It's difficult to make generalized, unqualified statements, and that is the property that makes something difficult to prove, not the fact that it's negative or positive. Whether or not it's negative or positive doesn't matter, it's the fact that something is a sweeping statement that makes it hard to prove. Proving that something always happens is just as hard to prove as proving that something never happens.
Next, if you'll reread my post, you'll notice that what I was saying was qualified with the condition that we have a small scale example that is reproducible with a high degree of confidence. You then mis-represented what I was saying, by arguing against the idea that "the burden of proof is always on the skeptic". I didn't say that. I said, specifically, "The burden of proof is on "skeptics" to explain why a reproducible, verifiable model on a small scale won't work on a large scale. " That's VERY different than saying, "The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the skeptics." Your tactic is what is know as a straw-man fallacy, as you are making an argument against something that I did not say.
Look, one of the big differences between religion and science is that religion and mythology will often create new theories for everything. You have a god for lightning, thunder, volcanoes, etc. Or you have a single god who is doing a bunch of different things. The goal of science is to get to the essence of what is going on, and wherever possible, unify our understanding into as simple of a model as possible. We only create separate models when we absolutely have to, and any reasonable hypothesis for weather should start with the models that we already know and understand (such as the greenhouse effect on a small scale), not a blank slate. Then, when we see evidence that the small scale model does apply to larger systems, we should apply this model to both small and large systems (with less confidence for the large system) until we see evidence that says otherwise. We don't simply say, "Gee, we've only collected a few decades of official evidence, let's hold off for a few millenia."
The problem is that this isn't relevant to the social issue of global warming, and many "skeptics" will claim that it is relevant. Even if the change in temperature ends up being a blip on the radar in geological time, it only takes a few years of drought to decimate food stores and cause a world-wide pandemic. THIS is the issue that should be relevant to us these days, and I'm afraid that all these newly minted arm-chair scientists (more accurately described as big business apologists) are going to ensure that we delay action until it is too late.
Another thing I should say is that we have a very reliable model for showing that increased CO2 can cause warming on a small scale. "skeptics" claim that the burden of proof is on those who say it will happen on a large scale, despite evidence that it IS happening on a large scale. This has never been the way science works. The burden of proof is on "skeptics" to explain why a reproducible, verifiable model on a small scale won't work on a large scale. They have no evidence, and are quite dishonestly trying to shift the burden of proof back on the scientists, knowing full well that on a large scale it will take a much longer time to acquire the kind of evidence they are seeking.
An analogy would be if we said that since Pluto's orbit is 248 years, then we've probably only recorded it orbiting the sun a few times (arguably less than that if we only count modern record-keeping), and so therefore we haven't collected enough data to determine that orbital mechanics apply to Pluto. After all, maybe the 7th observed cycle around the sun it will veer off into space, violating all of our current models. This type of reasoning is nonsense. Science always seeks to apply the simplest, most general theory to all systems. Science only creates a new theory if it absolutely has to. The burden of proof would be on the orbital mechanics "skeptics" to show why it would behave differently on a large scale, not on those who can show without a doubt that it happens on a small scale, and have shown that all measurable results indicate it is happening on a large scale. The idea that we should start with two separate models, one for large scale and another for the small scale, is precisely the opposite of what science seeks to do, and is a severe mis-representation of science.
Can you say something less superficial, with even the slightest amount of substance? Specifically, what is your issue with it? You don't have to tell us all of your problems with it, just name maybe the top 3-5.
I have a generator. It's only 8500 watts ($500 at lowes), but is enough to power a few circuits and windows AC's (through a properly wired panel with transfer switch). That said, have you ever looked at the costs for running a generator? It's obnoxiously high. It goes through roughly one gallon per hour. That's $96 a DAY, or $2880 a month to power half my home, central AC not included. We save by turning it off for a few hours at a time, but need to keep it running regularly so that our food doesn't thaw. You can get more efficient generators, but they can run into the thousands. In the event of a long-term crisis, the same people that brought us the housing crisis would start "investing" in fuel commodities, which would cause gas prices to skyrocket. Then you have increased consumer demand further ratcheting up prices. Really, the only reason that generators are viable is because very few people use them. If everyone had one, the gas prices would spike to unbelievable levels (unless you feel like storing a few hundred gallons) every time there was a significant power outage, and it's not realistic to think that everyone can afford to put a few thousand dollars into power generation (or tens of thousands in the case of solar).
Don't forget to tell all of our food crops that they are adaptable and that it's only a few degrees. Last time I checked, humans don't do well without food. I think another way to look at it is that it's stupid to support a policy that forces us to pay for the mess that is created by big business. If you think it costs a lot to enforce pollution regulations, wait until you get the bill that is going to be caused by massive drought.
I worked at a place like that and they went down in flames. At my current job our total code base is only about 1 million lines of code that runs on OSX, linux, and windows. The difference is we do it with three people, and we also serve as IT for the lab. In and of itself that's not a big deal as the amount of code per developer is similar to your organization. The major difference is that we get it done in 8-10 hours a day Monday through Friday, with weekends off, and 6 weeks totals of paid vacation/holidays. Have fun trashing your body....
