Yes. It's called the Standard Template Library. C++ has them and should be used. There's hardly any excuse not to use them, especially now that C++ will get move semantics which can increase performance of the containers by an order of magnitude.
What's to stop a free agent in a free market from getting together with another free agent, and making a deal between them to allow each other to copy each other's stuff? What's to stop this new partnership when, due to their sharing of work, they become more efficient and thus more powerful in the market and in doing so attract other free agents in making similar deals? What's to stop these free agents from turning these agreements into a formal system?
People keep saying "this and this doesn't belong in a free market", but they don't understand that there's nothing stopping them from happening in a free market. If a free market somehow stophttp://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792695&cid=39725917#s free agents from making agreements between each other about copying each other's work, then it's not a free market.
Evolution has the advantage of being dependent on time and space, making mathematical logic completely irrelevant to how nature actually works
That's silly. The GP was just oversimplifying the situation. That mistake hardly makes mathematical logic irrelevant to evolution or nature.
If you had a valid point, what was it?
Valid point? How about the stuff before the bit you quoted? Arsehole.
The fact that the GP mistook the evolutionary arms race as "circular reasoning" and implying that it wasn't true is blatantly trying to using mathematical logic to disprove nature.
No, it's called a positive feedback loop. You know, evolutionary arms race. You know, evolution. Evolution has the advantage of being dependent on time and space, making mathematical logic completely irrelevant to how nature actually works.
The free market isn't free when the laws are purchased.
Yes it is. That's precisely the definition of a free market. The person with the most money are free to do whatever they can. In a free market, buying laws is just another business strategy. Sure, the free market doesn't remain free after that, but, however you like it, it is still permissible in a free market. The crazy thing is people I keep talking to think economics plays by the definitions of terms and never evolves out of a system.
Those 'apex predators' are above the law for a reason - you have removed the law.
News flash: a free market has no laws. You keep arguing for a free market but you still rely on laws. Laws require some kind of enforcement. Any entity that does the enforcement IS a government.
Did you cheer for the Federal reserve? SS? Medicare? EI? Minimum wage?
Australia has most of those things. It's doing better than the US. Face the facts - just because you're piss poor at implementing a system, doesn't mean the system is flawed. Australia is more regulated than the US. It works better - end of story.
I have never worked a minimum wage job, but I like the fact there is a minimum wage because I don't like workers getting abused with the lowest pay an employer can get away with. I like the fact there is medicare because I don't like that people can die simply because they can't afford treatment.
If social programs are "above the law", then why the fuck have any kind of ordered society? What's the point of having a government if its job is not to look after the less privileged? Why the fuck don't we go back to feudal times where it's your fault for being born poor?
Government by definition is not a 'free market' system
Yes, but you're still missing the basic point: a free market devolves into monopolies. Who cares what the definition of a free market is? The only thing that matters is what a free market becomes. A free market is never self sustaining. A government is not a free market, but a government NATURALLY ARISES in a free market. A government is not going to say "oh my god, I'm not part of the definition!" and kill itself. It's doing what any player in a free market does - try to succeed. And eventually someone is going to succeed and destroy the free market.
I prefer to be able to have a coercive monopoly that's within my control
False dichotomy. That's not even one of the options. The coercive monopoly, as you have said, is under the control of the merchants. That's why this is the thing that Libertarians have right. A large government has the power to control YOU. It has the time and energy to snoop on YOU and run YOUR life. We need the smallest federal government that can achieve its proper goals of maintaining the national defense and enabling (notpreventing) interstate commerce.
How is my suggestion a "false dichotomy" if it's not even one the options? The fact that it's not even one of the options is, by definition, NOT a false dichotomy.
Originally, there were two options: coercive monopoly with guns, and coercive monopoly without guns.
I presented a third option: a coercive monopoly which I'm in control of (in theory).
The ones with the false dichotomy are the libertarians. Small government is good, big government is bad. That's two options, and they're both false.
Libertarians don't have anything right. They don't realize that it's not a matter of big or small government. It's about those with the most resources and being able to throw their weight around. If it's not a democratically elected government, then it will be an undemocratically inherited company. One shrinks and another one grows to fill it. There is no magical barrier that prevents it from happening. What libertarians SHOULD be doing is identifying those who actually do have the power and limiting their power, not just attack anything that has the goverrnment label on it.
By getting rid of most of a democratically elected government as much as possible, you basically remove power from the people's hands. What libertarians should realize is rather than getting rid of the common man's last chance at power, they should encourage people to get more involved and informed and making government fulfill its duty.
