That's like saying "it's coming from The Navajo Nation, not the US" or "It's coming from Baja Arizona, not the US" or "it's coming from Molossia, not the US".
You obviously have some tax write-offs. Kids, house? For those who are single and don't own a home and subsidizing your lifestyle...
You better think again about who is subsidizing who. Those with children are doing a lot more to subside the lifestyle of the citizens of the united states than those without. If we were all without children then the nation would have an expect successful span of existence of about 60 years, and that's from the day the last childless person was born. That's not including that a large portion of the expenditures in this country, those things that actually put capital back into the system, are for the care of children. If your fellow citizens where not having children then your future would be very very bleak.
Nations give "breaks" to those who have children, and even those that are in heterosexual marriages, because they promote the creation and raising of successful children. Children are necessary for the continued existence and success of a society. Any even if we were not talking about the future, you would have to realize that if you are employed it is because someone had a child that is now paying for your services. Married people with children on the other hand, have considerably higher expenses than they receive in any taxes breaks. So if anyone is subsidizing anyone, it's those with children that are subsidizing those with out.
Boycotts just don't work except in extremely rare circumstances in my experience as a human.
And this is how the corporations win and capitalism fails. Because they have done well to spread the belief that boycotts do not work, no one is willing to try them. It's the same thing that kept peasants from revolting. Interestingly enough, this behavior is what capitalists use to argue against socialism, saying that people will be become complacent and have no motivation. The failures of all isms is not one of the ideal but of the people.
I have been part of many boycotts in my life and every single one of them has worked. As long as by "worked" you understand that it means "I did not support a product or service that I did not wish to support"
The difference is that Imaginary Property can't be owned even with force.
Ownership ultimately comes down to being able to control who can use something. With that in mind, Idea's can certainly be owned by force. If your ability to use an idea can be restricted through force than that idea is effectively owned. Idea's can be owned just as much as anything else. Sure no one can really stop you from thinking about the idea (though that day may come), but then again I can't stop you from thinking about my car or my house either. The only thing my ownership grants is the ability to stop your using those things that I own.
People just need to realize that property ownership, intellectual or otherwise, is a wholly made up construct that exists only because of the use of force. Once we accept this very clear fact, then we can do away with ownership entirely and the whole Intellectual Property problem goes away along with it.
Either there are a lot of very stupid gamers who forget the sony rootkit incident
Most gamers never even knew about the root kit, let alone forgot it. And some of us that did know about it realize that Sony Music and Sony Computer Entertainment are separate companies. There are those of us that didn't buy the kind of crap music that Sony put the Root kit on. Some of use even realize that though it was on a Sony CD, and Sony should have a better understanding of how the DRM they use works, it was not a sony product that installed the Root kit, but a DRM package bought from a third party. And lastly, but certainly not least important. Some people are capable of realizing that Sony stopped putting root kits on CDs when it was discovered that they could be used for malicious purposes.
And don't get me wrong, I think the removal of "Other OS" was a bad move on Sony's part, but anyone that was using that feature and lost it, did so of their own choosing (they chose games over linux). What happened in this case is no different than when Microsoft put out the 360 and stopped producing games for the original XBox. This is actually better than that situation. Sony put out a new Game system, which they also call the PS3, which is fully backward compatible. The old PS3s will still play all the old PS3 games, though they have turned of the old PS3 network. But in this case, where sony did better than microsoft, was that sony is offering a free upgrade to the new PS3. It just so happens that the new PS3 does not support the Other OS feature.
Boycotts almost never work. Unless perhaps every single person everywhere participated all at once...
This attitude is why boycotts do not work, and why we have a two party political system in the US. If you keep thinking that it won't work then you won't try it. If we are going to have to live with a freeish market then we better start using the tools available to us that allow the market to work for us rather than us working for it.
We need to stop pretending that ideas can be owned.
We need to stop pretending that anything can be owned without force. If there was no government to enforce private ownership then there would be no private ownership (only temporary restriction of use as long as you can fend off those that would attempt to use those things you want to keep to yourself).
