And this is not one of them. No compelling case for it being one has been made.
Most people interested in the topic are too busy shouting anti-American slogans to actually discuss the moral implications and formulate counter-arguments to the arguments in support of the nanny state.
They don't realize that they're the NSA's best friends, akin to the UFO nuts who helped the Air Force keep certain aircraft research programs secret after crashes that killed test pilots and could have exposed the programs.
If these fools were more serious about creating change than patting themselves on the back, the first thing they'd do is start speaking out against pejorative attacks on anybody that disagrees with them. You have about 0% chance of changing people's minds when you start calling them names instead of talking to them, and if you place yourself on the same "team" as people calling names, then anybody who disagrees with you can write you off without question. They may not know the truth about whatever the Government is doing, but they can easily dismiss anti-social bullies.
A) Dollars not spent by the government on a government program probably wouldn't otherwise go to your pet causes B) There is nothing altruistic, or claimed to be such, about supporting children's science education. It is done because it benefits America, not because they good warm fuzzies from helping kids. C) Economies are not zero-sum. Not investing in something does not automatically mean something else will increase; actually the opposite is more often true. Money doesn't get spent once and then evaporate, it gets spent again and again, and the amount of trade in an economy vastly outweighs the number of dollars in that economy. Anything trade that you just cross off and don't spend on, that is a decrease in the total amount of economic activity. It doesn't increase anything. D) The NSA budget is mostly black. Congress gives them a large pile of money, and doesn't get to see the books for what it is spent on. If they decreased spending on a math program, any earmarked money that might be re-assigned would go to secret NSA programs, it would not in any circumstance magically be handed over to some imagined Department of Altruism. What it would actually do is decrease the funding for schools, and increase funding for hidden parts of the programs. That would almost certainly decrease the economic activity associated with the expenditure, because schools and education generally has lower average wages than the NSA, and has a higher percent of the budget going to salaries. Wages generally, and especially lower wager, get re-spent faster than other types of expenditures and increase the economy more. So you would almost certainly decrease the available funds to whatever non-education pet causes you imagine would benefit.
Maybe your should re-watch it, and try to find some plot themes. I don't think there was anything in it about having to agree with anti-government positions. It might be that the moral themes are all entirely personal, and no politics was covered.
Somebody from the NSA could just as easily wave their hands as you can, and say (some random movie that involved math) supports their position, and is an example of the good done by their support of math programs.
Citation needed. You're just waving your hands and saying "NSA" next to the word "corruption." Has that been established? Is that even part of the alleged misdeeds?
It strikes me as odd that people become more credulous of anything anti-American after hearing accusations that the NSA did more work than some people knew about or approved of. How does NSA over-spying make media like The Guardian more trustworthy? The obvious answer is that it doesn't, and if your belief in NSA capabilities increased, your level of credulity towards any public information source should go down at the same time.
Your enemies enemy might not be your friend, they might just be another liar with an agenda. But when you're so credulous you're repeating accusations that aren't even in the information claimed to have been leaked, you can be pretty sure you've been turned into a political pawn.
Those are very strong assumptions you make. Has it even been established that your team is the arbiter of what is good or evil? Or do you just assume that your subjective judgement should be sufficient to tell people what is right and wrong?
There is a huge gap between, "I believe ____ therefore I will do ____" and "I believe ____ therefore everybody else should do ____."
Some of us use most of it, and we've been using it the whole time. It isn't obsolete at all, it is the most popular thing. You envision people stopping using it, but that is not the present tense.
The same reason I have a locking desk drawer with a wimpy lock that a professional thief could easily defeat: it keeps co-workers from gaining casual access.
The same reason I lock my car doors, and it generally prevents theft. They can still break the window or use other access techniques; my car is not actually secured. I wouldn't leave something important in it though, like a HD full of confidential customer information.
So even a not-fully-secured workstation benefits from casual access control. But thinking it is secure might prevent the creation of more secure systems to store confidential data.
Knowing the real level of security achieved is vital to assessing how your processes meet your security needs.
That isn't really new-school, we had those same morons in the 90s. The difference was, all the "year of the linux desktop" crap caused a bunch of corporate funding to implement their schemes, and now they think they're all that matters.
Thank goodness for open source. Even if they embrace and extend X11, they can't take it from me, they can't extinguish it. We'll always have CLI ways of doing everything important "because servers." So I'll always be able to get by with my clunky old *nix workstation preferences and ancient software.
