NASA has two primary means of gaining funding today. One is to pimp exploration of Mars, as spectacular, useless, and technologically counter-productive as the moonshot, and to use statistical lies...citing the raw number of uncatalogued asteroids and the fact that asteroids have hit the earth in the past as if these meant we only have years or decades until the planet is destroyed, and they need funding to catalog and build defenses against the impending impact.
An acquaintence of mine who worked with the Space Telescope Science Institute on the Hubble Space Telescope website (six or so years ago) explained to me the above. He also mentioned that just as with the NOAA's lies about El Nino (which actually reduces weather-related in the U.S.), the utility of the asteroid fearmongering is something not really true but a great source of funding. He said this was/specifically/ explained to him on more than one occasion (by more than one person).
Abolishing the European Union. (How Europeans can increase their social freedoms and strengthen their economies).
http://www.guykind.com/politics/abolishing_the_e ur opean_union.htm
The U.S. is currently going downhill as a result of wanting to be more European (thanks Liberals and ignorant youths who think "free healthcare" and "Free education" works. TANSTAAFL!)
The problem isn't corporations, the problem is government and laws. We can all agree that human beings are generally very selfish people.
But how do corrupt people get ahead? By the help of government; laws, regulations, and bribery.
"Soft money" or money given to a politician during election is a matter of free speech. I have the right to suppor whatever candidate I want. (I won't be supporting Kerry, Nader, or Bush, for that matter.)
Anyway,
People seem to not understand that if a monopoly forms, it is by one of two ways: naturally or by help of government.
Now by very definition, if a monopoly forms naturally, it cannot be a good thing. This means that the people are getting what they want.
Now, if the monopoly forms by exploiting government laws and bribery, then it is a bad thing. The people are not getting what they want. Politicians are benefitting, as well as wealthy elite who are essentially politicians.
Unions are not going to help at all. The Union is more or less another term for government, where the leaders on top exploit those below them for their benefit (largely). Workers can earn fair wages without Unions...
Anyway, getting off of subject.
I'll be damned if I'm going to believe that the European Union, or any socialist entity, is going to be better than a free market capitalist society in terms of strength of economy. The reason the U.S. economy is slowing down, is because of government intervention (tarrifs, taxes, unnecessary or stupid laws and regulations, etc). This is not capitalism.
Free market capitalism (the only way capitalism should be used) is about hands off economics. Let the market (aka the people) run things by what they want, need, create, produce, serve, and purchase.
- - - - - No nonsense about all "the robber barons" either. Go read "Myth of the Robber Barons", and save me the time and effort. It was all about new government laws allowing exploitation of workers.
Capitalism: Help people and help yourself (in the long run, this helps even more people).
Socalism: Help yourself by taking away from people and providing lesser service. Public Healthcare cannot compete to private healthcare. If you believe it does, go to Europe. You'll enjoy supply shortages and less than top notch care (after all, in a free market capitalist society -- not the current U.S. society -- your success depends upon your quality and price).
If you think central planning works (required for centralized-socialized anything), you're an idiot.
Learn some economics.
When the European Union harmonizes completely (if it ever does), you'll see how unsuccessful the smaller units become when they're not longer competing against each other.
Competition drives economies and countries. The European Union is merely a foolish method of countering the United States. The Soviet Union was bigger than the European Union, and even they couldn't do it (lack of competition.)
So, by all means, go the European Union. I'll stay in America and enjoy my "private healthcare". It'll return to the high quality efficiency of the private sector once again).
Concerning the software patents, I would just like to point out that in a free market capitalist society, current copyright laws and especially DMCA and Intellectual Property laws would be considered bullshit.
Anybody seem to notice government regulatory monopoly over healeth care in the U.S. and the E.U.?
Capitalism: Help the patient and yourself.
Socalism: Help everybody while costing awhole lot more in the long run, while trying to central plan everything ahead of time. Supply deficiency.
How come so many people talk about how government employees are so lazy and worth the money, but then want to put more and more under control of government?
Some people just cannot grasp the fact that when you try to end job exportation, protect infant industries, or "level the playing field", you are really heading for a path towards the state's best friend ever. War.
http://www.liberty-news.com/showNewsletter.php?id= 200402011
http://www.mises.org/blogDetail.asp?control=1153
They're spending enough in enough places to add to the economy.
