To win a Nobel prize in economics today a person needs to have no idea about real economics and instead he needs to support the idiotic Keynesian ideas that let the governments do what they want to do anyway: print paper money and pretend that central planning is what builds the economy. In the beginning of 20th century USA had under 20 formal economists and a sound economy. Today USA has tens of thousands of 'economists' and a shadow of its former economic power.
Of course. In this world nothing is a bigger crime than honesty and nobody is a bigger terrorist than somebody telling the truth to power. Snowden is a terrorist to the USA government, same as Assange.
Of course. It is a currency exchange informational site that is the terrorist, not a collectivist government driven by Keynesian ideas of 'creating prosperity by printing paper money'.
Of course. The Federal reserve bank chair woman is the bellweather of the economy, she and her institution are not driven by politics and are not manipulating the markets by insane economic policy of money printing and non existing interest rates.
Of course. The USA economy is doing just fine under the corporate collectivism and will be even better once the collectivists take over and turn it into a democratic collectivism. Collectivism is what drives the economy and makes it all better, not free market and private property (capitalism).
Obviously the economy can be ran by the collectivist ideology, simply issue new rules and regulations, that is what makes a nation productive - rules and regulations, not private initiative and free market entrepreneurship. Anybody who disagrees is a millionaire / billionaire and / or the enemy of the middle class, likely a terrorist.
( for the sarcastically challenged: the above are not a recipe for creating a sound economy, just so that we are clear)
A 'real terrorist' today: a person who does not follow and/or agree with the main stream and the party line. Not to be confused with the irrelevant and 'useful terrorist', somebody simply shooting and/or blowing up some irrelevant proles.
Realize that programmers do not choose languages that are more convenient because they want to make things bigger and slower, they do so because they have to ship the product faster and because the clients only have X dollars, not X+1 for a product. So you can ether build it in the most convenient, least costly ways, which means slower execution, bigger binaries, garbage collection and such or you can try and build a better program, run out of money and shut down the project.
Yes, in a place with no government you have all the rights and you have responsibilities to protect your own rights, it's a private responsibility of yourself to yourself and that is why people under those conditions actually create private security and justice system as they see needed.
The actual problem with the speed limit rules is that the speed limits are everywhere (except when I drive on the Autobahn in Germany, in most cases where I take it there are almost no speed limits). So because the speed limits are everywhere people are not paying attention.
There shouldn't be speed limits in most places, only in places where the limits are truly necessary, but the reality is that all of this is built to generate income for the city, not to ensure safety or sanity of any kind.
Moral? What a joke. You have just redefined theft and aggression and oppression and violence as morality. Of-course that is what all oppressive governments (the collective, the mob) do, they redefine words and then they apply them creating a giant ruse and misconception.
Morality is in non-initiation of aggression. Governments are immoral by their very definition. Businesses are amoral, governments are immoral, governments by definition initiate aggression, use violence and oppress individuals. Income tax is absolutely immoral, it subjugates the individual to the government, to the collective, tot he mob, it creates a situation where an individual's income (labour, which means time) is owned by the mob and then the government can set the rate at whatever it likes.
So no, it is absolutely immoral to tax income. It is absolutely immoral to tax different people's income at different marginal rates as well. It is also a horrible economic policy, as in reality the people with higher marginal taxes do everything in their power to move income somewhere else, making sure that it is untaxed, but this creates a huge misallocation of resources and achieves the exact opposite of your supposed desired effect.
The effect that you are supposedly looking for is usage of the said income for greater economic activity. The effect that you are actually getting is removal of the income, off-shoring production and creating various wealth consuming strategies that are incompatible with greater economic activity, reducing the needed economic activity.
Obviously whatever you tax you get less of, so the economics are awful, but the morality is unquestionably horrendous.
See how absolutely wrong you are and how you are unable to recognize the actual meaning of what I am saying at all? I will show you, because you cannot understand it yourself.
A right is a protection against government oppression. A government helping a slave owner is destroying the right of the slave. A person's right is a protection against government oppression. Are you under a weird impression that a government using its power to give a slave owner some sort of legal leg to stand on against an enslaved individual is somehow not a violation of a human right?
Again, for the weak minded like you are: a government using its force to help a slave owner is by definition taking away rights of the enslaved.
