This is higly subjective. But WHY should terrorists' privacy be protected? Don't you have a duty to the thousands that will die at his hands?
I don't want to say that the Constitution is to be taken lightly. But I think you have to look at the intent, not the letter here. They simply didn't have the technology to do what we do today. Search most certainly implied siezure at that time.
For a moment, let us ignore the Constitution, How exactly are you adversely affected by a machine processing and ignoring your transmissions? What is the harm? And what is the potential pay off? (assuming my previous criteria)
Auditing those other groups would simply be an abuse of power.
Ok, lets narrow Echelon's theoretical objectives down somewhat (quickly). Let us say that its sole objective was to find people who INTEND to set off a nuclear explosion in DC in the next 3 days. If it does this with 100% accuracy (no false positives), then I have no problem with "invading" their privacy. As the ability to kill millions of people is not a right.
If innocent people merely pass through the machine and nothing further is done with it (no logs/databse, no flags, nothing), I don't see the problem. How does this differ from having your mail not read? The problem is the logistics and the potential for abuse.
I agree with you, that it is a slippery slope. I see two seperate problems with Echelon (doubtfull it exists to the extent many seem to think):
a) False positives. If this thing returns no false positives, then innocent people simply won't be affected. "Bad" people will. However, I have serious doubts about the ability to filter out false positives. If it returns even the smallest percentage of false positives, the human managers are going to be deluged with mail to read -- the system can't work.
b) The potential for abuse. Its real enough. Though I don't believe the NSA is evil, there are some legitimate concerns that they could start using this technology to further domestic interests. Or political, or what have you...
If you really do intend to blow up the capitol building; don't expect a great deal of sympathy from me. If you mean it jokingly, I would hope that the NSA would be able to detect it. Or they'd investigate on it discretely. They could see that you neither have the technical expertise, nor the political leanings which would make you likely to do such a thing. However, if the individual is a PhD in EE. with a couple million dollars, and connections to the Russian Mob who just happens to hate the US and is asking for plutonium....then perhaps you'd want them to investigate. And maybe even "deal" with them, though I doubt the NSA makes a habit of this.
My point is not that you're an idiot. I don't know you well enough, and I try to reserve my judgements of others.
You started off your previous comment by apologizing, but there was still a hint of "Gee maybe if you keep it up I'll change my mind about you (rich kid)". Maybe I misinterpreted what you said.... I don't believe that you're a "poor" kid, nor do I assume the "poor" are "stupid". If you found that particular comment offensive, i'm sorry. What I was trying to show you was that it is a two way street. That there should be a certain amount of symetry in your beliefs. If you believe it is ok to associate wealth with spoiled children, be aware that using similar methods one can associate poorness with stupidity.
I take issue with these kind of superficial judgements (particularly when it is assumed that EVERYONE is this way), even if there might be a kernel of truth to them. Rather then flaming you with sheer emotional rants, I attempted to provide you with a cohesive rational argument -- I wasn't trying to "outsmart" you. Sometimes people just don't use their intellect to challenge their preconceptions. I've certainly been guilty of it before, and i'll probably be guilty of it again.
Regarding colleges (again), its merely a difference in opinion. Though my age and experiences may play a role here. I was more inclined when I was younger to buy into the whole "Rah Rah" school thing. I believe that some schools are better, but they don't have the lock on highly capable and intelligent students. More subjectively (in my experience), I just don't see a great deal of differences between the schools you mentioned (except maybe Cornell, yuck, heh).
If Echelon is as good as many seem to think it is, why raise all the fuss? If mere key words can't trigger it, and its actually able to tell pick "bad" intent out amongst all the other noise, what is the problem? eg: assasinate president in the name of allah, blow DC up, blow airplane up, etc etc etc.
Unless this thing returns a significant number of false positives (which it might); I, for one, am not that alarmed by this. If only terrorists and criminals are affected, I couldn't give a damn.
The issue is when they use this technology to audit anything they don't like -- abusing the power. I suppose this is a legitimate concern, but many advocates of "Jam Echelon" bring nothing but FUD to the table. They ought to give a coherant and rational argument as to how it could affect decent citizens adversely.
This VC may be very good; I agree with most of what he said. However, I personally known a couple established hi-tech CEOs (president and founder) who've been burnt by VCs. VCs like all other professions come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Not all are ethical, or even particularly good at what they do.
Not all are "up to date on the latest technologies" -- in fact, in talking to some they're suprisingly ignorant. Not all VCs know the nature of the business. Many VC firms tend send their more junior people who're straight out of business school, with little to no practical experience, who propose business school formulas with unparalleled naivety.
Venture Capital certainly does play an important role in mediating risk these days, but even here there can be an irrational aversion to "risk". Many demand larger preferred shares and other special treatment that private and equally large share holders will not. Many look down on the CEO, despite experience or success. Damn few have any experience starting up a business themselves, yet wish to dispense advice.
There is a certain herd mentality amongst VCs -- extremely incestuous. They'll take large risks, but only as long as others are. Few are willing to stray from whatever what the rest are doing, even if that is actually the safer/better path (eg: they'd rather fail with company, but never alone despite its relative safety). As a result, in many industries they're the last of the major financing to come in.
That being said, VCs have helped thousands of firms come around. What they say and do, is helpfull to the vast majority of startups, those with little to no business experience. However, It'd be naive to go in blind folded. I'd recommend that the person first consult someone who is familiar with the process (eg: a business owner who's been through it).
If not that, there are a couple major law firms in the major cities who're specializing in advising hi-tech startups. They perform a variety of services, from finding you private investors, to providing limited legal advise, and just generally steering you the right direction.
Gee thanks, I guess. The onus isn't on me to change views, particularly superficial ones. Especially on a forum such as slashdot, where virtually everyone is rich by historical and current international standards (even domestically).
The "rich" by no means have a lock on spoiled children. Wealth is an enabler; it is not an ends onto itself. Wealth may make it easier and even provide the opportunity for "spoilage" to occur. But its not just the rich who are spoiled, and not all the rich are spoiled. This is particularly true when you compare the American middle class with the upper middle class/upper class. None of which know the meaning of a day to day existence, insofar as the basic staples go.
What is it about money that causes "spoilage"? Is spoilage the mere act of living a safer, more secure, and more comfortable life? If this is the case, then virtually everyone on slashdot guilty from any perspective other than that of today in the US (and those few other developed nations). Otherwise, you believe there are other qualifications. Such as how one behaves and acts in this world, and their outlook on life.
Does merely having money in the bank cause spoilage? It doesn't do you much good if you can't spend it, or if you only spend it on essentials. I believe wealth is but one factor in spoiled kids. There are many others, though some are somewhat dependent on wealth. Consider these other elements (both quantitatively and qualitatively):
# of Siblings - Parents attention, wealth, etc is divided. Parents tend to adopt unrealistic expectations of their first born...
Looks - Do you know what its like to be ugly? fat? skinny? tall?...Humility.
Intelligence - Are you blessed with intelligence? Cursed?
Athletic Prowess - Are you an athlete? Oafish?
Upbringing - Do your parents shield you from the world? Expect you to work around the house? Take jobs below what you're capable of getting due to privileges? Did your parents tell you that you're a little genius? Did your parents shuttle you around? Remind you of how fortunate you are? Teach you how to forgive and forget? Your parents allow you to watch TV? Join the consumer culture? Buy you crap? Did your parents know when to say no? Apologetic for not giving your more?
