I was under the impression that incomes across the board have risen.
In absolute numbers on currency.. sure because of inflation. But in purchasing power or equivalent bushels of corn or something, no. In fact, it's been declining at the low end for a while.
It's probably the other departments' inferior results instead of a money saving solution.
And reducing the deficit a microgram would we worthless. First, literally, a microgram of US currency at the highest distributed denomination is literally a rounding error from a rounding error from penny. But more importantly, the government can and should buy useful things.
The NSA has a couple of departments. One wants to secure computers. The other to break in. Thankfully, because they are different fiefdoms, we can get actual information on how to secure things from that one group.
And yeah, the NSA can access pretty much any information it wants on me already. Why would it even want to waste it's time looking at my computer. They know more about me than my computer does.
Redistributing wealth arbitrarily is distinct from socialism/communism in what way?
On the off chance that you were serious: What you are calling "redistributing wealth" is accomplished via a government program, and can be funded by taxes. Taxes are paid by people in a capitalist system... in fact, taxes are often an alternative to socialism/communism. In communism, there is no private property with which to pay taxes. In socialism, the government owns, and makes money via running/renting the means of production. Therefore, redistribution is in no way tied intrinsically to communism any more than it is intrinsically tied to capitalism.
The industrial revolution is being eaten alive by the information revolution
What does this even mean? I've heard strange things like this before, but it always seems to really mean "hey, there are computers involved now!" If feels like the economic analytic equivalent of a patent of "doing something... on the Internet!"
I know that was his political goal. I want to know why he doesn't favor making the current richest guy dictator (or the richest oligarchs) in total control of all means of production. You know, Soviet-style control.
Because that seems to be what the actual solution he would actually arrive at if he were to try to solve the problem as he stated it.
. I've yet to see a (radically different) proposal for a process for choosing who chooses who the best-and-brightest are better then the feedback-driven system we have today.
Well, if we're using evidence, the US federal government's green energy startup fund was really good at their job. Yeah, Solyndra failed, but it was the only large failure. And dozens others succeeded. That's a ratio that most private sector investors could not match.
Demand does not create wealth. Production does. A beggar has unlimited demand for every material good, but nothing he can trade for them.
You claim production generates wealth. That's probably a good simplification. You also claim that a beggar has little impact on the economy. Sure, again, it's a good simplification that ignores charity and such.
I take issue you claiming the beggar has unlimited demand. He doesn't. In fact, since as you point out, he has a nominal amount to spend on anything. He actually has unlimited wants, but almost no demand ability.
Note that you focused on production, not supply. Production is determined (in an efficient economy) by the meeting of supply and demand. So, if there is an abundance of unused supply, there's every reason to believe that.raising demand will raise production.
Never heard of luxury goods? Like $17K watches?
If not, you have no business critiquing economic systems.
We're talking about robots being more efficient at producing goods in mass, and you think that demand for luxury goods is going to drive the market? And then getting snippy about it?
the total income made in the US by people making more than $250K a year isn't that much as a percentage of total US income
Well, the top 1% (380k+) make 20% of income... and that doesn't count unrealized asset appreciation.
Technological improvement comes fastest with those proven at making good investment decisions are the ones who get to make investment decisions.
Assertion. Also would that mean that you favor a command economy (ala Soviet-style top-down economic control?) as long as we were good at identifying and promoting the right people?
Sure, but around 900Mhz is, inaddition to amatuer and ISM also "private land mobile" certified, which means that the manufacturer could be licensed to produce devices that transmit in that range for a variety of things. The proxyham seems to use this radio module
But I admit I know very little about radio waves in general, in licensing, or in practice. I did know not the expect 6 sig-figs on the range though. But yeah, I assumed 900MHz at least id'd which licensed block of freqs it fell within... like 2.4GHz implies it falls in a specific subset.
That is truly an excellent argument from definition, or something. While it's true that as enshrined free speech means from government interference, it in no was precludes expanding the definition.
I certainly think it's reasonable to force free speech like rules on Google, Facebook and such.. including Reddit.
This builds a good case that (a) no NSL or gag order was given, (b) the hardware used is commodity, and therefore the actual build is a matter of tinkering, not invention, and (c) the build is legal* with regard to radio frequency encryption and the computer fraud and abuse act
I understand that this company has no desire to go to Mars. But clearly, they've looked at the costs of launching things into orbit, and the cost of perfecting things, and it's better to overlaunch for redundancy than have redundant systems onboard. If launches are cheap enough then they can just try to launch supplies to the IIS and have it blow up on the launch pad three times.
