"Communist leaders restricted freedom of speech because they themselves given up the freedom of listening -- by their own policy all officials had an obligation to respond and take action for everything that was published in any government publications if it applied to the scope of their power."
Oh, good Grid, you really believe that bilge?
I really hate to tell you this, bud, but history VERY clearly shows that these idealistic goals were not only not accomplished, but were never even attempted with any degree of credibility. You are echoing propaganda, not reality.
THEN you attempt to paint censorship in some kind of positive light as... what? Some kind of evolutionist challenge?
Great FSM. At first I thought I was having a discussion with a rational person.
I concur: the power requirements would be prohibitive.
However, after seeing the pictures I am not confident of long life for this vehicle. As Spirit and Opportunity clearly showed, a solar-powered device must include a method of cleaning that solar panel regularly to avoid loss of power. That was one of the biggest problems for Spirit and Opportunity: power loss due to dust accumulation.
I can think of at least several schemes to clean the surface of the solar panels, while still in operation. Depending on the design that could extend the vehicle's lifetime for months.
The main problem with Spirit and Opportunity was that there were extreme limitations on size and mass. Thus the unusual and innovative method of a "beachball" landing... which given the restrictions made the whole thing possible. Other means such as retro-rockets, as with the current mission, simply were not physically possible given those conditions, and that was calculated in the very beginning. Thus the unusual -- one might say -- "alternative" -- landing method. It maximized the amount of scientific instruments that the rovers could carry.
Due to the size and mass restrictions, nuclear power was also not an option, and the size of the solar arrays was necessarily limited. Nevertheless, while I know you are not criticizing the two rovers, it must be stated: given the constraints under which they had to operate, they worked remarkably well, and lasted years beyond their planned 90-day lifespan. If ever there was a NASA success, Spirit and Opportunity are it.
Perhaps, but irrelevant. What I am that is relevant is a student of economic and political history.
Communist leaders were not "more honest" than those of the so-called "free world". In fact almost without exception they got where they were through lies, deception, and propaganda (which itself pretty much by definition consists of lies and deception).
Not that others are immune to that; George W. Bush and Barack Obama being two glaring examples. But until very recently the degree of lies and deception in the "free world" could not hold a candle to that practiced in the so-called "Communist" regimes. Wholesale censorship was and is the norm, for just one example.
"We have already covered "what-is-Communism", multiple times."
Yes, as I pointed out to you. But you made a comment about "capitalist leaders", when from the context it seemed pretty obvious you meant "democratic" or "democratic republic" leaders.
"And of course, there is a political ideology of Capitalism (and it is not Democracy or Republic)!"
Of course there is. But please tell me: who practices it?
"Capitalist leaders never given up power, either, they just maintain an ever-changing figurehead as a lip service to democracy."
It's not bullshit, because that is completely irrelevant to what I wrote. First off (the whole topic of this thread): capitalism is not a political ideology, it is an economic system. Technically speaking, there are no "capitalist leaders".
But second: democracy does not require leaders to give up power, except in the sense of being voted out, or term limits. So it's a completely different situation. True communism requires an absence of central leadership, while democracy does not. Further, Socialist leaders are almost never elected, in any genuine sense.
Therefore, the desire for power damn near guarantees that anything approaching real Communism will never exist.
"No Communist Party ever claimed that they have implemented Communism..."
Perhaps so... but everybody else did. That was the misconception to which I was referring.
And like many Socialist leaders, I highly doubt Brezhnev's private beliefs matched his public pronouncements. Socialist leaders have never wanted to give up their power, once achieved... thus true Communism will never exist.
"'bad form of socialism' aka: 'state capitalism', or in China 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics'..."
Sure. True communism, as GP defined it, has no central government. Real-world examples of what they call "communism" have all -- every one of them, every time -- had a strong central government. Therefore it isn't communism at all, but rather socialism. No matter what they call it, it ain't communism.
Examples: N. Korea, (former) N. Vietnam, (former) Soviet Union, China, etc.
