The Parable of the Broken Window assumes that the alternative use for the money that went to fix the broken window would go to something that would stimulate the economy. The shopkeeper can reinvest that money in his business all he wants. If the glass maker goes out of business there's going to be less demand for his wares.
Seems you then can either have people digging ditches with spoons, or embrace socialism or euthanasia.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the others, by the time I finish my song?
You can create jobs by paying people to dig ditches and then fill them back in.
Or you can recognize that the problem isn't unemployment. Unemployment is evidence that the economy is producing enough. The problem is that the available work isn't distributed fairly, and the products of that work isn't distributed fairly. Neither of which problems can be solved by capitalism.
Increase efficiency is an unqualified good in any humane economic system.
This isn't a problem with the software, it's a problem with the economic system. Humans don't exist merely to fill jobs. On the contrary, jobs exist to fulfill humans.
If we've invented a technology that lets 1 person do the job of 2 people, then we've freed one person from the need to work. We've literally saved his life, or at least 40 hours a week of it. This is a good thing. The fact that this guy has to go supplicate himself to yet another capitalist in order to eat is simply indicative of the perverse incentives inherent in capitalism.
This is the fundamental inconsistency with capitalism. If there's not enough real work to go around, the solution isn't to invent more work. It's to more fairly allocate the work we need done.
I took a couple graduate level biology classes with med students. If a med student asked a question, there was a better than 50% chance that the question was "will this be on the test?". Requests for clarification or elaboration came almost exclusively from the graduate students. Doctors, with a few exceptions, are not scholars but technicians.
So back to the original point, yes: 1) Freedom of religion means freedom to choose or not choose a religion. Whether you want to be a Sikh, worship the devil, or simply without any sort of beliefs. 2) Freedom from religion means not being subjugated to the whims of the religious groups.
Put this way, it's clear that there is no practical difference. The only reason you would be forced to choose a religion is because of the whims of religious groups.
What's next, you'll accuse us of polytheism and ancestor worship?
Isn't that an accurate description of some of the Catholic rituals? I've been dragged to quite a few Catholic masses in my time, and it seems like a fair representation.
I should note that I'm not anti-catholic any more than I'm anti-protestant. Polytheism is no better or no worse than monotheism.(They're both ridiculous). Stripped of its loaded connotations, polytheism seems to be a good literal description of how Catholics actually worship.
Some top physicists/biologists/chemists/etc... and scientists in general are religious in one way or another.
That is not evidence that religion is compatible with science. That is only evidence that human beings can hold incompatible ideas in their mind simultaneously.
That's still high, but gov't contractors are very well compensated.
You say that like it's something we should accept. You and I pay for the government, so we're paying for those very well compensated contractors. Why can't we find some reasonably priced contractors? Or hell, why doesn't the government have an in house software development team?
it seems much less sinister than the Slashdot linkbait summary indicates. It appears to be a pretty simple case of "government restricts chemical that can be used in meth labs, old guy making product in his garage with said product doesn't want to deal with the government bureaucracy and is surprised when the government shuts off his access to that chemical."
Wait, how exactly is that not sinister? The only reason this guy can't make his product is bad law. That sound pretty sinister to me. The real troubling part is how you treat this like it's normal and OK.
The American government represents no one but the wealthy and powerful. The forces you fear have already co-opted our system entirely. By failing to recognize this, you disenfranchise yourself.
Boy are you naive. The American government would theoretically be the American people if our election and legislative processes were completely unbiased.
However any engineer can tell you that there's a rather large difference between theory and practice. We haven't even given lip service towards validating our electoral system as an assay of the will of the people.
For instance, what is the linear range of our government? How many people have to want something to get a proportional response from our government? Obviously it's nonsensical to even ask the question of our current system. But that's the kind of questions we need to have good answers for before we can assert that our government is actually expressing the will of the people.
So these guys really think the future of development lies in the browser which will what, replace the OS as the top level development platform? Sorry , but thats rubbish. It aint gonna happen.
Yes, it is going to happen. It is happening, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Not only that, but hypervisors are becoming fatter, and the BIOS is giving way to UEFI. At some point, there won't be much of a role for the traditional operating system.
Let me explain this as clearly as possible: when you take an oath, you may NOT break it and expect there to be no consequences
Really? What about an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution? Subject the President to the same treatment as Manning, and your little lecture about oaths might mean something.
Slashdot Mirror
If we increase productivity 100%, that doesn't mean one person gets to freeload off another's work
Of course it doesn't. What it means is that both people should share the available work, and share the products of it.
The Parable of the Broken Window assumes that the alternative use for the money that went to fix the broken window would go to something that would stimulate the economy. The shopkeeper can reinvest that money in his business all he wants. If the glass maker goes out of business there's going to be less demand for his wares.
Seems you then can either have people digging ditches with spoons, or embrace socialism or euthanasia.
One of these things is not like the others.
One of these things just doesn't belong.
