Sure, but now you're talking about what does happen. GGP was talking about what should happen, and I was challenging them to consider edge cases rather than laying out a simplistic ideology that "always works".
How did a comment this off the mark get +5 insightful so fast?
It's not a matter of what you "call" beating cancer. The problem is that important, beneficial parts of our biology depend on the parts that go all cancerous under certain circumstances.
It's part of the "there isn't one cancer" premise. (According to this)Our cells have the programming on how to cancerous built in. And lots and lots of very different biological switches can activate it. And those switches can't all be turned off because they do other important things too.
Yeah, okay, the government buys things, the people they buy things from spend money too. Some people who the government buys things from are (doubtlessly, as statistical inference) literally Nazis(or if you prefer direct breach of ethics to grandiosity of wrongness, murderers). Why are lobbyists a bigger deal than Nazis?
Money circulates, and proposing that no dollar bill that passes through your fingers eventually goes to an evil causes is essentially impossible, especially when operating on trillion dollar budget scales.
Oh come on, someone posted this exact sentiment over 20 minutes ago. I even replied to them, so you can't pretend it's because you don't see ACs. I'll repeat my reply for your benefit though:
Nuance is good. Please be nuanced about blame allocation, just don't let elected officials slide.
And while that's probably a moderately popular opinion among people who work with software for a living, not IT workers get to vote on things too, and they don't care so much.
Democracy isn't meritocracy. And no one has invented a system of meritocracy that doesn't devolve into plutocracy or autocracy rather quickly.
Yeah, well I was responding to the tone of the summary that suggested that Microsoft was entirely at fault(as if lobbying in Chile were illegal or something), and didn't even make any room for the people actually pulling the vote. You can play as complex and nuanced a perspective as you want. I'm not opposed to that at all.
You know, screw your libertarian paranoid fantasies. Just fuck them right in the ass. We have an entire, rather expensive department of our government purposefully dedicated to meddling in the affairs of other nations(the State department), and several others that join in on the fun(The CIA, Energy, NSA, not to mention "Defense").
But you're worried that somehow there's been this specific misallocation of public funds to help Microsoft lobby, as if they don't have plenty of profits to put towards that end in-and-of themselves. And you can't even go as far as alleging a mechanism. You just go straight to "out to get me".
Get off the conspiracy train. There isn't some collusion of various actors to maximize how much you(or Chile) is screwed over. That only exists in your head.
It might be cheaper to buy a senator, yes, but the totality of the ownership is radically limited by the "must have this much approval rating to ride" principal.
Before the 17th, you could just ask your pet senator for something, and they'd do it.
That sure is a generalization that doesn't even make any sense.
Guess what? Society affects you. Yes, you. No you're not special. People interact, and some of those interactions are coming your way, no matter how fiercely independent you pretend you are on online posts.
This has literally nothing to do with trickle down economics. And I'm saying that as a person who recognizes the absolute uselessness of that concept to any sort of pragmatic economic policy.
This is supposedly a sign that the race to the bottom is actually done. The bottom filled out and is rebounding, and "we" mostly resisted our worst political urges vis-a-vis protectionism and removing regulatory protections that exist for good reasons. An equilibrium has been reached, and all the sacrificing has been mostly of the short term kind.
I know posting anything that isn't a hyper-cynical prediction of doom-and-gloom isn't too popular on slashdot, but this happened with Japan in the early 90s, and it happened with the United States(to the British Empire) in the 1850s. This isn't an unprecedented development. Cheap labor isn't infinite and eventually labor starts to get positively valued again.
Unfortunately, without the democratic framework that the US had in its own gilded age, I'm not sure there's an available set of tools for the populace to push into a progressive era, like the US had, where super corrupt elements of the government(like unelected senators) were run out, and labor was given some basic respect under law.
Wages only do so much for social stabilization. Some changes have to come into power structures.
This kind of government mediated market(that you call a monopoly) has a remarkable history of functional success in specific areas of economies in Western(and Scandinavian) Europe.
The main concern against monopolies is the trivial formation of a trust, wherein market actors collude to set prices that maximize total sector profit, rather than total sector productivity. This particular arrangement doesn't appear to fit that criteria, for the moment, though I'll remember your allegation if it turns out I'm wrong.
It's a specific environment that hosts multiple species that are evolved to niches exclusively dependent on that environment, but the locality of conditions is so small as to be considered a part of another "bigger" biome.
Human intestines, small tidal pools, fig trees are some common examples.
You spelled it microbLome, which I assume is a mistake on your part since the summary doesn't.
It's better than the messy divorce scenario, I guess.
I guess I've found that there aren't any accounts anyone needs access to(by means of password) other than netflix. So... my girlfriend has my netflix password.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but now you're talking about what does happen. GGP was talking about what should happen, and I was challenging them to consider edge cases rather than laying out a simplistic ideology that "always works".
And who exactly is using 32 bit processors these days, hmmm?
How did a comment this off the mark get +5 insightful so fast?
It's not a matter of what you "call" beating cancer. The problem is that important, beneficial parts of our biology depend on the parts that go all cancerous under certain circumstances.
It's part of the "there isn't one cancer" premise. (According to this)Our cells have the programming on how to cancerous built in. And lots and lots of very different biological switches can activate it. And those switches can't all be turned off because they do other important things too.
