Is it really better service? Is it better service to just provide pablum to keep people thinking that all is well, this is the best of all possible outcomes, or would they be better served if they were given a well-rounded view of the world and their place in it?
Honestly, I don't consider the USA Today approach to news journalism at all. If AOL/TW, Disney et. al. control all of the outlets, then all people will get is "happy news for happy people with happy problems".
So in reeality they don't get quality service, they get the shaft.
If there's one thing I learned from Aikido, Ikkyo, Sankyo and Nikyo have some other interesting effects, quite the opposite of relieving CTS, like writhing on the floor while a udansha gently twists your wrist to just short of the breaking point....
Still, Aikido is good fun, good excercise, and it certainly helped me a great deal with the tensions generated by work.
I would focus mainly on how the basics of using a computer. I would not spend a great deal of time showing kids a bunch of circuits and boards, although it would be helpful to open the case up and let them see inside, I wouldn't spend too much time on this.
Assuming these are going to be Windows machines, or Macs, I would start with getting around on the UI; where things are located, what things do, like the start button or apple menu/finder/chooser. Make sure they all get a chance to open all the directories, and then have them each write a text file, or Word file, save it, close the program, and open it, have them modify it. Use stuff they all know, like addresses, names of friends, etc.
If these kids a very young, I'd skip any speadsheets, databases. Stick with word. Then move to paint, and have 'em make that stuff.
Definitely include browsing the web, looking for stuff using search engines.
Once they've got the basics, then have them work in groups on a group project, like a web page that tells a story, or is about something the kids all like. Try to use a WYSIWIG editor, as writing all the tags may be too much. Show them how they can include all their drawings and stuff in the pages.
Games should be used sparingly, perhaps a Friday afternoon treat thing.
Avoid any serious programming. Young kids have short attention spans, and trying to get them to do Python or BASIC probably won't fly well. If they're older, and seem interested, I'd try more advanced HTML stuff and Javascript is a good one because it works inside the browser you can use the elements that they learn in HTML, so it's kind of a natural progression.
There have been a few of such things, as I remember, and opinions varied.
I myself would join a technology workers union for a few reasons.
One of my least favorite things about this business are the long hours. I'm not talking about the long hours that you might spend working on something where you look at your watch and it's 11pm and you say "Whoa! What happened?" Time flies when your having fun. I do object to the expectation that many managers and project managers have that if you're not cranking in 60 hours a week or more, then you aren't committed, and if you're not willing to sacrifice weekends at the drop of a hat then you're not a team player, and so on. I realize that setbacks occur, but just because a PM pulls a deadline out of their ass to keep marketing off their backs is not a good enough reason to call upon developers and engineers to put their lives on hold. Such situations occurred at a previous employer, and it happened so often that the developers threatened a sick-out if the situation didn't improve. The long and the short of it was that the CEO and various VPs stood up and took notice, and took these PMs to task for their irresponsible behavior. Unfortunately, the PM's still continued their ways, but at least we knew that we could refuse without fear of reprisals, as they would not be able to bring it up at reviews, etc. Had there been a union, we could have brought our case to them, and gotten some additional pressure. Union reps and leaders can approach high-ups and directors, regular peons like us can't. Like I said, things didn't change much, but short of leaving the company, there wasn't much we could do after that, and perhaps if we'd had a union, we could have really gotten things to change.
I know some people would say "Well if you don't like it, then leave.", but this company was doing well, and we really liked our work,and it was a startup on the cusp of taking off bigtime, so leaving would have been a last resort, and then only if it was truly hell. Collective bargaining is a major advantage when you need help in getting employers to play ball. They'd be nowhere without us, and you can't ship every software project off to Bombay(Mumbai).
The very fact that you used this phrase indicates that you actually don't 'pimp' all the chicks. Let me give you a word of advice: despite what you might have heard, girls don't really like it when you try to 'pimp' them, and the only reason why Dr. Dre can get away with it is because he's a rich superstar, which you are not.
Have you seen the thing? I initially thought it was a small island, but no, it's literally just this thing sticking out of the ocean. I find it hard to believe that you could even live on it, let alone run a business out of it. Apparently the server farms are in the legs of the platform...
I get that, but this would require a significant investment up front, and if you're in Nevada, Missouri, you may not be able to get the better goods than Wal-Mart has, and people may not want to spend the extra money, and Mom&Pop might not get that newfangled Internet thing, which costs money.
In short, my point is that for Mom&Pop stores to compete effectively against the Wal-Marts is to do as you suggested, but I think that the reality of the situation it's pretty likely that they won't be able to pull it off.
Maybe it's for the better. Those grumpy old codgers that run those little shops are a pain in the ass anyway.
USB pretty much works, and Firewire, Shmirewire. Apples are for pussies who don't like to fool with pesky things like files, or 11 year old girls who like them because they're pretty.
She has a very sexy voice, and she's smart, a great interviwer, but when I saw what she looked like I was underwhelmed. She's too butchy for me, but hey, I was getting turned on over NPR for chrissakes, so who am I to say?
You conservative guys just love that Hanoi Jane thing, don't you? Give it a rest will ya? Even McNamara admitted that Vietnam was a gigantic mistake...
There is truth to that statement, and I, as an educated, well-reasoned so-called 'leftist', will completely agree with this. Scandinavian countries, Germany, and increasingly across the E.U. (even some countries that used to be considered 'lost causes' like Portugal and Ireland) we see the highest standards of living. Why? Because they have the good sense and practicality to try and take the best from capitalism, and the best from socialism. Capitalism for economic strength, industrial base, and general financial well-being. The benefits of capitalism in this respect are all around us. However, they have also made a priority of taking care of their citizens, ensuring that they have adequate health care, providing education, and ensuring that those who fall on hard times can have something approaching a safety net. The government takes a practical approach to government, doing what lots of businesses do when they employ 'best practices'.
Unfortunately, we don't have that here. Socialism is a dirty word here, a holdover from the Cold War. Since no one is ever educated about Socialism here, and since most people are under the mistaken impression that Socialism == Marxism == Communism. For purely ideological reasons, with no basis in either experience or fact, they reject it out of hand simply because they are ignorant of what Socialism means in this day and age.
Socialism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive situations, and in practice, they operate in different spheres to a certain extent. Socialism deals with realities that people face in a society, nation, what have you, and seeks to address them. Socialism is about looking at what we're dealing with WRT to people, their behavior, and their well-being. It recognizes that people have needs, and the government, which is generally the one that has the ability to make these things happen, takes on the responsibility to undertake it. It's a critical error to assume that our freedoms must necessarily be abridged to do this. We could implement a wide variety of social programs and still leave the bill of rights completely intact (I have to add, that includes the 2nd amendment, I know someone would try to ding me on that vis a vis our European friends.)
Does it work perfectly? Of course not. But it does make for a higher standard of living, and it's a true increase, not just corporations telling us that it is so because we have both Coke *and* Pepsi.
There are people out there (and a good many of them, as we can see from the posts on this forum) who object to socialism on purely ideological grounds, with no idea what it is, and what it really means. For them, it's a simple expression of fear of the unknown. To a conservative, change is bad, because conservative, by definition, means that you think everything's great just the way it is, and that this is the best of all possible outcomes.
I work with software. When you're making software, you decide what you want to do, and then go about making that happen. You analyze, prioritize and draw up a plan, and work to that plan. When problems arise, you meet them head on, and fix it. You don't ignore it, stick your head in the sand, hope it goes away and rely on pablums to help you justify not fixing the problem. In my opinion, that's what Libertarians ( big 'L' ) and big-business Republicans (who differ from the Religious Taliban-esque wing of that party) would like us to do. All this rhetoric about the mystical magic of the 'free market' and 'free trade' is simply justification for saying "Screw 'em, I got mine, and if other people can't hack it then they're better off dead.", it's a cop-out, a responsibility dodge. The Republicans, of course, are all for social programs and government spending when it suits their tastes, like faith-based missile defense systems and oil drilling; and the Democrats would rather blindly throw money at an already broken system because they lack the will and the cojones to implement actual changes, not that very many have any desire to do so.
