Well, I have no problems with the fact that you feel that way, I'd just like to see people be a little more original. People will pay more attention to you, and if they laugh they are less likely to be offended if they disagree with you.
If you just can't move up then that's life. You're not entitled to anything. You have to work for it.
But what about all those people who can't move up regardless of how much they work, because of the completely insufficient public education they received?
If the minimum-wage-raiser-uppers really wanted wages to increase they'd kick out the teachers' unions and improve the schools. Then people could make more because they wouldn't graduate from high-school being illiterate.
But no, they'd rather mandate a minimum wage increase and pretend that money appears out of nowhere.
Ultimately, the problem with entitlements is that unless you make it really unpleasant to receive, people will expect it. Since the sense of shame died after a long illness about 10 years ago, there is nothing left to prevent many people from just giving up and going on the dole. Improving the safety net just attracts more people who don't need it.
Wages wouldn't be so low if workers were worth more (and we weren't depressing wages by letting tens of millions of illegals in the country who can undercut people who pay taxes, etc), but the education system seems more interested in making kids feel good about themselves, thinking white men had little influence in American history or teaching them to put on condoms than to give them the ability to be productive citizens.
We understand, Mic, but we have ways to cure that. First, you must spend no less than an hour a day watching local news broadcasts. Second, you must spend a full hour reading comments on digg.com, and not allow yourself to post. Finally, you must burn a copy of Strunk's "Elements of Style" to symbolize the burning of your bondage to communicating clearly, succinctly and most of all accuractely.
But MS has always been saying their stuff is "safe and secure", so that's consistent. Maybe everyone else's idea of what's "safe and secure" is flawed.
For a significant percentage of our economy it's a source of revenue. If you go out of business because of Microsoft's crappy software, the sky might as well be falling.
I'm afraid they've been making too much money working like this to change their ways.
Well, the problem is slightly more complicated than that. They are making too much money today and they don't care about 5 years from now. The biggest problem is ultimately sacrificing the long-term for short-term gains. When companies come and go on a month-to-month basis, one's view becomes a little narrow compared to a company that's been around 20, 50 or even 100 years. People who understand the long-term view will survive and succeed in the long term, but those who burn out their resources and cash out don't care. The problem is that the 99.9% of us who aren't cashing out suffer from this, and ultimately our competitiveness with those people who aren't out to screw the world for the sake of themselves. Ironically, true cooperation will eventually become the advantage, and hopefully the old generation of robber-barons (who are alive an well in 2006) will start dying off.
Of course, never underestimate the destructive power of greed and ignorance. This may all be nothing more than idle whimsy on my part.
I would hazard a guess that U.S. government really isn't that inefficient, except for the grotesque level of duplication of efforts, not to mention the bald-faced extortion or robbery committed by many contractors, especially in the defense industry.
The problem is that unions, as they generally are implemented, function on exactly the same premise. "Collective bargaining" also treats people as commodities, even with the byzantine rules of seniority and other bizarre ideas unions come up with (for instance, the case I heard of where the union refused to allow the company to grant salary adjustments based on geography for people living in expensive urban or suburban areas compared to people living in inexpensive rural areas).
I don't know what the real solution will be, but I don't see it being unions. Not, at least, any kind of union I've ever heard of, because they suffer from the exact same problem that the companies themselves do. Unions were best suited for people who really didn't have alternatives and were generally powerless to negotiate largely because they were working in low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs where the companies had unreasonable power. Unions for professionals or highly skilled people to me seems not to much different from extortion.
Personally, I find the idea of belonging to a union much more distasteful than working for an employee that doesn't recognize my individual merits. Neither could truly represent me.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I have no problems with the fact that you feel that way, I'd just like to see people be a little more original. People will pay more attention to you, and if they laugh they are less likely to be offended if they disagree with you.
I'm getting a leatherly look, maybe I should try some cream :-)
Clint, you're barking on 80, cream ain't gonna be enough.
Any use of the word "Shrub" to refer to President automatically qualifies you as a troll.
It wasn't funny or clever 6 years and now it's just annoying.
If you just can't move up then that's life. You're not entitled to anything. You have to work for it.
But what about all those people who can't move up regardless of how much they work, because of the completely insufficient public education they received?
If the minimum-wage-raiser-uppers really wanted wages to increase they'd kick out the teachers' unions and improve the schools. Then people could make more because they wouldn't graduate from high-school being illiterate.
But no, they'd rather mandate a minimum wage increase and pretend that money appears out of nowhere.
Ultimately, the problem with entitlements is that unless you make it really unpleasant to receive, people will expect it. Since the sense of shame died after a long illness about 10 years ago, there is nothing left to prevent many people from just giving up and going on the dole. Improving the safety net just attracts more people who don't need it.
Wages wouldn't be so low if workers were worth more (and we weren't depressing wages by letting tens of millions of illegals in the country who can undercut people who pay taxes, etc), but the education system seems more interested in making kids feel good about themselves, thinking white men had little influence in American history or teaching them to put on condoms than to give them the ability to be productive citizens.
Me, too. In fact, if more people did this, ads would become less annoying.
Oh, who am I kidding, they'd just pay Congress to pass a law making ads mandatory.
So how is that different from France now?
Here's another clue for you all: The Walrus was Paul.
"No you're not", said Little Nikita.
You know, it's sad when I'm quoting from music that came out before most of us were born.
When I'm in the bathroom, I'd really appreciate some privacy, but it's not like nobody knows what I'm doing in there!
/., of course.
Posting to
Weenie?
No, I'm sure they have alpha code that doesn't support it correctly.
Since when does VPN = Encryption?
Well, if it's a Virtual Private Network, I'd hardly see how it could be unencrypted.
Also, just like me, don't proofread what you type. D'Oh!
We understand, Mic, but we have ways to cure that. First, you must spend no less than an hour a day watching local news broadcasts. Second, you must spend a full hour reading comments on digg.com, and not allow yourself to post. Finally, you must burn a copy of Strunk's "Elements of Style" to symbolize the burning of your bondage to communicating clearly, succinctly and most of all accuractely.
But MS has always been saying their stuff is "safe and secure", so that's consistent. Maybe everyone else's idea of what's "safe and secure" is flawed.
No, we are fighting Terror. We have always been fighting Terror. Drugs are our ally. We have always been allies with Eastasia, I mean, Drugs.
For a significant percentage of our economy it's a source of revenue. If you go out of business because of Microsoft's crappy software, the sky might as well be falling.
Sorry, the religious nutjobs _left_ Europe, and they are the better for it.
Open Source Development: The irrational belief that a group of script kiddies can produce a working program.
Closed Source Development: The irrational belief that ineffectual middle-management suckups can produce a working program.
Sounds like this "evolutionary biologist" read some H. G. Wells and knocked off around 9:30 for an early, early lunch.
But who will decrypt the Perl script?
I mean why should a 3 year old or under be watching TV anyway?
Because the bars are closed?
I'm afraid they've been making too much money working like this to change their ways.
Well, the problem is slightly more complicated than that. They are making too much money today and they don't care about 5 years from now. The biggest problem is ultimately sacrificing the long-term for short-term gains. When companies come and go on a month-to-month basis, one's view becomes a little narrow compared to a company that's been around 20, 50 or even 100 years. People who understand the long-term view will survive and succeed in the long term, but those who burn out their resources and cash out don't care. The problem is that the 99.9% of us who aren't cashing out suffer from this, and ultimately our competitiveness with those people who aren't out to screw the world for the sake of themselves. Ironically, true cooperation will eventually become the advantage, and hopefully the old generation of robber-barons (who are alive an well in 2006) will start dying off.
Of course, never underestimate the destructive power of greed and ignorance. This may all be nothing more than idle whimsy on my part.
I would hazard a guess that U.S. government really isn't that inefficient, except for the grotesque level of duplication of efforts, not to mention the bald-faced extortion or robbery committed by many contractors, especially in the defense industry.
The net effect is the same though.
The problem is that unions, as they generally are implemented, function on exactly the same premise. "Collective bargaining" also treats people as commodities, even with the byzantine rules of seniority and other bizarre ideas unions come up with (for instance, the case I heard of where the union refused to allow the company to grant salary adjustments based on geography for people living in expensive urban or suburban areas compared to people living in inexpensive rural areas).
I don't know what the real solution will be, but I don't see it being unions. Not, at least, any kind of union I've ever heard of, because they suffer from the exact same problem that the companies themselves do. Unions were best suited for people who really didn't have alternatives and were generally powerless to negotiate largely because they were working in low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs where the companies had unreasonable power. Unions for professionals or highly skilled people to me seems not to much different from extortion.
Personally, I find the idea of belonging to a union much more distasteful than working for an employee that doesn't recognize my individual merits. Neither could truly represent me.
That's because so many "liberals" in America are the exact antithesis of the description you provided.