Yes, very nice straw-man, but the real concern here is that if the sub-surface ocean currents cause rainfall in the northern hemisphere, climate change is bad news for northern-hemisphere populations. We've seen noticeable drop-offs and changes in those currents correlated quite strongly(and explained quite thoroughly by thermodynamic principals) with increasing ocean temperatures.
So far in this discussion, hat we're seeking, I think, isn't the wholesale replacement of capitalism, but finding a way to limit one of the more socially damaging behaviors it encourages.
It's possible to find free-market capitalism based on imperfect ideas, believe it to contain flaws, and still not find any of the alternatives inherently superior.
Unfortunately for you, users of all kinds of sites express disdain for new layouts, which never end up killing the site like dissatisfied users claim. In this case the new design is extremely impractical, and slashdot has been on track for a collapse for a while now.
But it will go ahead, because of e-precedent for ignoring the naysayers regarding site-design.
Come on. Free-market capitalism is the de facto way to refer to the economic system of allowing capital to be privately owned within the confines of a market for open exchange of goods and services, and is often shortened to "capitalism".
Even though "free market" and "capitalism" are distinct concepts, their practical applications have become so integrated your point is almost meaningless.
Yep, lots of people on the internet say "but what about the revenue of the sites you use." It ignores that there's never going to be a mutual respect there, no matter how much you respect the source.
Because the way you phrased it, the second sentence sounds like it's an attempt to dismantle the first. Capitalism relies on a thing that actors in the market try to limit and control?
If we're using the hypothetical straw-republicans that live in my head: their plan is to keep an emergency supply of healthy poor minorities to vivisect for organs in case a rich person gets sick.
If we're using the the real world: Obamacare is essentially a republican plan except Obamacare adds subsidies so that the working poor who have to buy insurance can afford it.
And we have a winner for the "race to sound more cynical than the parent poster" game. Congratulations, here's your prize, a looming sense of personal uncertainty.
You think people without insurance get routine testing and examinations? I mean, it goes off the rails at that very basic problem. We're not talking about going in for a "cheaper" treatment for every cold in case it's stage 1 cancer. We're talking about getting occasional physical checkups. Prescribing blood pressure medication rather than treating a stroke.
No, that's not fair. The democrats weren't the rape victim in this analogy. That'd be the rest of us. They're the frat brother calmly trying to talk the other one out of raping us while they do it.
One could very well extrapolate from sources like unfunded emergency room visits, expensive treatments that could be addressed by preventative care, and comparisons against sane countries that that number comes out in multiple percent of GDP.
Unfortunately, the corporate middlemen we're stuck with in this particular plan mean that we aren't going to resolve much of that issue, and we get a nice half-measure.
Yes, let's ignore history and pretend that there are no boom and bust cycles, and lets also ignore legitimate economics and pretend there can be no effect on those by governments.
It's a little late to solve this particular economic rut by stimulus, as we're finally making our way out of it, and it will soon be time for sane austerity. But thanks for dogmatically screwing it up before.
Slashdot Mirror
So... she looks like a duck?
And you're pretending android/Google of all companies are less complicit?
It's not hard to determine that. Even task manager will tell you total CPU cycles/IO cycles wasted on a per/process basis.
I almost took this post seriously. You're flying too low, man! You're about to crash into what people actually believe.
Will the nutjobs afraid of wireless routers be able to survive walking down the sidewalk in NYC now?
Yes, very nice straw-man, but the real concern here is that if the sub-surface ocean currents cause rainfall in the northern hemisphere, climate change is bad news for northern-hemisphere populations. We've seen noticeable drop-offs and changes in those currents correlated quite strongly(and explained quite thoroughly by thermodynamic principals) with increasing ocean temperatures.
Yes, what you can expect might be that. No contest, I'd just wish we had a bit more of a cultural impetus to resist allowing it.
So far in this discussion, hat we're seeking, I think, isn't the wholesale replacement of capitalism, but finding a way to limit one of the more socially damaging behaviors it encourages.
It's possible to find free-market capitalism based on imperfect ideas, believe it to contain flaws, and still not find any of the alternatives inherently superior.
Unfortunately for you, users of all kinds of sites express disdain for new layouts, which never end up killing the site like dissatisfied users claim. In this case the new design is extremely impractical, and slashdot has been on track for a collapse for a while now.
But it will go ahead, because of e-precedent for ignoring the naysayers regarding site-design.
Come on. Free-market capitalism is the de facto way to refer to the economic system of allowing capital to be privately owned within the confines of a market for open exchange of goods and services, and is often shortened to "capitalism".
Even though "free market" and "capitalism" are distinct concepts, their practical applications have become so integrated your point is almost meaningless.
And your second definition is just incorrect.
Yep, lots of people on the internet say "but what about the revenue of the sites you use." It ignores that there's never going to be a mutual respect there, no matter how much you respect the source.
Because the way you phrased it, the second sentence sounds like it's an attempt to dismantle the first. Capitalism relies on a thing that actors in the market try to limit and control?
How is that not a serious problem to you?
I still haven't come up with a way to describe advertisement other than rent-seeking within the confines of a capitalist interpretation.
Yes, let's just run our submarines on sensible, safe things, like plutonium.
If we're using the hypothetical straw-republicans that live in my head: their plan is to keep an emergency supply of healthy poor minorities to vivisect for organs in case a rich person gets sick.
If we're using the the real world: Obamacare is essentially a republican plan except Obamacare adds subsidies so that the working poor who have to buy insurance can afford it.
Much as I dislike both, the "GOP system" is different from the status quo.
And we have a winner for the "race to sound more cynical than the parent poster" game. Congratulations, here's your prize, a looming sense of personal uncertainty.
You think people without insurance get routine testing and examinations? I mean, it goes off the rails at that very basic problem. We're not talking about going in for a "cheaper" treatment for every cold in case it's stage 1 cancer. We're talking about getting occasional physical checkups. Prescribing blood pressure medication rather than treating a stroke.
No, that's not fair. The democrats weren't the rape victim in this analogy. That'd be the rest of us. They're the frat brother calmly trying to talk the other one out of raping us while they do it.
One could very well extrapolate from sources like unfunded emergency room visits, expensive treatments that could be addressed by preventative care, and comparisons against sane countries that that number comes out in multiple percent of GDP.
Unfortunately, the corporate middlemen we're stuck with in this particular plan mean that we aren't going to resolve much of that issue, and we get a nice half-measure.
Yes, let's ignore history and pretend that there are no boom and bust cycles, and lets also ignore legitimate economics and pretend there can be no effect on those by governments.
It's a little late to solve this particular economic rut by stimulus, as we're finally making our way out of it, and it will soon be time for sane austerity. But thanks for dogmatically screwing it up before.
Give one to me to keep cool, one to my girlfriend to keep warm, and we'll set the AC in the middle.
Well, slashdot can deliver twice as many ads this way. Ironic, no?
Yeah, that's a bit of an extreme position to take, I suppose. I was just pointing out that the GP's assumptions were just that, assumptions.
Well, that's actually google+'s fault. So, go bother google about it.