1. Make sure your pay is 'good'. Once that is taken care of, move on to the ones below as they are typically under used in most companies
2. Working under 'great' people and doing things properly is something most of tech workers, like all professionals, like to do. So provide a professional incentive. Have mentor programs. Have your 'top-guns' take take someone under their wing. Now for this to work, it is important not to then layoff people once someone else is trained or view it as people not doing work. Most of tech work is simply paying for the knowledge of people. If they know how to do it and do it right, things will run very smoothly and efficiently.
Cake day, massage day, pizza day, picnic day... are all largely ignored by most people. Many of us view it very cynically too.
Engineers/sysadmin people are typically not treated as professionals and so they typically don't act as professionals. I'm don't know, nor do I care which came first. It's just the way it is.
That is the main change you need to install to truly have them be great to customers and great for the company.
"So... where does that leave you?" I don't know. Perhaps why I stopped caring and have just resigned myself to live my life.
There are Western intellectuals that I can side with. Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn... But that doesn't really do any good in terms of real change.
"Who do you vote for?" In Canada, I voted for harper. Though I have no real allegiance to them. I don't see any political party as really willing to take on the big issues. They were just the least worst option.
"Which truths do you tell?" All truths, as I see them of course. I'm not stupid about things, but I put myself more out there than most people.
"What will you do if it all goes to hell? Will you stay true to yourself? Risk your life for it? Lose it?" I'm still debating. For now, I'm okay if all goes to hell. I get along with most people as does my immediate family. We'll be okay regardless.
you can do a lot of things 1. ban the niqaab and other heavy items 2. ensure enough social workers to make sure Muslims are not being coerced too much by their community 3. Stand up for Western values like freedom of speech rather than rant about how we should all just get along 4. Curb immigration to manageable levels if you don't think you can provide the social services to ensure reasonable integration...
Or did you mean what can do without doing anything that would cause a fuss?
Yeah... you're scared of being labelled an Islamophobe... so you won't say anything. Which was my point... Western people have stopped caring.
But I as a Muslim who has to risk my own life, my own family, my own community association...?
As I said... I'm done. I don't care enough about what you think of Islam to care. If you don't care about Western values or the Western way of life to defend it, That's your issue.
Then don't demand that we 'moderate' Muslims stand up. The least you can do before you demand we stand up, is you should stand up.
I have my Freedom in Canada and I don't really care if the society becomes a little more anti-Islamic. If it gets really bad, maybe you'll actually start to care about your society.
Again, I know politics and I'm not demanding you stand up. I'd like you to, but I know its challenging.
I was simply responding to those who 'demand' Muslims speak up while they don't speak up themselves.
In case you missed the point... you're not asking us to stand with you. Where is the massive Western people's protest in favor of free speech? Where are the Westenr leaders. Exactly... you won't stand up for your own values.
The only people standing up for free speech are the crazy white people... people I'd rather not be associated with.
I don't even know what values you have anymore. About the only thing you stand against is violence.
Just recently there was a protect in Toronto by Muslims demanding the government classify the video as hate speech. Plenty of you Western people just dismiss it as... oh well... they're not being violence... so it's okay. You don't find it offensive that they are demanding the government give up freedom of speech?
So screw it. I don't see the crazy Muslims as the problem anymore. It's the Western government and Western citizens that are the problem. And if I can't even get Western people to recognize the problem, what hope in hell do I have of convincing Muslims?
In an ideal work, I want to leave the system test environment to the test people.
In an ideal world, a company cares about system and test engineers and think they should be just as capable as developers. They know how to automate labs and use whatever tools they use. Working in R&D, this is often not the mentality of management.
In an ideal world, software installation and configuration is given constant up-front importance. I've always push the that any piece of software should be easy to build and install from the beginning. It simply helps everyone start working on the project.
So while I'd love to leave the system to System/Test engineers, the reality is that I often do need to end up installing and doing systems work. Part of this is good as a develop who doesn't know anything about systems is going to have a lot of problems.
But that's all ideal. In reality, we don't have enough system/test engineers to really make it feasible. I have to build/setup my own labs half the time, so I know how to do it anyways. So it's not a stretch for me to manage that half the time.
I've spoken out in favor of free-speech and reform... but you know what. I'm tired of people like you thinking us other Muslims can somehow fix the 'crazy' Muslims.
There is a reasonable reading of the Islamic text that does mean, you need to spread the Islamic state and when in a position of power to enforce blasphemy laws. This is simply a rather orthodox Islamic position.
So, I can't 'convince' the 'extreme' Muslims to go against a pretty reasonable reading of the texts. The same text that says pray 5 times a day and tells Muslims how to pray is the same one that tell Muslim women to put on the veil and spread the Islamic state.
FYI... Islam is not just the Koran. You need the Hadith as well. Hint... the Koran never even says pray 5 times a day. The Koran says follow Mohamed... so what Mohamed did is recorded in the Hadith. Most of what Muslims actually practice is in the Hadith.
Now that I've given you some background. Let me tell you who you should turn your demands towards. Your ridiculous governments who have such a perverse view of rights.
Religious rights are extreme. As long as someone can say something is part of their religion... somehow that means they should be able to do it.
