You are ignorant. Do you know anything at all about colonial rule of Africa? Do you know of the centuries of mistreatment, slavery and conflict? Are you aware of the unstable governments, and the large corporations moving in to take resources while the locals are deprived? This is the same situation that the United States fought against before its birth. Oh, and I forgot to mention - there are ultra rich people of other color in these countries as well. The problem is the gap between rich and poor - not with mental deficiency based on color.
Visiting a country and then spouting this bull shit proves nothing but your stupidity. You're the one who is mentally deficient. I'd like to see your desperate attempt to prove otherwise.
I think he's contorting the issue. We're talking about a people who were systematically exterminated years before. I sincerely doubt that it was out of blatant racism or a holier than thou superiority complex.
That's not to say that there isn't racism in Israel. There is a lot of racism. I can only expect it when many have died because of blind hate -- which in turn creates a disturbing cycle. The truth is that their only title to the land is the gun in their hand.
And a message to those of you who blindly hate Israel:
Look at the size of israel and look at the size of all its neighbours. Look at the resources they have, then look at the resources israel has. While there are many religious problems included in the equation as well, countries like syria and jordan continue to screw people out of the democratic process.
Poster you replied to: Say it with me now. I will not be a part of your pride. I will judge individuals based on their actions and achievements.
There are of course many shades of grey. There are many people who have a group mentality and are unable to think without its crutch. Therefore it is possible as such to logically pre judge the mindset of a person based on a number of factors involved. The key, however, is to keep an open mind. Without an open mind, you are open to ignorance, stupidity, and that same group mentality and false pride.
The next time someone argues with you about country x vs. country y, ask them what they have done in their life that they feel proud. It should quickly shut them up. However, I do think it is acceptable for some playful group mentality in spectator sports such as football and basketball. Of course, we have often seen it go WAY to far in european soccer - but I guess that's what you get when you bring a couple of groups of people blindly advocating victory of a team with a label attached to their city or country..
Which in effect is nullified if you reply to the story directly below it. Most slashdot comment posters value the comments below the story to be of the most value. If you differ from a story as presented, then you reply in the comment field right below it.
There are of course problems with the collective majority drowning out particular points as well as bad moderation, but it is more or less a good thing.
Over the course of about 6 months, I have seen links to about 6 or 7 racist sites(even a real audio link) posted on slashdot. I have read each and every one of them (some for laughs, but others for education on how to fight what is presented). Anyway, if we see in shades of gray, we'll understand that there will be some misinformed people who will take the information presented as fact. We will also understand that sometime in the future, our ideas may be painted as racist or radical or irrational by a certain power structure. Those that wrote the constitution knew that government and other collections of people were open to corruption. That's why they wrote that there would be no laws against freedom of expression or association besides those that infringed on the rights of others.
In other words, I completely agree with you. Of course, there is a fine line between the spread of racist literature and teachings and infringing on rights of those that they are against.
The US and many other (at least pseudo)democratic nations fortunately have no extremists in power, but we do not know what the future will hold.
I agree. The internet has made the world a lot smaller. I converse daily with people from all over the world about various issues and nuances of culture. I have influenced and have been influenced by thought and reasoning by people everywhere. Previously I could only read books and interact with local community (since travelling is expensive and straining).
This is why the internet is being outlawed in some cultures. In china, people may be exposed to free thought, logic, and difference in cultures. This may lead them to question their situation. That's why the government there created a national firewall. To protect the people from "evil" or "radical" thoughts. In other words, trashing the power structure.
"Curtailing freedom of speech does not prevent villainy, on the contrary it makes it very easy to cover it up. Incidentally, by taking such a cavalier attitude toward free speech, your attitudes resemble those of a medieval monarch..."
I completely agree with this statement. We see daily the conflict between the old absolute world and the new subjective world everywhere. In the old world, to maintain the status quo, the word of the monarch was absolute. Otherwise it would be open to interpretation. Interpretation would result in questioning which would not preserve order. This was a world where things were what they were, a world of absolutes. This is the breeding ground of racism and illogical movements or religions/cults. Take logic out of the equation and this is what we get.
