We've got more gadgets, but energy, healthy food, and property, the most "real" things you can get, have not gotten cheaper in line with the reduction in incomes.
None of the things that you listed are more expensive because of income equality, and they also don't make your point for you.
Energy? Televisions use far less power now. Light bulbs use far less power now. Even transportation uses far less power now. What does not use far less power now? People, because they enjoy more goods and services now.
"Healthy" food? There is no objective squeeze on food in America, only in your mind. Americans eat more than anyone else on earth. We are #1 on the list of countries in food consumption per capita.
Property? The people in government are making sure that you pay more for a home than its actually worth. Keep inflating the bubble, baby!
You are really trying to pretend that there are no racists in the country who hate Obama for his skin tone?
Nope. I am pointing out that you people greatly over-state things. For instance, when I pointed out that it wasn't "a lot of racists" you went all the way to "no racists,"
Have fun in the fantasy land of full blown intellectual dishonesty.
The fact that some people have more choices doesn't mean that you have less. It's not a zero-sum game. Why only complain about rich people?
Because who doesnt want to think that they deserve more?
Its easy to convince people that they deserve more. It doesnt require a good argument, only a lazy and selfish listener. Once convinced, they will ignore the good arguments on their own.
Sure, *IF* everyone were winning. But they're not. Real wages have been falling for the lower 90% of the population for ~50 years
sigh... only if you measure "real wages" is a non-meaningful way.
The only meaningful way is to count not the currency but instead the goods and services that the population enjoys. However everything else that you said indicate that thats the last way that you think that it should be measured. You want to count dollars which have arbitrary useless meaning rather than something important.
No, I understood your point, and my second point was a direct response to it.
No it wasn't. Your second point just hopes that only a few, and I quote, "dinky nukes" will be built and that the the rest of the world will strike down this country before any more are built because the only countries that can build them post-disarmament are, and I quote, "rogue states."
Pure fantasy.
(A) No country that has built nukes has ever built "just a few dinky nukes" - so you are imagining a world that doesnt even fit objective reality.
(B) Every country has friends, even "rogue states", and its always a good idea to be friendly with the nuke holders. This is again an objective reality. Its the reality right now.
Your argument is based on the idea that reality is somehow so completely different to the objective reality we can see that it doesnt even pass first muster. Its just the pure wishful thinking of a naive person.
Exhibit A: A freshly minted climate denier talking point.
Exhibit A++: The smug bullshit of people that immediately claim "denier" when faced with an argument that they dont want to be true, and that they cant even do such a trivial web search to make sure that they arent so obviously putting their foot in it (like one of the people that replied to him did) isnt surprising at all. They have always been this way. This is what they do.
Hint: The grandparent is not only right, he is very right. The parent doesnt want him to be right, so calls him names.
its not simplistic. its just that you don't see or understand the complexity, for instance everything else you wrote had nothing to do with what I said. You didnt understand what I said at all, obviously. So since you require simplicity, let me lay it straight:
If everyone dis-arms, then players will eventually re-arm because its the right strategy. Its the right strategy because its inevitable that someone will and there are advantages to being the first ones to do it (if you don't believe this, ask Iran what it thinks)
Even if this were an option, the end result is still that more nukes will be built.
If nobody in the world has nukes, an obvious good strategy is for your side to start building them. This is just a high stakes multi-way prisoners dilemma. In multi--way prisoners dilemma there are too many players for there to be a reasonable expectation of full cooperation.
The best result is if all of the nuke owners don't use them, because there being nuke owners are inevitable. Thats what we've got right now, No sense shaking it up in defiance of the inevitable.
Does Netflix even need to peer? Netflix isn't an ISP.
No, but Netflix's ISP does...
Go back a few years and Netflix's ISP was Cogent and in particular Level 3 was demanding more money from Cogent because of how much traffic Cogent was dumping on their network. Then Level 3 offered Netflix a chance to become their ISP, a real sweetheart deal, and Netflix took it.
Now other ISP's are demanding more money from Level 3 and Level 3 has been crying foul... hypocrisy at its finest.
The fact is that when a service like Netflix chooses the cheapest ISP, there are consequences. Its Netflix that isnt paying the real costs of its business, and the Net Neutrality zealots have been tricked into thinking its their own ISP thats bad. No, its Netflix and its ISP thats bad.
I agree that the FCC's rules aren't going to stop all abuses. They are a good start...
This right here is the problem with progressive world views.
When a progressive gets what they want its still only "a good start" and "not enough".... NEVER has a progressive said "We are done!" or asked "Maybe we went too far?"
Even when completely ignorant of the specific issues of a specific "problem", this leads to one wondering how much of their "justification" is just self-serving "spin."
In the case of "Net Neutrality" the justification was 100% spin. The Netflix excuse is rife with hypocrisy, as when Netflix was using Cogent it was Level 3 that Netflix claimed was evil, but now that Netflix uses Level 3 its someone else thats evil. The fact is that Netflix goes with the cheapest ISP they can but that decision has consequences.
Netflix saves a ton of money with their ISP choice and you Net Neutrality goons have been tricked into pushng the consequences of that savings directly onto your own ISP, which means directly onto you. Thats great for Netflix customers... socializing Netflixs costs onto their neighbors that arent Netflix customers...
Shh! Don't tell that to the slashdot conservatives.
Looks to me like the only person that needed to be told was you, and it also looks like after you were told that you tried pretending that you knew all along.
for Israel to defend itself by fighting back against Palestinian guns, rocket missiles, and suicide bombs.
No.
Its the Palestinians that are fighting back against the evil that for several generations now has imprisoned them from birth to death.
"Self defense" even if true wouldnt justify what Israel is doing, so you have already lost the argument because thats the excuse you went for.
The only reason Israel hasnt solved the problem the way every other aggressor has solved its occupation problem is because Israel doesnt want to give real citizenship to non-Jews. They demand a Jewish State, Zionism, and they cant stomach it any other way. Even Christians that are "citizens" of Israel have 2nd tier rights. This is proof that the problem isnt other cultures.. the problem is Zionism... and even that hasnt survived the taint that is Israel.
The slogan for Zionism was "A Land Without People For A People Without Land" --- What is it today? yeah... its "Our People Take The Land As Needed And Imprison Those We Displace"
Self defense is not terrorism. A war of self defense will be ugly and when you look at individual events, there will be some things that are not fair. However, Israel is 100% right to fight the PLO and Hamas and kill Palestinian terrorists whenever they have opportunity. When the terrorists hide in civilian houses, they are right to bulldoze the houses. Etc.
Over an entire generation of people raised in an open air prison. Fighting the predictable consequences of this fact is not "self defense" -- its something quite evil.
Imagine living your whole life in an open air concentration camp from birth to death, and your children subject to the same thing. Or imagine being one of those children from birth, and your parents were subject to the same thing from birth to death.
Yeah... "self defense" with tanks, jets, and nukes, vs a people in concentration camps.
When your chip is compiling/executing nearly every opcodes into microcode on the fly, it's time we retire the inefficient instruction set.
That doesnt make it inefficient in the performance sense. Your argument is born from knowing just enough to be terribly wrong, probably because the RISC fanboys convinced you to stop considering relevant details
If two designs can fetch N bytes of instructions per cycle then the design that packs more relevant operations into that N-bytes wins on performance. The relevant detail you missed is this exact bottleneck. Intel's design ultimately fetches more micro-ops per cycle than is possible with a more RISCy design, which is why even ARM is doing it now.
Building something different to what anyone has built before is a bit hard to quote for, and that's the main, should be incredibly obvious point
So about half the projects come under budget and the other half over budget? no? they all go over budget? yeah... proof that the problem isnt how hard it is to quote for, but instead how easy it is to get more than you quoted.
Lucas and Spielberg made the decision to use non-union actors in the first movie because the union demanded certain types of intro-credits which was believed would spoil the feel of the movie.
So the rest of the industry informally blacklisted the actors. The only actor to survive the blacklist was Harrison Ford because Spielberg also used him in Indiana Jones, and the industry wasn't going to balk at a guy that could bring in hundreds of millions for every movie he was involved in. Even Billy Dee Williams, who already had made a rather big name for himself, couldn't survive the blacklist.
Slashdot Mirror
We've got more gadgets, but energy, healthy food, and property, the most "real" things you can get, have not gotten cheaper in line with the reduction in incomes.
None of the things that you listed are more expensive because of income equality, and they also don't make your point for you.
Energy? Televisions use far less power now. Light bulbs use far less power now. Even transportation uses far less power now. What does not use far less power now? People, because they enjoy more goods and services now.
"Healthy" food? There is no objective squeeze on food in America, only in your mind. Americans eat more than anyone else on earth. We are #1 on the list of countries in food consumption per capita.
Property? The people in government are making sure that you pay more for a home than its actually worth. Keep inflating the bubble, baby!
You are really trying to pretend that there are no racists in the country who hate Obama for his skin tone?
Nope. I am pointing out that you people greatly over-state things. For instance, when I pointed out that it wasn't "a lot of racists" you went all the way to "no racists,"
Have fun in the fantasy land of full blown intellectual dishonesty.
