what the hell are you talking about. no network ever built wasn't negotiated up front. the government, the people the government represents, have a stake in every network ever built, and have a say in its governance in every way
you are merely preserving the means of control because according to your mythology, some magical captain of industry wills everything of value into being, and therefore all of industry is rightfully in the hands of a few captains of industry. what utter unreal bullshit. take your weird religion some where else
no one builds network infrastructure all by themselves. it is done in tandem with government rules and agreements. and no, that is not a freedom destroying convention that should also change: you want people just laying cable willy nilly wherever they want?
the truth is, any network, cable, telco, whatever, is a government enterprise, built of government grant and monitoring and debate and licensing. yet you imagine it to be the work of some ayn randian captain of industry who wills the whole thing into being by himself, and gets to decide everything that happens on it, and if anyone complains, they are a communist, right?
where do you idiots get this bizarre mythology that bears absolutely no relation to how things actually work in reality?
"Much of what passes for science is indistinguishable from religion."
close
"Much of what passes for science according to the average idiot is indistinguishable from religion."
is accurate
science has nothing to do with religion. science is proof, without belief. religion is belief, without proof. to confuse those two requires that you not quite understand either. so congratulations, you're an idiot
Alfred Pennyworth: A long time ago, I was in Burma, my friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never found anyone who traded with him. One day I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.
Bruce Wayne: Then why steal them?
Alfred Pennyworth: Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
they can be used to trick china and great britain to the brink of war by fooling the royal navy into invading chinese waters. then a stealth boat can make the other side think someone is shooting missiles at them. all of course, so rupert murdoch, i mean, uh, elliot carver, can sell... newspapers!
i was going to say they will always be legal and useful in instances where you need both heat and light. a chicken hatchery, for example. but then i remembered we have maxwell's demon to take care of our heating problems;-)
no technology ever truly dies, it just fades from prominence. people still use vinyl LPs, and other shops still print them. there will still be a market for edison-style incadescent bulbs long after LEDs become cheap and plentiful. tv didn't kill radio. tv didn't kill the movie house. the internet didn't kill tv. on and on
but you go ahead and think you've dismissed my points by taking the most extreme position on what i am saying, as if that point of view in any way deflects the simple economic truths of my previous post to you
let's see if you can cover your ears, your eyes and your mouth at the same time too
"If the jobs created by the internet are growing so fast, why is the unemployment rate so high?"
What?! Slightly more than one factor in play here, no? Farnsworth invented TV 2 years before the Great Depression. By your logic, the technology of television caused the Great Depression.
SLIGHTLY more factors involved than how you present econmoic reality and the factors involved. pffft
"What of all the people who aren't suited for employment in internet-related jobs?"
What the hell does that mean?! We should preserve archaic jobs just to keep people employed? Hello and welcome to reality: the needs of society dictates to you the kind of jobs necessary to perform. You then train for those jobs. I mean, seriously? Do we preserve the wooden ship building industry and blacksmithing too? The purpose of a job is not to keep you employed. The purpose of a job is to satisfy a need. No need, no job. Welcome to reality.
"There can be only so many employed in fast-food restaurants --- a service industry economy isn't sustainable."
That's right. Because as we go further back in time, all the jobs held by everyone were always highly artistic and technical craftsman jobs, and highly repetitive low paying jobs is a completely new invention.
(smacks forehead)
Reality: new technologies create more economic niches for more highly skilled jobs. I ask that you see this simple reality. Look at a city in 2000. Look at a city in 1000. What has the march of technology between the years 1000 and 2000 made possible in terms of more complicated economic niches and more high skilled high paying jobs?
The Internet is a revolution of many many highly skilled high paying jobs. That you bemoan the death of older displaced technological jobs is just nostalgia, and not simple economic reality. You are right though: not everyone will make the transition, and it will be painful. But that's not some alternative theory I'm trying to foist on you, that's simple economic reality I am making you aware of. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm sorry some guy who used to run a printing machine now works at McDonalds. But his kids will be in Internet marketing and one of his coworkers will be selling fabulous old printing press relics on eBay. See? And I say this as the son of a Newspaper journalist.
