I couldn't agree more, but try convincing a market (the economic equivilent of the spoiled brat that gets what it wants, no matter how bad it is for itself in the future) of that. Everyone's a little too distracted by the amazing special effects, 500 channels and the 'rewindless VCRs' (DVD players) we've invented! Yay!
> Why does the govenment feel the need, or even the Right to get involved in such things?
With all due respect, the market censors itself far more effectively than governments historically ham-handed attempts at censorship. One needs only look at what publishers are refusing to put on the market for fear of being held accoutable for controversal or critical thinking to understand that our fears should be more towards the private sector than the public sector.. unless you consider lesbianism a more important topic than critical thinking of politics and big business.
> distrust of the government at all times is a healthy thing
Consider that the vast majority of censorship carried out today is done my large media companies and publishing houses in the name of not being controversial and ensuring healthy profits.
Censorship in the face of fancial risk is far more poingant than public state censorship these days, although thats not to say that the state doesn't censor to a fault as well. I just think people should be distrusting people who have money to make off what ideas they are responsible for 'bringing to the market'.
Mixing ideas with a demand-fueled economy is terribly dangerous, as the book teaches. People do want simple, thoughless solutions, and I believe it is very important to recognize that what people want, and what the truth is are two seperate things. As such, the market censors much of the most important information itself....
Interesting stuff - kinda shows how the current patent climate actually causes people to focus more on exploiting patents and their lucrative pay-offs rather than focus on actually inventing shit.
> Can I do this legally? Patent something, hope someone else develops a similar technology, say nothing for 20 years until the patent is about to expire and economies depend on my product, then just raise my hand one day and say, "Excuse me! You have to pay me now".
Yes. Yes, you can do it, if the 'similar technologies' truely fall under your patent's umbrella and nobody else has prior art (or you ensure that you find the prior art first, and 'bury' it somehow). Shit, companies file multiple patents 'around' existing patents, and then sue the original patent holder (provided they are small fry enough) for infinging on their umbrella. It's common practice. Patent laws are fucked up, but with less stringent patent laws, numerous entrenched patent-oriented industries, legal practices, etc, etc would also be fucked up. Ergo, there is little chance of going backwards. As usual, we've got so many doctors at the bottom of the cliff that we can't afford to teach people how to NOT WALK OFF THE CLIFF anymore. Too many people lose too much money and too many jobs, etc, etc.. but the patent process needs a serious readjustment in my views. Knowing what I know, I would never consider filing a patent for anything I thought was new; although I'd somehow make sure I had evidence of 'prior art' so I could proove at a later date that it was my idea to begin with if some corperation thinks they can claim it as theirs. I'd keep it to myself, unless I was at a big company, and was I indespensible to them (ie, I wouldn't even sell my idea to a large company, because they shaft you.) Currently, patent laws work against small timer innovation (it costs shitloads of money to even file a patent) and encourage this kind of big business petty behaviour; especially when said patent holders need an easy quick injection of cash. I've heard that companies like IBM have inter-department patent races to see who can file the most patents in a year, which is why we've got insanely granular, subjectively valid patents that are really only 'enforcable' by virtue of the amount of lawyers you have on a leash.
Thats my understanding. IANAL, YMMV, and I'm sure you've all got cousins with personal stories that can debunk my raving lunacies...
Oh good god. Adam Smith would be rolling in his grave if he knew how bastardized, revised, filtered, and completetly out of context his writings are taken these days.
There were many other economists of the day that disagreed with many of the axioms upon which he built his arguments, but as per usual, history is seen through the eyes of its greedy victors..
>she hears single mothers on welfair wonder why a mother would ever work because they need to be home with their kid
You're right! Fuck the kids! Live for yourself, girl!
The point is, if one cannot survive by working part time (and you can't), with kids, you're saying that the time the mother spends with the kid is less important than her spending most of her waking hours making sure they have something to eat, rather than have someone there to help them grow and mature as humans. Shit, don't put the cart in front of the horse. I'm all for equality, meaning men should stay home as much as women, but to suggest that people should put their career ahead of their kids does as much of a disservice to society (although not as immediately, quantifiably, or visually) as does welfare freeloaders.
And lets not forget.. the greed I see in my 200K earning bosses shows up in the culture and society, and thats why people want to bilk the system. If you feel top money earners dont scam the system as much as welfare freeloaders do, you're one very naive and inexperienced worker.
Yes, I know we're off topic, but if you can't follow where we came from and why I went to the WTO, perhaps you are misunderstanding things.
We both agree that vote-by-internet is bad.
