Okay, I think the main difference in our arguments is that you thought I was suggesting the government fund everything while I'm suggesting people just cut corporations and government out of the equation and do it for themselves. I'm a strong supporter of small to medium sized businesses and of community groups. I'm never in favor of bigger government which I think is what you're associating with communism?
I'm also not in favor of to much power to corporations. That IMO is just as dangerous as to much power to the government. In ideal people would work together to balance the power of both corporations and government. In actuality our culture doesn't encourage that and people seem surprised at the idea that they even could hold power. There just isn't enough 'community' on a large scale right now to really apply itself.
You question why people would want to work for free. Part of it is just ego and the need to feel self worth but there is also concern for the community. Maybe you want to raise the minimum standard of living or provide a resource for your children or their children. IMO those are important reasons to build up your community. Yes businesses can help with donations and such but that without individuals involved will never be a strong community. A Slashdot-related example would be opensource software. A lot of people don't understand why some of us donate so much effort to providing software we're not being paid for. Part of it is because we need it for ourselves or those reasons of ego or self worth but often it's because we'd like to share with others or care about the legacy being left for future generations. Do we want our children to use only software from a couple large companies and approved by the government or do we want some say in what they can use? Maybe we can write better software or maybe we can just offer choices. Either way it's a worth while effort.
The only thing I'd really argue about that you said is that nobody that is working fulltime can be unable to pay for the cost of living for themselves and their family unless they've somehow brought the problem on themselves. Even without children it's impossible for people making minimum wage to keep up with their bills. Rent and utilities alone will often go above that income. Sure, it's easy to say that they should just get better jobs. It's easy to say that but not easy to do. In a lot of places there aren't enough good jobs to go around. Would it be responsible to just refuse to work because the job doesn't pay a fair wage? I doubt your landlord would agree. The problem will only get worse as automation and offshoring jobs becomes more popular. Even a lot of jobs that require a fair bit of training pay less than $10/hr. It's somewhat amazing to me that a nurses aid in many places makes $7/hr while the pizza delivery guy makes $12/hr. And no the nurses aids can't just all quit and start delivering pizza. It's against the law for them to leave those in their care until someone relieves them on duty. Even if they could I doubt most would because they feel some responsibility to those in their care. IMO the companies employeeing these people should also feel the responsibility to pay their employees well enough to pay their cost of living. That's the kind of thing that needs to stop happening.
There is a lot of room for companies that make a million or two a year. There isn't a lot of room for 100 million or billion dollar companies that only make web pages. By inflating companies with money they haven't earned, and likely could never have earned, you're just setting them out to be destroyed. As you say web designers don't need to make $150k/yr. They'd have been better off paying their designers $50k/yr and sticking to their roots. There is still plenty of opportunity on the Net.. even in markets that have already inflated and popped.
One of my favorite examples is online grocery shopping. There were a few companies that tried that and went crazy with the money and totally flopped but there would still be plenty of room in most areas for such a company. Take orders, purchase the products for your customers, and deliver. Simple and easy to start such a company and it'd be very useful to people that aren't mobile enough to shop for themselves or are simply to busy. Take risks but don't get greedy. There is nothing wrong with doing well for yourself. There is nothing wrong with getting a return for the risks you take. It only becomes a problem when you lose sight of everything but the money.
The original discussion was on why the wealthy should be taxed less than the working classes. That's the viewpoint I'm arguing against. I'm not trying to claim that it's wrong to be wealthy but I do think the wealthy have a stronger responsibility to society and should bear the burden of most the taxes. Not so much as to make it impossible to be wealthy, just more than the average person. I also think that society should be policing who we allow to be wealthy. We should let those who we can trust to apply their wealth well be wealthy. Those that aren't trustworthy should not be allowed to be wealthy.
I have no interest in being wealthy. I give a large percentage of my time and money away already and if I was wealthy I'd just give more away. I'd be pretty satisfied if I could have a stable enough income to let me donate more of my time to worthy causes. $25k/yr would be plenty for my lifestyle and still leave me with enough to give some away.
In a society controlled by rich people I'll agree with your statement "Without rich people the poor have no chance.". In a society where people are given a fair percentage of the wealth they produce I'll disagree. Not all of that is the fault of the wealthy. It's equally the blame of the working class for being stupid enough to let the wealthy control them. Without consent it wouldn't be possible.
I'd have to totally disagree that it encourages people to be all they can be. IMO it encourages people to take all that they can take. Greed is God. The interest isn't on producing, it's on getting as much as you can for yourself. There is no balance to it. There is little encouragement to give back to society. There is no moral that when you make it to the top you should reach down and help others up. It's all a king of the mountain game. Our society produces enough wealth that we don't need to get ahead by keeping others down. We could do better by getting ahead by pulling others up.
Your dad must have worked for a pretty decent company. I've never known any factory worker that made hardly anything. Union workers included. My uncle works for a car company and they pay fairly well but they only work a couple months of the year. That's probably about the best factory job I've seen. On top of the typical poor conditions and wages of factory jobs many of the jobs are being sent offshore. Not especially good for people who have worked in those factories all their lives.
A lot of companies tanked in the dot bomb. A lot of companies that laid off workers weren't even at risk of tanking though. They just wanted to take advantage of the down economy to let loose employees and hire them back at lower wages. Or move the jobs offshore. Very few did anything so drastic as cutting the wages of upper management. Of course laying off so many workers has caused the recession to be considerably worse than it otherwise would have been. Oh well, who cares if the workers children go hungry as long as the stock holders didn't lose any money.
You think people working together is always communism? That seems a large stretch. So if the community forms a library by donating time, money, and used books it's communism? That's a bad thing? It's unethical for the community to form a library?
