That's true but a bit redundant - nobody has ever, in all of history, tried to make a law to prevent somebody from causing a positive externality (though, there are moves - especially online by copyright corporations to try and make laws to force you to pay for benefiting from their positive externalities, that would be just as bad as NOT preventing negative ones).
Your fantasy would still not be appropriate even if it was true. If you need the kid to talk the last thing you should do is torture him. Torture will not make him talk, it will make him lie and it will affirm his bad views so certainly that he will grow up to be a suicide bomber or worse.
The LF codebase has nothing older than the kernel which is 24 years old. But they do have contributions from far more than 1300 developers in that codebase.
I know that "socialized systems" is a meaningless term and has nothing to do with socialism either.
Check a dictionary. Socialism is defined as a system of economics where the workers own the means of production.
That's the ENTIRE definition, within Marxist philosophy it gets a rider attached - which basically comes down to "not good enough".
But that, broad, definition is all of it. Please note that NOWHERE in the definition of socialism does the word "state" or "government" occur, it has nothing to do with them. And thus you get, for example, anarchist forms of socialism which has no government - yet make perfect logical sense (and, unlike libertarianism, an anarcho-socialist industrialized society HAS in fact existed, Andalusia in the early 20th century was exactly that).
So the following things which are commonly called "Socialist" in the USA are clearly NOT in fact socialist: public libraries, welfare states and entitlements, government services, the civil service and beaurocracies, taxation, universal healthcare -even Canadian style, big government or authoritarianism.
None of those things bear any resemblance to the definition of socialism -and neither does any significant European country today.
Now here are some things which *are* in fact socialist - and which no American would ever call that: cab drivers who own their cabs, that worker-owned, democratically managed robotics factory in Texas (coincidentally - the largest robotics factory in the USA). Co-ops, Mutual Funds, Fair Deal coffee suppliers, lawyers and doctors with their own practice, most plumbers, most electricians - in fact absolutely every one-man-business, and every partnership too (at least, until they hire staff - but if they make the staff partners then they are back to being socialist).
It rather affects your perspective on things, when you use words to mean what they ACTUALLY mean don't you ? This is also why I say that, as much as I respect Sanders he is decidedly NOT a socialist, his policies are not in any way intended to make more businesses be owned by workers and no other policies except ONLY such policies can fairly be called "socialist" policies. And I know the man is smart enough to know that, so I presume that in calling himself a socialist he is, in fact, actively trolling the American people and their inability to open dictionaries and swallow propaganda even when that propaganda completely redefines words. To quote Sir Terry Pratchett: If you want to find snakes, look for them behind the words that have changed their meanings.
Allowing politicians to define your terms for you is basically ASKING to get deceived.
>I think that it was just a business decision that anyone in the same position would have made. That was my assessment as well - right up until the moment she bragged about it, and bragged about what it was used for. I'm not so concerned with what she did, I am very justifiably concerned with how she feels about it now.
>Great for confirming your wrong information, if you're into that sort of thing, I guess For the party of guns AND god ? That's basically their entire goal in life isn't it ?
Actually... it's more like guaranteed-lie serum. Many people will tell you that torture does not yield good intel - that people will say ANYTHING if they think it will make you stop, but studies have actually found more than that - the one thing it absolutely guarantees they will NOT tell you is the truth. When being tortured for information - that information becomes their single most valuable thing, they will cling to it for dear life and never, ever reveal it - because they always fear that tomorrow may be worse, and tomorrow they may need it more. It is saved for a rainy day, and the harder it rains - the more they save it out of fear that tomorrow it will rain even worse.
How about because she bought compaq despite every industry expert telling her that is was an insane move ? How about because she figured the best way to up the stock price was to fire all the great (but expensive) engineers, which, to be fair, did make the next quarterly earnings report look fantastic because she was selling all those awesome things they designed and not having to pay them - but then discovered (to her apparent shock) that you can't keep selling the same things for every and without good engineers it's really hard to design a good next generation of products and it's ESPECIALLY hard to maintain profitability when you have only shitty products to sell.
The fundamental flaw Fiorina made at HP is one many a CEO has made at many an American company - she confused the wage bill with an expense, instead of realizing it's her single most important profit-generating asset. Lay-offs can only ever cost you more than it saves.
