And much of the hubris which led to this situation had its origin in the Bush 1 and Clinton years, in the triumphalism which accompanied the end of the Cold War.
The imbalance in the American standard of living vs. the world, along with the commensurate trade imbalance, is starting to correct itself.
The world systems was built on Americans have artificially inflated purchasing power fluffed up by easy credit. This allowed the standard of living to increase without actually paying American workers all that much more (the growth in pay occuring only at the top level.) Of course, what happened is that easy credit didn't just affect consumer markets, which would have been fine, more or less, but it hit housing markets, inflating values, creating debt loads that too many consumers couldn't afford (while they were being assured that they would always have positive equity, that housing values always went up, etc.)
Then, of course, those mortgages were turned into the investment vehicle of choice. It was inevitable that the house of cards would come down. Interesting that it came down at the site of the American dream: home ownership.
I'm not in management, but a good manager can make the difference between a bunch of brilliant people producing fantastic work and a bunch of brilliant people producing nothing. Whether they managers themselves are "more intelligent" or not isn't relevant.
And guess what? If your brilliant people are diverse, it sometimes helps to have diverse managers.
"Society deciding" is really emergent from a bunch of individuals and organizations like Microsoft deciding.
There is no equivalency here. "Obviously provoking?" Most straight people advertise their heterosexuality all the time without even thinking about it. Just saying "I'm a lesbian" isn't provoking people.
No, actually, you broke it. (I hate "I've fixed that for you" posts.) I get your point: however, you completely missed mine. I'm all for critiquing capitalism, but I'm not sticking a curly moustache and a black hat on it.
Not all thinking that occurs in societies that are dominated by capitalism are capitalist thinking. In fact, most of our thinking is in different modes. There is no pure capitalism, but there is pure capitalist thinking: the kind of thinking that motivates decisions to, for example, lay people off just after they've miscarried. I'm sure the people who made that decision wouldn't make decisions for their own family in the same way: it is the institutional context of working in a framework that makes those kinds of decisions on the basis of reference to capitalist conceptions of the "good" (i.e., profit) that produces this outcome.
However, capitalism describes a range of economic behaviors in the context of a broader culture. It is not the set of all voluntary transactions. Nor does the term 'voluntary' make any sense when relationships are radically disequal: e.g., many employer/employee relationships.
The thing is, the original poster is correct insofar as "best" was put into scare-quotes. Pure captialist thinking defines "best" as in producing the most profit (or, collectively, the highest GDP, or "the best value for shareholders.") Not the most happiness, the most ecologically sustainable outcomes, the lowest infant mortality rates, the lowest suicide rates, the highest measures of contentment and satisfaction, the longest lifespans, or anything else.
The circularity produced by that understanding of "best" is the problem. I recognize the value of wealth-production in creating a better society; it is not, however, the same as creating a better society.
The "magical age" is because it is easier to determine someone's age than it is to administer some examination to determine fit mental condition for each and every transaction in which it is meaningful.
As you approach a limit, the delta is "arbitrary." But it's still a limit.
Music needs to go back to being a service and an experience. That's more important than it going back to an "art." (There's more art and experimental music than ever, you're just not looking for it.)
Exactly. We can have games in which we run around sawing people's heads off, disemboweling them, torturing them, gunning them down by the thousands - but at least we won't see their nipples!
If I were an employer, I might actually appreciate someone who would be as worried about our organization's reputation and public image as the post author is about his own. The world isn't fair, perception matters, and people canny enough to realize it are worth keeping around.
Look, what if you work at a place where every mail server for the last 200+ years has been an Exchange server. You've been using Linux for years, but for some reason, they never implemented a Linux server in any significant infrastructure roles. You would complain about it, and they would say, "look, it's just a coincidence that Microsoft products get installed everywhere: they're just the best at what they do!"
Then, finally, they install a Linux-based mail server. Are you saying you would say, "stop calling it the Linux-based mail server! It's just the mail server! Enough of this divisive bullshit!" Or would you say, "gee, it's nice that we have a Linux mail server finally."
You lose those supposedly unalienable rights when you are convicted of a crime. Hundreds of thousands of slaves never enjoyed those unalienable rights, and some were even owned by the people who wrote that sentence. Although the original phrasing of that expression considered these rights as universal, the US seems to be OK with not recognizing them among non-US nationals.
The phrase is empty and meaningless poppycock. It always was, and it still is.
It seems to me a bit of a contradiction on your claim that Jewish marriage was primarily about procreation when you observe that it actually performed a role for providing what were essentially social services, caring for widows, maintaining the extended kinship network, etc. While Judaism actually did have some periods of proselytization, you are, I think, right in noting Judaism's emphasis on procreation. But that was partially orthogonal, at least in antiquity, to the social function of marriage.
The primary reason that Google is opposing Proposition 8 is that they believe it is wrong and discriminatory. They say as much in their announcement. The business argument is a secondary one.
Slashdot Mirror
You should take your daughter to Tokyo Disneyland or Paris Disneyland, anyway. They're both much nicer.
Personally, I think we should restrict immigration from other states. I'm sick of those Texans coming here and taking Californian jobs.
And much of the hubris which led to this situation had its origin in the Bush 1 and Clinton years, in the triumphalism which accompanied the end of the Cold War.
This is correct. The cheap-labor, easy-credit party is over. The US joins the rest of the world now.
The imbalance in the American standard of living vs. the world, along with the commensurate trade imbalance, is starting to correct itself.
