A libertarian website runs an old rehash of a story which was already been discussed here on Jun 27, where everyone agreed that Liberman is an idiot.
Nothing new happened since then, but the midterms on the horizon and the libertarians need to show that the government(Democrats) is bad and everyone needs to vote for them(Republicans, tea party, whatever).

Slashdot editors, of course, posted this story without giving it so as much as a single thought, I mean is it that hard to google 'internet kill switch site:slashdot.org" ? I'm not new here, still, can I blame slashdot editors for everything, can I?

Nope, your analogy is still flawed. The illegality of drug trafficking means high upfront costs and high penalties for everyone doing business, but for the free market you need equal access for all participants, and in this case you got all the conditions for oligopolies to form. Thus cartels. This isn't an example of a natural progression of a free market.

Cocaine.

Err... No. If you think about it "Columbian drug cartels', and a cartel is the farthest thing from free market.

Meh, I've got Lexmark 250dn, I've could have gotten the chip when I last refilled it, but I opted not to and as a result a yellow warning light for 'low toner' is constantly on.

Although what I've got is a cheap model, maybe they haven't bothered with a proper chip.

I just followed a few links from the one you've given. And yeah, apparently there is a national intranet in North Korea Kwangmyong with 'free' dial-up access. I wonder if anyone getting on that network is being monitored.

Anyway this whole thing looks so deliciously similar to a network in movie Avalon. Actually it's like that movie is reenacted in real life in North Korea. Oppressive communist government? Check. Network somewhat accessible to the general public, from whimsically unreliable terminals. Check (I got a hunch that all the network equipment in NK is old an whimsically unreliable). Brain-computer interface. Not so much, but I believe in the movie it was more of a plot device than anything.

Hahaha, I wish I had mod points, because your post is hilarious, though I'm not entirely sure if you did that on purpose or not.

Also I truly appreciate the internal inconsistency of your argument: we achieve sustainable growth & consumption, but if democrats try to do anything about it, republicans are better because they are worse.

All in all it's a jolly good idea of fixing our current environmental problems by eliminating majority of the population.

I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe you your newsletter.

Oh please, nature doesn't really care of us either, and the planet doesn't have a point of view, so please don't presuppose that it was in some sort of balance and we somehow ruining it.

Also, I really like your prophetic statement about collapse of global 'ecology/economy' and what do you mean by it in the first place?

I just went to wikipedia and read all about it.

The really scary thing about maggots, that their infestation may lead to myiasis.

Actually it's 07 Pontiac G5, but who really cares.(It turns out it's really hard to get a manual cobalt with such amenities as power windows).

At first I wanted to buy Jetta Diesel, but for my budget I though that a 3 yr old GM car would be more reliable than 6-9 yr old VW.

Anyway, for just going to work, and running errands on the weekends I average around 7 L/100Km (31MPG), but if I instead take an extended weekend trip somewhere far, I can average 6.5 L/100KM(36MPG). Right now trip computer shows 6.9 L/100Km average from last 3-4 fill ups (I haven't really traveled a lot lately).

The best mileage I've ever gotten, when I was driving on a country road with average speed 80-90 Km/h with five people in the car plus full trunk and having air conditioner running -- I got 6.3 L/100Km(37MPG).

Coundn't plastics be made out of coal? I mean it is easier to make them out of oil, but it's not like oil contains fairy dust that makes it unique, and not just chains of hydrocarbons. And what about actually recycling plastics, they don't degrade in the environment so they could be collected from landfills and well.. recycling containers.

I don't think it's a big deal that we're burning that oil and some day may run out of it, I'm much more worried about all that carbon that we're putting in the atmosphere and causing global warming. Nuclear power plants and electric cars seem to be the way to go if not solving then mitigating the problem.

Jesus, man, how far up your own ass CAN you be?

You're getting my whole point wrong. Not socialism, but social democracy, not eliminated, but reduced.

I don't see the government as a solid entity that gets everything in its hands that that's the only way to make it right; I see it as arbiter to capitalist system which does produce goods but is inherently unjust, and the government upholds the law, and gives a level playing field for everybody, which has to be paid by taxes. In that view most of the western democracies fit this category, I already mentioned Great Britain (use any metric of comparison from the time of industrial revolution and now), but it seems like every Western democracy after WW2 would fit the description.

But if you're trying to make me say that socialism eliminated inequality -- good luck fighting strawman.

Thanks for quoting back most of my post to me, I love seeing my words cited. But I have to tell you, since I'm the one who wrote it, I sort of already knew what it said.

That's quite a bit narcissistic. Good for you.

Did you have a point in any of that, or were you just so excited that somebody said something Rachel Maddow would disagree with, you had to repeat it?

If you haven't understood what my point was, then I'm sorry, and what of anything I said has to do with Rachel Maddow?

I'm well aware that socialism, when combined with proper amounts of fairy dust, kitten whiskers, double rainbows, and the earnest wishes of 6 year olds, will eliminate "social inequalities". I'm also well aware that it doesn't do that in practice, because all socialism does is concentrate wealth in the hands of the central government, which special interests then wrestle with each other to control - often with bloody results.

Why do you have to do it again, these are truly random ramblings, it looks like there's a burned out circuit responsible for the knowledge of civics and rational thinking, you're trying to use it but it's just isn't there. You're not even trying to make counter arguments but instead you end up running in circles mindlessly repeating -- "socialism -- bad, socialism -- fairytales, socialism -- bloodbath".
Dude, I just hope that one day you'd realize that you're wrong.

Dear God, you just went out of your way to prove his point. You should really go back and find definitions of socialism and social democracy and look them up.

You're using this tortured, wrapped logic to somehow argue against your own rights. Are you implying that the gold standard of national economy is 19th century Britain? And, what with the talking points?

- your preferred liberal (socialist) agenda
- who doesn't love free shit? You know what they don't love? Paying for it, as they eventually will.
- of very good reasons to not support socialism in practice - most notably that it's not financially sustainable as an economic solution
- pay for entitlements given to others
- Can you think of a worse way to encourage creativity and industry
- this country has been governed as a socialist state for many years now
- they're both beholden to their corporate & wealthy masters who are giving them their marching orders
- Socialism - in practice - is just another way for a wealthy and privileged few to amass more power and wealth
- rich few who enjoy privilege far beyond what the serfs tilling the land are entitled to

Also, I got to give you extra points for using an extreme case of social inequality, a signature feature of a capitalist system, to be blamed on a socialist ideology, the whole point of which, is to fight such inequality. Also, I'd like to point out this sentence --

"Great, you're very skilled with programming. Now you need to go work an extra 20 hours this week to pay for your neighbor's food, since he's kind of dumb?"

First of all, I really hope that it makes any sense for you, and second, I hope you enjoy 40 hour week and 1.5x overtime that the evil subversive socialists brought to you.

Dude, you should really stop watching that Glenn Beck show and step away from the TV set.

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

In this pool the question is somewhat unclear.

The question could go either: Did Bush have the intelligence warning that there is going to be an imminent attack on US but didn't do anything about it? (my answer is Yes, just google 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US') OR Did US government orchestrated the destruction of WTC? (Then my answer is a definite no.)

Anyway I don't think that the belief that US government might be behind 9/11, given that how the administration lied about the invasion of Iraq, is as misguided as anything that contains words 'Obama', 'secret', 'terrorist' and 'muslim' in the same sentence.