There may not be a codified class structure, but if you're making the assertion that the United States is a lovely fairly-land filled with elves and unicorns that live without any class whatsoever then you are woefully incorrect.
No, I'm not. No mention of elves or unicorns. Just that there's no class structure. There are differentials in income; but that's not determined in any way by 'class'. If you define class as simply possessing different income, than you've reduced class to a meaningless concept.
Communism hasn't failed mankind, mankind has always failed Communism.
What is communism for? It's purpose is to serve mankind. If a nail bends, the carpenter hasn't failed the hammer.
As long as there is that one selfish dickface that just has to hoard bread, or money, or whatever else he gets his hands on, Communism fails. It depends on people acting honorably.
Acting honorably would be NOT stealing somebody else's bread, but making your own, or honestly trading for it. Your definition of honor is backwards.
Not if authoritarian states like the USSR are the inexorable result of communism. If the communist model can't work, failed implementations are certainly justification for critiquing the theory.
My only suggestion would be... don't acquire your political beliefs solely through classes that are intended to teach you political beliefs. Take history classes, and see how the various political systems really worked out. NOT history classes focused around particular belief systems.
Most sociology and political science classes are taught by people who, in one way or another, are highly biased. There's very little actual hypothesis testing. A relatively neutral reading of history is about the only way to actually apply a little bit of scientific methodology to the field.
Banks are one of the most highly regulated parts of the economy. There's very little vestige of the free market in any of the large banking institutions. It's no coincidence that areas of the economy that are tightly controlled by the government (banking, medicine, insurance, finance) are the areas that tend to be the most screwed up.
For better or worse, if you want an example of a free-market bank, look at something like PayPal. It has so far avoided being regulated as a bank. It has some severe problems, but at least it's nowhere close to collapsing like the 'official' banks did.
I think it's funny that concepts like patents, trademarks, and copyrights are actually anti-laissez-faire, in that they're outside regulation, yet they're used to hold innovation hostage by the same people who rant about too much regulation.
I'm not sure that they are completely antithetical to a free market, but they certainly are the way they're currently being used. I'll add the whole body of corporate law to that list; today, in large part, corporations are highly regulated and artificial legal constructs that impede capitalism as much as they help it.
A lot of people that complain about capitalism are complaining about the parts that aren't actually free markets... political favoritism and state-granted monopolies.
There is no class structure in America, and no distinction between workers and capitalists. That's how actual capitalism works. The only difference is that no worker is guaranteed a certain amount of capital, or ownership.
It's interesting to me, because I watched this meme develop on Slashdot. It started because Microsoft gave a demonstration of their new desktop, and mentioned that applications can be created with a combination of Javascript and HTML5.
The initial thread had many people wondering, "is Javascript and HTML5 the ONLY way to develop Apps?". This was quickly shot down. Reading the article, it was clear that this was purely an additional feature. Applications can continue to be written in.net, C++, or any other language. Some people in that thread, though, made the claim it was obvious that MS was dropping.net.
Since then, that claim pops up once or twice in any thread that mentions.net. By now, I'm sure that all the posters have been corrected, but they either refuse to accept correction, or they don't care that they're wrong. I suspect the latter. I think the posters are now deliberately trying to use Fear and Doubt, hoping to deter somebody from using.net.
Campaigning with FUD was wrong when Microsoft does it, and it's wrong when OSS advocates do it. Maybe I'm wrong, and the poster actually thinks that.net will be dropped; but I doubt it. He would had to be very deliberately ignorant.
Anybody that uses the school a person attended as an estimation of their value (positive or negative) is a fool, and probably deeply insecure. Note how often their own school is counted as an asset, so they can over-value themselves relative to others.
And a non-certified engineer enjoys legal protection for his screw-ups? I don't think so. The more I see of it, the lower regard I hold most forms of certification and licenses.
Yeah, this doesn't really have anything to do with 'green energy', other than that was a trending buzzword and so the scammers latched on to it. This is simply good old-fashioned stealing from the tax-payer. In another time, this would be a transistor-radio plant or a coal-mining op.
There are companies successfully producing in the field; but there is probably an inverse correlation between a company's productivity and the amount of assistance they get from the government. Seeking stimulus funds seems to indicate management is in the wrong head-space.
Right. If Mozilla added a 'open new tab for editing' option, or something, that let you edit, load, and save source (javascript/HTML), and then 'run' it by executing it in another tab... it would be almost as interactive as old BASICs were. Is there any type of add-on for Firefox that does that? It seems pretty simple. Maybe it's there and I've missed it.
