Not to comment on the actual thread of discussion here, but from your username I did always assume you were a woman. I guess maybe it reminds me of the name "Amy"?
You know,/. used to be a hangout for geeks. Geeks, ya know? The people whose social life could be summed up with "friends? Yeah, I have like 20. Yes, on Facebook, why, there's other ways?"
No self-respecting geek I ever knew socialized primarily through social networking sites. Those are the domain of the mundanes flooding our internet since Eternal September. That's even worse than hanging out with people in bars, not that geeks are wont to do that either.
You have to have been performing a self summary in your subject.
Translation: "so are you!"
There is no "But",
Translation: "Nuh uh!"
What are you, a fucking kindergartener?
as soon as you go away from facts
Stating an additional fact that you disagree with after a fact that nobody disagrees with is not "going away from facts". Let's try this for analogy:
"Tigers are cats, but they're much bigger and more dangerous than the kinds of cats people keep for pets."
A fact, but also, another, related fact correcting a misconception you might draw from the first fact. Not a fact and then la la fantasy. A fact and then correcting your misguided fantasy with another fucking fact, you putrid shitnugget.
Looks like you are just a troll
Looks like you must be new here, kid, if you can't tell the difference between a troll (which is usually calmly stated, trying to draw people into an argument) and raw vitriol that, at worst, some might consider flamebait, though really it's not that either: it's just a flame. If anything, your comments are more like a troll, except that would suggest cunning disingenuousness on your part, when I'm pretty sure that you are just an honest, genuine dumbass, full of shit and letting it leak out in public.
Nobody who lives in Africa would call the peoples of Africa "one race". They can easily identify the different peoples by their appearance.
Thus my point. Where to draw the lines between which groups of people with different genetics and ancestry is an arbitrary social choice; their societies draw different lines than ours does. It might be possible that we could designate as a working definition some degree of genetic difference that constitutes a difference of race, and then compare the genetics of the peoples of the world and see where they fall, but nobody does that, and the way people do divide people up into races wouldn't match that at all.
It's much like with continents and geology. Obviously, there are real, physically different continents, right? Like separated by oceans and everything. Sure maybe the line between Europe and Asia is blurry but clearly Australia is a different continent right? (Intentionally echoing your comment about Australian aborigines). Except that different people around the world can't seem to agree on where the lines between the continents go or even how many there are, and while you could appeal to some underlying geological facts like something to do with plate tectonics, that approach would end up telling you that Santa Cruz and San Jose are on different continents, which nobody ever does.
Presupposing basic income will lead to people working less, rather than (coupled with the elimination of minimum wage that would logically accompany it) creating more jobs for everyone now that more people can accept a lower wage and still survive. People don't want to just survive: they want stuff, and more stuff, and if they can go work to get it, they will.
These threads are nothing but excuses for flamewars, and invite all the retards from both sides of the spectrum, posters and mods alike, to stir up a goddamn shitstorm. In this thread, the reactionary-tards seem to be winning.
So fuck all your mothers' cunts with a rusty cactus and then kill yourselves you worthless goddamn niggerfaggots.
Holy fuck this thread is full of retarded mods, otherwise you've got some kind of sockpuppet army.
I don't even know where the fuck to begin with how full of shit you are.
There are genetic, biological differences between peoples, obviously. But they do not divide nearly into the racial categories we, or any other society, think in terms of. Where to draw the lines between which groups of people with what genetic differences is entirely a social matter that doesn't line up at all with where the biology would suggest them; there are greater genetic differences between people within Africa (who would all be called one "race" by our modern construction thereof) than between peoples living on opposite sides of the world outside of Africa.
So if people within India decide to divide up their people into several peoples (castes are inherited, so its your genetic ancestry that matters) and discriminate between them, that is every fucking bit the same exact thing as any kind of racial discrimination, just under a different name. Pull your goddamn head out of your ass and try cracking one of those biology textbooks you preach about for a try.
And I don't know why the fuck you bring gender into this, you neanderthaloid asshat, but you're wrong there too, 100%. The thing you're talking about is sex, not gender. And yes, sex is biological, but not entirely genetic; there are biological females with XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity that makes them develop as females nevertheless; and in many other ways, it doesn't divide at neatly into the social categories that you want it to, fuckwit, and shitstains like you are the ones imposing artificial social constructs in bald ignorance of biological fact. Again, read a fucking book yourself. And you question the world instead of swallowing whatever comforting lies the people you grew up with told you.
And what the fuck does a math class have to do with any of this, you cuntfaced cockhole?
