Socialist is thrown around too much, and most people think of Soviet Russia or Cuba. The Glenn Beck crowd dilutes the word by implying Obama and his cronies want to move to communism or something.
No, what I hate is the European style of socialism. It's watered down but it just seems to practical to people for some reason, when in fact it's clear Europe is either going to come crashing down economically or they're going to have to drastically change. We saw a taste of what's to come this spring and summer in Greece.
I have no problem with the concept of unions. The problem is they get special government protections. If a union was just a bunch of people who said "we won't work unless you do this and that", and the company could say "OK, you're all fired" then I'd have no problem. Instead, NLB has all kinds of special treatment for unions.
Shrug. My definition is the correct definition. Free means free.
It's the same false definition people use when claiming the GPL is the most "free" license. It's obviously less free than many other OS licenses, because it puts more restraints on what can be done with it.
Note I'm not saying a market in which there are some restraints can't also be called "free". I'm saying that complaining that a "cowboy, wild west, unregulated" market isn't free is simply false.
I mean, I see why you do it. You think you can co-opt the word "free" and beat capitalists at their own game by being "freer than thou". I guess it's a nice tactic and all, I just don't buy it.
Hey rabble..I mean my constituents, I want a truly free market. One where you are free to buy a price-controlled house for $100k, where gas is price-controlled at no more than $2 a gallon, and where we hike taxes those fat cat corporatists when they collude to distort the free market by refusing to immediately give up the rights to life-saving technologies to other companies. Why should those fat-cat pharmaceutical CEOs rake in all that profit, I want a free market where every discovery is immediately in the public domain!
Yes, I've noted the rabble rouser's favorite phrase is Fat Cat X. Fat Cat Washington Politicians. Fat Cat Corporate CEOs. Fat Cat Lawyers. Fat Cat...
Nonsense. That's part of the free market, trying to determine how much something is worth. Am I totally being an evil corporate fascist if I comparison shop in the internet before buying a TV? Ultimately, you are free to work or not work for the wages they are willing to pay you.
Slashdot is seriously fucked up. I keep expecting to come back here and find out it's turned into a Democrat campaign site and has various sections extolling the virtues of The Worker and how awesome unions are. The Eurosocialist pussification of the technical elite saddens me. We used to be a moderately libertarian bunch (not big-L "private roads!" Libertarians, just live and let live individualists). Now they're a bunch of fucking European-style socialists.
Got caught what, doing nothing wrong? This is all a bunch of nonsense, I can find concrete cases of people changing jobs between these companies. It's like someone walking into a police station and claiming that his wife was murdered, and then pointing to his wife and saying "Hey, my lovely wife Jane, tell this officer how you were brutally murdered last weekend."
Free Market... that phrase...it doesn't mean what you think it means.
A market where every actor is totally free to make choices on how they buy or sell their product/services is "free". Ergo, a market in which trusts and other consensual agreements and monopoly abuse are allowed is a free market.
Note I'm not saying that's ideal, just that you're using words wrong. Ideally you want a minimally regulated market, not one with no regulation.
It never existed, and neither did the Unicorns you probably think existed when you grew up. There is no perfectsystem, and capitalism is horrible - the only thing worse is every other system.
Nothing. What's funny is if you want to talk about some primitive ass shit, 90% of the real UNIX world still uses NFSv3. 16 group limits? Literally allowing the client to tell the server "Oh, I'm Joe Bob - trust me!". Seriously?
Bullshit. By this "Logic" you can never send or receive..well, anything over a computer network.
If I encrypt data using a session key that only I have, my assumption is only I see that data. If the encryption provider is broken, it's the encryption that's broken, not my code.
Your closing bit of wisdom that what is encrypted can be decrypted is equally facile. By this logic, we shouldn't be sending anything over the internet because SSL can be decrypted, PGP can be decrypted, etc...
1. Point out that "what is encrypted can be decrypted"
Microsoft is behind in the mobile space, and even I think they're pretty much of a long shot. But it's silly to count them out completely because, for one thing, you're not going to get developer tools as easy to use or high quality from Apple or Google. Besides their traction in the corporate world, the insanely high quality of their software tools and the amount of help they provide developers is one of their biggest strengths. Once you get developers developing high quality applications, you start getting the users.
The thing you neckbeard dweebs always forget about is the tooling. Microsoft will deliver absolutely superior tools for developing applications on WinMo7. They'll also have more influence over the corporate world, and from there they get developers developing software for their platform.
I don't know that they're going to set the world on fire, but you're a dipshit if you just dismiss them out of hand.
Development tools, as usual with Microsoft. They'll have development tools that blow away anything Google or Apple has. I don't know if that will be enough, though.
This assumes a perfect reality where the whole world plays ball.
In reality, this happens in leaps. China has cheap labor, people start to build wealth and the price of labor goes up. India says "OK, over here, we'll do it cheaper". Same thing happens in India. Then Guatemala. Honduras. Africa, etc...
It's not exploitation, it's just the first step on the ladder up. Their choice is no job at all, or a shitty low paying job that might get marginally better after several years. Their children, on the other hand, may have a much better time of it.
