Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Socialism and Capitalism are not competing baseball teams, they are 2 sides of a spectrum.

There are at this time, zero purely capitalistic countries, and zero purely socialistic ones. Everyone is somewhere on the spectrum. This is because everyone recognizes that both systems have value, and makes at least some effort to use both.

A lot of people say the US is pure capitalism for instance, but what do you call Social Security? Hint: The "social" in the name is not decorative. Likewise, Medicare, Medicaid, the various programs to help pay for college, welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance... all of these are socialist programs, because we recognize that pure capitalism actually sucks, and we need elements of both systems.

Let's take a look at each "pure" system, and you'll see why either would quickly make a society collapse.

Capitalism:
Main pros
-Competition breeds innovation
-Citizens are encouraged to contribute to society - do more = earn more = be rewarded more
-Citizens can respond to corruption in a direct manner - refuse to do business with evil entities, driving them out and forcing an ethical standard.
-Greed can, in theory, be re-channeled into positive output.
-Democracy through controlled spending - you choose what you want to support with your money

Main cons:
-There is no safety net. One run of bad luck and you're on the streets for good.
-There is no sense of providing basic needs. Can't afford medicine? Go die.
-Many are forced to become wage slaves, creating a power elite and a horrible standard of living for most
-Greed is encouraged.
-People are encouraged to pursue what they can extract the most money from, not what they're actually good at

Socialism:
Main pros:
-Basic needs are sacred, and provided for, period.
-Emphasis is placed on pursuing what you want to do, not just what you'd make the most profit from.
-Greed is not rewarded.
-No one is ever screwed by a lack of education (unless they simply refuse to learn) or health care.
-Everyone is given the time to find their path in life.

Main cons:
-There is zero reward for doing extra work, and therefore little motivation to do so. This limits how much actually gets done.
-With no reason to compete, there's a drive to simply make "good enough" products, not actually find ways to one-up the competition. This greatly slows tech advancement across the board.
-Citizens lose the power of boycott - an evil company will make the same profit with 0 customers as with many.
-With so much less being earned and generated (relative to capitalist countries), the total wealth of the nation plummets. Everyone may be equal, but it's a pretty low standard that they're equal at, likely just barely enough to even provide the basics... and possibly not even that.

The solution, rather than blanket-embracing one of these systems and ignoring the glaring flaws, is to try to intelligently combine the two, creating a system that maximizes the benefits and negates the drawbacks from each as much as possible.

Hypothetical perfect blend of the 2:
-Food, clothing, health care, shelter, education, etc, are considered basic rights, and provided without question. HOWEVER, everything else must be purchased with money which you must earn. You will always have what you need, but you must compete for what you want. Result: everyone is free to live as they choose, but there is a strong incentive to put extra effort in and actually do something of value.

-Companies must profit to stay in business - if your product fails at life or is made unethically, you will be driven out of business by the competition or the people. However, your basic needs are always covered, so feel free to fail a couple of times before you nail it. You'll eventually produce something of great value to society, and you'll be rewarded accordingly. Result: All the benefits of competitive innovation, with not of the usual side effects

Do it right, and we have an awesome society with the best of both worlds, and very, VERY few drawbacks.

Of course, it's very easy to point this out in a forum post. Actually making this work in a real country would be much harder, as we'd have to get people all over the political grid to be willing to give a shot.

At 3 days ago, Davoo wrote: So with only four more candidates left in the GOP race, many people are talking about Rick Santorum as the 'true conservative'. Rick has, in fact, shown clear and solid records proving him as a 'consistent' conservative, and I've yet to hear a good argument against that idea.

But of course, that then branches off into the discussion of what 'conservatism' even is, and whether or not it's a good thing. But then that branches off into the discussion of the incumbent president, whether or not he is classified as 'liberal' and whether or not that is a bad thing.

Santorum is definitely both an economic and a social conservative (and yes, it's important to separate those 2, as not everyone is on the same side of both spectrums).

