There are several reasons why the US is so successful in IT. A relatively free market is but one of them.
RSI can be a terribly dibilitating condition. Many members of the workforce don't have the economic clout to successfully lobby their employer to properly manage the work environment.
If you proposed to a CEO that they could have some incredible salary package, but only on the condition that in fifteen years they would be unable to lift a their grandchildren or swing a golf club, I guarantee you no CEO would accept. Funny that crappy salary packages and RSI are good enough for staff.
Slippery slope arguments are annoying! (And not persuasive.)
At the dawn of the industrial revolution, some factories in England were working children 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. Somehow I don't think a "please stop" ended this practice.
I lived ten years in Australia and recently made the mistake of returning to America. I share your sentiments. Americans think they are special, different, preeminent, etc. They're not. They're just like everyone else. It's by luck more than anything else that they live in a politically stable society.
If we consider the murder and incarceration rates in the USA, then it may well be argued that America pays an unreasonably high cost for it's democracy. Other countries have democratic republics as well, they just do it more efficiently.
Ah, but I never claimed that government was the silver bullet. All I did was refute the claim that leave everything to the market and all will work itself out.
MTBE was a mistake. Hard to disagree with that.
My general point is, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Corporations often do not look forward and captitalism does not keep things clean. Let's look at some examples.
Chiquita Banana, then Union Foods, was concerned that another corporation was offering a better price for bananas. So, Chiquita Banana hired a bunch of thugs to highjack trains and beat-up farmers. The farmers went back to selling bananas to Chiquita. (This occurred in South America, but I don't recall the country.)
(This more recent) Dutch Shell oil was concerned that activists from local villages in Nigeria (I think) were going to interrupt their drilling. The villagers were upset that the drilling was polluting the delta and fisheries. Shell oil used it's own helicopters to transport government thugs to a peaceful demonstration. The government thugs proceeded to shoot the demonstrators with automatic weapons.
In order to boost sales, Nestle started publishing propaganda in third world countries that claimed their milk formula was better for babies than a mother's natural milk. Many babies suffered because the mothers were unable to afford the formula and would therefore dilute it too much and because the mother's were often unable to secure clean water. Years later, Nestle tried this stunt again.
In order to protect it's investments in freon and other chemicals, Du Pont claimed that the ozone depletion had no scientific basis. It used its considerable resources to lobby congress and sway the public. It was not until an actual hole was discovered over the Antartic that Du Pont shut up.
Then there was the corporation that wanted to sell those bullets that guarantee a kill by releasing shrapnel into the person struck by the bullet. The resulting wound was the size of a softball and no surgeon would be able to patch up the victum.
I could go on and on with other examples of corporate lunacy. Yeah, the government can fuck things up. But then so can any large, bureaucratic organization, public or corporate. The market is no panacea.
Some things are too important to be left to the market.
I wish I could think of his name, but one (otherwise conservative) economist said something like, "I agree that a free market is necessary for a democratic society. What I do have a problem with is the claim that a free market is the only element necessary for a democratic society."
Let's have a look at some of the markets past decisions that have been less than optimal:
lead in gasoline
stereo over quadrophonic
VHS over beta
Windows and most other Microsoft products
Trust Yosemite to a system with this track record? No thanks.
A friend of mine does biological research for CSIRO in Australia. He pointed out that the problem with DDT is that it doesn't bio-degrade. It stays in the form DDT or, if it does break down, it breaks down to some nasty chemicals.
If I recall correctly, once in your body, DDT doesn't leave. It gets stored in your fat.
I don't care how safe anyone claims it to be. Let's stick to pesticides that actually break down to innocuous substances.
I can't say for sure, but seems to me that NAFTA would have had bi-partisan support as well.
Free trade -- it's a GOP thing, sure.
Oh, and by the way, US farmers entered traditional Australian wheat and beef markets in the Middle East and India with unfair subsidies. This occurred mid 90's. It cuts both ways.
The wealthy have this neat trick of having the public bear costs while privatizing profits. This tradition was manifested in the European colonization of Africa and the sub-continent. For example, the Dutch East India Company used the publicly funded Dutch national army to protect it's "investments" (read economic pillage) in India. However, it kept all profits for itself.
One might argue the company generated wealth, but all it really did was shift wealth from India to the disproportionate benefit of Dutch elite. (And BTW, India had a thriving economy before the Europeans stepped in.)
This tradition is carried on today by the transnationals and wealthiest families. The wealthy benefit from our substantial distribution system, our university system, our R and D systems, and our security systems (including police, military, and intelligence). All these things combine to protect their wealth. Yes, we all benefit, but then we all contribute. The letter is suggesting, and rather convincingly IMHO, that those who benefit the most are trying to shirk their responsibility by socializing the costs of maintaining a civil, technological society.
