Everyone knows there's racism in Western countries, so that's not too eye-opening. But you're right, I shouldn't accuse all Han Chinese of being racists. My intention was merely to point out to OP that racism is alive and well in China.
We (USA) hosted it in 1996... any predictions for the next 18 months?
Ah, but we also hosted in 1984, and the only thing that happened 12 years later was another Olympics. We didn't even get the sort of regime change that happens every 4 or 8 years here.:)
Retirement, prison, government jobs, getting educated, plenty of stuff to hide unemployment.
Granted, but changes from year to year aren't very well explained by these things, and the unemployment rate has dropped consistently with increases in raw job numbers since 2001. You can argue lots of things about conditions in the U.S., but arguing that more Americans aren't working now than were working 5-6 years ago is just silly.
Silly to draw any conclusions from two datapoints, but: Nazi Germany hosted the Olympics in 1936, and by the 1948 Olympics they were no more. Soviet Russia hosted the Olympics in 1980, and by the 1992 Olympics they were gone. Now Red China is hosting in 2008. Any predictions for 2020?
They are draining us of jobs and money. But that is because they have fixed their money to ours rather than allowing it to float free.
These statements are contradictory - the only way they are making this "work" is by buying huge amounts of U.S. government debt (and other investments, but it's primarily T-bills). Which funnels money back into the U.S. Essentially they're loaning us the money to buy their goods. So they must think we're a good credit risk, at least.
I would also be curious to know where these jobs are going. If the U.S. is being drained of jobs, how come our unemployment rate is decreasing?
And here I thought that the core of Marxism was that a central government ruled all production in a given country...
Common misconception. Actually, if you read Communist Manifesto, you'll see that Marx argues that history leads inevitably from feudalism to capitalism to an anarchical state in which all contribute to the common good, communism. The idea was that economic decisions would be made democratically by the proletariat rather than by the capitalists.
Lenin and Stalin's "contribution" was to rush to communism the transition by means of government force, so what you're referring to is really Leninism.
(The above should not be taken as an apology for Marxism, which is, after all, "The Road to Serfdom." I just wanted to clear up a common misconception.)
Yeah. I mean, who would have guessed that a chemical process in which energy from light causes atoms to bind in different ways could have anything to do with quantum mechanics? Crazy!
Philosophical argument, I suppose, but "equality" doesn't mean the same thing as "sameness." For example, in Z_5, 2 and 7 are "equal" (in the same equivalence class), but it would be hard to argue that 2 is the "same" as 7. Similarly, the digit string "3.999999...." and "4.0000000" are clearly not "the same", although they are in the same equivalence class.
If OP had said "represent equal elements of the real number", he would also have been spot on.
Sorry, as a mathematician I can't help being pedantic about this sort of thing.
...copyrights and patents done right can possibly serve the public good despite preventing a free market in the goods they protect.
We obviously have different definitions of "free market". To me, the term means a marketplace in which producers and consumers are free to trade goods and services which they own and on whatever terms they wish with others.
By this definition, intellectual property rights are perfectly legitimate. I write a poem. I am free to trade this product with anyone else on whatever terms we can mutually agree upon - which includes licensing the right for the buyer to use but not redistribute the poem without my consent. Once we've established this, then the rest of copyright and patent law is just details.
The real problem, of course, is that copyrights and patents protect intangible goods which can be copied cheaply (often for free), unlike tangible goods. But this doesn't make the property right any less real; it just makes enforcement more difficult.
What's your defintion?
I think that property rights are more recognized than given. Do you disagree?
It's a distinction without a difference. They're given because they are recognized. You may have a Platonic (or Jeffersonian, if you like) "God-given right" to property (I believe in this, in fact), but your de jure right is certainly government granted and you will find it can be revoked very quickly in an imminent domain case.
These rights are given by the government. They give authors and inventors exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Exclusive as in monopoly.
When I own a car, I have exclusive rights to use it and to decide who else uses it. So I fail to see the distinction here.
They are given with a purpose as well - to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Property rights are given with a purpose, too.
Both of you respondents seem to be missing something, which is that I quite agree that something is very wrong with copyright and patent law, certainly as it exists today in the US. I was merely pointing out that the mere idea of these laws isn't somehow opposed to a free market. Just because something is bad doesn't it's bad in every way.
Bingo! Choose which you prefer... Free Markets, or copyrights and, or patents.
