Simply because one CAN do something, does not mean that they SHOULD.
- it is a personal choice, whether they should or not is a personal matter. I am of an opinion that if you can you should.
There are very real consequences for the whole society, that WILL eventually come home to roost, from trying to take everything you can, because you can.
- of-course. The real consequences that the society produces more as a total, becomes wealthier.
Labeling people that see the bigger picture, and say "Whoa, Hold up there buddy!" as "Suckers", is how you end up with a world where 1% of people own 99% of resources, and where most people live either impoverished, or close to impoverished.
- this entire idea comes from your misunderstanding.
You see somebody that makes large amounts of money by running business as somebody who subtracts from the society, you are mistaken. Somebody who runs a business adds to the society, he or she adds much more to the society than he or she ends up owning due to this business. If somebody is making 100000000000 times as much as some employee of his means that there are a million or a billion times more people that use the products/services created by the business, otherwise this money could not get collected in one place.
In reality nobody makes 10000000000000 times as anybody else not because of any idiotic ideology crap that you espouse but because there are serious limits on how profitable a business can be before competition steps in to get their share of that market. You have to have literally billions of quadrillions of people to get to numbers of that magnitude.
Jeff Bezos is a multi billionaire on paper, he is also a real billionaire (outside of his own stock) because he is serving tens or hundreds of millions of people and because competition is so weak. However there is and there will be more competition, watching Bezos makes people want in on that action, and not 'in' the way *you* want it (by stealing and redistributing) but in as in - I want to build my own company that takes and serves some of that market, I also want to be a billionaire. *THAT* is how some people are prevented from making billions of times as much money as some other people.
Of-course I am not talking about actual theft here, the type of theft that the politicians and various other government officials are engage in.
No, you are not justified in demanding wages that high.
- ??? *demanding* ??? Who is demanding? I wish I could demand something. YOU are the one demanding. No, I believe in working for it, making it by running the business, by increasing sales and by serving as many customers as possible.
At the end it can either be good margin or good volume, it is rarely both (the only time it's good margin and good volume is when a politician steals the money, there is little to none competition there).
Money is a tool Roman. Like a screwdriver, or wrench. You use it to accomplish things.
- oh, wow, how insightful. You think I consider money to be toys? I consider money to be recognition by the free market for a job well done or a tool of oppression by the governments. Money is store of value, means of exchange and units of accounting, so yes, those are tools. You want to use money to get political power, I want to use money to make things that people want.
If you are making more money than you can possibly spend, while other people are literally starving to death, you really cannot justify that.
- I don't have to justify anything, the market and the money I make are their own justification. If I cannot make the money then I cannot justify expecting it, if I can make the money then your argument is irrelevant.
AFAIC there shouldn't be any income or wealth taxes and any form of forced redistribution by any form of a collective at all. I am against government as a general concept, so supporting a congressional candidate to reduce the government is not just futile, it would also be hypocritical. However if I find a candidate like that I would still support him or her of-course.
The Internet with its anonymity is individual rights while democracy and modern society is mob rule. This authoritarian scumbag is on the right track though, the modern society cannot allow individual freedoms.
100 is not that much by the way, I think anybody should be earning whatever they possibly can. If you start a company or acquire one and manage it, you are making decisions on the products, borrowing and expanding, hiring, firing, you are the owner of a machine, which you can use to make money. 100 times, 1000 times, 10000000 times more than others - you ahould be able to make any of it. 100000000000000000 times - good for you.
It is not about talent or deserving, it is about capability to so what others have not taken upon themselves and have not done.
It is irrelevant whether I can or cannot personally deal physically with any particular individual, you don't know me and I don't need to prove anything to anybody. Maybe you are a 300pound gorilla, maybe you are a spastic kid in his mom's basement, doesn't matter at all. I have enough experience to know that I cannot deal with every threat personally, which is why I am totally willing to work with people who can protect my investments and I can pay for it. The point is that it would be a voluntary transaction and I would know precisely what I am paying for.
I agree with you completely. Serialization was one of the best features (also great features are/were strong typing, reflection and the JVM automated memory management) that Java provided.
I am talking about server side Java, I don't care about Java based GUIs, those don't matter. There are thousands of tools to choose from that use serialization/deserialization and reflection to speed up development.
