You first - Hitler was hard-left and we all saw how that turned out.
I got modded down for that. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry - there are way too many people who do not know what the National Socialist German Workers' Party is. After all, it's not like there's a clue in the name, after all.
No, most of it wasn't true. Some of it may have been true, from a certain point of view.
Everything is true from a suitably chosen point of view. If you waffle when asked for evidence, then you don't really have an argument - you're just trying to justify your position in spite of having no evidence.
It was asymmetric. Looking in one sides dirty laundry hamper and not the others isn't an unbiased exercise.
That doesn't make the side you're looking at "clean", you know.
Besides, you're claiming that because no evidence has been displayed of the other sides dirty laundry, the other side must have even dirtier laundry than the laundry we're looking at from yours side.
Basically, you're claiming that a lack of evidence is evidence itself. That's a stupid position to take.
[...] there are some weeks I swear all you ever do is repeat yourself).
That's the Slashdot effect.
That's not what the slashdot effect is. Read this wikipedia entry about the slashdot effect. No need to spend time on it, there will not be a test later:-)
Noticed how some stories are posted repeatedly the same or next day?
Yeah, that's the editors and they've been duping since as long as I've been reading this site. Why do you dupe your comments. Other than the obvious trolls (GNAA posts, Grub pretending to be Dr Bob, The apps luddite guy, the cow poster, etc), no one else gives a summary of their employment (mis)fortunes on a daily basis.
The reason I'm asking is because I'm starting to suspect that you're a highly advanced chatbot. Your response doesn't allay my suspicions either: you picked a seemingly random on-topic phrase (slashdot effect) that you appear to know nothing about, other than the fact that it is not out of context in this discussion.
A chatbot "talks" much the same way you are doing so - move the conversation over to a known database of stock responses ("bankrupt", "govt. contractor", etc) and when challenged toss in a random not-out-of-context-nor-in-context response ("slashdot effect").
Thing is, I know what the slashdot effect is, having been a participant from at least 1999. A chatbot doesn't care what the phrase means as long as it fits the context.
Regardless of whether you're a chatbot or a human, I'm willing to bet you're not self-aware enough to realise that you're stuck in a conversation loop, endless repeating yourself with no awareness of the fact that your audience has already heard you give the same speech multiple times.
Self-awareness, whether in a human mind or a silicon one, is the single most important indicator of real sentience. I'm curious to see if you can meet that hurdle; are you self-aware enough to not repeat your employment history in part or in full for the next 6 months?
Dammit man - I was wrong - you did mention one of those things: in a comment to this story.
Everything in that comment was relevant to the discussion at hand.
I didn't accuse you of being irrelevant or off-topic, I accused you of repeating yourself (considerably - there are some weeks I swear all you ever do is repeat yourself).
The real one mentions one of the above points in every single story.
That's because the topic being discussed isn't IT-related.
Dammit man - I was wrong - you did mention one of those things: in a comment to this story.
Maybe next story comes up you can avoid repeating yourself? Make it a personal goal:-)
No one is taking anything away from you, I am simply proposing a tax on wealth-generating assets.
No you didn't, you proposed taxing property at a high-enough rate to take it away.
What on earth could "Want to keep owning expensive shit? Make an effort." mean other than "You won't keep owning it unless you continue paying"?
Current property taxes are so low most landlords don't even notice - the tenant gets billed for it with the rent. You proposed a tax high-enough to take away the property.
All those failed states with redistribution programs? They call it a fair tax.
Well, if your developed modern western democratically-run country adopts the major policies of Zimbabwe, then it's an apples to apples comparison.
If you only look at an extremely simplified model, as in your Econ 101 handbook, then sure. Your overly simplified model holds up, because you've removed every factor that could change the result away from your prediction.
How about another example, this one a developed, modern western democracy - South Africa.
Don't make me laugh.
You're deliberately ignoring a million different factors, from cultural differences, to geography, to neighboring countries, to even the damn weather. And you're doing this to make your overly simplified model work, because you're wildly prejudiced against any other viewpoint than your own.
That's not true - just about every successful state enforces private property ownership laws. In theory, your idea to deny private ownership of property works best.In practice I see no examples of successful economies in which private possession of property is denied.
Do you actually have an example of a state that succeeded while denying private ownership of property? I'm sure some tiny island somewhere does this, but I'd hardly count tiny islands as examples of successful states.
And again, apparently the situation in a sub-saharan country in Africa, with one of the lowest average life expectancy, run by Mugabe (a shitheel dictator by any measure) and ravaged by civil unrest, is a perfect analog for a developed, modern western democratically-run country?
