> Amusingly though, when I was looking it up, I came across argumentum ad verecundiam. Which is an argument of truth based on an authoritative qualified figure believing in it
And anyone who opposes the authoritative qualified figures winds up homeless from the vindictive backlash. I happen to know about this first-hand.
That is not profitable. It does not lead to endless debate. It does not allow for endless dog and pony media releases. It does not provide a good background for daily finger pointing. It doesn't give rise to vigilante conquests or make use of the "hero of the day" methodology (eg. Nancy Reagan "Just Say No" and Tipper Gore's parental warning labels).
All of the idiocy in the world can be explained very concisely and simply if one refactors everything to make the profit margin, from the point of view of the most influential and powerful (usually the ones behind the scenes) individuals, the most important attribute.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--profit margin from multibillion dollar spending bills (taken from the taxpayers and given, preferentially, to the military subcontractors). The war on drugs, the insurance mess, the stock market, even the events leading up to and the subsequent media circus resulting from 9/11. It's all about profit margin and public perception.
Now that you have been told the truth, dear citizen, please do not feel that you have any ability to do anything about it. The system is carefully designed to protect itself and prevent individuals, except those specifically ordained by the system, from being able to make any real impact. Go back to work, pay your taxes, accept your place in society.
Is there any wonder why I'm homeless? This is my punishment for exposing too many pyramid schemes within the overall system. I'm supposed to be demoralized. I'm supposed to become dejected. I'm probably supposed to feel like a failure, or dishonored, and commit suicide.
Instead I'm going to sit in one of the wealthiest communities in the US and raise a stink so terrible that heaven itself will have to come down to earth to heal it.
I'm glad you brought that up because that's exactly what I was thinking. In fifteen years all of the glitz and glam highly prized and self-important coders will be the new millenium's edition of the auto workers. Let me know when we have a digital Jimmy Hoffa.
Not that auto workers are bad people but follow their history. When Ford first opened up anyone who was employed in his plant was top dog, the talk of the town, someone to be envied. Eighty years later and they're sitting on the unemployment lines, only half of them are respected as hardworking individuals (the other half are regarded as ride alongs), and their mortgage payments are being refinanced a decade at a time.
Pump'n'dump isn't just a two or three month cycle. It can be a twenty or thirty year cycle. The high technology computing industry is still at the pump stage. Wait until the next darling technology comes along in the market.
Whose definition? That's what this whole thing has been about--that definitions in the common dictionaries are nearly useless for any meaningful purpose. My proposed definition of republic requires only a document which defines and empowers the government (such as the US Constitution). If that document allows for a monarch then so be it.
Did you want to argue? Sorry. I'm not interested.
> the UK hasn't got a single constitutional document
Other than the fact that they exist: what empowers the two houses of Parliament? If it's the Magna Carta then that would be the constitutional document. Are you familiar with the concept of a heirarchy for the derivation of power in a government? Maybe not if you're still clinging to common dictionaries. For example: in truth the US Congress cannot write laws which supersede the Constitution--such a thing would require a Constitutional amendment. That's not to say it hasn't happened. Politicians rarely concern themselves with anything which would be a hindrance to them and often recruit droves of paid "yes-men" (attorneys and courts) to help convince themselves that they are correct.
You have a rather inflated view of the importance of people who work, primarily, with computer systems and information.
> You don't really believe this, do you?
Well, yes, actually I do believe that. If you study the boom of the computing/information industry over the last fifteen years on a global level it will be quite clear that it is an artificial phenomenon created by a mixture of politicians and investors who saw a very ripe opportunity to promote an industry that the majority of the population knew/knows little or nothing about. It was a flash-bang-oooh-aaaah-how-much-does-that-cost effect.
Without the billions of dollars pushed in advertising to keep the ailing tech sector afloat in the stock markets most professionals in that field would be prized by their employers only a little more than the homeless folks who collect recyclables to put together beer money.
