Does anyone really care? I'm sorry but with Battlestar Galactica reinventing the science fiction genre in the same fashion the Sopranos did to the gangster genre - it's hard to watch anything Trek related. It's the visual equivalent of listening to Cyndi Lauper records from the '80s - you can't believe people ever liked the stuff when you look at it with some hindsight.
Plus, IMHO, most science fiction is really science-themed fantasy. I enjoy the Stargate shows most times (with all the light beings and whatnots) but I don't really count it is SciFiction. Trek was true SCIFI but after years and years of prostituting its original ideas for meagre ratings - there is nothing but a shell. I mean how many Borg related episodes did they drag out for sweeps? It's like gay marriage and abortion to republicans - whenever they wanted to get attention they would drag out the Borg! I'm sure the last Enterprise episode will feature a half-vulcan/half-borg Picard with large breasts.
I am a partner in a small and very sucessful development shop with a staff of about 5 people and to be honest what you describe you are less likely to find as the size of the company increases.
It's impossible to find that honest open warmth where companies have employees whose primary task is the result of the company being large, i.e. a beauracracy.
Conversely, many smaller companies are not as capitalized as larger companies so the long-term propects may not be as bright. Then again, most of the people I know working at smaller companies have been there longer than many folks I know working at big companies.
You might want to consider starting your own company with others who share your vision.
Let's see here we have wars, intolerance an ACTIVE hatred of environmentalism (they call it GAIAISM) and science, a contempt for the human body and a concern to control the behavior of others while giving up their decision making ability to a primative conception of christ. Now explain to me why these people are qualified to point fingers about porn? It seems they have the more agregious symptoms.
This going to get worse and worse now that the Republicans (notice I don't say conservatives) have control and the Christian Right feel like they are owed something for shutting up and not scaring the moderates away like they did during the Clinton era elections.
There is a lot of porn on the net and if you arent some by-product of the very culture that is so freaked-out about it in the first place you'd probably find it as boring and silly as it truly is.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking responsibilty for one's own life - that is in no way animalistic. You've got to play the cards you are delt with. But who deals the cards? It is animalistic to manipulate the political system so that it's easy to screw your fellow human beings out of decent wages. I'm afraid I'm unfairly disparaging animals here. Followed to it's logical conclusion the story always ends the same: you end up with a smaller and smaller group of oligarchs and a poorer and poorer populace until people decide to take personal responsibilty and violence ensues.
I'll let you eat lunch but I think I can distill our differences down to your comment:
Honestly, it seems to me that ethics is aesthetics writ large. What strikes any given individual as 'good' or 'bad' is almost never of a product of rational decision making, but rather of what is pleasing to the sentiments. It's the cumbersome gray areas between where things grow tricky.
I believe that we should strive to engage in rational decision making even if it is an affront to our sentiments. I personally believe that the striving for this, even if it is an impossible ideal, is better than succumbing to sentiments alone. I belive that we are in the possesion of, like the stoics used to refer to it, a ruling or rational faculity that distinguishes us from the animals and that it should be used (although most choose not to). You believe that rational decision making is not something humans are reliably capable of and, more times than not, use the guise of rationality to present their prejudices and sentiments. Assume they will act in accordance with their lower-natures and react accordingly.
Or maybe we just think we do. You present humanity as if it were some sort of tabula rasa, ready to accept whichever direction we give it. Observation and history does not bear this out.
Wow. I don't know what history books you've been reading, but if you doubt the maliablity of human beings you need to find out how much was spent on advertising and read about people like Hearst and Goebbels.
Unilateral brotherly love is always easier to rationalize when it has no practical effect on the one preaching it, and requires no real effort to prop up their ego in the name of justice and compassion
I find it telling you would assume that. I do practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with ego. I serioulsy doubt you've met many people who give of themselves to help others in their community otherwise you would not make such a presumptious and assine statement. If it makes it easier to hold your beliefs then please, by all means, assume I'm all talk. In the off-chance you are actually interested, you should read Gandi's autobiography that might change your mind some about a few issues.
It may come as a shock, but perfectly rational human beings may come to conclusions about things that are different from yours without the help of Limbaugh, Moore, Stern, or Captain Kangeroo.
I doubt anyone would be perfectly rational coming to any conclusions after getting any of information the sources you list. (Odd, that they are all corporate-media sources in your example - even the jackass moore with his Miramax deal) Experience is the best teacher, followed by history and then Captain Kangeroo.
