I hope you realize that bodies like the WTO, IMF, etc are actually LOWERING worker standards.
1) After signing some free trade agreements, some countries actually had to scrap their existing environmental regulations because they were deemed illegal by the WTO...
2) Another example is how Europe apparently cannot label genetically modified food differently from natural foods because the WTO says so...
I'm sure its my stupidity once again, but in what way do either of these examples actually support the claim that the WTO is LOWERING worker standards?
As an employee you are a commodity, if you can't distinguish functionally between 2 commodities then the only discerning factor becomes cost.
Perhaps, but the work an employee contributes may or may not be. In the particular case of programmers, I think you would be hard pressed to make the case to me that the work is a commodity. Experience has shown me its very tough to separate the design and the implementation of a lot of software products, and when the product is aimed at the American consumer, its not clear that a foreign engineer can do the same job as an American engineer.
Neoprotectionist? Is it new because the kind of jobs are different? To me, its the same old kind of protectionism free trade opponents have always favored.
Free trade is important to the world getting to a better place than where it is now. However it is important that we are able to compete in a fair way, i.e.. get rid of worker exploitation and unfair government subsidation (sp?) in the countries we are competing with. That's one reason our participation in trade organizations like the WTO is imperative.
Would most of the planet know about it today without his help? Doubtful.
Holy crap! You're right. None of us would be using the internet if it wasn't for Al Gore. So I guess in every practical sense, Al Gore did create the Internet!
Oh, hold on a minute....yeah thats right; thats a load of horseshit - nevermind.
Simply Amazing. There is something definitely wrong with the above being moderated as "Insightful". I mean even if he hadn't made the offensive comparison between hitler and microsoft (which by the way doesn't really make ms look more evil, it just cheapens the worst atrocity of the 20th century), but his conclusions are whatever the opposite of insightful is!
<duh>You mean they'll only recommend MS products?</duh>
KDE could include spikes that stick out of the computer and pierce my skull every five minutes, and I would still prefer it over the single desktop windows interface.
I think this just about sums it up for the majority of/.'ers.
So they loose credibility becuase they've worked in the industry? You rant this info like you're an insider hotshot, but then imply that all insiders are dishonest! What are YOUR qualifications? Why should we beleive anything you're telling us, and don't tell me that its an opinion, because thats a "consperacy theory"/"industrial thriller", not a humble opinion.
But if you never tell anyone about it you can't make any money from it.
You don't have to tell anyone your "ingredients" to market an product.
Once it is available on the open market someone is bound to reverse-engineer it and try to undercut you.
Uh, yeah. Thats how it works allright. But this does not mean they win or that this isn't the right marketing approach. In fact, being the first on the street with a "secret sauce" can be a big advantage.
Anyway, I think we are in agreement; the patent process is not an evil institution, just one option among several to "creators" which may or may not be appropriate.
Yeah, you know I've seen this attitude alot on/. and its actually a little confusing to me. Its easy to make fun of silly patents, but the original idea behind patents themselves (however outdated) is the SHARING of information. It seems that if I really wanted to horde some "intellectual property", the last thing I would do is patent it.
Slashdot Mirror
1) After signing some free trade agreements, some countries actually had to scrap their existing environmental regulations because they were deemed illegal by the WTO...
2) Another example is how Europe apparently cannot label genetically modified food differently from natural foods because the WTO says so...
I'm sure its my stupidity once again, but in what way do either of these examples actually support the claim that the WTO is LOWERING worker standards?
Perhaps, but the work an employee contributes may or may not be. In the particular case of programmers, I think you would be hard pressed to make the case to me that the work is a commodity. Experience has shown me its very tough to separate the design and the implementation of a lot of software products, and when the product is aimed at the American consumer, its not clear that a foreign engineer can do the same job as an American engineer.
Neoprotectionist? Is it new because the kind of jobs are different? To me, its the same old kind of protectionism free trade opponents have always favored.
Free trade is important to the world getting to a better place than where it is now. However it is important that we are able to compete in a fair way, i.e.. get rid of worker exploitation and unfair government subsidation (sp?) in the countries we are competing with. That's one reason our participation in trade organizations like the WTO is imperative.
Holy crap! You're right. None of us would be using the internet if it wasn't for Al Gore. So I guess in every practical sense, Al Gore did create the Internet!
Oh, hold on a minute....yeah thats right; thats a load of horseshit - nevermind.
Complete speculation, but I always thought it was kinda funny they didn't put up more of a fight before changing ie due to the eolas patent suite.
I'll imagine that you are a teacher becuase it tickles my funny bone.
Simply Amazing. There is something definitely wrong with the above being moderated as "Insightful". I mean even if he hadn't made the offensive comparison between hitler and microsoft (which by the way doesn't really make ms look more evil, it just cheapens the worst atrocity of the 20th century), but his conclusions are whatever the opposite of insightful is!
<duh>You mean they'll only recommend MS products?</duh>
A slow news day.
I think this just about sums it up for the majority of /.'ers.
Imagine a world where linux has 40+% of the desktop world.
There you go.
So they loose credibility becuase they've worked in the industry? You rant this info like you're an insider hotshot, but then imply that all insiders are dishonest! What are YOUR qualifications? Why should we beleive anything you're telling us, and don't tell me that its an opinion, because thats a "consperacy theory"/"industrial thriller", not a humble opinion.
But if you never tell anyone about it you can't make any money from it.
You don't have to tell anyone your "ingredients" to market an product.
Once it is available on the open market someone is bound to reverse-engineer it and try to undercut you.
Uh, yeah. Thats how it works allright. But this does not mean they win or that this isn't the right marketing approach. In fact, being the first on the street with a "secret sauce" can be a big advantage.
Anyway, I think we are in agreement; the patent process is not an evil institution, just one option among several to "creators" which may or may not be appropriate.
Yeah, you know I've seen this attitude alot on /. and its actually a little confusing to me. Its easy to make fun of silly patents, but the original idea behind patents themselves (however outdated) is the SHARING of information. It seems that if I really wanted to horde some "intellectual property", the last thing I would do is patent it.
(Be gentle - first post!)