You forget that, in this case, National is used here as a negation of the term socialism. Socialism is generally described as the nationalization of [some|many|all] industries, which are then run for the public good (or at least the people in charge called it the public good, whether or not it was in fact for the public good). The Nazis, afaik, did not nationalize any industries when they got into power, and they most assuredly did not run anything for the public good. And do not forget that they were explicitly anti-Bolshevik, and Bolshevism is a (bastardized) form of Marxism; Nazis were explicitly anti-Jewish/Slavic/Roma/etc., essentially, they declared for the "Aryan" race and against anyone else, while proper Socialism demands the essential equality of the Proletariat regardless of background.
Yes, but the second dynasty conquered China, by attacking through the Great Wall. As this was a dynasty of Non-Han Chinese, they had no need for the Great Wall, as their Home Province (Manchuria) was on the other side of it.
Likewise, the Ming Dynasty was the one that put most of what we currently consider the Great Wall up. Thus, they went to this extreme expense for nothing.
I find it particularly ironic that many people call the Chinese Firewall the "Great Firewall of China". The Great Wall of China did not do its specified task very well.
Most of the Great Wall that we see, know, and love today was made under the Ming Dynasty, which ruled from 1368 to 1644. They probably did this in order to keep out the Mongols again. Of course, when the Ming fell, they were taken over by the Qing, or Manchu Dynasty, which attacked across the wall, and conquered all of modern-day China, and then ruled if for 360 some years.
I don't think the supposedly Communist Chinese leadership wants to use that as an example of their Firewall policy.
Given two hypothetical countries, both with brutally despotic rulers and the same amount of rights, with the exception of one being centrally planned, and the other possessing a free market, which country is freer?
They are equally unfree. Simply because a person is free to own a factory in one land does not make it more free than a land where a person is forbidden from owning a factory. The fact that a person is free to accumulate great wealth in this scenario has nothing to do about the freedom to speak out against the crimes of the Government.
My point was "Free societies require (at least mostly) free markets." Rebutting this statement by listing states which possessed a free market and yet were not completely and utterly free does not disprove my point
I probably misread your comment. You also wrote: I think it's time that people finally accepted that the Austrian / Chicago school of economic thought [emphasis added] is far closer to freedom than any of the garbage Marx, Engels, and Lenin were spewing. Thus, I assumed you considered economic and societal freedom, if not causal, at least correlational. I was simply trying to point out that Free Markets do not require Free Societies; thus, a Free Society could easily slide into a non-Free one, whilst the market still went about its work.
Certainly you will agree that a free market economy is far less hospitable for tyrannical rulers and oppressive regimes than a centrally planned economy.
I agree it is far less hospitable than other forms of economic systems. Just it is also not wholy inhospitable. After all, a dictator could easily permit a free market for anyone who does not oppose the regime.
given enough examples, perhaps one should begin doubting the divinity of communism. There are certainly enough beliefs within the dogma of communism (must be attained through a revolution, forcefully taking controll from some and giving it to others, etc.) which would be conducive to the sort of "one-party dictatorships" that have historically emerged.
I think this is more a result of having nearly all Communist countries that lasted any appreciable length of time outside the U.S.S.R. modeled their development after the U.S.S.R. This means that the Coup d'Etat launched by Lenin often termed the October Revolution provided the effective base for single-party governance, as the Coup was mainly Bolshevik in character, and the following Civil War effectively quashed the other parties. Then Uncle Joe Stalin (or, as I prefer to call him, Tsar Josif) took over after Lenin's death, and squashed any rights which interfered with his outlook on how the country should be run (N.B.: this included economic rights. Lenin established the New Economic Policy, which broke up Government owned industries into different sections, which were then ordered to compete along pseudo-Free Market Lines; also, the ownership of small factories and of small stores of under, iirc, ten people was also legalized. Stalin made an alliance with the Old Bolsheviks promising to keep the NEP if he is installed into power instead of Trotsky, who vowed to rid the U.S.S.R. of the NEP. Then, after gaining power, Stalin did away with the NEP and the Old Bolsheviks both.) Then, when other forms of authoritarian Communists were trying to gain power, they followed the way that had worked in the U.S.S.R.