Well, if your developed modern western democratically-run country adopts the major policies of Zimbabwe, then it's an apples to apples comparison. OP came out and clearly said loopholes to private ownership would be closed. What do you think they call that in Africa? They call it "democracy", where the majority of voters are living on handouts, and thus vote themselves more handouts each election, even as it chases away value-producers.
How about another example, this one a developed, modern western democracy - South Africa. Look at their currency and/or investor confidence since their democratically-elected leader promised to redistribute private property.
You're looking at this exactly the wrong way round: it's a case of nationalisation policies causing civil unrest, not civil unrest causing nationalisation policies.
There is state that disallows private ownership which is a success. If a state cannot guarantee private ownership, then no body with any sense wants to put their money into it. Instead, they pull out all of their money as soon as they can.
In that case, I'd change my vote from "against UBI" to "For UBI". You see, to people today who already have decent house, cars, boat and other property, we'd use UBI to simply stop working. We, some of the most experienced and skilled workers, already have all the materialistic shit a person could want.
A reasonably-sized property tax will take care of that little "loophole". Want to keep owning expensive shit? Make an effort.
That worked well in Zimbabwe, didn't it?
Because Zimbabwe is exactly the same as a developed, post-scarcity western nation, right?
Read up on it. They were a post-scarcity nation as far as food goes. They had more food than they knew what to do with. They were called "The bread basket of Africa" for a reason, you know.
After doing what essentially amounted to landgrabs ("You have too much money/property/things, we are going to redistribute so it's all more equal") they are reduced to begging for food handouts.
If a government starts grabbing private property like the OP suggested, it would certainly take of care the "loophole" of having a functioning economy.
Considering that the current healthcare bill in Congress is nothing more than a tax break repeal to pave the way for more tax breaks for the wealthy, the Democrats will quite certainly fix that once they get back in power.
You forgot to mention one of the following in your post, which you bring up in every slashdot story you comment on:
You worked as a videogame tester (same/diff/bought out company).
You got laid off
You were bankrupt
You manage {multiple thousands} of desktops
You're a programmer
You're teaching yourself to program
You're a govt. contractor
Therefore, I must conclude that you're not the real creimer. The real one mentions one of the above points in every single story.
In that case, I'd change my vote from "against UBI" to "For UBI". You see, to people today who already have decent house, cars, boat and other property, we'd use UBI to simply stop working. We, some of the most experienced and skilled workers, already have all the materialistic shit a person could want.
A reasonably-sized property tax will take care of that little "loophole". Want to keep owning expensive shit? Make an effort.
For example, I'd probably not have gotten a job after graduating
Why? Do you want to live in a 224sqft apartment, scraping together the cost of food on a strict budget, with minimal amenities and little spending money available ever?
In that case, I'd change my vote from "against UBI" to "For UBI". You see, to people today who already have decent house, cars, boat and other property, we'd use UBI to simply stop working. We, some of the most experienced and skilled workers, already have all the materialistic shit a person could want.
So, yeah, the kids leaving school who do not want to work will live in the shared apartment with no privacy. OTOH, I will get the same income as they do and live much better. Besides, I already have property that they will rent from me, so I'd be getting both their UBI (partial) as well as my UBI.
I do not think that this was well-thought out - what will happen in this scheme is a sudden gap in the employment market that young folk can't fill and us older folk won't because we don't have to work anymore.
On x86 this can be a chore as it needs to be done in assembly. Arm is a little easier with ISR declarations if you use the correct compiler extensions.
Your inability to acknowledge that anyone could hold a valid opinion that doesn't agree with yours makes you evil. Regardless of the evilness of thought police, you are still evil.
Of course they can hold a valid opinion - that doesn't necessary mean that all opinions are valid.
(Hang on, do you actually think that all opinions are valid?)
I did not say that compelled speech is prohibited. I said compelled speech is evil.
A state that force its citizens to divulge their thoughts on threat of punishment is evil. Citizens who support punishing those who refuse to reveal their thoughts are similarly evil.
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to find a history book.
You first - Hitler was hard-left and we all saw how that turned out.
I got modded down for that. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry - there are way too many people who do not know what the National Socialist German Workers' Party is. After all, it's not like there's a clue in the name, after all.
You mean true information, right?
No, most of it wasn't true. Some of it may have been true, from a certain point of view.
Everything is true from a suitably chosen point of view. If you waffle when asked for evidence, then you don't really have an argument - you're just trying to justify your position in spite of having no evidence.
It was asymmetric. Looking in one sides dirty laundry hamper and not the others isn't an unbiased exercise.
That doesn't make the side you're looking at "clean", you know.
Besides, you're claiming that because no evidence has been displayed of the other sides dirty laundry, the other side must have even dirtier laundry than the laundry we're looking at from yours side.
Basically, you're claiming that a lack of evidence is evidence itself. That's a stupid position to take.
You might want to find a history book.
