"Protip: The USB emblem goes "up". The logo is trademarked, and without it the cables are too frustrating to use. An interesting feat of human engineering indeed."
Except when it doesn't. E.g. on my WD external HD. Unless I turn said HD upside down, in which case the USB logo on the cable is "up" when I plug it in.
What do you need multiple languages for anyway? Java does everything you could want. Java is a powerful, object-orientated, cross-platform language, with fully developed GUIs, such as Swing.
To demonstrate the superiority of Java, I can point to such leaders in their field as Eclipse, Minecraft, and this awesome applet I saw on someone's homepage once.
Anyone still using ancient and difficult to use languages such as C++ (let alone C!) are obviously crazy, and probably should be committed for their own good before they go on spree of shooting (not just themselves, but) other people in the foot. Java makes it almost impossible to shoot yourself, let alone others, in the foot.
Moreover, because Java is licensed under the GNU GPL, you can leverage the wisdom of crowds, and the powerful "many eyes make bugs shallow" concept to be confident that Java is the best.
And with just-in-time, Java is as fast as any other language, so you don't have to worry about the speed of execution. Instead, you can focus on developer time, and Java's just faster in that regard.
With built-in, from the ground up, support for Unicode, Java is there for the future, and is ready to be used across the multiverse (as soon as those aliens get their scripts into Unicode). Beat that C, with your lack of a string type.
And if you aren't convinced, tell me why do so many top enterprises use this language? You don't see ads from Fortune 500 companies looking for Ruby "developers" do you?
This is a great example of where copyright helps to encourage authors to write more. The fact that this copy has been leaked, and pirated massively means that Salinger has no incentive to write any more! We need to punish the perpetrators thoroughly.
Except that banknotes were and are used in exchange, instead of "official" money. In effect, they become money. When I can exchange a banknote for goods and services, and then the receiver exchanges that same note for other goods and services, etc., why would you still insist that it's not money, when it's playing that very role?
The problem with banknotes is that they can be easily lost or destroyed. E.g. I washed my trousers, and lost $200 that I had forgotten about! The notes just turned to pulp! And then, I was just willy nilly throwing some scrap paper in the fire, and bam! I threw in another $200! Just like that. I'm amazed the average person uses banknotes with their usually ability to keep things safe.
What is money if not basically a promissory device? I promise to give you a certain amount of goods and services.
Moreover, different bank notes were worth different amounts. You might have a bank note from The Bank of Here with $5 on it, a bank note from The Bank of There with $5 on it, and a note from The Bank of Nowhere with $5. But, actually, a shopkeeper might not trust the Bank of Nowhere, and think that the Bank of There is too far away, and so will only provide $3 and $4 worth of goods respectively for the two $5 notes. So, three Bank of Here $5 notes might be worth 5 Bank of Nowhere $5 notes, and four Bank of Here $5 for five Bank of There notes.
Moreover, even if bitcoin fails as a currency, it still works very very well as a means of money transfer. Which is one of the reasons I support it. Paypal takes a large chunk of any money transfered, Visa and Mastecard take a large chunk, etc. All can (and have) cut off payments to undesirables. Etc. There are so many issues with centralized payment processors.
Bitcoin though, is brilliant. Being decentralized, it is strongly resistant to attempts to prevent donations going to "undesirables". The fee charged is a small percentage of that the major companies charge (and is not even required at the moment, as most miners will still process transactions without a fee). Etc.
And, if you don't keep your money in bitcoin (which does mean you have to trust a thirdparty "exchange"), you don't have to worry about exchange rates either. Just have the bitcoin changed directly to the currency of your choice, and withdrawn immediately from the exchange.
Also, obviously this economist doesn't know enough about bitcoin to pass judgement. It is not an anonymous currency, at most it is pseudonymous. And, just as obviously, this economist doesn't know about history. As an AC has already said, private currencies were very popular before the 20thC. Around the world.
Eh. All I did was abduct one little dog, slaughter it (throat cut, hung to bleed out, etc.) and turn it into one of the best meals of the century. It wasn't like I took your kid or anything. It's no worse than eating pig or beef. Honestly.
Your dog, that wasn't ET. That was me. Don't worry, no hybrids were made. But Smokey did make a damn fine stew. Ah, that was one of the more memorable meals in my life, it was so good.
I wish I hadn't lost the recipe, it's been bugging me for years now. I've tried to recreate that stew, but I just haven't managed. Anyway, thanks for the yummy dog.
What can I say, I'm an anarchist. I believe you can blow up a social relationship. Just put all the politicians and business "leaders" in a room together, and blow it (and them) up.
That might not be important for you. But other aspects of the system could be. E.g. take an A3, you can put two A4 pages exactly on it. Also, you can blow up an A4 page, to A3 and keep the exact dimensions. Or, blow down an A4 page to A5, and keep the exact dimensions. There are so many benefits from the system, even if you don't use them all. I like printing two pages to a sheet, it saves paper. Because I use A4 size sheets, I can fit exactly two pages of a document. Nice.
I'm here. Obviously everything is better with me around. Examples include: 1./. 2. Sex 3. Candy 4. Magick 5. Magic 6. Your sexual organs 7. Your SO's sexual organs (and/or the person who you wish was your SO)
Exactly. Oh, you don't like the government, why don't you just move? Well, it's really really simple: there's no place with no government. Moreover, why should I leave? Why shouldn't I fight to make this place better?
In conclusion, anyone who gives that argument is a moron, and/or someone with an agenda (and one that isn't likely to be good for most).
I didn't realize that Afghanistan had nukes. I thought (of the countries in that region) only India, China, Pakistan and Russia had nukes.
But, there are at least three scenarios involving just two of those countries. China has border issues with both Russia and India. India and Pakistan also have their issues.;)
I was aiming for plus five funny. I don't seriously believe there is such a thing as a free market by and large. There maybe small temporary autonomous markets, that operate freely. But in this "capitalist" system (by which, the capitalists rule, and destroy free markets because they interfere with the process of getting rich), there are no big ones.
Also, I do support the idea, in this present system of capitalism, markets, and large government, which is not the best system by far, of taxing at 100% income over a certain level. Which would neatly negate the high levels of income for those CEOs.
I was attempting to write a parody (and I didn't even think it was very good), so as to invoke Poe's Law, but with the final line to make it obvious that I wasn't quite serious. But I guess people didn't read that last line...
Bah, the Swiss proposal goes too far. It's really simple. Let CEOs earn what they can. And it is earn, they make or break companies! All this talk of limiting their wages, is disgusting.
No. I've a far better idea. Don't have any limit on what anyone can earn. Let all earn what they can and will. Let the free market sort it out. Far more sensible.
And, to sort out the issues, let's just tax at 100% any earnings more than 5 times the minimum wage.
You've got a strange name there Mr 666. You trying to be edgy or something? But I can't help but think that you're not a nice person, whenever I see your name I get all upset.
Interesting. Thanks for the response. So, communism is defined by the lack of property rights and the collective ownership of property? If property is defined as those things that are not for personal use, then I see your point (though I think that the definition is still too simplistic).
Let's look at the USA. The USA must be communist! Why? Because large chunks of the economy are owned by the collective (one or other level of the government). This is not just land, roads, and institutions (e.g. libraries), but also whole companies (e.g General Motors). Moreover, the government can take property off others almost whenever they want! Sure there is something about just and fair compensation in the constitution, but who ever reads that anyway?
"Property rights in China are inconsistently enforced and they basically don't exist in Vietnam, Cuba or North Korea." LOL, citation please. No matter how you define property, I would suggest the situation in those countries is no worse than it is in the USA. In China, there are flourishing companies, manufacturing all sorts of things. They don't get taken over by the government, or by gangs of other thugs any more than they do in the USA. I can't speak for Vietnam, but I'm pretty sure the situation for personal property is no worse than anywhere else. Cuba is the closest of the four (as far as I know) to the "communist" ideal, but even there people own stuff, and it won't be taken from them any more than it would across the water in the USA. North Korea is just a crazy feudalistic monarchy. C.f. with various other feudal monarchies from centuries ago. That's not communist.
"Intellectual property" is a meaningless term, and for most of what is called "intellectual property", is dependent on government enforcement to ensure that it even exists. Trademarks are about the only aspect that I don't believe does not require systematic government intervention to enforce. Copyright requires governments, to enforce. Patents require governments. Moreover, there are many "capitalists" who would argue that both copyright and patents are not capitalistic at all, as they do require governments interfering in the free market (by providing artificial monopolies in certain areas).
"Property rights can't truly exist without a fair and impartial judicial system to recognize and arbitrate property rights. China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba do not have a stable judicial system that allows for legitimate judicial rulings over property case law." Funny. I currently live in a country where the judicial system is very poor. Yet, I'm sure that you would suggest it is a capitalist country. Because property exists. Also, I'd really appreciate some more info, preferably including links to where the info came from.
----
In conclusion: Your definition of communist is insufficient. Moreover, it is at odds with the one that is actually used by most communists, and by most political scientists and philosophers. (Classless, stateless society, where the means of production are held in common, and which operates on the principle (or something similar) of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" (where ability is variously defined).) Your definition also could
Slashdot Mirror
"Protip: The USB emblem goes "up". The logo is trademarked, and without it the cables are too frustrating to use. An interesting feat of human engineering indeed."
Except when it doesn't. E.g. on my WD external HD. Unless I turn said HD upside down, in which case the USB logo on the cable is "up" when I plug it in.
What do you need multiple languages for anyway? Java does everything you could want. Java is a powerful, object-orientated, cross-platform language, with fully developed GUIs, such as Swing.
To demonstrate the superiority of Java, I can point to such leaders in their field as Eclipse, Minecraft, and this awesome applet I saw on someone's homepage once.
Anyone still using ancient and difficult to use languages such as C++ (let alone C!) are obviously crazy, and probably should be committed for their own good before they go on spree of shooting (not just themselves, but) other people in the foot. Java makes it almost impossible to shoot yourself, let alone others, in the foot.
Moreover, because Java is licensed under the GNU GPL, you can leverage the wisdom of crowds, and the powerful "many eyes make bugs shallow" concept to be confident that Java is the best.
And with just-in-time, Java is as fast as any other language, so you don't have to worry about the speed of execution. Instead, you can focus on developer time, and Java's just faster in that regard.
With built-in, from the ground up, support for Unicode, Java is there for the future, and is ready to be used across the multiverse (as soon as those aliens get their scripts into Unicode). Beat that C, with your lack of a string type.
And if you aren't convinced, tell me why do so many top enterprises use this language? You don't see ads from Fortune 500 companies looking for Ruby "developers" do you?
This is a great example of where copyright helps to encourage authors to write more. The fact that this copy has been leaked, and pirated massively means that Salinger has no incentive to write any more! We need to punish the perpetrators thoroughly.
Fooking English, they they are the ancient enemy! We'll never surrender our kilts!
Except that banknotes were and are used in exchange, instead of "official" money. In effect, they become money. When I can exchange a banknote for goods and services, and then the receiver exchanges that same note for other goods and services, etc., why would you still insist that it's not money, when it's playing that very role?
The problem with banknotes is that they can be easily lost or destroyed. E.g. I washed my trousers, and lost $200 that I had forgotten about! The notes just turned to pulp! And then, I was just willy nilly throwing some scrap paper in the fire, and bam! I threw in another $200! Just like that. I'm amazed the average person uses banknotes with their usually ability to keep things safe.
"He's either a total idiot or a propaganda puppet."
Come now, come now. Surely he can be both.
What is money if not basically a promissory device? I promise to give you a certain amount of goods and services.
Moreover, different bank notes were worth different amounts. You might have a bank note from The Bank of Here with $5 on it, a bank note from The Bank of There with $5 on it, and a note from The Bank of Nowhere with $5. But, actually, a shopkeeper might not trust the Bank of Nowhere, and think that the Bank of There is too far away, and so will only provide $3 and $4 worth of goods respectively for the two $5 notes. So, three Bank of Here $5 notes might be worth 5 Bank of Nowhere $5 notes, and four Bank of Here $5 for five Bank of There notes.
Moreover, even if bitcoin fails as a currency, it still works very very well as a means of money transfer. Which is one of the reasons I support it. Paypal takes a large chunk of any money transfered, Visa and Mastecard take a large chunk, etc. All can (and have) cut off payments to undesirables. Etc. There are so many issues with centralized payment processors.
Bitcoin though, is brilliant. Being decentralized, it is strongly resistant to attempts to prevent donations going to "undesirables". The fee charged is a small percentage of that the major companies charge (and is not even required at the moment, as most miners will still process transactions without a fee). Etc.
And, if you don't keep your money in bitcoin (which does mean you have to trust a thirdparty "exchange"), you don't have to worry about exchange rates either. Just have the bitcoin changed directly to the currency of your choice, and withdrawn immediately from the exchange.
Also, obviously this economist doesn't know enough about bitcoin to pass judgement. It is not an anonymous currency, at most it is pseudonymous. And, just as obviously, this economist doesn't know about history. As an AC has already said, private currencies were very popular before the 20thC. Around the world.
Eh. All I did was abduct one little dog, slaughter it (throat cut, hung to bleed out, etc.) and turn it into one of the best meals of the century. It wasn't like I took your kid or anything. It's no worse than eating pig or beef. Honestly.
Your dog, that wasn't ET. That was me. Don't worry, no hybrids were made. But Smokey did make a damn fine stew. Ah, that was one of the more memorable meals in my life, it was so good.
I wish I hadn't lost the recipe, it's been bugging me for years now. I've tried to recreate that stew, but I just haven't managed. Anyway, thanks for the yummy dog.
What can I say, I'm an anarchist. I believe you can blow up a social relationship. Just put all the politicians and business "leaders" in a room together, and blow it (and them) up.
I got an X230 Tablet, and it works fine with Ubuntu 12.04. natch.
That might not be important for you. But other aspects of the system could be. E.g. take an A3, you can put two A4 pages exactly on it. Also, you can blow up an A4 page, to A3 and keep the exact dimensions. Or, blow down an A4 page to A5, and keep the exact dimensions. There are so many benefits from the system, even if you don't use them all.
