I doubt he would care to do that, because Apple's stock probably won't increase any time soon. The reason Apple saw a YoY revenue decline is because of the so called "peak iphone", and presently 65% of Apple's revenue comes from guess what. Unless by some miracle Apple can reproduce the same growth they've had in the last 10 years (smartphone market is now matured and saturated and is now starting to go through what the PC market is going through, so good luck with that) their stock is only going to decline for the foreseeable future. So yeah, it's a good time to get out of Apple.
Apple doesn't have anywhere near enough capital to go private, and I doubt they're going be able to borrow more because they already have a lot of debt. Their stock would have to seriously decline first.
But we've now got VLC (huge), Office, real Xbox Games, Instagram (only able to post through an app), Uber, Waze and Starbucks.
I'm looking through it now and I don't see instagram, starbucks, or waze (not that I use any of them.) Also the reviewers don't seem to care for uber or vlc on UWP, whereas they have solid ratings on iOS and Android.
I don't think it will take over Desktop, but Server is quite a distinct possibility. Microsoft is in fact making Windows Server for ARM, and probably won't do the stupid shit they did with what was supposed to be Windows on ARM. If ARM servers can show dramatically reduced cost for energy and cooling, you bet your ass it will replace x86.
But that's not where Intel is going wrong. I think Intel is making a mistake in throwing their eggs into the IoT basket. In fact, a lot of tech companies are. I fully expect IoT to flop after a generation because nobody has solved or even attempted to solve the fundamental IT security problems it presents. The solution I hear from the talking heads when I've asked them is "well, after a device is EOL, you'll need to buy a new one to avoid future threats" which is really dumb. Nobody, anywhere, is going to replace shit when it still works and does what they need it to do. They'll only do that once when they realize the problems inherent in IoT, after which they'll just forgo it completely because it's more trouble than it's worth.
Besides, I still have yet to figure out exactly what kind of business problem IoT is intended to solve, and I really don't think consumers have enough money to buy on the scale that Intel needs.
Well there are some problems with that. Because Microsoft is in such a bad market position for mobile, they literally give it away, and sell their handsets at a loss. And with as much shit as MS fans give Android OEMs, the top 15 of them do make a profit off of their Android handsets, but as Huawei once said, "nobody made any money on windows phone", which has held true for every OEM so far, including Samsung, Nokia, and Microsoft themselves. Huawei is doing really well with Android, by the way; they're presently the #3 smartphone vendor by volume, only below Samsung at #1 and Apple at #2. The only OEM that might do anything is HP, but I really don't think their newly spun off consumer and business electronics division has any idea what the hell it's doing. Every mobile device they've created, every single one, has flopped, and even the area they were once doing well at, namely printers, has lost a fair bit of market share over the years.
No, Windows 10 Mobile is and always has been DOA.
I think the future of Microsoft isn't going to be in platforms for very long. They've made too many stupid mistakes to salvage that future. That doesn't mean they have no future, mind you, they still do really well in terms business logistics (i.e. Active Directory, which comes in the form of Windows Server sales, but even then, Windows Server doesn't run on bare metal anymore, it runs on the VMware hypervisor platform) and their Azure platform is doing well and will probably continue to do well, and in that role, Microsoft will still do very well for a long time to come.
Well, they haven't lost them yet. 3 of my neighbors are Intel employees (some at Intel's flagship semiconductor plant) and one of them told me yesterday that they haven't yet decided who all they are going to let go, but the ones they do let go will get a pretty good severance. They set a benchmark goal of 10% of the workforce, and the specifics are still being sorted. Some they've immediately let go (business segments that they're closing completely) and in business segments that they want to downsize, they're notifying teams that their members can voluntarily get laid off or retire early (with full severance.) After that, if they don't get enough volunteers, they're going to do forced layoffs.
Case in point: ADSL line speed. I've had several different ADSL providers, and living somewhat far out, the speed is consistently bad, sometimes awful. But if I try one of the many 'ADSL speed test' websites, the results are always in line with the promised speed.
Not every place you visit (in fact, likely most places) will fully saturate your downstream link. They might have the bandwidth to be capable of doing so, but they ration it on a per-session (sometimes per-IP) basis so that everybody who happens to access the site can get a reasonable speed. (By the way, this is the principle that so called "download accelerators" take advantage of -- they combine multiple sessions into one. But they won't work on a per-IP basis unless you are able to do i.e. multipath TCP.)