Let me tell you how I see it. I live in Canada. Not exactly land of liberty, but a pretty free country.
This is a country where the government takes control of healthcare, can actually deny me treatment, can control a restaurants use of transfat oil, can send me to jail for smoking a plant, takes half my income to fund, can send in child-care workers if I spank my child, monopolizes the school system...
My point of all this is not to complain about my rights being infringed or anything. Just to show how much government interferes with my 'rights' already.
Yet this same government finds it a violation of 'rights' to tell Muslim women they can't wear the niqab. Yeah, which does more social harm. Me wanting to eat fish and chip cooked with transfat oil... or a Muslim women possibly being forced to wear the niqab due to social customs and isolating her and preventing social cohesion.
And do you know who sits on all these government bureaucracies. It's not us Muslims. It's your fellow 'white' Canadians or American. Who sits on Human rights tribunals or drafts legislation?
We have real social issues in the Muslim community. And you 'white Canadians/Americans' actually work to support the 'extremists'. You don't stand up for your Western values... then you suddenly demand us 'moderate' Muslims do everything for you.
Classic Blasphemy example with this video. It pits freedom of speech against a theocracy. And what does the leader of the free world say? What does Barack Obama say? Does he come out in strong support of Free Speech and Western Values? What does Hilary Clinton say? They spend their effort talking about how offensive the film is.
Heck, even George Bush... the so called... 'cowboy' barely stood up for Western values.
Heck, I wonder if Nazism was a religion today, if you Western people wouldn't just sit there trying to be tolerant of it in the name of freedom of religion.
The only people standing up for Western values are the 'crazy' white people... as you would probably call them. In the UK... it's the EDL. In the US, prolly people you'd refer to as rednecks. In Canada... its our 'rednecks'.
So pardon me for not going out of my way anymore. I was born Muslim. I care about my people and my community, but I've stopped caring. I don't care anymore if you think Islam is a horrible religion. I don't care to defend it. I'm just tired.
If you Western people won't even stand up for your values and way of life... why should I?
"You can legislate education, however. And as people become more educated, they become less religious. Win-win!"
Yeah... of course you can legislate education. It's why every ideology seeks control of the education system. Hint... look up the Hitler Youth, or how communism took over education.
Just what kind of legislated education do you think Pakistan will introduce?
90% of education is indoctrination ( extreme word used on purpose). Really most education is about passing on the values of the society to the next generation.
Many in the West lost sight of that simple reality known for thousands of years.
The 'presentation' part of most education be automated. I really don't see that as controversial at all.
Lab and specific question issues are another beast all together.
How can this be helped? Maybe fewer profs/lead/expert teachers... and more TA's and other lower-paid people allowing for more one-on-one help with students.
This can even be applied to high school and other areas. You don't really need expert teachers. The material must be presented generally... and can be largely automated presentations. But you can hire more assistants to help with behavior and individual help.
How in any God's name do you associate the free market with
1) Government system that pays the bills 2) Healthcare law that restricts who can perform services to a guild of physicians 3) Heavily regulated insurance
Alright, the current system isn't socialized. But it sure as hell isn't free-market.
Like most things in the US, it finds a home in government funded/regulated/subsidized private delivery. That's the housing system, military industry, healthcare... There's other words for it... mostly along big lines like corporatism or fascism... But for god's sake man.
How do you think the healthcare system in the United States has anything to do with a free-market?
When those proposing carbon taxes or cap-and-trade provide for an implementation that actually deals with global warming... I might get behind it.
By in large, every carbon tax or cap-and-trade system proposed so far is essentially a massive regional wealth transfer.
I'm Canadian... living in Ontario. Alberta produces a lot of oil. Most schemes will end up taking money from Alberta and then redistributing it to Ontario. Not because Ontario is doing anymore. Merely because it is Alberta producing oil. So it becomes a wealth transfer from areas that produce... to areas that don't.
On a global level, you could see China paying countries just because it is producing, while others are not.
In the United States, when Howard Dean was proposing a Carbon Tax... he promised to use the money to.... get this... fund Healthcare. Now let's see. We're supposedly facing a global catastrophic situation poised to destroy civilization via floods and extreme weather. Can you imagine the devastation!!! And Howard Dean whats to take all the money and spend it to bribe voters on healthcare. If he had proposed the money from a carbon tax would go to things like:
flood protection, irrigation systems, moving people from flood prone areas, green R&D... that I could take him seriously.
Other areas of the world have proposed Carbon Taxes to fund tax cuts... again... we're facing a potential global catastrophe... so shouldn't the carbon tax be used to combat it instead of letting people buy another IPOD?
So I'll wait until the green movement actually takes global warming seriously before I do. Because all I see right now is a bunch of greedy people wanting another tax to fund their pet projects.
The left treats global warming much like the neo-cons treat war. They tell us it is the most extreme threat to mankind... but what sacrifices are they willing to make?
Was George Bush willing to raise taxes to fund the Iraq war? Was he willing to send his own kids to war?
Is the left willing to cut public sector union salaries and pensions to find money to fund anti climate change initiatives. Did Obama not just spend most of his campaign on a healthcare plan. Oh wait.. so you're telling me a global catastrophe the likes of which mankind has never seen is coming towards us... but what we need the president of the United States to work on is a half-baked healthcare system?
