the corps are tired of paying top dollar for programmers. India generates all the.Net and SQL hacks they need, but guys that can write huge Big Data DB systems are still scarce enough they cost real money. Plus after 20 years of outsourcing as much as they can they're having a hard time getting people interested in a career that isn't there... So they're pouring money into making more programmers. They did the same with the Nursing industry and managed to drop wages there quite a bit.
after generations of regulation in the United States, but you're forgetting what we did with our slums and our pollution: we moved them overseas. China has 'cancer cities' and India has a 'thriving' business dismantling boats made out of Asbestos with zero safety gear.
Basically the reason you're against regulation is you've had the benefit of it so long you've forgotten why its there in the first place, and thanks to the third world you're enjoying the benefits of cheap electronics without the run off from their factories.
As for corps abusing gov't. You act as though there's anything you can do about it. There isn't. Let's say you dismantle the Government to prevent the corps from abusing it. All you've done is created a power vacuum the corps are happy to fill with their own institutions. You've traded something that you had a say in (The Government) for what's basically an Oligarchy with a few wealthy Heirs/Heiress on top. This is what happens in real life when governments fall. It's not all kittens and ice cream. It's a few lucky a$$es that monopolize everything.
local governments just get picked apart one by one by the Corps and the 1%. A centralized gov't can be abused, but local govt is useless. It was the Federal Government that ended slavery and that bogus 'Separate but Equal' nonsense. Most conservatives championing small gov't just want one small enough they can abuse it themselves. Petty tyrants like Ron and Rand Paul that are all in favor of individual freedom as long as it's one of the freedoms they personally want.
between a legitimate religion and a tax shelter? We can't use the old "They interfere in politics" because pastors of all the major churches do all the time...
Nintendo's design work is generally so much better that it's not an issue. Does Intuit worry about Microsoft Money destroying Quickbooks? Not so much.
It might impair Nintendo's ability to crank out mediocre crap (I'm looking at you Super Mario 3D Land) but overall I don't think that's Nintendo's intention. Nintendo, like Sega, are craftsman that make games. They might screw up sometimes, but it's not for lack of trying, and they mostly get it right. Much as I love Indie platformers, very few come close to Nintendo levels of quality. Frogotto and Friends is the only one in recent memory and even it's not prefect.
which is why Nintendo remakes games so often (Star Fox, Mario, Zelda, all had recent remakes from the N64 and Gamecube era).
Budding game designers get a chance to remake a game and release it it's a tremendous learning opportunity. It also provides them with a solid basis to launch new work.
As an Example, take the Giana sisters. Started as a Super Mario clone in the C64 era, but I don't think anyone would say this has much of anything to do with Super Mario besides being a platformer.
Me? I could live with the long copyrights if we also had big social safety nets and Basic Income (google the phrase if you don't recognize it). A lot of great stuff comes out of Canada and Europe because their socialized health care gives people the freedom to take risks you can't do in the states...
It won't stop with a nominal co-pay. The ruling class of Brittan fought hard against universal health care.
And it's not theirs. They just claimed it through force and chicanery. If society is short on resources it needs to give up Lamborghinis and Personal Jets, not health care for the working class.
just tax the rich more. Seriously. We put a _lot_ of effort to satisfying their whims and providing them with every creature comfort in the world. The only thing we'd lose is the (false) dream that we can have it ourselves. But then again good luck getting people to give that up...
I love this line of reasoning. It's the same reasoning that blames the Union Auto Workers and a guy who tightens bolts for a living for making shotty cars instead of the CEOs and Engineers who made the decision to use cheap bolts.
If the regulators are untrained it's by design. You don't just 'forget' to train the people that inspect your Nuclear power plants you know...
I can get one from t-mobile for the same or less than a Samsung S-4. I agree you can't do as much. I wrote a little Android program (Shameless Plug) that pops up a contact's picture (sadly the cute girl in the screenshots is a stock pic from the Creative Common's main image site) and keeps it there because I got tired of not noticing the itty bitty missed call notification. It's only pretty recently that I could distribute it to others on the iPhone without jumping through a _lot_ of hoops.
the powers that be aren't going to let us go to war. It's bad for business. Take that one terrorist attack ages ago in India that was traced back to Pakistan. The Indian people called for blood, the corps said no (since real war cuts into their profits) and everyone backed down.