This is how USA had slavery: government position on slavery was actually that slavery was legal.
Now, what you are saying is perversion, that is not what I am talking about. A government using force to oppress a slave owner is actually consistent with my position, though I am against all and any government existing in the first place. However if a government exists and it uses its power to prevent slavery then what we have is a government that restores the equality of individual freedoms before law. On the other hand, my position is that it is actually none of government's business! That's right, it is a personal business, not a governmental one. It can be seen as a legal case (and it should be) but I am against all government (hope you understand it by now), so it is up to a secular and a private court system and a secular and a private police force to deal with such cases.
I am against all governments, not one person should be above another person in terms of legal status where it concerns the legal system. This is consistent with my position that government using oppression to provide an individual with property and / or time of another individual is a case of oppression and entitlement.
Many cultures are insane. There are cultures that practice genital mutilation, there are cultures that force people into religions from the very young age as a way to control them through 'culture', from my perspective it is insane but AFAIC morals are relative, so looking from within a culture like that it may seem perfectly normal under the circumstances. Objectively speaking anything like that removes individual rights to self governance and sovereignty.
If there is no natural right to property then you do not own your body and organs and freedom because your natural right to property starts with yourself and extends to the fruits of your labour, as they are expression of your time on this planet.
But again, a right is a protection against a government oppression, I am not talking about natural rights, I am talking about what the point of a right as a concept is in the first place.
Nowhere did I say that Australia is in any way shape or form a sane country or that anybody there understands what the difference between rights and entitlements is. All I am telling you is that saying that a government can use its force to oppress one individual on behalf of another individual is not a right, it's an entitlement. It is nomenclature, but words are important, redefining words is an Orwellian attempt at changing understanding of concepts of population in order to control the people.
Actually as a landlord I would not authorize any subletting of my property and would take you to court and remove you judiciously from my property should you violate the contract where I state that very thing unequivocally and the contract is agreed upon by both sides before possession takes place. Most definitely a landlord can remove a tenant if the tenant violates terms of the contract agreement, it may go to court but it will be enforced.
There is no such thing as a 'right' to other people's property. A right is protection against government abuse and oppression, nothing else. A right is only a meaningful term in the context of a relationship between an individual and the collective, since the collective cannot be actually punished for oppressing an individual, the laws are set in place to prevent the oppression in the first place. Declaring that in a contract between 2 individuals one of them has specific claims that will be backed by government force and oppression does not create a right, it removes the right of the party, who is on the short end of that stick and it is a stick.
Once somebody has to give something up because of government oppression to provide it to another party, then it is an entitlement. Just don't pretend you can't understand the difference between a right and an entitlement, very few are that obtuse.
I think there is never a reason to talk to a government. They can do shit of-course, they can come in with guns, with everything, I still think there is never a reason to talk to a government. I think everybody should avoid all government cooperation, I think everybody should stop paying taxes completely. I think all governments need to be abolished and eventually will become obsolete in our new global environment and we should speed up that process.
Pavel Durov, the guy who ran away from Putin's Russia after being forced to give or sell away his former company - vkontakte, a Russian Facebook like social network. He has 4 or 5 developers working on Telegram, they move around the world, not staying in any one country for too long, trying to escape government regulations.
I am a vegetarian, have been for over 2 decades now but not because I care for animals or some such nonsense. I am running an experiment on myself, my position is that it is a healthier lifestyle choice and I could not give any number of rats asses whether it is good or bad for the environment.
Provided conclusive proof that the wealth generated under a system of very few trade laws can be squandered very effectively by growing a large and expensive government apparatus and once the mob (the collective + government) destroys the economy, the society falls apart as well and all you have left is the ruins.
Of-course, USA used to be the country with the least regulations, taxes and generally government oppression and millions came over.
That migration was not a coincidence, people move to where there is more economic activity, not where the economy is oppressed, restricted and destroyed by the oppression of the collectivist or any other form of authoritarian government.
Of-course you are right, laws exist to extort money from the honest people and to maintain and grow a government for the sake of maintaining and growing a government.
Keep telling yourself that, in the meanwhile the manufacturing left for other countries. Regulations are taxes and prohibitions, USA was supposed to be an environment with minimal intervention by any government, that's what the point was, that's why people came to the country after leaving their own, not for more government and regulation and taxes and oppression, for less of that same shit.
