well, it does it better and cheaper than humans doing the same thing.
Most of the financial industry is just that... people looking at some trends and data and taking actions. It's one of the reasons most actively managed funds don't beat the index year over year. They really don't do anything useful.
They have layers and layers of financial people and associates and advisers... to basically do nothing productive. They basically act as proxies to the actual funds.
So we replace them with a some algorithmic systems. Someone still has to program the system and you typically get some very skilled people designing the algorithm.
At its 'most honest and useful level' it might be a simple algorithm to track dividend paying stock based on their average X year dividend payout. Granny might like this kind of system.
Of course it can be more 'trader' based and just look for patterns and buy and sell quickly...
But again... the point is there were humans doing the same thing. The computer just does it better and more efficiently. There is just no reason to employ many people in the financial services industry when they don't do anything that can't be done better via a computer.
These folks wouldn't blink an eye if they could automate a manufacturing worker's job. There's really no reason we should worry about the automation of 'skilled' or 'educated' labor.
And I don't really buy the line that human oversight will somehow act to prevent feedback loops... Computers are surely vulnerable to it. But so are people. So are regulations.
And they've already begun putting in various stop measures in case things go crazy. We could work towards the 'trader based hft' by maybe throwing in random delays or something... but I think the stock exchanges can work towards monitoring.
Sales tax gives you a choice on what to pay. Depending on your jurisdiction in NA, most essentials are not taxed. Food, clothing under a certain amount...
I'm far from rich, and I'd prefer a sales tax as it gives the people the most power. If the government is doing okay and life is regular it gets tax money. If people start not to trust the government and disagree on how it spends, they can just cut back on spending.
Now this is not going to grab taxes from the mega rich... so maybe the income tax should only apply to mega rich > 500k or something...
In Europe this is not often the case as even food and transit are taxes... albeit at a lower rate.
The funny thing about all this is that no matter what tax is cut, there's a group of people who claim it is regressive.
Case in point. In Canada, the conservatives cut the federal sales tax by 2%. Now if what you say is true, this would have been great for poor people as the sales tax is 'regressive'. Yet the normal poverty advocates went nuts claiming the sales tax was mainly benefiting rich people who buy cars and big items.
I agree... except I put the blame on 'us'. It's not up to the general public to gain an understanding of the complexities of our field. It is up to us to present our labor to the public.
Just like every other kind of skilled labor does. Even plumbers as in your example have a journeyman program. Sure you can probably hire any plumber to fix a small leak, but if its a serious problem or anything to do with infrastructure, you probably need to hire a licensed journeyman plumber.
We don't even bother doing something along the lines of plumbers or electricians. They do more knowledge retention than us.
I personally think it is us. Too many of us refuse to see how the rest of the world operates and thus don't want restrictions on labor. Perhaps for good reason. If Mark Zuckerberg has to go through a software residency program before writing code, he might not have ever written Facebook:P Businesses of course don't want to either as it costs money and slows down innovation.
But it's largely because 'we' don't want those restrictions. We could organize as a profession, put in restrictions, hike the cost of labor and knowledge retention... if we wanted to.
It always surprises me when fellow CS people or engineers say stuff as if there is no other way.
I would say that any software system is sufficiently complex to rival any legal system or medical system.
Doctors go through years of general medical school. After that, they really can't do anything serious. To actually 'operate', they need years of residency training with an expert in their field. Only then can they actually operate. Once they get their niche specialization, they are paid very well just for that knowledge, even if they largely do the same thing day in and day out.
Let me contrast that with my experience in the computer field. I thought I got the offer of a lifetime working for a major telecom equipment manufacturer. It sure paid well. In my 1st month there just learning the code base, I get an software escalation call... apparently the routers in Qatar or something had stopped sending traffic. Umm... okay... you want me to debug the routers in Qatar and fix the problem?
At first I thought maybe they were just messing with me, seeing if I could handle the calls and bring in the right people. Which I did and we did solve the problem... but...Nope... as time went on, this is just how things are done. Random new people were rewriting critical pieces of code.
Now, I know many fields do this for quality reasons. Perhaps we can sacrifice the quality as most of the time we're not doing brain surgery. But that is not the point.
The point is that most other professions and even skilled labor like trades have 'knowledge retention' built right into their profession.
What IT people and CS people have not done is developed a system whereby 'knowing the system' is part of the profession.
Now of course this would mean increased costs and slower innovation... at least in the short term... yet it would be better for the field as a whole.
I'm not saying we *should* do this, just pointing out that that is how the rest of the skilled labor works in society.
It's posts like this that should show you that Europeans are just as enlightened or ignorant as Americans.
Do you really think that is the average person's experience at the airport? Do you really think Americans are nuts?
Seriously, you think the US is some crazy place? I was born in Africa, have a very Muslim name, live in Canada now, and have been to the US dozens of times. Sometimes for work. Sometimes for play.
You know what US border/airport security is like? It's pretty routine... apart from the whole taking off my shoes thing. But the personnel are pretty normal. No different than I've experienced in the UK or Holland.
During my last trip for work in Florida, I left my shaving cream and toothpaste in my carry-on bag by accident. Normally I throw it all out. It got flagged in the scanners. The guy called his supervisor. They had me step aside, emptied the bag... found out it was shaving cream, cracked a joke... threw out my shaving cream, and I was on my way. Pretty regular behavior.
I'm sure some people have had bad experiences. But people have had bad experiences in the UK, Canada, France... too. The US just isn't that nutty.
The whole point of capitalism is when a company/institution screws up or ceases to serve its customers, it loses market share, goes under or even dies... and other better/more responsible ones take their place.
Notwithstanding that a big reason why the banks took such big risks is because they know they are backed by the government. Do you think they would have made all those irresponsible loans if they weren't being backed by the government purchases at Freddie and Fannie... Do you think people would have entrusted the banks wit their money if the banks were not FDIC insured?
Banking is and always been a heavy government enterprise. Perhaps for good reason.
Let me tell you a story. I'm Muslim... albeit a fairly non-religious one.
I grew up in a poor country. We'd go to the mosque. We'd discuss. Apparently all our problems would be solved if we just implemented Islamic Rule. Poverty? Violence? All gone if we just implemented Islamic rule. The poor would be taken care of by Zakaat. Families would be stronger by the stronger moral code.
Of course what happens when they do implement Islamic law? Nothing really improves. In many cases, things got worse. More specifically... what was Islamic Law? No one really knew. No one could really define it except to put some religious guys in charge.
Ah, so you would think there is something wrong with Islamic Rule? Ah, but you'd be wrong. You see, they just implemented it in wrong in every society it has ever been tried. Saudi, Iran, the Ottoman Empire, Malaysia, Somalia, Afghanistan... all just do it wrong.
--------------------- Which I guess brings me to communism. If it has been tried to be implemented, and failed many times... there's probably a reason for that.
I'm not going to write an essay on the failings of implementing communism. I'm sure you can read any book on it... difficulty in central planning, difficulty getting people to do the work that the 'group' deems to be done (it's easy to convince the academic of communism as he'd still be in a comfortable office doing interesting work... it's harder to convince the guy sent to the mines in Siberia).
And if you think worker-owned things are a paradise... look into the history. They had many such examples in the US... and all over the world for that matter. Heck, they are here today. Despite the rhetoric, huge parts of the economy are non-profit or coops. They just don't solve any grand problems.
The problem they faced... is the same problem faced by 'capitalism'... they faced distributional issues. How much to pay the workers? How much they could sell? How much demand? Is the group decision better than experimenting on your own?
Just picture own worker owned group building car engines. Another worker owned group assembling cars.
You face a standard distributional problem. The more the engine workers want, the less the car assemblers can make. If they both want more, they might sell less cars.
But again, there is a long history of cooperatives in many countries. Some pretty successful. Others not so much. The good thing about cooperatives, is you can do it right now. There is nothing in a capitalist society that prevents you from starting a cooperative. There are already coop banks, farms, insurance companies, supermarkets...
You don't need to wait for society to change itself. You can setup a cooperative and try and solve the problems yourself.
However, given history and all those who claimed the name of communism, does it really hurt you to drop the word communism and pick up a new label to describe your worker paradise?
Noam Chomsky for example, doesn't walk around waving the communist flag. He calls himself something like a libertarian socialist.
But I'm not here to argue dictionary definitions, but you cause yourself and your ideals ridiculous harm by using a tarnished label.
I'll go back to my Islamic story once more. Today I'm in Canada and in the past few years there were ideas floated on having non-criminal disputes resolves by arbitrators. These were done before by all sorts of people... including other religions. But the Muslims decided to setup their arbitration system under the label:
Shariah Law
Yes, in a post 9/11 world... in a post Afghanistan world... these idiots decide to parade the label of Shariah Law. Never mind that it isn't actually law per se. Never mind that it is a voluntary arbitration system.
Yep... it was shot down of course. And quite frankly, if you want your ideas of worker owned means of production to thrive, you might want to drop your pride and adopt a more accurate label. Communism doesn't just mean worker owned production.
You can fight over the word if you want... I'm not going to. Communism just doesn't mean cooperative industry as understood by 99.99% of the population.
You're pretty dim if you think the internet wouldn't have been done without the military. Networks would have been developed. It might not have been IP. It might have been some other technology. But we'd be able to communicate digitally.
"China doesn't give a shit about patents, and they're not subsidizing research. They're subsidizing production. They want to become the world's go-to source for solar panels, and they intend to do so by strangling our ability to produce them."
So, if China doesn't give a shit about patents, then it's even better for the rest of the world. When they come up with good solar tech, then we just copy them.
Okay, so they subsidize production. So China wants to make its products cheaper for the world. This is China subsidizing us. We get cheaper solar panels. How is this not a win for us?
"Incidentally, what are your thoughts on oil subsidies?" Depends what you mean by subsidy. If you mean the government actually giving them money... I'm against it. If you mean, they just get a tax break, I have no issue with that.
These kind of subsidy schemes rarely work out for the benefit of the nation. It generally benefits a few in the 'industry of choice', but it doesn't benefit the country as a whole.
Case in point would be the US military. The US has basically been subsidizing the rest of the world's military. Allowing other nations to spend less on national security that they otherwise would. This has been a huge expense on the US budget.
In the big picture... outside of the military industrial complex, this has been a net loss for the USA.
Just like the solar situation. In the big picture... outside of the solar industry, these huge solar subsidies are a net loss for China.
You know... there was a time people didn't want to work. They actually colonized countries to make those people work. They actually enslaved other people to make them work.
Work is not a goal of mine. Getting the things we want/need is a goal of mine.
If China wants to be our 'workers'... let them. I have no desire to manufacture solar panels.
I said it in my original post and I'll say it again, the only time this should be a concern is if we begin to lack the ability to produce things at all. Then to get back up and running is a pain. China spent the past few decades building up its know how.
So China is wasting countless amounts of money on solar and you'd like us to do the same?
No thank you.
If the US lacked the know how or technology to bring up a solar plant or wasn't doing research, that would be one thing.
Yet, the US is capable of ramping up production if it wants. There is plenty of research going on in the US at the university and private company level. If/when solar does become viable, the US will not be at much of a disadvantage.
"if it weren't for massive government subsidies - paying for R&D costs directly, and providing a huge protected market mainly through the defense department - then the computer revolution which drove the 1990s boom WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED."
Let's assume this is true for a minute. I don't think it is. Free people seem to have a history of invention. Edison for example worked as a clerk and then funded his experiments. Tesla teamed up with JP Morgan. You'd wonder how anything got done before the US invented the military industrial complex.
But none the less, let us assume it is true. That at least the US got an advanced lead due to military protection of its industry.
Has it been a net benefit for the US to spend billions and billions, perhaps trillions on the military... all to get a lead on high tech?
Advancing technology is not the only goal in the minds of people. Most people just want to live their life. In the grand scheme of things would it have been so tragic if the computer boom happened in 2010 instead of the 1990s?
And quite frankly, if China wants to spend billions in subsidies that means a few things for me.
1. We shouldn't have open market agreements with them as they are not playing by the same rules. We shouldn't pretend to have free trade when we don't. I'm much more in favor of stopping trade with countries that don't follow the same rules as us, than I am in some huge central planning government initiative.
2. Patents only last 20 years or so. If china wants to spend billions on research for us to reap their technology when it's right, more power to them. China is subsidizing the rest of the world. It's not gaining any advantage. I'm from Africa and we had decades of politicians trying to build our own industry and it just results in more poverty and government corruption (central administration tends to do that). Today, we just buy things cheap from China and life is better for it.
I'll make this point again... if in 10 years solar is king and china is the leader, it will be us who have benefited from their research... not them. They will have invested all that money that we can just use.
Their advantage will be the same one they've had... the cost advantage. That is little to do with our R&D.
They are free to leave their job and then be friends. Can I as an employee of my company say whatever I want, bad mouth the product, reveal company secrets.... and still expect to keep my job?
There is an agreement between me and my employer on things related to the company.
The same is true in education. To prevent special treatment, sexual relationships... it is a reasonable policy to prevent this kind of relationship. Not that I agree with it; I just think it is reasonable. Just like I don't agree with many of my companies policies, but they are reasonable.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech without consequence. It just means the government won't arrest you for it.
Now in this case, it is more complex as the government has a monopoly on education. It's not like each school is run separately, so if one school implemented this policy, a teacher could just quit and go to another school.
But in the end, it's the same. This is not a violation of freedom of speech.
1. Why only minimum industrial and labor protection? How about the minimum wage? Why do we prevent Western people from fairly competing for jobs? That is what the government does by having a minimum wage much higher than countries we trade with. It makes it illegal for the Western worker to compete.
2. "Software is another matter." Actually, I'm worried that you say this. Read the article. This is not just about cost. China has spent the past few decades reforming its economy, buying technology, forming technology partnerships. Ask yourself why? Know how is the key. You can't build an industry if you don't know how no matter how cheap you are. It's why cities around the world can put in place whatever tax incentives they want, they can't replicate silicon valley. So the more industries you lose, the more you will lose in the future as you lose the know how. So the more software jobs we lose, the less software we will produce in the future. Our best young people won't go into the field.
I often argue in favor of a free market. Indeed, I think globalization and the free market benefits everyone. However, we don't have a free market and the distortions in our society can make things worse.
As I said, by signing free trade deals with countries with lower minimum wages, we are distorting our own local market. Driving away industry faster than it would if we applied the same rules to our workers as theirs. It also distorts the labor market driving people away from industries facing competition and into industries with local and government protection (education, healthcare, law). I don't care which set of rules. Demand they implement the same minimum wage. Or get rid of the minimum wage here.
Given that we will never have a free market. I often say this:
A free market in a contained zone is a better option than government centrally planned capitalism in a global world.
