It's easier here and now to "tap into Capitalism for reasonable income" than most times and places.

Capitalism didn't exist in most places and times, so naturally. But it's getting harder to get or keep a job, and if you have one, it pays less than it used to. Which is perfectly logical from Capitalism's point of view - why pay people when you can invest in machines? - but the lack of disposable cash is slowly strangling the entire system.

Starting a business is still pretty straightforward - sure, health care requirement are more complex, and some industries just have to many regulations for small players, but that's not the norm.

Starting a business is a matter of creating a legal entity. Now what are you going to produce, who are you going to sell to, and how are you going to afford the capital to get started? You can't compete with multi-billion dollar companies on price, quality doesn't matter to people already starved for disposable income, and while you could take a loan most new businesses fail - and the banks know it too.

Or if, like me, you like passive investing, it's trivially easy to invest online with only small amounts to start with now.

Investing requires disposable income to begin with, and actually makes the systemic problem worse since it further lowers demand for end products.

"Capitalism" just means that the means of production are acquired by buying then, vs military conquest or cronyism.

Capitalism, as it's commonly used, also implies that production is demand-driven: people buy the products they want, this changes their relative profitability, which in turn shifts production resources to increase or decrease supply as needed. The problem is, as more and more people are made unemployed or fall into poverty despite having jobs, they no longer have the means (money) to communicate their desires, and the system breaks down. And to make matters worse, as demand slumps unemployment increases and wages fall, which drives demand down further, leading to a vicious circle - a tailspin, really.

The most painless way to fix the situation would be to institute an unconditional minimum income - citizen wage - to ensure demand stays up and even the unemployed can communicate their desires. However, as the prevailing ideal is still the "hero of labour" of the Industrial Era, this is unlikely to be politically feasible. Thus I suspect we'll be seeing a full-blown economic apocalypse - an utter collapse of Capitalism - before things start looking up.

If 3D printers ever mature, owning your chunk of the means of production will be easier still.

Not really. It simply means "end products" will be electricity and ink-equivalent.

Power dynamics, bro. How do you think it (might) have went down? "I'll bend over for a review" or "I can do a lot for your project, what can you do for me?"

This has already been debated out by professionals. Giving a bribe makes makes you just as guilty whether you offered one or the other party requested one.

Trying to reframe a clear case of bribery as a helpless victim of teh patriarchy being unjustly blamed for submitting to the greesy gasp of a dick-wielding overlord for desperately needed publicity doesn't work for the simple reason that sure she would had gotten all the advertisement she wanted simply by publishing such advances. And I suppose you know this too, hence you tagging "bro" there.

It is a government actions, specifically this lawsuit is based on the federal anti-trust laws, which are completely unconstitutional and illegal and detrimental to the economy in every way.

You're joking, right? Antitrust laws are only detrimental to one aspect of the economy: the unregulated ability for a few individuals or corporations to make an obscene amount of money at the expense of everyone else. When a monopoly exists, it gains an incredible amount of power over the free market that is not easy to overcome. At that point, a free market no longer realistically exists without government intervention, because the ability to break into that market becomes hopelessly compromised. To the extent that free markets are generally considered to be the epitome of a good economic system these days, clearly any government intervention required to ensure that such free markets continue to exist is justified, legal, and constitutional.

The companies say there aren't enough IT workers. The IT workers say there aren't enough jobs. It really comes down to there being huge numbers of IT workers but very few good ones.

Or, alternatively, very few companies willing to pay for good work. Minimum wage = minimum effort. This is not limited to IT, but extends to every industry and occupation. Yet for some strange reason the notion that table scraps entitle you to heroic efforts rather than hatred and resentment persists.

A rising tide lifts all boats!

The next rising tide will come with the next economic system, at least in the West. Capitalism was the system of Industrial Age, and is defunct now that everything's getting automated (except in countries that a still industrializing), since ordinary folks no longer have ways to tap into it for reasonable income.

I wonder what the Information Age economic system will be called, and what equivalent to Communism will its inevitable abuses spawn?

Gays always had the same rights to marry that everyone else has had- to marry someone of legal age of the opposite sex who was not closely related to them.

And blacks always had the same rights as everyone else on same terms as everyone else: that they needed to be white to have any.

Look into Eugenics to find more but it was the same line of thinking of nazies and the aryan race.

Yes, it is. And frankly, those of us who aren't Nazis are starting to get a bit tired of having this exact same conversation over every single group you wish to take your problems out on. So please follow your fuhrer to the wastebin of history already.

I'm pretty sure the headline "ISIS attacks ISS" would confuse so many people that the world would never recover.

Compared to other scripting languages (I'm thinking Bash, Python, heck even Perl), yeah, Powershell kind of sucks. But compared to the incredible hacks that had to be used a decade ago to do scripting on Windows servers, it's a 1000% improvement. But, at the end of the day, it has to be one of the worst scripting languages I've ever used.

Apart from anything else, what I truly dislike about Powershell is how verbose it is. Perhaps it's my *nix heritage, but I like tidy little mnemonic commands like "mv", "rm" or "grep". Less typing, less things to wrong when you're writing scripts. I also find the syntax rather awkward. It's far better than the alternatives (like vbscript or jscript with WMI), but it's still a long ways away from what I would consider a decent scripting language.

Actually, the worst part of about Powershell is how awfully slow it is. I'm sure that is because it's basically an interface sitting on top of .NET. The *nix shells are, for the most part, self-contained binaries, so bringing up a Bash script is very fast. But then again, sh and its descendants aren't trying to create a "do it all" environment, but rather create control structures and variables to expand upon existing *nix commands.

I wrote a Powershell scriptlet a few months ago to dump Exchange 2010 mailboxes based on some criteria. Works like a charm, and like I said, despite my dislike of Powershell itself, I'm very grateful that it exists. But loading the Exchange scriptlets library takes something 10 to 20 seconds, and you can see Powershell nailing system resources like crazy to get to that point.

While its roots, or at least its inspiration, are the Unix shells, in very important ways, it ignores key Unix principles. It is indeed what Bash would work like if it had been written by Microsoft.

You have no coherent argument against my statement, so you resort to the old standby in an attempt to squash dissenting views.

You statement is invalid because it contains no precise data or even estimates, but uses weasel words like "large swaths" and "many" in their place. It is incomplete because it contains no references whatsoever to back your assertions, even if they were precise enough to backed, which they aren't. And it is also pointless because with over 1 billion muslims on this planet, there are undoubtedly "many" with "something fundamentally broken" with them.

In short, clumsy propaganda.

If b is an expression that returns a reference to a newly allocated resource, such as fopen or malloc, this if

So it's a tradeoff: get neat one-liners for a thing most C programmers don't bother to do, at the expense of adding a hard to notice source of bugs to every if statement.

The same formula is used by Hollywood when someone messes with the occult. The dire, yet vindicated, warning. The monster in the second act. Etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that Hollywood honestly doesn't know the difference between science and magic. Although computers even more so.

I'm far more concerned about the effect of "cops bend the rules because they sooo hate the evil killer and need to get him off the streets" shows. Cops actually do get influenced by that. I think there was a study about that, but it may have been not published because it was too groundbreaking....

Powershell is just enough like Bash to make me groan after ten minutes and ask "Why the f--- didn't they just make an integrated Bash shell?"

"New" as in "newly discovered"....

Risky to who, exactly?

The research bearing fruit. No one is suggesting removing protections from actual subjects. The article is about funders wanting to fund "successful" (that is, hypothesis affirming) and "publishable" (that is, less contraversial) experiments.

His goal is to somehow shift the funder's incentives so high sucessful completion risk/high reward (either in basic knowledge or specific benefit) stuff gets made.

And I agree. The shit that gets funded at any real level is often piecemeal and uninteresting. Hell, even "we want money to try a similar study with N>35 so we can test a lot of spin off research of this promising study" get shot down for being too out there.%lt;/rant>