Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hm. (Score 1) 474

Yes, and what is the alternative? McCain?


If we had elected McCain/Palin we would be in far worse shape. Just call up the recent statements he's been making.

We would be at war in a dozen countries now had we elected him.

Comment: Re:Consider being a subset of SC (Score 1) 115

by the eric conspiracy (#47769005) Attached to: Statistics Losing Ground To CS, Losing Image Among Students

That's complete horseshit (along with this article). It's like saying math is a subset of CS because nearly all maths will be calculated by CS.

Stats is orthogonal to CS. You don't need one to do the other.

Having both though can give you a skill set that's quite useful.

Comment: Re:Monopolistic thuggish behavior (Score 4, Interesting) 335

For me it goes like this:

Electric company - thug
Water company - thug
Gas company - ok
Cable company - thug
Wireless company - thug
Phone company - thug (stopped using 8 years ago because they wouldn't repair their lines)
Trash company - ok

So there are 7 private companies I deal with for important services. FIVE of them are monopolistic thugs that do things like sending bills without reading the meters and fail to keep their infrastructure in reasonable repair (try having to boil water for two weeks because the water company didn't repair their treatment facility after a storm damaged it years ago and see what your opinion on this is).

These state sanctioned monopolies are the children of Satan. Or maybe Eris. They get into the regulators knickers and generally then do anything they please.

Comcast is now bidding to own the interwebs. Tell whoever you can that this would be a disaster for America.

Comment: Re:Some versions of it are marxist. (Score 2) 525

The problem with your analysis is that the laissez-faire folks would see points all of your stipulations as Marxist.

1. In unfettered capitalism monopolies are fine. While you don't want regulated markets. construction of monopolies through price manipulation etc. is fine. This is how we ended up with stuff like Standard Oil. Look what happened with the breakup of AT&T - gradually the companies formed by the split re-merged. Only regulation has prevented formation of a monopoly.

2, 3 and 4 are obviously restriction on free commerce and therefore Marxist.

Comment: Re:What's so American (Score 2) 525

And Marxism fails because it view labor as something nobody really wants to do ...

That is the exact opposite of how Marx viewed labour. For Marx, labour was the very essence of self-expression. You are what you produce. A critique of capitalism, and especially Fordism was that the worker is alienated from their own labour, and thus from the very essence of their self. Not only Marxism, but Socialist theorists pre-dating him assume that labour was something people really wanted to do, and left alone without the oppression of the state (remember according to Marx communism is not accomplished till the state melts away) and of the dominant class, would produce all the wants and needs of society voluntarily. The traditional attack on socialism thus was "who takes out the garbage?"

To understand the Marxian vision let me make a geek analogy. Imagine if there were a software project mandated neither by the state nor corporations, but something coders of their own volition go together to do. According to the Marxist idea what would motivate the participants is that their output of code reflects their sense of self worth. Others might then come along, validate them in recognising the fruits of the labour and then use it themselves ... all without coercion or money changing hands. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Of course, Marx was dreaming. That would never happen in the real world. As it happens people are inherently lazy. Too lazy, for example, to bother even to read a book and study what a thinker actually held before rushing to spout all kind of faux criticisms.

Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra