... this is precisely the same (Sony) mindset that gave breech birth to Sony's rootkit DRM and Sony's pointlessly proprietary Memory Stick format, etc, etc, etc.
This is a company so irretrievably mired in proprietary thinking that it will be a miracle if it survives the coming revolution. Sony will likely wither and die rather than adapt to the emerging open source "standard". To steal a word from the Obama Revolution:
Open Source == transparency
I don't think the forces of greed can stop the revolution this time. Either ya get on board this love train or get left behind! Are ya listening, Sony?
No, it's not. The THEORY of socialism describes an economic system, period, regardless whether some IMPLEMENTATIONS of it employ varying forms of government intervention or not.
theory != implementation
I referred to the core theory, not any specific implementations of it.
You're referring to one single form or subset of socialism, nationalized socialism. It's a subset, not a complete description of socialism. The most fundamental principles of socialism DO NOT REQUIRE that everything be under the direct control of a government. I guess you stopped reading before you got to mention of market socialism and other approaches that don't advocate complete unilateral nationalization?
I'd suggest you read that Wikipedia article and its referenced sources a bit more carefully before you try to call me a liar.
Publishers won't be makin' a penny offa me for this "added value" anyway... I have to subvocalize when I read, so I wouldn't want to hear anyone but the voices already inside my head. Ooops, gotta go, one of them wants something....
No, not owned by the government. You need a better source of information than the indoctrination-with-an-agenda diet you've been fed... and I do mean "fed", because I doubt you've actively sought out any objective information about socialism. The only information you have about it is what validates your desired view of the world, and that was handed to you with that as a goal in mind. That information is wrong. Are you scared of learning something that might challenge your worldview? Grow a pair and go do some objective reading.
You're not describing true socialism. True socialism would be a voluntary economic system. That's why it doesn't and can't work in its ideal form, because the human race is unable to cooperate to that degree (yet, or ever). It requires an evolution of the species that hasn't yet happened. Communism, as well as some of the socialism-like policies in otherwise capitalist countries, is an unethical attempt to use government to create an ethical economy. Do you see the ethical hypocrisy with that?
(Libertarians aren't much better off: their perfect free-market system requires an evolution of the species that hasn't happened yet, either. The only restrictions in that system are "no force, no fraud", which proponents imagine are sufficient to create a fair system, but those aren't sufficient. Their system breaks down unless every consumer has perfect marketplace education and awareness, which is rarely the case. The result: people would get screwed all the time, through various forms of manipulation, and the libertarian economy wouldn't consider it fraudulent if ill-educated parties were agreeing to the transactions. That's precisely why the United States has so many socialism-like government-imposed restrictions on the economy, because we KNOW that the free market alone doesn't create a fair system.)
Thank you for so ably demonstrating the ignorance, self-delusion, and dogmatism that I described in my last sentence. Now, for your own sake as well as ours, please go spend half a day doing some scholarly reading about the actual concept and theories of socialism. You might start with a contrast of subjective and objective valuation, recognize the ethical problem that one of the two represents, and then hopefully you might begin to comprehend the intent and nature of true socialism, as opposed to the perverted distortion you're using to prop up a delusion. Unfortunately your comprehension of capitalism is nearly as incomplete, so I'd recommend using the rest of the day reading about the true descriptive nature of that.
Socialism is not descriptive like capitalism, it's prescriptive, and it's all about ethics in the economy. Socialism doesn't prescribe a form of government; Communism tried to use a system of government to force an ethical economy, but ethical economies and unethical governments don't mix very well, as history has demonstrated. Pure capitalism is ethically neutral, at best. Fortunately for you (clearly you received your indoctrination in the United States), you've probably never experienced true capitalism, since the capitalist economy here is heavily modified with socialist principles, and long has been.
Ummm... open sourcing, at least, is anything but capitalistic: it's socialism at work. Some of those governmental encumbrances you mention are also trying to achieve socialistic goals. Apparently that's why you despise or fear them.
It's entertaining to watch the same mind try to embrace both open source and capitalism; the cognitive dissonance that results is like watching a daytime soap or a reality show.
Why is it that some Australian politicians seem to be exaggerated versions of the worst politicians that the United States has to offer? Are they publicly auditioning for some as-yet-unnamed reality show? Reading about the antics of people like Conroy and John Howard has been more entertaining than Big Brother or Survivor.
Yeah, I know! Fertility clinics were perhaps the opening salvo, and if ever there was a creature unfit to be a parent to fourteen(!) children, isn't she precisely that creature?
They'll have a huge market in China and perhaps India. China has that history of euthanizing baby girls, so why waste the nine months if you can't get exactly what you want?
Sorry, but this really freaks me. Now we're making a true commodity out of babies. In a way that actually cheapens them; they'll become mass-market items akin to cellphones, when we can pick and choose exactly what color, what "skin", we want them to have, what shape and size, what sort of CPU and accessories.
Well, my... that was quite the convincing argument! It nearly gave me whiplash. I bow to your superior oratory and reasoning skills, and forthwith recant everything bad I've ever said about unions.
