The lie you're referring to is responding to your troll comments. I've explained that.
As to submission to emotions that is merely your admission to being a troll. You're basically just saying "U MAD BRO" over and over again. The simple fact that you do that is an admission of trolling.
As to the rest... You've been excluded from any serious discussion I've had on this forum for ages now. So... its mission accomplished from my perspective. All you do is whine and pathetically attempt to insert yourself into situations. But everyone can see you're just trolling which makes signature under my posts... which you can read which proves you are logged in... well, you prove me right.
Do they talk about business culture in failing companies? Because that would be more interesting. I don't see it.
Mostly they investigate successful companies and then shit talk whatever they're doing that makes the place work.
As to the poor woman with the stillborn child... anyone that can't spot the pathos being injected into the story there is blind.
In the old Roman days, if you were being taken to court you could hire children... typically orphans... or unmarried women... often prostitutes... to cry at your trial. The presumption by the jury would be that they were your children and the woman was some family relation. And by having them crying openly in court... you could influence the jury because they'd feel sorry for the children and crying woman... and thus go easy on you.
This tactic in rhetoric of attempting to play on the heart strings of the minds judging a situation is a very old one. And its frankly an offensive one.
I'm sure there are people that work really hard at Amazon and I'm sure the company does their best to get the most value out of people as possible. But no one has to work there. You're not a slave. You sent your resume to Amazon. You talked with the HR rep over the phone. You went to an interview and did your best to make them want to hire you.
So... no one forced you to be there. Amazon is not breaking any law. And while there are a few sob stories in there, the majority of the employees seem very happy.
It is typical of the NYT to run a story of "Look, someone is successful - KILL HIM"... its what they do. But I'd think more readers would be aware of it by now.
Its one of the reasons the NYTs is losing national clout despite trying very hard to remain relevant. They're biased. All news you could say is biased... but the editors are biased as well. One of the great things about the internet is that you can do version tracking on articles.
You see an article published on a Saturday night... it changes on Sunday... It changes again on Monday... The author changes on tuesday. This happens all the time on their site. No declaration that anything changed. No declaration of why.
Just presenting the story as if it was always X from the start. When clearly there is evidence that it changed many times.
The NYTs is not the only site that does that. But its the only major news source I know of that does it as commonly or completely. I expect that from Buzzfeed or Gawker or something. But when the NYTs starts playing by the same rules... they become the same.
You are not only what you do but what you don't do.
No, that was a minor point in a larger argument. You're attempting to cloud and gaslight me. This only works if my personal memory is poor. It is good enough to remember what we were talking about initially.
You kept saying "U MAD BRO"?... and I responded to you with cold logic.
Trolls don't know how to deal with that. They can't deal with people that have stronger intellects than emotions. Your behavior works on children and the immature. Not on people that are mentally adult.
You lost every point. All of them. The simple fact that I was able to crush you arguments 1-10 proves me to be more rational than you. Here you make the cry of every internet shit head and say "well you didn't win anything because there's no official judge to determine who wins or loses"... All this admits is that you have no integrity and must exist in an environment where it is imposed on you externally. That's basically like someone that only doesn't murder or rape because there are cops there to stop him.
I don't need the police there to stop me from doing bad things. And I don't need an arbiter to decide when an argument has failed or not. I police myself. This is another mark of my superiority over you.
AC trolls and sockpuppets are the issue. If it is clear you're neither then I'll engage. You're upset because I don't talk to anymore about anything but your lack of logging on or your trolling or your sockpuppeting.
Tough. You e-stalk me from thread to thread begging me to talk to you about something. I've made it clear, I'm done with you. You can either log in or eat every last dick on earth.
... You're claiming that there are billions of sports cars available for sale right now?
Here you might say "COULD be made"... not really. The economic system would collapse if it even tried to do that.
As to status symbols... who said the product had to make sense? If people want cod pieces hand made by a famous artist then that's what they want. The artist is in scare supply by definition thus giving the status symbol value.
But if you'd prefer something less silly we can talk about jet engines. Can we produce a jet engine for everyone? No. We cannot produce 5~7 billion jet engines.... we do not have the industrial base to do that. And even if we did, we wouldn't do it because it is inefficient
As to "true" optimum... you don't know what that is.... People always cite what they think something should cost as what the market should charge for it. There is no intrinsic value. A box of shit is not inherently worth more than the greatest collective works of art of all humanity.
What gives something value is our opinions of it or our desire for it to accomplish some goal. But when you cite your opinion of value as if everyone else should share it or the market should share it... you are either arrogantly presuming to tell everyone how they should structure their economy or you're just confused as to how the markets work.
You don't assign value for the market. The market assigns value. it is a democracy of dollars. People voting with their wallets. If they find something to be a good idea they'll buy it. If they don't they won't.
As to the inevitable collapse of the final communist failures... yes. Their stupid ideology is doomed. It is ironically holding on strongest in the US... amongst our neo peasantry. But the ambitions of that sad ideology are quickly becoming moot... our industrial and economic systems are shifting beyond the reference frame of their conceptual model.
hmmm... what do you mean by "too little money in the economy"... this sounds like short hand for "poor".
If there is less money in an economy then there is no means to reward suppliers by exchanging value you create for value their create.
As to markets trying lower costs, increase profits, increase production, etc... nothing I said contradicts that.
I did not specify what was or was not a profitable price. I simply said that if the people in a given reason do not have the money or the interest in a product or service it will not be supplied without subsidization.... which effectively is another group of people paying and buying a good or service for someone else. Thus when speaking of subsidization, you have to treat the people offering the subsidies as the people with the demand because the demand end of the equation is sustained by them and not the consumers.
Login to your real account instead of your sockpuppet AC nonsense and I'll extend the benefit of the doubt again. Its still checkmate in 3 moves but I'm prepared to go through the exercise if you respond under your real account.
