Romania's Nicolae Ceasusescu was - finally! - removed from power by KGB agents in 1989 (among others) because he diverted the surveillance resources from monitoring the KGB agents to monitoring his own associates - relatives and high ranking communist party members.
"How would your fellow soldiers react to seeing you talk about all the crimes the military commits, and then stating that you shouldn't have to point out that they aren't all criminals?
Well, they would agree with me. Our country's military is not hated. Our country's military deployed in conflict zones has among the smallest number of casualties and best relationships with the civilians. Our soldiers' safety largely depends on the respect and trust they have with the civilians. That's why our soldiers mostly police themselves and no criminal acts are tolerated or covered up. And, no, I'm not talking about the Canadian army.
I didn't aknowlegde the good, honest and honorable people in the US military for one simple good reason: that's how they are supposed to be. At least, that's what the military regulations required from the service men in the army I served.
Exposing the criminals does not dishonor the vast majority of good soldiers, quite the opposite. It shows that the Army, as an organisation, strives to a higher level of ethics and morale.
Covering up the mishaps and making up excuses for the criminals - this only stains the honor of the ENTIRE army and, maybe, the entire US people. As soon as you understand this, you will also understand the strategic,long term benefic role Wikileaks plays.
Forgiving the US Army abuses just because "others do it, too", does not help t all. It only brings the US Army at the same level as the others.
If you don't agree with this opiniion, then well both have to live with this disagreement.
You're taking it out of context: I said US Army did all that to all those listed, not all to the LA rioters. And you also fail to mention what was the reason that started the riot.
But thank you for making my point: you cannot be reasoned with and you will say anything to justify the abuses of US Army.
US Army did all that - to native americans, to Nicaragua, Bolivia, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chile, black US citizens during LA riots etc.
For you it is ok when US Army does it, but it's not ok when other armies do it, right?
It's clear as day and there's no reason to reply to your arguments anymore. Enjoy your life.
First of all, the US isnt "occupying" any nation by strict definition. We do have troops deployed on foreign soil, but only at the discretion of that nation's government.
Right, tell that to Iraq people.
how about Russia attacking Chechens
Fighting against terrorists.
How about the attacks by the Chinese military against Tibet?
Like it or not, Tibet is part of China, so it is no longer an invasion.
How about the consistent combat between the Pakistani military, the Indian military, and civilians along their borders?
Is there a peace treaty signed by both India and Pakistan? Even if there is, it is not the same situation (one country defeating, occupying and ruling another).
How about the consistent crimes between North and South Korean military and civilians.
They are at war, technically.
How about between China and Singapore?
What about them? China is not at war with any other country.
How about between any number of central African nations and neighboring civilians?
Here you've got it right! But this sets the american soldiers at the same ethic and moral level as the central african war lords...
But just to play your game, let's talk about Afghanistan alone. In order of troop concentation the following nations have troops in Afghanistan [...] What was your point again?
It's a UN sanctioned military operation and there is a large number of countries taking part, which is exactly my point: not a single country invading another.
You're right, they should present the evil deeds of all soldiers. But think of this: How many other nations have their soldiers occupying a foreign contry? As far as I know, the americans are the only soldiers commiting crimes against civilians in a country other than their own. Can you name another nation that has soldiers commiting crimes against another country's civilians?
A plot by HTC to somehow retrieve private data from its customers?
What about a way to obtain proof of child pornography possesion? Or proof of browsing undesirable web sites? Or proof of... whatever the masters might want to prosecute you for? Far fetched, but not impossible and a conspiracy theory is just a theory until it is proved.
It is the meaning of charity, which is voluntary. There's no such thing as forced charity. I am all for taking care of each other when we're in need. But forcing us to do it is not within the legitimate powers of governent.
You have 100 people in your neighborhood. And 99 of them come up to you and say, you have more money than anyone else here, so we're going to make you pay for the food of everyone else in the neighborhood. If you don't do it, we're going to break into your home and take your money, or kidnap you.
That is precisely what you are doing here.
Nobody breaks into your home to take your money. It can be paid through your taxes.
Of course not. I implied no such thing. I am saying they do it of their free will, and are not forced.
So you're receiving a free service from the community, but you're not willing to provide something back.
Are you paying a bill when the street you live on is (re)paved?
Yes.
That's the first time I hear that...
Through my taxes, yes, I am.