News flash: lots of people out of work, consequently poor, rage against society in their subsequent free time. Film at 11.
Maybe if people had the opportunity to do something with their lives they'd both have better things to do than complain and less reason to do so as well.
A hereditary caste system is indeed quite racist. Races are social constructs to begin with -- today we think of "whites" as meaning anyone of European ancestry, but a few hundred years ago Irish and Italians were "clearly" different races from "whites" -- so if Indian society constructs different groups of people based on their family line (i.e. ancestry, genetics), then that's not really any different, even if they call them "castes" rather than "races".
Most people think most people aren't assholes, because most people (by definition) are not part of the out-groups toward which that assholishness is directed.
If you happen to agree with everyone else, of course everyone else seems great. But it's the points of disagreement that test peoples' character.
College graduates obviously have a higher median income than the general populace, and I don't have figures for that myself, but according to another poster in this thread $20/hr is around the median for them nationally, and above it in Arizona specifically.
But there's value in owning the machines that make all of the things for yourself, and if all the "worthless takers" starve to death at that point what's it to you, in your robot-guarded self-cleaning-and-repairing fully-robo-staffed mansion? It's not like you need anything from them at that point.
It's not the automation per se that causes the problems.
It's the distribution of capital that causes the problem, automation just makes that problem more visible.
In a sane world, without this problem, everyone would labor upon some kind of capital in their possession in order to produce what they need to meet their means, either directly or by way of some system of trade.
In our world, the kind of world we've had most everywhere for most of recorded history, instead most people have to first prove their worth to some of a few other people to earn the privilege of paying the latter to borrow the capital needed to labor upon to produce what they need to meet their means, and consequently have to labor much more than they otherwise would need to to produce a surplus with which to pay for the borrowing of that capital, off of which the capital-owners can then live without having to labor themselves. This is the case with literal masters and slaves, serfs and lords, and the modern lower and upper classes as well, not just employees and employers but even more so renters and rentiers, debtors and creditors, any kind of worker vs owner. (And I'm not equating all of those with each other -- newer systems have fixed many of the flaws of older ones -- but this arrangement is common to all of them).
In a sane world, if that capital was made able to labor upon itself (automation), it would just mean that everyone had to labor less, and that would be awesome.
In our world, capital being able to labor upon itself means that the bar of worth that workers have to prove to owners just gets higher and higher, and fewer and fewer people are able to meet it, and the endgame of full automation and the elimination of all labor is that workers are worthless to owners, and don't even warrant the privilege of being allowed to pay -- not that they would have the money to do so -- to borrow the capital they need just to be able to labor to meet their own needs.
I am in a better situation than most people in that regard, owning everything I need to make my living except for the space I occupy while I do so -- I even own the building I live and work in, just not the land it's on -- and other than that space, I'm not borrowing anything from anyone and owe nothing but what I spend on my consumption. And I consume at quite a comfortable level, but that consumption could easily be paid, with some left over, out of the product of a full time minimum wage job. But instead, I have to make around 400% of that just in order to pay to borrow just a place to exist at all, and to save quickly enough to have hopes of someday being able to borrow money (with enough down to get interest rates not exceeding that rent) with which to buy a place of my own so I can put an end to that.
This entire problem could be resolved easily if we simply stopped enforcing contracts requiring payment for borrowing -- eliminating rent and interest. Then the only way the owners could profit off of their excess capital would be by selling it to those who need it, and in that manner capital ownership would naturally redistribute itself more equitably over time, and nobody would have anything at all to fear from automation.
There are no contracts involved here, not between the users and Facebook. It's not a trade of ad-views for specified content; it's just a package of content and ads offered for free.
It's not actually the contrapositive. Contrapositives are equivalent to each other. Also, they only apply to conditionals, and there are no conditionals here, so that statement has no contrapositive.
perhaps google would decide all interest taking as usury, and ( like some fundamental religious nuts/muslim countries now, and many Christian ones in past)
All interest taking is usury, and it doesn't take any kind of religious motivation to think so. The word "usury" literally means a fee for use (of money, implicitly, but any other kind of rent is the same thing in practice; and old religious bans on usury didn't account for that).
Slashdot Mirror
Washing-of-color.
Not to comment on the actual thread of discussion here, but from your username I did always assume you were a woman. I guess maybe it reminds me of the name "Amy"?
You know, /. used to be a hangout for geeks. Geeks, ya know? The people whose social life could be summed up with "friends? Yeah, I have like 20. Yes, on Facebook, why, there's other ways?"
No self-respecting geek I ever knew socialized primarily through social networking sites. Those are the domain of the mundanes flooding our internet since Eternal September. That's even worse than hanging out with people in bars, not that geeks are wont to do that either.
You have to have been performing a self summary in your subject.
Translation: "so are you!"
There is no "But",
Translation: "Nuh uh!"
What are you, a fucking kindergartener?
as soon as you go away from facts
Stating an additional fact that you disagree with after a fact that nobody disagrees with is not "going away from facts". Let's try this for analogy:
"Tigers are cats, but they're much bigger and more dangerous than the kinds of cats people keep for pets."
A fact, but also, another, related fact correcting a misconception you might draw from the first fact. Not a fact and then la la fantasy. A fact and then correcting your misguided fantasy with another fucking fact, you putrid shitnugget.
Looks like you are just a troll
Looks like you must be new here, kid, if you can't tell the difference between a troll (which is usually calmly stated, trying to draw people into an argument) and raw vitriol that, at worst, some might consider flamebait, though really it's not that either: it's just a flame. If anything, your comments are more like a troll, except that would suggest cunning disingenuousness on your part, when I'm pretty sure that you are just an honest, genuine dumbass, full of shit and letting it leak out in public.
Nobody who lives in Africa would call the peoples of Africa "one race". They can easily identify the different peoples by their appearance.
Thus my point. Where to draw the lines between which groups of people with different genetics and ancestry is an arbitrary social choice; their societies draw different lines than ours does. It might be possible that we could designate as a working definition some degree of genetic difference that constitutes a difference of race, and then compare the genetics of the peoples of the world and see where they fall, but nobody does that, and the way people do divide people up into races wouldn't match that at all.
It's much like with continents and geology. Obviously, there are real, physically different continents, right? Like separated by oceans and everything. Sure maybe the line between Europe and Asia is blurry but clearly Australia is a different continent right? (Intentionally echoing your comment about Australian aborigines). Except that different people around the world can't seem to agree on where the lines between the continents go or even how many there are, and while you could appeal to some underlying geological facts like something to do with plate tectonics, that approach would end up telling you that Santa Cruz and San Jose are on different continents, which nobody ever does.
Presupposing basic income will lead to people working less, rather than (coupled with the elimination of minimum wage that would logically accompany it) creating more jobs for everyone now that more people can accept a lower wage and still survive. People don't want to just survive: they want stuff, and more stuff, and if they can go work to get it, they will.
These threads are nothing but excuses for flamewars, and invite all the retards from both sides of the spectrum, posters and mods alike, to stir up a goddamn shitstorm. In this thread, the reactionary-tards seem to be winning.
So fuck all your mothers' cunts with a rusty cactus and then kill yourselves you worthless goddamn niggerfaggots.
Holy fuck this thread is full of retarded mods, otherwise you've got some kind of sockpuppet army.
I don't even know where the fuck to begin with how full of shit you are.
There are genetic, biological differences between peoples, obviously. But they do not divide nearly into the racial categories we, or any other society, think in terms of. Where to draw the lines between which groups of people with what genetic differences is entirely a social matter that doesn't line up at all with where the biology would suggest them; there are greater genetic differences between people within Africa (who would all be called one "race" by our modern construction thereof) than between peoples living on opposite sides of the world outside of Africa.
So if people within India decide to divide up their people into several peoples (castes are inherited, so its your genetic ancestry that matters) and discriminate between them, that is every fucking bit the same exact thing as any kind of racial discrimination, just under a different name. Pull your goddamn head out of your ass and try cracking one of those biology textbooks you preach about for a try.
And I don't know why the fuck you bring gender into this, you neanderthaloid asshat, but you're wrong there too, 100%. The thing you're talking about is sex, not gender. And yes, sex is biological, but not entirely genetic; there are biological females with XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity that makes them develop as females nevertheless; and in many other ways, it doesn't divide at neatly into the social categories that you want it to, fuckwit, and shitstains like you are the ones imposing artificial social constructs in bald ignorance of biological fact. Again, read a fucking book yourself. And you question the world instead of swallowing whatever comforting lies the people you grew up with told you.
And what the fuck does a math class have to do with any of this, you cuntfaced cockhole?
News flash: lots of people out of work, consequently poor, rage against society in their subsequent free time. Film at 11.
Maybe if people had the opportunity to do something with their lives they'd both have better things to do than complain and less reason to do so as well.
