it doesn't have to be a government agency, but in an imperfect world with imperfect people that seems to be the most effective way to fund and maintain such an organization
Based on what real world example? Why would an organization subject to ever-changing political whims, staffed by employees with union protected jobs, and whose decisions are subject to every politician's pocket lobbyist be more trustworthy than one that lives and dies by its reputation?
Arthur Andersen messed up and paid the price. The bond-rating agencies were corrupted and are now paying the price. How many government agencies have been shut down due to corruption or incompetence? How many government agencies have increased their budgets and staff DESPITE their track-record of incompetence?
No human-built institution is perfect, public or private, but I'd prefer to put my trust in the one that depends on its reputation over one that depends on politics every time.
You are attempting to cherry-pick and only address part of the issue.
1. Whether spending increases or decreases depends where you are on the Laffer curve when you begin hiking the current level of taxation.
2. The point at which people cut spending is different for everyone. The moment you start increasing how much the government takes is the exact same moment one of those savers decides to cut back.
3. If all the government did was increase tax rates for earners that make 1m to 10m a year, they wouldn't collect enough revenue to stimulate anything. Your citation doesn't demonstrate a thing other than proper construction of straw into men.
And you still haven't addressed the other two significant costs of decreased investment and government handling "tax".
The government taking money from people who would save it and giving it to other people who would spend it, does stimulate the economy.
Nonsense. When you confiscate savings, the original savers tighten their belts and reduce their spending to compensate. Furthermore, funds once available for capital investment are reduced and credit constricts. Add to that the overhead of the government taking a "cut" for services rendered and you have largely canceled out any benefits you might get from the increased spending. The icing on the cake is that, in the long run, you end up with an even poorer economy because you have transferred assets from the more efficient to the less efficient.
If you are planning to (re)play PS:T, make sure you patch the game with the official and unofficial patches from Planescape-Torment.Org. (WARNING: the bug fix descriptions contain spoilers, read at your own risk!)
PS:T was the single greatest gaming experience I have ever been a part of. When people complain that games aren't art, it is obvious they have never played this.
Been awhile since I've done this, but have you tried going to Add/Remove programs under Control Panel, selecting "Set Program Access and Defaults", and then unchecking "Enable access to this program" next to Internet Explorer? Alternatively, you could try removing Internet Explorer via the Add/Remove Windows Components tab in Add/Remove programs. Yes, yes, it doesn't REALLY remove it from the computer, but it usually hides it well enough. This is all assuming you are running WinXP...
Pay now or pay later. MS Anti-Virus won't be free for much longer.
Re:Cheerleading in Calculus
on
Singing Science
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Ooops...change that last line to:
Sign! Sin! Sin!
Cheerleading in Calculus
on
Singing Science
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I'll never forget my calc techer in college and his mnemonic for memorizing the sin and cos for the summation of two angles: sin(x+y) = sin(x)cos(y)+cos(x)sin(y) cos(x+y) = cos(x)cos(y)-sin(x)sin(y)
You have to imagine a VERY large, balding, ex-marine jumping up and down in front of the blackboard squealing at the top of his voice in his best cheerleader impression: Sin! Cos! Cos! Sin! Cos! Cos! Sin! Sign! Sin!
It doesn't translate as well in text but in was absolutely hilarious and somewhat frightening...
Which brings up an interesting question...if MS buys you and your product ALREADY sucks...what happens? Is the suckage clamped? Do we get wrap-around and a superior product? Do we need to invent a whole new number system to quantify just how horrible it gets?
The study is about intelligence difference "on average". It says nothing about any particular individual. If you make hiring decisions or appointments based on these findings, you'd be a fool. Why would this study be anything more than a curiosity to anyone?
I understand the point you're making, but this case is interesting because MS silently *changed* the default action (or maybe they changed the rating and, thereby, the default action changed). Why did they downgrade the threat level? Why would they consider ignoring the most pervasive purveyor of adware out there? What sparked the change?
Done and done. Tried it out when I first read the entry on Ben Edelman's blog a few days ago (and submitted a story here). Downloaded and installed DeskBar, Gator eWallet, WeatherScope, and PrecisionTime from www.claria.com. Downloaded MS AntiSpyware Beta 1.0.614. Ran a scan and, sure enough, all products were marked "Ignore". The folks over at Sunbelt Blog have more info and are certainly a more reputable source than some random poster on Slashdot.
