We live in a world where everyone wants to assign monetary value to things.
In such a world, the design of an API is serious work. We've all used good APIs and bad APIs. It is a very skillful operation.
Not saying if this is the ideal world or not... just that it is the world in which we live in. We live in a world of professions (lawyers, doctors, accountants...) where they protect their trade and professional quality.
One possible solution is if APIs want this protection, then they should have to explicitly declare it. The 'market' will to a large extent respond appropriately. Companies that declare their APIs copyrighted will be handicapped. There will be fewer compatible tools. Fewer developers will train themselves in the API...
There are already well-established anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations to protect against abuse in such cases. They must charge 'reasonable' fees... We've been through such cases before... for example with rail road operators.
There is no way to assure anyone is objective. You might as well try to find a benevolent dictator. Peer review is a safeguard to some extent, but hardly worth much in anything that would be tried in the court.
However, we should ask why there is a need for much science in the courtroom. For example, prescription drugs. There should be a simple process by which drugs get approved for use. Trials, disclosure of side effects... Then all a court has to deal with is if the pharmaceutical company committed fraud or improperly followed the regulations. Regular evidence.
If they follow the regulations honestly, their drug gets approved, and it happens to have side effects... well... that should fall into the category of s**t happens. Perhaps change the regulations to catch more cases... but life always has some risk.
Some cases of science are unavoidable. If you have a car accident, and both sides bring experts to show the other person is at fault... well it becomes a matter of trust.
Either the government maintains its own engineers or accident investigators to act as an authority... or leave it to accredited experts... who hopefully have some kind of professionalism. But in these cases, its all just a matter of trust.
In any case, more often than not, there is a way to avoid the courts if we thought about it. The you wouldn't have this problem to begin with.
The core to libertarianism is freedom of association.
If an institution is good, more people will want to associate it with it. If the institution fails, people can leave it or start a new one.
Of course, this gets messy as you go up the chain of government. Some business creates a service that I don't like, I just choose another business. Some city creates a service... that I don't like... well I just leave that city.
It gets harder as you move up in government... now you want me to leave the state... then leave the country. Your freedom of association becomes less and less.
Humans will always create institutions as there are always common problems to solve. The main difference is your ability to leave such institutions when you no longer think them satisfactory.
The Western world had a revelation a while ago about giving people freedom of religion. No longer would be killed for leaving Christianity. No longer would particular religions have the power of the State. Islam of course has not gained this insight... and you see it being left behind.
I'm hoping for another enlightenment where we gain freedom of association for the other aspects of life.
I think computers have the ability to automate huge areas people think require 'judgment'. Will they be perfect or catch odd cases? Probably not. Yet, that must be weighed against the ability to provide the service on mass.
For example, radiographers are currently some of the highest paid medical professionals. Today, automated detection is already quite high in terms of accuracy (80%+). About the same as human radiographers. For example. http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/testing/new_research/20081001b.jsp
Is it possible a human radiographer could detect weird anomalies or something. Of course. But as a mass provided service, the computer would be way cheaper and provide affordable healthcare. Obviously before surgery, a human should probably double check:P
While I doubt the technology is there yet, I certainly don't think it impossible to have robo-grading for the evaluation of mass essays. Again, we have to compare it to the real world with people. Sure, a human grader going through every essay in detail might be better. But on average how thorough are graders? How thorough are patent examiners in examining patents on a mass scale?
Could we not imagine a system where the professor lists points they 'expect' to see in the essay. Somehow natural language processing can check for these points. I could certainly imagine that working for essays you might write in high school for Shakespeare or an analysis of a book. If I remember my high school, there was always a limited set of themes and points discussed.
Of course professors can always recheck for really creative work that the program mucks up.
But I think people overestimate the creativity of people in the school environment when applied to a large user set.
I'm Muslim so I have a bit of a different perspective. I've actually seen parts of my family and community go 'backwards'.
In my parents generation, almost no one wore the niqaab. Today, it starts to be common place. Not the majority, but enough. And its not the case of the parents forcing it on them, but their own choice... often defying their parents.
In some areas, the fundamentalists are winning. Very few Muslims will outwardly proclaim their atheism as the cultural consequences are often too great. They will face huge problems with their friends and family and community.
Most, like me, simply choose to be non-practicing.
So while athiesm or religious moderation might be there for christianity. It's not the case for Islam... which just happens to have a whack load of people.
The legal system is run to bring business to lawyers The tax system is run to bring business to accountants and play favorites...
The one thing most open source advocates neglect... and you can tell it by this article... is that most of the world is concerned with making a living first.
That engineers and software programmers are deluded to think they can fight that system.
Having a simple legal system and simple tax system would be a great job killer for those employed in that professions. Would society as a whole be better off if we did... sure... but you don't promise to make thousands of well organized professionals obsolete and still get elected. You can do that to worthless manufacturing workers and IT workers like us though.
It's not about scientists spouting on about things outside their field. The problem is scientists in their field... who care passionately about their field. No surprise really.
The example I gave on the bicycle helmet legislation is a real one that I remember reading in the news.
âoeFor provinces without comprehensive helmet legislation, the time to act was yesterday. Our data shows that all-ages helmet legislation is associated with higher use of helmets among children and adults, compared with legislation that only pertains to children. This is the type of legislation that all provinces should be adopting,â
You see here, a scientist recommending action or policy. This happens all the time. Why does it happen? Because this scientist studying this issue is focused solely on his field of study.
But it is this very narrow tunnel vision of scientists in their field that is the problem. This scientist doesn't worry about the economic impact, the impact on personal freedom, the impact on fun, the impact on leisure, the impact on state power...
This is not just an issue of the media. As much as the media does often distort or hype scientific results... the reality is that real professional scientists are recommending policy. The bicycle one is rather tame actually. In other areas such as global warming, education... the scientists are much more involved in policy.
It is definitely a problem with mixing science and politics.
No one is against science that tells you how to build an airplane so it stays in the air.
The problem is then several fold.
1. Flaky science is given the credibility of 'real science'. This is especially true in areas such as economics or the social sciences. This is especially true at the university level...
