White gentiles, comprising 73% of the general population get only 18%
of the seats at Harvard. They are under-represented by a _factor_ of 4
times. If blacks were similarly under-represented at Harvard, they would
have only 3% of the seats. In fact, they have 8%.
At Harvard, white gentiles are 3 times more under-represented, relative
to their share of the population, than blacks.
When you look at the totals for all 15 schools, you see that white gentiles
comprise only 38% of the student population, approximately half their share
in the general population.
Jews have an average IQ that is.84 standard deviations above that of
white gentiles. The average for white gentiles is 100. For Jews it is 112.
Based on this higher average, we would expect them to be represented at
a rate of 4 to 5 times their share of the population at the IQ range of
140, which populates Harvard. That means 10 to 12% of the seats, not 27%.
Indeed, CalTech, the school with the highest SAT scores (both verbal
and math) and the smartest students, has only 5% Jews.
Thus, it becomes clear that the dramatic differences in percents of
white gentiles between CalTech and Princeton at one end of the scale, and
Harvard and Columbia, at the other, are based on policy preferences of
the institution, and not on the size of the talent pool.
The variation in the numbers of white gentiles between schools demonstrates
that these variances are the result of deliberate policy choices made by
the particular university.
In short, the Ivy League has opted out of the enlightenment, to become de facto seminaries for the state religion of political correctness.
You know damn well...would just adapt and suck up all the high-paying jobs (which, frankly, it's already doing, if you consider the CEO/Corporate Boardsman circle-jerk).
Actually I don't "know damn well" this would happen at all for the following reason:
It won't change the fact that when people don't have to answer to anybody - they won't.
That's where you're confused about the consequence of net asset taxation, particularly when exemptig subsistence assets such as house and tools of the trade:
Net asset taxation forces the cronies to sell their assets if they can't get a good return on them. They become much more answerable to the market than they are now with their insularity born of government subsidy of their property rights. What this will do is reallocate assets, not to the population at large, but to those aspects of the middle class that are actually most capable of turning those assets to productive use. (This will of course expand the ranks of the middle class as people in the lower classes rise to fill the niches left vacant, as most certainly they will since no investments in human capital, such as education, healthcare, housing, etc. are taxed at all.)
The reason for the current market backing of F/OSS can be laid firmly at the feet of Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices.
What you're talking about is economic rent.
Economic rent is, to cut to the chase, the difference between monopoly price vs competitive price for a commodity.
There is an theory of taxation, attributable largely to John Stuart Mill and Henry George, where economic rent forms the tax base. The predominant asset that would be taxed under that system would be land.
I have some philosophical problems with this, mainly that there doesn't seem to be a good way to equate fees for defense costs of asset rights to fees for economic rent based on theose rights -- plus the fact that historically there has been a _lot_ of abuse of conscription and other forms of civic spirit that needs to be compensated before the fact. That prior compensation is part of the justification for the subsistence exemption of house and tools of the trade from net assets that would be taxed.
However, in the current circumstances it is certainly closer to what I'm proposing than other forms of taxation.
Most assets are already taxed, as has been pointed out on the number of occasions by many respondants when you have posted your asset-tax nonsense before.
And everytime they do so, they point to exactly the assets that I state should be exempt from taxation, houses and tools of the trade, not to mention that these property taxes are localand the big taxes, and therefore the big distortions in the capital market, are federal, where their comments, even if not totally off base to begin with, aren't relevant.
(i.e. "I will let you rent my idea (under patent) in return for $300" and the programmer in India will say "I will let you rent my idea (under patent) in return for $100"). Your idea does not change that.
You're forgetting the central concept of intellectual property known as "priority".
Now it could be you think that the big advances in information technology came out of India. I know that I worked with guys from India who told me that the big advances in agriculture came out of India. They also told me that the big advances in computing came out of India. I'm from Iowa so I have a bitdifferentperspective.
Just to throw this out... isn't that exactly what the GPL is all about? That is, transferring power from the creator of software to the user?
Not really. From the programmer's perspective, the GPL is _really_ all about programmers making it so that the wealthy can't acquire their creations for a song and then make them pay for access to their own inventions. From Stallman's perspective it may be more about benefitting big conglomerates where internal distribution doesn't count as distribution, but as "use" because Stallman is no mere commie -- Stallman is a Stalinist who believes in monolithic organizations.