Health - You ever have medical problems? Family? Lost a parent? Had to help siblings? Made commitments to family?
Social - You a nerd? Super-cool? Jock? Affluent friends? What are your social expectations? Do you understand people, like to hear yourself talk, or both? Introvert, Extrovert?
Failure - You ever made a mistake in your life? Learn anything from it? Your parents go through hard times? Did they tell you anything about it? Did you experience it yourself?
Fortunate - Were you brought up in a good neighborhood? Safe? Comfortable? Polite? Decent school? Or are you the only college bound one in your school?
Moves - You ever left your home town, the security of friends and family? Moved across the country? Done it several times? Lived anywhere where you don't know anyone? Changed schools, economic, and social groups?
This is by no means a complete list, but they are some of the larger factors in ones personl growth that strike me. They are far more significant than merely having money in the bank. Wealth merely provides an increased potential (in one dimension) for some acts. Most of these are beyond the control of the individual, much like parents' wealth. When you start to change a few of these variables, the tables can turn quickly.
The bottom line is, looking strictly at the wealth of ones parents is a very poor indicator of personality. You would have better luck by just glancing at the individual for the first time and drawing conclusions from that (eg: How they carry themselves). Atleast that is a reflection of the individual. Though, hopefully, you've come to the conclusion over the years that that you've been woefully wrong there as well.
I could draw an equally offensive correlation, by saying the poor are stupid. But hey, if you keep on behaving the way you're behaving, I might change my mind about you....
On another note, regarding colleges, I agree partially with you. Though I think you overstate the particular differences between the specific schools that you mentioned. In my experience and the experience of others at these schools (Princeton, UPenn, MIT, Stanford, Cornell, etc) are not all that different. Even the EEs I know disagree. Its probably somewhat accurate when you're comparing the lower ranked schools with the higher ranked schools. The only way to really compare them is to study at for all 4 years. And even then, the impressions are going to be vastly different depending on the indidividual, the crowd they fall in with, their major, and others. It can't be overstated enough.
I've seen such attacks as early as 4 years ago, if not sooner. The first was a non-spoofing udp (non-root requiring) client/server flooding program for *nix, though i can't recall its name (FABI? or something like that). To install a massive number of these things, it'd be all too trivial for someone to setup a perl script which'd parse sniffing logs, then install and launch the program. Futhermore, it could also theoretically also be remotely commanded via spoofed packets from the hax0r's dialup linux box (making it difficult to positively trace the hackers and the other machines from the others)
I've also seen perl scripts which jump on a list of backdoors (bind shells, netbus/bo, etc) and simply executing a trivial command like "ping" on a whole list of them. These have been around for a couple years as well.
Its extremely difficult to stop such attacks, on either end: the flooding victim, or the flooder victims. Spoofed or unspoofed. There is a little that can be done. Though DOS counterattacks can work too. Let us imagine that I've rigged up a script to cause a thousand different windoze machines to connect() (via TCP) repeatedly to a service such as httpd(this can cause a great deal of damage to even the best servers). These are obviously not spoofed, and could be effectively DOSed by sending a single nestea style packet to each offending machine. Better to have those few ignorant users machines offline for a few minutes (preferably with an accompanying email) than deny access to a popular site to millions. Windows can't yet spoof, so this would atleast require the hacker to use *nix machines to execute the attack. Unix machines do tend to have more competent administrators, and its easier to reach them as they're fewer. The hackers could of course spoof, but that would atleast require somewhat more skill on the part of the coder (not that script kiddies know the first thing about that anyways).
In the long run, there is simply no solution to stopping this stuff though. There a thousands of ways that a reasonably creative person can come up with, without a great deal of skill, to effectively cripple the internet. This is true today, and it will remain true in the future as long as we have: companies who put security on a low priority, ISPs who're essentially incompetent, and strong priorities on freedom and privacy.
It may go a long way. But unless those thousand people pool their interests, its most likely going to be a rag-tag distribution of money. Whereas the billionare or pooled interest (pre-funded) is decisive. They can, and do, allocate it all to one particularly promising campaign. Given a reasonably equal number of dollars, this will be far more effective. E pluribus Unum...Out of many one.
However, that being said, I think corporate speech (lobbying) has a place, though it is much abused. Innocent (and not so innocent) actions by the ignorant masses and politicians can cripple perfectly legitimate industries in a matter of days.
Is the immediate desire of the voting population, to outweigh their long term economic interests and the interests of the company (shareholders, employees, bondholders, management, etc)? Perhaps companies should be given the same right to contribute that voters are (they are already basically viewed an an individual legally). The question is, how do you weight it, and who decides what is equitable. Its a tough call.
I'm aware that the line between censorship and freedom is a fine line. My concern here is not people expressing their opinion, it is monies and similar contributions being given in return for actions on the part of our various legislators.
Put it this way, if you owned a company, would you allow your vendors to give money and other favors to whichever employee is in charge of purchasing and acquisitions? Absolutely not. You can't just say, "oh they can accept goods, but they can't show any consideration." That just isn't practical to enforce. You have to draw the line and simply say, No.
Yet, every day both republicans and democrats alike moonlight with various lobbies. It has only gotten worse and worse since Clinton has been elected (despite claims to the contrary).
One notorious company which is known for its lobbying is ADM. They've created whole industries for themselves with effective lobbying. For example, the sugar tariffs. Its in the name of protectionism, to protect domestic sugar growers from foreign competition. The unadvertised side effect is that domestic sugar remains 3-4x higher (if memory serves) than foreign sugar. So guess what, many sugar consuming companies turn to cheaper alternatives. Guess who just happens to own most of the corn syrup production? You guessed it, ADM. We're talking billions upon billions of dollars?...Or how about adding Ethanol to gasoline in the name of clean air. It never demonstrated that it actually helped. Yet, it passed it great cost to many. Guess who just happened to profit? ADM. Tearing away at trucking via NAFTA? The unions are responsible for that one. NRA...anyone?
There are many examples like these. The fact of the matter is that you're never going to be able to prosecute either party no matter how illegal you make consideration. There are always going to be loop holes. The money is going to end up in campaign coffers no matter what is done.
You have to ask yourself, what is worse? Creating a universal law which evens the playing field for all politicians, thus making such campaign contributions worthless, and as a side effect killing a certain area of free speach, but doing so in a consistent and fair manner. Or accepting the status quo: failed attempts at regulation and continued aggressive lobbying, causing inequitable spending, law making, and policy making.
I don't think the answer is black and white. But i'm not inclined to run in fear just because it happens to put a clamp on a small area of speach. This is not the first time that speach, as defined in the constitution, has been restricted. You're not allowed to yell fire in a theater. You're not allowed to liabel. Commercial advertisements are constantly restricted. Television and radio content is censored by the FCC for nudity and language. Some of these shouldn't exist. But others are simply necessary.
Until I see a perfect answer, I will continue to consider such methods. If you have a better idea, please do tell.
PS: Pulling apart words (snip snip), and paraphrasing (putting words in my mouth) are not appreciated. There are other ways more polite ways to discuss disagreements without being so catty. Particularly on a forum such as this, where exact syntax, and other such considerations play a small role. Its not witty, and its most certainly not informative (particularly in this case). It may be your prerogative, but a little etiquette goes a long way. Thanks...
