the premise is capitalism was not in enabling competition actually - it enables incentive. since you are free to engage in any kind of endeavor (lest it is socially harmful), the populace gets vigor to engage in activities.
however, by itself capitalism is just a transition passage to aristocracy - hereditary or not. (actually any kind of property ownership is hereditary, so capitalism ends up a hereditary aristocracy over time ) and, in the process, where the richer start owning everything and paying lower wages to everyone, the invigoration capitalism provides to people is lost - they see they cant make it, as masses, but only a small percentage.
the solution is either to mix capitalism heavily with socialism, leading to ensuring livelihood and acceptable humane amenities to everyone -> once people do not have to worry for a living, enterprising and engaging in activities becomes commonplace. also required is the rich being kept in check, lest they start to corner every activity to prevent others from entering.
this is what scandinavian countries have been doing, and it seems it worked, they top human development index, whereas usa can only place 10-13 in its best years.
alternative is introducing a degree of freedom to socialism. actually, when direct democracy becomes possible, this can be a reality too.
no he is right. a reason for fall of roman empire is that it was built upon conquest. when the lands that would yield ample riches when conquered ran out, the empire started to crumble as a governmental machine. for the first time taxes were introduced to support army, for example. there was no riches to be had from germania, central africa, iran. india was far, far away.
and, yes, he is also right in regard to slavery in roman empire. the moment romans conquered a region, the nobles of the region were given equites rank ( a noble rank lower than patrician, higher than a roman citizen) but the rest of the populace were only 'conquered peoples' -> a notch higher than slave, a notch lower than 'roman ally'.
the identification you have made above crosses far beyond any nation's boundaries. it is something that has been there since the early days of hardware hacking in early 1970s, and, very curiously, it seems to have propagated to every country more or less in similar lines. maybe 'tech awareness' ? this seems to have migrated into the hack scene in early 80s, and it is safe to say that that culture had been the fundamental factor in defining how we do things on the web. in case you look around, you will see way too many 'free' concept. it is now a common acceptance that things are, and must be free as much as possible on the web, but, noone wonders where this culture of 'free' came from. it just cant happen only from economic opportunism - same kind of thing could have happened at start of tv era but it didnt. however, it happened at start of internet era.
yeah. probably random long haired or punk looking people somewhere in the world are behind anon's core. and i very much doubt that noone dare do anything to these people, even if they can. because they generally would :
a) either be in places where anglo-american corporations cant reach
b) would already in employ of criminal cartels, or, other 'secret' sources (includes secret services etc), therefore protected
c) it would be close to impossible to actually track and find these people, who are generally at the same level with the people who can any megacorp or govt. can hire in their field (security)
d) wherever they are, due to their technological skills, they are a national asset
so, in short, all these arrests of pimpled kids seems to be for appeasing certain interest groups because they are irritated by the attacks, and scare kids from supporting anon.
Do you know how many people/investors supported how many inventions/inventors that ended up unsuccessful back in 1800-1900 ? ill tell you - you cant even start to count. you only read about the ones who had been successful, and a few of those who were unsuccessful, and you are led to naturally think it was like that. on the contrary.
and how did fox news beat anonymous 'in its own game' ? huh ?
arrests of 12 pimpled kids through fbi (apparently serving corporations over government) ?
i see. the millions in china, japan, russia, who are hording back the anonymous' lines, and the core groups that oversee operations from russia, china, are very, very, very scared. they have been 'beaten' in their own game, by arrest of 12 pimpled kids in usa.
there is no way in hell that arrests et al can do anything to anonymous.
you arrest 100 people in usa. you arrest 100 people in france. you arrest 100 people in germany.
what about the millions in china, russia, india ? how are you going to 'arrest' or 'scare' them ? morons.
this is no more than a publicity stunt to satiate the bastard that is murdoch, since his ass is on the line now. and fbi and other government organizations in u.s. are making evident who they are serving. they didnt conduct a nationwide raid when all kinds of govt. organizations were attacked by anon.
and there were not as many diseases, conditions, psychological disorders like today. its not the length of the life expectancy, but what you do within that life. if you are spending 15 years of that life for preparation to slave away your life, and then the next 30 years to actually slave away, living under undue stress, innumerable problems and conditions and worries, in dysfunctional social settings, only to retire when you are withered to enjoy the 5 or so remaining years while trying to fish near a river or a lake before you die in a hospital corner, doing the precise thing those indians were doing all their life, than your expectancy means shit.
an eloquently enunciated compilation of proceedings of the late republic - early empire roman history, with connections to early middle ages and later, on solid grounds (most of what i have told is mainstream in history scholar circles now), is downmodded. why ?