Of-course I look at it from the point of view of development risk, reducing business related bugs, reducing resource management bugs. Java, like any other language, can be used to build horrible code it can also be used to build working code that does what it is supposed to do.
To remove a tool like serialization or reflection for example is to cripple the language AFAIC. Actually combining this with the Java 5 and further 'improvements' makes the language and the platform worse, not better. AFAIC syntax sugar that was introduced starting with 5 made the language less suitable for solid development and debugging. The path Oracle is on will prevent people from using the language in the future and will eventually be its demise.
All government is bad and all business is good. Government is bad not because of what it does but because of what it is - a collectivist system of oppression.
Business is not all good because of what it does but because of what it is - individual taking reigns of his own destiny by being creative, cunning, enterprising.
Nobody cares about me but I do not want to be cared for. I want to deal with individuals, not with the collective.
My view is that all regulation is wrong and the government needs to just step aside and let industry solve all our problems.
If the industry is not solving the problems it will be outcompeted by new entries into the industry or maybe the problem simply cannot be solved with the tools that are currently available.
I think that people should be free to try and fail, to try and die also. Maybe the system should recognize that there are different views and not force everybody to the same standard. I think that the federal government is too big and too powerful, I think that if it has to exist at all it should not have the power to collect any income or wealth taxes and to redistribute anything to anybody. All laws should be at the State level and mynicipal level, there must not be a single monopoly on State violence against an individual or his or her business.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, guns, axes and pitchforks. Blah, blah, blah. There will be automation including automation of protection against guns, axes and pitchforks. There is always suppression with the drugs, there is culling with diseases. A plague that spreads through certain types of food and triggers on a signal. The masses will be comtrolled, socialism will lose at the end, individual domination will win. People will learn to run their own small businesses and they will learn that the collectivist systems will get them nowhere.
Nobody should be compelled by any force to subsidise anybody else at all.
In a few veiled words I would explain to the piece of cow manure asking that question that if he or she were to get their dirty paws into my business I would use all of my resources to make their own lives a living hell.
It is a huge misconception. Nobody owes anything to the IRS. People need to stop voluntarily pay taxes, no government can exist or steal money as taxes if a very large portion of the population stops cooperating.
IMNSHO there shouldnt be any government services and there shouldnt be any government. There shouldnt be any government workers and there shouldnt be any government pensions.
Humans are animals and I view humans as such and have always viewed humans as such. Humans are creative animals that use and build tools to modify the environment to make it more bareable for humans.
It's proper that society seeks to create the most collective happiness and good, while respecting fundamental rights.
- impossible.
It is impossible for fundamental individual rights to be respected while aiming for the 'most collective good'. Those are two opposing targets, they do not intersect. The fundamental right of owning your sovereignty, your life, freedom and the results of your labour cannot be respected in a society that aims for the 'most collective happiness and good'. A society that aims for the 'most collective happiness and good' must by definition reject the rights of an individual to his own labour, his own property and his own life and freedom.
IMNSHO healthcare, prisons and education should never be government operated, nor should anything else, including the military. AFAIC all of these services should be always privately provided to people willing to purchase these services in a competitive market, which ensures good ratio between quality and price and prevents corruption by the oppressive state. Certainly private corruption may exists, but at least in private sector there also are better choices. There are no choices when everything is in the hands of a government.
IMSHO there are no governments with legitimate aims, AFAIC all government aims are illegitimate, bar none. If an aim is legitimate it wouldn't be a government one.
People who have principles (precious principles) understand at least some of it better than you do. They are far from being sociopaths, they are humanists, they distrust government much more than individuals and they are correct in that.
So the reason for this I bet is the latest fight that is happening between Telegram and ROSKOMNADZOR - a Russian government agency that is trying to block this service.
You can surely find all the information you want/need on this topic but what I want to add is that it is amazing how quickly these companies folded to pressure applied by the Russian government Mafia.
No one disputes that we should have a social safety net for the old and infirm certainly
- I always dispute it, so your statement is false. I do not believe in any form of collective oppression and violence, this means I am against the collective using such tactics regardless of the goals. All charity must be private and nobody should be forced to participate in it
Price controls only lead to one thing: shortages. Shortages of existing products, shortages of any new development. All you get with price controls is shortages and more deaths, so more problems than what you have with products priced to market.
