Tell you what. Give me twice as much money as Bill Gates, and I'll donate twice as much to charity as Bill Gates. In fact, give me twice what Bill Gates donated to charity plus one percent, and I'll gladly donate twice as much to charity as Bill Gates does. And I'll become an extremely wealthy person in the process.
Here's the thing: Bill Gates isn't a generous philanthropist, just an extremely wealthy one. He's like anyone else who donates fifty bucks a year to the homeless shelter down on Main Street. By that, I don't mean that he gives the same amount, or the same proportion. Instead, I mean that he donates money to these causes after he's already provided for all his own needs and wants.
Remember the parable of the Widow's Mite? The rich man gave from his bounty, while the poor woman gave despite her own need. The person who chooses to feed the hungry rather than feed herself has performed a far more generous act than someone who chooses to feed the hungry rather than... buy Oracle?
In short, the only difference between Bill Gates and everyone else who gives money to charity is that Bill Gates has a whole lot more of it.
Which brings us to the question of how he got that money in the first place. Yay capitalism, right? As your high UID indicates, you're pretty new here. So let me start by disabusing you of the notion that America is a capitalistic country. We have all sorts of impediments to true lassiez-faire capitalism, and that's not always a bad thing. Libertarians may bitch and moan about how much money is being spent on government programs like OSHA, the EPA, the SEC, etc, and they can certainly point to examples of excess and stupidity by any government program. But each of those three agencies arose precisely because true capitalism wasn't providing solutions to important abuses.
We're not a capitalistic country in that we have social programs like welfare. As a country, we've decided that just because pure capitalism would let certain people starve in the streets, that doesn't mean we should let it happen.
Finally, we're non-capitalistic in the sense that we have anticompetitive cartels and monopolies, that cannot be addressed on a consumer level, and have not been addressed by the government. The RIAA, Microsoft, and your local gas company are all monopolies of one sort or another.
The point is, there is a broad spectrum of possibilities between capitalism, anarchy, and communism. America has chosen its spot, while many European countries are camped out closer to the socialism flag.
In closing, here is a quick list of reasons you should have a problem with Microsoft (readers feel free to add):
* 60 billion in the bank, enough to buy up the airline industry. * A string of anticompetitive acts dating back to the early eighties, leading to two separate taxpayer-funded lawsuits. * It has been widely rumored that Microsoft is funding SCO's war on Linux. * Features first, bugfixes later, security wheneverwegetaroundtoit. That has been their strategy for decades, and I have no confidence that this new "security initiative" will have any success. * Microsoft Outlook. * Clippy. * Microsoft is a monopoly. So declares the judicial system. Monopolies stifle innovation and competition.
So the basic thrust of your argument is that corporations exist outside the sphere of ethical reasoning, and they are required to do whatever is in their own best interests, without regard for any questions beyond "will I get caught" and "can I beat the rap if I do?"
Let's think about the whole "corporation as person" mentality in our legal system. The corporation you describe has no higher goal than to do whatever increases its own wealth and power, regardless of the consequences. This includes defying or ignoring regulations that govern the marketplace, buying favorable legislation, and using anticompetitive means to destroy anyone who dares step on its turf.
If a corporation is an entity with legal presence, just like a person, then this person is very much like a class of real people: sociopaths.
We don't allow sociopaths to walk the streets freely; we arrest them and throw them in jail. Why should a corporation be given less scrutiny?
SHAMELESS != BLAMELESS. Please note the distinction.
Explain precisely what "anti-piracy measures" this device is attempting to circumvent. The DMCA, nasty little beast that it is, is not the whole of modern copyright law, and by losing sight of that fact, you're playing the part of Joe Average Slashdotter.
Now, if DVDs suddenly started including "ButtBlaster" technology to ensure that people couldn't fast forward through the racy bits, and this DVD player had to bypass that technology, then the DMCA would be perfectly applicable.
As it stands, this thing is nothing but an automatic fast-forwarder, and I would hate to be the judge who made it illegal to skip parts of a movie. He'd most likely be getting a dead cat in his mailbox.
How is that different from what the IRS did to get themselves into this situation in the first place?
Here's something like how it might have gone:
Hmm... it's too much of a hassle to convert the old software to output this data in the new format. So we'll just leave it as is, and throw in a program to translate the output to the new format.
Five years later, all the stuff that relies on the new format has to be upgraded to handle a third format. Or does it? Nah, we'll just provide another compatability layer. Much, much easier. So now you have three levels to the system, one of which nobody dares to touch because "it just works, but we don't know why."
A few years pass, and they have to handle electronic filings. Now they might have to translate the filings back into the earliest format in order for it to function properly. This wasn't a problem before because mailed forms were entered manually. But now they're writing new code that binds them even tighter to the old, evil code.
A series of locally optimal choices slowly drag them to the point where they're trying to hold this huge, misarchitectured mess with duct tape and bailing wire, and praying that they can keep it running after their veteran coders retire.
Of course, there are plenty of options in between "complete rewrite" and "just do whatever ugly hack will get this feature running (again)." Like putting a nice clean API over the top of a system that hides the cruftiness, so that people can write sane code above while you're cleaning up or replacing the code underneath. Or replace the format1->format2->format3->format4 chain with four translators that all translate between the respective formats and the one you really would like the whole system to use in the long run.
But sometimes it really is easier to rewrite the whole thing from scratch.
Not really asking. I just enjoy starting off posts that way.
The thing is, people already have to decide what counts as income. So the complexity you claim is going to be moved towards determining what counts as "income" actually already exists.
You do know that the whole "commentary/deleted scenes/movie trailers" thing is just a scam to keep us from questioning why DVDs cost just as much as VHS tapes, right? You can probably create 10 DVDs for the cost of manufacturing and recording a VHS tape. Yet we're not seeing the savings passed onto the consumer. People are used to paying $15 for a movie, so that's the price point.
The commentaries (which I've never really been able to get into) are the only one of the three that require any extra effort at all.
Of course, there is also the "we have the space, so we may as well" factor.
Hey, it was 1993. The skies were still blue, love was in the air, and everybody and his dog was starting a death cult of one sort or another. We had to do something to set us apart from the average wild-eyed UFO priest. Osmium tetroxide was going to be our mark of distinction.
Besides, we were going to be safe, and try it out on an eyeball we didn't need before we all started doing it. I volunteered my left eyeball because it's a good deal weaker than the right one.
Thank God kids today have the Internet to keep them out of trouble.
I don't remember osmium tetroxide being dangerous. I remember reading some things about it in high school chemistry; it was a very amusing chemical, because its fumes temporarily stained your eyeballs black. We were planning on starting a black-eyed cult of death-worshipping super-chemists, but our plans were stalled because our teacher wouldn't order us any.
