Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Surprised? (Score 2) 149

Yes.

Perhaps the simplest thing would be to point out that while America might be building walls to keep unwelcome visitors out, the Soviet Union built walls to keep its people in. A state that needs to imprison its entire population is not a state that has any right to exist.

I'm really not sure why we even need to discuss this. Assuming people are too young to personally remember this, were they also asleep during their history classes?

Comment Re:Surprised? (Score 2) 149

Communism is an economic theory that can't work in theory - it centralises economic planning leading to an insoluble information processing scaling problem, while at the same time destroying precisely the information (prices) that are needed to make sensible decisions - and has been proven not to work in practice. There have been plenty of Communist states. They all failed spectacularly, generally displaying massive corruption and brutal oppression as they did so.

They may not have looked like you imagine Communism should look, but that's because Communism cannot function at the scale of a nation-state, not in the real world, not with real people. And an economic theory that doesn't work unless people stop acting like people is not a very good theory.

Comment Re:Surprised? (Score 5, Insightful) 149

Would it really be such a bad thing for the Soviet Union to come back?

Yes. The Soviet Union was a nightmare state.

The offered a balance of power. With the exception of a couple proxy wars (not that they weren't bad) we kept each other in check, but never checkmate. Compared to now, the world did its own thing.

Tell that to Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak republics, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Not to mention North Korea and Vietnam. I'm sure they enjoyed doing their "own thing".

After the fall of the Soviet Union, we immediately elevated ourselves to the status of, "United States of America: Full-Time World Cop." That has not gone well. I sometimes miss the sanity of mutually assured destruction.

What? Seriously, what? How old are you? Do you actually remember the Cold War?

The fact that America is a flawed nation is no excuse for false equivalencies with brutal totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao. Those countries, under those leaders, deliberately killed tens of millions of their own people. We never want to see anything like that again.

Comment Re:Surprised? (Score 4, Informative) 149

There is no meaningful difference between totalitarian regimens in practice. The only real difference are the excuses. Fascism, Communism and Nazism are one and the same, and no it s not possible to have a non totalitarian communist country. Communism needs big and all powerful governments and those governments as they grow become more and more totalitarian. There is no way to avoid it.

I agree with that for the most part (and history bears you out with regards to Communism). However, Fascism doesn't tie itself to a specific, unworkable, economic theory; it accepts capitalism so long as the state maintains control. Which is is a very prominent factor in Russia of late, possibly even more than in China.

Comment Re:Producing good TV is Expensive... (Score 1) 116

I think what a lot of people (particularly Slashdotters) fail to realize is the cost to produce some of these shows. Take a show like Portlandia - You'd think you could shoot it with a handycam and a Macbook, but in fact there is a large crew of professionals behind the scenes -

That's not a large crew of "professionals". That's a large crew of people standing around doing nothing of value. You need a director, somebody to hold the camera and somebody of hold the microphone. Everything else is all Hollywood bullshit. Assistants and assistants to assistants. Lackeys and assistant lackeys.

Lighting. Multi camera shoots.

Then things like props and costumes, makeup, etc, all need to be on set.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 888

I see no evidence for this. There is not enough oil to spend on transportation driving fuel guzzling vehicles like in the US but this is not the model used in other 'civilized' places in Asia like Japan. They use electric public transport a lot.

Japan's per capita energy use is similar to that of Europe, and about half that of the USA, but twice that of china, and 4 times that of India, Indonesia, etc.

That ignores externalised energy though - manufactured goods consumed in the west are made in the east which skews the energy usage levels to mean the west is lower than it should be based on consumption.

It's bad regardless, even if the u.s. dropped down to Japan or France levels, and china, India, Indonesia, brazl, and Africa were brought up to Japan levels.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...