Here is what the oppressive government robots (cops) have done so far:
The family was going through its morning routine last Wednesday when the police banged on the front door.
The mother says she, her husband, and two of her kids were corralled in the living room.
"They read us our rights and told us not to talk," she said.
"Our daughter, she was really traumatized, really bad â" brought her to tears, the way they conducted this," said the father.
She says at one point there were 15 officers in the home.
"People were going into the kitchen, were going into the dining room, going upstairs. They went into the basement. They were [traipsing] through the house, everywhere," the mother said.
She says the family is still working through the mess they left behind.
"They rifled through everything. They turned over mattresses, they took drawers and emptied out drawers, they went through personal papers, pictures," she said. "It was totally devastating and traumatic."
She says police seized her son's computers, plus her husband's cellphone and work computers, which has left him unable to do his job.
They also seized her younger son's desktop computer, after he was arrested on the street walking to high school.
Officers took her 13-year-old daughter to question her in a police car.
"My little ones are asking, 'Will I be able to get a job because we were arrested?'" she said.
Here are the official statements of the anti-human oppressive pieces of shit that occupy government positions of power:
Supt. Jim Perrin said last week police rarely charge people with unauthorized use of a computer, but that it was the right offence in this case. (CBC)
On Friday, Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil said the person who downloaded the documents 'stole' the information. (Canadian Press)
Government is as per its usual is a boot boot stamping on a human face - forever. Those of us who support governments are the foot inside the boot.
Correct, there is no god and correct: everything is just an accident.
However government treating you in whatever way it does is not supposed to be reliant on presence or absence of any type of god, your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just because there is no god does not mean that the system you live in has to be any better or worse towards any individual or to any system. You are jumping to some very weird conclusions there.
Back Page was actually providing a way for sex workers to operate without criminals managing them.
- and why would the government want that exactly? The government wants *everything* to be criminalized, it wants you to be on the wrong side of the 'law' always, you are easy to control and you will keep your head down when they have the 'legal' system to punish you.
Slashdot Mirror
Simply because one CAN do something, does not mean that they SHOULD.
- it is a personal choice, whether they should or not is a personal matter. I am of an opinion that if you can you should.
There are very real consequences for the whole society, that WILL eventually come home to roost, from trying to take everything you can, because you can.
- of-course. The real consequences that the society produces more as a total, becomes wealthier.
Labeling people that see the bigger picture, and say "Whoa, Hold up there buddy!" as "Suckers", is how you end up with a world where 1% of people own 99% of resources, and where most people live either impoverished, or close to impoverished.
- this entire idea comes from your misunderstanding.
You see somebody that makes large amounts of money by running business as somebody who subtracts from the society, you are mistaken. Somebody who runs a business adds to the society, he or she adds much more to the society than he or she ends up owning due to this business. If somebody is making 100000000000 times as much as some employee of his means that there are a million or a billion times more people that use the products/services created by the business, otherwise this money could not get collected in one place.
In reality nobody makes 10000000000000 times as anybody else not because of any idiotic ideology crap that you espouse but because there are serious limits on how profitable a business can be before competition steps in to get their share of that market. You have to have literally billions of quadrillions of people to get to numbers of that magnitude.
Jeff Bezos is a multi billionaire on paper, he is also a real billionaire (outside of his own stock) because he is serving tens or hundreds of millions of people and because competition is so weak. However there is and there will be more competition, watching Bezos makes people want in on that action, and not 'in' the way *you* want it (by stealing and redistributing) but in as in - I want to build my own company that takes and serves some of that market, I also want to be a billionaire. *THAT* is how some people are prevented from making billions of times as much money as some other people.
Of-course I am not talking about actual theft here, the type of theft that the politicians and various other government officials are engage in.
No, you are not justified in demanding wages that high.
- ??? *demanding* ??? Who is demanding? I wish I could demand something. YOU are the one demanding. No, I believe in working for it, making it by running the business, by increasing sales and by serving as many customers as possible.
At the end it can either be good margin or good volume, it is rarely both (the only time it's good margin and good volume is when a politician steals the money, there is little to none competition there).
Money is a tool Roman. Like a screwdriver, or wrench. You use it to accomplish things.
