If you get an MBA, kiss the right ass and rise to VP or above you are almost certain to make a killing. Most scientists and engineers are facing a very challenging education, followed by years doing challenging work and the best most can hope for is staying solidly middle class. If you are doing it for inner satisfaction that works, but if you have a wife and kids to feed, clothe, house and educate there is enormous pressure to go in to a field that pays well, and not one that is most worthwhile or satisfying.
Did it ever occur to you that those ensuring the smooth operation of social/economic structures are more important the stability than those who are promoting advancement. I'm not saying that scientists/teachers/engineers don't provide an important service, but you seem to dismiss the need for people whose job is to manage the movement of resources through society. Ideas don't just materialize, nor are "good ideas" necessarily the best option for investing resources. I'm an engineer but as I've worked through industry I wish I had been exposed to more aspects of business management. Areas such as supply chain management are aspects of business that don't get attention but are essential for efficient use of resources for products and services.
For example the amount of money professional athletes make these days borders on criminal. Professional sports are a nice diversion and entertainment but they don't really deserve to suck hundreds out of an average joes pocket to go to one game in a billion dollar stadium watching people who will make more in one night than the spectators will make in a year.
Everybody has their own diversion. We are humans after all "No beer and no TV makes Homer something something." We don't need TV, Beer, comic books, video games, rocket kits, scifi etc. but those things add to the quality of people's lives. Professional athletes are the same as any other entertainers, any customer is free to walk away when they don't want to pay.
If you want to find one of the most corrosive forces in most American universities its the priority placed on athletics and athletes over academics.
You confuse the glitz with reality. College sports are nothing more than promotional events to raise money from alumni.
Tactics like the FSF's are definitely misguided, but I'm surprised there's no support whatsoever for the FSF's message.
I think generally there is support for the message, not the tactics. Personally I like what FSF is trying to promote, an intellectual open approach to software. I don't like that rather than educating people to make informed decisions they are increasingly trying to force others to follow their ideology. FSF is becoming Greenpeace, where the underlying idea is commendable, but at the implementation level it's a mess of tunnel visioned "we know better" bullying.
If you're an organization designed to affect change and shake-up the status quo, and nobody hates you, you're not doing your job.
The important factor is who hates you. You want those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to hate you. You don't want moderates with no particular view that you are trying to woo to hate you.
Free software simultaneously represents and abolishes absolute competition. All are free to contribute, but all are free to use what they like.
Meanwhile the current system attracts competetion from creators who want free software as well as those who are looking to create closed software - giving the consumer more choice.
First of all, proprietary software companies have been seeking ways to cut open source competitors out of the market for a long time now.
You mean proprietary software wants to compete, how dare they?!
Also, I would add that "real freedom" is in the eye of the beholder. If I am free to trespass on your property and punch you in the face as much as I want, even though you don't think that's "optimal," then you don't really have much freedom. But maybe you view that as a perfectly satisfactory arrangement, who knows.
You can't on your own come on my property and punch me - that is not freedom, that is you imposing your will. But it is an excercise in freedom if I ask you to come on my property and beat me (just be gentle with the whip). Just as people are excercising their freedom to purchase locked down software because they have no intention to actually dig through code, upgrade, or otherwise modify it.
I think it's more the US foreign policy tactic.
People happily choose something that isn't "free" (based on your definition)
So you try to educate, but people are happy so it doesn't work
Then you disrupt, annoying the people you are trying to convert
Then so you take direct action to topple the status quo and install "freedom" people never wanted.
Then wonder why the newly "freed" people hate you
It has been Apple who released a revolutionary computer that is completely locked down.
And that is why it has generally existed with less than 10% marketshare. Did it ever occur to you that there is a portion of customers who are attracted to the fact that Apple locks down their hardware?
It took Android and the jailbreak community to force their hand, make them admit that a web browser was not an SDK.
I would attribute the SDK delay to a rushed launched and focus on fixing the core OS and parallel development of 3G capabilities.
And you still can't buy most music on iTunes without DRM. You can't play that music on other devices. You can't even buy certain kinds of third-party peripherals for Apple hardware.
Yet people still choose to purchase when there are many competing products available.
Apple computers are overpriced with inferior parts, but what geeks can't get their head around is that they are popular because of style. Why is it bad that people buy what they want, not everybody purchases based on technical specs, compatibility, and openess.
5) Freedom in a digital world IS digital freedom (paraphrasing Moglen). That means providing open formats and open source, which were launched for the benefit of mankind.
So freedom is freedom as YOU define it. Real freedom lets people make their own decisions, whether or not somebody else thinks it's optimal. The existence of proprietary software does not deny the existence of open source software... so where is the problem?
Internet industries (pretty much any business model) of the late 90's needed to shed excessive competition to provide a workable long term service and the consolidation of retail has led to business models which are able to deliver better service to customers.
Typically in mergers half the suits leave, the politically weak get forced out or some see it as their chance to cash out and move on. What you'll end up with is a slightly larger company with many more customers, that's how you get profitability.
