i would let that anti-bottom quark handle my bottominum, if you know what i mean... or frontominium... well, as long as it is an anti-bottom quark, im fine with anything.
then again was an anti-bottom quark is positive or negative (metaphorically speaking) ? i wouldnt want to end up on the wrong side of the spectrum, if you know what i mean....
the problem is that, you are so into that 'compete and succeed' thing that you are not able to realize that you can be MADE into a situation. oh no, you didnt cry and got out of business, banded to a distribution hub and did this and did that. but it might not have turned out as such. it all depends on the circumstances. tourism industry does not provide such room for you for example, you cant 'band a few small businesses' and set up an airline. they lock everything from the airline seats, and you are all totally done for.
i will skip examples and boil the thing down to the roots. ill do that, because you are so into the 'freedom in business will save thee' mindset that you even think the big buck is made of 90% of contributions of small shareholders. that only exists in an ideal world. if you think otherwise, just check out the whole yahoo-icahn-microsoft thing thats going on.
the core of the matter is this : up to date, there has never been development and progress in an unrestricted competitive environment. it can not be. the definition of competition forces anyone getting upper hand to subdue others. this always happens through socially acceptable context of the times, and it always is put into a 'legal' context in which enough of the public will find it acceptable or will find it hard to raise objections, so the scheme can go on.
today's feudal system is corporate system. in countries like u.s., in which there is a good deal of brainwashing that has been put into making people think like you do, ie - the 'if you did not succeed against whoresome competition, it means that you were a loser', and 'winner/loser' and similar cutthroat ideology.
you are giving an example of small businesses banding together and forming a distro chain and doing this and doing that. thats VERY idealist of you. come do this in tourism industry, or come do it for oil industry. not only that, but you are forgetting that your scarce example of personal experience does not mean anything. because people can achieve stuff that are rare or hard to achieve, and the fact that someone has succeeded against overwhelming odds at some point in time does not mean that its feasible or common phenomenon or even they will be able to do it again, should the need arise.
Incorrect. The statement of yours I quoted and was replying to specifically mentioned just reading posts.
missed the context. you can learn a lot about someone by reading their posts, i said. and you do. its hard to get people even to talk about many serious stuff in real life. they just talk easier to forums.
For example, in "real life" I'm extremely easy going and accepting. Online, if you want to keep conversing with me, please find your shift key.
I didn't miss your point, I just didn't think it was valid. Corporations employ many more people then the sum of their owners. All this they "should" and "detrimental" is nothing more then opinion based on arbitrary opinion. Corporations pay taxes, then most of them pay out to the owners who have to pay taxes again. And just like any business, corporations have to pay employment taxes and social security taxes on top of any salary for any employee plus they have a ton of fees and such that they pay. It isn't like they aren't doing anything for society.
you still do not get it. i say corporations, after a certain size, do not employ people in proportion to the financial clout they are having in the society. their size. their influence. take a major auto producer in a country for example. the most they employ is 10.000 people direct, and, say, 50.000 people with side industries supporting them, but for 60.000 people they have too much influence to the extent that they can influence candidacies of politicians.
and its not about 'doing something' for the society. its doing enough in proportion to what you are taking from it. if you just take 'anything', you can say that any fascist dictator has also done something for their country and justify them. thats not acceptable.
BTW, how did you come up with this undisclosed number "should". I mean what is the rationel behind it. err who do you arrive at the current number being not enough, what "should" it be, and how do you know all corporations are involved?
it should be in proportion to the financial clout and effect they are having. profit margins are rather way too high in many industries. not surprisingly, through laws that pass through supported candidates. for example the general cost of production for a mid range car was $3000, in europe average back in 90s. but they were being sold for $25.000 at least. the numbers had not change much on averages still. there is a huge profit margin, but then again they just employ the numbers i mentioned above.
I don't put the blame on the congressman specifically, I put it on you for not understanding his purpose. If he truley is clueless and voting for irational things just to pocket money regardless of the consequences, then yes, it is his fault. But his job isn't to do what you tell him to do. It is to do what he sees as best for the position he holds, IE the country, state, county, city, whatever level of office he holds.