This is what is happening BTW. Western government are not sitting around letting their economies readjust to the global reality. They are playing any and all kinds of central planning tricks to keep the status quo. They're going into debt in the trillions trying to keep up our advantageous standard of living. They're bailing out banks. They're trying to prop up markets and pick winners and losers and drive industry in certain directions.
Some of the biggest markets in most western countries are entirely government run. Things like the housing market for example. Demand: immigration - completely determined by government. ability to pay - increasingly determined by government with low interest rates, home buyer planes... Supply: urban planning - determined by government (unless you live in houston or something:P )
My solution (as a libertarian)... end the charade that is global free trade... or at least slow it down. Countries aren't willing to accept it. In doing so, they are causing more harm than just limiting free trade a little bit.
Let North America have Google. Let China have Baidu. Let North America have Cisco. Let China have Huawei.
Maybe North America keeps NAFTA as its free trade zone and anything beyond that is considered charity. If you invent something and another country wants it, you do what China does today: demand they partner with a local firm and do a technology transfer.
I have no idea what the 'right' size for a free trade zone is. And I know about all the bad impacts of limiting trade. I just think they're better than where we're going with what looks to me as centrally planned capitalism as opposed to a free market.
My main argument was not that people are incapable of learning these concepts. Just that they are hard and require a significant change in how someone thinks. I would suspect that after your tutoring that first year CS kid he probably changed his whole way of thinking about problems (not just CS problems... all kinds of problems)
Of course we teach by examples and metaphors to get the concepts through. That's true in any realm.
But once you get the 'concept' the textual aspect of programming is not a barrier. There is no need for these graphical programming languages as they just make things tedious and slow for the students... yet they keep coming up.
I'd much rather the effort be spent on individual learning, or if they want to do something techie... build some flash tutorials to demo these concepts.
And yes, the programming environment and language are very important. But they're not the barrier. We're not dealing with object oriented stuff or anything yet. I certainly wouldn't choose c++ to intro anything. We're talking high school here:P I wouldn't touch on pointers or references.
The difference between an int and a String is about as complex as I like to get and even that comes a bit later.
I'm by no means suggesting that if you start with any kid from birth, that you couldn't teach them any of these concepts. That I firmly believe.
Do I think by the time they reach high school, some of their brains may be so wired to think a certain way that it is near impossible to teach these concepts? Possibly.
And again, I don't say that as a bad way. Some kids might be raised to be more musical, physical, imaginative... I have no issue with that.
There's also the reality that you can't make programming much more friendly than most of today languages.
I taught high school computer science and its amazing to see the difference between kids. But more importantly, the concepts are what is hard. It is not the expression of those concepts.
I don't know what it is with so many academics and educational people who seem to think the concepts are easy... we just need the right way to express them.
The same kid who struggles with the notion of a variable in algebra is the same kid who will struggle with the notion of a variable in a programming language. No amount of drawing boxes to show it is 'holding' a value will help any more than saying this is X.
These are just difficult concepts: variables, sequential steps, algorithms... Most of us who program take these things as trivial. Most of us who did quite well in school take these things as given. Most of us who naturally think analytically about issues take these things for granted.
That's just not how most of the population thinks. I have friends who are teachers who still don't understand what fractions really mean and how to do basic math on them.
These are just hard concepts. Part of me thinks that such people may never get it until they change their entire way of thinking. If you brain cannot comprehend the idea of a variable; you will never be able to think analytically; and you'll never be able to program.
I don't say that in a bad way. I'll probably never understand the complexity of modern art until I change my entire way of thinking.
Yet, time and time again, we see these tools which claim to make programming easy. Do you really think the big block is that a kid cannot comprehend an IF statement, yet if you draw a big diamond in a flow chart, it all becomes clear? No, that's the easy part.
Time and time again, we see educational academics trying to say we just need to express ideas in a way students can understand.
Yet, it is the concept that is hard. People can easily learn the different expressions of that concept.
But anyways. There's no demand for products like this except by academia and the education bureaucracy.
So you spend a whole of time saying something that I already say in my original reply.
"So basically everyone can become a doctor or lawyer just by going to school. Not that I'm opposed to that... I believe most professional licenses are for protection more and quality less... and they tend to do more harm than good... but anyways."
Grades are necessary for our current society and economic model.
Get rid of grades and the rest of society has to change with it.
There are many highly paid fields which could be done better by computers. Many of these are just protected by government law.
Overall, the computers can or will be able to match a highly quality person in any field. You'll always be able to find some exception where a human expert might be better, but for the mass provision of a service, computer analysis will tend to be just as good.
I don't have the link, but I recall reading a medical journal whereby a computer was able to judge within 98% (I remember this number) of the BEST radiologist in detecting breast cancer.
Now just think about that. Radiologist are some of the best paid medical professionals. We could reduce their job to a computer no different than a manufacturing worker. We'd still need to maintain some expert radiologists to keep up with programming and optimizing the machines and a few to verify odd cases, but the vast majority could be replaced by computers, reducing the cost of healthcare dramatically.
But we won't do that of course. It's a protected profession.
As we build up the power of computers, people are going to find just how 'routine' so much analysis and judgment is overrated when it comes to the provisioning of mass services.
It's the same in education. I taught high school for a few years (math and cs). You listen to the educational hyperbole that goes on and about tailoring lesson plans for students... it's all a bunch of hoopla to protect the profession.
Just think about it for a second. There are thousands upon thousand of high schools. You're not teaching anything different in your grade 9 math. You're going to get about the same distribution of different kinds of learners and behavioral problems. You should know your neighborhood and it's going to be the same story year after year.
Yet, teachers pretend they're providing value by customizing things... instead of just using premade lesson plans we could provide on mass scale and be done with it.
Now sure, we can tell the kids they are special and unique:P but from a lesson plan perspective... they're not.
We see the same thing in finance. ETFs and others have shown to work just as well... if not better... than actively managed funds. Again, you just need a few experts at the top... and then a computer to mass provision the service.
Again, I'm sure you can find the top 2% in any field that provides exceptional value beyond what a mass provisioned service can provide.
There is nothing easier than finding fault with something. Every human system has faults.
The only question is how do you do something better. Okay, we get rid of grades. Great!
How do we decide who goes on to professional schools like law, medicine... or do we just let everyone go into those programs? Then we can't be grading in those programs as they're not used to grading. So basically everyone can become a doctor or lawyer just by going to school. Not that I'm opposed to that... I believe most professional licenses are for protection more and quality less... and they tend to do more harm than good... but anyways.
I could list a million more problems. But I won't.
Suffice to say. Grades are among the best alternatives we have. They're not perfect.
"If the user is willing to do anything the app or websites tells them to, well, you can't protect them."
This is simply not true. It might involve removing freedom and capability from the user, but it certainly can be done.
A few months back I had to clean up my mother's laptop because some malicious website said it had detected a virus she had to 'click' here to install their virus cleaner. Eventually I cleaned it up.
After, I told her never to install anything. She gave me this weird look and asked why would it let me install something dangerous?
At it's most basic, an OS could certainly do this. It could have a list of verified binaries it can run or only allow applications to be installed via an 'app-store' and you 'trust' the OS company to make sure things are on the up and up. There are various things that could be done in terms of application rights management.
For example, one nasty malicious attack I saw on Windows was one that actually replaced the network stack. Now this is certainly not a common operation. Why does the OS allow you to replace the network stack... even under 'admin' permissions. You should have to jump through another loop to replace such system level functionality. Maybe enter a 'system admin' mode.