A hereditary caste system is indeed quite racist. Races are social constructs to begin with -- today we think of "whites" as meaning anyone of European ancestry, but a few hundred years ago Irish and Italians were "clearly" different races from "whites" -- so if Indian society constructs different groups of people based on their family line (i.e. ancestry, genetics), then that's not really any different, even if they call them "castes" rather than "races".
Most people think most people aren't assholes, because most people (by definition) are not part of the out-groups toward which that assholishness is directed.
If you happen to agree with everyone else, of course everyone else seems great. But it's the points of disagreement that test peoples' character.
Reminds me of the difference between goth and emo:
Emo: Life sucks. I wish I was dead.
Goth: Life sucks. I wish you were dead.
Sockpuppeting (or meatpuppeting) like that is a good way to get yourself quickly banned from the wiki.
As much as the first (only) movie sucked, personally I think it being an aborted part-1-of-3 only makes it suck more.
College graduates obviously have a higher median income than the general populace, and I don't have figures for that myself, but according to another poster in this thread $20/hr is around the median for them nationally, and above it in Arizona specifically.
My favorite Doom story is about when Bungie released a much better game around the same time.
Exactly, thank you. Personal income is about half of household income, because the median household is about two people.
$20/hr is about $160% the median American personal income.
$20/hr is about 160% the median personal income in America.
But there's value in owning the machines that make all of the things for yourself, and if all the "worthless takers" starve to death at that point what's it to you, in your robot-guarded self-cleaning-and-repairing fully-robo-staffed mansion? It's not like you need anything from them at that point.
It's not the automation per se that causes the problems.
It's the distribution of capital that causes the problem, automation just makes that problem more visible.
In a sane world, without this problem, everyone would labor upon some kind of capital in their possession in order to produce what they need to meet their means, either directly or by way of some system of trade.
In our world, the kind of world we've had most everywhere for most of recorded history, instead most people have to first prove their worth to some of a few other people to earn the privilege of paying the latter to borrow the capital needed to labor upon to produce what they need to meet their means, and consequently have to labor much more than they otherwise would need to to produce a surplus with which to pay for the borrowing of that capital, off of which the capital-owners can then live without having to labor themselves. This is the case with literal masters and slaves, serfs and lords, and the modern lower and upper classes as well, not just employees and employers but even more so renters and rentiers, debtors and creditors, any kind of worker vs owner. (And I'm not equating all of those with each other -- newer systems have fixed many of the flaws of older ones -- but this arrangement is common to all of them).
In a sane world, if that capital was made able to labor upon itself (automation), it would just mean that everyone had to labor less, and that would be awesome.
In our world, capital being able to labor upon itself means that the bar of worth that workers have to prove to owners just gets higher and higher, and fewer and fewer people are able to meet it, and the endgame of full automation and the elimination of all labor is that workers are worthless to owners, and don't even warrant the privilege of being allowed to pay -- not that they would have the money to do so -- to borrow the capital they need just to be able to labor to meet their own needs.
I am in a better situation than most people in that regard, owning everything I need to make my living except for the space I occupy while I do so -- I even own the building I live and work in, just not the land it's on -- and other than that space, I'm not borrowing anything from anyone and owe nothing but what I spend on my consumption. And I consume at quite a comfortable level, but that consumption could easily be paid, with some left over, out of the product of a full time minimum wage job. But instead, I have to make around 400% of that just in order to pay to borrow just a place to exist at all, and to save quickly enough to have hopes of someday being able to borrow money (with enough down to get interest rates not exceeding that rent) with which to buy a place of my own so I can put an end to that.
This entire problem could be resolved easily if we simply stopped enforcing contracts requiring payment for borrowing -- eliminating rent and interest. Then the only way the owners could profit off of their excess capital would be by selling it to those who need it, and in that manner capital ownership would naturally redistribute itself more equitably over time, and nobody would have anything at all to fear from automation.
He means replacing the CEO with a bot wouldn't help the franchises.
There are no contracts involved here, not between the users and Facebook. It's not a trade of ad-views for specified content; it's just a package of content and ads offered for free.
It's not actually the contrapositive. Contrapositives are equivalent to each other. Also, they only apply to conditionals, and there are no conditionals here, so that statement has no contrapositive.
perhaps google would decide all interest taking as usury, and ( like some fundamental religious nuts/muslim countries now, and many Christian ones in past)
All interest taking is usury, and it doesn't take any kind of religious motivation to think so. The word "usury" literally means a fee for use (of money, implicitly, but any other kind of rent is the same thing in practice; and old religious bans on usury didn't account for that).