Yes. Plot those numbers year over year and tell me about the growth rate versus the growth rate of US consumption of US made products.
As China accelerates its earnings they're going to become an enormous market.
Don't forget their cheap products multiply the buying power of the US dollars spend on Chinese made products, too. We'd be hurting if prices on, well, almost everything went up e.g. 10%.
Don't bother with your fancy recitations of "reality", they don't care.
I think these people would seriously rather these poor, "exploited" workers have no jobs than have shitty low paying jobs. Then they can go back to starving and eating grubs from the dirt.
On the one hand they bemoan the low paying jobs because of the harm to workers. Then they want the US to do something about it like tariffs. Said tariffs would mean fewer of these sweatshop jobs so instead of making chump change these workers make _$0_. I'm unclear how this makes things better for the workers.
1. Force higher wages.
2. Company goes out of business, moves, or hires fewer workers.
3. ???
4. Worker who now has no job at all PROFITS! (well, wait...)
We're also not the worst in healthcare, not even close. Infant mortality stats are tracked correctly in the US, incorrectly most other places. Life expectancy has more to do with cultural issues than anything. It's all bullshit.
We have very expensive healthcare, and not everyone can afford it, but we have very high quality healthcare.
Exploit the workers... by giving them a job they wouldn't have without him, right?
Let's see, they can make $0 or they can make $1 an hour. I wonder which they choose. Oh, wait. I know which one they choose because they are working for him and have chosen the shitty low wages over $0 wages.
Wow, you mean offshoring isn't happening? God damn, all those unemployed people in manufacturing and textiles will be so glad to hear that! It turns out there isn't a massive exodus of labor and services being pushed out of the US! Whew, that was a close one - I thought for sure there was, but I'm glad you were here to set me right on reality!
[more mocking goes here...]
Referring to anyone who's not a left wing douchebag as some kind of Randian UltraLibertarian is even more stale than referring to anyone left of Ronald Reagan as a Communist.
Slashdot Mirror
Socialist is thrown around too much, and most people think of Soviet Russia or Cuba. The Glenn Beck crowd dilutes the word by implying Obama and his cronies want to move to communism or something.
No, what I hate is the European style of socialism. It's watered down but it just seems to practical to people for some reason, when in fact it's clear Europe is either going to come crashing down economically or they're going to have to drastically change. We saw a taste of what's to come this spring and summer in Greece.
I have no problem with the concept of unions. The problem is they get special government protections. If a union was just a bunch of people who said "we won't work unless you do this and that", and the company could say "OK, you're all fired" then I'd have no problem. Instead, NLB has all kinds of special treatment for unions.
Shrug. My definition is the correct definition. Free means free.
It's the same false definition people use when claiming the GPL is the most "free" license. It's obviously less free than many other OS licenses, because it puts more restraints on what can be done with it.
Note I'm not saying a market in which there are some restraints can't also be called "free". I'm saying that complaining that a "cowboy, wild west, unregulated" market isn't free is simply false.
I mean, I see why you do it. You think you can co-opt the word "free" and beat capitalists at their own game by being "freer than thou". I guess it's a nice tactic and all, I just don't buy it.
Hey rabble..I mean my constituents, I want a truly free market. One where you are free to buy a price-controlled house for $100k, where gas is price-controlled at no more than $2 a gallon, and where we hike taxes those fat cat corporatists when they collude to distort the free market by refusing to immediately give up the rights to life-saving technologies to other companies. Why should those fat-cat pharmaceutical CEOs rake in all that profit, I want a free market where every discovery is immediately in the public domain!
Yes, I've noted the rabble rouser's favorite phrase is Fat Cat X. Fat Cat Washington Politicians. Fat Cat Corporate CEOs. Fat Cat Lawyers. Fat Cat...
Nonsense. That's part of the free market, trying to determine how much something is worth. Am I totally being an evil corporate fascist if I comparison shop in the internet before buying a TV? Ultimately, you are free to work or not work for the wages they are willing to pay you.
Slashdot is seriously fucked up. I keep expecting to come back here and find out it's turned into a Democrat campaign site and has various sections extolling the virtues of The Worker and how awesome unions are. The Eurosocialist pussification of the technical elite saddens me. We used to be a moderately libertarian bunch (not big-L "private roads!" Libertarians, just live and let live individualists). Now they're a bunch of fucking European-style socialists.
Got caught what, doing nothing wrong? This is all a bunch of nonsense, I can find concrete cases of people changing jobs between these companies. It's like someone walking into a police station and claiming that his wife was murdered, and then pointing to his wife and saying "Hey, my lovely wife Jane, tell this officer how you were brutally murdered last weekend."
Mod parent up. This whole article is bullshit. Lots of people have migrated between these companies, ergo the claims are provably false.
Collusion is not illegal. Certain types of collusion are illegal.
By the way - there's nothing illegal about what they're doing in this case.
Sigh.
Free Market... that phrase...it doesn't mean what you think it means.
