Slashdot Mirror

Who? APK?

He's harmless. His software is legit, if a little unnecessary and ineffective. (You're better off using a filtering proxy at your gateway because it works across all devices and can run an IP filter against things that bypass hosts and DNS.)

I always found his odd capitalization and lack of cluebat bruises to be somewhat funny. He always came across to me a little like Sheldon on Big Bang Theory: a caricature of an aspie with an overblown sense of self-importance.

Oh god not the money argument. Let me explain money to you.

You make $20/hr. Some other person makes $10/hr. Well, as it turns out, for every 1 hour you work, you can induce that person to work 2 hours. Wage inequality.

So to make a thing, someone has to work. They have to labor in the fields to make food, they have to spin thread and sew cloth to make clothing, and so forth. This, of course, means that your work--which produces--can be traded for their work, in the same way: your hours versus their hours, exchanged in "Money".

So we find a way to get the seamstresses to make clothing in 1/10 the time by inventing the "sewing machine". Instead of hand-sewing, they just buzz shit off the line using sergers and the like. Now the seamstress works 40 hours still, but produces 10 times the garments. People buy about 5 times as many clothes... but we still only need 1/2 as many seamstresses; and those clothes only weigh your hours against 1/10 as many of their hours per unit clothing.

That is to say: where it took 10 hours of work to make a shirt, it takes 1, and so you pay $10 instead of $100 for that shirt. Where we used to need 10 seamstresses to make 10 shirts in 10 hours, we now only need 1. Where we used to buy 10 shirts, we buy 5, so ... we need 5 seamstresses.

That leaves you with $50, so you buy more of something else.

So money doesn't do anything but represent labor; and what labor can make changes as we increase technology.

We used to spend 90% of our time making food. In 1900, we spent 40% of our time making food. Today, it's under 12% of our time.

The cost of clothing has plummeted dramatically--the industrial revolution, then later with the basic sewing machine and the serger, and then again with the trade advantages provided by globalization. Chinese manufacture isn't just about cheap labor; they're very good at what they do, and the Chinese can optimize an assembly line to any quality specifications with minimal cost to retool--which means they can hit ROI on smaller batch runs, too.

Costs of construction fell with the invention of iron furnaces that cut labor requirements by over 99.5% (yes, they made 216 times as much iron with the same labor when they brought out the hot blast furnace), pneumatic and electric power tools (nail guns and circular saws versus hammers and handsaws), and big machinery like excavators (because fuck shovels).

The wooden shipping pallet allowed a crew to carry out the loading and unloading of canned goods in 4 hours--a task which took the same crew three 16-hour days, or twelve times as long.

Costs have fallen dramatically over the years. Go back two centuries and you'll find a world that can't produce enough food to feed a billion people. Go back to 1900 and you'll find a world that's facing famine as it races past a population of 2 billion. Agricultural technological advances in the 1900s and 1920s won Nobel prizes for saving billions from starvation.

Since the late 1800s, we've cut the working week from 100 hours to 40, eliminated child labor, and dramatically increased productivity. We live in a ridiculous caricature of society in which stuff just appears out of nowhere as people go through the motions of waving a magic stick at a voodoo apparatus that just spits out piles of completed product. The army of horses and postal workers required to deliver this message to its readers all over the world has been replaced by a fraction of a fraction of a second of labor share in a network that, for each hour of human effort, can deliver literally billions of such messages to billions of people.

How do we quantify that?

I pay $83/month for 200Mbit/s Internet service and probably have a data cap of around 200GB/month. By cap, that's 284MB per hour. Comcast has something like a 10% profit margin overall, but that doesn't help us here: the gross profit margin on Internet service would translate to labor

That comment is why people still laugh at Linux guys, well after wide adoption. You are like a bad caricature of RMS, who himself is a bad caricature of a communist extolling the virtues of the dialectic, and how the workers and peasants shall rise and inherit the earth.

Every reasonable, educated person in the country was against Trump, purely because he was self-evidently the worst candidate who has ever stood for election to anything anywhere. No collusion required, just millions of people seeing the blindingly obvious.

