"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice"
- Hanlon's Razor
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice"
- Hanlon's Razor
Mod parent up.
When used improperly, statistics are a dangerous tool.
Enter RequestPolicy, an add-on for firefox that does essentially this.
A 40-hour work week pays for our current standard of living. A 20-hour work week would reduce that standard of living.
There are some people, and a considerable number of them, for whom that doesn't really matter. Cheap house, cheap car, decent food, good computer, good internet. I don't need that many luxury goods. I just wish I had more time to make use of what I have.
More importantly, if people are becoming more efficient (since machines and computers can assist with or even take over some tasks that humans used to do), but don't work less, then we must find more to do. Finally and perhaps more interestingly, working less may make people more efficient, which should presumably increase the standard of living.
Hrm, I'm not entirely sure what makes this insightful. You are completely misrepresenting the four posts you disagree with.
There are people on
Firstly, the post you link to isn't saying that companies shouldn't turn up a profit, but that managing a company with money as the goal tends to cause the company to lose its focus on what it produces (after all, the focus is on the money). While a company can decrease the quality of its goods or services and seem unaffected for some time, in the long-term that is unsustainable. Surely you have heard the countless stories of companies being run into the ground to enrich the shareholders and leave management with golden parachutes.
As to what you are arguing here, that companies exist to make a profit and have an obligation to do so, I have a question. Make a profit for whom? Naturally, since I am neither upper management, nor a major stockholder, I would prefer that a significant share of the profit go to the employees, including management (indeed, they deserve to be paid well, given some of the shit they put up with), but not to the extent that is common now. I also believe that companies should charge for their services fairly, not pushing their prices up as far as they can, as that leads to economic instability, among other issues. Now attempting to enforce good corporate behavior of any sort can be problematic itself, but what I am trying to say here is that a company does not and should not exist for the profit of its owners alone. To say that a company has no other reason to exist than to turn up profit is an incredibly cynical and (in my opinion) dangerous point of view.
There are also people here who think that having government dictate how an economy should run is the preferred way, not allowing the private ownership and operation of property (capitalism) and free market (equality before the law, rule of law that does not discriminate against people and thus create inequality of treatment and inefficiencies of economy) to do what it does best - savings, investment, production.
To be honest, a lot of the things things you posted in the parent to the linked post invoke Poe's law for me, and make me wonder if you are just a troll. You misrepresent the linked to poster as advocating government "dictate" an economy, referring to some sort of "socialists or welfare statists" whom who describe as leeches, running an economy. What the posts in the thread you seem to me to be saying was that the services upper management and shareholders provide are not priced according to their added value, but according to their position of ownership, which is rent-seeking.
Here is the entirety of the linked post, which I generally agree with:
Every item in your hands was built and delivered to you by somebody with more money than you.
Bullshit. Every item in my hands was built and delivered by people who make about as much as I do. The rich just take a cut and add no value.
As for the argument you are making here, it is meaningless definitions. No such free market exists, and I believe that it in fact cannot exist. I believe that that defining free market as equality before the law and not discriminating against people so as to create inequality of treatment contradicts allowing unconstrained and unbridled private ownership and operation of property. Furthermore, though this may be taking what you are saying too far, if the government enforces private property as described, has it not effectively by that action alone dictated an economy?
So this is yet another failed example of government "investing". You can't invest somebody else's money if they are forced to give it to you under the threat of violence, so that money is not coming out of your pocket, you are forcing it out of other people's pockets to run your own technocrat goals, and mostly really those are corrupt goals.
Note that this was one of the ways that Al Gore's profited from his gov't ties.
The first link is a poster that seems to agree with you that deficit spending is bad, and who is arguing deficit spending has nothing to do with Keynesian economics, so I don't know what that link is doing here, except to demonstrate that you don't like Keynesian economics. The poster in the second link appears to be trying to demonstrate how people who borrow money need not have at net worth of less than 0, and that Clinton didn't run a deficit (which is something I won't get into). While the poster in the second link does ultimately contend that borrowing money to pay your debts isn't meaningless in another post, what he means by that is that as long as you can continue to borrow money, you can still spend, whereas if you cannot borrow money, your cheques bounce. I believe congress almost failed to agree to lift a restriction preventing them from continuing to borrow money at one point in the recent past.
As for your the rest of your argument, I agree with you that there is something seriously wrong with some of the things going on with the revolving door between the corporate and political spheres, as well as the national debt. However, that is a very obtuse way to state it, and you seem to be arguing from a viewpoint that taxes are immoral, although its hard to tell because some of the context is lost in your interpretation of the links.
TL:DR, this is largely based on misrepresenting the opinions of others, so I'm not sure why this is at +3.
You want to get rid of the TSA?
It's that simple.
No, no it really isn't. Its just not that simple. For instance, at least the following conditions must be satisfied for this method to work:
1. The business must believe they have something to gain in order to be amenable to such a change. Somewhat simply, the amount of business lost due to boycott must be greater than the potential amount of lost business due to the perception that the airlines are incompetent or less safe. I'm not quite sure we are even at this point yet.
