I'd like to emphasize that while the dollar spent by a bum is just as valuable to the economy as a dollar spent by a CEO, a dollar given to a bum has a 100% probability of being spent while that CEO is quite likely to hoard a good portion of it.
"Hoard"? Where you do think this mythical CEO puts his money, in a mattress? The money he doesn't spend is arguably MORE valuable than the money the bum spends. He would typically invest it and create a job for the bum. Also note the bum will almost certainly spend the money on pure consumption, whereas a wealthier person can afford to spend it on more lasting societal things (e.g., art, school donations, etc).
The ultimate example of this is the Gates Foundation. There's so much money there that they can do things that only a large amount of money in one place can do. Bums buying liquor is not the same.
This is why I advocate a minimum of two years of economic education to High School students.
Of course, $100 given to a poor single mother will be pushed right back into the economy, creating just as many jobs as $100 given to Raytheon or some other weapons manufacturer.
OK, let me try it this way. You have $100. By your logic, whether you spend it on food or give it to someone else to spend on food gives you exactly the same benefit. They both go to the economy, right?
The flaw in your logic is that EVERYONE benefits when we give money to a government contractor (since the government is spending on our behalf), whereas taking from one person and giving to another benefits nobody except the person we give it to. That's problem one.
Problem two is that giving away money reduces the incentive for the handout person to work to support themselves. Again by your logic, we could have exactly the same economic growth that we have now by simply having the government give money to EVERYONE. Why not? "It goes back into the economy," right?
What you're really doing is describing a very complex pyramid scheme where nobody works -- everyone just keeps giving money to each other. But that doesn't expand the pie.
I have a feeling I'm not explaining this very well. But the fundamental problem is that you need to do more thinking about how economies work.
Paying Haliburton and other US contractors to rebuild Iraq--that's not socialism. The discriminator is this--who makes the money? If money is being spread among a bunch of little people, then that's socialism.
Sheesh. Put a little thought into this. The difference is that paying Haliburton is exchanging money for goods and services. We regularly do this with "little people" (as you call them) as well, it's just that Haliburton makes news (and is one of the few that are big enough to, say, rebuild Iraq).
Socialism is forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to another, with no goods or services in return, i.e., a "handout".
The Chinese claim they want to go to the moon. So did the Russians, who never managed to put humans there, despite a very advanced space program. The Chinese could do it, but talk is cheap, and the moon is expensive.
In any case, the world is different. I highly doubt anyone would care if the Chinese went to the moon and we weren't actively going. The US has already been there, done that; no one doubts we could do it again if we had an important reason.
The authors of Adobe Photoshop, the GIMP, heck, even Microsoft Paint, had better watch their backs, because all of these can easily be used to modify a boarding pass.
No, because they don't contain an automated process to create a boarding pass. Now, a plugin for Photoshop that created boarding passes, yes, that would be a problem.
His intent was to improve security, not to see it subverted by enemies of the state.
The problem with "intent" is that we can't know what it really is. The reality is that he created something that has no practical purpose except to be a tool for criminals.
If that was really his intent, he can explain that at his trial. But the police should NOT be deciding his intent -- they should err on the side of arresting him now and figuring out what he was really doing later.
Which, again, is bullshit. If no one was harmed, no crime has been committed.
Ah, the Libertarian. I wonder if you'll agree with another Libertarian I once debated with. He argued that it should be perfectly legal to fire a gun at people -- as long as you don't hit them. Once you hit them, then it becomes illegal.
That's exactly the same case as the "yelling fire" example, even when no one gets hurt. It's the recklessness that makes it illegal.
So Mr. Libertarian -- is it OK if I fire my gun at your kids? I promise to aim over their heads. It won't harm them at all, so it's perfectly legal. Who are you to tell me I can't fire my gun, as long as I don't hit anyone?
It's illegal to make keys in your little fantasy world?
As a matter of fact, it is. Lockpicks are generally regulated and illegal in unlicensed hands, though this can vary between jurisdictions.
It doesn't matter if someone makes all the lockpicks in the world, hard is only done when someone uses it to break into your house.
Yeah, and it doesn't matter if North Korea makes all the nukes in the world, harm is only done when they use them, right? I'm using a very exaggerated example to make the point, but got news for you: the law is full of examples of preemptive regulation and laws. You can get arrested for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, even if no one gets hurt or even gets out of their seats. It's called "reckless endangerment", which is what this guy basically did.
Look, if my house has poor security, you're still in trouble if you start a factory to create keys for criminals to break in.
What did he expect from this? It doesn't matter how good or poor security is -- what matters is whether you conspired to break that security.