Oh, for sure you're going to see a lot of human misery for the sake of the super rich being super rich. But large scale wars that wipe out the pleebs aren't going to happen again.
Isn't this a feature pretty much taken for granted? My $80 Hauwei Ascend II has bluetooth for pete's sake... It's a $10 dollar chip (maybe $2.50 at the bulk Sony buys)... I get that margin's are slim but come on...
Are the people of N Korea 'responsible' for Kim Jun Un? No, but they're powerless to do anything about it. The only thing that can stand up to concentrated wealth is a black plague that wipes it out or a strong central gov't. There's a reason we had a 'Dark Ages'
You once again state that I want the super rich to be able to abuse the gov't, ignoring my point that no matter what you or I want their going to, so same to you, my comment stands.
I'd love to live in a magic world of fairy dust and pixy farts where something as powerful as a central gov't doesn't get abused. Instead, I'd rather work around the inevitable abuse. It's kinda like floods. In 4,000 years we might have weather control. We don't have it today, so I'll build levies instead of just prayin' to god to make the water stop.
You seem to have grasped my point about gov't being controlled by people to enrich themselves while being completely oblivious to my point that _you_can_do_that_too? There's enough gov't to go around. Just like there's enough food, shelter and health care to go around. People like you perpetuating the lie that there isn't is what's wrong with the world...
I don't think you can really phase in stuff like this. Letters wouldn't really help. With the internet you already know the site is up. I guess you could put a code in the letter, but then there's the political element. Delays could be used to put the service on hold indefinitely. Plus the codes become yet another piece of infrastructure to fail.
Whether you fail gracefully or not you've still failed. The only difference is a pretty little message instead of a 404. Incremental growth is hard, because you've got so many factors fighting for the status quo that a large change is the only thing that can survive multiple lobbying efforts. If you want health care reform (debatable, but let's assume you do) You've got to strike while the iron's hot and there are people in office with the political will to implement it.
the last one should recognize that he had a _lot_ of help along the way (which he did) and be willing to pay it forward.
In the real world kids from the projects don't make it big. In the real world they're crushed by daily life and their lack of education. Look up the unemployment rate and average income of project kids (especially the ones that speak Ebonics, which sadly makes them more or less unemployable outside of manual labor and fast food). It's not a fun read.
This happens every time a major new internet service is launched. And it _always_ will. See, here's the problem: at launch everyone is interested and wants in. After a few weeks/months the interest dies off and the site hits a BAU point. So if you're designing one of these sites you're stuck either:
a. Spending billions on infrastructure for 3 months tops of high volume and then getting ripped to shreds in the press for 'wasting' all that money. or...
b. Taking your lumps up front and waiting a few months for people to forget about it.
The guys running healthcare.gov opted for 'b.', and I would too. The kinds of people that just want to say bad things about the ACA would have a field day with 'a.', with 'b.' they'll have to acknowledge (or at least ignore) the fact that in a few months it'll be working more or less as intended.
past $9 million a year then no. You're not 'working hard to earn more' any more then. You're riding on someone else's hard (that sounds dirty). Do you seriously think the Chinese billionaire that owns Foxconn 'earned' that? Or to go more extreme how about the southern cotton plantation owners in the 1800s? Yeah, I'm being inflammatory, but the point is still valid.
The people building search engines and inventing cancer drugs top out around $100,000 a year. A few big winners in the dot com bubble stand out, but by and large the habit of giving billions to people that make things has been gotten under control. Kinda like how Atari made it a point of not letting their game makers credit themselves (look up how Activision got it's start).
I'm sorry you had a falling out with your sister, but I don't think pulling her gov't assistance is the answer to her problems. People in her situation don't pull themselves up by their boot straps when that happens. They implode, and usually end up without a home. I'm glad your sister has held onto her house, and I hope she continues to.
I didn't say I support the super rich using the tool of gov't, rather I recognize that it's inevitable. The rich will use their wealth and power to build institutions that protect that wealth and power. We usually call those institutions 'Government'. They're going to do this whether I want them to or not. The only question is can I wrest those institutions from them. Kinda like how the house of commons gradually became more powerful than the house of lords...