However, our reasoning is different. I brought up the WTO, because you're reasoning amounts to "I dont want the government to be able to do more vote-buying, they are too powerful already, I want to vote for whoever lets me keep as much of what I make as possible (probably all?)", and I got to the WTO because I wanted to point out that government is the might behind your desire to retain more. The government is what prevents people from tearing down your desire to earn more, and the fact that you will take any opportunity, fair or not, in the eyes of your society, to do as much. The government backs the social value of greed as pushed by big business (wrapped and sold in the form of advertising), and ignores the individual's perception of what consistuates a fair gain for your efforts.
There isn't even unlimited human potential. The laws of thermodynamics pretty much dictate that the more powerful you get, the closer you get to having to accept the bottom line of a fixed amount of energy and resources. So, the real question should be, how do we live happily, with minimal social friction, while still maintaing opportunities to pursue our interests? Many societies have achieved this, with varying degrees of downside, inequality, etc. Not one has achieved this goal with the axiomatic value of self-interest you claim is the Right Way to Go.
I could point out why, but I'm confident that we will find out in due time. In the meantime, why don't you extend your current attitude and prevent people who dont pay as much taxes as you (the poor) from using the roads taxes are used to build and maintain, and see how far you get with that. Deny them voting. Deny them education to! Oh, and no loans. And deny them any access to anything unless they work very hard. And even then, tell them they arn't working hard enough, and deny them more. Keep denying them until they meet your level of approval, and then.. well shit, now who's going to clean your sewers and map your floors?
> The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
Gorgeous. Your post is absolutely amazing. Its nice to know there are people out there who are not brain washed into stroking the egos and 'problems' of the rich.
>in your view there's a fixed amount of wealth in the world and it's unevenly distributed by a minority that shapes the laws to maintain the uneven distribution
So there is unlimited land, right? Unlimited water? Unlimited food? Mainstream ecologists and anthropologists point out that it would take 5 earths to supply humanity with the standard of living westerners enjoy. Do some reading.
> a minority that shapes the laws to maintain the uneven distribution
It isn't always this way, in every society, but yes, thats where we are now. IMF loans to developing nations feature interest rates 30 times that of what the Allies felt was sufficient punishement to Germany, post WWII.
I'm not a paranoid schizo in aknowledging that even the WTO admits in its annual report that its attempts to use free market tactics to encourage growth have failed in every but one country that they placed under IMF's free-market privatization tactics. I'm not paranoid in aknowledging that current economic data says that if you make 35,000$ canadian (roughly, what, 17,000$ american), you're richer than 98% of all other people on this planet. Or that the gap has rised over the past 20 years. Even the WTO, the biggest endorsers of your attitudes, admit that it hasn't worked, with, predictably, the caveat, "yet".
It is really not my fault that your small mind is incapable of understanding that if everyone worked as hard as you, there still wouldn't be enough to go around. So, yes, your government is working hard to delay the widespread realization of this reality; a reality is so frightening that I understand you reject it on the basis of its depressive nature alone.
Dude, I was saying that both kinds of programmers exist. I'm actually not very nerdy. I'm the guy who can see the forest. I like to make software that takes its context and environment into account. If something runs once a day, who cares if it takes 30 extra seconds to run if its 3 times easier to maintain and extend. If something is newbie-facing, make it easy to use. If something runs a ton and it doesn't need an interface, geek it up the ass.
I'm only saying that those who can't see the context, that some of those people, still play valuable roles in trying out new things; 90% of their things might be useless, but 10% of those things might be amazing discoveries that no one would have tried, let alone thought of.
I 100% agree with your comments on CS. I'm a self-taught C++/CORBA developer, designing everything from distributed apps to PHP apps. I understand my job is less about being a wiked ass coder, and more about being a good designer and having the neccessary judgement to pick the right tools and solutions for the job. I strip out pieces of code in our applications that are obsolete, to the complete horror of my manager, who can't see that forest. He doesn't understand that you dont code in a vacuum, and than you've GOTTA 'pay it forward' when designing and maintaining software.
All these CS grads I work with... well, lets just say that I call them 'cookie cutter grads'. They all think alike, and all they have are hammers, so to them, everything looks like a nail. This is why, despite less formal education, I've been more valuable in my employement positions than people who spent 4 years in CS in order to get to this salary level.
Amen, you speak the truth. Just understand that my original post was more about the mis-direction of nerd resources - they arn't suitable for being close to the sales end of the development cycle, but that doesn't mean nerdiness still isn't required to advance the art and science of computer programming as a whole.
As another poster noted, last years 9B dollar industry, the games industry, was started by programmers dicking around in a non-business oriented fasion.
