Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The Actual Issue (Score 1) 322

That law has little to do with this situation. The act was committed while he was in the care of the school, unless it can be shown that the boy told his parents he was going to make the fake account there is nothing there for the parents to be charged with. Now on to not deleting the account, the law requires parents to prevent actions of a child under their control, the law does not require parents to compel action of a child under their control.

Comment: Re:You have it wrong. (Score 1) 322

If your kid is in a park, grabs a rock, throws it at someone and causes harm, then you are responsible. Not the parks office, not the city, not the state, and not in the case of this incident, the school.

When the child is at the park they are the responsibility of of the person taking care of them, the parents. When the child is at school they are the responsibility of the school. The school gave the kid access to Facebook, the school did not monitor the child's activity. How would a parent be able to monitor their kids online activity at school?

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 2) 294

by jimbolauski (#48106149) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: An Accurate Broadband Speed Test?
20 networks, you should probably try 5GHz WiFi, it's supposed to utilize dynamic frequency selection and dynamic power control and fewer people use it. Even if 5Ghz was widely adopted around you it "should" only slow down if everyone is using it at the same time and some of those people are further away then you are to their wireless router. You will have less range then 2.5GHz but in a crowded apartment complex that is a good thing because there is less chance of your neighbor crapping on your SNR.

Comment: Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google. (Score 1) 385

by jimbolauski (#48101493) Attached to: Chimpanzee "Personhood" Is Back In Court

The idea that a corporate person should have freedom of speech is, I think, a problem. For example, it allows them to spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns. This is undemocratic. Corporations don't get to vote or stand for election, but are allowed to have huge influence over politics through money. Since they are not real people they often act without morals or any sense of human decency, and try to get politicians with a similar disposition elected and the law change to reflect their myopic obsession with profit above all else.

The problem with this is that when you boil it down a corporation is just a group of people. That group of people pools their money together and buys adds or donates to politicians in ways that benefit the goals of their group. The rights of a person do not decrease when they are in a group. I would much rather corrupt politicians get removed from office then start limiting speech.

Comment: Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (Score 2) 242

by jimbolauski (#48054827) Attached to: Senators Threaten To Rescind NFL Antitrust Exemption
They do have a right to negotiate how their content is distributed but they are a monopoly and that gives them an unfair advantage to negotiate those terms. Removing the antitrust exemption will allow the government to go after the NFL for these practices, as well as many other practices, rookie pay scale, salary caps, merchandizing, franchising, stadium deals... The NFL is allowed to get away with a lot of things because of this protection. It's all just election cycle dick waving but the NFL should be wary about this gaining traction, if that happens the senators will be forced to use their dicks on the NFL.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 353

This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.

It seems that the goalposts just moved again. I offered this verse as a response to your statement "I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation". I did not offer it in support of an argument that a man is entitled to another man's property. This should have been apparent from the context, as I immediately preceeded this verse by the relevant quote from your own post.

How about this where does Jesus say it is required that you have to give up your possessions in order to go to heaven? Your quote is missing the context of the second half of his statement. Jesus does not say that the only way to make it to heaven is to sell all your possessions and give them to the poor.

You moved the goalposts by changing the subject of conversation from "no private property" to "means of production owned by workers", which are two very different things. Socialism does require the means of production being owned by workers. It does not require the absence of private property. If you look through the last few posts, you'll notice that you went from talking about "no private property" to suddenly talking about "means of production owned by the workers". You'll not that my objection was to your "no private property" definition of socialism (which is incorrect), and not your "means of production owned by workers" definition. My latest objection was that you "moved the goalposts" by abandoning your previous definition (which was incorrect) while pretending that your new "means of production owned by workers" definition was what you were saying all along. Also, it's unclear why I have to spell this out for you when it should all be apparent from context.

You going to have to understand the context of what I was saying. It's a big boy concept which means that you can't just look at one sentence you have to look at everything. If we are discussing workers being entitled to more of the profits, a person of average intelligence would be able to grasp that when someone says private property ownership in that context they are talking about workers having a share in the means of production. None of that changes the fact that your comment was about workers that did not invest in capital equipment getting more of the profits that were gained by that equipment. Which is a socialists concept.

Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.

So when the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre in 1911 by Vincenzo Peruggia, this was socialism? I grow tired of your absurd attempts at redefining socialism. I figured after a few attempts, you'd give up and agree to the standard definition. Clearly I was wrong.

