I'm curious to know how that kind of setup would handle the development of a product that is destined for a large market. What if someone came up with some fantastical new flying car and wanted to sell it all over the world? It seems that your system would impede that rather severely. Communications could be severely hampered as well if a phone call to a place that was a few area codes away is now several nations away. For that matter how would currency work in such a scenario? This seems to be very counter to the goals of the EU so I presume you would envision each nation-state having their own currency?
They're just a data harvesting company that offers stupid games to people to get them to keep volunteering up data that they then go and sell to the highest bidder. What would you break them up into? The free games can't exist without the revenue from the data harvesting, and people won't keep volunteering up their data for free if they are only looking at text.
I see. Thank you for clarifying your view. Am I correct then in taking it to mean you would favor then completely abolishing the US federal government and breaking the country into a large number (perhaps thousands or more) of small independent nation-states or nation-cities?
I'm not sure how that would work in the current global economy - the closest place I am aware of today that would fit that ideal would probably be Afghanistan where the national government is almost completely absent in many places - but if that is your opinion you are certainly entitled to have it.
When the few control the many, that is a government, even if you call it industry. (...) Industry and government are one and the same, when controlled by the few at the expense of the many, it's collectivism and centralization.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Industry can control government or government can control industry; if you want to insist that the two are the same you can go ahead and do that. Roman in particular would very strongly disagree with you as well (strange that you managed to find perhaps the first thing so far that he and I agree on). You are also in disagreement with pretty much every conservative (and plenty of liberals such as myself) in the USA on the notion of an industry-run government being a form of "collectivism" or "centralization".
Thank you for reminding us that the reply button does not require the person pressing it to actually read what they are replying to. I accept the apology that you are too proud to give. I'm done with you now kid, move along and go waste someone else's time. If you ever care to try to learn how to comprehend written English, we can have a discussion at that time.
I plainly stated my opinion on the matter. The person who replied to me discarded all logic and made a sweeping assumption about me without any regard for what I actually wrote.
You seem to be following a similar course of anti-logic. I will leave you with just one question, why is my opinion worth so much less than his or yours? He rushed to attack me, and you have rushed to his defense.
If there exist people in the world who want to see movies on opening night but will only do so if the rotten tomatoes score falls within certain criteria, then so be it; those people live a very different life than the one I live. Selecting movies based primarily on what RT says about them is a lot like only accepting news that is aggregated for you by google news; you can do it but you're missing out on quite a lot. Similarly there exist methods for getting better relevant info than what is normally served be either.
You're making some huge assumptions there that are not supported by anything I have written. I suggest you go back and try reading what I have written here so far, if you are capable of comprehending it you will realize you have now repeatedly shoved your own foot into your mouth. Are you too proud of yourself to admit to your mistake?
So apparently all of these other people have strange internet service that only allows them to read movie reviews at rotten tomatoes? I can still check my local newspaper for movie reviews, or check any nationally circulated paper as well. Are none of these other people able to find any other sort of news or review aggregation service?
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person on earth who considers opening night for a movie to be a pretty substantial outing. While not a black tie affair I still need to find time to actually go (being as most movies open mid-week that's no small feat) and then I have the cost of the ticket, the cost of any snack or beverage I might buy, the cost of getting to the theater, the cost of finding a sitter, the opportunity cost of other things I could have done at that time... I certainly know before committing whether or not I have any interest in the movie.
I don't often go to movies on opening night, but generally if I'm even considering it I've already decided that I want to see the movie regardless of how critics perceived it. Why would it matter if the rotten tomatoes reviews are up before opening night or not?
If the industry is acting as the government, then they are the government. I don't see why you see that as a boundary.
The difference is whether the industry is controlling the government or the other way around. I don't see why you don't get that. Conservatives champion the former and constantly tell us we are sliding toward the latter (particularly when they don't have the power they have today). If you reduce government to only a small number of pro-industry folks, you have industry controlling the government, without question. That does not equate to centralization in any meaningful way as the government at that point has no meaningful influence on industry and instead is told by industry what it will - and will not - do.
