He didn't compare them, he used their few similar traits to illustrate a point.
He used a few similar traits to illustrate a point?
That IS comparison. Textbook comparison.
If I examined the similarities between my ass and a hole in the ground, that would also be a comparison. But I still wouldn't be able to tell the difference between my ass and a hole in the ground, because I only compared, and did not contrast.
Speaking of which, if you compare something, you've made a comparison. If you contrast something, you've made a contrastison? A contrastion? A contrasticity?
The English language is bothering the hell out of me today.
I think the original poster really meant to refer to "an ideal free market" which is a theoretical construct use to model economic systems.
And really, free market systems break down because there is no such thing as an ideal free market.
I think waht he really meant, when you break it down, is a freely competitive system, which usually requires government intervention to make it so -- which is what he is calling for.
I ran a complete test suite under Purify, and found 5, yes, five, memory leaks
Five memory leaks! Ah-ah-ah.
One... two... three... four... five memory leaks!
Ah-ah-ah.
Sorry. I have a toddler at home. I couldn't help counting out loud in a silly voice when you mentioned the number 'five' twice. br.Now my coworkers are eyeing me even more strangely than usual.
Beware people who don't want things to go onto the web - they're usually information hoarders and don't share (but you will probably have other problems with them before you get to this point).
Or they've been burnt by spotty web access too many times.
Or they do not like the slowness of web systems (This is crucial to me. I hate working on intranets because everything is so damn slow -- though this maybe is due to poor setups, it's been common to the three ERP systems I've worked on, and the four non-ERP intranets I've worked on).
Or they are concerned about who has access to the information, and the chances of it being hacked into (especially important for donor lists, etc).
Though control of information is sometimes a means of job security for people, but in my experience, it is other factors that keep people from wanting to put things on the web.
the whole point being: when value is made an abstraction, people can rationalize "theft" a lot easier than when the value of what you are taking is starkly presented. it explains a lot of the sticking points in the argument over "pirated" mediaCasinos have been taking advantage of the discrepancy in valuations between cash and abstracted cash (chips) for a long, long time.
one of his precepts was that all of these derivatives, while having an economic value, were not actually money itself, and so this abstraction allowed a layer of rationalization of immoral behavior by otherwise normal people
I think the big problem with that statement is that it assigns morality in reference to economic transactions. Economic transactions are not in and of themselves moral or immoral. I think what he was really getting at is that the layer of abstraction presented by the derivatives allowed people to make very erroneous assumptions about their actual value, without requiring them to check their assumptions & perhaps re-evaluate. (Of course, I didn't see the presentation/discussion. This is what I've gleaned from reading other behavioral economists' analyses).
OK, I agree with your main concept that China (and the corollary, India) will be controllers of an economic (and perhaps cultural) empire, not a political one...
but we'll still be the land of the free and the home of the brave
You MUST mean that we'll still be the land of the 'sorta free' and the home of the internet tough guy.
FWIW, irrelevant I know, but Democracy in the US is a joke... it's a cover for political capitalism, where money and influence is exchanged for political action. It's always been this way to some extent, but I believe it's worse now more than ever due to corporate-controlled mass media and the apathy brought upon us by bread & circus.
Why did you feel the need to point that out, since I *specifically mentioned* that in my own post (the whole part about the lgoical fallacy)?
The simple and convenient truth is that one should consider the source of an argument when evaluating the argument (since we're not talking about purely logical debate, we are talking about public issues). It gives insight into the word selection of the writer, what they actually mean, what hidden agendas they might have, etc.
Yes, an argument should stand or fall purely on its merits. But in the real world, it's a useful device to save time and effort by also considering the arguer.
I have a hard time seeing how the arguments convince anyone other than Americans that it is a good idea. It is a self praising article on how good the US is written by an American in an American magazine.
Just also please note, it's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine.
Even us dastardly Americans should know to check the sources and consider their arguments in light of their inclinations.
