Dear god, I can't believe I'm even going to
responsd to this. Here goes:
There were over 40,000 (yes, forty-thousand)
undervotes in Florida. That means that 40,000
people that voted in Florida either went to
the polls, but did not vote for president or did vote for president but their votes were not
counted. Statistically, it is safe to assume
that the vast majority of those votes intended
to have a mark for president.
Then there was this big supreme court decision.
You might have heard of it. They stated that
the votes should be counted, that the FSP should
establish guidelines for doing so, but that it
was TOO LATE to count the votes now. Therefore
40,000 votes in Florida would not be counted.
No matter which side you come down on (and I
think there are valid arguments on both sides),
there are a lot of people in Florida that were
disenfranchised.
> there's a big supply of moron programmers, and
> a trickle of good ones
amen brother.
> It's going to take years, if not a decade, for
> our CS programs to improve
I'll give it 2 or 3 years. Last year when
I was looking in to grad schools, I noticed that
a lot of the undergraduate MIS programs (well,
3 schools in Oklahoma) were teaching courses like
"MS Visual C++", "Visual Programming" (ie vb),
"DBMS" (oracle & sql server).
Job placement courses rather than comp. sci.
Well said. I think part of the problem is
that the typical/.'er is relatively young.
They have only seen the upside of the boom
and have never had to experience the eventual
fall. Supply/demand will catch up with us.
> Talented programmers will always be in short
> supply
The same was said about aerospace engineers too.
You can pick any of the 'professional' positions
and pretty much every one of them went thru
a boom similar to programmers.
I really don't think our profession is somehow
intrinsically resistant to supply/demand.
The difference between corporate power and
union power is that in a union, you can vote.
As in any democracy, the voters need to be
educated. If your union leaders are abusing
power, vote them out!
That pretty much sums it up. I will quite
writing now, for you have spoken the truth.
Re:Unions are such parasites
on
The Jungle
·
· Score: 1
> unions are just as bad as corporations
After the tech boom, when programmers are
once again in supply, you will lose your
individualism. Think of accountants.
Or maybe think below accountants. After
all, they have a professional organization
(not to mention licensure).
Remember, if this truly is a 'new' economy,
then why can we not have a 'new' union?
One that represents you in the way you desire?
Doesn't have to be that way. You can define
a union in whatever way you desire.
My concern: Corporations have lobbyists
working full time in washington.
I think workers should have one too.
Check out WashTech, they don't have any set
rules so far. You could define them to be
whatever if your willing to work on it.
> my pay rates would have been locked down
Not in all unions. Maybe in your girlfriend's
union, but not in all. WashTech has no such
rules.
> I work hard for ME, not for anybody else
Don't kid yourself. You are an expense.
Unless you have ownership, you are making
someone else a lot of money.
> her bosses would rather pay union overtime
WTF is overtime?:)
> In the free market, she could bend her boss
> over the table
Well, we don't have a free market. Never will.
It was pretty free at the turn of the century,
but I don't know of any workers that would want
to go back to the industrial revolution.
As long as corporations have a voice in
Washington, labor needs one too.
For now, yes. Already though, Microsoft,
Dell, Cisco, etc., are lobbying Washington.
Whose interests do you think they have in
mind?
Do you think that what is good for the
companies bottom line is good for you too?
We've got it good right now because the tech
sector is near full employment. How long
do you think this will last? Do you understand
the role of the Fed in controlling the
unemployment rate? Do you think Alan Greenspan
is apolitical?
You saw all of the big tech ceo's meeting with
Bush. Whose problems will be addressed?
Re:Good, The New Workers need to unionise.
on
The Jungle
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, unions can have some negative effects.
They can also have (and have had)a lot of
positive effects. I would rather work on
eliminating the negative and benefitting from the
positive versus decrying unions outright for a
few isolated incidents.
Wine is a physical asset. It is not the
same as research.
> MS is a monopoly. They have little incentive to
> innovate
And a patent grants a monopoly. Giving the
drug company little incentive to innovate.
That is why it still costs Merck $10-15/k
to produce the drugs and India can do it for
$700.
>The software industry however has extremely
>short lifespans and is difficult to predict.
>It's a poor example
If something doesn't fit within your framework,
then it is time to change your framework.
There are no poor examples, only poor theories.
>You can do your own research.
I did just a little and couldn't find anything.
I was hoping that since you made the assertion
that you could provide me with the examples.
>No, but he also didn't ever make a practical
>invention that people could use
He made it possible for people to make
'practical' inventions though didn't he?
Aren't all 'practical' inventions the result
of what was once a fanciful theory?
BTW, how do you explain the innovations of
the open source community that have occured
without the use of IP?
