Try getting your own code onto your smartphone. Depending on what you have it'll range from merely annoyingly difficult to being expensive beyond the ability of the common man to afford.
Sorry, but nothing's blindingly obvious when you're saying "wealth is not finite" when I'm sitting here and the world clearly contains finite wealth, always has, and as far as anyone knows, always will.
Yes, it matters. "Wealth is not finite", you said. Well, yes it is. The rate at which wealth is created is limited. The rate at which this rate increases is limited. The time in which it can be created is limited. The total amount is inherently limited by known physical law.
I don't really know what point you were trying to make with that statement. Maybe that wealth can be created and destroyed, that economics isn't a zero-sum game, and that the total wealth and per-capital wealth of the world can go up even as population increases. But if that's what you meant, that's not what you said. That's my ultimate point: what you said was wrong, misleading at best, and at worst I just have no idea what you meant by it.
Well no, it won't lead to a nonexistent police force. It will cause forces to start to decrease in size, which will cause the forces to step up recruiting, and start paying more to attract the kind of people they need. Higher pay is just a consequence of ceasing to accept this sort of incompetent behavior.
The universe may or may not be infinite, it's still an open question. It is probably infinite.
But even if it is, that doesn't mean anything. You can't get to all of it. Current cosmological theory holds that bits of the universe that are sufficiently far enough away are unreachable. If the universe is infinite then it continues to expand forever, and our future light cone cannot reach all of it no matter how long you wait, as the speed of expansion also continues to increase. The end state of such a universe is heat death, with eventually every particle ripped apart from all others, each one existing in isolation. It's true enough that this end state continues forever according to this theory, but nothing ever happens again.
Of course none of this is 100% absolutely certain. It's obviously possible that some day somebody will discover that Einstein was wrong, faster-than-light travel is possible, the universe is infinite but doesn't come to a halt, or whatever. But this goes against all currently known physics. If you're basing "infinite wealth" on such ideas then it's not reality, it's just hope, and it should be stated as such.
So what you're saying is, not getting enough money is a sufficient excuse to run roughshod over the people you're supposed to be protecting?
Fuck that. Do your job, or quit. If the money isn't good enough, leave. If cities stop being able to recruit enough police officers, then maybe they'll start paying more. You don't abuse your power just because your salary is low. You might as well say that they should start taking bribes!
No, I don't have a million dollars. I have something worth a million dollars. There's an enormous difference between the two. I can't live inside a million dollars. I can't buy food with a house. The economy allows me to convert between the two, but that does not make them the same.
There's a huge difference between guerilla fighting, armed insurrection, and an all out war. The Confederates entered into the last one, as did Saddam's army. Both got predictably flattened. Al Qaeda in Iraq and the various other insurgent groups are carrying out one of the first two, and are having considerably greater success. This is no coincidence.
Raising an army and fighting the US Army on the battlefield is idiocy. Carrying out guerilla warfare against the US Army is a smart way to get what you want in war.
Incidentally I'm having a hard time thinking of any examples where such rag-tag groups have met with such sudden, massive defeat as is predicted in recent times. Iraq and Afghanistan have both been significant successes for the enemy, although they seem to be very slowly losing overall. The Chechens gave the Russians a really rough time for years. The Viet Cong beat the US Army and the Mujahideen beat the Russians. FARC seems to be essentially impossible to defeat despite extensive US military help to the Colombians. The Israeli army repeatedly beat the ever-living crap out of their neighbors in only days, but falls flat against organizations such as Hamas. What are some examples of modern insurgencies which were met with mass slaughter against a modern army?
Funny, in my VA/DC neighborhood there are plenty of right-wing stickers. Quite a few "W '04" stickers, a particularly memorable "'Vegetarian' is an ancient Indian word for 'bad hunter'", and various others of this sort. It may not be 50/50, but it's nowhere near 99/1.
There's a big difference between complaining because of bad grammar, and complaining because a title has such bad grammar that it no longer makes any real sense, and sounds like nails on slate.
You know, plenty of other rag-tag militia have had considerable success against modern armies in the past couple of decades, what makes you think that American revolutionaries would be any different?
After five years being mired in Iraq you'd think people would realize that having a huge quantity of fancy tanks and airplanes doesn't let you just start up and say "hey, we win" when you're fighting an entire population.
I'm complaining because it sounds idiotic and does not fit English grammer, not because I was incapable of understanding it, you enormous fucking asshole.
You might be right (IANAE) but your examples are crap.
I create a perfect $100 bill. It is indistinguishable in every way from one printed by the government. Is there any more wealth in society from my creation? No. But there's $100 more money.