I'd see tariffs entirely eliminated first. They are a form of tax in which the elites enrich themselves trying to meddle in personal decisions.
Would you deny a corporation the right to make something that could be more cheaply purchased?
The analogy is apt for the situation where defense concerns require attention to secured provision of certain goods and services. Defense is a legitimate function of government as a mutual insurance company.
"So,you justify the violation of freedom of association by Title VII and Section 1981 by saying it is retribution for slavery?"
No, I am trying to figure out why you blamed me for white flight.
You've stated before that you don't think people have a right to freely associate on the basis of their race. You tried to say Title VII and Section 1981 were limited in scope to things like motels denying occupants by race but since you say you studied court precedents regarding these "laws" you must know they are vastly more invasive -- violating choices of business associates and potentially even choice of who people will contract to do critical jobs for them. That leaves people with the cruel choice of giving up their beleifs concerning how they should conduct their private affairs entirely or fleeing to areas where they are less likely to be confronted by people that are willing to use the government to violate their personal preferences.
"If you've stolen the intellectual property of someone, thereby forcing him to subsist via employment"
How does this apply to outsourcing in general?
In myriad ways but the main way is that the information industry was developed in the West during the peak productive years of the post WW II baby boom generation. Those individuals are the hardest hit demography by umemployment from outsourcing and temporary worker visa programs. The profits from the use of those programs are going to the corporate elites who were the beneficiaries of the distorted wealth centralization resulting from the tax system and IP law as it stands.
If someone can do the job better, why not hire them?
If you've stolen the intellectual property of someone, thereby forcing him to subsist via employment, you will either pay him damages due him before depriving him of employment or you will find yourself facing a very inventing enemy with little to lose. Your best hope if you choose the latter is that he will be too old, tired and demoralized to act. However, even if you succeed you will have deprived yourself of the flexibility to deal with novel future situations -- of which global change guarantees there will be no shortage.
You still haven't bothered to look at the rulings on Title VII and Section 1981 of the Civil rights acts that deprive private organizations of their right freely associate not just in employment but in those with whom you choose to enter into private agreements.
The reality of "white flight" proves that this is no insignificant imposition. Tens of millions in the US alone are acting to counter your imposition of the globe upon them, for once the globe is admitted to the US the US imposes them on private associations therein. This problem now applies to all European-derived countries. Merely because people want to associate with those more related to themselves is no reason to deny them their basic human rights as all countries of European derivation are now doing.
Programmers
write free software to subvert a system that denies them the protection
of their intellectual property rights by pricing legal defense of those rights out
of their reach. That guys like Gates would be unsympathetic to this cruel dilemma facing the vast majority of programmers is not surprising. Indeed, given the fact that even giving all his wealth away, except some "modest" estate for his children, his childre will still be able to afford good legal counsel to establish protection for themselves.
If programmers were able to capture enough of the value of what they
write to pay for the legal defense of their rights they'd probably
write a lot less free software.
This gets to a fundamental problem with the incentives created by taxing things other than asset value (exempting house and tools of the trade which are subsistence assets protected by bankruptcy tradition):
Possession is rewarded over creation.
Think about it: Once you possess something, you basically have
no tax burden. You enjoy the benefits of young men dutifully going out
to die in wars, government subsidized infrastructure paid by wage earners, the entire legal edifice describing and protecting your
rights and without you having to pay a cent. You can just soak the
public for these benefits by paying only the lawyers fees to extract the benefits for yourself.
Taxing everything but possession (income, capital gains, sales, value added, etc) is just a way to tax the creative process.
Naturally, creators who are trying to get a leg up on the
situation end up selling their creations cheap to those whose
possession is subsidized by the tax payments of the creators.
Well, there is one exception to this rule of no
taxation of possession -- and that is the patent maintanence fee.
Patents are the only assets that the government taxes. This is an
incredibly regressive tax hitting hardest those who are earliest to
support the realization of a new technology's value -- forcing them to
sell their rights ("assign") cheap to someone who has been sitting
around enjying the government's protection.
