The problem is that it's pretty useless to tell people who think that it's possible to strongly disagree and voice one's opinion clearly without making people feel like crap, that they too can be verbally abusive.
Analogy: someone is being picked on for being a nerd. They're fed up with the beatings and they go to the principal. The principal tells them: don't worry, I have the solution for you. From now on, you're free to hit them back as much as you want. You won't be punished for it. Is that a good solution? I don't think so. The "nerd" doesn't want to beat up anyone. He wants to be in an environment where there will be no beatings. In theory, "everyone can beat up anyone they want" sounds like a wonderfully egalitarian plan. In practice, it's a gift to bullies since they're the only ones who want to be beating up people.
Same thing here. People who want to be polite and treat others as human beings don't care that they're allowed to be verbally abusive too. They don't want to and won't be. The only people who benefit from that kind of " free-for-all" policy are those who are already inclined to abuse people.
Do you seriously base your evaluation of the consequences of verbal abuse on a cutesy saying that you learned as kid?
I'm glad to know that you think you could never be harmed by verbal abuse. I'm also willing to bet that nobody with power over you ever decided to abuse you. Perhaps you should get acquainted with what people who suffered workplace harassment have to say? Do you think they'd agree that " sticks and stones..."? Or perhaps they were all weaklings who got what they deserved?
That's not what he's saying. Cows and human beings are both mammals. Does that mean there's no difference between cows and people?
Verbal and physical abuse are not the same either. But they have enough in common that it's meaningful to classify them both as "abuse" . "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" must be the most deceptive proverb ever. Word *will* hurt you if you're subjected to a constant barrage of verbal abuse and are publicly humiliated on a daily basis. Why do you think decent people " go postal" and start shooting their abusive boss and the co-workers who didn't help them? Why do you think people commit suicide in the locker room? The line between physical and verbal abuse is rather blurry since verbal abuse can also have physical consequences.
If it were so easy, many South American countries would have become as prosperous and democratic as the US since their constitutions were basically copies of the US Constitution. Yet, somehow, it didn't really work.
You can see the same in many former British colonies. If you read their Constitution, you'll see that they're not much different from what you find in any modern democracy. Bill of rights, checks and balances, constitutional protections for both negative and positive rights. They also inherited the common law tradition and much of their legislation is copy-pasted from UK legislation circa 1960. It's so similar in theory that UK-trained lawyers can usually practice with minimum to nil extra training, as most of the legal education is done from UK textbooks and case books anyway.
Yet, in practice, it's quite different. Sure, you have the same theoretical protections, but they do little good when everyone is free to ignore them. It's nice to tell the courts that they have to be independent and fair, but how do you guarantee that?
"They need to adjust their system, institute checks and balances", etc. is all wishful thinking. It's about as useful as telling a developing country that all they need to do is grow. It's true but pretty useless as far as advice goes. The tricky part is knowing how to move from the equilibrium where the law is widely ignored, where formal checks and balances don't work, where the constitution is not worth the paper it's written on, to a better equilibrium. As far as I can tell, no-one has yet found a magic recipe for that because things are usually the way they are for a reason. It's not like bad institutions just spring up at random: they are usually people who have an interest in maintaining the status quo, and we were able to see times and times again that removing whoever happens to be in power doesn't do much to solve the structural problems and can even lead to worse outcomes (Iraq? Libya?).
Agreed. USB audio is especially tedious to get to work reliably and, more importantly, easily. I use a Linux PC with Ubuntu Studio to record speeches and occasionally play some background music. Our mixing board has a built-in USB audio interface that should "just work" (at least it does in Windows). With the Linux PC, we have to jump through many hoops to get it to work. Basically, it never shows up in Pulseaudio, so we need to use JACK and link it up to PulseAudio. Which means that we have to start up the JACK daemon (yes, it can be automated, but it's USB audio and it might not always be connected when we turn on the PC), then go to the PulseAudio settings to tell it that the JACK sink should be used. And, of course, we need to do all that before we start any other program, or else we get no sound and we have to restart the application.
So, yes, sound works. But it's a pain and I wouldn't want to have to explain how to do all this to someone who's not very computer literate. They'd just tell me "why on earth can't we just use Windows". And they'll come away with the (justified) idea that Linux is really not user-friendly and definitely not for them.
Now, perhaps there are ways to solve these problems. Perhaps there's a guide somewhere that shows that I've been doing things wrong. But that's exactly the point: something as basic as sound should work out of the box and shouldn't require the user to do anything that a reasonably competent person could do.
Should there also be a tax on exports? Because, after all, every time an American company sells a car overseas, it's one car that is not available to US consumers. Foreigners are competing with the US for the goods that they produce and we need to stop sending our stuff overseas!
Notice how ridiculous this argument is? Everyone realizes that exports are good. Even people who really, really hate free trade (those just complain about imports).
Well, this is in effect what you're saying. You're complaining about one of the most successful export industries in the US, one that sells services worth billions of dollars annually. And it's even better than selling cars and other widgets to foreign consumers because these people actually pay to come spend money in the US. For a few years, they'll be paying tuition AND buying food, clothes, beer, etc.
Next thing you know, you'll be complaining about the tourism industry too?
You have absolutely no idea what these doctors are doing with their money. Perhaps they're sending thousands of dollars back home each month, which is much, much more valuable than an extra pair of hands. If they come from genuinely poor countries, the number one thing that people need is money. They're at a level of development where the main constraint on improving life expectancy and life in general is not whether there are a few more doctors but whether there is basic infrastructure in place (e.g. proper water sanitation), there is enough money to afford basic medications when needed, there is money to buy nets or get your house sprayed, etc. A few more doctors might improve things at the margin but what good is it to know what problem you have if you have no money to purchase the drugs to treat your condition?
