgan to John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Teddy also sent in the Marines to fight the Barbary Privates in the Med. There was justification for that though, pirates had taken American citizens hostages as well as attacked US ships. Actually he did the same thing Thomas Jefferson did.
Falcon