2. A religion of science has developed. At the core of science is the scientific method. A very good process to get to the 'reality'. But science can never tell you what to do about anything. Nuclear science can be used to provide clean power or slaughter a million people.
At the core of this problem is a problem with the scientific community. For example, science might tell you that too much C02 is resulting in global warming. But that is where it should stop. Science doesn't infer that you should therefore have a carbon tax or even even if you should do anything at all.
The problem with scientism as a religion is mixing science and policy and assuming that disagreeing with policy means you're disagreeing with the science.
This of course has led to a reaction on those who disagree with policies to then distance themselves from the scientific community.
3. Similar to 2, but it is the use of science with implied goals. For example, a scientist might come to the conclusion that wearing bicycle helmets saves lives. That might be very good science. They then become an advocate for a policy of mandatory bicycle helmets. Disagreeing with them on that policy means you are against science or ignorant.
But much like 2, this is not science. Science is goalless and valueless. What the scientific community generally refuses to acknowledge is that they have values and ideologies. They don't want to lower themselves to that level of discussion... but it is ignorance not to.
In this simple case of the bicycle helmet. This scientist values the health of an individual over the freedom of the individual. You can disagree or agree with that all you want, but you must acknowledge your value judgment. That is all it is. It is no most based in science and no more valid than anyone else's belief.
And most often, it is not as simple as that. When you really get down to values, they often conflict and feed on each other.
Do you value more healthcare and paying more taxes and working harder to support it? Or would you rather have less healthcare and more leisure time? These are real ideological questions.
The problem is that scientist in charge of healthcare only sees healthcare and thinks if you disagree with his policy you are disagreeing with science.
Of course if we had a scientist in charge of leisure, he'd be pushing his field to have us work less.
Should the scientist of leisure ever encounter the scientist in healthcare and the scientist in economics... they'd be disagreeing on ideological lines just like regular Joe Six Pack.
It is unfortunate, but people who think science in government is empowering science are mistaken. It will corrupt science as politicians pick and choose their experts to write a report on what they want. Scientists will advocate policies in the name of science and those disagreeing with those policies will then be against those scientists.
And no, this is not a rich/poor thing. Most governments take from the poor and give to the well connected in government/businesses.
I don't see how you claim it is fiction. Just look at public sector unions who have pensions far greater than that of the average person... who then have to be taxed to pay for those pensions. Or the bank bail outs. Or big spending on the military...
Is it complex? Of course. Is a certain level of common infrastructure and law needed? Of course.
But at the end of the day, that is government as we know it today. It is not cooperative. It is gang-based. If you think it is cooperative, you're probably just a member of such a gang.
The bigger and more discretion a government has, the more gang-like in nature it is.
I'm not anti-government, if they treated all citizens universally and worked towards fair simple laws. But that is not how most government's work... especially india (I'm Indian)... known for its corruption and gang politics.
The goal of all active governments in practice is to take from one group and give to the groups connected to the government.
They really don't care about 'the greater goals'.
It's basic gang like nature. Why do you think ghettos don't prosper? Everyone is out taking... and if you work hard and become successful, someone will just take from you. That everyone in the ghetto would be better off with an honest environment doesn't really matter.
The government gets it. It wants money to do things and it sees lots of money coming in right now. So it must get its cut.
All political thought is a belief system. This is especially true of progressivism even though they claim not to be ideological. Belief in expert panels, administrative state... is just as much a belief as the 'free market'.
It only matters how closely that belief system matches with reality over the long term.
I'll still put my lot towards any action that furthers a RULE-based free market as it reflects reality the best and has a pretty long history that keeps coming back.
This is a little more complicated than that. Part of the reason fund managers have to be so 'short sighted' is that innovation has shifted from monopolies to start ups.
With a boring old monopoly, you're comfortable getting your 5% dividend or whatever it is. Those are the kids of shareholders you're going to have.
With innovation shifting to start ups and the ever emphasis on competition, there is both a lot of risk and reward and thus... the need... to make sure successes pay for the failures and since you never know when your current success will be overtaken or made obsolete, you thus force yourself to maximize current gains.
But it should be noted that all almost all models of a 'free market' include all people working under the same rules.
I consider it both morally and functionally problematic to have free trade with a country with vastly different environmental/labor laws.
It's morally wrong because I don't think an American is *worth* more than a Mexican just because they happen be born in America. So why would we think the American worker too good to work for less than the American minimum wage, when we're perfectly fine buying the same good Mexico, where a Mexican manufactured it for less than the American Minimum wage? It's morally wrong because it is a very colonial mindset.
It's functionally wrong... because well... look around you. Trade deficits. Countries not willing to adjust to the reality. It's politically problematic to see such huge changes in industry and worker wages... Governments have counted on growth for future obligations...
What's particularly interesting is the US... as a federation of States was actually pretty wise in how it handles internal trade issues.
For example, when the minimum wage first started coming about... it occurred at the state level. Now it doesn't take a Phd to see that if New York implemented a minimum wage of $10, but Alabama didn't... a lot of work would go to Alabama and New York would suffer. So what did the federal government do... they used the interstate commerce clause... and made a very wise ruling... any good crossing state lines has to obey the federal minimum wage. Makes a lot of sense... so all American play on the same field in the free market.
Now the question is, what happened to this kind of very wise, rule oriented thinking? Today we sign trade deals with countries with vastly different minimum wages, environmental laws...
I don't believe there is anything protectionist about a law like: Any country wishing to trade with the US must obey the US federal minimum wage.
The practical impact of such a rule might be protectionist, but as a rule... it just makes sense.
I'll go on a small but highly related tangent here. You know the whole Euro disaster. What did all these brilliant technocrats/progressives learn?
You cannot have a monetary union without a political union.
They tried and it failed miserably. You need common political policies (deficit limits...) to stay a part of the monetary union.
I would say the say thing applies to free trade. A bunch of technocrats/progressives (used as a political philosophy.. not just leftists... there are right-wing progressives), thought we could have a trade union with political union... but they're wrong again.
If you want a trade union, you need a political union (common labor laws...)
Now it's possible these technocrats are just working towards a goal. In the Euro... using the fiscal union as a trap to make everyone into a political union. Or in the case of free trade... using a trade union to force common political union.
