No it doesn't, because government doesn't need to be the least bit efficient or effective. Private companies are expected to be both. They often do poorly but manage much better than government.
There is also the issue of scale. Anything you attempt on a continent wide level is likely to be pants. Europe doesn't try to do social welfare on that scale. Yet Americans think it's a good idea.
The market provides incentives not just to provide what's already been invented, but to invent new things that may still be considered heresy in some parts of Western Europe.
Greedy bastards are useful. They create and sell things that would not be available if you had to depend on central management. Altruism also only goes so far when you have to spend nearly the entire natural human lifespan training for your profession.
Letting government bean counters run healthcare has it's own problems.
From an "IT perspective", if you bought a fancy brand name product then the only people that CAN help you with it is the vendor. Otherwise you run the risk of voiding the warranty on your very expensive toy.
Also, you don't need to build a "custom" system yourself. You never have. Not since the old days of Computer Shopper.
On the other hand, if you aren't building from scratch it's good to know what you're buying.
Some basic computer literacy and basic sense of organization (which has nothing to do with tech) are both very useful. That way you can easily back up your precious stuff with a single drag+drop operation. No "special tools" and no "cloud" required.
A little knowledge is just self-defense against a whole world of people that want to take advantage of you in some way.
You can protect yourself against a hostile world or pretend that the world will magically change to be safer for you. The latter mentality handicaps people in all sorts of ways (not just computing).
As a "luxury vendor" they could operate their own factories that they have full control over in some 1st world country an they would still make obscene margins.
I've been using Macs since they made vomit noises when they ejected your floppy disk.
And yes, Apple is some sort of exception. They go out of their way to be stupid. They refuse to "play well with others" or "see the big picture". They assume that they are off in their own little universe and that they don't have to deal with anyone else or risk stepping on their toes.
They do their best to lower the bar in terms of end user expectations and pathetic Mac users actually put up with it.
THAT is the real difference... excusing this amateur hour nonsense.
> Representing the legal profession's interests much?
Ambulance chasers are the only reason you have ANY legal representation. Despite their many flaws, they defend the little guy from the 1%. Otherwise, they would be free to turn you into Soylent.
You travel when you have money and are healthy. You can do this in your 20s,30s, and 40s if you actually value travel and have the balls to go on vacation.
Debt is not required either. You just have to make suitable choices. If you are an American worker, you have those options.
> That's America. Promote he opinions of the rich simply because they're rich.
That and pretty much every other home owner in the country.
There is nothing remotely remarkable about his opinions. The only thing remarkable about the situation is that he is well paid. He might not even be a member of the 1%. Proles are very bad about how to make those distinctions.
I can WALK to the nearest grocery store and I live in a "bedroom community" outer ring suburb. You are trying to sell a false narrative. There is no great conspiracy to keep merchants and customers separated from each other.
Contrary to the current liberal narrative, upward mobility is quite possible. Some of us have engaged in this specifically to GET AWAY from the crap you clearly can't relate to.
These people are scofflaws and should be treated as such and get no sympathy from anyone. Also I find it highly ironic that the people most eager to defend them are communist wannabes.
Western European socialism comes with crippling regulations that would make these people even bigger criminals. it has even less tolerance for marginal individual merchants.
Vitamins cannot be digested without fat. Also, fats themselves are necessary for biological function.
Your attempt to frame this as a "matter of taste" won't distract from the fact that attempts to "engineer" food usually run into the problems of human hubris and our incomplete knowledge.
This is also by no means the war of extremes you're trying to paint it as.
Cows still beat beans. Soy products only compete with dairy products because they're fortified. You're basically sneaking a pill into the food as if you were trying to dose a pet.
If I were not lactose intolerant, I would not bother with soy milk.
Like anything else, you want to stay away from the overhyped nonsense. Since vegetarianism is a current fad, I would expect it to be unnecessarily expensive when compared to sensible omnivorism. Things like Kale aren't cheap. The produce sections of places like Whole Foods can drain your whole wallet.
Even if you are eating the low stress free range stuff, it's still likely cheaper than many of the other things that a prissy vegan would end up needing to buy.
