There's nothing "theoretically ideal" about it, that's the way the economy actually works.
No, it's not - if my employer cuts my hours in half, the cost of goods does not automatically halve itself in response. Let's go back and analyze your original post:
Assume you have an economy consisting entirely of factory workers. Now, half the work gets automated. What happens?
OK, for starters, we don't have an economy consisting entirely of factory workers," thus supporting my contention that this exercise is a purely theoretical one.
Back to the subject, FWIW, I used to work in a factory, and have seen first-hand what the effects are of people being displaced by automation (not me, thank goodness), so I feel I have a pretty good handle of how things actually work in those sorts of situations.
Everybody can continue to live at the same standard of living but work only half as much,
In an idealistic utopia where standard of living is not defined by personal income, sure; but that's not the world we inhabit. In this plane of existence, the reality is that the displaced workers lose hours, which means their checks are smaller, and thus, they are pushed to a lower standard of living due to being unable to afford to continue living at the level they had become accustomed to.
or half of the people can be unemployed while the other half work full time and pay half their salary to support the unemployed.
There is no option for half the people to work and pay for the other half's unemployment as you suggest; even if there were, I presume most if not all of the working class would stand together and shout "fuck that" from the rooftops when told they had to sacrifice half their pay (thus reducing their own standard of living) to maintain the standard of living a bunch of people who don't work are accustomed to. In fact, if I'm not mistaken that second method was attempted by the former U.S.S.R., and if my history serves me, the experiment did not end well.
Thus, we can see from simple observation that neither scenario is an example of "how the economy works," and therefore exist purely as an exercise in economic theory.
Not that you've posited a bad idea; it's just not reflective of reality.
For every Donald Trump there are literally tens of thousands of me.
Sure there are. But that doesn't mean the Trumps and Rockefellers don't exist, which you seem to be implying.
But from the President on down, there's a growing chorus of "you didn't earn that",
OK, I was taking you seriously until I read that - now you come off like a partisan hack, and I would really rather not discuss... well, anything with one of those personality types.
FYI, the quote is "You didn't build that," he was talking about infrastructure like roads and power grids, and he was 100% right - you didn't build that. We all did.
Not being an abusive piece of shit is far more effective, you know.
You do know that works both ways, right?
Sure, albeit quite rarely in comparison to the amount of man-on-woman violence.
If OP had said something about getting shot by your husband, I probably would have made a similar comment, albeit with a bit of gender-reversal. Besides, we're not discussion spousal abuse, this is a thread about gun violence.
Do you realize how deeply sad it is that you feel you need a firearm to protect yourself against armed thugs?
I live in the United States. I believe that our laws should follow the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. I support your right as a law-abiding citizen to own arms for lawful purposes, whether that is target practice or hunting or personal defense or to defend against a tyrannical state.
Yes, those are the primary reasons for the Second Amendment.
But here's the problem I have with owning a gun for personal defense: do you really live in a situation where your safety is in such imminent danger that you need deadly force to protect yourself (or others),
You'd have to be pretty naive to think that nobody has a need for a personal-protection firearm. Ever read a crime-rate statistic? Here's a hint: If you live around a significant number of other humans, you have a non-zero chance that one of those humans very well may try to harm you or those you care about. Do I like it? Hell no, I wish people would learn to respect one another and their property, but that's not the world we live in, and to not prepare for knowable possibilities is just plain stupid in my eyes.
why would you tolerate that?
Because contrary to popular speculation, relocation is not a cheap or easy thing to do, not to mention the fact that there are very few places on this Earth that you can live and not be subjected to the perils of mankind/society.
Parasitic capitalist. I resemble that remark. Of course, I'm also the one who risked everything I had to build my business, keep most of my assets involved in building my business, and I'm the one that signs the paychecks of all my employees.
Conversely, Donald Trump has tanked one business after another, yet somehow never seems to risk any of his own personal wealth, and always, somehow, ends up on top anyway...