Even if they still pretend to be capitalists, if they're working together and everything is centrally owned, that's centralization.
Except that it is not centrally owned - or at least, not owned by the government. When the companies have enough power to install their favorite goon at the top of government that does not mean that the government is now controlling those companies - in fact it generally means the opposite.
When you reduce the number of people who drive government, that is centralization.
You'll never convince roman (whose comment I replied to in this thread) of that. Nor will you convince any of his fellow paullower cult members. They will continue to campaign for a "government small enough to drown in a bathtub", which of course would be led by their favorite fascist.
Even when government is led by industry.
When government is led by industry, then government control of industry is only a facade. There is no centralization at that point.
... but buying can still be really really cheap. It takes very little time for a movie - especially on DVD - to hit the $10 or even $5 bin now. They've put so many movies into the "impulse buy" category now that it's no surprise a lot of people still buy. On top of that if I want something I can't stream I can often get a copy on DVD through an online seller.
This is why left-handed pitchers are so valuable. Baseball players grow up mostly batting against right-handed pitchers, and the movement of a pitch from a left-handed pitchers is almost the mirror image of what they are used to.
How do you concentrate power into the hands of the few, without the few gaining control over the means of production?
That depends on how strictly or loosely you want to define "control over the means of production". If you attain power by being the preferred leader of all the captains of industry are you automatically controlling the means of production? When government is lead by industry - rather than by working class people - is it inherently controlling production just because the people with the most say in production are the ones also leading government? If you have one dictator making the statements of everything government and the people will do, who is himself taking orders from industry, is he somehow controlling the means of production?
Fascism reduces the number of people who drive government. Those people who survive to be in those roles don't get there by accident.
If you separate his words from his actions though you will see that he was not a collectivist by any meaningful definition of the term. He wrote and spoke about "the people" and "the fatherland" and other such things, but his actions were primarily for his own self-interest. As a true fascist, he consolidated power around him and made himself the supreme decision maker. He openly embraced racism in the same way that a certain leader in the west has done so, while encouraging the belief in the supremacy of his own people in the same way that roman (and his fascist lords) love to do.
What else would you call a movement that advocates for state control over all production?
That is absolutely not a requirement for fascism. The hallmark of fascism is only the extreme concentration of power into the hands of very very few people (which roman happily champions endlessly). A capitalist could lead a fascist society without issue as a captain of industry with unchecked power.
WRONG. Fascists are absolutely not "collectivists" for any reasonable definition of the term. As a fascist yourself who openly worships one of the most outspoken fascists in US history you should know that, Roman.
Save 'em. You have just witnessed roman_mir karma whoring with his sock puppet. Use mod points on comments that actually deserve to be moderated up instead.
To be fair I was taking - perhaps narrowly - the view of spam as being limited to the commercial variety that wants to sell shit. Indeed we know that there are other types of unwanted mail that get categorized as spam (even if they are not attempting to sell any product for money). Those are somewhat a different matter though if they are being propagated through traditional spam channels then the same economic approach could well apply.
The only thing that works is to approach spam as the economic problem that it is. We need to stop pretending that spammers send out spam to piss people off; that is one of the dumbest lies on the internet. Spammers send out spam to make money. If you don't want spam, you need to do something to prevent spammers from getting paid. Cut off their cash flow and they go on to doing other things with their botnets instead.
Or find way to employ the people who create spam such that the creation of said spam is less economically tenable. The idea of targeting them economically is a great idea but instead of doing so in a way which will leave them poorer why not try to employ their creativity in ways which benefit everyone?
That is a noble idea but it requires knowing who the spammers are and getting through to them on some sort of personal level. If you make it so that they cannot pay their bills by creating and sending spam, wouldn't you accomplish a similar end? I don't seek to harm the spammers though I do acknowledge that some of them are pretty awful people, who I probably don't want to associate too closely with.
Perhaps if we could incentivize more beneficial applications of their talents, then we could get there as well. As I stated before, spammers go to spam because it makes money. If they could make money doing something else they would do that.
