민경욱이라는 한 사람의 의인이 아직 대한민국에 살아 있다는 사실에 감사한다.

------------------------------------------------------

당신들 눈에는 이미 정치생명과 목숨, 명예,
그리고 내가 살아온 전 생애를 건 내 모습이 
보이지 않느냐  ---민경욱

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

이번 총선에 쓰인 자일링스에 대해.arabozi (Feat. 투표지 분류기)

우붕이소환

 

-선 3줄요약-

1. 투표지 분류기 내부 까보니 자일링스가 있음

2. 자일링스는 중력을 거스르는 물질

3. 이 모든 정황들로 봤을때 부정선거가 아닐 확률은 지옥에있는 노짱이 내일 아침 살아돌아올 확률

------------

 

이번 4.15총선 관련해서 흥미로운 사실 하나 알려주려고 글쓴다 (우한갤에 있는 것도 내가쓴거다 불펌아님)

틀딱이니 정게로 가라니 하지말고 일단 읽어봐라. 본인 95년생이고 자지 잘선다

자 우리 베충이들 알기 쉽게 최대한 간략히 설명한다.

 

자일링스란? FPGA 칩을 개발하는 회사 이름.

 

그러면 FPGA 칩이란 무엇인가?

FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array)는 이름 그대로 현장 프로그래머블이라고 불리우는, 제조가 완료되었더라도 사용자가 임의대로 논리 회로의 구조를 변경하는 것이 가능한 디바이스의 일종이다.

CPU와 병렬로 작동하여 추가적인 기능을 수행한다. 하드웨어 내부의 논리연산과 배선을 자유자재로 재조정할 수 있다.

이러한 특징 때문에 카멜레온 칩 이라고도 불리움 (카멜레온은 자신의 피부 세포 구조를 스스로 바꿔 변색을 자유로이 구사하는것이 특징. 다들 RG?)

 

또한 FPGA는 이러한 특성상 업그레이드가 자주 필요한 통신 시스템에 많이 사용된다.

자일링스의 경우에도 방산과 통신분야에서 전체 매출의 60%를 차지(출처-미래에셋대우'19) 하고 있다.

 

이렇듯 이미 설계된 프로그래밍의 임의 변경이 가능하다는 특징이 있으며, 주로 통신 시스템에 사용된다는 이 자일링스 칩이 투표지 분류기 내부에 장착이 되어있었다.

 

현재 투표지 분류기에 관련된 의혹들이 무수히 많다는 점, 다들 일베에서도 질리도록 봤으니 익히 알고 있을거다.

그 중에서도 나의 소중한 한표가 내가 투표하지 않은 타 후보자에게 임의로 이동했다는 정황 또한 속속들이 나오고 있지

 

 

 

출처-중앙선관위

 

 

철저한 오프라인 운영을 고수한다고 했지만 알고보니 이번 총선에 사용된 투표지 분류기는 실시간 통신이 가능한 기계였다는 점.

 

(통신이 가능하다는 주장에는 여러가지 정황들이 있지만 불가능 하다고 반박하는 중앙선관위 측은 아무런 증거 제시를 하지 못하는 상황)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

사진출처-이봉규TV. 이번 총선에 사용된 투표지 분류기의 메인보드 내부 사진. 벤자민 윌커슨 컴퓨터 공학 박사가 며칠전 구리 선관위에서 촬영한 사진 속 자일링스 칩에 대해 설명하고 있다.

 

이렇게 송수신이 가능한 기계에 자일링스 칩까지 장착이 되어있다???

 

이러한 정황들로 미루어 볼때 우리들이 보기엔 의도가 어찌됐건 도저히 좋은쪽으로는 해석이 되지 않는다.