On a gigabit link that's just mine and only mine, few sites have saturated my downstream. Steam is probably the fastest one, which pumps out 33MByte/s but no more than that. The only way I can saturate my link without a bandwidth benchmarking site is with bittorrent on a torrent that has plenty of seeders, so you might try that.
Otherwise, we could all exist on a nice diet of canola oil. 2000 calories a day, and we're set.
Hmm, no. I used simple calorie restriction to drop 70 lbs (I'm not saying that it will work for everybody, mind you) but even I know better than to assume that all of your macronutrient needs can be found from just one thing.
But at the same time, there is no escaping the fact that, indeed, eating less by using calories as a yard stick does work most of the time, even if the content of your food is mostly macronutrient with little micronutrient. Is that healthy long term? Probably not, but just in the context of weight loss alone, it works.
Not this ignorant shit again. What you said isn't even fucking true.
It doesn't matter. Nobody of the food religion will ever be satisfied until agricultural technology goes back in time 50 years. Thus, when anything goes wrong with somebody, they say "Why, it's the processed food damnit! Even though I don't know what the fuck processed actually means, but the internet says it offends Gaia."
People using words like 'left wing' and 'right wing' and then believing they're talking about tech. Calling themselves 'libertarian' and then claiming all hackers used to be libertarian because they never met any but assume because it would make sense in their own heads.
I think they were more anarchist than libertarian. And yes, there's quite a difference between the two.
That's exactly why Google transitioned into Alphabet -- a tech holding company that can invest in and build many different companies, each with their own executive leadership and core competencies.
That's why it's probably best that politicians don't price labour out of the market. I think $15 an hour is doing exactly that. There's no escaping the fact that it's a global economy now, and even if you practice mercantilism, that's still not going to increase your exports, and in fact reduces them, which is bad because economies like ours cannot sustain themselves with declining exports.
Some stuff practically is given away already, for example, promotional merchandise (i.e. t-shirts, usb drives.)
I think the only thing that will truly go away is menial jobs. Farming was the original menial job for thousands of years, and it got replaced by factory work only a century ago (and before any hair splitters descend on that, note I'm referring to the general migration away from farm work and towards factory work, not necessarily when factories first came around.) If factory work goes away and is replaced with something else, then not much has changed in the grand scheme of things.
It also occurs to me that the service industry is outgrowing everything else. The service industry includes not only white collar work, but plenty of blue collar jobs such as plumbing, hvac, construction, etc. In fact, if automation really does take over, then the service industry will be all that remains, only in the case of factories, the line workers are replaced by people servicing the automated systems. Furthermore, the breadth and depth of services continues to grow.
Going back to my first sentence, when promotional merchandise is given away, what are they almost always trying to promote? A service.
Oh, boy! What a wonderful thing: To be able to run scaled-down, bullshit mobile Apps on your "real" computer.
You probably say that because you have only a narrow understanding of what people actually do with computers, complicated by a narrow understanding of what Android apps can do (my guess is that you're used to iphone apps, which are deliberately limited in scale and functionality by Apple.)
I simply don't see the attraction. Mobile Apps are for when we need to do things on-the-go; they are RARELY good examples of real, robust Applications (not "Apps").
If you give somebody a reason to scale up those apps, they will. In case you haven't noticed, Android allows app developers to modify the look and feel of the app depending on the screen size, which can go anywhere from a 2" screen to a 200" screen.
I think that, like any smart executive, he realizes that so much of his company's revenue comes from one source, and wants to diversify. Hence, for example, self driving cars, google fiber, project-fi, etc.
I think Chrome OS might get interesting very soon, namely because you'll be able to run Android apps in multi-window mode. And given that mobile is all the app rage lately, I don't think you'll find an kind of shortage of things to do on it.
Not that I'll buy this machine mind you, just that Chrome OS *may* see a sudden uptick in consumer demand.
As I said, you can find the term "network engineer" in usage by the early nineties in at least one work
...And how long ago was that? Seriously dude.
Anyways, it doesn't matter. You can argue specifics all you want, and you'll literally be doing it forever. But the fact remains that if automation was truly destroying jobs in the long term, then the US unemployment rate should be well above what was seen in the depression right about now. I'm sure you can quote "some really smart dude" or "some really rich dude that seems to know a lot" who says economic doom is right around the corner, but the thing is, they've been saying this for about 200 years.