Don't let nostalgia render you economically uncompetitive kid.
the printing plant should be shut down completely. it is an antiquated nonsense. i speak this as the son of a newspaper reporter. we need to lose our attachment to dying technologies: nostalgia doesn't pay the bills
and you are woefully under-representing the number of jobs the Internet has created. completely untraditional, varied, and all over the place. but jobs nonetheless. and still growing. you're just not looking at the big picture
i already said "new technologies kills jobs in old industries."
now, think about the tenfold more jobs and economic opportunities that have been created by the Internet (which is what killed your printing plant, rightfully so)
for example, automobiles most certainly put thousands of blacksmiths making iron horseshoes out of work. and, how many new jobs, more highly skilled, were created in the automobile industry? do you see?
Any new technology results in more work, actually, but in industries that didn't even exist before the new technology. For example: the invention of television has created an entire industry of cameramen, script writers, actors, network programming executives, etc. It didn't just put theatre and cinema people out of work. Yes, new technologies kills jobs in old industries. While creating tenfold more jobs in new, previously nonexistent industries. Most of those jobs requiring more skilled, less repetitive, more brain-heavy work than before.
and then we paint the rebels as american pawns. that we planned it from the beginning to get our hands on libyan oil. which is of course absurd. and which the majority of people in the middle east and europe and the usa will come to believe nonetheless
the truth is, if the usa gets involved, people will be howling criticism. if the usa doesn't get involved, people will be howling criticism
the lesson is that armchair foreign analysis is easy and cheap and 99% of people's opinions suck
nothing wrong with that. i respect you sir, because you have heart. anyone with passion is someone i respect. cynicism about one's country is easy and cheap. if the usa is ever going to improve, it will start with heart like yours, not with the easy cynics. in fact, the same cynics whining here will probably be whining about whatever genuine heartfelt effort you try to improve your world. because that's all they do
hold on a sec, let me get "battle hymn of the republic" playing and i'll read again...
(smirk)
in all seriousness, no battle to improve the usa will be made by anyone who doesn't even understand our problems. which is aptly demonstrated when someone thinks our problems are the same as china, zimbabe, iran, etc. THAT'S MY POINT
feel me now?
do you think anyone who thinks our condition is the same as china iran or zimbabwe is any sort of aid to your noble cause? no: there is no aid for the virtuous fight you cite from morons who thinks what harare does is the same as what washington dc does. it's a simple demonstration they are fucking idiots. do you fight a noble cause with idiots?
in case you missed it: idiot = someone who thinks the west has the same human rights condition as china, iran, or zimbabwe. do you get my fucking point? MY POST IS A PLEA FOR INTELLIGENCE. and you respond to my post as if it were an attack on heart
jesus fucking christ. i'm glad you got heart kid. now: do you having a FUCKING brain? try marrying that great noble beating heart with some brains, and get off your fucking high horse and get a fucking clue before you go off with your fucking battle hymn of republic post next time, when it doesn't even fucking apply
i'm not questioning your heart, your heart is obviously in the right place
i am questioning your brains
you need both
jesus fucking christ... throw in a fucking cowardly lion and we can have a fucking wizard of oz
if an airport security guy asks me if i have any bombs and i go "yeah, in my underwear," i'm joking. but no one is going to laugh
context my friend, learn the value of context
in another context, you'd be the height of dry wit. here, there are no clues to tell if you are joking or not, and there are a LOT of dumb, serious posts
The West has done many abuses, and has many problems. But if you honestly think the abuses of the West compares to the status of human rights in Zimbabwe, or China, or Iran... you're not naive, you're not sheltered, you're not clueless. You're low IQ. I mean you genuinely lack certain mental abilities of compare and contrast that can only indicate that you're just not a very intelligent person. I'm not blindly insulting you. I'm making a fair, objective appraisal of your cognitive abilities based on your demonstrated attempts to make qualitative comparisons. I'm being completely sincere: you're just not a bright person.
how, pray tell, do you suggest someone with no power "work within the legal structure" of zimbabwe to challenge a despot with all the power, and who respects no legal structure?
please tell me you are joking and that you are not a complete dimwit
i absolutely agree. my problem is with those who equate our problems to completely unrelated, completely different problems, somewhere else. as if this is supposed to demonstrate anything except how impossible it will be to get over our problems because of idiots who don't even understand them
Slashdot Mirror
and as opposed to a transparent aluminum tube ;-)
i made a dumb joke, but heck, if they can build boats out of concrete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_ship
i therefore desire some insane mofo to try to build an airplane out of concrete
what the hell are you talking about. no network ever built wasn't negotiated up front. the government, the people the government represents, have a stake in every network ever built, and have a say in its governance in every way
you are merely preserving the means of control because according to your mythology, some magical captain of industry wills everything of value into being, and therefore all of industry is rightfully in the hands of a few captains of industry. what utter unreal bullshit. take your weird religion some where else
they need to build airplanes out of brick, or concrete
no one builds network infrastructure all by themselves. it is done in tandem with government rules and agreements. and no, that is not a freedom destroying convention that should also change: you want people just laying cable willy nilly wherever they want?
