The point is to use the quest for equality to justify penalizing anyone who rises above "equal," thus ensuring that all favors get handed out by the state or its ideological fanatic supporters.
This resembles... Communism? National Socialism? Totalitarianism?...something where the agenda of control has replaced trying to achieve anything. We could have had a moon base by now, instead we will all be equal comrades under the People's Reich.
People will not let you criticize the Emperor (democracy, multiculturalism, welfare, consumerism) because to do so is to suggest that all of us are wasting our time on a civilization that is heading toward collapse.
#GamerGate, #metalgate and many other scandals show us that anything related to inequality, whether racial or sexual or sexual preference, causes government and media to immediately explode and go after you, as will lots of Useful Idiots (UIs... sorry, SJWs) out there who want to crucify you.
All because they are afraid the criticism might be true and, if it is, the stakes are MUCH higher than anyone has thought.
Problem with the web: too many websites with too much content, not one answer that can be given consistently to similar questions:
Solution: standardize the web, with Wikipedia, Google Knol, etc. and squeeze out those smaller websites so they stop mucking up the corporate profits.
When the sheep get warm and comfy enough, yank anyone who doesn't dish out for SSL, and make it so that it costs a thousand dollars a year to reasonably publish on the web, instead of the pennies it did a few years ago.
Then, you have total dominion and total control. For much profit!
I appreciate the reasons for the war on piracy, but TPB was more than a pirate nexus: it was a great place to links to downloads via bittorrent that everyone could get to.
The internet needs to return to its wild west days of open file storage. True, lots of people are going to pirate, but that's technologically inevitable. The anti-piracy people are destroying necessary stuff along with what they fear.
We make stuff to sell it to ourselves, then sell advertising based on that, pretending somehow this is all anything but Monopoly money based on our oil and military power.
The game is to find a unique angle to approach your research that's essentially clickbait, then produce some results, and figure out some way you can claim victory and go home.
If you're just doing this to get on to the next stage, it makes sense to plagiarize and get it out of the way. You can get to the nice fat yearly income that way without having to know much of anything.
Do we have a quality of scientists problem because science is such an esteemed (and often well-paid, in private practice at least) career that people who should not be scientists are trying to be scientists?
Google is desperately searching for new products because they know what the rest of us are beginning to figure out: internet advertising is a paper tiger.
In theory, it leads to targeted ads reaching more people than ever before. In actuality, it advertises by demographic in the same way television does, and mostly repeats products you have shown interest in before whether you bought them or not.
Further, most of the sites showing advertising on their content are putting so many ads on the page that the effectiveness of any particular ad is radically diminished.
When this "dot-com bubble" (3.0) goes down, it's going to take the US economy with it, and through them, the world.
Generally it is used for those who resist the idea that the third world must be imported into the first world, reducing the first world population to a third world hybrid, thus destroying culture, heritage and values and making it more tractable by the twin parasites of government and industry.
You only need one 9/10 to organize the project and avoid pitfalls.
Everyone else can write the bog-standard code that doesn't improve between someone with a 5/10 and a 10/10, or at least not by any metric measurable for business logic.
So they offer the 7/10s half what the 9/10 makes, and hire on a 5:1 ratio.
These tendencies are general bureaucratic tendencies and can also be observed in private industry, but generally only when the inbound money is so huge that bloat is an affordable luxury.
First, there's all the rules that make sure rules first go to minority- or female-owned companies, or to companies in at risk zones.
Next there's all the regulation.
Next there's government slowness. It's not market responsive.
The result is that people who are interested in running a business go away, UNLESS their business model is making money off government by charging it extra for all of its special demands.
It's no wonder the DC area is growing faster than anywhere else and salaries are higher there.
Slashdot Mirror
"USA" -> Blade Runner
The point is to use the quest for equality to justify penalizing anyone who rises above "equal," thus ensuring that all favors get handed out by the state or its ideological fanatic supporters.
This resembles... Communism? National Socialism? Totalitarianism? ...something where the agenda of control has replaced trying to achieve anything. We could have had a moon base by now, instead we will all be equal comrades under the People's Reich.
People will not let you criticize the Emperor (democracy, multiculturalism, welfare, consumerism) because to do so is to suggest that all of us are wasting our time on a civilization that is heading toward collapse.
#GamerGate, #metalgate and many other scandals show us that anything related to inequality, whether racial or sexual or sexual preference, causes government and media to immediately explode and go after you, as will lots of Useful Idiots (UIs... sorry, SJWs) out there who want to crucify you.
All because they are afraid the criticism might be true and, if it is, the stakes are MUCH higher than anyone has thought.
We're in a temporary bubble as society adjusts to technology. This, too, will end.
What matters are our reactions, not reasoned responses to facts in the article. What do you think this is, the pre-1996 internet?