A "plant based diet" is far more bothersome than they will admit to.
Goats aren't even any part of the whole "feedlot system". Cows on the other hand are perfectly content to graze on what just grows out of the ground by itself. That's kind of their natural condition. That's how beef became prominent to begin with.
Even "feedlot cattle" are only finished on a feedlot.
They can also eat the stalks and cobs an any other part of plants that are entirely inedible to humans. They can eat what would otherwise be wasted by humans.
Yeah. The 90s saw a wider field of alternatives WIPED OUT by Microsoft.
Many of these were better AND cheaper than DOS PCs.
Apple already had a well established mature GUI with more modern underlying hardware support and it was STILL always on deathwatch until Steve Jobs came back.
"Normal people" buy their machines ready to go. They don't try to put them together like Legos. "Normal people" don't buy aftermarket operating systems or upgrades. If they think they need a new OS, they just buy another machine.
Linux gets judged based on an enthusiast use case and Windows is based on the novice consumer use case. Linux is judged on the worst possible outcome and people pretend that Windows always provides the best possible outcome.
Head to head in the same enthusiast use case, Linux is head and shoulders above Windows.
Based purely on the quality of Windows and the needs of the typical user, Macs should have at least 33% market share.
Windows networking is a tricky thing. Your average user finds it just as incomprehensible as Unix networking. There are all sorts of things that can bugger it. Desired features may be disabled by other software (like av and firewalls) or simply turned off.
You can try to claim that it's all happy happy shiny shiny but anyone that's ever actually used Windows knows better.
Slashdot Mirror
Sanders is a self-identified communist. He isn't even a Democrat. He's just trying to run as one.
> doesn't it make more sense
No it doesn't, because government doesn't need to be the least bit efficient or effective. Private companies are expected to be both. They often do poorly but manage much better than government.
There is also the issue of scale. Anything you attempt on a continent wide level is likely to be pants. Europe doesn't try to do social welfare on that scale. Yet Americans think it's a good idea.
The market provides incentives not just to provide what's already been invented, but to invent new things that may still be considered heresy in some parts of Western Europe.
Greedy bastards are useful. They create and sell things that would not be available if you had to depend on central management. Altruism also only goes so far when you have to spend nearly the entire natural human lifespan training for your profession.
Letting government bean counters run healthcare has it's own problems.
Not engaging in blatant racial discrimination is nothing like intentionally writing bad loans because you have no skin in the game.
From an "IT perspective", if you bought a fancy brand name product then the only people that CAN help you with it is the vendor. Otherwise you run the risk of voiding the warranty on your very expensive toy.
Also, you don't need to build a "custom" system yourself. You never have. Not since the old days of Computer Shopper.
On the other hand, if you aren't building from scratch it's good to know what you're buying.
Some basic computer literacy and basic sense of organization (which has nothing to do with tech) are both very useful. That way you can easily back up your precious stuff with a single drag+drop operation. No "special tools" and no "cloud" required.
A little knowledge is just self-defense against a whole world of people that want to take advantage of you in some way.
You can protect yourself against a hostile world or pretend that the world will magically change to be safer for you. The latter mentality handicaps people in all sorts of ways (not just computing).
As a "luxury vendor" they could operate their own factories that they have full control over in some 1st world country an they would still make obscene margins.
I've been using Macs since they made vomit noises when they ejected your floppy disk.
And yes, Apple is some sort of exception. They go out of their way to be stupid. They refuse to "play well with others" or "see the big picture". They assume that they are off in their own little universe and that they don't have to deal with anyone else or risk stepping on their toes.
They do their best to lower the bar in terms of end user expectations and pathetic Mac users actually put up with it.
THAT is the real difference... excusing this amateur hour nonsense.
> Representing the legal profession's interests much?
Ambulance chasers are the only reason you have ANY legal representation. Despite their many flaws, they defend the little guy from the 1%. Otherwise, they would be free to turn you into Soylent.
Nope. It's my travels abroad that make me less subseptable to this Bernie Breshnev bullshit and the whole fetish of trying to emulate Europe.
Been there. Done that. No thanks.
