Sorry, I forgot to add an example to my previous comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
In socialism you get paid by your work. The difference with capitalism is that there is no big investor owning the company, doing what he wants and (the most important part) living from your work.
A cooperative is the best example of people working in those conditions.
Socialism doesn't require democracy, in fact it often dictates a lack of democracy to enact as you run the risk of the people choosing themselves over the community.
And where exactly do people choose themselves over the community and how can that be a problem in an assembly where majority wins.
History is rife with examples of socialist states that tried to solve this problem by either eliminating voting or limiting voting to one party.
Solve this problem, can you explain how people deciding is a problem? I know that after Lenin died in Russia the soviet assembly died. But how people having the control of the production means is a problem, It is an interesting idea.
The same thing goes for the right to assemble, if the masses assemble they might demand something different and socialism fails when the people don't want to go along with it.
Socialism is when the masses assembly and take control. It will be really fun that they assembly to vote not to be able to assemble again an decide their future.
Again history is full of examples of socialist states where the right to assemble was strongly curtailed.
It would be nice if you put some, just to know what do you consider a socialist state, and if you take into consideration anything else.
Because now in the US the right of assemble is strongly curtailed, not only with the "funny" law of demonstrations near the white house, but with demonstrations near the secret service or someone protected by the secret service. Let alone the "funny" (again) reasons used to stop people assembling in the wall street demonstrations. I must say that using nets to treat people like cattle was another "funny" idea. Better than shooting students like in the 70s.
Socialism doesn't have anything to do with racism, culture or genocide as a requirement or a curtailment.
I won't call this a non-sequitur, because there is nothing backing this up. You could first compare how the US or Europe evolved around the racism problem and how socialist countries did it. Just to see how constitutions where not only removing races but also equality between women and men.
But you can go to the theory. "Racism serves the interests of the capitalist or employer class by dividing black and white workers, reducing their potential unity and thus their bargaining power." (I guess you can google this and learn more about it).
Private companies were routinely seized by the Nazi's and even when companies were 'owned' in name by someone else they were effectively government owned. Such was the extant of this that they were seized as war assets and either put out of business or forced into new lines of business. BMW and Volkswagen are direct examples of the result of this (BMW used to make war planes and the blue / white propeller emblem is homage to that history). The nazi's were very anti-corporation and anti-business, traits that run counter to fascism and right wing politics.
Yep, Bayer and Josef Mengele, and of course inside IG Farben wasn't a capitalist conglomerate. But the worst of all of this is this fact "The Bayer executive Fritz ter Meer, sentenced to seven years in prison during the IG Farben Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, was made head of the supervisory board of Bayer in 1956, after his release".
So can you tell me when BMW was seized by the government?
I am not putting a flag in the Reichstag, I am simply stating an inconvenient truth, one that the youth of today tend to be unaware of. What are the elements of socialism? You will find all of those elements in Nazi Germany.
You're defending so much the Nazi that it feels that you would like them to come back. In that case, don't worry there will be people willing to put a different flag in the Reichstag.
A bunch of non-sequitur is called now truth?. Why? You know more about yourself. But I guess I'll remember for some months your comment about "Socialism is not democracy".
Have fun with your democracy
WTF1: From the moment labor unions disappear, you cannot call it socialism. Socialism is the ownership of the production means by the workers. Removing the assemblies defeats socialism.
WTF2: The USSR "treaty" was a non attack treaty, like the one signed with Denmark, Estonia, and Latvia. It gave Stalin enough time to prepare for what was next. On the other side, France an the UK were accepting Germany invasions by paper: "Ohh, I want this country. Ok it is yours" (Austria and Czechoslovakia). Also the US was selling the stuff needed. They all wanted Hitler to attack the soviet union (Nazis offered peace with the Allies in 1941 but only if they were allowed to invade Russia. Article from dailymail). Very socialist.
If my grandma had an engine, she would be a car. So Nazi Germany was socialist but you need: To remove racism, genocide, add democracy, add people assemblies, add culture, remove the focus of the government in the private companies (Bayer anyone?) and focus on working with the people. And yes, you're right, it will be a quite socialist state.
Remember that there will be always people to put another flag in the Reichstag.
In socialism workers own the production means. So they can decide by themselves what to do next. Communism can be best explained with this sentence: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Karl Marx 1875).
Back to capitalist systems where you got the FED or the ECB + EU. We must not forget how central those systems are and how far from the real world are the solutions and ideas they have. And the most important part of all of this: it reaches beyond borders. In order to be in the first world, there should be other lesser worlds.
So when the ECB injects cheap money in the EU, or US forces all oil to be bought in dollars or injects even more money. You have economic decisions with the same effects that the ones that you can find in Cuba or Venezuela. In all cases they might fail.