That said, I'm quite finished with this discussion. BI ain't happening here any time soon.
In the book - Red brotherhood at wars, stated that other countries feared sanctions, so they don't mess with America to do business with Vietnam. BNP Paribas proves that if you deal with those countries you have no chance to work with USA.
No, it doesn't, it just shows that you don't deal with companies that have a US presence. Believe it or not, most of the worlds companies have no US presence.
Webarchive
It's not my job to fix your broken links. If you're trying to convince me to take the time to read something of yours, it's on you to make sure that it's readable, not me or anybody else.
The high price: 1 connection, slow, not everyone allows to use this *everyday*, only universities have priority to use this. Or, satellite connection, I said before, expensive.
No you actually don't know about Marx or Socialism. There are differences between them, there books for you to read. German Socialism, before Marx, not National Socialism.
Did you even read my post? I acknowledged differences between them, however they're only relevant insofar as how the government itself is run. Everything else you stated regarding this is moot, and furthermore, I'm not going to argue this with you because people like you have these stupid ideas that they try to push on to everybody else under the promise that it will be a wonderful revolution, and in every single one of those cases you just end up with a despotic government that enslaves its people. Every single one of them, without exception.
Good luck trying to convince some other fool; if you're lucky you'll find somebody ignorant of history, and he'll follow you.
Yes, cash is special product
No, cash is not a product, it's just a physical form of money, and money is just a medium of exchange.
Your definition about socialism is so strange. Which socialism? German Socialism or Marx's Socialism, or other socialism which you mentioned here?
All of them, actually. They only differ in how the government itself is run. If by German Socialism, you mean National Socialism of the Nazi era, although they had a private industry, it was ultimately subjugated to the will of the government, meaning that it was owned by the government in all but name. The government also set prices and controlled supply, and you effectively worked for and were paid by the government if you worked for one of these industries. That fits the definition of socialism. If you're referring to East Germany, that was identical to the socialism found in the USSR: The government literally owned everything, including you, which means that if you tried to leave the country by hopping the Berlin Wall, you'd likely get shot.
Marx's socialism was virtually identical to USSR socialism, only he proposed that after people get used to no private ownership that it converts to communism, which means no more money and no more government. Problem is nobody ever gets used to that. People like to own shit, and they don't like being taken advantage of. This is why communism ultimately never works.
Also, the author, base on definition of Marx, which prove Soviet was actually capitalistic state
First of all, Karl Marx isn't the authority on all things economics. In fact if you pay attention to history, he totally failed at his understanding of it. Take for example his concept of primitive communism; that was totally false. In the days he's referring to, people just took whatever resources they could find and moved on. That wasn't even an economy to speak of, nevermind a communal one.
Second of all, Karl Marx is wrong. I'm not going to trust his views on economics any more than I'm going to trust Tom Cruise's views on psychology.
Oh and by the way, notice how every country that has applied Marx's views on economics became a poor one within a decade? Every single one of them, without exception. The only ones that have since recovered are ones that have essentially thrown out his ideas entirely. Take for example East Germany before 1945, after, and then after 1990.
Now about your definition about capitalism. Price is about cash. Cash was invented for trading, in which cash has no value itself. A Mexican worker on the border of Mexico-America earns - in peso, less than the immigrated Mexican worker on the American-Mexico border, who earns in dollar. Because cash's value is fixed in Mexico is different to USA, but the *REAL* price of the product these two workers produce are the same, but is different in peso and dollar. That is governments and their center banks *indirectly* or *directly* affect the 'price'.
You're pretty far off of the mark here. Cash has a value, and it's value is only whatever you think it is actually worth. For example, if you think a banana is worth 50 cents, then that's what 50 cents is worth. Price is determined by how much somebody values something, or in other words, what they'll trade for it. In the US, our perception of value is different than in Mexico because we have more money. For example in the US, you'll probably find a bottle of corona for $1.25 each, whereas in Mexico you can buy it for 25 cents each. People in Mexico have less money, so they value their money more than we do, therefore they're not going to pay the higher price for the same beer that an American would. As for why the Peso keeps slipping in value, that depends on a few things, and the reason why varies from period to period. Most recently, the US dollar has been going up in value compared to most of the world's currencies, meanwhile the Peso has been reducing in value. By value, of course, I mean what people will trade for it.
