There's reasons behind it, and anyone who wants to start a political movement to change it needs to consider those reasons.
And I'm telling you that saying "I'm a socialist and I like to copy crappy Hollywood movies for free as the first step towards a socialist utopia" is not going to fly with most Americans, and is an utterly ridiculous plan.
"People are not able to understand the limits of the technology," said Ms de Reynal. "They think, because it was on a smartphone, it seems real and credible."
Well, she'll "understand the limits of the technology" a lot more now. That's how humans learn: through experience.
I would add accountability too. Linus gets a lot of flack for his often profane in-your-face leadership style, but he has managed to keep the Linux kernel going strong for decades now. He calls out the developers of bad code that break the development rules (principles, structure, behaviors, etc...) and will not accept those changes.
By the way, the Linux kernel is actually a fairly big codebase, which goes against what I have been saying about breaking up projects. It works for the Linux kernel because of Linus. Most software projects don't have the luxury of a manager with the kinds of technical skills and obsessions as Linus.
In fact, in many corporate environments, Linus would have been pushed out by people like this, people who put their non-technical agenda ahead of getting the job done.
Yes, the problems you list occur when you break up big projects into smaller ones. They also occur when you don't break up projects. The difference is that when you break projects up, these problems actually become visible and exposed, which is why they can then be addressed by management and through tools.
it never worked for me. i always felt like i was in an IRC channel by myself, and i had to keep chatting and getting no reponses until the surly priest supervising us was satisfied.
Prayer/meditation isn't about "getting responses", it's about inducing a particular state of mind, one that is objectively observable and seems to have benefits for many people.
Only I don't go around lumping FDR in with Hitler (Godwin)
Naturally you don't: FDR is a progressive hero, and you don't want to taint his legacy or image. Progressives instead love to lump Trump, Trump supporters, libertarians, conservatives, and anybody who didn't vote for Hillary with Hitler [1][2] of fascism[3][4].
Pardon me for trying to set the record straight and point out what plenty of academics and historians agree on [5][6].
Similarly, your blinkered view of history and misplaced reverence may lead you to a very rude awakening.
I actually had quite a pleasant awakening when I came to the US and saw that there was an alternative to the socialism and progressivism that I grew up with. And my view of history is shared by large numbers of historians, political scientists, and US voters. See above.
Lots of women are against a woman's right to choose; Their gender doesn't make them any less deluded...
So you are saying that any woman that doesn't defer to your superior progressive American male intelligence must be "deluded"?
like those Hispanic Americans who supported Trump and are now shocked they live in "Papers Please!" hell.
So you are saying that any immigrant that doesn't defer to your superior progressive American male intelligence must be stupid?
FWIW, I have zero problems with police asking to see my papers when they notice (as they do) that I wasn't born in the US.
That just makes you a Randroid shit who shills for privilege
I'm just "shilling" for myself because I don't want the US to turn into the kind of places my family and I escaped from. The only "privilege" I enjoyed was that I grew up in an intact family that stressed education and self-reliance; by US standards, I was pretty poor growing up.
noticed your habit for calling people names, BTW.
I'm sorry I upset your sensitive progressive feelings by factually calling fascist economics "fascist economics". Why don't you go to your safe space and cry a little? Feel free to continue to spew your vitriol, I have a tough skin; I had to develop that growing up in a rather more homophobic and oppressive environment than you apparently did.
Yes, or even more. How many people do you think usually look at each line of text or each line of music before it gets published? And there, the stakes are usually considerably lower than for code.
Fixes are included in a test build for users to test and accept -- but what if they never do? Leave your best answers in the comments. How woud you stop un-approved code changes from being deployed?
- You set up the central repository to only accept code if it can be merged and results in all tests passing.
- You make sure that there is defined code ownership and that people can only change code with a review and with the approval of the owners, also enforced by the source code control system.
Long-term, there are two more things that should happen:
- Developers need to learn how to break up large diffs into many small, individually testable diffs.
- You need to break up your codebase so that it's not a single project with 1Mloc, but 50 small projects with 20kloc each.
It's a beautiful way to blame the person praying for the fact that the prayer doesn't work.
Mainstream Christianity has never taught that "if you ask God for X, you have a higher probability of getting X".
What it has taught is that "if you ask God for X, you may get some Y that helps you".
For example, when "X = material benefit", then a reasonable outcome is that "Y = reduction of desires for material benefits".
If you strip away all the religious mumbo jumbo, it's quite clear that the only "Y" that Christianity ever promises are psychological benefits, and that Christianity considers any promise of material benefits "Y" to be the domain of the devil.
And the psychological benefits Christianity promises for "Y" happen to be pretty much the kind that prayer can actually deliver.
In fact, a common theme throughout Christian writings is that God rejects and opposes material desires and tit-for-tat deals; see, for example, the Book of Job.
Prayer does not work inasmuch as one's requests for outcomes do not increase the likelihood of those outcomes. Maybe prayer helps to calm one down, clear the mind, improve emotional stability. Most people do not pray for these benefits, so for most people, prayer does not work.
And mainstream Christian churches (Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc.) don't claim that prayer does that; what they generally teach is that "God answers prayers in his own way". Generally, that means that when you ask for winning the lottery or for a lightning bolt to strike your ex-wife, what God might grant in response to your prayer is what Christianity actually values: serenity, compassion, wisdom, understanding, and freedom from sin and desire. You know, just the sort of benefits that meditation can actually deliver.
You equivocate.
No, not at all. What actually happened is that you were so ignorant about Christianity that you created a strawman in your head and didn't even realize it.
You are one very deluded puppy if you think that level of chauvanism can be supported in a coherent way.
I'm a gay "Caucasian" atheist. In most cultures and countries outside the West, I face massive prejudice, ostracism, imprisonment, or even death for my sexuality, my ethnicity, and my religion.
I have no problem at all "supporting my chauvinism".
Right. Fascism/Hitler. It's always Fascism or Hitler with you isn't it? Why is that?
You keep hearing that from me because it accurately describes the economic ideas that you (and, in general, American and European progressives) advocate.
Do you ever find that when you're typing in the word Hitler or Fascism something doesn't go off in you head that says " I've used these words a little bit too much lately, maybe I should change it up a bit"?
Actually, something goes off in my head that says "I have had to use these words a little bit too much lately; how is it possible that these failed ideologies are making such a comeback in 21st century America and Europe?"
If you are genuinely interested in the economics Google it.
I don't need to "Google it" because I actually read plenty of books on it. You should try reading actual books and following arguments and analyses that are longer than a web page and written by people with a bit more understanding than a Slate reporter or a Wikipedia editor. Here are some books to get you started:
Praying properly is like using phlogiston properly.
Our understanding of the mind-body problem is about as primitive as the understanding of medieval alchemist was of chemistry. They used "phlogiston theory" because they simply had no data or theory that worked better. It's the same with prayer: it's clearly scientifically unsatisfying, but science currently has nothing to offer that actually works better. Prayer (and other forms of meditation) helps many people live healthier, better, more satisfying lives, which is why they use it and why it has been around for so long.
So, either suggest a better alternative, or spare us the snark.
If you actually understood the economics, you would be able to make an argument for why employing more labor to produce the same amount of economic output is a good thing. But you're just a typical l peddler of broken fascist economic ideas,
Constraining shady business tactics is a tax on the shady business and subsidy for the honest business? And you accuse me of ideological reasoning?
The only "ideology" here is that you arbitrarily label business decisions to be "shady".
Well, actually, it's not arbitrary, it's actually self-serving and corrupt, because the business decisions you label as "shady" happen to be the ones that are contrary to your interests as a (presumably) educated, upper middle class techie.
You also seem to be for constrained government but unconstrained business.
You bet I am.
Tell me how unfettered monopolistic business tactics lead to a healthy market.
Simple: "unfettered monopolistic business tactics" are self-defeating in a free market; in a free market, businesses that engage in them are replaced by businesses that don't.
