You've never imagined having a gun to your kids' head, have you?
life > illegality
Yeah but it's not the movies. "Mob" doesn't necessarily mean Ndrangheta. A lot of these "organisations" aren't smart enough or tenacious enough to run CIA style man-hunts on ex-minions.
Just as an FYI, if a company is going to restrict local I/O resources to and from a computer, then using a computer is the wrong tool; they should be using thin-clients to a terminal server of some sort.
One place I worked had machines locked down so tight they we're unusable. The stupid part is because they were so unusable everyone brought in their own machines (tethering through your phone to the Internet). So while the network was secure, nothing was on it because information creation was done on user owned machines and emailed around via Gmail/Hotmail etc.
In an equally secure place, they had the VDI model with thin clients, the solution was better than any desktop because you had workstation performance, and access to your own desktop from any Thin Client in the organisation, or remotely. You could leave your apps open and they'd be there where-ever and whenever you login.
The worst part is that the people who use Twitter tend to be the left side of the bell curve. So the 2/3rd of people that don't use it are having their views shouted out by the minority of attention whores who feel the need to announce every emotion they are feeling at any given time. The benefit of writing a letter is it gives you time to reflect on your opinion. This can only end in tears.
Email or a web page
A lot more 1/3 of people have it, and it isn't dependent on one foreign entity to make it work.
Oh and not that I send letters much these days, but I'm pretty sure it isn't as difficult as you make out. If my 85 year old grandmother can do it, I'm sure you'll manage.
While the idea of using Twitter offends me, the concept of outsourcing actually makes a lot of sense in the public sector, especially if you are outsourced to local businesses. This guy is only a mayor of a tiny 3800 person village, so there not much oversight at that level, but any state or federal type service would struggle to get such an idea approved for specifically the reason you mention.
Hmm, I'd tend to call this the exact opposite of fascism.
That's because you're not taking into account that you are in an Internet forum. Here, whatever a government does is fascism.
Capitalism = Fascism
Socialism = Fascism
Left, Right, Up, Down, all Fascism
I haven't had much experience with Doctors fortunately, but the last few visits made me feel like they were the equivalent of 1st level helpdesk. Issues were either googled, or simply told to take some antibiotics and come back if it gets worse (ie the reboot). When you look at how much a modern economy spends on healthcare, I think there is room for a different health model which is a lot cheaper and more efficient.
Government, frankly, sucks at trying to pick winners... rather it does a better job of picking the losers...
Does it? Everyone says stuff like that, and as long as I've been alive people have been picking on the government's ability to do it's job. But if you look at results objectively, things in most western countries are improving over time, and that is because our systems of government actually work. Drama is part of the democratic process, don't mistake that for lack of progress.
Cheers, I thought as much but felt the need to give him a chance. We've all been young and stupid once in our lives. He's clearly living that phase right now.
It works in the short run no matter what everyone does, because food is already in the system.
It doesn't work in the long run because what you end up with is a nation that digs ditches and fills them in, doing nothing useful.
Correct, which is why subsidies for things like solar panels are only ever short term, and stimulus packages are usually a one-off type deal
Not sure about your local area, but our industry got a big boost for about 5 years, enough to get it kick-started, then they were wound back. The industry is now almost self sustainable (not quite but getting closer every day), but I'm guessing the same goes for EV tech. Even if it takes 20 years of welfare, it's nothing compared to the 100 year+ return we should get from such an investment.
In summary, in *some* cases, giving people public money *can* have a net gain on the overall economy.
Ah yes, the much vaunted "Hipster-Hate" of the Slashdot neckbeard crowd. Quick, get on board the Hipster-hate train before it leaves the station!
I was a hipster in 2007, got over it by 2010, and am already on the next cool thing which I can't tell you about (for obvious reasons). If you're living in 2015 and either a hipster or hipster-hater then you are most likely closer to the Walmart end of the spectrum.
Lots of money would enter the economy, but no useful work would get done. Such spending makes us all poorer, not richer.
Er you are quoting Keynes on economic stimulus which does actually work (in certain cases)
Eg Australia did exactly that when the GFC hit and it survived intact without a single recession, unlike pretty much every other economy that went down the austerity path, and are worse off because of it.
In the Air Force's defense, it's not their fault that the President insists on dragging them into land wars in Asia.
What I find strange is that a President invests in such a large airstrike capability, but then spends decades picking fights that require no advanced air strike capability.
I was taught at school back in the cold war days that the future of war will be small, land based, counter insurgency style (ie what effectively panned out in the 30 years since). If my teacher got that, and I got it, how come the POTUS doesn't get it?
I'm not frustrated, I come here to discuss concepts and be challenged. When the other party switches from debating the topic to attacking me personally then I know for sure their argument was weak.
These incentives are helping to encourage a new industry that is generating new jobs, and putting food on people's tables.
At the expense of old industries, and old jobs disappearing, and leaving formerly employed people wondering how to put food on their tables.
Unless the "new industry" in question increases TOTAL demand for the category of things it represents (autos in this case), all it does is move jobs from that factory over there to this one over here.
In other words, every EV sold is one less gas burner sold. So it IS a zero-sum game.
But in a global economy you have no choice. If you stick with Oil burners, and China succeeds in creating a revolutionary EV, then your entire industry and economy die in the ditch. And people starve on the streets
The only path to success is to compete, which is what we are doing. Sure there'll be some mistakes along the way, but your choice is to compete and maybe win, or maybe just keep your head above water. If you sit on your hands and do nothing then the only possible result is failure.
The problem is wealth transfer from the general public to a select few.
It does not matter how noble your cause is, it is a bad idea, it has been tried before, it doesn't end well.
Not always, which is my point
If public funds should be used for the benefit of all, then they shouldn't enrich specific people.
How do you measure the benefit to all?
Let's use the solar example. Early adopters of solar got grants from their govt. ie public funds made some solar business owners rich.
If you leave it there, that sounds bad, public money into private hands etc. But if you work out that a $10B investment (made up numbers for the purpose of demonstration) into solar creates a new global industry player which generates your country $100B in revenue, and $20B in taxes from all the new technology, then making those people at the start rich can result in an overall net gain for all.
This is the point of subsidies. It sounds crap on the surface, but unless you're taking the entire economic benefit into account then you can't judge whether it has been a success or not.
Note: I realise some subsidies have failed miserabley, but also some have been successful. The point is the concept of a subsidy is not necessary a bad thing, when applied correctly.
Maybe I'm wrong and you've got a good argument. I'll keep an open mind. But I don't see how you can sustain this argument.
What that different countries have different cultures with different ideologies that result in different socio-economic conditions?
Sorry it's not my job to give you an entire high school social studies education in one post.
What I have a problem with, and you should too, is when the government says "lets make SOME of our citizens better off at the expense of others".
But it's not that simple.
Every piece of legislation benefits some over others, the point of strategy is not to ensure every individual gets something, but society as a whole moves forward.
If you get bogged down in trying to ensure everyone wins, then you end up going nowhere and then everyone loses.
The solar initiatives are creating a positive change for society as everyone becomes more aware of energy dependency and efficiency, and is allowing the barrier to entry to be softened for new businesses, meaning more business, more income for more people. And importantly more tax dollars and less welfare. If that means slightly higher electricity bills for everyone then that's still a win for society in my book.
Slashdot Mirror
You've never imagined having a gun to your kids' head, have you?
life > illegality
Yeah but it's not the movies. "Mob" doesn't necessarily mean Ndrangheta. A lot of these "organisations" aren't smart enough or tenacious enough to run CIA style man-hunts on ex-minions.
Just as an FYI, if a company is going to restrict local I/O resources to and from a computer, then using a computer is the wrong tool; they should be using thin-clients to a terminal server of some sort.