But you have caused inflation, just as a govn't does when it prints more money. So YOU are 100$ richer, but as the worth of the country hasn't changed, so everyone's dollers are worth.00000001% less to compensate.
Yes, and? Of course my action has consequences. But the fact of the matter remains: there is more money after I do this than there was before. The fact that there is not correspondingly more wealth (the cause of the inflation) is the entire point of the example.
I create food. Food obviously has value, as it sustains us. There is more wealth in society from my creation. Is there any more money? No.
There is more money if you export that food to china and they pay you with something that you can use to buy other stuff (yen/dollars). Like any product, it is 'worth' whatever someone is willing to trade/buy it for.
world Economics is very interrelated; I know still have a lot to learn [too].
No, you are confused. Nowhere is money created in this example. If you export it to China and they pay me with money, that money changed hands, but it didn't pop up out of nowhere. The total amount of money in the world stayed constant, the total amount of wealth increased.
If this is too confusing, take an opposite example. Go buy a truckload of bread. Dump it out on the ground and set fire to it. You've just destroyed a whole bunch of wealth, but the total amount of money in the world stayed exactly the same.
The GPL is not a license for how you can use the software, but rather a license for how you can further distribute the software. The law says you can't distribute copies without permission. The GPL is that permission. It's a completely different thing, despite the superficial similarities.
If you install on 10 computers, that's a copyright violation, which is an entirely different can of worms.
If you install it on 1 computer, which had no older version of Photoshop on it, and the installer lets you with no hacking about, then yes, you're entirely in the clear and it's Adobe's fault for not having any restrictions on it.
Except we're not talking about the buyer, we're talking about Pystar. Such a difficult concept to understand apparently.
Who gives the money to Apple? If it's Psystar, then Psystar is the buyer. If it's not Psystar, then Psystar is not the one abusing the license, and thus are irrelevant to the question.
Slashdot Mirror
Try getting your own code onto your smartphone. Depending on what you have it'll range from merely annoyingly difficult to being expensive beyond the ability of the common man to afford.
...And? "Can continue to grow" means nothing like "not finite".
Sorry, but nothing's blindingly obvious when you're saying "wealth is not finite" when I'm sitting here and the world clearly contains finite wealth, always has, and as far as anyone knows, always will.
Yes, it matters. "Wealth is not finite", you said. Well, yes it is. The rate at which wealth is created is limited. The rate at which this rate increases is limited. The time in which it can be created is limited. The total amount is inherently limited by known physical law.
I don't really know what point you were trying to make with that statement. Maybe that wealth can be created and destroyed, that economics isn't a zero-sum game, and that the total wealth and per-capital wealth of the world can go up even as population increases. But if that's what you meant, that's not what you said. That's my ultimate point: what you said was wrong, misleading at best, and at worst I just have no idea what you meant by it.
Well no, it won't lead to a nonexistent police force. It will cause forces to start to decrease in size, which will cause the forces to step up recruiting, and start paying more to attract the kind of people they need. Higher pay is just a consequence of ceasing to accept this sort of incompetent behavior.
That's nonsensical. It's limited, both in time and space, thus not infinite.
You seem to be using "infinite" as a placeholder for "a whole lot". This is really bad and misleading usage.
I never said otherwise. But that doesn't mean that wealth is infinite, as you said several posts up.
The universe may or may not be infinite, it's still an open question. It is probably infinite.
But even if it is, that doesn't mean anything. You can't get to all of it. Current cosmological theory holds that bits of the universe that are sufficiently far enough away are unreachable. If the universe is infinite then it continues to expand forever, and our future light cone cannot reach all of it no matter how long you wait, as the speed of expansion also continues to increase. The end state of such a universe is heat death, with eventually every particle ripped apart from all others, each one existing in isolation. It's true enough that this end state continues forever according to this theory, but nothing ever happens again.
Of course none of this is 100% absolutely certain. It's obviously possible that some day somebody will discover that Einstein was wrong, faster-than-light travel is possible, the universe is infinite but doesn't come to a halt, or whatever. But this goes against all currently known physics. If you're basing "infinite wealth" on such ideas then it's not reality, it's just hope, and it should be stated as such.
So what you're saying is, not getting enough money is a sufficient excuse to run roughshod over the people you're supposed to be protecting?
Fuck that. Do your job, or quit. If the money isn't good enough, leave. If cities stop being able to recruit enough police officers, then maybe they'll start paying more. You don't abuse your power just because your salary is low. You might as well say that they should start taking bribes!
Why not? They are given power and responsibility beyond a normal citizen. They should be held to a higher standard.
No, I don't have a million dollars. I have something worth a million dollars. There's an enormous difference between the two. I can't live inside a million dollars. I can't buy food with a house. The economy allows me to convert between the two, but that does not make them the same.
There's a huge difference between guerilla fighting, armed insurrection, and an all out war. The Confederates entered into the last one, as did Saddam's army. Both got predictably flattened. Al Qaeda in Iraq and the various other insurgent groups are carrying out one of the first two, and are having considerably greater success. This is no coincidence.
Raising an army and fighting the US Army on the battlefield is idiocy. Carrying out guerilla warfare against the US Army is a smart way to get what you want in war.
Incidentally I'm having a hard time thinking of any examples where such rag-tag groups have met with such sudden, massive defeat as is predicted in recent times. Iraq and Afghanistan have both been significant successes for the enemy, although they seem to be very slowly losing overall. The Chechens gave the Russians a really rough time for years. The Viet Cong beat the US Army and the Mujahideen beat the Russians. FARC seems to be essentially impossible to defeat despite extensive US military help to the Colombians. The Israeli army repeatedly beat the ever-living crap out of their neighbors in only days, but falls flat against organizations such as Hamas. What are some examples of modern insurgencies which were met with mass slaughter against a modern army?
Funny, in my VA/DC neighborhood there are plenty of right-wing stickers. Quite a few "W '04" stickers, a particularly memorable "'Vegetarian' is an ancient Indian word for 'bad hunter'", and various others of this sort. It may not be 50/50, but it's nowhere near 99/1.
There's a big difference between complaining because of bad grammar, and complaining because a title has such bad grammar that it no longer makes any real sense, and sounds like nails on slate.
You know, plenty of other rag-tag militia have had considerable success against modern armies in the past couple of decades, what makes you think that American revolutionaries would be any different?
After five years being mired in Iraq you'd think people would realize that having a huge quantity of fancy tanks and airplanes doesn't let you just start up and say "hey, we win" when you're fighting an entire population.
I see plenty of "W '04" stickers in my neighborhood. Using your car to proclaim your political beliefs knows no partisan boundaries.
And of course in fitting with one of the Laws of the Internet, my complaint about grammar contains a misspelling. Sigh.
I'm complaining because it sounds idiotic and does not fit English grammer, not because I was incapable of understanding it, you enormous fucking asshole.
Seriously, "Slashdot's Disagree Mail"? Do you people speak and/or understand English on any kind of working basis?
(Feel free to file this message with the "disagree mail".)
You might be right (IANAE) but your examples are crap.
I create a perfect $100 bill. It is indistinguishable in every way from one printed by the government. Is there any more wealth in society from my creation? No. But there's $100 more money.
But you have caused inflation, just as a govn't does when it prints more money. So YOU are 100$ richer, but as the worth of the country hasn't changed, so everyone's dollers are worth .00000001% less to compensate.
Yes, and? Of course my action has consequences. But the fact of the matter remains: there is more money after I do this than there was before. The fact that there is not correspondingly more wealth (the cause of the inflation) is the entire point of the example.
I create food. Food obviously has value, as it sustains us. There is more wealth in society from my creation. Is there any more money? No.
There is more money if you export that food to china and they pay you with something that you can use to buy other stuff (yen/dollars). Like any product, it is 'worth' whatever someone is willing to trade/buy it for.
world Economics is very interrelated; I know still have a lot to learn [too].
No, you are confused. Nowhere is money created in this example. If you export it to China and they pay me with money, that money changed hands, but it didn't pop up out of nowhere. The total amount of money in the world stayed constant, the total amount of wealth increased.
If this is too confusing, take an opposite example. Go buy a truckload of bread. Dump it out on the ground and set fire to it. You've just destroyed a whole bunch of wealth, but the total amount of money in the world stayed exactly the same.
I don't care if you're the OP or not, either you said it or you're defending it. In both cases, it's wrong.
Second, I don't care what you're disputing. To call a finite resource "infinite" is wrong, period, full stop, end of sentence.
The GPL is not a license for how you can use the software, but rather a license for how you can further distribute the software. The law says you can't distribute copies without permission. The GPL is that permission. It's a completely different thing, despite the superficial similarities.
If you install on 10 computers, that's a copyright violation, which is an entirely different can of worms.
If you install it on 1 computer, which had no older version of Photoshop on it, and the installer lets you with no hacking about, then yes, you're entirely in the clear and it's Adobe's fault for not having any restrictions on it.
Except we're not talking about the buyer, we're talking about Pystar. Such a difficult concept to understand apparently.
Who gives the money to Apple? If it's Psystar, then Psystar is the buyer. If it's not Psystar, then Psystar is not the one abusing the license, and thus are irrelevant to the question.
So what? "A whole lot" is just as far from infinity as a single penny. If you mean "a whole lot" then say it, don't say "infinite".