I call BS on this. Copyrights and patents are merely property rights applied to intellectual property. Would you make the claim that you can either have free markets or the legal right to own land - but not both? It's the same thing from an economic point of view.
Now you can still argue that copyrights and patents are stupid, or counter-productive, or an OK idea but poorly implemented, or lots of other things. But don't tell me they imply the lack of a free market.
Touche. However, since the suit won't result in revenue until the following year, I was able to countersue USAA for thinking beyond the next quarterly report.
I think I'll have a Heisenburger for lunch... or not.
I actually don't think this is true, or if it is, it's so unenforceable as to be de facto untrue. Suppose I offer to take a friend to dinner if he drives me to the airport. Is this exchange of goods and services seriously taxable under IRS regs? I'm actually breaking the law by not reporting it? Maybe you're right, maybe I am - but if so, obviously this is completely ignored by the authorities.
Similarly, suppose I offer to help out a friend in a game by giving him 2,000,000 gold pieces, and in exchange he sends me an extra video card he has lying around. Is this taxable? What's the real difference between this and the previous scenario?
Continuing the absurdity, say I'm playing the board game Monopoly and make a similar transaction of Monopoly money for something tangible ("get me a beer and I'll give you Marvin Gardens..."). Taxable? How is Monopoly tangibly different from the MMORPG?
Obviously IANAL and IANATA - I'm just wondering where the line can possibly be drawn so that it makes sense.
Then again, this is tax law - it isn't supposed to make sense.
Suppose I find a way to use in-game currency to buy services or tangible goods that are shipped to my house. I've never converted the in-game currency to U.S. currency. Should I be assessed income tax on this?
Sure, but if they're democratically elected and they have unlimited power (to "force cooperation" it says in your Constitution, but of course this really means unlimited, period), then what stops them from setting the rules so that 51% of the electorate isn't a little more equal than the other 49%?
Unfortunately, DUPE_MAX keeps getting redefined higher as they upgrade hardware on the Slash-servers. When it was a 32-bit integer, we might have had a chance to witness the End of Dupes. But at 64 bits, we're really screwed.
Sure, but it's also a good idea for me to learn tensor calculus. Nonetheless, if it costs too much (in time, money, whatever), I'm not going to do it unless the benefits outweigh the costs.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's the "hard drive".
Everyone knows there's racism in Western countries, so that's not too eye-opening. But you're right, I shouldn't accuse all Han Chinese of being racists. My intention was merely to point out to OP that racism is alive and well in China.
Ah, but we also hosted in 1984, and the only thing that happened 12 years later was another Olympics. We didn't even get the sort of regime change that happens every 4 or 8 years here. :)
Granted, but changes from year to year aren't very well explained by these things, and the unemployment rate has dropped consistently with increases in raw job numbers since 2001. You can argue lots of things about conditions in the U.S., but arguing that more Americans aren't working now than were working 5-6 years ago is just silly.
OK, but average income isn't going down, either.
This part of your post is just so silly it isn't even worth a response. I just wanted you to know that I'm ignoring it intentionally.
Try a Google search on "Racism in China". Eye-opening. Han Chinese strike me as pretty f'ing racist.
Silly to draw any conclusions from two datapoints, but: Nazi Germany hosted the Olympics in 1936, and by the 1948 Olympics they were no more. Soviet Russia hosted the Olympics in 1980, and by the 1992 Olympics they were gone. Now Red China is hosting in 2008. Any predictions for 2020?
These statements are contradictory - the only way they are making this "work" is by buying huge amounts of U.S. government debt (and other investments, but it's primarily T-bills). Which funnels money back into the U.S. Essentially they're loaning us the money to buy their goods. So they must think we're a good credit risk, at least.
I would also be curious to know where these jobs are going. If the U.S. is being drained of jobs, how come our unemployment rate is decreasing?
I wonder how many more lives they could save if they starting using really cool water pistols?
Common misconception. Actually, if you read Communist Manifesto, you'll see that Marx argues that history leads inevitably from feudalism to capitalism to an anarchical state in which all contribute to the common good, communism. The idea was that economic decisions would be made democratically by the proletariat rather than by the capitalists.
Lenin and Stalin's "contribution" was to rush to communism the transition by means of government force, so what you're referring to is really Leninism.
(The above should not be taken as an apology for Marxism, which is, after all, "The Road to Serfdom." I just wanted to clear up a common misconception.)