Again I am talking about means of production when I say property, I know it's tough for you to understand context.

It is possible. However, that's orthogonal to the discussion we're having. You stated that workers don't see the full benefit of their labor because they lack an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency. The necessary implication of that claim is that an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid.

Your logic has failed you again, it's not necessary that the ownership stake is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid. The ability to use it is a factor as well, two people one that is qualified to use machinery and one that is not, the one that is qualified will be paid more then the one that can only do manual labor. You are trying to define a grey world in black and white terms it simply won't work.

While I appreciate your condescending attitude, I don't see the problem with the hypothetical situation you set forth. The numbers line up, and everything is working fine. Are you offering this as an example of just how easy it would be for society to transition away from the compulsory-labor model we have now? If so, well done.

This was your quote.

that rewarding lazy behavior and creating more lazy people doesn't negatively impact those who "work hard" nor does it necessarily have any adverse effect on society as a whole.

If you go by my model they people working now have 6.5% less then before the lazy revolution, I would count that as negatively impacting those who work hard. I know you really wish you could do nothing get something in return and not impact anybody else but it's not true.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 353

And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.

Yes, you can. Indeed, it is required to be so. That's not the same as "no private property", though. You've just moved the goalposts.

How did I do that, please don't tell me it's because I didn't explicitly say owning the means of production? We are talking about worker owner relationships, your quote was about the threat of workers rioting because the owners are pocketing what is rightfully theirs. That has nothing to do with owning a house, car, or any other possession, it's hard to believe you are that dumb.

The use of violence implies that the workers are entitled to the profits beyond what they originally agreed to, and they are simply taking what is theirs.

No, the means of production being owned by the workers is socialism. Threat of violence is merely one mechanism through which socialism can be brought about. The threat of violence can similarly be used to bring about other forms of socioeconomic organization. It's not peculiar to socialism. Capitalists have used the threat of violence against workers as well; was this also socialism?

Could you find where I stated that violence is only a tool of socialism? Didn't think so? Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.
Vladimire Lenin "Peaceful surrender of power by the bourgeoisie is possible, if it is convinced that resistance is hopeless and if it prefers to save its skin. It is much more likely, of course, that even in small states socialism will not be achieved without civil war, and for that reason the only programme of international Social-Democracy must be recognition of civil war."

You argued that it was their ownership of technology that entitled them to the gains afforded by it, did you not? Or are you now saying that its their work, not the ownership stake, that entitles them to reap the majority of the benefits provided by technology? Make up your mind.

Is it possible that the owner is in his tractor plowing the fields? Here is your quote.

However, we've established that the people footing the bill aren't working hard, they're merely owning capital.

That has not been established the people footing the bill can be working hard, just not doing unskilled labor.

Why wouldn't it fall on the people making the bulk of the money (the capitalists who own technology, as opposed to those who labor)? You seem to be contradicting yourself again.

I'll try to explain it very simply so even you can under stand. These numbers are just for illustration so don't take them literally. We start out with 90% of the people working, those 90% pay for the safety net of the 10% of lazy people 11.11% of their pay goes to the safety net. 5% of the people realize that they too could stop working and live off the safety net. Now 85% are paying for 15%, and pay 17.64% of their pay for the safety net. You simply can't have more people taking the same amount out while having fewer people put something in unless the people putting something in put in more.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 353

I can't really see how imprisonment by a government is qualitatively worse than damnation to the fiery pits of hell for all eternity.Disingenuous argument.

I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation. What Jesus is saying is that is you give up your possessions, give the money to the poor and follow him you will be rewarded with eternal salivation. He did not say that is the only way to end up in heaven.

This is where I disagree. Much like "things fall to the ground" is an oversimplification of gravity (and as such, is not "gravity"), "there is no private property" is an oversimplification of socialism (and as such, is not "socialism"). If your understanding of socialism can be summed up as "there is no private property", then I can see how you could come to such a conclusion. However, that's not an accurate or complete characterization of what's generally understood to constitute socialism.

Can you have socialism with ownership of the means of production? Please give me your definition of socialism that does not include the means of production being controlled by the people. Gravity being inverse square to the distance is just as fundamental part of the definition of gravity as the means of production being owned by the collective is to socialism.

Not really, any more than the idea that police should enforce laws or that courts should adjudicate trials are socialist concepts. By your reasoning, anything beyond anarchy is a socialist concept. That's not what most people mean when they talk about socialism. The idea that land owners should give more to their workers less [sic] they revolt is more rational self-interest than anything else.

