Great point! 'Round these parts (Tennessee) I have known only one developer that I can think of who believed that unionizing programmers was a good idea. And I'm not so sure he didn't state that in a more "tongue in cheek" kind of way. He's french and would always throw out the occasional "in france.... bla bla bla" comment. He also used to laugh and joke about how American's didn't have a clue on how to go on strike. "Now the french? Oh yeah... we are the KINGS of striking!".
But other than my french friend I have no one that even joked about "organizing" software developers.... would love to hear well thought out arguments in its favor though. Don't mind reading an opposing point of view. Maybe I'll learn something...
"...the vast majority of them haven't found a way to use their own scarcity to their advantage."
The way: Unions.
No, that's how the non-scarce resources create an advantage for their collective selves. If you're not scarce you make yourself scarce by joining a group that then says "well, we're it" so you must treat us as if we are scarce. Sort of a "you don't like what I want... well guess what... you have to give it to me anyway because all my buddies are going to hold out for the same and no one will do you work if you don't meet my demands".
Scarce resources have power individually, through simply being scarce. Sometimes it takes a while for someone to realize just how scarce they actually are. Scarce resources are special. They might be really close to the only one who can do the job required job in the required amount of time to the desired degree. That's what makes them scarce. They have the right experience, with the right knowledge, and the possibly even right background for the exact work that needs to be done. Truly scarce resources are capable of getting more than they would be unionized because they are not lumped in with the not quite so scarce.
False false analogy. I'd love to hear your reasoning for Malaria. I mean, why is Malaria somehow more analogous than a cold would be? Other than you say so? Maybe that it is "worse" and is therefore more pressing?
Let's say, for the sake of argument that a problem actually exists and that it is man made and that it is something we can do something about. If I give you all that then we can keep talking...
So IF (yes, big IF) all that was given then it's arguably closer (if it exists at all) to HIV than Malaria. Malaria does its damage relatively quick unlike HIV. If it's HIV, then the actual timeline until there is an onset of symptoms is not right away. And symptoms do nothing other than tell you about it via making you sick more often. Those same symptoms can be caused by other illnesses (actually they ARE). Eventually the HIV can become a full blown AIDS situation, but even then it's not over. It can be treated. 20 years ago curing HIV was a pipedream... you got HIV, you could plan on a short life going forward. There is real hope of a cure now. There is already pretty much indefinite maintenance even without the cure. And this progress was in "people time". Not "earth time". The earth won't be dead in 20 years because of global warming.
We have time to analyze and perhaps even wait on better information and / or solutions. We don't have to panic and throw away the present just to solve this problem NOW. We can worry about the problems that really are on a shorter timeline while keeping an eye on the other longer term items. We might even find that another problem we focus on and fix for a short term situation also addresses other, longterm issues. You can keep an eye on it, but it doesn't have to be the focus of attention at this point.
I agree that each of those have happened, but which one of those required government involvment? I'm pretty sure many if not all of those have been accomplished within the private sector also.
But since your glasses seem to be so rosy you might as well add: Oppression, Theft, False Imprissonment, Cover ups, Corruption, and Collusion to the list.
Any of those things I mentioned could happen in the private sector too, but you seemed to imply that the government was the only way those "good" things could come about and managed to leave out all the extra items that are "bad". I've added the "baddies" and readily admit the private sector could be involved with some of the same.
I'll be interested to see if if you can admit that the private sector could just of easily handled your list of goodies... It's okay if you can't. I'm just curious.
So every time you get a cold do you run to the doctor right away?
If so, why? It's a virus. It's not getting better with anything the doc does. The only other reason is because you weren't sure it was a cold and you just wanted to be extra careful. So you waste everyone's time freaking about a common cold. You've wasted either tax dollars or your own (maybe both) to be seen, you've wasted time that someone else could have had with the doctor, you wasted gas, you wasted your own time that you could have been productive or healing, and so on and so on.
If not, why? I mean not going is, and I quote you, "not only illogical, it's fucking stupid". For all you know it could get way worse. You might have typhoid fever, or west nile virus, or bird flu, or any other manner of crazy crapolla floating around in you. You might be exposing other people to some new terrorist created biohazard. No telling what you've got... get to the doc... and wear one of the those crazy rubber suits with the rebreather on your way there!
You have to wait and find out what your up against before you freak out and start taking drastic steps or you look and behave like an idiot. You can be just as crazy for overreacting as you can for not acting right away.