Sure you can... if you want to pay 3 times as much for it, like with that IBM you linked to.
That was part of the point. In the past, resolution continued to go up while prices kept coming down. In the last couple of years, that trend has reversed: resolution went down, but the prices kept going up. The only major hardware vendor I know of that has kept pushing things the "right" way (in my view) is Apple.
Sure you can buy higher resolution. If you want to pay through the nose for it.
"Also Communism (as the stage of society's development when oppression and trade become unnecessary to support the production that supports society members' needs) is both a social and economic system."
Also Communism -- according to this definition -- has never actually existed. The most anybody was ever able to achieve in that direction was a bad form of socialism.
And this is precisely why we need to eliminate some of those 700+ (!!!) military bases around the world. We have enough problems of our own; we don't need to be subsidizing every other country in existence.
"Hanns and I-Inc still do the 27" 1920x1200. They even sell a TV version that you can use as a monitor. Deals run at around $200 + S&H+Tax from time to time."
27" is too large for 1920 x 1200. Anything over 24" and you can see the individual pixels too well (blocky).
The point is not that the monitors can get bigger physically -- they have been doing that -- but the RESOLUTION has not been going up as it should.
The only actual "practical" reason that comes to mind is actually using the laptop in your lap. Which is not really recommended for any length of time anyway, for ergonomic reasons.
You're better off setting the laptop on a table, with the screen about 3 feet away, and using an external keyboard + mouse/trackpad.
"You'll be hard pushed to find anything that's 16:10 these days, even desktop monitors."
No kidding. After so many years of monitor resolution steadily going up, I bought a Princeton 1920 x 1200 a couple of years ago, and since then most of them have seemed to go DOWN to 1920 x 1080, even while the prices continued to go up.
I call foul. Lots of us do things with our monitors OTHER THAN watch movies. We don't need to all be forced into a short, wide format.
"Yeah, because it really sucks if when your machine gets stolen, you're able to get all your apps and your files back from a server in North Carolina or Oregon. "
That isn't the bad idea. The App Store lock-in is.
"If your IPO goes down, yes that's the sign of an overpriced IPO (if it doesn't move far from it, it's near the right price)."
No, that is the way it should work, not the way it has actually worked in recent years.
Facebook was selling for right around 100 p/e. That's an outrageous price, very reminiscent of the "tech bubble". It means that unless Facebook grows pretty quickly, it would take 100 years to earn as much as it was bought for.
And that means that unless it does grow quickly, it's a bad investment. The problem with that scenario is that Facebook is near saturation for what it is; it cannot grow quickly. That ship has already sailed.
"Car analogy: If your IPO shoots up a lot, it's like you PAYING someone to list your car for sale at a good price, but instead they under-price it, their close friends buy it and immediately sell it for twice the price."
Sure. But when your IPO shoots up NOT AT ALL, it is a sign of an overpriced IPO.
Actually this is false, as many publications have shown... repeatedly, time after time.
Mac products tend to be a little -- but only a little -- more expensive that other systems given the same hardware.
Apple tends to choose, in general, premium hardware for its products.
But magazine after magazine, and group after group, who have actually measured hardware quality and performance per dollar, have for many years now saying that Macs are just a little more expensive. And of course that doesn't account for the OS itself.
The notion that Macs are expensive for what they do and people own them just due to some kind of snobbery has been disproven for a long time.
"I love my MacBook Pro; but I fear that in another generation or two I'm going to have to give them up because I don't like where Apple is taking their OS."
Yes, exactly! And when I seem them making the same kind of mistakes -- exactly the mistakes that drove me to OS X instead of Windows in the first place -- I have to wonder what the hell they're thinking. If they keep it up, everybody who is anybody will be on Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
"Communist leaders restricted freedom of speech because they themselves given up the freedom of listening -- by their own policy all officials had an obligation to respond and take action for everything that was published in any government publications if it applied to the scope of their power."
Oh, good Grid, you really believe that bilge?