If for whatever reason you don't do that... then I have no incentive to pretend this isn't over. Your argument rests on the notion that when I call someone a moron, I must be angry.
The position is idiotic and anyone that isn't an idiot knows its indefensible. I don't think you're that stupid... I just think you're a troll. Trolls don't care if they're full of shit. They just like to troll.
Regardless... if you want to engage deeper on the issue you're going to have to use better bait. Login on your account or I'll just take my obvious victory and leave the thread.
That will be controlled by the market unless the government subsidies overwhelm it.
If I supply so much of X that it exceeds demand and drives the market price below the production cost of X... then that will stop investment in supply and probably cause supply to contract.
Supply will contract until such time as the demand price increases to some number above the production cost.
That's just fundamental economics. You can't both over supply a market AND have that over supply continue indefinitely without subsidies. Which means while you can get points in time when the supply exceeds demand... over time... supply tries very hard to provide just ENOUGH to meet demand.
Its much more common for supply to be BELOW demand rather than above it. Take the supply of submarines or rocket ships or whatever... There's much more demand for a lot of things than there is supply to meet that demand. At any price the world can only produce so many hand made sports cars built in some Italian factory. There's a limit. And the high ticket price of such things is largely a rationing system.
You get similar things in healthcare... and that shows the limits of subsidies. Even if you throw money at something you're only going to get so many of X and throwing more money at eventually gives you diminishing returns.
Labor issues, resource limitations, space constraints, logistics.
Point is that Cuba can't sustainably provide more communication to the people than the people either want or can pay for.
No... I don't see what swearing has to do with emotions. As I made clear, you're projecting your cultural taboos into situations they don't have to exist in.
Are you saying that anyone that calls another person a "cocktoddler" is inherently angry? That's obviously fallacious.
As to your belief that I am irrational because I am responding to a troll that has no intellectual integrity... which really all you admitted in the above post... you're presuming to know my motives. You don't know my motives and thus cannot assess whether I am trying to rationally obtain them.
What I was actually doing was hearing you out. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt to see if you had anything backing up your position. I was attempting to see if I had made errors in judgement or logic which you were attempting to correct.
What you did was validate my previous opinion, show you had no counter argument, and then you proceeded to undermine your own credibility which I only extended to you for the sake of argument in the first place.
Your self immolation is complete in this thread. People like you like to be AC because it hides all the times you've been ruined by just about anyone that even tries. Its one of the many reasons I'm not a fan of the AC concept.
Regardless. We're done. You lose again. I will not comment to you further in this thread. You're done.
The statistics on ocean acidification are kind of interesting. They only go back to the 1980s in most of the stats talking about THE END TIMES... but the stats do go back a good deal farther than that. But they're not referenced.
I don't know if our current acid levels are abnormal, but I do remember from the more extensive statistics that there is sort of a sin wave pattern with ocean pH. I think it goes up and down over a period of decades. Are we above normal rates for this period of time? I'm not sure. We could be.
One thing which I do question is the ability of disolved CO2 to actually change ocean pH at these scales.
Ever owned a pond or taken care of fish where you have natural stone coming in contact with the water?
Most rocks are pH neutral at a given pH range. And ideally you want your rocks to be neutral at your desired pH. But often your rocks have lime stone in them. Over time, the lime stone tends to push the pH up... typically to around 8.5 or something which isn't good for fish or plants if you have a planted tank or your pond has plants.
Where am I going with this? Well... the ocean has huge exposed mineral deposits everywhere throughout the ocean. And I question whether the CO2 from human industry is enough to overwhelm in pH balance of the ocean given the vast exposed mineral deposits that are pH stable at what we think of as normal ocean pH levels.
Don't kid yourself. The reason the ocean is the pH it is... is because of those mineral deposits. Push the pH up or down and I would not be surprised if they started reacting with the water to bring it back into balance. How is the dissolved carbon in the water going to overwhelm all of that?
We're not talking about a pound of feathers and a pound of lead here. We're talking about planetary masses of minerals versus... 40 gigatonnes of CO2 per year?
Yes... I've used Java based ultra low latency trading apps... I believe the last one I used was "ThinkOrSwim"... and as I remember it basically crashes or gets very slow if you try to make it use more than 1 GB of ram.
My work around in that case was to launch two version of the program with each one doing different things so that neither execution went over 1 GB.
I told you that I'm sure someone is able to get beyond the 1 GB limit... I'm just telling you that most Java programs I've ever used can't.
I'd be happier with Java if you could compile it into independent executables that didn't depend on external java libraries. I think that would give us something of a best of both worlds here.
If you want to keep the java in an uncompiled format that's fine. YOU can do that. I don't like it. Part of my issue is security. Securing java or any kind of scripted language program is a lot harder than controlling finite executables. I'd like the entirety of the code to be in as tight and discrete a package as possible so I can track it and control it. I don't feel comfortable giving permissions to java itself which is something I have to do when java programs are being run. Especially when I only wish to permit SPECIFIC java programs to be able to run. Now if those java programs were finite and self contained then I wouldn't have to worry about it.
I've found ways to make this work and restrict java programs so that only specific java programs can possibly run. However... it was a giant pain in the ass and I have to go through some trouble every time a new program is added... and sometimes even when they're just changed.
The security situation is honestly a big part of my problem with scripted languages. The bias most people have is having the core of the system just hanging out there for anyone to send scripts to... including malware, hackers, whatever. And then people will restrict the java programs on the theory that if people can't trigger a given script that secures the system. But it doesn't because if a script can be passed to the generally unlocked core... it will run them. And I can't have that.
I don't like having Java generally installed or Ruby or anything. I lock down power shell and shell script as well.... I'm okay with those because there's no reason for a user to need permissions for it. So they just don't get it. I've had a few exceptions. But what I do is give them a program that sends a command to a different account on the terminal server and THAT account has permissions... and that account executes the command.
