"a properly working world system will be a far safer place with more opportunity than the violent chaos of ages past for nations"
History is not on the side of this claim. I am not sure what you are referring to about the "violent chaos of ages past for nations".
The US became a super power nation about the time of the Spanish American war. This is before the Roosevelt expansions of regulation. The US has traditionally had less regulation (and taxes) than other nations and it is far and away the strongest economically and militarily. The most centralized nations (North Korea, China, USSR) have the poorest citizens with the least amount of opportunity. They don't/didn't have opportunity because the government narrows their choices through regulation.
In most places a "properly working world system" is as interpreted by a committee of government-class politicians so they can snort coke or waste millions on studies explaining why lesbians are fatter than other women.
Ditto. This is the main reason I use a recruiter. Also because there's a ton of little companies that are looking but you can't discover them easily.
Recruiters get past these barriers somehow.
Re:bringing in more H1Bs will solve this problem
on
IT Job Hiring Slumps
·
· Score: 1
The consumers should be dictating it.
If consumers love it when their software takes longer to bring to the market and developers spend more time doing the same plumbing they could have gotten automagically, then, sure, disregard the MBA's.
And if the consumers decide having things work "theoretically" (bc, you see, it is the theory that matters) is what matters to them and that's where they put their money, then sure, let the academics run the world.
But that isn't planet earth. Programmers get paid more money to DO than to TEACH, so, aside from the edge cases where some great programmers want to take a pay cut to teach (I've seen it happen in rare instances) then SW development in business should be calling the shots.
Prosperity never had its origins in the agitation of individuals blended together under the illusion of society.
A single voter who authentically represents his beliefs at the ballot box is greater and more powerful than the highest office of the land, the entire electoral process, and even, yes, democracy itself!
The "Public" can beat its chest about a great many number of things, but that is very different from any one actually caring.
The pitchforks and the guillotines proposed by the philosophes of yore yielded nothing but the Reign of Terror. You can see the same thing with the Great Leap Forward.
You are proposing a deceptive power in numbers. The day is coming when you, yourself with breath your last, and there isn't anything society or your buddies will be able to do to undo that. In the dreams that you come you will explain yourself nakedly... separated from the herd.
But the question for today is do you understand who you are?
Society affects me? So if I see people picking gum off the bench and eat it, I'm going to do that also?
Unlikely.
Special by itself doesn't mean anything. It has to be special to some one. There is no such thing as intrinsic worth or objective value.
I choose to value myself the way I am, and I choose to value you just the way you are. There is no justification for this. Society hasn't compelled me to do this. The commissars of the USSR have not sanctioned this.
My identity is not dictated by external circumstances, political context, socioeconomic balances, DNA, the supremest dictates of The View, etc. etc. My identity is a matter of my own making out of nothing by the power entrusted to me by the Almighty himself.
My claims don't make sense *to you* because you are looking on the surface.
From the opposing side, I agree: let's abandon this fatalism stuff.
When I hear fatalism I usually see people who are having trouble owning up to their views, and I think you are right to say this undermines your cause.
Slashdot Mirror
Your proposal throws gasoline on the fire.
Poorer countries don't have content because their government regulates broadly and makes it hard for people (businesses) to produce content.
So they try to dig themselves out by regulating things *more*?
"a properly working world system will be a far safer place with more opportunity than the violent chaos of ages past for nations"
History is not on the side of this claim. I am not sure what you are referring to about the "violent chaos of ages past for nations".
The US became a super power nation about the time of the Spanish American war. This is before the Roosevelt expansions of regulation. The US has traditionally had less regulation (and taxes) than other nations and it is far and away the strongest economically and militarily. The most centralized nations (North Korea, China, USSR) have the poorest citizens with the least amount of opportunity. They don't/didn't have opportunity because the government narrows their choices through regulation.
In most places a "properly working world system" is as interpreted by a committee of government-class politicians so they can snort coke or waste millions on studies explaining why lesbians are fatter than other women.
Individuals know better than the government!
Yeah. The central thing here confuses me.
Ditto. This is the main reason I use a recruiter. Also because there's a ton of little companies that are looking but you can't discover them easily.
Recruiters get past these barriers somehow.
The consumers should be dictating it.
If consumers love it when their software takes longer to bring to the market and developers spend more time doing the same plumbing they could have gotten automagically, then, sure, disregard the MBA's.
And if the consumers decide having things work "theoretically" (bc, you see, it is the theory that matters) is what matters to them and that's where they put their money, then sure, let the academics run the world.
But that isn't planet earth. Programmers get paid more money to DO than to TEACH, so, aside from the edge cases where some great programmers want to take a pay cut to teach (I've seen it happen in rare instances) then SW development in business should be calling the shots.
The story originated when it happened, not when it was written down.
;)
Are you from the US patent office or something?
A worthy question.
You're proposing going after someone who just detonated a nuclear bomb.
I don't think regulation is going to help much with that.
Also talk (a.k.a. diplomacy) is impotent compared to nuclear capabilities.
How often does a ban stop anything in its tracks?
Bans only stop the good guys in their tracks.
Runs out of petroleum? We haven't even peaked yet.
Any diplomat proposing an embargo as a result of nuclear weapons should be exiled.
Russia doesn't care about sanctions!
If Russia used nuclear weapons, they would be on the nuclear receiving end before the professors could start jaw boning their way to "peace".
Russia has an economy to lose?
The UN does not have enough "peacekeepers" to do anything with Russia.
I'm not how you relate talking with deterrence here.
Rationality here seems to mean "something I strongly disagree with and I will call you names now".
Reminds me of a Mark Twain quote about how bigotry is just holding views others disagree with.
Glad to see something related to this topic that is not brimming over with pre-masticated opinions.
I know a lot of people who get CS gigs after school. It pays their bills. They do well.
The stats people I know are really, really rich. And there are a lot of them.
That's in Raleigh.
Prosperity never had its origins in the agitation of individuals blended together under the illusion of society.
... separated from the herd.
A single voter who authentically represents his beliefs at the ballot box is greater and more powerful than the highest office of the land, the entire electoral process, and even, yes, democracy itself!
The "Public" can beat its chest about a great many number of things, but that is very different from any one actually caring.
The pitchforks and the guillotines proposed by the philosophes of yore yielded nothing but the Reign of Terror. You can see the same thing with the Great Leap Forward.
You are proposing a deceptive power in numbers. The day is coming when you, yourself with breath your last, and there isn't anything society or your buddies will be able to do to undo that. In the dreams that you come you will explain yourself nakedly
But the question for today is do you understand who you are?
Society affects me? So if I see people picking gum off the bench and eat it, I'm going to do that also?
Unlikely.
Special by itself doesn't mean anything. It has to be special to some one. There is no such thing as intrinsic worth or objective value.
I choose to value myself the way I am, and I choose to value you just the way you are. There is no justification for this. Society hasn't compelled me to do this. The commissars of the USSR have not sanctioned this.
My identity is not dictated by external circumstances, political context, socioeconomic balances, DNA, the supremest dictates of The View, etc. etc. My identity is a matter of my own making out of nothing by the power entrusted to me by the Almighty himself.
My claims don't make sense *to you* because you are looking on the surface.
"Social stabilization" is just a way of saying "the direction of the herd."
Unless you are running with the herd it shouldn't matter.
Their standard of living isn't the same. They cost *more* because their governments require more.
If by "developing the middle class" you mean, letting the earners keep what they earn, then, yes, China & co have a looong way to go.
Link didn't work for me.
You *are* allowed to challenge me on my beliefs, and I thank you for doing so.
What you are arguing for is policing what people like and don't like such that people are not allowed to like what they want to like.
From the opposing side, I agree: let's abandon this fatalism stuff.
When I hear fatalism I usually see people who are having trouble owning up to their views, and I think you are right to say this undermines your cause.
Everything you say here rests on your claim that homosexuality is OK and pedophilia isn't.
I completely disagree with your premise, so all of the implications you describe mean nothing to me.
I would say that we are at an impasse, but your side is saying these views need to be policed.
Let people have their own opinions! Everything is crazy politically correct already !!
Or "I just don't like AmiMojo" or myself or abstract ideas ... etc.
Government should not be forcing people to like or dislike things.
To paraphrase Kerry: it's not against the law to be stupid.
Someone won a nobel 2 years ago for using a laser to "observe" the electron vector without influencing anything.