Point is that all property "rights" are government granted, and thinking otherwise is just fooling yourself. So if the government can say that land can be owned, then I for one don't see why ideas would be any different.
they're organized which is the exact opposite of anarchy.
Spoken like someone that doesn't know what anarchy is. Anarchy at it's most basic means "Without Ruler". This does not mean that Anarchy is disorganized.
The problem with allowing manual controlled vehicles is one of gross inefficiency. Many of our traffic regulations exist simply because the operators of the vehicles are not in communication with each other and because the operators field of view is limited. With full automation the vehicles will communicate with each other. This would reduce the need for many of the inefficiencies of driving. There would be no need for stops anywhere on the path, be it by stop sign or traffic signal. Yielding would be automatic, and seamless. Traffic then would be a thing of the past as the vehicles would be able to use the most efficient routes rather than all cramming onto the same road.
People complain about lose of freedom, but increase efficiency would improve freedom as people would be able to spend more time doing what they want to and less time moving between places.
When a stoplight turns green, every car could start moving simultaneously, getting more people through the light.
With automated vehicles there would be no need for traffic lights to begin with. Automated vehicles should be able to navigate intersections at or near full speed as long as all the cars communicate with each other. We could also use traffic circles, which with automated vehicles, would run smoothly and safely (I would not say the same for human operated vehicles and traffic circles).
There is a real simple solution to the problems you bring up. City streets and highways could have a requirement of all automated transit (I don't think these should be privately owed vehicles, but that's just my preference). People can still own personally controlled vehicles but they would be for out of town and off highway use only. You then add towing capability to the automated vehicles so that they can tow your personal vehicle to a place you might reasonably need a private vehicle (off road), or where it is safe to drive a private vehicle (closed course).
And before you complain about the lose of freedom, this would not at all be the first time that a society has restricted use of a product known to kill thousands of people a year.
Ted Dziuba is a co-founder of Milo.com, which just sold to eBay for $75 million.
I'm guessing your leet Web skills brought in more than that last year, which is why you feel comfortable calling him an "amateur."
Warren Buffet is the richest man in the world. Being rich does not make you any less of an amateur programmer.
The fact that Ted Dziuba guy can't even develop a web application that can run on two separate unix kernals when even my fresh out of school developers can write cross platform apps that run on OS X, linux and windows without a problem, is the clear sign that this guy is an "amateur programmer". Please note that I am not talking about his business skills in any way.
Don't run the server-side of the web application on your development workstation.
My team always runs their applications on their local development boxes, server side and client side, regardless of web or other network interface. I have been doing this for many years and never run into a problem. I personally currently work on a windows box at work, a mac laptop at home and deploy to a linux production environment and have yet to run into any issue where this has caused a problem.
Instead: save the files directly to a remote folder on an actual webserver running the target OS, by remote mounting the filesystem (or automatic synchronization), and run the application on the remote server, for testing during development.
That's fine until you want to work without a network connection, like when your working remotely and don't have network access for what ever reason (I work without a network connection periodically). By running the server on you development box you have a single box that will handle the whole process. It also guarantees that you work with portable tools, which is quit the bonus in some environments.
Now, we also take things one step further and allow the automated continuous integration system to automatically build the committed code, deploy to an integration server and run automated integration tests.
I also support the local VM approach, but in most cases I would rather save the cycles that would be lost to the VM when it's just not necessary.
But good OO design says that your classes correspond to groups of real-world objects: bank accounts, people, widgets, whatever. Why? Because that is the data that needs to be processed.
This is not at all true. I'm not going to argue what is good or not, but I will say that the origins of OOD was not about encapsulating data, but instead behavior. Data is intended to be completely hidden. The problem is that people are defining their objects (I say objects because classes are not required for OOD) to have only a single behavior; Tell me what your value of X is. When the truth is that we should be defining behaviors more complex than that. "Do" instead of "give"
So what if [java] doesn't compile to machine code?
