patrick.net

I was born and raised in Minnesota. Had lots of jobs as a teen. Mostly consisted of shoveling the "white stuff" in the winter.

jvolstad says

I was born and raised in Minnesota. Had lots of jobs as a teen. Mostly consisted of shoveling the “white stuff” in the winter.

I used to sell cocaine also in Minnesota. My Svenska relatives look down upon it though.

Don't forget when that article was published, there wasn't even HTML 3.0 standards.
Most text on the internet was read via Usenets newsgroups. Which was clunky to read through.
And as for the ebooks for documentation, I don't know about you, but I hated it.
Most computers were only 600X800 max resolution, on a CRT monitor. So there was a lot scrolling to read a minimal amount of Text.

Any and all visions of what the internet would be one-day, was over shadowed by the oppressive speed of 14.4 dial up modems.

I did envision a fast internet where gaming and video would viable.

I'm still no fan of reading the amount of reading required for reading a book, electronically.

Small amounts of facts from this page or that page, I'm fine with. I hate having to read a book or a long white paper.

Clifford Stoll was something of a professional crank in the mid-90s, after he had reached a modicum of professional popularity with the semi-gripping story of tracking down a hacker intruder at Lawrence Livermore.

As it stands now, buying digital books is still something of a niche, 15 years after the article. Politics on the web is a joke, just look at this site. So he was half-right.

Stoll basically missed the potential rise of amazon, google, wikipedia, and travelocity et al. Salespeople are a means of intermediation, but after enough capital investment a more effective replacement for some areas was created.

Stoll was probably 100% correct about computers in schools. Computers are tools, not panaceas.

There was a much earlier published cover article, Time Magazine as i recall around 1990-92.
Very upbeat and informative article regarding growth in Unix, Risc processors, and rise of OS/GUIs, and how it brings together the power the "Web" which was Unix selling point. As the 90s progressed,
often you would have heard "not there yet" as it related comparing Unix ability and then yet evolving current products for mainstream commercial use. We certainly made it there by the end of the 90s. Today, its just toys you see!

Tenouncetrout says

Most text on the internet was read via Usenets newsgroups. Which was clunky to read through

Usenet was great! One source for all postings for all topics, categories, and sub-categories. It was the father of all discussion boards and blogs. Not to mention a single source for file sharing.

Most computers were only 600X800 max resolution, on a CRT monitor.
Get used to it; the future will be 800x480*. Thankfully, not a CRT, and in the palm of your hand.
*Or 480x320 if you are a "True Believer".

Simpsons quote:

Frink: Well sure, the Frinky-ack 7 looks impressive...DON'T TOUCH IT...but I predict that within 100 years computers will twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger and so expensive that only the 5 richest kings of Europe will own them.

Well, I for one just don't see this internet thing catching on.

Other predictions for the past:
Housing will always go up
This is not a bubble
It's just a cold sore (ex-boyfriend's comment...)

elliemae says

Well, I for one just don’t see this internet thing catching on.
Other predictions for the past:
Housing will always go up
This is not a bubble
It’s just a cold sore (ex-boyfriend’s comment…)

More predictions:

Obama predicts Hope & Change
Obama predicts he'll renegotiate NAFTA & GATT
Obama predicts he'll balance the budget by the end of his 1st. term
Obama predicts he'll never sign a bill that has earmarks
Obama predicts he'll never hire a lobbyist, etc., etc.

Obama predicts he might only serve one term

Being right 1 out of 6 is pretty good for a politician

Correction before eliemae has a hissy fit .... It was McCain that promised to balance the budget by the end of his first term, not Obama. Obama only promised to cut the budget deficit in half by the end of his first term ... a prediction, or promise, he will not keep. So I guess I was half right .... or if you're eliemae ... I was half wrong.

http://topnews.us/content/23839-obama-vows-halve-budget-deficit-end-first-term

Damn! I was halfway to my voodoo doll named Ray-ray before you posted that... crisis averted.

HOW DARE YOU !!! Socialism is a wonderful notion. After all the communists have supported, even created many of socialism's features. WHAT DOCUMENTATION DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS?

So what that history is littered with examples of how socialism kills enterprise. That can't happen in America. History won't repeat itself !! We CAN do the same thing over and over and expect a DIFFERENT result. And you drive on roads paid for by taxes...DON'T YOU !!

Is anyone anywhere arguing that they are in favor of the US going Socialist? That's where your argument falls apart. Regulation is not Socialism. Universal Health Care is not Socialism. Restoring tax rates to their Reagan levels is not Socialism. Keynesian economics is not Socialism.

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. (wiki)

Do you understand the difference?

