The best way to make a profit is by pleasing your fellow man unless you're the government and in that case you just need to make promises to please your fellow man, get elected and then do what ever the f*** you want for 4 years.
You can only fire services that you pay for, except for government. If you try to fire government by not paying them for their shitty services they'll come get you with guns and put you jail.
There's already a D-Bus implementation available on BSD and other Unices. The API is documented and anyone has the freedom to implement it any way they want, userspace, kernelspace or outerspace.
I fail to see how one more implementation, more specfically the Linux kernel one, has anything to do with giving up on anything.
Apple invests a few bucks in some lawyers and government lobbyists and in return they get an army of police to do their dirty work at a fraction of the cost. If Apple had to hire it's own police and equip them with guns to enforce such ridiculous demands, their products would be twice as expensive and no one would buy them. The government is a weapon with a great bang for the buck.
The best way to fight a corporation is with another corporation. Letting your enemies fight amongst themselves until they're both weakened before going in for the kill is an effective military strategy that ironically governments don't use in business. Governments should let corporations fight amongst themselves on price and quality and let consumers reap the benefits.
Absolutely! Spending your money on what you want is not only the best way to spend your money for you but it is also great for society and the market as well. Before spending your money, don't you consider the company's reputation though? Do you not look a bit further than the price tag and build quality?
I made the mistake of buying a Motorola Atrix a few years ago. The device was made with great quality but Motorola never delivered on their promise to support it. Now I'm stuck with Android 2.3 on a smartphone that could easily run KitKat. Motorola has lost my trust and I'll be voting differently next time.
It's binding mouse event handlers that swap the image source of all the images in a document.
If you read the GP you'll realise that this isn't about whether it can be done in other languages, I know it can be done. My point is that not only is web programming real programming but it can also be done just as elegantly if not more.
Nice. I didn't realize that C++ could look so good. If I had not commented on this thread I'd mod you Informative. However, that line of code isn't complete. You still need to loop through all the image objects and late bind the events to each.
My counter point however was for the GP who implied that web scripting languages are not very elegant. I was trying to show that they can be just as elegant. I wasn't saying that non web languages are not elegant.
Some of the most elegant code that I've seen has been with web scripting languages. $('img').bind('mouseenter mouseleave', function() {
$(this).attr({
src: $(this).attr('data-other-src')
, 'data-other-src': $(this).attr('src')
}) });
1) If privatization is so great, why does no one anywhere think Defense should be privatized. Should we have thousands of competing mercenary militias?
I'm not anti-goverment. Defense should be one of the only things that government does. Government's role should be to protect us from each other and from foreign invaders but not from ourselves. However, here are some good arguments that show that armies couldn't exist without government. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edtWe759KIw
2) I get that competition has its good side (as well as its bad side), but who really believes that capitalism unchecked would end up with any competition?
The government is a powerful weapon in a large corporation's arsenal. It's an expensive weapon but with a tremendous return on investment. Much too expensive for small business however. A large corporation will lobby for laws that eliminate competition, like patents. Large corporations are the greatest benefactors of such laws and they don't even need to enforce them. They let the government do the dirty work for them. All of this at the expense of tax payers. A free market allows everyone to compete equally without government help. It is extremely difficult for a monopoly to form and keep it's position in a free market without government.
The USPS was centrally run and had no competition and performed superbly for some 200 years.
How do you know? Maybe they were terribly inefficient or perhaps very efficient but no one knows because there was no competition and therefore nothing to compare them to. I doubt they were as efficient as they could be though because without without the incentive, innovation is rare. I would go as far as saying that laziness often ensues without competition.
Planned economies are subject to corruption, and so are capitalist enterprises. In a democracy, at least
Corruption is everywhere regardless of the system that we are in.
The problem with these salaries is that no one really knows what they should be because government employees don't normally compete with other governments and so they just come up with their own arbitrary numbers. Any other business that would attempt such a thing would go bankrupt in short time.