>It's also well excepted by most mainstream
>economists that intellectual property is
>absolutely necessary to innovation
Wrong. Economists will say that IP laws create
monopolies and thus monopoly waste. Economists
will say that incentive is the basis for
innovation, and that incentive can take many
forms. Some not even monetary!
The problem I see with them is that they
are a restriction on other's liberty.
Where does your information come from?
There is an online text at
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/ Ec oToC.html
I gave my 1992 ford tempo to the American
Lung Association (instead of trading it in).
When figured as a percentage of my disposable
income, its a lot more than Bill Gates.
I don't deny that his money will do more
good though. How about you?
We're not talking rules of debate here, we're
talking truth. It is well accepted among
economists that competition fosters growth
and progress. It is well accepted that the
profit motive leads to incentive. If you deny
this, then there is not point in continuing any
further. If you will deny the basic theories of
economics, then we have no starting point at
which to begin our discussion.
>IP is simply necessary in order to secure future
>innovation.
Where is your proof?
>Without IP the innovator simply gains no >advantage on his competitors for spending >resources and incuring risk,
Its called catch up. The advantage is that
your are ahead of the competition. This gives
you advantage. What you are in effect saying
is "With IP I could make a billion dollars,
but without it, I can only make 1/4 billion.
Its just not worth it"
Do you see how ridiculous that statement is?
> Although you might argue, as ridiculous as that
> would be, that we would experience even more
> without it, there is NO significant evidence
> that points to this, quite the opposite in fact.
That is exactly what I am arguing. Competition
fosters progress. Look at any monopoly market and
compare it to a highly competitive market and
tell me which one is better. Where is _your_
proof?
Corporations can't do long term planning
like the government can. They must
focus on the bottom line. They have shareholders
that expect results. Not results for their
grandchildren, results for them.
I never said scientists should be the
ones 'getting rich'
Slashdot Mirror
Dear god, I can't believe I'm even going to
responsd to this. Here goes:
There were over 40,000 (yes, forty-thousand)
undervotes in Florida. That means that 40,000
people that voted in Florida either went to
the polls, but did not vote for president or did vote for president but their votes were not
counted. Statistically, it is safe to assume
that the vast majority of those votes intended
to have a mark for president.
Then there was this big supreme court decision.
You might have heard of it. They stated that
the votes should be counted, that the FSP should
establish guidelines for doing so, but that it
was TOO LATE to count the votes now. Therefore
40,000 votes in Florida would not be counted.
No matter which side you come down on (and I
think there are valid arguments on both sides),
there are a lot of people in Florida that were
disenfranchised.
> there's a big supply of moron programmers, and
> a trickle of good ones
amen brother.
> It's going to take years, if not a decade, for
> our CS programs to improve
I'll give it 2 or 3 years. Last year when
I was looking in to grad schools, I noticed that
a lot of the undergraduate MIS programs (well,
3 schools in Oklahoma) were teaching courses like
"MS Visual C++", "Visual Programming" (ie vb),
"DBMS" (oracle & sql server).
Job placement courses rather than comp. sci.
Well said. I think part of the problem is /.'er is relatively young.
that the typical
They have only seen the upside of the boom
and have never had to experience the eventual
fall. Supply/demand will catch up with us.
> Talented programmers will always be in short
> supply
The same was said about aerospace engineers too.
You can pick any of the 'professional' positions
and pretty much every one of them went thru
a boom similar to programmers.
I really don't think our profession is somehow
intrinsically resistant to supply/demand.
The difference between corporate power and
union power is that in a union, you can vote.
As in any democracy, the voters need to be
educated. If your union leaders are abusing
power, vote them out!
That pretty much sums it up. I will quite
writing now, for you have spoken the truth.
> unions are just as bad as corporations
After the tech boom, when programmers are
once again in supply, you will lose your
individualism. Think of accountants.
Or maybe think below accountants. After
all, they have a professional organization
(not to mention licensure).
Remember, if this truly is a 'new' economy,
then why can we not have a 'new' union?
One that represents you in the way you desire?
Doesn't have to be that way. You can define a union in whatever way you desire. My concern: Corporations have lobbyists working full time in washington. I think workers should have one too. Check out WashTech, they don't have any set rules so far. You could define them to be whatever if your willing to work on it.
> my pay rates would have been locked down Not in all unions. Maybe in your girlfriend's union, but not in all. WashTech has no such rules. > I work hard for ME, not for anybody else Don't kid yourself. You are an expense. Unless you have ownership, you are making someone else a lot of money. > her bosses would rather pay union overtime WTF is overtime? :)
> In the free market, she could bend her boss
> over the table
Well, we don't have a free market. Never will.
It was pretty free at the turn of the century,
but I don't know of any workers that would want
to go back to the industrial revolution.
As long as corporations have a voice in
Washington, labor needs one too.
