This is a very interesting thread, because it portrays the view that the "average (american) techie" has on the economy and the labor market specifically.
Its funny, in a very sad way, to see exactly the same things happen over and over again throughout the last 2 centuries (or at least 150 years). And the same (misguided) opinions pop up again and again. Free market vs protectionism, "ethics" of corporations, globalization and where is it all going and what does it mean about "us".
The problem with this picture is that the economic framework that exists today, has been exaustively analysed by people like Marx one century ago. Yet the same superficial crap is discussed over and over like nothing was ever said or written. Meanwhile, in Capitalism City, the Bosses are making trillions on our American, Indian or European backs.
Many slashdotters seem riddled with whether they should support protectionism, which hurts their American Dream ethos, or "free" the market, which hurts their pockets and stomachs(they will be out of a job).
Just a clue: the riddle is easily solved if you replace "Cheap Foreing Labor" as the problem, with "Capital". The free market is free for those who possess capital; it emiserates everybody else.
OK. Stick to your love of "The System". I hope that greed never hits your family and beloved.
That doesn't mean of course that it won't hit millions of others. But you seem to accept that as the "only way the system can work".
Well, you likened my opinion to Joe Sixpack's. And get racism straight: its racism when you imply that somebody is inferior because of his race. Implying that someone is better off financially because he is an american white male is not racist. The plantation workers were racist because they called their bosses slaveowners?
Exactly as I thought, you'll bitch about the model but you won't lift a finger to change it.
Whatever dude. I'm talking about transforming society to a place where there need not be forms of economic oppression. This requires a radical shift from where we are now, as a socio-economic system. It has nothing to do with me putting money in research. We are talking politics here.
Sore loser? You're the one that called me Joe Sixpack, so please.
I do realize what you say, I 'm not stupid not see all the real world examples of how far we are compared with a century back.
This is a definite and amazing improvement.
Its just not the end of line. Its not that its not perfect, its that its fundamentally wrong. And I'm not talking about Pharma, I'm talking about the "free" market. Human suffering cannot be measured by marketeers, and the good of society is rarely associated with profit.
And give me a break with the "put your money where your mouth is". It is irrelevant to what I'm saying.
Ahhh...Arguing on the Internet again...Its like riding a bike, you never forget it.
I 'm not blaming anybody dude. Any company in the present socio-economic system will do and should do them same.
That's what the free market is all about and that is how capitalism works. If a company doesn't go the way Joe Sixpack "hates", it wont stay afloat.
What I'm saying is that curing people by using money/profit as the incentive does not work. I would go as far as saying that using profit as an incentive for anything at all is grotesque.
But you are probably a north american white male, so I wont say such things in front of you. I will probably hurt your most basic fetishes.
Changing the way society performs economic relations is not something five people can gather and do. It takes a deep social change to do experiments like the one you propose.
I'm not a naysayer of the drug. I 'm a naysayer of the process. And of the people that say "Oh will please think of billion-dollar-rich-cigar-holding-government-overthrowing Pharma CEOs?"
Don't argue with me about. Just ponder at the fact that deseases like malaria kill millions, while Pharma is fighting poor erections. If you think that makes sense, or that this is the only way society can work, you are too pessimistic.
There's a test you can apply here: When a pharma company spends $1bn researching a drug that ends-up a flop, should we as taxpayers refund that cash to them? If the answer is "no," then you can't begrudge them for taking profits where they can.
You have, in fact, paid for that $1bn of "failed" research. You have paid it by tax money, and you have paid it by buying viagra,anti-depressants or any "lifestyle" drug for that matter. You have paid it because your government is protecting the patents of big farma, everyday, everywhere in the planet.
Yet you still don't "get" it, and you sympathize for the money "lost" in research. Exploratory Research into new drugs can never "fail". Its exploratory, and the benefits may or may not come.
A cure for those you love wont come from private companies, unless you tend to love people in the market segments that managers tend to love.
Yeah its OK to over consume, as long as we don't kill those squishy squishy pigs.
There is no food shortage in the world. The 1st world is throwing away food by the kilo-ton while the 3rd world is starving to death. We are consuming much more than we need, simply to fuel an economy of greed.
And the vegans think its ok to keep doing that if we don't directly kill animals. Never mind that overconsumption causes the destruction of every natural resource on the planet, including animal life.
If we can continue feeding our fat bellies without the killing, everything will be OK.
...with resizing fonts and logo pictures, which happened automatically the second time I gave the gmail window focus. Now the correct zoom level is retained.
Why is it that everytime somebody wants to "forecast" the future of a specific information-related idea just throws out how Artificial Intelligence will make [insert-magic-here] possible??
In the previous story about the greek police arresting bloggers, I read very nice truly American comments like (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=203406&ci d=16635658). It just seemed impossible to even reply to people like that. Sometimes it is just to hard to find out where to start telling a person on how many levels they are wrong.
At least I hope this is an answer for this guy. If this happened in Greece, I tell you the government would face some SERIOUS sh*t, and it would a major reason for earlier elections. Let's see how the US media and *people* take this. Or maybe its too late to realize that getting your news spoonfed to you is not that good of an idea.
Of course I am "from that other part of the world".
Oh man...
The biggest prize in medical history... Why is it the biggest? Cause for the last decades, new medicine means BIG business. I wonder how good that is.
My view is kinda biased. My roommate's in biotech. Seeing first hand his ethics and beliefs as a scientist, I am really reluctant in handing my future to scientists like him...
This is a legitimate post with a real point being made.
But does it matter? Does it matter that denmark of france have bigger pipes to a bigger percentage of the population?
Who is making sites like amazon, google, ebay and iTunes rich? Denmark, France or the US?
Money on the web means products targetted to citizens of the US. And that is what it boils down to.
Why is it that lately, more and more slashdot is becoming advertizing place for Apple? We have been getting far too many "Apple, its so warm-and-fuzzy" kind of posts.
I wonder how that post with the Apple lawyers trying to sue that poor guy made it to/.
Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has watched There will be blood too many times.
This is a very interesting thread, because it portrays the view that the "average (american) techie" has on the economy and the labor market specifically.
Its funny, in a very sad way, to see exactly the same things happen over and over again throughout the last 2 centuries (or at least 150 years). And the same (misguided) opinions pop up again and again. Free market vs protectionism, "ethics" of corporations, globalization and where is it all going and what does it mean about "us".
The problem with this picture is that the economic framework that exists today, has been exaustively analysed by people like Marx one century ago. Yet the same superficial crap is discussed over and over like nothing was ever said or written. Meanwhile, in Capitalism City, the Bosses are making trillions on our American, Indian or European backs.
Many slashdotters seem riddled with whether they should support protectionism, which hurts their American Dream ethos, or "free" the market, which hurts their pockets and stomachs(they will be out of a job).
Just a clue: the riddle is easily solved if you replace "Cheap Foreing Labor" as the problem, with "Capital". The free market is free for those who possess capital; it emiserates everybody else.
OK. Stick to your love of "The System". I hope that greed never hits your family and beloved. That doesn't mean of course that it won't hit millions of others. But you seem to accept that as the "only way the system can work".
Well, you likened my opinion to Joe Sixpack's. And get racism straight: its racism when you imply that somebody is inferior because of his race. Implying that someone is better off financially because he is an american white male is not racist. The plantation workers were racist because they called their bosses slaveowners?
Exactly as I thought, you'll bitch about the model but you won't lift a finger to change it.
Whatever dude. I'm talking about transforming society to a place where there need not be forms of economic oppression. This requires a radical shift from where we are now, as a socio-economic system. It has nothing to do with me putting money in research. We are talking politics here.
Sore loser? You're the one that called me Joe Sixpack, so please.
I do realize what you say, I 'm not stupid not see all the real world examples of how far we are compared with a century back.
This is a definite and amazing improvement.
Its just not the end of line. Its not that its not perfect, its that its fundamentally wrong. And I'm not talking about Pharma, I'm talking about the "free" market. Human suffering cannot be measured by marketeers, and the good of society is rarely associated with profit.
And give me a break with the "put your money where your mouth is". It is irrelevant to what I'm saying.
Ahhh...Arguing on the Internet again...Its like riding a bike, you never forget it.
(posted this as anonymous, so here it is again)
I 'm not blaming anybody dude. Any company in the present socio-economic system will do and should do them same.
That's what the free market is all about and that is how capitalism works. If a company doesn't go the way Joe Sixpack "hates", it wont stay afloat.
What I'm saying is that curing people by using money/profit as the incentive does not work. I would go as far as saying that using profit as an incentive for anything at all is grotesque.
But you are probably a north american white male, so I wont say such things in front of you. I will probably hurt your most basic fetishes.
Changing the way society performs economic relations is not something five people can gather and do. It takes a deep social change to do experiments like the one you propose.
I'm not a naysayer of the drug. I 'm a naysayer of the process. And of the people that say "Oh will please think of billion-dollar-rich-cigar-holding-government-overthrowing Pharma CEOs?"
Don't argue with me about. Just ponder at the fact that deseases like malaria kill millions, while Pharma is fighting poor erections. If you think that makes sense, or that this is the only way society can work, you are too pessimistic.
There's a test you can apply here: When a pharma company spends $1bn researching a drug that ends-up a flop, should we as taxpayers refund that cash to them? If the answer is "no," then you can't begrudge them for taking profits where they can.
You have, in fact, paid for that $1bn of "failed" research. You have paid it by tax money, and you have paid it by buying viagra,anti-depressants or any "lifestyle" drug for that matter. You have paid it because your government is protecting the patents of big farma, everyday, everywhere in the planet.
Yet you still don't "get" it, and you sympathize for the money "lost" in research. Exploratory Research into new drugs can never "fail". Its exploratory, and the benefits may or may not come.
A cure for those you love wont come from private companies, unless you tend to love people in the market segments that managers tend to love.
Yeah its OK to over consume, as long as we don't kill those squishy squishy pigs.
There is no food shortage in the world. The 1st world is throwing away food by the kilo-ton while the 3rd world is starving to death. We are consuming much more than we need, simply to fuel an economy of greed.
And the vegans think its ok to keep doing that if we don't directly kill animals. Never mind that overconsumption causes the destruction of every natural resource on the planet, including animal life.
If we can continue feeding our fat bellies without the killing, everything will be OK.
All hail the Profit God. Amen
...with resizing fonts and logo pictures, which happened automatically the second time I gave the gmail window focus. Now the correct zoom level is retained.
Now the trail of causality between the killer and the killed is even more blurry...
Am I the only one to have read "New Zealand Rejects Office For Emacs"??
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/04/false- report.html
It was a false report. The only good news I heard in a long time, this guy seemed so promising. But it is incorrect, the guy that posted the news piece took it down.
Why is it that everytime somebody wants to "forecast" the future of a specific information-related idea just throws out how Artificial Intelligence will make [insert-magic-here] possible??
So the question that remains to be answered is
Do asteroids hit the same spot twice??In the previous story about the greek police arresting bloggers, I read very nice truly American comments like (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=203406&ci d=16635658). It just seemed impossible to even reply to people like that. Sometimes it is just to hard to find out where to start telling a person on how many levels they are wrong.
At least I hope this is an answer for this guy. If this happened in Greece, I tell you the government would face some SERIOUS sh*t, and it would a major reason for earlier elections. Let's see how the US media and *people* take this. Or maybe its too late to realize that getting your news spoonfed to you is not that good of an idea.
Of course I am "from that other part of the world".
Oh man...
The biggest prize in medical history... Why is it the biggest? Cause for the last decades, new medicine means BIG business. I wonder how good that is. My view is kinda biased. My roommate's in biotech. Seeing first hand his ethics and beliefs as a scientist, I am really reluctant in handing my future to scientists like him...
This is a legitimate post with a real point being made. But does it matter? Does it matter that denmark of france have bigger pipes to a bigger percentage of the population? Who is making sites like amazon, google, ebay and iTunes rich? Denmark, France or the US? Money on the web means products targetted to citizens of the US. And that is what it boils down to.
But its doing that already in the US.
Why is it that lately, more and more slashdot is becoming advertizing place for Apple? We have been getting far too many "Apple, its so warm-and-fuzzy" kind of posts. I wonder how that post with the Apple lawyers trying to sue that poor guy made it to /.