Stalin's 5 year plans starting in 1928 going on til WWII and til his death.
I mean by your definition of working by getting a poverty stricken 3rd world nation into a super modernized industrialized superpower in less than 20 years, then I'd say Stalin succeeded in making communism "work".
Of course he did so by the point of the gun and slave labor.
The reason it failed was because of the lack of greed incentive that makes capitalism works, communism needed fear and Stalin provided much of that.
When Kruschev, Breshnev, and Gorbi took away the fear it stopped working.
Now, I wouldn't recommend Stalin's type of government to anyone because it wasn't very nice to live through, but economically it worked.
The era of anonymous living is quickly coming to an end. We'd be better off devising technological counter-measures than trying to hold back this tide with laws.
I suspect sometime after 2030, in order for true anonymity people will clone themselves and take on random identities while their clone lives their normal life.
Such things will actually entail different levels of subconscious in that if you are questioned, the random identity you live in won't know who you previously were.
Or you could just block out the cameras remotely like the Laughing Man did;)
But, if you were to ask me whether I would sacrifice my life and/or my loved ones in the name of freedom, I would probably say no, go ahead and mount the cameras. I'd rather live.
That's not much of a choice is it?
Chances are if you give up your freedom, your security will come next anyways.
I can't tell you how many times I've come across a site which uses Flash to show a single, individual picture. Not a stream of pictures. Not a mosaic of pictures. Not a slideshow of pictures. One picture.
I've heard some people say they do this to prevent picture stealing because people were turning java script off on their browser and could right click on their site.
I explained they could just hit print screen, but I think it was lost on them.
After all, without wealth, no one would ever have been able to devote the time, energy, and resources necessary to developing any but the most rudimentary of technologies.
Umm... Who is your history teacher so I can slap them because you've just discounted all the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance innovators and inventors? Yes, many of them had patrons, but most of these guys weren't wealthy themselves. (And ironically some of the Scientists during the 1500's were monks and church leaders themselves)
Also you've discounted all the advances of the Soviet Space program and arguably the Nazi German rocket program.
I will agree that wealth is conductive towards technological progress, but capitalism wasn't needed for all instances of progress.
I'd argue with need a mix of both, because without agencies like DARPA we'd never have saw private industry take the ball and run with what we call the internet today.
Corporations maximize shareholder value, and then we, as shareholders, determine whether that value is used for good or for evil. Sorry- not all of that was directed at you, just the definitional part at the beginning.
I think a lot of companies fail to realize that short term profit maximization often is contrary to long term profit maximization.
Sure, they could make a lot more money being bastards to their community and suing their customers and competitors, but over long term they will loose "good will" and suffer long term profits.
Personally, I'd rather own shares in a company that treats its employees, customers, and community with respect simply because that will mean they'll be around in 20 years with maximized gains.
By that logic, if I don't live in a shack and give away all the money I don't absolutely need, I must be an evil, immoral person.
According to a lot of regions... Including Christianity.
Yes, you are.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God." >
I'll admit. I'm not a Christian (and yet I'm here quoting bible verses) so I understand perhaps this view is flawed, but arguably if you take it from a religious point of view of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism then yes you are supposed to give all your things away you don't need a live in a shack.
Heck, Islam forbids money lending and so did Christianity up until recently.
Not that people have overlooked these teachings for the past 2000 or so odd years, but don't say wealth isn't historically viewed as something not evil. Half of the new testament is Jesus's denouncification of it.
Again, I don't personally ascribe to it, but the tell that to the Amish or Buddhist monks.
You chose to break the law and were punished for it.
As opposed to the people that break unjust laws and were punished for it?
I mean Aung San Suu Kyi has my sympathy even though she has indeed broke the "law" of her nation. She's probably going to suffer a long time because it.
I'm not saying that what the file sharer did in anywhere in comparison with what she is trying to accomplish in Burma, but make a blanket statement that because you break a law means you don't get sympathy is foolish indeed.
Hell. Legally, the American Revolutions broke the law when they revolted.
Remember...