The spam never changed much, we just put more money and time into pushing it away. Now those efforts are failing in more obvious ways - the ways that those of us who were paying attention knew would happen.
Filtering cannot solve the spam problem, as it only creates a race to the bottom of the signal:noise ratio. Spammers keep working on ways to get around filters by changing how they craft their messages; eventually making it so that more emails that should pass are not - at which point people start to complain that the filters aren't working.
Similarly, law enforcement cannot solve it either unless there is a single set of international laws against it that apply to all people equally regardless of where they or their targets are. Obviously this will never happen. People call for all kinds of terrible things to be done to spammers but not only will that not happen it won't make the situation better as there is a nearly endless supply of spammers out there ready to fill the void.
The only thing that works is to approach spam as the economic problem that it is. We need to stop pretending that spammers send out spam to piss people off; that is one of the dumbest lies on the internet. Spammers send out spam to make money. If you don't want spam, you need to do something to prevent spammers from getting paid. Cut off their cash flow and they go on to doing other things with their botnets instead.
(the time where the 3 Magi had offered the gifts of Gold, Incense and Muir)
The scripture does not specify a number of Magi, it only specifies a number of gifts. It is implied that there were more than one, but how many more is not stated. Could one Magi have brought multiple gifts? Could multiple Magi have brought the same gift?
There are 3 in the nativity, it has to be true. It's right there in the Town Square!
Someone should ask Santa, he was there. On December 24th of the year 1, he delivered the baby Jesus. Then they rode away on the back of a dinosaur I'm told.
(the time where the 3 Magi had offered the gifts of Gold, Incense and Muir)
The scripture does not specify a number of Magi, it only specifies a number of gifts. It is implied that there were more than one, but how many more is not stated. Could one Magi have brought multiple gifts? Could multiple Magi have brought the same gift?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious to know how that kind of setup would handle the development of a product that is destined for a large market. What if someone came up with some fantastical new flying car and wanted to sell it all over the world? It seems that your system would impede that rather severely. Communications could be severely hampered as well if a phone call to a place that was a few area codes away is now several nations away. For that matter how would currency work in such a scenario? This seems to be very counter to the goals of the EU so I presume you would envision each nation-state having their own currency?
They're just a data harvesting company that offers stupid games to people to get them to keep volunteering up data that they then go and sell to the highest bidder. What would you break them up into? The free games can't exist without the revenue from the data harvesting, and people won't keep volunteering up their data for free if they are only looking at text.
I see. Thank you for clarifying your view. Am I correct then in taking it to mean you would favor then completely abolishing the US federal government and breaking the country into a large number (perhaps thousands or more) of small independent nation-states or nation-cities?
I'm not sure how that would work in the current global economy - the closest place I am aware of today that would fit that ideal would probably be Afghanistan where the national government is almost completely absent in many places - but if that is your opinion you are certainly entitled to have it.
When the few control the many, that is a government, even if you call it industry.
(...)
Industry and government are one and the same, when controlled by the few at the expense of the many, it's collectivism and centralization.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Industry can control government or government can control industry; if you want to insist that the two are the same you can go ahead and do that. Roman in particular would very strongly disagree with you as well (strange that you managed to find perhaps the first thing so far that he and I agree on). You are also in disagreement with pretty much every conservative (and plenty of liberals such as myself) in the USA on the notion of an industry-run government being a form of "collectivism" or "centralization".
Thank you for reminding us that the reply button does not require the person pressing it to actually read what they are replying to. I accept the apology that you are too proud to give. I'm done with you now kid, move along and go waste someone else's time. If you ever care to try to learn how to comprehend written English, we can have a discussion at that time.
I plainly stated my opinion on the matter. The person who replied to me discarded all logic and made a sweeping assumption about me without any regard for what I actually wrote.
You seem to be following a similar course of anti-logic. I will leave you with just one question, why is my opinion worth so much less than his or yours? He rushed to attack me, and you have rushed to his defense.
