OTOH, one, maybe two more orders of magnitude in power output and you'll be able to kill crowds with ease with a device that fits in your pocket, and might not even have enough metal in it to set off a metal detector. How cool will that be!
I see the same thing, albeit at a much smaller company. We get thousands of very shiny resumes, from people with all sorts of checklist talents, who apparently actually possess none of them. We have about a 150 (fully qualified!) resumes : 1 hire ratio right now, and things are getting worse.
This is pretty easy to handle: Find out what the fair salary is for your job, call that X. Tell your boss that you thought about what he said, and after reviewing salary information, it seems like X + 10% would be fair.
A lot of people are telling you to man up, but not how to do it. You are afraid to hurt your boss. Be more afraid to hurt your (possibly future) children by depriving them of a great college education, or the backing of their first business venture, etc, because you didn't earn a fair wage. Put the lives of people you love before the life of your boss, who is clearly prepared to do the right thing anyway.
Read all of those sources again, and think about the opportunities handed to those people, the risks they could take, the education they received because they started from wealth. They may not credit inheritance, but inheritance it is.
You're telling the story of the exceptions. That's precisely who everyone writes about and finds interesting. Most wealthy people throughout history are inheritors. Families often keep their wealth through 4 or 5 generations, so for every one 'real' success, you have 30-50 wealthy people who achieve success only because of the helping hand of their ancestors.
We don't tax all capital gains at the same rate already. There are already two buckets, one for investments held more than a year, and one for less. You're just suggesting more buckets, and it is actually quite reasonable to think we might achieve that.
Nah, look at the successful people in history, and see that almost all of them got helped off to a great start in life by wealthy parents. Then notice that the news stories are all about the tiny few who made it in spite of the lack of advantages, precisely because it is surprising and rare.
I'd say that given they can burn flesh now, they are probably only 10x power from carving through it. Ending the beam seems like a job for a transparent length of carbon nanotube fibers ending in a dispersant point (or reflectors if you want to conserve power). Really, the engineering problems seem entirely solvable at this point (expensively), and the cost will be coming down fast.
Yeah, the African food thing is a tired meme. Lose money shipping them capital equipment to improve their farming techniques and distribution instead if that's what you believe. You missed the point entirely with your response though.
And your response to socialism seems to have been mistaken for communism:
Fire mass at it at an angle, and for the mass, use plasma? Charge and angular momentum doesn't seem very hard to me. The hard part is reaching the nearest black hole to do it.
Exactly. Same thing with light sabers, and now you can buy one online for $200, and go start carving people up (albeit a bit slowly with this generation... the next generation should pretty much have nailed the tecnology though, just as cell phones are not quite communicators capable of reaching our orbital ships).
Maybe not if they are any of the 2nd tier search companies trying to distinguish themselves. Or alternatively, why wouldn't google/bing have better uses for their resources as well? It's not like this fairly substantial investment is going to bring in a lot of ad revenue.
Well, I think you can, actually. Capitalism is often described as 'greed is good'. Socialism at least ATTEMPTS to set up a system that actively resists the greed impulse. It may not succeed, and greed will exist no matter what system you set up, but that doesn't make every system equal in terms of how much greed is encouraged.
But what's the point of the article? Are there a lot of slashdotters trying to build their small open source business into a billion dollar enterprise? Does anyone other than the red hat guy really aim that high?
That's not true. You could lose a lot of money shipping food to starving people in Africa. The notion that the lack of profit there means there are better uses for your capital is ridiculously capitalism-centric thinking.
That deserves a huge funny mod. I love the idea of the CIA being involved in a huge conspiracy theory to make conspiracy theorists look bad. And that the revelation of such a program is bad for the conspiracy theorists. Hilarious!
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, one, maybe two more orders of magnitude in power output and you'll be able to kill crowds with ease with a device that fits in your pocket, and might not even have enough metal in it to set off a metal detector. How cool will that be!
You are going to aim it at the speed camera from your moving vehicle at 30+ mph? Color me impressed.
Only if sold as a medical device. For example, if you sold a shark as a contraceptive:
New Sexy(TM) Shark brand contraceptives uses the power of a real shark to prevent pregnancy.*
* Use of shark for contraceptive purposes may result in successful contraception by your parents.