There's simply a heck of a lot OS can do to protect users. These don't come without tradeoffs mind you, but a lot more can be done.
It is immaterial because it doesn't differ much from other fields. The reality is that pretty much everything we design today is going to be designed using tools that can be expressed in various kinds of media.
Why is the expression of an idea in software any different from expressing that idea in a blue print.
Just think about rationally for a second. There are physical patents on particular shapes of medical trays for optimal layout in medical procedures.
How is this different from a patent on an GUI design in a particular field. If anything, there are too few software patents in these kinds of areas when compared to other fields.
The 'new ideas' are the same. Someone thinks they've found a better layout. It's just one is expressed as blueprints and built with screws and metal. The other as software.
And then there are more research intensive fields. Drug compounds and chemicals are patented. These are similar to the software patents that might take heavy research. Compression algorithms and the like..
What's the difference between a drug company spending billions and getting a patent on a combination of chemicals and a software company that spends billions on a great search algorithm or some new compression or video detection algorithm?
Would it help if people didn't patent source code, but drew a flow chart and fancy diagrams to express the novel idea.
On that the courts got it right today by viewing software design is just another kind of design... which it is. What is a patent on a drug but an expression of a drug formula... which at the end of the day can be written... just like software.
If, and that is a big if, we want to reward innovators by patents, it makes sense to then reward the novel idea. We want to reward the person who thinks up the idea to cover a coffee cup with a piece of cardboard. We want to reward new ways of improving the user shopping experience or even new ways of compressing data...
The fact software is written is immaterial. Mechanical engineers have blue prints and drawings. Chemical engineers have chemical formula and processes.
All have components. All have combinations and designs.
Imagine designed a electrical product and having it patented. Now imagine the same idea being patented but you implement in an FPGA. Now imagine the same idea being patented, but you can do it via a CPU.
It's the same thing.
Typically patents, even in software are with respect to a certain application and not purely a mathematical function.
Historically the argument against software patents was that it was a mathematical algorithm which could not be patented.
for example, an off sited joke is that of Amazon's one-click patent. Well it is within a specific set of claims regarding a shopping cart model. At the time, lots of websites needed you to type in your credit card and address... so it probably had a certain uniqueness.
Similarly you have in the mechanical world, simple patents like say the piece of cardboard that covers your hot coffee cup. There's nothing 'unique' about using something to hold a hot object. Yet there's patents on that in specific areas.
I'm not saying patents are good or bad. But I just don't see the big difference between software patents and physical patents when it comes to actual patent applications and grants.
The major differences are : 1. that software is a relatively new field so there's lots of activity. 2. The barrier to entry is low so all kinds of startups and amateurs enter the field and enter the patent system. This is unlike say the auto or chemical industry. 3. Similar to 2, other industries are more costly to enter and so the big players are used to licensing models.
Again, I'm not here to say whether patents are good or bad. I'm just saying I don't see how they differ from other patents when you actually get to seeing real software patents and real physical patents.
I'd love for you to explain in detail with real world examples what makes software patents so much worse than regular patents. With brothers in both chemical and mechanical engineering, they deal with the same crap we do.
The problem is not with the patent office itself. Its 'easy' for us to decide what is and is not a valid patent in hindsight looking back on history and dealing with abstracts.
It's much harder to figure out what a patent is when reading the claims section of an actual patent when an industry is blossoming and they get thousands if not millions of applications. Each of course having to be looking at with rigor and written by lawyers for the purpose of confusing the patent agent into thinking their idea is unique.
And no, I absolutely don't think you should ever separate the laws from the administration of said laws. I think this is one of the absolute WORST things you can do as a public official.
Hey, wouldn't it be great to control drugs so people don't get addicted (good law)... oh damn... its not working, we're ruining people's lives, sending people to jail for smoking a plant, spending god knows how much on police resources and prison guards... (bad administration)
No, the law IS the administration of said law. The law is all the details and all the processes that the piece of legislation has.
ObamaCare is not just a title of a law that says making 'making healthcare affordable'. It is the thousands of pages of details in the law that will either make it or break it.
We shouldn't be making laws without a reasonable means of administrating them in a sensible fashion.
If the patent process is broken... the patent law is broken.
If you want a term for 'ideas' we think are good... these are called ideals or goals. It might be a goal that we protect intellectual property just as it might be a goal to provide healthcare to people or eliminate poverty.
The any piece of legislation or law is defined by the letter of the law and the details in its administration.
Same way the government has infringed on countless other areas.
It's a regulation.
The federal government gets around various state rights programs by taxing people, setting up a federal program, then attaching a bunch of regulation the states must adopt. Don't like the law? Don't take the money!
Here, this is a regulation on education. Don't like it? Don't be a teacher. Don't worry, the government has already taxed people enough to fund the public monopoly system so most people don't have the ability to go to private schools and free themselves of the regulations they might not like.
There are very rights that are actually rights anymore. The power hungry folks in government figured out long ago you just need economic coercion to violate the rights of most people and you can bypass the whole rights and separation of powers all together.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Clinton did not balance the budget. I'm Canadian and I don't think Chretien and Martin did either. They all used financial math, but were basically in deficit in other areas.
For example, in Canada, they raided the Unemployment insurance fund. They also cut spending at the federal level, pushing costs down to the provinces, which ran deficits... and they pushed things down to the cities... which delayed infrastructure... creating an infrastructure deficit. Bridges are now falling apart in places like Montreal.
I'm not going to research Bill Clinton, but he raided social security. He was also just lucky enough to be president during the tech boom. I guess its obvious presidents take credit for everything when the economy is booming, but not when its in the gutter. Both Obama and Bush just blamed it on the bad economy.
As to why deficits don't matter. I don't really agree with it, but it makes a certain sense. They don't. Not because there aren't bad consequences or anything. There are. It's just we'll never be free from debt, so we're always be in deficit and increasing debt. So why hobble society in other areas by spending cuts or tax hikes, when it's really not doing anything to solve the problem.
It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on or even what Western Nation you live in (with the exception of small export oriented states). They're all in deficit. They're all in debt. There is no hope or even will of that deficit being conquered or that debt being repaid as you or I would pay off our debt to live debt free. This has been true pretty much since the 1960s or even earlier.
If we couldn't balance the books when China and India were backwards countries, when 'free trade' worked to our advantage when we were exporters, when the baby boom population was on the good side of economics, when we still had mass employment via the industrial revolution, when tax rates were much higher... what on earth makes you think we can do it now?
And so the politicians do what they do. They don't care about the deficits or debts. They know they will either have to grow their way out or print their way out. In the chance they can't do that, they will default and then they'll have the chance to maybe balance the books starting with a blank slate.
Just look at this debt deal.Basically a trillion dollars in cuts. Also some 'future' cuts premised on politicians agreeing to those cuts. This doesn't really solve anything.
So why bother? Deficits don't matter. In my book, we won't be able to grow our way out. So we'll either inflate or default. In either case, we're not willing to take on the big 'cuts' now. So why bother with these silly games. Just default when its time and you'll have to do all the big changes to your society one time.
Slashdot Mirror
well, it does it better and cheaper than humans doing the same thing.
Most of the financial industry is just that... people looking at some trends and data and taking actions. It's one of the reasons most actively managed funds don't beat the index year over year. They really don't do anything useful.
They have layers and layers of financial people and associates and advisers... to basically do nothing productive. They basically act as proxies to the actual funds.
