You can believe that you can force people to follow your communist ideology (like we in America force people not to violate patents) while not thinking that it will necessarily result in a fascist dictatorship. You can also believe that fascist dictators called themselves communist for PR purposes. There's no real conflict there.
Now, you may want to pick on his specific examples. But he never made a generalized claim, but rather a claim about China and Russia^H^H^H^H^H^H the USSR. And, if you want to hang your mutual argument about a single claim, I'm going to say your initial position of "We should trust Mao and Stalin to be honest about their intentions" is far weaker than his of "Mao and Stalin were power-hungry lying asshats"
I can otherwise create a virtual camera in software that signs the forgery after it is created. I can even use wavelets to extract the grain/noise/high frequency artefact layers from an image before I modify it, then return them to obscure "identity difference" in parts of the final image. You can even calculate the lighting model from an existing scene to ensure the added components match perfectly.
Then, and I am serious, there should be rules about breaking rules. When I wrote a coding standard, I included the idea of which rules were to be followed (naming conventions, indentation) and which were guidelines that were assumed to be followed. The guidelines included justifications, so you knew why they applied. They were unbreakable by an intern (absent getting the okay from a permanent employee), and they generally required a comment explaining why you weren't following it if you did something unexpected.
And I mean, even our "fucking indent the curly braces like this" line that every coding standard (in the Cxx world) needs had "unless you're working on an existing codebase clause.
Hopefully including the justification made people better able to follow the guidelines when they made sense, and more comfortable when they did not.
The clauses don't have anything to do with providing free advice on how to fix things. It's to cooperate with audits, regulators and lawsuits.
Which seems strange, because on common defense against lawsuits is usually "the employees responsible for that no longer work here, and cannot be found".
It almost seems reasonable that the alternative is tht they may have to pay a seven-figure expert witness fee.
Low lifespan variables should have short names. Those short names should repeat. For instance, every time you iterate through an array (single depth) I see no reason not to use the same iterator name.
That's only an admonishment against following bad rules. Thoreau practiced a lot of civil disobedience. Hell, he wrote the seminal work on the subject, a little essay titled "Civil Disobedience."
Or, in the words of his contemporary and mentor:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
If a rule is bad, change it. But ignoring it while leaving it on the books is poor form.
then the logical conclusion is that the government should take ALL of the money since they are the ones most qualified to do anything with it.
That's not the logical conclusion in any way. Rarely is the right decision in governing binary. We don't allow people to own private nukes, and we won't be banning kitchen knives.
Taking 100% of income in taxes would decrease motivation to work hard. So that's bad, for a lot of reasons, like society crumbling.
I mean, FFS, the whole stupid Laffer curve's point is that it makes the government less money. There are a lot things to complain about the (way the) Laffer curve (is discussed), the core insight of "the optimum tax rate is between 0 and 100%" seems pretty universally agreed upon. I mean, hell, even Karl Marx and Ron Paul will agree "In between, but not, 0 or 100% is the right about of taxes".
? Isn't letting people keep the money they earned, regardless of their income level ALWAYS going to be better than taking it away and giving it to the government?
No. The government can spend it on things that help society, but not necessarily the person we took the money from.
If you're a billionaire, then other billionaires are the ones that have the most of what you value and therefore the best targets.
It's nonsense, but not for the reason you say. Billionaires want things from other billionaires that can be easy (a seat on a board, their companies to do business) for the other one to perform, and more importantly, will be reciprocated.
There are a couple of famous examples of people donating all their wealth and living in trailer parks. Of course, it's usually a deluxe trailer park in Hollywood with million-dollar lots or something.
Nooks with eInk are still available (I was in a B&N this week and saw it on the display). It's not what they put up signs advertising, but they def. have the backlit (togglable) eInk screen version.
He is extremely profitable, moreso than under a fixed plan. Many other users of the plans are less plan are not.
This happens all the time. It's worth it for a candy bar company to sell "sitting on the fence" Pete a bar for half price. But not worth selling just to him to drop their price for everyone by half.
The question becomes, how do you tell which person is able to be rehabilitated, and those that arent. Are you willing to risk other peoples lives and well being over a convicted killer, rapist, pedophile, etc ?
To your first question, through some error prone process. There's no real way to look into someone's soul.
To your second question, yes. We have to accept some risk of letting people out of jail. Because what if I put "convicted druggie" in there? "Convicted speeders"?
No, the fad I remembered is part and parcel with the idea of flattening an organization to get creative solutions. And the employee went to a dedicated point-person for physical plant issues, who then brought it up in a meeting and something happened.
I'm confused what the non holacracy distopia you imagine would be? It seems like this was solved by having a known person to bring issues to.
This is a huge area of debate in the history, so if there's been research definitively proving it, I'd love to see it. The only things you can usually find are debunked stuff made by racists to justify being racists.
Also, there's a difference between personality and the desire to program computers for a living.
They care about trends and patterns, not about you as a person,
In other news, Google has recently allowed targeted advertisements based on the individual person/e-mail address.
"You as a person" is rarely worth targeting. But there are a lot of scale issues. It's worth targeting for Google, cause they only have to write that code once. And as time goes on, it gets cheaper and more widespread.
That really only works if any previous title is enough of a megahit to give you the money to delay without pissing off the money people. In other words, Valve. I guess Blizzard before the merger.
Other places, missing a shipping deadline or Christmas would (and has) caused studios to get shut down.
It depends on how large the company is. Once you get beyond N people reporting to you, you need another layer of management.
You have 10,000 people working for you, and one layer of middle management, and you are managing 100 people each mananging 100 people. Have 3 layers, and you manage 10, who each manage 10, who each manage 10.
