- you are telling me you read Hayek (this for example?) and it did not click why it is desirable to avoid fascism or any other form of collectivism by ensuring free market capitalism?
To me individual freedom is intrinsically valuable in its own right, YMMV.
If your goals require the means that reduce my individual freedom then by their very definition those are not my goals. I do not buy that all of the goals you mentioned require reduction of my individual freedom, maybe you should question why is that you believe that it is necessary to reduce individual freedom to achieve your goals?
a) Maximization of local exchange so as to empower communities and their unique cultural characteristics, including architectural traditions;
- why is that desirable? I don't see it as a goal that is worth losing individual freedom over but also I don't see why this goal requires reduction of individual freedom.
b) Maximization of work security so that the vast majority of individuals can comfortably keep living in the same region for their entire lives
- Same exact question and point. Beyond that, I don't see why we need to ensure that majority of individuals can comfortably keep living in the same region for their entire lives.
Is the Universe going to help you to live within one spot your entire life comfortably? Why do you think that? I think the Universe will kill you and not worry about this minutia. I think that it is undesirable for the species to get comfortable for their entire lives and live in the same place their entire life comfortably. But I would not put my goals over somebody's freedom.
, so as to also maximally preserve face-to-face interactions between long time friends, family members and acquaintances;
- why does this matter at all? I don't think there is any reason why should anybody's freedom be impeded to achieve this very questionable goal.
c) Maximization of the physiological and safety levels of Maslow's hierarchy, while still providing for the effectuation of higher levels;
- this is something that is done by creating a wealthy society in the first place. USA used to be a wealthy society, today China is basically that society, not USA because in China individual freedoms related to running a business increased and in the USA they decreased.
d) Maximization of psychological comfort by means of reducing the distance between the higher level and lower levels of individual wealth to a maximum difference of 30 times (the poorest individual earns at a minimum 1/30 of what the wealthiest earns), which fits withing our tribal, hunter-gatherer evolutionary framework.
- WTF? WTF? What is this strange arbitrary goal of yours that most definitely requires destruction of individual freedom? Yeah, let's make everybody equal and equally poor, because that's the only thing you can achieve by setting a standard on maximum and minimum earnings. Let's not let individual people pool capital to the best of their ability, because somehow the capital will be pooled without individuals doing it?
Governments do not create wealth, they take it from some to redistribute to others. By setting goals like the above, putting some strange cap on what an individual can pool as his own capital you are setting amazing barriers to the actual ability of the human species to survive in this Universe by using pooled capital to engage in risky enterprises - trying to make more money by trying the previously unknown. Whether survival of the species this is a goal worth working towards is also questionable, but at least it's not self destructing.
Money is not a government monopoly of-course, basically all governments gave up on actual money and are printing funny pieces of paper that may look to you like money but they are not.
Money is store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account. Sure, you can exchange with government money, you can account with it but you cannot store value in it, not in any meaningful way with the government expanding the supply of money (inflating), so what you are referring to as money is just a medium of exchange. I do not store money in dollars, maybe you do.
I see you now for what you are, and I know it's simply wasted time talking to somebody that just reject thinking in a coherent manner: anarcho-libertarianism
- actually anarcho capitalism, that should be obvious to anybody who spent any considerable amount of time on this site since I stated it only a few hundreds times here.
You 'see me for what I am'? I don't think so, I am a person who sees the world for what it is and plans accordingly, do you ever plan anything?
an standing army to steal your productive output at the point of their guns
- I know that people are thieves, which is why I am perfectly willing to pay for private security, which is the way security should be handled.
For some reason you don't see that productivity and wealth based on productivity (which is savings) does not provide security. I don't see artificial job security as something important in a wealthy economy, in a wealthy economy with plenty of savings and people looking to increase their savings through investment job security within one company does not matter, the overall market provides job security.
USD does not have productive economy, it does not have a wealthy economy or even a wealthy market. Dollar valuations do not create a wealthy economy or a wealthy market, productivity, production of goods and services that the economy (individuals in it) need and can buy because they are also productive is what creates a wealthy economy.
Apparently the historic lessons are not getting through. Freedom from government oppression, regulation, taxes brings about wealth by allowing people to try (and fail and try again) in business. Business creates profits, that's its purpose. Business in a free market creates profits by allowing willing parties to exchange based on the goods that they have created themselves. In a non-free economy profits do not need to be created productively, in fact much higher profits can be created if the economy is centrally planned and controlled. It's extremely easy to create profits in dollar amounts if you are issuing the dollar and dollar denominated debt, that does not have to be backed by any productivity at all.
Try and mention gold being actual money to the modern American, they truly don't understand it, they don't know what money is. Money to most people is actually something they truly cannot comprehend. A simple concept - store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange. They don't get it, they think the ability to be inflated (expanded in the supply of) at the whim of a government or a pseudo-government bureaucrat is what makes money being money.
Money is anything that can be created, stored for future use/investment/consumption, exchanged and counted with.
