We, developers take it as a given that programs (and thus extensions) should be able to do anything. Arbitrary code if you will. If you actually think about it, it's a little nuts. You download an application, and it could reformat your harddrive.
Truth be told, even we programmers simply rely on 'trust' that the various programs and extensions aren't doing anything evil. I don't go through every line of source code. I trust the developers. I trust a popular program. But it really is just that... trust.
Now the OS does prevent somethings to enhance trust. There are file permissions for example.
Other web technologies have other security. Silverlight for example can open local files... but the user has to manually select it via the windows file dialog. You can't program in a file location. They were smart enough to not just take the Active X approach were 'just because you visit this website and run the application, it can do anything'. They build limitations into the environment.
So what safeguards does a browser provide? Well, password information is crucial. Quite frankly, any application that even attempts to access a password field should be blocked... unless the user explicitly understand this. And I don't mean some generic warning message that applies to every extensions.
And so the point is... extension are no different than downloading and installing a regular program... but they bloody well should be!
While I'd like to live in a libertarian world, we do not live in it.
The government has made it illegal for the American worker to compete. What is 'free' about that. We have a minimum wage that is higher than the countries we sign free trade deals with.
We have government going into debt to prop up salaries in the public sector. What is 'free' about that. We have government bailing out large industries. What is 'free' about that. We have various protectionist professions (medical, legal...) that essentially make their living manipulating laws.
I don't see those changing. The solutions governments are taking around the world are not for increasing liberty in case you haven't noticed. They're pumping money into government monopolies like healthcare and education to provide jobs. They're funding public works projects...
China and India themselves are not free market societies. Especially China... it has heavy government invovlement in every industry. Tech companies must form partnerships with Chinese firms. Pardon the American tech workers who has to compete with a a population of 1 billion that is not only working for much lower wages, but also has a government that protects them. Free trade is premised on us all playing by the same rules. Then competition works.
We currently do not play by the same rules. So you don't commit industrial suicide as a country by basing your entire policy on lower prices.
Given this global trade but with ridiculous heavy government involvement, I'll gladly side with freedom within a region. You keep playing the side that empowers big government. Maybe you missed the last election. Obama won; not Ron Paul. The big centrally planned guy won because people are see the inherent unfair trade problems. You want to keep them exposed to unfair rules. Obama says he will protect them.
Give me call when we get rid of all professions, get rid of the minimum wage, prevent government from going into debt, get rid of the property tax, get rid of public sector workers except for law enforcement and regulators... get all countries we compete with to obey these same rules of liberty... and I'll gladly sign up.
Until that day... don't pretend we have a free market.
Absolutely not. This is the absolute worst thing that you can do.
I'd rather the government just be straight up protectionist and say solutions must be made in the USA or at least in NAFTA. Companies will always find ways around taxes. they will form subsidiaries... who knows. Not that, but who ends up with the money of a tax? It will be the government. It won't be the struggling American tech worker. I see no benefit in taxes in the government's hands so it can give the money to more bureaucrats.
The other question is how much will the tax be. Lets say a laborer in the developing world is 1/4 your salary. How much tax do you think it is going to take until it is economically rational to hire an American over a Chinese person?
No, I'd rather we take his message which is sound. I'm tired of hearing about the innovation economy and blah blah. We need regular commodity industry as well as a retention of knowledge and the ability to innovate on existing knowledge.
Especially with digital technology today, do we want to end up in a world where if you want to work on CPUs, you have to move to India or something? Now let's not pretend we're the victim all the time.
American companies make a lot of money by exporting. Intel, Cisco... all want to see to the billion indians / chinese. If we take protectionist measures, they will too. So let's not pretend too much here, Mr. Intel CEO. I'd rather each region have reasonable job prospects in each field. So a Chinese CPU firm makes CPUs for Asia. Intel and AMD fight for the NA market. The EU does its own thing. It will limit growth opportunities for these global players, but it will ensure a more robust economy in each region
We need to preserve freedom and industry. Putting money in the hands of government doesn't help. It's better to have a free market limited to NAFTA than a fake free global market with government directing the whole thing.
The other major problem is that of creating high caliber people.
You don't need much education or even PHD talent to do 90% of what most programmers do. However, the difference comes here. Every project needs a few good designers (Architect, lead developers...).
Once you have those experts... you can get away with hiring less competent people. However, the big question is can you grow those less competent people into architects or lead developers?
That is the real problem with hiring people with just enough talent to get the job done.
Now I'm not suggesting everyone needs to get a PHD. I only have my bachelors:P But you know, it's the least you can do to show you are capable in the field. Want to program at least get a university degree to show you have some level of intellect. It doesn't need to be in computer science... any engineering or math or physics degree to show you are somewhat capable of advanced learning.
Also flooding the field with lesser talent might mean that real talent doesn't go into the field anymore. If you are a really brilliant person, would you go into a field anyone can enter and you have no reasonable guarantee of a job? Probably not. The question Mr. Vembu needs to ask himself is would he have gotten his PHD in EE if every company did what he proposed. Would he as a young man have invested the years upon years to get a PHD in EE if there were no reasonable chance he could at least get an entry level programmer job. Or would he as a talented person have judged it not a good option and he became a doctor or lawyer.
It is part of the reason we have professions. Would you get brain surgeons if family doctors were not a protected profession. 90% of a family doctor's work could be done by people with much less qualifications. However, would talented people invest all those years and hardwork to be a doctor if they couldn't at least be a family doctor guaranteed to make a decent living... it's a filtering mechanism.
For any job that requires high calibre individuals... you do need higher hiring standards on the entry level end... as it is only those people who can then grow into high calibre individuals.
Every single country does this to the best of their ability. I'm Canadian and in the same press conference, we'll hear politicians cry about 'Buy American' and how it blocks Canadian business who love to export to the US... then they will institute their own 'Buy Canadian' provisions.
There is no such thing as free trade when it comes to nation states. I fully support free trade, but not the managed free trade we have today that only seems to disadvantage western workers.
Heck we sign free trade deals with countries while we have a minimum wage much higher than them. We basically make it illegal for our workers to compete. Then we have China with its technology partnerships... which basically aim to commoditize western r&d.
Only sign genuine free trade deals that puts everyone on an equal playing field (no subsidies, not special rule, no bureaucratic protectionism in the name of security or culture...
So I don't blame China. They know we won't act... because if we do... people would be outraged when they can't buy an IPhone for less than $2000 because that is how much it would cost if built with Western labor. They're just using it to their advantage. Kudos to them.
I blame our western government for signing bad free trade deals and the ridiculous progressives who keep thinking we can build an economy on innovation.
