He achieved his vision of Internet in China. Putin achieved his vision in Russia. In contrary to the naive belief of Internet enthusiasts, it turned out to be possible.
> well cargo pants are now coming under fashion attack because of it. In fashion terms pockets are ugly,
The best garment for men to carry slartphones is a classic jacket with inner pockets: it accentuates shoulders, hides the pot belly and even covers the butt.
It does nothing of that sort to women. I am starting to think that maybe women should not be allowed to own smartphones.
> That's $21M that goes back into the economy instead of an offshore hedge fund.
That's not the only consequence. The other consequence is that nobody decent and enterprizing wants that job anymore, and company tanks. Everybody gets zero. The money dissipates entropically.
Economic inequality is inevitable, crucial and obligatory element of any healthy economy.
It is fair that Bezos has $100B and a lot of people have million times less. Exponential distribution of wealth is natural consequence of a free market economy.
Another crucial part of economy that the bottom of the pyramid has in some sense satisfactory economic state: a basic material state (food, shelter, sex, entertainment). That part does not come naturally, it requires deliberate ideological and material intervention from society in form of government subsidies, maintaining high social status of charitable people, etc.
Combining two of these things is the essence of regulation. It is much more difficult, more complex than two extreme historic alternatives: free market society and it's opposite we observed in Soviet Union, China and North Korea. There is a wide spectrum of societies that try to combine these two obligations with sometimes very inventive ways with very different degrees of success. This, again, proves a very simple fact: regulation is very very difficult and complex.
The idiocy of modern situation is that instead of focusing a lot of intellectual resources on researching and improving the regulation, the society is bent over backwards into maintaining a vicious circle of partisanship in United States (Europe is much healthier than that) where constructive dialog about what level regulation is impossible.
This roots in intrinsic absence of ideology in United States which results in corrupt politicians with "all I need is to be re-elected" written all over their narrow foreheads.
United States is ideological cemetery. The country where materialism have won.
You know that they are necessary part of the ecosystem, but every time I watch them getting their asses royally kicked on National Geographics channel, I am having a fit of a Schadenfreude.
Typical demagoguery solution by a leftist mayor. That's all there is to it. Between libertarian imbeciles on the right and corrupt demagogues on the left there is no one left to actually make thoughtful working government regulation that actually works for the common good, not only for corporations or for politicians elected by degenerate voters.
>The debate has now been going for over 50 years and shows no signs of resolution
The dichotomy itself is idiotic.
You need solid background in STEM to earn money, plain and simple. To have a healthy chance of becoming a solid middle or upper-middle class citizen you need STEM.
You can't earn decent money with liberal arts and humanities degree unless you are really lucky: by birth or by other kind of chance.
All other considerations and debating is plain vanilla stupid.
Any society needs STEM, liberal arts are for entertainment. People need entertainment as well, but you do not need state-sponsored programs to support entertainers. It should be purely private enterprise. It's an insult to common sense when a biocurator gets the same salary as trombonist of the Chicago symphony.
Even at this relative high-point of Chavez’s popularity, Kucinich was the only U.S. Representative to publicly praise Chavez’s regime and condemn U.S. policy towards Venezuela specifically. All public declarations of support or solidarity with Venezuela or its rulers made by Kucinich were left without concurrent support from Sanders. In more recent months, Sanders has made his position on Venezuela clearer. On February 27th 2018, he co-sponsored a joint resolution of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations which officially “condemns” the “sham election” soon to be held by Venezuela’s government. This was six days before Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard sent the following tweet
>It was not hyperbole in the slightest. Saw it with my own eyes.
Exactly. Screw the dumbass Western socialist idiots who have never experienced the idiocy of equalizing pay yet propose it with the foam in their mouths.
There are no formerly Soviet socialists. None left. The ones that left are either professionals or senile.
It actually started to crumble when it started to be less of a police state.
Stalin actually created a healthy scale of socialist pay: people who work on stuff that matters were swimming in luxury.
Partocracy dismantled this system together with Stalin's "personal responsibility" principle by creating a "nomenclature" class of infallible "industry" leaders that were just transferred after they screwed up in one sector of economy.
By the end of Brezhnev times, the trolleybus driver was payed 380 roubles a month, a salary that exceeded at least twice the salary of the college professor.
Economy does not work with equal pay for _everything_. It simply does not work and it will never will.
Slashdot Mirror
> The entire purpose of the hush money was to benefit the campaign.
This is going too far.
He achieved his vision of Internet in China. Putin achieved his vision in Russia. In contrary to the naive belief of Internet enthusiasts, it turned out to be possible.
If somebody loses 1B, somebody else is gaining it.
[sound of the world crushing around me]
> well cargo pants are now coming under fashion attack because of it. In fashion terms pockets are ugly,
The best garment for men to carry slartphones is a classic jacket with inner pockets: it accentuates shoulders, hides the pot belly and even covers the butt.
It does nothing of that sort to women. I am starting to think that maybe women should not be allowed to own smartphones.
