Wasn't that long ago that most urban American families lived in less than 500 square feet. And the only reason rural families had larger houses was because no one else laid claim to the land and materials (except those pesky Indians, but who counts them?).
You seem to like hyperbole. It might be fun to get your feathers in a ruffle, but it doesn't aid constructing a logical argument. Just a thought for you...how many people are knowledgeable in writing drivers, reading gpu specs, and have free time to give to this particular project. The number is clearly smaller than we all would like.
To add to the other commenter, cableboxes are mostly one-way devices as well. They keep trying to implement 2-way communications, but even if the box is capable the cable company I work for does not implement this. Video engineers are a dying breed because they don't want to learn about things like 2-way communication and packet switching. I can guarantee that once the network engineers have their way and video is just another packet service, the pipes will be cleaner, your digital feed will be much smoother, and Nielson will be dead as a doorknob.
You are what scare the rest of us. Bachman and Parry (with an 'A'!) are both fairweathers who happened to find a populist niche in conservatism. They are only idealists because their constituents demand it. The scary part is the populist niche in conservatism. This loud, emotional niche wants radical change but no one has ever shown what would replace income taxes, why we need to cut the deficit right away, how we could cut the deficit, how tax cuts would help us, why de-funding family planning helps anyone, why killing loads of inmates is helpful. It's political theater and people such as yourself eat it up without offering any substance to back up these claims. You scare the rest of us. We want our economy fixed and your people want Parry to rant about Social Security. Not plan a better program, not discuss alternate funding, or declare a path for systemic change. You want the rant.
No, it's not a separate issue. It is the same issue. Also, treating make-believe time (playing video games) like reality distorts your opinion on reality. Leave the make-believe time behind and join us in reality where you don't have to fight fantasy.
Arabs and Israelis co-existing _is_ a political event. Until this is a non-issue, any interaction between Arabs and Israelis is political. Involvement from politicians or the political science department is not required.
You seem to have missed the fundamental issue: humans are not beings of pure logical thought sourcing from perfectly accurate data. Ergo everything that involves multiple humans is politics. Rejection of this fact is a rejection of the science of human interaction. A scientist is a human first. That's why we have science.
Holy horse-shit batman, +5 Informative?!?!?!?! You may have missed the Arab Spring, revolutions carried out by predominantly educated Arabs trying to live a middle class life. I have many problems with previous (and probably future) Arab governments, but suggesting they devote their energy to conflict and bitterness only shows your ignorance. In fact your entire post is hyperbolic bullshit. Who are your sock-puppets? Or is Slashdot being overran with ignorance?
Then you haven't looked at Haiti or many sub-Saharan countries. We flood our subsidized food into their markets causing farmers to go out of business. This a main cause of tent cities around Urban areas. The really messed up part is when our food prices then increase and local farm aren't growing anything. Suddenly all the food coming in costs too much for the average person.
My uncle operates our family farm. It is a legal partnership that pays him a salary. The partnership grosses a little over a million a year, with costs running right around the same. My uncle probably lives near $40,000 a year. We own a very large family farm and if we were to pay him over $135,000 we would almost certainly be doing something funky as costs just keep increasing no matter how many acres. Which is a primary reason I don't trust large agribusiness. The economy of scale greatly diminishes once hiring outside help comes into play. One person can farm a large area these days, but considering the drivel they make affording help only comes with more land being farmed, requiring more help.
A special note: our family farm lives and dies by unstable food prices. If prices had stabilized a few years ago, the farm would have defaulted. We are lucky that Russia and Australia have had a rash of crazy weather and wheat prices are huge.
You have a poor grasp of drug related economics. Check the success stories in Europe. Compare the number of users in illegal vs decriminalized countries. Then compare the number of drug-related crimes. Also the quality of product. There are so many factors in drug usage that moralists don't consider. Drugs will continue to be used whether it's legal or not. Usage is not a controllable factor. Distribution, cost, education, rehabilitation, and to some extent even the culture of drugs can be controlled. Legalize drugs and use the tools we have rather than making the problem worse.
Just to be clear, those of us in forward thinking Montana have access to the highest quality marijuana the world with some of the lowest prices. It's effectively illegal again here, yet we're flooded with the finest product in the world. That's what happens when an artisan culture is allowed to bloom. Buy local because it makes people around you better.
Hence a reason to let this enter the public domain allowing the markets to find a better price. Allow medicaid to pay and jack up State's responsibility to collect money for this. Cancer hurts our economy and I'm willing to pay a few dollars to improve this place.
I would have said no. What you risk there is someone else coming along and "inventing" your patent because they took your idea to the patent office first. In other words, always apply for the patent before you start getting serious. If on the other hand you are putting up ideas on a message board and so one else pursues one, it is not your invention.
