Re:Banks is Wonderful but Awful
on
Look to Windward
·
· Score: 2
I sometimes wonder if the good stuff is worth the price he makes you pay.
Nice quote. Banks is an incredible writer, but his books aren't mindless entertainment. It requires a certain effort to read them, and you can't expect to come away feeling satisfied.
I kind of agree with you about the twist at the end of 'Use of Weapons'. It's unfair to the reader, but I can't help admiring it because he does it so cleverly. I think the rest of the book is overrated IMHO. It's deep, but I found it quite boring. 'Excession' was his best I think, even if it was one of his more superficial books. I'll be getting this one when it comes out in paperback.
Your ideas about socialism are wrong. I have never heard a socialist promote a society like the one you describe. And as for being centralised... well, there are many different types of socialism. For example, Anarcho-socialism. (I was going to put a link to the A-S FAQ there, but someone seems to have nicked it).
Personally, I think I'll go along with the vast majority of the major thinkers of the 20th Century in preferring socialism over capitalism... George Orwell, Ché Guevara, John-Paul Sartre, Asimov, Malcolm X, Einstein, Aneurin Bevan, Oscar Wilde etc. etc.
geezer == generic British term for a bloke, guy, etc.
Perhaps I should clarify for the mathematically impared...My numbers were illustrative, not fixed.
They seemed fairly fixed to me. $15,000? Yeah, they could have been illustrative numbers, but you happened to pick numbers that gave an 80% marginal tax rate.
Of course, the income tax would be a sliding scale. You will notice that my numbers do not indicate a cut-off point
OK, fair one. I read your post a bit quickly and didn't realise it wasn't actually a cut-off you were talking about.
So long as c > a, there will exist some point at which the poor are paying a substantially higher marginal tax rate than the rich. Thus, they have a substantially lower return on their additional work
Not if you're applying the inverse of whatever function you're using to calculate negative income tax to calculate tax to be paid when income > c, eg exponential function:) Of course, I doubt McReynolds is that radical, but then you have to define "substantial". The graph can almost be as gradual as you like, depending on the relative wealth of rich and poor.
But this is implementation-specific. I happen to agree with the sentiment; the strong support the weak rather than the law of the jungle. At some point it comes down to philosophical preferences.
Of course, lots of socialists believe that money is a rather crude form of rationing.
No, socialist utopia is a reference to Sir Thomas More's seminal work outlining modern socialist theory
I'm suprised McReynolds replied here to Slashdot. If he's paid any attention he's got to know that it has a very large Anarcho-Libertarian user base
Of course. There's no point in preaching to the choir, is it? If he wants supporters, he needs to appeal to different areas. Maybe someone who read the interview is even now reading a bit of George Orwell or Karl Marx, or a biography of Ché Guevera to see what all this Socialism shit is all about. Probably not though. ---
No, seriously, who the hell moderated this up? There are various arguments you can make against Socialism, but this geezer has picked numbers out of the air. If anyone ever decided to implement a 'negative income tax' for the poor, it would be a sliding scale, not a cut-off point at some poverty level made up by HerbieTMac. By making up arguments like this, you just make yourself look stupid.
And 'Socialist utopia'? Is that meant to be an insult? Presumably you think a utopia would be capitalist, yes? Does anyone think in 200 years time we will still be living in a capitalist society (serious question)?
Is it just me or has/. become a slightly better-behaved place since Rob's IRC rants over the last week? It seems like the spam, trolls, flame etc. has reduced by a load.
I'm sure it doesn't work like that in the UK. If you buy stolen goods, you're fucked. Of course, there might be some exceptions, but that's the general rule. But, like you say, how many enigma machines are floating around the world market?
I think the geezers who are ransoming it are the ones that nicked it, and the coppers know it. If they pay the ransom, I'll be very surprised.
There was a radio programme in the UK that would broadcast BASIC programs that you could record and then load into your spectrum. Internet, who needs it.:-)
Oh my god! How cool is that? I must have missed that one. Have you got any more details? When was this?
I don't think you can consider the ABC as a computer because it wasn't Turing-complete. Zuse's machine/was/ and would be my choice for the first computer, even though it wasn't solely electronic.
