As much as I despise MS and their slimy tricks, I don't want only two co's to control most of phone tech. A third (or more) player would be helpful overall.
if you take away the ability of people to make a decent return on legal investments, corruption and black market activities become the primary "investment" vehicles.
So if the richest people can only have 5 mansions instead of 6 after taxes, they'll turn to the black market? Puuuleeeese.
The third world is primarily socialist countries and dictatorships
Being a dictator/non-democracy is largely what allows them to heavily pollute, have slave-like working conditions, and export goods instead of having local consumption: work hard & dirty and get little in return.
If you give corporations enough power here, they'll pull the same sh&t by convincing the population that they must accept muck to have jobs, and bribe out politicians who don't echo that tripe.
No, they won't. I was a child and I would not eat rather than eat the "healthy" stuff put in front of me. Children will go past the point of harming themselves in their stubbornness. They won't starve to death, but people will notice they look unfed and report you.
There may be rare exceptions, but your case is probably exaggeration. It sounds like your parents gave in too early. A few days is not enough. Hunger will eventually out-vote a stubborn streak in a kid's head. Eventually kids get used to good food.
Note that many kids are naturally skinny and there's nothing wrong with that. Parental instincts may be to "chub" them up with junk food, but that's wrong.
It's not easy to manage a kid's diet, I will agree. But this debate is not about what's easy.
If kids get hungry enough, they WILL eat nutritious food. It's a myth they'll starve. Don't give them alternatives at home etc. and they will eat fruits, veggies, and whole grains. I guarantee it.
I'm not looking at Europe in general. We should copy the most successful countries.
If Sweden and Germany became US states, they would be among the poorest.
Your link says:
"These national-level comparisons take into account taxes, and include social benefits (e.g., "welfare" and state-subsidized health care) as income. Purchasing power is adjusted to take differences in the cost of living in different countries into account."
That's a lot of adjusting, leaving a lot of room for bias to creep in.
California is has huge problems with welfare dependency, public debt, and bad schools, among others
It has ups and downs like any state. It got hit very hard by the mortgage meltdown, having some of the most bloated real-estate prices in the nation during the bubble, and recovered pretty good considering. (Canada avoided much of the bubble trouble by having tighter mortgage regulations. Dereg fucked USA.)
The schools are "bad" because they have a lot of new-to-English students. I caught you spinning there; leaving out key info.
the possibility that inasmuch as women do approach things differently than males do
It would be interesting to study the patterns of the differences. There could indeed be a "style mismatch" between the way females tend to code versus males. Everyone has their personal preferences and as a reviewer, if a specimen doesn't match close enough to their preferences, they are more likely to reject it.
Anyhow, the devil's in the details, and we don't have those. Factors to be checked include things like duration at the company, education level, age, total coding experience, familiarity between the inspector and inspectee (including does inspector know the gender), reason(s) for the rejection, etc.
then taxing them won't yield a lot of revenue, so you are just taxing them out of envy and spite, not to gain significant amounts of revenue.
The revenue is decent. Most such "studies" exclude capital gains and estate taxes. There's another reason to tax them: they'll have less to (legally) bribe politicians with.
Government corruption, for example, is an excellent investment.
You mean bribing politicians to let fat cats get fatter? Yes, they do that. But you seem to be saying if they are taxed higher, they'll bribe more. I find that silly.
are making very cautious decisions because US administrations don't want to get in trouble with environmentalists; the result is limited job growth, limited economic growth, and stagnation.
So we have to become a polluted 3rd-world sweat shop to compete with the 3rd world? Is that what you're saying?
As far as your Soviet analogy, it was not a democracy. (And no checks-and-balances.) I'm not proposing we end democracy. In fact, let's improve our democracy.
Top marginal income tax rates are about 53% in the US, significantly higher than both Germany and Norway.
The countries I listed have noticeably lower Gini coefficients (less inequality).
comparisons to Canada and Norway, two resource-rich countries in favorable locations and with small populations, are invalid anyway
Why is that? If smaller = richer, then CA should proceed with CALEXIT (or Pacifica). Favorable locations? Please explain. And USA is relatively resource rich. Don't look at just oil.
The US has one of the highest amounts of per capita social spending in the world
Largely because our healthcare system is too expensive. Single payer would be cheaper.
Have you actually lived in Europe? And I don't mean as an American expat with full access to American opportunities whenever you want to? I have
What part? If you like big houses and big cars, you are right that it's easier to get those here. But there's more to life than that.
