Value and cost simply won't equate in a hybrid-capitalist economy like the US. This is why my electric bill is a fraction of my cable bill each month. Electricity is far more valuable but it isn't allowed to be priced as such because of reasons I can't still quite comprehend. If the market was able to set trust costs electricity would cost much more but silly entertainment choices would be the fractional cost.
Government intervention requires pursuing hackers as if they physically broke into a location. That requires international treaties and a strong leader that won't let foreign States sponsor such nonsense without punishment. Our government is decades behind on this. The reason we don't have to build our houses like vaults is we have local authorities that will seek and prosecute those that invade our private property.
Your house is protecting YOU first and foremost. Personal security is a great comparison with corporate security. We all do reasonable measures to protect ourselves but are hardly spending a large portion of our income to do so. We all know anyone that violates our property will be dealt with by authorities. We can only ask for reasonable security and a justice system that punishes those that go beyond that. Our justice system is AWOL on hacking.
Accurate information would be of value to a marketplace. It's effectively a trust issue and trust is at the center of trade. Those who are untrustworthy will fail in a free market. Security is a non-issue if you believe failing at it can be so easily manipulated away. The argument defeats itself.
That's like saying humans wouldn't be interested in an insect. Science and curiosity would certainly be traits of a civilization that existed long enough to travel among the stars. As production grows exponential, the arts and entertainment seem to grow with it. Studying the basic philosophy of existence could also become the primary reason for exploration for powerful beings that have mastered the physical sciences. In other words, there would be a lot to be gained in communicating with other intelligent beings for art and perspective, if not far more than that. Your viewpoint is heavily influenced by the pop culture view of what alien life would/could be.
I do believe Hawking is a bit crazy on this subject though. I don't think we have anything to fear from intelligent beings because as intelligence and rationality grow, war and violence decrease. A violent culture would likely destroy itself before becoming advanced enough to travel anywhere distant.
Yes but this is because those things aren't being regulated and controlled by the government. They are cheap and accessible because Capitalism works. That which they really need such as health care and employment, are regulated by those that are more interested in their vote than welfare. No system of wealth distribution will make irrational economics work.
Why do we have to have price control? That is one of the biggest economic flubs we have today. People are lemmings on this way too often. Why is it everything that isn't deemed a public need gets cheaper and better, think TVs, DVD players, computers, phones, etc. While things that "have" to be controlled for the public good, energy, telecom, health care, etc. get more expensive? Stop and think about that and really ask yourself why the LAWS of economic work fine for most things but suddenly break for others? It's hard to get millions of political contributions from an industry if you aren't controlling it.
You will never be able to argue with someone that believes money is a cause of wealth rather than the result of work. Simply give up. There are a lot of people out there that believe taking your rewards from hard work and giving it to someone else will magically make them work hard.
One could argue we had tax cuts but that hasn't translated to spending cuts. There is more money being paid in social welfare programs today than there was in 2000. If you subsidize something you are doing so to help prop it up. Subsidizing being poor simply keeps poor people poor. I'm all for a simplified social welfare system like this because it puts the responsibility on those getting the aid, but I want to see it include the middle class. If climbing the ladder into the middle class didn't cause you to "lose" a benefit, it would be more worthwhile to climb the ladder. (i.e. Why work for $300/week when you get unemployment of $400/week?) Most social welfare programs have simply made the ladder steps further apart. This economic conservative is willing to humor basic income if it includes most people. If it only props up the poor it will fail.
Simply brilliant. The other angle I see is: why on Earth would you want your party controlling the White House the next four years? A recession is coming, health care cost is a debacle, terrorism is actually creeping back up, and either major candidate will take office with a record setting disapproval rating. The next President sits for one term and their party will take a beating over that term.
I hate the term "laws of physics" because it is terribly misleading. What we understand is a mathematical model in specific frames of reference. The laws of math do not change, but our understanding of the why/what of our Universe is probably minuscule and is likely to radically change over time.
It will be impossible to statistically link weather events to climate for centuries. Even that assumes massive advances in simulating climate. It's complete scientific nonsense to try to link the two right now. Nye should have known better than to even talk about this.
