But disproportionally more resources are exactly what the rich have. And to the other side of my point, my claim is that the cost of implementing these systems is coming down rapidly, to the point where it will soon be affordable for any of the ultra rich to build unassailable fortresses to defend against the mob.
The same was true of the tea party at the start. Lots of vague demands that gradually coalesced into a movement that swung the republican party further to the right on fiscal issues, and reduced the focus on the social side. An unorganized mob that turned into a major political force that has radically changed the way the two major parties interact. This actually seems likely to me to happen again, the 'Occupy Party' will begin putting candidates up against democrats, forcing democrats who don't want to lose their seats to swing further to the left on fiscal policy.
This is probably the last time in history that could work. Very soon the 1% will be able to afford robotically defended fortresses. Automated machine gun turrets capable of killing hundreds of thousands will render the anger of the mob irrelevant.
While employers have had abuses, very few have had abuses on the level of slavery. And evidence (like Stanford Prison Study) even suggests that the level of authority granted to slaveholders actually encourages abuse. As an institution, government has a key responsibility to promote more responsible models of interaction that account for the deficiencies of human nature. You bring up child labor, which you'll note we have also banned as another area that was fraught with abuse. Rather than look at sexual harassment as evidence that at-will employment is no better than slavery, you should note that in slavery it was in fact chronic rape that was the norm, and sexual harassment is a big step up. Further, government has continued to push the employer/employee relationship in a more positive direction, such that sexual harassment is largely not acceptable today, and I think this is a very appropriate role for government.
Suggesting that you can't walk away from your job because of responsibilities, while a slave can run away from slavery has to be disingenuous at best. They can't legally do that, and could have faced execution for doing so. Your worst case outcome from walking away from your job is likely to be better than 99% of the outcomes for slaves running away from slavery.
I do have to admit that there are many stupid people in this world, but I would again come back to government responsibility for that, given their role in education. There's no great solution there, yet, though I have hope that may change given the successes of things like Khan academy. The future could be a vastly better place if we can figure out the education problem.
It's essentially different on all the points I made. I really can't see how that's unclear. Having the freedom to walk away from the situation at any time negates all of the issues I posed with slavery.
Or to answer your other question, it can be claimed that the government's purpose is not to protect people from their own poor decisions, but instead to protect them from being forced into those poor decisions by their lack of power, which is what actually happens in nearly every case. The idea of the 'poor decision maker' is a strawman, which is perhaps the essential point you are missing. Yes, there are a few people who tend to poor decisions, but most of the poor decisions that you're thinking of are ones made under duress, not due to stupidity.
And furthermore, while there can be a separate debate about the rightness of government provided education, so long as government provided education is in fact the norm, the government clearly bears responsibility if they educate you so poorly you cannot make effective decisions.
It's a bad idea for a number of reasons. Here are a few:
The purchasing side has historically tended to head straight into abusive behavior. The purchasing side has no way of guaranteeing they remain liquid and able to provide for your long term care after you are no longer able to work. People selling themselves rarely have the leverage to ensure they get a fair deal, and typically have the least leverage they will ever have at the time of sale (this is the fundamental problem with most of libertarian theory, btw). People selling themselves rarely have the education to compute a fair $SOMESUM, and historically buyers have tended to grossly underpay.
It somewhat depends on how old you are. Up to about the age of 35, a 45 minute commute is very manageable. After that, it will start to cause health problems that will scare you.
The OP is senior out of 3 developers. If that's not can't-survive-without-you, how low do the numbers have to go? If OP was the only developer, would you still say that the company would be fine without them? Don't be too quick to blame on arrogance what can be adequately explained by guilt.
MS goes on without Gates; Apple goes on without Jobs. Think the OP is more central to his company than those guys were to theirs?
Even the solo dev can be replaced. And if you've done such a poor job of documentation that replacing you would be onerous, then you should feel guilty.
Yes, a company like Microsoft with (literally) a hundred executives ready and dying for the opportunity to step up into Gates' position is less reliant on Gates than a small company with 3 developers with no one ready to step up to fill the most senior developer's shoes.
They did consider it, the critic had a brain fail and misunderstood their paper. The researchers are doing him a kindness and 'clarifying' it for him, even though everyone else got that they had, in fact, accounted for this.
It's not news for one of two reasons, because one of two things is true:
Contaldi has poor reading skills. 'Peer review' is of low value from people who can't understand straightforward explanations that were understood by others.
or:
Science is proceeding as normal, and the outcome is still unknown .
Wake me when science reaches a conclusion, every minor typography fix on this paper is not newsworthy.
Whether the church is promoting it by deliberate intent or by accident, they are definitely promoting it. I know ~50 catholics from at least 10 different congregations with these sorts of thought problems.
Yes, don't ever click such a button, instead, make it clear that you don't agree to the contract by modifying the version of the executable that you purchased and legally own according to POS principles to not even display any such contract.
Slashdot Mirror
But disproportionally more resources are exactly what the rich have. And to the other side of my point, my claim is that the cost of implementing these systems is coming down rapidly, to the point where it will soon be affordable for any of the ultra rich to build unassailable fortresses to defend against the mob.