Don't be so c0cky. At some point the pyramid will begin to crumble. Either a new sector will become the market favorite or an old one will reemerge as more important in the eyes of the public and the politicians. The only thing which is keeping the tech/computing/information sector a hot commodity are the billions of dollars which are still invested in it (but only on paper). Given another generation or so and we will begin to see the psychological and economic effects of placing so much trust in an industry which, should the right contracts go wrong or the wrong cable catch a case of mildew decay, will quickly reveal itself as much more frivolous, and expendable, than most CS/CO/code monkey graduates care to admit.
> They're referred to, respectively, as the "smart and driven" segment and the "stupid and lazy" segment
Funny. I didn't know that buried tax loopholes used to create social divisions in the workplace were part of the "smart and driven" curriculum. Could you please point to a college that has a degree program in it?
> It sounds to me like YOU are the one that's never been screwed
Oh, really? Perhaps you'd like to come and be homeless with me?
I get my offers in writing and my experience is that the IT industry is a pushover. If your corporations had half the security of the companies in, say, the pharmaceutical industry, you wouldn't be so outraged at this AskSlashdot posting. Once reality hits you this sort of thing will be the norm. Give it about five more years when the big market players no longer need to keep up appearances or when the infinite depth of government IT grants and computer technology research subsidy dries up and the _real_ cost-cutting measures start setting in. The heyday of constant parties, four hour lunches, and in-shop massages is over. The heyday of spoonfed salaries and pleasant teddy-bear managers is fast coming to a close. For your sake I hope you've managed to squirrel away more than I was able to. If not then I'll be happy to show you where you can get peanut butter and jelly sandwiches once you're pushed onto the streets for standing up against the big meanie corporations who would dare to try a bait and switch. In any industry but IT they are the standard and not the exception.
I'm homeless because, in any industry besides IT, this sort of bait-and-switch to get the employee at the lowest possible dollar is the norm. You guys are pampered.
> writing - accept no substitute
Hehehe. Again you have the complete wrong mindset. They are the company. They do not need you. If you are unhappy that the written offer is different from what was discussed verbally that is your problem. You can take the offer or go try your luck on the open market. It is my experience that, in any industry but IT, there is no happy get-together and compromise. There is the way the company wants it or there is the homeless street.
> I simply said I wanted to review it and neglected to bring it up again
Lucky you. In the more established industries (reality is that IT is a fledgling industry and the companies inside of it don't have their processes fleshed out as thoroughly), for example mine is pharmaceuticals, the first day of employment is paper-signing with human resources. In the case of the employment agreement and NDAs they slide the packet to you and give you time to read it. Should you have any questions they are happy to answer them. Should you have any reservations they are happy to reply,"It is the standard corporate document. We cannot change it. That is up to the legal department." Any "concerns" over wording in the employment agreement or the NDA is negated with the same or a similar response. A refusal to sign the document is dealt with rather simply: "Your signature on that document is necessary to file the paperwork for your paycheck. We're sorry. It cannot be modified."
Here on Slashdot it seems that 95%+ of the people work in the IT field. You guys have, from what I've read over the last five years, had it easy. Companies have needed you to fill their offices in order to keep the money coming in from investment brokers and government lenders. Give it ten more years and you'll begin to get a taste of real life as experienced by the rest of the professional workforce.
> most companies today are a little hesitant to hire you as a 1099 employee directly...the c2c relationship shields them from this and helps keep the IRS happy with your employment designation
This is the first that I've heard of such things. Why don't all colleges have this as part of freshman orientation?
Maybe there's a priveleged segment of society which gets this information... and a slave segment of society which doesn't.
I understand your sentiment. Don't you think the companies know all that though? Don't you think they're playing it that way, on purpose, because they know that the majority of potential employees don't have any better option?
What do you suggest? Standing firm until one becomes homeless? Heck. I'm _IN_ that situation.
Sure. The moment you handle it yourself you are now a target for the backstabbing employees and power-drunk bosses. Expect to lose your job within six months and not be able to obtain another one due to lack of positive references. In pharmaceutical R&D, specifically, the official corporate stance is "We don't give references" but, in reality, they do. In this fashion "no reference" is equal to "bad reference" and there's no danger of a lawsuit for slander, libel, or defamation of character.
> Chances are he'll be furious that this is happening and straighten out the recruiter or whomever gave you the wrong information
Chances are he was in on the whole thing and was rubbing his hands together thinking about how many thousands of dollars he had just saved the company--to be funneled directly into his department's holiday party fund.
