When Brendan Eich's backing of a popular, but ultimately-losing political movement came to light, Mozilla — undoubtedly pressured by Google, who provides 90% of its money — forced the inventor of Javascript to voluntarily step down.
The ongoing collapsing of Her Beautiful Wickedness is no dissimilar — although reasonably popular and, some would say, even with a reasonable chance of getting the same 52% of the vote that Brendan-backed Proposition 8 has gathered, Hillary may lose on legal grounds.
To avoid being seen as a hypocrite, Mr. Schmidt — who didn't merely donate some money, but was actively helping her — ought to resign soon.
In light of the Democratic National Committee hack by the Russians earlier this year, a "tightly knit community of computer scientists" working in a variety of fields came up with the hypothesis [emphasis mine], "which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers." In late July, one of the scientists who asked to be referred to as Tea Leaves discovered possible malware emanating from Russia, with the destination domain having Trump in its name. What the researcher saw "was a bank in Moscow that kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue":
A dictionary definition of FUD should have the above paragraph as an example. What would not today's newspapers print in their attempts to save a certain someone's Beautiful Wickedness from shrinking and collapsing?
protesters clashed with police and several vehicles were set on fire
I'm tired of paying for these assholes' psychotic desire to destroy my property. Lock 'em up for a few years, and confiscate their possessions to compensate for the damage.
Overall decline in health is, what threatens aging professionals the most — not ignorance of the exciting new technology of the week. Learning a particular tool has never been especially valuable — education is supposed to teach you one thing, primarily: how to learn new things on your own. If you are a developer already, you must've mastered that long ago.
A trial of the "DNO" list that's been running for the last few weeks on some IRS numbers has resulted in a 90 percent drop in the volume of IRS scam calls
you should go back and take a look at the list I provided earlier.
Not until you prove — or, at least, come close to proving — the listed advances would not have happened without government funding, with the funds remaining instead in the pockets of taxpayers free to spend them however they pleased.
Really? Here, let me help you out with that. [dhs.gov]
That DHS supports Clinton's line does not prove anything. Their boss wishes her to win — and so, likely, wish most of the DHS own officials. She is from the Party of Government.
It may be truth, or it may be truthiness, but they'll say the same thing in any event.
Have some nice charts [nytimes.com]
NY Times has not endorsed a Republican for President since Eisenhower. They are careful to skew their news-coverage and opinion-pages to help Democrats.
If/when NY Times or WaPo or a government agency (like FBI) do/say something harmful to Clinton, you can be sure, it is genuine (if understated). When she gets help from them, that does not prove anything...
No, all I need to prove is that "these nice things" didn't happen until government got involved.
No. For all we know, it could've happened just as well without the government's involvement. Maybe, it would've happened later. Or, maybe, earlier.
Correlation, famously, is not causation — you've listed some nice things, that got invented while the government was funding most of the research. You are yet to prove, the inventions would not have happened with government minding just the police, the courts, and the military — as it is supposed to.
SpaceX is almost to the point of putting a human into space, something that government did half a century ago
That's a perfect example, actually. SpaceX is doing it now, when it could be useful. The government did it out of utter vanity (beat the Soviets!!!!) and for no benefit whatsoever. We went to the Moon for what exactly? Inspiration?.. The billions it took could've been spent much better.
we're having this conversation on a system that was originally created due to government-funded research
When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole. We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance. Not only this, but through television and telephony we shall see and hear one another as perfectly as though we were face to face, despite intervening distances of thousands of miles; and the instruments through which we shall be able to do this will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone. A man will be able to carry one in his vest pocket.
Had it not been the government, it would've been created — in due time — anyway. The idea was there for the taking.
And you can see from that list just how valuable that government-funded research has been to mankind.
Sure it was. My argument was — and remains — that the research does not have to be government-funded to be valuable. And I've listed some awesome examples of the inventions of the pre-Big Government era.
