I wonder whether anybody commenting here about how bad "socialism" is have any understanding of history?
I am thinking of the revolutions of 1848, in which almost every country in Europe had some sort of violent uprising. The reasons for this were mostly because of many of the same issues we in the west are dealing with now.
When the wealthiest parts of society control the levers of power, and give themselves exemptions from the costs of running society, there will be trouble.
I could see a time where there is widespread violence in an attempt to alter the balance of power. Right now I suspect the US is closest to this point due to the inflexibility of your political system.
The USA has more guns than most countries, and yet still manage fewer homicides than countries with fewer guns and stricter gun laws.
*Citation Required.
As far as I can see that's mostly bullshit, if you're comparing apples with apples. Check this graph out.
I added the US and compared with your rate per 100,000 people with a couple of rich countries and a couple of random other countries.
US rate = 4.9 (2015)
UK = 0.9
All High Income countries = 2.4
Feel free to have a play, I mean you might like to compare yourselves with Somalia or whatever.
People who tell me the US has only two parties make me laugh, because it just proves how incredibly ignorant they are about the size and diversity of the US.
People who tell me the US has umbrella parties (or "big-tent parties") then pretend that means anything at all make me laugh.
Two are all that are required to maintain the charade.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at with "The Party" jab.
Look at those terrible Commies, with their state run Party. We have two parties, that's so much better! These guys at Princeton agree.
Whenever I listen in on a bunch of Americans talking about their political system, it seems to me that they all miss one of the oddest things about their whole corrupt, 18th century setup.
You have two political parties. Really? A country of 300 million people and you can only get two parties.
It turns out they're so baked into the structures you wound up with that they're not so very different from the old Eastern European Communist bloc, where "The Party" was the only one allowed, except you've got two, so that must be better.
Even my tiny little country has 5 parties in Parliament.
Please don't tell me it's because of first past the post voting, because it's not. The UK has FPP voting, and 8 parties in the current Parliament.
Critical Internet Platforms such as Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, AirBnb, Netflix, etc.
None of those things are critical. I have an account with exactly one of those things, and live my life quite happily thanks.
Equating them with electricity or gas is a little bit silly.
I have a job where my employer actually does value its employees, and that's very hard to find.
That's the key point from your post. Your employer values his employees, and probably thinks of them as people.
My employer thinks of me, and everyone else who works with me as a resource to be exploited until he has no further use for me.
We get quite a lot of "The company values the amazing people who work here" crap but no-one believes it any more.
Due to industry consolidation quite a lot of the workers here are stuck here, as there is only one competitor in most of our markets.
I suspect my story is fairly common.
TFA mentions "At Will" employment, and how that might come back to bite companies on the arse. I hope it does.
Fair enough.
You've bought into the propaganda you have been subjected to your entire life. I understand. It must be very hard to see past it.
The fact you have characterised me as a Leftist, because I point out how your your military/industrial complex uses it's massive economic power to continue that power is a dead giveaway.
I am not American, so I don't really fit your liberal/conservative narrative. Politics where I come from has a fair bit more nuance to it.
The NFL in particular may actually sponsor multiple professional sports in the US via advertising and event production.
I don't know what that means. My point was about the military spending millions at NFL games to influence public thinking. I have no knowledge of the NFL sponsoring other sports.
That's quite a stretch. It's really nothing more than the DoD marketing campaign.
The propaganda machine I'm thinking of is the advertising industry that the DoD makes use of for their marketing.
The difference between marketing, PR, and propaganda revolves around what you're trying to sell to me, in my view.
I assume it's partly an overreaction to the awful treatment of troops returning from Vietnam.
I assume it's because the US military learned a lesson from Vietnam, which was that they needed to control the narrative.
That is why reporters were "embedded" during the Gulf Wars, and also why the US military pays the NFL so much money every year for those very strange "salute to service" games which look an awful lot like Nuremberg rallies to those of us who live outside the US.