Race to the bottom then? You know, the European countries that are doing good are doing so by not allowing themselves to compete head on with slave labor in China...
Despite what your third grade communist fearin' teacher might have told you. After $9 million a _year_ you can't honestly say that the person in question is generating enough raw wealth to be 'worth' it. They're just able to obtain it through a combination manipulation of the political system, military power and indoctrination of the working class. The Koch brothers are a prime example. Their money comes from gov't contracts to run hospitals and gov't granted mineral rights. They add no value to either process. They're just good at manipulating the gov't and the populace to increase their wealth.
The super rich didn't 'earn' their wealth. They the gov't to obtain and maintain it. You can argue they shouldn't be allowed to do this, but you can't stop them from doing it. Their wealth makes them too powerful. To ignore that fact not only plays right into their hands, but it's pointless too. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Gov't is a tool. The rich are going to use it to their advantage. The only question is, are you?
I've known people on gov't assistance. It's a few hundred dollars a month and you have to be making about half the poverty line to get it. If you're sister is on gov't assistance for real then there's something wrong with her. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean there really is something wrong, and she needs the help. You don't get enough from the gov't to live, you get enough so that if your family is giving you a lot of help you can just barely eat.
Is this an astro turfer or something? I'd like to believe noone is this much of a jerk in real life...
you increase the top earner's rates on income over a certain amount. In the 50s and 60s we had the highest growth in real wages and middle class incomes the country (maybe even the species) has ever seen with a 90% top tax bracket. How? Because that 90% wasn't a flat "Give us 90% of your income" it was "90 % over 1 Million" or about $9 million in todays money. So if you made over $9 million dollars in a SINGLE YEAR then you paid 90% of that to the gov't. This kept wealth inequality in check and forced top earners to really work for that money over $9 million. If you wanted to be filthy, stinking rich you really had to work at it (people still did). Meanwhile gov't programs redistributed the wealth. Maybe not evenly, but it's better than phoney job creators hording it and holding up human progress by sitting on their fat rears with all the money in the world...
Slashdot Mirror
the corps are tired of paying top dollar for programmers. India generates all the .Net and SQL hacks they need, but guys that can write huge Big Data DB systems are still scarce enough they cost real money. Plus after 20 years of outsourcing as much as they can they're having a hard time getting people interested in a career that isn't there... So they're pouring money into making more programmers. They did the same with the Nursing industry and managed to drop wages there quite a bit.
after generations of regulation in the United States, but you're forgetting what we did with our slums and our pollution: we moved them overseas. China has 'cancer cities' and India has a 'thriving' business dismantling boats made out of Asbestos with zero safety gear.
Basically the reason you're against regulation is you've had the benefit of it so long you've forgotten why its there in the first place, and thanks to the third world you're enjoying the benefits of cheap electronics without the run off from their factories.
As for corps abusing gov't. You act as though there's anything you can do about it. There isn't. Let's say you dismantle the Government to prevent the corps from abusing it. All you've done is created a power vacuum the corps are happy to fill with their own institutions. You've traded something that you had a say in (The Government) for what's basically an Oligarchy with a few wealthy Heirs/Heiress on top. This is what happens in real life when governments fall. It's not all kittens and ice cream. It's a few lucky a$$es that monopolize everything.
local governments just get picked apart one by one by the Corps and the 1%. A centralized gov't can be abused, but local govt is useless. It was the Federal Government that ended slavery and that bogus 'Separate but Equal' nonsense. Most conservatives championing small gov't just want one small enough they can abuse it themselves. Petty tyrants like Ron and Rand Paul that are all in favor of individual freedom as long as it's one of the freedoms they personally want.
I'm not much of a critic, so here's a good one explaining it's short comings :).
mis-read that as the USS Zubaz?
between a legitimate religion and a tax shelter? We can't use the old "They interfere in politics" because pastors of all the major churches do all the time...
Nintendo's design work is generally so much better that it's not an issue. Does Intuit worry about Microsoft Money destroying Quickbooks? Not so much.
