Intelligence does not necessarily equate to altruism.
One could easily argue the ceo's of enron, et al are quite intelligent, and they use their intelligence to flimflam the populace.
People treat intelligence with suspicion because they feel threatened, because they know, should someone possess intelligence in the right areas, they could use those faculties to burn them.
Economists are for free trade assuming everything else is equal.
Any competent economist would be against free trade with nations which have no human or labor rights.
The idea behind free trade is to promote specialization among otherwise equal nations, and reduce the overhead of commerce, promoting lower prices and greater efficiency.
The "free trade" being put into practice is irresponsible political pandering. At the time the policies are implemented, people see lower prices, but in the long term a nation without equal labor and human rights standards will be "more efficient" in every sector, not just a few. Thus, they parasitically drain the middle class of the the other one.
"efficiency" is not the goal of applied economics though. Maximizing economic stability well-being for the entire populace is. Encouraging efficiency in certain ways is one way, but imposing regulations where necessary is another.
Of course, the people at the top still get rich under this scheme, and as a bonus they erode labor rights in the nation with the higher differential, pulling them back to the gilded age.
The thing that tips economists is, I suspect, the same thing that tips most other analytical minds: the Republican party has been steadily tightening ties to the religious right. While religion is not uncommon among thinkers, secularism is more common, and evangelicalism is generally distrusted as too prescriptive and intolerant
nope, as a degreed economist, the thing which tips competent economists is the republican attachment to reaganomics.
reaganomics attacks the consumption side of the GDP equation, which also happens to be the largest portion.
It places implicit trust in agents who have no real liability, and are subject to moral hazard which republican economic policy-makers ignore.
It ignores the long-term consequences of allowing producers to put the squeeze on their labor (hint: you become unable to sell what you make, and... and this is a very relevant one today... people are financially unable to support a home purchase)
There are numerous other aspects of economic policy which incompetent politicians on both sides ignore: such as the fact that offshoring as a multiple-round game results in destruction of the middle class, but that's a discussion for another time.
hire at a lower salary, with the promise of fast promotions (2 months time, say) as they pick up the in-house procedures, structure of the programming/it projects, etc.
Also, nothing the government does can supersede the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not a declaration of what the people are allowed.
FAIL!
the bill of rights is a list of things the government is not permitted to do, and it has been razed, ground to a fine powder, burned, deatomized, put through a particle accelarator, and the atomic soup left dispersed from the probe we shot into jupiter.
There are many rulings which completely ignore the bill of rights when the sellouts in the USSC see more money on the side of corrupted interests.
Examples: the souter eminent domain ruling, the refusal to entertain a case brought against the government for making "de facto" perpetual copyright law, and the list goes on and on.
All the bill of rights is used for today is a straw man. Neocons and corporate servants point to the bill of rights and declare it's inviolable simply because it's there, then sneak behind the publics back and carve planet sized holes in it.
Of course, this is done because they get the blame if anything goes wrong, and while it irks me when this happens, it is done to address that old finding:
people who are least competent tend to be most confident. They dive right in, and fry their boot sector, melt the hard drive, and cause the keyboard to burst into flames, then the IT guys get blamed and saddled with recovering something useful from the wreckage.
once again. apples have been double the price of pcs for a while, only now starting to move downward a little. They sold and still do sell like hotcakes as a superior user experience and a platform with a reputation for greater longevity and higher resale value.
a LOT of slashdotters complain about the disappearance of durable goods, and it's not just for the rich either.
My friend, as a black sheep, does not receive financial help from his grandfather. They live modestly, but because they buy durable goods gradually they don't live like trailer trash.
If you can't be bothered to RTFA, please read this.
Ford makes the engines in Britain. The British pound is high compared to the dollar, so the cars would cost more than a Prius; their best case is that a diesel tax credit might make the car cost only slightly more than a Prius. Their market research indicates that Americans prefer a hybrid gasoline car (such as a Prius) to a diesel, so they don't think the car would sell at the price they would have to charge. It doesn't help that diesel is taxed more than gasoline and thus costs $0.40 to $1.00 more per gallon. Ford could reduce the cost if they start building the diesel engines in Mexico, but they will lose money unless they can sell at least 350,000 diesel engines per year; given their bleak financials they are reluctant to take that risk right now.
Note that VW is selling Jettas with diesel engines, and several other auto makers are introducing diesel models. If American consumers go for these new diesels, Ford may reconsider their decision.
steveha
This means they're lazy.
Hybrids didn't get this way out of nowhere, they were MARKETED.
