I didn't mean that you said it eliminated all risks. I meant that there wasn't even one risk that was eliminated (though perhaps some were reduced). Unless you're building your own computers from components that you manufactured, you're making your own operating system, you're making your own bitcoin software, and so on, you are taking on third party risk that cannot be eliminated because you're accepting and using security-critical components developed by third parties. Unless you are literally generating your key by pencil-and-paper calculation (which is not the normal way of doing things by the design of bitcoin because it raises the risks of insufficient randomness and human error), your offline wallet's key was almost surely on a computer and an operating system that might have been compromised while the key was present or the system might not have deleted it.
All transactions being recorded may be a feature, but it still greatly reduces the strength of your argument about spying, particularly when statistical analyses are used.
It may happen that if bitcoin changes due to legal pressure, people will move to other currencies, but there are a lot of reasons not to assume that's a sure thing. Bitcoin will already have been established and working which will reduce the drive to switch, the risk of such a thing happening again will dampen enthusiasm, the newly-explicit lack of legal legitimacy (which hampered bitcoin growth) will hamper growth, and there's a high chance that alternatives will be permanently stuck with just about only enthusiasts as users.
Bitcoin can't be designed to eliminate any risk at all. There are security holes in all computers. Offline wallets are vulnerable to theft. All transactions are recorded somewhat permanently for anyone, including the government, who can and probably is permanently recording all of them. The way bitcoin works is changeable in just about any way by a vote of the miners, a large proportion of whom can be pressured legally, because the big mining operations are publicly known.
Not only that, but it's designed in such a way that it's very, very difficult to secure properly. This is why people use third parties who presumably know how to handle the security.
I'm not trying to troll, I'm just extremely tired of hearing this.
Differing applications are already apples and oranges, yet "one true benchmark" advocates are stupid enough to ignore that. When two things trade off in what applications they excel at, you can't say one is better overall than another without making assumptions about what is important. Expecting that an actual "overall rating" even exists is the height of stupidity, yet people persist in it.
Making hidden, but fad-of-the-day-fair assumptions, is deceptive and stupid. Presenting benchmarks for each individual application allows the reader to get the plain truth and to focus on what is important to him.
If a user isn't a techie who will overclock the slower motherboard to make the situation fair in your eyes, what good is skewing a benchmark toward that ? If nVidia's drivers make my favorite game faster, why hide that from me or denigrate nVidia for (inadvertently or not) helping me out ?
The evil corporations aren't preventing you from having the impossible benchmark, reality is !
There's nothing stopping you from doing a lot of illegal things. I don't even fault you for doing it. However, there really are laws to prevent competition in letter delivery (http://www.google.com./search?q=USPS+letter+monop oly).
I now understand what you are focusing on. You are looking at various goal sets. I criticize you for talking about the goals and conflating them with the means (very specific technologies). There is something wrong with conflation of any sort.
I realize that for monthly grocery runs or taking the kids to school, bicycles don't cut it. I realize that for gamers, satellite sucks. That does not mean I'm going to conflate a specific means (in this case, cable) with a goal set or market (for instance, a typical suburban gamer). If a goal set could only be met with a certain, monopolized technology, you'd have a point. There are no goal sets like that.
If you notice that bicycles don't fulfill certain car-fulfilled needs, why don't you notice that, whatever need you look at, whenever there is no state monopoly or influence-peddling, there is competition (noncolluding competition at that) ? Nobody wants cable, or any other technology. They want, for instance, low-lag gaming. They can get this with cable and DSL which are virtually indistinguishable, or others, like T1s or school LANs. Just because a gamer wouldn't use just any Internet connection type doesn't mean he's limited to a monopolized type.
The free market strongly counteracts barriers to newcomers. Any newcomer willing to shun collusion to offer lower prices or better service will gain many customers. The free market does not enforce competition, but it's only a matter of time before it appears in new markets. In the case of Internet provision for any specific need, it's already here.
There is no way of closing off newcomers without coercion. States are coercion, which is why they erect barriers to newcomers. Any newcomer willing to put up with licensing, dozens of rolls of red tape, restrictions (UPS and FedEx can't deliver letters), taxes, and campaign contributions that leverage the law and coerce competitors with state force might do well. Competition here is enforced, but it's for state favor and nonpunishment, not customer service.
