If you are unable to see that aesthetics actually has functional value, then I'm surprised you're actually capable of the emotion of "sadness".

It's OK. They'll declare war against botnets, and then implement a bunch of laws to combat them, all of which will result in a further slide into tyranny. Eventually we'll have government agents from the to-be established Department of Home Computer Security come into our homes once a week to inspect all of our computing devices. For our own protection, of course.

Indeed, but his sample size of 1 is just as statistically insignificant as GGP's.

Not if they work hand-in-glove with legislation granting them immunity.

Ok, so then what are your actions? Youre saying that you can use your judgement to justify foreign aggression? If so, then you can't begrudge them the right to fight back. If not, then you're bound to admit the injustice of your own nation's policy.
Your line of reasoning highlights the problem with public perceptions and why they can so easily be manipulated.

Then you are bound to acknowledge that THEY claim the high ground by THEIR measures and THEIR society.

Given this difference, it remains to be asked who the agressor is in waging war to impose external standards upon whom.

I don't see how simply being a theocracy automatically makes it "better", and death penalty for adultery and stoning may seem grotesque to a Western mind, but to a society that accepts and considers that to be just, well, that's their choice. Having spoken to Iranians, they don't have a problem with either punishment, as they consider those "crimes" to be undermining of the social fabric.

Don't even attempt to claim the moral high ground when it comes to justice as delivered from the state. Modern legal systems are no better (arguably worse) than the systems that went before them. Theyshoot people with no cause, blatantly imprison people for no valid reason and deliberately frames its own people for military ends. Not to mention such famous institutions as Guantanamo and those black op torture programs carried out by the CIA.

But wait, we have democracy I hear you say? If you call the circus that is the two party system "democracy", then I'm a flee on a baboon's arse. There's no meaningful difference between the parties, and on those occasions where they promise to fix the mistakes of the previous administration ("I'll close Guantanamo" said Barak), if the people actually give them the chance to carry out the promise, they simply renege when the time comes.

I think it's time the so-called "Free World" got off its moral high horse and recognised that it is no better than the barbaric hordes it's fighting against. Indeed, when viewed from the Other Side, we're the barbaric hordes.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary*? There's plenty of evidence supporting that proposition.

Just sayin'.

* Deliberately mistranslated speech outtakes and vague references to financial support to terrorist groups doesn't count as "evidence" unless you're a moron.

Please stop calling out idiots on Slashdot. Slashdot wouldn't be Slashdot without them.

Everyone uses a road *somewhere*. Why tax each road user for his particular stretch of road? Why not just tax everyone who uses roads, say through vehicle registration fees, and skip the costs associated with setting up infrastructure to monitor, track and charge each road user's particular use? Roads and other basic infrastructure have alwasy been, and *should* always be, free to all. Regulating use of the basic infrastructure assets of the economy slows down the process of doing just about anything by adding unnecessary management. To illustrate this point with an extreme example, how fast could you travel down the road at night if you had to stop to put a coin into every street light to turn it on as you passed by it? Would you rather not just pay an annual lump sum, even if it meant paying a little more or less than your fair share? To a greater or lesser extent, user-pays for basic infrastructure introduces these inefficiencies, creating frictional resistance to basic human activity.

But don't let these practical considerations stand in the way of fundamentalist privatism.