This case is ridiculous. However, campaign finance issues do need to be addressed. There should be restrictions on contributions. Lobbying (of all kinds) is arguably a form of free speach. Though there are clearly huge abuses that simply can't be allowed. Its not just fortune 500 companies either, its unions, interest groups, and many others.
I basically feel that the greater good would be to disallow active advertisements. eg: TV ads, magazine ads, banner ads, etc. They tend not to be informative, and resort to scare mongering, and mud slinging.
"Passive" ads on the other hand would be allowed. eg: Web pages comparing and contrasting the candidates. The Federal government should provide a web site, call it election.gov. Which would basically provide the forum for each candidate and interest group to speak their minds, and distribute meaningful information. Hopefully, it would be conducive to constructive and intelligent criticism,...rather than what is normally seen today in politics.
I know it wouldn't make it absolutely equitable, but that is not my primary concern here. I don't think we can, as a country, afford to have our promulgators and policy makers to be enticed by financial considerations given by various lobbies.
I've seen 2 successful bio-tech startups first hand. They simply wouldn't happen without patent protection. And yes, they did take on the big boys. Yes, there are some serious issues with patent abuse by the bigger companies. But no, killing patents won't help socially, economically, or medically. Fixing the legal/patent system is important though.
The fact of the matter is that BOTH parties CHOOSE to participate KNOWING full well the outcome. I fail to see how anyone can argue that all such transactions mean that one person must loose, and the other must win. It simply doesn't work this way. If one person 'won', and the other 'lost', the transaction simply wouldn't take place. Sure, one party will normally end up holding the other's money. But in exchange, you recieve something which you find to be of greater or equal value to the cash you had. This is not a loss.
Lets say if I were a farmer, and I produce 500 bushels of wheat. I'd far rather have 50 bucks in my hand, than keep 2 bushels of wheat. You, the baker, need my product to bake bread. So you purchase 2 bushels of wheat at 50 bucks. I'm happy. You're happy. These two bushels then enable you to create 1000 loafs of bread. You then sell each loaf for 50 cents a piece. It only costs you 5 cents per loaf for my product. And, lets say, 10 cents for the other ingredients. This gives you a value added of 35 cents per loaf. Because you did business with me, you can now earn more money. You still think this is a loss?
You didn't loose because you found it MS software more valuable than the alternative of keeping your money. Your customers didn't loose, because they choose to purchase your software. They may either purchase it for entertainment, producivity, business, you name it. The notion that one "looses" because they fail to pass along expenses is silly.
When you go to the grocery store, are you loosing 50 times over? Following your logic, the only way to not loose would mean that you go out and grow it on your own. The people who brings these products to you enjoy various efficiencies, which bring you cheaper products. Which is the more efficient use of time and money? The farmer, the baker, the packagers, the distributor, are all specialized and experience economies of scale which you could never. Furthermore the learning curves are too many and too steep to allow you to reproduce what they do as efficiently as they do it....Yet you "lose" because you purchased these goods. You either have to assume that the end consumer is an absolute moron. Or that your theory is wrong.
I'd inclined to pursue 'rich'. But not everyone feels this way. Rich many times implies more work and risk. Its not just, do you want to be rich or do you want to be poor all things being equal. All things are not equal. Its not just a matter of being smart, fortunate, lucky, etc. For the entreprenuer atleast, its more a matter of focus, drive, hardwork, risk, intelligence and willingness to cross nay-sayers.
At a certain point though, for most people, its no longer about the money. For most, after a couple million in cash (as opposed to non-liquid forms), you have the freedom to do what you. You can buy the cars you want, the sailboat, the house, etc. You come to realize that the next toy won't bring you lasting happiness, and in many ways means more hassle. Thus you set other goals for yourself. eg: Contributing something of real value to the world. And for a more distributed percentage its to reach some arbitrary goal, eg: More Money than Ellison, be the best in your career, improve shareholder value, make sure your trusted long time employees can retire, etc. In other words, something to keep striving for.
I know many people like this, my parents for one. The stressed incurred as an owner/president/CEO of a startup corporation is like none other. Its a love/hate relationship. Both highly rewarding in some ways, but grueling in others. Free Time? Whats that? Is this worth it? For some, for me, for my parents, yes. I'd rather risk falling on my face for the opportunity to see greater things, than choose the safer but less rewarding career. I'd rather work longer and harder and not enjoy my money as much, and see my company continue to grow. There are alot of personal value judgements involved. For me atleast, this has less little to do with money. (Though the money is part of it -- relative to my other options the difference as to what I can really spend is not that great...though a Chalet in the Rockies, and a sailboat would be great). If it were merely a matter of _wanting_ more money, provided the option, the economy would look much more different.
The patent office's role has never been all that significant. You can squeeze just about anything through the office, making it stand up in court is an entirely different issue. This is by no means unique to software. Its a complex issue, I don't think there are any perfect answers. But certainly the patent office could use more competent reviewers to lower the number of bogus lawsuits.
hehe, right on. It never ceases to amaze me how many people, particularly slashdotters just don't get it.
Though I think your imagery could use some work...
It's like planning a manned space flight; designing a ship with no space for fuel or means of propulsion, giving up control to a committee of people 30 miles underground on earth, and plotting your course straight through the center of the sun. Then pinning failure to reach Pluto on the astronauts, because of their poor behavior on board the ship. ...or something like that =)
I didn't mean anything by the teaching comment. It is merely an example of a career that is not part of "the path". It, in and of itself, is a noble career in my opinion.
However, that being said, I've observed a certain apathy at public schools (and private schools to a lesser extent) amongst teachers. Have you ever for example noted in US News and World reports observed the 'intelligence' of education majors (which are required for most every public school teaching job), by almost all accounts its shockingly low on average. Even at the 'best' schools you compare them with virtually anyone else in that same school, and they're orders of magnititudes lower. I did a little math, and I was suprised to find out that the average score equivelents at the top schools were lower than even the N.C.A.A cutoff for college athletes (think football).
That in combination with talking to various people involved in public education and personal experience, has lead me to some conclusions over the years. Put simply, there is a great deal of dead wood in the system. The system is in many ways setup to assure this, but thats too much to get into here and now. In order to prevent further confusion, I reiterate, there is NOTHING wrong with teaching in and of itself.
I think the college ratings are overly discussed. It can be revealing, even useful, to get a sampling for the reputation of schools in the business community. Graduation rates. Average GPAs. That and other statistics can provide some useful information. But to read much beyond these statistics, strike me as an excercise in futility.
I also think the value of particular colleges are overemphasized. Sure, the 'top' schools tend to get brighter students (atleast if you think high school GPAs and standardized tests are accurate measures). But they by no means have the lock on it. Sure, it helps when applying for a job from a "name" school (though a few years later in many professions it matters little). Sure, in certain areas the better/wealthier schools can offer facilities which many others can't. But I believe school is for the most part, what you make of it. Some schools though, do a better job of insuring that the lower half atleast acquire certain skills before they graduate (eg: reading, writing, etc)
On the flip side, you see a certain self-satisfaction of a certain number of the 'top' grads. Which cause or allow them to pursue the easier path (much like prep school grads). There are also a lot of people who don't really do well in high school, for whatever reason, and only start to produce in college or later -- but come out with a fire in their belly.
