Everyone confuses "race" and "culture" these days.
It just so happens that we see a HUGE cultural divide happen along racial lines. If you don't believe me, listen to the way different long-standing LOCAL cultures FROM THE SAME GEOGRAPHIC REGION speak.
As far as I know, that is an issue unique to America. Different races in different countries (assuming they grew up there) all speak about the same way. If you're calling someone in the states, it's usually pretty easy to tell if they're black or white -- not because of the tonal quality of their voice, but because of their accent. As best I can tell, this isn't true of other places, like the UK.
As far as crime rates and census data go, you're absolutely correct. There is empirical evidence. Even when you adjust for factors like poverty and education, there is still difference between races. I still insist that this is not biological, but cultural. I contend that "racism" suggesting biological differences that make one race superior to another. Cultural differences, though -- that's fair game.
The problem is this: Even if we empirically prove one culture is more violent than another, how do we deal with it? What do we do with that knowledge?
The problem with looking at Black Death, or a hypothetical example of "half the workers dying" is that it means everyone will have TWICE the money they had before.
If you have a finite amount of money to distribute, and half the people to split it between, everything will end up costing double. This is partly due to supply and demand, and partly due to the hardships in producing things with half the workers, even if you only have to produce half as much as you did before.
As for gold rushes -- sure. You're right. But I believe that the market for gold has stabilized. There might be some new mines found, but in a global or even national economy, I think the situations you're describing are VERY unlikely.
I agree with the GP -- our fiat money system is what allows for inflation. Even with 0% unemployment, if you had a finite amount of money to distribute, you couldn't have inflation. It just wouldn't be possible. In fact, you'd probably see almost everyone end up in the middle class, because janitors could demand as much as software engineers, etc. I don't know what the economic implications of that would be, though.
Where you'd see the prices of things go up or down (how much your money is worth) would be directly tied to the value of the dollar. If it was strong, you'd see the cost of imported goods drop, meaning you could get more our of a dollar.
Okay, I'm sure that could be an whole other set of problems, but as far as inflation relating to unemployment -- that's only because we don't have a finite amount of money.
I pretty much blame almost all inflation on fractional reserve banking, but that might be naive of me.
That wouldn't be possible, really, if there were a FINITE amount of money. It really IS the fiat money system that allows for inflation.
How is it possible for everyone to make more and more money unless somewhere someone "made" more of it. This usually happens through lending. Look up fractional reserve banking -- that's the real cause of inflation. Everytime someone borrows money, most of it is create out of thin air.
The web browser is VERY lightweight. Open a browser and point it to about:blank.
The problem is that the browser is a platform upon which to execute code. Without any javascript, the web would be super fast and lightweight.
For an analogy, it's really easy to completely bog down something as simple as a Word doc by adding a little VBA code to do something really intense. If people were to do this commonly, would we really have a right to complain about the huge resource consumption of Word? Substitute OpenOffice/StarBasic if you prefer.
The bottom line is, the browser is just a platform that, by itself, is very lightweight. But once you start to utilize the platform, you start using more resources.
What you're asking for is a free lunch. You want rich, graphical applications that consume the resources of a simple document viewer. We can improve efficiency, but from what I understand, we're fast approaching the speed of "native" apps with some of the new JS engines (Tamarin -> TraceMonkey, V8, etc). We can try to improve efficiency, but we can't get free cycles.
As for the secretary. The dual core/2GB RAM system is entry level anymore. It's only marginally cheaper than a single core system with less memory, so why not get it?
This is my point exactly. What if everyone DID learn a better-paying skill? You still need 1 billion people to scrub toilets.
What you suggest "learn a better paying skill" or "get an education" is really no a solution to the problem of low-wage work. Just because one individual moves up to something better doesn't make that job go away. All they've done is shifted the situation to someone else.
I think it is a comparison of severity. Sure, everywhere is going to have its share of disasters, but it just seems like there are going to be places that are so disaster-prone that one has to wonder if it's worth paying all that money to maintain when there are other places to live.
You're forgetting about support. You get a lower price for OEM because Microsoft gets off the hook for support. The same is true of the OEM as well. Had he accepted, and installed linux, when he called in for support, he'd be out of luck -- at least as far as software goes.