[Europe] wouldn't be the migration destination of choice
Because many want to come here and start a business. I will agree that USA is probably the easiest place to start a business. People like dreaming; it's why they go to Vegas or buy lottery tickets. But the reality is that most businesses fail. (I tried a few myself.) It may be the land of opportunity, but that's not the same as a comfortable living.
They would hire graduates in India at 1/10th the salary, but then they would need to employ 10 of them to do the same amount of programming, and it was always poor, and I mean always.
Companies who are quality-ignorant software cheapskates will probably be cheapskates with citizen labor also and suck no matter what, and end up later throwing yet more labor into the pile to put out fires they created themselves. Eventually it may sink the company. But in the shorter term, PHB's will do PHB things.
If we don't get 5-7% return on investment year over year, they pull out of the market.
And put it where? You are exaggerating the impact of higher taxes etc. If they are smaller investors, then their taxes are smaller anyhow, or at least should be.
Canada, Germany, Norway, etc. have higher tax rates for the wealthy and their MEDIAN incomes are about the same or higher than USA and WITH better social safety nets. We don't have to theorize, their middle is doing better.
Are you kidding? The very name "capitalism" refers to the use of capital for investing.
Let me rephrase it: market economies in general don't need new non-revenue-based investments to shrive and grow. They only need supply and demand and something equivalent to cash for exchanging. I'm not saying "outside" investments are not helpful, just not necessary, and if the bottleneck is something ELSE, then filling up that one factor won't solve the problem. You are banging on one key of the piano.
Government official jerks don't need to "cheat", they "poison babies" simply by not giving a fuck and by not being liable for the consequences of their actions.
Example? Two or three groups keeping an eye on something is usually better than one. Sure, sometimes inspectors are jerks, but that's true of any endeavor. The fact that humans are imperfect is not a reason to let corporations run willy nilly over the environment etc.
Any economy like that is bound to fail because nobody has any incentive to make capital investments.
You ASSUME yuuuuge inequality is needed to motivate the fat cats sufficiently. I don't know of any scientific studies on such, but I do believe the plutocrats exaggerate the importance of inequality. Some is needed, yes, I don't disagree. But I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns. Humans are social creatures who rank each other. The relative ranks won't change much with more taxes.
The only way to make progress is to grow the economy, and that happens only through capital investments.
That's a lie. There's plenty of existing demand for existing products. USA needs capital investments to stay ahead of the low-wage competition of the 3rd world. Our comparative advantage is being on the cutting edge. Thus, investment is not necessary for capitalism in general.
Anyhow, investment money is NOT the current bottleneck. Lack of consumer spending is. You keep emphasizing the spleen when the liver is the bottleneck. A gigantic spleen cannot compensate for a weak liver.
Generally speaking, capitalists don't gain anything in the long term by harming their customers
Many have consistently shown they've only look about 5 years out. The "diminishing future value" of money and related RIO formulas are part of this. Plus, there is the cockiness of testosterone that's not always rational.
They then get punished both by customers and by the courts.
AFTER the babies are all dead.
What prevents those jerks that want to "poison babies" from simply becoming government officials? And how do you keep them in check once they are in government?
Checks and balances and cross-agency audits. It ain't perfect, but often better than waiting until after the damage is done. There's less incentive for gov't officials to cheat because their paycheck varies less per success or failure of a company. It takes fairly blatant cheating to give them a strong incentive.
You thought Wikipedia vandalism was bad? Just wait until...Chinese government gets done vandalizing reality.
Nothing we haven't seen before.
"We built the biggest and best wall, everybody knows it. We know walls, we've been doing them for thousands of years. Our wall is so yuuuge you can see it from space, and it works because, let me tell you, WE are still here and the looosers wiped out. Bing bam boom, Gone!"
Anyway, as long as languages have similar concepts, procedures/functions in Pascal/Modula versus functions in C and records versus structs, the transmorgifying is straight forward.
COBOL allows a kind of "hierarchical data dictionary" where parts of a "struct" can have their own name so that you can reference subsets (tree branches) to process as a group. Most languages we use today don't have anything equivalent directly in the language. It can be reinvented in API's, but it's probably harder to read and work with than COBOL's native structure. It's somewhat comparable to XML for custom data structures.