But who knows... all I can say... is that I do think the American people as a democracy would do a far better job of 'rule' based thinking than the politicians. Your average person has a sense of fairness and law that technocrats, progressives, and bureaucrats don't/
There's a very big difference... one that most people in our industry miss. Bell Labs could spend it's money on such things because it had a monopoly behind it... AT&T. As an aside, most of the open source culture tends to forget this part of history as well.
That nice stable cash-flow allowed it the freedom to spend on such things.
Then came the thought of monopoly was evil. Vertical integration is absolutely evil... or so they say. ATT was broken up. As soon as Bell Labs lost that monopoly association and became Lucent... it essentially died.
Both Google and Microsoft got a certain level of defacto monopoly... or at least to a level of very comfortable cashflow so they could be in the same position as ATT was back in the day. They can and so spend lavishly on R&D because they have a service to back their spending.
I'm not saying I'm for monopolies or such vertical integration. Well I am less averse to them than most people. Just saying that the 'good ole days' came with a price. The money and stability came from somewhere.
Yeop. There really isn't an education problem in the US... at least in comparison to the rest of the world.
People will say things like Finland is great... forgetting that Finland has the population of a small US city. I'm pretty sure you could find a heavily academic city in the US with the same population as Finland that has such great academics.
The US is a country that has Silicon Valley and the bible belt... all under one umbrella.
Places like Europe just classify things as different countries. Finland and Sweden are never compared with Greece and Spain and Turkey.
Similarly, the US takes in a huge number of immigrants and the history of slavery. This is just not the case with many other countries.
I'm going to against the grain here and say... what education problem?
People have been hammering at 'education' for the past 50 years claiming it solves all kinds of problem... but it doesn't. Just recently... people sit around thinking if only we could be more educated then we can compete with developing countries! All of our jobs can be high-tech and innovative. But as I've said before... these people live in bubbles. Educated, innovative jobs are small in number and service large numbers of people due to computing. This is why an innovation economy can work for small nations like say Singapore or Finland... or small regions like Silicon Valley. But it does nothing for a large region. Always remember... not everyone can be a net exporter.
Most of the gains in 'traditional education' are the basic gains. Getting a society to be able to read/write/arithmetic is a huge step. I don't want to understate this by any means. It is one of the biggest steps a society can take. It is an absolutely huge accomplishment.
Once you get that, you won't get much for more 'education'. More advanced math classes, more computer science classes, more advanced education don't do very much. Almost everything beyond that point is much more influenced by other variables.
For example, your industrial success is much more determined by its industrial policies than by 'schooling' (once you reach basic reading/writing status). The value of your dollar, labor laws, national support... Just a quick note... Germany right now has a program that will pay a portion of a company's manufacturing labor costs to keep them employed.
Even things like PhDs are not purely educational. There were days when employees stayed a long time with a company. So it often made sense for a person to invest in their PhD or Masters while being a part of industry. The shortage of 'American born' PhDs has little to do with the intelligence of Americans and everything to do with the payout (job security, money, fulfillment) vs work required.
Things like early childhood education and child behavior in general have much to do with parenting and morals/culture than 'education' itself. I personally think morals/culture are just as much a part of education... but I know that's not how it is viewed politically and by many people. Those are problems that either need to be solved by bringing culture/morals back into the school (that conflicts with multiculturalism and the idea that all students should attend one public school), or heavy involvement with parents and teaching them how to parent (very messy politically).
I'm personally for much support for things like public health/social services and working with communities outside of the school system to help resolve these problems. We spend way too much money on education while not enough on public health and social services.
At this point, I'd say... stop worrying about 'school' academic education. It's good enough. And our university research system for high-end research is also excellent. Stop trying to solve every problem though the education prism.
I always find it a little funny when government decries industry collusion for setting a price floor.
Is the minimum wage not a price floor that stops things from being too cheap?
Are unions not a price floor that prevents competition and colludes across companies to provide a price floor?
Is it really that wrong for industries to help prevent a race to the bottom... we're not talking about holding society hostage of life essentials like food.
I'm not saying I like price collusion; be they unions or industries... but is it ridiculous that people get so outraged when industry does it... while at the same time complaining about the race to the bottom.
Like it or not... rich industries provide rich jobs. Hyper-competitive industries like retail provide crap jobs... see Walmart.
Many people... not just employers don't understand the details of someone else''s craft.
I don't really understand the details of what my mechanic does. I don't really understand the details of a pharmacist's job. I don't really understand the details of a home repair/contractor/plumber/electrician person.
To me, a pharmacist seems like a glorified cashier. All conflicting medications can just be looked at in a database.
But what do I know...
I'm sure to someone else, the care I put into my craft is just extra fluff... and things can be done to work by someone else with much less knowledge and care.
The only question is do you want to regulate it. You can ensure a certain level of professionalism by making something a true profession and restricting access into it. That's what doctors, lawyers, pharmacists... do. Has a nice side effect of keeping pay and working conditions okay.
But it's downside is less innovation and a lot of self-interest.
Would a web-site like slashdot even exist if it required regulated professionals to write code?
It's a little more than just libraries... but the general point is true. It is also the tools, debugger, documentation, compiled format, general programming environment.
For example, one of the major differences between Java/C# and C/C++ is that C/C++ says nothing about how the code is actually compiled. Whereas Java/C# specify how their compiled output is specified (as they are tied to a runtime platform). This makes things like importing libraries trivial in c#/Java. Just grab the library and click import... problem solved. All the information on the library is contained in the library itself... types and everything. The compiler can derive a lot of information just from this and most importantly, can count on it being there. You don't need to worry about linking issues or naming issues or compile flags of some library...
Also things like debuggers. You can get a lot of functionality in C++ by using smart pointers or the STL. But rarely is the debugger support that nice. Stepping into calls means you're always stepping through smart pointer code. Similarly, you dig into the details of STL structures just to view the contents of a map or something. Nothing is impossible and there are 'systems' in place to help the debugger decode things... but in general, the support is not there.
Divorcing the 'language' from the rest of the environment is like talking about 'operating systems' strictly in terms of the kernel. Sure it can be an interesting technical discussion, but these days, most of what matters is in the system taken as a whole (kernel, default application, shell, configuration, interface...)