Although space is not monolithic, people hired for a Mars shot are going to be hired from the "space" industry/education. If we delay a few generations (as seems likely) before manned missions to Mars, I worry about ossified conventional wisdom that says we have to accept 75% losses of people. Especially if that means they don't try hard enough to save lives. And especially if that means we never get off this rock.
So, reading this the one thing that I get above all else is their plan is to accept a very high failure rate and make up for it with more units sent to space. I wonder if this approaching being economically viable is a good thing or not for space exploration. Are more companies that have high acceptable losses going to lead to a general prevalence in the industry. Which might mean that, like secure software, hardware capable of getting men to Mars might be considered "unachievable".
I'd rather Flash (which is at least partially open-sourced and at least theoretically sandboxed) be used by Hulu then a proprietary binary that does who knows what on my system.
I love Flash. It isolates all the annoyingness. Why I would want that to be part of some open standard instead is a mystery to me. I mean, is there an HTML5 compliant browser that only lets whitelisted stuff through? I have similar issues with javascript being an all-or-nothing (at least on a domain-by-domain level) experience.
Large corporations are still using browsers that do not support HTML5, due to long cycles between updates. For that very reason, a client recently asked that our project be coded in Flash as opposed to HTML5.
Also, as a concept, I'd much rather all the code be captured in a couple of components that can fail without bringing down the whole page to a site that literally cannot render anything unless I allow it to run arbitrary (hopefully sandboxed) code on my computer.
German people are not interested in donating (and lets be clear, this is a donation, not a loan) more money to the Greeks standing with their hands out.
They should donate money to Greece. Greece has a lot of geopolticial importance and serves as a stopgap in a lot of ways. Their larger than normal military expenditures allow Germany to have lower than normal military expenditures.
Good luck exporting to the nations to whom refuse you to repay your billions in loans, you halfwitted marxist pig.
Like Germany has trouble exporting to Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy and, by the by, Greece? Like Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Italy and Belgium have trouble exporting to the US? And Argentina, in spite of defaulting on a ton of loans exports quite a lot.
Historically, the world does not work the way you suggest.
But keep implying those who you disagree with are those who value ideology over facts.
People aren't "deadbeats" or "not deadbeats". There are plenty of reasons to extend money to those who have defaulted on their loans... mostly, the only important question is "are they likely to pay the new loan back?"
Prior defaults are a point of information, but not the only one. Someone who borrows money to open a dry cleaners, only to have a natural disaster wipe out the surrounding area so no-one wants clothes cleaned anymore will go out of business and default. But if there are valid reasons to think that the cause is unlikely to reoccur, why wouldn't you want to loan them money again?
Slashdot Mirror
In absolute numbers on currency.. sure because of inflation. But in purchasing power or equivalent bushels of corn or something, no. In fact, it's been declining at the low end for a while.
Good. If the end goal of economic growth isn't universal unemployment, what the hell is it?
It's probably the other departments' inferior results instead of a money saving solution.
And reducing the deficit a microgram would we worthless. First, literally, a microgram of US currency at the highest distributed denomination is literally a rounding error from a rounding error from penny. But more importantly, the government can and should buy useful things.
The NSA has a couple of departments. One wants to secure computers. The other to break in. Thankfully, because they are different fiefdoms, we can get actual information on how to secure things from that one group.
And yeah, the NSA can access pretty much any information it wants on me already. Why would it even want to waste it's time looking at my computer. They know more about me than my computer does.
in the US we call that the Atlanta and Pacific oceans.
On the off chance that you were serious: What you are calling "redistributing wealth" is accomplished via a government program, and can be funded by taxes. Taxes are paid by people in a capitalist system... in fact, taxes are often an alternative to socialism/communism. In communism, there is no private property with which to pay taxes. In socialism, the government owns, and makes money via running/renting the means of production. Therefore, redistribution is in no way tied intrinsically to communism any more than it is intrinsically tied to capitalism.
What does this even mean? I've heard strange things like this before, but it always seems to really mean "hey, there are computers involved now!" If feels like the economic analytic equivalent of a patent of "doing something... on the Internet!"
I know that was his political goal. I want to know why he doesn't favor making the current richest guy dictator (or the richest oligarchs) in total control of all means of production. You know, Soviet-style control.
Because that seems to be what the actual solution he would actually arrive at if he were to try to solve the problem as he stated it.
Well, if we're using evidence, the US federal government's green energy startup fund was really good at their job. Yeah, Solyndra failed, but it was the only large failure. And dozens others succeeded. That's a ratio that most private sector investors could not match.
You claim production generates wealth. That's probably a good simplification. You also claim that a beggar has little impact on the economy. Sure, again, it's a good simplification that ignores charity and such.
