I like to believe that this is true, but can we confirm that everyone who had their name picked out went, and everyone who didn't, didnt?
In a more general sense, it's clear around me that an appreciation of art develops thinking skills in unrelated fields. The dullest geeks I have the misfortune to associate with are those who think that nothing is important beyond their own tiny little corner of knowledge - it's not their ignorance which is grating, but their paucity of reasoning power.
Now imagine you didn't opt in, and the plastic thingummy design/factory process/etc. was borrowed by a competitor...
What does e.g. Foxconn have going for it? Well, it has a lot of capital, but mostly it has secrets! secrets to running a highly efficient build process. If it were entitled to no protection for these secrets, because there was no method in law of recognising them, anyone with enough capital would be able to poach Foxconn's employees and build an equally efficient competitor.
Artificial creation of companies to escape duties or take advantage of the system is nothing new. Here, the "buddy"'s soul task is producing IP using the CAD/CAM software.
1) Google is as good as selling photographs with its news aggregation;
2) 99% of all photography may be shit, but "pros" don't deserve any special treatment.
On the other hand, I don't care much about intellectual property. I have one possible solution: an agreement to opt in or opt out of the intellectual property system. If a company opts in, it is required to pay royalties for all the IP it uses, with no exceptions or other get-out clauses. Anyone who is not in the system is free to use others' IP as they wish, BUT ALSO has no protection over their own IP.
they're generally very good about economic freedom.
Now, no. Will other privacy-concerned people follow suit?
No, because most "privacy-concerned" people already understand that "economic freedom" just means the freedom for people to gain unlimited power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If you punish a government employee for breaking the law it makes it less likely that another government employee breaks the law.
Since AFAICT no individual has broken the law here - at worst they've broken an employment contract - "punishment" of an individual would have to be extra-legal.
Ofc we're going by the assumption that humans really do think "oh that guy's being punished for X so I should avoid X" rather than "that guy's being punished for X so I should be more sneaky when I do X", which - if the existence of crime is anything to go by - is how people actually think.
No, I indicated that it makes no sense to punish the government, then went on to describe that e.g. firing someone isn't punishing them. But, in general, punishing an employee doesn't make them work harder.
Anyway, I wouldn't work for any private firm which paid bonuses or cut pay according to performance in a particular role. I will do the best in any role I am given, and expect all my colleagues to do the same. If one of us genuine can't do the job, we shouldn't be in that position. I have never worked for the government.
FWIW, your sentence read:
Unless you work for the government, there will be some kind of expectations set out for you.
Ah, kids of Slashdot. Governments have been sanctioning extra-judicial killings since the first man in a seat of power had a grudge against another. There is nothing new about this. "Police brutality" is almost a set phrase, although the white, middle-class men on Slashdot are less likely to be a victim of it. I am the law, etc. Assassinating 4 people in a country of 300 million is entirely unacceptable, but it still isn't going around killing everyone.
Since politicians get to choose what belongs to whom in the first place (via the legislative process which defines property), I do believe we're going to find ourselves a circular argument!
But the trouble is that the free market allows companies to get so big that so many people rely on them that there would be a lot of suffering if the company collapsed.
It therefore seems necessary to not allow anything to get too big to fail.
Why can't we just start talking about citizenship and social RESPONSIBILITY and what those mean
Because "citizenship" is patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and "social responsibility" is orthogonal to a country founded on the ostensible principle of rational selfishness.:P
I stopped taking you seriously when you capitalised Free Market in the style of God, but srsly, dude, it's just an economic ideal, which can be used as a basis or influence for any practical economy, but cannot be applied directly to any practical ecnomoy.
Socialism is, of course, worker control of the means of production, which is orthogonal to government regulation of pay.
Now the owning classes have learnt that it'll get you richer to milk the fat cows of UK and the USA until they countries have run dry, by which time they can retire somewhere off the Caribbean coast. Is it society's job to curtail this behaviour? Sure, why not. The free market is supposed to be a tool, not a ruler - if it won't do its job, we rework it.
The UK Inland Revenue was quite approachable IME before the past 5-10 years, when they merged with Customs and then gradually closed down all their walk-in offices. One can run a large organisation accessibly or inaccessibly - in the case of the British IR/HMRC, the present problem has been management consultants from private industry turning it into a callcentre-style service company.
A family friend was a commercial tax collector in England - it was her job to arrange payment plans for businesses which were unable to pay what they were owed, so they would not have to face bankruptcy. She was all but pushed out because she stubbornly held on to the Revenue's traditional spirit of strict, conscientious and fair dealing with taxpayers. Today it's all about slapdash target-driven money collection.
Slashdot Mirror
But that argument, all researchers develop confirmation bias that makes their studies worthless.
Everybody wants their research to show positive results. It's much harder to publish a failure, let alone get cred for it.
I like to believe that this is true, but can we confirm that everyone who had their name picked out went, and everyone who didn't, didnt?
In a more general sense, it's clear around me that an appreciation of art develops thinking skills in unrelated fields. The dullest geeks I have the misfortune to associate with are those who think that nothing is important beyond their own tiny little corner of knowledge - it's not their ignorance which is grating, but their paucity of reasoning power.
It's a proportion of the value of my labour to the company.
Oh well, that's idealism for you.
Now imagine you didn't opt in, and the plastic thingummy design/factory process/etc. was borrowed by a competitor...
What does e.g. Foxconn have going for it? Well, it has a lot of capital, but mostly it has secrets! secrets to running a highly efficient build process. If it were entitled to no protection for these secrets, because there was no method in law of recognising them, anyone with enough capital would be able to poach Foxconn's employees and build an equally efficient competitor.
Artificial creation of companies to escape duties or take advantage of the system is nothing new. Here, the "buddy"'s soul task is producing IP using the CAD/CAM software.
If everyone was always nice, communism would be infallible.
If oxygen were privatised, then a lot of oxygen billing agent job positions would suddenly be filled.
The right for people to breathe air freely would not be trumped by the right for oxygen billing agents to keep being paid.
Newayz, the immoral act here is greed.
This so much.
1) Google is as good as selling photographs with its news aggregation;
2) 99% of all photography may be shit, but "pros" don't deserve any special treatment.
On the other hand, I don't care much about intellectual property. I have one possible solution: an agreement to opt in or opt out of the intellectual property system. If a company opts in, it is required to pay royalties for all the IP it uses, with no exceptions or other get-out clauses. Anyone who is not in the system is free to use others' IP as they wish, BUT ALSO has no protection over their own IP.
Is that a suicide note?
they're generally very good about economic freedom.
Now, no. Will other privacy-concerned people follow suit?
No, because most "privacy-concerned" people already understand that "economic freedom" just means the freedom for people to gain unlimited power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If you punish a government employee for breaking the law it makes it less likely that another government employee breaks the law.
Since AFAICT no individual has broken the law here - at worst they've broken an employment contract - "punishment" of an individual would have to be extra-legal.
Ofc we're going by the assumption that humans really do think "oh that guy's being punished for X so I should avoid X" rather than "that guy's being punished for X so I should be more sneaky when I do X", which - if the existence of crime is anything to go by - is how people actually think.
That was a rubbish analogy.
No, I indicated that it makes no sense to punish the government, then went on to describe that e.g. firing someone isn't punishing them. But, in general, punishing an employee doesn't make them work harder.
Anyway, I wouldn't work for any private firm which paid bonuses or cut pay according to performance in a particular role. I will do the best in any role I am given, and expect all my colleagues to do the same. If one of us genuine can't do the job, we shouldn't be in that position. I have never worked for the government.
FWIW, your sentence read:
Unless you work for the government, there will be some kind of expectations set out for you.
That's about expectations, not punishment.
Ah, kids of Slashdot. Governments have been sanctioning extra-judicial killings since the first man in a seat of power had a grudge against another. There is nothing new about this. "Police brutality" is almost a set phrase, although the white, middle-class men on Slashdot are less likely to be a victim of it. I am the law, etc. Assassinating 4 people in a country of 300 million is entirely unacceptable, but it still isn't going around killing everyone.
"Because it is morally wrong"
Your moral compass sounds awful and you should replace it.
"Once the government has the ability, that ability extends"
Slippery slope fallacy. The government has the ability to execute, but it doesn't execute everyone.
"It would be better to unionize"
Agreed.
Yeah in the US the poor simply can't afford stuff.
Each regime deals with scarcity in a different way.
Since politicians get to choose what belongs to whom in the first place (via the legislative process which defines property), I do believe we're going to find ourselves a circular argument!
Yup. I find it interesting that we've gone from "communist!" to "terrorist!" and back round to "socialist!" quite quickly.
Yeah, that makes things worse.
But the trouble is that the free market allows companies to get so big that so many people rely on them that there would be a lot of suffering if the company collapsed.
It therefore seems necessary to not allow anything to get too big to fail.
Why can't we just start talking about citizenship and social RESPONSIBILITY and what those mean
Because "citizenship" is patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and "social responsibility" is orthogonal to a country founded on the ostensible principle of rational selfishness. :P
To you, the chicken came first.
To reality, eggs require chickens require eggs require chickens...
I stopped taking you seriously when you capitalised Free Market in the style of God, but srsly, dude, it's just an economic ideal, which can be used as a basis or influence for any practical economy, but cannot be applied directly to any practical ecnomoy.
All the countries wedded to ideals right now, from the US to Venezuela, are failing.
All the countries focussed on finding practical routes to achievable goals rather than ideologies are doing rather well.
China laughs at you.
Socialism is, of course, worker control of the means of production, which is orthogonal to government regulation of pay.
Now the owning classes have learnt that it'll get you richer to milk the fat cows of UK and the USA until they countries have run dry, by which time they can retire somewhere off the Caribbean coast. Is it society's job to curtail this behaviour? Sure, why not. The free market is supposed to be a tool, not a ruler - if it won't do its job, we rework it.
The UK Inland Revenue was quite approachable IME before the past 5-10 years, when they merged with Customs and then gradually closed down all their walk-in offices. One can run a large organisation accessibly or inaccessibly - in the case of the British IR/HMRC, the present problem has been management consultants from private industry turning it into a callcentre-style service company.
A family friend was a commercial tax collector in England - it was her job to arrange payment plans for businesses which were unable to pay what they were owed, so they would not have to face bankruptcy. She was all but pushed out because she stubbornly held on to the Revenue's traditional spirit of strict, conscientious and fair dealing with taxpayers. Today it's all about slapdash target-driven money collection.