I wont be the first or last to say it, but I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who has voluntarily taken on large amounts of debt and doesn't understand that they made a poor choice.
OK, let me get this straight: 1. Don't go to college, can't find a job. Poor choice. 2. Go to college, can't find a job. Poor choice.
What we have here are a bunch of people willing to work, but the market is unable to find work for them. You blame the people, when the market is what's causing the problem.
When you exist in a world where the dominant social relation is capital, the vast majority of the things you use will be produced by means of capital, dumbass.
If the state controlled capital, we'd be subjected to far less risk as the right hand of the economy would know what the left hand was doing instead of leaving it to chance. We wouldn't have piles of houses while people remain homeless and we wouldn't have some people working 60 hours a week while others are unemployed.
The point is not to convince those who benefit most from the world as it is to change what they are doing; that's a fantasy. They have no reason to want to change anything. A mass movement is always chaotic, but if it's strong enough to overcome the world as it exists then it opens the door to changes that would have been impossible inside the old order. Once that great task has been accomplished, it can be decided how to move forward with an arrangement that would not put us into the same cycle of crisis we've endured.
Of course, that is not the first great task but the second. The first great task is to bring everyone with the common characteristic of lacking franchise in the current system to action and only then will the movement be strong enough to achieve anything serious. Once we've met each other, working out the details is remarkably quick.
There's probably a big protest of indefinite duration starting this Saturday in your city. Seek it out.
A good developer would warn them of this, but he can't take action on it until they decide to actually assign him the task of documentation. In the real world, they won't care about documentation until it's too late and the whole time he will have been working on some other undocumented code. They'll tell him to document things, but will never be willing to push back the schedule to deal with the extra work of creating the docs. At least that's been my experience.
Of course if he's actually hit by a bus, he no longer needs to worry about it!
Don't market to me. Does this really need to be explained?
The only explanation the marketing company needs is that they paid $10 to get 10k email address, so if even one of them buys a book they're in great shape. They can be guaranteed someone will respond in a group that large. As much as I identify with your position, unless humans change overnight and every single person suddenly acts like you, the marketers will continue to have incentive to spam. Either that or a revolution that destroys the social relations that give incentive to marketing, but such an upheaval is not likely to occur in a place where the average person's troubles are so frivolous that they find advertising to be a major burden.
I can't answer this question, but as someone who is regularly tasked with fixing technical bits of online sweepstakes, I certainly can tell you that people do opt-in for marketing with valid email, phone number, and home address in great quantities. The prizes are unimpressive and the odds of winning are astronomical, but people still sign up.
I guess there's always some incentive there, and in this case the incentive will be something as small as the chance to receive great offers from esteemed partners. Maybe not even that bait is thrown, but still there will be some who take satisfaction in simply receiving an email or testing their spam filters. There's a strong irrational component in human behavior, and every attempt to explain humans without it always falls far short of the mark.
I once worked for a debt collection agency when I was a lot younger, and there were some pretty rigid rules that had to be followed about calling people with regards to debt.
At your particular shop, yes. The porn store down the street follows very strict rules, but the package store does not. It all depends on who's running the place.
I don't think it really counts as asymmetric warfare when it's just one guy. That's just somebody being dumb. It's not really a war when there's not even a way to define one of the sides as winning, is it?
but given that police are already begging for(and getting) UAVs of their own.
We don't need any exotic new scenarios to be sure it will be used against us; a hundred years ago the National Guard made it clear by turning machine guns on striking workers. They'll never shy away from violence, whether it's overseas or right here at home. Anything to keep the profits coming and above all, the system intact. Once they feel threatened, it only takes a minute for them to show their true face.
What the hell are you talking about? It's totally rational to expect that vomit from a filthy wild animal is itself filthy and therefore not something worth ingesting.
More pure capitalism would actually fix a lot of the problems state schools are having.
Like what? University of California (among others) is pretty capitalized these days, selling off bonds to finance new projects. Then, of course, they have to pay that back at interest. It can't be good for anyone; if they could get appropriate state funding instead then the drive for constant expansion wouldn't plague their plans for the future.
Probably not. I don't know about you, but I was brought up with the impression that Marx's books were unmitigated evil. Shortly after finishing college, I decided to investigate the taboo and found the writing difficult, as I had not been exposed to any philosophy before. Surely these factors repel those with a shallow curiosity who might have otherwise given it a try.
