The best description of all this I've ever read is the preface to Models of Democracy, a textbook by David Held. Held is a left-wing Brit whose politics I do not agree with at *all*. But his explanation of what the American founders were *trying to do*, and why, (setting aside the question of how well they succeeded) is second to none. For your sake, I strongly recommend picking this up from your local library and just reading the preface. You will actually learn something.
These threads are crammed with people pointing out that these regulations are primarily intended to protect incumbent businesses from competition. A few people have argued that, no, there is a public interest served in making sure drivers are licensed, etc.
One solution to this would be voluntary accreditation. It wouldn't be *illegal* to offer your services without it, just as it is not illegal for an unaccredited college to offer classes. But an accrediting association could offer its stamp of approval to drivers who qualify, allowing consumers to choose to ride only with accredited drivers or not.
Big health care provider: I want to offer a very expensive type of health care service. But I can only afford to do it as part of a broader array of more profitable services, which help subsidize the less-profitable stuff. If some small, independent operators come in and cherry-pick my "profitable" patients, I won't be able to offer the less-profitable stuff at all.
City Regulator: You're right, that's not fair. In the name of offering better health care for all, we will pass some regulations tightly restricting new entries to the market.
- Alaska Jack
"2) liquor distribution. We handed it over to private enterprise and prices dropped. For a year. I just visited our neighbour, BC, where it is still government run, and they have as good availability (I was shocked to walk into a corner store at midnight and find that they had a fully stocked gov't liquor store open), and most items are a good 10% cheaper."
This is breathtakingly naive. *You are paying* for the availability and the relative "cheapness" of the government-subsidized liquor store... and so is everyone else, *even those who don't drink*. The funds you pay are called "taxes." Furthermore, you are almost *certainly* paying *more* than you would if it were not a government operation... as has been shown thousands of times, governments simply do not have the same incentives to achieve the same high levels of efficiency that businesses competing against each other do.
Informative though it may have been modded, this take on democracy is wrong, at least as far as the U.S. goes (it's not clear whether by "we" you mean the U.S., Canada, or the western world).
The U.S. was not the world's first democracy. But it was the first large-scale attempt at it that tried to draw on the lessons of the past. Did you know that every surviving account of democracy (Athens, Italian city-states, etc) was harshly *critical* of it? Greek observers of the day, for example, wrote what were even by modern standards very sophisticated, insightful critiques of democracy and the way it eventually boiled down to simple mob rule.
What was revolutionary about what the Americans did was the way they attempted (drawing on the previous work of French, English and Scottish enlightenment theorists) to develop and implement a *hybrid* system, one that blended aspects of authoritarianism and democracy in a way that emphasized the best aspects of each and ameliorated their weaknesses.
So, for example, some people think that the reason they didn't implement direct democracy is because they didn't have the practical means to disseminate information, vote, etc. This is not true. The American founders didn't WANT direct democracy, because historically that had inevitably lead to a tyranny of the majority. They wanted educated, worldly men to make the decisions... but they wanted the people to choose WHICH educated, worldly men made those decisions.
- Alaska Jack
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will file a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies today on behalf of AT&T customers to stop what they allege to be the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records. The five individual plaintiffs are also suing President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance."
"Ask at linuxquestions.org and check out distrowatch."
Sweet -- I will! Thanks!
- AJ
And yeah - troll? Like what, am I suppose to be trying to ignite some giant flamewar just by asking for a distro suggestion? I would have at least thrown in some reference to the fact that I believe in God, or something.
Actually, a thread with a bunch of hard-core linux users talking about distros struck me as a perfect opportunity:^). Also, good point about XP; it is indeed a new install. I thought I'd take the opportunity to dual-boot XP/Ubuntu.
I just installed Ubuntu for the first time, on an 5- or 6-year old Toshiba Laptop. I was surprised. I takes a LONG time to boot up -- longer than Windows XP -- and it's not super snappy, either.
I thought Linux was supposed to a be fast, lightweight OS good for older machines. I'm assuming I just picked the wrong distro. What's the best distro for breathing life into this old but still perfectly good laptop? Xubuntu?
I have a loaf of bread. You have two dollars. I value your two dollars more than I value my bread. You value my bread more than you value your two dollars.
We exchange the bread and the two dollars.
Your wealth is now increased. My wealth is now increased.
You win. Your inexorable logic and firm grasp of history have convinced me that the citizens of Russia's smaller neighbors have no reason to be alarmed; that being occupied by the Soviet Union was something akin to living in Disneyland for 50 years; and that all this has been covered up by an anti-Russian conspiracy comprised of Fox News, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, the Associated Press and every other media outlet except for Russia's state-owned ones. Well played, comrade!