The OP didn't specifically limit his comment to the safety mechanism. Are the only springs and levers in a firearm in the safety? No? Then STFU low-brow.
Gee, sorry, didn't realize reading the entire thread for context was above your mental capabilities. In the future, I'll try to avoid assuming you think.
Or, "How many Flying Spaghetti Monsters can we fit in a TARDIS?," which makes about as much sense and has an equal amount of relevance as the speculative, subjective queries you've posted.
Indeed, because like the page you linked to, they're purely subjective exercises in how particular game companies decide how to deal with a problem they don't seem able to quantify.
In short, without empirical data to back the claims that "piracy killed PC gaming," it's all nothing but hype.
I can't help but admire their cunning; it's a lot more imaginative than just deleting the save file halfway through the game.
Sure... it's also a lot more likely to generate bad press, as those who both knowingly and unwittingly play the pirated version won't see the "cunning" you speak of; instead, all they see is a game that's no fun to play and can't be won, and will assuredly spread that bad-will around.
Time will tell how this strategy will play out. I find the whole situation pretty damn funny myself.
Because yelling "Excuse me, armed thugs who just broke down my door, I need you to hold up for a minute while my gun registers my fingerprint so I can shoot you" is a good way to get yourself killed.
Perhaps that is because piracy rates are much lower for consoles. Perhaps you should ask the question "how many developers might have gone bankrupt if console piracy were as common as PC piracy?" But that's pretty difficult to answer, of course. Perhaps another question might be "how many games haven't included a PC release because the developer doesn't believe it can make money due to piracy?"
Or, "How many Flying Spaghetti Monsters can we fit in a TARDIS?," which makes about as much sense and has an equal amount of relevance as the speculative, subjective queries you've posted.
Oh, and FWIW, OP never said jack about consoles, not sure where you pulled that one from...
It is a game. Not the real world. In this pretend world they have in the game if your games get pirated you lose income. Whether that is the case in the real world or not is irrelevant.
It's being sold as a "game development simulator."
Pretty shitty 'simulator' if it doesn't reflect reality with even half-assed accuracy, wouldn't you think?
I know, I know... Reading the actual story and all...
Yea, you might try reading more than the first page:
Furlong's card was subsequently re-charged for the $125,000 but this time American Express refused to credit his account, saying that Salesforce.com had provided "authorization for the charge and a signed contract and order form stating that no cancellations or refunds would be allowed," according to his suit.
Would gamification of good driving techniques be an effective method of encouraging such practices? I.e., a camera on the front of the car recognizes street signs, and awards the driver with points/achievements if they properly obey them.
Not to sound like a total douche but I try to drive as efficiently as possible.
That's not being a douche; hell, it's commendable.
Being a douche would be more along the lines of "I try to drive as efficiently as possible, and there needs to be a law that forces everyone else to drive the way I do."
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing "theoretically ideal" about it, that's the way the economy actually works.
No, it's not - if my employer cuts my hours in half, the cost of goods does not automatically halve itself in response. Let's go back and analyze your original post:
Assume you have an economy consisting entirely of factory workers. Now, half the work gets automated. What happens?
OK, for starters, we don't have an economy consisting entirely of factory workers," thus supporting my contention that this exercise is a purely theoretical one.
Back to the subject, FWIW, I used to work in a factory, and have seen first-hand what the effects are of people being displaced by automation (not me, thank goodness), so I feel I have a pretty good handle of how things actually work in those sorts of situations.
Everybody can continue to live at the same standard of living but work only half as much,
In an idealistic utopia where standard of living is not defined by personal income, sure; but that's not the world we inhabit. In this plane of existence, the reality is that the displaced workers lose hours, which means their checks are smaller, and thus, they are pushed to a lower standard of living due to being unable to afford to continue living at the level they had become accustomed to.
or half of the people can be unemployed while the other half work full time and pay half their salary to support the unemployed.
