Getting people to agree with you is not a measure of right.
This country was great because it was NOT a democracy, but rather a Constitutional republic, which recognized certain spheres of power.
A democratic element was a necessary part of this structure, but it was just one of many.
The national government had its place. The state governments theirs. The individual theirs.
Corporations (read economic power), especially post industrial revolution, is difficult to grapple with, indeed.
However, what needs to be appreciated is that oftentimes economic power colludes with political power. Corporations are powerful often because of big government.
You imply that a corporation does allow you to say "that's not fair". However, you can choose not to do business with a corporation. That is your check. You can also try to convince others to not do business with that corporation. Without customers corporations do not exist, well unless they have convinced the government to prop them up, and that is a HUGE problem.
On the other hand, you can not choose to ignore the government, or if you do, you do so at your own peril. The government has a monopoly on the use of force and if you do not comply you will ultimately find yourself deprived of property, liberty, and life. Depending upon how far you are willing to take your non-compliance. There is no peaceful "opting-out".
The merger of these two powers is especially scary. What has happened in the last three or four years in the U.S. is very troubling. Bailouts, healthcare "reform", financial "reform" - these represent the merger of economic power with political power. Of course, it's not like this just started in the last three or four years, but there has been an acceleration.
Of course, the next story in the news feed is a bit about how the FBI will be tracking you online. Heh... so much for government protecting me. So much for that Fourth Amendment.
Point is: big government, big labor, and big business collude to destroy your rights.
Who said I was not skeptical of the corporate scientists? Clearly they can not be always be trusted.
I was just pointing out how corporate scientists always get a bad rap and how government scientists tend to get a free pass.
But in fact government scientists have an interest in promoting ideas that free up more funds for their research. Also, as government employees/contractors, they have an interest in pleasing the source of their monies.
Basically it comes down to this. When a government scientist reaches conclusions that call for more government you should view such conclusions with some skepticism because of the inherent conflict of interest that exists.
Just like when Phillip Morris's research department says smoking is actually good for you.
Just like when businesses promote legislation that benefits them.
Yeah, these are the things that simply "programming" won't teach you. Not that you couldn't learn these things yourself.
As a practicing software engineer, I think my limited knowledge of computer architecture has proven quite valuable over the years.
Also agreed on theory. Having the ability to identify NP Complete problems is useful.
I would add the following to your list:
Basic Operating System Design, although you do encompass that in some of your other categories - threading, architecture
Functional Programming: Scheme, LISP, ML, etc... Most people who are "just programmers" don't learn such languages and thus don't typically think functionally, which can be useful when solving some problems. Sadly many computer science programs don't even teach this.
Math Generally: calculus, linear algebra, statistics, combinatorics, logic
The best commentary I have read on this issue is this: âoeEvery choice (whether to have private or socialized medicine) leads to other choices. So if what the media tells us is true, that âmost people favor socialized medicine,â(TM) then what theyâ(TM)re really saying is most people would rather be dead than bankrupt."
If this is what you really believe then I would urge you to support a limited federal government in all matters.
The issue is this: If you give them the power to regulate X, they invariably regulate Y and Z. On the other hand if you do not want Z to be regulated then you may have to settle for X and Y going unregulated as well. It's not to say your state government could not be more proactive. Invariably power over one object extends to power over other objects until power over all things is obtained. Just consider the velocity US policy in the 20th century.
So, if you do not want your morals controlled you may have to give up federal control of say education and healthcare. Let the states handle it. There is something to be said about 50 competing solutions. Eventually someone will get it right. On the other hand if we have a single solution and get it wrong... It really makes for a mess. I believe any inefficiencies are made up for by the robustness of a decentralized solution.
I would urge you to read the Constitution and see if those words justify: 1) Any of the bailout nonsense, including the take over of GM. 3) Marijuana prohibition. 4) A central bank. 5) Universal healthcare or indeed medicare or medicaid.
For what it's worth I agree whole heartedly with you about MJ. It can be harmful. Hell, you may eventually get lung cancer from smoking it someday, but (at least in my eyes) you own yourself and you are as free to make your own decisions as you are free to deal with their consequences.
Anyway, please think how control begets more control.
These rules are not being written by the legislative branch of government. What exactly is the US Sentencing Commission anyway? What are non-congressional bodies doing making laws? Congress is not empowered to delegate its power to write laws.
