Parties control the system, and bid corporations control the parties
The US has never had the kind of party discipline that European Parliments have always had. Saying that the parties control the system is quite wrong. Parties are much weaker today then they were 60 to 70 (or more) years ago. How often do you see party members vote against a party sponsored bill? Very, very often. So often in fact, that passing almost anything requires a bipartisan commitment as opposed to just a simple party majority in Congress.
Now, if you had said that the big parties (Dems & Repubs) keep other parties _out_ of the system, that would be true. But that has nothing to do with your claim that individuals (such as Teddy) are weakened. On the contrary, individuals need much less party support then they needed during Teddy's time, since they can rely much more heavily on support from interest groups as opposed to their political party.
Don't forget that when Roosevelt tried to run for a third term, he split the Republican party vote between himself and Hoover, allowing Wilson to get elected. It was because he didn't have the nomination of the Republican party he didn't win, not because of his inability as an individual. Had he had the Republican nomination, Roosevelt wouldn't have split the party, and he would have had a third term as President.
...and then voted for the guy with the better hair, or the girl with the bigger tits.
Actually, its usually not used in conjunction with voting behavior that much as far as I've seen. Its more utilized with elites to explain political decision making. It assumes that you have a given set of preferences and you'll do everything rationally within your power to maximize those preferences, very similar to ways Economists use GT to rationally determine how an individual would maximize profits. For example, I've seen a rather complex game drawn up to determine what the best way to resolve a peace process is, where each side wants something from the other, and they're both rationally trying to maximize their gains from the negotiations. I suppose its interesting, but I'd just rather have a good narrative.
Game Theory is also often used in Political Science in conjunction with Rational Choice Theory. They use GT to produce formal models of potential choices that an individual rational actor will take when faced with a certain decision. It is often used in attempts to explain political behavior. However, Rational Choice often comes under fire as a mode of operation because of how complex these formal models tend to be. To explain a half page diagram and a good narrative, they will utilize a few pages of greek letters and mathematical formulas in a way to predict human behavior.
Still, despite the fact that its not very readable, its fairly en vogue in Political Science to either use Rat. Choice or to trash Rat. Choice.
The fact that sites which avoided getting the priciest digs (I'm looking at you, Kuro5hin) have survived and maybe even thrived is a testament to the folly of Salon, Inside, Slate, and all the other online media startups.
It wasn't long ago that K5 ran out of money and Rusty had to ask for a whole lot of money. It survived because it had a user base that was willing to pay for the product despite the 'flawed business model.' It does help that K5's costs are low, yes. But without donations, it very well could have gone under.
Infrasound weapons seem like they'd be good terrorist weapons, because you can't tell whether you've been attacked by one or not.
I think you have a misunderstanding of terrorism, which is somewhat understandable considering the current state of the world. Terrorism is a tool utilized to cheaply attempt to get policy changes as an alternative to war. That is, Osama bin Laden could attempt a conventional war against the US, would likely get slaughtered and accomplish nothing. However, by making a public act of terrorism to instill fear in the population, it becomes possible to 'scare' or instill 'terror' into the target so that they feel vulnerable, despite their incredibly powerful militaries that are supposed to protect them.
Because of this reasoning, infrasound would be an absolutely horrible terrorist weapon, unless you claimed responsibility for it. There's a reason that terrorism utilizes really horrific methods that are really public.
I'm going to have to take issue with your stereotypes here, primarily because I should fit into one of these two (or both) and absolutely none of your generalizations seem to apply.
So, let me start by saying the following items were true of me in High School:
1) I was skinny, but not a pushover. This needs to be clarified in the sense that I wasn't going around finishing fights that other people started, but in the sense that I could laugh off a punch to the face and not back down from my position on the matter. For the most part, issues never seemed to get pressed.
2) I did not find sports particularly hard, however I generally did not like them. During my pre-high school years I was involved with Baseball, Basketball, flag football, high school style wrestling, soccer, and a few sports here and there. In High School I was involved with cross country running. For most of these sports I tried them for a year or two, got bored with them, and moved onto other things. They weren't 'hard', but they just did not tickle my fancy.
3) I am generally reclusive, antisocial and at times cynical. However, irritating and unpleasant aren't words I've heard to describe me, though I am generally quiet, and don't make good use of small talk. However, when asked a question, small or large, I am willing to be helpful without being arrogant about the whole thing. That is, I try to be helpful, and not say things like "You stupid fuck, everyone knows that." This is generally the case in High School, though, I will admit I was more elitist at the time.
4) While not a fat fuck, playing video games all day and watching cartoons could be described how I spend a lot of my time. Not all day, as I tend to have other work to do, as well as maintaining normal personal grooming habits.
5) Basic hygiene was never put on hold for cartoons or MMORPGs (or more accurately in my case, mudding, which is probably more of a geek thing to do). Teeth were brushed, hair washed and brushed, deoderant used, clean clothing worn. Smell was not an issue.
6) I did prefer games to social interaction a lot of the time. As a basic rule of thumb, I don't like people. I don't think I am better or more elite then others, I just do not enjoy being around them. This has more to do with social norms of telling constant small lies and half truths, mixed with the constant need to blather on about something, if it has a point or not, then it has to do with their legitimacy.