"Let's see you work your job for 6 months and have someone come along an take all the great ideas for themselves, leaving you with no recognition. Would you be pissed?"
Yeah. So artists shouldn't get angry when we download their music, but when we fill the ID3 tags with erroneous information.
You bought 800+ songs from iTunes? And you want to "reward the artists" but don't care that only 10-14% of that money actually went to the artists in question? It seems you want to reward the middlemen.
Dear God! You mean to tell me that your floorplan is exactly the same as mine? That you ripped off every decorating idea I spent years and years perfecting? The inhumanity!
Wait... I'm confused. You've found a way to build houses for free, and I'm supposed to be angry? No, I'm not. I'm overjoyed. Now everyone can a comfortable home, and it's absolutely wonderful if they thought my design was worth copying.
Your analogy is deeply, fundamentally broken. I don't even know where to begin trying to fix it. No matter what analogy you could use relating music copying to physical items, any loss incurred by the creator--time, money, ego, whatever--is absolutely overwhelmed by the brute force of the simple fact: The copiers are creating new stuff at no cost!
If we could provide quality housing for anyone, for free, simply by ripping off the design you put your blood, sweat, and tears into, it's absolutely worth hurting your feelings.
Let's see. I've recently developed a sort of antipathy towards extreme privacy proponents. So as an intellectual exercise, let's see how comfortable I am with this list.
Name? No problem.
Address? Why? Is someone trying to hunt me down and kill me? I know a lot of my posts border on flamebait, but certain stalkers out there really need to get a sense of perspective.
Do a whois lookup for delusionsofadequacy.org, and you'll have my name and address. I don't much care. And if you check, I don't much care about the website either.
Date of birth? Dear Lord, someone will know whether I'm more likely to respond to an ad for rollerblades or denture cream. Seriously, unless I'm trying to pick up teenage girls in chat rooms by pretending to be fifteen, I wouldn't much care.
Social security: Okay, this one is over the line. I don't want it to be public information. These days, it's absolutely dangerous to your life and livelihood for your SSN to get into the wrong hands.
But let's stop and think about the reason for this. What is a Social Security Number? It's a unique, system-wide identifier. It should be as safe for someone to know your SSN as your full name. Where it becomes dangerous is when certain security-n00b bureaucracies decide to use it as a convenient password rather than an identifier.
If they used names the way they use SSNs, anyone who knew your name could access your bank account, incur debts in your name, cash your paycheck, and all the other things that fall under the rubric of "identity theft."
Eventually, these bureaucracies may get a clue, and start using SSNs for identification, with a separate password for the purposes of authentication. Then we will have entered the golden era, where we can say that Social Security Numbers want to be free.
Moving on.
Sexual preference: As a member of the current reigning sexual affinity, I don't have a problem with people knowing: I likes the gurlies. If I were a homosexual, it would certainly be a touchy situation.
If we were a more enlightened society, then it wouldn't matter much whether someone was gay or straight. Admitting to being gay would be about as threatening as admitting that you were fond of frozen yogurt. Unfortunately, homosexuals are still persecuted--and yes, it is a very apt description of what goes on.
So what happens when suddenly, everyone knows? What if this technological repository of all knowledge we're carelessly slapping together ended up forcing everyone out of the closet? Some relationships get strained, or broken. Some job and family situations would suddenly become intolerable. But for many people, it would also put a human face on this amorphous "pink menace" that they've allowed themselves to demonize.
It's hard to say whether the mandatory "outing" of all homosexuals would lead to a greater acceptance of the lifestyle, or ghettoization. I'm definitely struggling with that aspect of the whole privacy debate.
"The last person you slept with." I'm not volunteering any information on that point.
My politics are pretty much a matter of public record. We've all heard the stories of bosses who couldn't stand the idea of having an employee whose views differed from his own, so public information might lead to severe reprisals. On the other hand, the information would also be available for new hires. This would have two effects: the talent pool available for such bosses would shrink in proportion to their own intolerance--presumably making them less successful--and people wouldn't end up in situations where their political views were dangerous to their continued employment.
The same questions arise when it comes to having any secrets made public: affairs, tax fraud, porn surfing habits, etc. When an affair is made known, there are a number of options a couple can take. The cheating partner can break off the affair, or break off the marriage. Wheth
While I find it hard to sympathize with either side, I don't see the purpose in calling them "washed up voice actors." I've heard many complaints about the Simpsons going downhill. But the funny thing is, the complaints are never about how Marge's voice has lost its edge, or that Bart doesn't sound like the early Bart. I don't hear complaints about the animation either.
The complaints are always about the writing. Plotting, jokes, comic timing. The stuff that the voice actors don't have much control over.
But it is inspiring the way you want to "feed the poor and hungry or something." Your dedication to the common plight of all humanity is a beacon to us all. Mr. Coward, we salute you!
I'll grant that cutting ourselves off from the world economy through protectionism is a bad idea. But it's clear you didn't fully grasp the implications of what I was trying to say.
"Generating prosperity in the second most populated country in the world opens up a huge new market for US companies to expand into."
Read what follows slowly and carefully. Not because you're stupid, mind you; but because this is as important as it is counterintuitive.
These. Are. Not. U.S. Companies.
[dramatic pause]
Sure, they're all headquartered in the United States. Sure, their centers of operation are here. Sure, most of their investors are Americans. But in the end, none of that matters. Multinational corporations don't just happen to own a few bits of property outside the borders of the U.S. Increasingly, they exist beyond borders, beyond nations, beyond regulations.
Corporations move capital wherever that capital makes them the most profit. If they can make a killing by moving production to somewhere that doesn't bother with niceties like worker safety, health care, environmental protections, etc., then they do so. If they find the regulation climate in country X uninviting, or their lawmakers unaccommodating, they take their business to country Y.
But the sheer economic might of the U.S. protects us, right? So long as they have to do business in America, we have some say over how that business is transacted? Not really. I think that business interests already have more say in how this country is run than the voters. More to the point, that economic might is failing us, because the wealth is being concentrated into a very few hands.
Thanks to the wonders of international finance, a billionaire can move from New York to the Cayman Islands and remain a billionaire. The demand for the products and services that he consumes with that wealth trail along behind him. The end result? Cayman Islands $3B richer, New York $3B poorer.
Here's my current doomsday scenario: Shrubby gets handily trounced come November. People are fed up, looking for a way back to prosperity. Mammoth protections are enacted, bold regulations are written.
The management and stockholders of these companies start taking a look at the new environment that is slowly narrowing their profits. Despite the threat of losing "The American Market," companies start jumping ship, moving their headquarters and factories anywhere else that will take them. Make no mistake, with the money they can throw around, someone will give them a loving home. By means both covert and overt, they take every bit of capital that isn't nailed down, knowing that anything that remains may be nationalized if things get any worse.
Which they do. As the "major players" take their toys and leave, our purchasing power drops to nothing. The corporations find themselves in a wonderful position where they are primarily buying and selling to each other, bypassing the very concept of nation-states and democracy. They can go into any country they like and build factories, import skilled labor from around the globe (and being able to unilaterally dictate the terms of employment). The companies become even more efficient at getting the maximum work out of the plebes while providing as little compensation as they can, and moving wealth into the hands of the owners.
In the end, the world is divided into four classes: The uber-rich, their staff and servants, the people they hire to protect them and their wealth from the rest of us... and the rest of us.
Wow. Okay, that was pretty damned paranoid, even for me. But with so much wealth in the hands of so few, I shudder to think what will happen when some other country makes those few a better offer.
You claim that stock investments don't just benefit the rich. I would be interested in finding out what percentage of the value of all publicly traded stock is owned by--for example--people with more than $50M in net worth.
I would also be interested in some figures that say just how much "class mobility" there really is in America these days. For example, what percentage of people moved from poverty to the middle class (and vice versa) in the last 5-10 years, or what percentage of billionares were born that way.
Personally, I'm slowly drifting towards the "imprison everyone with a net worth over $100M, on the charges of crimes against humanity, then take their stuff. If that doesn't fix things, drop it to $20M and try again." Given that I was a devoted reader of "Atlas Shrugged" in high school, I find this very surprising.:)
On the other hand, throwaway products make a lot of sense for some purposes. For example, I'm giving you the choice between two computers with the same specs, only one cost $750 and the other cost $1250. The only difference is, one is built to the highest quality standards, guaranteed to run solid as a rock for the next twenty years. The cheaper one isn't wasn't exactly shoddily manufactured, but you're bound to see several parts fail over the next ten years or so.
You buy the cheaper one, of course, because in twenty years there's nothing you could do with either computer but landfill it.
The same kind of goes for phones. Why build a phone rock solid, to last through the ravages of the ages, when nobody really knows what the telecommunications landscape will look like in a decade? Inevitably, there will be some nifty, must-have feature that will make the old phone obsolete. Cords, for example. Phones with cords work fine, but nobody seems to want them.
When it comes to employment, things get a bit dicier. But in the eyes of the beancounters, many of the same arguments apply. Why hire an old coder who demands a forty hour workweek and two weeks vacation, when you can hire a kid with no family, no life, and a resume that looks more up-to-date? Why train when it's cheaper to get new employees whenever you need more skills?
The difference is, it's morally repugnant to view people as replaceable, commodity products.
Sure, he buys a Ford car (manufactured in Czechloslovakia), and a Dell computer (has a huge plant in China to serve the Asian market), and a Motorola cellphone (Motorola has plants friggin' everywhere), a pair of Gap jeans (this site says they're doing at least some of their manufacturing in Mexico, with the workers making around $0.28/hr), and a Maytag washer (some quick googling indicates that at least seven of the nine Maytag plants are in the U.S.).
So you're safe on the Maytag one. But aside from that, in what sense are these "American companies?" If it's because the bulk of the stockholders are American (something I couldn't confirm or deny), then it's hard to care. If it's because they oversee operations from here, it's again difficult to see how this equates to making things better for the average person.
Prosperity for American-based companies doesn't necessarily translate into prosperity for most Americans. Further, given the amount of loyalty displayed by these large companies in the past, there isn't anything stopping them from picking up and moving the bulk of the companies elsewhere.
What I like doing is listening to Christian rock, and pretending it's dirty. You run into some real classics, like "Oh Lord, I want you inside me," or, "Sweet Jesus, your love is amazing!"
I don't suggest it for anyone who has a life, but hey... this is Slashdot!
So, are you implying that the actual intent of limiting suburban sprawl is to make sure there isn't enough housing to go around?
Of course not. The "Big Government types" you malign are also interested in environmental protection. Now, this may or may not be compatable with the idea of affordable housing, but at least recognize that they're trying to strike what they consider proper balance, rather than simply limiting the housing supply for the hell of it.
I also question your assertion that subsidized housing programs increase the demand for housing. If we ended all housing assistance programs today, would the people currently on those programs suddenly stop needing a place to live? Sure, the apparent demand for housing would go down, but the demand for sturdy cardboard boxes would skyrocket. Housing is called a necessity because, unlike cable TV, demand for it doesn't disappear when people can't pay for it.
I'm inclined to favor housing subsidies, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that some government programs are actually having negative effects, and should be eliminated. I accept that things are far more complicated than my understanding permits. On the other hand, your closing statement--that all "subsidies" should be laughed out of existence--indicates a rather black and white approach to your analysis of social policy. You may want to reconsider that.
Two things. First, I don't think that Microsoft would want to get directly involved like that. If their rumors of involvement with SCO are true, then it's clear that someone thinks it's a better strategy to do battle through intermediaries.
Second, why would they want to pillage the kernel, even if they could? Let's ignore the technical difficulties involved in pasting code from one kernel to another kernel with a totally different architecture. A decision like that would have to be made at the highest levels, and the highest levels aren't about to admit that they have to do this in order to remain competitive.
Deep down, I think the folks running Microsoft believe in themselves. They really believe that Windows has the best integration and the lowest TCO. They really believe that they are generating products which drive economic growth and make the world a better place. They really believe that Linux is a tricycle trying to pass itself off to the business world as a Ferarri, and this is just one more storm to be weathered as they move towards Total World Domination.* So even if it were possible or legally savvy to do as you suggest, I don't believe that the folks running Microsoft would easily admit that Linux has something they don't. They especially won't admit that it has anything they cannot easily duplicate.
*Total World Domination is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corp.
I'd like to see Mozilla have an option for using a remote bookmarks file. It's a real pain keeping them all synchronized.
Even cooler, nested remote bookmarks. So if somebody keeps a really nicely organized set of links on Mesopotamian basket weaving, it could appear in your bookmarks under Education/History/Jimmy's Mesopotamian Basket Weaving. Somebody else could run a list of links of probable interest to Slashdot (Jargon file, Wikipedia, the RIAA, goatse, etc.)
The big trick would be to avoid recursion, which could probably be done by specifying a maximum depth, or disallowing any remote bookmark file but the top one from including remote bookmark files.
Me, I keep all my bookmarks under the "Toolbar Folder", so that they all appear in a neat little line under the location bar. I've got four favorites, and everything else is organized by categories. It works pretty well.
I had a strange experience last week. My brother-in-law got four tickets to a TV focus group, and invited me to go with him. It was a fascinating look into (at least one small aspect) of how TV programming decisions are made.
We show up around 7:30 in the evening at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Salt Lake. There's a pretty broad range of folks, though I would say it was slanted somewhat towards the elderly. Before we get started, they hand out a "prize packet," which is a booklet with a group of products on each page. For example, one page has twelve different brands of potato chips, another page has symbols for twelve different car manufacturers. The booklet asks you to select the one you would most like to have included in your prize package.
I think the car page meant that you might win a car rental, not an actual car.
Anyhow, there were four TVs facing outward in a square configuration in the middle of the room. An emcee type guy is up in front, cracking jokes and explaining what he wants us to do. We're going to be watching two programs which the network executives are trying to judge. Each program will be interspersed with commercials (which are also being evaluated). The guy explains that his company is just a subcontractor, so feel free to give your honest opinions about the programming. No skin off his back if it's crap.
The first program was a drama called "Soulmates," which I think had something to do with a clinical psychologist who ran into one of her patients in a former life. It was quite painful to sit through. Even taking into account the fact that it was done on a shoestring budget as a proof-of-concept, it just wasn't executing. I could tell what they were trying to do (create a sense of mystery, hint at romantic tension between x and y, etc), and I could feel myself not responding.
At the end of the first show, we were talked through a questionnaire asking specific questions about the show. Did we like character x? Were there sparks between x and y? Do you think this would be better as a TV movie than a weekly series? Can you suggest another title for this show? (Crapstravaganza 2004, anyone?)
Put away the questionnaire, the next show is starting. It turned out to be a show called "City," which had a short run back in 1990, that somebody was interested in resurrecting. It was about a city director, and featured a zany office staff. Nothing groundbreaking, but it had good ideas and a lot of comic energy. After enduring the first show, the whole room responded much more positively to it.
After we filled out the questionnaire for "City,"--mostly asking about which characters we liked--they had us watch four more commercials. The only one I really remember was a Crest commercial that had a bunch of fashion models walking up and down a white stage, wearing white clothes, showing off white teeth. It wouldn't have ingrained itself into my consciousness except that I could swear I heard the announcer mention that it "protects against AIDS." Which left me thinking I was involved in some really, really twisted social experiment.
While the commercials were playing, we were supposed to write down "impulses," which basically means anything we thought or noticed while the commercials were playing. Mostly I wrote none-too-helpful drivel like "babies cute. Babies falling on their butts cuter" (diaper commercial). I'm sure that the advertising world is already well aware of the selling power of babies. The AIDS comment led to a long string of incoherent writing, the gist of which I don't remember.
Finally, they had us fill out a whole bunch of fairly personal questions about our purchasing power and buying habits (including a string of very personal questions about my bladder). Then we filled out another prize packet, presumably to see how much our brand preferences had been changed by the commercials.
In the end, I gave them contact info so they could invite me to another on
I especially liked this part of the New Yorker review:
"Nor is the "paradox of choice" limited to the shopping aisle. It helps explain why so many people at age thirty are still flailing about, trying to choose a career--and why so many marriageable singles wind up alone. You await a spouse who combines the kindness of your mom, the wit of the smartest person you met in grad school, and the looks of someone you dated in 1983 (as she was in 1983) . . . and you wind up spending middle age by yourself, watching the Sports Channel at 2 a.m. in a studio apartment strewn with pizza boxes."
Man, it's like he wrote the story of my life.
Seriously, the sheer volume of choices normal, middle-class people make these days can be overwhelming. Say you want to make some basically irrelevant decision, like how to entertain yourself for an evening. Do you go to a movie? A restaurant? Maybe throw a get together for a few friends? Or give your antisocial side free rein, and stay home and test out yet another Fedora test release? Meanwhile, some little chunk of your brain is pounding on your internal monologue, demanding to know why you're anguishing over something so frivolous, while most of the world is dirt poor and the ozone layer lost another three percent last year and did you hear about the latest round of bombings and targeted assassinations in Israel you should really be doing something about that you know by the way the economy is in the crapper so you may want to hang onto the money you were planning on spending this evening [snip seventeen more pages in the same vein]
All that, and your reward is to end up watching "Along Came Polly." It's like you're better off not bothering.
The discussion I've seen so far primarily revolves around computers. Which distros strike the best balance between choice and usability, and how to get a lot of both with only one configuration. But all this discussion is over one relatively minor facet of the profession of computing (a profession which pretty much everyone here finds attractive). What happens when you start moving outside your own perceived comfort level?
For me, clothes shopping is one endeavor where I'm overwhelmed by the choices. I tried watching "Queer Eye" once, and I decided that I simply didn't want to be any better informed about food and fashion than I already am. So I generally do most of my shopping at thrift stores, look for clothes that fit well, have a lot of life left in them, and are generally stain free. I'm never going to pass a girl and have her think, "There's a guy who really knows how to dress himself." That's okay. The fewer choices and less money I spend on clothes, the happier I am.
I don't think it's just the stupid who can feel overwhelmed by choices. Rather, I think that someone who is smart and honest with himself can have it even worse. Once you stop making post-hoc rationalizations about how the choices you've already made--whether that choice is as frivolous as "which sweater to buy" or as critical as "who should I marry?" or "what should I choose as a career?"--and start recognizing that thinking for what it is, you realize that things could have gone differently. What happens when you stop repeating the "I married the most wonderful woman on Earth" mantra, and start thinking about what might have been different if you'd married ol' what's her name from high school? It's not exactly a formula for happiness.
It would be silly to say that only smart people recognize that their life could have been different had they made different choices. Instead, I'm saying that your brain has certain instinctive patterns of thought which keep you happy by keeping you from dwelling on them. An example the New Yorker review mentioned: people who buy a car are unlikely to look at ads for competing products afterwards, in order to avoid discovering that they may have made the wrong decision. If you're particularly self-aware, you can see th
Why would you consider Nader a viable option? Whatever you or I may think of his politics, I haven't heard anyone try to argue that he will ever get the sort of funding required to run a competitive campaign.
This is just one expression of a much more general problem: Money in politics. I would assert that the amount of money required to run a viable campaign means that a candidate must meet any of the following three criteria:
1) Must be a multimillionare who can finance his or her own campaign. 2) Must be willing to deliver what certain well-financed special interest groups demand. 3) Must be an incumbent.
Incumbents are at least partly exempt from the first two requirements (though having either or both cannot hurt), because the lobbyists need to stay on lawmakers' good sides, and that usually means campaign contributions.
In the end, we have a de facto ruling class, because every election we return 98% of our political leaders to office. The money game mercilessly eliminates most candidates before we have a chance to vote for them, and it doesn't base its selections on which candidate would best represent the interests of his constituents.
I'm not looking forward to November, when Utah will once again rubber-stamp President Bush and Senator Orrin Hatch.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell you what. Give me twice as much money as Bill Gates, and I'll donate twice as much to charity as Bill Gates. In fact, give me twice what Bill Gates donated to charity plus one percent, and I'll gladly donate twice as much to charity as Bill Gates does. And I'll become an extremely wealthy person in the process.
Here's the thing: Bill Gates isn't a generous philanthropist, just an extremely wealthy one. He's like anyone else who donates fifty bucks a year to the homeless shelter down on Main Street. By that, I don't mean that he gives the same amount, or the same proportion. Instead, I mean that he donates money to these causes after he's already provided for all his own needs and wants.
Remember the parable of the Widow's Mite? The rich man gave from his bounty, while the poor woman gave despite her own need. The person who chooses to feed the hungry rather than feed herself has performed a far more generous act than someone who chooses to feed the hungry rather than... buy Oracle?
In short, the only difference between Bill Gates and everyone else who gives money to charity is that Bill Gates has a whole lot more of it.
Which brings us to the question of how he got that money in the first place. Yay capitalism, right? As your high UID indicates, you're pretty new here. So let me start by disabusing you of the notion that America is a capitalistic country. We have all sorts of impediments to true lassiez-faire capitalism, and that's not always a bad thing. Libertarians may bitch and moan about how much money is being spent on government programs like OSHA, the EPA, the SEC, etc, and they can certainly point to examples of excess and stupidity by any government program. But each of those three agencies arose precisely because true capitalism wasn't providing solutions to important abuses.
We're not a capitalistic country in that we have social programs like welfare. As a country, we've decided that just because pure capitalism would let certain people starve in the streets, that doesn't mean we should let it happen.
Finally, we're non-capitalistic in the sense that we have anticompetitive cartels and monopolies, that cannot be addressed on a consumer level, and have not been addressed by the government. The RIAA, Microsoft, and your local gas company are all monopolies of one sort or another.
The point is, there is a broad spectrum of possibilities between capitalism, anarchy, and communism. America has chosen its spot, while many European countries are camped out closer to the socialism flag.
In closing, here is a quick list of reasons you should have a problem with Microsoft (readers feel free to add):
* 60 billion in the bank, enough to buy up the airline industry.
* A string of anticompetitive acts dating back to the early eighties, leading to two separate taxpayer-funded lawsuits.
* It has been widely rumored that Microsoft is funding SCO's war on Linux.
* Features first, bugfixes later, security wheneverwegetaroundtoit. That has been their strategy for decades, and I have no confidence that this new "security initiative" will have any success.
* Microsoft Outlook.
* Clippy.
* Microsoft is a monopoly. So declares the judicial system. Monopolies stifle innovation and competition.
So the basic thrust of your argument is that corporations exist outside the sphere of ethical reasoning, and they are required to do whatever is in their own best interests, without regard for any questions beyond "will I get caught" and "can I beat the rap if I do?"
Let's think about the whole "corporation as person" mentality in our legal system. The corporation you describe has no higher goal than to do whatever increases its own wealth and power, regardless of the consequences. This includes defying or ignoring regulations that govern the marketplace, buying favorable legislation, and using anticompetitive means to destroy anyone who dares step on its turf.
If a corporation is an entity with legal presence, just like a person, then this person is very much like a class of real people: sociopaths.
We don't allow sociopaths to walk the streets freely; we arrest them and throw them in jail. Why should a corporation be given less scrutiny?
SHAMELESS != BLAMELESS. Please note the distinction.
If it means that the amount of ninja-based violence in each movie is increased by at least 15%, I'm subscribing right now!
I clicked on both sites, but couldn't get in. They require that you be 18 or over, and ask for a credit card number.
Explain precisely what "anti-piracy measures" this device is attempting to circumvent. The DMCA, nasty little beast that it is, is not the whole of modern copyright law, and by losing sight of that fact, you're playing the part of Joe Average Slashdotter.
Now, if DVDs suddenly started including "ButtBlaster" technology to ensure that people couldn't fast forward through the racy bits, and this DVD player had to bypass that technology, then the DMCA would be perfectly applicable.
As it stands, this thing is nothing but an automatic fast-forwarder, and I would hate to be the judge who made it illegal to skip parts of a movie. He'd most likely be getting a dead cat in his mailbox.
How is that different from what the IRS did to get themselves into this situation in the first place?
Here's something like how it might have gone:
Hmm... it's too much of a hassle to convert the old software to output this data in the new format. So we'll just leave it as is, and throw in a program to translate the output to the new format.
Five years later, all the stuff that relies on the new format has to be upgraded to handle a third format. Or does it? Nah, we'll just provide another compatability layer. Much, much easier. So now you have three levels to the system, one of which nobody dares to touch because "it just works, but we don't know why."
A few years pass, and they have to handle electronic filings. Now they might have to translate the filings back into the earliest format in order for it to function properly. This wasn't a problem before because mailed forms were entered manually. But now they're writing new code that binds them even tighter to the old, evil code.
A series of locally optimal choices slowly drag them to the point where they're trying to hold this huge, misarchitectured mess with duct tape and bailing wire, and praying that they can keep it running after their veteran coders retire.
Of course, there are plenty of options in between "complete rewrite" and "just do whatever ugly hack will get this feature running (again)." Like putting a nice clean API over the top of a system that hides the cruftiness, so that people can write sane code above while you're cleaning up or replacing the code underneath. Or replace the format1->format2->format3->format4 chain with four translators that all translate between the respective formats and the one you really would like the whole system to use in the long run.
But sometimes it really is easier to rewrite the whole thing from scratch.
Are you insane?
Not really asking. I just enjoy starting off posts that way.
The thing is, people already have to decide what counts as income. So the complexity you claim is going to be moved towards determining what counts as "income" actually already exists.
You do know that the whole "commentary/deleted scenes/movie trailers" thing is just a scam to keep us from questioning why DVDs cost just as much as VHS tapes, right? You can probably create 10 DVDs for the cost of manufacturing and recording a VHS tape. Yet we're not seeing the savings passed onto the consumer. People are used to paying $15 for a movie, so that's the price point.
The commentaries (which I've never really been able to get into) are the only one of the three that require any extra effort at all.
Of course, there is also the "we have the space, so we may as well" factor.
Hey, it was 1993. The skies were still blue, love was in the air, and everybody and his dog was starting a death cult of one sort or another. We had to do something to set us apart from the average wild-eyed UFO priest. Osmium tetroxide was going to be our mark of distinction.
Besides, we were going to be safe, and try it out on an eyeball we didn't need before we all started doing it. I volunteered my left eyeball because it's a good deal weaker than the right one.
Thank God kids today have the Internet to keep them out of trouble.
I don't remember osmium tetroxide being dangerous. I remember reading some things about it in high school chemistry; it was a very amusing chemical, because its fumes temporarily stained your eyeballs black. We were planning on starting a black-eyed cult of death-worshipping super-chemists, but our plans were stalled because our teacher wouldn't order us any.
You bought 800+ songs from iTunes? And you want to "reward the artists" but don't care that only 10-14% of that money actually went to the artists in question? It seems you want to reward the middlemen.
Dear God! You mean to tell me that your floorplan is exactly the same as mine? That you ripped off every decorating idea I spent years and years perfecting? The inhumanity!
Wait... I'm confused. You've found a way to build houses for free, and I'm supposed to be angry? No, I'm not. I'm overjoyed. Now everyone can a comfortable home, and it's absolutely wonderful if they thought my design was worth copying.
Your analogy is deeply, fundamentally broken. I don't even know where to begin trying to fix it. No matter what analogy you could use relating music copying to physical items, any loss incurred by the creator--time, money, ego, whatever--is absolutely overwhelmed by the brute force of the simple fact: The copiers are creating new stuff at no cost!
If we could provide quality housing for anyone, for free, simply by ripping off the design you put your blood, sweat, and tears into, it's absolutely worth hurting your feelings.
Let's see. I've recently developed a sort of antipathy towards extreme privacy proponents. So as an intellectual exercise, let's see how comfortable I am with this list.
Name? No problem.
Address? Why? Is someone trying to hunt me down and kill me? I know a lot of my posts border on flamebait, but certain stalkers out there really need to get a sense of perspective.
Do a whois lookup for delusionsofadequacy.org, and you'll have my name and address. I don't much care. And if you check, I don't much care about the website either.
Date of birth? Dear Lord, someone will know whether I'm more likely to respond to an ad for rollerblades or denture cream. Seriously, unless I'm trying to pick up teenage girls in chat rooms by pretending to be fifteen, I wouldn't much care.
Social security: Okay, this one is over the line. I don't want it to be public information. These days, it's absolutely dangerous to your life and livelihood for your SSN to get into the wrong hands.
But let's stop and think about the reason for this. What is a Social Security Number? It's a unique, system-wide identifier. It should be as safe for someone to know your SSN as your full name. Where it becomes dangerous is when certain security-n00b bureaucracies decide to use it as a convenient password rather than an identifier.
If they used names the way they use SSNs, anyone who knew your name could access your bank account, incur debts in your name, cash your paycheck, and all the other things that fall under the rubric of "identity theft."
Eventually, these bureaucracies may get a clue, and start using SSNs for identification, with a separate password for the purposes of authentication. Then we will have entered the golden era, where we can say that Social Security Numbers want to be free.
Moving on.
Sexual preference: As a member of the current reigning sexual affinity, I don't have a problem with people knowing: I likes the gurlies. If I were a homosexual, it would certainly be a touchy situation.
If we were a more enlightened society, then it wouldn't matter much whether someone was gay or straight. Admitting to being gay would be about as threatening as admitting that you were fond of frozen yogurt. Unfortunately, homosexuals are still persecuted--and yes, it is a very apt description of what goes on.
So what happens when suddenly, everyone knows? What if this technological repository of all knowledge we're carelessly slapping together ended up forcing everyone out of the closet? Some relationships get strained, or broken. Some job and family situations would suddenly become intolerable. But for many people, it would also put a human face on this amorphous "pink menace" that they've allowed themselves to demonize.
It's hard to say whether the mandatory "outing" of all homosexuals would lead to a greater acceptance of the lifestyle, or ghettoization. I'm definitely struggling with that aspect of the whole privacy debate.
"The last person you slept with." I'm not volunteering any information on that point.
My politics are pretty much a matter of public record. We've all heard the stories of bosses who couldn't stand the idea of having an employee whose views differed from his own, so public information might lead to severe reprisals. On the other hand, the information would also be available for new hires. This would have two effects: the talent pool available for such bosses would shrink in proportion to their own intolerance--presumably making them less successful--and people wouldn't end up in situations where their political views were dangerous to their continued employment.
The same questions arise when it comes to having any secrets made public: affairs, tax fraud, porn surfing habits, etc. When an affair is made known, there are a number of options a couple can take. The cheating partner can break off the affair, or break off the marriage. Wheth
While I find it hard to sympathize with either side, I don't see the purpose in calling them "washed up voice actors." I've heard many complaints about the Simpsons going downhill. But the funny thing is, the complaints are never about how Marge's voice has lost its edge, or that Bart doesn't sound like the early Bart. I don't hear complaints about the animation either.
The complaints are always about the writing. Plotting, jokes, comic timing. The stuff that the voice actors don't have much control over.
But it is inspiring the way you want to "feed the poor and hungry or something." Your dedication to the common plight of all humanity is a beacon to us all. Mr. Coward, we salute you!
Read what follows slowly and carefully. Not because you're stupid, mind you; but because this is as important as it is counterintuitive.
These. Are. Not. U.S. Companies.
[dramatic pause]
Sure, they're all headquartered in the United States. Sure, their centers of operation are here. Sure, most of their investors are Americans. But in the end, none of that matters. Multinational corporations don't just happen to own a few bits of property outside the borders of the U.S. Increasingly, they exist beyond borders, beyond nations, beyond regulations.
Corporations move capital wherever that capital makes them the most profit. If they can make a killing by moving production to somewhere that doesn't bother with niceties like worker safety, health care, environmental protections, etc., then they do so. If they find the regulation climate in country X uninviting, or their lawmakers unaccommodating, they take their business to country Y.
But the sheer economic might of the U.S. protects us, right? So long as they have to do business in America, we have some say over how that business is transacted? Not really. I think that business interests already have more say in how this country is run than the voters. More to the point, that economic might is failing us, because the wealth is being concentrated into a very few hands.
Thanks to the wonders of international finance, a billionaire can move from New York to the Cayman Islands and remain a billionaire. The demand for the products and services that he consumes with that wealth trail along behind him. The end result? Cayman Islands $3B richer, New York $3B poorer.
Here's my current doomsday scenario: Shrubby gets handily trounced come November. People are fed up, looking for a way back to prosperity. Mammoth protections are enacted, bold regulations are written.
The management and stockholders of these companies start taking a look at the new environment that is slowly narrowing their profits. Despite the threat of losing "The American Market," companies start jumping ship, moving their headquarters and factories anywhere else that will take them. Make no mistake, with the money they can throw around, someone will give them a loving home. By means both covert and overt, they take every bit of capital that isn't nailed down, knowing that anything that remains may be nationalized if things get any worse.
Which they do. As the "major players" take their toys and leave, our purchasing power drops to nothing. The corporations find themselves in a wonderful position where they are primarily buying and selling to each other, bypassing the very concept of nation-states and democracy. They can go into any country they like and build factories, import skilled labor from around the globe (and being able to unilaterally dictate the terms of employment). The companies become even more efficient at getting the maximum work out of the plebes while providing as little compensation as they can, and moving wealth into the hands of the owners.
In the end, the world is divided into four classes: The uber-rich, their staff and servants, the people they hire to protect them and their wealth from the rest of us... and the rest of us.
Wow. Okay, that was pretty damned paranoid, even for me. But with so much wealth in the hands of so few, I shudder to think what will happen when some other country makes those few a better offer.
You claim that stock investments don't just benefit the rich. I would be interested in finding out what percentage of the value of all publicly traded stock is owned by--for example--people with more than $50M in net worth.
:)
I would also be interested in some figures that say just how much "class mobility" there really is in America these days. For example, what percentage of people moved from poverty to the middle class (and vice versa) in the last 5-10 years, or what percentage of billionares were born that way.
Personally, I'm slowly drifting towards the "imprison everyone with a net worth over $100M, on the charges of crimes against humanity, then take their stuff. If that doesn't fix things, drop it to $20M and try again." Given that I was a devoted reader of "Atlas Shrugged" in high school, I find this very surprising.
On the other hand, throwaway products make a lot of sense for some purposes. For example, I'm giving you the choice between two computers with the same specs, only one cost $750 and the other cost $1250. The only difference is, one is built to the highest quality standards, guaranteed to run solid as a rock for the next twenty years. The cheaper one isn't wasn't exactly shoddily manufactured, but you're bound to see several parts fail over the next ten years or so.
You buy the cheaper one, of course, because in twenty years there's nothing you could do with either computer but landfill it.
The same kind of goes for phones. Why build a phone rock solid, to last through the ravages of the ages, when nobody really knows what the telecommunications landscape will look like in a decade? Inevitably, there will be some nifty, must-have feature that will make the old phone obsolete. Cords, for example. Phones with cords work fine, but nobody seems to want them.
When it comes to employment, things get a bit dicier. But in the eyes of the beancounters, many of the same arguments apply. Why hire an old coder who demands a forty hour workweek and two weeks vacation, when you can hire a kid with no family, no life, and a resume that looks more up-to-date? Why train when it's cheaper to get new employees whenever you need more skills?
The difference is, it's morally repugnant to view people as replaceable, commodity products.
Sure, he buys a Ford car (manufactured in Czechloslovakia), and a Dell computer (has a huge plant in China to serve the Asian market), and a Motorola cellphone (Motorola has plants friggin' everywhere), a pair of Gap jeans (this site says they're doing at least some of their manufacturing in Mexico, with the workers making around $0.28/hr), and a Maytag washer (some quick googling indicates that at least seven of the nine Maytag plants are in the U.S.).
So you're safe on the Maytag one. But aside from that, in what sense are these "American companies?" If it's because the bulk of the stockholders are American (something I couldn't confirm or deny), then it's hard to care. If it's because they oversee operations from here, it's again difficult to see how this equates to making things better for the average person.
Prosperity for American-based companies doesn't necessarily translate into prosperity for most Americans. Further, given the amount of loyalty displayed by these large companies in the past, there isn't anything stopping them from picking up and moving the bulk of the companies elsewhere.
What I like doing is listening to Christian rock, and pretending it's dirty. You run into some real classics, like "Oh Lord, I want you inside me," or, "Sweet Jesus, your love is amazing!"
I don't suggest it for anyone who has a life, but hey... this is Slashdot!
So, are you implying that the actual intent of limiting suburban sprawl is to make sure there isn't enough housing to go around?
Of course not. The "Big Government types" you malign are also interested in environmental protection. Now, this may or may not be compatable with the idea of affordable housing, but at least recognize that they're trying to strike what they consider proper balance, rather than simply limiting the housing supply for the hell of it.
I also question your assertion that subsidized housing programs increase the demand for housing. If we ended all housing assistance programs today, would the people currently on those programs suddenly stop needing a place to live? Sure, the apparent demand for housing would go down, but the demand for sturdy cardboard boxes would skyrocket. Housing is called a necessity because, unlike cable TV, demand for it doesn't disappear when people can't pay for it.
I'm inclined to favor housing subsidies, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that some government programs are actually having negative effects, and should be eliminated. I accept that things are far more complicated than my understanding permits. On the other hand, your closing statement--that all "subsidies" should be laughed out of existence--indicates a rather black and white approach to your analysis of social policy. You may want to reconsider that.
Two things. First, I don't think that Microsoft would want to get directly involved like that. If their rumors of involvement with SCO are true, then it's clear that someone thinks it's a better strategy to do battle through intermediaries.
Second, why would they want to pillage the kernel, even if they could? Let's ignore the technical difficulties involved in pasting code from one kernel to another kernel with a totally different architecture. A decision like that would have to be made at the highest levels, and the highest levels aren't about to admit that they have to do this in order to remain competitive.
Deep down, I think the folks running Microsoft believe in themselves. They really believe that Windows has the best integration and the lowest TCO. They really believe that they are generating products which drive economic growth and make the world a better place. They really believe that Linux is a tricycle trying to pass itself off to the business world as a Ferarri, and this is just one more storm to be weathered as they move towards Total World Domination.* So even if it were possible or legally savvy to do as you suggest, I don't believe that the folks running Microsoft would easily admit that Linux has something they don't. They especially won't admit that it has anything they cannot easily duplicate.
*Total World Domination is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corp.
I'd like to see Mozilla have an option for using a remote bookmarks file. It's a real pain keeping them all synchronized.
Even cooler, nested remote bookmarks. So if somebody keeps a really nicely organized set of links on Mesopotamian basket weaving, it could appear in your bookmarks under Education/History/Jimmy's Mesopotamian Basket Weaving. Somebody else could run a list of links of probable interest to Slashdot (Jargon file, Wikipedia, the RIAA, goatse, etc.)
The big trick would be to avoid recursion, which could probably be done by specifying a maximum depth, or disallowing any remote bookmark file but the top one from including remote bookmark files.
Me, I keep all my bookmarks under the "Toolbar Folder", so that they all appear in a neat little line under the location bar. I've got four favorites, and everything else is organized by categories. It works pretty well.
I had a strange experience last week. My brother-in-law got four tickets to a TV focus group, and invited me to go with him. It was a fascinating look into (at least one small aspect) of how TV programming decisions are made.
We show up around 7:30 in the evening at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Salt Lake. There's a pretty broad range of folks, though I would say it was slanted somewhat towards the elderly. Before we get started, they hand out a "prize packet," which is a booklet with a group of products on each page. For example, one page has twelve different brands of potato chips, another page has symbols for twelve different car manufacturers. The booklet asks you to select the one you would most like to have included in your prize package.
I think the car page meant that you might win a car rental, not an actual car.
Anyhow, there were four TVs facing outward in a square configuration in the middle of the room. An emcee type guy is up in front, cracking jokes and explaining what he wants us to do. We're going to be watching two programs which the network executives are trying to judge. Each program will be interspersed with commercials (which are also being evaluated). The guy explains that his company is just a subcontractor, so feel free to give your honest opinions about the programming. No skin off his back if it's crap.
The first program was a drama called "Soulmates," which I think had something to do with a clinical psychologist who ran into one of her patients in a former life. It was quite painful to sit through. Even taking into account the fact that it was done on a shoestring budget as a proof-of-concept, it just wasn't executing. I could tell what they were trying to do (create a sense of mystery, hint at romantic tension between x and y, etc), and I could feel myself not responding.
At the end of the first show, we were talked through a questionnaire asking specific questions about the show. Did we like character x? Were there sparks between x and y? Do you think this would be better as a TV movie than a weekly series? Can you suggest another title for this show? (Crapstravaganza 2004, anyone?)
Put away the questionnaire, the next show is starting. It turned out to be a show called "City," which had a short run back in 1990, that somebody was interested in resurrecting. It was about a city director, and featured a zany office staff. Nothing groundbreaking, but it had good ideas and a lot of comic energy. After enduring the first show, the whole room responded much more positively to it.
After we filled out the questionnaire for "City,"--mostly asking about which characters we liked--they had us watch four more commercials. The only one I really remember was a Crest commercial that had a bunch of fashion models walking up and down a white stage, wearing white clothes, showing off white teeth. It wouldn't have ingrained itself into my consciousness except that I could swear I heard the announcer mention that it "protects against AIDS." Which left me thinking I was involved in some really, really twisted social experiment.
While the commercials were playing, we were supposed to write down "impulses," which basically means anything we thought or noticed while the commercials were playing. Mostly I wrote none-too-helpful drivel like "babies cute. Babies falling on their butts cuter" (diaper commercial). I'm sure that the advertising world is already well aware of the selling power of babies. The AIDS comment led to a long string of incoherent writing, the gist of which I don't remember.
Finally, they had us fill out a whole bunch of fairly personal questions about our purchasing power and buying habits (including a string of very personal questions about my bladder). Then we filled out another prize packet, presumably to see how much our brand preferences had been changed by the commercials.
In the end, I gave them contact info so they could invite me to another on
Man, it's like he wrote the story of my life.
Seriously, the sheer volume of choices normal, middle-class people make these days can be overwhelming. Say you want to make some basically irrelevant decision, like how to entertain yourself for an evening. Do you go to a movie? A restaurant? Maybe throw a get together for a few friends? Or give your antisocial side free rein, and stay home and test out yet another Fedora test release? Meanwhile, some little chunk of your brain is pounding on your internal monologue, demanding to know why you're anguishing over something so frivolous, while most of the world is dirt poor and the ozone layer lost another three percent last year and did you hear about the latest round of bombings and targeted assassinations in Israel you should really be doing something about that you know by the way the economy is in the crapper so you may want to hang onto the money you were planning on spending this evening [snip seventeen more pages in the same vein]
All that, and your reward is to end up watching "Along Came Polly." It's like you're better off not bothering.
The discussion I've seen so far primarily revolves around computers. Which distros strike the best balance between choice and usability, and how to get a lot of both with only one configuration. But all this discussion is over one relatively minor facet of the profession of computing (a profession which pretty much everyone here finds attractive). What happens when you start moving outside your own perceived comfort level?
For me, clothes shopping is one endeavor where I'm overwhelmed by the choices. I tried watching "Queer Eye" once, and I decided that I simply didn't want to be any better informed about food and fashion than I already am. So I generally do most of my shopping at thrift stores, look for clothes that fit well, have a lot of life left in them, and are generally stain free. I'm never going to pass a girl and have her think, "There's a guy who really knows how to dress himself." That's okay. The fewer choices and less money I spend on clothes, the happier I am.
I don't think it's just the stupid who can feel overwhelmed by choices. Rather, I think that someone who is smart and honest with himself can have it even worse. Once you stop making post-hoc rationalizations about how the choices you've already made--whether that choice is as frivolous as "which sweater to buy" or as critical as "who should I marry?" or "what should I choose as a career?"--and start recognizing that thinking for what it is, you realize that things could have gone differently. What happens when you stop repeating the "I married the most wonderful woman on Earth" mantra, and start thinking about what might have been different if you'd married ol' what's her name from high school? It's not exactly a formula for happiness.
It would be silly to say that only smart people recognize that their life could have been different had they made different choices. Instead, I'm saying that your brain has certain instinctive patterns of thought which keep you happy by keeping you from dwelling on them. An example the New Yorker review mentioned: people who buy a car are unlikely to look at ads for competing products afterwards, in order to avoid discovering that they may have made the wrong decision. If you're particularly self-aware, you can see th
Why would you consider Nader a viable option? Whatever you or I may think of his politics, I haven't heard anyone try to argue that he will ever get the sort of funding required to run a competitive campaign.
This is just one expression of a much more general problem: Money in politics. I would assert that the amount of money required to run a viable campaign means that a candidate must meet any of the following three criteria:
1) Must be a multimillionare who can finance his or her own campaign.
2) Must be willing to deliver what certain well-financed special interest groups demand.
3) Must be an incumbent.
Incumbents are at least partly exempt from the first two requirements (though having either or both cannot hurt), because the lobbyists need to stay on lawmakers' good sides, and that usually means campaign contributions.
In the end, we have a de facto ruling class, because every election we return 98% of our political leaders to office. The money game mercilessly eliminates most candidates before we have a chance to vote for them, and it doesn't base its selections on which candidate would best represent the interests of his constituents.
I'm not looking forward to November, when Utah will once again rubber-stamp President Bush and Senator Orrin Hatch.
Off-topic rambling? You decide.