Sometimes following a law is not always the right thing to do because sometimes a law is written in an unethical or immoral way.
Oil companies don't sell oil - they sell energy. Oil is just how they get the energy to you. It's a transport medium and nothing more.
I'd argue the oil companies don't like the fact that oil comes from nations that don't play nice with them on their terms and would jump for joy if they found an alternative if they could get full control over it.
Sure, There might be less listeners then before because of MP3 players and what not, but radio is not "going out of business" and still plays an important roll in exposing "The Next Big Artist/Albumn/Song"
It's no surprise, then, that the radio advertising business recently saw its worst quarter in history. The Radio Advertising Bureau said yesterday that combined national and local ad spending dropped 26% to $2.8 billion during the last quarter. Network radio dropped 13% to $238 million while off-air revenue receded 12% to $264 million.
Which makes my wondering about how they can turn a profit on such small runs even more pertinent...
I would suspect they have a deal with the MP3 distributors above the normal royalties in directing traffic and business to them. If that is really true and what it entails... I do not know.
There are lots of elements used in the "Music Engine." One of those crucial elements is radio play. Another is wide-spread marketing. And still another is hiring girls to scream during performances.
1. No one listens to radio anymore (except maybe NPR)
2. That is what drink tickets are for and "backstage access" *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
...because if someone not in a uniform bursts into my home unannounced they're going to be leaving with a few more bullet holes in their body than they walked in with.
Just hope they aren't under cover plainclothes officers doing a "no knock".
Alot of these MMO's have painted themselves into a corner with regard to creating a level playing field between established players and new players. You could have two players of equal skill squaring off but because one has been feeding his habit for a few months or even years longer they win in the random number generator fight that occurs.
That's the core problem of the game: You can't have one single class that everyone thinks is awesome and then expect people to play support characters. People play MMOs to be heros.
I'd argue that is a problem with the players and not the game. I think it turns out that if you play the "storm trooper" and follow organized guild leaders your experience will be a lot better in the long term.
I play on a guild on Warhammer Online who leader is basically a dictator and screams obscenities like a marine drill sargent at us.
But the reason we put up with him, was before he and his guild came on the server, our faction was constantly being beat down by the other side.
Everyone swallowed their pride and join a mega guild and we turned the server around in our favor. Now the opposing faction is composed with a lot of smaller guilds who infight and they can never organize a effective enough force to beat us.
The same can be said about PvE raiding. If you don't have an effective leadership, then you will often fail.
I know "More dots! More dots!" was a bit extreme, but besides the fact a lot of people do want to be a hero, a lot more want to win and don't mind following orders.
On a side note, I do notice a lot of ex-military people in the guild and perhaps that is why we have the mindset of being the storm trooper instead of the Jedi.
That's a laugh. I don't know anyone of the 20 or 30 people that play or have played WoW for thousands of hours that haven't tried out other MMORPGs - Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, EVE, a slew of free or freemium ones, etc.
Maybe because that is because you play WoW and don't encounter anyone who didn't come back.
I'm on a very large guild on Warhammer Online (1000+ members) and the concensus is that we don't like WoW. I mean it was good, but it had flaws for what most of us wanted in an MMO and that is why we are sticking with War.
There are many debates on vent about why say Conan failed or what Mythic could do better with Warhammer online, but not everyone wants to play that game for lots of different reasons. I think at least the WAR followers like the PvP and RvR which WoW has but pulls off rather poorly in some aspects in getting more than several hundred people onto the open battle field at the time.
Anyways, its really from your personal perspective of who says what. If you play WoW, you probaly didn't like WAR and if you are currently playing WAR there are reasons you aren't playing WoW.
On a side note... I've been reading some very interesting blogs about Darkfall Online about the game politics and game mechanics. Perhaps when they release an North America server and iron out the bugs I'll take it for a spin.
And what will Johnny User do with that computer when the network is down?
I strongly agree and I'm surprised at the amounts of ludditism coming from a lot of people replying to your post.
When there is no internet connection... That is the problem. Not a part of it.