I've had the same.Xresources file since the 90s. It has been renamed a few times over the years, but they can have it when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
I know you never heard of the OTG standard, but you don't have buy a special cable to try it out. Just cut open the micro USB cable and solder the unused pin to the ground pin, and now you can use that cable to attach standard USB keyboards, etc. to your portable linux device.
They use a secure screen locker that integrates into their corporate what-the-what. What they don't do is use the password-protected screen saver that is bundled with the window system as if it was a security device.
You're tricking yourself into security theater. You can't intercept an actual ctrl-alt-del, but you can read the ctrl and alt keys, and just unlock your fake lock a couple seconds later. For bonus points, as soon as they press ctrl-alt you change the pointer to an hourglass, and wait an extra second, that way even if they're slow they have time to press del. No windows user is going to be surprised or alarmed by 2 seconds of lag. Their brain will probably hold them in a sort of pause mode anyways, because they're so used to waiting to be allowed to continue.
And the more often they have to press a magic key combination, the more robotic it becomes and the less attention they will pay. Also, even if something looks slightly off, they've been taught that this magic key protects them in this situation, so they won't worry much.
Yeah, I wrote a custom lock screen for X in 2000 for an internet kiosk, and I grabbed the pointer and there was no problem. In my case of course it was controlled by a bill acceptor, not a password.
The basic misunderstanding here is the idea that the screen lock in old X was designed for security, and usable as such; it was just a screensaver with a password, it wasn't intended as a security device and people who needed a security device just used one. It is open source, we're not locked out, we're not forced to use the provided default tool.
TFS claims they "can't" be secure because... linux didn't copy windows. Well, geeeeeeeeeeeeeee. If I'd used windows for my kiosk, it would not have increased security. And even here, it would not be easy to integrate a custom setup with the windows feature, so I wouldn't have been able to actually use it; it wouldn't have provided the claimed security.
So you presume that if we agree on the value of everything under the Sun, all trade will cease, and we'll just all lay down and starve to death because we are only willing to trade if we think we're getting a great deal?
For example, if you believe your income to be stable and sufficient for your needs, there is no need to value a sandwich more when you're hungry than when you're not. You only have to value it more when you're hungry if you're under resource pressure and worried that the availability is temporary. You also don't have to value a sandwich more than the money you would spend on it. The whole concept is irrational.
Even if there everybody agrees on value, there is still demand, because humans have real needs, and specialization is a thing. Trade is not based on presuming a lopsided value exchange, it is based on the reality of variable skills and availability of resources.
Economics uses all sorts of logical tools and technology that are not believed to be literally true or accurate; they're just believed to be useful in certain circumstances.
Demand obviously predated economics, because primitive trade isn't based on "how we allocate scarce resources." The most basic trade is just two people, without any system of allocation. Without systematic trade, there is no economy at all. Demand has to already be existent, and the concept of trading known, before an economy can develop.
As for defining "demand," just use wikipedia: "Demand is a buyer's willingness and ability to pay a price for a specific quantity of a good or service." Notice that nothing I say requires special, personal meanings for the words.;) Without willingness and ability to pay, no economy could exist. Economic systems weren't invented by some guy who thought it up and everybody said, "oh, good idea" and started doing it. Barter existed for long periods before economies did. Many animals engage in basic barter, without any system of exchange or valuation. The trade has to exist before it becomes systematic, which is a requirement for it to be an economy. And an economy forms organically when there is sufficient trade. (as all things become systematic when repeated often enough)
You say a lot of words, but you don't address my points. Everything you say sounds like just typical partisan regurgitation; it neither adds ideas to the discussion, nor responds to the things I actually said. You hate taxes. Yay for you. That doesn't mean that Oregon has high taxes for what Google is doing. That would require an analysis that nobody has done, including the (right wing) politicians who privately suggest it is the reason, but won't put their names (or any numbers) by the claim.
If we were talking about a "business decision" you wouldn't have a position without seeing the numbers, so that just doesn't fly.
Comcast being "upset" about rules doesn't tell us anything about Google. Comcast gets fined by the Oregon PUC every year for intentionally breaking billing rules. If Comcast is mad, so is Google? You're brand new to the broadband discussion, obviously. No, they do not favor the same sorts of regulations. What a howler!