Private industry took a shot at creating an interactive communications network, and you know what they gave us? Cable television.
Actually, it created telephone networks first. Then the government gave AT&T a telephone monopoly killing off innovation there (and delaying Tesla's predictions) for decades. Cable television was heavily regulated too. There is no telling, what it would've evolved into, had the government not given nice cozy regional monopolies to the cable companies.
Because you're all about the private sector, but want government subsidies for corporations.
That's not true at all. Law-enforcement is a government's duty regardless of who is (or would be) the victim — a KKKorporation or a homeless. Can't you win an argument without false accusations?
See, without government, without regulation, there are no markets, and the private sector would be little more than subsistence farmers.
Nice conflating "government" with "regulation" there. But you are caught red-handed.
Do you want to see a list of technologies that are the result of government-funded research?
Now you need to prove, that this research — and these nice things — would've been impossible without government funding. Not government cooperation (as in, yes, you can lay your pipes/cables/tunnels/tracks here), but government funding.
Meanwhile, I can present a few examples of what appeared before your kind took over the ruling elites: Ford's conveyor, Wright brothers' aircraft, flush toilet, natural gas stove and electric refrigerator.
In other words, things — including very nice things — were being routinely researched and invented in the era before big government. That things continue being invented still during this era, is not at all a sign, that it is somehow better this way.
One last thing about the future... The government compels us — at the above-mentioned gun-point — to spend billions every year on road-maintenance. Do you suppose, the flying car would've been available a few decades earlier, had the highways remained at the pre-Eisenhower levels and we used the (privately-owned) railroads and airplanes for the bulk of intercity travels instead?
Building a telescope for Galileo is cheap. It can be self funded.
Funny, it was your own example — now you are walking it back?
NOBODY is building a rocket ship to Mars with their own money. Boeing, SpaceX/Elon's entire space program is funded by government buying rides on his rockets.
That government is one of the customers — even a major one — does not contradict the fact, that these are private companies invested in (and even sponsored by) private interests. Voluntarily. Earlier, USPS may have been a big customer of the airlines, but Wright brothers still funded their research privately.
Hey I don't want to pay for imprisoning someone who stole from you.
Punishing criminals — to deter future crimes — is one of the few legitimate roles of the government. The legitimacy-criteria is very simple: if, without doing this, the society/country ceases to exist, it is Ok to force tax-payers to pay it.
Crime-fighting qualifies. Military does too (though, I'm ready to admit, not to the extent the US currently spends on it). But "fundamental research" does not. Feeding the homeless — neither. And so on.
A scientist with an awesome — but expensive — idea can start a funding campaign to convince others to give him money. He does not get to compel us — such compelling is both corruption-prone and, as TFA underlines, still unsatisfactory.
You aren't compelled to pay. [...] Most of our fundamental science has come from government funding.
That self-contradictory and thus automatically wrong. Government has no money of "its own" — it all comes from taxes, which are collected at gun-point. The gun-point is rarely explicit — until the armed deputies come in to evict you from the IRS-confiscated home — but it is always there implicitly.
you can leave the social contract
Not until I've paid my taxes...
But, now that you've admitted it being acceptable for you to force others to pay for the things you want, I'm done with this argument. Thanks for playing.
Galileo funded his own endeavors hoping, it would pay off. A good example.
Who would build the large hadron collider?
The same guys, who are paying for travel to Mars — they aren't going to live long enough to travel there themselves either. And yet, they do it — with their own monies.
Now, please, answer the question I posed — and you ignored:
if nobody would do it voluntarily, why do you think it fair to compel you and me to pay for it at gun-point?
there are some societal needs government should fill
So, it is your "mostly libertarian" thinking, that government knows better, than private citizens, what scientific endeavors should be financed — and has your permission to confiscate money from me to that end? That's not "Libertarian" — that's as Authoritarian as it gets...
Sure, as soon as we stop government from giving corporations subsidies in the form of patent protection.
Please, explain, why one must depend on the other.
