Your argument is valid for rating systems. However, shows are very likely to advertise their content truthfully; watch a commercial. If a show contains sex, the commercial will generally contain a sexually provocative snippet. Violent movies often advertise using short, ultra-violent clips. Avoiding the rating system avoids the conflict of interest as tags don't fall into specific and arbitrary age groups.
Irregardless, the television industry has standards in place to tag content for the television rating system ("This program is rated TV-MA for violence and nudity"). I'm proposing that industry standardize those tags and provide a mechanism to filter shows based on the tags. I suppose the rating system could be left in place, but I'm content deciding what material is appropriate on my own.
I think content producers would be the best party to tag the content. There is little incentive to lie, on their part, even without government regulation. Tagging on the user's end doesn't do much good since there would be no tags when the show first plays.
some overly-rightous type can come up with reasons to consider practically anything "violent", effectively eliminating anything he doesn't like. Whereas another person could consider "violent" being ripped open with a chainsaw.
I see your point. Categorizing everything into broad tags would be problematic. However, as you also pointed out, tags have infinite granularity. The terms mild and extreme don't really describe the content like "scenes of torture", "criminal investigation", "medically related gore".
And above all, don' let someone else make them for you.
Any rating system is inherently flawed as it magnifies the values of a the ratings board. Tags avoid this problem. Tags bypass the ratings board entirely. There is little incentive for the producer to mislabel his content, even without government regulation. A show full of T&A will clearly define itself -- I sumbit any commercial for Desperate Housewives as evidence.
Besides, mild vs. extreme violence is a red herring. For me, personally, I don't like any violence on my TV. I don't want to watch CSI to see that its too violent, I already know. I don't want to watch CSI's successor, I already know. I don't want to see the next trailer for Hostel 2 or Saw 17 or whatever psychotic reenactment they're playing during the Simpsons, I already know. Just tag the freakin' content as violent or mildly violent or "so violent you'll bust a nut you psychotic fuck", so that I have a reasonable chance of filtering it at my end. That reminds me, I'll have to add "cartoon violence" to my included content list.
You're supposed to be able to take care of yourself when consuming the information that powers, oh, this entire democracy. But not be able to handle some violent or sexual imagery.
To all my Puritan-Facist copatriots: please stop legislating morality.
This whole issue of censorship is a simple problem with a simple solution.
Problem: There is certain material that people don't want themselves and/or their children to see.
The solution is as simple as Slashdot's tagging system. Content producers should be required to tag their programs with descriptive verbs like violence, nudity, etc. They already do this to some extent with the TV-Y, TV-MA rating system.
On my end, my cable receiver should be able to filter out programs with tags I don't like (violence, nudity, gospel). Problem solved.
The whole argument is not really about what should be censored, but who's value system is correct. Some people thing violence is worse than nudity/sex, others aren't offended by mating and think gratuitous violence is repulsive. Everyone's values are different, the problem arises when one group (the Puritan-Facists Fuckheads) tries to impose their morals on the whole populace.
The entire TV and movie rating system is based on the prejudices of these fanatics. It's not OK for a 7 year old to hear "goddamn", but its OK for a 13 year so long as there is no sex; sex and cussing OK for a 17 year old unless, of course, there is too much sex, then you have to be 18, or 21. Oh yeah, violence is OK at any age level.
Its time to move away from such a narrow definition of morality and arbitrary age gateways.
Firstly, the Canadians did not fight America to a draw. America invaded Canada in a show of bravado; Canada not only repelled the attack, they fought their way across the great majority of the United States (at the time), eventually reaching and burning down the White House. In fact, part of Maine is now Canada as we seceded our rights to end the war. American (and I guess Canadian) history books distort the truth, but the fact is America had its ass handed to it by Canada in 1812 -- I can't think of a more decisive and humiliating total defeat.
Secondly, the United States was loathed before 911. Back then, one of the major complaints was that we weren't involved in world affairs enough. I remember many a diatribe about how we let down the Kurds by not toppling Sadam after the first gulf war -- there was even a movie "The Siege" expressing the very idea that the world hated us precisely because we never followed through in world events.
Well, now we've followed through, and the world still hates us. Forgive me if I'm starting to lose patience and concern with the world's vacillating opinion. The only common thread seems to be a hatred of America.
Thirdly, I take issue with anyone who portrays China as benevolent alternative to the United States. China is most definitely not benevolent. Say what you want about American oil policies, they are not as bad as Chinese oil policies: China Blocks Security Council Resolution 1556. Or maybe a Chinese AIDS village would be a better example of Chinese benevolence. Or maybe their support of Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela is your idea of benevolent policies.