"Members of the media" did "collude" with Clinton's campaign. Know what? - "members of the media" colluded with Trump's campaign too, and Sanders's. Steve Bannon, for instance, is a "member of the media" by any reasonable definition. Newsflash, "members of the media" are allowed to support candidates and even actively campaign for them, same as anyone else. And there's nothing wrong with that.

The idea that "the media is supposed to be neutral" is stupid. It's never been neutral, and it's not "supposed" to be. Every newspaper in the US routinely endorses candidates, and they've been doing it since 1796.

What's really changed is the way Americans live now. Used to be, you'd socialize with your neighbors and people at work, and they'd be a mix of party affiliations. Now, Americans have largely sorted themselves into solidly (D) and (R) neighborhoods and even whole companies. Half the population can now go whole weeks on end without even seeing a supporter of the other party in the flesh. They'll all get their news from the same sources and interact in similar echo chambers. And that's why they're both taking the caricatures of their opponents, drawn up collectively by many of their own more evil activists, as reality.

Agreed. Just look at his name: Archie Bunker, the very caricature of ignorance and stupidity. This guy's the real thing. Hoo boy....

I ment that my post was still too much caricature :) Sourcewatch is a good reference site i think but then I'm a bit leftie myself. In a way.

Well..it's still too much caricature. Who says the 'heir' of the Office of Strategic Influence is involved here? PR is available to many, to the extent that there's hardly any central player who can maintain a clear view, and the gullible who play along usually have their own interest in mind. In this case there are a lot of official sources though.

I find myself rolling my eyes to all the rhetoric, but on first blush, there seems to be meaningful content at sourcewatch.org. These guys are playing to lefties, mindful of who else is watching. Don't get me wrong, I think it's easier than ever to say clearly what you mean, as long as you stay withing bounds.

In "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," John Perkins comes clean on what he did for, in my opinion, one of the 'heirs' to the OSI, and how they tried to stop him from spilling the beans. Do I think he's playing to the lefties? Yup. Do I think his message was massaged for multiple reasons? Yup, after all, he's still alive. Do I think, even couched in rhetoric, he's saying something important? Yup.

Well..it's still too much caricature. Who says the 'heir' of the Office of Strategic Influence is involved here? PR is available to many, to the extent that there's hardly any central player who can maintain a clear view, and the gullible who play along usually have their own interest in mind. In this case there are a lot of official sources though.

At my wife's workplace the local SJW decided that the annual fundraiser was "racist" or "innappropriate" because they ate Mexican food, and put on Sombreros. Apparently wearing a sombrero is now "offensive" to a lot of people... A lot of people being mainly young white ladies who want to show how they're fixing society through their own facism.

A decades old objection to a false caricature is suddenly news to you?

Hey, why don't you try a Cleveland Indians or Washington Redskins game?

Fucking morons, got their panties in a twist now that they can just shout about the SjWs and expect us to wipe away their crocodile tears.

It's not about being entitled, it's about earning a living through hard work, and enjoying the fruits of that labor.

No, it absolutely is about being entitled. You seem to think that people are entitled to make-work to make them feel useful, even if it is "killing the planet" (i.e. damaging the biosphere beyond its ability to support our societies.) This is a load of dingo's kidneys. We must see our way past people being fulfilled by their jobs in some sort of ghastly caricature of an artificial protestant work ethic.

You are not righteously, inherently entitled to have things if other people have to suffer for them, or at least not any more entitled than they are to punch you in the face for it. Our social models have to evolve past their idea that you should be able to have whatever you want, whenever you want it like some big spoiled baby who is never told "no".

TL;DR: "no"

Here you go with assumptions again. It's more complex than in-group/out-group. We're not talking targeted aggresion here, but mere caricature - a re-enactment of stereotype for comedic effect. For example some people took issue with this skit, despite the trope (90s TV advertising) being spot on - or a more recent one.

As long it's just bunch of people yapping I don't really care, but the moment there's a chilling effects because of this, it means a lot of people completely missed the point of having protected classes.

tl;dr car analogy: campaigning to ban driving because people die on roads is just plain overreacting. chill out, people.

Do you understand the difference between caricaturing a group you're part of versus pointing the finger at a group you are not part of?

