And if we get technology to the point where the 'working' class can live a pretty good life, there is no need for social mobility as a 'good'. I'd argue, we're already at this point.
Were it not for our attempts at propping up the middle class, being working class would be a pretty good life. Things like propping up the housing market is good for the upper middle and rich class. It's bad for the working class as the cost of a basic element of life (Shelter) goes up. Propping up the drug war to fund middle class lawyers, police officers, prison guards...
When I look at it, the attempts to prop up the middle class have resulted in far more harm and more poverty for most of the populace.
And yes, historically there have been a few haves and the vast majority on equal 'poor' footing. Perhaps that says something that the rise of the middle class has more to do with the industrial revolution and is an anomaly of that era and shouldn't be a model in a post industrialized society.
A true egalitarian society only has one class. Which according to some is an ideal goal.
I personally detest the glorification of the middle class. I am part of it, but I really see no grand reason why we're special. We're just a group of people skilled/lucky enough to have a better job than those in the working class.
As technology improves and there is less 'extra skill' needed for middle class jobs, there is no moral reason why we should be paid more than the working class or have a higher standard of living.
We shouldn't be trying to prop up the middle class.
"Our code quality and general engineering quality focus has been very weak"
So you want people to write good code on top of crappy code. This is hard for people to do. Just as it would be in any field to fix up crappy work. A carpenter, plumber, artist... will all be demotivate worked on a botched job.
"and it is impossible for a newcomer in our team to get up to speed and be productive in less than a month due to unnecessary complexity"
How many newcomers are joining your team that this a problem? Lots of churn in your staff is going to be a detriment to performance. No different than any team based sport.
Before you worry about details like code reviews... you must get the picture right. Do you value software developers as a skilled profession to train them on the code base, keep members on the team for their knowledge...
Better still, are you hiring good people? You can't convince me to be a good artist. I can't draw for the life of me.
After that, focus on quality in new code and components. Provide some time for rewrites of code they really hate.
Anytime someone tries to understand Islam by 'reading the Koran', you can pretty much call them an idiot.
I'm Muslim by background, albeit a very secular one, but I come from a pretty strong religious background.
The core to Islamic practice is not the Koran, but the Hadith. That is the words and actions of the prophet Mohamed.
The Koran is actually pretty vague on most things and without the context of the Hadith can be read to mean pretty much anything. Heck, you won't even find the 5 daily prayers Muslims do in the Koran. Nor will you find beards. Nor will you find stoning...
The core to Islamic belief is the Koran. The core to Islamic practice is the Hadith.
Disclaimer, there a group of Koran-only Muslims who try to take out the Hadith and only focus on the Koran, but they're a miniscule minority and IMHO the koran cannot be understood without the hadith... but if it helps progress Islam I support their efforts even if I think it intellectually dishonest.
Because Corporations aren't people, but corporations are everywhere, so it is easy optics to say we should just take their money and then we could all have ponies and sugar coated IPads.
Our history of full of empires, merchants, new lands...
It basically boils down to what nation/institution is powerful enough to control the space property and whatever rules they impose on it.
It could be one powerful country that takes space exploration on its own. We could a bit more cordial and share the costs of exploration via some kind of international agency and then auction of any property rights.
We could even parallel something like the Antarctic Treaty which basically ban military activity on the continent.
No one can tell for sure how property rights will be handled in space, but our own history has ample examples from bureaucracy to genocide.
Infrastructure or natural monopolies have ALWAYS been an issue for *the market*. This goes way back to the days of roads and rail roads.
Competition is one solution that can work and governments can use various schemes to encourage competition.
But in the case of networks, another option is regulation. And gosh... price regulation.
Rail Roads in the United States operation in vast monopolistic networks... and as such eventually the government passed laws to allow it make sure that rail roads charged "just and reasonable" rates.
What is *just* and *reasonable*... it's intentionally vague but allows you to bring complaints forward.
In any case, there's a reason I've always been a fan of simple laws. What in my view is the simplest way to ensure the ISPs get to control their network, while at the same time giving customers a fair price?
1. Everything is unlimited Internet Access (no data caps) 2. ISPs are allowed to throttle you to control their network 3. ISPs must publish their throttling policies and/or can only throttle a user (not particular types of traffic)
And if you increase the minimum wage, what happens to the cost of things?
You buy groceries. The farm workers, grocery clerks, warehouse workers... make make minimum wage.
Increase the minimum wage, you increase the cost of such things.
Wages are just how much we trade among ourselves.
Most of the western world has gotten away with increasing the minimum wage in a colonial fashion by shifting the cost of labor onto migrant or developing countries.
Just ask yourself, what if the global minimum wage was $10/hour?
What do you do with money? You use it to buy labor from other people.
The big problem is simply that people are used to living an advantageous life over other people.
You see this all the time with people complaining about being paid the minimum wage.
Well what is wrong with the minimum wage? Someone has to be paid the minimum wage. Those paid higher than the minimum wage simply take advantage of the labor of those paid less and get more 'stuff' in life.
The public school teacher only has a 'good job' because some waiter is being paid minimum wage so they can go out to eat on a weekend. Because some textile worker is earning minimum wage assembling clothes and the teacher can get a new pair of jeans every few months...
The position is privilege is what union workers are used to. Both in the public sector and the private sector.
Ultimately, technology is going to make us more egalitarian. There might be a few rich people in charge of the robots that provide us with cheap goods, but you know what will get to the average Joe... that they cannot complete with the average Joe's anymore.
In a more egalitarian society... who gets to live in Downtown Manhatten in the 'nice' neighborhood close to transit? Answer that question without saying one person earns more than another.
I too don't fear technology. But I do fear humanity. Humans love to take advantage of each other. The 'evil' banker, the teacher, the police officer, the businessman, the engineer... we all in general want to live a better life than someone else.
To truly take advantage of this technological progress, we must rid ourselves of this. That will be the hardest challenge.
We all *know* the solution to this. Things like work sharing, decreased dependency on economy growth... The question is how will societies transition their people to this model. How will they convince public sector unions, doctors, lawyers... that their standard of living will be that of the average citizen?
Change of this sort is hard at the political level and social level. You're talking about changing the social situation of millions and millions of people who are used to a certain kind of living.
Forget about the displaced workers for a second. Most of these displaced workers are in the private sector... and much of the created need is in the public sector or public related sector (healthcare, education, transit...)
At some point the lack of tax money paid by these displaced private sector workers is going to hit the pocket books of government wanted to spend on the public related sector. Wait a minute... I think this is where we pretty much are.
So no matter how many new skills you give these displaced workers, there isn't any money or perhaps even need to give them all jobs in the new field at the current going rate of those fields.
And you're back to tackling establishments in the banking sector, public sector... and taking away a life of privilege and jobs from millions upon millions of people. Can't say that is going to be easy to transition to... and you can expect a lot of social unrest in the process.
The big cause is simply that people are used to living an advantageous life over other people.
You see this all the time with people complaining about being paid the minimum wage.
Well what is wrong with the minimum wage? Someone has to be paid the minimum wage. Those paid higher than the minimum wage simply take advantage of the labor of those paid less and get more 'stuff' in life.
The public school teacher only has a 'good job' because some waiter is being paid minimum wage so they can go out to eat on a weekend. Because some textile worker is earning minimum wage assembling clothes and the teacher can get a new pair of jeans every few months...
In as much as you throw the words like crony capitalism/hoarding/greed around, the problem is ultimately 'us'... the people.
Ultimately, technology is going to make us more egalitarian. There might be a few rich people in charge of the robots that provide us with cheap goods, but you know what will get to the average Joe... that they cannot complete with the average Joe's anymore.
In a more egalitarian society... who gets to live in Downtown Manhatten in the 'nice' neighborhood close to transit? Answer that question without saying one person earns more than another.
I too don't fear technology. But I do fear humanity. Humans love to take advantage of each other. The 'evil' banker, the teacher, the police officer, the businessman, the engineer... we all in general want to live a better life than someone else.
To truly take advantage of this technological progress, we must rid ourselves of this. That will be the hardest challenge.
We all *know* the solution to this. Things like work sharing, decreased dependency on economy growth... The question is how will societies transition their people to this model. How will they convince public sector unions, doctors, lawyers... that their standard of living will be that of the average citizen?
People always have an axe to grind with retailers. Whether it is software, clothing, electronics... They seem to think they are buying directly from the manufacturer.
Things like distribution, storage, hosting, bandwidth, marketing, sales processing, brand building, keeping the store open through slow sales periods, electricity, shipping... are all meaningless costs.
