When "What is it with rich socialists that they hate the rich so much?" is the first line of a paragraph, it pretty much guarantees that anything before it would be in a different paragraph. ;-)

You mentioned two people by name, Soros, and Bloomberg, - the latter of which you devoted all of three words to. Doesn't it seem natural that a reader would think you were including Soros in your group of rich socialists? If you did not intend for he or Bloomberg to be included then it's not at all clear who you were talking about.

It was your post, so you should know, but it looks to me that you were playing fast and loose with the term socialist and got called on it.

I can buy a laptop from Lenovo and still get updates from Microsoft. And though I'm not a fan of Windows Phone, version 8 will allow owners of the phones to install updates ahead of the official carrier release. Doing so may be unsupported by the carriers and they may opt not provide tech support to customers who go that route. Still, it's nice to have that option.

So apparently Microsoft found a way past this problem. Can't Google?

You asked why "rich socialists" hate the rich so much, immediately after talking about Soros. To me that implied that he was one of the rich socialists you were thinking of. Now you are using the phrase "socialist-style agendas". Is providing public education or having a state run military part of a socialist-style agenda? Socialists would certainly favor those things but yet we don't think of those as socialist notions. Again, I think people on the right like to throw around the term "socialism" simply to poison the well.

As far as Soros goes, I think he has earned significant wealth from highly unethical practices. But what you are accusing him of is a bit of a stretch. When it comes to good and evil I don't see people as either one. They are on a sliding scale. So for me it is quite possible even for an unethical person to do things strictly out of generosity. So I believe that some of the causes Soros supports he supports because he genuinely thinks they will improve peoples' lives.

The same thing applies to the Koch brothers. They've contributed significant money to public defenders in our country. I don't think that it's part of some socialist agenda or a subversive means of further lining their pockets. I think they genuinely believe our system of pubic defense is grossly inadequate and want to help.

The reason why the Koch brothers get vilified when it comes to global warming is because in this case they are so clearly acting in their own self interest. They are attempting to influence public opinion and politicians via huge sums of money. And they are doing so mainly to protect their wealth, rather than for altruistic reasons.

The definition I gave is what socialism is, not an extreme one. The definition you gave could be equally applied to progressivism or liberalism and could lead to policies supported by many British conservatives (for example), - who are definitely not socialists.

Just like here though, politicians in Britain (even conservatives) will get labeled as "socialists" by people further to their right that don't like their views. For the record, progressives traditionally are very anti-socialist.

1. He favors the "Nordic Model" when comes to economic systems. It's a combination of free market capitalism with large social programs

2. He describes himself as a "Social Democrat" of which there are many definitions. Based on his favorable view of the Nordic model, he's not a socialist in the traditional sense.

3. Most importantly, he's an independent, - not a member of the Democratic party.

Michelle Bachmann was once a Democrat. You could conclude several things from that. One is that anything is possible, another is that people can change over time, and a 3rd is that fundamentally, especially when it comes to the free enterprise system, Democrats and Republicans aren't all that different.

Are there socialists in this country that vote democrat because they see them as the lesser of two evils? Probably. Are there Socialists that run for office pretending to be Democrats? Maybe, though I doubt they get very far. Belief in free enterprise (tempered by regulation) is part of the Democratic platform. If someone like Fidel Castro were to join the Republican party, would that make him a Republican?

The current trend of labeling Democrats or their proposals as "socialist" is the same tactic as calling someone a "liberal" was 20 years ago. The difference is that the term "liberal" doesn't have same stigma "socialist" does and was losing its effectiveness. What is especially ironic is when you hear someone refer to Obamacare as "socialist". A socialist would consider Obamacare an abomination (or Obamination if you prefer). It's not that the are opposed to universal health care, just the way Obamacare attempts to achieve it. As far as that goes they share common ground with Republicans or Libertarians.

Name one.

If you want to have a reasoned argument and be taken seriously then you shouldn't try to compare people like Soros to socialists. I'm not going to defend everything the guy has ever done but he did play a significant role in Hungary's transition from communism to capitalism. He's done some other very good things like donating $35 million to underprivileged kids in New York. At the same time he is something of a hypocrite, -getting rich off the very things he thinks should be more closely regulated. But he is no socialist.