This just happened at my work. We got an offer to get a variety of popular software for $10 dollars. None of us would have plopped down the $100-200 price tag the software normally costs.
Yet, I think in my team about 15/20 people bought the legal $10 version. I can all but guarantee you companies made more money with this offering than the normal pricing model.
Even in university we all got the student versions of programs for 20-30 dollars... and many of us paid.
There is a certain price point where people are willing to pay. You can argue about morality all day long, but businesses that do that are engaging in a futile exercise. They should care about money.
These companies need to focus on working price models and convenience. People are willing to part with money. People will pay $5.00 for a coffee or $1.50 for a 4rd party ATM charge. They will pay for music/movies/software. just make it priced well and convenient.
Public schools are paid for by our tax dollars. I'd like to have school vouchers so I can send my kids to a school of my choice. Things like this would not be an issue. You want to send your kid to a school that prevents Google SSL so they can't check our a Goatse email... fine by me. I'll send my kid to another school.
Yet I can't. I'm not that rich and I'm already paying for the public school system. These are the problems with government run monopolies.
Vast areas of the medical profession are relatively straight forward. You pay a whole lot for background knowledge that is not needed 90% of the time. IT people get so comfortable with computers, they forget other jobs get very comfortable with their domain. Your car mechanic views changing the oil the same way you view browsing a directory structure. Your doctor views stitching you up, the same way you view upgrading a piece of software.
The problem/solution found in IT is we let the 90% of tasks that do not require much background knowledge be handled by less skilled people. This dramatically lowers costs, but at the same time makes life not so pleasant for so called 'professional workers'.
What you think is a dumbed down task of say network administration is actually something that would need a graduate degree and 5 years residency experience if we treated IT like the medical profession. Does you average network admin need to know the details of IP protocols, line transmission, fibre optics... for their day to day job? Heck no.
Do I at times wish we did have this kind of professionalism in engineering/IT? Absolutely. As a worker in the field, it frustrates me to see people not know anything about what they're doing. All they know is how to superficially operate... and then cry when something doesn't go as they were trained. It devalues those of us who actually know what we're doing and actually makes it less likely to get real experts. Who is going to enter this field anymore? We're turning away the best talent. This is why doctors and lawyers have professions. It is not for the 90% of their job that is regular and mundane to them. It is to keep good people coming into the field... and yes...to keep up their salaries...
On the other hand, I recognize that if IT were run like a profession, it wouldn't be as accessible or cheap as it is today. And the same goes for healthcare. We could reduce the cost of healthcare 100 fold if we let nurses and other health workers do their job and just let doctors handle the really complex cases. At my university group practice, I almost always saw a nurse... and she was just as good as the doctor as I'm a relatively healthy person.
Now I wouldn't trust her with brain surgery... but brain surgery is not the normal sys admin job:P
As a developer I agree with you, but I'll also play devil's advocate here for a second.
I'm the most cooperative person. Always helping people. Sharing ideas... Yet, after years of interviewing people for positions, I sometime question if my cooperative nature is actually a problem. They all come in with great resumes, but really don't know much.
Does it actually prop up bad people? Management only cares about results, as they should... and if I'm propping up someone, it shields them from failure and thus management is not going to be able to differentiate people.
In a hypothetical world, if all the good engineers/developers suddenly stopped propping everyone else up, you would very quickly find out who is doing work and who is not.
That all said, I don't see myself changing. I've worked at one place that wasn't very cooperative, and I couldn't stand it. This attitude of cooperation has been there since university . Everyone I talk to always agree that engineering is far more cooperative than say business or programs geared towards healthcare... Perhaps it is because those streams have programs that have to exclude people. Medical schools are hard to get into... so people are competing for grades and are less likely to help each other out. In business, there are so many good jobs of reaching the top.
Engineers see themselves as cooperative workers... and we are treated a such. It is as much our fault as that of business. Lord knows, we (not me:P ) are totally against even enforcing proper entrance standards like the medical or legal profession.
I am under 30. I used to torrent everything... now I have fulltime job. I really don't have the time to bother with such things anymore. I still do download, but I pay as well. It's not a moral reason for payments, it's just convenience.
I don't see the next generation being that much different. People will pay. They pay $10 dollars a meal, $5.00 for coffee... all things they can get much cheaper on their own. But they don't. It's the experience. It's convenient.
The main reason people don't pay now is that companies have made it easier to download than pay. As they change models to make it really easy to pay and make the legal options affordable, people will buy it.
We just got an offer through work to get various 3rd party pieces of popular software for $10. Pretty much everyone bought it. Would any of us have actually bought the software legally? I don't know... I doubt it. But at $10 for us working folks... we all bought it via the download service. The companies probably made more money with this deal.
DRM will never work. If you play it once, you can record it, and then you can copy it.
I can't believe they're still focusing on it as opposed to recognizing this simple reality.
People will pay for convenience and experience.
I still have cable. I suppose everything I watch is 'online' somewhere. Yet I have cable because I just turn on the TV and it's all there, no downloading, no decisions...
I still order on Demand Movies because again... my time is worth $5.00 of not browsing torrents, dealing with crappy streaming... People spend $5 on a coffee for gods sake. Make it easy for them to buy a movie online and they will.
Heck, Apple has ITunes. It works as a great experience.
Steam has DRM, but people use it for the convenience. Easily download games, no need to worry about losing a DVD...
Now you'll probably never capture the 'college nerd' market where people are cheap and they will torrent everything. Just accept that as a loss. But other groups can and will spend money.
Even if we take say online newspapers, the main reason I don't pay now is that 1. I don't like signing up for a thousand different accounts and bills.
They should find a way to partner up with all papers and offer a package through the ISPs. $3.00 a month gets you unlimited full access to all news sites. A lot of people would buy into that. They can then split the revenues maybe based on page hits or something. Who cares.. that's for them to figure out.
There are several reasons why the developed world would choose this path. Yet the number one reason is that politics is not rational:P
1. Developed countries really refuse to accept the real costs of their values. We pay welfare to our citizen... but we want cheap food... So we employ mexicans or other cheap labor on our farms. The same goes for all other kinds of manufacturing... We talk a good game about social values... but in the end... we are not really willing to pay the price. This includes everyone (Europe, Canada, USA). All the talk of socialism and caring is all pretty much bullshit when you get down it. We've outsource or hire immigrant labor for everything we don't want to do. This is not recent. Just look who worked the mines and the railways back in the day (chinese/indian laborers...)