Java does compile to machine code. The difference is that the compiler is part of the runtime and it only compiles code as it needs to. At least on all the modern JVM's that use Just in Time compilation.
you can freely use native types
This on the other hand is not true. You can't use machine native types. Even the primitive types are not native. Native types would not be portable. Even using the Java Native Interface you can't pass native types around.
You think products to help people lose weight or stop smoking are even remotely in the same league as a "gay cure?"
Being overweight is the result of poor choices.
Yet oddly enough there are known genetic causes of obesity, and no known genetic causes of homosexuality.
Having sexual intercourse with someone of the same gender is usually a choice (Assuming there is no gun to your head). It is at least as much a choice as being overweight, underweight, or continuing an addiction. As a matter of fact, in some cases stopping an addiction can be deadly, but refraining from homosexual relationships is not.
Or a "cure" for being a Christian?
And there are plenty of people who think there is a cure for being christian (read about the enlightenment). I doubt apple would remove an app that promoted evolution or other sciences that are contradictory to certain religious beliefs.
I support peoples right to make their own choices. You want to engage in homosexual activities then go right a head. If you want to stop engaging in homosexual activities you should be able to down load an app that could help you with that.
Are you trying to support my claim or are you just not aware of what your quote means.
I said "some states require that the left lanes only be used to pass vehicles in the right lanes"
You quoted "A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in the passing lane...unless such person is passing other motor-vehicles that are in a non-passing lane"
I took out the part that says that this statute only applies to highways with a posted speed-limit of 65 high, since I think that is the part that might be confusing you.
Basically your quote does not support your original claim that "in some states travelling the speed limit in the left lane is explicitly against the fucking law". Your quotes does not say that it is legal to exceed the posted speed-limit, only that you have to be passing if you are in the left lane.
Exceeding the legal speed limit during passing isn't only legal...in some states travelling the speed limit in the left lane is explicitly against the fucking law.
Some states allow exceeding the posted speed limit while passing, when on a road which has only a single lane in the direction you are traveling (and by some I mean Washington). In no state is it "against the fucking law" to travel the posted speed limit, in any lane. Yes, some states require that the left lanes only be used to pass vehicles in the right lanes, but this does not mean you have to, or are even legally allowed to, speed to do it. If the car in the right lane is doing the speed limit, then you have no reason to attempt to pass them, and therefor no reason to be in the left lane.
Some here feel that Manning is a traitor and hanging's too good for him. Some here feel that the guy is a hero, and should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Don't forget about those of us that feel that if it is true than Manning was behind the leaks, which has yet to be proven, that he is both a traitor and a hero. And if the leaks are at all responsible with the revolutions in the middle east/africa, and those revolutions lead to lasting peace, then a Nobel Prize will be fully warranted, even if it ends up being posthumously. (of course if he becomes a martyr and there is peace in the middle east then we have bigger issue to be concerned with than a prize)
Imagine that you could be prosecuted and imprisoned for the actions of a company you were not even aware you were investing in.
What a scary world where people might have some moral responsibility for the capital they control. How would arms and drug dealers every make money. Next thing you know we'd stop holding firearms owners responsible for the use of their firearms. Oh wait, we don't do that either.
Western society would collapse if people where culpable (not that that it would be a bad thing).
I don't know LaRouche from a hole in the ground. Well ok, I have heard of him. But as for the link I provide, it just happen to be the first link Google provided with a reasonable amount of data when I searched for "WalMart Ghost town". But I don't judge the content of a body of work based on the author of that work and I let the data speak for itself.
Now with that out of the way...
I pay what I am willing to pay for things that I want.
You are willing to pay for them, but you have no control over how much or if those things are even available. Well, unless you happen to control a significant level of capital, or join in collective bargaining with our fellow proletariat, such as by using "public transit" or "car pooling" (both classic examples of collectivization).
The vast majority of significant advancement in society comes from the public sector. The private sector does a great job of taking those advances and providing them to the public at large. Of course this is only because it has become unthinkable for a publicly controlled body to actually be able to produce things (out side of the Nordic countries at least).