In either case, when I look at the people at the top of their careers (be it business, engineering, computer science, or what have you), I see little differentation between the better schools (~800 different colleges) With the exception of perhaps academics, where name is everything.
The notion that I was attacking was that rich kids: just inherit money, don't have to work, etc. This is untrue. It was not whine. Most of the people posting on this thread seem to ASSUME that I'm bitching becuase a) I'm 'rich' b) I dare imply that NOT EVERYTHING is perfect. I clearly stated that I would not want to trade places.
That being said however, you said you've seen kids who've burned out in 'lower middle' class areas. Well this happens in private schools as well. The difference is that it is more than just your parents pushing you. Its every part of your social life. I don't think thats so rosy. Its fine if you're capable of succeeding. But its not so great if you realize that perhaps you're not smart enough, not motivated enough, sick of that life, or perhaps you'd just be happier teaching high school...
You seem to see a certain sickness in the 'preppy' situation. I couldn't agree with you more. That is exactly my point. While I don't agree that parents should be forced send their kids to public school (many like you end up changing their minds --especially when you live in a not-so middle class town in upstate NY), I do have some objections to the 'coasting' lifestyle.
That being said, I think you overstate the admissions process. It is becoming tougher and tougher for such kids to get admitted like that. Being the son or daughter of an alumni simply doesn't give you carte blanche these days. (Look at the admissions ratios alone could tell you this) Yet the pressures to 'succeed' still exist. These do bring certain streses. PERIOD. Are these stresses greater than the ones experienced by poor people? Probably not.
I do have respect for people who make more with less. But wakeup, will you? As you stated earlier, you are lower-middle class. Which most certainly qualifies you as living a life well beyond that of most of this world. Purely on your own merits? I'm sure circustances had NOTHING to do with your success (as if). Caltech is a fine school, better in many ways than many of the Ivys. But number #1? Do you really believe those surveys? Where just the year before another school was number #1 (Harvard, or Yale). I don't buy into the notion that schools actually go from 'best to better' in a period of a year, every year. I think some schools are better at certain things, over an extended period of time. But what you GET out of college depends far more on the individual than the college (almost regardless of where you go. Note: Doenst have even have to be "#50")
Yes, and busing was/is such an obvious success. The "rich" may wield more influence proportionately, but I think in reality the various interest groups carry alot more weight. eg: teachers unions, minorities, religious groups. etc. Every time I see any change for the better, it gets shot down by various groups.
You see some reasonably decent public school programs in certain suburbs. But I think this has more to do with the fact that since most EVERYONE comes from such a background, that a certain level of performance is expected. The question is, when you bus a kid out to the some school, and there is a 1:1000 ratio of 'rich to poor', does the same effect occur? I don't think so. Is there a higher likely hood of the same kid, despite his parents, falling through the cracks? Yes, I think so. Is this the greater good? I think not.
This still doesn't answer why Catholic schools do significantly better with the same group of people. Or how about, why is it that so many Asians have come to the US year after year, in the the period of one generation or less, manage to create sucessful businesses, speak english fluently, etc. Yet other classes/races in the same schools make so much less of themselves generation after generation.
The dynamic of private schools is also changing. More and more people of 'lower' classes are going to private schools. Look at the admissions rates at most any. The fact of the matter is that more than just the 'elite' realize how hopeless the situation is. Now economy has certainly helped, but it is more than just that. The lengths that many people go to send their kids to such schools is unbelievable....
I was not complaining. Many people who've posted on/. seem to bear a natural resentment to anyone established. The person before me said that rich kids dont have to work, and other such non-sense. Imagine LIVING that life, and being told that No, your jobs working as a janitor in inner city hospitals and the like never infact happened. Nor do I have to work my ass off for anything in my life. And that, I'm just going to inherit money. It couldn't be further from the truth.
The primary difference being was that I was responding to an actual comment. Whereas you're assuming i'm saying my life sucks (because I've got money, and I indicated that its not black and white). Far from it, I would NEVER want to trade places. However, I have seen some that have burnt out. There is more to this life than money... but failing relative to the level of performance of your social group is hurtfull.
...and as I stated, I have the highest respect for those who really climb... You brought far too many assumptions into what you read (or didn't read) from my comment.
You're telling me that most(or many) electrician's sons are just expected to go to Princeton, Penn, Harvard, Stanford, etc? Perhaps your parents personally demanded that of you. I've seen that before. But it is not the same, as when every stitch of your social life demands such things of you. What if you're simply not bright? Legacy and the like means less and less these days. Again, this comes down to qualitative, not quantitative issues. If you're brought up a certain way, making a drastic change from that can be traumatic for some.
Secondly, I was NOT complaining. If you read my comment, you would have seen that I said that I wouldn't want to trade places. Growing up wealthy does not mean that I have my head stuck in the sand as many would like to believe.
This has little to do with 'defending' my wealth. I really don't feel the need. The issue is weather or not more money will help the school system. I know from personal experience that it will not.
Instead, of attacking my arguments with reason, you find it easier to merely group me with 'thousands from my socio-economic class...'
Forcing one into schools is certainly NOT about freedom. And I seriously doubt, it'll help. But come on, give me your best arguments as to why you believe this will help. Until then, shut your mouth.
You strike me as the bitter type. There was not one ounce of whine in my comment. You're obviously bitter. The point is that IT is _expected_ weather or not the kid really wants to go to one of the top colleges or not. All things being equal, sure, i'd still choose my life in a second. But life doesn't come without some complications. The original post stated and implied that children of rich parents don't have to work, etc etc etc. This is simply untrue, and I was addresssing them.
If you wish to see the world as black and white, be my guest. But don't pull apart my comments (snip snip) as if you're offering some revealing insight. Its the qualitative aspects that you simply fail to grasp. Its easy to write me off as being just another 'rich kid', but whatever its your life...
PS: You seem to want to believe that I'm rich, and you're not. I don't have to know you to know (reasonably) that this is not true. I'm sure that if anyone looked at your circumstances, it'd be well beyond the means of 95% of this world. So put this in perspective.
Marxism suffers from more than just implementation errors. The economic scheme is flawed from the get go. It assumes that resources can be efficiently allocated centrally. This is a fatal flaw. It was written by a dilletante academic with no experience or understanding of markets, let alone human nature. People will suffer no matter how it is implemented or enforced.
When people advocate confiscating property in ANY philosophers name, expect a reaction.
I don't buy the strict economics argument. The public schools, contrary to popular belief, are not poor performing for want of money. The fact of the matter is that public school teachers are paid significantly more, yet they tend to be poorly educated. Public schools also recieve almost as much money per student on average as do private schools(more in some cases). I don't think an infusion of money is going to help anything. Take a look at the Catholic parochial schools, for example. They have basically the same set of kids, from the same neighborhoods, economic background, etc. Yet they consistently do better than public schools in the worst parts of town with MUCH less money.
The primary thing that sets schools apart is expectations and interference. Public schools are plagued by unions, regulations, etc. Private schools are relatively unencumbered. Students are simply expected to perform and behave. Parenting no doubt plays a large role. But I don't see how adding a few extra voices (wealthy) into the already loud rumble is going to help the others. I don't see how adding one rich kid into a class room of poor kids is going to change the atmosphere for the better. Perhaps politically if the 'rich' have more of a stake in the public school system, change might happen faster. Though I doubt this, the various interest groups and unions seem to sway the vote alot more.