State monopolies are even worse, because they tend to capture whole goal sets, like sending letters, inefficiently and with high cost (tax support does not change this).
P.S. Good theories, like Newtonian mechanics, have good analogies, like the clockwork operation of the solar system, that clarify and don't contradict them. Please do not try to illustrate a theory of competition sometimes being absent with an example (cars) that is loaded with competitors. It leads the reader to distraction.
You once again focus on means rather than goals. You mix it up a bit by focusing on attributes, but the result is the same. You also manage to help me prove my point.
There are tradeoffs in attributes, yes. This is what gives the free market the advantage. Governments tend to optimize for their own grandiloquent, public-relations, legacy-seeking, or visionary-leader attributes. In that, they do very well and can look very good, as you've noted, especially when their idea of a "good" plan for the country matches yours. That hardly means their individual countrymen will get to choose the tradeoff that best suits them, and this is where your argument utterly fails.
Businessmen, the people in your example, are more than capable of making intelligent tradeoffs. That is their main job. You, and most governments, are incapable, seeking solutions that provide (to you) optimal performance and forcing your "good" ideas on people perfectly capable of choosing better for themselves than you.
Pointy-haired boss jokes aside, no good businessman would choose your example of wide-area WiFi, and even so they could choose intelligent, noncable solutions like DSL or satellite that, in your argument, you ignore.
You haven't proven your point. People can live with and flourish with tradeoffs, as long as they get to choose the tradeoffs that work for them. You won't allow that. Allowing tradeoffs allows everyone to fulfill goals without worrying too much, as you do, about the means. Governments make the means much more important, because their means tends to become the only means.
There is a huge problem with your argument. You focus, like a lot of people, way too much on the methods of doing something. They rarely matter.
Even if cable services are a natural monopoly, it doesn't matter. People do not want cable services. They want television programming and high-capacity Internet connections. There is no monopoly, natural or otherwise, in providing those (note DSL, satellite, home-grown wireless networks).
Even more important: if you think cable is a monopoly now, just wait until it's a "public" one. For a case study on that, look at letter delivery in the United States. The USPS is forced on people not because competition is impossible, but because it's outlawed.
Every government service moves unstoppably toward inefficiency and customer maltreatment. "Public" "servants" have no incentives to do well. The only known means of reliably providing such incentives is competition. Governments make sure they don't have it.
I don't care whether it's possible or even easy to figure that out. Why would you waste brainpower on coding (and debugging the occasional off-by-one errors) when it's a lot easier to do something like (in Ruby):
Hate to tell you, but that's exactly why it does apply.
You changed the space that was previously empty to contain a fully functional human being. That's the essence of time travel. This is directly analogous to changing the previously unused memory of a computer system to contain a fully functional child program.
The strength of your argument rests on how long a lot of people have believed something. This is not a foundation at all, let alone a strong one, against a new argument. If the universe is indeed mechanistic, deterministic, and iterative, there is no valid conclusion but the one I made.
The strongest argument I know of against the standard reasoning is that it is based on assuming that there is only one timeline (or many with multiple universes) that is fixed after it is traversed. My point of view is that timelines are an abstraction that makes some things easier to think about, but only serves to confuse people here.
There is no reason to think that timelines actually exist. There are only matter and energy in their own present time and location. If a human travels back in time and murders his parent, it does not shatter a timeline and thus lead to logical inconsistencies. It only causes a rearrangement of matter and energy no different from the quadrillions that are happening all around it.
Assuming the reality of one or more timelines leads to logical contradictions or paradoxes. Assuming that they don't really exist, but are merely aids to thinking leads to no logical contradictions or paradoxes. I don't see a good defense of the standard view.
I already stated that. Physics is deterministic. It does not care about nice, logical, unbroken chains of cause and effect. All it cares about is taking the snapshot at one instant to transform it into the snapshot at the next instant.
Most theories with paradoxes are based on the idea that the universe will suddenly act strangely because it somehow notices there is no longer a cause for the particles to be in the place where they are now. Again, the universe does not care about cause, it's mechanistic (and a bit probablistic, but this doesn't harm my argument) and only does its job.
In a computer analogy, assume you have a computer in which one process starts another. You can travel back in time, and you flip the bits to make the child program execute at an earlier time. It terminates the parent program before the program is called. The child program doesn't suddenly stop. The computer, being mechanistic, does not care that it no longer has a cause.
