Comment One day? (Score 1) 187
Among the many north poles, let us rejoice that Santa Claus did not choose the magnetic pole for his home, for he would have to spend as much time moving as delivering presents.
One night, that is.
Among the many north poles, let us rejoice that Santa Claus did not choose the magnetic pole for his home, for he would have to spend as much time moving as delivering presents.
One night, that is.
Market regulates itself through sometimes initially non-obvious mechanisms. If wages are kept artificially low by a cartel, there's great chance for a better paying new player to kick the table by paying more and sucking some of the other companies employees.
The wages being paid are within those established by the market. There are circumstances that have lead to the reduction of IT salaries, but most of it is unrelated to cartels formed by the industry biggest players. I find it hard to believe that a system administrator or programmer will not have a choice but to go to work for these companies.
And about the visas, outsourcing and foreign workers, aren't they supposed to participate and compete?. Don't they have the right to do the same work you do for less?. It's a matter of efficiency. The foreigner is providing more value for less. And that means the company will be able to improve it's ability to compete.
Now companies agreeing to pay less is no worse than employees forming unions to press for higher salaries. If companies shouldn't be able to do this, certainly unions shouldn't exist. It's unfair leverage.
But governments have been intervening in the natural development of markets to give unfair advantages and privileges forever. First they created the patents and copyright monsters, which are the true culprits of all distortions in the current IT industry, giving the large players too much power.
Well, if you wish the government to go in a regulation spree to compensate for the negative effects of previous regulations, be aware that further regulation and bureaucracy will surely be required to compensate the negative effects of the current one. More government spending, and more economic stagnation.
We're all guys here you insensitive clod.
So dragging a bunch of old, junked cars out, welding them together, and transporting 30 tons of scrap as a display dedicated to a cartoon... is green?
No, it is supergreen!
The turtles have probably evolved very well. I mean, their cuteness makes us humans feel sorry for them and help them survive. Appealing to another species that can benefit their long term survival is a relative advantages. I'm sure not many people would care if a disgusting creature like the cockroach goes extinct, unless that would become a problem for a more liked creature.
I think turtles are going to do just fine, if only because some of us help them out when they are having a hard time. It's fortunate that humans can act on behalf of other creatures, new generations tend have a soft spot for biodiversity.
I for one would like to see that my grandchildren will have the opportunity to see such a wonderful creature. Even if they might not care, I don't see why we should leave them to face extinction. Biodiversity can benefit us in ways that go beyond simple exotic amusement.
Now I think this is not a task that should be covered by the government with taxpayer funds, but rather by private foundations.
I thought scientists are a bunch of people usually very willing to share their knowledge for the wellbeing of mankind. I tended to think they were like open source people. But I've found that scientific papers on the Internet aren't normally available for free. That's sad.
What is at stake here is the fundamental definition of freedom itself. Patents and copyrights stand in the way of full non-coercive freedom, as a once carefully drafted social contract for utilitarian purposes.
The utilitarian doctrine doesn't stand up for freedom but for the amount of happiness output, meaning the amount of well-being that can come out of certain policies.
Copyrights and patents have been put in place as a compromise between freedom and utility. At some point copyrights where only valid for about 14 years, and then intellectual works would go to the public domain to benefit mankind. This was not such a large compromise then, and it seemed "fair".
But what happened is that fair is not always right, and once the genie was out of the bottle, and the government started granting monopolies on ideas and information, things started to go out of hand. Copyrights are now granted for 70 years, or more, and trading of information and ideas has become a dangerous business. The monopolies the government granted are now out of control. And people is confused about whether to follow common sense and freely share information, art and ideas for the benefit of all, and the "poor" artists, composers, and creators that are "being left out".
I think the dimensions of it are becoming frankly ridiculous, and the spirit of sharing and solidarity that is the foundation of the growth of our entire species, is being struck by a few arrogant individuals that think they "own" the intangible, and a group of sheep that follows them without ever stopping to think that the status-quo is immoral.
Law isn't perfect. Sometimes errors are made. Patents and copyrights should be entirely abolished to allow for further and faster growth of our species. I applaud the clarity of mind of Eleanor, and I invite her to participate in the copyright wars in the freedom defender's camp.
The crime of all is the crime of none.
Factorials were someone's attempt to make math LOOK exciting.