Austrian / Chicago school of economic thought is far closer to freedom than any of the garbage Marx, Engels, and Lenin were spewing
Free Markets like Singapore? or Pinochet's Chile? Or how about Revolutionary France, with guarantees to property?
I know none of these are perfect examples, but simply because a place has free markets, does not make them inherently free.
I believe many people should remember that all countries which have declared themselves to be based off of Marx and Engels have also been one-party dictatorships. Thus, even though all means of production were in the hands of the Government, since the Government was in the hands of a small cadre of party leaders, the Government, and thus the nation, could be considered to be in private ownership by this small clique, and the means of production again created what their owners told them to create, only this time without any effective means of staying out of bankruptcy due to bad management.
Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the People's Republic of China does not qualify as Communist nowadays, as they permit private ownership of the means of production (about fifty percent, iirc), and encourage Capitalism, that thing which Marx and Engels were trying to replace.
This is true port to port. And when it gets in port, it must be transfered to some sort of land transport (train or semi). The LTA does not need to do this transfer. Likewise, the LTA craft can be used much more effectively in developing countries, which do not necessarily have the rail or highway systems of an industrialized country.
What happened to Cargolifter? I hope someone will continue down the Cargolifter concept line. It would be incredibly practicable if it were successfully developed. I hope Zeppelin-NT will eventually experiment with these after Zeppelins are successfully reintroduced.
Now that I think about it, that's probably what killed Cargolifter. It went straight from crawling to running a marathon, without the necessary intermediate steps.
Well, does the Florida Supreme Court have the same right to change laws (by ruling them unconstitutional, in this case against the Florida Constitution, or even federal law) as the SCOTUS?
In my view, if the Florida Supreme Court can do this, then I would consider their time limit the legal one.
Ah, but that's not a voting system, now then, is it. Merely, that is an effect of the system that they use in India, combined with the tradition of multi-party governance and the history of democracy they have in India (which has only been relatively democratic since the British left).
Of course, the ironic thing about a system which permitted multiple parties reaching Congress is that it would work far better in the United States than in India: the Legislature is independent from the Executive branch, and does not choose the president or vice-president (unless the Electoral College cannot decide, then Congress does); the executive branch would remain under a single party's control for a term or two, while Congress could have twenty different parties, preventing a single agenda from being forced down our throats; thus, this would reduce the number of laws which represent the narrow interests of a single party, causing the laws which are passed to represent a broad cross-section of voting Americans, and causing less laws to be passed in the first place.
Because when SCOTUS took the case, they stopped the recount. Then, when they finally released their ruling, they said that the recount had to be finished within the timeframe specified by Florida law, despite the fact that the ruling came less than a day before the deadline would be reached.
Maybe it's just me, but I really do not understand why they will take a DNA sample of every felon. I guess I didn't realize that the commision of fraud required leaving something from which DNA could be obtained.
Which brings up a good question: Why did we break up the AT&T monopoly? For the most part, it behaved the way its regulators told it to behave; service was good (or better), and costs were low (when compared against today's costs, at least for traditional phone service).
Was there actually a groundswell of support for breaking up the AT&T monopoly, or did the AT&T executives simply decide they could make more money if there were five different AT&Ts which weren't regulated (though they probably should have been)?
Am I the only one here positively giddy about the concept of the GNU Project trying to embrace and extend.NET, the product of that king of embrace and extend, Microsoft? After all, just think of the irony!
Consider it: people use dotGNU on platforms where.NET is too expensive to ensure compatibility; Microsoft does Something Stupid(TM), such as breaking compatibility between versoins of.NET; in order to maintain compatibility in those areas where dotGNU is used (because it would still cost an arm and a leg to use.NET in these select areas), dotGNU replaces.NET where.NET was used; then, when Microsoft decides to force people to update to a new license much more favorable to Microsoft than the user, because people are using dotGNU, they can decide that Microsoft can go hang, and convert their computers to GNU/Linux, or to another [Free|Open Source] operating system.
This sort of embrace and extend would only be practical in those environments where.NET was extensively used, and thus is unlikely to cause all former.NET users to first dotGNU, and then GNU/Linux; still, this is a large segment no longer in the thrall of Microsoft.