You first - Hitler was hard-left and we all saw how that turned out.
[...] there are some weeks I swear all you ever do is repeat yourself).
That's the Slashdot effect.
That's not what the slashdot effect is. Read this wikipedia entry about the slashdot effect. No need to spend time on it, there will not be a test later :-)
Noticed how some stories are posted repeatedly the same or next day?
Yeah, that's the editors and they've been duping since as long as I've been reading this site. Why do you dupe your comments. Other than the obvious trolls (GNAA posts, Grub pretending to be Dr Bob, The apps luddite guy, the cow poster, etc), no one else gives a summary of their employment (mis)fortunes on a daily basis.
The reason I'm asking is because I'm starting to suspect that you're a highly advanced chatbot. Your response doesn't allay my suspicions either: you picked a seemingly random on-topic phrase (slashdot effect) that you appear to know nothing about, other than the fact that it is not out of context in this discussion.
A chatbot "talks" much the same way you are doing so - move the conversation over to a known database of stock responses ("bankrupt", "govt. contractor", etc) and when challenged toss in a random not-out-of-context-nor-in-context response ("slashdot effect").
Thing is, I know what the slashdot effect is, having been a participant from at least 1999. A chatbot doesn't care what the phrase means as long as it fits the context.
Regardless of whether you're a chatbot or a human, I'm willing to bet you're not self-aware enough to realise that you're stuck in a conversation loop, endless repeating yourself with no awareness of the fact that your audience has already heard you give the same speech multiple times.
Self-awareness, whether in a human mind or a silicon one, is the single most important indicator of real sentience. I'm curious to see if you can meet that hurdle; are you self-aware enough to not repeat your employment history in part or in full for the next 6 months?
Dammit man - I was wrong - you did mention one of those things: in a comment to this story.
Everything in that comment was relevant to the discussion at hand.
I didn't accuse you of being irrelevant or off-topic, I accused you of repeating yourself (considerably - there are some weeks I swear all you ever do is repeat yourself).
The real one mentions one of the above points in every single story.
That's because the topic being discussed isn't IT-related.
Dammit man - I was wrong - you did mention one of those things: in a comment to this story. Maybe next story comes up you can avoid repeating yourself? Make it a personal goal :-)
The real one mentions one of the above points in every single story.
That's because the topic being discussed isn't IT-related.
I'm curious about why you always mention those things. You have no other IT-related items of information to add to an IT discussion?
No one is taking anything away from you, I am simply proposing a tax on wealth-generating assets.
No you didn't, you proposed taxing property at a high-enough rate to take it away.
What on earth could "Want to keep owning expensive shit? Make an effort." mean other than "You won't keep owning it unless you continue paying"?
Current property taxes are so low most landlords don't even notice - the tenant gets billed for it with the rent. You proposed a tax high-enough to take away the property.
All those failed states with redistribution programs? They call it a fair tax.
I have never once advocated for denying private ownership of property. Stop strawmanning.
I said (and you quoted bloody quoted it!)
We, some of the most experienced and skilled workers, already have all the materialistic shit a person could want.
You replied with
Want to keep owning expensive shit? Make an effort.
Taking away shit I already own, free and clear is the very thing we've been arguing about.
Well, if your developed modern western democratically-run country adopts the major policies of Zimbabwe, then it's an apples to apples comparison.
If you only look at an extremely simplified model, as in your Econ 101 handbook, then sure. Your overly simplified model holds up, because you've removed every factor that could change the result away from your prediction.
How about another example, this one a developed, modern western democracy - South Africa.
Don't make me laugh.
You're deliberately ignoring a million different factors, from cultural differences, to geography, to neighboring countries, to even the damn weather. And you're doing this to make your overly simplified model work, because you're wildly prejudiced against any other viewpoint than your own.
That's not true - just about every successful state enforces private property ownership laws. In theory, your idea to deny private ownership of property works best.In practice I see no examples of successful economies in which private possession of property is denied.
Do you actually have an example of a state that succeeded while denying private ownership of property? I'm sure some tiny island somewhere does this, but I'd hardly count tiny islands as examples of successful states.
And again, apparently the situation in a sub-saharan country in Africa, with one of the lowest average life expectancy, run by Mugabe (a shitheel dictator by any measure) and ravaged by civil unrest, is a perfect analog for a developed, modern western democratically-run country?
Well, if your developed modern western democratically-run country adopts the major policies of Zimbabwe, then it's an apples to apples comparison. OP came out and clearly said loopholes to private ownership would be closed. What do you think they call that in Africa? They call it "democracy", where the majority of voters are living on handouts, and thus vote themselves more handouts each election, even as it chases away value-producers.
How about another example, this one a developed, modern western democracy - South Africa. Look at their currency and/or investor confidence since their democratically-elected leader promised to redistribute private property.