Local or not, when you have no internet connection your productivity and efficiency is reduced to just about 0% for many of us.
Rather than working with local programs, I will turn the computer off and go read a book.
Because every time I need to communicate with someone, Google someone, post a question on a forum, and basically everything else needed to reference what I do would happen a great deal faster with an internet connection than without.
Rather than mucking around by myself cut off for the world, I might as well wait til the connection comes back up so that if I did run into any problems I can go to the online resources and deal with the problem.
I'm not talking about keeping offline copies of critical data... Hell... Copied to a hard drive and throw it in an offline bank safe.
But the fact you assume that certain systems can't function without the internet is flawed is outright dumb because most of use can't function without an internet connection.
I find it somewhat ironic that people are saying "What about when the internet is down?" posting on a communication forum that basically requires just that.
Again... The lack of internet connection is the problem, not that the application or device requires it.
Its like complaining about World of Warcraft doesn't work offline.
FFS IT WASN'T DESIGNED TO!!! Maybe this application is not for you! Maybe it is for people who have 24/7 connections that have 3g backup that don't mind having non-critical stuff online.
Its not like my medical records, banking, and credit reports aren't already online and I have no control over them over than the strength of those companies systems. It is the way things are going to be.
Again... Don't like. Unplug your network cable for a few days and get back with us.
Slashdot Mirror
Why?
Because he is a customer of the airports and if they would like him to fly as much as possible to earn revenue, then they ought to listen to him.
Where and when did communism work?
Stalin's 5 year plans starting in 1928 going on til WWII and til his death.
I mean by your definition of working by getting a poverty stricken 3rd world nation into a super modernized industrialized superpower in less than 20 years, then I'd say Stalin succeeded in making communism "work".
Of course he did so by the point of the gun and slave labor.
The reason it failed was because of the lack of greed incentive that makes capitalism works, communism needed fear and Stalin provided much of that.
When Kruschev, Breshnev, and Gorbi took away the fear it stopped working.
Now, I wouldn't recommend Stalin's type of government to anyone because it wasn't very nice to live through, but economically it worked.
Democracy is the worst government system. Except for all the other ones we have tried in the past...
I know that is a famous quote, but in truth peasants got more time off under feudalism than we do under capitalism today.
Sure there was the plague and life expectancy issues, but that more of a science issue than a political one.
The era of anonymous living is quickly coming to an end. We'd be better off devising technological counter-measures than trying to hold back this tide with laws.
I suspect sometime after 2030, in order for true anonymity people will clone themselves and take on random identities while their clone lives their normal life.
Such things will actually entail different levels of subconscious in that if you are questioned, the random identity you live in won't know who you previously were.
Or you could just block out the cameras remotely like the Laughing Man did ;)
But, if you were to ask me whether I would sacrifice my life and/or my loved ones in the name of freedom, I would probably say no, go ahead and mount the cameras. I'd rather live.
That's not much of a choice is it?
Chances are if you give up your freedom, your security will come next anyways.
Who deploys thousands of anti-aircraft guns any more?
Israel.
I can't tell you how many times I've come across a site which uses Flash to show a single, individual picture. Not a stream of pictures. Not a mosaic of pictures. Not a slideshow of pictures. One picture.
I've heard some people say they do this to prevent picture stealing because people were turning java script off on their browser and could right click on their site.
I explained they could just hit print screen, but I think it was lost on them.
After all, without wealth, no one would ever have been able to devote the time, energy, and resources necessary to developing any but the most rudimentary of technologies.
Umm... Who is your history teacher so I can slap them because you've just discounted all the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance innovators and inventors? Yes, many of them had patrons, but most of these guys weren't wealthy themselves. (And ironically some of the Scientists during the 1500's were monks and church leaders themselves)
Also you've discounted all the advances of the Soviet Space program and arguably the Nazi German rocket program.
I will agree that wealth is conductive towards technological progress, but capitalism wasn't needed for all instances of progress.
I'd argue with need a mix of both, because without agencies like DARPA we'd never have saw private industry take the ball and run with what we call the internet today.