Nobody is using up the common resource as quickly as possible. Nobody has the goal to emit as much carbon as they can. Nobody is getting rich by using up what you are calling the common resource. Nobody is getting in their car and saying "I want to burn as much gas as I can today".
There's a big difference between trying to sling as much mud into the stands as you can at a dirt bike rally and trying to get as much speed out of your bike as you can. There's a big difference between setting out to burn tons of fuel and setting out get to your destination as fast and comfortably as possible.
You say people are RACING towards the disaster, but they're not - atleast not conciously. At most they're traveling along curved plane (going somewhere else) in which the futher along the plane you go the steeper it slopes... it is somewhat funneling them towards the disaster, but the disaster itself has nothing to do with their motivations. When a better solution comes along (and it will come along) many of these individuals will diverge and end up on another path... perhaps moving into a new crater type situation with a longer horizon until a whole new "the inevitable" shows its face. Lifeforms have been doing this a long time, and I doubt it will change for humans (or anyone else for that matter) any time soon.
The US and everyone else will buy into a solution when it really is one. When the problem is known - not just hypothisized... then is the time to act. To act now in any sort of major way is to devote resources that could have been better utilized to deal with the current situation(s) at hand. And panic-acting now discounts the fact that a far less costly solution will likely be created between the time we first start thinking about it and the time when "it is time to act".
I like the attitude! Regardless of who does it, it needs to be done, but I really like the fact someone out there is willing to say they'll do it themselves rather than ask for a handout, bailout, whatever! Goodluck!
If 'the commonality' is the most important then mob rule is the way to go. You are not an idiot so I know that you already know that's not the case (btw if you think mob rule is the way to roll, then don't bother responding as we have no chance of actually communicating). But that's what it sounds like you're pushing for when you claim that the individual is beholden to 'the commonality'. The other version of 'the commonality' is the one where the smart people go about making decisions for all the people who aren't smart enough to make their own decisions and by decree demand compliance. That's horse poo too. You can argue that highway laws, food and drug regulations, etc are all the commonality at work, but there were other ways to the same end or perhaps even a better end. You are arguing that the slope is good and that it being slippery is convenient. I would argue it need not be there at all.
We can agree on general rules and ways not to piss each other off as a society, but when one group starts picking nits down to whether a banana peels get mixed in with the plastic or cardboard then, by golly, we're gonna have a situation. There needs to be an understanding reached quickly at that point. The first time I pay a fine because some jackass dumps their trash on curb (because they were too lazy to sort it) we're gonna have another problem. We're gonna have a problem when the rules change. We're gonna have a problem when more categories of trash are created.
You know what's funny about out little discussion and how I know it's bigger than the trash... that we are talking about your 'commonality' comment rather than banana peels? In my home my wife purchased three different containers to go with our 'trash' bag. They are all set up in our kitchen so that we can separate out things like water bottles, cardboard, newspaper, etc into their own little piles. I do this already. I don't need some govt entity mandating it. If my neighbors don't do it I don't care. Maybe they do something else to make up for it (maybe they don't). Maybe not recycling is their little way of protesting the ever growing and now encroaching "green" movement. Maybe they have a prius, but they'll be damned if they're going spend more time sorting bottles. Let people be people and let them live without adding more and more rules to their lives that are solely because you think it might be better. There are more than rules and regulations enough already. And if there aren't there are certainly better things to go down the wrong path about than this. And as far as your dictatorship / police state comment goes there are plenty of laws and ways for "the man" to come down on people without adding a "your banana peels are damaging the collective" list.
Well, if preventing individuals from harming the commonality is communist, I urgently need to raise a few red flags.
Well, if preventing the commonality from harming individuals is part of what America is all about, then I urgently need to raise another set of stars and stripes.
The problem isn't the slope, but that it is slippery. It's generally better to stay off of it - as there are solutions that allow for that - without getting a step closer to sliding all the way down.
The other guy was "cute", but you're just... well... not. You're in the 99% because you're an idiot and proved it during your own argument. I'm technically in the 99% financially, but hope to someday move up in that regard, not drag everyone down to me. So long as I do it honestly and through hard work (hell, I'll take some luck or even a blessing if I can get it too) you and the rest of your likeminded 99% can kiss my ass if you don't like me trying to improve my station. In any case, you actually tried to say that someone will fill the vacuum for the right reasons and then you went on to name examples. Let's see:
someone will always step up to do the work. witness the outsourcing of our IT jobs. we have been undercut and yet the jobs are getting done - by -someone-.
