Well, these "exteme economic liberals" might have a point.
Sports are so broadly popular and such a part of public life and politics that I don't generally think of them as "private" business. But they are privately owned.
It seems a little unlikely that they'd make more money with exclusive licensing than with open competition, but I guess that's their business.
Snarkiness aside, it's interesting to hear a counter-example.
Maybe different shoes or flooring could have made a difference. Maybe sitting down periodically during the day could make a difference. Maybe the rest of your workstation was set up unergonomically.
Or maybe the notion that standing all day is healthier is bullshit.
I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others. Specifically, the darker ones associated with more mental problems.
somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that they are sexually aroused by such images and situations,
Sounds likely.
and at some point, will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life
Whoa, Nellie. Small difference between looking and fantasizing, huge difference between fantasizing and doing.
does anyone seriously believe tens of millions of Europeans moved to the Americas in the next 8 years?
No, people do seriously believe the European invasion killed off millions of indigenous people, who, after dying, stopped their agricultural activities, which allowed forests to regrow, which sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere.
This paper contends that that decrease in CO2 cooled Europe.
> You are the one who is confused. Perhaps. I think it's more a case of having different sources for our definitions. "Capitalism" is such a politicized word that, as evidenced in this very thread, people seem to give it whatever meaning they want.
We both seem to agree that "free markets are not planned" and government interference spoils free markets.
I'm guessing that we'd also agree the US economy has a lot of government interference.
We might even agree that that interference tends to favor the wealthiest 1%. Whatever label we give that, their owning nearly 40% of the wealth seems an unlikely concentration from a truly free market.
This is a brilliant way to associate ANYTHING negative with capitalism and remove ANY connection between "anything bad" and socialism.
Congratulations with demonstrating, in one stroke, your personal political bias.
The logic is equivalently fallacious if you swap "capitalism" and "socialism" within your sentence.
One fallacy is employed by the left, the other is employed by the right. Each side spots the fallacy a mile away when the other side uses it, and accepts it as gospel truth when their side does.
Capitalism has nothing to do with "laissez faire." What you're thinking of is called the "free market". Capitalism is about the Owners controlling trade, which they do by having the government enforce their policies.
In a laissez faire free market, the market has no designated controller. Anybody that can produce can participate, and the marketplace takes on a life of its own.
Secret "laws" don't even make any damn sense. A law is an instruction they want you to follow.
If they don't tell the NYT what the rule is, it's not a law at all. It's just standard run-of-the-mill selective enforcement of the rulers' whims. A tyranny.
Since any self-respecting software engineer can work from anyplace, you'll basically always be "on call"
I respect myself. And I refuse to be on call. When I go home, I leave work behind and post on slashdot. When I go to work, I leave home behind and post on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, taking liberalism to its logical conclusion, and taking conservatism to its logical conclusion, both can lead to about the same place.
Try the quiz: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
Well, these "exteme economic liberals" might have a point.
Sports are so broadly popular and such a part of public life and politics that I don't generally think of them as "private" business. But they are privately owned.
It seems a little unlikely that they'd make more money with exclusive licensing than with open competition, but I guess that's their business.
Wow. A free market. What's next, sound money?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with.
Interesting sig. How do you support that claim?
> do you need to spit at your fanbase by calling them a
> bunch of geeks that ought to get a life?
Most people that heard that just nodded their head or laughed and went on with their life.
Probably few were offended much besides the ones for whom it rang true. Shatner apparently thought they could find a more meaningful life in reality.
So sue him, at the United Federation of Planets. I'd go with a klingon judge - any power trekkie speaks klingon.
Good point. Last year outside Bellagio I saw Elvis dressed as Capt. Janeway.
Yeah. Shame on him for speaking the cold hard truth to his best friends. A real friend always kowtows and panders.
It is possible to be beautifully dressed and to be your character especially if you get to keep the expensive wardrobe
Coincidentally, strutting around in Star Trek uniforms is Shatner's preferred disguise for a night on the town in Vegas.
You're posting from jail, I take it. Because this sounds about as smart as hunting bunny rabbits with a cannon.
Mod parent up. Way up.
> Humans are not animals (for the most part)
Perhaps you subscribe to The Matrix Agent's school of taxonomy.
Snarkiness aside, it's interesting to hear a counter-example.
Maybe different shoes or flooring could have made a difference. Maybe sitting down periodically during the day could make a difference. Maybe the rest of your workstation was set up unergonomically.
Or maybe the notion that standing all day is healthier is bullshit.
> I tried the standing thing for 3 months.
There's your problem. Not even horses stay on their feet that long.
I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others. Specifically, the darker ones associated with more mental problems.
Well, you do need to support your claims somehow.
somebody that has pornographic pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual acts is a reasonable indicator that they are sexually aroused by such images and situations,
Sounds likely.
and at some point, will attempt to bring their own fantasies to life
Whoa, Nellie. Small difference between looking and fantasizing, huge difference between fantasizing and doing.
does anyone seriously believe tens of millions of Europeans moved to the Americas in the next 8 years?
No, people do seriously believe the European invasion killed off millions of indigenous people, who, after dying, stopped their agricultural activities, which allowed forests to regrow, which sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere.
This paper contends that that decrease in CO2 cooled Europe.
What you effectively do here is...
I'm glad I was effective at something today.
> You are the one who is confused.
Perhaps. I think it's more a case of having different sources for our definitions. "Capitalism" is such a politicized word that, as evidenced in this very thread, people seem to give it whatever meaning they want.
We both seem to agree that "free markets are not planned" and government interference spoils free markets.
I'm guessing that we'd also agree the US economy has a lot of government interference.
We might even agree that that interference tends to favor the wealthiest 1%. Whatever label we give that, their owning nearly 40% of the wealth seems an unlikely concentration from a truly free market.
Probably true - no pure philosophy has ever survived human contact.
What's your point?
This is a brilliant way to associate ANYTHING negative with capitalism and remove ANY connection between "anything bad" and socialism.
Congratulations with demonstrating, in one stroke, your personal political bias.
The logic is equivalently fallacious if you swap "capitalism" and "socialism" within your sentence.
One fallacy is employed by the left, the other is employed by the right. Each side spots the fallacy a mile away when the other side uses it, and accepts it as gospel truth when their side does.
Capitalism has nothing to do with "laissez faire." What you're thinking of is called the "free market". Capitalism is about the Owners controlling trade, which they do by having the government enforce their policies.
In a laissez faire free market, the market has no designated controller. Anybody that can produce can participate, and the marketplace takes on a life of its own.
I think your definition of "capitalism" is a little off. Capitalism is, according to google,
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
It's hard to see how you could consider university lecturers "private owners."
Secret "laws" don't even make any damn sense. A law is an instruction they want you to follow.
If they don't tell the NYT what the rule is, it's not a law at all. It's just standard run-of-the-mill selective enforcement of the rulers' whims. A tyranny.
Since any self-respecting software engineer can work from anyplace, you'll basically always be "on call"
I respect myself. And I refuse to be on call. When I go home, I leave work behind and post on slashdot. When I go to work, I leave home behind and post on slashdot.
Since when does the government have the authority to...
Since the moment they decided to assume that authority, and nobody stopped them.