Oh there is a difference all right, but the difference is not in the deal. The difference is that SHE chose to BRAG about it now, as if it's something to be proud off -and while bragging she chose to defend the practices it was used for.
If you think the socialism Bernie Sanders supports was not EXACTLY what your Founding Fathers ACTUALLY had in mind, you don't know jack shit about your founding fathers. Practically every policy proposal Bernie Sanders has on anything economics related can be found in Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith - who basically wrote the textbook for the founding father's economic ideas.
It's only in America that his ideas would be deemed "socialist" anyway, every else on earth it would be center-left welfare state capitalism.
What did you expect from him ? He's following in Daddy's footsteps with the greatest political scam ever invented: getting elected to serve on a government where literally the only thing you EVER do is give long speeches about how the government shouldn't be allowed to do anything. Think about that... you' get employed by the people, then spend all your time convincing the people that they should never ever allow you t do your job. It's brilliant... and sad.
And in the latest polls Sanders is only 9 points behind her (though, in fairness, he drops lower if you ask people what they would do if Biden ran).
It's early days yet, but do not count him out of the nomination. If he gets it though, he could even win - that would boost the republican chances though because he dares use the term "socialist" (why does the media always leave out the word that goes before that which is "democratic" or the fact that his actual policies really are not socialist, they do however meet that weird definition of "socialist" which American use and which literally doesn't have a single thing in common with socialism whatsoever), if the reps don't choose their candidate perfectly though - it's in the bag. Sanders would trounce either Trump or Fiorina, and probably any religious-right candidate with ease. Rubio would be a stretch, Rand Paul would be a very close-run thing.
>the democrats suck like the republicans. they simply suck slightly less
I would put it a little harsher... the democrats a horrible center-right corrupt politicians, nobody should vote for them under any delusions that they even remotely resemble a good party. You should vote for them because the alternative is fucking batshit insane !
You're assuming that "become CEO" is an achievement. Invented a polio vaccine and refused to patent it - now THAT is an achievement. Found the Higgs Boson - that's an achievement. Found a proof for Fermatt's last theorem, there's a real achievement.
Those are the kinds of things those with STEM degrees set out to do in their lives, of course, not all of them get something quite that famous but they all play instrumental roles in the processes that lead to those, and the ones who do the famous things are all from among them.
Becoming a CEO even of a company like HP just requires a sufficiently brutal and blustery persona - all you have to do is convince one single room full of people that you can make them money, just once... Bernie Madoff convincing dozens of smart people, dozens of times, of the exact same thing - had a much bigger achievement.
Now becoming CEO of an ailing company - turning it around and making new, awesome products while saving thousands of jobs - THAT can be an achievement. But becoming CEO of a highly successful company and running it INTO the ground so somebody else has to come and do that, that's decidedly not an achievement... in fact it is, what's the word... oh yes, the exact OPPOSITE of an achievement.
Now to what extent her degree may or may not played a role I don't want to comment on, my own was in English Lit but I first taught myself to code at age 7 and have been self-taught in my primary career my entire life (and today I'm a very senior software engineer for a pretty major company, my work involves legally confidential customer information so I'm not allowed to say which one but I CAN tell you my previous job was an engineer for Oracle - which I quite because I couldn't ethically live with their business practices). I agree, what you do with your life is far more important than what schooling or degree you took - I took a degree in something I found fun because I already knew more about my chosen career than a graduate program teaches and wanted to learn something new, not just pay for a sheet of paper, what you're wrong about is to think that what Fiorina has done with hers is admirable or remotely counts as an "achievement".
If anything, she's an insult to everybody who studied a medieval history degree and gained from it a deep and abiding insight into human nature which allowed them to excel at something.
Yeah... I'll be impressed by Americans complaining about ANYBODY wanting nukes when America does NOT have nearly 3000 of the damn things anymore.
Now THAT Is hypocrisy. If the only country that has EVER used a nuclear weapon in a war gets to have them - then anybody else who wants to gets to have them as well.
Electric cars right now are in an odd place - the initial capital outlay is way beyond my budget but the monthly cost over their lifetime so enormously cheaper (both in fuel and maintenance costs) that if I could get one today I would be significantly wealthier in my monthly budget. Of course if I get it on credit the payments would probably dwarf the difference.