It might impair Nintendo's ability to crank out mediocre crap (I'm looking at you Super Mario 3D Land) but overall I don't think that's Nintendo's intention. Nintendo, like Sega, are craftsman that make games. They might screw up sometimes, but it's not for lack of trying, and they mostly get it right. Much as I love Indie platformers, very few come close to Nintendo levels of quality. Frogotto and Friends is the only one in recent memory and even it's not prefect.
which is why Nintendo remakes games so often (Star Fox, Mario, Zelda, all had recent remakes from the N64 and Gamecube era).
Budding game designers get a chance to remake a game and release it it's a tremendous learning opportunity. It also provides them with a solid basis to launch new work.
As an Example, take the Giana sisters. Started as a Super Mario clone in the C64 era, but I don't think anyone would say this has much of anything to do with Super Mario besides being a platformer.
Me? I could live with the long copyrights if we also had big social safety nets and Basic Income (google the phrase if you don't recognize it). A lot of great stuff comes out of Canada and Europe because their socialized health care gives people the freedom to take risks you can't do in the states...
It won't stop with a nominal co-pay. The ruling class of Brittan fought hard against universal health care.
And it's not theirs. They just claimed it through force and chicanery. If society is short on resources it needs to give up Lamborghinis and Personal Jets, not health care for the working class.
just tax the rich more. Seriously. We put a _lot_ of effort to satisfying their whims and providing them with every creature comfort in the world. The only thing we'd lose is the (false) dream that we can have it ourselves. But then again good luck getting people to give that up...
I love this line of reasoning. It's the same reasoning that blames the Union Auto Workers and a guy who tightens bolts for a living for making shotty cars instead of the CEOs and Engineers who made the decision to use cheap bolts.
If the regulators are untrained it's by design. You don't just 'forget' to train the people that inspect your Nuclear power plants you know...
I can get one from t-mobile for the same or less than a Samsung S-4. I agree you can't do as much. I wrote a little Android program (Shameless Plug) that pops up a contact's picture (sadly the cute girl in the screenshots is a stock pic from the Creative Common's main image site) and keeps it there because I got tired of not noticing the itty bitty missed call notification. It's only pretty recently that I could distribute it to others on the iPhone without jumping through a _lot_ of hoops.
the powers that be aren't going to let us go to war. It's bad for business. Take that one terrorist attack ages ago in India that was traced back to Pakistan. The Indian people called for blood, the corps said no (since real war cuts into their profits) and everyone backed down.
Oh, for sure you're going to see a lot of human misery for the sake of the super rich being super rich. But large scale wars that wipe out the pleebs aren't going to happen again.
Isn't this a feature pretty much taken for granted? My $80 Hauwei Ascend II has bluetooth for pete's sake... It's a $10 dollar chip (maybe $2.50 at the bulk Sony buys)... I get that margin's are slim but come on...
Are the people of N Korea 'responsible' for Kim Jun Un? No, but they're powerless to do anything about it. The only thing that can stand up to concentrated wealth is a black plague that wipes it out or a strong central gov't. There's a reason we had a 'Dark Ages'
You once again state that I want the super rich to be able to abuse the gov't, ignoring my point that no matter what you or I want their going to, so same to you, my comment stands.
I'd love to live in a magic world of fairy dust and pixy farts where something as powerful as a central gov't doesn't get abused. Instead, I'd rather work around the inevitable abuse. It's kinda like floods. In 4,000 years we might have weather control. We don't have it today, so I'll build levies instead of just prayin' to god to make the water stop.
You seem to have grasped my point about gov't being controlled by people to enrich themselves while being completely oblivious to my point that _you_can_do_that_too? There's enough gov't to go around. Just like there's enough food, shelter and health care to go around. People like you perpetuating the lie that there isn't is what's wrong with the world...
I don't think you can really phase in stuff like this. Letters wouldn't really help. With the internet you already know the site is up. I guess you could put a code in the letter, but then there's the political element. Delays could be used to put the service on hold indefinitely. Plus the codes become yet another piece of infrastructure to fail.
Whether you fail gracefully or not you've still failed. The only difference is a pretty little message instead of a 404. Incremental growth is hard, because you've got so many factors fighting for the status quo that a large change is the only thing that can survive multiple lobbying efforts. If you want health care reform (debatable, but let's assume you do) You've got to strike while the iron's hot and there are people in office with the political will to implement it.
the last one should recognize that he had a _lot_ of help along the way (which he did) and be willing to pay it forward.