At any rate, it's simply not true that letting foreign doctors work in the USA has a negative effect on their "own" communities (with scare quotes because, after all, perhaps these people now consider the USA their home). If people know that there is an opportunity to go to the US if you study medicine, they medical studies will attract more and better students. However, not all of these students will eventually go through with it. There are lots of regulatory barriers, some people simply decide that, after all, they'd rather stay with their parents/family/friends, etc. So, even though some people go abroad, there might still at the end of the day be more doctors than there would have been if immigration was impossible. This is what studies have found with nurses in the Philippines for instance.
Also, you have no idea what it is to live in a low-income country and should be careful before telling people from there that they are 'greedy' if all they want is what you apparently take for granted as an inhabitant of the first world.
Cross-subsidies are routine in telecommunications. We don't hear industry representatives arguing that the fact that you can't subscribe to individual TV channels but have to make do with bundles. This means that some people (i.e. those who watch a broad range of channels) benefit, while others might get a better deal with à la carte bundles if the could just get the one or two channels that they actually watch. If we're concerned that some TWC customers might get a worse deal because they don't watch Netflix and have to pay for it, then we should be just as concerned that these same customers have to pay $16 to go from the basic package to the one with 200+ channels even if they're only interested in one or two extra channels.
In fact, such arrangements are ubiquitous in all sectors of the economy. We're not outraged that a restaurant that offers free valet parking is spreading the cost over all patrons, including those that came by taxi. We're don't think it's unfair for malls to offer free bathrooms even if we never visit them but still pay for them. We're not mad at McDonald's because they give away free refills and we never use that opportunity because we're not as thirsty as other people. Etc. Etc.
The author is a shining example of all that is wrong with lobbying and the regulatory process in the developed world. According to his bio on the website, he was "Wireless Bureau Chief" and "Wireless Legal Advisor" at the FCC. So he was responsible for developing and implementing policies that directly impact wireless telecommunication companies. Then, in 2008, he resigned and immediately became CEO of a trade organisation representing the interests of... wireless telecommunication companies. And I mean "immediately" as in there is no gap whatsoever in his resumé. According to his LinkedIn, he resigned in August 2008 and began working for the other side that very same month (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/fred-campbell/11/524/862).
Now, I don't know Fred Campbell and I'm not suggesting that he did not always act in a professional manner. But is it not disturbing that an industry would be allowed to recruit high-ranking government officials whose daily decisions could have great impact on their profitability? This gives FCC staffers very bad incentives, as you might not want to alienate the people who can give you your next, much more lucrative, job. Why do we turn a blind eye to the blatant conflicts of interests that it creates. And it is pervasive in all heavily regulated areas (another example from the FCC: Meredith Attwell Baker). The revolving door is an all too common reality and we're doing nothing to stop it.
If you're unable to express disapproval clearly without being rude and telling people to "shut the fuck up", then maybe you're not qualified to manage people? Also, it sounds a lot like what Linus criticized this guy for doing, blaming the other party for your own failings. What's the difference between breaking the kernel and blaming userspace apps, and failing to communicate your point clearly and blaming the other person for misunderstanding? As an employee, I don't have to suffer the consequences of your not being able to express a simple point clearly.
You can be "nice" (or even simply not a total ass) to people AND tell them that what they're doing is wrong. For instance, tell them "I don't think this is the right way to do it because of Y and Z, and I'd rather you do X instead. We will not be able to accept this contribution unless you make these changes". How on earth could anyone construe this as an encouragement to continue in this direction? No need for profanities, no need for personal attacks. State the facts clearly and calmly. And perhaps people won't be looking for another job because of the hostile work environment that you're creating.
But you can also decide to forego this return on investment for the good of mankind. Which, arguably, is what universities should be pursuing in the first place, not trying to maximize their ROI, as private companies do very well.
Profits are very useful because you get valuable information about what you're doing and it allows resources to be put to the most valuable use. But it doesn't really apply to basic research. That kind of research is not meant to create products that can be sold for a profit, but to increase our collective knowledge. This may or may not give rise to new applications, technologies, and products, but that's not main point. And if something does prove valuable, wouldn't it be better if it were freely licensed to all interested parties to allow for cheap production, for other people to freely improve upon it, etc.?
That's the whole point behind endowments. Give universities so much money that their survival doesn't depend on their monetizing their discoveries. CMU has a $1 billion endowment that makes it very unlikely that it'll have to stop innovating because they failed to secure a patent on everything they discover. Especially since much of the research conducted in universities is actually funded by the government, as a public good.
Easy. 100,000 cases of polio is much much worse. The kids didn't ask to be born to parents who have strange ideas and there are many aspects of the local culture (honor killings? Systematic and systemic discrimination against women?) that should disappear. Cultural eradication is a good thing if it means that mistaken beliefs about the world get rooted out, and especially if it causes active harm to others. I won't be shedding any tears if a "culture" that rejects something as innocuous as vaccination disappears.
That being said, I agree that imperialism is a bad idea, and much of the backlash against "the West" is due to real grievances. For instance, bombing weddings and killing children is not a good way to show how great Western civilization is. Neither can you shove your values down people's throats and expect them to embrace them. But if some cultural practices (genital mutilation for instance) were to be abandoned, I'd be very happy. And, when it involves children whose only mistake was to be born in the wrong part of the world, cultural relativism doesn't seem very appropriate to me.
Not to forget that appealing to "culture" is often a way for the powerful to cement their privileges and continue to exploit marginalized groups. Thus the various dictators who explain that human rights are a Western construct and that authoritarianism is part of the local culture. Or people who want to keep girls ignorant and submissive because their culture/religion says women are inferior to men.
Communication is challenging because Chinese and English are completely different. Why do we expect him to do a better job learning Chinese than the Chinese developers did of learning English, even though they had a lot more incentive to do so? Maybe, occasionally, it might help him if he can clarify things in Chinese. But you have to weigh it against the risk that what he'll be misunderstood because his Chinese is too poor. When things go wrong, do you want him or the Chinese developers to be blamed? If he communicates something very clearly in English, they're at fault if they mess up. If he tries to speak Chinese, there's a good chance that he'll eventually get blamed.