2. Progressives... as both on the left and right... don't care too much for practical matters and just want to forge ahead on ideas. Global free trade is a wonderful idea. But don't let little details like how long it take, transition disparities between countries, domain knowledge... bother them. So they pursued insane trade deals that make no sense all the vision of global free trade. Who cares if you make it illegal for your people to compete when you sign free trade deals with countries who are allowed to pay their workers LESS than your minimum wage. The government has effectively made it illegal for people in developed nations to compete in many industries. So they forge ahead without caring about the details. I'm in Canada and our 'liberal party' (the most progressive) is very much in favor of free trade. They also have this deluded belief that we can compete with everyone because we can be 'educated'. While more education helps certain industries, it doesn't help money. Not to mention the fact that things get commoditized very quickly... so unless you have continuous innovation, you're screwed. But don't let these little tidbits bother them...They have big dreams and are very educated!
3. Mindless pursuit of growth. This drives the need for cost cutting beyond what a society can take as well as the need to expand to new markets. Let's face it once a population stabilizes and reaches 'reasonable standards of living' you really don't have much room for economic growth without major technological advancements. Walmart can only grow so much. When everyone is eating decent food, is clothed... sales are not going to grow.
I do believe in free trade. But I don't believe in stupidity. Everyone needs to play by relatively the same rules in any economic system. Either we get rid of our minimum wage and other laws and compete for the world... Or we only sign trade deals with countries with similar minimum wages, environmental standards...
Actually, it's amazing how backwards modern legislation is.
A good example of how 'free trade' should work is the US federal minimum wage.
The US federal system allowed states to have vastly different labor conditions. Some states having a minimum wage. Others did not. Alabama still doesn't have a state minimum wage. So as these issues came up, it of course was going to become a trade issue. Yet the federal government was in charge of interstate commerce.
So they made a simple law. You can have whatever minimum wage you want in your own state. BUT if you want to ship good across state lines, you must obey the federal minimum wage.
This means, the pizza shop owner in Alabama could pay anything to his workers. But he could start a manufacturing business and ship goods to New York without paying them minimum wage.
Amazing piece of common sense rational legislation. The worker in New York and Alabama are put on an equal footing. Fast forward to modern times...
We sign trade deals with countries like China where the workers there can earn pennies on the dollar to what American can LEGALLY earn. The federal government has basically made it illegal for Americans to have certain jobs (textiles, basic manufacturing...).
Now I have nothing against free trade. But you have two choices when you do it.
1. Get rid of the minimum wage and treat all workers everywhere the same. 2. Only sign trade deals with countries with a similar wage.
And so we come back to your point which I totally agree with. We should only sign trade deals with countries that have OSHA working conditions, labor laws, wage laws... that are similar to our own. They will never be exact... but similar.
Everyone is going to have a different opinion on what 'big government' is. Just like everyone has an opinion on what 'pornography' is.
But I guarantee you you will get no argument on 'what is porn' if you show someone real hardcore porn on any of the porn sites on the internet.
Show someone art or maybe nudity in film... and you will have debate.
Yes, I don't mind the government doing regulation. Some might. I also don't mind a military to defend the country. Some might.
But show any small government person a government that monopolizes and provides healthcare and education... and they will tell 'IT'S BIG GOVERNMENT'
All the little things don't really add up to much when you compare it to the spending big government requires in terms of entitlements, wars of choice...
That is a very false false dichotomy... and a very poor argument.
Your basic argument is that people who favor small government expect the government to do nothing. It's like talking about small government, and someone says: don't you like safe food inspections? Yes, I 'like' those things. I also don't mind the government doing them. That's why I believe in small government. Not no government.
Just take a look at the government's spending. The things 'small government' folks want the federal to do would cost next to nothing. Our biggest costs are healthcare, military...
So go ahead and cut those things down to focus on small government. It will free up hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. Then, I'd be more than happy if the government spent what it costs to have proper data centers.
People who just want unlimited everything have no idea of the technical limits...especially on wireless.
That said, the billing mechanisms are horrible and that needs to be improved. MB counts should be available on the homescreen of all phones. You should be able to disable data after it crosses the line.
Or if they don't want that, just have a simple pre-paid account for money for 'over-charge'. once it is depleted, you can't be billed anymore. This at least prevents u from getting insane bills.
On the fixed wire end, we're at the point where we can pretty much allow general web browsing, but video and downloads are still issues. Once you cross your 'limit', companies should be able to throttle you down to basic web browsing speeds. This give you unlimited access... but not at the maximum rate.
This is ultimately why government should not do very much.
The idea that you can have honest, efficient, accountable government is impossible.
It is far better to let people offer their services and have other people choose to pay for those services... aka... a free market. I don't know if the restaurant chain down the street is run efficiently and I certainly don't need to know the details of how they run their business. I really don't care. What I do care about is that they make amazing food with amazing service for $8 a plate. The other restaurants are not a high quality. What better accountability than people handing over their own money?
The UK is the ultimate in creating bureaucratic nonsense. Their best teachers spend more time writing reports and going through red tape than teaching... all to justify the costs in education.
So like you, I'm not too impressed with the extra information.
The more the government can leave to free people making free choices, the better society is. Yes, the legal system and various monopolies (roads,electricity) will always involve government. And I'm always willing to just accept 'reasonable' spending in those areas. Even if everything is not accounted for.
The problem comes when government is expected to run everything from healthcare to education to obesity problem... now there is way too much money in the hands of bureaucrats who ultimately do not have the accountability of people putting up their own money.
nothing is 'wrong' with mourning in a different way.
Societies always have people doing things in a different ways.
The problem is that most of the time people don't know of any way and aren't doing things their own way.
Having a solid base to pull from can help you get by the occassions. Imagine meeting someone for the first time. What do you do? handshake? hug? kiss? roll around in the mud together? salute them?
Where I live, for business meetings, we shake hands. That is culture. Imagine having to sit there and analyze and create new ways just on meeting someone. Nothing would get done.
Now if you are original or different enough to want to do your own thing... more power to you.
Local position are fine, because it is easy to leave local areas.
Let's say a city decides to ban alcohol. Alright, it's bad and stupid. It's going to inconvenience me. But there will be another city close by that I can either move to or buy alcohol from. Now imagine a state has the power to ban alcohol. Now imagine the federal government has the power to ban alcohol.
Yes, local government can and does make mistakes. Heck, you are probably likely to get some local government made of whack jobs with crazy ideas. The difference is their nut job rule is confined to a local area. People can move.
The problem with too much state/federal oversight is that oversight quickly turns into running the show. Schools are a good example of this. They are essentially a very local issue. Yet, everyone above seems to want to 'move on education'. So the states enforce some standards. Then the feds enforce their standards. Next thing you know you have no child left behind...
