But could Garmin and TomTom shrink by 80 or 90 percent, laying off much of their work force, and then get reduced to selling specialized products to niche markets and falling off the map of mainstream awareness? Yes. Yes, they could.
Unselfishness. Being interested in what other people are doing. Authentically interested. (And a modicum of appropriate comportment.)
If you (not you, Elvind, the general "you") can get out of your well of self-pity and self-absorption to actually take an interest in what other people are about, your social status will sky-rocket. And you may actually be happier as well.
There is no bully in a community college because you need to pay for your classes. Bullies either end up in ghettos, trailers or a certain "department of corrections".
There is a difference between "deserve" and "could reasonably expect."
If I jaywalk, it isn't surprising if I get hit by a car. Doesn't mean I deserve it. And, by the way, it is interesting that geeks and jocks each have "acceptable" and "unacceptable" forms of abuse. For more physically-oriented people, physical violence can be seen as less cruel than verbal violence. After all, a bruise heals - verbal abuse sometimes doesn't. But because the stereotypical nerd is bad at all-things-physical, they try to take all-things-physical off of the playing field.
The "socials" have mastered the art of symbolic violence, of course, and have it over both the jocks and nerds that way.
That is why I think geek culture - which is really just a particularly enthusiastic sub-species of consumer - is a serious decline from nerd culture, which is a particularly enthusiastic sub-species of producer.
I think that I regret having be raised to over-identify with one trait. It happened to my siblings, as well - each of which was identified as having a single, defining trait (a talent, a temperament, etc) and being discouraged from identifying with the others. Even the geekiest of geeks is still a physical being, with a body that they can take care of and enjoy. Even the jockiest of jocks has a mind that they can cultivate, and we all have the ability to appreciate beauty, to work hard, to reflect on our circumstances, to build human relationships, etc. What is worse than being pegged as a "type" is to internalize and even enjoy that "type" at the expense of experiencing life fully. If I have any regrets about my life, it is the time I wasted trying to stay within a type, and missing out on opportunities for amazing experiences.
For fuck's sake, it's 2 bucks! If it sucks, it cost 80% less than most books that suck, and you don't generally take back a book that you didn't like and get your money back. What the hell is wrong with you people?
I wish I were your boss - I wouldn't pay you unless I liked how much work you did on a day-by-day, hour-by-hour basis.
If the use of the replicator is universal, then pretty much all people who would have paid for it, won't. Until another scheme is put into place to incentivize production, this kills all but the gift economy.
This is where economics meets the categorical imperative.
No, not often, not always, and not by default. Yes, occassionally it happened. But hunter-gatherer societies were/are generally economically closed. (Unless you've studied some anthropology, I really suggest you not make general claims about hunter-gatherer societies.)
Property as we generally know it followed from cultivation.
They are different yet related, and laws which protect physical property forbid me from borrowing it or, in the case of land, traversing it even when doing so deprives you of nothing. (E.g., if I squat in a building you aren't using, or cross your property to get to the other side, etc.) All property rights are legal fictions enforced by governments.
Markets are not "natural." They are human creations and activities, as are polities. People have been creating "governments" for longer than they have been participating in markets.
When the niche is changing fast enough that genetic stability is a greater liability than bad mutations, then those populations with more volatility will produce more species that can adapt, and those with less volatility will not. Thus, if the rapiditiy of mutation is itself a trait, it will pass down when it is favorable.
Capitalism is the private ownership of capital. That's it. It isn't laissez faire or libertarianism or democracy or "free markets" or classical economics or the diminishing of the role of the state. It is simply the private investment of capital into new enterprises, with profits returning to the owners of those enterprises. (News flash - the modern nation-state grew up with capitalism. They aren't antithetical to each other, they are reliant on each other.)
Foreign students are considered a cash cow by schools, because their fees are much higher, and they are usually funded by sources from their home countries, not from the US. They are subsidizing the education of domestic-born students, not the other way around.
Most of the people I have met who have expressed that sentiment lacked the qualifications to fill a job vacancy left by someone with a PhD in a science or engineering field.
There is a difference between arguing that a felony conviction is disproportionate and asking for sympathy for the offender. I think the death penalty is wrong, but I have little sympathy for murderers.
Because the online harassment is vicious and malicious, and is about hurting someone else, not about "free expression." So yes, I am not sympathetic to someone who gets convicted for it. I'm not generally sympathetic to malicious people who want to hurt others.
And walking up to another kid, and shoving them against the lockers, telling them "After School, On the Playground, You're Dead!" should get you in at least as much trouble.
So, if you should tell your school bully, "could you send me that on Facebook?"
Yeah, bummer about that. Maybe it'll be effective deterrence.
Sorry, but I am a lot more sympathetic to teens who get records for non-malicious behaviors, like having consensual sex with their peers or getting caught with weed. The kind of behavior we're talking about can be as destructive as a beat-down.
Slashdot Mirror
But could Garmin and TomTom shrink by 80 or 90 percent, laying off much of their work force, and then get reduced to selling specialized products to niche markets and falling off the map of mainstream awareness? Yes. Yes, they could.
You want to know what really gains status?
Unselfishness. Being interested in what other people are doing. Authentically interested. (And a modicum of appropriate comportment.)
If you (not you, Elvind, the general "you") can get out of your well of self-pity and self-absorption to actually take an interest in what other people are about, your social status will sky-rocket. And you may actually be happier as well.