2. The lost business must be sufficient for the airlines to care about the business of people who refuse to fly on account of the TSA. Business can ignore the demands of large groups of consumers. The television networks, as well as the music industry (the latter somewhat less so than it used to be) are good examples of this with respect to bundling and advertisements. This condition will not be fulfilled, because even if all of Slashdot would boycott flying, it would not be enough pressure to equal the potential shame of having to admit the security theater is useless (and that they previously supported it).
3. The business must acknowledge the cause of their loss of business as being directly related to the TSA. The videogame industry is a good example of how an industry can refuse to acknowledge a particular cause for loss of business. In general, only a portion of the business lost due to the TSA will be recorded by the airlines as such. This compounds the difficulty of point 1 and 2, but also could be its own problem if the airlines decided the problem was due to the inconvenience of waiting in slow-moving lines to be processed (this may or may not even refer to the TSA screening). In that case, they may decide to make the TSA more efficient, rather than removing them.
If they decided that was the case, perhaps they would even be correct about most of their customers.
4. The government must not require the airports to keep the TSA intact. This last one is almost certainly irrelevant if the government is as bought as I think it is, but I place it here because the airlines don't technically operate the TSA if my understanding is correct. The government is currently unwilling to change its position, presumably due to the contractors who like the TSA's existence, and the political difficulty of removing an entire department.
TL;DR, so I reiterate, even if all of Slashdot would boycott flying, it would not be enough pressure to equal the potential shame of having to admit the security theater is useless. And I suspect that between corporate business and business that is indeed absolutely necessary (intercontinental travel in general is a PITA without flight) would keep some of the airlines alive enough to completely ignore anything else. Boycotting is always useful, but it isn't the be-all and end-all of consumer politics.
This is why we are where we are. This is one of the biggest reasons (corporate funding being more important, obviously) the republicrats have consistently won the US elections in recent times. I am always reminded, when hearing sentiments like this, of Douglas Adam's description of a particular (fictional) democracy ruled by lizards. The people are not lizards, they just elect the lizards to rule them. Why do they elect lizards?
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
Please, do not sacrifice what is practical for the future for the convenience of the present. Surely, regardless of viewpoint, be it socialist or libertarian or what have you, this remains true: that people tend to get the worst government they (as a community) are willing to put up with.
Mod parent up.
TFA notes that she herself recently made an "off-color" joke (although not necessarily of the same quality)
(Incidentally, making off-color jokes in public doesn't necessarily make you a horrible human being who deserves public shaming, a point that Richards herself should appreciate as she recently joked with a fellow Twitter user about stuffing his pants with socks the next time he has to undergo a TSA pat-down.)
In the background is the emerging giant, AMD. AMD's past failures mean too many people do not understand the nature of AMD's threat to Intel and Nvidia. AMD has a 100% record of design wins in new forward-thinking products in the PC space.
Hrm, while I agree with a good deal of the rest of your post, how does this manage to not include the bulldozer architecture? As a largely AMD customer myself, I'm not sure I can bring myself to call that a "design win".
It will never be seen again. And the journalist will be considered lucky that he still has his camera. Given all of the talk I hear from people down in the USA concerning the sanctity of private property, it seems somewhat strange that the government would be so myopic in matters like this. I suppose I shouldn't find that strange, I guess. Just another example of how the people with power live under different laws than the rest of us.
Violation of TOS is breach of contract at most. A civil matter, not even a crime, and nowhere near a felony. The notion that violating a TOS is also a violation of CFAA would mean that anybody could make their own laws, simply by writing them into the TOS on their website. The very idea is ridiculous.
Ah, but but doesn't the DMCA already cause the breakage of any digital lock to become a violation of the law? This is just a logical extension of that sort of thinking is it not? "Digital Trespassing" oh the possibilities...
To all the whiny complainers above: they're free to decide what they want to sell or not.
As a customer, you can always choose to buy somewhere else if unhappy.
Absolutely not. When there are few suppliers available in the market, monopolistic and oligarchic pricing make consumer choice very limited, in some cases to the point where they have no choice but to either purchase a product that is gimped, needlessly inefficient, or priced through the roof, or do without entirely. Consumer-marketed printers and ink/toner, the pre-installed crapware that comes with most PCs, and of course US ISPs are good examples of this I believe.
This decision by seagate almost certainly doesn't fall into that category, since, as other posters have noted, there may soon not be a substantial market for 7200 RPM laptop hard drives. However, simply stating "they are free to decide what they want to sell or not" is not a good reason to dismiss this.
Somehow "Just like...Obama" isn't very encouraging to me
Very much this; mod parent up. I wonder what the consequences of an ad-less approach would be, however.
It may become harder for certain widget-making companies to achieve the sort of market penetration we see today when starting from scratch without using nuke-from-orbit style marketing. This could mean a greater duplication of effort in creating products (less economies of scale, potentially increasing the price of goods) and therefore less monopolization (potentially decreasing the price of goods), but also potentially makes it more difficult for small businesses to grow which may maintain established monopolies/oligarchies.
At any rate, I don't expect the results of forcing the current market into an ad-less or nearly ad-less state to be like anything that existed before.
Not entirely true. Wall street did back Romney much more than Obama, but Obama was also primarily supported by the 1%, just not to the extent that Mitt was. A quick search shows that large tech firms (M$, Apple, Google), the MPIAA firms (Disney, Time Warner, etc.), and various finance firms (many were also top Romney supporters) among Obama's top supporters.
Avoid strange women and temporary variables.