Pointing at a forum for the editor is probably not what the person you responded to was looking for when asking their question. Except for the "Beautiful Interface" which somehow translates to "Fun" I don't see anything on the list that VI/VIM can't do already.

I personally don't mind graphical text editors, but when managing thousands of servers I find them impractical. I can ssh -> VI something and move on to the next task. Writing a bunch of code or documentation, I prefer a graphical interface. Each has their purpose.

The problem is not mine, the problem is yours. You are attempting to conflate an economic system into a form of government, or trying to conflate a government into a form of economics. Either way is wrong!

I'll go further and state that you know you are wrong, as evidenced by your overblown use of adjective in your second paragraph. No, it does not present the appearance of knowledge.

There are countless others who wrote about economics and government, but to claim it is "cherry picked" is laughable. Why is it laughable? Simple, the United States of America, which we are discussing, was intended to have Capitalism as it's form of economics. Capitalism is derived from the works of one of those authors. The form of Government we have was defined by Socrates in "The Republic". Should I really assume a 3rd party interpretation (and possible corruption) of the original thoughts and writings over the original thoughts and writings? The answer to that is NO!

You may be fair if you only claimed that the last member of the list as "cherry picked". I'd counter any such argument by stating that Milton Friedman was ignored by our politicians who carried on with Keynesian policies regardless of who was pointing out it's failures. Friedman's principles were never implemented or tried, even by the so called "great conservative" Reagan who dismantled numerous protections against monopoly during his two terms in office and started the massive shift of wealth in the hands of very few with "Trickle Down Economics".

False claim much?

Where exactly do I state or even imply that the economy can be left to itself? The fact that I state "Enforced regulation is all that's required." should make it abundantly clear that the economy can not be left to itself.

Any claim you make that socialism and communism are required to fix issues are pure rubbish.

Go read and comprehend what Socrates stated in the allegory of the artisan 2,500 years ago. Go read what Adam Smith stated repeatedly in his works defining "Capitalism". Read Milton Friedman's works and comprehend what he wrote. All three of those people were for a "FREE" Democratic Republic style of Government, not socialism or communism. All three tell you that the primary role of Government in an economy is to enforce regulations to stop monopolization.

To claim that you need a particular form of government to achieve this ignores history, period.

You have not paid any attention to what's been happening with media in the US have you? Broadcast and Print media is all primarily owned by the same people. If talking points are not followed journalists are fired. I have no idea how you missed the leaks about the New York Post, CNN, FOX, and *NBC, and hell even the AP. A few of these leaks were even mentioned in some places (though not covered as stories or discussed beyond the mention). Each outlet is controlling output and following administration provided talking points. Having to have stories approved by 3 letter government agencies before running them, and blacking out content that could harm the administration provided talking points.

It's not "communism", that's a false paradigm. Seems like you also missed the reports that the US has turned into a fascist oligarch by a couple large universities. Having a controlled media is surely a sign of a society that is not free, but communism is not the only form of government that is "not free".

I don't agree that the only way to fix the issue is by the communist path. You don't need a complete re-distribution to fix things, you only need to dismantle a very small number of monopolies (including financial monopolies).

Start with media, and break up the monopoly. Having 90% of all media owned by 4 people is why we lack rational discussion of issues and have a public that knows more about a celebrity than a political decision that could impact their lives for the rest of their lives. Deregulation broke this.

Financially, our woes are not due to the 1% but rather the .01%. Lock this down and redistribute their wealth and every poor person in the country would be set for life. Bill Gates (easy yet deserving target) does not need 50 billion dollars. Simply knocking him down to 1 billion would return enough money to purchase 490,000 people houses valued at 100,000, and Mr. Gates would still be rich. Now imagine how many people could own a home and be out of poverty if you corrected all of the .01% (There are at least a few with way more wealth than him). Deregulation broke this.

Banks need to be broken up and regulations put back in place to ensure that a bank can not operate in more than one state. Too big to fail should not exist, and deregulation broke this.

Notice that deregulation broke each of these things, all starting around the 1970s. As more and more deregulation occurred, more and more corruption has happened.

These three things are not the only things that need to be done, but each is a valid starting point. It should also be obvious that since deregulation caused failures, it does not require communism to "fix" things. Enforced regulation is all that's required.

Either a sock puppet account trying to make sure people are getting messages about how "cool" the concept is. Or. Someone nerd raging and believing everything technology is cool. Or Finally. The person chose an offensive vocabulary to express their thoughts.

I'll lean toward the last thing, mixed with the middle.