If anything, the opposite must happen — those entrepreneurs spending their money on research need reassurance, the fruits of their investment will be theirs to rip.
The Fourteenth applies to discrimination by governments, which I already said should remain illegal (sadly, it currently is not). I'm talking about that by private entities.
If you insist on the 14th being applicable to corporations, then it must apply to individuals too. A girl rejecting four Black suitors, but then going out with an Asian one would have to explain the statistics and prove herself not racist. Will you accept such laws too, or do you think, that would be a ridiculous overreach?
But, of course, the 14th Amendment is not applicable to corporations, otherwise there would've been no need for the laws cited in the write-up...
Private entrepreneurs, hoping to profit from research by promising researchers should be the ones financing it. As long as the taxpayers pay for most of scientific dollars — and are represented by bureaucrats without personal "skin in the game" — the bureaucrats will be both subject to corruption and loath to appear corrupt, frivolous, or otherwise derelict of their duties and funding only "reliable" science.
At some point it must have seemed like a good idea to have financing-seeking scientists appeal not to the unscientific louts and their charitable instincts, but to fellow scientists charged with dispensing the dollars already confiscated from the louts at gun-point (as all taxes are collected, don't kid yourself).
As TFA suggests, fellow scientists may be too stifling as well. Go back to what works best — Capitalism. If it seems like there is a chance of it being useful, someone will pay for it.
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 makes it illegal "to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
Such laws are bogus, in violation of the First Amendment and, obviously, counter-productive.
After decades of fighting the thought-crimes of discrimination, we still see plenty of it. It is, actually, even getting worse as prominent institutions host openly segregated events. The government must not be allowed to discriminate, but discrimination by private parties — both individuals and companies — should become legal again.
So now both parties do it, and it becomes an auction for each vote.
What of it? Votes of the indifferent are worthless anyway. Votes of the convinced will be too expensive. Who cares...
I still don't see a problem. People vote for all sorts of bogus reasons — Obama was attractive to some women, for example, and got some share of votes based on that. Trump may have the same advantage this time. May as well allow the otherwise indifferent folks to simply sell their votes.
so long as they prepare it such that it is impossible for any tenant to create sound that leaves the property and enters another.
Once again, you are imposing this impossible requirement unfairly. A property owner can be expected to be considerate — and demand same of his tenants, whether short- or long-term. Placing additional sound-proofing requirements on some owners, but not others — depending on their use of the property — is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Unattributed "could, might, what if". Also known as FUD. Like I said: pathetic. The munchkins are in revolt and Her Beautiful Wickedness is doomed.
Twitter and Youtube are rather lousy in this regard too...
Pathetic... Seriously... Are we supposed to believe, Trump will be better for Russia, than the alternative, who:
You expect us to ignore all of the above and worry ourselves over "irregular pings" of a server with "Trump's name in it" originating from a Moscow bank?
When Brendan Eich's backing of a popular, but ultimately-losing political movement came to light, Mozilla — undoubtedly pressured by Google, who provides 90% of its money — forced the inventor of Javascript to voluntarily step down.
The ongoing collapsing of Her Beautiful Wickedness is no dissimilar — although reasonably popular and, some would say, even with a reasonable chance of getting the same 52% of the vote that Brendan-backed Proposition 8 has gathered, Hillary may lose on legal grounds.
To avoid being seen as a hypocrite, Mr. Schmidt — who didn't merely donate some money, but was actively helping her — ought to resign soon.
A dictionary definition of FUD should have the above paragraph as an example. What would not today's newspapers print in their attempts to save a certain someone's Beautiful Wickedness from shrinking and collapsing?
I mean the taxpayers, maron. All of them. It was our cars, that got torched by these assholes.
Why do you hate White people?
A violent hater... Typical Hillary Clinton supporter...
Semantics. I paid for it — and will have to pay for it again, because of these asshole "protesters" looking for a cause.
Maintaining law and order is one of the government's duties regardless of who the victim is or would be — a big KKKorporation or a homeless woman.