Bet you don't remember Space: Above and Beyond, do you? This antagonism that Fox has to QUALITY programming - IOW, anything that isn't distinctly mediocre and non-controversial - has been going on for a lot longer than most people even realize. I suspect it's rooted in Fox's struggle from birth as a belated network, and having to be better than the Big Three at targeting the broadest market segment possible. That meant that any show that proved too intellectual or (negatively) controversial to a median audience got axed very quickly, far too quickly for it to reach percolate up to those niche audiences. This has become an entrenched mentality. Other broadcasters aren't immune to it, but it's the persistent mindset at Fox. House is a rare exception that amazes me, though it's evolved more toward that inexorable median than I would like.
I think that the term "Bell Curve" and all those common diagrams of it are misleading of the true effect: it should be named the Bell Trough and diagrammed as a Pit of No Return, because everything on the ends tends to be sucked down toward that median, like an ant lion patiently waiting for its dinner guests to arrive.
Maybe it just boils down to a struggle between the rational/objective and emotional/subjective? Errr... Vulcan versus Andorian? I guess Karl Marx thought so, and I reached the same conclusion without ever reading a word of any of his writing. I even re-coined the term "subjective valuation" and then later found out I was late to the (socialist) party.:-|
BTW, I too have wondered about that notion of restricting corporations to a single product (or product class) and prohibiting diversification. Then I argue myself out of it....
Your alternative might have some success. This is a corollary to the fact that socialism doesn't "scale up" well at all. Given that socialism seems to only work effectively on a small scale, if the scale of the union is kept localized and thus village-sized, it might be possible to have a persistent union that is free of corruption.
Of course, that same logic SHOULD be true for governments and corporations as well, but it doesn't seem to work. Even our state, county, and municipal governments get pwned by the bad/evil/greedy folks. My own city and county is so pwned by land developers that it's impossible to tell where one entity ends and the other begins.
If only we could learn how to organize WITHOUT the hierarchy, or at least one where the pawns and peons know when to say NO! to bad orders....
I just narrowed it down to ABP a few minutes ago, but I have a strong aversion to having to swallow even that small amount of castor oil to get to the video.
Slashdot Mirror
... this is precisely the same (Sony) mindset that gave breech birth to Sony's rootkit DRM and Sony's pointlessly proprietary Memory Stick format, etc, etc, etc.
This is a company so irretrievably mired in proprietary thinking that it will be a miracle if it survives the coming revolution. Sony will likely wither and die rather than adapt to the emerging open source "standard". To steal a word from the Obama Revolution:
Open Source == transparency
I don't think the forces of greed can stop the revolution this time. Either ya get on board this love train or get left behind! Are ya listening, Sony?
How would biologists stay employed, if not for this?
No, it's not. The THEORY of socialism describes an economic system, period, regardless whether some IMPLEMENTATIONS of it employ varying forms of government intervention or not.
theory != implementation
I referred to the core theory, not any specific implementations of it.
You're referring to one single form or subset of socialism, nationalized socialism. It's a subset, not a complete description of socialism. The most fundamental principles of socialism DO NOT REQUIRE that everything be under the direct control of a government. I guess you stopped reading before you got to mention of market socialism and other approaches that don't advocate complete unilateral nationalization?
I'd suggest you read that Wikipedia article and its referenced sources a bit more carefully before you try to call me a liar.
Publishers won't be makin' a penny offa me for this "added value" anyway... I have to subvocalize when I read, so I wouldn't want to hear anyone but the voices already inside my head. Ooops, gotta go, one of them wants something....
No, not owned by the government. You need a better source of information than the indoctrination-with-an-agenda diet you've been fed... and I do mean "fed", because I doubt you've actively sought out any objective information about socialism. The only information you have about it is what validates your desired view of the world, and that was handed to you with that as a goal in mind. That information is wrong. Are you scared of learning something that might challenge your worldview? Grow a pair and go do some objective reading.
You're not describing true socialism. True socialism would be a voluntary economic system. That's why it doesn't and can't work in its ideal form, because the human race is unable to cooperate to that degree (yet, or ever). It requires an evolution of the species that hasn't yet happened. Communism, as well as some of the socialism-like policies in otherwise capitalist countries, is an unethical attempt to use government to create an ethical economy. Do you see the ethical hypocrisy with that?
(Libertarians aren't much better off: their perfect free-market system requires an evolution of the species that hasn't happened yet, either. The only restrictions in that system are "no force, no fraud", which proponents imagine are sufficient to create a fair system, but those aren't sufficient. Their system breaks down unless every consumer has perfect marketplace education and awareness, which is rarely the case. The result: people would get screwed all the time, through various forms of manipulation, and the libertarian economy wouldn't consider it fraudulent if ill-educated parties were agreeing to the transactions. That's precisely why the United States has so many socialism-like government-imposed restrictions on the economy, because we KNOW that the free market alone doesn't create a fair system.)
Duh: socialism has nothing to do with government. It describes an economic system.