So we replace them with a some algorithmic systems. Someone still has to program the system and you typically get some very skilled people designing the algorithm.
At its 'most honest and useful level' it might be a simple algorithm to track dividend paying stock based on their average X year dividend payout. Granny might like this kind of system.
Of course it can be more 'trader' based and just look for patterns and buy and sell quickly...
But again... the point is there were humans doing the same thing. The computer just does it better and more efficiently. There is just no reason to employ many people in the financial services industry when they don't do anything that can't be done better via a computer.
These folks wouldn't blink an eye if they could automate a manufacturing worker's job. There's really no reason we should worry about the automation of 'skilled' or 'educated' labor.
And I don't really buy the line that human oversight will somehow act to prevent feedback loops... Computers are surely vulnerable to it. But so are people. So are regulations.
And they've already begun putting in various stop measures in case things go crazy. We could work towards the 'trader based hft' by maybe throwing in random delays or something... but I think the stock exchanges can work towards monitoring.
Sales tax gives you a choice on what to pay.
Depending on your jurisdiction in NA, most essentials are not taxed. Food, clothing under a certain amount...
I'm far from rich, and I'd prefer a sales tax as it gives the people the most power. If the government is doing okay and life is regular it gets tax money. If people start not to trust the government and disagree on how it spends, they can just cut back on spending.
Now this is not going to grab taxes from the mega rich... so maybe the income tax should only apply to mega rich > 500k or something...
In Europe this is not often the case as even food and transit are taxes... albeit at a lower rate.
The funny thing about all this is that no matter what tax is cut, there's a group of people who claim it is regressive.
Case in point. In Canada, the conservatives cut the federal sales tax by 2%. Now if what you say is true, this would have been great for poor people as the sales tax is 'regressive'. Yet the normal poverty advocates went nuts claiming the sales tax was mainly benefiting rich people who buy cars and big items.
I agree... except I put the blame on 'us'.
It's not up to the general public to gain an understanding of the complexities of our field.
It is up to us to present our labor to the public.
Just like every other kind of skilled labor does. Even plumbers as in your example have a journeyman program. Sure you can probably hire any plumber to fix a small leak, but if its a serious problem or anything to do with infrastructure, you probably need to hire a licensed journeyman plumber.
We don't even bother doing something along the lines of plumbers or electricians. They do more knowledge retention than us.
I personally think it is us. :P
Too many of us refuse to see how the rest of the world operates and thus don't want restrictions on labor. Perhaps for good reason. If Mark Zuckerberg has to go through a software residency program before writing code, he might not have ever written Facebook
Businesses of course don't want to either as it costs money and slows down innovation.
But it's largely because 'we' don't want those restrictions.
We could organize as a profession, put in restrictions, hike the cost of labor and knowledge retention... if we wanted to.
It always surprises me when fellow CS people or engineers say stuff as if there is no other way.
I would say that any software system is sufficiently complex to rival any legal system or medical system.
Doctors go through years of general medical school. After that, they really can't do anything serious. To actually 'operate', they need years of residency training with an expert in their field. Only then can they actually operate. Once they get their niche specialization, they are paid very well just for that knowledge, even if they largely do the same thing day in and day out.
Let me contrast that with my experience in the computer field. I thought I got the offer of a lifetime working for a major telecom equipment manufacturer. It sure paid well. In my 1st month there just learning the code base, I get an software escalation call... apparently the routers in Qatar or something had stopped sending traffic. Umm... okay... you want me to debug the routers in Qatar and fix the problem?
At first I thought maybe they were just messing with me, seeing if I could handle the calls and bring in the right people. Which I did and we did solve the problem... but...Nope... as time went on, this is just how things are done. Random new people were rewriting critical pieces of code.
Now, I know many fields do this for quality reasons. Perhaps we can sacrifice the quality as most of the time we're not doing brain surgery. But that is not the point.
The point is that most other professions and even skilled labor like trades have 'knowledge retention' built right into their profession.
What IT people and CS people have not done is developed a system whereby 'knowing the system' is part of the profession.
Now of course this would mean increased costs and slower innovation... at least in the short term... yet it would be better for the field as a whole.
I'm not saying we *should* do this, just pointing out that that is how the rest of the skilled labor works in society.
It's posts like this that should show you that Europeans are just as enlightened or ignorant as Americans.
Do you really think that is the average person's experience at the airport? Do you really think Americans are nuts?
Seriously, you think the US is some crazy place?
I was born in Africa, have a very Muslim name, live in Canada now, and have been to the US dozens of times. Sometimes for work. Sometimes for play.
You know what US border/airport security is like? It's pretty routine... apart from the whole taking off my shoes thing. But the personnel are pretty normal. No different than I've experienced in the UK or Holland.
During my last trip for work in Florida, I left my shaving cream and toothpaste in my carry-on bag by accident. Normally I throw it all out. It got flagged in the scanners. The guy called his supervisor. They had me step aside, emptied the bag... found out it was shaving cream, cracked a joke... threw out my shaving cream, and I was on my way. Pretty regular behavior.
I'm sure some people have had bad experiences. But people have had bad experiences in the UK, Canada, France... too. The US just isn't that nutty.
Failure is part of capitalism. An essential part.
The whole point of capitalism is when a company/institution screws up or ceases to serve its customers, it loses market share, goes under or even dies... and other better/more responsible ones take their place.
Notwithstanding that a big reason why the banks took such big risks is because they know they are backed by the government. Do you think they would have made all those irresponsible loans if they weren't being backed by the government purchases at Freddie and Fannie...
Do you think people would have entrusted the banks wit their money if the banks were not FDIC insured?
Banking is and always been a heavy government enterprise. Perhaps for good reason.
Let me tell you a story.
I'm Muslim... albeit a fairly non-religious one.
I grew up in a poor country. We'd go to the mosque. We'd discuss. Apparently all our problems would be solved if we just implemented Islamic Rule. Poverty? Violence? All gone if we just implemented Islamic rule. The poor would be taken care of by Zakaat. Families would be stronger by the stronger moral code.
Of course what happens when they do implement Islamic law? Nothing really improves. In many cases, things got worse. More specifically... what was Islamic Law? No one really knew. No one could really define it except to put some religious guys in charge.
Ah, so you would think there is something wrong with Islamic Rule? Ah, but you'd be wrong. You see, they just implemented it in wrong in every society it has ever been tried. Saudi, Iran, the Ottoman Empire, Malaysia, Somalia, Afghanistan... all just do it wrong.
---------------------
Which I guess brings me to communism. If it has been tried to be implemented, and failed many times... there's probably a reason for that.
I'm not going to write an essay on the failings of implementing communism. I'm sure you can read any book on it... difficulty in central planning, difficulty getting people to do the work that the 'group' deems to be done (it's easy to convince the academic of communism as he'd still be in a comfortable office doing interesting work... it's harder to convince the guy sent to the mines in Siberia).
And if you think worker-owned things are a paradise... look into the history. They had many such examples in the US... and all over the world for that matter. Heck, they are here today. Despite the rhetoric, huge parts of the economy are non-profit or coops. They just don't solve any grand problems.
The problem they faced... is the same problem faced by 'capitalism'... they faced distributional issues. How much to pay the workers? How much they could sell? How much demand? Is the group decision better than experimenting on your own?
Just picture own worker owned group building car engines.
Another worker owned group assembling cars.
