This broken link is clearly a covert attempt by the gubmint and eevil corporations and space mutants and reverse vampires to censor our Most Righteous geekly speech!
Help, help! We're being repressed!
--
Re:If they're so sophisticated...
on
MilSpec Biotech
·
· Score: 2
"The Army's job is to do the fighting, period."
The term 'national defense' means protecting a nation. It may involve some degree of fighting, but it need not be synonymous with 'fighting'.
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if such research were indeed being done, and things like diplomacy and encouraging peace have probably been researched further back than recorded history. Failure to implement such measures can often be traced to political or bureaucratic obstruction.
--
If they're so sophisticated...
on
MilSpec Biotech
·
· Score: 1
"The US Army commissioned a report so they could explore how the biotechnology revolution can enhance their ability to execute their missions on battlefields in the next few decades."
Wouldn't it be easier to just pour a much smaller fraction of their budget into discovering ways to, oh,-I-don't-know, maybe find ways to reduce the need for armed conflict in the first place??!?
'Course, that'd probably not exactly be in the Pentagon's best interests... ($$$)
"Do you really think you can always defend any justified case?"
Judicial systems are never perfect; fortunately, the goal of representative democracy is (or at least, was, at some point), to fine-tune governmental systems and remove such flaws.
Of course, nowadays politicians win votes by promising the Teeming Millions free stuff, at the taxpayers' expense, but that's another topic entirely. =^)
Corporate law as implemented in modern times (limited liability especially--the personhood issue doesn't bother me too much per se), is bad for the free market. Strict accountability is needed, I agree. Also, the judicial interpretation of "acting in the shareholders' interests" as "generate the maximum short-term profit no matter what" needs to be changed.
If this can be accomplished, you'll see a much more pure form of capitalism at work--something much closer to a true free market.
"Wouldn't that just mean that you can achieve the same amount of growth with a smaller component of the GDP being due to natural resources? In other words, historically we used to waste 50% of the resource in production. Now, we waste say 25%. So, to say have 6% growth in both areas, we would have needed 12% of GDP due to resources historically but only 8% now. Same growth, all due to resources, and allows natural resources to end up being a smaller piece of the pie. Of course, it ends up depending on whether or not you can eventually use resources to produce other resourses (philosopher's stone anyone?)."
Yep. If you can use and distribute existing resources more efficiently, you don't need to bring in as many new sources thereof. =)
"But it is incompatible with the abilities of poor/working class people. To sue a large corporation. Yeah, a definite possibility, assuming the poor person has millions of dollars and years of his life to dedicate to the task."
If you have compellingly good case, a trial lawyer will probably take your case, charging you nothing now, in anticipation of a percentage of your winnings. If you can convince no trial lawyer to do that (and there are tons of trial lawyers out there), then you'll have a hard time convincing a judge either. This in and of itself weeds out countless frivolous lawsuits from the system.
"Be an ass if you want. I assume you are conceding the point since you don't respond to it. We don't know that practical communism is impossible."
Wrong. I never said small scale "communes" are Communism in the first place. If (a) everyone is there by voluntary association, (b) you're doing it on your own land, with your own equipment, and you're not hurting anybody, then there's no moral or ethical problem with it. I called it folly because they've been tried before, numerous times, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, and they've all managed to fail, except for a few religious ones (Amish, Israeli Kibbutzim, the Plymouth settlers and the Mormons were both communal for a time, although not anymore.). But hey, you could be the first to pull off a successful one... now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to purchase a state lottery ticket... this could be my lucky day. It's certainly not "impossible".
The free market system is based on the trust of people in general, the concept that most people are basically decent human beings and are capable of solving problems.
Institutions, such as government, planned economies, etc. are by default not to be trusted--all the decision making power lies in the hands of the very few elite, whereas in the free market, the decision making power lies in the aggregate decisions of billions of ordinary folks.
If you don't believe that such aggregate decisions are valid, then you certainly are no friend of democracy.
It's not the kids killing each other over an RPG that worries me.
What scares me is that the experience points they gain will make them super-powerful. If there's anything worse than street gangs, it's street gangs full of 15th level fighters!
Economic growth happens when more efficient means of production and distribution are developed. We already can produce enough food to feed the world, with plenty to spare. Distributing it to everybody is the problem. Economic growth reflects barriers breaking down, friction dropping, and a growing network of suppliers and consumers getting things to people who want them.
"Really? So if a corporation is screwing me by throwing huge amounts of pollution into the air I breathe, or say building huge dangerous cars that if they crash into me on the road will kill me, I can stop being screwed if I just don't buy it's products? What if I'm already not, and never have? "
Then you ought to be able to sue its ass. That's certainly not incompatible with capitalism.