 

 

단순 분류기에 왜 송수신 기능과 자일링스 칩이 존재하는 거임? 도대체 왜? ㅋ

 

 

중앙선관위는 계속 모르쇠로만 일관하지 말고 하루 빨리 국민들의 의혹을 해소해주기 바란다.  / 일베

---------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

김정은이 죽지 않았다면, 아마 우한 폐렴 때문에 원산 등지에서 숨어지내는 것 같기도 하다.  지난 인 비료 공장 준공식에 그의 대역이 출연한 것도 그로써 설명이 가능하다. 그가 살아 있다면 이제 공산화가 거의 완성된 한국 국회에서 연설하는 일도 어렵지 않게 되었다.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

문화혁명의 광기를 다룬 많은 드라마를 보았어도, 인육을 먹었다는 사실은 오늘 처음 보았다. 그들도 차마 저런 미친 짓은 기록할 수 없었을 것이다. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

서양에서 지키기 싶었던 것은 정통 또는 클래식이라고 하는 것들이다. 반면에 그게 진부해서 껍질을 벗어나는 새로움의 추구가 전위적인 것이어서, 이는 서양의 사조와 관계가 있는 것이다.

 

 

보수와 진보를 좀더 알기 쉽게 설명하자면...

 

 

옛날 짜장면과 퓨전 짜장면의 차이와 같은 것이다. 짜장면이라는 것은 무릇 짜장면의 원형 그 자체여야 한다. 옛날에 먹던 바로 그 옛날 짜장면, 돼지 기름인 나드를 넣어 볶아서 만들어야 된다. 이게 바로 정통 짜장면이다. 라는 것은 정통 그 자체를 추구한다는 뜻이다. 진보는 이제 질렸으니까 치즈를 올려서 먹자거나 짜장으로 떡볶이를 해 먹자거나 하는 사조가 된다.

 

 

보수는 무조건 옛날 거를 추구하는 것이 아니라 정통을 추구한다는 뜻이다. 정통은 클래식이다. 클래식이란 말 뜻은 (이것도 기가 막히게 잘 번역되어 있는데, 고전주의) 그것이 모범적, 규준적이라는 뜻이고 그래서 생명력이 길어서 어느 시대의 누가 봐도 확실히 맞고 그래서 옛날부터 내려온다고 해서 고전이다.

 

 

쉽게 말하면 정통 클래식 음악을 선호하는 것과 같은 맥락이 보수이고, 그것을 깨고 나오는 팝 음악이 진보인 것과 같다.

 

 

따라서 Progressive는 전위, Conservative는 정통 으로 번역되었어야 한다. / 일베 발췌

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

정말 무서운 병이다.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"O山당"과 함께 배우는 ASCII 코드? (feat. FOLLOW THE PARTY)

https://youtu.be/z_tfYeL-Dew

수학쨈

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

미국, 대만에 신형 어뢰 판매” … “일본, 강력한 신형 개인화기/권총 구매!” ... 이슈방담#.149 ... 2020.05.22. ...

 [박훈탁TV]

https://youtu.be/QzvrmybortQ

올 여름 중국이 군사적으로 홍콩에 개입할 것이고, 그로 인해 미국과 중국의 군사적 충돌이 확실하다고 했는데, 조금 과장 같다. 

중국이 군사적으로 대만을 침공하면 모를까, 홍콩은 원래 중국의 영토였으므로, 미국이 군사적 모험을 할 정도는 아니다. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

단독인터뷰1탄)아!윤미향 탈북여종업원 북송팩트, 지배인 허강일(박상학대표인터뷰진행)

https://youtu.be/ivALnOeYmQI

정성산 티비

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

시장에서 영구적인 자본이란 존재하지 않는다. 미제스의 사회주의 계산 논쟁은 이를 잘 보여준다.

 

문제의 핵심은 가격 자체가 아니라, 현재에 가용한 요소들을 배분해서, 미래 소비자들의 욕구를 만족시키는 가격결정 과정이다. 현재의 자원 소유권은 이전 행동과 배분의 결과이기는 하지만, 그로 인해 결정된 가격은 역사적인 가격이 아니라, 미래의 가격이다. 따라서 시장의 경제적 계산 과정에서 부당한 자산의 분배는 곧바로 해체가 되고 만다.

시장에서 영구적인 자본이란 존재하지 않는다. 자본은 시장의 생산을 통해 미래 소비자를 위해서 기여를 할 때에만 가치를 지닌다.

