You see, free market in it's purest form is all about survival of the strong.
It is a known fact that the number of corporations in a given field has reduced dramatically, at least since 19th century.
Your statement that goverment should cease "tampering with the free market" is higly debatable, because you may not want the consecuences of a real free market evolutioning for some time. How about extreme wealth disparity?, corporations ignoring enviromental issues?, national security issues?, etc. etc.
If you see a free market as a dynamical system, it has its own evolution; it may be stable/unstable, it may has attractting/repelling/fixed points, etc. But there is no reason that this evolution and its consecuences be compatible with the goals a given society has set to itself (assuming there exists common goals; in many places what you have is people only looking for themselves).
The value of a Constitution depends on the value people are willing to give it, and that depends on social and historic trends, among other factors.
The same can be argued about police, state, and several institutions.
A good example is Mexico: its constitution seems ok if you read it, but in practice its application is very distorted by corruption, lack of education, people's apathy, etc. etc.
Anyway, give the choice I'd still prefer a constitution like US than that frome some other countries.
I wouldn't call the Manifesto a "ridiculous marketing stunt".
It is directed towards working people (~1850), and was intended to be the program for the comunist league, so obviously couldn't be written in a "aseptic" or "academic" style.
It certainly contains a lot of marketing, but I think that's normal considering the type of document it is.
On the other hand, I makes a great effort in explaining the communist's views in very simple and plain words (and it succeeds, IMO).
Of course the great majority of western readers would reject the Manifesto's thesis, but that's only because continuous propaganda (mass media, education systems, etc.) and the difficulty in reading a text like this considering the historic context.
But, if you somehow could read it without your ideollogical background, you'd see that it contains many truths.
Re:HINT: Go read the comments on the previous arti
on
Riemann Hypothesis Proved?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, first, there's the question of what means "to understand" something. I'd rather say one never finishes understanding something, but rather gets better insight, a better comprehension of how the thing relates with other objects, it's structure, etc.
Second, for something to be appreciated in a meaninful way, one needs to have some background on the matter.
With many scientific ideas, what happens is that the underlaying idea is relatively simple and capable of being described trough analogies, specially in graphical terms.
In some cases the dificulty lies in giving an formal definition of something relatively obvious.
That's the case of manifolds: one can think about a sheet, and one will have a very close idea of the mathematical object being defined as "a locally euclidian Hausdorff topological space of dimension 2..."
.
On the other hand, there are many concepts (at least in mathematics) whose motivation lies in very subtle considerations pertaning highly abstract objects, without any resemblance of some day-to-day phenomenon, and those are the most hard to explain to a layman.
I find somewhat strange your statment about gnome being promising because it's written in C. Following that logic, I'd say it should be written in assembler, isn't it?
Seriouslly, it's more efficient to code in something like ocaml, or ruby (with critical parts in C/C++) than in a "low" level language such as plain C.
But, anyone is free to spent its own time as one wishes, so I won't complain.
Regarding the direccion taken by the developers, it's of course sad if they wont listen to some users, but this being free software, anyone could fork the code. That's why I don't think this situation is such a tragedy.
Personally I do like evolution, but at any rate prefer the whole kde desktop than gnome's.
Slashdot Mirror
You see, free market in it's purest form is all about survival of the strong.
It is a known fact that the number of corporations in a given field has reduced dramatically, at least since 19th century.
Your statement that goverment should cease "tampering with the free market" is higly debatable, because you may not want the consecuences of a real free market evolutioning for some time. How about extreme wealth disparity?, corporations ignoring enviromental issues?, national security issues?, etc. etc.
If you see a free market as a dynamical system, it has its own evolution; it may be stable/unstable, it may has attractting/repelling/fixed points, etc. But there is no reason that this evolution and its consecuences be compatible with the goals a given society has set to itself (assuming there exists common goals; in many places what you have is people only looking for themselves).
I was trying to say it's Munoz, but as you see, slashdot removes the & ntilde ; and places a "n" instead :(
The goal of a business *is* to make money. If providing a good service or product atracts them money then they do it, it's that simple.
The value of a Constitution depends on the value people are willing to give it, and that depends on social and historic trends, among other factors.
The same can be argued about police, state, and several institutions.
A good example is Mexico: its constitution seems ok if you read it, but in practice its application is very distorted by corruption, lack of education, people's apathy, etc. etc.
Anyway, give the choice I'd still prefer a constitution like US than that frome some other countries.
Call it as you wish, but this state of affairs just reflects the great disparity between capital and work force, and for me that's an injustice.
It also "distorts" free market (laboral market), for those of you free market whoreshippers.
I actually tought that neo could have jumped any time he liked, but was just having fun fighting against the smiths.
It is directed towards working people (~1850), and was intended to be the program for the comunist league, so obviously couldn't be written in a "aseptic" or "academic" style.
It certainly contains a lot of marketing, but I think that's normal considering the type of document it is.
On the other hand, I makes a great effort in explaining the communist's views in very simple and plain words (and it succeeds, IMO).
Of course the great majority of western readers would reject the Manifesto's thesis, but that's only because continuous propaganda (mass media, education systems, etc.) and the difficulty in reading a text like this considering the historic context.
But, if you somehow could read it without your ideollogical background, you'd see that it contains many truths.
Second, for something to be appreciated in a meaninful way, one needs to have some background on the matter.
With many scientific ideas, what happens is that the underlaying idea is relatively simple and capable of being described trough analogies, specially in graphical terms.
In some cases the dificulty lies in giving an formal definition of something relatively obvious. That's the case of manifolds: one can think about a sheet, and one will have a very close idea of the mathematical object being defined as "a locally euclidian Hausdorff topological space of dimension 2 ..."
.
On the other hand, there are many concepts (at least in mathematics) whose motivation lies in very subtle considerations pertaning highly abstract objects, without any resemblance of some day-to-day phenomenon, and those are the most hard to explain to a layman.
Seriouslly, it's more efficient to code in something like ocaml, or ruby (with critical parts in C/C++) than in a "low" level language such as plain C.
But, anyone is free to spent its own time as one wishes, so I won't complain.
Regarding the direccion taken by the developers, it's of course sad if they wont listen to some users, but this being free software, anyone could fork the code. That's why I don't think this situation is such a tragedy.
Personally I do like evolution, but at any rate prefer the whole kde desktop than gnome's.