Apple's AppStore can be thought of to be more in common with other retail outlets... and a 30% cut is not that crazy.
Ask yourself which price fixing affects your life more. Price fixing on TVs or LCDs.
Or price fixing on healthcare, education, construction... Public sector union wages are price fixing. Professional restrictions are also price fixing. In places like Ontario, there is a great deal of collusion between government, insurance, and private medical providers.
I am mandated to buy extra benefits I don't need... not to protect someone else if I hit them ( a valid argument for mandated insurance), but for 'my own benefit'... or rather... the benefit of private medical providers.
Or in the case of Ontario, supply management of various industries to pricefix things like dairy and other farm items.
It seems government price fix to keep the price of things we need (food, education, healthcare, housing very high)
They don't have a leg to stand on when they accuse companies of price fixing when technology seems to move quickly and prices keep falling. There's a natural move against price fixing getting too high. If Apple was being gauged by price fixing on LCDs... they would use their muscle to demand lower prices or setup their own LCD lab...
What happens when you cannot exploit wage differences?
What happens when you, the average American, cannot exploit the poor wages of Mexicans who work on your farms to get cheap food?
What happens when you, the average American, cannot exploit the poor wages of Caribbean folk who work at all inclusive resorts to provide you with a cheap vacation?
What happens when you, the average American, cannot exploit the poor wages of immigrants who leave their homelands to seek a better life in the US and work at fast joint, hotels, low wage jobs.
I'd be a little wary of ranting about corporations exploiting global wage differences, because if they were equal... you'd find the average Westerner has a lot more to lose.
China is advancing rapidly... as is most of East Asia. Throw in another 2 billion or so into that lot. Parts of India as well will do well. Throw in another billion.
The Gulf Kingdoms do pretty well in such harsh conditions.
In the end some will live, some will move, some will die.
But the human race won't go extinct... which was the original statement by the parent.
cause you know we don't have things like air conditioning, heating, irrigation, mass transport, cars, green houses, better healthcare, genetically engineered plants, solar power...
We're not going to go extinct if it goes up 10 degrees in 100 years. It won't be all fun games either... but we'll cope pretty well.
It is not only technology that advances, but also legal systems, contracts,, business models.
Can driver-less cars be transplanted onto the automobile ecosystem we have today? Probably not.
Just off the top of my head... here's some ideas that could make it more viable.
1. Some arrangement is made between the automobile company and the an insurance company. If statistically, a driver less car is less likely to get into an accident, an insurance company would be willing to back it.
2. The government creates a law limiting or removing liability from the company. Many governments limit liability for nuclear power plants in such a manner. Typically, limiting liability comes with heavier regulation... more stringent testing...
3. A car company becomes an insurance company... so to drive the car, you pay a monthly fee. They insure you knowing it is their car doing the driving. They pool risk the same....
1. Not enough resources have been put into the 'installation' program. Resources are always limited.
2. How about the myriad of consultants? They need jobs too and are they likely to push a product that they won't have any support for?
3. People have gotten used to self-service in the industry. When if you look at the rest of life, so much of it relies on the expert knowledge of specific industries. Not that it *can't be done*, but just most people don't. I don't change my own brake pads on my car or do any complex repairs on my car... and I tell you... a big software piece is probably just as complex or more complex than standard car repair.
Not to go overboard, but doctors and lawyers and dentists spend years specializing in specific areas of the human body before they are able operate on it. General doctors just refer them to experts. A complex piece of installed enterprise software is along those lines of complexity.
We should have a bit more respect for our field.
4. Many of these enterprise products are composed of multiple components often having their own configuration systems. They might have a DB from another company, a web server component... It can all get insanely complex.
There's some very good points. I'll just add a few more.
1. Whether or not reversing CO2 emissions will have much of an impact on the supposed costs of climate change. By many estimates, the damage is already done. So there is little benefit to costly and extreme measures to reduce CO2 if the 'bad effects' are going to felt anyways. We can more naturally reduce CO2 via better technology and replacing aging system. Nothing drastic is needed or even beneficial.
2. Given that we are going to see bad effects, wouldn't our resources be better spent countering these bad effects and slowly reducing our CO2 levels. You know, spend the money, building levies and counter-flood measures, irrigation systems to ensure our food supply...
3. Absolutely, the Global Warming crowd simply don't believe their own statements. Not everyone has to be a pure believer. But you know... people are willing to die for their faith. People are willing to go to war for big reasons like politics or freedom. People are willing to go on freaking GreenPeace boats to stop whaling.