Finally, its easy to criticize the United States and its policies while you benefit from them. Any country who imports oil or any foreign resource, depends on the might of the American navy to keep those shipping lanes open. Canada, in particular, has no room to criticize, as they are America's largest trading partner and directly contribute to and benefit from those policies the most. The United States may have single handedly fought and financed the war in Iraq, but all western societies will benefit equally from the increased oil trade. Exxon-Mobile sells worldwide, America enjoys no disparate benefit. The same, however, cannot be said about China's oil companies, who are state owned, and not bound to sell to anyone but the Chinese.
True. I read the original article and couldn't see why people are getting so worked up. Google is practicing prudent risk management practices. Their demand for secrecy isn't evil, its common sense. Google's existence is not implicit. Microsoft is one of many companies investing billions upon billions to take every last one of Google's users. Is it really that evil to keep your business secrets from Microsoft?
The legislators, on the other hand, weren't as graceful in negotiations. Google brought $600 million investment to North Carolina and the legislators are out bad mouthing them in the media. Other companies will take note of the bad publicity North Carolina is imposing on Google.
As the parent pointed out, tax breaks for big businesses is nothing new. Google can't be expected to forgo them while their competitors enjoy massive tax breaks of their own. Besides, the sales tax lost will probably be more than made up for by all tech workers and supporting industries. The property tax those 200 workers homes is worth a few million alone.
Don't tell me that Americans would choose freedom over wealth and progress any time.
American history is founded in choosing freedom over wealth. In rejecting British Imperialism, Americans effectively cut themselves off from the comforts and wealth of Great Britain's enormous trading empire.
During the American Civil war, 150,000 northern soldiers wealth and life to free the southern slaves.
Before both World War I and World War II the United States voluntarily stopped trading with the non-democratic aggressors.
In present times the United States has foresaken (relatively small) amounts of wealth to promote freedom in portions of Africa and Asia the Middle East. This is something China cannot say, as they continue to pour money into North Korea, Iran, and Sudan.
The Tragedy of the Commons does not apply to Wikipedia. Here's why:
The tragedy of the commons is based on the premise that there is some finite resource and there is a demand for that resource exceeding supply. In Wikipedia's case, there is no finite resource that needs to be shared.
If Wikipedia is the "Common" then Wikipedia's information must be the resource. For any topic there are three types of information:
1. Useful information (A cat is a mammal) 2. Useless information (A cat is a cat) 3. Destructive information (A cat is a fish)
For case 1, there can be no shortage. Everyone is free share the same useful information, everyone is free to add useful information.
For case 2, there is no demand. With no demand there can be no shortage.
For case 3, there is an opposite of demand (desire to remove). Again with no demand, there can be no shortage.
Vandals tend to operate by inserting destructive or useless information into Wikipedia. Since there is no demand for this information, it tends to not be preserved over long periods of time. Moderators and other users tend to find and remove discrepancies.
Wikipedia, and its millions of users, acts like organism and evolves to match the demands of its environment. As such, useful information will be valued, preserved, reinserted if removed, and corrected if vandalized. On the other hand, useless and destructive information has no value, it will not be reinserted or preserved.
The only way for Wikipedia to become less, and not more valuable is to change the environment so that people no longer value useful information, or so that the destructive information become so prevalent that the useful information has no remaining value. But, the probability of this happening becomes smaller with every new article.
The drug companies would like us to believe that patents are necessary to bring new drugs to market. Those who "drank the kool-aid" claim that without patents generic drugs would make drug research unprofitable.
What is profitable?
Pfizer pulled in $51.2 billion in 2006 with $8 billion in profits. Merck wasn't as "profitable", with only $4.6 billion in profits on $22 billion total income. The top 10 drug makers are worth $1.125 trillion and made $50 billion.
But, what these numbers don't show is that there are barely more than 10 major players making any significant money in drugs. Is that because there is so little money to be made? A mere $50 billion?
I can't figure out how a free market would allocate so much wealth into so few hands. Unless the market wasn't free to start with.
Drug companies use patents to subdivide the treatable medical domain into discrete markets that can be monopolized or duopolized so long as the patent stands. It is true that without the patents there would be more generics to compete with. That's not a bad thing.
The drug company who first develops a medicine still has a competitive advantage, even without a patent. They will be first to market. They have the opportunity to define the brand in the eyes of the consumer. Brands like Viagra and Botox have value to the user that a patent doesn't provide.
Drug patents are not really "necessary" to make a profit, but they are necessary to make such huge profits.
You don't. Let me restate, because there are gender imbalances on both sides, there is no reason to go around trying to make every field 50/50, male or female. Men will choose fields they enjoy, women will choose fields they enjoy. Let it be.