Corporations maximize shareholder value, and then we, as shareholders, determine whether that value is used for good or for evil. Sorry- not all of that was directed at you, just the definitional part at the beginning.
I think a lot of companies fail to realize that short term profit maximization often is contrary to long term profit maximization.
Sure, they could make a lot more money being bastards to their community and suing their customers and competitors, but over long term they will loose "good will" and suffer long term profits.
Personally, I'd rather own shares in a company that treats its employees, customers, and community with respect simply because that will mean they'll be around in 20 years with maximized gains.
By that logic, if I don't live in a shack and give away all the money I don't absolutely need, I must be an evil, immoral person.
According to a lot of regions... Including Christianity.
Yes, you are.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God."
>
I'll admit. I'm not a Christian (and yet I'm here quoting bible verses) so I understand perhaps this view is flawed, but arguably if you take it from a religious point of view of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism then yes you are supposed to give all your things away you don't need a live in a shack.
Heck, Islam forbids money lending and so did Christianity up until recently.
Not that people have overlooked these teachings for the past 2000 or so odd years, but don't say wealth isn't historically viewed as something not evil. Half of the new testament is Jesus's denouncification of it.
Again, I don't personally ascribe to it, but the tell that to the Amish or Buddhist monks.
Then one of the guys posted to Twtiter something about the meeting, and as a result Palm canceled the meeting.
All the guy said in Twitter that they were having a meeting with Palm and nothing content related to what they were discussing.
If that is the reason, then its piss poor community relations. If they guy gave details about what was covered then perhaps that would violate NDA.
Either way, the behavior of Palm towards its community developers isn't going to get anyone to do them any favors at this point.
So do they get a re-trial or appeal rather quickly now?
You chose to break the law and were punished for it.
As opposed to the people that break unjust laws and were punished for it?
I mean Aung San Suu Kyi has my sympathy even though she has indeed broke the "law" of her nation. She's probably going to suffer a long time because it.
I'm not saying that what the file sharer did in anywhere in comparison with what she is trying to accomplish in Burma, but make a blanket statement that because you break a law means you don't get sympathy is foolish indeed.
Hell. Legally, the American Revolutions broke the law when they revolted.
Remember...
Sometimes following a law is not always the right thing to do because sometimes a law is written in an unethical or immoral way.
Oil companies don't sell oil - they sell energy. Oil is just how they get the energy to you. It's a transport medium and nothing more.
I'd argue the oil companies don't like the fact that oil comes from nations that don't play nice with them on their terms and would jump for joy if they found an alternative if they could get full control over it.
Sure, There might be less listeners then before because of MP3 players and what not, but radio is not "going out of business" and still plays an important roll in exposing "The Next Big Artist/Albumn/Song"
Yes, radio is going out of business.
Which makes my wondering about how they can turn a profit on such small runs even more pertinent...
I would suspect they have a deal with the MP3 distributors above the normal royalties in directing traffic and business to them. If that is really true and what it entails... I do not know.
1. No one listens to radio anymore for music.
I forgot about the traffic, sports, and political commentary, but if even the most poor and uneducated use MP3 players to listen to music these days.
There are lots of elements used in the "Music Engine." One of those crucial elements is radio play. Another is wide-spread marketing. And still another is hiring girls to scream during performances.
1. No one listens to radio anymore (except maybe NPR)
2. That is what drink tickets are for and "backstage access" *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
...because if someone not in a uniform bursts into my home unannounced they're going to be leaving with a few more bullet holes in their body than they walked in with.
Just hope they aren't under cover plainclothes officers doing a "no knock".
*coughs*
I hope its as good as Blues Brothers 2000.
Last night I saw the new Star Trek with my girl friend and as we sat through the movie previews, they showed both the new GI Joe and Transformers 2.
My girlfriend turned to me with a frantic look and said "They're ruining our childhood!!"
Alot of these MMO's have painted themselves into a corner with regard to creating a level playing field between established players and new players. You could have two players of equal skill squaring off but because one has been feeding his habit for a few months or even years longer they win in the random number generator fight that occurs.