7) Types of employment: During High School I worked Internet Technical Support, and have gone back on that a couple times to support my lifestyle. However, I am currently working on a PhD in a social science as opposed to the more geeky physical or computer science. This leads me to have somewhat regular communication with real people, most of which are highly intelligent and not computer geeks.
8) I have never quoted the Simpsons, nor do I watch it with any degree of regularity. Nor do I memorize and regurgitate any cartoon script. Philosophers from time to time, but only if it seems relevant to the matter at hand (which is fairly often when you study Political Science).
Thus, your typology of nerds is flawed, as individuals can belong to both distinct breeds at the same time based on their secondary characteristics, and your ideas as to why they are unpopular are also not universal.
I am by most accounts a geek. I spend more time infront of a computer then around people. However, my lack of popularity is not on account of my lack of social skills (as I am well aware and fully capable of functioning within normal society). On the contrary, I simply do not like normal society and remove myself from it. Of course I won't be popular, but I never wanted to be popular to begin with.
Having a single hard drive, even one that's 100% reliable, isn't a reasonable storage solution for mission critical data...
Sorry to nit-pick, but if a drive is 100% reliable, then it will never, ever fail. Maybe you meant like 99.9999% or something. But if its 100% reliable, that means its 100% reliable. Though, nothing is ever 100%.
Now, what strikes me is that usually a government-owned venture is nowhere near as competitive as the private sector. The real question here is why the heck private companies are charging so much more than these quasi-governmental companies.
I would imagine this venture is more competitive then the huge telecommunications companies, since a town of 14,000 people makes it a whole lot easier to complain to the very upper levels of management whenever its not working right or there is a better solution. Not to mention that the customer base can do more then just "vote with their wallet", they can vote with their ballot, and have referendums to completely alter how the system is managed if it gets out of hand. Besides, even if there was a private set of ventures in this area, they would need to do everything that this small government has done, plus charge a percentage "profit" amount, which will always give the well run government agency an advantage in terms of price over the well run private corporation.
The key word is "well run", which is something that both private companies and governments have trouble doing, especially on large scales. Private companies are immune from having inane and pointless structures that cause tons of waste, just because they're private. The market isn't magical, and it doesn't just fix this. The private sphere and the public sphere both boil down to people, and their motives. If their motives are corrupt (Private corruption "Lets bilk the entire population for everything they've got and we'll be filthy rich!" or Public "Lets just stay in office forever, and never change, I don't like change") then the result will be corrupt. However, if either have good intentions (Private "Lets offer a good product at a decent price, and make a living off of it" or Public "Lets provide something good for the public, to improve their lives") and they allow those intentions to guide them, the outcome isn't usually horrific. No one meaning well intentionally screws over the people they're trying to help.
I think the key to this is the size of the endeavor. A small business that knows its customer base intimately will be much more sensitive to their needs and demands. A large one that must meet a projected profit every quarter will be willing to sacrifice them in order to stay in good with the stock market. Similarly, a large government (ie, Federal in the US) will lose track of its vision in all its complex infighting. However, for a small city to do something like this? They're not going to set up a government endeavor just to screw themselves, since 14,000 people isn't a population worth exploiting to that degree.
To summarize after all that rambling: public ownership is not always evil and inefficient, nor is private ownership always good and effective. Find a balance for the situation that provides the best outcome for society. Its not always going to be the market.
Can you come over and wash my car, paint my house make me dinner, give me a new tv, put my kids through college, and clean out my basement?
You missed my point entirely. I never claimed I had a right to get everything free, but my complaint was the previous statement that I should want Apple to keep their system proprietary, and that I just don't know what's good for me.
The reality is, Apple having proprietary systems does absolutely nothing to benefit me. Thus, I do not want Apple to keep things proprietary, nor should I. I should want them to give everything away for free, whenever possible. However, I never, ever, claimed that I had an expectation (or a right) to that. Apple wants what is good for Apple, and I can respect that. However, I don't want what's good for Apple, I want what's good for me. Telling me I should want otherwise is outright silly.
Really? I somehow gain something out of a private corporation taking something that is cheap to reproduce, and instead, keeping it away from the masses?
Certainly they have their reasons for wanting stuff to be proprietary, but why on earth should I want them to keep stuff away from me, forever, with no gain to me, ever, unless I pay them large amounts of money? That doesn't mean I feel I have a right to their product, which is a different argument. But I would most certainly prefer a society where everything possible were free. In fact, I _want_ a utopian society where everything is free. Why on earth would I want things to remain costly, forever?
That was perhaps the most arrogant comment I've ever seen.
This is actually unconstitutional, since Congress is enabled to grant exclusive rights for "limited times" only.
As much as I wish you were right, you're actually wrong on this. The Supreme Court ruled on the case, and found that what the Congress did was constitutional, and since the constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution, it is constitutional to do so. This will only change if the Supreme Court changes its ruling at a future date, or the Congress were to ammend the constitution to make it unconstitutional, this issue remains constitutional, as unfortunate as it is.
I do NOT maintain that the market keeps every incompetent person out of business.
Fair enough. I apologize for lumping you with Libertarian ideals.
However, a regulation structure does provide some method for potentially getting rid of incapable professionals. That is, you can revoke someone's ability to practice if they repeatedly screw up, where as, in the market, they always potentially have the ability to find new customers who are unaware of their reputation. That is, if a doctor or a lawyer refuses to follow regulation proceedures, they can be removed from practice, as they are potentially a threat to their consumers.