Can you tell which thing is not like the others,
by the time I finish my song?
Since when have jobs become the be-all and end-all of everything?
Since capitalism became the be-all and end-all of everything.
You can create jobs by paying people to dig ditches and then fill them back in.
Or you can recognize that the problem isn't unemployment. Unemployment is evidence that the economy is producing enough. The problem is that the available work isn't distributed fairly, and the products of that work isn't distributed fairly. Neither of which problems can be solved by capitalism.
Increase efficiency is an unqualified good in any humane economic system.
This isn't a problem with the software, it's a problem with the economic system. Humans don't exist merely to fill jobs. On the contrary, jobs exist to fulfill humans.
If we've invented a technology that lets 1 person do the job of 2 people, then we've freed one person from the need to work. We've literally saved his life, or at least 40 hours a week of it. This is a good thing. The fact that this guy has to go supplicate himself to yet another capitalist in order to eat is simply indicative of the perverse incentives inherent in capitalism.
This is the fundamental inconsistency with capitalism. If there's not enough real work to go around, the solution isn't to invent more work. It's to more fairly allocate the work we need done.
How many services and devices are actually being used by people whom we prefer would not have access to them?
All of them.
How long until they are used against us, even if indirectly?
Indefinitely
I can only present a good example from me to convince you
Whereas scientists have mountains of evidence.
I took a couple graduate level biology classes with med students. If a med student asked a question, there was a better than 50% chance that the question was "will this be on the test?". Requests for clarification or elaboration came almost exclusively from the graduate students. Doctors, with a few exceptions, are not scholars but technicians.
So back to the original point, yes: 1) Freedom of religion means freedom to choose or not choose a religion. Whether you want to be a Sikh, worship the devil, or simply without any sort of beliefs. 2) Freedom from religion means not being subjugated to the whims of the religious groups.
Put this way, it's clear that there is no practical difference. The only reason you would be forced to choose a religion is because of the whims of religious groups.
What's next, you'll accuse us of polytheism and ancestor worship?
Isn't that an accurate description of some of the Catholic rituals? I've been dragged to quite a few Catholic masses in my time, and it seems like a fair representation.
I should note that I'm not anti-catholic any more than I'm anti-protestant. Polytheism is no better or no worse than monotheism.(They're both ridiculous). Stripped of its loaded connotations, polytheism seems to be a good literal description of how Catholics actually worship.
Some top physicists/biologists/chemists/etc... and scientists in general are religious in one way or another.
That is not evidence that religion is compatible with science. That is only evidence that human beings can hold incompatible ideas in their mind simultaneously.
Does it matter? Empiricism works. The fact that we have technologies that we didn't before is justification enough for its efficacy.
That's still high, but gov't contractors are very well compensated.
You say that like it's something we should accept. You and I pay for the government, so we're paying for those very well compensated contractors. Why can't we find some reasonably priced contractors? Or hell, why doesn't the government have an in house software development team?
Nothing else legal even comes close to the selection or quality of Netflix's streaming library.
FTFY
Market imbalances is how money is made in stocks.
Which seems to cause some awfully perverse incentives.
it seems much less sinister than the Slashdot linkbait summary indicates. It appears to be a pretty simple case of "government restricts chemical that can be used in meth labs, old guy making product in his garage with said product doesn't want to deal with the government bureaucracy and is surprised when the government shuts off his access to that chemical."
Wait, how exactly is that not sinister? The only reason this guy can't make his product is bad law. That sound pretty sinister to me. The real troubling part is how you treat this like it's normal and OK.
The part I don't understand is why this is being litigated today. Shouldn't this have happened 15 years ago?
The American government represents no one but the wealthy and powerful. The forces you fear have already co-opted our system entirely. By failing to recognize this, you disenfranchise yourself.
Boy are you naive. The American government would theoretically be the American people if our election and legislative processes were completely unbiased.
However any engineer can tell you that there's a rather large difference between theory and practice. We haven't even given lip service towards validating our electoral system as an assay of the will of the people.
For instance, what is the linear range of our government? How many people have to want something to get a proportional response from our government? Obviously it's nonsensical to even ask the question of our current system. But that's the kind of questions we need to have good answers for before we can assert that our government is actually expressing the will of the people.
So these guys really think the future of development lies in the browser which will what, replace the OS as the top level development platform? Sorry , but thats rubbish. It aint gonna happen.
Yes, it is going to happen. It is happening, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Not only that, but hypervisors are becoming fatter, and the BIOS is giving way to UEFI. At some point, there won't be much of a role for the traditional operating system.
Its application dependent. I doubt if much fp stuff gets done in cryptography, routing, and many simulations.
So it's like the Cyrix 6x86?
Let me explain this as clearly as possible: when you take an oath, you may NOT break it and expect there to be no consequences
Really? What about an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution? Subject the President to the same treatment as Manning, and your little lecture about oaths might mean something.
The real enemy of the American people is the American government. That enemy thanks YOU for your attitude.