And C and Pascal are probably influenced by a common language, perhaps Algol, which is arguably a "cleaner" variation of Fortran. COBOL is a very different kind of animal from Algol-influenced languages, including its type system (if you can call it that).
humans will still be needed, but as more things become "human helper to the robot" type thing, it reduces the options...
Skeptics often point out that automation in the past freed up people to do other things and/or be more productive. For example, electric staplers made it possible for one person to build many more roofs, and either more people could afford houses or their houses could be bigger for the same price. Thus, the number of roofers remained roughly the same: they just built more.
But there's no guarantee this pattern will continue. It's possible it can continue IF we tune our economy right, but perhaps we don't know how.
There's certainly a market for customized items, landscaping, and fashion; which is labor intensive, but not enough money is trickling down to consumers for them to feel comfortable enough to pay for enough customization. Consumer paychecks have been stagnant despite machines being able to help make more.
Slashdot Mirror
So T was merely vetting code, not "being a star".
Just drop a MEOAB on em
Does that work for bosses also?
As much as I despise MS and their slimy tricks, I don't want only two co's to control most of phone tech. A third (or more) player would be helpful overall.
But I don't think cat beheadings were part of their plans. Even cat juggling was deemed controversial.
Where's the violence-detection AI bots?
Sounds like a great idea for a sca.....new AI company.
H1B visas in particular are temporary.
So if the richest people can only have 5 mansions instead of 6 after taxes, they'll turn to the black market? Puuuleeeese.
Being a dictator/non-democracy is largely what allows them to heavily pollute, have slave-like working conditions, and export goods instead of having local consumption: work hard & dirty and get little in return.
If you give corporations enough power here, they'll pull the same sh&t by convincing the population that they must accept muck to have jobs, and bribe out politicians who don't echo that tripe.
Your source is a right-leaning publication. Sorry, but I'll take them with large grain of salt.
There may be rare exceptions, but your case is probably exaggeration. It sounds like your parents gave in too early. A few days is not enough. Hunger will eventually out-vote a stubborn streak in a kid's head. Eventually kids get used to good food.
Note that many kids are naturally skinny and there's nothing wrong with that. Parental instincts may be to "chub" them up with junk food, but that's wrong.
It's not easy to manage a kid's diet, I will agree. But this debate is not about what's easy.
If kids get hungry enough, they WILL eat nutritious food. It's a myth they'll starve. Don't give them alternatives at home etc. and they will eat fruits, veggies, and whole grains. I guarantee it.
No, they are not.
I'm not looking at Europe in general. We should copy the most successful countries.
Your link says:
"These national-level comparisons take into account taxes, and include social benefits (e.g., "welfare" and state-subsidized health care) as income. Purchasing power is adjusted to take differences in the cost of living in different countries into account."
That's a lot of adjusting, leaving a lot of room for bias to creep in.
It has ups and downs like any state. It got hit very hard by the mortgage meltdown, having some of the most bloated real-estate prices in the nation during the bubble, and recovered pretty good considering. (Canada avoided much of the bubble trouble by having tighter mortgage regulations. Dereg fucked USA.)
The schools are "bad" because they have a lot of new-to-English students. I caught you spinning there; leaving out key info.
It would be interesting to study the patterns of the differences. There could indeed be a "style mismatch" between the way females tend to code versus males. Everyone has their personal preferences and as a reviewer, if a specimen doesn't match close enough to their preferences, they are more likely to reject it.
Anyhow, the devil's in the details, and we don't have those. Factors to be checked include things like duration at the company, education level, age, total coding experience, familiarity between the inspector and inspectee (including does inspector know the gender), reason(s) for the rejection, etc.
A visa "guest worker" is by definition not an "immigrant".
Robotic Republicans will revolt and overthrow humanity.
The revenue is decent. Most such "studies" exclude capital gains and estate taxes. There's another reason to tax them: they'll have less to (legally) bribe politicians with.
You mean bribing politicians to let fat cats get fatter? Yes, they do that. But you seem to be saying if they are taxed higher, they'll bribe more. I find that silly.
So we have to become a polluted 3rd-world sweat shop to compete with the 3rd world? Is that what you're saying?
As far as your Soviet analogy, it was not a democracy. (And no checks-and-balances.) I'm not proposing we end democracy. In fact, let's improve our democracy.
The countries I listed have noticeably lower Gini coefficients (less inequality).