Usually it's through taxes.
So why not use the taxes for healthcare?
First, none of those things is like health care. [...] You're not making a serious case at all.
I am not making a case, because I don't care if you live or die. I was just trying to understand why is your society taking such self-distructive decisions.
Second, you are brainwashed. You think the only way for a community to "protect its members" is through government force. Break out of your chains and realize there's always been other ways.
I'm sorry, (kidding, I'm not) but your are the brainwashed one. You cannot find the words "force" and "government" in my post. But you listened so much to the hatefull propaganda of your masters, that you hear those words even where don't exist. Or, maybe, attributing to me words I didn't say it's just a way of discrediting me?
You're full of shit. In MY vision, some wolves don't force the rest of the wolves to care for other. You are flat-out LYING when you say I am in favor of people leaving others to die. I am simply arguing that it is illegitimate to use FORCE to get people to help each other.
You're plain stupid. The wolves (and it applies to any animal living in a community) that do not help the others, do not get any help from the others. Soon, they die.
Also, I am not lying, you said yourself that people have to pay for healthcare and they must not receive free healthcare. This means that those who cannot afford the healthcare price, must die - what else can you do when you're sick and cannot pay for beaing healed?
And there is no argument for force, just for taxes. Are you being forced to pay taxes? Why don't you make a case against taxes altogether?
In conclusion, you are using propaganda techniques to make the readers think I am advocating the use of force, you are lying to make me look like I'm lying, you are misrepresenting the human rights and the role the community plays in humans' life, you are pretending to fight for a liberty you have already lost and all this in order to let the poor people die without medical treatment.
Being raised under the worst dictature in Eastern Europe, I am - unlike you're usual audience - fully aware of the logical convolutions and disinformation techniques used to manipulate the masses and to justify the injustifiable.
Are you sure you never worked for NKVD?
And rest assured I will not reply to any future message, because:
1. you're american
2. you work for Slashdot
3. you're selfrighteous and immune to logic and common sense
Enjoy your life!
How does getting something for free, that you have no right to, "hurting" you?
Do you mean humans do not have a right to health care?
Then you need to get a backbone. For crying out loud, more than six billion people in this world do not care if you or I die, and probably a billion of those people have money.
You mistake having a backbone for not being human.
It is, simply, because they want to force other people to protect them from unpredictability, because they are selfish, envious, greedy, cowards.
That is the meaning of a community: protecting each other from bad things, predictable or not.
You see, I -- knowing full well that I might not have money when it comes time to pay bills for an unpredictable life event -- reject the notion that other people should be forced to bail me out. I cannot fathom selfishly using the power of government to force anyone to help me. I cannot even begin to be that greedy or fearful.
Are you telling us that you are paying your neighbours for "neighbourhood watch" or "community watch"? Are you paying a bill when the street you live on is (re)paved? Are you paying a bill whenever the electricity poles (or whatever is used to carry electric power to your house) are being repaired? Are you paying a bill whenever the water pipes or sewers are being repaired? Do you recieve a bill each time the police arrests a criminal? Or it's just a part of your taxes?
Then why insist to pay for your health and deny the community the right to protect its members?
Afterall, even wolves care for each other and the strong hunt and feed the weak. But, in your vision of society, the strong (or rich) should accumulate for themselves and let the weak and poor to die.
It's insipidly stupid to think that just because someone can use their own resources to benefit themselves, that this somehow hurts anyone else. It doesn't hurt you, in any way, if Bill Gates buys himself better health care. It has nothing to do with you. You're being a selfish, greedy, envious, whiner.
It does hurt when the only healthcare you get is the one you can afford and the prices are set according to the financial resources of the higher paid 30% of the society.
It does hurt when you say "I have money and I don't care if you die". Nothing in this world can offer you any guarantee that your current prosperity will last until you die - it is not impossible to find yourself sent home to die because your insurance doesn't cover your treatment and your house just won't pay for the bill. That's why some people want universal healthcare - they're aware of the unpredictability of life's events.
The more correct analogy would be if you ask SpamHaus what their opinion is of Bob and they say "I don't like Bob".
Then when you don't do business with Bob [...]
How is this different from the website ranking/validation performed by some antivirus suites (AVG, McAfee)? Why is nobody suing them?
If e360 is right, why don't they sue Google for offering Postini?
If I hire a security guard and he beats up a passer-by, does he escape liability because I chose to hire him?
He does if he, according to your instructions, stopped a suspect potential business partner/client from doing bussiness with you. Afterall, you chose his services and contracted him to do that for you.
A scientist plays with the mathematical model and, eventually, gets an interesting equation/formula and can say: mathematics allow it, the physics don't forbid it, so it must be possible.
An engineer, on the other hand, is paid to solve a problem and he looks for the science that would best serve him.
Well,. the laptops will keep the kids busy learning how to google for essays, use video chat and spend long hours IM-ing. After some years of technologically advanced learning, they'll come to work for some Indian/Chinese/East European that completed their education with pencil, paper and printed manuals.
You can't reasonably build and test a patch that has minimal effect on your customer base in 5 days when your customer base is as large and varied as Microsoft's.
When you design your software properly, you can change the implementation of every little module or function without affecting anything else. But why would Microsoft eliminate the best excuse for not fixing bugs?
Bad analogy: a home is the owner's residence and it's private property and there's a law that says you cannot enter without approval.
A website is created with the intention of making information available; so, unless unequivocally forbidden, the access is permitted. The question is: was there a warning on that page/script?
And what is "grade level"? In North America I found that some university math classes (MATH 2xx and MATH 3xx) are teaching stuff (calculus and algebra) I learned in highschool - Eastern European highschool, that is.
What's wrong with dividing the tank capacity by the number of liters burned per 100km? My car's 65l tank will last 65/10 (10l/100km in the city) hundreds of km. That is a 650km driving distance or 325 km range.
The threat exists - at any given moment, somebody is attacking somebody else and it's just a matter of scale. Also, does the bill explain how and when this emergency and government protection ends?
IMHO, I find unrealistic the expectation that some government body could take over the thousands of routers and milions of servers that are the Internet and protect (change configuration of) all of them with significant success and without major incidents. After all, if something can go wrong, it will.
First, I do not try to justify violating someone's rights. Never did, never will.
Second, you do not know if I am braking the law. Actually, you do not know if the jurisdiction that applies to me has a law like the one you allge that I break. In fact, I could just sue you for libel, defamation etc. I won't, because you're not worth it.
Last, but not least, look at yourself and see if you managed not to break any law. Not a parking violation? Never ran a red light? Never drove at unsafe or illegal speed? Who are you to preach honesty to me? Who are you to talk to me about my respect of the law? What do you know about me to make this kind of statement?
Oh, and regarding the studios and the piracy: if there are countries where the piracy is so high, why do the studios sell to those markets? Huh? If in Bulgaria (random pick from Eastern Europe) the piracy is so high that one DVD will be copied 100.000 times (just a number, for the argument's sake), why do the studios sell DVDs there? Why don't they just take their precious movies and sell them to the rightgeous countries? Why? Is it because they are still making good profits? That's how capitalism works: as long as you can make a profit, you keep going; when the money stop comming, well, you leave that market.
And does such trending translate to movie-ticket sales, dvd sales and TV Advertising dollars? I don't think so.
Actually, I know a lot of people that buy DVD/BD with movies they already watched in the theatre or on TV.
That said, does it really MATTER if they are spending more money on music or not? If the copyright holder doesn't want you to have something before you pay for it then it is well within their rights.
It does matter, for THEM, because I will not pay to see the work of some studios (when ~75% of their creations are not worth seeing, other 20% are acceptable and about 5% are good) unless I know for sure I will not be disappointed.
I paid to watch Avatar twice in IMAX and I will get the BluRay, but I don't watch more than 10-15 movies/titles a year in cinema.
And if you want to selectively ignore that right, can I selectively choose which rights of yours I'll honor?
The respect of rights is not transitive. You can ignore my rights when I'll ignore yours.
It's obvious that you do not understand the difference between and a scientist and an engineer. The scientist thinks, creates way of solving problems and sells it to the engineer. The engineer takes the scientist's creation and assembles it in machines and sells the machines to the labourer. The labourer actually makes something tangible out of scientist's and engineer's ideas.
What you're trying to say, wrongly IMHO, is that the engineer is smarter than the scientist. This is not true and not relevant either.
Slashdot Mirror
Romania's Nicolae Ceasusescu was - finally! - removed from power by KGB agents in 1989 (among others) because he diverted the surveillance resources from monitoring the KGB agents to monitoring his own associates - relatives and high ranking communist party members.
"How would your fellow soldiers react to seeing you talk about all the crimes the military commits, and then stating that you shouldn't have to point out that they aren't all criminals?
Well, they would agree with me. Our country's military is not hated. Our country's military deployed in conflict zones has among the smallest number of casualties and best relationships with the civilians. Our soldiers' safety largely depends on the respect and trust they have with the civilians. That's why our soldiers mostly police themselves and no criminal acts are tolerated or covered up. And, no, I'm not talking about the Canadian army.
I didn't aknowlegde the good, honest and honorable people in the US military for one simple good reason: that's how they are supposed to be. At least, that's what the military regulations required from the service men in the army I served.
Exposing the criminals does not dishonor the vast majority of good soldiers, quite the opposite. It shows that the Army, as an organisation, strives to a higher level of ethics and morale.
Covering up the mishaps and making up excuses for the criminals - this only stains the honor of the ENTIRE army and, maybe, the entire US people. As soon as you understand this, you will also understand the strategic,long term benefic role Wikileaks plays.
Forgiving the US Army abuses just because "others do it, too", does not help t all. It only brings the US Army at the same level as the others.
If you don't agree with this opiniion, then well both have to live with this disagreement.
Be well!
You're taking it out of context: I said US Army did all that to all those listed, not all to the LA rioters. And you also fail to mention what was the reason that started the riot.
But thank you for making my point: you cannot be reasoned with and you will say anything to justify the abuses of US Army.
US Army did all that - to native americans, to Nicaragua, Bolivia, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chile, black US citizens during LA riots etc.
For you it is ok when US Army does it, but it's not ok when other armies do it, right?
It's clear as day and there's no reason to reply to your arguments anymore. Enjoy your life.
First of all, the US isnt "occupying" any nation by strict definition. We do have troops deployed on foreign soil, but only at the discretion of that nation's government.
Right, tell that to Iraq people.
how about Russia attacking Chechens
Fighting against terrorists.
How about the attacks by the Chinese military against Tibet?
Like it or not, Tibet is part of China, so it is no longer an invasion.
How about the consistent combat between the Pakistani military, the Indian military, and civilians along their borders?
Is there a peace treaty signed by both India and Pakistan? Even if there is, it is not the same situation (one country defeating, occupying and ruling another).
How about the consistent crimes between North and South Korean military and civilians.
They are at war, technically.
How about between China and Singapore?
What about them? China is not at war with any other country.
How about between any number of central African nations and neighboring civilians?
Here you've got it right! But this sets the american soldiers at the same ethic and moral level as the central african war lords...
But just to play your game, let's talk about Afghanistan alone. In order of troop concentation the following nations have troops in Afghanistan [...]
What was your point again?
It's a UN sanctioned military operation and there is a large number of countries taking part, which is exactly my point: not a single country invading another.
It's about drilling new wells. The drilling companies do not make money from operating wells, they are only paid to drill new wells.
So, if the judge owns stock in drilling companies...
You're right, they should present the evil deeds of all soldiers. But think of this: How many other nations have their soldiers occupying a foreign contry? As far as I know, the americans are the only soldiers commiting crimes against civilians in a country other than their own. Can you name another nation that has soldiers commiting crimes against another country's civilians?
A plot by HTC to somehow retrieve private data from its customers?
What about a way to obtain proof of child pornography possesion? Or proof of browsing undesirable web sites? Or proof of... whatever the masters might want to prosecute you for? Far fetched, but not impossible and a conspiracy theory is just a theory until it is proved.
It is the meaning of charity, which is voluntary. There's no such thing as forced charity. I am all for taking care of each other when we're in need. But forcing us to do it is not within the legitimate powers of governent.
You have 100 people in your neighborhood. And 99 of them come up to you and say, you have more money than anyone else here, so we're going to make you pay for the food of everyone else in the neighborhood. If you don't do it, we're going to break into your home and take your money, or kidnap you.
That is precisely what you are doing here.
Nobody breaks into your home to take your money. It can be paid through your taxes.
Of course not. I implied no such thing. I am saying they do it of their free will, and are not forced.
So you're receiving a free service from the community, but you're not willing to provide something back.
Are you paying a bill when the street you live on is (re)paved?
Yes.
That's the first time I hear that...
Through my taxes, yes, I am.
Usually it's through taxes.
So why not use the taxes for healthcare?
First, none of those things is like health care. [...] You're not making a serious case at all.
I am not making a case, because I don't care if you live or die. I was just trying to understand why is your society taking such self-distructive decisions.
Second, you are brainwashed. You think the only way for a community to "protect its members" is through government force. Break out of your chains and realize there's always been other ways.
I'm sorry, (kidding, I'm not) but your are the brainwashed one. You cannot find the words "force" and "government" in my post. But you listened so much to the hatefull propaganda of your masters, that you hear those words even where don't exist. Or, maybe, attributing to me words I didn't say it's just a way of discrediting me?
You're full of shit. In MY vision, some wolves don't force the rest of the wolves to care for other. You are flat-out LYING when you say I am in favor of people leaving others to die. I am simply arguing that it is illegitimate to use FORCE to get people to help each other.
You're plain stupid. The wolves (and it applies to any animal living in a community) that do not help the others, do not get any help from the others. Soon, they die.
Also, I am not lying, you said yourself that people have to pay for healthcare and they must not receive free healthcare. This means that those who cannot afford the healthcare price, must die - what else can you do when you're sick and cannot pay for beaing healed?
And there is no argument for force, just for taxes. Are you being forced to pay taxes? Why don't you make a case against taxes altogether?
In conclusion, you are using propaganda techniques to make the readers think I am advocating the use of force, you are lying to make me look like I'm lying, you are misrepresenting the human rights and the role the community plays in humans' life, you are pretending to fight for a liberty you have already lost and all this in order to let the poor people die without medical treatment.
Being raised under the worst dictature in Eastern Europe, I am - unlike you're usual audience - fully aware of the logical convolutions and disinformation techniques used to manipulate the masses and to justify the injustifiable.
Are you sure you never worked for NKVD?
And rest assured I will not reply to any future message, because:
1. you're american
2. you work for Slashdot
3. you're selfrighteous and immune to logic and common sense
Enjoy your life!
How does getting something for free, that you have no right to, "hurting" you?
Do you mean humans do not have a right to health care?
Then you need to get a backbone. For crying out loud, more than six billion people in this world do not care if you or I die, and probably a billion of those people have money.
You mistake having a backbone for not being human.
It is, simply, because they want to force other people to protect them from unpredictability, because they are selfish, envious, greedy, cowards.
That is the meaning of a community: protecting each other from bad things, predictable or not.
You see, I -- knowing full well that I might not have money when it comes time to pay bills for an unpredictable life event -- reject the notion that other people should be forced to bail me out. I cannot fathom selfishly using the power of government to force anyone to help me. I cannot even begin to be that greedy or fearful.
Are you telling us that you are paying your neighbours for "neighbourhood watch" or "community watch"? Are you paying a bill when the street you live on is (re)paved? Are you paying a bill whenever the electricity poles (or whatever is used to carry electric power to your house) are being repaired? Are you paying a bill whenever the water pipes or sewers are being repaired? Do you recieve a bill each time the police arrests a criminal? Or it's just a part of your taxes?
Then why insist to pay for your health and deny the community the right to protect its members?
Afterall, even wolves care for each other and the strong hunt and feed the weak. But, in your vision of society, the strong (or rich) should accumulate for themselves and let the weak and poor to die.
It's insipidly stupid to think that just because someone can use their own resources to benefit themselves, that this somehow hurts anyone else. It doesn't hurt you, in any way, if Bill Gates buys himself better health care. It has nothing to do with you. You're being a selfish, greedy, envious, whiner.
It does hurt when the only healthcare you get is the one you can afford and the prices are set according to the financial resources of the higher paid 30% of the society.
It does hurt when you say "I have money and I don't care if you die". Nothing in this world can offer you any guarantee that your current prosperity will last until you die - it is not impossible to find yourself sent home to die because your insurance doesn't cover your treatment and your house just won't pay for the bill. That's why some people want universal healthcare - they're aware of the unpredictability of life's events.
Mercury (Hg) freezes at -39 Celsius - it's not easy to maintain this temperature while pointing it (wide open) to the sky.
The more correct analogy would be if you ask SpamHaus what their opinion is of Bob and they say "I don't like Bob".
Then when you don't do business with Bob [...]