Then the FDA will regulate your shark sales.
I dunno ... posts AC, gets defensive over obviously humorous post, sounds a little whacky to me.
Whack jobs. I mean seriously, who lives there post katrina?
I see the same thing, albeit at a much smaller company. We get thousands of very shiny resumes, from people with all sorts of checklist talents, who apparently actually possess none of them. We have about a 150 (fully qualified!) resumes : 1 hire ratio right now, and things are getting worse.
This is pretty easy to handle:
Find out what the fair salary is for your job, call that X. Tell your boss that you thought about what he said, and after reviewing salary information, it seems like X + 10% would be fair.
A lot of people are telling you to man up, but not how to do it. You are afraid to hurt your boss. Be more afraid to hurt your (possibly future) children by depriving them of a great college education, or the backing of their first business venture, etc, because you didn't earn a fair wage. Put the lives of people you love before the life of your boss, who is clearly prepared to do the right thing anyway.
Read all of those sources again, and think about the opportunities handed to those people, the risks they could take, the education they received because they started from wealth. They may not credit inheritance, but inheritance it is.
Thanks, oh man, that was hilarious.
You're telling the story of the exceptions. That's precisely who everyone writes about and finds interesting. Most wealthy people throughout history are inheritors. Families often keep their wealth through 4 or 5 generations, so for every one 'real' success, you have 30-50 wealthy people who achieve success only because of the helping hand of their ancestors.
We don't tax all capital gains at the same rate already. There are already two buckets, one for investments held more than a year, and one for less. You're just suggesting more buckets, and it is actually quite reasonable to think we might achieve that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
I think the estimate is that the world population will be shrinking annually by 2025 or earlier. That's not that far off.
Nah, look at the successful people in history, and see that almost all of them got helped off to a great start in life by wealthy parents. Then notice that the news stories are all about the tiny few who made it in spite of the lack of advantages, precisely because it is surprising and rare.
Go check out a kibbutz and tell them communism doesn't work. The soviets failed because they did it wrong.
Even the richest districts import a few poor children for their children to tease/abuse/learn how not to be poor from.
You were talking to an astronaut on the shuttle? Cool, the secret missions continue!
I'd say that given they can burn flesh now, they are probably only 10x power from carving through it. Ending the beam seems like a job for a transparent length of carbon nanotube fibers ending in a dispersant point (or reflectors if you want to conserve power). Really, the engineering problems seem entirely solvable at this point (expensively), and the cost will be coming down fast.
Yeah, the African food thing is a tired meme. Lose money shipping them capital equipment to improve their farming techniques and distribution instead if that's what you believe. You missed the point entirely with your response though.
And your response to socialism seems to have been mistaken for communism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Fire mass at it at an angle, and for the mass, use plasma? Charge and angular momentum doesn't seem very hard to me. The hard part is reaching the nearest black hole to do it.
Exactly. Same thing with light sabers, and now you can buy one online for $200, and go start carving people up (albeit a bit slowly with this generation ... the next generation should pretty much have nailed the tecnology though, just as cell phones are not quite communicators capable of reaching our orbital ships).
Maybe not if they are any of the 2nd tier search companies trying to distinguish themselves. Or alternatively, why wouldn't google/bing have better uses for their resources as well? It's not like this fairly substantial investment is going to bring in a lot of ad revenue.
Well, I think you can, actually. Capitalism is often described as 'greed is good'. Socialism at least ATTEMPTS to set up a system that actively resists the greed impulse. It may not succeed, and greed will exist no matter what system you set up, but that doesn't make every system equal in terms of how much greed is encouraged.
But what's the point of the article? Are there a lot of slashdotters trying to build their small open source business into a billion dollar enterprise? Does anyone other than the red hat guy really aim that high?
That's not true. You could lose a lot of money shipping food to starving people in Africa. The notion that the lack of profit there means there are better uses for your capital is ridiculously capitalism-centric thinking.
That deserves a huge funny mod. I love the idea of the CIA being involved in a huge conspiracy theory to make conspiracy theorists look bad. And that the revelation of such a program is bad for the conspiracy theorists. Hilarious!