Did you actually read the article? The particular apple bug would have been easily caught by testing. In fact, the handshake code was copy-pasted six times in the code, and only one of the copies had the bug... if the developer had thought about about testing at all, that code would have been factored into one function, and even just by doing so the bug would have been less likely.
... and completely despise all the changes. Then in another week or so I'll get used to it and not mind it. A week after that I'll think the old interface looks atrocious.
The core idea of capitalism died long ago when corporations could lobby the government to put the laws they want into place. The rest is predictable. The biggest dishonesty is that we consider so many markets to be free markets when in fact they aren't.
It actually is totally fine in a free market for a group of companies to conspire to set prices. Such arrangements are inherently unstable as each side has the incentive to cheat, plus competition from other companies will ultimately end the arrangement. So far, so good - still a free market. The issue only comes in cases like sibling's post, when they actually purchase laws that prevent competition or to sanction their agreements. Plus, yes, if Apple filed an antitrust suit against manufacturing companies in order to drive their prices down, that would also be anti-free-market, because anti-trust-suits are anti-free-market, since they involve the law and the use of force regulating what businesses can or can't do.
father's brother = uncle
uncle's nephew = either you, or a sibling, or a cousin, or a sibling
So, three choices:
a) I am your cousin's former roommate
b) I am your sibling's cousin's former roommate
c) I am your cousin's cousin's former roommate
Your siblings cousin is also your cousin so that leaves us with two choices:
a) I am your cousin's former roommate
b) I am your cousin's cousin's former roommate
Your cousin's cousin can again be either: you, your sibling, your cousin, or someone not blood-related. So that leaves us:
a) I am your cousin's former roommate
b) I am your former roommate
c) I am your sibling's former roommate
d) I am your cousin's cousin's former roommate
There's absolutely no point to this point so I'm just going to stop myself right here.
Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett! I Bennett love Bennett Bennett! Nothing Bennett is Bennett more Bennett entertaining Bennett than Bennett reading Bennett what Bennett a Bennett person Bennett which Bennett I Bennett have Bennett no Bennett idea Bennett who Bennett they Bennett are Bennett has Bennett to Bennett say!
It's not capitalist greed, it's anti-free-market greed. Note that non-essential medical services such as plastic surgery and laser eye surgery continuously get better and cheaper over time. That is, I could get the same laser eye surgery today for cheaper, or pay a similar amount for higher-quality laser eye surgery. It's much the same as with computing hardware or any other relatively unregulated market, and quite the opposite of what's happening with healthcare, namely that it gets worse and way more expensive over time. I don't know why forcing everybody in the United States to buy managed healthcare plans would improve the situation at all.
So it's not exploitation for your employer to pay you the wage you are worth to him. Why is it exploitation for a different employer to pay a different person the wage he is worth?
So when companies switched over from doing finances by hand with a legion of accountants to a computer-based system with a far smaller legion of accountants, they should have kept paying the same amount of tax as if they had kept the full complement of people? Who decides what that tax is? And why does the government get the money instead of the company?
Do you make more than minimum wage? If so, why is your employer paying you more than minimum wage? Why don't they just exploit you by paying you the minimum wage?
I really dislike using the term "inflation" to mean "higher prices". I know people use it that way but it confuses the issue. I prefer using inflation to mean strictly "increased money supply" and deflation to mean "decreased money supply". Thus your post reads "the minimum wage certainly affects prices in an upward direction", which is pretty straightforward. If the same amount of labor now costs more then either prices go up or less stuff is produced.
Nice post. I agree in that I don't know what they would end up doing. Ideally they'd find a job doing something, but what if no one wants to hire them and they have no familial or friend-based support network? You could pay them not to work but then that also encourages other people not to work. OTOH letting them starve and die if they can't help themselves seems less than ideal given the wealth of the entire society. Damned either way. Ideally we'd get to the point where food and shelter are so ridiculously cheap that it's essentially free, but we're not quite there yet.
What about the people whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage? At least some of those people will lose their jobs. Zero income is worse than some income. True, though, the ones that still keep their jobs at the higher wage are better off.
Do you make more than the minimum wage? If yes: why don't you have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet? Why on earth does your employer pay you more than the minimum wage when he could legally get away with that?
Trying to race automation to the cost bottom is an exercise in futility; it's a race humans will not win. The only ones that benefit from it are the employers that get cheaper labour faster as a result.