You face a standard distributional problem. The more the engine workers want, the less the car assemblers can make. If they both want more, they might sell less cars.
But again, there is a long history of cooperatives in many countries. Some pretty successful. Others not so much. The good thing about cooperatives, is you can do it right now. There is nothing in a capitalist society that prevents you from starting a cooperative. There are already coop banks, farms, insurance companies, supermarkets...
You don't need to wait for society to change itself. You can setup a cooperative and try and solve the problems yourself.
However, given history and all those who claimed the name of communism, does it really hurt you to drop the word communism and pick up a new label to describe your worker paradise?
Noam Chomsky for example, doesn't walk around waving the communist flag. He calls himself something like a libertarian socialist.
But I'm not here to argue dictionary definitions, but you cause yourself and your ideals ridiculous harm by using a tarnished label.
I'll go back to my Islamic story once more. Today I'm in Canada and in the past few years there were ideas floated on having non-criminal disputes resolves by arbitrators. These were done before by all sorts of people... including other religions. But the Muslims decided to setup their arbitration system under the label:
Shariah Law
Yes, in a post 9/11 world... in a post Afghanistan world... these idiots decide to parade the label of Shariah Law. Never mind that it isn't actually law per se. Never mind that it is a voluntary arbitration system.
Yep... it was shot down of course.
And quite frankly, if you want your ideas of worker owned means of production to thrive, you might want to drop your pride and adopt a more accurate label. Communism doesn't just mean worker owned production.
You can fight over the word if you want... I'm not going to.
Communism just doesn't mean cooperative industry as understood by 99.99% of the population.
"You know what wouldn't have gotten done?
The internet."
You're pretty dim if you think the internet wouldn't have been done without the military. Networks would have been developed. It might not have been IP. It might have been some other technology. But we'd be able to communicate digitally.
"China doesn't give a shit about patents, and they're not subsidizing research. They're subsidizing production. They want to become the world's go-to source for solar panels, and they intend to do so by strangling our ability to produce them."
So, if China doesn't give a shit about patents, then it's even better for the rest of the world. When they come up with good solar tech, then we just copy them.
Okay, so they subsidize production. So China wants to make its products cheaper for the world. This is China subsidizing us. We get cheaper solar panels. How is this not a win for us?
"Incidentally, what are your thoughts on oil subsidies?"
Depends what you mean by subsidy. If you mean the government actually giving them money... I'm against it. If you mean, they just get a tax break, I have no issue with that.
These kind of subsidy schemes rarely work out for the benefit of the nation. It generally benefits a few in the 'industry of choice', but it doesn't benefit the country as a whole.
Case in point would be the US military. The US has basically been subsidizing the rest of the world's military. Allowing other nations to spend less on national security that they otherwise would. This has been a huge expense on the US budget.
In the big picture... outside of the military industrial complex, this has been a net loss for the USA.
Just like the solar situation.
In the big picture... outside of the solar industry, these huge solar subsidies are a net loss for China.
You know... there was a time people didn't want to work. They actually colonized countries to make those people work. They actually enslaved other people to make them work.
Work is not a goal of mine.
Getting the things we want/need is a goal of mine.
If China wants to be our 'workers'... let them. I have no desire to manufacture solar panels.
I said it in my original post and I'll say it again, the only time this should be a concern is if we begin to lack the ability to produce things at all. Then to get back up and running is a pain. China spent the past few decades building up its know how.
So China is wasting countless amounts of money on solar and you'd like us to do the same?
No thank you.
If the US lacked the know how or technology to bring up a solar plant or wasn't doing research, that would be one thing.
Yet, the US is capable of ramping up production if it wants. There is plenty of research going on in the US at the university and private company level. If/when solar does become viable, the US will not be at much of a disadvantage.
"if it weren't for massive government subsidies - paying for R&D costs directly, and providing a huge protected market mainly through the defense department - then the computer revolution which drove the 1990s boom WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED."
Let's assume this is true for a minute. I don't think it is. Free people seem to have a history of invention. Edison for example worked as a clerk and then funded his experiments. Tesla teamed up with JP Morgan. You'd wonder how anything got done before the US invented the military industrial complex.
But none the less, let us assume it is true. That at least the US got an advanced lead due to military protection of its industry.
Has it been a net benefit for the US to spend billions and billions, perhaps trillions on the military... all to get a lead on high tech?
Advancing technology is not the only goal in the minds of people. Most people just want to live their life. In the grand scheme of things would it have been so tragic if the computer boom happened in 2010 instead of the 1990s?
And quite frankly, if China wants to spend billions in subsidies that means a few things for me.
1. We shouldn't have open market agreements with them as they are not playing by the same rules. We shouldn't pretend to have free trade when we don't. I'm much more in favor of stopping trade with countries that don't follow the same rules as us, than I am in some huge central planning government initiative.
2. Patents only last 20 years or so. If china wants to spend billions on research for us to reap their technology when it's right, more power to them. China is subsidizing the rest of the world. It's not gaining any advantage. I'm from Africa and we had decades of politicians trying to build our own industry and it just results in more poverty and government corruption (central administration tends to do that). Today, we just buy things cheap from China and life is better for it.
I'll make this point again... if in 10 years solar is king and china is the leader, it will be us who have benefited from their research... not them. They will have invested all that money that we can just use.
Their advantage will be the same one they've had... the cost advantage. That is little to do with our R&D.
I've just patented your idea:
Method of displaying menu commands in a ribbonized bar based on dynamic user search input.
It's not bullshit. It's fact. You can't apply different rules to different workers and expect equal competition.
But you could have kept reading.
"I don't care which set of rules. Demand they implement the same minimum wage. Or get rid of the minimum wage here."
No.
They are free to leave their job and then be friends.
Can I as an employee of my company say whatever I want, bad mouth the product, reveal company secrets.... and still expect to keep my job?
There is an agreement between me and my employer on things related to the company.
The same is true in education. To prevent special treatment, sexual relationships... it is a reasonable policy to prevent this kind of relationship. Not that I agree with it; I just think it is reasonable. Just like I don't agree with many of my companies policies, but they are reasonable.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech without consequence. It just means the government won't arrest you for it.
Now in this case, it is more complex as the government has a monopoly on education. It's not like each school is run separately, so if one school implemented this policy, a teacher could just quit and go to another school.
But in the end, it's the same. This is not a violation of freedom of speech.
I agree on some level, except:
1. Why only minimum industrial and labor protection? How about the minimum wage? Why do we prevent Western people from fairly competing for jobs? That is what the government does by having a minimum wage much higher than countries we trade with. It makes it illegal for the Western worker to compete.
2. "Software is another matter." Actually, I'm worried that you say this. Read the article. This is not just about cost. China has spent the past few decades reforming its economy, buying technology, forming technology partnerships. Ask yourself why? Know how is the key. You can't build an industry if you don't know how no matter how cheap you are. It's why cities around the world can put in place whatever tax incentives they want, they can't replicate silicon valley. So the more industries you lose, the more you will lose in the future as you lose the know how. So the more software jobs we lose, the less software we will produce in the future. Our best young people won't go into the field.
I often argue in favor of a free market. Indeed, I think globalization and the free market benefits everyone. However, we don't have a free market and the distortions in our society can make things worse.
As I said, by signing free trade deals with countries with lower minimum wages, we are distorting our own local market. Driving away industry faster than it would if we applied the same rules to our workers as theirs. It also distorts the labor market driving people away from industries facing competition and into industries with local and government protection (education, healthcare, law). I don't care which set of rules. Demand they implement the same minimum wage. Or get rid of the minimum wage here.