You explicitly changed the definition of greed for your own purposes. That is not acceptable. Greed is a driving force that causes failure in any system. It does not equal self-interest. Greed is the mortgage salesman selling an expensive house to a factory worker because he knows that the sale will go through, he will get his commission, but the factory worker and the bank get hosed. Greed is not well-defined and won't be in the near future.
We need a word that describes these actions, it is greed, do not change it.
That is what Communism is. Communist as Marx envisioned it was something that just happened. There were precepts to get there that would encourage the conditions of Communism taking hold, but of course those didn't work.
UK
Germany
France
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Ireland
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
One might be able to go on, but those are the ones I would consider objectively more classless than America.
That is not applicable. The true Scotsman problem is caused by the poorly defined idea of a Scotsman. Communism and Socialism do have real definitions and thus can result in poor labeling. Even in the case of the true Scotsman, an English man living in London is never a Scotsman.
Marx explicitly removed agrarian societies from Communism. That seems to be an unhandled topic in Communist literature. Communism requires a critical mass of relying on each other in everyone's self-interest. When work is not a division of labor, but a competition of labor such as in agrarian society, Communism fails completely. That is not a surprise to anyone learned on the subject.
You are partially right, but mostly intellectually dishonest. Labels do not create a philosophy. Communist China has never had an ounce of communism. Mao used Marxist rhetoric and Socialist propaganda to incite an Agrarian revolution that instituted slightly more democratic rather than bureaucratic rules and privileges. Calling it Communism is buying into the propaganda machine that we are supposed be educated beyond believing.
However, Marxism has been tried. Several Marxist revolutions did happen, most importantly in Paris, but also in many major cities in Germany (and I think Rome). They failed so quickly that they have left general consciousness to be replaced by the propagandist labels given to the USSR and the PRC. Marxism fails, but looking at the USSR or the PRC as the examples is shameful. Check out Communist Revolutions for a list. Separate the Bolshevik revolution from Lenin's use of the Red Army and his eventual USSR. If Lenin had not left Communism behind, the revolution would have failed before the USSR was even born. Might still have a Tsar in Russia too.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't that long ago that most urban American families lived in less than 500 square feet. And the only reason rural families had larger houses was because no one else laid claim to the land and materials (except those pesky Indians, but who counts them?).
You seem to like hyperbole. It might be fun to get your feathers in a ruffle, but it doesn't aid constructing a logical argument. Just a thought for you...how many people are knowledgeable in writing drivers, reading gpu specs, and have free time to give to this particular project. The number is clearly smaller than we all would like.
To add to the other commenter, cableboxes are mostly one-way devices as well. They keep trying to implement 2-way communications, but even if the box is capable the cable company I work for does not implement this. Video engineers are a dying breed because they don't want to learn about things like 2-way communication and packet switching. I can guarantee that once the network engineers have their way and video is just another packet service, the pipes will be cleaner, your digital feed will be much smoother, and Nielson will be dead as a doorknob.
Obama is a minority who has inspired minorities to be better than they are. Not what I want in a president, but it is what I want for my nation.
You are what scare the rest of us. Bachman and Parry (with an 'A'!) are both fairweathers who happened to find a populist niche in conservatism. They are only idealists because their constituents demand it. The scary part is the populist niche in conservatism. This loud, emotional niche wants radical change but no one has ever shown what would replace income taxes, why we need to cut the deficit right away, how we could cut the deficit, how tax cuts would help us, why de-funding family planning helps anyone, why killing loads of inmates is helpful. It's political theater and people such as yourself eat it up without offering any substance to back up these claims. You scare the rest of us. We want our economy fixed and your people want Parry to rant about Social Security. Not plan a better program, not discuss alternate funding, or declare a path for systemic change. You want the rant.
No, it's not a separate issue. It is the same issue. Also, treating make-believe time (playing video games) like reality distorts your opinion on reality. Leave the make-believe time behind and join us in reality where you don't have to fight fantasy.
Arabs and Israelis co-existing _is_ a political event. Until this is a non-issue, any interaction between Arabs and Israelis is political. Involvement from politicians or the political science department is not required.
You seem to have missed the fundamental issue: humans are not beings of pure logical thought sourcing from perfectly accurate data. Ergo everything that involves multiple humans is politics. Rejection of this fact is a rejection of the science of human interaction. A scientist is a human first. That's why we have science.
Holy horse-shit batman, +5 Informative?!?!?!?! You may have missed the Arab Spring, revolutions carried out by predominantly educated Arabs trying to live a middle class life. I have many problems with previous (and probably future) Arab governments, but suggesting they devote their energy to conflict and bitterness only shows your ignorance. In fact your entire post is hyperbolic bullshit. Who are your sock-puppets? Or is Slashdot being overran with ignorance?
