True. But the reason why these people emmigrated to the US to do R&D in american companies is because the pay is better and this condition hasn't changed.
Or rather hasn't changed enough yet. I don't think there is any Chinese company who can rival IBM's R&D, or Intel's.
"democratically elected politicains are passing laws"
There is so much wrong in this statement. where to begin ?
First of all I'd like the democratically elected politicians to MAKE the laws instead of passing laws redacted by lobbyist, and private interests groups, and passing only the ones they get paid to pass.
Secondly The average congressman gets 5 TIMES its salary from Lobbyist and private corporations. That's right : the average Senator is 5 times more Goldman Sach's bitch than yours. So please keep your condescending horseshit. Democracy is a very nice ideal but the USA are FAR from ever achieving it.
Not at all.
He is suggesting quite the opposite : 94% of the population doesn't care UNTIL there is a civil war. Once there is they side with the strongest a.k.a the government because they are lazy cowards and also because they've not given a shit about anything for so long that they are physically unable to make their mind about anything.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a revolutionary and I know fanatism is bad. Really bad. But Fanatism on its own cannot do that much arm because by definition it is held by few people. It is the apathy of the great majority that enables this fanatism to become a threat.
My point being you can't really fight fanatism by reason, so better try to tackle apathy.
Yes I totally agree with you. Don't demonize, it's counterproductive.
I was only objecting to your argument that he could not possibly have said something so shockingly anti-democratic. The fact is that Nazi Germany propaganda was very fiercely anti-democratic, democracy held the same role in their propaganda as Communism during the MacCarthy era in the USA (and still today in the discourses of the right). So it is possible that he said that. or not.
No, but demand accountability, make this a major issue debated, demand the creation of independant bodies to oversee the use of the datas, and more importantly demand laws that prevent the private companies to harvest the data in the first place, because today the number 1 source of information regarding dissidents in countries with authoritarian regimes like Yemen, Syria, and before Lybia and such, are Facebook, Google & telephone companies.
Are you actually angry because you cannot buy sufficient fire power to outpower the entire US military ?
Because if so I need your name and address please. First I'll send a psychiatrist, and 2nd I'll make sure to get at least a Thousand miles away from you !
I mean you do realize that :
A] The right to bear arms was never intended for citizen to be able to fight off policemen or the military, but because it would facilitate the formation of militia to DEFEND THE STATE NOT FIGHT IT.
B] The concept of a state of rights and law, of government and democracy finds its most primary root in the concession made by the people to the government of the monopoly of righteous violence.
Read Thomas Hobbes, or even better Max Weber.
Your point being that Goebbels is in no way a villain in a movie ?
I mean the guy's job was basically to sell the systematic extermination of Jews, gypsies, gays, lesbians, mentally retarded and physically challenged, you would think he was ok with saying more chocking things than "the truth is the greatest enemy of the State", especially in a private context.
That being said I wasn't there so I can't testify.
Coincidentally , in Mein Kampf, Hithler has a rant about "the jews' big lies" which is very similar to the quotation above, so maybe it was indeed forged. History is written by the winners after all.
can you access/record/store hundreds of thousands of Terabytes of CCTV, telephone communications, SMS, chat, emails?
Can you as a citizen, pay thousands of people to retroactively investigate on the life of other citizen ?
How are citizen more empowered by big browser than governments ?
As some dude said someday on the interwebs : "Staline would have LOVED facebook". And I might add, no jews would have survived the holocaust if it had taken place in Y2K.
Everything you buy, any dollar (or Yuan or Euro or Pound) you spend today is a vote. It is an endorsement of the choices (all of them) of the company/artist/whatver you are buying from made. It's true of the Nike Shoes manufactured by 8 years old malaysians you bought in the 90s and it is true now of the DRM music ou movies you buy online, of the kindle you payed amazon for, of your iPod. I think what pirates do when they do buy something is demonstrate this. They say this is good stuff, nicely made and rightly sold. I agree with the way it was manufactured and marketed and I don't take offense in the way the vendor is making money.
This is why I won't buy a kindle (or any ereader) as long as there is a kill switch in it for instance. It's not that I think ebooks are bad, or not as good as paper books, they actually are better I think. Cheaper and easier to distribute for one, and lighter to carry. But I will never endorse the idea that it is OK for amazon to be ABLE to delete a book from my collection. The same way I don't think it would be OK for amazon to come to my house and burn a book I just bought. Private corporations have fought very hard against piracy saying that when you download a pirated ebook or mp3 you STEAL, that it is actually theft, well if it is theft, and the ebook is an actual good, then deleting it from my computer/ereader is exactly the same as coming to my house to burn it, and locking it with DRM is exactly the same as forcibly preventing me physically to lend it to a friend or to give/resell it.
