... where to put the damned thing that won't result in demands to forfeit one's firstborn. For fuck's sake, if one is truly desperate one could live in a tent with a price tag far less than a thousand dollars, but who's gonna let you squat on THEIR land for free with your inexpensive tent? That's right: NO ONE. The people who own land in excess of their need for personal space own it for one reason only, and the reason ain't philanthropic nor egalitarian.
Land has always been and will always be the class divider.
Read TFS again: NASA did not produce this video montage. NASA was merely the source of what was used. You do understand how current copyright law works, right? The creator of that montage can - and DID - claim copyright for his work even though it incorporated material for which couldn't claim copyright. It's a derivative copyrighted work.
None of which matters, because I notified Mr. Drake about the plagiarism privately, and he did in fact assert his copyright. Just try to find that plagiarized copy now.
Criticizing poor proofreading of article submissions is NOT "offtopic".
The quality of the moderation at this site needs some proofreading or oversight as well. There appears to be an excess of kneejerk bad-attittude tribalistic jerks that have access to it. They're poisoning the well.
The resistance factors identified in the seagull feces match ones that cause highly resistant infections in humans, and colaberates with data collected on beaches in Portugal, Sweden, and France.
Even if you'd spelled that word correctly, if still wouldn't represent the intention. Substituting "correlates" actually tells people what you meant.
An important trait of Asperger's Syndrome is not mental retardation. It's a high functioning condition for precisely the opposite reason. Not that it will matter, since it won't even be a classification in the DSM-V.
Not one word of my commentary was a condemnation of psychology or psychiatry, so I can't figure how you confirmed your own bias from what I actually said. I have considered those professions and drawn conclusions, but I'm not sharing them. My commentary was about behaviors having nothing at all to do with autism: racism and bigotry and tribalism, and how Big Media likes to sometimes visit the zoo when it has nothing better to do and feed the racist tribal animals. That is what The Guardian did today.
Read even just the summary again; think carefully about just how much time and trouble this man invested in what he did. This was not a casual hobby for him. His 18-week sentence is a stern warning intended to dissuade him from escalating and help him spend some time reflecting on his choices.
Speaking of trolling, the media attempt to demonize people on the autistic spectrum by inferring that this man's diagnosis is somehow causal for this specific behavior is bullshit, and the people who made the decision to infer it should be locked up in an adjoining cell for those 18 weeks. Duffy's behavior HAS NOTHING SPECIFIC AT ALL to do with Asperger's Syndrome. I possibly have the traits myself, and I know quite a number of other relatively decent people who also do; the "expression" of those traits is quite different from one person to the next. Am I and these others associated with this label "flawed"? In some ways, yes. Are we living "miserable existences"? That depends, frankly, on when you ask the question... and is that not also true of many perfectly neurotypical people?
It's this bigotry and profound ignorance of people who are atypical in some less-than-enchanting fashion that leads to lynch mobs chasing after people who HAVEN'T done awful things like this Duffy... merely because they share a label or some superficial traits. Duffy deserves to be punished, but NOT for possessing neurological traits associated with Asperger's Syndrome. Those traits had NOTHING to do with why he did what he did, though how others treated him because of those traits may have become his justification. Even if so, those traits were not cause for the effect.
No, not always. What almost always does, though, is implementation. The new idea may cost you nothing but calories, but ramping up a specialized factory to make widgets will definitely cost you. Just ask Charles Babbage! His revolutionary ideas were free, but the implementation cost him dearly.
I'm not arguing that it is, but the incumbent problem is that we have an economy in which far too many of the transactions taking place are not exchanges of equal value, and if that continues it will ultimately wreck the economy. Before that actually happens we'll wind up with a revolution or civil war. It will be a "class conflict" of the same sort that has happened so many times before, for exactly the same reasons. Marx wasn't wrong in his analysis of the flaws of capitalism, and he correctly identified the problem was not the system itself but Homo sapiens; what he got wrong was his imagined solution that relies on human behavior that simply isn't possible with enough consistency.