In IT, there's little need for foreign-language skills, unless you happen to live in bilingual country (and even there, it's mostly used as a filter by HR departments). Everyone speaks English and there's a reason why he's a mid-career developer and never had to speak a foreign language.
That being said, learning another language can be a valuable experience. Just don't expect it to be useful on the job.
That's a bit misleading. I'd rather be in the bottom 20% in a high-income country such as the United States or Sweden, than in the top 10% in a Sub-Saharan country. Even with substantially more money than the average person, quality of life is much lower. Which means that you can't just look at income inequality. Median income and living standards, as well as their absolute range also matters. Even if wealth is more and more concentrated (which is not exactly accurate, the Gini coefficient is about the same as it was in the 1860s, and fluctuated a lot throughout the 20th century), living standards have improved a lot, which is what really matters. Money is only the green stuff that we need to buy what we really want.
I agree, they don't. The yellow light has to be on for at least three seconds under 50 kph (31 mph), 3s to 4s between 50 kph and 70 kph (43 mph), and 4s-5s above 70. The Flemish region, where the vast majority of the red light cameras are, always uses the largest of these values. And 4 seconds is a long time in a car. With a 4 second yellow light, there really is no way to run a red light unless you were able to stop safely and chose not to. Impossible.
Why raises the question. If it's so profitable for the private contractor and is a big loss for the city, why don't cities in the US do what most other places do and get rid of the middleman? Especially when I see that the company referenced in the article actually touts "maximizing prosecutions" as a benefit of the system, when the only reason for red-light cameras would be improving safety. A well-designed system is one that results in as few prosecutions as possible. The ideal number of prosecutions is close to zero because that would mean the camera is doing its job of preventing people from doing dangerous things and that only the worst offenders are prosecuted. Here (European country), it's all done in-house by the police, with stringent legislation (minimum yellow time based on the speed limit for the road, safety margin) that ensures that only people who deliberately run the red light get caught. I've never been in a situation where I *had* to run the red light because the yellow phase lasts long enough for everyone to either be able to stop safely or to cross the stop line before the light turns red.
Note that I'm not against outsourcing if it's really more cost effective. But if it ends up wasting money, it's not a good idea.
But that's true for every traffic violation. The only way to make sure that the owner is the driver would be to stop every single vehicle that is seen breaking the law, which might very well be much more dangerous (high-speed chases don't always end so well and people sometimes react bizarrely when they feel threatened and/or are intoxicated).
I think it makes sense to say that the owner of the car is presumed to be the driver. It'd be too easy to claim that a friend happened to borrow your car but that, of course, they won't say they were the ones driving. The way is see it is this: - You were driving the car: no problem if you got a ticket - Your spouse was driving the car: then, figure it out amongst yourselves. I mean, they'll really let you get a fine and a bad driving record when they were driving? If so, you got bigger problems that a ticket. - Your child was driving the car: see above. - A friend was driving the car: just write down their name on the form. Or don't lend your car to friends you can't trust.
Then, perhaps it's the rule that you have to clear the intersection before the light turns red that needs to be changed. Just introduce a slight delay before the other lights go green (all-ways left) to allow people to turn left, problem solved. That's how virtually all lights work in European countries that I've visited. You stop in the intersection and you wait until there's an opening. No opening? You just wait for the red light and you exit the intersection before the light turns green in the other direction. You can't? Then you probably shouldn't have entered the intersection in the first place. You should have realized that there were already too many cars for all of them to clear the intersection in time and that it was ok to wait at the stop line for the next cycle. Plus, red-light cameras in these countries only capture people who cross the stop line on red, not people who are already in the intersection.
Of course, it doesn't mean that it can work in the US. But it reflects poorly on US governance that something that works pretty well in advanced democracies is impossible there. And that the main concern is corrupt local authorities taking advantage of drivers, which sounds more like what happens in a third-world country ("you broke this traffic law, please pay a 'fine' to me in cash or you'll be taken down to the station").
Have you encountered many 18-year-olds with such a cunning plan? I'm afraid that you're ascribing sinister designs to people just because they happen to disagree with you. It sounds a bit like the fundamentalists who think that they have to make students sign an über-detailed statement of faith, because we all know that atheists have nothing better to do than pretend to be Christians to ruin a seminary.
Perhaps some people come up with such schemes. But, then, once they get their PhD (assuming they weren't found out or gave up before), they find a job with a creationist organization and never produce real research anymore. They'll just be a nobody with a PhD, and there are many of those around. It only impresses the gullible who don't know that a PhD is not meant to be the end of the journey but the beginning.
Isn't it much more likely that young people from a religious background might develop an interest in science, despite the greatly warped education that they might have received? In college, they learn about real evolutionary biology for the first time but, unwilling to let go of the bad ideas that they still have, they begin to compartmentalize their thinking. As you say, they'll write the right things on the exam but they'll still be conflicted about it. Fortunately, soon enough, they're able to specialize in a sub-field where the cognitive dissonance is not as great, and they might even be competent researchers.
Most of the these people will never publish a creationist book or be involved in the creationist movement. I'm sure there are more creationists in research labs than we think. They've just learned not to talk about it (not this one apparently).
But that's exactly why we let courts handle such matters. It's impossible to have standards that deal with every possible situation and draw a clear line in the sand between innocuous lunch time conversation (so, what do you think about proposition whatever) and inappropriate behaviors. So, if someone thinks that their dismissal was unfair, they're free to challenge it. Then an unbiased third-party can decide if their conduct warranted dismissal or not.
The key here is that, while it's true that employees have the right to freedom of opinion, especially if they're employed by the government, employers should also have the right to dismiss them if their behavior in the workplace is a source of problem that can affect the smooth operation of the company/department. For instance, it would be a problem if someone's aggressive proselytizing made it difficult for other employees to work with them. This should of course apply equally to all worldviews: it's just as unacceptable for an atheist to constantly bother religious people on the job. This is not what they're getting paid for.
