Well, it is a nice upgrade, and I don't think that anybody can reasonably criticize Apple for throwing in a solid but non-revolutionary entry in their line. However, when somebody writes something like this:
"put in the iPad2 A5 chip which still outperforms anything the competitors have, GPU performance 7-9 times faster than the already-impressive iP4, the nicest camera yet, and with iOS5 this is is a solid update for a phone."
It is hard to resist pushing back against such a gushing of PR bullet-point-speak. Even if the particular points are true, that doesn't read like something that normal HUMANS write... it reads like a marketing release. I was expecting to find a "it just works" somewhere in the paragraph.
The (cold) war effort took us to the moon. It wasn't the free market, but I don't know that I'd characterize it as socialism, either... unless you lump the military in as socialist. The space shuttle was probably a little more of a traditional 'socialist' program.
Over the next century, I certainly have a lot higher hopes for free market exploitation of the solar system than national... or, perhaps, I would say that it's the free market that will bring the benefits from space exploration back to the bulk of mankind.
Banks are a highly regulated market. Have been for over a century. Most of the segments of the economy that are failing are highly regulated... banks, financing, energy, medical care... If you want to look for a relatively unregulated market, try internet commerce. That is booming.
The OP is right... most deregulation is carefully planned to benefit certain players, not to create an actual free market.
In other words, Mr. Passive Aggressive, you agree with him, but know you don't have a leg to stand on factually, so aren't actually going to get into the argument. LMAO
No, that's not a valid summary of what he said. He pointed out how, in his experience, it was a waste of time to talk to aggressively obnoxious people on the internet. Your comment simply reinforced that claim.
It isn't just technology. This deregulated, global market lets 25,000 people starve to death each year, despite global agriculture producing enough food for each person get 3000 calories per day.
No. Market forces allowed billions of people to be fed. Political forces starved 25,000 people. Plenty of people and businesses would have been glad to get food to them.
I wonder if the Occupy$places movement could mean that they're already rising up.
I think the 'occupy' movement just committed suicide. There are plenty of valid reasons to protest Wall Street. It's rife with corruption, cronyism, and regulatory problems. Many people from all over the political spectrum would agree with that.
However, they've made some public statements, include a list of demands, that are blatantly fringe leftist. That changes it from a general movement to a fringe element of one party; it makes them mostly irrelevant.
The Tea party has a similar problem, and handled it a little better, but still is falling prey to it. They should be purely about economic freedom: reduced taxation, reduced government spending. That was their original focus, and it had a lot of widespread support. Associating the Tea party with 'social' issues, like abortion/religion/gay rights, or foreign policy, make it more appealing to a small group but less appealing to a larger group. That seems to be happening as well.
I don't know why nobody considers forth anymore. Well, I understand... forth is old and creaky, and needs a serious rewrite from the core out to fit with modern techniques... but it has a lot of unique advantages, also. It has no superfluous syntax at all. It has a serious elegance to the language, kind of like lisp does.
Speaking of religion, your crusade on Slashdot to post about 'space nutters' on every space-related discussion seems to have no results, and yet you persist.
I suspect the first two points really don't happen much if at all, but this:
How many times have they taken liberal stances on matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing, etc.)?"
Happens a lot. Not always liberal, although it is more often than not. The critical point is that they get involved in things they shouldn't; they're busybodies. Academic support of a 'cause' is a problem in education from kindergarten through graduate studies.
1. It was highly and obviously politically partisan.
2. It was speculative, fueled by hopes and fantasy rather than any results.
3. They were wrong.
It wasn't the only example, of course; the peace prize has been awarded for ludicrous reasons before. The Nobel's science prizes still have a pretty good reputation, though.
Right. It's a bit like gun control... like it or not, freedom to bear arms is in the constitution, and no matter how sensible it might be to forbid private ownership of guns, the danger from circumventing constitutional restrictions is FAR worse than guns ever would be. If congress said no to the FCC, and you don't like it, don't advocate the FCC doing an illegal power grab; instead, lobby congress.
Actually, the burden of proof here is on you to prove that the FCC can't regulate the ISPs.
That's very backwards. The default assumption (thank God) is that they don't have the power to regulate unless they've specifically been given that power.
Faith in the free market, such as yours, has lead the world to a point where large corporations are able to influence laws and policies through generous contributions.
That's the fault of a government that holds the reign of industry. If they couldn't make or break companies depending on the regulation they passed, they wouldn't be a target for bribes. If we give them MORE regulatory capacity, they will act in a MORE corrupt manner.
Slashdot Mirror
That sort of immature vitriol usually is triggered by a deep insecurity.
I've studied the issues for many years, and have formed the theory that Job's abusiveness is possibly the cause of his illness.
Bob the Chiropractor? Is this your new trolling account?
By that logic you should keep your "average person" away from light bulb and wall sockets.
I suspect that if power sockets were invented today, they would have a hard time getting approved for the general public.
I would say we have a bit too many comments like yours.
Well, it is a nice upgrade, and I don't think that anybody can reasonably criticize Apple for throwing in a solid but non-revolutionary entry in their line. However, when somebody writes something like this:
"put in the iPad2 A5 chip which still outperforms anything the competitors have, GPU performance 7-9 times faster than the already-impressive iP4, the nicest camera yet, and with iOS5 this is is a solid update for a phone."
