Socialism = Scandinavian countries, Communism = Stalin et al. No matter how much the left or right attempt to redefine the term, it remains accurate. And it needs regulation too, otherwise you end up with a kafkaesque beaurocracy where every city hall is a miniature tinpot banana dictatorship.
This, most developed countries are at a stage where they can provide the basics for all of their citizens, the trick will be to allow everyone the opportunity to make more if they want it. The humanity and compassion of socialism mixed with the vitality and competition of capitalism, what a world that would be.
It was well put together but the show was spoiled for me by the persistently gloomy message with each episode, it was a complete downer, unneccessarily so.
Taking a risk isn't a productive act either, I don't see why it should be so highly valued. Perhaps we'd have more successful business if it weren't so risky to start a business. Deciding where to start businesses should be just another job where if you're good at it you get a raise, and if you're bad at it you lose your job.
The act of taking a risk isn't what makes you a profit, that's a hazard resulting from trying to make a profit. Driving around drunk isn't likely to earn you anything except a DUI conviction for example, despite it being a risk taking activity. Starting a business isn't just another job, it's creating jobs, and most people who try it are suitable only for creating one kind of job, like a restaurant or an IT shop, because that's what they know best. The nearest thing to what you're talking about are venture capitalists, and I haven't much time for them, they're an example of capitalism gone wrong - build up a business then sell it, regardless of the consequences for anyone.
You're holding up 'labour' and 'ownership' like holy talismans but they're about as relevant as the old testament these days.
I'd just apply one hack to prevent the coercive potential of starvation from forcing people into exploitative positions when there are no alternatives. That hack would be a basic income guarantee.
I agree. Western societies are dancing around it with welfare and whatnot, but it's time to bite the bullet and just give everyone a basic wage, we have more than enough resources, and ever more as we approach a post scarcity society. Everyone should be able to live comfortably but be given every opportunity to improve themselves, a meritocracy.
So who decides which work is harder, should coal miners get paid more than neurosurgeons because their work is more physically demanding? It's a meaningless metric. I've no intention of going into a whole capitalism versus whatever you're talking about thing here, of course casino/crony capitalism is wrong and regulations are needed etc etc.
The point is that a new business starter takes a big risk, and earns rewards occasionally. Much more often they end up bankrupt, and in almost every case they earn less than their employees for years until the business starts to take off. Then when it does take off and they earn more than their employees, along comes Johnny McManOfThePeople with his hand out saying "you earned it by withholding it from the people who do the work". Not so by any stretch of the imagination.
You want a share of the profits, take a share of the risks and pain.
Of course they are subsidised, otherwise you'd have to rely for your food sources on unstable developing countries who can employ farmers for $5 a week. This is a strategic requirement, maintaining food independence. In practical terms Europe has far more food and fresh water than it can use, and could produce a great deal more if needed. The story is bunk.
Capitalism: you take a risk with money you have or borrowed, and if it works out you make a profit. If it works out really well you make a big profit. If it doesn't work you make nothing and often end up deep in debt. At no point is wealth witheld from anyone, if employees want to take their own risks, or feel they are worth a partnership in the company to share in the profits and hazards let them have at it. The missing link in your monocles vs the people narrative is the risk factor.
Now obviously it's not as simple as that, but it more than rebuts this notion that you only gain wealth by keeping it from others.
Britain is already in the EU. It's not part of the common currency, and given its debts would almost certainly not qualify for common currency membership.
Unless you properly seal up your sewerage systems and treat the sewerage, then they aren't connected. Astonishing amounts of clean water leaks out of public supply pipes around the world before it ever reaches a tap, and sometimes things are getting in too, like that case of cryptosporidium that hit a European city a few years back.
Whatever about the rest, ASBOs are a useful social reform tool when dealing with increasingly feral inner city kids bent on making life hell for everyone around them. I'd rather that than imprisoning them straight off.
We are better than other animals in the world. By any objective measure we can move faster, go higher, lift more weight, survive in more hostile environments, and a great deal more using our intelligence. There's no animal that can do something better than we can, with a few exceptions like tortoises with very long lifespans, but we'll get there too. Now whether or not that means we are more worthy in some objective way is a totally differerent question.
At the risk of dignifying what slashdot has descended to, tablets and phones are useful for people who have to stand on a bus while they commute, as in Japan. For the rest of the world, people go from desktop to desktop, so no, your point has nothing to do with the list of stuff you rattled off.
This is one of those 'if someone needs to say it, there's no point in telling you' things. I mean what, you think GBII got elected on his own merits? Wake the fuck up.
It's perfectly readable in daylight but the contrast is still lower than paper, so in dimmer locations reading can be difficult. They should stop worrying about pixel count and crank up the contrast. I still love it and it's much easier than extended reading from an LCD though.
Slashdot Mirror
If you haven't the presence of mind to flip a safety while aiming a weapon, you shouldn't be firing a gun.
Socialism = Scandinavian countries, Communism = Stalin et al. No matter how much the left or right attempt to redefine the term, it remains accurate. And it needs regulation too, otherwise you end up with a kafkaesque beaurocracy where every city hall is a miniature tinpot banana dictatorship.
This, most developed countries are at a stage where they can provide the basics for all of their citizens, the trick will be to allow everyone the opportunity to make more if they want it. The humanity and compassion of socialism mixed with the vitality and competition of capitalism, what a world that would be.