Slashdot Mirror
You can believe that you can force people to follow your communist ideology (like we in America force people not to violate patents) while not thinking that it will necessarily result in a fascist dictatorship. You can also believe that fascist dictators called themselves communist for PR purposes. There's no real conflict there.
Now, you may want to pick on his specific examples. But he never made a generalized claim, but rather a claim about China and Russia^H^H^H^H^H^H the USSR. And, if you want to hang your mutual argument about a single claim, I'm going to say your initial position of "We should trust Mao and Stalin to be honest about their intentions" is far weaker than his of "Mao and Stalin were power-hungry lying asshats"
Is that an "I can" or a "One can"?
Then, and I am serious, there should be rules about breaking rules. When I wrote a coding standard, I included the idea of which rules were to be followed (naming conventions, indentation) and which were guidelines that were assumed to be followed. The guidelines included justifications, so you knew why they applied. They were unbreakable by an intern (absent getting the okay from a permanent employee), and they generally required a comment explaining why you weren't following it if you did something unexpected.
And I mean, even our "fucking indent the curly braces like this" line that every coding standard (in the Cxx world) needs had "unless you're working on an existing codebase clause.
Hopefully including the justification made people better able to follow the guidelines when they made sense, and more comfortable when they did not.
The clauses don't have anything to do with providing free advice on how to fix things. It's to cooperate with audits, regulators and lawsuits.
Which seems strange, because on common defense against lawsuits is usually "the employees responsible for that no longer work here, and cannot be found".
It almost seems reasonable that the alternative is tht they may have to pay a seven-figure expert witness fee.
Low lifespan variables should have short names. Those short names should repeat. For instance, every time you iterate through an array (single depth) I see no reason not to use the same iterator name.
That's only an admonishment against following bad rules. Thoreau practiced a lot of civil disobedience. Hell, he wrote the seminal work on the subject, a little essay titled "Civil Disobedience."
Or, in the words of his contemporary and mentor:
If a rule is bad, change it. But ignoring it while leaving it on the books is poor form.
That's not the logical conclusion in any way. Rarely is the right decision in governing binary. We don't allow people to own private nukes, and we won't be banning kitchen knives.
Taking 100% of income in taxes would decrease motivation to work hard. So that's bad, for a lot of reasons, like society crumbling.
I mean, FFS, the whole stupid Laffer curve's point is that it makes the government less money. There are a lot things to complain about the (way the) Laffer curve (is discussed), the core insight of "the optimum tax rate is between 0 and 100%" seems pretty universally agreed upon. I mean, hell, even Karl Marx and Ron Paul will agree "In between, but not, 0 or 100% is the right about of taxes".
Citation needed.
There are certain counter-examples, like Medicare and the USPS in the US. Nationalized health care in most of the developed world.
And it covers plenty of things private investment won't, like environmental regulations.
No. The government can spend it on things that help society, but not necessarily the person we took the money from.
It's nonsense, but not for the reason you say. Billionaires want things from other billionaires that can be easy (a seat on a board, their companies to do business) for the other one to perform, and more importantly, will be reciprocated.
Non-billionaires cannot reciprocate with favors.
There are a couple of famous examples of people donating all their wealth and living in trailer parks. Of course, it's usually a deluxe trailer park in Hollywood with million-dollar lots or something.
Nooks with eInk are still available (I was in a B&N this week and saw it on the display). It's not what they put up signs advertising, but they def. have the backlit (togglable) eInk screen version.
He was quad-issue. And he planned never to run for a second term.
Yeah, James K. Polk was a real loser.
He is extremely profitable, moreso than under a fixed plan. Many other users of the plans are less plan are not.
This happens all the time. It's worth it for a candy bar company to sell "sitting on the fence" Pete a bar for half price. But not worth selling just to him to drop their price for everyone by half.
Because he pays "all you can eat" prices every day, and usually just grabs a sandwich.
He's saying he is extremely profitable to them.
Except we have nothing worth coming here for.
Prison rape is homosexual. (Almost exclusively, there are some staffer/inmate issues).
It's not a myth, approximately 2% of inmates in the US are victims.
To your first question, through some error prone process. There's no real way to look into someone's soul.
To your second question, yes. We have to accept some risk of letting people out of jail. Because what if I put "convicted druggie" in there? "Convicted speeders"?
I am far more scared of Facebook. But then again, I actually use Google
No, the fad I remembered is part and parcel with the idea of flattening an organization to get creative solutions. And the employee went to a dedicated point-person for physical plant issues, who then brought it up in a meeting and something happened.
I'm confused what the non holacracy distopia you imagine would be? It seems like this was solved by having a known person to bring issues to.
[citation needed]
This is a huge area of debate in the history, so if there's been research definitively proving it, I'd love to see it. The only things you can usually find are debunked stuff made by racists to justify being racists.
Also, there's a difference between personality and the desire to program computers for a living.
In other news, Google has recently allowed targeted advertisements based on the individual person/e-mail address.
"You as a person" is rarely worth targeting. But there are a lot of scale issues. It's worth targeting for Google, cause they only have to write that code once. And as time goes on, it gets cheaper and more widespread.
That really only works if any previous title is enough of a megahit to give you the money to delay without pissing off the money people. In other words, Valve. I guess Blizzard before the merger.
Other places, missing a shipping deadline or Christmas would (and has) caused studios to get shut down.
It depends on how large the company is. Once you get beyond N people reporting to you, you need another layer of management.
You have 10,000 people working for you, and one layer of middle management, and you are managing 100 people each mananging 100 people. Have 3 layers, and you manage 10, who each manage 10, who each manage 10.