And none of your shit is compatible. Now it's time to get a new tablet/phone/PC. The hardware has come so far along that you could reasonably do everything you want to do on any one of the devices, but you want one in your pocket and one to use a real keyboard and a giant screen. You know having three incompatible systems sucks, it's time to buy new, you've got a fist full of cash, you're at the store, what do you do?
Statistics may be full of lies and villainy, but anyone can see that the desktop is doomed. Not that we won't have desktops in the future, hell we still have radios, but they won't be where the money's at.
pft, everybody is doing, has done, or will do something illegal and with enough surveillance and selective enforcement they can bully whomever they wish. Hey, it was your responsibility to know that jaywalking is illegal. No we don't care that traffic wasn't impeded, the law isn't about blocking traffic, we have a separate charge for that. Yes, the footage shows other people jaywalking, and we'll get around to charging them in due time.
V1, crude computer makes it a drone, blah blah blah, They had remote controlled mini-tanks in WWII? OMG, the Goliath! That's adorable! Damn, as sad as it is to say, war really does bring out the creative side in us.
Yeah, rote memorization doesn't do shit for programmers. Of course, that might explain why johnny can't code.
I dunno though, I got out of school 6 years ago and throughout the entire process there was an obvious push against rote memorization. I don't think college culture could have changed that much in that short amount of time. Are you talking about highschool? Because even a decade is pretty small time-slice when talking about culture.
Wow, others might be giving you shit, but that just plain sucks dude. Have you checked out glassdoor.com? Chemists usually make more than HR drones, but HR managers is a different story. And if they've been at a company long enough with guaranteed raises, their position really doesn't matter.
At least with a chemistry degree you could go chase that oil money in the Dakota's right now. Following the money is one of those ageless pieces of advice. And anyone can be trained up as an HR drone in a couple weeks. Chemistry work takes longer, like, years.... at long as you're not just a technician doing grunt work.
I'm actually way late to this game. We had a Tandy 1000 and TI-99/A4 since before I can remember, but the idea of programming them was foreign. Programs were not something you made at home. You bought them or, well, we got a disk in the mail like a digital magazine (Big Blue Monthly) which was neat. But I dunno, I'm not entirely sure why I never tried programming those machines.
My first programming experience was on a x86 box running windows 95. I was in highschool and I found Advanced T-Robots. A programming game that took in (it's flavor of) assembly and controlled some tanks to shoot each other. I think the trick was that it had visual feedback. That's what got me hooked. I could see the effects of what I was typing in. My brother had some BASIC programs he copied out of a magazine, but that didn't impress me when I was 8. At 13 though, I could write some cludgy AI for a tank and I could see it trying to launch shells at each other and that was the spark.
"But I don't know how to program, Bill." He didn't blink. "That's ok. You're smart. You're cheap. You'll learn." He put the computer on my desk, walked out, and shut the door behind him.
My god... It's beautiful....
First, that there was someone in power that could recognize talent. Second, that he understood that he could unleash that talent at a new problem and both of you would be better for it. Third, that he got out of the way. And finally, the most glorious part... that college-age technitians would have a door they could close.
Yeah, contrast that with today where you get managers who think that learning new skills on the job is unethical, and you should go learn out when you're not on the clock. Even though the shop desperately needs unit testing.
. . . damn, you're right about the China blurb. I don't know where I picked that one up, but it's nowhere near true. The sentiment is that China is building universities and CS grads should be concerned about the competition, but yeah, sorry about that.
But seriously, rasberry pi's are not solely targeting the Chinese and Indian middle class. Nor is Oracle going to steer their war on general computing (which includes the fading of x86) against raspberry pis by consolidating the Internet while hiring all these Chinese programmers. Not all of the current topics that affect the next generation of geeks are inter-related.
