If your aim is to improve the world and the lot of as many people as possible, this attitude is idiotic and counter-productive. Yes, there are many inequalities and unequal distribution of resources, but the capitalist system has proven itself as the best by far in generating wealth and helping as many people as possible.
Physical resources should be in the hands of those who can use them most productively. The best way to determine that is the market: who will pay the best price. Yes, the situation at the start is always messy, but with a system with strong property rights, eventually the land will be placed in the most productive use.
Intellectual works can be even more valuable than physical resources. Lack of protection for intellectual property sounds nice but removes the incentives to its creation. Realize that a single invention can make a huge difference, for example:
- A genetically-modified crop that can double harvests.
- The cure or treatments for malaria, cancer, AIDS.
- Bio-enginered bacteria that can create ethanol from cellulose, or hydrogen from sunlight.
- Real artificial intelligence.
Such inventions can make the difference between life and death for millions, feed the hungry, enable us to reach other planets, etc. Do you want to take chance and snuff out the possibility of something like that getting invented? Why? Because of our envy that a single person or corporation may get so much richer than us?
If some noble inventor wants to give away his cure for cancer, more power to him, but I'd rather make him a billionaire and have the cure, than have nothing.
Re:It doesn't have to be a computer virus...
on
Is SETI a Security Risk?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Here is a mind virus kit with all the triggers:
BEGIN VIRUS 1. There is an all-seeing all-powerful invisible being that made everything.
2. This being hereby offers to eliminate the thing you fear the most (death) and provide eternal satisfaction of the needs that your genes have wired you to want, but only if you behave according to his program (which follows).
3. The being promises eternal pain if you don't behave according to his program (which follows).
4. [insert program]
5. The being requires you to spread this virus, either through persuasion, bribery, missionary action, or conquest. Also, he requires immunity to other competing viruses (they are all false) and to erasure.
END VIRUS
Re:Does adding every ingredient make it better?
on
C# 2.0 Spec Released
·
· Score: 1
C++ is a power tool. It's main failing is that, in the tradition of C and Unix, it doesn't restrict you. Even from shooting yourself in the foot. But the power! The POWER!
In C++, you can go as low level as you like and, using higher level libraries, as high as you like. Most people never really learn it well enough to use it properly, program in it at too low a level, treating it as a glorified C, and predictably blow off a leg. They come out shaken from the experience, and call it things like "insanely complicated" and "broken".
Yes, the type declaration syntax is a bit insane, but can be tamed with the proper use of typedefs. Use of the preprocessor should be kept to a minimum. It doesn't help that compilers that don't fully implement the standard (like VC++ 6.0) often make it necessary to use the C preprocessor instead of templates for generic programming. Having to #include, then link is arguably less advanced than the Java or C# more elaborate methods of referencing other classes, and managing their dependencies.
But with the proper level of abstraction, C++ becomes a much safer language, for those that want the safety. You don't have to use raw pointers if you don't want to. Use ref-counted or garbage collected pointers with the proper library. Use std::string instead of char[]. Don't use printf.
C# and Java are nice, but there is still an imprenetrable veil between me and the machine that constrains me. I respect and will use these languages, but I am still addicted to the power of C++.
I agree completely. At least a graduate level degree is required in order to undestand the problems you face when designing large systems, and the correctness of proposed solutions.
I have seen attempts to implement enterprise systems by people who don't even have a degree in computer science. When these systems blow up, they blame the tools, "it was the network" or "it was the wrong database", or "it's Microsoft's fault." Sadly, many times the work environment does not recognize the difference in understanding, scope, and ability to see the better answer that a graduate degree confers and the whole company suffers as a result. In these places, an advanced degree is not an advantage, but may be a liability, as it threatens the livelihood of the unqualified, who will proceed to ridicule any ideas you may have purely as a matter of defensive reflex. In these places, the scientific method is the first thing out the window.
Wherever your advanced degree is appreciated, that's the place where you want to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Physical resources should be in the hands of those who can use them most productively. The best way to determine that is the market: who will pay the best price. Yes, the situation at the start is always messy, but with a system with strong property rights, eventually the land will be placed in the most productive use.
Intellectual works can be even more valuable than physical resources. Lack of protection for intellectual property sounds nice but removes the incentives to its creation. Realize that a single invention can make a huge difference, for example:
- A genetically-modified crop that can double harvests.
- The cure or treatments for malaria, cancer, AIDS.
- Bio-enginered bacteria that can create ethanol from cellulose, or hydrogen from sunlight.
- Real artificial intelligence.
Such inventions can make the difference between life and death for millions, feed the hungry, enable us to reach other planets, etc. Do you want to take chance and snuff out the possibility of something like that getting invented? Why? Because of our envy that a single person or corporation may get so much richer than us?
If some noble inventor wants to give away his cure for cancer, more power to him, but I'd rather make him a billionaire and have the cure, than have nothing.
BEGIN VIRUS
1. There is an all-seeing all-powerful invisible being that made everything.
2. This being hereby offers to eliminate the thing you fear the most (death) and provide eternal satisfaction of the needs that your genes have wired you to want, but only if you behave according to his program (which follows).
3. The being promises eternal pain if you don't behave according to his program (which follows).
4. [insert program]
5. The being requires you to spread this virus, either through persuasion, bribery, missionary action, or conquest. Also, he requires immunity to other competing viruses (they are all false) and to erasure.
END VIRUS
C++ is a power tool. It's main failing is that, in the tradition of C and Unix, it doesn't restrict you. Even from shooting yourself in the foot. But the power! The POWER! In C++, you can go as low level as you like and, using higher level libraries, as high as you like. Most people never really learn it well enough to use it properly, program in it at too low a level, treating it as a glorified C, and predictably blow off a leg. They come out shaken from the experience, and call it things like "insanely complicated" and "broken". Yes, the type declaration syntax is a bit insane, but can be tamed with the proper use of typedefs. Use of the preprocessor should be kept to a minimum. It doesn't help that compilers that don't fully implement the standard (like VC++ 6.0) often make it necessary to use the C preprocessor instead of templates for generic programming. Having to #include, then link is arguably less advanced than the Java or C# more elaborate methods of referencing other classes, and managing their dependencies. But with the proper level of abstraction, C++ becomes a much safer language, for those that want the safety. You don't have to use raw pointers if you don't want to. Use ref-counted or garbage collected pointers with the proper library. Use std::string instead of char[]. Don't use printf. C# and Java are nice, but there is still an imprenetrable veil between me and the machine that constrains me. I respect and will use these languages, but I am still addicted to the power of C++.
I agree completely. At least a graduate level degree is required in order to undestand the problems you face when designing large systems, and the correctness of proposed solutions. I have seen attempts to implement enterprise systems by people who don't even have a degree in computer science. When these systems blow up, they blame the tools, "it was the network" or "it was the wrong database", or "it's Microsoft's fault." Sadly, many times the work environment does not recognize the difference in understanding, scope, and ability to see the better answer that a graduate degree confers and the whole company suffers as a result. In these places, an advanced degree is not an advantage, but may be a liability, as it threatens the livelihood of the unqualified, who will proceed to ridicule any ideas you may have purely as a matter of defensive reflex. In these places, the scientific method is the first thing out the window. Wherever your advanced degree is appreciated, that's the place where you want to work.