Because of increased cost, there will no longer be internet innovation. We know that when one company increases its costs beyond what the market thinks is reasonable, competitors do not arise and undercut them. Once again, the nail was hit right on the head.
The LP has conservative roots. Of course the term conservative has meant very different things at different times and places. The LP was, from what I recall, originally a Democrat-opposition party. Although Bush is lambasted for what are called severe civil rights violations, it should be remembered that some of the most noteworthy Progressives in our history like Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and LBJ did far, far worse. Being wiretapped for calling 9/11-linked individuals in the Middle East is nothing. [As a small side note, dissent is now very popular in the US; the Feds have no need to wiretap if they want to find dissenters.]
If FDR, the father of modern progressivism in the US, were in power now, I would not be surprised in the least if he interned the Muslims in this country. People like Lincoln were the antithesis of Libertarianism (think about the Federalist/Anti-federalist dynamic).
I suppose I am thinking more about libertarian with a small "L" when I think of libertarian talk radio. Guys like Jay Severin and the late David Brudnoy are examples of what I would consider the "good" libertarians (for the most part). They do not have the same suicidal or anarchical flair the mainstream Libertarians do.
Libertarians are effectively traditional conservatives and still share much of their political philosophy with the Republicans. They come out with many studies, traditionally siding with Republicans and Libertarians. Many leftist groups have labeled them as a right-wing group.
Actually, I've heard NPR refer to them as a tool for the Republicans on at least two or three occasions. And of course NPR is totally non-partisan, so they must be right.
You do not think that the rich have less under socialism? I suppose this is inline with the other post that says socialism and market economics work together.
I'm going from my recollection of the number of people in this country who make greater than or equal to a couple grand less than me per year. Excuse me if it is closer to 85% than 90%.
You read those Census Bureau statistics wrong. It does not say 15.6% of Americans do not have health insurance, but that 15.6% of those living in this country do not. I hope that the distinction is meaningful enough as to not require further explanation.
Actually, the US is Linus's home, as it is for most Linux-based industry as well (think Novell, RedHat, and that little cash register company with a blue logo). I would also hardly say that Nokia makes Finland comparable with the Korea, Japan, and the US when it comes to technology.
Don't worry about it though, I'm just spouting off American propaganda.
Who needs Ford, GM, IBM, Apple, HP, Microsoft, Intel, etc? Finland has Nokia! Samsung, LG, and Hyundai? They are no Nokia! Sony, Panasonic, Toyota, and Honda don't even offer a Linux-based mini-tablet!
Wow, you are right. Who would want capitalism? It's not like I just took a one-week vacation in the Bahamas, go out to eat several nice meals per week, have excellent medical care, a new car, and decent clothes all with lower-middle class earnings.
Seriously, you can say I am soft, greedy, etc., but there is no way in hell you will convince me or the 90% or so people in the US in similar or better conditions than me that we should want socialism.
That's because the [powerful] left in the US consist primarily of guilt-ridden privileged who, when faced with real socialism, could not stomach that they too would be forced to give up all of the luxuries brought to them by capitalism. Then there are those who are just too stupid to understand the dynamics or consequences of politics. There are also those like the Salon.com editor that admitted taking pleasure in seeing negative reports about Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are so entrenched in their own party's advancement that politics become more a matter of which side is winning on the scoreboard than what legislation or policy is actually taking place.
So was Nazi Germany. History would indicate that such technically progressive socialist states have quite finite life spans. The only socialistic countries that seem to be surviving show very little in the way of technical progression. Conversely, we have capitalist nations like Korea, Japan, and the US with thriving technical innovation.
Of course there are many compounding factors like participation in globalization, but there are socialistic states with few trade barriers that still fail to push out particularly notable technologies. The occasional blips like DVD Jon are all that come to mind.
I suppose the best inference I can draw is that you dislike Christians because there beliefs are unscientific? That gets back to my question, what's it to you? Out of curiosity, what do you think of Islam?
WRT to Catholic Hospitals being forced to perform abortions, they are now legally required to in Massachusetts. It is not hooey.
And whose money do you think funds the school districts that want to teach ID? I can promise you it isn't secular humanists. That aside, why is it that the biggest opponents of teaching ID in a handful of schools in the South are Northerners who seem to have it out for Christianity? If these Christians are just dumb and unscientific, what do you care if they teach their children God created them or they came from monkeys?
I suppose I see that going both ways. It seems like forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, advocating against Intelligent Design being taught in schools, or advocating for female priests seems like quite a bit of meddling in the lives of Christians. In the defense of Christians though, they think they are doing God's work by saving the heathens or something, whereas anti-Christians who try to meddle with things that are isolated to Christians just seem to be going on their dislike for them. Is it just a tit-for-tat thing or what?
The initial comment here was no more grounded in empirical data than the +5 Insightful Linux fan boy postings.
Out of curiosity, why do people like you dislike Christianity so much? I realize you think its stupid, anti-scientific, etc., but there are many things I have low opinions of without holding hostile attitudes toward.
Slashdot Mirror
It just might be the most clichéd comment made on Slashdot, which is really saying something.
Because of increased cost, there will no longer be internet innovation. We know that when one company increases its costs beyond what the market thinks is reasonable, competitors do not arise and undercut them. Once again, the nail was hit right on the head.