And it is NOT possible for the average human being to remember passwords in the style of k$aUZ_nR2o.
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/936/
Ah come on, what sort of a relationship do you have with your family if you can't play a little prank on them from time to time.
It was well put together but the show was spoiled for me by the persistently gloomy message with each episode, it was a complete downer, unneccessarily so.
I actually had to read the article to figure this out:
I feel your pain, brother.
Taking a risk isn't a productive act either, I don't see why it should be so highly valued. Perhaps we'd have more successful business if it weren't so risky to start a business. Deciding where to start businesses should be just another job where if you're good at it you get a raise, and if you're bad at it you lose your job.
The act of taking a risk isn't what makes you a profit, that's a hazard resulting from trying to make a profit. Driving around drunk isn't likely to earn you anything except a DUI conviction for example, despite it being a risk taking activity. Starting a business isn't just another job, it's creating jobs, and most people who try it are suitable only for creating one kind of job, like a restaurant or an IT shop, because that's what they know best. The nearest thing to what you're talking about are venture capitalists, and I haven't much time for them, they're an example of capitalism gone wrong - build up a business then sell it, regardless of the consequences for anyone.
You're holding up 'labour' and 'ownership' like holy talismans but they're about as relevant as the old testament these days.
I'd just apply one hack to prevent the coercive potential of starvation from forcing people into exploitative positions when there are no alternatives. That hack would be a basic income guarantee.
I agree. Western societies are dancing around it with welfare and whatnot, but it's time to bite the bullet and just give everyone a basic wage, we have more than enough resources, and ever more as we approach a post scarcity society. Everyone should be able to live comfortably but be given every opportunity to improve themselves, a meritocracy.
So who decides which work is harder, should coal miners get paid more than neurosurgeons because their work is more physically demanding? It's a meaningless metric. I've no intention of going into a whole capitalism versus whatever you're talking about thing here, of course casino/crony capitalism is wrong and regulations are needed etc etc.
The point is that a new business starter takes a big risk, and earns rewards occasionally. Much more often they end up bankrupt, and in almost every case they earn less than their employees for years until the business starts to take off. Then when it does take off and they earn more than their employees, along comes Johnny McManOfThePeople with his hand out saying "you earned it by withholding it from the people who do the work". Not so by any stretch of the imagination.
You want a share of the profits, take a share of the risks and pain.
And that's the problem with capitalism. Taking a risk with money is non-productive. Labor is productive.
This is gibberish, it has no meaning. Money is a quantification of labour, that's why people get paid for working.
Of course they are subsidised, otherwise you'd have to rely for your food sources on unstable developing countries who can employ farmers for $5 a week. This is a strategic requirement, maintaining food independence. In practical terms Europe has far more food and fresh water than it can use, and could produce a great deal more if needed. The story is bunk.
Capitalism: you take a risk with money you have or borrowed, and if it works out you make a profit. If it works out really well you make a big profit. If it doesn't work you make nothing and often end up deep in debt. At no point is wealth witheld from anyone, if employees want to take their own risks, or feel they are worth a partnership in the company to share in the profits and hazards let them have at it. The missing link in your monocles vs the people narrative is the risk factor.
Now obviously it's not as simple as that, but it more than rebuts this notion that you only gain wealth by keeping it from others.
Britain is already in the EU. It's not part of the common currency, and given its debts would almost certainly not qualify for common currency membership.
Do the executives get paid in or own any stock?
Unless you properly seal up your sewerage systems and treat the sewerage, then they aren't connected. Astonishing amounts of clean water leaks out of public supply pipes around the world before it ever reaches a tap, and sometimes things are getting in too, like that case of cryptosporidium that hit a European city a few years back.
Whatever about the rest, ASBOs are a useful social reform tool when dealing with increasingly feral inner city kids bent on making life hell for everyone around them. I'd rather that than imprisoning them straight off.
We are better than other animals in the world. By any objective measure we can move faster, go higher, lift more weight, survive in more hostile environments, and a great deal more using our intelligence. There's no animal that can do something better than we can, with a few exceptions like tortoises with very long lifespans, but we'll get there too. Now whether or not that means we are more worthy in some objective way is a totally differerent question.
I think you mean 'robot flings kitten'.
At the risk of dignifying what slashdot has descended to, tablets and phones are useful for people who have to stand on a bus while they commute, as in Japan. For the rest of the world, people go from desktop to desktop, so no, your point has nothing to do with the list of stuff you rattled off.
What do people want to do most with computing devices?
So, obviously, smartphones, tablets, any device which is mobile is going to be more attractve than a desktop PC
How is it obvious, your point has nothing whatsoever to do with the list o'stuff you rattled off.
This is one of those 'if someone needs to say it, there's no point in telling you' things. I mean what, you think GBII got elected on his own merits? Wake the fuck up.
What?
I would have to support this, employers are mostly looking for younger workers that can be whipped into working like dogs for lower wages.
Sorry, what? I plug in my B&N Nook Touch, internal and external storage volumes mount, and I copy over an epub. Unmount, and presto, it's there.
This, it's as simple as plugging in a USB thmub drive.
It's perfectly readable in daylight but the contrast is still lower than paper, so in dimmer locations reading can be difficult. They should stop worrying about pixel count and crank up the contrast. I still love it and it's much easier than extended reading from an LCD though.