Well, yeah, it sort of is.

Citation needed. And just because Jimmy stuck his hand in the door before he slammed it onto his hand doesn't mean we don't feel sorry for him, even if it was a stupid move that he brought upon himself

I don't see how that has to do with the survey, though. And if you want to educate someone to make better decisions - eg. that you care and want to help them so that they don't suffer. In such, empathy, the very thing you decry as socialist. If you want to help them, that implies that you feel sorry for them in some fashion.

I'm not entirely sure what making people feel good has to do with liberal socialism. I was under the impression that socialism was a political philosophy that emphasized overall control through the people as a collective, not a "make everyone feel good about themselves" psychological stance. Maybe you might want to connect the dots.

For the record, liberalism is a philosophy in the US that supports regulated capitalism, not socialism.

Well, not quite warm and fuzzy. More on the lines of, if we up the lowest common denominator, then we have a better society. We can judge a country based on its rich elites all we want, but if we look at the poverty line then, well, if that has been upped to a reasonable line then we can say we have succeeded in making a good quality of life for all. Then we won't need to feel sorry for anyone, because the collective as succeeded and as a race we have achieved success.

Whoa, whoa whoa, so then, you want to say that helping African children is a bad thing? What other kind of problems do we have to deal with that is anything worse than a society that is so poor that they are literally dying of hunger? In a world where we have enough food for everyone in the world, what kind of monster do you have to be to not feel sorry for them at least a little?

That's not anti-socialist, that's sociopath behavior.

Indeed.

You're right, I did (and I'm eight and three quarters, you insensitive clod). I'm just trying to add some flame to this random bunch of anti-liberalism that really has nothing to do with the story.

But Empathy has video chat, you insensitive clod!

Fixed that for you.

Close. We're outgrowing unregulated capitalism and moving on to corporatism. Rather than pretend that we care about the consumer, we've now decided to let the corporations roam free and fuck up our gulfs, rape our wallets and otherwise ruin life as we know it. Who needs regulation when you can have an economy that regulates itself using Harry Potter spells? Accio profit! See, it works.

Yes, you are. However, what I do see is a trend of people, including your post, saying "people are starting to be anti-capitalist!" when, in reality, a "smaller, less pervasive government" doesn't entirely imply capitalism. You can still have a regulated capitalist society, despite popular Tea Party opinion, and regulation does not and never has implied anti-capitalist leanings, nor socialism.

Really? Because if you look at the conservatives or liberals in the US, you'd see that they're both just faces of the same coin: both pretty far right as far as the rest if the world is concerned, and fully committed to corporatism. I wouldn't call that a progressive movement. More like, "let's just let the market regulate itself using Harry Potter spells. Accio profit!"

At least the liberals are pretending to try and protect the consumer, where the anti-progressives just want the corporations to roam free and pillage and plunder like they have for years.

Have you heard of these Tea Party guys?

And then Red Hat 6 Beta is released. We need a Glenn Beck of Linux. "Now I'm not saying that the X.org was attacked by radical Red-followers...well actually yes I am."

You forgot to put your pinky on the edge of your mouth.

If he was trying to set an IP address then he couldn't have just googled something, right?

Keep on ranting, dude. All of the Linux users here know that you don't have to use the command line in Ubuntu and other desktop distributions. At all.

But you can if you want to, and it is very nice.

I'd say more redundant than flamebait.

I think you see the Google Chrome OS as something Google is trying to use to take over every computer, which is certainly not true. Google wants to use it to create a new class of computer, a netbook that only does internet and nothing else. Your dystopian fantasy is just that - a fantasy, a slippery slope. As Gruber once stated (and I dislike Gruber so for me to quote him would be a stretch), sometimes you don't need two cars, you just need a car and a bicycle. Why do we have to assume that when a company releases a bicycle they're determined to kill and enslave everyone who owns a car?

Google cannot "win," because they are attacking a new type of device - an internet-only browsing device. Google would certainly like to knock Microsoft down a few pegs, but who doesn't these days?

Look at the firestorm over Gnome 3.0. It looks like a nice new way of using a computer, and I love it. Apparently nobody else does, though. And when they genuinely innovate, the Windows fanboys rip them apart for being user-unfriendly (even if it isn't - the current definition of user friendly is like Windows). The Linux developers lose either way.

The Linux Desktop sector could use a Jobs-esque speaker that praises and extols the virtues of their desktop environment. As Apple (and Windows 7 on a certain scale) has proven, if you say something enough times, with the right amount of bravado, it slowly becomes a reality.