I've found agile methodology is a great way to spot people that won't be writing software in 5 years. The more people spend their time trying to solve "meta" problems like what is wrong with the software development process, the more likely it is to be a reflection on their own issues with productively writing software. You can take a talented programmer, put them in a room alone, and get good work. You can also take a bunch of "agile" guys, put them in a room, and get nothing but BS about improving culture. Sorry, but programming is only very slightly about culture or methodology, and good coders get stuff done regardless of what is going on around them. If they can't get it done at work, they take it home with them. If their primary job isn't satisfying, then they work on side projects. I've never seen anything get in the way of talented developers. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of excuses from people that don't belong in the field.
First, as a good developer, you need to check your assumption that this problem is a good target for optimization. You need to assess, as best you possibly can, if what you are accomplishing meets an educated best guess as to what your output would be in an ideal sense. That's how you optimize systems. You don't waste a bunch of time optimizing things that are functioning at full capacity. As far as why people come up with new methods, there is a lot of money in it, and there is constant pressure to find ways to increase productivity from developers. However, just because the pressure exists doesn't mean that it's a good idea to spend a lot of time optimizing a system that quite possibly is already at it's limits.
The next thing you need to remember is that statistically, the chance that you will be writing software at age 40 is slim. Choose how you spend your time wisely. I can't tell you how many younger developers, many of whom won't even be in the field five years from now, spend a significant chunk of their careers on problems that are unsolvable (like making a significant improvement in software methodology), rather than making a significant contribution as a programmer. My advice, spend your time on solving problems that are feasible, instead of chasing pie in the sky dreams of solving a problem that we can hardly even describe, much less solve.
The problem is that the incomes of the majority are dwindling away, and pop music tends to be marketed squarely at average joes, the first people hit in a recession. So, if you are an artist and want to get paid, then you need be progressive, get involved in your community, and take steps to ensure that wages start rising again. Once that happens, I think this problem will sort itself out.
Of course in our free market economy, which is crass to the core, there are no guarantees that labels are even interested in the type of dedicated professional that you present yourself as. Labels are just as happy taking someone with no talent, targeting them at demographic niche, and making tons of money that way. They do it in sports too, if you listen to announcers talk, you would think miracles are being done every 30 seconds. In music, they market musicians as being uber-musicians, at the top of their field. This tactic, of taking otherwise ordinary people, and promoting them to a status slightly below that of your favorite deity, is a transparent attempt to explain why so many millions need to be exchanging hands in order for the concert, show, or game to happen. This severely disincentives the creation of good music, since one can be good but no match for the cynical marketing teams that are owned by the labels. Being good doesn't mean you'll make it.
The industry seeks to constrain choice for artists and consumers, acting as a barrier to music, artist, and fans, while at the same time, keeping them as exploitable as possible. The focus is less on the value of the work, and more about whether or not it will sell (and as a result, be maximally exploitable)., As a result, even talented artists tend to add in a bit of "flair", everything from non-stop vibrato of 80's metal guitar, to walking baselines, to changing accents. While charming at first, it has the (desired, at least for music industry) effect of giving music a short shelf life, which is another goal of music industry. Short shelf-life further constrains our choices by rendering large parts of popular music unlistenable after a decade or two.. Maybe that first year they sounded great, but now you can't get over their annoying accent, or that little signature riff that they use, or their marketing stunts, etc. This shortened shelf-life effectively destroys popular culture. It turns the art of music into something closer to the fashion industry. It also creates many market segments/genres, lowering the bar for talent in many segments.
My two step solution: 1. Make sure your fans are getting paid a fair wage and that they actually have money to spend. If their boss made an extra $50K from their labor while at the same time cutting their employee's pay, then this type of issues should be fixed. You won't have many customers if they are all broke, and I think this issue is causing problems across the board.
If this seems like an impossible task, there is an alternative. You could always turn the idea on it's head and simply acommodate your art to the needs of those that have a lot of money. Corporations love jingle writers, so you could make money that way. You could move your target demographic to one that is more upscale. One upscale market is christian rock. You could talk about how much it means to you. It would basically take selling out to the next level, but would probably work. You may think I'm joking, but much like workers in other parts of the economy, artists are being forced to compromise their values and beliefs.
2. Once you finish with that, then getting an indie label off the ground should be much easier. Either way, you'll win, but our current economic downturn is slowing down the inevitable, which is that eventually artists will produce and distribute their own music, and outsource any PR work to separate agencies, as needed. That's where I see it going.
That's an interesting observation. However, I wish that there existed in the sea of posts by population alarmists more people who could see clearly, as I do. Think about it like this. Who uses 23% of the world's oil? The U.S. does (I'm an American so I'm allowed to bash). That's 300 million people using about 25% of the oil, leaving the other 6.5 billion to squable over the other 75%. Are the gears turning yet?
So, rather than worrying about "over-population", and viewing with admiration that the wealthy can manage to have 1.6 kids, you should see things as they are. That is, you should see that it's not "over-population" that's the problem, it's over-consumption. It's over-population of a certain kind of person, one with a voracious appetite who consumes orders of magnitude more than others who he shares the planet with. I could write "a modest proposal" about this, where I could imagine how much further the resources would go if we just eliminated the top 10%, but that's never what anyone means when they talk about over-population. Instead, those who worry about over-population harbor a special kind of elitism where they perform a bunch of hang-wringing over the crumbs consumed by the bottom half of the world's population while simultaneously (and quite amazingly) overlooking the massive over-consumption and waste on the part of the "haves".
One more thing to note. At the root of our over-consumption is capitalism. Our economy drives our appetites, rather than reflecting them. We won't be able to live sustainably in a capitalist economy. It has a never ending need for expansion that will ultimately be our demise if we don't abandon it.