Build a plant here in the US.. in the mid-west where land, cost of living, and labor are cheap, and where it would be marginally less expensive to ship nation-wide (central location).
Then run a few TV spots: "Diesel: it's not just for semis anymore" or some such... run some techno music, etc.
Honestly it's not that hard.. less than 100m initial investment and you have a permanent plant to build a eco-friendly diesel platform useful on an entire line of cars.
My absolute favorite is the "years of x language" requirement.
There are a few basic language archetypes, and knowing the principles of, say, object oriented programming, will allow you to pick up a given language rather quickly.
If you use proprietary frameworks you still have to learn the api's anyway. I don't see why picking up the syntax along the way would add too much overhead to the training process.
We went back to look at the server logs at the time of the test and found that the 3rd person had Google'd all of his questions and basically copied answers from the web to paper.
In our eyes, if the candidate didn't realize that his internet usage could or was being tracked, then do we want that person? Apart from the fact that he basically plagiarized his answers.
In my eyes the first two candidates didn't have the common sense to seek references to assure their accuracy.
As someone who has worked with his share of extensive api's, there are just too many system calls to memorize, and even if you do remember quite a few, there may be better ones for the specific task at hand.
To get the chips, a pair of nikes must be bought, guaranteeing the revenue no matter what the electronics within are use for next.
I don't see why apple should care. I know I wouldn't give a damn if it were used on another pair of sneakers, modified to play old 8 bit game cartridges, or attached to tomahawk missiles.
The fact they do care is rather disturbing, as it reflects a general trend toward companies asserting ownership over your stuff. I'm not talking about copyrighted works either, i'm talking about everything.
They're walking a fine line, installing technologies designed to subvert people's right to modify and use their own devices for their own (sometimes unforseen) purposes.
You are allowed to sell something any way you wish, but if they sue someone for modifying their own shoes, I expect them to lose, as it's related to physical goods rather than copyrighted material.
I don't know, most of the stuff on your list could be accomplished with a decently equipped machine shop.
My friend's estranged grandfather runs a national elevator jack business from two medium sized machine shops behind his home.
They start with rod and pipe stock, or billets, and produce all parts from scratch.
I could easily see such shops, which have about 12 basic tools, getting the job done for your hand tools, garden tools, furniture, car parts (actually, they DID use the shops to manufacture parts for his subaru), etc..
Most of the machines and related attachments are used.. I remember being shown a plaque on one of the lathes which detailed it's original owner: a WWII aircraft factory.
"Don't try to do any action legitimately, resort to murder!
When fighting a despot, the surest way to lose is to follow the rules.
I personally prefer gandhi's approach of civil disobedience over murder for precisely the reasons you stated, along with another:
any well managed propaganda arm can use your own violent actions against your cause.
Revolution, from all the history i've read, requires as much incompetence on the part of the despotic regime as it does initiative, resourcefulness, and pure gaul on the part of those fighting to overthrow them.
Given this, the advancement of science in all fields, but particularly psychology and forensics, will make it much more difficult to execute them as time goes by.
I still think gandhi's way is the best way. It's a very personally focused revolution, and reaches to the root factor in who emerges victor: the desire and willingness to adhere to your cause.
If you personally stand up for what you believe in by ignoring what a despotic government puts in your way, and encouraging others to do so, you quietly and bloodlessly nullify the authority of the government. The only weapon they have is selective enforcement. If enough people are willing to shake off the veil of fear, that will not fly.
Slashdot Mirror
Intelligence does not necessarily equate to altruism.
One could easily argue the ceo's of enron, et al are quite intelligent, and they use their intelligence to flimflam the populace.
People treat intelligence with suspicion because they feel threatened, because they know, should someone possess intelligence in the right areas, they could use those faculties to burn them.
Economists are for free trade assuming everything else is equal.
Any competent economist would be against free trade with nations which have no human or labor rights.
The idea behind free trade is to promote specialization among otherwise equal nations, and reduce the overhead of commerce, promoting lower prices and greater efficiency.
The "free trade" being put into practice is irresponsible political pandering.
At the time the policies are implemented, people see lower prices, but in the long term a nation without equal labor and human rights standards will be "more efficient" in every sector, not just a few. Thus, they parasitically drain the middle class of the the other one.
"efficiency" is not the goal of applied economics though. Maximizing economic stability well-being for the entire populace is. Encouraging efficiency in certain ways is one way, but imposing regulations where necessary is another.
Of course, the people at the top still get rich under this scheme, and as a bonus they erode labor rights in the nation with the higher differential, pulling them back to the gilded age.