It would be a lot more impressive if they went to 2k and had it actually working. I can understand the motivation to play code golf, but every code golf I've played requires a fully correct answer to earn the right to count the bytes.
Someone else who hasn't bothered actually reading stuff written in support of minimum wage legislation.
Lying about what we support and what the reasons we give are... is unlikely to persuade anybody to change their mind.
You don't support minimum wage increases, obviously, so you're not in a good position to tell the world what our position is. And you don't describe any part of the actual support; you describe the characterization given on right-wing media.
In my State we've raised the minimum wage numerous times over the past 20 years. Every time we hear the same doom-and-gloom, the same lies about what we believe. But the claimed negative effects offered by the opposed never materialize, and yet the claimed benefits by the supporters always do.
and they are super smart and know so much more about how to run businesses than the actual owners and employers do.
The effects aren't theoretical, some States really did increase our minimum wages significantly, repeatedly. The "business owner" group scored abysmally in their predictions of the outcomes. Which is good, they predicted the collapse of the economy, especially the (thriving) restaurant sector. It may be that their positions are more related to the propaganda of their chosen political teams than to any actual understanding of how their own businesses relate to the broader labor market. Which makes sense, they only participate in the labor market in a very narrow way, individually. Why would hiring and firing dishwashers give you any special insight into the broader outcomes from the local business community if the minimum wage changes? There is nothing in these business owners experience as business owners that would provide any special insight, other than comparing the outcome of the policy change to their predictions. And yet even though their predictions are consistently wrong, the same business owners make the same prediction each time we vote on increasing the minimum wage. And every time, their propaganda features a lot of words trying to convince people of lies about what the "other side" believes.
As in the real policy debate, you parrot the side that lies about the position of the other side. I don't believe you actually think that is the argument used to support minimum wage increases, because that would require being as old as you are and having never in your whole life listened to what anybody said about it.
Interestingly, the side accuse of just being unthinking morons are rather honest about what their "other side" say; they address the claims, and point to empirical evidence that increasing the minimum wage increases the size of the economy, because it doesn't reduce employment significantly, but it increases the pay of people at a wage scale where they spend their entire income every month.
It is well known that if a person at higher income, such as many business owners, make an extra 1% or 2% their savings rate goes up. This is well established. And if you give poor people a 2% raise, their savings rate stays at 0.
The economy isn't zero-sum. The more often the same dollars are spent/earned and respent, the larger the size of the economy. You can have an economy that is 10 times as large as another one that has the same number of dollars floating around. The rate of trade is the main thing, and poor people trade at a higher rate than rich people.
We went through all the doom-and-gloom predictions, and the lies about why we support increasing the minimum wage, in my State. And then we raised it over their objections, and the sky didn't fall. Actually the businesses they said would "go under" (like restaurants) got a boom; minimum wage workers who get a 5% raise will spend a lot of it at local restaurants. Minimum wage earners spend a larger percent of their income frequenting businesses that employ minimum wage workers than rich people, and yet, the business owners are still the same rich guys. The employers most affected by minimum wage increases are exactly the ones who benefit the most by it. However, they will still oppose it, because hating hippies is secretly more important to them than increasing their income.
LOL you just kept derping over yourself, and then when he laughed at you for it, you derped up some more.
Were you born like this, or are you just drunk? Did you know slashdot user IDs are sequential according to signup time? Did you know this isn't a new website?
It is almost as if you were born yesterday. But at least you had the twenty-five cents to buy "comprehension." Tell you what, I'll spot you another fifty if you promise to buy "unobservant" and "morosophy."
His driver hit a patch of ice and drove the limo into a snow bank.
Gosh, he can still access the office computers from his home office, and have the phone system forward his calls.
I don't see how getting in a car with a low income stranger is going to improve his already bad work day. And newsflash, nobody will be in the office anyways, it is almost impossible that it is better for him to be there than at the home office.
The buyer and seller generally agree on the value of both the item, and the money. I think you misunderstood the concept of "demand." I'll give you a hint: it existed before money or economies.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is not one of them. No compelling case for it being one has been made.
Most people interested in the topic are too busy shouting anti-American slogans to actually discuss the moral implications and formulate counter-arguments to the arguments in support of the nanny state.
They don't realize that they're the NSA's best friends, akin to the UFO nuts who helped the Air Force keep certain aircraft research programs secret after crashes that killed test pilots and could have exposed the programs.