After all, they've done it in the past.
Regarding the percentages issue, I'd like to point out that there's more to it than the hard numbers. We all have basic living expenses. Ie, there is a minimum we could possibly spend to keep nourished and sheltered. What's left over is disposable income. Taxes for the less wealthy therefore have more of an impact because they have less disposable income.
Like all mathematical modelling, percentages don't fully capture reality. 50% of $100 is more significant than 50% of $10000000000000000000. I mean, how many yachts do you really need? Ie, if all I have is $100 to spend, and you take half, getting that half back is significant in terms of my basic material comfort. To a middle-class family, a tax break could mean more sporting and academic activities or even something so basic as healthier food on the table.
Mathematically unfair? Who cares!
Now, one may use the 'garden path' argument and attempt to discredit my points by taking the extreme. So, let me take this opportunity to say that I do not support big government or big taxes. Let me also say that I can be in favour of a (truly) free market without being an economic rationalist.
Sortta weak, really. The author's of this document are grasping at straws. Their tatic is to take a generality stated by Gore and then interpret it as a specific, revealing an (rather minor) inconsistency. Not difficult to do. Harder to do with Bush as he doesn't have much of a record, except for having a few cushy jobs with sports teams and being govenor of Texas, where he hasn't taken the initiative on any significant or controversial issue. As far as I can tell, he's always gone with the status quo. (Advocating the internet in the early days is definately not going with the status quo.)
Now let's look at an example taken from the link, specifically the bit about Gore singing the song as a child when the song wasn't written until 1975. Probably true. It's also possible that the song is based on an old traditional song. Not uncommon, particularly for union songs. Gore could certainly have sung that song.
But even if he got it wrong, who cares? So he mixed up a few things in his memory. The point is, he tried to find common ground with a group of people. That's the real beef with you, isn't it. Gore's a populist!
Finally, I think corporations generally increase freedom, in that they create and disseminate vast wealth, which gives us enormous amounts of leisure...
Hmmm...We get enormous amounts of things, but not leisure. Plus, do corporations, so much create wealth as just shift it?
Corporations prefer a behaved, homogenous populace. It makes it easy to plan investment and market their goods. Plus, new competition is discouraged as the market is already saturated and their are no niches to exploit.
Thank goodness their are still areas that value diversity and that the US won't soon become the stale, regular, white-bread society so ardently advocated by the Republicans!
While Bush's comments are groundless, naive, and a smear on technophiles, I really must raise my objections to the idea that participating in virtual violence is some sort of safety valve. It's not. Just like artificial neural nets, our brains pathways become reinforced with activity. Could it be that playing violent video games reinforces pathways that equate violent responses to tense situations? Afterall, the military uses video games desensitize infantrymen to pulling the trigger (without such training, some significant percentage of soldiers in combat will not pull the trigger or will shoot over the heads of the enemy).
Correlation is not causation. Crying censorship is not a convincing argument.
To address some other points made. Good parenting is important. As a parent, I know (or think I know) that the great majority of parents will do just about anything for their children. Parents routinely go to great lengths to secure income while at the same time providing a safe environment, nourishment, and education for their children.
IMHO, it is our society's reward system that is doing great harm to many children's value systems. As a society, we often reward the dishonest and deceitful with great wealth. Specifically, I am speaking of CEO's who use unfair business practices but command incredible compensation, the politicians who abuse the campaign financing laws, and the athelete who justifies his narcistic behaviour with his talent. Don't underestimate a child's ability to cut through crap. It is difficult for a parent to teach honesty and civility when as a nation we (seem to) value treachery and bad behaviour.
So, let's gives parents some credit. Afterall, it's our children that will be financing our retirement. We don't want to save in IRAs only to find the dollar to have no purchasing power by the time we go liquid.
That all said, Bush is absolutely wrong. His comments are very unresponsible. Unfortunately, they will have currency with too large a segment of our population.
Perhaps the best response is to point out the great of achievements of computer science history. Allan Turing cracking Enigma. Medical modelling. Etc.
I'd just like to point out that while it's true that Australia, among other countries, has bureaucratic censorship, it is applied so rarely as to have little to no impact on the society or it's individual members.
One thing Australia does have (that the US doesn't) is a well financed but independent public broadcasting system. This avoids 'censorship by omission', which one might argue is insidiously pervasive in American popular media.
