My assertion is that under Obama, the purchasing power of American currency declined, something called "shrinkflation" in those articles.
I am not necessarily concerned with contrasting it to Trump, whose presidency is still young. He has clearly had some successes but these might need to be observed over time.
But the days of old where a culture of 100 people can be managed by a chief people were actually treated more equally without money but more of a meritocracy that we seem to strive for. Because the cost of not using people for what they are best at can cause death.
Why not divide into groups of 100 (or 150 -- Dunbar's number?) then, and have those managed by a hierarchy above them? A cellular design like this mimics the tactics of revolutionary cells.
If a $10 million project creates an enterprise that is worth $8 million, the world is a poorer place. In addition to this destruction of capital, it also has to be subsidized to remain in operation, taking money from one group of people to provide benefits to another group of people.
This is a great way to visualize how unrealistic programs and policies weaken the economy. Imagine thousands of these at once and some of our recessions no longer seem so inexplicable.
At this point, anything by controlling monopoly Google that fails is good.
Through its PageRank algorithm, Google centralized the web, leading to conformity of information and ultimately the abortion that is social media.
When their services go down in flames like GooglePlus and GoogleBuzz, it is a victory for the decentralized internet over meddling corporate interests.
He seems to have forgotten that the whole industry was getting very excited about software as either a service or a subscription because it was not making enough money from single-time sales because of support costs, usually patching the various security holes and glitches that the bureaucracy and its low-cost code stooges overlooked.
It may have avoided the official indexes, but the loss of real-world value to our currency was a thing, which is about what one would expect from fast money policies.
The business model relies on stupid people coming in and spending their money on a gamble which they will surely lose, at which point they go back home and drink too much Bud Lite while bemoaning how the gods have screwed them. Then they go back to work and forget about it because their retirement plan is Social Security so it doesn't matter how much money they waste as long as they keep going to their drudgery tool jobs. At those, intelligence is punished as well.
Few people seem to ask why we have school shootings, and the answer seems to be a combination of suicidal students, a hateful society, and massive media attention for the kid with a high score.
We're giving people a choice between a lifetime of wage-slavery and stupidity, which they rationalize as "adulthood," and going out in a blaze of glory where everyone knows your name, your manifesto, your favorite bands, etc.
Then there's the fact that public high schools are jails. Sort of like jobs. What kind of dystopic Utopia is this?
There is still supply and demand in an "information economy" - it's just that people tend to misidentify the thing that is scarce.
True. Not to mention the ultimate zero-sum game, which is choice. Some software designers make sensible choices; if that does not work for you, your only option is to code up your own package. This means that supply and demand are measured on the level of what fits the need for a given solution as well.
So the document was not stolen, as it already was supposed to be legal to copy unless classified (discussed above).
Therefore it was stolen; US documents become public property once they are released to the public. It was not intended for release. That is the whole point.
The Supreme Court decided that in this case that the First Amendment trumped the classification. So at best, the government operated under an erroneous understanding of the law.
Preference for ones own ethnic group or using knowledge of differences between ethnic groups for any practical purpose is absoltutely wrong (which is why we've called it racism and largely rejected it since the mid-20th century - it's completely unfair to individuals) regardless of how natural or scientific it may be.
"Wrong" according to what standard, and what proof of its universality or universal utility?
Self-interest is never wrong, especially if it results in a more stable order than ethnic egalitarianism.
He used the term "assholes." Since people are being banned for political opinions, how else do we define "asshole" but according to the dominant paradigm?
I suppose the vetting process, then, is more designed to keep out apps from free speech sites like Gab.ai than it is to look for actually malicious apps? Terrifying. Then again, not entirely surprising given the monopolistic corporations involved. Thanks for posting that.
The Reddit method of debate is to keep repeating yourself, asking the other guy alternately if he just doesn't understand you or for a source. Then, declare victory and make a snarky comment.
This type of behavior has blighted the internet, so I ask you to reconsider employing it.
Either the sitting president is responsible for the economy when they are in office, or they aren't. You want to claim the 4% GDP growth in Trump's term is due to his policies, you have to accept the same for Clinton.