Beside that, what the fuck is 'the right' thing exactly? Are you telling me USA government knows right from wrong? I can give you thousands of reasons why that is bullshit, here is one: why are you in Iraq?
this is just ridiculous. It took me only a few minutes on the Internet to regenerate the certificates last year to move to SHA-2. I am actually more concerned with all the fallout we have due to TLS1.0 deprecation, which hit us early on this year actually, even though it wasn't supposed to happen until summer of 2016. Guess what, a number of payment processors forced us basically to lose browsers that only support TLS1.0. Yes, a number of people are not on browsers that support TLS1.1 or 1.2 yet. To keep our PCI compliance we have to switch away from TLS1.0 and our processors basically forced us this year. So we had to get around that in a number of... less than perfect ways.
I read TFA and the way I understand it is that neurons in the hippocampus connect with each other in a way that resembles or projects a map of the environment into the connected structure. So basically a picture or map of the environment is formed in the brain. A mouse is released into a maze, the maze is a geometrical structure that mouse follows to try and escape. As the mouse follows the structure the picture of the maze is mapped into the brain and stays there for some time (unknown?) The mouse knows where it is in the maze because of that shape of the connected neurons that forms in its hippocampus.
So we probably do the same. The size of the brain (number of neurons and connections between them) likely limits how much of the space around us we can map into it. It would be interesting to find out what is the size of the maze supposed to be before a mouse can no longer figure out where it is? Also what if the maze is dynamically changing (corridors are closed and others are opened after the mouse passes them), how does the brain remap this information, does it add new information without removing old data?
What other meta-data is stored in the brain beside the map of it, how about colours, smells, environment (sharp corners, sticky floors, puddles of water, etc.) How much can a mouse be pushed before it gives up?
Not too many, too few hours. Goddamn, one thing is when/. readers don't look at TFA, but goddamn editors not giving a shit is another thing altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
To win a Nobel prize in economics today a person needs to have no idea about real economics and instead he needs to support the idiotic Keynesian ideas that let the governments do what they want to do anyway: print paper money and pretend that central planning is what builds the economy. In the beginning of 20th century USA had under 20 formal economists and a sound economy. Today USA has tens of thousands of 'economists' and a shadow of its former economic power.
Of course. In this world nothing is a bigger crime than honesty and nobody is a bigger terrorist than somebody telling the truth to power. Snowden is a terrorist to the USA government, same as Assange.
Of course. It is a currency exchange informational site that is the terrorist, not a collectivist government driven by Keynesian ideas of 'creating prosperity by printing paper money'.
Of course. The Federal reserve bank chair woman is the bellweather of the economy, she and her institution are not driven by politics and are not manipulating the markets by insane economic policy of money printing and non existing interest rates.
Of course. The USA economy is doing just fine under the corporate collectivism and will be even better once the collectivists take over and turn it into a democratic collectivism. Collectivism is what drives the economy and makes it all better, not free market and private property (capitalism).
Obviously the economy can be ran by the collectivist ideology, simply issue new rules and regulations, that is what makes a nation productive - rules and regulations, not private initiative and free market entrepreneurship. Anybody who disagrees is a millionaire / billionaire and / or the enemy of the middle class, likely a terrorist.
( for the sarcastically challenged: the above are not a recipe for creating a sound economy, just so that we are clear)
A 'real terrorist' today: a person who does not follow and/or agree with the main stream and the party line. Not to be confused with the irrelevant and 'useful terrorist', somebody simply shooting and/or blowing up some irrelevant proles.
Realize that programmers do not choose languages that are more convenient because they want to make things bigger and slower, they do so because they have to ship the product faster and because the clients only have X dollars, not X+1 for a product. So you can ether build it in the most convenient, least costly ways, which means slower execution, bigger binaries, garbage collection and such or you can try and build a better program, run out of money and shut down the project.
Yes, in a place with no government you have all the rights and you have responsibilities to protect your own rights, it's a private responsibility of yourself to yourself and that is why people under those conditions actually create private security and justice system as they see needed.
The actual problem with the speed limit rules is that the speed limits are everywhere (except when I drive on the Autobahn in Germany, in most cases where I take it there are almost no speed limits). So because the speed limits are everywhere people are not paying attention.