부자가 되고, 부자로 계속 남을 수 있는 유일한 방법은, 시장에서 소비자의 욕구를 만족시키는 과정 밖에는 없다.

 

Why an Economy Can't Work without Market Prices

 

Per Bylund

 

It has been a full century since Mises dropped the economic calculation bomb, but the argument apparently still haunts socialists. It should, since Mises managed to show that a socialist economy is not an economy at all but calculational chaos. Yet it is curious that it does, since most have (incorrectly) concluded that Mises’s argument, after decades of debate, was debunked.

 

Why does a presumably debunked argument still drive even non-Austrian critics to pen new responses and deliberate on apparent flaws?

 

Part of the answer might be that the debate ended without a proper conclusion. Mises’s critics, specifically the "market socialists" of the 1930s, misconstrued his argument as being about the existence, rather than meaning, of prices. Their answer, as simple as it was unsatisfying, was to create artificial prices centrally adjusted for emerging shortages and surpluses. The rejoinder then addressed the flaws in the attempted response rather than returning to the fundamental issue.

 

Part of the answer might also be that Mises’s argument provocatively shows not only that there is order to markets, but also that order cannot exist without them. And he further shows that it is not a matter of finding the answer to a puzzle, but that the answer is the puzzle. To put it very simply, markets work.

 

This of course makes those who are skeptical or even opposed to markets see red. And Mises goes further and states that not only do markets work, but that they can only work if there is private property. The entrepreneurial bidding that determines market prices, on which individual entrepreneurs appraise their undertakings, is a division of intellectual labor that works because those taking part can earn money profits but also suffer losses. Without the risk of suffering personal losses, bids are not truly economic and therefore cannot determine real market prices. As a result, no real calculation is possible. The system fails.

 

The issue of private property as a necessary precondition for calculation, as Mises argues, has become a matter of renewed debate. For example, Andy Denis, a professor at City University London, argues that Mises’s argument only requires decentralized decision-making, not necessarily ownership. Proper economic calculation should then, Denis argues, be possible under a system of complete state ownership with several controls. (I respond to this argument in an article coauthored with G.P. Manish and elaborate on it in a follow-up paper.)

 

Similarly, Kevin Carson of the Center for a Stateless Society, who is decidedly promarket but antiproperty, argues at that “if Mises’ critique proves anything it proves too much.” Carson’s argument differs from Denis’s in that it focuses on the institutional setting for markets as precursors. Writes Carson:

 

The allocation of the most fundamental factor inputs is not set by a market mechanism in virtually any economic system. Markets presuppose, as a meta-principle logically prior to their functioning, the choice of a particular set of property rules out of many possible sets. The formation of market clearing prices for factor inputs, under the laws of supply and demand, takes place only within the framework of this prior set of property allocation and governance rules.

 

The present market is not based on justly acquired property but rather rests, historically speaking, on the almost perfectly unjust property allocation that was inherited from feudalism. Consequently, “capitalism operates in an environment of massive calculational chaos, with incentives distorted by artificial scarcity or artificial abundance at virtually every turn.”

 

I will not argue against this conclusion, because it is largely accurate. Prior injustices do not automatically disappear but rather skew the outcome of the system for as long as resources, as a result, become misallocated (i.e., malinvested). Austrians use the same type of argument against imposed regulations on the market, which similarly distort market signals and resource allocation.

 

Carson continues:

 

Given a different foundational property rights regime—for example, commons governance of information, land, and resources—the resulting market-clearing prices would likely be far different. Likewise, the parties to which returns on inputs accrued—and hence incentives—would also be far different. In every system, the property allocation and governance rules themselves result from social or political choices that are prior to the market, and market pricing of inputs depends on those rules.

 

He is not wrong. The specifics of any property regime will certainly affect the prices determined by the entrepreneurial bidding process. However, this is not a flaw but a feature. Economic calculation is not about creating a certain allocation of resources, and even less some particular distribution of wealth.