Wher do you even get your thing about luxury cars and broadband from people wanting to earn enough money (from their own labor) to provide what they could have provided for themselves with their own labor had not someone been skimming profit off the top. Does anybody that works full time deserve not to make enough money to pay for essentials? After everyone can pay for their essentials then it's fine for others to have luxury cars while most of his drive Hondas (I actually rather perfer Hondas over most luxury cars.). Do you really think ISP's go into business to sell 100Mb access to a couple rich people? I suppose you think it's wrong for community groups to form to spread free/cheap access to everyone? City-wide WiFi, running ethernet through your neighborhood, etc? I guess you think that's communist too.
I'd hardly consider Internet service non-essential to myself considering most my employment requires Internet access. For the average person I'd say Internet access is on the border between essential and non-essential - like owning a car. Owning a car shouldn't be essential but in this society it is in many places. The same is true of Internet service, phone service, electricity, water/sewer services, etc. Without these things you can live but you can't improve your station in life and at least in the US the government will take away your children if they find out.
How many companies do you know that weren't already profittable that had a successful IPO? These companies were already paying their employees, making things, and selling what they made. How many of those dot com IPO's led to more employees, better paid employees, or better products? Maybe for a short time the companies were doing a little better but then when the bubble popped both the good and the bad largely went pop with it. A lot of the companies would have done better if they'd stayed off the stock market.
Did I say to start a business with no money? Of course I didn't. Obviously you need money to start a business. That doesn't mean you have to get money from venture capitalist or by taking out a mortgage on your house. First off if the wealthy didn't control such a large portion of our wealth then you'd have more to work with. Second, you could do just that and save up your own money to fund your company. Once you've taken a loan and had your business flop you'll see the wisdom in being self-funded. And most new businesses do flop. Third, you could do something like a co-op.
I'm not jealous of anyone. That doesn't mean I have to be to stupid to realize when things are broken. There is nothing wrong with some people being wealthy. There is something wrong with such a minority of the population having such a large percentage of the wealth in their control. There is something wrong when people earn their wealth by being greedy and self-centered with no regard for the well being of others around them. Let those who have proven themselves trustworthy be given a chance to do more. Don't trust your children in the care of the wolves.
I wondered what that M$ patch I've gotten in my email 1000+ times in the past couple days was. Funny that I thought it was just a normal worm. I see that it's Microsoft trying to send me a patch that will only let secure programs (like Outlook) run on my computer. If I apply all 1000 of these patches will my system finally stop getting email viruses?
Who pays employees? The consumer. Who is the consumer? Employees.
Does art have to be expensive to be worthwhile? Most art is purchased again by consumers. Everything from music to movies. Even stupid looking little nick nacks.
When is the last time you worked in a factory? Very few of those working class people could be considered fat cats. Again the consumer is paying their wages.
Construction workers are building for the masses. The masses are again the working class consumers. Very little construction work is done entirely for the wealthy. Not that the wealthy don't try their best.. they like owning lots of big houses and things like that.
Money is worthless without something to spend it on. Without working class people it'd just be worthless paper and 1's and 0's. Most people don't work because they want money. They work because they want to live. The average employee wants a place to live, medicine, food, and to send their kid to college. They get those things from other working class people. The wealthy just make themselves middlemen to skim profit off the top of each transaction for themselves.
Yoy honestly think that without the wealthy people wouldn't need homes, food, medicine, or schools? It's because of need that these jobs exist. Not because somebody has created the jobs out of thin air to provide an amussing pass time for those that want to work.
Whenever the wealthy do better there are more jobs? Funny, I saw a lot of CEO's laying off workers so they could get hefty bonuses. This helped stockholders and upper management. How did it help the employees? Yeah, Enron made us all wealthy.
I see lots of the wealthy unable to pay their rent or buy food. Damn yeah I feel sorry that they were the first to be screwed by the recession. I'll go outside and tell some homeless people that they should feel better because the wealthy are screwed more than they are.
Do you think people can't work together without wealthy people telling them how to do it? Just because people individually lack the skills to do something doesn't mean they can't form a group to do it. Everything from charities to Linux are done that way - without stockholders.
If you can't see a balance between capitalism and socialism without screaming communism then there is something very wrong with you. Just because people don't have a corporation telling them what to do doesn't mean they need a government telling them either.
Who built the homes? Working class people. Who builds cars? Working class people. I've yet to see stockholders out doing either.
I don't care if the wealthy buy homes and cars. They can feel free to buy what they want. Somehow I can't see them buying fewer homes or cars as putting people out of work though. They're going to be out of work because 20% of the population reduces their purchases of luxury items? That other 80% of people aren't still going to need the essentials of life? Sure.
If they are taxing just because things are so easy to get that they aren't fun any more then why not make them harder to get? Or make them wear out with use or time. Seriously, that is why consumer goods break so often.. because otherwise people wouldn't need to buy them very often.. so huge corporations wouldn't exist to supply people with new can openers on a regular basis. We could make these things last longer but we choose not to. So do the same with your game.
The wealthy don't fund much at all.. the working people do. In the game it was the creative people that were actually working to make big cool things for everyone to enjoy. (Why did you think they were wealthy?) Seldom do the wealthy get off their fat asses and go out and create new cool stuff. Employees think of the ideas, engineers and scientists make it possible, artists make it look good, factory workers make the parts, and construction workers build it. Even the janitors are making an effort to keep things flowing well for those working on the projects. It's all paid for either by Joe Consumer or by tax dollars. The CEO and stock holders aren't contributing much of anything to the project.
