According to the Supreme Court, it's not just that corporations are equivalent to people. They are people. As I understand it, the relevant decision was Anderson vs. Santa Ana in 1886. No idea how they cope with the whole ownership thing, since slavery's been outlawed. Then again, they're lawyers...can't expect them to have a coherent thought.
I think that was the beginning of the end for the USA (well, one of the major factors that started the ball rolling, anyway).
True. But, up until that night, I was pretty sure I was an old-school conservative.
I was joking about forgiving him, BTW. It's not like the labels matter at all. It's just a way of summing up a bunch of complicated ideas to tell people the basic gist of what you believe.
I wonder how many progressives I run across today are still in favor of eugenics. Several of them have let me know they'd love to see me dead.
I wasn't thinking about talking to the committed collectivists. I know I won't convert them. The only reason I bother talking to them in the first place is on discussion boards where someone might come along later and get seduced by the same madness.
It's the same people who might be swayed by the "Look. It keeps failing. Time to try something different" argument.
If you go back and read the text of his speeches, he wasn't being very subtle.
I haven't gotten around to reading Mein Kampf yet, but I've been told it's pretty obvious. I think the general excuse is that everyone thought it was just over-the-top hyperbole.
That's why all those people warning about freedom and vigilance just won't shut up. We have to remember, at all times, that it only takes 1 generation for an entire country to degenerate into psychotic madness.
I don't think you understand the terms here. If I'm going camping for a week, I take a week's worth of food. If I'm just driving to work, I might pack a lunch. The value depends on the situation.
If the value of food were objective, we'd all be hoarding exactly the same amount.
It's not the "hyperinflation leads to fascism" oversimplification that's really scary. Just the parallels between what we're living through and the years that led to Nazi Germany.
The interventionist cycle you describe so well is something concrete we can point to and say "See? It doesn't work. Time to try something different."
If you're starving to death, you'll do pretty much anything for a cracker. If you just ate a huge steak dinner, probably not so much.
You have to have water to live as well. If you're dying of thirst in the desert, it's the most precious commodity in the world. If you're drowning, not so much.
The value's still subjective. If you have no food, shelter and a mate really aren't that important. If you have an abundance of all three, one corn on the cob isn't going to seem as important to you. You can start looking into the value of other things.
It's all about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
If things get as bad as you're predicting, you forgot about the inherent value of guns and ammo.
I don't really see things ever degenerating that far, though. I have faith in the murderers will get tired of the killing first, realize they're better off fleecing everybody else, start collecting "protection money," and start the government going again.
Everything's value is completely subjective. Gold and silver are shiny, pretty, and rare. People have agreed throughout history that they're valuable. That means they are. It's more convenient to carry coins around than a wagon-load of goods to barter. That's how money started in the first place. It's just a placeholder for the things we actually want.
They're also extremely useful in electronics. But that's pretty much beside the point.
I had a long conversation with my brother once about what classical liberalism really means (small government, more freedom for everyone, no partnerships between government and business, be willing to try out new policies when it looks like they might make life better for everyone). And what it truly means to be conservative (small government, if it ain't broke, don't fix it).
Neither point of view has any meaningful representation in modern government. "Both" parties have been hijacked by collectivists.
It took me weeks to forgive him for convincing me that I truly am a classical liberal.
Gold diggers, phhft. If you're stupid enough to throw money at women, they'll take it. Duh. Especially if they're actresses who are trying to figure out where their next meal is coming from.
Quit throwing money around and start trying to connect with her as a person, instead.
We crossed midnight in my timezone, so I guess this doesn't count as offering relationship advice twice in one day. Quite.
I still feel like a dude in the pasture at 3 am trying to tell cows the proper way to groom their feathers. It's been that kind of day, so please be gentle.
Think ahead. I strongly suspect that our demand for bandwidth is growing exponentially. These are just the cell companies pushing back to keep from adding more infrastructure.
They'll just jack up the price per kilobyte based on average usage so they keep the same income.
I wouldn't know where to start running those numbers. But an earlier post mentioned that it's a straight $0.002 per kilobyte (no idea whether that's KB or KiB) in Canada.
But you're probably right about the pricing model. Treat the data like a public utility and bill according to usage.
If we wind up with the same cost here (and I haven't completely boned up the math...why am I at work this late on a Friday?), $0.002 per kilobyte, using 5 GiB works out to $10,485.761.
This isn't actually directed toward commodore64. I don't know the first thing about his love life. For all I know, he has a harem of eager sex slaves who worship the ground he walks on. It's really directed toward anyone who read his post and thought "Yeah! He's dead right!"
