Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

I wonder if Matthew groans when he sees this thread and how many resources it's sucking up. :P

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

{"name":"sexy-girl-with-vacuum-cleaner.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/b\/5b3088dbea0e623240f2992e76b76317.gif","w":480,"h":256,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/b\/5b3088dbea0e623240f2992e76b76317"}sexy-girl-with-vacuum-cleaner.gif

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

I wonder if Matthew groans when he sees this thread and how many resources it's sucking up. :P

Matthew kindly provided us this thread so we could entertain ourselves while he was away. Who ARE YOU to doubt the FEARLESS LEADER?

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

In the 90s PC computers used to come with Windows installed.

Except that I built my first PC in the 90s without Windows. In fact, you had a choice, for a while, from Windows or OS2, which was IBM's Graphical operating system. And of course you could simply install Microsoft's DOS or PCDOS or... one of many DOSes available at the time.

I built mine from scratch, which at the time meant buying a serial card, sound card, video card, hard drive/floppy controller card, CPU, CPU Cache if desired, optionally an FPU and of course the RAM and whatever drives you wanted. The motherboards didn't have nearly as much built in, just a lot of slots and the BIOS. All the cards were available for purchase separately, and a larger variety than is available now.

And of course in the '80s, you had a large number of REALLY different computers available. TRS80s, Timex Sinclair, C64, C128, Amiga in 1985, VIC20, Texas Instruments had one, the TI99... the list is quite lengthy.

There has always been a choice, you didn't have a choice of OS in those early computers, but you could choose the computer. The PCs in the 90s had a huge variety of options available thanks to the clones, of which there were many.

I don't know where you get your information from, but you need to research it better, I grew up with computers and was using them from around 1980 when I started on a TRS-80 model 1 and 2 and later on a PC-Jr etc... so I know the start of computers quite intimately. I was heavily involved in it.

Windows didn't actually catch on very rapidly, people were slow to switch from DOS. But the Internet really helped it grow. Actually, Windows 3.1 wasn't a stand alone operating system, but you installed it in your DOS which was already installed. Your computer booted up in DOS, then if you wanted Windows, you booted it separately. I eventually installed it for the Internet, but still mainly stuck with DOS 6.2.

As for Socialism, back after WW2 ended there were many that were communist and preferred that system (socialist). But there were stories about many die hard "pinkos" as they were called who after seeing what REAL socialism/communism was like after visiting Russia following WW2 immediately changed their mind about it.

I don't see how you can see socialism as "moral" when you steal from the rich and give to the poor. Socialism is a Robinhood syndrome, with some sort of screwed up idea that it is okay to steal money from those who work for it in order to give it to those who have not with some sort of idea that it is fair.

If you like it so much, how about we start with YOU! YOU give a large percentage of YOUR paycheck to the poor! You see, people who like socialism want other people's money, but they don't want it taken away from THEM. You think it is okay, so long as it is someone else's money that is being stolen and given to you, but I bet your mind would be changed if a government official came along and emptied half your bank account to give to the poor.

Something to think about. I am not against properly run welfare programs, I am totally against socialism which thinks it's fair to steal from the rich and somehow equalize pay, when the work done is not equal. What I am for is helping the poor and provide minimum food and shelter to help them get on their feet until they can get work. And I will defend that program and actually get quite angry at anyone who suggests that not helping them at all so they can line their pockets more is okay.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Show me a country where the workers (proletariat) owned the means of production.

IN SIMPLE WORDS, show me a country where the workers owned the factories, buildings, machinery, and whatever other capital constitutes a company.

Not the country. The workers.

As it stands the only thing we're arguing about is a word you guys are using incorrectly.

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

;D I thought you were done with this discussion, Aaron.

Regardless of the correct word, I like my stuff. I like owning stuff, I like making money, and I like private ownership. This share stuff with everyone and everyone's contributions can be beneficial mentality is a laughable fantasy and nothing more. What do you do when you run out of other people's money? ::)

If the world lacked equivalent exchange, if I didn't have to work, and if everything I needed/wanted was already provided for me, I wouldn't contribute to society. I'd sit at home playing video games, consuming junk food, and generally just lazing around. Would I have some side projects? Sure. But without any real incentive (money or competition) to finish anything, I probably wouldn't produce anything of real benefit to society. I'd suck it dry. And when I inevitably get bored? I'd likely wreck havoc by damaging property just to entertain myself. And so would ~80% of people, I imagine. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop, after all.

And that's a funny GIF, bambams. :D

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

If my own needs were guaranteed to be met sure you could take my "money". What the hell else do I need it for? But I'm not talking about taking money and giving it to other people. That wouldn't solve the problem. Money is the problem. I'm talking about completely doing away with money, and just devising a cooperative society where everybody does what they can and shares the results with everyone. If you're still thinking about money then your brain is stuck in a closed box. The entire system we live in is invented by us. There are no constraints for how to fix it. The solution doesn't necessarily require an economy at all.