How is that an apt comparison? Do you even know what's going on in the Levant? If you do you certainly do not understand it.
Obesity is not a sign of well or good living anymore. In the United States it's much more indicative of being uneducated, rural, and/or poor.
Then you haven't looked at Haiti or many sub-Saharan countries. We flood our subsidized food into their markets causing farmers to go out of business. This a main cause of tent cities around Urban areas. The really messed up part is when our food prices then increase and local farm aren't growing anything. Suddenly all the food coming in costs too much for the average person.
My uncle operates our family farm. It is a legal partnership that pays him a salary. The partnership grosses a little over a million a year, with costs running right around the same. My uncle probably lives near $40,000 a year. We own a very large family farm and if we were to pay him over $135,000 we would almost certainly be doing something funky as costs just keep increasing no matter how many acres. Which is a primary reason I don't trust large agribusiness. The economy of scale greatly diminishes once hiring outside help comes into play. One person can farm a large area these days, but considering the drivel they make affording help only comes with more land being farmed, requiring more help.
A special note: our family farm lives and dies by unstable food prices. If prices had stabilized a few years ago, the farm would have defaulted. We are lucky that Russia and Australia have had a rash of crazy weather and wheat prices are huge.
You have a poor grasp of drug related economics. Check the success stories in Europe. Compare the number of users in illegal vs decriminalized countries. Then compare the number of drug-related crimes. Also the quality of product. There are so many factors in drug usage that moralists don't consider. Drugs will continue to be used whether it's legal or not. Usage is not a controllable factor. Distribution, cost, education, rehabilitation, and to some extent even the culture of drugs can be controlled. Legalize drugs and use the tools we have rather than making the problem worse.
Just to be clear, those of us in forward thinking Montana have access to the highest quality marijuana the world with some of the lowest prices. It's effectively illegal again here, yet we're flooded with the finest product in the world. That's what happens when an artisan culture is allowed to bloom. Buy local because it makes people around you better.
Hence a reason to let this enter the public domain allowing the markets to find a better price. Allow medicaid to pay and jack up State's responsibility to collect money for this. Cancer hurts our economy and I'm willing to pay a few dollars to improve this place.
It does not phrase it "on sale to the public". The phrase is "on sale". Your limited market is still a market.
I would have said no. What you risk there is someone else coming along and "inventing" your patent because they took your idea to the patent office first. In other words, always apply for the patent before you start getting serious. If on the other hand you are putting up ideas on a message board and so one else pursues one, it is not your invention.
Thanks for a fine example of a straw-man!
You explicitly changed the definition of greed for your own purposes. That is not acceptable. Greed is a driving force that causes failure in any system. It does not equal self-interest. Greed is the mortgage salesman selling an expensive house to a factory worker because he knows that the sale will go through, he will get his commission, but the factory worker and the bank get hosed. Greed is not well-defined and won't be in the near future.
We need a word that describes these actions, it is greed, do not change it.
That is what Communism is. Communist as Marx envisioned it was something that just happened. There were precepts to get there that would encourage the conditions of Communism taking hold, but of course those didn't work.
UK
Germany
France
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Ireland
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
One might be able to go on, but those are the ones I would consider objectively more classless than America.
That is not applicable. The true Scotsman problem is caused by the poorly defined idea of a Scotsman. Communism and Socialism do have real definitions and thus can result in poor labeling. Even in the case of the true Scotsman, an English man living in London is never a Scotsman.
Marx explicitly removed agrarian societies from Communism. That seems to be an unhandled topic in Communist literature. Communism requires a critical mass of relying on each other in everyone's self-interest. When work is not a division of labor, but a competition of labor such as in agrarian society, Communism fails completely. That is not a surprise to anyone learned on the subject.
You are partially right, but mostly intellectually dishonest. Labels do not create a philosophy. Communist China has never had an ounce of communism. Mao used Marxist rhetoric and Socialist propaganda to incite an Agrarian revolution that instituted slightly more democratic rather than bureaucratic rules and privileges. Calling it Communism is buying into the propaganda machine that we are supposed be educated beyond believing. However, Marxism has been tried. Several Marxist revolutions did happen, most importantly in Paris, but also in many major cities in Germany (and I think Rome). They failed so quickly that they have left general consciousness to be replaced by the propagandist labels given to the USSR and the PRC. Marxism fails, but looking at the USSR or the PRC as the examples is shameful. Check out Communist Revolutions for a list. Separate the Bolshevik revolution from Lenin's use of the Red Army and his eventual USSR. If Lenin had not left Communism behind, the revolution would have failed before the USSR was even born. Might still have a Tsar in Russia too.