If there exist people in the world who want to see movies on opening night but will only do so if the rotten tomatoes score falls within certain criteria, then so be it; those people live a very different life than the one I live. Selecting movies based primarily on what RT says about them is a lot like only accepting news that is aggregated for you by google news; you can do it but you're missing out on quite a lot. Similarly there exist methods for getting better relevant info than what is normally served be either.
You're making some huge assumptions there that are not supported by anything I have written. I suggest you go back and try reading what I have written here so far, if you are capable of comprehending it you will realize you have now repeatedly shoved your own foot into your mouth. Are you too proud of yourself to admit to your mistake?
So apparently all of these other people have strange internet service that only allows them to read movie reviews at rotten tomatoes? I can still check my local newspaper for movie reviews, or check any nationally circulated paper as well. Are none of these other people able to find any other sort of news or review aggregation service?
... I certainly know before committing whether or not I have any interest in the movie.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person on earth who considers opening night for a movie to be a pretty substantial outing. While not a black tie affair I still need to find time to actually go (being as most movies open mid-week that's no small feat) and then I have the cost of the ticket, the cost of any snack or beverage I might buy, the cost of getting to the theater, the cost of finding a sitter, the opportunity cost of other things I could have done at that time
I don't often go to movies on opening night, but generally if I'm even considering it I've already decided that I want to see the movie regardless of how critics perceived it. Why would it matter if the rotten tomatoes reviews are up before opening night or not?
If the industry is acting as the government, then they are the government. I don't see why you see that as a boundary.
The difference is whether the industry is controlling the government or the other way around. I don't see why you don't get that. Conservatives champion the former and constantly tell us we are sliding toward the latter (particularly when they don't have the power they have today). If you reduce government to only a small number of pro-industry folks, you have industry controlling the government, without question. That does not equate to centralization in any meaningful way as the government at that point has no meaningful influence on industry and instead is told by industry what it will - and will not - do.
Even if they still pretend to be capitalists, if they're working together and everything is centrally owned, that's centralization.
Except that it is not centrally owned - or at least, not owned by the government. When the companies have enough power to install their favorite goon at the top of government that does not mean that the government is now controlling those companies - in fact it generally means the opposite.
When you reduce the number of people who drive government, that is centralization.
You'll never convince roman (whose comment I replied to in this thread) of that. Nor will you convince any of his fellow paullower cult members. They will continue to campaign for a "government small enough to drown in a bathtub", which of course would be led by their favorite fascist.
Even when government is led by industry.
When government is led by industry, then government control of industry is only a facade. There is no centralization at that point.
... but buying can still be really really cheap. It takes very little time for a movie - especially on DVD - to hit the $10 or even $5 bin now. They've put so many movies into the "impulse buy" category now that it's no surprise a lot of people still buy. On top of that if I want something I can't stream I can often get a copy on DVD through an online seller.
This is why left-handed pitchers are so valuable. Baseball players grow up mostly batting against right-handed pitchers, and the movement of a pitch from a left-handed pitchers is almost the mirror image of what they are used to.
How do you concentrate power into the hands of the few, without the few gaining control over the means of production?
That depends on how strictly or loosely you want to define "control over the means of production". If you attain power by being the preferred leader of all the captains of industry are you automatically controlling the means of production? When government is lead by industry - rather than by working class people - is it inherently controlling production just because the people with the most say in production are the ones also leading government? If you have one dictator making the statements of everything government and the people will do, who is himself taking orders from industry, is he somehow controlling the means of production?
Fascism reduces the number of people who drive government. Those people who survive to be in those roles don't get there by accident.
If you separate his words from his actions though you will see that he was not a collectivist by any meaningful definition of the term. He wrote and spoke about "the people" and "the fatherland" and other such things, but his actions were primarily for his own self-interest. As a true fascist, he consolidated power around him and made himself the supreme decision maker. He openly embraced racism in the same way that a certain leader in the west has done so, while encouraging the belief in the supremacy of his own people in the same way that roman (and his fascist lords) love to do.