The same was true of the tea party at the start. Lots of vague demands that gradually coalesced into a movement that swung the republican party further to the right on fiscal issues, and reduced the focus on the social side. An unorganized mob that turned into a major political force that has radically changed the way the two major parties interact. This actually seems likely to me to happen again, the 'Occupy Party' will begin putting candidates up against democrats, forcing democrats who don't want to lose their seats to swing further to the left on fiscal policy.
This is probably the last time in history that could work. Very soon the 1% will be able to afford robotically defended fortresses. Automated machine gun turrets capable of killing hundreds of thousands will render the anger of the mob irrelevant.
Ok, responses on a few points.
While employers have had abuses, very few have had abuses on the level of slavery. And evidence (like Stanford Prison Study) even suggests that the level of authority granted to slaveholders actually encourages abuse. As an institution, government has a key responsibility to promote more responsible models of interaction that account for the deficiencies of human nature. You bring up child labor, which you'll note we have also banned as another area that was fraught with abuse. Rather than look at sexual harassment as evidence that at-will employment is no better than slavery, you should note that in slavery it was in fact chronic rape that was the norm, and sexual harassment is a big step up. Further, government has continued to push the employer/employee relationship in a more positive direction, such that sexual harassment is largely not acceptable today, and I think this is a very appropriate role for government.
Suggesting that you can't walk away from your job because of responsibilities, while a slave can run away from slavery has to be disingenuous at best. They can't legally do that, and could have faced execution for doing so. Your worst case outcome from walking away from your job is likely to be better than 99% of the outcomes for slaves running away from slavery.
I do have to admit that there are many stupid people in this world, but I would again come back to government responsibility for that, given their role in education. There's no great solution there, yet, though I have hope that may change given the successes of things like Khan academy. The future could be a vastly better place if we can figure out the education problem.
It's essentially different on all the points I made. I really can't see how that's unclear. Having the freedom to walk away from the situation at any time negates all of the issues I posed with slavery.
Or to answer your other question, it can be claimed that the government's purpose is not to protect people from their own poor decisions, but instead to protect them from being forced into those poor decisions by their lack of power, which is what actually happens in nearly every case. The idea of the 'poor decision maker' is a strawman, which is perhaps the essential point you are missing. Yes, there are a few people who tend to poor decisions, but most of the poor decisions that you're thinking of are ones made under duress, not due to stupidity.
And furthermore, while there can be a separate debate about the rightness of government provided education, so long as government provided education is in fact the norm, the government clearly bears responsibility if they educate you so poorly you cannot make effective decisions.
It's a bad idea for a number of reasons. Here are a few:
The purchasing side has historically tended to head straight into abusive behavior.
The purchasing side has no way of guaranteeing they remain liquid and able to provide for your long term care after you are no longer able to work.
People selling themselves rarely have the leverage to ensure they get a fair deal, and typically have the least leverage they will ever have at the time of sale (this is the fundamental problem with most of libertarian theory, btw).
People selling themselves rarely have the education to compute a fair $SOMESUM, and historically buyers have tended to grossly underpay.
The number of comments per article is probably closer to 300 or 500.
Hey hey, no one, not even fox news, has more reputable investigative reporting than the Onion.
It somewhat depends on how old you are. Up to about the age of 35, a 45 minute commute is very manageable. After that, it will start to cause health problems that will scare you.
The OP is senior out of 3 developers. If that's not can't-survive-without-you, how low do the numbers have to go? If OP was the only developer, would you still say that the company would be fine without them? Don't be too quick to blame on arrogance what can be adequately explained by guilt.
MS goes on without Gates; Apple goes on without Jobs. Think the OP is more central to his company than those guys were to theirs?
Even the solo dev can be replaced. And if you've done such a poor job of documentation that replacing you would be onerous, then you should feel guilty.
Yes, a company like Microsoft with (literally) a hundred executives ready and dying for the opportunity to step up into Gates' position is less reliant on Gates than a small company with 3 developers with no one ready to step up to fill the most senior developer's shoes.
Cmon mods, this post has got to hit +5, Troll.
Got Milk is advertisement, not PSA.
But whether or not any given defendant will surrender before fighting you for years to verify that is an open question.
They did consider it, the critic had a brain fail and misunderstood their paper. The researchers are doing him a kindness and 'clarifying' it for him, even though everyone else got that they had, in fact, accounted for this.
It's not news for one of two reasons, because one of two things is true:
Contaldi has poor reading skills. 'Peer review' is of low value from people who can't understand straightforward explanations that were understood by others.
or:
Science is proceeding as normal, and the outcome is still unknown .
Wake me when science reaches a conclusion, every minor typography fix on this paper is not newsworthy.
Whether the church is promoting it by deliberate intent or by accident, they are definitely promoting it. I know ~50 catholics from at least 10 different congregations with these sorts of thought problems.
Ah, but they couldn't know that when they awarded it. ;-)
Because giving hope and inspiration to a long oppressed group of people is nothing.
Yes, don't ever click such a button, instead, make it clear that you don't agree to the contract by modifying the version of the executable that you purchased and legally own according to POS principles to not even display any such contract.
That's strategy, not irony.
But fat uneducated Americans deserve jobs!
Why does everyone insist on trying to find a way to monetize my hobby! I do this for fun!
As I said, it's a hobby, not a business.
My hobby is handing out poisoned candy from my car. Evolution in action!
Because the Kindle Fire exists, and they want to drive loyal customers to the higher margin product?