How would you know? Clearly, you aren't and never were close to one to know much about them.
Wall Streeters get paid via something called "carried interest"
BS. They are paid salary and bonuses, which are added to it. It is still treated as salary and reported on 1040 as such.
You may be talking about actual investors — who risk their own money, rather than that of their employers. The capital gains tax is lower because we want people to take such risks — as opposite to having a guaranteed salary.
Start a subscription drive and see, how many people will voluntarily give you money for this. I suspect, you already know the result, however, and that's why you want to compel those very same people (through the IRS) to pay for your solution in search of a problem...
Right. And then, because they will not have time to develop their own, being pressed for time under the "accelerated schedule", they will have to license his technology.
Bravo, Mr. Musk, very well played! Is not Crony Capitalism nice?
Once you have people living there, things look different and they often look just as barren as the Mars picture.
Where quality people live, things improve with time. But even the worst parts of Earth are much more hospitable to (known) life than the nicest parts of Mars.
Seriously — rich people shall be free to do whatever they want with their own money, but before taxpayers are compelled to finance travel to other planets, we need to colonize this planet we have right here.
Antarctica is an entire unsettled continent! Plus Australian Outback, Canadian woods, American Midwest, Siberia, Asian and African deserts — all have breathable air and comfortable gravity. All can be reached for hundreds rather than billions of dollars. And the ping-latency will not suck as badly...
Why does a company need government's permission to fly a 10:1 model of their future product? It is not like they are testing it in public or on animals...
(And here is the link I submitted about the same thing earlier.)
Realize that programmers do not choose languages that are more convenient because they want to make things bigger and slower
I do realize that. And it is exactly that realization, that drove me to the above prediction.
So you can ether build it in the most convenient, least costly ways, which means slower execution, bigger binaries, garbage collection and such or you can try and build a better program, run out of money and shut down the project.
The actual curse of the programming profession is that a lot more programmers were suddenly needed, than are naturally born. This led a lot of people, who should not have taken the profession, into it...
Nationalization is not a cure, it is the next stage of the decease. But thank you for admitting, that Sanders' fans like yourself would support nationalization of some industries. Obviously, not only are the two politicians alike, their supporters are similar as well.
Ah, yes, sure. The "no time" excuse. Well, you had enough time to post twice in this thread — your attempts at a debate are registered. As is your fail.
semi-coherent vitriol spouted by that racist, misogynistic slime ball
Tsk-tsk-tsk. So much hatred. Sad, real sad. Very very sad.
I predict, that most — if not all — of the added capacity will be eaten by new hardware and features, as happened with the rest of the computer-industry.
By Moore's law, today's computers ought to be over 256 more powerful, than in the previous millennium (16 years ago) — and the hardware is. But the operating systems and applications ate most of it. And not only because of the new features which the users want (as well as those we do not), but also because the programmers choose wasteful technologies like programming languages, that are more convenient for them, and otherwise sacrificing speed to software portability and maintainability.
It is quite common for people to complain, that their computer has "become slow" — they don't realize, that the machine is just as fast as when they bought it, but the software (including open-source) has become more demanding.
For similar reasons, the phones using these new batteries will not run for 40% longer...
A point-by-point comparison probably didn't exist because you're the only one who mistakenly thinks its a relevant comparison to make in the first place!
Maybe. But that means, providing links was insufficient — which was why I rejected folks attempting to do that. You are the first to undertake to provide such a list, thank you.
Your attempt to conflate socialists with communists is a strawman fallacy.
Cute, but no. It is not. USSR was never a Communist country — Soviet people were building Communism, not living it. Some ownership of the means of production was tolerated.
You're trying to argue that just because Chavez was bad at governing and happened to be a socialist, that all socialists must be bad at governing
No, that was not my point. What I was saying was that the "features" of Chavez, which you tried to contrast with those of Sanders, were not intentional — they were a result of his ideas put into practice. Since Sanders is yet to occupy an Executive office, we simply do not know any actual results of his ideas.
So, we are reduced to comparing the ideas themselves — and these are, as far as I can see, identical to those of Chavez.
which is a hasty generalization fallacy
Actually, none of the past Socialists have been particularly successful at governing.
You think communists and Nazis are somehow opposite
No, I do not think so for a second — Communists, National Socialists — and all other Collectivists are hardly distinguishable from one another. All forms of Collectivism value the Collective (a.k.a. Community) above the Individual. This approach inevitably destroy human rights (hey, our glorious Collective is more important than your silly liberties) and the economy. Sometimes it devolves further — into killing fields of one kind or another — which Venezuela seems to have avoided.