Yeah... seems to me like climate change really isn't that much of an issue. When it is a real issue, people will be willing to make real sacrifices. These scientists and leftists politicians will take paycuts. People will offer to ration. Such sacrifices were made in WW2.
What? I notice the many responses to my question is all politics. I wasn't expecting this. Can I get a bit of background here?
From the context, I am guessing that if it is shown that there were multiple origins, then it wouldn't jive with 'we are all one' in some sense, and that would be politically incorrect?
I wonder why the one-origin theory is so prevalent in science. I never really understood it at university. I get that so much of our DNA is similar.
human origin - we must have been formed at one location. first organism - must have been created once and then multiplied and diversified.
I never understood why it had to be a single origin. Couldn't a particular evolution or event happen at multiple locations or multiple stages of merging?
It's not just that they want money to do stupid things.
Many scientists come with large political biases or want to change the world in some way.
Having a conclusion/abstract that 'helps' that cause is often something they are looking for...
Scientists are just not the truth seekers of society today. They are empowered in giant institutions and their 'approval and allegiance' sought by politicians and pundits to push various agendas.
Not unlike countries and history where religious councils matter.
With something as crucial as the nation's payment infrastructure, one might think engineers or computer scientists would have a thing or two to say about it.
Perhaps they should have a professional body to ensure some level of quality and system review.
Perhaps they should be regulated like the FDA approves drugs.
Or perhaps the system works as is and the costs shifted and paid around.
I would urge you to take a look in the mirror. Most of our problems in software are our own doing. It's not about mister "job-creator".
We are just about the only profession where the people in the field reject any notion of controls on the field. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, teachers, trades people... all work to better their field. Residency/journeyman restrictions. Education requirements... It does keep quality higher, pay higher, facilitates training and mentoring...
They don't count on mr "job-creator" to do that for them. Mr "job-creator" is mainly interested in making money and running the business... The above people stand up for their professions as best they can.
We have the opposite problem in our field... where many people in the field don't even want such controls. We don't stand up for ourselves. Then people like you complain about "mr job-creator".
It's one thing if the government, business want to open up a field to decrease costs or increase innovation... it's another thing when people in our field actively want that to their own detriment.
Yeah, life requires choices and tradeoffs. Something you hopefully learned in school or life. You can't have good pay, job security, innovation, reasonable hours, training, flexibility, free-trade... You have be willing to trade off things.
Me, I'm more than willing to trade off some of our hyper-innovation startup free-trade culture for more professionalism and careerism.
Stop blaming mr "job-creator" and look in the mirror.
A bigger issue of one of societal dependence. As a society we have become dependent on the stock market. Entire government policies are built upon it.
Rather than the stock market being this private business to raise capital for other businesses, it has become something society and government have deemed an essential. Entire policies are based around making sure the stock market goes up or growth occurs or certain people make money.
Inflation is also pretty much mandated by the government so you NEED to invest in the stock market or others just to keep the value of your money. I'm not advocating any return to gold... just stating reality.
In the end, assuming no big events, this is really a tax on investors. Not much different from sales tax. Someone skimming a little off the top.
I don't say that in a vastly derogatory way. All systems have an entrance fee. Government or private.
It would be one thing if the stock exchange was just another private business. Then these traders could game each other all they want to their hearts content. Compete sending bits and bytes for no reason. I'd just stay on the sidelines as I stay away from Casinos.
But as I said, they are not just another private business. Government policies demand you take part in this business. To do so is to your extreme detriment.
This is rather common in recent years. I'm in Ontario, Canada and I see the insurance industry very much like this. We have some of the highest auto-insurance rates. A lot of it due to fraud and mandatory benefits. Sure, i don't mind mandatory insurance in case I hit someone and they need to be made whole. Yet, I don't want the statutory benefits assigned to me (income replacement, private healthcare providers...) In the end so much of the system is a fraud with private medical providers and scam artists... but we have no choice but to partake in it. I can't opt out of the mandatory benefits.
Of the ones you listed, only the cell-phone company and electric company would really be a challenge to operate.
The rest can and is easily accessible for almost anyone to enter. It's not just you who has to start your own, but any one in your family, your friends, your city, your country... This point seems to escape you.
Taxis - in a truly unregulated system, anyone with a car can be a taxi. I've lived in countries where this is the case. Most of the developing world is like this.
Food distribution service - You mean a delivery system? You mean people all over the world don't know how to run grocery stores and obtain supplies? Growing up in Africa, I used to travel with my grandfather weekly to stock up and trade. Not to mention the countless numbers of regular businesses in any developed country.
Health-care system - Hardly anything that can't be done. Nurses, doctors... are all capable of opening their own clinics.
Here's a relatively big hint you might wish to look into.
Service/product delivery is not limited to big corporation and big government.
History and the even current society is filled with independent operations, non-profits, mutuals, cooperatives...
Guess which one does serve your interests? A society where rules can be gamed and special interest groups define society... or one that maximizes free-entry and voluntary delivery/consumption?
What is particularly odd is this comes up in the context of taxis. Sure discussions of such rules can and have historically been applied in area where natural monopolies take place (Telecom, electric supply, roads, transit...).
That is what is very odd about our modern society. We seem to want to heavily regulate or take over the things that naturally have a low-degree of free-entry (schools, taxis, healthcare).
We seem to want to deregulate or even privatize the things that are natural monopolies (roads, transit, electricity...)
The problem with software design is simply that we don't have any reasonable professionalism or time to make sure this stuff gets done. It is ALL about speed of innovation and cost-effectiveness. It is one thing to expect the business side to worry about these. It's quite another to have most of the people in the profession be on side with the business on these.
There are most certainly valid uses for in-code comments. Little exceptions, workaround...
Yet, most supporting material can and should be in another form. Diagrams, documents...In some fantasy world of mine, I could link from the source code to an external document. Perhaps a good editor actually loads that section inline.
I never blame any individual developer as this is the system we have.
'Word' discussions are very difficult because ultimately, people associate meaning with words. Ultimately, how people take the meaning of words is more important than what a dictionary definition might be.
There's several vague themes running the article.
1. The distinction between shallow-innovation and deep-innovation. My own made up words.
Shallow-innovation - doesn't require much in depth study, background knowledge, research...
Deep-innovation does.
So for example, Facebook can be called a great innovation. But really, any decent developer could have made Facebook and almost anyone could have thought of the idea over a cup of coffee.
Whereas, inventing the silicon transistor is not something something anyone can just come up with. I'd have to research the field, live and breath it, have a lot of in-depth knowledge to make such an innovation.
The other major theme relates more to history and whether innovation are 'game changers' of life and the economy.
I do think the industrial revolution is rather unique... and NOT the norm. The industrial revolution essentially makes life liveable for society. Takes us out of just struggling to survive. It covers the basics of life. Food from markets, roads/rail/air for travel, electricity and factories for labor...
It is why whenever a country undergoes an industrial revolution, there is a lot of growth. People are willing to work insanely hard to achieve the goods/services of the industrial revolution.
Are you willing to work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop to have clean water, clean food, decent transportation, decent home...? The answer time and time again is yes. It happened during our industrialization... and it's happening in Asia today.
Now, are you willing to work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop for an IPOD?
So our desire to work to achieve the goods of a post-industrialized society drops dramatically. Sure I'd like a new IPOD, but I don't really care for it. Most of the innovation today are like that. Nice to have, but given the choice to work for it, I'd rather choose leisure time. Would you actually pay for twitter or have time off work?
This is going to be a big hit to our economy. It's why you see government trying to drive demand. Either via stimulus or via forced demand of government services/mandates. They've built our entire society (public and private sector) on conditions that I think mainly exist during the industrial revolution.
The other big problem is the computer revolution. It essentially kills off the job creation potential of an innovation. It mainly creates jobs for a few highly skilled people. This is in contrast to previous big innovations which required masses of people to roll out the innovation (railroads, roads, cars, sewers...). Today, facebook which supplies the entire social network for the entire world employs about 4000 people. Google with all it does employs a mere 50000 people. Im not discounting the skilled jobs for the 50000 people at google (engineers, product, sales...). But lets understand, America is 300 MILLION people. The world approaching 7 BILLION people.
Let's say tomorrow, they invent a new widget. Any bets on whether or not it will be a highly automated manufacturing process?
It is largely why the 'green' revolution will not and has not resulted in mass jobs. You don't think the new assembly lines for solar panels or wind turbines are going to be highly automated?
As a society, it's a pretty risky gamble to base the fate of your society on hitting a big game changing innovation every few years or your society collapses.
Me, I'm in the camp that says, let's base our society on stability... and if innovations come along... wonderful... let's take it as a bonus. There should be no expectation in your society that the stock market should always go up, that we'll always create more wealth in the future to pay for the debts of the present.
Yes, a radical change from how our society is structured
I've never worked at a workplace where there was never any inappropriate jokes. There are certain boundaries we would never cross at work.
Many laws are not meant to be 100% enforced all the time. Most people aren't out to have no friends.
Part of forming bonds with someone is being able to joke about things. You learn who you can joke around with and when to do it. It's a pretty reasonable social system.
However, making anything official... like a policy... is a recipe for a legal nightmare. You're basically saying, you know you have broken the law and instead of following it through in legal established channels, you made a joke about it.
My advice, before the colleague joins, send your employees a remind of formal workplace polices around sexual harassment.
From there, you just have to watch your team. She might be a women that can joke around about things. In which case, there is no worry. Or she could be that can be offended easily... in which case... like it or not... the law sides with her.
If your employees don't know enough social etiquette on how to deal with a new employee, they clearly might actually need a good legal whipping.
In other words, they should be polite until such a time that they are sure their colleague is capable of joking around... and even then... you the manager... should never be able to hear them joking about inappropriate things.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Make sure your pay is 'good'. Once that is taken care of, move on to the ones below as they are typically under used in most companies
2. Working under 'great' people and doing things properly is something most of tech workers, like all professionals, like to do. So provide a professional incentive. Have mentor programs. Have your 'top-guns' take take someone under their wing. Now for this to work, it is important not to then layoff people once someone else is trained or view it as people not doing work. Most of tech work is simply paying for the knowledge of people. If they know how to do it and do it right, things will run very smoothly and efficiently.
