But it's you who sees religion where there isn't any. Why else would you call it "Calvinist"?

You should consider doing some reading, especially the writings of Max Weber -- "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".

In American history, the work ethic that places value on hard work and frugality is often ascribed to the puritans. It is by no means unique to them -- if I had brought up Asian Tiger Moms or the Jewish work ethic, someone else would have jumped on that, ignoring the rest of my argument.

But historically and culturally, the puritans were known to place a higher value on being good, hardworking people than on the ceremonies of religion. In fact, their whole idea is that being a good and useful member of society is a far better display of being "good" than going to church or confessions. In that sense, they have effectively distanced themselves from the traditional ceremonies of religion, despite the origins of the term (which is also why the new GOP has a bastardized concoction of values that admire both Jesus and capitalism).

In any event, I certainly think there is value to that worldview (hard work and frugality), your religious affiliations (or the lack thereof) notwithstanding. Perhaps I should call it the Horatio Alger work ethic, as Neal Stephensen calls it.

All right, all right. I'll stop having a beef with you.

Eh. You do realize that I am an American, right?

Dude, get that chip off your shoulder. For one, I am areligious myself, and was raised Hindu, so your comment is just silly.

I admire the Calvinistic work ethic without the religious connotation, and I am sorry you have to see religion everywhere, even when there isn't any.

You can appreciate the work ethic without subscribing to the religious view. After all, some of the hardest working communities (e.g. Asians or Jews) appreciate the value of hard work and diligence, and have nothing to do with Calvinism in the religious sense.

Hedges and sets odds on the bets such that no matter the outcome, there is profit.

Until that day comes, I will refer to globalization with a more accurate name: "neo-feudalism".

Ok, lets play the "whose resume is longer and thicker". You start.

Oh... your AC. So yours is nil.

Ya, I pretty much wrote off the story when I saw "hydroponic lights". Unless someone has invented a lightbulb that spews water from it, they're just writing a news story with keywords to try to make a buck.

Hmmm. That's a good point, especially since I carry around a big boat Note 2. But there's something I did with my Newton that I still don't do with any electronic device and that is take notes. It's the only device I ever had that recognized my native handwriting (not printing, not Graffiti from the Palm OS era), which is an amazing feat because I can barely read my own handwriting.

Sad thing was, I got much more utility out of my Newton than my iPad. I don't even know *where* my iPad is right now, and I'm not even sure where to look for it. It could be stolen for all I know.

http://opensslrampage.org/

if OpenSSL had 5 pages of bugs so far... and was widely used in an ecosystem where the source was there, just imagine the nightmare of closed source projects...

patching 100 bugs on average introduces 3 new bugs. now i know bugs != security vulnerabilities. but bugs are why people complain about software stability.

also a 'vulnerability' bug has a black market value that is always going to be higher than bug bounties. however an old exploit has the added value of 'reporting' it after a new vulnerability is found and the old one is blamed perhaps by news of this 'old' vulnerability. it's a revolving door problem. back in 1997 i knew how to 'fix' broken open source ports tree applications, because i used freebsd and it was very buggy (though less buggy than the windows 95 machine i had).

as i see it the problem is marketing. to get people to buy computers they promote them as doing a lot of things that they can only just barely do. and often the code base is filled by people who don't care about quality and comprehensible coding. and for for profit they often take steps to make the code illegible as a so called security through obscurity (which never works for more than a few years).

Of course, if someone did that to Apple nearly 20 years ago when the stock was in the toilet but they still had a pile of money they would've pretty seriously screwed themselves. Not saying it's never a right choice to do that but it's not always right either.

A computer that has run for three years. That's so cute!

You are clubbing all the 1% into a single group. There's a study by Saez and Zucman of Berkley/LSE that talks about how clubbing the entire 1% into a single group is disingenuous -- The other wealth gapâ"the 1% vs the 0.01%.

Most of the 1% to .1% are nothing more than hardworking Americans with a Calvinistic work ethic who have been successful. It is easy to do the math and realize how a two income family can break into the 1% territory after a couple of decades of hard work and fiscally conservative habits. Socially and economically, they are nothing like the top .1%.

The surge in 1% is entirely attributable to the growth in capital of the .1% while the rest of the 1% has in fact stagnated. The "middle rich" (1% - 10%) are in fact losing ground to the top .1% (i.e. capital is flowing upward) while the 1% to .1% have merely succeeded in holding on to their wealth.

Most government policies favor the really rich and *punish* the hardworking upper middle classes. In fact, I would argue in favor of Reagan-esque tax policies for these folks, who are for the most part well educated, successful individuals in banking, law, medicine, technology, consulting and so on. These are the ones who are really building the economy, but the ones who are being punished by the government and vilified by the mass media who club them with the truly wealthy.

Imagine a successful husband and wife earning $150k/year, working in a white collar job (lawyers, doctors, consultants, IT -- take your pick). According to the IRS, making $343k/year puts you in the top 1% (by income). But what about wealth? Well, that's supposedly $8.4MM.

Some simple math will make it evident that a husband and wife earning (an average) of $171k for 40 years (assume raises and lower starter incomes are factored into the average) who save 15% of their annual income, with a starting principal of $10000 will have ~$5.4 MM at the end of their careers. Assume that they invested in a home that cost $300k early in their careers, whose value has gone up 5X in the 30 year time that they had to pay off the mortgage. Assume that they more or less maxed out their 401K, giving them $17,500.00/year for 40 years each, which is ~$1.4MM. At best, they have $8.4 MM, assuming market crashes, children's education, and life threatening diseases didn't wipe out their savings.

However, by virtue of having $8.4 MM, suddenly, these people are being placed in the *same* category as someone with enough capital to buy legislation or pay an army of Cravath lawyers. That is not factoring in any smart investing in what's been a pretty bullish run (minus the recent crisis) or basic fiscal conservatism.

[Just one more reason] to legalize and regulate.

I can see how this kind of story would support legalization (crimes against criminals often go unaddressed), but how would it support regulating? Is theft unusually common with unregulated crops, as opposed to regulated ones?

(Ignorance plea: Heh, it occurs to me that I don't even know what crops are regulated and what isn't. Maybe agriculture is already totally micromanaged by Washington; I sure hear enough stories of corruption (e.g. subsidies) within the topic!)