I've heard the same from a number of formerly hard-core Republicans (friends' parents, former military, etc). This is the best hope to end the current tyranny.
Efficiency, in the long run, *does* produce wealth. That's how capitalism works.
You oversimplify quite a bit . . . capitalism by its nature requires competition, which means massive duplication of effort. Additionally, it requires both "winners" and "losers" . . . the "winners" experience the wealth creation you're tooting about, and the "losers" do not.
Another unfortunate consequence of capitalism: since it uses "creating wealth" as a proxy for "productivity", you end up with lots and lots of people "creating wealth" from dubious or useless endeavors (Internet porn link farmers come to mind), then tooting about how they're somehow improving society through this "wealth creation".
That was the parent's point. Only a very few artists make out well . . . the rest (even those that sell close to a million records) get reguarly screwed, while the parent company still profits from them in a big way.
Interestingly enough, Intel pulled a fast one (literally) and released a new breed of Pentium 4 chips with 2MB of on board L3 cache, just in time to boost their performance in the benchmarks for this launch.
I'm currently in the process of writing a very simple inventory / cash flow management system for my employer, and I started building strict integrity checks and reports into it as one of my first steps.
Don't worry, as soon as management realizes that the project will take you more than two weeks, it will be handed off to someone who's willing to do a shoddy job in less time.
It's easy. Mainly because it doesn't require any running processes or any software installation . . . it's basically just a file that contains a database structure.
Instead of trying to twist reality to match the extreme Libertarian tenet of "no regulation whatsoever", perhaps you should consider that the tenet may be wrong. Saying "fewer media companies will encourage more diversity" just sounds laughable.
It's 2 years after 9/11 and we're kicking some terrorist ass my liberal friend.
I'm not convinced that anything "we" have done has helped stem terrorism in any way. Where's the evidence?
Your people will not be allowed to further weaken our position in the world.
Last I checked, the United States was very, very strong in the world. In fact, so absurdly, pathologically strong that many countries are complaining about the constant bullying from the U.S. Enough is enough . . . absolute military and economic superiority over everything is not all it's cracked up to be. You remind me of this.
And regarding the fact that most people supported the war: they supported it based on statements from our goverment that are now known to be untrue.
Homeland Security couldn't even say what caused the blackout in New York except that it wasn't terrorism.
Don't forget that they were saying that only a couple of hours after the blackouts started. They didn't even start to have a meaningful explanation of what did cause the problem until the next day, but somehow they were so sure after 2 hours that it wasn't terrorism?
The DepHomSec constantly needs to justify its exististence. "See, no terrorism! We're doin' our job right good!"
One OS that solved this nicely was NewtonOS. If you wanted to manipulate persistently stored data you opened a "soup" that contained objects. So if you wanted to, say, set up an appointment with someone for lunch, you could find the person in the address book "soup" and then create an entry in the databook "soup" recording the appointment, which would immediately appear in all other apps that dealt with appointments (because app's accessed the same data structures, and were notified of changes so that they could update). So your data was not trapped in a particular application's proprietary format, and users weren't forced to learn the artificial concept of a "file" but instead could think about "my appointments" or "my address book".
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should take a look at the all-time records set by the current administration before discussing government overspending.
I've heard the same from a number of formerly hard-core Republicans (friends' parents, former military, etc). This is the best hope to end the current tyranny.
You oversimplify quite a bit . . . capitalism by its nature requires competition, which means massive duplication of effort. Additionally, it requires both "winners" and "losers" . . . the "winners" experience the wealth creation you're tooting about, and the "losers" do not.
Another unfortunate consequence of capitalism: since it uses "creating wealth" as a proxy for "productivity", you end up with lots and lots of people "creating wealth" from dubious or useless endeavors (Internet porn link farmers come to mind), then tooting about how they're somehow improving society through this "wealth creation".
With your interpretation, only #3 would be necessary.
That was the parent's point. Only a very few artists make out well . . . the rest (even those that sell close to a million records) get reguarly screwed, while the parent company still profits from them in a big way.
So Intel cheated by, uh, making better hardware?
Don't worry, as soon as management realizes that the project will take you more than two weeks, it will be handed off to someone who's willing to do a shoddy job in less time.
As soon as the ACLU sues the government over it . . . speaking of, where is the ACLU? Searching their site for "electronic voting" turns up nothing.
It's easy. Mainly because it doesn't require any running processes or any software installation . . . it's basically just a file that contains a database structure.
Are they still $300 apiece, like in 2000?
Slashdot publishes approximately 1-2 sponsored articles per day. And no, they don't tell you which ones.
Instead of trying to twist reality to match the extreme Libertarian tenet of "no regulation whatsoever", perhaps you should consider that the tenet may be wrong. Saying "fewer media companies will encourage more diversity" just sounds laughable.
The really sad part is, that's almost a direct quote from Rummy.
Or terrorism.
3. litigate based on dubious and/or outright false claims
At least one ex-Linux-vendor is now employing this model, currently with success . . .
You just summed up the problem with ALL Libertarian tenets. There are no level playing fields.
Did they "no" how to spell "know"?
Are you sure it's not because you're an incompetent hack?
I'm not convinced that anything "we" have done has helped stem terrorism in any way. Where's the evidence?
Your people will not be allowed to further weaken our position in the world.
Last I checked, the United States was very, very strong in the world. In fact, so absurdly, pathologically strong that many countries are complaining about the constant bullying from the U.S. Enough is enough . . . absolute military and economic superiority over everything is not all it's cracked up to be. You remind me of this.
And regarding the fact that most people supported the war: they supported it based on statements from our goverment that are now known to be untrue.
I'm sorry, what language was that again?
Don't forget that they were saying that only a couple of hours after the blackouts started. They didn't even start to have a meaningful explanation of what did cause the problem until the next day, but somehow they were so sure after 2 hours that it wasn't terrorism?
The DepHomSec constantly needs to justify its exististence. "See, no terrorism! We're doin' our job right good!"
The difference is that these are all true and easily proven.
Interesting corollary: using the verb "to gyp" is, strictly speaking, racist, given its roots.
Sounds similar to PalmOS, too.
Maybe IBM realized that a fat, slow bird that doesn't even do the one thing "normal birds" are expected to do doesn't really reflect well on the OS.