Free Republic

Thanks for the Ping!

Thanks!Thanks!

Thanks!

Dear Sunni Terrorists and Islamofascists of Pakistan,

You are a:
[ ] Individual
[x] Group of Individuals / Movement
[ ] Party
[ ] Bureaucracy
[x] Ideology

Who is generally known as being one or more of the following politically:

[ ] Reasonably intelligent person who should know better
[ ] Libertarian
[x] Leftist
[ ] Socialist
[ ] Marxist
[ ] Elitist
[ ] Communist
[x] Islamofascist
[ ] Part of the PC police
[x] Nihilist
[x] Insane
[x] Idiotic

You have (wrongly) decided that your fellow countrymen should be the next victims of your terrorist attacks.

You Personally advocate a plan involving:
[x] Propaganda
[ ] Big Government Bureaucracy
[ ] Big Government Legislative
[ ] Market Reform
[x] Vigilante actions
[ ] Quitting
[ ] Doing nothing
[ ] Caving in to pressure

Your plan will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad Federal law was passed.)

[ ] They will be 'offended' anyway
[x] It is unnecessary
[x] It is hypocritical
[ ] It is impossible to implement
[ ] It will take an unrealistic amount of effort to implement
[ ] It will take an unrealistic amount of time to implement
[ ] It will take an unrealistic amount of resources to implement
[x] It ignores reality, natural law, human nature, the laws of nature, or religion
[x] It is out of touch with reality
[x] It is sacrilegious
[ ] It is already in place
[ ] It is already in place, and failing
[x] It has been tried before, and either failed, or been shown to be ineffective
[ ] It is an unrealistic plan that will never be tried
[ ] It is an unrealistic plan that, if tried, would not achieve the desired effects
[x] It will needlessly undermine personal liberty
[x] It will needlessly undermine economic liberty
[x] As Hayek showed in 'Road to Serfdom', loses in economic liberty automatically lead to loses in personal liberty
[x] It will set you on the road to an authoritarian dictatorship
[x] The people responsible for your problem will use this plan to their advantage
[x] Ordinary citizens would be / are needlessly affected by your plan
[ ] No one will be able to find those responsible, or collect the money
[ ] It is defenseless against brute force attacks
[ ] Your plan will stop the problem for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
[x] Americans will not put up with it
[x] America will not put up with it
[x] The civilized world will not put up with it
[x] Your own citizens / supporters will not put up with it
[x] Businesses will not put up with it
[x] The police will not put up with it
[ ] Requires too much cooperation from those responsible
[ ] Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
[ ] Most people don't agree that this is a problem
[x] It will alienate more people (beyond your supporters) than it will convert
[x] It will end up alienating even your own supporters
[x] It lacks the support of many of those it is aimed to 'help'
[x] You have been brainwashed
[x] Your supporters have been brainwashed
[ ] Those responsible don't care about inconveniences caused by your plan
[ ] Those responsible will work around your plan
[ ] Those responsible will continue to do what they do regardless
[ ] Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business via your solution
[x] Laws (incl. the Bill of Rights and Constitution) expressly prohibiting it
[ ] Lack of centrally controlling authority for the world
[ ] The world economy
[ ] Technological difficulties
[ ] Stupidity of some in society
[ ] Jurisdictional problems
[ ] Unpopularity of weird new taxes
[x] Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money or power
[ ] Huge existing investment in existing infrastructure
[x] Susceptibility of your solution to other problems down the track
[x] Public not willing to undertake dangerous acts, sign away rights or significant inconvenience required to make your plan work
[ ] The problem is already far too entrenched
[ ] Ongoing innovation (for either good or evil)
[ ] Extreme profitability of activities you are trying to ban
[ ] The possibility of identity theft
[ ] Technically illiterate or incompetent politicians and bureaucrats
[ ] Corrupt or nepotist politicians and bureaucrats
[x] Dishonesty on the part of you (or your supporters)
[ ] Dishonesty on the part of those responsible
[ ] Dishonesty on the part of government
[ ] Dishonesty on the part of citizens
[ ] It is premised on a flawed or revisionist history
[ ] It is premised on a flawed economic theory
[ ] It is premised on pseudoscience
[x] It is premised on very controversial theory or theories
[ ] Costs that are incurred regardless
[x] Distortion of the market

