Nope. It's usually young guys that have nothing to lose and everything to gain. It's college educated Saudi's and old middle-class Iraqi children. They already have all their needs taken care of...but they want more. You'll find most family men have much stronger ties to their family than any religion or warmonger. And you'll find poor people won't do anything unless you feed them...and religious fanatics will rarely spend money where they don't have to.
Generally incorrect. It is the middle-classes of the world where terrorists and religious-fanatics come from. The Arab world is not a terrible place to live. Sub-Sahara Africa is much worse. We don't fear sub-Sahara Africa like we fear the Arab world.
You clearly missed the part where the infinite clean energy was a condition for the outbreak of selflessness. Common sense has nothing to do with this.
Trickle down economics is a bunch of crap, but your so-called "trickle down science" has nothing to do with that... there is no comparison between the 2. And NASA has given us so many advancements that I don't see how you can just cast them off like that. You must have some ulterior motive here.
You are the only person I've ever known to not like it. Now you were driving in Europe, so maybe the car was different or low end, but I and every one I know love semi-auto. It feels exactly like an automatic, but has all the benefits of manual. Volkswagon does it right. But you can also put it into manual control.
I'll agree with your sentiment, but why are you trying to apply economics to dating? Dinner is about a lot more than eating and paying, something I think you and economics have a lot to learn about.
No, it is not adequate. The fact that you are ok with using decades old technology suggests that you have no love of growth or new ideas. Your child wants the more expensive console becouse his friends have it and he wants to indulge in a shared experience with them. He can't do that with the dated ps2 that none of his friends are playing. Please don't take your disgusted of progress out on your child's desire to have meaningful relationships with peers.
Wow, still so wrong. No other companies would dread the thought. Even Comcast, the behemoth of the industry would never move into a new market without government support. It is not cost effective. Cable companies need the guarantee of monopoly or else they would never move in. I'll disagree with the gp, last mile is not super expensive and its a one-time cost even if the person in the house drops service. If they come back, its as easy as flipping a switch and provisioning the customer. Last mile is covered by the customer's personal bill. It's all the stuff that is necessary no matter if the ISP has 100 or 10000 customers that makes this an issue.
Government approved monopolies for cable tv are a good thing for all parties involved. If you can actually come up with a business model that saves cable customers money and you will do something no cable company has figured out.
You really believe that? That's...just weird...
No one is going to lay those lines. You think even with really crappy service that Comcast is going to spend billions to penetrate a market that might get net them a few thousand customers. I'll tell you this. If the cable company I work for had any competition in the 3 state area that we operate in, we'd pull out as we couldn't justify the cost of the equipment or people in a market that we are not guarenteed subscribers. There just isn't enough money to go around. Besides, every cable company takes you to the same internet and the same cable channels. More and more we are seeing actual differences on channels available and digital services provided, but nothing large enough to warrant what you're suggesting. Phones are becoming a different story, but that's because voip is making pots obsolete, not because we are moving towards a truly competitive market.
Let me put it a different way. Imagine if Denver had both Comcast and Time-Warner. Comcast would halve its customer base and hand them to TW. Comcast still requires exactly the same network with exactly the same number of support staff (maybe not customer support, but that's pretty much pittance compared to technical support). TW will also have to create a duplicate network right next to Comcast's. That's twice the lines, twice the number of digs, twice the number of people the city of Denver has to deal with... And both companies still take all their customers to the same internet and roughly the same cable channels. The small bit of the internet that differs between them, the small difference in the channels provided, and the small differences in customer support do not warrant anyone switching between companies. There'll be anecdotal evidence to switch and many will, but it'll be a back and forth trade of roughly equal size. And once each is ubiquitous, the only cost cutting measure either can take is to actually get more subscribers.
There is no way that de-monopolizing the cable industry will make money for the cable companies or save consumers money.