In the real world kids from the projects don't make it big. In the real world they're crushed by daily life and their lack of education. Look up the unemployment rate and average income of project kids (especially the ones that speak Ebonics, which sadly makes them more or less unemployable outside of manual labor and fast food). It's not a fun read.
This happens every time a major new internet service is launched. And it _always_ will. See, here's the problem: at launch everyone is interested and wants in. After a few weeks/months the interest dies off and the site hits a BAU point. So if you're designing one of these sites you're stuck either:
a. Spending billions on infrastructure for 3 months tops of high volume and then getting ripped to shreds in the press for 'wasting' all that money. or...
b. Taking your lumps up front and waiting a few months for people to forget about it.
The guys running healthcare.gov opted for 'b.', and I would too. The kinds of people that just want to say bad things about the ACA would have a field day with 'a.', with 'b.' they'll have to acknowledge (or at least ignore) the fact that in a few months it'll be working more or less as intended.
past $9 million a year then no. You're not 'working hard to earn more' any more then. You're riding on someone else's hard (that sounds dirty). Do you seriously think the Chinese billionaire that owns Foxconn 'earned' that? Or to go more extreme how about the southern cotton plantation owners in the 1800s? Yeah, I'm being inflammatory, but the point is still valid.
The people building search engines and inventing cancer drugs top out around $100,000 a year. A few big winners in the dot com bubble stand out, but by and large the habit of giving billions to people that make things has been gotten under control. Kinda like how Atari made it a point of not letting their game makers credit themselves (look up how Activision got it's start).
I'm sorry you had a falling out with your sister, but I don't think pulling her gov't assistance is the answer to her problems. People in her situation don't pull themselves up by their boot straps when that happens. They implode, and usually end up without a home. I'm glad your sister has held onto her house, and I hope she continues to.
I didn't say I support the super rich using the tool of gov't, rather I recognize that it's inevitable. The rich will use their wealth and power to build institutions that protect that wealth and power. We usually call those institutions 'Government'. They're going to do this whether I want them to or not. The only question is can I wrest those institutions from them. Kinda like how the house of commons gradually became more powerful than the house of lords...
Race to the bottom then? You know, the European countries that are doing good are doing so by not allowing themselves to compete head on with slave labor in China...
Despite what your third grade communist fearin' teacher might have told you. After $9 million a _year_ you can't honestly say that the person in question is generating enough raw wealth to be 'worth' it. They're just able to obtain it through a combination manipulation of the political system, military power and indoctrination of the working class. The Koch brothers are a prime example. Their money comes from gov't contracts to run hospitals and gov't granted mineral rights. They add no value to either process. They're just good at manipulating the gov't and the populace to increase their wealth.
The super rich didn't 'earn' their wealth. They the gov't to obtain and maintain it. You can argue they shouldn't be allowed to do this, but you can't stop them from doing it. Their wealth makes them too powerful. To ignore that fact not only plays right into their hands, but it's pointless too. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Gov't is a tool. The rich are going to use it to their advantage. The only question is, are you?
I've known people on gov't assistance. It's a few hundred dollars a month and you have to be making about half the poverty line to get it. If you're sister is on gov't assistance for real then there's something wrong with her. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean there really is something wrong, and she needs the help. You don't get enough from the gov't to live, you get enough so that if your family is giving you a lot of help you can just barely eat.
Is this an astro turfer or something? I'd like to believe noone is this much of a jerk in real life...
you increase the top earner's rates on income over a certain amount. In the 50s and 60s we had the highest growth in real wages and middle class incomes the country (maybe even the species) has ever seen with a 90% top tax bracket. How? Because that 90% wasn't a flat "Give us 90% of your income" it was "90 % over 1 Million" or about $9 million in todays money. So if you made over $9 million dollars in a SINGLE YEAR then you paid 90% of that to the gov't. This kept wealth inequality in check and forced top earners to really work for that money over $9 million. If you wanted to be filthy, stinking rich you really had to work at it (people still did). Meanwhile gov't programs redistributed the wealth. Maybe not evenly, but it's better than phoney job creators hording it and holding up human progress by sitting on their fat rears with all the money in the world...