You're looking at this exactly the wrong way round: it's a case of nationalisation policies causing civil unrest, not civil unrest causing nationalisation policies.
There is state that disallows private ownership which is a success. If a state cannot guarantee private ownership, then no body with any sense wants to put their money into it. Instead, they pull out all of their money as soon as they can.
So they had a corrupt government, and the country failed? Quelle surprise!
So they "liberated" private property, and the country failed. Qulle surprise!
In that case, I'd change my vote from "against UBI" to "For UBI". You see, to people today who already have decent house, cars, boat and other property, we'd use UBI to simply stop working. We, some of the most experienced and skilled workers, already have all the materialistic shit a person could want.
A reasonably-sized property tax will take care of that little "loophole". Want to keep owning expensive shit? Make an effort.
That worked well in Zimbabwe, didn't it?
Because Zimbabwe is exactly the same as a developed, post-scarcity western nation, right?
Read up on it. They were a post-scarcity nation as far as food goes. They had more food than they knew what to do with. They were called "The bread basket of Africa" for a reason, you know.
After doing what essentially amounted to landgrabs ("You have too much money/property/things, we are going to redistribute so it's all more equal") they are reduced to begging for food handouts.
If a government starts grabbing private property like the OP suggested, it would certainly take of care the "loophole" of having a functioning economy.
My code rately compiles correctly on the first attempt.
I believe you :-)
(FWIW, neither does mine)
Considering that the current healthcare bill in Congress is nothing more than a tax break repeal to pave the way for more tax breaks for the wealthy, the Democrats will quite certainly fix that once they get back in power.
You forgot to mention one of the following in your post, which you bring up in every slashdot story you comment on:
You worked as a videogame tester (same/diff/bought out company).
You got laid off
You were bankrupt
You manage {multiple thousands} of desktops
You're a programmer
You're teaching yourself to program
You're a govt. contractor
Therefore, I must conclude that you're not the real creimer. The real one mentions one of the above points in every single story.
In that case, I'd change my vote from "against UBI" to "For UBI". You see, to people today who already have decent house, cars, boat and other property, we'd use UBI to simply stop working. We, some of the most experienced and skilled workers, already have all the materialistic shit a person could want.
A reasonably-sized property tax will take care of that little "loophole". Want to keep owning expensive shit? Make an effort.
That worked well in Zimbabwe, didn't it?
For example, I'd probably not have gotten a job after graduating
Why? Do you want to live in a 224sqft apartment, scraping together the cost of food on a strict budget, with minimal amenities and little spending money available ever?
In that case, I'd change my vote from "against UBI" to "For UBI". You see, to people today who already have decent house, cars, boat and other property, we'd use UBI to simply stop working. We, some of the most experienced and skilled workers, already have all the materialistic shit a person could want.
So, yeah, the kids leaving school who do not want to work will live in the shared apartment with no privacy. OTOH, I will get the same income as they do and live much better. Besides, I already have property that they will rent from me, so I'd be getting both their UBI (partial) as well as my UBI.
I do not think that this was well-thought out - what will happen in this scheme is a sudden gap in the employment market that young folk can't fill and us older folk won't because we don't have to work anymore.
He has NOT achieved more than I have. I have two amazing daughters. Call me back when he's produced something that's sentient and we'll talk.
"Producing" offspring is an ability possessed by even the dumbest of sentient animals. I wouldn't be proud of meeting that bar if I was you.
Look at it this way - you're being proud of something that most people can literally do in their sleep.
On x86 this can be a chore as it needs to be done in assembly. Arm is a little easier with ISR declarations if you use the correct compiler extensions.
Your inability to acknowledge that anyone could hold a valid opinion that doesn't agree with yours makes you evil. Regardless of the evilness of thought police, you are still evil.
Of course they can hold a valid opinion - that doesn't necessary mean that all opinions are valid.
(Hang on, do you actually think that all opinions are valid?)
Citizens who [don't agree with me] are similarly evil.
Close enough.
Most people agree that supporting evil things makes one evil. Get over it.
The only line to be drawn is where evil begins.
So everyone who doesn't think like you is evil.
I didn't say that. I said that supporting the punishment of people who refuse to reveal private thoughts is evil.
Well, tough it out, snowflake. Just because you've been triggered is no reason to squelch free speech.
I presume you're addressing Donald Trump here, considering he's again been pushing the idea of suing the press.
Suing the press is freedom of speech, ya moron.
Compelled speech is not prohibited.
I did not say that compelled speech is prohibited. I said compelled speech is evil.
A state that force its citizens to divulge their thoughts on threat of punishment is evil. Citizens who support punishing those who refuse to reveal their thoughts are similarly evil.