The higher up you go, the less the government should do. For example, I don't know what the 'right' healthcare plan is. But I know I'd rather have 20 states try something different and learn from each other. Then have a federal government craft one policy... and if it is the wrong policy, the entire country pays the price. This sadly is the real problem with the 'expert run society.
Even if we assume that experts know the right thing to do, the magnitude of a mistake is magnified if they are granted too much power.
For a good way to craft policy, you have to look at the federal minimum wage. Before it, different states had different minimum wages. Some like Alabama still don't have a state minimum wage.
But the federal government is entrusted to regulate interstate commerce. So exactly what are fair rules if a person in Alabama is allowed to work for $3 an hour, but a person in NY is forced to earn at least minimum wage($10 an hour). Surely many jobs will go to Alabama as production is cheaper there.
So the federal government did a very smart thing. They said, you can do whatever you want in each state. You can even have no minimum wage in your state. BUT if you engage in interstate commerce (ship goods across state lines), then you must obey the federal minimum wage. Makes a lot sense. It allow states to experiment on whatever wage laws they think are good. But it keeps trade 'fair'.
Now look at the US today. Countries sign free trade deals with vastly different minimum wage levels. How is a US worker mandated by law to make $8 an hour supposed to compete under a free trade agreement with a person in a 3rd world country makeing $1 an hour.
As to my own view on 'smart people running society' 1. smart people do not always know what is best and often times disagree. Academics still argue over what problems/solutions were in regards to the Great Depression. Science is great and has given us many things. The solid reputation of the 'hard sciences' have given amazing credibility. Yet the soft sciences (social, finance... ) and academic fields like history are different. We cannot 'replicate' an experiment. We cannot recreate the great depression and then try different policies and isolate variables to see what effects they have. Basically in almost every government decision, the experts really cannot make decisions better than you or I could make for ourselves.
2. smart people are never in power by themselves. They are put in power by politicians and other people who ultimately control the strings.
3. smart people may not have the best intentions. who says they won't work to enrich or empower themselves for their own desires just like anyone else
So basically, not a good idea to try and have a society run by smart people/experts.
You may think it's a culture. If you want to call it one I won't argue semantics , it is the very shallow culture they hang on to because they have been deprived of a culture developed over thousands of years. It's the only thing they can learn and pick up quickly to belong to somethimg.
The same problem affects many African Americans. Now you can call me a racist. many don't have a culture rooted in thousands of years. They have a shallow culture they've managed to scrounge together from bits and pieces post slavery.
"Teaching someone a culture is brainwashing." Of course it is. That is why I made the explicit point of using that word.
Kids are free to choose a belief system as they age. yet they need a foundation when they are young to start life. You overestimate a young child's ability to analyze thousands of cultures and belief systems and then choose one.
Culture is very important. How do you mourn for a funeral for example? You're not inventing your own way. You have probably never encountered a death before. So you mourn the way you saw your parents mourn.That is culture. Ditto for weddings. Ditto for every other part of culture.
For thousands upon thousands of years people have taught their kids culture. Now we suddenly theorize they can grow up without being taught it. Worked out fine for Native indian in residential school or African Americans denied their culture via a legacy of slavery....
yes, you on the other hand might want to learn to read.
I am Indian. I do not say 'white culture' is superior. Kids need to have any culture. it is the lack of culture that is the problem. The POLICY of multiculturalism is actually creating a vacuum of culture by preventing cultural values from being passed on.
And yes, I feel bad for 'white' kids who are denied culture. I saw a lot of them while teaching. They need their white culture as well. Oh sorry... Anglo-saxon culture.
"Education can be "cultureless", because it's the parents job to instill culture... not the education system."
And I like I said... this is the false belief of some educational theorist.
Kids spend so much time at school. You can't suddenly turn off the kinds cultural learning while at school... then turn it back on when they go home. While you might like education to be just reading, writing, arithmetic (which can be cultureless), the school is not.
Dress code / no dress code? What holidays are celebrated? What words are allowed (swear words...) All the other more view based courses (history, social science...) Learning styles (sit in a room and be obedient to a teacher, versus more group based activity...) Balance of courses (gym time versus spelling bee time...)...
School represents a very large part of the kids culture and you can't just turn it off. Which is why parent should have the choice to send their kids to a school representative of their cultural style. This was not a problem previously when everyone was of the same culture in a town... then the problem doesn't exist.
But I digress... Children have been taught culture for thousands upon thousands of years... I suppose we know better today... Worked out well for native indians in residential schools or African Americans deprived of their culture...
It often amazes me how humanity has lost all sense when it comes to culture.
Kids despite the efforts of various bureaucrats and educational theories are largely the product of the 'brain washing' they receive by their parents and culture. I use the term 'brain washing' on purpose.
You speak English instead of Mandarin, because that is what you were taught. You eat Pork BBQ instead of frog legs, because that is what you were taught. You like football, because that is what you were taught.
What bureaucrats and various education theories have tried is to suggest that education can be valueless. That you can somehow raise a child without forcing particular beliefs on them.
It is the reason why I theorize that multi-culturalism is actually resulting in no-culture... aka... lost children. They have no idea who they are, how to act, what to do... They jump onto any sort of guidance or fad because well... no one taught them any better... and we're banned from teaching them any better.
They're simply tossed into a generic public school which is not allowed to push values of any kind. We're supposed to accept all cultures and view points... which is great... but that means we also can't teach the kids anything... and like it or not kids spend 8 hours a day at school... they're learning all these values and skills at school.
Yes, I used to be a teacher and left because of this crap being forced on us and the kids. You're kind of seeing the education system realize this now. Where I am they now have a 'black focused' school to teach black kids about black culture. But it's still ridiculous and being done in such a bureaucratic fashion and still cannot pass on values.
So yes, the Indian kids are probably good at spelling because their culture promotes that. Then again, there are so few Indian athletes. None is really better than the other, but at least people who have a culture do things. 'Free thinking' is wonderful and you certainly want to nurture it especially as a child grows , but mass people need an identity to start off from.
As I've said, I used to teach and the one thing I can say is that the kids who have a culture tend to have their heads on straight. I don't care what culture it is (Indian, Chinese, French... and yes... white people... you also have a culture...) but they need something. One of the many reasons I support school choice so that schools can have culture and they can form a solid foundation. The alternative is of course... government itself dictating culture though public school... and no thanks...
Slashdot Mirror
We, developers take it as a given that programs (and thus extensions) should be able to do anything. Arbitrary code if you will.
If you actually think about it, it's a little nuts. You download an application, and it could reformat your harddrive.
Truth be told, even we programmers simply rely on 'trust' that the various programs and extensions aren't doing anything evil.
