"in EU you do not have a constitutional right to consume. The owner of a shop has the right of not serving you, at his discretion."
No, he hasn't.
In Spain, under the "Ley de Ordenacion del Comercio Minorista" (more or less, "law regulating the retail commerce") a shop owner has the obligation to serve his customers (Chapter II, Article 9, "ObligaciÃn de Vender" -obligation to sell). Of course, there are some exemptions, but that's the starting point.
Given that the current law is a transposition of an European Directive (2006/123/CE) I really doubt it's so much different in other EU countries.
"Yeah I better make sure to tell the guy I work with that since he speaks Farsi I know he's a terrorist. Despite being someone who walked for 2 weeks to get out of Iran and escape to Canada so he and his wife and son could have a better life here. Despite the fact that he is one of the nicest people I have ever met etc."
So he's obviously a mole... those are the worst kind! You'd better put notice to your nearest FBI station ASAP. You want to be a good citizen, don't you?
PS: he is not only a mole, he is one to be *very* scare of: he was able to go from Iran to Canada by walking two weeks!
"A slightly larger exponent is sufficient to take over the population, given enough time."
Given enough time... and given no other constrains are in place.
Thought experiment: let's take for a given that there in fact exists a "big family" gene. What if there's another, different "responsible parenthood" gene? One that, given enough food for your children not to starve, would give preference for your offspring to help them rise the societal ladder? A gene that would make parents subconsciensly think "I can rise four healthy children or I can rise two healthy, happy and with good future opportunities children" and made them choose the latter over the former? We are a social hierarchical species so basically that's exactly what happen, even if this second gene wouldn't add better fitness which easily might happen (shit happens, but it tends to be less damaging for people with good family networks and/or higher in the social ladder).
"Also, people tend to look for partners with similar interest in family size"
Data, please? The fact is that the very same gene pool that produced 8 children families in Poland or Ireland in the XIX century produces 1 or 2 children families in the XXI century USA and even in the XXI century Ireland or Poland and that's the case with any other evolutioned society: while correlation is not causation it rises suspicions. How do you explain that? Oh, yes, I know: it's a "temporal anomaly".
"In a normal society, as has existed for more than a billion years"
Could you please revisit your numbers? Like in dividing them by about ten thousand?
"it would be foolish to get 10 offspring, while you only have food for 2 or 3"
It wouldn't, if life is so harsh that 7 or 8 are going to die in their way to adulthood.
"it would be equally foolish to only have 2-3 when there's food for 10"
Why would it be foolish? While sustaining persistent negative growth drives to extinction there's no reverse to that. What's folish about a growth ratio of 1?
"If you are claiming that one of the core parameters to evolutionary fitness does not have any genes in our DNA, it seems you should be providing the evidence."
As if there weren't overwhelming evidence already as well as perfectly fitting explanations for that, you mean?
On the other hand, I don't think evolution works the way you think it works.
"Couples that don't have any children are a genetic dead end. Their genes will be gone in 1 generation. On the other hand, couples that love big families will spread their genes exponentially"
There's a minor problem in your argumentation: are you sure there exists a "big family" gene? Might it be that average of offspring is a cultural bias?
"Right, because Mugabe was a big business owner, not dictator for life."
But *of course* that Mugabe was a big business owner, so big he owned a whole country.
That he played by rules you (and I) don't aprove doesn't make his rules any less effective towards his economic interests. Mugabe was not only a dictator: he was a *rich* dictator.
"Since you are too fucking stupid to know common objective rules, I'll explain three."
Do you want a more "common objective rules" with regards of what a capitalist is than Adam Smith himself?
Rentseekers and mercantilists are capitalists by the very damn definition: they procure there welfare by taking advantage of their capital instead of their labour. Ignoring that simple truth is as stupid as it can take, Mr Anonymous Coward.
Since you were preemtively ignoring that simple truth, you were failing on the "no true Scotsman" falacy, again, by its very definition.
"The larger the government is, the more is can be used as a cudgel to take down smaller competitors by big business."