If one accepts the 'censorship by omission' premis, it is arguable that there is effectively more censorship in the US than Australia.
Free market/minimal governement -- it's propaganda, people, not the natural order of things, mana from heaven, nor a panacea.
It's all about balance, and, while perhaps hyperbolic, this article makes the point that the scales are tipped. And what is news about it is that the general population is starting think so (as opposed to the 80s when my observations and protestations made me an indiscreet minority). This may or may not be true, but please stop crapping on about how the big bad government is about to take everything away from you tomorrow.
If I may be allowed to generalize, those who espouse unfettered markets reveal a tendency to believe that evil is lurking, ready to take everything away at the first chance. The constintuency of the evil is unkown, but it's out there, insidious, and ready to make us miserable by taking away our cars, home, and cable hookup. Remain vigilant! Declare war on !
Balance can be obtained. Check out Australia and many European countries. Regarding markets and the commonwealth, you can have your cake and eat it to.
All the arguments from Creationists against evolution that I've heard are fallacious and based on some assumption that is a distortion of the truth. Some things I've heard are down right lies. Will you be refuting the liars? Eg, the claim that Darwin expressed doubts about his theory on his deathbed (absolute rubbish, BTW).
All or nearly all scientists accept natural selection. What they argue about is the mechanism. I would be very interested to hear of independent research (ie, not associated with Creationism) that suggests the species haven't evolved.
Some or even a majority of scientists may scoff at religion, but very few scoff at humility, as you claim.
Scientists are attracted to science because they share an awe of nature and the universe.
There have been many mis-applications of religion as well. Consider the Inquistions, the Crusades,etc.
I would encourage you to read some popular science books. I think you will be surprised to learn that scientist look for elegance and beauty in their theories and are not nearly as narrow minded as you seem to believe.
Not to downplay the importance of good science and its reasonable application, I would just like to note that the various theories of constructionism and deconstructionism can be applied in nefarious ways with equally horrific results.
Witness the genocide committed by Stalin and later Pohl Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They attempted to erase generations of conditioning and social construction by executing the educated. It was their belief that this way they could introduce a pure society. Everyone would be conditioned, ie constructed, into the ideal citizen, with some sort of utopia being the result.
(I got this idea from Stephen Pinkers' book, How the Mind Works. Very interesting reading if you'd interested in a Darwinian and computational explanation of behaviour and intelligence.)
Slashdot Mirror
At the dawn of the industrial revolution, some factories in England were working children 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. Somehow I don't think a "please stop" ended this practice.
I lived ten years in Australia and recently made the mistake of returning to America. I share your sentiments. Americans think they are special, different, preeminent, etc. They're not. They're just like everyone else. It's by luck more than anything else that they live in a politically stable society.
If we consider the murder and incarceration rates in the USA, then it may well be argued that America pays an unreasonably high cost for it's democracy. Other countries have democratic republics as well, they just do it more efficiently.
Ah, but I never claimed that government was the silver bullet. All I did was refute the claim that leave everything to the market and all will work itself out.
MTBE was a mistake. Hard to disagree with that.
My general point is, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Corporations often do not look forward and captitalism does not keep things clean. Let's look at some examples.
- Chiquita Banana, then Union Foods, was concerned that another corporation was offering a better price for bananas. So, Chiquita Banana hired a bunch of thugs to highjack trains and beat-up farmers. The farmers went back to selling bananas to Chiquita. (This occurred in South America, but I don't recall the country.)
- (This more recent) Dutch Shell oil was concerned that activists from local villages in Nigeria (I think) were going to interrupt their drilling. The villagers were upset that the drilling was polluting the delta and fisheries. Shell oil used it's own helicopters to transport government thugs to a peaceful demonstration. The government thugs proceeded to shoot the demonstrators with automatic weapons.
- In order to boost sales, Nestle started publishing propaganda in third world countries that claimed their milk formula was better for babies than a mother's natural milk. Many babies suffered because the mothers were unable to afford the formula and would therefore dilute it too much and because the mother's were often unable to secure clean water. Years later, Nestle tried this stunt again.
- In order to protect it's investments in freon and other chemicals, Du Pont claimed that the ozone depletion had no scientific basis. It used its considerable resources to lobby congress and sway the public. It was not until an actual hole was discovered over the Antartic that Du Pont shut up.
- Then there was the corporation that wanted to sell those bullets that guarantee a kill by releasing shrapnel into the person struck by the bullet. The resulting wound was the size of a softball and no surgeon would be able to patch up the victum.
I could go on and on with other examples of corporate lunacy. Yeah, the government can fuck things up. But then so can any large, bureaucratic organization, public or corporate. The market is no panacea.Right on!