Don't misunderstand me to say that nobody that is wealthy contributes. There are people who have become wealthy by their own creativity. It's just not the fact that most of those that are wealthy at any given time are of that sort. Not even most of the neuvo rich. I'm sad to say that most of the self made rich do it by knowing the right people and the right legal/business loopholes and being somewhat ruthless. They might be clever but they aren't contributing much to society.
As in this game the goal of the creative people wasn't to get rich, it was to be creative. Released from the ritual robbery by the wealthy many working class artists, scientists, and engineers would act those needs out in real life. Instead you end up with these people making brochures and researching the taste of toothpaste. Yeah, so lets give all the money to the rich. It helps society a lot that they can afford three large homes and a dozen fancy cars.
I don't really see anything new to this desktop. It's just Gnome cleaned up (the way many of us admins already have it for our users) with the ability to launch Java programs (which we can do anyway last timeI checked)? I didn't really see anything else described. I have no problem with Sun selling this (except for the stupid name).. it'll be good that someone finally figured out not to default with a stupid number of menu options and so forth.. but is there anything really news worthy? It sounds okay for normal users but I'm glad I don't have to use it.:)
Just because your language has an easy way to do things doesn't mean it's not helpful to know how it does them. Otherwise, if something breaks you'll have no idea what's wrong.
One reason is that sometimes it's a lot easier or more effecient to write your own little webserver to fill some niche than it is to write a module or CGI for an existing webserver. That can be especially useful if you have something that is going to be taking a lot of hits but is very simple in nature. Cut out all the overhead of something like Apache and you can let the machine breath a lot easier.
Or if you understand how http handles caching you can often much improve the caching of your website. Especially with dynamic content this is important because usually such content doesn't cache well at all. Good caching will please both your clients (who get a more responsive site) and your boss (who gets lower bandwidth charges).
There are lots of things you can do if you know how. Maybe the book that was reviewed mentions some.. no idea since I didn't read it.:)
I'd think somebody would have noticed the high usage and firewalled off that site too. I mean jeez that must have been thousands and thousands of hits to use up that much space. I'd suspect a DoS attack if I saw that in my logs.
I also suggest anyone running servers to have some sort of program monitoring disk usage. If the disk gets dangerously low on space it should notify staff and take action such as rotating logs. Have the server page an admin or set an alarm off (where it'll be noticed) or something. Whatever you'd do if an attempted intrusion was detected. I usually have the server send warnings at 90% and 95% and at about 97% usage it should give me a good loud yell.
You have had 20 years of successful software projects? I thought 'successful software project' was an oxymoron. If you keep making up these fairy tales we'll have to grow suspicious of you.;)
I hardly buy any computer books anymore. Most of the topics I need to know about aren't covered well in books yet when I need to know them. It's often difficult or impossible to find in-depth books much less up-to-date in-depth books about cutting-edge topics.
A couple times I've thought of writing an in depth book about a topic I'd finally fully explored.. to save others the trouble.. but then when I think about it who is likely to publich such a book? How many people would buy it? I could just post the text on my website but it'd be just as much effort and no return that way. Besides, I really need an editor to fix my use of the English language. So I just drop the idea as not being worth my time. I'd imagine that's why there aren't more in-depth books.
Then when shit breaks (which always happens eventually) you have no idea what the hell is wrong or how to fix it. If you're employed to keep things running then at this point your in hot water and are probably telling your boss things like "It's the newest Outlook virus doing it." so that you don't get fired.
The average web developer would be better off with a basic grasp of bandwidth issues. Maybe then we wouldn't have to wait 30 seconds or more to access such a large majority of pages.
I'd especially like to whack developers who put large Java or Flash intro pages.. especially those with no way to skip them. Okay like it's cool that you can write your company name in a fancy font and make it zoom around but really who gives a damn? If you want to make movies then make movies. If you want to make a website then make a damn website. Websites don't need neato special effects.:)
Re:Not surprising the author didn't know his niche
on
HTTP Developer's Handbook
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Worse, most web developers arn't geeky enough to know what an RFC is or how to look one up. A lot of them don't know anything about http at all other than it's the four letters at the start of most URLs. That's fine. The great thing about the web is that it's easy enough that you can be a developer without knowing how things work. You'll be a better developer though if you do know how it works. Knowing http is especially useful if you do any actual programming. If you want to know how to do some of the fancier tricks of web development you'll need to learn at least the basics of http.
I'm tempted to complain about not allowing Python. Or maybe just enter a Python program to compete. Even if disqualified from actually winning it'd be fun to compete.
I know you were joking but I do find this idea funny because I am dyslexic and it takes me a lot of effort to get my letters in the right order consistantly. The idea that non-dyslexic people are purposely getting their letters out of order when for years I've been trying not to is just funny to me. What next? Will we begin to see typefaces with characters turned upside down or backwards? Maybe we'll see normal people getting the order of words all wrong. At least from now on I can claim that my accidents were done on purpose as part of a code.:)
Even trying to get Google to let you search for files by checksums hasn't worked. I've asked several times to be able to search for files by md5 or sha checksums. It'd make it a lot easier to find mirrors of things like iso images. Evidently they just aren't interested.
This article does raise one point that I'd like to add to. For finding files any search engine will do. It doesn't need to be built into the protocol. Just make a tool that makes it easy to share files via http and create links to the servers you download files from. Then when something like Google spiders you the most useful servers will become indexed and searchable by normal means. The point being that there is no reason to make the protocol all that complex for it to work. You could even make it so the search mechanism for the client just used plugins that allowed the user to pick the search engine they wanted to search by. So you could tap into Google, Lycos, or a custom search engine for your University.
The RIAA is making every effort they can to keep artists from using the Internet. So yes there are oppurtunities but if we don't fight back then those oppurtunities will be gone. It is certainly possible for indy labels to exist but it is not easy. There are deals with radio stations, cd presses, etc to keep them from playing anything not approved by the RIAA. Those are the things I worry about. I might agree that greed on the part of artists is no more forgivable than greed on the part of the RIAA but I am not sure that everyone that signs with a major label is doing so to get rich. They might hope to get rich but for many they are equally hopeful just to be able to make a living with their talent and to have their talent appreciated by a wide audience. The label is incredibly wealthy and the artist, usually, is not wealthy at all at the point that they are signing. It's not what I'd call a deal between peers.
I don't go into stores and take anything. In fact when I download music I'm not taking anything I would have bought because I simply would not buy the music on CD at the prices it's being sold at. The company is not lossing anything from me having a copy so it's not stealing. It's not the same thing as stealing physical property at all. You aren't taking an object without paying for it. You're not taking an object at all. For people who at one time bought a lot of CD's and have stopped because they can download music then that might damage the companies but I still don't think it counts as stealing. If anything it counts as a lack of good marketing on the part of the record companies.
No, going to see bands live is also a good way of experiencing music. However, you are not experiencing the same music usually as you would experience with a CD. You are sharing more of the local culture and not of the international culture. There is nothing wrong with that at all but it doesn't mean there is no benefit to experiencing both.
Exactly, I don't have a right to force the RIAA to sell me cd's at a price I don't like.. but I do have the right to listen to music without their permission. If it happens that I listen to the same music they are trying to sell me then it's not my problem. If I like a song I hear someone else playing on the radio I have every right to sing the same song to myself. If it so happens that I can make a perfect copy of that song and listen to it anywhere then it is still the same situation.
Re:Something I've never understood...
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
Maybe SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT, etc would be a start but you'd need a test that was more like several years of finals all roles into one to do what I'd have in mind. A test with a large range of theoretical and practical questions. It would be a lot like those professional exams you mention except there would be one for each degree program available. I wouldn't see it being a further tax on people because in fact it'd let those who wanted to test out of a degree do so.. rather than paying for schooling they might not need. For instance you could get your BS in Computer Science without taking a lot of classes in English, History, and Physical Education.
You must have been to far better schools than I ever went to. In my schools cheating of all types was a major problem. Worse, IMO, teachers tended to grade in stupid ways (grade on a curve, disregarding top and bottom scores from the curve) that didn't really give good estimates of what people had learned. Incompetant teaching was also a major problem. I had fairly senior level programming courses where teachers didn't know the basic concepts of object oriented programming. One professor didn't even know what a DLL was. I knew more in highschool about computers than people graduating with their BS in CS. If I'd gone to just one school I'd think it was an individual school.. but I went to a couple and all with the same results. I'd find it hard to believe that schools are really impartial. It's in their self-interest to keep pushing out people with degress.. even if those people aren't really educated.
Re:Something I've never understood...
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Is it plagiarism if the original author gave you permission to do so? Somehow it seems perfectly okay if the original author doesn't care.
If anybody should care, other than the original author, it should be the students doing it. Are they learning as much from copying as writing? Maybe they are, if they are actually reading to find what is best to copy, and if so what is the problem?
Of course I still think schools should not be allowed to grade their own students or issue them degrees. I'd rather see a sepperation between teaching and certification. Such that when you'd finished school you'd have to take a battery of tests from a third party to verify you'd learned everything required to get your degree. In such a case it really wouldn't matter if the student copied on their papers or not as long as they had learned everything required.
Re:Birds of a feather
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Do artists have much choice? The RIAA has the market so locked up that there is little room for competition. It is pretty close to being extortion. Do it our way or you'll be flipping burgers forever. On the other hand the Internet is giving artists a choice and I hope more of them are realizing that they don't need to sign with a major label to make a living doing what they love. They may not get rich as independents but if they're good they can make a decent living.
I don't mind cd prices being high but again that is because the Internet gives me an alternative. I'll continue to download music instead of buying it until they lower cd prices. They can make threats until they go blue in the face and it won't change the fact that as long as they overcharge they'll be lossing out on sales. I don't need to feel guilty about the artists because I can support them by going to concerts and buying tshirts and posters and such. This whole thing is essentially consumers refusing to be ripped off.
I'll also disagree that people can live without music. That is a dumb concept that I hear often. Music, movies, tv, artwork, etc may not be needed to stay alive but it is needed to keep our culture alive. Without expossure to such things people will go off on their own tangents and not unify in the building of our society. Shared artwork is part of shared experience and binds us together. It also seeds new ideas in other minds so that we can keep producing. So, in general, it's a bad idea to try to limit who can be exposed to our shared culture.
You're exactly right that the RIAA is doing exactly what businesses do. I don't know if I'd call what they're doing stealing but it is greed and shortsighted. That is what pure capitalism is. Which is part of why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately those laws are not really functioning so there is little balance to huge corporations that would suck the rest of the world dry. I think of the economy as an ecosystem. It's good for the ecosystem to have strong species that thrive. It becomes very bad though for one species to thrive to such a point that it's killing off many other species. Monopolies are the economic equivilant of human beings burning down rain forests.
$50,000 hardly counts as rich. Obviously you either didn't read what I said or you just ignored it. Not that $50,000 will help much to cover health expenses. She might actually do better without the money as then she's more likely to have the government or other agency pay the bills for her.
Also you're missing the obvious that I'd do just as much to help old ladies as anyone else. If they were in need I'd give them everything in my power to give to help them. Of course one person giving is limited in their reach. I might suggest that if you know an old lady in need that maybe you should give to her. It doesn't have to be money (if you haven't much).. time and friendship can be welcome gifts also. Especially for the elderly that are ofter unable to do many things for themselves and are lonely. Mow her grass, invite her to dinner with your family, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I think the main difference in our arguments is that you thought I was suggesting the government fund everything while I'm suggesting people just cut corporations and government out of the equation and do it for themselves. I'm a strong supporter of small to medium sized businesses and of community groups. I'm never in favor of bigger government which I think is what you're associating with communism?
I'm also not in favor of to much power to corporations. That IMO is just as dangerous as to much power to the government. In ideal people would work together to balance the power of both corporations and government. In actuality our culture doesn't encourage that and people seem surprised at the idea that they even could hold power. There just isn't enough 'community' on a large scale right now to really apply itself.
You question why people would want to work for free. Part of it is just ego and the need to feel self worth but there is also concern for the community. Maybe you want to raise the minimum standard of living or provide a resource for your children or their children. IMO those are important reasons to build up your community. Yes businesses can help with donations and such but that without individuals involved will never be a strong community. A Slashdot-related example would be opensource software. A lot of people don't understand why some of us donate so much effort to providing software we're not being paid for. Part of it is because we need it for ourselves or those reasons of ego or self worth but often it's because we'd like to share with others or care about the legacy being left for future generations. Do we want our children to use only software from a couple large companies and approved by the government or do we want some say in what they can use? Maybe we can write better software or maybe we can just offer choices. Either way it's a worth while effort.
The only thing I'd really argue about that you said is that nobody that is working fulltime can be unable to pay for the cost of living for themselves and their family unless they've somehow brought the problem on themselves. Even without children it's impossible for people making minimum wage to keep up with their bills. Rent and utilities alone will often go above that income. Sure, it's easy to say that they should just get better jobs. It's easy to say that but not easy to do. In a lot of places there aren't enough good jobs to go around. Would it be responsible to just refuse to work because the job doesn't pay a fair wage? I doubt your landlord would agree. The problem will only get worse as automation and offshoring jobs becomes more popular. Even a lot of jobs that require a fair bit of training pay less than $10/hr. It's somewhat amazing to me that a nurses aid in many places makes $7/hr while the pizza delivery guy makes $12/hr. And no the nurses aids can't just all quit and start delivering pizza. It's against the law for them to leave those in their care until someone relieves them on duty. Even if they could I doubt most would because they feel some responsibility to those in their care. IMO the companies employeeing these people should also feel the responsibility to pay their employees well enough to pay their cost of living. That's the kind of thing that needs to stop happening.
There is a lot of room for companies that make a million or two a year. There isn't a lot of room for 100 million or billion dollar companies that only make web pages. By inflating companies with money they haven't earned, and likely could never have earned, you're just setting them out to be destroyed. As you say web designers don't need to make $150k/yr. They'd have been better off paying their designers $50k/yr and sticking to their roots. There is still plenty of opportunity on the Net.. even in markets that have already inflated and popped.
One of my favorite examples is online grocery shopping. There were a few companies that tried that and went crazy with the money and totally flopped but there would still be plenty of room in most areas for such a company. Take orders, purchase the products for your customers, and deliver. Simple and easy to start such a company and it'd be very useful to people that aren't mobile enough to shop for themselves or are simply to busy. Take risks but don't get greedy. There is nothing wrong with doing well for yourself. There is nothing wrong with getting a return for the risks you take. It only becomes a problem when you lose sight of everything but the money.
The original discussion was on why the wealthy should be taxed less than the working classes. That's the viewpoint I'm arguing against. I'm not trying to claim that it's wrong to be wealthy but I do think the wealthy have a stronger responsibility to society and should bear the burden of most the taxes. Not so much as to make it impossible to be wealthy, just more than the average person. I also think that society should be policing who we allow to be wealthy. We should let those who we can trust to apply their wealth well be wealthy. Those that aren't trustworthy should not be allowed to be wealthy.
I have no interest in being wealthy. I give a large percentage of my time and money away already and if I was wealthy I'd just give more away. I'd be pretty satisfied if I could have a stable enough income to let me donate more of my time to worthy causes. $25k/yr would be plenty for my lifestyle and still leave me with enough to give some away.
In a society controlled by rich people I'll agree with your statement "Without rich people the poor have no chance.". In a society where people are given a fair percentage of the wealth they produce I'll disagree. Not all of that is the fault of the wealthy. It's equally the blame of the working class for being stupid enough to let the wealthy control them. Without consent it wouldn't be possible.
I'd have to totally disagree that it encourages people to be all they can be. IMO it encourages people to take all that they can take. Greed is God. The interest isn't on producing, it's on getting as much as you can for yourself. There is no balance to it. There is little encouragement to give back to society. There is no moral that when you make it to the top you should reach down and help others up. It's all a king of the mountain game. Our society produces enough wealth that we don't need to get ahead by keeping others down. We could do better by getting ahead by pulling others up.
Your dad must have worked for a pretty decent company. I've never known any factory worker that made hardly anything. Union workers included. My uncle works for a car company and they pay fairly well but they only work a couple months of the year. That's probably about the best factory job I've seen. On top of the typical poor conditions and wages of factory jobs many of the jobs are being sent offshore. Not especially good for people who have worked in those factories all their lives.
A lot of companies tanked in the dot bomb. A lot of companies that laid off workers weren't even at risk of tanking though. They just wanted to take advantage of the down economy to let loose employees and hire them back at lower wages. Or move the jobs offshore. Very few did anything so drastic as cutting the wages of upper management. Of course laying off so many workers has caused the recession to be considerably worse than it otherwise would have been. Oh well, who cares if the workers children go hungry as long as the stock holders didn't lose any money.
You think people working together is always communism? That seems a large stretch. So if the community forms a library by donating time, money, and used books it's communism? That's a bad thing? It's unethical for the community to form a library?