Income disparity was what made roman population lose interest, hope and eventually, participation in the roman republic, leading to deterioration of not only state but also culture in just a hundred years or so :
rich were flooding the market with cheap grain, causing the small farmers not to be able to make a living because the crop they produced ended up more expensive in cost than rich, big farm holders. in turn, they had to sell their farms to rich farmers and migrate into cities to make a living. increasingly roman agriculture had come under the control of very few, rich landowning aristocrats. these farms were called latifundia.
since the backbone of the country, the small free citizen landholders were gone, public services and military continually deteriorated. the 'barbarians' (non-romans) who were increasingly conscripted to the army had less incentive than a citizen soldier to defend anything. moreover, the disillusioned citizenry, who could get nothing out of the society at that point, cared much for any intruders - whomever invaded, they were just replacing existing elite with their own, little was changing in the case of ordinary citizens. (except for exceedingly vandal barbarians and similar - vandals were also a barbarian tribe, as a sidenote).
the rich, who held all the resources had little use for anything of the sort like republic or democracy. and when augustus and later emperors started to dismantle last vestiges of republic, noone cared. now, the citizenry had no say or share from society as a whole. and from that point on it all disintegrated.
the irony is, this process started around the peak of roman momentum - late republic era. the very era in which triumvirate (caesar pompei and crassus) were waging their civil war against each other. the empire didnt instantly disintegrate - it had momentum to take itself comfortably forward at least 100 years more. everything then started to directly crumble.
today is no different. back in roman times, the poor had at least the chance to engage in trade and arts/crafts. today, even those fields of life are 'latifundiated' by the rich just like how roman agriculture (then the backbone of economy) was consolidated in the hands of very few elite.
i would like to alert you to the fact that, this situation that destroyed roman empire, had later also become the causes that led to the birth of aristocracy in middle ages and on. in fact, the entire system of feudalism, is a system of property ownership - the difference with our current capitalist system is, now everyone is able to own property (land in this case), while back then, only aristocrats could. however this doesnt change one fundamental fact - this system eventually leads to a minority having and controlling everything (yes, including politics because resource is power - just like how senate had to accept subjugation in front of those who had the funds to muster legions), and ends up in an aristocratic hierarchical society.
in short - yes, they should care. for the sake of their own freedom too.
those indians who were laughing about selling things like land as property were living lives equally full, WITHOUT all the stress, hassles, pills and problems we have to go through over our lives, dribbling in our own shit in a hospital corner in our old age, shitting ourselves, and dying over an extended duration of torture of years while the modern medicine tries to 'save' us.
whereas indian shamans were able to live fully capable lives until the end of their days, and when they felt their time was come, go to a hilltop, lie on the ground, and die at that instant.
i see huge disparage and contradiction in the above situations.
are up for sale. really. apparently everything has a price in capitalism. even the very basic things (like the air space around a planet's outer crust, and electromagnetism) can be sold and 'owned' by 'private' people at the expense of other people.
so, there's this technology that allows me to send and receive information over the air, but, to be able to freely use it, i have to be richer than others. else, i am obligated to be a bitch under who is richer than me. the only freedom being the ability to chose who is my pimp.
why, that is totally not at all different from how it was back in 1950s with television, telephony etc. you would think that humanity as a civilization would have progressed socially a bit over the course of 60 years. we are still playing who is the rich/who is the bitch game.
A statement by the MPAA disputes these claims, arguing that typical users lack the expertise to select a different DNS server and that the Internet must not be allowed to 'decay into a lawless Wild West.
dns filtering came to turkey 5 years ago.