What a fool. I have absolutely no sympathy for him. If he had just published a paper, then I'd be a bit more sympathetic. But the guy actively sought to bypass airline security. What, does the guy not realize that people are a WEE BIT CONCERNED these days about airline security?
"You can be environmentally conscious and financially successful; the two are not mutually exclusive."
Well, I suppose it might look that way on the surface, but the question of whether that reflects reality is very much in doubt. The question that wouldn't be answered is whether Google is successful DESPITE environmentally conscious policies.
It all boils down to whether being environmentally conscious costs more money. And looking at whether a company is financially successful (i.e., makes more money than it spends) tells us nothing about that.
Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders falls in the Index Rankings for their blatent use of "punishing someone in our index because we don't like their politics".
What a stupid ranking. Yeah, I can tell we have deep, deep, DEEP mathematics in play here when calculating this index. The precision is astounding!
Apparently they don't read the same newspapers I do where there is near constant criticism of Bush and the war. If they don't like the REPORTING of the war, maybe they should knock the newspapers rather than the Bush administration (WTF?). But then they'd be criticising their buddies, and we can't have that.
...the ultimate client-side technology for web developers?
Er, I like some of the results that people have made from AJAX, but to call it anything like the "ultimate client-side technology" is utterly bizarre and casts extreme doubt on the reviewer's credentials to review anything computer-related. I think it's safe to say that everyone that has studied AJAX has one overwhelming common opinion:
"For the LOVE OF GOD! Why the hell in the year 2006 do we need to write anything in this godawful buggy language? There HAS to be a better solution. THERE HAS TO BE! STFU, there HAS to be! Please, GOD, there must be!! [breaks down in tears]"
If AJAX is the "ultimate", then we might as well all take the poison kool-aid, because human civilization is an abject failure.
Re:Twenty years from now...
on
An Ode To Al
·
· Score: 1
Funny enough, so does Don McLean! I'm too lazy to chase down the link, but on Al's web site, he talks about a letter from McLean. He's a big Weird Al fan and gave enthusiastic permission for The Saga Begins, and apparently his kids played the song constantly. He found himself having Al's lyrics running through his head when he performed American Pie.
Do they also have merit badges for not thinking independently? Or one for having your IQ reduced to a single digit and being converted to a near-mindless automaton?
Hello Kettle, this is the pot, I'm sending you an MP3 of my new hit song, "You're Black and I'm Not".
The LAST people who should be accusing others of not thinking independently are people who mindlessly justify stealing the work of others using some of the lamest excuses ever made. I doubt you can, but try reading some of these dicusssions and look for rational, well-thought-out opinions. Whenever music piracy comes up, it is generally 100% group-think.
If the power of corporations continues to grow unchecked, we could come upon a time when some corporations monitor their employees 24 hours a day, in there homes, at play, wherever, and to do anything outside of the company rules would mean termination. It would be in the company's best interest to do so.
If my power continues to grow unchecked, I could be KING OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Re:I have a document they all should read there...
on
Blair Bullied Over Bully
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
At least we'll have no one to blame but ourselves in that case.
Personally, I'd rather have a specific person be responsible for the credit or blame for a decision, rather than a mindless abstract concept like 'ourselves'.
On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong -- if all we have to blame are 'ourselves', then no one ever gets personal blame! Wow, what a great world that would be -- no personal blame! Sign me up for that deal!
Re:I have a document they all should read there...
on
Blair Bullied Over Bully
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
1) Ask the citzenry what should be done. 2) Do it.
Yeah, because the majority is always right.::rolls eyes:: Oh damn, what the majority believes changes every week. Well, that's OK, the government should just keep passing / reversing a law as the opinion polls change.
How about this: The government leaders ignore the ignorant masses and do what they think is right, and we periodically either reelect them or we don't depending on the outcomes or how we like the decisions they make?
Sorry, lost my head for a second. You're right, the mob is always right.
your problem here is you're taking the 9th out of context; that's not going to work.
Unfortunately, this is where I generally end up when I debate with Libertarians... "It doesn't say that. Yes it does! No it doesn't. Yes it does!" -sigh- Which is why I try to avoid doing it.
In any case, the original point is why the Libertarians will never get power. People *like* parks. People *like* Fire Departments. People *like* public streets. And people, once they learn about them, *don't* like the Libertarians.
As I said, I have sympathy for some Libertarian beliefs, but the world they want is simply the world that no one else wants. Hence the need for a reasonable party that balances the good points of the other parties.