You have it backwards. It's much easier for an unattractive man to make himself attractive than an unattractive woman. That's because most women are attracted by the way we make them feel, not just how we look (looks don't hurt, but you might be surprised by how many "pretty boys" can get enough women with just their looks that that they never bother to develop a personality...which is much, much more important). How often have you seen a drop-dead gorgeous woman with some pathetic loser and you wondered why, knowing you'd be so much better for her? How often do you see a drop-dead gorgeous man with a hideous woman?
We're the lucky ones. Many women will tell you that men get more attractive with age. Not all, of course. But a surprisingly high percentage.
We do have to work at it. But talking to women is actually a lot more fun than it is work. If you're getting an instant "no" as soon as you walk up, or simple derisive laughter when you try to step things up a notch, you're doing something terribly, terribly wrong. Women are much more sensitive to social nuances than men, and they're much more polite and concerned about hurting other people's feelings. Sure, you'll run into the occasional bitch, but they're really few and far between.
If what you're doing isn't working, change what you're doing.
I can't believe I'm getting ready to post this on/.
Wow. That was extremely well written. I wish it wouldn't get buried down in/.'s bowels.
I will spend some serious time thinking about it. I can't come up with a way to write that sentence that doesn't sound snarky, but I really do mean it sincerely.
I only have one problem (admittedly, it's a big one). How do you pick a government to find that balance between society and individuals?
I can't come up with any way that doesn't allow individuals to compete amongst themselves. That whole messy "evolution" thing. So what do you suggest?
That evolving political process you describe sounds interesting.
But the only way that I can see it happening is by providing maximum freedom to the most people. Which is really that individualism you treat so contemptuously.
We are pack animals who evolved to live in tribes. Not a hive.
They've spent years watching millions (billions?) of users pounding on tens of thousands of data centers spread all over the planet? I'd consider that "proof."
When you start needing to coordinate transactions among continents, scalability will suffer. That's probably why (last I heard) Google has App Engine running from only 1 data center.
Don't get me wrong. What little I've been able to find about Scalaris sounds amazing. But it isn't a silver bullet yet.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the Supreme Court, it's not just that corporations are equivalent to people. They are people. As I understand it, the relevant decision was Anderson vs. Santa Ana in 1886. No idea how they cope with the whole ownership thing, since slavery's been outlawed. Then again, they're lawyers...can't expect them to have a coherent thought.
I think that was the beginning of the end for the USA (well, one of the major factors that started the ball rolling, anyway).
True. But, up until that night, I was pretty sure I was an old-school conservative.
I was joking about forgiving him, BTW. It's not like the labels matter at all. It's just a way of summing up a bunch of complicated ideas to tell people the basic gist of what you believe.
I wonder how many progressives I run across today are still in favor of eugenics. Several of them have let me know they'd love to see me dead.
Excellent points!
I wasn't thinking about talking to the committed collectivists. I know I won't convert them. The only reason I bother talking to them in the first place is on discussion boards where someone might come along later and get seduced by the same madness.
It's the same people who might be swayed by the "Look. It keeps failing. Time to try something different" argument.
Keep up the good work.
Don't sell more than you can provide.
If you go back and read the text of his speeches, he wasn't being very subtle.
I haven't gotten around to reading Mein Kampf yet, but I've been told it's pretty obvious. I think the general excuse is that everyone thought it was just over-the-top hyperbole.
That's why all those people warning about freedom and vigilance just won't shut up. We have to remember, at all times, that it only takes 1 generation for an entire country to degenerate into psychotic madness.
I don't think you understand the terms here. If I'm going camping for a week, I take a week's worth of food. If I'm just driving to work, I might pack a lunch. The value depends on the situation.
If the value of food were objective, we'd all be hoarding exactly the same amount.
It's not the "hyperinflation leads to fascism" oversimplification that's really scary. Just the parallels between what we're living through and the years that led to Nazi Germany.
The interventionist cycle you describe so well is something concrete we can point to and say "See? It doesn't work. Time to try something different."
If you're starving to death, you'll do pretty much anything for a cracker. If you just ate a huge steak dinner, probably not so much.
You have to have water to live as well. If you're dying of thirst in the desert, it's the most precious commodity in the world. If you're drowning, not so much.
That's very telling. Keep up the good fight.
The value's still subjective. If you have no food, shelter and a mate really aren't that important. If you have an abundance of all three, one corn on the cob isn't going to seem as important to you. You can start looking into the value of other things.
It's all about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
If things get as bad as you're predicting, you forgot about the inherent value of guns and ammo.
I don't really see things ever degenerating that far, though. I have faith in the murderers will get tired of the killing first, realize they're better off fleecing everybody else, start collecting "protection money," and start the government going again.