If backward time travel is possible, it does not seem it would have any adverse effects. Physics does not care about your lineage. Assuming you shot your ancestor, the bullet would not mystically stop and the particles that make up your body would not mystically disappear.
It does not matter that you would not be born to go back in time. Physics does not care about you as a being. If your particles exist in a certain configuration at a certain time in the past, it does not matter that the original cause no longer exists. Physics does not care about timelines. It only cares about the instant immediately preceding the event. Only people care about unbroken chains of cause and effect, not physics.
All the confusion comes from people creating paradoxes by ignoring deterministic physics laws and imposing stupid irrelevancies.
Theory is a set of theorems. Anything that is a theorem is logically rock solid, as long as the axioms hold. The axioms of relativity already are laws.
Law doesn't mean 'true', it means 'logical basis'. Theory doesn't mean 'well-accepted hypothesis', it means 'ideas that are correct if the laws are'.
Paraphrase: "Money leaving America is bad. Money (in the form of gold) entering Spain ruined it." That's a blatant contradiction: either money in a country helps or it doesn't. It builds up the wall of your economic theory in the places I'm not attacking. My attacks had nothing to do with money supply. You'll need to do better in showing how your ideas about the money supply defend against specific points in my rebuttal.
One man's inefficiency is another man's way of life. US capitalists fail to see this by tying to shove down their culture down the throat of the rest of the planet through free-trade agreements.
If there are tarriffs, foreigners have to work harder to get the same profit from Americans than they would have. How in the hell can removing those barriers lead them to work harder ?
If the good results brought more money, I'd agree with you, alas it is not the case. The standard of life has been dwindling for the middle class of all the countries involved.
I didn't say anything about whether good results bring good pay. I agree that good results sometimes have bad pay, but you haven't touched the core concept of my rebuttal: don't reward before good results or you get corruption. If you look closely, you'll see two different concepts.
Public schools turn-out morons because the bourgeois have no use for an educated population.
You have a nice overview of why public schooling sucks and I agree. But even when the politicians in charge are truly interested in helping children and not keeping them slavish, they botch it by shovelling money before good results occur. Politicians always do this with government money. That's why government money never helps. You originally said government money would help and my rebuttal of that is still there, untouched by you.
Nevertheless, FORD doubled or tripled their worker's salaries SO THEY COULD BUY THE WIDGETS.
I never said "Ford didn't raise salaries, you bloody liar". I said that you were wrong about the cause of Ford's success. You still haven't shown that employee purchases led to Ford's success (which is what you said). I'm still waiting for you to do that.
The masses? How about you who end up working for two, and paid half as much?
What is this, appeal to pity ? Post hoc ergo propter hoc ? If you want to argue that trade barriers help citizens, you'll need to do more than use fallacies, no matter how obvious you think your conclusion is.
Don't think that a longwinded response is a good defense. When you answer a point, don't just repeat your ideas over and over again, especially when it's not related to the point you're answering. You need to point out the logic or reasoning errors in my arguments and the chain of reasoning in your own. Your responses aren't as obviously true as you'd think.
Yeah. Let's see who benefits from trade barriers. Do consumers benefit ? No, they have to pay higher prices. Do in-country business owners benefit ? Yes, their competition was just hamstringed. Wow. You got it exactly backwards.
All economics is based on human nature because the actions of humans combine to make the economy. If you don't understand basic human nature, you can't understand basic economics.
Here are the basic principles of human nature you miss :
insulate people from the effects of their inefficiency and THEY WILL NEVER LEARN TO BE MORE EFFICIENT.
more money BEFORE good results NEVER LEADS TO BETTER RESULTS LATER, in salaries or government programs.
If you were able to race against a bunch of people who had to wear lead shoes (analogous to tarriffs) when you didn't, would you try as hard to compete ? Salaries are nice, but when I get the salary someone who outdid me should have gotten, that doesn't lead me to conclude I should try harder. It leads me to conclude that the politicians are useful idiots I need to cultivate.
Assuming that government throwing money at the problem of competitiveness will help is absurd. Look at the effectiveness of nearly any government program. Why do public schools turn out morons when trillions of dollars have been spent on education ? Because more and more money is shovelled at it when it fails in order to "help it out" instead of waiting to shovel more money after it produces good results.