Microsoft frequently introduce new versions of products that require significant re-writes to remain compatible.
But in this case, there's competition.
In Windows, when Microsoft changes the registry (or anything else mildly important), corporate developers must change their code base in order to maintain compatibility, because otherwise they would not be able to keep using Windows.
However, if Microsoft adds a major change to.NET, then (when dotGNU is finally advanced enough) corporations have the choice of either changing all their programs that run on the.NET infrastructure, or changing to the dotGNU infrastructure. Then, the corporation can choose whichever best fits their needs at the moment, or will best fit them in the near future. The feasibility of either of these options could be determined by the corporation, not by Microsoft.
Imagine the scenario of "show your voting receipt to your union foreman if you ever want another raise in your career."
Or your boss (which is probably more likely because only 15% of workers were unionized in 1997). Or you have to show it to your priest in order to get communion for the next four years. Or probably fifty other possible scams which no one has thought of yet.
I agree with you: the answer is not verified electronic voting, but a non-electronic voting which can be tabulated by both computer and hand.
It is already having an effect - Linus is spending time worrying about legal nonsense instead of developing the kernel.
This is what OSRM says its services are for. In the latest Linux Mag, apparently, they have searched the Linux Kernel for possible Copyright infringement, and have found none, and are now offering legal indemnification for Open Source (which is also vendor independent.
Well, first, there are proprietary companies who do not share their stuff, and and this does indeed hold back GNU/Linux to an extent. At the same time, one of the reasons that GNU/Linux is so difficult to use is that the operating system does not make as many assumptions for the user as Windows does. This permits the user to define vastly more information about the computer than in Windows aboutr very small things. It also makes micromanaging the operating system very easy, and makes it almost impossible for a novice user (or an experienced user, on ocassion) to get a complete handle on all the different date they must insert: there's simply so much to define before something works (especially low level programs. I don't know how long it took me to get X Windows to actually work on my Debian box, but once it is up, it is stable, with the minor quibble from Enlightenment now and then due to not quite perfect defining on my part).
It's hard decision on who to back when both sides are completely full of it.
Not entirely: Microsoft has been convicted of both being a monopoly (according to the latest definition) and to illegally using this monopoly status to harm consumers by reducing choice and perpetuating their monopoly.
So far as I know, no GNU/Linux advocate has been convicted in a court of law of bending the market to their will in illegal ways.
Empty Threats is merely pointing out that sometimes there actually is no choice other than picking up and moving, even in areas of business, due to ill-regulated local monopolies.
The grandparent poster should also note that all ISPs in the U.S.A. must take down content mentioned by the C&D in copyright conflict cases in order to comply with the DMCA. In this case, the Government has hopped in bed with the sycophantic **AAs and let them write policy, to the detriment of the greater common good. Thus, in the grandparent poster's opinion, we should opt for option number 2.
This could be used as an argument for government-run ISPs. In the US and many other countries, a government agency couldn't censor users' content without a court order, and you have legal recourse.
Wow. The US Government got something right. Is this a case of beginner's luck, or a broken clock always being right twice a day?
Slashdot Mirror
First, they acquire a new patent for getting people's checking account and routing numbers over the internet by having the {customer|user] enter them.
Then, they launch a call for "Patent Reform".
I'm assuming their version of patent reform would be "Everyone else has to give up their bad patents, but we get to keep them."
I think you mean this kind of juice
That has to be the best D&D reference I've seen all week!
Likewise, the Ming Dynasty was the one that put most of what we currently consider the Great Wall up. Thus, they went to this extreme expense for nothing.
This is EXACTLY what I was trying to say; this is much clearer, however.
Most of the Great Wall that we see, know, and love today was made under the Ming Dynasty, which ruled from 1368 to 1644. They probably did this in order to keep out the Mongols again. Of course, when the Ming fell, they were taken over by the Qing, or Manchu Dynasty, which attacked across the wall, and conquered all of modern-day China, and then ruled if for 360 some years.
I don't think the supposedly Communist Chinese leadership wants to use that as an example of their Firewall policy.
I know none of these are perfect examples, but simply because a place has free markets, does not make them inherently free.
