Anyone who actually believes is in the 'innovation economy' is an idiot. The includes a surprising number of academics for some reason.
Apart from 'stealing' technology, there are a whole host of other reasons.
1. Without low-level work, you won't get good people going into the field in the first place. Just picture yourself as a top 10% high-school kid planning your future career. You can risk becoming and engineer/scientists/entrepreneur who will work their ass off in the rare hope of making it big.... or you can get a 'good' job joining the government or government protected field (legal, medical). That's right... your best and brightest will stop going into the field. Contrast that to say China, where their best and brightest will go into the field. Many won't fulfill their potential... but they'll still have jobs as network administrators, sustaining engineering... It makes sense for them to invest in their field. In 20 years, it will be their best and brightest versus our C students in the R&D field. Not to mention... you know all those brilliant immigrants who seem to make up a large percentage of our grad schools... China and India are both working extra hard to keep their best talent there.
2. You often need to work in an industry to 'innovate'. As more and more functions are moved overseas, they'll be able to innovate on those processes and products that we never get exposure to.
3. China especially has pursued trying to establish its own industry as opposed to just being an outsourcing hub. And as they get 90% of the functionality, they'll get 99% of the sales. Huaweii is a good example. They don't have to get 100% of the functionality or service as Cisco. But most of the world isn't going to pay for that when Huawei can undercut them them. With those sales comes market share, R&D dollars. Before the US and Europe would export a lot of tech to the developing world. Today, any sane developing country is going to choose a Chinese company. Cheaper, most of the functionality...
4. Even if you are able to be innovative, it's not an economy. Maybe if you're a small country of a few million, you can sustain yourself off a few innovative industries (singapore, finland...). But there's not enough innovative wealth to sustain 300 million people. Like it or not the vast majority of jobs are regular work... and you're not 'too good' for them. Assembling widgets, farm work, textile work...
5. There is a certain colonial mentality that people seem to think the West must always be on top and relaxing. While the developing world serves them. It's why you have western people talk about guaranteed incomes, while they need to hire mexicans to work their farms... That world ended long ago... but the mentality is still there...
in addition to blackmail, they might want to check if you're prone to talked about work.
Just off the top of my head... A monogamous married man is less of a risk than someone who bring a new girl home each nite in a drunken haze. The drumken haze guy could leave document around the house, tell random secrets, maybe gloat about some secret project, be tempted to let a hot Chinese spy into his home...
While a wife might find stuff out, she'll be less likely to spread it around knowing the husband's predicament.
I really have no idea how secretive JPL needs to be... but assuming they work on secret stuff, it's probably a valid concern.
That's part of it. Yet, I would argue there are a lot of reasons that terrorists may tend to be engineers.
1. Of course, their skills are useful, so they are more likely to actually carry out actions.
2. Similar to 1. Engineers tend to be rational thinkers. The idea of burning a flag seems pointless to me. So does rioting in the streets. So engineers are more likely to think though their resistance... which would lead to terrorism as an expression of resistance.
3. Engineers are one of the professions that can lead to isolation of some kind. Young minds sent abroad to train at a foreign university. The sheer involvement in your work. This can result in radicalization and detachment of humanity.
4. Despite the idea... most terrorists are not poor. You need to feel real injustice to become a terrorist. Poor people don't have the luxury of time to care about such things. Engineers tend to be well off enough to care. To put together a tale of the injustices. To feel wronged. To feel constrained...
5. There is a certain get it done attitude about engineers. They might be less likely to engage in what they perceive to be mindless bureaucratic drivel or what our what they see as pointless negotiations. Just let me do my damn work and stop having these meetings:P
I could list many more... but then I fear I'd convince myself:P
Alright... let's see how the government is screwing people here
1. It mandates a technology out of existence to 'increase efficiency', thus affecting workers in that field 2. The government creates an unfair environment where Western workers must obey a minimum wage with a western wages and environmental laws... meanwhile it signs free trade deals with countries with different wage/environmental laws. Thus, jobs go to the cheaper country... and this switch is made easier when the government mandates the old technology is obsolete and the companies must make new investments... Either get rid of free trade or mandate similar wage/environmental laws. pick your poison. 3. If the government keeps electricity prices low, it screws us by making people make poor investment choices. Yes, I'd rather people pay the true cost of electricity. The government screws people out of learning to be responsible adults. People don't learn to be responsible mature adults when the government is expected to make all their decisions. For the long term, it is disastrous. Why is it that 50 years ago, people could deal with their own healthcare questions. They could deal with end of life issues. They could deal with it. Today, people just want a magician to somehow cure everything. A population of irresponsible citizens doesn't create a prosperous nation.
4. Not directly related to this issue, but the government does not always (i would say almost never) make the right decision. For every 'right' action like this one, there are a million bad actions. Just look at the ethanol subsidies. Governments are much more likely to bow to special interests (farmers, big business, big unions...) than make sound policy choices.
And no, if the government is keep electricity prices artificially low, they still don't have the right to mandate away a particular technology. There are better ways to ensure the poor aren't too affected. Like, they could give you a ration. Your first X kilowatts are charged at a low rate and anything above the ration is charged the 'true' price. This way people are still free and get to learn to be responsible while the poor are not too affected.
I used rather tame example of science mixing with politics so as to not give an extreme example...
yet... since you seem to want one...
Nazis pursued very cruel acts in the name of science. So much of what we now know today in science could really only have been figured out by such evil acts. Things like how the human body reacts to extreme temperatures, water... All the name of science.
Let's not even get into the whole genetic purification in the early part of the 20th century.. sterilizing people with inferior genes.
Residential schools with respect to the Native Indians thinking their parents were not fit and thus removing them and placing them into state schools were they could be schooled factually.......
I'm an engineer. I understand the scientific method. I trust it. Yet, I don't give any leeway to scientists and other people who claim the mantle of science. A scientist is just an honest as a religious person, a politician... whatever belief system they claim to follow... it is never pure when there are other motives/power at hand.
That is the main point. Think about that for a second. It's not about what the pure philosophy says... but what the people do. And unless you're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me the scientists are pure of heart and mind... we should always treat the results of science (done by regular people) with extreme suspicion... and any attempts to use it for policy and power with even greater suspicion.
Treating scientists like saints is like people treating priests like saints... works out great... but some of them might end up molesting you. People do not follow their 'code'. Be it the bible or the scientific method.
So hopefully you are wise enough to see the nature of man... including scientists. No group will ever be pure.
If you think scientists are pure... well then I'll wait around for Christians' Jesus to return in his purity to lead us:P
Scientists get all worked up like religious people do trying to defend their system.
Maybe this will help.
'Bad Muslims' do all kinds of bad things around the world like killing people for drawing a cartoon or bombing innocent people... all in the name of religion. Then we have to sit around hearing people say... "That is not true Islam. True Islam is peaceful. These terrorists and backwards people just aren't practicing Islam correctly."
Now let's transpose that with the scientific community and global warming.
People who believe in science do all kinds of bad things like wanting more state control over everyone's lives, increasing taxes, funneling money to their causes... all in the name of science. Then we sit around hearing people like you say...
"That is not true science. True science is objective. True science is all about learning new facts and verifying and applying the scientific method"
In both cases. Great... whatever the purity of your idea is... wonderful. If the people stayed a hole writing papers, no one would care what you do. What we actually about is what the followers of your idea do.
