I'm sorry, but I am smarter than most of the people I work with. Because not only do I know how to do my job, I often times have to tell them how to do THEIR job. I have to know how to do their jobs, well enough to tell them how computers help them in their job, and to help them learn how to use computers to do their jobs.
I may not know all the details, and peculiarities of their job, but I know what their job is, and how to do it.
I'm fully convinced that I could actually "do" their job (well, most peoples jobs), should they get hit by a car. Or at least do a passable job of faking it (which I'm also convinced that many of them do anyway).
And that isn't ego either. I don't want to do their job. I would hate it. And often times, pays a lot less than what I make.
And then there are people, like me, with "excellent" Karma that hasn't seen mod points in well over 5 years. I can only figure that I said something somewhere that pissed off one of the Slashdot editors enough to be placed on a "Does not get Mod points EVER!!!!" list.
Yes, my views are distinct, and I always thought that is what made Slashdot great. But seriously, I'm not a freaking troll (at least not most of the time).
But you know, whatever. I'm still here, and I don't complain much. I'll just keep adding comments, meta moderating and such. I've given up on ever seeing mod points again.
"let alone have a chance at even guessing the specs?"
Exactly right!
I used to sell cars. Cars and computers are often similar in how they are sold. Take a look at a window sticker of a new car, and see all the "options" and "Upgrades" listed. Computers are marketed the same exact way... "ATI VIDEO UPGRADE" is the same as "Alpine Stereo" or whatever, it is better than what the "stock" option is.
However, I'd compare Apple vs Dell/HP/Gateway etc as comparing Honda vs GM/Ford/Chrysler.
Honda sells Accords, there are only a few ways one can get an Accord. They have Two engines, three trim models. Their sticker is empty compared to a Taurus or whatever. Taurus has three engine options and who knows how many trim levels, and beyond trim levels you have all sorts of weird option packages and upgrades.
The limited choice of Apple and Honda are part of what makes it a GOOD choice, it is a very known quantity. If you say you have a MacBook Pro, people know you have one of a couple of options. It really is narrowed down. You say you have a Pavillion, I doubt you could get anyone to guess the specs.
The difference is differentiation by Experience (Honda/Apple) vs Differentiation by Spec (HP/FORD)
"fourth on the part of the investors who bought into those securities without questioning their risk level" = 2) Stupidity
"first on the part of lenders making too many loans" = 1) Greed
The one I think you missed, is the Regulations, one of which effectively required banks to make risky loans to people who didn't qualify or risk being sued for "discrimination".
Don't be mistaken, I don't like MS any more than the next guy. However, I truly believe the Monopoly that MS created for itself necessitated the need for an alternative. Linux fit the need and the hole created by the monopoly.
Yes, all monopolies create holes in efficiency. People will eventually route around those inefficiencies.
I can only imagine where we'd be today had Standard Oil not been broken up. Imagine people growing their own fuel (bio diesel), or better public transportation (buses, trains etc), better laid out cities where one can walk to most necessary shopping... etc etc.
People will route around monopolies, and then the monopolies will disappear. Microsoft will not be able to compete with a Linux, and will fade away into oblivion.
If demand for something that is plentiful (buggy whips at $.01 ea.) is low, all that means is that the resources used to BUILD the buggy whips would be better used elsewhere. That creates efficiencies, and in this case, people who make buggy whips go and make something else, less plentiful.
You're error is that you were thinking Micro Economics when I was talking Macro.
I look at the current economic reality from a perspective that the economic model is correcting for HUGE inefficiencies in the market. I look at those inefficiencies as being cause by ALL of the following reasons.
If you look at ALL the bubbles that form that end up correcting themselves... they all have one thing in common... the unreal expectations that it will continue as it is going. Which is stupid. People know it is stupid, but they are greedy and want to get a piece. And in the current bubble, Regulations that didn't work and Regulations that had unintended consequences contributed to the problem.
Right now, the ONLY solution I see that is going to work, is to realize that EVERYONE is going to suffer in the short run. Take our medicine (suffer) and wait for the full fallout to occur. All the Bailouts are going to do is delay the inevitable.