With respect to Globalization, the WTO, NAFTA, GATT and all those other things, my main beef is that it's all done in secret, people don't find out what it's about until after they've already implemented it. You don't have to be watching the Liberal Media news channels to discern who's writing these treaties, either. Open up the Wall Street Journal and it's all right there, at least what they're allowing you to know. After they realize they've got want they want, then they go about telling people how it's really for our benefit, and aren't they thoughtful for keeping our best interests at heart, and see, you don't even have to feel bad about poor people overseas, 'cause what's good for business is what's good for people.
Yes, folks, the government can and should intervene and regulate corporations, but as an agent of the people who are supposed to have elected them. People will say that corporations have only one responsibility: to turn a profit. It's been pointed out here numerous times, but history refutes it. That is not the only responsibility, the reason why they are allowed a pseudo-person status is not only to make money, but to serve the public trust. The rule should be "First, do no harm." As it is today, these corporations get carte-blanche to write all the rules. Combine that with the "bottom-line" mentality, and you're asking for trouble. I live in California, and we're seeing the results of what happens when you let corporations write laws with no public policy component. On a global scale, is this an acceptable risk? Corporations are not in and of themselves evil, and I don't think that their directors are bad people, but when they feel that they can absolve themselves of responsibility when they do bad things, bad things happen. The issue is, when bad things happen, the responsibility of the corporation is no longer profit v. loss, but social responsibility, and money shouldn't even enter in to it.
I digress. I think that better international cooperation and trade could be a good thing, but trusting corporations to do the right thing by us and people in other countries is something I just can't get behind, and from their track record, I feel justified in my suspicion.
And just how, exactly, is a Mom&Pop supposed to compete fairly against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is gigantic, can undercut any Mom&Pop without even trying. If it's two Mom&Pop's competing, than yes, I'd say that your natural selection argument works, the better business will win (usually). But to say that the Mom&Pop should get hip and compete with Wal-Mart, and acquire nationwide supply chains, a board of directors and go public and open up a chain of stores all over North America, I mean, come on, that ain't gonna happen. That's like a bayonet charge against a tank. What usually ends up happening, although not necessarily at Wal-Mart because you only need to be able to find your ass with both hands to land a job there, but in other megastores, like Home Depot, where there's a requirement for specialized knowledge, the guys who ran the local hardware store now run the power tool department at Home Depot, but that doesn't always happen.
Anarchy is the absence of government, not the absence of law. In an anarchy, laws could still exist, because prevailing community mores and standards would largely dictate what's right and wrong WRT society and those who would transgress. The nice thing about anarchy is that if everyone decided that say, I dunno, Microsoft was trespassing on the values of the community, we could burn the place down with no fear of reprisal!
It is clearly the work of those ignorant, unemployed by choice, know-nothings who have nothing better to do than trash and loot business to "protest" global free trade.
Ad hominem much?
Short-term job loss in specific areas are SWIFTLY offset by job growth in others, when true free trade is implemented.
The Cato Institute most assuredly would assert that we do not have this 'true free trade', so I ask you: Does this statement weaken your argument?
I can assume that this process is less swift in the absence of this mythical 'true free trade'. I think you might try explaining this concept to some folks in Flint or Dearborn.
Then why don't these people think this is the case between, say, Latin America and the US
There are several factors that weigh in here, and weigh in much heavier than tariffs. One, the majority of nations in South and particularly Central America achieved independence from a colonial power a relatively short time ago, this colonial power left the population poor, uneducated, and without any source of investment for infrastructure, power generation, construction, etc. Then comes large corporations, such as ITT, United Fruit, and a host of others. If these corporations did such wonders for the nations they operated in, why was it necessary for them to be forcibly removed from the places that they were operating in? They had to be removed because the nations and their people were the absolute last in line to benefit from their presence. The economic situation in many Latin American nations has nothing to do with trade barriers and everything to do with capital flight and widespread corruption due to poverty.
Don't be fooled: NO corporation pays taxes, only CONSUMERS.
Very true, as a matter of fact, given how much these entities bilk the government and consequently consumers of their fair share of the tax burden, naturally it's up to you and me the pick up the slack. I'm sure that they would like you to think that they have these overpowering tax burdens, but the reality just doesn't hold up. Corporations get a variety of tax breaks that I sure wish I had. There are corporations out there that haven't paid income tax in years, but don't take my word for it.
Corporate taxes hurt low-income people, the poor, and it makes me sick to know that some college kids "pretend to defend" the poor by advocating high corporate taxes either in the form of direct taxes or trade barriers, when often they are just blindly following a group of jerks with their own hidden agenda.
Sez you. Even if there were no corporate income taxes, and no trade regulations, I guarantee you that low-income people with narrow skills and substandard educational opportunities will still get screwed no matter what country they live in. On the other hand, perhaps these whiny college kids have taken the opportunity that college has given them to look around and analyze what's going on, and find that they don't agree with the way things work, and decide to stage protests to raise awareness. Perhaps the solution to all our problems is not simply allowing [US, Japanese and European] corporations (who are constantly merging) to run amok and call the shots. What's good for business is not always what's good for people.
Get the truth: www.cato.org
Or just perhaps their point of view.
Indeed, you have been reading too much Ayn Rand, or taking her 'philosphy' a little too seriously.
Despite this, I do not think that Rand would have necessarily agreed with your statement that money is what drives people to dream, innovate and what not. Not even work is necessarily driven by money. Some people, like teachers, certainly get more out of their work than money. I think Rand would have instead argued that freedom is what drives people to be better than they are.
Nonetheless, you are missing the point. Corporations driving hard to be profitable does not always equal money. For some, as corporations move production overseas, it equals unemployment, and that ain't money. For others, it opens up certain opportunities, i.e. working in a Nike factory as opposed to subsistence farming, but conditions there are horrible, and workers have to endure all manner of dehumanizing conduct simply to be allowed the priviledge of working there. In either case, you get the dead opposite of your live, work, dream schtick.
The government chooses to fund and develop using GPL and other open source tools and apps because it's cheaper, and they are usually bound by law to go with the cheapest solution to get the job done.
I'm glad to hear that the government is funding open source development, it means that they're being practical and frugal for a change.
I'd be upset if I found out that the government was being taken for a ride by Microsoft, just like most American corporations. It's just too bad that they're not extending this same level of practicality to other realms of government projects, namely the Faith-Based Missile Defense system.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, I don't consider the USA Today approach to news journalism at all. If AOL/TW, Disney et. al. control all of the outlets, then all people will get is "happy news for happy people with happy problems".
So in reeality they don't get quality service, they get the shaft.
Larry Flynt's publication empire is built on a more, *ahem* visual paradigm (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Still, Aikido is good fun, good excercise, and it certainly helped me a great deal with the tensions generated by work.
Assuming these are going to be Windows machines, or Macs, I would start with getting around on the UI; where things are located, what things do, like the start button or apple menu/finder/chooser. Make sure they all get a chance to open all the directories, and then have them each write a text file, or Word file, save it, close the program, and open it, have them modify it. Use stuff they all know, like addresses, names of friends, etc.
If these kids a very young, I'd skip any speadsheets, databases. Stick with word. Then move to paint, and have 'em make that stuff.
Definitely include browsing the web, looking for stuff using search engines.
Once they've got the basics, then have them work in groups on a group project, like a web page that tells a story, or is about something the kids all like. Try to use a WYSIWIG editor, as writing all the tags may be too much. Show them how they can include all their drawings and stuff in the pages.
Games should be used sparingly, perhaps a Friday afternoon treat thing.