Like it or not, the second scientists decided to get involved in politics, they subject themselves to the same problems that everything else does. Introducing science into politics and policy is not going to purify politics. Just like introducing religion into politics is not going to purify politics.
Politics infects and worsens both science and religion.
Unfortunately, I fear science is about to lose a whole lot of credibility... and it really is more like a religion than many would care to admit. Science is no long about powerless people writing and discovering truths.
Modern science as a religion is a way of life impacting public policy, how to educate children, what kind of foods we should eat... all very tempting ways to exert control. Once again just like religion.
But that's not true science! I know... and Iran and Saudi Arabia don't practice true Islam either. But that don't matter when you're being stoned for wearing inappropriate clothing or being taxes for driving a car so the government can spend more money.
Re:A bunch of bullshit to justify offshoring
on
Tech Sector Slow To Hire
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I read through all the posts so far, but decided to make your my entry point.
Why would a company train an American worker who they will have to pay lets say 85k/year... then they can pay someone in India/China lets say 25k who is more willing to work harder?
It's a very serious question that sadly both the left and the right seem to completely ignore. Everybody likes to export. I'm sure Americans feel proud that Intel, AMD, Microsoft, RedHat, TI... are world leaders that export to the world. Free trade like that is wonderful isn't it?
Indeed, the old arrangement went something like this: The west will do all the fun and interesting work and sell such products to the developing world The developing world will do all the work we don't want to do (farming, manufacturing, textiles...) and sell it to us. Sounds like a match made in heaven. To simplify it. We trade then CPUs and they give us coffee beans:P
Yet, what happens when we in the west really can't do anything much better than the developing world? Hey, I hate to break it to you, but it is unreasonable to expect a western person to be much 'better' than a person from India or China. Education is highly overrated as an economic advantage. Education is really just another commodity.
Yet, we look at the assumptions. I live in Canada and our liberal party sat around signing free trade deals, running trade ventures to China... always telling us the people that if we just invest in education, we can still compete! I've come to call it the cult of education. A brand of the progressive religion. They have an undying faith that education solves everything.
economic competition? answer: more education! crime? answer: more education! innovation? answer: more education! family problems? answer: more education! specially ECE!
It's like a religion. I a Muslim and when I used to go to the mosque we would hear the same thing. The solution to all problem is Islam! Why can't we just get everyone to believe and obey and be a good Muslim. Then everything will be good! It's the same crap. If only we could education everybody then all the problems are solved... except they're not.
Canada is one of the most educated countries in the world... yet we don't do anything with all that education. We don't have a lot of great companies. We really don't invent a whole lot. To this day, Canada is really still a natural resource country like Australia. We lucked out with oil!
And so we come back to the reality... that we must deal with reality. Education is a commodity. When enough people are educated, there is no real benefit in more education or training. You/Me are really no smarter than people in India and China *in the long haul*. There is no intrinsic reason me/you should be paid more than someone in India and China. Correspondingly there is no intrinsic reason we should be more productive or better than someone in India/China.
So we're left with questions about free trade. We have 6 billion people in the world. How many do you need to be education to build all the technology we need? Here's a hint... not many. Since education is a commodity, it will go the lowest bidder... Since we in the west have refused to accept reality, we'll keep falling. We have a minimum wage here that people we trade with don't have to respect. That follows the entire wage chain. The progressive cult of education keeps feeding us the crap that we can be more innovative if we just spend more on education and we can still make lots of money... ignoring the realities of life.
Look, a textile worker, waiter, warehouse worker, farm worker... are all jobs society needs done and they should be jobs a society should be willing to do. We're out of whack if we think our education is so special. This is the real imbalance in our society. It is plain and simply not.
The real issues are those of free trade and wage distortions. I get really angry when I hear people say thin
Pardon me if I have a little more respect for Bill Gates who earned his living selling products people want, building an entire company that employs 100K people versus William Gates Sr. who made his living off the bureaucracy known as the legal system.
And nowhere in the article you cite does it mention William Gates Sr. lecturing Bill Gates about giving. Most self-made rich people are very giving.
It is the wealthy who make their living based on government and patronage that tend to be the most selfish... as they know their wealth is dependent upon taking from other unwillingly.
That is typically why lawyers support big government and often the high taxes that come with it. Big government = high regulation = more jobs for lawyers and the security that comes with it./end lawyer rant.
So yes a waitress has every right to be mad if you don't tip. But still remember, she is still paid a base salary and the restaurant still charges something for the meal. Imagine the restaurant industry if you really only had to pay what you wanted? It might be a good gimmick at one place, but the industry as a whole would collapse.
Humans have existed for thousands of years. Nowhere in history has a society functioned depending on people just doing the moral thing or giving back where they should. Somewhere along the line, you have to be smart about life.
If you want to make a living doing your craft, you don't give away your labors for free. It really is that simple. Now we all do things for free, but I don't depend on them for my living.
I write code for a living. I will not contribute to any open source application that is a final product. I'll contribute to research products, random libraries... but not to fully functional commercial products. Because I view it as killing the industry I work in. For example, I would gladly contribute to log4j because it is not a final product, but just something to make my life easier. But I certainly wouldn't contribute to Open Office as a final product.
Now those are just my boundaries and arbitrary reasons. You might think differently of course. I suppose if I worked for Google which makes money on ads, then I might be more amenable to contributing.
The open source world has been largely naive. Much of it funded by government via universities and others from companies whose business is hardware or services or now ads. That's all great... and if you aren't doing and CHARGING for one of those... you're pretty naive to expect to even get a penny back from your work.
Are 17 year olds who mow lawns stupid enough to report such income on their tax return?
As much as we can rant about the government here, the blogger is just as much to blame by reporting such small income.
If Philly is declaring blogging a business... well TRY and take advantage of it... pay the $300, and then write off your home, computer, meals, car... you use all those for blogging you know! Not sure how the IRS would like that:P
Sure government is messed up... but you're equally stupid if you haven't learned how to deal with the screwed up government. In this case, don't report the income. Let them come to you and then claim ignorance... because that's what it is. You have no idea how to navigate the tax system as it related to blogging.
This just in... changing penalties will also impact crime. It's a feedback system.
It goes back to the old argument of does free will even exist. Well it doesn't really matter. Suppose free will does not exist. The reality is being raised in a society where crimes are harshly punished influences you as a person. Change that, it changes you.
Maybe I'm just not a saint, but there's a lot of crimes I don't do just because I fear the punishments.
I have little doubt that murders don't do a calculation on jail time and determine it's worth. But scam artists, thieves, while collar criminals certainly do.
It's why I say all white collar, theft... should be punished with heavy jail time.
And murderers, well is there really helping someone who is willing to commit such a crime? I say, just lock them up. Not because it deters them, but to isolate them from society. The evidence of 'curing' people is really low. Quite frankly, one truly evil crime like planned murder or true rape, and they should lock them up for life.
And victimless crimes (drugs...) well they shouldn't be prosecuted at all.
I still don't have a concrete view on patents (if they're good or bad).
I'm a practical person by nature and I can only look at how the patent system works as implemented. In that sense, both hardware and software patents are 'bad' today. Perhaps I'm just biased to my own field... but I certainly think IF (that's the big if there...) we're going to have patents, then software patents are equally valid. Things like compression algorithms, encryption... methods of network optimization... would all constitute valid patents and licenses will make up most of the industry.
