You obviously haven't read the book, based on the form of your dismissal. "Oh, gosh, somebody read a book, I better cite Marx to discredit the book."
The funny thing about it is that Marx cites Adam Smith's description of the problem of collusion in business, but doesn't even address Smith's solution to the problem. He just handwaves that because the problem exists, private enterprise is horrible.
I didn't say anything about "read the book and follow the rules." You have to read the book, understand the principles, understand the context, and apply the system of problem-solving to the context of the problem you're trying to solve, within the political constraints of the day. It turns out not every book is a bullshit set of absolutes; some actually discuss problems with the goal of increasing understanding of them. You will not find absolutes and rules in Wealth of Nations; you'll find analysis of a bunch of specific problems within their historical context, and analysis of the solutions that were competing at the time.
For example on the building of roads, idiots who didn't read the book often like to point out that Smith was in favor of toll roads; but what he analyzed and compared was two ways of maintaining roads: giving the landowner a lump sum of cash to maintain the road traversing his land in exchange for public right of passage, or allowing him to charge tolls. Between these two, he goes through all the different ways that granting a lump sum payment will encourage low-quality roads and interfere with commerce because the roads will be closed for repair frequently, and will only ever get the least amount of repair that is allowed under the system. (with lots of excuses by the responsible party) Compare that to a toll road, and you can see that the toll road will be better maintained, and so commerce will be encouraged. Business people will know the toll, and expect the road to be open because the owner won't receive the toll if you have to take a different route. Commerce gains predictability from the toll road. Now, if you apply that same analysis to the modern American system of government traffic engineers deciding what needs to be fixed, and hiring private construction companies to do the actual work, it isn't hard to see that it results in greater access, and a high quality of roads, presuming there is sufficient tax revenue available. And if there isn't enough tax revenue, (such as in countries with weak government) then toll roads again are expected to be better.
He goes through it industry by industry, and you can redo the analysis using modern contexts.
He also points out that universities aren't subject to price competition, and so the economy benefits by public involvement. Most industries of his day are analyzed in this way.
If you attempt a chargeback without cause, they'll dispute it and win, your card will get canceled, and you'll potentially be unable to get a credit card for a few years because of credit abuse. Fake chargebacks are no joke, because they deal with banks.
The reason the trolls can do this with paypal is only because paypal isn't a bank, and so isn't held to the industry standards.
I would wonder, "how the hell did I end up stuck in a room with screens I don't control, that are showing commercial propaganda, and where the bleep is the exit?
The easiest way to stay above it all is to not ask, and still not know what it is, and not even tell anybody. I'm so hip, nobody knows how hip I am. I don't even know, because I don't have time to worry about if I'm the only one who doesn't know the new fad.
So you believe they're buying routers and switches that can't do ipv6, rather than that they simply haven't changed a config file to turn it on for the end user?
I don't believe that that is the normal case; and I don't believe these ISPs don't already provide it to business customers, or to servers hosted in their data centers. And I don't think they have end-to-end separate networks for residential and business customers. Some parts are separate, but most often the residential customers are on a more restricted virtual network with a single underlying physical network.
You're redefining words like "correctly" to only match certain reduced values. Correct is normally understood to mean correct; not partially correct, or correct-except-for-details.
That would be a more aggressive blow against ipv6 than what they are currently doing.
No, turning it off at their own server is much lighter affect than having their customers turn it off on their own computers. If they turn it off on their end, all the rest of the customers traffic can still be ipv6 and you'll have both happening at the same time. Turning it off at the customer turns it off for all sites that customer visits.
In the short term, end users are still going to have ipv4 addresses. The immediate problem with having run out is for new servers, or new ISPs.
The real problem here is that netflix should be handling it at their end; stop returning ipv6 DNS responses and peoples computers won't try to connect with ipv6. Making customers turn off ipv6 on their computers will result in those users being unable to connect to some new services. Plus, many don't know how. The ad-hoc system of allowing some ipv6 blocks but not others is going to hurt them unless it only affects a small number of people.
Reputation doesn't matter if you can't get ipv4 addresses.
ipv6 hasn't "been taking forever to deploy." It has been deployed for a long, long time; what is known is that until ipv4 addresses ran out, there was no pressing need to switch. But the infrastructure was already deployed a long time ago.