> Tech labor is still way too valuable
For now, yes. Already though, Microsoft,
Dell, Cisco, etc., are lobbying Washington.
Whose interests do you think they have in
mind?
Do you think that what is good for the
companies bottom line is good for you too?
We've got it good right now because the tech
sector is near full employment. How long
do you think this will last? Do you understand
the role of the Fed in controlling the
unemployment rate? Do you think Alan Greenspan
is apolitical?
You saw all of the big tech ceo's meeting with
Bush. Whose problems will be addressed?
Yeah, unions can have some negative effects.
They can also have (and have had)a lot of
positive effects. I would rather work on
eliminating the negative and benefitting from the
positive versus decrying unions outright for a
few isolated incidents.
Yes. Government Bad. Corporations Good.
Silly Fool! Do you not see the error in
your thinking? No type of oppression is
good! Who does government serve?
The corporation!
Silly Fool!
You do not chart your own course through life!
You were taught in government/corporate schools
to be a good American Worker!
Your life consists of serving your
government/corporate masters.
Eat, Sleep, Go to Work.
This is all you know.
Then, you pay taxes to feed the next
generation of slaves.
I didn't condemn him. I was
just cautioning people not to
grant him sainthood. Like you.
In the earlier post you said IP was
"absolutely necessary to innovation".
I was trying to demonstrate that to be
a false premise. Did I succeed?
Wine is a physical asset. It is not the
same as research.
> MS is a monopoly. They have little incentive to
> innovate
And a patent grants a monopoly. Giving the
drug company little incentive to innovate.
That is why it still costs Merck $10-15/k
to produce the drugs and India can do it for
$700.
>The software industry however has extremely
>short lifespans and is difficult to predict.
>It's a poor example
If something doesn't fit within your framework,
then it is time to change your framework.
There are no poor examples, only poor theories.
>You can do your own research.
I did just a little and couldn't find anything.
I was hoping that since you made the assertion
that you could provide me with the examples.
>No, but he also didn't ever make a practical
>invention that people could use
He made it possible for people to make
'practical' inventions though didn't he?
Aren't all 'practical' inventions the result
of what was once a fanciful theory?
BTW, how do you explain the innovations of
the open source community that have occured
without the use of IP?
>It's also well excepted by most mainstream
/ Ec oToC.html
>economists that intellectual property is
>absolutely necessary to innovation
Wrong. Economists will say that IP laws create
monopolies and thus monopoly waste. Economists
will say that incentive is the basis for
innovation, and that incentive can take many
forms. Some not even monetary!
The problem I see with them is that they
are a restriction on other's liberty.
Where does your information come from?
There is an online text at
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt
Believe me, I'm not making this shit up.
>Or here's one you should know, the wine industry
thats not research. the wine is collecting
value. it is an asset.
even microsoft's research
only focuses a few years down
the road. Can you provide
me with specific examples of
30+ years research payoffs?
is 30 years long term?
Did Einstein ever turn a profit?
I gave my 1992 ford tempo to the American
Lung Association (instead of trading it in).
When figured as a percentage of my disposable
income, its a lot more than Bill Gates.
I don't deny that his money will do more
good though. How about you?
We're not talking rules of debate here, we're
talking truth. It is well accepted among
economists that competition fosters growth
and progress. It is well accepted that the
profit motive leads to incentive. If you deny
this, then there is not point in continuing any
further. If you will deny the basic theories of
economics, then we have no starting point at
which to begin our discussion.
Wow. Have you ever heard
the story of unix->linux?
Bullshit right back atcha.
1 to 5 years is not long term.
Thanks for making my point.
>First off, you confuse "research" with practical
>research and development
Does practical == Administration & Marketing?
>The drug industry regularly makes investments
>that are 10, 20, 30+ years off
Maybe I am mistaken. Please show me where
research is being conducted by a corporation
that has a 30+ year expected payoff time.
>IP is simply necessary in order to secure future
>innovation.
Where is your proof?
>Without IP the innovator simply gains no >advantage on his competitors for spending >resources and incuring risk,
Its called catch up. The advantage is that
your are ahead of the competition. This gives
you advantage. What you are in effect saying
is "With IP I could make a billion dollars,
but without it, I can only make 1/4 billion.
Its just not worth it"
Do you see how ridiculous that statement is?
> Although you might argue, as ridiculous as that
> would be, that we would experience even more
> without it, there is NO significant evidence
> that points to this, quite the opposite in fact.
That is exactly what I am arguing. Competition
fosters progress. Look at any monopoly market and
compare it to a highly competitive market and
tell me which one is better. Where is _your_
proof?
Corporations can't do long term planning
like the government can. They must
focus on the bottom line. They have shareholders
that expect results. Not results for their
grandchildren, results for them.
I never said scientists should be the
ones 'getting rich'