On the other hand, what if a Communist state is screwing me with its huge amount of industrial pollution? Do I have any recourse? No.
What if the State builds a "huge dangerous" army that kills me when I can't make the farming quotas because (a) they're completely unreasonable and (b) the all-wise and benevolent state in its infinite wisdom has failed to allocate the proper tools and equipment?
"You can tell me I should convince others not to also. But what if I can't, or what if those others can't reasonably stop using the company's products? Then should I just accept 10 years off my life due to lung cancer? "
Sue, sue sue. Target the biggest polluters in a class action suit. Yay trial lawyers! =^)
On the other hand, should I just accept 30 years off my life due to being forced to work to death in a gulag?
"BTW, what if the company sells products only to other countries. This may not apply as much in the US, but it does in other countries. If a company enters my country, sends tons of pollution into your air making its products, and then exports those products, how am I supposed to stop this company from doing what its doing? "
Hmm... a company not selling a product to an entire country of people who are willing and able to buy it is a stupid company. Stupid companies tend to get eaten by smart, profitable companies.
So, let's see: the company sets up in your country, creates jobs, providing revenue, and you're complaining because nobody in that tiny country can afford the F-16 fighter jets that they're selling?
"Communism has worked in small groups of people. Democracy never worked in anything other than relatively small groups of people before the US, which isn't even really a true Democracy. The fact that the kinds of Communism we've seen so far didn't work doesn't mean none could work."
If you and your buddies want to pool your funds, buy a plot of land, your own tools and equipment, and run your own little commune, be my guest. Just don't expect the rest of society to emulate your folly.
Hmm... paying their keep is one thing. But working for the public good? Is that really a good idea?
Political Advisor #1: Sir, our state's roads are covered with litter... our road cleanup crews are understaffed by about 2,500 people...
Politician: Can't we use prison labor?
Political Advisor #1: Sorry, sir. We're using all of them to repaint the governor's summer mansion.
Politician: So where the are we going to get 2,500 volunteers?
Political Advisor #2:(Just entering the room, holding a report.): Hey guys... check this out... according to this report, there are at least 2,500 left-handed redheads in the state! What are the odds?
Politician: 2500, eh? Eureka! We'll make it an imprisonable offense to be a left-handed redhead!
Political Advisor #1: Great idea, sir!
Political Advisor #2: But won't that violate their civil rights?
Politician: Shut up!
Political Advisor #1: Yeah! It's for the greater good! You do want clean streets, right?
Political Advisor #2: (Quickly shifts binder to the right hand.) *gulp*... Umm... yeah... who doesn't?
"
The problem with the view that just making lots of money is okay, is that [1] it isn't okay. [2] We each have a duty to help make the world a better place. [3] Fuck the libertarians, [4] being selfish is not okay."
1. Sure it is.
2. No we don't.
3. Only if they're sexy.
4. That's a very selfish point of...holy shit... your UIN is 980!!... erm... sorry, went off on a tangent there...
Now, where was I? Oh, yes. Why, if at all, is it not okay to make lots of money?
Why, if at all, do we have a "duty" to make the world a better place? For that matter, why is it a "duty" and not just a subjective ideal?
What if I didn't want to make the world a better place? What if I wanted to make it worse?
What if, say, I wanted to run around vandalizing things? I dunno... how 'bout some shop windows in Seattle?
What if, I really wanted to make the world worse off? What if I wanted to impede progress and keep the 3rd world eternally impoverished? Y'know... me and a couple thousand of my buddies could block trade talks that could otherwise raise the standard of living worldwide.
What if I was such a complete, selfish bastard that I went and did these things?
The cold war is over because centrally planned economic systems do not work.
A broken computer also doesn't work. That doesn't make it evil per se, but anyone who wants to make me use it when there is an alternative that works, either hates me or is an idiot.
Now, who's screwing you out of money? If it's a company, then don't buy its products. Nobody's forcing you to fork over your cash for the latest consumer goodies.
Communism, on the other hand, would force you to give up a vast chunk of what you would earn working in a free market economy, and "pay" you only the bare necessities of life. You'd have to be a pretty talentless sheep to actually make more than you would in a real economy.
So Communism, in fact, would screw you out of money as much as possible (leaving you just enough to "live", if it can really be considered "living").
Although you don't recognize the idea of Communism as evil, by your own statements you have already condemned any implementation thereof.
"Let's not talk about Communism. Communism was just an idea, just pie in the sky." --Boris Yeltsin
Now we get to play the fun games, and we get free electroshock therapy to prevent our hearts from turning dark in the dungeons of the Internet! (The same Internet which Al Gore invented, that subliminiinininbal bastard!;)
Gory^WGlory be!
