I know, right? "Fickle", despite being the word I've been using, really doesn't capture the absurdity of cancelling a subscription after two days. I can't wrap my head around that either. That's like cancelling an HBO subscription on Tuesday because there hasn't been a new Game of Thrones since Sunday (when in season of course). Or not wanting to watch next week's Simpsons because, well, it's been a whole week since the last one, who can remember what the show's about?
And I sure don't think it's because you or I don't understand how subscribing to things works.
Maybe this is something network programming execs have known for a long time and solved in a way streamers should take note of - reruns. Setup an automated "Best of" playlist and take a frikkin vacation.
Well, I'd be pretty shocked if taking the weekend off cost me 40,000 customers. That said, I think he's discovering why celebrities can be so desperate to remain in the public spotlight. The entertainment biz is rough. Fickle and demanding.
You know the old saying, "if you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life"? It's a lie. You're still going to have to work your ass off, maybe more than you would otherwise. You just won't mind as much as you would if you didn't like your job.
YouTube "celebrities" are just discovering something that everyone else in the entertainment industry has always known - it's incredibly demanding and much harder than it looks. Audiences are fickle, and you are at their mercy.
Interpretive rape and pillage was the SMS of the 10th century. If you wanted to send someone a brief message, you'd hire a band of Vikings to communicate it through the subtle nuances of their raids.
I'm just wondering how people are thinking when they answer these questions. Maybe the reason teens would rather text their friend than see them in person is that it would be such a hassle to get Dad to drive them over to their friend's house just to call them a turdmonger when it only takes a second to do so via text.
Seriously, what prior art wasn't there? My iPhone has had the feature for I don't know how long, plus there's things like voicemail. Or emailing sound files. Recording a sound clip and sending it to someone is such a basic concept that I don't see how anyone could have done it in such a novel way that it was worth a patent.
Slow growth, high unemployment, expensive energy and past-peak oil? What world are they describing? Because it isn't this one.
The report doesn't indicate that Capitalism is doomed, it's an attempt to argue that it should be. It makes claims that range from the unreasonable to plain 'ol counter-factual. The basic premise of the piece, that we're moving to more expensive energy sources so we have to upend our basic understanding of economics, is prima facie nonsense. Not just because they go on to describe how fossil fuel based energy is more expensive than electric bills suggest, which contradicts everything else, but because it fails to account for the rapid decline in the cost of alternative/renewable energy (thanks to Capitalism) and general increase in efficiency.
From the article, some sort of vaguely Socialist central authority.
Oh, and the "somehow" in your quote is, "by setting the nasty people against each other so that they are forced to keep each other's nasty motives in check".
There are also treaties to consider. There was a famous case where people in a midwestern State were hunting a migratory bird that was illegal to shoot in Canada. We had a treaty with Canada that included rules for hunting game that crossed borders, so the Court said, "Sorry State, treaties are the supreme law of the land so Canada wins." Yes, "supreme law of the land". A treaty could even override the Constitution.
Yup, autocrats love telling people they won't be silenced, and derive great pleasure from ensuring the people retain the capacity to resist or even dissolve the government should it become destructive to the ends for which governments are created.
Take a look to see if you can find when in American history it was illegal to make your own guns. I don't think you'll find it. Hell, when I was a kid growing up in New York, someone got my dad what was basically a "build your own gun" kit for Christmas. This was before the internet.
I replaced almost every bulb in my house a couple of years ago and haven't had a single one go out since. Of course, now that I've said this, I'll probably get home to find all but one have exploded.
This; "consumer savings of up to 112 pound ($144) a year from the switchover because LEDs last much longer than halogens and use far less power", means the market will drive out most halogens on its own. A legislative ban will probably end up making things worse.
Just because the lawyer's motivation may be profit doesn't mean that their action doesn't benefit the collective good. Class action suits are how consumers punish powerful private organizations like big corporations. They are a deterrent against bad behavior and a means for justice. The greatest direct financial benefit may go to the lawyer, but the benefits reaped by society-as-whole outweigh it by a wide margin. A bargain really.
I know, it sounds bad when you put it that way. It's hardly a perfect system, but these cases can take ten, twenty years to litigate and may represent the bulk of a lawyer's career. Since winning is not guaranteed and the lawyer's payment is contingent on it, the potential payout has to be rather significant to justify the risk.
In the end, class action suits are a way for consumers (or society as whole, depending how you look at it) to punish companies for bad behavior. For society (and perhaps the individual plaintiffs), the punitive aspect of the judgement is more important than the payout and the cost of prosecution, thus the cost of justice, is the lawyer's fee.
