I've looked at 5 different dictionaries now, none of them say anything about whether people get paid or profit somehow.
"Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind"
talk to the people who fly to the US to get care.
Means nothing. If a resource is available in the US thats not or not timely available here, the system will pay for the patient to get care in the US. If someone wants to pay for a US service, then they are free to do that as well.
How about all those ridiculous lineups to get a flu shot in the US last winter? I'm able to walk down to any clinic and get a flu shot, free of charge at any time here. My dad went into the hospital feeling weak. They admitted him with a slow heart rate, next day he had a pacemaker (a $30k one apparently). If he lived in the US there would be no way he would be able to afford that. We have the same quality of health care the US has but everyone gets access to it. Better here in fact as most Americans cannot afford the best health care, they can only afford or their insurance will only cover the basic care.
Do you have a right to food? nope.
I have a right to grow my own food if I like. I dont have to buy food if I dont want to. I can also pick up free food at the food bank if I wanted.
How about clothing? water? electricity?
I can make clothes or get free clothes from charities. Water is free since it falls from the sky. Electricity is a commodity, not a right, but I can go off grid and make my own from wind or solar.
In the US you get cancer and you and your family are bankrupt. My boss' kid fell out of a tree and broke his leg badly. He needed emergency care, several surgeries and plastic surgery. How much would that cost in the US? Who could possibly afford it?
and they've gotten cheaper and cheaper with the quality going up. healthcare has not. Well it has, in cases that have been outside the system, like lasik.
You realize that eye surgery was perfected in communist Russia (almost no Russians wear glasses) and the biggest Lasik company is Canadian?
Yes and I'm sure the pawn shop owner would always cooperate with the police too, but when they are gone he continue to accept the money, no questions asked.
If the pawn shop was allowing the sale of stolen merchandise it doesn't mean every customer was a felon. But if the police shut down the site due to repeated violations, legitimate customers would also not be allowed to go there. Exactly the same with this website service.
Is this really any different than the police closing down a pawn shop for fencing stolen goods? A business owner has the responsibility to ensure that the people he deals with are legit. If not then he gets shut down.
I think you need to look up the definition of socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen
What you are describing with those guys is a specific type of socialism called utopian socialism.
And I disagree with the statement that socialism is a moral movement. You could say that about everything as every movements founder believes they are doing the right thing for the people, even the most brutal dictator. Hitler believed he was morally right but no one would suggest that the Nazi movement was a moral movement.
Are you under the impression that social programs can't be socialist?
No I'm not saying that at all. To clarify I'm saying a social program on its own is not necessarily socialist. However a socialist society would obviously implement social programs.
Socialism is the principle that people can work together for the common good rather than competing with one another.
It's much more than that. Socialism is an economic system where the amount of production is dictated by the community. Additionally the economy is use based, not monetary based. So in a socialist economy your company would make its alloted number of whatever it produced and nothing more. These would be distributed according to need without price, and you would not get paid. Your reward for working is the use or other peoples output. Think Star Trek.
A universal health care system where your bill gets paid for you by the government is not socialist. The doctors, nurses, staff and hospital all still get paid and they generally aim to make a profit or at least break even. They do not care whether you are paying your bill yourself or its paid for you.
Universal health care is a good thing because it brings basic heath care to those who currently could not afford it. That's not socialism, but it is a good thing.
Socialism is government run.. so government run healthcare isn't socialist? ok...
No. Socialism does NOT mean government run. Socialism means common ownership and management of resources and distribution of those resources based on use, not monetary. So in a socialist economy if you made midgets, some group would decide the economy needed X widgets and your company would make those X and nothing more. There would be no price associated with the product and you would not get paid, but in exchange you would get the use of other outputs from the economy. The economic structure in Star Trek is an example of this. Government run heath care is not socialist as everyone in the heath system gets paid. They don't know or care how the patient is paying for it.
That's fine you think it's your right. But your system has many problems.
Like what? I'm not saying there isn't problems but I'm curious as to what you think they are.
Personally, I think you're absolutely wrong. You have a right to your life and freedom and things you own. Not to services of others.
These are not services of others. They are getting paid, and paid well for their job. The bill of rights gives me the guaranteed right to life. To me that means keeping quality of life and non-discrimination in that quality of life regardless of status or income.
And I am not saying that any heath care that I want on my whim should be covered. But basic quality heath care and access to it are.
A social program is not socialism - they have nothing to do with one another.
Or are you saying that one instance of a socialized program doesn't make the whole country socialist? Which is true, but it's still a step in the wrong direction, and it's socializing an industry.