Cake day, massage day, pizza day, picnic day... are all largely ignored by most people. Many of us view it very cynically too.
Engineers/sysadmin people are typically not treated as professionals and so they typically don't act as professionals. I'm don't know, nor do I care which came first. It's just the way it is.
That is the main change you need to install to truly have them be great to customers and great for the company.
I don't know why you're at 0.
But anyways...
"So... where does that leave you?"
I don't know. Perhaps why I stopped caring and have just resigned myself to live my life.
There are Western intellectuals that I can side with. Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn... But that doesn't really do any good in terms of real change.
"Who do you vote for?"
In Canada, I voted for harper. Though I have no real allegiance to them. I don't see any political party as really willing to take on the big issues. They were just the least worst option.
"Which truths do you tell?"
All truths, as I see them of course. I'm not stupid about things, but I put myself more out there than most people.
"What will you do if it all goes to hell? Will you stay true to yourself? Risk your life for it? Lose it?"
I'm still debating. For now, I'm okay if all goes to hell. I get along with most people as does my immediate family. We'll be okay regardless.
you can do a lot of things ...
1. ban the niqaab and other heavy items
2. ensure enough social workers to make sure Muslims are not being coerced too much by their community
3. Stand up for Western values like freedom of speech rather than rant about how we should all just get along
4. Curb immigration to manageable levels if you don't think you can provide the social services to ensure reasonable integration
Or did you mean what can do without doing anything that would cause a fuss?
Yeah... you're scared of being labelled an Islamophobe... so you won't say anything. Which was my point... Western people have stopped caring.
But I as a Muslim who has to risk my own life, my own family, my own community association...?
As I said... I'm done. I don't care enough about what you think of Islam to care. If you don't care about Western values or the Western way of life to defend it,
That's your issue.
Then don't demand that we 'moderate' Muslims stand up.
The least you can do before you demand we stand up, is you should stand up.
I have my Freedom in Canada and I don't really care if the society becomes a little more anti-Islamic. If it gets really bad, maybe you'll actually start to care about your society.
Again, I know politics and I'm not demanding you stand up. I'd like you to, but I know its challenging.
I was simply responding to those who 'demand' Muslims speak up while they don't speak up themselves.
In case you missed the point... you're not asking us to stand with you. Where is the massive Western people's protest in favor of free speech? Where are the Westenr leaders. Exactly... you won't stand up for your own values.
The only people standing up for free speech are the crazy white people... people I'd rather not be associated with.
I don't even know what values you have anymore.
About the only thing you stand against is violence.
Just recently there was a protect in Toronto by Muslims demanding the government classify the video as hate speech. Plenty of you Western people just dismiss it as... oh well... they're not being violence... so it's okay. You don't find it offensive that they are demanding the government give up freedom of speech?
So screw it. I don't see the crazy Muslims as the problem anymore. It's the Western government and Western citizens that are the problem. And if I can't even get Western people to recognize the problem, what hope in hell do I have of convincing Muslims?
Yeah... the stuff that actually matters to society is indoctrination.
Sociology, politics, history, philosophy... those are the things that make a society.
Science and math are interesting, but not really reforming to society. There are a lot of very strict Muslims who are great in math in science.
In an ideal work, I want to leave the system test environment to the test people.
In an ideal world, a company cares about system and test engineers and think they should be just as capable as developers. They know how to automate labs and use whatever tools they use. Working in R&D, this is often not the mentality of management.
In an ideal world, software installation and configuration is given constant up-front importance. I've always push the that any piece of software should be easy to build and install from the beginning. It simply helps everyone start working on the project.
So while I'd love to leave the system to System/Test engineers, the reality is that I often do need to end up installing and doing systems work. Part of this is good as a develop who doesn't know anything about systems is going to have a lot of problems.
But that's all ideal. In reality, we don't have enough system/test engineers to really make it feasible. I have to build/setup my own labs half the time, so I know how to do it anyways. So it's not a stretch for me to manage that half the time.
Sensible, non-crazy, fairly secular Muslim here.
I've spoken out in favor of free-speech and reform... but you know what. I'm tired of people like you thinking us other Muslims can somehow fix the 'crazy' Muslims.
There is a reasonable reading of the Islamic text that does mean, you need to spread the Islamic state and when in a position of power to enforce blasphemy laws. This is simply a rather orthodox Islamic position.
So, I can't 'convince' the 'extreme' Muslims to go against a pretty reasonable reading of the texts. The same text that says pray 5 times a day and tells Muslims how to pray is the same one that tell Muslim women to put on the veil and spread the Islamic state.
FYI... Islam is not just the Koran. You need the Hadith as well. Hint... the Koran never even says pray 5 times a day. The Koran says follow Mohamed... so what Mohamed did is recorded in the Hadith. Most of what Muslims actually practice is in the Hadith.
Now that I've given you some background.
Let me tell you who you should turn your demands towards. Your ridiculous governments who have such a perverse view of rights.
Religious rights are extreme. As long as someone can say something is part of their religion... somehow that means they should be able to do it.
Let me tell you how I see it. I live in Canada. Not exactly land of liberty, but a pretty free country.
