Just because they both run on bytecode?
In fact, there is a lot more things in Java from smalltalk and objective c than from UCSD-p.
If I call Java a knock-off of the USCD, I should also call it a knock-off of the Algol language, after all, both have this innovative idea of "compiling".
What is happening with geeks nowadays? in the past rants were more well informed.
Looks like you like to call other people idiots. funny sport!
But let me remember you that revenue != profit. After you get this, I recommend you go read and learn what opportunity cost is, then, you can try reading something about public companies, and the stock market and so on.
After that, and only after that, you can dare using the phrase "pure PROFIT" again, and calling others idiots.
Don't be stupid. Studios WANT apple to distribute things with DRM, not the other way around. They don't want open standards, several vendors and shit like that. For apple it's basically the same thing, people don't buy iPods because only iPods play content bought on iTunes, people buy on iTunes because they have iPods. if iTunes sold content that could be played on other players, users of those other players would buy on iTunes, but then, apple would not get content so easily from the studios, because it would not look DRM-safe enough for them.
If you want content that works with other devices, go buy it anywhere else but in iTunes. If enough people start buying content at other places, the studios will have a compelling reason to start working with those alternative channels, that is, if they think that those other places are safe enough.
All your statements depend on the definition of what the value of things, work and money is. It is a know fact in economy that the Ricardo's theory of value (that was used by Marx) is inconsistent with reality, and can't be used to explain simple facts of a monetary economy. So, all your statements can't be incorporated in a realistic model, and are, therefore, untrue.
Btw, you are citing what Marx predicts as the results from his theory, and not the underlying theory itself.
I majored in economics, and despite what you believe, Marx works are just a historical curiousity in economics. Nobody (except the "alternative science" types) takes it seriously in the field.
For China and North Korea not being communist, I will just respect it as coming from a man of faith.
Try not assuming things that you don't know just because people don't agree with you.
I raised surrounded with Marxist and general leftist literature in my house, I started reading it when I was 12-13, starting by the manifesto, then the Gündrisse, other smaller works and articles,and finally, The Capital, that I read more than once.
But I started to disagree with Marxism even before I started my economics course. By the second year in economics, I had kind of solidified my reasons to consider Marxism a flawed theorethical system.
Next time, try using true arguments, instead of ad-hominen atacks. If you are so beligerant defending Marxism, you should be able to explain why we should consider it a valid theory and show it to us: As Marx has said, citing Esopo, in Der 18 Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte, "Hic Rhodus! Hic Salta!"
Calling Das Kapital as a text on economics is one of the most laughable that I hear from time to time. Actually the only economics in it is a rip-off from Ricardo's theory of value, that even on it's original form was totally wrong. Also, most of the Data concerning work conditions that was used by Marx for added effect, was later shown to be manipulated or even plain falsifications.
Calling Marx an economist is utterly stupid.
Not quite. As bad as this administration is, they will have to leave some day. And despite all the lies and manipulation, it looks like the american people is getting tired and want to change it, after all, they punished the republicans on the last election for the legislative. As long as there is oportunity to disagree in a society, we can't call it fascist. The americans were tired of Clinton, and decided to vote for Bush, then there was 9/11 and faced with the really bad choice of candidate the democrats have made, they decided to go along with Bush for four more years. Now it looks like they regret this decision, and probably, the opposition have a fairly good chance on the next election. For me, it looks like a healthy democracy.
"The USA already EXPORTS significant quantities of food for sale to 3rd world countries." Most of those exports come from highly mechanized cultures, where the net effect of any cheap labor would be null. Those workers are hired for cultures where mechanization is not pratical at all, like some fruits that have to be hand-picked from the plants. The thing is, while I agree with you that mechanization improves the productivity, and thus, enable higher salaries, the history shows that this kind of decision is best left to the market alone, and not to be forced from the government. I come from a under-developed country, and let me tell you that what keeps my country under-developed is exactly this kind of short-sighted intervention in the market. I am not for illegal immigrants working. And I believe that whoever hires a illegal immigrant should be punished, because it's all too easy to exploit someone who has fear to denounce abuse, because they are not citizens. But, as long as those immigrants are legal, have their basic citizenships rights, pay taxes, I see no point in prohibiting them to do work that the other citizens don't want to do, because they are already too affluent to see that work as an interesting option. Most of the italian and german immigrants that came to brazil in the past, were filthy poor, received meager salaries, but now, some 70-100 years after, they did an enormous contribution to brazilian development, and as a group they are well better than the rest of the brazilians, because of their enterpreunership and hard work. A group founded by one of those immigrants (Gerdau) expanded to became one of the largest steel producers in the world, and have even bought companies like Ameristeel from USA (along with several other smaller regional companies) and Sidenor from Spain. Now Gerdau is the leading steel producer of Americas, and the 10th biggest brazilian company. So, what I can say, is that, in the long run, a good immigration policy is one of the best ways to acchieve growth.