I believe many people should remember that all countries which have declared themselves to be based off of Marx and Engels have also been one-party dictatorships. Thus, even though all means of production were in the hands of the Government, since the Government was in the hands of a small cadre of party leaders, the Government, and thus the nation, could be considered to be in private ownership by this small clique, and the means of production again created what their owners told them to create, only this time without any effective means of staying out of bankruptcy due to bad management.
Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the People's Republic of China does not qualify as Communist nowadays, as they permit private ownership of the means of production (about fifty percent, iirc), and encourage Capitalism, that thing which Marx and Engels were trying to replace.
Bring out your dead!
[clang]
and here's the rest of the scene.
As for being faster, that depends on:
- weather conditions
- engine in the cargo carrier
- fuel efficiency of the various engines/motors
And I'm sure other variables I have forgotten.Now that I think about it, that's probably what killed Cargolifter. It went straight from crawling to running a marathon, without the necessary intermediate steps.
In which case, I had no proper reason to complain in the first place. My apologies for misunderstanding you.
In my view, if the Florida Supreme Court can do this, then I would consider their time limit the legal one.
Of course, the ironic thing about a system which permitted multiple parties reaching Congress is that it would work far better in the United States than in India: the Legislature is independent from the Executive branch, and does not choose the president or vice-president (unless the Electoral College cannot decide, then Congress does); the executive branch would remain under a single party's control for a term or two, while Congress could have twenty different parties, preventing a single agenda from being forced down our throats; thus, this would reduce the number of laws which represent the narrow interests of a single party, causing the laws which are passed to represent a broad cross-section of voting Americans, and causing less laws to be passed in the first place.
By the way, I believe the system they use in India is called Proportional Representation.
Because when SCOTUS took the case, they stopped the recount. Then, when they finally released their ruling, they said that the recount had to be finished within the timeframe specified by Florida law, despite the fact that the ruling came less than a day before the deadline would be reached.
Maybe it's just me, but I really do not understand why they will take a DNA sample of every felon. I guess I didn't realize that the commision of fraud required leaving something from which DNA could be obtained.
Was there actually a groundswell of support for breaking up the AT&T monopoly, or did the AT&T executives simply decide they could make more money if there were five different AT&Ts which weren't regulated (though they probably should have been)?
Consider it: people use dotGNU on platforms where .NET is too expensive to ensure compatibility; Microsoft does Something Stupid(TM), such as breaking compatibility between versoins of .NET; in order to maintain compatibility in those areas where dotGNU is used (because it would still cost an arm and a leg to use .NET in these select areas), dotGNU replaces .NET where .NET was used; then, when Microsoft decides to force people to update to a new license much more favorable to Microsoft than the user, because people are using dotGNU, they can decide that Microsoft can go hang, and convert their computers to GNU/Linux, or to another [Free|Open Source] operating system.
This sort of embrace and extend would only be practical in those environments where .NET was extensively used, and thus is unlikely to cause all former .NET users to first dotGNU, and then GNU/Linux; still, this is a large segment no longer in the thrall of Microsoft.
In Windows, when Microsoft changes the registry (or anything else mildly important), corporate developers must change their code base in order to maintain compatibility, because otherwise they would not be able to keep using Windows.
However, if Microsoft adds a major change to .NET, then (when dotGNU is finally advanced enough) corporations have the choice of either changing all their programs that run on the .NET infrastructure, or changing to the dotGNU infrastructure. Then, the corporation can choose whichever best fits their needs at the moment, or will best fit them in the near future. The feasibility of either of these options could be determined by the corporation, not by Microsoft.
I agree with you: the answer is not verified electronic voting, but a non-electronic voting which can be tabulated by both computer and hand.
So far as I know, no GNU/Linux advocate has been convicted in a court of law of bending the market to their will in illegal ways.
HOW IS THIS A TROLL???????
Empty Threats is merely pointing out that sometimes there actually is no choice other than picking up and moving, even in areas of business, due to ill-regulated local monopolies.
The grandparent poster should also note that all ISPs in the U.S.A. must take down content mentioned by the C&D in copyright conflict cases in order to comply with the DMCA. In this case, the Government has hopped in bed with the sycophantic **AAs and let them write policy, to the detriment of the greater common good. Thus, in the grandparent poster's opinion, we should opt for option number 2.