The thing is though - that initial high capital outlay is primarily a factor of production scales rather than cost of materials - the potential cost at which they could be made is at least an order of magnitude cheaper. Right now - a Tessla Model S would cost me around R1.2 million - but a huge chunk of that is the cost of custom shipping an import, so as soon as they are actually for sale here by a large scale importer, you cut that at least in half. That puts it on par with a new upper-end BMW. Give it a couple of years to ramp up production I strongly suspect I'll be able to get a Tessla-like car for the same amount I paid for my 6-year old A3, which I've added 5 good years to since then. At the point, there is no sane reason to buy a fossil-fuel car, it simply cannot compete.
Now granted, I despise long-distance driving and avoid it like the plague, anything over 100km and I prefer to fly - which for anything under 4 people is cheaper anyway, so I'm not factoring that in - my daily commute is 99% of my driving needs, and electrical would be so much more ideal for that purpose. For the other 0.1% - I can hire a car fit for that purpose. The problem with your assessment is, I'm also 99% of the world's drivers. And don't come with America has long roads and cities far appart... I live in Africa dude, you aint seen nothing yet.
Whatever happened to the sun never sets over Great Britain ? XKCD says it still doesn't...
Yes, yes I know that Great Britain and the UK are not exactly the same thing (but only somebody from England can possibly keep up with what all the various things are or how they do and do not relate and I live in a commonwealth former British colony !) but it does underline what I've said all along, there are absolutely no problems with renewables that we can't solve with international trade.
You're both right but the better answer would have been to make the software available so you run it on your home PC and barbie just needs local wifi access.
I said nothing about who cashes in on the industry, I spoke merely about what sort of voters those judges were selected from among - the kind that despises big corporations and love technology - it was the perfect nail-in-the-coffin combination here.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true but a bit redundant - nobody has ever, in all of history, tried to make a law to prevent somebody from causing a positive externality (though, there are moves - especially online by copyright corporations to try and make laws to force you to pay for benefiting from their positive externalities, that would be just as bad as NOT preventing negative ones).
Your fantasy would still not be appropriate even if it was true. If you need the kid to talk the last thing you should do is torture him. Torture will not make him talk, it will make him lie and it will affirm his bad views so certainly that he will grow up to be a suicide bomber or worse.
The LF codebase has nothing older than the kernel which is 24 years old. But they do have contributions from far more than 1300 developers in that codebase.
Interesting. In Afrikaans Miljard (which is pronounced almost exactly like milliard) is only a hundred million.
Is she Chuck's sister or his drag act ?
I know that "socialized systems" is a meaningless term and has nothing to do with socialism either.
Check a dictionary. Socialism is defined as a system of economics where the workers own the means of production.
That's the ENTIRE definition, within Marxist philosophy it gets a rider attached - which basically comes down to "not good enough".
But that, broad, definition is all of it.
Please note that NOWHERE in the definition of socialism does the word "state" or "government" occur, it has nothing to do with them. And thus you get, for example, anarchist forms of socialism which has no government - yet make perfect logical sense (and, unlike libertarianism, an anarcho-socialist industrialized society HAS in fact existed, Andalusia in the early 20th century was exactly that).
So the following things which are commonly called "Socialist" in the USA are clearly NOT in fact socialist: public libraries, welfare states and entitlements, government services, the civil service and beaurocracies, taxation, universal healthcare -even Canadian style, big government or authoritarianism.
None of those things bear any resemblance to the definition of socialism -and neither does any significant European country today.
Now here are some things which *are* in fact socialist - and which no American would ever call that: cab drivers who own their cabs, that worker-owned, democratically managed robotics factory in Texas (coincidentally - the largest robotics factory in the USA). Co-ops, Mutual Funds, Fair Deal coffee suppliers, lawyers and doctors with their own practice, most plumbers, most electricians - in fact absolutely every one-man-business, and every partnership too (at least, until they hire staff - but if they make the staff partners then they are back to being socialist).
It rather affects your perspective on things, when you use words to mean what they ACTUALLY mean don't you ?