Profit incentives does the opposite of what you believe. When there's competition, the cost of goods and services are lowered while the quality increases. The end result is everyone becomes wealthier. I'm not going to go into all the details on why this works because frankly the supporting evidence is everywhere. Anyone who still thinks that central planning for goods and services works is either uneducated or in denial.
If you're looking for a starter in economics, the Free to Chose series by Milton Friedman (Nobel prize in Economics) is excellent.
It would be very easy to say "No" if they had wanted to, if it wasn't in their interests
Very easy? You underestimate political power of the US.
There probably wasn't any pressure with Sweden because of common enemy. I wonder who the common enemy was in the Canadian case; or did the Canadians feel the pressure.
Slashdot Mirror
The best way to make a profit is by pleasing your fellow man unless you're the government and in that case you just need to make promises to please your fellow man, get elected and then do what ever the f*** you want for 4 years.
You can only fire services that you pay for, except for government. If you try to fire government by not paying them for their shitty services they'll come get you with guns and put you jail.
What do you do when one company owns all the grocery stores within easy reach of you ?
That's a good description of a government. A government owns all the [insert government service here] in the country.
Glad to see fellow libertarians on /. :) I'm out of mod points so I'm showing support with a comment instead.
There's already a D-Bus implementation available on BSD and other Unices. The API is documented and anyone has the freedom to implement it any way they want, userspace, kernelspace or outerspace.
I fail to see how one more implementation, more specfically the Linux kernel one, has anything to do with giving up on anything.
Apple invests a few bucks in some lawyers and government lobbyists and in return they get an army of police to do their dirty work at a fraction of the cost. If Apple had to hire it's own police and equip them with guns to enforce such ridiculous demands, their products would be twice as expensive and no one would buy them. The government is a weapon with a great bang for the buck.
The best way to fight a corporation is with another corporation. Letting your enemies fight amongst themselves until they're both weakened before going in for the kill is an effective military strategy that ironically governments don't use in business. Governments should let corporations fight amongst themselves on price and quality and let consumers reap the benefits.
Absolutely! Spending your money on what you want is not only the best way to spend your money for you but it is also great for society and the market as well. Before spending your money, don't you consider the company's reputation though? Do you not look a bit further than the price tag and build quality?
I made the mistake of buying a Motorola Atrix a few years ago. The device was made with great quality but Motorola never delivered on their promise to support it. Now I'm stuck with Android 2.3 on a smartphone that could easily run KitKat. Motorola has lost my trust and I'll be voting differently next time.
Don't you want to know who to vote for with your money?
Clearly, A wins;
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=ruby%2C%20javascript%2C%20python%2C%20C%2C%20A&cmpt=q
That's the elegant part.
Well, show me some code in C or other "real" language that does the same as this JavaScript snippet and let's compare.
It's binding mouse event handlers that swap the image source of all the images in a document.
If you read the GP you'll realise that this isn't about whether it can be done in other languages, I know it can be done. My point is that not only is web programming real programming but it can also be done just as elegantly if not more.
Nice. I didn't realize that C++ could look so good. If I had not commented on this thread I'd mod you Informative. However, that line of code isn't complete. You still need to loop through all the image objects and late bind the events to each.
My counter point however was for the GP who implied that web scripting languages are not very elegant. I was trying to show that they can be just as elegant. I wasn't saying that non web languages are not elegant.
It can obviously be done in C but I doubt it would be done with the same elegance.
The framework is written in the same language, JavaScript, which further emphasizes my point.
Some of the most elegant code that I've seen has been with web scripting languages.
$('img').bind('mouseenter mouseleave', function() {
$(this).attr({
src: $(this).attr('data-other-src')
, 'data-other-src': $(this).attr('src')
})
});
Shameless plug
Try doing that in C
Are you saying that I should increase by hourly rate to $250/hour so that I can work for 2 hours and do research/whatever/post on /. for the 6?
