Probably heard it in church Sunday School.

"the greatest arrogance of all: “Save the planet!” What?! Are these fucking people kidding me?! Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet! . . . The planet will be here, we’ll be long gone; just another failed mutation; just another closed-end biological mistake; an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance." - George Carlin

Obviously. I am currently looking for a data provider for various IOT devices, talked to all major providers, talking to ton of others. Major providers demand that equipment is approved by their networks, in conversations this is all about keeping cheaper equipment out of the country, that's all.

sure, these are choices that stem out of another choice, namely out of the choice to have private ownership and operation of property. If the factory is private property, then it is operating in an environment that promotes and defends private property rights. This means nobody us forced to work there also, not just that nobody is owed a job there. In this environment competition is inevitable and it is competition for the purchasing power of individual buyers. So the demand and purchasing conditions are at least partially dictated by the totality of individual choices of all market participants. This is a policy choice, this is the choice I personally prefer as well.

Used to walk the dog rather late at night, and several times I saw a local cop driving very slowly down the street with his lights off past his ex-wife's house. This is nothing new.

I think it's correct either way. They should be embarrassed of the people they abused.

Mos sensible post I've seen in this thread. Are you sure you're on the right web site? :-)

With over 15,000 residents per square kilometer in the center of the city you wouldn't want ANY drones overhead where if they lose power, lose contact with the controller, hit something, etc. there's a high likelihood of personal injury. Now with the introduction of robot air taxis into he mix there would be even higher risk. In that sort of situation requiring permits and flight plans makes absolute sense.

We haven't seen a president in the US who could be considered anything less than 'conservative' since Carter in 1980, everyone since then is either conservative, hyper-conservative, or wing-nut loony conservative. In civilized areas of the world the Democratic Party would be considered moderate-right.

Controlled, slow, invitation of foreigners to your country is called Immigration, when it happens in an uncontrolled, quick manner, without invitation, that's called an Invasion.

Furthermore "Just because you let someone stay in your house, doesn't mean they get to re-arrange your furniture". You'll never find out if your "values are misguided" if they cease to exist to be replaced by someone else's values. What you are arguing for is to not resist, while your own erasure happens. This is neither logical nor natural. If their culture and way of life was so superior, they wouldn't be seeking "good life" elsewhere, they would be building it where they came from.

A better analogy to uncontrolled Immigration (aka Invasion) would be a parasite, that has depleted resources elsewhere and is now seeking another host to feed off of, any organism will attempt to fight off such parasite. If you want to be culturally enriched so much, move there, bask in other cultures as much as you like, those that choose to keep their own culture only have one option, and that is to stay where they are.

I don't even understand what died in Britain this time. Surely even before today it was up to the parents to purchase a phone or a tablet or any type of a computer and give it to their children. There is no way for google or anyone to know who is using a phone or a tablet. Today with AI I suppose it is possible to use filters to attempt automatic detection of the person who is livestreaming and allow AI decide if this person is old enough and if not the livestream will then be terminated (or prevented). This will teach children a few things. First of all it will teach them about VPNs, it will also teach them about disguising their identity to the computer, who is looking at them, while they are showing themselves off to the world. They will find new and creative ways to get around these restrictions, they will not 'innocently play', as politicians are promising. There will not be a return to the "good old days". Parents will set up phones and tablets for their offspring because it is easier than to parent and that will be that.

You are suggesting quite a few things, except you don't like to actually say directly what it is that you want to happen. Here is one thing you said: "Elon Musk should be a wealthy man, no doubt about it but a trillionaire or hell even a $100B is a failure of our economy, our culture, our society or our politics." - 100B is not Musk anymore, it's more than Musk, who I consider to be a con artist.

What you are implying to calling 100B owner a failure of economy and culture and society and politics is that it should be impossible for some reason for a person to accrue enough ownership of private resources to be at that level. It is your inadequacies that are showing here and it is your word play that we are debating. What you are suggesting is oppression and tyranny, nothing less, which is what is required for a person not to be able to accrue any amount of wealth regardless of how it is obtained.

How about this: "I mean, he does. He also still is one person with 24 hours a day, does he actually provide enough productivity to justify tens of millions every day?" - nobody has to justify anything, if they are able to accrue some wealth beyond your imagination does not make it wrong that a person should be able to do so.

To this I have already answered: "Explain this (i am fully anticipating Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook)" - obviously a large amount of accumulated wealth is represented by a business and this business clearly benefits the society much more than the individual who runs it, otherwise the company wouldn't be valuable enough for you to pay attention how wealthy the owner of this company becomes.

This: "Everything you said would equally apply if he was worth $1B as it does $1000B so what does he need the extra 999B? His lifestyle changes 0%. He can still own and run companies." - implies that a person shouldn't be able to have ownership in a company that is growing in value, Musk or anyone else. So if you build a company that becomes so valuable people invest into it enough that its market share, its profits are so large that the value exceeds 100B (on paper, doesn't matter). If you are the single largest owner of the stock in this company your shares go above and beyond 1B.

You are pretending that you are not suggesting confiscation (oppression by the voting majority) yet what else are you suggesting? Be clear, what are your demands and goals? I already see the reasons, jealousy and ideology with a strange belief that a person shouldn't be able to own something of serious value for some reason.

This: "And I would ask just the same what the unhealthy fixation on defending the massive wealth inequality?" - I am FOR wealth inequality, it's the only thing that actually motivates people to move forward with business ideas in the first place. If wealth equality was the goal, nobody would be ruining their lives trying to run a business.

This: " I'll guess if I ask for the alternative you'll point to "communism" and I will just say you are not a serious person with a serious position. Like I said, Randian nonsense." - you are the one bringing up communism and Randian ideas, whatever, you are fixated on the nomenclature.

This: "You say you want to "protect private property" as if what I am suggesting eliminates private property in any fashion." - of course you are. You are suggesting this exact thing, you wouldn't be happy until there wouldn't be "wealth inequality". This requires that people cannot own things cannot operate things as they see fit, cannot go beyond some artificial number that is stuck in your head. You think 1B is plenty and 100B is too much, whatever that is all about. In reality it's all garbage. A person who made a billion dollar company can use the money that he makes to start more companies and eventually go much further than 1B dollars and this bugs the shit out of you because you are on a mission.

I am 100% certain you were the one bringing up communism, I was not. I am against destruction of private property rights, which is what you are suggesting.

what is unsatisfying to you? I am absolutely against majority oppressing a minority via government intervention, a minority in this case is people with more money than most The tyranny of majority leads to redistribution of resources. Communism is not even supposed to have a government. As someone born in the former USSR half a century ago I can point at that system and absolutely refuse it. I can also point at any oppressive system and refuse it. You are proposing an oppressive system, oppression by the force of government backed by the tyranny of majority. I am against it, it leads to destruction of freedoms, economic freedoms being the only ones that matter.

Anti-war pacifists like myself may be the most qualified to speak out on hose subjects. Unlike war supporters like yourself we're realistic enough to realize that NO ONE ever wins a war, just one side which loses less than the other.