I just love how you free-market capitalists like to pretend that changing jobs is easy or that it is even possible. Hopefully one day, when you lose YOUR job and feel its impact, you'll realize that it isn't as easy you say it is. Jobs don't just come because you change fields. In many cases, you still won't get anything decent after changing jobs because you don'thave the experience.
I don't know about the original poster, but a lot of people (like me) are new grads or have very little experience. Changing careers, although possible, is not exactly easy. And people like me are the ones that are supposed to have it easy (eg. young, no family, no debt, no mortgages, etc). Imagine older workers who actually have families, have to pay for kids, etc.
I just love how capitalists (I bet you don't think of yourself as one) love to cite change as some bottleneck. Maybe you'll see what life is all about before you die... Or maybe not...
Unfortunately, you won't win even if you are right. That's how the legal system works under plutocracies. There are SOME lawyers who will take on such a case for free but most won't. It is easier to sue a company something "bogus" (eg. product defective and resulted in mental anguish) than labour-related stuff.
Even small corporations (who are on the right side) have a hard time winning against large corporations. Many small companies are crushed by the legal departments of large ones.
It's ironic that Microsoft's legal dollars paid for the right for us all to use common GUI elements that otherwise would be Apple Computer property.
It is already ironic that the open-source software threat to Microsoft comes from cloning, which that lawsuit permitted. Majority of the OSS Linux applications are clone of Windows stuff.
For every Bill Gates, there are 100 others who get nothing out of options. Most large corporations don't grow enough to be worth investing in them. For small companies and highly volatile ones (eg. certain parts of the tech sectors), it may be worth it. For others, it is questionable...
It probably isn't a troll but a joke. CP/M? What's that? The OS? It's possible but... did they not upgrade anything for over 10 years?
Anyway, this guy likely isn't a plant because he said it was a demo. A plant will not say that. Instead, he/she will say they actually tried it and liked it a lot:)
I'm not sure what this is... not plant... not a troll... perhaps a joke... or maybe the truth...
I'm not into databases (in fact, I know VERY LITTLE about them). That's my disclaimer:)
What do you propose to these people? If it is a large corporation and can afford it, then hiring DBAs and going with a real SQL database is the best option. BUT what about small and medium businesses? Or what about teams within a large organization who can't afford to go for a full-scale database solution? The reason a lot of people use MS Access is because it is free and easy to use. Yes, there is free stuff like mySQL, postgreSQL and others but most don't know how to set them up or how to do anything with it. The lack of GUI and the difficulty in setting/configuring/etc rule these out, not to mention the fact that most of these people don't even know the SQL language. So what are small teams or small/medium businesses left with? MS Access...
A lot of people who use MS Access start off either as a small company or as a small project (possibly with non-mission-critical database for a team). I don't know how people are supposed to get around this...
Having said this, something like this project (ReKall) with mySQL/PostgreSQL/etc will be encouraging. It will still be difficult for SMBs to install/configure the database but hopefully they can hire someone for cheap (read: hundreads of dollars (per hour)--as opposed to thousands needed for a solid implementation) to just install/configure the stuff.
Based on what I observed when I had a job (yes several millenia ago:( ), the amount of MS Access used within an organization is inversely correlated with database design knowledge possessed. The less database knowledge someone had, the more they used MS Access; and vice versa:|
How do you use that MIT courseware thingie? I couldn't find ANYTHING useful there. Most courses don't see to have anything useful. I think I"m doing something wrong. Can you give me a sample link containing useful information?
What YOU said is irrelevant; what he said is more relevant. Attacking tanks is not part of flying, but diving fast and come out gracefully is. A bird is a far better flier than a plane. Perhaps the only thing the planes are better at is maximum speeds and things like that. In terms of control, movement, etc birds are better...
Computers CAN become superior to humans. I'm not sure if it will happen but it CAN happen. All that needs to happen is for them to become 'self-aware' or start LEARNING. An intelligent computer will be able to generate NEW thoughts, algorithms, processes, etc. Therefore, it would be superior to humans. For example, an intelligent computer will be able to develop a NEW method to travel in space long before humans do. In other words, it can think of new things before humans that. THAT, my dear robot-loving friend;), is SCARY!
I would say (this is just my definition; take it for what it's worth:) ) intelligence is when something is self-aware and can develop NEW thoughts (ie. learn). Computers aren't really smart and likely won't be for a long time because they don't do anything NEW. All they do is to go through pre-defined algorithms, and use pre-defined techniques. Even so-called learning algorithms are very primitive and very little new thoughts are generated.