FWIW, there ARE decent arguments for DNS control to remain under the thumb of the US. But I'd lend those arguments a lot more credence if the weren't coming from Nationalistic sources (I know, I know, that's a logical fallacy... but it's a useful logical fallacy).
By allowing users to modify the behavior, presentation, and output of Web apps and pages to their liking, Jetpack gives users the ability to 'patch the server, in a sense,' McAllister writes
And so the new slashdot layout is finally explained in full.
What about Dave Thomas? Arguably a much more famous CEO considering how many commercials he starred in.
Wait, what? It's the "most famous tech CEO" (emphasis mine).
Or you must know something about Wendy's products that the rest of us don't... can Frosties and Wendy's baked potatoes be used as wi-fi receivers or something?
Let's look at this first from the non-comic perspective. Novels are a subset of books. There is criteria to establish what is a novel, and what isn't. I have a novel in my hand right now... is it a book? Of course. But if I tell you I have a book in my hand, can you say that it is definitely a novel?
For comics, why would this not apply as well? There can be comic novels, there can be comic books. I think we can agree on this.
The problem with calling them comic novels is that "comic novels" already exist, in non-graphical form. Terry Pratchett, for example, writes comic novels, and these are not in a graphical format. So we are left with using the term "graphical novels" for comics that are also novels.
It's important to note that 'graphical novel' is not a term used to 'legitimize' comic books. It's a term used to differentiate one kind of comic book from another.
Surely at the characters age (past university age), you'd grow out of reading comics!?
And I see we've come back to the WWII & prior era attitude towards comics... that they are only for kids.
I know that this assumption has always been there among some subset of the general public, but comic books have been popular among adults for some time, probably with the heyday in the 50s and 60s.
Check out some of the graphic novels out there. Definitely appropriate for adults, and some are definitely not appropriate for kids. Comic books are an established art form, and are not limited to kids... if that's your impression, you might do yourself a favor and give them a shot as an adult. Some of the artwork, characters, plots, themes, etc rival anything in the theaters or on the fiction best-sellers lists.
Dammit. I knew I made this episode too long. It got an offtopic mod within five minutes.
I guess I have to set myself a new goal -- each episode needs to get net positive moderation. I guess this will involve more planning and rewrites than I had foreseen...
I not only thought that but also, "I hope they paid his airfare".
My question is how Google Streetview would be able to direct him to the correct plane to get to Antigua in the first place. They'd have to update the airport locations in real time.
And then I figured maybe he drove an amphibious vehicle, but how would he get service while at the bottom of the Atlantic?
Yes, this misdirection to an island nation by Google is certainly puzzling.
This guy was annoying them with all his "help." No one promised a return ticket
Au contraire, mon frere.
This is no "randomly chosen" bloke Google is sending to Antigua for some kind of mapping exercise. That's just what they want you to think. This is a Special Envoy of Googol the Destroyer.
So what was Stallmanx working on in his secret laboratory? And what lies beneath his Beard of Druidic Prowess? Answers to these questions and more in this week's episode of Googol the Destroyer!
The truth is that the secret laboratory of the roving druid Stallmanx is in Antigua (which is why he doesn't need to wear shoes). Stallmanx has finally completed what he was working on in his laboratory, and contacted Googol the Destroyer for an audience -- but being a savvy druid, he requested that Googol send an envoy to him, so he wouldn't be caught in Googol's clutches.
The Special Envoy meets with Stallmanx in his secret laboratory, and asked, "You requested this audience. Why?"
"I think I've solved a problem. Googol the Destroyer is intent on wreaking the End of Days via the Rite of a Thousand Target Ads, but it's going to destroy humanity. I want to be a part of the winning side, so I've had a license drawn up to share the Rite."
The Acolyte drew back... this was puzzling. How could he manage to maintain his Master's desire for all knowledge if he restricted his actions via a license? He knew that he had to defer to his Master on this one... and so, with a quick input into his specially adapted G-phone, he summoned Googol the Destroyer to the secret laboratory.
"MORTAL!" thundered Googol, "WHY AM I HERE?"
