I think it would have been nice for the poster to indicate that this refers to Strategic Vision, LLC., and *not* Strategic Vision, Inc., since Nate Silver specifically suggests that they may be trying to play off the credibility of the latter.
Yes, yes; this is a sad reflection on the decline of elemetary school life in the modern era-- and a direct consequence of our failure as role models. For example, I've often noticed that bloggers plagiarize their ideas from other bloggers. Is it any wonder that our kids have no moral compass?
Certainly Clinton was centrist relative to his party, if nothing else. Kerry and Edwards make Clinton look like Reagan. Without arguing the unimportant semantics of left/right/center, it seems to me that Clinton had a more pragmatic approach than a lot of people on all sides of the issue.
As far as "why not let the corporations do whatever they want?"... well, that's another argument that could be fought endlessly on the extremes, but to me the answer clearly lies in a more pragmatic center. My point was that regardless of our respective positions on the issue, one can support free trade without supporting laissez-faire capitalism. I don't wish to engage in a collegiate "Economics 101"-style slug-fest over the merits of a free market.
Free Trade does not equal laissez faire... at least in my mind, although it seems a lot of people would object. Let some of the jobs be outsourced to India; that doesn't mean we should set up sweat shops there; it doesn't mean we should allow corporations to do whatever they want to do with the naive assumption that this will always turn out to benefit the workers (some vague trickle-down theory.)
Admittedly regulation is trickier in a global environment, but it seems to me that that's just the reality we have to face whether we like it or not. The problem is that if we're so scared of globalization that we hold on too tightly, we just create bigger problems for ourselves down the road. How do you go to a third world country and try to negotiate environmental standards? They'd say, basically, "F. you, you've shut us out of your markets for years, and now you're trying to talk to us about the environment while our people are poor and dying."
These countries would have a huge incentive to entirely deregulate and invite corporations in. I seriously doubt that a bunch of angry anti-corporate people are going to prevent that from happening. So instead, let's start taking tangible steps to improve their economies, while at the same time this helps our economy adapt to the inevitable shape of the world-to-come.
Maybe this sort of Clintonian centrist view is what a lot of people would call mush-mush, because it doesn't give the good feeling that comes with identifying a clear villian. But in my opinion, truth does not always lie at the extremes.
But as a software engineer, I can think of so many jobs that I'm absolutely unqualified to do, that pay maybe 25% of my current salary (e.g. teacher, day care, etc.) And sometimes I tell myself that it's just the natural way the market falls, given the high demand for tech, and the relative shortage of tech-savvy people. But isn't that what the CEOs are thinking too? Maybe we've just created lifestyles for ourselves that we aren't willing to abandon (or sometimes we desperately *want* to abandon), and then we shape our world-views accordingly. Insights from the peanut gallery?:)
I'm surprised that a bunch of intelligent people fall all over this stuff. This article is feel-good writing. It's probably about 50% true, and about 50% wishful thinking (i.e. maybe true), because the writer was too lazy to address any real people or real issues (in their true complexity.)
The slashdot posters seem to be a rather self-selecting group of dissenters; I'm wondering if there are any more neutral opinions to be found here?
just a friendly warning: don't get a sattelite radio receiver expecting to have it installed by a body shop, because it'll cost you an arm and a leg (4 hours labor, at least... more than the cost of unit). But I guess most of you slashdotters would consider self-installation to be a feature:)
I think if people are complaining about lack of software quality, well here's an opportunity to do something. No one is forcing anyone to fill out the survey, but if you don't on the premise that you're aiding Microsoft, then it is clear from your actions that your goal never really was quality software-- it was simply to get the guttural satisfaction of labeling someone as the enemy. Well, I'm not going to debate that point, but if you want change then you gotta starting practicing what you preach, even in the face of the "enemy".
[dave steps down from his imaginary podium, nervously eyes the gathering mob in the corner...]