How exactly do you imagine this can be interpreted to give the federal government any authority to legislate a "right not to be offended"
Because of exactly what the ninth amendment says. The amendment specifically says that it does not decide what is or is not a right, including, say, a theoretical right of "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities". Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor of the latter right, I'm only saying that you have zero basis for claiming the constitution grants or takes away rights that it doesn't explicitly name. Again, that's why the constitution creates a legislature. All laws are fair game that don't directly contradict the constitution. That's the way system works, whether you like it or not.
I agree about the parks [...] But you should not be forced to [pay for fire service], no. [...] But that's just me [beliefs about nukes].
So, exactly what part of my statement about Libertarian beliefs was a "mischaracterization"? I mean, I can go on... heck, I even had one Libertarian nut try and convince me that shooting at people should be entirely legal... right up until you hit someone. If you don't hit someone, then you are not interfering with their rights. I won't say the party is that nutty, but it illustrates the danger of Libertarian thinking.
The problem is the whole concept of, "I should be able to do anything I want as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do anything they want." What Libertarian never understand is that "interfere" is a lot broader than they understand. If nudity on television affects a large majority of lives in a negative way, who are you to tell then that it shouldn't? People's rights are always in conflict; I'd say most of the laws on the books are about balancing people's rights.
The fundamental problem with Libertarianism is that the only rights they care about are what THEY think are rights, and anyone else's ideas of what are rights are automatically wrong using their simplistic formula. And what's worse, they argue their simplistic formula is in the constitution somehow.
They aren't open for debate, they are specifically retained by the people. Read your own link.
Sheesh. Why don't we read it together? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The ninth amendment says that some rights not mentioned in the constitution may still be retained by people. Note that it does NOT say that any right not mentioned in the constitution is automatically a right retained by the people -- only that not mentioning it doesn't mean it's not a right.
In other words, everything not mentioned in the constitution is up for debate by the legislature (which is why we HAVE a legislature!). If the legislature wants to pass a law against jumping up and down, it is expressely within their purview.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to emphasize that while the dollar spent by a bum is just as valuable to the economy as a dollar spent by a CEO, a dollar given to a bum has a 100% probability of being spent while that CEO is quite likely to hoard a good portion of it.
"Hoard"? Where you do think this mythical CEO puts his money, in a mattress? The money he doesn't spend is arguably MORE valuable than the money the bum spends. He would typically invest it and create a job for the bum. Also note the bum will almost certainly spend the money on pure consumption, whereas a wealthier person can afford to spend it on more lasting societal things (e.g., art, school donations, etc).
The ultimate example of this is the Gates Foundation. There's so much money there that they can do things that only a large amount of money in one place can do. Bums buying liquor is not the same.
This is why I advocate a minimum of two years of economic education to High School students.
Of course, $100 given to a poor single mother will be pushed right back into the economy, creating just as many jobs as $100 given to Raytheon or some other weapons manufacturer.
OK, let me try it this way. You have $100. By your logic, whether you spend it on food or give it to someone else to spend on food gives you exactly the same benefit. They both go to the economy, right?
The flaw in your logic is that EVERYONE benefits when we give money to a government contractor (since the government is spending on our behalf), whereas taking from one person and giving to another benefits nobody except the person we give it to. That's problem one.
Problem two is that giving away money reduces the incentive for the handout person to work to support themselves. Again by your logic, we could have exactly the same economic growth that we have now by simply having the government give money to EVERYONE. Why not? "It goes back into the economy," right?
What you're really doing is describing a very complex pyramid scheme where nobody works -- everyone just keeps giving money to each other. But that doesn't expand the pie.
I have a feeling I'm not explaining this very well. But the fundamental problem is that you need to do more thinking about how economies work.
Paying Haliburton and other US contractors to rebuild Iraq--that's not socialism. The discriminator is this--who makes the money? If money is being spread among a bunch of little people, then that's socialism.
Sheesh. Put a little thought into this. The difference is that paying Haliburton is exchanging money for goods and services. We regularly do this with "little people" (as you call them) as well, it's just that Haliburton makes news (and is one of the few that are big enough to, say, rebuild Iraq).
Socialism is forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to another, with no goods or services in return, i.e., a "handout".
Because the Chinese are going to the moon.
The Chinese claim they want to go to the moon. So did the Russians, who never managed to put humans there, despite a very advanced space program. The Chinese could do it, but talk is cheap, and the moon is expensive.
In any case, the world is different. I highly doubt anyone would care if the Chinese went to the moon and we weren't actively going. The US has already been there, done that; no one doubts we could do it again if we had an important reason.
They have the ability to cut and paste bits of text in images, which is all that's required.