Given that we will never have a free market. I often say this:
A free market in a contained zone is a better option than government centrally planned capitalism in a global world.
This is what is happening BTW. Western government are not sitting around letting their economies readjust to the global reality. They are playing any and all kinds of central planning tricks to keep the status quo. They're going into debt in the trillions trying to keep up our advantageous standard of living. They're bailing out banks. They're trying to prop up markets and pick winners and losers and drive industry in certain directions.
Some of the biggest markets in most western countries are entirely government run. Things like the housing market for example. :P )
Demand:
immigration - completely determined by government.
ability to pay - increasingly determined by government with low interest rates, home buyer planes...
Supply: urban planning - determined by government (unless you live in houston or something
My solution (as a libertarian)... end the charade that is global free trade... or at least slow it down. Countries aren't willing to accept it. In doing so, they are causing more harm than just limiting free trade a little bit.
Let North America have Google. Let China have Baidu.
Let North America have Cisco. Let China have Huawei.
Maybe North America keeps NAFTA as its free trade zone and anything beyond that is considered charity. If you invent something and another country wants it, you do what China does today: demand they partner with a local firm and do a technology transfer.
I have no idea what the 'right' size for a free trade zone is. And I know about all the bad impacts of limiting trade. I just think they're better than where we're going with what looks to me as centrally planned capitalism as opposed to a free market.
My main argument was not that people are incapable of learning these concepts. Just that they are hard and require a significant change in how someone thinks. I would suspect that after your tutoring that first year CS kid he probably changed his whole way of thinking about problems (not just CS problems... all kinds of problems)
Of course we teach by examples and metaphors to get the concepts through. That's true in any realm.
But once you get the 'concept' the textual aspect of programming is not a barrier. There is no need for these graphical programming languages as they just make things tedious and slow for the students... yet they keep coming up.
I'd much rather the effort be spent on individual learning, or if they want to do something techie... build some flash tutorials to demo these concepts.
And yes, the programming environment and language are very important. But they're not the barrier. We're not dealing with object oriented stuff or anything yet. I certainly wouldn't choose c++ to intro anything. We're talking high school here :P I wouldn't touch on pointers or references.
The difference between an int and a String is about as complex as I like to get and even that comes a bit later.
I'm by no means suggesting that if you start with any kid from birth, that you couldn't teach them any of these concepts. That I firmly believe.
Do I think by the time they reach high school, some of their brains may be so wired to think a certain way that it is near impossible to teach these concepts? Possibly.
And again, I don't say that as a bad way. Some kids might be raised to be more musical, physical, imaginative... I have no issue with that.
There's also the reality that you can't make programming much more friendly than most of today languages.
I taught high school computer science and its amazing to see the difference between kids. But more importantly, the concepts are what is hard. It is not the expression of those concepts.
I don't know what it is with so many academics and educational people who seem to think the concepts are easy... we just need the right way to express them.
The same kid who struggles with the notion of a variable in algebra is the same kid who will struggle with the notion of a variable in a programming language. No amount of drawing boxes to show it is 'holding' a value will help any more than saying this is X.
These are just difficult concepts: variables, sequential steps, algorithms... Most of us who program take these things as trivial. Most of us who did quite well in school take these things as given. Most of us who naturally think analytically about issues take these things for granted.
That's just not how most of the population thinks. I have friends who are teachers who still don't understand what fractions really mean and how to do basic math on them.
These are just hard concepts. Part of me thinks that such people may never get it until they change their entire way of thinking. If you brain cannot comprehend the idea of a variable; you will never be able to think analytically; and you'll never be able to program.
I don't say that in a bad way. I'll probably never understand the complexity of modern art until I change my entire way of thinking.
Yet, time and time again, we see these tools which claim to make programming easy. Do you really think the big block is that a kid cannot comprehend an IF statement, yet if you draw a big diamond in a flow chart, it all becomes clear? No, that's the easy part.
Time and time again, we see educational academics trying to say we just need to express ideas in a way students can understand.
Yet, it is the concept that is hard. People can easily learn the different expressions of that concept.
But anyways. There's no demand for products like this except by academia and the education bureaucracy.
So you spend a whole of time saying something that I already say in my original reply.
"So basically everyone can become a doctor or lawyer just by going to school. Not that I'm opposed to that... I believe most professional licenses are for protection more and quality less... and they tend to do more harm than good... but anyways."
Grades are necessary for our current society and economic model.
Get rid of grades and the rest of society has to change with it.
There are many highly paid fields which could be done better by computers. Many of these are just protected by government law.
Overall, the computers can or will be able to match a highly quality person in any field. You'll always be able to find some exception where a human expert might be better, but for the mass provision of a service, computer analysis will tend to be just as good.
I don't have the link, but I recall reading a medical journal whereby a computer was able to judge within 98% (I remember this number) of the BEST radiologist in detecting breast cancer.
Now just think about that. Radiologist are some of the best paid medical professionals. We could reduce their job to a computer no different than a manufacturing worker. We'd still need to maintain some expert radiologists to keep up with programming and optimizing the machines and a few to verify odd cases, but the vast majority could be replaced by computers, reducing the cost of healthcare dramatically.
But we won't do that of course. It's a protected profession.
As we build up the power of computers, people are going to find just how 'routine' so much analysis and judgment is overrated when it comes to the provisioning of mass services.
It's the same in education. I taught high school for a few years (math and cs). You listen to the educational hyperbole that goes on and about tailoring lesson plans for students... it's all a bunch of hoopla to protect the profession.
Just think about it for a second. There are thousands upon thousand of high schools. You're not teaching anything different in your grade 9 math. You're going to get about the same distribution of different kinds of learners and behavioral problems. You should know your neighborhood and it's going to be the same story year after year.
Yet, teachers pretend they're providing value by customizing things... instead of just using premade lesson plans we could provide on mass scale and be done with it.
Now sure, we can tell the kids they are special and unique :P but from a lesson plan perspective... they're not.
We see the same thing in finance. ETFs and others have shown to work just as well... if not better... than actively managed funds. Again, you just need a few experts at the top... and then a computer to mass provision the service.
Again, I'm sure you can find the top 2% in any field that provides exceptional value beyond what a mass provisioned service can provide.
There is nothing easier than finding fault with something. Every human system has faults.
The only question is how do you do something better. Okay, we get rid of grades. Great!
How do we decide who goes on to professional schools like law, medicine... or do we just let everyone go into those programs? Then we can't be grading in those programs as they're not used to grading. So basically everyone can become a doctor or lawyer just by going to school. Not that I'm opposed to that... I believe most professional licenses are for protection more and quality less... and they tend to do more harm than good... but anyways.
I could list a million more problems. But I won't.
Suffice to say. Grades are among the best alternatives we have. They're not perfect.
"If the user is willing to do anything the app or websites tells them to, well, you can't protect them."
This is simply not true. It might involve removing freedom and capability from the user, but it certainly can be done.
A few months back I had to clean up my mother's laptop because some malicious website said it had detected a virus she had to 'click' here to install their virus cleaner. Eventually I cleaned it up.
After, I told her never to install anything. She gave me this weird look and asked why would it let me install something dangerous?
At it's most basic, an OS could certainly do this. It could have a list of verified binaries it can run or only allow applications to be installed via an 'app-store' and you 'trust' the OS company to make sure things are on the up and up. There are various things that could be done in terms of application rights management.