Now, please give me some historical examples of how an unregulated free-market has benefitted mankind? Where do ethics fit-in in your world view, or are ethics yet another construct, a by-product if you will, of a brain too big for it's own good? Don't give me the cop-out that it's human nature and base your statements on that - human nature has changed dramatically and been shaped dramatically over and over again throughout history. Imagine the arguments you make being made in ancient Greece, "It's tradition and an honor to bugger young lads - they learn from the buggering about how to be a man! We'll never stop doing that. We've always done that. People don't change. It's absurd that you suggest we stop doing that. Get that madman out of here!". Cannibalism also comes to mind.
My biggest problem with your train of thought is this: "Hey, employees can come and go anytime they want - why should'nt employers have the same right?". Your assumption is that there is parity in that relationship, when that is not the case. Companies recieve larger tax breaks as corporate persons than individuals do in many instances (especially public ones). Companies can leave the country to find cheaper employees and are constantly being lured away to do so. American employees certainly are not being given free work-visas and being invited to work overseas.
One thing I've never understood about people with your point of view is that you claim to be anti-regulation and free-market, but it always translates into "pro-business".
Another thing to poke holes in your argument about the parity between the employee and the employer is political clout. Large companies wield more political power than individuals do. At this point personal responsibility should play it's biggest role because the only way employees can match the political force of the company is to organize. However, the company can just leave the country if that becomes burdensome - and the left-over American workers are now completely "responsible" for their own livelihoods.
I am sick of the hive/pack mentality of large corporations that I find totally antithetical to individualism. How is the enrichment of a tiny few oligarchs like Ken Lay and his ilk beneficial to the concepts of individualism?
If you don't like being called an animal - then I suggest you stop behaving like them. And if you havent heard so-called lefties being called names then you must not have ears.
You need to read the original article to answer your first question. He had a great idea of what the industry was like - it changed on him.
Your right, insulting the parent does not make what they said wrong - being wrong makes them wrong. Human beings posses a quality of reason that seperates them from other primates. We are self-aware and have the abilitiy to see the consequences of our actions. We can either choose to use this ability to shit on those around us or not. Just because we can choose to take the low road does not mean that doing so is best for our species. Just because the majority of our species takes the low road does not mean that it is best for our species. Being an asshole is always easier to rationalize because the equation is shorter without other people in the formula.
The last thing we need is another bitter social darwinist hiding his apathy and spite behind second-hand sound bites copped from talk-radio. Then again that's the easiest way to excuse doing nothing.
Ah, nothing like a trailer-park social darwinist to get the juices flowing first thing in the morning. Has it ever occured to you that some of these people have families and bills to pay? Quitting a job is sometimes not an option for folks who have to make decisions based on criteria other than lifestyle. I'm so sick of the current American/Hobbesian worldview of "each man against all men". We have a name for creatures that endorse that world-view: animals.
The response will be to outsource your jobs at EA. Hopefully folks will learn the lesson; organize and plan for the worst when times are good and companies need the services you, as an employee, provide.
It's sad but I can't imagine any large company making concessions to it's employees in the current political climate.
Does anyone know how many of EA's employees are contractors, BTW?
Sun is the company I hate to hate. They have some of the brightest people in-house and create some amazing tech and ALWAYS seem to crap the bed on the business side. What good is a beautiful baby boy when it ends up being still-born? Man, I wish IBM just officially turn them into an R&D department.
"Oh the mac has such superior hardware!"
While this may have been true for a time, since the PCI bus has been around the mac has fallen behind. Macs used to ship with all SCSI drives, but now ship with standard IDE. Now with PCI express out, how soon before I hear a mac user try and tell me "WE HAD IT FIRST!"
That mac does have superior hardware in many respects, including industrial design. You can (and I have) build a PC with almost complete parity with a mac in terms of components - and it usually ends up costing about the same as a mac!
"Mac is best for desktop publishing"
Quark runs on PC and mac. So does photoshop, so does every other major application put out by adobe.
You obviously know very little about publishing. First, people in the publishing industry are not computer people by and large. They prefer macs because they don't want to fuss with command-lines, email viruses and poor font management. They also prefer an enviroment that is PDF driven from the ground up. Had you known anything about the publishing industry you would have not brought this point up.
