GP's assertion may have flaws, but your example is not one of them. The rich person isn't going to buy 1,000 burgers, but he could well spend 1,000 dollars on a single "luxury" burger.
Yes, but that raid took more than a single plane and warhead. With those 334 B-29s and atomic bombs, you could have killed at least a quarter the population of 1940s Japan.
I'm losing my mods to post this, but yours is the most interesting comment on the page so far and I can't pass up the opportunity to respond.
If globalisation in your imbalanced scenario means that one side has no restrictions on trade and immigration, some of the predictions you make come true. (One interesting note is that according to the Economist magazine, when the UK experienced somewhat of an economic downturn... the Polish migrants that the nativists were so incensed by just went home. Of their own volition.)
I'd assert that no one does pure globalisation, with the possible exception of the EU (and, after a fashion, internally in the United States). Instead, let's look at the effects of small-tariff imports versus full-blown protectionism. Let's take the US and China, to extend the other of your scenarios. If an American wants to use her wealth to buy products from China, why would you want the government to tell her she can't? That's using her wealth to the effect she desires. Prohibitively high tariffs might allow local companies to compete on the same products, but at a much higher price point that our heroine may not be able to afford. If she can't use her wealth to live the life she wants, what good is it? Granted, there's an outflow of wealth from the more affluent society to the less affluent, but who cares? Once the standard of living across the pond rises to a comparable level, even the immigration restrictions are moot.
It's true that as the standard of living rises, prices will also rise, but that brings us right back to where the American firm can compete at the price point because it doesn't have to ship its widgets across the Pacific... or maybe some new country will be the new "China" by then.
Okay, I'll bite. To appeal to you, would a candidate have to (or even be able to) say "I'm a dirtbag, so you should vote for me" ? Are there any objectively moral high grounds?
There are some companies who provide a hardware kill switch to the microphone (grep for "HKS"), but this exploit means that the speakers are also vulnerable.
The "internal language" reminds me of some of the attributes of the "focused" people in Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky. They were, after all, (spoiler) human automation.
If it is extracting work from the vacuum, it would still be interesting for the practical applications, though not as interesting for the "new science!!1!" crowd.
Is there a fixed definition for "politician?" Could one run for minor office, becoming some manner of "politician" in the process, and be permanently exempt? Temporarily exempt?...Inquiring minds and all that.
Yes, but the map clearly shows the majority of the land area of the country is colored red. And everybody knows that the only fair way to conduct an election is for each square mile of the country's landmass to get exactly one vote.
Crap. Just look what happened when a real estate mogul got hung up in politics. Now it'll go the other way with the politicians buying up land...
That would be interesting. Another theory is that the Kremlin leaked the story. Then, if nothing happens (because nothing was ever planned), they can talk it up at home: "Look how protected we are against American aggression!" If something already did happen (as you posit), they can blame the Americans and... what's the expression? Circle the wagons?
Trumpster already said it was a 400 pound guy sitting on his bed, or maybe didn't happen at all.
In the 90s, the NSA supposedly measured its computing power in acres. If Trump becomes president, they'll have to measure their hacking prowess in tonnage. ("Get thirty tonnes of hackers on this 'Politico' site! Make sure they fail like the New York Times!")
Slashdot Mirror
Balloons et Blunderbusses!
I thought this was only a thing from Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines, but it appears to have been historical.
One of them was Lisa Murkowski (sp?) of Alaska.
Alaska is pretty red.
And recently governed by Sarah Palin. I'm out of mod points, but I'm still bumping this AC because s/he has a good point. The rest follows:
The other was from maine which split between clinton and trump.
MAYBE they voted the way they did because they actually have a conscience.
When you reduce it to nothing more than craven self-interest you encourage the worst behavior since there is no upside to ever being principled.
I did not think anything on this thread would make me laugh harder than the shanen/Ob/raymorris interaction, but I was wrong.
