Only a little over half the country that showed up to vote had faith in him as a person, and even then only more faith in him than his competitor. In my opinion, this division is itself the root of our problem.
I'm not sure his charisma is enough to "fix" anything, but certainly gives him an edge in creating a reality that we might reject from someone else.
And a good amount of our economy and it's "health" is based on perceptions of the market versus actual value. So if you could effectively broker hope, you could actually drive positive change.
On the other hand if we believe that money given to corps is going to be spent overseas (and it will, as things stand today), and that the company you work for is big, bloated, inefficient, bogged down by a cross of greedy executives and misguided laws/standards that deserves to fail...then you're just flushing the money.
It's part of high school history..."What ended the great depression?" (in the US, for me) Some think FDR and his public works, some think industrial capacity increase for WWII, some think victory in WWII...some think just the act of winning it. My thought is probably the ability of the masses to align to, and achieve a common objective that could be agreed upon, something that took us out of the greed/fear rut we were in.
I don't think merely spending a money, even an epic amount of money, is itself going to unify what is a very divided nation. Something else needs to get going in the mean time, and we have to believe in it, however ridiculous it might be. Hopefully not a war...great engineering projects have sufficed in the past, not just in the recent past either. Something that stimulates many industries, and involves a wide array of people and that is...very expensive and requires the resources of a large nation (or the world, if we're bent on the "global economy" angle).
3. Will he be able to separate the interests of his country, above those of his client.
i.e. Is he still representing their interests, one way or another, or can he see the other side of the equation and make the laws better?
I'm a bit jaded I admit, I think long after he leaves the government, he's still got to make a buck, and we know where he saw the easy money in the past.
Not to mention that in the process of executing, you often discover how to improve/expand/enhance it.
Occasionally you also discover it is unworkable or requires unobtainium... but it's better to have tried and failed than to hold a patent on something lame and prevent anyone else from trying.
If your point is that if you have a great idea, you should develop it and bring it to market in spite of what people say... agreed.
If your idea is that you should trademark/copyright/patent whatever it is, and sit on it like a troll waiting for someone to take the bait...your final quote more or less describes how and why that probably won't work. (It CAN, but the probability is low). It takes money to patent something, it takes even more money to defend it. Lone gunmen usually don't have a lot of money.
The more difficult question is when you are employed to do a job, or if you are a student in some universities. You are not always free to bring your ideas to market (because someone thinks that your ideas are their ideas). The question of whether to submarine it or try to market it is tough, and while I don't have any issue with this deceit, you did sign something agreeing to a term you are not planning to meet. Even deciding to say it aloud will be enough for them to decide they own it, so in choosing to do so you have to already have decided that they're the better option.
On one hand, particularly if it's related to their core business they are probably set up and resourced to market your idea. It won't hurt your career or your yearly review to have been the guy that came up with the great idea that grew xyz business. You may see a significant small scale profit with a more minimal time/personal investment by going this route, than you would see by going out on your own. A good amount of the profits from your idea will be split unfairly to people who largely did nothing useful at all (except infest your corporation with bureacracy and middle mismanagement). But easy come, easy go, right?
On the other hand, if your idea is in fact really great, you will almost certainly see far more return by going on your own. You'll have to make a huge time/money investment, likely take some scary loans...completely take off your engineer hat and run a business (likely not what you want to do with your life, and not very conducive, in my opinion, to further idea generation)...but the profits are yours to dole out to the people who really contributed. Of course, if your idea isn't that good, or you fail to execute, you will lose everything and more.
It's not really as clear cut as being a puffer-fish. The only good news is that if you have one good idea, you'll probably have two.
The sane internet died a decade ago. We're in the death throws of the internet-of-the-corporate-hack. Likely our next stop will be the reincarnation of an AOL like atmosphere where a central application or website insulates you from the internet, and provides you with a limited array of things to do.
I agree in principle with your argument about the (oft forgotten) "obligations" of living in any society. They are often forgotten, however, because they are not enforced. I agree they should be a proactive contributor to the principles of the community and country that has made them successful, but there is nothing strictly requiring them to do so. Any such effort, in my opinion, would do more harm than good. In any event, even if they are altruistic, we have to assume that they are torn between their customers desire to not be exposed to certain material, versus the desire for users to display what they want. They cannot please everyone, so they have to set their rules around the user base they want to groom. At one extreme would be users who think goatse is acceptable, to another extreme may be people who don't believe women should be exposing any parts of their body. I think they should be free to navigate those murky waters however they like. The ideal outcome will be multiple sites with varying implementations. To me this is the best benefit of a free culture.
