With this 'accidental' shutdown, microsoft successfully covered all of the countries that were experiencing unrest.... That would be hard even with an i.t. department hell bent on pulling that off intentionally.
Not in the least. When the ballot has a single name on it, and the only two options are to vote "for" or "against", and you know that secret vote is not really guaranteed, and not being at the poll booth on election day will have repercussions - there's nothing subjective about saying that this is about as democratic as a divinely appointed king.
In fact, there wasn't always an option to vote against. Here [wikipedia.org] is a ballot from the 1974 elections to the Supeme Soviet of the USSR, from Moscow electoral district #1. The text above the list (on the right) says: "Leave the last name of a SINGLE candidate for which you are voting in the ballot, and strike out the rest". And the ballot has only one name in it (Kosygin [wikipedia.org]), so the only alternative to voting for the guy is to spoil the bulletin.
fraud and repression during an election is not particular to soviet democracies or eastern democracies. it happens everywhere. it doesnt define an ideology.
that being said, even if there is a single party rule, and the party elects the candidates in itself through their own votes, its still a form of democracy.
I won't give you percentages, but there is certainly a significant "aristocratic" factor in most modern implementations of representative democracy, especially in countries with a big wealth divide (such as USA).
quite so. and then, can we link current democracy and aristocracy, reasonably, to justify such linkages ?
Um, KdF is a "token program"? Did you see the numbers of its scale of operation?
how many other programs were there like these ? how much of the produced value from the factories, did workers own ? see...
Military was definitely a major source of new jobs, but by far not the only big one, especially early on. Pre-war, Nazi economists were essentially Keynesians, promoting heavy deficit spending on public construction works to ensure high employment.
just like any other country at the time. yet, still not acceptably socialist.
I don't see why you're so desperate to dismiss the connection. After all, Nazis did grow up from a genuinely socialist party, and even though Hitler threw out a lot of more radical ideas once he took over in full, there were plenty remaining
are you aware that, the above calls for determination of whether we can call something what it was before, after it being partially replaced/merged by something else ? ie, an ideology that merges any preferred practice from any other ideology, can be linked with the others ? what percentage of aristocracy is democratic, and what percent of democracy is still aristocracy ?
also, i didnt say a lot of people supported nazis due to their social policies - i said they adopted socialist jargon to cater to social democrat voters, just like they adopted army uniforms to cater to the prussian heritage, nationalism and army's support base among voters.
nazis didnt have a solid social welfare program in place. what they did, except from few token programs or advertising was they employed everyone through working of the military machine.
as for rationing with conservatives - its pointless. they are already using the fallacious 'corporate socialism' wordage, a term which their opponent coined, as a scareword for their own means. irony, meet the contradiction.
nay, nazi party and italian fascists have come to power by meshing support from various sources. ranging from capital backers to the army. especially in the case of germany, because there was a quite big social democrat voter population (approx 25-30%), the fledgling bunch of thugs that were the core of the nazi party had had incorporated seemingly socialist jargon and plans into their rhetoric as well. this was mainly to get votes. they had also incorporated the army cult, banking on the prussian tradition and pride of german populace. its not that nazi party was socialist, but they had had paid lip service to its ideals, and had had practiced a few stints (ranging from the volkswagen to the south america cruises) to advertise. a few traces of a practice being there, does not establish relevance to the concept of socialism. else, we could easily link, democracy with aristocracy.
in all cases of socialism, the decision making mechanism selection still passes through the people. even in authoritarian cases, authorities making the decisions gets elected to their positions. this was so in the heavy handed socialism attempt of eastern european nations.
so, most innovative software firms are based in the u.s. ? microsoft, oracle, ibm et al ?
are you aware of the innovations that are done in europe ? no. because they are not touted to greedy shareholders to play the share game. yet, most of the contributions to linux code that a lot of the names you name there use, come from especially scandinavian countries ?
its not that u.s. companies are more innovative - its that much more drum is being drummed over these stuff in that country, than any place else.
japanese have created fscking androids almost. how much has it been drummed ? yet, you see random american company doing press releases over some 'innovation' like dragging some item from your mobile device to your home theater device with a single click or something.
Software patents don't prevent somebody from penetrating a market.
they do. because, someone WILL take legal action on you, as soon as they realize that you are making money. noone wants to get in such a shitty mess of a legal system.
ralph nader has no authority in redefining terms of political science that has been around for 150+ years. and no, you cannot 'deconstruct' them either. these are not lego bricks.
socialism does not subjugate individual to the group, you moron. in socialism, individual PARTICIPATES in the group to take decisions. in fascism, individual has NO authority over what is being done, unless it is in the ruling caste. but what am i saying. its irrational to expect wisdom from someone who has a quote from fucking margaret thatcher, the moron which threatened the ally of its country with nuclear weapons over some minor incident. morons quoting morons.
fascism is extreme right. it is how it was defined for around a century. you cannot just redefine it depending on your own political views.
fascism doesnt even redistribute ANYthing. fascism, in all cases, gets the backing of the established rich. this was so in italy, was so in germany. if rich capital didnt back the nazis, they would never have gained enough traction to get into power.
definition of socialism has been the same since 1.5 centuries. the definition in wikipedia, is that definition. you right wingers in america are the ones inventing definitions from your ass, in your crusade to scare people away from socialism.
Both believe that some policy wonk knows better than you what is best for you
so, basically, you dont know what socialism is ? and then you produce bullshit about 'some policy wonk' ? "there is nothing about socialism that involves democracy"
in socialism, the decision making is dispersed. everyone participates in decision making, as opposed to the best democracy. the 'policy wonk' there, cannot decide what is 'best for you' by himself. people, in a fashion closer to direct democracy, decide what the policy should be, and the 'policy wonk' you made out of your ass is tasked with applying that policy. he cannot decide the policy.
actually i know you from earlier discussions as being a right wing zealot. this reply a waste even in itself, wasted on some moron that can dub 'there is nothing about socialism that involves democracy', despite the very DEFINITION of socialism is everyone participating in the decision making process for EVERYthing, including resource production.
let me tell you what your real problem is ; you dont want to be bound by the collective will of the society you are living in. you are wanting to make use of every means that the society provides you, but you dont want your society to have ANY clout over you. and you think that this is 'freedom'.
that freedom is something you can only get on a mountain top, alone. as long as you are in a social environment, you will be bound by people, and people will be bound by you.
and no, the 'system' you think you have in america currently doesnt do anything about it. it just lets your freedom fall in the hands of the few, who are more powerful than you, while having you live in the illusion that you are not bound by the society you are living in. whereas, at every step you take, you still are.
notice that i may not waste a second reply on you. the last thing i may tell you, is to stop talking bullshit about things you do not know, if you are able to research and learn. and you look well capable of learning. so, you have no excuse.
No. you have confused socialism and social democracy. it is appalling how daring and aggressively you speak. maybe that boldness is coming from your ignorance.
however, EVEN in this case, it is still impossible to call what the grandgrandparent was trying to picture as social democracy even. because it doesnt have any relevance to that either.
unbelievable how bold and ignorant some of you people can be. you dont know what is what, yet you are WAY too bold. why.
they are just cozy with believing what they are told and parroting others. thats their problem. they do not dare wander out of their comfort and safety zone and do research.
Please dont invent terms out of your ass. Corporatism has no relevance with socialism and it cannot be merged with the the other term.
you americans tend to invent a lot of misplaced, incorrect termage in your own jargon and try to sell it to entire world. in this case, some half assed, INCORRECT and irrelevant 'term' invented by some americans, in the name of 'corporate socialism'.
really ?
socialism, is owning of means of production AND the profits, equally by the PEOPLE participating in the system.
how much does the employees of at&t own at&t ? or, does its majority share rest in the hands of a handful of people, AND, the rest in the hands of some hundred thousand wealthy people, a minority being distributed among the random shareholder ?
do at&t employees join in decision making process of at&t democratically, and does the corporation guarantee their livelihood, their healthcare, their kids' education, their rent, their entertainment expenses, and their own education ?
this is what socialism is.
you people are appending the word socialism to something else because word 'socialism' is a scare word in us political jargon. while rest of the world knows the term for its real meaning.
you dont even take the time to check what you are saying, and see whether you are coining a term right or wrong, even at the wake of blatant incorrectness.
there is NOTHING called "corporate socialism" its an american invented scare word, designed to scare people away from corporate greed. and it is INCORRECT
Whats there to be argue. if there is a SINGLE provider monopoly in a nation, more than innovation is stifled. Not even right wing economists argue against that anymore.
Not a european developer's nemesis. Because, software patents are not recognized there, due to higher level of common sense and less greedy control over society.
this picture painted in your summary and the articles, is the picture of what american capitalism did to software. a feodal minefield in which you either work for a bully stronger than you, or dont work at all.
i already roughly described the situation. had i known some random person on the internet would ask it, i would note down the specific instance, function name, environment details and variables on both sides.
needing to go over 3 hours' worth of code, because of an incompatibility with your local development environment with the remote test or live environment you have, is a big loss when developing big apps.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are moron enough to believe that is ...
why did such a thing NOT happen at any given point, before ?
With this 'accidental' shutdown, microsoft successfully covered all of the countries that were experiencing unrest .... That would be hard even with an i.t. department hell bent on pulling that off intentionally.
