If everyone else at the gym was cheating, would you? Why the fuck are you at college in the first place? If you aren't there to get an education, you're just going to be another one of the growing number of underemployed seatwarmers with a hollow degree. You'll betray yourself the moment you open your mouth in a job interview.
He never said he decided not to learn the material. He just made sure he wasn't at the bottom of the class when it comes time to graduate the honors, apply for grad school, or get his first job after university.
Not all examples of "playing the system" are as hypocritical as your doctor friend. Often playing the game more ethically instead of just by the rules can put you at severe disadvantages. In your anecdote the doctor is probably not at a disadvantage in his business if he didn't set up a backdoor Roth IRA, he probably would just have a $750k house instead of an $800k one. But not all situations are as clear cut.
I for instance hate how schools are funded in this country. Property taxes fund the schools, so schools in wealthy districts are much better than average. On top of this, zoning of housing ensures that only expensive houses are built in the wealthy districts, so very few lower middle class children / parents mix in with the wealthier ones. But while I hate this, I spent the extra money to live in arguably the best school district in my state (well, I didn't spend more money but I got a smaller home than I could have just 10 minutes away) I also actively oppose cheaper housing being built in my area because it could lower my home's value and lower the quality of my daughter's education. It may be slightly hypocritical, but I am going to do what is in my daughter's best interest.
These cheating school children have a similar dilemma. Rich kids can cheat the system through bribes or expensive tutors that make up for the poor education they would otherwise get. For poor kids to compete, they need to find ways of cheating that don't require money.
In TX, state revenues come from Sales Tax, which is inherently progressive because sales tax is not applied to food items
No, sales tax is not inherently progressive. Property taxes and sales taxes are most regressive taxes there is. Texas may make some allowances for food items, but that does almost nothing when it comes to making their tax system progressive. And while Texas is not the most regressive state, it is in the top 5.
Looking at Texas and California, for example, here is a comparison of how regressive their taxes are. Each group represents family income for non-elderly taxpayers. source
Taxes paid by: Lowest 20% - CA 10.6%, TX 12.6% Second 20% - CA 9.2%, TX 10.4% Middle 20% - CA 8.2%, TX 8.6% Fourth 20% - CA 7.6%, TX 7.4% Next 15% - CA 7.4%, TX 6.1% Next 4% - CA 8.7%, TX 4.9% Top 1% - CA 8.8%, TX 3.2%
This shows the wealthy top 1% in Texas pay 64% less of their state's taxes as the wealthy in California. So while I do see why the top 20% of Texas residents really like this situation, I don't see how they sleep at night.
Who in Florida could do this? None but the very old and very Cuban in Florida. At least down in the wang part.
Disney. Next question?
The Walt Disney Studios - 500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California Walt Disney Animation Studios - 2100 W. Riverside Drive, Burbank, California Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures - 500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment - Burbank, California Disney Interactive Studios - Glendale, California
I couldn't find one major non-theme park division of Disney headquartered in Florida, although I didn't look much harder than Wikipedia.
Perhaps you should answer the question correctly before moving to the next one.
Yeah, I pay sales tax on goods I purchase, yet I still have to pay income tax. Funny how that works.
And the employees and shareholders of Amazon pay income and capital gains taxes as well, so what is your point? They just don't feel they should be paying twice in a global market where they have other options.
Though I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn't allowed for the little guy.
You are more than capable of incorporating yourself if you think it will help with taxes. I did it when I was doing independent consulting. I even had a lease agreement with myself so I could deduct extra expenses even though I was taking the standard deduction on my personal tax returns. It i perfectly legal.
But when it comes to employee compensation, there are going to be rules governing what you can or cannot expense as a business. Just like there are or the big guys.
You're complaining about the offerings of two entirely different price points. This for $200 versus a macbook air? It's only 5 to 6 times more expensive. For the price point the value is clear here, even if you're blind to price point.
While the AC is a bit silly for comparing any HP Stream spec with the Macbook Air, s/he does make a good point that 10 GB of free storage space is really really low. You need to produce a usable product for people to buy it, regardless of the price point. 10 GB is just too low, and it is pretty obvious IMHO that a 64 GB drive would have made this product far more useful, even if it would have made the product $225 instead of $200.
Then wake up earlier! Futzing around with the clock doesn't change the length of the day. I loose a little more respect for the entire human race every year when I have to hear "more sunlight in the evening" again.
What kind of moron doesn't understand that some people have set work hours and it can't just shift their schedule however they want. Waking up early doesn't give you more sunlight at the end of your work day if you have to stay in the office until 5:30-6pm. And if you hate mornings, more sunlight in the morning is not a substitute.
I could care less about sunlight in the evening, and also think it is a silly complaint, but your condemnation of it is far more overboard than their silly request.
I'm currently studying philosophy. My next target salary is $174,000, and is largely supported by a study of history and philosophy. I am in IT right now and make $100,000 less than that.
Either this was supposed to be funny, or it is showcasing why 18-22 year old students have a very warped view of the industries they are studying to enter. The only history / philosophy majors who make $174k soon after college have parents who can get them a cushy VP of Synergy job in their family company. Hell, even $74k is probably a pipe dream.
Businesses will need millions of newly-trained, skilled laborers every year; they can't have them if nobody is able to afford college on their own. This causes businesses to hire them from other businesses, and then lose them to other businesses, as salaries run through the roof: $250,000 Web designers, accountants, and programmers.
No, the actual result would be any company which has the option to flee this country would leave within a generation. And businesses which can't move will see their customer base erode as the multinational companies have all moved overseas. And not just move their profits overseas, their employees would be overseas as well. No one is going to pay US-based web designers, accountants, and programmers $250k per year when they have other options in countries that find value in training their workforce. We already face problems with off-shoring when the above professions only make around $80k.
In the above scenario, a business would gain an enormous competitive advantage by hiring entrants, engaging them in on-the-job training, and educating them via funding their college and trade school.
No, they would go out of business while their competition found a crop of well trained entry level employees in Germany, Japan, China, Sweden, Korea, etc.
Every country on this planet is currently in a Jobs War with each other. The countries which provide the best educated workforce and best living conditions are going to win that war.
I have a simple rule; I will not pay a subscription for a service that also makes me watch ads. Not going to happen. Hulu-plus can fuck itself, as can this CBS trash.
I am perfectly fine with Hulu Plus, because what I am paying for there is a DVR not an advertisement free experience. After cutting the cord Hulu Plus is the easiest way to watch my shows whenever I want. Now CBS can go fuck itself because it just wants more money than what Hulu will give them. $8 per month for a DVR is fine, but $5-6 per month per channel is ridiculous. That is why I only watch Big Bang Theory and don't even try out new CBS shows anymore (the fact they make me wait an extra week makes me even more upset than the $5).
Not providing them a location on school grounds for their conference is not silencing them. If I wanted to use a lecture hall to advertise my consulting services they would likely say no, but I wouldn't consider that some form of censorship. It just isn't the right venue for that.
Getting people together and exchanging controversial ideas is the purpose of a University, afterall.
The problem is that these groups have no intention of getting together and exchanging controversial ideas. They are just playing a numbers game. Get their message to 1000 kids, and hope only 990 of the kids hear the school's message. Or just get to them first, or be a better salesman than the professors. Convincing anyone in a well structured debate is not their intention. It may be the intention of some or even all of the people they send to the college, but not the ones deciding the overall marketing strategy of the cause.
Would you silence a dissenting view? That is not healthy for scientific discourse, no matter how wrong you believe the dissenting view to be.
Confusing people into think these groups present a scientific dissenting view is even more unhealthy for scientific discourse. Being open minded does not mean you have to keep listening to rehashed ideas which have been thoroughly discredited.
I mostly agree with you, but still think the University should approach these kinds of groups a little differently. Bringing the Creation Summit organization into a debate or similar venue with the university's biologists / geologists / etc. would be a fine idea. But just giving the group a pulpit to spout their garbage unopposed is not very appropriate, IMHO. Religious groups tend to target impressionable people such as college students and military personnel, and I don't think major universities should be helping them do this.
Sure, but only if I can get a tax credit for 50% the price of my next house. I mean, if the house was not sold, there wouldn't be any tax revenue.
Well, considering the long term average 30 year mortage rate is 8.5%, and assuming your property taxes are 2% of your home's worth yearly, you will certainly save quite a bit money on taxes for your house. A $300k house at those rates will provide an owner in the 25% federal tax bracket $132,606 over the life of the loan, and $45,000 in property tax savings. So you will actually get a "tax credit" of almost 60% of the price of your home.
Thinking of taxes this way is a bit silly, but if you really need to feel like you are somehow avoiding taxation by taking advantage of tax deductions then I guess this will help.
In a quest for compatibility (GP's point if I understood correctly), you are buying MULTIPLE versions of the same damn product...
No, I buy multiple versions because I find the software useful and that is their licensing for the Windows version doesn't include the Mac version. I also have bought various mobile apps twice to work on my iPad & Android phone. A quest for compatibility has nothing to do with it. If I was happy just exporting to CSV or using OpenOffice / Calc I would be able to, but I'm not happy with either of these alternatives.
All your points can be true that Excel is a great product. This is not incompatible with you being a shill. However, you trumpet the product's shortcomings so loudly, that the irony is quite amusing.
So even when you are admitting to some shortfalls in a product you are still being a shill? By your and the GP's definition of a shill, everyone who ever says they like a product is a shill.
of course, anyone who ever said anything nice about a Microsoft product is a shill...
Mostly yes; There are a number of MS products which kind of work and are useful (e.g. Windows 7) there are a number which don't really work but you have to use (Excel - often you need to use it because it's broken the same way as the software your accountant uses).
How is Excel on your list of "don't really work" apps? Excel is essentially Microsoft's killer app, and it isn't because you can't convert XLS documents to work with other competitors. It is because Excel is one of the best applications ever written (IMHO). My attempt to get used to the Apple operating system (I got a Macbook for work) was mostly successful but I eventually fell back to Windows because their version of Excel was so much better than the Mac version (not Apple's fault, but still important). There were some other minor reasons, such as me liking Notepad++ more than Sublime and my opinion that Windows 7 handles multiple large monitors better, but Excel was the main reason. I also like Visual Studio for most development, but IntelliJ was good enough. The alternatives to Excel were not good enough however.
Once a company starts sponsoring PR agencies to shill on the internet, anyone who is helping them, even without knowing it, becomes unethical and complicit, at least negligently, in lying.
People advocating for products they find useful is not lying. Opinions will always be biased, mostly because it is so hard to become such an expert in multiple product ecosystems that you can objectively compare them, but that doesn't make all opinions completely invalid. Most marketing is underhanded and manipulative, so if outrage over heavy handed marketing makes consumer advocacy unethical then all consumer advocacy would be unethical.
I've always wondered why software companies don't open a branch office somewhere besides the 10 highest cost of living areas in the USA to hire people cheaper. Why do all the companies try to poach the same few programmers who want to live in Silicon Valley? There's a vast, untapped talent base that are good programmers but don't want to live in big cities.
The reason is that there really isn't a vast untapped talent base that are good programmers but don't want to live in big cities. There is a small and dispersed talent base that are good programmers but don't want to live in big cities.
Many, although not all, of the difficulties a company has to deal with with off-shoring development also exist when hiring remote teams in Oklahoma. And the talent simply is not there even if you put in the effort. Talent tends to gravitate around universities, or at least the largest city near good universities (people may go to school in Urbana-Champaign or Ithaca, but will likely move to Chicago or New York after college).
How does this fit into my worldview where H1-B Visa holders are taking all of our jobs and lowering all of our wages? I'm just lucky I am easily able to ignore evidence that I don't like, or else this article would be troubling.
The fact that most GED holders don't attempt careers in software development is irrelevant.
I already agree with you in my earlier post that this is irrelevant. It was the first thing I addressed.
However, it is highly relevant that GED holders and/or high school or college graduates with degrees completely unrelated to computer science tend to be better programmers.
Also irrelevant. Someone without a CS degree who works as a software developer is very likely to be an autodidact, which is very useful in this field. So any non-CS degree holder working in this field would have to be compared to a CS degree holder who is also an autodidact if your comparison is going to be valid. And CS majors who who motivated enough to be good developers even before entering college are most likely to be the best software engineers in the industry. They are the ones who become published as undergrads and get the truly great jobs after college.
I have nothing to prove for myself; I already earn a very good salary and have excellent mobility in several fields.
If you were just here telling people that there are other routes to success in the software development industry than a CS degree, I wouldn't think you have a chip on your shoulder. But your comments instead come off as trolling. I have yet to meet a GED holder in person who was self motivated enough to build a great career, and based on my small town upbringing I know a lot of GED holders. Obviously there will be exceptions, and perhaps you are one, but like I said before you mostly just sound like a troll who is trying to rile people up.
While that may be true in some areas; not having a college degree greatly reduces your employment chances, especially in technical fields.
This is entirely false. I've never had any difficulty whatsoever obtaining employment related to software development or systems/infrastructure roles, and neither have most of my peers who hold similar credentials. Perhaps this trend has been partially related to our ability to demonstrate skills on demand, i.e. "get the job done, and done properly" rather than an appeal to a piece of paper that essentially says "trust this guy; he passed some exams that may or may not actually bear any relation whatsoever to the work your business needs done right now."
While a degree does not prevent workers from getting most jobs once they have 5+ years of experience and a proven track record, it is very useful in getting into the industry. People who started their careers in the 90s or between '03-'06 didn't have this worry because of how well the economy was doing, but right now a degree is more important than ever. It is hard for people even with degrees to find work now, let alone those trying to prove themselves with nothing going for them.
Here's what I'm really trying to say: of all the programmers I've worked with, the ones producing the best code in terms of functionality, efficiency, and security have almost universally lacked CS degrees. Interestingly enough, I've worked with some very gifted developers who held bachelor's (and in some cases master's) degrees in fields such as psychology, electrical engineering, physics, pure mathematics, and even English literature. The "odd factor" here has been the pronounced absence of CS degrees among that pool of truly able developers.
I have noticed a similar effect in a few software development teams I have done consulting work with. One byproduct of not paying high enough salaries is that you get people who had trouble finding work elsewhere. The two most common types who take these jobs are bad CS majors and talented non-CS majors whose lack of a relevant degree hurts their hire-ability elsewhere.
Even at places that do pay well, it is quite likely that some of the best developers will have non-CS degrees. Since it is less likely that they would succeed in the industry, only the best of the best find jobs and keep employed. They can't just fall back on having that CS degree during the job search. But if you see an English major working as a software developer, that person probably is quite accomplished or how would they have been hired in the first place.
But at all places I have worked where the vast majority of co-workers are top-notch, the vast majority of the developers had CS or engineering degrees (which aren't much different in this field unless you want to work in research).
That's a fundamentally flawed statement. The question isn't whether I'm representative of most individuals with GEDs, but whether I'm representative of individuals holding GEDs who happen to have pursued careers involving substantial software development duties.
Yes, that is the question, but even in that context I am quite confident saying that most GED holders who attempt a software development career have much less success than your average CS degree holder. Like you I am another exception (in my case I have an online paper mill degree), but at least I am honest enough to understand I am an exception. The University of Phoenix classmates who I have links to in LinkedIn are all working either in some crummy retail job or at best are doing tech support jobs. The only exceptions are those who already worked in the field but just needed a degree to advance further (like me). I only know a couple GED holders who wanted careers in tech, and one works at Best Buy while the other installs satellite dishes.
On a side note, in my experience these discussions tend to invite emotionally-driven responses from people who spent an awful lot of time and money obtaining a CS degree because somebody told them they needed it to pursue any kind of career associated with information technology.
That swings both ways, as most people with poor academic credentials also provide emotionally-driven responses in an attempt to prove to themselves that their lack of a degree is not a disadvantage. Any person who uses ridiculous arguments such as using their own unique success story as some kind of proof is either really bad at logical reasoning or has a big chip on their shoulder.
Slashdot Mirror
If everyone else at the gym was cheating, would you? Why the fuck are you at college in the first place? If you aren't there to get an education, you're just going to be another one of the growing number of underemployed seatwarmers with a hollow degree. You'll betray yourself the moment you open your mouth in a job interview.
He never said he decided not to learn the material. He just made sure he wasn't at the bottom of the class when it comes time to graduate the honors, apply for grad school, or get his first job after university.
Not all examples of "playing the system" are as hypocritical as your doctor friend. Often playing the game more ethically instead of just by the rules can put you at severe disadvantages. In your anecdote the doctor is probably not at a disadvantage in his business if he didn't set up a backdoor Roth IRA, he probably would just have a $750k house instead of an $800k one. But not all situations are as clear cut.
I for instance hate how schools are funded in this country. Property taxes fund the schools, so schools in wealthy districts are much better than average. On top of this, zoning of housing ensures that only expensive houses are built in the wealthy districts, so very few lower middle class children / parents mix in with the wealthier ones. But while I hate this, I spent the extra money to live in arguably the best school district in my state (well, I didn't spend more money but I got a smaller home than I could have just 10 minutes away) I also actively oppose cheaper housing being built in my area because it could lower my home's value and lower the quality of my daughter's education. It may be slightly hypocritical, but I am going to do what is in my daughter's best interest.
These cheating school children have a similar dilemma. Rich kids can cheat the system through bribes or expensive tutors that make up for the poor education they would otherwise get. For poor kids to compete, they need to find ways of cheating that don't require money.
In TX, state revenues come from Sales Tax, which is inherently progressive because sales tax is not applied to food items
No, sales tax is not inherently progressive. Property taxes and sales taxes are most regressive taxes there is. Texas may make some allowances for food items, but that does almost nothing when it comes to making their tax system progressive. And while Texas is not the most regressive state, it is in the top 5.
Looking at Texas and California, for example, here is a comparison of how regressive their taxes are. Each group represents family income for non-elderly taxpayers. source
Taxes paid by:
Lowest 20% - CA 10.6%, TX 12.6%
Second 20% - CA 9.2%, TX 10.4%
Middle 20% - CA 8.2%, TX 8.6%
Fourth 20% - CA 7.6%, TX 7.4%
Next 15% - CA 7.4%, TX 6.1%
Next 4% - CA 8.7%, TX 4.9%
Top 1% - CA 8.8%, TX 3.2%
This shows the wealthy top 1% in Texas pay 64% less of their state's taxes as the wealthy in California. So while I do see why the top 20% of Texas residents really like this situation, I don't see how they sleep at night.
Who in Florida could do this? None but the very old and very Cuban in Florida. At least down in the wang part.
Disney. Next question?
The Walt Disney Studios - 500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California
Walt Disney Animation Studios - 2100 W. Riverside Drive, Burbank, California
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures - 500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California
Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment - Burbank, California
Disney Interactive Studios - Glendale, California
I couldn't find one major non-theme park division of Disney headquartered in Florida, although I didn't look much harder than Wikipedia.
Perhaps you should answer the question correctly before moving to the next one.
Yeah, I pay sales tax on goods I purchase, yet I still have to pay income tax. Funny how that works.
And the employees and shareholders of Amazon pay income and capital gains taxes as well, so what is your point? They just don't feel they should be paying twice in a global market where they have other options.
Though I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn't allowed for the little guy.
You are more than capable of incorporating yourself if you think it will help with taxes. I did it when I was doing independent consulting. I even had a lease agreement with myself so I could deduct extra expenses even though I was taking the standard deduction on my personal tax returns. It i perfectly legal.
But when it comes to employee compensation, there are going to be rules governing what you can or cannot expense as a business. Just like there are or the big guys.
You're complaining about the offerings of two entirely different price points. This for $200 versus a macbook air? It's only 5 to 6 times more expensive. For the price point the value is clear here, even if you're blind to price point.
While the AC is a bit silly for comparing any HP Stream spec with the Macbook Air, s/he does make a good point that 10 GB of free storage space is really really low. You need to produce a usable product for people to buy it, regardless of the price point. 10 GB is just too low, and it is pretty obvious IMHO that a 64 GB drive would have made this product far more useful, even if it would have made the product $225 instead of $200.
What kind of moron thinks that he doesn't have the ability to choose his own career and work when he likes?
So any grievance you have that isn't horrible enough to prompt you to quit your job is not worthy of complaints? Get a grip.
I like the extra sunlight in the evening...
Then wake up earlier! Futzing around with the clock doesn't change the length of the day. I loose a little more respect for the entire human race every year when I have to hear "more sunlight in the evening" again.
What kind of moron doesn't understand that some people have set work hours and it can't just shift their schedule however they want. Waking up early doesn't give you more sunlight at the end of your work day if you have to stay in the office until 5:30-6pm. And if you hate mornings, more sunlight in the morning is not a substitute.
I could care less about sunlight in the evening, and also think it is a silly complaint, but your condemnation of it is far more overboard than their silly request.
I'm currently studying philosophy. My next target salary is $174,000, and is largely supported by a study of history and philosophy. I am in IT right now and make $100,000 less than that.
Either this was supposed to be funny, or it is showcasing why 18-22 year old students have a very warped view of the industries they are studying to enter. The only history / philosophy majors who make $174k soon after college have parents who can get them a cushy VP of Synergy job in their family company. Hell, even $74k is probably a pipe dream.
Businesses will need millions of newly-trained, skilled laborers every year; they can't have them if nobody is able to afford college on their own. This causes businesses to hire them from other businesses, and then lose them to other businesses, as salaries run through the roof: $250,000 Web designers, accountants, and programmers.
No, the actual result would be any company which has the option to flee this country would leave within a generation. And businesses which can't move will see their customer base erode as the multinational companies have all moved overseas. And not just move their profits overseas, their employees would be overseas as well. No one is going to pay US-based web designers, accountants, and programmers $250k per year when they have other options in countries that find value in training their workforce. We already face problems with off-shoring when the above professions only make around $80k.
In the above scenario, a business would gain an enormous competitive advantage by hiring entrants, engaging them in on-the-job training, and educating them via funding their college and trade school.
No, they would go out of business while their competition found a crop of well trained entry level employees in Germany, Japan, China, Sweden, Korea, etc.
Every country on this planet is currently in a Jobs War with each other. The countries which provide the best educated workforce and best living conditions are going to win that war.
I have a simple rule; I will not pay a subscription for a service that also makes me watch ads. Not going to happen. Hulu-plus can fuck itself, as can this CBS trash.
I am perfectly fine with Hulu Plus, because what I am paying for there is a DVR not an advertisement free experience. After cutting the cord Hulu Plus is the easiest way to watch my shows whenever I want. Now CBS can go fuck itself because it just wants more money than what Hulu will give them. $8 per month for a DVR is fine, but $5-6 per month per channel is ridiculous. That is why I only watch Big Bang Theory and don't even try out new CBS shows anymore (the fact they make me wait an extra week makes me even more upset than the $5).
Silencing is the wrong approach.
Not providing them a location on school grounds for their conference is not silencing them. If I wanted to use a lecture hall to advertise my consulting services they would likely say no, but I wouldn't consider that some form of censorship. It just isn't the right venue for that.
Getting people together and exchanging controversial ideas is the purpose of a University, afterall.
The problem is that these groups have no intention of getting together and exchanging controversial ideas. They are just playing a numbers game. Get their message to 1000 kids, and hope only 990 of the kids hear the school's message. Or just get to them first, or be a better salesman than the professors. Convincing anyone in a well structured debate is not their intention. It may be the intention of some or even all of the people they send to the college, but not the ones deciding the overall marketing strategy of the cause.
Would you silence a dissenting view? That is not healthy for scientific discourse, no matter how wrong you believe the dissenting view to be.
Confusing people into think these groups present a scientific dissenting view is even more unhealthy for scientific discourse. Being open minded does not mean you have to keep listening to rehashed ideas which have been thoroughly discredited.
I mostly agree with you, but still think the University should approach these kinds of groups a little differently. Bringing the Creation Summit organization into a debate or similar venue with the university's biologists / geologists / etc. would be a fine idea. But just giving the group a pulpit to spout their garbage unopposed is not very appropriate, IMHO. Religious groups tend to target impressionable people such as college students and military personnel, and I don't think major universities should be helping them do this.
An open debate would be a great idea though.
Sure, but only if I can get a tax credit for 50% the price of my next house. I mean, if the house was not sold, there wouldn't be any tax revenue.
Well, considering the long term average 30 year mortage rate is 8.5%, and assuming your property taxes are 2% of your home's worth yearly, you will certainly save quite a bit money on taxes for your house. A $300k house at those rates will provide an owner in the 25% federal tax bracket $132,606 over the life of the loan, and $45,000 in property tax savings. So you will actually get a "tax credit" of almost 60% of the price of your home.
Thinking of taxes this way is a bit silly, but if you really need to feel like you are somehow avoiding taxation by taking advantage of tax deductions then I guess this will help.
In a quest for compatibility (GP's point if I understood correctly), you are buying MULTIPLE versions of the same damn product...
No, I buy multiple versions because I find the software useful and that is their licensing for the Windows version doesn't include the Mac version. I also have bought various mobile apps twice to work on my iPad & Android phone. A quest for compatibility has nothing to do with it. If I was happy just exporting to CSV or using OpenOffice / Calc I would be able to, but I'm not happy with either of these alternatives.
All your points can be true that Excel is a great product. This is not incompatible with you being a shill. However, you trumpet the product's shortcomings so loudly, that the irony is quite amusing.
So even when you are admitting to some shortfalls in a product you are still being a shill? By your and the GP's definition of a shill, everyone who ever says they like a product is a shill.
of course, anyone who ever said anything nice about a Microsoft product is a shill...
Mostly yes; There are a number of MS products which kind of work and are useful (e.g. Windows 7) there are a number which don't really work but you have to use (Excel - often you need to use it because it's broken the same way as the software your accountant uses).
How is Excel on your list of "don't really work" apps? Excel is essentially Microsoft's killer app, and it isn't because you can't convert XLS documents to work with other competitors. It is because Excel is one of the best applications ever written (IMHO). My attempt to get used to the Apple operating system (I got a Macbook for work) was mostly successful but I eventually fell back to Windows because their version of Excel was so much better than the Mac version (not Apple's fault, but still important). There were some other minor reasons, such as me liking Notepad++ more than Sublime and my opinion that Windows 7 handles multiple large monitors better, but Excel was the main reason. I also like Visual Studio for most development, but IntelliJ was good enough. The alternatives to Excel were not good enough however.
Once a company starts sponsoring PR agencies to shill on the internet, anyone who is helping them, even without knowing it, becomes unethical and complicit, at least negligently, in lying.
People advocating for products they find useful is not lying. Opinions will always be biased, mostly because it is so hard to become such an expert in multiple product ecosystems that you can objectively compare them, but that doesn't make all opinions completely invalid. Most marketing is underhanded and manipulative, so if outrage over heavy handed marketing makes consumer advocacy unethical then all consumer advocacy would be unethical.
I've always wondered why software companies don't open a branch office somewhere besides the 10 highest cost of living areas in the USA to hire people cheaper. Why do all the companies try to poach the same few programmers who want to live in Silicon Valley? There's a vast, untapped talent base that are good programmers but don't want to live in big cities.
The reason is that there really isn't a vast untapped talent base that are good programmers but don't want to live in big cities. There is a small and dispersed talent base that are good programmers but don't want to live in big cities.
Many, although not all, of the difficulties a company has to deal with with off-shoring development also exist when hiring remote teams in Oklahoma. And the talent simply is not there even if you put in the effort. Talent tends to gravitate around universities, or at least the largest city near good universities (people may go to school in Urbana-Champaign or Ithaca, but will likely move to Chicago or New York after college).
How does this fit into my worldview where H1-B Visa holders are taking all of our jobs and lowering all of our wages? I'm just lucky I am easily able to ignore evidence that I don't like, or else this article would be troubling.
The fact that most GED holders don't attempt careers in software development is irrelevant.
I already agree with you in my earlier post that this is irrelevant. It was the first thing I addressed.
However, it is highly relevant that GED holders and/or high school or college graduates with degrees completely unrelated to computer science tend to be better programmers.
Also irrelevant. Someone without a CS degree who works as a software developer is very likely to be an autodidact, which is very useful in this field. So any non-CS degree holder working in this field would have to be compared to a CS degree holder who is also an autodidact if your comparison is going to be valid. And CS majors who who motivated enough to be good developers even before entering college are most likely to be the best software engineers in the industry. They are the ones who become published as undergrads and get the truly great jobs after college.
I have nothing to prove for myself; I already earn a very good salary and have excellent mobility in several fields.
If you were just here telling people that there are other routes to success in the software development industry than a CS degree, I wouldn't think you have a chip on your shoulder. But your comments instead come off as trolling. I have yet to meet a GED holder in person who was self motivated enough to build a great career, and based on my small town upbringing I know a lot of GED holders. Obviously there will be exceptions, and perhaps you are one, but like I said before you mostly just sound like a troll who is trying to rile people up.
While that may be true in some areas; not having a college degree greatly reduces your employment chances, especially in technical fields.
This is entirely false. I've never had any difficulty whatsoever obtaining employment related to software development or systems/infrastructure roles, and neither have most of my peers who hold similar credentials. Perhaps this trend has been partially related to our ability to demonstrate skills on demand, i.e. "get the job done, and done properly" rather than an appeal to a piece of paper that essentially says "trust this guy; he passed some exams that may or may not actually bear any relation whatsoever to the work your business needs done right now."
While a degree does not prevent workers from getting most jobs once they have 5+ years of experience and a proven track record, it is very useful in getting into the industry. People who started their careers in the 90s or between '03-'06 didn't have this worry because of how well the economy was doing, but right now a degree is more important than ever. It is hard for people even with degrees to find work now, let alone those trying to prove themselves with nothing going for them.
Here's what I'm really trying to say: of all the programmers I've worked with, the ones producing the best code in terms of functionality, efficiency, and security have almost universally lacked CS degrees. Interestingly enough, I've worked with some very gifted developers who held bachelor's (and in some cases master's) degrees in fields such as psychology, electrical engineering, physics, pure mathematics, and even English literature. The "odd factor" here has been the pronounced absence of CS degrees among that pool of truly able developers.
I have noticed a similar effect in a few software development teams I have done consulting work with. One byproduct of not paying high enough salaries is that you get people who had trouble finding work elsewhere. The two most common types who take these jobs are bad CS majors and talented non-CS majors whose lack of a relevant degree hurts their hire-ability elsewhere.
Even at places that do pay well, it is quite likely that some of the best developers will have non-CS degrees. Since it is less likely that they would succeed in the industry, only the best of the best find jobs and keep employed. They can't just fall back on having that CS degree during the job search. But if you see an English major working as a software developer, that person probably is quite accomplished or how would they have been hired in the first place.
But at all places I have worked where the vast majority of co-workers are top-notch, the vast majority of the developers had CS or engineering degrees (which aren't much different in this field unless you want to work in research).
That's a fundamentally flawed statement. The question isn't whether I'm representative of most individuals with GEDs, but whether I'm representative of individuals holding GEDs who happen to have pursued careers involving substantial software development duties.
Yes, that is the question, but even in that context I am quite confident saying that most GED holders who attempt a software development career have much less success than your average CS degree holder. Like you I am another exception (in my case I have an online paper mill degree), but at least I am honest enough to understand I am an exception. The University of Phoenix classmates who I have links to in LinkedIn are all working either in some crummy retail job or at best are doing tech support jobs. The only exceptions are those who already worked in the field but just needed a degree to advance further (like me). I only know a couple GED holders who wanted careers in tech, and one works at Best Buy while the other installs satellite dishes.
On a side note, in my experience these discussions tend to invite emotionally-driven responses from people who spent an awful lot of time and money obtaining a CS degree because somebody told them they needed it to pursue any kind of career associated with information technology.
That swings both ways, as most people with poor academic credentials also provide emotionally-driven responses in an attempt to prove to themselves that their lack of a degree is not a disadvantage. Any person who uses ridiculous arguments such as using their own unique success story as some kind of proof is either really bad at logical reasoning or has a big chip on their shoulder.
Java is a great teaching language but will never penetrate business applications to any significant degree until it runs faster for the end user.
You do realize that Java is the #1 language for enterprise business applications right?