The threat of violence either through the government or mob riots to demand "a fair share" is socialism. Negotiating wages is not socialism, unionizing and refusing to work until demands are met is not socialism. There are many avenues that can be taken without the threat of violence to get "a fair share". The use of violence implies that the workers are entitled to the profits beyond what they originally agreed to, and they are simply taking what is theirs.

However, we've established that the people footing the bill aren't working hard, they're merely owning capital.

We have not established that, you would need to show that the owner is not working, which has not been done. There are many other things that have to be done on a farm besides picking fruit.

Nobody needs to "work hard" except to satisfy the owners of capital, not to meet the cost of maintaining society.

That how a business works, you have to make more money then you are putting in other wise you lose money and go out of business and then nobody is working. Do you think all business should lose money?

that rewarding lazy behavior and creating more lazy people doesn't negatively impact those who "work hard" nor does it necessarily have any adverse effect on society as a whole.

It does when you have safety nets. Someone has to pay for those benefits. When you have more people receiving them you need more money to pay for them, since the contributor base is shrinking because you have more lazy people the larger burden will fall on the rest of the people working.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 353

Indeed, and "If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me" was something that Jesus supposedly said. Does this also sound like the beginning of socialism to you? Is any statement opposing unbridled greed "the beginning of socialism" to you? Most people have a slightly less superficial understanding of socialism, so that might explain why they aren't as quick as you to label everything "socialism". The same applies to your Rousseau quote.

No it does not, it sounds like you are free to choose to sell your possessions and give them to the poor. Socialism doe not allow for a choice it's give up your wealth by force or threat of force. Rousseau's quote was saying that no person had a right to private property and that all property belongs to the collective. "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.". I don't have a subscription to Modern Socialists but I'm pretty sure the means of production being controlled by the government is a pillar of socialism.

Gravity the concept as we understand it today, or gravity the force? One indeed did not exist before Newton's definition, while the other did.

Let me put it this way, if the understanding of gravity being inverse square to the distance was known before Newton officially defined gravity. Would that concept of gravity being inverse square to the distance not be considered an idea that lead to the Newtonian definition of gravity? That idea is in the Newtonian definition. Rousseau's idea that there is no private property is a socialists idea. Your idea that the land owners should give more to their workers less they revolt and take from the land owner is a socialists concept as well.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept all of the statistics you've provided. Are you suggesting that by merely foregoing cell phone ownership, avoiding modern transportation, and eschewing indoor plumbing, thereby returning to conditions comparable to those experienced by serfs, they'd only need to work a few minutes per week to support their newly-lowered standard of living?

If you owned the technology you could work significantly less. How much depends on how fast a person could plow with a tractor, seed with machinery, spraying with herbicide, insecticide and fertilizer, mowing/harvesting with a tractor, and transporting to sell. You would also need to account for costs to maintain your tractor, amortize your equipment over it's life, and consumables like seed, fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides, and diesel. I don't know where your coming up with minutes per week but you could definitely work much less.

The seasonal migrants all ready do work less only 1/4 of the the year. The year round workers don't own the technology so they don't see lions share of the benefit but yes if they choose to forgo modern technology they would not have to work as much to provide for them selves.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 353

Are you saying that "Rational or not, justifiable or not, inequitable distribution of wealth breeds unrest. That's a fact, and the wealthy among us would do well to keep that in mind." is not a socialists concept?

For the record, proto-socialist ideas started popping up in France distinctly after the revolution.

"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or death" was the slogan of the French revolution. Fraternity was a concept that people had a legal responsibility to ensure that everyone gets their fair share. That sounds like the beginning of socialism to me.

Here is a quote from Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1754, way before the French revolution.
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naÃve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

So I guess it's safe to say that bounding ideas or concepts by the date is pretty foolish. Did gravity not exists before Newton defined it?

Did you read below that I will repeat it since you missed it, if you are saying they had it equally as good you need to find something that made up for a serf's lack of technology, like cell phones, clean drinking water, indoor plumbing, living quarters without livestock, cars, laundry facilities,... What area did the serfs have it better then migrant workers to make up for all those things I listed.