How is this different from the website ranking/validation performed by some antivirus suites (AVG, McAfee)? Why is nobody suing them? If e360 is right, why don't they sue Google for offering Postini?
If I hire a security guard and he beats up a passer-by, does he escape liability because I chose to hire him?
He does if he, according to your instructions, stopped a suspect potential business partner/client from doing bussiness with you. Afterall, you chose his services and contracted him to do that for you.
A scientist plays with the mathematical model and, eventually, gets an interesting equation/formula and can say: mathematics allow it, the physics don't forbid it, so it must be possible.
An engineer, on the other hand, is paid to solve a problem and he looks for the science that would best serve him.
Well,. the laptops will keep the kids busy learning how to google for essays, use video chat and spend long hours IM-ing. After some years of technologically advanced learning, they'll come to work for some Indian/Chinese/East European that completed their education with pencil, paper and printed manuals.
You can't reasonably build and test a patch that has minimal effect on your customer base in 5 days when your customer base is as large and varied as Microsoft's.
When you design your software properly, you can change the implementation of every little module or function without affecting anything else. But why would Microsoft eliminate the best excuse for not fixing bugs?
Bad analogy: a home is the owner's residence and it's private property and there's a law that says you cannot enter without approval.
A website is created with the intention of making information available; so, unless unequivocally forbidden, the access is permitted. The question is: was there a warning on that page/script?
And what is "grade level"? In North America I found that some university math classes (MATH 2xx and MATH 3xx) are teaching stuff (calculus and algebra) I learned in highschool - Eastern European highschool, that is.
What's wrong with dividing the tank capacity by the number of liters burned per 100km? My car's 65l tank will last 65/10 (10l/100km in the city) hundreds of km. That is a 650km driving distance or 325 km range.
The threat exists - at any given moment, somebody is attacking somebody else and it's just a matter of scale. Also, does the bill explain how and when this emergency and government protection ends? IMHO, I find unrealistic the expectation that some government body could take over the thousands of routers and milions of servers that are the Internet and protect (change configuration of) all of them with significant success and without major incidents. After all, if something can go wrong, it will.
You're being self righteous, too.
First, I do not try to justify violating someone's rights. Never did, never will.
Second, you do not know if I am braking the law. Actually, you do not know if the jurisdiction that applies to me has a law like the one you allge that I break. In fact, I could just sue you for libel, defamation etc. I won't, because you're not worth it.
Last, but not least, look at yourself and see if you managed not to break any law. Not a parking violation? Never ran a red light? Never drove at unsafe or illegal speed? Who are you to preach honesty to me? Who are you to talk to me about my respect of the law? What do you know about me to make this kind of statement?
Oh, and regarding the studios and the piracy: if there are countries where the piracy is so high, why do the studios sell to those markets? Huh? If in Bulgaria (random pick from Eastern Europe) the piracy is so high that one DVD will be copied 100.000 times (just a number, for the argument's sake), why do the studios sell DVDs there? Why don't they just take their precious movies and sell them to the rightgeous countries? Why? Is it because they are still making good profits? That's how capitalism works: as long as you can make a profit, you keep going; when the money stop comming, well, you leave that market.
And does such trending translate to movie-ticket sales, dvd sales and TV Advertising dollars? I don't think so.
Actually, I know a lot of people that buy DVD/BD with movies they already watched in the theatre or on TV.
That said, does it really MATTER if they are spending more money on music or not? If the copyright holder doesn't want you to have something before you pay for it then it is well within their rights.
It does matter, for THEM, because I will not pay to see the work of some studios (when ~75% of their creations are not worth seeing, other 20% are acceptable and about 5% are good) unless I know for sure I will not be disappointed.
I paid to watch Avatar twice in IMAX and I will get the BluRay, but I don't watch more than 10-15 movies/titles a year in cinema.
And if you want to selectively ignore that right, can I selectively choose which rights of yours I'll honor?
The respect of rights is not transitive. You can ignore my rights when I'll ignore yours.
It's obvious that you do not understand the difference between and a scientist and an engineer. The scientist thinks, creates way of solving problems and sells it to the engineer. The engineer takes the scientist's creation and assembles it in machines and sells the machines to the labourer. The labourer actually makes something tangible out of scientist's and engineer's ideas. What you're trying to say, wrongly IMHO, is that the engineer is smarter than the scientist. This is not true and not relevant either.