Hillary was actually a grizzled hardass compared to Trump, who is an impulsive lolcow who runs on preteen boy emotions. Admittedly this may result in more aggression, but aggression is usually not smart.
Oh wow your cherry-picked alternative facts from a tinfoil hat video answer everything. I'll just disregard all the best historical evidence we've had until now in favor of this lunatic nonsense!
What happened to that phrase? Some offensive asshole sharted it out and then everyone promptly and rightly forgot about it because it was stupid as all hell.
If you disagree, I would like you to note that both you and your crackwhore mother suck diseased cocks for pennies, and that any offense you took to this sentence is entirely your fault, probably because you're just sensitive;-)
So, you believe that all the physical, photographic, and first-hand evidence was faked? The gas chambers, the mass graves, the photos and videos of the huge piles of bodies etc were all fabricated evidence? All the people who witnessed this - victims, perpetrators, and third parties - are all actors? Where does this end, how deep does it go?
Denying that the holocaust ever happened is far worse than using the fact that it did happen in an argument ever could be. You've become worse than what you hate in an attempt to defeat it. You've also become an unwitting traitor to your cause - nothing de-legitimizes pro-Palestinian arguments more than links to holocaust denial.
Strongly favor, no. We've been through that. No 3rd-world construction worker is wealthier than any pampered corporate heir (who spends a lot of time whining about taxes). Slightly favor among a multitude of other factors, sure. But that means precisely dick.
Yet, within any given background and level of education, those who work hard do better than those who make excuses.
So all else being equal, working hard is better than not working hard. So what? In a feudal society the hard-working lords did better than the slacker lords, that doesn't make feudalism OK.
Further, to make a change-in-kind to your earning potential, though education or training while also supporting yourself, pretty much requires busting your ass.
Perhaps, but also a lot of luck. Maybe busting your ass and a lot of luck. Sounds a lot like the first argument. Hard work is generally rewarded over slacking (again, ignoring all other factors), therefore it's all a big happy meritocracy, yaaaay!
It's not guaranteed, but that's life.
Yes life is full of horrific unfairness, that is nature's default state. We should work to fix it instead of accepting it. Right now the horrific unfairness is directly wronging the vast majority of the planet's population. That is very far from a guarantee indeed.
Horseshit. The correlation is quite weak and the causation is virtually non-existent. Otherwise we wouldn't see parental income predicting a child's future income. We would see a lot of very rich construction workers - and you wouldn't see silicon valley workers taking extended vacations and lounging about in office play rooms.
Do you believe somewhere between a minivan-full and two double-decker-buses full of people are more productive, combined, than half the world's population?
The dice are fucking rigged and only those who have it rigged in their favor want us to believe they aren't. This "neutral" system brings evil results every single time it's given a chance to do so. It's time to call it what it is according to its actions - an evil system.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
I thought I was clicking on something in the Explorer window accidentally to make that window show up. But I tried following the instructions in TFS and the setting that should let me turn it off isn't there.
Oh I'm sure they've re-compiled the OS and everything that comes with it (where necessary) for ARM, the trouble comes when you go to install any closed source 3rd-party software on it.
My home server has a script that monitors each drive for these and shows a warning when I log in if any values are out of line. You'll rarely get a SMART error so bad that it triggers a general health warning before a drive fails, you have to watch the stats.
Another good one to watch on some drives is the Raw Read Error Rate - on some drives this normally stays at zero and if it climbs above zero, it means a failure is coming. On other drives the value harmlessly racks up over time and it means nothing. The same script writes a report that notes this for each drive, so if I see one that I know normally stays at zero climbing, I know to watch out.
It kind of is. Think about if you had a car priced at 52% of the median income--that's $54,000 of income in 2015, so a $28,000 car. In 1950, such a car priced at 52% of the 1950 median income didn't come with an FM radio, air conditioning, independent suspension, high-performance disc brakes, fuel injectors, anti-lock brakes, or the like. Today, a $28,000 car comes with all of those things, plus electronic stability control, plus bluetooth radio, multi-CD changers, USB to read and play MP3s, rear-view camera, lane tracking, cruise control, and a satellite navigation system.
Do you think you're getting all that shit for free?
Actually yes. That stuff is "free" because it takes less labour to produce due to technological advancements, that's why they're cheaper even though they're better. The cost of technological advancement was sunk and paid for decades ago as very much accountable R&D costs. The entire concept of "hidden value" in an item is ridiculous and flies in the face of all economic theory. It would mean somebody is giving away labor out of the goodness of their hearts to produce the item.