The question is why? Why is an inequality in the favor of men no reason?
What? Maybe it's the lack of complete sentences or just two really poorly worded questions, but I can't understand you. I'll do my best though.
The question is why?
Right. I asked why should women be encouraged to go into high tech just to make it equal. I don't feel like an imbalance necessitates a solution. I included the example of imbalances the other way (more women than men are in medical school and law school) to show that not every imbalance is all that horrible.
Though I don't really understand you're point of view. I would think that you agree, except for the smuggness, sarcastic tone, and general arrogance that you include in your posts.
Not interested in name calling though. No, you're right, you didn't name call. But you were condescending, smug, and sarcastic. I hope you don't live under the illusion that passive aggression is somehow better than actual aggression.
For clarity, I'll restate my argument in a less incoherent way:
Assertion 1. There are plenty of high paying jobs that women are interested in. I back up this statement by pointing to the percentage of women vs. men in law and medical school as concrete examples.
Assertion 2. There is no barrier to entry to the high tech field. The article talks specifically about "self-taught" high tech individuals. There is no insitutional barrier to educating oneself.
Conclusion: Therefore, putting money into programs will not remove any barriers and do nothing to incite more women into the workforce. It will, if anything, redirect educated individuals that would have pursued other careers (like law and medicine) into the high tech field.
Since you clearly didn't read the original post, I doubt you'll read this one.
It's pretty humorous that you reposted my comment "No reason to fire up the program now to incite men back into the fields", and then smugly agreed with it (without realizing it).
Ah...retards. That's cool. Life is better with more chromosomes.
The reason there aren't more women in tech, self starters or otherwise is because they don't want to be and aren't interested! No program, encouragement, coersion or other methods will change that.
There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. One can't say that all women are not interested in tech. But, in general, you're right.
However, I would ask, why incite them to join? So what? There are many more women than men in law school and medical school. For years, it was the other way around. Incentive programs and scholarships helped tilt the balance. No reason to fire up programs now to incite men back into the fields.
Its not a zero sum game, there are plenty of high paying jobs (medicine and law) that women are clearly interested in. No reason to pull them away just to make the IT world seem "gender equal".
My god, sir. I actually have a tingly feeling in my spine. I never expected to read something so coherent, reasonable, and well thought-out here on Slashdot (when it comes to criticizing the US, that is).
My friend got back from Iraq a few months ago after serving as a military engineer for the last year. He was lucky enough to meet a girl and is bringing her back to the US this month. Both my friend and his soon-to-be wife blame everything bad in Iraq on the United States. We argued about it for a while until I realized something. Of the three of us (me a US citizen not in the military, my buddy in the military, and the Iraqi woman) there is only one person with any real control over what goes on it Iraq: the Iraqi. She could have stayed in Iraq (not that I would have), braved the dangers, set a brilliant example by running for local office, or simply tried to convince those around her to be more tolerant. Instead, she's running away and leaving it all behind.
So what? Who cares? Lets break down the numbers...
Foreign run high-tech startups contributed $52 billion to the economy in 2005 - Not really, startups where at least one person was foreign born contributed this much. - In a 12.49 trillion dollar economy, $52 billion is about %0.4 - Americans spent about that much on shoes last year, or lawn care
These companies employed 450,000 people - 0.3% of the work force producing %0.4 of GDP - That's great until you realize that these are 450,000 high tech workers who should be producing many magnitudes more GDP than the average. A semiconductor worker != a dish washer.
Yet, for some reason, both the article and study draw the conclusion that they've uncovered something significant. As far as I can tell, they've uncovered the fact that nothing significant exists in this data in any way.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of foreigners coming to the US and starting businesses. Its a big middle finger to their home countries who never implemented the financial and legal systems necessary to allow business to flourish. One of our family friends is from Iran. He decided that the ruling system there was screwed beyond fixing, escaped for American, and is now a self made millionaire. Brilliant!
But, I'm not for collecting a bunch of completely average statistics, pointing to them and exclaiming: Incredible!
You're 100% right. I couldn't agree more. You might like Richard Dawkin's new book, if you haven't already read it: The God Delusion. One thing he brings up early in the book is that many of the founding fathers loathed religous zealots, feared them intensely, and would be horrified by way religion (christianity) has entangled itself in US politics.
Surely if we Americans had lost the Revolutionary War, George Washington would have been looked upon as a traitor and a rebel. He would have been hanged and the fickle masses would have cheered it.
Maybe. Joan of Arc was burnt as a witch in front of the cheering hoards. However, we are more likely to look at her today in a positive light than a negative -- and not because the French haven't had a say in history.