That is only true if society is allowed to adjust to the new conditions.
Yes, being more efficient means, we should be able to use that human capital to engage in new industries or reduce the work in current industries.
For example, lets say the cloud is amazing and we end up with huge numbers of unemployed IT workers. Theoretically, we should be able to take these workers and do one of two things
1. We reduce the work load in existing jobs. So for example, we end up with more teachers, lawyers, nurses, accountants... and the workload in those industries drops. We might end up with people working only 20 hours a week in such cases as the current jobs are redistributed. Wonderful stuff. That is how we've been able to achieve more leisure time.
2. The new labor is allocated to new fields. So maybe these unemployed IT workers become solar panel designers or something.
Things are always the same... until they're different . I believe 2 is much less likely to be a driver of mass jobs. While we will most certainly have more inventions and new fields, they will likely not be mass employers. Most likely, they will employ a few highly skilled designers. Anything else will be highly automated. I don't for example think the green revolution will generate the kinds of jobs we used to see in the old industrial age.
So we're left with 1. The problem is our society will not let this happen. For one, everyone is scared of deflation... and well... reduced work hours might very well mean less money in each person's pocket... so deflation. Special interests also hate egalitarianism. How would lawyers or doctors or public sector workers feel, if they earned no more than the average person? They are used to earning more than the average person. So they are unlikely to want to give up their position of privilege.
So while theoretically, society is always better off via efficiency, I wouldn't be so quick to simply dismiss concerns.
We do not live in any kind of a free market where such things can self-adjust.
More than likely, we'll see the special interests continue to try and hold onto their positions of privilege and refuse to redistribute the workload to their fellow citizens. This results in mass unemployment while the special interests cling to power. They also won't accept levels of taxation that would allow the government to redistribute work to everyone.
Hey, isn't this happening in Europe as we speak? Not to mention the huge unemployment in the US.
It's great to talk about the benefits of the free market. But you should realize we don't live in one... and the results can be catastrophic if you simply apply free market ideas to systems which have little to do with a free market.
While you dismiss everything and say society should advance... I certainly don't see it as a positive thing if society starts having mass unemployment or plunging into mass deficits collapsing economies and social unrest.
I think the founding fathers... or for that matter most modern constitutional democracies did an excellent job of framing their governance systems to prevent dictatorships or monarchies or other forms of concentrated power... The kind of problems they dealt with in their times.
Where all their constitutions have fallen short is in dealing with the new (in historical) terms functions of government. Things like positive rights, public sector workers, regulations...
Just to give one example.
Why is it that public sector workers are given a pension backed by the government and thus the tax payer, but your engineer, waiter, manufacturing worker is not?
This violates some kind of 'equal treatment principle' in my book.
A modern constitution should have a clause with something along the lines of:
'No benefit shall be available to those employed by the government that is not available to every other citizen"
So Social Security in the United States should be the only guaranteed pension... as it is the only option available to all citizens.
Again, this doesn't stop a government from doing what it wants to do. A more 'leftist' government could be very generous and have very high state pensions and high taxes to pay for it. A more 'right-wing' government could provide less pensions and lower taxes. It just makes sure the government follows a notion of law and fairness as it makes its decisions.
Another example is that of regulations. I don't think any government should be able to treat fines as revenue. We see various cities using traffic fines (red-light cameras, speeding) more as revenue generators than avenues of actual safety regulation. Anything worth regulating is worth regulating via general taxation.
So a clause like "Any fines collected must be distributed to victims of the activity" So environmental fines don't go to the environmental agency or the EPA, but to victims of environmental disasters. Traffic fines don't go to general revenue or to police departments, but to victims of car crashes.
Again, it doesn't stop government from being heavy of regulation or not.
The old question of who regulates the regulates? Well it is the constitution.
The problem in general is changing/amending the constitution with such rules has not been in favor. It's difficult, but necessary. Most countries have found it easier just to ignore the constitution... instead of making the proper amendments... which would cause the needed debate to refine those principles and rules.
Indeed. It is very tempting for people to think they can improve things... if only they were given power.
Of course given people such power has a huge amount of downside and self-interest and corruption.
But I've come to like the idea of government just being about preventing bad people from taking over society.
As odd as it is... I cringe when I hear people talk about good governance, or efficient public services. This normally entails people who want to be better than average in a position of power. But how do you determine such people? How can you make sure they have the greater good at heart?
I like my government, like I like my banking. Stable and boring. Cross the Ts. Dot the is.
Sure exciting banking sounds great and lots of smart people get into it... but well... the results are always bad.
Exciting government gets people excited too. Great urban planning. Driving society forward into new realms of possibilities and markets. But if history is any guide... the results tend to be bad as well.
Innovation and excitement should be left to the private sector. And I don't just mean corporations. I mean non-profits, small businesses, cooperatives, guilds...
Prove your way of running healthcare, education... are actually better by having people put their money where their mouth is...
I'm sure your laptop has monitoring software, but the question is... who is actually looking at the monitoring and do they care?
I have a laptop issued for work. At work I used my desktop, but when I need to remotely work, I used my work laptop.
If you're honest with yourself, chances are you won't get in trouble. Unless you work for a hyper security company. Are you putting in an honest days work at the office? Beyond that, they're giving you a laptop . Just like if they gave you a company car. Some amount of personal use is generally tolerated.
When I'm at home, I use my laptop quite liberally. Some small games, web browsing... are all good.
I don't do anything 'illegal' on it though.
I think you need to relax a little bit. By all means find out what monitoring policies your company has... but if its like 99% of companies, all the data goes into a giant pit no one looks at... until you give them a reason to look at it.
Slashdot Mirror
We live in a world where everyone wants to assign monetary value to things.
In such a world, the design of an API is serious work. We've all used good APIs and bad APIs. It is a very skillful operation.
Not saying if this is the ideal world or not... just that it is the world in which we live in. We live in a world of professions (lawyers, doctors, accountants...) where they protect their trade and professional quality.
One possible solution is if APIs want this protection, then they should have to explicitly declare it. The 'market' will to a large extent respond appropriately. Companies that declare their APIs copyrighted will be handicapped. There will be fewer compatible tools. Fewer developers will train themselves in the API...
