For those whos status would decrease, boo fucking hoo.
So they have no say in how YOU spend THEIR money? That's not democratic, nor is it moral.
Providing services to those who need them will increase the funds available to the private sector. When you give aid to the poor, they spend it. That money goes directly to the bottom line of businesses, allowing them to create jobs. Give aid to the rich like the US does, and they just sit on it.
The problem is government aid is an expense which requires money. National budget money comes from 3 sources:
1) Taxes. There's a big misconception about taxes: people think that these can be raised arbitrarily to raise all the money the government needs. In practice, this doesn't work; businesses close and rich people move their money.
2) Borrowing. This is good for present generations, but bad for future ones, especially considering that borrowing comes with interest.
3) Inflation. Past a certain point, this is universally considered bad (it turns into hyperinflation).
If there isn't enough money from these 3 sources, there's really no other reasonable choice but to limit aid.
Also, let's not forget Obamacare (it wasn't all him, but he was a strong supporter of that).
In general, Democrats are left-wing economically, while Republicans are somewhat right-wing (with their focus on lower taxes and regulation).
The third-biggest party is the Libertarian Party, they're the truly right-wing party in most regards, but almost no one votes for them.
Right, I was talking about federal taxes (and by extension state taxes). The only local taxes I can think of are sales and property, where you do make a good point.
As I also said in a higher post, the companies don't pay much, but employees pay A LOT of taxes (back-of-the-envelope: if you're making 100k/year, about 20k of that goes to the IRS). You're saying they don't get to use the infrastructure they paid for?
The employees are paying their taxes, and many of them actually fall into the highest tax rate (35% on income above a level, don't remember exactly how much). These people pay more than their fair share.
Which is to say, the government will intervene on your behalf and enforce your claim of ownership on some piece of land or a share in the company that you have never even set a foot in. Rescind that recognition and protection, and capitalism dies overnight.
Not necessarily. Individuals can still claim ownership of land or companies, and defend that ownership themselves with guns. Land ownership is natural in any agricultural society (if you work the land, planting seeds and maintaining it, then it makes sense that you own the land), and people defend their property themselves if government doesn't do it for them.
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
They understand science, so want regulation (or lawsuits) against polluters dumping crap in the air, water, and soil.
Most of them don't, STEM isn't too popular these days. A lot of students go to Humanities & Liberal Arts, where they take very few science classes.
Employers mostly want competent Gammas; educators want as many Alphas as possible
Education doesn't turn Gammas into Alphas (that's one of the great fallacies of education, IMHO). A lot of that is genetics (mainly intelligence); schooling a stupid person will not make them intelligent. In most cases, you're only feeding them information, which they absorb without understanding and then apply blindly.
Mention that if they can't do it in a year, they get executed.
And what if they spend that entire year thinking about how to execute you before you get them first?
Second problem: since these are the leading minds and you execute them, the next batch will necessarily be dumber (or at best equal) than the current one.
Depends on what you're checking for.
NaCl restricts applications to a limited memory region and instruction set, with no possibility of interaction with the outside world. NaCl applications have no direct way of violating these restrictions, so there's no need for checks.
On the other hand, both NaCl and JVM have a lot of security checks in the APIs visible to the sandboxed programs, since that's where exploits pop up. If I were an attacker, that's what I would use to break a sandboxed application. I'm not convinced that NaCl is less secure than the JVM in that regard.
The original poster's point was that NaCl is less secure because it runs native code, which I disagree with.
I'm not comparing to the JVM, only to ActiveX.
My opinion is that NaCl, the JVM and current JavaScript engines are about the same security-wise, and much better than ActiveX.
If the intent is the latter, this has a good chance of driving users en masse away from Chrome as Google's security nightmare is probably just beginning.
Except Native Client was designed with security in mind from the beginning, and they take this very seriously.
NaCl enforces some restrictions on the running binary that prevent it from interacting with the rest of the system; ActiveX never really had that.
A while ago, there was a Native Client security contest where they challenged the community to break their sandbox ( https://developers.google.com/native-client/community/security-contest/ ).
You aren't allowed to sell a particular product, big deal. You can't sell unpasteurized milk, leaded gasoline, or fail to disclose your beef lasagna has horsemeat in it in a lot of jurisdictions either and none of those are 'freedom of choice' issues either.
These examples show harmful and/or fraudulents sales (selling beef lasagna with horsemeat in it is definitely fraud). I don't see how buyers are harmed by porn.
But as a practical matter, if the government can regulate who you hire, how you pay for health insurance, whether you wear a seat belt in your car, whether you can smoke inside your building, and a million other things, why not porn?
Those are actually things that many people believe shouldn't be regulated by government (like who you hire, for example).
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhere where they're informed enough to realize authoritarian capitalism isn't any better.
I'd prefer non-authoritarian anything (preferably, non-authoritarian free market capitalism).
For those whos status would decrease, boo fucking hoo.
