Microsoft's policy of contracting and buying potential vendors out from under competitors is not my idea of capitalism. If that sort of thing were acceptable, then it would be ok for companies to pay each other to blacklist former employees. You could be under the assumption that people are free to make whatever contracts they like regardless of the conditions; so if a company wants to use Microsofts products, then it's too bad if they have to turn down business from whoever Microsoft stipulates in the contract. The flaw to that reasoning is that Capitalism is about the protection of individual and INALIENABLE rights. It's ludicrous to think that the inalienable right to make contracts with any party you desire could be taken away by another contract. What's next, Microsoft will ask for the rights to your first born child as a stipulation for using Windows? There's a word for contracts that require a party to do something illegal or something that they cannot legally be compelled to do: Void. Microsoft made their own legal bed, now they can sleep in it.
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices. - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson , August 13, 1813
When it comes to nature VS nurture, I'm solidly in the nature camp. Psychoanalysis = bullshit in my book. It leads you into the trap of objectifying your emotions and blaming your miserable feelings and anxieties on environmental and social circumstances. I wasted years of my life trying to apply character and will-power to my life's problems only to fail and beat myself up over my weakness. Character and willpower are knowing what is, and doing the right thing; but neither of them will make you feel like there's any point in living; or doing anything else for that matter.
A few years ago I had tried the SSRI's to no effect and went back to trying to carry on as if I wasn't suicidally depressed. Out of desperation I finally researched the physical side of my condition and settled on Wellbutrin as a good place to start where I left off with the SSRIs.
It has improved my disposition, concentration, and ability to sleep restfully, immensely. I'm far from cured, but at least I can function again. Once I've been on the Wellbutrin for a bit longer, I'm going to experiment with other antidepressants and see if they don't yield a more complete recovery. I'll probably go with Effexor, and at some point in my life I'll take Selegiline chronically to help preserve my dopamine producing cells. I haven't come close to playing out potentially effective options yet.
I've never seen Survivor, but I hope that it doesn't lead people down the path of trying to apply character alone to a very physical disease.
Having your intellect in order is helpfull, but it won't do anything to prevent the physical deterioration of your neurochemistry and brain. I wouldn't tell someone to apply 100% character to cure their blues any more than I'd tell someone with cancer to exercise and eat right, without chemotherapy, to cure their disease. (You are extraordinarily lucky to have recovered from chronic clinical depression and insomnia without medical intervention.) Physical diseases require physical solutions; however, Survivor is fiction, I like Tom Hanks, and the movie's topic would resonate with me. I'll have to rent it some time.
Like yours, my depression left my life in ruins; I'm still picking up the pieces to this day. We both also learned valuable lessons from our experiences with our disease. Still, I've known people who have been happy and wise their whole lives, and having my rathers, I'd rather be a better person intrinsically than through pain and suffering. Thanks for sharing your experience and I wish your remission to continue. I share your optimism for the future, though I've taken a different path for mine.
I would correct your false assumptions about Selegiline and MAO inhibitors in general but Courageous did it for me.
If you read my comment more carefully you'll find that I mentioned a need for research into the life-span enhancing effects of Selegiline. By no means did I say that rat research made for conclusive results in humans. However, the effects of Selegiline as a neuroprotector in humans and as an effective Treatment for Parkinson's disease has been proven. Further, Selegiline greatly increases the time a patient with Parkinsons can go before they have to start supplementing L-Dopa to enhance what little dopamine production they have left.
As for your assertions about natural states of human-ness and unfair advantages; that's your hangup not mine. It's an inconsistant hangup at that. So are the poor not going to be able to afford nootropics or is everybody going to be forced to take them? You can't have it both ways. Not that I think any of your dystopic scenarios will come to pass. First, we do not live in a natural state now, otherwise we would not be at the top of the food chain. Second, why would anyone NOT want to be happier and smarter? I don't know about you but I've NEVER had anyone complain to me, "Gee Kalabajoui, my life has been nothing but one happy day after another, I sure hope that I have a miserable day soon. Not to mention, I'm too damned smart!" Do you really think that humanity's natural state of stupidity and misery will lead to equality? Who are you or anyone to tell me whether I can or can't, should or shouldn't enhance myself by whatever means I see fit anyway?
"Why can't I sleep when the sun is on the other side of the planet!!!????"
Could be DFSD, Delayed Phase Sleep Disorder. I have it, and I find that the morning sun has a similar effect on me. If you do have it, it's incurable. The only thing you can do is control your exposure to natural and artificial light to treat it. Easier said than done. Keeping your bedroom pitch-black or wearing one of those eye covering masks to avoid the morning sunlight might help you. It works for me. Even better, I've found that taking Wellbutrin in the morning has improved the quality of my sleep, but that's a whole other can of worms for you. It could also be that if you do have it, your night job accellerated it for you rather than caused it.
Oh, the joy of going to bed at 10:00pm, waking up at 1:00am, falling back asleep at 5:00am and getting up at 6:00am. When I give in to my DFSD and go to bed at 3:00am or later, I sleep straight through to 10:00am or 11:00am. With the negative effects on my employment options and social life, it's hardly a perfect solution. Hope this info helps, if it doesn't, I still feel your pain.
I'm glad somebody understands what us insomniacs go through. Before I started taking Wellbutrin a month ago, to treat my major depression, I was unable to concentrate or mentally function without at least eight hours of sleep or more. Probably because the quality of my sleep was poor. Now, I seem to be able to get by on seven hours, and three or four in a pinch. Whenever I've told anyone that I NEED eight hours of sleep to concentrate, they've looked at me like I was stupid. Of course, that's nowhere near as bad as trying to explain to someone with a normal circadian rhythym why my Delayed Phase Sleep Disorder makes it next to impossible for me to get a good nights sleep if I go to bed before 3:00am. (No matter how long I keep morning hours, I never adjust.) Even if they do understand, it falls back to, "Oh, well you got four hours of sleep huh? Well I only get by on two hours of sleep a night so you've got it better than me."
That reminds me; have you ever noticed that however much sleep you tell somebody you need, they always say that they get by on less? This applies almost no matter how little sleep you claim you need! If you say, "I need eight hours," they say they need six. If you say you need six hours, they say they need four. If you say you need four, they say that they get by on two. It's astute of you to notice that the press picked up on this. The moment I read about this study I KNEW that people would misread it to justify our American culture of sleep deprivation machismo.
The fact that your knowledge and attitude is in the minority scares me. You would think that personel managers would appreciate the fact that somebody wants the night job they're offering because they like the hours. Nope! Not at all. If you tell a personel manager that you're a night owl, even if it's a night shift position they want to fill, most of them will treat you like you're lazy and try to rush the interview to get you out of their office ASAP. Like you, I think that this study has the potential to do more harm than good if it's misunderstood.
"they were too energetic, alive and aspirational to lye in bed."
More like they had a more robust dopaminergic driven brain chemistry than average. High levels of dopamine in the brain would account for every symptom you describe in your go-getter friends. I'm tired of the elitist attitude that most people take when it comes to physically driven abilities. All the character in the world won't overcome physical deficits in your brain. If you don't believe me, just ask my profoundly retarded 27-year-old sister. Now, medical science can do nothing for her at this time, but for people with milder personality, intelligence, or zest-for-life issues; there's literally an arsenal of effective medications. From helping people with depression, social anxiety, or poor concentration function better; to helping 'normal' people enhance their natural gifts, there are much better options than telling people to deal-with-it, or suck-it-up. Or worse, the attitude that it's just some people's lot in life to be intellectually and emotionally inferior; "oh do I thank God that I'm not one of them."
As for life-span, the human brain only has forty thousand cells that produce dopamine, which die off at a rate of thirteen percent a decade in adults. As your dopamine producing cells die off you need more sleep, are more easily fatigued, and overall take less pleasure from life. Have you ever noticed how some old people say things like, "I'm bored with life because I've experienced everything and I'm tired because I'm old. In a way I'm glad my life is winding down. Besides, who wants to live forever anyway?" Then you have old people who love life just as much as when they were young. That's the difference between normal and faulty dopamine metabolism. Eventually, when you only have twenty percent of your dopamine producing cells left, you start to develop Parkinson's disease; when you get to ten percent or under, you die.
It doesn't have to be that way; Selegiline, an MAO-B inhibitor, has been shown to enhance dopamine function, protect your precious dopamine producing cells, and show nootropic properties. In rats, it greatly increases life-span and overall robustness. Why isn't there more research into the life prolonging affects of this drug in humans? Two words: Social Security. People resist the idea of brain enhancing drugs because of scarcity mentality and insecurity. It saddens me, but I'm not going to let other people's hang-ups prevent me from improving the quality of my life.
Well, women can get paid for sex too. Does it follow that they should all prostitute themselves rather than having sex for fun or as an expression of love? I understand your point, I just don't agree with the underlying premise that money is the most important reason for doing everything. One person's work is another person's hobby. You can bitch about it, work around it, or join the crowd; but you can't stop it from happening.
We obviously have fundamental differences in our views on what's a reasonable media of exchange for time and labor. We've both said our respective pieces on the subject and niether of us agree with the other's views. You're welcome to a rebuttal of my last statement, but I have nothing further to say on the matter. I enjoyed our chat even though I didn't recieve a dime for it;-)
"...you're restricting the need for development by a company when they can just hack the alternative a lil bit for free."
Giving credit where credit is due, I'll agree with you in that scenarios like the one you outline above would have the effect of displacing some programmers temporarily. You also help me make my case. Which is:
By saving money and not having to reinvent the wheel, a company can use the money saved for other programming projects, capital investment, or a competitive edge in pricing. New projects will lead them to retain their current programming employees; capital investments in other parts of their business will lead to growth and a need to expand their staff; price competition increases market share, benefits the consumer, and increases the overall efficiency and growth of the economy.
Face it, in a free and capitalistic society people are going to do what they please with their time and labor whether you approve of it or not. It's all about supply and demand; which can apply to coding in exchange for money, or coding in exchange for the satisfaction it brings. You can choose to either adapt to this reality or be a victim of it. Adam Smith's invisible hand massages those who understand it, and slaps those who don't.
There are thousands of examples of software written by altruistic programmers who code for the joy of it and give their work away. It's a given that they make little or no money for their efforts directly. Indirectly, they gain experience; build their resumes, and their standing in the programming community with their work, which speaks for its self. The opportunity to be paid for their code materializes when a business needs someone to implement, maintain, and or customize it for their particular use. (I'll bet the number of programmers who'll volunteer their time to a for-profit business, for any reason, is vanishingly small.) Not only does open-source software increase productivity and create jobs, it also encourages competition and standardization. Best of all for programmers, it gives them greater control and autonomy over the technical and practical direction of their work. The open-source philosophy is also capitalism at its best because it fulfills the promises of trickle-down economics and the old saying, "A rising tide lifts all boats." You shouldn't worry about the employability of programmers on account of open-source software. To the contrary, a background in the open-source community is one of the few things that will set you apart from the hordes of semi-skilled IT opportunists and H1B-Visa holders. Which is more desirable to you, being an innovator who expands the IT market and creates jobs for skilled and semi-skilled workers alike, or competing for work with the aforementioned competition?
"Beware he who would restrict your access to information; for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Or, how about this one:
"In our country are evangelists and zealots of many different political, economic and religious persuasions whose fanatical conviction is that
all thought is divinely classified into two kinds--that which is their own and that which is false
and dangerous." --JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON
I'm sure you mean well, but it's attitudes like yours that lubricate the slippery slope which leads to the pit of thought crimes. Who are you to judge the fitness of decisions other parents make regarding what kind of entertainment is appropriate for their children? The first quote is from a "violent" PC game and the second is from Peter Mc.Williams "Aint Nobody's Business if You Do." You can read the latter reference online by following this url:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm
Even if you don't agree with his philosophies, you'll no doubt find it an interesting read.
I'm not advocating socialism by any means. It's
my opinion that the only way to own an idea in a
capitalistic society is to either keep it to
yourself or only give it away under a non-disclosure contract. Copying is merely competition
, which is a highly capitalistic notion. Now any
material representations of your ideas that you
personally had made, or had made on your behalf, belong to you to sell or give away as you see fit.
I could go on, but instead I'll give you this
link (http://www.capitalism.org) for further thought.
No it's not ok to steal a car from a dealer, but it is ok to build an exact duplicate of the car with your own materials and resources. In school, copying is considered to be wrong because you rob yourself of an opportunity to learn as well as committing fraud. For us adults, copying is a way to gain upward mobility and better ourselves. Because most humans are not born in a cave or raised by wolves, ALL of us copy and derive our intellect from other human beings. We may add our own individual flavors; but ours are derivitive works that should benefit our contemporaries and those who follow us; as the derivitive works of those who preceded us, benefit us. True theft is to take fruits of the collective human intellectual commons and pervert them into private property.
You have no idea how I spend my time or what I do for a living so your speculation about my blood-sucking-maggoty-life-style is inflamatory and I'll informed. You're also mistaken if you think that my malice doesn't extend to liberals as well as Christians. Comparing the merits of liberals vs Christians is like comparing the merits of fleas vs lice.
"...you would understand how frustrating it is to work for you money and have some liberal take it away and give it to some lazy ass down the street..."
You mean like the forty billion dollar Bush giveaway to the airline industry? Both liberals and Christians are guilty of tax and spend policies but in my opinion, some Christians work harder to squash civil liberties than most liberals. It may have once been true that Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility, but judging from our recent ballooning deficits and pork-barrel giveaways, they seem to have reversed roles. Liberals are the lessor of two evils in my opinion because they don't try to legislate my sex life or religious beliefs.
I was referring to Christians who would use the government and political influence as a bully's pulpit to force their ideas of morality down peoples throats. To use force to make someone's beliefs conform to yours is counter to everything Jesus taught; it's highly un-Christian. Real Christians, like my best friend, support freedom for ALL religions. Ignorant Christians, such as those who don't know that their god's true name is Yahweh, hide behind the banner of freedom for all religions. They work diligently to suppress any belief that doesn't conform to their ideals. From anti-abortion lobbying, to trying to teach Christian creation myth in school, to pushing for tax money to be used in Christian schools and institutions, to laws that ban consensual sex practices they find immoral; Cristians have shown a complete lack of tolerance for other religions and beliefs. For that matter, every time I hear the word 'immorality,' it's coming out of the mouth of a Christian who really means any morality that doesn't agree with theirs.
The arrogant way morality is used by Christians makes my blood boil.
As for Bush, he epitomizes the Christian arrogance I so despise; and his appointee, Attorney General Ashcroft is willing to put teeth behind that arrogance judging by his statement,
"Some people say that you can't legislate morality
, but I say you CAN legislate morality." But more on-topic, Bush, through Ashcroft, has hobbled the DOJ's attempts to reign in Microft's anti-competitive business practices. (At least the current judge overseeing the remedy phase of Microsoft's anti-trust trial seems to be making a genuine effort to reach a solution that is consistent with law and the public interest.) However, I think that they are just a symptom of a much larger systemic breakdown of America's ideals of innovation, free-markets and democracy. Going back to the first sentence of my last post, you can probably gather that I'm not sure that those ideals ever existed as anything other than an abstract concepts for most Americans.
At the turn of the century America was a nation populated by a bunch of unsophisticated, childish, ignorant, and easily deceived rubes. The more things change, the more things stay the same.
All the way back in our last election's primaries it was a well known fact that Bush was brought to us by the reactionary, jingoistic right, and sponsored by big-corporate-America. I said to myself, "I'll vote for a monkey in a suit before I vote for this bought & paid for asshole." Did anyone else even stop to consider who's president Bush really intended on being? No, of course not! The mindless sheep who helped put him in office did so out of the un-Christian desire to force their concepts of morality down everbody's throat; and money minded people and business owners voted for him because they thought he'd be "good for business." Now, at a bare minimum, we have to endure another four years of Bush's anti-civil liberties executive orders, political appointments, and policies; and the burden of yet more interest payments on our mind-bogglingly large national debt for no better reason than to line Bush's handlers pockets. Don't even get me started on Congress or the Senate!
I have no optimism that us Americans will wake up and put anything more than the shallowest thought into our collective political decisions. All the while, the pigs will continue their feeding frenzy at the public trough and become ever greedier and bolder in a political climate that increasingly seems to be marked by apathy and a lack of accountability.
Isn't it funny how business and management justify low wages with free market capitalism platitudes; yet when Addam Smith's invisible hand smacks them around with a scarcity of workers and high salary demands, they complain that it's bad for the economy? I'm all for free markets, but I think that you have to take the good with the bad no matter which side of the employment fence you stand.
Personally, I think that to have children when you cannot afford to feed them is the product of selfishness and ignorance. Anyone with an education and scruples would abhor such a cruel act as bringing a life into this world when it's only potential is to starve and suffer. A conspiracy of wealthy bigots to depopulate the poor is no justification for having children you can't feed or shelter. Sadly, the people who most need to internalize these attitudes are the same people who lack even an opportunity to educate themselves. I would label them as mostly blameless due to their lack of knowledge, but tragically wrong.
Re:Mediocre people can no longer get good jobs! D'
on
The Laid-off Techie
·
· Score: 2
"...the brief period of crazyness when mediocre people could get good jobs is over!"
Yeah, like when my dad was a warehouse laborer making $15.00 an hour in the 70's. It's a good thing that this 'middle class' madness is coming to an end.
I know what you mean about planting seeds and taking risks. My ambitions to go back to school full time have changed to part time. Out of the blue, a recruiting company calls me and puts me in a $22.00 an hour phone support position. 45K a year with a high school diploma and A+ Certification in today's job market. I'm such a lucky bastard! Like yourself, I'm going to bank and invest the bulk of my earnings towards an early retirement while continuing my schooling as a fallback plan in case my kick-ass job falls through.
"Just because something helps the country economically doesn't mean it should be done. The ends do not justify the means."
An unregulated economy is a slavering mindless beast that feeds on artificial scarcity, slavery, and human misery in general. Granted, the economy also provides a means of creating and distributing wealth. However, the People should be master of this particular 'beast' and keep it on a short leash lest it forget who's in charge.
There's a difference between dissent and intentionally spewing misinformation. Such as calling copyright infringement 'theft' and 'piracy', and implying that fair use and reverse engineering are illegal. Sorry, I call them how I see them, and I see a troll. The subtlety of this particular troll obviously went over your head and the crackhead who modded me down as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's policy of contracting and buying potential vendors out from under competitors is not my idea of capitalism. If that sort of thing were acceptable, then it would be ok for companies to pay each other to blacklist former employees. You could be under the assumption that people are free to make whatever contracts they like regardless of the conditions; so if a company wants to use Microsofts products, then it's too bad if they have to turn down business from whoever Microsoft stipulates in the contract. The flaw to that reasoning is that Capitalism is about the protection of individual and INALIENABLE rights. It's ludicrous to think that the inalienable right to make contracts with any party you desire could be taken away by another contract. What's next, Microsoft will ask for the rights to your first born child as a stipulation for using Windows? There's a word for contracts that require a party to do something illegal or something that they cannot legally be compelled to do: Void. Microsoft made their own legal bed, now they can sleep in it.
Sorry, I forgot to change the header to "Jefferson thought so." I also forgot to include the source of the letter,
f /j efl220.htm
http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/P/tj3/writings/br
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson , August 13, 1813
When it comes to nature VS nurture, I'm solidly in the nature camp. Psychoanalysis = bullshit in my book. It leads you into the trap of objectifying your emotions and blaming your miserable feelings and anxieties on environmental and social circumstances. I wasted years of my life trying to apply character and will-power to my life's problems only to fail and beat myself up over my weakness. Character and willpower are knowing what is, and doing the right thing; but neither of them will make you feel like there's any point in living; or doing anything else for that matter.
A few years ago I had tried the SSRI's to no effect and went back to trying to carry on as if I wasn't suicidally depressed. Out of desperation I finally researched the physical side of my condition and settled on Wellbutrin as a good place to start where I left off with the SSRIs.
It has improved my disposition, concentration, and ability to sleep restfully, immensely. I'm far from cured, but at least I can function again. Once I've been on the Wellbutrin for a bit longer, I'm going to experiment with other antidepressants and see if they don't yield a more complete recovery. I'll probably go with Effexor, and at some point in my life I'll take Selegiline chronically to help preserve my dopamine producing cells. I haven't come close to playing out potentially effective options yet.
I've never seen Survivor, but I hope that it doesn't lead people down the path of trying to apply character alone to a very physical disease.
Having your intellect in order is helpfull, but it won't do anything to prevent the physical deterioration of your neurochemistry and brain. I wouldn't tell someone to apply 100% character to cure their blues any more than I'd tell someone with cancer to exercise and eat right, without chemotherapy, to cure their disease. (You are extraordinarily lucky to have recovered from chronic clinical depression and insomnia without medical intervention.) Physical diseases require physical solutions; however, Survivor is fiction, I like Tom Hanks, and the movie's topic would resonate with me. I'll have to rent it some time.
Like yours, my depression left my life in ruins; I'm still picking up the pieces to this day. We both also learned valuable lessons from our experiences with our disease. Still, I've known people who have been happy and wise their whole lives, and having my rathers, I'd rather be a better person intrinsically than through pain and suffering. Thanks for sharing your experience and I wish your remission to continue. I share your optimism for the future, though I've taken a different path for mine.
I would correct your false assumptions about Selegiline and MAO inhibitors in general but Courageous did it for me.
If you read my comment more carefully you'll find that I mentioned a need for research into the life-span enhancing effects of Selegiline. By no means did I say that rat research made for conclusive results in humans. However, the effects of Selegiline as a neuroprotector in humans and as an effective Treatment for Parkinson's disease has been proven. Further, Selegiline greatly increases the time a patient with Parkinsons can go before they have to start supplementing L-Dopa to enhance what little dopamine production they have left.
As for your assertions about natural states of human-ness and unfair advantages; that's your hangup not mine. It's an inconsistant hangup at that. So are the poor not going to be able to afford nootropics or is everybody going to be forced to take them? You can't have it both ways. Not that I think any of your dystopic scenarios will come to pass. First, we do not live in a natural state now, otherwise we would not be at the top of the food chain. Second, why would anyone NOT want to be happier and smarter? I don't know about you but I've NEVER had anyone complain to me, "Gee Kalabajoui, my life has been nothing but one happy day after another, I sure hope that I have a miserable day soon. Not to mention, I'm too damned smart!" Do you really think that humanity's natural state of stupidity and misery will lead to equality? Who are you or anyone to tell me whether I can or can't, should or shouldn't enhance myself by whatever means I see fit anyway?
"Why can't I sleep when the sun is on the other side of the planet!!!????"
Could be DFSD, Delayed Phase Sleep Disorder. I have it, and I find that the morning sun has a similar effect on me. If you do have it, it's incurable. The only thing you can do is control your exposure to natural and artificial light to treat it. Easier said than done. Keeping your bedroom pitch-black or wearing one of those eye covering masks to avoid the morning sunlight might help you. It works for me. Even better, I've found that taking Wellbutrin in the morning has improved the quality of my sleep, but that's a whole other can of worms for you. It could also be that if you do have it, your night job accellerated it for you rather than caused it.
Oh, the joy of going to bed at 10:00pm, waking up at 1:00am, falling back asleep at 5:00am and getting up at 6:00am. When I give in to my DFSD and go to bed at 3:00am or later, I sleep straight through to 10:00am or 11:00am. With the negative effects on my employment options and social life, it's hardly a perfect solution. Hope this info helps, if it doesn't, I still feel your pain.
I'm glad somebody understands what us insomniacs go through. Before I started taking Wellbutrin a month ago, to treat my major depression, I was unable to concentrate or mentally function without at least eight hours of sleep or more. Probably because the quality of my sleep was poor. Now, I seem to be able to get by on seven hours, and three or four in a pinch. Whenever I've told anyone that I NEED eight hours of sleep to concentrate, they've looked at me like I was stupid. Of course, that's nowhere near as bad as trying to explain to someone with a normal circadian rhythym why my Delayed Phase Sleep Disorder makes it next to impossible for me to get a good nights sleep if I go to bed before 3:00am. (No matter how long I keep morning hours, I never adjust.) Even if they do understand, it falls back to, "Oh, well you got four hours of sleep huh? Well I only get by on two hours of sleep a night so you've got it better than me."
That reminds me; have you ever noticed that however much sleep you tell somebody you need, they always say that they get by on less? This applies almost no matter how little sleep you claim you need! If you say, "I need eight hours," they say they need six. If you say you need six hours, they say they need four. If you say you need four, they say that they get by on two. It's astute of you to notice that the press picked up on this. The moment I read about this study I KNEW that people would misread it to justify our American culture of sleep deprivation machismo.
The fact that your knowledge and attitude is in the minority scares me. You would think that personel managers would appreciate the fact that somebody wants the night job they're offering because they like the hours. Nope! Not at all. If you tell a personel manager that you're a night owl, even if it's a night shift position they want to fill, most of them will treat you like you're lazy and try to rush the interview to get you out of their office ASAP. Like you, I think that this study has the potential to do more harm than good if it's misunderstood.
"they were too energetic, alive and aspirational to lye in bed."
More like they had a more robust dopaminergic driven brain chemistry than average. High levels of dopamine in the brain would account for every symptom you describe in your go-getter friends. I'm tired of the elitist attitude that most people take when it comes to physically driven abilities. All the character in the world won't overcome physical deficits in your brain. If you don't believe me, just ask my profoundly retarded 27-year-old sister. Now, medical science can do nothing for her at this time, but for people with milder personality, intelligence, or zest-for-life issues; there's literally an arsenal of effective medications. From helping people with depression, social anxiety, or poor concentration function better; to helping 'normal' people enhance their natural gifts, there are much better options than telling people to deal-with-it, or suck-it-up. Or worse, the attitude that it's just some people's lot in life to be intellectually and emotionally inferior; "oh do I thank God that I'm not one of them."
As for life-span, the human brain only has forty thousand cells that produce dopamine, which die off at a rate of thirteen percent a decade in adults. As your dopamine producing cells die off you need more sleep, are more easily fatigued, and overall take less pleasure from life. Have you ever noticed how some old people say things like, "I'm bored with life because I've experienced everything and I'm tired because I'm old. In a way I'm glad my life is winding down. Besides, who wants to live forever anyway?" Then you have old people who love life just as much as when they were young. That's the difference between normal and faulty dopamine metabolism. Eventually, when you only have twenty percent of your dopamine producing cells left, you start to develop Parkinson's disease; when you get to ten percent or under, you die.
It doesn't have to be that way; Selegiline, an MAO-B inhibitor, has been shown to enhance dopamine function, protect your precious dopamine producing cells, and show nootropic properties. In rats, it greatly increases life-span and overall robustness. Why isn't there more research into the life prolonging affects of this drug in humans? Two words: Social Security. People resist the idea of brain enhancing drugs because of scarcity mentality and insecurity. It saddens me, but I'm not going to let other people's hang-ups prevent me from improving the quality of my life.
Well, women can get paid for sex too. Does it follow that they should all prostitute themselves rather than having sex for fun or as an expression of love? I understand your point, I just don't agree with the underlying premise that money is the most important reason for doing everything. One person's work is another person's hobby. You can bitch about it, work around it, or join the crowd; but you can't stop it from happening.
We obviously have fundamental differences in our views on what's a reasonable media of exchange for time and labor. We've both said our respective pieces on the subject and niether of us agree with the other's views. You're welcome to a rebuttal of my last statement, but I have nothing further to say on the matter. I enjoyed our chat even though I didn't recieve a dime for it;-)
"...you're restricting the need for development by a company when they can just hack the alternative a lil bit for free."
Giving credit where credit is due, I'll agree with you in that scenarios like the one you outline above would have the effect of displacing some programmers temporarily. You also help me make my case. Which is:
By saving money and not having to reinvent the wheel, a company can use the money saved for other programming projects, capital investment, or a competitive edge in pricing. New projects will lead them to retain their current programming employees; capital investments in other parts of their business will lead to growth and a need to expand their staff; price competition increases market share, benefits the consumer, and increases the overall efficiency and growth of the economy.
Face it, in a free and capitalistic society people are going to do what they please with their time and labor whether you approve of it or not. It's all about supply and demand; which can apply to coding in exchange for money, or coding in exchange for the satisfaction it brings. You can choose to either adapt to this reality or be a victim of it. Adam Smith's invisible hand massages those who understand it, and slaps those who don't.
There are thousands of examples of software written by altruistic programmers who code for the joy of it and give their work away. It's a given that they make little or no money for their efforts directly. Indirectly, they gain experience; build their resumes, and their standing in the programming community with their work, which speaks for its self. The opportunity to be paid for their code materializes when a business needs someone to implement, maintain, and or customize it for their particular use. (I'll bet the number of programmers who'll volunteer their time to a for-profit business, for any reason, is vanishingly small.) Not only does open-source software increase productivity and create jobs, it also encourages competition and standardization. Best of all for programmers, it gives them greater control and autonomy over the technical and practical direction of their work. The open-source philosophy is also capitalism at its best because it fulfills the promises of trickle-down economics and the old saying, "A rising tide lifts all boats." You shouldn't worry about the employability of programmers on account of open-source software. To the contrary, a background in the open-source community is one of the few things that will set you apart from the hordes of semi-skilled IT opportunists and H1B-Visa holders. Which is more desirable to you, being an innovator who expands the IT market and creates jobs for skilled and semi-skilled workers alike, or competing for work with the aforementioned competition?
"Beware he who would restrict your access to information; for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Or, how about this one:
"In our country are evangelists and zealots of many different political, economic and religious persuasions whose fanatical conviction is that
all thought is divinely classified into two kinds--that which is their own and that which is false
and dangerous." --JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON
I'm sure you mean well, but it's attitudes like yours that lubricate the slippery slope which leads to the pit of thought crimes. Who are you to judge the fitness of decisions other parents make regarding what kind of entertainment is appropriate for their children? The first quote is from a "violent" PC game and the second is from Peter Mc.Williams "Aint Nobody's Business if You Do." You can read the latter reference online by following this url:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm
Even if you don't agree with his philosophies, you'll no doubt find it an interesting read.
I'm not advocating socialism by any means. It's
my opinion that the only way to own an idea in a
capitalistic society is to either keep it to
yourself or only give it away under a non-disclosure contract. Copying is merely competition
, which is a highly capitalistic notion. Now any
material representations of your ideas that you
personally had made, or had made on your behalf, belong to you to sell or give away as you see fit.
I could go on, but instead I'll give you this
link (http://www.capitalism.org) for further thought.
No it's not ok to steal a car from a dealer, but it is ok to build an exact duplicate of the car with your own materials and resources. In school, copying is considered to be wrong because you rob yourself of an opportunity to learn as well as committing fraud. For us adults, copying is a way to gain upward mobility and better ourselves. Because most humans are not born in a cave or raised by wolves, ALL of us copy and derive our intellect from other human beings. We may add our own individual flavors; but ours are derivitive works that should benefit our contemporaries and those who follow us; as the derivitive works of those who preceded us, benefit us. True theft is to take fruits of the collective human intellectual commons and pervert them into private property.
You have no idea how I spend my time or what I do for a living so your speculation about my blood-sucking-maggoty-life-style is inflamatory and I'll informed. You're also mistaken if you think that my malice doesn't extend to liberals as well as Christians. Comparing the merits of liberals vs Christians is like comparing the merits of fleas vs lice.
"...you would understand how frustrating it is to work for you money and have some liberal take it away and give it to some lazy ass down the street..."
You mean like the forty billion dollar Bush giveaway to the airline industry? Both liberals and Christians are guilty of tax and spend policies but in my opinion, some Christians work harder to squash civil liberties than most liberals. It may have once been true that Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility, but judging from our recent ballooning deficits and pork-barrel giveaways, they seem to have reversed roles. Liberals are the lessor of two evils in my opinion because they don't try to legislate my sex life or religious beliefs.
I was referring to Christians who would use the government and political influence as a bully's pulpit to force their ideas of morality down peoples throats. To use force to make someone's beliefs conform to yours is counter to everything Jesus taught; it's highly un-Christian. Real Christians, like my best friend, support freedom for ALL religions. Ignorant Christians, such as those who don't know that their god's true name is Yahweh, hide behind the banner of freedom for all religions. They work diligently to suppress any belief that doesn't conform to their ideals. From anti-abortion lobbying, to trying to teach Christian creation myth in school, to pushing for tax money to be used in Christian schools and institutions, to laws that ban consensual sex practices they find immoral; Cristians have shown a complete lack of tolerance for other religions and beliefs. For that matter, every time I hear the word 'immorality,' it's coming out of the mouth of a Christian who really means any morality that doesn't agree with theirs.
The arrogant way morality is used by Christians makes my blood boil.
As for Bush, he epitomizes the Christian arrogance I so despise; and his appointee, Attorney General Ashcroft is willing to put teeth behind that arrogance judging by his statement,
"Some people say that you can't legislate morality
, but I say you CAN legislate morality." But more on-topic, Bush, through Ashcroft, has hobbled the DOJ's attempts to reign in Microft's anti-competitive business practices. (At least the current judge overseeing the remedy phase of Microsoft's anti-trust trial seems to be making a genuine effort to reach a solution that is consistent with law and the public interest.) However, I think that they are just a symptom of a much larger systemic breakdown of America's ideals of innovation, free-markets and democracy. Going back to the first sentence of my last post, you can probably gather that I'm not sure that those ideals ever existed as anything other than an abstract concepts for most Americans.
At the turn of the century America was a nation populated by a bunch of unsophisticated, childish, ignorant, and easily deceived rubes. The more things change, the more things stay the same.
All the way back in our last election's primaries it was a well known fact that Bush was brought to us by the reactionary, jingoistic right, and sponsored by big-corporate-America. I said to myself, "I'll vote for a monkey in a suit before I vote for this bought & paid for asshole." Did anyone else even stop to consider who's president Bush really intended on being? No, of course not! The mindless sheep who helped put him in office did so out of the un-Christian desire to force their concepts of morality down everbody's throat; and money minded people and business owners voted for him because they thought he'd be "good for business." Now, at a bare minimum, we have to endure another four years of Bush's anti-civil liberties executive orders, political appointments, and policies; and the burden of yet more interest payments on our mind-bogglingly large national debt for no better reason than to line Bush's handlers pockets. Don't even get me started on Congress or the Senate!
I have no optimism that us Americans will wake up and put anything more than the shallowest thought into our collective political decisions. All the while, the pigs will continue their feeding frenzy at the public trough and become ever greedier and bolder in a political climate that increasingly seems to be marked by apathy and a lack of accountability.
Isn't it funny how business and management justify low wages with free market capitalism platitudes; yet when Addam Smith's invisible hand smacks them around with a scarcity of workers and high salary demands, they complain that it's bad for the economy? I'm all for free markets, but I think that you have to take the good with the bad no matter which side of the employment fence you stand.
There ARE self-painting houses; the marvelous new technology that allows this feet of engineering is known as "vinyl siding."
I meant (you're), not (your) in the subject header.
Personally, I think that to have children when you cannot afford to feed them is the product of selfishness and ignorance. Anyone with an education and scruples would abhor such a cruel act as bringing a life into this world when it's only potential is to starve and suffer. A conspiracy of wealthy bigots to depopulate the poor is no justification for having children you can't feed or shelter. Sadly, the people who most need to internalize these attitudes are the same people who lack even an opportunity to educate themselves. I would label them as mostly blameless due to their lack of knowledge, but tragically wrong.
"...the brief period of crazyness when mediocre people could get good jobs is over!"
Yeah, like when my dad was a warehouse laborer making $15.00 an hour in the 70's. It's a good thing that this 'middle class' madness is coming to an end.
I know what you mean about planting seeds and taking risks. My ambitions to go back to school full time have changed to part time. Out of the blue, a recruiting company calls me and puts me in a $22.00 an hour phone support position. 45K a year with a high school diploma and A+ Certification in today's job market. I'm such a lucky bastard! Like yourself, I'm going to bank and invest the bulk of my earnings towards an early retirement while continuing my schooling as a fallback plan in case my kick-ass job falls through.
"Just because something helps the country economically doesn't mean it should be done. The ends do not justify the means."
An unregulated economy is a slavering mindless beast that feeds on artificial scarcity, slavery, and human misery in general. Granted, the economy also provides a means of creating and distributing wealth. However, the People should be master of this particular 'beast' and keep it on a short leash lest it forget who's in charge.
There's a difference between dissent and intentionally spewing misinformation. Such as calling copyright infringement 'theft' and 'piracy', and implying that fair use and reverse engineering are illegal. Sorry, I call them how I see them, and I see a troll. The subtlety of this particular troll obviously went over your head and the crackhead who modded me down as well.