But back to the original topic — in your attempt to come up with differences between the two men, you unwittingly offered similarities (nationalizations) and then proceeded to contrast, what Chavez actually accomplished (quadrupling of violent crime, destroyed infrastructure, shrinking economy — at the times of oil-price booming) with what you hope Sanders will avoid. In other words, you were unable to offer anything. Just as I suspected.
I will now consider other contenders, but I'm done with you. Thanks for playing, but fail.
Sanders is not, and never has, advocated that the state should own the means of production.
Are you sure? I am not. Here is an old article about your man, stating, among other nice things:
Sanders had to work hard [...] promoting programs that included nationalizing all U.S. banks, public ownership of all utilities [...] and establishing a worker-controlled government.
Maybe, he would not nationalize all means of production, but neither did Hugo Chavez. My quest for differences between the two men continues to disappoint.
Take it from an escapee from another "worker-controlled" country — you will not like it. I — having grown up in one — will survive it again, but you — for whom the harshest government-imposed injustice so far remains Joe McCarthy — will need lots of luck...
his campaign has always been about connecting with individual voters
Sure, sure, that's what every marketer will say.
his campaign was also sending emails to everyone who already had (where do you think they keep that data?)
The data about people, who already donated to Bernie Sanders, is present in Bernie Sanders' own files. What the DNC had in theirs (and was letting Senator use until today) was something else...
My name is in there, too
That was quite obvious without you saying it.
That is and always has been the source of power driving his campaign, if you're surprised to hear them admit that
Again, the DNC-files are only valuable to Sanders because they list people, who have not yet donated to Bernie Sanders. I'm not surprised a Party's candidates use the Party's databases, but I was surprised one of them admitted, the lists are the campaign's heart and soul.
No, honey, at most, it is an incorrect statement. Whether it is even incorrect, let's see.
several people linked to exactly the answer you wanted
Nope, none of the links were to point-by-point comparisons as you attempted. The links were to Sanders' own program, which look remarkably similar to that of Chaves. Let's see:
Chavez is a communist in the literal sense: nationalization of industry, organizing people into communes and price controls. Sanders wants none of those things.
Socialism is simply Communism-lite — the differences are in a degree, not the substance. Chavez did not nationalize industry — except for oil-industry. Does Sanders want to nationalize anything? He certainly did in 2006 even if is mum on the topic now... And he is calling himself "Socialist", which would be a misnomer, if he opposed nationalization. Thus, you've outlined a similarity, not a difference. Fail.
Although Sanders also wants to expand social programs
Thank, for another similarity. Another Fail.
Chavez neglected infrastructure; Sanders wants to increase spending
Venezuela's infrastructure-erosion was not part of Chavez plan, it was a consequence of his misgoverning. That Sanders' rule is likely to result the same is one of the points I am making.
Chavez instituted currency controls; Sanders has (as far as I know) never advocated such a thing
Again, price-controls were a reaction to economy going down the toilet — it was not Chavez plan to do it. That Sanders' rule is likely to result the destruction of economy is one of the points I am making.
Chavez was all sorts of corrupt. Sanders is the least-corrupt
Ah, so sweet to see a Leftist throw a former idol under the bus in order to promote a new one... But, either way, personal corruption has nothing to do with economics or foreign policies.
Chavez was soft on violent crime; Sanders is not
Chavez was not "soft on crime" — he was hard on competent policemen, whom he feared and replaced with loyal (if incompetent) ones. But that was not part of his proposals either — it was simply a result of his ideas put to life. Sanders' ideas — which are remarkably similar — will have the same results, whatever his intentions are.
Chavez was a militant who supported terrorism, Sanders is the opposite.
Chavez didn't support "terrorism", he supported like-minded Communists, who used terrorism (among other methods) "for the greater good". I'm yet to be reassured, Sanders will be different in practice.
but it's a fair bet Sanders wouldn't use "oil diplomacy."
Huh? You mean, he will not use the "carrot" of money to advance causes he likes? Seriously? Why not?
Chavez is much more similar to the Republican candidates than he is to Sanders!
Hey, make up your mind — are RethugliKKKans more like Hitler or like Chavez?
sounds like you might need to use Twitter with #DemDebate
That would require me to open a Twitter account, and I will not do that. Having a/. one is bad enough.
That is, if you want an actual answer instead of just trolling Slashdot.
I've formed my opinion of Senator Sanders long ago — in my ex-USSR mind anybody, who willingly takes up the "Socialist" label (whether or not they are actually Socialist) belongs on a lamp-post (for Secret Service — I have no intention of physically harming anybody, much less a US Senator).