However, it's not his conservatism that makes everyone but his base unwilling to vote for him. He also hates gays, hates all non-Christians, hates pretty much anyone having rights, wants to install his religion everywhere he can, and if it were possible to do so, would turn the US into a theocracy. He has a large, hardcore base of fundies that support this platform and ensure he's very popular in the Bible Belt, but is seen as a complete joke elsewhere. (Urban Dictionary the standard internet definition of "santorum", and the origin of how that came to be. WARNING: NSFW). Additionally, he wants to continue the Bush eonomic plan of racking up trillions in war debt (including a new one with Iran), while continuing to give tax breaks to the rich, bringing the country ever closer to ruin.

Santorum winning the nomination would be bad regardless of whether you consider yourself a conservative or a liberal. Here's why:

Conservative: Congrats, you've just picked a candidate that has ZERO support from moderates and moderate-liberals. Your chance of winning the next presidential election is, therefore, likewise zero. Had you aimed for someone who can push a couple of major things you want, but could find common ground on the rest, you'd have a good chance of winning. Santorum is very much not that guy.

Liberal: You would think Santorum winning the nomination would be awesome, since Obama then auto-wins, right? The problem is that it would be such a landslide that the Dems would win without having to commit to actually DOING anything, and would be unwilling to make any hard decisions to fix the economy. This is, obviously, a major problem. What we want is an opponent that forces the Dems to actually build a viable economic platform, which we can then force them to actually implement if they want to keep their jobs. Our economy is spiraling downhill, we can't afford 4 years of sitting around doing nothing.

There's 3 things you need to do here:

#1. A password should NEVER be stored in a cookie. That's just asking for stolen accounts. Instead, you should store a randomly generated login ID in the cookie, and your database should bind this to an IP address. In this way, stealing the cookie is useless, as they won't have the correct IP, and the temp ID tells them nothing about the account. Note that if you have no need for logins to last beyond when a user closes his browser, you can instead just use session variables, and let PHP handle the rest automatically.

#2. Never store plaintext passwords in your DB, at all. Instead, encrypt them. My usual method is to use 2 different methods of hash encryption (md5, AES, sha1, it really doesn't matter, just pick 2 that don't suck) paired with a salt to further screw with the algorithm. This makes it so that if someone manages to get a dump of your user table through another hack, they won't be able to actually do much - they STILL can't log in. To generate a salt, you can simply do this:
for ($x = 0; $x<16; $x++)
{
$saltdec = mt_rand(0,15); //Give me a random number from 0-15
$salthex = dechex($saltdec); //Make said number a hex digit
$salt = $salt.$salthex; //Tack that onto the end of the salt
}
You can then encrypt a password with said salt using a single line of code:
$encryptedpass = sha1(md5($salt.$password));
I used sha1 and md5 in this case, but again, just make sure you use 2 different decent hash functions.

You will need to store both the encrypted password and the salt in your DB, since it's otherwise impossible to tell if the user gave you the right password or not on login.

#3. The last thing you have to worry about is SQL injection. Suppose I entered the following as my password:
"whatever; DELETE * FROM Users;"
If your form processing code pastes that directly into an SQL query, I just deleted all of your users. Similarly, if I want admin access to your system, I could enter your username and a password of
"whatever OR 1"
and your code will then log me in if the password matches or if 1=1. D'oh!

This is VERY easy to prevent via the mysql_real_escape_string fuction, which escapes all special characters so crap like the above will not execute. ALWAYS do this, or it's only a matter of time before someone uses this really lame hack to break into (or just plain break) your site.

Meh. It doesn't violate NG rules, and it's not anything that wouldn't be allowed under free speech. It may be pointless and tasteless, but if it didn't get blammed, SOMEONE saw value in it and it should stay up. It'll fade into obscurity soon enough anyway.