Yeah. I mean, who would have guessed that a chemical process in which energy from light causes atoms to bind in different ways could have anything to do with quantum mechanics? Crazy!
Philosophical argument, I suppose, but "equality" doesn't mean the same thing as "sameness." For example, in Z_5, 2 and 7 are "equal" (in the same equivalence class), but it would be hard to argue that 2 is the "same" as 7. Similarly, the digit string "3.999999...." and "4.0000000" are clearly not "the same", although they are in the same equivalence class.
If OP had said "represent equal elements of the real number", he would also have been spot on.
Sorry, as a mathematician I can't help being pedantic about this sort of thing.
Change "element" to "equivalence class" and you're spot on.
Exactly: the distinction is only enforcement, not morality, legality, etc. This was my point.
We obviously have different definitions of "free market". To me, the term means a marketplace in which producers and consumers are free to trade goods and services which they own and on whatever terms they wish with others.
By this definition, intellectual property rights are perfectly legitimate. I write a poem. I am free to trade this product with anyone else on whatever terms we can mutually agree upon - which includes licensing the right for the buyer to use but not redistribute the poem without my consent. Once we've established this, then the rest of copyright and patent law is just details.
The real problem, of course, is that copyrights and patents protect intangible goods which can be copied cheaply (often for free), unlike tangible goods. But this doesn't make the property right any less real; it just makes enforcement more difficult.
What's your defintion?
It's a distinction without a difference. They're given because they are recognized. You may have a Platonic (or Jeffersonian, if you like) "God-given right" to property (I believe in this, in fact), but your de jure right is certainly government granted and you will find it can be revoked very quickly in an imminent domain case.
When I own a car, I have exclusive rights to use it and to decide who else uses it. So I fail to see the distinction here.
Property rights are given with a purpose, too.
Both of you respondents seem to be missing something, which is that I quite agree that something is very wrong with copyright and patent law, certainly as it exists today in the US. I was merely pointing out that the mere idea of these laws isn't somehow opposed to a free market. Just because something is bad doesn't it's bad in every way.
I call BS on this. Copyrights and patents are merely property rights applied to intellectual property. Would you make the claim that you can either have free markets or the legal right to own land - but not both? It's the same thing from an economic point of view.
Now you can still argue that copyrights and patents are stupid, or counter-productive, or an OK idea but poorly implemented, or lots of other things. But don't tell me they imply the lack of a free market.
Touche. However, since the suit won't result in revenue until the following year, I was able to countersue USAA for thinking beyond the next quarterly report.
I think I'll have a Heisenburger for lunch... or not.
This really worries me, since I use USAA for a lot of my insurance and banking.
And Pthreads is a C API. TFS says this is C++. Still, it's not clear how this is better than Boost.Threads.
I actually don't think this is true, or if it is, it's so unenforceable as to be de facto untrue. Suppose I offer to take a friend to dinner if he drives me to the airport. Is this exchange of goods and services seriously taxable under IRS regs? I'm actually breaking the law by not reporting it? Maybe you're right, maybe I am - but if so, obviously this is completely ignored by the authorities.
Similarly, suppose I offer to help out a friend in a game by giving him 2,000,000 gold pieces, and in exchange he sends me an extra video card he has lying around. Is this taxable? What's the real difference between this and the previous scenario?
Continuing the absurdity, say I'm playing the board game Monopoly and make a similar transaction of Monopoly money for something tangible ("get me a beer and I'll give you Marvin Gardens..."). Taxable? How is Monopoly tangibly different from the MMORPG?
Obviously IANAL and IANATA - I'm just wondering where the line can possibly be drawn so that it makes sense.
Then again, this is tax law - it isn't supposed to make sense.
Suppose I find a way to use in-game currency to buy services or tangible goods that are shipped to my house. I've never converted the in-game currency to U.S. currency. Should I be assessed income tax on this?
Sure, but if they're democratically elected and they have unlimited power (to "force cooperation" it says in your Constitution, but of course this really means unlimited, period), then what stops them from setting the rules so that 51% of the electorate isn't a little more equal than the other 49%?
Unfortunately, DUPE_MAX keeps getting redefined higher as they upgrade hardware on the Slash-servers. When it was a 32-bit integer, we might have had a chance to witness the End of Dupes. But at 64 bits, we're really screwed.
Sure, but it's also a good idea for me to learn tensor calculus. Nonetheless, if it costs too much (in time, money, whatever), I'm not going to do it unless the benefits outweigh the costs.