Actually they never tried to implement communism, which would have meant the abolition of money. In official propaganda communism was always a goal to strive for, a kind of Nirvana.
No, the one party called Communist Worker's Party. It was no disguise socialism and communism are different stages of the same thing. But both require a one-party state.
Further, as you seem to believe in the free market, let's look at it another way -- by pulling workers out of the labor pool, we are making the labor resource more scarce making the resource more valuable and therefore raising the rates of pay for those who remain at work. So child labor laws might also serve to improve the amount of money that comes into individual families.
No, it means invidual workers get more, but for the average family the income stays the same. As children can't work they only mean cost and no income, so having more children will be a financial disadvantage.
But eventhough we're not considering that with child labour there'll be a higher GDP and higher investment in local infrastructure (that the businesses do for themselves).
But these are only the market effects. To actually improve living conditions, wages, education you need appropriate government policy*, it can't be done in a lasseiz fare model.
*.e.g. setting appropriate minimal wage, some form of free education etc.
We know why children labor -- because the rich aren't willing to pay enough for a man to feed his family under his own pay.
My mother started doing field work at the age of seven. This was in the fifties and under socialist* government (Eastern block, Hungary).
* By socialist I mean REAL socialist (you know, a Marxist-Leninist one, which is building communism), and no, Sweden is not socialist, it's social-democrat.
People the world over should not draw conclusions from the media. If I were to use the US media as my primary source of information, I would think that some of these so-called other countries are simply regions of America that I've not been to
They're not yet, but it seems you're working on it really hard.:p
Of course, when one cites statistics, it sounds TERRIBLE, like end of the world stuff. Until you see that about the same number of people (about 13,000) die from falls, another 13,000 die from poisoning, and 40,000 from automobiles. Yeah, far fewer people are killed with guns purposefully than are killed by cars, accidentally... All despite Americans having more guns in their closets than cars in their driveways.
It's just one side of the story.
The other one:
The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia. Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.
Lets go into the safe room and I'll wrap you in a blanket and regress you through your past lives
No, they won't talk about your past lifes, they'll speak about your childhood traumas. That's called psycho analysis. I wonder what kind of psychiatrist you might be if you don't even know that. (I'm into computer science and AI, and even I know that. Btw. I did some psychology course as well, just for fun. (Cognitive psychology (here you can find a lot of experiments), transactional psychology (that's just a bunch of anecdote)))
"BTW, psychology may well be a "liberal arts" major in the USA, but that's not the case in my neck of the woods - at my university its taught in the same department which teaches nursing and other allied health fields," That's what I called psychiatry. (btw I'm not from US) Check this.
Please tell me, how psycho-analysis traces back phenomenons to neural networks? Or transactional psychology? Sorry to disappoint you but the science that researches neural networks is not psychology, but machine-learning. Psychologists don't know shit about neural networks.
On the other hand psychiatry dwelves into bio-chemistry and in the anatomy of brain, but it's a completely different profession, they're basically doctors, not some liberal-art majors. They might have more knowledge about neural networks as well.
For centuries in the west, women didn't inherit property at all. Nothing. Today, raising capital is more difficult for women because they didn't start with as much.
XDDD I guess that's because most woman are born to lesbian mothers.
I love how the thresholds for Artificial Intelligence are: Step 1: Be smarter than a third grader. Step 2: Achieve superhuman intelligence that surmises all that is possible in the universe.
It's really simple. If your robot achieves the intelligence of a third grader, you can send it to school. It won't require AI specialist to be taught because it will be able to learn from anyone (worth to learn from).
I guess I should elaborate that on a bit: I'm not an some Ayn Rand fanatic, nor do I advocate violence against woman. It's about who do you give control: the parents or the state. If you give the parents control to choose their education, there's the possibility that they'll make bad choices.
You can't rule out the possibility that some people will asshole parents, unless you forbid assholes to have children (and you have to come up with a good metric of assholeness, which will be always controversial).
You can't rule out daterape unless every pair brings a cop with them.
You can't rule out domestic violence unless you install surveillance cams in every home.
It's all about freedom/privacy vs state control.
And it's a completely different issue what I think about healthcare or funding of education.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they never tried to implement communism, which would have meant the abolition of money. In official propaganda communism was always a goal to strive for, a kind of Nirvana.
No, the one party called Communist Worker's Party.
It was no disguise socialism and communism are different stages of the same thing. But both require a one-party state.
To actually improve living conditions, wages, education you need appropriate government policy.
Reading comprehension for the win.
Further, as you seem to believe in the free market, let's look at it another way -- by pulling workers out of the labor pool, we are making the labor resource more scarce making the resource more valuable and therefore raising the rates of pay for those who remain at work. So child labor laws might also serve to improve the amount of money that comes into individual families.
No, it means invidual workers get more, but for the average family the income stays the same. As children can't work they only mean cost and no income, so having more children will be a financial disadvantage.
But eventhough we're not considering that with child labour there'll be a higher GDP and higher investment in local infrastructure (that the businesses do for themselves).
But these are only the market effects. To actually improve living conditions, wages, education you need appropriate government policy*, it can't be done in a lasseiz fare model.
* .e.g. setting appropriate minimal wage, some form of free education etc.
We know why children labor -- because the rich aren't willing to pay enough for a man to feed his family under his own pay.
My mother started doing field work at the age of seven. This was in the fifties and under socialist* government (Eastern block, Hungary).
* By socialist I mean REAL socialist (you know, a Marxist-Leninist one, which is building communism), and no, Sweden is not socialist, it's social-democrat.
I'm not sure you really get it: in this case you're the one who doesn't do math.
What you don't recognize is, that these companies make both the old and new technology. Companies doesn't have to compete with themselves.
People the world over should not draw conclusions from the media. If I were to use the US media as my primary source of information, I would think that some of these so-called other countries are simply regions of America that I've not been to
They're not yet, but it seems you're working on it really hard. :p
Maybe they have similar amounts of research costs to recover?
Of course, when one cites statistics, it sounds TERRIBLE, like end of the world stuff. Until you see that about the same number of people (about 13,000) die from falls, another 13,000 die from poisoning, and 40,000 from automobiles. Yeah, far fewer people are killed with guns purposefully than are killed by cars, accidentally... All despite Americans having more guns in their closets than cars in their driveways.
It's just one side of the story.
The other one:
The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.
source
Lets go into the safe room and I'll wrap you in a blanket and regress you through your past lives
No, they won't talk about your past lifes, they'll speak about your childhood traumas. That's called psycho analysis. I wonder what kind of psychiatrist you might be if you don't even know that.
(I'm into computer science and AI, and even I know that. Btw. I did some psychology course as well, just for fun. (Cognitive psychology (here you can find a lot of experiments), transactional psychology (that's just a bunch of anecdote)))
It's funny that those who voted me down didn't even care to check the link.
That's slashdot.
"BTW, psychology may well be a "liberal arts" major in the USA, but that's not the case in my neck of the woods - at my university its taught in the same department which teaches nursing and other allied health fields,"
That's what I called psychiatry. (btw I'm not from US)
Check this.
Please tell me, how psycho-analysis traces back phenomenons to neural networks? Or transactional psychology?
Sorry to disappoint you but the science that researches neural networks is not psychology, but machine-learning. Psychologists don't know shit about neural networks.
On the other hand psychiatry dwelves into bio-chemistry and in the anatomy of brain, but it's a completely different profession, they're basically doctors, not some liberal-art majors. They might have more knowledge about neural networks as well.
I can't resist, but link to Feynamann.
So you like that its a PC and not an internet tablet
Geeks would love an internet tablet that's x86 compatible, and isn't locked to one software vendor.
There is no Craig Barth. And we've been always been in war with Eurasia.
" but the corporation quickly figured out that they could use temp agencies as a middle-man."
Could you give some pointers on that?
Was it a military target? No.
Then it's a civilian target, and it's terrorism.
Before GNU there was BSD. Opensource existed before GNU. On the other hand even Linus isn't the kind of extremist as RMS.
I guess the real news here is that there are low cost robotic arms.
For centuries in the west, women didn't inherit property at all. Nothing. Today, raising capital is more difficult for women because they didn't start with as much.
XDDD
I guess that's because most woman are born to lesbian mothers.
I love how the thresholds for Artificial Intelligence are:
Step 1: Be smarter than a third grader.
Step 2: Achieve superhuman intelligence that surmises all that is possible in the universe.
It's really simple. If your robot achieves the intelligence of a third grader, you can send it to school. It won't require AI specialist to be taught because it will be able to learn from anyone (worth to learn from).
Like a series of tubes?
Should there gender quotas here as well?
I guess I should elaborate that on a bit: I'm not an some Ayn Rand fanatic, nor do I advocate violence against woman. It's about who do you give control: the parents or the state. If you give the parents control to choose their education, there's the possibility that they'll make bad choices.
You can't rule out the possibility that some people will asshole parents, unless you forbid assholes to have children (and you have to come up with a good metric of assholeness, which will be always controversial).
You can't rule out daterape unless every pair brings a cop with them.
You can't rule out domestic violence unless you install surveillance cams in every home.
It's all about freedom/privacy vs state control.
And it's a completely different issue what I think about healthcare or funding of education.