"Actually, I remember a statistic, though I can't recall where, that specifically stated that Racism is far more likely in educated people"
I'd like to see the numbers behind this statistic. Since almost every racist teaching I have come into contact with is easily struck down, I could say that it is ignorance.
"Racism is a statement of opinion, and as we all know, opinions cannot be wrong"
The question is, was this opinion brought about because of logical thought. This is how we personally decide if an opinion is valid within our mindset. If someone comes to believe something just because someone told them, they are not logically thinking. If we can agree that something such as the flat-earth society (I'm not kidding, they believe this) is full of false assumptions, why can we not agree (and possibly verbally argue against opinions) that someone thinking that they are a better person based on nothing other than the assumption and emotional gain from feeling superior is also a false line of reasoning?
A more extreme case would be several cults. Besides the brain washing, some people really are obsequious because of extreme emotional problems leading them to a perceived cause to champion, making them feel like they have purpose in life. There is something wrong if you accept worthless tautology such as "I am supreme because I am"; or "I am supreme because I have blue eyes and I am from ___", which is obviously objective and completely lacking in both correlation and causation.
The problem, however, is that reality is objective. There are no absolute truths. We can only perceive reality. We do not know for sure what is.
Take for example, modern science. There are many theories which we take to be truth. A paradigm shift in that world of accepted truths changes the way in which we perceive, discuss, and agree.
Scientific thought does not need any absolutes, and everything is subjective interpretation, discussions, and possible consensus for those who consent. People who use absolutes to guide them through life are only asking to be given an answer. They do not question. They want a crutch.
This is why events like the holocaust can occur. Those that are weak or down on their luck are looking for a solution to their problem. When hitler came with an absolute solution to everything, the people only saw the crutch that would bring them back into economic well being again. One person may have questioned this ideology, but probably felt powerless to change the result of the events unfolding. It's very hard to go against a large group of people who are in power.
Anyway, I'm getting completely off topic (and rambling). I'll just say that there are those that feel disoriented without the crutch of a presented absolute reality. This is why racism will always exist. It's so easy to come to a conclusion without actually thinking about the real factors of a problem.
People who are used to absolutes are surprised by mental freedom and will again, ask for something fixed to believe in. This is why it is terribly hard to convince such people that their line of reasoning is flawed. They accept certain facts for absolute truth. It is very hard to prove to someone that an absolute may be wrong, especially when they did not come to it with any kind of logical or objective thought.
"Why wouldn't Simon want anyone to read these books?..." Being anti racist, he probably believes that censorship as such would keep this literature out of the hands of the majority, who may believe fallible information as presented. I think doing this is often wrong, as it sets up a situation where perfectly good information can be censored in the future. A more logical solution would be to spread his information pointing out obvious fallicies in a work, to match the spread of the material as follows. Metaphorically, this results in each having to shout louder than the other. There are probably a number of factors that brought these people do come to this conclusion (and I can only speculate without asking):
a) limited resources to combat this material and dispute its claims b) history showing extreme events that have come out of literature such as this c) ignorance to the possiblity that ignorance to literature such as this will end in history repeating itself
This is actually very similar to parents not wanting their children exposed to sex and violence on television.
"Is he afraid of the ideas which might come into one's mind if they do?"
I'd say that he is obviously afraid, as my previous example has brought up an extermination of a large group of peoples based on appearance and their own assumed superiority.
"Perhaps, like, race matters or something"
Can not be proven. Coming to such a conclusion without demonstratable fact is not thought to be a good thing in other circumstances. Why should we come to a conclusion such as this without material to back it up as well?
"Shouldn't he be holding these books up as an example of racist thought and just how easy it is to tear down that philosophy?"
Yes.
"Talk about being a hypocrite"
Yep. I would encourage people to read Mein Kampf and other racist literature. You can't eliminate any problem by ignoring it. Systematically identifying inconsistency, fallicies, and ignorance (such as blind statements brought about by unquestioned thought) is a very good way to attack a problem. They key, of course, is to actually question the conclusions that you come to. One can not learn unless he or she logically thinks about information presented to them.
"Saying things like "Racism is based on ignorance" without a thorough explanation will get you nowhere, and actually is flamebait."
False. Racism can be based on fear of the unknown, xenophobia, cause and effect, intellectual stagnation leading to a simple "answer" to a complex problem that your mind isn't able to wrap itself around et al.
"Actually, I grew up in a predominantly Black neghborhood. It was the fact that I had to actually live with them and interact with them for most of my 24 years that made me realize that they were indeed fundamentally different than myself."
OK, lay out your experiences for me. Since there is no content here (just a holier than thou presentation of "fact), I can not argue with you. I will however give you an example:
In germany, in the early 1930's, there was extended economic downturn. The people involved -- who were largely ignorant to macro and micro economics (as the general population in any country usually is) -- were willing to accept any solution presented to them. Why? Because economic depression is the lower most extreme of the business cycle, there was a lot of suffering. Hitler offered them a solution. They accepted it. It was not based on logic. It was based on an exploitation of those who were recently in economic good times and the populations general ignorance to the world around them.
Do you know why it angers me when you use scientific "fact" to back your posts? It's because you lack simple understanding of what science is. Science is based on making a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, and questioning your results. Logical and objective thought makes you question everything around you. You are not questioning. You are repeating crap that you have either been told or which you believe as a conclusion you have come to yourself. You don't question your line of thought. You just believe. That's not science of logical thinking. That's stupidity.
"It's called evolution, and the most marked reason why we are different from other races"
You are ignorant of science. Your claim is easily proven false. Your problem is that you are intellectually unable to logically and objectively think. You don't know how the world really works, so you believe racist ideas, partly out of emotional need to feel "special" and to set up a simple equation where all the worlds problems are in fact the result of someone elses actions (see stereotyped group).
"I joined the National Alliance because I want to be a hammer instead of an anvil, I got tired of just watching what was being done to our people and our civilization. I decided to fight back."
What a joke. Do you actually think people in this forum are going to believe the drivel that you advocate? The quote above is one of many on your site that preys on those who are ignorant as well as down on their luck. It is a sad thought that you don't know what a fool you are.
Yes, it is despicable. However, the difference here is that there was no mass extermination. As for the winner writing history in their favor, I see none of this. Children in school learn about the detention camps in Canada and the US, as well as the McCarthy communist conspiracy collaborator crap (which is easily shown as stupidity by the paranoia that ensued).
"Of course, no-one cares about slashcode anymore do they, it's just a hack made by someone who doesn't care anymore because they now have lots of money"
While in jest, your comment still stinks. What an insult to those who worked hard to make this initial release. Why do people find it so easy to be rude on the net?
I think what some people here are grasping for is the correlation between lack of word for an abstract concept in a language and ignorance to that abstract concept. Coining a word allows for efficiency in calling up meaning. However, to actually understand the word, you must understand the concept.
Orwell describes a people who are brought up into ignorance leading to a particular mindset. Their coining of new terms to efficiently describe the abstract concepts they came into contact with is only a result of understanding that concept. Ignorance, not language, was what held them back.
"But any larger software developers (this includes Open Source) should be splitting up the tasks."
Splitting up tasks, yes; but I feel that almost everyone should have input (as in review) on the design process throughout the project. Design is never perfectly linear.
"Interface design..."
Uhh, I'll let the UI guys do whatever they want. They can also have input on design - as there can be conflicts between team goals.
"but just that as a good guideline they should not"
You must not be working in a very good team environment. Yes, some guys should be doing conceptual design -- but in my experience, logical design can be worked out in teams and even change as requirements sometimes do as the project progresses.
Gotcha. Although, I don't see how it is possible to easily accelerate innovation instead of extended imitation in such a competitive micro situation. But yeah, I get your point.
I'll pick up Kuttner's book -- though, if it's like some of his other books, it will fail to provide believable explanations as to why we should introduce regulation, un-needed bureaucracy, and extended social programs (in other words, stuff that looks good on paper but don't really work out in reality). I couldn't stop laughing when he repudiated large labour unions in a couple of chapters in the economic illusion. He was at least right about incredibly stupid supply side economics in that book.
"The worst problem I see today with the software-creation process is design. Programmers design software (I design software, and I am a programmer). However, the people who are writing code for software should not be allowed to design that same software"
I don't know about that. However, I do get a lot of peer review and help along the way (as well as 1001 new client demands to sort out).
More competition usually means more innovation and/or better prices (the closer we get to unattainable perfect competiton that is). In most markets, PR and marketing can only get you so far. You need product that differentiates from your competitors in price or quality.
As your point about cutthroat competition is vague, I don't really understand it. On a general macro level, a more competitive industry usually means less barriers to entry. With this, relatively anyone within (or new entrants) can bring new innovative technology, better goods, better services, or business practices. You're maybe thinking about the quantity vs. quality argument?
Power consolidation results in less choice and less competition. There are, of course, logical reasons for very large horizontal mergers such as this, but I doubt most are in the consumers interest if there aren't many players in the industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you please stop flailing in your stupidity? It's getting embarrassing. Your line of reasoning as such is this:
Some guy with large ears murdered 3 people. All men with large ears must be murderers.
Your weak mind is unable to wrap itself around complex problems. I pity you.
"I like people who look and act like me"
Along your line of incredibly stupid reasoning: So are you married to your mother?
If your post was a joke, you still are an idiot.
"To those who claim my views are ignorant, let me just say I will compare passport stamps with the best of you"
This proves zilch except to others as mentally deficient as you. It's all baseless supposition and unproven claims.
You are ignorant. Do you know anything at all about colonial rule of Africa? Do you know of the centuries of mistreatment, slavery and conflict? Are you aware of the unstable governments, and the large corporations moving in to take resources while the locals are deprived? This is the same situation that the United States fought against before its birth. Oh, and I forgot to mention - there are ultra rich people of other color in these countries as well. The problem is the gap between rich and poor - not with mental deficiency based on color.
Visiting a country and then spouting this bull shit proves nothing but your stupidity. You're the one who is mentally deficient. I'd like to see your desperate attempt to prove otherwise.
I think he's contorting the issue. We're talking about a people who were systematically exterminated years before. I sincerely doubt that it was out of blatant racism or a holier than thou superiority complex.
That's not to say that there isn't racism in Israel. There is a lot of racism. I can only expect it when many have died because of blind hate -- which in turn creates a disturbing cycle. The truth is that their only title to the land is the gun in their hand.
And a message to those of you who blindly hate Israel:
Look at the size of israel and look at the size of all its neighbours. Look at the resources they have, then look at the resources israel has. While there are many religious problems included in the equation as well, countries like syria and jordan continue to screw people out of the democratic process.
Poster you replied to: Say it with me now. I will not be a part of your pride. I will judge individuals based on their actions and achievements.
..
There are of course many shades of grey. There are many people who have a group mentality and are unable to think without its crutch. Therefore it is possible as such to logically pre judge the mindset of a person based on a number of factors involved. The key, however, is to keep an open mind. Without an open mind, you are open to ignorance, stupidity, and that same group mentality and false pride.
The next time someone argues with you about country x vs. country y, ask them what they have done in their life that they feel proud. It should quickly shut them up. However, I do think it is acceptable for some playful group mentality in spectator sports such as football and basketball. Of course, we have often seen it go WAY to far in european soccer - but I guess that's what you get when you bring a couple of groups of people blindly advocating victory of a team with a label attached to their city or country
"slashodt is full of pro-socialist propaganada"
Which in effect is nullified if you reply to the story directly below it. Most slashdot comment posters value the comments below the story to be of the most value. If you differ from a story as presented, then you reply in the comment field right below it.
There are of course problems with the collective majority drowning out particular points as well as bad moderation, but it is more or less a good thing.
Over the course of about 6 months, I have seen links to about 6 or 7 racist sites(even a real audio link) posted on slashdot. I have read each and every one of them (some for laughs, but others for education on how to fight what is presented). Anyway, if we see in shades of gray, we'll understand that there will be some misinformed people who will take the information presented as fact. We will also understand that sometime in the future, our ideas may be painted as racist or radical or irrational by a certain power structure. Those that wrote the constitution knew that government and other collections of people were open to corruption. That's why they wrote that there would be no laws against freedom of expression or association besides those that infringed on the rights of others.
In other words, I completely agree with you. Of course, there is a fine line between the spread of racist literature and teachings and infringing on rights of those that they are against.
The US and many other (at least pseudo)democratic nations fortunately have no extremists in power, but we do not know what the future will hold.
I agree. The internet has made the world a lot smaller. I converse daily with people from all over the world about various issues and nuances of culture. I have influenced and have been influenced by thought and reasoning by people everywhere. Previously I could only read books and interact with local community (since travelling is expensive and straining).
This is why the internet is being outlawed in some cultures. In china, people may be exposed to free thought, logic, and difference in cultures. This may lead them to question their situation. That's why the government there created a national firewall. To protect the people from "evil" or "radical" thoughts. In other words, trashing the power structure.
"Curtailing freedom of speech does not prevent villainy, on the contrary it makes it very easy to cover it up. Incidentally, by taking such a cavalier attitude toward free speech, your attitudes resemble those of a medieval monarch ..."
I completely agree with this statement. We see daily the conflict between the old absolute world and the new subjective world everywhere. In the old world, to maintain the status quo, the word of the monarch was absolute. Otherwise it would be open to interpretation. Interpretation would result in questioning which would not preserve order. This was a world where things were what they were, a world of absolutes. This is the breeding ground of racism and illogical movements or religions/cults. Take logic out of the equation and this is what we get.
"Actually, I remember a statistic, though I can't recall where, that specifically stated that Racism is far more likely in educated people"
I'd like to see the numbers behind this statistic. Since almost every racist teaching I have come into contact with is easily struck down, I could say that it is ignorance.
"Racism is a statement of opinion, and as we all know, opinions cannot be wrong"
The question is, was this opinion brought about because of logical thought. This is how we personally decide if an opinion is valid within our mindset. If someone comes to believe something just because someone told them, they are not logically thinking. If we can agree that something such as the flat-earth society (I'm not kidding, they believe this) is full of false assumptions, why can we not agree (and possibly verbally argue against opinions) that someone thinking that they are a better person based on nothing other than the assumption and emotional gain from feeling superior is also a false line of reasoning?
A more extreme case would be several cults. Besides the brain washing, some people really are obsequious because of extreme emotional problems leading them to a perceived cause to champion, making them feel like they have purpose in life. There is something wrong if you accept worthless tautology such as "I am supreme because I am"; or "I am supreme because I have blue eyes and I am from ___", which is obviously objective and completely lacking in both correlation and causation.
The problem, however, is that reality is objective. There are no absolute truths. We can only perceive reality. We do not know for sure what is.
Take for example, modern science. There are many theories which we take to be truth. A paradigm shift in that world of accepted truths changes the way in which we perceive, discuss, and agree.
Scientific thought does not need any absolutes, and everything is subjective interpretation, discussions, and possible consensus for those who consent. People who use absolutes to guide them through life are only asking to be given an answer. They do not question. They want a crutch.
This is why events like the holocaust can occur. Those that are weak or down on their luck are looking for a solution to their problem. When hitler came with an absolute solution to everything, the people only saw the crutch that would bring them back into economic well being again. One person may have questioned this ideology, but probably felt powerless to change the result of the events unfolding. It's very hard to go against a large group of people who are in power.
Anyway, I'm getting completely off topic (and rambling). I'll just say that there are those that feel disoriented without the crutch of a presented absolute reality. This is why racism will always exist. It's so easy to come to a conclusion without actually thinking about the real factors of a problem.
People who are used to absolutes are surprised by mental freedom and will again, ask for something fixed to believe in. This is why it is terribly hard to convince such people that their line of reasoning is flawed. They accept certain facts for absolute truth. It is very hard to prove to someone that an absolute may be wrong, especially when they did not come to it with any kind of logical or objective thought.
"Why wouldn't Simon want anyone to read these books? ..." Being anti racist, he probably believes that censorship as such would keep this literature out of the hands of the majority, who may believe fallible information as presented. I think doing this is often wrong, as it sets up a situation where perfectly good information can be censored in the future. A more logical solution would be to spread his information pointing out obvious fallicies in a work, to match the spread of the material as follows. Metaphorically, this results in each having to shout louder than the other. There are probably a number of factors that brought these people do come to this conclusion (and I can only speculate without asking):
a) limited resources to combat this material and dispute its claims
b) history showing extreme events that have come out of literature such as this
c) ignorance to the possiblity that ignorance to literature such as this will end in history repeating itself
This is actually very similar to parents not wanting their children exposed to sex and violence on television.
"Is he afraid of the ideas which might come into one's mind if they do?"
I'd say that he is obviously afraid, as my previous example has brought up an extermination of a large group of peoples based on appearance and their own assumed superiority.
"Perhaps, like, race matters or something"
Can not be proven. Coming to such a conclusion without demonstratable fact is not thought to be a good thing in other circumstances. Why should we come to a conclusion such as this without material to back it up as well?
"Shouldn't he be holding these books up as an example of racist thought and just how easy it is to tear down that philosophy?"
Yes.
"Talk about being a hypocrite"
Yep. I would encourage people to read Mein Kampf and other racist literature. You can't eliminate any problem by ignoring it. Systematically identifying inconsistency, fallicies, and ignorance (such as blind statements brought about by unquestioned thought) is a very good way to attack a problem. They key, of course, is to actually question the conclusions that you come to. One can not learn unless he or she logically thinks about information presented to them.
"Saying things like "Racism is based on ignorance" without a thorough explanation will get you nowhere, and actually is flamebait."
False. Racism can be based on fear of the unknown, xenophobia, cause and effect, intellectual stagnation leading to a simple "answer" to a complex problem that your mind isn't able to wrap itself around et al.
"Actually, I grew up in a predominantly Black neghborhood. It was the fact that I had to actually live with them and interact with them for most of my 24 years that made me realize that they were indeed fundamentally different than myself."
OK, lay out your experiences for me. Since there is no content here (just a holier than thou presentation of "fact), I can not argue with you. I will however give you an example:
In germany, in the early 1930's, there was extended economic downturn. The people involved -- who were largely ignorant to macro and micro economics (as the general population in any country usually is) -- were willing to accept any solution presented to them. Why? Because economic depression is the lower most extreme of the business cycle, there was a lot of suffering. Hitler offered them a solution. They accepted it. It was not based on logic. It was based on an exploitation of those who were recently in economic good times and the populations general ignorance to the world around them.
Do you know why it angers me when you use scientific "fact" to back your posts? It's because you lack simple understanding of what science is. Science is based on making a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, and questioning your results. Logical and objective thought makes you question everything around you. You are not questioning. You are repeating crap that you have either been told or which you believe as a conclusion you have come to yourself. You don't question your line of thought. You just believe. That's not science of logical thinking. That's stupidity.
Thank you for that nice long winded deflecting argument with absolutely no substance what so ever.
It is most likely infotech reponding to his own drivel.
"It's called evolution, and the most marked reason why we are different from other races"
You are ignorant of science. Your claim is easily proven false. Your problem is that you are intellectually unable to logically and objectively think. You don't know how the world really works, so you believe racist ideas, partly out of emotional need to feel "special" and to set up a simple equation where all the worlds problems are in fact the result of someone elses actions (see stereotyped group).
Off your web page.
"I joined the National Alliance because I want to be a hammer instead of an anvil, I got tired of just watching what was being done to our people and our civilization. I decided to fight back."
What a joke. Do you actually think people in this forum are going to believe the drivel that you advocate? The quote above is one of many on your site that preys on those who are ignorant as well as down on their luck. It is a sad thought that you don't know what a fool you are.
Yes, it is despicable. However, the difference here is that there was no mass extermination. As for the winner writing history in their favor, I see none of this. Children in school learn about the detention camps in Canada and the US, as well as the McCarthy communist conspiracy collaborator crap (which is easily shown as stupidity by the paranoia that ensued).
Could you please expand on this (I Just want to know out of interest)?
Yes, it is 3am here and I am unable to grasp simple english. Sorry about that sufi. I think I'll go be a hypocrite somewhere else now :)
"Of course, no-one cares about slashcode anymore do they, it's just a hack made by someone who doesn't care anymore because they now have lots of money"
While in jest, your comment still stinks. What an insult to those who worked hard to make this initial release. Why do people find it so easy to be rude on the net?
and we all live unhappy in utopia forever and ever ...
I think what some people here are grasping for is the correlation between lack of word for an abstract concept in a language and ignorance to that abstract concept. Coining a word allows for efficiency in calling up meaning. However, to actually understand the word, you must understand the concept.
Orwell describes a people who are brought up into ignorance leading to a particular mindset. Their coining of new terms to efficiently describe the abstract concepts they came into contact with is only a result of understanding that concept. Ignorance, not language, was what held them back.
"But any larger software developers (this includes Open Source) should be splitting up the tasks."
..."
Splitting up tasks, yes; but I feel that almost everyone should have input (as in review) on the design process throughout the project. Design is never perfectly linear.
"Interface design
Uhh, I'll let the UI guys do whatever they want. They can also have input on design - as there can be conflicts between team goals.
"but just that as a good guideline they should not"
You must not be working in a very good team environment. Yes, some guys should be doing conceptual design -- but in my experience, logical design can be worked out in teams and even change as requirements sometimes do as the project progresses.
Gotcha. Although, I don't see how it is possible to easily accelerate innovation instead of extended imitation in such a competitive micro situation. But yeah, I get your point.
I'll pick up Kuttner's book -- though, if it's like some of his other books, it will fail to provide believable explanations as to why we should introduce regulation, un-needed bureaucracy, and extended social programs (in other words, stuff that looks good on paper but don't really work out in reality). I couldn't stop laughing when he repudiated large labour unions in a couple of chapters in the economic illusion. He was at least right about incredibly stupid supply side economics in that book.
"The worst problem I see today with the software-creation process is design. Programmers design software (I design software, and I am a programmer). However, the people who are writing code for software should not be allowed to design that same software"
I don't know about that. However, I do get a lot of peer review and help along the way (as well as 1001 new client demands to sort out).
More competition usually means more innovation and/or better prices (the closer we get to unattainable perfect competiton that is). In most markets, PR and marketing can only get you so far. You need product that differentiates from your competitors in price or quality.
As your point about cutthroat competition is vague, I don't really understand it. On a general macro level, a more competitive industry usually means less barriers to entry. With this, relatively anyone within (or new entrants) can bring new innovative technology, better goods, better services, or business practices. You're maybe thinking about the quantity vs. quality argument?
Power consolidation results in less choice and less competition. There are, of course, logical reasons for very large horizontal mergers such as this, but I doubt most are in the consumers interest if there aren't many players in the industry.