Quite true.
And then, the shorter the government is, the easier is for big business to crush new competitors before they become a real menace.
"Reduce regulation, reduce the power the federal government wields and inherently big business only has the power of whatever intellect they have multiplied by the money they have on hand."
Which is still orders of magnitude bigger than the intellect multiplied by the money of any little business.
Do you want a really short government with minimal regulation? Look at basically any third world country: they perfectly fit the bill. And as an added bonus you will see how good it would end up.
"the original doctrines of capitalism proposed by Adam Smith"
I read the "On the wealth of Nations..." and I have yet to see any doctrine. I see a theory on movements of capitals and wealth but no doctrine.
"...were designed in principle to avoid organisations like the RIAA from existing"
By the number of times Smith mentions the Bank of England and how it was a good influence to avoid the excesses of, say, the Scotish private bankers, I would say he would dissent.
"In a free market, there will be a bazillion people trying to create new products that compete with yours, and some will be successful"
No, there will be a bazillion that will try. That some will success (on top of those already in the place) is mere wishful thinking (even if from time to time it becomes true).
"'Patents, copyrights, tariffs, and protectionism' are all government-created restrictions on trade"
No, they aren't. They are means, as are market analysis, commercials, r+d... that some can use to gain a hand on the market. Government and, more to the point, politicians, are just another trading object within a capitalist society.
"and would not exist in a free market."
Bullshit. In a free market politicians are as free as you to sell their labour to the best offer. And that's exactly what happens.
"What about if you're viewing or downloading content that can get them into trouble like porn"
What if you are conspiring around the water fountain to take over the US government? Should we better put microphones?
Heck! what if you dare to *think* on company premises about something that can get the company in trouble? We should impose forcibly weekly lie detector test for everybody. Let's do it, I say!
"all your encryption is worthless, they will just park outside your lawn and point a device towards your keyboard. The electrical charge generated by each key can somehow be translated into clear text."
Failing that, they will just park outside of your lawn and point a device towards your head. The adrenaline generated by you knowing the "device" is a 7.65 long barrel can somehow be translated into clear text too.
"The _only_ time an employer has a moral leg to stand on is if you're spending so much time on non-work activities you are unable to complete your assigned duties. "
Not even then because, in that case, the problem would be you being unable to fulfill your tasks, not why you didn't fulfill them.
"When you approach a VC, the only thing you bring to the table is your ability to execute the plan you've proposed."
Maybe, but that's not what this news is about.
Is about "when you approach a VC, the only thing you bring to the table is your past record".
No wonder how high a percentage of founded start ups come from previous board of directors members (and how, in fact, so many previous board of directors members parasite new enterprises -so you can reach the VCs).
"Just because you have the skills to run a business and create something profitable doesn't mean you have the money to start it up."
Just because you have the skills to run a business and create something profitable doesn't mean you have the curriculum to show it up to a VC.
The point is: I value very positively this guy being honest but the message is clear: if you are not already one of us, you won't get the money to become one of us.
A good old guy going to business with another good old guy he is confident of.
Wouldn't you do exactly the same?
(Yes, it's an aporia: you either answer "yes", making my point, or you answer no, and then I'd say "that's why you are not a millionarie in the position of becoming a VC").
Slashdot Mirror
"If it is such a problem, go use another language."
But he was blaming *other* programers. You don't deal with this by *you* changing to another language.
"I blame the programmers not the language."
Good! Now you have to change the language once or blame the programmers forever (since you shouldn't expect to change them anytime soon).
Asimov already wrote it. I can't recall its name right now, but the uberjudge was Multivac.
"in EU you do not have a constitutional right to consume. The owner of a shop has the right of not serving you, at his discretion."
No, he hasn't.
In Spain, under the "Ley de Ordenacion del Comercio Minorista" (more or less, "law regulating the retail commerce") a shop owner has the obligation to serve his customers (Chapter II, Article 9, "ObligaciÃn de Vender" -obligation to sell). Of course, there are some exemptions, but that's the starting point.