There shouldn't be speed limits in most places, only in places where the limits are truly necessary, but the reality is that all of this is built to generate income for the city, not to ensure safety or sanity of any kind.
Moral? What a joke. You have just redefined theft and aggression and oppression and violence as morality. Of-course that is what all oppressive governments (the collective, the mob) do, they redefine words and then they apply them creating a giant ruse and misconception.
Morality is in non-initiation of aggression. Governments are immoral by their very definition. Businesses are amoral, governments are immoral, governments by definition initiate aggression, use violence and oppress individuals. Income tax is absolutely immoral, it subjugates the individual to the government, to the collective, tot he mob, it creates a situation where an individual's income (labour, which means time) is owned by the mob and then the government can set the rate at whatever it likes.
So no, it is absolutely immoral to tax income. It is absolutely immoral to tax different people's income at different marginal rates as well. It is also a horrible economic policy, as in reality the people with higher marginal taxes do everything in their power to move income somewhere else, making sure that it is untaxed, but this creates a huge misallocation of resources and achieves the exact opposite of your supposed desired effect.
The effect that you are supposedly looking for is usage of the said income for greater economic activity. The effect that you are actually getting is removal of the income, off-shoring production and creating various wealth consuming strategies that are incompatible with greater economic activity, reducing the needed economic activity.
Obviously whatever you tax you get less of, so the economics are awful, but the morality is unquestionably horrendous.
See how absolutely wrong you are and how you are unable to recognize the actual meaning of what I am saying at all? I will show you, because you cannot understand it yourself.
A right is a protection against government oppression. A government helping a slave owner is destroying the right of the slave. A person's right is a protection against government oppression. Are you under a weird impression that a government using its power to give a slave owner some sort of legal leg to stand on against an enslaved individual is somehow not a violation of a human right?
Again, for the weak minded like you are: a government using its force to help a slave owner is by definition taking away rights of the enslaved.
This is how USA had slavery: government position on slavery was actually that slavery was legal.
Now, what you are saying is perversion, that is not what I am talking about. A government using force to oppress a slave owner is actually consistent with my position, though I am against all and any government existing in the first place. However if a government exists and it uses its power to prevent slavery then what we have is a government that restores the equality of individual freedoms before law. On the other hand, my position is that it is actually none of government's business! That's right, it is a personal business, not a governmental one. It can be seen as a legal case (and it should be) but I am against all government (hope you understand it by now), so it is up to a secular and a private court system and a secular and a private police force to deal with such cases.
I am against all governments, not one person should be above another person in terms of legal status where it concerns the legal system. This is consistent with my position that government using oppression to provide an individual with property and / or time of another individual is a case of oppression and entitlement.
Many cultures are insane. There are cultures that practice genital mutilation, there are cultures that force people into religions from the very young age as a way to control them through 'culture', from my perspective it is insane but AFAIC morals are relative, so looking from within a culture like that it may seem perfectly normal under the circumstances. Objectively speaking anything like that removes individual rights to self governance and sovereignty.
If there is no natural right to property then you do not own your body and organs and freedom because your natural right to property starts with yourself and extends to the fruits of your labour, as they are expression of your time on this planet.
But again, a right is a protection against a government oppression, I am not talking about natural rights, I am talking about what the point of a right as a concept is in the first place.
Nowhere did I say that Australia is in any way shape or form a sane country or that anybody there understands what the difference between rights and entitlements is. All I am telling you is that saying that a government can use its force to oppress one individual on behalf of another individual is not a right, it's an entitlement. It is nomenclature, but words are important, redefining words is an Orwellian attempt at changing understanding of concepts of population in order to control the people.
Actually as a landlord I would not authorize any subletting of my property and would take you to court and remove you judiciously from my property should you violate the contract where I state that very thing unequivocally and the contract is agreed upon by both sides before possession takes place. Most definitely a landlord can remove a tenant if the tenant violates terms of the contract agreement, it may go to court but it will be enforced.
Indiana court defined Pi as 3 at some point in time, sure, you can say it set Pi to 3 legally but it did not change the nature of Pi.
There is no such thing as a 'right' to other people's property. A right is protection against government abuse and oppression, nothing else. A right is only a meaningful term in the context of a relationship between an individual and the collective, since the collective cannot be actually punished for oppressing an individual, the laws are set in place to prevent the oppression in the first place. Declaring that in a contract between 2 individuals one of them has specific claims that will be backed by government force and oppression does not create a right, it removes the right of the party, who is on the short end of that stick and it is a stick.