I don't want to defend Osama bin Laden...
Then stop defending him....but he did issue a fatwa in 1998 listing all his grievances. Plus he has offered a truce several times.
Cool. Awesome. So he took those grievances before the UN? He offered a formal written truce? How many other world powers have backed that truce?
I understand your point about the biases of history. And, if this were a conversation about the impartiality of the observer I would have to agree 100%. But it's not. The parent poster, in an underhanded manner, tried to attach the label Freedom Fighter to the terrorists. I pointedly and firmly disagreed and have made the point over and over again that they have absolutely no interest in freedom -- only death and religious intolerance.
People tend to get hung up on strange things like the fact that both the revolutionaries and Al-Qaeda both use(d) military tactics to achieve their goals. Its unfortunate that those same people can't take it one step further and look at what those goals actually are.
One could put the American revolutionaries and Taliban-Qaeda into the same boat if the Americans had sailed to Britain, blown up Parliamant, and then claimed that there would be no peace until Britain and had been wiped from the face of the earth.
But, that's not what happened. Instead, we dumped some tea into the ocean, wrote a document that was crazy enough to claim that all men were created equal and were entitled to life, liberty, and happiness. Then we told the British that we were a sovereign nation and if they wanted to do anything about it they would have to come fight us for it. At the same time we sent diplomats to the world powers of the time to pursue a non-military approach.
George Washington was a freedom fighter because that's exactly what he fought for. Don't be confused by the fact that both Al-Qaeda and the Revolutionaries pursued the military option and lump them together.
Al-Qaeda-Taliban has made no declaration of freedom. In fact, they declare that all who do not share their believes should die. To them, there is no idea of freedom or tolerance or liberty. Moreover, there is no diplomatic solution they are pursuing. Most importantly, there is no amicable end game for anyone involved. If the Taliban/Al-Qaeda wins no one will be more free because of it.
Ye with short memory forgets that the 1980's were completely different than today. The cold war and the Soviet Union were so much more important than Afganistan or Iraq or Vietnam. It was a time when entire countries would be given up to the other side to make sure the entire world continued to exist. If you've seen "13 Days" about the Cuban missle crisis you'll know what I'm talking about. To solve the Cuban missile crisis and avert nuclear war we basically abandoned our friends (Turkey) in return for Russia doing the same (Cuba).
Getting back to the Mujihadeen, they were instrumental in helping to bring down the Soviet Union. The cash and man power that the Russians had to spend to keep fighting in Afghanistan helped to bankrupt the Soviet economy. Add Afghanistan to Chechnya, Cuba, Nicaragua, and the other proxy wars of the time, and you get the conditions that allowed us to win the war on communism.
However, just because the Mujihadeen was an awesome bullet sponge for us doesn't make them our friends. Stalin was instrumental in bringing down Hitler, but no one would be dumb enough (in the US at least) to call him a freedom fighter. And, on the flip side, no one would be dumb enough to claim that we should have refused Stalin's help.
Back to Regan's words. He may have called the Mujihadeen "freedom fighters" and they may have been dumb enough to believe it. But the, real tragedy isn't that they believed that the US president actually backed their Islamo-Facist ideals -- its that you still believe it.
I'm glad you brought up the American revolution. I can't think of a better example that shows so clearly the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Start by comparing the opening salvos of the American revolution with the Al Qaeda's initial moves. Two events are most commonly associated with the start of American revolution: 1) The Boston Tea Party 2) The Declaration of Independence. Our founding fathers got pissed off and threw some tea into the ocean. Then they got together and wrote a document talking about how all men were created equal, signed it, and waited for the British to attack.
Compare that to Al Qaeda's initially moves. Instead of tossing tea into the ocean, they murdered >2000 innocent civilians. Instead of taking credit for the attacks and standing up for his principles, Osama cowardly denied that he had anything to do with it. Al Qaeda has no Declaration of Independence; they have no founding principles of equality or liberty.
As the war went on, American diplomats were actively engaged with the other world powers of the time. We talked to France and secured their assistance (though only after we had demonstrated the ability to win battles). We had concrete demands for the end of the war: simply our independence. On the contrary, Al Qaeda makes no effort to engage in politics (only war). They have no demands for an end of the war (only death to Israel and the infidels).
See, while both parties engage(d) in violence, only one of the two groups had (have) an interest in ending the battle and making the lives of themselves and others better.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is valid for rating systems. However, shows are very likely to advertise their content truthfully; watch a commercial. If a show contains sex, the commercial will generally contain a sexually provocative snippet. Violent movies often advertise using short, ultra-violent clips. Avoiding the rating system avoids the conflict of interest as tags don't fall into specific and arbitrary age groups.