- oh, wow, how insightful. You think I consider money to be toys? I consider money to be recognition by the free market for a job well done or a tool of oppression by the governments. Money is store of value, means of exchange and units of accounting, so yes, those are tools. You want to use money to get political power, I want to use money to make things that people want.
If you are making more money than you can possibly spend, while other people are literally starving to death, you really cannot justify that.
- I don't have to justify anything, the market and the money I make are their own justification. If I cannot make the money then I cannot justify expecting it, if I can make the money then your argument is irrelevant.
Cheers.
AFAIC there shouldn't be any income or wealth taxes and any form of forced redistribution by any form of a collective at all. I am against government as a general concept, so supporting a congressional candidate to reduce the government is not just futile, it would also be hypocritical. However if I find a candidate like that I would still support him or her of-course.
The Internet with its anonymity is individual rights while democracy and modern society is mob rule. This authoritarian scumbag is on the right track though, the modern society cannot allow individual freedoms.
100 is not that much by the way, I think anybody should be earning whatever they possibly can. If you start a company or acquire one and manage it, you are making decisions on the products, borrowing and expanding, hiring, firing, you are the owner of a machine, which you can use to make money. 100 times, 1000 times, 10000000 times more than others - you ahould be able to make any of it. 100000000000000000 times - good for you.
It is not about talent or deserving, it is about capability to so what others have not taken upon themselves and have not done.
You cannot hide your bandit tendencies for stealing behind your apparent homophobia.
'Right wing' in your parlance just means anybody who is against theft and redistrubution of the stilen goods.
I said it before and I will say it again: I want my nuclear powered car! I must have my nuclear car.
It is irrelevant whether I can or cannot personally deal physically with any particular individual, you don't know me and I don't need to prove anything to anybody. Maybe you are a 300pound gorilla, maybe you are a spastic kid in his mom's basement, doesn't matter at all. I have enough experience to know that I cannot deal with every threat personally, which is why I am totally willing to work with people who can protect my investments and I can pay for it. The point is that it would be a voluntary transaction and I would know precisely what I am paying for.
I agree with you completely. Serialization was one of the best features (also great features are/were strong typing, reflection and the JVM automated memory management) that Java provided.
I am talking about server side Java, I don't care about Java based GUIs, those don't matter. There are thousands of tools to choose from that use serialization/deserialization and reflection to speed up development.
Of-course I look at it from the point of view of development risk, reducing business related bugs, reducing resource management bugs. Java, like any other language, can be used to build horrible code it can also be used to build working code that does what it is supposed to do.
To remove a tool like serialization or reflection for example is to cripple the language AFAIC. Actually combining this with the Java 5 and further 'improvements' makes the language and the platform worse, not better. AFAIC syntax sugar that was introduced starting with 5 made the language less suitable for solid development and debugging. The path Oracle is on will prevent people from using the language in the future and will eventually be its demise.
All government is bad and all business is good. Government is bad not because of what it does but because of what it is - a collectivist system of oppression.
Business is not all good because of what it does but because of what it is - individual taking reigns of his own destiny by being creative, cunning, enterprising.
Nobody cares about me but I do not want to be cared for. I want to deal with individuals, not with the collective.
My view is that all regulation is wrong and the government needs to just step aside and let industry solve all our problems.
If the industry is not solving the problems it will be outcompeted by new entries into the industry or maybe the problem simply cannot be solved with the tools that are currently available.
I think that people should be free to try and fail, to try and die also. Maybe the system should recognize that there are different views and not force everybody to the same standard. I think that the federal government is too big and too powerful, I think that if it has to exist at all it should not have the power to collect any income or wealth taxes and to redistribute anything to anybody. All laws should be at the State level and mynicipal level, there must not be a single monopoly on State violence against an individual or his or her business.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, guns, axes and pitchforks. Blah, blah, blah. There will be automation including automation of protection against guns, axes and pitchforks. There is always suppression with the drugs, there is culling with diseases. A plague that spreads through certain types of food and triggers on a signal. The masses will be comtrolled, socialism will lose at the end, individual domination will win. People will learn to run their own small businesses and they will learn that the collectivist systems will get them nowhere.
Nobody should be compelled by any force to subsidise anybody else at all.
In a few veiled words I would explain to the piece of cow manure asking that question that if he or she were to get their dirty paws into my business I would use all of my resources to make their own lives a living hell.