The dollar is missing the crucial part of it: stored for future use/investment/consumption. The dollar is not a store of value specifically because it takes no effort to create the dollar and because it has 0 intrinsic value, it's pure money, not a commodity, nothing that can be used outside of its monetary purpose. The amount of work it takes to create the dollar is meaningless. On an island a person with a 100 dollar bill printer cannot expect to use those to be able to buy possessions of a man with some canned food. Gold might do it because it has other properties, but a paper dollar has no properties.
My point is that ability to produce dollars does not make a wealthy economy, it is ability to produce goods and services that makes a wealthy economy and this ability is destroyed by government monopolising the power over money and then destroying the value of money.
I'm not entirely sure about that. Every time we reduce trade barriers, things seem to get worse.
- things are 'getting worse' due to factors that are not related to reduction in trade barriers. Things are getting worse due to manipulation of the money supply, interest rates, business and labour regulations, government oppression basically. Where you see a 'trade agreement' between countries, I see monopoly creation, government control. Free individuals do not need 'free trade agreements' between countries, they only need governments not to interfere in their business and free trade happens on its own.
Why would I need a government 'free trade agreement' to trade freely with somebody from another country? I don't need it, all that 'free trade agreements' do is create more rules and monopoly powers, various deals that allow some interests to benefit while others are prevented from trading completely.
The problem is that you are thinking about trade and money in terms of government agreements while actual free trade only requires 2 consenting individuals to agree on something that is mutually beneficial and where any government rules and laws are interference.
Why is it that in the 50's, you could have a single family member working a blue collar job, while still having enough to buy a modest house, a car, and the ability to feed and raise 6 kids, yet 60 years of "progress" later, there's no way in hell that is possible. The excuse these days is that people buy way too much house and spend money on junk. To a degree, that's true, but even if you didn't have cell phone, cable, and 2 brand new cars, you still couldn't live like they could in the 50's.
- I covered this topic on many occasions, the short of it is this: collectivism, central planning, money and interest rate manipulation by the central banks created the inflation that destroyed productivity of an individual labourer in the USA by making it prohibitively expensive for businesses to save and invest capital.
Productivity of a labourer is based on the amount of capital investment that can be used to increase that productivity. Once there is no sane way to save and invest the productivity of a labourer goes through the floor, which is in fact what happened to the people who used to be able to support a family without a debt on a single income while working at some factory.
Government happened, the government happened that you think creates 'free trade agreements', what it actually did was destroy savings and investment capital by defaulting on the promise to redeem USD in gold in 1971. The economy was shot in the heart then, the head is just beginning to understand that it's dying because the body is killed.
How exactly do you see a union preventing companies from outsourcing again? I outsource, if a union tried to form I would immediately close shop and outsource that shop completely.
Trump and Sanders (and all of them) say idiotic things and the crowd eats it up. Trade barriers and walls never made anyone more productive and wealthy, only freedom from government oppression did that.
Businesses exist because people need them to exist and people are interested in buying from businesses, maybe working for them, investing with them. Governments with all the laws can prevent many types of businesses from existing, governments can prevent people from being hired based on what a company is offering, government can do everything that is destructive. Nothing that a government can do is constructive, it is always prohibitive, destructive, oppressive and violent.
Businesses are individual people making things for other people. Governments are collectives, mobs that want to steal and enjoy the proceeds of the theft.
You are able to make a living because of a society you didn't built up, going to work over roads you...
- this drivel is based on the assumptions that those things require any form of government theft and gun point robber to exist, they do not. All of those things can be and generally are built by individuals who act for their self interest. Free individuals acting out of sheer self interest build, make and trade things with each other without any 'help' from any form of government.
Government only collect taxes in the form of money. Now, take a bill from your wallet and look carefully at it: you see? it is *not* your property; it is jus...
- this drivel is supposed to make somebody think that representation of value in any currency does not equal the actual productive output of work of an individual. Government doesn't care actually how you trade, it wants a cut. Just because the cut can be measure din those pieces of paper doesn't mean actual productive output is not stolen from an individual, who is forced to forgo more investment or consumption and instead give to the government part of the person's life's output, which is time, which is again - part of life.
No government theft is worth any amount of life from any individual. Of-course government does come with guns, so that's a conundrum that we are going to see resolve one way or another.
Just don't bother calling 911 to the rescue if you ever happen to break a leg, you never payed for it, you know.
- government ran 911 shouldn't even exist, nor should any type of business or operation or agency.
Or maybe they'll just shoot you and take your wallet. Desparate people are dangerous and social security nets keep the crime rate low.
- that's why it makes total sense to arm yourself with something heavier than what a 'desperate person' has. There is 0 reason to have a problem with protecting yourself against somebody who is coming to steal and murder you, 0 reason to not shoot back or even shoot first.
A good historical example was Henry Ford. Instead of paying the lowest wages possible, he paid the highest and what he saw was a huge uptick in sales....