But actually, you know what? YEAH, the foreign middle class IS going to use a headless system. They most certainly have a spare keyboard, monitor, and their own home network of computers BECAUSE THEY'RE MIDDLE CLASS. With the phrase "with no other system to access it", you seem to think that these are poor minnow farmers or the sort that OLPC was targeting. No, these are middle class. They have the big-screen TV and get a new computer every few years. Imagine the American middle class. Now add rice. (Also cut the wages and cost of living in half)
Well yeah they push STEM, that's where the job/money/need is. Duh.
As much as people would like to have a "classic" education and debate what the Greeks thought about spheres, it turns out that we need an educated workforce to function as a nation. I'd like to play games all day, but launching Kerbals to the moon won't pay the bills.
The big question is CAN you even foster the sort of passion that helps people excel at STEM careers? If yes, then keep on pushing. If no, then we'll get a lot of mediocre programmers with a passion for philosophy. And hey, that's not a bad thing. It still pays the bills.
A massive problem with colleges is that too many people are getting worthless degrees and can't get work out of college and are slung with hideous crushing debt. It used to be that having ANY degree would land you a cooshy job. Those days are over. (Hell, it used to be being able to afford college meant that daddy would line you up a cooshy job, but thankfully those days are over too).
I'm still a big fan of artists, but I don't think they really need to go to college. And we still need a couple History/Philosophy/English majors. Just not this many.
If you start work at a place that doesn't challenge you, just as O'Reily's speech points out, you're going to rot, not learn any new skills, and you'll be priced out of a job.
As a graduate, especially a smart graduate, he should definitely seek a place that will be challenging. And yes, you are EXACTLY right, after you gain responsibilities in life is the point you settle down and become the senior long-term developer for... whatever. Or, god forbid, go into management. But once you have a grey beard and become a domain expert in whatever it is you do, you don't have to chase after the newest technology. You still can, and that's good, but you don't have to.
tl;dr You're both right because priorities change over time.
Do your co-workers really just skip workdays? Really?
Or is this some sort of over-the-top job-hunting strategy? Are you suggesting they sneak into an office and start doing work? That would make an interesting gradient of workers: Full-time engineers -> contractors -> interns -> and then that office ninja who doesn't officially work here, doesn't have a desk, but can be assigned to do things now and then.
I'm sorry, but this is the vague timeless advice that isn't targeting the class of 2013. It gives no information that is insightful for today's graduates that wasn't also true for the last 30 years.
Even start-up / small companies have been an aspect of the industry since... what? The 80's? Before that you needed some capital just to afford a computer.
Why doesn't he address the upcoming death of the desktop? That China and India are developing a middle class and that China is graduating more engineers than the USA has citizens? The effects of large corporations steering large OSS projects into the ground? That the hardware has bottomed out and full computers only cost you $30. What about the consolidation of the Internet? Or how about the war on general computing? I mean, these are computer science majors, I imagine it's kind of a thing for them.
"Requiring" is such a strong word. GPS satellites in orbit REQUIRE adjusting for time dilation due to their speed. You know, cause we care about nano seconds when placing our quadcopters between three satellites. That's current modern technology, not science fiction. Welcome to the future.
Do we care that the Kerbal (who are currently immortal, do not breath, and can withstand infinite G forces) that is coming back from his decade long mission that overshot the moon has experienced an extra second or two? Eh, probably not. If they ever implement time-delayed communications, it could be an issue.
Wut? The Chinese are just trying to make a living. Most are minnow farmers moving to city factory jobs. They're developing a middle class and as whole are going through a lot of changes very quickly. We've been through that rodeo before and we can foresee some of the stresses and strain they're going to go through, but by and far populations like that can
China, the country, and more specifically the government running the show, is an ally. But they're not an altruistic beacon of good. They're really just in the game to help themselves. Just like all of our other allies. Great Britian, France, Japan, the Saudi family, Iraq, they are our allies, but don't give the term too much weight. Once it suits their intrests to stab us in the back they will. And, sadly, we would do the same. Because this isn't some utopian fantasy land where everyone plays nice. It's a competative game where we can increase our score by working together, so we do, for now. They're allies the same way that Wall Street, Hollywood, Monsanto, Texas, and Silicon Valley are our "allies". Sure, they're ostensibly working on our side, under our rules (mostly), and we get goods and taxes out of them (sometimes). But they're not in it for our own well being. They want cash and power. They have their own agenda and plans. We all do. And those fuckers on Wall Street have taken the whole economy hostage and demanded free money to clean up their shit.