Of course, the actual candidate is very subjective, but I can't see how the ABC could be considered a true computer. Unless you're an Iowan of course:)
OK, I've never looked at trolltalk. Why should I? Are you saying that if I want to discuss something, I should check first to see if the poster means it? For everyone who trolls there's someone else who thinks like it, so it's pointless trying to separate the two.
As for the rest of your trolling:)
I drink lager, and so does every rugby player I know. Beck's, Stella, Kronenberg & Heineken, just for the record. I own neither a Ben Sherman shirt, Armani jeans, or a beer belly. And I'm 21. And I'm not cynical, I admit; I'd rather have an intelligent discussion on/. rather than wreck it. Quite how you get a laugh out of that I don't understand. If you don't like/., why do you waste so much of your life posting to it?
Me and my like? How many Linux-using rugby players do you know then?
No score+1 bonus because I'm talking bollocks:) ---
We keep getting modded up. Someone likes what we post. That's for sure.
I dunno. Maybe it's all the trolls modding each other up? All the newbies not realising it's a troll post? Of course, there's a wide range of what could constitute trolling, and sometimes it can be... sort of funny. Not very often though.
Perhaps there could be a checkbox (like 'post anon') that said 'I am trolling', with the user option to turn off viewing these posts. We would soon see how many people appreciated the trolls. But of course, that would defeat the whole point of trolling, which as far as I can tell is to annoy everyone.
Like you say, it's certainly possible to be one orientation economically and another socially, mostly independently (though there is a certain interaction).
However, I was actually referring to how liberal he was (free speech, personal freedom etc; basically all about tolerance) and yet not recognising certain economic models as valid viewpoints. In fact he actually states that Socialism is 'evil' in one interview I read. You have to admit that, whilst having an opinion is fair enough, this does jar a bit with his social stance.
Your comments ARE crap. I don't want to hear them, and the vast majority of the/. readership doesn't want to either. If you want to troll, fuck off and find a forum where it'll be tolerated/appreciated.
Any chance of a poll to *prove* no one likes all the trolling? It's annoying and pointless, and almost never funny.
ESR keeps his politics separate from... what the hell? It would be intelligent if he had done, but he doesn't. He takes every opportunity to slam Socialism/Communism and promote Capitalism. Not quite sure where this irrational hatred comes from as he's quite left-wing on many social issues.
NO REAL PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING???!??!! 99% of climatologists will disagree with you on that one. Even the Americans.
And as for the idea that we are not affecting the CO2 composition of the atmosphere... bollocks. We pump millions of tons of it into the atmosphere, through factories, cars etc. Where do you think it all goes? CO2 levels are now the highest for 20 million years. Use Occams razor: is this because we are changing the atmosphere, or is it a 1 in 20 million coincidence? Listen to the scientists rather than the industrialists.
What the fuck are you talking about? I never claimed the environment doesn't change over time. But: carbon dioxide levels are the highest for 20 million years; we are producing vast amounts of it. Are the two related? Hello? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming. Which bit do you not accept?
You can crawl back to your narrow little world, happily accepting any bullshit that industry feels like giving you. I, on the other hand, am going to side with 99.9% of the world's climatologists, not to mention arguably the world's greatest scientists you decided to ridicule.
I'd like a couple of "meta-tld's";.biz and.free (say). All commercial URI's under the former and non-profit sites under the other. And have it enforced.
Slashdot Mirror
I sometimes wonder if the good stuff is worth the price he makes you pay.
Nice quote. Banks is an incredible writer, but his books aren't mindless entertainment. It requires a certain effort to read them, and you can't expect to come away feeling satisfied.
I kind of agree with you about the twist at the end of 'Use of Weapons'. It's unfair to the reader, but I can't help admiring it because he does it so cleverly. I think the rest of the book is overrated IMHO. It's deep, but I found it quite boring. 'Excession' was his best I think, even if it was one of his more superficial books. I'll be getting this one when it comes out in paperback.