Sorry if I sound crazy.... It is my job to make inherently insecure systems secure. And frankly Java fucking annoys me.
Imagine if all you knew about Cinema was the occasional trailer for a Michael Bay movie. Lets say you never actually watched movies. Ever. lets say all you knew was the trailers.
Cinema would be crap right?
Okay lets say all you knew about literature was whatever was in the airport book stand. That is what you thought books were. A collection of romance novels, spy thrillers, self help books, and other assorted shit.
Literature would be crap as well, no?
The first mistake this little twat made was in suggesting that game makers are not real artists. Anyone that has seen the work put into character design, modeling the various objects, creating the sound effects, etc... there are lots of artists in gaming and they're as good or better than the artists in other industries.
The second mistake he made was projecting HIS desires for what gaming should be without understanding what gaming is already. He probably wants the equivalent of art house movies in games. What he doesn't grasp is that first we already have those and second just like in film they're not very popular because they either are only of interest to a small demographic or they are outright boring. If its wrong for me to judge all movies by Michael Bay movies then where does this fuck come off thinking he can judge all games by grand thief auto etc?
And it was upon seeing this second error that I just rolled my eyes and stopped reading. If the man wants to talk about gaming then he can sit down and learn something about it. He knows nothing.
That's one of the nicer ones... there are a lot of other ones by other companies.
The big tip off is that it is "Russia" making this... sorry if this sounds bigoted... but when was the last time they innovated anything? Here you're going to say Sputnik or something. Even if I accepted that... that was one example and decades ago.
HALF the patents in the last 100 years came out of the United States. Half.
So what am I saying? I'm saying that of course we have an exeskelleton on the market. Of course we do.
Again, you're projecting your culture on me. You think I am breaking one of YOUR cultural taboos by swearing. And in your mind the only way I could be doing that is if I were so emotionally distressed that I can't control myself.
What I just told you is that I'm not trying to control myself. There's no need for an emotion to break through a taboo... I don't believe in the taboo in the first place and especially not in the context of an internet forum.
If I see a fucktard... I call him a fucktard. I don't need to feel anything. There is no cultural barrier I have to overcome.
1. Lets say politicians on both sides use it... how does that back up a position that this isn't a highly politicized issue with a lot of spin? It doesn't. Which means giving me spin just makes your article look like advocacy from side X instead the only thing that has any value in this situation which is the cold hard science.
2. As to making more money polluting than not... not in the first world. And it is only in the first world where AGW politics are even relevant. Companies in China and India are not being restrained and that is where the money polluting is being made. Are the people pushing AGW and carbon credits talking about putting trade barriers with countries that don't play ball as well? i haven't seen it. Mostly it is internal to the first world. And simply employing cap and trade in the first world will do nothing. What is more, the grant money etc for the big companies is far larger than you realize. Do you want me to pull up the figures? Who do you think is building the wind mills and solar farms and LED bulbs and all that shit?
The corps are making a MINT off AGW.
3. The grant money the universities get from pro AGW grants so radically dwarfs what they get for anti AGW grants as to not be worth mentioning. That's like saying dogs sometimes drive cars. Sure... Like... one maybe... in a circus.
4. As to the UN not needing the AGW issue... that's not what the UN believes. They put a lot of energy into this and see it as a way to gain political power outside of the security council... that is... beyond the politics of the US, Russia, China, UK, and France.
5. As to little countries complaining about stuff and wanting money, you're an idiot if you think they wouldn't be asking for money regardless and you're even dumber if you think they're poor and backward because of AGW. See... I can make insults too... fucktard.
6. As to justifying protectionism... if you think only the republicans want it then you know nothing of US politics. Certain factions within both the republicans and democrats want protectionism for different reasons.
I love that the Republicans are the universal demon for progressive robots like you. The republicans somehow are the party of evil 100 dollar smoking business interests that want to destroy the world... AND you think republicans are all for protectionism.
The business interests support or are against protectionism based on where their manufacturing base is and where their primary sales market is... if a business interest is mostly in the US and sells mostly to Americans than it is generally for protectionism. If a company has its manufacturing outside the US or is mostly selling or equally selling to foreign markets then they are generally against protectionism. This bit of complexity is beyond your simple mind though. You see everything in these simplistic talking points that include no context.
I'm not your enemy, child. I'm the sort of adult mentality you need to solve the problems people like you keep making for themselves.
... I know I know, but with the idea of everyone driving their home on large battery banks and our cars on large battery banks... gaining some logistical independence on the issue might be a good idea especially when the damn batteries are expensive, wear out quickly, etc.
I cite that just because its funny and underscores what is going on.
You have some people saying reasonable things and talking about the science. And then you have dumb journalists running around like chickens with their heads cut off... collecting the most extreme quotes they possibly can to get the most insane headlines.
I'm not interested in the alarmism and I'm not alone. Millions are just tuning it out. I think that political tactic and media tactic has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Moving forward, I'd just like the science... with full acknowledgment of the uncertainties and no attempt to advocate for any given solution.
Just give me the information. Bias the results to try and get a panic reaction out of me and there's a good chance I'll spot it and then rather than convince me, I'll just distrust your paper.
I'm not anti environmental improvement. However, I'd like that improvement to be more than a ploy. There are a lot of alterior motives in this issue at this point.
1. The politicians can use it as a weapon. Al Gore didn't get into this for nothing.
2. The corporations love it because they get massive pork spending for green projects. The money going to GE etc for this stuff was unheard of before the AGW issue.
3. The Universities get too much grant money to not want to keep the fire burning on this issue. The issue cools and the grant money falls off with it.
4. The UN sees the issue as a means to political relevance outside the security council.
5. Various little countries can use the issue to justify demands for aid. The "help us because of colonialism" etc has sort of worn off. Help us because AGW is relevant.