My friend, an unemployed teacher who has been struggling for two years to find work, had a similar reaction when Obama claimed there was a shortage of teachers in his state-of-the-union address.
There may very well be a shortage of competent teachers, or skilled engineers, but that's an entirely different matter, and increasing the number of degrees handed out will do nothing to fix that. It is as likely to exacerbate the problem. The problem is more in the hiring and employment practices.
Climate warming creates, as a side effect, a tachyon-based ripple effect that goes back decades in time and motivates humans to release carbon. Our models don't take superluminal effects into account, and hence we foolishly believe carbon is causing the warming, instead of the other way around.
There's some evidence that jet contrails have altered temperatures by up to a degree. They've based this on statistical analysis of temperatures during the grounding of all flights after 9/11. One article is here.
Actually, I think that's crazy, and I would bet money it was a spurious effect. If it was true, then it would easily be within our capability to lower temperatures several degrees on demand. But just because I think it's crazy, doesn't mean it it's necessarily wrong.
Anytime someone says that the science is conclusive and need not be questioned I will stop listening as they are obviously now talking religion, as science does not ever stop questioning.
There is some climate science that is pretty much settled, as far as any science gets. The average temperature changing throughout the twentieth century, for instance. There may be some quibbling, but nothing serious. I'll agree with you, though, that anybody treating forecasts using climate models as any sort of reliable evidence is abusing science.
The main thing the "consumption only" argument misses is that most people only use their computers for consuption.
No, I think most people mostly use their computers for consumption. It's a minor difference, but has a huge effect. Even if they only need to run a spreadsheet once a month, and the rest of the time they're watching youtube, they'll still need a device capable of running a spreadsheet. Getting most of the functionality isn't enough, when the remaining bit is necessary.
It's like those studies that said 95% of care trips are under 30 minutes, and so electric cars with a 1 hour charge should be sufficient. They aren't; because the customer looks at the eight hour drive they will make a couple times a year, and picks a car with their maximum requirement in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
There may not be a codified class structure, but if you're making the assertion that the United States is a lovely fairly-land filled with elves and unicorns that live without any class whatsoever then you are woefully incorrect.
No, I'm not. No mention of elves or unicorns. Just that there's no class structure. There are differentials in income; but that's not determined in any way by 'class'. If you define class as simply possessing different income, than you've reduced class to a meaningless concept.
Communism hasn't failed mankind, mankind has always failed Communism.
What is communism for? It's purpose is to serve mankind. If a nail bends, the carpenter hasn't failed the hammer.
As long as there is that one selfish dickface that just has to hoard bread, or money, or whatever else he gets his hands on, Communism fails. It depends on people acting honorably.
Acting honorably would be NOT stealing somebody else's bread, but making your own, or honestly trading for it. Your definition of honor is backwards.
Capitalism is constant growth.
If that happens in the human body they call it cancer.
Perhaps its the same in society and the time is coming to try something new.
This post is incredible. Absolutely incredible. Think, everybody, about what the poster is actually saying.
Not if authoritarian states like the USSR are the inexorable result of communism. If the communist model can't work, failed implementations are certainly justification for critiquing the theory.
I wonder if it would be better phrased:
In Capitalism, a man exploits men.
In Communism, men exploit a man.
My only suggestion would be... don't acquire your political beliefs solely through classes that are intended to teach you political beliefs. Take history classes, and see how the various political systems really worked out. NOT history classes focused around particular belief systems.
Most sociology and political science classes are taught by people who, in one way or another, are highly biased. There's very little actual hypothesis testing. A relatively neutral reading of history is about the only way to actually apply a little bit of scientific methodology to the field.
Banks are one of the most highly regulated parts of the economy. There's very little vestige of the free market in any of the large banking institutions. It's no coincidence that areas of the economy that are tightly controlled by the government (banking, medicine, insurance, finance) are the areas that tend to be the most screwed up.
For better or worse, if you want an example of a free-market bank, look at something like PayPal. It has so far avoided being regulated as a bank. It has some severe problems, but at least it's nowhere close to collapsing like the 'official' banks did.
Patent laws aren't part of the free market; they're government regulation. More socialist than capitalist.
I think it's funny that concepts like patents, trademarks, and copyrights are actually anti-laissez-faire, in that they're outside regulation, yet they're used to hold innovation hostage by the same people who rant about too much regulation.
I'm not sure that they are completely antithetical to a free market, but they certainly are the way they're currently being used. I'll add the whole body of corporate law to that list; today, in large part, corporations are highly regulated and artificial legal constructs that impede capitalism as much as they help it.
A lot of people that complain about capitalism are complaining about the parts that aren't actually free markets... political favoritism and state-granted monopolies.