ImClone, working through a recruiter, did the exact same thing to me in 2003. The salary quoted on the phone was "in the low 80s" and the relocation package was "we'll arrange the process". When the offer showed up in the mail the salary, in print, was 56 (for New York!!!)and the relocation package was reimbursement up to $2500.
I politely refused to sign the offer and instead got screwed by the other company, Battelle. They were more honest about the salary, in a less expensive area, and they arranged for the full relocation. The job itself, though, turned out to be bait and switch. After four months doing what I'd been hired to do I was thrust into a position which would be more suitable for a high school graduate with some excuse blaming some vaporous upper management decision requiring that resources be reallocated, blah blah blah. There's always some lame excuse.
Oh? You wanted the complete offer in writing? I'm sorry. You must accept and sign that offer in one week or it will be retracted. We're sorry. We can't make any changes to the language of the offer. That's dictated by the legal department. Would you like to be homeless instead? That's the only offer you're getting.
Maybe you've never been screwed. Maybe you've always been handed a prime piece of pie. The fact is this: companies love to play hardball to screw employees especially when it comes to NDAs, pre-employment agreements, and relocation packages.
If I've read your post correctly I would define the UK as a democratically elected republic with a monarch figurehead. Some form of documentation is necessary to define and empower the government in a republic. Should the government act with blatant disregard for the document which empowers and defines it, as in the US, then it's little better than an arbitrary fascist or plutocratic state. I've heard that the monarchy in the UK holds very little legal sway over the government--though their social influence may very well be ten times as strong as any legally binding power.
Dictionaries define terms based upon what the public commonly believes they mean. The dictionary definition cited for democracy is silly: the democratic method has little or nothing to do with the scope of power exercised by the individuals, nor does it ensure that the supreme power is vested with anyone in particular. Democratically elected politicians still owe allegiances first to those who are financially supporting them. Who, then, is the supreme power truly vested in?
That's why I often present the following:
Communism: A government concerned primarily with the economic aspects of the people (commune) Socialism: A government concerned primarily with the social behaviors of the people Fascism: A government based upon face value, regulating anything which those in power find convenient to suit their goals and supported by whatever propaganda they decide to publish Republic: A government which derives power from a written document Democracy: A system of making a decision by casting votes
At least these definitions are, lingually, more self-explanatory than the convoluted crap which one finds in dictionaries.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is (was) much more honestly descriptive than United States of America. Supposedly we're a democratically elected republic but the complete disregard for the empowering document (specifically the ninth and tenth amendments) puts the USA much closer to a democratically elected fascist state. Often this is the same as a plutocracy.
> If you're talking about the US, it isn't a democracy; it's a limited republic
If the government were adhering to the document which defines and empowers said republic then you would be correct. With the grievous disregard for the ninth and tenth amendments, leading to the egregious exploitation of the "interstate commerce" interpretation, our government can best be characterized as a loosely affiliated group of wealthy individuals with common business interests.
It's those matter-of-fact and concrete arguments which give the politicians fits. If everyone listened to good sense like the parent post there'd be nothing to feed the media circus with.
> The President (and I mean recent ones including Bush and Clinton) have sidestepped the Constitution
For decades the Congress has sidestepped the Constitution and written laws to give it powers which it never had. It has then relied on the Supreme Court to verify that it wrote a law. Once in a while someone remembers the question of,"How does Congress repeatedly assume roles and powers which the Constitution does not specifically delegate to it?" Supreme Court justices have been carefully hand-picked, apparently, to think that "interstate commerce" is vernacular for "Do whatever you want as long as you can collect the taxes to pay for it."
Slashdot Mirror
> Amusingly though, when I was looking it up, I came across argumentum ad verecundiam. Which is an argument of truth based on an authoritative qualified figure believing in it
And anyone who opposes the authoritative qualified figures winds up homeless from the vindictive backlash. I happen to know about this first-hand.
