...prevailing wage for a domestic worker... Allow me to correct this. To hire an H1-B the company needs to show they are offering to pay the H1-B an amount based on a prevailing wage report that they may pay an independent agency to compile. Now here is the real kicker, prevailing wage reports are based on title, not actual task. So what a company can do, as many actually do, is hire an H1-B as junior level employee, pay them based on the junior level H1-B standard, fire a senior level employee that actually gets paid what they are worth, and then task the new H1-B with senior level tasks. Where I live, and the Cost of living is not low, according to the latest prevailing wage reports, senior lawyers (Skill level 4 which is many years of experience) have a prevailing wage of less than 100k. Yes I said Lawyer. Oh that's right, highly paid layers are titled Associates so they don't factor in.
All consumer electronics have a failure rate. And that rate goes to 100% as time goes on. It's a matter of how quickly that rate becomes 100%. I would say supporting a company that makes products with a high failure rate would make you the moron.
less than 1 percent...That would mean... 1 in 100... Um. actually that would mean less than 1 in 100. That could be as low as say 1 in 1000, or 1 in 10000, or even 1 in a million.
The criteria for patents to be accepted are novelty, originality , and usefullness. I won't say you are technically incorrect, but evidence does seem to show that there is more to the decision making than those three criteria, since many free energy patents are denied, some with no reason give. Every free energy device ( assuming they actually work, which you must if patents are not based on validity) is useful and novel, and most are original (though yes attempting to patent the Simple Over Unity Toy would be denied since it is already patented)
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately misleading or whether you've been mislead, but Tesla -- who is in reality the only one out of the three you mention who actually significantly changed our understanding of Physics -- studied electrical engineering at the Austrian Polytechnic in Graz. I was neither attempting to be misleading or discussing significant changes in the understanding physics (as I have said before, if current Free Energy devices do work it is probably not because of any violation of the laws of thermodynamics). What I was doing was making a statement of fact, specifically choosing major names that have made major contributions to electrical engineering, and lived when university academic degrees where available. I have to make a correction that I meant Franklin not Jefferson, and with that correction the statement should state that none of them hold any degree what so ever (which is what I was going to write but I looked up Jefferson by accident). I also chose for comparison, Thomas Moray, who was a respected Electrical Engineer that not only held a Degree but a Doctorate, who was derided by many as a crackpot due to his claims of Free Energy. Just to show that the individual inventor is just as capable as the trained scientist. This should become more and more true as information because more freely available and accessible.
Don't know what source you have on that, but the NBS test gave the Newman machine as 27 to 67 percent efficient I never said the most efficient, only highly efficient, which is a term used in the report. But my point here, was why would the agency doing the test not make the adjustments requested by Newman, and even allow him to review the set up, and then rerun the tests. I know there will be claims of cost, but had they not just allowed him to review the set up in the first place there should not have been an issue. The testers could have determined if there was any tampering of the machine to attempt to deceive the testing.
It would be very simple for him to demonstrate over-unity Ah, but here is where Newman differs from other free energy proponents. Newman does not claim Over Unity, and his machine, even if it works as stated, is no more an Over Unity device than a nuclear power station is. True this does not explain why he can't create a feedback loop and use the excess energy, only that there is no reason to prove over unity since that is not the claim. Remember that Newman's claim is that his device converts the mass of the copper coil into energy at a near 100% efficiency, which would not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Again I am not justifying anyone's specific claims, only asking that people do not reject the possibility of new energy sources just because the inventor claims Over Unity.
All hiring and firing decisions I have experienced have always been by technology managers, the one I was too, or did, actually work for, and they just needed rubber stamping from HR. (with the one exception being the CEO that let personal feelings affect work decisions, and he wonders why I thought he was an idiot) I wouldn't take a job if it was HR that made those kind of decisions. There is no way I would be caught dead working for a manager that didn't decided their own staff.
Not sure about where you work, but at the fortune 500 I work at the HR department doesn't know the difference between a C# developer and a Java Developer, on their papers it just says "Jr./Sr. Software Developer." I never once spoke to an HR representative before being hired so I am pretty sure they have no clue what I do. This is made even more obvious when I read job postings looking fro 5 years of experience in a technology that has only existed for 3 years. Heck the only thing HR cares about is how you score on their Personality Index, not if you have any applicable skills.