Yeah, okay, the government buys things, the people they buy things from spend money too. Some people who the government buys things from are (doubtlessly, as statistical inference) literally Nazis(or if you prefer direct breach of ethics to grandiosity of wrongness, murderers). Why are lobbyists a bigger deal than Nazis?
Money circulates, and proposing that no dollar bill that passes through your fingers eventually goes to an evil causes is essentially impossible, especially when operating on trillion dollar budget scales.
That's a nice theory too. It's got a good reason for being wanted.
But what about military secrets?
What about ongoing stings of organized crime syndicates, and the undercover police who might threatened?
Are these exceptions? How many lives is this principle worth?
If(instead) these are valid exceptions, what objective criteria would you use to separate the valid secrets from the invalid?
People have been trying to solve the problem you just laid down a simplistic solution to for decades now.
Oh come on, someone posted this exact sentiment over 20 minutes ago. I even replied to them, so you can't pretend it's because you don't see ACs. I'll repeat my reply for your benefit though:
Nuance is good. Please be nuanced about blame allocation, just don't let elected officials slide.
And while that's probably a moderately popular opinion among people who work with software for a living, not IT workers get to vote on things too, and they don't care so much.
Democracy isn't meritocracy. And no one has invented a system of meritocracy that doesn't devolve into plutocracy or autocracy rather quickly.
Yeah, well I was responding to the tone of the summary that suggested that Microsoft was entirely at fault(as if lobbying in Chile were illegal or something), and didn't even make any room for the people actually pulling the vote. You can play as complex and nuanced a perspective as you want. I'm not opposed to that at all.
You know, screw your libertarian paranoid fantasies. Just fuck them right in the ass. We have an entire, rather expensive department of our government purposefully dedicated to meddling in the affairs of other nations(the State department), and several others that join in on the fun(The CIA, Energy, NSA, not to mention "Defense").
But you're worried that somehow there's been this specific misallocation of public funds to help Microsoft lobby, as if they don't have plenty of profits to put towards that end in-and-of themselves. And you can't even go as far as alleging a mechanism. You just go straight to "out to get me".
Get off the conspiracy train. There isn't some collusion of various actors to maximize how much you(or Chile) is screwed over. That only exists in your head.
Who kowtowed to any lobbyist, regardless of which one it happens to be.
It might be cheaper to buy a senator, yes, but the totality of the ownership is radically limited by the "must have this much approval rating to ride" principal.
Before the 17th, you could just ask your pet senator for something, and they'd do it.
That sure is a generalization that doesn't even make any sense.
Guess what? Society affects you. Yes, you. No you're not special. People interact, and some of those interactions are coming your way, no matter how fiercely independent you pretend you are on online posts.
Literally the opposite of the point of the article we're discussing, but sure. Why not. What a joke. Haha.
Shhh. It's a recently completed study and it's "topical". That's better than most science news manages.
This has literally nothing to do with trickle down economics. And I'm saying that as a person who recognizes the absolute uselessness of that concept to any sort of pragmatic economic policy.
I'm gonna disagree.
This is supposedly a sign that the race to the bottom is actually done. The bottom filled out and is rebounding, and "we" mostly resisted our worst political urges vis-a-vis protectionism and removing regulatory protections that exist for good reasons. An equilibrium has been reached, and all the sacrificing has been mostly of the short term kind.
I know posting anything that isn't a hyper-cynical prediction of doom-and-gloom isn't too popular on slashdot, but this happened with Japan in the early 90s, and it happened with the United States(to the British Empire) in the 1850s. This isn't an unprecedented development. Cheap labor isn't infinite and eventually labor starts to get positively valued again.
Unfortunately, without the democratic framework that the US had in its own gilded age, I'm not sure there's an available set of tools for the populace to push into a progressive era, like the US had, where super corrupt elements of the government(like unelected senators) were run out, and labor was given some basic respect under law.
Wages only do so much for social stabilization. Some changes have to come into power structures.
Oh of course something will change.
All security researchers will mysteriously find themselves on the no-fly list.
Do you have some sort of weird font pack?
Odd linux distro, maybe?
This kind of government mediated market(that you call a monopoly) has a remarkable history of functional success in specific areas of economies in Western(and Scandinavian) Europe.
The main concern against monopolies is the trivial formation of a trust, wherein market actors collude to set prices that maximize total sector profit, rather than total sector productivity. This particular arrangement doesn't appear to fit that criteria, for the moment, though I'll remember your allegation if it turns out I'm wrong.
It's a specific environment that hosts multiple species that are evolved to niches exclusively dependent on that environment, but the locality of conditions is so small as to be considered a part of another "bigger" biome.
Human intestines, small tidal pools, fig trees are some common examples.
You spelled it microbLome, which I assume is a mistake on your part since the summary doesn't.
It's better than the messy divorce scenario, I guess.
I guess I've found that there aren't any accounts anyone needs access to(by means of password) other than netflix. So... my girlfriend has my netflix password.
Yep, exactly. That's how I won a free meth lab.
Look, use a dictionary next time you want to talk about definitions. Your own are just wrong.
A debilitating STD I caught from your mom.