It all adds up to a very nasty way of sucking capital out of the hands of creators and giving over to the hands of possessors.
So the creators, unable to change the tax laws to tax assets
rather than creative processes (becuse they can't buy the Ways and
Means Committee) become socialists.
This is directly related to the issue of outsourcing since if
programmers who had created the value of the information industry had
been allowed to retain the value they created, they wouldn't need
jobs. The corporations would be paying them royalties or be paying
companies owned by the programmers for the rights to their software
instead of just throwing creators out on the street after extracting
their youth and creativity.
A system that would work would elimnate all existing taxes
(although not necessarily tariffs) and just tax net assets at a rate
equal to the interest rate on the national debt -- exempting from
taxation the same assets that are exempted by personal bankruptcy
protection: home and tools of the trade.
Does Gates think he can beat the competition if they aren't beaten down for him by the government? This sort of arrogance by people who are the wealthiest isn't offset by giving their money to charity. They are eating the children of the middle class and destroying the future of the country that made them rich.
the Net reaches everyone in the industrialized world, including large amounts of people with no shame and large numbers of criminals.
The imposition of globalist panmixia powered by advanced transportation and habitation technologies is resulting in precisely the same sort of sociopathic opportunism in other layers of abstraction of industrial civilization.
People who demonize isolationists are themselves acting as the moral equivalent of HIV.
So when his son left for college in September, Seemayer finally unplugged.
Whenever someone tells me they have a spyware problem I ask them if they have a separate comptuer for their teenager. On rare occasion they don't have a teenager but the vast majority of the time they do, and their teenager is using the system for things that result in all sorts of infections and infestations.
So the solution for about half of the people is let the kids have their own computer and don't bother fixing it for them. Let them hunt down a friend who knows how to handle spyware/viruses and have their friend handle it for them. For girls this is usually easy -- lots of teen geeks are more than happy to help a teen girl in distress. A boy should be able to learn enough to clean up after himself anyway.
If you are looking for low grade energy sources such as artificial hot springs for subsistence energy and agricultural heating in cold climates, it is practically renewable -- particularly at current population densities for those regions.
You can't use this to sustain current population levels world-wide, let alone increase them, but you can make some substantial populations relatively secure and self-sufficient that would otherwise be more dependent on global transport of food and fuel.
With current technology, burning oil to make hydrogen to run a bus produces more pollution than simply running the bus on oil. Iceland sees itself as a testing ground, where almost unlimited heat from hot springs can be tapped for experiments.
Branding has multiple meanings that are converging as the cowardly nature of the populace reveals itself.
When Adidas started this crazed brand slavery while I was at the University of Illinois working on the Plato project I decided to brand myself with my own logo. I had an old torn up t-shirt, to which I took a black magic marker and emblazoned across the front and back in sloppy, handwritten letters:
ADDEDUS
This was back when the U of IL was still an engineering school churning out real technology with a 2.7:1 male to female ratio -- and a cute young girl actually came onto me while I was sporting this performance art. You might give it a try.
Slashdot Mirror
By any reasonable criteria for "seats that could/should be given" Harvard's bias against white gentiles is greater than the bias against blacks.
That you read something more into it is your own prejudice blinding you to the actual arithmetic stated.
It is simply implausible that blacks are 3 times more likely to apply to Harvard than the members of the ethnic group that founded that institution.
In short, the Ivy League has opted out of the enlightenment, to become de facto seminaries for the state religion of political correctness.
Actually I don't "know damn well" this would happen at all for the following reason:
It won't change the fact that when people don't have to answer to anybody - they won't.
That's where you're confused about the consequence of net asset taxation, particularly when exemptig subsistence assets such as house and tools of the trade:
Net asset taxation forces the cronies to sell their assets if they can't get a good return on them. They become much more answerable to the market than they are now with their insularity born of government subsidy of their property rights. What this will do is reallocate assets, not to the population at large, but to those aspects of the middle class that are actually most capable of turning those assets to productive use. (This will of course expand the ranks of the middle class as people in the lower classes rise to fill the niches left vacant, as most certainly they will since no investments in human capital, such as education, healthcare, housing, etc. are taxed at all.)
What you're talking about is economic rent.
Economic rent is, to cut to the chase, the difference between monopoly price vs competitive price for a commodity.
There is an theory of taxation, attributable largely to John Stuart Mill and Henry George, where economic rent forms the tax base. The predominant asset that would be taxed under that system would be land.
I have some philosophical problems with this, mainly that there doesn't seem to be a good way to equate fees for defense costs of asset rights to fees for economic rent based on theose rights -- plus the fact that historically there has been a _lot_ of abuse of conscription and other forms of civic spirit that needs to be compensated before the fact. That prior compensation is part of the justification for the subsistence exemption of house and tools of the trade from net assets that would be taxed.
However, in the current circumstances it is certainly closer to what I'm proposing than other forms of taxation.
And everytime they do so, they point to exactly the assets that I state should be exempt from taxation, houses and tools of the trade, not to mention that these property taxes are localand the big taxes, and therefore the big distortions in the capital market, are federal, where their comments, even if not totally off base to begin with, aren't relevant.
You're forgetting the central concept of intellectual property known as "priority".
Now it could be you think that the big advances in information technology came out of India. I know that I worked with guys from India who told me that the big advances in agriculture came out of India. They also told me that the big advances in computing came out of India. I'm from Iowa so I have a bit different perspective.
Not really. From the programmer's perspective, the GPL is _really_ all about programmers making it so that the wealthy can't acquire their creations for a song and then make them pay for access to their own inventions. From Stallman's perspective it may be more about benefitting big conglomerates where internal distribution doesn't count as distribution, but as "use" because Stallman is no mere commie -- Stallman is a Stalinist who believes in monolithic organizations.
Would you deny a corporation the right to make something that could be more cheaply purchased?
The analogy is apt for the situation where defense concerns require attention to secured provision of certain goods and services. Defense is a legitimate function of government as a mutual insurance company.
No, I am trying to figure out why you blamed me for white flight.
You've stated before that you don't think people have a right to freely associate on the basis of their race. You tried to say Title VII and Section 1981 were limited in scope to things like motels denying occupants by race but since you say you studied court precedents regarding these "laws" you must know they are vastly more invasive -- violating choices of business associates and potentially even choice of who people will contract to do critical jobs for them. That leaves people with the cruel choice of giving up their beleifs concerning how they should conduct their private affairs entirely or fleeing to areas where they are less likely to be confronted by people that are willing to use the government to violate their personal preferences.
How does this apply to outsourcing in general?
In myriad ways but the main way is that the information industry was developed in the West during the peak productive years of the post WW II baby boom generation. Those individuals are the hardest hit demography by umemployment from outsourcing and temporary worker visa programs. The profits from the use of those programs are going to the corporate elites who were the beneficiaries of the distorted wealth centralization resulting from the tax system and IP law as it stands.
If you've stolen the intellectual property of someone, thereby forcing him to subsist via employment, you will either pay him damages due him before depriving him of employment or you will find yourself facing a very inventing enemy with little to lose. Your best hope if you choose the latter is that he will be too old, tired and demoralized to act. However, even if you succeed you will have deprived yourself of the flexibility to deal with novel future situations -- of which global change guarantees there will be no shortage.
So,you justify the violation of freedom of association by Title VII and Section 1981 by saying it is retribution for slavery?
The reality of "white flight" proves that this is no insignificant imposition. Tens of millions in the US alone are acting to counter your imposition of the globe upon them, for once the globe is admitted to the US the US imposes them on private associations therein. This problem now applies to all European-derived countries. Merely because people want to associate with those more related to themselves is no reason to deny them their basic human rights as all countries of European derivation are now doing.
Programmers write free software to subvert a system that denies them the protection of their intellectual property rights by pricing legal defense of those rights out of their reach. That guys like Gates would be unsympathetic to this cruel dilemma facing the vast majority of programmers is not surprising. Indeed, given the fact that even giving all his wealth away, except some "modest" estate for his children, his childre will still be able to afford good legal counsel to establish protection for themselves.
If programmers were able to capture enough of the value of what they write to pay for the legal defense of their rights they'd probably write a lot less free software.
This gets to a fundamental problem with the incentives created by taxing things other than asset value (exempting house and tools of the trade which are subsistence assets protected by bankruptcy tradition):
Possession is rewarded over creation.
Think about it: Once you possess something, you basically have no tax burden. You enjoy the benefits of young men dutifully going out to die in wars, government subsidized infrastructure paid by wage earners, the entire legal edifice describing and protecting your rights and without you having to pay a cent. You can just soak the public for these benefits by paying only the lawyers fees to extract the benefits for yourself.
Taxing everything but possession (income, capital gains, sales, value added, etc) is just a way to tax the creative process.
Naturally, creators who are trying to get a leg up on the situation end up selling their creations cheap to those whose possession is subsidized by the tax payments of the creators.
Well, there is one exception to this rule of no taxation of possession -- and that is the patent maintanence fee. Patents are the only assets that the government taxes. This is an incredibly regressive tax hitting hardest those who are earliest to support the realization of a new technology's value -- forcing them to sell their rights ("assign") cheap to someone who has been sitting around enjying the government's protection.
It all adds up to a very nasty way of sucking capital out of the hands of creators and giving over to the hands of possessors.
So the creators, unable to change the tax laws to tax assets rather than creative processes (becuse they can't buy the Ways and Means Committee) become socialists.
This is directly related to the issue of outsourcing since if programmers who had created the value of the information industry had been allowed to retain the value they created, they wouldn't need jobs. The corporations would be paying them royalties or be paying companies owned by the programmers for the rights to their software instead of just throwing creators out on the street after extracting their youth and creativity.
A system that would work would elimnate all existing taxes (although not necessarily tariffs) and just tax net assets at a rate equal to the interest rate on the national debt -- exempting from taxation the same assets that are exempted by personal bankruptcy protection: home and tools of the trade.
Does Gates think he can beat the competition if they aren't beaten down for him by the government? This sort of arrogance by people who are the wealthiest isn't offset by giving their money to charity. They are eating the children of the middle class and destroying the future of the country that made them rich.The imposition of globalist panmixia powered by advanced transportation and habitation technologies is resulting in precisely the same sort of sociopathic opportunism in other layers of abstraction of industrial civilization.
People who demonize isolationists are themselves acting as the moral equivalent of HIV.
Whenever someone tells me they have a spyware problem I ask them if they have a separate comptuer for their teenager. On rare occasion they don't have a teenager but the vast majority of the time they do, and their teenager is using the system for things that result in all sorts of infections and infestations.
So the solution for about half of the people is let the kids have their own computer and don't bother fixing it for them. Let them hunt down a friend who knows how to handle spyware/viruses and have their friend handle it for them. For girls this is usually easy -- lots of teen geeks are more than happy to help a teen girl in distress. A boy should be able to learn enough to clean up after himself anyway.
PS: If you think that's sexist, you're right.
The lawyers will get it, and that's what counts.
Let them have their own society where they live with each other and teach their children whatever they want.
Of course, any people who hold beliefs they deem incompatible with the surrounding society should be allowed to similarly separate.
Such self-determination is the foundation of all human rights.
It is also the way nature creates: Through natural selection of variation.
Q: How does a full-partner shield his 25th story corner office from a Nuclear Holocaust?
A: Boilerplate
You can't use this to sustain current population levels world-wide, let alone increase them, but you can make some substantial populations relatively secure and self-sufficient that would otherwise be more dependent on global transport of food and fuel.
This is a big deal folks. Geothermal is quite abundant but it is relatively low grade energy. If you can get drilling costs down and figure out how to use the low grade energy along the lines the Icelanders are doing, you can not only resolve most subsistence energy problems, you can localize most food production for consumption in colder climates with articficial hot springs just as the Icelanders are doing.
Too bad that link wasn't published with the /. story.
When Adidas started this crazed brand slavery while I was at the University of Illinois working on the Plato project I decided to brand myself with my own logo. I had an old torn up t-shirt, to which I took a black magic marker and emblazoned across the front and back in sloppy, handwritten letters:
ADDEDUS
This was back when the U of IL was still an engineering school churning out real technology with a 2.7:1 male to female ratio -- and a cute young girl actually came onto me while I was sporting this performance art. You might give it a try.
Doing a search of their site reveals no occurance of "Perl".