But Global warming? Which of these global warming movements is actually willing to sacrifice anything for the cause. Oh sure, they demand others sacrifice. Are global warming scientists willing to work for cheap? You now, like how soldiers do? Are they willing to volunteer to build windmills or solar panels for free... you know like how communities come together to build sandbag flood protection.
Heck, when Howard Dean proposed to combat global warming with a carbon tax... he didn't care enough about the potential disaster of global warming to use the tax for combating it... he wanted the money used for... universal healthcare. Yep... he really believes Global Warming is a big threat...
Here's another question. How much does it cost to pay for the R&D for such systems? That R&D is then spread out over the cost of expected purchases... and if it is a private company... some profit along the way.
Not to mention that unless it is mass produced, it might not be a very automated process at the same level as consumer goods...
The better question is what kind of society do you think it produced when borrowing is encouraged and being responsible with balancing your wants with what you earn and the risk you are willing to take is actively discouraged.
Inflation benefits the rich as much the poor and the middle class.
You can be darn sure the rich will use the government inflation to get risk free investments. There's also a huge class of rich people who make their living off of people borrowing.
Imagine a world where everyone owns their own home, mortgage free. Great for the people... not so great for the banks...
Yeah... unless you allow states to leave the union or are willing to fight continuous wars of independence... you better recognize regional power.
Just what would be in it for Wisconsin or Vermont to be a part of the United States if they basically had no say in the politics of the country?
Then it would be even more undemocratic as they tried to leave the union and the federalists would try and stop them.
All countries face this... and the more power the national government has, the more these issues comes to the forefront. Canada is a pretty wide diverse country... and the only way we maintain unity is by acknowledging regional differences.
Healthcare/education are left pretty much entirely to the provinces. The feds reduced to largely a funding role. We 'pointlessly' recognize French as an official language even though its largely only important in Quebec.
This is where professional organization comes into place.
Law, medicine... aren't technically unionized, but they do offer various things that Developers should be interested in.
1. Formal apprenticeship. So you learn from really good people. Not just the technical work, but how to deal with clients, new situations... It helps maintain knowledge.
2. Job protection. Well you can't do much in medicine without being a licensed doctor or in some states a nurse... Not to mention, you have to be licensed in the US to practice medicine... a protection from globalization. Not perfect... but a big barrier.
3. Keep standards high. Sure not all doctors are brilliant, but the average doctor is okay competent. That's more than we can say about developers.
4. Advocacy. Some form of advocacy for our various issues.
Unions are not the answer to any field today. The reason is simply free-trade. Great... you unionize, but they can just as easily offshore your job.
Professional association is the answer. Sure, under such a system, Zuckerberg might have had to finish school and spend a year or two in an apprenticeship as well as dealing with standards for security.privacy... but hey... he could have still build facebook at sometime in his life.
Not having empathy can lead to one missing out on many facts and understanding of people... and thus hurt empathy.
You really need both to make a good decision.
As a very simplistic example... A 'rational' medical professional might think that we should ban soda because it is unhealthy.
But someone with empathy will recognize that people feel and don't like being told what to do.
Similarly, we see what is happening in Europe right now. The politicians are pushing austerity. But they are not empathetic to how people feel... the hopelessness, the insecurity... Ignoring empathy like that can result in a worse outcome... social unrest, collapse...
Someone without empathy will not take people into account and in doing so are not really rational as they ignore one of the biggest variables in the equation.
It is irrational to not have empathy and still expect results.
It all depends on the reason Microsoft goes through development fads.
Possible Reason 1: Microsoft has traditionally gone through development fads to push people to upgrade. Their revenue stream before depended on people upgrading versions of software.
Possible Reason 2: Microsoft just has a bunch of software designers or managers that like to push out the latest fad and have no internal discipline.
If it is 1, then hopefully the Microsoft business people see the change in both hardware and 'the cloud'. Hopefully they see that the revenue stream has changed to services and device upgrades. They will then stop pushing pointless development fads.
Slashdot Mirror
And if we get technology to the point where the 'working' class can live a pretty good life, there is no need for social mobility as a 'good'. I'd argue, we're already at this point.