The problem with just letting the market run wild is that people who are not aware of someone's skill will end up getting burned by their incompetence. Of course, letting your customers get screwed is bad for your business, and will likely generate less revenue over time. But as long as you have decent advertizing, the ability to constantly get new customers to exploit remains a possibility. This is something that the market does nothing to rectify. The burned consumers are casualties of the market.
Does requiring pre-emptive licensing resolve this issue? Not exactly. It does mean you've at least looked at some material about it before, which is more then the market can guarantee. However, the barrier to entry in the form of fees related to obtaining a license is a legitimate complaint. I would much prefer that anyone wishing to work in a profession had that option regardless of their financial ability.
That being said, I don't think having no regulatory structure at all resolves the problem of bad service. On the contrary, it does something (by being able to de-license individuals), though it does not resolve the issue at all (since it is still possible to be crappy and licensed). Plus, in the current form, there is a barrier to entrance issue in the form of fees to obtain a license. However, your major complaint disappears entirely if you have free education and licensing.
That is, if anyone who is capable of fulfilling the requirements of the licensing program is permitted to join the program and get the license, free of charge (at the time of their enrollment). Pay for it by having current professionals (who received a free license) pay a professional fee that funds the education. Thus, people who are working and getting paid as a professional, who also joined the profession for free, will be supporting the new generation of those to be trained.
Those who don't live up to the standards of the required profession become de-licensed, in protection of consumers. There is no barrier to entry to the profession. In fact, the number of people in the profession will likely increase, which will increase competition amongst the professionals, increasing market forces on them, driving prices down for their labor and for consumers. This solution sounds better for everyone, save for the professionals themselves, who can no longer be protective of their exceptional trained position in society.
If it weren't for the fact that unlicensed hairdressers were against the law, the market would work.
Why? Because, presumably, there is an army of skilled hair dressers waiting on the wings who are only held back by the fact that they can't afford to get licensed? Sorry, I don't buy that.
Presumably, to be the greatest hairdresser in the world you would have to have some experience with hairdressing. This presumably comes either from supposedly illegal practice (cutting hair for friends and their children) or through the education process (of getting a license). Thus, the artificial barrier to entry is only a block to people who want to be hairdressers, not to people who have any skill, since its impossible to have skill without having performed before.
However, the barrier to entry argument might provide a better argument for our topic at hand: computer repairs. However, the market is currently unregulated, and the story poster explicitly noted a sizable portion of crappy computer service in a freer market then hair dressers. Why hasn't the market resolved that issue? Its supposed to solve everything, isn't it?
Note, no where did I say that regulation would instantly solve the problem. I did not. I did say that the market is not a magical, all knowing mechanism that fixes everything. It is not. While, your word of mouth story about the restraunt is all heart warming, let me provide an alternative hypothetical scenario.
The restraunt business is completely unregulated, and an independently wealthy individual always wanted to open up a restraunt, however he (or she) didn't have the bureaucratic patience to wade through the red tape required to get licensed. So, not knowing anything about running a restraunt, he buys the cheapest beef he can find for his restraunt, which just happens to have severe health issues associated with it that he is unaware of (various bacteria come to mind). However, this individual does know something about marketing, and he runs a huge ad campaign about the grand opening of his restraunt, with a huge turnout.
Almost all of his customers become violently ill from his unregulated beef, from his unregulated restraunt. Of course, everyone knows to never eat there again, and I suppose you can count that as the market working. But what do you do about all those people (dozens, if not hundreds) who became violently ill due to the lack of health regulations? Write them off as casualties of the market doing its magic?
There's a flaw in your argument; it contradicts itself.
You argue that licensing does nothing to keep incompetants from getting work:
Do you think the licensing keeps incompetent plumbers from working? Do you think that licensing keeps incompetent people in almost ANY field from working?
However, you then say that letting the market decide will automatically resolve these problems:
If somebody is lousy at something, word gets around and the person has trouble getting work, until he's getting work only from people who are more interested in a cheap price than a quality job.
Therefore, following your argument, licensing does not resolve the problem (since licensed individuals have proven capable of doing crappy jobs), but leaving it to the market does not resolve the issue either (since these licensed individuals exist within the market as well, and they still get work and manage to screw it up). Therefore, while government regulation might not be the best choice of action, doing nothing at all will not resolve the issue of crappy service.
Unless of course, you would advocate something along the lines of "you get what you pay for, so only buy from people who charge more then everyone else", but solely using price as a determiner of quality is patently silly. So presumably, it would have to be "rely upon recommendations of friends, and be willing to pay higher prices for quality." Okay, that makes sense to some degree.
But how do you deal with people who recommend people who are not very qualified? As the story posted mentioned: johnny's-14-year-old nephew-that-really-knows-computers. Johnny's nephew might know computers, or his ability might be drastically overrated by his friends and family who recommend him, and he ultimately hoses your computer. Thus, the reviews of other customers cannot be taken as pure truth either.
There is no easy solution to this problem. Certainly, ignoring it and hoping that the market just works it out has not resolved it yet, and likely won't in the near future.
Re:Lack of Scientific Background and Hubris
on
Complications
·
· Score: 1
Today, like much of academia, they are staffed by professional instructors.