Under free market system in USA in 19th century the prices were falling.
That is all I need to say to show that your point is completely invalid. Under a monopoly system, prices do not fall, they don't have to. In fact under a monopoly system prices always rise, and monopoly system is always created and maintained by government.
There is no monopoly in free market, economy of scale, even if it is at one point the ONLY player in the market is NOT a monopoly. It means it's the most efficient way for the market to get the products/services in that industry at that point in time. Nobody is standing with GUNS, forcing licenses, laws, taxes, barriers to entry, regulations, providing bail outs, free fake money, stimulus, etc. Everything that gov't does leads to rising nominal prices. The market still fights this by controlling the real value of things, so prices in real money adjust (thus oil is very cheap in terms of gold for example). The gov't creates monopolies, fixes prices and all it does is that it decreases freedoms, decreases quality, decreases choices, increases prices. It also creates underground economy of-course and eventually pushes the economy towards recession and then depression, and that's what you have.
Darwinism is a much better, much fairer system than what you have now - tyranny.
My god, you are so brainwashed it's unbelievable.
Do you know what the first private company that dominated a previously free market was? A government!
What do you think tribal chiefs, all the way to kings and what have you get to become the government? They dominated everyone else because there were no rules. Kings became kings in the ultimate free market. There is nothing in a free market that prevents the rise of kings. You blame the government, but the government is a result of the ultimate free market.
The point you don't understand is that governments didn't happen over night. They didn't just exist out of nothing.
If Darwinism is a much fairer system, then how come you can have apex predators? You're an idiot. In case you didn't notice, nature is not some hippy commune. Where every creature lives in a fairy tale harmony. Nature is the ultimate free market, and monopolies arise naturally there.
Under free market there is only a democratic way to become more powerful - approval of market.
This is stupidly naive. You still don't get it. What happens one one company becomes more powerful than others? There's the beginning of your monopoly! And you still claim monopolies can't happen in a free market. Have you not read anything on Darwinism at all?
First: I don't need to go as far back as tree climbing ancestors, I can point out the 1870 to 1913 time period, when USA became the economic engine of the world, people coming to USA for the least government control, for the most freedom. What do you think 'land of opportunity' means? Lots of government?
There were no regulations of business, no income, payroll, corporate taxes, no such thing as fake money printed by a quasi gov't agency. Not even a real standing army.
Was there money? Was there people who controlled more money than others? Were there people who became crime lords and manipulated trade? Answer: yes to everyone of them. There are no free markets that do not end up with someone becoming more powerful than others.
In the free market you do have power, there are no monopolies in the free market in the first place, it's a huge lie. There are economies of scale, but no monopolies.
Do you know when we last had the absolute free market? When our distant ancestors climbed down from the trees. Do you know what was the first thing to come out of that free market? Government.
The truth is, absolute free markets DO tend towards monopolies. There's no escaping it. There is nothing in a COMPLETELY FREE market that disallows the use of force, or numbers.
If you really think merchants are going to play nice by themselves with no one to force them, you're an idiot.
Libertarians are not the enemy of anyone except Big Brother. Their whole mantra is to leave people to their own devices.
You seem to think Big Business and Big Government are enemies of each other. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are the same, differing only in tiny squabbles which distract voters. The last thing either wants is for people to actually run their own lives and take the corporations to task.
I never said Big Business and Big Government are enemies of each other.
If you actually think the coercive monopoly is going to use their guns to help people battle merchants, you are living in some weird alternate dream world.
And if you think that won't happen if the government disappears tomorrow, you're an idiot.
That's the weirdest thing about Occupy Wall Street. They identify half the problem, corporations out of control, but then they refuse to see the other half, which is Big Brother actively assisting them. They are one and the same, and the government will never do anything to the 1% just because a few 99% rabble camp out in parks and shout for the government to come rescue them. Only individuals taking charge and upsetting BOTH Big Government and Big Business will solve anything.
Note that none of what you said here actually opposes what I ACTUALLY said. What I was responding to was the stupid idea that a person could prefer Big Business rather than Big Government, when they are basically the same. That was my point, but you completely missed it so you can rant about Occupy Wall Street.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it too hard to see that he's not saying...
It is very hard to see when the gp poster refuses to understand.
Why don't you actually read the fucking licence and realize why people still need to "agree" when installing software.
We should stop now while there's still some Sun left.
Too late. The remainder of Sun is too busy suing Google...
Oh well, look on the bright side...
If they put it on my shoulder, I'll be very angry...