Are you expecting Bush-style you're-with-us-or-we'll-bury-you-so-far-in-political-quagmire-you'll-never-be-re-elected deamnds from this administration. Neither Obama, Pelosi, Reid nor any other person is in full control of the government. Exactly the way it should be. I think Bush really has invaded some people's brains.
Did learned people not get mod points today? This entire discussion seems to be moderated by head-in-the-sand libertarians. Society be damned, regulation is evil I guess...
You might notice that the executive branch is given a very open ended amount of power that is really only limited by congress. Unless the president does something unconstitutional the supreme court cannot even check the president's power. Which means I must ask you what laws or sections of the constitution is the president violating? All recognized rights are stated in the constitution. Do not go outside of that document. You'll notice that none have been broken.
Didn't think this was worth a response but apparently someone thinks this is insightful. No senator or rep would ever pretend that they can make that decision. The problem is who Harry Reid is getting the information from. We need to make sure that our reps and senators are talking to the right people. Wonder why we have this patent problem? Its because the Reids of old thought that asking Microsoft and GE how to handle these new sciences and no surprise they got answers that rewarded Microsoft and GE instead of the market. We needed to make the Reids know that they talked to the wrong people. Instead we sit back and complain.
Please do not dilute this issue. It's a complex issues as is and we don't need people assuming that their rep or senator is making decisions without talking to relevant parties first.
That doesn't sound like a problem at all. Also sounds like the patent holder probably shouldn't have been granted a patent. If a patent is that similar to something in the public domain, I should hope no one gets any money.
Just as you see that, I see all too often the government saying that it's not their problem when it very clearly is. Economic crisis, natural disasters, different teaching methods for different learning methods, these are all problems that must be met by the government (on different levels, of course). There are plenty more. There is no good economic solution to any of these, but they are real problems that need addressing. Certainly the government has no place trying to hide things from children or anyone (national security being the small exception to that rule). They should also not be enacting rules that try to deal with edge cases. Here in the US we have way too many people trying to push those kinds of things onto the government while trying to keep the government from doing its job. Too many people demand that the government back off while they demand some odd 10-14 years of daycare (ie public education). Too many want to do away with economic regulation, but the government had better slap the Enrons and WorldComs. Get rid of farm subsidies but we will not buy food from China.
My point was that I didn't care at all for your original comment. I like this one much better! Your original post was far too sweeping and did not contain any real, hard problems ("vapid" covers that;). Maybe there is an epidemic of careless parenting in Romania, but I suspect it's much like it is here where the vocal minority ruins everything for the silent majority. Most parents do care about their children and many of them even do a decent job of raising them. But then we get 1 school shooting and all of a sudden the media sounds the alarm that no one is doing anything right. I think a lot of it has to do with the concept of "imagined communities" where everyone is assumed to be the same and if 1 child is messed up, they all must be. And many on Slashdot seem to enjoy hearing that everyone else out there is messed up even if there's nothing to back up the assertion (that'd be the "warm and fuzzies").
If Romania really has a problem with this, I'd love to see articles on it. I personally am branching out into European politics to see if anyone out there has a working model. I'd say the American one is broken, even with Obama... I'll keep the hope, but I'm waiting for the change. Demanding major concessions from Wall Street would be a very good sign, and that means a strong government.
You'll be happy to know that that is not the norm. I worked for my grades in public school, though not very much. I definitely needed a different environment since I rarely did any work at home and eventually started working out how I could get a B in classes I didn't like with doing as little homework as possible. But that's because my teachers (even in the enriched classes) taught to the median pupil, pretty much as they should. I've seen private high schools and they often have the luxury of better disciplined and smarter pupils. If they had all the riff-raff that public schools have, they would not be able to do the job they can.
Though after saying that I realize that private school administration may be better than public school administration. Having worked with them, they definitely did not get to where they are because they understand the system and have a better vision for it. Though it wouldn't surprise me if private school admins quietly padded grades... I hope you don't think private schools are inherently better. From what I've seen its pretty much always the caliber of students and not the status of the school that sets the mark high or low.