The real world does not work according to your judgmental little rules. What matters is cause and effect. We can see clearly how Obama's policies, like Clinton's policies, were destined to leave little time-bombs behind, and also see how Trump's tax cuts, loosening of regulation, and more sane attitude toward international commerce has boosted the economy now.
I think that's the best argument for reinstating Net Neutrality, without actually mentioning it directly, that I've ever read.
If we view the internet as a public space, certainly. At that point, however, we are considering not just the wires but the whole internet as a utility. I analogize it to telephone service, in that everyone has a need to use it and so it cannot purely be a free market scenario unless cultural mores so strongly favor universal use that any censorship would provoke riots.
The problem most of us have with net neutrality is that it is a regulation, and these impose costs on businesses and consumers. The former squeeze little guys and new players from the market, and the latter is basically another form of backdoor socialism, passing on the costs of government and free riders to the obedient little sheep in the suburbs.
One wonders why these issues were not considered during the original choice to open the internet up to commerce. My guess is that people always assumed an internet 2.0 would soon exist for actual content, where internet 1.0 would become nu-television.
In human society since the dawn of time, the way to get ahead has been to tell people what they want to hear.
People want to hear that everyone can get along, because this means that no individual human has to trouble himself or herself with the difficult task of maintaining civilization. It just runs itself!
For everyone to get along, you need sharing of power, wealth, and social status. These correspond to systems like democracy, socialism, and pluralism. Together these form a notion called utilitarianism, or the idea that whatever most people think will make them happy is the best option.
Gates is preaching the idea that, because units one through infinity cost very little, the cost of unit zero can be ignored. This allows him to argue for a subsidy state to produce unit zero, and then to distribute units at low or no cost.
His idea is correct for him in that it will make him more popular; it is incorrect in reality, as the numerous carcasses of failed civilizations littering the globe attest. He has come up with a Burning Man, quinoa-eating, avocado-friendly version of Venezuela and nothing more.
Amazon's Twitter legion, though small, appears to represent a new front in the company's effort to portray itself as a generous employer.
Sounds like the kind of thing the Maoist Chinese or Stalinist USSR would do.
"No, comrade, there is much borscht and vodka, and all is good! Do not trouble yourself with lies of capitalist plutocrat pig-dog lackeys who claim Glorious People's Republic is somehow inferior."
Slashdot Mirror
My assertion is that under Obama, the purchasing power of American currency declined, something called "shrinkflation" in those articles.
I am not necessarily concerned with contrasting it to Trump, whose presidency is still young. He has clearly had some successes but these might need to be observed over time.
Why not divide into groups of 100 (or 150 -- Dunbar's number?) then, and have those managed by a hierarchy above them? A cellular design like this mimics the tactics of revolutionary cells.
This is a great way to visualize how unrealistic programs and policies weaken the economy. Imagine thousands of these at once and some of our recessions no longer seem so inexplicable.
At this point, anything by controlling monopoly Google that fails is good.
Through its PageRank algorithm, Google centralized the web, leading to conformity of information and ultimately the abortion that is social media.
When their services go down in flames like GooglePlus and GoogleBuzz, it is a victory for the decentralized internet over meddling corporate interests.
He seems to have forgotten that the whole industry was getting very excited about software as either a service or a subscription because it was not making enough money from single-time sales because of support costs, usually patching the various security holes and glitches that the bureaucracy and its low-cost code stooges overlooked.
I should expand, since due to some activity in my office this one got cut off:
Having observed the Obama years, the purchasing power of our currency fell off quite a bit. You might look along these lines:
* https://www.consumerreports.or...
* https://www.bostonglobe.com/li...
* https://montrealgazette.com/op...
It may have avoided the official indexes, but the loss of real-world value to our currency was a thing, which is about what one would expect from fast money policies.
The business model relies on stupid people coming in and spending their money on a gamble which they will surely lose, at which point they go back home and drink too much Bud Lite while bemoaning how the gods have screwed them. Then they go back to work and forget about it because their retirement plan is Social Security so it doesn't matter how much money they waste as long as they keep going to their drudgery tool jobs. At those, intelligence is punished as well.
Few people seem to ask why we have school shootings, and the answer seems to be a combination of suicidal students, a hateful society, and massive media attention for the kid with a high score.