Stallmanx stood bravely in the face of the most evil demon ever to hatch from the depths of the internet. "I have a license for you to sign, to bring me and my followers in to the Googol fold. Please read and sign on pages 3, 7, 8, 12, 12a, Appendix C, and Addendum 2." Stallmanx hoped Googol wouldn't read the whole license... for it contained a poison clause that would force Googol to share his true name with all the others who were signatories to the license, thus granting them power over him.
Googol conjured a pen and began reading the contract. "WHAT? I NEED TO RENAME MYSELF AS GNU-GOOGOL THE DESTROYER? THAT'S RIDICULOUS. I mean, really, how menacing is a Gnu? I might as well rename myself Antelope-Googol the Destroyer, or Mouse-Googol the Destroyer. Screw that, if you really wanted me to sign, you should have worded it "lion-Googol the Destroyer, or at the very least Wildebeest-Googol the Destroyer." And so Googol conjured a flaming cage of iron (thankfully, the flames were for appearance only, and burned at a comfortable 25 degrees C) and dropped it over Stallmanx.
"MWUA-HA-AH! NOW ONLY JOBA AND GATUS CAN OPPOSE ME!" Googol rumbled as he winked out, taking his Acolyte with him.
Little did Googol know, that Stallmanx had been working off the internet, and so Googol did not know all his secrets. He mumbled to himself (apparently), "Boys, come on out. You've got to help me escape this cage. Go fetch my mistletoe and wooden bowl so I can grow a key to unlock this cage, that is, if you show me how. Please?"
And to no one's amazement (since there was no one else there), three small gnomes climbed out from underneath Stallmanx's beard to fetch his bowl and mistletoe.
Stallmanx was already planning an alternate to subverting Googol. "And while you're at it, can you re-write the license for Gatus and Joba? We've no choice but to join their side."
And so, gentle reader, we have learned what Stallmanx was working on, and that it is actually three Beard Gnomes that live beneath his Beard of Druidic Prowess -- and that the Beard Gnomes are the source of his knowledge.
But what of Gatus and Joba? How goes Gatus's plan to Embrace and Extend the sorcerors he can bu
Sweet. Now all those high-end server applications running on x86s that need great uptime can finally join the big boys. [rolls eyes].
I'm just not sure of the utility here -- I RTFA, but I'm still not clear on why Intel would cannibalize Itanium sales (new release delayed again) by offering error correction on Nehalem chips. Is the demand for x86 Server chips that high? I thought anyone requiring 5 nines (or anything close to it) would never consider using x86?
Can someone with more knowledge of the high-end server market please clarify?
with WiFi and 3G connectivity, what the hell do you need an AM/FM receiver for???
To substitute "changing the station when an advert comes on" for "paying outrageous fees for data transfer".
To be able to listen to live broadcasts of sporting events without paying a membership fee to some site.
To take advantage of the economy of large-scale broadcast delivery instead of relatively expensive parallel non-broadcast media.
The point of an MP3 player is to listen to the music you want, when you want to. You don't get that from broadcast radio.
But you do get other things from broadcast radio that mp3 players don't as easily give you: exposure to new music, the ability to listen to music not in your catalog for free, without copyright infringement (I know, that may not be an issue for many slashdotters).
Yes, mp3 players have a lot of advantages, but they also have disadvantages. Cost to retrieve data and/or purchase music being the big ones in my book.
Something tells me though, that this is a small problem compared to being able to detect the pulsar signals in the first place. Unless adding an Arecibo-sized dish to your cellphone or pocket-sized locator gizmo is an option.
There's a much easier way to solve that problem, by centralization.
All you need is one array to detect the quasar pulses and parse them for location. Then, you can use a system to determine your location relative to that array -- combine the two sets of information and you'll have your position as triangulated from the relative quasar locations.
We could possibly use a set of satellites to triangulate & determine our location relative to the quasar-sensing array, so that we can then calculate our location based on the quasars.
This would enable us to replace our Global Positioning System with a Galactic Positioning System, as desired.