The thing that tips economists is, I suspect, the same thing that tips most other analytical minds: the Republican party has been steadily tightening ties to the religious right. While religion is not uncommon among thinkers, secularism is more common, and evangelicalism is generally distrusted as too prescriptive and intolerant
nope, as a degreed economist, the thing which tips competent economists is the republican attachment to reaganomics.
reaganomics attacks the consumption side of the GDP equation, which also happens to be the largest portion.
It places implicit trust in agents who have no real liability, and are subject to moral hazard which republican economic policy-makers ignore.
It ignores the long-term consequences of allowing producers to put the squeeze on their labor (hint: you become unable to sell what you make, and... and this is a very relevant one today... people are financially unable to support a home purchase)
There are numerous other aspects of economic policy which incompetent politicians on both sides ignore: such as the fact that offshoring as a multiple-round game results in destruction of the middle class, but that's a discussion for another time.
Which is exactly opposite of what we seem to do here in America. There's a lesson in there somewhere....
the lesson is, legislating against common activities of given groups of people does not breed conformity, it breeds disrespect for the rule of law.
what a crock!
If I own a chair, it's not an exclusive monopoly on the use of chairs.
If I own a car, it's not an exclusive monopoly on the use of cars.
If I claim ownership of a piece of information, however, I suddenly am smashing a lot of faces with my fist, so to speak.
hire at a lower salary, with the promise of fast promotions (2 months time, say) as they pick up the in-house procedures, structure of the programming/it projects, etc.
Also, nothing the government does can supersede the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not a declaration of what the people are allowed.
FAIL!
the bill of rights is a list of things the government is not permitted to do, and it has been razed, ground to a fine powder, burned, deatomized, put through a particle accelarator, and the atomic soup left dispersed from the probe we shot into jupiter.
There are many rulings which completely ignore the bill of rights when the sellouts in the USSC see more money on the side of corrupted interests.
Examples: the souter eminent domain ruling, the refusal to entertain a case brought against the government for making "de facto" perpetual copyright law, and the list goes on and on.
All the bill of rights is used for today is a straw man. Neocons and corporate servants point to the bill of rights and declare it's inviolable simply because it's there, then sneak behind the publics back and carve planet sized holes in it.
Of course, this is done because they get the blame if anything goes wrong, and while it irks me when this happens, it is done to address that old finding:
people who are least competent tend to be most confident. They dive right in, and fry their boot sector, melt the hard drive, and cause the keyboard to burst into flames, then the IT guys get blamed and saddled with recovering something useful from the wreckage.
if you want em, other people do too.
once again. apples have been double the price of pcs for a while, only now starting to move downward a little. They sold and still do sell like hotcakes as a superior user experience and a platform with a reputation for greater longevity and higher resale value.
a LOT of slashdotters complain about the disappearance of durable goods, and it's not just for the rich either.
My friend, as a black sheep, does not receive financial help from his grandfather. They live modestly, but because they buy durable goods gradually they don't live like trailer trash.
being able to say "made in america" among all this offshoring should sell a few more.
If you can't be bothered to RTFA, please read this.
Ford makes the engines in Britain. The British pound is high compared to the dollar, so the cars would cost more than a Prius; their best case is that a diesel tax credit might make the car cost only slightly more than a Prius. Their market research indicates that Americans prefer a hybrid gasoline car (such as a Prius) to a diesel, so they don't think the car would sell at the price they would have to charge. It doesn't help that diesel is taxed more than gasoline and thus costs $0.40 to $1.00 more per gallon. Ford could reduce the cost if they start building the diesel engines in Mexico, but they will lose money unless they can sell at least 350,000 diesel engines per year; given their bleak financials they are reluctant to take that risk right now.
Note that VW is selling Jettas with diesel engines, and several other auto makers are introducing diesel models. If American consumers go for these new diesels, Ford may reconsider their decision.
steveha
This means they're lazy.
Hybrids didn't get this way out of nowhere, they were MARKETED.
Build a plant here in the US.. in the mid-west where land, cost of living, and labor are cheap, and where it would be marginally less expensive to ship nation-wide (central location).
Then run a few TV spots: "Diesel: it's not just for semis anymore" or some such... run some techno music, etc.
Honestly it's not that hard.. less than 100m initial investment and you have a permanent plant to build a eco-friendly diesel platform useful on an entire line of cars.
Who decided to kill the electric car?
I did.
My tyco RC met the spade end of a pick at 13 : P
My 2k1 elantra shows small does not have to equal uncomfortable.