I doubt very much that Carly Fiori got where she is with skills and experience. More likely she was raised by wealthy parents, went to the best schools, was introduced to the right people, and has been a member of our ruling class her entire life.
The latter does not necessarily deny the former. Often those who are born to wealthy parents receive a better education and exposure to advanced skills and expectations. The child of a car mechanic will likely have learned mechanic skills, just as the child of an entrepreneur will have access to unique skills and insights. And given the existence of glass cielings and discrimination, I'd be surprised if she was able to get into leadership positions without demonstrating skills.
What's not fair about automation is the wealth it creates does not go to improve human civilization, it gets used to cater the the whims of 1% of our population.
You do realize you are part of the top 1-5%? Further, income disparity does not necessarily occur in the absence of wealth distribution. Economics is not zero-sum, and just because the rich get richer, does not mean the poor don't get richer too.
The 50 year old may have 30 years experience, but may be clinging to the same ideas from 30 years ago, and might be unaware of newer ideas, the 14 year old is most likely the reverse, they both have an equal amount of say on a subject as far as I am concerned. It's just more input to assist my own learning process
That is a rather disingenuous statement because we all make assumptions about speakers and very rarely can set aside natural bias. We are bombarded by too much information to process without some level of filtering (for better or worse)
People's investment plans are all different. Dividends or Stock Buybacks allow an investor to realize cash from their investment directly from the company. It doesn't necessarily cost a company to have outstanding shares, but what a buyback does is attact investors who want the option to cash out easily and builds shareholder value by reducing the number of outstanding shares.
One would think a 16% reduction in revenue would result in a 16% reduction in budget but I actually had mine cut by more than 50% and IT isn't alone here.
It doesn't make sense to always tie budgets directly to revenue. If your company sees a 16% revenue reduction, then it probably will eliminate some of the investments for planned growth so you'll end up with cuts greater than 16%. The only time you have expenditures which match revenue is in areas of long-term sustaining, business units like IT, marketing, or R&D will grow faster or slower than the company depending on needs and long-term outlook. Cutting spending isn't necessarily hoarding money, there are valid reasons to put certain projects on hold or re-prioritize especially in an uncertain environment.
Why is it OK for Carly Fiori to buy a private plane when my single mom neighbor is about to loose her home because her ARM shot her payments way up?
Why is it not fair? One person has the skills & experience to put themselves in a position where what they offer is considered more valuable than the skills another person has. There are many ways to define "fair," many slashdotters get paid to put other people out of jobs by improving productivity through automation, is that fair?
As I've said, I've dealt with many GW deniers and creationists before, and most of the time I waste arguing with them is wasted
Rather than attack a debate with such stubborn people head-on, take a more tactful approach. Creationism in the psuedo-scientific forum, means that humans were created by a higher power, which means people could very well have been created by a hyper-intelligent alien species, not necessarily God. How do you think die hard Christians would feel if their children were taught they could be the science project of little green men:) As for global warming, focus on the economic-political aspects of fossil fuels - funding countries that support terrorism, long-term economic stagnation, and the ability to regulate foreign imports under the guise of CO2 emission tax.
It makes sense once explained, but I doubt Joe Sixpack would stick around long enough to hear it, let alone grasp it.
Not just Joe Sixpack, but anybody who doesn't care much about the experiment at this point. It's like listening to Joe Sixpack's plans for a rock climbing trip... tell me all the details after something interesting has happened.
Watch me get modded into oblivion for daring to criticise the thing.
You won't be modded down for criticizing, but being closed minded in your analysis. Many intelligent people love the iPhone because none of those things you list affect their experience significantly. Not everybody wants to tinker with all their gadgets. Why is it bad people enjoy the out-of-the-box experience?
Slashdot Mirror
Did it ever occur to you that those ensuring the smooth operation of social/economic structures are more important the stability than those who are promoting advancement. I'm not saying that scientists/teachers/engineers don't provide an important service, but you seem to dismiss the need for people whose job is to manage the movement of resources through society. Ideas don't just materialize, nor are "good ideas" necessarily the best option for investing resources. I'm an engineer but as I've worked through industry I wish I had been exposed to more aspects of business management. Areas such as supply chain management are aspects of business that don't get attention but are essential for efficient use of resources for products and services.
Everybody has their own diversion. We are humans after all "No beer and no TV makes Homer something something." We don't need TV, Beer, comic books, video games, rocket kits, scifi etc. but those things add to the quality of people's lives. Professional athletes are the same as any other entertainers, any customer is free to walk away when they don't want to pay.
You confuse the glitz with reality. College sports are nothing more than promotional events to raise money from alumni.
I think generally there is support for the message, not the tactics. Personally I like what FSF is trying to promote, an intellectual open approach to software. I don't like that rather than educating people to make informed decisions they are increasingly trying to force others to follow their ideology.
FSF is becoming Greenpeace, where the underlying idea is commendable, but at the implementation level it's a mess of tunnel visioned "we know better" bullying.
The important factor is who hates you. You want those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to hate you. You don't want moderates with no particular view that you are trying to woo to hate you.
Proprietary != monopoly
Meanwhile the current system attracts competetion from creators who want free software as well as those who are looking to create closed software - giving the consumer more choice.