Were it not for our attempts at propping up the middle class, being working class would be a pretty good life. Things like propping up the housing market is good for the upper middle and rich class. It's bad for the working class as the cost of a basic element of life (Shelter) goes up. Propping up the drug war to fund middle class lawyers, police officers, prison guards...
When I look at it, the attempts to prop up the middle class have resulted in far more harm and more poverty for most of the populace.
And yes, historically there have been a few haves and the vast majority on equal 'poor' footing. Perhaps that says something that the rise of the middle class has more to do with the industrial revolution and is an anomaly of that era and shouldn't be a model in a post industrialized society.
What is so special about the middle class?
A true egalitarian society only has one class. Which according to some is an ideal goal.
I personally detest the glorification of the middle class.
I am part of it, but I really see no grand reason why we're special. We're just a group of people skilled/lucky enough to have a better job than those in the working class.
As technology improves and there is less 'extra skill' needed for middle class jobs, there is no moral reason why we should be paid more than the working class or have a higher standard of living.
We shouldn't be trying to prop up the middle class.
"Our code quality and general engineering quality focus has been very weak"
So you want people to write good code on top of crappy code. This is hard for people to do. Just as it would be in any field to fix up crappy work. A carpenter, plumber, artist... will all be demotivate worked on a botched job.
"and it is impossible for a newcomer in our team to get up to speed and be productive in less than a month due to unnecessary complexity"
How many newcomers are joining your team that this a problem? Lots of churn in your staff is going to be a detriment to performance. No different than any team based sport.
Before you worry about details like code reviews... you must get the picture right. Do you value software developers as a skilled profession to train them on the code base, keep members on the team for their knowledge...
Better still, are you hiring good people? You can't convince me to be a good artist. I can't draw for the life of me.
After that, focus on quality in new code and components. Provide some time for rewrites of code they really hate.
Anytime someone tries to understand Islam by 'reading the Koran', you can pretty much call them an idiot.
I'm Muslim by background, albeit a very secular one, but I come from a pretty strong religious background.
The core to Islamic practice is not the Koran, but the Hadith. That is the words and actions of the prophet Mohamed.
The Koran is actually pretty vague on most things and without the context of the Hadith can be read to mean pretty much anything. Heck, you won't even find the 5 daily prayers Muslims do in the Koran. Nor will you find beards. Nor will you find stoning...
The core to Islamic belief is the Koran.
The core to Islamic practice is the Hadith.
Disclaimer, there a group of Koran-only Muslims who try to take out the Hadith and only focus on the Koran, but they're a miniscule minority and IMHO the koran cannot be understood without the hadith... but if it helps progress Islam I support their efforts even if I think it intellectually dishonest.
Because Corporations aren't people, but corporations are everywhere, so it is easy optics to say we should just take their money and then we could all have ponies and sugar coated IPads.
Our history of full of empires, merchants, new lands...
It basically boils down to what nation/institution is powerful enough to control the space property and whatever rules they impose on it.
It could be one powerful country that takes space exploration on its own. We could a bit more cordial and share the costs of exploration via some kind of international agency and then auction of any property rights.
We could even parallel something like the Antarctic Treaty which basically ban military activity on the continent.
No one can tell for sure how property rights will be handled in space, but our own history has ample examples from bureaucracy to genocide.
Infrastructure or natural monopolies have ALWAYS been an issue for *the market*. This goes way back to the days of roads and rail roads.
Competition is one solution that can work and governments can use various schemes to encourage competition.
But in the case of networks, another option is regulation.
And gosh... price regulation.
Rail Roads in the United States operation in vast monopolistic networks... and as such eventually the government passed laws to allow it make sure that rail roads charged "just and reasonable" rates.
What is *just* and *reasonable*... it's intentionally vague but allows you to bring complaints forward.
In any case, there's a reason I've always been a fan of simple laws. What in my view is the simplest way to ensure the ISPs get to control their network, while at the same time giving customers a fair price?
1. Everything is unlimited Internet Access (no data caps)
2. ISPs are allowed to throttle you to control their network
3. ISPs must publish their throttling policies and/or can only throttle a user (not particular types of traffic)
And if you increase the minimum wage, what happens to the cost of things?
You buy groceries. The farm workers, grocery clerks, warehouse workers... make make minimum wage.
Increase the minimum wage, you increase the cost of such things.
Wages are just how much we trade among ourselves.
Most of the western world has gotten away with increasing the minimum wage in a colonial fashion by shifting the cost of labor onto migrant or developing countries.