Nobody (sane) would EVER take the crap that some (all the big ones) digital publisher gives us with physical goods. I simply ask : WHY ?
And yes I veered off topic. it's the mention of DRMs (or in that case the absence thereof) it pushes my button.
"The cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure, because "the cloud" is not a definable entity, as much as the tech press wants it to be. This is a misnomer perpetrated by the poorly-informed press, and not really something that's based in reality.
Just like the title to this Ask Slashdot encourages us to debate the security of something that cannot be intrinsically secure or insecure? If you're telling me that "the cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure why are we having this conversation? I mean, I think it's worthwhile to consider what a lot of "the cloud" services are that are out there (the big few that exist) and to debate their security success or potential holes. You can always deflect my arguments by saying that they're just "implementing the cloud wrong" and we won't go anywhere. But it is my opinion that sensitive, personal and secure information should not be handed off to yet another third part for computation or storage unless your trust with them is enough to risk litigation against yourself from all of your customers.
Just because a question was asked doesn't mean it was the right one, or even a smart one to start with. We should never stop reformulating the question, it is most of the time much more interesting the trying to find "the answer" to a bad question.
My thought exactly !
The guy FTFY just replaced its $1199-facebook-machine by a $599(iPad)+$99(Keyboard)-facebook machine and apparently he wants a medal for it...
If you do NOTHING on your computer, then of course you can swap it for a Tablet+keyboard. It will be less robust, slower, and you'll be limited to the App store but hey what the hell that's the price of hype !
Tablets are nice, but if they become your primary computer, it means you never needed a PC in the first place, a $299 netbook would have done the trick, much better than a tablet BTW.
Well for starters 15 years ago there was no reality TV, which let's face it represents a fair amount of the crap on TV.
I would still object that there are some good stuff on TV, the problem is they don't air when I want to see them. TV in itself is not fit for watching high quality material because you don't control WHEN you see WHAT.
Well I guess everyone is entitled to its own version of what's fair and what's not. Then democracy operates and, luckily for you, for the moment people are blind enough to think it's OK for 1% to own the country and the rest to merely survive (comparatively).
The thing is ultimately in actual democracy the people make the laws, so THEY decide what's fair. It's all about education and raising awareness
That's not what I said. What I said was an ever increasing investment implied ever increasing returns on the said investment.
The returns implies SALES. And you don't sell to your own investors... and even less to the speculators.
Finance was a very nice tool when it represented 1% of the GDP. Now that it is several times greater it's just an unemployement machine.
I meant no shortage of money to be invested, but yes there is little low risk investments right now precisely because the system is unstable because of low consumption and high debt
Well the common thing between the two systems is the wealth is very poorly distributed. Also Politics are corrupted.
Oh and I forgot, both country got a state religion during that period, Stalinism for the USSR and "One Nation under god" for the USA. (TY Mac Carthy....)
Gold standard off the table + unregulated finance. That's the recipe of our doom. One or the other alone wouldn't have had that much effect, but the two combined and suddenly the volumes in finance were multiplied by 1,000 or even 10,000 in 20 years. Meanwhile the actual economy "only" Doubled. QED.
Also look at the rate of imposition of the 0.1% richests, it's quite the lesson, you talk about ending the Nazis, well look at the kind of measures the American government was ready to take facing a challenge at the time.
Also and on an unrelated note, the USSR defeated the Nazis, the american just witnessed. You did got the Japs though. Communism was defeated by itself and corruption, and Slavery was banned in 90% of the civilised world before the American Civil War even began.
So No war doesn't solve a lot. But it settles some differences.
Just please try to think instead of vomiting nonsense for 1 second : Where does the money you got from your Apple stock comes from, and how on earth would it help the economy if everyone bought stocks ? Other than the fact that it would create a buble that would inflate your own stock for a short period of time.
Stock market doesn't create money or value, it swaps money from one pocket to another, and some people are so good at swapping money from others pockets to theirs that they become very rich.
In the old days that was called robbery, but now that it's based on whether you got the info first instead of whether you have a gun or not, it's become legit and morally OK ?
Same principle, different mechanisms.
I think you misread the signs of occupy wall street. It's the 99% vs the 1%. I let you do the maths.
I really seriously doubt someone has ever even though about the bottom 1% in the USA. At least not since 1950.
Reality check the bottom 1% live in slums or on the street in the US, and they beg to feed everyday for hours. I don't know in which dream you live where the bottom 1% are regular workers who make the minimum wage but you should WAKE THE F**K UP ! Minimum wage puts you in the bottom 25%.