It's government that creates and maintains monopolies.
The claim is that any government policy to reduce carbon emission will wreck the economy.
No, the claim is that any effective government policy that reduces carbon emissions meaningfully and beyond what the market will do by itself will wreck the economy. The minor amount of tinkering the US and Europe have engaged in are not enough to wreck the economy, but they also don't meaningfully reduce carbon emissions. And what has reduced carbon emissions over the last decade is not government policy, but natural developments in the energy sector, mostly a switch to shale gas.
But we already have examples of that not being the case [eesi.org] I'm struggling to think of any examples of increased employment and new emerging industries being bad for the economy? Maybe you could help me out?
Sure, I can help you out. You can achieve "increased employment and new emerging industries" by any kind of natural disaster or widespread destruction or putting people to work on useless tasks. That increases economic indicators, but it makes peoples' lives miserable. Socialists, progressives, and fascists love that approach to "fixing the economy", whether it's Mussolini, Hitler, FDR, Stalin, or Krugman ("An Alien Invasion Could Fix the Economy").
Of course, in the article you cite, there isn't even evidence that new jobs are being created. That article says how many workers are supported by "clean energy". But labor is a scarce resource, and those workers would be more productively employed in other parts of the economy. Climate activists actually even tout this as an advantage.
It's like saying that we should return to pre-assembly line car manufacturing because it employs more people; indeed, it does, but it also makes cars cost a lot more. Or, it's like reducing unemployment by mandating that everybody homeowner employ a topiary specialist and shape at least three bushes like the heads of Clinton, Gore, and Obama; sure, it would create "increased employment and new emerging industries", but it would also leave home owners a lot poorer and take labor from productive parts of the economy and redirect them to a useless vanity project.
Only those that proceed on false assumptions.
As you are doing. Your false assumption is that "creating more jobs" or "employing more people" to produce the same amount or less energy is a good thing, when, in fact, it is a bad thing.
Can you name an ideology that hasn't left a bloody trail for centuries? Capitalism has left a bloodier trail, overall.
Free market capitalism isn't an "ideology", it's an economic organization, and one that has lifted much of the world out of poverty. The primary ideology that advocates free market capitalism liberalism (and by that, I don't mean the progressive illiberal crap Democrats are peddling).
Also, what was the blood Socialism was allegedly spilling in 1817?
Are you kidding me? There is even an American socialist magazine called "Jacobin"; go look it up and trace it back to its origins... before 1817.
The main political opposition to WWI was Socialism, FWIW.
It's not worth much. Socialists view themselves as an international movement of the have-nots, so they have less motivation to advocate violence between nations; after all, it would usually be their supporters that would end up being cannon fodder. Instead, socialists tend to direct their violent and murderous tendencies towards the middle and upper classes, in the form of terrorism and mass violence before they get into power, and in the form of gulags, mass executions, and mass starvation after they get into power.
Both in terms of their beliefs and in terms of their historical record, socialists are as reprehensible as fascists and Nazis.
Copyright prevents me from using my personal property in ways I might want.
So does tax law. Yet Sunde seems to favor laws that take away people's property and transfer it to him and people he likes. So, that can't be the fundamental principle that his opposition to copyright is based on.
As far as ownership of "intellectual property" goes, that seems, AFAICT, to not exist naturally, but rather is a result of legal constructs.
Actually, "intellectual property" used to be very carefully guarded, through guilds, associations, and personal relations. The printing press and modern teaching institutions changed those arrangements, and as a consequence, people then started looking for better legal mechanisms.
Storytellers would listen to other people's stories and repeat them. A storyteller who insisted that nobody could repeat his stories without paying him would be considered a weirdo.
In pre-literate society, storytelling is a profession that requires a lengthy period of apprenticeship and study, so the problem simply didn't arise.
Ideally, we'd want the compensation mechanism to be based pretty much on how people like the creation. We'd like it to be possible for people to create things on spec
Ideally, "we" stop talking about "us" as if "we" were some kind of single entity, and "we" stop reasoning about what it is "cheaper" to "allow".