Irregardless, the television industry has standards in place to tag content for the television rating system ("This program is rated TV-MA for violence and nudity"). I'm proposing that industry standardize those tags and provide a mechanism to filter shows based on the tags. I suppose the rating system could be left in place, but I'm content deciding what material is appropriate on my own.
I think content producers would be the best party to tag the content. There is little incentive to lie, on their part, even without government regulation. Tagging on the user's end doesn't do much good since there would be no tags when the show first plays.
some overly-rightous type can come up with reasons to consider practically anything "violent", effectively eliminating anything he doesn't like. Whereas another person could consider "violent" being ripped open with a chainsaw.
I see your point. Categorizing everything into broad tags would be problematic. However, as you also pointed out, tags have infinite granularity. The terms mild and extreme don't really describe the content like "scenes of torture", "criminal investigation", "medically related gore".
And above all, don' let someone else make them for you.
Any rating system is inherently flawed as it magnifies the values of a the ratings board. Tags avoid this problem. Tags bypass the ratings board entirely. There is little incentive for the producer to mislabel his content, even without government regulation. A show full of T&A will clearly define itself -- I sumbit any commercial for Desperate Housewives as evidence.
Besides, mild vs. extreme violence is a red herring. For me, personally, I don't like any violence on my TV. I don't want to watch CSI to see that its too violent, I already know. I don't want to watch CSI's successor, I already know. I don't want to see the next trailer for Hostel 2 or Saw 17 or whatever psychotic reenactment they're playing during the Simpsons, I already know. Just tag the freakin' content as violent or mildly violent or "so violent you'll bust a nut you psychotic fuck", so that I have a reasonable chance of filtering it at my end. That reminds me, I'll have to add "cartoon violence" to my included content list.
You're supposed to be able to take care of yourself when consuming the information that powers, oh, this entire democracy. But not be able to handle some violent or sexual imagery.
To all my Puritan-Facist copatriots: please stop legislating morality.
This whole issue of censorship is a simple problem with a simple solution.
Problem: There is certain material that people don't want themselves and/or their children to see.
The solution is as simple as Slashdot's tagging system. Content producers should be required to tag their programs with descriptive verbs like violence, nudity, etc. They already do this to some extent with the TV-Y, TV-MA rating system.
On my end, my cable receiver should be able to filter out programs with tags I don't like (violence, nudity, gospel). Problem solved.
The whole argument is not really about what should be censored, but who's value system is correct. Some people thing violence is worse than nudity/sex, others aren't offended by mating and think gratuitous violence is repulsive. Everyone's values are different, the problem arises when one group (the Puritan-Facists Fuckheads) tries to impose their morals on the whole populace.
The entire TV and movie rating system is based on the prejudices of these fanatics. It's not OK for a 7 year old to hear "goddamn", but its OK for a 13 year so long as there is no sex; sex and cussing OK for a 17 year old unless, of course, there is too much sex, then you have to be 18, or 21. Oh yeah, violence is OK at any age level.
Its time to move away from such a narrow definition of morality and arbitrary age gateways.
Or you could move to Arizona and forget about this 18th century nonsense.
Firstly, the Canadians did not fight America to a draw. America invaded Canada in a show of bravado; Canada not only repelled the attack, they fought their way across the great majority of the United States (at the time), eventually reaching and burning down the White House. In fact, part of Maine is now Canada as we seceded our rights to end the war. American (and I guess Canadian) history books distort the truth, but the fact is America had its ass handed to it by Canada in 1812 -- I can't think of a more decisive and humiliating total defeat.
Secondly, the United States was loathed before 911. Back then, one of the major complaints was that we weren't involved in world affairs enough. I remember many a diatribe about how we let down the Kurds by not toppling Sadam after the first gulf war -- there was even a movie "The Siege" expressing the very idea that the world hated us precisely because we never followed through in world events.
Well, now we've followed through, and the world still hates us. Forgive me if I'm starting to lose patience and concern with the world's vacillating opinion. The only common thread seems to be a hatred of America.
Thirdly, I take issue with anyone who portrays China as benevolent alternative to the United States. China is most definitely not benevolent. Say what you want about American oil policies, they are not as bad as Chinese oil policies: China Blocks Security Council Resolution 1556. Or maybe a Chinese AIDS village would be a better example of Chinese benevolence. Or maybe their support of Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela is your idea of benevolent policies.