I'm not trying to knock the work HR does, I mean I like getting paid, but taking their opinion as a measure of marketability is a joke. Hiring Managers are not in HR, at least not any where that I have ever worked or interviewed. The people that make the decision on who to hire and what technology to use are low or mid level managers in the technology department.
Maybe AMD used older Intel processors in the comparison because they wanted to compare processors of equal price. I don't know if that is the truth, but it certainly could be, which would then make the benchmarks realistic. Personally I don't care how fast the latest Intel Processor is unless it's performance per dollar is comparable to the latest AMD chips. This is part of why Apple moved away from IBM, which recently showed the fastest Micro Processors currently in existence, because even if IBM were to out perform Intel it would be at a much higher cost.
I believe Steorn has open offered verification of their device, and has announced a public display of the device (which is what this article is about). True this doesn't actually mean verification took place or that the ublic display will prove anything, but they are doing what you are asking to some extent. The MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) has a patent filed which you can read all about yourself, though certain trade secrets have been left out (and it's hard to blame them). Neither of these projects are "lone inventors", though I believe that much of our current technology was the result of "lone inventors" like Tesla, Edison, and Jefferson who among them there is one university degree and it's not in science or engineering. But if you look at lone inventors you can look at Newman, who did supply his machine for testing and it was determined to be a highly efficient AC converter, but when asked to rerun the test with the machine "correctly" set up, the testing agency refused. I'm not saying that Newman's machine works, but that he did at least attempt to have it scrutinized.
There is also Moray, a PhD in Electrical Engineering, who designed and built a Free Energy device which was independently verified to work as claimed, by a number of scientists, physicists and Engineers, yet his multiple attempts to patent the device were refused by the US patent office. Moray even claimed to have been threatened and shot at, eventually leading to the loss of this technology after his partner destroyed the device because Moray would not license it. The fact that the US patented office has refused patents because they do not understand them is enough for me to realize that revealing an invention is not enough to have it reproduced and used.
No I am not trying to support Free Energy Suppression conspiracies, just saying it takes a lot more than revealing an invention to have it seem production and use, and that rejecting the possibility that a device is usefully simply because the inventory claims Over Unity is doing a great injustice to the world.
You are correct that it does not show the number of positions in existance, but rather where there is need for good developers. But when looking at the basics of supply and demand you want to be in the field with the highest demand and lowest supply. This is why the average income of a Java developer is higher than a C# or.Net developer. As an old school assembler/machine language programer I am certainly not going to use job postings to justify the quality of particular language, just the demand. The only other comment I would have to make is that a.Net programer is most likely going to see more.Net shops that Java shops, it's part of the circle you might run in.
I will also point out that both.Net/C# and Java are in lower demand than C/C++ (having over 17k listings on dice).
your java-results probably also contain "Javascript" (think of jobs for web 2.0, ajax, etc.). Dice has 2098 listings in java results that happen to match javascript, very few of which are exclusively javascript without java. which still leaves approximately 14k java jobs vs the fact that the C# search also turns up C jobs, which lowers C# down to barely 5k.
Not to mention the tremendous amount of jobs for java-coffee-machine-engineers! On Monster maybe, but not on Dice.
Since they actually advertise that "our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy", it would need to do so to work as advertised, rather by definition This has always bothered me about skeptics. By taking an inventors word at face value one could easily miss a truly unique and useful invention. The fact that Steorn, Bearden and even Newman claim Over Unity, does not mean that there devices either achieve over unity, or that their devices fail to provide a new and efficient source of energy. Remember it is possible that their claims are correct or the more likely event that their understanding of how there machines work is faulty, but that doesn't mean they don't actually achieve the same result.
Perpetual motion usually (as it does in this case) refers to a device that produces more energy than it consumes. Actually what you are thinking of is Free Energy, or more technically, Over Unity. Perpetual Motion does not imply any energy production over what is required to maintain the current motion. This is of course why Steorn's machine is referred to as a Free Energy machine, that just so happens to also maintain motion perpetually.
There are both Perpetual Motion motion designs that do not have Over Unity and Over Unity devices that don't require motion, let alone perpetual. I'm not saying any of them actually work, just that the designs exist.
There is also nothing so far showing that the Steorn device needs to falsifies the laws of thermodynamics to work as advertised. If you had a device that could eradicate the mass of a single oxygen molecule, therefor release a significant amount of energy but required less energy than it produces you would have what appears to be a Free Energy device, but in reality was just a new type of standard energy device of high efficiency. This is after all the same concepts use in all energy producing, as opposed to harnessing, devices in use today.
