Volpe

I think first and foremost - relax.

You are ignoring severity of misogyny, and instead referring to number of misogynists. Correct?

I'm saying, magazine (female or male) editors are by far not the worst, nor that common, among the TOTAL population of misogynists.

But by all means go and fight the "misogynist female magazine editor" fight... I'm sure it's worthy.

But lay off the ad hominem attacks, they just make you look like a jerk. (See what I did there ;) )

When you say "today's world" I think you mean "today's U.S.A"... The rest of the world, doesn't seem to have as crazy anti-hacking laws, as the US.

There are countries where woman cannot choose who they marry. Where woman are beaten, Where woman are not allow outside on their own, where woman earn double digit percentages less than male counterparts... You are seriously saying that 'often' the 'worst' mysoginists are woman in the magazine industry!?

And then claiming others are arguing from ignorance. LOL.

... so you might of (very badly) shown that some woman are mildly mysoginist (if even that)... How do you get "worst mysoginists" and "often" out of that?

Javascript is the only language you can run on the browser (Dart doesn't change that).

So if Javascript is "GOTO" then dart is: "function NotGoTo() { GOTO; }"

What are you talking about? Please clarify your position.

How about we break the whole world into false dichotomies.

What's more important, saving children or commenting on HN? Choice made (Commenting on HN), you wrote that comment, rather than saved a child.

What's more important, curing cancer, or eating something? Choice made (eating something)... why didn't you cure cancer instead!?

(unless you changed the default config).

Lamest argument ever... Are you suggesting that the majority of postgres (say) installs are running default config with no changes? Or even better, Oracle?

In Australia, they have a similar 'Rememberence Day' as well as a bigger "ANZAC Day".

In the ANZAC instance, they pay respect to all sides of the specific conflicts (Gallipoli being the main one) Australian, British, New Zealand, and Turkish.

I doubt (though don't know for sure) Remembrance day in Britain is not intended for ALL soldiers...

So people who bought iphones and macs just didn't understand the options available to them through linux? I seriously doubt that premise.

But then how do we know you aren't just making this statement up?

I didn't say they had to paid based on output... my objection was the capitalist shouldn't be given ALL their surplus value.

Perhaps their surplus value should be shared amongst all of them? (Poor capitalist would lose out though... so that's a horrible idea, right?)

So you have a new name for a communist country... That doesn't change the fact the old one exists still...

So I can say: America isn't a democracy, because it's an oligarchy. (This statement isn't true, but is equivalent to yours).

China achieves it's communism, through state capitalism... Or is that not a true scotsman... I mean communist?

Communism hasn't died, Chinese officials still study Marx and Mao, and it is well and truly part of the Chinese propaganda message. There is still a large picture of Mao hanging in Beijing, and the leaders constantly profess to be Marxists...

But of course, how could I think that communism is still alive!?

State capitalism... you really want to go down the rabbit hole of language semantics.

So it's capitalism where all the money goes to the state, which is the government, which is the people... which is exactly what "communism" is. If you think of a "commune" as a "corporation", then it's almost identical.

I'd be happy to see the arguement, that they are a pretty bad communist state, and they don't allocate their money too well, and they (like every other country) have problems with corruption. But "they are not communist" is just as valid as "the US is not a democracy" (Technically it's kind of true, but it isn't useful as a discussion point).

My point is, Communism is pretty much just as popular as democracy... so saying it's died, is just being ignorant.

Except the largest country (by population) in the world is a product of that line of thinking.. So where is the "internal turmoil brings it down" happening?

No, the preferences can be controlled (marketing), or even forced (addiction).

No one ever thought "I need coca-cola", it was a created "want" invented purely through marketing and addiction...

EDIT: typos

If you guys think that machines are going to decrease our standard of living-- that the separation of (production value)/wages is going to cause poverty

No we don't. We just have to show that the benefits only go to a select few, and the "workers" generally get screwed (as in paid a lot less than their value).

If you accept the above, then relative poverty is rather easy to show (99% vs top 1% etc)...

EDIT: To simplify my point, relative poverty has a massive effect on standard of living.

... you moved the goal posts significantly. We aren't talking about whether the internet has a positive effect on society or the economy.

We are talking about uplifting the poor. Which is more formally known as "increasing social mobility". The internet doesn't do that... Social mobility in the US did not change significantly with the introduction and growth of the internet... what more evidence do you need against your point?

You are confusing the meaning of life. Not the some of their experience, but the beating of their heart. Life is equal, the world over.

Show me the (at the very least) the correlation between internet access and social mobility.

You may help educate some people, though the data says educational outcome is more correlated with socio-economic status. And education is correlated with social mobility, but now we are two correlative (at best) steps away from the conclusion you are drawing. We've yet to show any causation...

Your outrage of having to explain this, is misplaced. This is not an obvious fact, nor is it backed by any evidence.

wow.

So because you'll never see it, it isn't a problem. You getting cheap/free internet is more important than millions of people dying [1]...

[1] http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/

Our goal is to help everyone achieve a better life, right?

No, I don't think it is. I don't think there is a collective goal that everyone subscribes to.

As my earlier point pointed out... we have everything we need to achieve "real equality". What are we missing? Which piece of technology are you waiting for, for "real equality"?

Why are they more valuable? You are saying they are more valuable because they provide more technological advancement.

I guess my question is: Why are you trying to measure the 'value' of one (or many) human lives? Why are we not all equal?

There is more than enough money and resources to go around. It isn't a supply problem. We have heaps of everything. So being able to synthesise it wouldn't change that fact.

The problem is we suck at distributing it. We have a system that allows the super rich (and thus super poor) to exist.

If we could magically create any object we like, the rich/powerful would make sure they had a monopoly on that technology so they could maintain their richness/power. There is a great talk given by G.A Cohen against capitalism that illustrates this point wonderfully[1]

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA9WPQeow9c [Video]

EDIT:

Sorry just saw your strange reference to Newton as well. You are saying technological advancement is more important than people, and we should prioritise advancement over people... why? Why should we advance technology for technologies sake?

Some technology does uplift the poor, but not always, and not all technologies.

Baloons giving internet access to people, doesn't seem to have an obvious uplifting effect on the poor? Could you explain how that will happen?

But I've seen no evidence that, that is what happened. There doesn't seem to be a logical reason as to why you'd need to increase sugar in order to lower cholesterol, so why would companies do that?

Can you point to an example food(s) that had high fat, and low sugar, and then after this policy, low fat, and high sugar... ?

Those with higher cholesterol have a higher percentage of heart attacks.

Doctors (in Australia at least) prescribe when your risk (calculated on your cholesterol, smoking, stress, exercise, etc) is lowered by reducing your cholesterol, and dietary restriction hasn't worked (i.e. your liver just isn't as good as it used to be). Is that not how its done in the U.S?

Insulin resistance is caused by sugar intake (completely unrelated to cholesterol)... Arguing that in order to lower cholesterol you have to consume more sugar seems rather strange.

"Cultural revolution" is a basic component of Maoism (as in your culture changes drastically, as you attempt to remove the bourgeois.

"The Cultural Revolution" was a horrible play Mao instigated through the Gang of Four in order to maintain power and throw those that might take it from him into disarray.

Cultural Revolution was used as an excuse to justify "The cultural revolution", but they are not the same, and you don't need students to go around killing people in order to achieve a cultural revolution.

Well before we jump to conclusions, is it higher than other countries?

There is obviously a lot of selection bias here...