6. The AGW issue can be used to justify protectionist policies against East Asian economies in China and India.
It goes on and on and on and on and on. So... I just want the science without the politics and the advocacy and the lobbying and the gaslighting and the endless fucking pathos.
1. I've never seen it. Every Java program I've handled has been slower. 2. I've never seen it. I've used a lot of java programs and they've always been slower than C/C+ etc programs of similar nature and complexity.
3b. I've noticed the memory issue. I've also noticed a lot of java programs seem to have a hard time going beyond 1GB of ram. I'm sure there is a way to make them do that but... I've had to screw around with work arounds more than a few times to deal with that issue.
As to your claim that it isn't slower if it has enough memory... That's not my experience. I'm sure I could get you testimonials and links to people talking about Java being slow. But I rather suspect you won't listen to it or will say it is invalid for some reason.
I've got no problem with java on simple things but when java programs start getting really complicated I frequently find them to frustrating. I think part of the problem is the java libaries. A java program coded for one doesn't seem to behave the same way if given a newer version sometimes. And that's one of the more irritating things about Java that I have to fix on a regular basis. Making sure all the java applets have the EXACT version of java they're supposed to have. And when that becomes problematic the java applets have to be recoded.
We have less bullshit to deal with the compiled programs. They just "work" more reliably.
I am schooled in rhetoric... these stalling tactics designed to reach a stalemate are of no interest.
You can either address my argument or I will be able to claim your concession on each evaded point by default.
I anticipate your will not change your tactics and will attempt to defend the evasion. If you do this... I'll simply stop talking to you in this thread accepting your concession by default.
You will argue against this... but so too does a stuck pig struggle. You will respond to my point or you will have conceded.
Its checkmate. You either lose by virtue of being wrong and crushed by a superior argument or lose by evading and conceding the positions by default.
Lots of these things have been on the market for ages... I mean... company in X country starts work on product that is already in the market and offers nothing new on the existing concept?... Just saying.
I've never used a Java program had equivalent performance to a similar compiled program.
Just my experience. And in that context, I have a hard time respecting the idea of lots of java nonsense on the android. Maybe I'm being unfair. But I've found Java to be more of a problem over the years than a solution. It starts out as a nice thing. Its easy to develop something in Java and easy to tweak and fix stuff. But it has limitations.
I know they think citing anger is an insult because they cite it in a derogatory context.
It would be how you'd know the difference between someone saying someone is short is an insult versus saying someone is short simply as an observation.
As to fallacies, outright false. By the context, the assertion where there is no hostility to even misrepresent, and the constant repetition by critical elements we can see it is not meant merely as an observation but is intended as a negative quality they are assigning to my behavior.
Are you presuming to say that they are saying my supposed anger is of neutral value or that it is positive?
You can't.
It is clearly meant as a negative judgment. And as I said, it is asserted that I am angry in posts such as this one where it is frankly impossible to say that I am angry in this post...
What is misrepresented as anger is typically insults, foul language, or a dismissive attitude.
Calling someone a moron doesn't mean I'm angry with them. You don't need to be angry with someone to insult them or to express a negative opinion. Were this not the case then all criticism of me would be from angry people.
Are you angry? To quote the trolls... "U Mad Bro?"
And that quote right there further underscores that suggesting someone is angry is a common troll tactic/insult/victory cry. To pretend ignorance of that is not credible.
I could go on, but why? Its patiently obvious you've got nothing and will be unable and unwilling to actually defend your position.
If I have any great weakness it is that I explain myself too much and I argue points too honestly. People like you presume to exploit that... asking stupid questions... making stupid comments... you presume to waste my time and wear me down or frustrate me.
As I said, I'm hyper rational... your tactics don't work on me. They'd work on you... but our minds don't work the same way. My emotional framework is something you lack the mental flexibility to contemplate. The fact that you'll interpreter as a boast or put down is further emblematic of our difference. Were I you... I'd not take it that way. But you will.
Talking to people like you is akin to communicating with animals... if they were intelligent enough to talk. Our instincts and emotional frameworks are different. The things that will annoy a cat won't annoy a horse or vice versa. And a human being of course has their own frame work. I am not insulting you. You are very normal. I am not. Your entire display means about as much to me as a chimp strutting around waving his arms in the air to make himself look bigger. Its meaningless to me. I know what you intend to convey... it simply has no meaning to me besides an intellectual awareness of your intentions.
I think we may have a cultural issue then. In my culture people call other people dog shit without needing to be angry or out of control.
You might be presuming your cultural norms and projecting them on me. I suppose you might be thinking that I am restrained by cultural taboos that require me to be polite to people. And if I am impolite it means that I am so emotionally out of control that I can't control myself.
What you do not understand is that I am not trying to control myself. I call people shitheads with the same emotional content that you use to breath. It has no emotional content. Its just an opinion.
Lets say we were talking about a given type of food and you said "I don't like that food, I prefer X"... are you mad? You dismissed possibly an entire culinary tradition that millions of people could hold as very important to their society.
You don't need to be angry to think something is shit. I think you know that.
Where the confusion might be is that you think I need to be upset to say someone is shit. I don't. I "think it" and then I "say it". There's no need to get mad to over come an arbitary cultural barrier that I don't observe... especially on line.
In person, I conduct myself one way. In professional settings with superiors I conduct myself another way. When I engage with subordinates I conduct myself a different way... etc.
Every code of conduct is contextual. In this environment I have no reason to observe any code of conduct besides what I find most pleasing to myself. Its sort of like taking your shoes off and walking around your house without any pants... and possibly without underwear.
Am I a pervert because I walk around my home in underwear? Nope. Neither am I angry when I dismiss someone as a piece of shit on the internet.
As to angry posts that you feel someone about to go postal would make. Please cite one. I'd like to see what you consider "postal" warnings.
Slashdot Mirror
The lie you're referring to is responding to your troll comments. I've explained that.