My seventh-grade english teacher was a twit who I later heard screaming drunk in a bar, "We should just bomb the hell out of all of those Arab-Islam whatevers!". I'm sure she has no idea what a monopoly is.
Unlike her, I'm putting faith in that perhaps a few of the more intelligent people here at slashdot will come to understand.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. You are still free to install any other operating system you like. On top of that, Microsoft cannot limit the supply of operating systems or available operating systems.
Microsoft is considered a monopoly because of its "Anti-competitiveness" which in reality means that Microsoft is being charged with "over-competitiveness". Other companies are using anti-trust lawsuites to be "anti-competitive" themselves.
It's much easier to hate on those at the top than it is to develop a better product than them. Develop something better, and you'll quickly find how little dominance Microsoft has.
But of course, it's much easier to take the former path...
I certainly do not know everything about your life, but I have plenty of good points.
If you try, you can get a job. Even though you'll find sympathy here at slashdot, it is unlikely you'll get a good job here anyways.
If you're so skillful and experienced, why aren't you worth the money?
Always fun giving reasons why I do not want to support others for their inability to compete.
NAFTA is not about extending Free Trade. NAFTA is a trade bloc in disguise.
While it is opening up some areas to Free Trade, it is ultimately crippling the growth, flourishment, and success of free trade (especially in the long run).
You cannot legitimately use the free market as the scapegoat for farmers not willing to accept the fact that someone grows corn cheaper and more efficiently than them. If corn farming is not working out, you find something else.
But of course it is so much easier to just make up excuses and site faulty examples to justify socialism.
So where is the failure of the market?
Most independent farmers are inefficient and cannot compete. The ones that are living well are the ones on welfare (government subsidies). They are being supported by the rest of us, and by definition, wrongly so.
Perhaps because their really is no 'free market' in the world.
The free market in the U.S. is restricted to a mixed-economy. It is growing more socialist in nature due to left-liberals and faux-Conservative Republican/liberal socialists in disguise such as Bush Sr. and W.
Like said, you do not have to pay for your imports from a country with exports to the same country. Stop clouding the facts.
An intelligent person, upon reading IEEE's position paper, would realize that IEEE like any threatened self-interested parasite, will use "full of shit" arguments.
As someone else elegantly put it;
"They, like your typical slashdotter or IT-Tech type, are used to making loads of money on skills that are no longer seen as mystical or rare, and are now scared that they have to work harder and compete for the money that used to come so easily for them. They love the market and proclaim its worthiness when it is giving them huge windfalls, but not when it readjusts itself to supply and demand, and gives them a more reasonable salary and job prospects."
Oh, also...
As a friend of mine pointed out and I forgot to add;
You are wrong about other countries being just as capable at innovation and invention. If they were, why aren't they doing it? Most of the world's wealth creation comes from the United States. We are still, by far, the most productive people on Earth. Not to say that there's some inherent genetic defect, but their societies and government intrusion into the market certainly limits their ability to innovate and be productive.
That is why so many of them are still coming here, even after we've turned into a shithole.
Actually, the trade deficit is a myth. You must always consider that trading partners should be counted as a whole. You get various products from various places. You sell your products to various places as well. We might buy alot more from Japan than Japan buys from us, but we make up for that in selling elsewhere. With the exception of outright international grants, international trade is always in perfect balance.
I never said higher skills assures you a job security, I simply said that having more skills will get you a job. Few people can get new [good] jobs in economic recessions, but you can get a job. Nothing guaruntees job security. I'll agree with that. I just said that you can always get a job if you get off the couch and stop expecting others to provide for you. People want and need. Want money? Take advantage.
US companies are taking advantage of the cheaper labor markets and you should be greatful for it. You are getting products cheaper. On top of that, foreign markets/economies are growing stronger. The standard of living in India and China will improve.
They'll have more money to spend in foreign markets (and not to mention, the freedoms of a society directly coincide with the average income of).
So actually, my theories are alive and well. You're just, and I mean it in the nicest way possible, an ignorant moron.
Again, Microsoft is not a monopoly. Feel free, at anytime, to understand that a monopoly means "exlusive ownership" (over a market).