For example, one nasty malicious attack I saw on Windows was one that actually replaced the network stack. Now this is certainly not a common operation. Why does the OS allow you to replace the network stack... even under 'admin' permissions. You should have to jump through another loop to replace such system level functionality. Maybe enter a 'system admin' mode.
There's simply a heck of a lot OS can do to protect users. These don't come without tradeoffs mind you, but a lot more can be done.
It is immaterial because it doesn't differ much from other fields. The reality is that pretty much everything we design today is going to be designed using tools that can be expressed in various kinds of media.
Why is the expression of an idea in software any different from expressing that idea in a blue print.
Just think about rationally for a second.
There are physical patents on particular shapes of medical trays for optimal layout in medical procedures.
How is this different from a patent on an GUI design in a particular field. If anything, there are too few software patents in these kinds of areas when compared to other fields.
The 'new ideas' are the same. Someone thinks they've found a better layout. It's just one is expressed as blueprints and built with screws and metal. The other as software.
And then there are more research intensive fields. Drug compounds and chemicals are patented. These are similar to the software patents that might take heavy research. Compression algorithms and the like..
What's the difference between a drug company spending billions and getting a patent on a combination of chemicals and a software company that spends billions on a great search algorithm or some new compression or video detection algorithm?
Would it help if people didn't patent source code, but drew a flow chart and fancy diagrams to express the novel idea.
On that the courts got it right today by viewing software design is just another kind of design... which it is. What is a patent on a drug but an expression of a drug formula... which at the end of the day can be written... just like software.
If, and that is a big if, we want to reward innovators by patents, it makes sense to then reward the novel idea. We want to reward the person who thinks up the idea to cover a coffee cup with a piece of cardboard. We want to reward new ways of improving the user shopping experience or even new ways of compressing data...
It's all design and expression of ideas.
You speak in the abstract about software.
Let's bring it down to a practical level.
The fact software is written is immaterial.
Mechanical engineers have blue prints and drawings.
Chemical engineers have chemical formula and processes.
All have components. All have combinations and designs.
Imagine designed a electrical product and having it patented.
Now imagine the same idea being patented but you implement in an FPGA.
Now imagine the same idea being patented, but you can do it via a CPU.
It's the same thing.
Typically patents, even in software are with respect to a certain application and not purely a mathematical function.
Historically the argument against software patents was that it was a mathematical algorithm which could not be patented.
for example, an off sited joke is that of Amazon's one-click patent. Well it is within a specific set of claims regarding a shopping cart model. At the time, lots of websites needed you to type in your credit card and address... so it probably had a certain uniqueness.
Similarly you have in the mechanical world, simple patents like say the piece of cardboard that covers your hot coffee cup. There's nothing 'unique' about using something to hold a hot object. Yet there's patents on that in specific areas.
I'm not saying patents are good or bad. But I just don't see the big difference between software patents and physical patents when it comes to actual patent applications and grants.
The major differences are :
1. that software is a relatively new field so there's lots of activity.
2. The barrier to entry is low so all kinds of startups and amateurs enter the field and enter the patent system. This is unlike say the auto or chemical industry.
3. Similar to 2, other industries are more costly to enter and so the big players are used to licensing models.
Again, I'm not here to say whether patents are good or bad. I'm just saying I don't see how they differ from other patents when you actually get to seeing real software patents and real physical patents.
I'd love for you to explain in detail with real world examples what makes software patents so much worse than regular patents. With brothers in both chemical and mechanical engineering, they deal with the same crap we do.
The problem is not with the patent office itself. Its 'easy' for us to decide what is and is not a valid patent in hindsight looking back on history and dealing with abstracts.
It's much harder to figure out what a patent is when reading the claims section of an actual patent when an industry is blossoming and they get thousands if not millions of applications. Each of course having to be looking at with rigor and written by lawyers for the purpose of confusing the patent agent into thinking their idea is unique.
And no, I absolutely don't think you should ever separate the laws from the administration of said laws. I think this is one of the absolute WORST things you can do as a public official.
Hey, wouldn't it be great to control drugs so people don't get addicted (good law)... oh damn... its not working, we're ruining people's lives, sending people to jail for smoking a plant, spending god knows how much on police resources and prison guards... (bad administration)
No, the law IS the administration of said law. The law is all the details and all the processes that the piece of legislation has.
ObamaCare is not just a title of a law that says making 'making healthcare affordable'. It is the thousands of pages of details in the law that will either make it or break it.
We shouldn't be making laws without a reasonable means of administrating them in a sensible fashion.
If the patent process is broken... the patent law is broken.
If you want a term for 'ideas' we think are good... these are called ideals or goals. It might be a goal that we protect intellectual property just as it might be a goal to provide healthcare to people or eliminate poverty.
The any piece of legislation or law is defined by the letter of the law and the details in its administration.
Same way the government has infringed on countless other areas.
It's a regulation.
The federal government gets around various state rights programs by taxing people, setting up a federal program, then attaching a bunch of regulation the states must adopt. Don't like the law? Don't take the money!
Here, this is a regulation on education. Don't like it? Don't be a teacher. Don't worry, the government has already taxed people enough to fund the public monopoly system so most people don't have the ability to go to private schools and free themselves of the regulations they might not like.
There are very rights that are actually rights anymore. The power hungry folks in government figured out long ago you just need economic coercion to violate the rights of most people and you can bypass the whole rights and separation of powers all together.
Clinton did not balance the budget. I'm Canadian and I don't think Chretien and Martin did either. They all used financial math, but were basically in deficit in other areas.
For example, in Canada, they raided the Unemployment insurance fund. They also cut spending at the federal level, pushing costs down to the provinces, which ran deficits... and they pushed things down to the cities... which delayed infrastructure... creating an infrastructure deficit. Bridges are now falling apart in places like Montreal.
I'm not going to research Bill Clinton, but he raided social security. He was also just lucky enough to be president during the tech boom. I guess its obvious presidents take credit for everything when the economy is booming, but not when its in the gutter. Both Obama and Bush just blamed it on the bad economy.
As to why deficits don't matter. I don't really agree with it, but it makes a certain sense. They don't. Not because there aren't bad consequences or anything. There are. It's just we'll never be free from debt, so we're always be in deficit and increasing debt. So why hobble society in other areas by spending cuts or tax hikes, when it's really not doing anything to solve the problem.
It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on or even what Western Nation you live in (with the exception of small export oriented states). They're all in deficit. They're all in debt. There is no hope or even will of that deficit being conquered or that debt being repaid as you or I would pay off our debt to live debt free. This has been true pretty much since the 1960s or even earlier.
If we couldn't balance the books when China and India were backwards countries, when 'free trade' worked to our advantage when we were exporters, when the baby boom population was on the good side of economics, when we still had mass employment via the industrial revolution, when tax rates were much higher... what on earth makes you think we can do it now?
And so the politicians do what they do. They don't care about the deficits or debts. They know they will either have to grow their way out or print their way out. In the chance they can't do that, they will default and then they'll have the chance to maybe balance the books starting with a blank slate.
Just look at this debt deal.Basically a trillion dollars in cuts. Also some 'future' cuts premised on politicians agreeing to those cuts. This doesn't really solve anything.
So why bother? Deficits don't matter. In my book, we won't be able to grow our way out. So we'll either inflate or default. In either case, we're not willing to take on the big 'cuts' now. So why bother with these silly games. Just default when its time and you'll have to do all the big changes to your society one time.