There's a free online undergrad class available online that can get you well acquainted so you don't stay lost in the wilderness too long. http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/
Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature.... Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.
If all the competent workers have already left, no CEO would be able to save the company because there's nobody left to actually get things done. If the company is full of good workers, the only thing that will make them leave is bad management decisions.
The best management can do is stay out of the way.
Wrong. The problem is the task and the retard/psychopath who has judged the task worthy of doing. When you send deadly projectiles through the air in a city, you can be assured bystanders will be harmed. In cases where the target itself is in fact a bystander, that's even more obvious.
Competent bus driving carries no such hazards and its initial intention is not to cause harm. The military is the exact opposite of a transit system.
It was a society that had no choice; capital must find new places to invest and it sure won't stand by and watch the book market disappear. Indefinite 3% compound growth doesn't occur without some effort, after all. Assuming that history has not ceased, we can shape a new system without many of these twisted behaviors, but we'll have to stand up and dismantle the old one first.
Why wait for the future? Maybe we could use these to help helicopters spot Afghan children collecting firewood so they can be dispatched more efficiently instead of tolerating their silly tricks like hiding behind rocks.
Surely you've noticed that besides the number of polygons getting pushed out and how fast you can decompress a large file, your daily tasks aren't any faster than they were 10 years ago. How's your word processor doing? Still chugging along? Doing anything useful that it didn't before?
WebCL already exists and has a test implementation from Nokia. Also, those 8 cores would be better than nothing for a software renderer, but not even close to what's built-in on a nice motherboard. The new chips from Intel and AMD with the GPU on the same die as the CPU is the only real hope for 3D for people who don't know well enough to get a motherboard with the right chipset or a computer with a nice discrete GPU.
Slashdot Mirror
He's one of those fucking crazy idiots who thinks that economies magically regulate themselves.
This is why we need the gold standard to provide crucial stabilization and prevent inflation.
*turns away from computer*
*goes back to eating feces*
I wont be the first or last to say it, but I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who has voluntarily taken on large amounts of debt and doesn't understand that they made a poor choice.
OK, let me get this straight:
1. Don't go to college, can't find a job. Poor choice.
2. Go to college, can't find a job. Poor choice.
What we have here are a bunch of people willing to work, but the market is unable to find work for them. You blame the people, when the market is what's causing the problem.
When you exist in a world where the dominant social relation is capital, the vast majority of the things you use will be produced by means of capital, dumbass.
If the state controlled capital, we'd be subjected to far less risk as the right hand of the economy would know what the left hand was doing instead of leaving it to chance. We wouldn't have piles of houses while people remain homeless and we wouldn't have some people working 60 hours a week while others are unemployed.
The point is not to convince those who benefit most from the world as it is to change what they are doing; that's a fantasy. They have no reason to want to change anything.
A mass movement is always chaotic, but if it's strong enough to overcome the world as it exists then it opens the door to changes that would have been impossible inside the old order. Once that great task has been accomplished, it can be decided how to move forward with an arrangement that would not put us into the same cycle of crisis we've endured.
Of course, that is not the first great task but the second. The first great task is to bring everyone with the common characteristic of lacking franchise in the current system to action and only then will the movement be strong enough to achieve anything serious. Once we've met each other, working out the details is remarkably quick.
There's probably a big protest of indefinite duration starting this Saturday in your city. Seek it out.
A good developer would warn them of this, but he can't take action on it until they decide to actually assign him the task of documentation. In the real world, they won't care about documentation until it's too late and the whole time he will have been working on some other undocumented code. They'll tell him to document things, but will never be willing to push back the schedule to deal with the extra work of creating the docs. At least that's been my experience.
Of course if he's actually hit by a bus, he no longer needs to worry about it!
Don't market to me. Does this really need to be explained?
The only explanation the marketing company needs is that they paid $10 to get 10k email address, so if even one of them buys a book they're in great shape.
They can be guaranteed someone will respond in a group that large. As much as I identify with your position, unless humans change overnight and every single person suddenly acts like you, the marketers will continue to have incentive to spam. Either that or a revolution that destroys the social relations that give incentive to marketing, but such an upheaval is not likely to occur in a place where the average person's troubles are so frivolous that they find advertising to be a major burden.