This is a country where the government takes control of healthcare, can actually deny me treatment, can control a restaurants use of transfat oil, can send me to jail for smoking a plant, takes half my income to fund, can send in child-care workers if I spank my child, monopolizes the school system...
My point of all this is not to complain about my rights being infringed or anything. Just to show how much government interferes with my 'rights' already.
Yet this same government finds it a violation of 'rights' to tell Muslim women they can't wear the niqab. Yeah, which does more social harm. Me wanting to eat fish and chip cooked with transfat oil... or a Muslim women possibly being forced to wear the niqab due to social customs and isolating her and preventing social cohesion.
And do you know who sits on all these government bureaucracies. It's not us Muslims. It's your fellow 'white' Canadians or American. Who sits on Human rights tribunals or drafts legislation?
We have real social issues in the Muslim community. And you 'white Canadians/Americans' actually work to support the 'extremists'. You don't stand up for your Western values... then you suddenly demand us 'moderate' Muslims do everything for you.
Classic Blasphemy example with this video. It pits freedom of speech against a theocracy. And what does the leader of the free world say? What does Barack Obama say? Does he come out in strong support of Free Speech and Western Values? What does Hilary Clinton say? They spend their effort talking about how offensive the film is.
Heck, even George Bush... the so called... 'cowboy' barely stood up for Western values.
Heck, I wonder if Nazism was a religion today, if you Western people wouldn't just sit there trying to be tolerant of it in the name of freedom of religion.
The only people standing up for Western values are the 'crazy' white people... as you would probably call them. In the UK... it's the EDL. In the US, prolly people you'd refer to as rednecks. In Canada... its our 'rednecks'.
So pardon me for not going out of my way anymore.
I was born Muslim. I care about my people and my community, but I've stopped caring. I don't care anymore if you think Islam is a horrible religion. I don't care to defend it. I'm just tired.
If you Western people won't even stand up for your values and way of life... why should I?
"You can legislate education, however. And as people become more educated, they become less religious. Win-win!"
Yeah... of course you can legislate education. It's why every ideology seeks control of the education system. Hint... look up the Hitler Youth, or how communism took over education.
Just what kind of legislated education do you think Pakistan will introduce?
90% of education is indoctrination ( extreme word used on purpose). Really most education is about passing on the values of the society to the next generation.
Many in the West lost sight of that simple reality known for thousands of years.
The 'presentation' part of most education be automated. I really don't see that as controversial at all.
Lab and specific question issues are another beast all together.
How can this be helped?
Maybe fewer profs/lead/expert teachers... and more TA's and other lower-paid people allowing for more one-on-one help with students.
This can even be applied to high school and other areas. You don't really need expert teachers. The material must be presented generally... and can be largely automated presentations. But you can hire more assistants to help with behavior and individual help.
How in any God's name do you associate the free market with
1) Government system that pays the bills
2) Healthcare law that restricts who can perform services to a guild of physicians
3) Heavily regulated insurance
Alright, the current system isn't socialized.
But it sure as hell isn't free-market.
Like most things in the US, it finds a home in government funded/regulated/subsidized private delivery. That's the housing system, military industry, healthcare... There's other words for it... mostly along big lines like corporatism or fascism... But for god's sake man.
How do you think the healthcare system in the United States has anything to do with a free-market?
"Which is back to my point... it's just a tax to fund other programs and global warming ISN'T really taken as a serious threat."
-correction.
And that is pretty much how is I see global warming. It's happening, but really isn't going to be that harmful.
Of course it matters.
Because if global warming is not something worth spending money on or fighting... then it's not a severe enough problem to warrant a tax.
Which is back to my point... it's just a tax to fund other programs and global warming is really taken as a serious threat.
When those proposing carbon taxes or cap-and-trade provide for an implementation that actually deals with global warming... I might get behind it.
By in large, every carbon tax or cap-and-trade system proposed so far is essentially a massive regional wealth transfer.
I'm Canadian... living in Ontario. Alberta produces a lot of oil. Most schemes will end up taking money from Alberta and then redistributing it to Ontario. Not because Ontario is doing anymore. Merely because it is Alberta producing oil. So it becomes a wealth transfer from areas that produce... to areas that don't.
On a global level, you could see China paying countries just because it is producing, while others are not.
In the United States, when Howard Dean was proposing a Carbon Tax... he promised to use the money to.... get this... fund Healthcare. Now let's see. We're supposedly facing a global catastrophic situation poised to destroy civilization via floods and extreme weather. Can you imagine the devastation!!! And Howard Dean whats to take all the money and spend it to bribe voters on healthcare. If he had proposed the money from a carbon tax would go to things like:
flood protection, irrigation systems, moving people from flood prone areas, green R&D... that I could take him seriously.
Other areas of the world have proposed Carbon Taxes to fund tax cuts... again... we're facing a potential global catastrophe... so shouldn't the carbon tax be used to combat it instead of letting people buy another IPOD?
So I'll wait until the green movement actually takes global warming seriously before I do. Because all I see right now is a bunch of greedy people wanting another tax to fund their pet projects.
The left treats global warming much like the neo-cons treat war. They tell us it is the most extreme threat to mankind... but what sacrifices are they willing to make?
Was George Bush willing to raise taxes to fund the Iraq war? Was he willing to send his own kids to war?
