This law is oppressive like almost all laws and has to be abolished. Real discrimination jappens in the high public offices, private discrimination by a person or by a business must be a freedom.
I am pretty sure that is your answer to everything: somebody built a business and is now a billionaire? That is a problem, lets "Slam them straight back to middle class".
Somebody inherited money and business from their parents? That is a problem, lets "Slam them straight back to middle class".
Etc. Yeah, I hear you. You couldn't get there so everybody should be slammed back to middle class because you cannot handle this world.
Who is 'we'???? I don't consider myself part of your 'we'. You want to pay taxes to live in this so called 'society' - go right ahead. AFAIC there is no society, there are only individuals and each does what he or she can to survive, that is what I see. AFAIC it is a moral obligation *not* to pay taxes, it is a *moral* obligation to say NO to all this racketeering and robbery that is income and wealth taxation. That is my proncipled position.
Actually what is obvious is that the obvious is not obvious to everyone. It is obvious that there is nothing more expensive than something a government is providing "for free", thus it is obvious that nothing should be provided "for free" by any government, including insurance of any kind, health care, education, infrastructure or anything else, not even the military or the court system. It is then obvious that governmemt must not be allowed to steal income or wealth from any people for any purpose, so income or wealth related taxes must not exist.
So I clicked this thing a few times, a story from 2000, ok, 2004, ok but then one from september 2009 and that did me in. I would give every bit of everything I have today to go back to that date.
I switched from Ubuntu Unity crap to Mint years ago *because* I hated Unity and despised them for that direction. Now I am on a BSD machine to avoid the entire systemd insanity.
Which government would that be though? What government should they go after and how can they possibly ever win such a thing and who would be responsible, who is this 'they' that could ever even theoretically be responsible and also if it is a criminal matter how would a company charge anybody or anything with it? A criminal matter is not charged by any private party, a criminal case is put forward by a justice system, not ever by any victim. It is not like Kaspersky v Putin or v Trump can be a criminal case, that would be Russia v Putin or USA v Trump, something like that if not exactly that. A private individual or a business cannot charge anybody criminally. Your comment makes no sense.
OK, so Gates will never do anything positive in the education space for a simple reason: he doesn't need to make money, he is spending money, he is creating a dependency on a handout. A handout, whether it is funded via taxes or a private charitable fund is still a handout and it cannot create a sustainable model for any type of business and education is a business, health care is a business, food production is a business, infrastructure is business, etc. Everything is a business and when we use a government system or any type of charity to attempt and to pretend to solve an issue all we do is we spend money and we don't make money.
The only way to make schools work is to ensure that schools need to *MAKE MONEY*. The *PROFIT MOTIVE* is the only moral motive, as it does not require theft and sacrifice (theft and sacrifice are both immoral, oppressive and destructive, one is oppressive to others directly the other one is oppressive indirectly by creating a dependency).
If we create a dependency and/or we steal we cannot have positive results, we get what we deserve - misery and failure.
Misery and failure is what we get with government oppression and even with dependency creating charity where it comes to things that need to be done on a massive systemic scale, like education, like health care, infrastructure, housing, food, insurance, banking, transportation, etc. etc. etc. We forget the real morality - the morality of non violent voluntary participation and actual real cooperation where people do it because it is *mutually beneficial*.
There will not be a coercive oppressive or charitable solution to anything, those attempts will always fail and they are really designed to fail.
My code has nothing to do with any GPL or BSD or any other code, it's developed from scratch and no, I did not develop it all by myself, that would be impossible to do in a few short years, obviously I hire people to work with me. My point has nothing to do with GPL or BSD, my point is about closed source software developed for a business purpose.
I was replying to this bit:
Some code needs to be proprietary--life is about pragmatism sometimes, not always about ideology.
IF you ever bother to ask yourself why, and really dig deep, you'll have a tough time coming up with a satisfactory answer.
Note that I don't contend the pragmatic arguments aren't real, just that they are deeply unsatisfying on a philosophical level. They point to difficult to solve problems with society itself, and rather than solve these difficult problems, the pragmatist just accepts them as unsolved and proceeds to go for lunch. That's not much of a solution.
I don't see any difficult questions here, this sentence:
IF you ever bother to ask yourself why, and really dig deep, you'll have a tough time coming up with a satisfactory answer.
The software that my business is developing is built with the express purpose of providing services in a competitive market. The software is an asset, a critical asset actually that differentiates my offering from hundreds or thousands of others. My time, money and effort goes into the development of the software and of all other business components, there is no reason at all to provide anybody with the source code to the system, the system is the business. The philosophy here is quite satisfying: building your own business and all of the money generating assets in it provides services for some and income for others, it is self sufficient and complete.