There is no class structure in America, and no distinction between workers and capitalists. That's how actual capitalism works. The only difference is that no worker is guaranteed a certain amount of capital, or ownership.
It's interesting to me, because I watched this meme develop on Slashdot. It started because Microsoft gave a demonstration of their new desktop, and mentioned that applications can be created with a combination of Javascript and HTML5.
.net, C++, or any other language. Some people in that thread, though, made the claim it was obvious that MS was dropping .net.
.net. By now, I'm sure that all the posters have been corrected, but they either refuse to accept correction, or they don't care that they're wrong. I suspect the latter. I think the posters are now deliberately trying to use Fear and Doubt, hoping to deter somebody from using .net.
Campaigning with FUD was wrong when Microsoft does it, and it's wrong when OSS advocates do it. Maybe I'm wrong, and the poster actually thinks that .net will be dropped; but I doubt it. He would had to be very deliberately ignorant.
The initial thread had many people wondering, "is Javascript and HTML5 the ONLY way to develop Apps?". This was quickly shot down. Reading the article, it was clear that this was purely an additional feature. Applications can continue to be written in
Since then, that claim pops up once or twice in any thread that mentions
No doubt you think you're an independent thinker.
Anybody that uses the school a person attended as an estimation of their value (positive or negative) is a fool, and probably deeply insecure. Note how often their own school is counted as an asset, so they can over-value themselves relative to others.
And a non-certified engineer enjoys legal protection for his screw-ups? I don't think so. The more I see of it, the lower regard I hold most forms of certification and licenses.
Yeah, this doesn't really have anything to do with 'green energy', other than that was a trending buzzword and so the scammers latched on to it. This is simply good old-fashioned stealing from the tax-payer. In another time, this would be a transistor-radio plant or a coal-mining op.
There are companies successfully producing in the field; but there is probably an inverse correlation between a company's productivity and the amount of assistance they get from the government. Seeking stimulus funds seems to indicate management is in the wrong head-space.
As long as both nuclear, coal and oil are allowed to release CO2 without paying the costs of it, yes green tech won't compete.
How much CO2 does nuclear emit?
Right. If Mozilla added a 'open new tab for editing' option, or something, that let you edit, load, and save source (javascript/HTML), and then 'run' it by executing it in another tab... it would be almost as interactive as old BASICs were. Is there any type of add-on for Firefox that does that? It seems pretty simple. Maybe it's there and I've missed it.
Wow, you two had a complete failure of communication there.
My friend, an unemployed teacher who has been struggling for two years to find work, had a similar reaction when Obama claimed there was a shortage of teachers in his state-of-the-union address.
There may very well be a shortage of competent teachers, or skilled engineers, but that's an entirely different matter, and increasing the number of degrees handed out will do nothing to fix that. It is as likely to exacerbate the problem. The problem is more in the hiring and employment practices.
You're a good example of the computer illiteracy that they're hoping to cure with this device.
Blaming Irene on global warming is embarrassingly unscientific.
Climate warming creates, as a side effect, a tachyon-based ripple effect that goes back decades in time and motivates humans to release carbon. Our models don't take superluminal effects into account, and hence we foolishly believe carbon is causing the warming, instead of the other way around.
There's some evidence that jet contrails have altered temperatures by up to a degree. They've based this on statistical analysis of temperatures during the grounding of all flights after 9/11. One article is here.
Actually, I think that's crazy, and I would bet money it was a spurious effect. If it was true, then it would easily be within our capability to lower temperatures several degrees on demand. But just because I think it's crazy, doesn't mean it it's necessarily wrong.
Anytime someone says that the science is conclusive and need not be questioned I will stop listening as they are obviously now talking religion, as science does not ever stop questioning.
There is some climate science that is pretty much settled, as far as any science gets. The average temperature changing throughout the twentieth century, for instance. There may be some quibbling, but nothing serious. I'll agree with you, though, that anybody treating forecasts using climate models as any sort of reliable evidence is abusing science.
The main thing the "consumption only" argument misses is that most people only use their computers for consuption.
No, I think most people mostly use their computers for consumption. It's a minor difference, but has a huge effect. Even if they only need to run a spreadsheet once a month, and the rest of the time they're watching youtube, they'll still need a device capable of running a spreadsheet. Getting most of the functionality isn't enough, when the remaining bit is necessary.
It's like those studies that said 95% of care trips are under 30 minutes, and so electric cars with a 1 hour charge should be sufficient. They aren't; because the customer looks at the eight hour drive they will make a couple times a year, and picks a car with their maximum requirement in mind.