Is the left willing to cut public sector union salaries and pensions to find money to fund anti climate change initiatives. Did Obama not just spend most of his campaign on a healthcare plan. Oh wait.. so you're telling me a global catastrophe the likes of which mankind has never seen is coming towards us... but what we need the president of the United States to work on is a half-baked healthcare system?
Yeah... seems to me like climate change really isn't that much of an issue. When it is a real issue, people will be willing to make real sacrifices. These scientists and leftists politicians will take paycuts. People will offer to ration. Such sacrifices were made in WW2.
Another genuine question...
What? I notice the many responses to my question is all politics. I wasn't expecting this. Can I get a bit of background here?
From the context, I am guessing that if it is shown that there were multiple origins, then it wouldn't jive with 'we are all one' in some sense, and that would be politically incorrect?
Genuine question.
I wonder why the one-origin theory is so prevalent in science. I never really understood it at university. I get that so much of our DNA is similar.
human origin - we must have been formed at one location.
first organism - must have been created once and then multiplied and diversified.
I never understood why it had to be a single origin. Couldn't a particular evolution or event happen at multiple locations or multiple stages of merging?
yes... must be troll to think scientists are not pure truth seekers.
If you needed any more proof there is a religion of science... marking the above as troll pretty much seals the deal.
It's not just that they want money to do stupid things.
Many scientists come with large political biases or want to change the world in some way.
Having a conclusion/abstract that 'helps' that cause is often something they are looking for...
Scientists are just not the truth seekers of society today. They are empowered in giant institutions and their 'approval and allegiance' sought by politicians and pundits to push various agendas.
Not unlike countries and history where religious councils matter.
With something as crucial as the nation's payment infrastructure, one might think engineers or computer scientists would have a thing or two to say about it.
Perhaps they should have a professional body to ensure some level of quality and system review.
Perhaps they should be regulated like the FDA approves drugs.
Or perhaps the system works as is and the costs shifted and paid around.
I would urge you to take a look in the mirror. Most of our problems in software are our own doing. It's not about mister "job-creator".
We are just about the only profession where the people in the field reject any notion of controls on the field. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, teachers, trades people... all work to better their field. Residency/journeyman restrictions. Education requirements... It does keep quality higher, pay higher, facilitates training and mentoring...
They don't count on mr "job-creator" to do that for them. Mr "job-creator" is mainly interested in making money and running the business... The above people stand up for their professions as best they can.
We have the opposite problem in our field... where many people in the field don't even want such controls. We don't stand up for ourselves. Then people like you complain about "mr job-creator".
It's one thing if the government, business want to open up a field to decrease costs or increase innovation... it's another thing when people in our field actively want that to their own detriment.
Yeah, life requires choices and tradeoffs. Something you hopefully learned in school or life. You can't have good pay, job security, innovation, reasonable hours, training, flexibility, free-trade... You have be willing to trade off things.
Me, I'm more than willing to trade off some of our hyper-innovation startup free-trade culture for more professionalism and careerism.
Stop blaming mr "job-creator" and look in the mirror.
A bigger issue of one of societal dependence. As a society we have become dependent on the stock market. Entire government policies are built upon it.
Rather than the stock market being this private business to raise capital for other businesses, it has become something society and government have deemed an essential. Entire policies are based around making sure the stock market goes up or growth occurs or certain people make money.
Inflation is also pretty much mandated by the government so you NEED to invest in the stock market or others just to keep the value of your money. I'm not advocating any return to gold... just stating reality.
In the end, assuming no big events, this is really a tax on investors. Not much different from sales tax. Someone skimming a little off the top.
I don't say that in a vastly derogatory way. All systems have an entrance fee. Government or private.
It would be one thing if the stock exchange was just another private business. Then these traders could game each other all they want to their hearts content. Compete sending bits and bytes for no reason. I'd just stay on the sidelines as I stay away from Casinos.
But as I said, they are not just another private business. Government policies demand you take part in this business. To do so is to your extreme detriment.
This is rather common in recent years. I'm in Ontario, Canada and I see the insurance industry very much like this. We have some of the highest auto-insurance rates. A lot of it due to fraud and mandatory benefits. Sure, i don't mind mandatory insurance in case I hit someone and they need to be made whole. Yet, I don't want the statutory benefits assigned to me (income replacement, private healthcare providers...) In the end so much of the system is a fraud with private medical providers and scam artists... but we have no choice but to partake in it. I can't opt out of the mandatory benefits.
Of the ones you listed, only the cell-phone company and electric company would really be a challenge to operate.
The rest can and is easily accessible for almost anyone to enter. It's not just you who has to start your own, but any one in your family, your friends, your city, your country... This point seems to escape you.
Taxis - in a truly unregulated system, anyone with a car can be a taxi. I've lived in countries where this is the case. Most of the developing world is like this.
Food distribution service - You mean a delivery system? You mean people all over the world don't know how to run grocery stores and obtain supplies? Growing up in Africa, I used to travel with my grandfather weekly to stock up and trade. Not to mention the countless numbers of regular businesses in any developed country.
Health-care system - Hardly anything that can't be done. Nurses, doctors... are all capable of opening their own clinics.
Here's a relatively big hint you might wish to look into.