Being a practical person, I see how other knowledge intensive fields work. No other field is as free as software. The medical profession protects itself and its knowledge. Their workers value their own members and their own work. One wonders if doctors would be willing to invest decades to become a neurosurgeon if they could not count on a regular family doctor being a good job. Similarly, I wonder if we would get the people willing to invest in deep computer science if there are no good stable well playing jobs available. Patents are one way we ensure money flows into the field... even if to big companies. They create a barrier to entry that ensures knowledge is paid for.
Once again, I'm a little torn. The libertarian in me would like to see the protections doctors/lawyers... removed and have open access in all those field. Then there are times I think of a more 'public good' and think we need to protect our deep knowledge workers so their value is not reduced to nothing.
You have probably never worked with hardware patents.
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/products/subject/business/forbes/ford.html [wiley.com] ---------- In 1879, a Rochester lawyer named George Selden applied for a U.S. patent for a road vehicle powered by a gasoline engine. Through his own delays and those of the government, however, a funny thing happened. Selden, who never built an actual automobile, received the patent on it in 1895, long after other people were building automobiles. In return for a percent of future revenues, Selden assigned the valuable patent to a group of New York financiers in 1897, and they defended it vigorously. In the first years of the century, they settled on a process by which automakers joined the Association of Licensed Automotive Manufacturers (ALAM), which served as a conduit for licensing fees for 1 1/4 percent on annual sales. Most of the country's automakers seemed reconciled to joining ALAM. ---------
Read a little bit about hardware patents. They're the same obvious, lawyer filled crap that software patents are.
I would only ask what is the difference between a software patent and a 'hardware' patent? Both my brother are fellow engineers. They work in chemical and mechanical fields respectively. They both deal with patents in the same way as us people in software do. That is to say, 99% of the patents they have to deal with are 'no-shit' patents.
I remember not too long ago there were ads about the Toyota Prius and in the ad, they mention how it has over 1000 patents or something crazy like that. Do you really think Ford, GM, Honda... just going about their regular business doing regular incremental improvements would never have come up with 99% of the 'innovations' in the prius?
Patents are patents. What we deem 'obvious' and 'trivial' in the software realm, other fields have had to deal with for generations. They just deal with it by licensing... probably because they are more established and used to it. There's also less of a 'free' movement in the other fields. My brother's company just patented a medical equipment storage device that patents the way things are stored. It's a plastic tray and holes for various pieces of equipment... but the placement is patentable:P By this logic... a software's GUI could be patented.
You mention a compiler being patented. Sure. The fact that it wasn't shows that the software industry is probably much nicer than most other industries in terms of patents. You are darn sure the equivalent of a compiler would have been patented in the mechanical field.
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/products/subject/business/forbes/ford.html ---------- In 1879, a Rochester lawyer named George Selden applied for a U.S. patent for a road vehicle powered by a gasoline engine. Through his own delays and those of the government, however, a funny thing happened. Selden, who never built an actual automobile, received the patent on it in 1895, long after other people were building automobiles. In return for a percent of future revenues, Selden assigned the valuable patent to a group of New York financiers in 1897, and they defended it vigorously. In the first years of the century, they settled on a process by which automakers joined the Association of Licensed Automotive Manufacturers (ALAM), which served as a conduit for licensing fees for 1 1/4 percent on annual sales. Most of the country's automakers seemed reconciled to joining ALAM. ---------
This is how the patent business has always worked. Patenting a gas powered road vehicle would be to the automobile industry as compilers are to the computing industry. And boy did they and do they try and patent everything... But in the end... life went on. Cars were built. Innovations happened. Maybe at a slower pace. Maybe some potential companies were never formed.. Maybe a lawyer got rich undeservingly... but it certainly wasn't the end of the world...
I'm not a defender of software patents... I just don't see the BIG DIFFERENCE between software patents and physical patents.
As to the 'public good'... well that's a vague concept. You seem to associate the public good with GNU or open access. Someone else might say a public good is ensuring stable companies or rewarding the industry or rewarding innovators even if there is a huge overhead. Is it not strange that the two most industrialized and innovation nations (Japan and the USA) both are known for insane patents? There might be something to that... Maybe the business folk are only willing to invest large sums of money on proprietary things... and that drives business and plows money into the industry? Who knows. But arguing the 'public good' is rarely a good argument as no one can agree on what the public good is or if a particular policy actually gets you there.
You might value computer science as a study unto itself. Good for you. That is not my view. I like things brought to market. And in a world of government spending, proper
I'm also a little puzzled at the obsession over 'innovation'. Are you nothing unless you invent something totally new and awesome?
Personally, I think the innovation culture is a kind of addiction. We're pretty much dependent on innovation as our economies would collapse without it. All the regular jobs can be done much cheaper elsewhere... Instead of admitting our addiction, we trot around thinking we can supporting entire nations on innovation. With enough education, government funding... we can innovate totally new things to prosperity.
Pardon my grumpy old 30 year old self... but it's pretty nuts if you ask me to have a society completely dependent on innovation. Sure you could probably support a population of a few million... but certainly not a country of 300 million.
Because of this addiction, we forget that regular routine jobs and regular improvements are the bulk of life and they're really valuable. Start-ups are great... don't get me wrong... I like innovation... A certain level is needed to keep existing markets from stagnating. Its the obsession I'm talking about.
I think we're also more than likely to see the slowing of startups. As the 'regular' jobs are not done here anymore, you won't have the trained veterans needed to actually do innovative startups. Probably the smartest guy in my university class now runs a web commerce site. I make no judgment towards it. He runs it really well.. but all that brain power could have been turned into so many highly technical fields. Yet, he's not there as those jobs are not there anymore. There is no incentive to invest long term in deep knowledge... so you get really shallow innovation (facebook, twitter...)
Like it or not, a lot of big companies produce and mould the talent that brings startups. It's a shame big companies don't keep that talent any longer and invest and build their people.
The last heavily trained generation is slowly leaving the tech sector... who will take their place? It certainly won't be here... look to india/china where it's a really good career out of poverty.
How about requiring all software be written and approved and digitally signed by licensed engineers with legal responsibility.
That way, if malware gets in, you have someone to blame.
Pardon me for combining job protection with societal benefit:P... you know... like how doctors and lawyers do. Sure it stifles open access... but at the benefit of quality and job protection...
I would ask what is wrong with tiered servicing? Consumers can and should pay for different level of servicing.
What's wrong with the other end doing the same. As long as all parties are treated/charged the same for their use, I see nothing wrong with it.
For net-neutrality supporters that oppose a move like this, they're basically wanting society to be worse off just for an idea. Google putting servers inside Verizon only speeds things up. It doesn't deprive anyone else of anything.
As long as verizon gives all companies the same right to locate dataservers on premise, I see nothing wrong with this at all.
Not to mention... as a teacher...you have a to cater to a class of 25 students.
I taught high school computer science and math. Regular kids. In the whole class, maybe 4 out 25 could actually write and understand a program they wrote. Half the kids can't understand basic algebra... which makes understanding variables very hard.
What should a teacher do? Cater an advanced and exciting programming course for the 4 students who actually do it and appreciate it?
I really don't get why people expect the school to do their learning for them. School gives you a basis. It's up to you to pursue your passion. The few kids who loves cs, they stayed after class... heck... I let them work on other projects in class because they were so far ahead. You learn your interests on your own.
I remember high school. I was learning c,c++, MFC (evil I know) on my own accord and I didn't expect the teacher to do it. I dare say, I hung around 'non-technical' people and this was not their field.