Copyright is just the law of the land. People are welcome to try to work politically to change it. But simply ignoring it because someone wants to download the latest Hollywood movies for free does not even give them socialist street cred. Sorry.
No, more people choosing Google over Yahoo, Bing and AOL [seoconsultants.com] means that it is/was better.
You're equivocating between two senses of "better": one is whether something is more liked if people get it for free, the other is whether it is economically better overall. Yes, people liked Google Search "better", but that is ignoring the cost people pay for that, and often people who couldn't care less about the intricacies of Google vs Yahoo.
They wouldn't be able to directly replace them, they would be able to give preferential treatment to the traffic of their own competitor. They can't replace them but they can make them near unusable to their customers.
Companies that make products and services "near unusable to their customers" tend not to stay in business. That is, if Comcast or Verizon block access to things people want, they will pay for it and go out of business if they don't change their ways. So, your fear mongering has no basis in reality.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately contrarian or if you're legitimately dense.
I'm afraid it's you who is dense, spouting the usual progressive nonsense about how we must implement massive crony capitalism in order to save free markets from themselves.
The part where you are saying that you are "fine with" people substituting private services for municipal services. Municipalities are coercive, and if you support them, you support their coercion.
I've been against ones that did. In reality, some municipalities have set up reasonably efficient and very useful networks, which is getting value for one's money.
I'm sure that there have been plenty of infrastructure projects that worked really well for you. Politicians like to cater to politically important groups, like the privileged middle class and their whims. Everybody else is forced to go along.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm telling you that saying "I'm a socialist and I like to copy crappy Hollywood movies for free as the first step towards a socialist utopia" is not going to fly with most Americans, and is an utterly ridiculous plan.
I interpreted you correctly. I'm saying I don't believe you.
Add that to the list of your economic delusions.
Well, she'll "understand the limits of the technology" a lot more now. That's how humans learn: through experience.
By the way, the Linux kernel is actually a fairly big codebase, which goes against what I have been saying about breaking up projects. It works for the Linux kernel because of Linus. Most software projects don't have the luxury of a manager with the kinds of technical skills and obsessions as Linus.
In fact, in many corporate environments, Linus would have been pushed out by people like this, people who put their non-technical agenda ahead of getting the job done.
Yes, the problems you list occur when you break up big projects into smaller ones. They also occur when you don't break up projects. The difference is that when you break projects up, these problems actually become visible and exposed, which is why they can then be addressed by management and through tools.
Prayer/meditation isn't about "getting responses", it's about inducing a particular state of mind, one that is objectively observable and seems to have benefits for many people.
Naturally you don't: FDR is a progressive hero, and you don't want to taint his legacy or image. Progressives instead love to lump Trump, Trump supporters, libertarians, conservatives, and anybody who didn't vote for Hillary with Hitler [1] [2] of fascism[3][4].
Pardon me for trying to set the record straight and point out what plenty of academics and historians agree on [5] [6].
I actually had quite a pleasant awakening when I came to the US and saw that there was an alternative to the socialism and progressivism that I grew up with. And my view of history is shared by large numbers of historians, political scientists, and US voters. See above.
So you are saying that any woman that doesn't defer to your superior progressive American male intelligence must be "deluded"?
So you are saying that any immigrant that doesn't defer to your superior progressive American male intelligence must be stupid?
FWIW, I have zero problems with police asking to see my papers when they notice (as they do) that I wasn't born in the US.
I'm just "shilling" for myself because I don't want the US to turn into the kind of places my family and I escaped from. The only "privilege" I enjoyed was that I grew up in an intact family that stressed education and self-reliance; by US standards, I was pretty poor growing up.
I'm sorry I upset your sensitive progressive feelings by factually calling fascist economics "fascist economics". Why don't you go to your safe space and cry a little? Feel free to continue to spew your vitriol, I have a tough skin; I had to develop that growing up in a rather more homophobic and oppressive environment than you apparently did.
Pretty much every project on GitHub has code ownership.