Now I'm not saying that capitalism is wrong, I'm just saying that if you are going to support a particular economic system you would do well to understand how it is the same as other alternatives and how it differs. Complete capitalism ultimately ends in feudalism, so if you like being a serf then keep supporting it. I would not.
I believe the correct question would be whether the efficiency of a centrally planned economy using modern IT would be anywhere close to the efficiency of a truly free market economy.
A free market economy is a centrally planned economy, it is planned by those who control the capital (hence the term capitalism). The only thing that has kept us from becoming a single provider country is the fact that we have regulations against such a thing happening.
You have every right to assume that those who control capital, gained either through intellect, force, our pure luck (birthright), are the right people to plan your economy. I personally would rather have a democratic voice in the planning, be it through a central unified governing body or a collective of syndicates.
sure Walmart, and other big box stores, have not destroyed all local stores, but it's certainly destroyed enough and will destroy more in time. Unless of course that is if it does not collapse under it's own weight.
The problem with all alternatives to capitalism is that they are based on the assumption that some individual or group is capable of determining the relative value of various goods and services...The only entity that can determine what the relative value of various goods and services is to any given individual is that individual.
People by nature collectivize, because it is the most efficient way to produce. We either collectivize through power leadership, capital control or democratic means. In feudalism collectivization is through power. In capitalism it is through amassing and controlling capital. In socialism it is through democratic government. In syndicalism it is through voluntary labor unions. I think you get the point.
Capitalism is not the end-all be-all of government or economy, it is seriously flawed because it lacks efficiency. It only reaches any level of efficiency through fear and threat (people do not work in capitalism because they chose to, the do because they have to). A better solution would be to arrange society so that it promotes and supports voluntary collectivization, to reach true efficiency.
The Free Software movement is actually a great example of voluntary collectivization.
Slashdot Mirror
That's like saying "it's coming from The Navajo Nation, not the US" or "It's coming from Baja Arizona, not the US" or "it's coming from Molossia, not the US".
You obviously have some tax write-offs. Kids, house? For those who are single and don't own a home and subsidizing your lifestyle...
You better think again about who is subsidizing who. Those with children are doing a lot more to subside the lifestyle of the citizens of the united states than those without. If we were all without children then the nation would have an expect successful span of existence of about 60 years, and that's from the day the last childless person was born. That's not including that a large portion of the expenditures in this country, those things that actually put capital back into the system, are for the care of children. If your fellow citizens where not having children then your future would be very very bleak.
Nations give "breaks" to those who have children, and even those that are in heterosexual marriages, because they promote the creation and raising of successful children. Children are necessary for the continued existence and success of a society. Any even if we were not talking about the future, you would have to realize that if you are employed it is because someone had a child that is now paying for your services. Married people with children on the other hand, have considerably higher expenses than they receive in any taxes breaks. So if anyone is subsidizing anyone, it's those with children that are subsidizing those with out.
Boycotts just don't work except in extremely rare circumstances in my experience as a human.
And this is how the corporations win and capitalism fails. Because they have done well to spread the belief that boycotts do not work, no one is willing to try them. It's the same thing that kept peasants from revolting. Interestingly enough, this behavior is what capitalists use to argue against socialism, saying that people will be become complacent and have no motivation. The failures of all isms is not one of the ideal but of the people.
I have been part of many boycotts in my life and every single one of them has worked. As long as by "worked" you understand that it means "I did not support a product or service that I did not wish to support"
The difference is that Imaginary Property can't be owned even with force.
Ownership ultimately comes down to being able to control who can use something. With that in mind, Idea's can certainly be owned by force. If your ability to use an idea can be restricted through force than that idea is effectively owned. Idea's can be owned just as much as anything else. Sure no one can really stop you from thinking about the idea (though that day may come), but then again I can't stop you from thinking about my car or my house either. The only thing my ownership grants is the ability to stop your using those things that I own.