And no, the telecoms immunity has nothign to do with protecting the administration. I'm not going to get into it because it would make this thread ten times as long and this is stuff you should already know.
you know that evil motives are always disguised with more honorable excuses, right ? a warrantless wiretap is for the security of the nation, a law that provides too much incentives to mega corporations and fails small businesses is for 'promoting free market', h1b visa extensions are for 'attracting talents to the country' ?
That is the premise of trickle down economics or Reaganomics. The answer to this isn't to raise taxes, but to lower them across the board which spurs investment that leads to job increases all the way around. If you doubt me, take michigan for example. It had done the exact same things you mentioned to the big auto makers. The smaller businesses started leaving long before the auto plants shut down. Finally, the state and the city didn't have enough revenue and increased taxes on the automakers which eventually was a part of the decision to go somewhere else. Now Michigan has a hell of a time attacking new employment because if can't lower taxes due to the deficit they are running and meanwhile, they are sporting the largest unemployment rates in the country.
You see, taxes are a lot like suply side economics. You can charge a lot and end up with a few paying, or you can charge a little and end up with more paying. There is a break even point wh
Gotta disagree. I interact a fair bit here and various other online forums, and have for years. Yet you could read every post I've made everywhere in the last decade, and there would be vast swaths of my life you'd know nothing about.
for the love of god, are you having information about each episode in someone's life because you attend pubs with them in 6 months' duration ? its no different in real life. and we are talking about actually interacting with someone here. not just reading their posts. its no different than real life - you need to talk with them, discuss with them and so on.
So says someone who gets drunk on his own in front of the computer...
There's a name for someone who thinks physical proximity can be replaced by an avatar. It's "virgin":p
Seriously, though, physical contact is really important for humans. If you lack the desire for that to the extent that you see avatars and humans as equivalent, that's fine, but don't go attaching labels to others than would be more suitable for yourself.
never drank a drop of alcohol in my life. i was giving examples.
the dependence on physical contact itself depends on the emotional advancedness and empathy capability of the individual in my opinion.
Think about if someone is trying to hide their intentions from you - in the real world they have to be a pretty good actor, as their voice and body language have to be in tune to what we gauge as "sincere".
totally to the opposite. in real life almost everyone knows what behaviour is considered 'sincere' to an extent, and they resort to it. the 'white lie' concept is just the result of this thing. and then just look at the whole 'salesmen' crowd. people lie to their teachers, spouses, friends. they are considered 'white lie' and they are dropped. but they also prove how easy it is to fool people, and anyone depending on body language and trying to say that 'they can know if someone is lying or not', are probably just little different from oldsters saying that they are 'old soils' and cant be tricked.
no i dont think we get enough information by talking with an individual face to face at all. our society (worldwide) is hell bent on behavior models, dos and donts, and almost every acceptable behaviour set is defined for every occasion. people behave in those limits. some less successfully maybe, but that doesnt change the fact that real life is just another form of roleplay, which as more definite rules that are more fiercely enforced.
Communicating with just text is like visiting a bakery without sight or smell--you've lost the richness of the experience.
to the contrary. you cant make a sentence more believable by adding tones in your voice or giving out a grim face while texting it. sentence speaks for itself. the only way to make it more believable is through better communication of the facts.
but if you don't realize what you miss in face to face communication, then you would be the emotionally/mentally challenged one.
that depends on the reason they are doing so. some may be finding it too tiring and inefficient to try to go around the town meeting with friends after a long day's work, some may be shy (and they wouldnt be going out even if internet was not present either), some for other reasons. it depends, really.
The FRA will only spy on traffic going across Sweden's borders.
yea, tell that to Mr Butt, my public relations correspondent. here, just bow your head closer to it... yea like that... hey whats that noise ? ooopss. sorry.
