Again, try and walk home alone, drunk, and at night a few hundred years ago and you'd be lucky to still have the clothes on your back the next morning (or even wake up at all).
And try and walk home alone, drunk and at night through paris, or munich, or barcelona, and you'll both get home safely and not have to walk through a river of piss on the way.
The unappetising sight of drunks is not beside the point at all; if you read your original parent's and grandparent's posts you'll see that it is this that they are complaining about. You were implying in your argument that those who do not want to put up with drunks on the way home every night must be members of the Taliban reflecting caveman instincts. I take great exception to this, and that was what my post was about.
yeah, but not quite because eastern Europe drinks spirit more(?). In addition, wine is between beer and spirit in alcohol content, so I think there is something more complicated going on. Maybe there's a hot-place cold-place phenomenon. (Grapes grow in hot places).
The next time you see a semi-naked, drunk young thing staggering down the street, marvel at what a free and open society you live in, repress the urge to bonk her over the head and drag her back to your apartment, and pat yourself on the back for your own part in a real civilization....
...and the next morning read in the paper that rape has gone up yet again in this years crime figures, but console yourself in the knowledge that at least we live in a "real" civilisation.
But in seriousness, I personally don't like to have to walk home after the pubs shut and see people urinating in public, vomitting on the pavement, fighting and screaming. This applies to men and women, I'm not discriminating. But, I guess it is all because I'm just a caveman, as you say.
The article is talking about a related, but not identical concept of the correlation between rich parents and rich children. I would admit that there may be a case for saying that European hierarchy is based less on your parents, however it is very strongly based on your job-title, and more generally on your success in jumping through the right hoops earlier in your life. This is better than a nepotistic system, but it is still very bad for letting people take risks with their future. In America it is usually considered as a good thing that you were part of a startup, even if it failed, whereas in Europe it all but rules you out of any high powered job in the future. In America the emphasis is that you tried, in Europe it is that you failed. Of course I should add the usual statement that it is only a general comment and doesn't apply individually.
Sorry, i sound like a troll but there IS some truth in what I say.
France has a 35 hour per week working limit. This is clearly not designed to enhance personal *freedom*, it is an attempt to distribute employment more uniformly. Similarly the EU is trying to enforce a 48 hour per week maximum for all countries; this is being opposed by countries such as UK. Tax in the UK is a lower proportion of GDP than most other countries, especially Germany and France. This can be seen as promoting the social value of alleviating poverty at the expense of eroding people's freedom to spend their own money as they see fit.
I'm not sure, but I'm told that in Germany it is very risky for a business to take on more staff unless they can guarantee future revenue, since the redundancy laws are very much in favour of the workforce. I admit that this isn't really personal freedom, rather it is employer's freedom, but since employers are generally people and companies are owned by people, the two are related.
Hierarchy was probably not the best term to use, what I really mean is flexibility. In France it is very difficult to get a job without going through the relevant well-defined system. For example, to get into banking you need to have done at least one internship and gone to one of a small list of Grand Ecoles. To get to these, you must have been ranked above a certain amount in the Prep. To get to this you must have been ranked above a certain amount in the Bacc. Likewise, to be in the civil service you have to have followed a specific path. Europeans are usually shocked to discover that British employers often regard a gap-year as a good thing, and that they regularly hire graduates in Greek and Latin.
A friend working in Germany was amazed at how rigid the hierarchy is within the company she worked at. Compared to the UK, people would pay absolutely no attention to what you were saying unless you were of a particular rank within the company.
Regarding 'drive', it is a very well documented phenomenon that Europeans are more risk-averse in business than Anglo-saxons. Of course, I am generalising and I don't mean to say that every American is more entrepreneurial than every European, but overall there is a difference. If you don't believe me then look at how many American startups there are who win big compared to the European startups. The thinking in industry is that the lack entrepreneurs in Europe is a huge problem. 50% of French school leavers want a career in the civil service because it is guaranteed employment for life.
P.S. perhaps I shouldn't have included Spain in my list...I really don't know much about it.
This includes countries that are as she describes, although there are most likely other countries that fit the bill (such as Netherlands, Belgium etc) but I have no direct experience since i've not been there.