Did anyone ask the government to solve all their problems? Have parents not been taking responsibility for their children? Will moderators ever stop modding up the warm and fuzzy yet completely vapid messages they love to hear?
---Yes dumping clothes does destroy any chance of a market economy based on selling clothing.
---We are instead trying to stop them from being subsistent by giving them free time that they would be spending on making their own clothes.
So, are they destroying the economy, or "giving them free time"?
Everybody has a niche, and from many people make a community. From that, commerce. If you kill of segments of the community by freebie stuff (like clothes and low technology goods), you then make them wait for the next batch of freebies.
Do you want to do something to HELP the Africans and other displaced and/or disheveled peoples? Educate them. Then open trade.
They are trying to give them free time. Again, there is no economy to destroy. Maybe you just misread what you quoted, but I said that it destroys the chance of capitalism taking hold, I thought clearly suggesting that capitalism does not exist there. The part where you say everybody has a niche, you are wrong. There are plenty of places in Africa where the family is entirely responsible for all of their own goods: food, water, clothing, shelter. That is the definition of subsistence. The only commerce going on is if there is a bead maker or something non-essential, and then its a barter system. So what happens is that you remove their need to make clothing hoping that the free time allows them to all become bead makers or even get an education. As I stated elsewhere in my post, this is not the actual result and we should not drop clothing into these countries. I never once defended that. It is your statement that few make a living in these places that I have problem with. They make a living just fine.
---Subsistence living is the real natural enemy of capitalism as no company is able to exist without massive government support.
That doesnt make sense. The only reason to work is to pay taxes on land, houses, and other forms of taxation that does not pay for itself. I can grow my own fruits and vegetables, along with raising a few chicken and duck. I can be a poor small farmer, but plenty of food to eat, milk to drink, and work to be done around the farmstead. I might only need basic equipment that needs low amount of maintenance, and group together in a close knit community.
I just described the Amish, who live here in Northern Indiana, and around Greensburg, IN. There's subsistence living, with an active close knit community.
If there is an enemy of Capitalism, it is the adherents of Capitalism, and their associated greed. Capitalism only ferments retaliation and adversity, which is its downfall. We instead, need a system that helps each other, but still friendly competes. Perhaps you would call that Communism, or something else entirely. But that "Ill never help you, regardless the help it will do for me" line of thought will be the final downfall.
The only reason to work is to pay taxes? That doesn't make a lick of sense. If you don't work there are no taxes to pay...assuming you don't own anything since you don't work... In any case, they work because they want to live which requires food, water, clothing, shelter. Maybe you take for granted that these are the things all people work for first, but these people certainly do not. What was the point of the Amish? Yes there are many similarities between subsistence-farming Africans and Amish... Are you suggesting that the Amish embrace capitalism? They certainly use the system when dealing with non-Amish, but that's only because the world outside their colonies do. The world outside the African subsistence-farmers...is more subsistence-farmers. They have no link to capitalism.
You are right in saying that subsistence-living is not the only natural enemy of capitalism. There are plenty others. But my point still stands that capitalism, or really any economic model introduced from the outside, will fail. The culture has to change first. I'm pretty certain that's what your Afr
This is not clothing. Clothing is very old technology that is saturated the world over. Yes dumping clothes does destroy any chance of a market economy based on selling clothing. You certainly take it for granted that other perfectly viable and probably better alternative economic models exist. Corrupt governments are only part of the problem. Subsistence living is the real natural enemy of capitalism as no company is able to exist without massive government support. Half of the problem is corrupted officials. The other half is our (as in the Western world) expectations that you can plug-and-play capitalism. Capitalism takes generations to gain a foothold and only where you can change common practices. When and where we drop clothes into Africa, we are not competing with any market economy. We are instead trying to stop them from being subsistent by giving them free time that they would be spending on making their own clothes. Yes this has unintended consequences that makes it a very poor decision to donate mass amounts of clothing to these areas. But you are creating a theoretical economy that does not exist and could not exist in that culture. And then you try to apply it to personal computers? No not even personal computers. Very small form-factor computers. Have you used an XO? No one in any sort of industrial nation should want one. There is no market except the free one. If these people have the ability to purchase even an Asus EEEPC, they will choose that over the XO.
