it's a very very very cheap alternative for roof solar panels and solar pipes...human ingenuity at its best

nice

The clothing store next door to Antonia's had to shut down because they didn't have a sewing machine and still worked manually. The owner, Marco, eventually got a loan as well in order to buy a sewing machine. So did the seamstress Claudia from across the street.

Antonia, having being in business first, had a solid customer base. However, Claudia launched the arrival of her new machine with a 50% promotion. Residents of the neighbourhood soon discovered that Claudia was a superior craftswoman. Soon, some of Antonia's and Marco's customers began leaving their shops for the better service across the street.

Marco, the poor sap, was going out of business when a great idea occured to him: why don't he and Antonia go into business together? They knock down the wall and match Claudia's prices, while offering half the production time and investing their assets in an automatic pattern maker.

In the meanwhile, sewing machine manufacturers noticed how accessible their sewing machines had became and started having trouble meeting demand. They had no choice but to increase the prices. Soon, $150 was no longer enough to buy a sewing machine. Furthermore, Antonia and Marco dominated the textile market in their respective city and competition could not stand a chance.

Success is often associated with personal ingenuity, and rightly so. Ideas like microcredit can work for a while, but it's not a long term "solution to poverty". It is nice to think that $150 bucks can get someone out of the hole for the rest of their lives, but the repercussions of foreigners attempting to create a goods and services market economy where none existed can be catastrophic. Advancement comes from within. It's for this reason that initiatives like "affirmative action" is absolute hogwash.

Have a read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Ahh, aussie ingenuity at its finest.

Might want to make *NSFW given the interesting background conversation ;-)

Love how the wife and husband's voices are merely two different barely distinguishable variations of clearly one dude's monotonic voice. That's some brass-balls, no-nonsense ingenuity right there.

«Singapore would become one of the most important commercial and military centres of the British Empire, and the hub of British power in Southeast Asia.»

« When the Communist Party of Malaya tried to take over Malaya and Singapore by force, a state of emergency was declared in June 1948. The emergency lasted for 12 years. Towards the end of 1953, the British government appointed a commission under Sir George Rendel to review Singapore's constitutional position and make recommendations for change. The Rendel proposals were accepted by the government and served as the basis of a new constitution that gave Singapore a greater measure of self-government. »

«The PAP had come to power in a united front with the communists to fight British colonialism. The communists controlled many mass organizations, especially of workers and students. It was an uneasy alliance between the PAP moderates and the pro communists, with each side trying to use the other for its own ultimate objective--in the case of the moderates, to obtain full independence for Singapore as part of a non-communist Malaya; in the case of the communists, to work towards a communist take-over.»

The PAP finally struck an independence deal with the British. Go figure. (S'pore is since a member of the Commonwealth.)

«Singapore's strategy for survival and development was essentially to take advantage of its strategic location and the favourable world economy. »

Not to mention that Singapore as an HEAVILY interventionist government - which practice eugenics o_0.

Non-violence ? Yearn for economic success? Ingenuity ? or History ?

reference
http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/countries/singapore/Singapore-History.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore

I'm not sure where your scorn for Singapore comes from. It's used as an example because when it declared independence in 1965 it was the ultimate underdog, lacking all assets considered necessary to form a viable nation-state.

Under the far left's view of the world, they should have begged for western charity and taken up arms against whatever historical forces resulted in their situation. Because they didn't, today they're wealthier per capita than the US and their former colonial ruler, Britain. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Human ingenuity. Go figure.

jeez, you're awfully sensitive and hostile over the subject. I can't imagine why. I'm sure there's a good reason though.

I also like how you pick and choose the things you'd like to respond to me about and show zero humility the entire time.

last post.

In reply to this comment by dag:
What? Sorry, my decisions turned Choggie into a troll? Sorry, but I'm to blame for Choggie throwing a fit because we wouldn't give him a 4th channel?

You've really got it all worked out in your head. I wish on you a community, so you can try out all of your stellar notions.

It's easy to shout and judge from the sidelines - and you can do that at Digg or Reddit to your heart's content. Good luck on getting a response from their admins on bullshit accusations or poorly thought out screeds against authority.


In reply to this comment by joemawlma:
ok dag.

