a checking method is not fit to be a fundamental theory...its building a castle on sand
i will agree that *in practice* Cambridge has successfully claimed the concept of 'computatiblity' with its 'Turing' brand
That's why i'm calling for a better theory
in the context you describe, 'Turing-completeness' is nothing more than a brand name like Kleenex or Charmin
Turing complete is a useful distinction because it tells you whether you can check various incompleteness properties of programs written in your language, like checking whether your program terminates.
ok...I understand where you are coming from, but again, it's just a **linguistic** or **jargon-based** distinction...
checking to see if a program terminates can be done several ways...as you yourself admit:
And Turing machines aren't the only way this has been approached.
exactly...checking a program isn't exclusive to 'Turing'...it's a name brand of an essential function of programming
analogy: changing the oil in your car
there are simple steps that anyone who understands the basics of cars would understand
calling the act of 'checking your program to see if it terminates' a specific theory is like saying that you have the Nassking Method of changing the oil which requires filling the car up with fresh oil after the old oil is drained.
you could write all kinds of papers why this is important, devise tests to prove it is important, but the fact is, you're using jargon to *brand* an essential activity
programs need to be check for 'completeness' & or 'proper functioning'
as a 'fundamental' theory to somethign like Computer Science the 'Church-Turing Thesis' is not fit...it is a methodology based on an analogy of computation
computation is machines executing human-written instructions
developers will see it and find another place to work.
That's what they are counting on...it's a passive/aggressive move to claim ideological territory internally and silence critics.
IMHO both Yahoo and HP did this precisely b/c it reduces staff. Yes it is monumentally stupid to do this, but really is it any more 'stupid' than the idea itself?
Marissa Meyer and Meg Whitman are sort of the gender-flip Zuckerberg and Gates, IMHO...
different management styles but they share the "bottleneck features to control" philosophy to everything they do in biz...
maybe not for every situation, but it certainly applies here...
Never ascribe that to malice which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
this is often a false distinction...true 'incompetence' without malice requires a staggering level of pure ignorance...
Why bother bringing this up?
b/c there is **NO DEFENSE** for what South Africa and M$ are doing here....it is PURE EVIL
I see these discussions on/. whenever a company or government does this horseshit and we all call it out as horseshit...
The idea that this decision was an "honest" mistake is surely *theoretically* possible...but to make an "honest" mistake at this level would require so much ignorance of how daily society works that the person probably wouldn't be able to support themselves...
I think my whole point is that Turing's concepts should be done away with...so when you say this:
Whether a machine is a programmable computer is a completely separate question from whether it's a computer at all, ie. the universal Turing machine vs Turing machine distinction.
I want to scream (the truth)...the discussion itself (like the one we're having) begins to resemble a meta-Turing Machine itself...then I feel crazy inside....
Turing is as Turing does. Anything can be 'Turing-complete' or w/e term you use b/c the whole notion is just a thought experiment about computing that created a false dichotomy ('turing complete or not') that *becomes* a testable question only b/c that linguistic distinction (not a real distinction, just an analogy carried through).
I think, unfortunately, we may have to settle for 'agreeing to disagree'...I really want to convince you of what I'm saying, or at least really get through to you and hear your reaction.
I spelled it out much better on a different part of the thread for this story...I *promise* you'll find a coherent, interesting, and hopefully convincing argument for all of Computer Science to move away from Turing model of computing.
but it does not address the question of whether the universe is a computer
b/c, IMHO, 'computing' is the act of programming a machine with instructions
that's all 'computing' is...asking if the universe is a 'computer' is like asking if it is a 'Volksvagen'....they are both just analogies of types of systems
whether the laws of physics are merely closed form equations describing some of its operational semantics.
as opposed to what?
how could 'the laws of physics' be anything other than humans attempt to make heuristics that can predict nature
therefore, you actually 'adhere' to the Theory of Entropy...at least as you define it.
that's the problem, the concept of 'entropy' has been wrapped inside itself so now it resembles a Moebius Strip not a defined term for somethign we observe in the universe
THE ACT OF DEFINING 'STEADY STATE' , as you call it, is the same thing as defining 'entropy'...its just using different language.
I don't know where/when/how 'entropy' became a politicized word in science, undoubtedly some religious jerk tried to say that b/c of what Newtonian Physics tells us (its not a completel theory but it is useful for prediction) and b/c the universe ends in heat death, then therefore God exists...that's my guess
hey thanks for the response...it's clear you are more adept at handling the terminology of Computer Science.