Do you think these other people are filling these jobs for free? Are they doing it for the right reasons? No they're doing it because their cost of living is so low they can do it for less.
if the big pig phrama co's don't get huge paybacks, they'll leave but others will enter. someone will fill the vacuum.
Yes, someone will. If the NFL or NBA lockouts would have gone on then eventually someone else would have filled the gap. There are more basketball players than just those current ones in the NBA. But the NBA players are where they are because they're basically the best at what they do. And the difference between the best NBA player and the 20th best player is astounding. The best people in pharma are doing pharma. Maybe they're doing it purely for money reasons or a mixture of personal reasons and money - I don't really care why they are there. You tell them they won't make a paycheck or that it will be greatly reduced and they'll find something else.
It's so arrogant to think that only the promise of being ultra rich is going to motivate people. (are you one of those 1%-ers?)
The promise of becoming rich is not the only thing able to motivate people. But it is sufficient for some. And it tends to be able to be able to allow them to get the other things they want. Maybe they're a great scientist with a great mind. They just hate being couped up in a lab all day. Maybe they'd rather be out golfing or bowling or camping out in the middle of New York and crapping in the middle of the park complaining that the man is holding them down. In any case if they can use their talents to get paid and make enough money they can eventually buy their own bowling alley, join a golf glub, buy their own 5 acres and put a porta pottie out back. They can spend that money on whatever they want. They can donate it to charity, to universities, to scholarship funds, to politicians, to whomever. It's theirs. They earned it, even if they did so by doing something that someone else less qualified and less capable would have done "from their heart" less effectively. Give me the greedy bastard that has what it takes to get the job done instead of the bleeding heart with good intentions but lacking in knowledge. I don't care about their motivations, I care that they get the job done correctly and on time.
the same could be said about politics. remove all money motivations and you'll find that the people seeking those positions are now going in it for the right reasons.
If you are only talking lobbying then you're not completely off here. If you're thinking they should work without payment then that's crazy talk. Many politicians today have sufficient responsibilities that it really is a full time job if they're making an effort to talk to their constituents and get to understand the situations, bills, budgets, etc. You certainly don't want someone that is a 1%er doing that job do you? Who else can afford to put in the time for free? Oh, one of those guys / gals camping the parks? Riiiiighhht.
the profit motive is WRONG in many cases. haven't we learned that the hard way, enough times, yet?
Finally! Something that is correct. Now, it's only correct because you qualified your statement with "many". So I will simply state it another way: the profit motive is RIGHT in many cases. haven't we learned that enough times, yet?
false. The zealots have data that supports something, but not necessarily man-made global warming. Something about corralation and causation comes to mind.
This is a joke... sort of... but not really. If you want to convince a skeptic of man made global warming then just show them where it warns of it in the bible. Well, in the new testament.
I'm a "skeptic" and I can honestly say that the idea would have better staying power with me if it were in a bible that I've owned since before climate change became a big issue. I'm believe it might be hotter this year than last, but I'm skeptical that humans caused it and I'm skeptical that it matters. I believe in religion and I believe in evolution. I think they marry quite nicely actually. But I don't see any reason to believe in a global warming that matters.
The only source of heat is the sun? I might get found out for not paying attention in 3rd grade basics and later in geology but why is the earth's core so hot if heat only comes from the sun? Does any of that heat ever escape and if so to where does it escape? Obviously not the surface as "the only source of heat is the sun". Bah
My child can explain things to me too. She can explain how everytime she shakes the waterhose it turns on and starts spraying water. But I know that it's not really what she is doing that is causing the water to come forth.
She has limited experience and even less "education" with the phenomenon and has therefore created her own explanation of how it works. Sure her explanation (aka Hypothesis) may hold up to what she is experiencing, but there are other explanations as well.
Someday I'll let her in on the little secret, but for now it's fun watching her experiment with different ways to shake the hose to see if it changes anything even though in reality none of the permutations she's tried has any effect whatsoever. There are more forces at work then what she knows.
Tell that to your next waiter. "Hey, you're going to get paid the same whether you provide good or bad service. If my food comes cold, it's cool. If on the first time it's not what I ordered, it's cool. If it takes forever, I've got all day... it's cool." Some could be excited because they don't get very good tips. But I'd dare to guess that they probably don't provide very good service either.