> Fix the damn problem in your own country
That is not profitable. It does not lead to endless debate. It does not allow for endless dog and pony media releases. It does not provide a good background for daily finger pointing. It doesn't give rise to vigilante conquests or make use of the "hero of the day" methodology (eg. Nancy Reagan "Just Say No" and Tipper Gore's parental warning labels).
All of the idiocy in the world can be explained very concisely and simply if one refactors everything to make the profit margin, from the point of view of the most influential and powerful (usually the ones behind the scenes) individuals, the most important attribute.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--profit margin from multibillion dollar spending bills (taken from the taxpayers and given, preferentially, to the military subcontractors). The war on drugs, the insurance mess, the stock market, even the events leading up to and the subsequent media circus resulting from 9/11. It's all about profit margin and public perception.
Now that you have been told the truth, dear citizen, please do not feel that you have any ability to do anything about it. The system is carefully designed to protect itself and prevent individuals, except those specifically ordained by the system, from being able to make any real impact. Go back to work, pay your taxes, accept your place in society.
Is there any wonder why I'm homeless? This is my punishment for exposing too many pyramid schemes within the overall system. I'm supposed to be demoralized. I'm supposed to become dejected. I'm probably supposed to feel like a failure, or dishonored, and commit suicide.
Instead I'm going to sit in one of the wealthiest communities in the US and raise a stink so terrible that heaven itself will have to come down to earth to heal it.
The Picotux
> Driven a car?
I'm glad you brought that up because that's exactly what I was thinking. In fifteen years all of the glitz and glam highly prized and self-important coders will be the new millenium's edition of the auto workers. Let me know when we have a digital Jimmy Hoffa.
Not that auto workers are bad people but follow their history. When Ford first opened up anyone who was employed in his plant was top dog, the talk of the town, someone to be envied. Eighty years later and they're sitting on the unemployment lines, only half of them are respected as hardworking individuals (the other half are regarded as ride alongs), and their mortgage payments are being refinanced a decade at a time.
Pump'n'dump isn't just a two or three month cycle. It can be a twenty or thirty year cycle. The high technology computing industry is still at the pump stage. Wait until the next darling technology comes along in the market.
> a republic by definition
Whose definition? That's what this whole thing has been about--that definitions in the common dictionaries are nearly useless for any meaningful purpose. My proposed definition of republic requires only a document which defines and empowers the government (such as the US Constitution). If that document allows for a monarch then so be it.
Did you want to argue? Sorry. I'm not interested.
> the UK hasn't got a single constitutional document
Other than the fact that they exist: what empowers the two houses of Parliament? If it's the Magna Carta then that would be the constitutional document. Are you familiar with the concept of a heirarchy for the derivation of power in a government? Maybe not if you're still clinging to common dictionaries. For example: in truth the US Congress cannot write laws which supersede the Constitution--such a thing would require a Constitutional amendment. That's not to say it hasn't happened. Politicians rarely concern themselves with anything which would be a hindrance to them and often recruit droves of paid "yes-men" (attorneys and courts) to help convince themselves that they are correct.
You have a rather inflated view of the importance of people who work, primarily, with computer systems and information.
> You don't really believe this, do you?
Well, yes, actually I do believe that. If you study the boom of the computing/information industry over the last fifteen years on a global level it will be quite clear that it is an artificial phenomenon created by a mixture of politicians and investors who saw a very ripe opportunity to promote an industry that the majority of the population knew/knows little or nothing about. It was a flash-bang-oooh-aaaah-how-much-does-that-cost effect.
Without the billions of dollars pushed in advertising to keep the ailing tech sector afloat in the stock markets most professionals in that field would be prized by their employers only a little more than the homeless folks who collect recyclables to put together beer money.
Don't be so c0cky. At some point the pyramid will begin to crumble. Either a new sector will become the market favorite or an old one will reemerge as more important in the eyes of the public and the politicians. The only thing which is keeping the tech/computing/information sector a hot commodity are the billions of dollars which are still invested in it (but only on paper). Given another generation or so and we will begin to see the psychological and economic effects of placing so much trust in an industry which, should the right contracts go wrong or the wrong cable catch a case of mildew decay, will quickly reveal itself as much more frivolous, and expendable, than most CS/CO/code monkey graduates care to admit.