It may sound like she is being devious by excluding certain countries, but she is not; there is a large cultural divide between European countries, more so than between red and blue states in the US. Before the recent integration of the 10 eastern European states you could get away with talking about "Europe" as being France, Germany, Italy etc with Britain an anomoly. Now, however, there is a large block of countries who have free-market tendencies and so it is not so easy to talk about "Europe" as a single entity. Strangely enough, the problems with alcohol seem to be correlated with free-market policies.
You do realise that his own job is actually in the software development unit, and AFAIK doesn't have anything to do with the constitution. So I suppose he is actually following your advice of "they should focus on their own jobs".
Its high time these people stopped lauding the 'commission and friends' - they are not our friends and never will be.
And who exactly was calling them the "commission and friends"? It seems unlikely; since you don't normally call the British (for example) civil service or government as "friends", why would you call the Europeans that?
Maybe I just have my head in the sand, but I haven't seen people on/. claiming that "[Europe] always have everything better than [America]" or that "Europe is perfect". I don't mean to sound rude, but you do sound like you are creating a mythical enemy for the purpose of ranting.
There are so many variations between countries that saying one is better than another is entirely subjective. Rather than trying to figure out which one is better, try focussing on how they differ and why.
IMO, Americans have a much better "just do it" approach to life/work and tend to value personal freedom. Europeans OTOH are more focussed on social values, society is more hierarchical and people tend to have a higher regard for style. Britain is halfway between the two.
When it comes to open source, Americans have the usual advantage of having more drive to get things done, whereas Europeans may be more likely to accept the concept due to its wider social implications.
No, adsense is a product, your attention/clickthrough is the outcome of this product.
For example, the product of a company selling fishing rods is not fish (since fish grow all by themselves), it is actually fishing rods. Google does not make people, it makes products to 'catch' them (so to speak).
You appear to be under the misapprehension that everything can be either categorized as either a product or a customer.
I wasn't saying anything about the merits of educating people. In fact, if you have a look at your original post, neither were you.
I was trying to illustrate the fact that our society relies upon having a large diversification of skills. This allows us to achieve much more collectively, although it also means that we have to accept that other people will not have as much knowledge as we do in our area of expertise. We do expect that everyone has a basic level of competence at general tasks, but like it or not knowing exactly how emails can be counterfeited, knowing that the 'secure' symbol in a browser refers only to the protocol, that a certificate can be self-signed, that an accented character in the domain name can send you to a malicious site etc etc constitute more than just a basic level of competence.
The very fact that half of your company fall into your category of "stupid" ought to make you wonder whether that is the best descriptor to use. No wonder (in my experience) everybody hates the guy in IT.
Finally, if your original post was about the importance of educating people, it seems odd that you titled it "Internet Darwinism".
...and I suppose anyone who can't defend themselves deserves to get mugged? And anyone who hasn't done a law degree deserves to be sued? And anyone who can't grow their own food deserves to starve?
Can you not see how repulsive your statement is? Before making such broad allegations, try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't waste away their whole life reading slashdot, and doesn't have an in-depth knowledge of the internet. Maybe they're too busy growing your food to know that the locked padlock symbol at the bottom of the browser doesn't necessarily mean that they are where they want to be. Or perhaps they're too busy investigating the spate of burglaries in your neighbourhood to find out that clicking on the link to Citibank, enclosed within an email from Citibank, will actually take them to a scammer.
Please, can you show a little more respect for the other people you share the world with. They are not as stupid as you think.
Most people would say that computer security is just a means to (not) getting fucked over. OTOH, you seem to think that getting fucked over is just a means to computer security.
Whilst we all have to live by our own ethics, and it is usually a good thing to respect the ethical systems of others, I have to admit that I think your are messed up.
P.S. - Do you also think that famine is a good method of population control?
No, google exists primarily to make money. They do this by providing various services to the consumer (such as search) and selling ad space. I don't think anything has changed, has it?
Saying that we are being sold by Google is a rather pointless (albeit emotional) statement. Google sell ADSPACE and provide a service. In what way is it more precise or more insightful to say that they are selling us?
Most board members in a given company are either CEOs or high-level execs in another company. It's a fairly elite group and I don't see this happening.