It's not a anti-France tirade. It's valid criticism. You're right saying that the subsides come from the EU, which only make things even worse, as France receives more from EU than what they give (So France helps to increase other EU's countries public expenditures, that could be lower otherwise). But, of course, Frehch taxpayers obviously also pay for this, along with the British and German, and because of that, valuable resources are diverted from the private sector to this inefficient use, thus lowering growth, and yes, reducing employment levels. As the recent riots in Paris showed, all this is not going to the poorest, but for a bunch of privileged farm owners. Of course, this is a choice for EU and France, and if you value that much what you call "tradition", it's none of other's people business. But, I see no reason why I can't show you the price of that choice without having my opinions dismissed as a "tirade".
This is a sure way to become a third world country in less than 30 years. Seriously, I will be blunt and say that you should take a course on basic economics.
It is not what look from what happened some time ago, with all those riots and fires and so on. French society is not that harmonious as you think. Surely, the government will take care of you, but this is something that is getting easily out of control, and soon those benefits will have to be cut. On the other side, people want a society where you have a chance to get more of the pie, and there's very little, if any, social mobility in French society, specially for those who are immigrants or their descendents.
I am not american, by the way. But last time I've checked the US was the friggin nummber one producer of grains in the world, producing more than the double of China, and almost ten times what Brasil produces, and they are also the second place in meat production. So, in the sense of "food security", looks like their system works pretty well.
Actually, I doubt any country in the world could survive for more time than the US in the case of a global agricultural catastrophe, given exactly, the absurd, mind-boogling size of their's grains storage.
In second place, I would not qualify French farmers exactly as poor. Look at it: money for subsides doesn't come from thin air, it must come from taxes. If your country is not that eficient producing food, that money would be better used if left to the market, instead of taken by the government. So, yes, farm subsides certainly affect employment in France by taking valuable resources out of the market and using them in a far less eficient way.
So, not all american poors have a job, but way more poor frenchs are out of the job market because of that policy and also because of the inflexibility of labor laws.
Right. Of course we can't compare US and Brazil. But what I can say is that the waves of italian and german immigrants that came at century XIX and after WWI and WWII to Brasil boosted our development a lot. Pick some of the most powerful industrial groups in Brasil, and most likely the founder was one of those immigrants. If you do some selection to weed out the opportunists, immigration can be a very useful input of energy for your economy.
Please note, that while those immigrants may be getting less than you. They are getting far more than what they were getting in their countries, living a relatively safe and orderly society, and, in general having better standards of living. I don't want to flame here, but think about a cleaning worker in Brasil, his wage is probably no more than USD 200, he/she lives in a favela(slump) where the police won't enter, as the society is extremely unequal he has no hope than his sons will be anything else than cleaning workers themselves, public education and health is a joke for him, ocasionally, police will beat him almost to death just because he is nigger and lives in a favela. Now put this guy working as in US for 1300 USD/month. It may seem to little for you, but for him, it's a dream came true. Sometimes police will be a little rude to him, but compared to what he has seen in Brasil, they will look like the Buckingham Guards.
"If there were no illegal immigrants to harvest our food, the food corporations would simply pay more for labor, and find that plenty of Americans would take the jobs."
Only as long as those higher salaries would not increase costs above price levels of imported agricultural goods. So, probably, not having those immigrants doing farming would mean that more food would be imported, and not that wages would be raised.
France has "solved" this problem with heavy subsidies for agriculture, and just because of their subsides they can have an agricultural sector able to "compete" with Third World countries like Brazil. Of course those subsides come from tax payers, and maybe that's the reason France has a unemployment rate which, last time I checked, was almost double the American.
Re:How do I go about learning Emac?
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 1
Of course, we are not discussing the existence of those keys, neither, are us, emacs users ignorant of them. The thing is, to use any one of those keys, I have to move my hands out of the main row in the keyboard. This can be fine for you, but for me, I found out that it's a lot less stressful if I can navigate around my text without moving my hand wildly across the keyboard. Of course, to fully take advantage of that, you need to know touch typing, otherwise you are already moving your hands and the extra economy in movements won't be worth the hassle. Another thing is moving around buffers, In a language like Java, where almost every class has its own file, I find a lot more convenient to use emacs commands to move around buffers than having to get my hand on the mouse to click in a tab. I used to think like you in the past, as I was using windows since windows 3.0. But I am glad that I was open minded enough to learn a more elegant weapon for more civilized times.
Re:How do I go about learning Emac?
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"And why do they teach the letter commands to go through the program when the up, down, left, right arrows exist on every keyboard and do the job?"
They do. But they do require more movement from your hand. Believe me, once the commands for navigating thru text are impregnated in your brain, you'll crave for them even within Microsoft Word. At that point of addiction, you'll start googling "emacs key binding microsoft word"
Re:I've been using vi for so long...
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 1
Some say vi is not intuitive. BS!
When I started learning emacs, I would try to use ESC commands all the time. In fact, when I use a text editor in Windows, I need always to proofread my text to get rid of the ":w" I would left.
Driving a car without auto is not that difficult. Using Linux is difficult only for people who are used to another OS. An auto car is more expensive to build and to mantain, and it gives me a lot less control. Seriously, driving an auto for me is like driving a toy.
If you find a way to have a technological society able to feed 5 billion people everyday, increase life expectancy from barely 40 to more than 60 without oil, we can talk again about those FULL COSTS.
It's on their right to finance reasearch on topics of their interest. Provided all other things keep working, I see no harm in it. Please note that there's plenty of evidence that fossil fuels are increasing global temperatures, solid and convincing evidence. But as far as I've seen there's still a lot of competing theories about how it's working. And if we don't know how things work exactly, it could (even if it's not very probable) that what we most scientist are seeing right now could prove not to be correct. It could even happen that maybe we are seeing a natural cicle, or that some other effect would trigger a counter-effect. I don't know how this could be, but who else, at this present moment, can be 100% sure?
On another side, the current theories can only benefit from being challenged, as this would contribute to show their flaws and direct reasearch into their weakest points, thus, making the current theories more solid. If they prove unable to withstand the attack, well, heck! we then need better theories!
As long as the scientists funded by oil industries fully disclose this relationship I see no problems with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because they both run on bytecode? In fact, there is a lot more things in Java from smalltalk and objective c than from UCSD-p. If I call Java a knock-off of the USCD, I should also call it a knock-off of the Algol language, after all, both have this innovative idea of "compiling". What is happening with geeks nowadays? in the past rants were more well informed.
Looks like you like to call other people idiots. funny sport! But let me remember you that revenue != profit. After you get this, I recommend you go read and learn what opportunity cost is, then, you can try reading something about public companies, and the stock market and so on. After that, and only after that, you can dare using the phrase "pure PROFIT" again, and calling others idiots.
Don't be stupid. Studios WANT apple to distribute things with DRM, not the other way around. They don't want open standards, several vendors and shit like that. For apple it's basically the same thing, people don't buy iPods because only iPods play content bought on iTunes, people buy on iTunes because they have iPods. if iTunes sold content that could be played on other players, users of those other players would buy on iTunes, but then, apple would not get content so easily from the studios, because it would not look DRM-safe enough for them. If you want content that works with other devices, go buy it anywhere else but in iTunes. If enough people start buying content at other places, the studios will have a compelling reason to start working with those alternative channels, that is, if they think that those other places are safe enough.
I, for one, welcome our new Apple Administrative Post Remover Overlords.
All your statements depend on the definition of what the value of things, work and money is. It is a know fact in economy that the Ricardo's theory of value (that was used by Marx) is inconsistent with reality, and can't be used to explain simple facts of a monetary economy. So, all your statements can't be incorporated in a realistic model, and are, therefore, untrue. Btw, you are citing what Marx predicts as the results from his theory, and not the underlying theory itself. I majored in economics, and despite what you believe, Marx works are just a historical curiousity in economics. Nobody (except the "alternative science" types) takes it seriously in the field. For China and North Korea not being communist, I will just respect it as coming from a man of faith.
Try not assuming things that you don't know just because people don't agree with you.
I raised surrounded with Marxist and general leftist literature in my house, I started reading it when I was 12-13, starting by the manifesto, then the Gündrisse, other smaller works and articles,and finally, The Capital, that I read more than once.
But I started to disagree with Marxism even before I started my economics course. By the second year in economics, I had kind of solidified my reasons to consider Marxism a flawed theorethical system.