I agree with you in spirit but for the most part today's _current_ online interactions are fairly limited in scope when compared to real life contact. Think about if someone is trying to hide their intentions from you - in the real world they have to be a pretty good actor, as their voice and body language have to be in tune to what we gauge as "sincere". In the online world, they need only type out what they want and add the correct emoticon. Maybe disguise their voice if its VoIP enabled, but that only goes so far. As humans we've evolved a complex set of subconscious cues that we pick up on when dealing with someone in close proximity. Those are for the most part missing in the online world. Yes, its all communications over sets of sensory inputs, but the bandwidth offered by physical co-location is way way higher than someone remote.
i dont think voice and body language is anything reliable. i, for example, never lie. yet i rarely look into people's eyes.
the way to know people online is through their text, and whats contained therein. read the comments in this thread for example. and just keep on following those people around other threads. keep it up 6 months, and youll eventually get a good understanding of what kind of people each are.
if you are talking about short term contacts, well, neither video chat or real life exposure are too different in terms of making out what kind of person they are. what you need to know a person is TIME.
But in a real-life, face to face interaction, it's much more difficult. The rules of physical interactions make such deception more difficult, and make it more likely the person you're interacting with is actually somewhat the way they seem.
no. its much much easier, because rules are known, there is a social (and even legal) authority in place to enforce the rules. basically its hard to behave out of those rules after a certain extent. therefore its much easier for anyone to fake what they are as long as they are able, because society makes the rules, everyone knows them, and obeys them whenever necessary.
on the internet for example, especially in environments where there is high deal of privacy and just a nick on the screen, there are little restrictions to being a prick. and most people, who have it inside, happens to be a prick eventually. and time generally weeds out the ones who are just roleplaying to be nice. because if you have something within, it eventually shows itself.
youre talking as if youre gonna buy a sack of gold, or platinum and therefore valuing the sack over rarity.
its regardless whether the avatar you see on screen is easily copyable or not. its not the avatar that is having the orgasm (if you are able to have it in front of the screen), its YOU. your brain is getting stimulated through impulses your sensory organs send to it, and the mindset you are in, and you are having whatever you are having.
scientifically there is zero difference in between having a sex with an actual person or a virtual sex session if you look at it in terms of sensory organ -> brain -> emotional and mental mindset -> orgasm cycle.
your conscious is always in a dark room. it knows the outside world through the sensory organs and interprets it with your brain, and then responds to it. if your interpreter is strong enough, you can create any kind of mental and emotional mindset.
That's such a delusion. People you talk to online are not anything like what you think of them. You're not interacting with a person, you're interacting with your own imagination, seeded with a few select facts or fictions from someone else.
do you think the people you talk with in offline (real) life, are the way they are, the way they talk with you ? how many people you have met in your entire life, that were just as they seemed to be, after you got to know him ?
in 'real' life you subject people to the test of time to know them better. only after some time, you can get to know someone. continuous exposure in a mutual environment eventually makes who they really are to come out.
this rule doesnt change in the real world. if there is someone that believes someone whom s/he knows from online communities for just 1-2 months is the way s/he is, you can easily say that that person is naive.
because same goes for online environments. its infallible. constant mutual online activity with a person eventually makes who they are to come out.
If you really do feel connected to people you meet online, then you're actually not connected to anyone, and you're creating imaginary friends, like someone in a sensory deprivation chamber having lucid dreams.
excuse me, but you already are in a deprivation chamber. everyone is. each conscious mind is a deprivation chamber, and the deprivation is only remedied by the extent of usage of sensory organs and interaction with the environment.
by definition, you use the same organs while seeing a bloke and sending voice signals to him on a street corner, and while video chatting with someone on the internet. there is no difference in technical terms.
each interaction produces impulses to your brain through your sensory organs, and invokes certain thoughts and emotions. and those thoughts and emotions are real. they do not differentiate between laughing to a joke told in a pub or a joke told online.
again, time is the only defining factor for personality of any person. nothing else. a person you know from 'real' life is no different than any person you know from online, until they persist through the test of time. and time passes in equal pace both online and offline. sometimes even faster online, as there is more interaction in online world due to the ease of use.
we can easily say "apparently there are enough people who are sensitive enough to be able to empathize even through a virtual avatar in an online world".