A socialist believes that the people (or government in actual practice) should own the means of production rather than private companies. We're not talking just about health care, we're talking about all major industries. No current US Democrat supports such a notion. Some Democrats may have been willing to work with socialists back in the 30's but they've grown farther and farther apart since that time. People like Soros want to place greater controls on the markets, but they also want the markets to continue to exist.

I didn't take "not a non-profit" as a bad thing. It was intended to show another route to philanthropy.

FWIW I believe there is a huge misconception about what constitutes a non-profit, - at least in the US. Non-profits can be large successful institutions that are funded through "fee for service" rather than donations. There is nothing that WakaWaka is doing that couldn't be done as a non-profit. One major difference is that a non-profit has no owners and no stockholders. Any revenue over and above operating costs must be invested back into the organization.

I am currently working for such a non-profit though we aren't large (~ 100 employees). It's not a route to maximize my income but the organization pays relatively well, can give bonuses and contribute to retirement plans. We employee many engineers and IT people. A significant number of staff have advanced degrees and students seek us out for internships. Hiring capable people isn't a problem because capable people often want to make a difference and they find us. We have a few people that are nationally recognized leaders in their field. But like I said, it is not a path to fabulous wealth. No one is going to buy us. There are no stock options whose value’s are going to explode.

However, not having shareholders means we can focus on the mission and long term goals. At the same time, we do have to keep the lights on so that means we can't do everything we'd like to do. Being a non-profit also opens some doors for us because people believe we're not out to scam them.

What is interesting is that we've figured out some of the same things he has. People value something more if they've had to work or pay for it. We will often be more successful at offering a subsidized service at low cost rather than for free.

I'll restate it more accurately. A well functioning collocated team can communicate more effectively than is possible for a team of remotely located members. But co-location is not a guarantee of anything. It's not impossible for a remote team to communicate better than a collocated one.

You should really read one of Alistair Cockburn's books. Skype, video chats, video conferencing are poor substitutes for face to face communication. You only see and hear part of what's going on and that's under ideal circumstances (assuming no technical issues, audio, or video quality problems). It's difficult to see them while looking at some other document/interface at the same time.

You also miss the conversations that you aren't specifically invited too that you may benefit from or have valuable insight for.

I agree that unnecessary interruptions and distractions can cut into productivity but sometimes an interruption can save you or somebody else valuable time. Nevertheless a good work environment allows people to escape interruption when needed.

Workable but not as good as face to face communications. It's just not. Also does not facilitate the add hoc conversations that take place or allow for simple things like going out to lunch.

Telephone, chat, text, email all have their place and have their own advantages. I use all of them. But exchanging information over chat or email is like having a crappy dialup connection vs. Gigabit ethernet. Sometimes it's good enough but a lot of time you can accomplish more in a 2 minute face to face conversation than you can in several email exchanges or texts. There is simply more bandwidth, - more information is exchanged more quickly face to face.

If you don't like that analogy, think about working on a 13" laptop screen vs a large dual monitor setup. It's not that it can't be done, - but which is more productive?

Just sharing a space can have advantages. Have you heard the term "information radiators"? Much harder to do well on-line.

As a programmer and now a manager I want people in close proximity to each other to facilitate communication with each other, project sponsors, and end users. I also want staff that communicate well. This often leads to better results in less time. It's not that projects can't be successful any other way, I just consider it more ideal. No situation is perfect. I also recognize that staff may also need the opportunity to be free from office distractions so I support working from home as needed. Hopefully next year I will be able to push through a policy that will allow staff to work from home up to a couple of days a week on a regular basis.

Wanting the staff in the same location isn't really about managing them in my case.

There are multiple paths to a long and successful career in IT (or anything else), but there seems to be a large number of programmers that just want to sit in front of a computer, grind out code, and avoid everything else. Lots of other things that need to happen for a project to be a success and getting good at some of the soft skills is more important than a lot of IT people seem to realize.

Yep. Tax rates were much higher then too, - especially for the very wealthy. Ratio of CEO pay to average worker income was 38:1 in 1975. Today it's 475:1. Funny coincidences.

Yet somehow today we're teetering on the edge of socialism.

Advanced Nuclear gets the same tax credit as wind does. Take a look at the Energy Policy Act of 2005. There seems to be a strong resistance to subsidies for renewables while there are long standing policies and subsidies supporting non renewable sources of power. No one seems to get upset over higher taxes, generation costs, and external costs when it comes to them.

Why is that? Is it that people just aren't aware of them?