The world systems was built on Americans have artificially inflated purchasing power fluffed up by easy credit. This allowed the standard of living to increase without actually paying American workers all that much more (the growth in pay occuring only at the top level.) Of course, what happened is that easy credit didn't just affect consumer markets, which would have been fine, more or less, but it hit housing markets, inflating values, creating debt loads that too many consumers couldn't afford (while they were being assured that they would always have positive equity, that housing values always went up, etc.)
Then, of course, those mortgages were turned into the investment vehicle of choice. It was inevitable that the house of cards would come down. Interesting that it came down at the site of the American dream: home ownership.
I'm not in management, but a good manager can make the difference between a bunch of brilliant people producing fantastic work and a bunch of brilliant people producing nothing. Whether they managers themselves are "more intelligent" or not isn't relevant.
And guess what? If your brilliant people are diverse, it sometimes helps to have diverse managers.
"Society deciding" is really emergent from a bunch of individuals and organizations like Microsoft deciding.
There is no equivalency here. "Obviously provoking?" Most straight people advertise their heterosexuality all the time without even thinking about it. Just saying "I'm a lesbian" isn't provoking people.
No, actually, you broke it. (I hate "I've fixed that for you" posts.) I get your point: however, you completely missed mine. I'm all for critiquing capitalism, but I'm not sticking a curly moustache and a black hat on it.
Not all thinking that occurs in societies that are dominated by capitalism are capitalist thinking. In fact, most of our thinking is in different modes. There is no pure capitalism, but there is pure capitalist thinking: the kind of thinking that motivates decisions to, for example, lay people off just after they've miscarried. I'm sure the people who made that decision wouldn't make decisions for their own family in the same way: it is the institutional context of working in a framework that makes those kinds of decisions on the basis of reference to capitalist conceptions of the "good" (i.e., profit) that produces this outcome.
However, capitalism describes a range of economic behaviors in the context of a broader culture. It is not the set of all voluntary transactions. Nor does the term 'voluntary' make any sense when relationships are radically disequal: e.g., many employer/employee relationships.
No, tacit means wordless, silent.
A tacit admission would be standing there, blankly, when someone accuses you of something and challenges you to contradict them.
This isn't a tacit admission of anything. This is an implicit recognition of the importance of the internet. The write-up is horribly written.
The thing is, the original poster is correct insofar as "best" was put into scare-quotes. Pure captialist thinking defines "best" as in producing the most profit (or, collectively, the highest GDP, or "the best value for shareholders.") Not the most happiness, the most ecologically sustainable outcomes, the lowest infant mortality rates, the lowest suicide rates, the highest measures of contentment and satisfaction, the longest lifespans, or anything else.
The circularity produced by that understanding of "best" is the problem. I recognize the value of wealth-production in creating a better society; it is not, however, the same as creating a better society.
The "magical age" is because it is easier to determine someone's age than it is to administer some examination to determine fit mental condition for each and every transaction in which it is meaningful.
As you approach a limit, the delta is "arbitrary." But it's still a limit.
You may be able to find a lawyer who would defend Hitler. I, in turn, would be able to find a thousand who wouldn't, at any price.
Law is a messy business, but most lawyers I know have a working moral compass.
Music needs to go back to being a service and an experience. That's more important than it going back to an "art." (There's more art and experimental music than ever, you're just not looking for it.)
Exactly. We can have games in which we run around sawing people's heads off, disemboweling them, torturing them, gunning them down by the thousands - but at least we won't see their nipples!
Corrupt judge?
What, someone is bribing a judge to send kids to juvie?
I get the sense that you developed most of your theories of civics and politics from games of Jet Grind Radio.
If I were an employer, I might actually appreciate someone who would be as worried about our organization's reputation and public image as the post author is about his own. The world isn't fair, perception matters, and people canny enough to realize it are worth keeping around.
Attila the Hun loved his horse, and Hitler was a vegetarian! Also, Bill Gates is fighting malaria.
(Godwin-flirtation aside, Gates has done far more good for the world, albeit not the computing world, than Jobs or the rest of Apple have.)
Burning fat for heat is traditional. The Inuit have been doing it for millennia.
Hmmn, I think America's energy problems are over.
Sarcasm tags are the favored weapon of Captain Obvious.
Look, what if you work at a place where every mail server for the last 200+ years has been an Exchange server. You've been using Linux for years, but for some reason, they never implemented a Linux server in any significant infrastructure roles. You would complain about it, and they would say, "look, it's just a coincidence that Microsoft products get installed everywhere: they're just the best at what they do!"
Then, finally, they install a Linux-based mail server. Are you saying you would say, "stop calling it the Linux-based mail server! It's just the mail server! Enough of this divisive bullshit!" Or would you say, "gee, it's nice that we have a Linux mail server finally."
You lose those supposedly unalienable rights when you are convicted of a crime. Hundreds of thousands of slaves never enjoyed those unalienable rights, and some were even owned by the people who wrote that sentence. Although the original phrasing of that expression considered these rights as universal, the US seems to be OK with not recognizing them among non-US nationals.
The phrase is empty and meaningless poppycock. It always was, and it still is.
The "Z" key in qwerty: pinky finger, lower row. The pinky finger is the least accurate and most quickly tired of the fingers.
The "Y" key in qwerty: index finger, one up and one over from the home keys. The index finger is the strongest and most accurate of the fingers.
It seems to me a bit of a contradiction on your claim that Jewish marriage was primarily about procreation when you observe that it actually performed a role for providing what were essentially social services, caring for widows, maintaining the extended kinship network, etc. While Judaism actually did have some periods of proselytization, you are, I think, right in noting Judaism's emphasis on procreation. But that was partially orthogonal, at least in antiquity, to the social function of marriage.
The primary reason that Google is opposing Proposition 8 is that they believe it is wrong and discriminatory. They say as much in their announcement. The business argument is a secondary one.