It is hard to resist pushing back against such a gushing of PR bullet-point-speak. Even if the particular points are true, that doesn't read like something that normal HUMANS write... it reads like a marketing release. I was expecting to find a "it just works" somewhere in the paragraph.
The (cold) war effort took us to the moon. It wasn't the free market, but I don't know that I'd characterize it as socialism, either... unless you lump the military in as socialist. The space shuttle was probably a little more of a traditional 'socialist' program.
Over the next century, I certainly have a lot higher hopes for free market exploitation of the solar system than national... or, perhaps, I would say that it's the free market that will bring the benefits from space exploration back to the bulk of mankind.
Yeah, Reagan ended the blissful, prosperous days of the Carter presidency. Didn't you know?
Banks are a highly regulated market. Have been for over a century. Most of the segments of the economy that are failing are highly regulated... banks, financing, energy, medical care... If you want to look for a relatively unregulated market, try internet commerce. That is booming.
The OP is right... most deregulation is carefully planned to benefit certain players, not to create an actual free market.
In other words, Mr. Passive Aggressive, you agree with him, but know you don't have a leg to stand on factually, so aren't actually going to get into the argument. LMAO
No, that's not a valid summary of what he said. He pointed out how, in his experience, it was a waste of time to talk to aggressively obnoxious people on the internet. Your comment simply reinforced that claim.
It isn't just technology. This deregulated, global market lets 25,000 people starve to death each year, despite global agriculture producing enough food for each person get 3000 calories per day.
No. Market forces allowed billions of people to be fed. Political forces starved 25,000 people. Plenty of people and businesses would have been glad to get food to them.
It's honestly strange that you deny these changes. It's like having somebody demand a citation that we use more computers than in the 80s.
I wonder if the Occupy$places movement could mean that they're already rising up.
I think the 'occupy' movement just committed suicide. There are plenty of valid reasons to protest Wall Street. It's rife with corruption, cronyism, and regulatory problems. Many people from all over the political spectrum would agree with that.
However, they've made some public statements, include a list of demands, that are blatantly fringe leftist. That changes it from a general movement to a fringe element of one party; it makes them mostly irrelevant.
The Tea party has a similar problem, and handled it a little better, but still is falling prey to it. They should be purely about economic freedom: reduced taxation, reduced government spending. That was their original focus, and it had a lot of widespread support. Associating the Tea party with 'social' issues, like abortion/religion/gay rights, or foreign policy, make it more appealing to a small group but less appealing to a larger group. That seems to be happening as well.
I don't know why nobody considers forth anymore. Well, I understand... forth is old and creaky, and needs a serious rewrite from the core out to fit with modern techniques... but it has a lot of unique advantages, also. It has no superfluous syntax at all. It has a serious elegance to the language, kind of like lisp does.
5. "Better than console game graphics." No, really. Seriously! They said that!
Ugh. This pains me. For the next few years, we can look forward to Apple fans repeating this talking point with a straight face.
Speaking of religion, your crusade on Slashdot to post about 'space nutters' on every space-related discussion seems to have no results, and yet you persist.
Exactly.
I know you were going for sarcasm, but you accidentally ended up correct.
(2) The poster didn't literally represent the intent or desire of the person who hung it.
What's wrong if it did? There's nothing wrong with stating that you won't shoot unarmed and unaware opponents.
Far enough to end the McCarthy era? It was finished by spirited debate.
This is true. I wouldn't be surprised if a typical church congregation had more open and varied political discussion than many college campuses.
I suspect the first two points really don't happen much if at all, but this:
How many times have they taken liberal stances on matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing, etc.)?"
Happens a lot. Not always liberal, although it is more often than not. The critical point is that they get involved in things they shouldn't; they're busybodies. Academic support of a 'cause' is a problem in education from kindergarten through graduate studies.
It was ridiculous three times over:
1. It was highly and obviously politically partisan.
2. It was speculative, fueled by hopes and fantasy rather than any results.
3. They were wrong.
It wasn't the only example, of course; the peace prize has been awarded for ludicrous reasons before. The Nobel's science prizes still have a pretty good reputation, though.
Right. It's a bit like gun control... like it or not, freedom to bear arms is in the constitution, and no matter how sensible it might be to forbid private ownership of guns, the danger from circumventing constitutional restrictions is FAR worse than guns ever would be. If congress said no to the FCC, and you don't like it, don't advocate the FCC doing an illegal power grab; instead, lobby congress.
Actually, the burden of proof here is on you to prove that the FCC can't regulate the ISPs.
That's very backwards. The default assumption (thank God) is that they don't have the power to regulate unless they've specifically been given that power.
Faith in the free market, such as yours, has lead the world to a point where large corporations are able to influence laws and policies through generous contributions.
That's the fault of a government that holds the reign of industry. If they couldn't make or break companies depending on the regulation they passed, they wouldn't be a target for bribes. If we give them MORE regulatory capacity, they will act in a MORE corrupt manner.
Yeah, only rich people read, and we should keep it that way!