You can buy or download Gnu-Linux OSs, BSDs, etc.
You can purchase a Mac.
Microsoft can spend their money pretty much however they want, and it is not your say in how their money should be allocated.
Because they own and run the companies.
Don't like it? Form your own company.
It IS legal to do so in America. I just hope you can find ways to make your product affordable (for your targeted consumer) without outsourcing yourself. It's kind of a very difficult, if not impossible, thing to do in most cases.
Or you can sit here and whine like all of the other psuedo-intellectual socialists who don't understand economics and believe that everyone was born equal and should be equal. (The truth is, if you're mentally and physically healthy, you have the equal opportunity to make yourself a good life. You deserve nothing but the chance to do so, and you're given that at birth (or the age of 16, depending:-p)
You assume that a college degree is necessary for a good paying job?
How about instead of naivete in thinking your comfortable job is going to be around forever, you do some abstract though, you analyze trends in the market place, you read, you develop skills in various things. While you were working for 12 years, perhaps you should have learned how to save money and spend money wisely. Taking part time classes over 12 years does not build debt, and you could've end up with two or three college degrees in various fields. But that would require further work. We know how some people find the thought of self-responsibility dreadful.
Even if you do those things and working in 'IT' is the only thing that can make you happy, you still should have the intelligence to realize you're obviously not that good and not worth the money.
Those who are worth don't lose their job overseas. Also, those who aren't worth it but are government employees don't tend to lose their jobs either. We all know how government employees are. Let's not go there.
In order for the market to work, you have to take hold of it and work yourself. The lazy have no place in the free market. I won't lose sleep over people who are afraid of change and doing some tough labor.
If you understand economics, you understand that a country pays for its imports with its exports.
When jobs are outsourced to other countries, the average level of income and standard of living in 'receiving' countries raises, the average level of income and standard of living in 'exporting' countries stays roughly the same. It the country of origin, the average level of income and standard of living raises as people stop whining about losing their "American Jobs" (ignorant of the fact that "American jobs" is a myth) and get out and find a new productive job.
When you lose your job to someone overseas, it's the market telling you that your skills are worth something better. Well, at least if you got off your lazy ass and actually continously educate yourself and expand your skills in various fields.
When the economy of a foreign country becomes stronger, they then have more money to spend on imports into their country. Very few countries (well, none really) can have everything they want as cheap as they want as fast and efficient as they want.
Be creative. Be useful. Don't be afraid of a little change. It's funny how so many/programmers/ fall into the cliche of not enjoying working in a cubicle because humans weren't meant to (Office space, anyone?) but yet they roar up a storm when they lose said job.
A monopoly refers to lack of competition. Please, no more nonsense about WalMart's evil outsourcing, either. American made goods are of higher quality. American programmers produce better qualitiy code (possible reason for the slowing down of job outsourcing for the more highly skilled positions?)
Let's recap: -One pays for imports with exports. As with the individual, so is with a nation. -Stronger foreign economies means more money to be spent important American goods into said country. (The world loves American goods, so why are we afraid of them having enough money to buy them?) -Losing your job due to finding someone who can do a sufficient job cheaper means that you can earn more money and are capable of more difficult work.
It's really disheartening when faux-intellectuals run off about evil corporations and blood money, and then propose that more government (laws, regulation, agencies, and officials) be put into play in order to prevent evil business.
Right, because we know if a monopoly forms naturally, it is by definition a good thing and that no "monopoly" in U.S. history formed without the helping hand of big government. Also, Microsoft is not a monopoly, and the reason it acts as it does it because of government "regulation" permitting it. Microsoft has plenty of competition. I'm writing this off of a Redhat box.
Book Recommendations: Hazlitt - Economics In One Lesson Hayek - The Road to Serfdom von Mises - Human Actions Folsom - Myth of the Robber Barons
Pretty much read anything by Milton Friedman, Frederic Bastiat, von Mises, Hyek, Rothbard, Szasz, Hazlitt, and Sowell.
And let's not forget Chodorov's Income Tax: The Power To Destroy (or was it, Root of All Evil? Look it up yourselves).