IMHO, though you are batting around heady ideas, it is all just language to describe **things we program machines to do**
i'm not being reductive_it's recontextualizing fresh language to describe what we observe and, in that context **what we can predict and how**
start with your introductory sentence...'X theory does 1, while Y theory does 2'...wrong...humans test hypothesis and program machines to execute instructions
information theory tells you the limits of what you can know.....computation theory speaks of how hard it is to get there.
this isn't something I can argue for or against...I won't have a definition war, but its safe to say these arent formal definitions in any way
that's what's happening...the language of 'computatility functions' is useful no doubt, but conceptually it is a Moebius Strip of logic
to be specific:
if your opponents have only a classical computer and polynomial time, then you don't actually need a one-time pad (which is an information theoretic limitation); you can fake it, and they won't have enough time to unweave your trick.
and
the thing is, roughly speaking, Shannon theory depends on a probabilistic model (or something very close to it), while computation theory does not.
Wrong on both counts.
1. This isnt a crypto-contest...that's part of your problem, computing is programming a machine to follow instructions...you are describing a cryptographic scenario that is ***ANALOGOUS*** to the same problems found in computing....but it is only an analogy
2. The Shannon-Weaver model originally was devised to reduce 'signal noise' in wireline transmissions...it is *not* inherently related to probability. Probability is a way we use math to observe and calculate the 'noise'...IT IS ONLY METRICS AND MEASURES
Look at the scientific definition of the speed of light...it's a human attempt to quantify somethign we observe in nature...we define light's speed based on its relationship with other known aspects of the universe.
You are confusing the act of defining the 'noise/randomness/etc' of a signal quantitatively with theory about how the system of communication/computation works.
I know that alot of CS types have a whole schpiel about 'computational complexity' and 'p/np' stuff, but it is not what you think it is, from a functional perspective.
The entire notion of the Turing thesis is off-kilter and not truly a theory of computation. It is a **thought experiment** about computation. That is ALL.
tl;dr We can compute anything we can program a machine to compute...that's the limit of computation.
Why can we not think of the information as being embodied in "some aspect or other of" the matter and energy undergoing evolution. It is only some observer that needs to see the information as having been encoded or decoded.
I think TFA (and Turing too, but we'll get to that) make a fundamental mistake that leads them to these TED-talk kind of wild eyed pop-science speculation.
So, my point is: the very *idea* and *definition* of the term 'computation' is a human-created contextualization of the way we observe the universe to work.
humans made machines (computers in this case) to automate a task: specifically in the case of the 1st computer it was for automatically doing long math problems.
all of 'computation' in the history of the known universe has been done by machines programmed by humans
that's what it is
the deeper problem, IMHO, is a computing model based on the 'Church-Turing' Thesis of universal computability to describe computation...its sort of like an unnecessary abstraction layer
it's time for a better model...information theory and communication theory are helpful here...I believe a *cybernetic* model is the proper understanding of computation.
Why? Computation is nothing more than humans observing information flow through a system, a system which *processes and changes* the information in a predicted and predetermined (*programmed*) way.
ugh...aw man...i just *know* you're a paid commenter...but I can't help but agree with this:
Their image search is also pretty good, I get fewer hits but also less garbage/noise.
at least partially...
Google totally fucked up their image search in the last year. The did a **shudder**... "U/X redesign using A/B testing"
Meaning the let Marketing majors do Likert scale tests correlated with eye tracking...
And Google took that data and decided to remove the image size (unless you hover) and redo the menu options to make functions deeper in the menu stack...
b/c "usability research"....and Marissa needed to beef up her resume before her move to Yahoo....really Google shit the bed on its image search redesign...making all the same mistakes M$ would predictably make
side by side, *for awhile* Bing was better...Google managed to improve a few things
the drawbacks to Bing are that it is run by M$...we all know what that means...but I'm sick of Google getting a free pass on search
you are trolling...you didn't advance the debate at all...you just said "your post is wrong"
i'm wondering what you'll say next...after this:
Your post, like all your previous ones, is still full of ad hominems and devoid of facts or arguments.
you can only go so far down from there...
try something like this:
you are the troll...i'm not the one who keeps needing to prove something
that accuses *me* of the the thing *you* are doing (trolling) and then has a juvenile-level accusation that sort of sounds like something rational (prove something)
I'll just leave this here, not for you (though I hope you read it), but for anyone still reading...just to show that I **can** produce what I"m asking from you:
Watson will never displace Google, because of agendas, not technology.Google will spy on the people. Watson will manage their placement with FEMA.
