A corporation would not exist without government, period. What you would have is individuals creating and trading -- they would be fully liable for their actions.
Those who now form corporations, would form something else -- in a complete absence of government it would be called a gang, but it will still act in exactly the same manner. If it works in Somalia and its pirates or Afghanistan and its poppy growers, there is no reason to expect it will fail anywhere else unless people will form a government that is more powerful than gangs or companies.
Why are corporations considered legal individuals?
Because they have more power than the government. Stripping power further away from the government will only make them more powerful.
It is known that most large corporations are extremely inefficient -- they get by through lobbying.
Did you know that the biggest of health care insurance companies actually welcomed the health care "reform"? The bill made it harder for any kind of competition to arise.
No, I didn't know that because this is a lie. Health insurance is already a cartel, so "competitors" are welcome to join.
I can guarantee you that prices will continue to rise because we are continuing to politically give favor to the richest of companies.
First of all, no, if no one will pay for expensive healthcare, it will become cheap healthcare. When insurance companies do everything to deny healthcare to the people, hospitals have to jack up the prices, turning the whole thing into luxury goods and lottery instead of a service with high demand across the whole society. Second, who cares about prices that companies and governments move from one pocket into another? Health reform is about availability of healthcare because this is a major social problem now -- everything else is secondary.
A "free market" is simply reducing all trade to supply/demand, as well as allowing people to trade in any way they want to.
As long as companies are engaged in marketing, have exclusive agreements with resellers and retailers, most of demand is a result of manipulation. Before government stepped in, ALL advertised medicine was, for the lack of a better word, fake -- and that was the time when average person could easily determine quality of anything he could consume, except medicine. Good luck unleashing a torrent of snake oil on the society now.
When government takes an action, it monopolizes it; taking that power from its citizens (who may or may not have been exercising or been aware of that power).
The only way citizens can exercise any kind of power is by forming a government that represents them, and delegating that power to it. An individual can have rights, however there is no right to have power over other individuals -- at least not since the abolition of slavery. Power is always given to the government to represent large groups of people. If the group being represented by the government is mostly the same group as being governed, government performs its function. If the group being represented is not the same as the group being governed, government ends up being unjust and oppressive. If the government is too weak to govern some aspect of society, it ends up being governed by whoever will take it over -- and if there is any profit to be made there, those groups will end up being more oppressive than even the worst governments imaginable. Those are the only options available.
Surprisingly enough those options have very little to do with political system being "free", "democratic", etc. Results depend on people realizing that each and every specific political decision they can affect, has consequences that they have to evaluate before affecting it. When people refuse to look at specifics and shift to slogans that focus on meta-decisions that supposedly will au
It's worse. It's for some defined by odd number of recursive steps and for some by even number of the same recursive steps. And those usually recommend the opposite actions, thus making the whole thing worthless.
Admit it, the idea ran into the ground and can't work anymore. Stock market is currently worthless, go back to bank loans, insurance and grants for small businesses, severely regulated large companies and government-backed infrastructure projects.
A corporation exists solely because of government regulation (a corporation is a legislated entity which exists to remove accountability from owners&employees).
Without a government it would still exist, and act in exactly the same manner -- it just would not be called a corporation.
The rest of your argument is therefore worthless.
Government is a legal and standardized monopoly on violence.
Yes.
Say what you will, but it is founded on poor principles which are unsustainable in the long run.
You are wrong, and you don't even pretend to have a valid argument.
You are speaking hatefully.
Yes, I do, I hate you, I want to make it clear why, and why everyone else should treat you the same. This is far less hostile than anything your corporate overlords do toward the rest of society -- for them everyone is either prey or an enemy. I merely hate you for being stupid and for actively spreading stupidity, so compared to their position I almost love you.
A business exists solely because of society in a free market (what else could it be?).
No society would approve of "free market" unless people like you will continuously try to convince themselves and each other that "free market" is in any way desirable. It's a function of society to make market non-free, to oppress the groups that fight for power over such a society. Propaganda of "free market" is a call for society to abandon such oppression, to become passive and to submit to the will of those "businesses" out of faith in "market", to accept any power as legitimate if it is backed by wealth, to reduce the government to the role of enforcer of contracts that enslave the public.
No one with fair economic knowledge...
"Economic knowledge" that is promoted in US (yes, all of it, Keynesian one included) mostly consists of right-wing propaganda, and can be summarized as "private good, public bad, more wealth for the wealthy because they deserve it, their wealth will somehow trickle down real soon now". In rest of the world those things are firmly in the realm of political slogans, and "economic knowledge" is a mix of resource management and accounting practices on a large scale.