Now, I also think that those who say "serve him well" have a point. It's unfortunate that Christians in the US are often the first to complain about discrimination, yet are completely silent when they are on the other side of it all. There have been over the past decade many cases of professors at Christian universities and seminaries being dismissed, against the advice of other faculty, because they endorsed evolution. And rank-and-file evangelicals find it perfectly normal, when they're not actively trying to get people fired. Because these institutions are religious institutions and the 1st amendment protects them, they're free to do so. But how is not hypocritical to then complain when something similar happens to you?
Never doubt the ability that people have to compartmentalize their thinking. You can actually have a lot of technical skills, and even a lot of science knowledge, yet hold fairly bizarre views that are directly contradicted by the evidence that you know. It's kinda hard to do if you actually have to use the principles that directly contradict your beliefs (i.e., you usually won't find young-earth creationists doing research in evolutionary biology), but most scientific fields are broad enough that you can easily specialize in something that won't threaten your bizarre beliefs.
You obviously didn't get the memo that a woman's sexuality is something to be controlled by men? That she has to go from being under the authority of her father, to being under the authority of her husband, who will each in turn be in charge of her sexuality?
If you want to be shocked, read up on "purity balls", where fathers pledge that they will be "the authority and protector" of their daughter's virginity, and daughters "pledge their purity" to their father. Are they common? No. But the very fact that they can exist in 21st century America is shocking. And the same noxious ideology is also peddled in diluted forms in the culture. Haven't you noticed that, in more conservative art forms (think: country music, conservative "family values" movies, etc.), marriage is always about "asking for her hand" (sub-text: her father has control over her sexuality and her person, and must relinquish it for it to be a "good" wedding)? What about "giving away the bridge" (who, apparently, is not autonomous enough to give herself away)? Patriarchy is alive and well in America.
Facebook is broken and should add a setting that don't let people add you to groups without your consent. I'm a coder and I didn't know that it was possible, so it's a good bet that the average user is even more clueless.
However, in this case, Facebook seems to have acted only as a catalyst. Living a double life is hard, Facebook or no Facebook. If you want to live as an openly gay person in Austin, to the extent that you are singing in a lesbian choir, it's gonna be very, very hard to make sure that no-one hears about it Newton, NC. All it takes is someone posting a video on Youtube and someone else recognizing you, or someone who enjoyed your performance writing about you on their blog and your family googling your name. What makes me think that their secret would have been revealed sooner or later is that, unless their families already suspected something, they wouldn't have reacted the way they did. If someone added me to, say, a radical Communist or fundie Muslim group, I wouldn't get a worried call from my family asking me if I've gone radical. They'd just think that someone messed up or that there must be a good reason. Likewise, being included in a 'queer' themed group shouldn't make your family leave bigoted messages on your voice-mail unless they're already suspecting something. For all we know, you could have a gay friend who sings in that choir whom you're trying to convince of the truth of Christianity. But, no, they immediately assume that you must be gay yourself? The man in the story had already told his mother that he was gay. How long would it have taken for his father to find out?
Bottom line: if your dad is a jerk and a bigot, and you happen to be gay, you're in trouble Facebook or not.
But looking at countries that do use proportional representation, we don't really witness such things happening. There are several reasons for this:
1) Your example still assumes that, as in a first-past-the-post system, there are two main parties organized along a left-right axis, and that the vote would be almost evenly split between these two parties. However, looking at what happens in actual countries, we see that there is much more diversity in terms of political parties and ideology. It's first-past-the-post that gives rise to the two-party system, not the fact that, say, paleo-conservatives and free-marketers necessarily have to form one party, and environmentalists and auto workers have to form another one. Countries in Europe that use proportional representation typically have many parties: classical liberal parties, social-democratic parties, green parties, more radical left-wing parties, conservative parties, religious (usually Christian-Democratic) parties, etc.
2) There are thresholds that ensure that crazy people do not get seats. Even a 5% threshold does the trick quite well.
3) There are informal norms that say that, when truly crazy people do get seats, the other parties should not enter into a coalition with them ("cordon sanitaire"). Any party that violates these norms would be punished by voters at the next election.
4) Countries with proportional representation seem to have less partisan politics. Yes, there are still tensions between political parties. But bipartisanship is much more common. At the local level especially, it's not uncommon for social-democratic (nominally socialist) and classical liberal parties to enter into a coalition.
The rest of the world does just fine with identity cards. I'm still waiting for fascists thugs to knock on my door, or anyone's door for that matter. Even without ID cards, in a modern society, everyone leaves a paper or electronic trail. Unless you're planning on not having a bank account, never getting anything delivered, never attending any school, never going to hospital and not having any kind of insurance, never driving a car, never owning any kind of real estate, never traveling abroad, you can already be found. The widespread opposition to ID cards in the UK, probably a world leader in mass surveillance, and the US, where private companies allow you to know everything about your neighbor, from their political persuasion to any criminal conviction to the value of their home, is unfathomable to the rest of us. Especially considering that people in these countries already have government-issued IDs that serve as de facto ID cards (driver licences, NI/SS cards, etc.).
As for Chinese dissidents, how it usually plays out is that the Chinese let them exit the country, even when the US has already made them leave the embassy. Once these people reach the US embassy, they're already too high-profile to be quietly disappeared and the longer they are allowed to remain in hiding, the greater the risk that they will cause trouble. Better to let them leave for the West and, with the 24-hour media cycle, they'll be out of the spotlight soon. E.g. Chen Guangcheng, who didn't even have to be spirited out of the country. China and the US negotiated and reached an agreement that would make both of them look good. China gets him out of the spotlight, the US get brownie points with pro-democracy activists. Could China have raided the US embassy? Of course. But they're not crazy and realize that they need the US as much as the US needs them and that it'd be nonsense to pick a fight with them. Whether the UK has done so or not in the past won't change that
The idea that a high-profile person such as Assange would be subject to extraordinary rendition while in Sweden is laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that it's pretty useless to tell people who think that it's possible to strongly disagree and voice one's opinion clearly without making people feel like crap, that they too can be verbally abusive.