Not in the least. When the ballot has a single name on it, and the only two options are to vote "for" or "against", and you know that secret vote is not really guaranteed, and not being at the poll booth on election day will have repercussions - there's nothing subjective about saying that this is about as democratic as a divinely appointed king. In fact, there wasn't always an option to vote against. Here [wikipedia.org] is a ballot from the 1974 elections to the Supeme Soviet of the USSR, from Moscow electoral district #1. The text above the list (on the right) says: "Leave the last name of a SINGLE candidate for which you are voting in the ballot, and strike out the rest". And the ballot has only one name in it (Kosygin [wikipedia.org]), so the only alternative to voting for the guy is to spoil the bulletin.
fraud and repression during an election is not particular to soviet democracies or eastern democracies. it happens everywhere. it doesnt define an ideology.
that being said, even if there is a single party rule, and the party elects the candidates in itself through their own votes, its still a form of democracy.
I won't give you percentages, but there is certainly a significant "aristocratic" factor in most modern implementations of representative democracy, especially in countries with a big wealth divide (such as USA).
quite so. and then, can we link current democracy and aristocracy, reasonably, to justify such linkages ?
Um, KdF is a "token program"? Did you see the numbers of its scale of operation?
how many other programs were there like these ? how much of the produced value from the factories, did workers own ? see ...
Military was definitely a major source of new jobs, but by far not the only big one, especially early on. Pre-war, Nazi economists were essentially Keynesians, promoting heavy deficit spending on public construction works to ensure high employment.
just like any other country at the time. yet, still not acceptably socialist.
I don't see why you're so desperate to dismiss the connection. After all, Nazis did grow up from a genuinely socialist party, and even though Hitler threw out a lot of more radical ideas once he took over in full, there were plenty remaining
are you aware that, the above calls for determination of whether we can call something what it was before, after it being partially replaced/merged by something else ? ie, an ideology that merges any preferred practice from any other ideology, can be linked with the others ? what percentage of aristocracy is democratic, and what percent of democracy is still aristocracy ?
also, i didnt say a lot of people supported nazis due to their social policies - i said they adopted socialist jargon to cater to social democrat voters, just like they adopted army uniforms to cater to the prussian heritage, nationalism and army's support base among voters.
nazis didnt have a solid social welfare program in place. what they did, except from few token programs or advertising was they employed everyone through working of the military machine.
as for rationing with conservatives - its pointless. they are already using the fallacious 'corporate socialism' wordage, a term which their opponent coined, as a scareword for their own means. irony, meet the contradiction.
soviet union and its satellite states were (majority of them) democratic countries, most of them having the word democratic, in their name.
mostly they had one party democracy. however, still it was democracy.
'meaningful' word there, is a bit subjective dont you think.
nay, nazi party and italian fascists have come to power by meshing support from various sources. ranging from capital backers to the army. especially in the case of germany, because there was a quite big social democrat voter population (approx 25-30%), the fledgling bunch of thugs that were the core of the nazi party had had incorporated seemingly socialist jargon and plans into their rhetoric as well. this was mainly to get votes. they had also incorporated the army cult, banking on the prussian tradition and pride of german populace. its not that nazi party was socialist, but they had had paid lip service to its ideals, and had had practiced a few stints (ranging from the volkswagen to the south america cruises) to advertise. a few traces of a practice being there, does not establish relevance to the concept of socialism. else, we could easily link, democracy with aristocracy.
in all cases of socialism, the decision making mechanism selection still passes through the people. even in authoritarian cases, authorities making the decisions gets elected to their positions. this was so in the heavy handed socialism attempt of eastern european nations.
so, most innovative software firms are based in the u.s. ? microsoft, oracle, ibm et al ?
are you aware of the innovations that are done in europe ? no. because they are not touted to greedy shareholders to play the share game. yet, most of the contributions to linux code that a lot of the names you name there use, come from especially scandinavian countries ?
its not that u.s. companies are more innovative - its that much more drum is being drummed over these stuff in that country, than any place else.
japanese have created fscking androids almost. how much has it been drummed ? yet, you see random american company doing press releases over some 'innovation' like dragging some item from your mobile device to your home theater device with a single click or something.