Sounds like you want to play Darkfall Online
I've been reading this blog and it seems that the game isn't like any other one I have seen so far.
They say its based on player skill and there are no levels much like Ultima Online and you can build cities like Shadowbane.
That said... I haven't played it so you'll have to take the blogs word for it.
That's the core problem of the game: You can't have one single class that everyone thinks is awesome and then expect people to play support characters. People play MMOs to be heros.
I'd argue that is a problem with the players and not the game. I think it turns out that if you play the "storm trooper" and follow organized guild leaders your experience will be a lot better in the long term.
I play on a guild on Warhammer Online who leader is basically a dictator and screams obscenities like a marine drill sargent at us.
But the reason we put up with him, was before he and his guild came on the server, our faction was constantly being beat down by the other side.
Everyone swallowed their pride and join a mega guild and we turned the server around in our favor. Now the opposing faction is composed with a lot of smaller guilds who infight and they can never organize a effective enough force to beat us.
The same can be said about PvE raiding. If you don't have an effective leadership, then you will often fail.
I know "More dots! More dots!" was a bit extreme, but besides the fact a lot of people do want to be a hero, a lot more want to win and don't mind following orders.
On a side note, I do notice a lot of ex-military people in the guild and perhaps that is why we have the mindset of being the storm trooper instead of the Jedi.
That's a laugh. I don't know anyone of the 20 or 30 people that play or have played WoW for thousands of hours that haven't tried out other MMORPGs - Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, EVE, a slew of free or freemium ones, etc.
Maybe because that is because you play WoW and don't encounter anyone who didn't come back.
I'm on a very large guild on Warhammer Online (1000+ members) and the concensus is that we don't like WoW. I mean it was good, but it had flaws for what most of us wanted in an MMO and that is why we are sticking with War.
There are many debates on vent about why say Conan failed or what Mythic could do better with Warhammer online, but not everyone wants to play that game for lots of different reasons. I think at least the WAR followers like the PvP and RvR which WoW has but pulls off rather poorly in some aspects in getting more than several hundred people onto the open battle field at the time.
Anyways, its really from your personal perspective of who says what. If you play WoW, you probaly didn't like WAR and if you are currently playing WAR there are reasons you aren't playing WoW.
On a side note... I've been reading some very interesting blogs about Darkfall Online about the game politics and game mechanics. Perhaps when they release an North America server and iron out the bugs I'll take it for a spin.
Its the universities mascot.
And what will Johnny User do with that computer when the network is down?
I strongly agree and I'm surprised at the amounts of ludditism coming from a lot of people replying to your post.
When there is no internet connection... That is the problem. Not a part of it.
Local or not, when you have no internet connection your productivity and efficiency is reduced to just about 0% for many of us.
Rather than working with local programs, I will turn the computer off and go read a book.
Because every time I need to communicate with someone, Google someone, post a question on a forum, and basically everything else needed to reference what I do would happen a great deal faster with an internet connection than without.
Rather than mucking around by myself cut off for the world, I might as well wait til the connection comes back up so that if I did run into any problems I can go to the online resources and deal with the problem.
I'm not talking about keeping offline copies of critical data... Hell... Copied to a hard drive and throw it in an offline bank safe.
But the fact you assume that certain systems can't function without the internet is flawed is outright dumb because most of use can't function without an internet connection.
I find it somewhat ironic that people are saying "What about when the internet is down?" posting on a communication forum that basically requires just that.
Again... The lack of internet connection is the problem, not that the application or device requires it.
Its like complaining about World of Warcraft doesn't work offline.
FFS IT WASN'T DESIGNED TO!!! Maybe this application is not for you! Maybe it is for people who have 24/7 connections that have 3g backup that don't mind having non-critical stuff online.
Its not like my medical records, banking, and credit reports aren't already online and I have no control over them over than the strength of those companies systems. It is the way things are going to be.
Again... Don't like. Unplug your network cable for a few days and get back with us.