It is a bit of a Catch-22 for sure, but it would help greatly if the political spinning was removed from the discourse. Climate Change is real but it has both positive and negative side effects for various peoples. It also doesn't necessitate a reversal since adaptation could be more practical and moral. I find people are far more receptive to the science if you frame it as a purely scientific observation and then discuss what options we have before us as a consequence of it rather than simply demand we try to reverse it. (Which is a purely political stance since there is no "right" climate.)
Why? Russia would want the world to know that nobody's information is safe from them. Even if they weren't involved in this attack at all, there is utility in the rest of the world believing they were. There is a lot of power in having your adversaries think you are capable of something even if you really aren't.
If Putin was somehow pulling for Trump to win, he's not doing much to do that. If anything is alarming about this is how much "information" is being released on a possible hostile act by another major nation without the major players involved squashing rumors or speculation. It's not exactly a prime example of secret keeping nor investigative professionalism.
It seems to me to be a political play to publicly play the Russia card. I really doubt these professional hackers would hack ONE political candidate for President. They all would be ripe targets and arguably, Clinton would be the most difficult - tho most prized. I really think Russia is a red herring as well, especially with how much is "leaking" out into the news.
Wow. Ridiculous. Ignore the fact that there are Muslim nations that execute homosexuals. The religion itself is extremely homophobic. Ignore the rhetoric the radicals of the region spew out every day online. Then you somehow think radio "talents" in the United States are the radical ones. WOW. Just WOW.
Seems like it might be. It's probably forward thinking though because I'm sure adjustments will be made to make up for this part of the economy. (The writing on the wall is there for all oil producing countries). This is kind of like a tobacco farmer that doesn't smoke. Is he being a hypocrite or is he just smarter than his customers?
It's not very fair to blame the companies for having a short horizon. As a corporate stooge myself, I know companies can't trust the Government to stay stable long enough to plan out more than a few years, especially with anything related to information and technology. You can't count on being able to take 10-15 years to get your investment back because the Federal Government likes to whip back and forth with every election. You can't count on taxes, regulations, price controls, etc. staying stable for that long.
I am a greedy scumbag capitalist and when I look at Comcast I see the devil in corporate form. That's a bit unfair to the devil though, his customer service is better.
STRAW MAN. If a company was providing you dangerous water knowingly and intentionally tested to avoid detecting it, you could sue them for damages and people could be held criminally liable. Libertarians hold civil courts as one of the government's primary functions and thus this would be a better situation in libertarian political system because of legal accountability.
Sanders is a magic bullet that lazy Leftists want to shoot and try to change everything from the top down. Real change comes local and works its way up. If you like Sanders ideas, you need to push them at a local level and change the culture there. You need to actually have conversations with moderates and Republicans and convince them it's the way to go, or god forbid, adjust your own ideas to gain support. The young always flock to a candidate that says all these magical things while calling everybody else names or tearing them down. It's hilarious to see the youth throw their votes away every cycle.
They aren't. Freedom is being protected from your neighbors so you may live the life you want to live. Democracy empowers your neighbor to have an equal say in how you want to live. If you were stranded on an island with 100 people and they decided to hold a vote to decide who to eat first to fight off starvation, tell me how Democracy helped the freedom of the loser of such a vote?
I think it's a mistake to believe that. There are a lot of Americans that feel NAFTA and the crony Capitalism in Washington have destroyed our manufacturing base. (I'm not saying that is true, I've just actually listened to what they say.) They don't necessarily believe Trump will fix it, but he's a voice of their concerns. No other candidate has talked so bluntly about those issues. Ignoring the border is a huge political gamble for Clinton, she could do a lot to disarm Trump by putting a reform plan together for the border & immigration. Calling Trump names and calling his follows a "cult" actually empower him. If you don't like Trump, talk about how is policies are bad, don't talk down about the man.. it only feeds that narrative that Washington wants to protect itself more than it wants to tackle problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Value and cost simply won't equate in a hybrid-capitalist economy like the US. This is why my electric bill is a fraction of my cable bill each month. Electricity is far more valuable but it isn't allowed to be priced as such because of reasons I can't still quite comprehend. If the market was able to set trust costs electricity would cost much more but silly entertainment choices would be the fractional cost.