It's called propaganda and the US has the most effective propaganda machine the world has ever known.
She's doing us a huge favour. Personally, I hope Facebook takes all of Rupert Murdoch's money away, and leaves him living in a cardboard box.
Facebook is awful, but has absolutely nothing on Rupert Murdoch.
That Packer arsehole is nearly as bad.
Between Murdoch and the equally odious Packers Australian media has always been a seething shitstorm of propaganda.
If they didn't own the newspapers nobody would have ever written a nice word about any of them.
This has nothing to do with Australia's government being tyrannical, it's Australia's government signaling to their ignorant base:
"The internet is scary and mean, and terrorists live there, but we can make you safe."
There is no way this type of legislation does anything at all, and they know it, but that's not the point.
It's an age-old political tool "Something needs to be done, look! We're doing something".
It's all no cents per play.
The most important part of the music business is the rightsholders, and they are more or less a cartel.
The "artists" are in reality interchangable cyphers the record companies create and market to the public. Simon Cowell showed them how to do it nearly 20 years ago, and they have the process down pretty well now.
Unless the record companies are taking pretty much all the money, they're never going to agree to any of this, and the "artists" have no say.
Unless Audius is going to pitch to unsigned actual musicians, in which case this is pretty much the last we will hear of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder whether anybody commenting here about how bad "socialism" is have any understanding of history?
I am thinking of the revolutions of 1848, in which almost every country in Europe had some sort of violent uprising. The reasons for this were mostly because of many of the same issues we in the west are dealing with now.
When the wealthiest parts of society control the levers of power, and give themselves exemptions from the costs of running society, there will be trouble.
I could see a time where there is widespread violence in an attempt to alter the balance of power. Right now I suspect the US is closest to this point due to the inflexibility of your political system.
Weirdly these threads seem to be full of people basically complaining you don't get a fast desktop for 25 dollars.
Or, these threads are full of low effort Trolls commenting on things they don't understand.
Low effort Troll.
Other have made the point, but I'll chime in too.
If Brazil is what you aspire to, then I'm sorry.
The USA has more guns than most countries, and yet still manage fewer homicides than countries with fewer guns and stricter gun laws.
*Citation Required.
As far as I can see that's mostly bullshit, if you're comparing apples with apples.
Check this graph out.
I added the US and compared with your rate per 100,000 people with a couple of rich countries and a couple of random other countries.
US rate = 4.9 (2015)
UK = 0.9
All High Income countries = 2.4
Feel free to have a play, I mean you might like to compare yourselves with Somalia or whatever.
People who tell me the US has only two parties make me laugh, because it just proves how incredibly ignorant they are about the size and diversity of the US.
People who tell me the US has umbrella parties (or "big-tent parties") then pretend that means anything at all make me laugh.
It's largely because of FPTP.
It's partly because of FPP.
Only 2 UK parties can actually win and have won every single election for a century.
Except for all the times there have been coalition governments, like right now, and the last one. And all the other times.
And the smaller parties need about 100x more votes to win a seat than the two incumbents.
This is wrong. Each seat is an electorate seat. Any party which wins a majority in an electorate wins a seat.
Neither the US not the UK system have anything more than a passing resemblance to democracy.
Well, this might be hyperbole, but is at least arguable.
Two are all that are required to maintain the charade.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at with "The Party" jab.
Look at those terrible Commies, with their state run Party. We have two parties, that's so much better!
These guys at Princeton agree.
Whenever I listen in on a bunch of Americans talking about their political system, it seems to me that they all miss one of the oddest things about their whole corrupt, 18th century setup.
You have two political parties. Really? A country of 300 million people and you can only get two parties.
It turns out they're so baked into the structures you wound up with that they're not so very different from the old Eastern European Communist bloc, where "The Party" was the only one allowed, except you've got two, so that must be better.
Even my tiny little country has 5 parties in Parliament.