Fair point.
But what i'm trying to say is that regardless of whether the CEO is paid correctly or not, regardless of whether the board is answerable to shareholders or themselves, it still makes sense to cut salaries. You're trying to make this seem like it is the corrupt CEO/board that is causing pay cuts, but it is not actually the case because these pay cuts would happen regardless. It is competition in a (somewhat) free market that is causing it.
I think the problem is that there is no cohesive 'them'. 'They' are all competing with each other, so (if offshoring is indeed more efficient) as soon as one company offshores and manages to produce their goods/services cheaper, they will wipe the floor with the other companies until all the other companies do so.
You've really missed the point when you talk about how corporations should cut down on CEO salaries rather than worker salaries - if the board thought it was good for the companies profits they would cut the CEO's salary AS WELL as the workers salaries. Companies are out to MAXIMIZE profits, not just to increase them a little bit.
True, but I believe it is the majority who do want the two combined, so long as it does the job properly. If the new batch of combined phone/music players don't work out, i am convinced it will be because they have been done wrong, rather than the concept being wrong.
I don't know how it is in america, but in europe almost everyone has a phone, so having that functionality in an mp3 player is really nice as you don't have to carry around two devices. after all, in these devices what takes up most of the space is the screen+battery, so it is a bit inefficient to have two of each.
Now I never actually read the O'Gara article (is it still on the web somewhere?), but it doesn't sound like it goes beyond the ethics of the majority of mainstream tabloids. Yeah, it's wrong, but you don't see people getting all fired up about a journalist finding out where some musician (say) lives and taking a few photos. But in the Linux world, this kind of activity seems to be taken as conclusive proof that evil Microsoft is attempting to assassinate its opponents.
I think that it is this lack of perspective that Dvorak is referring to when he criticises some of the Linux community.
Yes, every community has delusional lunatics, but not every community mods them +5 insightful.
(Maybe I'm just bitter because nobody thinks I'm insightful myself:-s )
If people are not willing to acquire such clue, they should watch TV instead...
Oh, they should, should they? And what ethical code is it that you are basing the word should on? What kind of world do you actually invisage? One where the baker tells the people that if they can't understand the fermentation of yeast then they should go hungry? Or one where the doctor declares that anybody who is not an expert on open-heart-surgery should die of a heart attack? Or perhaps one where I state that "People who pontificate on the actions of others without caring for or bothering to understand the lives of those people should shut the fuck up."
Fortunately, we do not live in such a society, more or less. Instead, we have a model where fulfilling the needs of others is actively encouraged. Companies like Microsoft and Apple understand this, so rather than telling everyone not to use computers, they actually go out of their way to make things useable and in the case of MS, society has rewarded them handsomely.
actually, i think penrose is dead against string theory, and the herd like group-think mentality associated with it. so although i haven't read the book, i am confident he wouldn't have bigged it up too much.
I've had the honour of going round his house a couple of times, and I have to say that this man is incredible. He is one of those people who can explain something, and make you understand everything he's talking about until you walk away and then realise, when it's too late, that actually you don't really understand anything at all. He breathes confidence (but in a characteristically english sort of way).
I agree with what you are saying, they are wanting cheap labour, and they are wanting people to go into the field. After all, if there are more people going into the field then it reduces prices even further.
But it isn't hypocracy because they are not really able to employ people here, if you assume a perfect market. You see there is a difference between one company spending lots on US labour and every company spending lots on US labour. Since there is no way to force every company to employ US labour (unless america invades the whole world), then any single company that does so on MORAL grounds stands to lose out.
That is why these business leaders have to find a political solution rather than a market based solution. It's probably a tragedy of the commons in some way.
It comes down to the goals of the public and prvate sectors. Private sector companies are typically amoral, and are there to produce profit. The public sector is supposed to take care of the things that the 'invisible hand' is not going to be able to take care of, such as defence, law and education. Often making a profit and fulfilling the public good is not compatible, and so the best a CEO can do is make speaches, lobby government etc WHILST maintaining business as usual. This is what you are witnessing now. If they took up a moral (as opposed to amoral) stance in their everyday business then they are much more likely to end up being uncompetitive and be forced out of business by the competition.