- illiterate propaganda. Ford saw an uptick of sales because he lowered the prices of his cars to about 400USD by creating production lines that produced so many cars that it was possible to sell them at that price. The workers got their 5USD/day salary not to hop jobs soon after they became productive enough at Ford factories because they were trained and could find a job that paid the same in another factory, where they didn't need to work as hard. Ford paid his employees twice as much as others paid because his employees were highly trained and very productive given Ford's investment into automation of the production line.
Actually you've got that backwards, fighting against minimum wage laws illistrates economic and historical ignorance at the highest level.
- no, he is correct, you are the one who is economically illiterate, but that's not surprising, modern schools do not teach economics, they teach pro-government propaganda instead.
Your assumptions are based on conditions that dont exist in the real world because of a little economic principle called "externalities"
- it is government that doesn't care about externalities first of all. Businesses pay for their inputs and they pay in case things go wrong and somebody sues them. Governments cannot even get sued. Governments use externalities heavily when they manipulate money, interest rates, create laws that alter economic activity.
lets allow businesses to decide what is the minimum wage
- you are 100% economically illiterate, businesses do not decide minimum wage, they offer a position and this position can be filled by somebody accepting the opposite side of the contract or go unfilled, prompting business to re-evaluate the offer (or to eliminate the need in that position).
Minimum wage is just a tax on business, who passes that tax to the clients on one hand, while hiring fewer people (or firing existing workers) on the other. Businesses do not grow money on trees, they make money by creating valuable products that others, who create products exchange for. Labour costs are paid out of gross revenue. If labour costs exceed revenue these costs will be slashed. If the return on the investment goes under some expected return that can be generated with the same investment elsewhere, the costs will be slashed.
Minimum wage is a tax specifically because there is a glut of supply on the lower scale of the economic ladder, where there is much more supply for even lower wage positions (if they were legal). I hire more people when the cost per person goes down, which is why I outsource.
Yes, that is the same conclusion that old Henry Ford came to before he raised the wages of his workers. If they couldn't afford to buy a car then who could?
- you are promoting a lie. Ford never cared whether or not his production line workers can buy his cars, he raised wages to stop turn over of highly trained workers.
As to whether humans will 'fall apart', there is no problem with humans falling apart if the alternative is any form of forced collectivism that you and others are promoting here. The only thing that is required for humans to create a wealthy society for all is freedom from oppression of the government that promotes monopolies, protects some against others, steals with taxes, inflation, business and other types of regulations and redistributes to anybody at all.
That's nothing! I have a system that I definitely did not want to update and it doesn't even run any MS software at all and yet I found Windows 10 on it. Somebody put a fucking Windows 10 sticker on my toilet.
Private property rights (that would have defended Apple in this case) were were killed in the USA the moment government was able to apply the Sherman's Act to dismantle Rockefeller's Standard Oil. This is not new, the only people who think this threat by the government Mafia is anything new are the ones who want to discriminate against some (for example discriminating against Rockefeller's right to private property is cheered by a large number of people).
Apple is the modern day Standard Oil. This case against them is the application of Sherman Act against Standard Oil. If nothing is done, 100 years from now idiots will be saying that government using its oppression to destroy Apple's private property rights was the correct thing...
I guess they figure MITM by Dice is better than just going self signed and posting the fingerprint on the front page (the way I would have done it if I ran this site)
Enterprise only means one thing: SLA. Nothing about 'enterprise' is in any way better, most often enterprise means monotone, monolith, boring but there is somebody to talk to (or at least there is a piece of paper that is signed that says there is somebody to talk to).
That's all it is, that's all it was and that's all it will be.
I guess Mozilla just can't sit still until they have an OS behind their name that creates the buzz unlike FF OS and more like Android. But seriously, blocking a JVM plugin (instead of maybe working to fix it by submitting fixes to Oracle if that was necessary) but creating a completely new VM to run bytecode inside browser directly... I guess so that eventually they'll just supply the VM and the browser itself will be written as an add on to it in WebAssembly, so that eventually somebody could port the original FF on top of that.
In any case, I thought and posted about it a year ago that things will go full circle. The mobile apps will eventually run directly in the browser (which incidentally will allow a mobile browser app to run inside a browser on your desktop, because why not).
The issue is personal for founder Jan Koum, who was born in Soviet-era Ukraine.
- it should be personal for everybody, not just people who have come from parts of the world where in the not so distant past (and in the present) the government has been and is the main villain. It should be understood that any government at all, regardless of what you think of it today is capable of being a villain because it has the power to be the villain. An individual can be a villain and do some damage, a villain government can and does massive amounts of damage to many, sometimes to millions and even to greater numbers of individuals. This understanding should not be limited to those, who have recent personal dealings with villain governments. People, of-course, are very short sighted and do not necessarily see the obvious reality of such things.
This cannot be a surprise though, it should be obvious to everybody (even though it is not for some reason) that USA labour market became unsustainable with the USA taking the world off the gold standard in 1971 while being the issuer of the world's 'reserve currency'. The inflation that hit immediately after that happened was all government creating new fiat. This forced input business prices to go up and up while creating more and more demand for government intervention from the general public.
USA economy is dead. It will not be revived with more collectivism, it can only be reset and fixed with more freedom, which comes from less government intervention, not more. It comes from real money, not fake fiat. It comes from removal of income and wealth related taxes, not more of them to force some to pay 'fair share' (whatever that is). Clearly businesses and people who run them do not in any way consider their taxes to be fair. The businesses and people are moving, the money and businesses are moving out and the only thing that remains is more and more poverty and desire for more government intervention by the majority. The majority is screwed by the government intervention but they think that the solution is government intervention.
Basically there is no way to fix any of this until the attitudes towards freedom change and in the USA the attitudes so far are only changing towards more authoritarian and/or more collectivist approach to the economy and society.
Authoritarian and collectivist systems act as virus (as described in The Matrix, the original one), while free market capitalist systems actually care about their profitability and thus they care about the property that makes them profitable. On balance the only way that is tested and that works to have a working economy and a wealthy society is to allow as much freedom to individuals as possible, not to take it away.
The reality is that most people do not understand any of what I just said, they take it as an attack on themselves because they truly do not understand economics, productivity, production, business, trade, money, politics. There is no way to fix it by demanding more understanding, the only way to fix it will be through appeal to emotion (as always) and eventually the emotion will turn away from the collectivist approach and towards more individual freedom. Unfortunately for the emotion to do that it will have to be based on blood and murder of unimaginable proportions.
We will go through a period of blood before emotion can no longer deal with that much murder and misery and will demand freedom from the collective, freedom to be an individual and not to suffer the collectivist ideology. This will take a while.
18 years later and/. still allows nonsensical titles on its front page.
Java is a bloody language, not a thing that breaks your computer.
Overview
Unspecified vulnerability in Oracle Java SE 7u25 and earlier, and Java SE Embedded 7u25 and earlier, allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability via unknown vectors related to Libraries.
Description Per http://www.oracle.com/technetw... 'Applies to client deployment of Java only. This vulnerability can be exploited only through sandboxed Java Web Start applications and sandboxed Java applets.'
Java is mostly used as a language and runs on server side JVMs, not in people's browsers.
Oracle, however, is a piece of shit company and its incompetence is legendary, it is a truly sad situation and as I wrote years ago, I bet the likes of IBM and Google are sorry now that they didn't manage to buy out SUN's assets before Oracle did.
hamper the government in the exercise of its important legitimate duties
- AFAIC there are no legitimate government authorities, all of their authorities are illegitimate, I disagree with every single authority they have usurped.
To me it is 100% irrelevant that a book author gets no copyright protection from the government. An author getting his or her book used as a movie plot is 0 issue, whether they get paid for something or not. Same with software, music, video, anything at all. All of these artificial monopolies provided by the government oppression is insane from every point of view, including the moral and the economic arguments.
That's the point of anarcho capitalism and to lesser extent libertarianism: companies do what the market wishes and governments do whatever increases their power for the sake of power.
Government power is absolute, they can murder people (and they do at home and abroad), they can take anything they want from you, they can kidnap you and hold you in unknown location until you die.
In a free market, capitalist system companies become wealthy when they deliver great product / service at the right price (the price part depends on what market niche a company is going after). In a free market, capitalist system government does not control trade, money, labour, business, individuals.
We obviously do not have free market, capitalist system, we have authoritarian regime, central control, central planning, oppression, slavery, theft and murder.
USA wasn't built as an authoritarian system, it was built as close to the free market as any country ever came close to it, so what happened? Well, the original free market capitalism allowed American companies and people to become so wealthy that politicians couldn't see all that wealth and leave it alone, they want it, they want power, they want power over you, they want to control you, they want to enslave you, they want to be the Big Brother who takes from some to give to others to maintain this insane oppressive system. They promise to take from a minority and to subsidise a majority and that's how politicians come to power and hold onto it.
Collectivism happened to USA and collectivism destroyed the very principles of free market that USA economy was really built upon, especially from about 1850s to about 1917.
Collectivism is becoming stronger every day, be it Sanders or Trump or Hillary or Rubio or anybody else that is running right now. Be it the military industrial complex or the food and drug industries or energy or education or health care or whatever. Collectivism is what allows for things like the Fed and labour control and State control and price and wage control and income and wealth taxes and redistribution and every single person out there that says: we should.... Whenever I hear we should... I know exactly what I am dealing with. Those are the words that lead to the outcomes that shouldn't happen and they cover themselves with the veil of good intentions.
Those fucking good intentions is what leads to complete destruction of the economy and society and then of all the freedoms. Then you are left wondering: will a huge company protect my freedom from government oppression and if they do, will they do it out of general goodness or because it helps them? Well shit, that company is being hit with that exact collectivism with all its oppression, why should it have 'good intentions' except for what is good to its bottom line exactly?
Slashdot Mirror
But they fail to show why this is desirable
- you are telling me you read Hayek (this for example?) and it did not click why it is desirable to avoid fascism or any other form of collectivism by ensuring free market capitalism?
To me individual freedom is intrinsically valuable in its own right, YMMV.