"Actually, you sound quite sure of your opinions all-around. As much as you malign Digg, I can't help but feel you would be more comfortable there."

i left digg for reddit a long time ago when the same stuff started happening there as is now starting to happen here. you wouldn't have had to ban those other members (for good reason) had this whole thing been more fair. yes, choggie was a troll, but your decisions turned him into that.

i realize you need to find a compromise for 'necro-spamming' as you've suggested but there are plenty of intelligent ways to do that which won't punish everyone. for example, only let members with 100 stars comment. or flag people who change massive numbers of comments all at once. or just delete the accounts all together of people who pull that crap. i find your excuse for this change to be "complete and utter bullshit." and i know for a fact there are better alternatives that could be programmed into siftbot.

finally, considering this site is successful because of the members and the whole concept is based on DEMOCRACY, why not do something FAIR like ask for valid suggestions from the community and then have them vote on the best ones? you could have posted it on the front page for a week or month and again even only let those with at least a gold star vote. but you didn't. gavel hits the desk, and if we don't like it, we can leave. because you're the owner and creator right? the "ruler" if you will. i've dealt with enough of that attitude for the past 8 years from evil bush supporters in my country.

i apologize for our disagreement and i appreciate your creation that is the sift. i've been around so long because you beat me to the idea of this site and i appreciated the ingenuity. but right now, that's about all i agree with. i admit my previous statements probably were a little extreme but everything i've said to you here is spot on.

i'm rarely logged in anymore anyway and the comment change gives me more than enough reason for it to decline even more. i know i won't be missed.


good day and good luck.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Sorry, but that is such complete and utter bullshit.

No one has been "banned for voicing their opinion" here.

Yes, we have grown a lot - and we have had to make adjustments. The bigger we are, the bigger target we make. And some individuals would like to hurt the Sift. Necro-spamming is an issue and we'll continue to make changes that we have to for the health of the community.


In reply to this comment by joemawlma:
this is what happens when a site gets too popular. creators abandon their most loyal early adopters because of a stupid disagreement. it's not like losing a few members will hurt your ad revenue bottom line. follow in digg's footsteps; that's what you've been trying to do since the beginning. and doing a fine job of it.

it's draconian to take away our ability to change or alter our own comments. and as far as the "breaking the comment flow" goes, people should be quoting the person they're speaking to when they respond in the first place. then it won't matter if a previous comment is taken away. reddit does it with the ">" symbol. pretty simple really.

oh well, time to move on for me anyway. i'll probably be banned for voicing my opinion too.

ok dag.

"Actually, you sound quite sure of your opinions all-around. As much as you malign Digg, I can't help but feel you would be more comfortable there."

i left digg for reddit a long time ago when the same stuff started happening there as is now starting to happen here. you wouldn't have had to ban those other members (for good reason) had this whole thing been more fair. yes, choggie was a troll, but your decisions turned him into that.

i realize you need to find a compromise for 'necro-spamming' as you've suggested but there are plenty of intelligent ways to do that which won't punish everyone. for example, only let members with 100 stars comment. or flag people who change massive numbers of comments all at once. or just delete the accounts all together of people who pull that crap. i find your excuse for this change to be "complete and utter bullshit." and i know for a fact there are better alternatives that could be programmed into siftbot.

finally, considering this site is successful because of the members and the whole concept is based on DEMOCRACY, why not do something FAIR like ask for valid suggestions from the community and then have them vote on the best ones? you could have posted it on the front page for a week or month and again even only let those with at least a gold star vote. but you didn't. gavel hits the desk, and if we don't like it, we can leave. because you're the owner and creator right? the "ruler" if you will. i've dealt with enough of that attitude for the past 8 years from evil bush supporters in my country.

i apologize for our disagreement and i appreciate your creation that is the sift. i've been around so long because you beat me to the idea of this site and i appreciated the ingenuity. but right now, that's about all i agree with. i admit my previous statements probably were a little extreme but everything i've said to you here is spot on.

i'm rarely logged in anymore anyway and the comment change gives me more than enough reason for it to decline even more. i know i won't be missed.


good day and good luck.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Sorry, but that is such complete and utter bullshit.

No one has been "banned for voicing their opinion" here.

Yes, we have grown a lot - and we have had to make adjustments. The bigger we are, the bigger target we make. And some individuals would like to hurt the Sift. Necro-spamming is an issue and we'll continue to make changes that we have to for the health of the community.


