I'm pretty sure we're already swimming in that mess.
Certainly, the plenty is not evenly distributed, but if you figure out how long it takes for a minimum wage to earn many fantastic things, shit is pretty cheap.
People will only fight so hard to protect the capital rights of others. At some point, it becomes more attractive to join the takers than to fight them.
And then there is the thing where technological advances remove some of the advantages of capital.
If you have a reasonable definition of a typical household, it will automatically track what they are able to spend, with the percentage devoted to energy showing how much they feel the changes in energy prices (and how much they have benefited from efficiency...).
There's no sane way to directly compare a typical 1950's household with a typical modern household, but the whole point of the exercise is to examine how the changes have impacted people.
Exactly. And if energy prices go up, usually the number of people that feel it is worthwhile to increase insulation also goes up. And lots of other things.
If you are going to spout so many numbers, you should spout interesting ones.
Like what percentage of the median income has a typical household spent on energy over time (then you are basically comparing typical earning power to typical energy expenditures, you don't need to rant about monetary issues to do it).
Our economy doesn't suck because of the ways most businesses are run (the ones that stay in business generally manage to at least cover their expenses...).
Our economy sucks because we cling to the notion that capital and other forms of wealth are scarce, whereas the reality is that productive capacity has reached the point where most needs can be easily met.
(There are huge disparities in consumption across the world, but I would argue that this is 'merely' an organizational problem, a problem that further enjoys being mired in historical politics, not an actual problem of our civilizations ability to make things)
If it were well understood what it took to be a successful CEO, they would likely earn far less money (the implied thesis here is that such knowledge would far expand the pool of candidates; maybe it would restrict it...).
A great example of an actual effective CEO that is not a founder is Alan Mulalley. So it is at least possible for a non founder to do a good job.
I use encryption to mitigate the consequences of my computer being physically stolen (by an opportunistic thief, I can't imagine a scenario where someone would target my data...).
XKCDs wrench-wielding gibbons do not speak to that use.
In that case, the explanation is that intel built a reasonable GPU into the CPU (but those GPUs have nice drivers and make easy work of 2D, so maybe it isn't one of those).
I'm not arguing that linking to a resource should be illegal, I'm arguing for the avoidance of unnecessary analogies.
Some unnecessary snark: you seem to be arguing that your parents are dumber than they really are, simply because it is convenient to your point. I'm pretty damn sure they understand what a phone call is, and calling a server and asking it a question (asking it for some information...) is a much better analogy than visiting a place.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure we're already swimming in that mess.
Certainly, the plenty is not evenly distributed, but if you figure out how long it takes for a minimum wage to earn many fantastic things, shit is pretty cheap.
People will only fight so hard to protect the capital rights of others. At some point, it becomes more attractive to join the takers than to fight them.
And then there is the thing where technological advances remove some of the advantages of capital.
You must have missed that he was speaking directly of economic efficiency (which wraps up things like capital and incremental costs).
I don't think the GPS satellites have a 'boost signal' button.
If you have a reasonable definition of a typical household, it will automatically track what they are able to spend, with the percentage devoted to energy showing how much they feel the changes in energy prices (and how much they have benefited from efficiency...).
There's no sane way to directly compare a typical 1950's household with a typical modern household, but the whole point of the exercise is to examine how the changes have impacted people.
Exactly. And if energy prices go up, usually the number of people that feel it is worthwhile to increase insulation also goes up. And lots of other things.
If you are going to spout so many numbers, you should spout interesting ones.
Like what percentage of the median income has a typical household spent on energy over time (then you are basically comparing typical earning power to typical energy expenditures, you don't need to rant about monetary issues to do it).
Sure sure, never mind the reality where they have more and better lobbyists than you do and the law is currently on their side.
It makes it an awful lot harder for shills to argue that an opt out system would be too complicated or impossible.
(in re your analogy, "No means No" and so forth were real actual outreach programs...)
Our economy doesn't suck because of the ways most businesses are run (the ones that stay in business generally manage to at least cover their expenses...).
Our economy sucks because we cling to the notion that capital and other forms of wealth are scarce, whereas the reality is that productive capacity has reached the point where most needs can be easily met.
(There are huge disparities in consumption across the world, but I would argue that this is 'merely' an organizational problem, a problem that further enjoys being mired in historical politics, not an actual problem of our civilizations ability to make things)
If it were well understood what it took to be a successful CEO, they would likely earn far less money (the implied thesis here is that such knowledge would far expand the pool of candidates; maybe it would restrict it...).
A great example of an actual effective CEO that is not a founder is Alan Mulalley. So it is at least possible for a non founder to do a good job.
So the FBI is allowed to just steal people's possessions?
Great.
Being willing to sell is just a preference.
Yes, I would like $100 more than I would like this donut, that doesn't mean I'm going to throw away the donut if no one gives me $100.
Fedex doesn't have a legal mandate to provide service to most addresses 6 days of the week. The comparison isn't particularly useful.
I would file that under the various logistics shaking out. Especially since the Dutch government took over DigiNotar.
Uh, it pretty much already happened.
(That is, Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, etc., have dropped them, the various logistics are shaking out as we speak.)
Pants?
At the moment, they appear to be carefully hidden in the moonblink Google Code svn.
How do you equate sending "IOU"s to China with hemorrhaging wealth?
Apparently, we are consuming things that we aren't even paying for.
The story makes it sound like it is direct viewing of the screen. So hope for 'space for glasses'.
I use encryption to mitigate the consequences of my computer being physically stolen (by an opportunistic thief, I can't imagine a scenario where someone would target my data...).
XKCDs wrench-wielding gibbons do not speak to that use.
Why? I'm not bursting with rage, I just find the OPs comportment tiresome.
Do you think they are being cute and trying to imply with the name that "Python Tools for Visual Studio" will be available on a Linux system?
If you truly believe that, then your cute reply is probably appropriate.
Does it have an intel i3/i5/i7?
In that case, the explanation is that intel built a reasonable GPU into the CPU (but those GPUs have nice drivers and make easy work of 2D, so maybe it isn't one of those).
I'm not arguing that linking to a resource should be illegal, I'm arguing for the avoidance of unnecessary analogies.
Some unnecessary snark: you seem to be arguing that your parents are dumber than they really are, simply because it is convenient to your point. I'm pretty damn sure they understand what a phone call is, and calling a server and asking it a question (asking it for some information...) is a much better analogy than visiting a place.