It is assumed, correctly in my view, that the IT industry is important to the future of the US economy. To have a strong IT industry you more or less need a large pool of quality programmers. The question is, how do you ensure that you do have a large pool of quality programmers in 20 years time? We have already ruled out the idea of companies paying over the odds for them, since they would just end up dying under competition from foreign competition (indians are born equal to americans). Another way is to publicise it better. Patterson talks about the case of the president meeting the football team but not the ACM team, unlike russia. Another way is to improve the education system...although indians are born equal, it doesn't have to be the case that they come out of school equal. Patterson also talks about this.
This is (at least partly) a case where the private sector isn't really in a position to do anything about it, and so the government should step in. I see no hypocrisy in his actions over this.
actually, i find that it's often 40 year olds who were early adopters back when they were in the 20s and 30s who are the most luddite of all. it's as if they have solidified their views on what features are good and what features are bad. what makes matters worse is that they still consider themselves early-adopters and 'techies'. Of course i'm not saying that you fit into that category at all, i know nothing about you, but i just thought i'd mention it anyway.
Regarding phone plans, as you probably know sms is only a soft technology, it doesn't require new broadcast masts or anything like that and actually sends less data than a voice call. so quickly after the technology comes out it will be comoditised and become very cheap. i'm not sure what the situation is like in the us, but in europe i don't think it's even possible to get a phone contract (or prepay or whatever) without having sms. also, in europe you never even see this kind of argument going on about the pros and cons of texting, because virtually everyone has already learnt what sms is appropriate for and what it isn't appropriate for.
still, it's kind of nice hearing these arguments again, and it's easier than using the wayback machine;)
Slashdot Mirror
And try and walk home alone, drunk and at night through paris, or munich, or barcelona, and you'll both get home safely and not have to walk through a river of piss on the way.
The unappetising sight of drunks is not beside the point at all; if you read your original parent's and grandparent's posts you'll see that it is this that they are complaining about. You were implying in your argument that those who do not want to put up with drunks on the way home every night must be members of the Taliban reflecting caveman instincts. I take great exception to this, and that was what my post was about.
yeah, but not quite because eastern Europe drinks spirit more(?). In addition, wine is between beer and spirit in alcohol content, so I think there is something more complicated going on. Maybe there's a hot-place cold-place phenomenon. (Grapes grow in hot places).
...and the next morning read in the paper that rape has gone up yet again in this years crime figures, but console yourself in the knowledge that at least we live in a "real" civilisation.
But in seriousness, I personally don't like to have to walk home after the pubs shut and see people urinating in public, vomitting on the pavement, fighting and screaming. This applies to men and women, I'm not discriminating. But, I guess it is all because I'm just a caveman, as you say.
The article is talking about a related, but not identical concept of the correlation between rich parents and rich children. I would admit that there may be a case for saying that European hierarchy is based less on your parents, however it is very strongly based on your job-title, and more generally on your success in jumping through the right hoops earlier in your life. This is better than a nepotistic system, but it is still very bad for letting people take risks with their future. In America it is usually considered as a good thing that you were part of a startup, even if it failed, whereas in Europe it all but rules you out of any high powered job in the future. In America the emphasis is that you tried, in Europe it is that you failed. Of course I should add the usual statement that it is only a general comment and doesn't apply individually.
France has a 35 hour per week working limit. This is clearly not designed to enhance personal *freedom*, it is an attempt to distribute employment more uniformly. Similarly the EU is trying to enforce a 48 hour per week maximum for all countries; this is being opposed by countries such as UK. Tax in the UK is a lower proportion of GDP than most other countries, especially Germany and France. This can be seen as promoting the social value of alleviating poverty at the expense of eroding people's freedom to spend their own money as they see fit.
I'm not sure, but I'm told that in Germany it is very risky for a business to take on more staff unless they can guarantee future revenue, since the redundancy laws are very much in favour of the workforce. I admit that this isn't really personal freedom, rather it is employer's freedom, but since employers are generally people and companies are owned by people, the two are related.