First, I'll reiterate my objection that those aren't things that migrant workers have, generally speaking. Second, I'll reiterate the response I offered earlier: leisure time and living space

80% of migrant workers have cell phones
42% drive a car to work, 8% walk, 35% ride with others, 8% take a bus, 7% use Raitero (shuttle).
95% had water for washing, 80% drinking water and cups, 93% had a toilet

Living space? serfs had live stock living in their "houses". I don't know if you know this but goats and sheep crap all the time. I don't know about you but I would rather live in a house cramped with people then with animals, feces, and urine.

Now for your claim of leisure time. From the study I cited the average hours worked per week was 43 hours. It's safe to say that is the average for a year round worker, serfs worked more then that. Now to the seasonal migrant. Seasonal migrant workers are not working 3/4 of the year, they would have to work 23 hours a day every day to work the same hours as someone who works 40 hours a week year round.

The disclaimer I've added to the end of my last three posts (as well as this one) has been rather prophetic, don't you think? Perhaps you're interested in breaking the 76-post-long-thread record I set with bingoUV? That would be even more impressive with this disclaimer in place the whole time. I totally think you should go for it.

You can stop responding any time you like, yet you still continue to respond.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 353

by jimbolauski (#47997331) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

You implied as much when you referred to my comment about the French revolution as a "socialist rant". The French revolution predates socialism, so it's not really reasonable to say that it has anything to do with socialism or that discussing the causes of the revolution is inherently socialist.

"Rational or not, justifiable or not, inequitable distribution of wealth breeds unrest. That's a fact, and the wealthy among us would do well to keep that in mind." Is it possible to have socialists ideas before the term socialism was coined? It doesn't matter what you were referencing, the idea you were conveying is a socialist one.

I was saying that a serf in the middle ages had it more or less equally good as modern migrant workers.

Do you see this? Do you see what I'm dealing with here?! You provide counterexamples to your own claims! I will add this technique to my trolling repertoire, as the effect it had on me can only be described as profound bewilderment. It's madness, I tell you. Madness!

Did you read below that I will repeat it since you missed it, if you are saying they had it equally as good you need to find something that made up for a serf's lack of technology, like cell phones, clean drinking water, indoor plumbing, living quarters without livestock, cars, laundry facilities,... What area did the serfs have it better then migrant workers to make up for all those things I listed.

In any case, I don't mind repeating myself. The person risking their capital should forfeit [some of] the benefits in order to preserve social order, to prevent civil unrest, and to avoid the fate that befell the aristocracy of France during the French revolution.

If they are only given enough not to riot then they are way over compensated. People are breaking the law just for the opportunity to go work as a migrant worker, that is a long way away from a revolt.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 353

by jimbolauski (#47993199) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

Actually, I've offered plenty of evidence against "the point"

What evidence have you provided, you have not given a single source for your claims. The only source you provided was your racist "packed like Mexicans ones".

Indeed, I misspoke. If this wasn't evident to you from context, here are some links to earlier posts in this thread where I didn't misspeak. The argument that you set forth (that I'm objecting to) is "there are fewer people farming then there was 600 years ago, this means fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population". This argument is invalid (despite both the antecedent and consequent being true), since "fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population" does not logically follow from the fact that "there are fewer people farming then [sic] there was [sic] 600 years ago". For example, the larger population could simply be eating less per person. The larger population could be turning to hunting or gathering. I never argued against the individual statements you made. I merely pointed out that the logic argument you form from them is not sound. Perhaps if you're not in the habit of engaging in formal rational discourse, this distinction may be lost on you. Feel free to write it off as me being pedantic, as you already seem to have done.

Here is what I said, "There are fewer people farming then there was 600 years ago, this means fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population". This statement was never about few farmers correlating to a larger population. I made the assumption that you would be able to grasp that there has been a population increase and that the statement was not about those two items but about the efficiency in production that made it possible. I did not think you were so simple that I had to spell every thing out so rigorously.

The French revolution actually predates the advent of socialism by a few decades, but don't let reality stop you from throwing around the "socialist" label as though it were a pejorative.

And when did I say Socialism predated the French Revolution. Here is a quote from your comrade Trotsky "The party that leans upon the workers but serves the bourgeoisie, in the period of the greatest sharpening of the class struggle, cannot but sense the smells wafted from the waiting grave." That is very similar to your quote, and I don't think you are even thick enough to say Trotsky was not a socialist revolutionary.

. Based on what Google's dictionary tells me, racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"

So the stereotype that Mexicans live in cramped quarters is not a negative attribute. That negative attribute applied to all Mexicans does not make them inferior? A racial stereotype with negative or positive connotations is racists.

I never suggested that a serfs [sic] life was better then [sic] a migrant workers [sic].

You certainly debated the fact that serfs had it better. Your quote.

Did serfs live in houses with 30+ others? Migrant workers do. Did serfs' diets consist of beans, rice, and water? Migrant workers' do. Regarding the hours-per-week claims, they seem totally disconnected from the realities I've seen. I've never seen a migrant worker that worked nice short days or took weekends off, but without reliable statistics, we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Another quote

I was saying that a serf in the middle ages had it more or less equally good as modern migrant workers.

To make up for all the modern amenities a migrant worker has a serf would have to have it much better they did not. At least now faced with overwhelming evidence and common sense you concede this point even if it's just you claiming not to have made it.

My argument was merely that gains in efficiency of production would have resulted by now in a society where labor participation is not required for the basic needs of the human population to be met, if they weren't instead being pocketed by the wealthy. That you're now stuck on repeating a phrase that's at most tangential to my argument only goes to show that you're more interested in "winning" than in anything I have to say.

I have never denied that nor debated that the people that can not afford to buy the technology do not see most of the benefits of using that technology. The people that pay for the technology are the ones that see the majority of the benefits from that technology. I have asked you multiple times this same simple question which you can't seem to answer. Why should the person risking their capital forfeit the benefits?
Your only answer was to avoid socialists revolution. Migrant workers have seen benefits from technology, instead of working long hours plowing, seeding, weeding, and harvesting, they only work long hours harvesting, a seasonal job, a vast majority of their income is generated in 1/4 of the year. Even if you assume they worked 80 hours a week during that quarter of a year that's still only 20 hours a week averaged per year. Unless you think that migrant workers work 160 hours a week during the season they will be working less then 40 hours a week over the course of a year.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 353

by jimbolauski (#47985617) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

Based on your claims alone. You never cited a reference for your 60-80 hours claim. Also, I didn't know there were reliable labor statistics that went that far back. My understanding is that the amount of leisure time afforded the average person has been steadily decreasing since the hunter-gatherer era. Since neither of us have cited any references to support our positions, I don't see why I should simply assume your claim has more validity than my own.

I never cited a reference for that claim because you were the one that made it you said it's quite possible that some work a few weeks at 80+ hours. Again you are ignoring the point because of minute details that don't change the facts. The maximum hours a serf or migrant could work is sun up to sun down, from the survey we know that migrants do not work those hours all the time, for every 80 hour week there are 3 30 hour weeks. Serfs worked sun up to sun down except Sundays and religious holidays, half tending "their" land and the other half working the landowners land.

We do have fewer farmers. We do have a larger population. We have had huge increases in efficiency. However, these are all orthogonal claims, and it is not true that one follows from the other(s), which is what your original claim stated (intentionally or not).

Please tell me how having fewer producers and a larger population would not indicate an increase in efficiency?
Either way, neither of these three facts contradicts my claim that workers have not seen the full benefit of these huge increases in efficiency because their productive output must have increased for them to have maintained a constant quality of life.

I never disputed that workers have not seen the full benefits of technology. I even told you why. The workers don't own the technology so they are not going to see the full benefits of it. You even went into a socialists revolutionary rant "That's my point. Rational or not, justifiable or not, inequitable distribution of wealth breeds unrest. That's a fact, and the wealthy among us would do well to keep that in mind".

It wasn't racist, and it wasn't a joke. It might have been racist if I had somehow suggested that sparse living arrangements are superior to dense ones, or that Mexican immigrants are inferior to others due to their choice in housing accommodations.

"Packed like Mexicans" is racists stereotype, being an immigrant that lived in cramped quarters does not make that statement any less racists.
Again you refuse to say how a serfs life was better then a migrant workers, other then "they are packed like Mexicans".

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 353

by jimbolauski (#47983063) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps
I wouldn't say that, you are just so focused on contradicting irrelevant details, I would assume it's because you can't contradict the actual point. For instance the exact number of hours a migrant works when a serf works considerably more then your highest estimate. Or being pedantic about the wording of my claim that we have fewer farmers and a larger population which could only happen with huge increases in efficiency, none of which you disputed.

The bottom line is no reasonable person would believe for one second serfs had it better then migrant workers. You have not provided a single source except a racist joke to back any of your outlandish claims.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...