Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

$freaks++ More

$freaks++

Comments Filter:

  • And it's pretty obvious that he really does live in or at least has spent considerable time in Sweden.

    Maybe you should ask him why.

    • He has a list of foes that almost exceeds his list of comments. I can try pinging him but I won't hold my breath. Interestingly his foes list includes both people who have foe'd me and people who are on my friends list, so he may be a bit more enigmatic than I had suspected from his most recent comment.
    • I went ahead and asked him that as a reply to his most recent comment. If he says anything I will quote it or link to it from this JE.

  • a) I don't moderate and never have. Hence, I haven't moderated you down. So I can't help you with that.

    b) How is that post displaying a "lack of understanding of communism"? I'm genuinely curious.

    P.S. I use "foe" as a (too all purpose) marker for people, given that Slashdot doesn't have any other way of tagging people. (Though I've been toying with writing something using e.g. greasemonkey, if I wasn't a complete noob when it came to that). So don't take the word "foo" too literally.

    • So the road for Chinese workers is longer and harder since they need functioning civil liberties first. Then they can organise proper unions.

      I've really got to ask what you mean by "proper union".
      My understanding in the U.S. context is that unions arrived during Industrialization when there were legitimate complaints about safety and exploitative management practices.
      However, the economic effects of unions, when the solution became part of the problem over time, has been to wreak economic havoc. Case in point: the United Auto Workers Union.
      But private sector unions are a simple result of the freedom of association.
      Among the major problems i

      • Well a proper union to begin with would actually be the result of freedom of association. In China they are not as the Chineese workers don't have freedom of association. The union in China is just another part of the governments control apparatus.

        And yes, I know there are and have been problems with unions in the USA. But also we don't have nearly the same problems in non-Anglo-Saxon countries (most notably Sweden where I live). In Sweden even the armed forces officers are unionised [officersforbundet.se]. It doesn't get more pu

        • In Sweden even the armed forces officers are unionised [officersforbundet.se]. It doesn't get more public sector than that and that hasn't led to any major problems. (Or differences in outlook compared to their NATO brethren. )

          Had a blast serving with the Swedes in Afghanistan. But that's beside the point. Sweden has about the population of New York City. What works great for Sweden may not scale at all to a less homogenous population.

          Now, I don't understand the "massive conflict of interest" that would supposedly occur when government workers are unionised.

          When, exactly, does the bureaucracy EVER accept any pain? It's all as swell as Sweden until the first sign of stress. Then you see the kinds of shenanigans you encounter in every "blue" state in the U.S.: California, Illinois, Michigan, etc.

          • Had a blast serving with the Swedes in Afghanistan. But that's beside the point. Sweden has about the population of New York City. What works great for Sweden may not scale at all to a less homogenous population.

            Good to hear! Yes, Sweden is small and homogeneous (though that's changing rapidly). So scaling from our small example is tricky. However, the German situation is similar when it comes to how industry and unions are organized, they're a bit more diverse, and they're 80 million or so, so it can scale by a factor of ten at least. So I wouldn't give it up just yet.

            When, exactly, does the bureaucracy EVER accept any pain? It's all as swell as Sweden until the first sign of stress. Then you see the kinds of shenanigans you encounter in every "blue" state in the U.S.: California, Illinois, Michigan, etc.

            Well, that's a problem. Not an insurmountable one though. After all, it was the Social democrats in Sweden that in the late nineties said that "He w

            • I sincerely hope the relative homogeneity and deeper sense of history one (I'd expect) encounters in Sweden can support a more enlightened outcome.
              However, I'm skeptical about whether the Swedes can really whip organizational behavior. But by all means: school me. :-)

              • However, I'm skeptical about whether the Swedes can really whip organizational behavior. But by all means: school me. :-)

                Well, we haven't had any major cases of regulatory capture yet for example. (With a possible exception in the nuclear industry, that was pounced upon quite quickly though). Rather, we haven't had any yet I should say... :-) Watch this space. One major reason (dare I say difference?) is that working for the government is still a sought after position, that attracts if not the very best, at least still very good people. How/if this will change I don't know.

