I have to agree. I recently replaced the recessed flood lights in my kitchen with high-quality LED lamps. I previously had a variety of CFLs and one incandescent straggler, and the new LEDs look better than *any* of them.
A "fan site" whose domain name is owned by some corporation
Corporations are just groups of people freely associating with each other.
Property rights are a fundamental human right. It doesn't matter where you are located; you have the right to your own property.
Spin it any way you like, the good doctor wants to use an arm of the UN to confiscate other peoples' property by threat of force.
A much better way to resolve the problem would be by using the free market: There are trillions of DNS names still available on the free market for only a couple of bucks per year. He should just pick one and be happy that he obtained this new property without resorting to coercion.
By your definition, Microsoft WIndows must not be an OS. After all, it can't compile itself, because it doesn't come with a compiler.
Nor is Android; I doubt that it even has a compiler. Even app development for Android is done with a cross compiler on a different system.
Of course, all of those dilemmas are false, because in reality, the definition of "OS" simply does not contain a requirement for self-compilation.
What is type "safety" anyways?
It's apparent that you don't know the answer to that question.
Ruby is a safely typed language. It happens to use *dynamic* typing, but it checks those types at runtime nonetheless. Static-typed languages try to do the same thing at compile time.
Type-unsafe languages, such as FORTH, do not check types at all before operating on them. If you provide the wrong type of operand to a call, you get garbage output, but no error is raised unless you cause a CPU-generated segfault.
How many not type safe languages do you know?
If you exclude assembly languages they're not very common, but examples include FORTH and BCPL.
It's perfectly valid Lisp code. So it looks exactly like Lisp.
but more restrictions and unnecessary syntax
(so (that (can (understand (non dweebs) (your program)))) (is (necessary syntax)))
No can do.
Open sourcing the software would reveal the secrets of the technology behind their "uncopyable" install floppy disk.
That's the attitude that I'm talking about, and it's bankrupting this country.
Except in times of large-scale war or financial panic, the government needs to collect taxes to cover its expenditures. If balancing the budget raises taxes enough to be painful, then people will demand reductions in spending. That's the only way you're going to actually shrink the government.
Instead, people like you demand tax cuts first. Well, cutting taxes is easy; they've done it again and again in the past few decades. Cutting actual government spending is hard, because no matter what you cut, you're taking away someone's entitlement. So what we get is a stalemate that generates endless deficits, with no solution in sight.
There are two undisputed points on the Laffer curve 0% and 100% both return no money in the medium and longer run.
Whoa... that's a keen insight, Einstein.
The shape of the Laffer curve is in some dispute
You don't say!
As I pointed out, the problem is that those who believe in a mythical shape that only seems to have a right-hand side have set our tax policy for the last 30 years. With disastrous consequences for our nation.
We need millions of taxpayers, especially small businesses to not only refuse to pay their taxes
Not necessary. The system has already been rigged by propagators of the Laffer curve myth so that the government collects only a small fraction of the taxes necessary to pay for its operation. So you're already not paying most of your taxes.
Yep, one of the great things is that even though the US and Western Europe have decided they don't want you being productive in their country, there are still countries out there that are much more free.
It's easy to be "free" when the companies in question aren't actually IN your country. The government-provided services the freeloading companies depend on are paid for by the non-dodging taxpayers of the countries in which the business actually operate.
Rather than an encryption gateway, having your email client handle encryption avoids the problem of man-in-the-middle attacks between the gateway and the client.
I don't have much reason to encrypt, but Thunderbird has my certificate installed and does my digital signing. This is not unusual for a modern email client.