Hierarchy was probably not the best term to use, what I really mean is flexibility. In France it is very difficult to get a job without going through the relevant well-defined system. For example, to get into banking you need to have done at least one internship and gone to one of a small list of Grand Ecoles. To get to these, you must have been ranked above a certain amount in the Prep. To get to this you must have been ranked above a certain amount in the Bacc. Likewise, to be in the civil service you have to have followed a specific path. Europeans are usually shocked to discover that British employers often regard a gap-year as a good thing, and that they regularly hire graduates in Greek and Latin.
A friend working in Germany was amazed at how rigid the hierarchy is within the company she worked at. Compared to the UK, people would pay absolutely no attention to what you were saying unless you were of a particular rank within the company.
Regarding 'drive', it is a very well documented phenomenon that Europeans are more risk-averse in business than Anglo-saxons. Of course, I am generalising and I don't mean to say that every American is more entrepreneurial than every European, but overall there is a difference. If you don't believe me then look at how many American startups there are who win big compared to the European startups. The thinking in industry is that the lack entrepreneurs in Europe is a huge problem. 50% of French school leavers want a career in the civil service because it is guaranteed employment for life.
P.S. perhaps I shouldn't have included Spain in my list...I really don't know much about it.
- France
- Spain
- Italy
Total population: 160M.This includes countries that are as she describes, although there are most likely other countries that fit the bill (such as Netherlands, Belgium etc) but I have no direct experience since i've not been there.
It may sound like she is being devious by excluding certain countries, but she is not; there is a large cultural divide between European countries, more so than between red and blue states in the US. Before the recent integration of the 10 eastern European states you could get away with talking about "Europe" as being France, Germany, Italy etc with Britain an anomoly. Now, however, there is a large block of countries who have free-market tendencies and so it is not so easy to talk about "Europe" as a single entity. Strangely enough, the problems with alcohol seem to be correlated with free-market policies.
Its high time these people stopped lauding the 'commission and friends' - they are not our friends and never will be.
And who exactly was calling them the "commission and friends"? It seems unlikely; since you don't normally call the British (for example) civil service or government as "friends", why would you call the Europeans that?
There are so many variations between countries that saying one is better than another is entirely subjective. Rather than trying to figure out which one is better, try focussing on how they differ and why.
IMO, Americans have a much better "just do it" approach to life/work and tend to value personal freedom. Europeans OTOH are more focussed on social values, society is more hierarchical and people tend to have a higher regard for style. Britain is halfway between the two.
When it comes to open source, Americans have the usual advantage of having more drive to get things done, whereas Europeans may be more likely to accept the concept due to its wider social implications.
For example, the product of a company selling fishing rods is not fish (since fish grow all by themselves), it is actually fishing rods. Google does not make people, it makes products to 'catch' them (so to speak).
You appear to be under the misapprehension that everything can be either categorized as either a product or a customer.
I was trying to illustrate the fact that our society relies upon having a large diversification of skills. This allows us to achieve much more collectively, although it also means that we have to accept that other people will not have as much knowledge as we do in our area of expertise. We do expect that everyone has a basic level of competence at general tasks, but like it or not knowing exactly how emails can be counterfeited, knowing that the 'secure' symbol in a browser refers only to the protocol, that a certificate can be self-signed, that an accented character in the domain name can send you to a malicious site etc etc constitute more than just a basic level of competence.
The very fact that half of your company fall into your category of "stupid" ought to make you wonder whether that is the best descriptor to use. No wonder (in my experience) everybody hates the guy in IT.
Finally, if your original post was about the importance of educating people, it seems odd that you titled it "Internet Darwinism".
Can you not see how repulsive your statement is? Before making such broad allegations, try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't waste away their whole life reading slashdot, and doesn't have an in-depth knowledge of the internet. Maybe they're too busy growing your food to know that the locked padlock symbol at the bottom of the browser doesn't necessarily mean that they are where they want to be. Or perhaps they're too busy investigating the spate of burglaries in your neighbourhood to find out that clicking on the link to Citibank, enclosed within an email from Citibank, will actually take them to a scammer.
Please, can you show a little more respect for the other people you share the world with. They are not as stupid as you think.
Whilst we all have to live by our own ethics, and it is usually a good thing to respect the ethical systems of others, I have to admit that I think your are messed up.
P.S. - Do you also think that famine is a good method of population control?
Saying that we are being sold by Google is a rather pointless (albeit emotional) statement. Google sell ADSPACE and provide a service. In what way is it more precise or more insightful to say that they are selling us?
Fair point.
But what i'm trying to say is that regardless of whether the CEO is paid correctly or not, regardless of whether the board is answerable to shareholders or themselves, it still makes sense to cut salaries. You're trying to make this seem like it is the corrupt CEO/board that is causing pay cuts, but it is not actually the case because these pay cuts would happen regardless. It is competition in a (somewhat) free market that is causing it.
You've really missed the point when you talk about how corporations should cut down on CEO salaries rather than worker salaries - if the board thought it was good for the companies profits they would cut the CEO's salary AS WELL as the workers salaries. Companies are out to MAXIMIZE profits, not just to increase them a little bit.
I don't know how it is in america, but in europe almost everyone has a phone, so having that functionality in an mp3 player is really nice as you don't have to carry around two devices. after all, in these devices what takes up most of the space is the screen+battery, so it is a bit inefficient to have two of each.
I think that it is this lack of perspective that Dvorak is referring to when he criticises some of the Linux community.
Yes, every community has delusional lunatics, but not every community mods them +5 insightful. (Maybe I'm just bitter because nobody thinks I'm insightful myself :-s )
Oh, they should, should they? And what ethical code is it that you are basing the word should on? What kind of world do you actually invisage? One where the baker tells the people that if they can't understand the fermentation of yeast then they should go hungry? Or one where the doctor declares that anybody who is not an expert on open-heart-surgery should die of a heart attack? Or perhaps one where I state that "People who pontificate on the actions of others without caring for or bothering to understand the lives of those people should shut the fuck up."
Fortunately, we do not live in such a society, more or less. Instead, we have a model where fulfilling the needs of others is actively encouraged. Companies like Microsoft and Apple understand this, so rather than telling everyone not to use computers, they actually go out of their way to make things useable and in the case of MS, society has rewarded them handsomely.
actually, i think penrose is dead against string theory, and the herd like group-think mentality associated with it. so although i haven't read the book, i am confident he wouldn't have bigged it up too much.
I've had the honour of going round his house a couple of times, and I have to say that this man is incredible. He is one of those people who can explain something, and make you understand everything he's talking about until you walk away and then realise, when it's too late, that actually you don't really understand anything at all. He breathes confidence (but in a characteristically english sort of way).
But it isn't hypocracy because they are not really able to employ people here, if you assume a perfect market. You see there is a difference between one company spending lots on US labour and every company spending lots on US labour. Since there is no way to force every company to employ US labour (unless america invades the whole world), then any single company that does so on MORAL grounds stands to lose out.
That is why these business leaders have to find a political solution rather than a market based solution. It's probably a tragedy of the commons in some way.
It is assumed, correctly in my view, that the IT industry is important to the future of the US economy. To have a strong IT industry you more or less need a large pool of quality programmers. The question is, how do you ensure that you do have a large pool of quality programmers in 20 years time? We have already ruled out the idea of companies paying over the odds for them, since they would just end up dying under competition from foreign competition (indians are born equal to americans). Another way is to publicise it better. Patterson talks about the case of the president meeting the football team but not the ACM team, unlike russia. Another way is to improve the education system...although indians are born equal, it doesn't have to be the case that they come out of school equal. Patterson also talks about this.
This is (at least partly) a case where the private sector isn't really in a position to do anything about it, and so the government should step in. I see no hypocrisy in his actions over this.
Regarding phone plans, as you probably know sms is only a soft technology, it doesn't require new broadcast masts or anything like that and actually sends less data than a voice call. so quickly after the technology comes out it will be comoditised and become very cheap. i'm not sure what the situation is like in the us, but in europe i don't think it's even possible to get a phone contract (or prepay or whatever) without having sms. also, in europe you never even see this kind of argument going on about the pros and cons of texting, because virtually everyone has already learnt what sms is appropriate for and what it isn't appropriate for.
still, it's kind of nice hearing these arguments again, and it's easier than using the wayback machine ;)
also when batteries are nearly dead. even when the batteries are low and a voice call will kill it completely, several texts can still get through.