EVERYONE knows how to bypass it now. and i mean everyone who is using internet - the equivalent of the 'mom in idaho' knows how to bypass it. her son, relatives, someone from neighborhood comes and bypasses it for her. people learned what 'opendns' means here. the term 'proxy' have become an everyday term, even in among the tech illiterate crowd. people ask about 'good proxy' to each other. (people learned about it when the courts started to ban i.p.s).
so, random 'mom in turkey' is able to do that, but the organization that represents all movie producers in america shits about otherwise ?
really. what kind of people are you letting you run your country and corporations and corporations' lackey organizations ? idiots ? morons ? bastards ? i think the last one is more likely. (i am not able to bring myself to say ngo regarding mpaa after that kind of idiocy)
'Your account has been disabled. All of your adverts have been stopped and should not be run again on the site under any circumstances. Generally, we disable an account if too many of its adverts violate our Terms of Use or Advertising guidelines. Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive. Please review our Terms of Use and Advertising guidelines if you have any further questions.'
what the FUCK does that even mean ?
you asswipes are banning a USER for advertising another device of communication, because you are afraid of competition ?
i am not able to bring myself to even start seeking for reasons that could justify such a preschool-level behavior.
The only thing i am not understanding is why are the tech magazines online are making that great fuss over the results of one company only over its U.S. sales.
if u.s. is a market of 300 million, china is a market of 1.5 bn. japan is 100 million (and you HAVE to have advanced gadgetry there - cellular phones that cannot display tv broadcasts dont sell - that includes apple's iphones http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/why-the-iphone/ ), the market that is india is another 1 bn, the market that is europe is another approx 500 mn.
and all these markets have either huge volume, or high purchasing power.
and yet, this much stampede is being made over apple reaching 10% share in american market - so much that one would think apple conquered all markets.
or is it some marketing hype in order to make the stocks in nasdaq move ?
Slashdot Mirror
the premise is capitalism was not in enabling competition actually - it enables incentive. since you are free to engage in any kind of endeavor (lest it is socially harmful), the populace gets vigor to engage in activities.
however, by itself capitalism is just a transition passage to aristocracy - hereditary or not. (actually any kind of property ownership is hereditary, so capitalism ends up a hereditary aristocracy over time ) and, in the process, where the richer start owning everything and paying lower wages to everyone, the invigoration capitalism provides to people is lost - they see they cant make it, as masses, but only a small percentage.
the solution is either to mix capitalism heavily with socialism, leading to ensuring livelihood and acceptable humane amenities to everyone -> once people do not have to worry for a living, enterprising and engaging in activities becomes commonplace. also required is the rich being kept in check, lest they start to corner every activity to prevent others from entering.
this is what scandinavian countries have been doing, and it seems it worked, they top human development index, whereas usa can only place 10-13 in its best years.
alternative is introducing a degree of freedom to socialism. actually, when direct democracy becomes possible, this can be a reality too.
no he is right. a reason for fall of roman empire is that it was built upon conquest. when the lands that would yield ample riches when conquered ran out, the empire started to crumble as a governmental machine. for the first time taxes were introduced to support army, for example. there was no riches to be had from germania, central africa, iran. india was far, far away.
and, yes, he is also right in regard to slavery in roman empire. the moment romans conquered a region, the nobles of the region were given equites rank ( a noble rank lower than patrician, higher than a roman citizen) but the rest of the populace were only 'conquered peoples' -> a notch higher than slave, a notch lower than 'roman ally'.
'according to police, thats wiretapping'.
i dont remember any police force in any country having been given the authority to interpret laws. attorneys, lawyers, judges exist for a reason.
the identification you have made above crosses far beyond any nation's boundaries. it is something that has been there since the early days of hardware hacking in early 1970s, and, very curiously, it seems to have propagated to every country more or less in similar lines. maybe 'tech awareness' ? this seems to have migrated into the hack scene in early 80s, and it is safe to say that that culture had been the fundamental factor in defining how we do things on the web. in case you look around, you will see way too many 'free' concept. it is now a common acceptance that things are, and must be free as much as possible on the web, but, noone wonders where this culture of 'free' came from. it just cant happen only from economic opportunism - same kind of thing could have happened at start of tv era but it didnt. however, it happened at start of internet era.
yeah. probably random long haired or punk looking people somewhere in the world are behind anon's core. and i very much doubt that noone dare do anything to these people, even if they can. because they generally would :
a) either be in places where anglo-american corporations cant reach
b) would already in employ of criminal cartels, or, other 'secret' sources (includes secret services etc), therefore protected
c) it would be close to impossible to actually track and find these people, who are generally at the same level with the people who can any megacorp or govt. can hire in their field (security)
d) wherever they are, due to their technological skills, they are a national asset
so, in short, all these arrests of pimpled kids seems to be for appeasing certain interest groups because they are irritated by the attacks, and scare kids from supporting anon.