This is also why I say that, as much as I respect Sanders he is decidedly NOT a socialist, his policies are not in any way intended to make more businesses be owned by workers and no other policies except ONLY such policies can fairly be called "socialist" policies. And I know the man is smart enough to know that, so I presume that in calling himself a socialist he is, in fact, actively trolling the American people and their inability to open dictionaries and swallow propaganda even when that propaganda completely redefines words.
To quote Sir Terry Pratchett: If you want to find snakes, look for them behind the words that have changed their meanings.
Allowing politicians to define your terms for you is basically ASKING to get deceived.
>I think that it was just a business decision that anyone in the same position would have made.
That was my assessment as well - right up until the moment she bragged about it, and bragged about what it was used for.
I'm not so concerned with what she did, I am very justifiably concerned with how she feels about it now.
>Great for confirming your wrong information, if you're into that sort of thing, I guess
For the party of guns AND god ? That's basically their entire goal in life isn't it ?
> Think of it as truth serum that never fails.
Actually... it's more like guaranteed-lie serum.
Many people will tell you that torture does not yield good intel - that people will say ANYTHING if they think it will make you stop, but studies have actually found more than that - the one thing it absolutely guarantees they will NOT tell you is the truth.
When being tortured for information - that information becomes their single most valuable thing, they will cling to it for dear life and never, ever reveal it - because they always fear that tomorrow may be worse, and tomorrow they may need it more. It is saved for a rainy day, and the harder it rains - the more they save it out of fear that tomorrow it will rain even worse.
How about because she bought compaq despite every industry expert telling her that is was an insane move ? How about because she figured the best way to up the stock price was to fire all the great (but expensive) engineers, which, to be fair, did make the next quarterly earnings report look fantastic because she was selling all those awesome things they designed and not having to pay them - but then discovered (to her apparent shock) that you can't keep selling the same things for every and without good engineers it's really hard to design a good next generation of products and it's ESPECIALLY hard to maintain profitability when you have only shitty products to sell.
The fundamental flaw Fiorina made at HP is one many a CEO has made at many an American company - she confused the wage bill with an expense, instead of realizing it's her single most important profit-generating asset. Lay-offs can only ever cost you more than it saves.
Oh there is a difference all right, but the difference is not in the deal.
The difference is that SHE chose to BRAG about it now, as if it's something to be proud off -and while bragging she chose to defend the practices it was used for.
If you think the socialism Bernie Sanders supports was not EXACTLY what your Founding Fathers ACTUALLY had in mind, you don't know jack shit about your founding fathers.
Practically every policy proposal Bernie Sanders has on anything economics related can be found in Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith - who basically wrote the textbook for the founding father's economic ideas.
It's only in America that his ideas would be deemed "socialist" anyway, every else on earth it would be center-left welfare state capitalism.
What did you expect from him ? He's following in Daddy's footsteps with the greatest political scam ever invented: getting elected to serve on a government where literally the only thing you EVER do is give long speeches about how the government shouldn't be allowed to do anything. Think about that... you' get employed by the people, then spend all your time convincing the people that they should never ever allow you t do your job.
It's brilliant... and sad.
And in the latest polls Sanders is only 9 points behind her (though, in fairness, he drops lower if you ask people what they would do if Biden ran).
It's early days yet, but do not count him out of the nomination. If he gets it though, he could even win - that would boost the republican chances though because he dares use the term "socialist" (why does the media always leave out the word that goes before that which is "democratic" or the fact that his actual policies really are not socialist, they do however meet that weird definition of "socialist" which American use and which literally doesn't have a single thing in common with socialism whatsoever), if the reps don't choose their candidate perfectly though - it's in the bag. Sanders would trounce either Trump or Fiorina, and probably any religious-right candidate with ease. Rubio would be a stretch, Rand Paul would be a very close-run thing.
>the democrats suck like the republicans. they simply suck slightly less
I would put it a little harsher... the democrats a horrible center-right corrupt politicians, nobody should vote for them under any delusions that they even remotely resemble a good party. You should vote for them because the alternative is fucking batshit insane !
You do KNOW that the other side has Bernie Sanders as well right ?
You're assuming that "become CEO" is an achievement.
Invented a polio vaccine and refused to patent it - now THAT is an achievement.
Found the Higgs Boson - that's an achievement.