Just ask yourself, what if the global minimum wage was $10/hour?
What do you do with money? You use it to buy labor from other people.
I don't disagree with you at all :)
Much of my post was about 'truly taking advantage of the technology'.
I do fear humanity, as I said in my post, and I think what you say is a perfectly plausible outcome.
The big problem is simply that people are used to living an advantageous life over other people.
You see this all the time with people complaining about being paid the minimum wage.
Well what is wrong with the minimum wage? Someone has to be paid the minimum wage. Those paid higher than the minimum wage simply take advantage of the labor of those paid less and get more 'stuff' in life.
The public school teacher only has a 'good job' because some waiter is being paid minimum wage so they can go out to eat on a weekend. Because some textile worker is earning minimum wage assembling clothes and the teacher can get a new pair of jeans every few months...
The position is privilege is what union workers are used to. Both in the public sector and the private sector.
Ultimately, technology is going to make us more egalitarian. There might be a few rich people in charge of the robots that provide us with cheap goods, but you know what will get to the average Joe... that they cannot complete with the average Joe's anymore.
In a more egalitarian society... who gets to live in Downtown Manhatten in the 'nice' neighborhood close to transit? Answer that question without saying one person earns more than another.
I too don't fear technology. But I do fear humanity.
Humans love to take advantage of each other.
The 'evil' banker, the teacher, the police officer, the businessman, the engineer... we all in general want to live a better life than someone else.
To truly take advantage of this technological progress, we must rid ourselves of this. That will be the hardest challenge.
We all *know* the solution to this.
Things like work sharing, decreased dependency on economy growth...
The question is how will societies transition their people to this model.
How will they convince public sector unions, doctors, lawyers... that their standard of living will be that of the average citizen?
Change of this sort is hard at the political level and social level. You're talking about changing the social situation of millions and millions of people who are used to a certain kind of living.
Forget about the displaced workers for a second.
Most of these displaced workers are in the private sector... and much of the created need is in the public sector or public related sector (healthcare, education, transit...)
At some point the lack of tax money paid by these displaced private sector workers is going to hit the pocket books of government wanted to spend on the public related sector. Wait a minute... I think this is where we pretty much are.
So no matter how many new skills you give these displaced workers, there isn't any money or perhaps even need to give them all jobs in the new field at the current going rate of those fields.
And you're back to tackling establishments in the banking sector, public sector... and taking away a life of privilege and jobs from millions upon millions of people.
Can't say that is going to be easy to transition to... and you can expect a lot of social unrest in the process.
Tax Law is hardly the big cause.
The big cause is simply that people are used to living an advantageous life over other people.
You see this all the time with people complaining about being paid the minimum wage.
Well what is wrong with the minimum wage? Someone has to be paid the minimum wage. Those paid higher than the minimum wage simply take advantage of the labor of those paid less and get more 'stuff' in life.
The public school teacher only has a 'good job' because some waiter is being paid minimum wage so they can go out to eat on a weekend. Because some textile worker is earning minimum wage assembling clothes and the teacher can get a new pair of jeans every few months...
In as much as you throw the words like crony capitalism/hoarding/greed around, the problem is ultimately 'us'... the people.
Ultimately, technology is going to make us more egalitarian. There might be a few rich people in charge of the robots that provide us with cheap goods, but you know what will get to the average Joe... that they cannot complete with the average Joe's anymore.
In a more egalitarian society... who gets to live in Downtown Manhatten in the 'nice' neighborhood close to transit? Answer that question without saying one person earns more than another.
I too don't fear technology. But I do fear humanity.
Humans love to take advantage of each other.
The 'evil' banker, the teacher, the police officer, the businessman, the engineer... we all in general want to live a better life than someone else.
To truly take advantage of this technological progress, we must rid ourselves of this. That will be the hardest challenge.
We all *know* the solution to this.
Things like work sharing, decreased dependency on economy growth...
The question is how will societies transition their people to this model.
How will they convince public sector unions, doctors, lawyers... that their standard of living will be that of the average citizen?
I'd say is more general than that.
People always have an axe to grind with retailers.
Whether it is software, clothing, electronics...
They seem to think they are buying directly from the manufacturer.
Things like distribution, storage, hosting, bandwidth, marketing, sales processing, brand building, keeping the store open through slow sales periods, electricity, shipping... are all meaningless costs.