It would be like me going to arts class and the teacher is going on about advanced painting techniques... I cant even paint in the lines... and my eyes can't differentiate shades... I expect kids interested in art to pursue as a passion on their own time... join a club... do it at home.
And lastly, I seriously doubt having a teacher who knows something at a high-school level makes a great difference. We can't do anything advanced because the material is too advanced for a sizable class. The kids who can 'get' it are the same kids who can 'get' calculus and algebra... and these kids do fine on their own.
I bet the arrogant poster above did a lot of self-learning without the help of us teachers.
Actually I'm thoroughly against trying to increase the expertise in skills in the teaching. A person who 'knows' math really isn't going to teach math any better to a high school class. There's a limit to how much better you can do a job. Don't kill me for this analogy.
But driving a bus is a skilled job. Especially driving in the city. Yet, at some point, you're good enough at driving a bus that your riders won't notice if you have your mechanical engineering degree, PHD in transit and a PHD in psychology to analyze rider behavior. At the end of the day, you're driving a bus and being friendly.
So it is with teaching. Once you get good enough at class control, caring about the kids, doing lesson plans, inheriting lesson plans... the 'academic' knowledge becomes rather mundane. Much more important is how much a teacher cares and the effort they put in... and that's not something that more 'academic specialization' can get you.
We always get these articles... cool ways to teach kids... problems in educations...
I hate to break it to Mr.ARM... but not everyone finds computing interesting. People have different interests.
More importantly though is the job issue. Kids are not going to invest the time into the field without good and stable job prospects. Those do not exist.
Hence the kids who could be your engineers and developers are now being doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers... How many of us really bright people who went into the field would have taken the 'safe professional' route if we could do it over again? I certainly would. Heck, I became a teacher... just no full time jobs here in Ontario, Canada... or I'd be a teacher right now. It's a much nice life.
Which brings us to another conundrum that makes me more suspicious. The motives of the education industry. I hate to break it to them, but increasing money on education is not going to make us more educated and better prepared in industry. It's just going to draw more people who should be in industry... to work the education system. Basically it will have a counter-effect of actually reducing the nations competitiveness.
America and most western countries have kids who are more than capable of being top engineers and scientists. We are more than educated We just choose not to do such work. And I don't blame the kids.
Make engineering a better profession and maybe you can get some kids back. But it's going to take a generation or two. Lord knows, if my kids ever even mention being an engineer or a software developer... they're getting a good...talkin to
If they're smart...go into a regulated profession dealing with people that gets government money or mandates (doctors, nurse, lawyer, teacher...) If they're not that smart... then find any other job.
I just wonder if the policy makers are truly this ignorant. They really have no idea what engineers in the field are thinking. We have no seat at the table. Only economists and the social sciences. Maybe those in power just really never hear our side?
Yes you gain as you apparently support the monopoly public system. Just because you can choose something else, does not make the primary system not a monopoly. What distinguishes an abusive monopoly is its actions make it really really really inconvenient to choose an alternative.
So Microsoft threatening to cut off PC distributors from special pricing if they install firefox... that is an abusive monopoly. Microsoft making it hard on 3rd party companies by not exposing their interfaces... that is abuse of monopoly.
The monopoly government system taking money from all of us... even those of us who do not wish to use it... is an abusive monopoly. It makes it really really really improbable that the average person will pay twice and thus actually use the other service.
Those of us who wish to have choice and control over our medical affairs lose out. Which I see does not include you... and that is fine. If you're happy with the bureaucrats and government 'panels' making your healthcare choices... wonderful. It's a load off your back.
Just give those of us the equivalent per capita spending... and let me spend it how I want. I do not wish to use the states services. Keep a certain amount of emergency room procedures as that in uncontrollable.
unlike you, I do not see private insurance as a benefit to evil corporations. Choice in my hands is my own power. It empowers the citizen. Most of the western world will find out soon enough the dangers of government monopolies. Europe is already finding out and those paid from the public's taxes are not going to want to cut back.
In any case, I digress... at least marx and the rest could admit their goals. Modern socialists sit around pretending like they aren't hurting anyone else.
I think the use of the word 'bus' is problematic here.
I think of it more as a substitute for light rail.
I don't see it being too useful for new developments, but I could definitely see it being useful in areas where you can't just add another lane for busses or put light rail on its own. A lot of our cities are built up.
So the alternative is either bore underground with an expensive subway, go overhead with an expensive skytrain (like vancouver), or do something like this. I'm idealizing a bit here just from the video. But if the only infrastructure needed in the guide rail... it could definitely be cheaper.
Safety wise... no doubt there are issues. I'm especially worried about drivers thinking they are going to miss their turn while being stuck under the bus. They might end up doing some stupid things. I really dont see trucks swerving out of the way like in the video. They would probably either be content to stay behind the bus or go the next lane gradullay.
lol. I suppose you think public education is not a coercive monopoly too.
Maybe if you are a millionaire you can afford to pay twice for everything. Pay once for healthcare in the public system. Pay again for your own healthcare choice.
Pay once for education in the public system. Pay again for your own educational choice.
You know what would be 'fair' to everyone. Have everyone pay taxes for healthcare and education. Just like today. But if you choose not to use the public monopoly, you get a per capita voucher to spend wherever you want.
One of the major problems I have is people are associating science with morality. The scientific process is by its nature completely and utterly valueless. It's why the scientific method is a great tool for objective thinking.
Let us assume that global warming is occurring and it is predominantly caused by human pollution. Let's suppose we have 100% undeniable scientific proof this is the case.
What does that mean in terms of political policy? Absolutely nothing. Science can only state what is or potentially what the consequences will be. It cannot make value judgments... which is what politics is all about.
For example... let's take China. A huge polluter and contributor of green house gasses. What is the value judgment balancing the environmental effects of pollution with the ability to bring a billion people out of poverty?
Or in the US. What is the value judgment of tackling global warming versus resolving terrorists and failed state / healthcare / deficits / freedom...
On these value judgments, anyone's opinion is equally valid. The so-called joe-six pack's opinion is just a valid as someone with 3 PHDs. As it is about values. Science cannot tell you what your values are.
Unfortunately, this is where I think science is doing itself a disservice by coming too involved in politics. It's in everything.
Science indicating global warming happening -> We must introduce a carbon tax or Science shows early childhood education improves test scores -> We must introduce mandatory government run ECE.
It is the implicit assumption that what science shows in one domain should immediately be implemented without regard for the values in other domains. It is this modern aspect of science that does sadly make it like religion.
It is really no different than a theocracy which says what 'God' says goes. GOD says adultery is bad -> make law punishing adultery. They make no effort to talk about other domains (freedom, civil liberties, respect for those who disagree, innovation....)
And so to close. Global warming is happening is scientific fact. This does not mean we must take any kind of action to stop it.
Well yes. Prices in remote areas should be higher.
Something are cheaper in cities (internet). Somethings are more expensive (housing...). Somethings are cheaper in the country side. Somethings are more expensive.
You pay the cost for your lifestyle. If you live our in the country side, maybe it should cost $20.00 for a simple letter mail. I don't see anything 'wrong' or 'immoral' or 'explosive' about that.
Sounds like perfect training to me. Get kids to believe they have to accept bad people in positions of authority and they have no choice to leave the system.
Give them 20 years, and they'll be adults will to accept being at the mercy of a public school monopoly run by teacher unions and you have no choice, but to accept their right to your money.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who actually believes is in the 'innovation economy' is an idiot. The includes a surprising number of academics for some reason.
Apart from 'stealing' technology, there are a whole host of other reasons.