If these fools were more serious about creating change than patting themselves on the back, the first thing they'd do is start speaking out against pejorative attacks on anybody that disagrees with them. You have about 0% chance of changing people's minds when you start calling them names instead of talking to them, and if you place yourself on the same "team" as people calling names, then anybody who disagrees with you can write you off without question. They may not know the truth about whatever the Government is doing, but they can easily dismiss anti-social bullies.
A) Dollars not spent by the government on a government program probably wouldn't otherwise go to your pet causes
B) There is nothing altruistic, or claimed to be such, about supporting children's science education. It is done because it benefits America, not because they good warm fuzzies from helping kids.
C) Economies are not zero-sum. Not investing in something does not automatically mean something else will increase; actually the opposite is more often true. Money doesn't get spent once and then evaporate, it gets spent again and again, and the amount of trade in an economy vastly outweighs the number of dollars in that economy. Anything trade that you just cross off and don't spend on, that is a decrease in the total amount of economic activity. It doesn't increase anything.
D) The NSA budget is mostly black. Congress gives them a large pile of money, and doesn't get to see the books for what it is spent on. If they decreased spending on a math program, any earmarked money that might be re-assigned would go to secret NSA programs, it would not in any circumstance magically be handed over to some imagined Department of Altruism. What it would actually do is decrease the funding for schools, and increase funding for hidden parts of the programs. That would almost certainly decrease the economic activity associated with the expenditure, because schools and education generally has lower average wages than the NSA, and has a higher percent of the budget going to salaries. Wages generally, and especially lower wager, get re-spent faster than other types of expenditures and increase the economy more. So you would almost certainly decrease the available funds to whatever non-education pet causes you imagine would benefit.
Maybe your should re-watch it, and try to find some plot themes. I don't think there was anything in it about having to agree with anti-government positions. It might be that the moral themes are all entirely personal, and no politics was covered.
Somebody from the NSA could just as easily wave their hands as you can, and say (some random movie that involved math) supports their position, and is an example of the good done by their support of math programs.
Citation needed. You're just waving your hands and saying "NSA" next to the word "corruption." Has that been established? Is that even part of the alleged misdeeds?
It strikes me as odd that people become more credulous of anything anti-American after hearing accusations that the NSA did more work than some people knew about or approved of. How does NSA over-spying make media like The Guardian more trustworthy? The obvious answer is that it doesn't, and if your belief in NSA capabilities increased, your level of credulity towards any public information source should go down at the same time.
Your enemies enemy might not be your friend, they might just be another liar with an agenda. But when you're so credulous you're repeating accusations that aren't even in the information claimed to have been leaked, you can be pretty sure you've been turned into a political pawn.
So what exactly distinguishes one of these mathematicians from a common whore?
Nothing. They're both equal victims of your bullying pejorative attacks.
Also, probably neither care what you think.
Those are very strong assumptions you make. Has it even been established that your team is the arbiter of what is good or evil? Or do you just assume that your subjective judgement should be sufficient to tell people what is right and wrong?
There is a huge gap between, "I believe ____ therefore I will do ____" and "I believe ____ therefore everybody else should do ____."
Some of us use most of it, and we've been using it the whole time. It isn't obsolete at all, it is the most popular thing. You envision people stopping using it, but that is not the present tense.
The same reason I have a locking desk drawer with a wimpy lock that a professional thief could easily defeat: it keeps co-workers from gaining casual access.
The same reason I lock my car doors, and it generally prevents theft. They can still break the window or use other access techniques; my car is not actually secured. I wouldn't leave something important in it though, like a HD full of confidential customer information.
So even a not-fully-secured workstation benefits from casual access control. But thinking it is secure might prevent the creation of more secure systems to store confidential data.
Knowing the real level of security achieved is vital to assessing how your processes meet your security needs.
That isn't really new-school, we had those same morons in the 90s. The difference was, all the "year of the linux desktop" crap caused a bunch of corporate funding to implement their schemes, and now they think they're all that matters.
Thank goodness for open source. Even if they embrace and extend X11, they can't take it from me, they can't extinguish it. We'll always have CLI ways of doing everything important "because servers." So I'll always be able to get by with my clunky old *nix workstation preferences and ancient software.
I've had the same .Xresources file since the 90s. It has been renamed a few times over the years, but they can have it when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
If by obsolete you mean, "the thing actually in use."