Finally, its easy to criticize the United States and its policies while you benefit from them. Any country who imports oil or any foreign resource, depends on the might of the American navy to keep those shipping lanes open. Canada, in particular, has no room to criticize, as they are America's largest trading partner and directly contribute to and benefit from those policies the most. The United States may have single handedly fought and financed the war in Iraq, but all western societies will benefit equally from the increased oil trade. Exxon-Mobile sells worldwide, America enjoys no disparate benefit. The same, however, cannot be said about China's oil companies, who are state owned, and not bound to sell to anyone but the Chinese.
True. I read the original article and couldn't see why people are getting so worked up. Google is practicing prudent risk management practices. Their demand for secrecy isn't evil, its common sense. Google's existence is not implicit. Microsoft is one of many companies investing billions upon billions to take every last one of Google's users. Is it really that evil to keep your business secrets from Microsoft?
The legislators, on the other hand, weren't as graceful in negotiations. Google brought $600 million investment to North Carolina and the legislators are out bad mouthing them in the media. Other companies will take note of the bad publicity North Carolina is imposing on Google.
As the parent pointed out, tax breaks for big businesses is nothing new. Google can't be expected to forgo them while their competitors enjoy massive tax breaks of their own. Besides, the sales tax lost will probably be more than made up for by all tech workers and supporting industries. The property tax those 200 workers homes is worth a few million alone.
Don't tell me that Americans would choose freedom over wealth and progress any time.
American history is founded in choosing freedom over wealth. In rejecting British Imperialism, Americans effectively cut themselves off from the comforts and wealth of Great Britain's enormous trading empire.
During the American Civil war, 150,000 northern soldiers wealth and life to free the southern slaves.
Before both World War I and World War II the United States voluntarily stopped trading with the non-democratic aggressors.
In present times the United States has foresaken (relatively small) amounts of wealth to promote freedom in portions of Africa and Asia the Middle East. This is something China cannot say, as they continue to pour money into North Korea, Iran, and Sudan.
"Give me liberty or give me death."
I like the way you continued using the cat analogy, especially number 7.
Still, vandalism aside, I see Wikipedia growing more accurate and more factual with time, even without central control.
The Tragedy of the Commons does not apply to Wikipedia. Here's why:
The tragedy of the commons is based on the premise that there is some finite resource and there is a demand for that resource exceeding supply. In Wikipedia's case, there is no finite resource that needs to be shared.
If Wikipedia is the "Common" then Wikipedia's information must be the resource. For any topic there are three types of information:
1. Useful information (A cat is a mammal)
2. Useless information (A cat is a cat)
3. Destructive information (A cat is a fish)
For case 1, there can be no shortage. Everyone is free share the same useful information, everyone is free to add useful information.
For case 2, there is no demand. With no demand there can be no shortage.
For case 3, there is an opposite of demand (desire to remove). Again with no demand, there can be no shortage.
Vandals tend to operate by inserting destructive or useless information into Wikipedia. Since there is no demand for this information, it tends to not be preserved over long periods of time. Moderators and other users tend to find and remove discrepancies.
Wikipedia, and its millions of users, acts like organism and evolves to match the demands of its environment. As such, useful information will be valued, preserved, reinserted if removed, and corrected if vandalized. On the other hand, useless and destructive information has no value, it will not be reinserted or preserved.
The only way for Wikipedia to become less, and not more valuable is to change the environment so that people no longer value useful information, or so that the destructive information become so prevalent that the useful information has no remaining value. But, the probability of this happening becomes smaller with every new article.
The drug companies would like us to believe that patents are necessary to bring new drugs to market. Those who "drank the kool-aid" claim that without patents generic drugs would make drug research unprofitable.
What is profitable?
Pfizer pulled in $51.2 billion in 2006 with $8 billion in profits.
Merck wasn't as "profitable", with only $4.6 billion in profits on $22 billion total income.
The top 10 drug makers are worth $1.125 trillion and made $50 billion.
But, what these numbers don't show is that there are barely more than 10 major players making any significant money in drugs. Is that because there is so little money to be made? A mere $50 billion?
I can't figure out how a free market would allocate so much wealth into so few hands. Unless the market wasn't free to start with.
Drug companies use patents to subdivide the treatable medical domain into discrete markets that can be monopolized or duopolized so long as the patent stands. It is true that without the patents there would be more generics to compete with. That's not a bad thing.
The drug company who first develops a medicine still has a competitive advantage, even without a patent. They will be first to market. They have the opportunity to define the brand in the eyes of the consumer. Brands like Viagra and Botox have value to the user that a patent doesn't provide.
Drug patents are not really "necessary" to make a profit, but they are necessary to make such huge profits.
it's not FAIR that fewer women in a field is cause for scholarships and incentive programs, but fewer men is a field is not cause.
I agree. I think if you read my entire comment, slowly, you will see that I have been saying the same thing.