The government shouldn't pick winners and losers regardless of what the perception of the technology is. No government loans for Tesla. No government loans for GM. The Public Private Partnerships smack of fascism.
The government is out of control... They should not be calling out places/groups/persons that express dissent. But this is what is happening. Hell it's been happening for decades, but that doesn't justify it... COINTELPRO?
The people whose schools these are, if its a big enough issue to them, need to oust their school board, and make sure that "zero tolerance" policies are sane, and that administrators are held accountable. (i.e. The school board should immediately dismiss the folks that were involved in this incident. Period. No bullshit. No second chances.)
We can not expect our problems to be solved top-down by nine despots in robes.
Real change comes from the bottom-up. Don't like your government school system, think the education they provide stinks, think the people who run them are incompetent corrupt assholes? Get involved. Get rid of them.
Things have gotten to be the way they are because good people have essentially ignored their responsibility to hold public officials accountable. Many times good people have avoided getting involved altogether just because its messy business. They have assumed someone else would handle things. Of course, it seems that those who have typically volunteered to handle things have been some of our society's worst.
Seriously, it's time to start a bottom-up movement to take this country back. It's time to hold our elected officials and appointed officials accountable. It's time to demand self-responsibility of those around us and to let those who will not be responsible suffer the consequences of their actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Democracy needs to be tempered with a due respect for the rule of law. That's all. For instance the 17th Amendment was a bad idea.
Getting people to agree with you is not a measure of right.
This country was great because it was NOT a democracy, but rather a Constitutional republic, which recognized certain spheres of power.
A democratic element was a necessary part of this structure, but it was just one of many.
The national government had its place. The state governments theirs. The individual theirs.
Corporations (read economic power), especially post industrial revolution, is difficult to grapple with, indeed.
However, what needs to be appreciated is that oftentimes economic power colludes with political power. Corporations are powerful often because of big government.
You imply that a corporation does allow you to say "that's not fair". However, you can choose not to do business with a corporation. That is your check. You can also try to convince others to not do business with that corporation. Without customers corporations do not exist, well unless they have convinced the government to prop them up, and that is a HUGE problem.
On the other hand, you can not choose to ignore the government, or if you do, you do so at your own peril. The government has a monopoly on the use of force and if you do not comply you will ultimately find yourself deprived of property, liberty, and life. Depending upon how far you are willing to take your non-compliance. There is no peaceful "opting-out".
The merger of these two powers is especially scary. What has happened in the last three or four years in the U.S. is very troubling. Bailouts, healthcare "reform", financial "reform" - these represent the merger of economic power with political power. Of course, it's not like this just started in the last three or four years, but there has been an acceleration.
Of course, the next story in the news feed is a bit about how the FBI will be tracking you online. Heh... so much for government protecting me. So much for that Fourth Amendment.
Point is: big government, big labor, and big business collude to destroy your rights.
Who said I was not skeptical of the corporate scientists? Clearly they can not be always be trusted.
I was just pointing out how corporate scientists always get a bad rap and how government scientists tend to get a free pass.
But in fact government scientists have an interest in promoting ideas that free up more funds for their research. Also, as government employees/contractors, they have an interest in pleasing the source of their monies.
Basically it comes down to this. When a government scientist reaches conclusions that call for more government you should view such conclusions with some skepticism because of the inherent conflict of interest that exists.
Just like when Phillip Morris's research department says smoking is actually good for you.
Just like when businesses promote legislation that benefits them.
You must always ask "cui bono"?
They (the FDA) represent themselves as being scientific.
Why aren't government scientists treated with as much skepticism as corporate scientists?
That was a long time ago. We are no longer that people.
Yeah, these are the things that simply "programming" won't teach you. Not that you couldn't learn these things yourself.
As a practicing software engineer, I think my limited knowledge of computer architecture has proven quite valuable over the years.
Also agreed on theory. Having the ability to identify NP Complete problems is useful.
I would add the following to your list:
Basic Operating System Design, although you do encompass that in some of your other categories - threading, architecture
Functional Programming: Scheme, LISP, ML, etc... Most people who are "just programmers" don't learn such languages and thus don't typically think functionally, which can be useful when solving some problems. Sadly many computer science programs don't even teach this.
Math Generally: calculus, linear algebra, statistics, combinatorics, logic
Make shareholders liable for the actions of the companies in which the hold stock.
Save the environment, kill yourself.
So what you're saying is that hope and change have quickly become hype and chicanery.
Yeah, sure. The government is already picking up the tab for well over 40% of all health care costs.
Inevitably we will end up with a more fascist system that we have now if/when this bill is pushed through.
It's just one more step on the way to total insolvency and hyperinflation IMHO.
The best commentary I have read on this issue is this: âoeEvery choice (whether to have private or socialized medicine) leads to other choices. So if what the media tells us is true, that âmost people favor socialized medicine,â(TM) then what theyâ(TM)re really saying is most people would rather be dead than bankrupt."
And none of the rat bastards will have read it before voting on it.
The CIA is questionable. The Pentagon's budget is too big. Fine add that to my argument.
I don't have the time to argue with you about the rest of what your saying. You need to think about root causes.
If this is what you really believe then I would urge you to support a limited federal government in all matters.
The issue is this: If you give them the power to regulate X, they invariably regulate Y and Z. On the other hand if you do not want Z to be regulated then you may have to settle for X and Y going unregulated as well. It's not to say your state government could not be more proactive. Invariably power over one object extends to power over other objects until power over all things is obtained. Just consider the velocity US policy in the 20th century.
So, if you do not want your morals controlled you may have to give up federal control of say education and healthcare. Let the states handle it. There is something to be said about 50 competing solutions. Eventually someone will get it right. On the other hand if we have a single solution and get it wrong... It really makes for a mess. I believe any inefficiencies are made up for by the robustness of a decentralized solution.
I would urge you to read the Constitution and see if those words justify: 1) Any of the bailout nonsense, including the take over of GM. 3) Marijuana prohibition. 4) A central bank. 5) Universal healthcare or indeed medicare or medicaid.
For what it's worth I agree whole heartedly with you about MJ. It can be harmful. Hell, you may eventually get lung cancer from smoking it someday, but (at least in my eyes) you own yourself and you are as free to make your own decisions as you are free to deal with their consequences.
Anyway, please think how control begets more control.
These rules are not being written by the legislative branch of government. What exactly is the US Sentencing Commission anyway? What are non-congressional bodies doing making laws? Congress is not empowered to delegate its power to write laws.
The government shouldn't pick winners and losers regardless of what the perception of the technology is. No government loans for Tesla. No government loans for GM. The Public Private Partnerships smack of fascism.
So don't do business with them.
You pay for electricity, what's so weird about paying for the bits you download?
Similar thing happened in Missouri recently. See : http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/ron-paul-supporters-terrorists
The government is out of control... They should not be calling out places/groups/persons that express dissent. But this is what is happening. Hell it's been happening for decades, but that doesn't justify it... COINTELPRO?
If you don't mind me asking, what country do you live in? How does it measure up in terms of liberty and property rights?
You live in US? What state? I'm in Michigan.
Are you aware of the Campaign for Liberty (www.campaignforliberty.com)?
Here's what has to happen:
The people whose schools these are, if its a big enough issue to them, need to oust their school board, and make sure that "zero tolerance" policies are sane, and that administrators are held accountable. (i.e. The school board should immediately dismiss the folks that were involved in this incident. Period. No bullshit. No second chances.)
We can not expect our problems to be solved top-down by nine despots in robes.
Real change comes from the bottom-up. Don't like your government school system, think the education they provide stinks, think the people who run them are incompetent corrupt assholes? Get involved. Get rid of them.
Things have gotten to be the way they are because good people have essentially ignored their responsibility to hold public officials accountable. Many times good people have avoided getting involved altogether just because its messy business. They have assumed someone else would handle things. Of course, it seems that those who have typically volunteered to handle things have been some of our society's worst.
Seriously, it's time to start a bottom-up movement to take this country back. It's time to hold our elected officials and appointed officials accountable. It's time to demand self-responsibility of those around us and to let those who will not be responsible suffer the consequences of their actions.
You take your backyard. I'll take mine.
Play time is over.
Which is sort of proof positive that it didn't actually work. Every panic/depression prior to the 30s was cleaned up in a matter of years.
Even Roosevelt's own Treasury Secretary admitted that nothing they did worked.
Keynesianism is just a favorite of politicians because it supports power grabs.