The article talks almost exclusively about stock options. Since the value of stock is based upon the value of the company the CEO is running, their compensation is derived almost entirely from their performance. Tomorrow, their stock options could be worth nothing; all they have to do is screw up.
But, if you're really bothered by it, how about making stock options part of every employee's compensation package?
I say there is no such thing because of what words mean. Fascism is a specific form of government, it is not a general complaint about authority. That there is authority over you does not mean there is Fascism.
Mussolini famously stated that "Fascism is Corporatism", and as he invented it he would know. However, Corporatism has nothing to do with corporations beyond a shared etymological root.
National Socialism is Fascistic. It is part of the same movement of political philosophy. It was never, in any way "corporate". Corporate Fascism would mean Corporations are in charge of the state, yet in Fascism nothing can be above the state. As Mussolini also said, “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Thus any corporation must be within the state, and that which is within can never be above as that would entail separation.
Going through the posts it became clear that nobody in favor of Socialism, nor many of those opposing it, knows what the word means. Ditto for Capitalism and Corporatism.
Socialism is not government providing some services. It is "public" (aka, government) control of ALL means of production. This necessarily includes all resources for production, like labor.
It is not "single-payer healthcare", nor is it European-style Democratic Socialism (which is entirely Capitalist, but with more services). Democracy and Socialism are fundamentally incompatible. Marx was right about the inseparability of political and economic systems. To deny the people the right to make economic decisions is to deny them the right to make political decisions. To concentrate economic authority is to concentrate political authority.
Communism is a modified form of Socialism. It essentially is Socialism with the goal of becoming an anarchic utopia. As that is a practical and theoretical impossibility, there is little effective difference.
Capitalism is private control of the means of production, generally operated for profit. Unlike Socialism or Communism, it does not seek to change human nature or avoid it's more inconvenient aspects. Capitalism accepts humanities flaws and uses them. It sets greed against greed, and cheaters against cheaters so that they must establish fair rules to protect themselves from each other and thus each other from themselves. Unlike Socialism or Communism, it uses self interest instead of trying to supplant it. It is not perfect, but never claims to be. It has within it both the room and the means for improvement.
Corporatism is not corporations running everything. That is Corporatocracy (which is entirely theoretical so far). Corporatism is a decision making process involving government and industry stakeholders (businesses and labor). It predates Capitalism (in the form of guilds), and has been used by Capitalist, Socialist and Fascist systems.
China is not Capitalist. It is a Socialist dictatorship that allows for semi-private enterprise.
Socialism cannot make people more free. It will reduce the number of decisions people have to make, the number of things they have to pay for directly, and the number of responsibilities they have, but this is not freedom. If it were, none would be more free than the slave.
Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned.
Corporatism (modern) is the practice of making economic policy decisions through formal 3-way negotiations between government, businesses and labor. Usually broken up by industry, so auto manufacturers would sit down with their employees and government representatives to work out rules for the auto industry.
The term for a system where corporations control government is "Corporatocracy".
Slashdot Mirror
And I sure don't think it's because you or I don't understand how subscribing to things works.
Maybe this is something network programming execs have known for a long time and solved in a way streamers should take note of - reruns. Setup an automated "Best of" playlist and take a frikkin vacation.
Well, I'd be pretty shocked if taking the weekend off cost me 40,000 customers. That said, I think he's discovering why celebrities can be so desperate to remain in the public spotlight. The entertainment biz is rough. Fickle and demanding.
YouTube "celebrities" are just discovering something that everyone else in the entertainment industry has always known - it's incredibly demanding and much harder than it looks. Audiences are fickle, and you are at their mercy.
Interpretive rape and pillage was the SMS of the 10th century. If you wanted to send someone a brief message, you'd hire a band of Vikings to communicate it through the subtle nuances of their raids.
I'm just wondering how people are thinking when they answer these questions. Maybe the reason teens would rather text their friend than see them in person is that it would be such a hassle to get Dad to drive them over to their friend's house just to call them a turdmonger when it only takes a second to do so via text.
Are you trying to tell me Dan for Mayor isn't funny?
Seriously, what prior art wasn't there? My iPhone has had the feature for I don't know how long, plus there's things like voicemail. Or emailing sound files. Recording a sound clip and sending it to someone is such a basic concept that I don't see how anyone could have done it in such a novel way that it was worth a patent.
He was arrested, arraigned, but then allowed to leave the country while the investigation is ongoing? Whatever happened to, "don't leave town"?
As a comparison, http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/...
