198 karma · joined February 11, 2017
supremesaboteur@outlook.com
> All Skype for Linux clients version 4.3 and older will be retired on July 1, 2017. To keep chatting, please install the latest version of Skype for Linux
Seems like 4.3 and older will get retired, but Skype will continue to work on Linux with later versions like 5.3.0.1
It is not the same thing. Chromium ( upon which Chrome is based ) is open source. If Google abuses their power it is easier to correct course by forking. In fact, many browsers like Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, Yandex etc are already based on Chromium
> By balancing the browsers, choosing to use not just what’s convenient but what’s lesser used, you can make the business case for monopoly plays a bad deal.
Pass. People should use the best software they can get their hands on
> good folks at Firefox deserve your usage just as much
So contrary to popular opinion on HN, Firefox is not as good as Chrome. However, we must still use it. Consider it an act of charity
I don't think so. Mozilla must earn their user base by making a good browser and marketing it well
Chromosomes are the arbitrator of sex. We know about intersex people and have known about them for some time. None of this means men can become women and women can become men
Also from Laplace's Wikipedia page [1] : A frequently cited but apocryphal interaction between Laplace and Napoleon purportedly concerns the existence of God. A typical version is provided by Rouse Ball:
Laplace went in state to Napoleon to present a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses. ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
In 1884, however, the astronomer Hervé Faye[52][53] affirmed that this account of Laplace's exchange with Napoleon presented a "strangely transformed" (étrangement transformée) or garbled version of what had actually happened. It was not God that Laplace had treated as a hypothesis, but merely his intervention at a determinate point
It is unclear whether Laplace himself was an atheist, and Newton was definitely not.
1. The Filter Bubble. The idea that you can be shut in your own bubble, not being exposed to new ideas or ideas that contradict your own, is pretty bad
2. The idea that a for profit company becoming the arbiter of truth ( with noble intentions of fighting 'fake news' etc ) is also pretty bad. It can be used for political or economic gain
3. The company has a largely hostage users that they can abuse through predatory pricing etc
The opposition is not towards technology, but towards one company controlling most, if not all, of modern technology
Why is there no market ? This is the kind of statement a shill would make
> Until then, let's all just agree the net neutrality is a common-good consumer protection
No, first you prove this is not a problem solvable by the market
If it is true that communist societies are superior they should not be bombable by capitalist societies. But if you are claiming that capitalist societies are inherently more unjust to favor people with capital, communist socieities as inherently more unjust in a way that favor people with political power
> Labourers sell their labour-time to the capitalist, and that commodity has the use value of creating labour, which is transferred to the products. The labour is crystallised inside the products which are made, and those are appropriated by the capitalist at the end of production. If the worker owned his labour, the products at the end of production which the capitalist re-possesses in order to sell would have no more value than when they entered the factory as raw materials and machinery. Therefore the capitalist could not make any profit.
This is pure nonsense on many levels.
What about the value derived from the risk taken by the enterpreneur ? What about the value derived from the work done by the enterpreneur ?
Also value is subjective. A hungry person will pay more for a piece of bread than a satiatated human being. This again is a source of profit ( and no, its not oppressive if there is competition to establish a fair price )
> Capitalism requires land and property owners; if those land and property owners cease to exist, capitalism must also cease to exist. As such, the system which creates the force for people to choose between starving and wage labour is perpetuated by the whole class of property owners, i.e the capitalists.
The difference, again, is that the wages paid can be used to climb out of this position. This option is not available in slavery. Employee-Employer relationship is mutually beneficial, not oppressive
> Why is work unenviable?
Do you work for Google ?
> There are various motivations for wanting to work, too; the desire for credit,
> wanting to improve the conditions of the society you live in
> the desire to help other people in your community, out of necessity for something you want to see finished, for mastery, as a hobby, etc
This does not ensure that the important and necessary work will get done. Also it does not ensure that the work which contributes maximum to the society is preferred over other useless work. I prefer to live in a world where important work gets priority even if it means I have to perform unenviable tasks for limited periods of time
This surplus is profit, which is the motivation for setting up businesses. Take that away and there is no good reason for taking the risk
> They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily.