I don't have all the answers, and i'm not prepared to offer a complete formula for success. But forcing the wealthy into the same schools strikes me as an obviously bad answer (intuitively, emperically, etc). There are more fundamental issues that need to be addressed first.
Slashdot Mirror
This is higly subjective. But WHY should terrorists' privacy be protected? Don't you have a duty to the thousands that will die at his hands?
I don't want to say that the Constitution is to be taken lightly. But I think you have to look at the intent, not the letter here. They simply didn't have the technology to do what we do today. Search most certainly implied siezure at that time.
For a moment, let us ignore the Constitution, How exactly are you adversely affected by a machine processing and ignoring your transmissions? What is the harm? And what is the potential pay off? (assuming my previous criteria)
Auditing those other groups would simply be an abuse of power.
Ok, lets narrow Echelon's theoretical objectives down somewhat (quickly). Let us say that its sole objective was to find people who INTEND to set off a nuclear explosion in DC in the next 3 days. If it does this with 100% accuracy (no false positives), then I have no problem with "invading" their privacy. As the ability to kill millions of people is not a right.
If innocent people merely pass through the machine and nothing further is done with it (no logs/databse, no flags, nothing), I don't see the problem. How does this differ from having your mail not read? The problem is the logistics and the potential for abuse.
I agree with you, that it is a slippery slope. I see two seperate problems with Echelon (doubtfull it exists to the extent many seem to think):
a) False positives. If this thing returns no false positives, then innocent people simply won't be affected. "Bad" people will. However, I have serious doubts about the ability to filter out false positives. If it returns even the smallest percentage of false positives, the human managers are going to be deluged with mail to read -- the system can't work.
b) The potential for abuse. Its real enough. Though I don't believe the NSA is evil, there are some legitimate concerns that they could start using this technology to further domestic interests. Or political, or what have you...
If you really do intend to blow up the capitol building; don't expect a great deal of sympathy from me. If you mean it jokingly, I would hope that the NSA would be able to detect it. Or they'd investigate on it discretely. They could see that you neither have the technical expertise, nor the political leanings which would make you likely to do such a thing. However, if the individual is a PhD in EE. with a couple million dollars, and connections to the Russian Mob who just happens to hate the US and is asking for plutonium....then perhaps you'd want them to investigate. And maybe even "deal" with them, though I doubt the NSA makes a habit of this.
My point is not that you're an idiot. I don't know you well enough, and I try to reserve my judgements of others.
You started off your previous comment by apologizing, but there was still a hint of "Gee maybe if you keep it up I'll change my mind about you (rich kid)". Maybe I misinterpreted what you said.... I don't believe that you're a "poor" kid, nor do I assume the "poor" are "stupid". If you found that particular comment offensive, i'm sorry. What I was trying to show you was that it is a two way street. That there should be a certain amount of symetry in your beliefs. If you believe it is ok to associate wealth with spoiled children, be aware that using similar methods one can associate poorness with stupidity.
I take issue with these kind of superficial judgements (particularly when it is assumed that EVERYONE is this way), even if there might be a kernel of truth to them. Rather then flaming you with sheer emotional rants, I attempted to provide you with a cohesive rational argument -- I wasn't trying to "outsmart" you. Sometimes people just don't use their intellect to challenge their preconceptions. I've certainly been guilty of it before, and i'll probably be guilty of it again.
Regarding colleges (again), its merely a difference in opinion. Though my age and experiences may play a role here. I was more inclined when I was younger to buy into the whole "Rah Rah" school thing. I believe that some schools are better, but they don't have the lock on highly capable and intelligent students. More subjectively (in my experience), I just don't see a great deal of differences between the schools you mentioned (except maybe Cornell, yuck, heh).
No hard feelings.
If Echelon is as good as many seem to think it is, why raise all the fuss? If mere key words can't trigger it, and its actually able to tell pick "bad" intent out amongst all the other noise, what is the problem? eg: assasinate president in the name of allah, blow DC up, blow airplane up, etc etc etc.
Unless this thing returns a significant number of false positives (which it might); I, for one, am not that alarmed by this. If only terrorists and criminals are affected, I couldn't give a damn.
The issue is when they use this technology to audit anything they don't like -- abusing the power. I suppose this is a legitimate concern, but many advocates of "Jam Echelon" bring nothing but FUD to the table. They ought to give a coherant and rational argument as to how it could affect decent citizens adversely.
This VC may be very good; I agree with most of what he said. However, I personally known a couple established hi-tech CEOs (president and founder) who've been burnt by VCs. VCs like all other professions come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Not all are ethical, or even particularly good at what they do.
Not all are "up to date on the latest technologies" -- in fact, in talking to some they're suprisingly ignorant. Not all VCs know the nature of the business. Many VC firms tend send their more junior people who're straight out of business school, with little to no practical experience, who propose business school formulas with unparalleled naivety.
Venture Capital certainly does play an important role in mediating risk these days, but even here there can be an irrational aversion to "risk". Many demand larger preferred shares and other special treatment that private and equally large share holders will not. Many look down on the CEO, despite experience or success. Damn few have any experience starting up a business themselves, yet wish to dispense advice.
There is a certain herd mentality amongst VCs -- extremely incestuous. They'll take large risks, but only as long as others are. Few are willing to stray from whatever what the rest are doing, even if that is actually the safer/better path (eg: they'd rather fail with company, but never alone despite its relative safety). As a result, in many industries they're the last of the major financing to come in.
That being said, VCs have helped thousands of firms come around. What they say and do, is helpfull to the vast majority of startups, those with little to no business experience. However, It'd be naive to go in blind folded. I'd recommend that the person first consult someone who is familiar with the process (eg: a business owner who's been through it).
If not that, there are a couple major law firms in the major cities who're specializing in advising hi-tech startups. They perform a variety of services, from finding you private investors, to providing limited legal advise, and just generally steering you the right direction.
Gee thanks, I guess. The onus isn't on me to change views, particularly superficial ones. Especially on a forum such as slashdot, where virtually everyone is rich by historical and current international standards (even domestically).
...Humility.
The "rich" by no means have a lock on spoiled children. Wealth is an enabler; it is not an ends onto itself. Wealth may make it easier and even provide the opportunity for "spoilage" to occur. But its not just the rich who are spoiled, and not all the rich are spoiled. This is particularly true when you compare the American middle class with the upper middle class/upper class. None of which know the meaning of a day to day existence, insofar as the basic staples go.
What is it about money that causes "spoilage"? Is spoilage the mere act of living a safer, more secure, and more comfortable life? If this is the case, then virtually everyone on slashdot guilty from any perspective other than that of today in the US (and those few other developed nations). Otherwise, you believe there are other qualifications. Such as how one behaves and acts in this world, and their outlook on life.
Does merely having money in the bank cause spoilage? It doesn't do you much good if you can't spend it, or if you only spend it on essentials. I believe wealth is but one factor in spoiled kids. There are many others, though some are somewhat dependent on wealth. Consider these other elements (both quantitatively and qualitatively):
# of Siblings - Parents attention, wealth, etc is divided. Parents tend to adopt unrealistic expectations of their first born...
Looks - Do you know what its like to be ugly? fat? skinny? tall?