People just need to realize that property ownership, intellectual or otherwise, is a wholly made up construct that exists only because of the use of force. Once we accept this very clear fact, then we can do away with ownership entirely and the whole Intellectual Property problem goes away along with it.
Either there are a lot of very stupid gamers who forget the sony rootkit incident
Most gamers never even knew about the root kit, let alone forgot it. And some of us that did know about it realize that Sony Music and Sony Computer Entertainment are separate companies. There are those of us that didn't buy the kind of crap music that Sony put the Root kit on. Some of use even realize that though it was on a Sony CD, and Sony should have a better understanding of how the DRM they use works, it was not a sony product that installed the Root kit, but a DRM package bought from a third party. And lastly, but certainly not least important. Some people are capable of realizing that Sony stopped putting root kits on CDs when it was discovered that they could be used for malicious purposes.
And don't get me wrong, I think the removal of "Other OS" was a bad move on Sony's part, but anyone that was using that feature and lost it, did so of their own choosing (they chose games over linux). What happened in this case is no different than when Microsoft put out the 360 and stopped producing games for the original XBox. This is actually better than that situation. Sony put out a new Game system, which they also call the PS3, which is fully backward compatible. The old PS3s will still play all the old PS3 games, though they have turned of the old PS3 network. But in this case, where sony did better than microsoft, was that sony is offering a free upgrade to the new PS3. It just so happens that the new PS3 does not support the Other OS feature.
Boycotts almost never work. Unless perhaps every single person everywhere participated all at once...
This attitude is why boycotts do not work, and why we have a two party political system in the US. If you keep thinking that it won't work then you won't try it. If we are going to have to live with a freeish market then we better start using the tools available to us that allow the market to work for us rather than us working for it.
We need to stop pretending that ideas can be owned.
We need to stop pretending that anything can be owned without force. If there was no government to enforce private ownership then there would be no private ownership (only temporary restriction of use as long as you can fend off those that would attempt to use those things you want to keep to yourself).
Point is that all property "rights" are government granted, and thinking otherwise is just fooling yourself. So if the government can say that land can be owned, then I for one don't see why ideas would be any different.
they're organized which is the exact opposite of anarchy.
Spoken like someone that doesn't know what anarchy is. Anarchy at it's most basic means "Without Ruler". This does not mean that Anarchy is disorganized.
The problem with allowing manual controlled vehicles is one of gross inefficiency. Many of our traffic regulations exist simply because the operators of the vehicles are not in communication with each other and because the operators field of view is limited. With full automation the vehicles will communicate with each other. This would reduce the need for many of the inefficiencies of driving. There would be no need for stops anywhere on the path, be it by stop sign or traffic signal. Yielding would be automatic, and seamless. Traffic then would be a thing of the past as the vehicles would be able to use the most efficient routes rather than all cramming onto the same road.
People complain about lose of freedom, but increase efficiency would improve freedom as people would be able to spend more time doing what they want to and less time moving between places.
When a stoplight turns green, every car could start moving simultaneously, getting more people through the light.
With automated vehicles there would be no need for traffic lights to begin with. Automated vehicles should be able to navigate intersections at or near full speed as long as all the cars communicate with each other. We could also use traffic circles, which with automated vehicles, would run smoothly and safely (I would not say the same for human operated vehicles and traffic circles).
There is a real simple solution to the problems you bring up. City streets and highways could have a requirement of all automated transit (I don't think these should be privately owed vehicles, but that's just my preference). People can still own personally controlled vehicles but they would be for out of town and off highway use only. You then add towing capability to the automated vehicles so that they can tow your personal vehicle to a place you might reasonably need a private vehicle (off road), or where it is safe to drive a private vehicle (closed course).
And before you complain about the lose of freedom, this would not at all be the first time that a society has restricted use of a product known to kill thousands of people a year.
Ted Dziuba is a co-founder of Milo.com, which just sold to eBay for $75 million. I'm guessing your leet Web skills brought in more than that last year, which is why you feel comfortable calling him an "amateur."
