You won't get the US centric perspective that you get from the economist.
I am an American and only 2 American print magazines come as close as The Economist does to my pov. Those are Reason magazine and Liberty magazine.
Falcon Wolf
Long live Byte. Goodbye, Byte, Circuit Cellar, Pournelle, and so many other characters. Long live Ars Technica, Wired, GigaOm, and dozens of other sites like NetworkWorld, InfoWorld, The Register, and so forth. Print will never come back. You won't feel it in your hands until your foldable smartphone makes this comfy some day in the future-- to do again.
I loved reading Byte! starting from the beginning. Reading what hardware and software hackers, who followed hacker ethics not the criminals called hackers in the press today, were doing was terrific. My two favorite columns were Steve Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar, which is now a compleat magazine of it's own, and Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor.
Falcon Wolf
Agreed
Falcon Wolf
Actually, try changing the things that are "explanations" and you'll start to find that they are also "excuses". Offer up solutions to end the "explanations" and you'll likely get a slew of reasons why it isn't possible, mainly from the very people who profit by keeping the status quo, but have "compassion" for the plight.
If the US ARMY is doing anything against US citizens, it is proof of tyranny, as they are forbidden by current law (posse comitatus) from engaging US Citizens.
And just so you know, I oppose the militarization of law enforcement (giving police tanks and such).
I guess, if I say I am not a moron you'd still argue, so I won't.
But what I will say is that well armed citizenry can be more than just a bug to be squashed. And yes, I do think that citizens with Paramilitary grade weapons do stand a chance against militarized government agencies. All you have to do is remember what two well armed guys in Hollywood pulled off during a bank heist. Not to mention the Taliban and Iraqi militia people picking off our troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
And you've actually helped make my point, the whole point of gun control is for government to control guns. And this is the very thing I am protesting. The whole "there is no need" argument fails right here, because government will always create a "need" to have bigger better guns than citizens. And that is exactly how tyrants control their citizens.
From the sounds of it, you actually support government with big guns and likewise do not believe Tyranny can happen here. Those that do not know history, are doomed to repeat it. Sadly, those of us who do know history are too few to do anything about it.
As children most cops and most judges were the bullies. For that matter, so were a lot of school administrators. They don't understand the problem, or that there even is a problem. I was suspended for finally hitting back in junior high school, and almost expelled when I did it a second time.
Do you have data to prove that? If so share it.
Falcon Wolf
The problem with the gun control people, is that they fail to realize that they are in fact, not against guns, per se. They are against the people (common citizens) of having guns. They are all for the government having guns.
Lets call it what it is, they don't think the common people need or deserve protection from tyrannical governments, because they mistakenly believe that their government cannot possibly be a tyranny. I would love to round up all these people and force them into "first amendment zones" where we can control their speech, like the government tried to do in Nevada.
And, what if this kid commits a Columbine-esque revenge scenario?
Appropriately, the page with TFA has an ad encouraging me to "Win an AR-15 from Sebastian Ammo". Google is getting scary...
I have the same ad, and it's not from Google. The link is to another page on the same site. Now that page does have a Google ad, about slimming fat wallets.
As for the action taken by the school, one really has to wonder as to what kind of cretins make up the school administration. And what they could possibly have hoped to achieve by filing charges, other than a nasty (and well deserved) publicity backlash? Although for a society run by lawyers, that's perhaps what one would expect. Squeaky wheel gets a beating, and a teenager gets hauled in front of a judge on charges of "disorderly conduct" in a school. Seriously... Can any of the officials involved in this case look in the mirror and tell themselves that they are doing the Right Thing?
Agreed.
Falcon Wolf
The most racist thing I've ever heard, were the liberals whining about black people's "plight", making excuses for the bad behavior being "cultural". It is clearly the most bigoted viewpoint, and it isn't coming from "Tea Baggers", it is coming from the left. And some of the worst, is coming the black/african left. These people are poverty pimps and race baiters who DO NOT WANT a successful Black (see Ben Carson character assassination).
When success is rewarded with hateful words like "Uncle Tom", and "Race Traitor" you can squarely call it "racism". There is no greater racist than those that DO NOT believe black people can be smart, intelligent and successful.
But, instead of taking a close look at the policies that are designed to hold black people captive (slavery??) inside the invisible cages and to be ruled by their plantation masters (voting 80% DNC), we have people calling the wrong side "racist".
The real Racism are those that insist that black people cannot be successful, without a handout.
Accidents happen, yes, but nuclear is still arguably the safest (deaths/TWh) form of energy on the planet: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... Even wind, hydro and solar are more dangerous.
If left to market forces, and not state planners, the markets would not build nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. Notice how that is a CATO Institute reprint of a "Forbes" article first published on November 26, 2007. And in case you don't know what CATO is, from their about page "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues."
FalconWolf
At this point Greenpeace is as stuck in its position of advocating against Nuclear Energy as the NRA is against gun control, and they are both looking like obstacles to any positive change in the status quo
I oppose taxpayers paying for nuclear power. Actually I advocate eliminating all subsidies. And don't think energy companies aren't subsidized. Allocation of subsidies in the United States lists some subsidies different energy producers received between 1950 and 2010. Nuclear power received $73 billion in federal subsidies. "BusinessWeek" has the article When It Comes to Government Subsidies, Dirty Energy Still Cleans Up date 21 October 2012..
I also support the NRA and their stance on gun controls. The only effective gun control is when the shooter hits what they aim at. And if they hit someone they should pay for it. I find it ironic the first "environmentalists", those who cared for the environment, were conservationists and hunters. Now how can hunters be environmentalists? They kill wildlife. Guess what, they also want the environment that that wildlife lives in to be clean and not polluted. Teddy Roosevelt was an avid hunter who as president created the National Park Service. He wanted to preserve wild lands for hunting among other reasons. Many hunters supported this too.
FalconWolf
France has not done well with nuclear power. Sure they get most of their electricity from nuclear power plants, however despite their lead in reprocessing France still has trouble with storage. While reprocessing allows spent fuel to be reused and shortens it's half-life doing so creates toxins and hotter fuel.
As far as building nuclear power plants go state planners on free market determines what gets built. CATO, that is the institute "dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace" printed the article "Hooked on Subsidies that was first published in the November 26, 2007 issue of "Forbes". The opening statements is "Why conservatives should join the left’s campaign against nuclear power." Further down it says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don’t. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Now if private businesses want to build nuclear power plants they should get, and pay for, their own insurance. They would also have to finance the construction, not government. I might even invest in such a company that uses thorium as it's fuel. Provided the finances come out good.
FalconWolf
While that sounds nice in theory but for most people it doesn't make any different. For example say you get back $2,000 from your tax return. If you intend on saving you could keep in your weekly check that money and put it in an interest barring account and come out ahead. but when your saving account is paying 0.1% interest you are making less then $2 by doing so. $2 a year for most people isn't even worth time time to figure out the proper withholding. And don't tell me about the stock market or similar where i am putting my money at risk. so until interest rates go to a sane level its just not worth it.
Unless of course you're one of the unwashed masses that has an abundance of credit card debt. Using that extra money to pay off your debts more quickly can give you a great return, at least in the sense that you'd LOSE less money.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