--
And in a completely unrelated story...
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 3
...reports of 8-foot tall mutant carnivorous green bunnies have flooded the police dispatchers in a small town in Michigan. Authorities blame violent monster "B-Movies" for the outbreak, and urges pet owners to restrict the viewing habits of their 8-foot tall mutant carnivorous green bunnies.
"
AOL has too much to lose if their software isn't pre-installed, it was their key to success in the first place. And Microsoft has too much to lose if AOL moves over to a Netscape-based client. "
Hmm... AOL loses, Microsoft loses... why, that's good news for everyone! =^)
Ahem. You can't wish an entire country out of existence.
From http://www.ghana.com/republic/
GHANA is a country situated in West Africa near the equator and on the greenwich meridian, bounded on the North and North West by Burkina Faso (Upper Volta), on the East by Togo, on the South by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the West by the La Cote D'Ivoire (known as the Ivory Coast). Ghana is well known for its friendly people and its well aclaimed hospitality. Formerly a British colony known as the Gold Coast, Ghana was the first black nation in sub-Saharan Africa to achieve Independence lead by Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah in 1957.
Guyana, on the other hand, is a country in South America. South America != Africa. Guyana and Ghana are two separate places.
Bah, humans weren't meant to be in space for science... they were meant to build multibillion-dollar overbudget space stations to serve as hotels for millionaire space tourists!
"In a way, it's rather sublime. It's intellectual property taken to the extreme. I almost wish this would happen, as it would provide a great example of what's wrong with IP laws. "
No, no!
If there is no IP protection for cultural heritage, then there would be no incentive to produce culture! We wouldn't have any folk tales, traditional songs, languages, superstitions or national anthems today if their creators hadn't been eagerly anticipating bringing a lawsuit against LEGO hundreds of years later!
Slashdot Mirror
Help, help! We're being repressed!
--
The term 'national defense' means protecting a nation. It may involve some degree of fighting, but it need not be synonymous with 'fighting'.
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if such research were indeed being done, and things like diplomacy and encouraging peace have probably been researched further back than recorded history. Failure to implement such measures can often be traced to political or bureaucratic obstruction.
--
Wouldn't it be easier to just pour a much smaller fraction of their budget into discovering ways to, oh,-I-don't-know, maybe find ways to reduce the need for armed conflict in the first place??!?
'Course, that'd probably not exactly be in the Pentagon's best interests... ($$$)
--
Would this invalidate Mr. Chiu's Immortality Device patents as prior art?
--
Judicial systems are never perfect; fortunately, the goal of representative democracy is (or at least, was, at some point), to fine-tune governmental systems and remove such flaws.
Of course, nowadays politicians win votes by promising the Teeming Millions free stuff, at the taxpayers' expense, but that's another topic entirely. =^)
--
If this can be accomplished, you'll see a much more pure form of capitalism at work--something much closer to a true free market.
--
Yep. If you can use and distribute existing resources more efficiently, you don't need to bring in as many new sources thereof. =)
--
If you have compellingly good case, a trial lawyer will probably take your case, charging you nothing now, in anticipation of a percentage of your winnings. If you can convince no trial lawyer to do that (and there are tons of trial lawyers out there), then you'll have a hard time convincing a judge either. This in and of itself weeds out countless frivolous lawsuits from the system.
Wrong. I never said small scale "communes" are Communism in the first place. If (a) everyone is there by voluntary association, (b) you're doing it on your own land, with your own equipment, and you're not hurting anybody, then there's no moral or ethical problem with it. I called it folly because they've been tried before, numerous times, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, and they've all managed to fail, except for a few religious ones (Amish, Israeli Kibbutzim, the Plymouth settlers and the Mormons were both communal for a time, although not anymore.). But hey, you could be the first to pull off a successful one... now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to purchase a state lottery ticket... this could be my lucky day. It's certainly not "impossible".
--
Same here.
The free market system is based on the trust of people in general, the concept that most people are basically decent human beings and are capable of solving problems.
Institutions, such as government, planned economies, etc. are by default not to be trusted--all the decision making power lies in the hands of the very few elite, whereas in the free market, the decision making power lies in the aggregate decisions of billions of ordinary folks.
If you don't believe that such aggregate decisions are valid, then you certainly are no friend of democracy.
--
What scares me is that the experience points they gain will make them super-powerful. If there's anything worse than street gangs, it's street gangs full of 15th level fighters!
--
Economic growth happens when more efficient means of production and distribution are developed. We already can produce enough food to feed the world, with plenty to spare. Distributing it to everybody is the problem. Economic growth reflects barriers breaking down, friction dropping, and a growing network of suppliers and consumers getting things to people who want them.