I don't go through every line of source code. I trust the developers. I trust a popular program. But it really is just that... trust.
Now the OS does prevent somethings to enhance trust. There are file permissions for example.
Other web technologies have other security. Silverlight for example can open local files... but the user has to manually select it via the windows file dialog. You can't program in a file location.
They were smart enough to not just take the Active X approach were 'just because you visit this website and run the application, it can do anything'. They build limitations into the environment.
So what safeguards does a browser provide?
Well, password information is crucial. Quite frankly, any application that even attempts to access a password field should be blocked... unless the user explicitly understand this. And I don't mean some generic warning message that applies to every extensions.
And so the point is... extension are no different than downloading and installing a regular program... but they bloody well should be!
Well then maybe you shouldn't condemn millions of private sector workers to poverty just for some crusade of global trade.
While I'd like to live in a libertarian world, we do not live in it.
The government has made it illegal for the American worker to compete. What is 'free' about that.
We have a minimum wage that is higher than the countries we sign free trade deals with.
We have government going into debt to prop up salaries in the public sector. What is 'free' about that.
We have government bailing out large industries. What is 'free' about that.
We have various protectionist professions (medical, legal...) that essentially make their living manipulating laws.
I don't see those changing. The solutions governments are taking around the world are not for increasing liberty in case you haven't noticed.
They're pumping money into government monopolies like healthcare and education to provide jobs. They're funding public works projects...
China and India themselves are not free market societies. Especially China... it has heavy government invovlement in every industry. Tech companies must form partnerships with Chinese firms.
Pardon the American tech workers who has to compete with a a population of 1 billion that is not only working for much lower wages, but also has a government that protects them.
Free trade is premised on us all playing by the same rules. Then competition works.
We currently do not play by the same rules. So you don't commit industrial suicide as a country by basing your entire policy on lower prices.
Given this global trade but with ridiculous heavy government involvement, I'll gladly side with freedom within a region. You keep playing the side that empowers big government.
Maybe you missed the last election. Obama won; not Ron Paul. The big centrally planned guy won because people are see the inherent unfair trade problems. You want to keep them exposed to unfair rules.
Obama says he will protect them.
Give me call when we get rid of all professions, get rid of the minimum wage, prevent government from going into debt, get rid of the property tax, get rid of public sector workers except for law enforcement and regulators... get all countries we compete with to obey these same rules of liberty... and I'll gladly sign up.
Until that day... don't pretend we have a free market.
Absolutely not. This is the absolute worst thing that you can do.
I'd rather the government just be straight up protectionist and say solutions must be made in the USA or at least in NAFTA.
Companies will always find ways around taxes. they will form subsidiaries... who knows. Not that, but who ends up with the money of a tax? It will be the government. It won't be the struggling American tech worker. I see no benefit in taxes in the government's hands so it can give the money to more bureaucrats.
The other question is how much will the tax be. Lets say a laborer in the developing world is 1/4 your salary. How much tax do you think it is going to take until it is economically rational to hire an American over a Chinese person?
No, I'd rather we take his message which is sound. I'm tired of hearing about the innovation economy and blah blah. We need regular commodity industry as well as a retention of knowledge and the ability to innovate on existing knowledge.
Especially with digital technology today, do we want to end up in a world where if you want to work on CPUs, you have to move to India or something? Now let's not pretend we're the victim all the time.
American companies make a lot of money by exporting. Intel, Cisco... all want to see to the billion indians / chinese. If we take protectionist measures, they will too.
So let's not pretend too much here, Mr. Intel CEO. I'd rather each region have reasonable job prospects in each field. So a Chinese CPU firm makes CPUs for Asia. Intel and AMD fight for the NA market. The EU does its own thing. It will limit growth opportunities for these global players, but it will ensure a more robust economy in each region
We need to preserve freedom and industry. Putting money in the hands of government doesn't help.
It's better to have a free market limited to NAFTA than a fake free global market with government directing the whole thing.
The other major problem is that of creating high caliber people.
You don't need much education or even PHD talent to do 90% of what most programmers do. However, the difference comes here.
Every project needs a few good designers (Architect, lead developers...).
Once you have those experts... you can get away with hiring less competent people.
However, the big question is can you grow those less competent people into architects or lead developers?
That is the real problem with hiring people with just enough talent to get the job done.
Now I'm not suggesting everyone needs to get a PHD. I only have my bachelors :P But you know, it's the least you can do to show you are capable in the field. Want to program at least get a university degree to show you have some level of intellect. It doesn't need to be in computer science... any engineering or math or physics degree to show you are somewhat capable of advanced learning.
Also flooding the field with lesser talent might mean that real talent doesn't go into the field anymore. If you are a really brilliant person, would you go into a field anyone can enter and you have no reasonable guarantee of a job? Probably not. The question Mr. Vembu needs to ask himself is would he have gotten his PHD in EE if every company did what he proposed. Would he as a young man have invested the years upon years to get a PHD in EE if there were no reasonable chance he could at least get an entry level programmer job. Or would he as a talented person have judged it not a good option and he became a doctor or lawyer.
It is part of the reason we have professions. Would you get brain surgeons if family doctors were not a protected profession. 90% of a family doctor's work could be done by people with much less qualifications. However, would talented people invest all those years and hardwork to be a doctor if they couldn't at least be a family doctor guaranteed to make a decent living... it's a filtering mechanism.
For any job that requires high calibre individuals... you do need higher hiring standards on the entry level end... as it is only those people who can then grow into high calibre individuals.
Dare I ask what you expect them to do?
Every single country does this to the best of their ability.
I'm Canadian and in the same press conference, we'll hear politicians cry about 'Buy American' and how it blocks Canadian business who love to export to the US... then they will institute their own 'Buy Canadian' provisions.
There is no such thing as free trade when it comes to nation states.
I fully support free trade, but not the managed free trade we have today that only seems to disadvantage western workers.
Heck we sign free trade deals with countries while we have a minimum wage much higher than them. We basically make it illegal for our workers to compete.
Then we have China with its technology partnerships... which basically aim to commoditize western r&d.
Only sign genuine free trade deals that puts everyone on an equal playing field (no subsidies, not special rule, no bureaucratic protectionism in the name of security or culture...
So I don't blame China. They know we won't act... because if we do... people would be outraged when they can't buy an IPhone for less than $2000 because that is how much it would cost if built with Western labor. They're just using it to their advantage. Kudos to them.
I blame our western government for signing bad free trade deals and the ridiculous progressives who keep thinking we can build an economy on innovation.
This just happened at my work.
We got an offer to get a variety of popular software for $10 dollars.
