|
How could you miss these. The barrel roll one was certainly all over the lounge for a couple of days last year (or whenever it was, Leslie might still have been kicking at the time).
There is a wiki page that lists all Googles easter eggs, and another with MS ones.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm clearly not very observant, or developing memory problems... 
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
|
|
|
|
|
Safer to say "I must have been away that week" who will know! 
|
|
|
|
|
Me?
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
|
|
|
|
|
wow!! ^^
I have something to show at work Monday, thanks! ^^
|
|
|
|
|
Nice! 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Cool. Haven't seen this before as well.
I only one I saw was when you Google for recursion.
Signature construction in progress. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Damn you have the perfect signature - CBadger
|
|
|
|
|
|
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system"
Let say I kind of agree with that statement.
Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot..
This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s).
In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law)
this article made everything clear! 
http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^]
Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions..
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^]
Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous!
Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
modified 28-Sep-13 22:52pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalism promotes innovation moreso than any other system, I don't think we would live in the world we live in today without it. It's a strong driving force.
|
|
|
|
|
I am confused because... there are many conflicting thing that people call capitalism, they can't all be!
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of people confuse Libertarism[^] with capitalism.
A lot of people confuse communism with socialism.
When one is sooooo entrenched in his own definition of his way of life that he loose all sense of reality and more importantly judgement and rationality.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks hey!
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... Just wondering:
In China - what is there? Which system?
|
|
|
|
|
Its a kind of psuedo-capitalism, with private enterprise exitisting, but with the government playing a heavy hand into who is sucessful and who is not. A sort of central planning economy, but with a touch of privatism. Also, their free-trade zones are totally capitalist, and they are experimenting with more and more of them.
Also, my own comment about pros and cons about capitalism/communism
One of the best things about the central planning systems of communism is that the governmnet has the political will to make radical changes for the greater good when necessary. The downside is that the economies are not flexible. As there is no incentive to innovate, economies will stagnate until they are forced to innovate (wars?) This is why I think that the Soviet Union rebounded after WWII. The war forced them to innovate and got them (relatively) modern technology.
|
|
|
|
|
A rather spurious justification. There are very few that find the world we live in today to be anything other than Hell on Earth. A'driving force' is not a good thing in itself. Ask those in the path of a hurricane!
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9082365 wrote: There are very few that find the world we live in today to be anything other
than Hell on Earth.
However as a percentage of total population there are far more people now than at any point in history enjoying a better life.
Starvation is just one data point in that with actual starvation (percentage of population) on a steady decline and not to mention that since about 1900 starvation has been driven solely by monetary economics and not just lack of food.
|
|
|
|
|
Free enterprise promotes innovation. They aren't the same thing.
The highest quality of life is in mixed systems such as seen in Scandinavia.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system
Want to try that at home?
Capitalism only works on the large scale.
Communism only works on the small scale.
As to taxes the rest of what you ask; I dunno.
P.S. I just finished reading the first of those. I laughed a bit at
"
(Note the power of motivation centered on equity-building instead of the fear of loss of employment.)
" (regarding ESOPs)
It can still be a fear of loss of employment; perhaps even moreso because so much more can be lost.
Loss of a low-paying job is a smaller loss than loss of a high-paying job.
With so few ESOPs, can you really get a job at another? Will you need to relocate?
I worked for an employee-owned company for a few years and everyone there seemed frantic about putting every last available penny into the company and worried about what would happen if they lost their jobs. It was ridiculous.
modified 29-Sep-13 0:22am.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Confused by (so called) "capitalism"
What's so confusing about .ToUpper()? 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just too liberal in its approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is a political system.
They are not mutually exclusive...in the short run.
In the long run, not so much.
Communism is the ultimate end-point of socialism, if people decide they want to keep the Socialist system going. It embodies both the economic and political. (Countries are too large to effectively leave the "means of production" in the hands of the workers. On a small scale, it should work just fine.)
Yeah, this is a simplistic explanation. Lounge post, not Masters thesis.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually Capitalism is a political system.
Traditionally the word has been used to refer to transactions based on the Right of Property.
It can be (and has been) generalised into a structure of non-contradicting Rights, which guarantee freedoms of action to individuals.
The closest approach to a Capitalist state was the (constitutional) USA.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