I want to see the person who thought that it was a good idea to mention cameras and guns in the same sentence with any implication of equivalence or relationship between those things, as applied to pointing them at cops.
...and THIS is how one of the worst enemies of progress looks like -- a free market demagogue.
Yeah, let's completely ignore the fact that "free market" is a system that encourages its own stated principles' subversion -- more power is grabbed by whoever already has more power than the rest, and there is no government around to oppress such abusers. In reality no matter how evil and abusive the government can become, corporations would be more abusive because their existence does not depend on population accepting them. You can overthrow the government but you can't overthrow hundreds of companies deeply entrenched into the fabric of society, no matter what they do -- any organization that can destroy them is, by definition, an oppressive government.
This is what corporate sycophants are afraid of -- a government that is accountable to the people and oppressive toward them. This is why they love "free market" so much -- because their corporate overlords have the only freedom that matters for them -- a freedom to oppress the rest of society. Nothing else matters -- when leaders of those organizations are not outright sadistic, they lust for power, and "free market" is how they call failure of society to fight back.
Though this likely IS going to happen, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing things anonymously that would be no longer anonymous if there was an easy way to find anyone's identity by merely fingerprints or DNA. This is why AGGREGATION AND DISTRIBUTION of such data is resisted -- it would encourage police to find and accuse everyone who may be somewhat related to some kind of crime or wrongdoing and has no ability to defend against accusations, but not actually guilty, or can be data to track people who merely are opposed to someone with access to such a system, or merely for petty harassment on wide scale. This is where breach of privacy harms society.
On the other hand, use of weapons in any civilized society is unthinkable without taking responsibility for the results -- be they criminal or not. In situations when shooting someone is an acceptable solution, privacy is the last thing the shooter should be worrying about.
In Soviet Russia much of the samizdat was of a purely factual nature, and by contradicting official reports delegitimized the government.
Only if you count Solzhenitsyn's historical fiction as factual. Because the rest was obviously fictional, merely seen as hostile by the government -- with genres from poetry to fantasy and science fiction.
Let it make it clear for Americans -- does society benefit from law-abiding people being able to shoot anonymously, regardless of what criminals can or can't do?
You are so drunk on your Champagne Socialism that you aren't even reading what I said: did I mention a statutory minimum wage, or did I twice say "the minimum wage required to survive"?
If it's survival in a way how a civilized society defines it, why not?
What a crass display of plumage! So the reason those "worse programmers" get paid the same as you isn't even (as your incoherent philosophy might suggest) because you don't demand the best possible wage; it's because, unlike you, they are unethical.
The only way to "demand the best possible wage" is to rob a bank.
This was not in question. The matter was whether your primary motivation is one of enriching the world or enriching yourself (via your employer).
This is not my primary motivation. Now what?
Because you consider yourself a reasonable and honest programmer, you have the option to work for nonprofits with a primary motivation to improve the world. You have chosen not to do that.
You know that nonprofits pay their employees, too, don't you? The only difference is that nonprofit can't make a profit as an organization, the fact that is completely irrelevant for me and the rest of society. MPAA is a nonprofit -- should I work for them to satisfy your definition of honest?
I am trying to interpret that sentence in a non-vacuous way. If your priorities were wrong, you would notice it without help from ABC... so, if your priorities were wrong, you would notice it... on your own... eventually? Or if you come to notice it with help, you are certain that it will be with the help of a superior/equal mind?
The part that is relevant for you is that you are stupid, and your opinion about my motivation is worthless.
I have learned so far that you judge certain people as having inferior minds to your own, and conclude that nothing from them can contribute towards significant decisions. That's the sort of pigeonholing brought to us by feudalism!
Easy to learn such a thing while being a total fuckhead.
He claims that W3C is worse than Adobe because their testbed (not even reference!) implementation of some of their standards is not a good general-purpose web browser.
Your employer hired you because your work is good enough yet you showed no indication of working for free.
Where did "working for free" ever come into this discussion?
Your employer is paying you above the minimum wage required to survive because you showed no indication of working for the minimum wage required to survive.
If minimum wage was actually sufficient for survival in the modern society, I would be content with it. The whole problem is that even though society can easily provide for all its members' decent living conditions, it does not do so, and idiots like you create this ridiculous fiction that people would not do anything useful if they weren't threatened with starvation.