Let's look at the logic of Ford in your example: give money, get it back, lose a car. Net loss: one car, net gain: absolutely nothing. Ford succeeded by becoming so EFFICIENT it could offer LOW-PRICED cars and the masses (that didn't work for him) could buy lots of them.
You deride people who disagree as myopic. Let me spell it out for you :
You aren't insulated -> you have to actually outdo your competitors -> you get more efficient to do this -> you can offer lower prices than your competitors -> the masses benefit from lower prices.
You are insulated -> politicians just made it where you don't have to outdo your competitors -> you cultivate politicians -> you get rich and the masses have high priced crap.
Why in the hell do you think corporations spend so much time lobbying ?
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Hello, Mr. Bait-and-Switch Troll.
First you argue that all tanks are invincible against guns. Then, when corrected, you pretend that you argued that tanks are effective on the battlefield.
So, which is it ? Are they invincible against guns -OR- merely battlefield-effective and not invincible against guns ?
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
There's a bit more to it than "government bans thing" -> "prior poster buys thing". If all you can see is the surface form of an argument, it's you who performed no actual thinking.
Attackers can send commands to a trojan on your computer regardless of whether they connect to your computer (inbound) or you connect to theirs (outbound).
It would be difficult to know whether or not they fully fill the gaps without an exhaustive test of all passwords 16-characters-or-less. Nearly all hash results for less-than-16-character passwords would collide with results for 16-character passwords.
For all anyone knows, there could be a hash result that first occurs with a 39443-character password. It's more likely than you'd think.
(And, the converse is that no matter how long your password is, there'll always be a 16-character string which is equivalent to it.)
That assumes that there are no repeats in hash results for every 16-character password; it is very unlikely that that is true of MD5. If there are repeats, 16-character passwords won't cover every possibility.
You're saying the university's later, more informed opinion about the guy shouldn't matter. If that doesn't matter, please tell us why its earlier, less informed opinion (in the form of the degree) should matter ?
Slashdot Mirror
I send regular money over the Internet all the time using PayPal or debit card. That's how I'm able to pay for things online.
I didn't mean that you said it eliminated all risks. I meant that there wasn't even one risk that was eliminated (though perhaps some were reduced). Unless you're building your own computers from components that you manufactured, you're making your own operating system, you're making your own bitcoin software, and so on, you are taking on third party risk that cannot be eliminated because you're accepting and using security-critical components developed by third parties. Unless you are literally generating your key by pencil-and-paper calculation (which is not the normal way of doing things by the design of bitcoin because it raises the risks of insufficient randomness and human error), your offline wallet's key was almost surely on a computer and an operating system that might have been compromised while the key was present or the system might not have deleted it.
All transactions being recorded may be a feature, but it still greatly reduces the strength of your argument about spying, particularly when statistical analyses are used.
It may happen that if bitcoin changes due to legal pressure, people will move to other currencies, but there are a lot of reasons not to assume that's a sure thing. Bitcoin will already have been established and working which will reduce the drive to switch, the risk of such a thing happening again will dampen enthusiasm, the newly-explicit lack of legal legitimacy (which hampered bitcoin growth) will hamper growth, and there's a high chance that alternatives will be permanently stuck with just about only enthusiasts as users.
Bitcoin can't be designed to eliminate any risk at all. There are security holes in all computers. Offline wallets are vulnerable to theft. All transactions are recorded somewhat permanently for anyone, including the government, who can and probably is permanently recording all of them. The way bitcoin works is changeable in just about any way by a vote of the miners, a large proportion of whom can be pressured legally, because the big mining operations are publicly known.
Not only that, but it's designed in such a way that it's very, very difficult to secure properly. This is why people use third parties who presumably know how to handle the security.
I'm not trying to troll, I'm just extremely tired of hearing this.
Differing applications are already apples and oranges, yet "one true benchmark" advocates are stupid enough to ignore that. When two things trade off in what applications they excel at, you can't say one is better overall than another without making assumptions about what is important. Expecting that an actual "overall rating" even exists is the height of stupidity, yet people persist in it.
Making hidden, but fad-of-the-day-fair assumptions, is deceptive and stupid. Presenting benchmarks for each individual application allows the reader to get the plain truth and to focus on what is important to him.
If a user isn't a techie who will overclock the slower motherboard to make the situation fair in your eyes, what good is skewing a benchmark toward that ? If nVidia's drivers make my favorite game faster, why hide that from me or denigrate nVidia for (inadvertently or not) helping me out ?
The evil corporations aren't preventing you from having the impossible benchmark, reality is !
There's nothing stopping you from doing a lot of illegal things. I don't even fault you for doing it. However, there really are laws to prevent competition in letter delivery (http://www.google.com./search?q=USPS+letter+monop oly).
I now understand what you are focusing on. You are looking at various goal sets. I criticize you for talking about the goals and conflating them with the means (very specific technologies). There is something wrong with conflation of any sort.
I realize that for monthly grocery runs or taking the kids to school, bicycles don't cut it. I realize that for gamers, satellite sucks. That does not mean I'm going to conflate a specific means (in this case, cable) with a goal set or market (for instance, a typical suburban gamer). If a goal set could only be met with a certain, monopolized technology, you'd have a point. There are no goal sets like that.
If you notice that bicycles don't fulfill certain car-fulfilled needs, why don't you notice that, whatever need you look at, whenever there is no state monopoly or influence-peddling, there is competition (noncolluding competition at that) ? Nobody wants cable, or any other technology. They want, for instance, low-lag gaming. They can get this with cable and DSL which are virtually indistinguishable, or others, like T1s or school LANs. Just because a gamer wouldn't use just any Internet connection type doesn't mean he's limited to a monopolized type.
The free market strongly counteracts barriers to newcomers. Any newcomer willing to shun collusion to offer lower prices or better service will gain many customers. The free market does not enforce competition, but it's only a matter of time before it appears in new markets. In the case of Internet provision for any specific need, it's already here.
There is no way of closing off newcomers without coercion. States are coercion, which is why they erect barriers to newcomers. Any newcomer willing to put up with licensing, dozens of rolls of red tape, restrictions (UPS and FedEx can't deliver letters), taxes, and campaign contributions that leverage the law and coerce competitors with state force might do well. Competition here is enforced, but it's for state favor and nonpunishment, not customer service.
State monopolies are even worse, because they tend to capture whole goal sets, like sending letters, inefficiently and with high cost (tax support does not change this).
P.S. Good theories, like Newtonian mechanics, have good analogies, like the clockwork operation of the solar system, that clarify and don't contradict them. Please do not try to illustrate a theory of competition sometimes being absent with an example (cars) that is loaded with competitors. It leads the reader to distraction.
You once again focus on means rather than goals. You mix it up a bit by focusing on attributes, but the result is the same. You also manage to help me prove my point.
There are tradeoffs in attributes, yes. This is what gives the free market the advantage. Governments tend to optimize for their own grandiloquent, public-relations, legacy-seeking, or visionary-leader attributes. In that, they do very well and can look very good, as you've noted, especially when their idea of a "good" plan for the country matches yours. That hardly means their individual countrymen will get to choose the tradeoff that best suits them, and this is where your argument utterly fails.
Businessmen, the people in your example, are more than capable of making intelligent tradeoffs. That is their main job. You, and most governments, are incapable, seeking solutions that provide (to you) optimal performance and forcing your "good" ideas on people perfectly capable of choosing better for themselves than you.
Pointy-haired boss jokes aside, no good businessman would choose your example of wide-area WiFi, and even so they could choose intelligent, noncable solutions like DSL or satellite that, in your argument, you ignore.
You haven't proven your point. People can live with and flourish with tradeoffs, as long as they get to choose the tradeoffs that work for them. You won't allow that. Allowing tradeoffs allows everyone to fulfill goals without worrying too much, as you do, about the means. Governments make the means much more important, because their means tends to become the only means.
There is a huge problem with your argument. You focus, like a lot of people, way too much on the methods of doing something. They rarely matter.
Even if cable services are a natural monopoly, it doesn't matter. People do not want cable services. They want television programming and high-capacity Internet connections. There is no monopoly, natural or otherwise, in providing those (note DSL, satellite, home-grown wireless networks).
Even more important: if you think cable is a monopoly now, just wait until it's a "public" one. For a case study on that, look at letter delivery in the United States. The USPS is forced on people not because competition is impossible, but because it's outlawed.