- Alaska Jack
PS Please forgive us, Walter Duranty! You were right after all!
Wow... I mean... wow. Words fail me. You do realize this is absolute and utter crazytalk, right?
"Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland -- where have I seen this list before?"
I'm guessing on the list of countries invaded and occupied for a half-century by the oppressive Stalinist USSR? Seriously, it *surprises* you that these countries aren't crazy about the idea of a newly militaristic Russia invading its neighbors?
"Oh, that's right, it's the list of countries that had sucking up to US and taking political potshots at Russia as the cornerstone of their foreign policy since 1991."
I don't get it. Please explain to me how "sucking up to the U.S." and/or "taking political potshots at Russia" are crimes.* While you're at it, you can explain how in hindsight, those "potshots" don't seem to be entirely justified. Then explain what any of this has to do with the credibility of their recent joint statement. Seriously, I'm waiting -- I'd love to hear this.
"With such famous successes as..." [insert here a list of things that (a) have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation, and (b) are utterly insignificant compared to the things Russia has done and is capable of doing again]
You ever notice how there are some people doggedly determined to interpret the world around them in a certain way, reality be damned? If not, you haven't looked in a mirror lately, buddy.
- Alaska Jack
* Edit - Of course, here I am referring to the international arena, as it appears that within its borders, "taking political potshots at Russia" has indeed become a crime.
No disrespect, Tetromino, but you're wwwayyy wrong on this, and the AC is right. Russia is sending a quite clear signal to NATO: NATO would be crazy to allow Georgia in, for the quite simple reason that NATO doesn't want to be drawn into a war in Asia -- Russia's "home court" -- on behalf of Georgia.
Naturally, Russia is not eager to get in a tussle with NATO either. So hmm, what's the ideal solution? Hey, I know -- invade Georgia *before* they join NATO!
Think about it. You're suggesting that the Georgians thought it would be a good idea to be INVADED by a much, much, much bigger, more powerful and more autocratic neighbor. That defies belief. Being INVADED is NEVER the "least bad" option. You lose a war, and bang, that's it: Game Over.
- Alaska Jack
PS Of course, the proof is in the pudding: After this, I guarantee you're not going to be seeing NATO admitting Georgia anytime soon.
Yeah, I can think of a way to improve Digg about 200 percent that would probably take about 2 hours of programming time. I want to be able to simply tell Digg that I want it to filter from my front page any stories from rawstory, thinkprogress, alternet, truthout, etc.
I just don't get it. It's a simple change. Why can't I tell Digg what kinds of stories I'm not interested in?
Not speaking authoritatively here, but I wonder how much of that is due to Davis-Bacon act requirements? Let's say I have a mega-engineering project in mind. I have a large pool of labor willing to work for $17/hour. But I can't pay them that-- I have to pay them $30/hour. On a smaller project, maybe not such a big deal -- my investors and I have an extra $5 million we can use to cover labor costs. But on a huge project, the labor costs scale up, but my bank account doesn't: My group doesn't have an extra $5 *billion*, so the project never gets off the ground.
That would be a pretty classic economic scenario. Government-mandated wages look like a good idea, because it's impossible to point to all the projects that didn't get done at all because of them.
Interesting -- as you'll see from my other comment, I thought this would have made more sense.
What I don't understand, from the story you relate, is this: What human being on earth isn't going to understand that:
1. Human brains are like really powerful computers
2. If you wire a bunch of them together, you get a REALLY powerful computer.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. In fact, seems MORE straightforward than the idea that machines are somehow harvesting some kind of "energy" (?) from human beings.
I agree. The concept would have been better if they said that the machines were harnessing the humans' collective *brainpower* in pursuit of some goal.
(And perhaps, ironically, to support the matrix itself. Get it? Maintaining our own collective delusion, creating the chains that bind us, etc. etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
MADE THAT INTO TOTAL GIBBERISH for you
Fixed that for you.
The best description of all this I've ever read is the preface to Models of Democracy, a textbook by David Held. Held is a left-wing Brit whose politics I do not agree with at *all*. But his explanation of what the American founders were *trying to do*, and why, (setting aside the question of how well they succeeded) is second to none. For your sake, I strongly recommend picking this up from your local library and just reading the preface. You will actually learn something.
- Alaska Jack
These threads are crammed with people pointing out that these regulations are primarily intended to protect incumbent businesses from competition. A few people have argued that, no, there is a public interest served in making sure drivers are licensed, etc.
