OK, you must be assuming that I'm in favor of this particular administration's tax strategy. No. I am in favor of radically overhauling the government and making it much smaller, much more local, and much less expensive.
THAT is a tax cut. This administration is just playing a shell game.
Why on EARTH would you spend $600 for a PlayStation as a computer when you could spend the same money and get a far more capable, flexible machine?
Hell, you could buy a Mac Mini that will beat the Playstation on just about every spec except 3D rendering power, and that's hardly the prime attribute of general-purpose computers.
"I'm willing to bet the people we oppress are significantly worse off-"
Who's "we"? I'm not oppressing anybody. I think the "third world" is no worse off, and many people world wide are living longer and healthier and richer lives. We could argue all day about how such things ought to be measured, but I do not believe in the "good old days".
"Ah, but you see, if you set up a mutual defense organization you're back to "Big Government". I thought you said you wanted NO governmental services- your mutual defense organization is a governmental service EVEN IF IT IS PRIVATELY OWNED."
Um, something that is owned and operated by private individuals is called private enterprise. That's the polar opposite of "big government". Well, it used to be, anyhow, before the plutocrats merged them together.
"The more jobs that are in the middle class, the more people become consumers"
Absolutely true. What is the best way to get there? Free enterprise, or a command economy? You and I disagree on that point, I'm sure.
If you think I'm in favor of the status quo, you're mistaken. However, I believe you and I would disagree on the mechanisms that could best serve the goal of increasing wealth and well-being of large numbers of people.
"Not really- not since 2001. But that's another story."
OK, I detest the current administration and the system that spawned it almost as much as you do, but that's a pretty silly assertion.
"That's not just an assumption- it IS a zero sum game when you look at it realistically instead of through rose-colored glasses."
I am not prepared to debate theories of wealth creation with you. However, if you look at the average well-being of a human today, vs. the average well-being of a human 600 years ago, the increase is due to wealth creation.
"Oh, you'll still have to pay- if not the government, then the poor breaking down your door to get at your food in numbers greater than the ammo your gun holds."
I have a lot more confidence in my ability to set up a mutual defense organization than I have in your ability to apportion wages "to each according to their needs".
"More people in the middle class means more consumers which means more business for everybody. See my sig line."
Middle class? You said ditch diggers. Then again, I betcha the ditch diggers have a damn good union, don't they? Wish they were better at digging ditches, as I look out the window seeing the hash they're going to be making of a few major downtown streets for the next two years.
The problem with Marxism is the same as the problem with capitalism: The ones in charge want to stay in charge, and enrich themselves in the process. The fatal flaw of Marxism is that there is no way for somebody to become in charge unless they start out in charge, or have a parent/patron that is in charge.
Rags to riches doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
Yes, for the four people who care about running Linux on the PS3, it's not all about games. For Sony, the PS3 is a wedge to force acceptance of Blu-Ray. It's not all about games for them.
For the rest of the world buying game consoles? It's all about games.
"convincing people that cutting taxes isn't just another form of pork."
OK, you're going to have to walk me through this.
Pork is when I take tax dollars collected nationally, and spend them on my pet project locally. Cutting taxes is when I take less tax dollars nationally. These two activities are not the same thing.
I didn't play much UO past the beta, and I was intensely frustrated with the number of hats I had to make in order to buy gear, so I can't speak to that. I still dispute that these games are some sort of mind-against-mind battle of wits.
But you weren't playing against their mind. You were playing against their stats. There's no skill...either you're bigger, or I'm bigger, or we're pretty close and we slug it out and the random number generator says you won and I lost.
What's the difference between an AI mob with a certain bunch of statistics and a player with the same statistics? Do they feel different when you click on them?
Just because your opponent can pass a turing test doesn't mean it's fun or interesting to click on your avatar until one of you dies.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, you must be assuming that I'm in favor of this particular administration's tax strategy. No. I am in favor of radically overhauling the government and making it much smaller, much more local, and much less expensive.
THAT is a tax cut. This administration is just playing a shell game.
Hold on. I'm a sheep because I'm pointing out that there is no way to psychically KNOW the TRUTH, which you deem a necessariy trait of a democracy?
Think for myself? You're damn right. And I can actually come to workable conclusions. Physician, heal thyself.
Why on EARTH would you spend $600 for a PlayStation as a computer when you could spend the same money and get a far more capable, flexible machine?
Hell, you could buy a Mac Mini that will beat the Playstation on just about every spec except 3D rendering power, and that's hardly the prime attribute of general-purpose computers.
"I'm willing to bet the people we oppress are significantly worse off-"
Who's "we"? I'm not oppressing anybody. I think the "third world" is no worse off, and many people world wide are living longer and healthier and richer lives. We could argue all day about how such things ought to be measured, but I do not believe in the "good old days".
"Ah, but you see, if you set up a mutual defense organization you're back to "Big Government". I thought you said you wanted NO governmental services- your mutual defense organization is a governmental service EVEN IF IT IS PRIVATELY OWNED."
Um, something that is owned and operated by private individuals is called private enterprise. That's the polar opposite of "big government". Well, it used to be, anyhow, before the plutocrats merged them together.