The thing is a compact, and rides like a full size cadillac.
It's possible to make a small comfortable car easily. Just stop skimping on the shocks.
gas is hitting 5 bucks a gallon here.
oil speculators have murdered people at the pumps.
right, because the syntax of sql can't be learned on site..
christ, why not ask for objective c samples then dismiss anyone who misses a bracket.
yes, because tests are not arbitrary at all.
My absolute favorite is the "years of x language" requirement.
There are a few basic language archetypes, and knowing the principles of, say, object oriented programming, will allow you to pick up a given language rather quickly.
If you use proprietary frameworks you still have to learn the api's anyway. I don't see why picking up the syntax along the way would add too much overhead to the training process.
and what if they're like me.
When presented with a problem, I don't immediately regurgitate an answer.
I file it in the back of my mind, and over the next 24 hours something interesting comes forward.
This happened in a recent interview, and it annoys me to death that people think human beings should act like google.
We went back to look at the server logs at the time of the test and found that the 3rd person had Google'd all of his questions and basically copied answers from the web to paper.
In our eyes, if the candidate didn't realize that his internet usage could or was being tracked, then do we want that person? Apart from the fact that he basically plagiarized his answers.
In my eyes the first two candidates didn't have the common sense to seek references to assure their accuracy.
As someone who has worked with his share of extensive api's, there are just too many system calls to memorize, and even if you do remember quite a few, there may be better ones for the specific task at hand.
I'd turn on the microphone and start recording.
If I hear sputtering and shouting, i'll know where taz went.
I prefer they be tempered by sanity, requiring proof of substantive harm done.
"To get the chips, a pair of nikes must be bought"
Actually, the sensor and plug can be purchased for $30. Or if you have a new iPod touch, you can just buy the sensor for $20.
the point stands though, you have to buy the physical object. there is no p2p for integrated circuits, batteries, or power sources.
We don't have asgard beam synthesis technology yet, i'm sorry to say.
You can't download an integrated circuit.
To get the chips, a pair of nikes must be bought, guaranteeing the revenue no matter what the electronics within are use for next.
I don't see why apple should care. I know I wouldn't give a damn if it were used on another pair of sneakers, modified to play old 8 bit game cartridges, or attached to tomahawk missiles.
The fact they do care is rather disturbing, as it reflects a general trend toward companies asserting ownership over your stuff. I'm not talking about copyrighted works either, i'm talking about everything.
They're walking a fine line, installing technologies designed to subvert people's right to modify and use their own devices for their own (sometimes unforseen) purposes.
You are allowed to sell something any way you wish, but if they sue someone for modifying their own shoes, I expect them to lose, as it's related to physical goods rather than copyrighted material.
I don't know, most of the stuff on your list could be accomplished with a decently equipped machine shop.
My friend's estranged grandfather runs a national elevator jack business from two medium sized machine shops behind his home.
They start with rod and pipe stock, or billets, and produce all parts from scratch.
I could easily see such shops, which have about 12 basic tools, getting the job done for your hand tools, garden tools, furniture, car parts (actually, they DID use the shops to manufacture parts for his subaru), etc..
Most of the machines and related attachments are used.. I remember being shown a plaque on one of the lathes which detailed it's original owner: a WWII aircraft factory.
indeed.
Right now i'm delivering pizza (with 2 degrees! *spit*), and the gates are equally relevant as "security theater"
They charge higher rents in those complexes, but I have yet to need a code to get in.
just follow someone in (and there's always someone going in). The gates are tuned to assure moving trucks don't get crushed.
"Don't try to do any action legitimately, resort to murder!
When fighting a despot, the surest way to lose is to follow the rules.
I personally prefer gandhi's approach of civil disobedience over murder for precisely the reasons you stated, along with another:
any well managed propaganda arm can use your own violent actions against your cause.
Revolution, from all the history i've read, requires as much incompetence on the part of the despotic regime as it does initiative, resourcefulness, and pure gaul on the part of those fighting to overthrow them.
Given this, the advancement of science in all fields, but particularly psychology and forensics, will make it much more difficult to execute them as time goes by.
I still think gandhi's way is the best way. It's a very personally focused revolution, and reaches to the root factor in who emerges victor: the desire and willingness to adhere to your cause.
If you personally stand up for what you believe in by ignoring what a despotic government puts in your way, and encouraging others to do so, you quietly and bloodlessly nullify the authority of the government. The only weapon they have is selective enforcement. If enough people are willing to shake off the veil of fear, that will not fly.