Slashdot Mirror
NASA has two primary means of gaining funding today. One is to pimp exploration of Mars, as spectacular, useless, and technologically
/specifically/ explained to him on more than one occasion (by more than one person).
counter-productive as the moonshot, and to use statistical lies...citing the raw number of uncatalogued asteroids and the fact that asteroids have hit the earth in the past as if these meant we only have years or decades until the planet is destroyed, and they need funding to catalog and build defenses against the impending impact.
An acquaintence of mine who worked with the Space Telescope Science Institute on the Hubble Space Telescope website (six or so years ago) explained to me the above. He also mentioned that just as with the NOAA's lies about El Nino (which actually reduces weather-related in the U.S.), the utility of the asteroid fearmongering is something not really true but a great source of funding. He said this was
Abolishing the European Union. (How Europeans can increase their social freedoms and strengthen their economies).
e ur opean_union.htm
http://www.guykind.com/politics/abolishing_the_
The U.S. is currently going downhill as a result of wanting to be more European (thanks Liberals and ignorant youths who think "free healthcare" and "Free education" works. TANSTAAFL!)
The problem isn't corporations, the problem is government and laws. We can all agree that human beings are generally very selfish people.
But how do corrupt people get ahead? By the help of government; laws, regulations, and bribery.
"Soft money" or money given to a politician during election is a matter of free speech. I have the right to suppor whatever candidate I want. (I won't be supporting Kerry, Nader, or Bush, for that matter.)
Anyway,
People seem to not understand that if a monopoly forms, it is by one of two ways: naturally or by help of government.
Now by very definition, if a monopoly forms naturally, it cannot be a good thing. This means that the people are getting what they want.
Now, if the monopoly forms by exploiting government laws and bribery, then it is a bad thing. The people are not getting what they want. Politicians are benefitting, as well as wealthy elite who are essentially politicians.
Unions are not going to help at all. The Union is more or less another term for government, where the leaders on top exploit those below them for their benefit (largely). Workers can earn fair wages without Unions...
Anyway, getting off of subject.
I'll be damned if I'm going to believe that the European Union, or any socialist entity, is going to be better than a free market capitalist society in terms of strength of economy. The reason the U.S. economy is slowing down, is because of government intervention (tarrifs, taxes, unnecessary or stupid laws and regulations, etc). This is not capitalism.
Free market capitalism (the only way capitalism should be used) is about hands off economics. Let the market (aka the people) run things by what they want, need, create, produce, serve, and purchase.
- - - - -
No nonsense about all "the robber barons" either.
Go read "Myth of the Robber Barons", and save me the time and effort. It was all about new government laws allowing exploitation of workers.
Capitalism: Help people and help yourself (in the long run, this helps even more people). Socalism: Help yourself by taking away from people and providing lesser service. Public Healthcare cannot compete to private healthcare. If you believe it does, go to Europe. You'll enjoy supply shortages and less than top notch care (after all, in a free market capitalist society -- not the current U.S. society -- your success depends upon your quality and price). If you think central planning works (required for centralized-socialized anything), you're an idiot. Learn some economics.
When the European Union harmonizes completely (if it ever does), you'll see how unsuccessful the smaller units become when they're not longer competing against each other. Competition drives economies and countries. The European Union is merely a foolish method of countering the United States. The Soviet Union was bigger than the European Union, and even they couldn't do it (lack of competition.) So, by all means, go the European Union. I'll stay in America and enjoy my "private healthcare". It'll return to the high quality efficiency of the private sector once again). Concerning the software patents, I would just like to point out that in a free market capitalist society, current copyright laws and especially DMCA and Intellectual Property laws would be considered bullshit.
Anybody seem to notice government regulatory monopoly over healeth care in the U.S. and the E.U.? Capitalism: Help the patient and yourself. Socalism: Help everybody while costing awhole lot more in the long run, while trying to central plan everything ahead of time. Supply deficiency. How come so many people talk about how government employees are so lazy and worth the money, but then want to put more and more under control of government?
With the exception of outright foreign loans, international trade is always in equal balance.
The 'trade deficit' is a myth made up to rally support for tarrifs, trade blocs, and that sort of thing.
Some people just cannot grasp the fact that when you try to end job exportation, protect infant industries, or "level the playing field", you are really heading for a path towards the state's best friend ever. War. http://www.liberty-news.com/showNewsletter.php?id= 200402011
http://www.mises.org/blogDetail.asp?control=1153
Thank you, Jaysyn.