Whether they are National Socialists or International ones, does not matter — Collectivism destroys both individual rights and the country's wealth and must not be allowed to win yet again.
I'm using/. to — quite successfully, as you see — tie Socialists to Hugo Chavez to reduce the danger of Leftism making further inroads in this country.
And Trump is employing much of the same fear-mongering
Citations? Actual quotes, not paraphrases, please.
Exile people with "impure blood", especially Mexican ancestry
A lie. The very fact, that you need to lie to make your point thoroughly invalidates it, BTW.
okay, so he says only illegal immigrants
Why post a lie, only to correct it yourself? So, opposing illegal immigration makes one similar to Hitler? How about being a vegetarian like Hitler? Or being an aquarellist? Trump is not a war hero — unlike Hitler — does that absolve him in your similarities-seeking mind?
claims to think Operation Wetback was a rousing success despite all the innocent Americans who got swept up in it
Citations?
business as usual in the US is already pretty close to fascism
You just said, Fascism is not a problem, so let's not get sidetracked.
The only "reason" Sanders has for being allegedly-unelectable is that Hillary shills like you repeatedly assert that it's so
No, he is unelectable, because his rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of Hugo Chavez. And, though Americans are often accused of neither knowing nor caring, what is happening outside their country, the sorryfate of Venezuela is infamous enough.
Don't take my word for it — when I asked the good Senator's fans here on Slashdot, all I got was the customary avalanche of hate, but no discernible differences. The most useful response pointed out that, unlike the late El Presidente, Bernie Sanders is not an anti-Semite. But nothing relevant to the economy or foreign policy was identified...
Will President Sanders be just as respective of private information of citizens — especially, the opposition? Are we to expect more "snafus" from the Democrats?
Healthcare.gov, for example, is just a gold-mine waiting to be tapped. Or, maybe, not even waiting any more...
If by may not be stellar, you mean something dragged from the deepest bowels of hell
Colourful, but devoid of information.
And who says government will be a monopoly?
It is obvious. Local governments already make life hell for would be ISPs. When those same towns start running their own little Internet-projects — paid for not by voluntary customers, but by captive taxpayers — they will shut off the competition completely.
Yes. And this makes life a little better for the people living it. Franco's Spain was not pleasant, but it was better than USSR, for example — and even better than GDR.
Nazi Germany wasn't all that much like the Soviet Union.
Actually, Nazi Germany was quite a bit better — killed fewer of its own people and provided the rest with higher quality of life.
None of this has anything to do with Donald Trump, however, so I'm going to stop now.
Who could possibly complain about their stellar service?
It may or may not be "stellar", but it is better, than anything, that townhall will offer you.
The problem is monopoly. Comcast may be almost a monopoly, but the government will be an utter and absolute monopoly. Things will go from mildly unsatisfying to awful — has the public schools fiasco not taught you anything?
Slashdot Mirror
How would you know? Clearly, you aren't and never were close to one to know much about them.
BS. They are paid salary and bonuses, which are added to it. It is still treated as salary and reported on 1040 as such.
You may be talking about actual investors — who risk their own money, rather than that of their employers. The capital gains tax is lower because we want people to take such risks — as opposite to having a guaranteed salary.
Start a subscription drive and see, how many people will voluntarily give you money for this. I suspect, you already know the result, however, and that's why you want to compel those very same people (through the IRS) to pay for your solution in search of a problem...
Right. And then, because they will not have time to develop their own, being pressed for time under the "accelerated schedule", they will have to license his technology.
Bravo, Mr. Musk, very well played! Is not Crony Capitalism nice?
Where quality people live, things improve with time. But even the worst parts of Earth are much more hospitable to (known) life than the nicest parts of Mars.
Seriously — rich people shall be free to do whatever they want with their own money, but before taxpayers are compelled to finance travel to other planets, we need to colonize this planet we have right here.
Antarctica is an entire unsettled continent! Plus Australian Outback, Canadian woods, American Midwest, Siberia, Asian and African deserts — all have breathable air and comfortable gravity. All can be reached for hundreds rather than billions of dollars. And the ping-latency will not suck as badly...
That may be because our National Debt in 1969 was below 30% of the GDP, whereas today it approaches 120%.
Dunno, what you are talking about, my taxes combined reach 50% — and I sure as heck do not work on Wall Street.
Why does a company need government's permission to fly a 10:1 model of their future product? It is not like they are testing it in public or on animals...
(And here is the link I submitted about the same thing earlier.)
I do realize that. And it is exactly that realization, that drove me to the above prediction.
The actual curse of the programming profession is that a lot more programmers were suddenly needed, than are naturally born. This led a lot of people, who should not have taken the profession, into it...