I don't think that word means what you think it means... How can total volunteerism lead to anything forced, as through fraud or the violation of rights?
I'll try to explain more thoroughly... You claimed that voluntary cooperation leads to progess. This is not always the case. Cooperation between very powerful entities can (and often does) result in poorer circumstances for others in the system. This is why we have anti-trust legislation. That legislation, by the way, is a limit on voluntary action.
Words have meanings, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge them. Any examples you could label as "force" under capitalism would be restrictions on the violations of individual rights - ie, self-defense or government retaliation against force.
You assume I meant something other than what I wrote. I understand the meaning of the word 'forced', and I meant it that way. Since you've postulated that voluntary collaboration is capitalistic in nature: capitalism does demand forced collaboration (otherwise it devolves into economic despotism), this is a violation of personal freedom, which is a bit of a paradox. Which was my damn point in the first place.
Instead of assuming I meant something other than what I wrote, how about considering what my points are based on the words I used?
Without getting into specifics, let's just say that the Hulk's anatomy was affected everywhere, and there is a large subset of the Marvel Universe that has trouble sitting down to this day.
In our popular culture, we have always derived our strength from the individual and his willingness to help others.
I think you've done only a very selective review of historical pop culture. Please explain the pop culture of the 80s that saw the rise of selfishness as a desirable trait (Madonna's Material Girl, the idolization of the Wall Street culture, even the Pop Art movement as expressed by Warhol and others as a means of making cold hard cash). Or the same attitudes reflected in the pop culture of the 1920s. Or the same attitudes reflected in the culture of most of the 19th century (manifest destiny, etc). Note -- of course it's hard to assess the pop culture of the 19th c., as there was no mass media; however, the popular writings of the time often included a 'manifest destiny' aspect which I believe lies counter to your premise of altruism as a source of strength.
Anyway, pop culture doesn't necessarily reflect the actual underpinnings of our system. I contend that the actual underpinning is the inherent selfishness of man. It's tempered, in a good way, by cultural values of selflessness, charity, good will, etc. But our economic system is based upon selfishness, pure and simple. Our culture, however, is protected by a willingness to help others (within our culture, of course -- or as a means of spreading our culture & influence).
In short, our economic system is all about selfishness, but our cultural system also includes some measure of altruism.
That's not right though. In anarchist systems, capital tends to outweigh labor, so power (and the ability to make decisions) is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.
Socialism places the capital (and the power) in the hands of the state.
Communism, in theory, places decision-making in the hands of labor.
Communism, without government, is just communism with a lack of enforcement. Government is the structure by which people in a communist system may choose to enforce decisions.
As much as the writer seems to not understand socio/politico/economic terms, it appears the readers suffer form the same...
Voluntary collaboration is capitalistic and leads to progress.
Trite, and not always true. Voluntary collaboration does not always lead to progress. Sometimes it leads to collusion that prevents progress.
Communism/socialism, on the other hand, demands forced collaboration.
Which can also lead to progress.
I'd like to note that, with the exception of anarchical systems, capitalism also demands forced collaboration. There are choices removed by force in any system that contains a legal system.
Slashdot Mirror
He used a few similar traits to illustrate a point?
That IS comparison. Textbook comparison.
If I examined the similarities between my ass and a hole in the ground, that would also be a comparison. But I still wouldn't be able to tell the difference between my ass and a hole in the ground, because I only compared, and did not contrast.
Speaking of which, if you compare something, you've made a comparison. If you contrast something, you've made a contrastison? A contrastion? A contrasticity?
The English language is bothering the hell out of me today.
I think the original poster really meant to refer to "an ideal free market" which is a theoretical construct use to model economic systems.
And really, free market systems break down because there is no such thing as an ideal free market.
I think waht he really meant, when you break it down, is a freely competitive system, which usually requires government intervention to make it so -- which is what he is calling for.
Five memory leaks!
Ah-ah-ah.
One... two... three... four... five memory leaks!
Ah-ah-ah.
Sorry. I have a toddler at home. I couldn't help counting out loud in a silly voice when you mentioned the number 'five' twice.
br.Now my coworkers are eyeing me even more strangely than usual.