There are already well-established anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations to protect against abuse in such cases. They must charge 'reasonable' fees...
We've been through such cases before... for example with rail road operators.
There is no way to assure anyone is objective. You might as well try to find a benevolent dictator. Peer review is a safeguard to some extent, but hardly worth much in anything that would be tried in the court.
However, we should ask why there is a need for much science in the courtroom. For example, prescription drugs. There should be a simple process by which drugs get approved for use. Trials, disclosure of side effects... Then all a court has to deal with is if the pharmaceutical company committed fraud or improperly followed the regulations. Regular evidence.
If they follow the regulations honestly, their drug gets approved, and it happens to have side effects... well... that should fall into the category of s**t happens. Perhaps change the regulations to catch more cases... but life always has some risk.
Some cases of science are unavoidable. If you have a car accident, and both sides bring experts to show the other person is at fault... well it becomes a matter of trust.
Either the government maintains its own engineers or accident investigators to act as an authority... or leave it to accredited experts... who hopefully have some kind of professionalism. But in these cases, its all just a matter of trust.
In any case, more often than not, there is a way to avoid the courts if we thought about it. The you wouldn't have this problem to begin with.
The core to libertarianism is freedom of association.
If an institution is good, more people will want to associate it with it. If the institution fails, people can leave it or start a new one.
Of course, this gets messy as you go up the chain of government. Some business creates a service that I don't like, I just choose another business. Some city creates a service... that I don't like... well I just leave that city.
It gets harder as you move up in government... now you want me to leave the state... then leave the country. Your freedom of association becomes less and less.
Humans will always create institutions as there are always common problems to solve. The main difference is your ability to leave such institutions when you no longer think them satisfactory.
The Western world had a revelation a while ago about giving people freedom of religion. No longer would be killed for leaving Christianity. No longer would particular religions have the power of the State. Islam of course has not gained this insight... and you see it being left behind.
I'm hoping for another enlightenment where we gain freedom of association for the other aspects of life.
I think computers have the ability to automate huge areas people think require 'judgment'. Will they be perfect or catch odd cases? Probably not. Yet, that must be weighed against the ability to provide the service on mass.
For example, radiographers are currently some of the highest paid medical professionals. Today, automated detection is already quite high in terms of accuracy (80%+). About the same as human radiographers. For example.
http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/testing/new_research/20081001b.jsp
Is it possible a human radiographer could detect weird anomalies or something. Of course. But as a mass provided service, the computer would be way cheaper and provide affordable healthcare. Obviously before surgery, a human should probably double check :P
While I doubt the technology is there yet, I certainly don't think it impossible to have robo-grading for the evaluation of mass essays. Again, we have to compare it to the real world with people. Sure, a human grader going through every essay in detail might be better. But on average how thorough are graders? How thorough are patent examiners in examining patents on a mass scale?
Could we not imagine a system where the professor lists points they 'expect' to see in the essay. Somehow natural language processing can check for these points.
I could certainly imagine that working for essays you might write in high school for Shakespeare or an analysis of a book.
If I remember my high school, there was always a limited set of themes and points discussed.
Of course professors can always recheck for really creative work that the program mucks up.
But I think people overestimate the creativity of people in the school environment when applied to a large user set.
If you loo
Perhaps.
I'm Muslim so I have a bit of a different perspective. I've actually seen parts of my family and community go 'backwards'.
In my parents generation, almost no one wore the niqaab. Today, it starts to be common place. Not the majority, but enough. And its not the case of the parents forcing it on them, but their own choice... often defying their parents.
In some areas, the fundamentalists are winning. Very few Muslims will outwardly proclaim their atheism as the cultural consequences are often too great. They will face huge problems with their friends and family and community.
Most, like me, simply choose to be non-practicing.
So while athiesm or religious moderation might be there for christianity. It's not the case for Islam... which just happens to have a whack load of people.
yeah ideally... except...
The legal system is run to bring business to lawyers
The tax system is run to bring business to accountants and play favorites...
The one thing most open source advocates neglect... and you can tell it by this article... is that most of the world is concerned with making a living first.
That engineers and software programmers are deluded to think they can fight that system.
Having a simple legal system and simple tax system would be a great job killer for those employed in that professions. Would society as a whole be better off if we did... sure... but you don't promise to make thousands of well organized professionals obsolete and still get elected. You can do that to worthless manufacturing workers and IT workers like us though.
Sorry kid. No one pushed a line... its all explained above. If you choose to be ignorant... that's your choice.
The distinction between science and action/policy has been blurred and that is the religion.
That is the problem.
They are one in the same.
It's not about scientists spouting on about things outside their field. The problem is scientists in their field... who care passionately about their field. No surprise really.
The example I gave on the bicycle helmet legislation is a real one that I remember reading in the news.
http://umanitoba.ca/news/blogs/blog/2010/08/10/news-release-mandatory-bike-helmet-laws-are-effective-dont-reduce-cycling-habits/
âoeFor provinces without comprehensive helmet legislation, the time to act was yesterday. Our data shows that all-ages helmet legislation is associated with higher use of helmets among children and adults, compared with legislation that only pertains to children. This is the type of legislation that all provinces should be adopting,â
You see here, a scientist recommending action or policy. This happens all the time. Why does it happen? Because this scientist studying this issue is focused solely on his field of study.
But it is this very narrow tunnel vision of scientists in their field that is the problem. This scientist doesn't worry about the economic impact, the impact on personal freedom, the impact on fun, the impact on leisure, the impact on state power...
This is not just an issue of the media. As much as the media does often distort or hype scientific results... the reality is that real professional scientists are recommending policy. The bicycle one is rather tame actually. In other areas such as global warming, education... the scientists are much more involved in policy.
It is definitely a problem with mixing science and politics.
No one is against science that tells you how to build an airplane so it stays in the air.
The problem is then several fold.
1. Flaky science is given the credibility of 'real science'. This is especially true in areas such as economics or the social sciences. This is especially true at the university level...
2. A religion of science has developed. At the core of science is the scientific method. A very good process to get to the 'reality'. But science can never tell you what to do about anything. Nuclear science can be used to provide clean power or slaughter a million people.