This is already allowed in a capitalist society
> They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them
Disagree. The labourers own their labour and the owners own the product
> In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter
Again, in slavery you do not own your labour. So the surplus of your wages ( or time ) cannot be invested, or used to create capital
> The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism.
What does this even mean ?
> You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports
Without property ( which ultimately boils down to the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labour ) there is no good reason to perform the unenviable job we call "work"
To me, it looks like the system you are proposing would be very much like slavery
In slavery the owner is creating the conditions of oppression. In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty
Equating all hardships to slavery is pure folly
I was talking about government controlled education system.
> As for caricaturing a point, there is of course a vast difference between the right to read what one wants and the government taking over the entire publishing industry and controlling what ideas are published.
I was trying to point out the absurdity of caricatures with one of my own
> An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops
Poverty means making hard choices. If your choices are :
1. Starve to death
2. Work in a sweatshop
Most people would pick 'Work in a sweatshop'. Nobody who has the choice to work in a sweatshop or be a doctor is working in a sweatshop
The point I was making was that there is no reason to stir up hysteria just because you heard the words 'Republican' and 'EPA' in the same sentence
> EPA spokesman J.P. Freire said in an email that “no one has been fired or terminated,” and that Pruitt had simply decided to bring in fresh advisers"
> “We’re not going to rubber-stamp the last administration’s appointees. Instead, they should participate in the same open competitive process as the rest of the applicant pool,” Freire said. “This approach is what was always intended for the Board
> Courtney Flint ... said ... that she was also surprised to learn that her term would not be renewed, “particularly since I was told that such a renewal was expected.”
> “In the broader view, I suppose it is the prerogative of this administration to set the goals of federal agencies and to appoint members to advisory boards,” she added.
> Conservatives have complained about EPA’s approach to science, including the input it receives from outside scientific bodies
> “They’re going to have to start dealing with science and not rigged science”
> “The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said at the time. “The conflict of interest here is clear.”
Even if you believe that the conservatives are trying to pack EPA with "climate change deniers", you should be glad that their research is now going to reach a wider audience and therefore can be subject to more crictism.
This seems like a good move for science
Would the argument still hold water if he did ?
> Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people
Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote
Are docker containers at least more power efficient than virtual machines ?
Not just with loss of privacy, they also pay with increased cost of goods and services that are used to pay for the advertisement
> Governments could encourage the emergence of new services by opening up more of their own data vaults or managing crucial parts of the data economy as public infrastructure, as India does with its digital-identity system, Aadhaar
Since we are worried about privacy, let's give government the power to identify and track individuals based on "ten fingerprints and two iris scans" [1]
Also reading about the general history of the Internet, even though initial work was done by DARPA, it did not become the world wide network until commercial interests ( and free market capitalism ) took over [2]. This is not the narrative in the featured article.
Just leave out the part about President Trump. Plenty of people like him.
> Harvard has obsessively pursued money, sending a disproportionate number of its graduates to consulting firms
I assume the students are the ones pursuing money
> An obsession with stock prices and short-term results was the motive for many of the accounting scandals of the 2000s
Was it ? I thought it was unscrupulous people doing accounting fraud and information asymmetry between shareholders and executives.
> McDonald insists he isn’t “anti-business-school” (he attended Wharton), nor is he “anti-wealth.
But just a few sentences above :
> McDonald notes that in 1992, the C.E.O.s of Fortune 500 firms made an average of $2.7 million a year. By 2000, the average was $14 million.
> It’s a shame that some of them didn’t see the looming disaster and sound an alarm
Some did and made a lot of money from shorting these bonds. Only when it became possible to short these bonds that the bubble finally collapsed and the money went to fund more useful ventures.
> lay a part in helping more people who think about business rediscover a purpose other than profit
A better solution would be to ensure more information symmetry ( even through government action ) and having more ambitious people in regulatory agencies. 'Pitting ambition against ambition' ( to use a Madison quote ) is a system that has historically worked very well to curb these types of predatory behavior