The fact that some people have more choices doesn't mean that you have less. It's not a zero-sum game. Why only complain about rich people?
Because who doesnt want to think that they deserve more?
Its easy to convince people that they deserve more. It doesnt require a good argument, only a lazy and selfish listener. Once convinced, they will ignore the good arguments on their own.
Sure, *IF* everyone were winning. But they're not. Real wages have been falling for the lower 90% of the population for ~50 years
sigh... only if you measure "real wages" is a non-meaningful way.
The only meaningful way is to count not the currency but instead the goods and services that the population enjoys. However everything else that you said indicate that thats the last way that you think that it should be measured. You want to count dollars which have arbitrary useless meaning rather than something important.
No, I understood your point, and my second point was a direct response to it.
No it wasn't. Your second point just hopes that only a few, and I quote, "dinky nukes" will be built and that the the rest of the world will strike down this country before any more are built because the only countries that can build them post-disarmament are, and I quote, "rogue states."
Pure fantasy.
(A) No country that has built nukes has ever built "just a few dinky nukes" - so you are imagining a world that doesnt even fit objective reality.
(B) Every country has friends, even "rogue states", and its always a good idea to be friendly with the nuke holders. This is again an objective reality. Its the reality right now.
Your argument is based on the idea that reality is somehow so completely different to the objective reality we can see that it doesnt even pass first muster. Its just the pure wishful thinking of a naive person.
Exhibit A: A freshly minted climate denier talking point.
Exhibit A++: The smug bullshit of people that immediately claim "denier" when faced with an argument that they dont want to be true, and that they cant even do such a trivial web search to make sure that they arent so obviously putting their foot in it (like one of the people that replied to him did) isnt surprising at all. They have always been this way. This is what they do.
Hint: The grandparent is not only right, he is very right. The parent doesnt want him to be right, so calls him names.
While Republican lawmakers...
California has Republican lawmakers?
But there's also a lot of criticism of Obama that's either openly racist or wailing on dog whistles
Bullshit.
Every time you make these bullshit claims, another white person hates Democrats.
I envy your simplistic view of the world.
its not simplistic. its just that you don't see or understand the complexity, for instance everything else you wrote had nothing to do with what I said. You didnt understand what I said at all, obviously. So since you require simplicity, let me lay it straight:
If everyone dis-arms, then players will eventually re-arm because its the right strategy. Its the right strategy because its inevitable that someone will and there are advantages to being the first ones to do it (if you don't believe this, ask Iran what it thinks)
The only sane option is mutual disarmament
Even if this were an option, the end result is still that more nukes will be built.
If nobody in the world has nukes, an obvious good strategy is for your side to start building them. This is just a high stakes multi-way prisoners dilemma. In multi--way prisoners dilemma there are too many players for there to be a reasonable expectation of full cooperation.
The best result is if all of the nuke owners don't use them, because there being nuke owners are inevitable. Thats what we've got right now, No sense shaking it up in defiance of the inevitable.
Does Netflix even need to peer? Netflix isn't an ISP.
No, but Netflix's ISP does...
Go back a few years and Netflix's ISP was Cogent and in particular Level 3 was demanding more money from Cogent because of how much traffic Cogent was dumping on their network. Then Level 3 offered Netflix a chance to become their ISP, a real sweetheart deal, and Netflix took it.
Now other ISP's are demanding more money from Level 3 and Level 3 has been crying foul... hypocrisy at its finest.
The fact is that when a service like Netflix chooses the cheapest ISP, there are consequences. Its Netflix that isnt paying the real costs of its business, and the Net Neutrality zealots have been tricked into thinking its their own ISP thats bad. No, its Netflix and its ISP thats bad.
I agree that the FCC's rules aren't going to stop all abuses. They are a good start...
This right here is the problem with progressive world views.
.... NEVER has a progressive said "We are done!" or asked "Maybe we went too far?"
When a progressive gets what they want its still only "a good start" and "not enough"
Even when completely ignorant of the specific issues of a specific "problem", this leads to one wondering how much of their "justification" is just self-serving "spin."
In the case of "Net Neutrality" the justification was 100% spin. The Netflix excuse is rife with hypocrisy, as when Netflix was using Cogent it was Level 3 that Netflix claimed was evil, but now that Netflix uses Level 3 its someone else thats evil. The fact is that Netflix goes with the cheapest ISP they can but that decision has consequences.
Netflix saves a ton of money with their ISP choice and you Net Neutrality goons have been tricked into pushng the consequences of that savings directly onto your own ISP, which means directly onto you. Thats great for Netflix customers... socializing Netflixs costs onto their neighbors that arent Netflix customers...