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

[x] Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
[x] Any plan forced on the public is unacceptable
[ ] It covers areas which should not be the subject of legislation
[ ] Blacklists suck
[ ] Whitelists suck
[ ] We don't want our essential Rights abridged
[x] We aren't willing to live in a (Islamo)-Fascist or Socialist state to solve your problem or implement your plan
[ ] Countermeasures should be as ethical as possible
[ ] Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
[ ] Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of essential infrastructure
[x] Countermeasures should not involve mass murder
[ ] Countermeasures should not involve quitting
[x] Why should we have to trust you with power?
[x] Incompatibility with Western culture
[ ] Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
[ ] Your solution is cumbersome
[ ] I don't want the government reading my email
[ ] Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

There will be a backlash against your plan because most ordinary people, including many people who do not actively identify themselves as Conservatives or Libertarians, do not agree with you. Instead, many believe in / that (tick the boxes that specifically apply):
[x] Traditional values
[ ] Family values
[ ] Freedom (including from Government)
[ ] Significant risk requires significant rewards
[x] Religious morals
[x] Social codes, ethics, and customs
[x] An honest days work should be rewarded with an honest days pay, not a large Tax bill
[x] Free markets build wealth

You are out of touch with these beliefs.

Your plan may also restrict the following essential rights and freedoms:
[x] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[ ] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
[ ] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
[x] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[x] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[x] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
[ ] In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
[ ] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
[ ] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[x] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

[ ] Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
[ ] This is a stupid idea, and you're a fascist for suggesting it.
[x] Nice try, Terrorists! We're going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Dear: Freedom Surrendering European Elitist Leftists,

You are a:
[ ] Individual
[x] Group of Individuals / Movement
[ ] Party
[ ] Bureaucracy
[x] Ideology

Who is generally known as being (or supporting) one or more of the following politically:

[ ] Reasonably intelligent person who should know better
[ ] Libertarian
[x] Leftist
[x] Socialist
[x] Marxist
[x] Elitist
[x] Communist
[x] Islamofascist
[x] Part of the PC police
[x] Nihilist
[x] Insane
[x] Idiotic

Have (wrongly) perceived "Islamic offense at free speech" to be a problem.

You Personally advocate a plan involving:
[x] Propaganda
[ ] Big Government Bureaucracy
[x] Big Government Legislation
[ ] Market Reform
[ ] Vigilante actions
[x] Quitting
[x] Doing nothing
[x] Caving in to pressure

Your plan will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad Federal law was passed. Select those that best apply)

[x] They will be "offended" anyway
[x] It is unnecessary
[x] It is hypocritical
[ ] It is impossible to implement
[ ] It will take an unrealistic amount of effort to implement
[ ] It will take an unrealistic amount of time to implement
[ ] It will take an unrealistic amount of resources to implement
[x] It ignores reality, natural law, human nature, the laws of nature, or religion
[x] It is out of touch with reality
[ ] It is sacrilegious
[ ] It is already in place
[ ] It is already in place, and failing
[x] It has been tried before, and either failed, or been shown to be ineffective
[ ] It is an unrealistic plan that will never be tried
[x] It is an unrealistic plan that, if tried, would not achieve the desired effects
[x] It will needlessly undermine personal liberty
[x] It will needlessly undermine economic liberty
[x] As Hayek showed in 'Road to Serfdom', loses in economic liberty automatically lead to loses in personal liberty
[x] It will set you on the road to an authoritarian dictatorship
[x] The people responsible for your problem will use this plan to their advantage
[x] Ordinary citizens would be / are needlessly affected by your plan
[ ] No one will be able to find those responsible, or collect the money
[x] It is defenseless against brute force attacks
[x] Your plan might stop the problem for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
[x] Americans will not put up with it
[ ] America will not put up with it
[x] The civilized world will not put up with it
[ ] Your own citizens / supporters will not put up with it
[x] Business will not put up with it
[x] The police will not put up with it
[x] Requires too much cooperation from those responsible
[x] Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
[x] Most people don't agree that this is a problem
[x] It will alienate more people (beyond your supporters) than it will convert
[x] It will end up alienating even your own supporters
[x] It lacks the support of many of those it is aimed to 'help'
[x] You have been brainwashed
[x] Your supporters have been brainwashed
[x] Those responsible don't care about inconveniences caused by your plan
[x] Those responsible will work around your plan
[x] Those responsible will continue to do what they do regardless
[ ] Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business via your solution
[x] Laws (incl. the Bill of Rights and Constitution) expressly prohibiting it
[ ] Lack of centrally controlling authority for the world
[ ] The world economy
[x] Technological difficulties
[ ] Stupidity of some in society
[x] Jurisdictional problems
[ ] Unpopularity of weird new taxes
[ ] Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money or power
[ ] Huge existing investment in existing infrastructure
[x] Susceptibility of your solution to other problems down the track
[x] Public not willing to undertake dangerous acts, sign away rights or significant inconvenience required to make your plan work
[x] The problem is already far too entrenched
[ ] Ongoing innovation (for either good or evil)
[ ] Extreme profitability of activities you are trying to ban
[ ] The possibility of identity theft
[ ] Technically illiterate or incompetent politicians and bureaucrats
[ ] Corrupt or nepotist politicians and bureaucrats
[x] Dishonesty on the part of you (or your supporters)
[x] Dishonesty on the part of those responsible
[x] Dishonesty on the part of government
[ ] Dishonesty on the part of citizens
[x] It is premised on a flawed or revisionist history
[ ] It is premised on a flawed economic theory
[ ] It is premised on pseudoscience
[x] It is premised on very controversial theory or theories
[x] Costs that are incurred regardless
[x] Distortion of the market

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

[x] Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
[x] Any plan forced on the public is unacceptable
[x] It covers areas which should not be the subject of legislation
[ ] Blacklists suck
[ ] White-lists suck
[x] We don't want our essential Rights abridged
[x] We aren't willing to live in a Fascist or Socialist state to solve your problem or implement your plan
[x] Countermeasures should be as ethical as possible
[ ] Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
[ ] Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of essential infrastructure
[ ] Countermeasures should not involve mass murder
[ ] Countermeasures should not involve quitting
[x] Why should we have to trust you with (more?) power?
[x] Incompatibility with Western culture
[x] Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
[x] Your solution is cumbersome
[x] I don't want the government reading my email
[x] Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

[ ] Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
[x] This is a stupid idea, and you're a fascist for suggesting it.
[ ] Nice try, ****! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

There will be a backlash against your plan because most ordinary people, including many people who do not actively identify themselves as Conservatives or Libertarians, do not agree with you. Instead, many believe in / that (tick the boxes that specifically apply):
[ ] Traditional values
[ ] Family values
[x] Freedom (including from Government)
[ ] Significant risk requires significant rewards
[ ] Religious morals
[x] Social codes, ethics, and customs
[ ] An honest days work should be rewarded with an honest days pay, not a large Tax bill
[ ] Free markets build wealth

You are out of touch with these beliefs.

Your plan may also restrict the following essential rights and freedoms:
[x] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[ ] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
[ ] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
[ ] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[ ] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[ ] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
[ ] In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
[ ] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
[ ] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[x] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Sadly, I don't think that Marxists lieing, cheating, and acting dangerously or amorally is a new thing. From Wikipedia:

It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and state terrorism (deportations and political purges) are taken into account, Stalin and his colleagues were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million and in 1937 another census found a population of between 162 and 163 million. This was 14 million less than the projected population value and was suppressed as a "wrecker's census" with the census takers severely punished. A census was taken again in 1939, but its published figure of 170 million has been generally attributed directly to the decision of Stalin[13] (see also Demographics of the Soviet Union). Even still, the 1939 census displayed a 3.2 million to 5.5 million excess deaths which leaves the reports of a 1937 census subject to skepticism. Note that the figure of 14 million does not have to imply 14 million additional deaths, since as many as 3 million may be births that never took place due to reduced fertility and choice.

Since "the margin of error" with regard to the number of Stalin's victims is virtually impossible to narrow down to a universally accepted figure, various historians have come up with extremely varying estimates of the number of victims, from under 10 to over 50 million deaths.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Death_toll

For the record, that figure is a lot closer to 50 million than 10 million (10 million is the figure generally given by neo-Marxists and Stalinist apologists). And that's just the work of Stalin alone, not counting those killed by the brutal reigimes of Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Castro / Guevara, or the countless other massacres that happened in Marxist / Communist states during the Cold War.

Through the Cold War there were a number of excellent anti-Communist books written which really captured the Soviet era, and its failings. I'd highly recommend you read Arthur Koestler's 'Darkness at Noon', George Orwell's 'Essays', 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and 'Animal Farm', and anti-Communist dissident Vaclav Havel's 'Power of the Powerless' if you get a chance, as well as any decent history of the cold war. Friedrich Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom' also has a number of excellent chapters on topics like 'Economic Control and Totalitarianism' which discuss how any left wing economic statism automatically leads to the loss of freedom in all other areas (contrary to the Libertarian 'world's smallest political quiz' myth that some on the left want 'social freedom' without 'economic freedom').

Make no mistake, old Marxism wasn't just a system that 'didn't work'; it was a brutal and violent system that sent undercover communist operatives and set up parties to all corners of the world - all centrally funded from Moscow - with the explicit aim of overthrowing the world's free states. And it's always been a bankrupt and dangerous ideology which deserves to die.

Marxism claims to support the working class and poor.

Yet, simultaneously, leftists denigrate and (sometimes viciously) attack Christian Churches. The problem is that, over the centuries, faith based charities and churches have, and continue, to play a tremendous role in helping the poor and underprivileged of the world. If you look at the largest charities in most countries, you'll find that most are linked to a major church; Catholics through the Catholic Church alone donate billions of dollars to the world's poor each year. The person on the front line helping the homeless is often a priest. missionary, or volunteer from a faith-based charity.

Surely, if the Marxists cared about the poor, as they claimed, they would support the essential work being done by millions of Christians across the globe.

They don't.

Rather than helping the beggar and the bum, as many priests and missionaries are doing around the world right now, the Marxists would rather pontificate about how a much larger state will help the workers from the safety of their ivory tower.

And worse for the commies, the working class don't want any part of their ideology either. Many working class people realize that there are a number of ways one person can have power over another in a society, including political party. Working class people realize that there is a class of trustafarians and elites who, while never working an honest day's work in their lives, seek to entrench their power through making big government even bigger. In contrast, most working class people are honest, hard-working folks who patriotically love their nation, seek guidance from their faith, want to earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work without half going to big government in taxes, and love freedom. Working class people want to be safe in their homes, and want to live a life free from threats like terrorism (in contrast to the leftists, who want to 'embrace diversity').

Working class people despise the out of touch Marxists, fascists, and leftists who claim to speak on their behalf, and push their other agendas (agendas like feminism, which many working class men and women hate) in their name. Making it even more dangerous, many Marxists are completely unaware of just how out of touch they are with both the working class, the poor, and reality.

Marxism claims to support the working class and poor, in theory. In reality, it has thoroughly failed.

Absolutely.

Eminent Domain is being used as a big government handout to often uncompetitive developers who can't succeed in a free market. Last I checked, there was a Fifth Amendment which stated quite clearly that "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." I fail to see how the state taking private property (and in these deals, make no mistake, the compensation is often far short of 'just') and reselling it at a subsidized price to private developers constitutes "private property be[ing] taken for public use"; it seems more like it's being taken for the private use of politicians and bureaucrats.

And it amounts to the state undermining one of the essential points of a successful, free economy: hard work being rewarded with wealth. Who wants to work hard for wealth and land, only to have it taken away at a less than fair price by big government bureaucrats in the name of some big government 'urban renewal' project that no-one asked for, used to prop up a developer which can't succeed on the open market, so instead it depends on the state for business?!

There have been a number of very high profile mainstream Conservative entertainers (Drew Carey - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Carey - is an example, so is Alice Cooper - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Cooper , Johnny Ramone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Ramone, Dimebag Darrell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimebag_Darrell). The secret to their success is to remember that people watch TV (beyond documentaries, news, public affairs, etc.) and listen to music to get away from the troubles of the world, and to be entertained. Similarly, many people will reject overt conservative messages in entertainment (the same way most people reject much of the heavy-handed leftist propaganda disguised as 'entertainment') if the show or the song is boring.

It's achieving the balance between entertainment and strong messages that's the challenge. Most Pixar films (so far) are a good example on how to get that balance right.

On the other hand, conservatives and libertarians have one big advantage over the leftist and statist agenda pushers when it comes to making entertaining art: artistic freedom from the confines of left-wing elitism and political correctness. What made, for instance, South Park ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park ) such a success was that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are libertarians and, as a result, can get away with jokes that the politically correct 'progressives' would never dream of.

While I would agree with the general assertion that religion does set people up to be more successful, this report seems a little biased. I'll tell you why...

1) No mention of aethiests or agnostics in it. How do ghetto blacks, or Latinos (or whatever the politically corect term fo the week is to describe people who just crossed the border from Mexico), compare to conservative Christians? Or Christians within their own communities, for that matter? My guess is that Christians compare very favorably to their non-religious cousins.

2) No mention of how outside factors might affect things. Do liberal Christians tend to live in cities, vs. more conservative Christians outside cities like LA / NYC / San Francisco? Does the fact that there are less opportunities outside big cities skew their results?

Yeah, and I'm sure Priscilla Presley got to where she was on talent and not by her late husband, same with Lisa-Marie. And speaking of Lisa Marie, I'm sure Janet, LaToya, and all the other Jacksons who've tried singing or acting careers (to varying, usually low, degrees of success) did so on merrit and not because of a famous brother-turned-sister-turned-freak-turned-monkey...