Everything's value is completely subjective. Gold and silver are shiny, pretty, and rare. People have agreed throughout history that they're valuable. That means they are. It's more convenient to carry coins around than a wagon-load of goods to barter. That's how money started in the first place. It's just a placeholder for the things we actually want.
They're also extremely useful in electronics. But that's pretty much beside the point.
I had a long conversation with my brother once about what classical liberalism really means (small government, more freedom for everyone, no partnerships between government and business, be willing to try out new policies when it looks like they might make life better for everyone). And what it truly means to be conservative (small government, if it ain't broke, don't fix it).
Neither point of view has any meaningful representation in modern government. "Both" parties have been hijacked by collectivists.
It took me weeks to forgive him for convincing me that I truly am a classical liberal.
Why has this been modded funny?
Personally, I think it's scary as Hell. But I'm glad that other people are starting to notice the parallels.
I suspect the entire point is to hide the signal in the noise.
Then again, I suspect exactly the seem from /. I seem to be turning slightly paranoid.
Thanks. I suspect you know *exactly* where I'm coming from.
This is just sad. It's about "attractive."
Gold diggers, phhft. If you're stupid enough to throw money at women, they'll take it. Duh. Especially if they're actresses who are trying to figure out where their next meal is coming from.
Quit throwing money around and start trying to connect with her as a person, instead.
We crossed midnight in my timezone, so I guess this doesn't count as offering relationship advice twice in one day. Quite.
I still feel like a dude in the pasture at 3 am trying to tell cows the proper way to groom their feathers. It's been that kind of day, so please be gentle.
Think ahead. I strongly suspect that our demand for bandwidth is growing exponentially. These are just the cell companies pushing back to keep from adding more infrastructure.
They'll just jack up the price per kilobyte based on average usage so they keep the same income.
I wouldn't know where to start running those numbers. But an earlier post mentioned that it's a straight $0.002 per kilobyte (no idea whether that's KB or KiB) in Canada.
Just "wow" at the dollars/cents confusion.
But you're probably right about the pricing model. Treat the data like a public utility and bill according to usage.
If we wind up with the same cost here (and I haven't completely boned up the math...why am I at work this late on a Friday?), $0.002 per kilobyte, using 5 GiB works out to $10,485.761.
Ouch.
Thanks.
LOL. Nice.
This isn't actually directed toward commodore64. I don't know the first thing about his love life. For all I know, he has a harem of eager sex slaves who worship the ground he walks on. It's really directed toward anyone who read his post and thought "Yeah! He's dead right!"
You have it backwards. It's much easier for an unattractive man to make himself attractive than an unattractive woman. That's because most women are attracted by the way we make them feel, not just how we look (looks don't hurt, but you might be surprised by how many "pretty boys" can get enough women with just their looks that that they never bother to develop a personality...which is much, much more important). How often have you seen a drop-dead gorgeous woman with some pathetic loser and you wondered why, knowing you'd be so much better for her? How often do you see a drop-dead gorgeous man with a hideous woman?
We're the lucky ones. Many women will tell you that men get more attractive with age. Not all, of course. But a surprisingly high percentage.
We do have to work at it. But talking to women is actually a lot more fun than it is work. If you're getting an instant "no" as soon as you walk up, or simple derisive laughter when you try to step things up a notch, you're doing something terribly, terribly wrong. Women are much more sensitive to social nuances than men, and they're much more polite and concerned about hurting other people's feelings. Sure, you'll run into the occasional bitch, but they're really few and far between.
If what you're doing isn't working, change what you're doing.
I can't believe I'm getting ready to post this on /.
Wow. That was extremely well written. I wish it wouldn't get buried down in /.'s bowels.
I will spend some serious time thinking about it. I can't come up with a way to write that sentence that doesn't sound snarky, but I really do mean it sincerely.
I only have one problem (admittedly, it's a big one). How do you pick a government to find that balance between society and individuals?
I can't come up with any way that doesn't allow individuals to compete amongst themselves. That whole messy "evolution" thing. So what do you suggest?
That evolving political process you describe sounds interesting.
But the only way that I can see it happening is by providing maximum freedom to the most people. Which is really that individualism you treat so contemptuously.
We are pack animals who evolved to live in tribes. Not a hive.
They've spent years watching millions (billions?) of users pounding on tens of thousands of data centers spread all over the planet? I'd consider that "proof."
When you start needing to coordinate transactions among continents, scalability will suffer. That's probably why (last I heard) Google has App Engine running from only 1 data center.
Don't get me wrong. What little I've been able to find about Scalaris sounds amazing. But it isn't a silver bullet yet.