You're an idiot.
You get "rich" (like millionaire rich) by getting an unfair part of the wealth generated. If you really believe that your actions in your life make you deserve a hundred million or a billion than I guess you're lost.
There is no such thing as a self made man, there are just smart people who got lucky, and used the hard work of thousands of others who believed in them.
No Microsoft without the hundred thousand employees who fueled its creativity, without the hundreds of thousands of workers and engineers who made one computer in every household a reality, without the great wealth redistribution of the 60s and 70s which made it possible for consumer electronics to appears.
Keep people starved and they won't buy your iPod, and ultimately stockholder or worker you'll be screwed.
Exactly, and demand is created by poor people getting richer, i.e. wealth redistribution.
It's the basis of any functionnal society and the main role of any democratic government to redistribute wealth so that the economic system keeps going, progress is made, and life gets better, for (almost) everyone.
The poorer you are the greater the part of your income you spend (i.e. consume) and vice versa, the richer you are the greater part of your income you invest, which only makes your income greater, but doesn't fuel the economy on the long run.
There is no shortage in investments right now, there is a crisis of debt and purchasing power.
I'm read stupid things in my life but that must be a winner...
Unless you're trolling, which I really hope you are, WTF ?
Rich people buy lot of stocks, because they have a lot of disposable income, poor people don't buy any because they have 0 disposable income => Rich people get richer, poor people get poorer (in comparison)
It's economics 101, and also the only thing that has been proven by experience in the last 150 years, with 0 example of disproof.
Wealth doesn't spread to owners, it agglomerates to owners.
I'm not sure you get real random numbers anyway : when you measure a physical phenomenon that is un predictable in it variabillity like say a temperature measurement or this light thing, your captors use predictable behaviours (obviously) so ultimately there is a bias isn't there ?
"AHAH LULZ THEM MEXICANS SO STUPID ! THEM BUILDING UNDERGROUND WHEN THEM HAVING EARTHQUAKES ! LUUULZ"
Said the idiot american who coincidentally builds 90% of its east coast houses with woods where there are a dozen Hurricanes every year...
You better off inside a bunker-like cellar than at the top of a skyscraper during a Earthquake. I could do the maths but you wouldn't understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
True. But the reason why these people emmigrated to the US to do R&D in american companies is because the pay is better and this condition hasn't changed.
Or rather hasn't changed enough yet. I don't think there is any Chinese company who can rival IBM's R&D, or Intel's.
"democratically elected politicains are passing laws"
There is so much wrong in this statement. where to begin ?
First of all I'd like the democratically elected politicians to MAKE the laws instead of passing laws redacted by lobbyist, and private interests groups, and passing only the ones they get paid to pass.
Secondly The average congressman gets 5 TIMES its salary from Lobbyist and private corporations. That's right : the average Senator is 5 times more Goldman Sach's bitch than yours. So please keep your condescending horseshit. Democracy is a very nice ideal but the USA are FAR from ever achieving it.
Not at all.
He is suggesting quite the opposite : 94% of the population doesn't care UNTIL there is a civil war. Once there is they side with the strongest a.k.a the government because they are lazy cowards and also because they've not given a shit about anything for so long that they are physically unable to make their mind about anything.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a revolutionary and I know fanatism is bad. Really bad. But Fanatism on its own cannot do that much arm because by definition it is held by few people. It is the apathy of the great majority that enables this fanatism to become a threat.
My point being you can't really fight fanatism by reason, so better try to tackle apathy.
Yes I totally agree with you. Don't demonize, it's counterproductive.
I was only objecting to your argument that he could not possibly have said something so shockingly anti-democratic. The fact is that Nazi Germany propaganda was very fiercely anti-democratic, democracy held the same role in their propaganda as Communism during the MacCarthy era in the USA (and still today in the discourses of the right).
So it is possible that he said that. or not.
No, but demand accountability, make this a major issue debated, demand the creation of independant bodies to oversee the use of the datas, and more importantly demand laws that prevent the private companies to harvest the data in the first place, because today the number 1 source of information regarding dissidents in countries with authoritarian regimes like Yemen, Syria, and before Lybia and such, are Facebook, Google & telephone companies.
Are you actually angry because you cannot buy sufficient fire power to outpower the entire US military ?
Because if so I need your name and address please. First I'll send a psychiatrist, and 2nd I'll make sure to get at least a Thousand miles away from you !
I mean you do realize that :
A] The right to bear arms was never intended for citizen to be able to fight off policemen or the military, but because it would facilitate the formation of militia to DEFEND THE STATE NOT FIGHT IT.