They're spending enough in enough places to add to the economy. My seventh-grade english teacher was a twit who I later heard screaming drunk in a bar, "We should just bomb the hell out of all of those Arab-Islam whatevers!". I'm sure she has no idea what a monopoly is. Unlike her, I'm putting faith in that perhaps a few of the more intelligent people here at slashdot will come to understand. Microsoft is not a monopoly. You are still free to install any other operating system you like. On top of that, Microsoft cannot limit the supply of operating systems or available operating systems. Microsoft is considered a monopoly because of its "Anti-competitiveness" which in reality means that Microsoft is being charged with "over-competitiveness". Other companies are using anti-trust lawsuites to be "anti-competitive" themselves. It's much easier to hate on those at the top than it is to develop a better product than them. Develop something better, and you'll quickly find how little dominance Microsoft has. But of course, it's much easier to take the former path...
I certainly do not know everything about your life, but I have plenty of good points. If you try, you can get a job. Even though you'll find sympathy here at slashdot, it is unlikely you'll get a good job here anyways. If you're so skillful and experienced, why aren't you worth the money? Always fun giving reasons why I do not want to support others for their inability to compete.
NAFTA is not about extending Free Trade. NAFTA is a trade bloc in disguise. While it is opening up some areas to Free Trade, it is ultimately crippling the growth, flourishment, and success of free trade (especially in the long run). You cannot legitimately use the free market as the scapegoat for farmers not willing to accept the fact that someone grows corn cheaper and more efficiently than them. If corn farming is not working out, you find something else. But of course it is so much easier to just make up excuses and site faulty examples to justify socialism.
So where is the failure of the market? Most independent farmers are inefficient and cannot compete. The ones that are living well are the ones on welfare (government subsidies). They are being supported by the rest of us, and by definition, wrongly so.
Perhaps because their really is no 'free market' in the world. The free market in the U.S. is restricted to a mixed-economy. It is growing more socialist in nature due to left-liberals and faux-Conservative Republican/liberal socialists in disguise such as Bush Sr. and W. Like said, you do not have to pay for your imports from a country with exports to the same country. Stop clouding the facts.
An intelligent person, upon reading IEEE's position paper, would realize that IEEE like any threatened self-interested parasite, will use "full of shit" arguments. As someone else elegantly put it; "They, like your typical slashdotter or IT-Tech type, are used to making loads of money on skills that are no longer seen as mystical or rare, and are now scared that they have to work harder and compete for the money that used to come so easily for them. They love the market and proclaim its worthiness when it is giving them huge windfalls, but not when it readjusts itself to supply and demand, and gives them a more reasonable salary and job prospects."
Oh, also... As a friend of mine pointed out and I forgot to add; You are wrong about other countries being just as capable at innovation and invention. If they were, why aren't they doing it? Most of the world's wealth creation comes from the United States. We are still, by far, the most productive people on Earth. Not to say that there's some inherent genetic defect, but their societies and government intrusion into the market certainly limits their ability to innovate and be productive. That is why so many of them are still coming here, even after we've turned into a shithole.
Barnes and Noble? Public Libraries? Amazon.com? You can get them in a variety of places.
Actually, the trade deficit is a myth. You must always consider that trading partners should be counted as a whole. You get various products from various places. You sell your products to various places as well. We might buy alot more from Japan than Japan buys from us, but we make up for that in selling elsewhere. With the exception of outright international grants, international trade is always in perfect balance. I never said higher skills assures you a job security, I simply said that having more skills will get you a job. Few people can get new [good] jobs in economic recessions, but you can get a job. Nothing guaruntees job security. I'll agree with that. I just said that you can always get a job if you get off the couch and stop expecting others to provide for you. People want and need. Want money? Take advantage. US companies are taking advantage of the cheaper labor markets and you should be greatful for it. You are getting products cheaper. On top of that, foreign markets/economies are growing stronger. The standard of living in India and China will improve. They'll have more money to spend in foreign markets (and not to mention, the freedoms of a society directly coincide with the average income of). So actually, my theories are alive and well. You're just, and I mean it in the nicest way possible, an ignorant moron.