Water cleanliness actually is valuable. In your argument, however, the dictator is running an inefficient economy and has hobbled growth: these people should also be living with better access to food, information, electricity, and healthcare, but aren't. In developed economies, clean water, information technology, electricity, and healthcare have all advanced, and we pay for these things--we pay less for these things than they would have cost decades ago, as a proportion of our income, and they are thus widely-available to us now.
No, we pay roughly the same for better versions of these things. You're talking about "hidden value" again. The economy says that it doesn't exist because it's not reflected in the price, but you're saying that people should accept this value that the economy says is imaginary in lieu of pay.
Yes. Take the prior level of technology and quantify how many labor-hours (cost) are required to provide clean water; then take the current level of technology and quantify same. Take the difference. Likewise, take the prior cost of water acquisition at all, and compare the cost to acquire water excluding the new efforts involved in cleaning it; the difference there is the reduction in cost of the water itself, and the cost of cleaning is then added on top of that.
Let's say, as with technology, that the labor-hours are the same, the material costs are about the same, and therefore the stated cost of the item is the same but thanks to technological improvements the product is better - it only makes you shit your guts out once a decade instead of once a year. Where is this hidden value represented other than in the imagination of the apologist? There's no more labor going into it, no more material cost. no higher purchase price. It's not economically accounted for anywhere.
Let's work this backwards. Could a person restore their income by abstaining from technological improvements made since the '70s when the hidden value apparently started to kick in? A very basic car is close in features to one from the late '60s would cost about $8k (like those sold in India, it wouldn't be street-legal but follow along) vs. an average car at say $22k. A smartphone costs say $300 on average, Let's say the average person has 3 other computers at a cost of about $1200 total. Let's say they use an old black-and-white TV without cable they got for $50, saving $450 on TV and $1200 a year. Even if a person bought all of those things every single year (highly unlikely), abstaining from them would not bring their income in line with productivity.
Also the rich would also benefit from "hidden value," which would mean that the rest of us are struggling to afford property and raise families just to make them astronomically hyperwealthy through both economically accountable and "hidden value." Can you imagine how much it would've cost to build a modern megayacht or supercar or private jet in the '60s? Under the "hidden value" theory the level of inequality is even more morally repugnant. The fantasy doesn't even work to defend it.
My education was in IT, you know, those tech jobs that are supposedly in demand. But that doesn't matter, after all the best predictor of a person's income is their father's income, because this ugly fucking evil system is just a cover for perpetuating wealth and poverty throughout the generations.
I call this the "hidden value in technology" argument and it's bullshit, but thank you for explaining it so eloquently and at length. It contends that people who are not earning more in dollars are richer because their technology is better, but that improvement isn't reflected in the price of the technology somehow? What sense does that make? It's just an attempt to disguise stagnant or shrinking incomes for the 99% by saying that the one thing that hasn't become worse in their lives is secretly worth lots of money. Horseshit, value is reflected in price.
Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say in some little backwater country there's a dictator who rules with an iron fist and has enriched himself by impoverishing the population, BUT he has given the people access to very clean water. He argues that there is hidden value in the clean water and they are all actually richer than ever before. How is the "hidden value in water cleanliness" argument different from the "hidden value in technology" argument? Since the hidden value can't be quantified, is it even possible to calculate how much "richer" the people are for having clean water?
But casting it as a doom and gloom scenario where 1% control all the wealth and the rest of the population is jobless and lives on a starvation diet is simply unrealistic. Long before that happens, a free poor people would create a black market doing jobs for and trading with each other using an alternate currency, essentially invalidating the non-material wealth of the 1%.
This seems plausible, but I'd hate to see what conditions must be reached for this to happen, considering that any amount of inequality observed so far in history (AFAIK) has been insufficient. It hasn't saved any of today's hyper-unequal hellholes. It didn't happen in time to prevent the French Revolution. Who's to say it would kick in before the 1% decides they can get away with unleashing killbots to exterminate the bothersome 99%?
Slashdot Mirror
Hillary was actually a grizzled hardass compared to Trump, who is an impulsive lolcow who runs on preteen boy emotions. Admittedly this may result in more aggression, but aggression is usually not smart.
Oh wow your cherry-picked alternative facts from a tinfoil hat video answer everything. I'll just disregard all the best historical evidence we've had until now in favor of this lunatic nonsense!