Please don't tell me it's because of first past the post voting, because it's not. The UK has FPP voting, and 8 parties in the current Parliament.
Yes, but which one? man has created thousands of gods over the span of history.
It's Vodafone. The managers making the decisions on this stuff have no clue what they're doing.
You're confusing A&T and Comcast with Twitter.
Try and get Internet access through Twitter, see how you go.
So what you're saying is the alt-right trolls are uncivilised, and civilised people want nothing to do with them?
Sounds about right.
Critical Internet Platforms such as Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, AirBnb, Netflix, etc.
None of those things are critical. I have an account with exactly one of those things, and live my life quite happily thanks.
Equating them with electricity or gas is a little bit silly.
I have a job where my employer actually does value its employees, and that's very hard to find.
That's the key point from your post. Your employer values his employees, and probably thinks of them as people.
My employer thinks of me, and everyone else who works with me as a resource to be exploited until he has no further use for me.
We get quite a lot of "The company values the amazing people who work here" crap but no-one believes it any more.
Due to industry consolidation quite a lot of the workers here are stuck here, as there is only one competitor in most of our markets.
I suspect my story is fairly common.
TFA mentions "At Will" employment, and how that might come back to bite companies on the arse. I hope it does.
When the US military uses the NFL for their own propaganda purposes, it is political.
You've bought into the propaganda you have been subjected to your entire life. I understand. It must be very hard to see past it.
The fact you have characterised me as a Leftist, because I point out how your your military/industrial complex uses it's massive economic power to continue that power is a dead giveaway.
I am not American, so I don't really fit your liberal/conservative narrative. Politics where I come from has a fair bit more nuance to it.
The NFL in particular may actually sponsor multiple professional sports in the US via advertising and event production.
I don't know what that means. My point was about the military spending millions at NFL games to influence public thinking. I have no knowledge of the NFL sponsoring other sports.
Compared to the modern advertising industry combined with Hollywood?
That's laughable.
Care to explain?
That's quite a stretch. It's really nothing more than the DoD marketing campaign.
The propaganda machine I'm thinking of is the advertising industry that the DoD makes use of for their marketing.
The difference between marketing, PR, and propaganda revolves around what you're trying to sell to me, in my view.
I assume it's partly an overreaction to the awful treatment of troops returning from Vietnam.
I assume it's because the US military learned a lesson from Vietnam, which was that they needed to control the narrative.
That is why reporters were "embedded" during the Gulf Wars, and also why the US military pays the NFL so much money every year for those very strange "salute to service" games which look an awful lot like Nuremberg rallies to those of us who live outside the US.
It's called propaganda and the US has the most effective propaganda machine the world has ever known.
She's doing us a huge favour. Personally, I hope Facebook takes all of Rupert Murdoch's money away, and leaves him living in a cardboard box.
Facebook is awful, but has absolutely nothing on Rupert Murdoch.
That Packer arsehole is nearly as bad.
Between Murdoch and the equally odious Packers Australian media has always been a seething shitstorm of propaganda.
If they didn't own the newspapers nobody would have ever written a nice word about any of them.
This has nothing to do with Australia's government being tyrannical, it's Australia's government signaling to their ignorant base:
"The internet is scary and mean, and terrorists live there, but we can make you safe."
There is no way this type of legislation does anything at all, and they know it, but that's not the point.
It's an age-old political tool "Something needs to be done, look! We're doing something".
It's all no cents per play.
The most important part of the music business is the rightsholders, and they are more or less a cartel.
The "artists" are in reality interchangable cyphers the record companies create and market to the public. Simon Cowell showed them how to do it nearly 20 years ago, and they have the process down pretty well now.
Unless the record companies are taking pretty much all the money, they're never going to agree to any of this, and the "artists" have no say.
Unless Audius is going to pitch to unsigned actual musicians, in which case this is pretty much the last we will hear of them.