I could bore you with numerous examples of people I know personally and through others who have "made it" even though they were at a complete disadvantage economically to start, but I won't. I realize that all poor people are not lazy, and that was a blanket statement -- some are not able to work due to physical reasons, etc. I also understand that the government performs necessary tasks (which require taxes to operate), that I cannot be personally resonsible for (police, national defense, etc.), but I have grown very tired of the idea that I should be responsible for the "safety net" which supports many people who would rather grab their anonymous welfare checks from the mailbox than bother going through the effort of getting a job. And yes, I DO believe that there are many people who would rather do this than work simply because it requires less effort overall. This is why I was bothered by the initial post I responded to suggesting that we do away with inheritance. I don't believe that anyone has the right to say what I should do with my money and property I have earned when I die, let alone have it confiscated by the government. Yes, I also believe that is theft no matter what the government ultimately uses it for.
In case you didn't notice, socialism has now proven itself to be a failure in most areas of the world. I have been reading/. for a while now, and I have to say, this is possibly one of the most ignorant posts I have seen here. Did you ever stop to think that the reason there is any wealth in this country at all is because people are ALLOWED to pursue it? If you continue to take from the productive, you will successfuly kill the incentive to earn and everyone will be poor. Besides, what is your solution for all the inheritance that is confiscated from the wealthy when they die? Give it to the poor? Will that make them wealthy too? My guess is that it won't -- for the same reason that they aren't wealthy in the first place -- they refuse to work for and earn it. And if it isn't just wholesale given to the poor, who will keep it? I'll put my money on the government -- the very same 'ole boys club you are currently bitching about. Come on, let's get realistic here, if you don't like captialism, then move. If you want a lot of money then get out and earn some -- don't just devise ways to steal it from the rich. This country allows you to choose either one, that's the beauty of it.
Don't get me wrong. I also dislike people who immediately point the finger at you when something doesn't work, of course, without even researching the problem first. Unfortunately, this is the way the world works, and it most definately doesn't just stay confined to software users. I've found in my 10 years of building and supporting software, the most important ability a developer can possess is to have patience. Speaking of patience -- I have run out of it for Microsoft products and would love nothing more than to see Linux rain on Bill's party, but that will never happen unless more and more people use the OS. Even if that means having two annoying users for every good one.
Would somebody please explain to me why this attitude is good for Linux? It is not the first time I have seen such sentiments. Kind of reminds me of a couple of friends I had back in my college days with regards to their favorite bands. As soon as one of the tunes got some airtime on the radio, the group quickly fell of their list never to be listened to again -- not even the old, "unpopular" stuff. I guess you can only like a group if nobody else knows about them!? Sure makes it difficult for them to continue producing music if nobody ever buys their CDs. People have to eat... Newbies are not newbies forever -- just think, Smoke, you were once a newbie too. It's only natural to believe that the more people who run Linux on their machines, the more chances you will have to be able to find "really" interested people in your software products. In order to have popular software that is of excellent quality, you must have users first!
Slashdot Mirror
I could bore you with numerous examples of people I know personally and through others who have "made it" even though they were at a complete disadvantage economically to start, but I won't. I realize that all poor people are not lazy, and that was a blanket statement -- some are not able to work due to physical reasons, etc. I also understand that the government performs necessary tasks (which require taxes to operate), that I cannot be personally resonsible for (police, national defense, etc.), but I have grown very tired of the idea that I should be responsible for the "safety net" which supports many people who would rather grab their anonymous welfare checks from the mailbox than bother going through the effort of getting a job. And yes, I DO believe that there are many people who would rather do this than work simply because it requires less effort overall. This is why I was bothered by the initial post I responded to suggesting that we do away with inheritance. I don't believe that anyone has the right to say what I should do with my money and property I have earned when I die, let alone have it confiscated by the government. Yes, I also believe that is theft no matter what the government ultimately uses it for.
In case you didn't notice, socialism has now proven itself to be a failure in most areas of the world. I have been reading /. for a while now, and I have to say, this is possibly one of the most ignorant posts I have seen here. Did you ever stop to think that the reason there is any wealth in this country at all is because people are ALLOWED to pursue it? If you continue to take from the productive, you will successfuly kill the incentive to earn and everyone will be poor. Besides, what is your solution for all the inheritance that is confiscated from the wealthy when they die? Give it to the poor? Will that make them wealthy too? My guess is that it won't -- for the same reason that they aren't wealthy in the first place -- they refuse to work for and earn it. And if it isn't just wholesale given to the poor, who will keep it? I'll put my money on the government -- the very same 'ole boys club you are currently bitching about. Come on, let's get realistic here, if you don't like captialism, then move. If you want a lot of money then get out and earn some -- don't just devise ways to steal it from the rich. This country allows you to choose either one, that's the beauty of it.
Don't get me wrong. I also dislike people who immediately point the finger at you when something doesn't work, of course, without even researching the problem first. Unfortunately, this is the way the world works, and it most definately doesn't just stay confined to software users. I've found in my 10 years of building and supporting software, the most important ability a developer can possess is to have patience. Speaking of patience -- I have run out of it for Microsoft products and would love nothing more than to see Linux rain on Bill's party, but that will never happen unless more and more people use the OS. Even if that means having two annoying users for every good one.
Would somebody please explain to me why this attitude is good for Linux? It is not the first time I have seen such sentiments. Kind of reminds me of a couple of friends I had back in my college days with regards to their favorite bands. As soon as one of the tunes got some airtime on the radio, the group quickly fell of their list never to be listened to again -- not even the old, "unpopular" stuff. I guess you can only like a group if nobody else knows about them!? Sure makes it difficult for them to continue producing music if nobody ever buys their CDs. People have to eat... Newbies are not newbies forever -- just think, Smoke, you were once a newbie too. It's only natural to believe that the more people who run Linux on their machines, the more chances you will have to be able to find "really" interested people in your software products. In order to have popular software that is of excellent quality, you must have users first!