The paypal link needs to go though. It's one thing to have a donate link in your flash saying you're hoping to get money to be able to do normal work less and make flash more. It's quite another to say 'I made this only to offend people, but if you pay me, I'll take it down.'

"He doesn't agree with me. WITCH! Burn! Burn!"
"He doesn't agree with me. Communist! Die! Die!"
"He doesn't agree with me. Terrorist! Execute! Execute!"

Yep, I'd say it repeats - though we have made SOME progress. At least a significant portion of the population is trying to stop the the third round of this...

Free speech does not grant one the right to spread false information, nor does it allow advertising on private property with permission. Beyond that, people should be able to say what they want.

pa·tri·ot·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr--tzm)
n.

Love of and devotion to one's country.
(dictionary.com)

America was founded on individual rights, and the idea that one's basic rights and freedoms should not be lost for the sake of government. Thus, those who actively oppose Bush's "Patriot" Acts and and other measures to turn the U.S. into a police state aren't merely opposing the government's actions, they're supporting the ideal of America. This implies devotion and love of said idea, and therefore, leftists often ARE patriots, just not in the traditional sense.

Anyone who says conservatives are more patriotic doesn't understand the word. They aren't more devoted to their country's ideals, they're simply more conforming to its leadership. The US is a republic. Disagreeing with bad moves made by the government of a republic is considered to not only be a citizen's right, but also his duty. The people saying they hate what the US government is doing right now aren't saying to trash it, they're saying to FIX it - that's what a republic SUPPOSED to be about.

At 5/12/03 08:01 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Most people here just think they should hate bush because SNL makes fun of him, and their favorite entertainers all do.

No left wing people here EVER know what they're talking about or have anything worthwhile to say. Not once have they ever contributed anything worth reading.

Translation: Lefts don't post anything you agree with.

If you actually read the post above yours (it's a whole screen of text, might be a stretch for you), you'll see that it actually defended BOTH sides, saying that the problem isn't left or right, but rather the extreme of each. Bush is not mentioned anywhere in this thread, so your mention of him suggests that you haven't read it and are merely spewing trash. If you can't even consider a point of view different than yours (and can't even read it), then you really shouldn't be posting to a politics board, as meaningful discussion with someone is impossible if they completely ignore the other sides view. (How can you support or refute what you haven't read?!)

At 5/13/03 01:23 AM, karasz wrote: 1) Dean, by attacking Kerry will win New Hampshire Primary

Unlikely, that campaign will almost certaintly backfire.

2) Al Qaeda was the source behind the recent Riyadh explosion

Possible... I need more info to form an opinion.

3) Al Qaeda will be hitting a major target within 6 months

If not them, some other group probably will.

4) Bush will get the $550 billion dollar tax cut that he wanted originally

No, but he'll probably get a smaller one through.

5) JFK's affair with an intern is a big surprise

Nope, president's affairs are nothing new.

At 5/13/03 10:11 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: 1 schools are funded locally, therefore federal tax cuts shouldnt affect their funding. If local government did its job and didnt waste local tax money, they wouldnt need federal money.

This is true, but local government tends to proportionally waste about the same amount of money as federal government.

2 OF COURSE the tax cuts are "for the rich". In a graduated tax scale like the US's, the rich pay most of the taxes anyway. If taxes get cut, its only right that the people who pay the most taxes should get the most relief.

The main component of the tax cut is removing the dividend tax. This means that almost all of the money will go to the rich - and not on a proportional scale as you suggest. Poor people generally don't own stocks - they can't afford to risk it. So they get a tax cut of 0, not (%cut * $earned/$average).

BTW, the article says the cable company changed it's mind and decided to run the ad. So apparently they decided there was nothing wrong with it. Of course, being a private network, they can do whatever they want. "The only way to have freedom of the press is to own one." - don't know who said it

I don't think religion is dying, rather it's evolving. For the last millenia, people have followed political leaders who bend and twist religion to their will, turning belief systems involving peace into institutions of war. People were exposed to crap designed to make them fight in "holy wars" (an oxymoron if ever there was one.)

Enter the modern age, with the internet and free flow of ideas. No one can be forced to live in a bubble anymore, and everyone's beliefs are starting to be heard. Thus, people are beginning to explore faiths and choose a religion (or choose to not have one) based on what they feel is right, not following warmongering idiots. More importantly, people are finally starting to respect others religions, and to understand that no one really knows for sure exactly how things work, and that every system probably has some right and wrong in it. I'm not seeing a problem here.

At 5/10/03 11:34 AM, Abler wrote: From observing so called 'political-debate' across the web I have began to wonder whether many posters actually have a political viewpoint, or whether they are driven primarily by their hate for the western system of freedom, democracy and enterprise, that is, countries such as America and Britain, along with many others.

The ease of posting something online is both the best and worst thing about the 'net. On one hand, anyone can make an intelligenet argument, and have a debate with others who do the same. On the other hand, every idiot and troll can post trash with no thought in it. In any board, expect to see a mixture of debate and garbage. The garbage is just something you have to accept the existense of, then ignore and move on.

Should anarchist ramblings be considered in the same light as political debate or are they merely a way of expresing the the feeling of worldly injustice which is a characteristic of adolescance?

Belief in anarchy as a working system is no less valid than belief in anything else - so long as it's actually an informed, developed opinion. While I personally don't think it would ever work, no one's ever tested it, and for me to say it's invalid is to do so with no evidence to back me up. So until it's actually been tested somewhere, it remains a valid theory, regardless of whether you agree with it's ideal and/or possibility.

This poses another question;
Do most leftist feelings reflect political thinking or a desperate plea for an escape from an unjust and imperfect society in which we live.

While some may just want to "escape", with most, I doubt it. Right vs. Left is essentially Law vs. Chaos. A lawful individual is one who tends to place the group before the individual, believing that a clearly defined law sytem is needed to prevent everyone from killing each other and to establish basic codes of conduct and moral decency, which simply won't exist otherwise. A chaotic individual places the individual above all else, with government's only purposes being protecting inviduals rights and basic functions of state. Such a person believes that people shouldn't need someone to establish morality for them - they should be able to do it on their own. Thus, government is still needed, but in a less powerful role.

Each system has it's merits and flaws. Law (right) allows organization and development, but also breeds conformity and corrupt authority. Chaos allows freedom, self-expression and personal rights, but at the cost of having less stability and a weaker state.

Neither of these sides is better than the other. A pure law (right) society would be incapable of change, as all conduct would be rigidly controlled. This results in a totalitarian state, complete with executions of all those who think different. A pure chaos (left) state allows nothing to be established, usually resulting in a new government each week, and all the associated bloodshed.

Clearly, a balance is needed, but should it be even, favoring the person, or favoring the collective? This is center, left, and right respectively. There is no one correct answer to this, but what you personally believe the answer to be forms the core of your standpoint, and your location on the political spectrum.

I personally think personal rights and freedoms should be government's priority, but recognize the value of having some organization, and some defined rules. Thus, I'm a liberal, but not a radical - left, but not to the extreme.

So yes, many left people do have a developed opinion, and aren't trying to escape society, they're trying to fix some of it's flaws and improve it for the good of all.

At 12/26/02 09:37 PM, D2_2002 wrote: Which do u think is better c++, java or assembler? true programmers will know what the hell im talking bout..also type in why? all NoObs who dunno what i talkin bout u sUckZ!

Don't even consider Java, it's a waste of space that amounts to be being little more than a C++ wannabe.

C++ vs. assembly:
Assembly is technically more efficient, but the difference in almost all cases will be almost negligable. Considering that it takes several times as long to build something in assembly, and C++ can be used for just about everything (including OSes such as Linux and just about every game in existense), C++ is, 99% of the time, the better language to code in.
-Trerro