Warren Buffet is the richest man in the world. Being rich does not make you any less of an amateur programmer.
The fact that Ted Dziuba guy can't even develop a web application that can run on two separate unix kernals when even my fresh out of school developers can write cross platform apps that run on OS X, linux and windows without a problem, is the clear sign that this guy is an "amateur programmer". Please note that I am not talking about his business skills in any way.
Don't run the server-side of the web application on your development workstation.
My team always runs their applications on their local development boxes, server side and client side, regardless of web or other network interface. I have been doing this for many years and never run into a problem. I personally currently work on a windows box at work, a mac laptop at home and deploy to a linux production environment and have yet to run into any issue where this has caused a problem.
Instead: save the files directly to a remote folder on an actual webserver running the target OS, by remote mounting the filesystem (or automatic synchronization), and run the application on the remote server, for testing during development.
That's fine until you want to work without a network connection, like when your working remotely and don't have network access for what ever reason (I work without a network connection periodically). By running the server on you development box you have a single box that will handle the whole process. It also guarantees that you work with portable tools, which is quit the bonus in some environments.
Now, we also take things one step further and allow the automated continuous integration system to automatically build the committed code, deploy to an integration server and run automated integration tests.
I also support the local VM approach, but in most cases I would rather save the cycles that would be lost to the VM when it's just not necessary.
But good OO design says that your classes correspond to groups of real-world objects: bank accounts, people, widgets, whatever. Why? Because that is the data that needs to be processed.
This is not at all true. I'm not going to argue what is good or not, but I will say that the origins of OOD was not about encapsulating data, but instead behavior. Data is intended to be completely hidden. The problem is that people are defining their objects (I say objects because classes are not required for OOD) to have only a single behavior; Tell me what your value of X is. When the truth is that we should be defining behaviors more complex than that. "Do" instead of "give"
So what if [java] doesn't compile to machine code?
Java does compile to machine code. The difference is that the compiler is part of the runtime and it only compiles code as it needs to. At least on all the modern JVM's that use Just in Time compilation.
you can freely use native types
This on the other hand is not true. You can't use machine native types. Even the primitive types are not native. Native types would not be portable. Even using the Java Native Interface you can't pass native types around.
You think products to help people lose weight or stop smoking are even remotely in the same league as a "gay cure?"
Being overweight is the result of poor choices.
Yet oddly enough there are known genetic causes of obesity, and no known genetic causes of homosexuality.
Having sexual intercourse with someone of the same gender is usually a choice (Assuming there is no gun to your head). It is at least as much a choice as being overweight, underweight, or continuing an addiction. As a matter of fact, in some cases stopping an addiction can be deadly, but refraining from homosexual relationships is not.
Or a "cure" for being a Christian?
And there are plenty of people who think there is a cure for being christian (read about the enlightenment). I doubt apple would remove an app that promoted evolution or other sciences that are contradictory to certain religious beliefs.
I support peoples right to make their own choices. You want to engage in homosexual activities then go right a head. If you want to stop engaging in homosexual activities you should be able to down load an app that could help you with that.
Are you trying to support my claim or are you just not aware of what your quote means.
I said "some states require that the left lanes only be used to pass vehicles in the right lanes"
You quoted "A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in the passing lane...unless such person is passing other motor-vehicles that are in a non-passing lane"
I took out the part that says that this statute only applies to highways with a posted speed-limit of 65 high, since I think that is the part that might be confusing you.
Basically your quote does not support your original claim that "in some states travelling the speed limit in the left lane is explicitly against the fucking law". Your quotes does not say that it is legal to exceed the posted speed-limit, only that you have to be passing if you are in the left lane.
Exceeding the legal speed limit during passing isn't only legal...in some states travelling the speed limit in the left lane is explicitly against the fucking law.