"Mac is best for video editing"
Mac *WAS* the only choice a few years back. Look at the renderfarms being built today though. Teams of MBA's and geeks go for the biggest bang for the buck, and i've yet to hear of a renderfarm on a major movie using a mac cluster. Final Cut is a good app for home/prosumer video editors, but for serious work like ILM LOTR stuff, get a renderfarm of PC's.
You weirdly confuse video editing with 3d rendering but I'll play along. For many of the same reasons people prefer macs for publishing (the user experience, graphic centric environment, etc) people prefer it when editing video. Not to mention the fact that Final Cut Pro (a mac only product) is gaining tons of fans daily. And there is iMovie for the folks at home.
Now when it comes to renderfarms - Cheap Linux boxes are the way to go - ABSOLUTELY. But the workstations that send the animations to be rendered can most certainly be mac based.
I'm sure Pixar is getting it's Xserver cluster together and the numbers might be compelling, but I still think a rack of linux boxes is a smarter play.
"MacOS is so easy to use"
I don't see much difference in ease of use between MacOS and XP. Then again, i'm a sysadmin, I can care less about the UI, just tell me where my network settings are so I can go to work.
I think you answered your own question. You job is to tinker with computers - people who use mac's don't want to tinker with computers - they want to use the computer to get something done.
"OSX uses the machBSD kernel"
Why not just run BSD and get it over with?
Do you really not know? There is this thing call a GUI....nevermind.
Between the lack of applications, the constantly playing catch up with the PC, and the general FUD mac users like to spread, they're not all that bright. Most PC users I know use a PC because they don't buy into all that Mac FUD. Like that rap song goes, "Don't believe the hype"
I can use photoshop, play halo, develop Java apps, create PDFs natively, edit video on a FRICKING UNIX BOX. And the development environment is like a dream come true - XCode is the bomb.
I'm sorry, but DeVry is a real University like McDonald's is 'Real Food' and Fox is like 'Real News'. A real university is a place where you do get a degree - DeVry is a training center or, at best, a trade school.
I'm not trying to diss anyone who has actually attended such a school, i'm just pissed-off at the 'technical education industry' that DeVry exemplifies. I've probably interviewed about 20 or so DeVry candidates for various technical positions and they've all been horrible. I guess truck-stops and loading docks need people to hit CNTL-ALT-DEL these days too.
You could probably boil this all down to economics. People who come from families who earn more than $200,000 are typically better educated that kids who come from welfare families. The argument could be made that folks with enough cabbage to purchase a $2k+ Macintosh have greater access to funds that the poor schmo who can only buy some sub $800 PC system which, in my mind, reflects on their access to education. If you can afford a mac - you probably went to a real University instead of DeVry.
The problem was our company was doing the web content and the other 'organization' was doing the CRM and ticketing. When it came time to contact them to learn about the system so we could integrate with it - BAM - their 'partners' swooped down like locusts and scared their management into scrapping everything in favor of an all microsoft solution. Keep in mind that they initially got in the door because the system is supposedly desiged to help arts organizations - not fuel development work to a single technology company. It's actually kind of brilliant, in a completely horrible unethical way.
It's a bit complicated - but the reason they swithed is because they wanted online ticketing to integrate with the arts management system. When we talked to the company who made the 'community' run / non-profit software they essentially contacted their for profit arm who in turn contacted the client and said "If you want on-line ticketing - you'll have to use us exclusively, otherwise it won't work." That's the gist of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone really care? I'm sorry but with Battlestar Galactica reinventing the science fiction genre in the same fashion the Sopranos did to the gangster genre - it's hard to watch anything Trek related. It's the visual equivalent of listening to Cyndi Lauper records from the '80s - you can't believe people ever liked the stuff when you look at it with some hindsight.
Plus, IMHO, most science fiction is really science-themed fantasy. I enjoy the Stargate shows most times (with all the light beings and whatnots) but I don't really count it is SciFiction. Trek was true SCIFI but after years and years of prostituting its original ideas for meagre ratings - there is nothing but a shell. I mean how many Borg related episodes did they drag out for sweeps? It's like gay marriage and abortion to republicans - whenever they wanted to get attention they would drag out the Borg! I'm sure the last Enterprise episode will feature a half-vulcan/half-borg Picard with large breasts.
It's impossible to find that honest open warmth where companies have employees whose primary task is the result of the company being large, i.e. a beauracracy.
Conversely, many smaller companies are not as capitalized as larger companies so the long-term propects may not be as bright. Then again, most of the people I know working at smaller companies have been there longer than many folks I know working at big companies.
You might want to consider starting your own company with others who share your vision.
Seriously. There is something for everyone here.
Isnt it the masturbation part that is addictive rather than the porn?
Let's see here we have wars, intolerance an ACTIVE hatred of environmentalism (they call it GAIAISM) and science, a contempt for the human body and a concern to control the behavior of others while giving up their decision making ability to a primative conception of christ. Now explain to me why these people are qualified to point fingers about porn? It seems they have the more agregious symptoms.
This going to get worse and worse now that the Republicans (notice I don't say conservatives) have control and the Christian Right feel like they are owed something for shutting up and not scaring the moderates away like they did during the Clinton era elections.
There is a lot of porn on the net and if you arent some by-product of the very culture that is so freaked-out about it in the first place you'd probably find it as boring and silly as it truly is.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking responsibilty for one's own life - that is in no way animalistic. You've got to play the cards you are delt with. But who deals the cards? It is animalistic to manipulate the political system so that it's easy to screw your fellow human beings out of decent wages. I'm afraid I'm unfairly disparaging animals here. Followed to it's logical conclusion the story always ends the same: you end up with a smaller and smaller group of oligarchs and a poorer and poorer populace until people decide to take personal responsibilty and violence ensues.
I'll let you eat lunch but I think I can distill our differences down to your comment:
Honestly, it seems to me that ethics is aesthetics writ large. What strikes any given individual as 'good' or 'bad' is almost never of a product of rational decision making, but rather of what is pleasing to the sentiments. It's the cumbersome gray areas between where things grow tricky.
I believe that we should strive to engage in rational decision making even if it is an affront to our sentiments. I personally believe that the striving for this, even if it is an impossible ideal, is better than succumbing to sentiments alone. I belive that we are in the possesion of, like the stoics used to refer to it, a ruling or rational faculity that distinguishes us from the animals and that it should be used (although most choose not to). You believe that rational decision making is not something humans are reliably capable of and, more times than not, use the guise of rationality to present their prejudices and sentiments. Assume they will act in accordance with their lower-natures and react accordingly.
I agree as long as society does not impede or minimize your ability to act in favor of corporations.
Or maybe we just think we do. You present humanity as if it were some sort of tabula rasa, ready to accept whichever direction we give it. Observation and history does not bear this out.
Wow. I don't know what history books you've been reading, but if you doubt the maliablity of human beings you need to find out how much was spent on advertising and read about people like Hearst and Goebbels.
Unilateral brotherly love is always easier to rationalize when it has no practical effect on the one preaching it, and requires no real effort to prop up their ego in the name of justice and compassion
I find it telling you would assume that. I do practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with ego. I serioulsy doubt you've met many people who give of themselves to help others in their community otherwise you would not make such a presumptious and assine statement. If it makes it easier to hold your beliefs then please, by all means, assume I'm all talk. In the off-chance you are actually interested, you should read Gandi's autobiography that might change your mind some about a few issues.
It may come as a shock, but perfectly rational human beings may come to conclusions about things that are different from yours without the help of Limbaugh, Moore, Stern, or Captain Kangeroo.
I doubt anyone would be perfectly rational coming to any conclusions after getting any of information the sources you list. (Odd, that they are all corporate-media sources in your example - even the jackass moore with his Miramax deal) Experience is the best teacher, followed by history and then Captain Kangeroo.
Now, please give me some historical examples of how an unregulated free-market has benefitted mankind? Where do ethics fit-in in your world view, or are ethics yet another construct, a by-product if you will, of a brain too big for it's own good? Don't give me the cop-out that it's human nature and base your statements on that - human nature has changed dramatically and been shaped dramatically over and over again throughout history. Imagine the arguments you make being made in ancient Greece, "It's tradition and an honor to bugger young lads - they learn from the buggering about how to be a man! We'll never stop doing that. We've always done that. People don't change. It's absurd that you suggest we stop doing that. Get that madman out of here!". Cannibalism also comes to mind.
My biggest problem with your train of thought is this: "Hey, employees can come and go anytime they want - why should'nt employers have the same right?".
Your assumption is that there is parity in that relationship, when that is not the case. Companies recieve larger tax breaks as corporate persons than individuals do in many instances (especially public ones). Companies can leave the country to find cheaper employees and are constantly being lured away to do so. American employees certainly are not being given free work-visas and being invited to work overseas.
One thing I've never understood about people with your point of view is that you claim to be anti-regulation and free-market, but it always translates into "pro-business".
Another thing to poke holes in your argument about the parity between the employee and the employer is political clout. Large companies wield more political power than individuals do. At this point personal responsibility should play it's biggest role because the only way employees can match the political force of the company is to organize. However, the company can just leave the country if that becomes burdensome - and the left-over American workers are now completely "responsible" for their own livelihoods.
I am sick of the hive/pack mentality of large corporations that I find totally antithetical to individualism. How is the enrichment of a tiny few oligarchs like Ken Lay and his ilk beneficial to the concepts of individualism?
If you don't like being called an animal - then I suggest you stop behaving like them. And if you havent heard so-called lefties being called names then you must not have ears.
You need to read the original article to answer your first question. He had a great idea of what the industry was like - it changed on him.
Your right, insulting the parent does not make what they said wrong - being wrong makes them wrong. Human beings posses a quality of reason that seperates them from other primates. We are self-aware and have the abilitiy to see the consequences of our actions. We can either choose to use this ability to shit on those around us or not. Just because we can choose to take the low road does not mean that doing so is best for our species. Just because the majority of our species takes the low road does not mean that it is best for our species. Being an asshole is always easier to rationalize because the equation is shorter without other people in the formula.
The last thing we need is another bitter social darwinist hiding his apathy and spite behind second-hand sound bites copped from talk-radio. Then again that's the easiest way to excuse doing nothing.
BTW, Unicorns don't exist.
Yeah, and those crazy japanese guys will NEVER be able to take on Detroit.
Ah, nothing like a trailer-park social darwinist to get the juices flowing first thing in the morning. Has it ever occured to you that some of these people have families and bills to pay? Quitting a job is sometimes not an option for folks who have to make decisions based on criteria other than lifestyle. I'm so sick of the current American/Hobbesian worldview of "each man against all men". We have a name for creatures that endorse that world-view: animals.
The response will be to outsource your jobs at EA. Hopefully folks will learn the lesson; organize and plan for the worst when times are good and companies need the services you, as an employee, provide.
It's sad but I can't imagine any large company making concessions to it's employees in the current political climate.
Does anyone know how many of EA's employees are contractors, BTW?
Sun is the company I hate to hate. They have some of the brightest people in-house and create some amazing tech and ALWAYS seem to crap the bed on the business side. What good is a beautiful baby boy when it ends up being still-born? Man, I wish IBM just officially turn them into an R&D department.
I'm not trying to diss anyone who has actually attended such a school, i'm just pissed-off at the 'technical education industry' that DeVry exemplifies. I've probably interviewed about 20 or so DeVry candidates for various technical positions and they've all been horrible. I guess truck-stops and loading docks need people to hit CNTL-ALT-DEL these days too.
You could probably boil this all down to economics. People who come from families who earn more than $200,000 are typically better educated that kids who come from welfare families. The argument could be made that folks with enough cabbage to purchase a $2k+ Macintosh have greater access to funds that the poor schmo who can only buy some sub $800 PC system which, in my mind, reflects on their access to education. If you can afford a mac - you probably went to a real University instead of DeVry.
Come on! I mean they even have O'reilly books on it.
The problem was our company was doing the web content and the other 'organization' was doing the CRM and ticketing. When it came time to contact them to learn about the system so we could integrate with it - BAM - their 'partners' swooped down like locusts and scared their management into scrapping everything in favor of an all microsoft solution. Keep in mind that they initially got in the door because the system is supposedly desiged to help arts organizations - not fuel development work to a single technology company. It's actually kind of brilliant, in a completely horrible unethical way.
It's a bit complicated - but the reason they swithed is because they wanted online ticketing to integrate with the arts management system. When we talked to the company who made the 'community' run / non-profit software they essentially contacted their for profit arm who in turn contacted the client and said "If you want on-line ticketing - you'll have to use us exclusively, otherwise it won't work." That's the gist of it.
All the conservative forums are out there...they are called churches.
I checked out that Ishmael site. Sounds interesting albeit a bit "new-agey". You ever check out adbusters?
sigh. I think I want less government for people and more for large corporations. I'm kind of screwed aint I?