The GM bailout aside (which the Government neither wants nor runs the day-to-day operations), the Government doesn't own or administer the means of production or allocation of resources.

Hope that helps.

Regulation certainly can be a move towards socialism, because where Socialism is not enacted by violence, it is enacted by regulation and legislation.

Socialism also refers to the theoretical middle/transtion stage between capitalism and communism, a part of the definition that some here seem to not share though relevant. Some of you like to attribute a black/white, yes/no position to those against socialist policies and then attempt to refute that policies are socialist by a strawman argument. Since some of you argue that if you are for *any* government functions, you are support socialism, perhaps you should interpret objection here to *more* socialism.

BTW, which argument do you support? Any government function is socialist by its nature? Or regulation/health care, etc. are NOT socialist? You can't really argue both sides in any valid or logical way.

The Government did NOT have to bailout GM, but more importantly, it did NOT have to completely reverse bancruptcy proceedings by putting non-secured bondholders in front of secured bondholders because the former were Union and the latter were not. This is not Socialism, or influenced by socialist tendencies? If not, it is simply despotism.

Paralithodes says

Regulation certainly can be a move towards socialism, because where Socialism is not enacted by violence, it is enacted by regulation and legislation.

If you want to look at it as a scale with anarchy on one end and socialism on the other, than I guess you can look at it that way. But it doesn't change my views at all--regulation isn't socialism. End of story.

Paralithodes says

Socialism also refers to the theoretical middle/transtion stage between capitalism and communism, a part of the definition that some here seem to not share though relevant.

I don't agree. It is not a middle/transition stage at all.

Paralithodes says

Since some of you argue that if you are for *any* government functions, you are support socialism, perhaps you should interpret objection here to *more* socialism.

Speaking of strawmen, that's not the logic at all. Some of you are against any expansion of government and need to be reminded that you have no problem with the multitude of government programs that you currently enjoy.Paralithodes says

BTW, which argument do you support? Any government function is socialist by its nature? Or regulation/health care, etc. are NOT socialist? You can’t really argue both sides in any valid or logical way.

I don't think I've been illogical at all. I'd answer no to the first question and yes (they are NOT socialist) to the 2nd poorly worded question.

Paralithodes says

The Government did NOT have to bailout GM, but more importantly, it did NOT have to completely reverse bancruptcy proceedings by putting non-secured bondholders in front of secured bondholders because the former were Union and the latter were not. This is not Socialism, or influenced by socialist tendencies? If not, it is simply despotism.

Not Socialism at all. Acting in the best interest of the US economy, pure and simple.

From your same article:

There was no Federal Reserve System and no paper money or legal-tender laws (except during the Civil War). People used gold and silver coins as money.

There were no foreign military bases and no involvement in foreign wars. The size of the military was small.

Yes the Federal Reserve and a large US global military presence are obviously LIBERAL programs. LOL!

Looking up Mr. Hornberger's bio he's one of those ivory-tower lawyer eggheads the Glenn Beck crowd loves to deride if they are of any opinion not parallel to their own:

He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics.

"But it doesn’t change my views at all–regulation isn’t socialism. End of story"

"I don’t agree. It is not a middle/transition stage at all. "

You post definitions in order to correct the use of "socialism" by others, but choose which part of the definition that you accept as valid? It seems that you want to use whatever definitions you create on the fly in order to support your positions. Certanly, if a regulation is socialist, socialism is regulation in that case. To argue generally that "regulation isn't socialism" in the fashion that you do seems to ignore anything that doesn't fit your definition. End of story.

"Some of you are against any expansion of government and need to be reminded that you have no problem with the multitude of government programs that you currently enjoy"

You should read more posts in this forum, like from Vicente and others, who argue exactly as I have described. Clearly to many here, if we are not against ALL government, we are hypocritical socialists. Your own response is invalid because you incorrectly assume, in a black/white fashion, both that some of us are against "ANY" expansion of government, as well as that we have "NO PROBLEM" with the programs that we allegedly "enjoy." You argue that someone's objection to one type of policy is invalid because [you assume] they don't object to a different type of policy. That is illogical.

"Not Socialism at all. Acting in the best interest of the US economy, pure and simple."

So, it is in the "best interests of the US economy" for the government to take over and interject itself into the bankruptcy of a non-government company and put unsecured bondholders ahead of secured bondholders because the former are Union and the latter are not? Referring to those who take lower return for lower risk as "speculators" while those who take higher return for higher risk are not, is in the best interests of the US economy, "pure and simple?" I guess it is, if your definition of what is the best interests of the US economy is specifically the domination of unions over the private sector. That would of course be a socialist approach, but what do definitions matter?