That's a common generalization that I don't believe is very accurate. Tenured academics at a research institutite must produce a large number of publications based on their research, independent of their teaching. The phrase "those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." is not universally valid. This is more field dependent then academic dependent though. It may be the case with medical school. Also possible with stuff like Computer Science and Business. However, for stuff that is considered more scientific (Physics, Sociology, History, Political Science, Biology, etc) there isn't a private sector to support it. Thus, those who can, cannot always just go to the private sector and make a ton of money. In many ways, they can be much more productive in doing as academics. It provides them with a full time position primarily in doing research, whether they produce the correct results that are profitable, or not.
In fact, most students of research institutions are concerned with the fact that their professors have little to no interest in teaching at all. Professors spend far more time in the doing of their field, in doing research, then in teaching. But that is just one aspect of it...
There are also those who are really good in their field, but really don't like doing it in the private sector. That is, I may be a fantastic lawyer, scored incredibly high on the LSATs, passed the bar with no problem, know the law inside and out, and make very good public speeches. But those long hours, the knowledge that you can't win them all, and other factors may drive you to teach new lawyers as opposed to being a lawyer yourself. Aside from that, any school worth its salt doesn't hire the bottom feeders of the occupation they're trying to teach.
The top ranked medical schools likely wouldn't have a staff of people who would make crappy doctors. Now, crappy medical schools might. But that isn't an inherent problem with academia, its a problem with the school you're attending, and the standards that it has.
But, I'm rambling. The short of it is that the generalization that all academics are professional instructors, and not actual practioners is problematic. There is some truth to it, but then again, there is some truth to virtually any blatant generlization that isn't true.
movies cost a few dollars at the theater, and around $10-$15 for DVDs.
Um, no? Movies cost like $8 at the Theatre and $20-30 on DVD, unless you're hitting the cheap theatres and the discount bin for DVDs. Plus rental revenues. Granted, games are big money, yes. But you've halved the cost (and revenue) of the movie industry. Besides, which is a normal person more likely to do in a 1 month period: (1) See 4 movies in the theatres or on rental, and purchase an additional one for home viewing or (2) Purchase 4 games?
The view that social sciences are untestable is only a view that can be had by someone outside of the social sciences. There has been a real drive to quantify every aspect of the social sciences so it can be counted and a statistical analysis can be done of the results to say "There is this probability that this will happen." Often, social scientists rely on the same data sets, to keep the method of analysis consistent amongst studies. Other times, if a researcher thinks the data set is unrepresentitive, they'll draw up a new data set. Still, either the math works or it doesn't. Or the math formula is wrong. The same as any Hard Science. At least this is my experience in Political Science, where they're really quantifying everything.
Of course, the social sciences aren't always this rigid in their scientific approaches. Political Science has its Political Theorists, who aren't as quantitative. Students of Comparative Politics tend to do more qualitative studies. But overall, the push has been towards quantitiative, scientific type studies.
I respectfully disagree. Not everything you use a computer for is especially technical. If you just want a computer for Word Processing, Web Browsing and Email, you shouldn't need to pour over man page after man page just to learn how to do basic tasks like installing a program and logging in usermode. It should be possible to do a brief, visual howto that can explain this to complete newbies who have no desire to maintain a network or a server. That is, after all, how Windows does it, and what people credit Windows as doing well.
Now on the other hand, if you are doing technical things (coding, running a network, a web server, a file server, etc), then there's plenty of reason to pour over documentation. Then its important. For mundane stuff, it really should be easy to explain to complete newbies.
Its my understanding that unless you are being punished for the 'crime', its not civil disobedience. Meaning, if the society is unwilling or unable to punish you for violating their unjust law, they should repeal the law. Thus, if the law is on the books, and you're breaking it, you should demand to be thrown in jail.
Part of participating in Civil Disobedience is a fundamental respect of the law, even if it is unjust. Thus, you have a paradox. The law is unjust, but to break the law is unjust. Thus, the only just thing to do is take a just action (and break the law) and then, out of respect for the law, serve the punishment associated with the breech in law. If this behavior becomes widespread (many, many people break the law, and many, many people go to jail), the law making body must rethink its position, and presumably, alter or revoke the law so that it doesn't have to deal with all these people breaking it (and serving the time).
There is an alternative to Civil Disobedience that is similar, but different on this point. Environmentalists participate in what's known as "Monkey Wrenching", where they break the law, and deliberately avoid getting caught. In these cases, you attempt the make the cost of behaving unjustly so high, that they don't even bother to try and apply the law anymore.
In our case, it might be going around opening up other people's wireless networks, such that virtually all networks are openned and people can claim that they didn't do it.
Its not Civil Disobedience unless you are penalized for the crime your committing. That means, paying the fine, going to prison, etc. Whatever the normal punishment is for breaking this law.
As Thoreau said...the place for a just person in an unjust world is in the prisons, with those who the world deems unjust.
Or even what would be left of this civilization in three or four thousand years when no-one remembers who the presidents of the United States of America were, or what wars were fought and why...