It isn't a myth, people just didn't read their Adam Smith and they have no idea what it means. When does the "free market" arise? Does it arise when you take away all the rules? No, that is the Feudal system that Capitalism was designed to fix! Capitalism means that the government is looking over everybody's shoulders, and making sure that the playing field remains level, and constantly making adjustments to stop the tricks that the entrenched businesses will be trying. Then, with the neutral third party regulating the market to ensure fairness, things are predictable and that predictability allows capital to rule; people can decide based on math if they should invest or not. The whole point of Capitalism is protecting the new entrants into a market from the established companies, who will always be in a position to use collusion and other tricks to keep out new companies.
Currently, the established companies have tricked everybody, even small businesses wanting to compete with them, even the workers, into believing that "Capitalism" means just letting the entrenched interests set the rules. No, that was the problem that Capitalism can solve...
That they trick small business is sad, but predictable when none of the major (or minor!) political parties remember what Capitalism means. Many Democrats support true Capitalism, but they don't know what the word means and they think they're supporting a mixed system, and it leaves them unprepared to educate people. Most people who support what Adam Smith advocated believe themselves to be anti-Capitalism, at least partially! It is insane.
Maybe, but it could be technically legal and yet still unethical, in which case she will win her case. Even if there is no "fine." Or, she could win the case and they could be fined, sued, or investigated by the government. Firing people for raising ethical objections is a very dangerous thing. It is a much better idea to bribe them with a golden severance package so that they'll be happy to part ways and buy an island. Or just, you know, stop asking them to do unethical things. Have a special team for that. Keep them secret.
And by "as friendly as a vintage VCR," for the young readers I'll point out that that means any 8 year old could do it easily, but grandpa might refuse to even try because manuals are for wimps and buttons and lights are mysterious.
It is almost exactly the same as setting the time on a digital watch, something even most kids did when they were slightly younger kids. Most families still have a digital clock somewhere in the house that gets set twice a year because of daylight saving time.
I don't doubt it is easier if it was wifi or bt and you can set it from a smart phone, but it is only goes from easy to easier. It isn't worth a 1000% price increase to very many people.
Because you'll still have to set it on a schedule; even if you want your smart house to be nosy and pay attention to if you're home or not, the tech just isn't good enough yet.
Fedora is for people that wish to be as close to penis that giveth the systemd-piss-stream-of-bad-ideas as possible.
I try to stay close to my penis every day, but then again, I'm a Fedora user who appreciates the improvements that systemd offers over SysV init.
People who think they love SysV crap should be all be rounded up and imprisoned at a University until they have a CS degree, at which point they should be sentenced to ten years of debugging futzy semaphores. And if they flunk out, they should instead be sentenced to 10 years of debugging loops in bash scripts that only use "libraries" common in SysV init scripts.
The SCOTUS isn't that partisan. I'm pretty liberal, but I trust Chief Justice Roberts to honestly continue to vote for his own legal values, and I trust that all the members of the Court are patriotic Americans.
I think this is the first time I've ever seen or heard the phrases "intelligence community" and "in good faith" in the same sentence.
Pop your head outside the echo chamber more often, the world isn't the way it is because space aliens dropped our gubermint out of the sky this way.
The world is the way it is because there are people who support it being this way. This is equally true regardless of if you support [insert issue] or not.
If the docs aren't redacted 16 ways to Sunday they're part of someone's narrative.
That is a non-falsifiable belief. Keep the Faith, right?
I mean, if you don't know, then you already have reason to... not know what it means. I certainly don't know the meaning of documents released by agencies that typically redact a lot of stuff.
But not knowing is different than simply knowing because you can't know, which is irrational.
Now my memory might be a little foggy, but wasn't his initial reasoning that he saw others do that just to be intimidated and fired?
Yes, but that is why he didn't raise the issue internally, rather than what happened when he did. Those are different things. A lot of people are falsely claiming that he did actually attempt to raise concerns internally, eg, blow the whistle. That didn't happen. Instead, he leaked it to the international public.
IMO people should support or oppose his actions based on what he did do, rather than on what he is known to have not done.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously haven't read the book, based on the form of your dismissal. "Oh, gosh, somebody read a book, I better cite Marx to discredit the book."
The funny thing about it is that Marx cites Adam Smith's description of the problem of collusion in business, but doesn't even address Smith's solution to the problem. He just handwaves that because the problem exists, private enterprise is horrible.
I didn't say anything about "read the book and follow the rules." You have to read the book, understand the principles, understand the context, and apply the system of problem-solving to the context of the problem you're trying to solve, within the political constraints of the day. It turns out not every book is a bullshit set of absolutes; some actually discuss problems with the goal of increasing understanding of them. You will not find absolutes and rules in Wealth of Nations; you'll find analysis of a bunch of specific problems within their historical context, and analysis of the solutions that were competing at the time.
For example on the building of roads, idiots who didn't read the book often like to point out that Smith was in favor of toll roads; but what he analyzed and compared was two ways of maintaining roads: giving the landowner a lump sum of cash to maintain the road traversing his land in exchange for public right of passage, or allowing him to charge tolls. Between these two, he goes through all the different ways that granting a lump sum payment will encourage low-quality roads and interfere with commerce because the roads will be closed for repair frequently, and will only ever get the least amount of repair that is allowed under the system. (with lots of excuses by the responsible party) Compare that to a toll road, and you can see that the toll road will be better maintained, and so commerce will be encouraged. Business people will know the toll, and expect the road to be open because the owner won't receive the toll if you have to take a different route. Commerce gains predictability from the toll road. Now, if you apply that same analysis to the modern American system of government traffic engineers deciding what needs to be fixed, and hiring private construction companies to do the actual work, it isn't hard to see that it results in greater access, and a high quality of roads, presuming there is sufficient tax revenue available. And if there isn't enough tax revenue, (such as in countries with weak government) then toll roads again are expected to be better.
He goes through it industry by industry, and you can redo the analysis using modern contexts.
He also points out that universities aren't subject to price competition, and so the economy benefits by public involvement. Most industries of his day are analyzed in this way.
Well, the glass combined with the locking doors and movement of the vehicle.
If you attempt a chargeback without cause, they'll dispute it and win, your card will get canceled, and you'll potentially be unable to get a credit card for a few years because of credit abuse. Fake chargebacks are no joke, because they deal with banks.
The reason the trolls can do this with paypal is only because paypal isn't a bank, and so isn't held to the industry standards.
Wow, you're in pretty deep if you think that a company is society. And indeed, only companies that spend a lot of money on propaganda.
I'll give you a hint: that isn't what social awareness means.
I would wonder, "how the hell did I end up stuck in a room with screens I don't control, that are showing commercial propaganda, and where the bleep is the exit?
The easiest way to stay above it all is to not ask, and still not know what it is, and not even tell anybody. I'm so hip, nobody knows how hip I am. I don't even know, because I don't have time to worry about if I'm the only one who doesn't know the new fad.
If they did it consistently, it would redeem them... on this one issue out of dozens of persistent problems they have.
So you believe they're buying routers and switches that can't do ipv6, rather than that they simply haven't changed a config file to turn it on for the end user?
I don't believe that that is the normal case; and I don't believe these ISPs don't already provide it to business customers, or to servers hosted in their data centers. And I don't think they have end-to-end separate networks for residential and business customers. Some parts are separate, but most often the residential customers are on a more restricted virtual network with a single underlying physical network.
You're redefining words like "correctly" to only match certain reduced values. Correct is normally understood to mean correct; not partially correct, or correct-except-for-details.
That would be a more aggressive blow against ipv6 than what they are currently doing.
No, turning it off at their own server is much lighter affect than having their customers turn it off on their own computers. If they turn it off on their end, all the rest of the customers traffic can still be ipv6 and you'll have both happening at the same time. Turning it off at the customer turns it off for all sites that customer visits.
Tell me, where did you learn how to reason?
Cable newsvertainment.
In the short term, end users are still going to have ipv4 addresses. The immediate problem with having run out is for new servers, or new ISPs.
The real problem here is that netflix should be handling it at their end; stop returning ipv6 DNS responses and peoples computers won't try to connect with ipv6. Making customers turn off ipv6 on their computers will result in those users being unable to connect to some new services. Plus, many don't know how. The ad-hoc system of allowing some ipv6 blocks but not others is going to hurt them unless it only affects a small number of people.
Reputation doesn't matter if you can't get ipv4 addresses.
ipv6 hasn't "been taking forever to deploy." It has been deployed for a long, long time; what is known is that until ipv4 addresses ran out, there was no pressing need to switch. But the infrastructure was already deployed a long time ago.