Once somebody has to give something up because of government oppression to provide it to another party, then it is an entitlement. Just don't pretend you can't understand the difference between a right and an entitlement, very few are that obtuse.
You mean a 'guaranteed entitlement' of-course, nobody has a 'right' to steal or otherwise misuse other people's property.
I think there is never a reason to talk to a government. They can do shit of-course, they can come in with guns, with everything, I still think there is never a reason to talk to a government. I think everybody should avoid all government cooperation, I think everybody should stop paying taxes completely. I think all governments need to be abolished and eventually will become obsolete in our new global environment and we should speed up that process.
Pavel Durov, the guy who ran away from Putin's Russia after being forced to give or sell away his former company - vkontakte, a Russian Facebook like social network. He has 4 or 5 developers working on Telegram, they move around the world, not staying in any one country for too long, trying to escape government regulations.
I am a vegetarian, have been for over 2 decades now but not because I care for animals or some such nonsense. I am running an experiment on myself, my position is that it is a healthier lifestyle choice and I could not give any number of rats asses whether it is good or bad for the environment.
Provided conclusive proof that the wealth generated under a system of very few trade laws can be squandered very effectively by growing a large and expensive government apparatus and once the mob (the collective + government) destroys the economy, the society falls apart as well and all you have left is the ruins.
Of-course, USA used to be the country with the least regulations, taxes and generally government oppression and millions came over.
That migration was not a coincidence, people move to where there is more economic activity, not where the economy is oppressed, restricted and destroyed by the oppression of the collectivist or any other form of authoritarian government.
Of-course you are right, laws exist to extort money from the honest people and to maintain and grow a government for the sake of maintaining and growing a government.
Keep telling yourself that, in the meanwhile the manufacturing left for other countries. Regulations are taxes and prohibitions, USA was supposed to be an environment with minimal intervention by any government, that's what the point was, that's why people came to the country after leaving their own, not for more government and regulation and taxes and oppression, for less of that same shit.
Beside that, what the fuck is 'the right' thing exactly? Are you telling me USA government knows right from wrong? I can give you thousands of reasons why that is bullshit, here is one: why are you in Iraq?
Never mind 2016, one of the payment processors that we are using (FirstData) forced us to turn off TLS1.0 back in June of this year!
this is just ridiculous. It took me only a few minutes on the Internet to regenerate the certificates last year to move to SHA-2. I am actually more concerned with all the fallout we have due to TLS1.0 deprecation, which hit us early on this year actually, even though it wasn't supposed to happen until summer of 2016. Guess what, a number of payment processors forced us basically to lose browsers that only support TLS1.0. Yes, a number of people are not on browsers that support TLS1.1 or 1.2 yet. To keep our PCI compliance we have to switch away from TLS1.0 and our processors basically forced us this year. So we had to get around that in a number of ... less than perfect ways.
I read TFA and the way I understand it is that neurons in the hippocampus connect with each other in a way that resembles or projects a map of the environment into the connected structure. So basically a picture or map of the environment is formed in the brain. A mouse is released into a maze, the maze is a geometrical structure that mouse follows to try and escape. As the mouse follows the structure the picture of the maze is mapped into the brain and stays there for some time (unknown?) The mouse knows where it is in the maze because of that shape of the connected neurons that forms in its hippocampus.
So we probably do the same. The size of the brain (number of neurons and connections between them) likely limits how much of the space around us we can map into it. It would be interesting to find out what is the size of the maze supposed to be before a mouse can no longer figure out where it is? Also what if the maze is dynamically changing (corridors are closed and others are opened after the mouse passes them), how does the brain remap this information, does it add new information without removing old data?
What other meta-data is stored in the brain beside the map of it, how about colours, smells, environment (sharp corners, sticky floors, puddles of water, etc.) How much can a mouse be pushed before it gives up?
Not too many, too few hours. Goddamn, one thing is when /. readers don't look at TFA, but goddamn editors not giving a shit is another thing altogether.
I am a vegetarian for 21 years now because I think it is better for my health and for no other reason than conducting a long experiment on my self.