Paralithodes says

You should read more posts in this forum, like from Vicente and others, who argue exactly as I have described. Clearly to many here, if we are not against ALL government, we are hypocritical socialists. Your own response is invalid because you incorrectly assume, in a black/white fashion, both that some of us are against “ANY” expansion of government, as well as that we have “NO PROBLEM” with the programs that we allegedly “enjoy.” You argue that someone’s objection to one type of policy is invalid because [you assume] they don’t object to a different type of policy. That is illogical.

Again you misrepresent what other have posted. No actually I don't argue that at all. You need to reread my post. Or you can keep posting strawmen if you prefer....

Paralithodes says

So, it is in the “best interests of the US economy” for the government to take over and interject itself into the bankruptcy of a non-government company and put unsecured bondholders ahead of secured bondholders because the former are Union and the latter are not? Referring to those who take lower return for lower risk as “speculators” while those who take higher return for higher risk are not, is in the best interests of the US economy, “pure and simple?” I guess it is, if your definition of what is the best interests of the US economy is specifically the domination of unions over the private sector. That would of course be a socialist approach, but what do definitions matter?

Do you even see how illogical your argument is? Favoring certain stockholders over others is socialist? In socialism there are no stockholders. How can that be socialistic?

Paralithodes says

Certanly, if a regulation is socialist, socialism is regulation in that case. To argue generally that “regulation isn’t socialism” in the fashion that you do seems to ignore anything that doesn’t fit your definition. End of story.

Oh I forgot to address this one. my response is Huh? I'm saying a regulation isn't socialist.. So not sure what the rest of your argument is...

is taking money from one tax payer and handing out to another person - by the choice of the gov - under threat of prison - socialist?

Tatu, did you understand the article when it said regulation (ie reform) is newspeak. Rather than calling it socialism liberals want to call it "solutions for the free market", when in reality it is socialism with a fancy name like "reform" or "regulation", or "pay czar" etc...

"Do you even see how illogical your argument is? Favoring certain stockholders over others is socialist? In socialism there are no stockholders. How can that be socialistic?"

You are arguing a black/white premise which does not exist. You are essentially saying that a policy or action cannot be "socialist" because the entire economy is not fully communist, and there cannot be any varying degrees of socialism within an economy.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

Certanly, if a regulation is socialist, socialism is regulation in that case. To argue generally that “regulation isn’t socialism” in the fashion that you do seems to ignore anything that doesn’t fit your definition. End of story.

Oh I forgot to address this one. my response is Huh? I’m saying a regulation isn’t socialist.. So not sure what the rest of your argument is…

I'm saying that your blanket assertion that "a regulation isn't socialist" is absurd. Whether a regulation is socialist or not ... depends on the regulation in question.

Yes--I don't think we'll find much common ground on this one. I think that calling a capitalistic government with necessary regulations to combat moral hazards and externalities "socialist" is ridiculous. I believe Socialism describes a particular type of government where there is no private ownership.

Nomograph says

I find it endlessly entertaining; it’s a guilty pleasure I can’t seem to put down.

Dang it, where are the smilies from the old forum?

I do enjoy spirited discourse. It's the mean spirited discourse I have a problem with, as in a verbal attack in response to a comment I made about a pizza place selling 50 cent wings. per wing:

Honest Abe says
Elliemae - a lonely, bitter, liberal, cry baby.

My response (Well, one out of four ain’t bad) was light-hearted, but it seems to me that Abe ain't being honest with himself or anyone else. It was a hurtful, hateful comment that only served to diminish whatever meaningful message he might wish to relate in the future.

Nomograph says

I find it endlessly entertaining; it’s a guilty pleasure I can’t seem to put down.

Me too. But what I find so entertaining is the commentary in response. If anyone's keeping score, Nomo has made me sneeze pop out of my nose about a zillion times now.

I find spirited discourse immensely invigorating, too. Not to mention spirited intercourse. However, I do have a problem with mean spirited intercourse. That being said, I must admit that both seem to clear my sinuses much better than those cheesy over the counter pharmaceuticals, both the spirited and the mean spirited, respectively.
PS: I heard that Abe Lincoln was Jewish. He was shot in the temple.

""RayAmericaMarch 10th, 2010 at 3:21 pm | top | quote | share on Facebook | email this | impolite
Not according to Nancy Pelosi. We need it quick like and she’ll tell us what’s in the bill after they pass it. LOL""

I guess that would be like hank paulsen saying the world is going to end!!...if the gov doesnt bailout wallst RIGHT NOW, while few knew what that meant....til after they passed it.
Then there is the ole wmd thingy.