(seek help)
What happened to that phrase? Some offensive asshole sharted it out and then everyone promptly and rightly forgot about it because it was stupid as all hell.
If you disagree, I would like you to note that both you and your crackwhore mother suck diseased cocks for pennies, and that any offense you took to this sentence is entirely your fault, probably because you're just sensitive ;-)
So, you believe that all the physical, photographic, and first-hand evidence was faked? The gas chambers, the mass graves, the photos and videos of the huge piles of bodies etc were all fabricated evidence? All the people who witnessed this - victims, perpetrators, and third parties - are all actors? Where does this end, how deep does it go?
Denying that the holocaust ever happened is far worse than using the fact that it did happen in an argument ever could be. You've become worse than what you hate in an attempt to defeat it. You've also become an unwitting traitor to your cause - nothing de-legitimizes pro-Palestinian arguments more than links to holocaust denial.
Strongly favor, no. We've been through that. No 3rd-world construction worker is wealthier than any pampered corporate heir (who spends a lot of time whining about taxes). Slightly favor among a multitude of other factors, sure. But that means precisely dick.
Yet, within any given background and level of education, those who work hard do better than those who make excuses.
So all else being equal, working hard is better than not working hard. So what? In a feudal society the hard-working lords did better than the slacker lords, that doesn't make feudalism OK.
Further, to make a change-in-kind to your earning potential, though education or training while also supporting yourself, pretty much requires busting your ass.
Perhaps, but also a lot of luck. Maybe busting your ass and a lot of luck. Sounds a lot like the first argument. Hard work is generally rewarded over slacking (again, ignoring all other factors), therefore it's all a big happy meritocracy, yaaaay!
It's not guaranteed, but that's life.
Yes life is full of horrific unfairness, that is nature's default state. We should work to fix it instead of accepting it. Right now the horrific unfairness is directly wronging the vast majority of the planet's population. That is very far from a guarantee indeed.
Horseshit. The correlation is quite weak and the causation is virtually non-existent. Otherwise we wouldn't see parental income predicting a child's future income. We would see a lot of very rich construction workers - and you wouldn't see silicon valley workers taking extended vacations and lounging about in office play rooms.
Do you believe somewhere between a minivan-full and two double-decker-buses full of people are more productive, combined, than half the world's population?
The dice are fucking rigged and only those who have it rigged in their favor want us to believe they aren't. This "neutral" system brings evil results every single time it's given a chance to do so. It's time to call it what it is according to its actions - an evil system.
Those people simply want a safe space for the successful, where their survivorship bias can thrive unchallenged.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
[Tab closed]
Prepare to be boarded, lilly-livered DRM-lubbers!
I wonder if China will use a flag with structural colors.
I thought I was clicking on something in the Explorer window accidentally to make that window show up. But I tried following the instructions in TFS and the setting that should let me turn it off isn't there.
Oh I'm sure they've re-compiled the OS and everything that comes with it (where necessary) for ARM, the trouble comes when you go to install any closed source 3rd-party software on it.
Enjoy the CPU overhead of emulating x86 programs on an ARM CPU!
My home server has a script that monitors each drive for these and shows a warning when I log in if any values are out of line. You'll rarely get a SMART error so bad that it triggers a general health warning before a drive fails, you have to watch the stats.
Another good one to watch on some drives is the Raw Read Error Rate - on some drives this normally stays at zero and if it climbs above zero, it means a failure is coming. On other drives the value harmlessly racks up over time and it means nothing. The same script writes a report that notes this for each drive, so if I see one that I know normally stays at zero climbing, I know to watch out.
My first thought was ZFS, if it makes you feel better :-P although I don't use it myself, it's just overkill for what I need.
+1. In a sane world led by grown-ups, this is what we would do. Maybe there's still hope, the EU or China could take the lead.
For a while Chevron DID sit on a patent that would've allowed cheaper and longer-ranged EVs at the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Turn on a news channel (or Twitter) to hear Trump rant about how evil and unacceptable email hacks are any second now.
It kind of is. Think about if you had a car priced at 52% of the median income--that's $54,000 of income in 2015, so a $28,000 car. In 1950, such a car priced at 52% of the 1950 median income didn't come with an FM radio, air conditioning, independent suspension, high-performance disc brakes, fuel injectors, anti-lock brakes, or the like. Today, a $28,000 car comes with all of those things, plus electronic stability control, plus bluetooth radio, multi-CD changers, USB to read and play MP3s, rear-view camera, lane tracking, cruise control, and a satellite navigation system.
