Classically that is why autocratic governments like dictatorships or absolute monarchies have been the best and worst cases. When they are run well they are unmatched in their ability to do good for their people, when run badly they are unmatched in just how bad they can get. All other forms of government trade the possible highs they could achieve against the risk of the lows they can allow to happen.
Wait wait wait.. are you saying they have leaders who actually plan more then 2 years in advance? Yeah right, next thing you will try to tell me is they have corporations that plan for longer then a quarter.
*nods* all they need is plausible rationalization, just enough for politicians to be able to claim, even if only to themselves, that they are doing it for just reasons.
Which gets to the other major problem with the conclusion, West Germany (and the first world in general) is not "capitalism", for that you would have to go to some 3rd world hell hole. So the two regions they are trying to compare did not have the economic systems they are trying to contrast in the first place.
I am a little confused too. So they have a mechanism to ask through US law enforcement rather then directly so the report lists the requests as being from the US.
I am not really sure that is a "loophole" unless there is some other angle here I am not seeing.
The US put down multiple rebellions back when the military and civilian populations had the same types of guns. Armed citizens does not really change anything, it does not factor in to public policy in any significant way other then fund raising.
It is a rather questionable choice since for a non technical person who has never heard of them, figuring out how to acquire some is somewhat daunting.
This is why slavery still keeps popping up, even in the US. It is great for profits and customers and people always find some kind of mental gymnastics to explain why it is actually good for the slaves or why caring about it makes someone weak.
American companies frequently outsource work to Western Europe. As you point out, they have a lot of skilled people there, but not skilled enough to bring over to the US itself. However since the cost of living there is so much less, companies can pay workers in Western Europe a lower wage while still selling products to American workers with their higher cost of living. So it is not just about taking advantage of unskilled call center type workers, but also utilizing highly skilled people in poorer regions... though it only works as long as only a few companies are doing it on any significant scale since it depends on the high cost of living in the US with all those well paid workers from other companies that are not outsourcing....
The dislike is mostly from a loud but niche technical community, it is far from "universal".
The problem with UI design is it is subjective, it depends heavily on who your target user is. The "good designers" of the past were catering to a particular type of user who no longer makes up the majority of customers. They were indeed good at what they did, but the market has shifted and thus a new crop of designers are trying to work out what serves the majority of user now well.
regardless of where one feels it "went wrong", people do tend to forget just how incredibly good we have it in the US and confuse decreases in relative luxury with hardship.
Which is part of why no developed country has a pure free-market economy. Economies where companies depend on OTHER companies paying their people well while finding ways to pay poorly themselves tend to spiral down and crash. If h1bs were completely unrestricted companies would quickly find their profits crash as the market for their products dries up.
That is the economic problem with globalization, wages and prices are locally coupled, and it is every company`s individual best interest to max/min in a particular way, but unless regulation changes the weights, it all comes crashing down.
The problem is, once we get away from pot and other light drugs, the heavier ones have a pretty significant net economic cost. Historically, before our modern drug laws went insane, trying to get drugs out of a local community was a response to local economic collapses when things like opium were introduced to a region. Physically addictive drugs can be pretty devastating to a community as more workers exit the pool and more resources go to taking care of the addicts.
Which gets to the core of the problem when trying to decide how "like math" programming is. Which "programming"? Languages vary a great deal, but even more importantly the type of task one is trying to complete varies even wilder.
Even if one is going to follow the idea that it is not math itself one should learn and more the abstract reasoning one picks up while learning match, even that is questionable since the amount of abstract thought that is useful varies from task to task and environment to environment.
There will always be corruption and favoritism, but it is still better to have a framework for addressing misdeeds then simply leaving it at 'well, rich people will get away with it anyway, so why bother making it illegal?'
Since there seems to be confusion and disagreement regarding how to treat BTC and other virtual currencies, I imagine all a new law would really contain is explicit clarification of existing laws so businesses and courts have a clear unambiguous base to work from.