Unless you're into S&M and being choked by a tie makes you feel right at home, I can't even imagine what you might mean by such a statement. Personal preference aside, I didn't actually mention a tie at all, and I rarely wear one. I don't even always wear a collared shirt. Suits come in many different styles and are made from different materials. I happen to prefer 100% wool, formal cut, tapered and collarless suits (some what similar to Wil Smith's suit at the end of Men in Black), but that's just a preference. I have been know to wear zoots, with and without a hat, as well as leisure and club suits, just not at work. Well made 100% wool suit pants regulated temperature better than jeans or shorts and are far more flexible and allow more freedom of motion than jeans.
I think it's more professional to dress like your clients so as to not make them feel uneasy. I would change that to say that it is probably best to dress the way your clients would like you to dress. I find that most business professionals, specifically at the higher levels like directors, respect a well dressed employee, and servicing their computer while looking like a slob is disrespectful. On the other hand I don't want my exotic dancers to be dressed in a double breasted 4 button suits, at least not completely.
I just kind of assumed that the only ones still wearing suits in the U.S. were North Easterners (one of the main reasons I moved away). I'm assuming your other reasons are that you are a slacker with no work ethic. No offense, I have just always noticed that North Easterners are the hardest working (native) people in this country. I happen to live were the work ethic is the exact opposite, and if it weren't for the weather I'd be out of here in a heart beat. And if I didn't mention it, I'm the only person in the office that is a VP or above that wears a suit, but then again I'm also the only one the VPs and above know on sight.
All it means is he's wearing a suit beacuse someone made a policy saying that he had to. Not everyone who wears a suit does it because they are told to. As one of the worlds few suit wearing Software Engineers I know this from experience. Suits are more comfortable, look better and certainly earn more respect than wondering around in a t-shirt and jeans, like all my coworkers. I've never understood the aversion to suits, or just dressing well, that most people have. It also helps that I can go for job interviews in the middle of the day without needing to change, but that is just another benefit.
I call it breaking tradition. I also happen to be the one in the office to most likely "rock the boat" and push for changes in process or what have you. Just saying dressing well is not necessarily towing the part line.
I wish it could be a wakeup call for all jobs that don't deal with customers/clients face-to-face. I want t know where these jobs are that you don't interact with your clients face to face are. I mean I worked phone support for a while and I still had to deal with my client (aka my boss) face to face. I know I would appreciate it it the slack jawed admin that comes by to upgrade my computer now and again had some interest in his own personal appearance and realized that I was his client and should be treated as such.
Actually what I mean is that I can make the same claims to being a game designer (Computer, Board, Card and others), including works published by major game publishers, and I would be telling the truth. But until you, I or anyone else, has designed a multi-million dollar game picked up by a major publisher our experience is entirely invalid in this context. And I'm not judging the quality of your games in anyway, just saying it's not applicable nor does it add anything to the conversation other than attempting to claim expert knowledge that you don't actually have.
Autism = protine defect Awesome, you have been able to do what no other scientist or Dr. has been able to do since Eugen Bleuler coined the term Autism in 1910. Then again I don't know what "protine" is so maybe you are on to something. You have also been able to rule out all the physiological differences noted among homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals, so you aught to publish all your findings since it will put an end to these debates once and for all.
Look, I'm not going to argue that people with Autism don't differ from those with out on some physical level, but I'm not going to stand by and basically have people like you undo hundreds or thousands of years of struggle for human equality. Autism, and I don't mean to offend, is no different that having dark skin. Yes it is a physical difference but not necessarily one that requires a cure. There are benefits to Autism just as there are to having dark skin pigmentation, and curing these "diseases" will eradicate those advantages. Or even better yet, since so many genetic disorders only effect Males why don't we cure them by doing away with the y chromosome. Lucky for use some day artificial fertilization will be to a point where we no longer need the Y chromosome, and it has already been reported to have been successful in laboratories.
You can't offer someone a million bucks not to have down syndrome for a year. But I bet you could offer them a million bucks to not have male genitalia (or female as the case may be), and those are no more a choice than down syndrome or autism.
So what we have learned is that your arguments are either false, or unsupported, and that your analogies do not hold up under any sort of examination. There are many people better suited to take up this argument than myself, and I hope that you take the time to do it and maybe you will learn that Autism is not necessarily what you think it is.