the way i see it, many of the people who label the online world as 'virtual' are rather emotionally challenged people. there is nothing 'virtual' in the online world. there is a person behind that avatar, just like you. s/he can make you laugh, make you angry, sad, engage in heated up philosophical conversation, or do stuff together. stuff done with other people in an online environment is no less valuable than stuff done in an offline environment. you can go get drunk in a local pub while talking or you can get drunk in front of the computer talking with same people the same stuff. there is no difference other than physical proximity.
if you NEED physical proximity to be able to feel connected with people, then i'd say that thats a sign of 'emotionally challengedness' in the form of weak empathy capability.
we are becoming a separate nation, hell, world on the internet. by 'we' i mean all of us here.
join it. be flexible. go with the flow. accept outsourcing yourself. if there are people outsourcing, there needs to be firms accepting outsourcing. go post a listing in elance - they post anything there these days, from technical writing to cad/cam. post in other agency sites. make a name for yourself.
Sure they can. They do this because they employ many more people then those who make up their ownership. If the will of the people was to destroy all corporations and leave standing only businesses not incorporated in some way, it would do devastating harm to not only the econemy but the tax foundations that empower the government with it's ability to function. Surely your not such a drone that you think the government shouldn't go against the will of the people in support for the corporations in that case are you?
you missed my point. corporations employ far less people than they should, when compared to their size as they grow up. its a very broken marginal return graphic. as a company's size and economic power rises, the employment to size ratio decreases. and disproportionately, its influence exponentially rises. at the current scheme/format, corporations growing over a certain size are becoming detrimental to society in which they give back less, take more, and can influence the political machine.
No, it isn't regardless of the consequences. Of course that is the point of the congressman doing his job, it isn't the corporation's fault that your congressman doesn't look at the consequences and balance this with what would be best for his office, IE the country. The lack of the congressman's abilities don't make corporations having input over things that effect them a bad concept. It means your congressman is lacking in several areas. Perhaps it was also a trade off between a 5% unemployment rate and a 15% unemployment rate. The specifics of each situation dictates the reactions.
i dont think you really believe what you are saying here. ie - laying the blame on congressman. you know that that doesnt happen. consequences are well known before anything is implemented, and they often take measures against them. take warrantless wiretapping. now telco bill immunity is being passed from the senate. neither the administration nor the telcos will be held responsible for anything that had happened during that era in regard to that. there is no chance that you would be thinking that there had not been extensive abuse of warrantless wiretapping by various parties during that period. now they all are going to escape unscathed, thanks to telco lobby. consequences are known, they are going to lose liberal votes. but what do they do ? they try to obscure the real result of the bill, trying to confuse people and pushing it through dropped-in sentences. they are well aware of the causes, and even taking measures against it. and its not good.
Um.. No. Corporations do provide jobs in that they need to produce a product in order to profit. You can't profit without a product, even if that product is a service. You also seem to be lacking in a couple of fundamental concepts. First, corporations are taxed on money earned, not money held. If they made 6 million last year, paid their taxes on it and done nothing with it except put it in a bank, they would owe nothing more. There is no need to put the money in a swiss bank account unless they are attempting to shield it from the authorities for some reason. second, corporations understand that money is a tool to make money. they don't bury it in the back yard ir stuff it in the mattress. They invest the money into other profitable areas or they pay it out to the share holders who then pay income taxes on it. Generally, they reinvest it within the company to promote growth and expansion that would end up in making more money as well as increasing asset worth.
in every country of the world, corporations in a certain sector, after a certain size, are always offered tax cuts, incentives and other perks in order to 'boost the sector and employment'. this, almost always happens for corporations over a certain size, for some reason. not smaller ones. in the end, yes, they are taxed from profits, but as the political influence rises, they are taxed less, via indirect means.
Slashdot Mirror
i would let that anti-bottom quark handle my bottominum, if you know what i mean ... or frontominium ... well, as long as it is an anti-bottom quark, im fine with anything.
