Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:wars destroy wealth (Score 1) 162

Yes, start with insults, that's always a good way to prove that you have the intellectual high-ground

- I don't see the difference, how I start is irrelevant. The relevant factor here is your government provided education and it has done the job.

What happens to these goods after they have been produced and exchanged, if there is nobody to consume them.?

- the only way to consume something is to produce something of your own and to exchange for what you are interested in consuming. Thus the people who can actually consume something are those very people that produce. This should be obvious even to you with a simple example: a farmer produces and then consumes what he produced. Got it? A farmer can exchange with a tool maker if the tool maker provides farmer with the tools the farmer needs and the tool maker clearly needs to eat. Etc.

It's consumption of non-domestic products that cause a trade deficit, not consumption by itself.

- consumption by itself is irrelevant, you are correct however, it is consumption of goods that were *not paid for* that causes the trade deficit.

only a very small portion of what you pay for a Chinese-made product actually goes to the Chinese company

- really? Are you an accountant for one of the Chinese companies? I actually deal with Chinese manufacturers for GPS trackers and other electronics, you are incorrect.

I'm curious which school YOU went to, where you were taught that taxation is theft

- I deduced it from the first principles. If you are wondering though, I went to the most communist school of all, I was born in the USSR and attended the public education system there. I was happy to see the country collapse of-course since it only confirmed my understanding of economics.

Comment Re:wars destroy wealth (Score 1) 162

Which stimulates an economy more, yachts or groceries?

- neither. The fact that you are using this logic is enough for me to know that I am dealing with somebody who has no understanding of economics, which is the point of modern 'education', to produce population that is incapable of understanding most basic things.

Consumption does not stimulate the economy, production stimulates the economy. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. A person with a million dollars stimulates the economy by investing that money into new/existing businesses to make profit, this in turn allows the business to start/expand and the productive output of that business is what stimulates the economy while providing the people working for the business with income (and unfortunately providing various levels of government with money as well through the theft of taxation).

Spending money on consumable goods is not stimulating the economy at all, it is irrelevant to the economy. Economy is all production and exchange of produced goods/services. USA cannot stimulate the economy by any extra level of spending because it lives on borrowed money and (500 Billion / year for the last 25 years or so). This borrowing goes towards consumption of foreign produced goods, which is why it is a trade deficit.

1 man with 1 million dollars is more stimulative to the economy because that is wealth that's concentrated and actually can be used to start/run/expand a business. A million people with 1 dollar each is wealth dissipation, it will do nothing to improve the economy, it will only worsen it if the dollar came from the theft of taxation *because* it deprived the 1 man of his million.

Comment Re:Theory too (Score 1) 162

He is saying what he believes but you are right, what he believes is trolling. The most powerful tro11ing is the trolling against the common sense and against individual freedom and it has been done over and over again under the flag of justice for all, brotherhood, motherland and other similar concepts that define a group that the masses can feel they belong to. Defining this group requires internalization of ideas, internalization is the key word, it means thoughtless acceptance and the base point to fall back to when rationality and reasoning drive you to the point of internal conflict, to an internal contradiction.

Once any contradictions caused by inconsistencies in reasoning against your own position are dismissed and the base point is established the work of the 'educator' is done. The person is ready to become a fully integrated member of the group.

The group can then be directed and used to increase the power of the governing elite within the system, with the messaging being so out of touch with the actual reality that no rationally thinking individual could mistake the message for any form of truth, but the group simply falls back to the base point and carries the message anyway, providing the power to the government that is needed to crush any form of dissent.

In its cohesive entirety I consider this to be the ultimate form of tro11ing, the trolling by the group against any form of reason and rationality, the trolling that requires fundamental denial of any form of individualism and of independent thought.

Comment wars destroy wealth (Score 0) 162

Right, so what we have shown here is that wars and collectivism is the way to destroy wealth. Destroying wealth should not be the goal though if you want a wealthy society. Inequality is not the issue, it never was and never will be the real issue. The real issue is destruction of individual freedoms.

Comment The kids are alright (Score 3, Funny) 61

Young people today are impressive. When I was a senior in college, I was turning milk bottles into bongs.

They were sweet bongs, though.

When I got to grad school, that all changed because I was suddenly surrounded by people smarter than me and I had to actually work. But those first seven years of college were a lot of fun.

Comment Bandwidth consumption; no root; nonexistent patch (Score 1) 156

Are those other people unpatched too?

For one thing, patches are ineffective against a bandwidth consumption attack. For another, I'm told a lot of these attacks target Internet-exposed devices other than PCs, such as modem-routers and older smartphones. An ISP subscriber might not have authority to make and apply updates to the modem-router that the subscriber is leasing from the ISP, and the ISP might have neglected to do so. Or an update might not exist at all.

what happens when the attacker takes advantage of a vulnerability that is introduced by an update?

Is this nearly as common as an update removing a vulnerability?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken

Working...