I'd like to see a link to that effect (too lazy to look, I admit), but from what I've read he was simply writing idealistic therory, and was fearful that any regulation would bring merchants together, leading to conspiracy against the people.
Taken as a whole, he is clearly not a cut-throat capitalist though.
You left out the part about regulations, workers rights, and the legal framework that prevents otherwise profitable exploitation. We established a large number of laws to curtail the worst excesses of capitalism, and only the most extreme libertarians would take issue with the importance and generally positive effect of those laws. You must pay your workers a certain minimum wage, you must give you workers a lunch break, the workers must be given time to go out an vote during elections, proper safety equipment must be provided for hazardous work, workers must be allowed to take time off to care for a newborn child, etc., etc., etc.
All of this only came about because it (capitalism) was allowed to run unfettered for a period. These things are luxuries that the capitalist system has allowed, and continues to allow, but quite possibly could never have happened if it was started with similar regulations. Marx witnessed the disaster of early capitalism (which I would still argue was better than a feudal, or slave economy), but did not see where it would take things (to modern regulated capitalism). Smith on the other-hand misjudged human nature and didn't think regulations would be necessary (and he has some good points about propping up incumbents at the cost of society). I think pragmatic capitalism (if that's a fair thing to call it) would be where they both fell were they alive today, with certain opinions differing on the specifics of pragmatic.
It's worth pointing out that Smith's first book in what was to be a trilogy was about ethics, and not wealth; his second was Wealth of Nations, both of these were intended to be about theory, with a third about government that was supposed to apply the first two. He essentially said the third one sucked, probably because he couldn't come up with strict rules using his theory, because in the end things are complex.
Marx on the other hand thought people would be happier with basic needs met, and purpose to there work, but not much in the way of luxuries, he could be right, but I doubt it.
Marx pretty much defined "exploitation" as profit for having money, Smith recognized that this profit was a drain on people getting what they wanted and added inefficiency to the system, but also that it was necessary to get the money to the right place. In the end all profit is a broken window from the consumers perspective (as is land rent, which Smith recognized necessary, but also really didn't like).
I think both figures could have had an interesting discussion about how things turned out in the end, as Smith really wasn't the hard-core cut-throat capitalist people quote him as.
My favorite Smith quote, that I wish politicians would contemplate:
To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealersThe proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
I personally don't think Marx realized how far capitalism would take things either.
It's real easy to see things at the worse point of non-slavery capitalism and think it's failed, but I don't think that the US (one of the places with larger income disparities in the developed world) is as bad as things looked like tthey would be. Capitalism has appeared to worked, perhaps slower than a revolution, but also perhaps more effectively.
Marx felt very strongly that peoples' work should be connected to the end product, rather than them acting as cogs in a machine. I think that idea alone would destroy productivity (specialisation and exchancge using currency allowing so much to be done).
I'm not a radical capitalist, and I would like to see income gaps narrowed some, but people tend to do pretty well at exploiting eachother the right amount in general.
I did really like Marx's take on slavery and technology though.
Starz also streams their content, Netflix is their competitor. I had friends that used stars, because it allowed overnight download of a video, then watching the next day on their crappy DSL, they didn't have cable.
I think Starz wants more money, or direct subscribers, I don't expect that this will work for them though.
The libertarian in the last good/. presidential interview ('04), would argue that you can sue for spillover costs, and should be able to. The damage done by pollution would thus not be free, making pollution less profitable. I imagine if the corporate owners were personally liable, it would make a difference (probably would be bad over-all, but it is the Libertarian solution that you appear to imply doesn't exist).
The short answer to your question is that I'd work to get the government out of the business of polluting, selling "rights" to pollute and protecting polluters from suits for damage. I'd also work to get wilderness lands into the hands of private groups who want to preserve them.
Why should Greens/ environmentalists support Badnarik/ Campagna?
Strict polluter pays policies
Eliminate EPA permits to pollute
Rescind sovereign immunity for government polluters
Hold both government and corporate polluters responsible and individually liable
Turn control of federally owned parklands over to environmental groups (like the Nature Conservancy) after securing legal agreements to preserve and protect them
Eliminate competition destroying approval processes for companies developing alternative fuels and recycled products
End all subsidies to oil companies and timber companies
HTC has the advantage of not having chintzy hardware either.
