I have an LCD monitor at home and work with a 24-bit display and I see color banding in pictures (including of the sky). I could never see such banding on my CRT for the same pictures. That's what originally bothered me about it.
I'm not confused, and I described it correctly. I know LiarSux worked like that because I remember it not being a pain to load URLs from that list. I could just click on the URL bar, click on a previously-visited URL, and it would instantly load.
But let's say you're right: LiarSux NEVER had that functionality, under any setting or version. Still, IE has it. Kinda lame that LiarSux can't match IE on an important feature for convenience. (It would also be nice if saving large files didn't cause the browser to hang up... I can dream.)
I think you can at least be sure the government will never have a "no-buy-home" list... the closest thing they'd have would be "loser who still rents" list... such is the government's fascination with promoting homedebtorship.
My original citation was to John Gatto's work. You'd said that you thought "the other coward" was fabricating a statement "about [factory] labor 'drying up' quickly". My original post was to provide a resource that confirms "the other coward's" statement.
No. Your source was not even trying to support that statement (about competing capitalists inadvertently drying up the labor pool and being unable to staff their factories profitably):
"I'm generally unfamiliar with the early years of industrialization and factories, but John Gatto does say in his Underground History of American Education [johntaylorgatto.com] that modern factory schools were established to provide workers for industry, and to train free people to become obedient 'consumers'."
It tried to support a subtly different statement, that modern schools "were started" for all kinds of heinous purposes, but NOT as a result of a general conspiracy of corporations. As I pointed out before, the original claim -- that corporations organized through some kind of gentlemen's agreement to pacify generations of otherwise independent-minded youth -- would force us to reject the bulk of anti-corporatist ideology by holding that corporations look 15+ years ahead, and that they use their own children as sacrificial lambs.
Remember, it's not enough to cite reams of sources -- they have to actually support a relevant claim you made.
The sobering truth is that the public school system, in each state, exists because it has phenomenal voter support predicated on all kinds of FUD about homeschooling, declining property values (for those who bought a house JUST to be in a good school district), and discrimination by privately-run schools. It's comforting, but wrong, to believe that it's just the evil rich behind this.
This bit about school being created to provide a labor force for early industrialists is crucial to the whole debate. Because, if it's true, then there is no such thing as a "free market" in America, as most of the market's participants have been mind-fucked without their even realizing it. Without their indoctrination in the government's schools, individuals would make substantially different choices in their lives, and the economy would be totally different...
Extreme overstatement. It merely means that the actors *within the market however free it may be* have different values. Perhaps they would have a higher preference for self-employment. But no proponent of capitalist considers emergent, common self-employment within an unregulated market to be "not capitalism" or "not a free market".
I'd much rather read original sources for your position
I wasn't providing a position; I was providing a reality-check for some extreme statements made by some ACs. As for the claims made here (and confining it to free internet stuff):
Regarding the claims from Carson's work, check out this issue of the JLS, specifically this one, which makes a lot of the same arguments I made here with citations.
For a summary of the environment-related points, Reisman again provides a good summary, starting on page 76 of this. (Huge file, but free.)
*ahem*, you said, "Sure, once you read this library of books I'm going to suggest in order to support a self-evidently absurd claim." I'm calling you out.:)
Wow, you're really slow at this, aren't you? I didn't actually have a library (though I could list one if you did something that justified it). The point was that we can throw citations at each other all day; if you don't say why the citation is relevant, or explain what it's trying to prove, or admit it claims something patently absurd, there's no point in even going to the source -- it's basically just asking me to prove your arguments. Can you see the problem now?
Class warfare is not about disparities in individuals' level of "richness" - it is about making a few people fantastically wealthy, and making everyone else dirt poor. Not because they're lazy or unable to change and adapt, but because the entire system is rigged for the benefit of the wealthy
I understand you feel that way. But how do *raw statistics* about the disparity in wealth prove that the system is rigged, rather than rewarding those believed capable of providing superior returns?
I caught that we agree that agriculture subsidies have undesirable side effects.
That's not going to cut it, I'm afraid. I pointed out that one of the *beneficiaries* of these policies is people who get underpriced food, and that your argument that they are not really beneficiaries reduces to the claim that "labor saving improvements are really bad". Telling me to go read Chomsky isn't impressive. If all he's going to do is "prove" that, it doesn't help your case. Only now are you revealing any understanding of the claims you wanted me to go read.
Who Will Feed China? covers the peril China faces
Okay, a scare story about how someone knows -- but all the investors in agircultural commodities don't know -- that there's really going to be a supermassive crop failure soon and will kill off China. Do I really have to respond?
Agriculture should be a local endeavor. Surplus grains can be used for meat production, beer/booze, or as a reserve for years when harvests are a little leaner. Globalized agriculture disrupts local production of food, and the lives of middle-class people everywhere.
No, this is your uninformed bias speaking. Billions of people have gladly ditched agriculture for better, less grueling work once it was mechanized. Your claim that it leaves people vulerable to supply shocks just shows your ignorance of modern commodity futures markets.
I've referenced three books directly, one CD, one man's life work (I have three of Holt's books, including How Children Fail and How Children Learn). My position is well supported - what's backing you up?
No, it's not well-supported. That would assume you have a coherent position and know where the work of others integrates with and supports your beliefs, which you haven't revealed. Now, what's backing me up? Go read the Julian Simon Wikipedia article and the futures contract article.
I don't like, have to put any of that in my own words, do I? That would be soooooooooooo much work.
Raw data: chaotic historical graphs that show the influence of several non-linear influences. Implied conclusion: It's nearly impossible to predict future changes when you have only one test case. Missing scientific interpretation: We can handwave away all that uncertainty to get more funding and it's not like any experiment could prove our model wrong. Actual scientific conclusion: Incentives matter.
Re:Why Does Encryption Need to "Scramble" Informat
on
A Mighty Number Falls
·
· Score: 1
Is it really that easy now to learn an undocumented language, just from verbal radio transmissions and knowledge of related war events?
Incidentally, I suspect security through obscurity can serve a purpose in encryption. As I understand it, with public key encryption, it may be computationally intensive, but at least it can be automated and the problem is well-defined. If the eavesdropper had to first figure out, from the set of all possible encryption methods, which encryption method you were using, it may force her to apply human labor to finding the solution, which may be the scarcer resource.
Sure, google it. That's just as reasonable as your request that I go prove your claim, something you can't justify in your own words.
It is further evidence supportive of the charge that an undeclared state of class warfare is being perpetrated against the American middle class.
No, "evidence" would mean "eliminates all hypotheses but mine". That condition would just as well arise from people more highly valuing the labor of those specific CEOs. And when was the discussion about whether there is an undeclared state of class warfare? Show me the *specific things* causing that negative effect, not just the existence of the negative effect.
I'm sorry - I don't get how the three qualities are mutually exclusive. Please link or explain.
Simple: any time people are free to succeed or fail, and society permitted to change and adapt, not everyone will become equally rich. All but the most bone-headed egalitarians accept this. That's why I mentioned that it's no suprise there will be inequality. Big deal. I didn't understand why you want me to care about it if I don't already hate the rich.
Try again - click on the 'parent' link in your comment above, and re-read what I actually wrote. Or download Chomsky's talk, and listen to what he said. The bit about subsidized agriculture is in the first 1/2 hour.
Why don't you try again, to read what I actually posted (and see my sig while you're at it)? You clearly don't understand what I'm objecting to. I agree that agriculture subsidies are bad. Do you "get" that? What I disagree is *where* the bad effects manifest. And I claim that receiving underpriced food is *not* pad for those receiving the underpriced food. The subsidies are bad because of the general allocative inefficiencies they induce. But no, I'm not going to cry for the dumb foreigner who claims there is ABSOLUTELY ONLY ONE JOB he is ever capable of doing.
How can you do a Best of 2007 when we aren't even half way through 2007?????
It's like how I get my May issue in April, or my May 6 issue on April 29, or do my 45-minute hour with my consultant, or buy my 1.5'' x 3.5'' two-by-four, or buy my 1080p PS3 that downscales to 720p, or have a mortgage rate of 5.9% that really means a 6.1% annual interest rate, or learn about an inflation rate of 2.5% that jumps to 3.5% if I have to do anything crazy like buy food or energy.
(Btw, anyone know how to get Canon's powershot to upload to YouTube without making the sound out-of-sync?)
Who rats the rats? Rat rats. And who rats the rat rats? Rat rat rats rat rat rats.