Do you think you're getting all that shit for free?
Actually yes. That stuff is "free" because it takes less labour to produce due to technological advancements, that's why they're cheaper even though they're better. The cost of technological advancement was sunk and paid for decades ago as very much accountable R&D costs. The entire concept of "hidden value" in an item is ridiculous and flies in the face of all economic theory. It would mean somebody is giving away labor out of the goodness of their hearts to produce the item.
Water cleanliness actually is valuable. In your argument, however, the dictator is running an inefficient economy and has hobbled growth: these people should also be living with better access to food, information, electricity, and healthcare, but aren't. In developed economies, clean water, information technology, electricity, and healthcare have all advanced, and we pay for these things--we pay less for these things than they would have cost decades ago, as a proportion of our income, and they are thus widely-available to us now.
No, we pay roughly the same for better versions of these things. You're talking about "hidden value" again. The economy says that it doesn't exist because it's not reflected in the price, but you're saying that people should accept this value that the economy says is imaginary in lieu of pay.
Yes. Take the prior level of technology and quantify how many labor-hours (cost) are required to provide clean water; then take the current level of technology and quantify same. Take the difference. Likewise, take the prior cost of water acquisition at all, and compare the cost to acquire water excluding the new efforts involved in cleaning it; the difference there is the reduction in cost of the water itself, and the cost of cleaning is then added on top of that.
Let's say, as with technology, that the labor-hours are the same, the material costs are about the same, and therefore the stated cost of the item is the same but thanks to technological improvements the product is better - it only makes you shit your guts out once a decade instead of once a year. Where is this hidden value represented other than in the imagination of the apologist? There's no more labor going into it, no more material cost. no higher purchase price. It's not economically accounted for anywhere.
Let's work this backwards. Could a person restore their income by abstaining from technological improvements made since the '70s when the hidden value apparently started to kick in? A very basic car is close in features to one from the late '60s would cost about $8k (like those sold in India, it wouldn't be street-legal but follow along) vs. an average car at say $22k. A smartphone costs say $300 on average, Let's say the average person has 3 other computers at a cost of about $1200 total. Let's say they use an old black-and-white TV without cable they got for $50, saving $450 on TV and $1200 a year. Even if a person bought all of those things every single year (highly unlikely), abstaining from them would not bring their income in line with productivity.
Also the rich would also benefit from "hidden value," which would mean that the rest of us are struggling to afford property and raise families just to make them astronomically hyperwealthy through both economically accountable and "hidden value." Can you imagine how much it would've cost to build a modern megayacht or supercar or private jet in the '60s? Under the "hidden value" theory the level of inequality is even more morally repugnant. The fantasy doesn't even work to defend it.
My education was in IT, you know, those tech jobs that are supposedly in demand. But that doesn't matter, after all the best predictor of a person's income is their father's income, because this ugly fucking evil system is just a cover for perpetuating wealth and poverty throughout the generations.
I call this the "hidden value in technology" argument and it's bullshit, but thank you for explaining it so eloquently and at length. It contends that people who are not earning more in dollars are richer because their technology is better, but that improvement isn't reflected in the price of the technology somehow? What sense does that make? It's just an attempt to disguise stagnant or shrinking incomes for the 99% by saying that the one thing that hasn't become worse in their lives is secretly worth lots of money. Horseshit, value is reflected in price.
Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say in some little backwater country there's a dictator who rules with an iron fist and has enriched himself by impoverishing the population, BUT he has given the people access to very clean water. He argues that there is hidden value in the clean water and they are all actually richer than ever before. How is the "hidden value in water cleanliness" argument different from the "hidden value in technology" argument? Since the hidden value can't be quantified, is it even possible to calculate how much "richer" the people are for having clean water?
But casting it as a doom and gloom scenario where 1% control all the wealth and the rest of the population is jobless and lives on a starvation diet is simply unrealistic. Long before that happens, a free poor people would create a black market doing jobs for and trading with each other using an alternate currency, essentially invalidating the non-material wealth of the 1%.
This seems plausible, but I'd hate to see what conditions must be reached for this to happen, considering that any amount of inequality observed so far in history (AFAIK) has been insufficient. It hasn't saved any of today's hyper-unequal hellholes. It didn't happen in time to prevent the French Revolution. Who's to say it would kick in before the 1% decides they can get away with unleashing killbots to exterminate the bothersome 99%?
Along with a number of Nickelodeon TV shows!
Welcome to capitalism: monarchy rebranded.