Next time, try using true arguments, instead of ad-hominen atacks. If you are so beligerant defending Marxism, you should be able to explain why we should consider it a valid theory and show it to us: As Marx has said, citing Esopo, in Der 18 Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte, "Hic Rhodus! Hic Salta!"
Calling Das Kapital as a text on economics is one of the most laughable that I hear from time to time. Actually the only economics in it is a rip-off from Ricardo's theory of value, that even on it's original form was totally wrong. Also, most of the Data concerning work conditions that was used by Marx for added effect, was later shown to be manipulated or even plain falsifications. Calling Marx an economist is utterly stupid.
Double P title???? Well... surely I don't want too much detail on it.
I am a martian microbe, you insensitive clod. or rather, I was.....
Not quite. As bad as this administration is, they will have to leave some day. And despite all the lies and manipulation, it looks like the american people is getting tired and want to change it, after all, they punished the republicans on the last election for the legislative.
As long as there is oportunity to disagree in a society, we can't call it fascist.
The americans were tired of Clinton, and decided to vote for Bush, then there was 9/11 and faced with the really bad choice of candidate the democrats have made, they decided to go along with Bush for four more years. Now it looks like they regret this decision, and probably, the opposition have a fairly good chance on the next election. For me, it looks like a healthy democracy.
"The USA already EXPORTS significant quantities of food for sale to 3rd world countries."
Most of those exports come from highly mechanized cultures, where the net effect of any cheap labor would be null.
Those workers are hired for cultures where mechanization is not pratical at all, like some fruits that have to be hand-picked from the plants.
The thing is, while I agree with you that mechanization improves the productivity, and thus, enable higher salaries, the history shows that this kind of decision is best left to the market alone, and not to be forced from the government.
I come from a under-developed country, and let me tell you that what keeps my country under-developed is exactly this kind of short-sighted intervention in the market.
I am not for illegal immigrants working. And I believe that whoever hires a illegal immigrant should be punished, because it's all too easy to exploit someone who has fear to denounce abuse, because they are not citizens. But, as long as those immigrants are legal, have their basic citizenships rights, pay taxes, I see no point in prohibiting them to do work that the other citizens don't want to do, because they are already too affluent to see that work as an interesting option.
Most of the italian and german immigrants that came to brazil in the past, were filthy poor, received meager salaries, but now, some 70-100 years after, they did an enormous contribution to brazilian development, and as a group they are well better than the rest of the brazilians, because of their enterpreunership and hard work.
A group founded by one of those immigrants (Gerdau) expanded to became one of the largest steel producers in the world, and have even bought companies like Ameristeel from USA (along with several other smaller regional companies) and Sidenor from Spain. Now Gerdau is the leading steel producer of Americas, and the 10th biggest brazilian company. So, what I can say, is that, in the long run, a good immigration policy is one of the best ways to acchieve growth.
It's not a anti-France tirade. It's valid criticism. You're right saying that the subsides come from the EU, which only make things even worse, as France receives more from EU than what they give (So France helps to increase other EU's countries public expenditures, that could be lower otherwise).
But, of course, Frehch taxpayers obviously also pay for this, along with the British and German, and because of that, valuable resources are diverted from the private sector to this inefficient use, thus lowering growth, and yes, reducing employment levels.
As the recent riots in Paris showed, all this is not going to the poorest, but for a bunch of privileged farm owners. Of course, this is a choice for EU and France, and if you value that much what you call "tradition", it's none of other's people business. But, I see no reason why I can't show you the price of that choice without having my opinions dismissed as a "tirade".
This is a sure way to become a third world country in less than 30 years.
Seriously, I will be blunt and say that you should take a course on basic economics.
It is not what look from what happened some time ago, with all those riots and fires and so on. French society is not that harmonious as you think. Surely, the government will take care of you, but this is something that is getting easily out of control, and soon those benefits will have to be cut. On the other side, people want a society where you have a chance to get more of the pie, and there's very little, if any, social mobility in French society, specially for those who are immigrants or their descendents.
I am not american, by the way. But last time I've checked the US was the friggin nummber one producer of grains in the world, producing more than the double of China, and almost ten times what Brasil produces, and they are also the second place in meat production. So, in the sense of "food security", looks like their system works pretty well. Actually, I doubt any country in the world could survive for more time than the US in the case of a global agricultural catastrophe, given exactly, the absurd, mind-boogling size of their's grains storage. In second place, I would not qualify French farmers exactly as poor. Look at it: money for subsides doesn't come from thin air, it must come from taxes. If your country is not that eficient producing food, that money would be better used if left to the market, instead of taken by the government. So, yes, farm subsides certainly affect employment in France by taking valuable resources out of the market and using them in a far less eficient way. So, not all american poors have a job, but way more poor frenchs are out of the job market because of that policy and also because of the inflexibility of labor laws.