....
then again was an anti-bottom quark is positive or negative (metaphorically speaking) ? i wouldnt want to end up on the wrong side of the spectrum, if you know what i mean
or should i scratch the whole thing and go gay ?
Did I cry and go out of business?
the problem is that, you are so into that 'compete and succeed' thing that you are not able to realize that you can be MADE into a situation. oh no, you didnt cry and got out of business, banded to a distribution hub and did this and did that. but it might not have turned out as such. it all depends on the circumstances. tourism industry does not provide such room for you for example, you cant 'band a few small businesses' and set up an airline. they lock everything from the airline seats, and you are all totally done for.
i will skip examples and boil the thing down to the roots. ill do that, because you are so into the 'freedom in business will save thee' mindset that you even think the big buck is made of 90% of contributions of small shareholders. that only exists in an ideal world. if you think otherwise, just check out the whole yahoo-icahn-microsoft thing thats going on.
the core of the matter is this : up to date, there has never been development and progress in an unrestricted competitive environment. it can not be. the definition of competition forces anyone getting upper hand to subdue others. this always happens through socially acceptable context of the times, and it always is put into a 'legal' context in which enough of the public will find it acceptable or will find it hard to raise objections, so the scheme can go on.
today's feudal system is corporate system. in countries like u.s., in which there is a good deal of brainwashing that has been put into making people think like you do, ie - the 'if you did not succeed against whoresome competition, it means that you were a loser', and 'winner/loser' and similar cutthroat ideology.
you are giving an example of small businesses banding together and forming a distro chain and doing this and doing that. thats VERY idealist of you. come do this in tourism industry, or come do it for oil industry. not only that, but you are forgetting that your scarce example of personal experience does not mean anything. because people can achieve stuff that are rare or hard to achieve, and the fact that someone has succeeded against overwhelming odds at some point in time does not mean that its feasible or common phenomenon or even they will be able to do it again, should the need arise.
Incorrect. The statement of yours I quoted and was replying to specifically mentioned just reading posts.
missed the context. you can learn a lot about someone by reading their posts, i said. and you do. its hard to get people even to talk about many serious stuff in real life. they just talk easier to forums.
For example, in "real life" I'm extremely easy going and accepting. Online, if you want to keep conversing with me, please find your shift key.
well thats bad for you.
well, thats a problem in between you and your municipality. where i live, its all hydroelectric. actually so in majority of my country.
since they managed to teleport a photon a while ago.
And the public demands "instant" web gratification?
before being smartass and firing out that 'terrific', you should have thought about hydroelectricity. or nuclear power.
I didn't miss your point, I just didn't think it was valid. Corporations employ many more people then the sum of their owners. All this they "should" and "detrimental" is nothing more then opinion based on arbitrary opinion. Corporations pay taxes, then most of them pay out to the owners who have to pay taxes again. And just like any business, corporations have to pay employment taxes and social security taxes on top of any salary for any employee plus they have a ton of fees and such that they pay. It isn't like they aren't doing anything for society.
you still do not get it. i say corporations, after a certain size, do not employ people in proportion to the financial clout they are having in the society. their size. their influence. take a major auto producer in a country for example. the most they employ is 10.000 people direct, and, say, 50.000 people with side industries supporting them, but for 60.000 people they have too much influence to the extent that they can influence candidacies of politicians.
and its not about 'doing something' for the society. its doing enough in proportion to what you are taking from it. if you just take 'anything', you can say that any fascist dictator has also done something for their country and justify them. thats not acceptable.
BTW, how did you come up with this undisclosed number "should". I mean what is the rationel behind it. err who do you arrive at the current number being not enough, what "should" it be, and how do you know all corporations are involved?
it should be in proportion to the financial clout and effect they are having. profit margins are rather way too high in many industries. not surprisingly, through laws that pass through supported candidates. for example the general cost of production for a mid range car was $3000, in europe average back in 90s. but they were being sold for $25.000 at least. the numbers had not change much on averages still. there is a huge profit margin, but then again they just employ the numbers i mentioned above.