But yeah, some of our allies would suffer more if we got pissed at them. Those are closer allies than others. China isn't that close of an ally.
No, he was merely gifted until he published those four groundbreaking papers in 1905 that took the world by storm. Prior to that he had certainly proved himself to be smart enough to warrant, you know, college tuition. Even at the age of 5 he had shown that he could handle the advanced classes.
The argument is that he wasn't genius until he did something at a genius-level. Before that he was sub-genius, but still damn smart, because he had proved said intelligence through schoolwork and such. You can argue till you're blue in the face about him (or you) being a "potential genius", but the counter-argument that the coward and I would make is that we don't care about potential (or raw-intelligence), only results. If you don't do anything with that super-brain, it doesn't count.
but try not paying taxes for a while and somebody with a gun and handcuffs will visit you eventually.
I'm pretty sure they send you a letter first. Maybe two.
Well it depends on how much money you make. I had some college drop-out friends simply skip taxes a couple years. Nothing really happened, I mean, the IRS has a lot more important things to do than pay a professional to harass a kid over a few hundred bucks. Eventually he got back on track, paid some fines, and got on with his business.
Now, if you are your typical libertarian who has daddy's money and business opportunities lining his pockets, then yeah, the IRS will care. They'll send some letters, and some more, and all your friends and associates will call you crazy and stupid, and eventually someone will show up with cuffs.
But "the threat of force" is a hyperbole. It makes you sound like a fool. It's ludicrous. I mean, when you pay the ice-cream man his $1.50 for a cone, are you doing it under "the threat of force"? No, you can simply choose not to buy. Likewise, you can simply opt out of this economic system that the government fosters and go be some sort of hermit in the woods. Find someplace secluded and no one will care. (Or Somalia). If you have no income, the IRS won't give a shit. If you DO make a buck by doing business under the protection of the military, over pubicly funded roads, with government cash, etc. etc. then the majority of us have agreed that it's only fair if you pay some taxes. Deal with it.
[efficiency] Would you want it differently?
No, of course not. I'm not a big fan of waste. But you're deluding yourself if you think the corporate world is any better. The larger the organization, the larger the waste, and also the more power and control it has.
But anyway, let's look at the topic on hand: Canada is turning a blind eye to science. It's axing a lot of it's environmental protection. Why do you think that employing scientists to be watchdogs on business activities is not the most cost effective way to do things? There are a LOT of resources out there that depend on an ecosystem that can be disrupted in a myriad of ways. And businesses have a LONG history of screwing it up. Some times they even know they're doing it and just don't care. If they say fuck science let the business suits do what they want, and say, all the fish die or something, how would you price that destruction of resources? How would you prevent such activity from happening? History shows you can't trust businesses to put the welfare of the people ahead of their quarterly profits.
It's like saying there would be no roads if the government didn't build them.
YEAH, it's not like we'd have a series of irregular roads that are speed traps at every damned podunk town with god-knows what on the road around every bend if we didn't have the Interstate system!
REAL real scientists do not need to burden the taxpayer as the value of their work is recognized by businesses and is rewarded accordingly
What about when the science is that something the corporation is doing is disrupting the ecosystem?
Which business will reward that scientist?
Do you think the corporation really cares about that sort of externality? Hell, the fish farmers might even enjoy that disruption as it kills off their competition.
What about the guy at the (US) EPA that finds out that new chemical X is 5 times as mutagenic as old chemical Y, which would justify a reduction of the allowed parts per million that chemical plants are allowed to seep into the water? That guy is keeping babies from being deformed.
