The rich benefit more from each dollar of public infrastructure than the poor. You get a highway to visit your Aunt Mary, the CEO gets a nationwide distribution network fully maintained and ready for service without his interference.
Ownership is an arbitrary social construct. Pure rights-based approaches will not yield the best societal outcomes. There are higher moral "goods" than just your ownership of property and public education is one of them.
Not everyone on slashdot is a rabid libertarian. I don't mind any of those.
People whine about how the government is inefficient and if we privatized everything would be cheaper/better/faster/etc. Well, a private company would seek to maximize the amount it gains from a toll road.
Aside from that, according to the libertarian way of thinking you can't be "forced" to take the bus by increasing fare rates. The alternative's just being disincentivized is all.
I hybridize. Places go on the desktop and applications on an auto-hiding panel. Kind of a psychological issue rather than a usability though. I should also mention that I a have a rather large monitor, so the whole thing is rarely covered.
Meh. It's been my experience that few widgets are actually useful to begin with.
I do exactly that with the Amarok Player window.
No taskbar entry, no border, all desktops, below all. I dropped beryl because it wouldn't do that.
My point is that just because you don't use any desktop widgets in your UI paradigm, does not mean others don't find them useful. Do you not have icons on your desktop either?
...and I will carefully evaluate all the options before making a decision about long-term possibilities. It mostly depends on having competent management, but short-term stock speculation does not reward long-term management. Some people buy certain companies for the long haul, and they have management teams to do that. I don't think government always produces the best outcomes, but I think markets are overhyped.
I'll bet on a Democrat 'fore I bet on a Republican.
The executives are going to act in the manner which best benefits them. This does not always coincide with what's best for the company or shareholders, although it does often enough for our society to function. "The market" is composed of humans; humans with flawed information and flawed senses of judgment. They can and do support inferior products frequently. (See: diet fads.)
I agree it's unlikely that state-imposed wage controls would be a good idea. (Some proposals in other countries, like making it difficult to fire specific workers have been quite problematic, after all. I would hate to manage a company where I couldn't fire anyone. The 35-h work week was planned to lower unemployment.) I do know that there is only a 1% increase in persons describing themselves as "Very Happy" after reaching an income level higher than $90,000 from the previous bracket. That includes every level of wealth beyond.
The employees themselves may or may not find work again easily, but other managers will not know their level of competency. There is a cost to switching jobs, even if that cost is precious time. I have faith that capitalists will pursue short-term gain; I do not have faith that such will guarantee the best possible outcome, even if it often produces decent or good ones. The important thing is to keep a capitalist's interests aligned with those of society.
Of course, I'm not fond of Mike Huckabee for other reasons.
I'm a liberal and I'm so offended that you accidentally called them "Christmas lights" and "Christmas trees!" I'm going to go cry now.
Seriously dude, I don't know any liberals who give a damn about Christmas trees/lights/displays unless those setups utterly ridiculous or over-the-top annoying. In fact, I somewhat enjoy the whole Christmas thing. Mostly the "what about other religions" bit is used as a rhetorical example for important outlying possibilities.
What you said would be like me accusing you of being one of those "freedom fries" people, when most Americans just call them "fries."
If firing all their top-paid salespeople lead to the stock cratering, and the decision was made by the management, then why should the management be considered such valuable employees? The management controls the money flow however, and will act in their own self-interests, regardless of whether this might be good for the rest of the company.
You assume that a corporation must act logically. That assumption is false. Corporations are composed of humans.
I forsee a massive market fro artificial wombs if this takes place. The more "emotionally" advanced the robots become, the more likely the citizenry will just clone themselves with their robot lovers.
You forget: the market is composed of a number of people agreeing on the worth of a good or service. A good/service is only worth something in a market if somebody thinks it is. Supply/Demand is a summary of the decisions people might make a about the worth of a good/service.
That's the thing though, there are sane limits that can and should be imposed on firearms ownership. We don't have to accept an all-or-nothing approach.
If I remember correctly, there are things like waiting periods that have been proved to reduce crimes of passion with guns. We also ought to psyche-test people for firearms ownership, get them all certified in gun etiquette, et cetera. You should be sane & clean; know how to operate, maintain and use a gun properly; and know all the relevant regulations before you can own a gun. Tracking weapons after they leave factories might be interesting (a certain variety of gun has become very popular with thugs in Cleveland, but many collectors don't like it,) though likely wouldn't prove that effective.
Ultimately, more effective measures of reducing crime tend to be social or political (lowering the desperation of criminals or teaching the correct values to begin with,) rather than with gun control. Most people I know who disfavor gun control however, are against such alternative measures.
In light of that recent (major) data leak, can we trust even such a supposedly reliable bastion as Google to store such sensitive information?
Corporations seem to have more data on us than our own government. This worries me.
Have you never heard of Standard Oil? Free markets aren't as free as many believe them to be. I would really like to see someone (kudos if it's you) take the time and energy to somehow round up the necessary venture capital funding and talent to compete with said entrenched monopolies and do so successfully. Would you invest in such a company?
We should choose the most efficient tool for the job, and it isn't always (although it is frequently) the free market. Proper regulation is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's due to the location of rails, mostly.