At first I thought GP was joking and you deserved a "Whooosh!" but now I'm not so sure. Poe's Law and all that.
GP's assertion may have flaws, but your example is not one of them. The rich person isn't going to buy 1,000 burgers, but he could well spend 1,000 dollars on a single "luxury" burger.
Yes, but that raid took more than a single plane and warhead. With those 334 B-29s and atomic bombs, you could have killed at least a quarter the population of 1940s Japan.
I'm losing my mods to post this, but yours is the most interesting comment on the page so far and I can't pass up the opportunity to respond.
If globalisation in your imbalanced scenario means that one side has no restrictions on trade and immigration, some of the predictions you make come true. (One interesting note is that according to the Economist magazine, when the UK experienced somewhat of an economic downturn... the Polish migrants that the nativists were so incensed by just went home. Of their own volition.)
I'd assert that no one does pure globalisation, with the possible exception of the EU (and, after a fashion, internally in the United States). Instead, let's look at the effects of small-tariff imports versus full-blown protectionism. Let's take the US and China, to extend the other of your scenarios. If an American wants to use her wealth to buy products from China, why would you want the government to tell her she can't? That's using her wealth to the effect she desires. Prohibitively high tariffs might allow local companies to compete on the same products, but at a much higher price point that our heroine may not be able to afford. If she can't use her wealth to live the life she wants, what good is it? Granted, there's an outflow of wealth from the more affluent society to the less affluent, but who cares? Once the standard of living across the pond rises to a comparable level, even the immigration restrictions are moot.
It's true that as the standard of living rises, prices will also rise, but that brings us right back to where the American firm can compete at the price point because it doesn't have to ship its widgets across the Pacific... or maybe some new country will be the new "China" by then.
It's not very difficult to make sharp turns at the speed of light. All you need is a mirror.
Came here to find this joke. Was not disappointed.
Try the Culture series by Iain M. Banks. Novels set in a fully post-scarcity society.
HTML entities are all in the ASCII range. Just convert to “ and the like for web pages.
They are a rouge political organization.
The federal boys in bleu.
I see what you dud right there.
Okay, I'll bite. To appeal to you, would a candidate have to (or even be able to) say "I'm a dirtbag, so you should vote for me" ? Are there any objectively moral high grounds?
Mod parent informative.
There are some companies who provide a hardware kill switch to the microphone (grep for "HKS"), but this exploit means that the speakers are also vulnerable.
The "internal language" reminds me of some of the attributes of the "focused" people in Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky. They were, after all, (spoiler) human automation.
If it is extracting work from the vacuum, it would still be interesting for the practical applications, though not as interesting for the "new science!!1!" crowd.
Is there a fixed definition for "politician?" Could one run for minor office, becoming some manner of "politician" in the process, and be permanently exempt? Temporarily exempt? ...Inquiring minds and all that.
Yes, but the map clearly shows the majority of the land area of the country is colored red. And everybody knows that the only fair way to conduct an election is for each square mile of the country's landmass to get exactly one vote.
Crap. Just look what happened when a real estate mogul got hung up in politics. Now it'll go the other way with the politicians buying up land...
That would be interesting. Another theory is that the Kremlin leaked the story. Then, if nothing happens (because nothing was ever planned), they can talk it up at home: "Look how protected we are against American aggression!" If something already did happen (as you posit), they can blame the Americans and... what's the expression? Circle the wagons?
Trumpster already said it was a 400 pound guy sitting on his bed, or maybe didn't happen at all.
In the 90s, the NSA supposedly measured its computing power in acres. If Trump becomes president, they'll have to measure their hacking prowess in tonnage. ("Get thirty tonnes of hackers on this 'Politico' site! Make sure they fail like the New York Times!")
Notice where GP specifically mentioned a PDF.
Poe's Law applies here.
Does that airport have car rentals? In my not-so-humble opinion, you're kind of doing it wrong.