Analogy: someone is being picked on for being a nerd. They're fed up with the beatings and they go to the principal. The principal tells them: don't worry, I have the solution for you. From now on, you're free to hit them back as much as you want. You won't be punished for it. Is that a good solution? I don't think so. The "nerd" doesn't want to beat up anyone. He wants to be in an environment where there will be no beatings. In theory, "everyone can beat up anyone they want" sounds like a wonderfully egalitarian plan. In practice, it's a gift to bullies since they're the only ones who want to be beating up people.
Same thing here. People who want to be polite and treat others as human beings don't care that they're allowed to be verbally abusive too. They don't want to and won't be. The only people who benefit from that kind of " free-for-all" policy are those who are already inclined to abuse people.
Do you seriously base your evaluation of the consequences of verbal abuse on a cutesy saying that you learned as kid?
I'm glad to know that you think you could never be harmed by verbal abuse. I'm also willing to bet that nobody with power over you ever decided to abuse you. Perhaps you should get acquainted with what people who suffered workplace harassment have to say? Do you think they'd agree that " sticks and stones..."? Or perhaps they were all weaklings who got what they deserved?
That's not what he's saying. Cows and human beings are both mammals. Does that mean there's no difference between cows and people?
Verbal and physical abuse are not the same either. But they have enough in common that it's meaningful to classify them both as "abuse" . "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" must be the most deceptive proverb ever. Word *will* hurt you if you're subjected to a constant barrage of verbal abuse and are publicly humiliated on a daily basis. Why do you think decent people " go postal" and start shooting their abusive boss and the co-workers who didn't help them? Why do you think people commit suicide in the locker room? The line between physical and verbal abuse is rather blurry since verbal abuse can also have physical consequences.
If it were so easy, many South American countries would have become as prosperous and democratic as the US since their constitutions were basically copies of the US Constitution. Yet, somehow, it didn't really work.
You can see the same in many former British colonies. If you read their Constitution, you'll see that they're not much different from what you find in any modern democracy. Bill of rights, checks and balances, constitutional protections for both negative and positive rights. They also inherited the common law tradition and much of their legislation is copy-pasted from UK legislation circa 1960. It's so similar in theory that UK-trained lawyers can usually practice with minimum to nil extra training, as most of the legal education is done from UK textbooks and case books anyway.
Yet, in practice, it's quite different. Sure, you have the same theoretical protections, but they do little good when everyone is free to ignore them. It's nice to tell the courts that they have to be independent and fair, but how do you guarantee that?
"They need to adjust their system, institute checks and balances", etc. is all wishful thinking. It's about as useful as telling a developing country that all they need to do is grow. It's true but pretty useless as far as advice goes. The tricky part is knowing how to move from the equilibrium where the law is widely ignored, where formal checks and balances don't work, where the constitution is not worth the paper it's written on, to a better equilibrium. As far as I can tell, no-one has yet found a magic recipe for that because things are usually the way they are for a reason. It's not like bad institutions just spring up at random: they are usually people who have an interest in maintaining the status quo, and we were able to see times and times again that removing whoever happens to be in power doesn't do much to solve the structural problems and can even lead to worse outcomes (Iraq? Libya?).
Agreed. USB audio is especially tedious to get to work reliably and, more importantly, easily. I use a Linux PC with Ubuntu Studio to record speeches and occasionally play some background music. Our mixing board has a built-in USB audio interface that should "just work" (at least it does in Windows). With the Linux PC, we have to jump through many hoops to get it to work. Basically, it never shows up in Pulseaudio, so we need to use JACK and link it up to PulseAudio. Which means that we have to start up the JACK daemon (yes, it can be automated, but it's USB audio and it might not always be connected when we turn on the PC), then go to the PulseAudio settings to tell it that the JACK sink should be used. And, of course, we need to do all that before we start any other program, or else we get no sound and we have to restart the application.
So, yes, sound works. But it's a pain and I wouldn't want to have to explain how to do all this to someone who's not very computer literate. They'd just tell me "why on earth can't we just use Windows". And they'll come away with the (justified) idea that Linux is really not user-friendly and definitely not for them.
Now, perhaps there are ways to solve these problems. Perhaps there's a guide somewhere that shows that I've been doing things wrong. But that's exactly the point: something as basic as sound should work out of the box and shouldn't require the user to do anything that a reasonably competent person could do.
Should there also be a tax on exports? Because, after all, every time an American company sells a car overseas, it's one car that is not available to US consumers. Foreigners are competing with the US for the goods that they produce and we need to stop sending our stuff overseas!
Notice how ridiculous this argument is? Everyone realizes that exports are good. Even people who really, really hate free trade (those just complain about imports).
Well, this is in effect what you're saying. You're complaining about one of the most successful export industries in the US, one that sells services worth billions of dollars annually. And it's even better than selling cars and other widgets to foreign consumers because these people actually pay to come spend money in the US. For a few years, they'll be paying tuition AND buying food, clothes, beer, etc.
Next thing you know, you'll be complaining about the tourism industry too?
You have absolutely no idea what these doctors are doing with their money. Perhaps they're sending thousands of dollars back home each month, which is much, much more valuable than an extra pair of hands. If they come from genuinely poor countries, the number one thing that people need is money. They're at a level of development where the main constraint on improving life expectancy and life in general is not whether there are a few more doctors but whether there is basic infrastructure in place (e.g. proper water sanitation), there is enough money to afford basic medications when needed, there is money to buy nets or get your house sprayed, etc. A few more doctors might improve things at the margin but what good is it to know what problem you have if you have no money to purchase the drugs to treat your condition?