Intelligence - Are you blessed with intelligence? Cursed?
Athletic Prowess - Are you an athlete? Oafish?
Upbringing - Do your parents shield you from the world? Expect you to work around the house? Take jobs below what you're capable of getting due to privileges? Did your parents tell you that you're a little genius? Did your parents shuttle you around? Remind you of how fortunate you are? Teach you how to forgive and forget? Your parents allow you to watch TV? Join the consumer culture? Buy you crap? Did your parents know when to say no? Apologetic for not giving your more?
Health - You ever have medical problems? Family? Lost a parent? Had to help siblings? Made commitments to family?
Social - You a nerd? Super-cool? Jock? Affluent friends? What are your social expectations? Do you understand people, like to hear yourself talk, or both? Introvert, Extrovert?
Failure - You ever made a mistake in your life? Learn anything from it? Your parents go through hard times? Did they tell you anything about it? Did you experience it yourself?
Fortunate - Were you brought up in a good neighborhood? Safe? Comfortable? Polite? Decent school? Or are you the only college bound one in your school?
Moves - You ever left your home town, the security of friends and family? Moved across the country? Done it several times? Lived anywhere where you don't know anyone? Changed schools, economic, and social groups?
This is by no means a complete list, but they are some of the larger factors in ones personl growth that strike me. They are far more significant than merely having money in the bank. Wealth merely provides an increased potential (in one dimension) for some acts. Most of these are beyond the control of the individual, much like parents' wealth. When you start to change a few of these variables, the tables can turn quickly.
The bottom line is, looking strictly at the wealth of ones parents is a very poor indicator of personality. You would have better luck by just glancing at the individual for the first time and drawing conclusions from that (eg: How they carry themselves). Atleast that is a reflection of the individual. Though, hopefully, you've come to the conclusion over the years that that you've been woefully wrong there as well.
I could draw an equally offensive correlation, by saying the poor are stupid. But hey, if you keep on behaving the way you're behaving, I might change my mind about you....
On another note, regarding colleges, I agree partially with you. Though I think you overstate the particular differences between the specific schools that you mentioned. In my experience and the experience of others at these schools (Princeton, UPenn, MIT, Stanford, Cornell, etc) are not all that different. Even the EEs I know disagree. Its probably somewhat accurate when you're comparing the lower ranked schools with the higher ranked schools. The only way to really compare them is to study at for all 4 years. And even then, the impressions are going to be vastly different depending on the indidividual, the crowd they fall in with, their major, and others. It can't be overstated enough.
I've seen such attacks as early as 4 years ago, if not sooner. The first was a non-spoofing udp (non-root requiring) client/server flooding program for *nix, though i can't recall its name (FABI? or something like that). To install a massive number of these things, it'd be all too trivial for someone to setup a perl script which'd parse sniffing logs, then install and launch the program. Futhermore, it could also theoretically also be remotely commanded via spoofed packets from the hax0r's dialup linux box (making it difficult to positively trace the hackers and the other machines from the others)
I've also seen perl scripts which jump on a list of backdoors (bind shells, netbus/bo, etc) and simply executing a trivial command like "ping" on a whole list of them. These have been around for a couple years as well.
Its extremely difficult to stop such attacks, on either end: the flooding victim, or the flooder victims. Spoofed or unspoofed. There is a little that can be done. Though DOS counterattacks can work too. Let us imagine that I've rigged up a script to cause a thousand different windoze machines to connect() (via TCP) repeatedly to a service such as httpd(this can cause a great deal of damage to even the best servers). These are obviously not spoofed, and could be effectively DOSed by sending a single nestea style packet to each offending machine. Better to have those few ignorant users machines offline for a few minutes (preferably with an accompanying email) than deny access to a popular site to millions. Windows can't yet spoof, so this would atleast require the hacker to use *nix machines to execute the attack. Unix machines do tend to have more competent administrators, and its easier to reach them as they're fewer. The hackers could of course spoof, but that would atleast require somewhat more skill on the part of the coder (not that script kiddies know the first thing about that anyways).
In the long run, there is simply no solution to stopping this stuff though. There a thousands of ways that a reasonably creative person can come up with, without a great deal of skill, to effectively cripple the internet. This is true today, and it will remain true in the future as long as we have: companies who put security on a low priority, ISPs who're essentially incompetent, and strong priorities on freedom and privacy.
It may go a long way. But unless those thousand people pool their interests, its most likely going to be a rag-tag distribution of money. Whereas the billionare or pooled interest (pre-funded) is decisive. They can, and do, allocate it all to one particularly promising campaign. Given a reasonably equal number of dollars, this will be far more effective. E pluribus Unum...Out of many one.
However, that being said, I think corporate speech (lobbying) has a place, though it is much abused. Innocent (and not so innocent) actions by the ignorant masses and politicians can cripple perfectly legitimate industries in a matter of days.
Is the immediate desire of the voting population, to outweigh their long term economic interests and the interests of the company (shareholders, employees, bondholders, management, etc)? Perhaps companies should be given the same right to contribute that voters are (they are already basically viewed an an individual legally). The question is, how do you weight it, and who decides what is equitable. Its a tough call.
I'm aware that the line between censorship and freedom is a fine line. My concern here is not people expressing their opinion, it is monies and similar contributions being given in return for actions on the part of our various legislators.
Put it this way, if you owned a company, would you allow your vendors to give money and other favors to whichever employee is in charge of purchasing and acquisitions? Absolutely not. You can't just say, "oh they can accept goods, but they can't show any consideration." That just isn't practical to enforce. You have to draw the line and simply say, No.
Yet, every day both republicans and democrats alike moonlight with various lobbies. It has only gotten worse and worse since Clinton has been elected (despite claims to the contrary).
One notorious company which is known for its lobbying is ADM. They've created whole industries for themselves with effective lobbying. For example, the sugar tariffs. Its in the name of protectionism, to protect domestic sugar growers from foreign competition. The unadvertised side effect is that domestic sugar remains 3-4x higher (if memory serves) than foreign sugar. So guess what, many sugar consuming companies turn to cheaper alternatives. Guess who just happens to own most of the corn syrup production? You guessed it, ADM. We're talking billions upon billions of dollars?
There are many examples like these. The fact of the matter is that you're never going to be able to prosecute either party no matter how illegal you make consideration. There are always going to be loop holes. The money is going to end up in campaign coffers no matter what is done.
You have to ask yourself, what is worse? Creating a universal law which evens the playing field for all politicians, thus making such campaign contributions worthless, and as a side effect killing a certain area of free speach, but doing so in a consistent and fair manner. Or accepting the status quo: failed attempts at regulation and continued aggressive lobbying, causing inequitable spending, law making, and policy making.
I don't think the answer is black and white. But i'm not inclined to run in fear just because it happens to put a clamp on a small area of speach. This is not the first time that speach, as defined in the constitution, has been restricted. You're not allowed to yell fire in a theater. You're not allowed to liabel. Commercial advertisements are constantly restricted. Television and radio content is censored by the FCC for nudity and language. Some of these shouldn't exist. But others are simply necessary.
Until I see a perfect answer, I will continue to consider such methods. If you have a better idea, please do tell.