Suggesting that you're going to impeach them or overthrow indicates that you have failed to study history. I'm thinking it is you that has failed to study history. Historically it is shown that governments do not last. Read about The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the English Civil war, the Russian Revolution, the Government of Ireland Act, Democratic Kampuchea, or any other revolution or civil war. And that's just mentioning some of the dramatic changes in the governments and doesn't take into account the minor changes that take place in governments around the world every day. Every government in history, since the dawn of time, was governed the "will of the people" wether they wanted to believe so or not. I'm pretty sure if we could talk to Louis XVII of France, he would agree with me, having thought his monarchy was untouchable, until not long before he was decapitated, ultimately by the "will of the people".
I always laugh when people think that the same thing could not happen here in the United States, even though it has been show that historically and statistically it has to happen. As a matter of fact the two parties that dominate the US government are not very old, and even reflect very few of the beliefs of the parties founders.
But as usual you have gone off track and supplied no additional credence to the case for inefficient government. Even if there were no possibility for change in government, there is no reason for the government to be inefficient. You have yet to proposes a scenario where inefficiency was somehow superior to efficiency. My guess is that you still don't understand what the word efficient means.
So rather than try and make a valid point, or admit your own failure you would rather make wild statements and resort to name calling. You failed to support any of your arguments, either with me or anyone else you had dialog with under this thread. Most people would have given up on you long ago, but I wanted to take the time to possibly help you understand basic semantics and political science, alas you don't seem ready for that.
I don't know how many times I have to say it, so I will say it again. I can't see how efficiency is a bad thing. If the people have decided to let the government come kill me, then I failed myself and the nation, or I possibly my death is for the betterment of society, long term. Either way if I am going to be executed I would like it to be done as efficiently as possible. This is no reasons resources should be taken away from those in need just so I can live another day. I don't even understand why you would make an argument against efficiency. I would also hope that my fellow citizens would be efficient when they overthrow the obviously tyrannical government that puts people to death for unjust reasons.
Slowing down a process is not the way to stop bad things from happening and is merely delaying the inevitable and, as I have said before wasting resources. Look at WWII, and I'm not talking about any Goodwinesque references. Prior to August of 1945 WWII was responsible for the deaths of over 71 million people, a death toll that would have continued if it were not for the efficient killing of less that 200k people on two days in august. If we would stop wasting resources, specifically on killing, we would probably have enough to provide for all the people of the world and have a lot more leisure time. You just have to learn to look at the bigger picture.
What it has to do with a Real-ID is that National IDs make the national government more efficient I understood the efficient thing, just wasn't sure where the Third Reich reference came in.
So you want your government to be efficient at being evil? Or do you just want them to be efficient when they're being nice and democratic? I want the government to be efficient at everything we let them do. If we let them do 'evil' things I would prefer them to spend as little resources, including time, as possible on it. Heck I even what them to be efficient in attempting to do things we won't let them do. I'd rather us not be involved in violence and killing, but if we are going to be we should do it efficiently.
I guess I don't see how efficiency can ever be a bad thing.
Fascism and libertarianism are on the same side of the economic spectrum. Well either the Libertarians or the Fascist are lying. Libertarians claim the seek economic freedom and Fascists seek economic control. I always figured those were opposites on the economic spectrum, as does every reference I have been able to find. Try as I might I can see how "you can do what ever you want with your money" is the same as "the government can do what ever they want with your money."
I understand that ultimately it means all resources will end up in the control of a single minority, but at least with Fascism there is the possibility those resources will be used in the best interests of all citizens.
A Neo-Libertarian are modern american "libertarians" such as in the Libertarian party, which is more closely aligned with Objectives than Classical Libertarianism. Classical Libertarians, such as in the Libertarian movements of Europe are more Anarchistic and there for tend toward Syndicalism and Collectivism. Classically Libertarian was about the freedom for all and not the freedom for the rich as Neo-Libertarianism is.
Slashdot Mirror
...prevailing wage for a domestic worker... Allow me to correct this. To hire an H1-B the company needs to show they are offering to pay the H1-B an amount based on a prevailing wage report that they may pay an independent agency to compile. Now here is the real kicker, prevailing wage reports are based on title, not actual task. So what a company can do, as many actually do, is hire an H1-B as junior level employee, pay them based on the junior level H1-B standard, fire a senior level employee that actually gets paid what they are worth, and then task the new H1-B with senior level tasks. Where I live, and the Cost of living is not low, according to the latest prevailing wage reports, senior lawyers (Skill level 4 which is many years of experience) have a prevailing wage of less than 100k. Yes I said Lawyer. Oh that's right, highly paid layers are titled Associates so they don't factor in.Again I am not justifying anyone's specific claims, only asking that people do not reject the possibility of new energy sources just because the inventor claims Over Unity.