Problem with the web: too many websites with too much content, not one answer that can be given consistently to similar questions:
Solution: standardize the web, with Wikipedia, Google Knol, etc. and squeeze out those smaller websites so they stop mucking up the corporate profits.
When the sheep get warm and comfy enough, yank anyone who doesn't dish out for SSL, and make it so that it costs a thousand dollars a year to reasonably publish on the web, instead of the pennies it did a few years ago.
Then, you have total dominion and total control. For much profit!
I appreciate the reasons for the war on piracy, but TPB was more than a pirate nexus: it was a great place to links to downloads via bittorrent that everyone could get to.
The internet needs to return to its wild west days of open file storage. True, lots of people are going to pirate, but that's technologically inevitable. The anti-piracy people are destroying necessary stuff along with what they fear.
This is great. The Crowd has the greatest pretense of all human things, and turning up your nose at it debunks its assumption of moral superiority.
We make stuff to sell it to ourselves, then sell advertising based on that, pretending somehow this is all anything but Monopoly money based on our oil and military power.
That's nothing, democracy built a society of drones.
Oh! You mean the robot planes. Sorry, my bad.
The game is to find a unique angle to approach your research that's essentially clickbait, then produce some results, and figure out some way you can claim victory and go home.
If you're just doing this to get on to the next stage, it makes sense to plagiarize and get it out of the way. You can get to the nice fat yearly income that way without having to know much of anything.
Do we have a quality of scientists problem because science is such an esteemed (and often well-paid, in private practice at least) career that people who should not be scientists are trying to be scientists?
...humanity can advance again. Just a thought.
Google is desperately searching for new products because they know what the rest of us are beginning to figure out: internet advertising is a paper tiger.
In theory, it leads to targeted ads reaching more people than ever before. In actuality, it advertises by demographic in the same way television does, and mostly repeats products you have shown interest in before whether you bought them or not.
Further, most of the sites showing advertising on their content are putting so many ads on the page that the effectiveness of any particular ad is radically diminished.
When this "dot-com bubble" (3.0) goes down, it's going to take the US economy with it, and through them, the world.
"I'm sorry, I can't find anything for monogamy. Perhaps you'd like to research transsexual group anal sex orgies instead?"
Public shaming is how we destroy people, not encourage good behavior.
If you want to end DUI, end alcohol culture. That requires fixing social problems and giving people something to live for.
Of course, doing that will require more systematic and structural efforts.
We're just kicking around the same old ideas, trying to make them better. No real new direction. But my fridge can post to Twitter.
It is a political term, and nothing more.
Generally it is used for those who resist the idea that the third world must be imported into the first world, reducing the first world population to a third world hybrid, thus destroying culture, heritage and values and making it more tractable by the twin parasites of government and industry.
See here:
http://slashdot.org/submission...
It spreads distrust and destroys social standards in common.
Thus, paranoia is an inevitable reaction.
The problem with the internet is that if you add commerce and a clueless general population, you get behavior that is only appropriate in dive bars.
Make the same internet, put an IQ test on the door, and let in 120s and up and you'll have someplace worth attending.
Ah, the old "bad behavior exists, therefore your example must be of the bad behavior"!
No.
I've (repeatedly) seen people go on to these lists, ask a polite question, and receive STFU NEWB or analogue response very quickly.
Generally, the more difficult the question the more likely it is to receive this response.
Ever wonder why Stack Overflow is so popular? Volunteers there get imaginary internet karma points and so have incentive to answer questions.
You usually get a better answer at Stack Overflow than from the official lists.
But few businesses want to rely on a software plan that begins "And if there's a problem, we know this INTERNET FORUM..."
Investors will panic and flee the room, with good reason.
You only need one 9/10 to organize the project and avoid pitfalls.
Everyone else can write the bog-standard code that doesn't improve between someone with a 5/10 and a 10/10, or at least not by any metric measurable for business logic.
So they offer the 7/10s half what the 9/10 makes, and hire on a 5:1 ratio.
"No support contract."
Thus what they see is the possibility of problems that take days or weeks to resolve, while getting told STFU NEWB on some mailing list.
That's the experience many clients have had with FreeBSD, for example.
These tendencies are general bureaucratic tendencies and can also be observed in private industry, but generally only when the inbound money is so huge that bloat is an affordable luxury.
Some government offices work better than others.
Others... yeah.
First, there's all the rules that make sure rules first go to minority- or female-owned companies, or to companies in at risk zones.
Next there's all the regulation.
Next there's government slowness. It's not market responsive.
The result is that people who are interested in running a business go away, UNLESS their business model is making money off government by charging it extra for all of its special demands.
It's no wonder the DC area is growing faster than anywhere else and salaries are higher there.