Service/product delivery is not limited to big corporation and big government.
History and the even current society is filled with independent operations, non-profits, mutuals, cooperatives...
Guess which one does serve your interests? A society where rules can be gamed and special interest groups define society... or one that maximizes free-entry and voluntary delivery/consumption?
What is particularly odd is this comes up in the context of taxis. Sure discussions of such rules can and have historically been applied in area where natural monopolies take place (Telecom, electric supply, roads, transit...).
That is what is very odd about our modern society.
We seem to want to heavily regulate or take over the things that naturally have a low-degree of free-entry (schools, taxis, healthcare).
We seem to want to deregulate or even privatize the things that are natural monopolies (roads, transit, electricity...)
It's all a little backwards.
Exactly.
The problem with software design is simply that we don't have any reasonable professionalism or time to make sure this stuff gets done. It is ALL about speed of innovation and cost-effectiveness. It is one thing to expect the business side to worry about these. It's quite another to have most of the people in the profession be on side with the business on these.
There are most certainly valid uses for in-code comments. Little exceptions, workaround...
Yet, most supporting material can and should be in another form. Diagrams, documents...In some fantasy world of mine, I could link from the source code to an external document. Perhaps a good editor actually loads that section inline.
I never blame any individual developer as this is the system we have.
'Word' discussions are very difficult because ultimately, people associate meaning with words. Ultimately, how people take the meaning of words is more important than what a dictionary definition might be.
There's several vague themes running the article.
1. The distinction between shallow-innovation and deep-innovation. My own made up words.
Shallow-innovation - doesn't require much in depth study, background knowledge, research...
Deep-innovation does.
So for example, Facebook can be called a great innovation. But really, any decent developer could have made Facebook and almost anyone could have thought of the idea over a cup of coffee.
Whereas, inventing the silicon transistor is not something something anyone can just come up with. I'd have to research the field, live and breath it, have a lot of in-depth knowledge to make such an innovation.
The other major theme relates more to history and whether innovation are 'game changers' of life and the economy.
I do think the industrial revolution is rather unique... and NOT the norm. The industrial revolution essentially makes life liveable for society. Takes us out of just struggling to survive. It covers the basics of life. Food from markets, roads/rail/air for travel, electricity and factories for labor...
It is why whenever a country undergoes an industrial revolution, there is a lot of growth. People are willing to work insanely hard to achieve the goods/services of the industrial revolution.
Are you willing to work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop to have clean water, clean food, decent transportation, decent home...? The answer time and time again is yes. It happened during our industrialization... and it's happening in Asia today.
Now, are you willing to work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop for an IPOD?
So our desire to work to achieve the goods of a post-industrialized society drops dramatically. Sure I'd like a new IPOD, but I don't really care for it. Most of the innovation today are like that. Nice to have, but given the choice to work for it, I'd rather choose leisure time. Would you actually pay for twitter or have time off work?
This is going to be a big hit to our economy. It's why you see government trying to drive demand. Either via stimulus or via forced demand of government services/mandates. They've built our entire society (public and private sector) on conditions that I think mainly exist during the industrial revolution.
The other big problem is the computer revolution. It essentially kills off the job creation potential of an innovation. It mainly creates jobs for a few highly skilled people. This is in contrast to previous big innovations which required masses of people to roll out the innovation (railroads, roads, cars, sewers...). Today, facebook which supplies the entire social network for the entire world employs about 4000 people. Google with all it does employs a mere 50000 people. Im not discounting the skilled jobs for the 50000 people at google (engineers, product, sales...). But lets understand, America is 300 MILLION people. The world approaching 7 BILLION people.
Let's say tomorrow, they invent a new widget. Any bets on whether or not it will be a highly automated manufacturing process?
It is largely why the 'green' revolution will not and has not resulted in mass jobs. You don't think the new assembly lines for solar panels or wind turbines are going to be highly automated?
As a society, it's a pretty risky gamble to base the fate of your society on hitting a big game changing innovation every few years or your society collapses.
Me, I'm in the camp that says, let's base our society on stability... and if innovations come along... wonderful... let's take it as a bonus.
There should be no expectation in your society that the stock market should always go up, that we'll always create more wealth in the future to pay for the debts of the present.
Yes, a radical change from how our society is structured
I've never worked at a workplace where there was never any inappropriate jokes. There are certain boundaries we would never cross at work.
Many laws are not meant to be 100% enforced all the time. Most people aren't out to have no friends.
Part of forming bonds with someone is being able to joke about things. You learn who you can joke around with and when to do it. It's a pretty reasonable social system.
However, making anything official... like a policy... is a recipe for a legal nightmare. You're basically saying, you know you have broken the law and instead of following it through in legal established channels, you made a joke about it.
My advice, before the colleague joins, send your employees a remind of formal workplace polices around sexual harassment.
From there, you just have to watch your team. She might be a women that can joke around about things. In which case, there is no worry. Or she could be that can be offended easily... in which case... like it or not... the law sides with her.
If your employees don't know enough social etiquette on how to deal with a new employee, they clearly might actually need a good legal whipping.
In other words, they should be polite until such a time that they are sure their colleague is capable of joking around... and even then... you the manager... should never be able to hear them joking about inappropriate things.