... you're missing a fundamental way that a capitalist economy works. Once a company gets sufficiently large, it's very difficult to dislodge them from their position. That's why capitalist economies have always implemented methods to break up companies once they get too large.
Your analogy doesn't make sense in this sense. The problem only happens with very large companies. Nobody was suggesting "punishing" all sorts of successful companies.
I read the interview and looked at the web site, and it's too damn complicated. It won't work. It's kind of silly, in fact. Micro credits, crytpo magic money, tokens, votes, etc. Seems like a real mess.
Jesus, you just are really swallowing ALL of the Fox News garbage, aren't you? Just about everything you said is 100% wrong, but I don't have the time or interest to debunk all of your points. They've all been debunked in other places much better than I could ever do. It's just shocking to see one person who buys into what appears to be 100% of the Fox News bullshit. I'm surprised that you didn't say that all of the country's problems are Obama's fault (or did you just forget that before you hit "submit"?)
We did it to Ma Bell when it was the only telephone company in most of the US. It worked fine. None of these companies are as important as Ma Bell was, so I don't know why you're saying that this is unrealistic.
She's got my vote. She's the only politician that I've ever heard suggest this. She's the only politician that I'm aware of who has the balls to even begin to properly reign in and regulate big business in the US. I'm tired of having to eat shit from big companies just because they can buy politicians and write their own laws.
I don't know about that. They still get all of their location and contact data from their phones (and maybe audio/video?). They can still track them all around the web, since they probably all use their Face/gram logins. I don't know if the data they explicitly put into Facebook ("I like bananas. My favorite color is blue") is more valuable than all of the tracking data they get. And of course, now they can mine those photos, as well, so my bet is that Facebook doesn't care which portal people use, as long as they're using one of them.
They're just moving from one of Facebook's data collecting websites (facebook.com) to a different one (instagram.com). They're still giving Facebook roughly the same amount of data.
... it sounds like like something out a sci-fi futuristic dystopian book where one company owns everything and everybody worships this one company, and eventually, the company goes from selling things into "health care"...
Nobody's being "suppressed". Stupid people are being called out for being stupid. That's not "suppression" in any way, shape, or form. This kind of discussion is exactly what the First Amendment was for.
"Gorilla Glass" is a really cool technology. Maybe we could have a discussion about using it for something other than people's personal entertainment addiction gadgets? I can't think of a more inane and ultimately useless use for such an amazing technology.
My initial reaction is: "good!" It seems like the vast majority of the attacks/spam/garbage on the Internet comes from Russia, and has since the Net hit the public at large back int he early 90's
Of course, this (and what China is doing) pretty much destroy the entire point of the Internet. It'd be good (for me) in the short term, but bad for humanity as a whole, of course.
Hey SK, turn on that brain. It may not be a DIRECT effect, but maybe the temperature has an effect on critters & plants living near the top. And those are eaten by things living further down, and those are eaten by other things...
Saying that the top few feet of ocean warming isn't going to dramatically effect the rest of the ocean is silly. Of course its going to effect it. The ocean is Earth's largest and most complicated ecosystem. Humans don't even understand all of it yet. But we do know that all of the layers of the ocean interact in some way. The top of the ocean is where all of the sunlight energy enters into the entire system. Of course a changing temperature in the top layers is going to effect the rest of the ocean.
If you're smart enough to succeed, you're smart enough to succeed elsewhere.
I don't think that's in doubt. Highly educated people generally can succeed anywhere. The question is, do you want to succeed in the middle of nowhere? Personally, I don't. I like great universities and great museums and great restaurants. All of those things are generally concentrated in and near large cities or metro areas.
Why do we need to live in big cities on the coast, again?
Because that's where all of the other educated people live. If you're 100% anti-social, and you don't leave your house, and all you care about is money, by all means, move to the middle of nowhere. That's a great option for a person like that. But if you care to interact with other people, and do interesting things involving other people, you probably want to live on the coasts for now, because that's where the greatest concentration of educated people live.
Yup, both you and the parent are right. It IS out of whack. But in the US, we've collectively decided that we're a dog-eat-dog country, and we don't let the government intervene to help people (or even regions). It sucks, but wealth concentration is inevitable if you let capitalism go unchecked for long enough.
I think it's a terrible system (or lack of a system), so I vote to change it, and I'm going to continue to vote to change the system until I eventually leave the country for somewhere more civilized.
I don't think that Google and Apple have any interest in helping law enforcement. What they do do is sell users' info the the highest bidder. The danger comes from either somebody directly purchasing personal info, or just from somebody malicious getting their hands on the tons and tons of marketing info that's already being sold.
I agree that if most people are using weak passwords everywhere, it'd be an improvement, but for those of us who take security seriously, it's a non-starter. (I don't use a "smart phone" for that very reason, but I'm a bit of an outlier, obviously.)
Use a *mobile device* for logging in somewhere? That seems like an extraordinarily bad idea. I wouldn't trust a mobile device for anything that requires security. They come already compromised by Google/Apple, and then most people load them up with all sorts of "apps" that are actually tracking/monitoring programs.
I don't know if you know, but there have been thousands, probably millions of laws written about things that aren't in the US Constitution. That's because the US Constitution was written more than 300 years ago. They didn't have cars then. Or electricity.
It's legal because we've had the Republicans running things for the past decade or so, and Republicans believe than any regulations on business are anti-American.
Both of your links are to extreme right wing, anti-environmental web sites. The information is dubious, at best.
The US did sign the Paris accord. The US didn't pull out until Donnie Dipshit pulled out only very recently.
What is a "reasonable price" for human health and well-being, exactly? Neither of the links you provided even considered measurable financial benefits (or otherwise) benefits from cleaner power.
How can you see into the future, to say that it will be technologically impossible to provide enough clean energy?
Slashdot Mirror
... you're missing a fundamental way that a capitalist economy works. Once a company gets sufficiently large, it's very difficult to dislodge them from their position. That's why capitalist economies have always implemented methods to break up companies once they get too large.
Your analogy doesn't make sense in this sense. The problem only happens with very large companies. Nobody was suggesting "punishing" all sorts of successful companies.
I read the interview and looked at the web site, and it's too damn complicated. It won't work. It's kind of silly, in fact. Micro credits, crytpo magic money, tokens, votes, etc. Seems like a real mess.
Jesus, you just are really swallowing ALL of the Fox News garbage, aren't you? Just about everything you said is 100% wrong, but I don't have the time or interest to debunk all of your points. They've all been debunked in other places much better than I could ever do. It's just shocking to see one person who buys into what appears to be 100% of the Fox News bullshit. I'm surprised that you didn't say that all of the country's problems are Obama's fault (or did you just forget that before you hit "submit"?)
We did it to Ma Bell when it was the only telephone company in most of the US. It worked fine. None of these companies are as important as Ma Bell was, so I don't know why you're saying that this is unrealistic.
She's got my vote. She's the only politician that I've ever heard suggest this. She's the only politician that I'm aware of who has the balls to even begin to properly reign in and regulate big business in the US. I'm tired of having to eat shit from big companies just because they can buy politicians and write their own laws.
Credit card companies take 3% of everything you spend. If you use your card all the time, you're Visa's bitch, even if you don't see the bill.
If a cashier has trouble counting change, that person needs to find a different job.
-retailer for 17 years
I don't know about that. They still get all of their location and contact data from their phones (and maybe audio/video?). They can still track them all around the web, since they probably all use their Face/gram logins. I don't know if the data they explicitly put into Facebook ("I like bananas. My favorite color is blue") is more valuable than all of the tracking data they get. And of course, now they can mine those photos, as well, so my bet is that Facebook doesn't care which portal people use, as long as they're using one of them.
They're just moving from one of Facebook's data collecting websites (facebook.com) to a different one (instagram.com). They're still giving Facebook roughly the same amount of data.
... it sounds like like something out a sci-fi futuristic dystopian book where one company owns everything and everybody worships this one company, and eventually, the company goes from selling things into "health care"...