One solution to this would be voluntary accreditation. It wouldn't be *illegal* to offer your services without it, just as it is not illegal for an unaccredited college to offer classes. But an accrediting association could offer its stamp of approval to drivers who qualify, allowing consumers to choose to ride only with accredited drivers or not.
- Alaska Jack
QED. Just too bad about the needs of the people who would otherwise have been using the service.
- Alaska Jack
Big health care provider: I want to offer a very expensive type of health care service. But I can only afford to do it as part of a broader array of more profitable services, which help subsidize the less-profitable stuff. If some small, independent operators come in and cherry-pick my "profitable" patients, I won't be able to offer the less-profitable stuff at all. City Regulator: You're right, that's not fair. In the name of offering better health care for all, we will pass some regulations tightly restricting new entries to the market. - Alaska Jack
"2) liquor distribution. We handed it over to private enterprise and prices dropped. For a year. I just visited our neighbour, BC, where it is still government run, and they have as good availability (I was shocked to walk into a corner store at midnight and find that they had a fully stocked gov't liquor store open), and most items are a good 10% cheaper."
This is breathtakingly naive. *You are paying* for the availability and the relative "cheapness" of the government-subsidized liquor store ... and so is everyone else, *even those who don't drink*. The funds you pay are called "taxes." Furthermore, you are almost *certainly* paying *more* than you would if it were not a government operation ... as has been shown thousands of times, governments simply do not have the same incentives to achieve the same high levels of efficiency that businesses competing against each other do.
- Alaska Jack
Informative though it may have been modded, this take on democracy is wrong, at least as far as the U.S. goes (it's not clear whether by "we" you mean the U.S., Canada, or the western world). The U.S. was not the world's first democracy. But it was the first large-scale attempt at it that tried to draw on the lessons of the past. Did you know that every surviving account of democracy (Athens, Italian city-states, etc) was harshly *critical* of it? Greek observers of the day, for example, wrote what were even by modern standards very sophisticated, insightful critiques of democracy and the way it eventually boiled down to simple mob rule. What was revolutionary about what the Americans did was the way they attempted (drawing on the previous work of French, English and Scottish enlightenment theorists) to develop and implement a *hybrid* system, one that blended aspects of authoritarianism and democracy in a way that emphasized the best aspects of each and ameliorated their weaknesses. So, for example, some people think that the reason they didn't implement direct democracy is because they didn't have the practical means to disseminate information, vote, etc. This is not true. The American founders didn't WANT direct democracy, because historically that had inevitably lead to a tyranny of the majority. They wanted educated, worldly men to make the decisions ... but they wanted the people to choose WHICH educated, worldly men made those decisions.
- Alaska Jack
News =
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will file a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies today on behalf of AT&T customers to stop what they allege to be the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records. The five individual plaintiffs are also suing President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance."
- Alaska Jack
"Ask at linuxquestions.org and check out distrowatch."
Sweet -- I will! Thanks!
- AJ
And yeah - troll? Like what, am I suppose to be trying to ignite some giant flamewar just by asking for a distro suggestion? I would have at least thrown in some reference to the fact that I believe in God, or something.
I will check it out. Thanks!
- AJ
"Odd place to ask..."
Actually, a thread with a bunch of hard-core linux users talking about distros struck me as a perfect opportunity :^). Also, good point about XP; it is indeed a new install. I thought I'd take the opportunity to dual-boot XP/Ubuntu.
- AJ
I'M NOT A TROLL; I'M OFFTOPIC. Sheesh.
- AJ
I just installed Ubuntu for the first time, on an 5- or 6-year old Toshiba Laptop. I was surprised. I takes a LONG time to boot up -- longer than Windows XP -- and it's not super snappy, either.
I thought Linux was supposed to a be fast, lightweight OS good for older machines. I'm assuming I just picked the wrong distro. What's the best distro for breathing life into this old but still perfectly good laptop? Xubuntu?
Just trying to learn ...
- Alaska Jack
"Nobody can actually "make" wealth"
I have a loaf of bread. You have two dollars. I value your two dollars more than I value my bread. You value my bread more than you value your two dollars.
We exchange the bread and the two dollars.
Your wealth is now increased.
My wealth is now increased.
Guess what we just did? We *created* wealth.
- Alaska Jack
You win. Your inexorable logic and firm grasp of history have convinced me that the citizens of Russia's smaller neighbors have no reason to be alarmed; that being occupied by the Soviet Union was something akin to living in Disneyland for 50 years; and that all this has been covered up by an anti-Russian conspiracy comprised of Fox News, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, the Associated Press and every other media outlet except for Russia's state-owned ones. Well played, comrade!