They appear to have decent designers, even Sense has some nice features (though I eventually reverted back to Cyanogen on my G2, mostly to get 2.3 though).
All of their phones I've seen have been pretty solid feeling, and decent. I feel the same-way about LG, they have the best low-end stuff by far IMO.
Agreed, 4.5 was the first usable 4.6 the first that felt stable I think the changes to OpenGL make 4.7 really stable and smooth, even with crazy effects. I still miss the windows bursting into flames from Compiz though (there was something really satisfying about that, and when fast enough it wasn't distracting.
I use kde, and really like how both gnome and kde handle the transfer status as an out of the way notification (windows 7 does too, sort of).
I'm not sure about the conflict resolution in either, but vista and 7 it is great. It copies everything it can, throws up an error on conflict, but keeps going, the only files held up are the actual conflicted ones.
Windows 7 has a pretty decent windowmanager/taskbar too.
Last big copy I did on OS X it scanned all files and checked for conflict before starting, I don't like this, and believe that's what gnome does too.
For a large batch of small files from a network it can take a very long time, even when going into an empty folder.
Slashdot Mirror
He was visibly saddened by the abuse of Disney and BMW intellectual property (mostly trademark).
the only IP lawyer I know very much believes in IP. And I know him well enough that he'd be honest.
I'd like to see a link to that effect (too lazy to look, I admit), but from what I've read he was simply writing idealistic therory, and was fearful that any regulation would bring merchants together, leading to conspiracy against the people.
Taken as a whole, he is clearly not a cut-throat capitalist though.
You left out the part about regulations, workers rights, and the legal framework that prevents otherwise profitable exploitation. We established a large number of laws to curtail the worst excesses of capitalism, and only the most extreme libertarians would take issue with the importance and generally positive effect of those laws. You must pay your workers a certain minimum wage, you must give you workers a lunch break, the workers must be given time to go out an vote during elections, proper safety equipment must be provided for hazardous work, workers must be allowed to take time off to care for a newborn child, etc., etc., etc.
All of this only came about because it (capitalism) was allowed to run unfettered for a period. These things are luxuries that the capitalist system has allowed, and continues to allow, but quite possibly could never have happened if it was started with similar regulations. Marx witnessed the disaster of early capitalism (which I would still argue was better than a feudal, or slave economy), but did not see where it would take things (to modern regulated capitalism). Smith on the other-hand misjudged human nature and didn't think regulations would be necessary (and he has some good points about propping up incumbents at the cost of society). I think pragmatic capitalism (if that's a fair thing to call it) would be where they both fell were they alive today, with certain opinions differing on the specifics of pragmatic.
It's worth pointing out that Smith's first book in what was to be a trilogy was about ethics, and not wealth; his second was Wealth of Nations, both of these were intended to be about theory, with a third about government that was supposed to apply the first two. He essentially said the third one sucked, probably because he couldn't come up with strict rules using his theory, because in the end things are complex.
Marx on the other hand thought people would be happier with basic needs met, and purpose to there work, but not much in the way of luxuries, he could be right, but I doubt it.
Marx pretty much defined "exploitation" as profit for having money, Smith recognized that this profit was a drain on people getting what they wanted and added inefficiency to the system, but also that it was necessary to get the money to the right place. In the end all profit is a broken window from the consumers perspective (as is land rent, which Smith recognized necessary, but also really didn't like).
I think both figures could have had an interesting discussion about how things turned out in the end, as Smith really wasn't the hard-core cut-throat capitalist people quote him as.
My favorite Smith quote, that I wish politicians would contemplate:
To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealersThe proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
I personally don't think Marx realized how far capitalism would take things either.
It's real easy to see things at the worse point of non-slavery capitalism and think it's failed, but I don't think that the US (one of the places with larger income disparities in the developed world) is as bad as things looked like tthey would be. Capitalism has appeared to worked, perhaps slower than a revolution, but also perhaps more effectively.