Why would anybody op in for more marketing?
I can't answer this question, but as someone who is regularly tasked with fixing technical bits of online sweepstakes, I certainly can tell you that people do opt-in for marketing with valid email, phone number, and home address in great quantities. The prizes are unimpressive and the odds of winning are astronomical, but people still sign up.
I guess there's always some incentive there, and in this case the incentive will be something as small as the chance to receive great offers from esteemed partners. Maybe not even that bait is thrown, but still there will be some who take satisfaction in simply receiving an email or testing their spam filters.
There's a strong irrational component in human behavior, and every attempt to explain humans without it always falls far short of the mark.
I once worked for a debt collection agency when I was a lot younger, and there were some pretty rigid rules that had to be followed about calling people with regards to debt.
At your particular shop, yes. The porn store down the street follows very strict rules, but the package store does not. It all depends on who's running the place.
I don't think it really counts as asymmetric warfare when it's just one guy. That's just somebody being dumb. It's not really a war when there's not even a way to define one of the sides as winning, is it?
but given that police are already begging for(and getting) UAVs of their own.
We don't need any exotic new scenarios to be sure it will be used against us; a hundred years ago the National Guard made it clear by turning machine guns on striking workers. They'll never shy away from violence, whether it's overseas or right here at home. Anything to keep the profits coming and above all, the system intact.
Once they feel threatened, it only takes a minute for them to show their true face.
Actually, that's GNU/Hurd, and it's not at all successful.
Coding and developing is a really creative and cool process.
Yeah, it really is.
*hooks up 100 different Google Analytics tracking events the marketing dept will promptly ignore*
What the hell are you talking about? It's totally rational to expect that vomit from a filthy wild animal is itself filthy and therefore not something worth ingesting.
More pure capitalism would actually fix a lot of the problems state schools are having.
Like what? University of California (among others) is pretty capitalized these days, selling off bonds to finance new projects. Then, of course, they have to pay that back at interest. It can't be good for anyone; if they could get appropriate state funding instead then the drive for constant expansion wouldn't plague their plans for the future.
There's a PBS Frontline about it on Netflix.
That's why I only drink human milk. It can be tough to find, but you can find pretty much anything on Craigslist.
Yay for nailing first and second post, dude. You rock.
Probably not. I don't know about you, but I was brought up with the impression that Marx's books were unmitigated evil. Shortly after finishing college, I decided to investigate the taboo and found the writing difficult, as I had not been exposed to any philosophy before. Surely these factors repel those with a shallow curiosity who might have otherwise given it a try.
There's a free online undergrad class available online that can get you well acquainted so you don't stay lost in the wilderness too long. http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation
If all the competent workers have already left, no CEO would be able to save the company because there's nobody left to actually get things done.
If the company is full of good workers, the only thing that will make them leave is bad management decisions.
The best management can do is stay out of the way.
Wrong. The problem is the task and the retard/psychopath who has judged the task worthy of doing. When you send deadly projectiles through the air in a city, you can be assured bystanders will be harmed. In cases where the target itself is in fact a bystander, that's even more obvious.
Competent bus driving carries no such hazards and its initial intention is not to cause harm. The military is the exact opposite of a transit system.
It was a society that had no choice; capital must find new places to invest and it sure won't stand by and watch the book market disappear. Indefinite 3% compound growth doesn't occur without some effort, after all.
Assuming that history has not ceased, we can shape a new system without many of these twisted behaviors, but we'll have to stand up and dismantle the old one first.
Actually, soldiers risk the lives of innocent bystanders just as much as they risk their own.
Why wait for the future? Maybe we could use these to help helicopters spot Afghan children collecting firewood so they can be dispatched more efficiently instead of tolerating their silly tricks like hiding behind rocks.
Surely you've noticed that besides the number of polygons getting pushed out and how fast you can decompress a large file, your daily tasks aren't any faster than they were 10 years ago. How's your word processor doing? Still chugging along? Doing anything useful that it didn't before?
WebCL already exists and has a test implementation from Nokia. Also, those 8 cores would be better than nothing for a software renderer, but not even close to what's built-in on a nice motherboard. The new chips from Intel and AMD with the GPU on the same die as the CPU is the only real hope for 3D for people who don't know well enough to get a motherboard with the right chipset or a computer with a nice discrete GPU.