That's not quite true. You can absolutely publish your identity, and you can verify it (with digital signatures etc). What you can't do is tie it to your real identity. But when all your reputation is tied to that market in the first place, it doesn't actually matter.

It's an oft-repeated adage, and is obviously wrong (or rather deliberately ignores the bigger picture). Yes, expenses of businesses are passed on to their customers, but the reverse is also true: expenses of customers are passed onto the businesses just the same (if I have less money, I buy less stuff). Money doesn't flow like a river in economy, it doesn't have the beginning and the end - it's a never-ending loop. It doesn't make any sense to focus on the business -> person part of it, and ignore the equivalent person -> business part. But if you do that, then the argument doesn't really make any sense: why is it wrong to tax the flow at one point, but not the other? The whole "double taxation" thing makes zero sense, because all money is double- and triple- and quadruple-taxed as it changes hands - tax is on the flow, not on the money itself!

That's true of any tax or other measure, though. I mean, GOP has done essentially the same to minimum wage, by refusing to adjust it for inflation. At this point, it's actually less in terms of purchasing power than it was in 1960s. It doesn't mean that we can't try to do something better.

I'm fine with eliminating corporate income tax, if we then start taxing capital gains at a proper rate (i.e. at least as high as regular income).

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.