Junk food probably wouldn't exist in a proper socialist society. Junk food exists because there's a whole lot of money in it. People desire it because it's concentrated with chemical signals that trigger responses in the brain similar to drugs and are similarly addictive, parents buy it to shut up their kids or because they are hooked on it themselves, everybody eventually get sick whether it be obesity, diabetes, heart disease, on and on, and then buy medicines, treatments, surgeries, and transplants to try to stave off the damage. The reason we have it is because it's profitable within a system that isn't sufficiently regulated to prevent abuses of our own biology. If you eliminated the economic incentive I don't think we'd even have it because it's actually bad for us as a society. We'd seek to convert the food available into the most most efficient product possible so that it was more efficient at feeding everyone and least harmful.

As for sitting at home playing video games all day you might start out doing that, but obviously if everybody did that there wouldn't be video games to play. Or electricity to play them with. There wouldn't be fuel for transportation, or food to eat. Assuming we were still in a transitional phase where we hadn't figured out all these problems sufficiently and you did decide to just stay at home playing games eventually you'd be forced out when your power cut off because everybody else went home. And hopefully you'd be a decent human being and realize that the system can only work if everybody contributes, including yourself.

You probably oppose it mostly because of the anti-USSR propaganda instead of on its actual merits (or lack thereof). People like you might resist it at first just because they want it to fail. But if we keep corruption out of power, eventually children would be raised with a healthy socialist attitude and they'd have absolutely no problem going to work to contribute to the group effort. I would wager that everybody would be more happy and healthy under such a system. We'd still have at least the same production capacity worldwide. Probably even more because more people would be included, and hopefully fewer people would be sick from being poisoned by corporations for profit. There billion or more people currently starving to death would be fed too, and able to help out. There wouldn't be anybody able to work that was unemployed, unlike today where there are millions if not billions of people that want to work, and are able-bodied, but out of a job simply because the capitalist economy doesn't favor them right now.

And when I inevitably get bored? I'd likely wreck havoc by damaging property just to entertain myself.

What a shitty attitude to have. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

There is still private property under socialism and communism.

Your car and your toothbrush and everything in between would be yours.

However, a company's resources would be owned by all the workers.

edit: Also under socialism you'd still have to work if you're able (e.g., not disabled, not a child, not a student, not a dependent...). In a post scarcity communist society, you wouldn't have to, but right now we don't live in a post-scarcity world ...

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

bamccaig said:

What a shitty attitude to have. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm not saying it would be an ideal outcome. From what I've read about nations ruled under socialism and communism, they always devolve into bribery and corruption. Though perhaps I'm thinking of Stalinism instead? My understanding of the lines between socialism, communism, Stalinism, Leninism, and the other offshoots are blurred in my eyes.

There is still private property under socialism and communism.

Maybe under socialism, but everything I've read about communism suggests that private property would no longer exist.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Maybe under socialism, but everything I've read about communism suggests that private property would no longer exist.

citation needed

Primary sources only please.

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

The whole idea of communism is mass ownership of production, right? So in capitalism, if I own a factory (which obviously produces things), that's mine. That's my private property. Only I have a say in how it's used and who is allowed in. In communism, everyone would "own" the factory. It wouldn't be mine at that point, thus private property ownership in this instance wouldn't exist under communism.

I agree with Edgar Ravioli. You can have communism today if you and other communists band together and form your own co-op. What's stopping you?

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

The whole idea of communism is mass ownership of production, right? So in capitalism, if I own a factory (which obviously produces things), that's mine. That's my private property. Only I have a say in how it's used and who is allowed in. In communism, everyone would "own" the factory. It wouldn't be mine at that point, thus private property ownership in this instance wouldn't exist under communism.

Private property != personal property.

Which means your underwear & your toothbrush, among other things, are yours and yours alone (well, unless you use them to make money...).

I'm aware I used the wrong definition in the post before, I apologize. I mean personal property.

Quote:

I agree with Edgar Ravioli. You can have communism today if you and other communists band together and form your own co-op. What's stopping you?

What movie do you hate? Now what's stopping you from making a better version of that movie? Why aren't you?

Please don't use that fallacy.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

I'm not saying it would be an ideal outcome. From what I've read about nations ruled under socialism and communism, they always devolve into bribery and corruption. Though perhaps I'm thinking of Stalinism instead? My understanding of the lines between socialism, communism, Stalinism, Leninism, and the other offshoots are blurred in my eyes.

So you're not even saying it's something you would do? You just assume that socialism would do that to you because your biased education about false examples of "socialism" in the past have resulted in dictatorship regimes that mistreated the people? You sound infinitely naive.

Corruption exists in our "capitalist" society right now, and it's blatant, and it's widespread (within government, corporations, journalists, the medical community, and to some extent also probably unreliable parts of the scientific community; and I'm probably leaving important groups out by mistake), and apparently nobody cares (or perhaps by design, nobody has time to!). I don't know why you are so keen to point out the corruption of Eastern Europe's past communism failures as if corruption doesn't exist in the very systems we inhabit now.