PS: Pulling apart words (snip snip), and paraphrasing (putting words in my mouth) are not appreciated. There are other ways more polite ways to discuss disagreements without being so catty. Particularly on a forum such as this, where exact syntax, and other such considerations play a small role. Its not witty, and its most certainly not informative (particularly in this case). It may be your prerogative, but a little etiquette goes a long way. Thanks...
This case is ridiculous. However, campaign finance issues do need to be addressed. There should be restrictions on contributions. Lobbying (of all kinds) is arguably a form of free speach. Though there are clearly huge abuses that simply can't be allowed. Its not just fortune 500 companies either, its unions, interest groups, and many others.
I basically feel that the greater good would be to disallow active advertisements. eg: TV ads, magazine ads, banner ads, etc. They tend not to be informative, and resort to scare mongering, and mud slinging.
"Passive" ads on the other hand would be allowed. eg: Web pages comparing and contrasting the candidates. The Federal government should provide a web site, call it election.gov. Which would basically provide the forum for each candidate and interest group to speak their minds, and distribute meaningful information. Hopefully, it would be conducive to constructive and intelligent criticism,
I know it wouldn't make it absolutely equitable, but that is not my primary concern here. I don't think we can, as a country, afford to have our promulgators and policy makers to be enticed by financial considerations given by various lobbies.
...anyways, i'm out of time. hasta
I've seen 2 successful bio-tech startups first hand. They simply wouldn't happen without patent protection. And yes, they did take on the big boys. Yes, there are some serious issues with patent abuse by the bigger companies. But no, killing patents won't help socially, economically, or medically. Fixing the legal/patent system is important though.
The fact of the matter is that BOTH parties CHOOSE to participate KNOWING full well the outcome. I fail to see how anyone can argue that all such transactions mean that one person must loose, and the other must win. It simply doesn't work this way. If one person 'won', and the other 'lost', the transaction simply wouldn't take place. Sure, one party will normally end up holding the other's money. But in exchange, you recieve something which you find to be of greater or equal value to the cash you had. This is not a loss.
Lets say if I were a farmer, and I produce 500 bushels of wheat. I'd far rather have 50 bucks in my hand, than keep 2 bushels of wheat. You, the baker, need my product to bake bread. So you purchase 2 bushels of wheat at 50 bucks. I'm happy. You're happy. These two bushels then enable you to create 1000 loafs of bread. You then sell each loaf for 50 cents a piece. It only costs you 5 cents per loaf for my product. And, lets say, 10 cents for the other ingredients. This gives you a value added of 35 cents per loaf. Because you did business with me, you can now earn more money. You still think this is a loss?
You didn't loose because you found it MS software more valuable than the alternative of keeping your money. Your customers didn't loose, because they choose to purchase your software. They may either purchase it for entertainment, producivity, business, you name it. The notion that one "looses" because they fail to pass along expenses is silly.
When you go to the grocery store, are you loosing 50 times over? Following your logic, the only way to not loose would mean that you go out and grow it on your own. The people who brings these products to you enjoy various efficiencies, which bring you cheaper products. Which is the more efficient use of time and money? The farmer, the baker, the packagers, the distributor, are all specialized and experience economies of scale which you could never. Furthermore the learning curves are too many and too steep to allow you to reproduce what they do as efficiently as they do it.
I'd inclined to pursue 'rich'. But not everyone feels this way. Rich many times implies more work and risk. Its not just, do you want to be rich or do you want to be poor all things being equal. All things are not equal. Its not just a matter of being smart, fortunate, lucky, etc. For the entreprenuer atleast, its more a matter of focus, drive, hardwork, risk, intelligence and willingness to cross nay-sayers.
At a certain point though, for most people, its no longer about the money. For most, after a couple million in cash (as opposed to non-liquid forms), you have the freedom to do what you. You can buy the cars you want, the sailboat, the house, etc. You come to realize that the next toy won't bring you lasting happiness, and in many ways means more hassle. Thus you set other goals for yourself. eg: Contributing something of real value to the world. And for a more distributed percentage its to reach some arbitrary goal, eg: More Money than Ellison, be the best in your career, improve shareholder value, make sure your trusted long time employees can retire, etc. In other words, something to keep striving for.
I know many people like this, my parents for one. The stressed incurred as an owner/president/CEO of a startup corporation is like none other. Its a love/hate relationship. Both highly rewarding in some ways, but grueling in others. Free Time? Whats that? Is this worth it? For some, for me, for my parents, yes. I'd rather risk falling on my face for the opportunity to see greater things, than choose the safer but less rewarding career. I'd rather work longer and harder and not enjoy my money as much, and see my company continue to grow. There are alot of personal value judgements involved. For me atleast, this has less little to do with money. (Though the money is part of it -- relative to my other options the difference as to what I can really spend is not that great...though a Chalet in the Rockies, and a sailboat would be great). If it were merely a matter of _wanting_ more money, provided the option, the economy would look much more different.
The patent office's role has never been all that significant. You can squeeze just about anything through the office, making it stand up in court is an entirely different issue. This is by no means unique to software. Its a complex issue, I don't think there are any perfect answers. But certainly the patent office could use more competent reviewers to lower the number of bogus lawsuits.
hehe, right on. It never ceases to amaze me how many people, particularly slashdotters just don't get it.
Though I think your imagery could use some work...
It's like planning a manned space flight; designing a ship with no space for fuel or means of propulsion, giving up control to a committee of people 30 miles underground on earth, and plotting your course straight through the center of the sun. Then pinning failure to reach Pluto on the astronauts, because of their poor behavior on board the ship.
...or something like that =)
I didn't mean anything by the teaching comment. It is merely an example of a career that is not part of "the path". It, in and of itself, is a noble career in my opinion.
However, that being said, I've observed a certain apathy at public schools (and private schools to a lesser extent) amongst teachers. Have you ever for example noted in US News and World reports observed the 'intelligence' of education majors (which are required for most every public school teaching job), by almost all accounts its shockingly low on average. Even at the 'best' schools you compare them with virtually anyone else in that same school, and they're orders of magnititudes lower. I did a little math, and I was suprised to find out that the average score equivelents at the top schools were lower than even the N.C.A.A cutoff for college athletes (think football).
That in combination with talking to various people involved in public education and personal experience, has lead me to some conclusions over the years. Put simply, there is a great deal of dead wood in the system. The system is in many ways setup to assure this, but thats too much to get into here and now. In order to prevent further confusion, I reiterate, there is NOTHING wrong with teaching in and of itself.
I think the college ratings are overly discussed. It can be revealing, even useful, to get a sampling for the reputation of schools in the business community. Graduation rates. Average GPAs. That and other statistics can provide some useful information. But to read much beyond these statistics, strike me as an excercise in futility.
I also think the value of particular colleges are overemphasized. Sure, the 'top' schools tend to get brighter students (atleast if you think high school GPAs and standardized tests are accurate measures). But they by no means have the lock on it. Sure, it helps when applying for a job from a "name" school (though a few years later in many professions it matters little). Sure, in certain areas the better/wealthier schools can offer facilities which many others can't. But I believe school is for the most part, what you make of it. Some schools though, do a better job of insuring that the lower half atleast acquire certain skills before they graduate (eg: reading, writing, etc)
On the flip side, you see a certain self-satisfaction of a certain number of the 'top' grads. Which cause or allow them to pursue the easier path (much like prep school grads). There are also a lot of people who don't really do well in high school, for whatever reason, and only start to produce in college or later -- but come out with a fire in their belly.