Some states allow exceeding the posted speed limit while passing, when on a road which has only a single lane in the direction you are traveling (and by some I mean Washington). In no state is it "against the fucking law" to travel the posted speed limit, in any lane. Yes, some states require that the left lanes only be used to pass vehicles in the right lanes, but this does not mean you have to, or are even legally allowed to, speed to do it. If the car in the right lane is doing the speed limit, then you have no reason to attempt to pass them, and therefor no reason to be in the left lane.
Some here feel that Manning is a traitor and hanging's too good for him. Some here feel that the guy is a hero, and should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Don't forget about those of us that feel that if it is true than Manning was behind the leaks, which has yet to be proven, that he is both a traitor and a hero. And if the leaks are at all responsible with the revolutions in the middle east/africa, and those revolutions lead to lasting peace, then a Nobel Prize will be fully warranted, even if it ends up being posthumously. (of course if he becomes a martyr and there is peace in the middle east then we have bigger issue to be concerned with than a prize)
Imagine that you could be prosecuted and imprisoned for the actions of a company you were not even aware you were investing in.
What a scary world where people might have some moral responsibility for the capital they control. How would arms and drug dealers every make money. Next thing you know we'd stop holding firearms owners responsible for the use of their firearms. Oh wait, we don't do that either.
Western society would collapse if people where culpable (not that that it would be a bad thing).
...you are a disciple of Lyndon LaRouche
I don't know LaRouche from a hole in the ground. Well ok, I have heard of him. But as for the link I provide, it just happen to be the first link Google provided with a reasonable amount of data when I searched for "WalMart Ghost town". But I don't judge the content of a body of work based on the author of that work and I let the data speak for itself.
Now with that out of the way...
I pay what I am willing to pay for things that I want.
You are willing to pay for them, but you have no control over how much or if those things are even available. Well, unless you happen to control a significant level of capital, or join in collective bargaining with our fellow proletariat, such as by using "public transit" or "car pooling" (both classic examples of collectivization).
The vast majority of significant advancement in society comes from the public sector. The private sector does a great job of taking those advances and providing them to the public at large. Of course this is only because it has become unthinkable for a publicly controlled body to actually be able to produce things (out side of the Nordic countries at least).
Now I'm not saying that capitalism is wrong, I'm just saying that if you are going to support a particular economic system you would do well to understand how it is the same as other alternatives and how it differs. Complete capitalism ultimately ends in feudalism, so if you like being a serf then keep supporting it. I would not.
I believe the correct question would be whether the efficiency of a centrally planned economy using modern IT would be anywhere close to the efficiency of a truly free market economy.
A free market economy is a centrally planned economy, it is planned by those who control the capital (hence the term capitalism). The only thing that has kept us from becoming a single provider country is the fact that we have regulations against such a thing happening.
You have every right to assume that those who control capital, gained either through intellect, force, our pure luck (birthright), are the right people to plan your economy. I personally would rather have a democratic voice in the planning, be it through a central unified governing body or a collective of syndicates.
And that is why, everywhere that Walmart opens a store, there are no more local stores.
Why yes this is actually true.
sure Walmart, and other big box stores, have not destroyed all local stores, but it's certainly destroyed enough and will destroy more in time. Unless of course that is if it does not collapse under it's own weight.
The problem with all alternatives to capitalism is that they are based on the assumption that some individual or group is capable of determining the relative value of various goods and services...The only entity that can determine what the relative value of various goods and services is to any given individual is that individual.
People by nature collectivize, because it is the most efficient way to produce. We either collectivize through power leadership, capital control or democratic means. In feudalism collectivization is through power. In capitalism it is through amassing and controlling capital. In socialism it is through democratic government. In syndicalism it is through voluntary labor unions. I think you get the point.
Capitalism is not the end-all be-all of government or economy, it is seriously flawed because it lacks efficiency. It only reaches any level of efficiency through fear and threat (people do not work in capitalism because they chose to, the do because they have to). A better solution would be to arrange society so that it promotes and supports voluntary collectivization, to reach true efficiency.
The Free Software movement is actually a great example of voluntary collectivization.
Obligatory Leisuretown
http://www.leisuretown.com/library/qac/28.html
WTF Was that jibberish?