A commission is not the same thing as a tip. I tip someone by choice based on my perception of their performance. A commission is paid by the holder of a good / service to someone who is responsible for the sale of that good / service. The person responsible for the sale will get paid their commission even if they were an asshole during the sale. However, a waiter might get an extra good tip if they were excellent in their service. But they should not get a commission (which is guaranteed) as that removes the incentive to be provide good service and to suggest alternatives that may be cheaper. A waiter making tips still works for themselves and can somewhat set their own salary based on service. A waiter working on commission only sets their own salary in so much as how many people can they push through in a certain time period. What a pain in the ass for the customer.
In days gone by as a waiter / delivery driver I'd much rather have saved the customer a few bucks and have half of that passed on to me in gratituity then get even 25% of it in commissions. Those customers that get good service also come back for more making both me and the establishment that employed me more money.
I completely agree with cs668. If you ask for a raise and explain why you think you are worth it then you'll get honest feedback. If they give you the raise it's because they agreed that you are infact worth it. If they don't, they'll probably tell you why they don't agree or why they cannot give you the raise. Either way this will give you even more information on which to make you decision.
If you just tell them about the offer and ask them to match it or beat it then you are going to put them in a defensive position and they might not respond well. Or, they might respond well for just long enough for you to train up the two new devs. Once they're not in a bind anymore they'll remember the position you put them in and it may come back to haunt you. They might not fire you, but you might find yourself.... uncomfortable... and wishing you'd taken the new offer anyway.
You don't have to use the offer as leverage with the old company. Instead you can see it as a safety net for your negotiating with the old company. They don't have to know the safety net is there for you use it to your advantage.
Did these well to do people have jobs? I mean the people selling their houses and land... did they have jobs or possibly even own businesses? I'm certain they had some other means to replenish their cup... so to speak. You'll notice the passage used the word "houses" rather than homes. Like the difference between owning a house that you rent and owning the home that you live in. I believe that these people were willing to give up some portion of their investments to help someone in need or to promote something that they believed in whole heartedly. You submitted a great reference to the concept of charity and giving freely of ones means, certainly not socialism.
You got your cases in the wrong order. I've had some really hairy and hard to find bugs come up that way. More than a couple of sentences should definitely preceed more than a few words - I think as it is you would just always go to your phone.
I think you forgot the RTFA. Dell did the same thing. Farmed out small bits of the process. Then a little more. Then a little more. Until the group they farmed out to was able to build the whole thing themselves and didn't need Dell anymore. It's the same thing with your Airplanes example.
I have my doubts the family would even spend the money to get a full patent. Design patents are very limited in scope and literally protect a single design iirc. Not a class of design, but a single design. If you remove / add / change any one thing and leave everything else the same then it is a new design. The provisional patent cost next to nothing to create and wouldn't even have to hold up to scrutiny, but the actual patent would cost a pretty penny and the mentioned prior art may suffice to give it a fail.
First, murder rate is a common yardstick because it's fairly normalized. There are still things that are murder in one country and not in another.
Second, you still haven't done any research. All you did was complain about mine. I provided data with a source and a perfectly good google phrase that I knew provided the info you needed. Why did I know, because I actually did it and saw what was available. You scoffed at my source as it did not conveniently fit your preconceived notion of the facts. You basically said that it is impossible to prove my point because any data I want to provide is either biased, inaccurate, or simply ambiguous - all the while assuming your own data is pristine and perfect (see my mention of murder again for why it is not). I won't even bother worrying about the accuracy of your data (I'm sure it is accurate enough for our discussion), but it's frankly beside the point. We were talking violent crime, not just murder.
So, I'll try again. I did all the work for you. Just go to the link and take a look at the numbers of violent offenses as they are broken out by type. US will be in one column and UK in the next. You want to look at the per capita since we're talking about the rate of crime.
If that's not good enough for you then I will just accept that you cannot be reached. If you can provide me some facts otherwise I'll gladly take a look. Maybe I'll learn something.
I think you're missing the point. If you have enough weapons and ability to repel any attacks in which "they" try to inprison your "citizens" or force you to surrender, then you are sovereign. If, on the other hand, you are not badass enough to repel their attack and they win... then... well... you don't exist because they will take your little area over and own it. [This is why it would be preferably to be both declared sovereign by the UN and be able to defend yourself... but really either one will do].
And that is exactly why guns should be allowed. People feeling that there might not be any consequences to their actions (especially if dealing with someone smaller than them) is an invitation for violent crime. When people don't know whether someone has an equalizer available then people tend to be more respectful of one anothers rights to have their persons free of harm.
