>Wealth is not stuff. It is the intelligent arrangement and usage of stuff. Infinite wealth is possible from even tiny amounts of raw materials - it is just harder.
This is not infinite. Please take oil for one example and extrapolate from there. There is no guarantee of sufficient resources to support infinite value growth. I beg to differ with the statement that "Wealth is not stuff". Aside from the obvious, what happens when you run out of stuff to make wealth?
A funeral parlour is such a great business, people are always dying and always will...until the second to last person is dead of course, and at this point the Funeral Director probably was paid all the money in the world (as it is now his), but its awfully worthless when there is nothing/no one left to trade. There is no such thing as infinite wealth any more than perpetual motion.
Any of these so-called conservative beliefs are predicated on faith of recursive value (which clearly breaks down at points where value of inputs exceeds value of inputs), and not mathematic fact, so I am astounded by your opinion.
I would argue liberals tend to believe there is finite wealth which still would be enough to support everyone.
Meanwhile conservatives also believe there is finite wealth but feel those who do not "deserve" it should not have access to it. (ie there should never be enough wealth for everyone).
>Its that liberals believe there's finite amount of wealth to be had, and that's just not true.
I for one would love to hear the converse of this statement. Can you please explain to me how there is infinite wealth in our closed system?
Indeed, I think we agree much in the same way wild horses are tamed: How does one control the uncontrolled? Build a better bridle. Salt licks for everyone is unscalable.
So what you are saying is (extrapolated of course) is that communism is doomed to fail, and that fascism/corporatocracy is the inevitable result of unbridled capitalism?
You don't say!:D Though I think you just managed to eloquently summarize why historically and presently this idea seems true.
And yet we continuously argue over the definition of fascism online. 9/10 people will argue with your very correct definition as people imagine a distinction between "police state" and "fascism" and "corporatocracy" which does not exist.
It shouldn't have to be this way. We should be able to have the police catch those who steal property before they can steal MORE, not after the fact. Unfortunately police have not made securing the public a priority in recent times.
The problem is talking to police these days in the US and Commonwealth can get an innocent guy in to a heap of trouble.
This also applies in Canada and the UK. Recovered my bicycle by intimidating everyone until I traced it to the person who stole it. Worked pretty well surprisingly.
It's always been this way, if I may borrow a quote from the progenitor himself and another astute slashdotter:
>"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini
>"What we currently have is corporations acting as arms of the government, and government acting as an arm of corporations, to the point where they aren't very distinguishable." -Observation by slashdot reader
Consider theory vs practice. Either way you do make good points but I am not confusing it with Plutocracy which is another thing altogether, where government is by rich individuals and not necessarily corporations.
Yes, as a matter of fact it is quite indicitive. At least in a top down sense:
In communism, the state owns the corporations (ALL OF THEM) (Gazsprom? More like OURProm) In socialism, the state might own some corporations where losses and gains can be effectively "socialized" (Think like Canadian crown corporations, for Fanny Mae) In fascism, the corporation owns the state.
You should at least do this when you have a large thunderstorm or expected solar event of this magnitude.. or you can always do what we do at the big data center when our UPS gets tripped (no diesel available).
Turn off breakers that supply your equipment, in case power surges suddenly.
Slashdot Mirror
>Wealth is not stuff. It is the intelligent arrangement and usage of stuff. Infinite wealth is possible from even tiny amounts of raw materials - it is just harder.
This is not infinite. Please take oil for one example and extrapolate from there. There is no guarantee of sufficient resources to support infinite value growth. I beg to differ with the statement that "Wealth is not stuff". Aside from the obvious, what happens when you run out of stuff to make wealth?
A funeral parlour is such a great business, people are always dying and always will...until the second to last person is dead of course, and at this point the Funeral Director probably was paid all the money in the world (as it is now his), but its awfully worthless when there is nothing/no one left to trade. There is no such thing as infinite wealth any more than perpetual motion.