There is an alternative solution to the one mentioned above that I prefer, learn to benefit from the crisis, a crisis is an opportunity, start thinking how to use this opportunity.
Not only do I hate systemd itself, I think it is a harbinger of things to come, I think it is sabotage by the likes of MS, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the entire thing is sponsored by MS. I no longer trust Debian ffs, the entire GNU/Linux ecosystem is suspect AFAIC, happy that I discovered OpenBSD a decade ago and hradually started using it for some of my servers, it is becoming the last bastion of sanity.
Unions are definitely a 'self solving problem'. Should a union be attempted in my company I would self solve this problem in a heart beat: everybody is fired, effective immediately, I am moving the business somewhere else.
What Musk has done so far in terms of setting up shops in CA to me seems to be a serious lack of judgement, he shouldn't be hiring in CA, he shouldn't even be hiring Americans. He should be hiring people that want to work for his company and that will not attempt to redefine what his business is.
China is going to be first in everything, every new technology, strategy, development, that is because China moved on from a crazy insane inhuman collectivist/socialist/communist ideology to a more or less a free market capitalist system, so over the last 50 years China was on the correct trajectory towards a freerer individual and thus more opportunity, fair human relations that are much less centtalized with less government control where it matters (business and individual property). Because of this China grew its manufacturing capabilities, its capital and as a consequence its capacity for research and development all while growing a larger and larger class of well off people who are now interested in a cleaner environment.
You are correct, prices are going up on goods and services except on technology, because in the tech sector there is so much that can be done to reduce the real costs of factors of production. TFS and comments on this story are mostly incorrectly mislabeling rising prices as inflation.
The real inflation is huge, it is the expansion of the money supply by the central banks and by fractional banking reserve. The prices respond to the expanding money supply in complex ways , depending on how other countries inflate their own currencies in response (currency wars) and such. Canada just like many other countries did not pass the sanity test. In response to the USD being inflated by the Fed and systemic push towards private banks lending money they do not have (via the government guarantee), Canada and others decided to reduce the value of their national currencies to keep the appearences while greatly damaging their own economies. So prices keep rising as a natural consequence of this idiotic suicidal pseudo economic theory (Keynesian chamanism). That is the problem - governments trying to manipulate money and the economy. Central planning and central control of the money supply ways leads to disaster, it never ended well for anybody in history that we know of.
Funny how this story follows my style of posting, I do quite a bit of self referencing, that is because I am mostly correct on issues and it's important to remember old comments.
What do you really mean by that, I cannot comprehend how capitalism (private ownership and operation of resources) is a 'curse' on 'our' people (who the hell are 'our people'?)
Why is capitalism a curse? How does anything you say make any sense even to you (to me your idea is completely indicipherable).
Capitalism is the epitome of morality - you own and operate your private resources and no collective can steal from you and oppress you. It is the ultimate freedom, to be your own self and your own sovereign, to define your own destiny, what does that have to do with anything that you are complaining about?
Creating jobs is not a virtue, jobs are not the highest good and they shouldn't be seen as such. In a free market jobs can exist or they can be too expensive to exist, they are a byproduct of a business that has to be operated, to assign a moral value to hiring people is ludicrous.
But how is it a revelation? I have commented hundreds of times in this site in this very topic. Who is confused by the fact that business is about making money for the owner?
Creating jobs is an unfortunate side effect of running a business. Everything is a side effect to the only meaningful and measurable goal of making money for the owner. It is happening because work has to be done to provide products and services not because somebody wants to hire a bunch of people. The more people a business hires the worse it is - too much politics, too much redundancy and inefficiency especially in a system where businesses are regulated and taxed by the government's.
I hate intrusive ads as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend that humans can exist without advertising of all types. Dating is also targetted advertising and selling. Posting a resume and maybe participating in an open source project, writing your ideas in a blog, hell, commenting here is advertising. If you have a job, somewhere somebody is advertising some of what you do. The question is: who benefits? When I am specifically looking for a solution or a product them I may benefit from ads. If I am not looking then somebody else benefits. I think people are annoyed mostly by the amount of advertising they encounter daily especially if they didn't ask for it. Some intrusive advertising is fine by me when it comes in a form of a pretty (has to be pretty) girl wearing nice clothing and makeup, which is also all advertising.
Slashdot Mirror
This law is oppressive like almost all laws and has to be abolished. Real discrimination jappens in the high public offices, private discrimination by a person or by a business must be a freedom.
I am pretty sure that is your answer to everything: somebody built a business and is now a billionaire? That is a problem, lets "Slam them straight back to middle class".