What makes you think they aren't symptoms of the same problem? The problem is a combination of impossible standards on one side and a food industry that is pervasive with 24/7 adverstising that turns food into a drug of choice. Is it any wonder that women are treating food like a drug, with some binging into an early grave, and others completely avoiding it all together to meet impossible physical standards. We're seeing a polarizing effect and I think it largely has to do with food advertising, engineering of foods to make them as addictive as possible, and impossible standards of beauty (causing people to constantly get on and off the wagon in pursuit of better looks when they are on, and when they go off the wagon they go in the opposite direction). A great example of this is the biggest loser. People go from massive overconsumption to extremely over-the-top physical regimens, and many go right back to overconsumption, in a vicious cycle their entire lives. But, you know, over-consumption of food combined with sales of weight loss gimmicks is much more profitable than a sane food industry, so I guess it's ok. We apparently have no problems with being swamped in a mountain of advertising and manipulative messages, but get freaked out by the slightest regulation of it, go figure...
What they should say is that there aren't enough people willing to work very hard for a an ever shrinking piece of the pie. What do they expect researchers to do when they keep cutting basic science funding? The numbers are terrible right now. Something like 10% of those with new Phd's that apply for a grant actually get it. Who in their right mind would get a Phd for a 10% chance of getting funding? They apparently expect Phd's to be happy to work indefinitely as a post-doc for 30K a year. This trend is very similar for recent engineering graduates.
Own your failure, capitalist. If a system turns to shit, the results are still due to capitalism. Communists don't get to blame the USSR on incorrect implementation, nor do we get to blame the current state of the U.S. on fascism. It's capitalism, and repeating the experiment will produce the same results.
What other crime would give them an excuse to invade people's privacy to the extent the CP has? Terrorism or drugs may come close, but nothing allows them to shit on the constitution as much as CP does. I think it's a bit disingenuous for the group that is benefiting the most from the existence of CP to accuse others of being "for" it.
How is this different than the millions of consumers that mercilessly browse a website only to buy the item in store because it's in town. I do that all the time when I want an item right away. As long as the brick and mortar is within 10%, then it's a wash due to shipping costs and waiting for delivery. Sorry, but costs money to run a business and people don't have to buy at your store. If they don't like it then I suppose they could just turn their stores into warehouses, forget the displays, and put up a web presence so that people can view items.
Of course they get some of it. Think about it, why does a gamer sell their games? To get MORE games. The used market drives the new market further, and vice versa. It's a very stupid idea to get rid of market segmentation, since not everyone is willing to pay the same price. That's why CPU manufacturers will sometimes clock chips down and sell them at a lower price (even if they are capable of running faster). It's so they will be able to take advantage of the lower-end market. Game companies have done this through the used market by proxy, and maybe they don't realize but it's a profit source for them.
...it become ATT's "God-given" right to lay their wires on my property, buy some equipment, and then charge usurious rates for me to use that connection. Yes, they need money for maintenance fees, but they don't need, nor is it their "right", to charge as much as they do, not unless I'm allowed to turn around and start charging them sky high "rent" for running their lines through my yard.
Patents have two components, spreading risk, and creating profits. The first is necessary to foster innovation, the 2nd should be a very small priority. Here's why. If we're going to do the hypocritical hand wringing that usually benefits rich people, then we should also worry about risk minimization for small inventors. What does lowering risk for small entrepeneurs look like? Here's what stops me from starting a software company (not patents, that's for sure): 1. If I fail, I won't be able to afford health insurance, which given my health problems, isn't acceptable 2. I I fail, being a person of modest means, means I may not be able to afford basic necessities (food, shelter, etc.) 3. I I fail, unlike a corporation, I have very little bankruptcy protection. I can't discharge my personal debts (which is the majority of debt for small entrepeneurs), and as a result I could lose everything I own. Contrast that with large corporations where risk is neatly partitioned into the business, and the wealthy investor can easily live off their considerable wealth while waiting for another opportunity 4. I I succeed, I have much greater risk due to limited resources.
Given that the above applies to 99% of us, the best way to foster innovation and competition is to remove the above barriers to competition by creating a system that absorbs risks for small entrepeneurs, who need it most.
In terms of absorbing R&D risk, there a couple of things to keep in mind. First, many IP based businesses don't do much R&D. Quite a bit of drug research is paid for by government, and then given to corporations using technology transfer, so why worry about protecting leaches? Second, patents do little to protect individual risks, and do quite a bit more to ensure outsized gains for the patents that do succeed. This tends to reward (rich) people who can afford to get a bunch of patents and see which ones work. This isn't a hard problem to solve, it's just that patents aren't about fostering innovation, so they've been kept in a state that achieves their primary purpose, rewarding extremely wealthy people.
What's a good system look like? 1. Risk is spread to all companies that use a patent 2. Companies are forced to license patents at a reasonable cost to competitors. Squeezing out competition through patents shouldn't be allowed. 3. Licensees of said patent would have their total licensing fees limited to 20% of operating costs until all R&D for patents is paid for. 4. Once R&D is paid for, patents become public domain. 5. A small amount of extra profit off a patent may be allowed before letting it expire, but this should be limited to a reasonable percentage of R&D cost, not unlimited as it currently is. 6. Companies that are very small may be allowed an exemption from the patent tax, or given a break while they get set up. 7. Companies that are significantly larger than competitors may be barred from patenting items. 8. Technology transfer from public to private domain should only happen if companies that use it are willing to pay the above 20% licensing fee until costs are covered. No more free rides on publicly funded research.