Let me see if understand you right
You don't. Let me restate, because there are gender imbalances on both sides, there is no reason to go around trying to make every field 50/50, male or female. Men will choose fields they enjoy, women will choose fields they enjoy. Let it be.
The question is why? Why is an inequality in the favor of men no reason?
What? Maybe it's the lack of complete sentences or just two really poorly worded questions, but I can't understand you. I'll do my best though.
The question is why?
Right. I asked why should women be encouraged to go into high tech just to make it equal. I don't feel like an imbalance necessitates a solution. I included the example of imbalances the other way (more women than men are in medical school and law school) to show that not every imbalance is all that horrible.
Though I don't really understand you're point of view. I would think that you agree, except for the smuggness, sarcastic tone, and general arrogance that you include in your posts.
Not interested in name calling though.
No, you're right, you didn't name call. But you were condescending, smug, and sarcastic. I hope you don't live under the illusion that passive aggression is somehow better than actual aggression.
For clarity, I'll restate my argument in a less incoherent way:
Assertion 1. There are plenty of high paying jobs that women are interested in. I back up this statement by pointing to the percentage of women vs. men in law and medical school as concrete examples.
Assertion 2. There is no barrier to entry to the high tech field. The article talks specifically about "self-taught" high tech individuals. There is no insitutional barrier to educating oneself.
Conclusion: Therefore, putting money into programs will not remove any barriers and do nothing to incite more women into the workforce. It will, if anything, redirect educated individuals that would have pursued other careers (like law and medicine) into the high tech field.
Since you clearly didn't read the original post, I doubt you'll read this one.
It's pretty humorous that you reposted my comment "No reason to fire up the program now to incite men back into the fields", and then smugly agreed with it (without realizing it).
Ah...retards. That's cool. Life is better with more chromosomes.
The reason there aren't more women in tech, self starters or otherwise is because they don't want to be and aren't interested! No program, encouragement, coersion or other methods will change that.
There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. One can't say that all women are not interested in tech. But, in general, you're right.
However, I would ask, why incite them to join? So what? There are many more women than men in law school and medical school. For years, it was the other way around. Incentive programs and scholarships helped tilt the balance. No reason to fire up programs now to incite men back into the fields.
Its not a zero sum game, there are plenty of high paying jobs (medicine and law) that women are clearly interested in. No reason to pull them away just to make the IT world seem "gender equal".
My god, sir. I actually have a tingly feeling in my spine. I never expected to read something so coherent, reasonable, and well thought-out here on Slashdot (when it comes to criticizing the US, that is).
My friend got back from Iraq a few months ago after serving as a military engineer for the last year. He was lucky enough to meet a girl and is bringing her back to the US this month. Both my friend and his soon-to-be wife blame everything bad in Iraq on the United States. We argued about it for a while until I realized something. Of the three of us (me a US citizen not in the military, my buddy in the military, and the Iraqi woman) there is only one person with any real control over what goes on it Iraq: the Iraqi. She could have stayed in Iraq (not that I would have), braved the dangers, set a brilliant example by running for local office, or simply tried to convince those around her to be more tolerant. Instead, she's running away and leaving it all behind.
Irrellavant. That hasn't happened.
So what? Who cares? Lets break down the numbers...
Foreign run high-tech startups contributed $52 billion to the economy in 2005
- Not really, startups where at least one person was foreign born contributed this much.
- In a 12.49 trillion dollar economy, $52 billion is about %0.4
- Americans spent about that much on shoes last year, or lawn care
These companies employed 450,000 people
- 0.3% of the work force producing %0.4 of GDP
- That's great until you realize that these are 450,000 high tech workers who should be producing many magnitudes more GDP than the average. A semiconductor worker != a dish washer.
Yet, for some reason, both the article and study draw the conclusion that they've uncovered something significant. As far as I can tell, they've uncovered the fact that nothing significant exists in this data in any way.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of foreigners coming to the US and starting businesses. Its a big middle finger to their home countries who never implemented the financial and legal systems necessary to allow business to flourish. One of our family friends is from Iran. He decided that the ruling system there was screwed beyond fixing, escaped for American, and is now a self made millionaire. Brilliant!
But, I'm not for collecting a bunch of completely average statistics, pointing to them and exclaiming: Incredible!
You're 100% right. I couldn't agree more. You might like Richard Dawkin's new book, if you haven't already read it: The God Delusion. One thing he brings up early in the book is that many of the founding fathers loathed religous zealots, feared them intensely, and would be horrified by way religion (christianity) has entangled itself in US politics.