Sorry, I messed-up the A-href formatting and posted too quickly. Here is the article I was referring to.
No, they didn't — the government did, when it forced the banks to lower their requirements for the borrowers' creditworthiness. The Social Justice Warriors, who understood every rejected mortgage-application of a minority applicant as evidence of racism , caused the crisis. They presumed, those supposedly "greedy" banks were willingly refusing money-making opportunities for racist reasons...
Nationalization is not a cure, it is the next stage of the decease. But thank you for admitting, that Sanders' fans like yourself would support nationalization of some industries. Obviously, not only are the two politicians alike, their supporters are similar as well.
Ah, yes, sure. The "no time" excuse. Well, you had enough time to post twice in this thread — your attempts at a debate are registered. As is your fail.
Tsk-tsk-tsk. So much hatred. Sad, real sad. Very very sad.
I predict, that most — if not all — of the added capacity will be eaten by new hardware and features, as happened with the rest of the computer-industry.
By Moore's law, today's computers ought to be over 256 more powerful, than in the previous millennium (16 years ago) — and the hardware is. But the operating systems and applications ate most of it. And not only because of the new features which the users want (as well as those we do not), but also because the programmers choose wasteful technologies like programming languages, that are more convenient for them, and otherwise sacrificing speed to software portability and maintainability.
It is quite common for people to complain, that their computer has "become slow" — they don't realize, that the machine is just as fast as when they bought it, but the software (including open-source) has become more demanding.
For similar reasons, the phones using these new batteries will not run for 40% longer...
Actual quotes, not paraphrases, please. Put up or shut up.
Kidnapping added to the sordid history of child-molestations.
But, at least, it did not happen in a church.
Maybe. But that means, providing links was insufficient — which was why I rejected folks attempting to do that. You are the first to undertake to provide such a list, thank you.
Cute, but no. It is not. USSR was never a Communist country — Soviet people were building Communism, not living it. Some ownership of the means of production was tolerated.
No, that was not my point. What I was saying was that the "features" of Chavez, which you tried to contrast with those of Sanders, were not intentional — they were a result of his ideas put into practice. Since Sanders is yet to occupy an Executive office, we simply do not know any actual results of his ideas.
So, we are reduced to comparing the ideas themselves — and these are, as far as I can see, identical to those of Chavez.
Actually, none of the past Socialists have been particularly successful at governing.
No, I do not think so for a second — Communists, National Socialists — and all other Collectivists are hardly distinguishable from one another. All forms of Collectivism value the Collective (a.k.a. Community) above the Individual. This approach inevitably destroy human rights (hey, our glorious Collective is more important than your silly liberties) and the economy. Sometimes it devolves further — into killing fields of one kind or another — which Venezuela seems to have avoided.
But back to the original topic — in your attempt to come up with differences between the two men, you unwittingly offered similarities (nationalizations) and then proceeded to contrast, what Chavez actually accomplished (quadrupling of violent crime, destroyed infrastructure, shrinking economy — at the times of oil-price booming) with what you hope Sanders will avoid. In other words, you were unable to offer anything. Just as I suspected.
I will now consider other contenders, but I'm done with you. Thanks for playing, but fail.
Are you sure? I am not. Here is an old article about your man, stating, among other nice things:
Maybe, he would not nationalize all means of production, but neither did Hugo Chavez. My quest for differences between the two men continues to disappoint.
Take it from an escapee from another "worker-controlled" country — you will not like it. I — having grown up in one — will survive it again, but you — for whom the harshest government-imposed injustice so far remains Joe McCarthy — will need lots of luck...
Sure, sure, that's what every marketer will say.
The data about people, who already donated to Bernie Sanders, is present in Bernie Sanders' own files. What the DNC had in theirs (and was letting Senator use until today) was something else...
That was quite obvious without you saying it.
Again, the DNC-files are only valuable to Sanders because they list people, who have not yet donated to Bernie Sanders. I'm not surprised a Party's candidates use the Party's databases, but I was surprised one of them admitted, the lists are the campaign's heart and soul.
No, honey, at most, it is an incorrect statement. Whether it is even incorrect, let's see.