 

Carson goes wrong in his analysis in the same way as leagues of socialist critics of Mises’s calculation argument before him. He assumes that Mises’s argument is about the actual prices that are determined and that the economic calculation process therefore is a way to get those prices right. But this misses the fundamental point and, like the market socialists, thereby replaces Mises’s fundamental theoretical insight with the seemingly simple mechanism itself. The result is a rather tiresome bickering over whether the prices are right or wrong.

 

Economic calculation is not about the price-determining mechanism itself. Yes, the mechanism is important. But it is important because it determines prices that in turn generate system-level economizing of scarce productive resources in a never-ceasing market process of value creation. The point is not the prices themselves, but the price-determining process that allocates factors available in the present toward satisfying consumers’ wants in the future.

 

Although resource ownership in the present is indeed an outcome of previous actions and allocations, the prices that are determined are not historic but future prices. They are based on entrepreneurs’ best guesses of what consumers will want to consume at different times in the future. Consequently, the injustice of any distribution of property is quickly undone in a market through the economic calculation process.

 

It is true that owners of unjust property will be compensated through the prices determined in the economic calculation process. But this is of much lesser implication than socialists typically appear to think. First, whoever owns property but does not invest it in entrepreneurial attempts to satisfy consumers will not earn profits and so their relative wealth will dissipate with economic growth.

 

Second, those property owners who sell resources to entrepreneurs will be paid their market price. But they will only be paid once. Although this means that they will receive money to purchase goods and services, if this money is not itself invested toward the satisfaction of consumers’ future wants it is but another flavor of the previous case.

 

Third, those who lend it to entrepreneurs who pursue profits will earn the market rate (or a share of the profits of the new venture). But while this certainly makes them part of what Carson calls a “rentier class,” based on the property amassed unjustly, this cash inflow still depends on choosing to rent out to the entrepreneur who will earn profits. Even if the entrepreneur shoulders the risk of the venture, if he or she is wiped out by pursuing what turns out to be a bad idea the invested capital is typically either lost or damaged.

 

Fourth, the property owner can him- or herself act as entrepreneur and use his or her resources to produce goods that service consumers. Those resources will then either generate profits because the undertaking serves consumers better than other entrepreneurial endeavors, or losses.

 

The fact is that there is nothing permanent about capital in a market. As Austrians recognize, and have recognized since Menger, capital has value only for its expected contribution to consumers through market production. Idle capital is either a speculation that there will be better (more valuable) future uses or a loss.

 

It is true that some very durable property can be used for income over an extensive time period, but it is never enough to simply sit on that property and rake in money. Even land or rental properties require continuous investment to remain useful, and even more investment to remain attractive. Such investments, even for seemingly simple upkeep and maintenance, are entrepreneurial: unless they contribute to consumer satisfaction, they are wasteful. Nobody can stay rich by making wasteful investments.

 

As consumers decide which use of scarce resources is rewarded with profit, there is only one way of becoming and staying rich through the market process: by serving consumers. It is this promise that undergirds the bids placed in the open market and thus that determines the prices of resources. In the market, and through the economic calculation process, what has already happened is always, economically speaking, sunk. To maintain comparative riches one must satisfy consumers, and that can only happen by speculating under the threat of losing it all.

 

Whatever injustice caused the present or prior resource allocations has close to no impact on the actual outcomes of resource uses, since all efforts are mercilessly evaluated (and thus rewarded or punished) by consumers in their future purchase and use decisions. Who owns a resource is of little importance, because all ownership is subject to either partaking in the market process, thereby earning profits by serving consumers or suffering losses by failing to do so, or lying idle and consequently missing out on potential returns.

 

This is not to say that injustices are somehow unimportant. They certainly are, and libertarians tend to be too forgiving about prior injustices and privilege. However, as Austrians we recognize, with Mises, that unjust property distributions have far less impact on market outcomes, and much less staying power, than socialists assume. The unjust allocation of property cannot persist unless the injustice is repeated. Only protected resource owners can earn profits without serving consumers.

 

Mises’s economic calculation argument shows why: because calculation is a fundamentally entrepreneurial process that takes place in the present, the fate of each undertaking to be determined in the future by sovereign consumers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------