The report doesn't indicate that Capitalism is doomed, it's an attempt to argue that it should be. It makes claims that range from the unreasonable to plain 'ol counter-factual. The basic premise of the piece, that we're moving to more expensive energy sources so we have to upend our basic understanding of economics, is prima facie nonsense. Not just because they go on to describe how fossil fuel based energy is more expensive than electric bills suggest, which contradicts everything else, but because it fails to account for the rapid decline in the cost of alternative/renewable energy (thanks to Capitalism) and general increase in efficiency.
What do you think Fascism is? And relative to what?
Oh, and the "somehow" in your quote is, "by setting the nasty people against each other so that they are forced to keep each other's nasty motives in check".
There are also treaties to consider. There was a famous case where people in a midwestern State were hunting a migratory bird that was illegal to shoot in Canada. We had a treaty with Canada that included rules for hunting game that crossed borders, so the Court said, "Sorry State, treaties are the supreme law of the land so Canada wins." Yes, "supreme law of the land". A treaty could even override the Constitution.
Oh, wait, that's the opposite of what they do.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Take a look to see if you can find when in American history it was illegal to make your own guns. I don't think you'll find it. Hell, when I was a kid growing up in New York, someone got my dad what was basically a "build your own gun" kit for Christmas. This was before the internet.
I replaced almost every bulb in my house a couple of years ago and haven't had a single one go out since. Of course, now that I've said this, I'll probably get home to find all but one have exploded.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Ph...
This; "consumer savings of up to 112 pound ($144) a year from the switchover because LEDs last much longer than halogens and use far less power", means the market will drive out most halogens on its own. A legislative ban will probably end up making things worse.
Other that that, yeah. Makes sense that the best adaptations to environmental conditions are those that require the least energy to maintain.
Just because the lawyer's motivation may be profit doesn't mean that their action doesn't benefit the collective good. Class action suits are how consumers punish powerful private organizations like big corporations. They are a deterrent against bad behavior and a means for justice. The greatest direct financial benefit may go to the lawyer, but the benefits reaped by society-as-whole outweigh it by a wide margin. A bargain really.
In the end, class action suits are a way for consumers (or society as whole, depending how you look at it) to punish companies for bad behavior. For society (and perhaps the individual plaintiffs), the punitive aspect of the judgement is more important than the payout and the cost of prosecution, thus the cost of justice, is the lawyer's fee.
But, if you're really bothered by it, how about making stock options part of every employee's compensation package?
Mussolini famously stated that "Fascism is Corporatism", and as he invented it he would know. However, Corporatism has nothing to do with corporations beyond a shared etymological root.
National Socialism is Fascistic. It is part of the same movement of political philosophy. It was never, in any way "corporate". Corporate Fascism would mean Corporations are in charge of the state, yet in Fascism nothing can be above the state. As Mussolini also said, “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Thus any corporation must be within the state, and that which is within can never be above as that would entail separation.
QED
Socialism is not government providing some services. It is "public" (aka, government) control of ALL means of production. This necessarily includes all resources for production, like labor. It is not "single-payer healthcare", nor is it European-style Democratic Socialism (which is entirely Capitalist, but with more services). Democracy and Socialism are fundamentally incompatible. Marx was right about the inseparability of political and economic systems. To deny the people the right to make economic decisions is to deny them the right to make political decisions. To concentrate economic authority is to concentrate political authority.
Communism is a modified form of Socialism. It essentially is Socialism with the goal of becoming an anarchic utopia. As that is a practical and theoretical impossibility, there is little effective difference.
Capitalism is private control of the means of production, generally operated for profit. Unlike Socialism or Communism, it does not seek to change human nature or avoid it's more inconvenient aspects. Capitalism accepts humanities flaws and uses them. It sets greed against greed, and cheaters against cheaters so that they must establish fair rules to protect themselves from each other and thus each other from themselves. Unlike Socialism or Communism, it uses self interest instead of trying to supplant it. It is not perfect, but never claims to be. It has within it both the room and the means for improvement.
Corporatism is not corporations running everything. That is Corporatocracy (which is entirely theoretical so far). Corporatism is a decision making process involving government and industry stakeholders (businesses and labor). It predates Capitalism (in the form of guilds), and has been used by Capitalist, Socialist and Fascist systems.
China is not Capitalist. It is a Socialist dictatorship that allows for semi-private enterprise.
Socialism cannot make people more free. It will reduce the number of decisions people have to make, the number of things they have to pay for directly, and the number of responsibilities they have, but this is not freedom. If it were, none would be more free than the slave.
Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned.
Corporatism (modern) is the practice of making economic policy decisions through formal 3-way negotiations between government, businesses and labor. Usually broken up by industry, so auto manufacturers would sit down with their employees and government representatives to work out rules for the auto industry.
The term for a system where corporations control government is "Corporatocracy".