None of us would have plopped down the $100-200 price tag the software normally costs.
Yet, I think in my team about 15/20 people bought the legal $10 version. I can all but guarantee you companies made more money with this offering than the normal pricing model.
Even in university we all got the student versions of programs for 20-30 dollars... and many of us paid.
There is a certain price point where people are willing to pay. You can argue about morality all day long, but businesses that do that are engaging in a futile exercise. They should care about money.
These companies need to focus on working price models and convenience. People are willing to part with money. People will pay $5.00 for a coffee or $1.50 for a 4rd party ATM charge. They will pay for music/movies/software. just make it priced well and convenient.
Define 'theirs'
Public schools are paid for by our tax dollars.
I'd like to have school vouchers so I can send my kids to a school of my choice. Things like this would not be an issue. You want to send your kid to a school that prevents Google SSL so they can't check our a Goatse email... fine by me. I'll send my kid to another school.
Yet I can't. I'm not that rich and I'm already paying for the public school system.
These are the problems with government run monopolies.
I think you overestimate medical work.
Vast areas of the medical profession are relatively straight forward. You pay a whole lot for background knowledge that is not needed 90% of the time. IT people get so comfortable with computers, they forget other jobs get very comfortable with their domain. Your car mechanic views changing the oil the same way you view browsing a directory structure. Your doctor views stitching you up, the same way you view upgrading a piece of software.
The problem/solution found in IT is we let the 90% of tasks that do not require much background knowledge be handled by less skilled people. This dramatically lowers costs, but at the same time makes life not so pleasant for so called 'professional workers'.
What you think is a dumbed down task of say network administration is actually something that would need a graduate degree and 5 years residency experience if we treated IT like the medical profession. Does you average network admin need to know the details of IP protocols, line transmission, fibre optics... for their day to day job? Heck no.
Do I at times wish we did have this kind of professionalism in engineering/IT? Absolutely. As a worker in the field, it frustrates me to see people not know anything about what they're doing. All they know is how to superficially operate... and then cry when something doesn't go as they were trained. It devalues those of us who actually know what we're doing and actually makes it less likely to get real experts. Who is going to enter this field anymore? We're turning away the best talent. This is why doctors and lawyers have professions. It is not for the 90% of their job that is regular and mundane to them. It is to keep good people coming into the field... and yes...to keep up their salaries...
On the other hand, I recognize that if IT were run like a profession, it wouldn't be as accessible or cheap as it is today. And the same goes for healthcare.
We could reduce the cost of healthcare 100 fold if we let nurses and other health workers do their job and just let doctors handle the really complex cases. At my university group practice, I almost always saw a nurse... and she was just as good as the doctor as I'm a relatively healthy person.
Now I wouldn't trust her with brain surgery... but brain surgery is not the normal sys admin job :P
As a developer I agree with you, but I'll also play devil's advocate here for a second.
I'm the most cooperative person. Always helping people. Sharing ideas... Yet, after years of interviewing people for positions, I sometime question if my cooperative nature is actually a problem.
They all come in with great resumes, but really don't know much.
Does it actually prop up bad people? Management only cares about results, as they should... and if I'm propping up someone, it shields them from failure and thus management is not going to be able to differentiate people.
In a hypothetical world, if all the good engineers/developers suddenly stopped propping everyone else up, you would very quickly find out who is doing work and who is not.
That all said, I don't see myself changing. I've worked at one place that wasn't very cooperative, and I couldn't stand it. This attitude of cooperation has been there since university . Everyone I talk to always agree that engineering is far more cooperative than say business or programs geared towards healthcare... Perhaps it is because those streams have programs that have to exclude people. Medical schools are hard to get into... so people are competing for grades and are less likely to help each other out. In business, there are so many good jobs of reaching the top.
Engineers see themselves as cooperative workers... and we are treated a such. It is as much our fault as that of business. :P ) are totally against even enforcing proper entrance standards like the medical or legal profession.
Lord knows, we (not me
I am under 30.
I used to torrent everything... now I have fulltime job. I really don't have the time to bother with such things anymore. I still do download, but I pay as well. It's not a moral reason for payments, it's just convenience.
I don't see the next generation being that much different.
People will pay. They pay $10 dollars a meal, $5.00 for coffee... all things they can get much cheaper on their own. But they don't. It's the experience. It's convenient.
The main reason people don't pay now is that companies have made it easier to download than pay.
As they change models to make it really easy to pay and make the legal options affordable, people will buy it.
We just got an offer through work to get various 3rd party pieces of popular software for $10. Pretty much everyone bought it.
Would any of us have actually bought the software legally? I don't know... I doubt it.
But at $10 for us working folks... we all bought it via the download service. The companies probably made more money with this deal.
It is changing, albeit slowly.
DRM will never work. If you play it once, you can record it, and then you can copy it.
I can't believe they're still focusing on it as opposed to recognizing this simple reality.
People will pay for convenience and experience.
I still have cable. I suppose everything I watch is 'online' somewhere. Yet I have cable because I just turn on the TV and it's all there, no downloading, no decisions...
I still order on Demand Movies because again... my time is worth $5.00 of not browsing torrents, dealing with crappy streaming... People spend $5 on a coffee for gods sake. Make it easy for them to buy a movie online and they will.
Heck, Apple has ITunes. It works as a great experience.
Steam has DRM, but people use it for the convenience. Easily download games, no need to worry about losing a DVD...
Now you'll probably never capture the 'college nerd' market where people are cheap and they will torrent everything. Just accept that as a loss.
But other groups can and will spend money.
Even if we take say online newspapers, the main reason I don't pay now is that
1. I don't like signing up for a thousand different accounts and bills.
They should find a way to partner up with all papers and offer a package through the ISPs. $3.00 a month gets you unlimited full access to all news sites. A lot of people would buy into that. They can then split the revenues maybe based on page hits or something. Who cares.. that's for them to figure out.
There are several reasons why the developed world would choose this path. Yet the number one reason is that politics is not rational :P
1. Developed countries really refuse to accept the real costs of their values. We pay welfare to our citizen... but we want cheap food... So we employ mexicans or other cheap labor on our farms. The same goes for all other kinds of manufacturing... We talk a good game about social values... but in the end... we are not really willing to pay the price. This includes everyone (Europe, Canada, USA). All the talk of socialism and caring is all pretty much bullshit when you get down it. We've outsource or hire immigrant labor for everything we don't want to do. This is not recent. Just look who worked the mines and the railways back in the day (chinese/indian laborers...)