I really hate to tell you this, bud, but history VERY clearly shows that these idealistic goals were not only not accomplished, but were never even attempted with any degree of credibility. You are echoing propaganda, not reality.
THEN you attempt to paint censorship in some kind of positive light as... what? Some kind of evolutionist challenge?
Great FSM. At first I thought I was having a discussion with a rational person.
I concur: the power requirements would be prohibitive.
However, after seeing the pictures I am not confident of long life for this vehicle. As Spirit and Opportunity clearly showed, a solar-powered device must include a method of cleaning that solar panel regularly to avoid loss of power. That was one of the biggest problems for Spirit and Opportunity: power loss due to dust accumulation.
I can think of at least several schemes to clean the surface of the solar panels, while still in operation. Depending on the design that could extend the vehicle's lifetime for months.
"If ever there was a NASA success, Spirit and Opportunity are it."
Along with the actual moon landings, that is. I would rate them pretty closely together.
The main problem with Spirit and Opportunity was that there were extreme limitations on size and mass. Thus the unusual and innovative method of a "beachball" landing... which given the restrictions made the whole thing possible. Other means such as retro-rockets, as with the current mission, simply were not physically possible given those conditions, and that was calculated in the very beginning. Thus the unusual -- one might say -- "alternative" -- landing method. It maximized the amount of scientific instruments that the rovers could carry.
Due to the size and mass restrictions, nuclear power was also not an option, and the size of the solar arrays was necessarily limited. Nevertheless, while I know you are not criticizing the two rovers, it must be stated: given the constraints under which they had to operate, they worked remarkably well, and lasted years beyond their planned 90-day lifespan. If ever there was a NASA success, Spirit and Opportunity are it.
"You are a true American patriot."
Perhaps, but irrelevant. What I am that is relevant is a student of economic and political history.
Communist leaders were not "more honest" than those of the so-called "free world". In fact almost without exception they got where they were through lies, deception, and propaganda (which itself pretty much by definition consists of lies and deception).
Not that others are immune to that; George W. Bush and Barack Obama being two glaring examples. But until very recently the degree of lies and deception in the "free world" could not hold a candle to that practiced in the so-called "Communist" regimes. Wholesale censorship was and is the norm, for just one example.
"We have already covered "what-is-Communism", multiple times."
Yes, as I pointed out to you. But you made a comment about "capitalist leaders", when from the context it seemed pretty obvious you meant "democratic" or "democratic republic" leaders.
"And of course, there is a political ideology of Capitalism (and it is not Democracy or Republic)!"
Of course there is. But please tell me: who practices it?
"Communists were simply more honest..."
That's the most hilarious thing I've read in weeks.
"Capitalist leaders never given up power, either, they just maintain an ever-changing figurehead as a lip service to democracy."
It's not bullshit, because that is completely irrelevant to what I wrote. First off (the whole topic of this thread): capitalism is not a political ideology, it is an economic system. Technically speaking, there are no "capitalist leaders".
But second: democracy does not require leaders to give up power, except in the sense of being voted out, or term limits. So it's a completely different situation. True communism requires an absence of central leadership, while democracy does not. Further, Socialist leaders are almost never elected, in any genuine sense.
Therefore, the desire for power damn near guarantees that anything approaching real Communism will never exist.
"No Communist Party ever claimed that they have implemented Communism..."
Perhaps so... but everybody else did. That was the misconception to which I was referring.
And like many Socialist leaders, I highly doubt Brezhnev's private beliefs matched his public pronouncements. Socialist leaders have never wanted to give up their power, once achieved... thus true Communism will never exist.
"'bad form of socialism' aka: 'state capitalism', or in China 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics'..."
Sure. True communism, as GP defined it, has no central government. Real-world examples of what they call "communism" have all -- every one of them, every time -- had a strong central government. Therefore it isn't communism at all, but rather socialism. No matter what they call it, it ain't communism.
Examples: N. Korea, (former) N. Vietnam, (former) Soviet Union, China, etc.
Sure you can... if you want to pay 3 times as much for it, like with that IBM you linked to.