(Aside: The German word for "rats" is "Ratten". The German word for City Hall is "Rathaus". No German I ever met, saw ANY potential for a pun in criticizing City Hall.)
suggest you read the linked book yourself, consider the proposition, and decide for yourself whether the claim has any merit
Sure, once you read this library of books I'm going to suggest in order to support a self-evidently absurd claim.
Be sure to also consider the modern-day concentration of capital in the hands of the few - Executive pay vs. Worker-drone pay rising from 42x in 1982 to 350x today, for example.
What does that have to do with this topic, other than your attempt to draw in a tangential issue that upsets you? "Free, dynamic, equal, pick two"
How are hundreds of Mexican corn farmers (using labor-intensive farming methods) supposed to make a living off their farm if they have to compete with my grandfather's two tenant farmers, who plant and harvest hundreds of acres by themselves with their advanced tractors & harvesters? The real-world says they can't, and millions of displaced farmers and farm laborers become economic refugees. They're desperate for any kind of work in teh cities, no matter how boring & hazardous it might be.
Yeah, heaven forbid someone have to adapt to their skills falling in value.
Do I really have to explain this to you? You just argued that all labor-saving technology is bad.
I'm generally unfamiliar with the early years of industrialization and factories, but John Gatto does say in his Underground History of American Education that modern factory schools were established to provide workers for industry, and to train free people to become obedient 'consumers'.
I don't want to defend public schools but... it's kind of hard to maintain that claim -- that corporations together solved the public goods problem and enacted far-reaching legislation that would hurt their own members' children and not yield fruits for at least 15 years -- *and* the claim that profit-seeking corporations only care about their shareholders and the next quarter's bottom line.
Noam Chomsky's Class War (also available via torrent) talk covers this same topic from a slightly different angle. Third-world peasant farmers can't compete with western subsidized industrial agriculture (where a single farmer can plant and harvest hundreds of acres of corn while relaxing in his climate-controlled GPS-piloted tractor) American manufacturers can't compete with displaced peasant farmers, whose governments were tricked into eliminating tariffs on agriculture imports by free-trade agreements. Every loses (peasant farmers, American middle class, etc), except those who are already wealthy...
Giving people cheap food hurts them? Whatever, dude. Look, I'm against agriculture subsidies... but I can't buy the claim that "receiving underpriced food" constitutes "losing". Unless you want to claim we can help foreign countries by blockading them (and thereby creating LOTS of jobs for EVERYONE). What does Chomsky say about that?
Though if you really want to make me happy, how about we drop this practice of adding exceptions to English just to satisfy the format of the language it was adopted from? Call them "General Attorneys" and "General Surgeons". I want my adjective modifiers BEFORE my nouns, dagnabbit!
In the modern era (long after such entities as The East India Company) the pressures to "modernize" an economy are frequently exerted through external bodies such as the WTO.
Even if true (and even if that modernization is objectionable) you're conceding the broader point I was making: that those benefiting from the cheap labor are not the same ones causing the labor to have to sell for cheap. And you haven't shown how the WTO caused the poverty in the developing country, which is generally targeted because it *already* sucks.
it just sucks ass if you're the one who gets to be 'modernized.'
You mean like Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea? Yeah, sure sucks to be in those places.
You're assuming things not in evidence. Population growth and industrialization happened concurrently, and since the 'population bomb' scares of the 70's, we've gained a lot of evidence that overpopulation tends to correct itself unless the overarching socio-economic structures are broken at a fundamental level.
Yes, it does correct itself -- when markets can give price signals for the over-demanded goods and reward those who make them more plentiful! My point was that as the open-field system stood, use of land was a free-for-all with ill-defined rights. It was impossible to try new varieties of seed, hybrids, animal breeding, mechanization, etc., when you couldn't be sure if you'd even get the plot next year, or if someone else wouldn't overuse it. Thus, it was a world of ever-more-intense competition for a smaller slice of the pie, instead of an increasing pie. The "correcting itself" I think you're referring to is higher death rates due to lower food availability.
How so? Having land is not evil in itself -- it's arrogating a monopoly on land to yourself and/or your social class. Remember I'm a red anarchist. I decry property, not possession
I strongly suspect you can't articulate the difference.
Artisans were driven into the modern economy mostly by secondary effects, though there were economic restructuring acts which had a direct impact.
Handwave.