It isn't a myth, people just didn't read their Adam Smith and they have no idea what it means. When does the "free market" arise? Does it arise when you take away all the rules? No, that is the Feudal system that Capitalism was designed to fix! Capitalism means that the government is looking over everybody's shoulders, and making sure that the playing field remains level, and constantly making adjustments to stop the tricks that the entrenched businesses will be trying. Then, with the neutral third party regulating the market to ensure fairness, things are predictable and that predictability allows capital to rule; people can decide based on math if they should invest or not. The whole point of Capitalism is protecting the new entrants into a market from the established companies, who will always be in a position to use collusion and other tricks to keep out new companies.
Currently, the established companies have tricked everybody, even small businesses wanting to compete with them, even the workers, into believing that "Capitalism" means just letting the entrenched interests set the rules. No, that was the problem that Capitalism can solve...
That they trick small business is sad, but predictable when none of the major (or minor!) political parties remember what Capitalism means. Many Democrats support true Capitalism, but they don't know what the word means and they think they're supporting a mixed system, and it leaves them unprepared to educate people. Most people who support what Adam Smith advocated believe themselves to be anti-Capitalism, at least partially! It is insane.
Maybe, but it could be technically legal and yet still unethical, in which case she will win her case. Even if there is no "fine." Or, she could win the case and they could be fined, sued, or investigated by the government. Firing people for raising ethical objections is a very dangerous thing. It is a much better idea to bribe them with a golden severance package so that they'll be happy to part ways and buy an island. Or just, you know, stop asking them to do unethical things. Have a special team for that. Keep them secret.
And by "as friendly as a vintage VCR," for the young readers I'll point out that that means any 8 year old could do it easily, but grandpa might refuse to even try because manuals are for wimps and buttons and lights are mysterious.
It is almost exactly the same as setting the time on a digital watch, something even most kids did when they were slightly younger kids. Most families still have a digital clock somewhere in the house that gets set twice a year because of daylight saving time.
I don't doubt it is easier if it was wifi or bt and you can set it from a smart phone, but it is only goes from easy to easier. It isn't worth a 1000% price increase to very many people.
Because you'll still have to set it on a schedule; even if you want your smart house to be nosy and pay attention to if you're home or not, the tech just isn't good enough yet.
And some live in the basement where it is naturally cool in the summer.
Funny thing about that, a $25 thermostat from the box store is programmable, and works OK for people with predictable schedules...
First clever one of these I've seen in years, well done!
You should start visiting events he's speaking at and stand outside with a protest sign that just says, " dadada ."
Fedora is for people that wish to be as close to penis that giveth the systemd-piss-stream-of-bad-ideas as possible.
I try to stay close to my penis every day, but then again, I'm a Fedora user who appreciates the improvements that systemd offers over SysV init.
People who think they love SysV crap should be all be rounded up and imprisoned at a University until they have a CS degree, at which point they should be sentenced to ten years of debugging futzy semaphores. And if they flunk out, they should instead be sentenced to 10 years of debugging loops in bash scripts that only use "libraries" common in SysV init scripts.
The SCOTUS isn't that partisan. I'm pretty liberal, but I trust Chief Justice Roberts to honestly continue to vote for his own legal values, and I trust that all the members of the Court are patriotic Americans.
I think this is the first time I've ever seen or heard the phrases "intelligence community" and "in good faith" in the same sentence.
Pop your head outside the echo chamber more often, the world isn't the way it is because space aliens dropped our gubermint out of the sky this way.
The world is the way it is because there are people who support it being this way. This is equally true regardless of if you support [insert issue] or not.
If the docs aren't redacted 16 ways to Sunday they're part of someone's narrative.
That is a non-falsifiable belief. Keep the Faith, right?
I mean, if you don't know, then you already have reason to... not know what it means. I certainly don't know the meaning of documents released by agencies that typically redact a lot of stuff.
But not knowing is different than simply knowing because you can't know, which is irrational.
Now my memory might be a little foggy, but wasn't his initial reasoning that he saw others do that just to be intimidated and fired?
Yes, but that is why he didn't raise the issue internally, rather than what happened when he did. Those are different things. A lot of people are falsely claiming that he did actually attempt to raise concerns internally, eg, blow the whistle. That didn't happen. Instead, he leaked it to the international public.
IMO people should support or oppose his actions based on what he did do, rather than on what he is known to have not done.