I can definitely see merit to the idea of not owning a car. The only reason why I currently own one now is because I live too far off the bus line to walk there easily in the morning. If I lived in the city instead I would almost certainly not own a car at all.
And don't get me started on the Ponzi scheme that we are all required to contribute to in order to hold a valid driver license.
We could have an organization like debian, that instead of publishing a distribution of other people's software, publishes an online journal, of other people's papers. Run, and reviewed in the same manner.
That is a great idea. The problem though is that it takes money to do it. You need editors to review the papers. You need a web page that can handle traffic for distributing the papers. You need a physical space to store the hardware. You need a communication system for editors and reviewers to communicate with authors and with each other.
Even if a faculty member at a research university were to propose to do this, they would still need to dedicate money from their grant or their salary to fund it. Universities charge faculty for physical space, for internet access, for hardware, for electricity, for security, etc. Even if you push the hosting out to a cloud service that is only a small part of the cost. A lot of universities are also increasing the precision to which they track faculty time (both during the "regular" 8am-7pm work day and beyond) which means they would crack down on faculty who were spending time working on such a project if it was beyond the scope of their established funding.
I would love to see someone propose a solution to those problems. Don't get me wrong, I wish that publishing costs were lower for the legitimate academic journals, but I'm not sure how to lower those costs. I've published research articles in a variety of different formats and I know their costs to the PI.
The first problem is that occasionally researchers (usually junior) will submit actual meaningful work to these journals, likely driven at least in part by the exceptionally low publication charge. Publishing in a top-tier journal is expensive, and even the reputable open-access journals (such as PLoS ONE) can easily be over $1000 to publish. As junior researchers don't have the larger budgets of their senior colleagues they may be tempted to try this route. The solution to this is of course to encourage these people to shy away from the "cheap" open access journals like this one and if need be seek out assistance in covering page costs in reputable journals instead.
The second problem is the volume of garbage traffic that these rags generate. Trying to auto-junk their email with spam filters is not necessarily wise as it could end up decreasing the overall signal-to-noise ratio of said filters and hence increase the false positive rate. These guys excel at hitting just the right mark of spaminess. You could of course try to just blacklist the from addresses but with the rate at which they register new domain names that is a losing battle as well. Then there is also the deluge of invitations to crappy conferences that they send out as well to untold thousands of unsuspecting victims. You can't really win this one, and they aren't breaking any laws either so you can't turn the authorities against them.
Generally, the newer the car is, and the more sophisticated the manufacturer-installed electronics care, the harder it will be to hack it. If you want something that won't leave you bashing your head against the wall in frustration you might not want to look at anything from the past decade or two. Some cars are so resistant to hacking that you'll find the "cool upgrade" you wanted to try has left you with a car that you can't even start any more.
If your assertion is true, he is the only conservative author to ever use the word "tyranny" in a loving way. And frankly, it could still be understood to be used in a hateful way as the rest of the English-speaking world would understand it to clearly be hateful.
He is most certainly not encouraging power sharing, socio-economic mobility, or understanding or communication with those from different walks of life or philosophical backgrounds.
Actually, his book The Tyranny of ClichÃ©s: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas is a good overview of precisely how your ilk is pretty much the antithesis of communication.
That statement helps my thesis of his speech being hate-driven far more than any thesis of your own.
Wait--he's never held any political office. Yet you call him a fascist
You don't have to hold political office to be a fascist. Anyone with fascist ideals is a fascist regardless of whether or not they have ever bothered to run for anything. A fascist is simply someone who aspires to see power concentrated in a specific way towards a specific small segment of the population at the cost of all the others.
re you redefining the word on the fly?
No, I use definitions that are commonly understood. He jettisons the dictionary at his own convenience to incite anger.
Was that not your accusation against him?
Except he actually does it, and made a name for himself in doing it. I dare to use the actual dictionary and actual reason and logic instead and don't mind the lack of notoriety that comes with it.
You have yet to show him guilty of "hate speech"
No, I very plainly showed how his entire thesis is based on hate. If you can show him to have been using the term "fascism" is a non-hateful way, then please do so - you will prove me wrong in so doing. It is commonly understood that in that political circle in particular the term "fascism" is used to drive anger and hatred.
yet you're hypocritically under-bussing him as a "fascist"
He is most certainly not encouraging power sharing, socio-economic mobility, or understanding or communication with those from different walks of life or philosophical backgrounds. In other words his hateful monologue is much closer to being itself an embodiment of the hateful term he is trying to warp into a label for another group than are the actions of said group.