If your goals require the means that reduce my individual freedom then by their very definition those are not my goals. I do not buy that all of the goals you mentioned require reduction of my individual freedom, maybe you should question why is that you believe that it is necessary to reduce individual freedom to achieve your goals?
a) Maximization of local exchange so as to empower communities and their unique cultural characteristics, including architectural traditions;
- why is that desirable? I don't see it as a goal that is worth losing individual freedom over but also I don't see why this goal requires reduction of individual freedom.
b) Maximization of work security so that the vast majority of individuals can comfortably keep living in the same region for their entire lives
- Same exact question and point. Beyond that, I don't see why we need to ensure that majority of individuals can comfortably keep living in the same region for their entire lives.
Is the Universe going to help you to live within one spot your entire life comfortably? Why do you think that? I think the Universe will kill you and not worry about this minutia. I think that it is undesirable for the species to get comfortable for their entire lives and live in the same place their entire life comfortably. But I would not put my goals over somebody's freedom.
, so as to also maximally preserve face-to-face interactions between long time friends, family members and acquaintances;
- why does this matter at all? I don't think there is any reason why should anybody's freedom be impeded to achieve this very questionable goal.
c) Maximization of the physiological and safety levels of Maslow's hierarchy, while still providing for the effectuation of higher levels;
- this is something that is done by creating a wealthy society in the first place. USA used to be a wealthy society, today China is basically that society, not USA because in China individual freedoms related to running a business increased and in the USA they decreased.
d) Maximization of psychological comfort by means of reducing the distance between the higher level and lower levels of individual wealth to a maximum difference of 30 times (the poorest individual earns at a minimum 1/30 of what the wealthiest earns), which fits withing our tribal, hunter-gatherer evolutionary framework.
- WTF? WTF? What is this strange arbitrary goal of yours that most definitely requires destruction of individual freedom? Yeah, let's make everybody equal and equally poor, because that's the only thing you can achieve by setting a standard on maximum and minimum earnings. Let's not let individual people pool capital to the best of their ability, because somehow the capital will be pooled without individuals doing it?
Governments do not create wealth, they take it from some to redistribute to others. By setting goals like the above, putting some strange cap on what an individual can pool as his own capital you are setting amazing barriers to the actual ability of the human species to survive in this Universe by using pooled capital to engage in risky enterprises - trying to make more money by trying the previously unknown. Whether survival of the species this is a goal worth working towards is also questionable, but at least it's not self destructing.
Money is not a government monopoly of-course, basically all governments gave up on actual money and are printing funny pieces of paper that may look to you like money but they are not.
Money is store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account. Sure, you can exchange with government money, you can account with it but you cannot store value in it, not in any meaningful way with the government expanding the supply of money (inflating), so what you are referring to as money is just a medium of exchange. I do not store money in dollars, maybe you do.
I see you now for what you are, and I know it's simply wasted time talking to somebody that just reject thinking in a coherent manner: anarcho-libertarianism
- actually anarcho capitalism, that should be obvious to anybody who spent any considerable amount of time on this site since I stated it only a few hundreds times here.
You 'see me for what I am'? I don't think so, I am a person who sees the world for what it is and plans accordingly, do you ever plan anything?
an standing army to steal your productive output at the point of their guns
- I know that people are thieves, which is why I am perfectly willing to pay for private security, which is the way security should be handled.
For some reason you don't see that productivity and wealth based on productivity (which is savings) does not provide security. I don't see artificial job security as something important in a wealthy economy, in a wealthy economy with plenty of savings and people looking to increase their savings through investment job security within one company does not matter, the overall market provides job security.
USD does not have productive economy, it does not have a wealthy economy or even a wealthy market. Dollar valuations do not create a wealthy economy or a wealthy market, productivity, production of goods and services that the economy (individuals in it) need and can buy because they are also productive is what creates a wealthy economy.
Apparently the historic lessons are not getting through. Freedom from government oppression, regulation, taxes brings about wealth by allowing people to try (and fail and try again) in business. Business creates profits, that's its purpose. Business in a free market creates profits by allowing willing parties to exchange based on the goods that they have created themselves. In a non-free economy profits do not need to be created productively, in fact much higher profits can be created if the economy is centrally planned and controlled. It's extremely easy to create profits in dollar amounts if you are issuing the dollar and dollar denominated debt, that does not have to be backed by any productivity at all.
Try and mention gold being actual money to the modern American, they truly don't understand it, they don't know what money is. Money to most people is actually something they truly cannot comprehend. A simple concept - store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange. They don't get it, they think the ability to be inflated (expanded in the supply of) at the whim of a government or a pseudo-government bureaucrat is what makes money being money.
Money is anything that can be created, stored for future use/investment/consumption, exchanged and counted with.
The dollar is missing the crucial part of it: stored for future use/investment/consumption. The dollar is not a store of value specifically because it takes no effort to create the dollar and because it has 0 intrinsic value, it's pure money, not a commodity, nothing that can be used outside of its monetary purpose. The amount of work it takes to create the dollar is meaningless. On an island a person with a 100 dollar bill printer cannot expect to use those to be able to buy possessions of a man with some canned food. Gold might do it because it has other properties, but a paper dollar has no properties.