Guess what -- poor people WOULD starve if they relied entirely on the salaries they have now, they have to make up the rest of their living costs by mooching from the rest of society in various ways. If poverty really motivates anything, it's not productive work.
As long as you continue to selfishly and capitalistically demand a market wage for your employment, you are redirecting resources which could be used toward improving open source software for the world.
Actually I don't get paid "market wage" for the work on my level. Plenty of worse programmers get paid the same salary, though they also are more stressed out, and do work that often goes against anything even remotely resembling ethics. I find this acceptable -- I am not greedy.
As long as you work on a software project for a firm which ultimately exists to make money rather than a non-profit which ultimately exists to improve open source software for the world, you are redirecting resources which could be used toward improving open source software for the world.
One doesn't have to work for a nonprofit to make something useful for everyone.
You might want to think your priorities over.
Thinking is all I do. I can assure you, if my priorities were wrong, I would notice it without help from inferior minds.
Either admit to yourself why you are employed where you are, or show some consistency and quit your job today. Many men have lived their lives in denial; don't be another.
I see, I am talking to yet another market fetishist.
If by any chance you are really this dense -- OF COURSE, my employer hired me because I develop something the company benefit from. If I didn't work there, I would work on something that does not benefit the employer company, so company pays me to work there. This however has nothing to do with my choices, software developers' positions would exist with or without me, and it's my choice where to work. If all companies were in the range between Microsoft, Apple and Adobe, that would be a problem, however this is not the case.
If it didn't make your employer rich, your employer would not have any money to pay you.
That's my employer's motivation, not mine. There are countless ways of making money, I did not choose working for Adobe writing Photoshop among other things.
So unless you're a volunteer, your work on open source projects is motivated by making your employer rich.
My employer would be surprised to hear that.
Like the W3C. I'm still looking forward to a browser which actually fully supports any of their mainstream standards produced over the past few years. Also good would be a standard written sufficiently well that two best-effort implementations are equally acceptable when provided with any standards-compliant HTML/CSS/Javascript.
With all valid criticism that exists against W3C standards' flaws, you can't seriously compare any of them with an inconsistent mess that is Flash.
My work on open source projects is not motivated by making my employer rich -- it just happens to do that anyway, so no one is complaining. Adobe, on the other hand, creates deliberately convoluted, nearly impossible to reimplement, products, plays favorites in OS support, promotes DRM, and does pretty almost everything a software company can do to make everyone's life harder.
"Almost" because as far as I know, anti-open-source propaganda against their competitors ("Gimp does not support CMYK!" and the likes) originates from Microsoft marketing people, Adobe just gets windfall from it as Microsoft is too stupid to make a graphics editor.
And this is why Something Awful is a home of intellectual giants, while the rest of the Internet is filled with people who spend hours participating in drama ans accusing each other of being a furry or pedophile.
True. The proper headline should be "Microsoft is trying to shit up the development of robots like they did with personal computers, and throw mankind into the new Dark Ages".
I wish people would stop blaming greed. The truth is you and I are as greedy as anyone else who has ever existed.
No.
Greed is okay.
HELL NO. It only looks normal because society forces people into a constant state of danger and fear to lose access to resources that are abundant to begin with, thus causing those people to exhibit behavior that resembles greed. Then real greedy monsters among you loudly proclaim "See!!! Everyone is greedy! We are just better than you at being greedy!".
The check is supposed to be a government that doesn't allow the greed of one person or entity to ruin things for everyone else.
That will never happen if American society won't stop encouraging and glorifying greed.
That's not how engineering works. Engineers are always looking for new ways to do things more productively and cheaply.
I have yet to see an engineer who is looking for a way to do engineering cheaply.
You seem to think that matters of style are analogous to engineering "best practices".
Software development IS ENGINEERING, not production. When people approach it as production or maintenance they get the same kind of result they get when they approach any other kind of engineering as if it was production -- they get a system in a a permanent state of being repaired. What is neither usable nor cheap.
Of course, the reason that behavior's reached such extreme levels is that it's compensation for his internal belief that he's not as good as everyone else.
No, that's Bill Gates.
Steve Jobs discovered that he is better at talking and promoting ideas rather than generating and implementing them. While this hardly counts as pride worthy, this is still far ahead of Gates who can only accomplish things by scavenging power from dying monopolies, then using it to destroy everything that it better than him.
Slashdot Mirror
A corporation would not exist without government, period. What you would have is individuals creating and trading -- they would be fully liable for their actions.
Those who now form corporations, would form something else -- in a complete absence of government it would be called a gang, but it will still act in exactly the same manner. If it works in Somalia and its pirates or Afghanistan and its poppy growers, there is no reason to expect it will fail anywhere else unless people will form a government that is more powerful than gangs or companies.
Why are corporations considered legal individuals?
Because they have more power than the government. Stripping power further away from the government will only make them more powerful.
It is known that most large corporations are extremely inefficient -- they get by through lobbying.
Did you know that the biggest of health care insurance companies actually welcomed the health care "reform"? The bill made it harder for any kind of competition to arise.
No, I didn't know that because this is a lie. Health insurance is already a cartel, so "competitors" are welcome to join.
I can guarantee you that prices will continue to rise because we are continuing to politically give favor to the richest of companies.
First of all, no, if no one will pay for expensive healthcare, it will become cheap healthcare. When insurance companies do everything to deny healthcare to the people, hospitals have to jack up the prices, turning the whole thing into luxury goods and lottery instead of a service with high demand across the whole society. Second, who cares about prices that companies and governments move from one pocket into another? Health reform is about availability of healthcare because this is a major social problem now -- everything else is secondary.
A "free market" is simply reducing all trade to supply/demand, as well as allowing people to trade in any way they want to.
As long as companies are engaged in marketing, have exclusive agreements with resellers and retailers, most of demand is a result of manipulation. Before government stepped in, ALL advertised medicine was, for the lack of a better word, fake -- and that was the time when average person could easily determine quality of anything he could consume, except medicine. Good luck unleashing a torrent of snake oil on the society now.
When government takes an action, it monopolizes it; taking that power from its citizens (who may or may not have been exercising or been aware of that power).
The only way citizens can exercise any kind of power is by forming a government that represents them, and delegating that power to it. An individual can have rights, however there is no right to have power over other individuals -- at least not since the abolition of slavery. Power is always given to the government to represent large groups of people. If the group being represented by the government is mostly the same group as being governed, government performs its function. If the group being represented is not the same as the group being governed, government ends up being unjust and oppressive. If the government is too weak to govern some aspect of society, it ends up being governed by whoever will take it over -- and if there is any profit to be made there, those groups will end up being more oppressive than even the worst governments imaginable. Those are the only options available.
Surprisingly enough those options have very little to do with political system being "free", "democratic", etc. Results depend on people realizing that each and every specific political decision they can affect, has consequences that they have to evaluate before affecting it. When people refuse to look at specifics and shift to slogans that focus on meta-decisions that supposedly will au
It's worse. It's for some defined by odd number of recursive steps and for some by even number of the same recursive steps. And those usually recommend the opposite actions, thus making the whole thing worthless.
Admit it, the idea ran into the ground and can't work anymore. Stock market is currently worthless, go back to bank loans, insurance and grants for small businesses, severely regulated large companies and government-backed infrastructure projects.
A corporation exists solely because of government regulation (a corporation is a legislated entity which exists to remove accountability from owners&employees).
Without a government it would still exist, and act in exactly the same manner -- it just would not be called a corporation.
The rest of your argument is therefore worthless.
Government is a legal and standardized monopoly on violence.
Yes.
Say what you will, but it is founded on poor principles which are unsustainable in the long run.
You are wrong, and you don't even pretend to have a valid argument.
You are speaking hatefully.
Yes, I do, I hate you, I want to make it clear why, and why everyone else should treat you the same. This is far less hostile than anything your corporate overlords do toward the rest of society -- for them everyone is either prey or an enemy. I merely hate you for being stupid and for actively spreading stupidity, so compared to their position I almost love you.
A business exists solely because of society in a free market (what else could it be?).
No society would approve of "free market" unless people like you will continuously try to convince themselves and each other that "free market" is in any way desirable. It's a function of society to make market non-free, to oppress the groups that fight for power over such a society. Propaganda of "free market" is a call for society to abandon such oppression, to become passive and to submit to the will of those "businesses" out of faith in "market", to accept any power as legitimate if it is backed by wealth, to reduce the government to the role of enforcer of contracts that enslave the public.
No one with fair economic knowledge...
"Economic knowledge" that is promoted in US (yes, all of it, Keynesian one included) mostly consists of right-wing propaganda, and can be summarized as "private good, public bad, more wealth for the wealthy because they deserve it, their wealth will somehow trickle down real soon now". In rest of the world those things are firmly in the realm of political slogans, and "economic knowledge" is a mix of resource management and accounting practices on a large scale.
I want to see the person who thought that it was a good idea to mention cameras and guns in the same sentence with any implication of equivalence or relationship between those things, as applied to pointing them at cops.
And shoot him.
...and THIS is how one of the worst enemies of progress looks like -- a free market demagogue.
Yeah, let's completely ignore the fact that "free market" is a system that encourages its own stated principles' subversion -- more power is grabbed by whoever already has more power than the rest, and there is no government around to oppress such abusers. In reality no matter how evil and abusive the government can become, corporations would be more abusive because their existence does not depend on population accepting them. You can overthrow the government but you can't overthrow hundreds of companies deeply entrenched into the fabric of society, no matter what they do -- any organization that can destroy them is, by definition, an oppressive government.
This is what corporate sycophants are afraid of -- a government that is accountable to the people and oppressive toward them. This is why they love "free market" so much -- because their corporate overlords have the only freedom that matters for them -- a freedom to oppress the rest of society. Nothing else matters -- when leaders of those organizations are not outright sadistic, they lust for power, and "free market" is how they call failure of society to fight back.
Though this likely IS going to happen, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing things anonymously that would be no longer anonymous if there was an easy way to find anyone's identity by merely fingerprints or DNA. This is why AGGREGATION AND DISTRIBUTION of such data is resisted -- it would encourage police to find and accuse everyone who may be somewhat related to some kind of crime or wrongdoing and has no ability to defend against accusations, but not actually guilty, or can be data to track people who merely are opposed to someone with access to such a system, or merely for petty harassment on wide scale. This is where breach of privacy harms society.
On the other hand, use of weapons in any civilized society is unthinkable without taking responsibility for the results -- be they criminal or not. In situations when shooting someone is an acceptable solution, privacy is the last thing the shooter should be worrying about.
In Soviet Russia much of the samizdat was of a purely factual nature, and by contradicting official reports delegitimized the government.
Only if you count Solzhenitsyn's historical fiction as factual. Because the rest was obviously fictional, merely seen as hostile by the government -- with genres from poetry to fantasy and science fiction.
Let it make it clear for Americans -- does society benefit from law-abiding people being able to shoot anonymously, regardless of what criminals can or can't do?
You are so drunk on your Champagne Socialism that you aren't even reading what I said: did I mention a statutory minimum wage, or did I twice say "the minimum wage required to survive"?
If it's survival in a way how a civilized society defines it, why not?
What a crass display of plumage! So the reason those "worse programmers" get paid the same as you isn't even (as your incoherent philosophy might suggest) because you don't demand the best possible wage; it's because, unlike you, they are unethical.
The only way to "demand the best possible wage" is to rob a bank.
This was not in question. The matter was whether your primary motivation is one of enriching the world or enriching yourself (via your employer).
This is not my primary motivation. Now what?
Because you consider yourself a reasonable and honest programmer, you have the option to work for nonprofits with a primary motivation to improve the world. You have chosen not to do that.
You know that nonprofits pay their employees, too, don't you? The only difference is that nonprofit can't make a profit as an organization, the fact that is completely irrelevant for me and the rest of society. MPAA is a nonprofit -- should I work for them to satisfy your definition of honest?
I am trying to interpret that sentence in a non-vacuous way. If your priorities were wrong, you would notice it without help from ABC... so, if your priorities were wrong, you would notice it... on your own... eventually? Or if you come to notice it with help, you are certain that it will be with the help of a superior/equal mind?
The part that is relevant for you is that you are stupid, and your opinion about my motivation is worthless.
I have learned so far that you judge certain people as having inferior minds to your own, and conclude that nothing from them can contribute towards significant decisions. That's the sort of pigeonholing brought to us by feudalism!
Easy to learn such a thing while being a total fuckhead.
People made the same arguments against POS background checks for firearms but we still wound up with those....
Except, there is very little value for society that can be derived from its members being able to SHOOT ANONYMOUSLY.
He claims that W3C is worse than Adobe because their testbed (not even reference!) implementation of some of their standards is not a good general-purpose web browser.
Your employer hired you because your work is good enough yet you showed no indication of working for free.
Where did "working for free" ever come into this discussion?
Your employer is paying you above the minimum wage required to survive because you showed no indication of working for the minimum wage required to survive.
If minimum wage was actually sufficient for survival in the modern society, I would be content with it. The whole problem is that even though society can easily provide for all its members' decent living conditions, it does not do so, and idiots like you create this ridiculous fiction that people would not do anything useful if they weren't threatened with starvation.
Guess what -- poor people WOULD starve if they relied entirely on the salaries they have now, they have to make up the rest of their living costs by mooching from the rest of society in various ways. If poverty really motivates anything, it's not productive work.
As long as you continue to selfishly and capitalistically demand a market wage for your employment, you are redirecting resources which could be used toward improving open source software for the world.
Actually I don't get paid "market wage" for the work on my level. Plenty of worse programmers get paid the same salary, though they also are more stressed out, and do work that often goes against anything even remotely resembling ethics. I find this acceptable -- I am not greedy.
As long as you work on a software project for a firm which ultimately exists to make money rather than a non-profit which ultimately exists to improve open source software for the world, you are redirecting resources which could be used toward improving open source software for the world.
One doesn't have to work for a nonprofit to make something useful for everyone.
You might want to think your priorities over.
Thinking is all I do. I can assure you, if my priorities were wrong, I would notice it without help from inferior minds.
Either admit to yourself why you are employed where you are, or show some consistency and quit your job today. Many men have lived their lives in denial; don't be another.
Why don't you go fuck yourself.
Why don't you build a computer entirely out of chip manufacturers' evaluation kits and reference boards?
I see, I am talking to yet another market fetishist.
If by any chance you are really this dense -- OF COURSE, my employer hired me because I develop something the company benefit from. If I didn't work there, I would work on something that does not benefit the employer company, so company pays me to work there. This however has nothing to do with my choices, software developers' positions would exist with or without me, and it's my choice where to work. If all companies were in the range between Microsoft, Apple and Adobe, that would be a problem, however this is not the case.
If it didn't make your employer rich, your employer would not have any money to pay you.
That's my employer's motivation, not mine. There are countless ways of making money, I did not choose working for Adobe writing Photoshop among other things.
So unless you're a volunteer, your work on open source projects is motivated by making your employer rich.
My employer would be surprised to hear that.
Like the W3C. I'm still looking forward to a browser which actually fully supports any of their mainstream standards produced over the past few years. Also good would be a standard written sufficiently well that two best-effort implementations are equally acceptable when provided with any standards-compliant HTML/CSS/Javascript.
With all valid criticism that exists against W3C standards' flaws, you can't seriously compare any of them with an inconsistent mess that is Flash.
Choice by businesses != choice by engineers.
My work on open source projects is not motivated by making my employer rich -- it just happens to do that anyway, so no one is complaining. Adobe, on the other hand, creates deliberately convoluted, nearly impossible to reimplement, products, plays favorites in OS support, promotes DRM, and does pretty almost everything a software company can do to make everyone's life harder.
"Almost" because as far as I know, anti-open-source propaganda against their competitors ("Gimp does not support CMYK!" and the likes) originates from Microsoft marketing people, Adobe just gets windfall from it as Microsoft is too stupid to make a graphics editor.
And this is why Something Awful is a home of intellectual giants, while the rest of the Internet is filled with people who spend hours participating in drama ans accusing each other of being a furry or pedophile.
True. The proper headline should be "Microsoft is trying to shit up the development of robots like they did with personal computers, and throw mankind into the new Dark Ages".
I wish people would stop blaming greed. The truth is you and I are as greedy as anyone else who has ever existed.
No.
Greed is okay.
HELL NO. It only looks normal because society forces people into a constant state of danger and fear to lose access to resources that are abundant to begin with, thus causing those people to exhibit behavior that resembles greed. Then real greedy monsters among you loudly proclaim "See!!! Everyone is greedy! We are just better than you at being greedy!".
The check is supposed to be a government that doesn't allow the greed of one person or entity to ruin things for everyone else.
That will never happen if American society won't stop encouraging and glorifying greed.
gb2/b/
</sarcasm>
Boo.
That's not how engineering works. Engineers are always looking for new ways to do things more productively and cheaply.
I have yet to see an engineer who is looking for a way to do engineering cheaply.
You seem to think that matters of style are analogous to engineering "best practices".
Software development IS ENGINEERING, not production. When people approach it as production or maintenance they get the same kind of result they get when they approach any other kind of engineering as if it was production -- they get a system in a a permanent state of being repaired. What is neither usable nor cheap.
"Modern" languages developed into various directions, however "mathematical method" is not how I would describe that.
Go fuck yourself.
Of course, the reason that behavior's reached such extreme levels is that it's compensation for his internal belief that he's not as good as everyone else.
No, that's Bill Gates.
Steve Jobs discovered that he is better at talking and promoting ideas rather than generating and implementing them. While this hardly counts as pride worthy, this is still far ahead of Gates who can only accomplish things by scavenging power from dying monopolies, then using it to destroy everything that it better than him.