Prior to this era, barter was the most common means of informal trade on the free market, but with the loss of private lands and such, the barter economy vanishes. The artisan who might have bartered with his neighbour for the wood of a couple trees that were on his neighbour's land may now instead have to seek materials from the new owners of the forests and fields -- and be charged exorbitant prices due to a small purchase lot, lack of a pre-existing contract,
Yes, it's all feel-good to dream about these days, but what you left out was that there was still a cost to these barter transactions. The reason the wood sold for so much after, was because it was actually being placed on a market where anyone could bid, and those actually applying it to higher-valued ends were having their bids considered. When you look only at that altruistic neighbor bartering wood to his neighbor, you ignore all the people who didn't get a chance to buy that wood at all, even though they'd pay more and make better use of it.
being Jewish on a Wednesday, etc.
oh... my... god. Did you really just characterize the liberalization of laws against the capitalist class as anti-Semitic? In case you haven't noticed, anti-capitalism has long been closely tied to anti-Semitism.
Then there's the whole matter of new rules and legislation "for the public good" which may require expensive licensing or specific manufacturing procedures before you're allowed to sell goods. ("To protect the customer from inferior mechandise!" or in plain english: "to guarantee the market for the wealthiest and most politically powerful makers!")
Oh, I absolutely agree those laws suck... I just wish you lefties would get your story straight. Whenever someone tries to abo
1) Foreign multinationals typically have nothing to do with living standards in developing countries, which were like that long before they ever got involved. Trying to manipulate an entire government, just so you can move your factories there is just not proftiable because it creates an immense free rider problem: all of your competitors can then get the cheap labor without paying your costs. I would agree with your hypothesis in places where one company is given a sort of monopoly on setting up factories, but there aren't many of them.
2) The open field system was not sustainable. Population growth alone would have increased the load on public lands to the point of worthlessness. Property rights in that land had to become well-defined at some point or another. To the extent that it was an injustice, it was an injustice because those dispossessed of their traditional rights were not compensated. However, this would put them in the same position of the parasites you decry.
3) Even if landed farmers wouldn't want to work for pennies, that doens't explain artisans, who wouldn't be affected by enclosures. Now, I can understand why wealthy factory owners would want to drive down wages *before investing in factories*, but it strains credibility to claim that they FIRST built the factories, knowing they couldn't staff them, and THEN demanded (slow-enacting) legal changes that would finally make them profitable. The reason the factories rendered home-based artisanship unprofitable was because operating a power loom is (literally) child's play. And let's not forget the role of Carson's beloved guilds in preventing people from selling cheaper cloth.
Why in the world would I want it to behave differently?
I wouldn't. That's how it worked in the earlier version of LiarSux I was using.
In any case, if you do, it would be a tiny, simple extension to write.
Yes, if I already knew how to write extensions, which I didn't know was a requirement for getting basic functionality out of a web browser -- functionality that already existed in previous versions.
The fact that that extension doesn't exist suggests that very few people want that behavior.
What does the fact that you were unaware of how previous versions worked, suggest?
I'm using the same version, but, in all fairness, I didn't recompile six hours ago.
Btw, are we talking about the same thing? I'm referring the place where you type in URLs and the drop-down menu that comes from that place, populated by URLs you've typed in before.
Yeah, another GREAT feature Firefox added was making it so it doesn't load URLs that you click on in the URL bar[1], so you have to hit enter or click the "go" button, and then made it so none of the help or FAQs or google hits shows you how to fix that. Oh well, at least this time it didn't delete my bookmarks.
[1]You know, the place where you type in URLs, and has a drop-down list of recently visited URLs... don't play dumb with terminology.
You forgot what they could have done regarding expanded use of nuclear power, similar to how John Kerry forgot to mention Poland as part of the initial coalition when speaking about the Iraq War in the 2004 presidential debates.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned how this might be unnerving for old people, who may not adjust well to the new paper. (Believe it or not, Seattle has old people too!) Keep in mind, these are the people who cost the government and local check depositors lots of extra money by refusing to switch their Social Security payments to direct deposit because they love the warm, fuzzy feeling of getting a check in the mail.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh oh...
I have an LCD monitor at home and work with a 24-bit display and I see color banding in pictures (including of the sky). I could never see such banding on my CRT for the same pictures. That's what originally bothered me about it.
I'm not confused, and I described it correctly. I know LiarSux worked like that because I remember it not being a pain to load URLs from that list. I could just click on the URL bar, click on a previously-visited URL, and it would instantly load.