Slashdot Mirror
Great point! 'Round these parts (Tennessee) I have known only one developer that I can think of who believed that unionizing programmers was a good idea. And I'm not so sure he didn't state that in a more "tongue in cheek" kind of way. He's french and would always throw out the occasional "in france.... bla bla bla" comment. He also used to laugh and joke about how American's didn't have a clue on how to go on strike. "Now the french? Oh yeah... we are the KINGS of striking!".
But other than my french friend I have no one that even joked about "organizing" software developers.... would love to hear well thought out arguments in its favor though. Don't mind reading an opposing point of view. Maybe I'll learn something...
"...the vast majority of them haven't found a way to use their own scarcity to their advantage."
The way: Unions.
No, that's how the non-scarce resources create an advantage for their collective selves. If you're not scarce you make yourself scarce by joining a group that then says "well, we're it" so you must treat us as if we are scarce. Sort of a "you don't like what I want... well guess what... you have to give it to me anyway because all my buddies are going to hold out for the same and no one will do you work if you don't meet my demands".
Scarce resources have power individually, through simply being scarce. Sometimes it takes a while for someone to realize just how scarce they actually are. Scarce resources are special. They might be really close to the only one who can do the job required job in the required amount of time to the desired degree. That's what makes them scarce. They have the right experience, with the right knowledge, and the possibly even right background for the exact work that needs to be done. Truly scarce resources are capable of getting more than they would be unionized because they are not lumped in with the not quite so scarce.
False false analogy. I'd love to hear your reasoning for Malaria. I mean, why is Malaria somehow more analogous than a cold would be? Other than you say so? Maybe that it is "worse" and is therefore more pressing?
Let's say, for the sake of argument that a problem actually exists and that it is man made and that it is something we can do something about. If I give you all that then we can keep talking...
So IF (yes, big IF) all that was given then it's arguably closer (if it exists at all) to HIV than Malaria. Malaria does its damage relatively quick unlike HIV. If it's HIV, then the actual timeline until there is an onset of symptoms is not right away. And symptoms do nothing other than tell you about it via making you sick more often. Those same symptoms can be caused by other illnesses (actually they ARE). Eventually the HIV can become a full blown AIDS situation, but even then it's not over. It can be treated. 20 years ago curing HIV was a pipedream... you got HIV, you could plan on a short life going forward. There is real hope of a cure now. There is already pretty much indefinite maintenance even without the cure. And this progress was in "people time". Not "earth time". The earth won't be dead in 20 years because of global warming.
We have time to analyze and perhaps even wait on better information and / or solutions. We don't have to panic and throw away the present just to solve this problem NOW. We can worry about the problems that really are on a shorter timeline while keeping an eye on the other longer term items. We might even find that another problem we focus on and fix for a short term situation also addresses other, longterm issues. You can keep an eye on it, but it doesn't have to be the focus of attention at this point.
I agree that each of those have happened, but which one of those required government involvment? I'm pretty sure many if not all of those have been accomplished within the private sector also.
But since your glasses seem to be so rosy you might as well add: Oppression, Theft, False Imprissonment, Cover ups, Corruption, and Collusion to the list.
Any of those things I mentioned could happen in the private sector too, but you seemed to imply that the government was the only way those "good" things could come about and managed to leave out all the extra items that are "bad". I've added the "baddies" and readily admit the private sector could be involved with some of the same.
I'll be interested to see if if you can admit that the private sector could just of easily handled your list of goodies... It's okay if you can't. I'm just curious.
So every time you get a cold do you run to the doctor right away?
If so, why? It's a virus. It's not getting better with anything the doc does. The only other reason is because you weren't sure it was a cold and you just wanted to be extra careful. So you waste everyone's time freaking about a common cold. You've wasted either tax dollars or your own (maybe both) to be seen, you've wasted time that someone else could have had with the doctor, you wasted gas, you wasted your own time that you could have been productive or healing, and so on and so on.
If not, why? I mean not going is, and I quote you, "not only illogical, it's fucking stupid". For all you know it could get way worse. You might have typhoid fever, or west nile virus, or bird flu, or any other manner of crazy crapolla floating around in you. You might be exposing other people to some new terrorist created biohazard. No telling what you've got... get to the doc... and wear one of the those crazy rubber suits with the rebreather on your way there!
