The problems we're experiencing today are NOT because of "free markets" at all.
The problems are because of govt. interference and manipulation of the markets for their own motives!
Even under 'ideal' conditions unchecked neo-classical economic systems result in monopolies of power via purchasing power and information assymetry. This power then corrupts (as much power does) and you end up with some kind of plutocracy like we have now.
I have thoroughly read through this slashdot page and this coryking guy you are replying to has excreted about 20 comments, all pumping up flex and silverlight in authentic corporate toadie prose. Must be getting paid by the paragraph.
'Think of the people you've met you you've thought were assholes, arrogant, insecure, and fake. Chances are, they were none of the above; rather they just came off that way because they didn't know how to properly handle the nuances of social behaviour.'
Nope. Many people are in fact arse-holes. Think of the people you've worked with who played power games, who sucked up to the people above them and shat on the people below. think of the people who gossip at any chance about their co-workers and are constantly trying to position themselves to their advantage within the workplace social network. These people exist and are everywhere; ordinarily you wouldn't give them a second thought but the pricks are usually higher up the chain so you have to deal with them. They really do operate as reptiles and if at all possible you should treat them as such. nuances my arse.
Frank Caliendo's Bush impression comes to mind. If you look at the early videos of his routine, they are undeniably funny, but not as funny as the version he did on Letterman. That's unnatural.
the more a comedian practises a bit the more polished it becomes, as with anything. Hence Caliendo's later letterman performance is stronger than his earlier one. Also, exposure on Letterman would have been a big deal for Caliendo so he more than likely would have stepped it up a notch like a true showman. So in conclusion, it was perfectly natural tht the letterman version was funnier.
He's not "dressing lazy"; IIRC he simply does not own a suit. He does not believe in wasting wealth on non-essential items; this enables him to live on a relatively small income while spending most of his time pursuing the ideals he cares about.
Non-essential items like the clearly vast quantities of crap food required to keep that
enormously repulsive guts of his in business??
How does he expect anyone to take him seriously with that disgusting fat,hairy, smelly exterior?
And then he has the gaul to pontificate!!?? Put him on a couple of seasons of 'Biggest Loser' and then I might maybe, maybe give him the time of day.
My aero engineer friend has really never done any of that, so he's an engineer who doesn't know what "empiricism" means.
I notice a lot of this too and I think it is at least partly due to the economic pressure for people to specialize. People go narrow and deep into their chosen field in order to get better pay and as a consequence people don't have the time and/or don't see the value in pursuing things like philosophy, history, literature etc.
It's not 'this administration', it's an economic system that puts human welfare in the same
category as cheap dvd players that causes things like this to occur. If you're not benefitting
from the priviledges that large economic agents like corporations or governments hold (and that's most of us) then the long term outcomes of engaging in the economy feels like going to the casino. I don't believe that if and when the democrats (or anyone else) get into power that things will change dramatically.
Which is why people should lose the weight they place on crumby taxonomies such as 'government' and 'business'; it's far more accurate to view them as members of a single network of power, as conscienceless cultural organisms looking out for number 1.
Still, your comment, and most of the replies, remind me of Marxism (who im just now reading for the first time). One of the things that strikes me about it, is that it's very poetic and philisophical (like your post) and emotionaling riling...
Wikipedia is not good enough only for those people so anal retentive that they feel the need to whinge about it in their blogs. For the rest of us Wikipedia is just great the way it is. My only concern is that the people with the power to change the way wikipedia functions will get pressured into doing some of the stoopid things the anal-retents have been suggesting.
this actually happened to me about a month ago; turned on the light (incandescent) and it actually
exploded, blowing shards of glass all over the room. It took ages to clean up but I guess I was lucky not to get any in my eyes. I'm pretty sure the wiring in my house is faulty, I'll have to ask the rats.
Spending you life working on a particular theory makes it hard to give it up even when the evidence disproves it. Even an objective scientist is going to have problems throwing away their life's work.