- Alaska Jack
PS Please forgive us, Walter Duranty! You were right after all!
Thank you. Your posts have provided a valuable service -- reminding me that there are genuine scary loonies out there in the world.
- Alaska Jack
Wow... I mean ... wow. Words fail me. You do realize this is absolute and utter crazytalk, right?
"Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland -- where have I seen this list before?"
I'm guessing on the list of countries invaded and occupied for a half-century by the oppressive Stalinist USSR? Seriously, it *surprises* you that these countries aren't crazy about the idea of a newly militaristic Russia invading its neighbors?
"Oh, that's right, it's the list of countries that had sucking up to US and taking political potshots at Russia as the cornerstone of their foreign policy since 1991."
I don't get it. Please explain to me how "sucking up to the U.S." and/or "taking political potshots at Russia" are crimes.* While you're at it, you can explain how in hindsight, those "potshots" don't seem to be entirely justified. Then explain what any of this has to do with the credibility of their recent joint statement. Seriously, I'm waiting -- I'd love to hear this.
"With such famous successes as..." [insert here a list of things that (a) have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation, and (b) are utterly insignificant compared to the things Russia has done and is capable of doing again]
You ever notice how there are some people doggedly determined to interpret the world around them in a certain way, reality be damned? If not, you haven't looked in a mirror lately, buddy.
- Alaska Jack
* Edit - Of course, here I am referring to the international arena, as it appears that within its borders, "taking political potshots at Russia" has indeed become a crime.
No disrespect, Tetromino, but you're wwwayyy wrong on this, and the AC is right. Russia is sending a quite clear signal to NATO: NATO would be crazy to allow Georgia in, for the quite simple reason that NATO doesn't want to be drawn into a war in Asia -- Russia's "home court" -- on behalf of Georgia.
Naturally, Russia is not eager to get in a tussle with NATO either. So hmm, what's the ideal solution? Hey, I know -- invade Georgia *before* they join NATO!
Think about it. You're suggesting that the Georgians thought it would be a good idea to be INVADED by a much, much, much bigger, more powerful and more autocratic neighbor. That defies belief. Being INVADED is NEVER the "least bad" option. You lose a war, and bang, that's it: Game Over.
- Alaska Jack
PS Of course, the proof is in the pudding: After this, I guarantee you're not going to be seeing NATO admitting Georgia anytime soon.
The best system for organizing a forum that I've ever seen is the left-hand pane on Google Groups (You have to enable Tree View to see it).
I'm baffled by the fact that no other comments system seems to use it. I bet Google would donate the code to Slashdot, too.
- Alaska Jack
Yeah, I can think of a way to improve Digg about 200 percent that would probably take about 2 hours of programming time. I want to be able to simply tell Digg that I want it to filter from my front page any stories from rawstory, thinkprogress, alternet, truthout, etc.
I just don't get it. It's a simple change. Why can't I tell Digg what kinds of stories I'm not interested in?
- Alaska Jack
Not speaking authoritatively here, but I wonder how much of that is due to Davis-Bacon act requirements? Let's say I have a mega-engineering project in mind. I have a large pool of labor willing to work for $17/hour. But I can't pay them that-- I have to pay them $30/hour. On a smaller project, maybe not such a big deal -- my investors and I have an extra $5 million we can use to cover labor costs. But on a huge project, the labor costs scale up, but my bank account doesn't: My group doesn't have an extra $5 *billion*, so the project never gets off the ground.
That would be a pretty classic economic scenario. Government-mandated wages look like a good idea, because it's impossible to point to all the projects that didn't get done at all because of them.
- Alaska Jack
Huh? No one is disputing that the French have the *right* to do this. What's being disputed is their judgment in actually *doing* it.
- Alaska Jack
This absurd situation you describe almost exactly describes the U.S. Airline industry in the 1970s.
- Alaska Jack
Interesting -- as you'll see from my other comment, I thought this would have made more sense.
What I don't understand, from the story you relate, is this: What human being on earth isn't going to understand that:
1. Human brains are like really powerful computers
2. If you wire a bunch of them together, you get a REALLY powerful computer.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. In fact, seems MORE straightforward than the idea that machines are somehow harvesting some kind of "energy" (?) from human beings.
- Alaska Jack
I agree. The concept would have been better if they said that the machines were harnessing the humans' collective *brainpower* in pursuit of some goal.
(And perhaps, ironically, to support the matrix itself. Get it? Maintaining our own collective delusion, creating the chains that bind us, etc. etc.)
- Alaska Jack
which suggestion exactly do you find "barbaric in the extreme"?
- Alaska Jack