Do you know how many people/investors supported how many inventions/inventors that ended up unsuccessful back in 1800-1900 ? ill tell you - you cant even start to count. you only read about the ones who had been successful, and a few of those who were unsuccessful, and you are led to naturally think it was like that. on the contrary.
and how did fox news beat anonymous 'in its own game' ? huh ?
arrests of 12 pimpled kids through fbi (apparently serving corporations over government) ?
i see. the millions in china, japan, russia, who are hording back the anonymous' lines, and the core groups that oversee operations from russia, china, are very, very, very scared. they have been 'beaten' in their own game, by arrest of 12 pimpled kids in usa.
get real.
there is no way in hell that arrests et al can do anything to anonymous.
you arrest 100 people in usa. you arrest 100 people in france. you arrest 100 people in germany.
what about the millions in china, russia, india ? how are you going to 'arrest' or 'scare' them ? morons.
this is no more than a publicity stunt to satiate the bastard that is murdoch, since his ass is on the line now. and fbi and other government organizations in u.s. are making evident who they are serving. they didnt conduct a nationwide raid when all kinds of govt. organizations were attacked by anon.
and there were not as many diseases, conditions, psychological disorders like today. its not the length of the life expectancy, but what you do within that life. if you are spending 15 years of that life for preparation to slave away your life, and then the next 30 years to actually slave away, living under undue stress, innumerable problems and conditions and worries, in dysfunctional social settings, only to retire when you are withered to enjoy the 5 or so remaining years while trying to fish near a river or a lake before you die in a hospital corner, doing the precise thing those indians were doing all their life, than your expectancy means shit.
an eloquently enunciated compilation of proceedings of the late republic - early empire roman history, with connections to early middle ages and later, on solid grounds (most of what i have told is mainstream in history scholar circles now), is downmodded. why ?
too irritable ?
Income disparity was what made roman population lose interest, hope and eventually, participation in the roman republic, leading to deterioration of not only state but also culture in just a hundred years or so :
rich were flooding the market with cheap grain, causing the small farmers not to be able to make a living because the crop they produced ended up more expensive in cost than rich, big farm holders. in turn, they had to sell their farms to rich farmers and migrate into cities to make a living. increasingly roman agriculture had come under the control of very few, rich landowning aristocrats. these farms were called latifundia.
since the backbone of the country, the small free citizen landholders were gone, public services and military continually deteriorated. the 'barbarians' (non-romans) who were increasingly conscripted to the army had less incentive than a citizen soldier to defend anything. moreover, the disillusioned citizenry, who could get nothing out of the society at that point, cared much for any intruders - whomever invaded, they were just replacing existing elite with their own, little was changing in the case of ordinary citizens. (except for exceedingly vandal barbarians and similar - vandals were also a barbarian tribe, as a sidenote).
the rich, who held all the resources had little use for anything of the sort like republic or democracy. and when augustus and later emperors started to dismantle last vestiges of republic, noone cared. now, the citizenry had no say or share from society as a whole. and from that point on it all disintegrated.
the irony is, this process started around the peak of roman momentum - late republic era. the very era in which triumvirate (caesar pompei and crassus) were waging their civil war against each other. the empire didnt instantly disintegrate - it had momentum to take itself comfortably forward at least 100 years more. everything then started to directly crumble.
today is no different. back in roman times, the poor had at least the chance to engage in trade and arts/crafts. today, even those fields of life are 'latifundiated' by the rich just like how roman agriculture (then the backbone of economy) was consolidated in the hands of very few elite.
i would like to alert you to the fact that, this situation that destroyed roman empire, had later also become the causes that led to the birth of aristocracy in middle ages and on. in fact, the entire system of feudalism, is a system of property ownership - the difference with our current capitalist system is, now everyone is able to own property (land in this case), while back then, only aristocrats could. however this doesnt change one fundamental fact - this system eventually leads to a minority having and controlling everything (yes, including politics because resource is power - just like how senate had to accept subjugation in front of those who had the funds to muster legions), and ends up in an aristocratic hierarchical society.