1. Without low-level work, you won't get good people going into the field in the first place. Just picture yourself as a top 10% high-school kid planning your future career. You can risk becoming and engineer/scientists/entrepreneur who will work their ass off in the rare hope of making it big.... or you can get a 'good' job joining the government or government protected field (legal, medical). That's right... your best and brightest will stop going into the field. Contrast that to say China, where their best and brightest will go into the field. Many won't fulfill their potential... but they'll still have jobs as network administrators, sustaining engineering... It makes sense for them to invest in their field. In 20 years, it will be their best and brightest versus our C students in the R&D field. Not to mention... you know all those brilliant immigrants who seem to make up a large percentage of our grad schools... China and India are both working extra hard to keep their best talent there.
2. You often need to work in an industry to 'innovate'. As more and more functions are moved overseas, they'll be able to innovate on those processes and products that we never get exposure to.
3. China especially has pursued trying to establish its own industry as opposed to just being an outsourcing hub. And as they get 90% of the functionality, they'll get 99% of the sales. Huaweii is a good example. They don't have to get 100% of the functionality or service as Cisco. But most of the world isn't going to pay for that when Huawei can undercut them them. With those sales comes market share, R&D dollars. Before the US and Europe would export a lot of tech to the developing world. Today, any sane developing country is going to choose a Chinese company. Cheaper, most of the functionality...
4. Even if you are able to be innovative, it's not an economy. Maybe if you're a small country of a few million, you can sustain yourself off a few innovative industries (singapore, finland...). But there's not enough innovative wealth to sustain 300 million people. Like it or not the vast majority of jobs are regular work... and you're not 'too good' for them. Assembling widgets, farm work, textile work...
5. There is a certain colonial mentality that people seem to think the West must always be on top and relaxing. While the developing world serves them. It's why you have western people talk about guaranteed incomes, while they need to hire mexicans to work their farms... That world ended long ago... but the mentality is still there...
in addition to blackmail, they might want to check if you're prone to talked about work.
Just off the top of my head... A monogamous married man is less of a risk than someone who bring a new girl home each nite in a drunken haze. The drumken haze guy could leave document around the house, tell random secrets, maybe gloat about some secret project, be tempted to let a hot Chinese spy into his home...
While a wife might find stuff out, she'll be less likely to spread it around knowing the husband's predicament.
I really have no idea how secretive JPL needs to be... but assuming they work on secret stuff, it's probably a valid concern.
That's part of it. Yet, I would argue there are a lot of reasons that terrorists may tend to be engineers.
1. Of course, their skills are useful, so they are more likely to actually carry out actions.
2. Similar to 1. Engineers tend to be rational thinkers. The idea of burning a flag seems pointless to me. So does rioting in the streets. So engineers are more likely to think though their resistance... which would lead to terrorism as an expression of resistance.
3. Engineers are one of the professions that can lead to isolation of some kind. Young minds sent abroad to train at a foreign university. The sheer involvement in your work. This can result in radicalization and detachment of humanity.
4. Despite the idea... most terrorists are not poor. You need to feel real injustice to become a terrorist. Poor people don't have the luxury of time to care about such things. Engineers tend to be well off enough to care. To put together a tale of the injustices. To feel wronged. To feel constrained...
5. There is a certain get it done attitude about engineers. They might be less likely to engage in what they perceive to be mindless bureaucratic drivel or what our what they see as pointless negotiations. Just let me do my damn work and stop having these meetings :P
I could list many more... but then I fear I'd convince myself :P
Alright... let's see how the government is screwing people here
1. It mandates a technology out of existence to 'increase efficiency', thus affecting workers in that field
2. The government creates an unfair environment where Western workers must obey a minimum wage with a western wages and environmental laws... meanwhile it signs free trade deals with countries with different wage/environmental laws. Thus, jobs go to the cheaper country... and this switch is made easier when the government mandates the old technology is obsolete and the companies must make new investments... Either get rid of free trade or mandate similar wage/environmental laws. pick your poison.
3. If the government keeps electricity prices low, it screws us by making people make poor investment choices. Yes, I'd rather people pay the true cost of electricity. The government screws people out of learning to be responsible adults. People don't learn to be responsible mature adults when the government is expected to make all their decisions. For the long term, it is disastrous. Why is it that 50 years ago, people could deal with their own healthcare questions. They could deal with end of life issues. They could deal with it. Today, people just want a magician to somehow cure everything. A population of irresponsible citizens doesn't create a prosperous nation.
4. Not directly related to this issue, but the government does not always (i would say almost never) make the right decision. For every 'right' action like this one, there are a million bad actions. Just look at the ethanol subsidies. Governments are much more likely to bow to special interests (farmers, big business, big unions...) than make sound policy choices.
And no, if the government is keep electricity prices artificially low, they still don't have the right to mandate away a particular technology. There are better ways to ensure the poor aren't too affected.
Like, they could give you a ration. Your first X kilowatts are charged at a low rate and anything above the ration is charged the 'true' price. This way people are still free and get to learn to be responsible while the poor are not too affected.
I used rather tame example of science mixing with politics so as to not give an extreme example...
yet... since you seem to want one...
Nazis pursued very cruel acts in the name of science. So much of what we now know today in science could really only have been figured out by such evil acts. Things like how the human body reacts to extreme temperatures, water... All the name of science.
Let's not even get into the whole genetic purification in the early part of the 20th century.. sterilizing people with inferior genes.
Residential schools with respect to the Native Indians thinking their parents were not fit and thus removing them and placing them into state schools were they could be schooled factually. ... ...
I'm an engineer. I understand the scientific method. I trust it. Yet, I don't give any leeway to scientists and other people who claim the mantle of science. A scientist is just an honest as a religious person, a politician... whatever belief system they claim to follow... it is never pure when there are other motives/power at hand.
That is the main point.
Think about that for a second. It's not about what the pure philosophy says... but what the people do.
And unless you're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me the scientists are pure of heart and mind... we should always treat the results of science (done by regular people) with extreme suspicion... and any attempts to use it for policy and power with even greater suspicion.
Treating scientists like saints is like people treating priests like saints... works out great... but some of them might end up molesting you.
People do not follow their 'code'. Be it the bible or the scientific method.
So hopefully you are wise enough to see the nature of man... including scientists.
No group will ever be pure.
If you think scientists are pure... well then I'll wait around for Christians' Jesus to return in his purity to lead us :P
I don't think you understand what 'belief' is.
Scientists get all worked up like religious people do trying to defend their system.
Maybe this will help.
'Bad Muslims' do all kinds of bad things around the world like killing people for drawing a cartoon or bombing innocent people... all in the name of religion.
Then we have to sit around hearing people say...
"That is not true Islam. True Islam is peaceful. These terrorists and backwards people just aren't practicing Islam correctly."
Now let's transpose that with the scientific community and global warming.
People who believe in science do all kinds of bad things like wanting more state control over everyone's lives, increasing taxes, funneling money to their causes... all in the name of science.
Then we sit around hearing people like you say...
"That is not true science. True science is objective. True science is all about learning new facts and verifying and applying the scientific method"
In both cases. Great... whatever the purity of your idea is... wonderful. If the people stayed a hole writing papers, no one would care what you do. What we actually about is what the followers of your idea do.
Like it or not, the second scientists decided to get involved in politics, they subject themselves to the same problems that everything else does.
Introducing science into politics and policy is not going to purify politics.
