The enemies of Democracy [blackboxvoting.org] are

... what? Is this signature broken for everyone, or just for me?

I’m running Firefox 3.5 on Linux, for the record.

But the English language does, and it's in Oxford.

This is simply false. Nobody who has actually studied language could make this mistake.

If the gov stepped in and mandated more seats in medical schools, there would be more doctors and less of a shortage.

And a lower average quality of physician. The government can’t mandate skill or talent among its citizens.

Saying that Tibet must be either an aristocratic theocracy or an imperial possession seems like a horrible false dilemma. Would the theocracy necessarily be re-established in a new free Tibet? I doubt that, given that the world would be watching, and not just hippies: An oppressive theocracy so close to Central Asia would be an intolerable power shift.

Had Ron Paul won, the Office of the President would have become effectively powerless for four years. Read your Constitution and list the things a President can do if the House and the Senate are both dead-set against him.

I should probably clarify that I have no love or hate for Objectivism. I'm merely trying to get a cogent argument out of someone who obviously hates it.

Why? Because it should be amusing. Everyone who comments on it online, it seems, has an almost cartoonish hatred of the philosophy, its adherents, and Ayn Rand. However, it seems that most of them cannot separate those hatreds in a rational fashion, leading to purely ad hominem attacks against the philosophy. In short, it seems like they hate it because some of the adherents are assholes and Ayn Rand was really ugly.

So I'm happy I found someone who has an actual argument.

Objectivism as a foundation for economic systems is a failure, since it fails to accurately reflect the fact that actors can be, and often are, irrational.

A problem with your attack is that standard economic theory works the same way. Look up Homo economicus some time.

Everyone hates Objectivism but nobody has any arguments against it. Everyone who I've ever heard putting Objectivism down is putting Rand down in the same breath, as if her personal qualities were at all relevant to a philosophical discussion.

In short: Explain to me why Objectivism is evil without once attacking Ayn Rand or any other human being.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!

La Lune Noir! Noir! Chat!

6) My toad loves cheese

7) I live with two mimes, and I cannot scream

8) Loose a thumb, but only on Thursdays

9) I'm a wallaby. Mooo!

10) Unicorn. Love. Hate.

11) Understanding you'r Swede

upgrades, RPM

I find it easy to upgrade my deb-based Ubuntu system. I imagine Debian users find it just as easy.

Linux does not always imply RPM any more than Solaris always implies SPARC.

Stonehenge is seriously claimed by some to be the UK's oldest computer.

Only by people deliberately misconstruing the term ‘computer’ to be cute.

How about this: Single-celled life is, collectively, the world’s oldest computer. After all, it multiplies without external help!

Wikipedia uses Ubuntu now as its server OS. That should lay to rest any notion of Ubuntu being technically inferior to any other distro.

As opposed to, say, the RPM-Hell

Have you ever used a system that was based on packages other than RPMs? It seems like a lot of Slackware users formed their only opinions of non-Slack distros back in the mid-1990s, when Debian was comatose and Red Hat was the only other option.

From which point in my post are people assuming I think GOTOs are evil?

From the context of a 40-year-old free-floating flamewar over the topic of gotos, which reignites every time the construct is mentioned, even in passing. It is one of the hardiest perennials in programming discourse.

OK, so how do you handle deallocation of resources upon finding an unrecoverable error midway through the function? It seems a lot more readable and maintainable to have all deallocation code in one location near the end of the function, as opposed to duplicated wherever an error might be found, which means at least one copy of the code is likely to be wrong, or shunted off into its own function, which would force all of the local variables holding dynamic resources to be made into globals or similar.