> They're referred to, respectively, as the "smart and driven" segment and the "stupid and lazy" segment
Funny. I didn't know that buried tax loopholes used to create social divisions in the workplace were part of the "smart and driven" curriculum. Could you please point to a college that has a degree program in it?
> It sounds to me like YOU are the one that's never been screwed
Oh, really? Perhaps you'd like to come and be homeless with me?
I get my offers in writing and my experience is that the IT industry is a pushover. If your corporations had half the security of the companies in, say, the pharmaceutical industry, you wouldn't be so outraged at this AskSlashdot posting. Once reality hits you this sort of thing will be the norm. Give it about five more years when the big market players no longer need to keep up appearances or when the infinite depth of government IT grants and computer technology research subsidy dries up and the _real_ cost-cutting measures start setting in. The heyday of constant parties, four hour lunches, and in-shop massages is over. The heyday of spoonfed salaries and pleasant teddy-bear managers is fast coming to a close. For your sake I hope you've managed to squirrel away more than I was able to. If not then I'll be happy to show you where you can get peanut butter and jelly sandwiches once you're pushed onto the streets for standing up against the big meanie corporations who would dare to try a bait and switch. In any industry but IT they are the standard and not the exception.
I'm homeless because, in any industry besides IT, this sort of bait-and-switch to get the employee at the lowest possible dollar is the norm. You guys are pampered.
> writing - accept no substitute
Hehehe. Again you have the complete wrong mindset. They are the company. They do not need you. If you are unhappy that the written offer is different from what was discussed verbally that is your problem. You can take the offer or go try your luck on the open market. It is my experience that, in any industry but IT, there is no happy get-together and compromise. There is the way the company wants it or there is the homeless street.
> I simply said I wanted to review it and neglected to bring it up again
Lucky you. In the more established industries (reality is that IT is a fledgling industry and the companies inside of it don't have their processes fleshed out as thoroughly), for example mine is pharmaceuticals, the first day of employment is paper-signing with human resources. In the case of the employment agreement and NDAs they slide the packet to you and give you time to read it. Should you have any questions they are happy to answer them. Should you have any reservations they are happy to reply,"It is the standard corporate document. We cannot change it. That is up to the legal department." Any "concerns" over wording in the employment agreement or the NDA is negated with the same or a similar response. A refusal to sign the document is dealt with rather simply: "Your signature on that document is necessary to file the paperwork for your paycheck. We're sorry. It cannot be modified."
Here on Slashdot it seems that 95%+ of the people work in the IT field. You guys have, from what I've read over the last five years, had it easy. Companies have needed you to fill their offices in order to keep the money coming in from investment brokers and government lenders. Give it ten more years and you'll begin to get a taste of real life as experienced by the rest of the professional workforce.
> most companies today are a little hesitant to hire you as a 1099 employee directly...the c2c relationship shields them from this and helps keep the IRS happy with your employment designation
This is the first that I've heard of such things. Why don't all colleges have this as part of freshman orientation?
Maybe there's a priveleged segment of society which gets this information... and a slave segment of society which doesn't.
I understand your sentiment. Don't you think the companies know all that though? Don't you think they're playing it that way, on purpose, because they know that the majority of potential employees don't have any better option?
What do you suggest? Standing firm until one becomes homeless? Heck. I'm _IN_ that situation.
> But when a dozen fucking assholes surround you and torment you verbally, day in and day out, it really is not a good thing
Hehe. Welcome to the last ten years of my world. You might be interested to peruse through my journal over the last few months.
> They need to handle it themselves
Sure. The moment you handle it yourself you are now a target for the backstabbing employees and power-drunk bosses. Expect to lose your job within six months and not be able to obtain another one due to lack of positive references. In pharmaceutical R&D, specifically, the official corporate stance is "We don't give references" but, in reality, they do. In this fashion "no reference" is equal to "bad reference" and there's no danger of a lawsuit for slander, libel, or defamation of character.
> Chances are he'll be furious that this is happening and straighten out the recruiter or whomever gave you the wrong information
Chances are he was in on the whole thing and was rubbing his hands together thinking about how many thousands of dollars he had just saved the company--to be funneled directly into his department's holiday party fund.