This is not so when the internet (including browsers & carriers) is open and interoperable.
Right now, switching from Google to Duck Duck Go, Bing or Watson is litterally one click on most browsers.
I may agree that IBM **probably** won't develop Watson in this way, but they very well could and it would work as long as they gave users marginally better privacy with the same features.
The fact is, in a free market it is a CERTAINTY that someone will eventually exploit Google's vulnerabilities.
Any company can use their capital to lobby politicians to make laws favorable to their revenue stream...but in open competition, Google is highly vulnerable.
Btw, your sig, I found Dave's instructions and essays on CSS and a bunch of other stuff helpful and informative; his glimpse into the workings of W3C are most interesting.
me too!!!
I came across Dave's page long ago when I was lost in layers of abstraction and pre-standards internet browsers;)
My dad was a cryptographer in the Navy and he taught me computing first by punch cards...which is kind of like a Rosetta stone for any digital system...it was great...for a time...
Then the "world wide web" came along and I was hopelessly annoyed/confused...
Enter Dave Ragget's simple page that to this day easily introduces concepts of web presentation. It has definitely guided my user interface design concepts!
this guy does not know what he is talking about...here's a few that stood out (among a field of many!)
2. The argument about the danger of talking to cops is based on a sampling error. Professor Duane says that criminal defense attorneys "always, always say it was a bad idea for their client to talk to the police". But this sample...
This is a young-earth creationist-level understanding of the term "sampling error"
Lawyers do not know science unless they made a point to specialize in it or have worked in research. It really bothers me, as researcher who has had to deal with lawyer bullshit for human trials, that in America in the 21st Century lawyers are this bad. This dumbness is not unique unfortunately.
5. Finally, are the police really that corrupt and/or stupid?
Some aren't, but anyone taking legal advice from someone who says this is certainly bound for trouble.
Look, I can't really explain how ridiculous this statement...it's like saying, "Finally, is facebook.com really that corrupt and/or stupid" when wondering how much of your data is ok to give them access to
______
ok...this idiot aside...to the question of the "Don't Talk to Cops" video...i understand that it comes off as overkill, but please remember who the intended audience is!
some people are just too stubborn or self-deluded and dumb to have the wherewithall to speak to the police at all...they really will fuck it up just answering basic questions...
those people need the inflexibility presented in "Don't Talk to Cops" because they are **precisely** the innocent/dumb types that entrepreneurial law enforcement prey upon
Why does the truth of what I'm saying incite such cognitive dissonance??
let me FTFY
So, are you proposing that we should maintain a military without corporate cash giveaways in order to send **our future leaders** to the ISS.
your $81Mil. per person figure is based on the same BS accounting that the GOP uses when they want to use "fiscal crisis" as a reason to end a program that hurts Oligarch's revenue stream in some way.
why? why? why?
why is the notion that we should have a vision of human exploration...and the FOLLOW THROUGH...so threatening?
we don't have the money, because the DoD is too busy spending it.
you know that we decide what the government spends its money on, right?
there are people, real actual humans, who actually decide what projects to fund and not...
you agree with me, and are proving me right...my point is that the money is there, but we can't use it for productive things b/c of one rump party suiciding itself administratively
I put consumerism instead of capitalism in order to head off any trolls who have a google alert set for anything that doesn't praise the capitalist economic system.
I agree with your definition of capitalism. It is accurate to common usage and avoid confusion with 'socialism' 'communism' 'fascism' etc.
I'd like to move away from the 'capitalsim/communism' dichotomy because it is actually really reductive.
Slashdot Mirror
This total figure includes building out an entire health care IT system, not just the cost of making *one* website.