At the core of this problem is a problem with the scientific community. For example, science might tell you that too much C02 is resulting in global warming. But that is where it should stop. Science doesn't infer that you should therefore have a carbon tax or even even if you should do anything at all.
The problem with scientism as a religion is mixing science and policy and assuming that disagreeing with policy means you're disagreeing with the science.
This of course has led to a reaction on those who disagree with policies to then distance themselves from the scientific community.
3. Similar to 2, but it is the use of science with implied goals. For example, a scientist might come to the conclusion that wearing bicycle helmets saves lives. That might be very good science. They then become an advocate for a policy of mandatory bicycle helmets. Disagreeing with them on that policy means you are against science or ignorant.
But much like 2, this is not science. Science is goalless and valueless. What the scientific community generally refuses to acknowledge is that they have values and ideologies. They don't want to lower themselves to that level of discussion... but it is ignorance not to.
In this simple case of the bicycle helmet. This scientist values the health of an individual over the freedom of the individual. You can disagree or agree with that all you want, but you must acknowledge your value judgment. That is all it is. It is no most based in science and no more valid than anyone else's belief.
And most often, it is not as simple as that. When you really get down to values, they often conflict and feed on each other.
Do you value more healthcare and paying more taxes and working harder to support it? Or would you rather have less healthcare and more leisure time? These are real ideological questions.
The problem is that scientist in charge of healthcare only sees healthcare and thinks if you disagree with his policy you are disagreeing with science.
Of course if we had a scientist in charge of leisure, he'd be pushing his field to have us work less.
Should the scientist of leisure ever encounter the scientist in healthcare and the scientist in economics... they'd be disagreeing on ideological lines just like regular Joe Six Pack.
It is unfortunate, but people who think science in government is empowering science are mistaken. It will corrupt science as politicians pick and choose their experts to write a report on what they want. Scientists will advocate policies in the name of science and those disagreeing with those policies will then be against those scientists.
I'm Canadian actually.
And no, this is not a rich/poor thing.
Most governments take from the poor and give to the well connected in government/businesses.
I don't see how you claim it is fiction. Just look at public sector unions who have pensions far greater than that of the average person... who then have to be taxed to pay for those pensions. Or the bank bail outs. Or big spending on the military...
Is it complex? Of course.
Is a certain level of common infrastructure and law needed? Of course.
But at the end of the day, that is government as we know it today. It is not cooperative. It is gang-based. If you think it is cooperative, you're probably just a member of such a gang.
The bigger and more discretion a government has, the more gang-like in nature it is.
I'm not anti-government, if they treated all citizens universally and worked towards fair simple laws. But that is not how most government's work... especially india (I'm Indian) ... known for its corruption and gang politics.
The goal of all active governments in practice is to take from one group and give to the groups connected to the government.
They really don't care about 'the greater goals'.
It's basic gang like nature. Why do you think ghettos don't prosper? Everyone is out taking... and if you work hard and become successful, someone will just take from you. That everyone in the ghetto would be better off with an honest environment doesn't really matter.
The government gets it. It wants money to do things and it sees lots of money coming in right now. So it must get its cut.
All political thought is a belief system. This is especially true of progressivism even though they claim not to be ideological. Belief in expert panels, administrative state... is just as much a belief as the 'free market'.
It only matters how closely that belief system matches with reality over the long term.
I'll still put my lot towards any action that furthers a RULE-based free market as it reflects reality the best and has a pretty long history that keeps coming back.
This is a little more complicated than that.
Part of the reason fund managers have to be so 'short sighted' is that innovation has shifted from monopolies to start ups.
With a boring old monopoly, you're comfortable getting your 5% dividend or whatever it is. Those are the kids of shareholders you're going to have.
With innovation shifting to start ups and the ever emphasis on competition, there is both a lot of risk and reward and thus... the need... to make sure successes pay for the failures and since you never know when your current success will be overtaken or made obsolete, you thus force yourself to maximize current gains.
Perhaps.
But it should be noted that all almost all models of a 'free market' include all people working under the same rules.
I consider it both morally and functionally problematic to have free trade with a country with vastly different environmental/labor laws.
It's morally wrong because I don't think an American is *worth* more than a Mexican just because they happen be born in America. So why would we think the American worker too good to work for less than the American minimum wage, when we're perfectly fine buying the same good Mexico, where a Mexican manufactured it for less than the American Minimum wage? It's morally wrong because it is a very colonial mindset.
It's functionally wrong... because well... look around you. Trade deficits. Countries not willing to adjust to the reality. It's politically problematic to see such huge changes in industry and worker wages... Governments have counted on growth for future obligations...
What's particularly interesting is the US... as a federation of States was actually pretty wise in how it handles internal trade issues.
For example, when the minimum wage first started coming about... it occurred at the state level. Now it doesn't take a Phd to see that if New York implemented a minimum wage of $10, but Alabama didn't... a lot of work would go to Alabama and New York would suffer. So what did the federal government do... they used the interstate commerce clause... and made a very wise ruling... any good crossing state lines has to obey the federal minimum wage. Makes a lot of sense... so all American play on the same field in the free market.
Now the question is, what happened to this kind of very wise, rule oriented thinking? Today we sign trade deals with countries with vastly different minimum wages, environmental laws...
I don't believe there is anything protectionist about a law like: Any country wishing to trade with the US must obey the US federal minimum wage.
The practical impact of such a rule might be protectionist, but as a rule... it just makes sense.
I'll go on a small but highly related tangent here. You know the whole Euro disaster. What did all these brilliant technocrats/progressives learn?
You cannot have a monetary union without a political union.
They tried and it failed miserably. You need common political policies (deficit limits...) to stay a part of the monetary union.
I would say the say thing applies to free trade. A bunch of technocrats/progressives (used as a political philosophy.. not just leftists... there are right-wing progressives), thought we could have a trade union with political union... but they're wrong again.
If you want a trade union, you need a political union (common labor laws...)
Now it's possible these technocrats are just working towards a goal. In the Euro... using the fiscal union as a trap to make everyone into a political union. Or in the case of free trade... using a trade union to force common political union.