Just like introducing religion into politics is not going to purify politics.
Politics infects and worsens both science and religion.
Unfortunately, I fear science is about to lose a whole lot of credibility... and it really is more like a religion than many would care to admit. Science is no long about powerless people writing and discovering truths.
Modern science as a religion is a way of life impacting public policy, how to educate children, what kind of foods we should eat... all very tempting ways to exert control.
Once again just like religion.
But that's not true science! I know... and Iran and Saudi Arabia don't practice true Islam either.
But that don't matter when you're being stoned for wearing inappropriate clothing or being taxes for driving a car so the government can spend more money.
I read through all the posts so far, but decided to make your my entry point.
Why would a company train an American worker who they will have to pay lets say 85k/year... then they can pay someone in India/China lets say 25k who is more willing to work harder?
It's a very serious question that sadly both the left and the right seem to completely ignore.
Everybody likes to export. I'm sure Americans feel proud that Intel, AMD, Microsoft, RedHat, TI... are world leaders that export to the world. Free trade like that is wonderful isn't it?
Indeed, the old arrangement went something like this: :P
The west will do all the fun and interesting work and sell such products to the developing world
The developing world will do all the work we don't want to do (farming, manufacturing, textiles...) and sell it to us.
Sounds like a match made in heaven.
To simplify it. We trade then CPUs and they give us coffee beans
Yet, what happens when we in the west really can't do anything much better than the developing world? Hey, I hate to break it to you, but it is unreasonable to expect a western person to be much 'better' than a person from India or China. Education is highly overrated as an economic advantage. Education is really just another commodity.
Yet, we look at the assumptions. I live in Canada and our liberal party sat around signing free trade deals, running trade ventures to China... always telling us the people that if we just invest in education, we can still compete! I've come to call it the cult of education. A brand of the progressive religion. They have an undying faith that education solves everything.
economic competition? answer: more education!
crime? answer: more education!
innovation? answer: more education!
family problems? answer: more education! specially ECE!
It's like a religion. I a Muslim and when I used to go to the mosque we would hear the same thing. The solution to all problem is Islam! Why can't we just get everyone to believe and obey and be a good Muslim. Then everything will be good! It's the same crap. If only we could education everybody then all the problems are solved... except they're not.
Canada is one of the most educated countries in the world... yet we don't do anything with all that education. We don't have a lot of great companies. We really don't invent a whole lot. To this day, Canada is really still a natural resource country like Australia. We lucked out with oil!
And so we come back to the reality... that we must deal with reality.
Education is a commodity. When enough people are educated, there is no real benefit in more education or training. You/Me are really no smarter than people in India and China *in the long haul*. There is no intrinsic reason me/you should be paid more than someone in India and China. Correspondingly there is no intrinsic reason we should be more productive or better than someone in India/China.
So we're left with questions about free trade. We have 6 billion people in the world. How many do you need to be education to build all the technology we need? Here's a hint... not many. Since education is a commodity, it will go the lowest bidder... Since we in the west have refused to accept reality, we'll keep falling. We have a minimum wage here that people we trade with don't have to respect. That follows the entire wage chain. The progressive cult of education keeps feeding us the crap that we can be more innovative if we just spend more on education and we can still make lots of money... ignoring the realities of life.
Look, a textile worker, waiter, warehouse worker, farm worker... are all jobs society needs done and they should be jobs a society should be willing to do. We're out of whack if we think our education is so special. This is the real imbalance in our society. It is plain and simply not.
The real issues are those of free trade and wage distortions. I get really angry when I hear people say thin
Pardon me if I have a little more respect for Bill Gates who earned his living selling products people want, building an entire company that employs 100K people versus William Gates Sr. who made his living off the bureaucracy known as the legal system.
And nowhere in the article you cite does it mention William Gates Sr. lecturing Bill Gates about giving.
Most self-made rich people are very giving.
It is the wealthy who make their living based on government and patronage that tend to be the most selfish... as they know their wealth is dependent upon taking from other unwillingly.
That is typically why lawyers support big government and often the high taxes that come with it. /end lawyer rant.
Big government = high regulation = more jobs for lawyers and the security that comes with it.
You make it sound like a point worth making.
So yes a waitress has every right to be mad if you don't tip. But still remember, she is still paid a base salary and the restaurant still charges something for the meal. Imagine the restaurant industry if you really only had to pay what you wanted? It might be a good gimmick at one place, but the industry as a whole would collapse.
Humans have existed for thousands of years. Nowhere in history has a society functioned depending on people just doing the moral thing or giving back where they should.
Somewhere along the line, you have to be smart about life.
If you want to make a living doing your craft, you don't give away your labors for free. It really is that simple.
Now we all do things for free, but I don't depend on them for my living.
I write code for a living. I will not contribute to any open source application that is a final product. I'll contribute to research products, random libraries... but not to fully functional commercial products. Because I view it as killing the industry I work in.
For example, I would gladly contribute to log4j because it is not a final product, but just something to make my life easier.
But I certainly wouldn't contribute to Open Office as a final product.
Now those are just my boundaries and arbitrary reasons. You might think differently of course.
I suppose if I worked for Google which makes money on ads, then I might be more amenable to contributing.
The open source world has been largely naive. Much of it funded by government via universities and others from companies whose business is hardware or services or now ads. That's all great... and if you aren't doing and CHARGING for one of those... you're pretty naive to expect to even get a penny back from your work.
Are 17 year olds who mow lawns stupid enough to report such income on their tax return?
As much as we can rant about the government here, the blogger is just as much to blame by reporting such small income.
If Philly is declaring blogging a business... well TRY and take advantage of it... pay the $300, and then write off your home, computer, meals, car... you use all those for blogging you know! Not sure how the IRS would like that :P
Sure government is messed up... but you're equally stupid if you haven't learned how to deal with the screwed up government.
In this case, don't report the income. Let them come to you and then claim ignorance... because that's what it is. You have no idea how to navigate the tax system as it related to blogging.
This just in... changing penalties will also impact crime.
It's a feedback system.
It goes back to the old argument of does free will even exist. Well it doesn't really matter.
Suppose free will does not exist. The reality is being raised in a society where crimes are harshly punished influences you as a person. Change that, it changes you.
Maybe I'm just not a saint, but there's a lot of crimes I don't do just because I fear the punishments.
I have little doubt that murders don't do a calculation on jail time and determine it's worth.
But scam artists, thieves, while collar criminals certainly do.
It's why I say all white collar, theft... should be punished with heavy jail time.
And murderers, well is there really helping someone who is willing to commit such a crime? I say, just lock them up. Not because it deters them, but to isolate them from society. The evidence of 'curing' people is really low. Quite frankly, one truly evil crime like planned murder or true rape, and they should lock them up for life.
And victimless crimes (drugs...) well they shouldn't be prosecuted at all.
I still don't have a concrete view on patents (if they're good or bad).
I'm a practical person by nature and I can only look at how the patent system works as implemented. In that sense, both hardware and software patents are 'bad' today.
Perhaps I'm just biased to my own field... but I certainly think IF (that's the big if there...) we're going to have patents, then software patents are equally valid. Things like compression algorithms, encryption... methods of network optimization... would all constitute valid patents and licenses will make up most of the industry.
Being a practical person, I see how other knowledge intensive fields work. No other field is as free as software.
The medical profession protects itself and its knowledge. Their workers value their own members and their own work.
One wonders if doctors would be willing to invest decades to become a neurosurgeon if they could not count on a regular family doctor being a good job.