Any economic system, regardless of the type or underlying theory, MUST have these equal exchanges of value in order to function correctly. Unequal transactions cause an imbalance that magnifies with time. Without sufficient controls/checks/inhibitors, capitalism allows this to happen. Marxist socialism, being entirely dependent upon voluntary consensual behavior, also would allow this to happen if people don't cooperate. The libertarian free market system also allows it in the same way as our current form of capitalism, perhaps even moreso. So no matter what system we choose this will continue to happen - cyclically - given the nature of human behavior, unless we constantly step in and interfere with the process. So there's no "set it and forget it" economic system, as long as humans remain the marginally social creatures that we are.
Pure capitalism really is anarchy: it's called a black market. There are no rules, no regulations in a black market. Capitalism is a de-scriptive economic system: it's the economic law of the jungle. It's what any and every pre-scriptive economic system reverts to when the prescription fails (e.g. non-Marxian Communism). Pure capitalism is ethically neutral; ANYTHING goes if you can get away with it.
Of course we don't have a pure capitalist economy: we've added multiple layers of pre-scriptive ethics and rules and regulations on top of it, in a desperate attempt to control that anything-goes behavior. Libertarian free market and socialist economies are also prescriptive and not descriptive; the whole point of both is to achieve a consensual voluntary ethic (moreso in socialism) that doesn't naturally exist. Human beings aren't well adapted to either system yet.
Value is set by the individuals on both sides of a transaction.
Yep, but the goal, as I was taught in Business Law 101, is to achieve an equal exchange of value... not PERCEIVED value, but actual value.
I wonder if you really understand the capitalist dynamic very well. A capitalist economy WILL CHOKE AND DIE eventually if rough equality is not maintained in transactions; historically the choking and dying gets cut short by a revolution of some sort. We don't have that equality now, which is precisely why there is an increasing concentration of material resources in the hands of a decreasing number of people. It's an economic version of the plot of Highlander.
"General unchecked avarice" is pretty much a perfect definition of capitalism.
The only thing that would hold that avarice in check is a well-informed market that has a reasonable understanding of the products in the market, knows how to estimate things like cost to produce and profit margins, and actually cares enough to walk away when a transaction isn't a roughly equal exchange of value. I don't care how much government regulation you throw at a market, it won't a be a successful inhibition of that avarice in the absence of an educated market. The producers will always find ways to express their avarice in spite of regulation as long as there are enough Barnum-esque dumbshits willing to pay an unreasonable price.
Notice that I used the word "would": we don't have that well-informed market, and haven't for a long time. Such a market might have existed once before the Industrial and Information Ages, but not since then. Our regulated - socialized - capitalism is a poor substitute for either a true libertarian free market or a genuine Marxian socialist economy, but that mongrel is the best we'll get for now. The species hasn't evolved enough general intelligence for the former nor enough ethics and cooperativeness for the latter. To dream the impossible dream, indeed!
Arresting and prosecuting the executive officers of Righthaven would be the actual end of it. As long as Sauron and Darl and Gibson still roam free, it's not an end. Sequels are likely.
If some supercomputer analyzed my public writings, it would recognize that I've been keeping the pitchfork I made out of the old plowshare handy by the back door for some time now. I ate the oxen quite a while back when Monsanto took my fields away, so it's not like I had any other use for it.
Slashdot Mirror
... where to put the damned thing that won't result in demands to forfeit one's firstborn. For fuck's sake, if one is truly desperate one could live in a tent with a price tag far less than a thousand dollars, but who's gonna let you squat on THEIR land for free with your inexpensive tent? That's right: NO ONE. The people who own land in excess of their need for personal space own it for one reason only, and the reason ain't philanthropic nor egalitarian.
Land has always been and will always be the class divider.