Comparisons to facebook.com are irrelevant.
a checking method is not fit to be a fundamental theory...its building a castle on sand
i will agree that *in practice* Cambridge has successfully claimed the concept of 'computatiblity' with its 'Turing' brand
That's why i'm calling for a better theory
in the context you describe, 'Turing-completeness' is nothing more than a brand name like Kleenex or Charmin
ok...I understand where you are coming from, but again, it's just a **linguistic** or **jargon-based** distinction...
checking to see if a program terminates can be done several ways...as you yourself admit:
exactly...checking a program isn't exclusive to 'Turing'...it's a name brand of an essential function of programming
analogy: changing the oil in your car
there are simple steps that anyone who understands the basics of cars would understand
calling the act of 'checking your program to see if it terminates' a specific theory is like saying that you have the Nassking Method of changing the oil which requires filling the car up with fresh oil after the old oil is drained.
you could write all kinds of papers why this is important, devise tests to prove it is important, but the fact is, you're using jargon to *brand* an essential activity
programs need to be check for 'completeness' & or 'proper functioning'
as a 'fundamental' theory to somethign like Computer Science the 'Church-Turing Thesis' is not fit...it is a methodology based on an analogy of computation
computation is machines executing human-written instructions
That's what they are counting on...it's a passive/aggressive move to claim ideological territory internally and silence critics.
IMHO both Yahoo and HP did this precisely b/c it reduces staff. Yes it is monumentally stupid to do this, but really is it any more 'stupid' than the idea itself?
Marissa Meyer and Meg Whitman are sort of the gender-flip Zuckerberg and Gates, IMHO...
different management styles but they share the "bottleneck features to control" philosophy to everything they do in biz...
maybe not for every situation, but it certainly applies here...
this is often a false distinction...true 'incompetence' without malice requires a staggering level of pure ignorance...
Why bother bringing this up?
b/c there is **NO DEFENSE** for what South Africa and M$ are doing here....it is PURE EVIL
I see these discussions on /. whenever a company or government does this horseshit and we all call it out as horseshit...
The idea that this decision was an "honest" mistake is surely *theoretically* possible...but to make an "honest" mistake at this level would require so much ignorance of how daily society works that the person probably wouldn't be able to support themselves...
Thanks for the response.
I think my whole point is that Turing's concepts should be done away with...so when you say this:
I want to scream (the truth)...the discussion itself (like the one we're having) begins to resemble a meta-Turing Machine itself...then I feel crazy inside....
Turing is as Turing does. Anything can be 'Turing-complete' or w/e term you use b/c the whole notion is just a thought experiment about computing that created a false dichotomy ('turing complete or not') that *becomes* a testable question only b/c that linguistic distinction (not a real distinction, just an analogy carried through).
I think, unfortunately, we may have to settle for 'agreeing to disagree'...I really want to convince you of what I'm saying, or at least really get through to you and hear your reaction.
Here is is: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4315105&cid=45073983
I spelled it out much better on a different part of the thread for this story...I *promise* you'll find a coherent, interesting, and hopefully convincing argument for all of Computer Science to move away from Turing model of computing.
I think it's time to be done with Turing.
programming is not computing?
when I write a python script, that isn't under the umbrella of human activity we use the word 'computing' for?
you're dead in the water on this one...I'd like to have a discussion about this topic but this is not that
b/c, IMHO, 'computing' is the act of programming a machine with instructions
that's all 'computing' is...asking if the universe is a 'computer' is like asking if it is a 'Volksvagen'....they are both just analogies of types of systems
as opposed to what?
how could 'the laws of physics' be anything other than humans attempt to make heuristics that can predict nature
gotta agree...
IMHO it comes down to inherent faults with the Chuch-Turing 'thesis' and computational complexity theories
you just described the heat death of the universe
which is another way of saying 'entropy'
therefore, you actually 'adhere' to the Theory of Entropy...at least as you define it.
that's the problem, the concept of 'entropy' has been wrapped inside itself so now it resembles a Moebius Strip not a defined term for somethign we observe in the universe
THE ACT OF DEFINING 'STEADY STATE' , as you call it, is the same thing as defining 'entropy' ...its just using different language.
I don't know where/when/how 'entropy' became a politicized word in science, undoubtedly some religious jerk tried to say that b/c of what Newtonian Physics tells us (its not a completel theory but it is useful for prediction) and b/c the universe ends in heat death, then therefore God exists...that's my guess
hey thanks for the response...it's clear you are more adept at handling the terminology of Computer Science.
