Yeah, I understood that part, and I don't disagree that it's common within certain fields - just that the entire field is esoteric when you consider the programming community at large. You said "very, very common" initially, which I'd personally reserve as a description for something like, say, concatenating strings.
To make a car analogy (why the hell not... it seems like a good one) it's kind of like saying bumping another car is a common technique (the word 'technique' is important to my meaning). From the perspective of a race car driver, it sure is, but most drivers don't engage in it during their commute.
Ah yes, putting words in my mouth. Even the English have straw men, I guess. Of course, your attempt to be clever goes down in flames given the fact that I never actually called you a retard. Only a retard would have missed that.
Cute rhetoric. Doesn't really get you any points, but cute.
Again, you're arguing to some point that I never made. My original post simply stated that joining a union meant that you were making a defacto donation to the DNC. You haven't refuted that at all, you've just tried to side step it with politician-style debating techniques.
For example, had you read the link I provided regarding the 'perfect solution fallacy,' you'd understand that what I meant is that it is a logical fallacy to say "Working for any sizeable business pretty much guarantees that the work you do will fund lobbying for one or both parties," as a refutation of the fact that union money will overwhelmingly fund democrats. It's the same fallacy behind saying "Seat belts are useless because they aren't 100% effective." Just because a solution isn't optimal doesn't make it ineffective.
It's better than being a hypocritical snob.
When did that happen? Are you redefining things to match your worldview again?
I see the problem here - there's a fundamental difference in our thinking. You think anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion about the way the world works is retarded. That's all well and good, I guess.
I still contend you're wrong - the money a corporation has is not the money of its workers. You can try to put forth your opinion, but opinion doesn't influence fact, and what I've stated is a fact in a capitalist economy. In any case, I'm self-consistent, because I work for me.
I will at least call you a retard to your face
As much as you want to believe this is a virtue, it isn't.
and there *are* a lot of retarded, boilerplate, anti-union arugments out there.
That holds for pro-union arguments, as well. This particular pro-union argument used the perfect solution fallacy in an attempt to invalidate what I put forth.
Would it surprise you to learn that, according to the real laws, traditions and justifications underlying the formation of corporations, they do not exist to make money?
Since my understanding is that a corporation is intended to benefit its owners, it would indeed surprise me to learn this entire statement is true. As it stands, it's an unsupported assertion that I've never once heard before. Can you provided any sort of reference to stand this up on its own?
I must admit that I believe this to be anti-corporate propaganda, so I'm not yet giving it much credence.
Is it invalid to assume that 69% of workers will have gotten better at what they do?
Considering the people I've worked with in the past, yes. Most people coast along, and think that for some reason a raise is assumed just for showing up. Of course, this is anecdotal, but I've worked in a wide variety of places, big and small, union and anti-union, professional and manual, and I've not once had reason to believe otherwise.
In the absence of competition, the status quo is good enough. In a market economy, it behooves you to assume there's someone waiting in the wings who will take your job for less.
If all you do is maintain the same work, you have become less valuable in very real terms, because other people are increasing their capabilities all the time.
You really missed my point. That's fine, though, because your post is basically a stereotypical kneejerk one line response followed by something that doesn't actually represent a complete thought. I don't really get too up in arms about rebuttals like that.
Nobody is talking about entitlements here, that is a typical right wing talking point without foothold in reality.
Like I said, this is just an observation I've made. Conservatively, I'd guess I've met about 1000 people in the last 4 years. I can't think of a single counter example. It works for conservatives as well as liberals, you know. Actually, I'm the only conservative amongst my business partners. Makes for fun happy hours.
Hell, you didn't even refute my point. You actually kind of proved it.
Do you have any numbers, or are you just being overtly negative with nothing but emotion backing it?
Remember, the economy is a giant river of money, and if you stand on the bank and bitch at someone else for having a big net when you don't even dip yours in, you've accomplished nothing. Not to torture a metaphor or anything.
Here's something I've noticed - take it as you will.
People that have the attitude of entitlement, that someone must take care of them, that they deserve increases, tend to do worse in the long run over people who believe they are owed nothing and must earn every penny.
All my evidence is strictly anecdotal, so I won't bother detailing it. Feel free to discount this.
You're probably right. I can definitely see Big Oil getting together and hiring a cabal of slashdot astroturf posters to troll with stories from the Fox news website. The group opinion here is certainly important enough to bother with that, and this sort of thing is very swaying.
Is it really a valid expectation to automatically get a salary increase? What happened to earning it? I feel pretty confident in saying that 69% of all workers didn't perform above average, so why should they be expecting a reward?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I understood that part, and I don't disagree that it's common within certain fields - just that the entire field is esoteric when you consider the programming community at large. You said "very, very common" initially, which I'd personally reserve as a description for something like, say, concatenating strings.
To make a car analogy (why the hell not... it seems like a good one) it's kind of like saying bumping another car is a common technique (the word 'technique' is important to my meaning). From the perspective of a race car driver, it sure is, but most drivers don't engage in it during their commute.
Adding points (or non-C++ vectors) is a very, very common thing.
I'm not disagreeing with you, per se, but this is true only for vanishingly small values of common.
I'm getting a psychic impression - you're somewhere between the ages of 3 and 13...
You may have missed a few posts, friend.
Plus these, although they aren't jokes.
Yeah, I was kinda trolling there. I love me the copyright flamefests.
Basically there's nothing to be done, because the whole thing is about morality. The fight will never end.
How many jokes about Catholic priests "blessing" the tender young high school students, in poetic contrast to the concern of predators?
I say at least 10-12. Could be wrong.
Ah yes, putting words in my mouth. Even the English have straw men, I guess. Of course, your attempt to be clever goes down in flames given the fact that I never actually called you a retard. Only a retard would have missed that.
Cute rhetoric. Doesn't really get you any points, but cute.
Again, you're arguing to some point that I never made. My original post simply stated that joining a union meant that you were making a defacto donation to the DNC. You haven't refuted that at all, you've just tried to side step it with politician-style debating techniques.
For example, had you read the link I provided regarding the 'perfect solution fallacy,' you'd understand that what I meant is that it is a logical fallacy to say "Working for any sizeable business pretty much guarantees that the work you do will fund lobbying for one or both parties," as a refutation of the fact that union money will overwhelmingly fund democrats. It's the same fallacy behind saying "Seat belts are useless because they aren't 100% effective." Just because a solution isn't optimal doesn't make it ineffective.
It's better than being a hypocritical snob.
When did that happen? Are you redefining things to match your worldview again?
I see the problem here - there's a fundamental difference in our thinking. You think anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion about the way the world works is retarded. That's all well and good, I guess.
I still contend you're wrong - the money a corporation has is not the money of its workers. You can try to put forth your opinion, but opinion doesn't influence fact, and what I've stated is a fact in a capitalist economy. In any case, I'm self-consistent, because I work for me.
I will at least call you a retard to your face
As much as you want to believe this is a virtue, it isn't.
and there *are* a lot of retarded, boilerplate, anti-union arugments out there.
That holds for pro-union arguments, as well. This particular pro-union argument used the perfect solution fallacy in an attempt to invalidate what I put forth.
Re:Nice.... (Score:2, Insightful)
by Krach42 (227798) on Tuesday October 25, @03:42PM (#13874403)
Wow. You caught an insightful for doing Chris Farley's talk show host act. That's so awesome.
Are the H1 workers being forcibly loaded onto boats and hauled into the US to take these jobs?
Because I've gotta say, if they're doing this willingly, then it's the market economy at work.
Mod this -1, Capitalist Pig.
Would it surprise you to learn that, according to the real laws, traditions and justifications underlying the formation of corporations, they do not exist to make money?
Since my understanding is that a corporation is intended to benefit its owners, it would indeed surprise me to learn this entire statement is true. As it stands, it's an unsupported assertion that I've never once heard before. Can you provided any sort of reference to stand this up on its own?
I must admit that I believe this to be anti-corporate propaganda, so I'm not yet giving it much credence.
Is it invalid to assume that 69% of workers will have gotten better at what they do?
Considering the people I've worked with in the past, yes. Most people coast along, and think that for some reason a raise is assumed just for showing up. Of course, this is anecdotal, but I've worked in a wide variety of places, big and small, union and anti-union, professional and manual, and I've not once had reason to believe otherwise.
You shouldn't have posted anonymously, karma be damned.
I'm dying to see what tortured logic could rebut this.
See my signature re: your justifications and rationalizations.
Apparently you haven't read The Onion for a few years...
In the absence of competition, the status quo is good enough. In a market economy, it behooves you to assume there's someone waiting in the wings who will take your job for less.
If all you do is maintain the same work, you have become less valuable in very real terms, because other people are increasing their capabilities all the time.
As recording artist "Tool" noted
I love "Tool." He's hot.
You really missed my point. That's fine, though, because your post is basically a stereotypical kneejerk one line response followed by something that doesn't actually represent a complete thought. I don't really get too up in arms about rebuttals like that.
Nobody is talking about entitlements here, that is a typical right wing talking point without foothold in reality.
Like I said, this is just an observation I've made. Conservatively, I'd guess I've met about 1000 people in the last 4 years. I can't think of a single counter example. It works for conservatives as well as liberals, you know. Actually, I'm the only conservative amongst my business partners. Makes for fun happy hours.
Hell, you didn't even refute my point. You actually kind of proved it.
Have some of this Koolaid. Why, it's Aqua flavor, of course.
If I had written 'median,' you'd have a point. I didn't, so you don't.
Do you have any numbers, or are you just being overtly negative with nothing but emotion backing it?
Remember, the economy is a giant river of money, and if you stand on the bank and bitch at someone else for having a big net when you don't even dip yours in, you've accomplished nothing. Not to torture a metaphor or anything.
Democracy is about working together to be treated fairly
I've never heard this definition before. How do you arrive at this?
But no one tells me to shut-up
Shut up. (Doesn't mean you have to listen, I guess, but I win 1-0)
Here's something I've noticed - take it as you will.
People that have the attitude of entitlement, that someone must take care of them, that they deserve increases, tend to do worse in the long run over people who believe they are owed nothing and must earn every penny.
All my evidence is strictly anecdotal, so I won't bother detailing it. Feel free to discount this.
You're probably right. I can definitely see Big Oil getting together and hiring a cabal of slashdot astroturf posters to troll with stories from the Fox news website. The group opinion here is certainly important enough to bother with that, and this sort of thing is very swaying.
Is it really a valid expectation to automatically get a salary increase? What happened to earning it? I feel pretty confident in saying that 69% of all workers didn't perform above average, so why should they be expecting a reward?