How does a company make a profit? First, competitors are going to have an extra 20% overhead, so the original company can probably sell for a lower cost in the beginning. Trade secrets and greater experience would also allow them to sell goods for a lower cost. Beyond paying operating costs, how much profit does a company need? Operational costs pay the the salaries of true innovators so massive profits aren't required. Second, the patent system shouldn't concern itself with whether or not the creator can buy a yacht. This is a publicly created system, and while we should help with risk, it's not our job to make people rich.
The next, untapped area of innovation involves workplace efficiency gains. Those gains should be at minimum split between workers and companies. Regulations should be put on salary reduction in the event of efficiency gains, so that everyone benefits.
I just went back to blockbuster, and I think their service IS better. With a store nearby, throttling isn't even an issue. I can rent nearly 2-3x as many movies per week as I could with netflix on a similar plan. I simply watch, return to store, and pick out 3 movies, and leave. Yes, it does require trips to the store (which is fairly close), but you get bluray and game rental. Also, it should be mentioned that blockbuster releases new movies at or near the date of the bluray release, while with netflix you have to wait an extra month or two due to their contracts with studios. All in all, it's a better experience, and I'm watching movies I would have waited months to see on netflix. There aren't any regrets here.
Yep, except you have to throw out the fact that the average worker is several times, in some cases, orders of magnitude more efficient and productive than they were when SS was originally created. The gains came about through better technology, longer working hours for many, less vacations, doubling the workforce by adding women, etc. So, where did all the productivity go? It certainly wasn't shared, that's for sure. It's gone to support billionaires rich enough to buy entire islands and form their own countries. It's part of why unemployment keeps rising (if people are more productive, and you are over-producing, why keep them on the payroll when you aren't paying them enough to buy their own products?).
So, no, we won't HAVE TO raise the retirement age to 150. What we really need is to remodel the economic system in a way such that gains in efficiency are returned to workers, not owners. But, that means throwing out capitalism. Once that happens, things will become even MORE efficient, by leaps and bounds. Who would stay at work 4 hours if they could get it done in two? Right now, we incentivize people to be inefficient and many of them oblige us by dragging out a couple of hours of work into an 8 hour day. No one dares to do anything about it on a large scale, because people in power love capitalism, and a 50% unemployment rate would cause massive riots. So, they allow the rabble to keep themselves busy for 8-10 hours a day, so that they are too exhausted to get into trouble. Even with all that artificial inflation of work hours we still have problems finding enough "work" for everyone.
I can tell you that the editors are extremely meticulous, with automated software that will quickly find many cases of infringment, and a strict set of rules covering copyright, proper sourcing, conflict of interest, etc. Wikipedia is not allowed in a court of law because the freedom with which they allow people to edit makes it impossible for the editorial staff to make guarantees. That said, for the average user, wikipedia's transparent editorial process and strict rules about citation makes it superior in many respects to other media, where the the editorial process can be politically driven and hidden from view. Let's not be naive guys, any form of media that is commercially driven has many potential issues. To give them a pass while lambasting wikipedia is ridiculous.
That sounds like a ridiculous attempt to sell higher education to people who have long been out of school and don't need it. It's like selling extra education to Einstein in his 40's, or an advanced degree to Newton. Seriously, do they think the guy who wrote java needs to go back to school to get a refresher course, or maybe Linus does? Who are these professionals with decades of experience that somehow need to return to the University to learn about the software that they wrote? School is a great way to learn the basics, but a terrible way to keep pace. Money has kept many out of the brightest minds away from the University, and it's a sick joke to think Universities would have something to teach people with degrees that are out in the field and working.
Think of it this way. My wife has an MD/Phd, done a 4 year residency, is the valedictorian of her 4 year college, and will have a minimum 2-3 year post doc. She will be in her late 30's, possibly early 40's, before she ever gets to use her training to actually run a lab. The training requirements keep going up, because there are people dumb enough to let the Universities act as gatekeepers for their profession. In return, the Universities profit immensely off 20,000 a year Phd's, and 40,000 a year MD's, who are still "training", despite decades of hard work. She has foreign colleagues who are even worse off. Many of the Chinese researchers are stuck working as Post Docs (for 40K a year) until they retire. So, we have people with Phd's, who officially never finish training, making less than a McDonald's manager or truck driver. In contrast, we have this wonderful situation in Computer Science where we actually get paid for our work, and where we can start earning a reasonable salary in our early 20's. This is NOT a problem that needs to be solved. It's only a problem for the Universities, who would love to find a way to cash in on our profession.
I've often wondered why employers don't bring a laptop into the interview, with a simple programming task or two, and ask the programmer to write a program that does X, with access to all available tools, the internet, etc. You'd be amazed at how many "experts" cannot do simple things like open a file, read from it, append a character to the end of each line, and print it back out. Or, do generic bubble sort (not to mention q sort or other, more advanced methods).
A small test would be a much, much better demonstration of skill than asking people about random concepts. I would say the ability to look something up, quickly comprehend it, and then apply it to a real world problem is of much more use than a guy who has memorized (but does not understand) a bunch of bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
It's difficult to make generalized, unqualified statements, and that is the property that makes something difficult to prove, not the fact that it's negative or positive. Whether or not it's negative or positive doesn't matter, it's the fact that something is a sweeping statement that makes it hard to prove. Proving that something always happens is just as hard to prove as proving that something never happens.