Somebody inherited money and business from their parents? That is a problem, lets "Slam them straight back to middle class".
Etc. Yeah, I hear you. You couldn't get there so everybody should be slammed back to middle class because you cannot handle this world.
Who is 'we'???? I don't consider myself part of your 'we'. You want to pay taxes to live in this so called 'society' - go right ahead. AFAIC there is no society, there are only individuals and each does what he or she can to survive, that is what I see. AFAIC it is a moral obligation *not* to pay taxes, it is a *moral* obligation to say NO to all this racketeering and robbery that is income and wealth taxation. That is my proncipled position.
Actually what is obvious is that the obvious is not obvious to everyone. It is obvious that there is nothing more expensive than something a government is providing "for free", thus it is obvious that nothing should be provided "for free" by any government, including insurance of any kind, health care, education, infrastructure or anything else, not even the military or the court system. It is then obvious that governmemt must not be allowed to steal income or wealth from any people for any purpose, so income or wealth related taxes must not exist.
I think they got the idea from Johny Mnemonic, so all you need is a tv...
So I clicked this thing a few times, a story from 2000, ok, 2004, ok but then one from september 2009 and that did me in. I would give every bit of everything I have today to go back to that date.
So lets say somebody decides to stop being citizen of USA, do you believe they should be presented with 'their share of national debt' as well?
Just curious
I switched from Ubuntu Unity crap to Mint years ago *because* I hated Unity and despised them for that direction. Now I am on a BSD machine to avoid the entire systemd insanity.
Which government would that be though? What government should they go after and how can they possibly ever win such a thing and who would be responsible, who is this 'they' that could ever even theoretically be responsible and also if it is a criminal matter how would a company charge anybody or anything with it? A criminal matter is not charged by any private party, a criminal case is put forward by a justice system, not ever by any victim. It is not like Kaspersky v Putin or v Trump can be a criminal case, that would be Russia v Putin or USA v Trump, something like that if not exactly that. A private individual or a business cannot charge anybody criminally. Your comment makes no sense.
OK, so Gates will never do anything positive in the education space for a simple reason: he doesn't need to make money, he is spending money, he is creating a dependency on a handout. A handout, whether it is funded via taxes or a private charitable fund is still a handout and it cannot create a sustainable model for any type of business and education is a business, health care is a business, food production is a business, infrastructure is business, etc. Everything is a business and when we use a government system or any type of charity to attempt and to pretend to solve an issue all we do is we spend money and we don't make money.
The only way to make schools work is to ensure that schools need to *MAKE MONEY*. The *PROFIT MOTIVE* is the only moral motive, as it does not require theft and sacrifice (theft and sacrifice are both immoral, oppressive and destructive, one is oppressive to others directly the other one is oppressive indirectly by creating a dependency).
If we create a dependency and/or we steal we cannot have positive results, we get what we deserve - misery and failure.
Misery and failure is what we get with government oppression and even with dependency creating charity where it comes to things that need to be done on a massive systemic scale, like education, like health care, infrastructure, housing, food, insurance, banking, transportation, etc. etc. etc. We forget the real morality - the morality of non violent voluntary participation and actual real cooperation where people do it because it is *mutually beneficial*.
There will not be a coercive oppressive or charitable solution to anything, those attempts will always fail and they are really designed to fail.
My code has nothing to do with any GPL or BSD or any other code, it's developed from scratch and no, I did not develop it all by myself, that would be impossible to do in a few short years, obviously I hire people to work with me. My point has nothing to do with GPL or BSD, my point is about closed source software developed for a business purpose.
I was replying to this bit:
Some code needs to be proprietary--life is about pragmatism sometimes, not always about ideology.
IF you ever bother to ask yourself why, and really dig deep, you'll have a tough time coming up with a satisfactory answer.
Note that I don't contend the pragmatic arguments aren't real, just that they are deeply unsatisfying on a philosophical level. They point to difficult to solve problems with society itself, and rather than solve these difficult problems, the pragmatist just accepts them as unsolved and proceeds to go for lunch. That's not much of a solution.
I don't see any difficult questions here, this sentence:
IF you ever bother to ask yourself why, and really dig deep, you'll have a tough time coming up with a satisfactory answer.
- that is at least a weird thing to say.
The software that my business is developing is built with the express purpose of providing services in a competitive market. The software is an asset, a critical asset actually that differentiates my offering from hundreds or thousands of others. My time, money and effort goes into the development of the software and of all other business components, there is no reason at all to provide anybody with the source code to the system, the system is the business. The philosophy here is quite satisfying: building your own business and all of the money generating assets in it provides services for some and income for others, it is self sufficient and complete.