What you call bloat, I call existing legacy features.
I know you never heard of the OTG standard, but you don't have buy a special cable to try it out. Just cut open the micro USB cable and solder the unused pin to the ground pin, and now you can use that cable to attach standard USB keyboards, etc. to your portable linux device.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Not sure what your point was about the HDMI, that is what all modern screens expect.
They use a secure screen locker that integrates into their corporate what-the-what. What they don't do is use the password-protected screen saver that is bundled with the window system as if it was a security device.
What? I was assured that THIS was the year of the Linux Desktop!
THIS is the year of the Arduino desktop.
But I hate that commercial OSS crap, so I'm sticking to roll-your-own AVR boards.
You're tricking yourself into security theater. You can't intercept an actual ctrl-alt-del, but you can read the ctrl and alt keys, and just unlock your fake lock a couple seconds later. For bonus points, as soon as they press ctrl-alt you change the pointer to an hourglass, and wait an extra second, that way even if they're slow they have time to press del. No windows user is going to be surprised or alarmed by 2 seconds of lag. Their brain will probably hold them in a sort of pause mode anyways, because they're so used to waiting to be allowed to continue.
And the more often they have to press a magic key combination, the more robotic it becomes and the less attention they will pay. Also, even if something looks slightly off, they've been taught that this magic key protects them in this situation, so they won't worry much.
Yeah, I wrote a custom lock screen for X in 2000 for an internet kiosk, and I grabbed the pointer and there was no problem. In my case of course it was controlled by a bill acceptor, not a password.
The basic misunderstanding here is the idea that the screen lock in old X was designed for security, and usable as such; it was just a screensaver with a password, it wasn't intended as a security device and people who needed a security device just used one. It is open source, we're not locked out, we're not forced to use the provided default tool.
TFS claims they "can't" be secure because... linux didn't copy windows. Well, geeeeeeeeeeeeeee. If I'd used windows for my kiosk, it would not have increased security. And even here, it would not be easy to integrate a custom setup with the windows feature, so I wouldn't have been able to actually use it; it wouldn't have provided the claimed security.
So you presume that if we agree on the value of everything under the Sun, all trade will cease, and we'll just all lay down and starve to death because we are only willing to trade if we think we're getting a great deal?
For example, if you believe your income to be stable and sufficient for your needs, there is no need to value a sandwich more when you're hungry than when you're not. You only have to value it more when you're hungry if you're under resource pressure and worried that the availability is temporary. You also don't have to value a sandwich more than the money you would spend on it. The whole concept is irrational.
Even if there everybody agrees on value, there is still demand, because humans have real needs, and specialization is a thing. Trade is not based on presuming a lopsided value exchange, it is based on the reality of variable skills and availability of resources.
Economics uses all sorts of logical tools and technology that are not believed to be literally true or accurate; they're just believed to be useful in certain circumstances.
Demand obviously predated economics, because primitive trade isn't based on "how we allocate scarce resources." The most basic trade is just two people, without any system of allocation. Without systematic trade, there is no economy at all. Demand has to already be existent, and the concept of trading known, before an economy can develop.
As for defining "demand," just use wikipedia: "Demand is a buyer's willingness and ability to pay a price for a specific quantity of a good or service." Notice that nothing I say requires special, personal meanings for the words. ;) Without willingness and ability to pay, no economy could exist. Economic systems weren't invented by some guy who thought it up and everybody said, "oh, good idea" and started doing it. Barter existed for long periods before economies did. Many animals engage in basic barter, without any system of exchange or valuation. The trade has to exist before it becomes systematic, which is a requirement for it to be an economy. And an economy forms organically when there is sufficient trade. (as all things become systematic when repeated often enough)
You say a lot of words, but you don't address my points. Everything you say sounds like just typical partisan regurgitation; it neither adds ideas to the discussion, nor responds to the things I actually said. You hate taxes. Yay for you. That doesn't mean that Oregon has high taxes for what Google is doing. That would require an analysis that nobody has done, including the (right wing) politicians who privately suggest it is the reason, but won't put their names (or any numbers) by the claim.
If we were talking about a "business decision" you wouldn't have a position without seeing the numbers, so that just doesn't fly.