Whose bottom line is he working towards? Who should foot the bill for his wages? (The answer is EVERYONE'S, so the taxpayers are a good choice.)
They just might not get the funding taken forcefully taken from everyone's pocket book to fund their research.
Oh boy, you're one of those types that think taxes are equivalent to jackboot thugs raping your daughter. This is going to go all sorts of fun places.
But no, it IS a war on science. The Canadian government has a lot of ways they can decide what to do. They can get a public vote, they can go with their gut, or they can ask an expert. You know, like a scientist. If they decide to get rid of that portion of their organization it's like they're waging war on that fundamental. If they, somehow, worked towards ignoring everything the populace wanted them to do, we'd say they were waging a war on democracy. It's like if a programming firm decided to axe their QA department, you could say they "waged a war on testing".
What about the mandatory long form census. Do you wonder where that data comes from? From threats and violence against citizens.
How can you sit there and hyperbole like this and claim it's not a war on science? Are you the chosen one who is solely allowed to exaggerate? Listen, there's this form, you have to fill it out. Do your civic duty otherwise there is a fine. Yeah, yeah, paperwork is a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. And it's not jackboot Nazi thugs breaking down your door.
Considering scientists have become advocates of specific policies and ideologies instead of simply doing research, I'm in favor of defunding them as well. If all scientists did was provide the data on things like the fishery or global warming, more power to them. The moment they come in support of carbon taxes or any kind of policy, they are not doing science any longer.
When the science is screaming that the boss is screwing over generation of fishers just to get a couple of tax dollars, and it's your job to go do that science, you'd become an advocate too.
The longer you live in old age, the greater healthcare costs.
Scientists don't like to point that out because they have souls. You're literally suggesting we should let people die from health complications when they're young. Because it's expensive to take care of them in old age. Whoa dude. Whoa.
This is actually kind of an issue. The "hard truths" have a hard time getting publication and circulation because people, well, don't want to be evil. But since we're talking about policy here, I'm actually ok with the darker facts of life not being implemented. I mean, the euthanasia/eugenics/forced-sterilization crowd don't need much encouragement before they go all crazy. They're kinda already there.
Scientists being on the government payroll and being involved in politics has ruined any notion of objective science.
As opposed to being on the corporate payroll? Or do you have unyielding faith in the scientists of academia? Good science ain't cheap, and someone has to pay. Or you can live in ignorance (which is often more expensive).
There is a war on science and we're going to fight you.
Yeah, there's this nice video, RSA Animate:Drive, about what actually motivates knowledge workers. I find it insightful and it helped me focus on being a better happier developer rather than chasing a bigger paycheck.
I'd be all over a bowl of fresh fruit. But maintaining something like that has to fall to someone. And that's like, half-an-hour a day of actual work by an actual employee to go buy things, bring them back, and set them out that they actually have to pay for rather than dumping $500 on a crate of high-preservative junk food once a year.
No, I'm going to accuse you of bias because you can't actually find anything wrong with, say, the entry on the great depression. If you could show how the Wikipedia entry is simply wrong, leans towards a bias viewpoint, and provide supporting evidence showing that you're not just talking out of your ass, then you would have shown me. You would make me believe what you say, and I would do what I could to try and fix the entry, and push the Wikipedia crowd to get their shit in order. And I'd stop claiming that Wikipedia is the best thing that our generation has done. IF.
I mean, what about theKeynesian section? People bitch and moan about how the idea is completely messed up, while others think they have solid proof that it works. It's controversial. It has been peppered with propaganda from both sides that really hate each other and desperately want the history books to show their views on the subject. And yet, the article simply states what the man believed, and doesn't state whether or not it turned out to be true.
It's not because I believe the "propaganda" version, it's that you are giving no reason to believe anything else. If you can't cite some sources, you're a god-damned troll for spewing FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
And none of your shit is compatible. Now it's time to get a new tablet/phone/PC. The hardware has come so far along that you could reasonably do everything you want to do on any one of the devices, but you want one in your pocket and one to use a real keyboard and a giant screen. You know having three incompatible systems sucks, it's time to buy new, you've got a fist full of cash, you're at the store, what do you do?
Statistics may be full of lies and villainy, but anyone can see that the desktop is doomed. Not that we won't have desktops in the future, hell we still have radios, but they won't be where the money's at.
pft, everybody is doing, has done, or will do something illegal and with enough surveillance and selective enforcement they can bully whomever they wish. Hey, it was your responsibility to know that jaywalking is illegal. No we don't care that traffic wasn't impeded, the law isn't about blocking traffic, we have a separate charge for that. Yes, the footage shows other people jaywalking, and we'll get around to charging them in due time.
With lives that were nasty, brutish, and short.
V1, crude computer makes it a drone, blah blah blah, They had remote controlled mini-tanks in WWII? OMG, the Goliath! That's adorable! Damn, as sad as it is to say, war really does bring out the creative side in us.
Yeah, rote memorization doesn't do shit for programmers. Of course, that might explain why johnny can't code.
I dunno though, I got out of school 6 years ago and throughout the entire process there was an obvious push against rote memorization. I don't think college culture could have changed that much in that short amount of time. Are you talking about highschool? Because even a decade is pretty small time-slice when talking about culture.
Wow, others might be giving you shit, but that just plain sucks dude. Have you checked out glassdoor.com? Chemists usually make more than HR drones, but HR managers is a different story. And if they've been at a company long enough with guaranteed raises, their position really doesn't matter.
At least with a chemistry degree you could go chase that oil money in the Dakota's right now. Following the money is one of those ageless pieces of advice. And anyone can be trained up as an HR drone in a couple weeks. Chemistry work takes longer, like, years.... at long as you're not just a technician doing grunt work.
Yeah, a realistic one. It's pretty uncommon these days.
I'm actually way late to this game. We had a Tandy 1000 and TI-99/A4 since before I can remember, but the idea of programming them was foreign. Programs were not something you made at home. You bought them or, well, we got a disk in the mail like a digital magazine (Big Blue Monthly) which was neat. But I dunno, I'm not entirely sure why I never tried programming those machines.
My first programming experience was on a x86 box running windows 95. I was in highschool and I found Advanced T-Robots. A programming game that took in (it's flavor of) assembly and controlled some tanks to shoot each other. I think the trick was that it had visual feedback. That's what got me hooked. I could see the effects of what I was typing in. My brother had some BASIC programs he copied out of a magazine, but that didn't impress me when I was 8. At 13 though, I could write some cludgy AI for a tank and I could see it trying to launch shells at each other and that was the spark.
"But I don't know how to program, Bill." He didn't blink. "That's ok. You're smart. You're cheap. You'll learn." He put the computer on my desk, walked out, and shut the door behind him.
My god... It's beautiful....
First, that there was someone in power that could recognize talent. Second, that he understood that he could unleash that talent at a new problem and both of you would be better for it. Third, that he got out of the way. And finally, the most glorious part... that college-age technitians would have a door they could close.
Yeah, contrast that with today where you get managers who think that learning new skills on the job is unethical, and you should go learn out when you're not on the clock. Even though the shop desperately needs unit testing.
. . . damn, you're right about the China blurb. I don't know where I picked that one up, but it's nowhere near true. The sentiment is that China is building universities and CS grads should be concerned about the competition, but yeah, sorry about that.
But seriously, rasberry pi's are not solely targeting the Chinese and Indian middle class. Nor is Oracle going to steer their war on general computing (which includes the fading of x86) against raspberry pis by consolidating the Internet while hiring all these Chinese programmers. Not all of the current topics that affect the next generation of geeks are inter-related.
But actually, you know what? YEAH, the foreign middle class IS going to use a headless system. They most certainly have a spare keyboard, monitor, and their own home network of computers BECAUSE THEY'RE MIDDLE CLASS. With the phrase "with no other system to access it", you seem to think that these are poor minnow farmers or the sort that OLPC was targeting. No, these are middle class. They have the big-screen TV and get a new computer every few years. Imagine the American middle class. Now add rice. (Also cut the wages and cost of living in half)
Headless systems exclude keyboard, mouse, and display and yet they still compute. A cheap SD card is ~$5.00 and a cheap 5v transformer is ~$2.00.