If someone can design a computer that comes up with totally new thoughts, it is intelligent in my book. So, instead of just using existing algorithms, if a computer can create a totally new algorithm, it is intelligent...
Having said that, if computers become intelligent, we'll have all sorts of problems...
I agree that winning in chess (especially machines that are tailored for one player) isn't the end of it. However, I disagree with your view of efficiency. Yes, computers won't be as efficient as humans but so what? If a computer can beat you in everything, it is "superior". It doesn't matter if it is inefficient as long as it wins.
That is one of the reasons computers suck. Computers--or perhaps the computer engineers--just don't have true parallelism. The reason our brains are better (even though they are slow) is because they operate in parallel while computers (for the most part) still carry out one instruction at a time.
The "secret" to superior computer AI lies in parallelism. Most of the algorithms, theories, etc devised by computer scientists/engineers/etc aren't really parallel.
You touch on the topic of information overload. There is so much new information now, not to mention the amount being generated every day, that people don't have a good grasp of them. Some social scientist once remarked how most "new" works are not really original. A lot of papers, theses, books, articles, magazines, etc are published every year, yet many of them are repeating stuff and inadvertently cover stuff that were already done. For instance, the number of unique scientific papers being published now is a lower percentage than 100 years ago, but the number of papers published now is several magnitudes larger.
Ironically, if people actually spent time using old stuff, it wouldn't necessarily be better. For instance, people will probably spend more time searching for existing stuff than generating ideas.
Perhaps the decline of science will be precipitated by this...
Does anyone know of a website where you can get access to comp sci and comp eng papers and stuff? I'm speaking as a normal person, as opposed to a student (ie. something free, doesn't require university resources, easy to access, etc). Searching on google is well, not my idea. I'm wondering if there is a central repository or something that tracks things. For example, let's say I want to read up on AI, where do I go? There are places like this for other stuff (eg. physics, astronomy, medicine, etc) but haven't found anything for computer stuff... Of course, there are tons of sites for practical stuff but I'm thinking more of theoretical future stuff.
lol I can't believe you were that angry. Take it easy man... There are better things worth fighting over--this isn't one of them:)
People here probably don't like using 'power-user' probably cuz nearly everyone here is a power-user. It goes without saying... It also sounds elitist...
If you use mind-altering substances to stay up all night, then the next morning you'll be tired half to death and won't be able to do good work. So unfortunately, that IS the business of an employer to know.
All that is speculation. Whatever the guy did is not known. The employer was basing it on some pictures which may or may not mean anything.
If he gets buzzed on Friday or Saturday night and spins his tunes, great!
But if he does it on Sunday-Thursday, he's probably going to be borderline at work all week.
Again, you are speculating. You have no proof that it impacts work. You are just GUESSING. You will never find proof because there is no correlation between the two. Besides, what's the difference between weekends and weekdays? Or did weeknights become the domain of the employer all of a sudden?
If someone does something wrong, you fire them. If there is a close correlation between their behaviour and work, you don't hire them. But speculating on things that you probably have no idea about is just plain bad.
What you are doing is akin to what whites used to do by not hiring blacks (well after the abolishment of slavery). Or how some men (even now) won't hire women because they don't like their behaviour. The similarities are not as far fetched as you imagine...
In any case, where do you draw the line? If someone holds a second job (during weeknights) will you not hire him/her just because he/she might be tired the next day? If someone spends all their nights volunteering, will you not hire them because they are going to be tired the next day? If someone goes out every night, are you not going to hire them?
Whatever I say will not change your view... people like you just want everyone to be worker ants. You have no respect for life...
Streotyping
If you are anti-capitalist, and hate the company you're working for, you're bound to do Bad Things to that company, or at least not support it loyally. I've known a few people like that, and I've experienced the situation when they've tried to be subversive and destroy the "awful" people they work for while happily cashing the paychecks. The employer's point of view is just as valid as yours.
You are stereotyping and most of what you said is speculation. If anti-capitalists are bad performers, how about capitalists? Until you can cite a study that proves that anti-capitalists are bad workers, what you say is pure speculation. You can start by explaining how hardcore capitalists did more damage than anti-capitalists in the last few years. You can start by explaining Enron, Global Crossing, Xerox, Nortel, etc. I guess you'll be the type of person who hires Kenneth Lay, John Roth, etc huh?:( Don't you realize that you are just stereotying? Maybe there are bad and good regardless of your econopolitical stance?
If you wont' hire me, I don't have any choice. But all I will say is that it is wrong. You probably never will realize why...:(
My Career, or Lack Thereof
If you don't want to work under "the man", start your own company. Figure out something the world wants, and then you can BE "the man". That's the flexibility of capitalism in action, and it's unbeatable.
I don't know what your point is. Even if you start a business, it will still be capitalist. It is almost impossible to start a non-capitalist entity under a capitalist system (if anything, one might want to introduce a new currency but the government will send you to jail if you start circulating a new currency:( ). Capitalists will always beat competing leftist systems because capitalists don't care about anyone/anything. If you started a business and tried to be environmentally friendly, tried paying "decent" wages, and so on, the capitalist will beat you by polluting the environment, moving to a cheap "slave labour" country, and so o
I don't see anything special about idealists vs. a realist, however I do respect people with principles even when I disagree with them or the principles that guide them.
The diffrence between an idealist and a realist is that the idealist will stick with his/her principles. Consider the number of so-called liberals nowadays who will never criticize the Democrats even when they do wrong? I don't know why the Democrats aren't getting any flak for voting for the Patriot Act and the Iraqi war!
Do you think liberals will break off from the Democratic party and join say the Green party?
It won't happen in the short term (next election) since people will vote Democrat to block Bush from being re-elected. Even in the long term, I don't think it will happen. The Democrats are very powerful. They are just as much in bed with the capitalists and the corporations as the Republicans. This basically means that they get a lot of money, which translates into promotional campaigns, advertising, etc.
I think it will be hard to get Green support outside California and a few other liberal states. The problem with the Greens is that they will conflict with labour. A classical conflict in the left-wing is between environment and labour. The left-wing represents both but they often conflict. Green Parties (in other countries) only have minority, although influential, positions. The major parties have always been supported by labour. What USA needs is a labour party in my opinion. I don't know how you accomplish this given that the Democrats claim they support workers.
I don't really see any changes in the US landscape without some major catastrophe or revolution (eg. depression, massive war, etc). The two party system serves the two parties so they won't change. For instance, the presidential election is a joke and should use proportional representation or much greater direct democracy--yet it wont' happen.
The thing I don't get about Americans is why they don't elect Green senators and congresspersons. What leftists in USA should be doing is electing Green members to congress/senate while voting for Democratic president (in order to block Republicans). How come all the leftist areas (such as San Franciso) don't vote Green? It makes no sense to me. In British-style systems (like Canada), the leftist areas vote for left parties. In canada the leftists vote for NDP (left), while others vote for Liberals (center-left), or Progressive Conservatives (center-right), or Canadian Alliance (right). Americans should be doing something similar. They should vote for Greens when it comes to Congress and Senate. This will make USA more progressive without strengthening the right...
I disagree. What you are saying would make sense if all 16 (or whatever) people had equal power. This is not the case. Since the president (or prime minister in other countries) has so much power, he/she is very important. If the leader were corrupted, it would be worse. I think you are looking at it from a positive point of view, while I'm looking at the negative side. Under a "good" scenario, having many smart people working together to help the country is better even if one dumb president is in power. However, in the negative case, having 16 "evil" people influencing one dumb president is absolutely horrible.
As far as congress vs president... I think what you are saying is more theoretical than reality. In thoery, the Congress has tons of power. But in reality they don't. They are easily influenced. Americans have the terrible habit of WORSHIPPING the president. If you are the president, you can literally get anything passed. Just look at the initial war in Iraq (how many people voted for it just because the president said so?) How about the Patriot Act (Practically everyone voted for it without even reading it just because the president praised it). More recently, how about when the Congress wanted to turn the US spending on Iraq into aid (i.e. loans) while Bush pretty much made them keep it as grants. etc.
Americans worship their president too much. Contrast this with British style systems where the prime minister is constantly attack by everyone (why does Tony Blair have better verbal skills than Bush?) If the US presidents were of the caliber of the Founding Fathers, it wouldn't matter. But when the best USA can produce are Gore and Bush, well...
Slashdot Mirror
I just love how you free-market capitalists like to pretend that changing jobs is easy or that it is even possible. Hopefully one day, when you lose YOUR job and feel its impact, you'll realize that it isn't as easy you say it is. Jobs don't just come because you change fields. In many cases, you still won't get anything decent after changing jobs because you don'thave the experience.
I don't know about the original poster, but a lot of people (like me) are new grads or have very little experience. Changing careers, although possible, is not exactly easy. And people like me are the ones that are supposed to have it easy (eg. young, no family, no debt, no mortgages, etc). Imagine older workers who actually have families, have to pay for kids, etc.
I just love how capitalists (I bet you don't think of yourself as one) love to cite change as some bottleneck. Maybe you'll see what life is all about before you die... Or maybe not...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Unfortunately, you won't win even if you are right. That's how the legal system works under plutocracies. There are SOME lawyers who will take on such a case for free but most won't. It is easier to sue a company something "bogus" (eg. product defective and resulted in mental anguish) than labour-related stuff.
Even small corporations (who are on the right side) have a hard time winning against large corporations. Many small companies are crushed by the legal departments of large ones.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's ironic that Microsoft's legal dollars paid for the right for us all to use common GUI elements that otherwise would be Apple Computer property.
It is already ironic that the open-source software threat to Microsoft comes from cloning, which that lawsuit permitted. Majority of the OSS Linux applications are clone of Windows stuff.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
For every Bill Gates, there are 100 others who get nothing out of options. Most large corporations don't grow enough to be worth investing in them. For small companies and highly volatile ones (eg. certain parts of the tech sectors), it may be worth it. For others, it is questionable...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It probably isn't a troll but a joke. CP/M? What's that? The OS? It's possible but... did they not upgrade anything for over 10 years?
:)
Anyway, this guy likely isn't a plant because he said it was a demo. A plant will not say that. Instead, he/she will say they actually tried it and liked it a lot
I'm not sure what this is... not plant... not a troll... perhaps a joke... or maybe the truth...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not into databases (in fact, I know VERY LITTLE about them). That's my disclaimer :)
:( ), the amount of MS Access used within an organization is inversely correlated with database design knowledge possessed. The less database knowledge someone had, the more they used MS Access; and vice versa :|
What do you propose to these people? If it is a large corporation and can afford it, then hiring DBAs and going with a real SQL database is the best option. BUT what about small and medium businesses? Or what about teams within a large organization who can't afford to go for a full-scale database solution? The reason a lot of people use MS Access is because it is free and easy to use. Yes, there is free stuff like mySQL, postgreSQL and others but most don't know how to set them up or how to do anything with it. The lack of GUI and the difficulty in setting/configuring/etc rule these out, not to mention the fact that most of these people don't even know the SQL language. So what are small teams or small/medium businesses left with? MS Access...
A lot of people who use MS Access start off either as a small company or as a small project (possibly with non-mission-critical database for a team). I don't know how people are supposed to get around this...
Having said this, something like this project (ReKall) with mySQL/PostgreSQL/etc will be encouraging. It will still be difficult for SMBs to install/configure the database but hopefully they can hire someone for cheap (read: hundreads of dollars (per hour)--as opposed to thousands needed for a solid implementation) to just install/configure the stuff.
Based on what I observed when I had a job (yes several millenia ago
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Thanks... I guess the stuff I was looking at didn't have much. This is a good initiative...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Why do you say they cannot become conscious or start leaning?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How do you use that MIT courseware thingie? I couldn't find ANYTHING useful there. Most courses don't see to have anything useful. I think I"m doing something wrong. Can you give me a sample link containing useful information?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You must be the father of these chess-playing computers... you guys must share the same genes... you all think the same ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What YOU said is irrelevant; what he said is more relevant. Attacking tanks is not part of flying, but diving fast and come out gracefully is. A bird is a far better flier than a plane. Perhaps the only thing the planes are better at is maximum speeds and things like that. In terms of control, movement, etc birds are better...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Computers CAN become superior to humans. I'm not sure if it will happen but it CAN happen. All that needs to happen is for them to become 'self-aware' or start LEARNING. An intelligent computer will be able to generate NEW thoughts, algorithms, processes, etc. Therefore, it would be superior to humans. For example, an intelligent computer will be able to develop a NEW method to travel in space long before humans do. In other words, it can think of new things before humans that. THAT, my dear robot-loving friend ;), is SCARY!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I would say (this is just my definition; take it for what it's worth :) ) intelligence is when something is self-aware and can develop NEW thoughts (ie. learn). Computers aren't really smart and likely won't be for a long time because they don't do anything NEW. All they do is to go through pre-defined algorithms, and use pre-defined techniques. Even so-called learning algorithms are very primitive and very little new thoughts are generated.
If someone can design a computer that comes up with totally new thoughts, it is intelligent in my book. So, instead of just using existing algorithms, if a computer can create a totally new algorithm, it is intelligent...
Having said that, if computers become intelligent, we'll have all sorts of problems...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I agree that winning in chess (especially machines that are tailored for one player) isn't the end of it. However, I disagree with your view of efficiency. Yes, computers won't be as efficient as humans but so what? If a computer can beat you in everything, it is "superior". It doesn't matter if it is inefficient as long as it wins.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That is one of the reasons computers suck. Computers--or perhaps the computer engineers--just don't have true parallelism. The reason our brains are better (even though they are slow) is because they operate in parallel while computers (for the most part) still carry out one instruction at a time.
The "secret" to superior computer AI lies in parallelism. Most of the algorithms, theories, etc devised by computer scientists/engineers/etc aren't really parallel.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol... I didn't get it either but now I find it funny :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How about Tomb Raider? Tomb Raider is even worse. I have no idea what it has to do with anything here...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You touch on the topic of information overload. There is so much new information now, not to mention the amount being generated every day, that people don't have a good grasp of them. Some social scientist once remarked how most "new" works are not really original. A lot of papers, theses, books, articles, magazines, etc are published every year, yet many of them are repeating stuff and inadvertently cover stuff that were already done. For instance, the number of unique scientific papers being published now is a lower percentage than 100 years ago, but the number of papers published now is several magnitudes larger.
Ironically, if people actually spent time using old stuff, it wouldn't necessarily be better. For instance, people will probably spend more time searching for existing stuff than generating ideas.
Perhaps the decline of science will be precipitated by this...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Does anyone know of a website where you can get access to comp sci and comp eng papers and stuff? I'm speaking as a normal person, as opposed to a student (ie. something free, doesn't require university resources, easy to access, etc). Searching on google is well, not my idea. I'm wondering if there is a central repository or something that tracks things. For example, let's say I want to read up on AI, where do I go? There are places like this for other stuff (eg. physics, astronomy, medicine, etc) but haven't found anything for computer stuff... Of course, there are tons of sites for practical stuff but I'm thinking more of theoretical future stuff.
Thanks!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol I can't believe you were that angry. Take it easy man... There are better things worth fighting over--this isn't one of them :)
People here probably don't like using 'power-user' probably cuz nearly everyone here is a power-user. It goes without saying... It also sounds elitist...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Isn't Windows slightly more expensive? Last I checked, wasn't Windows Professional something like $199?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Streotyping Conformists
:( Don't you realize that you are just stereotying? Maybe there are bad and good regardless of your econopolitical stance?
:(
:( ). Capitalists will always beat competing leftist systems because capitalists don't care about anyone/anything. If you started a business and tried to be environmentally friendly, tried paying "decent" wages, and so on, the capitalist will beat you by polluting the environment, moving to a cheap "slave labour" country, and so o
If you use mind-altering substances to stay up all night, then the next morning you'll be tired half to death and won't be able to do good work. So unfortunately, that IS the business of an employer to know.
All that is speculation. Whatever the guy did is not known. The employer was basing it on some pictures which may or may not mean anything.
If he gets buzzed on Friday or Saturday night and spins his tunes, great! But if he does it on Sunday-Thursday, he's probably going to be borderline at work all week.
Again, you are speculating. You have no proof that it impacts work. You are just GUESSING. You will never find proof because there is no correlation between the two. Besides, what's the difference between weekends and weekdays? Or did weeknights become the domain of the employer all of a sudden?
If someone does something wrong, you fire them. If there is a close correlation between their behaviour and work, you don't hire them. But speculating on things that you probably have no idea about is just plain bad.
What you are doing is akin to what whites used to do by not hiring blacks (well after the abolishment of slavery). Or how some men (even now) won't hire women because they don't like their behaviour. The similarities are not as far fetched as you imagine...
In any case, where do you draw the line? If someone holds a second job (during weeknights) will you not hire him/her just because he/she might be tired the next day? If someone spends all their nights volunteering, will you not hire them because they are going to be tired the next day? If someone goes out every night, are you not going to hire them?
Whatever I say will not change your view... people like you just want everyone to be worker ants. You have no respect for life...
Streotyping If you are anti-capitalist, and hate the company you're working for, you're bound to do Bad Things to that company, or at least not support it loyally. I've known a few people like that, and I've experienced the situation when they've tried to be subversive and destroy the "awful" people they work for while happily cashing the paychecks. The employer's point of view is just as valid as yours.
You are stereotyping and most of what you said is speculation. If anti-capitalists are bad performers, how about capitalists? Until you can cite a study that proves that anti-capitalists are bad workers, what you say is pure speculation. You can start by explaining how hardcore capitalists did more damage than anti-capitalists in the last few years. You can start by explaining Enron, Global Crossing, Xerox, Nortel, etc. I guess you'll be the type of person who hires Kenneth Lay, John Roth, etc huh?
If you wont' hire me, I don't have any choice. But all I will say is that it is wrong. You probably never will realize why...
My Career, or Lack Thereof
If you don't want to work under "the man", start your own company. Figure out something the world wants, and then you can BE "the man". That's the flexibility of capitalism in action, and it's unbeatable.
I don't know what your point is. Even if you start a business, it will still be capitalist. It is almost impossible to start a non-capitalist entity under a capitalist system (if anything, one might want to introduce a new currency but the government will send you to jail if you start circulating a new currency
I don't see anything special about idealists vs. a realist, however I do respect people with principles even when I disagree with them or the principles that guide them.
The diffrence between an idealist and a realist is that the idealist will stick with his/her principles. Consider the number of so-called liberals nowadays who will never criticize the Democrats even when they do wrong? I don't know why the Democrats aren't getting any flak for voting for the Patriot Act and the Iraqi war!
Do you think liberals will break off from the Democratic party and join say the Green party?
It won't happen in the short term (next election) since people will vote Democrat to block Bush from being re-elected. Even in the long term, I don't think it will happen. The Democrats are very powerful. They are just as much in bed with the capitalists and the corporations as the Republicans. This basically means that they get a lot of money, which translates into promotional campaigns, advertising, etc.
I think it will be hard to get Green support outside California and a few other liberal states. The problem with the Greens is that they will conflict with labour. A classical conflict in the left-wing is between environment and labour. The left-wing represents both but they often conflict. Green Parties (in other countries) only have minority, although influential, positions. The major parties have always been supported by labour. What USA needs is a labour party in my opinion. I don't know how you accomplish this given that the Democrats claim they support workers.
I don't really see any changes in the US landscape without some major catastrophe or revolution (eg. depression, massive war, etc). The two party system serves the two parties so they won't change. For instance, the presidential election is a joke and should use proportional representation or much greater direct democracy--yet it wont' happen.
The thing I don't get about Americans is why they don't elect Green senators and congresspersons. What leftists in USA should be doing is electing Green members to congress/senate while voting for Democratic president (in order to block Republicans). How come all the leftist areas (such as San Franciso) don't vote Green? It makes no sense to me. In British-style systems (like Canada), the leftist areas vote for left parties. In canada the leftists vote for NDP (left), while others vote for Liberals (center-left), or Progressive Conservatives (center-right), or Canadian Alliance (right). Americans should be doing something similar. They should vote for Greens when it comes to Congress and Senate. This will make USA more progressive without strengthening the right...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I disagree. What you are saying would make sense if all 16 (or whatever) people had equal power. This is not the case. Since the president (or prime minister in other countries) has so much power, he/she is very important. If the leader were corrupted, it would be worse. I think you are looking at it from a positive point of view, while I'm looking at the negative side. Under a "good" scenario, having many smart people working together to help the country is better even if one dumb president is in power. However, in the negative case, having 16 "evil" people influencing one dumb president is absolutely horrible.
As far as congress vs president... I think what you are saying is more theoretical than reality. In thoery, the Congress has tons of power. But in reality they don't. They are easily influenced. Americans have the terrible habit of WORSHIPPING the president. If you are the president, you can literally get anything passed. Just look at the initial war in Iraq (how many people voted for it just because the president said so?) How about the Patriot Act (Practically everyone voted for it without even reading it just because the president praised it). More recently, how about when the Congress wanted to turn the US spending on Iraq into aid (i.e. loans) while Bush pretty much made them keep it as grants. etc.
Americans worship their president too much. Contrast this with British style systems where the prime minister is constantly attack by everyone (why does Tony Blair have better verbal skills than Bush?) If the US presidents were of the caliber of the Founding Fathers, it wouldn't matter. But when the best USA can produce are Gore and Bush, well...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Having a job is better than not having one. Take it from me. Life is totally fucked up when you don't have one :(:(:(
:(
I would rather be a corporate slave for the TIME BEING than be free and unemployed
Sivaram Velauthapillai