IMHO, though you are batting around heady ideas, it is all just language to describe **things we program machines to do**
i'm not being reductive_it's recontextualizing fresh language to describe what we observe and, in that context **what we can predict and how**
start with your introductory sentence...'X theory does 1, while Y theory does 2'...wrong...humans test hypothesis and program machines to execute instructions
this isn't something I can argue for or against...I won't have a definition war, but its safe to say these arent formal definitions in any way
that's what's happening...the language of 'computatility functions' is useful no doubt, but conceptually it is a Moebius Strip of logic
to be specific:
and
Wrong on both counts.
1. This isnt a crypto-contest...that's part of your problem, computing is programming a machine to follow instructions...you are describing a cryptographic scenario that is ***ANALOGOUS*** to the same problems found in computing....but it is only an analogy
2. The Shannon-Weaver model originally was devised to reduce 'signal noise' in wireline transmissions...it is *not* inherently related to probability. Probability is a way we use math to observe and calculate the 'noise'...IT IS ONLY METRICS AND MEASURES
Look at the scientific definition of the speed of light...it's a human attempt to quantify somethign we observe in nature...we define light's speed based on its relationship with other known aspects of the universe.
You are confusing the act of defining the 'noise/randomness/etc' of a signal quantitatively with theory about how the system of communication/computation works.
I know that alot of CS types have a whole schpiel about 'computational complexity' and 'p/np' stuff, but it is not what you think it is, from a functional perspective.
The entire notion of the Turing thesis is off-kilter and not truly a theory of computation. It is a **thought experiment** about computation. That is ALL.
tl;dr We can compute anything we can program a machine to compute...that's the limit of computation.
this is a true statement:
I think TFA (and Turing too, but we'll get to that) make a fundamental mistake that leads them to these TED-talk kind of wild eyed pop-science speculation.
It relates to social construction of reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism
So, my point is: the very *idea* and *definition* of the term 'computation' is a human-created contextualization of the way we observe the universe to work.
humans made machines (computers in this case) to automate a task: specifically in the case of the 1st computer it was for automatically doing long math problems.
all of 'computation' in the history of the known universe has been done by machines programmed by humans
that's what it is
the deeper problem, IMHO, is a computing model based on the 'Church-Turing' Thesis of universal computability to describe computation...its sort of like an unnecessary abstraction layer
it's time for a better model...information theory and communication theory are helpful here...I believe a *cybernetic* model is the proper understanding of computation.
Why? Computation is nothing more than humans observing information flow through a system, a system which *processes and changes* the information in a predicted and predetermined (*programmed*) way.
For this, I see the Shannon-Weaver Communication model as the proper conceptual starting point for formal understanding of 'computation'
Just imagine Von-Nueman Architechure overlayed the Shanon-Weaver Model diagram...**that's** a cybernetic approach ;)
glad you agree....i accept your apology
ugh...aw man...i just *know* you're a paid commenter...but I can't help but agree with this:
at least partially...
Google totally fucked up their image search in the last year. The did a **shudder** ... "U/X redesign using A/B testing"
Meaning the let Marketing majors do Likert scale tests correlated with eye tracking...
And Google took that data and decided to remove the image size (unless you hover) and redo the menu options to make functions deeper in the menu stack...
b/c "usability research"....and Marissa needed to beef up her resume before her move to Yahoo....really Google shit the bed on its image search redesign...making all the same mistakes M$ would predictably make
side by side, *for awhile* Bing was better...Google managed to improve a few things
the drawbacks to Bing are that it is run by M$...we all know what that means...but I'm sick of Google getting a free pass on search
this is not a debate....you're just trolling and stroking your own...ego...at this point
this conversation is over...
you are trolling...you didn't advance the debate at all...you just said "your post is wrong"
i'm wondering what you'll say next...after this:
you can only go so far down from there...
try something like this:
that accuses *me* of the the thing *you* are doing (trolling) and then has a juvenile-level accusation that sort of sounds like something rational (prove something)
that's my suggestion for how you troll me next...
look evidence in the face, evidence that proves you wrong...
and just say:
that's why i'm not debating you anymore...you're done...stick a fork in you...
you're trolling b/c my view of this situation is *accurate* and it in some way causes you serious cognitive dissonance.
you wouldn't waste time with comebacks if you didn't personally have somethign riding on this, even if it's your ego
you didn't counter my arguments...you **re-stated them** then said "they're wrong"
re-read my comments on this thread...if you decide you can engage in that level of debate, I'll be wating, huckleberry ;)
two things your arguments lack
I'll just leave this here, not for you (though I hope you read it), but for anyone still reading...just to show that I **can** produce what I"m asking from you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
Watson will never displace Google, because of agendas, not technology.Google will spy on the people. Watson will manage their placement with FEMA.