You mean proprietary software wants to compete, how dare they?!
You can't on your own come on my property and punch me - that is not freedom, that is you imposing your will.
But it is an excercise in freedom if I ask you to come on my property and beat me (just be gentle with the whip). Just as people are excercising their freedom to purchase locked down software because they have no intention to actually dig through code, upgrade, or otherwise modify it.
I think it's more the US foreign policy tactic.
People happily choose something that isn't "free" (based on your definition)
So you try to educate, but people are happy so it doesn't work
Then you disrupt, annoying the people you are trying to convert
Then so you take direct action to topple the status quo and install "freedom" people never wanted.
Then wonder why the newly "freed" people hate you
And that is why it has generally existed with less than 10% marketshare. Did it ever occur to you that there is a portion of customers who are attracted to the fact that Apple locks down their hardware?
I would attribute the SDK delay to a rushed launched and focus on fixing the core OS and parallel development of 3G capabilities.
Yet people still choose to purchase when there are many competing products available.
Apple computers are overpriced with inferior parts, but what geeks can't get their head around is that they are popular because of style. Why is it bad that people buy what they want, not everybody purchases based on technical specs, compatibility, and openess.
I think the biggest problem for users is navigating the choices to figure out what the best Linux distribution for their needs.
So freedom is freedom as YOU define it. Real freedom lets people make their own decisions, whether or not somebody else thinks it's optimal.
The existence of proprietary software does not deny the existence of open source software... so where is the problem?
Internet industries (pretty much any business model) of the late 90's needed to shed excessive competition to provide a workable long term service and the consolidation of retail has led to business models which are able to deliver better service to customers.
Typically in mergers half the suits leave, the politically weak get forced out or some see it as their chance to cash out and move on. What you'll end up with is a slightly larger company with many more customers, that's how you get profitability.
I'd guess no deliveries on Sunday is a cost savings move.
The latter does not necessarily deny the former. Often those who are born to wealthy parents receive a better education and exposure to advanced skills and expectations. The child of a car mechanic will likely have learned mechanic skills, just as the child of an entrepreneur will have access to unique skills and insights. And given the existence of glass cielings and discrimination, I'd be surprised if she was able to get into leadership positions without demonstrating skills.
You do realize you are part of the top 1-5%?
Further, income disparity does not necessarily occur in the absence of wealth distribution. Economics is not zero-sum, and just because the rich get richer, does not mean the poor don't get richer too.
That is a rather disingenuous statement because we all make assumptions about speakers and very rarely can set aside natural bias. We are bombarded by too much information to process without some level of filtering (for better or worse)
People's investment plans are all different. Dividends or Stock Buybacks allow an investor to realize cash from their investment directly from the company.
It doesn't necessarily cost a company to have outstanding shares, but what a buyback does is attact investors who want the option to cash out easily and builds shareholder value by reducing the number of outstanding shares.
Sometimes it's the company that is "the next guy" and provide value through stock buyback
It doesn't make sense to always tie budgets directly to revenue. If your company sees a 16% revenue reduction, then it probably will eliminate some of the investments for planned growth so you'll end up with cuts greater than 16%. The only time you have expenditures which match revenue is in areas of long-term sustaining, business units like IT, marketing, or R&D will grow faster or slower than the company depending on needs and long-term outlook.
Cutting spending isn't necessarily hoarding money, there are valid reasons to put certain projects on hold or re-prioritize especially in an uncertain environment.
Why is it not fair? One person has the skills & experience to put themselves in a position where what they offer is considered more valuable than the skills another person has. There are many ways to define "fair," many slashdotters get paid to put other people out of jobs by improving productivity through automation, is that fair?
Rather than attack a debate with such stubborn people head-on, take a more tactful approach. :)
Creationism in the psuedo-scientific forum, means that humans were created by a higher power, which means people could very well have been created by a hyper-intelligent alien species, not necessarily God. How do you think die hard Christians would feel if their children were taught they could be the science project of little green men
As for global warming, focus on the economic-political aspects of fossil fuels - funding countries that support terrorism, long-term economic stagnation, and the ability to regulate foreign imports under the guise of CO2 emission tax.
Not just Joe Sixpack, but anybody who doesn't care much about the experiment at this point. It's like listening to Joe Sixpack's plans for a rock climbing trip... tell me all the details after something interesting has happened.
Christian coalition, NAACP, Cuban exiles, just get a large enough group to vote as a block and the politicians will listen.
You won't be modded down for criticizing, but being closed minded in your analysis. Many intelligent people love the iPhone because none of those things you list affect their experience significantly.
Not everybody wants to tinker with all their gadgets. Why is it bad people enjoy the out-of-the-box experience?
More times than not the opposite is true, just look at the pile of horror that is the Star Trek licesnse
They are the precursors to the maintenance workers who will repair the robots that will fight wars in the future.
Hilarious parody of MMOs by Rooks1138 posted on the SWG boards back in the day
Episode IV: A New Dewd
Episode V: The Empire Nerfs Back
Episode VI: Return of the Carebears
Episode I: The Phantom Beta