All hiring and firing decisions I have experienced have always been by technology managers, the one I was too, or did, actually work for, and they just needed rubber stamping from HR. (with the one exception being the CEO that let personal feelings affect work decisions, and he wonders why I thought he was an idiot) I wouldn't take a job if it was HR that made those kind of decisions. There is no way I would be caught dead working for a manager that didn't decided their own staff.
Not sure about where you work, but at the fortune 500 I work at the HR department doesn't know the difference between a C# developer and a Java Developer, on their papers it just says "Jr./Sr. Software Developer." I never once spoke to an HR representative before being hired so I am pretty sure they have no clue what I do. This is made even more obvious when I read job postings looking fro 5 years of experience in a technology that has only existed for 3 years. Heck the only thing HR cares about is how you score on their Personality Index, not if you have any applicable skills.
I'm not trying to knock the work HR does, I mean I like getting paid, but taking their opinion as a measure of marketability is a joke. Hiring Managers are not in HR, at least not any where that I have ever worked or interviewed. The people that make the decision on who to hire and what technology to use are low or mid level managers in the technology department.
Maybe AMD used older Intel processors in the comparison because they wanted to compare processors of equal price. I don't know if that is the truth, but it certainly could be, which would then make the benchmarks realistic. Personally I don't care how fast the latest Intel Processor is unless it's performance per dollar is comparable to the latest AMD chips. This is part of why Apple moved away from IBM, which recently showed the fastest Micro Processors currently in existence, because even if IBM were to out perform Intel it would be at a much higher cost.
I believe Steorn has open offered verification of their device, and has announced a public display of the device (which is what this article is about). True this doesn't actually mean verification took place or that the ublic display will prove anything, but they are doing what you are asking to some extent. The MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) has a patent filed which you can read all about yourself, though certain trade secrets have been left out (and it's hard to blame them). Neither of these projects are "lone inventors", though I believe that much of our current technology was the result of "lone inventors" like Tesla, Edison, and Jefferson who among them there is one university degree and it's not in science or engineering. But if you look at lone inventors you can look at Newman, who did supply his machine for testing and it was determined to be a highly efficient AC converter, but when asked to rerun the test with the machine "correctly" set up, the testing agency refused. I'm not saying that Newman's machine works, but that he did at least attempt to have it scrutinized.
There is also Moray, a PhD in Electrical Engineering, who designed and built a Free Energy device which was independently verified to work as claimed, by a number of scientists, physicists and Engineers, yet his multiple attempts to patent the device were refused by the US patent office. Moray even claimed to have been threatened and shot at, eventually leading to the loss of this technology after his partner destroyed the device because Moray would not license it. The fact that the US patented office has refused patents because they do not understand them is enough for me to realize that revealing an invention is not enough to have it reproduced and used.
No I am not trying to support Free Energy Suppression conspiracies, just saying it takes a lot more than revealing an invention to have it seem production and use, and that rejecting the possibility that a device is usefully simply because the inventory claims Over Unity is doing a great injustice to the world.
You are correct that it does not show the number of positions in existance, but rather where there is need for good developers. But when looking at the basics of supply and demand you want to be in the field with the highest demand and lowest supply. This is why the average income of a Java developer is higher than a C# or .Net developer. As an old school assembler/machine language programer I am certainly not going to use job postings to justify the quality of particular language, just the demand. The only other comment I would have to make is that a .Net programer is most likely going to see more .Net shops that Java shops, it's part of the circle you might run in.
.Net/C# and Java are in lower demand than C/C++ (having over 17k listings on dice).
I will also point out that both
Lets see what jobs are actually out there:
-
Dice
- C#: 7303 (or 5054 if you take out all the incorrect matches on C)
- Java: 16803
-
Monster (last 10 days since it limits to 5k)
- C#: 1911
- Java: 3760
That is without comparing salaries which are on average higher for Java developers.Just goes to show how out of touch HR really is.
There are both Perpetual Motion motion designs that do not have Over Unity and Over Unity devices that don't require motion, let alone perpetual. I'm not saying any of them actually work, just that the designs exist.