You're not very good at this logic thing, are you? Also analogies... and politics... and reading... you do realize that the Declaration of Independence, a very important document, has no legal authority in the United States. Certainly it can be used to inspire useful rhetoric in defense of rights, but it provides no rights.
We the people through our elected officials have determined that analog transmission of video over our airwaves is a poor use of our airwaves. Never ever ever call them YOUR airwaves. They are not my airwaves, they are OUR airwaves. You are entitled to nothing here. Fucking luddite.
Christ on a crutch...I didn't even pick up on it the first time around. How can Moore's Law ever be a software issue? I can accept that most people don't care about transistor count, but saying it can somehow become a software issue is just too many steps removed from the original meaning. I love functional programming languages, but this article is hurting my brain.
If moving to a functional programming language breaks your algorithms, then you are somehow doing it wrong. That line doesn't even make sense to me. Algorithms are mathematical constructs that have nothing to do with programming paradigm. Assuming the language is Turing complete, how is that even possible?
I think you need to read up on your pre-WWI US History. The Spanish-American war didn't happen because we were minding our own business. We got ourselves mixed up with the Texans...something many of us rue to this day. Let's see, there were a couple invasions of Canada and that War of 1812. 54 or fight also comes to mind (though we got out of that without 54 or fight). We took Hawaii pretty much by force. The Monroe doctrine was definitely not minding our own business. Forcing the Natives onto reservations so that white farmers could take their land was about the greatest extent of not minding our own business. Really WWI was a natural progression as the Western hemisphere was finally conquered by whitey and almost completely decolonized.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. It's usually young guys that have nothing to lose and everything to gain. It's college educated Saudi's and old middle-class Iraqi children. They already have all their needs taken care of...but they want more. You'll find most family men have much stronger ties to their family than any religion or warmonger. And you'll find poor people won't do anything unless you feed them...and religious fanatics will rarely spend money where they don't have to.
Generally incorrect. It is the middle-classes of the world where terrorists and religious-fanatics come from. The Arab world is not a terrible place to live. Sub-Sahara Africa is much worse. We don't fear sub-Sahara Africa like we fear the Arab world.
You clearly missed the part where the infinite clean energy was a condition for the outbreak of selflessness. Common sense has nothing to do with this.
Trickle down economics is a bunch of crap, but your so-called "trickle down science" has nothing to do with that... there is no comparison between the 2. And NASA has given us so many advancements that I don't see how you can just cast them off like that. You must have some ulterior motive here.
You are the only person I've ever known to not like it. Now you were driving in Europe, so maybe the car was different or low end, but I and every one I know love semi-auto. It feels exactly like an automatic, but has all the benefits of manual. Volkswagon does it right. But you can also put it into manual control.
I'll agree with your sentiment, but why are you trying to apply economics to dating? Dinner is about a lot more than eating and paying, something I think you and economics have a lot to learn about.
No, it is not adequate. The fact that you are ok with using decades old technology suggests that you have no love of growth or new ideas. Your child wants the more expensive console becouse his friends have it and he wants to indulge in a shared experience with them. He can't do that with the dated ps2 that none of his friends are playing. Please don't take your disgusted of progress out on your child's desire to have meaningful relationships with peers.
Wow, still so wrong. No other companies would dread the thought. Even Comcast, the behemoth of the industry would never move into a new market without government support. It is not cost effective. Cable companies need the guarantee of monopoly or else they would never move in. I'll disagree with the gp, last mile is not super expensive and its a one-time cost even if the person in the house drops service. If they come back, its as easy as flipping a switch and provisioning the customer. Last mile is covered by the customer's personal bill. It's all the stuff that is necessary no matter if the ISP has 100 or 10000 customers that makes this an issue. Government approved monopolies for cable tv are a good thing for all parties involved. If you can actually come up with a business model that saves cable customers money and you will do something no cable company has figured out.