Software patents don't prevent somebody from penetrating a market.
they do. because, someone WILL take legal action on you, as soon as they realize that you are making money. noone wants to get in such a shitty mess of a legal system.
ralph nader has no authority in redefining terms of political science that has been around for 150+ years. and no, you cannot 'deconstruct' them either. these are not lego bricks.
socialism does not subjugate individual to the group, you moron. in socialism, individual PARTICIPATES in the group to take decisions. in fascism, individual has NO authority over what is being done, unless it is in the ruling caste. but what am i saying. its irrational to expect wisdom from someone who has a quote from fucking margaret thatcher, the moron which threatened the ally of its country with nuclear weapons over some minor incident. morons quoting morons.
fascism is extreme right. it is how it was defined for around a century. you cannot just redefine it depending on your own political views.
fascism doesnt even redistribute ANYthing. fascism, in all cases, gets the backing of the established rich. this was so in italy, was so in germany. if rich capital didnt back the nazis, they would never have gained enough traction to get into power.
definition of socialism has been the same since 1.5 centuries. the definition in wikipedia, is that definition. you right wingers in america are the ones inventing definitions from your ass, in your crusade to scare people away from socialism.
corporate fascism maybe.
Both believe that some policy wonk knows better than you what is best for you
so, basically, you dont know what socialism is ? and then you produce bullshit about 'some policy wonk' ? "there is nothing about socialism that involves democracy"
in socialism, the decision making is dispersed. everyone participates in decision making, as opposed to the best democracy. the 'policy wonk' there, cannot decide what is 'best for you' by himself. people, in a fashion closer to direct democracy, decide what the policy should be, and the 'policy wonk' you made out of your ass is tasked with applying that policy. he cannot decide the policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
actually i know you from earlier discussions as being a right wing zealot. this reply a waste even in itself, wasted on some moron that can dub 'there is nothing about socialism that involves democracy', despite the very DEFINITION of socialism is everyone participating in the decision making process for EVERYthing, including resource production.
let me tell you what your real problem is ; you dont want to be bound by the collective will of the society you are living in. you are wanting to make use of every means that the society provides you, but you dont want your society to have ANY clout over you. and you think that this is 'freedom'.
that freedom is something you can only get on a mountain top, alone. as long as you are in a social environment, you will be bound by people, and people will be bound by you.
and no, the 'system' you think you have in america currently doesnt do anything about it. it just lets your freedom fall in the hands of the few, who are more powerful than you, while having you live in the illusion that you are not bound by the society you are living in. whereas, at every step you take, you still are.
notice that i may not waste a second reply on you. the last thing i may tell you, is to stop talking bullshit about things you do not know, if you are able to research and learn. and you look well capable of learning. so, you have no excuse.
No. you have confused socialism and social democracy. it is appalling how daring and aggressively you speak. maybe that boldness is coming from your ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
however, EVEN in this case, it is still impossible to call what the grandgrandparent was trying to picture as social democracy even. because it doesnt have any relevance to that either.
unbelievable how bold and ignorant some of you people can be. you dont know what is what, yet you are WAY too bold. why.
they are just cozy with believing what they are told and parroting others. thats their problem. they do not dare wander out of their comfort and safety zone and do research.
the more your kind keeps silent, the more the other kind, fooled ignorant masses, speak up. and the ones herding them get encouraged and bolder.
Please dont invent terms out of your ass. Corporatism has no relevance with socialism and it cannot be merged with the the other term.
you americans tend to invent a lot of misplaced, incorrect termage in your own jargon and try to sell it to entire world. in this case, some half assed, INCORRECT and irrelevant 'term' invented by some americans, in the name of 'corporate socialism'.
really ?
socialism, is owning of means of production AND the profits, equally by the PEOPLE participating in the system.
how much does the employees of at&t own at&t ? or, does its majority share rest in the hands of a handful of people, AND, the rest in the hands of some hundred thousand wealthy people, a minority being distributed among the random shareholder ?
do at&t employees join in decision making process of at&t democratically, and does the corporation guarantee their livelihood, their healthcare, their kids' education, their rent, their entertainment expenses, and their own education ?
this is what socialism is.
you people are appending the word socialism to something else because word 'socialism' is a scare word in us political jargon. while rest of the world knows the term for its real meaning.
you dont even take the time to check what you are saying, and see whether you are coining a term right or wrong, even at the wake of blatant incorrectness.
there is NOTHING called "corporate socialism" its an american invented scare word, designed to scare people away from corporate greed. and it is INCORRECT
the term you looking for, was corporate fascism.
Whats there to be argue. if there is a SINGLE provider monopoly in a nation, more than innovation is stifled. Not even right wing economists argue against that anymore.
Not a european developer's nemesis. Because, software patents are not recognized there, due to higher level of common sense and less greedy control over society.
this picture painted in your summary and the articles, is the picture of what american capitalism did to software. a feodal minefield in which you either work for a bully stronger than you, or dont work at all.
i already roughly described the situation. had i known some random person on the internet would ask it, i would note down the specific instance, function name, environment details and variables on both sides.
needing to go over 3 hours' worth of code, because of an incompatibility with your local development environment with the remote test or live environment you have, is a big loss when developing big apps.
i dont know how hard this is to understand.