Read TFS again: NASA did not produce this video montage. NASA was merely the source of what was used. You do understand how current copyright law works, right? The creator of that montage can - and DID - claim copyright for his work even though it incorporated material for which couldn't claim copyright. It's a derivative copyrighted work.
None of which matters, because I notified Mr. Drake about the plagiarism privately, and he did in fact assert his copyright. Just try to find that plagiarized copy now.
Criticizing poor proofreading of article submissions is NOT "offtopic".
The quality of the moderation at this site needs some proofreading or oversight as well. There appears to be an excess of kneejerk bad-attittude tribalistic jerks that have access to it. They're poisoning the well.
The resistance factors identified in the seagull feces match ones that cause highly resistant infections in humans, and colaberates with data collected on beaches in Portugal, Sweden, and France.
Even if you'd spelled that word correctly, if still wouldn't represent the intention. Substituting "correlates" actually tells people what you meant.
Would you believe some twit has already plagiarized it, and even kept the same YouTube title?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tInCjvBy-Uw
I've never felt a need to "report" YouTube videos before, but there doesn't even seem to be a public mechanism to do it.
I use Quantum Tango(tm) cables. Who needs to worry about managing them when you can just snip out the bothersome bits?
Stop eating at cheesy Mexican restaurants and stop tipping the cows. That'll solve the problem for all of us.
They're called emu. Smack into one o' those with your expensive car and the damage will look like another car caused it.
More like emu.
Build one of these into every vibrator sold and we won't need any other power source ever again.
Well played.
Not that I disagree, but... that was an interesting segue. Like Tony Blair much?
An important trait of Asperger's Syndrome is not mental retardation. It's a high functioning condition for precisely the opposite reason. Not that it will matter, since it won't even be a classification in the DSM-V.
Not one word of my commentary was a condemnation of psychology or psychiatry, so I can't figure how you confirmed your own bias from what I actually said. I have considered those professions and drawn conclusions, but I'm not sharing them. My commentary was about behaviors having nothing at all to do with autism: racism and bigotry and tribalism, and how Big Media likes to sometimes visit the zoo when it has nothing better to do and feed the racist tribal animals. That is what The Guardian did today.
Read even just the summary again; think carefully about just how much time and trouble this man invested in what he did. This was not a casual hobby for him. His 18-week sentence is a stern warning intended to dissuade him from escalating and help him spend some time reflecting on his choices.
Speaking of trolling, the media attempt to demonize people on the autistic spectrum by inferring that this man's diagnosis is somehow causal for this specific behavior is bullshit, and the people who made the decision to infer it should be locked up in an adjoining cell for those 18 weeks. Duffy's behavior HAS NOTHING SPECIFIC AT ALL to do with Asperger's Syndrome. I possibly have the traits myself, and I know quite a number of other relatively decent people who also do; the "expression" of those traits is quite different from one person to the next. Am I and these others associated with this label "flawed"? In some ways, yes. Are we living "miserable existences"? That depends, frankly, on when you ask the question... and is that not also true of many perfectly neurotypical people?
It's this bigotry and profound ignorance of people who are atypical in some less-than-enchanting fashion that leads to lynch mobs chasing after people who HAVEN'T done awful things like this Duffy... merely because they share a label or some superficial traits. Duffy deserves to be punished, but NOT for possessing neurological traits associated with Asperger's Syndrome. Those traits had NOTHING to do with why he did what he did, though how others treated him because of those traits may have become his justification. Even if so, those traits were not cause for the effect.
It would appear somebody got enough of a life to move out of mom and dad's basement and now wants to convert it into a Bitcoin mining hub....
The proper way to use a Tool is to rape him from behind and leave him for dead.
They've already started, dude... Google's helping them. Slashdot+ will be announced next week.
No, not always. What almost always does, though, is implementation. The new idea may cost you nothing but calories, but ramping up a specialized factory to make widgets will definitely cost you. Just ask Charles Babbage! His revolutionary ideas were free, but the implementation cost him dearly.