As to submission to emotions that is merely your admission to being a troll. You're basically just saying "U MAD BRO" over and over again. The simple fact that you do that is an admission of trolling.
As to the rest... You've been excluded from any serious discussion I've had on this forum for ages now. So... its mission accomplished from my perspective. All you do is whine and pathetically attempt to insert yourself into situations. But everyone can see you're just trolling which makes signature under my posts... which you can read which proves you are logged in... well, you prove me right.
All this is.
Do they talk about business culture in failing companies? Because that would be more interesting. I don't see it.
Mostly they investigate successful companies and then shit talk whatever they're doing that makes the place work.
As to the poor woman with the stillborn child... anyone that can't spot the pathos being injected into the story there is blind.
In the old Roman days, if you were being taken to court you could hire children... typically orphans... or unmarried women... often prostitutes... to cry at your trial. The presumption by the jury would be that they were your children and the woman was some family relation. And by having them crying openly in court... you could influence the jury because they'd feel sorry for the children and crying woman... and thus go easy on you.
This tactic in rhetoric of attempting to play on the heart strings of the minds judging a situation is a very old one. And its frankly an offensive one.
I'm sure there are people that work really hard at Amazon and I'm sure the company does their best to get the most value out of people as possible. But no one has to work there. You're not a slave. You sent your resume to Amazon. You talked with the HR rep over the phone. You went to an interview and did your best to make them want to hire you.
So... no one forced you to be there. Amazon is not breaking any law. And while there are a few sob stories in there, the majority of the employees seem very happy.
It is typical of the NYT to run a story of "Look, someone is successful - KILL HIM"... its what they do. But I'd think more readers would be aware of it by now.
Its one of the reasons the NYTs is losing national clout despite trying very hard to remain relevant. They're biased. All news you could say is biased... but the editors are biased as well. One of the great things about the internet is that you can do version tracking on articles.
You see an article published on a Saturday night... it changes on Sunday... It changes again on Monday... The author changes on tuesday. This happens all the time on their site. No declaration that anything changed. No declaration of why.
Just presenting the story as if it was always X from the start. When clearly there is evidence that it changed many times.
The NYTs is not the only site that does that. But its the only major news source I know of that does it as commonly or completely. I expect that from Buzzfeed or Gawker or something. But when the NYTs starts playing by the same rules... they become the same.
You are not only what you do but what you don't do.
No, that was a minor point in a larger argument. You're attempting to cloud and gaslight me. This only works if my personal memory is poor. It is good enough to remember what we were talking about initially.
You kept saying "U MAD BRO"?... and I responded to you with cold logic.
Trolls don't know how to deal with that. They can't deal with people that have stronger intellects than emotions. Your behavior works on children and the immature. Not on people that are mentally adult.
You lost every point. All of them. The simple fact that I was able to crush you arguments 1-10 proves me to be more rational than you. Here you make the cry of every internet shit head and say "well you didn't win anything because there's no official judge to determine who wins or loses"... All this admits is that you have no integrity and must exist in an environment where it is imposed on you externally. That's basically like someone that only doesn't murder or rape because there are cops there to stop him.
I don't need the police there to stop me from doing bad things. And I don't need an arbiter to decide when an argument has failed or not. I police myself. This is another mark of my superiority over you.
You're garbage.
AC trolls and sockpuppets are the issue. If it is clear you're neither then I'll engage. You're upset because I don't talk to anymore about anything but your lack of logging on or your trolling or your sockpuppeting.
Tough. You e-stalk me from thread to thread begging me to talk to you about something. I've made it clear, I'm done with you. You can either log in or eat every last dick on earth.
... You're claiming that there are billions of sports cars available for sale right now?
Here you might say "COULD be made"... not really. The economic system would collapse if it even tried to do that.
As to status symbols... who said the product had to make sense? If people want cod pieces hand made by a famous artist then that's what they want. The artist is in scare supply by definition thus giving the status symbol value.
But if you'd prefer something less silly we can talk about jet engines. Can we produce a jet engine for everyone? No. We cannot produce 5~7 billion jet engines.... we do not have the industrial base to do that. And even if we did, we wouldn't do it because it is inefficient
As to "true" optimum... you don't know what that is.... People always cite what they think something should cost as what the market should charge for it. There is no intrinsic value. A box of shit is not inherently worth more than the greatest collective works of art of all humanity.
What gives something value is our opinions of it or our desire for it to accomplish some goal. But when you cite your opinion of value as if everyone else should share it or the market should share it... you are either arrogantly presuming to tell everyone how they should structure their economy or you're just confused as to how the markets work.
You don't assign value for the market. The market assigns value. it is a democracy of dollars. People voting with their wallets. If they find something to be a good idea they'll buy it. If they don't they won't.
As to the inevitable collapse of the final communist failures... yes. Their stupid ideology is doomed. It is ironically holding on strongest in the US... amongst our neo peasantry. But the ambitions of that sad ideology are quickly becoming moot... our industrial and economic systems are shifting beyond the reference frame of their conceptual model.
I never said otherwise.
hmmm... what do you mean by "too little money in the economy"... this sounds like short hand for "poor".
If there is less money in an economy then there is no means to reward suppliers by exchanging value you create for value their create.
As to markets trying lower costs, increase profits, increase production, etc... nothing I said contradicts that.
I did not specify what was or was not a profitable price. I simply said that if the people in a given reason do not have the money or the interest in a product or service it will not be supplied without subsidization.... which effectively is another group of people paying and buying a good or service for someone else. Thus when speaking of subsidization, you have to treat the people offering the subsidies as the people with the demand because the demand end of the equation is sustained by them and not the consumers.
Login to your real account instead of your sockpuppet AC nonsense and I'll extend the benefit of the doubt again. Its still checkmate in 3 moves but I'm prepared to go through the exercise if you respond under your real account.
If for whatever reason you don't do that... then I have no incentive to pretend this isn't over. Your argument rests on the notion that when I call someone a moron, I must be angry.