                However, we're not nearly as homogeneous as we once w

                • Again, I think that among the chief differences in play is relative size.
                  How you manage a start-up coffee shop is *not* how you manage IKEA. In the latter case, you've either got a strong corporate culture and a lot of policies in place, or the organization crumbles.
                  Here in the U.S., we've had lying scumbags of all parties busily carving up our electorate into little constituencies for the sake of pitting them against each other. Which is great for maintaining a small clique in power. For a time.

                  • Yes. Scale matters. No argument there.

                    That said, I am a big proponent of proportional representation as opposed to the first-past-the-post system of both the US and Britain. I think that would both solve the problem of gerrymandering and increase voter turnout, at least at the local level. How to scale that to the national level, where you have so (relatively speaking) few representatives per area, I don't know. The system kind of breaks down there as if you only have one or two representatives for an enti

                    • It's about structuring the system.
                      The 1787 Constitution was distinct states delegating explicit powers to a central government.
                      ~100 years ago, Progressivism started a trend that has us sliding in the direction of a tyranny, POTUS by POTUS.
                      The EU seems to want to flirt with such a collapse, if the Treaty of Lisbon is any indicator.
                      As a Chrisitian, a single world tyranny seems inevitable. As a practical matter, I don't foresee any of these bumbling oafs in office (for now) as capable of managing such.

                    • ~100 years ago, Progressivism started a trend...

                      As you like to say, *You are teh funny*

                      The 'trend' started ~224 years ago, and there's nothing 'progressive' about serving your friends in industry. But then semantic 'engineering' is nothing new to you. Who says the TV isn't 'educational'?

                    • Sure, you can pretend that Amendments 16 & 17 didn't happen, as well as the Federal Reserve Act, and the freezing of the size of the House of Rascalzentatives in 1910, did not form the basis for a major course change in U.S. history.
                      Here's your song [youtube.com].

                    • No, it wasn't a 'change'. It was a chapter of the same story of the ongoing power grab to protect business interests. Again you seem to be mistaken as who the government serves.

                    • To view government as the ultimate actor in the course of US history is more of a reflection that you are the one who idolizes state power, not the Progressives.

                      Yes, he does idolize power, but only when it's in Ronald Reagan's image, where he can identify and feel close to it. His deepest (and only real) fear is losing majority status, and the power that drifts away from its traditional setting.

                    • No, it wasn't a 'change'. It was a chapter

                      Holy "difference that makes no difference", Batman!
                      If your argument held true, then why don't we repeal those Amendments and return the Fed to Jekyll Island?

                    • Yes, he does idolize power

                      So, I'm an idolator, then? Oh, the sweet revelations about me which you so generously pour forth, sir!

                    • Why? More profit is being made this way. This is what people want. This 'difference' you talk about does not exist. The same people and institutions are in charge, old money was protected, nothing happened.

                    • You're the one doing the revealing, and very revealing you are. I'm only observing.

                  • Here in the U.S., we've had lying scumbags of all parties busily carving up our electorate into little constituencies for the sake of pitting them against each other.

                    :-) And you didn't know this 15 years ago? Or even 35? No, your little 'epiphany' was sparked by pjmedia, FOX, Rush, or someone like them almost precisely six years ago. Eh, at least you're half way there.

    • a) I don't moderate and never have. Hence, I haven't moderated you down. So I can't help you with that.

      I don't believe I accused you to moderating me down. I'm not sure where that notion comes from.

      b) How is that post displaying a "lack of understanding of communism"? I'm genuinely curious.

      I may have managed to not notice the quotes around communist. A lot of people here inaccurately describe China and post-Lenin USSR as communist which is not accurate. If you are claiming the Chinese system to be Communist, then you don't understand communism very well. I initially took just a quick look at your most recent comments after seeing the notice that you foe'd me, trying to figure out what may have

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by unitron ( 5733 )

        a) I don't moderate and never have. Hence, I haven't moderated you down. So I can't help you with that.

        I don't believe I accused you to moderating me down. I'm not sure where that notion comes from.

        b) How is that post displaying a "lack of understanding of communism"? I'm genuinely curious.

        I may have managed to not notice the quotes around communist. A lot of people here inaccurately describe China and post-Lenin USSR as communist which is not accurate. If you are claiming the Chinese system to be Communist, then you don't understand communism very well. I initially took just a quick look at your most recent comments after seeing the notice that you foe'd me, trying to figure out what may have brought it about.

        P.S. I use "foe" as a (too all purpose) marker for people, given that Slashdot doesn't have any other way of tagging people.

        Well, there is also "friend".

        FWIW I generally take pride in how many people foe me here. The vast overwhelming majority of them - at least when there is any apparent rationale - are hard-core conservatives who disagree with me for daring to use facts against their emotions. You do indeed have a very ... interesting ... foes list, that even includes people who have foe'd me.

        I'm pretty sure these are your words:
        "I'm not sure why he moderated me down but it might relate to his lack of understanding of communism."
        Perhaps you meant to write:
        "I'm not sure why he foe'd me, but it might relate to his lack of understanding of communism."

        I'm not sure exactly what y'all mean by "tagging" people--is it more sophisticated or useful than just remembering their user names?

      • I don't believe I accused you to moderating me down. I'm not sure where that notion comes from.

        Well, you can believe that, but you'd be wrong. :-) From your journal entry: "I'm not sure why he moderated me down...". But maybe you meant something else?

        I may have managed to not notice the quotes around communist.

        There's your problem! Let's call them self described communists for extra clarity, and leave the question of what the word "communist" actually means today for another time.

        FWIW I generally take pride in how many people foe me here. The vast overwhelming majority of them - at least when there is any apparent rationale - are hard-core conservatives who disagree with me for daring to use facts against their emotions. You do indeed have a very ... interesting ... foes list, that even includes people who have foe'd me.

        In that case it's surprising that there aren't more people there that have "foe'd" you. While the overwhelming majority aren't on that list because they're "hard-core conservatives" t

        • I don't believe I accused you to moderating me down. I'm not sure where that notion comes from.

          Well, you can believe that, but you'd be wrong. :-) From your journal entry: "I'm not sure why he moderated me down...". But maybe you meant something else?

          Indeed I did. I meant to say I'm not sure why you marked me as a foe. A little verbal diarrhea at the keyboard, there. Sorry about that, I did not intend to say moderated me down, it is not strictly possible to know who moderates your comments up, down, or sideways.

          In that case it's surprising that there aren't more people there that have "foe'd" you. While the overwhelming majority aren't on that list because they're "hard-core conservatives" the opinion that put them there does correlate very strongly with american conservative thinking in particular (and conservative thinking elsewhere in general, though not as openly and clearly).

          Interesting. I would generally consider myself to be about as far removed from American Conservatism as one can get. In fact, considering the overwhelming conservative bend to the voice of slashdot, I am comparatively a raging communist (w

          • Sure. I'll bite. The problem is with a justice system based on plea bargaining run amok (I had a nice reference, but I can't find it...) This leads to a justice system where almost no cases go to trial as the risk for the defendant is much too high since the prosecutor will often skew the risk by offering a sentence reduction of a factor of twenty or more (in the case of Aaron Swartz an even one hundred!)

            Any prosecutor that feels that society is safe and justice is served if a defendant agrees to six months

            • Thank you for your reply, sorry it took me a while to get back to it.

              If I read you correctly you are taking me to task over how I addressed the prosecutor in the Swartz case. I would like to reiterate what I had said earlier in the discussion on that, in that I don't think Swartz or the prosecutor were very good people. In particular I think Swartz was an idiot, who happened to succeed in making himself into a martyr for misguided people who were looking for a martyr without regards to said martyr's m

              • Very lucid argument! Only you didn't quite follow through. If you want a specific legislative action, you have to vote for people that will abide by your wishes, and not reelect them when they fail, intentionally or otherwise. Playing your little 'lesser evil' games is what got you where you are today. If you want action, you can't just sit there passively marking a ballot every two years that you took no part in constructing. The complaining about the content only makes you look like fools. If you want the

                • If you want a specific legislative action, you have to vote for people that will abide by your wishes, and not reelect them when they fail, intentionally or otherwise.