There is no option for half the people to work and pay for the other half's unemployment as you suggest; even if there were, I presume most if not all of the working class would stand together and shout "fuck that" from the rooftops when told they had to sacrifice half their pay (thus reducing their own standard of living) to maintain the standard of living a bunch of people who don't work are accustomed to. In fact, if I'm not mistaken that second method was attempted by the former U.S.S.R., and if my history serves me, the experiment did not end well.
Thus, we can see from simple observation that neither scenario is an example of "how the economy works," and therefore exist purely as an exercise in economic theory.
Not that you've posited a bad idea; it's just not reflective of reality.
Dude, you don't understand: their pay doesn't have to stay the same because the stuff they want costs much less.
Ah, I see - theoretical idealism. A nice thought, but difficult if not impossible to achieve in practice.
For every Donald Trump there are literally tens of thousands of me.
Sure there are. But that doesn't mean the Trumps and Rockefellers don't exist, which you seem to be implying.
But from the President on down, there's a growing chorus of "you didn't earn that",
OK, I was taking you seriously until I read that - now you come off like a partisan hack, and I would really rather not discuss... well, anything with one of those personality types.
FYI, the quote is "You didn't build that," he was talking about infrastructure like roads and power grids, and he was 100% right - you didn't build that. We all did.
Not being an abusive piece of shit is far more effective, you know.
You do know that works both ways, right?
Sure, albeit quite rarely in comparison to the amount of man-on-woman violence.
If OP had said something about getting shot by your husband, I probably would have made a similar comment, albeit with a bit of gender-reversal. Besides, we're not discussion spousal abuse, this is a thread about gun violence.
Not everything revolves around you.
Do you realize how deeply sad it is that you feel you need a firearm to protect yourself against armed thugs?
I live in the United States. I believe that our laws should follow the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. I support your right as a law-abiding citizen to own arms for lawful purposes, whether that is target practice or hunting or personal defense or to defend against a tyrannical state.
Yes, those are the primary reasons for the Second Amendment.
But here's the problem I have with owning a gun for personal defense: do you really live in a situation where your safety is in such imminent danger that you need deadly force to protect yourself (or others),
You'd have to be pretty naive to think that nobody has a need for a personal-protection firearm. Ever read a crime-rate statistic? Here's a hint: If you live around a significant number of other humans, you have a non-zero chance that one of those humans very well may try to harm you or those you care about. Do I like it? Hell no, I wish people would learn to respect one another and their property, but that's not the world we live in, and to not prepare for knowable possibilities is just plain stupid in my eyes.
why would you tolerate that?
Because contrary to popular speculation, relocation is not a cheap or easy thing to do, not to mention the fact that there are very few places on this Earth that you can live and not be subjected to the perils of mankind/society.
Do you have armed thugs breaking down your doors that often?
Only has to happen once to matter.
As the saying goes, "Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."
ha ha ha ha ha
Keep moving that goal post. Hope it doesn't get too heavy.
Uh... pointing out that Argument X is identical to Argument Y is not "moving the goalposts."
Shouldn't take an English major to figure out.
Or make it so banal, stupid, tasteless or non-sequitur no one will want to rip it off.
I don't think advertising types believe in such a thing.
Everybody can continue to live at the same standard of living but work only half as much.
Dude- what fictional plane of reality do you exist on, where everybody's hours get cut in half but their pay stays the same?
I want to go to there.
Parasitic capitalist. I resemble that remark. Of course, I'm also the one who risked everything I had to build my business, keep most of my assets involved in building my business, and I'm the one that signs the paychecks of all my employees.
Conversely, Donald Trump has tanked one business after another, yet somehow never seems to risk any of his own personal wealth, and always, somehow, ends up on top anyway...
The OP didn't specifically limit his comment to the safety mechanism. Are the only springs and levers in a firearm in the safety? No? Then STFU low-brow.
Gee, sorry, didn't realize reading the entire thread for context was above your mental capabilities. In the future, I'll try to avoid assuming you think.