in short - yes, they should care. for the sake of their own freedom too.
those indians who were laughing about selling things like land as property were living lives equally full, WITHOUT all the stress, hassles, pills and problems we have to go through over our lives, dribbling in our own shit in a hospital corner in our old age, shitting ourselves, and dying over an extended duration of torture of years while the modern medicine tries to 'save' us.
whereas indian shamans were able to live fully capable lives until the end of their days, and when they felt their time was come, go to a hilltop, lie on the ground, and die at that instant.
i see huge disparage and contradiction in the above situations.
are up for sale. really. apparently everything has a price in capitalism. even the very basic things (like the air space around a planet's outer crust, and electromagnetism) can be sold and 'owned' by 'private' people at the expense of other people.
so, there's this technology that allows me to send and receive information over the air, but, to be able to freely use it, i have to be richer than others. else, i am obligated to be a bitch under who is richer than me. the only freedom being the ability to chose who is my pimp.
why, that is totally not at all different from how it was back in 1950s with television, telephony etc. you would think that humanity as a civilization would have progressed socially a bit over the course of 60 years. we are still playing who is the rich/who is the bitch game.
A statement by the MPAA disputes these claims, arguing that typical users lack the expertise to select a different DNS server and that the Internet must not be allowed to 'decay into a lawless Wild West.
dns filtering came to turkey 5 years ago.
EVERYONE knows how to bypass it now. and i mean everyone who is using internet - the equivalent of the 'mom in idaho' knows how to bypass it. her son, relatives, someone from neighborhood comes and bypasses it for her. people learned what 'opendns' means here. the term 'proxy' have become an everyday term, even in among the tech illiterate crowd. people ask about 'good proxy' to each other. (people learned about it when the courts started to ban i.p.s).
so, random 'mom in turkey' is able to do that, but the organization that represents all movie producers in america shits about otherwise ?
really. what kind of people are you letting you run your country and corporations and corporations' lackey organizations ? idiots ? morons ? bastards ? i think the last one is more likely. (i am not able to bring myself to say ngo regarding mpaa after that kind of idiocy)
'Your account has been disabled. All of your adverts have been stopped and should not be run again on the site under any circumstances. Generally, we disable an account if too many of its adverts violate our Terms of Use or Advertising guidelines. Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive. Please review our Terms of Use and Advertising guidelines if you have any further questions.'
what the FUCK does that even mean ?
you asswipes are banning a USER for advertising another device of communication, because you are afraid of competition ?
i am not able to bring myself to even start seeking for reasons that could justify such a preschool-level behavior.
different platforms that work together when need be ...."
doesnt that already define linux ?
They can now say 'its not a bug, its a feature', and get it over with.
And the 'invisible hand' will always be watching our back.... or is it ...
comment had a broader horizon than your narrow look. you could have spared 5 seconds to think broader.
the comment was not specific to this incident. your view is too narrow.
Lets keep tampering with genes, viruses, mutagens 'privately', without scrutiny of public eye in private corporation's faraway labs as much as we can.
after all, what can possibly go wrong.
easier than ever !! yaaaay.
the marketing types need to start coming up with less shittier slogans if they want to sell this social media shit. it has grown old way too fast.
patent system is workable ? we are one step away from someone being able to patent a basic logic process.
The only thing i am not understanding is why are the tech magazines online are making that great fuss over the results of one company only over its U.S. sales.
if u.s. is a market of 300 million, china is a market of 1.5 bn. japan is 100 million (and you HAVE to have advanced gadgetry there - cellular phones that cannot display tv broadcasts dont sell - that includes apple's iphones http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/why-the-iphone/ ), the market that is india is another 1 bn, the market that is europe is another approx 500 mn.
and all these markets have either huge volume, or high purchasing power.
and yet, this much stampede is being made over apple reaching 10% share in american market - so much that one would think apple conquered all markets.
or is it some marketing hype in order to make the stocks in nasdaq move ?
There is no such thing like groping the balls of people, or manhandling children or elderly regularly in the most repressive regimes of the world.
what's needed for you americans to actually stand up to this ?
Shit in your face ?
or eating your shit ?
or, not be able to even shit, because you cant eat ?