So they have no say in how YOU spend THEIR money? That's not democratic, nor is it moral.
Providing services to those who need them will increase the funds available to the private sector. When you give aid to the poor, they spend it. That money goes directly to the bottom line of businesses, allowing them to create jobs. Give aid to the rich like the US does, and they just sit on it.
The problem is government aid is an expense which requires money. National budget money comes from 3 sources: 1) Taxes. There's a big misconception about taxes: people think that these can be raised arbitrarily to raise all the money the government needs. In practice, this doesn't work; businesses close and rich people move their money. 2) Borrowing. This is good for present generations, but bad for future ones, especially considering that borrowing comes with interest. 3) Inflation. Past a certain point, this is universally considered bad (it turns into hyperinflation). If there isn't enough money from these 3 sources, there's really no other reasonable choice but to limit aid.
If Obama is right wing to you, who's left wing enough? Lenin? Obama's economic policies have been nothing less than socialist.
Also, let's not forget Obamacare (it wasn't all him, but he was a strong supporter of that). In general, Democrats are left-wing economically, while Republicans are somewhat right-wing (with their focus on lower taxes and regulation). The third-biggest party is the Libertarian Party, they're the truly right-wing party in most regards, but almost no one votes for them.
Economically, Obama is pretty far to the left (with all that "you didn't build that" nonsense and raising taxes on the rich).
Right, I was talking about federal taxes (and by extension state taxes). The only local taxes I can think of are sales and property, where you do make a good point.
In what way is this a reasonable response to what I said?
As I also said in a higher post, the companies don't pay much, but employees pay A LOT of taxes (back-of-the-envelope: if you're making 100k/year, about 20k of that goes to the IRS). You're saying they don't get to use the infrastructure they paid for?
The employees are paying their taxes, and many of them actually fall into the highest tax rate (35% on income above a level, don't remember exactly how much). These people pay more than their fair share.
Which is to say, the government will intervene on your behalf and enforce your claim of ownership on some piece of land or a share in the company that you have never even set a foot in. Rescind that recognition and protection, and capitalism dies overnight.
Not necessarily. Individuals can still claim ownership of land or companies, and defend that ownership themselves with guns. Land ownership is natural in any agricultural society (if you work the land, planting seeds and maintaining it, then it makes sense that you own the land), and people defend their property themselves if government doesn't do it for them.
They understand science, so want regulation (or lawsuits) against polluters dumping crap in the air, water, and soil.
Most of them don't, STEM isn't too popular these days. A lot of students go to Humanities & Liberal Arts, where they take very few science classes.
Employers mostly want competent Gammas; educators want as many Alphas as possible
Education doesn't turn Gammas into Alphas (that's one of the great fallacies of education, IMHO). A lot of that is genetics (mainly intelligence); schooling a stupid person will not make them intelligent. In most cases, you're only feeding them information, which they absorb without understanding and then apply blindly.
Mention that if they can't do it in a year, they get executed.
And what if they spend that entire year thinking about how to execute you before you get them first? Second problem: since these are the leading minds and you execute them, the next batch will necessarily be dumber (or at best equal) than the current one.
Depends on what you're checking for. NaCl restricts applications to a limited memory region and instruction set, with no possibility of interaction with the outside world. NaCl applications have no direct way of violating these restrictions, so there's no need for checks. On the other hand, both NaCl and JVM have a lot of security checks in the APIs visible to the sandboxed programs, since that's where exploits pop up. If I were an attacker, that's what I would use to break a sandboxed application. I'm not convinced that NaCl is less secure than the JVM in that regard.
The original poster's point was that NaCl is less secure because it runs native code, which I disagree with. I'm not comparing to the JVM, only to ActiveX. My opinion is that NaCl, the JVM and current JavaScript engines are about the same security-wise, and much better than ActiveX.
If the intent is the latter, this has a good chance of driving users en masse away from Chrome as Google's security nightmare is probably just beginning.
Except Native Client was designed with security in mind from the beginning, and they take this very seriously. NaCl enforces some restrictions on the running binary that prevent it from interacting with the rest of the system; ActiveX never really had that. A while ago, there was a Native Client security contest where they challenged the community to break their sandbox ( https://developers.google.com/native-client/community/security-contest/ ).
You aren't allowed to sell a particular product, big deal. You can't sell unpasteurized milk, leaded gasoline, or fail to disclose your beef lasagna has horsemeat in it in a lot of jurisdictions either and none of those are 'freedom of choice' issues either.
These examples show harmful and/or fraudulents sales (selling beef lasagna with horsemeat in it is definitely fraud). I don't see how buyers are harmed by porn.
But as a practical matter, if the government can regulate who you hire, how you pay for health insurance, whether you wear a seat belt in your car, whether you can smoke inside your building, and a million other things, why not porn?
Those are actually things that many people believe shouldn't be regulated by government (like who you hire, for example).