Hint: that's not all that's required. What is at the heart of the matter I leave as an exercise for the student.
The authors of Adobe Photoshop, the GIMP, heck, even Microsoft Paint, had better watch their backs, because all of these can easily be used to modify a boarding pass.
No, because they don't contain an automated process to create a boarding pass. Now, a plugin for Photoshop that created boarding passes, yes, that would be a problem.
His intent was to improve security, not to see it subverted by enemies of the state.
The problem with "intent" is that we can't know what it really is. The reality is that he created something that has no practical purpose except to be a tool for criminals.
If that was really his intent, he can explain that at his trial. But the police should NOT be deciding his intent -- they should err on the side of arresting him now and figuring out what he was really doing later.
Which, again, is bullshit. If no one was harmed, no crime has been committed.
Ah, the Libertarian. I wonder if you'll agree with another Libertarian I once debated with. He argued that it should be perfectly legal to fire a gun at people -- as long as you don't hit them. Once you hit them, then it becomes illegal.
That's exactly the same case as the "yelling fire" example, even when no one gets hurt. It's the recklessness that makes it illegal.
So Mr. Libertarian -- is it OK if I fire my gun at your kids? I promise to aim over their heads. It won't harm them at all, so it's perfectly legal. Who are you to tell me I can't fire my gun, as long as I don't hit anyone?
The last time I checked it wasn't illegal to manufacture a lock-pick.
The problem is that you've never actually checked.
It's illegal to make keys in your little fantasy world?
As a matter of fact, it is. Lockpicks are generally regulated and illegal in unlicensed hands, though this can vary between jurisdictions.
It doesn't matter if someone makes all the lockpicks in the world, hard is only done when someone uses it to break into your house.
Yeah, and it doesn't matter if North Korea makes all the nukes in the world, harm is only done when they use them, right? I'm using a very exaggerated example to make the point, but got news for you: the law is full of examples of preemptive regulation and laws. You can get arrested for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, even if no one gets hurt or even gets out of their seats. It's called "reckless endangerment", which is what this guy basically did.
Look, if my house has poor security, you're still in trouble if you start a factory to create keys for criminals to break in.
What did he expect from this? It doesn't matter how good or poor security is -- what matters is whether you conspired to break that security.
What a fool. I have absolutely no sympathy for him. If he had just published a paper, then I'd be a bit more sympathetic. But the guy actively sought to bypass airline security. What, does the guy not realize that people are a WEE BIT CONCERNED these days about airline security?
Don't annoy someone who has more spare time than you do.
Why not?
The site is mildly amusing (very mild), but it's hardly going to cause an uprising by the people against Universal.
You mean I can click "Help" on the computer, type in some key words, and the book pops open automatically? Whoa! Count me in for that!
"You can be environmentally conscious and financially successful; the two are not mutually exclusive."
Well, I suppose it might look that way on the surface, but the question of whether that reflects reality is very much in doubt. The question that wouldn't be answered is whether Google is successful DESPITE environmentally conscious policies.
It all boils down to whether being environmentally conscious costs more money. And looking at whether a company is financially successful (i.e., makes more money than it spends) tells us nothing about that.
Make sure head of company that supplies voting machines is a vociferous supporter of your party
Er, the head of ANY company is generally a supporter of some particular party -- And good GOD, sometimes they are even ENTHUSIASTIC supporters!
What are you saying, are we supposed to take away the voting rights of any executive that might be connected to voting machines?
Oh, I think I got it. We only allow voting machines to be created by "vociferous supporters" of the party that YOU like.
Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders falls in the Index Rankings for their blatent use of "punishing someone in our index because we don't like their politics".
What a stupid ranking. Yeah, I can tell we have deep, deep, DEEP mathematics in play here when calculating this index. The precision is astounding!
Apparently they don't read the same newspapers I do where there is near constant criticism of Bush and the war. If they don't like the REPORTING of the war, maybe they should knock the newspapers rather than the Bush administration (WTF?). But then they'd be criticising their buddies, and we can't have that.
What a load of crap.
Er, I like some of the results that people have made from AJAX, but to call it anything like the "ultimate client-side technology" is utterly bizarre and casts extreme doubt on the reviewer's credentials to review anything computer-related. I think it's safe to say that everyone that has studied AJAX has one overwhelming common opinion:
"For the LOVE OF GOD! Why the hell in the year 2006 do we need to write anything in this godawful buggy language? There HAS to be a better solution. THERE HAS TO BE! STFU, there HAS to be! Please, GOD, there must be!! [breaks down in tears]"
If AJAX is the "ultimate", then we might as well all take the poison kool-aid, because human civilization is an abject failure.