My point is that ability to produce dollars does not make a wealthy economy, it is ability to produce goods and services that makes a wealthy economy and this ability is destroyed by government monopolising the power over money and then destroying the value of money.
I'm not entirely sure about that. Every time we reduce trade barriers, things seem to get worse.
- things are 'getting worse' due to factors that are not related to reduction in trade barriers. Things are getting worse due to manipulation of the money supply, interest rates, business and labour regulations, government oppression basically. Where you see a 'trade agreement' between countries, I see monopoly creation, government control. Free individuals do not need 'free trade agreements' between countries, they only need governments not to interfere in their business and free trade happens on its own.
Why would I need a government 'free trade agreement' to trade freely with somebody from another country? I don't need it, all that 'free trade agreements' do is create more rules and monopoly powers, various deals that allow some interests to benefit while others are prevented from trading completely.
The problem is that you are thinking about trade and money in terms of government agreements while actual free trade only requires 2 consenting individuals to agree on something that is mutually beneficial and where any government rules and laws are interference.
Why is it that in the 50's, you could have a single family member working a blue collar job, while still having enough to buy a modest house, a car, and the ability to feed and raise 6 kids, yet 60 years of "progress" later, there's no way in hell that is possible. The excuse these days is that people buy way too much house and spend money on junk. To a degree, that's true, but even if you didn't have cell phone, cable, and 2 brand new cars, you still couldn't live like they could in the 50's.
- I covered this topic on many occasions, the short of it is this: collectivism, central planning, money and interest rate manipulation by the central banks created the inflation that destroyed productivity of an individual labourer in the USA by making it prohibitively expensive for businesses to save and invest capital.
Productivity of a labourer is based on the amount of capital investment that can be used to increase that productivity. Once there is no sane way to save and invest the productivity of a labourer goes through the floor, which is in fact what happened to the people who used to be able to support a family without a debt on a single income while working at some factory.
Government happened, the government happened that you think creates 'free trade agreements', what it actually did was destroy savings and investment capital by defaulting on the promise to redeem USD in gold in 1971. The economy was shot in the heart then, the head is just beginning to understand that it's dying because the body is killed.
How exactly do you see a union preventing companies from outsourcing again? I outsource, if a union tried to form I would immediately close shop and outsource that shop completely.
Trump and Sanders (and all of them) say idiotic things and the crowd eats it up. Trade barriers and walls never made anyone more productive and wealthy, only freedom from government oppression did that.
Businesses exist because people need them to exist and people are interested in buying from businesses, maybe working for them, investing with them. Governments with all the laws can prevent many types of businesses from existing, governments can prevent people from being hired based on what a company is offering, government can do everything that is destructive. Nothing that a government can do is constructive, it is always prohibitive, destructive, oppressive and violent.
Businesses are individual people making things for other people. Governments are collectives, mobs that want to steal and enjoy the proceeds of the theft.
You are able to make a living because of a society you didn't built up, going to work over roads you...
- this drivel is based on the assumptions that those things require any form of government theft and gun point robber to exist, they do not. All of those things can be and generally are built by individuals who act for their self interest. Free individuals acting out of sheer self interest build, make and trade things with each other without any 'help' from any form of government.
Government only collect taxes in the form of money. Now, take a bill from your wallet and look carefully at it: you see? it is *not* your property; it is jus...
- this drivel is supposed to make somebody think that representation of value in any currency does not equal the actual productive output of work of an individual. Government doesn't care actually how you trade, it wants a cut. Just because the cut can be measure din those pieces of paper doesn't mean actual productive output is not stolen from an individual, who is forced to forgo more investment or consumption and instead give to the government part of the person's life's output, which is time, which is again - part of life.
No government theft is worth any amount of life from any individual. Of-course government does come with guns, so that's a conundrum that we are going to see resolve one way or another.
Just don't bother calling 911 to the rescue if you ever happen to break a leg, you never payed for it, you know.
- government ran 911 shouldn't even exist, nor should any type of business or operation or agency.
Or maybe they'll just shoot you and take your wallet. Desparate people are dangerous and social security nets keep the crime rate low.
- that's why it makes total sense to arm yourself with something heavier than what a 'desperate person' has. There is 0 reason to have a problem with protecting yourself against somebody who is coming to steal and murder you, 0 reason to not shoot back or even shoot first.
A good historical example was Henry Ford. Instead of paying the lowest wages possible, he paid the highest and what he saw was a huge uptick in sales....
- illiterate propaganda. Ford saw an uptick of sales because he lowered the prices of his cars to about 400USD by creating production lines that produced so many cars that it was possible to sell them at that price. The workers got their 5USD/day salary not to hop jobs soon after they became productive enough at Ford factories because they were trained and could find a job that paid the same in another factory, where they didn't need to work as hard. Ford paid his employees twice as much as others paid because his employees were highly trained and very productive given Ford's investment into automation of the production line.