Next, if you'll reread my post, you'll notice that what I was saying was qualified with the condition that we have a small scale example that is reproducible with a high degree of confidence. You then mis-represented what I was saying, by arguing against the idea that "the burden of proof is always on the skeptic". I didn't say that. I said, specifically, "The burden of proof is on "skeptics" to explain why a reproducible, verifiable model on a small scale won't work on a large scale. " That's VERY different than saying, "The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the skeptics." Your tactic is what is know as a straw-man fallacy, as you are making an argument against something that I did not say.
Look, one of the big differences between religion and science is that religion and mythology will often create new theories for everything. You have a god for lightning, thunder, volcanoes, etc. Or you have a single god who is doing a bunch of different things. The goal of science is to get to the essence of what is going on, and wherever possible, unify our understanding into as simple of a model as possible. We only create separate models when we absolutely have to, and any reasonable hypothesis for weather should start with the models that we already know and understand (such as the greenhouse effect on a small scale), not a blank slate. Then, when we see evidence that the small scale model does apply to larger systems, we should apply this model to both small and large systems (with less confidence for the large system) until we see evidence that says otherwise. We don't simply say, "Gee, we've only collected a few decades of official evidence, let's hold off for a few millenia."
Oops, substitute famine for pandemic in the text above.
The problem is that this isn't relevant to the social issue of global warming, and many "skeptics" will claim that it is relevant. Even if the change in temperature ends up being a blip on the radar in geological time, it only takes a few years of drought to decimate food stores and cause a world-wide pandemic. THIS is the issue that should be relevant to us these days, and I'm afraid that all these newly minted arm-chair scientists (more accurately described as big business apologists) are going to ensure that we delay action until it is too late.
Another thing I should say is that we have a very reliable model for showing that increased CO2 can cause warming on a small scale. "skeptics" claim that the burden of proof is on those who say it will happen on a large scale, despite evidence that it IS happening on a large scale. This has never been the way science works. The burden of proof is on "skeptics" to explain why a reproducible, verifiable model on a small scale won't work on a large scale. They have no evidence, and are quite dishonestly trying to shift the burden of proof back on the scientists, knowing full well that on a large scale it will take a much longer time to acquire the kind of evidence they are seeking.
An analogy would be if we said that since Pluto's orbit is 248 years, then we've probably only recorded it orbiting the sun a few times (arguably less than that if we only count modern record-keeping), and so therefore we haven't collected enough data to determine that orbital mechanics apply to Pluto. After all, maybe the 7th observed cycle around the sun it will veer off into space, violating all of our current models. This type of reasoning is nonsense. Science always seeks to apply the simplest, most general theory to all systems. Science only creates a new theory if it absolutely has to. The burden of proof would be on the orbital mechanics "skeptics" to show why it would behave differently on a large scale, not on those who can show without a doubt that it happens on a small scale, and have shown that all measurable results indicate it is happening on a large scale. The idea that we should start with two separate models, one for large scale and another for the small scale, is precisely the opposite of what science seeks to do, and is a severe mis-representation of science.
Can you say something less superficial, with even the slightest amount of substance? Specifically, what is your issue with it? You don't have to tell us all of your problems with it, just name maybe the top 3-5.
I have a generator. It's only 8500 watts ($500 at lowes), but is enough to power a few circuits and windows AC's (through a properly wired panel with transfer switch). That said, have you ever looked at the costs for running a generator? It's obnoxiously high. It goes through roughly one gallon per hour. That's $96 a DAY, or $2880 a month to power half my home, central AC not included. We save by turning it off for a few hours at a time, but need to keep it running regularly so that our food doesn't thaw. You can get more efficient generators, but they can run into the thousands. In the event of a long-term crisis, the same people that brought us the housing crisis would start "investing" in fuel commodities, which would cause gas prices to skyrocket. Then you have increased consumer demand further ratcheting up prices. Really, the only reason that generators are viable is because very few people use them. If everyone had one, the gas prices would spike to unbelievable levels (unless you feel like storing a few hundred gallons) every time there was a significant power outage, and it's not realistic to think that everyone can afford to put a few thousand dollars into power generation (or tens of thousands in the case of solar).
Don't forget to tell all of our food crops that they are adaptable and that it's only a few degrees. Last time I checked, humans don't do well without food. I think another way to look at it is that it's stupid to support a policy that forces us to pay for the mess that is created by big business. If you think it costs a lot to enforce pollution regulations, wait until you get the bill that is going to be caused by massive drought.
I worked at a place like that and they went down in flames. At my current job our total code base is only about 1 million lines of code that runs on OSX, linux, and windows. The difference is we do it with three people, and we also serve as IT for the lab. In and of itself that's not a big deal as the amount of code per developer is similar to your organization. The major difference is that we get it done in 8-10 hours a day Monday through Friday, with weekends off, and 6 weeks totals of paid vacation/holidays. Have fun trashing your body....