Right. Of course we can't compare US and Brazil.
But what I can say is that the waves of italian and german immigrants that came at century XIX and after WWI and WWII to Brasil boosted our development a lot. Pick some of the most powerful industrial groups in Brasil, and most likely the founder was one of those immigrants. If you do some selection to weed out the opportunists, immigration can be a very useful input of energy for your economy.
Please note, that while those immigrants may be getting less than you. They are getting far more than what they were getting in their countries, living a relatively safe and orderly society, and, in general having better standards of living.
I don't want to flame here, but think about a cleaning worker in Brasil, his wage is probably no more than USD 200, he/she lives in a favela(slump) where the police won't enter, as the society is extremely unequal he has no hope than his sons will be anything else than cleaning workers themselves, public education and health is a joke for him, ocasionally, police will beat him almost to death just because he is nigger and lives in a favela.
Now put this guy working as in US for 1300 USD/month. It may seem to little for you, but for him, it's a dream came true. Sometimes police will be a little rude to him, but compared to what he has seen in Brasil, they will look like the Buckingham Guards.
"If there were no illegal immigrants to harvest our food, the food corporations would simply pay more for labor, and find that plenty of Americans would take the jobs."
Only as long as those higher salaries would not increase costs above price levels of imported agricultural goods. So, probably, not having those immigrants doing farming would mean that more food would be imported, and not that wages would be raised.
France has "solved" this problem with heavy subsidies for agriculture, and just because of their subsides they can have an agricultural sector able to "compete" with Third World countries like Brazil. Of course those subsides come from tax payers, and maybe that's the reason France has a unemployment rate which, last time I checked, was almost double the American.
Of course, we are not discussing the existence of those keys, neither, are us, emacs users ignorant of them.
The thing is, to use any one of those keys, I have to move my hands out of the main row in the keyboard. This can be fine for you, but for me, I found out that it's a lot less stressful if I can navigate around my text without moving my hand wildly across the keyboard.
Of course, to fully take advantage of that, you need to know touch typing, otherwise you are already moving your hands and the extra economy in movements won't be worth the hassle. Another thing is moving around buffers, In a language like Java, where almost every class has its own file, I find a lot more convenient to use emacs commands to move around buffers than having to get my hand on the mouse to click in a tab.
I used to think like you in the past, as I was using windows since windows 3.0. But I am glad that I was open minded enough to learn a more elegant weapon for more civilized times.
"And why do they teach the letter commands to go through the program when the up, down, left, right arrows exist on every keyboard and do the job?" They do. But they do require more movement from your hand. Believe me, once the commands for navigating thru text are impregnated in your brain, you'll crave for them even within Microsoft Word. At that point of addiction, you'll start googling "emacs key binding microsoft word"
Some say vi is not intuitive. BS! When I started learning emacs, I would try to use ESC commands all the time. In fact, when I use a text editor in Windows, I need always to proofread my text to get rid of the ":w" I would left.
Driving a car without auto is not that difficult. Using Linux is difficult only for people who are used to another OS. An auto car is more expensive to build and to mantain, and it gives me a lot less control. Seriously, driving an auto for me is like driving a toy.
Personally I think that if the only car you know how to drive, is one with automatic transmission, then, no, you don't know how to drive!
If you find a way to have a technological society able to feed 5 billion people everyday, increase life expectancy from barely 40 to more than 60 without oil, we can talk again about those FULL COSTS.
It's on their right to finance reasearch on topics of their interest. Provided all other things keep working, I see no harm in it. Please note that there's plenty of evidence that fossil fuels are increasing global temperatures, solid and convincing evidence. But as far as I've seen there's still a lot of competing theories about how it's working. And if we don't know how things work exactly, it could (even if it's not very probable) that what we most scientist are seeing right now could prove not to be correct. It could even happen that maybe we are seeing a natural cicle, or that some other effect would trigger a counter-effect. I don't know how this could be, but who else, at this present moment, can be 100% sure? On another side, the current theories can only benefit from being challenged, as this would contribute to show their flaws and direct reasearch into their weakest points, thus, making the current theories more solid. If they prove unable to withstand the attack, well, heck! we then need better theories! As long as the scientists funded by oil industries fully disclose this relationship I see no problems with it.