For what it's worth, the multi-process architecture is designed to customize from one-process-for-all-tabs (plus one for the ui and one for Flash) to one-process-per-tab. I don't know whether this will be a released feature, though.
Chrome is very fast on my 4.8Ghz Windows PC with literally hundreds of tabs open sometimes. Almost as fast as Waterfox. If it slows with a few tabs my guess would be the OS is swapping Chrome processes memory to the swap file (or files). FWIW I just put 32GiB in my machines and remove all swap files.
IMHO GDP, dollars, etc. have nothing to do with this problem. Currently there is a huge overproduction of food, clothes, shoes, etc. for the US citizen. All that huge ads industry is only there to force people to eat more, throw out their perfectly good clothes, shoes, cars, phones, etc. because of fashion. It's no problem really to meat the needs of additional people in case a basic income produces those.
Very interesting thoughts. IMHO the basic income will have the opposite effect. A business may currently be able to find a loo cleaning employee for $X/h, but with a basic income that rate will go to say $5X/h.
Getting a bank (i.e. money printing) license is probably the hardest thing to do in the developed world. The guys/families who got them must be the best adopted to the complexities of the modern society.
How about long turn demographics? There are racial and religious minorities, that have 12+ children in an average family. A basic income may help them grow even faster, leading to inevitable huge changes in the society.
That population is going to grow with or without any help, based on the general trend of population growth worldwide. If we don't educate and give them a chance in our society, then we'll be facing a disenfranchised, volatile majority.
Also, I'm under the assumption that "leeches" basically just means poor people. I supposed if we had to be more specific, in America that means Hispanics. They are not exactly religious zealots, but are definitely making relatively larger families. That's just going to be the demographic reality in America.
> Marx then goes on to argue, that the capitalist class can more easily leverage its interests, and therefore the workers need class conscious to counter this leverage.
Do you have any objective arguments against this statement?
Class lines are not well-defined. A CEO may share certain interests with shareholders but their interests are not all identical. By using the frame of class you create a situation in which those without power pit themselves against those with power, and encourage those with power to reciprocate. That is a horrifically bad position for those without power to be in because you're de facto creating two teams where one of them has an insurmountable initial advantage.
The better strategy is to break the "classes" apart so that you can pit the different powerful interests against each other rather than uniting them against you. There is a subset of the wealthy who benefit from a basic income. The masses would do better to ally with that subset and combine their money with your votes to achieve the common goal, than to keep painting them as the enemy for long enough that they start fighting you too.
Class lines are not very defined, and never were, but at least for political analysis the exact boundaries do not matter much. What matters is the difference in influence between the main bodies of the classes.
And while thinking about Marx one needs to keep in mind, that Marx did analyse the mid 19th century economy. Your example of a CEO is actually a quite good one, since a CEO is controlling capital which he does not own, a arrangement that essentially did not exist in the middle of the 19th century. And I think that this split between capital control and ownership of capital is one of the most important theoretical difficulties in applying Marxist analysis to 21st century finance capitalism. The other problem is, that in the 19th century Labor movement the workers had a nuclear option: If the workers just refuse to work, they will be as broke and unemployed as the capitalist they refuse to work for.
Yeah, right. And all the technical books on design patterns, functional programming, algorithms, etc. are out there just to teach programmers how to type faster ...
The National Security Agency is a cryptolgic agency tasked with gathering foreign signals intelligence and providing information assurance services to the United States Government (especially the military).
The Ministry for State Security was a secret police / intelligence service tasked with a broad range of powers focused in keeping the party strong as evidenced by their motto "Schild und Schwert der Partei" (Sword and shield of the Party). They were primarily responsible for internal surveillance of people that were deemed enemies of the party and the personal protection of party leaders.
It's pretty clear that a catch all secret police / security intelligence agency is different to a foreign signals intelligence agency.
I am comparing the official missions of the Stasi and NSA which are significantly different.
If your argument is that the NSA is not acting in accordance to its mission, or that abuses are taking place, or that the NSA is acting like the Stasi that's something else entirely, completely separate to what I'm discussing.
I'm pointing out that these are different agencies with different roles and responsibilities, and trying to draw parallels between an NSA data center and a Stasi archive is not really useful.
>> that's something else entirely, completely separate to what I'm discussing.
Aha I see. The NSA and Stasi are collecting vast amounts of data on everybody living in their countries. Data that was and will be abused to ruin innocent lives. But you prefer to discuss in this topic something "entirely, completely separate".
This is a discussion on an article that compares an NSA data center to the Stasi archives. I chose to discuss how I find that comparison fallacious.
I am arguing that the NSA is not like the Stasi. They had different goals, different authorization, and different modus operandi. You're arguing that the NSA is bad (because they are like the Stasi). Whether the NSA is bad or not is orthogonal to my discussion.
To directly answer your reply:
1. The Stasi doesn't collect vast amounts of anything any more.
2. Has the NSA used data to ruin innocent lives? Have you any evidence that they will do so in the future?
Isn't it obvious that anyone can accuse anyone of anything? Usually it's more meaningful when they have evidence.
[edit: since this is receiving downvotes - clearly we have evidence that the NSA is dangerously overreaching and should stop. We have absolutely zero evidence that it is their mission to keep an elite in power 'at any cost']
I personally hate Chrome for creating a process per tab. It adds a little bit of security, but it makes harder to manage the processes in a system.