I've found agile methodology is a great way to spot people that won't be writing software in 5 years. The more people spend their time trying to solve "meta" problems like what is wrong with the software development process, the more likely it is to be a reflection on their own issues with productively writing software. You can take a talented programmer, put them in a room alone, and get good work. You can also take a bunch of "agile" guys, put them in a room, and get nothing but BS about improving culture. Sorry, but programming is only very slightly about culture or methodology, and good coders get stuff done regardless of what is going on around them. If they can't get it done at work, they take it home with them. If their primary job isn't satisfying, then they work on side projects. I've never seen anything get in the way of talented developers. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of excuses from people that don't belong in the field.
First, as a good developer, you need to check your assumption that this problem is a good target for optimization. You need to assess, as best you possibly can, if what you are accomplishing meets an educated best guess as to what your output would be in an ideal sense. That's how you optimize systems. You don't waste a bunch of time optimizing things that are functioning at full capacity. As far as why people come up with new methods, there is a lot of money in it, and there is constant pressure to find ways to increase productivity from developers. However, just because the pressure exists doesn't mean that it's a good idea to spend a lot of time optimizing a system that quite possibly is already at it's limits.
The next thing you need to remember is that statistically, the chance that you will be writing software at age 40 is slim. Choose how you spend your time wisely. I can't tell you how many younger developers, many of whom won't even be in the field five years from now, spend a significant chunk of their careers on problems that are unsolvable (like making a significant improvement in software methodology), rather than making a significant contribution as a programmer. My advice, spend your time on solving problems that are feasible, instead of chasing pie in the sky dreams of solving a problem that we can hardly even describe, much less solve.
The problem is that the incomes of the majority are dwindling away, and pop music tends to be marketed squarely at average joes, the first people hit in a recession. So, if you are an artist and want to get paid, then you need be progressive, get involved in your community, and take steps to ensure that wages start rising again. Once that happens, I think this problem will sort itself out.
Of course in our free market economy, which is crass to the core, there are no guarantees that labels are even interested in the type of dedicated professional that you present yourself as. Labels are just as happy taking someone with no talent, targeting them at demographic niche, and making tons of money that way. They do it in sports too, if you listen to announcers talk, you would think miracles are being done every 30 seconds. In music, they market musicians as being uber-musicians, at the top of their field. This tactic, of taking otherwise ordinary people, and promoting them to a status slightly below that of your favorite deity, is a transparent attempt to explain why so many millions need to be exchanging hands in order for the concert, show, or game to happen. This severely disincentives the creation of good music, since one can be good but no match for the cynical marketing teams that are owned by the labels. Being good doesn't mean you'll make it.
The industry seeks to constrain choice for artists and consumers, acting as a barrier to music, artist, and fans, while at the same time, keeping them as exploitable as possible. The focus is less on the value of the work, and more about whether or not it will sell (and as a result, be maximally exploitable)., As a result, even talented artists tend to add in a bit of "flair", everything from non-stop vibrato of 80's metal guitar, to walking baselines, to changing accents. While charming at first, it has the (desired, at least for music industry) effect of giving music a short shelf life, which is another goal of music industry. Short shelf-life further constrains our choices by rendering large parts of popular music unlistenable after a decade or two.. Maybe that first year they sounded great, but now you can't get over their annoying accent, or that little signature riff that they use, or their marketing stunts, etc. This shortened shelf-life effectively destroys popular culture. It turns the art of music into something closer to the fashion industry. It also creates many market segments/genres, lowering the bar for talent in many segments.
My two step solution:
1. Make sure your fans are getting paid a fair wage and that they actually have money to spend. If their boss made an extra $50K from their labor while at the same time cutting their employee's pay, then this type of issues should be fixed. You won't have many customers if they are all broke, and I think this issue is causing problems across the board.
If this seems like an impossible task, there is an alternative. You could always turn the idea on it's head and simply acommodate your art to the needs of those that have a lot of money. Corporations love jingle writers, so you could make money that way. You could move your target demographic to one that is more upscale. One upscale market is christian rock. You could talk about how much it means to you. It would basically take selling out to the next level, but would probably work. You may think I'm joking, but much like workers in other parts of the economy, artists are being forced to compromise their values and beliefs.
2. Once you finish with that, then getting an indie label off the ground should be much easier. Either way, you'll win, but our current economic downturn is slowing down the inevitable, which is that eventually artists will produce and distribute their own music, and outsource any PR work to separate agencies, as needed. That's where I see it going.
You must live on a planet where federal funding for scientific research hasn't seen severe budget cuts.
That's an interesting observation. However, I wish that there existed in the sea of posts by population alarmists more people who could see clearly, as I do. Think about it like this. Who uses 23% of the world's oil? The U.S. does (I'm an American so I'm allowed to bash). That's 300 million people using about 25% of the oil, leaving the other 6.5 billion to squable over the other 75%. Are the gears turning yet?
So, rather than worrying about "over-population", and viewing with admiration that the wealthy can manage to have 1.6 kids, you should see things as they are. That is, you should see that it's not "over-population" that's the problem, it's over-consumption. It's over-population of a certain kind of person, one with a voracious appetite who consumes orders of magnitude more than others who he shares the planet with. I could write "a modest proposal" about this, where I could imagine how much further the resources would go if we just eliminated the top 10%, but that's never what anyone means when they talk about over-population. Instead, those who worry about over-population harbor a special kind of elitism where they perform a bunch of hang-wringing over the crumbs consumed by the bottom half of the world's population while simultaneously (and quite amazingly) overlooking the massive over-consumption and waste on the part of the "haves".