There is no bully in a community college because you need to pay for your classes. Bullies either end up in ghettos, trailers or a certain "department of corrections".
Or business school.
I would argue that you're starting from the position of cowering. The idea is get to a situation where you don't have to cower.
There is a difference between "deserve" and "could reasonably expect."
If I jaywalk, it isn't surprising if I get hit by a car. Doesn't mean I deserve it. And, by the way, it is interesting that geeks and jocks each have "acceptable" and "unacceptable" forms of abuse. For more physically-oriented people, physical violence can be seen as less cruel than verbal violence. After all, a bruise heals - verbal abuse sometimes doesn't. But because the stereotypical nerd is bad at all-things-physical, they try to take all-things-physical off of the playing field.
The "socials" have mastered the art of symbolic violence, of course, and have it over both the jocks and nerds that way.
That is why I think geek culture - which is really just a particularly enthusiastic sub-species of consumer - is a serious decline from nerd culture, which is a particularly enthusiastic sub-species of producer.
M = 1000.
e =~ 2.71828183
Thus, Me =~ 2,718.3
Which means that Windows Me was from 700 years in the future, and is the most advanced form of windows ever released.
I think that I regret having be raised to over-identify with one trait. It happened to my siblings, as well - each of which was identified as having a single, defining trait (a talent, a temperament, etc) and being discouraged from identifying with the others. Even the geekiest of geeks is still a physical being, with a body that they can take care of and enjoy. Even the jockiest of jocks has a mind that they can cultivate, and we all have the ability to appreciate beauty, to work hard, to reflect on our circumstances, to build human relationships, etc. What is worse than being pegged as a "type" is to internalize and even enjoy that "type" at the expense of experiencing life fully. If I have any regrets about my life, it is the time I wasted trying to stay within a type, and missing out on opportunities for amazing experiences.
For fuck's sake, it's 2 bucks! If it sucks, it cost 80% less than most books that suck, and you don't generally take back a book that you didn't like and get your money back. What the hell is wrong with you people?
I wish I were your boss - I wouldn't pay you unless I liked how much work you did on a day-by-day, hour-by-hour basis.
If the use of the replicator is universal, then pretty much all people who would have paid for it, won't. Until another scheme is put into place to incentivize production, this kills all but the gift economy.
This is where economics meets the categorical imperative.
No, not often, not always, and not by default. Yes, occassionally it happened. But hunter-gatherer societies were/are generally economically closed. (Unless you've studied some anthropology, I really suggest you not make general claims about hunter-gatherer societies.)
Property as we generally know it followed from cultivation.
They are different yet related, and laws which protect physical property forbid me from borrowing it or, in the case of land, traversing it even when doing so deprives you of nothing. (E.g., if I squat in a building you aren't using, or cross your property to get to the other side, etc.) All property rights are legal fictions enforced by governments.
Markets are not "natural." They are human creations and activities, as are polities. People have been creating "governments" for longer than they have been participating in markets.
When the niche is changing fast enough that genetic stability is a greater liability than bad mutations, then those populations with more volatility will produce more species that can adapt, and those with less volatility will not. Thus, if the rapiditiy of mutation is itself a trait, it will pass down when it is favorable.
Capitalism is the private ownership of capital. That's it. It isn't laissez faire or libertarianism or democracy or "free markets" or classical economics or the diminishing of the role of the state. It is simply the private investment of capital into new enterprises, with profits returning to the owners of those enterprises. (News flash - the modern nation-state grew up with capitalism. They aren't antithetical to each other, they are reliant on each other.)
Remember, the US was largely built up by people who thought that making a buck was more important than staying close to family and friends.
Foreign students are considered a cash cow by schools, because their fees are much higher, and they are usually funded by sources from their home countries, not from the US. They are subsidizing the education of domestic-born students, not the other way around.
In China, however, they boil their water, so it is "potentially unsafe if not boiled." Just like US water is "potentially unsafe if not treated."
In broader terms: yes, China is still developing its infrastructure. However, that also means opportunity.
I also do not think that Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds etc. would express the sentiment, "Good, more jobs for the rest of us."
Also, Linus is an immigrant.
Toyota got its "expertise" about American production systems from, interestingly enough, neither GM nor Ford, but instead from Piggly Wiggly.
More jobs for the rest of us.
Most of the people I have met who have expressed that sentiment lacked the qualifications to fill a job vacancy left by someone with a PhD in a science or engineering field.
There is a difference between arguing that a felony conviction is disproportionate and asking for sympathy for the offender. I think the death penalty is wrong, but I have little sympathy for murderers.
Because the online harassment is vicious and malicious, and is about hurting someone else, not about "free expression." So yes, I am not sympathetic to someone who gets convicted for it. I'm not generally sympathetic to malicious people who want to hurt others.
Maybe we'd have the Afghanistan thing wrapped up if we just translated old A-Team episodes into Pashtu and distributed it to everyone.
And walking up to another kid, and shoving them against the lockers, telling them "After School, On the Playground, You're Dead!" should get you in at least as much trouble.
So, if you should tell your school bully, "could you send me that on Facebook?"
Yeah, bummer about that. Maybe it'll be effective deterrence.
Sorry, but I am a lot more sympathetic to teens who get records for non-malicious behaviors, like having consensual sex with their peers or getting caught with weed. The kind of behavior we're talking about can be as destructive as a beat-down.