the truth is, any network, cable, telco, whatever, is a government enterprise, built of government grant and monitoring and debate and licensing. yet you imagine it to be the work of some ayn randian captain of industry who wills the whole thing into being by himself, and gets to decide everything that happens on it, and if anyone complains, they are a communist, right?
where do you idiots get this bizarre mythology that bears absolutely no relation to how things actually work in reality?
"Much of what passes for science is indistinguishable from religion."
close
"Much of what passes for science according to the average idiot is indistinguishable from religion."
is accurate
science has nothing to do with religion. science is proof, without belief. religion is belief, without proof. to confuse those two requires that you not quite understand either. so congratulations, you're an idiot
Alfred Pennyworth: A long time ago, I was in Burma, my friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never found anyone who traded with him. One day I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.
Bruce Wayne: Then why steal them?
Alfred Pennyworth: Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
MY=MILF
not just a slashdot geek opinion
they can be used to trick china and great britain to the brink of war by fooling the royal navy into invading chinese waters. then a stealth boat can make the other side think someone is shooting missiles at them. all of course, so rupert murdoch, i mean, uh, elliot carver, can sell... newspapers!
i was going to say they will always be legal and useful in instances where you need both heat and light. a chicken hatchery, for example. but then i remembered we have maxwell's demon to take care of our heating problems ;-)
well DUH
no technology ever truly dies, it just fades from prominence. people still use vinyl LPs, and other shops still print them. there will still be a market for edison-style incadescent bulbs long after LEDs become cheap and plentiful. tv didn't kill radio. tv didn't kill the movie house. the internet didn't kill tv. on and on
but you go ahead and think you've dismissed my points by taking the most extreme position on what i am saying, as if that point of view in any way deflects the simple economic truths of my previous post to you
let's see if you can cover your ears, your eyes and your mouth at the same time too
"If the jobs created by the internet are growing so fast, why is the unemployment rate so high?"
What?! Slightly more than one factor in play here, no? Farnsworth invented TV 2 years before the Great Depression. By your logic, the technology of television caused the Great Depression.
SLIGHTLY more factors involved than how you present econmoic reality and the factors involved. pffft
"What of all the people who aren't suited for employment in internet-related jobs?"
What the hell does that mean?! We should preserve archaic jobs just to keep people employed? Hello and welcome to reality: the needs of society dictates to you the kind of jobs necessary to perform. You then train for those jobs. I mean, seriously? Do we preserve the wooden ship building industry and blacksmithing too? The purpose of a job is not to keep you employed. The purpose of a job is to satisfy a need. No need, no job. Welcome to reality.
"There can be only so many employed in fast-food restaurants --- a service industry economy isn't sustainable."
That's right. Because as we go further back in time, all the jobs held by everyone were always highly artistic and technical craftsman jobs, and highly repetitive low paying jobs is a completely new invention.
(smacks forehead)
Reality: new technologies create more economic niches for more highly skilled jobs. I ask that you see this simple reality. Look at a city in 2000. Look at a city in 1000. What has the march of technology between the years 1000 and 2000 made possible in terms of more complicated economic niches and more high skilled high paying jobs?
The Internet is a revolution of many many highly skilled high paying jobs. That you bemoan the death of older displaced technological jobs is just nostalgia, and not simple economic reality. You are right though: not everyone will make the transition, and it will be painful. But that's not some alternative theory I'm trying to foist on you, that's simple economic reality I am making you aware of. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm sorry some guy who used to run a printing machine now works at McDonalds. But his kids will be in Internet marketing and one of his coworkers will be selling fabulous old printing press relics on eBay. See? And I say this as the son of a Newspaper journalist.