Why is that? If smaller = richer, then CA should proceed with CALEXIT (or Pacifica). Favorable locations? Please explain. And USA is relatively resource rich. Don't look at just oil.
Largely because our healthcare system is too expensive. Single payer would be cheaper.
What part? If you like big houses and big cars, you are right that it's easier to get those here. But there's more to life than that.
Because many want to come here and start a business. I will agree that USA is probably the easiest place to start a business. People like dreaming; it's why they go to Vegas or buy lottery tickets. But the reality is that most businesses fail. (I tried a few myself.) It may be the land of opportunity, but that's not the same as a comfortable living.
We work more and die sooner.
Must be a reason "Indiana" contains "India"
Companies who are quality-ignorant software cheapskates will probably be cheapskates with citizen labor also and suck no matter what, and end up later throwing yet more labor into the pile to put out fires they created themselves. Eventually it may sink the company. But in the shorter term, PHB's will do PHB things.
Most visa workers are not immigrants. Some may become immigrants, sure, but they are two different things.
And put it where? You are exaggerating the impact of higher taxes etc. If they are smaller investors, then their taxes are smaller anyhow, or at least should be.
Canada, Germany, Norway, etc. have higher tax rates for the wealthy and their MEDIAN incomes are about the same or higher than USA and WITH better social safety nets. We don't have to theorize, their middle is doing better.
Let me rephrase it: market economies in general don't need new non-revenue-based investments to shrive and grow. They only need supply and demand and something equivalent to cash for exchanging. I'm not saying "outside" investments are not helpful, just not necessary, and if the bottleneck is something ELSE, then filling up that one factor won't solve the problem. You are banging on one key of the piano.
Example? Two or three groups keeping an eye on something is usually better than one. Sure, sometimes inspectors are jerks, but that's true of any endeavor. The fact that humans are imperfect is not a reason to let corporations run willy nilly over the environment etc.
You ASSUME yuuuuge inequality is needed to motivate the fat cats sufficiently. I don't know of any scientific studies on such, but I do believe the plutocrats exaggerate the importance of inequality. Some is needed, yes, I don't disagree. But I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns. Humans are social creatures who rank each other. The relative ranks won't change much with more taxes.
That's a lie. There's plenty of existing demand for existing products. USA needs capital investments to stay ahead of the low-wage competition of the 3rd world. Our comparative advantage is being on the cutting edge. Thus, investment is not necessary for capitalism in general.
Anyhow, investment money is NOT the current bottleneck. Lack of consumer spending is. You keep emphasizing the spleen when the liver is the bottleneck. A gigantic spleen cannot compensate for a weak liver.
Many have consistently shown they've only look about 5 years out. The "diminishing future value" of money and related RIO formulas are part of this. Plus, there is the cockiness of testosterone that's not always rational.
AFTER the babies are all dead.
Checks and balances and cross-agency audits. It ain't perfect, but often better than waiting until after the damage is done. There's less incentive for gov't officials to cheat because their paycheck varies less per success or failure of a company. It takes fairly blatant cheating to give them a strong incentive.
Nothing we haven't seen before.
"We built the biggest and best wall, everybody knows it. We know walls, we've been doing them for thousands of years. Our wall is so yuuuge you can see it from space, and it works because, let me tell you, WE are still here and the looosers wiped out. Bing bam boom, Gone!"
COBOL allows a kind of "hierarchical data dictionary" where parts of a "struct" can have their own name so that you can reference subsets (tree branches) to process as a group. Most languages we use today don't have anything equivalent directly in the language. It can be reinvented in API's, but it's probably harder to read and work with than COBOL's native structure. It's somewhat comparable to XML for custom data structures.
And C and Pascal are probably influenced by a common language, perhaps Algol, which is arguably a "cleaner" variation of Fortran. COBOL is a very different kind of animal from Algol-influenced languages, including its type system (if you can call it that).
Skeptics often point out that automation in the past freed up people to do other things and/or be more productive. For example, electric staplers made it possible for one person to build many more roofs, and either more people could afford houses or their houses could be bigger for the same price. Thus, the number of roofers remained roughly the same: they just built more.
But there's no guarantee this pattern will continue. It's possible it can continue IF we tune our economy right, but perhaps we don't know how.
There's certainly a market for customized items, landscaping, and fashion; which is labor intensive, but not enough money is trickling down to consumers for them to feel comfortable enough to pay for enough customization. Consumer paychecks have been stagnant despite machines being able to help make more.