But who knows... all I can say... is that I do think the American people as a democracy would do a far better job of 'rule' based thinking than the politicians. Your average person has a sense of fairness and law that technocrats, progressives, and bureaucrats don't/
There's a very big difference... one that most people in our industry miss. Bell Labs could spend it's money on such things because it had a monopoly behind it... AT&T. As an aside, most of the open source culture tends to forget this part of history as well.
That nice stable cash-flow allowed it the freedom to spend on such things.
Then came the thought of monopoly was evil. Vertical integration is absolutely evil... or so they say. ATT was broken up. As soon as Bell Labs lost that monopoly association and became Lucent... it essentially died.
Both Google and Microsoft got a certain level of defacto monopoly... or at least to a level of very comfortable cashflow so they could be in the same position as ATT was back in the day. They can and so spend lavishly on R&D because they have a service to back their spending.
I'm not saying I'm for monopolies or such vertical integration. Well I am less averse to them than most people. Just saying that the 'good ole days' came with a price. The money and stability came from somewhere.
Where do people get this idea that American teachers are underpaid? Do the teacher unions do that great a job of convincing the population?
American teachers are some of the highest paid in the world.
It's just not true that in Finland or Germany... (insert whatever country) that teachers are somehow given higher pay than American teachers.
http://www.worldsalaries.org/teacher.shtml
This is especially true in comparison to other jobs and the cost of living.
There is no problem with funding in education or teacher salaries. If anything, America spends too much on education... just like healthcare.
Yeop. There really isn't an education problem in the US... at least in comparison to the rest of the world.
People will say things like Finland is great... forgetting that Finland has the population of a small US city. I'm pretty sure you could find a heavily academic city in the US with the same population as Finland that has such great academics.
The US is a country that has Silicon Valley and the bible belt... all under one umbrella.
Places like Europe just classify things as different countries. Finland and Sweden are never compared with Greece and Spain and Turkey.
Similarly, the US takes in a huge number of immigrants and the history of slavery. This is just not the case with many other countries.
I'm going to against the grain here and say... what education problem?
People have been hammering at 'education' for the past 50 years claiming it solves all kinds of problem... but it doesn't. Just recently... people sit around thinking if only we could be more educated then we can compete with developing countries! All of our jobs can be high-tech and innovative. But as I've said before... these people live in bubbles. Educated, innovative jobs are small in number and service large numbers of people due to computing. This is why an innovation economy can work for small nations like say Singapore or Finland... or small regions like Silicon Valley. But it does nothing for a large region. Always remember... not everyone can be a net exporter.
Most of the gains in 'traditional education' are the basic gains. Getting a society to be able to read/write/arithmetic is a huge step. I don't want to understate this by any means. It is one of the biggest steps a society can take. It is an absolutely huge accomplishment.
Once you get that, you won't get much for more 'education'. More advanced math classes, more computer science classes, more advanced education don't do very much. Almost everything beyond that point is much more influenced by other variables.
For example, your industrial success is much more determined by its industrial policies than by 'schooling' (once you reach basic reading/writing status). The value of your dollar, labor laws, national support... Just a quick note... Germany right now has a program that will pay a portion of a company's manufacturing labor costs to keep them employed.
Even things like PhDs are not purely educational. There were days when employees stayed a long time with a company. So it often made sense for a person to invest in their PhD or Masters while being a part of industry. The shortage of 'American born' PhDs has little to do with the intelligence of Americans and everything to do with the payout (job security, money, fulfillment) vs work required.
Things like early childhood education and child behavior in general have much to do with parenting and morals/culture than 'education' itself. I personally think morals/culture are just as much a part of education... but I know that's not how it is viewed politically and by many people. Those are problems that either need to be solved by bringing culture/morals back into the school (that conflicts with multiculturalism and the idea that all students should attend one public school), or heavy involvement with parents and teaching them how to parent (very messy politically).
I'm personally for much support for things like public health/social services and working with communities outside of the school system to help resolve these problems. We spend way too much money on education while not enough on public health and social services.
At this point, I'd say... stop worrying about 'school' academic education. It's good enough. And our university research system for high-end research is also excellent. Stop trying to solve every problem though the education prism.
It's everything else that needs help.
I always find it a little funny when government decries industry collusion for setting a price floor.
Is the minimum wage not a price floor that stops things from being too cheap?
Are unions not a price floor that prevents competition and colludes across companies to provide a price floor?
Is it really that wrong for industries to help prevent a race to the bottom... we're not talking about holding society hostage of life essentials like food.
I'm not saying I like price collusion; be they unions or industries... but is it ridiculous that people get so outraged when industry does it... while at the same time complaining about the race to the bottom.
Like it or not... rich industries provide rich jobs.
Hyper-competitive industries like retail provide crap jobs... see Walmart.
Many people... not just employers don't understand the details of someone else''s craft.
I don't really understand the details of what my mechanic does. I don't really understand the details of a pharmacist's job. I don't really understand the details of a home repair/contractor/plumber/electrician person.
To me, a pharmacist seems like a glorified cashier. All conflicting medications can just be looked at in a database.
But what do I know...
I'm sure to someone else, the care I put into my craft is just extra fluff... and things can be done to work by someone else with much less knowledge and care.
The only question is do you want to regulate it.
You can ensure a certain level of professionalism by making something a true profession and restricting access into it. That's what doctors, lawyers, pharmacists... do. Has a nice side effect of keeping pay and working conditions okay.
But it's downside is less innovation and a lot of self-interest.
Would a web-site like slashdot even exist if it required regulated professionals to write code?
It's a little more than just libraries... but the general point is true. It is also the tools, debugger, documentation, compiled format, general programming environment.
For example, one of the major differences between Java/C# and C/C++ is that C/C++ says nothing about how the code is actually compiled. Whereas Java/C# specify how their compiled output is specified (as they are tied to a runtime platform). This makes things like importing libraries trivial in c#/Java. Just grab the library and click import... problem solved. All the information on the library is contained in the library itself... types and everything. The compiler can derive a lot of information just from this and most importantly, can count on it being there. You don't need to worry about linking issues or naming issues or compile flags of some library...