Or, "How many Flying Spaghetti Monsters can we fit in a TARDIS?," which makes about as much sense and has an equal amount of relevance as the speculative, subjective queries you've posted.
You claim that these questions are unreal. Epic Games focused on consoles because of widespread infringement on PCs.
Indeed, because like the page you linked to, they're purely subjective exercises in how particular game companies decide how to deal with a problem they don't seem able to quantify.
In short, without empirical data to back the claims that "piracy killed PC gaming," it's all nothing but hype.
I can't help but admire their cunning; it's a lot more imaginative than just deleting the save file halfway through the game.
Sure... it's also a lot more likely to generate bad press, as those who both knowingly and unwittingly play the pirated version won't see the "cunning" you speak of; instead, all they see is a game that's no fun to play and can't be won, and will assuredly spread that bad-will around.
Time will tell how this strategy will play out. I find the whole situation pretty damn funny myself.
"You do not have permission to fire this gun."
"sudo Fire gun!"
The command 'fire' was not found; perhaps you meant:
sfire from package burninate.your.ass
fired from package donald.trump.owns.you
gunfire from package worst.self.defense.weapon.ever
or it could keep your wife from being shot by you or you by your wife.
Not being an abusive piece of shit is far more effective, you know.
Maybe we'd have guns that are smarter than the owners.
Careful what you wish for.
Why does it have to be so reliable?
Because yelling "Excuse me, armed thugs who just broke down my door, I need you to hold up for a minute while my gun registers my fingerprint so I can shoot you" is a good way to get yourself killed.
They will.
So will the dumbass who left a loaded, hot firearm where a child could access it, when he/she gets charged with felony negligence.
a spring and a lever have a MTBF measured in millions of cycles
You fire "millions" of rounds from a single weapon?
[ Picturing you in a firing range, standing shoulder deep in spent shell casings... ]
Wow, what better way to let the world know that your knowledge of firearms amounts to fuck-all.
FYI, the safety doesn't cycle with each round fired.
Perhaps that is because piracy rates are much lower for consoles. Perhaps you should ask the question "how many developers might have gone bankrupt if console piracy were as common as PC piracy?" But that's pretty difficult to answer, of course. Perhaps another question might be "how many games haven't included a PC release because the developer doesn't believe it can make money due to piracy?"
Or, "How many Flying Spaghetti Monsters can we fit in a TARDIS?," which makes about as much sense and has an equal amount of relevance as the speculative, subjective queries you've posted.
Oh, and FWIW, OP never said jack about consoles, not sure where you pulled that one from...
It is a game. Not the real world. In this pretend world they have in the game if your games get pirated you lose income. Whether that is the case in the real world or not is irrelevant.
It's being sold as a "game development simulator."
Pretty shitty 'simulator' if it doesn't reflect reality with even half-assed accuracy, wouldn't you think?
I know, I know... Reading the actual story and all...
Yea, you might try reading more than the first page:
Furlong's card was subsequently re-charged for the $125,000 but this time American Express refused to credit his account, saying that Salesforce.com had provided "authorization for the charge and a signed contract and order form stating that no cancellations or refunds would be allowed," according to his suit.
Yes, and they are doing it with some cars now. On car has a tree that grows on the dash the better the mileage the bigger the tree.
I drove 68 all the way home..becasue one more and I would have ate it. badum...bash.
By "good driving," I meant safe and prudent, not necessarily more fuel efficient. Not that it's a bad thing.
Drove 69 mph all the way home. Got high score.
You kid, but I wonder...
Would gamification of good driving techniques be an effective method of encouraging such practices? I.e., a camera on the front of the car recognizes street signs, and awards the driver with points/achievements if they properly obey them.
Not to sound like a total douche but I try to drive as efficiently as possible.
That's not being a douche; hell, it's commendable.
Being a douche would be more along the lines of "I try to drive as efficiently as possible, and there needs to be a law that forces everyone else to drive the way I do."