Some things are too important to be left to the market.
I wish I could think of his name, but one (otherwise conservative) economist said something like, "I agree that a free market is necessary for a democratic society. What I do have a problem with is the claim that a free market is the only element necessary for a democratic society."
Let's have a look at some of the markets past decisions that have been less than optimal:
- lead in gasoline
- stereo over quadrophonic
- VHS over beta
- Windows and most other Microsoft products
Trust Yosemite to a system with this track record? No thanks.Decree
noun
verb transitive
I don't believe you're in a position to claim high intellectual ground on anyone, including 'zealous pseudo-radical slashdot readers'.
A friend of mine does biological research for CSIRO in Australia. He pointed out that the problem with DDT is that it doesn't bio-degrade. It stays in the form DDT or, if it does break down, it breaks down to some nasty chemicals.
If I recall correctly, once in your body, DDT doesn't leave. It gets stored in your fat.
I don't care how safe anyone claims it to be. Let's stick to pesticides that actually break down to innocuous substances.
Hear, hear!! Well said.
I can't say for sure, but seems to me that NAFTA would have had bi-partisan support as well.
Free trade -- it's a GOP thing, sure.
Oh, and by the way, US farmers entered traditional Australian wheat and beef markets in the Middle East and India with unfair subsidies. This occurred mid 90's. It cuts both ways.
The wealthy have this neat trick of having the public bear costs while privatizing profits. This tradition was manifested in the European colonization of Africa and the sub-continent. For example, the Dutch East India Company used the publicly funded Dutch national army to protect it's "investments" (read economic pillage) in India. However, it kept all profits for itself.
One might argue the company generated wealth, but all it really did was shift wealth from India to the disproportionate benefit of Dutch elite. (And BTW, India had a thriving economy before the Europeans stepped in.)
This tradition is carried on today by the transnationals and wealthiest families. The wealthy benefit from our substantial distribution system, our university system, our R and D systems, and our security systems (including police, military, and intelligence). All these things combine to protect their wealth. Yes, we all benefit, but then we all contribute. The letter is suggesting, and rather convincingly IMHO, that those who benefit the most are trying to shirk their responsibility by socializing the costs of maintaining a civil, technological society.
After all, they've done it in the past.
Regarding the percentages issue, I'd like to point out that there's more to it than the hard numbers. We all have basic living expenses. Ie, there is a minimum we could possibly spend to keep nourished and sheltered. What's left over is disposable income. Taxes for the less wealthy therefore have more of an impact because they have less disposable income.
Like all mathematical modelling, percentages don't fully capture reality. 50% of $100 is more significant than 50% of $10000000000000000000. I mean, how many yachts do you really need? Ie, if all I have is $100 to spend, and you take half, getting that half back is significant in terms of my basic material comfort. To a middle-class family, a tax break could mean more sporting and academic activities or even something so basic as healthier food on the table.
Mathematically unfair? Who cares!
Now, one may use the 'garden path' argument and attempt to discredit my points by taking the extreme. So, let me take this opportunity to say that I do not support big government or big taxes. Let me also say that I can be in favour of a (truly) free market without being an economic rationalist.
I went out and had a look at the link.
Sortta weak, really. The author's of this document are grasping at straws. Their tatic is to take a generality stated by Gore and then interpret it as a specific, revealing an (rather minor) inconsistency. Not difficult to do. Harder to do with Bush as he doesn't have much of a record, except for having a few cushy jobs with sports teams and being govenor of Texas, where he hasn't taken the initiative on any significant or controversial issue. As far as I can tell, he's always gone with the status quo. (Advocating the internet in the early days is definately not going with the status quo.)
Now let's look at an example taken from the link, specifically the bit about Gore singing the song as a child when the song wasn't written until 1975. Probably true. It's also possible that the song is based on an old traditional song. Not uncommon, particularly for union songs. Gore could certainly have sung that song.
But even if he got it wrong, who cares? So he mixed up a few things in his memory. The point is, he tried to find common ground with a group of people. That's the real beef with you, isn't it. Gore's a populist!
Hmmm...We get enormous amounts of things, but not leisure. Plus, do corporations, so much create wealth as just shift it?
Corporations prefer a behaved, homogenous populace. It makes it easy to plan investment and market their goods. Plus, new competition is discouraged as the market is already saturated and their are no niches to exploit.
Thank goodness their are still areas that value diversity and that the US won't soon become the stale, regular, white-bread society so ardently advocated by the Republicans!