Also, some goods vary depending on region. For example in East Germany, during certain times of the year, nam
Remember BNP Paribas, was punished for violated sanctions [reuters.com]. Yes, Cuba is only sanctioned by one country, the most powerful country which dominates the world's monetary system.
That's because they have a presence in the US, which means they're bound to US laws (including things like RICO.) They can still do business with American customers if they don't have a presence here, but because they chose to do so means they have to follow US laws. The reverse also applies to US companies doing business in Europe.
If you don't believe, read "Red brotherhood at wars", which showed after the Vietnam War, Vietnam actively opened the economy and tried to make relations with Western countries, but feared of sanction by USA, only France provide several thousand dollars.
I'm aware of this actually, and they have similar restrictions on internet access without any involvement of the US. Oh and by the way, it was France who started the whole mess there. The US only got involved after France caused them to distrust the west and join the eastern bloc.
And, It seems that you don't read the report, or try not to understand.
Or option c: Your report throws a 404 error and is thus unreadable.
The report claimed Cuba restricts internet connection as a dictatorial country would do, as one knew about the "Iron Curtain".
Yeah, no shit.
Forbidden for everyday citizens because they have limited resource or expensive satellite option.
Either you fail at English or you fail at logic. Forbidden doesn't mean "can't afford", rather it means that the government doesn't want you to have access to it unless you are closely affiliated with their party and toe the line. In case you haven't noticed, Cuba even forbids their citizens from having a satellite dish. That doesn't mean they don't have them, but they'll go to jail (or worse) if caught, under the charge of being a counterrevolutionary. It is absolutely illegal for anybody in Cuba to have internet access in their private home, and for them to receive foreign television broadcasts. The only way a private citizen can access it is if they go to a public internet cafe, where it's restricted. Also, the Cuban government decides the price for internet access for the public, and they set it to $2 per hour. Nobody decided that price except for the Cuban government themselves. It wasn't the US, or Venezuela, or US corporations; it's entirely the decision of the Cuban government.
The most common way they get access to forbidden foreign artwork and news is through an illegal sneakernet.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt he would care to do that, because Apple's stock probably won't increase any time soon. The reason Apple saw a YoY revenue decline is because of the so called "peak iphone", and presently 65% of Apple's revenue comes from guess what. Unless by some miracle Apple can reproduce the same growth they've had in the last 10 years (smartphone market is now matured and saturated and is now starting to go through what the PC market is going through, so good luck with that) their stock is only going to decline for the foreseeable future. So yeah, it's a good time to get out of Apple.
Apple doesn't have anywhere near enough capital to go private, and I doubt they're going be able to borrow more because they already have a lot of debt. Their stock would have to seriously decline first.
But we've now got VLC (huge), Office, real Xbox Games, Instagram (only able to post through an app), Uber, Waze and Starbucks.
I'm looking through it now and I don't see instagram, starbucks, or waze (not that I use any of them.) Also the reviewers don't seem to care for uber or vlc on UWP, whereas they have solid ratings on iOS and Android.
How do you get Kodi to run on Windows 10 IoT? I thought it doesn't include a graphics compositor? Furthermore, does Kodi even compile for Windows ARM?
There is a pretty decent UWP Arm/x86 app catalogue now.
Not really. I've yet to see anything in UWP that you can't do with a web browser, and consumers and businesses both seem to prefer that.
I don't think it will take over Desktop, but Server is quite a distinct possibility. Microsoft is in fact making Windows Server for ARM, and probably won't do the stupid shit they did with what was supposed to be Windows on ARM. If ARM servers can show dramatically reduced cost for energy and cooling, you bet your ass it will replace x86.
But that's not where Intel is going wrong. I think Intel is making a mistake in throwing their eggs into the IoT basket. In fact, a lot of tech companies are. I fully expect IoT to flop after a generation because nobody has solved or even attempted to solve the fundamental IT security problems it presents. The solution I hear from the talking heads when I've asked them is "well, after a device is EOL, you'll need to buy a new one to avoid future threats" which is really dumb. Nobody, anywhere, is going to replace shit when it still works and does what they need it to do. They'll only do that once when they realize the problems inherent in IoT, after which they'll just forgo it completely because it's more trouble than it's worth.
Besides, I still have yet to figure out exactly what kind of business problem IoT is intended to solve, and I really don't think consumers have enough money to buy on the scale that Intel needs.
