The difference with poker is that everyone starts a tournament with the same stack of chips. Over enough time it's totally egalitarian. You can't say the same of business, whereby some people start with nothing and others start with billions, in a world where business success is 99% funding.
Arming home-owners just means a simple property crime turns into a shootout. It'd be like in America where people shoot suspected trespassers, like some kid coming round to get his ball, or some minority you thought walked over your lawn. The problem with everyone carrying guns in a violent society is that every small incident escalates into a shootout as everyone instinctively pulls out their guns and starts shooting wild west style.
And considering how many accidental shootings there are in America, you'd probably be statistically safer having no guns at all and being robbed than defending yourself with guns.
Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.
Ever thought that a high-crime society has a greater need to ban guns than a peaceful country where people use them for hunting and sport? Gun ownership might work in Canada or Finland, but is totally inappropriate for violent, crime-ridden places like the UK and USA.
Yeah, when business screws over the private sector workers, they can then redirect the resulting rage against the people who've stood against it, rather than the real culprits. Instead of blaming the corporate class for lining their pockets with all the proceeds of growth, workers suffering under the system will direct their ire against workers who've managed to maintain the pay and conditions that used to be universal. Immigrants are another convenient scapegoat.
The greatest trick the rich every pulled was convincing the poor to fight each other.
It's a two-way relationship, hardware designers rely on software developers to write new, bloated, inefficient software to make people buy new hardware, and software developers rely on people making faster hardware to run their bloated, inefficient software.
The problem is that lifestyle cost inflates with income. If you make 90k you'll start spending like someone on 90k in order to keep up with your colleagues. Very few people have the discipline to save most of their income whilst the people they work with are going on exotic holidays and driving fast cars.
To keep the company in the black while paying a bunch of talented developers and network engineers, you have to make as many trades as possible. The reason for cutting down latency is so that we can snap up that 80c before anyone else.
Interesting how stock markets worked before all this nanosecond bollocks then. People managed to start companies, attract funding, and bring products to market when trades may have taken days.
All that money on staff and hardware just to lift 80 cents out of others people's productivity, like some 21st century skinflint. Why do you need to snap it up before anyone else? If you're a necessary middle-man, then you don't need low latency as you're waiting for a buyer to come along later. If someone else is willing to make the trade it doesn't seem like you're contributing anything more to the process than a ticket scalper.
So you're telling me the best time to compete with WoW is when they've just released an expansion that's sold millions of copies, and people are busy getting their characters to the new max level, as well as playing goblins and worgens?
I suppose the best way to compete with the NFL is by starting a new show on Superbowl night...
Maybe they should innovate with features that can't be written in a weekend. The problem with all these competitors, is they usually have one or two interesting things about them, but the rest of the game is terrible. You really need the whole package, and do something different. LOTRO did everything right except be anything other than a bland version of WoW.
Interesting how you go from the pre-30s straight to today, conveniently missing out the era when people had working hours similar to today yet before women were expected to work the same as men. I wonder what it'd look like if you plotted a graph of hours worked per year per household over the last century.
So what happens when the drivers fail the test, the delivery isn't made? I don't think that would last for very long in most workplaces. It also doesn't do much to prevent drivers getting tired during the shift.
Does building new roads really ease congestion? Normally people just drive more until the new roads are as congested as the old ones. What NYC needs is some sort of toll/congestion charge.
In capitalism by definition you don't need to provide anything, you just own the means of production and make money from other people providing the goods and services.
I'm pretty sure that machines were used in Europe, the Luddites were not successful. Although they had the right intentions: machinery lowered the pay and job security of the workers for the benefit of the mill owners.
What I'm wondering, is why Americans on Internet forums are so unknowledgeable about the things they talk about. It seems the less they know about a topic, the more passionately they talk about it.
Fortunately, other countries with universal healthcare have lower insurance costs. It also means that when you get run over by an uninsured driver you're not totally fuckied.
Especially as most people convicted aren't actually punished anyway. What's the point in using expensive technology to catch a thief then just giving him a small fine or a caution?
So you think that market dogma is more important than securing a domestic food supply? There's no arguing with such fundamentalists. May as well tell a terrorist he ain't getting 72 virgins.
Does making the market more free involve the airlines giving back all the billions that governments have spent researching aeronautics? And building the airports? And securing the fuel?
Slashdot Mirror
The difference with poker is that everyone starts a tournament with the same stack of chips. Over enough time it's totally egalitarian. You can't say the same of business, whereby some people start with nothing and others start with billions, in a world where business success is 99% funding.