2. Progressives... as both on the left and right... don't care too much for practical matters and just want to forge ahead on ideas. Global free trade is a wonderful idea. But don't let little details like how long it take, transition disparities between countries, domain knowledge... bother them. So they pursued insane trade deals that make no sense all the vision of global free trade. Who cares if you make it illegal for your people to compete when you sign free trade deals with countries who are allowed to pay their workers LESS than your minimum wage. The government has effectively made it illegal for people in developed nations to compete in many industries. So they forge ahead without caring about the details. I'm in Canada and our 'liberal party' (the most progressive) is very much in favor of free trade. They also have this deluded belief that we can compete with everyone because we can be 'educated'. While more education helps certain industries, it doesn't help money. Not to mention the fact that things get commoditized very quickly... so unless you have continuous innovation, you're screwed. But don't let these little tidbits bother them...They have big dreams and are very educated!
3. Mindless pursuit of growth. This drives the need for cost cutting beyond what a society can take as well as the need to expand to new markets. Let's face it once a population stabilizes and reaches 'reasonable standards of living' you really don't have much room for economic growth without major technological advancements. Walmart can only grow so much. When everyone is eating decent food, is clothed... sales are not going to grow.
I do believe in free trade. But I don't believe in stupidity. Everyone needs to play by relatively the same rules in any economic system.
Either we get rid of our minimum wage and other laws and compete for the world...
Or we only sign trade deals with countries with similar minimum wages, environmental standards...
Take your pick.
Actually, it's amazing how backwards modern legislation is.
A good example of how 'free trade' should work is the US federal minimum wage.
The US federal system allowed states to have vastly different labor conditions. Some states having a minimum wage. Others did not. Alabama still doesn't have a state minimum wage.
So as these issues came up, it of course was going to become a trade issue. Yet the federal government was in charge of interstate commerce.
So they made a simple law.
You can have whatever minimum wage you want in your own state.
BUT if you want to ship good across state lines, you must obey the federal minimum wage.
This means, the pizza shop owner in Alabama could pay anything to his workers.
But he could start a manufacturing business and ship goods to New York without paying them minimum wage.
Amazing piece of common sense rational legislation.
The worker in New York and Alabama are put on an equal footing.
Fast forward to modern times...
We sign trade deals with countries like China where the workers there can earn pennies on the dollar to what American can LEGALLY earn.
The federal government has basically made it illegal for Americans to have certain jobs (textiles, basic manufacturing...).
Now I have nothing against free trade. But you have two choices when you do it.
1. Get rid of the minimum wage and treat all workers everywhere the same.
2. Only sign trade deals with countries with a similar wage.
And so we come back to your point which I totally agree with.
We should only sign trade deals with countries that have OSHA working conditions, labor laws, wage laws... that are similar to our own. They will never be exact... but similar.
Not really.
Everyone is going to have a different opinion on what 'big government' is.
Just like everyone has an opinion on what 'pornography' is.
But I guarantee you you will get no argument on 'what is porn' if you show someone real hardcore porn on any of the porn sites on the internet.
Show someone art or maybe nudity in film... and you will have debate.
Yes, I don't mind the government doing regulation. Some might.
I also don't mind a military to defend the country. Some might.
But show any small government person a government that monopolizes and provides healthcare and education... and they will tell 'IT'S BIG GOVERNMENT'
All the little things don't really add up to much when you compare it to the spending big government requires in terms of entitlements, wars of choice...
That is a very false false dichotomy... and a very poor argument.
Your basic argument is that people who favor small government expect the government to do nothing.
It's like talking about small government, and someone says: don't you like safe food inspections?
Yes, I 'like' those things. I also don't mind the government doing them. That's why I believe in small government. Not no government.
Just take a look at the government's spending. The things 'small government' folks want the federal to do would cost next to nothing.
Our biggest costs are healthcare, military...
So go ahead and cut those things down to focus on small government. It will free up hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Then, I'd be more than happy if the government spent what it costs to have proper data centers.
People who just want unlimited everything have no idea of the technical limits...especially on wireless.
That said, the billing mechanisms are horrible and that needs to be improved.
MB counts should be available on the homescreen of all phones. You should be able to disable data after it crosses the line.
Or if they don't want that, just have a simple pre-paid account for money for 'over-charge'. once it is depleted, you can't be billed anymore. This at least prevents u from getting insane bills.
On the fixed wire end, we're at the point where we can pretty much allow general web browsing, but video and downloads are still issues. Once you cross your 'limit', companies should be able to throttle you down to basic web browsing speeds. This give you unlimited access... but not at the maximum rate.
This is ultimately why government should not do very much.
The idea that you can have honest, efficient, accountable government is impossible.
It is far better to let people offer their services and have other people choose to pay for those services... aka... a free market.
I don't know if the restaurant chain down the street is run efficiently and I certainly don't need to know the details of how they run their business. I really don't care. What I do care about is that they make amazing food with amazing service for $8 a plate. The other restaurants are not a high quality. What better accountability than people handing over their own money?
The UK is the ultimate in creating bureaucratic nonsense. Their best teachers spend more time writing reports and going through red tape than teaching... all to justify the costs in education.
So like you, I'm not too impressed with the extra information.
The more the government can leave to free people making free choices, the better society is.
Yes, the legal system and various monopolies (roads,electricity) will always involve government. And I'm always willing to just accept 'reasonable' spending in those areas. Even if everything is not accounted for.
The problem comes when government is expected to run everything from healthcare to education to obesity problem... now there is way too much money in the hands of bureaucrats who ultimately do not have the accountability of people putting up their own money.
nothing is 'wrong' with mourning in a different way.
Societies always have people doing things in a different ways.
The problem is that most of the time people don't know of any way and aren't doing things their own way.
Having a solid base to pull from can help you get by the occassions.
Imagine meeting someone for the first time. What do you do?
handshake?
hug?
kiss?
roll around in the mud together?
salute them?
Where I live, for business meetings, we shake hands. That is culture.
Imagine having to sit there and analyze and create new ways just on meeting someone.
Nothing would get done.
Now if you are original or different enough to want to do your own thing... more power to you.
Local position are fine, because it is easy to leave local areas.
Let's say a city decides to ban alcohol. Alright, it's bad and stupid. It's going to inconvenience me. But there will be another city close by that I can either move to or buy alcohol from.
Now imagine a state has the power to ban alcohol.
Now imagine the federal government has the power to ban alcohol.
Yes, local government can and does make mistakes. Heck, you are probably likely to get some local government made of whack jobs with crazy ideas.
The difference is their nut job rule is confined to a local area. People can move.
The problem with too much state/federal oversight is that oversight quickly turns into running the show.