Jesus Christ dude, quit with the nitpicking. And who doesn't have all this stuff lying about? Not CS grads, that's for sure.
Well yeah they push STEM, that's where the job/money/need is. Duh.
As much as people would like to have a "classic" education and debate what the Greeks thought about spheres, it turns out that we need an educated workforce to function as a nation. I'd like to play games all day, but launching Kerbals to the moon won't pay the bills.
The big question is CAN you even foster the sort of passion that helps people excel at STEM careers? If yes, then keep on pushing. If no, then we'll get a lot of mediocre programmers with a passion for philosophy. And hey, that's not a bad thing. It still pays the bills.
A massive problem with colleges is that too many people are getting worthless degrees and can't get work out of college and are slung with hideous crushing debt. It used to be that having ANY degree would land you a cooshy job. Those days are over. (Hell, it used to be being able to afford college meant that daddy would line you up a cooshy job, but thankfully those days are over too).
I'm still a big fan of artists, but I don't think they really need to go to college. And we still need a couple History/Philosophy/English majors. Just not this many.
If you start work at a place that doesn't challenge you, just as O'Reily's speech points out, you're going to rot, not learn any new skills, and you'll be priced out of a job.
As a graduate, especially a smart graduate, he should definitely seek a place that will be challenging. And yes, you are EXACTLY right, after you gain responsibilities in life is the point you settle down and become the senior long-term developer for... whatever. Or, god forbid, go into management. But once you have a grey beard and become a domain expert in whatever it is you do, you don't have to chase after the newest technology. You still can, and that's good, but you don't have to.
tl;dr You're both right because priorities change over time.
Do your co-workers really just skip workdays? Really?
Or is this some sort of over-the-top job-hunting strategy? Are you suggesting they sneak into an office and start doing work? That would make an interesting gradient of workers: Full-time engineers -> contractors -> interns -> and then that office ninja who doesn't officially work here, doesn't have a desk, but can be assigned to do things now and then.
I'm sorry, but this is the vague timeless advice that isn't targeting the class of 2013. It gives no information that is insightful for today's graduates that wasn't also true for the last 30 years.
Even start-up / small companies have been an aspect of the industry since... what? The 80's? Before that you needed some capital just to afford a computer.
Why doesn't he address the upcoming death of the desktop? That China and India are developing a middle class and that China is graduating more engineers than the USA has citizens? The effects of large corporations steering large OSS projects into the ground? That the hardware has bottomed out and full computers only cost you $30. What about the consolidation of the Internet? Or how about the war on general computing? I mean, these are computer science majors, I imagine it's kind of a thing for them.
velocities requiring relativistic corrections
"Requiring" is such a strong word. GPS satellites in orbit REQUIRE adjusting for time dilation due to their speed. You know, cause we care about nano seconds when placing our quadcopters between three satellites. That's current modern technology, not science fiction. Welcome to the future.
Do we care that the Kerbal (who are currently immortal, do not breath, and can withstand infinite G forces) that is coming back from his decade long mission that overshot the moon has experienced an extra second or two? Eh, probably not. If they ever implement time-delayed communications, it could be an issue.
