Well, that really depends on the number of units. 5, 10, 20, 100, aparetment buildings come in all different sizes. It's not what I had in mind for $10 million, but if you're willing to go down to a triplex it could run closer to $250K.
What's a triplex? Anyway, I guess you can get a small building or something. I was thiking of larger ones (ones that I've lived in in Toronto).
And I would want to do a lot of the management myself, so that would save a lot of money.
Management cost probably isn't THAT much. I don't think it will be profitable or attractive just because you save the mgt costs. Instead, it will be attractive if YOU have more skills, expertise, knowledge, etc to do it. If you like doing it, if you know how to do it, etc then you'll have an advantage. It seems like you are interested and probably somewhat knowledgeable so that's one plus:)
I used to be an open source advocate until I realized how unemployable I really was. Meanwhile, I see countless job listings for the latest Microsoft technology..NET sucks, but it pays the bills. Linux and other F/OSS is fine for at home where the budget it thin or as a hobby toy. It was a fun journey, but now it's time to get back to the real world.
I've been pondering the impact of OSS on employees for a while. I don't think there is anything concrete to go either way. You may be right; or you may be wrong. I don't know right now. NO one has done a thorough study (at least one I've seen).
I do know one thing though. Your example is irrelevant. Just because there are a ton of jobs in proprietary technologies doesn't mean OSS is bad for workers. The reason there are a lot of jobs in the proprietary field is because that was--and is--the dominant market. OSS is new so your observation is meaningless. Even the successful stories in OSS (say openoffice, mozilla, linux, etc) are pretty new.
Your original thesis (OSS negatively impacts workers) remains to be proven.
All I can say is that OSS SHRINKS the size of the market. I remember the Red Hat CEO saying that his goal is to convert something like a $10billion market into a $1billion market (I don't remember the exact numbers; I just made them up). This happens because of free labour. The question then is, is this good or bad?
Since we live under capitalism, we need to get a capitalist to answer this. Some of them claim OSS is communist (it's actually a cross between anarchism and socialism but let's not get into that) and we can ignore these. How about others? What do other capitalists think? I'm not sure. The typical capitalist argument is that lower costs are GOOD because your businesses, consumers, etc are more efficient, save more, etc (this is basically the argument in favour of free trade and outsourcing). I'm not sure if that reasoning is applicable here...
I know this might seem like an obvious thing to say but looking at the guy's website don't you think he has the coolest job ? I mean here he has been in space, does lots of python, has lots of money to support open source and interest in it and has some nice ideas.
Most people are nothing more than economic slaves under capitalism. The best one can do is to free themselves. Mark Shuttleworth has freed himself:) It's time for the rest of us to do so...
Once you have freed yourself, you can do whatever the hell you want. Going to space is overrated (no, I'm not jealous:) ) but there are a ton of other things that are just as cool.
I use it because it is free and likely to be one of the free accounts that last (many other free ones have (or will) go bankrupt).
Another reason (perhaps more important) is that you'll have Hotmail (or some other free account) even if you change ISPs. If you move around a lot (eg. students going to school and back home for holidays, etc) or if you have financial problems (eg. might have to switch ISPs based on circumstance), you will have one account. For instance, I might have to change my ISP because of financial problems (I'm going to have to go from "low speed" cable to something else:( ). If I was not using a free or server-based e-mail, all my e-mail contacts may be lost.
Lastly, even if you have a work account, you shouldn't be using it for e-mail. Not only can you get fired for it (although it is rare), but the company also logs stuff so it is not safe. Something like Hotmail, which probably also logs your e-mail, is safer in the sense that a large corporation is unlikely to be snooping on people due to potential loss of brand name and prestige (imagine if Microsoft or Yahoo is shown to be reading all e-mails...their whole business, including non-e-mail products will be severly affected).
My main e-mail accounts are Hotmail and Yahoo. They are perfect, except for one MAJOR issue. They don't grant you POP access unless you pay (I believe with Hotmail, you can download to Outlook though--not 100% sure). The fact that I can't d/l my messages to my own computer means that I am at the mercy of these free e-mail providers***. This is a terrible price to pay for being cheap:|
*** BTW, I'm pondering if it is possible to write some tool to automatically download e-mail from Yahoo!, Hotmail, etc. It will still suck and won't be like POP3 and its synchronization. Nevertheless, one can archive their e-mails. Anyone have any ideas? I'm thinking that you can write a script (possibly in javascript) that parses the HTML and extracts each e-mail one by one. A simpler, perhaps more elegant, way is to use a text browser (or something) like lynx and use some scripting languages. If anyone has any ideas, e-mail me at sivaram33@hotmail.com (have the word 'xIDEAx' in the subject header). I'm not sure if the proposal is illegal...
You pay a premium for going with equity. In other words, it costs more. What you are saying about losing control when in debt isn't really true. The person you owe the debt to can't make you do things (unless you default or bankrupt or something). In constrast, if you give up equity, you lose (that much) control for sure...
Some AC below says why the stock market won't be eliminated. Financial markets (which includes stock markets) are THE most important institutions/entities under capitalism. Capital is the most important thing and financial institutions are the ones that handle it...
Stock markets will be eliminated when capitalism collapses... I personally think this will happen within our lifetimes but that's just me. Either I need to get my head examined or I'm Nostradamus;)
USA (and other rich countries) will have to SIGNIFICANTLY devalue their currencies. I'm talking 70% to 80% drop in the value. Remember, the value of India will rise but the capitalists will then move to a poorer country (say in Latin America).
It remains to be seen what will happen. All I can say is that we are living in a tumultuous time.
I'm just waiting for the moment when the light bulb suddenly gets switched on, and people realize that being a cheapskate often does not save money.
Since corporations and other capitalistic entities (including the central bank) are short-term oriented, I don't think it will change until capitalism collapses. For instance, if YOU were the CEO of a company, you would do the same thing. After all, you would rather take your millions now because that is all that matters. Investors (i.e. your owners) don't care what you are going to do in 10 years; they want results now. The whole stock market operates like that...
How do you make oneself more valuable when employers all want previous experience? Do you have some idea on how to improve productivity? Or are you just reverting to the abstract capitalist efficiency/innovation dogma?
What I don't understand are the businesses that should be big enough to hire experts as needed that go with IBM.
It's a business strategy that was started in the 90's (roughly). Executives, managers, academics, and others support the view that a business should concentrate on their CORE business. A business should deal with what it is good at, while letting other companies handle their non-core activities. So, a car manufacturer concentrates on making cars, a hostpital concentrates on providing medicare, and so forth, while letting other companies handle IT, shipping, etc. This is what started outsourcing (I don't mean outsourcing to other countries but outsourcing elements of a company to other companies).
In the example that you cite, businesses don't want to get involved in specialized software maintenance. It's not their core competency and they would rather let someone else who is more specialized and efficient handle it.
The implication of this is that all non-core business functions will be outsourced (to other companies, which may or may not be in another country). Things like HR (Human Resources) used to be an integral part of companies. Nowadays, these are all being outsourced. Same thing is happening to IT.
Unless you have a really amazing idea, or require millions of dollars, you really wouldn't lose your intellectual property for a simple reason. No one will want to invest in your business! Nearly all small businesses do NOT receive large financing deals (except during the dot-com boom). Most likely it'll end up being a loan. Even if someone is asking for equity, it probably wouldn't be a whole lot.
You start small, so your financing needs will be small too (unless you are investigating something major).
I started a small business recently with one of my friends and it failed. The #1 thing I learned is that you really need someone who can do sales/marketing/etc. Everyone on this site are tech-oriented. I don't think any of us are scared of new technology, or solving techincal problems and so on. The thing that we suck at is sales. One half of a tech-oriented business is marketing/promotions/sales. I think if you have a good idea, you should either find someone who is good at getting customers, or learn to do it yourself. There is a very good post above talking about cold calls. In our business, that's where we failed. Our business plan called for cold-calling but neither of us wanted to do it and weren't good at it.
No credit card company is going to loan me $10 million, not even at 20%. If they would, I'd take it. With $10 million I could make well over 20% by buying up a bunch of multiunit apartment buildings.
I don't think it's as easy as you imply. First of all, apartment buildings are probably well over $10m (at least the ones I have in mind). If people could profit as you are implying, then everyone would do it. It seems that people aren't doing it...
I'm not even sure if I should respond to you given that you think nuking two groups of people is "healthy":( It's obvious that we have different value systems. Life, it seems, is not valuable to you.
Vision impaired?"
If I'm vision impaired, you are totally blind... half of what you say is pure speculation with no basis. They are not even worthy enough to be considered conspiracy theories.
The war-tribunal told 90% of killings was done by serbs, 5% by croats and 5% by muslims. I never saw a serb refugee, but we had around TWO MILLION refugees alone in germany from croatia and bosnia, most if not all beeing croats or muslims.
The tribunal (you are talking about the UN ICTY right?) was severely biased. How can you have countries that participated in the war (eg. bombed Serbia) have judges on the panel? It's blatantly unjust! You should have neutral countries or those that did not participate in the war. There are tons of countries that you can pick, even European ones like Switzerland (which was neutral). When you have British judges (and basically NATO member nations) on the panel, what do you expect? Do you think anyone is going to say anything about the NATO-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (for example)?
As far as not seeing any Serb refugees, it's because they all fled to Serbia which was powerful and Serb dominated.
In any case, I'm not trying to pick sides. Both sides committed atrocities.
I can't tell a lie, the best way to help in this case would be to nuke both. Problem solved.
Man, how could you even say such a thing? How about if I come and nuke you because...I don't know...because I don't like you? Is that ok with you? You are so Machiavellian...:(
You are seriously downplaying US actions. THe problem with you is that you seem to be heavily influenced by the US government. You are also a neoconservative and whatever I say is not going to change your view.
We didn't create any of those 3.We did support Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war, but he was already in power.
USA provided POLITICAL SUPPORT for Sadam Hussein. This was the greatest thing USA did for him. Doing so ensured that Saddam will strengthen his grip on power. Saddam will not have lasted even 10 years without US help. Some of Saddam Hussein's views were Stalinist in nature and there is no way he would have ruled without external support (at that time). In addition, the worst atrocities by Saddam Hussein (killing Kurds, using chemical weapons against Iran, etc) started happening after US intervention. This is always the case. Whenever USA, or any other rich/powerful country (like Russia) intervenes, atrocities just mount.
Claiming Saddam Hussein was already in power, when in fact his worst atrocities came aftewards, is just heartless.
We did fund some of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, but not directly bin Laden.
First of all, what happened in Afghanistan was run through the CIA so no one can find PROOF. CIA never confirms or denies anything so it's hard to find anything concrete. It all comes down to what you believe and what you think happened. What you are saying is the US government line. Namely, the US government maintains that it did nothing with Usama bin Laden. Everything I say can be dismissed as left-wing conspiracy theories. However, even the mainstream press and even some US Congresspersons/senators believe it nowadays. You would be wise to do more research or think about what is more plausible.
You say you funded SOME of the mujahedeen. THat is a lie! You funded ALL of the mujahedeen. Pakistan was too poor to fund anyone. All the money came from USA. The vast majority of Al-Qaida members were the mujahedeen. This was especially true in the late 90's (nowadays, these guys have either retired or died). But the fact that the mujahedeen became Al-Qaida means that USA was ultimately responsible for Al-Qaida.
On top of that, USA DID support Usama bin Laden and several of his key members. You might have seen some videos of Usama bin Laden in camouflage on newschannels (no, not his speeches and his "latest" stuff). Guess when this picture was shot?
Given your inside-the-box-I-worship-government line of thinking, you might not believe any of this but here is what happened. USA funnelled money to the mujahedeen via the Pakistani Intelligence Services (aka ISI). In addition, USA provided training, weapons, and other logistical support. Where do you think the US-feared Stinger missiles in Afghanistan came from? How do you think the mujahedeen got to Afghanistan? Who do you think taught them the techniques about fake passports and the like? There were even US officials in Afghanistan--actual military, spy, and diplomatic officers. What you are saying implies that Americans didn't even step on Afghan soil. That is complete nonsense.
Regardless of what you think or what I say, the important point here is that Usama bin Laden learned his TECHNIQUES from the CIA. Where do you think he learned his trade? You think he just came out of nowhere to be a formidable foe? I'm not saying that USA funded or trained Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida didn't even exist then. All I'm saying is that USA's policy of short-term realpolitik led to the creation of Al-Qaida (just like countless other people/groups/etc).
Noriega was a CIA asset, but we captured him when he went astray.
Amazing that you even admit that he was a CIA agent, especially given that this is also a conspiracy theory. Again, the CIA and hence the US govt hasn't admitted that. Anyway, you invaded Panama killed hundreads of innocent people! That is not ok! If I invade your country and kill a hundread innocent people just because my ow
Too many people apply Darwin's theories (evolution and natural selection) to things they shouldn't.
If you don't take a chance, you don't survive? That's totally misleading. I don't think evolution says anything about survivability based on chance. If anything the opposite could be just as correct: If you take a chance, you die! How do you know the status quo is not the way towards survival?
If you are a scientist (i.e. someone following the path of science; not talking about scientist as a profession), lottories are a loss. You are worse off playing hte lottery than not. If you spend $200 per year, that's a $200 loss.
Having said this, I DO spend some money on lotteries. BUT I only spend trivial amounts. My average spending on lotteries is around $5/year:)
Actually it comes down to the person. Everything you are saying is correct but let me just add some stuff...
According to finance theory, regardless of what form of financing you use, it is all the "same". By same, I mean that you can't really argue that something is cheaper than another. What happens, however, is that different people take different position on the risk-return set.
For instance, you don't lose your personal wealth if you bankrupt and you gave up equity. With loans/bonds/etc, it will affect your personal wealth. However, you pay a premium for equity. So you are basically paying more for equity than debt.
You seem to be risk-averse so you will value giving up equity instead of accruing debt (like loans, bonds, etc). I don't have a business but I am also risk-averse so I will want to avoid getting into debt at the expense of giving up a little bit more ownership (i.e. equity).
It's just like investing your personal money. Do you pick bonds? Do you pick hard assets (like renting out a house, or gold)? Do you invest in stocks? Do you go for instruments like options? It all depends on your value system. If you are risk-averse you will lean towards bonds; if you are risky, you will go for stocks (or options)...
I didn't really say anything that contradicts with your statements.. I'm just adding some background info:)
You'll probably disagree with me but my view is that freedoms (such as freedom of speech) should take precedence over anything else. Right now, since countries are all capitalist, businesses and corporations do not respect freedom of speech. In my ideal world, they will.
Dixie Chicks isn't a perfect example but nevertheless it still shows some things. When people protest them or stop buying their CD, that's ok. But when commercial radio stations stop playing them, it isn't. Yes, that is legal but it wouldn't be in my world. What happened to the Dixie Chicks is simliar to what happened to the communists under McCarthy (in a minor way). The communists (and others who were accussed) were not really arrested, fined, or killed. The only thing that happened was that they were persecuted (eg. lost their jobs, discredited, fake information passed about them, etc). What happened to the Dixie Chicks is somewhat similar in that they weren't arrested, fined, etc yet their livelihoods were seriously threatened.
Governments aren't the only ones that can infringe on freedoms. Corporations and other private entities can too. It's just too bad that no one living under capitalism admits this. Think about it this way: imagine if every single corporation in your country stopped hiring you, printing your view, providing services, etc just because of your econopolitical stance, what will come of you or your country?
I don't think anything you said rebuts my point. My view is that ideologues are stronger (in terms of mind) than pragmatists, non-ideologues, and others.
You'll note that most of the people in USA who support imperialism, wars, and the like are not ideologically driven. The warmongers are; but not the people who follow them. Those that are ideologically driven have studied the issues in more depth and have formed some world view based on their value systems. The general population and others, in contrast, are the sheep. For instance, you'll find that propaganda and disinformation does not work on ideologically driven people; but it works very well on the rest.
I, being ideologically driven, have no problem with it (obviously). I'm perfectly comfortable with even my arch-enemies (like fascists and capitalists). A fascist, to me, is much stronger in the mind than centrists and others. I don't like their ideology and I don't like the world they are trying to create. However, they are stronger...
Do you have any proof? If someone is a terrorist, why aren't you charging them? The legal system handles a serious charge like terrorism doesn't it? Or are you just making this stuff up without any proof?
Creating a unified Europe may be desirable. BUT the way it is being done now is very dangerous. Countries aren't joining the EU because of communal reasons. Instead, they are joining because of economic reasons (read: getting richer). This does not bode well. Actions carried out in the name of money and wealth are the generally the worst...
Of late, it sounds like we're sending jobs to them....removing bloody dictators...and helping to resolve conflicts (troops in Bosnia, trying to help Palestine/Israel peace...etc.).
Point 1: Under capitalism, you don't "send" jobs anywhere. Jobs simply exist because the capitalists (Marxist definition) extract benefits from the labour of some country/region/city/etc. USA, or for that matter any other country, doesn't "send" jobs anymore than it "takes away" jobs. A capitalist will offer you money (aka a job) if you can provide something that they can profit off. For instance, if a company opens a factory in say China, it is not because the company likes China or cares about their citizens or anything like that. Instead, it is simply because they can profit off the labour (in this case, manual labour is cheaper there).
Point 2: USA DOES remove dictators but it also creates them. In some sense, if USA (or for that matter other interventionist countries) did not intervene in the affairs of others, the world would be better off. You'll have a hard time finding the last dictator that USA did not support, train, fund, or help in the past. Most of the dictators/tyrants/etc that USA has attempted to eliminate have been its own creations. This is clearly the case with Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden, but it also extends to many others like Manuel Noreiga (CIA asset).
Point 3: Helping to resolve conflicts? Do you even know what happened in Bosnia? The actions of NATO actually accelerated the genocide. THe only reason the Balkans seem like a success is because the Serbs were demonized. The Croats were committing mass atrocities similar to the Serbs yet how come very few even say anything? As far as the Isreali/Palestinian conflict is concerned, USA really isn't helping it now. The US govt is so biased towards Isreal that it will be a miracle if anyone signs any peace agreement that USA puts forth.
You are either an American or one that is brainwashed by US propaganda. When you live under the control of the empire (yes, USA is an imperialist), everything the government does seems to be towards good when in fact it isn't. For instance, British citizens (during British imperialism/colonialism) ACTUALLY believed that they were educating the savages by invading countries and turning them into slaves, destroying cultures, etc. I'm not making this up. People in Britain genuinely believed that they were helping the world. Right now, the British realize that they weren't really educating the savages, but exploiting them. US government and its imperialism is similar. When you are within the borders of the empire, it is hard to discern reality from propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that really depends on the number of units. 5, 10, 20, 100, aparetment buildings come in all different sizes. It's not what I had in mind for $10 million, but if you're willing to go down to a triplex it could run closer to $250K.
:)
What's a triplex? Anyway, I guess you can get a small building or something. I was thiking of larger ones (ones that I've lived in in Toronto).
And I would want to do a lot of the management myself, so that would save a lot of money.
Management cost probably isn't THAT much. I don't think it will be profitable or attractive just because you save the mgt costs. Instead, it will be attractive if YOU have more skills, expertise, knowledge, etc to do it. If you like doing it, if you know how to do it, etc then you'll have an advantage. It seems like you are interested and probably somewhat knowledgeable so that's one plus
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I used to be an open source advocate until I realized how unemployable I really was. Meanwhile, I see countless job listings for the latest Microsoft technology. .NET sucks, but it pays the bills. Linux and other F/OSS is fine for at home where the budget it thin or as a hobby toy. It was a fun journey, but now it's time to get back to the real world.
I've been pondering the impact of OSS on employees for a while. I don't think there is anything concrete to go either way. You may be right; or you may be wrong. I don't know right now. NO one has done a thorough study (at least one I've seen).
I do know one thing though. Your example is irrelevant. Just because there are a ton of jobs in proprietary technologies doesn't mean OSS is bad for workers. The reason there are a lot of jobs in the proprietary field is because that was--and is--the dominant market. OSS is new so your observation is meaningless. Even the successful stories in OSS (say openoffice, mozilla, linux, etc) are pretty new.
Your original thesis (OSS negatively impacts workers) remains to be proven.
All I can say is that OSS SHRINKS the size of the market. I remember the Red Hat CEO saying that his goal is to convert something like a $10billion market into a $1billion market (I don't remember the exact numbers; I just made them up). This happens because of free labour. The question then is, is this good or bad?
Since we live under capitalism, we need to get a capitalist to answer this. Some of them claim OSS is communist (it's actually a cross between anarchism and socialism but let's not get into that) and we can ignore these. How about others? What do other capitalists think? I'm not sure. The typical capitalist argument is that lower costs are GOOD because your businesses, consumers, etc are more efficient, save more, etc (this is basically the argument in favour of free trade and outsourcing). I'm not sure if that reasoning is applicable here...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I know this might seem like an obvious thing to say but looking at the guy's website don't you think he has the coolest job ? I mean here he has been in space, does lots of python, has lots of money to support open source and interest in it and has some nice ideas.
:) It's time for the rest of us to do so...
:) ) but there are a ton of other things that are just as cool.
Most people are nothing more than economic slaves under capitalism. The best one can do is to free themselves. Mark Shuttleworth has freed himself
Once you have freed yourself, you can do whatever the hell you want. Going to space is overrated (no, I'm not jealous
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I use it because it is free and likely to be one of the free accounts that last (many other free ones have (or will) go bankrupt).
:( ). If I was not using a free or server-based e-mail, all my e-mail contacts may be lost.
:|
Another reason (perhaps more important) is that you'll have Hotmail (or some other free account) even if you change ISPs. If you move around a lot (eg. students going to school and back home for holidays, etc) or if you have financial problems (eg. might have to switch ISPs based on circumstance), you will have one account. For instance, I might have to change my ISP because of financial problems (I'm going to have to go from "low speed" cable to something else
Lastly, even if you have a work account, you shouldn't be using it for e-mail. Not only can you get fired for it (although it is rare), but the company also logs stuff so it is not safe. Something like Hotmail, which probably also logs your e-mail, is safer in the sense that a large corporation is unlikely to be snooping on people due to potential loss of brand name and prestige (imagine if Microsoft or Yahoo is shown to be reading all e-mails...their whole business, including non-e-mail products will be severly affected).
My main e-mail accounts are Hotmail and Yahoo. They are perfect, except for one MAJOR issue. They don't grant you POP access unless you pay (I believe with Hotmail, you can download to Outlook though--not 100% sure). The fact that I can't d/l my messages to my own computer means that I am at the mercy of these free e-mail providers***. This is a terrible price to pay for being cheap
*** BTW, I'm pondering if it is possible to write some tool to automatically download e-mail from Yahoo!, Hotmail, etc. It will still suck and won't be like POP3 and its synchronization. Nevertheless, one can archive their e-mails. Anyone have any ideas? I'm thinking that you can write a script (possibly in javascript) that parses the HTML and extracts each e-mail one by one. A simpler, perhaps more elegant, way is to use a text browser (or something) like lynx and use some scripting languages. If anyone has any ideas, e-mail me at sivaram33@hotmail.com (have the word 'xIDEAx' in the subject header). I'm not sure if the proposal is illegal...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You pay a premium for going with equity. In other words, it costs more. What you are saying about losing control when in debt isn't really true. The person you owe the debt to can't make you do things (unless you default or bankrupt or something). In constrast, if you give up equity, you lose (that much) control for sure...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Some AC below says why the stock market won't be eliminated. Financial markets (which includes stock markets) are THE most important institutions/entities under capitalism. Capital is the most important thing and financial institutions are the ones that handle it...
;)
Stock markets will be eliminated when capitalism collapses... I personally think this will happen within our lifetimes but that's just me. Either I need to get my head examined or I'm Nostradamus
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USA (and other rich countries) will have to SIGNIFICANTLY devalue their currencies. I'm talking 70% to 80% drop in the value. Remember, the value of India will rise but the capitalists will then move to a poorer country (say in Latin America).
It remains to be seen what will happen. All I can say is that we are living in a tumultuous time.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm just waiting for the moment when the light bulb suddenly gets switched on, and people realize that being a cheapskate often does not save money.
Since corporations and other capitalistic entities (including the central bank) are short-term oriented, I don't think it will change until capitalism collapses. For instance, if YOU were the CEO of a company, you would do the same thing. After all, you would rather take your millions now because that is all that matters. Investors (i.e. your owners) don't care what you are going to do in 10 years; they want results now. The whole stock market operates like that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How do you make oneself more valuable when employers all want previous experience? Do you have some idea on how to improve productivity? Or are you just reverting to the abstract capitalist efficiency/innovation dogma?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What I don't understand are the businesses that should be big enough to hire experts as needed that go with IBM.
It's a business strategy that was started in the 90's (roughly). Executives, managers, academics, and others support the view that a business should concentrate on their CORE business. A business should deal with what it is good at, while letting other companies handle their non-core activities. So, a car manufacturer concentrates on making cars, a hostpital concentrates on providing medicare, and so forth, while letting other companies handle IT, shipping, etc. This is what started outsourcing (I don't mean outsourcing to other countries but outsourcing elements of a company to other companies).
In the example that you cite, businesses don't want to get involved in specialized software maintenance. It's not their core competency and they would rather let someone else who is more specialized and efficient handle it.
The implication of this is that all non-core business functions will be outsourced (to other companies, which may or may not be in another country). Things like HR (Human Resources) used to be an integral part of companies. Nowadays, these are all being outsourced. Same thing is happening to IT.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not an expert on this...
Unless you have a really amazing idea, or require millions of dollars, you really wouldn't lose your intellectual property for a simple reason. No one will want to invest in your business! Nearly all small businesses do NOT receive large financing deals (except during the dot-com boom). Most likely it'll end up being a loan. Even if someone is asking for equity, it probably wouldn't be a whole lot.
You start small, so your financing needs will be small too (unless you are investigating something major).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I started a small business recently with one of my friends and it failed. The #1 thing I learned is that you really need someone who can do sales/marketing/etc. Everyone on this site are tech-oriented. I don't think any of us are scared of new technology, or solving techincal problems and so on. The thing that we suck at is sales. One half of a tech-oriented business is marketing/promotions/sales. I think if you have a good idea, you should either find someone who is good at getting customers, or learn to do it yourself. There is a very good post above talking about cold calls. In our business, that's where we failed. Our business plan called for cold-calling but neither of us wanted to do it and weren't good at it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Wow... even drug dealers read slashdot!!! ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Maybe he lives in Sierra Leone, where the GDP per capita is $470/year. $18.25/year is still kind of low though...
;)
Or maybe he is an elf and can live hundreads of years
Sivaram Velauthapillai
No credit card company is going to loan me $10 million, not even at 20%. If they would, I'd take it. With $10 million I could make well over 20% by buying up a bunch of multiunit apartment buildings.
I don't think it's as easy as you imply. First of all, apartment buildings are probably well over $10m (at least the ones I have in mind). If people could profit as you are implying, then everyone would do it. It seems that people aren't doing it...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not even sure if I should respond to you given that you think nuking two groups of people is "healthy" :( It's obvious that we have different value systems. Life, it seems, is not valuable to you.
:(
Vision impaired?"
If I'm vision impaired, you are totally blind... half of what you say is pure speculation with no basis. They are not even worthy enough to be considered conspiracy theories.
The war-tribunal told 90% of killings was done by serbs, 5% by croats and 5% by muslims. I never saw a serb refugee, but we had around TWO MILLION refugees alone in germany from croatia and bosnia, most if not all beeing croats or muslims.
The tribunal (you are talking about the UN ICTY right?) was severely biased. How can you have countries that participated in the war (eg. bombed Serbia) have judges on the panel? It's blatantly unjust! You should have neutral countries or those that did not participate in the war. There are tons of countries that you can pick, even European ones like Switzerland (which was neutral). When you have British judges (and basically NATO member nations) on the panel, what do you expect? Do you think anyone is going to say anything about the NATO-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (for example)?
As far as not seeing any Serb refugees, it's because they all fled to Serbia which was powerful and Serb dominated.
In any case, I'm not trying to pick sides. Both sides committed atrocities.
I can't tell a lie, the best way to help in this case would be to nuke both. Problem solved.
Man, how could you even say such a thing? How about if I come and nuke you because...I don't know...because I don't like you? Is that ok with you? You are so Machiavellian...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are seriously downplaying US actions. THe problem with you is that you seem to be heavily influenced by the US government. You are also a neoconservative and whatever I say is not going to change your view.
We didn't create any of those 3.We did support Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war, but he was already in power.
USA provided POLITICAL SUPPORT for Sadam Hussein. This was the greatest thing USA did for him. Doing so ensured that Saddam will strengthen his grip on power. Saddam will not have lasted even 10 years without US help. Some of Saddam Hussein's views were Stalinist in nature and there is no way he would have ruled without external support (at that time). In addition, the worst atrocities by Saddam Hussein (killing Kurds, using chemical weapons against Iran, etc) started happening after US intervention. This is always the case. Whenever USA, or any other rich/powerful country (like Russia) intervenes, atrocities just mount.
Claiming Saddam Hussein was already in power, when in fact his worst atrocities came aftewards, is just heartless.
We did fund some of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, but not directly bin Laden.
First of all, what happened in Afghanistan was run through the CIA so no one can find PROOF. CIA never confirms or denies anything so it's hard to find anything concrete. It all comes down to what you believe and what you think happened. What you are saying is the US government line. Namely, the US government maintains that it did nothing with Usama bin Laden. Everything I say can be dismissed as left-wing conspiracy theories. However, even the mainstream press and even some US Congresspersons/senators believe it nowadays. You would be wise to do more research or think about what is more plausible.
You say you funded SOME of the mujahedeen. THat is a lie! You funded ALL of the mujahedeen. Pakistan was too poor to fund anyone. All the money came from USA. The vast majority of Al-Qaida members were the mujahedeen. This was especially true in the late 90's (nowadays, these guys have either retired or died). But the fact that the mujahedeen became Al-Qaida means that USA was ultimately responsible for Al-Qaida.
On top of that, USA DID support Usama bin Laden and several of his key members. You might have seen some videos of Usama bin Laden in camouflage on newschannels (no, not his speeches and his "latest" stuff). Guess when this picture was shot?
Given your inside-the-box-I-worship-government line of thinking, you might not believe any of this but here is what happened. USA funnelled money to the mujahedeen via the Pakistani Intelligence Services (aka ISI). In addition, USA provided training, weapons, and other logistical support. Where do you think the US-feared Stinger missiles in Afghanistan came from? How do you think the mujahedeen got to Afghanistan? Who do you think taught them the techniques about fake passports and the like? There were even US officials in Afghanistan--actual military, spy, and diplomatic officers. What you are saying implies that Americans didn't even step on Afghan soil. That is complete nonsense.
Regardless of what you think or what I say, the important point here is that Usama bin Laden learned his TECHNIQUES from the CIA. Where do you think he learned his trade? You think he just came out of nowhere to be a formidable foe? I'm not saying that USA funded or trained Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida didn't even exist then. All I'm saying is that USA's policy of short-term realpolitik led to the creation of Al-Qaida (just like countless other people/groups/etc).
Noriega was a CIA asset, but we captured him when he went astray.
Amazing that you even admit that he was a CIA agent, especially given that this is also a conspiracy theory. Again, the CIA and hence the US govt hasn't admitted that. Anyway, you invaded Panama killed hundreads of innocent people! That is not ok! If I invade your country and kill a hundread innocent people just because my ow
Too many people apply Darwin's theories (evolution and natural selection) to things they shouldn't.
:)
If you don't take a chance, you don't survive? That's totally misleading. I don't think evolution says anything about survivability based on chance. If anything the opposite could be just as correct: If you take a chance, you die! How do you know the status quo is not the way towards survival?
If you are a scientist (i.e. someone following the path of science; not talking about scientist as a profession), lottories are a loss. You are worse off playing hte lottery than not. If you spend $200 per year, that's a $200 loss.
Having said this, I DO spend some money on lotteries. BUT I only spend trivial amounts. My average spending on lotteries is around $5/year
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually it comes down to the person. Everything you are saying is correct but let me just add some stuff...
:)
According to finance theory, regardless of what form of financing you use, it is all the "same". By same, I mean that you can't really argue that something is cheaper than another. What happens, however, is that different people take different position on the risk-return set.
For instance, you don't lose your personal wealth if you bankrupt and you gave up equity. With loans/bonds/etc, it will affect your personal wealth. However, you pay a premium for equity. So you are basically paying more for equity than debt.
You seem to be risk-averse so you will value giving up equity instead of accruing debt (like loans, bonds, etc). I don't have a business but I am also risk-averse so I will want to avoid getting into debt at the expense of giving up a little bit more ownership (i.e. equity).
It's just like investing your personal money. Do you pick bonds? Do you pick hard assets (like renting out a house, or gold)? Do you invest in stocks? Do you go for instruments like options? It all depends on your value system. If you are risk-averse you will lean towards bonds; if you are risky, you will go for stocks (or options)...
I didn't really say anything that contradicts with your statements.. I'm just adding some background info
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I didn't know King Kong was costing $400m. That is a lot. Only a few films break the $400m mark and King Kong isn't going to be one of them.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You'll probably disagree with me but my view is that freedoms (such as freedom of speech) should take precedence over anything else. Right now, since countries are all capitalist, businesses and corporations do not respect freedom of speech. In my ideal world, they will.
Dixie Chicks isn't a perfect example but nevertheless it still shows some things. When people protest them or stop buying their CD, that's ok. But when commercial radio stations stop playing them, it isn't. Yes, that is legal but it wouldn't be in my world. What happened to the Dixie Chicks is simliar to what happened to the communists under McCarthy (in a minor way). The communists (and others who were accussed) were not really arrested, fined, or killed. The only thing that happened was that they were persecuted (eg. lost their jobs, discredited, fake information passed about them, etc). What happened to the Dixie Chicks is somewhat similar in that they weren't arrested, fined, etc yet their livelihoods were seriously threatened.
Governments aren't the only ones that can infringe on freedoms. Corporations and other private entities can too. It's just too bad that no one living under capitalism admits this. Think about it this way: imagine if every single corporation in your country stopped hiring you, printing your view, providing services, etc just because of your econopolitical stance, what will come of you or your country?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think anything you said rebuts my point. My view is that ideologues are stronger (in terms of mind) than pragmatists, non-ideologues, and others.
You'll note that most of the people in USA who support imperialism, wars, and the like are not ideologically driven. The warmongers are; but not the people who follow them. Those that are ideologically driven have studied the issues in more depth and have formed some world view based on their value systems. The general population and others, in contrast, are the sheep. For instance, you'll find that propaganda and disinformation does not work on ideologically driven people; but it works very well on the rest.
I, being ideologically driven, have no problem with it (obviously). I'm perfectly comfortable with even my arch-enemies (like fascists and capitalists). A fascist, to me, is much stronger in the mind than centrists and others. I don't like their ideology and I don't like the world they are trying to create. However, they are stronger...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Do you have any proof? If someone is a terrorist, why aren't you charging them? The legal system handles a serious charge like terrorism doesn't it? Or are you just making this stuff up without any proof?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Creating a unified Europe may be desirable. BUT the way it is being done now is very dangerous. Countries aren't joining the EU because of communal reasons. Instead, they are joining because of economic reasons (read: getting richer). This does not bode well. Actions carried out in the name of money and wealth are the generally the worst...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Of late, it sounds like we're sending jobs to them....removing bloody dictators...and helping to resolve conflicts (troops in Bosnia, trying to help Palestine/Israel peace...etc.).
Point 1: Under capitalism, you don't "send" jobs anywhere. Jobs simply exist because the capitalists (Marxist definition) extract benefits from the labour of some country/region/city/etc. USA, or for that matter any other country, doesn't "send" jobs anymore than it "takes away" jobs. A capitalist will offer you money (aka a job) if you can provide something that they can profit off. For instance, if a company opens a factory in say China, it is not because the company likes China or cares about their citizens or anything like that. Instead, it is simply because they can profit off the labour (in this case, manual labour is cheaper there).
Point 2: USA DOES remove dictators but it also creates them. In some sense, if USA (or for that matter other interventionist countries) did not intervene in the affairs of others, the world would be better off. You'll have a hard time finding the last dictator that USA did not support, train, fund, or help in the past. Most of the dictators/tyrants/etc that USA has attempted to eliminate have been its own creations. This is clearly the case with Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden, but it also extends to many others like Manuel Noreiga (CIA asset).
Point 3: Helping to resolve conflicts? Do you even know what happened in Bosnia? The actions of NATO actually accelerated the genocide. THe only reason the Balkans seem like a success is because the Serbs were demonized. The Croats were committing mass atrocities similar to the Serbs yet how come very few even say anything? As far as the Isreali/Palestinian conflict is concerned, USA really isn't helping it now. The US govt is so biased towards Isreal that it will be a miracle if anyone signs any peace agreement that USA puts forth.
You are either an American or one that is brainwashed by US propaganda. When you live under the control of the empire (yes, USA is an imperialist), everything the government does seems to be towards good when in fact it isn't. For instance, British citizens (during British imperialism/colonialism) ACTUALLY believed that they were educating the savages by invading countries and turning them into slaves, destroying cultures, etc. I'm not making this up. People in Britain genuinely believed that they were helping the world. Right now, the British realize that they weren't really educating the savages, but exploiting them. US government and its imperialism is similar. When you are within the borders of the empire, it is hard to discern reality from propaganda.
Sivaram Velauthapillai