Don't let nostalgia render you economically uncompetitive kid.
the printing plant should be shut down completely. it is an antiquated nonsense. i speak this as the son of a newspaper reporter. we need to lose our attachment to dying technologies: nostalgia doesn't pay the bills
and you are woefully under-representing the number of jobs the Internet has created. completely untraditional, varied, and all over the place. but jobs nonetheless. and still growing. you're just not looking at the big picture
i already said "new technologies kills jobs in old industries."
now, think about the tenfold more jobs and economic opportunities that have been created by the Internet (which is what killed your printing plant, rightfully so)
for example, automobiles most certainly put thousands of blacksmiths making iron horseshoes out of work. and, how many new jobs, more highly skilled, were created in the automobile industry? do you see?
Any new technology results in more work, actually, but in industries that didn't even exist before the new technology. For example: the invention of television has created an entire industry of cameramen, script writers, actors, network programming executives, etc. It didn't just put theatre and cinema people out of work. Yes, new technologies kills jobs in old industries. While creating tenfold more jobs in new, previously nonexistent industries. Most of those jobs requiring more skilled, less repetitive, more brain-heavy work than before.
and then we paint the rebels as american pawns. that we planned it from the beginning to get our hands on libyan oil. which is of course absurd. and which the majority of people in the middle east and europe and the usa will come to believe nonetheless
the truth is, if the usa gets involved, people will be howling criticism. if the usa doesn't get involved, people will be howling criticism
the lesson is that armchair foreign analysis is easy and cheap and 99% of people's opinions suck
nothing wrong with that. i respect you sir, because you have heart. anyone with passion is someone i respect. cynicism about one's country is easy and cheap. if the usa is ever going to improve, it will start with heart like yours, not with the easy cynics. in fact, the same cynics whining here will probably be whining about whatever genuine heartfelt effort you try to improve your world. because that's all they do
hold on a sec, let me get "battle hymn of the republic" playing and i'll read again...
(smirk)
in all seriousness, no battle to improve the usa will be made by anyone who doesn't even understand our problems. which is aptly demonstrated when someone thinks our problems are the same as china, zimbabe, iran, etc. THAT'S MY POINT
feel me now?
do you think anyone who thinks our condition is the same as china iran or zimbabwe is any sort of aid to your noble cause? no: there is no aid for the virtuous fight you cite from morons who thinks what harare does is the same as what washington dc does. it's a simple demonstration they are fucking idiots. do you fight a noble cause with idiots?
in case you missed it: idiot = someone who thinks the west has the same human rights condition as china, iran, or zimbabwe. do you get my fucking point? MY POST IS A PLEA FOR INTELLIGENCE. and you respond to my post as if it were an attack on heart
jesus fucking christ. i'm glad you got heart kid. now: do you having a FUCKING brain? try marrying that great noble beating heart with some brains, and get off your fucking high horse and get a fucking clue before you go off with your fucking battle hymn of republic post next time, when it doesn't even fucking apply
i'm not questioning your heart, your heart is obviously in the right place
i am questioning your brains
you need both
jesus fucking christ... throw in a fucking cowardly lion and we can have a fucking wizard of oz
if an airport security guy asks me if i have any bombs and i go "yeah, in my underwear," i'm joking. but no one is going to laugh
context my friend, learn the value of context
in another context, you'd be the height of dry wit. here, there are no clues to tell if you are joking or not, and there are a LOT of dumb, serious posts
The West has done many abuses, and has many problems. But if you honestly think the abuses of the West compares to the status of human rights in Zimbabwe, or China, or Iran... you're not naive, you're not sheltered, you're not clueless. You're low IQ. I mean you genuinely lack certain mental abilities of compare and contrast that can only indicate that you're just not a very intelligent person. I'm not blindly insulting you. I'm making a fair, objective appraisal of your cognitive abilities based on your demonstrated attempts to make qualitative comparisons. I'm being completely sincere: you're just not a bright person.
how, pray tell, do you suggest someone with no power "work within the legal structure" of zimbabwe to challenge a despot with all the power, and who respects no legal structure?
please tell me you are joking and that you are not a complete dimwit
i'm glad that you've determined from on yonder ivory tower that there is no rule of law as you see fit to call it
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2023368&cid=35386174
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2023368&cid=35385296
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2023368&cid=35385192
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2023368&cid=35385174
so that's four false equivalency fools. so far
In Soviet Facebook age...
oh, nevermind
i absolutely agree. my problem is with those who equate our problems to completely unrelated, completely different problems, somewhere else. as if this is supposed to demonstrate anything except how impossible it will be to get over our problems because of idiots who don't even understand them