---
Socialism is centralized
Your ideas about socialism are wrong. I have never heard a socialist promote a society like the one you describe. And as for being centralised... well, there are many different types of socialism. For example, Anarcho-socialism. (I was going to put a link to the A-S FAQ there, but someone seems to have nicked it).
Personally, I think I'll go along with the vast majority of the major thinkers of the 20th Century in preferring socialism over capitalism... George Orwell, Ché Guevara, John-Paul Sartre, Asimov, Malcolm X, Einstein, Aneurin Bevan, Oscar Wilde etc. etc.
---
OK...
:) Of course, I doubt McReynolds is that radical, but then you have to define "substantial". The graph can almost be as gradual as you like, depending on the relative wealth of rich and poor.
geezer == generic British term for a bloke, guy, etc.
Perhaps I should clarify for the mathematically impared...My numbers were illustrative, not fixed.
They seemed fairly fixed to me. $15,000? Yeah, they could have been illustrative numbers, but you happened to pick numbers that gave an 80% marginal tax rate.
Of course, the income tax would be a sliding scale. You will notice that my numbers do not indicate a cut-off point
OK, fair one. I read your post a bit quickly and didn't realise it wasn't actually a cut-off you were talking about.
So long as c > a, there will exist some point at which the poor are paying a substantially higher marginal tax rate than the rich. Thus, they have a substantially lower return on their additional work
Not if you're applying the inverse of whatever function you're using to calculate negative income tax to calculate tax to be paid when income > c, eg exponential function
But this is implementation-specific. I happen to agree with the sentiment; the strong support the weak rather than the law of the jungle. At some point it comes down to philosophical preferences.
Of course, lots of socialists believe that money is a rather crude form of rationing.
No, socialist utopia is a reference to Sir Thomas More's seminal work outlining modern socialist theory
Modern? Didn't More live c. 15th century?
---
I'm suprised McReynolds replied here to Slashdot. If he's paid any attention he's got to know that it has a very large Anarcho-Libertarian user base
Of course. There's no point in preaching to the choir, is it? If he wants supporters, he needs to appeal to different areas. Maybe someone who read the interview is even now reading a bit of George Orwell or Karl Marx, or a biography of Ché Guevera to see what all this Socialism shit is all about. Probably not though.
---
Mmmm... moderator crack... *drool*
No, seriously, who the hell moderated this up? There are various arguments you can make against Socialism, but this geezer has picked numbers out of the air. If anyone ever decided to implement a 'negative income tax' for the poor, it would be a sliding scale, not a cut-off point at some poverty level made up by HerbieTMac. By making up arguments like this, you just make yourself look stupid.
And 'Socialist utopia'? Is that meant to be an insult? Presumably you think a utopia would be capitalist, yes? Does anyone think in 200 years time we will still be living in a capitalist society (serious question)?
---
Funniest thing on the site:
...replicating the animals testicle in size, shape and weight
Ok, Mr. Johnson, I've made them a bit heavier this time.
Yeah, not too bad, boy. Hang on a second...
MOOOOOOOOH!
Yeah, they're pretty similar. Maybe a bit firmer with the next batch.
---
Email is written e-mail by those that don't consider it a proper word. Email is used by those who consider it already a fundamental part of society.
My prediction is that we stop pronouncing it 'E'-mail and start calling it 'emmail' because it's quicker to say.
---
I think the 1Å is a typo - according to the hard-copy newspaper, the actual time is 1½hours.
---
greed == self-interest
---
But those are factors within (a certain amount of) control within an individual, but genetic disposition IS NOT
How about if you're genetically disposed to alcoholism or smoking?
---
Is it just me or has /. become a slightly better-behaved place since Rob's IRC rants over the last week? It seems like the spam, trolls, flame etc. has reduced by a load.
---
Who gives a fuck? The day Taco & /. stops being irreverent is the day I leave. Professionalism == bland. At least, that's the way I see it.
---
I'm sure it doesn't work like that in the UK. If you buy stolen goods, you're fucked. Of course, there might be some exceptions, but that's the general rule. But, like you say, how many enigma machines are floating around the world market?
I think the geezers who are ransoming it are the ones that nicked it, and the coppers know it. If they pay the ransom, I'll be very surprised.
