It doesn't matter what the subsidies consist of. I already know anyways which is obvious from my initial post in this thread.

There is no logical fallacy either. If company would not exist without subsidies, employees of that company would not exist either. You seem to think that somehow they would.

Oh and nice try pretending you somehow became confused and thought comments about subsidies and employees of a company meant all employees everywhere or something. My first thought after reading that was if you were really that stupid. Then i remembered that this is slashdot so its entirety possible you are but it is more likely you are a pedantic troll. Give it a rest. Any idiot knows what was said and the context it was said in. Your argument fails any reasonable examination.

Though scientists are not sure why this happens...

Combine it with an EM drive: double the speed & double the mystery. Maybe if you mix baffling with confounding you get a multiplier effect instead of just doubling. (That's the way the entropy seems to work with compounded software bugs.)

Umm, no. CATV stands for Community Antenna TeleVision; it evolved because people in areas without OTA reception (i.e., valleys) put up a shared antenna to receive OTA signals.

That movie was sci-fi at its best: mostly plausible*, educational, entertaining, suspenseful, memorable, timeless, and it made you think. And it had Raquel Welch!

* Except maybe for the shrunken human passengers part, but in the near future, remote "virtual" control operators may play similar roles the way military drone operators do now. They may end up having to make quick decisions in difficult circumstances in terms of the patient's life and say limitations of batteries etc. on potentially patient-customized probe(s).

by roaming around the body and killing cancer cells.

You heard it here first.

Wait, so do they rip the DVD/BDs, add in some ads, then re-burn them?

Of course, I still wouldn't see them, since I rip them before watching specifically to remove the ads and "unskippable" bullshit, but...

Oh! Wait - This only affects people already happily paying for a lower qual*BUFFERING*ity product. Never mind, then - Carry on with your paid inferior YouTube clone. ;)

Plutocrats will "encourage" law-makers try every other technique first before they have to spend profits to change themselves.

Really? You think a "new generation" is so simple-minded that they can't use reason to put together a value system that arrives at the same destination as so many others? You think it's a good thing to change out values like ... stealing people's stuff is morally bad? Like, using your l33t haxx0r skills to ruin someone's reputation for the lulz is bad? You're confusing the tools and technologies that a new generation finds at their disposal with being somehow related to the philosophical underpinnings of their value system.

I'm delighted that, despite the fastest growing population in the world appearing to embrace medieval theocratic nonsense as the basis of their value system, that at least a fair portion of the world has gone more down the route of using reason to examine and reinforce their moral code. Yes, a "new generation" may indeed show less of the superstition-based trappings surrounding the fringes of judeo-christian culture, but basic stuff like "don't use your new [whatever technology] to steal people's shit" doesn't mean that a moral code based on that reasonable observation that doing so is objectively bad means that changing [whatever technology] means the moral code is changing. Just, sometimes, the venue in which it's applied.

That's why pretending that it's malware that's the issue, and not abusive thieves and vandals (people), is an act of moral cowardice. Because it's the same old stuff, different playing field. People who focus on the gun, the car, the piece of viral code, whatever - they're too chickenshit to address what's actually at play: other people whose world views are broken enough to make malicious use of the tools. People scared of making value judgments about other people always, always reach for the tool as the villain. That says more about that person than it does about the actual villain.

Hey look! You're doing it right now. That's actually pretty funny.

No. I'm smarter than a lot of people, and many many people are smarter than me.

Oh, I've done MUCH worse than that.

Why are you asking me? Have I condemned anybody? I'm condemning those who try to pretend that nothing bad is ever anybody's fault. That (relative to the article we're talking about, here) fact that focusing on the tools people use (or mis-use) and ignoring the fact that it's people using those tools is intellectual laziness and often cowardice in the face of political correctness.

So you agree - people are different, and not all are equal. But ignoring that, we're talking about when people use tools (like malware) to steal other people's assets and reputations.

Caveat: I forgot to mention that not all organizations will accept this "aspergers discount". If they find you "difficult", some orgs will simply let you go rather than cut your salary.

It's kind of like ball teams: some team managers want consistency and predictability in players, and pay a premium for it.

Other teams are willing to take "damaged goods" to save money on players or take a gamble, and have staff that is used to dealing with unpredictable personalities. (It may be lack of "team" skills, habit of missing practices or being late, or a criminal/drug background.)

Ben Wallace pretty much won the Detroit Pistons the championship a decade ago by keeping Shaq at bay with vigor and skill usually seen in a more expensive player. But, he has a record of ticking off other players and staff on his team.

Both types of teams can and do win the big trophy, BUT you have to fit the profile of the team expectations to stay with such a team.

If you have to ask this question, I have to surmise that you're not familiar with a joy of an interesting job well done. Don't worry about it. There are enough people who are willing to work for the sake of doing interesting things and/or killing boredom.

There won't be anywhere where they can keep "more of the value". When you get into the situation where 99% are jobless because of automation, there are only two ways to go from there: either you have wealth redistribution, or you have a Luddite uprising that smashes the machines and rewinds the civilization back, and forces it to stay there to maintain social stability. The former option allows for further technological progress, the latter does not. If you personally had that choice, which one would you take?

There's no way to demand compliance when there are literally hundreds of people lined up behind you willing to do the job that you're currently doing.

History of past economic systems is generally not applicable to newer ones. If you tried to forecast the success of a capitalist system based on your personal experience in a feudal society, and the past historical track record in, say, Antique slave societies, you would have to conclude that it's an unrealistic utopia, because 90% of the population are needed just to grow the food for everyone else.

Thing is, as technology advances, it eventually accumulates enough changes to force a significant leap in how economics work. It's not really voluntary - the society either makes a leap (and this can also go smoothly or bloody, depending), or it falls off the progress bandwagon and gets stuck in past, and eventually gets conquered or otherwise pushed around by those who stayed on the track.

Capitalism is based on the notion of a workforce that has to work for a living, and on there actually being enough work necessary to satisfy the day-to-day demands that everyone has to do their parts. This assumption is not going to hold true for much longer. In fact, it wouldn't hold true in developed countries today already, if not for outsourcing - why bother with robots if Chinese ex-peasants are a dime a dozen? But those peasants will ride capitalism into middle class themselves, and then outsource to Africans; and then Africans will ride it, and then there's no-one to outsource to - and then it's robots anyway.

And just as feudalism couldn't survive and compete once agricultural techniques advanced to the point where the majority of the population didn't have to be involved in it, so capitalism won't survive once industrial production advances to the point where a single human is sufficient to control a factory that can supply the demands of an entire city.

It's acceptable to allow one that is bad, but noticeably better. If you keep iterating on it, eventually you'll actually get a decent candidate. More importantly, if you keep voting out the worse guys, being a worse guy will stop being profitable in politics.

-Keep every e-mail.

A follow-up to that - Document everything via email. Even that guy who does his damnedest to never go on the record with his requirements (and you'll meet plenty of them), summarize your conversation and email it to him for a yes/no confirmation that you understood his intent.

Of course, depending on who asks, this won't keep you from needing to fix other people's mistakes, but it can save your sanity, and possibly even your job, when Mr. Blowhard swears up and down that he told you X and you did Y.

Here's an sample specimen, but why would anybody want to see these annoying creatures up close?

The obvious response to which is

... "No."

I don't provide useful information to my opponent in a negotiation, simple as that.

"Oh, come now, Mr. Jones, I see from your pay stubs that you can afford a much nicer car than that Fiesta - Sorry, I must insist you buy a Fusion or Taurus!".