Well there are some problems with that. Because Microsoft is in such a bad market position for mobile, they literally give it away, and sell their handsets at a loss. And with as much shit as MS fans give Android OEMs, the top 15 of them do make a profit off of their Android handsets, but as Huawei once said, "nobody made any money on windows phone", which has held true for every OEM so far, including Samsung, Nokia, and Microsoft themselves. Huawei is doing really well with Android, by the way; they're presently the #3 smartphone vendor by volume, only below Samsung at #1 and Apple at #2. The only OEM that might do anything is HP, but I really don't think their newly spun off consumer and business electronics division has any idea what the hell it's doing. Every mobile device they've created, every single one, has flopped, and even the area they were once doing well at, namely printers, has lost a fair bit of market share over the years.
No, Windows 10 Mobile is and always has been DOA.
I think the future of Microsoft isn't going to be in platforms for very long. They've made too many stupid mistakes to salvage that future. That doesn't mean they have no future, mind you, they still do really well in terms business logistics (i.e. Active Directory, which comes in the form of Windows Server sales, but even then, Windows Server doesn't run on bare metal anymore, it runs on the VMware hypervisor platform) and their Azure platform is doing well and will probably continue to do well, and in that role, Microsoft will still do very well for a long time to come.
Well, they haven't lost them yet. 3 of my neighbors are Intel employees (some at Intel's flagship semiconductor plant) and one of them told me yesterday that they haven't yet decided who all they are going to let go, but the ones they do let go will get a pretty good severance. They set a benchmark goal of 10% of the workforce, and the specifics are still being sorted. Some they've immediately let go (business segments that they're closing completely) and in business segments that they want to downsize, they're notifying teams that their members can voluntarily get laid off or retire early (with full severance.) After that, if they don't get enough volunteers, they're going to do forced layoffs.
Case in point: ADSL line speed. I've had several different ADSL providers, and living somewhat far out, the speed is consistently bad, sometimes awful. But if I try one of the many 'ADSL speed test' websites, the results are always in line with the promised speed.
Not every place you visit (in fact, likely most places) will fully saturate your downstream link. They might have the bandwidth to be capable of doing so, but they ration it on a per-session (sometimes per-IP) basis so that everybody who happens to access the site can get a reasonable speed. (By the way, this is the principle that so called "download accelerators" take advantage of -- they combine multiple sessions into one. But they won't work on a per-IP basis unless you are able to do i.e. multipath TCP.)
On a gigabit link that's just mine and only mine, few sites have saturated my downstream. Steam is probably the fastest one, which pumps out 33MByte/s but no more than that. The only way I can saturate my link without a bandwidth benchmarking site is with bittorrent on a torrent that has plenty of seeders, so you might try that.
Otherwise, we could all exist on a nice diet of canola oil. 2000 calories a day, and we're set.
Hmm, no. I used simple calorie restriction to drop 70 lbs (I'm not saying that it will work for everybody, mind you) but even I know better than to assume that all of your macronutrient needs can be found from just one thing.
But at the same time, there is no escaping the fact that, indeed, eating less by using calories as a yard stick does work most of the time, even if the content of your food is mostly macronutrient with little micronutrient. Is that healthy long term? Probably not, but just in the context of weight loss alone, it works.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH...
Not this ignorant shit again. What you said isn't even fucking true.
It doesn't matter. Nobody of the food religion will ever be satisfied until agricultural technology goes back in time 50 years. Thus, when anything goes wrong with somebody, they say "Why, it's the processed food damnit! Even though I don't know what the fuck processed actually means, but the internet says it offends Gaia."
People using words like 'left wing' and 'right wing' and then believing they're talking about tech. Calling themselves 'libertarian' and then claiming all hackers used to be libertarian because they never met any but assume because it would make sense in their own heads.
I think they were more anarchist than libertarian. And yes, there's quite a difference between the two.
I forgot that Second Life even existed, for at least two years but probably more, until I read this.
That's exactly why Google transitioned into Alphabet -- a tech holding company that can invest in and build many different companies, each with their own executive leadership and core competencies.
This.
That's why it's probably best that politicians don't price labour out of the market. I think $15 an hour is doing exactly that. There's no escaping the fact that it's a global economy now, and even if you practice mercantilism, that's still not going to increase your exports, and in fact reduces them, which is bad because economies like ours cannot sustain themselves with declining exports.
Precisely!
Some stuff practically is given away already, for example, promotional merchandise (i.e. t-shirts, usb drives.)