We still talk about the leaders of Egypt, and the pyramids are still standing, and that was around 6,000 years ago if I'm not mistaken. Its amazing just how much can be reconstructed from ruins. It'll be more interesting after humans leave the planet (through exodus or extinction) and something discovers our ruins. I bet Disney World gets remembered as the largest place of worship on the planet, and that Mickey Mouse was a god we worshiped by giving little green pieces of paper to his church.
I think this is a very important point that is often forget. One of the things that differentiates Libertarian thinkers from Anarchists is that Libertarians argue that the government should exist in order to enforce contracts. There needs to be some degree of stability (knowing that you're going to get paid when a credit card company says you will) in order for a market to function. If a corporation releases a product, and claims it is one thing, but in reality its another, and refuses to fix that when consumers complain, then a contract is broken, and government should step in to remedy the broken contract. A lawsuit is the perfect avenue for this type of resolution.
Something comparable from the other side: if I commit credit card fraud in order to get the DVD from Disney, so I get their product (their half of the contract) without giving them any real moneny (my half of the contract), Disney should have the right to take me to court for my failure to comply with the contract I agreed to. Why should it be any different when a large corporation shafts the consumers from when the consumers shaft the corporation? That's the whole purpose of the legal system, even in a Libertarian society.
Of course, this equasion is vastly different if you're an Anarchist. But Anarchists are often highly critical of markets, as well as government itself. Also, I should note that I am neither a Libertarian or an Anarchist. Take my comments as observations of Political Thinkers, of a Political Believer.
I believe you missed my point. I assumed he cared about the modem for the purpose of connecting to the Internet. After all, most of the postings thus far have focused on what people will do with these (write email, browse the web, do some text editing). Having a NIC is a way to connect to the Internet via a High Speed connection, without having to purchase anything additional. The need for a monitor is still valid, but this machine is Internet ready according to the article, with no need to purchase a NIC.
Because there are a number of film schools in this country, and the market for video games is (arguably) comparable to the film Industry. There are also entire departments based on music and art. I seriously doubt that there's a market large enough for all those art students, but who cares? What if I just like art and want to get a 4 year degree? I think that's plenty reason to at least pay some attention to the video game market. Maybe not a department, but certainly a minor would be interesting.
There's a lot to making a video game. There's writing concepts you should know, art concepts to work with, physics concepts when needed, not to mention the fact that this all needs to be coded in whatever language is chosen. Some training _would_ be useful in this industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if you had said that the big parties (Dems & Repubs) keep other parties _out_ of the system, that would be true. But that has nothing to do with your claim that individuals (such as Teddy) are weakened. On the contrary, individuals need much less party support then they needed during Teddy's time, since they can rely much more heavily on support from interest groups as opposed to their political party.
Don't forget that when Roosevelt tried to run for a third term, he split the Republican party vote between himself and Hoover, allowing Wilson to get elected. It was because he didn't have the nomination of the Republican party he didn't win, not because of his inability as an individual. Had he had the Republican nomination, Roosevelt wouldn't have split the party, and he would have had a third term as President.
Game Theory is also often used in Political Science in conjunction with Rational Choice Theory. They use GT to produce formal models of potential choices that an individual rational actor will take when faced with a certain decision. It is often used in attempts to explain political behavior. However, Rational Choice often comes under fire as a mode of operation because of how complex these formal models tend to be. To explain a half page diagram and a good narrative, they will utilize a few pages of greek letters and mathematical formulas in a way to predict human behavior.
Still, despite the fact that its not very readable, its fairly en vogue in Political Science to either use Rat. Choice or to trash Rat. Choice.
Because of this reasoning, infrasound would be an absolutely horrible terrorist weapon, unless you claimed responsibility for it. There's a reason that terrorism utilizes really horrific methods that are really public.
I'm going to have to take issue with your stereotypes here, primarily because I should fit into one of these two (or both) and absolutely none of your generalizations seem to apply.
So, let me start by saying the following items were true of me in High School:
1) I was skinny, but not a pushover. This needs to be clarified in the sense that I wasn't going around finishing fights that other people started, but in the sense that I could laugh off a punch to the face and not back down from my position on the matter. For the most part, issues never seemed to get pressed.
2) I did not find sports particularly hard, however I generally did not like them. During my pre-high school years I was involved with Baseball, Basketball, flag football, high school style wrestling, soccer, and a few sports here and there. In High School I was involved with cross country running. For most of these sports I tried them for a year or two, got bored with them, and moved onto other things. They weren't 'hard', but they just did not tickle my fancy.
3) I am generally reclusive, antisocial and at times cynical. However, irritating and unpleasant aren't words I've heard to describe me, though I am generally quiet, and don't make good use of small talk. However, when asked a question, small or large, I am willing to be helpful without being arrogant about the whole thing. That is, I try to be helpful, and not say things like "You stupid fuck, everyone knows that." This is generally the case in High School, though, I will admit I was more elitist at the time.
4) While not a fat fuck, playing video games all day and watching cartoons could be described how I spend a lot of my time. Not all day, as I tend to have other work to do, as well as maintaining normal personal grooming habits.
5) Basic hygiene was never put on hold for cartoons or MMORPGs (or more accurately in my case, mudding, which is probably more of a geek thing to do). Teeth were brushed, hair washed and brushed, deoderant used, clean clothing worn. Smell was not an issue.