In reply to this comment by joemawlma:
this is what happens when a site gets too popular. creators abandon their most loyal early adopters because of a stupid disagreement. it's not like losing a few members will hurt your ad revenue bottom line. follow in digg's footsteps; that's what you've been trying to do since the beginning. and doing a fine job of it.

it's draconian to take away our ability to change or alter our own comments. and as far as the "breaking the comment flow" goes, people should be quoting the person they're speaking to when they respond in the first place. then it won't matter if a previous comment is taken away. reddit does it with the ">" symbol. pretty simple really.

oh well, time to move on for me anyway. i'll probably be banned for voicing my opinion too.

I have to agree. It would seem that biological evolution takes a species only so far, and even then only in an environment that doesn't change too quickly. When it does, by "natural" means or otherwise, it's extinction time.

Technology lets us step off of the Evolutionary treadmill. Most everything we have today we owe to our ingenuity as a species.

No, it's not perfect. Yes, it's dangerous.

...and we will only survive if we are worthy. I think that's a pretty healthy and proven model to grow a species by.

Gasoline and electricity are two completely different things. We've seen time and time again that utilities need to be regulated, gasoline does not.

Gas companies don't have a monopoly. High gas prices will only drive the free market toward other options. This is a good thing. It's not in the oil companies' best interests to inflate prices. They'll be sorry...all because of American Ingenuity and free market opportunities.

The guy who makes $10 million probably isn't 1000 times smarter than the guy who makes $10,000. In many cases, the guy who makes $10,000 might even be smarter. But, assuming that it was earned and not inherited, he made choices and took risks which happened to become extremely profitable. Every time you make a choice you are taking a risk. Some people take the risk of taking out a $40,000 loan for college on the hope that they will become doctors, lawyers, or engineers and make a return on that investment. Another man might take an even bigger risk by taking out a $40,000 loan to start up his own business. With hard work, ingenuity, and maybe even a little luck, his business grows and expands, becoming a chain, suddenly 20 years later he is the CEO of some company making $10 million a year.

Why should he apologize? Why should he not be entitled to the fruits of his labor, to the rewards of the risk he took? You only hear of the successes, you never hear of the scores of businessmen that went bankrupt in the first year, or the owners who lost everything and became homeless.

Intelligence or skill alone might raise your income from $20,000 to $60,000 or more, but most often, it takes more than intelligence and skill to jump from $60,000 to $10 million--it takes drive, ambition, risk, and yes, perhaps a little luck.

>> ^imstellar28:
Heres how you create a $1,000,000,000,000 market:
1. Remove all government regulation
2. Watch and wait as the net ingenuity of 300 million Americans vie for a slice of $1,000,000,000,000 pie, developing an array of innovative and cost-effective new products.


Deregulation is what brought you the current financial crisis. Deregulation is what brought you Enron.

Accidental comment upvote there...

Hey this was from 2002... Geebus... Man this is 6 years old. Could you imagine if we had listened to him?

>> ^imstellar28:
Heres how you create a $1,000,000,000,000 market:
1. Remove all government regulation
2. Watch and wait as the net ingenuity of 300 million Americans vie for a slice of $1,000,000,000,000 pie, developing an array of innovative and cost-effective new products.

>> ^imstellar28:
Heres how you create a $1,000,000,000,000 market:
1. Remove all government regulation
2. Watch and wait as the net ingenuity of 300 million Americans vie for a slice of $1,000,000,000,000 pie, developing an array of innovative and cost-effective new products.


Sure, you could do that... if you wanted to turn back the clock 130 years and bring back unregulated monopolies. 'Cept now it would be energy instead of trains or steel.

I agree with you though that the subsidies oil companies get are ridiculous. I suppose the argument could be made about the "barriers to entry" into the energy market--that it's cheaper to subsidize current energy companies and try to get them to go green since all their infrastructure is already in place rather than try to slingshot new companies to the top. But given how much big oil has dragged its feet in exploring alternative energy, maybe we'll end up spending more in the long run, who knows.

Heres how you create a $1,000,000,000,000 market:

1. Remove all government regulation
2. Watch and wait as the net ingenuity of 300 million Americans vie for a slice of $1,000,000,000,000 pie, developing an array of innovative and cost-effective new products.