Nobody's being "suppressed". Stupid people are being called out for being stupid. That's not "suppression" in any way, shape, or form. This kind of discussion is exactly what the First Amendment was for.
"Gorilla Glass" is a really cool technology. Maybe we could have a discussion about using it for something other than people's personal entertainment addiction gadgets? I can't think of a more inane and ultimately useless use for such an amazing technology.
My initial reaction is: "good!" It seems like the vast majority of the attacks/spam/garbage on the Internet comes from Russia, and has since the Net hit the public at large back int he early 90's
Of course, this (and what China is doing) pretty much destroy the entire point of the Internet. It'd be good (for me) in the short term, but bad for humanity as a whole, of course.
Hey SK, turn on that brain. It may not be a DIRECT effect, but maybe the temperature has an effect on critters & plants living near the top. And those are eaten by things living further down, and those are eaten by other things...
Saying that the top few feet of ocean warming isn't going to dramatically effect the rest of the ocean is silly. Of course its going to effect it. The ocean is Earth's largest and most complicated ecosystem. Humans don't even understand all of it yet. But we do know that all of the layers of the ocean interact in some way. The top of the ocean is where all of the sunlight energy enters into the entire system. Of course a changing temperature in the top layers is going to effect the rest of the ocean.
If you're smart enough to succeed, you're smart enough to succeed elsewhere.
I don't think that's in doubt. Highly educated people generally can succeed anywhere. The question is, do you want to succeed in the middle of nowhere? Personally, I don't. I like great universities and great museums and great restaurants. All of those things are generally concentrated in and near large cities or metro areas.
Why do we need to live in big cities on the coast, again?
Because that's where all of the other educated people live. If you're 100% anti-social, and you don't leave your house, and all you care about is money, by all means, move to the middle of nowhere. That's a great option for a person like that. But if you care to interact with other people, and do interesting things involving other people, you probably want to live on the coasts for now, because that's where the greatest concentration of educated people live.
Yup, both you and the parent are right. It IS out of whack. But in the US, we've collectively decided that we're a dog-eat-dog country, and we don't let the government intervene to help people (or even regions). It sucks, but wealth concentration is inevitable if you let capitalism go unchecked for long enough.
I think it's a terrible system (or lack of a system), so I vote to change it, and I'm going to continue to vote to change the system until I eventually leave the country for somewhere more civilized.
I don't think that Google and Apple have any interest in helping law enforcement. What they do do is sell users' info the the highest bidder. The danger comes from either somebody directly purchasing personal info, or just from somebody malicious getting their hands on the tons and tons of marketing info that's already being sold.
I agree that if most people are using weak passwords everywhere, it'd be an improvement, but for those of us who take security seriously, it's a non-starter. (I don't use a "smart phone" for that very reason, but I'm a bit of an outlier, obviously.)
Use a *mobile device* for logging in somewhere? That seems like an extraordinarily bad idea. I wouldn't trust a mobile device for anything that requires security. They come already compromised by Google/Apple, and then most people load them up with all sorts of "apps" that are actually tracking/monitoring programs.
I'm sure most people will love it.
I don't know if you know, but there have been thousands, probably millions of laws written about things that aren't in the US Constitution. That's because the US Constitution was written more than 300 years ago. They didn't have cars then. Or electricity.
It's legal because we've had the Republicans running things for the past decade or so, and Republicans believe than any regulations on business are anti-American.
It should be illegal, though.
I think this is awesome. It was good software that hasn't needed to be "updated" every other day like modern software is.
Good troll, Vlad! You make King Putin proud!
Both of your links are to extreme right wing, anti-environmental web sites. The information is dubious, at best.
The US did sign the Paris accord. The US didn't pull out until Donnie Dipshit pulled out only very recently.
What is a "reasonable price" for human health and well-being, exactly? Neither of the links you provided even considered measurable financial benefits (or otherwise) benefits from cleaner power.
How can you see into the future, to say that it will be technologically impossible to provide enough clean energy?