I think the only thing that will truly go away is menial jobs. Farming was the original menial job for thousands of years, and it got replaced by factory work only a century ago (and before any hair splitters descend on that, note I'm referring to the general migration away from farm work and towards factory work, not necessarily when factories first came around.) If factory work goes away and is replaced with something else, then not much has changed in the grand scheme of things.
It also occurs to me that the service industry is outgrowing everything else. The service industry includes not only white collar work, but plenty of blue collar jobs such as plumbing, hvac, construction, etc. In fact, if automation really does take over, then the service industry will be all that remains, only in the case of factories, the line workers are replaced by people servicing the automated systems. Furthermore, the breadth and depth of services continues to grow.
Going back to my first sentence, when promotional merchandise is given away, what are they almost always trying to promote? A service.
Oh, boy! What a wonderful thing: To be able to run scaled-down, bullshit mobile Apps on your "real" computer.
You probably say that because you have only a narrow understanding of what people actually do with computers, complicated by a narrow understanding of what Android apps can do (my guess is that you're used to iphone apps, which are deliberately limited in scale and functionality by Apple.)
I simply don't see the attraction. Mobile Apps are for when we need to do things on-the-go; they are RARELY good examples of real, robust Applications (not "Apps").
If you give somebody a reason to scale up those apps, they will. In case you haven't noticed, Android allows app developers to modify the look and feel of the app depending on the screen size, which can go anywhere from a 2" screen to a 200" screen.
I think that, like any smart executive, he realizes that so much of his company's revenue comes from one source, and wants to diversify. Hence, for example, self driving cars, google fiber, project-fi, etc.
I think Chrome OS might get interesting very soon, namely because you'll be able to run Android apps in multi-window mode. And given that mobile is all the app rage lately, I don't think you'll find an kind of shortage of things to do on it.
Not that I'll buy this machine mind you, just that Chrome OS *may* see a sudden uptick in consumer demand.
As I said, you can find the term "network engineer" in usage by the early nineties in at least one work
...And how long ago was that? Seriously dude.
Anyways, it doesn't matter. You can argue specifics all you want, and you'll literally be doing it forever. But the fact remains that if automation was truly destroying jobs in the long term, then the US unemployment rate should be well above what was seen in the depression right about now. I'm sure you can quote "some really smart dude" or "some really rich dude that seems to know a lot" who says economic doom is right around the corner, but the thing is, they've been saying this for about 200 years.
That said, I'm quite finished with this discussion. BI ain't happening here any time soon.
In the book - Red brotherhood at wars, stated that other countries feared sanctions, so they don't mess with America to do business with Vietnam. BNP Paribas proves that if you deal with those countries you have no chance to work with USA.
No, it doesn't, it just shows that you don't deal with companies that have a US presence. Believe it or not, most of the worlds companies have no US presence.
Webarchive
It's not my job to fix your broken links. If you're trying to convince me to take the time to read something of yours, it's on you to make sure that it's readable, not me or anybody else.
The high price: 1 connection, slow, not everyone allows to use this *everyday*, only universities have priority to use this. Or, satellite connection, I said before, expensive.
Not only expensive, illegal. http://www.futurodecuba.org/cu...
No you actually don't know about Marx or Socialism. There are differences between them, there books for you to read.
German Socialism, before Marx, not National Socialism.
Did you even read my post? I acknowledged differences between them, however they're only relevant insofar as how the government itself is run. Everything else you stated regarding this is moot, and furthermore, I'm not going to argue this with you because people like you have these stupid ideas that they try to push on to everybody else under the promise that it will be a wonderful revolution, and in every single one of those cases you just end up with a despotic government that enslaves its people. Every single one of them, without exception.
Good luck trying to convince some other fool; if you're lucky you'll find somebody ignorant of history, and he'll follow you.
Yes, cash is special product
No, cash is not a product, it's just a physical form of money, and money is just a medium of exchange.
Your definition about socialism is so strange. Which socialism? German Socialism or Marx's Socialism, or other socialism which you mentioned here?
All of them, actually. They only differ in how the government itself is run. If by German Socialism, you mean National Socialism of the Nazi era, although they had a private industry, it was ultimately subjugated to the will of the government, meaning that it was owned by the government in all but name. The government also set prices and controlled supply, and you effectively worked for and were paid by the government if you worked for one of these industries. That fits the definition of socialism. If you're referring to East Germany, that was identical to the socialism found in the USSR: The government literally owned everything, including you, which means that if you tried to leave the country by hopping the Berlin Wall, you'd likely get shot.