One more thing to note. At the root of our over-consumption is capitalism. Our economy drives our appetites, rather than reflecting them. We won't be able to live sustainably in a capitalist economy. It has a never ending need for expansion that will ultimately be our demise if we don't abandon it.
What makes you think they aren't symptoms of the same problem? The problem is a combination of impossible standards on one side and a food industry that is pervasive with 24/7 adverstising that turns food into a drug of choice. Is it any wonder that women are treating food like a drug, with some binging into an early grave, and others completely avoiding it all together to meet impossible physical standards. We're seeing a polarizing effect and I think it largely has to do with food advertising, engineering of foods to make them as addictive as possible, and impossible standards of beauty (causing people to constantly get on and off the wagon in pursuit of better looks when they are on, and when they go off the wagon they go in the opposite direction). A great example of this is the biggest loser. People go from massive overconsumption to extremely over-the-top physical regimens, and many go right back to overconsumption, in a vicious cycle their entire lives. But, you know, over-consumption of food combined with sales of weight loss gimmicks is much more profitable than a sane food industry, so I guess it's ok. We apparently have no problems with being swamped in a mountain of advertising and manipulative messages, but get freaked out by the slightest regulation of it, go figure...
What they should say is that there aren't enough people willing to work very hard for a an ever shrinking piece of the pie. What do they expect researchers to do when they keep cutting basic science funding? The numbers are terrible right now. Something like 10% of those with new Phd's that apply for a grant actually get it. Who in their right mind would get a Phd for a 10% chance of getting funding? They apparently expect Phd's to be happy to work indefinitely as a post-doc for 30K a year. This trend is very similar for recent engineering graduates.
Own your failure, capitalist. If a system turns to shit, the results are still due to capitalism. Communists don't get to blame the USSR on incorrect implementation, nor do we get to blame the current state of the U.S. on fascism. It's capitalism, and repeating the experiment will produce the same results.
What other crime would give them an excuse to invade people's privacy to the extent the CP has? Terrorism or drugs may come close, but nothing allows them to shit on the constitution as much as CP does. I think it's a bit disingenuous for the group that is benefiting the most from the existence of CP to accuse others of being "for" it.
How is this different than the millions of consumers that mercilessly browse a website only to buy the item in store because it's in town. I do that all the time when I want an item right away. As long as the brick and mortar is within 10%, then it's a wash due to shipping costs and waiting for delivery. Sorry, but costs money to run a business and people don't have to buy at your store. If they don't like it then I suppose they could just turn their stores into warehouses, forget the displays, and put up a web presence so that people can view items.
Of course they get some of it. Think about it, why does a gamer sell their games? To get MORE games. The used market drives the new market further, and vice versa. It's a very stupid idea to get rid of market segmentation, since not everyone is willing to pay the same price. That's why CPU manufacturers will sometimes clock chips down and sell them at a lower price (even if they are capable of running faster). It's so they will be able to take advantage of the lower-end market. Game companies have done this through the used market by proxy, and maybe they don't realize but it's a profit source for them.
...it become ATT's "God-given" right to lay their wires on my property, buy some equipment, and then charge usurious rates for me to use that connection. Yes, they need money for maintenance fees, but they don't need, nor is it their "right", to charge as much as they do, not unless I'm allowed to turn around and start charging them sky high "rent" for running their lines through my yard.
Patents have two components, spreading risk, and creating profits. The first is necessary to foster innovation, the 2nd should be a very small priority. Here's why. If we're going to do the hypocritical hand wringing that usually benefits rich people, then we should also worry about risk minimization for small inventors. What does lowering risk for small entrepeneurs look like? Here's what stops me from starting a software company (not patents, that's for sure):
1. If I fail, I won't be able to afford health insurance, which given my health problems, isn't acceptable
2. I I fail, being a person of modest means, means I may not be able to afford basic necessities (food, shelter, etc.)
3. I I fail, unlike a corporation, I have very little bankruptcy protection. I can't discharge my personal debts (which is the majority of debt for small entrepeneurs), and as a result I could lose everything I own. Contrast that with large corporations where risk is neatly partitioned into the business, and the wealthy investor can easily live off their considerable wealth while waiting for another opportunity
4. I I succeed, I have much greater risk due to limited resources.
Given that the above applies to 99% of us, the best way to foster innovation and competition is to remove the above barriers to competition by creating a system that absorbs risks for small entrepeneurs, who need it most.
In terms of absorbing R&D risk, there a couple of things to keep in mind. First, many IP based businesses don't do much R&D. Quite a bit of drug research is paid for by government, and then given to corporations using technology transfer, so why worry about protecting leaches? Second, patents do little to protect individual risks, and do quite a bit more to ensure outsized gains for the patents that do succeed. This tends to reward (rich) people who can afford to get a bunch of patents and see which ones work. This isn't a hard problem to solve, it's just that patents aren't about fostering innovation, so they've been kept in a state that achieves their primary purpose, rewarding extremely wealthy people.
What's a good system look like?
1. Risk is spread to all companies that use a patent
2. Companies are forced to license patents at a reasonable cost to competitors. Squeezing out competition through patents shouldn't be allowed.
3. Licensees of said patent would have their total licensing fees limited to 20% of operating costs until all R&D for patents is paid for.
4. Once R&D is paid for, patents become public domain.
5. A small amount of extra profit off a patent may be allowed before letting it expire, but this should be limited to a reasonable percentage of R&D cost, not unlimited as it currently is.