                  That's all fine and great, except it doesn't work in the real world. I have been calling for universal single-payer health care in this country for decades. In 2008 it seemed like an Obama victory might finally get us there. Then in 2010 he signed in to law ... a giant bailout for the insurance industry.

                  But in 2012 who was running for president on a platform to bring about single payer? Nobody. At least, nobody who was on the ballot in my district. Sure, I could have written in Bernie Sanders or

                  • Sure, I could have written in Bernie Sanders or some other actual liberal, but that wouldn't have been of any value. And as I have pointed out numerous times before, the opponent to President Lawnchair wanted me permanently unemployed. The chance of that opponent winning was too high to vote any other way.

                    Oh bla bla bla! You're still peddling your shtick! Voting for a democrat or republican reduced the value of your vote to exactly zero. You really are a bum, actually a chickenshit and a liar. You are as co

                    • It didn't take you very long to turn the trolling up to 11 in this thread.

                    • Not a troll. Well, maybe, I mean, if you actually believe the tooth fairy, I shouldn't really call it 'lying', huh?

                    • If that was not a troll, then what was it? We can confidently assert it to not have been an attempt at actual meaningful conversation.

                      Although I don't recall you having ever attempted to do such a thing under this account...

              • Sure. While I wouldn't necessarily call Swartz an "idiot", as I do agree with his sentiment. He probably broke the law and should expect punishment (that's what civil disobedience is all about). And the firing of the prosecutor is as you say neither here nor there, as long as we both agree that all other aspects of this case is overshadowed by a "justice" system that encourages and makes possible a factor of a hundred difference in an accepted and sought punishment. No effort should be spared in dismantling

                • When I think of civil disobedience I think of the sit-ins that were done in the 60s in the US. People would sit at lunch counters where they were told they would not be served, and remain there peacefully until removed by the police.

                  Swartz could have done the digital equivalent from his desk in his office, by using his regular connection to download those papers. It would have taken him longer to download them but he could have done it. Instead he went where he knew he was not supposed to be, and int

                  • Nah, I'm sorry. You have to work up a lot more righteous anger against the current system to go on my "friends list". :-)

                    As it stands, it's only enough to get taken off the "foo" list. :-)

                    • Nah, I'm sorry. You have to work up a lot more righteous anger against the current system to go on my "friends list". :-)

                      Well, I am certainly no fan of watching the US get more corporate and more conservative with each passing year. I'm not exactly steaming over with anger, though.

                      As it stands, it's only enough to get taken off the "foo" list. :-)

                      Well, I usually take pride in the number of people who put me on their foe's lists. That said, you're not a nutjob conservative and you didn't have me on an exceptionally short list, so it wasn't as dramatic of an accomplishment :)

                    • Well, I am certainly no fan of watching the US get more corporate and more conservative with each passing year. I'm not exactly steaming over with anger, though.

                      No, it's time for the pendlum to start swinging back, that's for certain. But to be clear, I was reserving the righteous anger for the plea bargaining based justice system in particular, not the whole mess. Many parts of which just merits a "meh", for sure.

                      And I actually am conservative, in the litteral sense of the word, but being from Sweden that means "social democrat". ;-)

          • I would generally consider myself to be about as far removed from American Conservatism as one can get.

            Well now I've heard everything! Man! That's funny as hell! And I thought Mr. Smith's vision was distorted!

            A person who votes for democrats/republicans, 'not conservative'... Oh murrrrder! You are about equal to Nixon, with a belief in powerful bureaucracy, spending your life counting and measuring things.

Slashdot Top Deals

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Close