Also things like debuggers. You can get a lot of functionality in C++ by using smart pointers or the STL. But rarely is the debugger support that nice. Stepping into calls means you're always stepping through smart pointer code. Similarly, you dig into the details of STL structures just to view the contents of a map or something. Nothing is impossible and there are 'systems' in place to help the debugger decode things... but in general, the support is not there.
Divorcing the 'language' from the rest of the environment is like talking about 'operating systems' strictly in terms of the kernel. Sure it can be an interesting technical discussion, but these days, most of what matters is in the system taken as a whole (kernel, default application, shell, configuration, interface...)
That is only true if society is allowed to adjust to the new conditions.
Yes, being more efficient means, we should be able to use that human capital to engage in new industries or reduce the work in current industries.
For example, lets say the cloud is amazing and we end up with huge numbers of unemployed IT workers. Theoretically, we should be able to take these workers and do one of two things
1. We reduce the work load in existing jobs. So for example, we end up with more teachers, lawyers, nurses, accountants... and the workload in those industries drops. We might end up with people working only 20 hours a week in such cases as the current jobs are redistributed. Wonderful stuff. That is how we've been able to achieve more leisure time.
2. The new labor is allocated to new fields. So maybe these unemployed IT workers become solar panel designers or something.
Things are always the same... until they're different
.
I believe 2 is much less likely to be a driver of mass jobs. While we will most certainly have more inventions and new fields, they will likely not be mass employers. Most likely, they will employ a few highly skilled designers. Anything else will be highly automated. I don't for example think the green revolution will generate the kinds of jobs we used to see in the old industrial age.
So we're left with 1. The problem is our society will not let this happen. For one, everyone is scared of deflation... and well... reduced work hours might very well mean less money in each person's pocket... so deflation. Special interests also hate egalitarianism. How would lawyers or doctors or public sector workers feel, if they earned no more than the average person? They are used to earning more than the average person. So they are unlikely to want to give up their position of privilege.
So while theoretically, society is always better off via efficiency, I wouldn't be so quick to simply dismiss concerns.
We do not live in any kind of a free market where such things can self-adjust.
More than likely, we'll see the special interests continue to try and hold onto their positions of privilege and refuse to redistribute the workload to their fellow citizens. This results in mass unemployment while the special interests cling to power. They also won't accept levels of taxation that would allow the government to redistribute work to everyone.
Hey, isn't this happening in Europe as we speak?
Not to mention the huge unemployment in the US.
It's great to talk about the benefits of the free market. But you should realize we don't live in one... and the results can be catastrophic if you simply apply free market ideas to systems which have little to do with a free market.
While you dismiss everything and say society should advance... I certainly don't see it as a positive thing if society starts having mass unemployment or plunging into mass deficits collapsing economies and social unrest.
I think the founding fathers... or for that matter most modern constitutional democracies did an excellent job of framing their governance systems to prevent dictatorships or monarchies or other forms of concentrated power... The kind of problems they dealt with in their times.
Where all their constitutions have fallen short is in dealing with the new (in historical) terms functions of government. Things like positive rights, public sector workers, regulations...
Just to give one example.
Why is it that public sector workers are given a pension backed by the government and thus the tax payer, but your engineer, waiter, manufacturing worker is not?
This violates some kind of 'equal treatment principle' in my book.
A modern constitution should have a clause with something along the lines of:
'No benefit shall be available to those employed by the government that is not available to every other citizen"
So Social Security in the United States should be the only guaranteed pension... as it is the only option available to all citizens.
Again, this doesn't stop a government from doing what it wants to do. A more 'leftist' government could be very generous and have very high state pensions and high taxes to pay for it. A more 'right-wing' government could provide less pensions and lower taxes. It just makes sure the government follows a notion of law and fairness as it makes its decisions.
Another example is that of regulations. I don't think any government should be able to treat fines as revenue. We see various cities using traffic fines (red-light cameras, speeding) more as revenue generators than avenues of actual safety regulation.
Anything worth regulating is worth regulating via general taxation.
So a clause like
"Any fines collected must be distributed to victims of the activity"
So environmental fines don't go to the environmental agency or the EPA, but to victims of environmental disasters.
Traffic fines don't go to general revenue or to police departments, but to victims of car crashes.
Again, it doesn't stop government from being heavy of regulation or not.
The old question of who regulates the regulates?
Well it is the constitution.
The problem in general is changing/amending the constitution with such rules has not been in favor. It's difficult, but necessary. Most countries have found it easier just to ignore the constitution... instead of making the proper amendments... which would cause the needed debate to refine those principles and rules.
Indeed. It is very tempting for people to think they can improve things... if only they were given power.
Of course given people such power has a huge amount of downside and self-interest and corruption.
But I've come to like the idea of government just being about preventing bad people from taking over society.
As odd as it is... I cringe when I hear people talk about good governance, or efficient public services. This normally entails people who want to be better than average in a position of power. But how do you determine such people? How can you make sure they have the greater good at heart?
I like my government, like I like my banking.
Stable and boring. Cross the Ts. Dot the is.
Sure exciting banking sounds great and lots of smart people get into it... but well... the results are always bad.
Exciting government gets people excited too. Great urban planning. Driving society forward into new realms of possibilities and markets. But if history is any guide... the results tend to be bad as well.
Innovation and excitement should be left to the private sector. And I don't just mean corporations. I mean non-profits, small businesses, cooperatives, guilds...
Prove your way of running healthcare, education... are actually better by having people put their money where their mouth is...
I'm sure your laptop has monitoring software, but the question is... who is actually looking at the monitoring and do they care?
I have a laptop issued for work. At work I used my desktop, but when I need to remotely work, I used my work laptop.
If you're honest with yourself, chances are you won't get in trouble. Unless you work for a hyper security company. Are you putting in an honest days work at the office? Beyond that, they're giving you a laptop . Just like if they gave you a company car. Some amount of personal use is generally tolerated.
When I'm at home, I use my laptop quite liberally. Some small games, web browsing... are all good.
I don't do anything 'illegal' on it though.
I think you need to relax a little bit. By all means find out what monitoring policies your company has... but if its like 99% of companies, all the data goes into a giant pit no one looks at... until you give them a reason to look at it.