What else would you call a movement that advocates for state control over all production?
That is absolutely not a requirement for fascism. The hallmark of fascism is only the extreme concentration of power into the hands of very very few people (which roman happily champions endlessly). A capitalist could lead a fascist society without issue as a captain of industry with unchecked power.
fascists are collectivists
WRONG. Fascists are absolutely not "collectivists" for any reasonable definition of the term. As a fascist yourself who openly worships one of the most outspoken fascists in US history you should know that, Roman.
Where are my mod points when I need them :D
Save 'em. You have just witnessed roman_mir karma whoring with his sock puppet. Use mod points on comments that actually deserve to be moderated up instead.
To be fair I was taking - perhaps narrowly - the view of spam as being limited to the commercial variety that wants to sell shit. Indeed we know that there are other types of unwanted mail that get categorized as spam (even if they are not attempting to sell any product for money). Those are somewhat a different matter though if they are being propagated through traditional spam channels then the same economic approach could well apply.
The only thing that works is to approach spam as the economic problem that it is. We need to stop pretending that spammers send out spam to piss people off; that is one of the dumbest lies on the internet. Spammers send out spam to make money. If you don't want spam, you need to do something to prevent spammers from getting paid. Cut off their cash flow and they go on to doing other things with their botnets instead.
Or find way to employ the people who create spam such that the creation of said spam is less economically tenable. The idea of targeting them economically is a great idea but instead of doing so in a way which will leave them poorer why not try to employ their creativity in ways which benefit everyone?
That is a noble idea but it requires knowing who the spammers are and getting through to them on some sort of personal level. If you make it so that they cannot pay their bills by creating and sending spam, wouldn't you accomplish a similar end? I don't seek to harm the spammers though I do acknowledge that some of them are pretty awful people, who I probably don't want to associate too closely with.
Perhaps if we could incentivize more beneficial applications of their talents, then we could get there as well. As I stated before, spammers go to spam because it makes money. If they could make money doing something else they would do that.
The spam never changed much, we just put more money and time into pushing it away. Now those efforts are failing in more obvious ways - the ways that those of us who were paying attention knew would happen.
Filtering cannot solve the spam problem, as it only creates a race to the bottom of the signal:noise ratio. Spammers keep working on ways to get around filters by changing how they craft their messages; eventually making it so that more emails that should pass are not - at which point people start to complain that the filters aren't working.
Similarly, law enforcement cannot solve it either unless there is a single set of international laws against it that apply to all people equally regardless of where they or their targets are. Obviously this will never happen. People call for all kinds of terrible things to be done to spammers but not only will that not happen it won't make the situation better as there is a nearly endless supply of spammers out there ready to fill the void.
The only thing that works is to approach spam as the economic problem that it is. We need to stop pretending that spammers send out spam to piss people off; that is one of the dumbest lies on the internet. Spammers send out spam to make money. If you don't want spam, you need to do something to prevent spammers from getting paid. Cut off their cash flow and they go on to doing other things with their botnets instead.
"Go ahead, that's more for me! My girlfriends think they're great!"
(the time where the 3 Magi had offered the gifts of Gold, Incense and Muir)
The scripture does not specify a number of Magi, it only specifies a number of gifts. It is implied that there were more than one, but how many more is not stated. Could one Magi have brought multiple gifts? Could multiple Magi have brought the same gift?
There are 3 in the nativity, it has to be true. It's right there in the Town Square!
Someone should ask Santa, he was there. On December 24th of the year 1, he delivered the baby Jesus. Then they rode away on the back of a dinosaur I'm told.
(the time where the 3 Magi had offered the gifts of Gold, Incense and Muir)
The scripture does not specify a number of Magi, it only specifies a number of gifts. It is implied that there were more than one, but how many more is not stated. Could one Magi have brought multiple gifts? Could multiple Magi have brought the same gift?
Slashdot readers are highly opinionated jerks.
Oh, wait. That's not what you were asking? Well you suck.