In the end, never say it is impossible. It's like arguing implosion won't prevail in Manhattan.

Thinking twice, then again, you can still tweak with file locking strategies.

Indeed, you have to rsync when all file handles are closed.

hehe, that's exactly what I was saying and I understand. Peace.

ssh and openshh: ssh is proprietary
solaris and opensolaris: solaris is proprietary
apache and no openapache: apache is open source

You seems like you have been trying to use it, haven't you? Like most open source solutions, you might have to tweak it a bit to get it to do what you want and then again, you have to make compromise. But be assured it works in a satisfactory way for me. Just get a proprietary solution if you can't make it work as you wish. Oh my god, I just realized you sounded like a guy that would choose the later solution ;-)

I know what you are saying although and there is some truth to it.

Take care man ;-)

name of the company: SSH Communications Security

since they grabbed a lot from open source in the beginning, I guess they allowed openssh to develop an open source version.

The original SSH version is still proprietary nowadays.

You mean I don't need to install Cygwin anymore like I have been doing for the past 15 years to accomplish just that?

Next proposal: implement rsync natively...

No, they aren't. I don't know who they are attempting to attract but it's certainly not the lowest common denominator. No-one seems to want the ubuntu interface, nor the gnome3 one for that matter. Not the newbies nor the present computer users.

I'm looking at examples of fascism that are actually, you know, examples. Aside from Italy, this also includes Spain and Portugal, and many South American countries at one point or another. All of them were the same in that regard.

What you call "corporatocracy", OTOH, is not fascism. It's something else entirely. There is a confusion there because Italian fascists were corporatists, and sometime later, people, esp. native English speakers, confused the meaning of the term "corporatism" with the meaning of the word "corporation" that they're familiar with (but which is not at all what fascist corporatism was all about).

If you have to ask this question, I have to surmise that you're not familiar with a joy of an interesting job well done. Don't worry about it. There are enough people who are willing to work for the sake of doing interesting things and/or killing boredom.

There won't be anywhere where they can keep "more of the value". When you get into the situation where 99% are jobless because of automation, there are only two ways to go from there: either you have wealth redistribution, or you have a Luddite uprising that smashes the machines and rewinds the civilization back, and forces it to stay there to maintain social stability. The former option allows for further technological progress, the latter does not. If you personally had that choice, which one would you take?

There's no way to demand compliance when there are literally hundreds of people lined up behind you willing to do the job that you're currently doing.

History of past economic systems is generally not applicable to newer ones. If you tried to forecast the success of a capitalist system based on your personal experience in a feudal society, and the past historical track record in, say, Antique slave societies, you would have to conclude that it's an unrealistic utopia, because 90% of the population are needed just to grow the food for everyone else.

Thing is, as technology advances, it eventually accumulates enough changes to force a significant leap in how economics work. It's not really voluntary - the society either makes a leap (and this can also go smoothly or bloody, depending), or it falls off the progress bandwagon and gets stuck in past, and eventually gets conquered or otherwise pushed around by those who stayed on the track.

Capitalism is based on the notion of a workforce that has to work for a living, and on there actually being enough work necessary to satisfy the day-to-day demands that everyone has to do their parts. This assumption is not going to hold true for much longer. In fact, it wouldn't hold true in developed countries today already, if not for outsourcing - why bother with robots if Chinese ex-peasants are a dime a dozen? But those peasants will ride capitalism into middle class themselves, and then outsource to Africans; and then Africans will ride it, and then there's no-one to outsource to - and then it's robots anyway.

And just as feudalism couldn't survive and compete once agricultural techniques advanced to the point where the majority of the population didn't have to be involved in it, so capitalism won't survive once industrial production advances to the point where a single human is sufficient to control a factory that can supply the demands of an entire city.

It's acceptable to allow one that is bad, but noticeably better. If you keep iterating on it, eventually you'll actually get a decent candidate. More importantly, if you keep voting out the worse guys, being a worse guy will stop being profitable in politics.

No you don't. Provide a fake payslip. Your current employer is legally bound from sharing your pay information and your future employer is legally bound from getting your pay information without your permission.

if anyone ever displays knowledge of your current pay then there is a criminal charge in their future regardless if it's the new place or the recruiter.

Everyone negotiates with full knowledge of the other parties price point or no one does. Turn about is fair play.

All this is perfectly fine. Frankly, long-term our problem is going to be figuring out what to do with all the people out of jobs due to pervasive automation, and UBI is the obvious way to solve this. I fully expect us to end with an arrangement whereby the work of 1% (largely maintenance of automated systems that do all the "dirty work") will be sufficient to provide for the needs of the remaining 99%, and still have potential left. I also fully expect people to actually compete for the right to do that work.

The problem is that a few states have actually refused to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and most purportedly "states rights" proponents in this debate supported them in that (I have no idea where Rand stands on it personally).