No, I'm saying social programs are not socialist. If heath care was socialist then the health care workers would not get paid in cash but other goods such as food or housing.
I fundamentally believe it is my right as a citizen of a free country to be able to get access to heath care whenever and whatever I need, and I shouldn't have to go bankrupt to get it. I'm Canadian, thats how heathcare works here, it's not in the least bit socialist and I will NEVER give up that right.
I don't have to look it up. I KNOW the technology.
Arrogance. You must be a software script kiddie. Think you know everything.
Your links just prove yourself wrong. You reference dimming the backlight through PWM. Then obviously if it is not dimmed then the display is always on (100% duty cycle on PWM) and therefore not flashing. Duh.
And just because something is powered by AC doesn't mean it turns on and off. Do you think your fridge turns on and off at 60Hz because it is plugged into a wall?
So the US military are socialists? As far as I can tell they are government run. How about the court system? All paid for by tax dollars and run by the government.
No matter the claimed response time, yes, all LCDs give me some ghosting that I can easily perceive.
See now I know that's bullshit because LCDs dont have a refresh flicker like CRTs. LCDs only have an update rate where the information is replace *without a blanking interval* with the new information. 60Hz, 70Hz - doesn't matter. It's just how fats it will keep up with the changing data. It's impossible to see flicker on an LCD.
CRTs are different in that there is a non-zero blanking interval as the gun realigns from the bottom of the screen to the top, and the phosphor dims from the last time the colour guns illuminated them.
I was just pointing out that that you're wrong. Humans with normal human vision can see the flicker at such low refresh rates. No super vision is required.
And I was pointing out you were wrong.
Even now you say you see flicker from a 60Hz CRT. 3D shutter goggles will be similar to CRTs since they cycle between blocked/black and visible at 60Hz per eye. In comparison LCD displays may not actually go to black (the LCD backlights may run at higher Hz than 60).
It's not similar in the slightest. Also LCD backlights don't have a 60Hz or any other refresh rate. They are constantly on. Look up the technology before you start arguing.
If you have difficulty realizing when you're wrong and spouting bullshit claims, it's your loss dude.
You are the one spouting bullshit as you seem to have no idea how the technology even works, and are arguing on your incorrect assumptions.
Too bad you failed to realize human vision is around 72Hz and not 60Hz, so your entire above statement is pure bullshit, or you're the defective one.
Really? 24Hz movie theaters must be unwatchable to you then.
30Hz is the scientifically accepted threshold. Some people can detect 60Hz when there is another 60Hz source in the room (like a fluorescent light)., That is the *sole* reason CRTs moved above 60Hz.
You'll see flicker if you are not running at 120Hz, if the frame rate staggers on your display, or if you are lighting your room with 60Hz fluorescents or compact fluorescents. Barring hardware problems you will see no flicker. Hate to break it to you but you do not have super vision.
It's like your phone system. Modern phones cram something like 10 simultaneous calls on a single line, which means what you are hearing is 90% silence - but your brain stitches it together so it seems continuous.
I know movie theatre screens can reflect circularly polarized light without changing the polarization, so it can work with projection home theater.
You actually need TWO projectors, each with a polarizing filter (90deg out of phase with the other). This makes such a system expensive and can only be used with projectors, not LCD or LED systems.
There is no need to blank each eye in turn for half of each frame, so there is a lot less flicker. (And flicker sensitivity isn't so much a matter of framerate but of how much of each frame is black; stereoscopic systems require 50% blankness.)
I disagree. At 60Hz each eye (120Hz total), there is no perceivable flicker at all on active glasses. Your brain stitches everything together.
Does anyone know how is Sony supporting 3D BluRay on the PS3 when it requires HDMI 1.4? As I understand it, HDMI 1.4 is not a simple upgrade; it requires new generation transceivers on the source device which obviously can't apply to PS3s going back to 2006.
Likely they are only implementing the 3D portion of the spec, not the other stuff like audio return, ethernet or 4k resolution. Changing to 3D would only require an update in the refresh rate to 120Hz which they could probably have planned for when they designed it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've looked at 5 different dictionaries now, none of them say anything about whether people get paid or profit somehow.
"Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind"
talk to the people who fly to the US to get care.
Means nothing. If a resource is available in the US thats not or not timely available here, the system will pay for the patient to get care in the US. If someone wants to pay for a US service, then they are free to do that as well.
How about all those ridiculous lineups to get a flu shot in the US last winter? I'm able to walk down to any clinic and get a flu shot, free of charge at any time here. My dad went into the hospital feeling weak. They admitted him with a slow heart rate, next day he had a pacemaker (a $30k one apparently). If he lived in the US there would be no way he would be able to afford that. We have the same quality of health care the US has but everyone gets access to it. Better here in fact as most Americans cannot afford the best health care, they can only afford or their insurance will only cover the basic care.
Do you have a right to food? nope.
I have a right to grow my own food if I like. I dont have to buy food if I dont want to. I can also pick up free food at the food bank if I wanted.
How about clothing? water? electricity?
I can make clothes or get free clothes from charities. Water is free since it falls from the sky. Electricity is a commodity, not a right, but I can go off grid and make my own from wind or solar.
In the US you get cancer and you and your family are bankrupt. My boss' kid fell out of a tree and broke his leg badly. He needed emergency care, several surgeries and plastic surgery. How much would that cost in the US? Who could possibly afford it?
and they've gotten cheaper and cheaper with the quality going up. healthcare has not. Well it has, in cases that have been outside the system, like lasik.
You realize that eye surgery was perfected in communist Russia (almost no Russians wear glasses) and the biggest Lasik company is Canadian?
Yes and I'm sure the pawn shop owner would always cooperate with the police too, but when they are gone he continue to accept the money, no questions asked.
If the pawn shop was allowing the sale of stolen merchandise it doesn't mean every customer was a felon. But if the police shut down the site due to repeated violations, legitimate customers would also not be allowed to go there. Exactly the same with this website service.
Is this really any different than the police closing down a pawn shop for fencing stolen goods? A business owner has the responsibility to ensure that the people he deals with are legit. If not then he gets shut down.
I think you need to look up the definition of socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen
What you are describing with those guys is a specific type of socialism called utopian socialism. And I disagree with the statement that socialism is a moral movement. You could say that about everything as every movements founder believes they are doing the right thing for the people, even the most brutal dictator. Hitler believed he was morally right but no one would suggest that the Nazi movement was a moral movement.
Are you under the impression that social programs can't be socialist?
No I'm not saying that at all. To clarify I'm saying a social program on its own is not necessarily socialist. However a socialist society would obviously implement social programs.
Socialism is the principle that people can work together for the common good rather than competing with one another.
It's much more than that. Socialism is an economic system where the amount of production is dictated by the community. Additionally the economy is use based, not monetary based. So in a socialist economy your company would make its alloted number of whatever it produced and nothing more. These would be distributed according to need without price, and you would not get paid. Your reward for working is the use or other peoples output. Think Star Trek.
A universal health care system where your bill gets paid for you by the government is not socialist. The doctors, nurses, staff and hospital all still get paid and they generally aim to make a profit or at least break even. They do not care whether you are paying your bill yourself or its paid for you.
Universal health care is a good thing because it brings basic heath care to those who currently could not afford it. That's not socialism, but it is a good thing.
Socialism is government run.. so government run healthcare isn't socialist? ok...
No. Socialism does NOT mean government run. Socialism means common ownership and management of resources and distribution of those resources based on use, not monetary. So in a socialist economy if you made midgets, some group would decide the economy needed X widgets and your company would make those X and nothing more. There would be no price associated with the product and you would not get paid, but in exchange you would get the use of other outputs from the economy. The economic structure in Star Trek is an example of this. Government run heath care is not socialist as everyone in the heath system gets paid. They don't know or care how the patient is paying for it.
That's fine you think it's your right. But your system has many problems.
Like what? I'm not saying there isn't problems but I'm curious as to what you think they are.
Personally, I think you're absolutely wrong. You have a right to your life and freedom and things you own. Not to services of others.
These are not services of others. They are getting paid, and paid well for their job. The bill of rights gives me the guaranteed right to life. To me that means keeping quality of life and non-discrimination in that quality of life regardless of status or income.
And I am not saying that any heath care that I want on my whim should be covered. But basic quality heath care and access to it are.
ok so a social program isn't socialized?
A social program is not socialism - they have nothing to do with one another.
Or are you saying that one instance of a socialized program doesn't make the whole country socialist? Which is true, but it's still a step in the wrong direction, and it's socializing an industry.
No, I'm saying social programs are not socialist. If heath care was socialist then the health care workers would not get paid in cash but other goods such as food or housing.
I fundamentally believe it is my right as a citizen of a free country to be able to get access to heath care whenever and whatever I need, and I shouldn't have to go bankrupt to get it. I'm Canadian, thats how heathcare works here, it's not in the least bit socialist and I will NEVER give up that right.
Universal heath care is a good thing but it is not socialist. Its a social program - completely different.
Yes, fluorescent lights flash - I said this earlier. Your LCD back light does not flash.
You just proved my comment - you dont know what socialism is.
You are confusing social programs with socialism. They are not the same.
I don't have to look it up. I KNOW the technology.
Arrogance. You must be a software script kiddie. Think you know everything.
Your links just prove yourself wrong. You reference dimming the backlight through PWM. Then obviously if it is not dimmed then the display is always on (100% duty cycle on PWM) and therefore not flashing. Duh.
And just because something is powered by AC doesn't mean it turns on and off. Do you think your fridge turns on and off at 60Hz because it is plugged into a wall?
Also, steal is a pour insulator.
Normally I don't care about spelling mistakes, but that is just too much.
So the US military are socialists? As far as I can tell they are government run. How about the court system? All paid for by tax dollars and run by the government.
No matter the claimed response time, yes, all LCDs give me some ghosting that I can easily perceive.
See now I know that's bullshit because LCDs dont have a refresh flicker like CRTs. LCDs only have an update rate where the information is replace *without a blanking interval* with the new information. 60Hz, 70Hz - doesn't matter. It's just how fats it will keep up with the changing data. It's impossible to see flicker on an LCD.
CRTs are different in that there is a non-zero blanking interval as the gun realigns from the bottom of the screen to the top, and the phosphor dims from the last time the colour guns illuminated them.
I was just pointing out that that you're wrong. Humans with normal human vision can see the flicker at such low refresh rates. No super vision is required.
And I was pointing out you were wrong.
Even now you say you see flicker from a 60Hz CRT. 3D shutter goggles will be similar to CRTs since they cycle between blocked/black and visible at 60Hz per eye. In comparison LCD displays may not actually go to black (the LCD backlights may run at higher Hz than 60).
It's not similar in the slightest. Also LCD backlights don't have a 60Hz or any other refresh rate. They are constantly on. Look up the technology before you start arguing.
If you have difficulty realizing when you're wrong and spouting bullshit claims, it's your loss dude.
You are the one spouting bullshit as you seem to have no idea how the technology even works, and are arguing on your incorrect assumptions.
Is that a fact or an opinion? Can you tell the difference?
Fact. And yes I can.
Interesting. Since you've never seen a movie, Darth Vader is Luke's father.
I assume you can see the 60Hz LCD refresh rate too?
Too bad you failed to realize human vision is around 72Hz and not 60Hz, so your entire above statement is pure bullshit, or you're the defective one.
Really? 24Hz movie theaters must be unwatchable to you then.
30Hz is the scientifically accepted threshold. Some people can detect 60Hz when there is another 60Hz source in the room (like a fluorescent light)., That is the *sole* reason CRTs moved above 60Hz.
It's increasingly clear to me that Americans who are adamantly against socialism have no idea what socialism means.
You'll see flicker if you are not running at 120Hz, if the frame rate staggers on your display, or if you are lighting your room with 60Hz fluorescents or compact fluorescents. Barring hardware problems you will see no flicker. Hate to break it to you but you do not have super vision.
It's like your phone system. Modern phones cram something like 10 simultaneous calls on a single line, which means what you are hearing is 90% silence - but your brain stitches it together so it seems continuous.
Yes, the horizontal resolution is halved with this method. As I said, the best 3D solution to date is with active shutter glasses.
I know movie theatre screens can reflect circularly polarized light without changing the polarization, so it can work with projection home theater.
You actually need TWO projectors, each with a polarizing filter (90deg out of phase with the other). This makes such a system expensive and can only be used with projectors, not LCD or LED systems.
There is no need to blank each eye in turn for half of each frame, so there is a lot less flicker. (And flicker sensitivity isn't so much a matter of framerate but of how much of each frame is black; stereoscopic systems require 50% blankness.)
I disagree. At 60Hz each eye (120Hz total), there is no perceivable flicker at all on active glasses. Your brain stitches everything together.
Does anyone know how is Sony supporting 3D BluRay on the PS3 when it requires HDMI 1.4? As I understand it, HDMI 1.4 is not a simple upgrade; it requires new generation transceivers on the source device which obviously can't apply to PS3s going back to 2006.
Likely they are only implementing the 3D portion of the spec, not the other stuff like audio return, ethernet or 4k resolution. Changing to 3D would only require an update in the refresh rate to 120Hz which they could probably have planned for when they designed it.