In either case, when I look at the people at the top of their careers (be it business, engineering, computer science, or what have you), I see little differentation between the better schools (~800 different colleges) With the exception of perhaps academics, where name is everything.
The notion that I was attacking was that rich kids: just inherit money, don't have to work, etc. This is untrue. It was not whine. Most of the people posting on this thread seem to ASSUME that I'm bitching becuase a) I'm 'rich' b) I dare imply that NOT EVERYTHING is perfect. I clearly stated that I would not want to trade places.
That being said however, you said you've seen kids who've burned out in 'lower middle' class areas. Well this happens in private schools as well. The difference is that it is more than just your parents pushing you. Its every part of your social life. I don't think thats so rosy. Its fine if you're capable of succeeding. But its not so great if you realize that perhaps you're not smart enough, not motivated enough, sick of that life, or perhaps you'd just be happier teaching high school...
You seem to see a certain sickness in the 'preppy' situation. I couldn't agree with you more. That is exactly my point. While I don't agree that parents should be forced send their kids to public school (many like you end up changing their minds --especially when you live in a not-so middle class town in upstate NY), I do have some objections to the 'coasting' lifestyle.
That being said, I think you overstate the admissions process. It is becoming tougher and tougher for such kids to get admitted like that. Being the son or daughter of an alumni simply doesn't give you carte blanche these days. (Look at the admissions ratios alone could tell you this) Yet the pressures to 'succeed' still exist. These do bring certain streses. PERIOD. Are these stresses greater than the ones experienced by poor people? Probably not.
I do have respect for people who make more with less. But wakeup, will you? As you stated earlier, you are lower-middle class. Which most certainly qualifies you as living a life well beyond that of most of this world. Purely on your own merits? I'm sure circustances had NOTHING to do with your success (as if). Caltech is a fine school, better in many ways than many of the Ivys. But number #1? Do you really believe those surveys? Where just the year before another school was number #1 (Harvard, or Yale). I don't buy into the notion that schools actually go from 'best to better' in a period of a year, every year. I think some schools are better at certain things, over an extended period of time. But what you GET out of college depends far more on the individual than the college (almost regardless of where you go. Note: Doenst have even have to be "#50")
Yes, and busing was/is such an obvious success. The "rich" may wield more influence proportionately, but I think in reality the various interest groups carry alot more weight. eg: teachers unions, minorities, religious groups. etc. Every time I see any change for the better, it gets shot down by various groups.
You see some reasonably decent public school programs in certain suburbs. But I think this has more to do with the fact that since most EVERYONE comes from such a background, that a certain level of performance is expected. The question is, when you bus a kid out to the some school, and there is a 1:1000 ratio of 'rich to poor', does the same effect occur? I don't think so. Is there a higher likely hood of the same kid, despite his parents, falling through the cracks? Yes, I think so. Is this the greater good? I think not.
This still doesn't answer why Catholic schools do significantly better with the same group of people. Or how about, why is it that so many Asians have come to the US year after year, in the the period of one generation or less, manage to create sucessful businesses, speak english fluently, etc. Yet other classes/races in the same schools make so much less of themselves generation after generation.
The dynamic of private schools is also changing. More and more people of 'lower' classes are going to private schools. Look at the admissions rates at most any. The fact of the matter is that more than just the 'elite' realize how hopeless the situation is. Now economy has certainly helped, but it is more than just that. The lengths that many people go to send their kids to such schools is unbelievable....
I was not complaining. Many people who've posted on
The primary difference being was that I was responding to an actual comment. Whereas you're assuming i'm saying my life sucks (because I've got money, and I indicated that its not black and white). Far from it, I would NEVER want to trade places. However, I have seen some that have burnt out. There is more to this life than money... but failing relative to the level of performance of your social group is hurtfull.
...and as I stated, I have the highest respect for those who really climb... You brought far too many assumptions into what you read (or didn't read) from my comment.
You're telling me that most(or many) electrician's sons are just expected to go to Princeton, Penn, Harvard, Stanford, etc? Perhaps your parents personally demanded that of you. I've seen that before. But it is not the same, as when every stitch of your social life demands such things of you. What if you're simply not bright? Legacy and the like means less and less these days. Again, this comes down to qualitative, not quantitative issues. If you're brought up a certain way, making a drastic change from that can be traumatic for some.
Secondly, I was NOT complaining. If you read my comment, you would have seen that I said that I wouldn't want to trade places. Growing up wealthy does not mean that I have my head stuck in the sand as many would like to believe.
This has little to do with 'defending' my wealth. I really don't feel the need. The issue is weather or not more money will help the school system. I know from personal experience that it will not.
Instead, of attacking my arguments with reason, you find it easier to merely group me with 'thousands from my socio-economic class...'
Forcing one into schools is certainly NOT about freedom. And I seriously doubt, it'll help. But come on, give me your best arguments as to why you believe this will help. Until then, shut your mouth.
You strike me as the bitter type. There was not one ounce of whine in my comment. You're obviously bitter. The point is that IT is _expected_ weather or not the kid really wants to go to one of the top colleges or not. All things being equal, sure, i'd still choose my life in a second. But life doesn't come without some complications. The original post stated and implied that children of rich parents don't have to work, etc etc etc. This is simply untrue, and I was addresssing them.
If you wish to see the world as black and white, be my guest. But don't pull apart my comments (snip snip) as if you're offering some revealing insight. Its the qualitative aspects that you simply fail to grasp. Its easy to write me off as being just another 'rich kid', but whatever its your life...
PS: You seem to want to believe that I'm rich, and you're not. I don't have to know you to know (reasonably) that this is not true. I'm sure that if anyone looked at your circumstances, it'd be well beyond the means of 95% of this world. So put this in perspective.
Marxism suffers from more than just implementation errors. The economic scheme is flawed from the get go. It assumes that resources can be efficiently allocated centrally. This is a fatal flaw. It was written by a dilletante academic with no experience or understanding of markets, let alone human nature. People will suffer no matter how it is implemented or enforced.
When people advocate confiscating property in ANY philosophers name, expect a reaction.
I don't buy the strict economics argument. The public schools, contrary to popular belief, are not poor performing for want of money. The fact of the matter is that public school teachers are paid significantly more, yet they tend to be poorly educated. Public schools also recieve almost as much money per student on average as do private schools(more in some cases). I don't think an infusion of money is going to help anything. Take a look at the Catholic parochial schools, for example. They have basically the same set of kids, from the same neighborhoods, economic background, etc. Yet they consistently do better than public schools in the worst parts of town with MUCH less money.
The primary thing that sets schools apart is expectations and interference. Public schools are plagued by unions, regulations, etc. Private schools are relatively unencumbered. Students are simply expected to perform and behave. Parenting no doubt plays a large role. But I don't see how adding a few extra voices (wealthy) into the already loud rumble is going to help the others. I don't see how adding one rich kid into a class room of poor kids is going to change the atmosphere for the better. Perhaps politically if the 'rich' have more of a stake in the public school system, change might happen faster. Though I doubt this, the various interest groups and unions seem to sway the vote alot more.
I don't have all the answers, and i'm not prepared to offer a complete formula for success. But forcing the wealthy into the same schools strikes me as an obviously bad answer (intuitively, emperically, etc). There are more fundamental issues that need to be addressed first.