The ONLY thing that creates "MORE" jobs is Efficiency, which also puts pressure on jobs.
We can have make work programs, like elevator operators who are the only ones allowed to push the buttons. Or we can realize that isn't efficient use of money.
Yes, we have full employment, but many people are doing meaningless jobs. We can get rid of Robotics to make cars, that will create more jobs. However cars would end up more expensive in the process.
The whole point of a free economy is to make most efficient use of limited or expensive products and services.
Government and pointy headed elites aren't necessarily the best people to say what is most efficient use of a resource.
EVERYONE knows of some Government regulation or program that simply is a waste "Make work" or purposeful hinderence to the Market, that provides NO benefit.
Until we can start working on ELIMINATING these things that don't work, it isn't going to get better. Think of all the alphabet agencies we have, and their mandates, and how often they completely fail in their mandates.
I'm sick of the typical response to government failure as if it is a "glitch"... NO it isn't a glitch. It is that people will route around whatever problems they face, or give up. Applying more regulation isn't the solution, the solution is to punish people who screw people.
The problem is, our system is designed to have slow justice, which people are quite frankly tired of.
Everyone know Madoff is a crook, the SEC failed, and all the rest, but it won't be fully adjudicated for YEARS, and Madoff will be probably be dead of natural causes before it is over (remember Ken Lay???)
There is no justice anymore. The system is no longer set up for justice.
First off, there is no such thing as "Replacing Steve Jobs", there is only following him.
ANYBODY who is trying to "duplicate" the Steve and his infamous RDF is going to fail, and miserably. In fact, if I was on the committee that was choosing the heir to the helm I'd ask how they plan to "replace" Jobs, and if anyone mentions anything other than.... "nobody can replace Steve" (or similar) is clearly not good enough to fill the vacancy.
People wanting to continue the mystique after Steve leaves is going to fail . There is only one Steve Jobs.
That doesn't mean that Apple will fail after Jobs, but rather, they need to find a new "leader", one that doesn't replace Steve, but rather one that mealy follows him.
The government doesn't fear the people because the people are all idiots. They vote based on what the government will "give" them. The only thing they fear is losing their government checks.
So, until this changes, or people get smart enough to... you know... stop voting based upon who is going to give them the most, (or alternatively taking from others more "rich"), it isn't going to change.
I don't fear wiretaps, I fear idiot constituents who are willing to screw me over to feel better about themselves.
No, I'm suggesting some real thought into what the responsibility of Government should be. Namely, should the government provide for the livelihood of people capable of working? Should the government provide health care to people who are actively breaking the law?
And should we seek limits to how much of anything government should provide?
I work for a school district and we are required to provide transportation to school for anyone who is "Special", regardless of capability. There is one family who have two "slow" children, requiring some special education, and they live two blocks away from the school, YET the law states the district is required to pick them up, and drive them two blocks.
This is INSANITY! but it is also the "law".
Now tell me, is it "harming" the children if we required them to walk to school like everyone else? The do-good liberals would trot out the whole "do it for the children" logic, which is how shit like this takes place.
This kind of shit takes place because some "slippery slope" argument about how far someone has to be from school to be driven free of charge by the district. They become "Entitled".
Which is the cause for all sorts of really bad expenses that nobody can come to grip with. So, until we actually come to grip with them, we will be saddled with increasing "entitlements", increasing debt, at the expense of ALL of our children's future.
As for taxes, we'd have all the tax revenue needed if we just taxed "vices". We'd simultaneously lower the vices, and increase revenue. And by "vices" it could be just about anything deemed "bad" by society.
Because I love my children more than the "poor, uninsured, orphan, elementary school children" and don't want to burden THEM with leveraged debt. Oh, and I get the side benefit of, gasp, not leveraging those others with the same debt!
Simple question then (based on this an other post above), are you sure you want to allow procreation of your 10 year old daughter? What if she "consents" and is physically mature enough, and runs away to be with her "boyfriend"? If she is old enough to "consent" then she is old enough to decide to leave home, right?
Having raised three girls to maturity and beyond, I can assure you that there is very little likelihood that most girls, while physically mature enough to bear children, are NOT socially mature enough.
And lets not forget the Gypsies along the eastern edge of the US that often do marry off little girls, often 8 - 10 years old.
Again, I'm not sure a 8-10 year old can give consent. I'm not sure that most 16 year olds understand the decisions they are making. I'm not even sure that some adults can understand... but that is another point altogether LOL.
A getaway driver doesn't technically do anything "wrong", after all, he didn't actually, you know, rob a bank.
And he can always claim ignorance, "he said he was making a withdrawal, I didn't know he was robbing the bank"....
Yeah sure, whatever. It is asshats in the world that make bad law. And now, there is a law that says if you drive a Getaway car you're just as guilty as the ones going into the bank. Someone, a long time ago, got away with bank robbery, because there was no "law" against driving a getaway car. Everyone knew what was up, but there was no law. No law, no crime.
EVERYTHING has to be spelled out perfectly or else some lawyer will come along and argue a technicality (loop hole) that will eventually be written so tight that everyone becomes a criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
I need to buy some new Nike's.
I'm sorry, but I am smarter than most of the people I work with. Because not only do I know how to do my job, I often times have to tell them how to do THEIR job. I have to know how to do their jobs, well enough to tell them how computers help them in their job, and to help them learn how to use computers to do their jobs.
I may not know all the details, and peculiarities of their job, but I know what their job is, and how to do it.
I'm fully convinced that I could actually "do" their job (well, most peoples jobs), should they get hit by a car. Or at least do a passable job of faking it (which I'm also convinced that many of them do anyway).
And that isn't ego either. I don't want to do their job. I would hate it. And often times, pays a lot less than what I make.
"I don't see charging up some Li-Ion batteries to fly several hundred people from New York to London."
You're close ... we need .... Dilithium Crystals!
And then there are people, like me, with "excellent" Karma that hasn't seen mod points in well over 5 years. I can only figure that I said something somewhere that pissed off one of the Slashdot editors enough to be placed on a "Does not get Mod points EVER!!!!" list.
Yes, my views are distinct, and I always thought that is what made Slashdot great. But seriously, I'm not a freaking troll (at least not most of the time).
But you know, whatever. I'm still here, and I don't complain much. I'll just keep adding comments, meta moderating and such. I've given up on ever seeing mod points again.
"let alone have a chance at even guessing the specs?"
Exactly right!
I used to sell cars. Cars and computers are often similar in how they are sold. Take a look at a window sticker of a new car, and see all the "options" and "Upgrades" listed. Computers are marketed the same exact way ... "ATI VIDEO UPGRADE" is the same as "Alpine Stereo" or whatever, it is better than what the "stock" option is.
However, I'd compare Apple vs Dell/HP/Gateway etc as comparing Honda vs GM/Ford/Chrysler.
Honda sells Accords, there are only a few ways one can get an Accord. They have Two engines, three trim models. Their sticker is empty compared to a Taurus or whatever. Taurus has three engine options and who knows how many trim levels, and beyond trim levels you have all sorts of weird option packages and upgrades.
The limited choice of Apple and Honda are part of what makes it a GOOD choice, it is a very known quantity. If you say you have a MacBook Pro, people know you have one of a couple of options. It really is narrowed down. You say you have a Pavillion, I doubt you could get anyone to guess the specs.
The difference is differentiation by Experience (Honda/Apple) vs Differentiation by Spec (HP/FORD)
And sometime after you finally get your college loans payed off, and you're married with a mortgage you're paying and three kids, you'll be saying
. wait for it
. wait for it
.
"I wish I was back in college".
Medical Researchers were zombies? ANYONE???
"poor risk assessment" = 4) Expectations
"fourth on the part of the investors who bought into those securities without questioning their risk level" = 2) Stupidity
"first on the part of lenders making too many loans" = 1) Greed
The one I think you missed, is the Regulations, one of which effectively required banks to make risky loans to people who didn't qualify or risk being sued for "discrimination".
And why not toss a few Jews into ovens while you're at it. After all, we all know that Christians and Jews are the bane of the world /sarcasm
Without Microsoft, there would be no Linux.
Don't be mistaken, I don't like MS any more than the next guy. However, I truly believe the Monopoly that MS created for itself necessitated the need for an alternative. Linux fit the need and the hole created by the monopoly.
Yes, all monopolies create holes in efficiency. People will eventually route around those inefficiencies.
I can only imagine where we'd be today had Standard Oil not been broken up. Imagine people growing their own fuel (bio diesel), or better public transportation (buses, trains etc), better laid out cities where one can walk to most necessary shopping ... etc etc.
People will route around monopolies, and then the monopolies will disappear. Microsoft will not be able to compete with a Linux, and will fade away into oblivion.
If demand for something that is plentiful (buggy whips at $.01 ea.) is low, all that means is that the resources used to BUILD the buggy whips would be better used elsewhere. That creates efficiencies, and in this case, people who make buggy whips go and make something else, less plentiful.
You're error is that you were thinking Micro Economics when I was talking Macro.
I look at the current economic reality from a perspective that the economic model is correcting for HUGE inefficiencies in the market. I look at those inefficiencies as being cause by ALL of the following reasons.
1) Greed
2) Stupidity
3) Regulations
4) Expectations
If you look at ALL the bubbles that form that end up correcting themselves ... they all have one thing in common ... the unreal expectations that it will continue as it is going. Which is stupid. People know it is stupid, but they are greedy and want to get a piece. And in the current bubble, Regulations that didn't work and Regulations that had unintended consequences contributed to the problem.
Right now, the ONLY solution I see that is going to work, is to realize that EVERYONE is going to suffer in the short run. Take our medicine (suffer) and wait for the full fallout to occur. All the Bailouts are going to do is delay the inevitable.
The ONLY thing that creates "MORE" jobs is Efficiency, which also puts pressure on jobs.
We can have make work programs, like elevator operators who are the only ones allowed to push the buttons. Or we can realize that isn't efficient use of money.
Yes, we have full employment, but many people are doing meaningless jobs. We can get rid of Robotics to make cars, that will create more jobs. However cars would end up more expensive in the process.
The whole point of a free economy is to make most efficient use of limited or expensive products and services.
Government and pointy headed elites aren't necessarily the best people to say what is most efficient use of a resource.
EVERYONE knows of some Government regulation or program that simply is a waste "Make work" or purposeful hinderence to the Market, that provides NO benefit.
Until we can start working on ELIMINATING these things that don't work, it isn't going to get better. Think of all the alphabet agencies we have, and their mandates, and how often they completely fail in their mandates.
I'm sick of the typical response to government failure as if it is a "glitch" ... NO it isn't a glitch. It is that people will route around whatever problems they face, or give up. Applying more regulation isn't the solution, the solution is to punish people who screw people.
The problem is, our system is designed to have slow justice, which people are quite frankly tired of.
Everyone know Madoff is a crook, the SEC failed, and all the rest, but it won't be fully adjudicated for YEARS, and Madoff will be probably be dead of natural causes before it is over (remember Ken Lay???)
There is no justice anymore. The system is no longer set up for justice.
First off, there is no such thing as "Replacing Steve Jobs", there is only following him.
ANYBODY who is trying to "duplicate" the Steve and his infamous RDF is going to fail, and miserably. In fact, if I was on the committee that was choosing the heir to the helm I'd ask how they plan to "replace" Jobs, and if anyone mentions anything other than .... "nobody can replace Steve" (or similar) is clearly not good enough to fill the vacancy.
People wanting to continue the mystique after Steve leaves is going to fail . There is only one Steve Jobs.
That doesn't mean that Apple will fail after Jobs, but rather, they need to find a new "leader", one that doesn't replace Steve, but rather one that mealy follows him.
The government doesn't fear the people because the people are all idiots. They vote based on what the government will "give" them. The only thing they fear is losing their government checks.
So, until this changes, or people get smart enough to ... you know ... stop voting based upon who is going to give them the most, (or alternatively taking from others more "rich"), it isn't going to change.
I don't fear wiretaps, I fear idiot constituents who are willing to screw me over to feel better about themselves.
Me, personally, I'd rather see Carnivorous Mammoths hunting people ... but that is just me.
I blame Obama's oversized and growing Ego!
(Lighten up Libs, it is a joke!)
No, I'm suggesting some real thought into what the responsibility of Government should be. Namely, should the government provide for the livelihood of people capable of working? Should the government provide health care to people who are actively breaking the law?
And should we seek limits to how much of anything government should provide?
I work for a school district and we are required to provide transportation to school for anyone who is "Special", regardless of capability. There is one family who have two "slow" children, requiring some special education, and they live two blocks away from the school, YET the law states the district is required to pick them up, and drive them two blocks.
This is INSANITY! but it is also the "law".
Now tell me, is it "harming" the children if we required them to walk to school like everyone else? The do-good liberals would trot out the whole "do it for the children" logic, which is how shit like this takes place.
This kind of shit takes place because some "slippery slope" argument about how far someone has to be from school to be driven free of charge by the district. They become "Entitled".
Which is the cause for all sorts of really bad expenses that nobody can come to grip with. So, until we actually come to grip with them, we will be saddled with increasing "entitlements", increasing debt, at the expense of ALL of our children's future.
As for taxes, we'd have all the tax revenue needed if we just taxed "vices". We'd simultaneously lower the vices, and increase revenue. And by "vices" it could be just about anything deemed "bad" by society.
Because I love my children more than the "poor, uninsured, orphan, elementary school children" and don't want to burden THEM with leveraged debt. Oh, and I get the side benefit of, gasp, not leveraging those others with the same debt!
Wow, how novel is THAT???
Simple question then (based on this an other post above), are you sure you want to allow procreation of your 10 year old daughter? What if she "consents" and is physically mature enough, and runs away to be with her "boyfriend"? If she is old enough to "consent" then she is old enough to decide to leave home, right?
Having raised three girls to maturity and beyond, I can assure you that there is very little likelihood that most girls, while physically mature enough to bear children, are NOT socially mature enough.
And lets not forget the Gypsies along the eastern edge of the US that often do marry off little girls, often 8 - 10 years old.
Again, I'm not sure a 8-10 year old can give consent. I'm not sure that most 16 year olds understand the decisions they are making. I'm not even sure that some adults can understand ... but that is another point altogether LOL.
"Personally I find it scary that people consider 'wired' communications to be 'secure' by default."
No, you misunderstand. Nothing is "secure". It is a grades of security. In this case, wired communication is MORE secure than wireless.
Anyone suggesting perfect security is either a fool, selling something, or a liar ... or all three.
Hilarious!
Mod points, my kingdom for Mod Points! (which I haven't seen in six years or longer)
Naked DOESN'T = Porn
And in the case of a cartoon, it's reasonable to ask "what kid?"
All kids. Sexual objectification of children necessarily hurts all kids, IMHO.
And who gave YOU the right to draw the line?
Hey, using that logic, why not allow fucking 2 year olds, huh? After all, who am I (or anyone) to decide anything???
Lowest common denominator ??? Just because some backwoods illiterate thinks it is okay, it must be!
So, lets not stop there, why not incest???? Who are you to say that's bad? Who gives the right to draw the line there???
Why not have harems?
Why not do farm animals or other furry creatures?
Who are we to draw the line anywhere???? Lets just see how perverse we can be, after all who is anyone to say it is wrong???
Is that what you're arguing for? Just curious how far down that slippery slope you're willing to take that argument.
You think that is "child Porn"?
Naked porn.
Care to revise your example?
A getaway driver doesn't technically do anything "wrong", after all, he didn't actually, you know, rob a bank.
And he can always claim ignorance, "he said he was making a withdrawal, I didn't know he was robbing the bank" ....
Yeah sure, whatever. It is asshats in the world that make bad law. And now, there is a law that says if you drive a Getaway car you're just as guilty as the ones going into the bank. Someone, a long time ago, got away with bank robbery, because there was no "law" against driving a getaway car. Everyone knew what was up, but there was no law. No law, no crime.
EVERYTHING has to be spelled out perfectly or else some lawyer will come along and argue a technicality (loop hole) that will eventually be written so tight that everyone becomes a criminal.
And that's the point!