This says you are wrong. You are probably making the mistake of confusing Marxist Communism (USSR form of Communism) with Chinese communism, which used to be a sore spot between those 2 nations. Perhaps confused with their use of "Republic" in the name of their nation, I don't know.
I'll also disagree with your 2nd point, because the type of government has little to do with the type of government. It has more to do with both expansion and level of freedom.
Generalizations are always dangerous. If I'm modding I may respond to a post anonymously, or lose my mod points. Not always, I try to stay neutral in posts I'm modding.. but that sounds much easier than it is.
In other words, I agree with you most of the time but do see good AC posts (and occasionally mod them up for visibility).
I don't disagree, and will point out that my wording is very intentional. "do not expect" is not a refusal, it means I reserve the right to choose whether or not to respond. Whereas, if a named account asks for clarity, provides contrary facts, etc.. I will respond.
And what evidence do we have the globalization helps anybody except corporations who fuck the rest of us over in the process?
There is no such evidence, and I did not intend to imply that I agreed with the politics at hand. I was merely pointing out that this _IS_ the politics at hand.
I don't agree that Globalization is a crock, the problem is with it's implementation. For example: There is a huge problem with wealth disparity (globally), much worse than the issues we see in the US/West. If we are going to make a global republic system, precursors and checks have to be put in place first. People with money instead are jumping to the end game, because _they_ get more profits.
This is a much longer discussion and debate than I'm willing to have on Slashdot, my example above was simple and intended only to demonstrate that the problem is not due to the world, but rather a few people in the world.
I know the article says that these companies can't afford to ignore china, but really, if they all got together and said no, could china really afford that? They could always make their own banking software I suppose. Why don't we let them?
Because globalization is the directive, and you can't think this way and be a globalist.
I'm with you, in a free market that is how it should be. China does not have to use banking software developed in the US, they can develop their own. Amaze us with the success of your communism and it's ability to generate educated and innovative people. China used to be very innovative, but more recently they can only copy (aka steal) other people's innovations.
And don't worry, the US is heading down the same path with our system being corrupted. We still have pockets of innovation, but nothing like we had from the late 40s to early 70s.
Do you similarly complain about the FUD spread by companies like Monsanto claiming anyone not approving of them 100% is a whacko? Who gets portrayed in media is who the establishment that owns the media wants to portray. This should not be confused with a rational debate.
Likewise, anyone that disagrees with genetic modification must be an irrational hippie right? Even though we have science to show some of the negative consequences of manipulation there can be no middle ground or debate, only the extreme views matter.
Go read up on how many other species rely on the Mosquito for survival. Larvae is a source of food for fish, countless other insects eat adults. They all have a place in the food chain and extinction would be devastating.
As with killer bees, yes things can go seriously wrong when trying to 'help' nature do it's job.
I'm not sure what OS and version of Chrome you are running, but mine never crashes (though I use Opera and Firefox primarily). In fact I work for a pretty large company who uses Google apps for just about everything. While I miss Visio (Google Drawings is like "dia" and very primitive) everything else works just fine.. no crashes, no memory hogging, etc..
The reason I don't use Chrome is because I don't trust Google, and in most companies I have freedom to choose my web browser.. where the office type applications are not nearly as flexible in Corporate world.
And as for Microsoft's whining about not having access to the OS layer of Android to run it's applications, I suggest they learn what the application layer is and learn to live in it. Having access to every layer of the OS today is why they are still insecure after well over a decade of security people telling them to fix their stuff.
The history of Germany, France, England, Spain, Russia, Cambodia, China, Korea, Rome, Athens, Egypt, and that list could go on and on. In other words, it's not possible to provide a citation for basically the complete history of the world since the advent of Governments.
Surely we could nitpick about all of the various problems Governments have caused, but that big government leads to the ends of societies is not questionable with even a cursory understanding of History.
Oh, and before you try it.. Revolts that lead in restructuring a government (and beheading of old rulers) that retain the name does not imply that those governments are still the same.
You ignored my question. Is someone that wrote a "Hello World!" program competent enough to understand a Web browser (using your example).
If I take your first post at it's word, a person can not understand anything that happens unless they write code. That measure as given is completely arbitrary, obviously skewed to make you appear to be all knowing. Give me something to measure that is fair, and I might actually (and probably would) agree with you.