A market where every actor is totally free to make choices on how they buy or sell their product/services is "free". Ergo, a market in which trusts and other consensual agreements and monopoly abuse are allowed is a free market.
Note I'm not saying that's ideal, just that you're using words wrong. Ideally you want a minimally regulated market, not one with no regulation.
It never existed, and neither did the Unicorns you probably think existed when you grew up. There is no perfectsystem, and capitalism is horrible - the only thing worse is every other system.
Nothing. What's funny is if you want to talk about some primitive ass shit, 90% of the real UNIX world still uses NFSv3. 16 group limits? Literally allowing the client to tell the server "Oh, I'm Joe Bob - trust me!". Seriously?
Obvious troll is obvious...and very, very boring.
I'm really surprised you'd take such a controversial view on this issue.
Bullshit. By this "Logic" you can never send or receive..well, anything over a computer network.
If I encrypt data using a session key that only I have, my assumption is only I see that data. If the encryption provider is broken, it's the encryption that's broken, not my code.
Your closing bit of wisdom that what is encrypted can be decrypted is equally facile. By this logic, we shouldn't be sending anything over the internet because SSL can be decrypted, PGP can be decrypted, etc...
1. Point out that "what is encrypted can be decrypted"
2. Shut down teh interwebz
3. ???
4. Profit!
This is why MS has a fighting chance.
Microsoft is behind in the mobile space, and even I think they're pretty much of a long shot. But it's silly to count them out completely because, for one thing, you're not going to get developer tools as easy to use or high quality from Apple or Google. Besides their traction in the corporate world, the insanely high quality of their software tools and the amount of help they provide developers is one of their biggest strengths. Once you get developers developing high quality applications, you start getting the users.
The thing you neckbeard dweebs always forget about is the tooling. Microsoft will deliver absolutely superior tools for developing applications on WinMo7. They'll also have more influence over the corporate world, and from there they get developers developing software for their platform.
I don't know that they're going to set the world on fire, but you're a dipshit if you just dismiss them out of hand.
Ahh, yes. It makes you look pretty smart to dismiss the most profitable software company in history, by a long shot.
In the comfy confines of your basement I'm sure Microsoft is nobody. Out here in the real world, they're a major force.
Grr, I'm very serious! Grr, I don't like them having fun and trying to build a little excitement! Grrrrr!
Development tools, as usual with Microsoft. They'll have development tools that blow away anything Google or Apple has. I don't know if that will be enough, though.
This assumes a perfect reality where the whole world plays ball.
In reality, this happens in leaps. China has cheap labor, people start to build wealth and the price of labor goes up. India says "OK, over here, we'll do it cheaper". Same thing happens in India. Then Guatemala. Honduras. Africa, etc...
It's not exploitation, it's just the first step on the ladder up. Their choice is no job at all, or a shitty low paying job that might get marginally better after several years. Their children, on the other hand, may have a much better time of it.
Where do you think that money goes? Is it destroyed? Eventually it does get spent, and it gets spent on goods and services other people profit from.
Many billionaires end up giving away most of their money anyway. Buffet and Gates will have spend tens of billions each on charity before they die.
Yes. Plot those numbers year over year and tell me about the growth rate versus the growth rate of US consumption of US made products.
As China accelerates its earnings they're going to become an enormous market.
Don't forget their cheap products multiply the buying power of the US dollars spend on Chinese made products, too. We'd be hurting if prices on, well, almost everything went up e.g. 10%.
Don't bother with your fancy recitations of "reality", they don't care.
I think these people would seriously rather these poor, "exploited" workers have no jobs than have shitty low paying jobs. Then they can go back to starving and eating grubs from the dirt.
On the one hand they bemoan the low paying jobs because of the harm to workers. Then they want the US to do something about it like tariffs. Said tariffs would mean fewer of these sweatshop jobs so instead of making chump change these workers make _$0_. I'm unclear how this makes things better for the workers.
1. Force higher wages.
2. Company goes out of business, moves, or hires fewer workers.
3. ???
4. Worker who now has no job at all PROFITS! (well, wait...)
We're also not the worst in healthcare, not even close. Infant mortality stats are tracked correctly in the US, incorrectly most other places. Life expectancy has more to do with cultural issues than anything. It's all bullshit.
We have very expensive healthcare, and not everyone can afford it, but we have very high quality healthcare.
Exploit the workers... by giving them a job they wouldn't have without him, right?
Let's see, they can make $0 or they can make $1 an hour. I wonder which they choose. Oh, wait. I know which one they choose because they are working for him and have chosen the shitty low wages over $0 wages.
I vote for shut up, personally.
Wow, you mean offshoring isn't happening? God damn, all those unemployed people in manufacturing and textiles will be so glad to hear that! It turns out there isn't a massive exodus of labor and services being pushed out of the US! Whew, that was a close one - I thought for sure there was, but I'm glad you were here to set me right on reality!
[more mocking goes here...]
Referring to anyone who's not a left wing douchebag as some kind of Randian UltraLibertarian is even more stale than referring to anyone left of Ronald Reagan as a Communist.