Economies create and distribute wealth based on supply and demand. Governments can issue currency and REdistribute existing wealth according to ideology, which may not conform to actual supply and demand or even to reality. Some of this is inevitable and desirable. However, when they are allowed to grab control of markets for long periods, they kill competition and innovation as they become the big bullies on the block, with all the legal, social, and most of the economic cards in their hands.
Trust busting every now and then is a good thing. However, we shouldn't exempt government from this 'marketplace cleansing.'
It also does not work if you give up regulating it--- in fact it trends into disaster as human history shows over and over - EVERY time far more than attempts to regulate it.
Most of which should be provided for privately so that there's competition to keep vendors limber and efficient. The state is the worst monopoly of all. It can put competitors out of business with excessive fines/taxes/licensing or just put them in prison.
No, they are stuck with it because of guaranteed loans driving up tuition and because the rise of HR departments who expect shit shovelers to have a bachelors.
'Promoting terrorism' is typically used by oppressive states as an excuse to abuse critics. If they have to censor public criticism (yes, even from small/radical groups), they've already failed as democratic systems. After all, bad ideas are easily refuted.
There are other ideologies that also advocate the same kinds of violence (and have done so, historically) which are perfectly legal to discuss, oppose, and support openly. Better apply those censorship laws to them too. Of course, this isn't done because
Advocating for it is doing more than simply advocating a different point of view, it has direct real life consequences for those victimized by fascist groups.
I must dissagree with you - and state categorically that whether the laws are good or not is not a relevant consideration,
On the contrary, it is the very heart of the matter.
The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is corporations flagrantly ignoring the rule of law.
They aren't the only ones. State governments ignore the rule of law, too, and voting the crooks out only works as well as the available choices allow. Free speech is a cornerstone of peace, freedom, and democracy, and its categorization and control is something a real fascist state would do. Civil disobedience of such law is a good thing, regardless if it's done by individual citizens or corporate entities.
The article makes it sound like the social media equivalent of those public service announcements where famous actors sermonize about drug use.
This sounds like software that will look at your life algorithmically, 'decide' you're at risk for some activity deemed 'negative' by mainstream social conventions or lobby groups, and 'suggest' you friend those who promote activities antithetical to your 'problematic' behavior. I doubt this will have much impact as people who don't mindlessly follow the herd detest being lectured by the mindless. It'll just be one more annoying infestation.
I'm also sure this will align with zuckerberg's own political agenda. To use your examples, firearms club members would get suggestions to friend gun control lobby groups. Club sceners will get suggestions to friend anti-drug and anti-'rape' groups, etc.
It isn't a question of 'unmeeting' someone. I could meet him and decide not to know him. The former is nearly instantaneous. The latter, which TFA was talking about, takes time.
I do not need zuckerberg to tell me who I 'should' like, emulate, or otherwise view as a 'mentor.'
1. Most times, the reason there's more than one way of doing something is because they're actually ways of getting slightly different results. One size fits all is not a solution.
2. Maybe. Not one OS has achieved that yet.. or if it was at one point, it was shit-canned long ago to make way for new and shiny. DOS was dead simple and easy to use. We don't use it anymore for obvious reasons.
3. That's pretty much what they do now, with pressure to remove control from the user.
4. Not always. Having freedom to set up your own workflow is important. This is why having sane defaults for the stupid makes more sense than forcing such configurations on everyone with little or no ability to change (eg: windows 10 window metrics).
No. It's a tragedy that we are expected to reenforce and prop up his delusion, and to cheer him on as though it is some kind of heroic act or accomplishment. However, he is welcome to live by those delusions/fantasies and modify his body if he wants.
Who said 'just' paying cash will 'fix' the problem of governmental abuse? It can help mitigate the problem by denying the opportunity for mass abuse in the first place. No one said it was a total solution. Same thing with weapons, though they're usually brought out when people are at their wits end, en masse.
Sounds like you're more interested in punching holes in bad left wing stereotypes of the right than anything else.. Strawmen are so boring.
The US is building its own form of soviet union 2.0 (minus the overt political/philosophical figureheads at least ftm), except this time it will be enforced by computer. I predict greater disasters ahead.
Yes, I suppose as long as you confine your activities to working your 18hr shift at foxconn like a good socialist cog and never rock the boat, everything's 'great.' Your stat is meaningless, if it's even accurate, because the countries are not on even keel when it comes to human rights and civil liberties.
I think you're making a distinction without a difference. "as long as they don't challenge authority" applies to both countries. The question is in how restrictive the authorities are.
Not really baffling. Society has slowly shifted towards associating purchases with self worth and social exclusivity. While this was always true to some extent it has gotten much worse in recent years. They've become more important than more objective criteria like performance and reliability.
Slashdot Mirror
Economies create and distribute wealth based on supply and demand. Governments can issue currency and REdistribute existing wealth according to ideology, which may not conform to actual supply and demand or even to reality. Some of this is inevitable and desirable. However, when they are allowed to grab control of markets for long periods, they kill competition and innovation as they become the big bullies on the block, with all the legal, social, and most of the economic cards in their hands.
Trust busting every now and then is a good thing. However, we shouldn't exempt government from this 'marketplace cleansing.'