At any rate, it's simply not true that letting foreign doctors work in the USA has a negative effect on their "own" communities (with scare quotes because, after all, perhaps these people now consider the USA their home). If people know that there is an opportunity to go to the US if you study medicine, they medical studies will attract more and better students. However, not all of these students will eventually go through with it. There are lots of regulatory barriers, some people simply decide that, after all, they'd rather stay with their parents/family/friends, etc. So, even though some people go abroad, there might still at the end of the day be more doctors than there would have been if immigration was impossible. This is what studies have found with nurses in the Philippines for instance.
Also, you have no idea what it is to live in a low-income country and should be careful before telling people from there that they are 'greedy' if all they want is what you apparently take for granted as an inhabitant of the first world.
Cross-subsidies are routine in telecommunications. We don't hear industry representatives arguing that the fact that you can't subscribe to individual TV channels but have to make do with bundles. This means that some people (i.e. those who watch a broad range of channels) benefit, while others might get a better deal with à la carte bundles if the could just get the one or two channels that they actually watch. If we're concerned that some TWC customers might get a worse deal because they don't watch Netflix and have to pay for it, then we should be just as concerned that these same customers have to pay $16 to go from the basic package to the one with 200+ channels even if they're only interested in one or two extra channels.
In fact, such arrangements are ubiquitous in all sectors of the economy. We're not outraged that a restaurant that offers free valet parking is spreading the cost over all patrons, including those that came by taxi. We're don't think it's unfair for malls to offer free bathrooms even if we never visit them but still pay for them. We're not mad at McDonald's because they give away free refills and we never use that opportunity because we're not as thirsty as other people. Etc. Etc.
The author is a shining example of all that is wrong with lobbying and the regulatory process in the developed world. According to his bio on the website, he was "Wireless Bureau Chief" and "Wireless Legal Advisor" at the FCC. So he was responsible for developing and implementing policies that directly impact wireless telecommunication companies. Then, in 2008, he resigned and immediately became CEO of a trade organisation representing the interests of... wireless telecommunication companies. And I mean "immediately" as in there is no gap whatsoever in his resumé. According to his LinkedIn, he resigned in August 2008 and began working for the other side that very same month (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/fred-campbell/11/524/862).
Now, I don't know Fred Campbell and I'm not suggesting that he did not always act in a professional manner. But is it not disturbing that an industry would be allowed to recruit high-ranking government officials whose daily decisions could have great impact on their profitability? This gives FCC staffers very bad incentives, as you might not want to alienate the people who can give you your next, much more lucrative, job. Why do we turn a blind eye to the blatant conflicts of interests that it creates. And it is pervasive in all heavily regulated areas (another example from the FCC: Meredith Attwell Baker). The revolving door is an all too common reality and we're doing nothing to stop it.
If you're unable to express disapproval clearly without being rude and telling people to "shut the fuck up", then maybe you're not qualified to manage people? Also, it sounds a lot like what Linus criticized this guy for doing, blaming the other party for your own failings. What's the difference between breaking the kernel and blaming userspace apps, and failing to communicate your point clearly and blaming the other person for misunderstanding? As an employee, I don't have to suffer the consequences of your not being able to express a simple point clearly.
You can be "nice" (or even simply not a total ass) to people AND tell them that what they're doing is wrong. For instance, tell them "I don't think this is the right way to do it because of Y and Z, and I'd rather you do X instead. We will not be able to accept this contribution unless you make these changes". How on earth could anyone construe this as an encouragement to continue in this direction? No need for profanities, no need for personal attacks. State the facts clearly and calmly. And perhaps people won't be looking for another job because of the hostile work environment that you're creating.
But you can also decide to forego this return on investment for the good of mankind. Which, arguably, is what universities should be pursuing in the first place, not trying to maximize their ROI, as private companies do very well.
Profits are very useful because you get valuable information about what you're doing and it allows resources to be put to the most valuable use. But it doesn't really apply to basic research. That kind of research is not meant to create products that can be sold for a profit, but to increase our collective knowledge. This may or may not give rise to new applications, technologies, and products, but that's not main point. And if something does prove valuable, wouldn't it be better if it were freely licensed to all interested parties to allow for cheap production, for other people to freely improve upon it, etc.?
That's the whole point behind endowments. Give universities so much money that their survival doesn't depend on their monetizing their discoveries. CMU has a $1 billion endowment that makes it very unlikely that it'll have to stop innovating because they failed to secure a patent on everything they discover. Especially since much of the research conducted in universities is actually funded by the government, as a public good.
Easy. 100,000 cases of polio is much much worse. The kids didn't ask to be born to parents who have strange ideas and there are many aspects of the local culture (honor killings? Systematic and systemic discrimination against women?) that should disappear. Cultural eradication is a good thing if it means that mistaken beliefs about the world get rooted out, and especially if it causes active harm to others. I won't be shedding any tears if a "culture" that rejects something as innocuous as vaccination disappears.
That being said, I agree that imperialism is a bad idea, and much of the backlash against "the West" is due to real grievances. For instance, bombing weddings and killing children is not a good way to show how great Western civilization is. Neither can you shove your values down people's throats and expect them to embrace them. But if some cultural practices (genital mutilation for instance) were to be abandoned, I'd be very happy. And, when it involves children whose only mistake was to be born in the wrong part of the world, cultural relativism doesn't seem very appropriate to me.
Not to forget that appealing to "culture" is often a way for the powerful to cement their privileges and continue to exploit marginalized groups. Thus the various dictators who explain that human rights are a Western construct and that authoritarianism is part of the local culture. Or people who want to keep girls ignorant and submissive because their culture/religion says women are inferior to men.
Communication is challenging because Chinese and English are completely different. Why do we expect him to do a better job learning Chinese than the Chinese developers did of learning English, even though they had a lot more incentive to do so? Maybe, occasionally, it might help him if he can clarify things in Chinese. But you have to weigh it against the risk that what he'll be misunderstood because his Chinese is too poor. When things go wrong, do you want him or the Chinese developers to be blamed? If he communicates something very clearly in English, they're at fault if they mess up. If he tries to speak Chinese, there's a good chance that he'll eventually get blamed.