It is a huge misconception. Nobody owes anything to the IRS. People need to stop voluntarily pay taxes, no government can exist or steal money as taxes if a very large portion of the population stops cooperating.
IMNSHO there shouldnt be any government services and there shouldnt be any government. There shouldnt be any government workers and there shouldnt be any government pensions.
Humans are animals and I view humans as such and have always viewed humans as such. Humans are creative animals that use and build tools to modify the environment to make it more bareable for humans.
It's proper that society seeks to create the most collective happiness and good, while respecting fundamental rights.
- impossible.
It is impossible for fundamental individual rights to be respected while aiming for the 'most collective good'. Those are two opposing targets, they do not intersect. The fundamental right of owning your sovereignty, your life, freedom and the results of your labour cannot be respected in a society that aims for the 'most collective happiness and good'. A society that aims for the 'most collective happiness and good' must by definition reject the rights of an individual to his own labour, his own property and his own life and freedom.
IMNSHO healthcare, prisons and education should never be government operated, nor should anything else, including the military. AFAIC all of these services should be always privately provided to people willing to purchase these services in a competitive market, which ensures good ratio between quality and price and prevents corruption by the oppressive state. Certainly private corruption may exists, but at least in private sector there also are better choices. There are no choices when everything is in the hands of a government.
IMSHO there are no governments with legitimate aims, AFAIC all government aims are illegitimate, bar none. If an aim is legitimate it wouldn't be a government one.
People who have principles (precious principles) understand at least some of it better than you do. They are far from being sociopaths, they are humanists, they distrust government much more than individuals and they are correct in that.
So the reason for this I bet is the latest fight that is happening between Telegram and ROSKOMNADZOR - a Russian government agency that is trying to block this service.
You can surely find all the information you want/need on this topic but what I want to add is that it is amazing how quickly these companies folded to pressure applied by the Russian government Mafia.
No one disputes that we should have a social safety net for the old and infirm certainly
- I always dispute it, so your statement is false. I do not believe in any form of collective oppression and violence, this means I am against the collective using such tactics regardless of the goals. All charity must be private and nobody should be forced to participate in it
Price controls only lead to one thing: shortages. Shortages of existing products, shortages of any new development. All you get with price controls is shortages and more deaths, so more problems than what you have with products priced to market.
Here is what the oppressive government robots (cops) have done so far:
The family was going through its morning routine last Wednesday when the police banged on the front door.
The mother says she, her husband, and two of her kids were corralled in the living room.
"They read us our rights and told us not to talk," she said.
"Our daughter, she was really traumatized, really bad â" brought her to tears, the way they conducted this," said the father.
She says at one point there were 15 officers in the home.
"People were going into the kitchen, were going into the dining room, going upstairs. They went into the basement. They were [traipsing] through the house, everywhere," the mother said.
She says the family is still working through the mess they left behind.
"They rifled through everything. They turned over mattresses, they took drawers and emptied out drawers, they went through personal papers, pictures," she said. "It was totally devastating and traumatic."
She says police seized her son's computers, plus her husband's cellphone and work computers, which has left him unable to do his job.
They also seized her younger son's desktop computer, after he was arrested on the street walking to high school.
Officers took her 13-year-old daughter to question her in a police car.
"My little ones are asking, 'Will I be able to get a job because we were arrested?'" she said.
Here are the official statements of the anti-human oppressive pieces of shit that occupy government positions of power:
Supt. Jim Perrin said last week police rarely charge people with unauthorized use of a computer, but that it was the right offence in this case. (CBC)
On Friday, Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil said the person who downloaded the documents 'stole' the information. (Canadian Press)
Government is as per its usual is a boot boot stamping on a human face - forever. Those of us who support governments are the foot inside the boot.
Correct, there is no god and correct: everything is just an accident.
However government treating you in whatever way it does is not supposed to be reliant on presence or absence of any type of god, your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just because there is no god does not mean that the system you live in has to be any better or worse towards any individual or to any system. You are jumping to some very weird conclusions there.
Back Page was actually providing a way for sex workers to operate without criminals managing them.
- and why would the government want that exactly? The government wants *everything* to be criminalized, it wants you to be on the wrong side of the 'law' always, you are easy to control and you will keep your head down when they have the 'legal' system to punish you.