The pompousness comes from your original perspective: You are a coder so nothing that happens is a mystery on a computer. Unfortunately as written that is complete BS, and you know it. Writing something like a Browser is a massive undertaking, so you are just as stuck as the non-coder unless you can make time to figure things out. In other words, the mystery is there for you too but you seem to refuse to acknowledge it because of your chosen line of work and arbitrary measurement. And maybe you write Firefox, but then a Kernel is a "mystery" by your standards.. or a Network protocol, or a Word Processor, etc...
It's not just these type of environments that are strict. Well established companies have the same practices, because the only way to have controlled growth is to adhere to a set of standards. Sure, standards change over time but not quickly. For posterity, controlled does not imply restricted.
If there were gangs out killing cops, they would not be in need of an application like Waze to do it. The two NYC cops that were killed a couple months ago were not tracked by anything. The killings were by what appears to be a vigilante that wanted to kill "any" cop.
They psychology behind that is a different thread and story, but the point about being "tracked" is valid. Cops drive in marked cars and wear uniforms. Someone actually "hunting" them would not need an application. In fact it would probably be stupid to do so, because of all the data the application tracking (it would limit suspects).
Haha, of course you immediately jump to the false accusation in an attempt to try and salvage your original failed logic. Of course you can't rationally back your original bullshit, so have to resort to additional fallacy arguments to support your original.
For your information: I have had 0 accidents, 0 tickets, and been driving for over 30 years. If I was a "road-rager", I would at least have had something happen in over 3 decades of driving. I'm not the "slow" guy either, because those guys get into at least as many accidents as the speeders (and most studies show that they cause more accidents).
I gave the points where you were wrong. Invalid generalization, therefor your logic is also invalid. There is no way to salvage broken logic, so scrap your opinion and start over.
Understanding how something works does not require in depth knowledge of the "something". I know many people who are very competent with the use of a web browser and never wrote a line of code in their life. They check links in email, write their own rules for sorting mail, etc.. etc...
I did not take your last paragraph as a "c'est la vie", I perceived it as an insult to anyone knot a coder. Re-reading, I still perceive it that way due to your choice of wording. You never wrote a database from scratch, so how can you possibly understand one given your own definition? Or does writing a "Hello World" program count as enough "knowledge" in your mind so that technology a person uses is not a mystery?
For posterity, I get your point but it's written in very pompous language. A person does not have to be a coder to be intelligent, a person needs to be intelligent to be intelligent.
I was in particular referring to John Taylor Gatto, and I forget the lady who was the original secretary for the original department who wrote a great book on the corruption and nature of the original program. That people believe it accidental that all of these extreme liberals have been running the department since it's advent is remarkable in my opinion.
I'm not sure how long ago this was, but in the last 5 years rent has gone up an average of 17% a year. Maybe in the Moffet and 101 ghetto something would go for 1.5K today, but I'm a skeptic.
"I" was not performing the experiment, it was ex police and no officer was named in their request. They simply asked the Desk officer "How would I file a complaint against an officer?". There were no departments that provided the information, and the majority almost immediately started to intimidate or threaten to arrest the person asking the question. A few departments did arrest the person asking.
If you were half as intelligent as you thought you were, you would have reserved comment on the test until you actually read the test. Instead, you spout invalid information in complete ignorance, while pretending to be knowledgeable. Fact checking, learn how to do it! Arguing an opinion which is contrary to facts is exactly the definition of delusion.
In addition to fact checking, contemplate really hard on that part I wrote about the appeal to emotion.
Except this does not happen under the Oligarchy we currently have. Obama won because people are/were fed up with the corruption. Obama's whole platform was "hope and change", with lines like "I'm going to hold bankers accountable" and "I will be transparent and honest". As soon as he's voted in he does everything GWB did, or close enough where voters can't really tell the difference. His second term was more of the same rhetoric, and an opponent who was completely dysfunctional (when looking at the ticket). It was not a choice to anyone. I don't think McCain is as idiotic as they made him seem, nor Palin for that matter (possibly on both however). That said, he was sabre rattling and openly vowing to resume everything Bush did with 0 changes benefiting the majority.
The D&R show is nothing but drama to keep the masses feeling like they can make a difference. The same people that own the media own the candidates thanks to Citizens United (which was intentionally misnamed to confuse the masses), and that should tell you everything you need to know. Yeah yeah, I know plenty of people that think the WWE is really wrasslin too..
Slashdot Mirror
This says you are wrong. You are probably making the mistake of confusing Marxist Communism (USSR form of Communism) with Chinese communism, which used to be a sore spot between those 2 nations. Perhaps confused with their use of "Republic" in the name of their nation, I don't know.