I assume the point is that caricaturing men is funny, while caricaturing women is berating. I never really quite understood why people obsess about it so much anyway, there are thousands such double standards in life. Rationalizations of unjust world such as "feminazis", "internalized patriarchy" and "microaggresions" sounds like hearing children who never learned to cope with being adults.

This is the most sexist thing I have seen on slashdot in weeks and I bet not one SJW will call your bigotry out because it casts men as a uniform caricature, easy to attack and dismiss.

This is beyond idiotic on so many levels it's hard to pick just one instance.
Please, friend: get help. Seriously.
This ridiculous caricature has no place in civil discord anymore than calling you a Marxist propagandist (which I think is far more accurate than what you wrote).

Agreed. I know they've set up Hammond as "the American" on the team, what with his penchant for muscle cars and dislike of snails, but this was going way too far into absurdity. It was a harsh caricature lacking any sincerity and was just unnecessary and embarrassing.

I really hope they hit their stride, but so far I'm not sure they will. The celebrity killing bit should have ended after the first episode and the new Stig who is definitely not the Stig is neither funny nor clever. Most of the show comes across as trying too hard to be Top Gear while also being very clear that they are not Top Gear. They should have kept the format, changed names were required, and carried on.

how is the EC a check and balance that protects minorities?

It protects the minority of people who live in small states from the majority who life in large states.

I think you're conflating "minority" with some specific racial term, rather than a generic term for any less than 50% of the population that believes in a given policy.

That's a pretty odd definition for "minority", you're not even properly selecting for rural vs urban, you're just giving a disproportionate of power to people who happen to live in small states.

We traditionally define minority in terms of race, religion, or sexuality, precisely because those groups are typically discriminated against.

I have faith that this will encourage the 4th estate to start doing its job :)

I hope they do, but I have little faith considering how awful a job they did during the election.

and will soon be about even in the SCOTUS

They are already even in the SCOTUS, the fact that Kennedy is the swing vote doesn't mean he's now a Liberal.

when you say you're going to deport millions of Mexicans people are going to start looking at any Hispanic person as an illegal immigrant who should be deported.

If you've got papers, no problem :)

That's not how racism works.

Muslims are targeting Americans as a whole. Any muslim (who, in fact, are victims of islam), who can disavow sharia law, is completely fine.

That is BULLSHIT absolute BULLSHIT.

I know Muslims you racist piece of shit, they are some of my best friends and some of the absolutely nicest and most peaceful people I know.

These are real fucking people you are talking about, people you just blithely claim "are targeting Americans as a whole" because you have some weird idea about what they're supposed to believe. You should walk up to some of the Muslims I know, good people who helped me get through tough times, people with whom I talked about religion, people I went to parties with, played sports with, guys with whom I talked about girls, people who moved to your country and I dearly miss.

You should try getting to know them as something other than a ridiculous caricature and then see if you still feel comfortable repeating that shit to them.

Yes, so after dozens of comments exchanged you've found the way to strike a nerve and make me absolutely furious, you just need to target good innocent people.

You understand the leftist view that others are a "basket of deplorables" that need their betters deciding for them is simply the reverse of that caricature, right?

Oooh, look APK is having his delusions of winning again, how does it feel to be the residenrt oke dumbass? all your posts just make you look more foolish and stupid, I blame a bad upbringing, and inbreeding for your obvious insanity, congratualtions on becoming a figure of amusement, a caricature of the alt right lying cunts.

Fuck you, American Exceptionalist. On its very best day, the United States is a thousand times worse than the worst caricature of Russia you mindless red baiting sycophants can imagine.

Putin isn't drone bombing entire extended families to death with robot planes on the other side of the world from him, in Costa Rica, the way America has in the Middle East for bullshit reasons.

Putin didn't maintain a worldwide kidnapping and torture program that beat at least 100 people to death and continues to keep others imprisoned a decade after they've been cleared for release, the the way America has with Gitmo.

Putin hasn't overthrown two democracies in his (longer) time in office the way Obama has.

I could go on all day, as the worst terrorist state in the world, and the word's worst purveyor and provocateur of violence, is the United States of America.