It also does not work if you give up regulating it--- in fact it trends into disaster as human history shows over and over - EVERY time far more than attempts to regulate it.
There are plenty of examples for both extremes.
Most of which should be provided for privately so that there's competition to keep vendors limber and efficient. The state is the worst monopoly of all. It can put competitors out of business with excessive fines/taxes/licensing or just put them in prison.
Your post lacks details.
Adds non-verbal cues to the scenes. Reading a book != watching a movie.
That music was written by a human. This is about music written by machine.
No, they are stuck with it because of guaranteed loans driving up tuition and because the rise of HR departments who expect shit shovelers to have a bachelors.
'Promoting terrorism' is typically used by oppressive states as an excuse to abuse critics. If they have to censor public criticism (yes, even from small/radical groups), they've already failed as democratic systems. After all, bad ideas are easily refuted.
There are other ideologies that also advocate the same kinds of violence (and have done so, historically) which are perfectly legal to discuss, oppose, and support openly. Better apply those censorship laws to them too. Of course, this isn't done because
Advocating for it is doing more than simply advocating a different point of view, it has direct real life consequences for those victimized by fascist groups.
is not the real reason for the censorship.
I must dissagree with you - and state categorically that whether the laws are good or not is not a relevant consideration,
On the contrary, it is the very heart of the matter.
The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is corporations flagrantly ignoring the rule of law.
They aren't the only ones. State governments ignore the rule of law, too, and voting the crooks out only works as well as the available choices allow. Free speech is a cornerstone of peace, freedom, and democracy, and its categorization and control is something a real fascist state would do. Civil disobedience of such law is a good thing, regardless if it's done by individual citizens or corporate entities.
The article makes it sound like the social media equivalent of those public service announcements where famous actors sermonize about drug use.
This sounds like software that will look at your life algorithmically, 'decide' you're at risk for some activity deemed 'negative' by mainstream social conventions or lobby groups, and 'suggest' you friend those who promote activities antithetical to your 'problematic' behavior. I doubt this will have much impact as people who don't mindlessly follow the herd detest being lectured by the mindless. It'll just be one more annoying infestation.
I'm also sure this will align with zuckerberg's own political agenda. To use your examples, firearms club members would get suggestions to friend gun control lobby groups. Club sceners will get suggestions to friend anti-drug and anti-'rape' groups, etc.
It isn't a question of 'unmeeting' someone. I could meet him and decide not to know him. The former is nearly instantaneous. The latter, which TFA was talking about, takes time.
I do not need zuckerberg to tell me who I 'should' like, emulate, or otherwise view as a 'mentor.'
I'll decide who I 'should' know.
A typical C program uses up 30% of its CPU time in memory management.
And also 30% of its bugs.
A typical Java program uses up about 5% of its CPU time in memory management, and usually around 1% of its bugs (or one at all).
citation needed
Not if you have gigabit service, esp not if you're using QoS and other filtering.
That doesn't make it all ok.
1. Most times, the reason there's more than one way of doing something is because they're actually ways of getting slightly different results. One size fits all is not a solution.
2. Maybe. Not one OS has achieved that yet.. or if it was at one point, it was shit-canned long ago to make way for new and shiny. DOS was dead simple and easy to use. We don't use it anymore for obvious reasons.
3. That's pretty much what they do now, with pressure to remove control from the user.
4. Not always. Having freedom to set up your own workflow is important. This is why having sane defaults for the stupid makes more sense than forcing such configurations on everyone with little or no ability to change (eg: windows 10 window metrics).
made it very difficult to actually delete data without waiting a week or more
Yeah, it's called a backup.
In fact there's little difference between men and women _excepting_ the sexual organs
Um.. what?
No. It's a tragedy that we are expected to reenforce and prop up his delusion, and to cheer him on as though it is some kind of heroic act or accomplishment. However, he is welcome to live by those delusions/fantasies and modify his body if he wants.
Who said 'just' paying cash will 'fix' the problem of governmental abuse? It can help mitigate the problem by denying the opportunity for mass abuse in the first place. No one said it was a total solution. Same thing with weapons, though they're usually brought out when people are at their wits end, en masse.
Sounds like you're more interested in punching holes in bad left wing stereotypes of the right than anything else.. Strawmen are so boring.
Sometimes courts, rallies, and elections don't work (eg: this last one).
The US is building its own form of soviet union 2.0 (minus the overt political/philosophical figureheads at least ftm), except this time it will be enforced by computer. I predict greater disasters ahead.
Yes, I suppose as long as you confine your activities to working your 18hr shift at foxconn like a good socialist cog and never rock the boat, everything's 'great.' Your stat is meaningless, if it's even accurate, because the countries are not on even keel when it comes to human rights and civil liberties.
I think you're making a distinction without a difference. "as long as they don't challenge authority" applies to both countries. The question is in how restrictive the authorities are.
The left likes to bitch about nucs too. If you want to wean us off carbon, nuclear will be necessary.
Not really baffling. Society has slowly shifted towards associating purchases with self worth and social exclusivity. While this was always true to some extent it has gotten much worse in recent years. They've become more important than more objective criteria like performance and reliability.