You have to wait and find out what your up against before you freak out and start taking drastic steps or you look and behave like an idiot. You can be just as crazy for overreacting as you can for not acting right away.
Nobody is using up the common resource as quickly as possible. Nobody has the goal to emit as much carbon as they can. Nobody is getting rich by using up what you are calling the common resource. Nobody is getting in their car and saying "I want to burn as much gas as I can today".
There's a big difference between trying to sling as much mud into the stands as you can at a dirt bike rally and trying to get as much speed out of your bike as you can. There's a big difference between setting out to burn tons of fuel and setting out get to your destination as fast and comfortably as possible.
You say people are RACING towards the disaster, but they're not - atleast not conciously. At most they're traveling along curved plane (going somewhere else) in which the futher along the plane you go the steeper it slopes... it is somewhat funneling them towards the disaster, but the disaster itself has nothing to do with their motivations. When a better solution comes along (and it will come along) many of these individuals will diverge and end up on another path... perhaps moving into a new crater type situation with a longer horizon until a whole new "the inevitable" shows its face. Lifeforms have been doing this a long time, and I doubt it will change for humans (or anyone else for that matter) any time soon.
The US and everyone else will buy into a solution when it really is one. When the problem is known - not just hypothisized... then is the time to act. To act now in any sort of major way is to devote resources that could have been better utilized to deal with the current situation(s) at hand. And panic-acting now discounts the fact that a far less costly solution will likely be created between the time we first start thinking about it and the time when "it is time to act".
I like the attitude! Regardless of who does it, it needs to be done, but I really like the fact someone out there is willing to say they'll do it themselves rather than ask for a handout, bailout, whatever! Goodluck!
If 'the commonality' is the most important then mob rule is the way to go. You are not an idiot so I know that you already know that's not the case (btw if you think mob rule is the way to roll, then don't bother responding as we have no chance of actually communicating). But that's what it sounds like you're pushing for when you claim that the individual is beholden to 'the commonality'. The other version of 'the commonality' is the one where the smart people go about making decisions for all the people who aren't smart enough to make their own decisions and by decree demand compliance. That's horse poo too. You can argue that highway laws, food and drug regulations, etc are all the commonality at work, but there were other ways to the same end or perhaps even a better end. You are arguing that the slope is good and that it being slippery is convenient. I would argue it need not be there at all.
We can agree on general rules and ways not to piss each other off as a society, but when one group starts picking nits down to whether a banana peels get mixed in with the plastic or cardboard then, by golly, we're gonna have a situation. There needs to be an understanding reached quickly at that point. The first time I pay a fine because some jackass dumps their trash on curb (because they were too lazy to sort it) we're gonna have another problem. We're gonna have a problem when the rules change. We're gonna have a problem when more categories of trash are created.
You know what's funny about out little discussion and how I know it's bigger than the trash... that we are talking about your 'commonality' comment rather than banana peels? In my home my wife purchased three different containers to go with our 'trash' bag. They are all set up in our kitchen so that we can separate out things like water bottles, cardboard, newspaper, etc into their own little piles. I do this already. I don't need some govt entity mandating it. If my neighbors don't do it I don't care. Maybe they do something else to make up for it (maybe they don't). Maybe not recycling is their little way of protesting the ever growing and now encroaching "green" movement. Maybe they have a prius, but they'll be damned if they're going spend more time sorting bottles. Let people be people and let them live without adding more and more rules to their lives that are solely because you think it might be better. There are more than rules and regulations enough already. And if there aren't there are certainly better things to go down the wrong path about than this. And as far as your dictatorship / police state comment goes there are plenty of laws and ways for "the man" to come down on people without adding a "your banana peels are damaging the collective" list.
Well, if preventing individuals from harming the commonality is communist, I urgently need to raise a few red flags.
Well, if preventing the commonality from harming individuals is part of what America is all about, then I urgently need to raise another set of stars and stripes.
The problem isn't the slope, but that it is slippery. It's generally better to stay off of it - as there are solutions that allow for that - without getting a step closer to sliding all the way down.
someone will always step up to do the work. witness the outsourcing of our IT jobs. we have been undercut and yet the jobs are getting done - by -someone-.
Do you think these other people are filling these jobs for free? Are they doing it for the right reasons? No they're doing it because their cost of living is so low they can do it for less.
if the big pig phrama co's don't get huge paybacks, they'll leave but others will enter. someone will fill the vacuum.