B] The concept of a state of rights and law, of government and democracy finds its most primary root in the concession made by the people to the government of the monopoly of righteous violence.
Read Thomas Hobbes, or even better Max Weber.
Your point being that Goebbels is in no way a villain in a movie ?
I mean the guy's job was basically to sell the systematic extermination of Jews, gypsies, gays, lesbians, mentally retarded and physically challenged, you would think he was ok with saying more chocking things than "the truth is the greatest enemy of the State", especially in a private context.
That being said I wasn't there so I can't testify.
Coincidentally , in Mein Kampf, Hithler has a rant about "the jews' big lies" which is very similar to the quotation above, so maybe it was indeed forged. History is written by the winners after all.
can you access/record/store hundreds of thousands of Terabytes of CCTV, telephone communications, SMS, chat, emails?
Can you as a citizen, pay thousands of people to retroactively investigate on the life of other citizen ?
How are citizen more empowered by big browser than governments ?
As some dude said someday on the interwebs : "Staline would have LOVED facebook". And I might add, no jews would have survived the holocaust if it had taken place in Y2K.
Everything you buy, any dollar (or Yuan or Euro or Pound) you spend today is a vote.
It is an endorsement of the choices (all of them) of the company/artist/whatver you are buying from made. It's true of the Nike Shoes manufactured by 8 years old malaysians you bought in the 90s and it is true now of the DRM music ou movies you buy online, of the kindle you payed amazon for, of your iPod.
I think what pirates do when they do buy something is demonstrate this. They say this is good stuff, nicely made and rightly sold. I agree with the way it was manufactured and marketed and I don't take offense in the way the vendor is making money.
This is why I won't buy a kindle (or any ereader) as long as there is a kill switch in it for instance. It's not that I think ebooks are bad, or not as good as paper books, they actually are better I think. Cheaper and easier to distribute for one, and lighter to carry. But I will never endorse the idea that it is OK for amazon to be ABLE to delete a book from my collection. The same way I don't think it would be OK for amazon to come to my house and burn a book I just bought.
Private corporations have fought very hard against piracy saying that when you download a pirated ebook or mp3 you STEAL, that it is actually theft, well if it is theft, and the ebook is an actual good, then deleting it from my computer/ereader is exactly the same as coming to my house to burn it, and locking it with DRM is exactly the same as forcibly preventing me physically to lend it to a friend or to give/resell it.
Nobody (sane) would EVER take the crap that some (all the big ones) digital publisher gives us with physical goods.
I simply ask : WHY ?
And yes I veered off topic. it's the mention of DRMs (or in that case the absence thereof) it pushes my button.
"The cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure, because "the cloud" is not a definable entity, as much as the tech press wants it to be. This is a misnomer perpetrated by the poorly-informed press, and not really something that's based in reality. Just like the title to this Ask Slashdot encourages us to debate the security of something that cannot be intrinsically secure or insecure? If you're telling me that "the cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure why are we having this conversation? I mean, I think it's worthwhile to consider what a lot of "the cloud" services are that are out there (the big few that exist) and to debate their security success or potential holes. You can always deflect my arguments by saying that they're just "implementing the cloud wrong" and we won't go anywhere. But it is my opinion that sensitive, personal and secure information should not be handed off to yet another third part for computation or storage unless your trust with them is enough to risk litigation against yourself from all of your customers.
Just because a question was asked doesn't mean it was the right one, or even a smart one to start with. We should never stop reformulating the question, it is most of the time much more interesting the trying to find "the answer" to a bad question.
I agree 100%. a MBA is a $999 netbook. a netbook can be (poorly) replaced by a tablet+keyboard. where is the news ?
My thought exactly !
The guy FTFY just replaced its $1199-facebook-machine by a $599(iPad)+$99(Keyboard)-facebook machine and apparently he wants a medal for it...
If you do NOTHING on your computer, then of course you can swap it for a Tablet+keyboard. It will be less robust, slower, and you'll be limited to the App store but hey what the hell that's the price of hype !
Tablets are nice, but if they become your primary computer, it means you never needed a PC in the first place, a $299 netbook would have done the trick, much better than a tablet BTW.
Well for starters 15 years ago there was no reality TV, which let's face it represents a fair amount of the crap on TV.
I would still object that there are some good stuff on TV, the problem is they don't air when I want to see them. TV in itself is not fit for watching high quality material because you don't control WHEN you see WHAT.
Well I guess everyone is entitled to its own version of what's fair and what's not. Then democracy operates and, luckily for you, for the moment people are blind enough to think it's OK for 1% to own the country and the rest to merely survive (comparatively).