Wher do you even get your thing about luxury cars and broadband from people wanting to earn enough money (from their own labor) to provide what they could have provided for themselves with their own labor had not someone been skimming profit off the top. Does anybody that works full time deserve not to make enough money to pay for essentials? After everyone can pay for their essentials then it's fine for others to have luxury cars while most of his drive Hondas (I actually rather perfer Hondas over most luxury cars.). Do you really think ISP's go into business to sell 100Mb access to a couple rich people? I suppose you think it's wrong for community groups to form to spread free/cheap access to everyone? City-wide WiFi, running ethernet through your neighborhood, etc? I guess you think that's communist too.
I'd hardly consider Internet service non-essential to myself considering most my employment requires Internet access. For the average person I'd say Internet access is on the border between essential and non-essential - like owning a car. Owning a car shouldn't be essential but in this society it is in many places. The same is true of Internet service, phone service, electricity, water/sewer services, etc. Without these things you can live but you can't improve your station in life and at least in the US the government will take away your children if they find out.
How many companies do you know that weren't already profittable that had a successful IPO? These companies were already paying their employees, making things, and selling what they made. How many of those dot com IPO's led to more employees, better paid employees, or better products? Maybe for a short time the companies were doing a little better but then when the bubble popped both the good and the bad largely went pop with it. A lot of the companies would have done better if they'd stayed off the stock market.
Did I say to start a business with no money? Of course I didn't. Obviously you need money to start a business. That doesn't mean you have to get money from venture capitalist or by taking out a mortgage on your house. First off if the wealthy didn't control such a large portion of our wealth then you'd have more to work with. Second, you could do just that and save up your own money to fund your company. Once you've taken a loan and had your business flop you'll see the wisdom in being self-funded. And most new businesses do flop. Third, you could do something like a co-op.
I'm not jealous of anyone. That doesn't mean I have to be to stupid to realize when things are broken. There is nothing wrong with some people being wealthy. There is something wrong with such a minority of the population having such a large percentage of the wealth in their control. There is something wrong when people earn their wealth by being greedy and self-centered with no regard for the well being of others around them. Let those who have proven themselves trustworthy be given a chance to do more. Don't trust your children in the care of the wolves.
It must have been made in Taiwan.
I wondered what that M$ patch I've gotten in my email 1000+ times in the past couple days was. Funny that I thought it was just a normal worm. I see that it's Microsoft trying to send me a patch that will only let secure programs (like Outlook) run on my computer. If I apply all 1000 of these patches will my system finally stop getting email viruses?
Who pays employees? The consumer. Who is the consumer? Employees.
Does art have to be expensive to be worthwhile? Most art is purchased again by consumers. Everything from music to movies. Even stupid looking little nick nacks.
When is the last time you worked in a factory? Very few of those working class people could be considered fat cats. Again the consumer is paying their wages.
Construction workers are building for the masses. The masses are again the working class consumers. Very little construction work is done entirely for the wealthy. Not that the wealthy don't try their best.. they like owning lots of big houses and things like that.
Money is worthless without something to spend it on. Without working class people it'd just be worthless paper and 1's and 0's. Most people don't work because they want money. They work because they want to live. The average employee wants a place to live, medicine, food, and to send their kid to college. They get those things from other working class people. The wealthy just make themselves middlemen to skim profit off the top of each transaction for themselves.
Yoy honestly think that without the wealthy people wouldn't need homes, food, medicine, or schools? It's because of need that these jobs exist. Not because somebody has created the jobs out of thin air to provide an amussing pass time for those that want to work.
Whenever the wealthy do better there are more jobs? Funny, I saw a lot of CEO's laying off workers so they could get hefty bonuses. This helped stockholders and upper management. How did it help the employees? Yeah, Enron made us all wealthy.
I see lots of the wealthy unable to pay their rent or buy food. Damn yeah I feel sorry that they were the first to be screwed by the recession. I'll go outside and tell some homeless people that they should feel better because the wealthy are screwed more than they are.
Do you think people can't work together without wealthy people telling them how to do it? Just because people individually lack the skills to do something doesn't mean they can't form a group to do it. Everything from charities to Linux are done that way - without stockholders.
If you can't see a balance between capitalism and socialism without screaming communism then there is something very wrong with you. Just because people don't have a corporation telling them what to do doesn't mean they need a government telling them either.
Who built the homes? Working class people. Who builds cars? Working class people. I've yet to see stockholders out doing either.
I don't care if the wealthy buy homes and cars. They can feel free to buy what they want. Somehow I can't see them buying fewer homes or cars as putting people out of work though. They're going to be out of work because 20% of the population reduces their purchases of luxury items? That other 80% of people aren't still going to need the essentials of life? Sure.
If they are taxing just because things are so easy to get that they aren't fun any more then why not make them harder to get? Or make them wear out with use or time. Seriously, that is why consumer goods break so often.. because otherwise people wouldn't need to buy them very often.. so huge corporations wouldn't exist to supply people with new can openers on a regular basis. We could make these things last longer but we choose not to. So do the same with your game.
The wealthy don't fund much at all.. the working people do. In the game it was the creative people that were actually working to make big cool things for everyone to enjoy. (Why did you think they were wealthy?) Seldom do the wealthy get off their fat asses and go out and create new cool stuff. Employees think of the ideas, engineers and scientists make it possible, artists make it look good, factory workers make the parts, and construction workers build it. Even the janitors are making an effort to keep things flowing well for those working on the projects. It's all paid for either by Joe Consumer or by tax dollars. The CEO and stock holders aren't contributing much of anything to the project.