--
Then you ought to be able to sue its ass. That's certainly not incompatible with capitalism.
On the other hand, what if a Communist state is screwing me with its huge amount of industrial pollution? Do I have any recourse? No.
What if the State builds a "huge dangerous" army that kills me when I can't make the farming quotas because (a) they're completely unreasonable and (b) the all-wise and benevolent state in its infinite wisdom has failed to allocate the proper tools and equipment?
Sue, sue sue. Target the biggest polluters in a class action suit. Yay trial lawyers! =^)
On the other hand, should I just accept 30 years off my life due to being forced to work to death in a gulag?
Hmm... a company not selling a product to an entire country of people who are willing and able to buy it is a stupid company. Stupid companies tend to get eaten by smart, profitable companies.
So, let's see: the company sets up in your country, creates jobs, providing revenue, and you're complaining because nobody in that tiny country can afford the F-16 fighter jets that they're selling?
If you and your buddies want to pool your funds, buy a plot of land, your own tools and equipment, and run your own little commune, be my guest. Just don't expect the rest of society to emulate your folly.
--
Political Advisor #1: Sir, our state's roads are covered with litter... our road cleanup crews are understaffed by about 2,500 people...
Politician: Can't we use prison labor?
Political Advisor #1: Sorry, sir. We're using all of them to repaint the governor's summer mansion.
Politician: So where the are we going to get 2,500 volunteers?
Political Advisor #2: (Just entering the room, holding a report.) : Hey guys... check this out... according to this report, there are at least 2,500 left-handed redheads in the state! What are the odds?
Politician: 2500, eh? Eureka! We'll make it an imprisonable offense to be a left-handed redhead!
Political Advisor #1: Great idea, sir!
Political Advisor #2: But won't that violate their civil rights?
Politician: Shut up!
Political Advisor #1: Yeah! It's for the greater good! You do want clean streets, right?
Political Advisor #2: (Quickly shifts binder to the right hand.) *gulp*... Umm... yeah... who doesn't?
--
Now, where was I? Oh, yes. Why, if at all, is it not okay to make lots of money?
Why, if at all, do we have a "duty" to make the world a better place? For that matter, why is it a "duty" and not just a subjective ideal?
What if I didn't want to make the world a better place? What if I wanted to make it worse?
What if, say, I wanted to run around vandalizing things? I dunno... how 'bout some shop windows in Seattle?
What if, I really wanted to make the world worse off? What if I wanted to impede progress and keep the 3rd world eternally impoverished? Y'know... me and a couple thousand of my buddies could block trade talks that could otherwise raise the standard of living worldwide.
What if I was such a complete, selfish bastard that I went and did these things?
Is that okay?
--
The cold war is over because centrally planned economic systems do not work.
A broken computer also doesn't work. That doesn't make it evil per se, but anyone who wants to make me use it when there is an alternative that works, either hates me or is an idiot.
Now, who's screwing you out of money? If it's a company, then don't buy its products. Nobody's forcing you to fork over your cash for the latest consumer goodies.
Communism, on the other hand, would force you to give up a vast chunk of what you would earn working in a free market economy, and "pay" you only the bare necessities of life. You'd have to be a pretty talentless sheep to actually make more than you would in a real economy.
So Communism, in fact, would screw you out of money as much as possible (leaving you just enough to "live", if it can really be considered "living").
Although you don't recognize the idea of Communism as evil, by your own statements you have already condemned any implementation thereof.
--
Ask him to document it... I'd imagine he could topple a number of patents =)
--
Gory^WGlory be!
--
We now return to our regularly scheduled drivel.
--
Hmm... AOL loses, Microsoft loses... why, that's good news for everyone! =^)
--
Well, he can wish it, just like I can wish for 40 billion dollars, but I doubt either wish will accomplish anything. =)
--
Ahem. You can't wish an entire country out of existence.
From http://www.ghana.com/republic/
Guyana, on the other hand, is a country in South America. South America != Africa. Guyana and Ghana are two separate places.
--
Besides, you manage to spell "good" as "god", and "god" as "gawd". I think the evidence speaks for itself! ;^D
--
Nah. Just have Superman bundle them up in space and hurl them into the sun!
(Obvious Superman IV reference ;)
--
Bah, humans weren't meant to be in space for science... they were meant to build multibillion-dollar overbudget space stations to serve as hotels for millionaire space tourists!
--
No, no!
If there is no IP protection for cultural heritage, then there would be no incentive to produce culture! We wouldn't have any folk tales, traditional songs, languages, superstitions or national anthems today if their creators hadn't been eagerly anticipating bringing a lawsuit against LEGO hundreds of years later!
--