I, know, you hate videos but have a look and you might learn a thing or two about Bitcoin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs6F91dFYCs
But, he survived and flourished because of the tax payers. They'll fail again and we'll see with the tax payers will help them survive a second time.
All the red states seem to be poorer yet these are the people that would benefit most from a "socialist" left govt.
YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG.
Disclaimer, I'm a reforming socialist.
Educate yourself before making such ridiculous claims.
Starting with the basics, watch the Free to Choose series by Milton Friedman.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=free+to+chose+1980&sm=3
The USPS only lost $1B because they were forced to save for retirees who haven't even been born yet!
Forced by who? Government?
The USPS is completely self funding...
You just said that they weren't. If they were they wouldn't owe $1B.
But don't let facts stand in the way of your anti-government hatred.
The facts that you presented certainly don't support government.
It's about principles, not government. I believe in the non aggression principle and all governments today violate that principle.
1) If privatization is so great, why does no one anywhere think Defense should be privatized. Should we have thousands of competing mercenary militias?
I'm not anti-goverment. Defense should be one of the only things that government does. Government's role should be to protect us from each other and from foreign invaders but not from ourselves. However, here are some good arguments that show that armies couldn't exist without government. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edtWe759KIw
2) I get that competition has its good side (as well as its bad side), but who really believes that capitalism unchecked would end up with any competition?
The government is a powerful weapon in a large corporation's arsenal. It's an expensive weapon but with a tremendous return on investment. Much too expensive for small business however. A large corporation will lobby for laws that eliminate competition, like patents. Large corporations are the greatest benefactors of such laws and they don't even need to enforce them. They let the government do the dirty work for them. All of this at the expense of tax payers. A free market allows everyone to compete equally without government help. It is extremely difficult for a monopoly to form and keep it's position in a free market without government.
The USPS was centrally run and had no competition and performed superbly for some 200 years.
How do you know? Maybe they were terribly inefficient or perhaps very efficient but no one knows because there was no competition and therefore nothing to compare them to. I doubt they were as efficient as they could be though because without without the incentive, innovation is rare. I would go as far as saying that laziness often ensues without competition.
Planned economies are subject to corruption, and so are capitalist enterprises. In a democracy, at least
Corruption is everywhere regardless of the system that we are in.
Here, checkout the salaries of public 'servants' in Canada.
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/pssd/orgs.php?organization=ministries
The problem with these salaries is that no one really knows what they should be because government employees don't normally compete with other governments and so they just come up with their own arbitrary numbers. Any other business that would attempt such a thing would go bankrupt in short time.
Profit incentives does the opposite of what you believe. When there's competition, the cost of goods and services are lowered while the quality increases. The end result is everyone becomes wealthier. I'm not going to go into all the details on why this works because frankly the supporting evidence is everywhere. Anyone who still thinks that central planning for goods and services works is either uneducated or in denial.
If you're looking for a starter in economics, the Free to Chose series by Milton Friedman (Nobel prize in Economics) is excellent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4
lol, you know nothing about basic economics.
If the true cost of delivering and receiving a letter is $3.50 as you suggest then who do you think pays for that?
If the stamp says $1 and the true cost of delivery is $3.50, trust me, you didn't pay $1 when it's the government who provided the service.
When the postal service states that they lost a billion dollars, who do you suppose pays for that billion dollar loss?
Do you not pay taxes?
The government will state that they can do it for cheaper but it never is.
Why is the government delivering our mail anyway. That kind of work is much more efficient in the private sector.
Here's an interesting clip on the subject.
BRENNAN v. U. S. POSTAL SERVICE , 439 U.S. 1345 (1978)
Very easy? You underestimate political power of the US.
There probably wasn't any pressure with Sweden because of common enemy. I wonder who the common enemy was in the Canadian case; or did the Canadians feel the pressure.