I don't put the blame on the congressman specifically, I put it on you for not understanding his purpose. If he truley is clueless and voting for irational things just to pocket money regardless of the consequences, then yes, it is his fault. But his job isn't to do what you tell him to do. It is to do what he sees as best for the position he holds, IE the country, state, county, city, whatever level of office he holds. And no, the telecoms immunity has nothign to do with protecting the administration. I'm not going to get into it because it would make this thread ten times as long and this is stuff you should already know.
you know that evil motives are always disguised with more honorable excuses, right ? a warrantless wiretap is for the security of the nation, a law that provides too much incentives to mega corporations and fails small businesses is for 'promoting free market', h1b visa extensions are for 'attracting talents to the country' ?
That is the premise of trickle down economics or Reaganomics. The answer to this isn't to raise taxes, but to lower them across the board which spurs investment that leads to job increases all the way around. If you doubt me, take michigan for example. It had done the exact same things you mentioned to the big auto makers. The smaller businesses started leaving long before the auto plants shut down. Finally, the state and the city didn't have enough revenue and increased taxes on the automakers which eventually was a part of the decision to go somewhere else. Now Michigan has a hell of a time attacking new employment because if can't lower taxes due to the deficit they are running and meanwhile, they are sporting the largest unemployment rates in the country. You see, taxes are a lot like suply side economics. You can charge a lot and end up with a few paying, or you can charge a little and end up with more paying. There is a break even point wh
Gotta disagree. I interact a fair bit here and various other online forums, and have for years. Yet you could read every post I've made everywhere in the last decade, and there would be vast swaths of my life you'd know nothing about.
for the love of god, are you having information about each episode in someone's life because you attend pubs with them in 6 months' duration ? its no different in real life. and we are talking about actually interacting with someone here. not just reading their posts. its no different than real life - you need to talk with them, discuss with them and so on.
So says someone who gets drunk on his own in front of the computer ...
There's a name for someone who thinks physical proximity can be replaced by an avatar. It's "virgin" :p
Seriously, though, physical contact is really important for humans. If you lack the desire for that to the extent that you see avatars and humans as equivalent, that's fine, but don't go attaching labels to others than would be more suitable for yourself.
never drank a drop of alcohol in my life. i was giving examples. the dependence on physical contact itself depends on the emotional advancedness and empathy capability of the individual in my opinion.
you mean Pops McGillicudy ?
Think about if someone is trying to hide their intentions from you - in the real world they have to be a pretty good actor, as their voice and body language have to be in tune to what we gauge as "sincere".
totally to the opposite. in real life almost everyone knows what behaviour is considered 'sincere' to an extent, and they resort to it. the 'white lie' concept is just the result of this thing. and then just look at the whole 'salesmen' crowd. people lie to their teachers, spouses, friends. they are considered 'white lie' and they are dropped. but they also prove how easy it is to fool people, and anyone depending on body language and trying to say that 'they can know if someone is lying or not', are probably just little different from oldsters saying that they are 'old soils' and cant be tricked.
Communicating with just text is like visiting a bakery without sight or smell--you've lost the richness of the experience.
to the contrary. you cant make a sentence more believable by adding tones in your voice or giving out a grim face while texting it. sentence speaks for itself. the only way to make it more believable is through better communication of the facts.
but if you don't realize what you miss in face to face communication, then you would be the emotionally/mentally challenged one.
i can easily say the opposite for you.
that depends on the reason they are doing so. some may be finding it too tiring and inefficient to try to go around the town meeting with friends after a long day's work, some may be shy (and they wouldnt be going out even if internet was not present either), some for other reasons. it depends, really.
The FRA will only spy on traffic going across Sweden's borders.
yea, tell that to Mr Butt, my public relations correspondent. here, just bow your head closer to it ... yea like that ... hey whats that noise ? ooopss. sorry.
do you think anyone still care ? havent you guys already moved to new buzzwords to shove people more books ?
