Politicians and celebrities want to be able to protect themselves from criticism.

There are many similarities, but for obvious reasons, they had to strip a lot out in iOS to make it practical for mobile hardware

Sorry, but those reasons are not "obvious" to me. Mobile devices these days have the compute power of high-end desktops of only a few years ago, desktops that ran professional UNIX environments just fine. What was there to "strip out"?

Rofl, nevertheless your claim is wrong.
All sites where reactors are sunken and have broken up are contaminated in a way that sea food from there is unhealthy.

Evidence? Citation? Nothing. As usual, you are fabricating "facts".

I can't honestly think of any existing system ever that didn't end up with a small lining of aristocracy (however that was called, whether it's the aristocracy of the good ol' times of nobility, whether it's the aristocracy of the communist politburo or whether it's our aristocracy of money).

The rich do not form an aristocracy in the standard meaning of the word; in fact, capitalism was instrumental in ending the power of aristocracies in Europe.

The term "aristocracy of money" may also be used as a metaphor, to express the idea that money confers aristocracy-like benefits, but that analogy does not work, because the old saying “It is only but three generations from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves.” holds true. Most wealthy in the US became that way without inheriting the wealth.

By the way: The system you might describe as "communist" (which I refuse to accept, it was much but certainly not communist) failed for the same reasons, oddly, that the system we live in today will fail (which I refuse to consider even remotely capitalist).

Absolutely. The commonality is the phenomena described by public choice theory. Nepotism, cronyism, abuse of governmental power exist are both a problem in our society and were a problem in all socialist and communist countries. But there is a big difference in terms of degree. In the US, that kind of corruption may account for 30% of the economy, in socialist and communist regimes, it easily accounted for 90%, and that makes all the difference: it's why we ended up wealthy and they did not. Furthermore, such corruption is part of life: you can't eliminate it entirely, and if you tried, the cure would be worse than the disease.

I'm fairly sure true communism can work. I'd still prefer true capitalism. Not because it's better, but it's far easier to implement.

That's always ever been the utilitarian argument for capitalism. Ideal capitalism works worse than ideal communism, but real capitalism works better.

But there is a second question, namely not what "works", but what kind of society we want to live in. Even perfect communism would result in a large loss of individual liberties; it's intrinsic and unavoidable.

Chauvinistic "holier-than-thou" idiots exist in every group.

European anti-Americanism isn't an occasional exception, it is long-standing and widespread phenomenon in mainstream European society. It's been an integral part of European history and European intellectual life since the US was founded.

Whoopsie, hope I didn't hurt your feelings...

Since I am from Europe, why would you be hurting my feelings? All you are proving is your ignorance.

That wasn't sarcasm.

Oh, sorry, I misread you. What would Americans have to rationalize? The US still is the richest and most powerful country on earth. We aren't getting any aid or handouts from Europe.

And I'm quite sure that while Europeans consider some less developed countries to be failing, they do consider others to be thriving. Otherwise their wouldn't be attempting to get onto the markets in those countries, nicht wahr?

Europeans have been "getting into the markets" of countries they consider inferior for centuries, usually to exploit, oppress, and teach them the superior European ways. N'est ce pas?

Now I'm waiting for American intellectuals to invent all sort of rationalizations for why their supposedly superior culture keeps failing while some developing countries are thriving. ;-)

What a lame attempt at sarcasm. Yeah, Europeans have all sorts of erroneous beliefs and prejudices about "developing countries" as well, starting with the erroneous idea that they are "failing".

There are always aspects of the US that Europeans have found attractive. But those have always coexisted with a firm belief that Europe is culturally superior. Receiving aid from the US only has bred more contempt, and European intellectuals invented all sort of rationalizations for why their supposedly superior culture kept failing while the US was thriving.

A secondary effect is that the people who figure it out just pack up and leave Europe if they can, further increasing the majority of those hostile to the US.

The fact remains that from a US point of view "change your behavior or we won't like you anymore" isn't much of a threat coming from Europeans, given centuries of European abuse heaped on the US.

I don't like Linus, but apparently enough people can put up with him to keep the kernel going. As long as he delivers, I really don't care what he says or does.

Given your blanket generalization I'll retort "No, they don't". Numerous countries have been force into following the American model to compete (Europe), but that is not the same thing as "agreeing" as you so bluntly claimed.

I know it's hard to remember given how impotent Europe is these days, but in fact the US was forced into following the European model by European powers, both on copyrights and on patents. It took a while until the US managed to beat Europeans at their own game.

Perhaps you should consider why numerous countries are very hostile toward US companies, especially in the Medical and Agricultural sectors.

We have considered it and we don't care anymore: Europeans just look down their noses at Americans, always have and always will.

Then it's about time we substitute away the hydrocephalus on top of our corporations.

That's a lot of verbiage for simply saying that you want a planned economy. No, it's not time for that because it doesn't work.

No, you're simply historically illiterate. (Progressives obviously have abandoned eugenics itself, but merely replaced it with other racially discriminatory policies.)

At its peak of popularity, eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill,[114] Margaret Sanger,[115][116] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, [117] Norman Haire, Havelock Ellis, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Robert Andrews Millikan,[118] Linus Pauling[119] and Sidney Webb.[120][121][122]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service.[16] White and black people would sometimes be required to eat separately, go to separate schools, use separate public toilets, park benches, train, buses, and water fountains, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[84][85]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Keynes was a proponent of eugenics. He served as Director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. As late as 1946, shortly before his death, Keynes declared eugenics to be "the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists."[154]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I could go on. But why don't you read about it from a black Stanford economist, Thomas Sowell, in his book "Intellectuals and Race".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So why exactly do the known sunken reactors then leak plutonium and caesium and other stuff if it is 'chemical' impossible as you claim?

I didn't say it was "impossible". You said sunken reactors caused "ecological disaster" because seawater "dissolves the nice elements in a nuclear reactor". In fact, water dissolves only small quantities and does so very gradually, hence no "ecological disaster". The factors responsible for serious radiation dangers for land-based reactors, meltdowns, dust dispersal, liquid nuclear waste, and enrichment in ground water, don't happen when reactors sink in the ocean.

http://www.nationalgeographic....

Wow, up for a noble price in chemistry?

No, just basic high school chemistry. Science, you should try it some time.

Nevertheless it also dissolves the nice elements in a nuclear reactor and putting it into the food chain.

Not gonna happen. While soluble uranium or plutonium compounds are dangerous, nuclear fuel is usually either plutonium oxide or uranium oxide. Not only are they highly insoluble in water, they also prevent their decay products from dissolving in water.

The primary effect of keeping big box retailers out of an area as far as I can tell is that people drive to the big box retailer and eventually just move away entirely. As a consequence, the area either goes downhill, or it gentrifies and become a playground for the spoiled upper middle class.