If I were about to start a campaign to cause corporations to be better citizens, this is also not the issue I'd choose to begin my campaign...I'd probably start with unpatriotic acts like offshoring, or corporate adherence to foreign censorship desires that conflict with our first amendment. This one, doesn't really rate.
As far as I know, and I don't use Facebook, you sign some disclaimers and legal mumbo jumbo while creating an account stating that you agree to their terms of service. I might be wrong. But in doing so, I think this becomes nothing like a mall which you generally get to walk in freely.
Well if it helps my Dish HDTV DVR crashed mysteriously exactly 20 seconds before the ball dropped. Came right back up, and none of my other Dish boxes seemed to crash, nor did my linux server.
Facebook has no obligation to the public good, just to whoever owns them. They believe, that it is in their financial best interests to censor content. They have been including in that umbrella, breastfeeding women. I'm not convinced they really have considered the issue deeply, but I can easily see the case that it's easier to ban all booby, except breastfeeding women and "art", whatever that is really. It definitely makes it a much faster evaluation, and easier to evaluate your evaluators.
Attempting to restrict Facebook's right to do what they will with their website by some legal effort would really need to have some hard justification. The case was given about what would happen if a private corp banned pictures of black people. The answer is probably nothing at all, beyond public outrage. I'm guessing the author probably didn't mean quite what he posted and was speculating about the legal implications of discrimination, and why the government may get involved in discriminatory companies.
It has been a significant detriment to our society (by that I mean the US) to have select groups be unemployable on the basis of race, gender etc. The government has chosen to get involved to some degree on the subject. That said, I'm no expert and have no intention of testing the waters, but I do believe it is legal and defended by the US Supreme Court for private enterprise to discriminate for any reason at all. There are consequences for many kinds of discrimination, or even the statistical appearance of such discrimination, but as far as I know it's a restriction on who you can do business with and penalties for "scamming" the system. The laws that exist around equal opportunity employment are generally made such that you can only lose business by failing to comply, but you are free to do whatever you like.
Most of us agree that discriminating against people for arbitrary reasons is wrong, and maybe we'd like to see a law banning this across the board...but it's a double edged sword. Public opinion is not on all matters correct, and forcing public opinion to rule private enterprise is definitely a bad idea. Forbidding discrimination against race has worked out well for us. On some matters, like say, gay marriage, is there a reasonable consensus? Should the government use popular opinion to drive policy through corporations on this? Keep in mind, based on public opinion, very likely a lot of gay partners would lose coverage they are currently getting through corporations who have chosen to have a broad view on the subject. To have diversity you have to enable it to take place, and let it produce results.
So, after all that, I think there's no good legal reason to make this into a legal action. It boils down to "their website, their rules, their consequences to pay". Unless you can come up with a good justification why anything but market forces should interfere...that's not a "conformist, submissive" policy, that's the smart policy.
It would be conformist and submissive to continue to use Facebook if their policies offend you. It's neither conformist nor submissive to accept that your government won't and shouldn't support punitive actions against Facebook. Nor is it conformist nor submissive to not care about the issue if you feel it is trivial. It seems like a baseless ad hominem attack, unless some rationale is given for why anything but popularity should interfere with Facebook's product.
That may or may not be illegal for a private (which I take to mean privately held) company.
I'm not sure why "their website, their rules" necessarily brands someone a conformist submissive. It works both ways, imagine having a website dedicated to evolution in an area where discussion of evolution is forbidden. Hiding behind "my website, my rules" doesn't seem quite so offensive, or submissive.
If you don't like their rules, don't use facebook. If they lose enough hits, they will change. If not enough people care (and I suspect that will be the case), then either beat their business, or cope. It's hard to construct an argument that it's "best for the public good" to force facebook to change their rules based on wanting to post breast-feeding pictures. There are better, more authoritative "how to" sources...this is just for social purposes.
I think that depends on where you are having sex in public. I assure you where I live, in the heart of Texas...you'd get more than a passing glance, except maybe in a rock concert or party (where you can be raped and beaten to death, and not get a call on your behalf).
I think the deal is, as anyone who has children knows, when the baby is hungry you better feed it. Hungry babies have various habits which make EVERYONE in their immediate vicinity suffer when not fed.
Only an idiot believes that Democrats are any less evil than Republicans. That's why our elections are always so close to 50/50.