Battery hen lives? That sounds more like a French or German apartment. They have time off but no money to spend on that vacation.
Our first "Harvard man" was John Adams.
The jealousy and butthurt are strong in you.
It's still the same problem.
If one finds high school to be stressful, perhaps an over-hyped
university is not for you, Princess.
Nope.
You travel when you have money and are healthy. You can do this in your 20s,30s, and 40s if you actually value travel and have the balls to go on vacation.
Debt is not required either. You just have to make suitable choices. If you are an American worker, you have those options.
> That's America. Promote he opinions of the rich simply because they're rich.
That and pretty much every other home owner in the country.
There is nothing remotely remarkable about his opinions. The only thing remarkable about the situation is that he is well paid. He might not even be a member of the 1%. Proles are very bad about how to make those distinctions.
I can WALK to the nearest grocery store and I live in a "bedroom community" outer ring suburb. You are trying to sell a false narrative. There is no great conspiracy to keep merchants and customers separated from each other.
Contrary to the current liberal narrative, upward mobility is quite possible. Some of us have engaged in this specifically to GET AWAY from the crap you clearly can't relate to.
These people are scofflaws and should be treated as such and get no sympathy from anyone. Also I find it highly ironic that the people most eager to defend them are communist wannabes.
Western European socialism comes with crippling regulations that would make these people even bigger criminals. it has even less tolerance for marginal individual merchants.
I'm surprised they don't just play the cancer card at that point. Your vegans must have a poor understanding of Darwinism.
Vitamins cannot be digested without fat. Also, fats themselves are necessary for biological function.
Your attempt to frame this as a "matter of taste" won't distract from the fact that attempts to "engineer" food usually run into the problems of human hubris and our incomplete knowledge.
This is also by no means the war of extremes you're trying to paint it as.
Cows still beat beans. Soy products only compete with dairy products because they're fortified. You're basically sneaking a pill into the food as if you were trying to dose a pet.
If I were not lactose intolerant, I would not bother with soy milk.
This is only a surprise to people that have given up on self-reliance and no longer cook for themselves.
Like anything else, you want to stay away from the overhyped nonsense. Since vegetarianism is a current fad, I would expect it to be unnecessarily expensive when compared to sensible omnivorism. Things like Kale aren't cheap. The produce sections of places like Whole Foods can drain your whole wallet.
Even if you are eating the low stress free range stuff, it's still likely cheaper than many of the other things that a prissy vegan would end up needing to buy.
A "plant based diet" is far more bothersome than they will admit to.
Have you ever actually seen cows in your life?
Goats aren't even any part of the whole "feedlot system". Cows on the other hand are perfectly content to graze on what just grows out of the ground by itself. That's kind of their natural condition. That's how beef became prominent to begin with.
Even "feedlot cattle" are only finished on a feedlot.
They can also eat the stalks and cobs an any other part of plants that are entirely inedible to humans. They can eat what would otherwise be wasted by humans.
They really can live off of a "plant based diet".
Humans not so much...
> Did you miss the 1990's and 2000's?
Yeah. The 90s saw a wider field of alternatives WIPED OUT by Microsoft.
Many of these were better AND cheaper than DOS PCs.
Apple already had a well established mature GUI with more modern underlying hardware support and it was STILL always on deathwatch until Steve Jobs came back.
"Normal people" buy their machines ready to go. They don't try to put them together like Legos. "Normal people" don't buy aftermarket operating systems or upgrades. If they think they need a new OS, they just buy another machine.
Linux gets judged based on an enthusiast use case and Windows is based on the novice consumer use case. Linux is judged on the worst possible outcome and people pretend that Windows always provides the best possible outcome.
Head to head in the same enthusiast use case, Linux is head and shoulders above Windows.
Based purely on the quality of Windows and the needs of the typical user, Macs should have at least 33% market share.
> Yes yes it's always the fault of the user.
Windows networking is a tricky thing. Your average user finds it just as incomprehensible as Unix networking. There are all sorts of things that can bugger it. Desired features may be disabled by other software (like av and firewalls) or simply turned off.
You can try to claim that it's all happy happy shiny shiny but anyone that's ever actually used Windows knows better.