I will state that the rating of "Troll" is wrong also, and it agrees with my thoughts (though I'd have expressed them differently). If "Fuck the CIA" can get modded insightful (in a thread yesterday), so can this.

When they are trying to demand access to everyone else' private lives, it sure as hell does. You are going to have to do better than an elementary fallacy to sway people away from hsthompson69's point.

You also recycled the brain cells denoting the difference between "grant it" and "granted"....

Sorry, I could not resist...

TV, Phones, and Radio are not inherently bad. People originally saw broadcast media as a way of sharing knowledge. A voice with further range.

That said, just like speaking it also has the potential to be misused and harm the public. I'll argue that it has been used for exactly that purpose for decades as well, with the last couple of decades reaching an absurd level of hypnotizing the public and keeping them away from reality.

As we see with other forms of broadcast, the "Internet" has also been abused for the same purposes. You only need to look into why Wikimedia started blocking congressional IPs from anonymous edits to know that it's not just "conspiracy wackos" trying to mislead people. It should also be obvious that this media format has been used for more nefarious purposes than simply misleading or providing false information. Once again, you can point to government agencies as the largest culprits.

Given what we know about people abusing media and technology, why the hell would you want your toaster and fridge connected to the internet? In nearly every case, the risk drastically outweighs any potential benefit of having the device internet accessible in my opinion. Not only do you have to worry about an insurance company looking at your fridge and increasing your rates because you have too many high carb foods (which is on track to be 100% government controlled), but you also have to worry about a hacker turning up the temperature so your food spoils. Even better, automatically ordering food for you when that gets plugged in (already being touted as why you should have a fridge on the internet), because you can probably afford $68,000.00 worth of steak right?

Nobody cares what you do, but at least stop bullshitting people and using fallacy to make yourself look better than someone who has weighed the risks and does not want this type of technology invading their home.

Currently there is nothing from stopping you from rigging up your house and appliances in numerous fashions to have all your "stuff" shared on the internet. Do it up, just don't bitch when your "stuff" gets destroyed or stolen. More importantly, stop trying to imply it's a great idea and everyone should do it.

While I agree this is possible, I will also submit that it's only a partial truth because not all banks and credit cards are the same. Many credit card companies will provide negative scoring for paying off a debt completely every month. I have had 2 credit cards cancelled for exactly that reason (years apart mind you, not simultaneous). The reason I got the cards was for the same reason you claimed worked, to build a score by making small purchases and paying it off each month. Except that credit card companies can cancel your cards for any reason, and in my case did after a few months of purchasing small goods and paying off the balance every month.

American Express has worked this way for as long as they have been in business, but you pay an annual fee to have the card so it's still not "free" and you are not being paid to have the card.

As the old saying goes, if something appears too good to be true it probably is. That said, I'd be interested in looking at your actual monthly statements to see how much you actually pay for credit card use. Call me cynical, but nobody rides for free. Perhaps if your "company" is contributing more, you would appear to pay less, etc...

I will grant you that big banks are worse than credit unions, and perhaps your credit cards are both through your credit union. Doubtful that you would get frequent flier miles that way, but surely possible.

The DOJ did not fail to convict Microsoft of being an illegal monopoly, they failed to _PUNISH_ them after they were found guilty. Microsoft paid lobbyists to convince congress that breaking them apart (as was done with AT&T) would cause further economic collapse. Yeah yeah, so much for the separation of powers...

It was not just the DOJ that failed to punish MS. Several states had similar successful trials where MS was found guilty, and the payout from MS was "free MS products for Education and Government" for N years ( in some cases 5 years ). I wrote numerous articles and papers back then explaining how this was not a punishment, but obviously a method of further entrenching their monopoly.

Jackson and Sharpton both have livelihoods that depend on race issues. Both are known for race baiting, and have made careers doing just that. This is why even when no racial issues exist, they fabricate information to make them exist. These are not the only two that manipulate discrimination issues for cash. We saw recently that the NAACP will give bigots a lifetime achievement award, if the bigot gives enough money to the NAACP.

That statement should not imply that real issues of discrimination do not exist, but rather that real issues of discrimination are diminished because of these types of people.

It's not a shakedown for money, because that would only let you cash a check once. He wants constant racial issues, and instigates them when ever possible.

You do realize that it takes money to sue someone correct? Well, technically you could file yourself but you will quickly lose because a laymen is not going to understand the required procedures even assuming they could figure out the correct paperwork to file to get the case started.

Very few lawyers work pro bono. If any risk at all existed in the case (including to their reputation) lawyers can and often do refuse cases.

No, it's not practical for a homeless person to sue anyone. In a criminal case a lawyer must be provided if the person can not afford one, but that is not true with civil cases.