I take issue you claiming the beggar has unlimited demand. He doesn't. In fact, since as you point out, he has a nominal amount to spend on anything. He actually has unlimited wants, but almost no demand ability.
Note that you focused on production, not supply. Production is determined (in an efficient economy) by the meeting of supply and demand. So, if there is an abundance of unused supply, there's every reason to believe that.raising demand will raise production.
We're talking about robots being more efficient at producing goods in mass, and you think that demand for luxury goods is going to drive the market? And then getting snippy about it?
Like in 2008?
Well, the top 1% (380k+) make 20% of income... and that doesn't count unrealized asset appreciation.
Assertion. Also would that mean that you favor a command economy (ala Soviet-style top-down economic control?) as long as we were good at identifying and promoting the right people?
Sure, but around 900Mhz is, inaddition to amatuer and ISM also "private land mobile" certified, which means that the manufacturer could be licensed to produce devices that transmit in that range for a variety of things. The proxyham seems to use this radio module
But I admit I know very little about radio waves in general, in licensing, or in practice. I did know not the expect 6 sig-figs on the range though. But yeah, I assumed 900MHz at least id'd which licensed block of freqs it fell within... like 2.4GHz implies it falls in a specific subset.
That is truly an excellent argument from definition, or something. While it's true that as enshrined free speech means from government interference, it in no was precludes expanding the definition.
I certainly think it's reasonable to force free speech like rules on Google, Facebook and such.. including Reddit.
Yeah, I get that the name implies it operates at ham frequencies. However, the articles all say 900 Mhz.
This builds a good case that (a) no NSL or gag order was given, (b) the hardware used is commodity, and therefore the actual build is a matter of tinkering, not invention, and (c) the build is legal* with regard to radio frequency encryption and the computer fraud and abuse act
*Read the article for more nuance.
I understand that this company has no desire to go to Mars. But clearly, they've looked at the costs of launching things into orbit, and the cost of perfecting things, and it's better to overlaunch for redundancy than have redundant systems onboard. If launches are cheap enough then they can just try to launch supplies to the IIS and have it blow up on the launch pad three times.
Although space is not monolithic, people hired for a Mars shot are going to be hired from the "space" industry/education. If we delay a few generations (as seems likely) before manned missions to Mars, I worry about ossified conventional wisdom that says we have to accept 75% losses of people. Especially if that means they don't try hard enough to save lives. And especially if that means we never get off this rock.
So, reading this the one thing that I get above all else is their plan is to accept a very high failure rate and make up for it with more units sent to space. I wonder if this approaching being economically viable is a good thing or not for space exploration. Are more companies that have high acceptable losses going to lead to a general prevalence in the industry. Which might mean that, like secure software, hardware capable of getting men to Mars might be considered "unachievable".
I'd rather Flash (which is at least partially open-sourced and at least theoretically sandboxed) be used by Hulu then a proprietary binary that does who knows what on my system.
Hear hear
I love Flash. It isolates all the annoyingness. Why I would want that to be part of some open standard instead is a mystery to me. I mean, is there an HTML5 compliant browser that only lets whitelisted stuff through? I have similar issues with javascript being an all-or-nothing (at least on a domain-by-domain level) experience.
Large corporations are still using browsers that do not support HTML5, due to long cycles between updates. For that very reason, a client recently asked that our project be coded in Flash as opposed to HTML5.
Also, as a concept, I'd much rather all the code be captured in a couple of components that can fail without bringing down the whole page to a site that literally cannot render anything unless I allow it to run arbitrary (hopefully sandboxed) code on my computer.
They should donate money to Greece. Greece has a lot of geopolticial importance and serves as a stopgap in a lot of ways. Their larger than normal military expenditures allow Germany to have lower than normal military expenditures.
Like Germany has trouble exporting to Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy and, by the by, Greece? Like Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Italy and Belgium have trouble exporting to the US? And Argentina, in spite of defaulting on a ton of loans exports quite a lot.
Historically, the world does not work the way you suggest.
But keep implying those who you disagree with are those who value ideology over facts.
Oh, true. Screwed up on the "Herbert" part. I guess that serves me right for not thinking and trusting too much!
Nonsense. You think a fan would have let that "We used some similar words to the Wrath of Khan, so it's totally okay" movie go out?
People aren't "deadbeats" or "not deadbeats". There are plenty of reasons to extend money to those who have defaulted on their loans... mostly, the only important question is "are they likely to pay the new loan back?"
Prior defaults are a point of information, but not the only one. Someone who borrows money to open a dry cleaners, only to have a natural disaster wipe out the surrounding area so no-one wants clothes cleaned anymore will go out of business and default. But if there are valid reasons to think that the cause is unlikely to reoccur, why wouldn't you want to loan them money again?