... I can dream.)
But let's say you're right: LiarSux NEVER had that functionality, under any setting or version. Still, IE has it. Kinda lame that LiarSux can't match IE on an important feature for convenience. (It would also be nice if saving large files didn't cause the browser to hang up
I think you can at least be sure the government will never have a "no-buy-home" list ... the closest thing they'd have would be "loser who still rents" list ... such is the government's fascination with promoting homedebtorship.
My original citation was to John Gatto's work. You'd said that you thought "the other coward" was fabricating a statement "about [factory] labor 'drying up' quickly". My original post was to provide a resource that confirms "the other coward's" statement.
No. Your source was not even trying to support that statement (about competing capitalists inadvertently drying up the labor pool and being unable to staff their factories profitably):
"I'm generally unfamiliar with the early years of industrialization and factories, but John Gatto does say in his Underground History of American Education [johntaylorgatto.com] that modern factory schools were established to provide workers for industry, and to train free people to become obedient 'consumers'."
It tried to support a subtly different statement, that modern schools "were started" for all kinds of heinous purposes, but NOT as a result of a general conspiracy of corporations. As I pointed out before, the original claim -- that corporations organized through some kind of gentlemen's agreement to pacify generations of otherwise independent-minded youth -- would force us to reject the bulk of anti-corporatist ideology by holding that corporations look 15+ years ahead, and that they use their own children as sacrificial lambs.
Remember, it's not enough to cite reams of sources -- they have to actually support a relevant claim you made.
The sobering truth is that the public school system, in each state, exists because it has phenomenal voter support predicated on all kinds of FUD about homeschooling, declining property values (for those who bought a house JUST to be in a good school district), and discrimination by privately-run schools. It's comforting, but wrong, to believe that it's just the evil rich behind this.
This bit about school being created to provide a labor force for early industrialists is crucial to the whole debate. Because, if it's true, then there is no such thing as a "free market" in America, as most of the market's participants have been mind-fucked without their even realizing it. Without their indoctrination in the government's schools, individuals would make substantially different choices in their lives, and the economy would be totally different...
Extreme overstatement. It merely means that the actors *within the market however free it may be* have different values. Perhaps they would have a higher preference for self-employment. But no proponent of capitalist considers emergent, common self-employment within an unregulated market to be "not capitalism" or "not a free market".
I'd much rather read original sources for your position
I wasn't providing a position; I was providing a reality-check for some extreme statements made by some ACs. As for the claims made here (and confining it to free internet stuff):
Regarding the claims from Carson's work, check out this issue of the JLS, specifically this one, which makes a lot of the same arguments I made here with citations.
For a summary of the environment-related points, Reisman again provides a good summary, starting on page 76 of this. (Huge file, but free.)
*ahem*, you said, "Sure, once you read this library of books I'm going to suggest in order to support a self-evidently absurd claim." I'm calling you out. :)
Wow, you're really slow at this, aren't you? I didn't actually have a library (though I could list one if you did something that justified it). The point was that we can throw citations at each other all day; if you don't say why the citation is relevant, or explain what it's trying to prove, or admit it claims something patently absurd, there's no point in even going to the source -- it's basically just asking me to prove your arguments. Can you see the problem now?
Class warfare is not about disparities in individuals' level of "richness" - it is about making a few people fantastically wealthy, and making everyone else dirt poor. Not because they're lazy or unable to change and adapt, but because the entire system is rigged for the benefit of the wealthy
I understand you feel that way. But how do *raw statistics* about the disparity in wealth prove that the system is rigged, rather than rewarding those believed capable of providing superior returns?
I caught that we agree that agriculture subsidies have undesirable side effects.
That's not going to cut it, I'm afraid. I pointed out that one of the *beneficiaries* of these policies is people who get underpriced food, and that your argument that they are not really beneficiaries reduces to the claim that "labor saving improvements are really bad". Telling me to go read Chomsky isn't impressive. If all he's going to do is "prove" that, it doesn't help your case. Only now are you revealing any understanding of the claims you wanted me to go read.
Who Will Feed China? covers the peril China faces
Okay, a scare story about how someone knows -- but all the investors in agircultural commodities don't know -- that there's really going to be a supermassive crop failure soon and will kill off China. Do I really have to respond?
Agriculture should be a local endeavor. Surplus grains can be used for meat production, beer/booze, or as a reserve for years when harvests are a little leaner. Globalized agriculture disrupts local production of food, and the lives of middle-class people everywhere.
No, this is your uninformed bias speaking. Billions of people have gladly ditched agriculture for better, less grueling work once it was mechanized. Your claim that it leaves people vulerable to supply shocks just shows your ignorance of modern commodity futures markets.
I've referenced three books directly, one CD, one man's life work (I have three of Holt's books, including How Children Fail and How Children Learn). My position is well supported - what's backing you up?
No, it's not well-supported. That would assume you have a coherent position and know where the work of others integrates with and supports your beliefs, which you haven't revealed. Now, what's backing me up? Go read the Julian Simon Wikipedia article and the futures contract article.
I don't like, have to put any of that in my own words, do I? That would be soooooooooooo much work.
Raw data: chaotic historical graphs that show the influence of several non-linear influences.
Implied conclusion: It's nearly impossible to predict future changes when you have only one test case.
Missing scientific interpretation: We can handwave away all that uncertainty to get more funding and it's not like any experiment could prove our model wrong.
Actual scientific conclusion: Incentives matter.
Is it really that easy now to learn an undocumented language, just from verbal radio transmissions and knowledge of related war events?
Incidentally, I suspect security through obscurity can serve a purpose in encryption. As I understand it, with public key encryption, it may be computationally intensive, but at least it can be automated and the problem is well-defined. If the eavesdropper had to first figure out, from the set of all possible encryption methods, which encryption method you were using, it may force her to apply human labor to finding the solution, which may be the scarcer resource.
I'm waiting for a list.
Sure, google it. That's just as reasonable as your request that I go prove your claim, something you can't justify in your own words.
It is further evidence supportive of the charge that an undeclared state of class warfare is being perpetrated against the American middle class.
No, "evidence" would mean "eliminates all hypotheses but mine". That condition would just as well arise from people more highly valuing the labor of those specific CEOs. And when was the discussion about whether there is an undeclared state of class warfare? Show me the *specific things* causing that negative effect, not just the existence of the negative effect.
I'm sorry - I don't get how the three qualities are mutually exclusive. Please link or explain.
Simple: any time people are free to succeed or fail, and society permitted to change and adapt, not everyone will become equally rich. All but the most bone-headed egalitarians accept this. That's why I mentioned that it's no suprise there will be inequality. Big deal. I didn't understand why you want me to care about it if I don't already hate the rich.
Try again - click on the 'parent' link in your comment above, and re-read what I actually wrote. Or download Chomsky's talk, and listen to what he said. The bit about subsidized agriculture is in the first 1/2 hour.
Why don't you try again, to read what I actually posted (and see my sig while you're at it)? You clearly don't understand what I'm objecting to. I agree that agriculture subsidies are bad. Do you "get" that? What I disagree is *where* the bad effects manifest. And I claim that receiving underpriced food is *not* pad for those receiving the underpriced food. The subsidies are bad because of the general allocative inefficiencies they induce. But no, I'm not going to cry for the dumb foreigner who claims there is ABSOLUTELY ONLY ONE JOB he is ever capable of doing.
How can you do a Best of 2007 when we aren't even half way through 2007?????
It's like how I get my May issue in April, or my May 6 issue on April 29, or do my 45-minute hour with my consultant, or buy my 1.5'' x 3.5'' two-by-four, or buy my 1080p PS3 that downscales to 720p, or have a mortgage rate of 5.9% that really means a 6.1% annual interest rate, or learn about an inflation rate of 2.5% that jumps to 3.5% if I have to do anything crazy like buy food or energy.
(Btw, anyone know how to get Canon's powershot to upload to YouTube without making the sound out-of-sync?)
Right, it's because now they start sucking out your data.
In Soviet Russia, website downloads YOU!
Who rats the rats? Rat rats. And who rats the rat rats? Rat rat rats rat rat rats.
(Aside: The German word for "rats" is "Ratten". The German word for City Hall is "Rathaus". No German I ever met, saw ANY potential for a pun in criticizing City Hall.)
Actually, I think the more direct translation would be:
"Vigilance not dormance is helped by equity."
suggest you read the linked book yourself, consider the proposition, and decide for yourself whether the claim has any merit
Sure, once you read this library of books I'm going to suggest in order to support a self-evidently absurd claim.