The position is idiotic and anyone that isn't an idiot knows its indefensible. I don't think you're that stupid... I just think you're a troll. Trolls don't care if they're full of shit. They just like to troll.
Regardless... if you want to engage deeper on the issue you're going to have to use better bait. Login on your account or I'll just take my obvious victory and leave the thread.
That will be controlled by the market unless the government subsidies overwhelm it.
If I supply so much of X that it exceeds demand and drives the market price below the production cost of X... then that will stop investment in supply and probably cause supply to contract.
Supply will contract until such time as the demand price increases to some number above the production cost.
That's just fundamental economics. You can't both over supply a market AND have that over supply continue indefinitely without subsidies. Which means while you can get points in time when the supply exceeds demand... over time... supply tries very hard to provide just ENOUGH to meet demand.
Its much more common for supply to be BELOW demand rather than above it. Take the supply of submarines or rocket ships or whatever... There's much more demand for a lot of things than there is supply to meet that demand. At any price the world can only produce so many hand made sports cars built in some Italian factory. There's a limit. And the high ticket price of such things is largely a rationing system.
You get similar things in healthcare... and that shows the limits of subsidies. Even if you throw money at something you're only going to get so many of X and throwing more money at eventually gives you diminishing returns.
Labor issues, resource limitations, space constraints, logistics.
Point is that Cuba can't sustainably provide more communication to the people than the people either want or can pay for.
No... I don't see what swearing has to do with emotions. As I made clear, you're projecting your cultural taboos into situations they don't have to exist in.
Are you saying that anyone that calls another person a "cocktoddler" is inherently angry? That's obviously fallacious.
As to your belief that I am irrational because I am responding to a troll that has no intellectual integrity... which really all you admitted in the above post... you're presuming to know my motives. You don't know my motives and thus cannot assess whether I am trying to rationally obtain them.
What I was actually doing was hearing you out. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt to see if you had anything backing up your position. I was attempting to see if I had made errors in judgement or logic which you were attempting to correct.
What you did was validate my previous opinion, show you had no counter argument, and then you proceeded to undermine your own credibility which I only extended to you for the sake of argument in the first place.
Your self immolation is complete in this thread. People like you like to be AC because it hides all the times you've been ruined by just about anyone that even tries. Its one of the many reasons I'm not a fan of the AC concept.
Regardless. We're done. You lose again. I will not comment to you further in this thread. You're done.
The statistics on ocean acidification are kind of interesting. They only go back to the 1980s in most of the stats talking about THE END TIMES... but the stats do go back a good deal farther than that. But they're not referenced.
I don't know if our current acid levels are abnormal, but I do remember from the more extensive statistics that there is sort of a sin wave pattern with ocean pH. I think it goes up and down over a period of decades. Are we above normal rates for this period of time? I'm not sure. We could be.
One thing which I do question is the ability of disolved CO2 to actually change ocean pH at these scales.
Ever owned a pond or taken care of fish where you have natural stone coming in contact with the water?
Most rocks are pH neutral at a given pH range. And ideally you want your rocks to be neutral at your desired pH. But often your rocks have lime stone in them. Over time, the lime stone tends to push the pH up... typically to around 8.5 or something which isn't good for fish or plants if you have a planted tank or your pond has plants.
Where am I going with this? Well... the ocean has huge exposed mineral deposits everywhere throughout the ocean. And I question whether the CO2 from human industry is enough to overwhelm in pH balance of the ocean given the vast exposed mineral deposits that are pH stable at what we think of as normal ocean pH levels.
Don't kid yourself. The reason the ocean is the pH it is... is because of those mineral deposits. Push the pH up or down and I would not be surprised if they started reacting with the water to bring it back into balance. How is the dissolved carbon in the water going to overwhelm all of that?
We're not talking about a pound of feathers and a pound of lead here. We're talking about planetary masses of minerals versus... 40 gigatonnes of CO2 per year?
Please correct me if I'm in error.
Is that one of the old founders of green peace? There are quite a few people that flipped.
Yes... I've used Java based ultra low latency trading apps... I believe the last one I used was "ThinkOrSwim"... and as I remember it basically crashes or gets very slow if you try to make it use more than 1 GB of ram.
My work around in that case was to launch two version of the program with each one doing different things so that neither execution went over 1 GB.
I told you that I'm sure someone is able to get beyond the 1 GB limit... I'm just telling you that most Java programs I've ever used can't.
I'd be happier with Java if you could compile it into independent executables that didn't depend on external java libraries. I think that would give us something of a best of both worlds here.
If you want to keep the java in an uncompiled format that's fine. YOU can do that. I don't like it. Part of my issue is security. Securing java or any kind of scripted language program is a lot harder than controlling finite executables. I'd like the entirety of the code to be in as tight and discrete a package as possible so I can track it and control it. I don't feel comfortable giving permissions to java itself which is something I have to do when java programs are being run. Especially when I only wish to permit SPECIFIC java programs to be able to run. Now if those java programs were finite and self contained then I wouldn't have to worry about it.
I've found ways to make this work and restrict java programs so that only specific java programs can possibly run. However... it was a giant pain in the ass and I have to go through some trouble every time a new program is added... and sometimes even when they're just changed.
The security situation is honestly a big part of my problem with scripted languages. The bias most people have is having the core of the system just hanging out there for anyone to send scripts to... including malware, hackers, whatever. And then people will restrict the java programs on the theory that if people can't trigger a given script that secures the system. But it doesn't because if a script can be passed to the generally unlocked core... it will run them. And I can't have that.
I don't like having Java generally installed or Ruby or anything. I lock down power shell and shell script as well.... I'm okay with those because there's no reason for a user to need permissions for it. So they just don't get it. I've had a few exceptions. But what I do is give them a program that sends a command to a different account on the terminal server and THAT account has permissions... and that account executes the command.