Actually you've got that backwards, fighting against minimum wage laws illistrates economic and historical ignorance at the highest level.
- no, he is correct, you are the one who is economically illiterate, but that's not surprising, modern schools do not teach economics, they teach pro-government propaganda instead.
Your assumptions are based on conditions that dont exist in the real world because of a little economic principle called "externalities"
- it is government that doesn't care about externalities first of all. Businesses pay for their inputs and they pay in case things go wrong and somebody sues them. Governments cannot even get sued. Governments use externalities heavily when they manipulate money, interest rates, create laws that alter economic activity.
lets allow businesses to decide what is the minimum wage
- you are 100% economically illiterate, businesses do not decide minimum wage, they offer a position and this position can be filled by somebody accepting the opposite side of the contract or go unfilled, prompting business to re-evaluate the offer (or to eliminate the need in that position).
Minimum wage is just a tax on business, who passes that tax to the clients on one hand, while hiring fewer people (or firing existing workers) on the other. Businesses do not grow money on trees, they make money by creating valuable products that others, who create products exchange for. Labour costs are paid out of gross revenue. If labour costs exceed revenue these costs will be slashed. If the return on the investment goes under some expected return that can be generated with the same investment elsewhere, the costs will be slashed.
Minimum wage is a tax specifically because there is a glut of supply on the lower scale of the economic ladder, where there is much more supply for even lower wage positions (if they were legal). I hire more people when the cost per person goes down, which is why I outsource.
Yes, that is the same conclusion that old Henry Ford came to before he raised the wages of his workers. If they couldn't afford to buy a car then who could?
- you are promoting a lie. Ford never cared whether or not his production line workers can buy his cars, he raised wages to stop turn over of highly trained workers.
As to whether humans will 'fall apart', there is no problem with humans falling apart if the alternative is any form of forced collectivism that you and others are promoting here. The only thing that is required for humans to create a wealthy society for all is freedom from oppression of the government that promotes monopolies, protects some against others, steals with taxes, inflation, business and other types of regulations and redistributes to anybody at all.
That's nothing! I have a system that I definitely did not want to update and it doesn't even run any MS software at all and yet I found Windows 10 on it. Somebody put a fucking Windows 10 sticker on my toilet.
Sure, you are suggesting that the content would be modified by the MITM attack.
I think a distributed key verification is more trustworthy than any CA (or all of them) could be.
Private property rights (that would have defended Apple in this case) were were killed in the USA the moment government was able to apply the Sherman's Act to dismantle Rockefeller's Standard Oil. This is not new, the only people who think this threat by the government Mafia is anything new are the ones who want to discriminate against some (for example discriminating against Rockefeller's right to private property is cheered by a large number of people).
Apple is the modern day Standard Oil. This case against them is the application of Sherman Act against Standard Oil. If nothing is done, 100 years from now idiots will be saying that government using its oppression to destroy Apple's private property rights was the correct thing...
Because then different users of the site could exchange and compare keys that they get on the page in a distributed manner.
I guess they figure MITM by Dice is better than just going self signed and posting the fingerprint on the front page (the way I would have done it if I ran this site)
I say it over and over again, browsers treating self signed certificates as if they are the virus prevents more encryption on the web.
Enterprise only means one thing: SLA. Nothing about 'enterprise' is in any way better, most often enterprise means monotone, monolith, boring but there is somebody to talk to (or at least there is a piece of paper that is signed that says there is somebody to talk to).
That's all it is, that's all it was and that's all it will be.
it's a clear improvement over what's in web browsers now
- I doubt it.
I guess Mozilla just can't sit still until they have an OS behind their name that creates the buzz unlike FF OS and more like Android. But seriously, blocking a JVM plugin (instead of maybe working to fix it by submitting fixes to Oracle if that was necessary) but creating a completely new VM to run bytecode inside browser directly... I guess so that eventually they'll just supply the VM and the browser itself will be written as an add on to it in WebAssembly, so that eventually somebody could port the original FF on top of that.
In any case, I thought and posted about it a year ago that things will go full circle. The mobile apps will eventually run directly in the browser (which incidentally will allow a mobile browser app to run inside a browser on your desktop, because why not).
The issue is personal for founder Jan Koum, who was born in Soviet-era Ukraine.
- it should be personal for everybody, not just people who have come from parts of the world where in the not so distant past (and in the present) the government has been and is the main villain. It should be understood that any government at all, regardless of what you think of it today is capable of being a villain because it has the power to be the villain. An individual can be a villain and do some damage, a villain government can and does massive amounts of damage to many, sometimes to millions and even to greater numbers of individuals. This understanding should not be limited to those, who have recent personal dealings with villain governments. People, of-course, are very short sighted and do not necessarily see the obvious reality of such things.
I don't give one fuck about anything that mddollar (intended) posts here. Scientific consensus must be built on testing, not politics.