While Bush's comments are groundless, naive, and a smear on technophiles, I really must raise my objections to the idea that participating in virtual violence is some sort of safety valve. It's not. Just like artificial neural nets, our brains pathways become reinforced with activity. Could it be that playing violent video games reinforces pathways that equate violent responses to tense situations? Afterall, the military uses video games desensitize infantrymen to pulling the trigger (without such training, some significant percentage of soldiers in combat will not pull the trigger or will shoot over the heads of the enemy).
Correlation is not causation. Crying censorship is not a convincing argument.
To address some other points made. Good parenting is important. As a parent, I know (or think I know) that the great majority of parents will do just about anything for their children. Parents routinely go to great lengths to secure income while at the same time providing a safe environment, nourishment, and education for their children.
IMHO, it is our society's reward system that is doing great harm to many children's value systems. As a society, we often reward the dishonest and deceitful with great wealth. Specifically, I am speaking of CEO's who use unfair business practices but command incredible compensation, the politicians who abuse the campaign financing laws, and the athelete who justifies his narcistic behaviour with his talent. Don't underestimate a child's ability to cut through crap. It is difficult for a parent to teach honesty and civility when as a nation we (seem to) value treachery and bad behaviour.
So, let's gives parents some credit. Afterall, it's our children that will be financing our retirement. We don't want to save in IRAs only to find the dollar to have no purchasing power by the time we go liquid.
That all said, Bush is absolutely wrong. His comments are very unresponsible. Unfortunately, they will have currency with too large a segment of our population.
Perhaps the best response is to point out the great of achievements of computer science history. Allan Turing cracking Enigma. Medical modelling. Etc.
I'd just like to point out that while it's true that Australia, among other countries, has bureaucratic censorship, it is applied so rarely as to have little to no impact on the society or it's individual members.
One thing Australia does have (that the US doesn't) is a well financed but independent public broadcasting system. This avoids 'censorship by omission', which one might argue is insidiously pervasive in American popular media.
If one accepts the 'censorship by omission' premis, it is arguable that there is effectively more censorship in the US than Australia.
For some really great examples of group think, try here.
Nice rationalizaton. (Unconvincing argument.)
Please address this point: Market leaders take extreme measures to fetter the market. The market's not so free after all.
Also, please avoid the 'limited alternatives' phallacy when making an argument. It's irritating.
Free market/minimal governement -- it's propaganda, people, not the natural order of things, mana from heaven, nor a panacea. It's all about balance, and, while perhaps hyperbolic, this article makes the point that the scales are tipped. And what is news about it is that the general population is starting think so (as opposed to the 80s when my observations and protestations made me an indiscreet minority). This may or may not be true, but please stop crapping on about how the big bad government is about to take everything away from you tomorrow. If I may be allowed to generalize, those who espouse unfettered markets reveal a tendency to believe that evil is lurking, ready to take everything away at the first chance. The constintuency of the evil is unkown, but it's out there, insidious, and ready to make us miserable by taking away our cars, home, and cable hookup. Remain vigilant! Declare war on ! Balance can be obtained. Check out Australia and many European countries. Regarding markets and the commonwealth, you can have your cake and eat it to.
All the arguments from Creationists against evolution that I've heard are fallacious and based on some assumption that is a distortion of the truth. Some things I've heard are down right lies. Will you be refuting the liars? Eg, the claim that Darwin expressed doubts about his theory on his deathbed (absolute rubbish, BTW).
All or nearly all scientists accept natural selection. What they argue about is the mechanism. I would be very interested to hear of independent research (ie, not associated with Creationism) that suggests the species haven't evolved.
And Constructionism in the wrongs hands is scary stuff!
Some or even a majority of scientists may scoff at religion, but very few scoff at humility, as you claim.
Scientists are attracted to science because they share an awe of nature and the universe.
There have been many mis-applications of religion as well. Consider the Inquistions, the Crusades,etc.
I would encourage you to read some popular science books. I think you will be surprised to learn that scientist look for elegance and beauty in their theories and are not nearly as narrow minded as you seem to believe.
Not to downplay the importance of good science and its reasonable application, I would just like to note that the various theories of constructionism and deconstructionism can be applied in nefarious ways with equally horrific results.
Witness the genocide committed by Stalin and later Pohl Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They attempted to erase generations of conditioning and social construction by executing the educated. It was their belief that this way they could introduce a pure society. Everyone would be conditioned, ie constructed, into the ideal citizen, with some sort of utopia being the result.
(I got this idea from Stephen Pinkers' book, How the Mind Works. Very interesting reading if you'd interested in a Darwinian and computational explanation of behaviour and intelligence.)