In IT, there's little need for foreign-language skills, unless you happen to live in bilingual country (and even there, it's mostly used as a filter by HR departments). Everyone speaks English and there's a reason why he's a mid-career developer and never had to speak a foreign language.
That being said, learning another language can be a valuable experience. Just don't expect it to be useful on the job.
That's a bit misleading. I'd rather be in the bottom 20% in a high-income country such as the United States or Sweden, than in the top 10% in a Sub-Saharan country. Even with substantially more money than the average person, quality of life is much lower. Which means that you can't just look at income inequality. Median income and living standards, as well as their absolute range also matters. Even if wealth is more and more concentrated (which is not exactly accurate, the Gini coefficient is about the same as it was in the 1860s, and fluctuated a lot throughout the 20th century), living standards have improved a lot, which is what really matters. Money is only the green stuff that we need to buy what we really want.
I agree, they don't. The yellow light has to be on for at least three seconds under 50 kph (31 mph), 3s to 4s between 50 kph and 70 kph (43 mph), and 4s-5s above 70. The Flemish region, where the vast majority of the red light cameras are, always uses the largest of these values. And 4 seconds is a long time in a car. With a 4 second yellow light, there really is no way to run a red light unless you were able to stop safely and chose not to. Impossible.
Why raises the question. If it's so profitable for the private contractor and is a big loss for the city, why don't cities in the US do what most other places do and get rid of the middleman? Especially when I see that the company referenced in the article actually touts "maximizing prosecutions" as a benefit of the system, when the only reason for red-light cameras would be improving safety. A well-designed system is one that results in as few prosecutions as possible. The ideal number of prosecutions is close to zero because that would mean the camera is doing its job of preventing people from doing dangerous things and that only the worst offenders are prosecuted. Here (European country), it's all done in-house by the police, with stringent legislation (minimum yellow time based on the speed limit for the road, safety margin) that ensures that only people who deliberately run the red light get caught. I've never been in a situation where I *had* to run the red light because the yellow phase lasts long enough for everyone to either be able to stop safely or to cross the stop line before the light turns red.
Note that I'm not against outsourcing if it's really more cost effective. But if it ends up wasting money, it's not a good idea.
But that's true for every traffic violation. The only way to make sure that the owner is the driver would be to stop every single vehicle that is seen breaking the law, which might very well be much more dangerous (high-speed chases don't always end so well and people sometimes react bizarrely when they feel threatened and/or are intoxicated).
I think it makes sense to say that the owner of the car is presumed to be the driver. It'd be too easy to claim that a friend happened to borrow your car but that, of course, they won't say they were the ones driving. The way is see it is this:
- You were driving the car: no problem if you got a ticket
- Your spouse was driving the car: then, figure it out amongst yourselves. I mean, they'll really let you get a fine and a bad driving record when they were driving? If so, you got bigger problems that a ticket.
- Your child was driving the car: see above.
- A friend was driving the car: just write down their name on the form. Or don't lend your car to friends you can't trust.
Then, perhaps it's the rule that you have to clear the intersection before the light turns red that needs to be changed. Just introduce a slight delay before the other lights go green (all-ways left) to allow people to turn left, problem solved. That's how virtually all lights work in European countries that I've visited. You stop in the intersection and you wait until there's an opening. No opening? You just wait for the red light and you exit the intersection before the light turns green in the other direction. You can't? Then you probably shouldn't have entered the intersection in the first place. You should have realized that there were already too many cars for all of them to clear the intersection in time and that it was ok to wait at the stop line for the next cycle. Plus, red-light cameras in these countries only capture people who cross the stop line on red, not people who are already in the intersection.
Of course, it doesn't mean that it can work in the US. But it reflects poorly on US governance that something that works pretty well in advanced democracies is impossible there. And that the main concern is corrupt local authorities taking advantage of drivers, which sounds more like what happens in a third-world country ("you broke this traffic law, please pay a 'fine' to me in cash or you'll be taken down to the station").
Have you encountered many 18-year-olds with such a cunning plan? I'm afraid that you're ascribing sinister designs to people just because they happen to disagree with you. It sounds a bit like the fundamentalists who think that they have to make students sign an über-detailed statement of faith, because we all know that atheists have nothing better to do than pretend to be Christians to ruin a seminary.
Perhaps some people come up with such schemes. But, then, once they get their PhD (assuming they weren't found out or gave up before), they find a job with a creationist organization and never produce real research anymore. They'll just be a nobody with a PhD, and there are many of those around. It only impresses the gullible who don't know that a PhD is not meant to be the end of the journey but the beginning.
Isn't it much more likely that young people from a religious background might develop an interest in science, despite the greatly warped education that they might have received? In college, they learn about real evolutionary biology for the first time but, unwilling to let go of the bad ideas that they still have, they begin to compartmentalize their thinking. As you say, they'll write the right things on the exam but they'll still be conflicted about it. Fortunately, soon enough, they're able to specialize in a sub-field where the cognitive dissonance is not as great, and they might even be competent researchers.
Most of the these people will never publish a creationist book or be involved in the creationist movement. I'm sure there are more creationists in research labs than we think. They've just learned not to talk about it (not this one apparently).
But that's exactly why we let courts handle such matters. It's impossible to have standards that deal with every possible situation and draw a clear line in the sand between innocuous lunch time conversation (so, what do you think about proposition whatever) and inappropriate behaviors. So, if someone thinks that their dismissal was unfair, they're free to challenge it. Then an unbiased third-party can decide if their conduct warranted dismissal or not.
The key here is that, while it's true that employees have the right to freedom of opinion, especially if they're employed by the government, employers should also have the right to dismiss them if their behavior in the workplace is a source of problem that can affect the smooth operation of the company/department. For instance, it would be a problem if someone's aggressive proselytizing made it difficult for other employees to work with them. This should of course apply equally to all worldviews: it's just as unacceptable for an atheist to constantly bother religious people on the job. This is not what they're getting paid for.