This cannot be a surprise though, it should be obvious to everybody (even though it is not for some reason) that USA labour market became unsustainable with the USA taking the world off the gold standard in 1971 while being the issuer of the world's 'reserve currency'. The inflation that hit immediately after that happened was all government creating new fiat. This forced input business prices to go up and up while creating more and more demand for government intervention from the general public.
USA economy is dead. It will not be revived with more collectivism, it can only be reset and fixed with more freedom, which comes from less government intervention, not more. It comes from real money, not fake fiat. It comes from removal of income and wealth related taxes, not more of them to force some to pay 'fair share' (whatever that is). Clearly businesses and people who run them do not in any way consider their taxes to be fair. The businesses and people are moving, the money and businesses are moving out and the only thing that remains is more and more poverty and desire for more government intervention by the majority. The majority is screwed by the government intervention but they think that the solution is government intervention.
Basically there is no way to fix any of this until the attitudes towards freedom change and in the USA the attitudes so far are only changing towards more authoritarian and/or more collectivist approach to the economy and society.
Authoritarian and collectivist systems act as virus (as described in The Matrix, the original one), while free market capitalist systems actually care about their profitability and thus they care about the property that makes them profitable. On balance the only way that is tested and that works to have a working economy and a wealthy society is to allow as much freedom to individuals as possible, not to take it away.
The reality is that most people do not understand any of what I just said, they take it as an attack on themselves because they truly do not understand economics, productivity, production, business, trade, money, politics. There is no way to fix it by demanding more understanding, the only way to fix it will be through appeal to emotion (as always) and eventually the emotion will turn away from the collectivist approach and towards more individual freedom. Unfortunately for the emotion to do that it will have to be based on blood and murder of unimaginable proportions.
We will go through a period of blood before emotion can no longer deal with that much murder and misery and will demand freedom from the collective, freedom to be an individual and not to suffer the collectivist ideology. This will take a while.
18 years later and /. still allows nonsensical titles on its front page.
Java is a bloody language, not a thing that breaks your computer.
Overview
Unspecified vulnerability in Oracle Java SE 7u25 and earlier, and Java SE Embedded 7u25 and earlier, allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability via unknown vectors related to Libraries.
Description
Per http://www.oracle.com/technetw... 'Applies to client deployment of Java only. This vulnerability can be exploited only through sandboxed Java Web Start applications and sandboxed Java applets.'
Java is mostly used as a language and runs on server side JVMs, not in people's browsers.
Oracle, however, is a piece of shit company and its incompetence is legendary, it is a truly sad situation and as I wrote years ago, I bet the likes of IBM and Google are sorry now that they didn't manage to buy out SUN's assets before Oracle did.
hamper the government in the exercise of its important legitimate duties
- AFAIC there are no legitimate government authorities, all of their authorities are illegitimate, I disagree with every single authority they have usurped.
To me it is 100% irrelevant that a book author gets no copyright protection from the government. An author getting his or her book used as a movie plot is 0 issue, whether they get paid for something or not. Same with software, music, video, anything at all. All of these artificial monopolies provided by the government oppression is insane from every point of view, including the moral and the economic arguments.
That's the point of anarcho capitalism and to lesser extent libertarianism: companies do what the market wishes and governments do whatever increases their power for the sake of power.
Government power is absolute, they can murder people (and they do at home and abroad), they can take anything they want from you, they can kidnap you and hold you in unknown location until you die.
In a free market, capitalist system companies become wealthy when they deliver great product / service at the right price (the price part depends on what market niche a company is going after). In a free market, capitalist system government does not control trade, money, labour, business, individuals.
We obviously do not have free market, capitalist system, we have authoritarian regime, central control, central planning, oppression, slavery, theft and murder.
USA wasn't built as an authoritarian system, it was built as close to the free market as any country ever came close to it, so what happened? Well, the original free market capitalism allowed American companies and people to become so wealthy that politicians couldn't see all that wealth and leave it alone, they want it, they want power, they want power over you, they want to control you, they want to enslave you, they want to be the Big Brother who takes from some to give to others to maintain this insane oppressive system. They promise to take from a minority and to subsidise a majority and that's how politicians come to power and hold onto it.
Collectivism happened to USA and collectivism destroyed the very principles of free market that USA economy was really built upon, especially from about 1850s to about 1917.
Collectivism is becoming stronger every day, be it Sanders or Trump or Hillary or Rubio or anybody else that is running right now. Be it the military industrial complex or the food and drug industries or energy or education or health care or whatever. Collectivism is what allows for things like the Fed and labour control and State control and price and wage control and income and wealth taxes and redistribution and every single person out there that says: we should.... Whenever I hear we should... I know exactly what I am dealing with. Those are the words that lead to the outcomes that shouldn't happen and they cover themselves with the veil of good intentions.
Those fucking good intentions is what leads to complete destruction of the economy and society and then of all the freedoms. Then you are left wondering: will a huge company protect my freedom from government oppression and if they do, will they do it out of general goodness or because it helps them? Well shit, that company is being hit with that exact collectivism with all its oppression, why should it have 'good intentions' except for what is good to its bottom line exactly?