Apple's AppStore can be thought of to be more in common with other retail outlets... and a 30% cut is not that crazy.
Aren't those precisely the things governments do?
Ask yourself which price fixing affects your life more.
Price fixing on TVs or LCDs.
Or price fixing on healthcare, education, construction...
Public sector union wages are price fixing.
Professional restrictions are also price fixing.
In places like Ontario, there is a great deal of collusion between government, insurance, and private medical providers.
I am mandated to buy extra benefits I don't need... not to protect someone else if I hit them ( a valid argument for mandated insurance), but for 'my own benefit'... or rather... the benefit of private medical providers.
Or in the case of Ontario, supply management of various industries to pricefix things like dairy and other farm items.
It seems government price fix to keep the price of things we need (food, education, healthcare, housing very high)
They don't have a leg to stand on when they accuse companies of price fixing when technology seems to move quickly and prices keep falling. There's a natural move against price fixing getting too high. If Apple was being gauged by price fixing on LCDs... they would use their muscle to demand lower prices or setup their own LCD lab...
What happens when you cannot exploit wage differences?
What happens when you, the average American, cannot exploit the poor wages of Mexicans who work on your farms to get cheap food?
What happens when you, the average American, cannot exploit the poor wages of Caribbean folk who work at all inclusive resorts to provide you with a cheap vacation?
What happens when you, the average American, cannot exploit the poor wages of immigrants who leave their homelands to seek a better life in the US and work at fast joint, hotels, low wage jobs.
I'd be a little wary of ranting about corporations exploiting global wage differences, because if they were equal... you'd find the average Westerner has a lot more to lose.
China is advancing rapidly... as is most of East Asia.
Throw in another 2 billion or so into that lot.
Parts of India as well will do well.
Throw in another billion.
The Gulf Kingdoms do pretty well in such harsh conditions.
In the end some will live, some will move, some will die.
But the human race won't go extinct... which was the original statement by the parent.
riiiight...
cause you know we don't have things like air conditioning, heating, irrigation, mass transport, cars, green houses, better healthcare, genetically engineered plants, solar power...
We're not going to go extinct if it goes up 10 degrees in 100 years. It won't be all fun games either... but we'll cope pretty well.
It is not only technology that advances, but also legal systems, contracts,, business models.
Can driver-less cars be transplanted onto the automobile ecosystem we have today? Probably not.
Just off the top of my head... here's some ideas that could make it more viable.
1. Some arrangement is made between the automobile company and the an insurance company. If statistically, a driver less car is less likely to get into an accident, an insurance company would be willing to back it.
2. The government creates a law limiting or removing liability from the company. Many governments limit liability for nuclear power plants in such a manner. Typically, limiting liability comes with heavier regulation... more stringent testing...
3. A car company becomes an insurance company... so to drive the car, you pay a monthly fee. They insure you knowing it is their car doing the driving. They pool risk the same. ...
I don't know... just know lots of possibilities.
There's several answers.
1. Not enough resources have been put into the 'installation' program. Resources are always limited.
2. How about the myriad of consultants? They need jobs too and are they likely to push a product that they won't have any support for?
3. People have gotten used to self-service in the industry. When if you look at the rest of life, so much of it relies on the expert knowledge of specific industries. Not that it *can't be done*, but just most people don't. I don't change my own brake pads on my car or do any complex repairs on my car... and I tell you... a big software piece is probably just as complex or more complex than standard car repair.
Not to go overboard, but doctors and lawyers and dentists spend years specializing in specific areas of the human body before they are able operate on it. General doctors just refer them to experts. A complex piece of installed enterprise software is along those lines of complexity.
We should have a bit more respect for our field.
4. Many of these enterprise products are composed of multiple components often having their own configuration systems. They might have a DB from another company, a web server component... It can all get insanely complex.
There's some very good points. I'll just add a few more.
1. Whether or not reversing CO2 emissions will have much of an impact on the supposed costs of climate change. By many estimates, the damage is already done. So there is little benefit to costly and extreme measures to reduce CO2 if the 'bad effects' are going to felt anyways. We can more naturally reduce CO2 via better technology and replacing aging system. Nothing drastic is needed or even beneficial.
2. Given that we are going to see bad effects, wouldn't our resources be better spent countering these bad effects and slowly reducing our CO2 levels. You know, spend the money, building levies and counter-flood measures, irrigation systems to ensure our food supply...