We're giving people a choice between a lifetime of wage-slavery and stupidity, which they rationalize as "adulthood," and going out in a blaze of glory where everyone knows your name, your manifesto, your favorite bands, etc.
Then there's the fact that public high schools are jails. Sort of like jobs. What kind of dystopic Utopia is this?
True. Not to mention the ultimate zero-sum game, which is choice. Some software designers make sensible choices; if that does not work for you, your only option is to code up your own package. This means that supply and demand are measured on the level of what fits the need for a given solution as well.
OK then, so history was just an error in designating the new egalitarian philosophies following the Enlightenment as Leftist.
Fantasy worlds, again.
Civil Rights law pretty much removed that. Unless you support restoring it?
I am glad to hear that you support the right of people to have, for example, an all-white community enforced by law.
Therefore it was stolen; US documents become public property once they are released to the public. It was not intended for release. That is the whole point.
It depends on why they did it, don't you think?
Would that be your response?
No, of course not, because historically it was not.
If we tell people that they cannot wear jackets saying FUCK THE WAR in a courthouse, suddenly that's limiting their free speech.
But kicking them off the contemporary equivalent of the phone system because they are not egalitarians, that's OK.
Leftism bends minds and then breaks them.
"Wrong" according to what standard, and what proof of its universality or universal utility?
Self-interest is never wrong, especially if it results in a more stable order than ethnic egalitarianism.
He used the term "assholes." Since people are being banned for political opinions, how else do we define "asshole" but according to the dominant paradigm?
Egalitarianism is any argument made from equality or toward equality. There's a wide range.
Your sin is cherry-picking. During the Obama years, purchasing power fell quite a bit.
You're not a Leftist? Do tell... what are you, then?
Yes, I oppose allowing spying on our government. Do you endorse it?
I suppose the vetting process, then, is more designed to keep out apps from free speech sites like Gab.ai than it is to look for actually malicious apps? Terrifying. Then again, not entirely surprising given the monopolistic corporations involved. Thanks for posting that.
The Reddit method of debate is to keep repeating yourself, asking the other guy alternately if he just doesn't understand you or for a source. Then, declare victory and make a snarky comment.
This type of behavior has blighted the internet, so I ask you to reconsider employing it.
The real world does not work according to your judgmental little rules. What matters is cause and effect. We can see clearly how Obama's policies, like Clinton's policies, were destined to leave little time-bombs behind, and also see how Trump's tax cuts, loosening of regulation, and more sane attitude toward international commerce has boosted the economy now.
If we view the internet as a public space, certainly. At that point, however, we are considering not just the wires but the whole internet as a utility. I analogize it to telephone service, in that everyone has a need to use it and so it cannot purely be a free market scenario unless cultural mores so strongly favor universal use that any censorship would provoke riots.
The problem most of us have with net neutrality is that it is a regulation, and these impose costs on businesses and consumers. The former squeeze little guys and new players from the market, and the latter is basically another form of backdoor socialism, passing on the costs of government and free riders to the obedient little sheep in the suburbs.
One wonders why these issues were not considered during the original choice to open the internet up to commerce. My guess is that people always assumed an internet 2.0 would soon exist for actual content, where internet 1.0 would become nu-television.
In human society since the dawn of time, the way to get ahead has been to tell people what they want to hear.
People want to hear that everyone can get along, because this means that no individual human has to trouble himself or herself with the difficult task of maintaining civilization. It just runs itself!
For everyone to get along, you need sharing of power, wealth, and social status. These correspond to systems like democracy, socialism, and pluralism. Together these form a notion called utilitarianism, or the idea that whatever most people think will make them happy is the best option.
Gates is preaching the idea that, because units one through infinity cost very little, the cost of unit zero can be ignored. This allows him to argue for a subsidy state to produce unit zero, and then to distribute units at low or no cost.
His idea is correct for him in that it will make him more popular; it is incorrect in reality, as the numerous carcasses of failed civilizations littering the globe attest. He has come up with a Burning Man, quinoa-eating, avocado-friendly version of Venezuela and nothing more.
Sounds like the kind of thing the Maoist Chinese or Stalinist USSR would do.
"No, comrade, there is much borscht and vodka, and all is good! Do not trouble yourself with lies of capitalist plutocrat pig-dog lackeys who claim Glorious People's Republic is somehow inferior."