Government intervention requires pursuing hackers as if they physically broke into a location. That requires international treaties and a strong leader that won't let foreign States sponsor such nonsense without punishment. Our government is decades behind on this. The reason we don't have to build our houses like vaults is we have local authorities that will seek and prosecute those that invade our private property.
Your house is protecting YOU first and foremost. Personal security is a great comparison with corporate security. We all do reasonable measures to protect ourselves but are hardly spending a large portion of our income to do so. We all know anyone that violates our property will be dealt with by authorities. We can only ask for reasonable security and a justice system that punishes those that go beyond that. Our justice system is AWOL on hacking.
Accurate information would be of value to a marketplace. It's effectively a trust issue and trust is at the center of trade. Those who are untrustworthy will fail in a free market. Security is a non-issue if you believe failing at it can be so easily manipulated away. The argument defeats itself.
That's like saying humans wouldn't be interested in an insect. Science and curiosity would certainly be traits of a civilization that existed long enough to travel among the stars. As production grows exponential, the arts and entertainment seem to grow with it. Studying the basic philosophy of existence could also become the primary reason for exploration for powerful beings that have mastered the physical sciences. In other words, there would be a lot to be gained in communicating with other intelligent beings for art and perspective, if not far more than that. Your viewpoint is heavily influenced by the pop culture view of what alien life would/could be. I do believe Hawking is a bit crazy on this subject though. I don't think we have anything to fear from intelligent beings because as intelligence and rationality grow, war and violence decrease. A violent culture would likely destroy itself before becoming advanced enough to travel anywhere distant.
Yes but this is because those things aren't being regulated and controlled by the government. They are cheap and accessible because Capitalism works. That which they really need such as health care and employment, are regulated by those that are more interested in their vote than welfare. No system of wealth distribution will make irrational economics work.
Why do we have to have price control? That is one of the biggest economic flubs we have today. People are lemmings on this way too often. Why is it everything that isn't deemed a public need gets cheaper and better, think TVs, DVD players, computers, phones, etc. While things that "have" to be controlled for the public good, energy, telecom, health care, etc. get more expensive? Stop and think about that and really ask yourself why the LAWS of economic work fine for most things but suddenly break for others? It's hard to get millions of political contributions from an industry if you aren't controlling it.
You will never be able to argue with someone that believes money is a cause of wealth rather than the result of work. Simply give up. There are a lot of people out there that believe taking your rewards from hard work and giving it to someone else will magically make them work hard.
One could argue we had tax cuts but that hasn't translated to spending cuts. There is more money being paid in social welfare programs today than there was in 2000. If you subsidize something you are doing so to help prop it up. Subsidizing being poor simply keeps poor people poor. I'm all for a simplified social welfare system like this because it puts the responsibility on those getting the aid, but I want to see it include the middle class. If climbing the ladder into the middle class didn't cause you to "lose" a benefit, it would be more worthwhile to climb the ladder. (i.e. Why work for $300/week when you get unemployment of $400/week?) Most social welfare programs have simply made the ladder steps further apart. This economic conservative is willing to humor basic income if it includes most people. If it only props up the poor it will fail.
Simply brilliant. The other angle I see is: why on Earth would you want your party controlling the White House the next four years? A recession is coming, health care cost is a debacle, terrorism is actually creeping back up, and either major candidate will take office with a record setting disapproval rating. The next President sits for one term and their party will take a beating over that term.
I hate the term "laws of physics" because it is terribly misleading. What we understand is a mathematical model in specific frames of reference. The laws of math do not change, but our understanding of the why/what of our Universe is probably minuscule and is likely to radically change over time.
It will be impossible to statistically link weather events to climate for centuries. Even that assumes massive advances in simulating climate. It's complete scientific nonsense to try to link the two right now. Nye should have known better than to even talk about this.
