You're wrong in agreeing that it does not, democracy is a perverted form of government (see Aristotle). That's why most countries implement a constitutional republic or something similar instead.
> You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living?
Nope, I don't mean that. Are these the only two things going on in the world? Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Just trying to get a feel for why you would guess so horribly badly.
> Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
What makes you think I have to defend myself against your straw man?
edit:
And you know what, the fact that I get shit for a snarky reply to something that doesn't warrant one, is extremely lame. Here's what Hawking said
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
In the context of that, no, I obviously mean more than just peaches and unicorns with "current trends", to suggest otherwise is, given the level of literacy on this site, flat out not arguing in good faith. At least I stand behind for dealing with it as such, I don't play nice with sophistry.
Trade (which is to say, markets) and globalisation are largely responsible for driving this. Capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) is currently the most successful model we have for facilitating these.
Here's another driver: we can't help but invent things and find out more about the world, regardless of system, and in many ways capitalism takes the credit for what goes on anyway and either way.
I'm not 100% sure, but since you're using a de domain, you probably have to include legal information in your about page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressum
The requirement is for German websites.
German websites are defined as being published by individuals or organisations that are based in Germany, so an Impressum is required regardless of whether a site is in the .de domain.
This is precisely not what Brooks meant by 'plan to throw one away'. Brooks point is, that you gather information while writing your prototype and incorporate the new-found knowledge into your second, hopefully sound, design.
Rees never learned anything new from the first system (what could he learn anyway, what he described sounds like a nightmare), but proceeded to implement it from scratch.
Funny thing, I'm reading 'The Mythical Man-Month' right now :D
Also, Brooks later said that if you can iterate your design over time, that's even better than "build one to throw away". This has been the focus of his more recent work like "The Design of Design".
Last Week Tonight is a great show, but this piece made me think about it... if he misrepresents Ayn Rand so blatantly, how accurate is he on other topics?
What, exactly, is the segment misrepresenting? It was mostly video clips of Ayn Rand expressing her thoughts directly, with a voice-over (rightly) mocking conservatives for supporting her given the fact that she was both militantly atheist and militantly pro-choice.
Also, the absurdity of expecting facts from a comedy show has been brought to my attention just recently. All in all, what a great first comment on this site ; )
Anyway, I'd argue there is an obvious atmosphere of disgust. The voice-over before the first interview segment states her philosophy amounts to being a selfish asshole.
See the relevant part of the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFy9A7WEzPA#t=104 from 1:45 to around 3:40.
The net result is the impression that everything she's saying is basically bullshit. It seems to me that it's considered unacceptable to refer to her ideas.
