Even Marx himself predicted that a necessary period of transition from Capitalism to Communism would be the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". We can all debate the niceties of Marxism, but the fact was that its formulator and primary theorist believed that the people would need to be "shepherded" to the Utopian Marxist society.
The real problem for Communism is that the industrialized countries never bit. There were a few abortive revolutions in the mid-19th century, but the leadership of these countries were smart enough to recognize that political liberalization was the antidote to a restive working class. Most countries saw enfranchisement of larger numbers of people, increasing influence of legislative assemblies, and a more populist approach to government.
That's why the only countries that actually grasped on to Communism were primarily agrarian states like Russia, China and Cuba. In pure Marxist theory, agrarian states have not developed to the point where they are ready for the Communist revolution. That's why you have offshoots like Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and the like, all offshoots required to explain why economies dominated by agrarian workers should skip the whole mercantilism/capitalism stage and go straight to Communism.
My personal feeling is that Communism, like other Utopian socio-political and economic ideologies like the various strains of Anarchism and Libertarianism, are impossible to implement. Anyone attempting to will have to make so many compromises that the ideology itself becomes compromised.
That's not to say Marxism doesn't have its uses. Certainly Marx's insistence on history being seen through the lens of economics was critical to the transition of that entire branch of academia from political narratives to a more comprehensive view of the functioning and interactions of historical societies and events. But as a socio-economic and political model, it's a flop. It can't be implemented without dictatorship, and as we've seen so many times, once the dictators gain the power to effect the Communist transformation, they are so corrupted by that power that they actively kill the revolution themselves.
And Microsoft's market share of mobile devices is almost as pathetic as BlackBerry's. So why would any mobile app developer even give a fuck about some porting tools?
Face it. Microsoft lost the mobile game; not once, but like three times now.
I doubt either. I'm predicting that Microsoft remains a niche player in the mobile world, as it desktop market remains stable or very slowly dwindles. Nobody writing apps for mobile app platforms gives a flying shit about Microsoft's offerings. Maybe if porting was super easy, they might give it a go, but if that's the plan, then I think we're in for more dismal Surface and Windows phone sales.
Frankly, I don't know why MS just doesn't distribute an Android layer for Windows.
Which means nothing so far as Android or iOS apps are concerned. Porting an app designed for Android or iOS would likely mean significant changes to the user interface of the app.
No shit. I don't give a flying fuck what new browser Microsoft puts on Windows 10. When I get my first copy of Windows 10, I'll install Chrome, make it the default and the odds of me ever seeing IE or its successor will largely be nil.
My memory may be failing, but the IBM's license agreements only applied to Win16 and Win32s, and not to Win32, thus IBM could not place the Win32 API in OS/2, and thus developed a developer migration toolkit.
This reminds me a lot of how IBM tried to deal with 32 bit Windows compatibility. They created a set of libraries and APIs to try to facilitate the easy porting of Win32 software to OS/2. In the end, developers simply didn't bite, because IBM's desktop market share was too low to make it worth it. I see Microsoft running up against the same problem; why bother going through the effort, even with assistance, of porting mobile apps from the two dominant platforms (and by dominant I mean dominating something like 90%+ of all mobile devices)?
It's a sad day when scientists are once again condemned for working on theories that butt up against prejudices and corporate interests, and accused of "groupthink" by cowards and ignoramuses.
Boy, the psuedo-skeptics with mod points are out in force today. Imagine how low I'd get moderated if I attacked Libertarianism. It's fascinating to see the number of people who truly believe the Universe owes humanity some sort of consequence-free existence.
If there was evidence that would collapse AGW, someone would publish it. Claiming that there is a vast conspiracy in any field isn't going to convince anyone but the ignorant. Again, if I have to give credence to the claim that researchers having been forced out because they debunked AGW, then should I now also reject biological evolution, Big Bang cosmology and all the other fields?
The conspiracy theory claim, to my mind, is the final appeal of the pseudo-skeptic.
Do you have an actual citation here, or are you just going to keep pretending that psueduo-skeptic blog posts are actually references? Fucking hell, do you think I'm a fucking idiot.
Ah yes, the peer review conspiracy theory. Perhaps Ben Stein can do a sequel to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
Seriously, is it the intent of psuedo-skeptics like yourself to invoke every bullshit claim that the Creationist crowd developed? Is that the company you wish to keep?
This is a newspaper that, as recently departed political commentator Peter Oborne pointed out, willfully buried numerous stories about HSBC facilitating tax evasion and money laundering. It's almost insanely pro-industry, and basically gives Christopher Booker, a guy who has openly supported Intelligent Design, claimed asbestos is safe, and even defended the tobacco industry. Booker frequently writes editorial pieces attacking climatologists, that and attacking the UK's social service system seems to be just about the only things he does write about. His articles are frequently fallacious in nature, invoking non-experts and cranks.
Fine, the Heartland institute, a well known fossil fuel propaganda production facility, made baseless criticisms on the Pope, invoking several of their well known fallacies, lies and distortions.
I'm too busy reading what actual scientists publishing climatology research say. I'm not terribly interested in the kooks who stand for or against AGW. You'll have to try your whole meme on someone who gives a rats fuck what non-scientists say.
For chrissakes, that was four hundred years ago. Jesus christ, is that the best defense of the lying sociopaths at the Heartland Institute, that one of the Pope's predecessors, centuries ago, screwed over an astronomer?
Slashdot Mirror
Even Marx himself predicted that a necessary period of transition from Capitalism to Communism would be the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". We can all debate the niceties of Marxism, but the fact was that its formulator and primary theorist believed that the people would need to be "shepherded" to the Utopian Marxist society.
The real problem for Communism is that the industrialized countries never bit. There were a few abortive revolutions in the mid-19th century, but the leadership of these countries were smart enough to recognize that political liberalization was the antidote to a restive working class. Most countries saw enfranchisement of larger numbers of people, increasing influence of legislative assemblies, and a more populist approach to government.
That's why the only countries that actually grasped on to Communism were primarily agrarian states like Russia, China and Cuba. In pure Marxist theory, agrarian states have not developed to the point where they are ready for the Communist revolution. That's why you have offshoots like Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and the like, all offshoots required to explain why economies dominated by agrarian workers should skip the whole mercantilism/capitalism stage and go straight to Communism.
My personal feeling is that Communism, like other Utopian socio-political and economic ideologies like the various strains of Anarchism and Libertarianism, are impossible to implement. Anyone attempting to will have to make so many compromises that the ideology itself becomes compromised.
That's not to say Marxism doesn't have its uses. Certainly Marx's insistence on history being seen through the lens of economics was critical to the transition of that entire branch of academia from political narratives to a more comprehensive view of the functioning and interactions of historical societies and events. But as a socio-economic and political model, it's a flop. It can't be implemented without dictatorship, and as we've seen so many times, once the dictators gain the power to effect the Communist transformation, they are so corrupted by that power that they actively kill the revolution themselves.
The CEO in question is using a government program, so he isn't the only player here.
And Microsoft's market share of mobile devices is almost as pathetic as BlackBerry's. So why would any mobile app developer even give a fuck about some porting tools?
Face it. Microsoft lost the mobile game; not once, but like three times now.
I doubt either. I'm predicting that Microsoft remains a niche player in the mobile world, as it desktop market remains stable or very slowly dwindles. Nobody writing apps for mobile app platforms gives a flying shit about Microsoft's offerings. Maybe if porting was super easy, they might give it a go, but if that's the plan, then I think we're in for more dismal Surface and Windows phone sales.
Frankly, I don't know why MS just doesn't distribute an Android layer for Windows.
Which means nothing so far as Android or iOS apps are concerned. Porting an app designed for Android or iOS would likely mean significant changes to the user interface of the app.
No shit. I don't give a flying fuck what new browser Microsoft puts on Windows 10. When I get my first copy of Windows 10, I'll install Chrome, make it the default and the odds of me ever seeing IE or its successor will largely be nil.
Except that, as Metro so clearly demonstrated, mobile apps suck on a desktop monitor.
My memory may be failing, but the IBM's license agreements only applied to Win16 and Win32s, and not to Win32, thus IBM could not place the Win32 API in OS/2, and thus developed a developer migration toolkit.
This reminds me a lot of how IBM tried to deal with 32 bit Windows compatibility. They created a set of libraries and APIs to try to facilitate the easy porting of Win32 software to OS/2. In the end, developers simply didn't bite, because IBM's desktop market share was too low to make it worth it. I see Microsoft running up against the same problem; why bother going through the effort, even with assistance, of porting mobile apps from the two dominant platforms (and by dominant I mean dominating something like 90%+ of all mobile devices)?
Yes, another iteration of Embrace... Extend.. Extinguish.
Christ, the same tires fucking whining that pseudo scientists have been invoking for decades. "We're the victims of the cabal.'
It was much a lie when Michael Behe was claiming it as it is a lie now.
The researchers have no such powers. It is governments that make laws and policy.
It's a sad day when scientists are once again condemned for working on theories that butt up against prejudices and corporate interests, and accused of "groupthink" by cowards and ignoramuses.
Boy, the psuedo-skeptics with mod points are out in force today. Imagine how low I'd get moderated if I attacked Libertarianism. It's fascinating to see the number of people who truly believe the Universe owes humanity some sort of consequence-free existence.
If there was evidence that would collapse AGW, someone would publish it. Claiming that there is a vast conspiracy in any field isn't going to convince anyone but the ignorant. Again, if I have to give credence to the claim that researchers having been forced out because they debunked AGW, then should I now also reject biological evolution, Big Bang cosmology and all the other fields?
The conspiracy theory claim, to my mind, is the final appeal of the pseudo-skeptic.
Do you have an actual citation here, or are you just going to keep pretending that psueduo-skeptic blog posts are actually references? Fucking hell, do you think I'm a fucking idiot.
Ah yes, the peer review conspiracy theory. Perhaps Ben Stein can do a sequel to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
Seriously, is it the intent of psuedo-skeptics like yourself to invoke every bullshit claim that the Creationist crowd developed? Is that the company you wish to keep?
This is a newspaper that, as recently departed political commentator Peter Oborne pointed out, willfully buried numerous stories about HSBC facilitating tax evasion and money laundering. It's almost insanely pro-industry, and basically gives Christopher Booker, a guy who has openly supported Intelligent Design, claimed asbestos is safe, and even defended the tobacco industry. Booker frequently writes editorial pieces attacking climatologists, that and attacking the UK's social service system seems to be just about the only things he does write about. His articles are frequently fallacious in nature, invoking non-experts and cranks.
Fine, the Heartland institute, a well known fossil fuel propaganda production facility, made baseless criticisms on the Pope, invoking several of their well known fallacies, lies and distortions.
I'm too busy reading what actual scientists publishing climatology research say. I'm not terribly interested in the kooks who stand for or against AGW. You'll have to try your whole meme on someone who gives a rats fuck what non-scientists say.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
You're full of shit
Oh christ, not the 15/18 year bullshit. Several of those years are the hottest on record. This is what the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS state.
Have you even the vaguest notion of what AGW is?
Good thing we don't have to go to Soros for information on AGW.
For chrissakes, that was four hundred years ago. Jesus christ, is that the best defense of the lying sociopaths at the Heartland Institute, that one of the Pope's predecessors, centuries ago, screwed over an astronomer?