Yes, or even more. How many people do you think usually look at each line of text or each line of music before it gets published? And there, the stakes are usually considerably lower than for code.
- You set up the central repository to only accept code if it can be merged and results in all tests passing.
- You make sure that there is defined code ownership and that people can only change code with a review and with the approval of the owners, also enforced by the source code control system.
Long-term, there are two more things that should happen:
- Developers need to learn how to break up large diffs into many small, individually testable diffs.
- You need to break up your codebase so that it's not a single project with 1Mloc, but 50 small projects with 20kloc each.
Mainstream Christianity has never taught that "if you ask God for X, you have a higher probability of getting X".
What it has taught is that "if you ask God for X, you may get some Y that helps you".
For example, when "X = material benefit", then a reasonable outcome is that "Y = reduction of desires for material benefits".
If you strip away all the religious mumbo jumbo, it's quite clear that the only "Y" that Christianity ever promises are psychological benefits, and that Christianity considers any promise of material benefits "Y" to be the domain of the devil.
And the psychological benefits Christianity promises for "Y" happen to be pretty much the kind that prayer can actually deliver.
In fact, a common theme throughout Christian writings is that God rejects and opposes material desires and tit-for-tat deals; see, for example, the Book of Job.
And mainstream Christian churches (Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc.) don't claim that prayer does that; what they generally teach is that "God answers prayers in his own way". Generally, that means that when you ask for winning the lottery or for a lightning bolt to strike your ex-wife, what God might grant in response to your prayer is what Christianity actually values: serenity, compassion, wisdom, understanding, and freedom from sin and desire. You know, just the sort of benefits that meditation can actually deliver.
No, not at all. What actually happened is that you were so ignorant about Christianity that you created a strawman in your head and didn't even realize it.
I'm a gay "Caucasian" atheist. In most cultures and countries outside the West, I face massive prejudice, ostracism, imprisonment, or even death for my sexuality, my ethnicity, and my religion.
I have no problem at all "supporting my chauvinism".
You keep hearing that from me because it accurately describes the economic ideas that you (and, in general, American and European progressives) advocate.
Actually, something goes off in my head that says "I have had to use these words a little bit too much lately; how is it possible that these failed ideologies are making such a comeback in 21st century America and Europe?"
I don't need to "Google it" because I actually read plenty of books on it. You should try reading actual books and following arguments and analyses that are longer than a web page and written by people with a bit more understanding than a Slate reporter or a Wikipedia editor. Here are some books to get you started:
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Se...
https://www.amazon.com/Sociali...
https://www.amazon.com/Three-N...
https://www.amazon.com/Intelle...
Our understanding of the mind-body problem is about as primitive as the understanding of medieval alchemist was of chemistry. They used "phlogiston theory" because they simply had no data or theory that worked better. It's the same with prayer: it's clearly scientifically unsatisfying, but science currently has nothing to offer that actually works better. Prayer (and other forms of meditation) helps many people live healthier, better, more satisfying lives, which is why they use it and why it has been around for so long.
So, either suggest a better alternative, or spare us the snark.
Actually, prayer does work. It's basically a form of meditation.
If you actually understood the economics, you would be able to make an argument for why employing more labor to produce the same amount of economic output is a good thing. But you're just a typical l peddler of broken fascist economic ideas,
The only "ideology" here is that you arbitrarily label business decisions to be "shady".
Well, actually, it's not arbitrary, it's actually self-serving and corrupt, because the business decisions you label as "shady" happen to be the ones that are contrary to your interests as a (presumably) educated, upper middle class techie.
You bet I am.
Simple: "unfettered monopolistic business tactics" are self-defeating in a free market; in a free market, businesses that engage in them are replaced by businesses that don't.
It's government that creates and maintains monopolies.
No, the claim is that any effective government policy that reduces carbon emissions meaningfully and beyond what the market will do by itself will wreck the economy. The minor amount of tinkering the US and Europe have engaged in are not enough to wreck the economy, but they also don't meaningfully reduce carbon emissions. And what has reduced carbon emissions over the last decade is not government policy, but natural developments in the energy sector, mostly a switch to shale gas.