I have heard people make the same argument about self reporting taxes in general, easy to lie and hide income, unless you get audited of course. That is where enforcement will probably happen, they are not going to track and tabulate every transaction, but just like every other business and individual there will be a chance of audit. So using BTC will have the same basic risk as any tax avoidance, works fine unless the dice roll against you. It does not impart any significant extra security.
yeah, but a lot of people believe that if you make something difficult to regulate somehow that makes it legal. Kinda like installing hidden compartments in cars, it does not make transporting drugs and less illegal and advertising that you want to help people break the law does not put your garage in a good place.
I wonder if Netflix themselves could provide such a service, maybe even run it through Comcast? Now there would be a fun bit of PR... "yes, your netflix connection runs better if we route from your Verizon DSL through Comcast, imagine how much better it would be if you just switched to Comcast?"
Probably because negative mass addresses a hole in current physics while electric universe proposes an entire alternative system that does not match the data as well as the current 'best' model. EU proponents also generally drop down to talk about conspiracy, oppression, and heresy when questioned while the negative mass proponents go do more math.
So you go back to paying taxes in order to have someone else enforce your property rights again.
Then all people have to do is convince your quasi-government to hand over your land to them, then the people you are paying come and take it. Who is going to stop them? I guess you could always hire another company to protect you from the first company you hired.
Not really. They concentrate and consume a disproportionately large percentage of the resources while producing similar amounts of work as everyone else. At my company I see people who make 10 times more then I do, and 10 times less. We do similar amounts of work with similar amounts of training and experience, but I derive a lot more income then some and a lot less then others, and that income comes from a pool of profits that everyone contributes to. But the idea that the person making 10,100, or 1000 times more is providing that much more benefit is laughable.
If we took the top 1% or 0.1% of this countries' earners and made them vanish, the impact on the economy would be minimal to positive.
No, you really don't. It does not take the entire armed forces to handle a single citizen or even a small group. The resources needed are well within what can be fielded by a medium sized corporation or street gang. However in a state, the government stops those types of entities from taking your property, the government is far more likely to be protecting your property rights then taking them, but people take that protection for granted and fail to realize that without the police one's chances of holding on to property are vastly reduced.
Slashdot Mirror
Classically that is why autocratic governments like dictatorships or absolute monarchies have been the best and worst cases. When they are run well they are unmatched in their ability to do good for their people, when run badly they are unmatched in just how bad they can get. All other forms of government trade the possible highs they could achieve against the risk of the lows they can allow to happen.
Wait wait wait.. are you saying they have leaders who actually plan more then 2 years in advance? Yeah right, next thing you will try to tell me is they have corporations that plan for longer then a quarter.
*nods* all they need is plausible rationalization, just enough for politicians to be able to claim, even if only to themselves, that they are doing it for just reasons.
Which gets to the other major problem with the conclusion, West Germany (and the first world in general) is not "capitalism", for that you would have to go to some 3rd world hell hole. So the two regions they are trying to compare did not have the economic systems they are trying to contrast in the first place.
I am a little confused too. So they have a mechanism to ask through US law enforcement rather then directly so the report lists the requests as being from the US.
I am not really sure that is a "loophole" unless there is some other angle here I am not seeing.
The US put down multiple rebellions back when the military and civilian populations had the same types of guns. Armed citizens does not really change anything, it does not factor in to public policy in any significant way other then fund raising.
It is a rather questionable choice since for a non technical person who has never heard of them, figuring out how to acquire some is somewhat daunting.
This is why slavery still keeps popping up, even in the US. It is great for profits and customers and people always find some kind of mental gymnastics to explain why it is actually good for the slaves or why caring about it makes someone weak.
American companies frequently outsource work to Western Europe. As you point out, they have a lot of skilled people there, but not skilled enough to bring over to the US itself. However since the cost of living there is so much less, companies can pay workers in Western Europe a lower wage while still selling products to American workers with their higher cost of living. So it is not just about taking advantage of unskilled call center type workers, but also utilizing highly skilled people in poorer regions... though it only works as long as only a few companies are doing it on any significant scale since it depends on the high cost of living in the US with all those well paid workers from other companies that are not outsourcing....
The dislike is mostly from a loud but niche technical community, it is far from "universal".