I'll also disagree with your 2nd point, because the type of government has little to do with the type of government. It has more to do with both expansion and level of freedom.
Generalizations are always dangerous. If I'm modding I may respond to a post anonymously, or lose my mod points. Not always, I try to stay neutral in posts I'm modding.. but that sounds much easier than it is.
In other words, I agree with you most of the time but do see good AC posts (and occasionally mod them up for visibility).
I don't disagree, and will point out that my wording is very intentional. "do not expect" is not a refusal, it means I reserve the right to choose whether or not to respond. Whereas, if a named account asks for clarity, provides contrary facts, etc.. I will respond.
And what evidence do we have the globalization helps anybody except corporations who fuck the rest of us over in the process?
There is no such evidence, and I did not intend to imply that I agreed with the politics at hand. I was merely pointing out that this _IS_ the politics at hand.
I don't agree that Globalization is a crock, the problem is with it's implementation. For example: There is a huge problem with wealth disparity (globally), much worse than the issues we see in the US/West. If we are going to make a global republic system, precursors and checks have to be put in place first. People with money instead are jumping to the end game, because _they_ get more profits.
This is a much longer discussion and debate than I'm willing to have on Slashdot, my example above was simple and intended only to demonstrate that the problem is not due to the world, but rather a few people in the world.
I know the article says that these companies can't afford to ignore china, but really, if they all got together and said no, could china really afford that? They could always make their own banking software I suppose. Why don't we let them?
Because globalization is the directive, and you can't think this way and be a globalist.
I'm with you, in a free market that is how it should be. China does not have to use banking software developed in the US, they can develop their own. Amaze us with the success of your communism and it's ability to generate educated and innovative people. China used to be very innovative, but more recently they can only copy (aka steal) other people's innovations.
And don't worry, the US is heading down the same path with our system being corrupted. We still have pockets of innovation, but nothing like we had from the late 40s to early 70s.
Do you similarly complain about the FUD spread by companies like Monsanto claiming anyone not approving of them 100% is a whacko? Who gets portrayed in media is who the establishment that owns the media wants to portray. This should not be confused with a rational debate.
Likewise, anyone that disagrees with genetic modification must be an irrational hippie right? Even though we have science to show some of the negative consequences of manipulation there can be no middle ground or debate, only the extreme views matter.
Go read up on how many other species rely on the Mosquito for survival. Larvae is a source of food for fish, countless other insects eat adults. They all have a place in the food chain and extinction would be devastating.
As with killer bees, yes things can go seriously wrong when trying to 'help' nature do it's job.
This, and the fact that it's impossible to know if you are conversing with a person, or ten persons in replies. Noise != conversation.
I'm not sure what OS and version of Chrome you are running, but mine never crashes (though I use Opera and Firefox primarily). In fact I work for a pretty large company who uses Google apps for just about everything. While I miss Visio (Google Drawings is like "dia" and very primitive) everything else works just fine.. no crashes, no memory hogging, etc..
The reason I don't use Chrome is because I don't trust Google, and in most companies I have freedom to choose my web browser.. where the office type applications are not nearly as flexible in Corporate world.
And as for Microsoft's whining about not having access to the OS layer of Android to run it's applications, I suggest they learn what the application layer is and learn to live in it. Having access to every layer of the OS today is why they are still insecure after well over a decade of security people telling them to fix their stuff.
The history of Germany, France, England, Spain, Russia, Cambodia, China, Korea, Rome, Athens, Egypt, and that list could go on and on. In other words, it's not possible to provide a citation for basically the complete history of the world since the advent of Governments.
Surely we could nitpick about all of the various problems Governments have caused, but that big government leads to the ends of societies is not questionable with even a cursory understanding of History.
Oh, and before you try it.. Revolts that lead in restructuring a government (and beheading of old rulers) that retain the name does not imply that those governments are still the same.
I realize your original intent, I was agreeing and not intending to be argumentative.
You ignored my question. Is someone that wrote a "Hello World!" program competent enough to understand a Web browser (using your example).
If I take your first post at it's word, a person can not understand anything that happens unless they write code. That measure as given is completely arbitrary, obviously skewed to make you appear to be all knowing. Give me something to measure that is fair, and I might actually (and probably would) agree with you.