Shh! Don't tell that to the slashdot conservatives.
Looks to me like the only person that needed to be told was you, and it also looks like after you were told that you tried pretending that you knew all along.
You're saying that it's "evil"....
Yes.
for Israel to defend itself by fighting back against Palestinian guns, rocket missiles, and suicide bombs.
No.
Its the Palestinians that are fighting back against the evil that for several generations now has imprisoned them from birth to death.
"Self defense" even if true wouldnt justify what Israel is doing, so you have already lost the argument because thats the excuse you went for.
The only reason Israel hasnt solved the problem the way every other aggressor has solved its occupation problem is because Israel doesnt want to give real citizenship to non-Jews. They demand a Jewish State, Zionism, and they cant stomach it any other way. Even Christians that are "citizens" of Israel have 2nd tier rights. This is proof that the problem isnt other cultures.. the problem is Zionism... and even that hasnt survived the taint that is Israel.
The slogan for Zionism was "A Land Without People For A People Without Land" --- What is it today? yeah... its "Our People Take The Land As Needed And Imprison Those We Displace"
I just haven't worked out the recourse if they refuse to acknowledge it.
We've got no problem killing them only a few months earlier... so it just requires moving the line.
Paying out of pocket is right out because of how fucking expensive it is in the US to get health care.
Its expensive *because* people dont pay out of pocket.
With insurance the cost of a broken leg and an emergency room visit is $63000, while the cost for the same without insurance is only $1300.
The problem with the collectivist vision is and always will be tragedy of the commons.
Self defense is not terrorism. A war of self defense will be ugly and when you look at individual events, there will be some things that are not fair. However, Israel is 100% right to fight the PLO and Hamas and kill Palestinian terrorists whenever they have opportunity. When the terrorists hide in civilian houses, they are right to bulldoze the houses. Etc.
Over an entire generation of people raised in an open air prison. Fighting the predictable consequences of this fact is not "self defense" -- its something quite evil.
Imagine living your whole life in an open air concentration camp from birth to death, and your children subject to the same thing. Or imagine being one of those children from birth, and your parents were subject to the same thing from birth to death.
Yeah... "self defense" with tanks, jets, and nukes, vs a people in concentration camps.
When your chip is compiling/executing nearly every opcodes into microcode on the fly, it's time we retire the inefficient instruction set.
That doesnt make it inefficient in the performance sense. Your argument is born from knowing just enough to be terribly wrong, probably because the RISC fanboys convinced you to stop considering relevant details
If two designs can fetch N bytes of instructions per cycle then the design that packs more relevant operations into that N-bytes wins on performance. The relevant detail you missed is this exact bottleneck. Intel's design ultimately fetches more micro-ops per cycle than is possible with a more RISCy design, which is why even ARM is doing it now.
$160/household/year isnt small no matter how many times the Statists claim it.
It is only small relative to the total federal budget, but that being way out of control isnt the justification needed to call NASA's budget small.
Building something different to what anyone has built before is a bit hard to quote for, and that's the main, should be incredibly obvious point
So about half the projects come under budget and the other half over budget? no? they all go over budget? yeah... proof that the problem isnt how hard it is to quote for, but instead how easy it is to get more than you quoted.
Lucas and Spielberg made the decision to use non-union actors in the first movie because the union demanded certain types of intro-credits which was believed would spoil the feel of the movie.
So the rest of the industry informally blacklisted the actors. The only actor to survive the blacklist was Harrison Ford because Spielberg also used him in Indiana Jones, and the industry wasn't going to balk at a guy that could bring in hundreds of millions for every movie he was involved in. Even Billy Dee Williams, who already had made a rather big name for himself, couldn't survive the blacklist.
I think Mozilla needs to rewrite the browser from scratch....
*ducks*
A bunch of poor people, with limited access to the internet, turn to one of the only sources of information they have.
Would you argue the same about a fucking tabloid newspaper?
How is the consumer supposed to know otherwise when they have no access to better information?
The same way its always been... PUT EFFORT INTO DECISIONS
"How was I supposed to know it was just snake oil?"
But for people who only can get to wikipedia through their basic cell phone plans .... that was the only source of information.
No, it fucking wasn't. Are you fucking retarded? Information only comes on cell phones now? Really? idiot.
I've heard this, but I don't understand this.
Its very easy to understand when you realize that its an obvious lie.
It would be even harder to commit if you go to vote, and the person at the polls helpfully informs you that you already did.
The very situation you describe here is in fact post-fraud as in already committed instead of as you so dishonestly claim "harder to commit."