Wha? Are you sure you're talking about the same company here? MS was established years before they acquired the rights to QDOS. They were already a successful company before the DOS licenses, certainly not as large, but successful. The US government can hardly be accused of "propping up" MS simply because they bought a product from them that they deemed useful. Certainly, at that time MS was hardly in control of anyone's destiny. Are you telling me I need to look out for the next world dominating commode corporation because the government might purchase some new toilets?
Huh? Um, in case you haven't noticed, MS is engaged in at least a dozen legal battles right now. This isn't a case of "digging stuff up", this is evidence as submitted in a current legal proceeding, hardly irrelevant. Furthermore, there is still some question as to whether or not MS has, in fact, stuck to the agreements made in the recent DOJ case. They've certainly broken prior consent decrees. And finally, wouldn't you, as an employee of MS (as your post seems to indicate) want to know if your employer has a history of unethical or illegal behavior? Or do you subscribe to the see-no-evil philosophy?
Um, can someone explain to me exactly why this "comment" is marked as Interesting? This story has been carried all over the place - far in advance of the NYT article - and it is based on court submitted evidence, some of which is already available on the court's website.
And how do you sell your soul to a book? That just has some mightily amusing implications depending on one's literary choices...
Um, the courts have already ruled on this, the illegality of their behavior is not in doubt. I'm struggling to see where exactly the US government propped up Intel and MS...care to point me to a reference?
Nonsense. There are thousands upon thousands of companies that are successful without a marketing department. Most small companies are just one or two people with a good idea and a niche market to sell it to. If the quality and the usefullness of the product is good, people will eventually pick it up and recommend it to others. Sure, marketing becomes necessary for large corps who generally spend millions of dollars to come up with a so-so product and then need to spend millions more to convince people why they need it in their lives, but don't confuse those businesses with your typical small shop.
In my life, I have RARELY experienced a better product from a company that advertises. Higher quality products are generally produced by specialists who don't need to attract customers - their reputation does it for them.
Ok, but, like, under that it's rock solid. You can't fool me sonny. It's turtles all the way down.
HAHA! That has to be the funniest comment I've seen in years. Going into my permanent file...
It's actually more insidious than you portray...at a Redmond-based software company I may or may not have worked for, it happened more like this:
Manager: "The internet looks like the latest fad. And we need to grow revenue by entering a new market. Toasters! We aren't in the toaster market! Omigod, an internet-enabled toaster would allow us to leverage our technologies and innovation and gain incredible market-share in that industry!"
Developer: "Well, I think we can do it. Let me come up with a good design."
Manager: "We don't have time for that, the market window is closing, you need to be writing code now."
Developer: (begins to furiously write code)
[a few months pass]
Manager: "Okay. We've readjusted the ship schedule, the product goes out next week."
Developer: "Wha? Wha?!?! But it's not ready. We are still finishing up the features you requested."
Manager: (AN ACTUAL QUOTE) "It's good enough at this point. We will never have all the time to make it perfect. Shipping is a feature too. In fact, it's the most important feature!"
I understand the point you are trying to make, and I don't necessarily disagree. My question is: What responsibilities or obligations does a company - which is based in the US and takes advantage of our laws, infrastructure, and other tax financed resources - have to their homeland? You can repeat the mantra that "Corporations pay taxes too!" but, in reality, they often take advantage of loopholes, lobbying, and other tricks to avoid and/or minimize those taxes (look at all the ridiculous breaks Boeing is getting in WA, or look at the fact that MS paid no federal taxes in 1999, IBM has reaped billion in tax breaks over the years as well etc etc etc).
I don't oppose companies hiring foreign workers. However, I don't like companies attempting to have their cake and eat it too. There are long-term effects to this sort of action...as I said earlier, these corporations do not exist in a vacuum.
Hiring you if you do the job better is support. However, if they hire you and pay you 4 times as much as someone who can do the job just as well in India, that is a giveaway. Welfare.
Well, it's certainly an interesting point, but that assumes that India and the US are equal in all ways. I'd say paying one American four times what another American can do the job competently for would certainly be welfare.
You blew your case apart when you called a tax break a "Favor". Sorry, when the government robs you a little less blind, it is not a "Favor".
You'll get no disagreement from me on that point...except that it is a non-sequiter. The truth is, that under our current system, right or wrong, tax money is taken from me and paid to help corporations in many ways. If that company chooses to accept (or lobby for) those funds, it needs to pay the consequences. TANSTAAFL.
And they would have never happened if they had to pay workers 4 times the value of the work, as you would like to see happen. The companies succeeded because they avoided mistakes like paying much more than the real value of things.
Nice straw-man, but I never suggested paying workers four times what they are worth. My argument is, that the "worth" of a worker is not simply just what it costs you to hire him. A company does not get created and exist in a vacuum.
You seemed to have missed the point of my argument (since you didn't address it). There is more factored into the salary of a worker than just the paycheck a company hands them. Contrary to common misconception, the US (nor any capitalistic, without the capital-C, society) is not a lawless wasteland of a bunch of individual nomads roaming and trying to find the highest bidder and destroying anything in their path to get to it. The environment that these companies thrive under has to be paid for in some sense. Does that mean workers are not paid enough? I don't know. But it seems short-sighted to ignore the community that supports these companies that used to be nothing more than two guys in a garage with a good idea.
You can't have it both ways, you can't take favors nor use resources without someone paying for it. If you want to move your company over to India, more luck to you.
Slashdot Mirror
it doesn't have to be a government agency, but in an imperfect world with imperfect people that seems to be the most effective way to fund and maintain such an organization
Based on what real world example? Why would an organization subject to ever-changing political whims, staffed by employees with union protected jobs, and whose decisions are subject to every politician's pocket lobbyist be more trustworthy than one that lives and dies by its reputation?
Arthur Andersen messed up and paid the price. The bond-rating agencies were corrupted and are now paying the price. How many government agencies have been shut down due to corruption or incompetence? How many government agencies have increased their budgets and staff DESPITE their track-record of incompetence?
No human-built institution is perfect, public or private, but I'd prefer to put my trust in the one that depends on its reputation over one that depends on politics every time.
You are attempting to cherry-pick and only address part of the issue.
1. Whether spending increases or decreases depends where you are on the Laffer curve when you begin hiking the current level of taxation.
2. The point at which people cut spending is different for everyone. The moment you start increasing how much the government takes is the exact same moment one of those savers decides to cut back.
3. If all the government did was increase tax rates for earners that make 1m to 10m a year, they wouldn't collect enough revenue to stimulate anything. Your citation doesn't demonstrate a thing other than proper construction of straw into men.
And you still haven't addressed the other two significant costs of decreased investment and government handling "tax".
The government taking money from people who would save it and giving it to other people who would spend it, does stimulate the economy.
Nonsense. When you confiscate savings, the original savers tighten their belts and reduce their spending to compensate. Furthermore, funds once available for capital investment are reduced and credit constricts. Add to that the overhead of the government taking a "cut" for services rendered and you have largely canceled out any benefits you might get from the increased spending. The icing on the cake is that, in the long run, you end up with an even poorer economy because you have transferred assets from the more efficient to the less efficient.
TANSTAAFL.
...cranium rats!
*sigh* That should be Planescape-Torment.Org. A bad link can certainly change the nature of a post...
Well, if we are lucky, the Sith Restoration Project may yet save KOTOR:2.
PS:T was the single greatest gaming experience I have ever been a part of. When people complain that games aren't art, it is obvious they have never played this.
For the love of god...please stop calling .NET a language.
Been awhile since I've done this, but have you tried going to Add/Remove programs under Control Panel, selecting "Set Program Access and Defaults", and then unchecking "Enable access to this program" next to Internet Explorer? Alternatively, you could try removing Internet Explorer via the Add/Remove Windows Components tab in Add/Remove programs. Yes, yes, it doesn't REALLY remove it from the computer, but it usually hides it well enough. This is all assuming you are running WinXP...
Pay now or pay later. MS Anti-Virus won't be free for much longer.
Ooops...change that last line to: Sign! Sin! Sin!
I'll never forget my calc techer in college and his mnemonic for memorizing the sin and cos for the summation of two angles:
sin(x+y) = sin(x)cos(y)+cos(x)sin(y)
cos(x+y) = cos(x)cos(y)-sin(x)sin(y)
You have to imagine a VERY large, balding, ex-marine jumping up and down in front of the blackboard squealing at the top of his voice in his best cheerleader impression:
Sin!
Cos!
Cos!
Sin!
Cos! Cos!
Sin! Sign! Sin!
It doesn't translate as well in text but in was absolutely hilarious and somewhat frightening...
Which brings up an interesting question...if MS buys you and your product ALREADY sucks...what happens? Is the suckage clamped? Do we get wrap-around and a superior product? Do we need to invent a whole new number system to quantify just how horrible it gets?
The study is about intelligence difference "on average". It says nothing about any particular individual. If you make hiring decisions or appointments based on these findings, you'd be a fool. Why would this study be anything more than a curiosity to anyone?
I understand the point you're making, but this case is interesting because MS silently *changed* the default action (or maybe they changed the rating and, thereby, the default action changed). Why did they downgrade the threat level? Why would they consider ignoring the most pervasive purveyor of adware out there? What sparked the change?
Done and done. Tried it out when I first read the entry on Ben Edelman's blog a few days ago (and submitted a story here). Downloaded and installed DeskBar, Gator eWallet, WeatherScope, and PrecisionTime from www.claria.com. Downloaded MS AntiSpyware Beta 1.0.614. Ran a scan and, sure enough, all products were marked "Ignore". The folks over at Sunbelt Blog have more info and are certainly a more reputable source than some random poster on Slashdot.
Wha? Are you sure you're talking about the same company here? MS was established years before they acquired the rights to QDOS. They were already a successful company before the DOS licenses, certainly not as large, but successful. The US government can hardly be accused of "propping up" MS simply because they bought a product from them that they deemed useful. Certainly, at that time MS was hardly in control of anyone's destiny. Are you telling me I need to look out for the next world dominating commode corporation because the government might purchase some new toilets?
Huh? Um, in case you haven't noticed, MS is engaged in at least a dozen legal battles right now. This isn't a case of "digging stuff up", this is evidence as submitted in a current legal proceeding, hardly irrelevant. Furthermore, there is still some question as to whether or not MS has, in fact, stuck to the agreements made in the recent DOJ case. They've certainly broken prior consent decrees. And finally, wouldn't you, as an employee of MS (as your post seems to indicate) want to know if your employer has a history of unethical or illegal behavior? Or do you subscribe to the see-no-evil philosophy?
And how do you sell your soul to a book? That just has some mightily amusing implications depending on one's literary choices...
Um, the courts have already ruled on this, the illegality of their behavior is not in doubt. I'm struggling to see where exactly the US government propped up Intel and MS...care to point me to a reference?
In my life, I have RARELY experienced a better product from a company that advertises. Higher quality products are generally produced by specialists who don't need to attract customers - their reputation does it for them.
HAHA! That has to be the funniest comment I've seen in years. Going into my permanent file...
It's actually more insidious than you portray...at a Redmond-based software company I may or may not have worked for, it happened more like this:
Manager: "The internet looks like the latest fad. And we need to grow revenue by entering a new market. Toasters! We aren't in the toaster market! Omigod, an internet-enabled toaster would allow us to leverage our technologies and innovation and gain incredible market-share in that industry!"
Developer: "Well, I think we can do it. Let me come up with a good design."
Manager: "We don't have time for that, the market window is closing, you need to be writing code now."
Developer: (begins to furiously write code)
[a few months pass]
Manager: "Okay. We've readjusted the ship schedule, the product goes out next week."
Developer: "Wha? Wha?!?! But it's not ready. We are still finishing up the features you requested."
Manager: (AN ACTUAL QUOTE) "It's good enough at this point. We will never have all the time to make it perfect. Shipping is a feature too. In fact, it's the most important feature!"
I don't oppose companies hiring foreign workers. However, I don't like companies attempting to have their cake and eat it too. There are long-term effects to this sort of action...as I said earlier, these corporations do not exist in a vacuum.
Well, it's certainly an interesting point, but that assumes that India and the US are equal in all ways. I'd say paying one American four times what another American can do the job competently for would certainly be welfare.
You blew your case apart when you called a tax break a "Favor". Sorry, when the government robs you a little less blind, it is not a "Favor".
You'll get no disagreement from me on that point...except that it is a non-sequiter. The truth is, that under our current system, right or wrong, tax money is taken from me and paid to help corporations in many ways. If that company chooses to accept (or lobby for) those funds, it needs to pay the consequences. TANSTAAFL.
And they would have never happened if they had to pay workers 4 times the value of the work, as you would like to see happen. The companies succeeded because they avoided mistakes like paying much more than the real value of things.
Nice straw-man, but I never suggested paying workers four times what they are worth. My argument is, that the "worth" of a worker is not simply just what it costs you to hire him. A company does not get created and exist in a vacuum.
You seemed to have missed the point of my argument (since you didn't address it). There is more factored into the salary of a worker than just the paycheck a company hands them. Contrary to common misconception, the US (nor any capitalistic, without the capital-C, society) is not a lawless wasteland of a bunch of individual nomads roaming and trying to find the highest bidder and destroying anything in their path to get to it. The environment that these companies thrive under has to be paid for in some sense. Does that mean workers are not paid enough? I don't know. But it seems short-sighted to ignore the community that supports these companies that used to be nothing more than two guys in a garage with a good idea.
You can't have it both ways, you can't take favors nor use resources without someone paying for it. If you want to move your company over to India, more luck to you.