"The more jobs that are in the middle class, the more people become consumers"
Absolutely true. What is the best way to get there? Free enterprise, or a command economy? You and I disagree on that point, I'm sure.
If you think I'm in favor of the status quo, you're mistaken. However, I believe you and I would disagree on the mechanisms that could best serve the goal of increasing wealth and well-being of large numbers of people.
"Not really- not since 2001. But that's another story."
OK, I detest the current administration and the system that spawned it almost as much as you do, but that's a pretty silly assertion.
Dude. What are you talking about?
Whoops, hit submit too fast.
"That's not just an assumption- it IS a zero sum game when you look at it realistically instead of through rose-colored glasses."
I am not prepared to debate theories of wealth creation with you. However, if you look at the average well-being of a human today, vs. the average well-being of a human 600 years ago, the increase is due to wealth creation.
"Oh, you'll still have to pay- if not the government, then the poor breaking down your door to get at your food in numbers greater than the ammo your gun holds."
I have a lot more confidence in my ability to set up a mutual defense organization than I have in your ability to apportion wages "to each according to their needs".
"More people in the middle class means more consumers which means more business for everybody. See my sig line."
Middle class? You said ditch diggers. Then again, I betcha the ditch diggers have a damn good union, don't they? Wish they were better at digging ditches, as I look out the window seeing the hash they're going to be making of a few major downtown streets for the next two years.
The problem with Marxism is the same as the problem with capitalism: The ones in charge want to stay in charge, and enrich themselves in the process. The fatal flaw of Marxism is that there is no way for somebody to become in charge unless they start out in charge, or have a parent/patron that is in charge.
Rags to riches doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
What, exactly, does being in congress have to do with leadership? Seriously...break it down for me.
Anybody who wants that job is, by definition, unfit for it.
"If you're not working in a place you enjoy and would work for for no wages, then you're in the wrong job anyway."
Um, the only way I could work for no wages would be if I were wealthy. If I was wealthy, I wouldn't call what I do all day "work".
"I swear if I can get the funds to leave this godforsaken hole in the next decade, I'm gone..."
To the Imaginary Fairyland of Good Governance? Immigrant visas are a bitch...
OK, you say a lot of words, but you don't say how you think it should be done.
"actually have the time and resources to dedicate to real, reasoned voting"
Never mind time and resources. How do you do it?
Yes, for the four people who care about running Linux on the PS3, it's not all about games. For Sony, the PS3 is a wedge to force acceptance of Blu-Ray. It's not all about games for them.
For the rest of the world buying game consoles? It's all about games.
"looking at the real issues and analyzing the impact of a vote for a candidate or issue"
How do you do that without data? How do you get data without access to information?
"Ah, but expenses stay the same"
Well, sure if you proceed from that assumption, fine.
I want less services from the Government. I want to pay less taxes. There is nobody to vote for who agrees with me.
"enchancing the status of a portion of the population at the cost of other people in the population."
Again, you assume a zero sum game. I am willing to forego every single benefit I get from the government, as long as I also don't have to pay.
"which essentially flattened the economy so that the richest CEO and the lowest ditch digger were paid the same"
And that's somehow good? Why would I work hard, if I'm only ever going to get ditch digger wages?
"convincing people that cutting taxes isn't just another form of pork."
OK, you're going to have to walk me through this.
Pork is when I take tax dollars collected nationally, and spend them on my pet project locally. Cutting taxes is when I take less tax dollars nationally. These two activities are not the same thing.
"And there is your problem - ask why it takes $500,000 to get a seat."
Supply and demand. People will pay that kind of money for a seat, therefore that's how much they cost. Invisible Hand FTW!
"Microsoft IP-royalty paying OS's like Apple"
Whahuh?
"USB carries data not video."
I want you to think about this really, really hard, and try again.
So you were exploiting a bug.
Okay. Tell me again how this is a mind-vs-mind competition.
"just cause my cast > theirs in AC"
So you had a higher stat than they did. Woo.
I didn't play much UO past the beta, and I was intensely frustrated with the number of hats I had to make in order to buy gear, so I can't speak to that. I still dispute that these games are some sort of mind-against-mind battle of wits.
"its hard to deny that there isnt an addictive element here."
Wow. I think that might be a triple negative.
"playing against a human mind."
But you weren't playing against their mind. You were playing against their stats. There's no skill...either you're bigger, or I'm bigger, or we're pretty close and we slug it out and the random number generator says you won and I lost.
What's the difference between an AI mob with a certain bunch of statistics and a player with the same statistics? Do they feel different when you click on them?
Just because your opponent can pass a turing test doesn't mean it's fun or interesting to click on your avatar until one of you dies.
"I currently use high-speed light."
Every physics teacher in the universe suddenly cried out in horror...
Your argument reminds me of those that argue that communism is a great way to run a nation...it's just never been done correctly.
Yeah! Just look at how well free market principles worked for California's power distribution system! We need some more of that.
Well, I guess rolling blackouts are one way to decrease electrical usage, but I don't think it's a particularly GOOD way...
um, Taiwanese contract manufacturers probably manufacture just about everything that's within five feet of your person, right this minute.