It is a bit of a Catch-22 for sure, but it would help greatly if the political spinning was removed from the discourse. Climate Change is real but it has both positive and negative side effects for various peoples. It also doesn't necessitate a reversal since adaptation could be more practical and moral. I find people are far more receptive to the science if you frame it as a purely scientific observation and then discuss what options we have before us as a consequence of it rather than simply demand we try to reverse it. (Which is a purely political stance since there is no "right" climate.)
Why? Russia would want the world to know that nobody's information is safe from them. Even if they weren't involved in this attack at all, there is utility in the rest of the world believing they were. There is a lot of power in having your adversaries think you are capable of something even if you really aren't.
If Putin was somehow pulling for Trump to win, he's not doing much to do that. If anything is alarming about this is how much "information" is being released on a possible hostile act by another major nation without the major players involved squashing rumors or speculation. It's not exactly a prime example of secret keeping nor investigative professionalism.
It seems to me to be a political play to publicly play the Russia card. I really doubt these professional hackers would hack ONE political candidate for President. They all would be ripe targets and arguably, Clinton would be the most difficult - tho most prized. I really think Russia is a red herring as well, especially with how much is "leaking" out into the news.
Wow. Ridiculous. Ignore the fact that there are Muslim nations that execute homosexuals. The religion itself is extremely homophobic. Ignore the rhetoric the radicals of the region spew out every day online. Then you somehow think radio "talents" in the United States are the radical ones. WOW. Just WOW.
Seems like it might be. It's probably forward thinking though because I'm sure adjustments will be made to make up for this part of the economy. (The writing on the wall is there for all oil producing countries). This is kind of like a tobacco farmer that doesn't smoke. Is he being a hypocrite or is he just smarter than his customers?
Norway is not socialist, far from it. Norway arguably is a more market economy than even the United States. https://fee.org/articles/the-m...
It's not very fair to blame the companies for having a short horizon. As a corporate stooge myself, I know companies can't trust the Government to stay stable long enough to plan out more than a few years, especially with anything related to information and technology. You can't count on being able to take 10-15 years to get your investment back because the Federal Government likes to whip back and forth with every election. You can't count on taxes, regulations, price controls, etc. staying stable for that long.
I am a greedy scumbag capitalist and when I look at Comcast I see the devil in corporate form. That's a bit unfair to the devil though, his customer service is better.
STRAW MAN. If a company was providing you dangerous water knowingly and intentionally tested to avoid detecting it, you could sue them for damages and people could be held criminally liable. Libertarians hold civil courts as one of the government's primary functions and thus this would be a better situation in libertarian political system because of legal accountability.
Sanders is a magic bullet that lazy Leftists want to shoot and try to change everything from the top down. Real change comes local and works its way up. If you like Sanders ideas, you need to push them at a local level and change the culture there. You need to actually have conversations with moderates and Republicans and convince them it's the way to go, or god forbid, adjust your own ideas to gain support. The young always flock to a candidate that says all these magical things while calling everybody else names or tearing them down. It's hilarious to see the youth throw their votes away every cycle.
They aren't. Freedom is being protected from your neighbors so you may live the life you want to live. Democracy empowers your neighbor to have an equal say in how you want to live. If you were stranded on an island with 100 people and they decided to hold a vote to decide who to eat first to fight off starvation, tell me how Democracy helped the freedom of the loser of such a vote?
I think it's a mistake to believe that. There are a lot of Americans that feel NAFTA and the crony Capitalism in Washington have destroyed our manufacturing base. (I'm not saying that is true, I've just actually listened to what they say.) They don't necessarily believe Trump will fix it, but he's a voice of their concerns. No other candidate has talked so bluntly about those issues. Ignoring the border is a huge political gamble for Clinton, she could do a lot to disarm Trump by putting a reform plan together for the border & immigration. Calling Trump names and calling his follows a "cult" actually empower him. If you don't like Trump, talk about how is policies are bad, don't talk down about the man.. it only feeds that narrative that Washington wants to protect itself more than it wants to tackle problems.