If he wanted support for Windows at that point, he'd have to go buy a retail version of it, and call Microsoft. If he installed Ubuntu and wanted support, he'd have to pay Canonical or whomever for it.
So the $130 figure is based on the cost of a Windows OEM license PLUS whatever Lenovo figured was the cost of support to go with that copy of Windows.
I wouldn't call it either -- I'd call it a requirement, just like food or shelter. Good luck trying to do ANYTHING that doesn't involve traveling along a road, or using something that's traveled along a road.
You're right in theory, but in practice, local judges are insanely corrupt, and just find everyone guilty. It's easy money, and you either pay them a small fee, or pay a lawyer and the courts a big fee to appeal. It's just not worth it.
When this happened to me, I pretty much lost all faith in our legal system.
If anything, I would say that a video game's quality of "committing the acting yourself" makes it more of a catharsis than any other form of art.
It is my understanding that the whole basis for violence in art (or indeed, art itself) is the idea of catharsis. People have been arguing over this since Aristotle and Plato, and probably before.
Simply put, violence and sex in video games lets you get it out of your system. If you can kill people in a video game, you're going to feel less like you need to do it in real life. It's especially true when the characters you are killing in a video game are being controlled by another human player, and you even idiomatically describe it as killing them.
I am definitely saying that, because he is the one who made us with those limitations. If he wanted us to live up to some goal or standard, he should have made it realistic for us to do so.
I mean, if you know you can't do something, no matter how hard you try, why waste your efforts trying to do it? Is that really virtuous, or is it just folly?
And really, the reward system is boolean. So you either go to heaven or hell. You only really need to be "good enough" to keep from going to hell. Obviously that bar is lower than Jesus, or everyone is going to hell and we're back to there being no use in trying. Conversely, if you know you're not going to meet the minimum, you might as well be as evil and depraved as you feel like, because you're going to end up in hell anyway.
That may be the Christianity that Jesus envisioned, but it didn't ever really get implemented.
Are you suggesting that Jesus envisioned something that was unrealistic, because we as humans are too imperfect to live up to his expectations? It doesn't make sense he would teach something that we couldn't follow. To me, it would seem so naive of him as to discredit what he was saying entirely, because he didn't really understand humanity in the first place.
Though if the bible is to be believed as true, I think that's a pretty fair conclusion to come to.
I'm hoping that, in a few hundred years, we'll have the technology to do all that. I am almost certain we will if we continue at our current pace of development.
That pace of development is very new in the grand scheme of things, and it's going to need a strong supply of energy to continue. Figuring out how to get energy in a sustainable way is important now, and it is the first step in dealing with the bigger problems we will eventually face as a species.
I think it's a problem bigger than that. People want to make money forever off work they've done once. It's not really any different than investments. It's the idea of "letting your money work for you". It's all only possible through bad laws and economic practices.
Indeed, many record companies probably only consider their artists to be investments. And so, the shareholders of the companies profit while they sit back and (probably) just enjoy the good life.
Really, they're the ones we should be angry with. They're the ones demanding more profits. They're the ones who fund all the lobbying of congress, for laws that allow them to maintain their ways of life. It's the rich bastards of the world (which includes most elected officials).
I think file sharing proves that society, in general, disagrees with the idea of letting your money work for you. If people felt like they were causing others to starve, they might think twice. But they know all they're doing is MAYBE causing rich bastards to be slightly less rich. I know I don't shed any tears over it, and I think it's social justice.
I think it's completely legitimate to think, "I work hard every week. These people live way better than I do. Why should I give them my money, if I can find a way not to?" I think that's the thought a lot of people have when they pirate music.
If we could really get to END OF TRANSACTION, I think we'd all be a lot better off.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone confuses "race" and "culture" these days.
It just so happens that we see a HUGE cultural divide happen along racial lines. If you don't believe me, listen to the way different long-standing LOCAL cultures FROM THE SAME GEOGRAPHIC REGION speak.
As far as I know, that is an issue unique to America. Different races in different countries (assuming they grew up there) all speak about the same way. If you're calling someone in the states, it's usually pretty easy to tell if they're black or white -- not because of the tonal quality of their voice, but because of their accent. As best I can tell, this isn't true of other places, like the UK.
As far as crime rates and census data go, you're absolutely correct. There is empirical evidence. Even when you adjust for factors like poverty and education, there is still difference between races. I still insist that this is not biological, but cultural. I contend that "racism" suggesting biological differences that make one race superior to another. Cultural differences, though -- that's fair game.
The problem is this: Even if we empirically prove one culture is more violent than another, how do we deal with it? What do we do with that knowledge?
Maybe if being gay weren't considered deviant behavior, they wouldn't act like deviants.
You think if these people could settle down in a traditional marriage, they'd be out in the streets acing like this? I really doubt it.
I think the motive is the easiest one to argue, really. Bush would have been a one term loser, and there would be no Patriot act if not for 9/11.
Isn't that how it works now?
The problem with looking at Black Death, or a hypothetical example of "half the workers dying" is that it means everyone will have TWICE the money they had before.
If you have a finite amount of money to distribute, and half the people to split it between, everything will end up costing double. This is partly due to supply and demand, and partly due to the hardships in producing things with half the workers, even if you only have to produce half as much as you did before.
As for gold rushes -- sure. You're right. But I believe that the market for gold has stabilized. There might be some new mines found, but in a global or even national economy, I think the situations you're describing are VERY unlikely.
I agree with the GP -- our fiat money system is what allows for inflation. Even with 0% unemployment, if you had a finite amount of money to distribute, you couldn't have inflation. It just wouldn't be possible. In fact, you'd probably see almost everyone end up in the middle class, because janitors could demand as much as software engineers, etc. I don't know what the economic implications of that would be, though.
Where you'd see the prices of things go up or down (how much your money is worth) would be directly tied to the value of the dollar. If it was strong, you'd see the cost of imported goods drop, meaning you could get more our of a dollar.
Okay, I'm sure that could be an whole other set of problems, but as far as inflation relating to unemployment -- that's only because we don't have a finite amount of money.
I pretty much blame almost all inflation on fractional reserve banking, but that might be naive of me.
That wouldn't be possible, really, if there were a FINITE amount of money. It really IS the fiat money system that allows for inflation.
How is it possible for everyone to make more and more money unless somewhere someone "made" more of it. This usually happens through lending. Look up fractional reserve banking -- that's the real cause of inflation. Everytime someone borrows money, most of it is create out of thin air.
The web browser is VERY lightweight. Open a browser and point it to about:blank.
The problem is that the browser is a platform upon which to execute code. Without any javascript, the web would be super fast and lightweight.
For an analogy, it's really easy to completely bog down something as simple as a Word doc by adding a little VBA code to do something really intense. If people were to do this commonly, would we really have a right to complain about the huge resource consumption of Word? Substitute OpenOffice/StarBasic if you prefer.
The bottom line is, the browser is just a platform that, by itself, is very lightweight. But once you start to utilize the platform, you start using more resources.
What you're asking for is a free lunch. You want rich, graphical applications that consume the resources of a simple document viewer. We can improve efficiency, but from what I understand, we're fast approaching the speed of "native" apps with some of the new JS engines (Tamarin -> TraceMonkey, V8, etc). We can try to improve efficiency, but we can't get free cycles.
As for the secretary. The dual core/2GB RAM system is entry level anymore. It's only marginally cheaper than a single core system with less memory, so why not get it?
My 9 to 5 is a situation that I do not find myself in voluntarily. I have to do it for the money, or starve and be homeless.
Where's my law protecting me from that?
Learn a better-paying skill
This is my point exactly. What if everyone DID learn a better-paying skill? You still need 1 billion people to scrub toilets.
What you suggest "learn a better paying skill" or "get an education" is really no a solution to the problem of low-wage work. Just because one individual moves up to something better doesn't make that job go away. All they've done is shifted the situation to someone else.
Interestingly enough, it's probably a lot more useful than most white-collar work, too. So why does it pay less?
Call me cynical, but I am convinced half the people in white-collar work are only there to make the jobs of the other half more difficult.
Looks a lot more like something you'd see the Elves doing.
They need people who can transcribe "American" dialect like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omVrfdXQ2sQ
I think it is a comparison of severity. Sure, everywhere is going to have its share of disasters, but it just seems like there are going to be places that are so disaster-prone that one has to wonder if it's worth paying all that money to maintain when there are other places to live.
Apple-Q
You're forgetting about support. You get a lower price for OEM because Microsoft gets off the hook for support. The same is true of the OEM as well. Had he accepted, and installed linux, when he called in for support, he'd be out of luck -- at least as far as software goes.
If he wanted support for Windows at that point, he'd have to go buy a retail version of it, and call Microsoft. If he installed Ubuntu and wanted support, he'd have to pay Canonical or whomever for it.
So the $130 figure is based on the cost of a Windows OEM license PLUS whatever Lenovo figured was the cost of support to go with that copy of Windows.
I wouldn't call it either -- I'd call it a requirement, just like food or shelter. Good luck trying to do ANYTHING that doesn't involve traveling along a road, or using something that's traveled along a road.
You're right in theory, but in practice, local judges are insanely corrupt, and just find everyone guilty. It's easy money, and you either pay them a small fee, or pay a lawyer and the courts a big fee to appeal. It's just not worth it.
When this happened to me, I pretty much lost all faith in our legal system.
If anything, I would say that a video game's quality of "committing the acting yourself" makes it more of a catharsis than any other form of art.
It is my understanding that the whole basis for violence in art (or indeed, art itself) is the idea of catharsis. People have been arguing over this since Aristotle and Plato, and probably before.
Simply put, violence and sex in video games lets you get it out of your system. If you can kill people in a video game, you're going to feel less like you need to do it in real life. It's especially true when the characters you are killing in a video game are being controlled by another human player, and you even idiomatically describe it as killing them.
I am definitely saying that, because he is the one who made us with those limitations. If he wanted us to live up to some goal or standard, he should have made it realistic for us to do so.
I mean, if you know you can't do something, no matter how hard you try, why waste your efforts trying to do it? Is that really virtuous, or is it just folly?
And really, the reward system is boolean. So you either go to heaven or hell. You only really need to be "good enough" to keep from going to hell. Obviously that bar is lower than Jesus, or everyone is going to hell and we're back to there being no use in trying. Conversely, if you know you're not going to meet the minimum, you might as well be as evil and depraved as you feel like, because you're going to end up in hell anyway.
The GP said:
Are you suggesting that Jesus envisioned something that was unrealistic, because we as humans are too imperfect to live up to his expectations? It doesn't make sense he would teach something that we couldn't follow. To me, it would seem so naive of him as to discredit what he was saying entirely, because he didn't really understand humanity in the first place.
Though if the bible is to be believed as true, I think that's a pretty fair conclusion to come to.
Exactly! Who cares what is it as long as it tastes good. This is snobbery at its finest.
You're absolutely right.
I'm hoping that, in a few hundred years, we'll have the technology to do all that. I am almost certain we will if we continue at our current pace of development.
That pace of development is very new in the grand scheme of things, and it's going to need a strong supply of energy to continue. Figuring out how to get energy in a sustainable way is important now, and it is the first step in dealing with the bigger problems we will eventually face as a species.
I'm not your buddy, guy.
I think it's a problem bigger than that. People want to make money forever off work they've done once. It's not really any different than investments. It's the idea of "letting your money work for you". It's all only possible through bad laws and economic practices.
Indeed, many record companies probably only consider their artists to be investments. And so, the shareholders of the companies profit while they sit back and (probably) just enjoy the good life.
Really, they're the ones we should be angry with. They're the ones demanding more profits. They're the ones who fund all the lobbying of congress, for laws that allow them to maintain their ways of life. It's the rich bastards of the world (which includes most elected officials).
I think file sharing proves that society, in general, disagrees with the idea of letting your money work for you. If people felt like they were causing others to starve, they might think twice. But they know all they're doing is MAYBE causing rich bastards to be slightly less rich. I know I don't shed any tears over it, and I think it's social justice.
I think it's completely legitimate to think, "I work hard every week. These people live way better than I do. Why should I give them my money, if I can find a way not to?" I think that's the thought a lot of people have when they pirate music.
If we could really get to END OF TRANSACTION, I think we'd all be a lot better off.
Although if you fuck up a heart surgery, the patient dies. If you fuck up some code, you just go back and change.
If someone does something that goes unnoticed through the initial development, if it's a serious bug, I'd think someone would catch it during testing.