Don't buy items that you do not believe to be secure, only buy secure items.
There is a solution here you are not seeing.
There is an alternative solution to the one mentioned above that I prefer, learn to benefit from the crisis, a crisis is an opportunity, start thinking how to use this opportunity.
Not only do I hate systemd itself, I think it is a harbinger of things to come, I think it is sabotage by the likes of MS, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the entire thing is sponsored by MS. I no longer trust Debian ffs, the entire GNU/Linux ecosystem is suspect AFAIC, happy that I discovered OpenBSD a decade ago and hradually started using it for some of my servers, it is becoming the last bastion of sanity.
Unions are definitely a 'self solving problem'. Should a union be attempted in my company I would self solve this problem in a heart beat: everybody is fired, effective immediately, I am moving the business somewhere else.
What Musk has done so far in terms of setting up shops in CA to me seems to be a serious lack of judgement, he shouldn't be hiring in CA, he shouldn't even be hiring Americans. He should be hiring people that want to work for his company and that will not attempt to redefine what his business is.
China is going to be first in everything, every new technology, strategy, development, that is because China moved on from a crazy insane inhuman collectivist/socialist/communist ideology to a more or less a free market capitalist system, so over the last 50 years China was on the correct trajectory towards a freerer individual and thus more opportunity, fair human relations that are much less centtalized with less government control where it matters (business and individual property). Because of this China grew its manufacturing capabilities, its capital and as a consequence its capacity for research and development all while growing a larger and larger class of well off people who are now interested in a cleaner environment.
If you can find somebody to borrow btc from then borrow and sell them to buy back when the price falls to give back the debt.
And now skype is doing the same thing and they don't see any problems with that.
You are correct, prices are going up on goods and services except on technology, because in the tech sector there is so much that can be done to reduce the real costs of factors of production. TFS and comments on this story are mostly incorrectly mislabeling rising prices as inflation.
The real inflation is huge, it is the expansion of the money supply by the central banks and by fractional banking reserve. The prices respond to the expanding money supply in complex ways , depending on how other countries inflate their own currencies in response (currency wars) and such. Canada just like many other countries did not pass the sanity test. In response to the USD being inflated by the Fed and systemic push towards private banks lending money they do not have (via the government guarantee), Canada and others decided to reduce the value of their national currencies to keep the appearences while greatly damaging their own economies. So prices keep rising as a natural consequence of this idiotic suicidal pseudo economic theory (Keynesian chamanism). That is the problem - governments trying to manipulate money and the economy. Central planning and central control of the money supply ways leads to disaster, it never ended well for anybody in history that we know of.
The Fed, you are talking about the Fed and questioning their motives to lie and to distort? ))) that is pretty good humour!!!
Funny how this story follows my style of posting, I do quite a bit of self referencing, that is because I am mostly correct on issues and it's important to remember old comments.
What do you really mean by that, I cannot comprehend how capitalism (private ownership and operation of resources) is a 'curse' on 'our' people (who the hell are 'our people'?)
Why is capitalism a curse? How does anything you say make any sense even to you (to me your idea is completely indicipherable).
Capitalism is the epitome of morality - you own and operate your private resources and no collective can steal from you and oppress you. It is the ultimate freedom, to be your own self and your own sovereign, to define your own destiny, what does that have to do with anything that you are complaining about?
Creating jobs is not a virtue, jobs are not the highest good and they shouldn't be seen as such. In a free market jobs can exist or they can be too expensive to exist, they are a byproduct of a business that has to be operated, to assign a moral value to hiring people is ludicrous.
But how is it a revelation? I have commented hundreds of times in this site in this very topic. Who is confused by the fact that business is about making money for the owner?
Creating jobs is an unfortunate side effect of running a business. Everything is a side effect to the only meaningful and measurable goal of making money for the owner. It is happening because work has to be done to provide products and services not because somebody wants to hire a bunch of people. The more people a business hires the worse it is - too much politics, too much redundancy and inefficiency especially in a system where businesses are regulated and taxed by the government's.
I hate intrusive ads as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend that humans can exist without advertising of all types. Dating is also targetted advertising and selling. Posting a resume and maybe participating in an open source project, writing your ideas in a blog, hell, commenting here is advertising. If you have a job, somewhere somebody is advertising some of what you do. The question is: who benefits? When I am specifically looking for a solution or a product them I may benefit from ads. If I am not looking then somebody else benefits. I think people are annoyed mostly by the amount of advertising they encounter daily especially if they didn't ask for it. Some intrusive advertising is fine by me when it comes in a form of a pretty (has to be pretty) girl wearing nice clothing and makeup, which is also all advertising.