You really believe that? That's...just weird... No one is going to lay those lines. You think even with really crappy service that Comcast is going to spend billions to penetrate a market that might get net them a few thousand customers. I'll tell you this. If the cable company I work for had any competition in the 3 state area that we operate in, we'd pull out as we couldn't justify the cost of the equipment or people in a market that we are not guarenteed subscribers. There just isn't enough money to go around. Besides, every cable company takes you to the same internet and the same cable channels. More and more we are seeing actual differences on channels available and digital services provided, but nothing large enough to warrant what you're suggesting. Phones are becoming a different story, but that's because voip is making pots obsolete, not because we are moving towards a truly competitive market. Let me put it a different way. Imagine if Denver had both Comcast and Time-Warner. Comcast would halve its customer base and hand them to TW. Comcast still requires exactly the same network with exactly the same number of support staff (maybe not customer support, but that's pretty much pittance compared to technical support). TW will also have to create a duplicate network right next to Comcast's. That's twice the lines, twice the number of digs, twice the number of people the city of Denver has to deal with... And both companies still take all their customers to the same internet and roughly the same cable channels. The small bit of the internet that differs between them, the small difference in the channels provided, and the small differences in customer support do not warrant anyone switching between companies. There'll be anecdotal evidence to switch and many will, but it'll be a back and forth trade of roughly equal size. And once each is ubiquitous, the only cost cutting measure either can take is to actually get more subscribers. There is no way that de-monopolizing the cable industry will make money for the cable companies or save consumers money.
Are you expecting Bush-style you're-with-us-or-we'll-bury-you-so-far-in-political-quagmire-you'll-never-be-re-elected deamnds from this administration. Neither Obama, Pelosi, Reid nor any other person is in full control of the government. Exactly the way it should be. I think Bush really has invaded some people's brains.
Did learned people not get mod points today? This entire discussion seems to be moderated by head-in-the-sand libertarians. Society be damned, regulation is evil I guess...
You might notice that the executive branch is given a very open ended amount of power that is really only limited by congress. Unless the president does something unconstitutional the supreme court cannot even check the president's power. Which means I must ask you what laws or sections of the constitution is the president violating? All recognized rights are stated in the constitution. Do not go outside of that document. You'll notice that none have been broken.
Didn't think this was worth a response but apparently someone thinks this is insightful. No senator or rep would ever pretend that they can make that decision. The problem is who Harry Reid is getting the information from. We need to make sure that our reps and senators are talking to the right people. Wonder why we have this patent problem? Its because the Reids of old thought that asking Microsoft and GE how to handle these new sciences and no surprise they got answers that rewarded Microsoft and GE instead of the market. We needed to make the Reids know that they talked to the wrong people. Instead we sit back and complain. Please do not dilute this issue. It's a complex issues as is and we don't need people assuming that their rep or senator is making decisions without talking to relevant parties first.
That doesn't sound like a problem at all. Also sounds like the patent holder probably shouldn't have been granted a patent. If a patent is that similar to something in the public domain, I should hope no one gets any money.
No no no. Please mod up. That's one of the most informative and straight forward threads I've ever seen on /.
Just as you see that, I see all too often the government saying that it's not their problem when it very clearly is. Economic crisis, natural disasters, different teaching methods for different learning methods, these are all problems that must be met by the government (on different levels, of course). There are plenty more. There is no good economic solution to any of these, but they are real problems that need addressing. Certainly the government has no place trying to hide things from children or anyone (national security being the small exception to that rule). They should also not be enacting rules that try to deal with edge cases. Here in the US we have way too many people trying to push those kinds of things onto the government while trying to keep the government from doing its job. Too many people demand that the government back off while they demand some odd 10-14 years of daycare (ie public education). Too many want to do away with economic regulation, but the government had better slap the Enrons and WorldComs. Get rid of farm subsidies but we will not buy food from China.