One important difference, even if in both cases solutions seem disconnected from the real world (of course you might argue that some are not, that's why the "some" is there). The difference in the end is who are they trying to help, besides their own image.
At the end of the road you can find the Anarchists who will tell you that any structure of authority has to justify itself. If not needed, it should be replaced by something better, more free.
Summary: if a central economic authority is needed, better to be chosen by us.
I couldn't find anything better: http://elan.plexapp.com/2012/03/29/this-aint-your-grandfathers-dlna/
And unfortunately in that article I guess they're right
Each device implements DLNA in it's own way. Each DLNA tries to solve problems in the best way they can.
The best solutions I've seen is a: computer playing movies (VLC plays everything). Plex app + plex server in your NAS/PC.
You might want to create a buffer for the next person. In order for her to focus on education and not in "earning this month's food". Also you might find yourself having that buffer of "just in case" money.
Something balanced usually helps.
It is called capitalism.
This summer a team of 2 greeks, 1 swiss and 1 spanish (all devs) was having an afternoon swim in the sea after a long day hacking some code in a close mountain.
We thought that if we could bring more people, that would be a nice income for the country: sell Greece's weather not for tourism but for remote workers.
Renting a 2 floors flat is 500-600 euro. Internet around 20-30 euro for ADSL or 25 euro for a 30GB 4G contract. Today's lunch in a restaurant for 4, 35 euro. Of course there are some things a bit expensive: coffee in a trendy cafeteria 4 euro, or 1,5L of fresh milk 2,1 euro.
Still a nice place to stay.
You cannot get accurate information of today's problems for X, from people that today the don't work on X. You will get yesterday's problems on X or today's problems on Z. That's the basic rule of "asking the people that do the job about their job".
I understand is simply speculation. Also I can point companies that do not follow that rule and they do well. But that's the difference between just doing, and doing very well.
I'm saying that if the people having a problem are not asked for that problem, if the same people do not think on solutions... you are going to create two worlds: the world of people having a problem, and the world of people that believe they have a solution. Like politics in modern countries were politicians seem to live in a parallel world.
Again there are many countries like that, and it doesn't mean that they cannot be governed. But the quality of their job is very different from countries that allow people do their thinking and vote on that.
So you're asking the same people that created/allowed that problem to fix it. That is usually a problem by itself. It is good that a new CEO is there to give some light, and thinking again on that.... It seems natural that Yahoo did what it did.
I mean, you have a bunch of managers that cannot manage something, don't let them fix it. Just remove it, they won't fix it anyway. Yes, it seems the best option to take.
Also it's true that we didn't know exactly what happened and we're talking over some hints and news. I'm sure they had their reason. Just a pity they weren't able to fix those problems.
Let's explore some factual errors.
- Senior devs and dev managers do a different job than a dev. So what you're going to get instead of a reality check is a "my usage" or "what I'd like"
- Carefully considered, means that somehow someone did some thinking and pulled a metric from his
- Also are you asking the same managers that haven't detected the lack of productivity till now? Are you the European Union that believes that the same politicians that stole Greece money are going to fix the problem? +1 to this one.
After that, anything else seems quite irrational to me. Of course consistent with what they say (they can promise you the moon), and it doesn't require you to be an idiot. Analysing it in first place is a good start.
Many stupid things are public, and in mass media you'll find more stupid things and lies that you can imagine. That doesn't make any point, but using this as a base for a theory might be a good -1.
- Coder = Programmer
- Programmer: writes programs. Painters paint, fire burns and so on and so forth.
- Developer: a nice word to say programmer.
- Software Engineer: someone that applies engineering principles to software
- Software Architect: someone that is neither an engineer nor a programmer, but usually ends up as a programmer doing an horrendous job.
Of course a programmer writes code, but if you only do that, there is no engineering linked to that process.
As humans we usually agree on what a word means in order to be able to understand each other.
Are mechanical engineers "line painters"?: "Oh! you are 'all' day drawing lines in your screen" I know some 2 year degrees (if you can call that a degree) that focus only in understanding engineering specifications and drawing things in Autocad. You can call them programmers. They just draw/write lines/code.
But in the other hand, if the line of code is the result of something else you do in your work. As you said "involves engineering", then you're an engineer. Why hide it?
Usually programs are software, therefore Software Engineer.
It is not important if you got your knowledge in the university or by yourself or.... The point here is the work you, want to do, and how to name it.
Doesn't "engineering" means applied science?
In my university there were "Chemistry" and "Chemistry Engineering" degrees.
There are a lot of engineer titles and they're all "applied".