Every government service moves unstoppably toward inefficiency and customer maltreatment. "Public" "servants" have no incentives to do well. The only known means of reliably providing such incentives is competition. Governments make sure they don't have it.
No, they're referring to things like :
:
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
I don't care whether it's possible or even easy to figure that out. Why would you waste brainpower on coding (and debugging the occasional off-by-one errors) when it's a lot easier to do something like (in Ruby)
n.times {
(0...n).each { |i|
array.each { |element|
All four are formal, exact, and concise. Three are much more natural and error-free. There's nothing non-programmerish about any of them.
NP problems are solvable in polynomial time.
NP encyclopedia entry.
Hate to tell you, but that's exactly why it does apply.
You changed the space that was previously empty to contain a fully functional human being. That's the essence of time travel. This is directly analogous to changing the previously unused memory of a computer system to contain a fully functional child program.
The strength of your argument rests on how long a lot of people have believed something. This is not a foundation at all, let alone a strong one, against a new argument. If the universe is indeed mechanistic, deterministic, and iterative, there is no valid conclusion but the one I made.
The strongest argument I know of against the standard reasoning is that it is based on assuming that there is only one timeline (or many with multiple universes) that is fixed after it is traversed. My point of view is that timelines are an abstraction that makes some things easier to think about, but only serves to confuse people here.
There is no reason to think that timelines actually exist. There are only matter and energy in their own present time and location. If a human travels back in time and murders his parent, it does not shatter a timeline and thus lead to logical inconsistencies. It only causes a rearrangement of matter and energy no different from the quadrillions that are happening all around it.
Assuming the reality of one or more timelines leads to logical contradictions or paradoxes. Assuming that they don't really exist, but are merely aids to thinking leads to no logical contradictions or paradoxes. I don't see a good defense of the standard view.
I already stated that. Physics is deterministic. It does not care about nice, logical, unbroken chains of cause and effect. All it cares about is taking the snapshot at one instant to transform it into the snapshot at the next instant.
Most theories with paradoxes are based on the idea that the universe will suddenly act strangely because it somehow notices there is no longer a cause for the particles to be in the place where they are now. Again, the universe does not care about cause, it's mechanistic (and a bit probablistic, but this doesn't harm my argument) and only does its job.
In a computer analogy, assume you have a computer in which one process starts another. You can travel back in time, and you flip the bits to make the child program execute at an earlier time. It terminates the parent program before the program is called. The child program doesn't suddenly stop. The computer, being mechanistic, does not care that it no longer has a cause.
If backward time travel is possible, it does not seem it would have any adverse effects. Physics does not care about your lineage. Assuming you shot your ancestor, the bullet would not mystically stop and the particles that make up your body would not mystically disappear.
It does not matter that you would not be born to go back in time. Physics does not care about you as a being. If your particles exist in a certain configuration at a certain time in the past, it does not matter that the original cause no longer exists. Physics does not care about timelines. It only cares about the instant immediately preceding the event. Only people care about unbroken chains of cause and effect, not physics.
All the confusion comes from people creating paradoxes by ignoring deterministic physics laws and imposing stupid irrelevancies.
Theory is a set of theorems. Anything that is a theorem is logically rock solid, as long as the axioms hold. The axioms of relativity already are laws.
Law doesn't mean 'true', it means 'logical basis'. Theory doesn't mean 'well-accepted hypothesis', it means 'ideas that are correct if the laws are'.
Your responses do nothing to my rebuttal.
Paraphrase: "Money leaving America is bad. Money (in the form of gold) entering Spain ruined it." That's a blatant contradiction: either money in a country helps or it doesn't. It builds up the wall of your economic theory in the places I'm not attacking. My attacks had nothing to do with money supply. You'll need to do better in showing how your ideas about the money supply defend against specific points in my rebuttal.
One man's inefficiency is another man's way of life. US capitalists fail to see this by tying to shove down their culture down the throat of the rest of the planet through free-trade agreements.
If there are tarriffs, foreigners have to work harder to get the same profit from Americans than they would have. How in the hell can removing those barriers lead them to work harder ?
If the good results brought more money, I'd agree with you, alas it is not the case. The standard of life has been dwindling for the middle class of all the countries involved.
I didn't say anything about whether good results bring good pay. I agree that good results sometimes have bad pay, but you haven't touched the core concept of my rebuttal: don't reward before good results or you get corruption. If you look closely, you'll see two different concepts.
