And contrary to your thinking, there has been a lot of economic theory and evidence that capitalism works best when there is some restraint in the system. When everyone is purely "self-interested" (i.e. greedy sell-outs), industries tend to self-destruct.
The people who want to "cash out" and turn a quick buck are not acting in their own self interest. The problem is that they're not selfish enough. The "self-restraint" you talk about? That's the simple ability to think long-term, which is what we are actually missing today. It is most definitely not some form of government regulation, which is what people usually mean when they talk about history having proven that Capitalism needs to be restrained in order to "work".
Capitalism works best when the people who are capable of building and maintaining profitable businesses are allowed to do so without interference. Put another way - Capitalism is not a system imposed on people. It is the economic system that naturally arises when people live in a society that protects their freedom. Capitalism works best when those freedoms are most fiercely protected.
When these industries "self destruct" because the people who run them cash out for a short-term win, is that really a failure of Capitalism, or of the people who cashed out? Think of all the big scandals - Enron, WorldCom, etc. They were, each and every one, made possible - inevitable - by the highly government-regulated business environments in which they operated.
The problem isn't that people act selfishly. The problem is that people don't act selfishly, and don't even know what acting in their own self interest is.
And many millions of years ago, the CO2 was at 2000ppm but the average temperature was.. what? 10x higher than what we have now? Nope. That was an Ice Age.
Re:Does it really MATTER if we actually are the ca
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 1
So it DOESN'T MATTER if the aliens are actually about to invade or not, we have to prepare as if they were. Think of the consequences if we're not prepared!
we won't have the money or resources to address the real problem when and if we finally discover it.
That is, if there is a problem at all. We shouldn't assume that there is a "problem" just because the universe isn't configured or behaving the way we want it to.
Al Gore is a failed journalism student and a failed politician. Why should we listen to a man who failed at two professions but not a man who has succeeded in at least one? That is, since we're obviously supposed to discount what a man says because of what he does for a living...
Guess where the money for all the Global Warming supporters comes from? Grants, government funding, university funding, etc. Guess what happens if their pet theories don't get any press? That's right, hotshot. No funding.
Before you start the tired old cries of "anyone who takes money from X must be corrupt!", you should consider the implications for your favorite side since they are funded with money taken by force.
There is one and only one "social contract": everyone keeps their hands to themselves. If you believe in Marxism, you fail at: history, philosophy, politics, economics, and simple goddamn common sense.
So, you have a "right" to a job? Provided by whom? At whose expense? You have a "right" to someone else's time, effort, and resources? And anyone who doesn't want to go about enslaving whoever might possibly provide these resources is a failure in your eyes?
The concept of the social contract and the formation of governments are meant in part as a means of protecting ourselves against people like you.
I'm not so worried about whether or not the guy next to me has a $50,000 simulator and $10,000 practice vest at home. As long as I get a tall club and he doesn't pick the same ball color, everything will work out over video games and a burger back at the club house.
How quickly and consistently? You must have been born in the 80's - well after the "we're all going to freeze in a coming ice age!" scares of the "quickly and consistently cooling" trend in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and early 70's of last century.
If you weren't, then.. damn, brother... I don't beleive I'da told that.
Unless HIV works differently from other viruses, it does eventually kill the infected cell it used to replicate itself.
Why? Because virus replication dumps all the copies *inside* the cell walls. Eventually, the cell gets as full as it can be and pops - releasing all the newly-formed copies. The cell at that point is damaged beyond recovery and dies.
There is nothing to reverse once the infected cells have cycled. The real problem is getting *all* copies of the virus, since it can hide dormant in other types of tissue.
Slavery is, in essence, taking the benefits of a person's labor by force. Your opposition to patents has much more in common with slavery than its opposition.
You want to receive the benefits of these company's and researchers' labor and their investors' risk of capital? Then you should pay for them. How much? Whatever amount you and the provider can agree on. If you can't come to an agreement? You're out of luck. If you believe you have the right to *force* them to give you what you want, then you have thrown in with the slave drivers.
A field of study vs a measurement by a standard
on
ReactOS Code Audit
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ethics is a field of study in philosophy. "Ethical" describes something that is related to a particular philosophy of ethics. Asking "is this ethical" is only asking whether or not there is some defined standard or view of ethics by which the idea or action might be judged.
Morality is a specific instance of an ethics. Something is moral if it is acceptable in or follows from the view of ethics in question, and immoral if it is unacceptable or violates that code in some way.
In short, "ethical" says that something pertains to *some* specific philosophical stance. "Moral" is a judgement based on a particular ethical stance.
Considering that he has adopted the standard boilerplate middle-of-the-road worldview wholesale, there is no way to avoid his personal views ending up in the movie script.
No matter who writes it, they'll share his personal views.
I used to work for CitySearch, which was at one time the same company as Ticketmaster. I worked there for over three and a half years.
The outbreaks of these articles were the first that I'd heard of this practice. It was not a rumor around the office, much less "common knowledge".
In actual fact, the entire employee base of the umbrella corporation (InterActive Corp) was offered a free 6-month subscription to match.com as part of our inter-company perks. So, which company would likely have a higher representation of its employees on the service? That's right.. the one giving paid subs away for free.
Slashdot Mirror
And contrary to your thinking, there has been a lot of economic theory and evidence that capitalism works best when there is some restraint in the system. When everyone is purely "self-interested" (i.e. greedy sell-outs), industries tend to self-destruct.
The people who want to "cash out" and turn a quick buck are not acting in their own self interest. The problem is that they're not selfish enough. The "self-restraint" you talk about? That's the simple ability to think long-term, which is what we are actually missing today. It is most definitely not some form of government regulation, which is what people usually mean when they talk about history having proven that Capitalism needs to be restrained in order to "work".