Avoid any serious programming. Young kids have short attention spans, and trying to get them to do Python or BASIC probably won't fly well. If they're older, and seem interested, I'd try more advanced HTML stuff and Javascript is a good one because it works inside the browser you can use the elements that they learn in HTML, so it's kind of a natural progression.
I myself would join a technology workers union for a few reasons.
One of my least favorite things about this business are the long hours. I'm not talking about the long hours that you might spend working on something where you look at your watch and it's 11pm and you say "Whoa! What happened?" Time flies when your having fun. I do object to the expectation that many managers and project managers have that if you're not cranking in 60 hours a week or more, then you aren't committed, and if you're not willing to sacrifice weekends at the drop of a hat then you're not a team player, and so on. I realize that setbacks occur, but just because a PM pulls a deadline out of their ass to keep marketing off their backs is not a good enough reason to call upon developers and engineers to put their lives on hold. Such situations occurred at a previous employer, and it happened so often that the developers threatened a sick-out if the situation didn't improve. The long and the short of it was that the CEO and various VPs stood up and took notice, and took these PMs to task for their irresponsible behavior. Unfortunately, the PM's still continued their ways, but at least we knew that we could refuse without fear of reprisals, as they would not be able to bring it up at reviews, etc. Had there been a union, we could have brought our case to them, and gotten some additional pressure. Union reps and leaders can approach high-ups and directors, regular peons like us can't. Like I said, things didn't change much, but short of leaving the company, there wasn't much we could do after that, and perhaps if we'd had a union, we could have really gotten things to change.
I know some people would say "Well if you don't like it, then leave.", but this company was doing well, and we really liked our work,and it was a startup on the cusp of taking off bigtime, so leaving would have been a last resort, and then only if it was truly hell. Collective bargaining is a major advantage when you need help in getting employers to play ball. They'd be nowhere without us, and you can't ship every software project off to Bombay(Mumbai).
The very fact that you used this phrase indicates that you actually don't 'pimp' all the chicks. Let me give you a word of advice: despite what you might have heard, girls don't really like it when you try to 'pimp' them, and the only reason why Dr. Dre can get away with it is because he's a rich superstar, which you are not.
Ahh, ok so you're the pasty skinny variety of comic book nerd.
Have you seen the thing? I initially thought it was a small island, but no, it's literally just this thing sticking out of the ocean. I find it hard to believe that you could even live on it, let alone run a business out of it. Apparently the server farms are in the legs of the platform...
In short, my point is that for Mom&Pop stores to compete effectively against the Wal-Marts is to do as you suggested, but I think that the reality of the situation it's pretty likely that they won't be able to pull it off.
Maybe it's for the better. Those grumpy old codgers that run those little shops are a pain in the ass anyway.
USB pretty much works, and Firewire, Shmirewire. Apples are for pussies who don't like to fool with pesky things like files, or 11 year old girls who like them because they're pretty.
It is a good quote, I giggled when I heard that. Also describes a couple of CTO's I've met as well.
She has a very sexy voice, and she's smart, a great interviwer, but when I saw what she looked like I was underwhelmed. She's too butchy for me, but hey, I was getting turned on over NPR for chrissakes, so who am I to say?
Por ejemplo there's a company called TRW that can vaporize all your dreams for car ownership, boat ownership and event attendance.
You conservative guys just love that Hanoi Jane thing, don't you? Give it a rest will ya? Even McNamara admitted that Vietnam was a gigantic mistake...
Unfortunately, we don't have that here. Socialism is a dirty word here, a holdover from the Cold War. Since no one is ever educated about Socialism here, and since most people are under the mistaken impression that Socialism == Marxism == Communism. For purely ideological reasons, with no basis in either experience or fact, they reject it out of hand simply because they are ignorant of what Socialism means in this day and age.
Socialism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive situations, and in practice, they operate in different spheres to a certain extent. Socialism deals with realities that people face in a society, nation, what have you, and seeks to address them. Socialism is about looking at what we're dealing with WRT to people, their behavior, and their well-being. It recognizes that people have needs, and the government, which is generally the one that has the ability to make these things happen, takes on the responsibility to undertake it. It's a critical error to assume that our freedoms must necessarily be abridged to do this. We could implement a wide variety of social programs and still leave the bill of rights completely intact (I have to add, that includes the 2nd amendment, I know someone would try to ding me on that vis a vis our European friends.)
Does it work perfectly? Of course not. But it does make for a higher standard of living, and it's a true increase, not just corporations telling us that it is so because we have both Coke *and* Pepsi.
There are people out there (and a good many of them, as we can see from the posts on this forum) who object to socialism on purely ideological grounds, with no idea what it is, and what it really means. For them, it's a simple expression of fear of the unknown. To a conservative, change is bad, because conservative, by definition, means that you think everything's great just the way it is, and that this is the best of all possible outcomes.
I work with software. When you're making software, you decide what you want to do, and then go about making that happen. You analyze, prioritize and draw up a plan, and work to that plan. When problems arise, you meet them head on, and fix it. You don't ignore it, stick your head in the sand, hope it goes away and rely on pablums to help you justify not fixing the problem. In my opinion, that's what Libertarians ( big 'L' ) and big-business Republicans (who differ from the Religious Taliban-esque wing of that party) would like us to do. All this rhetoric about the mystical magic of the 'free market' and 'free trade' is simply justification for saying "Screw 'em, I got mine, and if other people can't hack it then they're better off dead.", it's a cop-out, a responsibility dodge. The Republicans, of course, are all for social programs and government spending when it suits their tastes, like faith-based missile defense systems and oil drilling; and the Democrats would rather blindly throw money at an already broken system because they lack the will and the cojones to implement actual changes, not that very many have any desire to do so.
With respect to Globalization, the WTO, NAFTA, GATT and all those other things, my main beef is that it's all done in secret, people don't find out what it's about until after they've already implemented it. You don't have to be watching the Liberal Media news channels to discern who's writing these treaties, either. Open up the Wall Street Journal and it's all right there, at least what they're allowing you to know. After they realize they've got want they want, then they go about telling people how it's really for our benefit, and aren't they thoughtful for keeping our best interests at heart, and see, you don't even have to feel bad about poor people overseas, 'cause what's good for business is what's good for people.
Yes, folks, the government can and should intervene and regulate corporations, but as an agent of the people who are supposed to have elected them. People will say that corporations have only one responsibility: to turn a profit. It's been pointed out here numerous times, but history refutes it. That is not the only responsibility, the reason why they are allowed a pseudo-person status is not only to make money, but to serve the public trust. The rule should be "First, do no harm." As it is today, these corporations get carte-blanche to write all the rules. Combine that with the "bottom-line" mentality, and you're asking for trouble. I live in California, and we're seeing the results of what happens when you let corporations write laws with no public policy component. On a global scale, is this an acceptable risk? Corporations are not in and of themselves evil, and I don't think that their directors are bad people, but when they feel that they can absolve themselves of responsibility when they do bad things, bad things happen. The issue is, when bad things happen, the responsibility of the corporation is no longer profit v. loss, but social responsibility, and money shouldn't even enter in to it.
I digress. I think that better international cooperation and trade could be a good thing, but trusting corporations to do the right thing by us and people in other countries is something I just can't get behind, and from their track record, I feel justified in my suspicion.
By the time you actually do grow up, you'll realize that corporate tax breaks are a form of subsidisation.
And just how, exactly, is a Mom&Pop supposed to compete fairly against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is gigantic, can undercut any Mom&Pop without even trying. If it's two Mom&Pop's competing, than yes, I'd say that your natural selection argument works, the better business will win (usually). But to say that the Mom&Pop should get hip and compete with Wal-Mart, and acquire nationwide supply chains, a board of directors and go public and open up a chain of stores all over North America, I mean, come on, that ain't gonna happen. That's like a bayonet charge against a tank. What usually ends up happening, although not necessarily at Wal-Mart because you only need to be able to find your ass with both hands to land a job there, but in other megastores, like Home Depot, where there's a requirement for specialized knowledge, the guys who ran the local hardware store now run the power tool department at Home Depot, but that doesn't always happen.