Sure, I can help you out. You can achieve "increased employment and new emerging industries" by any kind of natural disaster or widespread destruction or putting people to work on useless tasks. That increases economic indicators, but it makes peoples' lives miserable. Socialists, progressives, and fascists love that approach to "fixing the economy", whether it's Mussolini, Hitler, FDR, Stalin, or Krugman ("An Alien Invasion Could Fix the Economy").
Of course, in the article you cite, there isn't even evidence that new jobs are being created. That article says how many workers are supported by "clean energy". But labor is a scarce resource, and those workers would be more productively employed in other parts of the economy. Climate activists actually even tout this as an advantage.
It's like saying that we should return to pre-assembly line car manufacturing because it employs more people; indeed, it does, but it also makes cars cost a lot more. Or, it's like reducing unemployment by mandating that everybody homeowner employ a topiary specialist and shape at least three bushes like the heads of Clinton, Gore, and Obama; sure, it would create "increased employment and new emerging industries", but it would also leave home owners a lot poorer and take labor from productive parts of the economy and redirect them to a useless vanity project.
As you are doing. Your false assumption is that "creating more jobs" or "employing more people" to produce the same amount or less energy is a good thing, when, in fact, it is a bad thing.
Free market capitalism isn't an "ideology", it's an economic organization, and one that has lifted much of the world out of poverty. The primary ideology that advocates free market capitalism liberalism (and by that, I don't mean the progressive illiberal crap Democrats are peddling).
Are you kidding me? There is even an American socialist magazine called "Jacobin"; go look it up and trace it back to its origins... before 1817.
It's not worth much. Socialists view themselves as an international movement of the have-nots, so they have less motivation to advocate violence between nations; after all, it would usually be their supporters that would end up being cannon fodder. Instead, socialists tend to direct their violent and murderous tendencies towards the middle and upper classes, in the form of terrorism and mass violence before they get into power, and in the form of gulags, mass executions, and mass starvation after they get into power.
Both in terms of their beliefs and in terms of their historical record, socialists are as reprehensible as fascists and Nazis.
Movie studios, publishers, authors, musicians, and actors create new value for society, and people are willing to pay for their products.
What do pirates create?
So does tax law. Yet Sunde seems to favor laws that take away people's property and transfer it to him and people he likes. So, that can't be the fundamental principle that his opposition to copyright is based on.
Actually, "intellectual property" used to be very carefully guarded, through guilds, associations, and personal relations. The printing press and modern teaching institutions changed those arrangements, and as a consequence, people then started looking for better legal mechanisms.
In pre-literate society, storytelling is a profession that requires a lengthy period of apprenticeship and study, so the problem simply didn't arise.
Ideally, "we" stop talking about "us" as if "we" were some kind of single entity, and "we" stop reasoning about what it is "cheaper" to "allow".
Copyright is just the law of the land. People are welcome to try to work politically to change it. But simply ignoring it because someone wants to download the latest Hollywood movies for free does not even give them socialist street cred. Sorry.
You're equivocating between two senses of "better": one is whether something is more liked if people get it for free, the other is whether it is economically better overall. Yes, people liked Google Search "better", but that is ignoring the cost people pay for that, and often people who couldn't care less about the intricacies of Google vs Yahoo.
Companies that make products and services "near unusable to their customers" tend not to stay in business. That is, if Comcast or Verizon block access to things people want, they will pay for it and go out of business if they don't change their ways. So, your fear mongering has no basis in reality.
I'm afraid it's you who is dense, spouting the usual progressive nonsense about how we must implement massive crony capitalism in order to save free markets from themselves.
The part where you are saying that you are "fine with" people substituting private services for municipal services. Municipalities are coercive, and if you support them, you support their coercion.
I'm sure that there have been plenty of infrastructure projects that worked really well for you. Politicians like to cater to politically important groups, like the privileged middle class and their whims. Everybody else is forced to go along.