Similarly, I wonder if we would get the people willing to invest in deep computer science if there are no good stable well playing jobs available.
Patents are one way we ensure money flows into the field... even if to big companies. They create a barrier to entry that ensures knowledge is paid for.
Once again, I'm a little torn. The libertarian in me would like to see the protections doctors/lawyers... removed and have open access in all those field.
Then there are times I think of a more 'public good' and think we need to protect our deep knowledge workers so their value is not reduced to nothing.
You have probably never worked with hardware patents.
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/products/subject/business/forbes/ford.html [wiley.com]
----------
In 1879, a Rochester lawyer named George Selden applied for a U.S. patent for a road vehicle powered by a gasoline engine. Through his own delays and those of the government, however, a funny thing happened. Selden, who never built an actual automobile, received the patent on it in 1895, long after other people were building automobiles. In return for a percent of future revenues, Selden assigned the valuable patent to a group of New York financiers in 1897, and they defended it vigorously. In the first years of the century, they settled on a process by which automakers joined the Association of Licensed Automotive Manufacturers (ALAM), which served as a conduit for licensing fees for 1 1/4 percent on annual sales. Most of the country's automakers seemed reconciled to joining ALAM.
---------
Read a little bit about hardware patents. They're the same obvious, lawyer filled crap that software patents are.
I would only ask what is the difference between a software patent and a 'hardware' patent?
Both my brother are fellow engineers. They work in chemical and mechanical fields respectively. They both deal with patents in the same way as us people in software do. That is to say, 99% of the patents they have to deal with are 'no-shit' patents.
I remember not too long ago there were ads about the Toyota Prius and in the ad, they mention how it has over 1000 patents or something crazy like that. Do you really think Ford, GM, Honda... just going about their regular business doing regular incremental improvements would never have come up with 99% of the 'innovations' in the prius?
Patents are patents. What we deem 'obvious' and 'trivial' in the software realm, other fields have had to deal with for generations. They just deal with it by licensing... probably because they are more established and used to it. There's also less of a 'free' movement in the other fields. My brother's company just patented a medical equipment storage device that patents the way things are stored. It's a plastic tray and holes for various pieces of equipment... but the placement is patentable :P By this logic... a software's GUI could be patented.
You mention a compiler being patented. Sure. The fact that it wasn't shows that the software industry is probably much nicer than most other industries in terms of patents. You are darn sure the equivalent of a compiler would have been patented in the mechanical field.
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/products/subject/business/forbes/ford.html
----------
In 1879, a Rochester lawyer named George Selden applied for a U.S. patent for a road vehicle powered by a gasoline engine. Through his own delays and those of the government, however, a funny thing happened. Selden, who never built an actual automobile, received the patent on it in 1895, long after other people were building automobiles. In return for a percent of future revenues, Selden assigned the valuable patent to a group of New York financiers in 1897, and they defended it vigorously. In the first years of the century, they settled on a process by which automakers joined the Association of Licensed Automotive Manufacturers (ALAM), which served as a conduit for licensing fees for 1 1/4 percent on annual sales. Most of the country's automakers seemed reconciled to joining ALAM.
---------
This is how the patent business has always worked. Patenting a gas powered road vehicle would be to the automobile industry as compilers are to the computing industry. And boy did they and do they try and patent everything... But in the end... life went on. Cars were built. Innovations happened. Maybe at a slower pace. Maybe some potential companies were never formed.. Maybe a lawyer got rich undeservingly... but it certainly wasn't the end of the world...
I'm not a defender of software patents... I just don't see the BIG DIFFERENCE between software patents and physical patents.
As to the 'public good'... well that's a vague concept. You seem to associate the public good with GNU or open access. Someone else might say a public good is ensuring stable companies or rewarding the industry or rewarding innovators even if there is a huge overhead. Is it not strange that the two most industrialized and innovation nations (Japan and the USA) both are known for insane patents? There might be something to that... Maybe the business folk are only willing to invest large sums of money on proprietary things... and that drives business and plows money into the industry? Who knows. But arguing the 'public good' is rarely a good argument as no one can agree on what the public good is or if a particular policy actually gets you there.
You might value computer science as a study unto itself. Good for you. That is not my view. I like things brought to market. And in a world of government spending, proper
I'm also a little puzzled at the obsession over 'innovation'.
Are you nothing unless you invent something totally new and awesome?
Personally, I think the innovation culture is a kind of addiction. We're pretty much dependent on innovation as our economies would collapse without it. All the regular jobs can be done much cheaper elsewhere... Instead of admitting our addiction, we trot around thinking we can supporting entire nations on innovation. With enough education, government funding... we can innovate totally new things to prosperity.
Pardon my grumpy old 30 year old self... but it's pretty nuts if you ask me to have a society completely dependent on innovation. Sure you could probably support a population of a few million... but certainly not a country of 300 million.
Because of this addiction, we forget that regular routine jobs and regular improvements are the bulk of life and they're really valuable.
Start-ups are great... don't get me wrong... I like innovation...
A certain level is needed to keep existing markets from stagnating.
Its the obsession I'm talking about.
I think we're also more than likely to see the slowing of startups. As the 'regular' jobs are not done here anymore, you won't have the trained veterans needed to actually do innovative startups. Probably the smartest guy in my university class now runs a web commerce site. I make no judgment towards it. He runs it really well.. but all that brain power could have been turned into so many highly technical fields. Yet, he's not there as those jobs are not there anymore. There is no incentive to invest long term in deep knowledge... so you get really shallow innovation (facebook, twitter...)
Like it or not, a lot of big companies produce and mould the talent that brings startups. It's a shame big companies don't keep that talent any longer and invest and build their people.
The last heavily trained generation is slowly leaving the tech sector... who will take their place? It certainly won't be here... look to india/china where it's a really good career out of poverty.
anywhose...
How about requiring all software be written and approved and digitally signed by licensed engineers with legal responsibility.
That way, if malware gets in, you have someone to blame.
Pardon me for combining job protection with societal benefit :P... you know... like how doctors and lawyers do.
Sure it stifles open access... but at the benefit of quality and job protection...
I would ask what is wrong with tiered servicing?
Consumers can and should pay for different level of servicing.
What's wrong with the other end doing the same.
As long as all parties are treated/charged the same for their use, I see nothing wrong with it.
For net-neutrality supporters that oppose a move like this, they're basically wanting society to be worse off just for an idea.
Google putting servers inside Verizon only speeds things up. It doesn't deprive anyone else of anything.
As long as verizon gives all companies the same right to locate dataservers on premise, I see nothing wrong with this at all.
Not to mention... as a teacher...you have a to cater to a class of 25 students.
I taught high school computer science and math.
Regular kids. In the whole class, maybe 4 out 25 could actually write and understand a program they wrote. Half the kids can't understand basic algebra... which makes understanding variables very hard.
What should a teacher do? Cater an advanced and exciting programming course for the 4 students who actually do it and appreciate it?
I really don't get why people expect the school to do their learning for them. School gives you a basis. It's up to you to pursue your passion. The few kids who loves cs, they stayed after class... heck... I let them work on other projects in class because they were so far ahead. You learn your interests on your own.
I remember high school. I was learning c,c++, MFC (evil I know) on my own accord and I didn't expect the teacher to do it. I dare say, I hung around 'non-technical' people and this was not their field.
It would be like me going to arts class and the teacher is going on about advanced painting techniques... I cant even paint in the lines... and my eyes can't differentiate shades... I expect kids interested in art to pursue as a passion on their own time... join a club... do it at home.