I think the thing about unions to watch out for is that once you let them in, it's really hard to get rid of them. If you make any, and I mean, any, effort to codify their existence with law, you can't ever get rid of them. Witness the plague of the northeast.
Unions are always bad, but unfortunately sometimes necessary. Where we fail is giving employees the choice of being in one or not, and being able to continue working if not. You should be in a union because you believe it is better for you, and you should be able to leave without any repercussions when you no longer feel that's the case. That's not how they work now.
IMHO unions should always be temporary. They're the drastic measure you must take when it's quite clear management is being selfish and greedy. There are plenty of examples of this right now where I think unions may do some good...but I'm not sure the cure is worse than the disease.
I'm not sure how many people go into debt with regular speed broadband and a mmog subscription (assuming they're not buying gold etc.).
It seems like the usual problem is too much house, with too nice/many things, with too many nice vehicles that you can afford when times are good but that you're (knowingly or not) just a lay off away from bankruptcy...or where you know you are making above market compensation and assuming it'll last forever..etc.
Either way a mmog or a magic fetish isn't likely breaking your budget, but you do have to wonder what the amount of money in your bank account ought to have to do with your ability to compete with other players (or the amount of time you have to spend grinding). That's a pretty fair question, and the only answer is boycott.
It might, if you where a loot whoring, ninja looting, guild crashing jackass...you ought to be forced to reroll. Instead you can change your name or relocate and continue to be a dick. It's an extreme though, and not one many exploit for gain.
I think being able to buy those items is going to encourage the usual business trade off of "how do we increase sales of achievement potions?" -> "Let's increase the grind!"
Same can be said for any item. If it was purely graphical stuff (non combat pets, new hairdo's, non-stat clothes), i can look the other way. But stuff that directly short circuits (admittedly broken) gameplay mechanics, for money, no way.
Slashdot Mirror
Only a little over half the country that showed up to vote had faith in him as a person, and even then only more faith in him than his competitor. In my opinion, this division is itself the root of our problem.
I'm not sure his charisma is enough to "fix" anything, but certainly gives him an edge in creating a reality that we might reject from someone else.
And a good amount of our economy and it's "health" is based on perceptions of the market versus actual value. So if you could effectively broker hope, you could actually drive positive change.
On the other hand if we believe that money given to corps is going to be spent overseas (and it will, as things stand today), and that the company you work for is big, bloated, inefficient, bogged down by a cross of greedy executives and misguided laws/standards that deserves to fail...then you're just flushing the money.
It's part of high school history..."What ended the great depression?" (in the US, for me) Some think FDR and his public works, some think industrial capacity increase for WWII, some think victory in WWII...some think just the act of winning it. My thought is probably the ability of the masses to align to, and achieve a common objective that could be agreed upon, something that took us out of the greed/fear rut we were in.
I don't think merely spending a money, even an epic amount of money, is itself going to unify what is a very divided nation. Something else needs to get going in the mean time, and we have to believe in it, however ridiculous it might be. Hopefully not a war...great engineering projects have sufficed in the past, not just in the recent past either. Something that stimulates many industries, and involves a wide array of people and that is...very expensive and requires the resources of a large nation (or the world, if we're bent on the "global economy" angle).
Relevant to this topic:
3. Will he be able to separate the interests of his country, above those of his client.
i.e. Is he still representing their interests, one way or another, or can he see the other side of the equation and make the laws better?
I'm a bit jaded I admit, I think long after he leaves the government, he's still got to make a buck, and we know where he saw the easy money in the past.
Not to mention that in the process of executing, you often discover how to improve/expand/enhance it.
Occasionally you also discover it is unworkable or requires unobtainium... but it's better to have tried and failed than to hold a patent on something lame and prevent anyone else from trying.
If your point is that if you have a great idea, you should develop it and bring it to market in spite of what people say... agreed.
If your idea is that you should trademark/copyright/patent whatever it is, and sit on it like a troll waiting for someone to take the bait...your final quote more or less describes how and why that probably won't work. (It CAN, but the probability is low). It takes money to patent something, it takes even more money to defend it. Lone gunmen usually don't have a lot of money.
The more difficult question is when you are employed to do a job, or if you are a student in some universities. You are not always free to bring your ideas to market (because someone thinks that your ideas are their ideas). The question of whether to submarine it or try to market it is tough, and while I don't have any issue with this deceit, you did sign something agreeing to a term you are not planning to meet. Even deciding to say it aloud will be enough for them to decide they own it, so in choosing to do so you have to already have decided that they're the better option.
On one hand, particularly if it's related to their core business they are probably set up and resourced to market your idea. It won't hurt your career or your yearly review to have been the guy that came up with the great idea that grew xyz business. You may see a significant small scale profit with a more minimal time/personal investment by going this route, than you would see by going out on your own. A good amount of the profits from your idea will be split unfairly to people who largely did nothing useful at all (except infest your corporation with bureacracy and middle mismanagement). But easy come, easy go, right?
On the other hand, if your idea is in fact really great, you will almost certainly see far more return by going on your own. You'll have to make a huge time/money investment, likely take some scary loans...completely take off your engineer hat and run a business (likely not what you want to do with your life, and not very conducive, in my opinion, to further idea generation)...but the profits are yours to dole out to the people who really contributed. Of course, if your idea isn't that good, or you fail to execute, you will lose everything and more.
It's not really as clear cut as being a puffer-fish. The only good news is that if you have one good idea, you'll probably have two.
The sane internet died a decade ago. We're in the death throws of the internet-of-the-corporate-hack. Likely our next stop will be the reincarnation of an AOL like atmosphere where a central application or website insulates you from the internet, and provides you with a limited array of things to do.
Not if it were being held to him by ropes. Then he could "Loose the weight!".
I agree in principle with your argument about the (oft forgotten) "obligations" of living in any society. They are often forgotten, however, because they are not enforced. I agree they should be a proactive contributor to the principles of the community and country that has made them successful, but there is nothing strictly requiring them to do so. Any such effort, in my opinion, would do more harm than good. In any event, even if they are altruistic, we have to assume that they are torn between their customers desire to not be exposed to certain material, versus the desire for users to display what they want. They cannot please everyone, so they have to set their rules around the user base they want to groom. At one extreme would be users who think goatse is acceptable, to another extreme may be people who don't believe women should be exposing any parts of their body. I think they should be free to navigate those murky waters however they like. The ideal outcome will be multiple sites with varying implementations. To me this is the best benefit of a free culture.
If I were about to start a campaign to cause corporations to be better citizens, this is also not the issue I'd choose to begin my campaign...I'd probably start with unpatriotic acts like offshoring, or corporate adherence to foreign censorship desires that conflict with our first amendment. This one, doesn't really rate.
As far as I know, and I don't use Facebook, you sign some disclaimers and legal mumbo jumbo while creating an account stating that you agree to their terms of service. I might be wrong. But in doing so, I think this becomes nothing like a mall which you generally get to walk in freely.
Well if it helps my Dish HDTV DVR crashed mysteriously exactly 20 seconds before the ball dropped. Came right back up, and none of my other Dish boxes seemed to crash, nor did my linux server.
Facebook has no obligation to the public good, just to whoever owns them. They believe, that it is in their financial best interests to censor content. They have been including in that umbrella, breastfeeding women. I'm not convinced they really have considered the issue deeply, but I can easily see the case that it's easier to ban all booby, except breastfeeding women and "art", whatever that is really. It definitely makes it a much faster evaluation, and easier to evaluate your evaluators.
Attempting to restrict Facebook's right to do what they will with their website by some legal effort would really need to have some hard justification. The case was given about what would happen if a private corp banned pictures of black people. The answer is probably nothing at all, beyond public outrage. I'm guessing the author probably didn't mean quite what he posted and was speculating about the legal implications of discrimination, and why the government may get involved in discriminatory companies.
It has been a significant detriment to our society (by that I mean the US) to have select groups be unemployable on the basis of race, gender etc. The government has chosen to get involved to some degree on the subject. That said, I'm no expert and have no intention of testing the waters, but I do believe it is legal and defended by the US Supreme Court for private enterprise to discriminate for any reason at all. There are consequences for many kinds of discrimination, or even the statistical appearance of such discrimination, but as far as I know it's a restriction on who you can do business with and penalties for "scamming" the system. The laws that exist around equal opportunity employment are generally made such that you can only lose business by failing to comply, but you are free to do whatever you like.
Most of us agree that discriminating against people for arbitrary reasons is wrong, and maybe we'd like to see a law banning this across the board...but it's a double edged sword. Public opinion is not on all matters correct, and forcing public opinion to rule private enterprise is definitely a bad idea. Forbidding discrimination against race has worked out well for us. On some matters, like say, gay marriage, is there a reasonable consensus? Should the government use popular opinion to drive policy through corporations on this? Keep in mind, based on public opinion, very likely a lot of gay partners would lose coverage they are currently getting through corporations who have chosen to have a broad view on the subject. To have diversity you have to enable it to take place, and let it produce results.
So, after all that, I think there's no good legal reason to make this into a legal action. It boils down to "their website, their rules, their consequences to pay". Unless you can come up with a good justification why anything but market forces should interfere...that's not a "conformist, submissive" policy, that's the smart policy.
It would be conformist and submissive to continue to use Facebook if their policies offend you. It's neither conformist nor submissive to accept that your government won't and shouldn't support punitive actions against Facebook. Nor is it conformist nor submissive to not care about the issue if you feel it is trivial. It seems like a baseless ad hominem attack, unless some rationale is given for why anything but popularity should interfere with Facebook's product.
That may or may not be illegal for a private (which I take to mean privately held) company.
I'm not sure why "their website, their rules" necessarily brands someone a conformist submissive. It works both ways, imagine having a website dedicated to evolution in an area where discussion of evolution is forbidden. Hiding behind "my website, my rules" doesn't seem quite so offensive, or submissive.
If you don't like their rules, don't use facebook. If they lose enough hits, they will change. If not enough people care (and I suspect that will be the case), then either beat their business, or cope. It's hard to construct an argument that it's "best for the public good" to force facebook to change their rules based on wanting to post breast-feeding pictures. There are better, more authoritative "how to" sources...this is just for social purposes.
I think that depends on where you are having sex in public. I assure you where I live, in the heart of Texas...you'd get more than a passing glance, except maybe in a rock concert or party (where you can be raped and beaten to death, and not get a call on your behalf).
I think the deal is, as anyone who has children knows, when the baby is hungry you better feed it. Hungry babies have various habits which make EVERYONE in their immediate vicinity suffer when not fed.
I imagine they're trying to use the catastrophe to find new ways of making them all survivable, one shuttle at a time.
It's a way of making sure their deaths weren't for nothing.
Maybe more than a few seconds, 60kft is a long way to drop. Some people pay good money for that thrill!
Hurray for the virtues of value based pricing. If we could find a catchy name for it, it might be legal for rich people to murder poor people too!
I wouldn't call that computer science per se, but then I don't know anyone who designs computers who doesn't also have Howard Johnson:
http://www.amazon.com/High-Speed-Digital-Design-Semiconductor/dp/0133957241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230059485&sr=1-1
You left out "put the patient in at least 2-3 medical emergencies in 1 hour".
I was thinking Barbara Streisands rendition of "Jinglebells".
If that doesn't turn them into angry, psychotic movie sharks, not much will.
Only an idiot believes that Democrats are any less evil than Republicans. That's why our elections are always so close to 50/50.
I think the thing about unions to watch out for is that once you let them in, it's really hard to get rid of them. If you make any, and I mean, any, effort to codify their existence with law, you can't ever get rid of them. Witness the plague of the northeast.
Unions are always bad, but unfortunately sometimes necessary. Where we fail is giving employees the choice of being in one or not, and being able to continue working if not. You should be in a union because you believe it is better for you, and you should be able to leave without any repercussions when you no longer feel that's the case. That's not how they work now.
IMHO unions should always be temporary. They're the drastic measure you must take when it's quite clear management is being selfish and greedy. There are plenty of examples of this right now where I think unions may do some good...but I'm not sure the cure is worse than the disease.
We'll need a solution to the traveling reindeer problem to figure that out.
+1 for pointing out that a word exists for fear of feces.
I'm not sure how many people go into debt with regular speed broadband and a mmog subscription (assuming they're not buying gold etc.).
It seems like the usual problem is too much house, with too nice/many things, with too many nice vehicles that you can afford when times are good but that you're (knowingly or not) just a lay off away from bankruptcy...or where you know you are making above market compensation and assuming it'll last forever..etc.
Either way a mmog or a magic fetish isn't likely breaking your budget, but you do have to wonder what the amount of money in your bank account ought to have to do with your ability to compete with other players (or the amount of time you have to spend grinding). That's a pretty fair question, and the only answer is boycott.
It might, if you where a loot whoring, ninja looting, guild crashing jackass...you ought to be forced to reroll. Instead you can change your name or relocate and continue to be a dick. It's an extreme though, and not one many exploit for gain.
In my couch cushions.
I think being able to buy those items is going to encourage the usual business trade off of "how do we increase sales of achievement potions?" -> "Let's increase the grind!"
Same can be said for any item. If it was purely graphical stuff (non combat pets, new hairdo's, non-stat clothes), i can look the other way. But stuff that directly short circuits (admittedly broken) gameplay mechanics, for money, no way.