The point we're trying to make (I think) is that no pure socialist system has ever been achieved. There are no examples of it failing or succeeding because it has never been done properly before. The examples that you were taught to be socialism or communism were corrupted and therefore not accurate measures of its success. And also, considering the most prominent examples were virtually enemies of our nations at the time I cannot imagine our history books to even do a reasonable job describing them to us, let alone being unbiased. You can be like any old redneck chanting, "fuck communism scum", or you can actually try to look into why seemingly intelligent people seem to think socialism shows promise.

Now I'm not sure that capitalism has been achieved purely either so arguably we could just fight for a "true" capitalist society instead. And I'm not opposed to that entirely. Except that I know that some aspects of "socialism" are quite nice. My health care system in Canada is pretty poor, but it's also free with exceptions, and prices are regulated unlike in the USA, so I don't end up with a second (or even first!) mortgage when I end up getting injured or sick by mistake. I think that a pure capitalist system where we don't give special treatment to the rich and powerful corporations might actually be worth a shot too. But I also think that expecting to regulate a competitive-by-design system where wealth is freely exchanged is entirely fool hardy. As soon as anybody gains the upper hand in wealth they're going to exploit its power to overtake the system. And that's exactly what we see happening. Big corporations (and extremely rich individuals) are in complete control of government, even when the experts in the field and the majority of the [vocal] population are against their actions.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

What movie do you hate? Now what's stopping you from making a better version of that movie? Why aren't you?

Please don't use that fallacy.

You just want to spend other people's money because you have some intrinsic right to it. Please don't use that fallacy.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

How do workers owning the means of production have anything to do with spending other peoples money?

What are you even arguing? I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Oh but it's okay for a company to pay you 1/10th of what your labor is worth and profit off the other 9/10th because...?

The options are I either work or either starve so it's not like there's much choice for me in that oh-so-fair agreement I made. :) That's why unions are/were a thing, but you probably hate those too huh

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Oh but it's okay for a company to pay you 1/10th of what your labor is worth and profit off the other 9/10th because...?

The market dictates what you're 'worth'. If you're worth so much more than what you're being compensated with, then there should be employers out there who value you and are willing to pay more for your services. If you were performing a valuable service to society, then theoretically the market should reward you. The money only goes where people spend it, and they're not spending it on you.

If you feel so strongly about socialism, why haven't you started a coop? Why haven't you bought stock in your company? You'd obviously rather have other people do the work for you, which is never going to happen. You'd rather sit here discussing why people don't pay you 'what you're worth', and why they don't give up their wealth, because they don't deserve it. Someday if you are rich and successful, and I hope you are, I wonder how strongly you would feel about giving away all your goods and wealth and property so that it is not unfairly distributed. ;)

Ultimately if you want to succeed in a capitalist economy, you have to produce what the people want to consume. If you don't do that, then you are compensated accordingly.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

And I'm the brainwashed one ;D

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Oh but it's okay for a company to pay you 1/10th of what your labor is worth and profit off the other 9/10th because...?

Because it's THEIR COMPANY! If you don't like the pay, don't work there. Go start your own company and pay people more. Since when do you have a right to someone else's money?!?! THEY put in the huge expense and hard work to get THEIR company where it is, and along comes some entitled worker who thinks they have a right to more money?! Right. ::)

And I'm the brainwashed one ;D

Finally, something you say I 100% agree with!

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

And the vast majority of us can never have a union. So think what that means for us. Is the system really fair? Or are employers raking in the money while the rest of us suffer?

And why can't we all be employers? In part because we don't all have social skills which are very important for business roles. And also if everybody had their own business there would be no employees. We'd just all be individuals trading skills.

These notions are completely irrational. Do either of you even work for a living? Blaming the worker that is getting abused and telling him to just start his own company instead of holding employers accountable? Are you retarded?

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I am against unions. Respecting workers rights and safety is one thing, demanding more pay or they shut down a company that isn't theirs I am dead against. Don't like the pay? QUIT.

bamccaig said:

These notions are completely irrational.

It's completely irrational to expect I should be able to run MY COMPANY the way I WANT IT?! Since when? You're braindead!!! >:(

-------

In other news... ARTICLES OF IMPEACHEMENT HAVE BEEN FILED!!! :O

It's about time they done something about this man!

video

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Neil, QUIT YELLING...

Rod Rosenstein has been doing his job. Congress expects him to turn over documents in an ongoing investigation that hasn't been completed, which is a ridiculous breach of trust and security. Republicans want to impeach him so they can hire someone else as AG and then have THEM fire Bob Mueller, so he'll stop investigating Trump and Russia. It's a giant pile of Republican BS.

Also,

Neil Roy said:

I am against unions. Respecting workers rights and safety is one thing, demanding more pay or they shut down a company that isn't theirs I am dead against. Don't like the pay? QUIT.

Don't you mean,
I am for monopolies. Respecting corporate rights and profits is one thing, demanding employees get fair pay or they won't work I am dead against. Don't like being a slave? TOO BAD. SUFFER.

Post Reply


Go to: