I'll just leave this here for you.
I'll just leave this here for you.
...why, for a goodly chunk of the population, it wouldn't just be better to become a ward of the state, again?
Communism does not make the people the owners of the fruits of their labors, it makes the bureaucrats the owners of the fruits of people's labor.
You're thinking of a command economy, not communism.
Communism/socialism demand a "command economy" as a basic tenant of their ideologies. They cannot function even as poorly as they do without control of the economy and the means of production and distribution.
Actually, it is quite the opposite. By laboring, you can produce value, and own it yourself, not have it confiscated by a rent-seeker. There is no need to yell, there is no need to take, you own what you make. And you get what you need, without stealing from others.
This is anathema to communism and socialism. The State determines all that. The State tells you what you will work at, where, how long, etc. It tells you where you'll live. It tells you how much compensation you'll receive and what you're allowed to buy/own.
OP was right. You missed 100+ years of history. If you actually did take a class, either the teacher/professor was incompetent or a good communist/socialist spreading false propaganda.
Or...*you* are the good communist/socialist spreading false propaganda.
Moore's Law wasn't a goal someone set and then did.
It was merely an observation of a pace of technical advance.
The idea that you would propose something like this, as if the proposal itself was actually accomplishing something, is asinine.
No, not getting people to install Flash, that's just stupid.
But the "design at home" small business or individual printing market. If you don't want to have people install shit, you need to make a WYSIWYG in-browser editor that can produce pixel perfect, color accurate content using stuff such as arbitrary custom fonts.
But yeah, you can use Flash to make things easier.
"Save $100 on a new TV during our Spring Sale!"
The more you spend, the more you save!
I think Joe Isuzu went into politics.
"You have *my* word on it!"
No one is being "constantly affronted by the depravities of deranged fools." What we have is one political faction trying to silence another by declaring it "offensive" and attacking its source of funding by going after advertisers. Now the censors at Google can go wild banning their political opponents under the guise of fiscal responsibility.
Oh dear, you really are taking this hard, aren't you? You have the freedom of speech, even if many would sometimes wish you would stop using it; but you don't have a right to be heard, and you don't have the right to use resources that belong to a private business unless they give you that right. If YouTube's customers (the advertisers) or their goods (the users) complain and start walking away, then it is common sense for them to try to do something about it, and they have every right to do so.
Nope, nothing like this has ever happened before.
Well, strictly speaking, there was a sharp spike in temperatures some 10 million years after the dinosaurs wen't extinct, if I remember correctly, but what is unprecedented, is that it is changing so fast - about 10 times as fast as that spike, and that should be cause for deep concern. We simply don't know that the world's ecosystems will be able to adapt fast enough. Human lifespan is too short for us to really see how fast the changes are - but it does actually come to something when these changes are so rapid that it has changed appreciably within living memory. I remember that we used to have snow every winter that lay on the ground for at least a couple of weeks; now I see the first spring flowers around Christmas. If that was just me and my anecdotes, then it wouldn't matter, but when it is confirmed by everything science can throw at it, then it becomes significant. Especially when we know that these transitions follow something like an exponential curve for the first half of the transition; so when we are seeing temperatures somewhat now, it may be the changes in the future will be much, much faster, at least for a while. We don't really know without doing more science.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."
Just because Regan governed that way and Americans loved it...
Umm, dude, that's the behavior of government that Reagan railed *against*! It's mainly why I voted for him.
They can either honor the ethos that brought all the eyes to the videos or they can die slowly trying to suck the cock of Wall Street while losing viewers to other video channels. That whole market forces thing is a bitch.
So it is. Just to clarify, the market in this case is the advertisers, not the people who come to YouTube; they are the livestock that they are trying to sell. So, the market is now deciding that they don't want this sort of cattle; they want people that would potentially be interested in becoming customers of the companies they are advertising for. And the thing is - idiots that keep posting extreme materials online constitute only a tiny minority, but they drive away the huge majority, who don't want to be in an environment where they are constantly affronted by the depravities of deranged fools. YouTube's owners are no angels, but they do know where the money comes from.
I mean breastfeeding... FFS... it is a normal part of life, completely non sexual, and in no way affects anyone other than mother and child.
How can you say such a thing; if God had meant women to breast-feed, he would have created them with,... er, never mind.
Easy, if you don't have a social media account, your visa is denied. No skin off our asses.
Ah, yet another 'easy solution'. Yes, I suppose you can be an idiot about if you like, but the thing is, if you consistently behave like an idiot, you will end up being considered an idiot. I can sort of follow the thinking behind this sort of rule, but it is just so heart-breakingly naive. What will happen is that good, honest, well-intentioned people will, as always, be the ones that lose out; the ones that genuinely don't use social media will be under suspicion, whereas if you are an extremist with a busy life on social media, you will just extend the double-life you are probably already living, and have a social media persona that is all about "America is the greatest, Amen, I love democracy, ain't Trump just great?" which they and their pals can laugh themselves silly about, while they continue their real activities under an assumed name. No sweat. And on top of this, the good, patriotic people that make up the majority of the security establishments in the US will loathe being made to act like stupid bullies, so after some time they will probably want to leave - and then all you'll have is the leftovers, the ones that enjoy bullying. How is that good for America?
It is easy to lose sight of what the actual goal is here: to reduce the number of accidents. Fines or other punishment can have an effect, but only if it motivates drivers to drive more considerately. Something that is used in UK is the idea of adding penalty points to people's license - when you reach 12 points, you generally lose your license, and it does seem to work to some degree, altough there are those who don't care. For them there is the option of banning them from driving, after which you may go to jail, if you are caught driving.
I'm not convinced that using only penalties is the best way - it would be better if there was a carrot to go with the stick, although I can't think of how that would work. There have been experiments with turning off all traffic signals at junctions, and it seems to make drivers much more careful about how they drive, but my suspicion is that it also makes traffic much slower and thus congested.
You may have to go fast enough to red-shift the wavelength of the reflected light below infra-red. If your car is that fast, I think you will have more pressing matters to attend to, like staying on the planet.
We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.