Slashdot Mirror
I think it would have been nice for the poster to indicate that this refers to Strategic Vision, LLC., and *not* Strategic Vision, Inc., since Nate Silver specifically suggests that they may be trying to play off the credibility of the latter.
Yes, yes; this is a sad reflection on the decline of elemetary school life in the modern era-- and a direct consequence of our failure as role models. For example, I've often noticed that bloggers plagiarize their ideas from other bloggers. Is it any wonder that our kids have no moral compass?
Certainly Clinton was centrist relative to his party, if nothing else. Kerry and Edwards make Clinton look like Reagan. Without arguing the unimportant semantics of left/right/center, it seems to me that Clinton had a more pragmatic approach than a lot of people on all sides of the issue.
As far as "why not let the corporations do whatever they want?"... well, that's another argument that could be fought endlessly on the extremes, but to me the answer clearly lies in a more pragmatic center. My point was that regardless of our respective positions on the issue, one can support free trade without supporting laissez-faire capitalism. I don't wish to engage in a collegiate "Economics 101"-style slug-fest over the merits of a free market.
Free Trade does not equal laissez faire... at least in my mind, although it seems a lot of people would object. Let some of the jobs be outsourced to India; that doesn't mean we should set up sweat shops there; it doesn't mean we should allow corporations to do whatever they want to do with the naive assumption that this will always turn out to benefit the workers (some vague trickle-down theory.) Admittedly regulation is trickier in a global environment, but it seems to me that that's just the reality we have to face whether we like it or not. The problem is that if we're so scared of globalization that we hold on too tightly, we just create bigger problems for ourselves down the road. How do you go to a third world country and try to negotiate environmental standards? They'd say, basically, "F. you, you've shut us out of your markets for years, and now you're trying to talk to us about the environment while our people are poor and dying." These countries would have a huge incentive to entirely deregulate and invite corporations in. I seriously doubt that a bunch of angry anti-corporate people are going to prevent that from happening. So instead, let's start taking tangible steps to improve their economies, while at the same time this helps our economy adapt to the inevitable shape of the world-to-come. Maybe this sort of Clintonian centrist view is what a lot of people would call mush-mush, because it doesn't give the good feeling that comes with identifying a clear villian. But in my opinion, truth does not always lie at the extremes.
But as a software engineer, I can think of so many jobs that I'm absolutely unqualified to do, that pay maybe 25% of my current salary (e.g. teacher, day care, etc.) And sometimes I tell myself that it's just the natural way the market falls, given the high demand for tech, and the relative shortage of tech-savvy people. But isn't that what the CEOs are thinking too? Maybe we've just created lifestyles for ourselves that we aren't willing to abandon (or sometimes we desperately *want* to abandon), and then we shape our world-views accordingly. Insights from the peanut gallery? :)
I'm surprised that a bunch of intelligent people fall all over this stuff. This article is feel-good writing. It's probably about 50% true, and about 50% wishful thinking (i.e. maybe true), because the writer was too lazy to address any real people or real issues (in their true complexity.) The slashdot posters seem to be a rather self-selecting group of dissenters; I'm wondering if there are any more neutral opinions to be found here?
just a friendly warning: don't get a sattelite radio receiver expecting to have it installed by a body shop, because it'll cost you an arm and a leg (4 hours labor, at least... more than the cost of unit). But I guess most of you slashdotters would consider self-installation to be a feature :)
(you = one)
I think if people are complaining about lack of software quality, well here's an opportunity to do something. No one is forcing anyone to fill out the survey, but if you don't on the premise that you're aiding Microsoft, then it is clear from your actions that your goal never really was quality software-- it was simply to get the guttural satisfaction of labeling someone as the enemy. Well, I'm not going to debate that point, but if you want change then you gotta starting practicing what you preach, even in the face of the "enemy".
[dave steps down from his imaginary podium, nervously eyes the gathering mob in the corner...]