The LP has conservative roots. Of course the term conservative has meant very different things at different times and places. The LP was, from what I recall, originally a Democrat-opposition party. Although Bush is lambasted for what are called severe civil rights violations, it should be remembered that some of the most noteworthy Progressives in our history like Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and LBJ did far, far worse. Being wiretapped for calling 9/11-linked individuals in the Middle East is nothing. [As a small side note, dissent is now very popular in the US; the Feds have no need to wiretap if they want to find dissenters.]
If FDR, the father of modern progressivism in the US, were in power now, I would not be surprised in the least if he interned the Muslims in this country. People like Lincoln were the antithesis of Libertarianism (think about the Federalist/Anti-federalist dynamic).
I suppose I am thinking more about libertarian with a small "L" when I think of libertarian talk radio. Guys like Jay Severin and the late David Brudnoy are examples of what I would consider the "good" libertarians (for the most part). They do not have the same suicidal or anarchical flair the mainstream Libertarians do.
Read up on the history of what I assume is your own party. Or, at least listen to some Libertarian talk radio hosts.
It was poorly worded. By they I meant the Cato Institute. Thanks though, really.
I actually recall it being pretty close to unanimous.
My point is that both sides want government control.
There is no need to apologize though. Hopefully this one parses.
You do realize who signed the DMCA into law don't you? It was a very non-partisan law.
Libertarians are effectively traditional conservatives and still share much of their political philosophy with the Republicans. They come out with many studies, traditionally siding with Republicans and Libertarians. Many leftist groups have labeled them as a right-wing group.
Actually, I've heard NPR refer to them as a tool for the Republicans on at least two or three occasions. And of course NPR is totally non-partisan, so they must be right.
You do not think that the rich have less under socialism? I suppose this is inline with the other post that says socialism and market economics work together.
I'm going from my recollection of the number of people in this country who make greater than or equal to a couple grand less than me per year. Excuse me if it is closer to 85% than 90%.
You read those Census Bureau statistics wrong. It does not say 15.6% of Americans do not have health insurance, but that 15.6% of those living in this country do not. I hope that the distinction is meaningful enough as to not require further explanation.
I never said it did. I just said the more technologically advanced socialist states do not seem to last long.
Actually, the US is Linus's home, as it is for most Linux-based industry as well (think Novell, RedHat, and that little cash register company with a blue logo). I would also hardly say that Nokia makes Finland comparable with the Korea, Japan, and the US when it comes to technology.
Don't worry about it though, I'm just spouting off American propaganda.
Who needs Ford, GM, IBM, Apple, HP, Microsoft, Intel, etc? Finland has Nokia!
Samsung, LG, and Hyundai? They are no Nokia!
Sony, Panasonic, Toyota, and Honda don't even offer a Linux-based mini-tablet!
Wow, you are right. Who would want capitalism? It's not like I just took a one-week vacation in the Bahamas, go out to eat several nice meals per week, have excellent medical care, a new car, and decent clothes all with lower-middle class earnings.
Seriously, you can say I am soft, greedy, etc., but there is no way in hell you will convince me or the 90% or so people in the US in similar or better conditions than me that we should want socialism.
That's because the [powerful] left in the US consist primarily of guilt-ridden privileged who, when faced with real socialism, could not stomach that they too would be forced to give up all of the luxuries brought to them by capitalism. Then there are those who are just too stupid to understand the dynamics or consequences of politics. There are also those like the Salon.com editor that admitted taking pleasure in seeing negative reports about Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are so entrenched in their own party's advancement that politics become more a matter of which side is winning on the scoreboard than what legislation or policy is actually taking place.
So was Nazi Germany. History would indicate that such technically progressive socialist states have quite finite life spans. The only socialistic countries that seem to be surviving show very little in the way of technical progression. Conversely, we have capitalist nations like Korea, Japan, and the US with thriving technical innovation.
Of course there are many compounding factors like participation in globalization, but there are socialistic states with few trade barriers that still fail to push out particularly notable technologies. The occasional blips like DVD Jon are all that come to mind.
It is?
Obligatory: http://funroll-loops.org/
Correct, I don't know you, hence, the question.
I suppose the best inference I can draw is that you dislike Christians because there beliefs are unscientific? That gets back to my question, what's it to you? Out of curiosity, what do you think of Islam?
WRT to Catholic Hospitals being forced to perform abortions, they are now legally required to in Massachusetts. It is not hooey.
And whose money do you think funds the school districts that want to teach ID? I can promise you it isn't secular humanists. That aside, why is it that the biggest opponents of teaching ID in a handful of schools in the South are Northerners who seem to have it out for Christianity? If these Christians are just dumb and unscientific, what do you care if they teach their children God created them or they came from monkeys?
I suppose I see that going both ways. It seems like forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, advocating against Intelligent Design being taught in schools, or advocating for female priests seems like quite a bit of meddling in the lives of Christians. In the defense of Christians though, they think they are doing God's work by saving the heathens or something, whereas anti-Christians who try to meddle with things that are isolated to Christians just seem to be going on their dislike for them. Is it just a tit-for-tat thing or what?
The initial comment here was no more grounded in empirical data than the +5 Insightful Linux fan boy postings.
Out of curiosity, why do people like you dislike Christianity so much? I realize you think its stupid, anti-scientific, etc., but there are many things I have low opinions of without holding hostile attitudes toward.
Funny how the parent is flame bait, but this is interesting. I'm glad the moderators are living up to the standard of impartiality.
Let me guess, this is part of your own personal green program?
I know anyone who takes a subway instead of walking ten minutes is lazy. Then again, the shift key seems to be a bit of a reach for you too.
i take the t every day between harvard and central
How lazy are you? It's barely a 10-minute walk.