Found a proof for Fermatt's last theorem, there's a real achievement.
Those are the kinds of things those with STEM degrees set out to do in their lives, of course, not all of them get something quite that famous but they all play instrumental roles in the processes that lead to those, and the ones who do the famous things are all from among them.
Becoming a CEO even of a company like HP just requires a sufficiently brutal and blustery persona - all you have to do is convince one single room full of people that you can make them money, just once...
Bernie Madoff convincing dozens of smart people, dozens of times, of the exact same thing - had a much bigger achievement.
Now becoming CEO of an ailing company - turning it around and making new, awesome products while saving thousands of jobs - THAT can be an achievement.
But becoming CEO of a highly successful company and running it INTO the ground so somebody else has to come and do that, that's decidedly not an achievement... in fact it is, what's the word... oh yes, the exact OPPOSITE of an achievement.
Now to what extent her degree may or may not played a role I don't want to comment on, my own was in English Lit but I first taught myself to code at age 7 and have been self-taught in my primary career my entire life (and today I'm a very senior software engineer for a pretty major company, my work involves legally confidential customer information so I'm not allowed to say which one but I CAN tell you my previous job was an engineer for Oracle - which I quite because I couldn't ethically live with their business practices).
I agree, what you do with your life is far more important than what schooling or degree you took - I took a degree in something I found fun because I already knew more about my chosen career than a graduate program teaches and wanted to learn something new, not just pay for a sheet of paper, what you're wrong about is to think that what Fiorina has done with hers is admirable or remotely counts as an "achievement".
If anything, she's an insult to everybody who studied a medieval history degree and gained from it a deep and abiding insight into human nature which allowed them to excel at something.
Yeah... I'll be impressed by Americans complaining about ANYBODY wanting nukes when America does NOT have nearly 3000 of the damn things anymore.
Now THAT Is hypocrisy. If the only country that has EVER used a nuclear weapon in a war gets to have them - then anybody else who wants to gets to have them as well.
The British empire is all countries ruled by the queen. And what remains of those are still (barely) big enough for the saying to remain true.
Still is. But I addressed that in my second paragraph.
Electric cars right now are in an odd place - the initial capital outlay is way beyond my budget but the monthly cost over their lifetime so enormously cheaper (both in fuel and maintenance costs) that if I could get one today I would be significantly wealthier in my monthly budget. Of course if I get it on credit the payments would probably dwarf the difference.
The thing is though - that initial high capital outlay is primarily a factor of production scales rather than cost of materials - the potential cost at which they could be made is at least an order of magnitude cheaper.
Right now - a Tessla Model S would cost me around R1.2 million - but a huge chunk of that is the cost of custom shipping an import, so as soon as they are actually for sale here by a large scale importer, you cut that at least in half. That puts it on par with a new upper-end BMW. Give it a couple of years to ramp up production I strongly suspect I'll be able to get a Tessla-like car for the same amount I paid for my 6-year old A3, which I've added 5 good years to since then.
At the point, there is no sane reason to buy a fossil-fuel car, it simply cannot compete.
Now granted, I despise long-distance driving and avoid it like the plague, anything over 100km and I prefer to fly - which for anything under 4 people is cheaper anyway, so I'm not factoring that in - my daily commute is 99% of my driving needs, and electrical would be so much more ideal for that purpose. For the other 0.1% - I can hire a car fit for that purpose.
The problem with your assessment is, I'm also 99% of the world's drivers.
And don't come with America has long roads and cities far appart... I live in Africa dude, you aint seen nothing yet.
Whatever happened to the sun never sets over Great Britain ? XKCD says it still doesn't...
Yes, yes I know that Great Britain and the UK are not exactly the same thing (but only somebody from England can possibly keep up with what all the various things are or how they do and do not relate and I live in a commonwealth former British colony !) but it does underline what I've said all along, there are absolutely no problems with renewables that we can't solve with international trade.
Fornicare hoc stercum
You're both right but the better answer would have been to make the software available so you run it on your home PC and barbie just needs local wifi access.
I said nothing about who cashes in on the industry, I spoke merely about what sort of voters those judges were selected from among - the kind that despises big corporations and love technology - it was the perfect nail-in-the-coffin combination here.