Or they've been burnt by spotty web access too many times.
Or they do not like the slowness of web systems (This is crucial to me. I hate working on intranets because everything is so damn slow -- though this maybe is due to poor setups, it's been common to the three ERP systems I've worked on, and the four non-ERP intranets I've worked on).
Or they are concerned about who has access to the information, and the chances of it being hacked into (especially important for donor lists, etc).
Though control of information is sometimes a means of job security for people, but in my experience, it is other factors that keep people from wanting to put things on the web.
You MUST mean that we'll still be the land of the 'sorta free' and the home of the internet tough guy.
FWIW, irrelevant I know, but Democracy in the US is a joke... it's a cover for political capitalism, where money and influence is exchanged for political action. It's always been this way to some extent, but I believe it's worse now more than ever due to corporate-controlled mass media and the apathy brought upon us by bread & circus.
Why did you feel the need to point that out, since I *specifically mentioned* that in my own post (the whole part about the lgoical fallacy)?
The simple and convenient truth is that one should consider the source of an argument when evaluating the argument (since we're not talking about purely logical debate, we are talking about public issues). It gives insight into the word selection of the writer, what they actually mean, what hidden agendas they might have, etc.
Yes, an argument should stand or fall purely on its merits. But in the real world, it's a useful device to save time and effort by also considering the arguer.
Just also please note, it's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine.
Even us dastardly Americans should know to check the sources and consider their arguments in light of their inclinations.
FWIW, there ARE decent arguments for DNS control to remain under the thumb of the US. But I'd lend those arguments a lot more credence if the weren't coming from Nationalistic sources (I know, I know, that's a logical fallacy... but it's a useful logical fallacy).
And so the new slashdot layout is finally explained in full.
I keed, I keed. But seriously...
Wait, what? It's the "most famous tech CEO" (emphasis mine).
Or you must know something about Wendy's products that the rest of us don't... can Frosties and Wendy's baked potatoes be used as wi-fi receivers or something?
And yet Bill Gates is no longer a tech CEO, so he is removed from consideration.
Jobs' status is currently "in limbo" AFAIK, but he is technically still CEO of Apple per their regulatory filings.
That's silly.
Let's look at this first from the non-comic perspective. Novels are a subset of books. There is criteria to establish what is a novel, and what isn't. I have a novel in my hand right now... is it a book? Of course. But if I tell you I have a book in my hand, can you say that it is definitely a novel?
For comics, why would this not apply as well? There can be comic novels, there can be comic books. I think we can agree on this.
The problem with calling them comic novels is that "comic novels" already exist, in non-graphical form. Terry Pratchett, for example, writes comic novels, and these are not in a graphical format. So we are left with using the term "graphical novels" for comics that are also novels.
It's important to note that 'graphical novel' is not a term used to 'legitimize' comic books. It's a term used to differentiate one kind of comic book from another.
And I see we've come back to the WWII & prior era attitude towards comics... that they are only for kids.
I know that this assumption has always been there among some subset of the general public, but comic books have been popular among adults for some time, probably with the heyday in the 50s and 60s.
Check out some of the graphic novels out there. Definitely appropriate for adults, and some are definitely not appropriate for kids. Comic books are an established art form, and are not limited to kids... if that's your impression, you might do yourself a favor and give them a shot as an adult. Some of the artwork, characters, plots, themes, etc rival anything in the theaters or on the fiction best-sellers lists.
That's because, in general, liberals realize that there are tons of real problems out there that should be solved.
Ignorance is Bliss, it's been said, and I find the corollary, "Understanding is Unhappiness", to be the cause of typical liberal cynicism.
I'd also note that all the happy conservatives I've met are those who are deliberately ignorant, or just plain without conscience.
Dammit. I knew I made this episode too long. It got an offtopic mod within five minutes.
I guess I have to set myself a new goal -- each episode needs to get net positive moderation. I guess this will involve more planning and rewrites than I had foreseen...