Arming home-owners just means a simple property crime turns into a shootout. It'd be like in America where people shoot suspected trespassers, like some kid coming round to get his ball, or some minority you thought walked over your lawn. The problem with everyone carrying guns in a violent society is that every small incident escalates into a shootout as everyone instinctively pulls out their guns and starts shooting wild west style.
And considering how many accidental shootings there are in America, you'd probably be statistically safer having no guns at all and being robbed than defending yourself with guns.
Doctors are only respected because they make a lot of money.
Ever thought that a high-crime society has a greater need to ban guns than a peaceful country where people use them for hunting and sport? Gun ownership might work in Canada or Finland, but is totally inappropriate for violent, crime-ridden places like the UK and USA.
Wait, I thoguht guns were supposed to stop burglaries?
Yeah, when business screws over the private sector workers, they can then redirect the resulting rage against the people who've stood against it, rather than the real culprits. Instead of blaming the corporate class for lining their pockets with all the proceeds of growth, workers suffering under the system will direct their ire against workers who've managed to maintain the pay and conditions that used to be universal. Immigrants are another convenient scapegoat.
The greatest trick the rich every pulled was convincing the poor to fight each other.
It's a two-way relationship, hardware designers rely on software developers to write new, bloated, inefficient software to make people buy new hardware, and software developers rely on people making faster hardware to run their bloated, inefficient software.
If $125k isn't that much, how do the people survive on much lower incomes, like the toilet cleaners, road sweepers etc?
The problem is that lifestyle cost inflates with income. If you make 90k you'll start spending like someone on 90k in order to keep up with your colleagues. Very few people have the discipline to save most of their income whilst the people they work with are going on exotic holidays and driving fast cars.
Interesting how stock markets worked before all this nanosecond bollocks then. People managed to start companies, attract funding, and bring products to market when trades may have taken days.
All that money on staff and hardware just to lift 80 cents out of others people's productivity, like some 21st century skinflint. Why do you need to snap it up before anyone else? If you're a necessary middle-man, then you don't need low latency as you're waiting for a buyer to come along later. If someone else is willing to make the trade it doesn't seem like you're contributing anything more to the process than a ticket scalper.
Key words: ships to the west.
So you're telling me the best time to compete with WoW is when they've just released an expansion that's sold millions of copies, and people are busy getting their characters to the new max level, as well as playing goblins and worgens?
I suppose the best way to compete with the NFL is by starting a new show on Superbowl night...
Maybe they should innovate with features that can't be written in a weekend. The problem with all these competitors, is they usually have one or two interesting things about them, but the rest of the game is terrible. You really need the whole package, and do something different. LOTRO did everything right except be anything other than a bland version of WoW.
Interesting how you go from the pre-30s straight to today, conveniently missing out the era when people had working hours similar to today yet before women were expected to work the same as men. I wonder what it'd look like if you plotted a graph of hours worked per year per household over the last century.
So what happens when the drivers fail the test, the delivery isn't made? I don't think that would last for very long in most workplaces. It also doesn't do much to prevent drivers getting tired during the shift.
Does building new roads really ease congestion? Normally people just drive more until the new roads are as congested as the old ones. What NYC needs is some sort of toll/congestion charge.
In capitalism by definition you don't need to provide anything, you just own the means of production and make money from other people providing the goods and services.
I'm pretty sure that machines were used in Europe, the Luddites were not successful. Although they had the right intentions: machinery lowered the pay and job security of the workers for the benefit of the mill owners.
What I'm wondering, is why Americans on Internet forums are so unknowledgeable about the things they talk about. It seems the less they know about a topic, the more passionately they talk about it.
Fortunately, other countries with universal healthcare have lower insurance costs. It also means that when you get run over by an uninsured driver you're not totally fuckied.
What other country doesn't immediately deport serious criminals upon the completion of their sentences? We're the laughing stock of the world.
I wonder how anyone managed to get by before they invented the car.
Um, walk?
Especially as most people convicted aren't actually punished anyway. What's the point in using expensive technology to catch a thief then just giving him a small fine or a caution?
So you think that market dogma is more important than securing a domestic food supply? There's no arguing with such fundamentalists. May as well tell a terrorist he ain't getting 72 virgins.
Does making the market more free involve the airlines giving back all the billions that governments have spent researching aeronautics? And building the airports? And securing the fuel?