The fact that most families don't make $90k a year is definitely all their own fault for being lazy. Seriously, why are all those people unemployed? Must be lazy bums they are. Just get an education and get a job!!!
I'd have mod you troll/flamebait, but then you wouldn't know why.
I sort of have the impression that generally the question of "whether that increased cost (negative) offsets the positive (1 million employed)" is generally answered in the negative (I think that was dealt with by Adam Smith too), although #1 I'm not sure and #2 I don't quite remember the arguments.
My very informal way to understand it is, if the cost of iPads is increased by 30% because of this tariff, then all consumers are actually feeding the 1 million unemployed with this 30% premium. It seems fundamentally not so different from raising taxes and doling out extra social security.
Perhaps one way to look at unemployment not only from an economic POV, but on a more social level. I can readily imagine that people given the illusion of doing useful work (even if in fact it is worthless) are better off than just sitting around idly. A country full of busy-but-somewhat-inefficient workers is probably in a better shape (socially, psychologically) than a country with 10% extremely efficient workers and 90% unemployed, even if their economic output is comparable.
They are equivalent in the economic sense, but you're saying unreliable shipping can potentially solve all the unemployment etc. etc. (economic) problems, yet tariffs are bad?
Aren't "shipping being unreliable" equivalent to high tariffs on both sides?
For businesses that do international trade, all they know is that there's a higher shipping cost when they move goods from one country to another. The reason shouldn't matter, I suppose?
If that were the case, then high tariffs would have solved all the world's trade and economic problems.
However, I don't think it works that way. The argument is a bit complex, but essentially (if I understand it correctly) everyone is getting inferior goods with a higher price, and in the end it hurts everyone.
This probably sounds wrong to you, but that argument (in a much more sophisticated manner) was one of the main themes of Adam Smith's thesis, and it has convinced economist who are smarter than you and me, and it is why the whole world is engaging in free trade instead of isolating from one another.
who benefits the most from the secured shipping lanes?
Everyone. If the cost of shipping goes up due to piracy, eventually consumers will have to endure more expensive products. "Big Business" will just raise the prices.
In an ideal world, the inheritance fund would be heavily taxed so that the *thousands* of retarded orphans (including the one with super rich parents) could be cared for by social security nets.
Admittedly, people do sort of think you're a sociopath if you don't particularly empathize the poor, oppressed person who happens to be in the spotlight.
Go read Adam Smith (you can think of him as the father of modern economics). He explains how the capitalist system can be morally justified. He explains how rational, personal greed can lead to the accumulation wealth of the society. As for monopoly, Adam Smith was strongly opposed to monopolies, as they caused his ideal capitalist system to break down (in a sort of singularity).
Of course, as a disclaimer for the cynical you, his views have been misinterpreted by many, and among them are the so called "capitalists" today that exploit "bugs" in the capitalist system for their own gain and nobody else's.
The whole point of the GP is that if you don't use the language "correctly", you have a less chance of successfully solving the user's problem, unless you're a programming god.
There is a difference between a right to stupidly repeat your stance and lines a million times, and a right to force others to listen to you.
We have the former, not the latter. If you think it's justified for police to come arrest you because you said the same thing yesterday and the day before, that's a very very scary place.
But then, it might be great. Maybe just start here on slashdot and arrest the BSD is dying people, the Apple is Evil people, the goatse trolls and all. No need for -1 redundant!
In fact, it's probably more fair to say that Microsoft Windows (95, 98, etc.) are work-alikes of older technology.
Internet Explorer, which as we all know is primarily a web browser, has evolved a great deal over the years, and has support for functionality (like Javascript, for instance) that just plain didn't exist in Mosaic or Lynx. And, in fact, the browser is even famous/infamous for its non-standard features, tuning parameters, and changes in its API. There's the document.all object, of course, and the filesystem access loopholes in ActiveX, but on the whole, I think it's fair to say that the IE browser is not, in fact, a work-alike of other browsers.