Schools are a good example of this. They are essentially a very local issue. Yet, everyone above seems to want to 'move on education'. So the states enforce some standards. Then the feds enforce their standards. Next thing you know you have no child left behind...
The higher up you go, the less the government should do. For example, I don't know what the 'right' healthcare plan is. But I know I'd rather have 20 states try something different and learn from each other. Then have a federal government craft one policy... and if it is the wrong policy, the entire country pays the price. This sadly is the real problem with the 'expert run society.
Even if we assume that experts know the right thing to do, the magnitude of a mistake is magnified if they are granted too much power.
For a good way to craft policy, you have to look at the federal minimum wage.
Before it, different states had different minimum wages. Some like Alabama still don't have a state minimum wage.
But the federal government is entrusted to regulate interstate commerce.
So exactly what are fair rules if a person in Alabama is allowed to work for $3 an hour, but a person in NY is forced to earn at least minimum wage($10 an hour).
Surely many jobs will go to Alabama as production is cheaper there.
So the federal government did a very smart thing. They said, you can do whatever you want in each state. You can even have no minimum wage in your state.
BUT if you engage in interstate commerce (ship goods across state lines), then you must obey the federal minimum wage. Makes a lot sense.
It allow states to experiment on whatever wage laws they think are good. But it keeps trade 'fair'.
Now look at the US today. Countries sign free trade deals with vastly different minimum wage levels. How is a US worker mandated by law to make $8 an hour supposed to compete under a free trade agreement with a person in a 3rd world country makeing $1 an hour.
As to my own view on 'smart people running society'
1. smart people do not always know what is best and often times disagree. Academics still argue over what problems/solutions were in regards to the Great Depression. Science is great and has given us many things. The solid reputation of the 'hard sciences' have given amazing credibility. Yet the soft sciences (social, finance... ) and academic fields like history are different. We cannot 'replicate' an experiment. We cannot recreate the great depression and then try different policies and isolate variables to see what effects they have. Basically in almost every government decision, the experts really cannot make decisions better than you or I could make for ourselves.
2. smart people are never in power by themselves. They are put in power by politicians and other people who ultimately control the strings.
3. smart people may not have the best intentions. who says they won't work to enrich or empower themselves for their own desires just like anyone else
So basically, not a good idea to try and have a society run by smart people/experts.
"It's a culture of consumerism, "
You may think it's a culture. If you want to call it one I won't argue semantics , it is the very shallow culture they hang on to because they have been deprived of a culture developed over thousands of years.
It's the only thing they can learn and pick up quickly to belong to somethimg.
The same problem affects many African Americans. Now you can call me a racist. many don't have a culture rooted in thousands of years. They have a shallow culture they've managed to scrounge together from bits and pieces post slavery.
"Teaching someone a culture is brainwashing."
Of course it is. That is why I made the explicit point of using that word.
Kids are free to choose a belief system as they age. yet they need a foundation when they are young to start life.
You overestimate a young child's ability to analyze thousands of cultures and belief systems and then choose one.
Culture is very important.
How do you mourn for a funeral for example? You're not inventing your own way. You have probably never encountered a death before. So you mourn the way you saw your parents mourn.That is culture.
Ditto for weddings.
Ditto for every other part of culture.
For thousands upon thousands of years people have taught their kids culture. Now we suddenly theorize they can grow up without being taught it. ...
Worked out fine for Native indian in residential school or African Americans denied their culture via a legacy of slavery.
yes, you on the other hand might want to learn to read.
I am Indian.
I do not say 'white culture' is superior. Kids need to have any culture.
it is the lack of culture that is the problem. The POLICY of multiculturalism is actually creating a vacuum of culture by preventing cultural values from being passed on.
And yes, I feel bad for 'white' kids who are denied culture. I saw a lot of them while teaching. They need their white culture as well. Oh sorry... Anglo-saxon culture.
"Education can be "cultureless", because it's the parents job to instill culture... not the education system."
And I like I said... this is the false belief of some educational theorist.
Kids spend so much time at school. You can't suddenly turn off the kinds cultural learning while at school... then turn it back on when they go home.
While you might like education to be just reading, writing, arithmetic (which can be cultureless), the school is not.
Dress code / no dress code? ...
What holidays are celebrated?
What words are allowed (swear words...)
All the other more view based courses (history, social science...)
Learning styles (sit in a room and be obedient to a teacher, versus more group based activity...)
Balance of courses (gym time versus spelling bee time...)
School represents a very large part of the kids culture and you can't just turn it off. Which is why parent should have the choice to send their kids to a school representative of their cultural style.
This was not a problem previously when everyone was of the same culture in a town... then the problem doesn't exist.
But I digress...
Children have been taught culture for thousands upon thousands of years... I suppose we know better today...
Worked out well for native indians in residential schools or African Americans deprived of their culture...
It often amazes me how humanity has lost all sense when it comes to culture.
Kids despite the efforts of various bureaucrats and educational theories are largely the product of the 'brain washing' they receive by their parents and culture. I use the term 'brain washing' on purpose.
You speak English instead of Mandarin, because that is what you were taught.
You eat Pork BBQ instead of frog legs, because that is what you were taught.
You like football, because that is what you were taught.
What bureaucrats and various education theories have tried is to suggest that education can be valueless. That you can somehow raise a child without forcing particular beliefs on them.
It is the reason why I theorize that multi-culturalism is actually resulting in no-culture... aka... lost children.
They have no idea who they are, how to act, what to do...
They jump onto any sort of guidance or fad because well... no one taught them any better... and we're banned from teaching them any better.
They're simply tossed into a generic public school which is not allowed to push values of any kind. We're supposed to accept all cultures and view points... which is great... but that means we also can't teach the kids anything... and like it or not kids spend 8 hours a day at school... they're learning all these values and skills at school.
Yes, I used to be a teacher and left because of this crap being forced on us and the kids. You're kind of seeing the education system realize this now. Where I am they now have a 'black focused' school to teach black kids about black culture. But it's still ridiculous and being done in such a bureaucratic fashion and still cannot pass on values.
So yes, the Indian kids are probably good at spelling because their culture promotes that. Then again, there are so few Indian athletes. None is really better than the other, but at least people who have a culture do things. 'Free thinking' is wonderful and you certainly want to nurture it especially as a child grows , but mass people need an identity to start off from.
As I've said, I used to teach and the one thing I can say is that the kids who have a culture tend to have their heads on straight. I don't care what culture it is (Indian, Chinese, French... and yes... white people... you also have a culture...) but they need something. One of the many reasons I support school choice so that schools can have culture and they can form a solid foundation. The alternative is of course... government itself dictating culture though public school... and no thanks...