Capitalism works best when the people who are capable of building and maintaining profitable businesses are allowed to do so without interference. Put another way - Capitalism is not a system imposed on people. It is the economic system that naturally arises when people live in a society that protects their freedom. Capitalism works best when those freedoms are most fiercely protected.
When these industries "self destruct" because the people who run them cash out for a short-term win, is that really a failure of Capitalism, or of the people who cashed out? Think of all the big scandals - Enron, WorldCom, etc. They were, each and every one, made possible - inevitable - by the highly government-regulated business environments in which they operated.
The problem isn't that people act selfishly. The problem is that people don't act selfishly, and don't even know what acting in their own self interest is.
Just wait until we have a fully "green" economy with fuels that burn to nothing more than water vapor. Yeah, that'll help!
And many millions of years ago, the CO2 was at 2000ppm but the average temperature was.. what? 10x higher than what we have now? Nope. That was an Ice Age.
So it DOESN'T MATTER if the aliens are actually about to invade or not, we have to prepare as if they were. Think of the consequences if we're not prepared!
we won't have the money or resources to address the real problem when and if we finally discover it.
That is, if there is a problem at all. We shouldn't assume that there is a "problem" just because the universe isn't configured or behaving the way we want it to.
Al Gore is a failed journalism student and a failed politician. Why should we listen to a man who failed at two professions but not a man who has succeeded in at least one? That is, since we're obviously supposed to discount what a man says because of what he does for a living...
Nice try, hotshot.
Guess where the money for all the Global Warming supporters comes from? Grants, government funding, university funding, etc. Guess what happens if their pet theories don't get any press? That's right, hotshot. No funding.
Before you start the tired old cries of "anyone who takes money from X must be corrupt!", you should consider the implications for your favorite side since they are funded with money taken by force.
Doesn't this apply more to the Global Warming faithful rather than the people who aren't drinking the Kool-Aid?
Yes. Yes it does.
Why cite Chomsky? He wasn't the first to say this, nor the best.
Citing Chomsky is like calling Michael Moore the father of the chiliburger just because you saw the remnants of one smeared on his face & shirt.
If you want to sound smart, quote Voltaire. At least he had some style.
Actually, it sounds more like the software has developed the ability to peer into a person's soul.
Either that, or it's an Easter Egg.
Uh.. from what I can see, the "hive mind" is coming down strictly on the "regulate everything! no one should be left free! Freedom is Death!" side.
There is one and only one "social contract": everyone keeps their hands to themselves. If you believe in Marxism, you fail at: history, philosophy, politics, economics, and simple goddamn common sense.
So, you have a "right" to a job? Provided by whom? At whose expense? You have a "right" to someone else's time, effort, and resources? And anyone who doesn't want to go about enslaving whoever might possibly provide these resources is a failure in your eyes?
The concept of the social contract and the formation of governments are meant in part as a means of protecting ourselves against people like you.
I'm not so worried about whether or not the guy next to me has a $50,000 simulator and $10,000 practice vest at home. As long as I get a tall club and he doesn't pick the same ball color, everything will work out over video games and a burger back at the club house.
How quickly and consistently? You must have been born in the 80's - well after the "we're all going to freeze in a coming ice age!" scares of the "quickly and consistently cooling" trend in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and early 70's of last century. If you weren't, then.. damn, brother... I don't beleive I'da told that.
Unless HIV works differently from other viruses, it does eventually kill the infected cell it used to replicate itself.
Why? Because virus replication dumps all the copies *inside* the cell walls. Eventually, the cell gets as full as it can be and pops - releasing all the newly-formed copies. The cell at that point is damaged beyond recovery and dies.
There is nothing to reverse once the infected cells have cycled. The real problem is getting *all* copies of the virus, since it can hide dormant in other types of tissue.
*I am not a doctor, but I play one on dates.*
Slavery is, in essence, taking the benefits of a person's labor by force. Your opposition to patents has much more in common with slavery than its opposition.
You want to receive the benefits of these company's and researchers' labor and their investors' risk of capital? Then you should pay for them. How much? Whatever amount you and the provider can agree on. If you can't come to an agreement? You're out of luck. If you believe you have the right to *force* them to give you what you want, then you have thrown in with the slave drivers.
Ethics is a field of study in philosophy. "Ethical" describes something that is related to a particular philosophy of ethics. Asking "is this ethical" is only asking whether or not there is some defined standard or view of ethics by which the idea or action might be judged.
Morality is a specific instance of an ethics. Something is moral if it is acceptable in or follows from the view of ethics in question, and immoral if it is unacceptable or violates that code in some way.
In short, "ethical" says that something pertains to *some* specific philosophical stance. "Moral" is a judgement based on a particular ethical stance.
Now I'm curious about the AC's position on wrasslin'.
Considering that he has adopted the standard boilerplate middle-of-the-road worldview wholesale, there is no way to avoid his personal views ending up in the movie script.
No matter who writes it, they'll share his personal views.
It's nice to see they're finally making use of that captured Goa'uld technology.
When programmers reach 40, they go to Carousel for Renewal.
If you're nearing 40, your life gem must be blinking by now..
Personally, I could have gone all week without hearing a PSA about copier chocolate.
Yes, it roots oots ots ts one ne in nature ature ture ure re.
What were we talking about?
Do you know kung fu?
I used to work for CitySearch, which was at one time the same company as Ticketmaster. I worked there for over three and a half years.
The outbreaks of these articles were the first that I'd heard of this practice. It was not a rumor around the office, much less "common knowledge".
In actual fact, the entire employee base of the umbrella corporation (InterActive Corp) was offered a free 6-month subscription to match.com as part of our inter-company perks. So, which company would likely have a higher representation of its employees on the service? That's right.. the one giving paid subs away for free.