And where did you get this strawman? On a post-Halloween sale?
I'm tired of paying for these assholes' psychotic desire to destroy my property. Lock 'em up for a few years, and confiscate their possessions to compensate for the damage.
Overall decline in health is, what threatens aging professionals the most — not ignorance of the exciting new technology of the week. Learning a particular tool has never been especially valuable — education is supposed to teach you one thing, primarily: how to learn new things on your own. If you are a developer already, you must've mastered that long ago.
So, strength training and regular walks and/or yoga (while still legal).
How do we know, the drop is not explained by one such big scam operation getting busted?
The scam-calls I'm getting, for example, — 2-3 times per day — do not pretend to be from the IRS' numbers at all...
Not until you prove — or, at least, come close to proving — the listed advances would not have happened without government funding, with the funds remaining instead in the pockets of taxpayers free to spend them however they pleased.
That DHS supports Clinton's line does not prove anything. Their boss wishes her to win — and so, likely, wish most of the DHS own officials. She is from the Party of Government.
It may be truth, or it may be truthiness, but they'll say the same thing in any event.
NY Times has not endorsed a Republican for President since Eisenhower. They are careful to skew their news-coverage and opinion-pages to help Democrats.
If/when NY Times or WaPo or a government agency (like FBI) do/say something harmful to Clinton, you can be sure, it is genuine (if understated). When she gets help from them, that does not prove anything...
No. For all we know, it could've happened just as well without the government's involvement. Maybe, it would've happened later. Or, maybe, earlier.
Correlation, famously, is not causation — you've listed some nice things, that got invented while the government was funding most of the research. You are yet to prove, the inventions would not have happened with government minding just the police, the courts, and the military — as it is supposed to.
That's a perfect example, actually. SpaceX is doing it now, when it could be useful. The government did it out of utter vanity (beat the Soviets!!!!) and for no benefit whatsoever. We went to the Moon for what exactly? Inspiration?.. The billions it took could've been spent much better.
Bullshit. Tesla predicted the Internet — and smart devices — in 1926:
Had it not been the government, it would've been created — in due time — anyway. The idea was there for the taking.
Sure it was. My argument was — and remains — that the research does not have to be government-funded to be valuable. And I've listed some awesome examples of the inventions of the pre-Big Government era.
Actually, it created telephone networks first. Then the government gave AT&T a telephone monopoly killing off innovation there (and delaying Tesla's predictions) for decades. Cable television was heavily regulated too. There is no telling, what it would've evolved into, had the government not given nice cozy regional monopolies to the cable companies.
That's not true at all. Law-enforcement is a government's duty regardless of who is (or would be) the victim — a KKKorporation or a homeless. Can't you win an argument without false accusations?
Nice conflating "government" with "regulation" there. But you are caught red-handed.
Now you need to prove, that this research — and these nice things — would've been impossible without government funding. Not government cooperation (as in, yes, you can lay your pipes/cables/tunnels/tracks here), but government funding.
Meanwhile, I can present a few examples of what appeared before your kind took over the ruling elites: Ford's conveyor, Wright brothers' aircraft, flush toilet, natural gas stove and electric refrigerator.
In other words, things — including very nice things — were being routinely researched and invented in the era before big government. That things continue being invented still during this era, is not at all a sign, that it is somehow better this way.
One last thing about the future... The government compels us — at the above-mentioned gun-point — to spend billions every year on road-maintenance. Do you suppose, the flying car would've been available a few decades earlier, had the highways remained at the pre-Eisenhower levels and we used the (privately-owned) railroads and airplanes for the bulk of intercity travels instead?
Funny, it was your own example — now you are walking it back?
That government is one of the customers — even a major one — does not contradict the fact, that these are private companies invested in (and even sponsored by) private interests. Voluntarily. Earlier, USPS may have been a big customer of the airlines, but Wright brothers still funded their research privately.
