I think the logic is more or less along the lines of: more taxes -> less poverty and income inequality -> less crime -> less police shootings.

Unregulated capitalism (which you seem to be substituting arbitrarily for individualism) absolutely means just that, as the 19th century history of any Western country shows. There's a reason why the same period in US was named the Gilded Age, you know.

Totalitarianism also generally means that, as early-to-mid 20th century history of the same countries has shown.

A middle ground where individualism thrives, but government intervention ensures that it doesn't result in sociopathic policies on a large scale causing extreme suffering, is experimentally proven to produce the best results, as the second part of 20th century in, again, the same countries shows even today.

Interesting, but it made be wonder - what the hell is "C# 2.5"?

So, kinda like Quake and Unreal mods?

DOESNTWORKFORME SUFFERTOO?

Chrome (or Blink for engine) seems like a logical choice. But going that way basically means handing full control over web client stuff to Google (which can be assumed to have their own agenda which isn't necessarily compatible with everyone else's), and it creates a software monoculture where HTML, CSS, JS etc are defined not by what the specifications say they are, but by how Blink implements them. You only have to look back to XP era to see how fast this gets ugly.

Right. So it's either four penny coffin or gulag, and there's no ground in between, none at all.

It was already said that the engine is not from scratch. But rebranding it allows the team to throw out crapload of legacy code (ActiveX, VBScript, all the various quirks rendering modes etc), and generally change things to behave according to the standards even where it breaks someone relying on old behavior, since, as a distinct product, this has no obligation to be backwards compatible with IE.

You mean, like this?

And bending the logic didn't even work out for them in the end - Boumediene v. Bush pointed out that it's nothing but sophistry.

People shouldn't lose their rights for simply being in a group, of course. But that does not translate to a "legal person" of a corporation - which is in practice distinct from all the people that form it - acquiring rights of its own, independent of those of its members. Which is the case in practice under the current interpretation.

I'll grant you that certain rights and freedoms should be accorded to groups, and among them is the freedom of speech, but that is a separate discussion and shouldn't be mixed up with freedom of speech as a natural right of individuals.

The other craziness is the notion that spending money on elections amounts to free speech. That is absurd - money is evidently not speech.

In India. The overall quality of life for that $$$ would be much better.

We speak Freedom English on this side of the pond, leave your French to yourself. ~

I didn't realize that Wall Street is in UK.

Actually, that's not at all true - for example, I'm not actually an Indian. ~