The pompousness comes from your original perspective: You are a coder so nothing that happens is a mystery on a computer. Unfortunately as written that is complete BS, and you know it. Writing something like a Browser is a massive undertaking, so you are just as stuck as the non-coder unless you can make time to figure things out. In other words, the mystery is there for you too but you seem to refuse to acknowledge it because of your chosen line of work and arbitrary measurement. And maybe you write Firefox, but then a Kernel is a "mystery" by your standards.. or a Network protocol, or a Word Processor, etc...
It's not just these type of environments that are strict. Well established companies have the same practices, because the only way to have controlled growth is to adhere to a set of standards. Sure, standards change over time but not quickly. For posterity, controlled does not imply restricted.
If there were gangs out killing cops, they would not be in need of an application like Waze to do it. The two NYC cops that were killed a couple months ago were not tracked by anything. The killings were by what appears to be a vigilante that wanted to kill "any" cop.
They psychology behind that is a different thread and story, but the point about being "tracked" is valid. Cops drive in marked cars and wear uniforms. Someone actually "hunting" them would not need an application. In fact it would probably be stupid to do so, because of all the data the application tracking (it would limit suspects).
Haha, of course you immediately jump to the false accusation in an attempt to try and salvage your original failed logic. Of course you can't rationally back your original bullshit, so have to resort to additional fallacy arguments to support your original.
For your information: I have had 0 accidents, 0 tickets, and been driving for over 30 years. If I was a "road-rager", I would at least have had something happen in over 3 decades of driving. I'm not the "slow" guy either, because those guys get into at least as many accidents as the speeders (and most studies show that they cause more accidents).
I gave the points where you were wrong. Invalid generalization, therefor your logic is also invalid. There is no way to salvage broken logic, so scrap your opinion and start over.
Understanding how something works does not require in depth knowledge of the "something". I know many people who are very competent with the use of a web browser and never wrote a line of code in their life. They check links in email, write their own rules for sorting mail, etc.. etc...
I did not take your last paragraph as a "c'est la vie", I perceived it as an insult to anyone knot a coder. Re-reading, I still perceive it that way due to your choice of wording. You never wrote a database from scratch, so how can you possibly understand one given your own definition? Or does writing a "Hello World" program count as enough "knowledge" in your mind so that technology a person uses is not a mystery?
For posterity, I get your point but it's written in very pompous language. A person does not have to be a coder to be intelligent, a person needs to be intelligent to be intelligent.
I was in particular referring to John Taylor Gatto, and I forget the lady who was the original secretary for the original department who wrote a great book on the corruption and nature of the original program. That people believe it accidental that all of these extreme liberals have been running the department since it's advent is remarkable in my opinion.
I'm not sure how long ago this was, but in the last 5 years rent has gone up an average of 17% a year. Maybe in the Moffet and 101 ghetto something would go for 1.5K today, but I'm a skeptic.
"I" was not performing the experiment, it was ex police and no officer was named in their request. They simply asked the Desk officer "How would I file a complaint against an officer?". There were no departments that provided the information, and the majority almost immediately started to intimidate or threaten to arrest the person asking the question. A few departments did arrest the person asking.
If you were half as intelligent as you thought you were, you would have reserved comment on the test until you actually read the test. Instead, you spout invalid information in complete ignorance, while pretending to be knowledgeable. Fact checking, learn how to do it! Arguing an opinion which is contrary to facts is exactly the definition of delusion.
In addition to fact checking, contemplate really hard on that part I wrote about the appeal to emotion.
Except this does not happen under the Oligarchy we currently have. Obama won because people are/were fed up with the corruption. Obama's whole platform was "hope and change", with lines like "I'm going to hold bankers accountable" and "I will be transparent and honest". As soon as he's voted in he does everything GWB did, or close enough where voters can't really tell the difference. His second term was more of the same rhetoric, and an opponent who was completely dysfunctional (when looking at the ticket). It was not a choice to anyone. I don't think McCain is as idiotic as they made him seem, nor Palin for that matter (possibly on both however). That said, he was sabre rattling and openly vowing to resume everything Bush did with 0 changes benefiting the majority.
The D&R show is nothing but drama to keep the masses feeling like they can make a difference. The same people that own the media own the candidates thanks to Citizens United (which was intentionally misnamed to confuse the masses), and that should tell you everything you need to know. Yeah yeah, I know plenty of people that think the WWE is really wrasslin too..
From the history I read, it worked very well. Hence, the "Noble uprising" where the Government was taken back over by them and the lottery removed.
Do they still teach any of those in schools?
Nope, and I wish I would have saw this before my long post above since they are related.