Wut? The Chinese are just trying to make a living. Most are minnow farmers moving to city factory jobs. They're developing a middle class and as whole are going through a lot of changes very quickly. We've been through that rodeo before and we can foresee some of the stresses and strain they're going to go through, but by and far populations like that can
China, the country, and more specifically the government running the show, is an ally. But they're not an altruistic beacon of good. They're really just in the game to help themselves. Just like all of our other allies. Great Britian, France, Japan, the Saudi family, Iraq, they are our allies, but don't give the term too much weight. Once it suits their intrests to stab us in the back they will. And, sadly, we would do the same. Because this isn't some utopian fantasy land where everyone plays nice. It's a competative game where we can increase our score by working together, so we do, for now. They're allies the same way that Wall Street, Hollywood, Monsanto, Texas, and Silicon Valley are our "allies". Sure, they're ostensibly working on our side, under our rules (mostly), and we get goods and taxes out of them (sometimes). But they're not in it for our own well being. They want cash and power. They have their own agenda and plans. We all do. And those fuckers on Wall Street have taken the whole economy hostage and demanded free money to clean up their shit.
But yeah, some of our allies would suffer more if we got pissed at them. Those are closer allies than others. China isn't that close of an ally.
No, he was merely gifted until he published those four groundbreaking papers in 1905 that took the world by storm. Prior to that he had certainly proved himself to be smart enough to warrant, you know, college tuition. Even at the age of 5 he had shown that he could handle the advanced classes.
The argument is that he wasn't genius until he did something at a genius-level. Before that he was sub-genius, but still damn smart, because he had proved said intelligence through schoolwork and such. You can argue till you're blue in the face about him (or you) being a "potential genius", but the counter-argument that the coward and I would make is that we don't care about potential (or raw-intelligence), only results. If you don't do anything with that super-brain, it doesn't count.
but try not paying taxes for a while and somebody with a gun and handcuffs will visit you eventually.
I'm pretty sure they send you a letter first. Maybe two.
Well it depends on how much money you make. I had some college drop-out friends simply skip taxes a couple years. Nothing really happened, I mean, the IRS has a lot more important things to do than pay a professional to harass a kid over a few hundred bucks. Eventually he got back on track, paid some fines, and got on with his business.
Now, if you are your typical libertarian who has daddy's money and business opportunities lining his pockets, then yeah, the IRS will care. They'll send some letters, and some more, and all your friends and associates will call you crazy and stupid, and eventually someone will show up with cuffs.
But "the threat of force" is a hyperbole. It makes you sound like a fool. It's ludicrous. I mean, when you pay the ice-cream man his $1.50 for a cone, are you doing it under "the threat of force"? No, you can simply choose not to buy. Likewise, you can simply opt out of this economic system that the government fosters and go be some sort of hermit in the woods. Find someplace secluded and no one will care. (Or Somalia). If you have no income, the IRS won't give a shit. If you DO make a buck by doing business under the protection of the military, over pubicly funded roads, with government cash, etc. etc. then the majority of us have agreed that it's only fair if you pay some taxes. Deal with it.
[efficiency] Would you want it differently?
No, of course not. I'm not a big fan of waste. But you're deluding yourself if you think the corporate world is any better. The larger the organization, the larger the waste, and also the more power and control it has.
But anyway, let's look at the topic on hand: Canada is turning a blind eye to science. It's axing a lot of it's environmental protection. Why do you think that employing scientists to be watchdogs on business activities is not the most cost effective way to do things? There are a LOT of resources out there that depend on an ecosystem that can be disrupted in a myriad of ways. And businesses have a LONG history of screwing it up. Some times they even know they're doing it and just don't care. If they say fuck science let the business suits do what they want, and say, all the fish die or something, how would you price that destruction of resources? How would you prevent such activity from happening? History shows you can't trust businesses to put the welfare of the people ahead of their quarterly profits.
It's like saying there would be no roads if the government didn't build them.
YEAH, it's not like we'd have a series of irregular roads that are speed traps at every damned podunk town with god-knows what on the road around every bend if we didn't have the Interstate system!
REAL real scientists do not need to burden the taxpayer as the value of their work is recognized by businesses and is rewarded accordingly
What about when the science is that something the corporation is doing is disrupting the ecosystem?
Which business will reward that scientist?
Do you think the corporation really cares about that sort of externality? Hell, the fish farmers might even enjoy that disruption as it kills off their competition.