Yes, someone will. If the NFL or NBA lockouts would have gone on then eventually someone else would have filled the gap. There are more basketball players than just those current ones in the NBA. But the NBA players are where they are because they're basically the best at what they do. And the difference between the best NBA player and the 20th best player is astounding. The best people in pharma are doing pharma. Maybe they're doing it purely for money reasons or a mixture of personal reasons and money - I don't really care why they are there. You tell them they won't make a paycheck or that it will be greatly reduced and they'll find something else.
It's so arrogant to think that only the promise of being ultra rich is going to motivate people. (are you one of those 1%-ers?)
The promise of becoming rich is not the only thing able to motivate people. But it is sufficient for some. And it tends to be able to be able to allow them to get the other things they want. Maybe they're a great scientist with a great mind. They just hate being couped up in a lab all day. Maybe they'd rather be out golfing or bowling or camping out in the middle of New York and crapping in the middle of the park complaining that the man is holding them down. In any case if they can use their talents to get paid and make enough money they can eventually buy their own bowling alley, join a golf glub, buy their own 5 acres and put a porta pottie out back. They can spend that money on whatever they want. They can donate it to charity, to universities, to scholarship funds, to politicians, to whomever. It's theirs. They earned it, even if they did so by doing something that someone else less qualified and less capable would have done "from their heart" less effectively. Give me the greedy bastard that has what it takes to get the job done instead of the bleeding heart with good intentions but lacking in knowledge. I don't care about their motivations, I care that they get the job done correctly and on time.
the same could be said about politics. remove all money motivations and you'll find that the people seeking those positions are now going in it for the right reasons.
If you are only talking lobbying then you're not completely off here. If you're thinking they should work without payment then that's crazy talk. Many politicians today have sufficient responsibilities that it really is a full time job if they're making an effort to talk to their constituents and get to understand the situations, bills, budgets, etc. You certainly don't want someone that is a 1%er doing that job do you? Who else can afford to put in the time for free? Oh, one of those guys / gals camping the parks? Riiiiighhht.
the profit motive is WRONG in many cases. haven't we learned that the hard way, enough times, yet?
Finally! Something that is correct. Now, it's only correct because you qualified your statement with "many". So I will simply state it another way: the profit motive is RIGHT in many cases. haven't we learned that enough times, yet?
Two part response:
First, examples of the "common things on expects to do with a computer or computer-like device" please...?
And second. Why should they be free (as in beer)?
What about 'a mexican with really long fingernails'? Would you believe 'a very tanned white guy with bottle opener'?
false. The zealots have data that supports something, but not necessarily man-made global warming. Something about corralation and causation comes to mind.
This is a joke... sort of... but not really. If you want to convince a skeptic of man made global warming then just show them where it warns of it in the bible. Well, in the new testament.
I'm a "skeptic" and I can honestly say that the idea would have better staying power with me if it were in a bible that I've owned since before climate change became a big issue. I'm believe it might be hotter this year than last, but I'm skeptical that humans caused it and I'm skeptical that it matters. I believe in religion and I believe in evolution. I think they marry quite nicely actually. But I don't see any reason to believe in a global warming that matters.
The only source of heat is the sun? I might get found out for not paying attention in 3rd grade basics and later in geology but why is the earth's core so hot if heat only comes from the sun? Does any of that heat ever escape and if so to where does it escape? Obviously not the surface as "the only source of heat is the sun". Bah
My child can explain things to me too. She can explain how everytime she shakes the waterhose it turns on and starts spraying water. But I know that it's not really what she is doing that is causing the water to come forth.
She has limited experience and even less "education" with the phenomenon and has therefore created her own explanation of how it works. Sure her explanation (aka Hypothesis) may hold up to what she is experiencing, but there are other explanations as well.
Someday I'll let her in on the little secret, but for now it's fun watching her experiment with different ways to shake the hose to see if it changes anything even though in reality none of the permutations she's tried has any effect whatsoever. There are more forces at work then what she knows.
Tell that to your next waiter. "Hey, you're going to get paid the same whether you provide good or bad service. If my food comes cold, it's cool. If on the first time it's not what I ordered, it's cool. If it takes forever, I've got all day... it's cool." Some could be excited because they don't get very good tips. But I'd dare to guess that they probably don't provide very good service either.