Sorry if I sound crazy.... It is my job to make inherently insecure systems secure. And frankly Java fucking annoys me.
Imagine if all you knew about Cinema was the occasional trailer for a Michael Bay movie. Lets say you never actually watched movies. Ever. lets say all you knew was the trailers.
Cinema would be crap right?
Okay lets say all you knew about literature was whatever was in the airport book stand. That is what you thought books were. A collection of romance novels, spy thrillers, self help books, and other assorted shit.
Literature would be crap as well, no?
The first mistake this little twat made was in suggesting that game makers are not real artists. Anyone that has seen the work put into character design, modeling the various objects, creating the sound effects, etc... there are lots of artists in gaming and they're as good or better than the artists in other industries.
The second mistake he made was projecting HIS desires for what gaming should be without understanding what gaming is already. He probably wants the equivalent of art house movies in games. What he doesn't grasp is that first we already have those and second just like in film they're not very popular because they either are only of interest to a small demographic or they are outright boring. If its wrong for me to judge all movies by Michael Bay movies then where does this fuck come off thinking he can judge all games by grand thief auto etc?
And it was upon seeing this second error that I just rolled my eyes and stopped reading. If the man wants to talk about gaming then he can sit down and learn something about it. He knows nothing.
Surely you jest?
http://www.eksobionics.com/
That's one of the nicer ones... there are a lot of other ones by other companies.
The big tip off is that it is "Russia" making this... sorry if this sounds bigoted... but when was the last time they innovated anything? Here you're going to say Sputnik or something. Even if I accepted that... that was one example and decades ago.
HALF the patents in the last 100 years came out of the United States. Half.
So what am I saying? I'm saying that of course we have an exeskelleton on the market. Of course we do.
I don't see the reply as being immature.
Again, you're projecting your culture on me. You think I am breaking one of YOUR cultural taboos by swearing. And in your mind the only way I could be doing that is if I were so emotionally distressed that I can't control myself.
What I just told you is that I'm not trying to control myself. There's no need for an emotion to break through a taboo... I don't believe in the taboo in the first place and especially not in the context of an internet forum.
If I see a fucktard... I call him a fucktard. I don't need to feel anything. There is no cultural barrier I have to overcome.
1. Lets say politicians on both sides use it... how does that back up a position that this isn't a highly politicized issue with a lot of spin? It doesn't. Which means giving me spin just makes your article look like advocacy from side X instead the only thing that has any value in this situation which is the cold hard science.
2. As to making more money polluting than not... not in the first world. And it is only in the first world where AGW politics are even relevant. Companies in China and India are not being restrained and that is where the money polluting is being made. Are the people pushing AGW and carbon credits talking about putting trade barriers with countries that don't play ball as well? i haven't seen it. Mostly it is internal to the first world. And simply employing cap and trade in the first world will do nothing. What is more, the grant money etc for the big companies is far larger than you realize. Do you want me to pull up the figures? Who do you think is building the wind mills and solar farms and LED bulbs and all that shit?
The corps are making a MINT off AGW.
3. The grant money the universities get from pro AGW grants so radically dwarfs what they get for anti AGW grants as to not be worth mentioning. That's like saying dogs sometimes drive cars. Sure... Like... one maybe... in a circus.
4. As to the UN not needing the AGW issue... that's not what the UN believes. They put a lot of energy into this and see it as a way to gain political power outside of the security council... that is... beyond the politics of the US, Russia, China, UK, and France.
5. As to little countries complaining about stuff and wanting money, you're an idiot if you think they wouldn't be asking for money regardless and you're even dumber if you think they're poor and backward because of AGW. See... I can make insults too... fucktard.
6. As to justifying protectionism... if you think only the republicans want it then you know nothing of US politics. Certain factions within both the republicans and democrats want protectionism for different reasons.
I love that the Republicans are the universal demon for progressive robots like you. The republicans somehow are the party of evil 100 dollar smoking business interests that want to destroy the world... AND you think republicans are all for protectionism.
The business interests support or are against protectionism based on where their manufacturing base is and where their primary sales market is... if a business interest is mostly in the US and sells mostly to Americans than it is generally for protectionism. If a company has its manufacturing outside the US or is mostly selling or equally selling to foreign markets then they are generally against protectionism. This bit of complexity is beyond your simple mind though. You see everything in these simplistic talking points that include no context.
I'm not your enemy, child. I'm the sort of adult mentality you need to solve the problems people like you keep making for themselves.
... I know I know, but with the idea of everyone driving their home on large battery banks and our cars on large battery banks... gaining some logistical independence on the issue might be a good idea especially when the damn batteries are expensive, wear out quickly, etc.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s...
I cite that just because its funny and underscores what is going on.
You have some people saying reasonable things and talking about the science. And then you have dumb journalists running around like chickens with their heads cut off... collecting the most extreme quotes they possibly can to get the most insane headlines.
I'm not interested in the alarmism and I'm not alone. Millions are just tuning it out. I think that political tactic and media tactic has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Moving forward, I'd just like the science... with full acknowledgment of the uncertainties and no attempt to advocate for any given solution.
Just give me the information. Bias the results to try and get a panic reaction out of me and there's a good chance I'll spot it and then rather than convince me, I'll just distrust your paper.
I'm not anti environmental improvement. However, I'd like that improvement to be more than a ploy. There are a lot of alterior motives in this issue at this point.
1. The politicians can use it as a weapon. Al Gore didn't get into this for nothing.
2. The corporations love it because they get massive pork spending for green projects. The money going to GE etc for this stuff was unheard of before the AGW issue.
3. The Universities get too much grant money to not want to keep the fire burning on this issue. The issue cools and the grant money falls off with it.
4. The UN sees the issue as a means to political relevance outside the security council.
5. Various little countries can use the issue to justify demands for aid. The "help us because of colonialism" etc has sort of worn off. Help us because AGW is relevant.