Not only the employers. Consumers also benefit from the lower prices resulting from cheaper costs of production. Basically the only ones that are worse off are those people who did the jobs that are now automated. That's only in the short-run since increased production always ends up leading to new jobs, be it in that industry in other capacities or in other industries that wouldn't have existed otherwise (consider whether we'd ever have something like a computer industry if 90% of the population were still farmers as in 1862).
What would really fix a bunch of stuff is outlawing fractional-reserve banking. With anything besides currency, it would be considered fraud. It creates currency out of thin air, as you put it. Depositing money in an account should yield zero interest, or even charge a fee, as it's just providing a service: convenience and safety of your money. Loaning your money out should be a totally separate concern, which gives you interest, but your money isn't usable in the meantime since you just gave it to somebody else. Then interest rates would naturally adjust to what the price of money is, there wouldn't be inflation constantly devaluing everybody's money, saving would be encouraged. The more savings, the lower interest rates, which makes borrowing money cheaper. Lower interest rates would encourage businesses to borrow money and expand, and they would do this precisely at that point where consumers have savings, i.e. money to spend, which is precisely the time when new businesses or expanding businesses have a chance to succeed.
As it is now, banks can make profit off of something they never had in the first place, and if they gamble too much they get bailed out by the government. The net result is the screwing over of everybody else.
The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive there will be to automate those minimum-wage jobs. If it'd average out to $11/hr to have a robot do some cleaning, and the minimum wage is $10/hr, then a janitor willing to work for $10/hr will have a job. If the minimum wage goes to $12/hr, the robot will take the job instead.
I read somewhere an essay written around the time the minimum wage was being increased a few decades ago. This was during a time when there were still elevator operators. The author predicted that after the increase, elevator operators would get phased out in favor of automated elevators. That probably would've happened anyway, but raising the minimum wage probably helped speed up that process.
If it gets really bad there will be pressure to illegalize automation of certain classes of jobs.
It's not free-to-play though it's free-to-try, as in, a demo. Like the shareware of old. They would require each game to have a shareware version, but now they have removed this requirement.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you actually read the article? The particular apple bug would have been easily caught by testing. In fact, the handshake code was copy-pasted six times in the code, and only one of the copies had the bug... if the developer had thought about about testing at all, that code would have been factored into one function, and even just by doing so the bug would have been less likely.
... and completely despise all the changes. Then in another week or so I'll get used to it and not mind it. A week after that I'll think the old interface looks atrocious.
How does an apostrophe turn into "â(TM)"?
The core idea of capitalism died long ago when corporations could lobby the government to put the laws they want into place. The rest is predictable. The biggest dishonesty is that we consider so many markets to be free markets when in fact they aren't.
It actually is totally fine in a free market for a group of companies to conspire to set prices. Such arrangements are inherently unstable as each side has the incentive to cheat, plus competition from other companies will ultimately end the arrangement. So far, so good - still a free market. The issue only comes in cases like sibling's post, when they actually purchase laws that prevent competition or to sanction their agreements. Plus, yes, if Apple filed an antitrust suit against manufacturing companies in order to drive their prices down, that would also be anti-free-market, because anti-trust-suits are anti-free-market, since they involve the law and the use of force regulating what businesses can or can't do.
uncle's nephew = either you, or a sibling, or a cousin, or a sibling
So, three choices:
a) I am your cousin's former roommate
b) I am your sibling's cousin's former roommate
c) I am your cousin's cousin's former roommate
Your siblings cousin is also your cousin so that leaves us with two choices:
a) I am your cousin's former roommate
b) I am your cousin's cousin's former roommate
Your cousin's cousin can again be either: you, your sibling, your cousin, or someone not blood-related. So that leaves us:
a) I am your cousin's former roommate
b) I am your former roommate
c) I am your sibling's former roommate
d) I am your cousin's cousin's former roommate
There's absolutely no point to this point so I'm just going to stop myself right here.
Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett! I Bennett love Bennett Bennett! Nothing Bennett is Bennett more Bennett entertaining Bennett than Bennett reading Bennett what Bennett a Bennett person Bennett which Bennett I Bennett have Bennett no Bennett idea Bennett who Bennett they Bennett are Bennett has Bennett to Bennett say!
10% is a phenomenal rate of return right now.
i.e. 0% after accounting for inflation. Oh God everything's going straight to hell.