This will cost significantly more to implement than could possibly be obtained in revenues. It benefits nobody.
The rich benefit more from each dollar of public infrastructure than the poor. You get a highway to visit your Aunt Mary, the CEO gets a nationwide distribution network fully maintained and ready for service without his interference.
Ownership is an arbitrary social construct. Pure rights-based approaches will not yield the best societal outcomes. There are higher moral "goods" than just your ownership of property and public education is one of them.
Not everyone on slashdot is a rabid libertarian. I don't mind any of those.
People whine about how the government is inefficient and if we privatized everything would be cheaper/better/faster/etc. Well, a private company would seek to maximize the amount it gains from a toll road.
Aside from that, according to the libertarian way of thinking you can't be "forced" to take the bus by increasing fare rates. The alternative's just being disincentivized is all.
Either you're trolling or you aren't very confident in your masculinity. Probably the former. How did you get modded up?
I hybridize. Places go on the desktop and applications on an auto-hiding panel. Kind of a psychological issue rather than a usability though. I should also mention that I a have a rather large monitor, so the whole thing is rarely covered. Meh. It's been my experience that few widgets are actually useful to begin with.
I do exactly that with the Amarok Player window.
No taskbar entry, no border, all desktops, below all. I dropped beryl because it wouldn't do that.
My point is that just because you don't use any desktop widgets in your UI paradigm, does not mean others don't find them useful. Do you not have icons on your desktop either?
I'll bet on a Democrat 'fore I bet on a Republican.
Oops. :)
I know people like that IRL, though.
That and torrents of Promo releases from DJs.
I could easily fill up my iAudio X5L with a fraction of my library by going lossless.
Of course, I don't remember ipods doing lossless.
I agree it's unlikely that state-imposed wage controls would be a good idea. (Some proposals in other countries, like making it difficult to fire specific workers have been quite problematic, after all. I would hate to manage a company where I couldn't fire anyone. The 35-h work week was planned to lower unemployment.) I do know that there is only a 1% increase in persons describing themselves as "Very Happy" after reaching an income level higher than $90,000 from the previous bracket. That includes every level of wealth beyond.
The employees themselves may or may not find work again easily, but other managers will not know their level of competency. There is a cost to switching jobs, even if that cost is precious time. I have faith that capitalists will pursue short-term gain; I do not have faith that such will guarantee the best possible outcome, even if it often produces decent or good ones. The important thing is to keep a capitalist's interests aligned with those of society.
Of course, I'm not fond of Mike Huckabee for other reasons.
Seriously dude, I don't know any liberals who give a damn about Christmas trees/lights/displays unless those setups utterly ridiculous or over-the-top annoying. In fact, I somewhat enjoy the whole Christmas thing. Mostly the "what about other religions" bit is used as a rhetorical example for important outlying possibilities.
What you said would be like me accusing you of being one of those "freedom fries" people, when most Americans just call them "fries."
If firing all their top-paid salespeople lead to the stock cratering, and the decision was made by the management, then why should the management be considered such valuable employees? The management controls the money flow however, and will act in their own self-interests, regardless of whether this might be good for the rest of the company.
You assume that a corporation must act logically. That assumption is false. Corporations are composed of humans.
Or alternatively, artificial womb technology will become strong enough to override this.
I forsee a massive market fro artificial wombs if this takes place. The more "emotionally" advanced the robots become, the more likely the citizenry will just clone themselves with their robot lovers.
Why, exactly, would sex robots be public? As it stands, the closest things to them definitely aren't.
Just make sure you survive WW III & IV. ;)
"I have reason to believe he's a robot. Put here...to lead us all to destruction."
So he's a cylon?
Would you say that "They are just a bit disgusting?"
You forget: the market is composed of a number of people agreeing on the worth of a good or service. A good/service is only worth something in a market if somebody thinks it is. Supply/Demand is a summary of the decisions people might make a about the worth of a good/service.
Make the psyche testing guidelines open enough and transparent, and the courts will take care of it.
Teaching gun care and usage in schools is, of course, politically infeasible.
That's the thing though, there are sane limits that can and should be imposed on firearms ownership. We don't have to accept an all-or-nothing approach.
If I remember correctly, there are things like waiting periods that have been proved to reduce crimes of passion with guns. We also ought to psyche-test people for firearms ownership, get them all certified in gun etiquette, et cetera. You should be sane & clean; know how to operate, maintain and use a gun properly; and know all the relevant regulations before you can own a gun. Tracking weapons after they leave factories might be interesting (a certain variety of gun has become very popular with thugs in Cleveland, but many collectors don't like it,) though likely wouldn't prove that effective.
Ultimately, more effective measures of reducing crime tend to be social or political (lowering the desperation of criminals or teaching the correct values to begin with,) rather than with gun control. Most people I know who disfavor gun control however, are against such alternative measures.
In light of that recent (major) data leak, can we trust even such a supposedly reliable bastion as Google to store such sensitive information?
Corporations seem to have more data on us than our own government. This worries me.
Would you invest in such a company?
We should choose the most efficient tool for the job, and it isn't always (although it is frequently) the free market. Proper regulation is a good thing.