Given that the current law is a transposition of an European Directive (2006/123/CE) I really doubt it's so much different in other EU countries.
"Yeah I better make sure to tell the guy I work with that since he speaks Farsi I know he's a terrorist. Despite being someone who walked for 2 weeks to get out of Iran and escape to Canada so he and his wife and son could have a better life here. Despite the fact that he is one of the nicest people I have ever met etc."
So he's obviously a mole... those are the worst kind! You'd better put notice to your nearest FBI station ASAP. You want to be a good citizen, don't you?
PS: he is not only a mole, he is one to be *very* scare of: he was able to go from Iran to Canada by walking two weeks!
"If a robot is taught or programmed by a human, it is liable to make the same mistakes as the human."
And if an electronic calculator is designed by a human, it is liable to make the same calculation mistakes (and at the same rate) as the human.
Or is it?
"A slightly larger exponent is sufficient to take over the population, given enough time."
Given enough time... and given no other constrains are in place.
Thought experiment: let's take for a given that there in fact exists a "big family" gene. What if there's another, different "responsible parenthood" gene? One that, given enough food for your children not to starve, would give preference for your offspring to help them rise the societal ladder? A gene that would make parents subconsciensly think "I can rise four healthy children or I can rise two healthy, happy and with good future opportunities children" and made them choose the latter over the former? We are a social hierarchical species so basically that's exactly what happen, even if this second gene wouldn't add better fitness which easily might happen (shit happens, but it tends to be less damaging for people with good family networks and/or higher in the social ladder).
"Also, people tend to look for partners with similar interest in family size"
Data, please? The fact is that the very same gene pool that produced 8 children families in Poland or Ireland in the XIX century produces 1 or 2 children families in the XXI century USA and even in the XXI century Ireland or Poland and that's the case with any other evolutioned society: while correlation is not causation it rises suspicions. How do you explain that? Oh, yes, I know: it's a "temporal anomaly".
"In a normal society, as has existed for more than a billion years"
Could you please revisit your numbers? Like in dividing them by about ten thousand?
"it would be foolish to get 10 offspring, while you only have food for 2 or 3"
It wouldn't, if life is so harsh that 7 or 8 are going to die in their way to adulthood.
"it would be equally foolish to only have 2-3 when there's food for 10"
Why would it be foolish? While sustaining persistent negative growth drives to extinction there's no reverse to that. What's folish about a growth ratio of 1?
"If you are claiming that one of the core parameters to evolutionary fitness does not have any genes in our DNA, it seems you should be providing the evidence."
As if there weren't overwhelming evidence already as well as perfectly fitting explanations for that, you mean?
On the other hand, I don't think evolution works the way you think it works.
"Couples that don't have any children are a genetic dead end. Their genes will be gone in 1 generation. On the other hand, couples that love big families will spread their genes exponentially"
There's a minor problem in your argumentation: are you sure there exists a "big family" gene? Might it be that average of offspring is a cultural bias?
"Right, because Mugabe was a big business owner, not dictator for life."
But *of course* that Mugabe was a big business owner, so big he owned a whole country.
That he played by rules you (and I) don't aprove doesn't make his rules any less effective towards his economic interests. Mugabe was not only a dictator: he was a *rich* dictator.
"Since you are too fucking stupid to know common objective rules, I'll explain three."
Do you want a more "common objective rules" with regards of what a capitalist is than Adam Smith himself?
Rentseekers and mercantilists are capitalists by the very damn definition: they procure there welfare by taking advantage of their capital instead of their labour. Ignoring that simple truth is as stupid as it can take, Mr Anonymous Coward.
Since you were preemtively ignoring that simple truth, you were failing on the "no true Scotsman" falacy, again, by its very definition.
"Do you believe that governments in third-world countries place few barriers on those starting businesses or engaging in business?"
But of course yes. No nasty papers nor regulations: all is needed is an AK-47 and the will to use it.