I agree with you in spirit but for the most part today's _current_ online interactions are fairly limited in scope when compared to real life contact. Think about if someone is trying to hide their intentions from you - in the real world they have to be a pretty good actor, as their voice and body language have to be in tune to what we gauge as "sincere". In the online world, they need only type out what they want and add the correct emoticon. Maybe disguise their voice if its VoIP enabled, but that only goes so far. As humans we've evolved a complex set of subconscious cues that we pick up on when dealing with someone in close proximity. Those are for the most part missing in the online world. Yes, its all communications over sets of sensory inputs, but the bandwidth offered by physical co-location is way way higher than someone remote.
i dont think voice and body language is anything reliable. i, for example, never lie. yet i rarely look into people's eyes.
the way to know people online is through their text, and whats contained therein. read the comments in this thread for example. and just keep on following those people around other threads. keep it up 6 months, and youll eventually get a good understanding of what kind of people each are.
if you are talking about short term contacts, well, neither video chat or real life exposure are too different in terms of making out what kind of person they are. what you need to know a person is TIME.
But in a real-life, face to face interaction, it's much more difficult. The rules of physical interactions make such deception more difficult, and make it more likely the person you're interacting with is actually somewhat the way they seem.
no. its much much easier, because rules are known, there is a social (and even legal) authority in place to enforce the rules. basically its hard to behave out of those rules after a certain extent. therefore its much easier for anyone to fake what they are as long as they are able, because society makes the rules, everyone knows them, and obeys them whenever necessary.
on the internet for example, especially in environments where there is high deal of privacy and just a nick on the screen, there are little restrictions to being a prick. and most people, who have it inside, happens to be a prick eventually. and time generally weeds out the ones who are just roleplaying to be nice. because if you have something within, it eventually shows itself.
youre talking as if youre gonna buy a sack of gold, or platinum and therefore valuing the sack over rarity.
its regardless whether the avatar you see on screen is easily copyable or not. its not the avatar that is having the orgasm (if you are able to have it in front of the screen), its YOU. your brain is getting stimulated through impulses your sensory organs send to it, and the mindset you are in, and you are having whatever you are having.
scientifically there is zero difference in between having a sex with an actual person or a virtual sex session if you look at it in terms of sensory organ -> brain -> emotional and mental mindset -> orgasm cycle.
your conscious is always in a dark room. it knows the outside world through the sensory organs and interprets it with your brain, and then responds to it. if your interpreter is strong enough, you can create any kind of mental and emotional mindset.
That's such a delusion. People you talk to online are not anything like what you think of them. You're not interacting with a person, you're interacting with your own imagination, seeded with a few select facts or fictions from someone else.
do you think the people you talk with in offline (real) life, are the way they are, the way they talk with you ? how many people you have met in your entire life, that were just as they seemed to be, after you got to know him ?
in 'real' life you subject people to the test of time to know them better. only after some time, you can get to know someone. continuous exposure in a mutual environment eventually makes who they really are to come out.
this rule doesnt change in the real world. if there is someone that believes someone whom s/he knows from online communities for just 1-2 months is the way s/he is, you can easily say that that person is naive.
because same goes for online environments. its infallible. constant mutual online activity with a person eventually makes who they are to come out.
If you really do feel connected to people you meet online, then you're actually not connected to anyone, and you're creating imaginary friends, like someone in a sensory deprivation chamber having lucid dreams.
excuse me, but you already are in a deprivation chamber. everyone is. each conscious mind is a deprivation chamber, and the deprivation is only remedied by the extent of usage of sensory organs and interaction with the environment.
by definition, you use the same organs while seeing a bloke and sending voice signals to him on a street corner, and while video chatting with someone on the internet. there is no difference in technical terms.
each interaction produces impulses to your brain through your sensory organs, and invokes certain thoughts and emotions. and those thoughts and emotions are real. they do not differentiate between laughing to a joke told in a pub or a joke told online.
again, time is the only defining factor for personality of any person. nothing else. a person you know from 'real' life is no different than any person you know from online, until they persist through the test of time. and time passes in equal pace both online and offline. sometimes even faster online, as there is more interaction in online world due to the ease of use.