Marx felt very strongly that peoples' work should be connected to the end product, rather than them acting as cogs in a machine. I think that idea alone would destroy productivity (specialisation and exchancge using currency allowing so much to be done).
I'm not a radical capitalist, and I would like to see income gaps narrowed some, but people tend to do pretty well at exploiting eachother the right amount in general.
I did really like Marx's take on slavery and technology though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
Hope they're not right, not much else to say.
Starz also streams their content, Netflix is their competitor. I had friends that used stars, because it allowed overnight download of a video, then watching the next day on their crappy DSL, they didn't have cable.
I think Starz wants more money, or direct subscribers, I don't expect that this will work for them though.
I think it was that stereotypically gay men groom themselves, and stereotypically strait men don't.
An hour a day sounds about right to me though.
The libertarian in the last good /. presidential interview ('04), would argue that you can sue for spillover costs, and should be able to. The damage done by pollution would thus not be free, making pollution less profitable. I imagine if the corporate owners were personally liable, it would make a difference (probably would be bad over-all, but it is the Libertarian solution that you appear to imply doesn't exist).
The short answer to your question is that I'd work to get the government out of the business of polluting, selling "rights" to pollute and protecting polluters from suits for damage. I'd also work to get wilderness lands into the hands of private groups who want to preserve them.
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/04/09/20/1423219/Libertarian-Presidential-Candidate-Michael-Badnarik-Answers
and
Why should Greens/ environmentalists support Badnarik/ Campagna?
http://web.archive.org/web/20040820084150/http://www.badnarik.org/Why/Environmentalists.php
HTC has the advantage of not having chintzy hardware either.
They appear to have decent designers, even Sense has some nice features (though I eventually reverted back to Cyanogen on my G2, mostly to get 2.3 though).
All of their phones I've seen have been pretty solid feeling, and decent. I feel the same-way about LG, they have the best low-end stuff by far IMO.
Bunny hops
Engine breaking in an automatic is a rich mans game.
Public Transit generally is a form of socialism.
So is highway transit too.
PS, I'm for them, just stating that the fact that subsidizing things for social good is socialism.
The Google+ I've seen has a decent grab your shit link.
The ability to (relatively) easily whip up different UIs was a large part of the major disruption of KDE4.
Plasma was designed ground-up with that in mind. In a video I watched, they spent a lot of time bragging about it, this was before 4.0 was released.
Sounded essentially like MVC type talk.
Agreed,
4.5 was the first usable
4.6 the first that felt stable
I think the changes to OpenGL make 4.7 really stable and smooth, even with crazy effects. I still miss the windows bursting into flames from Compiz though (there was something really satisfying about that, and when fast enough it wasn't distracting.
There's argubly both.
Additionally there's probably both good and bad fan splatter.
But once a reputation is built, there becomes an inherent value.
So are the parts of windows 7 and vista being discussed (and at least some of them can be swapped out)
I use kde, and really like how both gnome and kde handle the transfer status as an out of the way notification (windows 7 does too, sort of).
I'm not sure about the conflict resolution in either, but vista and 7 it is great. It copies everything it can, throws up an error on conflict, but keeps going, the only files held up are the actual conflicted ones.
Windows 7 has a pretty decent windowmanager/taskbar too.
Last big copy I did on OS X it scanned all files and checked for conflict before starting, I don't like this, and believe that's what gnome does too.
For a large batch of small files from a network it can take a very long time, even when going into an empty folder.
It's a little unfair to criticize them strongly, I think the Vista conflict resolution was the best out there when it was released.
And times haven't been terrible since XP.
This is being touted as a way to work on bombs at a distance, thus keeping limbs attached.
I was more referencing debian creating a flaw openssl by sloppy patching crypto related areas.
I know, that's the type of thing we expect from debian when working with cryptography.
jack is the hole.
They used the word "connector" to describe the plug, and they were not very clear about it.
I swear to got I heard it in the news once, but I see no mention on the wikipedia, so I was probably hallucinating.
It may even of been China in the news, and then mention of their ties.
I don't know, in my defense it was phrased as a question.