I reject the traditional concepts of maturity. I refuse to spend my life doing things I don't like because of some outmoded notion of 'have to.' The pressure to grow up, to think like an adult, is ridiculous and useless from an objective standpoint.
This doesn't mean shirking responsibility is part of the mindset. It simply means I try to retain a childlike viewpoint on the world. One of the most important things children have that most adults lack is a sense of wonder and discovery. The benefits are astonishing.
That said, I didn't actually read the article, as it were, so I may be wildly off-topic. In true immature fashion, whatever.
Now I'll speak to the original point, since you seem to have missed the chance I provided you for critical thought.
I guess I missed the part where the evidence of the CIA and the NSA allowing 9/11 was posted. Maybe it's in your super special edition of Slashdot that I don't get?
From here it looked like the unfounded assumption upon which the entire rest of the post is based.
I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.
When ranting and raving on the internet without presenting any sort of corroboration, indeed with not even leads toward information that may serve as a basis of evidence, dismissal is pretty much the only option. Anyone can post anything, and chasing down the rainbows of paranoia isn't a productive activity. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This whole situation is kind of like the OJ defense: claim the administration is so incompetent as to be unable to conduct the normal business of the country, while at the same time masterfully organizing the biggest conspiracy in history completely successfully? Something doesn't fit.
I have no specific advice for your situation, but there are a few possibilities.
The most general is to talk with a psychologist about your experience. It's not a panacea, but you may gain some insight into what led into the attack, and how to cope with the situation if (when) it occurs again.
Next up - make sure you're taking time to relax in your daily routine. It's easy to fall into a pattern of overwork that becomes counterproductive, especially when the situations get grim, like exam time tends to be. Even a simple thing like taking a daily hour long walk can go a long way toward relieving any stress you're feeling.
Also, if you aren't already following a good nutrition plan with attendant exercise, consider starting. Feeling good physically is the first step to feeling good mentally.
I give no credence to your education if the best arguments you can make based on it are filled with personal attacks. You obviously have no idea how to make a point (or possibly have no logical point to make) so I have no interest in dealing with you.
I was referring to your last paragraph, where you leveled your emotionally charged ad hominem attack.
I quoted true figures and pointed out the truth.. (also see any records from the union busting sweat shop ridden political machine dominated US guilded age) Just because I make the argument strongly does not mean it is "emotional rhetoric".. it means it is true and authoritative.
You quoted figures with no citation and pointed out your opinions regarding their meaning. Emotionally charging your arguments is no measure of authority.
I have no desire to engage in personal arguments over economic philosophy.
Did you try the command line client? I'm only half joking - it may do the job. I don't actually know, but I don't have a giant file or a place to put it, so I can't test it for you.
If you're going to attack me with emotional rhetoric, at least attack me or my beliefs. Setting up strawmen isn't a sign of masterful debate.
I don't attack the worker side, because I'm part of it. I simply understand how both sides work, so I know how to play my role to its maximum advantage. I don't make CEO salaries, but I don't have CEO responsibilities. Someday, I may. Then your attack will be sensible.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that anyone can become the owner of a company. It's not an elite club with massive barriers - it's open to all and sundry who are willing to take the risks. That's not to say it's not a shark tank, because it is fiercely competitive. That's the nature of the willing. Asking everyone to play nice so you can get what you feel you're owed goes against human nature and current economic reality.
Unfortunately, we can't afford the 20-100 year indefinite timespan necessary for globalization to actually bring about equilibrium. After all, you can count yourself sure that the corporations which hire Indian workers and H-1B workers don't want a free market any more than labor does: they just want cheap labor to make very cheap products they can sell for high prices. Ideologues like you are the only ones who actually want free markets - most people actually participating in the market don't.
20-100 years isn't indefinite, and it's also a statement without any factual backing whatsoever.
I didn't say everyone wanted a free market, I just said that's what it is. Naturally, business owners want as much for their dollar as they can get. Naturally, workers want as many dollars for their time as they can get. The middle ground is what constitutes the mechanisms of the market. Tipping it one way or the other serves no one in the end, so 'idealogues' like me keep things rolling the way they are for everyone.
Also, your claim of 'most people' not wanting a free market is once again unbacked.
I'd like to think of a reasonable reply to this one, but it's an emotionally charged lie. They pay for it, just not what you feel they should pay. Since the US isn't a centrally planned economy, your way doesn't work.
Nothing artificial about this scarcity- historically corporations have always had to pay for training to get the skillsets they want. The fact that Americans aren't trained in the skillsets they want just shows that the corporations are no longer paying for the training.
You're only responding to one word in my statement, and you've taken the sentence out of context. You posted about artificially restricting the supply of programmers by closing off the borders to restrict the source, then you called it supply and demand. There's no way for me to reply reasonably to such a logical misstep.
I've never heard of one that wasn't. Well, that's not quite true- Les Schwab wasn't. But he actually understood that he had to train people in the skills he wanted- which is why he owns over 500 tire stores now and has to build 6 new ones a year to handle the promotions of highly skilled people.
Rather than reply directly, I'll simply note you object to capitalism, since you apparently would like to place all competition on a level playing field of ignorance and force companies to grow all the skills they need. That's not how a free market economy works at all.
Bull- where do you think they get the extra money to pay themselves big? By cutting the wages of everybody else.
I don't consider it 'extra' money, and I don't consider wages a right. We have a deep philosophical difference on this point. I am committed to the concept of the free market. Occasionally, this leads to someone in a position of power taking advantage of the situation. Such is human nature. This doesn't lead me to tar my brush and paint the whole canvas the same color, because that's not the reality of the situation. CEOs, by and large, do an incredibly difficult job, and they are rewarded for it.
Absolutely, if there were any left. Face it, we ignored the problem while they all lost their jobs, now it's our turn.
There are plenty left, they just aren't being paid outrageous wages for jobs any monkey can do well. Programming isn't assembly line work. It won't be for some time, but when it is, it won't command the wages it does now. Such is the price of a dynamic economy. You and I have taken different tacks on this point - you choose to huddle into a shell and complain, and I choose to adapt. Time will show who wins this one.
I'm not the one laying people off to pay myself a larger salary.
That's another emotionally charged statement, but this time it's only a half-truth instead of an outright lie. It ignores all the business realities that go into such decisions. In a free market, it's not a company's responsibility to fade into obselescence while it protects a uselessly redundant or outmoded workforce.
Perhaps some day, you'll get the economy you desire. I sincerely hope not.
How is going elsewhere cheating? Claiming 'supply and demand' as a description of an artificial scarcity is intellectually dishonest.
Sure, there are overpaid CEOs out there, but that fact has no bearing on the wages paid to programmers. We may as well bring the wages paid to assembly line workers into the mix. You claimed class warfare was being committed, and you're right, but it's you that's declaring it.
No, I don't argue in any way against raising the wages in other countries. That's the natural consequence of globalization - everything reaches equilibrium. The investments that US companies make into (relatively) high-paying jobs in, for example, India, spread more money around that economy. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Protectionism, on the other hand, is a short term solution that helps no one but the people at the top. To believe otherwise is to go against all of human history.
Slashdot Mirror
The best advice my mom ever gave me was to get a maid. If I didn't listen to her, your insight into my toilet's condition would be dead on.
I can only speak for myself.
I reject the traditional concepts of maturity. I refuse to spend my life doing things I don't like because of some outmoded notion of 'have to.' The pressure to grow up, to think like an adult, is ridiculous and useless from an objective standpoint.
This doesn't mean shirking responsibility is part of the mindset. It simply means I try to retain a childlike viewpoint on the world. One of the most important things children have that most adults lack is a sense of wonder and discovery. The benefits are astonishing.
That said, I didn't actually read the article, as it were, so I may be wildly off-topic. In true immature fashion, whatever.
My mom called. She doesn't want anything back, but it was nice to hear from her.
Save it for queen Dopplepopolis
Now I'll speak to the original point, since you seem to have missed the chance I provided you for critical thought.
I guess I missed the part where the evidence of the CIA and the NSA allowing 9/11 was posted. Maybe it's in your super special edition of Slashdot that I don't get?
From here it looked like the unfounded assumption upon which the entire rest of the post is based.
I'm not speaking to the original point, but
I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.
When ranting and raving on the internet without presenting any sort of corroboration, indeed with not even leads toward information that may serve as a basis of evidence, dismissal is pretty much the only option. Anyone can post anything, and chasing down the rainbows of paranoia isn't a productive activity. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This whole situation is kind of like the OJ defense: claim the administration is so incompetent as to be unable to conduct the normal business of the country, while at the same time masterfully organizing the biggest conspiracy in history completely successfully? Something doesn't fit.
I'm only here for the blowjobs. I bet our experiences are similarly disatisfying.
I have no specific advice for your situation, but there are a few possibilities.
The most general is to talk with a psychologist about your experience. It's not a panacea, but you may gain some insight into what led into the attack, and how to cope with the situation if (when) it occurs again.
Next up - make sure you're taking time to relax in your daily routine. It's easy to fall into a pattern of overwork that becomes counterproductive, especially when the situations get grim, like exam time tends to be. Even a simple thing like taking a daily hour long walk can go a long way toward relieving any stress you're feeling.
Also, if you aren't already following a good nutrition plan with attendant exercise, consider starting. Feeling good physically is the first step to feeling good mentally.
I give no credence to your education if the best arguments you can make based on it are filled with personal attacks. You obviously have no idea how to make a point (or possibly have no logical point to make) so I have no interest in dealing with you.
I was referring to your last paragraph, where you leveled your emotionally charged ad hominem attack.
I quoted true figures and pointed out the truth.. (also see any records from the union busting sweat shop ridden political machine dominated US guilded age) Just because I make the argument strongly does not mean it is "emotional rhetoric".. it means it is true and authoritative.
You quoted figures with no citation and pointed out your opinions regarding their meaning. Emotionally charging your arguments is no measure of authority.
I have no desire to engage in personal arguments over economic philosophy.
Did you try the command line client? I'm only half joking - it may do the job. I don't actually know, but I don't have a giant file or a place to put it, so I can't test it for you.
Also, you fucktards will never stop me!
My god, you're right! I guess the general Slashdot population will just have to ignore you.
I'll always read you, though. I love the spewings of the anonymous masses. Reminds me how smart I actually am.
That wasn't invented until 1972.
If you're going to attack me with emotional rhetoric, at least attack me or my beliefs. Setting up strawmen isn't a sign of masterful debate.
I don't attack the worker side, because I'm part of it. I simply understand how both sides work, so I know how to play my role to its maximum advantage. I don't make CEO salaries, but I don't have CEO responsibilities. Someday, I may. Then your attack will be sensible.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that anyone can become the owner of a company. It's not an elite club with massive barriers - it's open to all and sundry who are willing to take the risks. That's not to say it's not a shark tank, because it is fiercely competitive. That's the nature of the willing. Asking everyone to play nice so you can get what you feel you're owed goes against human nature and current economic reality.
Apparently you don't know much about Warren Buffet. He owns companies. He doesn't run them.
Unfortunately, we can't afford the 20-100 year indefinite timespan necessary for globalization to actually bring about equilibrium. After all, you can count yourself sure that the corporations which hire Indian workers and H-1B workers don't want a free market any more than labor does: they just want cheap labor to make very cheap products they can sell for high prices. Ideologues like you are the only ones who actually want free markets - most people actually participating in the market don't.
20-100 years isn't indefinite, and it's also a statement without any factual backing whatsoever.
I didn't say everyone wanted a free market, I just said that's what it is. Naturally, business owners want as much for their dollar as they can get. Naturally, workers want as many dollars for their time as they can get. The middle ground is what constitutes the mechanisms of the market. Tipping it one way or the other serves no one in the end, so 'idealogues' like me keep things rolling the way they are for everyone.
Also, your claim of 'most people' not wanting a free market is once again unbacked.
It's increasing the supply without paying for it.
I'd like to think of a reasonable reply to this one, but it's an emotionally charged lie. They pay for it, just not what you feel they should pay. Since the US isn't a centrally planned economy, your way doesn't work.
Nothing artificial about this scarcity- historically corporations have always had to pay for training to get the skillsets they want. The fact that Americans aren't trained in the skillsets they want just shows that the corporations are no longer paying for the training.
You're only responding to one word in my statement, and you've taken the sentence out of context. You posted about artificially restricting the supply of programmers by closing off the borders to restrict the source, then you called it supply and demand. There's no way for me to reply reasonably to such a logical misstep.
I've never heard of one that wasn't. Well, that's not quite true- Les Schwab wasn't. But he actually understood that he had to train people in the skills he wanted- which is why he owns over 500 tire stores now and has to build 6 new ones a year to handle the promotions of highly skilled people.
Rather than reply directly, I'll simply note you object to capitalism, since you apparently would like to place all competition on a level playing field of ignorance and force companies to grow all the skills they need. That's not how a free market economy works at all.
Bull- where do you think they get the extra money to pay themselves big? By cutting the wages of everybody else.
I don't consider it 'extra' money, and I don't consider wages a right. We have a deep philosophical difference on this point. I am committed to the concept of the free market. Occasionally, this leads to someone in a position of power taking advantage of the situation. Such is human nature. This doesn't lead me to tar my brush and paint the whole canvas the same color, because that's not the reality of the situation. CEOs, by and large, do an incredibly difficult job, and they are rewarded for it.
Absolutely, if there were any left. Face it, we ignored the problem while they all lost their jobs, now it's our turn.
There are plenty left, they just aren't being paid outrageous wages for jobs any monkey can do well. Programming isn't assembly line work. It won't be for some time, but when it is, it won't command the wages it does now. Such is the price of a dynamic economy. You and I have taken different tacks on this point - you choose to huddle into a shell and complain, and I choose to adapt. Time will show who wins this one.
I'm not the one laying people off to pay myself a larger salary.
That's another emotionally charged statement, but this time it's only a half-truth instead of an outright lie. It ignores all the business realities that go into such decisions. In a free market, it's not a company's responsibility to fade into obselescence while it protects a uselessly redundant or outmoded workforce.
Perhaps some day, you'll get the economy you desire. I sincerely hope not.
Nothing screams 'untouchable penis' like perpetrating a website rivalry.
Go on believing this is new. It makes you look naive.
As soon as you come up with a way to prevent people in power from being powerful, you'll solve the problem.
(this is not an endorsement of any current situation, just a cynical but realistic look at the world.)
If your post made any sense, I might react to it. Instead, I sit here baffled, wondering what in the hell you're blathering about.
How is going elsewhere cheating? Claiming 'supply and demand' as a description of an artificial scarcity is intellectually dishonest.
Sure, there are overpaid CEOs out there, but that fact has no bearing on the wages paid to programmers. We may as well bring the wages paid to assembly line workers into the mix. You claimed class warfare was being committed, and you're right, but it's you that's declaring it.
No, I don't argue in any way against raising the wages in other countries. That's the natural consequence of globalization - everything reaches equilibrium. The investments that US companies make into (relatively) high-paying jobs in, for example, India, spread more money around that economy. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Protectionism, on the other hand, is a short term solution that helps no one but the people at the top. To believe otherwise is to go against all of human history.
Yeah, nothing provides jobs like the artificial inflation of wages.
All the security of PHP and all the readability of Perl? It's a surefire win. I wonder why the whole world hasn't caught on to this one yet?
It's sour grapes - the Linux crowd really wants the desktop, and they're just not getting it. The psychology of compensation is so amusing.