Uh, I didn't really write this just to be sarcastic. It almost sounded like you were saying what I wrote above when I read how "great" Linux was compared to its predecessors and how it's supposed to be "better" than how the big bad corps "innovate".
Really, Linux is really just a "user friendly" and improved Unix. I love it, but it's not where you point to for evidence of innovation.
This is purely anecdotal experience, but people from academia tend to write code that is a bit more "ugly" than seasoned "software engineers". By "ugly", I mean the code works, but it's relatively less readable and harder to maintain and extend.
Other than that, it's pretty much the same thing, IMHO. There's nothing so magical/mythical about "software engineering", and practices between companies can be very different.
Likely worth a tiny fraction of the 75B that is laughably being touted, but it will be here.
I don't know why people here are so skeptical of Facebook's market value as a company. Most people spend more time on Facebook than they do on Google. Facebook has a lot more and a lot accurate data than Google has on their users. If Google can become so huge just by selling ads on their websites, why can't Facebook be at least as big as them?
Why would my "legal name" matter? For what it's worth, without having a court order or other proceedings that forced me to reveal my legal name, how on Earth do you know it is not "BigPeniz249"?
Besides, I could claim my name is John Smith and you'd be none the wiser. Enforcing real names in an online service is simply impractical and downright idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes yes, blame the victim.
The fact that most families don't make $90k a year is definitely all their own fault for being lazy. Seriously, why are all those people unemployed? Must be lazy bums they are. Just get an education and get a job!!!
I'd have mod you troll/flamebait, but then you wouldn't know why.
Patent is not about design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
Ah. That actually makes sense :)
I sort of have the impression that generally the question of "whether that increased cost (negative) offsets the positive (1 million employed)" is generally answered in the negative (I think that was dealt with by Adam Smith too), although #1 I'm not sure and #2 I don't quite remember the arguments.
My very informal way to understand it is, if the cost of iPads is increased by 30% because of this tariff, then all consumers are actually feeding the 1 million unemployed with this 30% premium. It seems fundamentally not so different from raising taxes and doling out extra social security.
Perhaps one way to look at unemployment not only from an economic POV, but on a more social level. I can readily imagine that people given the illusion of doing useful work (even if in fact it is worthless) are better off than just sitting around idly. A country full of busy-but-somewhat-inefficient workers is probably in a better shape (socially, psychologically) than a country with 10% extremely efficient workers and 90% unemployed, even if their economic output is comparable.
They are equivalent in the economic sense, but you're saying unreliable shipping can potentially solve all the unemployment etc. etc. (economic) problems, yet tariffs are bad?
I don't get it.
Aren't "shipping being unreliable" equivalent to high tariffs on both sides?
For businesses that do international trade, all they know is that there's a higher shipping cost when they move goods from one country to another. The reason shouldn't matter, I suppose?
If that were the case, then high tariffs would have solved all the world's trade and economic problems.
However, I don't think it works that way. The argument is a bit complex, but essentially (if I understand it correctly) everyone is getting inferior goods with a higher price, and in the end it hurts everyone.
This probably sounds wrong to you, but that argument (in a much more sophisticated manner) was one of the main themes of Adam Smith's thesis, and it has convinced economist who are smarter than you and me, and it is why the whole world is engaging in free trade instead of isolating from one another.
who benefits the most from the secured shipping lanes?
Everyone. If the cost of shipping goes up due to piracy, eventually consumers will have to endure more expensive products. "Big Business" will just raise the prices.
In an ideal world, the inheritance fund would be heavily taxed so that the *thousands* of retarded orphans (including the one with super rich parents) could be cared for by social security nets.
Admittedly, people do sort of think you're a sociopath if you don't particularly empathize the poor, oppressed person who happens to be in the spotlight.
Who stated that goal? Some capitalist's PR flack?