One place I worked had machines locked down so tight they we're unusable. The stupid part is because they were so unusable everyone brought in their own machines (tethering through your phone to the Internet). So while the network was secure, nothing was on it because information creation was done on user owned machines and emailed around via Gmail/Hotmail etc.
In an equally secure place, they had the VDI model with thin clients, the solution was better than any desktop because you had workstation performance, and access to your own desktop from any Thin Client in the organisation, or remotely. You could leave your apps open and they'd be there where-ever and whenever you login.
The worst part is that the people who use Twitter tend to be the left side of the bell curve. So the 2/3rd of people that don't use it are having their views shouted out by the minority of attention whores who feel the need to announce every emotion they are feeling at any given time. The benefit of writing a letter is it gives you time to reflect on your opinion. This can only end in tears.
What could be simpler?
Email or a web page
A lot more 1/3 of people have it, and it isn't dependent on one foreign entity to make it work.
Oh and not that I send letters much these days, but I'm pretty sure it isn't as difficult as you make out. If my 85 year old grandmother can do it, I'm sure you'll manage.
While the idea of using Twitter offends me, the concept of outsourcing actually makes a lot of sense in the public sector, especially if you are outsourced to local businesses. This guy is only a mayor of a tiny 3800 person village, so there not much oversight at that level, but any state or federal type service would struggle to get such an idea approved for specifically the reason you mention.
Hmm, I'd tend to call this the exact opposite of fascism.
That's because you're not taking into account that you are in an Internet forum. Here, whatever a government does is fascism.
Capitalism = Fascism
Socialism = Fascism
Left, Right, Up, Down, all Fascism
I haven't had much experience with Doctors fortunately, but the last few visits made me feel like they were the equivalent of 1st level helpdesk. Issues were either googled, or simply told to take some antibiotics and come back if it gets worse (ie the reboot). When you look at how much a modern economy spends on healthcare, I think there is room for a different health model which is a lot cheaper and more efficient.
Government, frankly, sucks at trying to pick winners... rather it does a better job of picking the losers...
Does it? Everyone says stuff like that, and as long as I've been alive people have been picking on the government's ability to do it's job. But if you look at results objectively, things in most western countries are improving over time, and that is because our systems of government actually work. Drama is part of the democratic process, don't mistake that for lack of progress.
Find somebody who has money, and keep him happy. That's what the best hookers do, and it has fed me and my family for 25 years.
WTF?
I found a (Chinese) family with money and I build whatever software / servers / sites they ask me for. I even live where they asked me to live.
Oh, that sounds a little better :)
You sound like you know the subject matter. Can you point me to a website where I can learn more about this?
Cheers, I thought as much but felt the need to give him a chance. We've all been young and stupid once in our lives. He's clearly living that phase right now.
It works in the short run no matter what everyone does, because food is already in the system.
It doesn't work in the long run because what you end up with is a nation that digs ditches and fills them in, doing nothing useful.
Correct, which is why subsidies for things like solar panels are only ever short term, and stimulus packages are usually a one-off type deal
Not sure about your local area, but our industry got a big boost for about 5 years, enough to get it kick-started, then they were wound back. The industry is now almost self sustainable (not quite but getting closer every day), but I'm guessing the same goes for EV tech. Even if it takes 20 years of welfare, it's nothing compared to the 100 year+ return we should get from such an investment.
In summary, in *some* cases, giving people public money *can* have a net gain on the overall economy.
Ah yes, the much vaunted "Hipster-Hate" of the Slashdot neckbeard crowd. Quick, get on board the Hipster-hate train before it leaves the station!
I was a hipster in 2007, got over it by 2010, and am already on the next cool thing which I can't tell you about (for obvious reasons). If you're living in 2015 and either a hipster or hipster-hater then you are most likely closer to the Walmart end of the spectrum.
I'm assuming the Engineers at Phillips are aware of this and hence designing LEDs with the appropriate wavelengths for any chosen crop?