> I've never run into a problem like that
ImClone, working through a recruiter, did the exact same thing to me in 2003. The salary quoted on the phone was "in the low 80s" and the relocation package was "we'll arrange the process". When the offer showed up in the mail the salary, in print, was 56 (for New York!!!)and the relocation package was reimbursement up to $2500.
I politely refused to sign the offer and instead got screwed by the other company, Battelle. They were more honest about the salary, in a less expensive area, and they arranged for the full relocation. The job itself, though, turned out to be bait and switch. After four months doing what I'd been hired to do I was thrust into a position which would be more suitable for a high school graduate with some excuse blaming some vaporous upper management decision requiring that resources be reallocated, blah blah blah. There's always some lame excuse.
> get your COMPLETE offer in writing first
Oh? You wanted the complete offer in writing? I'm sorry. You must accept and sign that offer in one week or it will be retracted. We're sorry. We can't make any changes to the language of the offer. That's dictated by the legal department. Would you like to be homeless instead? That's the only offer you're getting.
Maybe you've never been screwed. Maybe you've always been handed a prime piece of pie. The fact is this: companies love to play hardball to screw employees especially when it comes to NDAs, pre-employment agreements, and relocation packages.
If I've read your post correctly I would define the UK as a democratically elected republic with a monarch figurehead. Some form of documentation is necessary to define and empower the government in a republic. Should the government act with blatant disregard for the document which empowers and defines it, as in the US, then it's little better than an arbitrary fascist or plutocratic state. I've heard that the monarchy in the UK holds very little legal sway over the government--though their social influence may very well be ten times as strong as any legally binding power.
Dictionaries define terms based upon what the public commonly believes they mean. The dictionary definition cited for democracy is silly: the democratic method has little or nothing to do with the scope of power exercised by the individuals, nor does it ensure that the supreme power is vested with anyone in particular. Democratically elected politicians still owe allegiances first to those who are financially supporting them. Who, then, is the supreme power truly vested in?
That's why I often present the following:
Communism: A government concerned primarily with the economic aspects of the people (commune)
Socialism: A government concerned primarily with the social behaviors of the people
Fascism: A government based upon face value, regulating anything which those in power find convenient to suit their goals and supported by whatever propaganda they decide to publish
Republic: A government which derives power from a written document
Democracy: A system of making a decision by casting votes
At least these definitions are, lingually, more self-explanatory than the convoluted crap which one finds in dictionaries.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is (was) much more honestly descriptive than United States of America. Supposedly we're a democratically elected republic but the complete disregard for the empowering document (specifically the ninth and tenth amendments) puts the USA much closer to a democratically elected fascist state. Often this is the same as a plutocracy.
> If you're talking about the US, it isn't a democracy; it's a limited republic
If the government were adhering to the document which defines and empowers said republic then you would be correct. With the grievous disregard for the ninth and tenth amendments, leading to the egregious exploitation of the "interstate commerce" interpretation, our government can best be characterized as a loosely affiliated group of wealthy individuals with common business interests.
> Roughly speaking, a Ponzi scheme is one in which the perpetrators make false claims in order to lure investors
Social security? Unemployment? Car insurance? Casinos?
> your choice of butterflies or ponies
Pegasus? Maybe even a winged unicorn?
It's those matter-of-fact and concrete arguments which give the politicians fits. If everyone listened to good sense like the parent post there'd be nothing to feed the media circus with.
> The President (and I mean recent ones including Bush and Clinton) have sidestepped the Constitution
For decades the Congress has sidestepped the Constitution and written laws to give it powers which it never had. It has then relied on the Supreme Court to verify that it wrote a law. Once in a while someone remembers the question of,"How does Congress repeatedly assume roles and powers which the Constitution does not specifically delegate to it?" Supreme Court justices have been carefully hand-picked, apparently, to think that "interstate commerce" is vernacular for "Do whatever you want as long as you can collect the taxes to pay for it."
> something FROM which an argument is made
Indeed. Heirarchy of the derivation of power.
> I see the skin as a natural barrier, and would prefer to go Amish rather than be some ghoulish cyborg
Seconded.
Rosegarden looks very nice.