"ITT people who have no idea why third world countries are poor."
Because in an unregulated world the big fish crushes the little one?
"The larger the government is, the more is can be used as a cudgel to take down smaller competitors by big business."
Quite true.
And then, the shorter the government is, the easier is for big business to crush new competitors before they become a real menace.
"Reduce regulation, reduce the power the federal government wields and inherently big business only has the power of whatever intellect they have multiplied by the money they have on hand."
Which is still orders of magnitude bigger than the intellect multiplied by the money of any little business.
Do you want a really short government with minimal regulation? Look at basically any third world country: they perfectly fit the bill. And as an added bonus you will see how good it would end up.
"The people he describes are rentseekers, mercantalists, fascists, protectionists, etc. They are not capitalists in any meaningful sense of the term."
No true Scotsman...
"the original doctrines of capitalism proposed by Adam Smith"
I read the "On the wealth of Nations..." and I have yet to see any doctrine. I see a theory on movements of capitals and wealth but no doctrine.
"...were designed in principle to avoid organisations like the RIAA from existing"
By the number of times Smith mentions the Bank of England and how it was a good influence to avoid the excesses of, say, the Scotish private bankers, I would say he would dissent.
"In a free market, there will be a bazillion people trying to create new products that compete with yours, and some will be successful"
No, there will be a bazillion that will try. That some will success (on top of those already in the place) is mere wishful thinking (even if from time to time it becomes true).
"'Patents, copyrights, tariffs, and protectionism' are all government-created restrictions on trade"
No, they aren't. They are means, as are market analysis, commercials, r+d... that some can use to gain a hand on the market. Government and, more to the point, politicians, are just another trading object within a capitalist society.
"and would not exist in a free market."
Bullshit. In a free market politicians are as free as you to sell their labour to the best offer. And that's exactly what happens.
"What about if you're viewing or downloading content that can get them into trouble like porn"
What if you are conspiring around the water fountain to take over the US government? Should we better put microphones?
Heck! what if you dare to *think* on company premises about something that can get the company in trouble? We should impose forcibly weekly lie detector test for everybody. Let's do it, I say!
"all your encryption is worthless, they will just park outside your lawn and point a device towards your keyboard. The electrical charge generated by each key can somehow be translated into clear text."
Failing that, they will just park outside of your lawn and point a device towards your head. The adrenaline generated by you knowing the "device" is a 7.65 long barrel can somehow be translated into clear text too.
Obliged reference: http://xkcd.com/538/
"The _only_ time an employer has a moral leg to stand on is if you're spending so much time on non-work activities you are unable to complete your assigned duties. "
Not even then because, in that case, the problem would be you being unable to fulfill your tasks, not why you didn't fulfill them.
"When you approach a VC, the only thing you bring to the table is your ability to execute the plan you've proposed."
Maybe, but that's not what this news is about.
Is about "when you approach a VC, the only thing you bring to the table is your past record".
No wonder how high a percentage of founded start ups come from previous board of directors members (and how, in fact, so many previous board of directors members parasite new enterprises -so you can reach the VCs).
"Just because you have the skills to run a business and create something profitable doesn't mean you have the money to start it up."
Just because you have the skills to run a business and create something profitable doesn't mean you have the curriculum to show it up to a VC.
The point is: I value very positively this guy being honest but the message is clear: if you are not already one of us, you won't get the money to become one of us.
"Crony capitalism at work"
As if there were any other.
A good old guy going to business with another good old guy he is confident of.
Wouldn't you do exactly the same?
(Yes, it's an aporia: you either answer "yes", making my point, or you answer no, and then I'd say "that's why you are not a millionarie in the position of becoming a VC").
"Idiot. You don't just change your [malware ridden] operating system on a whim in a medical environment"
There, corrected for you.
But then, maybe you should in fact change your malware ridden operating system on a whim, *specially* in a medical environment.
"I didn't hear anyone complain about the USA "policing" the world during World War I, World War II, Korean War, or Operation Desert Storm"
You just were not listening.