I'm not arguing that it is, but the incumbent problem is that we have an economy in which far too many of the transactions taking place are not exchanges of equal value, and if that continues it will ultimately wreck the economy. Before that actually happens we'll wind up with a revolution or civil war. It will be a "class conflict" of the same sort that has happened so many times before, for exactly the same reasons. Marx wasn't wrong in his analysis of the flaws of capitalism, and he correctly identified the problem was not the system itself but Homo sapiens; what he got wrong was his imagined solution that relies on human behavior that simply isn't possible with enough consistency.
Any economic system, regardless of the type or underlying theory, MUST have these equal exchanges of value in order to function correctly. Unequal transactions cause an imbalance that magnifies with time. Without sufficient controls/checks/inhibitors, capitalism allows this to happen. Marxist socialism, being entirely dependent upon voluntary consensual behavior, also would allow this to happen if people don't cooperate. The libertarian free market system also allows it in the same way as our current form of capitalism, perhaps even moreso. So no matter what system we choose this will continue to happen - cyclically - given the nature of human behavior, unless we constantly step in and interfere with the process. So there's no "set it and forget it" economic system, as long as humans remain the marginally social creatures that we are.
Pure capitalism really is anarchy: it's called a black market. There are no rules, no regulations in a black market. Capitalism is a de-scriptive economic system: it's the economic law of the jungle. It's what any and every pre-scriptive economic system reverts to when the prescription fails (e.g. non-Marxian Communism). Pure capitalism is ethically neutral; ANYTHING goes if you can get away with it.
Of course we don't have a pure capitalist economy: we've added multiple layers of pre-scriptive ethics and rules and regulations on top of it, in a desperate attempt to control that anything-goes behavior. Libertarian free market and socialist economies are also prescriptive and not descriptive; the whole point of both is to achieve a consensual voluntary ethic (moreso in socialism) that doesn't naturally exist. Human beings aren't well adapted to either system yet.
Value is set by the individuals on both sides of a transaction.
Yep, but the goal, as I was taught in Business Law 101, is to achieve an equal exchange of value... not PERCEIVED value, but actual value.
I wonder if you really understand the capitalist dynamic very well. A capitalist economy WILL CHOKE AND DIE eventually if rough equality is not maintained in transactions; historically the choking and dying gets cut short by a revolution of some sort. We don't have that equality now, which is precisely why there is an increasing concentration of material resources in the hands of a decreasing number of people. It's an economic version of the plot of Highlander.
"General unchecked avarice" is pretty much a perfect definition of capitalism.
The only thing that would hold that avarice in check is a well-informed market that has a reasonable understanding of the products in the market, knows how to estimate things like cost to produce and profit margins, and actually cares enough to walk away when a transaction isn't a roughly equal exchange of value. I don't care how much government regulation you throw at a market, it won't a be a successful inhibition of that avarice in the absence of an educated market. The producers will always find ways to express their avarice in spite of regulation as long as there are enough Barnum-esque dumbshits willing to pay an unreasonable price.
Notice that I used the word "would": we don't have that well-informed market, and haven't for a long time. Such a market might have existed once before the Industrial and Information Ages, but not since then. Our regulated - socialized - capitalism is a poor substitute for either a true libertarian free market or a genuine Marxian socialist economy, but that mongrel is the best we'll get for now. The species hasn't evolved enough general intelligence for the former nor enough ethics and cooperativeness for the latter. To dream the impossible dream, indeed!
Arresting and prosecuting the executive officers of Righthaven would be the actual end of it. As long as Sauron and Darl and Gibson still roam free, it's not an end. Sequels are likely.
If some supercomputer analyzed my public writings, it would recognize that I've been keeping the pitchfork I made out of the old plowshare handy by the back door for some time now. I ate the oxen quite a while back when Monsanto took my fields away, so it's not like I had any other use for it.
... it could be another Skylab (what a waste!) with a trajectory that drops it over, say, Europe instead of the Aussie outback.