Anarchy is the absence of government, not the absence of law. In an anarchy, laws could still exist, because prevailing community mores and standards would largely dictate what's right and wrong WRT society and those who would transgress. The nice thing about anarchy is that if everyone decided that say, I dunno, Microsoft was trespassing on the values of the community, we could burn the place down with no fear of reprisal!
Ad hominem much?
Short-term job loss in specific areas are SWIFTLY offset by job growth in others, when true free trade is implemented.
The Cato Institute most assuredly would assert that we do not have this 'true free trade', so I ask you: Does this statement weaken your argument? I can assume that this process is less swift in the absence of this mythical 'true free trade'. I think you might try explaining this concept to some folks in Flint or Dearborn.
Then why don't these people think this is the case between, say, Latin America and the US
There are several factors that weigh in here, and weigh in much heavier than tariffs. One, the majority of nations in South and particularly Central America achieved independence from a colonial power a relatively short time ago, this colonial power left the population poor, uneducated, and without any source of investment for infrastructure, power generation, construction, etc. Then comes large corporations, such as ITT, United Fruit, and a host of others. If these corporations did such wonders for the nations they operated in, why was it necessary for them to be forcibly removed from the places that they were operating in? They had to be removed because the nations and their people were the absolute last in line to benefit from their presence. The economic situation in many Latin American nations has nothing to do with trade barriers and everything to do with capital flight and widespread corruption due to poverty.
Don't be fooled: NO corporation pays taxes, only CONSUMERS.
Very true, as a matter of fact, given how much these entities bilk the government and consequently consumers of their fair share of the tax burden, naturally it's up to you and me the pick up the slack. I'm sure that they would like you to think that they have these overpowering tax burdens, but the reality just doesn't hold up. Corporations get a variety of tax breaks that I sure wish I had. There are corporations out there that haven't paid income tax in years, but don't take my word for it.
Corporate taxes hurt low-income people, the poor, and it makes me sick to know that some college kids "pretend to defend" the poor by advocating high corporate taxes either in the form of direct taxes or trade barriers, when often they are just blindly following a group of jerks with their own hidden agenda.
Sez you. Even if there were no corporate income taxes, and no trade regulations, I guarantee you that low-income people with narrow skills and substandard educational opportunities will still get screwed no matter what country they live in. On the other hand, perhaps these whiny college kids have taken the opportunity that college has given them to look around and analyze what's going on, and find that they don't agree with the way things work, and decide to stage protests to raise awareness. Perhaps the solution to all our problems is not simply allowing [US, Japanese and European] corporations (who are constantly merging) to run amok and call the shots. What's good for business is not always what's good for people.
Get the truth: www.cato.org
Or just perhaps their point of view.
Despite this, I do not think that Rand would have necessarily agreed with your statement that money is what drives people to dream, innovate and what not. Not even work is necessarily driven by money. Some people, like teachers, certainly get more out of their work than money. I think Rand would have instead argued that freedom is what drives people to be better than they are.
Nonetheless, you are missing the point. Corporations driving hard to be profitable does not always equal money. For some, as corporations move production overseas, it equals unemployment, and that ain't money. For others, it opens up certain opportunities, i.e. working in a Nike factory as opposed to subsistence farming, but conditions there are horrible, and workers have to endure all manner of dehumanizing conduct simply to be allowed the priviledge of working there. In either case, you get the dead opposite of your live, work, dream schtick.
The government chooses to fund and develop using GPL and other open source tools and apps because it's cheaper, and they are usually bound by law to go with the cheapest solution to get the job done.
I'm glad to hear that the government is funding open source development, it means that they're being practical and frugal for a change.
I'd be upset if I found out that the government was being taken for a ride by Microsoft, just like most American corporations.
It's just too bad that they're not extending this same level of practicality to other realms of government projects, namely the Faith-Based Missile Defense system.