Which raises another interesting point: Since when has business been able to violate our free speech rights? Why should *ANYBODY* be blocked from receiving scholarly material on the Commerce Clause by an inability to pay?
True, they're not Muslim. But a huge percentage of them, at least the ones with relatives in the Middle East, are Muwahiddun, which I personally suspect has about as much in common with Islam and Moslems as Unitarians do with Trinitarian Christianity.
I've noticed that too- almost as if they've run out of seriously intelligent suicide bombers and are now on to the second, third, or even fifth stringers.
Either that, or redundancy, redundancy, redundancy. I always at least try to convince the bosses that hardware needs to be ordered in even numbers- so that we have onsite emergency replacements.
That extra hardware can then be used to build test beds.
Space...The final frontier to make money. These are the Voyages of the VSS Enterprise...it's 30-minute a week mission to make orbital space as much of a tourist destination as the Carribean...
Hey, I'm still using a 1996 Packard Bell in my living room for the daycare kids! It runs just fine, as long as I reinstall Windows 95 every couple of months or so.
But what if instead of $150, that netbook could be built for $75 or less? And be small enough with Skype and other such programs to double as a cell phone? And be given away through say, T-Mobile with a 2 year, $25/month unlimited data contract?
These reasons include, but are not limited to, patriotism and service to your country, honor, tradition and personal development.
And those are reasons which the sociopath or the loser will never understand or respect, for those are reasons that do not enhance material wealth (well, for the most part- some would say the personal development does, but others would say the personal development you get in basic training only has one purpose anyway, and that purpose isn't very profitable).
It could, and probably should, be better, but it's not a total "screw you" to those who've served anymore.
It's pretty similar though to the deal private industry gives, when you consider private industry people don't get shot at. BOTH are significantly less than a person would make if they could market themselves and/or own their own means of production (be in a co-op).
That assumes your desire was to maximize material possessions.
Which of course is the desire of the sociopath. And in fact the whole point of "The Office" and the working world to begin with.
One of the many reasons so many people in the military are admirable are they do know it's a ripoff, profit-wise. It's more altruistic than quid pro quo.
EXACTLY- and altruism in the system from the article (and by the way, an entire branch of economics, the Austrian school of thought), is the very definition of cluelessness. It's because these people are altruistic that they are considered clueless.
You seem to have confused altruistic with clueless. Of course, a sociopath would likely consider an altruistic person to be clueless.
Not my definitions, but if you read the author's two main pages, that is EXACTLY right. The only difference between the clueless person and the loser person is altruism.
That, by definition, is impossible. A worker's worth to a company lies in the fact that they're supposed to make more profit by having him.
And yet alternate examples like the Mondragon Cooperative exist.
Even employees who don't directly generate revenue (IT, cleaning crews, etc) are (in theory) increasing profit by holding down costs that would otherwise be much greater than their own salaries. There can never be someone who's paid what he's "really" worth yet leaves no profit for the shareholders.
True under the standard corporation. The answer, of course is to make the worker a shareholder- a cooperative rather than a corporation.
Not meant to be a dig at the military- if anything, I have great respect for those willing to go above and beyond the "bare necessity" that I do.
In fact, I'd say that the country *owes* a full retirement to anybody who has ever been in combat- that "little bit of money off the GI Bill" is an example of the sociopaths politicians disrespecting the value of your service. The reason this stereotype calls you clueless is because you don't realize just how little they gave you in return for you risking your life.
But they're definitely an example of the "clueless"- because that's what the clueless do; risk their lives in return for a "little bit of money off the GI Bill".
2nd response: the reason there's nothing you can do about it.
The skills it takes to be a sociopath, be clueless, be a loser (and I think the original author must be a sociopath for choosing these labels) in the workplace are so mutually exclusive that one can't possibly be good at all three.
The sociopath is the ultimate salesman- his aim is to get the most reward for the least effort. I disagree with the author that he's the guy making the organization work despite itself- he's more a parasite on everybody else's work. But like all good parasites, he's always looking for an opportunity.
The clueless is the most honorable person in the office- they'll give you the shirt off their back, and they're on 100% of the time. Too bad they're usually on a task set by a sociopath or worse yet, doing something they don't understand.
The loser is the guy who can't make a good deal to save his life, and he knows it. Because of that, he does the minimum necessary- but he does do the necessary. He's the guy with technical skills who keeps your computer running, the guy with plumbing skills who keeps the water flowing in the bathroom. If he was paid what he was truly worth to the company, there would be no profit left for the shareholders, so they hire sociopaths instead to make sure he isn't paid too much.
Yes, all three of these are aspects of everybody's personality- but the skills to maintain them in the workforce are vastly different. So different that the further away you get from college, the more you'll be pigeonholed by others into one of these three categories. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it, because your talents are what they are and you can't change them.
True enough, as far as it goes. But these three stereotypes are mutually exclusive when it comes to the cut-down face we show at work in our careers, and eventually, one of the three will take over your career and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
And the silly thing is, I resemble that remark, even though I've never seen the office- the stereotype of The Loser fits my career to a T, just as the stereotype of the Sociopath fits every entrepreneur I've ever known.
Oh yes, I've known quite a few of the clueless as well, but most of them have been stop-lossed overseas in the last 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
In Article I section 10 there is textually such a ban on interstate tariffs.
Minor minor nit pick- Article I Section 10 explicitly forbids the States from doing so *without* explicitly giving Congress the power to do so.
Yes, but Article I Section 10 specifically forbids the States from using Tariffs to regulate commerce.
Which raises another interesting point: Since when has business been able to violate our free speech rights? Why should *ANYBODY* be blocked from receiving scholarly material on the Commerce Clause by an inability to pay?
Possibly correct- depending on how it's enacted. Every article so far refers to it as a Tariff- a tax on imports.
Article I Section 10 States can't create Tariffs.
Personally, this is my most hated part of the Constitution- it prevents economic experimentation and competition between the States.
True, they're not Muslim. But a huge percentage of them, at least the ones with relatives in the Middle East, are Muwahiddun, which I personally suspect has about as much in common with Islam and Moslems as Unitarians do with Trinitarian Christianity.
I've noticed that too- almost as if they've run out of seriously intelligent suicide bombers and are now on to the second, third, or even fifth stringers.
Either that, or redundancy, redundancy, redundancy. I always at least try to convince the bosses that hardware needs to be ordered in even numbers- so that we have onsite emergency replacements.
That extra hardware can then be used to build test beds.
Thank you, I'd been quoting Chapters 4 & 5 for that. Didn't realize this was yet another place than it is duplicated.
RTFA- Virgin Space Ship Enterprise, which the SS2 has just been renamed to.
Space...The final frontier to make money. These are the Voyages of the VSS Enterprise...it's 30-minute a week mission to make orbital space as much of a tourist destination as the Carribean...
Yes, at times I've booted Edubuntu- but a 200 Mhz Pentium I with only 256MB runs it REALLY SLOW.
Hey, I'm still using a 1996 Packard Bell in my living room for the daycare kids! It runs just fine, as long as I reinstall Windows 95 every couple of months or so.
But what if instead of $150, that netbook could be built for $75 or less? And be small enough with Skype and other such programs to double as a cell phone? And be given away through say, T-Mobile with a 2 year, $25/month unlimited data contract?
Remove the word "security" from the above sentence and replace with "software", and you'll have a good view of the industry.
These reasons include, but are not limited to, patriotism and service to your country, honor, tradition and personal development.
And those are reasons which the sociopath or the loser will never understand or respect, for those are reasons that do not enhance material wealth (well, for the most part- some would say the personal development does, but others would say the personal development you get in basic training only has one purpose anyway, and that purpose isn't very profitable).
It could, and probably should, be better, but it's not a total "screw you" to those who've served anymore.
It's pretty similar though to the deal private industry gives, when you consider private industry people don't get shot at. BOTH are significantly less than a person would make if they could market themselves and/or own their own means of production (be in a co-op).
That assumes your desire was to maximize material possessions.
Which of course is the desire of the sociopath. And in fact the whole point of "The Office" and the working world to begin with.
One of the many reasons so many people in the military are admirable are they do know it's a ripoff, profit-wise. It's more altruistic than quid pro quo.
EXACTLY- and altruism in the system from the article (and by the way, an entire branch of economics, the Austrian school of thought), is the very definition of cluelessness. It's because these people are altruistic that they are considered clueless.
You seem to have confused altruistic with clueless. Of course, a sociopath would likely consider an altruistic person to be clueless.
Not my definitions, but if you read the author's two main pages, that is EXACTLY right. The only difference between the clueless person and the loser person is altruism.
That, by definition, is impossible. A worker's worth to a company lies in the fact that they're supposed to make more profit by having him.
And yet alternate examples like the Mondragon Cooperative exist.
Even employees who don't directly generate revenue (IT, cleaning crews, etc) are (in theory) increasing profit by holding down costs that would otherwise be much greater than their own salaries. There can never be someone who's paid what he's "really" worth yet leaves no profit for the shareholders.
True under the standard corporation. The answer, of course is to make the worker a shareholder- a cooperative rather than a corporation.
Not meant to be a dig at the military- if anything, I have great respect for those willing to go above and beyond the "bare necessity" that I do.
In fact, I'd say that the country *owes* a full retirement to anybody who has ever been in combat- that "little bit of money off the GI Bill" is an example of the sociopaths politicians disrespecting the value of your service. The reason this stereotype calls you clueless is because you don't realize just how little they gave you in return for you risking your life.
But they're definitely an example of the "clueless"- because that's what the clueless do; risk their lives in return for a "little bit of money off the GI Bill".
2nd response: the reason there's nothing you can do about it.
The skills it takes to be a sociopath, be clueless, be a loser (and I think the original author must be a sociopath for choosing these labels) in the workplace are so mutually exclusive that one can't possibly be good at all three.
The sociopath is the ultimate salesman- his aim is to get the most reward for the least effort. I disagree with the author that he's the guy making the organization work despite itself- he's more a parasite on everybody else's work. But like all good parasites, he's always looking for an opportunity.
The clueless is the most honorable person in the office- they'll give you the shirt off their back, and they're on 100% of the time. Too bad they're usually on a task set by a sociopath or worse yet, doing something they don't understand.
The loser is the guy who can't make a good deal to save his life, and he knows it. Because of that, he does the minimum necessary- but he does do the necessary. He's the guy with technical skills who keeps your computer running, the guy with plumbing skills who keeps the water flowing in the bathroom. If he was paid what he was truly worth to the company, there would be no profit left for the shareholders, so they hire sociopaths instead to make sure he isn't paid too much.
Yes, all three of these are aspects of everybody's personality- but the skills to maintain them in the workforce are vastly different. So different that the further away you get from college, the more you'll be pigeonholed by others into one of these three categories. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it, because your talents are what they are and you can't change them.
True enough, as far as it goes. But these three stereotypes are mutually exclusive when it comes to the cut-down face we show at work in our careers, and eventually, one of the three will take over your career and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
And the silly thing is, I resemble that remark, even though I've never seen the office- the stereotype of The Loser fits my career to a T, just as the stereotype of the Sociopath fits every entrepreneur I've ever known.
Oh yes, I've known quite a few of the clueless as well, but most of them have been stop-lossed overseas in the last 10 years.