Marx's socialism was virtually identical to USSR socialism, only he proposed that after people get used to no private ownership that it converts to communism, which means no more money and no more government. Problem is nobody ever gets used to that. People like to own shit, and they don't like being taken advantage of. This is why communism ultimately never works.
Also, the author, base on definition of Marx, which prove Soviet was actually capitalistic state
First of all, Karl Marx isn't the authority on all things economics. In fact if you pay attention to history, he totally failed at his understanding of it. Take for example his concept of primitive communism; that was totally false. In the days he's referring to, people just took whatever resources they could find and moved on. That wasn't even an economy to speak of, nevermind a communal one.
Second of all, Karl Marx is wrong. I'm not going to trust his views on economics any more than I'm going to trust Tom Cruise's views on psychology.
Oh and by the way, notice how every country that has applied Marx's views on economics became a poor one within a decade? Every single one of them, without exception. The only ones that have since recovered are ones that have essentially thrown out his ideas entirely. Take for example East Germany before 1945, after, and then after 1990.
Now about your definition about capitalism. Price is about cash. Cash was invented for trading, in which cash has no value itself. A Mexican worker on the border of Mexico-America earns - in peso, less than the immigrated Mexican worker on the American-Mexico border, who earns in dollar. Because cash's value is fixed in Mexico is different to USA, but the *REAL* price of the product these two workers produce are the same, but is different in peso and dollar. That is governments and their center banks *indirectly* or *directly* affect the 'price'.
You're pretty far off of the mark here. Cash has a value, and it's value is only whatever you think it is actually worth. For example, if you think a banana is worth 50 cents, then that's what 50 cents is worth. Price is determined by how much somebody values something, or in other words, what they'll trade for it. In the US, our perception of value is different than in Mexico because we have more money. For example in the US, you'll probably find a bottle of corona for $1.25 each, whereas in Mexico you can buy it for 25 cents each. People in Mexico have less money, so they value their money more than we do, therefore they're not going to pay the higher price for the same beer that an American would. As for why the Peso keeps slipping in value, that depends on a few things, and the reason why varies from period to period. Most recently, the US dollar has been going up in value compared to most of the world's currencies, meanwhile the Peso has been reducing in value. By value, of course, I mean what people will trade for it.
Also, some goods vary depending on region. For example in East Germany, during certain times of the year, nam
Remember BNP Paribas, was punished for violated sanctions [reuters.com]. Yes, Cuba is only sanctioned by one country, the most powerful country which dominates the world's monetary system.
That's because they have a presence in the US, which means they're bound to US laws (including things like RICO.) They can still do business with American customers if they don't have a presence here, but because they chose to do so means they have to follow US laws. The reverse also applies to US companies doing business in Europe.
If you don't believe, read "Red brotherhood at wars", which showed after the Vietnam War, Vietnam actively opened the economy and tried to make relations with Western countries, but feared of sanction by USA, only France provide several thousand dollars.
I'm aware of this actually, and they have similar restrictions on internet access without any involvement of the US. Oh and by the way, it was France who started the whole mess there. The US only got involved after France caused them to distrust the west and join the eastern bloc.
And, It seems that you don't read the report, or try not to understand.
Or option c: Your report throws a 404 error and is thus unreadable.
The report claimed Cuba restricts internet connection as a dictatorial country would do, as one knew about the "Iron Curtain".
Yeah, no shit.
Forbidden for everyday citizens because they have limited resource or expensive satellite option.
Either you fail at English or you fail at logic. Forbidden doesn't mean "can't afford", rather it means that the government doesn't want you to have access to it unless you are closely affiliated with their party and toe the line. In case you haven't noticed, Cuba even forbids their citizens from having a satellite dish. That doesn't mean they don't have them, but they'll go to jail (or worse) if caught, under the charge of being a counterrevolutionary. It is absolutely illegal for anybody in Cuba to have internet access in their private home, and for them to receive foreign television broadcasts. The only way a private citizen can access it is if they go to a public internet cafe, where it's restricted. Also, the Cuban government decides the price for internet access for the public, and they set it to $2 per hour. Nobody decided that price except for the Cuban government themselves. It wasn't the US, or Venezuela, or US corporations; it's entirely the decision of the Cuban government.
The most common way they get access to forbidden foreign artwork and news is through an illegal sneakernet.
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...