Ooops: meant that for the PARENT of this comment.
Thank you for so ably demonstrating the ignorance, self-delusion, and dogmatism that I described in my last sentence. Now, for your own sake as well as ours, please go spend half a day doing some scholarly reading about the actual concept and theories of socialism. You might start with a contrast of subjective and objective valuation, recognize the ethical problem that one of the two represents, and then hopefully you might begin to comprehend the intent and nature of true socialism, as opposed to the perverted distortion you're using to prop up a delusion. Unfortunately your comprehension of capitalism is nearly as incomplete, so I'd recommend using the rest of the day reading about the true descriptive nature of that.
Socialism is not descriptive like capitalism, it's prescriptive, and it's all about ethics in the economy. Socialism doesn't prescribe a form of government; Communism tried to use a system of government to force an ethical economy, but ethical economies and unethical governments don't mix very well, as history has demonstrated. Pure capitalism is ethically neutral, at best. Fortunately for you (clearly you received your indoctrination in the United States), you've probably never experienced true capitalism, since the capitalist economy here is heavily modified with socialist principles, and long has been.
Ummm... open sourcing, at least, is anything but capitalistic: it's socialism at work. Some of those governmental encumbrances you mention are also trying to achieve socialistic goals. Apparently that's why you despise or fear them.
It's entertaining to watch the same mind try to embrace both open source and capitalism; the cognitive dissonance that results is like watching a daytime soap or a reality show.
Why is it that some Australian politicians seem to be exaggerated versions of the worst politicians that the United States has to offer? Are they publicly auditioning for some as-yet-unnamed reality show? Reading about the antics of people like Conroy and John Howard has been more entertaining than Big Brother or Survivor.
Oh, I never said it wasn't selection. It's just that it's selection deserving of, perversely, a Darwin Award.
Wait... you've seen THREE?! Did you at least get video, I hope...? *drool*
Yeah, I know! Fertility clinics were perhaps the opening salvo, and if ever there was a creature unfit to be a parent to fourteen(!) children, isn't she precisely that creature?
They'll have a huge market in China and perhaps India. China has that history of euthanizing baby girls, so why waste the nine months if you can't get exactly what you want?
Sorry, but this really freaks me. Now we're making a true commodity out of babies. In a way that actually cheapens them; they'll become mass-market items akin to cellphones, when we can pick and choose exactly what color, what "skin", we want them to have, what shape and size, what sort of CPU and accessories.
Can you hear Darwin howling?
Well, of all the nerve! I can't be nerve-stapled... I don't have any nerve.
Well, my... that was quite the convincing argument! It nearly gave me whiplash. I bow to your superior oratory and reasoning skills, and forthwith recant everything bad I've ever said about unions.
Not!
Sadly... agreed. :-(
Bet you don't remember Space: Above and Beyond, do you? This antagonism that Fox has to QUALITY programming - IOW, anything that isn't distinctly mediocre and non-controversial - has been going on for a lot longer than most people even realize. I suspect it's rooted in Fox's struggle from birth as a belated network, and having to be better than the Big Three at targeting the broadest market segment possible. That meant that any show that proved too intellectual or (negatively) controversial to a median audience got axed very quickly, far too quickly for it to reach percolate up to those niche audiences. This has become an entrenched mentality. Other broadcasters aren't immune to it, but it's the persistent mindset at Fox. House is a rare exception that amazes me, though it's evolved more toward that inexorable median than I would like.
I think that the term "Bell Curve" and all those common diagrams of it are misleading of the true effect: it should be named the Bell Trough and diagrammed as a Pit of No Return, because everything on the ends tends to be sucked down toward that median, like an ant lion patiently waiting for its dinner guests to arrive.
Maybe it just boils down to a struggle between the rational/objective and emotional/subjective? Errr... Vulcan versus Andorian? I guess Karl Marx thought so, and I reached the same conclusion without ever reading a word of any of his writing. I even re-coined the term "subjective valuation" and then later found out I was late to the (socialist) party. :-|
BTW, I too have wondered about that notion of restricting corporations to a single product (or product class) and prohibiting diversification. Then I argue myself out of it....
I guess I need to emigrate to the UK to be ad-free, then? o_O
Your alternative might have some success. This is a corollary to the fact that socialism doesn't "scale up" well at all. Given that socialism seems to only work effectively on a small scale, if the scale of the union is kept localized and thus village-sized, it might be possible to have a persistent union that is free of corruption.
Of course, that same logic SHOULD be true for governments and corporations as well, but it doesn't seem to work. Even our state, county, and municipal governments get pwned by the bad/evil/greedy folks. My own city and county is so pwned by land developers that it's impossible to tell where one entity ends and the other begins.
If only we could learn how to organize WITHOUT the hierarchy, or at least one where the pawns and peons know when to say NO! to bad orders....
I just narrowed it down to ABP a few minutes ago, but I have a strong aversion to having to swallow even that small amount of castor oil to get to the video.
Do you use Element Hiding Helper also?