That was part of the point. In the past, resolution continued to go up while prices kept coming down. In the last couple of years, that trend has reversed: resolution went down, but the prices kept going up. The only major hardware vendor I know of that has kept pushing things the "right" way (in my view) is Apple.
Sure you can buy higher resolution. If you want to pay through the nose for it.
Matter of opinion, I suppose. And also how far away you are from the monitor.
"Also Communism (as the stage of society's development when oppression and trade become unnecessary to support the production that supports society members' needs) is both a social and economic system."
Also Communism -- according to this definition -- has never actually existed. The most anybody was ever able to achieve in that direction was a bad form of socialism.
And this is precisely why we need to eliminate some of those 700+ (!!!) military bases around the world. We have enough problems of our own; we don't need to be subsidizing every other country in existence.
"Unless you buy ones that are bigger. Like the other ones. :-)"
"Bigger" and resolution are not even remotely the same things.
"Hanns and I-Inc still do the 27" 1920x1200. They even sell a TV version that you can use as a monitor. Deals run at around $200 + S&H+Tax from time to time."
27" is too large for 1920 x 1200. Anything over 24" and you can see the individual pixels too well (blocky).
The point is not that the monitors can get bigger physically -- they have been doing that -- but the RESOLUTION has not been going up as it should.
The only actual "practical" reason that comes to mind is actually using the laptop in your lap. Which is not really recommended for any length of time anyway, for ergonomic reasons.
You're better off setting the laptop on a table, with the screen about 3 feet away, and using an external keyboard + mouse/trackpad.
"You'll be hard pushed to find anything that's 16:10 these days, even desktop monitors."
No kidding. After so many years of monitor resolution steadily going up, I bought a Princeton 1920 x 1200 a couple of years ago, and since then most of them have seemed to go DOWN to 1920 x 1080, even while the prices continued to go up.
I call foul. Lots of us do things with our monitors OTHER THAN watch movies. We don't need to all be forced into a short, wide format.
Not if it results in the demise of Apple, the way it led to a decline at Microsoft. That was my whole point.
"Yeah, because it really sucks if when your machine gets stolen, you're able to get all your apps and your files back from a server in North Carolina or Oregon. "
That isn't the bad idea. The App Store lock-in is.
"If your IPO goes down, yes that's the sign of an overpriced IPO (if it doesn't move far from it, it's near the right price)."
No, that is the way it should work, not the way it has actually worked in recent years.
Facebook was selling for right around 100 p/e. That's an outrageous price, very reminiscent of the "tech bubble". It means that unless Facebook grows pretty quickly, it would take 100 years to earn as much as it was bought for.
And that means that unless it does grow quickly, it's a bad investment. The problem with that scenario is that Facebook is near saturation for what it is; it cannot grow quickly. That ship has already sailed.
"Car analogy: If your IPO shoots up a lot, it's like you PAYING someone to list your car for sale at a good price, but instead they under-price it, their close friends buy it and immediately sell it for twice the price."
Sure. But when your IPO shoots up NOT AT ALL, it is a sign of an overpriced IPO.
Pardon me, typo in the tags. That wasn't all supposed to be bold.
Actually this is false, as many publications have shown... repeatedly, time after time.
Mac products tend to be a little -- but only a little -- more expensive that other systems given the same hardware.
Apple tends to choose, in general, premium hardware for its products.
But magazine after magazine, and group after group, who have actually measured hardware quality and performance per dollar, have for many years now saying that Macs are just a little more expensive. And of course that doesn't account for the OS itself.
The notion that Macs are expensive for what they do and people own them just due to some kind of snobbery has been disproven for a long time.
"I love my MacBook Pro; but I fear that in another generation or two I'm going to have to give them up because I don't like where Apple is taking their OS."
Yes, exactly! And when I seem them making the same kind of mistakes -- exactly the mistakes that drove me to OS X instead of Windows in the first place -- I have to wonder what the hell they're thinking. If they keep it up, everybody who is anybody will be on Linux.