Now, I also think that those who say "serve him well" have a point. It's unfortunate that Christians in the US are often the first to complain about discrimination, yet are completely silent when they are on the other side of it all. There have been over the past decade many cases of professors at Christian universities and seminaries being dismissed, against the advice of other faculty, because they endorsed evolution. And rank-and-file evangelicals find it perfectly normal, when they're not actively trying to get people fired. Because these institutions are religious institutions and the 1st amendment protects them, they're free to do so. But how is not hypocritical to then complain when something similar happens to you?
Never doubt the ability that people have to compartmentalize their thinking. You can actually have a lot of technical skills, and even a lot of science knowledge, yet hold fairly bizarre views that are directly contradicted by the evidence that you know. It's kinda hard to do if you actually have to use the principles that directly contradict your beliefs (i.e., you usually won't find young-earth creationists doing research in evolutionary biology), but most scientific fields are broad enough that you can easily specialize in something that won't threaten your bizarre beliefs.
You obviously didn't get the memo that a woman's sexuality is something to be controlled by men? That she has to go from being under the authority of her father, to being under the authority of her husband, who will each in turn be in charge of her sexuality?
If you want to be shocked, read up on "purity balls", where fathers pledge that they will be "the authority and protector" of their daughter's virginity, and daughters "pledge their purity" to their father. Are they common? No. But the very fact that they can exist in 21st century America is shocking. And the same noxious ideology is also peddled in diluted forms in the culture. Haven't you noticed that, in more conservative art forms (think: country music, conservative "family values" movies, etc.), marriage is always about "asking for her hand" (sub-text: her father has control over her sexuality and her person, and must relinquish it for it to be a "good" wedding)? What about "giving away the bridge" (who, apparently, is not autonomous enough to give herself away)? Patriarchy is alive and well in America.
Facebook is broken and should add a setting that don't let people add you to groups without your consent. I'm a coder and I didn't know that it was possible, so it's a good bet that the average user is even more clueless.
However, in this case, Facebook seems to have acted only as a catalyst. Living a double life is hard, Facebook or no Facebook. If you want to live as an openly gay person in Austin, to the extent that you are singing in a lesbian choir, it's gonna be very, very hard to make sure that no-one hears about it Newton, NC. All it takes is someone posting a video on Youtube and someone else recognizing you, or someone who enjoyed your performance writing about you on their blog and your family googling your name. What makes me think that their secret would have been revealed sooner or later is that, unless their families already suspected something, they wouldn't have reacted the way they did. If someone added me to, say, a radical Communist or fundie Muslim group, I wouldn't get a worried call from my family asking me if I've gone radical. They'd just think that someone messed up or that there must be a good reason. Likewise, being included in a 'queer' themed group shouldn't make your family leave bigoted messages on your voice-mail unless they're already suspecting something. For all we know, you could have a gay friend who sings in that choir whom you're trying to convince of the truth of Christianity. But, no, they immediately assume that you must be gay yourself? The man in the story had already told his mother that he was gay. How long would it have taken for his father to find out?
Bottom line: if your dad is a jerk and a bigot, and you happen to be gay, you're in trouble Facebook or not.
But looking at countries that do use proportional representation, we don't really witness such things happening. There are several reasons for this:
1) Your example still assumes that, as in a first-past-the-post system, there are two main parties organized along a left-right axis, and that the vote would be almost evenly split between these two parties. However, looking at what happens in actual countries, we see that there is much more diversity in terms of political parties and ideology. It's first-past-the-post that gives rise to the two-party system, not the fact that, say, paleo-conservatives and free-marketers necessarily have to form one party, and environmentalists and auto workers have to form another one. Countries in Europe that use proportional representation typically have many parties: classical liberal parties, social-democratic parties, green parties, more radical left-wing parties, conservative parties, religious (usually Christian-Democratic) parties, etc.
2) There are thresholds that ensure that crazy people do not get seats. Even a 5% threshold does the trick quite well.
3) There are informal norms that say that, when truly crazy people do get seats, the other parties should not enter into a coalition with them ("cordon sanitaire"). Any party that violates these norms would be punished by voters at the next election.
4) Countries with proportional representation seem to have less partisan politics. Yes, there are still tensions between political parties. But bipartisanship is much more common. At the local level especially, it's not uncommon for social-democratic (nominally socialist) and classical liberal parties to enter into a coalition.
The rest of the world does just fine with identity cards. I'm still waiting for fascists thugs to knock on my door, or anyone's door for that matter. Even without ID cards, in a modern society, everyone leaves a paper or electronic trail. Unless you're planning on not having a bank account, never getting anything delivered, never attending any school, never going to hospital and not having any kind of insurance, never driving a car, never owning any kind of real estate, never traveling abroad, you can already be found. The widespread opposition to ID cards in the UK, probably a world leader in mass surveillance, and the US, where private companies allow you to know everything about your neighbor, from their political persuasion to any criminal conviction to the value of their home, is unfathomable to the rest of us. Especially considering that people in these countries already have government-issued IDs that serve as de facto ID cards (driver licences, NI/SS cards, etc.).
As for Chinese dissidents, how it usually plays out is that the Chinese let them exit the country, even when the US has already made them leave the embassy. Once these people reach the US embassy, they're already too high-profile to be quietly disappeared and the longer they are allowed to remain in hiding, the greater the risk that they will cause trouble. Better to let them leave for the West and, with the 24-hour media cycle, they'll be out of the spotlight soon. E.g. Chen Guangcheng, who didn't even have to be spirited out of the country. China and the US negotiated and reached an agreement that would make both of them look good. China gets him out of the spotlight, the US get brownie points with pro-democracy activists. Could China have raided the US embassy? Of course. But they're not crazy and realize that they need the US as much as the US needs them and that it'd be nonsense to pick a fight with them. Whether the UK has done so or not in the past won't change that
The idea that a high-profile person such as Assange would be subject to extraordinary rendition while in Sweden is laughable.