This is not so when the internet (including browsers & carriers) is open and interoperable.
Right now, switching from Google to Duck Duck Go, Bing or Watson is litterally one click on most browsers.
I may agree that IBM **probably** won't develop Watson in this way, but they very well could and it would work as long as they gave users marginally better privacy with the same features.
The fact is, in a free market it is a CERTAINTY that someone will eventually exploit Google's vulnerabilities.
Any company can use their capital to lobby politicians to make laws favorable to their revenue stream...but in open competition, Google is highly vulnerable.
Facebook.com moreso :D
me too!!!
I came across Dave's page long ago when I was lost in layers of abstraction and pre-standards internet browsers ;)
My dad was a cryptographer in the Navy and he taught me computing first by punch cards...which is kind of like a Rosetta stone for any digital system...it was great...for a time...
Then the "world wide web" came along and I was hopelessly annoyed/confused...
Enter Dave Ragget's simple page that to this day easily introduces concepts of web presentation. It has definitely guided my user interface design concepts!
Nobody is keeping you from using "clean energy" if you like.
Most people use the other kind for the simple reason that it's cheaper to produce.
I thought someone might jump on that statement...it's overly broad but I couldnt think of a better way to say it w/o equivocating
what's surprising is, not your retort itself but the nature of your criticism!
you seem to tacitly agree that 'clean' energy is readily available...
what keeps us from using it, according to you, is the **false** perception that 19th Century energy methods are somehow 'cheaper'!!!
seriously, this discourse is **exactly** what happens in real life...
if we had spent the 20th Century doing R&D to perfect nuke power and make better batteries we'd be there now...
blame the R&D decisions of those Oligarch companies...R&D choices made with a goal of sustaining revenue channels, NOT improving things
if you want to go to jail...
this guy does not know what he is talking about...here's a few that stood out (among a field of many!)
This is a young-earth creationist-level understanding of the term "sampling error"
Lawyers do not know science unless they made a point to specialize in it or have worked in research. It really bothers me, as researcher who has had to deal with lawyer bullshit for human trials, that in America in the 21st Century lawyers are this bad. This dumbness is not unique unfortunately.
Some aren't, but anyone taking legal advice from someone who says this is certainly bound for trouble.
Look, I can't really explain how ridiculous this statement...it's like saying, "Finally, is facebook.com really that corrupt and/or stupid" when wondering how much of your data is ok to give them access to
______
ok...this idiot aside...to the question of the "Don't Talk to Cops" video...i understand that it comes off as overkill, but please remember who the intended audience is!
some people are just too stubborn or self-deluded and dumb to have the wherewithall to speak to the police at all...they really will fuck it up just answering basic questions...
those people need the inflexibility presented in "Don't Talk to Cops" because they are **precisely** the innocent/dumb types that entrepreneurial law enforcement prey upon
Why does the truth of what I'm saying incite such cognitive dissonance??
let me FTFY
your $81Mil. per person figure is based on the same BS accounting that the GOP uses when they want to use "fiscal crisis" as a reason to end a program that hurts Oligarch's revenue stream in some way.
why? why? why?
why is the notion that we should have a vision of human exploration...and the FOLLOW THROUGH...so threatening?
This is a step back in our evolution as a species...
We could have all the clean energy we would ever need, but humans (oligarchs) who rely upon **centuries-old** capital systems delivering resources...
But they don't like giving up their revenue stream...
yeah,
you know that we decide what the government spends its money on, right?
there are people, real actual humans, who actually decide what projects to fund and not...
you agree with me, and are proving me right...my point is that the money is there, but we can't use it for productive things b/c of one rump party suiciding itself administratively
I acknowledge that you FTFM.
I put consumerism instead of capitalism in order to head off any trolls who have a google alert set for anything that doesn't praise the capitalist economic system.
I agree with your definition of capitalism. It is accurate to common usage and avoid confusion with 'socialism' 'communism' 'fascism' etc.
I'd like to move away from the 'capitalsim/communism' dichotomy because it is actually really reductive.