;). Maybe there is an epidemic of careless parenting in Romania, but I suspect it's much like it is here where the vocal minority ruins everything for the silent majority. Most parents do care about their children and many of them even do a decent job of raising them. But then we get 1 school shooting and all of a sudden the media sounds the alarm that no one is doing anything right. I think a lot of it has to do with the concept of "imagined communities" where everyone is assumed to be the same and if 1 child is messed up, they all must be. And many on Slashdot seem to enjoy hearing that everyone else out there is messed up even if there's nothing to back up the assertion (that'd be the "warm and fuzzies").
My point was that I didn't care at all for your original comment. I like this one much better! Your original post was far too sweeping and did not contain any real, hard problems ("vapid" covers that
If Romania really has a problem with this, I'd love to see articles on it. I personally am branching out into European politics to see if anyone out there has a working model. I'd say the American one is broken, even with Obama... I'll keep the hope, but I'm waiting for the change. Demanding major concessions from Wall Street would be a very good sign, and that means a strong government.
You'll be happy to know that that is not the norm. I worked for my grades in public school, though not very much. I definitely needed a different environment since I rarely did any work at home and eventually started working out how I could get a B in classes I didn't like with doing as little homework as possible. But that's because my teachers (even in the enriched classes) taught to the median pupil, pretty much as they should. I've seen private high schools and they often have the luxury of better disciplined and smarter pupils. If they had all the riff-raff that public schools have, they would not be able to do the job they can.
Though after saying that I realize that private school administration may be better than public school administration. Having worked with them, they definitely did not get to where they are because they understand the system and have a better vision for it. Though it wouldn't surprise me if private school admins quietly padded grades... I hope you don't think private schools are inherently better. From what I've seen its pretty much always the caliber of students and not the status of the school that sets the mark high or low.
Did anyone ask the government to solve all their problems? Have parents not been taking responsibility for their children? Will moderators ever stop modding up the warm and fuzzy yet completely vapid messages they love to hear?
---Yes dumping clothes does destroy any chance of a market economy based on selling clothing.
---We are instead trying to stop them from being subsistent by giving them free time that they would be spending on making their own clothes.
So, are they destroying the economy, or "giving them free time"?
Everybody has a niche, and from many people make a community. From that, commerce. If you kill of segments of the community by freebie stuff (like clothes and low technology goods), you then make them wait for the next batch of freebies.
Do you want to do something to HELP the Africans and other displaced and/or disheveled peoples? Educate them. Then open trade.
They are trying to give them free time. Again, there is no economy to destroy. Maybe you just misread what you quoted, but I said that it destroys the chance of capitalism taking hold, I thought clearly suggesting that capitalism does not exist there. The part where you say everybody has a niche, you are wrong. There are plenty of places in Africa where the family is entirely responsible for all of their own goods: food, water, clothing, shelter. That is the definition of subsistence. The only commerce going on is if there is a bead maker or something non-essential, and then its a barter system. So what happens is that you remove their need to make clothing hoping that the free time allows them to all become bead makers or even get an education. As I stated elsewhere in my post, this is not the actual result and we should not drop clothing into these countries. I never once defended that. It is your statement that few make a living in these places that I have problem with. They make a living just fine.
---Subsistence living is the real natural enemy of capitalism as no company is able to exist without massive government support.
That doesnt make sense. The only reason to work is to pay taxes on land, houses, and other forms of taxation that does not pay for itself. I can grow my own fruits and vegetables, along with raising a few chicken and duck. I can be a poor small farmer, but plenty of food to eat, milk to drink, and work to be done around the farmstead. I might only need basic equipment that needs low amount of maintenance, and group together in a close knit community.
I just described the Amish, who live here in Northern Indiana, and around Greensburg, IN. There's subsistence living, with an active close knit community.