I agree 100%. Thats what I said. I was only saying that just because nerdiness is bad for the masses, doesn't mean that nerdiness should be done away with. My point was that nerdiness is being utilized too close to the practical for-the-masses end of the business, but that it's still essential for the development of the industry; as it has been in all industries. Someone does something because they love it (which immediately makes it unsuitable for most people, since love is very personal, and can/should only be able to serve adjacent communities/ideologies), and then someone does something with it to make money from it.
Thats the world we live in. Those who get paid, do so at the expense of being so creative as to be creating things that are appropriate for a popular mass.
Nerds are the computer equivilent of the Enos, the Yoko Onos, the Peter Gabriels.. very creative, with a propensity to desire to push boundries. Their influences may not be approrpiate for the masses, but they lay the frame work for those who compute and program (or write pop and rock) to achieve practical purposes. Practical people see no value in thinking outside the boundries of current methods, but are more than happy to stand on the shoulders of those that do (as well it should be.)
Whats wrong with different people born for different goals? Even if you don't directly contribute the masses, most changes in fundemental social systems (and technical systems) starts with someone rejecting the norm. As well it should be. Leave them alone and let them nerd!
>Property rights are actually endowed by your Creator.
Now now. Again with the absolutes. No one is saying you don't have from-birth property rights to yourself. Slavery should always be an issue, because it should be a fundamental human value that ownership of another human is wrong. Slavery was (is?) only enforcable by virtue, of, again, state enforced authority. Property rights to Bill Gate's car collection is another story. This sytem says he's entitled to it, the laws back it, but I contend that if a majority of people feel he is not deserving of them, then society and social behaviour is being forced to bend at the behest of laws, our economy, and authority. I content that laws, the economy, and authority were created and should be utilized to reflect and enforce the interest of the majority.
> the majority of humanity is not smart enough to realize that enlightened self-interest is the basis of a happy life
Poor conditioned you. I ignored other parts of your post because they rest on your conditonned axioms.
> I accept your argument that I'm responsible for my own defense. By dint of effort and smarts I have that capability
You might assume responsibility, but I highly doubt the capability part. Like I said, if it were you and only you, you'd have been looted by other sufficiently conditionned have-nots.
> if they did they would be where we have been the last 100 years
Anthropologists point out that much of the success of western nations is due to the avaiability of steel (to make guns), the availability of farmable land, and the way germs and desiese is spead around our ecosystem by way of weather systems. So I wouldn't feel so smug about justifying the methods with the results. There's nothing to say America didn't just luck out with the land.
However, I agree with your views on import exports. Kill NAFTA, and lets get back to serving our own countries needs. I'm down with that, and frankly, its refreshing to hear you say that.
But note: by the same token that people do not understand the US... they are different people. Humans have cultures, and some cultures dont value the things that makes the American system function. Yes, they have no idea what goes on in America, but Americans (barring those who've done sufficient travelling) are in exactly the same quandry. I've been through 30 of the 50 states, have friends down there.. an 90% of our culture is exported from the states. In fact, as much as Canadians are maligned for being more politically and socially aligned with the UK, the fact that we primarily consume American culture says to me that if we arn't already converted to American economic and social ideologies, we will be, as a majority, within the next decade. So people/do/ have a clue what its like to be American; but people don't want to be like Americans arn't automatically identifying themselves as people who don't understand how it works or why it works for them. Essentially, American culture is all about flaunting and expanding and embracing, so you have to understand its quite difficult for people in other countries to be objective about it. Just because they don't want to be the singularly most powerful nation on earth doesn't mean they have no right to disagree with the current methods and ideologies of the singularly most powerful nation on earth.
> And you're willing to use government, that monopoly on force
You deny history if you don't understand that the monopoly on force that government enjoys is responsible for the rise of capitalism. Look it up. Property rights are BACKED BY THE MONOPOLY ON FORCE. If the government wasn't there, who's to stop people from stealing your wealth when they perceive you have too much?
God, don't you understand that the monopoly on force is the only thing keeping thousands upon thousands of 'lazy' poor people from rushing into your house and beating the crud out of you? Do you really want to disband that monopoly on force? I dare you man, I dare you. There'd be alot more planes crashing into buildings, I can assure you, not that I'm condoning or supporting those actions. I'm only saying that the monopoly on force is what keeps poor people from taking what they don't believe is rightfully yours.
Okay. Look at your economy, and how much it owes to exportation of goods and access to other markets. Look at how much the very life you live depends on the sacrifices of others. People die every day, all over the world, at the hands of American companies. We give our blood.
I'm sorry, but where is your IOU we should be able to cash for giving you access to our wallets and crushing our domestic industries?
> In the U.S. the top 1% of earners pay something like 30% of income taxes.
So? If the top 1% make 5000 times what the bottom 50% of earners make, they should be taxed was more than they are now. They are only being greedy. I abjectly refuse to believe that the top 1% of earners in the US:
a) deserve it
b) are earning money as a biproduct of a desire to help the people around them
I think the top 1% of earners in the US are:
c) greedy fucks that should be taxed more and should stop trying to sell useless bullshit to people who have more important things to try and focus on, like getting access to education and access to career opportunities where they arn't working 14 hours a day to pay for food, bread, and a hole in the wall
d) should shut the fuck up before those people who are denied voting rights on the basis of property ownership are forced to do something no one wants
c) should ask why they are so unhappy that people are able to live off their dollar. so dont become rich.. dont just whine about how you're not getting enough, about how you could make more if just more people would be content to die of starvation or sleep in stairwells.
This all begs the question.. if freeloading is so wonderful, why not do it? Maybe cause you feel you're doing things you dont want to do in order to live the life you're living, so you think other people should be forced to do stuff they don't want to do too? Sounds like you've got bigger fish to fry than to worry about the minority who are 'living' (suriving, more like it) off your tax dollar. Maybe you should be asking why you're not content to do your thing for the sake of doing your thing, rather than for the pot at the end of the rainbow you wish to deny to those people who arnt working hard enough, according to your individual judgement.
By the way, you wouldn't earn as much if poor people were wealthier, so if they did help themselves, you might not have to give up taxes, but you would have to give up some of the inequality of your salary and opportunities, which, when you claim money is your primary motivator, is pretty much exactly the same thing.
> GUESS WHAT your COMMENTARY on OUR politics is MOOT.
Politically, sure. But if you think I'm incapable of affecting the way Americans (who's comments are not moot, according to your logic) think about their process, thats your own set of blinders.
> REDUCING everyone to equal IS COMMUNISM.
My dear scared friend, who said I wanted to reduce everything to equal? It's truely not my fault if you want to extropolate my 'moot comments' to an extreme that aligns with a political ideology I reject in my.sig. I'd simply rather say that things are so wildly unequal right now that we need more equality. Not total equality.
> Let me remind you OUR govt saved Europes ass TWICE
Thanks for the help, even though I'm not in Europe, assumer. Now, if only America could help nations because they actually wanted peace and freedom, not the IOU you seem to implicitly believe America deserves in these cases.
Actually, doesn't that make you the fucking idiot? Why are you working two jobs? Why not just sit back and enjoy the fruits of welfare? Oh wait, I forgot.. because you're a hard working honest individual, unlike those welfare slobs.
If being on welfare is such a wonderful party, like hard working people (working too hard or not enjoying their work, I might add, or else they wouldn't be so upset at the slackers that do exist), why don't you just go on welfare?
Man, you're only looking for reasons to justify why you have to work your sorry little ass off to provide. You shouldn't in the first place, and that's what needs fixing, not these euphoric freeloaders, who are a minority of those receiving welfare. Shit, I've had bosses who are lazier than welfare recipient friends of mine, who make crud loads of money. We just need to keep feeling the way you do in order to avoid the reality that material wealth does not reflect the amount of effort you put into providing for yourself and your loved ones. It's funny, because it's the managers and companies who want to convince you that the only reason you have to work so hard is because of people freeloading on the system. You buy it, hook, line and sinker, believe we're all headed in the right direction, and then take on a 3rd job. Meanwhile, I sit in my cushy little 9 to 5 job, waste my time, and laugh at you. I want to help those people, which would help you not have to work your ass off.. because I'd be giving up some of my time, effort, or material wealth for you. And yet, you reject it because it'll help a small minority of freeloaders. And the suits just keep laughing and lining their pockets...
Except for that the prevailing attitude is, "Don't give them food, and, okay, well, sure, teach them how to fish. But don't tax me for it. And I don't want to be the one to teach them. And make sure they have to buy their own fishing rod. And I don't want to be forced to fish less because now we have more fishermen." The wealthy want their cake, and then they want to eat it. It's a harsh reality of life that improving one's material wealth above those around them is an individual choice, and that if said activity causes the disempowerment of the lower social classes, you'll have to pay for it in things other than money (such as convenience, time, self-discipline.. etc).
The car argument has been brought up as an example of why this gap already exists. Duly noted. It does, and look whats happening to the world. And this will only make it worse. That whole "Well, things are already unequal, so what's wrong with making it a little bit more unequal" argument is self-affirming redderick, and I have no doubt that it only contributes to the social 'fault line' that has exploded many times in history before.
Slashdot Mirror
> It's depressing, really....
I couldn't agree more, but try convincing a market (the economic equivilent of the spoiled brat that gets what it wants, no matter how bad it is for itself in the future) of that. Everyone's a little too distracted by the amazing special effects, 500 channels and the 'rewindless VCRs' (DVD players) we've invented! Yay!
> Why does the govenment feel the need, or even the Right to get involved in such things?
.. unless you consider lesbianism a more important topic than critical thinking of politics and big business.
With all due respect, the market censors itself far more effectively than governments historically ham-handed attempts at censorship. One needs only look at what publishers are refusing to put on the market for fear of being held accoutable for controversal or critical thinking to understand that our fears should be more towards the private sector than the public sector
> distrust of the government at all times is a healthy thing
....
Consider that the vast majority of censorship carried out today is done my large media companies and publishing houses in the name of not being controversial and ensuring healthy profits.
Censorship in the face of fancial risk is far more poingant than public state censorship these days, although thats not to say that the state doesn't censor to a fault as well. I just think people should be distrusting people who have money to make off what ideas they are responsible for 'bringing to the market'.
Mixing ideas with a demand-fueled economy is terribly dangerous, as the book teaches. People do want simple, thoughless solutions, and I believe it is very important to recognize that what people want, and what the truth is are two seperate things. As such, the market censors much of the most important information itself
Here's a neat article on this stuff, and the entrenchemnt of the patent enforcement industry (still relatively new 'visible' industry):
here
Interesting stuff - kinda shows how the current patent climate actually causes people to focus more on exploiting patents and their lucrative pay-offs rather than focus on actually inventing shit.
> Can I do this legally? Patent something, hope someone else develops a similar technology, say nothing for 20 years until the patent is about to expire and economies depend on my product, then just raise my hand one day and say, "Excuse me! You have to pay me now".
.. but the patent process needs a serious readjustment in my views. Knowing what I know, I would never consider filing a patent for anything I thought was new; although I'd somehow make sure I had evidence of 'prior art' so I could proove at a later date that it was my idea to begin with if some corperation thinks they can claim it as theirs. I'd keep it to myself, unless I was at a big company, and was I indespensible to them (ie, I wouldn't even sell my idea to a large company, because they shaft you.) Currently, patent laws work against small timer innovation (it costs shitloads of money to even file a patent) and encourage this kind of big business petty behaviour; especially when said patent holders need an easy quick injection of cash. I've heard that companies like IBM have inter-department patent races to see who can file the most patents in a year, which is why we've got insanely granular, subjectively valid patents that are really only 'enforcable' by virtue of the amount of lawyers you have on a leash.
...
Yes. Yes, you can do it, if the 'similar technologies' truely fall under your patent's umbrella and nobody else has prior art (or you ensure that you find the prior art first, and 'bury' it somehow). Shit, companies file multiple patents 'around' existing patents, and then sue the original patent holder (provided they are small fry enough) for infinging on their umbrella. It's common practice. Patent laws are fucked up, but with less stringent patent laws, numerous entrenched patent-oriented industries, legal practices, etc, etc would also be fucked up. Ergo, there is little chance of going backwards. As usual, we've got so many doctors at the bottom of the cliff that we can't afford to teach people how to NOT WALK OFF THE CLIFF anymore. Too many people lose too much money and too many jobs, etc, etc
Thats my understanding. IANAL, YMMV, and I'm sure you've all got cousins with personal stories that can debunk my raving lunacies
> their lawyers are not afraid to defend their intellectual property
You ideut. Funny how lawyers are not afraid of making sure they're needed to make large sums for large companies.
Oh good god. Adam Smith would be rolling in his grave if he knew how bastardized, revised, filtered, and completetly out of context his writings are taken these days.
..
There were many other economists of the day that disagreed with many of the axioms upon which he built his arguments, but as per usual, history is seen through the eyes of its greedy victors
Actually, I think they'd say "Carpe Diem" .. but whats the diff, trolls were never known for their broad liberal educations anyhow ... ;)
As the trolls would say, "Carpe Dium!"
>she hears single mothers on welfair wonder why a mother would ever work because they need to be home with their kid
.. the greed I see in my 200K earning bosses shows up in the culture and society, and thats why people want to bilk the system. If you feel top money earners dont scam the system as much as welfare freeloaders do, you're one very naive and inexperienced worker.
You're right! Fuck the kids! Live for yourself, girl!
The point is, if one cannot survive by working part time (and you can't), with kids, you're saying that the time the mother spends with the kid is less important than her spending most of her waking hours making sure they have something to eat, rather than have someone there to help them grow and mature as humans. Shit, don't put the cart in front of the horse. I'm all for equality, meaning men should stay home as much as women, but to suggest that people should put their career ahead of their kids does as much of a disservice to society (although not as immediately, quantifiably, or visually) as does welfare freeloaders.
And lets not forget
Yes, I know we're off topic, but if you can't follow where we came from and why I went to the WTO, perhaps you are misunderstanding things.
.. well shit, now who's going to clean your sewers and map your floors?
We both agree that vote-by-internet is bad.
However, our reasoning is different. I brought up the WTO, because you're reasoning amounts to "I dont want the government to be able to do more vote-buying, they are too powerful already, I want to vote for whoever lets me keep as much of what I make as possible (probably all?)", and I got to the WTO because I wanted to point out that government is the might behind your desire to retain more. The government is what prevents people from tearing down your desire to earn more, and the fact that you will take any opportunity, fair or not, in the eyes of your society, to do as much. The government backs the social value of greed as pushed by big business (wrapped and sold in the form of advertising), and ignores the individual's perception of what consistuates a fair gain for your efforts.
There isn't even unlimited human potential. The laws of thermodynamics pretty much dictate that the more powerful you get, the closer you get to having to accept the bottom line of a fixed amount of energy and resources. So, the real question should be, how do we live happily, with minimal social friction, while still maintaing opportunities to pursue our interests? Many societies have achieved this, with varying degrees of downside, inequality, etc. Not one has achieved this goal with the axiomatic value of self-interest you claim is the Right Way to Go.
I could point out why, but I'm confident that we will find out in due time. In the meantime, why don't you extend your current attitude and prevent people who dont pay as much taxes as you (the poor) from using the roads taxes are used to build and maintain, and see how far you get with that. Deny them voting. Deny them education to! Oh, and no loans. And deny them any access to anything unless they work very hard. And even then, tell them they arn't working hard enough, and deny them more. Keep denying them until they meet your level of approval, and then
> The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
Gorgeous. Your post is absolutely amazing. Its nice to know there are people out there who are not brain washed into stroking the egos and 'problems' of the rich.
>in your view there's a fixed amount of wealth in the world and it's unevenly distributed by a minority that shapes the laws to maintain the uneven distribution
So there is unlimited land, right? Unlimited water? Unlimited food? Mainstream ecologists and anthropologists point out that it would take 5 earths to supply humanity with the standard of living westerners enjoy. Do some reading.
> a minority that shapes the laws to maintain the uneven distribution
It isn't always this way, in every society, but yes, thats where we are now. IMF loans to developing nations feature interest rates 30 times that of what the Allies felt was sufficient punishement to Germany, post WWII.
I'm not a paranoid schizo in aknowledging that even the WTO admits in its annual report that its attempts to use free market tactics to encourage growth have failed in every but one country that they placed under IMF's free-market privatization tactics. I'm not paranoid in aknowledging that current economic data says that if you make 35,000$ canadian (roughly, what, 17,000$ american), you're richer than 98% of all other people on this planet. Or that the gap has rised over the past 20 years. Even the WTO, the biggest endorsers of your attitudes, admit that it hasn't worked, with, predictably, the caveat, "yet".
It is really not my fault that your small mind is incapable of understanding that if everyone worked as hard as you, there still wouldn't be enough to go around. So, yes, your government is working hard to delay the widespread realization of this reality; a reality is so frightening that I understand you reject it on the basis of its depressive nature alone.
Dude, I was saying that both kinds of programmers exist. I'm actually not very nerdy. I'm the guy who can see the forest. I like to make software that takes its context and environment into account. If something runs once a day, who cares if it takes 30 extra seconds to run if its 3 times easier to maintain and extend. If something is newbie-facing, make it easy to use. If something runs a ton and it doesn't need an interface, geek it up the ass.
... well, lets just say that I call them 'cookie cutter grads'. They all think alike, and all they have are hammers, so to them, everything looks like a nail. This is why, despite less formal education, I've been more valuable in my employement positions than people who spent 4 years in CS in order to get to this salary level.
I'm only saying that those who can't see the context, that some of those people, still play valuable roles in trying out new things; 90% of their things might be useless, but 10% of those things might be amazing discoveries that no one would have tried, let alone thought of.
I 100% agree with your comments on CS. I'm a self-taught C++/CORBA developer, designing everything from distributed apps to PHP apps. I understand my job is less about being a wiked ass coder, and more about being a good designer and having the neccessary judgement to pick the right tools and solutions for the job. I strip out pieces of code in our applications that are obsolete, to the complete horror of my manager, who can't see that forest. He doesn't understand that you dont code in a vacuum, and than you've GOTTA 'pay it forward' when designing and maintaining software.
All these CS grads I work with
Amen, you speak the truth. Just understand that my original post was more about the mis-direction of nerd resources - they arn't suitable for being close to the sales end of the development cycle, but that doesn't mean nerdiness still isn't required to advance the art and science of computer programming as a whole.
As another poster noted, last years 9B dollar industry, the games industry, was started by programmers dicking around in a non-business oriented fasion.
I agree 100%. Thats what I said. I was only saying that just because nerdiness is bad for the masses, doesn't mean that nerdiness should be done away with. My point was that nerdiness is being utilized too close to the practical for-the-masses end of the business, but that it's still essential for the development of the industry; as it has been in all industries. Someone does something because they love it (which immediately makes it unsuitable for most people, since love is very personal, and can/should only be able to serve adjacent communities/ideologies), and then someone does something with it to make money from it.
Thats the world we live in. Those who get paid, do so at the expense of being so creative as to be creating things that are appropriate for a popular mass.
> Nerd culture is counter-productive
.. very creative, with a propensity to desire to push boundries. Their influences may not be approrpiate for the masses, but they lay the frame work for those who compute and program (or write pop and rock) to achieve practical purposes. Practical people see no value in thinking outside the boundries of current methods, but are more than happy to stand on the shoulders of those that do (as well it should be.)
Nerds are the computer equivilent of the Enos, the Yoko Onos, the Peter Gabriels
Whats wrong with different people born for different goals? Even if you don't directly contribute the masses, most changes in fundemental social systems (and technical systems) starts with someone rejecting the norm. As well it should be. Leave them alone and let them nerd!
>Property rights are actually endowed by your Creator.
Now now. Again with the absolutes. No one is saying you don't have from-birth property rights to yourself. Slavery should always be an issue, because it should be a fundamental human value that ownership of another human is wrong. Slavery was (is?) only enforcable by virtue, of, again, state enforced authority. Property rights to Bill Gate's car collection is another story. This sytem says he's entitled to it, the laws back it, but I contend that if a majority of people feel he is not deserving of them, then society and social behaviour is being forced to bend at the behest of laws, our economy, and authority. I content that laws, the economy, and authority were created and should be utilized to reflect and enforce the interest of the majority.
> the majority of humanity is not smart enough to realize that enlightened self-interest is the basis of a happy life
Poor conditioned you. I ignored other parts of your post because they rest on your conditonned axioms.
> I accept your argument that I'm responsible for my own defense. By dint of effort and smarts I have that capability
You might assume responsibility, but I highly doubt the capability part. Like I said, if it were you and only you, you'd have been looted by other sufficiently conditionned have-nots.
> if they did they would be where we have been the last 100 years
... they are different people. Humans have cultures, and some cultures dont value the things that makes the American system function. Yes, they have no idea what goes on in America, but Americans (barring those who've done sufficient travelling) are in exactly the same quandry. I've been through 30 of the 50 states, have friends down there .. an 90% of our culture is exported from the states. In fact, as much as Canadians are maligned for being more politically and socially aligned with the UK, the fact that we primarily consume American culture says to me that if we arn't already converted to American economic and social ideologies, we will be, as a majority, within the next decade. So people /do/ have a clue what its like to be American; but people don't want to be like Americans arn't automatically identifying themselves as people who don't understand how it works or why it works for them. Essentially, American culture is all about flaunting and expanding and embracing, so you have to understand its quite difficult for people in other countries to be objective about it. Just because they don't want to be the singularly most powerful nation on earth doesn't mean they have no right to disagree with the current methods and ideologies of the singularly most powerful nation on earth.
Anthropologists point out that much of the success of western nations is due to the avaiability of steel (to make guns), the availability of farmable land, and the way germs and desiese is spead around our ecosystem by way of weather systems. So I wouldn't feel so smug about justifying the methods with the results. There's nothing to say America didn't just luck out with the land.
However, I agree with your views on import exports. Kill NAFTA, and lets get back to serving our own countries needs. I'm down with that, and frankly, its refreshing to hear you say that.
But note: by the same token that people do not understand the US
Arn't you an absolutes kind of person.
Learn history:
> And you're willing to use government, that monopoly on force
You deny history if you don't understand that the monopoly on force that government enjoys is responsible for the rise of capitalism. Look it up. Property rights are BACKED BY THE MONOPOLY ON FORCE. If the government wasn't there, who's to stop people from stealing your wealth when they perceive you have too much?
God, don't you understand that the monopoly on force is the only thing keeping thousands upon thousands of 'lazy' poor people from rushing into your house and beating the crud out of you? Do you really want to disband that monopoly on force? I dare you man, I dare you. There'd be alot more planes crashing into buildings, I can assure you, not that I'm condoning or supporting those actions. I'm only saying that the monopoly on force is what keeps poor people from taking what they don't believe is rightfully yours.
Okay. Look at your economy, and how much it owes to exportation of goods and access to other markets. Look at how much the very life you live depends on the sacrifices of others. People die every day, all over the world, at the hands of American companies. We give our blood.
I'm sorry, but where is your IOU we should be able to cash for giving you access to our wallets and crushing our domestic industries?
> In the U.S. the top 1% of earners pay something like 30% of income taxes.
.. dont just whine about how you're not getting enough, about how you could make more if just more people would be content to die of starvation or sleep in stairwells.
.. if freeloading is so wonderful, why not do it? Maybe cause you feel you're doing things you dont want to do in order to live the life you're living, so you think other people should be forced to do stuff they don't want to do too? Sounds like you've got bigger fish to fry than to worry about the minority who are 'living' (suriving, more like it) off your tax dollar. Maybe you should be asking why you're not content to do your thing for the sake of doing your thing, rather than for the pot at the end of the rainbow you wish to deny to those people who arnt working hard enough, according to your individual judgement.
So? If the top 1% make 5000 times what the bottom 50% of earners make, they should be taxed was more than they are now. They are only being greedy. I abjectly refuse to believe that the top 1% of earners in the US:
a) deserve it
b) are earning money as a biproduct of a desire to help the people around them
I think the top 1% of earners in the US are:
c) greedy fucks that should be taxed more and should stop trying to sell useless bullshit to people who have more important things to try and focus on, like getting access to education and access to career opportunities where they arn't working 14 hours a day to pay for food, bread, and a hole in the wall
d) should shut the fuck up before those people who are denied voting rights on the basis of property ownership are forced to do something no one wants
c) should ask why they are so unhappy that people are able to live off their dollar. so dont become rich
This all begs the question
By the way, you wouldn't earn as much if poor people were wealthier, so if they did help themselves, you might not have to give up taxes, but you would have to give up some of the inequality of your salary and opportunities, which, when you claim money is your primary motivator, is pretty much exactly the same thing.
> GUESS WHAT your COMMENTARY on OUR politics is MOOT.
.sig. I'd simply rather say that things are so wildly unequal right now that we need more equality. Not total equality.
Politically, sure. But if you think I'm incapable of affecting the way Americans (who's comments are not moot, according to your logic) think about their process, thats your own set of blinders.
> REDUCING everyone to equal IS COMMUNISM.
My dear scared friend, who said I wanted to reduce everything to equal? It's truely not my fault if you want to extropolate my 'moot comments' to an extreme that aligns with a political ideology I reject in my
> Let me remind you OUR govt saved Europes ass TWICE
Thanks for the help, even though I'm not in Europe, assumer. Now, if only America could help nations because they actually wanted peace and freedom, not the IOU you seem to implicitly believe America deserves in these cases.
Actually, doesn't that make you the fucking idiot? Why are you working two jobs? Why not just sit back and enjoy the fruits of welfare? Oh wait, I forgot .. because you're a hard working honest individual, unlike those welfare slobs.
.. because I'd be giving up some of my time, effort, or material wealth for you. And yet, you reject it because it'll help a small minority of freeloaders. And the suits just keep laughing and lining their pockets ...
If being on welfare is such a wonderful party, like hard working people (working too hard or not enjoying their work, I might add, or else they wouldn't be so upset at the slackers that do exist), why don't you just go on welfare?
Man, you're only looking for reasons to justify why you have to work your sorry little ass off to provide. You shouldn't in the first place, and that's what needs fixing, not these euphoric freeloaders, who are a minority of those receiving welfare. Shit, I've had bosses who are lazier than welfare recipient friends of mine, who make crud loads of money. We just need to keep feeling the way you do in order to avoid the reality that material wealth does not reflect the amount of effort you put into providing for yourself and your loved ones. It's funny, because it's the managers and companies who want to convince you that the only reason you have to work so hard is because of people freeloading on the system. You buy it, hook, line and sinker, believe we're all headed in the right direction, and then take on a 3rd job. Meanwhile, I sit in my cushy little 9 to 5 job, waste my time, and laugh at you. I want to help those people, which would help you not have to work your ass off
> teach them how to fish
.. etc).
Except for that the prevailing attitude is, "Don't give them food, and, okay, well, sure, teach them how to fish. But don't tax me for it. And I don't want to be the one to teach them. And make sure they have to buy their own fishing rod. And I don't want to be forced to fish less because now we have more fishermen." The wealthy want their cake, and then they want to eat it. It's a harsh reality of life that improving one's material wealth above those around them is an individual choice, and that if said activity causes the disempowerment of the lower social classes, you'll have to pay for it in things other than money (such as convenience, time, self-discipline
The car argument has been brought up as an example of why this gap already exists. Duly noted. It does, and look whats happening to the world. And this will only make it worse. That whole "Well, things are already unequal, so what's wrong with making it a little bit more unequal" argument is self-affirming redderick, and I have no doubt that it only contributes to the social 'fault line' that has exploded many times in history before.
Thanks for the correction. Ideology is certainly the word I should be using.