Be sure to also consider the modern-day concentration of capital in the hands of the few - Executive pay vs. Worker-drone pay rising from 42x in 1982 to 350x today, for example.
What does that have to do with this topic, other than your attempt to draw in a tangential issue that upsets you? "Free, dynamic, equal, pick two"
How are hundreds of Mexican corn farmers (using labor-intensive farming methods) supposed to make a living off their farm if they have to compete with my grandfather's two tenant farmers, who plant and harvest hundreds of acres by themselves with their advanced tractors & harvesters? The real-world says they can't, and millions of displaced farmers and farm laborers become economic refugees. They're desperate for any kind of work in teh cities, no matter how boring & hazardous it might be.
Yeah, heaven forbid someone have to adapt to their skills falling in value.
Do I really have to explain this to you? You just argued that all labor-saving technology is bad.
I'm generally unfamiliar with the early years of industrialization and factories, but John Gatto does say in his Underground History of American Education that modern factory schools were established to provide workers for industry, and to train free people to become obedient 'consumers'.
... it's kind of hard to maintain that claim -- that corporations together solved the public goods problem and enacted far-reaching legislation that would hurt their own members' children and not yield fruits for at least 15 years -- *and* the claim that profit-seeking corporations only care about their shareholders and the next quarter's bottom line.
... but I can't buy the claim that "receiving underpriced food" constitutes "losing". Unless you want to claim we can help foreign countries by blockading them (and thereby creating LOTS of jobs for EVERYONE). What does Chomsky say about that?
I don't want to defend public schools but
Noam Chomsky's Class War (also available via torrent) talk covers this same topic from a slightly different angle. Third-world peasant farmers can't compete with western subsidized industrial agriculture (where a single farmer can plant and harvest hundreds of acres of corn while relaxing in his climate-controlled GPS-piloted tractor) American manufacturers can't compete with displaced peasant farmers, whose governments were tricked into eliminating tariffs on agriculture imports by free-trade agreements. Every loses (peasant farmers, American middle class, etc), except those who are already wealthy...
Giving people cheap food hurts them? Whatever, dude. Look, I'm against agriculture subsidies
Hey, at least they got it right the second time.
Though if you really want to make me happy, how about we drop this practice of adding exceptions to English just to satisfy the format of the language it was adopted from? Call them "General Attorneys" and "General Surgeons". I want my adjective modifiers BEFORE my nouns, dagnabbit!
In the modern era (long after such entities as The East India Company) the pressures to "modernize" an economy are frequently exerted through external bodies such as the WTO.
... my ... god. Did you really just characterize the liberalization of laws against the capitalist class as anti-Semitic? In case you haven't noticed, anti-capitalism has long been closely tied to anti-Semitism.
... I just wish you lefties would get your story straight. Whenever someone tries to abo
Even if true (and even if that modernization is objectionable) you're conceding the broader point I was making: that those benefiting from the cheap labor are not the same ones causing the labor to have to sell for cheap. And you haven't shown how the WTO caused the poverty in the developing country, which is generally targeted because it *already* sucks.
it just sucks ass if you're the one who gets to be 'modernized.'
You mean like Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea? Yeah, sure sucks to be in those places.
You're assuming things not in evidence. Population growth and industrialization happened concurrently, and since the 'population bomb' scares of the 70's, we've gained a lot of evidence that overpopulation tends to correct itself unless the overarching socio-economic structures are broken at a fundamental level.
Yes, it does correct itself -- when markets can give price signals for the over-demanded goods and reward those who make them more plentiful! My point was that as the open-field system stood, use of land was a free-for-all with ill-defined rights. It was impossible to try new varieties of seed, hybrids, animal breeding, mechanization, etc., when you couldn't be sure if you'd even get the plot next year, or if someone else wouldn't overuse it. Thus, it was a world of ever-more-intense competition for a smaller slice of the pie, instead of an increasing pie. The "correcting itself" I think you're referring to is higher death rates due to lower food availability.
How so? Having land is not evil in itself -- it's arrogating a monopoly on land to yourself and/or your social class. Remember I'm a red anarchist. I decry property, not possession
I strongly suspect you can't articulate the difference.
Artisans were driven into the modern economy mostly by secondary effects, though there were economic restructuring acts which had a direct impact.
Handwave.