My question is how Google Streetview would be able to direct him to the correct plane to get to Antigua in the first place. They'd have to update the airport locations in real time.
And then I figured maybe he drove an amphibious vehicle, but how would he get service while at the bottom of the Atlantic?
Yes, this misdirection to an island nation by Google is certainly puzzling.
Au contraire, mon frere.
This is no "randomly chosen" bloke Google is sending to Antigua for some kind of mapping exercise. That's just what they want you to think. This is a Special Envoy of Googol the Destroyer.
So what was Stallmanx working on in his secret laboratory? And what lies beneath his Beard of Druidic Prowess? Answers to these questions and more in this week's episode of Googol the Destroyer!
The truth is that the secret laboratory of the roving druid Stallmanx is in Antigua (which is why he doesn't need to wear shoes). Stallmanx has finally completed what he was working on in his laboratory, and contacted Googol the Destroyer for an audience -- but being a savvy druid, he requested that Googol send an envoy to him, so he wouldn't be caught in Googol's clutches.
The Special Envoy meets with Stallmanx in his secret laboratory, and asked, "You requested this audience. Why?"
"I think I've solved a problem. Googol the Destroyer is intent on wreaking the End of Days via the Rite of a Thousand Target Ads, but it's going to destroy humanity. I want to be a part of the winning side, so I've had a license drawn up to share the Rite."
The Acolyte drew back... this was puzzling. How could he manage to maintain his Master's desire for all knowledge if he restricted his actions via a license? He knew that he had to defer to his Master on this one... and so, with a quick input into his specially adapted G-phone, he summoned Googol the Destroyer to the secret laboratory.
"MORTAL!" thundered Googol, "WHY AM I HERE?"
Stallmanx stood bravely in the face of the most evil demon ever to hatch from the depths of the internet. "I have a license for you to sign, to bring me and my followers in to the Googol fold. Please read and sign on pages 3, 7, 8, 12, 12a, Appendix C, and Addendum 2." Stallmanx hoped Googol wouldn't read the whole license... for it contained a poison clause that would force Googol to share his true name with all the others who were signatories to the license, thus granting them power over him.
Googol conjured a pen and began reading the contract. "WHAT? I NEED TO RENAME MYSELF AS GNU-GOOGOL THE DESTROYER? THAT'S RIDICULOUS. I mean, really, how menacing is a Gnu? I might as well rename myself Antelope-Googol the Destroyer, or Mouse-Googol the Destroyer. Screw that, if you really wanted me to sign, you should have worded it "lion-Googol the Destroyer, or at the very least Wildebeest-Googol the Destroyer." And so Googol conjured a flaming cage of iron (thankfully, the flames were for appearance only, and burned at a comfortable 25 degrees C) and dropped it over Stallmanx.
"MWUA-HA-AH! NOW ONLY JOBA AND GATUS CAN OPPOSE ME!" Googol rumbled as he winked out, taking his Acolyte with him.
Little did Googol know, that Stallmanx had been working off the internet, and so Googol did not know all his secrets. He mumbled to himself (apparently), "Boys, come on out. You've got to help me escape this cage. Go fetch my mistletoe and wooden bowl so I can grow a key to unlock this cage, that is, if you show me how. Please?"
And to no one's amazement (since there was no one else there), three small gnomes climbed out from underneath Stallmanx's beard to fetch his bowl and mistletoe.
Stallmanx was already planning an alternate to subverting Googol. "And while you're at it, can you re-write the license for Gatus and Joba? We've no choice but to join their side."
And so, gentle reader, we have learned what Stallmanx was working on, and that it is actually three Beard Gnomes that live beneath his Beard of Druidic Prowess -- and that the Beard Gnomes are the source of his knowledge.
But what of Gatus and Joba? How goes Gatus's plan to Embrace and Extend the sorcerors he can bu
Error correction on an x86 chip?
Sweet. Now all those high-end server applications running on x86s that need great uptime can finally join the big boys. [rolls eyes].
