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.