""RayAmerica on Tue, Mar 2nd, 2010 at 9:07 am
Interesting too that our politicians, so intent on ramming through National Healthcare, will be exempt from the very system they are trying to force on us, just as they are exempt from Social Security participation. And yet, we have people that “trust” our government and seemingly refuse to hold them accountable to the same set of laws, standards and restrictions they force on us. WHY IS THAT ???""

So, this part would liken to war and military service, wouldnt it....you know, that ole "trust" the gov toknow when to "do" war and
sacrifice young lives while being "exempt" from serving.
Oh!, You can "trust" them for that....cant....You.
You, also too....live in that cherry-pickin' Tbagrz haze where what is good for You is all that matters.
btw....who plowed your snow.
...yes, yes, I know...Im sure it was....You-the-plumber. LOL.

a most excellant point DocNomo

tatupu70 says

I don’t agree. It is not a middle/transition stage at all.

Well, in Marx's world it was (Socialism = state owned, Communism = nobody owned).

However, that was just what Marx wanted. There's no fundamental law of nature that says that socialism leads to communism. Most credible political scientists today argue that communism simply can't work, because it's just another name for anarchy.

I'm just ignoring the rest of the thread because this discussion is stupid. These people don't know what they're talking about, and, thankfully, their anarcho masturbation fantasies will never come to fruition anyway.

tatupu70 says

I think that calling a capitalistic government

If by capitalistic government you mean a government that is run by corporations, and uses government and the FED to privatize profits and socialize losses then perhaps you could call this a capitalist government. But a more honest description of the US government would be Corporatism or "Public/Private Partnership" in newspeak.

AdHominem says

Tatu, did you understand the article when it said regulation (ie reform) is newspeak. Rather than calling it socialism liberals want to call it “solutions for the free market”, when in reality it is socialism with a fancy name like “reform” or “regulation”, or “pay czar” etc…

I understand what the article is saying, but it's incorrect. Unfortunately, you can't believe everything you read on the interwebs.

AdHominem says

If by capitalistic government you mean a government that is run by corporations, and uses government and the FED to privatize profits and socialize losses then perhaps you could call this a capitalist government. But a more honest description of the US government would be Corporatism or “Public/Private Partnership” in newspeak.

I agree that our government has some big problems. And too much corporate lobbying and "donations" is very high on the list. Let's get some real campaign finance reform and fix it!

"Liberal Delusions About Freedom"

But, capitalist anarchy, thats jes fine, eh.
...wheres the emotey for "tool".

The government didnt fail....wallst did.

gnomograph says

One of the hallmarks

perhaps you will like this excerpt better?

" Take a look at this URL: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html. There you will see an engraving. It is not an engraving of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or any of the Founding Fathers. Instead it is an engraving of Otto von Bismarck, who served as chancellor of Germany from 1862 to 1890.

You may have noticed that the URL has the letters “ssa.gov” in it. That is the Internet domain name for the U.S. Social Security Administration.

You might then ask, What in the world is the U.S. government doing glorifying a chancellor of Germany rather than America’s Founding Fathers? "

AdHominem says

gnomograph says

One of the hallmarks

perhaps you will like this excerpt better?
” Take a look at this URL: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html. There you will see an engraving. It is not an engraving of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or any of the Founding Fathers. Instead it is an engraving of Otto von Bismarck, who served as chancellor of Germany from 1862 to 1890.
You may have noticed that the URL has the letters “ssa.gov” in it. That is the Internet domain name for the U.S. Social Security Administration.
You might then ask, What in the world is the U.S. government doing glorifying a chancellor of Germany rather than America’s Founding Fathers? “

Or then again, he might not. I already bet on Nomo's response & lost - so I'm gonna sit this one out. BTW, I'm referring to the latter supposition rather than the earlier question.

But thanks for letting me play.

thanks ellie we have some lovely parting gifts for you. A year's subscription to the cheese of the month club and a case of Hiney whine.

AdHominem says

What in the world is the U.S. government doing glorifying a chancellor of Germany rather than America’s Founding Fathers? “

Because the founding fathers lived in a largely agrarian society on the edge of an entire f---ing continent, full of material riches, relatively free for the taking? Ie a society that no longer exists? And that's not even considering the indentured servitude of the north and the outright chattel slavery of the south.

The economic history of the 19th century is endlessly fascinating to me, and its lessons are subtle but clear.

Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, and Henry George are my polestars in understanding the dynamics of this age.

Europe, being more densely settled, hit their socioeconomic wall first, in 1848. That year scared the crap out of everyone. The rise of the collectivists prompted a reaction, and Bismarck, being the Mensch that he was, decided to steal some of their thunder and drink the Commie's milkshake.

HISTORY QUIZ

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson won the Presidency with how many votes?

A 400,000
B 4,000,000
C 10,000,000
D 40,000,000