> Reality: Women buy tight fitting clothes because they want to show off their rears, not big flappy pockets.
No. The reality is that patriarchal society restricts women's right to have the same size pockets as men do.
It's high time we get rid of that abomination: #largepocketstoo
Temperature of the planet 20K years ago:
grain of salt.
That means literally nothing in terms of validity of the content.
You are in denial of basic economic facts. Marx didn't deny it, but you do.
You are truly a modern socialist imbecile, uneducated moron.
> The problem is that it rewards being greedy, and it rewards higher greed with higher rewards
That's absurdly wrong statement. Green is not enough to get a reward, aren't you forgetting something?
> That's $21M that goes back into the economy instead of an offshore hedge fund.
That's not the only consequence. The other consequence is that nobody decent and enterprizing wants that job anymore, and company tanks. Everybody gets zero. The money dissipates entropically.
Economic inequality is inevitable, crucial and obligatory element of any healthy economy.
It is fair that Bezos has $100B and a lot of people have million times less. Exponential distribution of wealth is natural consequence of a free market economy.
Another crucial part of economy that the bottom of the pyramid has in some sense satisfactory economic state: a basic material state (food, shelter, sex, entertainment). That part does not come naturally, it requires deliberate ideological and material intervention from society in form of government subsidies, maintaining high social status of charitable people, etc.
Combining two of these things is the essence of regulation. It is much more difficult, more complex than two extreme historic alternatives: free market society and it's opposite we observed in Soviet Union, China and North Korea. There is a wide spectrum of societies that try to combine these two obligations with sometimes very inventive ways with very different degrees of success. This, again, proves a very simple fact: regulation is very very difficult and complex.
The idiocy of modern situation is that instead of focusing a lot of intellectual resources on researching and improving the regulation, the society is bent over backwards into maintaining a vicious circle of partisanship in United States (Europe is much healthier than that) where constructive dialog about what level regulation is impossible.
This roots in intrinsic absence of ideology in United States which results in corrupt politicians with "all I need is to be re-elected" written all over their narrow foreheads.
United States is ideological cemetery. The country where materialism have won.
No. Everything should be small print. Regulation needs to be very complicated, and left for machine intellect.
You know that they are necessary part of the ecosystem, but every time I watch them getting their asses royally kicked on National Geographics channel, I am having a fit of a Schadenfreude.
Typical demagoguery solution by a leftist mayor. That's all there is to it. Between libertarian imbeciles on the right and corrupt demagogues on the left there is no one left to actually make thoughtful working government regulation that actually works for the common good, not only for corporations or for politicians elected by degenerate voters.
No. The idea is so stupid, it's not worth even discussing. It's like we haven't had 50 years of KISS concept.
>The debate has now been going for over 50 years and shows no signs of resolution
The dichotomy itself is idiotic.
You need solid background in STEM to earn money, plain and simple. To have a healthy chance of becoming a solid middle or upper-middle class citizen you need STEM.
You can't earn decent money with liberal arts and humanities degree unless you are really lucky: by birth or by other kind of chance.
All other considerations and debating is plain vanilla stupid.
Any society needs STEM, liberal arts are for entertainment. People need entertainment as well, but you do not need state-sponsored programs to support entertainers. It should be purely private enterprise. It's an insult to common sense when a biocurator gets the same salary as trombonist of the Chicago symphony.
>we will always need English professors, historians, philosophers
No. We need English teachers, not professors, "historian" is a synonym for a "propagandist" and philosophy should be a hobby of physicists.
I was trying to check the validity of the quote, found this:
https://quillette.com/2018/03/...
>It was not hyperbole in the slightest. Saw it with my own eyes.
Exactly. Screw the dumbass Western socialist idiots who have never experienced the idiocy of equalizing pay yet propose it with the foam in their mouths.
There are no formerly Soviet socialists. None left. The ones that left are either professionals or senile.
>Never mind the police state.
It actually started to crumble when it started to be less of a police state.
Stalin actually created a healthy scale of socialist pay: people who work on stuff that matters were swimming in luxury.
Partocracy dismantled this system together with Stalin's "personal responsibility" principle by creating a "nomenclature" class of infallible "industry" leaders that were just transferred after they screwed up in one sector of economy.
By the end of Brezhnev times, the trolleybus driver was payed 380 roubles a month, a salary that exceeded at least twice the salary of the college professor.
Economy does not work with equal pay for _everything_. It simply does not work and it will never will.
For me it was store brand pasta and bananas. I got injected with chemo course once for $2000.
I am a firm believer that anybody involved in organized crime should be executed.
I read many comments lamenting this and that ideologically, but as it comes to the "stuff that matters" , how this will go.
Ultimate question is: will we really see many plastic guns in crime?
There has been no shortage of guns accessible to organized crime in the past, so this is no issue in the street gang activities.
The only issue is terrorism in places that were so far protected by TSA: planes.
TSA is already checking the baggage for suspicious forms and shapes. Not sure this will really make an impact.
I would always take an opinion of a flat earther over an opinion of a cosmologist when it comes to driving directions.