A commission is not the same thing as a tip. I tip someone by choice based on my perception of their performance. A commission is paid by the holder of a good / service to someone who is responsible for the sale of that good / service. The person responsible for the sale will get paid their commission even if they were an asshole during the sale. However, a waiter might get an extra good tip if they were excellent in their service. But they should not get a commission (which is guaranteed) as that removes the incentive to be provide good service and to suggest alternatives that may be cheaper. A waiter making tips still works for themselves and can somewhat set their own salary based on service. A waiter working on commission only sets their own salary in so much as how many people can they push through in a certain time period. What a pain in the ass for the customer.
In days gone by as a waiter / delivery driver I'd much rather have saved the customer a few bucks and have half of that passed on to me in gratituity then get even 25% of it in commissions. Those customers that get good service also come back for more making both me and the establishment that employed me more money.
I completely agree with cs668. If you ask for a raise and explain why you think you are worth it then you'll get honest feedback. If they give you the raise it's because they agreed that you are infact worth it. If they don't, they'll probably tell you why they don't agree or why they cannot give you the raise. Either way this will give you even more information on which to make you decision.
If you just tell them about the offer and ask them to match it or beat it then you are going to put them in a defensive position and they might not respond well. Or, they might respond well for just long enough for you to train up the two new devs. Once they're not in a bind anymore they'll remember the position you put them in and it may come back to haunt you. They might not fire you, but you might find yourself.... uncomfortable... and wishing you'd taken the new offer anyway.
You don't have to use the offer as leverage with the old company. Instead you can see it as a safety net for your negotiating with the old company. They don't have to know the safety net is there for you use it to your advantage.
Did these well to do people have jobs? I mean the people selling their houses and land... did they have jobs or possibly even own businesses? I'm certain they had some other means to replenish their cup... so to speak. You'll notice the passage used the word "houses" rather than homes. Like the difference between owning a house that you rent and owning the home that you live in. I believe that these people were willing to give up some portion of their investments to help someone in need or to promote something that they believed in whole heartedly. You submitted a great reference to the concept of charity and giving freely of ones means, certainly not socialism.
You got your cases in the wrong order. I've had some really hairy and hard to find bugs come up that way. More than a couple of sentences should definitely preceed more than a few words - I think as it is you would just always go to your phone.
I think you forgot the RTFA. Dell did the same thing. Farmed out small bits of the process. Then a little more. Then a little more. Until the group they farmed out to was able to build the whole thing themselves and didn't need Dell anymore. It's the same thing with your Airplanes example.
I have my doubts the family would even spend the money to get a full patent. Design patents are very limited in scope and literally protect a single design iirc. Not a class of design, but a single design. If you remove / add / change any one thing and leave everything else the same then it is a new design. The provisional patent cost next to nothing to create and wouldn't even have to hold up to scrutiny, but the actual patent would cost a pretty penny and the mentioned prior art may suffice to give it a fail.
Cool project though.
so maybe we SHOULD have AA for sports.
There is... it's called Division I college athletics.
First, murder rate is a common yardstick because it's fairly normalized. There are still things that are murder in one country and not in another.
Second, you still haven't done any research. All you did was complain about mine. I provided data with a source and a perfectly good google phrase that I knew provided the info you needed. Why did I know, because I actually did it and saw what was available. You scoffed at my source as it did not conveniently fit your preconceived notion of the facts. You basically said that it is impossible to prove my point because any data I want to provide is either biased, inaccurate, or simply ambiguous - all the while assuming your own data is pristine and perfect (see my mention of murder again for why it is not). I won't even bother worrying about the accuracy of your data (I'm sure it is accurate enough for our discussion), but it's frankly beside the point. We were talking violent crime, not just murder.
So, I'll try again. I did all the work for you. Just go to the link and take a look at the numbers of violent offenses as they are broken out by type. US will be in one column and UK in the next. You want to look at the per capita since we're talking about the rate of crime.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
If that's not good enough for you then I will just accept that you cannot be reached. If you can provide me some facts otherwise I'll gladly take a look. Maybe I'll learn something.
I think you're missing the point. If you have enough weapons and ability to repel any attacks in which "they" try to inprison your "citizens" or force you to surrender, then you are sovereign. If, on the other hand, you are not badass enough to repel their attack and they win... then... well... you don't exist because they will take your little area over and own it. [This is why it would be preferably to be both declared sovereign by the UN and be able to defend yourself... but really either one will do].
And that is exactly why guns should be allowed. People feeling that there might not be any consequences to their actions (especially if dealing with someone smaller than them) is an invitation for violent crime. When people don't know whether someone has an equalizer available then people tend to be more respectful of one anothers rights to have their persons free of harm.