The problem with UI design is it is subjective, it depends heavily on who your target user is. The "good designers" of the past were catering to a particular type of user who no longer makes up the majority of customers. They were indeed good at what they did, but the market has shifted and thus a new crop of designers are trying to work out what serves the majority of user now well.
regardless of where one feels it "went wrong", people do tend to forget just how incredibly good we have it in the US and confuse decreases in relative luxury with hardship.
Which is part of why no developed country has a pure free-market economy. Economies where companies depend on OTHER companies paying their people well while finding ways to pay poorly themselves tend to spiral down and crash. If h1bs were completely unrestricted companies would quickly find their profits crash as the market for their products dries up.
That is the economic problem with globalization, wages and prices are locally coupled, and it is every company`s individual best interest to max/min in a particular way, but unless regulation changes the weights, it all comes crashing down.
The problem is, once we get away from pot and other light drugs, the heavier ones have a pretty significant net economic cost. Historically, before our modern drug laws went insane, trying to get drugs out of a local community was a response to local economic collapses when things like opium were introduced to a region. Physically addictive drugs can be pretty devastating to a community as more workers exit the pool and more resources go to taking care of the addicts.
Which gets to the core of the problem when trying to decide how "like math" programming is. Which "programming"? Languages vary a great deal, but even more importantly the type of task one is trying to complete varies even wilder.
Even if one is going to follow the idea that it is not math itself one should learn and more the abstract reasoning one picks up while learning match, even that is questionable since the amount of abstract thought that is useful varies from task to task and environment to environment.
There will always be corruption and favoritism, but it is still better to have a framework for addressing misdeeds then simply leaving it at 'well, rich people will get away with it anyway, so why bother making it illegal?'
Since there seems to be confusion and disagreement regarding how to treat BTC and other virtual currencies, I imagine all a new law would really contain is explicit clarification of existing laws so businesses and courts have a clear unambiguous base to work from.
I have heard people make the same argument about self reporting taxes in general, easy to lie and hide income, unless you get audited of course. That is where enforcement will probably happen, they are not going to track and tabulate every transaction, but just like every other business and individual there will be a chance of audit. So using BTC will have the same basic risk as any tax avoidance, works fine unless the dice roll against you. It does not impart any significant extra security.
yeah, but a lot of people believe that if you make something difficult to regulate somehow that makes it legal. Kinda like installing hidden compartments in cars, it does not make transporting drugs and less illegal and advertising that you want to help people break the law does not put your garage in a good place.
And what is wrong with that? Sounds like encouraging economic growth.
I wonder how many pennies would fit in a dumptruck....
I wonder if Netflix themselves could provide such a service, maybe even run it through Comcast? Now there would be a fun bit of PR... "yes, your netflix connection runs better if we route from your Verizon DSL through Comcast, imagine how much better it would be if you just switched to Comcast?"
Probably because negative mass addresses a hole in current physics while electric universe proposes an entire alternative system that does not match the data as well as the current 'best' model. EU proponents also generally drop down to talk about conspiracy, oppression, and heresy when questioned while the negative mass proponents go do more math.
So you go back to paying taxes in order to have someone else enforce your property rights again.
Then all people have to do is convince your quasi-government to hand over your land to them, then the people you are paying come and take it. Who is going to stop them? I guess you could always hire another company to protect you from the first company you hired.
Not really. They concentrate and consume a disproportionately large percentage of the resources while producing similar amounts of work as everyone else. At my company I see people who make 10 times more then I do, and 10 times less. We do similar amounts of work with similar amounts of training and experience, but I derive a lot more income then some and a lot less then others, and that income comes from a pool of profits that everyone contributes to. But the idea that the person making 10,100, or 1000 times more is providing that much more benefit is laughable.
If we took the top 1% or 0.1% of this countries' earners and made them vanish, the impact on the economy would be minimal to positive.
No, you really don't. It does not take the entire armed forces to handle a single citizen or even a small group. The resources needed are well within what can be fielded by a medium sized corporation or street gang. However in a state, the government stops those types of entities from taking your property, the government is far more likely to be protecting your property rights then taking them, but people take that protection for granted and fail to realize that without the police one's chances of holding on to property are vastly reduced.