we can easily say "apparently there are enough people who are sensitive enough to be able to empathize even through a virtual avatar in an online world".
the way i see it, many of the people who label the online world as 'virtual' are rather emotionally challenged people. there is nothing 'virtual' in the online world. there is a person behind that avatar, just like you. s/he can make you laugh, make you angry, sad, engage in heated up philosophical conversation, or do stuff together. stuff done with other people in an online environment is no less valuable than stuff done in an offline environment. you can go get drunk in a local pub while talking or you can get drunk in front of the computer talking with same people the same stuff. there is no difference other than physical proximity.
if you NEED physical proximity to be able to feel connected with people, then i'd say that thats a sign of 'emotionally challengedness' in the form of weak empathy capability.
we are becoming a separate nation, hell, world on the internet. by 'we' i mean all of us here.
join it. be flexible. go with the flow. accept outsourcing yourself. if there are people outsourcing, there needs to be firms accepting outsourcing. go post a listing in elance - they post anything there these days, from technical writing to cad/cam. post in other agency sites. make a name for yourself.
wc2 and c&c are days that are not so old, "paps"
Sure they can. They do this because they employ many more people then those who make up their ownership. If the will of the people was to destroy all corporations and leave standing only businesses not incorporated in some way, it would do devastating harm to not only the econemy but the tax foundations that empower the government with it's ability to function. Surely your not such a drone that you think the government shouldn't go against the will of the people in support for the corporations in that case are you?
you missed my point. corporations employ far less people than they should, when compared to their size as they grow up. its a very broken marginal return graphic. as a company's size and economic power rises, the employment to size ratio decreases. and disproportionately, its influence exponentially rises. at the current scheme/format, corporations growing over a certain size are becoming detrimental to society in which they give back less, take more, and can influence the political machine.
No, it isn't regardless of the consequences. Of course that is the point of the congressman doing his job, it isn't the corporation's fault that your congressman doesn't look at the consequences and balance this with what would be best for his office, IE the country. The lack of the congressman's abilities don't make corporations having input over things that effect them a bad concept. It means your congressman is lacking in several areas. Perhaps it was also a trade off between a 5% unemployment rate and a 15% unemployment rate. The specifics of each situation dictates the reactions.
i dont think you really believe what you are saying here. ie - laying the blame on congressman. you know that that doesnt happen. consequences are well known before anything is implemented, and they often take measures against them. take warrantless wiretapping. now telco bill immunity is being passed from the senate. neither the administration nor the telcos will be held responsible for anything that had happened during that era in regard to that. there is no chance that you would be thinking that there had not been extensive abuse of warrantless wiretapping by various parties during that period. now they all are going to escape unscathed, thanks to telco lobby. consequences are known, they are going to lose liberal votes. but what do they do ? they try to obscure the real result of the bill, trying to confuse people and pushing it through dropped-in sentences. they are well aware of the causes, and even taking measures against it. and its not good.
Um.. No. Corporations do provide jobs in that they need to produce a product in order to profit. You can't profit without a product, even if that product is a service. You also seem to be lacking in a couple of fundamental concepts. First, corporations are taxed on money earned, not money held. If they made 6 million last year, paid their taxes on it and done nothing with it except put it in a bank, they would owe nothing more. There is no need to put the money in a swiss bank account unless they are attempting to shield it from the authorities for some reason. second, corporations understand that money is a tool to make money. they don't bury it in the back yard ir stuff it in the mattress. They invest the money into other profitable areas or they pay it out to the share holders who then pay income taxes on it. Generally, they reinvest it within the company to promote growth and expansion that would end up in making more money as well as increasing asset worth.
in every country of the world, corporations in a certain sector, after a certain size, are always offered tax cuts, incentives and other perks in order to 'boost the sector and employment'. this, almost always happens for corporations over a certain size, for some reason. not smaller ones. in the end, yes, they are taxed from profits, but as the political influence rises, they are taxed less, via indirect means.
i cant bel
your elaborately worded historical shot was not lost on me, at least. though i believe the book was finished in a year. so it cant be 1086.