6) I did prefer games to social interaction a lot of the time. As a basic rule of thumb, I don't like people. I don't think I am better or more elite then others, I just do not enjoy being around them. This has more to do with social norms of telling constant small lies and half truths, mixed with the constant need to blather on about something, if it has a point or not, then it has to do with their legitimacy.
7) Types of employment: During High School I worked Internet Technical Support, and have gone back on that a couple times to support my lifestyle. However, I am currently working on a PhD in a social science as opposed to the more geeky physical or computer science. This leads me to have somewhat regular communication with real people, most of which are highly intelligent and not computer geeks.
8) I have never quoted the Simpsons, nor do I watch it with any degree of regularity. Nor do I memorize and regurgitate any cartoon script. Philosophers from time to time, but only if it seems relevant to the matter at hand (which is fairly often when you study Political Science).
Thus, your typology of nerds is flawed, as individuals can belong to both distinct breeds at the same time based on their secondary characteristics, and your ideas as to why they are unpopular are also not universal.
I am by most accounts a geek. I spend more time infront of a computer then around people. However, my lack of popularity is not on account of my lack of social skills (as I am well aware and fully capable of functioning within normal society). On the contrary, I simply do not like normal society and remove myself from it. Of course I won't be popular, but I never wanted to be popular to begin with.
The key word is "well run", which is something that both private companies and governments have trouble doing, especially on large scales. Private companies are immune from having inane and pointless structures that cause tons of waste, just because they're private. The market isn't magical, and it doesn't just fix this. The private sphere and the public sphere both boil down to people, and their motives. If their motives are corrupt (Private corruption "Lets bilk the entire population for everything they've got and we'll be filthy rich!" or Public "Lets just stay in office forever, and never change, I don't like change") then the result will be corrupt. However, if either have good intentions (Private "Lets offer a good product at a decent price, and make a living off of it" or Public "Lets provide something good for the public, to improve their lives") and they allow those intentions to guide them, the outcome isn't usually horrific. No one meaning well intentionally screws over the people they're trying to help.
I think the key to this is the size of the endeavor. A small business that knows its customer base intimately will be much more sensitive to their needs and demands. A large one that must meet a projected profit every quarter will be willing to sacrifice them in order to stay in good with the stock market. Similarly, a large government (ie, Federal in the US) will lose track of its vision in all its complex infighting. However, for a small city to do something like this? They're not going to set up a government endeavor just to screw themselves, since 14,000 people isn't a population worth exploiting to that degree.
To summarize after all that rambling: public ownership is not always evil and inefficient, nor is private ownership always good and effective. Find a balance for the situation that provides the best outcome for society. Its not always going to be the market.
The reality is, Apple having proprietary systems does absolutely nothing to benefit me. Thus, I do not want Apple to keep things proprietary, nor should I. I should want them to give everything away for free, whenever possible. However, I never, ever, claimed that I had an expectation (or a right) to that. Apple wants what is good for Apple, and I can respect that. However, I don't want what's good for Apple, I want what's good for me. Telling me I should want otherwise is outright silly.
Certainly they have their reasons for wanting stuff to be proprietary, but why on earth should I want them to keep stuff away from me, forever, with no gain to me, ever, unless I pay them large amounts of money? That doesn't mean I feel I have a right to their product, which is a different argument. But I would most certainly prefer a society where everything possible were free. In fact, I _want_ a utopian society where everything is free. Why on earth would I want things to remain costly, forever?
That was perhaps the most arrogant comment I've ever seen.
As much as I wish you were right, you're actually wrong on this. The Supreme Court ruled on the case, and found that what the Congress did was constitutional, and since the constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution, it is constitutional to do so. This will only change if the Supreme Court changes its ruling at a future date, or the Congress were to ammend the constitution to make it unconstitutional, this issue remains constitutional, as unfortunate as it is.
However, a regulation structure does provide some method for potentially getting rid of incapable professionals. That is, you can revoke someone's ability to practice if they repeatedly screw up, where as, in the market, they always potentially have the ability to find new customers who are unaware of their reputation. That is, if a doctor or a lawyer refuses to follow regulation proceedures, they can be removed from practice, as they are potentially a threat to their consumers.
The problem with just letting the market run wild is that people who are not aware of someone's skill will end up getting burned by their incompetence. Of course, letting your customers get screwed is bad for your business, and will likely generate less revenue over time. But as long as you have decent advertizing, the ability to constantly get new customers to exploit remains a possibility. This is something that the market does nothing to rectify. The burned consumers are casualties of the market.
Does requiring pre-emptive licensing resolve this issue? Not exactly. It does mean you've at least looked at some material about it before, which is more then the market can guarantee. However, the barrier to entry in the form of fees related to obtaining a license is a legitimate complaint. I would much prefer that anyone wishing to work in a profession had that option regardless of their financial ability.
That being said, I don't think having no regulatory structure at all resolves the problem of bad service. On the contrary, it does something (by being able to de-license individuals), though it does not resolve the issue at all (since it is still possible to be crappy and licensed). Plus, in the current form, there is a barrier to entrance issue in the form of fees to obtain a license. However, your major complaint disappears entirely if you have free education and licensing.
That is, if anyone who is capable of fulfilling the requirements of the licensing program is permitted to join the program and get the license, free of charge (at the time of their enrollment). Pay for it by having current professionals (who received a free license) pay a professional fee that funds the education. Thus, people who are working and getting paid as a professional, who also joined the profession for free, will be supporting the new generation of those to be trained.