I'm just not sure of the utility here -- I RTFA, but I'm still not clear on why Intel would cannibalize Itanium sales (new release delayed again) by offering error correction on Nehalem chips. Is the demand for x86 Server chips that high? I thought anyone requiring 5 nines (or anything close to it) would never consider using x86?
Can someone with more knowledge of the high-end server market please clarify?
To substitute "changing the station when an advert comes on" for "paying outrageous fees for data transfer".
To be able to listen to live broadcasts of sporting events without paying a membership fee to some site.
To take advantage of the economy of large-scale broadcast delivery instead of relatively expensive parallel non-broadcast media.
But you do get other things from broadcast radio that mp3 players don't as easily give you: exposure to new music, the ability to listen to music not in your catalog for free, without copyright infringement (I know, that may not be an issue for many slashdotters).
Yes, mp3 players have a lot of advantages, but they also have disadvantages. Cost to retrieve data and/or purchase music being the big ones in my book.
There's a much easier way to solve that problem, by centralization.
All you need is one array to detect the quasar pulses and parse them for location. Then, you can use a system to determine your location relative to that array -- combine the two sets of information and you'll have your position as triangulated from the relative quasar locations.
We could possibly use a set of satellites to triangulate & determine our location relative to the quasar-sensing array, so that we can then calculate our location based on the quasars.
This would enable us to replace our Global Positioning System with a Galactic Positioning System, as desired.
I'll try to explain more thoroughly... You claimed that voluntary cooperation leads to progess. This is not always the case. Cooperation between very powerful entities can (and often does) result in poorer circumstances for others in the system. This is why we have anti-trust legislation. That legislation, by the way, is a limit on voluntary action.
You assume I meant something other than what I wrote. I understand the meaning of the word 'forced', and I meant it that way. Since you've postulated that voluntary collaboration is capitalistic in nature: capitalism does demand forced collaboration (otherwise it devolves into economic despotism), this is a violation of personal freedom, which is a bit of a paradox. Which was my damn point in the first place.
Instead of assuming I meant something other than what I wrote, how about considering what my points are based on the words I used?
Without getting into specifics, let's just say that the Hulk's anatomy was affected everywhere, and there is a large subset of the Marvel Universe that has trouble sitting down to this day.
I think you've done only a very selective review of historical pop culture. Please explain the pop culture of the 80s that saw the rise of selfishness as a desirable trait (Madonna's Material Girl, the idolization of the Wall Street culture, even the Pop Art movement as expressed by Warhol and others as a means of making cold hard cash). Or the same attitudes reflected in the pop culture of the 1920s. Or the same attitudes reflected in the culture of most of the 19th century (manifest destiny, etc). Note -- of course it's hard to assess the pop culture of the 19th c., as there was no mass media; however, the popular writings of the time often included a 'manifest destiny' aspect which I believe lies counter to your premise of altruism as a source of strength.
Anyway, pop culture doesn't necessarily reflect the actual underpinnings of our system. I contend that the actual underpinning is the inherent selfishness of man. It's tempered, in a good way, by cultural values of selflessness, charity, good will, etc. But our economic system is based upon selfishness, pure and simple. Our culture, however, is protected by a willingness to help others (within our culture, of course -- or as a means of spreading our culture & influence).
In short, our economic system is all about selfishness, but our cultural system also includes some measure of altruism.
That's not right though. In anarchist systems, capital tends to outweigh labor, so power (and the ability to make decisions) is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.
Socialism places the capital (and the power) in the hands of the state.
Communism, in theory, places decision-making in the hands of labor.
Communism, without government, is just communism with a lack of enforcement. Government is the structure by which people in a communist system may choose to enforce decisions.
As much as the writer seems to not understand socio/politico/economic terms, it appears the readers suffer form the same...
Trite, and not always true. Voluntary collaboration does not always lead to progress. Sometimes it leads to collusion that prevents progress.
Which can also lead to progress.
I'd like to note that, with the exception of anarchical systems, capitalism also demands forced collaboration. There are choices removed by force in any system that contains a legal system.