Comcast being "upset" about rules doesn't tell us anything about Google. Comcast gets fined by the Oregon PUC every year for intentionally breaking billing rules. If Comcast is mad, so is Google? You're brand new to the broadband discussion, obviously. No, they do not favor the same sorts of regulations. What a howler!
It would be a lot more impressive if they went to 2k and had it actually working. I can understand the motivation to play code golf, but every code golf I've played requires a fully correct answer to earn the right to count the bytes.
Well, it isn't actually playable either, as it implements a different game with some small rules overlap.
Any patzer at the local chess club can tell it isn't even "chess."
Someone else who hasn't bothered actually reading stuff written in support of minimum wage legislation.
Lying about what we support and what the reasons we give are... is unlikely to persuade anybody to change their mind.
You don't support minimum wage increases, obviously, so you're not in a good position to tell the world what our position is. And you don't describe any part of the actual support; you describe the characterization given on right-wing media.
In my State we've raised the minimum wage numerous times over the past 20 years. Every time we hear the same doom-and-gloom, the same lies about what we believe. But the claimed negative effects offered by the opposed never materialize, and yet the claimed benefits by the supporters always do.
and they are super smart and know so much more about how to run businesses than the actual owners and employers do.
The effects aren't theoretical, some States really did increase our minimum wages significantly, repeatedly. The "business owner" group scored abysmally in their predictions of the outcomes. Which is good, they predicted the collapse of the economy, especially the (thriving) restaurant sector. It may be that their positions are more related to the propaganda of their chosen political teams than to any actual understanding of how their own businesses relate to the broader labor market. Which makes sense, they only participate in the labor market in a very narrow way, individually. Why would hiring and firing dishwashers give you any special insight into the broader outcomes from the local business community if the minimum wage changes? There is nothing in these business owners experience as business owners that would provide any special insight, other than comparing the outcome of the policy change to their predictions. And yet even though their predictions are consistently wrong, the same business owners make the same prediction each time we vote on increasing the minimum wage. And every time, their propaganda features a lot of words trying to convince people of lies about what the "other side" believes.
As in the real policy debate, you parrot the side that lies about the position of the other side. I don't believe you actually think that is the argument used to support minimum wage increases, because that would require being as old as you are and having never in your whole life listened to what anybody said about it.
Interestingly, the side accuse of just being unthinking morons are rather honest about what their "other side" say; they address the claims, and point to empirical evidence that increasing the minimum wage increases the size of the economy, because it doesn't reduce employment significantly, but it increases the pay of people at a wage scale where they spend their entire income every month.
It is well known that if a person at higher income, such as many business owners, make an extra 1% or 2% their savings rate goes up. This is well established. And if you give poor people a 2% raise, their savings rate stays at 0.
The economy isn't zero-sum. The more often the same dollars are spent/earned and respent, the larger the size of the economy. You can have an economy that is 10 times as large as another one that has the same number of dollars floating around. The rate of trade is the main thing, and poor people trade at a higher rate than rich people.
We went through all the doom-and-gloom predictions, and the lies about why we support increasing the minimum wage, in my State. And then we raised it over their objections, and the sky didn't fall. Actually the businesses they said would "go under" (like restaurants) got a boom; minimum wage workers who get a 5% raise will spend a lot of it at local restaurants. Minimum wage earners spend a larger percent of their income frequenting businesses that employ minimum wage workers than rich people, and yet, the business owners are still the same rich guys. The employers most affected by minimum wage increases are exactly the ones who benefit the most by it. However, they will still oppose it, because hating hippies is secretly more important to them than increasing their income.
LOL you just kept derping over yourself, and then when he laughed at you for it, you derped up some more.
Were you born like this, or are you just drunk? Did you know slashdot user IDs are sequential according to signup time? Did you know this isn't a new website?
It is almost as if you were born yesterday. But at least you had the twenty-five cents to buy "comprehension." Tell you what, I'll spot you another fifty if you promise to buy "unobservant" and "morosophy."
His driver hit a patch of ice and drove the limo into a snow bank.
Gosh, he can still access the office computers from his home office, and have the phone system forward his calls.
I don't see how getting in a car with a low income stranger is going to improve his already bad work day. And newsflash, nobody will be in the office anyways, it is almost impossible that it is better for him to be there than at the home office.
The buyer and seller generally agree on the value of both the item, and the money. I think you misunderstood the concept of "demand." I'll give you a hint: it existed before money or economies.