Those who don't live up to the standards of the required profession become de-licensed, in protection of consumers. There is no barrier to entry to the profession. In fact, the number of people in the profession will likely increase, which will increase competition amongst the professionals, increasing market forces on them, driving prices down for their labor and for consumers. This solution sounds better for everyone, save for the professionals themselves, who can no longer be protective of their exceptional trained position in society.
Presumably, to be the greatest hairdresser in the world you would have to have some experience with hairdressing. This presumably comes either from supposedly illegal practice (cutting hair for friends and their children) or through the education process (of getting a license). Thus, the artificial barrier to entry is only a block to people who want to be hairdressers, not to people who have any skill, since its impossible to have skill without having performed before.
However, the barrier to entry argument might provide a better argument for our topic at hand: computer repairs. However, the market is currently unregulated, and the story poster explicitly noted a sizable portion of crappy computer service in a freer market then hair dressers. Why hasn't the market resolved that issue? Its supposed to solve everything, isn't it?
Note, no where did I say that regulation would instantly solve the problem. I did not. I did say that the market is not a magical, all knowing mechanism that fixes everything. It is not. While, your word of mouth story about the restraunt is all heart warming, let me provide an alternative hypothetical scenario.
The restraunt business is completely unregulated, and an independently wealthy individual always wanted to open up a restraunt, however he (or she) didn't have the bureaucratic patience to wade through the red tape required to get licensed. So, not knowing anything about running a restraunt, he buys the cheapest beef he can find for his restraunt, which just happens to have severe health issues associated with it that he is unaware of (various bacteria come to mind). However, this individual does know something about marketing, and he runs a huge ad campaign about the grand opening of his restraunt, with a huge turnout.
Almost all of his customers become violently ill from his unregulated beef, from his unregulated restraunt. Of course, everyone knows to never eat there again, and I suppose you can count that as the market working. But what do you do about all those people (dozens, if not hundreds) who became violently ill due to the lack of health regulations? Write them off as casualties of the market doing its magic?
You argue that licensing does nothing to keep incompetants from getting work:
However, you then say that letting the market decide will automatically resolve these problems:
Therefore, following your argument, licensing does not resolve the problem (since licensed individuals have proven capable of doing crappy jobs), but leaving it to the market does not resolve the issue either (since these licensed individuals exist within the market as well, and they still get work and manage to screw it up). Therefore, while government regulation might not be the best choice of action, doing nothing at all will not resolve the issue of crappy service.
Unless of course, you would advocate something along the lines of "you get what you pay for, so only buy from people who charge more then everyone else", but solely using price as a determiner of quality is patently silly. So presumably, it would have to be "rely upon recommendations of friends, and be willing to pay higher prices for quality." Okay, that makes sense to some degree.
But how do you deal with people who recommend people who are not very qualified? As the story posted mentioned: johnny's-14-year-old nephew-that-really-knows-computers. Johnny's nephew might know computers, or his ability might be drastically overrated by his friends and family who recommend him, and he ultimately hoses your computer. Thus, the reviews of other customers cannot be taken as pure truth either.
There is no easy solution to this problem. Certainly, ignoring it and hoping that the market just works it out has not resolved it yet, and likely won't in the near future.
That's a common generalization that I don't believe is very accurate. Tenured academics at a research institutite must produce a large number of publications based on their research, independent of their teaching. The phrase "those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." is not universally valid. This is more field dependent then academic dependent though. It may be the case with medical school. Also possible with stuff like Computer Science and Business. However, for stuff that is considered more scientific (Physics, Sociology, History, Political Science, Biology, etc) there isn't a private sector to support it. Thus, those who can, cannot always just go to the private sector and make a ton of money. In many ways, they can be much more productive in doing as academics. It provides them with a full time position primarily in doing research, whether they produce the correct results that are profitable, or not.
In fact, most students of research institutions are concerned with the fact that their professors have little to no interest in teaching at all. Professors spend far more time in the doing of their field, in doing research, then in teaching. But that is just one aspect of it...
There are also those who are really good in their field, but really don't like doing it in the private sector. That is, I may be a fantastic lawyer, scored incredibly high on the LSATs, passed the bar with no problem, know the law inside and out, and make very good public speeches. But those long hours, the knowledge that you can't win them all, and other factors may drive you to teach new lawyers as opposed to being a lawyer yourself. Aside from that, any school worth its salt doesn't hire the bottom feeders of the occupation they're trying to teach.
The top ranked medical schools likely wouldn't have a staff of people who would make crappy doctors. Now, crappy medical schools might. But that isn't an inherent problem with academia, its a problem with the school you're attending, and the standards that it has.
But, I'm rambling. The short of it is that the generalization that all academics are professional instructors, and not actual practioners is problematic. There is some truth to it, but then again, there is some truth to virtually any blatant generlization that isn't true.
Um, no? Movies cost like $8 at the Theatre and $20-30 on DVD, unless you're hitting the cheap theatres and the discount bin for DVDs. Plus rental revenues. Granted, games are big money, yes. But you've halved the cost (and revenue) of the movie industry. Besides, which is a normal person more likely to do in a 1 month period: (1) See 4 movies in the theatres or on rental, and purchase an additional one for home viewing or (2) Purchase 4 games?
The view that social sciences are untestable is only a view that can be had by someone outside of the social sciences. There has been a real drive to quantify every aspect of the social sciences so it can be counted and a statistical analysis can be done of the results to say "There is this probability that this will happen." Often, social scientists rely on the same data sets, to keep the method of analysis consistent amongst studies. Other times, if a researcher thinks the data set is unrepresentitive, they'll draw up a new data set. Still, either the math works or it doesn't. Or the math formula is wrong. The same as any Hard Science. At least this is my experience in Political Science, where they're really quantifying everything.
Of course, the social sciences aren't always this rigid in their scientific approaches. Political Science has its Political Theorists, who aren't as quantitative. Students of Comparative Politics tend to do more qualitative studies. But overall, the push has been towards quantitiative, scientific type studies.
I respectfully disagree. Not everything you use a computer for is especially technical. If you just want a computer for Word Processing, Web Browsing and Email, you shouldn't need to pour over man page after man page just to learn how to do basic tasks like installing a program and logging in usermode. It should be possible to do a brief, visual howto that can explain this to complete newbies who have no desire to maintain a network or a server. That is, after all, how Windows does it, and what people credit Windows as doing well.
Now on the other hand, if you are doing technical things (coding, running a network, a web server, a file server, etc), then there's plenty of reason to pour over documentation. Then its important. For mundane stuff, it really should be easy to explain to complete newbies.
Its my understanding that unless you are being punished for the 'crime', its not civil disobedience. Meaning, if the society is unwilling or unable to punish you for violating their unjust law, they should repeal the law. Thus, if the law is on the books, and you're breaking it, you should demand to be thrown in jail.
Part of participating in Civil Disobedience is a fundamental respect of the law, even if it is unjust. Thus, you have a paradox. The law is unjust, but to break the law is unjust. Thus, the only just thing to do is take a just action (and break the law) and then, out of respect for the law, serve the punishment associated with the breech in law. If this behavior becomes widespread (many, many people break the law, and many, many people go to jail), the law making body must rethink its position, and presumably, alter or revoke the law so that it doesn't have to deal with all these people breaking it (and serving the time).
There is an alternative to Civil Disobedience that is similar, but different on this point. Environmentalists participate in what's known as "Monkey Wrenching", where they break the law, and deliberately avoid getting caught. In these cases, you attempt the make the cost of behaving unjustly so high, that they don't even bother to try and apply the law anymore.
In our case, it might be going around opening up other people's wireless networks, such that virtually all networks are openned and people can claim that they didn't do it.
Its not Civil Disobedience unless you are penalized for the crime your committing. That means, paying the fine, going to prison, etc. Whatever the normal punishment is for breaking this law.
As Thoreau said...the place for a just person in an unjust world is in the prisons, with those who the world deems unjust.
We still talk about the leaders of Egypt, and the pyramids are still standing, and that was around 6,000 years ago if I'm not mistaken. Its amazing just how much can be reconstructed from ruins. It'll be more interesting after humans leave the planet (through exodus or extinction) and something discovers our ruins. I bet Disney World gets remembered as the largest place of worship on the planet, and that Mickey Mouse was a god we worshiped by giving little green pieces of paper to his church.
I think this is a very important point that is often forget. One of the things that differentiates Libertarian thinkers from Anarchists is that Libertarians argue that the government should exist in order to enforce contracts. There needs to be some degree of stability (knowing that you're going to get paid when a credit card company says you will) in order for a market to function. If a corporation releases a product, and claims it is one thing, but in reality its another, and refuses to fix that when consumers complain, then a contract is broken, and government should step in to remedy the broken contract. A lawsuit is the perfect avenue for this type of resolution.
Something comparable from the other side: if I commit credit card fraud in order to get the DVD from Disney, so I get their product (their half of the contract) without giving them any real moneny (my half of the contract), Disney should have the right to take me to court for my failure to comply with the contract I agreed to. Why should it be any different when a large corporation shafts the consumers from when the consumers shaft the corporation? That's the whole purpose of the legal system, even in a Libertarian society.
Of course, this equasion is vastly different if you're an Anarchist. But Anarchists are often highly critical of markets, as well as government itself. Also, I should note that I am neither a Libertarian or an Anarchist. Take my comments as observations of Political Thinkers, of a Political Believer.
I believe you missed my point. I assumed he cared about the modem for the purpose of connecting to the Internet. After all, most of the postings thus far have focused on what people will do with these (write email, browse the web, do some text editing). Having a NIC is a way to connect to the Internet via a High Speed connection, without having to purchase anything additional. The need for a monitor is still valid, but this machine is Internet ready according to the article, with no need to purchase a NIC.
At least, that's how I read that statement.
Because there are a number of film schools in this country, and the market for video games is (arguably) comparable to the film Industry. There are also entire departments based on music and art. I seriously doubt that there's a market large enough for all those art students, but who cares? What if I just like art and want to get a 4 year degree? I think that's plenty reason to at least pay some attention to the video game market. Maybe not a department, but certainly a minor would be interesting.
There's a lot to making a video game. There's writing concepts you should know, art concepts to work with, physics concepts when needed, not to mention the fact that this all needs to be coded in whatever language is chosen. Some training _would_ be useful in this industry.