There is also nothing so far showing that the Steorn device needs to falsifies the laws of thermodynamics to work as advertised. If you had a device that could eradicate the mass of a single oxygen molecule, therefor release a significant amount of energy but required less energy than it produces you would have what appears to be a Free Energy device, but in reality was just a new type of standard energy device of high efficiency. This is after all the same concepts use in all energy producing, as opposed to harnessing, devices in use today.
Actually what I mean is that I can make the same claims to being a game designer (Computer, Board, Card and others), including works published by major game publishers, and I would be telling the truth. But until you, I or anyone else, has designed a multi-million dollar game picked up by a major publisher our experience is entirely invalid in this context. And I'm not judging the quality of your games in anyway, just saying it's not applicable nor does it add anything to the conversation other than attempting to claim expert knowledge that you don't actually have.
Look, I'm not going to argue that people with Autism don't differ from those with out on some physical level, but I'm not going to stand by and basically have people like you undo hundreds or thousands of years of struggle for human equality. Autism, and I don't mean to offend, is no different that having dark skin. Yes it is a physical difference but not necessarily one that requires a cure. There are benefits to Autism just as there are to having dark skin pigmentation, and curing these "diseases" will eradicate those advantages. Or even better yet, since so many genetic disorders only effect Males why don't we cure them by doing away with the y chromosome. Lucky for use some day artificial fertilization will be to a point where we no longer need the Y chromosome, and it has already been reported to have been successful in laboratories.
You can't offer someone a million bucks not to have down syndrome for a year. But I bet you could offer them a million bucks to not have male genitalia (or female as the case may be), and those are no more a choice than down syndrome or autism.
So what we have learned is that your arguments are either false, or unsupported, and that your analogies do not hold up under any sort of examination. There are many people better suited to take up this argument than myself, and I hope that you take the time to do it and maybe you will learn that Autism is not necessarily what you think it is.
I always laugh when people think that the same thing could not happen here in the United States, even though it has been show that historically and statistically it has to happen. As a matter of fact the two parties that dominate the US government are not very old, and even reflect very few of the beliefs of the parties founders.
But as usual you have gone off track and supplied no additional credence to the case for inefficient government. Even if there were no possibility for change in government, there is no reason for the government to be inefficient. You have yet to proposes a scenario where inefficiency was somehow superior to efficiency. My guess is that you still don't understand what the word efficient means.
So rather than try and make a valid point, or admit your own failure you would rather make wild statements and resort to name calling. You failed to support any of your arguments, either with me or anyone else you had dialog with under this thread. Most people would have given up on you long ago, but I wanted to take the time to possibly help you understand basic semantics and political science, alas you don't seem ready for that.
I don't know how many times I have to say it, so I will say it again. I can't see how efficiency is a bad thing. If the people have decided to let the government come kill me, then I failed myself and the nation, or I possibly my death is for the betterment of society, long term. Either way if I am going to be executed I would like it to be done as efficiently as possible. This is no reasons resources should be taken away from those in need just so I can live another day. I don't even understand why you would make an argument against efficiency. I would also hope that my fellow citizens would be efficient when they overthrow the obviously tyrannical government that puts people to death for unjust reasons.
Slowing down a process is not the way to stop bad things from happening and is merely delaying the inevitable and, as I have said before wasting resources. Look at WWII, and I'm not talking about any Goodwinesque references. Prior to August of 1945 WWII was responsible for the deaths of over 71 million people, a death toll that would have continued if it were not for the efficient killing of less that 200k people on two days in august. If we would stop wasting resources, specifically on killing, we would probably have enough to provide for all the people of the world and have a lot more leisure time. You just have to learn to look at the bigger picture.
Efficiency is never a bad thing.
I guess I don't see how efficiency can ever be a bad thing.
I understand that ultimately it means all resources will end up in the control of a single minority, but at least with Fascism there is the possibility those resources will be used in the best interests of all citizens.
I meant Objectivism not Objectives, but I guess my spell check never read Ayn Rand.
A Neo-Libertarian are modern american "libertarians" such as in the Libertarian party, which is more closely aligned with Objectives than Classical Libertarianism. Classical Libertarians, such as in the Libertarian movements of Europe are more Anarchistic and there for tend toward Syndicalism and Collectivism. Classically Libertarian was about the freedom for all and not the freedom for the rich as Neo-Libertarianism is.