Prior to this era, barter was the most common means of informal trade on the free market, but with the loss of private lands and such, the barter economy vanishes. The artisan who might have bartered with his neighbour for the wood of a couple trees that were on his neighbour's land may now instead have to seek materials from the new owners of the forests and fields -- and be charged exorbitant prices due to a small purchase lot, lack of a pre-existing contract,
Yes, it's all feel-good to dream about these days, but what you left out was that there was still a cost to these barter transactions. The reason the wood sold for so much after, was because it was actually being placed on a market where anyone could bid, and those actually applying it to higher-valued ends were having their bids considered. When you look only at that altruistic neighbor bartering wood to his neighbor, you ignore all the people who didn't get a chance to buy that wood at all, even though they'd pay more and make better use of it.
being Jewish on a Wednesday, etc.
oh
Then there's the whole matter of new rules and legislation "for the public good" which may require expensive licensing or specific manufacturing procedures before you're allowed to sell goods. ("To protect the customer from inferior mechandise!" or in plain english: "to guarantee the market for the wealthiest and most politically powerful makers!")
Oh, I absolutely agree those laws suck
You mean, like, it could be a girl that can ... you know, hehe, well, ... dunno how to say it... well, a girl that can actually play Halo?
Actually, in Spanish, a girl who can play Halo would be a(n) halita. Or something.
Because some people pronounce "ask" as "aks", defeating the whole purpose.
To present the other side:
1) Foreign multinationals typically have nothing to do with living standards in developing countries, which were like that long before they ever got involved. Trying to manipulate an entire government, just so you can move your factories there is just not proftiable because it creates an immense free rider problem: all of your competitors can then get the cheap labor without paying your costs. I would agree with your hypothesis in places where one company is given a sort of monopoly on setting up factories, but there aren't many of them.
2) The open field system was not sustainable. Population growth alone would have increased the load on public lands to the point of worthlessness. Property rights in that land had to become well-defined at some point or another. To the extent that it was an injustice, it was an injustice because those dispossessed of their traditional rights were not compensated. However, this would put them in the same position of the parasites you decry.
3) Even if landed farmers wouldn't want to work for pennies, that doens't explain artisans, who wouldn't be affected by enclosures. Now, I can understand why wealthy factory owners would want to drive down wages *before investing in factories*, but it strains credibility to claim that they FIRST built the factories, knowing they couldn't staff them, and THEN demanded (slow-enacting) legal changes that would finally make them profitable. The reason the factories rendered home-based artisanship unprofitable was because operating a power loom is (literally) child's play. And let's not forget the role of Carson's beloved guilds in preventing people from selling cheaper cloth.
Why in the world would I want it to behave differently?
I wouldn't. That's how it worked in the earlier version of LiarSux I was using.
In any case, if you do, it would be a tiny, simple extension to write.
Yes, if I already knew how to write extensions, which I didn't know was a requirement for getting basic functionality out of a web browser -- functionality that already existed in previous versions.
The fact that that extension doesn't exist suggests that very few people want that behavior.
What does the fact that you were unaware of how previous versions worked, suggest?
I'm using the same version, but, in all fairness, I didn't recompile six hours ago.
Btw, are we talking about the same thing? I'm referring the place where you type in URLs and the drop-down menu that comes from that place, populated by URLs you've typed in before.
Yeah, another GREAT feature Firefox added was making it so it doesn't load URLs that you click on in the URL bar[1], so you have to hit enter or click the "go" button, and then made it so none of the help or FAQs or google hits shows you how to fix that. Oh well, at least this time it didn't delete my bookmarks.
... don't play dumb with terminology.
[1]You know, the place where you type in URLs, and has a drop-down list of recently visited URLs
I was comparing a) how the original poster forgot to mention nuclear, to b) how John Kerry forgot to mention Poland.
There's (surprisingly) a Wikipedia article about it now.
I know, it's a tenuous comparison.
You forgot what they could have done regarding expanded use of nuclear power, similar to how John Kerry forgot to mention Poland as part of the initial coalition when speaking about the Iraq War in the 2004 presidential debates.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned how this might be unnerving for old people, who may not adjust well to the new paper. (Believe it or not, Seattle has old people too!) Keep in mind, these are the people who cost the government and local check depositors lots of extra money by refusing to switch their Social Security payments to direct deposit because they love the warm, fuzzy feeling of getting a check in the mail.