Any of these so-called conservative beliefs are predicated on faith of recursive value (which clearly breaks down at points where value of inputs exceeds value of inputs), and not mathematic fact, so I am astounded by your opinion.
>Not true at all, conservatives believe that a person who has earned their wealth should keep it, those who haven't earned it should not.
I fail to see the difference between our statements.
I would argue liberals tend to believe there is finite wealth which still would be enough to support everyone.
Meanwhile conservatives also believe there is finite wealth but feel those who do not "deserve" it should not have access to it. (ie there should never be enough wealth for everyone).
>Its that liberals believe there's finite amount of wealth to be had, and that's just not true.
I for one would love to hear the converse of this statement. Can you please explain to me how there is infinite wealth in our closed system?
I'm a skinny aspie neckbeard, you insensitive clod!
Thank you for sharing the contents of a letter so drab-less, every man wishes himself the wit to have authored.
And now....In Soviet Russia,
I C Q!
I personally thought it would be worth more Karma.
Having seen Primer, this backup technique is more than a little disconcerting.
Indeed, I think we agree much in the same way wild horses are tamed: How does one control the uncontrolled? Build a better bridle. Salt licks for everyone is unscalable.
So what you are saying is (extrapolated of course) is that communism is doomed to fail, and that fascism/corporatocracy is the inevitable result of unbridled capitalism?
You don't say! :D Though I think you just managed to eloquently summarize why historically and presently this idea seems true.
Or they work in the industry and don't want to get caught talking crap publicly about their competitors/vendors.
Just saying...AC has its place.
And yet we continuously argue over the definition of fascism online. 9/10 people will argue with your very correct definition as people imagine a distinction between "police state" and "fascism" and "corporatocracy" which does not exist.
It shouldn't have to be this way. We should be able to have the police catch those who steal property before they can steal MORE, not after the fact. Unfortunately police have not made securing the public a priority in recent times.
The problem is talking to police these days in the US and Commonwealth can get an innocent guy in to a heap of trouble.
Some of us nerds can handle ourselves. Especially if one has confidence to deal with those more threatening.
The last time I was 'beat down' I was sucker punched for defeating a SF2 opponent with a throw. That's just how we rolled back then I guess.
This also applies in Canada and the UK. Recovered my bicycle by intimidating everyone until I traced it to the person who stole it. Worked pretty well surprisingly.
Hey AC, how about a mix of both using Solar to offset your "dirty power"?
>sun per day is significantly less than 8 hours
On a cloudy day maybe. I live further North than you, and it seems to work just fine for my neighbours.
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini
It's always been this way, if I may borrow a quote from the progenitor himself and another astute slashdotter:
>"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini
>"What we currently have is corporations acting as arms of the government, and government acting as an arm of corporations, to the point where they aren't very distinguishable." -Observation by slashdot reader
I'm basing this on the idea of the core tenants of fascism, when of course, money being the primary driver of politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
Consider theory vs practice. Either way you do make good points but I am not confusing it with Plutocracy which is another thing altogether, where government is by rich individuals and not necessarily corporations.
or simply lie all the time.
Yes, as a matter of fact it is quite indicitive. At least in a top down sense:
In communism, the state owns the corporations (ALL OF THEM) (Gazsprom? More like OURProm)
In socialism, the state might own some corporations where losses and gains can be effectively "socialized" (Think like Canadian crown corporations, for Fanny Mae)
In fascism, the corporation owns the state.
Obviously I am oversimplifying to make my point.
Same here. Drives die all the time but Seagates and WDs more than any Hitachi.
Would this still not lead to Solar System warming?
You did, in fact, miss a key step:
4. Profit.
That said I believe you have solved the /. riddle. Long after every other nerd that solved it previously went in to politics :)
You should at least do this when you have a large thunderstorm or expected solar event of this magnitude.. or you can always do what we do at the big data center when our UPS gets tripped (no diesel available).
Turn off breakers that supply your equipment, in case power surges suddenly.