I like printing two pages to a sheet, it saves paper. Because I use A4 size sheets, I can fit exactly two pages of a document. Nice.
For some people, it's the only clit they'll ever touch...
Personally, I do quite like my Lenevo X230 (with all the options maxed out). It should last me another five years at least.
I'm here. Obviously everything is better with me around. Examples include: /.
1.
2. Sex
3. Candy
4. Magick
5. Magic
6. Your sexual organs
7. Your SO's sexual organs (and/or the person who you wish was your SO)
Exactly. Oh, you don't like the government, why don't you just move? Well, it's really really simple: there's no place with no government.
Moreover, why should I leave? Why shouldn't I fight to make this place better?
In conclusion, anyone who gives that argument is a moron, and/or someone with an agenda (and one that isn't likely to be good for most).
I didn't realize that Afghanistan had nukes. I thought (of the countries in that region) only India, China, Pakistan and Russia had nukes.
But, there are at least three scenarios involving just two of those countries. China has border issues with both Russia and India. India and Pakistan also have their issues. ;)
I was aiming for plus five funny. I don't seriously believe there is such a thing as a free market by and large. There maybe small temporary autonomous markets, that operate freely. But in this "capitalist" system (by which, the capitalists rule, and destroy free markets because they interfere with the process of getting rich), there are no big ones.
Also, I do support the idea, in this present system of capitalism, markets, and large government, which is not the best system by far, of taxing at 100% income over a certain level. Which would neatly negate the high levels of income for those CEOs.
I was attempting to write a parody (and I didn't even think it was very good), so as to invoke Poe's Law, but with the final line to make it obvious that I wasn't quite serious. But I guess people didn't read that last line...
Bah, the Swiss proposal goes too far. It's really simple. Let CEOs earn what they can. And it is earn, they make or break companies! All this talk of limiting their wages, is disgusting.
No. I've a far better idea. Don't have any limit on what anyone can earn. Let all earn what they can and will. Let the free market sort it out. Far more sensible.
And, to sort out the issues, let's just tax at 100% any earnings more than 5 times the minimum wage.
Because /. hates you. I can edit posts.
Edit: see?! It's easy if you know how.
You've got a strange name there Mr 666. You trying to be edgy or something? But I can't help but think that you're not a nice person, whenever I see your name I get all upset.
Interesting. Thanks for the response. So, communism is defined by the lack of property rights and the collective ownership of property? If property is defined as those things that are not for personal use, then I see your point (though I think that the definition is still too simplistic).
Let's look at the USA. The USA must be communist! Why? Because large chunks of the economy are owned by the collective (one or other level of the government). This is not just land, roads, and institutions (e.g. libraries), but also whole companies (e.g General Motors). Moreover, the government can take property off others almost whenever they want! Sure there is something about just and fair compensation in the constitution, but who ever reads that anyway?
"Property rights in China are inconsistently enforced and they basically don't exist in Vietnam, Cuba or North Korea."
LOL, citation please. No matter how you define property, I would suggest the situation in those countries is no worse than it is in the USA. In China, there are flourishing companies, manufacturing all sorts of things. They don't get taken over by the government, or by gangs of other thugs any more than they do in the USA.
I can't speak for Vietnam, but I'm pretty sure the situation for personal property is no worse than anywhere else. Cuba is the closest of the four (as far as I know) to the "communist" ideal, but even there people own stuff, and it won't be taken from them any more than it would across the water in the USA. North Korea is just a crazy feudalistic monarchy. C.f. with various other feudal monarchies from centuries ago. That's not communist.
"Intellectual property" is a meaningless term, and for most of what is called "intellectual property", is dependent on government enforcement to ensure that it even exists. Trademarks are about the only aspect that I don't believe does not require systematic government intervention to enforce. Copyright requires governments, to enforce. Patents require governments. Moreover, there are many "capitalists" who would argue that both copyright and patents are not capitalistic at all, as they do require governments interfering in the free market (by providing artificial monopolies in certain areas).
"Property rights can't truly exist without a fair and impartial judicial system to recognize and arbitrate property rights. China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba do not have a stable judicial system that allows for legitimate judicial rulings over property case law."
Funny.
I currently live in a country where the judicial system is very poor. Yet, I'm sure that you would suggest it is a capitalist country. Because property exists. Also, I'd really appreciate some more info, preferably including links to where the info came from.
----
In conclusion: Your definition of communist is insufficient. Moreover, it is at odds with the one that is actually used by most communists, and by most political scientists and philosophers. (Classless, stateless society, where the means of production are held in common, and which operates on the principle (or something similar) of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" (where ability is variously defined).) Your definition also could
Damn it. I got pipped to the post. And by a number of people, a number of minutes before me! I demand a recount.
I've found a set of primes separated by one.
{2,3}
Do I get a Fields Medal for that?
Also, mathematics is awesome. Even if I can't understand it.