Punishing criminals — to deter future crimes — is one of the few legitimate roles of the government. The legitimacy-criteria is very simple: if, without doing this, the society/country ceases to exist, it is Ok to force tax-payers to pay it.
Crime-fighting qualifies. Military does too (though, I'm ready to admit, not to the extent the US currently spends on it). But "fundamental research" does not. Feeding the homeless — neither. And so on.
A scientist with an awesome — but expensive — idea can start a funding campaign to convince others to give him money. He does not get to compel us — such compelling is both corruption-prone and, as TFA underlines, still unsatisfactory.
That self-contradictory and thus automatically wrong. Government has no money of "its own" — it all comes from taxes, which are collected at gun-point. The gun-point is rarely explicit — until the armed deputies come in to evict you from the IRS-confiscated home — but it is always there implicitly.
Not until I've paid my taxes...
But, now that you've admitted it being acceptable for you to force others to pay for the things you want, I'm done with this argument. Thanks for playing.
Galileo funded his own endeavors hoping, it would pay off. A good example.
The same guys, who are paying for travel to Mars — they aren't going to live long enough to travel there themselves either. And yet, they do it — with their own monies.
Now, please, answer the question I posed — and you ignored:
So, it is your "mostly libertarian" thinking, that government knows better, than private citizens, what scientific endeavors should be financed — and has your permission to confiscate money from me to that end? That's not "Libertarian" — that's as Authoritarian as it gets...
Non-sequitur. Does not follow.
Why would not an entrepreneur — like Bezos, Gates, or Musk — invest in fundamental research?
But, if nobody would do it voluntarily, why do you think it fair to compel you and me to pay for it at gun-point?
Please, explain, why one must depend on the other.
If anything, the opposite must happen — those entrepreneurs spending their money on research need reassurance, the fruits of their investment will be theirs to rip.
The Fourteenth applies to discrimination by governments, which I already said should remain illegal (sadly, it currently is not). I'm talking about that by private entities.
If you insist on the 14th being applicable to corporations, then it must apply to individuals too. A girl rejecting four Black suitors, but then going out with an Asian one would have to explain the statistics and prove herself not racist. Will you accept such laws too, or do you think, that would be a ridiculous overreach?
But, of course, the 14th Amendment is not applicable to corporations, otherwise there would've been no need for the laws cited in the write-up...
Private entrepreneurs, hoping to profit from research by promising researchers should be the ones financing it. As long as the taxpayers pay for most of scientific dollars — and are represented by bureaucrats without personal "skin in the game" — the bureaucrats will be both subject to corruption and loath to appear corrupt, frivolous, or otherwise derelict of their duties and funding only "reliable" science.
At some point it must have seemed like a good idea to have financing-seeking scientists appeal not to the unscientific louts and their charitable instincts, but to fellow scientists charged with dispensing the dollars already confiscated from the louts at gun-point (as all taxes are collected, don't kid yourself).
As TFA suggests, fellow scientists may be too stifling as well. Go back to what works best — Capitalism. If it seems like there is a chance of it being useful, someone will pay for it.
Such laws are bogus, in violation of the First Amendment and, obviously, counter-productive.
After decades of fighting the thought-crimes of discrimination, we still see plenty of it. It is, actually, even getting worse as prominent institutions host openly segregated events. The government must not be allowed to discriminate, but discrimination by private parties — both individuals and companies — should become legal again.
What of it? Votes of the indifferent are worthless anyway. Votes of the convinced will be too expensive. Who cares...
I still don't see a problem. People vote for all sorts of bogus reasons — Obama was attractive to some women, for example, and got some share of votes based on that. Trump may have the same advantage this time. May as well allow the otherwise indifferent folks to simply sell their votes.
Once again, you are imposing this impossible requirement unfairly. A property owner can be expected to be considerate — and demand same of his tenants, whether short- or long-term. Placing additional sound-proofing requirements on some owners, but not others — depending on their use of the property — is wrong.