Nope, none of the links were to point-by-point comparisons as you attempted. The links were to Sanders' own program, which look remarkably similar to that of Chaves. Let's see:
Chavez is a communist in the literal sense: nationalization of industry, organizing people into communes and price controls. Sanders wants none of those things. Socialism is simply Communism-lite — the differences are in a degree, not the substance. Chavez did not nationalize industry — except for oil-industry. Does Sanders want to nationalize anything? He certainly did in 2006 even if is mum on the topic now... And he is calling himself "Socialist", which would be a misnomer, if he opposed nationalization. Thus, you've outlined a similarity, not a difference. Fail. Although Sanders also wants to expand social programs Thank, for another similarity. Another Fail. Chavez neglected infrastructure; Sanders wants to increase spending Venezuela's infrastructure-erosion was not part of Chavez plan, it was a consequence of his misgoverning. That Sanders' rule is likely to result the same is one of the points I am making. Chavez instituted currency controls; Sanders has (as far as I know) never advocated such a thing Again, price-controls were a reaction to economy going down the toilet — it was not Chavez plan to do it. That Sanders' rule is likely to result the destruction of economy is one of the points I am making. Chavez was all sorts of corrupt. Sanders is the least-corrupt Ah, so sweet to see a Leftist throw a former idol under the bus in order to promote a new one... But, either way, personal corruption has nothing to do with economics or foreign policies. Chavez was soft on violent crime; Sanders is not Chavez was not "soft on crime" — he was hard on competent policemen, whom he feared and replaced with loyal (if incompetent) ones. But that was not part of his proposals either — it was simply a result of his ideas put to life. Sanders' ideas — which are remarkably similar — will have the same results, whatever his intentions are. Chavez was a militant who supported terrorism, Sanders is the opposite. Chavez didn't support "terrorism", he supported like-minded Communists, who used terrorism (among other methods) "for the greater good". I'm yet to be reassured, Sanders will be different in practice. but it's a fair bet Sanders wouldn't use "oil diplomacy." Huh? You mean, he will not use the "carrot" of money to advance causes he likes? Seriously? Why not?Hey, make up your mind — are RethugliKKKans more like Hitler or like Chavez?
That would require me to open a Twitter account, and I will not do that. Having a /. one is bad enough.
I've formed my opinion of Senator Sanders long ago — in my ex-USSR mind anybody, who willingly takes up the "Socialist" label (whether or not they are actually Socialist) belongs on a lamp-post (for Secret Service — I have no intention of physically harming anybody, much less a US Senator).
Whether they are National Socialists or International ones, does not matter — Collectivism destroys both individual rights and the country's wealth and must not be allowed to win yet again.
I'm using /. to — quite successfully, as you see — tie Socialists to Hugo Chavez to reduce the danger of Leftism making further inroads in this country.
Citations? Actual quotes, not paraphrases, please.
A lie. The very fact, that you need to lie to make your point thoroughly invalidates it, BTW.
Why post a lie, only to correct it yourself? So, opposing illegal immigration makes one similar to Hitler? How about being a vegetarian like Hitler? Or being an aquarellist? Trump is not a war hero — unlike Hitler — does that absolve him in your similarities-seeking mind?
Citations?
You just said, Fascism is not a problem, so let's not get sidetracked.
According to Bernie Sanders — in their own words — these data are "the heart and soul of our campaign".
An eye-opening admission, I must say...
Ouch, that is so hateful, so sad...
No, he is unelectable, because his rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of Hugo Chavez. And, though Americans are often accused of neither knowing nor caring, what is happening outside their country, the sorry fate of Venezuela is infamous enough.
Don't take my word for it — when I asked the good Senator's fans here on Slashdot, all I got was the customary avalanche of hate, but no discernible differences. The most useful response pointed out that, unlike the late El Presidente, Bernie Sanders is not an anti-Semite. But nothing relevant to the economy or foreign policy was identified...
An earlier challenge to haterz requesting citations of anything "fascist"-like about Donald Trump remains unanswered — though not for lack of trying.
Would you like to try again?
Will President Sanders be just as respective of private information of citizens — especially, the opposition? Are we to expect more "snafus" from the Democrats?
Healthcare.gov, for example, is just a gold-mine waiting to be tapped. Or, maybe, not even waiting any more...
Colourful, but devoid of information.
It is obvious. Local governments already make life hell for would be ISPs. When those same towns start running their own little Internet-projects — paid for not by voluntary customers, but by captive taxpayers — they will shut off the competition completely.
Yes. And this makes life a little better for the people living it. Franco's Spain was not pleasant, but it was better than USSR, for example — and even better than GDR.
Actually, Nazi Germany was quite a bit better — killed fewer of its own people and provided the rest with higher quality of life.
None of this has anything to do with Donald Trump, however, so I'm going to stop now.
Yes.
It may or may not be "stellar", but it is better, than anything, that townhall will offer you.
The problem is monopoly. Comcast may be almost a monopoly, but the government will be an utter and absolute monopoly. Things will go from mildly unsatisfying to awful — has the public schools fiasco not taught you anything?