Public schools turn-out morons because the bourgeois have no use for an educated population.
You have a nice overview of why public schooling sucks and I agree. But even when the politicians in charge are truly interested in helping children and not keeping them slavish, they botch it by shovelling money before good results occur. Politicians always do this with government money. That's why government money never helps. You originally said government money would help and my rebuttal of that is still there, untouched by you.
Nevertheless, FORD doubled or tripled their worker's salaries SO THEY COULD BUY THE WIDGETS.
I never said "Ford didn't raise salaries, you bloody liar". I said that you were wrong about the cause of Ford's success. You still haven't shown that employee purchases led to Ford's success (which is what you said). I'm still waiting for you to do that.
The masses? How about you who end up working for two, and paid half as much?
What is this, appeal to pity ? Post hoc ergo propter hoc ? If you want to argue that trade barriers help citizens, you'll need to do more than use fallacies, no matter how obvious you think your conclusion is.
Don't think that a longwinded response is a good defense. When you answer a point, don't just repeat your ideas over and over again, especially when it's not related to the point you're answering. You need to point out the logic or reasoning errors in my arguments and the chain of reasoning in your own. Your responses aren't as obviously true as you'd think.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. ***EXCELLENT*** reasoning.
All economics is based on human nature because the actions of humans combine to make the economy. If you don't understand basic human nature, you can't understand basic economics.
Here are the basic principles of human nature you miss :
- insulate people from the effects of their inefficiency and THEY WILL NEVER LEARN TO BE MORE EFFICIENT.
- more money BEFORE good results NEVER LEADS TO BETTER RESULTS LATER, in salaries or government programs.
If you were able to race against a bunch of people who had to wear lead shoes (analogous to tarriffs) when you didn't, would you try as hard to compete ? Salaries are nice, but when I get the salary someone who outdid me should have gotten, that doesn't lead me to conclude I should try harder. It leads me to conclude that the politicians are useful idiots I need to cultivate.Assuming that government throwing money at the problem of competitiveness will help is absurd. Look at the effectiveness of nearly any government program. Why do public schools turn out morons when trillions of dollars have been spent on education ? Because more and more money is shovelled at it when it fails in order to "help it out" instead of waiting to shovel more money after it produces good results.
Let's look at the logic of Ford in your example: give money, get it back, lose a car. Net loss: one car, net gain: absolutely nothing. Ford succeeded by becoming so EFFICIENT it could offer LOW-PRICED cars and the masses (that didn't work for him) could buy lots of them.
You deride people who disagree as myopic. Let me spell it out for you :
- You aren't insulated -> you have to actually outdo your competitors -> you get more efficient to do this -> you can offer lower prices than your competitors -> the masses benefit from lower prices.
- You are insulated -> politicians just made it where you don't have to outdo your competitors -> you cultivate politicians -> you get rich and the masses have high priced crap.
Why in the hell do you think corporations spend so much time lobbying ?See signature.
What makes me think the source code is available is the summary of the SDK download that you couldn't be bothered to read.
Hello, Mr. Bait-and-Switch Troll.
First you argue that all tanks are invincible against guns. Then, when corrected, you pretend that you argued that tanks are effective on the battlefield.
So, which is it ? Are they invincible against guns -OR- merely battlefield-effective and not invincible against guns ?
There's a bit more to it than "government bans thing" -> "prior poster buys thing". If all you can see is the surface form of an argument, it's you who performed no actual thinking.
Attackers can send commands to a trojan on your computer regardless of whether they connect to your computer (inbound) or you connect to theirs (outbound).
It would be difficult to know whether or not they fully fill the gaps without an exhaustive test of all passwords 16-characters-or-less. Nearly all hash results for less-than-16-character passwords would collide with results for 16-character passwords.
For all anyone knows, there could be a hash result that first occurs with a 39443-character password. It's more likely than you'd think.
(And, the converse is that no matter how long your password is, there'll always be a 16-character string which is equivalent to it.)
That assumes that there are no repeats in hash results for every 16-character password; it is very unlikely that that is true of MD5. If there are repeats, 16-character passwords won't cover every possibility.
You're saying the university's later, more informed opinion about the guy shouldn't matter. If that doesn't matter, please tell us why its earlier, less informed opinion (in the form of the degree) should matter ?