Surely if we Americans had lost the Revolutionary War, George Washington would have been looked upon as a traitor and a rebel. He would have been hanged and the fickle masses would have cheered it.
...but he did issue a fatwa in 1998 listing all his grievances. Plus he has offered a truce several times.
Maybe. Joan of Arc was burnt as a witch in front of the cheering hoards. However, we are more likely to look at her today in a positive light than a negative -- and not because the French haven't had a say in history.
I don't want to defend Osama bin Laden...
Then stop defending him.
Cool. Awesome. So he took those grievances before the UN? He offered a formal written truce? How many other world powers have backed that truce?
I understand your point about the biases of history. And, if this were a conversation about the impartiality of the observer I would have to agree 100%. But it's not. The parent poster, in an underhanded manner, tried to attach the label Freedom Fighter to the terrorists. I pointedly and firmly disagreed and have made the point over and over again that they have absolutely no interest in freedom -- only death and religious intolerance.
People tend to get hung up on strange things like the fact that both the revolutionaries and Al-Qaeda both use(d) military tactics to achieve their goals. Its unfortunate that those same people can't take it one step further and look at what those goals actually are.
One could put the American revolutionaries and Taliban-Qaeda into the same boat if the Americans had sailed to Britain, blown up Parliamant, and then claimed that there would be no peace until Britain and had been wiped from the face of the earth.
But, that's not what happened. Instead, we dumped some tea into the ocean, wrote a document that was crazy enough to claim that all men were created equal and were entitled to life, liberty, and happiness. Then we told the British that we were a sovereign nation and if they wanted to do anything about it they would have to come fight us for it. At the same time we sent diplomats to the world powers of the time to pursue a non-military approach.
George Washington was a freedom fighter because that's exactly what he fought for. Don't be confused by the fact that both Al-Qaeda and the Revolutionaries pursued the military option and lump them together.
Al-Qaeda-Taliban has made no declaration of freedom. In fact, they declare that all who do not share their believes should die. To them, there is no idea of freedom or tolerance or liberty. Moreover, there is no diplomatic solution they are pursuing. Most importantly, there is no amicable end game for anyone involved. If the Taliban/Al-Qaeda wins no one will be more free because of it.
Ye with short memory forgets that the 1980's were completely different than today. The cold war and the Soviet Union were so much more important than Afganistan or Iraq or Vietnam. It was a time when entire countries would be given up to the other side to make sure the entire world continued to exist. If you've seen "13 Days" about the Cuban missle crisis you'll know what I'm talking about. To solve the Cuban missile crisis and avert nuclear war we basically abandoned our friends (Turkey) in return for Russia doing the same (Cuba).
Getting back to the Mujihadeen, they were instrumental in helping to bring down the Soviet Union. The cash and man power that the Russians had to spend to keep fighting in Afghanistan helped to bankrupt the Soviet economy. Add Afghanistan to Chechnya, Cuba, Nicaragua, and the other proxy wars of the time, and you get the conditions that allowed us to win the war on communism.
However, just because the Mujihadeen was an awesome bullet sponge for us doesn't make them our friends. Stalin was instrumental in bringing down Hitler, but no one would be dumb enough (in the US at least) to call him a freedom fighter. And, on the flip side, no one would be dumb enough to claim that we should have refused Stalin's help.
Back to Regan's words. He may have called the Mujihadeen "freedom fighters" and they may have been dumb enough to believe it. But the, real tragedy isn't that they believed that the US president actually backed their Islamo-Facist ideals -- its that you still believe it.
I'm glad you brought up the American revolution. I can't think of a better example that shows so clearly the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Start by comparing the opening salvos of the American revolution with the Al Qaeda's initial moves. Two events are most commonly associated with the start of American revolution: 1) The Boston Tea Party 2) The Declaration of Independence. Our founding fathers got pissed off and threw some tea into the ocean. Then they got together and wrote a document talking about how all men were created equal, signed it, and waited for the British to attack.
Compare that to Al Qaeda's initially moves. Instead of tossing tea into the ocean, they murdered >2000 innocent civilians. Instead of taking credit for the attacks and standing up for his principles, Osama cowardly denied that he had anything to do with it. Al Qaeda has no Declaration of Independence; they have no founding principles of equality or liberty.
As the war went on, American diplomats were actively engaged with the other world powers of the time. We talked to France and secured their assistance (though only after we had demonstrated the ability to win battles). We had concrete demands for the end of the war: simply our independence. On the contrary, Al Qaeda makes no effort to engage in politics (only war). They have no demands for an end of the war (only death to Israel and the infidels).
See, while both parties engage(d) in violence, only one of the two groups had (have) an interest in ending the battle and making the lives of themselves and others better.