6. Companies that are very small may be allowed an exemption from the patent tax, or given a break while they get set up.
7. Companies that are significantly larger than competitors may be barred from patenting items.
8. Technology transfer from public to private domain should only happen if companies that use it are willing to pay the above 20% licensing fee until costs are covered. No more free rides on publicly funded research.
How does a company make a profit? First, competitors are going to have an extra 20% overhead, so the original company can probably sell for a lower cost in the beginning. Trade secrets and greater experience would also allow them to sell goods for a lower cost. Beyond paying operating costs, how much profit does a company need? Operational costs pay the the salaries of true innovators so massive profits aren't required. Second, the patent system shouldn't concern itself with whether or not the creator can buy a yacht. This is a publicly created system, and while we should help with risk, it's not our job to make people rich.
The next, untapped area of innovation involves workplace efficiency gains. Those gains should be at minimum split between workers and companies. Regulations should be put on salary reduction in the event of efficiency gains, so that everyone benefits.
I just went back to blockbuster, and I think their service IS better. With a store nearby, throttling isn't even an issue. I can rent nearly 2-3x as many movies per week as I could with netflix on a similar plan. I simply watch, return to store, and pick out 3 movies, and leave. Yes, it does require trips to the store (which is fairly close), but you get bluray and game rental. Also, it should be mentioned that blockbuster releases new movies at or near the date of the bluray release, while with netflix you have to wait an extra month or two due to their contracts with studios. All in all, it's a better experience, and I'm watching movies I would have waited months to see on netflix. There aren't any regrets here.
Yep, except you have to throw out the fact that the average worker is several times, in some cases, orders of magnitude more efficient and productive than they were when SS was originally created. The gains came about through better technology, longer working hours for many, less vacations, doubling the workforce by adding women, etc. So, where did all the productivity go? It certainly wasn't shared, that's for sure. It's gone to support billionaires rich enough to buy entire islands and form their own countries. It's part of why unemployment keeps rising (if people are more productive, and you are over-producing, why keep them on the payroll when you aren't paying them enough to buy their own products?).
So, no, we won't HAVE TO raise the retirement age to 150. What we really need is to remodel the economic system in a way such that gains in efficiency are returned to workers, not owners. But, that means throwing out capitalism. Once that happens, things will become even MORE efficient, by leaps and bounds. Who would stay at work 4 hours if they could get it done in two? Right now, we incentivize people to be inefficient and many of them oblige us by dragging out a couple of hours of work into an 8 hour day. No one dares to do anything about it on a large scale, because people in power love capitalism, and a 50% unemployment rate would cause massive riots. So, they allow the rabble to keep themselves busy for 8-10 hours a day, so that they are too exhausted to get into trouble. Even with all that artificial inflation of work hours we still have problems finding enough "work" for everyone.
I can tell you that the editors are extremely meticulous, with automated software that will quickly find many cases of infringment, and a strict set of rules covering copyright, proper sourcing, conflict of interest, etc. Wikipedia is not allowed in a court of law because the freedom with which they allow people to edit makes it impossible for the editorial staff to make guarantees. That said, for the average user, wikipedia's transparent editorial process and strict rules about citation makes it superior in many respects to other media, where the the editorial process can be politically driven and hidden from view. Let's not be naive guys, any form of media that is commercially driven has many potential issues. To give them a pass while lambasting wikipedia is ridiculous.
That sounds like a ridiculous attempt to sell higher education to people who have long been out of school and don't need it. It's like selling extra education to Einstein in his 40's, or an advanced degree to Newton. Seriously, do they think the guy who wrote java needs to go back to school to get a refresher course, or maybe Linus does? Who are these professionals with decades of experience that somehow need to return to the University to learn about the software that they wrote? School is a great way to learn the basics, but a terrible way to keep pace. Money has kept many out of the brightest minds away from the University, and it's a sick joke to think Universities would have something to teach people with degrees that are out in the field and working.
Think of it this way. My wife has an MD/Phd, done a 4 year residency, is the valedictorian of her 4 year college, and will have a minimum 2-3 year post doc. She will be in her late 30's, possibly early 40's, before she ever gets to use her training to actually run a lab. The training requirements keep going up, because there are people dumb enough to let the Universities act as gatekeepers for their profession. In return, the Universities profit immensely off 20,000 a year Phd's, and 40,000 a year MD's, who are still "training", despite decades of hard work. She has foreign colleagues who are even worse off. Many of the Chinese researchers are stuck working as Post Docs (for 40K a year) until they retire. So, we have people with Phd's, who officially never finish training, making less than a McDonald's manager or truck driver. In contrast, we have this wonderful situation in Computer Science where we actually get paid for our work, and where we can start earning a reasonable salary in our early 20's. This is NOT a problem that needs to be solved. It's only a problem for the Universities, who would love to find a way to cash in on our profession.
I've often wondered why employers don't bring a laptop into the interview, with a simple programming task or two, and ask the programmer to write a program that does X, with access to all available tools, the internet, etc. You'd be amazed at how many "experts" cannot do simple things like open a file, read from it, append a character to the end of each line, and print it back out. Or, do generic bubble sort (not to mention q sort or other, more advanced methods).
A small test would be a much, much better demonstration of skill than asking people about random concepts. I would say the ability to look something up, quickly comprehend it, and then apply it to a real world problem is of much more use than a guy who has memorized (but does not understand) a bunch of bullshit.