6. The AGW issue can be used to justify protectionist policies against East Asian economies in China and India.
It goes on and on and on and on and on. So... I just want the science without the politics and the advocacy and the lobbying and the gaslighting and the endless fucking pathos.
1. I've never seen it. Every Java program I've handled has been slower.
2. I've never seen it. I've used a lot of java programs and they've always been slower than C/C+ etc programs of similar nature and complexity.
3b. I've noticed the memory issue. I've also noticed a lot of java programs seem to have a hard time going beyond 1GB of ram. I'm sure there is a way to make them do that but... I've had to screw around with work arounds more than a few times to deal with that issue.
As to your claim that it isn't slower if it has enough memory... That's not my experience. I'm sure I could get you testimonials and links to people talking about Java being slow. But I rather suspect you won't listen to it or will say it is invalid for some reason.
I've got no problem with java on simple things but when java programs start getting really complicated I frequently find them to frustrating. I think part of the problem is the java libaries. A java program coded for one doesn't seem to behave the same way if given a newer version sometimes. And that's one of the more irritating things about Java that I have to fix on a regular basis. Making sure all the java applets have the EXACT version of java they're supposed to have. And when that becomes problematic the java applets have to be recoded.
We have less bullshit to deal with the compiled programs. They just "work" more reliably.
You are clouding the issue now.
I am schooled in rhetoric... these stalling tactics designed to reach a stalemate are of no interest.
You can either address my argument or I will be able to claim your concession on each evaded point by default.
I anticipate your will not change your tactics and will attempt to defend the evasion. If you do this... I'll simply stop talking to you in this thread accepting your concession by default.
You will argue against this... but so too does a stuck pig struggle. You will respond to my point or you will have conceded.
Its checkmate. You either lose by virtue of being wrong and crushed by a superior argument or lose by evading and conceding the positions by default.
Game over.
Lots of these things have been on the market for ages... I mean... company in X country starts work on product that is already in the market and offers nothing new on the existing concept? ... Just saying.
I've never used a Java program had equivalent performance to a similar compiled program.
Just my experience. And in that context, I have a hard time respecting the idea of lots of java nonsense on the android. Maybe I'm being unfair. But I've found Java to be more of a problem over the years than a solution. It starts out as a nice thing. Its easy to develop something in Java and easy to tweak and fix stuff. But it has limitations.
I know they think citing anger is an insult because they cite it in a derogatory context.
It would be how you'd know the difference between someone saying someone is short is an insult versus saying someone is short simply as an observation.
As to fallacies, outright false. By the context, the assertion where there is no hostility to even misrepresent, and the constant repetition by critical elements we can see it is not meant merely as an observation but is intended as a negative quality they are assigning to my behavior.
Are you presuming to say that they are saying my supposed anger is of neutral value or that it is positive?
You can't.
It is clearly meant as a negative judgment. And as I said, it is asserted that I am angry in posts such as this one where it is frankly impossible to say that I am angry in this post...
What is misrepresented as anger is typically insults, foul language, or a dismissive attitude.
Calling someone a moron doesn't mean I'm angry with them. You don't need to be angry with someone to insult them or to express a negative opinion. Were this not the case then all criticism of me would be from angry people.
Are you angry? To quote the trolls... "U Mad Bro?"
And that quote right there further underscores that suggesting someone is angry is a common troll tactic/insult/victory cry. To pretend ignorance of that is not credible.
I could go on, but why? Its patiently obvious you've got nothing and will be unable and unwilling to actually defend your position.
If I have any great weakness it is that I explain myself too much and I argue points too honestly. People like you presume to exploit that... asking stupid questions... making stupid comments... you presume to waste my time and wear me down or frustrate me.
As I said, I'm hyper rational... your tactics don't work on me. They'd work on you... but our minds don't work the same way. My emotional framework is something you lack the mental flexibility to contemplate. The fact that you'll interpreter as a boast or put down is further emblematic of our difference. Were I you... I'd not take it that way. But you will.
Talking to people like you is akin to communicating with animals... if they were intelligent enough to talk. Our instincts and emotional frameworks are different. The things that will annoy a cat won't annoy a horse or vice versa. And a human being of course has their own frame work. I am not insulting you. You are very normal. I am not. Your entire display means about as much to me as a chimp strutting around waving his arms in the air to make himself look bigger. Its meaningless to me. I know what you intend to convey... it simply has no meaning to me besides an intellectual awareness of your intentions.
I think we may have a cultural issue then. In my culture people call other people dog shit without needing to be angry or out of control.
You might be presuming your cultural norms and projecting them on me. I suppose you might be thinking that I am restrained by cultural taboos that require me to be polite to people. And if I am impolite it means that I am so emotionally out of control that I can't control myself.
What you do not understand is that I am not trying to control myself. I call people shitheads with the same emotional content that you use to breath. It has no emotional content. Its just an opinion.
Lets say we were talking about a given type of food and you said "I don't like that food, I prefer X"... are you mad? You dismissed possibly an entire culinary tradition that millions of people could hold as very important to their society.
You don't need to be angry to think something is shit. I think you know that.
Where the confusion might be is that you think I need to be upset to say someone is shit. I don't. I "think it" and then I "say it". There's no need to get mad to over come an arbitary cultural barrier that I don't observe... especially on line.
In person, I conduct myself one way. In professional settings with superiors I conduct myself another way. When I engage with subordinates I conduct myself a different way... etc.
Every code of conduct is contextual. In this environment I have no reason to observe any code of conduct besides what I find most pleasing to myself. Its sort of like taking your shoes off and walking around your house without any pants... and possibly without underwear.
Am I a pervert because I walk around my home in underwear? Nope. Neither am I angry when I dismiss someone as a piece of shit on the internet.
As to angry posts that you feel someone about to go postal would make. Please cite one. I'd like to see what you consider "postal" warnings.