...and that's not even couting all the people who slept their way to success *Cough*Mariah Carey*Cough*.

...and he does get something that vaguely sounds like soul going on "Train fo Consequences". But even on Trust, I wouldn't call him a "great" singer. And he's done a lot worse. Some examples inc. Live Trax (if you can find yourself a copy) or a bootleg I heard once where he forgot the lyrics to "Countdown to Extinction" and basically ummed, mumbled and arred his way through the first verse.

Dave Mustaine only really growls and does whiney high notes through most of his songs. Not to take anything away from Megadeth for it - Marty Freidman is an awesome guitarist - if you get a chance to get any of his solo stuff, DO IT!, Menza is an awesome drummer, and Ellerfson does a good job on bass.

Contrast them to Hetfeld's on Black Album (though I'm not sure how much of that was just production; he didn't do vocals half as well on Load / Reload, but did a good job on S&M), and I'd have to say that hetfeld is by far the better singer of the 2...

BTW, thanks, like I (think) I said earlier, I need to get an OK on some of the samples I used on some of the tracks, but once that's done, I'll put them online. I'll keep you posted on it.

10 PRINT "I WILL SAY THIS UNTIL SOME LIBERALS GROW A BRAIN"
20 GO TO 10

Some hobbyist worked out how to put an ethernet card on a Commodore 64 cartridge... I'm not kidding -> http://dunkels.com/adam/tfe/ . So yeah, you could run it at more than 2 bits an hour (though because the C64 isn't powerful enough to load most images, so most of the point of cable internet would be lost). But yeah, it can be done.

My impression is that you couldn't get any more secure than a machine that has so little memory that it'll crash when anyone loads anything more than 64K (minus the web browser and the website you're looking at), most of the OS is in ROM, and the only thing on disk is your browser, you really could not come up with a more secure machine...

Liberal elitist scum are at it again. The thing is you would be surprised at how technologically illiterate most college professors are. It's seriously a painful thing watching someone try to be elitist and pass their infinite wisdom on something while they're showing everyone how they know little more than the basics.

Computers certified to run on the net?! YOU CAN RUN THE NET ON A COMMODORE 64! 1 MHz 8-bit 6510 CPU, 64 k RAM, and it runs the net. Yep, stick an ethernet card in the back of that old brown box, and a copy of Contiki in the disk drive and you're on the net. If you don't believe me, check it out here: http://dunkels.com/adam/contiki/ . For about $2 at a garage sale you can get yourself a system which will see you safely on the net.

You just can't get any safer than a machine which probably doesn't have the memory to run a virus.

Or you can get yourself a really obscure system like an Amiga 1200 - obscure systems are great because no-one really bothers writing compatible viruses for the dozens of people who still use them.

The question is - if this liberal got his wish, would he certify my Commodore 64 or as a networthy machine? Woudl he even *know* what an Amiga 1200 was? Which is where we get to the crux of the problem - holier-than-thou liberals who think they know better than me about what works for me and what doesn't. Who want more power to get in, and mess with things that they mightn't understand, and is none of their business in the first place.

And while talking computers, I'm going to vent here. Nothing I have ever seen has made me cringe half as much as a college lecturer, giving a lecture about technology, while typing something up using 2 fingers and showing how totally clueless they are...

Even without a scene, there are sites like MP3.com and DMusic.com that are available. It's just a pity that none of those MP3 download sites have bought any of their independent artists any air time. Either an internet-based artist becoming a big star, or a mainstream artist funding their own self representation would be enough to kick the door in.

As for these sites, I'd imagine it'd be especially strong in the metal scene, where people who sign up with the RIAA labels are seen as sell outs, and nothing disillusions fans quite like a 4 minute ballad on MTV.

Anyway, even though I am a big metal fan - Megadeth is my all time favourite band (even though Dave Mustaine sings about as well as my friendly neighbourhood cat chior), my music isn't thrash. It's basically a side project that I've been working on - in between work - for the past few months. Basically a hobby more than anything else (so no I'm not a 16 year old kid with dreams of being a big rock star or anything like that). It ranges from acapellas of Lithuanian folk songs to other experimental music. As for my singing style, somewhere between Elvis and James Hetfeld, but better suited to country and western than metal...

You know, just when I think political correctness can't get any more inane...

PING

PING

The fact the microphone is almost bigger than her head sort of kills the big-brained intellectual image she was going for...

She added: "I like little kids better than big people."

In a brief statement, another washed up 80's has-been singer responded "Quit stealing my lines or I'll cry!"