Go read Adam Smith (you can think of him as the father of modern economics). He explains how the capitalist system can be morally justified. He explains how rational, personal greed can lead to the accumulation wealth of the society. As for monopoly, Adam Smith was strongly opposed to monopolies, as they caused his ideal capitalist system to break down (in a sort of singularity).
Of course, as a disclaimer for the cynical you, his views have been misinterpreted by many, and among them are the so called "capitalists" today that exploit "bugs" in the capitalist system for their own gain and nobody else's.
You make the assumption that laws determine what is right and what is wrong.
Some people do make this assumption, but it is far from being universally accepted.
Perhaps Slashdot is not a good venue to explain "jurisprudence" (or legal theory), but you might want to look up "Natural Law" and "Legal Positivism".
The whole point of the GP is that if you don't use the language "correctly", you have a less chance of successfully solving the user's problem, unless you're a programming god.
There is a difference between a right to stupidly repeat your stance and lines a million times, and a right to force others to listen to you.
We have the former, not the latter. If you think it's justified for police to come arrest you because you said the same thing yesterday and the day before, that's a very very scary place.
But then, it might be great. Maybe just start here on slashdot and arrest the BSD is dying people, the Apple is Evil people, the goatse trolls and all. No need for -1 redundant!
You are free to say whatever you like. You should NOT be allowed to say it over and over and over again.
You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.
You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.
You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.
You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.
You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.
You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.
You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.
Or come arrest me.
Hot chicks may get aroused and rape me.
Let's see what Microsoft PR dept might say.
In fact, it's probably more fair to say that Microsoft Windows (95, 98, etc.) are work-alikes of older technology.
Internet Explorer, which as we all know is primarily a web browser, has evolved a great deal over the years, and has support for functionality (like Javascript, for instance) that just plain didn't exist in Mosaic or Lynx. And, in fact, the browser is even famous/infamous for its non-standard features, tuning parameters, and changes in its API. There's the document.all object, of course, and the filesystem access loopholes in ActiveX, but on the whole, I think it's fair to say that the IE browser is not, in fact, a work-alike of other browsers.
Uh, I didn't really write this just to be sarcastic. It almost sounded like you were saying what I wrote above when I read how "great" Linux was compared to its predecessors and how it's supposed to be "better" than how the big bad corps "innovate".
Really, Linux is really just a "user friendly" and improved Unix. I love it, but it's not where you point to for evidence of innovation.
By "ugly", I mean the code works, but it's relatively less readable and harder to maintain and extend.
Hate to quote myself. I'm violating my sig.
This is purely anecdotal experience, but people from academia tend to write code that is a bit more "ugly" than seasoned "software engineers". By "ugly", I mean the code works, but it's relatively less readable and harder to maintain and extend.
Other than that, it's pretty much the same thing, IMHO. There's nothing so magical/mythical about "software engineering", and practices between companies can be very different.
Likely worth a tiny fraction of the 75B that is laughably being touted, but it will be here.
I don't know why people here are so skeptical of Facebook's market value as a company. Most people spend more time on Facebook than they do on Google. Facebook has a lot more and a lot accurate data than Google has on their users. If Google can become so huge just by selling ads on their websites, why can't Facebook be at least as big as them?
What does that leave?
Try Slashdot?
Speaking of that, there's no reason I shouldn't try my luck here too. Hey girls! I'm single, male, 26, and have excellent karma. PM if interested.
We should spend billions to combat "global warming" because a weather station couldn't predict the weather correctly.
Oh noes, how are we going to decide where to go for the weekend?!?!?!?!!
How many people bought a new iPad instead of a new computer last Christmas?
There's nothing so illogical about people using a 3 year old computer and buying a new iPad.....
Isn't that simple diffusion rather than osmosis?
Why would my "legal name" matter? For what it's worth, without having a court order or other proceedings that forced me to reveal my legal name, how on Earth do you know it is not "BigPeniz249"?
Besides, I could claim my name is John Smith and you'd be none the wiser. Enforcing real names in an online service is simply impractical and downright idiotic.
Yes. That is exactly the point.