"And if you have ANY interest in doing this efficiently, then you'll use the sun and not LEDs."
Sun = ~93 lumens per watt.
LED = ~220+ lumens per watt.
Try again when you're actually educated in the subject, okay?
And what is the kwh cost for the Sun's energy compared with LEDs?
Lots of money would enter the economy, but no useful work would get done. Such spending makes us all poorer, not richer.
Er you are quoting Keynes on economic stimulus which does actually work (in certain cases)
Eg Australia did exactly that when the GFC hit and it survived intact without a single recession, unlike pretty much every other economy that went down the austerity path, and are worse off because of it.
Insult, insult, insult. Is your argument really that weak?
What specific overhead are you talking about? All Govt spending goes into the economy.
You spend a lot of energy attacking me, and none on discussing the topic. Are you really that unsure of your position?
In the Air Force's defense, it's not their fault that the President insists on dragging them into land wars in Asia.
What I find strange is that a President invests in such a large airstrike capability, but then spends decades picking fights that require no advanced air strike capability.
I was taught at school back in the cold war days that the future of war will be small, land based, counter insurgency style (ie what effectively panned out in the 30 years since). If my teacher got that, and I got it, how come the POTUS doesn't get it?
I LOVE frustrating people like you
I'm not frustrated, I come here to discuss concepts and be challenged. When the other party switches from debating the topic to attacking me personally then I know for sure their argument was weak.
At the expense of old industries, and old jobs disappearing, and leaving formerly employed people wondering how to put food on their tables.
Unless the "new industry" in question increases TOTAL demand for the category of things it represents (autos in this case), all it does is move jobs from that factory over there to this one over here.
In other words, every EV sold is one less gas burner sold. So it IS a zero-sum game.
But in a global economy you have no choice. If you stick with Oil burners, and China succeeds in creating a revolutionary EV, then your entire industry and economy die in the ditch. And people starve on the streets
The only path to success is to compete, which is what we are doing. Sure there'll be some mistakes along the way, but your choice is to compete and maybe win, or maybe just keep your head above water. If you sit on your hands and do nothing then the only possible result is failure.
The problem is wealth transfer from the general public to a select few.
It does not matter how noble your cause is, it is a bad idea, it has been tried before, it doesn't end well.
Not always, which is my point
If public funds should be used for the benefit of all, then they shouldn't enrich specific people.
How do you measure the benefit to all?
Let's use the solar example. Early adopters of solar got grants from their govt. ie public funds made some solar business owners rich.
If you leave it there, that sounds bad, public money into private hands etc. But if you work out that a $10B investment (made up numbers for the purpose of demonstration) into solar creates a new global industry player which generates your country $100B in revenue, and $20B in taxes from all the new technology, then making those people at the start rich can result in an overall net gain for all.
This is the point of subsidies. It sounds crap on the surface, but unless you're taking the entire economic benefit into account then you can't judge whether it has been a success or not.
Note: I realise some subsidies have failed miserabley, but also some have been successful. The point is the concept of a subsidy is not necessary a bad thing, when applied correctly.
Maybe I'm wrong and you've got a good argument. I'll keep an open mind. But I don't see how you can sustain this argument.
What that different countries have different cultures with different ideologies that result in different socio-economic conditions?
Sorry it's not my job to give you an entire high school social studies education in one post.
What I have a problem with, and you should too, is when the government says "lets make SOME of our citizens better off at the expense of others".
But it's not that simple.
Every piece of legislation benefits some over others, the point of strategy is not to ensure every individual gets something, but society as a whole moves forward.
If you get bogged down in trying to ensure everyone wins, then you end up going nowhere and then everyone loses.
The solar initiatives are creating a positive change for society as everyone becomes more aware of energy dependency and efficiency, and is allowing the barrier to entry to be softened for new businesses, meaning more business, more income for more people. And importantly more tax dollars and less welfare. If that means slightly higher electricity bills for everyone then that's still a win for society in my book.