If there is an enemy of Capitalism, it is the adherents of Capitalism, and their associated greed. Capitalism only ferments retaliation and adversity, which is its downfall. We instead, need a system that helps each other, but still friendly competes. Perhaps you would call that Communism, or something else entirely. But that "Ill never help you, regardless the help it will do for me" line of thought will be the final downfall.
The only reason to work is to pay taxes? That doesn't make a lick of sense. If you don't work there are no taxes to pay...assuming you don't own anything since you don't work... In any case, they work because they want to live which requires food, water, clothing, shelter. Maybe you take for granted that these are the things all people work for first, but these people certainly do not. What was the point of the Amish? Yes there are many similarities between subsistence-farming Africans and Amish... Are you suggesting that the Amish embrace capitalism? They certainly use the system when dealing with non-Amish, but that's only because the world outside their colonies do. The world outside the African subsistence-farmers...is more subsistence-farmers. They have no link to capitalism. You are right in saying that subsistence-living is not the only natural enemy of capitalism. There are plenty others. But my point still stands that capitalism, or really any economic model introduced from the outside, will fail. The culture has to change first. I'm pretty certain that's what your Afr
This is not clothing. Clothing is very old technology that is saturated the world over. Yes dumping clothes does destroy any chance of a market economy based on selling clothing. You certainly take it for granted that other perfectly viable and probably better alternative economic models exist. Corrupt governments are only part of the problem. Subsistence living is the real natural enemy of capitalism as no company is able to exist without massive government support. Half of the problem is corrupted officials. The other half is our (as in the Western world) expectations that you can plug-and-play capitalism. Capitalism takes generations to gain a foothold and only where you can change common practices. When and where we drop clothes into Africa, we are not competing with any market economy. We are instead trying to stop them from being subsistent by giving them free time that they would be spending on making their own clothes. Yes this has unintended consequences that makes it a very poor decision to donate mass amounts of clothing to these areas. But you are creating a theoretical economy that does not exist and could not exist in that culture. And then you try to apply it to personal computers? No not even personal computers. Very small form-factor computers. Have you used an XO? No one in any sort of industrial nation should want one. There is no market except the free one. If these people have the ability to purchase even an Asus EEEPC, they will choose that over the XO.
You're not very good at this logic thing, are you? Also analogies... and politics... and reading... you do realize that the Declaration of Independence, a very important document, has no legal authority in the United States. Certainly it can be used to inspire useful rhetoric in defense of rights, but it provides no rights.
We the people through our elected officials have determined that analog transmission of video over our airwaves is a poor use of our airwaves. Never ever ever call them YOUR airwaves. They are not my airwaves, they are OUR airwaves. You are entitled to nothing here. Fucking luddite.
Just to clear things up, the vast majority of teachers don't know how to use windows either. But it is recognizable.
Christ on a crutch...I didn't even pick up on it the first time around. How can Moore's Law ever be a software issue? I can accept that most people don't care about transistor count, but saying it can somehow become a software issue is just too many steps removed from the original meaning. I love functional programming languages, but this article is hurting my brain.
When you move to FP, all your algorithms break
If moving to a functional programming language breaks your algorithms, then you are somehow doing it wrong. That line doesn't even make sense to me. Algorithms are mathematical constructs that have nothing to do with programming paradigm. Assuming the language is Turing complete, how is that even possible?
I think you need to read up on your pre-WWI US History. The Spanish-American war didn't happen because we were minding our own business. We got ourselves mixed up with the Texans...something many of us rue to this day. Let's see, there were a couple invasions of Canada and that War of 1812. 54 or fight also comes to mind (though we got out of that without 54 or fight). We took Hawaii pretty much by force. The Monroe doctrine was definitely not minding our own business. Forcing the Natives onto reservations so that white farmers could take their land was about the greatest extent of not minding our own business. Really WWI was a natural progression as the Western hemisphere was finally conquered by whitey and almost completely decolonized.