I may not agree with absolutely everything you said, but it was well said, cts.

--regeya

I do this on occasion. It's been beneficial, imho. Stupid author is stupid.

"Scots are pigeon-hating perverts, but want to own monkeys, probably to fetch them fried food. No wonder we built a giant wall to keep them out of England."

Who wants a cockpunch?

You have some sort of problem with FREEDOM?

People should be able to make informed decisions based on what they're given, look into it, and if they fall for something stupid, take personal responsibility.

I've been having an increasing number of problems with each new release. I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty, so I'm using Arch Linux now.

I mean...there were times when I'd know what to do to fix a problem, and their #$%! automated tools would get in the way. Sadly, in some cases, this is what is coming to a Linux near you.

And don't get me started on Kubuntu. if you're like me and cut your teeth on distros like Slackware, but you want to use KDE4, give Arch Linux a serious look. The Chakra Project has a KDE4 repo that makes other offerings look ridiculous.

Someone wake me when Canonical starts busting heads, then I'll take another look at Ubuntu.

Yeah...we also need lower-power machines that are the size of regular laptops. I bought my wife an Everex StepNote nearly two years ago and she's still using it. It uses a Via C7, and has a Unichrome gfx chipset, but for most stuff it works fantastically well. On top of all of that, it was about the price of a higher-end netbook.

I don't know that I'd buy another one--especially not for myself--but if they were to sell one as a large netbook, and if they'd sell it with a good battery, I just might.

I don't share EVERYTHING, but I share some things:

• If I just need to go one way, I use rsync.
• If I need 2-way sync but no versioning info, I use unison.
• If I need n-way sync but no versioning info, I use unison with a central "untouchable" folder.
• If I need versioning info, I use git.

Yeah, it's a sign of the time, but it's not just a sign of hard economic times. I live in downstate Illinois (almost down at the tip) and I gotta tell ya--around here, people run home as soon as the first flake of snow falls, and if it starts to sleet, don't make the mistake of stopping at a stop sign, otherwise you'll be rear-ended! People don't bother to try to drive safely anymore.

Cite a modern example where millions starve as a result of government-provided food. How can we be certain it's not an example of millions starving, therefore the government steps in?

"Property on a gravel road is worth less than property on a paved road."

I don't know how it works in Michigan, but if you made that statement about Illinois, you'd have it backwards: Property taxes pay for roads. Therefore, if all the houses go down in value, there's less revenue, which means the roads get worse.

I was born in '75, and I've seen the roads in downstate Illinois going from being largely dirt, rock, and oiled roads, to being largely paved, and now a bit backwards. And quite frankly, although it kills me that my one acre has a higher property tax than my mother-in-law's 40 acres, I can also drive my Altima down the road without hitting one pothole, whereas my car could get lost in a pothole on her road.

Yeah, I was sort of wondering how tearing down abandoned buildlings in Michigan had anything to do with liberalism or socialism, or how a guy who's been president barely half a year caused this.

The tone here again has me wondering why I keep visiting Digg, because people on almost any forum (save maybe Sean Hannity's forums, or Above Top Secret) are more sensible than Diggers.

"Plenty of luxury car owners wont drive on gravel roads."

They could pool their resources and build their own paved roads.

Honestly, if the wealthy of this country don't want to pay taxes, then fine; they can keep their money, and the rest of us can be issued permits to use the public roads. The wealthy can get together and build their own damn roads, or force their serfs to drive for them.

Do they show American Idol on SkyTV?

See, here's what people are getting at. Since you seem to be quick to lean on the idiot's crutch of using profanity and intimidation in lieu of intelligent discourse, I'll keep this as simple as possible.

Someone like, say, Michael Chrighton, or Freeman Dyson, is vilified for speaking out against AGW, especially given their lack of expertise in climatology.

Al Gore, however, is treated like a hero, despite having not only no experience in climatology, but his total lack of scientific expertise, because he espouses an opinion for which there is scientific consensus.

Have you got it, or do you need it to be further dumbed down?

People who don't share my exact viewpoint need to be murdered in the most horrific manner possible.