---
Wasn't it a pumping station they said it could control?
---
There was a radio programme in the UK that would broadcast BASIC programs that you could record and then load into your spectrum. Internet, who needs it. :-)
Oh my god! How cool is that? I must have missed that one. Have you got any more details? When was this?
---
I don't think you can consider the ABC as a computer because it wasn't Turing-complete. Zuse's machine /was/ and would be my choice for the first computer, even though it wasn't solely electronic.
:)
Of course, the actual candidate is very subjective, but I can't see how the ABC could be considered a true computer. Unless you're an Iowan of course
---
No... must not bite... damn.
:)
/. rather than wreck it. Quite how you get a laugh out of that I don't understand. If you don't like /., why do you waste so much of your life posting to it?
:)
OK, I've never looked at trolltalk. Why should I? Are you saying that if I want to discuss something, I should check first to see if the poster means it? For everyone who trolls there's someone else who thinks like it, so it's pointless trying to separate the two.
As for the rest of your trolling
I drink lager, and so does every rugby player I know. Beck's, Stella, Kronenberg & Heineken, just for the record. I own neither a Ben Sherman shirt, Armani jeans, or a beer belly. And I'm 21. And I'm not cynical, I admit; I'd rather have an intelligent discussion on
Me and my like? How many Linux-using rugby players do you know then?
No score+1 bonus because I'm talking bollocks
---
We keep getting modded up. Someone likes what we post. That's for sure.
I dunno. Maybe it's all the trolls modding each other up? All the newbies not realising it's a troll post? Of course, there's a wide range of what could constitute trolling, and sometimes it can be... sort of funny. Not very often though.
Perhaps there could be a checkbox (like 'post anon') that said 'I am trolling', with the user option to turn off viewing these posts. We would soon see how many people appreciated the trolls. But of course, that would defeat the whole point of trolling, which as far as I can tell is to annoy everyone.
---
Like you say, it's certainly possible to be one orientation economically and another socially, mostly independently (though there is a certain interaction).
However, I was actually referring to how liberal he was (free speech, personal freedom etc; basically all about tolerance) and yet not recognising certain economic models as valid viewpoints. In fact he actually states that Socialism is 'evil' in one interview I read. You have to admit that, whilst having an opinion is fair enough, this does jar a bit with his social stance.
---
Your comments ARE crap. I don't want to hear them, and the vast majority of the /. readership doesn't want to either. If you want to troll, fuck off and find a forum where it'll be tolerated/appreciated.
Any chance of a poll to *prove* no one likes all the trolling? It's annoying and pointless, and almost never funny.
---
3. I can't actually see the point of underrated/overrated. Doesn't meta-moderation make this redundant?
4. They why aren't they incorporated in the FAQ? (I've read it too.)
---
ESR keeps his politics separate from... what the hell? It would be intelligent if he had done, but he doesn't. He takes every opportunity to slam Socialism/Communism and promote Capitalism. Not quite sure where this irrational hatred comes from as he's quite left-wing on many social issues.
---
NO REAL PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING???!??!! 99% of climatologists will disagree with you on that one. Even the Americans.
And as for the idea that we are not affecting the CO2 composition of the atmosphere... bollocks. We pump millions of tons of it into the atmosphere, through factories, cars etc. Where do you think it all goes? CO2 levels are now the highest for 20 million years. Use Occams razor: is this because we are changing the atmosphere, or is it a 1 in 20 million coincidence? Listen to the scientists rather than the industrialists.
---
What the fuck are you talking about? I never claimed the environment doesn't change over time. But: carbon dioxide levels are the highest for 20 million years; we are producing vast amounts of it. Are the two related? Hello? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming. Which bit do you not accept?
You can crawl back to your narrow little world, happily accepting any bullshit that industry feels like giving you. I, on the other hand, am going to side with 99.9% of the world's climatologists, not to mention arguably the world's greatest scientists you decided to ridicule.
---
I'd like a couple of "meta-tld's"; .biz and .free (say). All commercial URI's under the former and non-profit sites under the other. And have it enforced.
---