They would rather pay more in the future to handle the effects of climate change rather than dealing with it now. Our great grandchildren thanks us.
Global warming will be reduced a bit.
This is what you get when you preach abstinence-only sex education.
This is obviously a warning to keep with TCP and maintain connections.
http://wiki.evageeks.org/Magi So there needs to be three Watsons per city, and giant robots piloted by teenagers to protect them.
Yes. It's called the Standard Template Library. C++ has them and should be used. There's hardly any excuse not to use them, especially now that C++ will get move semantics which can increase performance of the containers by an order of magnitude.
The trainees get tasered.
What's to stop a free agent in a free market from getting together with another free agent, and making a deal between them to allow each other to copy each other's stuff? What's to stop this new partnership when, due to their sharing of work, they become more efficient and thus more powerful in the market and in doing so attract other free agents in making similar deals? What's to stop these free agents from turning these agreements into a formal system?
People keep saying "this and this doesn't belong in a free market", but they don't understand that there's nothing stopping them from happening in a free market. If a free market somehow stophttp://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792695&cid=39725917#s free agents from making agreements between each other about copying each other's work, then it's not a free market.
Evolution has the advantage of being dependent on time and space, making mathematical logic completely irrelevant to how nature actually works
That's silly. The GP was just oversimplifying the situation. That mistake hardly makes mathematical logic irrelevant to evolution or nature.
If you had a valid point, what was it?
Valid point? How about the stuff before the bit you quoted? Arsehole. The fact that the GP mistook the evolutionary arms race as "circular reasoning" and implying that it wasn't true is blatantly trying to using mathematical logic to disprove nature.
No, it's called a positive feedback loop. You know, evolutionary arms race. You know, evolution. Evolution has the advantage of being dependent on time and space, making mathematical logic completely irrelevant to how nature actually works.
Sounds like the ultimate free market.
The free market isn't free when the laws are purchased.
Yes it is. That's precisely the definition of a free market. The person with the most money are free to do whatever they can. In a free market, buying laws is just another business strategy. Sure, the free market doesn't remain free after that, but, however you like it, it is still permissible in a free market. The crazy thing is people I keep talking to think economics plays by the definitions of terms and never evolves out of a system.
Free markets are not self sustaining.
Those 'apex predators' are above the law for a reason - you have removed the law.
News flash: a free market has no laws. You keep arguing for a free market but you still rely on laws. Laws require some kind of enforcement. Any entity that does the enforcement IS a government.
Did you cheer for the Federal reserve? SS? Medicare? EI? Minimum wage?
Australia has most of those things. It's doing better than the US. Face the facts - just because you're piss poor at implementing a system, doesn't mean the system is flawed. Australia is more regulated than the US. It works better - end of story.
I have never worked a minimum wage job, but I like the fact there is a minimum wage because I don't like workers getting abused with the lowest pay an employer can get away with. I like the fact there is medicare because I don't like that people can die simply because they can't afford treatment.
If social programs are "above the law", then why the fuck have any kind of ordered society? What's the point of having a government if its job is not to look after the less privileged? Why the fuck don't we go back to feudal times where it's your fault for being born poor?
Government by definition is not a 'free market' system
Yes, but you're still missing the basic point: a free market devolves into monopolies. Who cares what the definition of a free market is? The only thing that matters is what a free market becomes. A free market is never self sustaining. A government is not a free market, but a government NATURALLY ARISES in a free market. A government is not going to say "oh my god, I'm not part of the definition!" and kill itself. It's doing what any player in a free market does - try to succeed. And eventually someone is going to succeed and destroy the free market.
I prefer to be able to have a coercive monopoly that's within my control
False dichotomy. That's not even one of the options. The coercive monopoly, as you have said, is under the control of the merchants. That's why this is the thing that Libertarians have right. A large government has the power to control YOU. It has the time and energy to snoop on YOU and run YOUR life. We need the smallest federal government that can achieve its proper goals of maintaining the national defense and enabling (not preventing) interstate commerce.
How is my suggestion a "false dichotomy" if it's not even one the options? The fact that it's not even one of the options is, by definition, NOT a false dichotomy.
Originally, there were two options: coercive monopoly with guns, and coercive monopoly without guns.
I presented a third option: a coercive monopoly which I'm in control of (in theory).
The ones with the false dichotomy are the libertarians. Small government is good, big government is bad. That's two options, and they're both false.
Libertarians don't have anything right. They don't realize that it's not a matter of big or small government. It's about those with the most resources and being able to throw their weight around. If it's not a democratically elected government, then it will be an undemocratically inherited company. One shrinks and another one grows to fill it. There is no magical barrier that prevents it from happening. What libertarians SHOULD be doing is identifying those who actually do have the power and limiting their power, not just attack anything that has the goverrnment label on it.
By getting rid of most of a democratically elected government as much as possible, you basically remove power from the people's hands. What libertarians should realize is rather than getting rid of the common man's last chance at power, they should encourage people to get more involved and informed and making government fulfill its duty.
Under free market system in USA in 19th century the prices were falling.
That is all I need to say to show that your point is completely invalid. Under a monopoly system, prices do not fall, they don't have to. In fact under a monopoly system prices always rise, and monopoly system is always created and maintained by government.
There is no monopoly in free market, economy of scale, even if it is at one point the ONLY player in the market is NOT a monopoly. It means it's the most efficient way for the market to get the products/services in that industry at that point in time. Nobody is standing with GUNS, forcing licenses, laws, taxes, barriers to entry, regulations, providing bail outs, free fake money, stimulus, etc. Everything that gov't does leads to rising nominal prices. The market still fights this by controlling the real value of things, so prices in real money adjust (thus oil is very cheap in terms of gold for example). The gov't creates monopolies, fixes prices and all it does is that it decreases freedoms, decreases quality, decreases choices, increases prices. It also creates underground economy of-course and eventually pushes the economy towards recession and then depression, and that's what you have.
Darwinism is a much better, much fairer system than what you have now - tyranny.
My god, you are so brainwashed it's unbelievable. Do you know what the first private company that dominated a previously free market was? A government! What do you think tribal chiefs, all the way to kings and what have you get to become the government? They dominated everyone else because there were no rules. Kings became kings in the ultimate free market. There is nothing in a free market that prevents the rise of kings. You blame the government, but the government is a result of the ultimate free market. The point you don't understand is that governments didn't happen over night. They didn't just exist out of nothing. If Darwinism is a much fairer system, then how come you can have apex predators? You're an idiot. In case you didn't notice, nature is not some hippy commune. Where every creature lives in a fairy tale harmony. Nature is the ultimate free market, and monopolies arise naturally there.
Under free market there is only a democratic way to become more powerful - approval of market.
This is stupidly naive. You still don't get it. What happens one one company becomes more powerful than others? There's the beginning of your monopoly! And you still claim monopolies can't happen in a free market. Have you not read anything on Darwinism at all?
First: I don't need to go as far back as tree climbing ancestors, I can point out the 1870 to 1913 time period, when USA became the economic engine of the world, people coming to USA for the least government control, for the most freedom. What do you think 'land of opportunity' means? Lots of government?
There were no regulations of business, no income, payroll, corporate taxes, no such thing as fake money printed by a quasi gov't agency. Not even a real standing army.
Was there money? Was there people who controlled more money than others? Were there people who became crime lords and manipulated trade? Answer: yes to everyone of them. There are no free markets that do not end up with someone becoming more powerful than others.
In the free market you do have power, there are no monopolies in the free market in the first place, it's a huge lie. There are economies of scale, but no monopolies.
Do you know when we last had the absolute free market? When our distant ancestors climbed down from the trees. Do you know what was the first thing to come out of that free market? Government.
The truth is, absolute free markets DO tend towards monopolies. There's no escaping it. There is nothing in a COMPLETELY FREE market that disallows the use of force, or numbers.
If you really think merchants are going to play nice by themselves with no one to force them, you're an idiot.
Libertarians are not the enemy of anyone except Big Brother. Their whole mantra is to leave people to their own devices.
You seem to think Big Business and Big Government are enemies of each other. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are the same, differing only in tiny squabbles which distract voters. The last thing either wants is for people to actually run their own lives and take the corporations to task.
I never said Big Business and Big Government are enemies of each other.
If you actually think the coercive monopoly is going to use their guns to help people battle merchants, you are living in some weird alternate dream world.
And if you think that won't happen if the government disappears tomorrow, you're an idiot.
That's the weirdest thing about Occupy Wall Street. They identify half the problem, corporations out of control, but then they refuse to see the other half, which is Big Brother actively assisting them. They are one and the same, and the government will never do anything to the 1% just because a few 99% rabble camp out in parks and shout for the government to come rescue them. Only individuals taking charge and upsetting BOTH Big Government and Big Business will solve anything.
Note that none of what you said here actually opposes what I ACTUALLY said. What I was responding to was the stupid idea that a person could prefer Big Business rather than Big Government, when they are basically the same. That was my point, but you completely missed it so you can rant about Occupy Wall Street.