The thing is ultimately in actual democracy the people make the laws, so THEY decide what's fair. It's all about education and raising awareness
That's not what I said. What I said was an ever increasing investment implied ever increasing returns on the said investment.
The returns implies SALES. And you don't sell to your own investors... and even less to the speculators.
Finance was a very nice tool when it represented 1% of the GDP. Now that it is several times greater it's just an unemployement machine.
I meant no shortage of money to be invested, but yes there is little low risk investments right now precisely because the system is unstable because of low consumption and high debt
Well the common thing between the two systems is the wealth is very poorly distributed. Also Politics are corrupted.
Oh and I forgot, both country got a state religion during that period, Stalinism for the USSR and "One Nation under god" for the USA. (TY Mac Carthy....)
Gold standard off the table + unregulated finance. That's the recipe of our doom. One or the other alone wouldn't have had that much effect, but the two combined and suddenly the volumes in finance were multiplied by 1,000 or even 10,000 in 20 years. Meanwhile the actual economy "only" Doubled. QED.
Also look at the rate of imposition of the 0.1% richests, it's quite the lesson, you talk about ending the Nazis, well look at the kind of measures the American government was ready to take facing a challenge at the time.
Also and on an unrelated note, the USSR defeated the Nazis, the american just witnessed. You did got the Japs though. Communism was defeated by itself and corruption, and Slavery was banned in 90% of the civilised world before the American Civil War even began.
So No war doesn't solve a lot. But it settles some differences.
Just please try to think instead of vomiting nonsense for 1 second : Where does the money you got from your Apple stock comes from, and how on earth would it help the economy if everyone bought stocks ? Other than the fact that it would create a buble that would inflate your own stock for a short period of time.
Stock market doesn't create money or value, it swaps money from one pocket to another, and some people are so good at swapping money from others pockets to theirs that they become very rich.
In the old days that was called robbery, but now that it's based on whether you got the info first instead of whether you have a gun or not, it's become legit and morally OK ?
Same principle, different mechanisms.
I think you misread the signs of occupy wall street. It's the 99% vs the 1%. I let you do the maths.
I really seriously doubt someone has ever even though about the bottom 1% in the USA. At least not since 1950.
Reality check the bottom 1% live in slums or on the street in the US, and they beg to feed everyday for hours. I don't know in which dream you live where the bottom 1% are regular workers who make the minimum wage but you should WAKE THE F**K UP ! Minimum wage puts you in the bottom 25%.
You're an idiot.
You get "rich" (like millionaire rich) by getting an unfair part of the wealth generated. If you really believe that your actions in your life make you deserve a hundred million or a billion than I guess you're lost.
There is no such thing as a self made man, there are just smart people who got lucky, and used the hard work of thousands of others who believed in them.
No Microsoft without the hundred thousand employees who fueled its creativity, without the hundreds of thousands of workers and engineers who made one computer in every household a reality, without the great wealth redistribution of the 60s and 70s which made it possible for consumer electronics to appears.
Keep people starved and they won't buy your iPod, and ultimately stockholder or worker you'll be screwed.
Exactly, and demand is created by poor people getting richer, i.e. wealth redistribution.
It's the basis of any functionnal society and the main role of any democratic government to redistribute wealth so that the economic system keeps going, progress is made, and life gets better, for (almost) everyone.
The poorer you are the greater the part of your income you spend (i.e. consume) and vice versa, the richer you are the greater part of your income you invest, which only makes your income greater, but doesn't fuel the economy on the long run.
There is no shortage in investments right now, there is a crisis of debt and purchasing power.
I'm read stupid things in my life but that must be a winner...
Unless you're trolling, which I really hope you are, WTF ?
Rich people buy lot of stocks, because they have a lot of disposable income, poor people don't buy any because they have 0 disposable income => Rich people get richer, poor people get poorer (in comparison)
It's economics 101, and also the only thing that has been proven by experience in the last 150 years, with 0 example of disproof.
Wealth doesn't spread to owners, it agglomerates to owners.
I'm not sure you get real random numbers anyway : when you measure a physical phenomenon that is un predictable in it variabillity like say a temperature measurement or this light thing, your captors use predictable behaviours (obviously) so ultimately there is a bias isn't there ?
"AHAH LULZ THEM MEXICANS SO STUPID ! THEM BUILDING UNDERGROUND WHEN THEM HAVING EARTHQUAKES ! LUUULZ"
Said the idiot american who coincidentally builds 90% of its east coast houses with woods where there are a dozen Hurricanes every year...
You better off inside a bunker-like cellar than at the top of a skyscraper during a Earthquake. I could do the maths but you wouldn't understand it.