3. Absolutely, the Global Warming crowd simply don't believe their own statements. Not everyone has to be a pure believer. But you know... people are willing to die for their faith. People are willing to go to war for big reasons like politics or freedom. People are willing to go on freaking GreenPeace boats to stop whaling.
But Global warming? Which of these global warming movements is actually willing to sacrifice anything for the cause. Oh sure, they demand others sacrifice. Are global warming scientists willing to work for cheap? You now, like how soldiers do? Are they willing to volunteer to build windmills or solar panels for free... you know like how communities come together to build sandbag flood protection.
Heck, when Howard Dean proposed to combat global warming with a carbon tax... he didn't care enough about the potential disaster of global warming to use the tax for combating it... he wanted the money used for... universal healthcare. Yep... he really believes Global Warming is a big threat...
Here's another question.
How much does it cost to pay for the R&D for such systems? That R&D is then spread out over the cost of expected purchases... and if it is a private company... some profit along the way.
Not to mention that unless it is mass produced, it might not be a very automated process at the same level as consumer goods...
The better question is what kind of society do you think it produced when borrowing is encouraged and being responsible with balancing your wants with what you earn and the risk you are willing to take is actively discouraged.
Inflation benefits the rich as much the poor and the middle class.
You can be darn sure the rich will use the government inflation to get risk free investments.
There's also a huge class of rich people who make their living off of people borrowing.
Imagine a world where everyone owns their own home, mortgage free. Great for the people... not so great for the banks...
Yeah... unless you allow states to leave the union or are willing to fight continuous wars of independence... you better recognize regional power.
Just what would be in it for Wisconsin or Vermont to be a part of the United States if they basically had no say in the politics of the country?
Then it would be even more undemocratic as they tried to leave the union and the federalists would try and stop them.
All countries face this... and the more power the national government has, the more these issues comes to the forefront. Canada is a pretty wide diverse country... and the only way we maintain unity is by acknowledging regional differences.
Healthcare/education are left pretty much entirely to the provinces. The feds reduced to largely a funding role.
We 'pointlessly' recognize French as an official language even though its largely only important in Quebec.
This is where professional organization comes into place.
Law, medicine... aren't technically unionized, but they do offer various things that Developers should be interested in.
1. Formal apprenticeship. So you learn from really good people. Not just the technical work, but how to deal with clients, new situations... It helps maintain knowledge.
2. Job protection. Well you can't do much in medicine without being a licensed doctor or in some states a nurse... Not to mention, you have to be licensed in the US to practice medicine... a protection from globalization. Not perfect... but a big barrier.
3. Keep standards high. Sure not all doctors are brilliant, but the average doctor is okay competent. That's more than we can say about developers.
4. Advocacy. Some form of advocacy for our various issues.
Unions are not the answer to any field today. The reason is simply free-trade. Great... you unionize, but they can just as easily offshore your job.
Professional association is the answer. Sure, under such a system, Zuckerberg might have had to finish school and spend a year or two in an apprenticeship as well as dealing with standards for security.privacy... but hey... he could have still build facebook at sometime in his life.
It's a trade off.
Not having empathy can lead to one missing out on many facts and understanding of people... and thus hurt empathy.
You really need both to make a good decision.
As a very simplistic example...
A 'rational' medical professional might think that we should ban soda because it is unhealthy.
But someone with empathy will recognize that people feel and don't like being told what to do.
Similarly, we see what is happening in Europe right now. The politicians are pushing austerity. But they are not empathetic to how people feel... the hopelessness, the insecurity...
Ignoring empathy like that can result in a worse outcome... social unrest, collapse...
Someone without empathy will not take people into account and in doing so are not really rational as they ignore one of the biggest variables in the equation.
It is irrational to not have empathy and still expect results.
It might actually make it less of an issue.
It all depends on the reason Microsoft goes through development fads.
Possible Reason 1:
Microsoft has traditionally gone through development fads to push people to upgrade. Their revenue stream before depended on people upgrading versions of software.
Possible Reason 2:
Microsoft just has a bunch of software designers or managers that like to push out the latest fad and have no internal discipline.
If it is 1, then hopefully the Microsoft business people see the change in both hardware and 'the cloud'. Hopefully they see that the revenue stream has changed to services and device upgrades. They will then stop pushing pointless development fads.