What about the guy at the (US) EPA that finds out that new chemical X is 5 times as mutagenic as old chemical Y, which would justify a reduction of the allowed parts per million that chemical plants are allowed to seep into the water? That guy is keeping babies from being deformed.
Whose bottom line is he working towards? Who should foot the bill for his wages?
(The answer is EVERYONE'S, so the taxpayers are a good choice.)
They just might not get the funding taken forcefully taken from everyone's pocket book to fund their research.
Oh boy, you're one of those types that think taxes are equivalent to jackboot thugs raping your daughter. This is going to go all sorts of fun places.
But no, it IS a war on science. The Canadian government has a lot of ways they can decide what to do. They can get a public vote, they can go with their gut, or they can ask an expert. You know, like a scientist. If they decide to get rid of that portion of their organization it's like they're waging war on that fundamental. If they, somehow, worked towards ignoring everything the populace wanted them to do, we'd say they were waging a war on democracy.
It's like if a programming firm decided to axe their QA department, you could say they "waged a war on testing".
What about the mandatory long form census. Do you wonder where that data comes from? From threats and violence against citizens.
How can you sit there and hyperbole like this and claim it's not a war on science? Are you the chosen one who is solely allowed to exaggerate?
Listen, there's this form, you have to fill it out. Do your civic duty otherwise there is a fine. Yeah, yeah, paperwork is a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. And it's not jackboot Nazi thugs breaking down your door.
Considering scientists have become advocates of specific policies and ideologies instead of simply doing research, I'm in favor of defunding them as well. If all scientists did was provide the data on things like the fishery or global warming, more power to them. The moment they come in support of carbon taxes or any kind of policy, they are not doing science any longer.
When the science is screaming that the boss is screwing over generation of fishers just to get a couple of tax dollars, and it's your job to go do that science, you'd become an advocate too.
The longer you live in old age, the greater healthcare costs.
Scientists don't like to point that out because they have souls. You're literally suggesting we should let people die from health complications when they're young. Because it's expensive to take care of them in old age. Whoa dude. Whoa.
This is actually kind of an issue. The "hard truths" have a hard time getting publication and circulation because people, well, don't want to be evil. But since we're talking about policy here, I'm actually ok with the darker facts of life not being implemented. I mean, the euthanasia/eugenics/forced-sterilization crowd don't need much encouragement before they go all crazy. They're kinda already there.
Scientists being on the government payroll and being involved in politics has ruined any notion of objective science.
As opposed to being on the corporate payroll?
Or do you have unyielding faith in the scientists of academia?
Good science ain't cheap, and someone has to pay. Or you can live in ignorance (which is often more expensive).
There is a war on science and we're going to fight you.
Yeah, there's this nice video, RSA Animate:Drive, about what actually motivates knowledge workers. I find it insightful and it helped me focus on being a better happier developer rather than chasing a bigger paycheck.
I'd be all over a bowl of fresh fruit. But maintaining something like that has to fall to someone. And that's like, half-an-hour a day of actual work by an actual employee to go buy things, bring them back, and set them out that they actually have to pay for rather than dumping $500 on a crate of high-preservative junk food once a year.
No, I'm going to accuse you of bias because you can't actually find anything wrong with, say, the entry on the great depression. If you could show how the Wikipedia entry is simply wrong, leans towards a bias viewpoint, and provide supporting evidence showing that you're not just talking out of your ass, then you would have shown me. You would make me believe what you say, and I would do what I could to try and fix the entry, and push the Wikipedia crowd to get their shit in order. And I'd stop claiming that Wikipedia is the best thing that our generation has done. IF.
I mean, what about theKeynesian section? People bitch and moan about how the idea is completely messed up, while others think they have solid proof that it works. It's controversial. It has been peppered with propaganda from both sides that really hate each other and desperately want the history books to show their views on the subject. And yet, the article simply states what the man believed, and doesn't state whether or not it turned out to be true.
It's not because I believe the "propaganda" version, it's that you are giving no reason to believe anything else. If you can't cite some sources, you're a god-damned troll for spewing FUD.