Funny enough, so does Don McLean! I'm too lazy to chase down the link, but on Al's web site, he talks about a letter from McLean. He's a big Weird Al fan and gave enthusiastic permission for The Saga Begins, and apparently his kids played the song constantly. He found himself having Al's lyrics running through his head when he performed American Pie.
Do they also have merit badges for not thinking independently? Or one for having your IQ reduced to a single digit and being converted to a near-mindless automaton?
Hello Kettle, this is the pot, I'm sending you an MP3 of my new hit song, "You're Black and I'm Not".
The LAST people who should be accusing others of not thinking independently are people who mindlessly justify stealing the work of others using some of the lamest excuses ever made. I doubt you can, but try reading some of these dicusssions and look for rational, well-thought-out opinions. Whenever music piracy comes up, it is generally 100% group-think.
If the power of corporations continues to grow unchecked, we could come upon a time when some corporations monitor their employees 24 hours a day, in there homes, at play, wherever, and to do anything outside of the company rules would mean termination. It would be in the company's best interest to do so.
If my power continues to grow unchecked, I could be KING OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.
At least we'll have no one to blame but ourselves in that case.
Personally, I'd rather have a specific person be responsible for the credit or blame for a decision, rather than a mindless abstract concept like 'ourselves'.
On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong -- if all we have to blame are 'ourselves', then no one ever gets personal blame! Wow, what a great world that would be -- no personal blame! Sign me up for that deal!
1) Ask the citzenry what should be done. 2) Do it.
Yeah, because the majority is always right. ::rolls eyes:: Oh damn, what the majority believes changes every week. Well, that's OK, the government should just keep passing / reversing a law as the opinion polls change.
How about this: The government leaders ignore the ignorant masses and do what they think is right, and we periodically either reelect them or we don't depending on the outcomes or how we like the decisions they make?
Sorry, lost my head for a second. You're right, the mob is always right.
your problem here is you're taking the 9th out of context; that's not going to work.
Unfortunately, this is where I generally end up when I debate with Libertarians... "It doesn't say that. Yes it does! No it doesn't. Yes it does!" -sigh- Which is why I try to avoid doing it.
In any case, the original point is why the Libertarians will never get power. People *like* parks. People *like* Fire Departments. People *like* public streets. And people, once they learn about them, *don't* like the Libertarians.
As I said, I have sympathy for some Libertarian beliefs, but the world they want is simply the world that no one else wants. Hence the need for a reasonable party that balances the good points of the other parties.
How exactly do you imagine this can be interpreted to give the federal government any authority to legislate a "right not to be offended"
Because of exactly what the ninth amendment says. The amendment specifically says that it does not decide what is or is not a right, including, say, a theoretical right of "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities". Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor of the latter right, I'm only saying that you have zero basis for claiming the constitution grants or takes away rights that it doesn't explicitly name. Again, that's why the constitution creates a legislature. All laws are fair game that don't directly contradict the constitution. That's the way system works, whether you like it or not.
I agree about the parks [...] But you should not be forced to [pay for fire service], no. [...] But that's just me [beliefs about nukes].
So, exactly what part of my statement about Libertarian beliefs was a "mischaracterization"? I mean, I can go on... heck, I even had one Libertarian nut try and convince me that shooting at people should be entirely legal... right up until you hit someone. If you don't hit someone, then you are not interfering with their rights. I won't say the party is that nutty, but it illustrates the danger of Libertarian thinking.
The problem is the whole concept of, "I should be able to do anything I want as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do anything they want." What Libertarian never understand is that "interfere" is a lot broader than they understand. If nudity on television affects a large majority of lives in a negative way, who are you to tell then that it shouldn't? People's rights are always in conflict; I'd say most of the laws on the books are about balancing people's rights.
The fundamental problem with Libertarianism is that the only rights they care about are what THEY think are rights, and anyone else's ideas of what are rights are automatically wrong using their simplistic formula. And what's worse, they argue their simplistic formula is in the constitution somehow.
They aren't open for debate, they are specifically retained by the people. Read your own link.
Sheesh. Why don't we read it together? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The ninth amendment says that some rights not mentioned in the constitution may still be retained by people. Note that it does NOT say that any right not mentioned in the constitution is automatically a right retained by the people -- only that not mentioning it doesn't mean it's not a right.
In other words, everything not mentioned in the constitution is up for debate by the legislature (which is why we HAVE a legislature!). If the legislature wants to pass a law against jumping up and down, it is expressely within their purview.