Don't misunderstand me to say that nobody that is wealthy contributes. There are people who have become wealthy by their own creativity. It's just not the fact that most of those that are wealthy at any given time are of that sort. Not even most of the neuvo rich. I'm sad to say that most of the self made rich do it by knowing the right people and the right legal/business loopholes and being somewhat ruthless. They might be clever but they aren't contributing much to society.
As in this game the goal of the creative people wasn't to get rich, it was to be creative. Released from the ritual robbery by the wealthy many working class artists, scientists, and engineers would act those needs out in real life. Instead you end up with these people making brochures and researching the taste of toothpaste. Yeah, so lets give all the money to the rich. It helps society a lot that they can afford three large homes and a dozen fancy cars.
I don't really see anything new to this desktop. It's just Gnome cleaned up (the way many of us admins already have it for our users) with the ability to launch Java programs (which we can do anyway last timeI checked)? I didn't really see anything else described. I have no problem with Sun selling this (except for the stupid name).. it'll be good that someone finally figured out not to default with a stupid number of menu options and so forth.. but is there anything really news worthy? It sounds okay for normal users but I'm glad I don't have to use it. :)
Just because your language has an easy way to do things doesn't mean it's not helpful to know how it does them. Otherwise, if something breaks you'll have no idea what's wrong.
:)
One reason is that sometimes it's a lot easier or more effecient to write your own little webserver to fill some niche than it is to write a module or CGI for an existing webserver. That can be especially useful if you have something that is going to be taking a lot of hits but is very simple in nature. Cut out all the overhead of something like Apache and you can let the machine breath a lot easier.
Or if you understand how http handles caching you can often much improve the caching of your website. Especially with dynamic content this is important because usually such content doesn't cache well at all. Good caching will please both your clients (who get a more responsive site) and your boss (who gets lower bandwidth charges).
There are lots of things you can do if you know how. Maybe the book that was reviewed mentions some.. no idea since I didn't read it.
I'd think somebody would have noticed the high usage and firewalled off that site too. I mean jeez that must have been thousands and thousands of hits to use up that much space. I'd suspect a DoS attack if I saw that in my logs.
I also suggest anyone running servers to have some sort of program monitoring disk usage. If the disk gets dangerously low on space it should notify staff and take action such as rotating logs. Have the server page an admin or set an alarm off (where it'll be noticed) or something. Whatever you'd do if an attempted intrusion was detected. I usually have the server send warnings at 90% and 95% and at about 97% usage it should give me a good loud yell.
You have had 20 years of successful software projects? I thought 'successful software project' was an oxymoron. If you keep making up these fairy tales we'll have to grow suspicious of you. ;)
I hardly buy any computer books anymore. Most of the topics I need to know about aren't covered well in books yet when I need to know them. It's often difficult or impossible to find in-depth books much less up-to-date in-depth books about cutting-edge topics.
A couple times I've thought of writing an in depth book about a topic I'd finally fully explored.. to save others the trouble.. but then when I think about it who is likely to publich such a book? How many people would buy it? I could just post the text on my website but it'd be just as much effort and no return that way. Besides, I really need an editor to fix my use of the English language. So I just drop the idea as not being worth my time. I'd imagine that's why there aren't more in-depth books.
Then when shit breaks (which always happens eventually) you have no idea what the hell is wrong or how to fix it. If you're employed to keep things running then at this point your in hot water and are probably telling your boss things like "It's the newest Outlook virus doing it." so that you don't get fired.
The average web developer would be better off with a basic grasp of bandwidth issues. Maybe then we wouldn't have to wait 30 seconds or more to access such a large majority of pages.
:)
I'd especially like to whack developers who put large Java or Flash intro pages.. especially those with no way to skip them. Okay like it's cool that you can write your company name in a fancy font and make it zoom around but really who gives a damn? If you want to make movies then make movies. If you want to make a website then make a damn website. Websites don't need neato special effects.
Worse, most web developers arn't geeky enough to know what an RFC is or how to look one up. A lot of them don't know anything about http at all other than it's the four letters at the start of most URLs. That's fine. The great thing about the web is that it's easy enough that you can be a developer without knowing how things work. You'll be a better developer though if you do know how it works. Knowing http is especially useful if you do any actual programming. If you want to know how to do some of the fancier tricks of web development you'll need to learn at least the basics of http.
I'm tempted to complain about not allowing Python. Or maybe just enter a Python program to compete. Even if disqualified from actually winning it'd be fun to compete.
I know you were joking but I do find this idea funny because I am dyslexic and it takes me a lot of effort to get my letters in the right order consistantly. The idea that non-dyslexic people are purposely getting their letters out of order when for years I've been trying not to is just funny to me. What next? Will we begin to see typefaces with characters turned upside down or backwards? Maybe we'll see normal people getting the order of words all wrong. At least from now on I can claim that my accidents were done on purpose as part of a code. :)
Even trying to get Google to let you search for files by checksums hasn't worked. I've asked several times to be able to search for files by md5 or sha checksums. It'd make it a lot easier to find mirrors of things like iso images. Evidently they just aren't interested.
This article does raise one point that I'd like to add to. For finding files any search engine will do. It doesn't need to be built into the protocol. Just make a tool that makes it easy to share files via http and create links to the servers you download files from. Then when something like Google spiders you the most useful servers will become indexed and searchable by normal means. The point being that there is no reason to make the protocol all that complex for it to work. You could even make it so the search mechanism for the client just used plugins that allowed the user to pick the search engine they wanted to search by. So you could tap into Google, Lycos, or a custom search engine for your University.