Again, Microsoft is not a monopoly. Feel free, at anytime, to understand that a monopoly means "exlusive ownership" (over a market). You can buy or download Gnu-Linux OSs, BSDs, etc. You can purchase a Mac. Microsoft can spend their money pretty much however they want, and it is not your say in how their money should be allocated.
Because they own and run the companies. Don't like it? Form your own company. It IS legal to do so in America. I just hope you can find ways to make your product affordable (for your targeted consumer) without outsourcing yourself. It's kind of a very difficult, if not impossible, thing to do in most cases. Or you can sit here and whine like all of the other psuedo-intellectual socialists who don't understand economics and believe that everyone was born equal and should be equal. (The truth is, if you're mentally and physically healthy, you have the equal opportunity to make yourself a good life. You deserve nothing but the chance to do so, and you're given that at birth (or the age of 16, depending :-p)
You assume that a college degree is necessary for a good paying job? How about instead of naivete in thinking your comfortable job is going to be around forever, you do some abstract though, you analyze trends in the market place, you read, you develop skills in various things. While you were working for 12 years, perhaps you should have learned how to save money and spend money wisely. Taking part time classes over 12 years does not build debt, and you could've end up with two or three college degrees in various fields. But that would require further work. We know how some people find the thought of self-responsibility dreadful. Even if you do those things and working in 'IT' is the only thing that can make you happy, you still should have the intelligence to realize you're obviously not that good and not worth the money. Those who are worth don't lose their job overseas. Also, those who aren't worth it but are government employees don't tend to lose their jobs either. We all know how government employees are. Let's not go there. In order for the market to work, you have to take hold of it and work yourself. The lazy have no place in the free market. I won't lose sleep over people who are afraid of change and doing some tough labor.
If you understand economics, you understand that a country pays for its imports with its exports.
/programmers/ fall into the cliche of not enjoying working in a cubicle because humans weren't meant to (Office space, anyone?) but yet they roar up a storm when they lose said job.
When jobs are outsourced to other countries, the average level of income and standard of living in 'receiving' countries raises, the average level of income and standard of living in 'exporting' countries stays roughly the same. It the country of origin, the average level of income and standard of living raises as people stop whining about losing their "American Jobs" (ignorant of the fact that "American jobs" is a myth) and get out and find a new productive job.
When you lose your job to someone overseas, it's the market telling you that your skills are worth something better. Well, at least if you got off your lazy ass and actually continously educate yourself and expand your skills in various fields.
When the economy of a foreign country becomes stronger, they then have more money to spend on imports into their country. Very few countries (well, none really) can have everything they want as cheap as they want as fast and efficient as they want.
Be creative. Be useful. Don't be afraid of a little change. It's funny how so many
A monopoly refers to lack of competition. Please, no more nonsense about WalMart's evil outsourcing, either. American made goods are of higher quality. American programmers produce better qualitiy code (possible reason for the slowing down of job outsourcing for the more highly skilled positions?)
Let's recap:
-One pays for imports with exports. As with the individual, so is with a nation.
-Stronger foreign economies means more money to be spent important American goods into said country. (The world loves American goods, so why are we afraid of them having enough money to buy them?)
-Losing your job due to finding someone who can do a sufficient job cheaper means that you can earn more money and are capable of more difficult work.
It's really disheartening when faux-intellectuals run off about evil corporations and blood money, and then propose that more government (laws, regulation, agencies, and officials) be put into play in order to prevent evil business.
Right, because we know if a monopoly forms naturally, it is by definition a good thing and that no "monopoly" in U.S. history formed without the helping hand of big government. Also, Microsoft is not a monopoly, and the reason it acts as it does it because of government "regulation" permitting it. Microsoft has plenty of competition. I'm writing this off of a Redhat box.
Book Recommendations:
Hazlitt - Economics In One Lesson
Hayek - The Road to Serfdom
von Mises - Human Actions
Folsom - Myth of the Robber Barons
Pretty much read anything by Milton Friedman, Frederic Bastiat, von Mises, Hyek, Rothbard, Szasz, Hazlitt, and Sowell.
And let's not forget Chodorov's Income Tax: The Power To Destroy (or was it, Root of All Evil? Look it up yourselves).
about it... for now?