It's not capitalist greed, it's anti-free-market greed. Note that non-essential medical services such as plastic surgery and laser eye surgery continuously get better and cheaper over time. That is, I could get the same laser eye surgery today for cheaper, or pay a similar amount for higher-quality laser eye surgery. It's much the same as with computing hardware or any other relatively unregulated market, and quite the opposite of what's happening with healthcare, namely that it gets worse and way more expensive over time. I don't know why forcing everybody in the United States to buy managed healthcare plans would improve the situation at all.
The Teslas will be the front-line soldiers when skynet finally awakes and claims its birth-right.
I think it's pretty funny
If you're going to get 50-80% profit in the short term why on earth would you not invest in this? Unless you don't believe your own advice?
I guess neither you nor the mod read the next 5 words: "These things go in cycles."
So it's not exploitation for your employer to pay you the wage you are worth to him. Why is it exploitation for a different employer to pay a different person the wage he is worth?
So when companies switched over from doing finances by hand with a legion of accountants to a computer-based system with a far smaller legion of accountants, they should have kept paying the same amount of tax as if they had kept the full complement of people? Who decides what that tax is? And why does the government get the money instead of the company?
Do you make more than minimum wage? If so, why is your employer paying you more than minimum wage? Why don't they just exploit you by paying you the minimum wage?
I really dislike using the term "inflation" to mean "higher prices". I know people use it that way but it confuses the issue. I prefer using inflation to mean strictly "increased money supply" and deflation to mean "decreased money supply". Thus your post reads "the minimum wage certainly affects prices in an upward direction", which is pretty straightforward. If the same amount of labor now costs more then either prices go up or less stuff is produced.
Nice post. I agree in that I don't know what they would end up doing. Ideally they'd find a job doing something, but what if no one wants to hire them and they have no familial or friend-based support network? You could pay them not to work but then that also encourages other people not to work. OTOH letting them starve and die if they can't help themselves seems less than ideal given the wealth of the entire society. Damned either way. Ideally we'd get to the point where food and shelter are so ridiculously cheap that it's essentially free, but we're not quite there yet.
What about the people whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage? At least some of those people will lose their jobs. Zero income is worse than some income. True, though, the ones that still keep their jobs at the higher wage are better off.
Do you make more than the minimum wage? If yes: why don't you have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet? Why on earth does your employer pay you more than the minimum wage when he could legally get away with that?
Trying to race automation to the cost bottom is an exercise in futility; it's a race humans will not win. The only ones that benefit from it are the employers that get cheaper labour faster as a result.
Not only the employers. Consumers also benefit from the lower prices resulting from cheaper costs of production. Basically the only ones that are worse off are those people who did the jobs that are now automated. That's only in the short-run since increased production always ends up leading to new jobs, be it in that industry in other capacities or in other industries that wouldn't have existed otherwise (consider whether we'd ever have something like a computer industry if 90% of the population were still farmers as in 1862).
What would really fix a bunch of stuff is outlawing fractional-reserve banking. With anything besides currency, it would be considered fraud. It creates currency out of thin air, as you put it. Depositing money in an account should yield zero interest, or even charge a fee, as it's just providing a service: convenience and safety of your money. Loaning your money out should be a totally separate concern, which gives you interest, but your money isn't usable in the meantime since you just gave it to somebody else. Then interest rates would naturally adjust to what the price of money is, there wouldn't be inflation constantly devaluing everybody's money, saving would be encouraged. The more savings, the lower interest rates, which makes borrowing money cheaper. Lower interest rates would encourage businesses to borrow money and expand, and they would do this precisely at that point where consumers have savings, i.e. money to spend, which is precisely the time when new businesses or expanding businesses have a chance to succeed.
As it is now, banks can make profit off of something they never had in the first place, and if they gamble too much they get bailed out by the government. The net result is the screwing over of everybody else.
That should work. People would spend that money so it'll stimulate the economy.
The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive there will be to automate those minimum-wage jobs. If it'd average out to $11/hr to have a robot do some cleaning, and the minimum wage is $10/hr, then a janitor willing to work for $10/hr will have a job. If the minimum wage goes to $12/hr, the robot will take the job instead.
I read somewhere an essay written around the time the minimum wage was being increased a few decades ago. This was during a time when there were still elevator operators. The author predicted that after the increase, elevator operators would get phased out in favor of automated elevators. That probably would've happened anyway, but raising the minimum wage probably helped speed up that process.
If it gets really bad there will be pressure to illegalize automation of certain classes of jobs.
It's not free-to-play though it's free-to-try, as in, a demo. Like the shareware of old. They would require each game to have a shareware version, but now they have removed this requirement.