I agree and I think that with string theory the problem is exacerbated due to the sheer time input required to reach the level where you can usefully contribute to the field.
It would be naive to think that the shareholders are 'holding the reins' of large corporations. The decisions the shareholders make are as much subject to the evolutionary force
of capitalism as any other facet of a companies operation. The optimist view is that ultimately consumers will punish companies that treat people badly. Of course in reality much pain is often inflicted before anything can be done about it; Enron being a good example.
The skeptical/pessimistic view can go as far as viewing all corporations/governments/non democratic-institutions as merely agents of the current meta-rules by which all organisations, that is cultural organisms (c.o.r.g's--think that'd fly as a meme?), are governed and that the long-term picture is that of an ever increasing densification(cromulent!?) of power in all of its un/known forms. Where I sit on that spectrum usually depends on my mood;)
As far as the gpl thing,/. is very very pro gpl and very very anti corporation, so it is fun to point out even a superficial similarity.
I disagree; I posted my comment because most of the +4 Insightful comments already present in the discussion were pro-starbucks and I thought I should inject some anti-corporate sentiment into it.
Step 1. Convince humans to grant me the legal rights of a natural person.
Step 2. Leverage my ability to never die and to farm the responsibilities for my actions out to replaceable 'employees'
Step 3. Become the dominant organisation to such an overwhelming extent that the majority of humans don't even consider the idea that my powers are illegitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
The problems we're experiencing today are NOT because of "free markets" at all.
The problems are because of govt. interference and manipulation of the markets for their own motives!
Even under 'ideal' conditions unchecked neo-classical economic systems result in monopolies of power via purchasing power and information assymetry. This power then corrupts (as much power does) and you end up with some kind of plutocracy like we have now.
I have thoroughly read through this slashdot page and this coryking guy you are replying to has excreted about 20 comments, all pumping up flex and silverlight in authentic corporate toadie prose. Must be getting paid by the paragraph.
'Think of the people you've met you you've thought were assholes, arrogant, insecure, and fake. Chances are, they were none of the above; rather they just came off that way because they didn't know how to properly handle the nuances of social behaviour.'
Nope. Many people are in fact arse-holes. Think of the people you've worked with who
played power games, who sucked up to the people above them and shat on the people below.
think of the people who gossip at any chance about their co-workers and are constantly trying to
position themselves to their advantage within the workplace social network. These people exist and are everywhere; ordinarily you wouldn't give them a second thought but the pricks are usually higher up the chain so you have to deal with them. They really do operate as reptiles and if at all possible you should treat them as such. nuances my arse.
Frank Caliendo's Bush impression comes to mind. If you look at the early videos of his routine, they are undeniably funny, but not as funny as the version he did on Letterman. That's unnatural.
the more a comedian practises a bit the more polished it becomes, as with anything. Hence Caliendo's later letterman performance is stronger than his earlier one. Also, exposure on Letterman would have been a big deal for Caliendo so he more than likely would have stepped it up a notch like a true showman. So in conclusion, it was perfectly natural tht the letterman version was funnier.
He's not "dressing lazy"; IIRC he simply does not own a suit. He does not believe in wasting wealth on non-essential items; this enables him to live on a relatively small income while spending most of his time pursuing the ideals he cares about.
Non-essential items like the clearly vast quantities of crap food required to keep that enormously repulsive guts of his in business?? How does he expect anyone to take him seriously with that disgusting fat,hairy, smelly exterior? And then he has the gaul to pontificate!!?? Put him on a couple of seasons of 'Biggest Loser' and then I might maybe, maybe give him the time of day.
My aero engineer friend has really never done any of that, so he's an engineer who doesn't know what "empiricism" means.
I notice a lot of this too and I think it is at least partly due to the economic pressure for people to specialize. People go narrow and deep into their chosen field in order to get better pay and as a consequence people don't have the time and/or don't see the value in pursuing things like philosophy, history, literature etc.
One man's proctologist is another man's neurologist. - Me.
I dont get it.
It's not 'this administration', it's an economic system that puts human welfare in the same category as cheap dvd players that causes things like this to occur. If you're not benefitting from the priviledges that large economic agents like corporations or governments hold (and that's most of us) then the long term outcomes of engaging in the economy feels like going to the casino. I don't believe that if and when the democrats (or anyone else) get into power that things will change dramatically.
Which is why people should lose the weight they place on crumby taxonomies such as 'government' and 'business'; it's far more accurate to view them as members of a single network of power, as conscienceless cultural organisms looking out for number 1.
Still, your comment, and most of the replies, remind me of Marxism (who im just now reading for the first time). One of the things that strikes me about it, is that it's very poetic and philisophical (like your post) and emotionaling riling...
I find Capitalism rather 'emotionaling' riling!!
Yeah cos everyone in the world who finds Wikipedia useful and informative is deluded and wrong.
Wikipedia is not good enough only for those people so anal retentive that they feel the need to whinge about it in their blogs. For the rest of us Wikipedia is just great the way it is. My only concern is that the people with the power to change the way wikipedia functions will get pressured into doing some of the stoopid things the anal-retents have been suggesting.
Jude Dobson isn't a Hooker!?
this actually happened to me about a month ago; turned on the light (incandescent) and it actually exploded, blowing shards of glass all over the room. It took ages to clean up but I guess I was lucky not to get any in my eyes. I'm pretty sure the wiring in my house is faulty, I'll have to ask the rats.
agreed.
ahahahaha... classic KFC, let the good times roll!
Spending you life working on a particular theory makes it hard to give it up even when the evidence disproves it. Even an objective scientist is going to have problems throwing away their life's work.
I agree and I think that with string theory the problem is exacerbated due to the sheer time input required to reach the level where you can usefully contribute to the field.
no body
A Century Too Late
It would be naive to think that the shareholders are 'holding the reins' of large corporations. The decisions the shareholders make are as much subject to the evolutionary force of capitalism as any other facet of a companies operation. The optimist view is that ultimately consumers will punish companies that treat people badly. Of course in reality much pain is often inflicted before anything can be done about it; Enron being a good example. The skeptical/pessimistic view can go as far as viewing all corporations/governments/non democratic-institutions as merely agents of the current meta-rules by which all organisations, that is cultural organisms (c.o.r.g's--think that'd fly as a meme?), are governed and that the long-term picture is that of an ever increasing densification(cromulent!?) of power in all of its un/known forms. Where I sit on that spectrum usually depends on my mood;)
/. is very very pro gpl and very very anti corporation, so it is fun to point out even a superficial similarity.
As far as the gpl thing,
I disagree; I posted my comment because most of the +4 Insightful comments already present in the discussion were pro-starbucks and I thought I should inject some anti-corporate sentiment into it.
For fun, compare and contrast corporations with gpled source code, as artificial legal entities.
why would i want to do tht? doesnt sound like much fun and seems irrelevant; perhaps you can enlighten me?
Also, profit isn't evil, which you at least verge on implying;
Really? I thought I was arguing the opposite. What I want to see is humans getting what they want rather than overly-powerful corporations.
Step 1. Convince humans to grant me the legal rights of a natural person.
Step 2. Leverage my ability to never die and to farm the responsibilities for my actions out to replaceable 'employees'
Step 3. Become the dominant organisation to such an overwhelming extent that the majority of humans don't even consider the idea that my powers are illegitimate.
Step 4. profit!!! (no, really)
I found a beak in my 25 piece value-lunch-tub-bucket-meal.
sounds like you just found the perfect little stocking filler!
oww techy, time to change the diaper, grandpa? heh hee heeheheh
wow you're old, is tht why you're so grumpy?