And lastly, I seriously doubt having a teacher who knows something at a high-school level makes a great difference. We can't do anything advanced because the material is too advanced for a sizable class. The kids who can 'get' it are the same kids who can 'get' calculus and algebra... and these kids do fine on their own.
I bet the arrogant poster above did a lot of self-learning without the help of us teachers.
Actually I'm thoroughly against trying to increase the expertise in skills in the teaching. A person who 'knows' math really isn't going to teach math any better to a high school class. There's a limit to how much better you can do a job. Don't kill me for this analogy.
But driving a bus is a skilled job. Especially driving in the city.
Yet, at some point, you're good enough at driving a bus that your riders won't notice if you have your mechanical engineering degree, PHD in transit and a PHD in psychology to analyze rider behavior. At the end of the day, you're driving a bus and being friendly.
So it is with teaching. Once you get good enough at class control, caring about the kids, doing lesson plans, inheriting lesson plans... the 'academic' knowledge becomes rather mundane. Much more important is how much a teacher cares and the effort they put in... and that's not something that more 'academic specialization' can get you.
And this is what surprises me.
We always get these articles... cool ways to teach kids... problems in educations...
I hate to break it to Mr.ARM... but not everyone finds computing interesting. People have different interests.
More importantly though is the job issue. Kids are not going to invest the time into the field without good and stable job prospects.
Those do not exist.
Hence the kids who could be your engineers and developers are now being doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers...
How many of us really bright people who went into the field would have taken the 'safe professional' route if we could do it over again?
I certainly would. Heck, I became a teacher... just no full time jobs here in Ontario, Canada... or I'd be a teacher right now.
It's a much nice life.
Which brings us to another conundrum that makes me more suspicious. The motives of the education industry.
I hate to break it to them, but increasing money on education is not going to make us more educated and better prepared in industry.
It's just going to draw more people who should be in industry... to work the education system.
Basically it will have a counter-effect of actually reducing the nations competitiveness.
America and most western countries have kids who are more than capable of being top engineers and scientists.
We are more than educated
We just choose not to do such work.
And I don't blame the kids.
Make engineering a better profession and maybe you can get some kids back. But it's going to take a generation or two.
Lord knows, if my kids ever even mention being an engineer or a software developer... they're getting a good...talkin to
If they're smart...go into a regulated profession dealing with people that gets government money or mandates (doctors, nurse, lawyer, teacher...)
If they're not that smart... then find any other job.
I just wonder if the policy makers are truly this ignorant. They really have no idea what engineers in the field are thinking. We have no seat at the table. Only economists and the social sciences. Maybe those in power just really never hear our side?
Or maybe they could care less.
Yes you gain as you apparently support the monopoly public system.
Just because you can choose something else, does not make the primary system not a monopoly.
What distinguishes an abusive monopoly is its actions make it really really really inconvenient to choose an alternative.
So Microsoft threatening to cut off PC distributors from special pricing if they install firefox... that is an abusive monopoly.
Microsoft making it hard on 3rd party companies by not exposing their interfaces... that is abuse of monopoly.
The monopoly government system taking money from all of us... even those of us who do not wish to use it... is an abusive monopoly.
It makes it really really really improbable that the average person will pay twice and thus actually use the other service.
Those of us who wish to have choice and control over our medical affairs lose out.
Which I see does not include you... and that is fine.
If you're happy with the bureaucrats and government 'panels' making your healthcare choices... wonderful. It's a load off your back.
Just give those of us the equivalent per capita spending... and let me spend it how I want. I do not wish to use the states services.
Keep a certain amount of emergency room procedures as that in uncontrollable.
unlike you, I do not see private insurance as a benefit to evil corporations. Choice in my hands is my own power. It empowers the citizen.
Most of the western world will find out soon enough the dangers of government monopolies. Europe is already finding out and those paid from the public's taxes are not going to want to cut back.
In any case, I digress... at least marx and the rest could admit their goals.
Modern socialists sit around pretending like they aren't hurting anyone else.
I think the use of the word 'bus' is problematic here.
I think of it more as a substitute for light rail.
I don't see it being too useful for new developments, but I could definitely see it being useful in areas where you can't just add another lane for busses or put light rail on its own. A lot of our cities are built up.
So the alternative is either bore underground with an expensive subway, go overhead with an expensive skytrain (like vancouver), or do something like this. I'm idealizing a bit here just from the video. But if the only infrastructure needed in the guide rail... it could definitely be cheaper.
Safety wise... no doubt there are issues. I'm especially worried about drivers thinking they are going to miss their turn while being stuck under the bus. They might end up doing some stupid things. I really dont see trucks swerving out of the way like in the video. They would probably either be content to stay behind the bus or go the next lane gradullay.
lol. I suppose you think public education is not a coercive monopoly too.
Maybe if you are a millionaire you can afford to pay twice for everything.
Pay once for healthcare in the public system.
Pay again for your own healthcare choice.
Pay once for education in the public system.
Pay again for your own educational choice.
You know what would be 'fair' to everyone. Have everyone pay taxes for healthcare and education. Just like today.
But if you choose not to use the public monopoly, you get a per capita voucher to spend wherever you want.
One of the major problems I have is people are associating science with morality.
The scientific process is by its nature completely and utterly valueless. It's why the scientific method is a great tool for objective thinking.
Let us assume that global warming is occurring and it is predominantly caused by human pollution. Let's suppose we have 100% undeniable scientific proof this is the case.
What does that mean in terms of political policy? Absolutely nothing.
Science can only state what is or potentially what the consequences will be. It cannot make value judgments... which is what politics is all about.
For example... let's take China. A huge polluter and contributor of green house gasses.
What is the value judgment balancing the environmental effects of pollution with the ability to bring a billion people out of poverty?
Or in the US.
What is the value judgment of tackling global warming versus resolving terrorists and failed state / healthcare / deficits / freedom...
On these value judgments, anyone's opinion is equally valid. The so-called joe-six pack's opinion is just a valid as someone with 3 PHDs. As it is about values.
Science cannot tell you what your values are.
Unfortunately, this is where I think science is doing itself a disservice by coming too involved in politics.
It's in everything.
Science indicating global warming happening -> We must introduce a carbon tax or
Science shows early childhood education improves test scores -> We must introduce mandatory government run ECE.
It is the implicit assumption that what science shows in one domain should immediately be implemented without regard for the values in other domains.
It is this modern aspect of science that does sadly make it like religion.
It is really no different than a theocracy which says what 'God' says goes.
GOD says adultery is bad -> make law punishing adultery.
They make no effort to talk about other domains (freedom, civil liberties, respect for those who disagree, innovation....)
And so to close.
Global warming is happening is scientific fact.
This does not mean we must take any kind of action to stop it.
Well yes.
Prices in remote areas should be higher.
Something are cheaper in cities (internet). Somethings are more expensive (housing...).
Somethings are cheaper in the country side. Somethings are more expensive.
You pay the cost for your lifestyle.
If you live our in the country side, maybe it should cost $20.00 for a simple letter mail.
I don't see anything 'wrong' or 'immoral' or 'explosive' about that.
Sounds like perfect training to me. Get kids to believe they have to accept bad people in positions of authority and they have no choice to leave the system.
Give them 20 years, and they'll be adults will to accept being at the mercy of a public school monopoly run by teacher unions and you have no choice, but to accept their right to your money.