The RIAA is making every effort they can to keep artists from using the Internet. So yes there are oppurtunities but if we don't fight back then those oppurtunities will be gone. It is certainly possible for indy labels to exist but it is not easy. There are deals with radio stations, cd presses, etc to keep them from playing anything not approved by the RIAA. Those are the things I worry about. I might agree that greed on the part of artists is no more forgivable than greed on the part of the RIAA but I am not sure that everyone that signs with a major label is doing so to get rich. They might hope to get rich but for many they are equally hopeful just to be able to make a living with their talent and to have their talent appreciated by a wide audience. The label is incredibly wealthy and the artist, usually, is not wealthy at all at the point that they are signing. It's not what I'd call a deal between peers.
I don't go into stores and take anything. In fact when I download music I'm not taking anything I would have bought because I simply would not buy the music on CD at the prices it's being sold at. The company is not lossing anything from me having a copy so it's not stealing. It's not the same thing as stealing physical property at all. You aren't taking an object without paying for it. You're not taking an object at all. For people who at one time bought a lot of CD's and have stopped because they can download music then that might damage the companies but I still don't think it counts as stealing. If anything it counts as a lack of good marketing on the part of the record companies.
No, going to see bands live is also a good way of experiencing music. However, you are not experiencing the same music usually as you would experience with a CD. You are sharing more of the local culture and not of the international culture. There is nothing wrong with that at all but it doesn't mean there is no benefit to experiencing both.
Exactly, I don't have a right to force the RIAA to sell me cd's at a price I don't like.. but I do have the right to listen to music without their permission. If it happens that I listen to the same music they are trying to sell me then it's not my problem. If I like a song I hear someone else playing on the radio I have every right to sing the same song to myself. If it so happens that I can make a perfect copy of that song and listen to it anywhere then it is still the same situation.
Maybe SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT, etc would be a start but you'd need a test that was more like several years of finals all roles into one to do what I'd have in mind. A test with a large range of theoretical and practical questions. It would be a lot like those professional exams you mention except there would be one for each degree program available. I wouldn't see it being a further tax on people because in fact it'd let those who wanted to test out of a degree do so.. rather than paying for schooling they might not need. For instance you could get your BS in Computer Science without taking a lot of classes in English, History, and Physical Education.
You must have been to far better schools than I ever went to. In my schools cheating of all types was a major problem. Worse, IMO, teachers tended to grade in stupid ways (grade on a curve, disregarding top and bottom scores from the curve) that didn't really give good estimates of what people had learned. Incompetant teaching was also a major problem. I had fairly senior level programming courses where teachers didn't know the basic concepts of object oriented programming. One professor didn't even know what a DLL was. I knew more in highschool about computers than people graduating with their BS in CS. If I'd gone to just one school I'd think it was an individual school.. but I went to a couple and all with the same results. I'd find it hard to believe that schools are really impartial. It's in their self-interest to keep pushing out people with degress.. even if those people aren't really educated.
Is it plagiarism if the original author gave you permission to do so? Somehow it seems perfectly okay if the original author doesn't care.
If anybody should care, other than the original author, it should be the students doing it. Are they learning as much from copying as writing? Maybe they are, if they are actually reading to find what is best to copy, and if so what is the problem?
Of course I still think schools should not be allowed to grade their own students or issue them degrees. I'd rather see a sepperation between teaching and certification. Such that when you'd finished school you'd have to take a battery of tests from a third party to verify you'd learned everything required to get your degree. In such a case it really wouldn't matter if the student copied on their papers or not as long as they had learned everything required.
Do artists have much choice? The RIAA has the market so locked up that there is little room for competition. It is pretty close to being extortion. Do it our way or you'll be flipping burgers forever. On the other hand the Internet is giving artists a choice and I hope more of them are realizing that they don't need to sign with a major label to make a living doing what they love. They may not get rich as independents but if they're good they can make a decent living.
I don't mind cd prices being high but again that is because the Internet gives me an alternative. I'll continue to download music instead of buying it until they lower cd prices. They can make threats until they go blue in the face and it won't change the fact that as long as they overcharge they'll be lossing out on sales. I don't need to feel guilty about the artists because I can support them by going to concerts and buying tshirts and posters and such. This whole thing is essentially consumers refusing to be ripped off.
I'll also disagree that people can live without music. That is a dumb concept that I hear often. Music, movies, tv, artwork, etc may not be needed to stay alive but it is needed to keep our culture alive. Without expossure to such things people will go off on their own tangents and not unify in the building of our society. Shared artwork is part of shared experience and binds us together. It also seeds new ideas in other minds so that we can keep producing. So, in general, it's a bad idea to try to limit who can be exposed to our shared culture.
You're exactly right that the RIAA is doing exactly what businesses do. I don't know if I'd call what they're doing stealing but it is greed and shortsighted. That is what pure capitalism is. Which is part of why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately those laws are not really functioning so there is little balance to huge corporations that would suck the rest of the world dry. I think of the economy as an ecosystem. It's good for the ecosystem to have strong species that thrive. It becomes very bad though for one species to thrive to such a point that it's killing off many other species. Monopolies are the economic equivilant of human beings burning down rain forests.
$50,000 hardly counts as rich. Obviously you either didn't read what I said or you just ignored it. Not that $50,000 will help much to cover health expenses. She might actually do better without the money as then she's more likely to have the government or other agency pay the bills for her.
Also you're missing the obvious that I'd do just as much to help old ladies as anyone else. If they were in need I'd give them everything in my power to give to help them. Of course one person giving is limited in their reach. I might suggest that if you know an old lady in need that maybe you should give to her. It doesn't have to be money (if you haven't much).. time and friendship can be welcome gifts also. Especially for the elderly that are ofter unable to do many things for themselves and are lonely. Mow her grass, invite her to dinner with your family, etc.