took 'em by more surprise. Even if their support sucks it's still there and it still costs money. It's a simple equation: we made X more sales to pirates and it cost Y in support and server maintenance. Which is bigger?

this is the other reason I don't care. Without that as context it looks like I'm just complaining :P.

I can't get too worked up by google tracking me. It's like saying EA is the worst company in the world when there's Monsato and Goldman Sachs out there. Seriously, from where I'm standing there are far bigger troubles out there. It just doesn't resonate with me. I'd rather people focus on declining wages, increased food, housing and health care costs. Basically the entire 'Middle Class Eroding' thing that's been going on for 50+ years.

if you're rich you're driving a large, very safe SUV that will survive any and all of the fender benders and minor t-bones this will create. Plus you're enjoying lower taxes with the same level of gov't service thanks to what is basically a regressive tax on the poor. Heck, they won't even put red light cameras in your area, because they learned quick if they start giving you tickets you'll get'em banned.

Ultimately this is another 'screw the (working) poor' initiative. Those always work because it's hard to orchestrate a political movement when you're living paycheck to paycheck, moving all the time to find work, and don't have Unions anymore.

and as we all know, if somebody predicted something and it didn't happen right away, it will never ever ever happen. Ever.

Point is: So the time frame was a bit off. It's still happening. The US is undergoing a manufacturing boom. Google it. There's tonnes of articles asking the question: where are all the manufacturing jobs. We all know the answer, but we're not allowed to say it. Because it inevitably leads to Socialism. To wealth redistribution. That's the white elephant we're all dancing around. The ones that own the robots not only can't consume enough to keep us all employed they won't.

After all, what good's being rich if nobody's poor?

but I've worked with plenty of H1-Bs that had plenty of initiative. The substandard code is a byproduct of working them just a bit too hard. They're actually quiet competent, often better than their American Equivalents. But not always, because in the end they're just people. Culture isn't much of a factor. It's wishful thinking and really just more "American Exceptionalism" to think less of these people. I catch myself doing it, hoping against hope that I'm not replaceable :(...

Also never forget that somebody is winning. It's the 1%. They're making money hand over fist destablizing the industry. They're global. They don't have a country. So they could care less if they wreak one. And if the economy really starts to go south enough to threaten their money, well, they run the world. They'll reign it in. You saw what happen to Bernie Maddoff didn't you? He was fine until he screwed with some real 1%. If he'd stuck to widow's pensions he'd have died a free man.

with H1-Bs I can get 2, maybe 3 for the price of 1. That's because not only do they work longer hours but they depress local wages too. Or pocket the savings and use them to put the competitors out of business! It's all up to you when you play the H1-B game.

Good enough will always be good enough. I keep hearing people advance lots of reasons H1-B is a bad idea while every single person who runs a successful business races to get more of them. What do they know that you don't? And it it's nothing than why aren't you eating their lunch with your companies awesome code?

it was Gore Vidal that noticed it before me.

but without the huge barrier to entry into politics that the donations system creates we get an opportunity to work on those other things you mentioned. I guess what I'm saying is, it's a complex problem. Solving even 70% of it gets us well on the road.

only allow individual human beings to donate to campaigns, and then only in campaigns they can vote in. Bam, money out of politics instantly.

between an elite that governs by hoarding wealth and pitting one man against the other and an expert in the field. One is peer reviewed and mistakes cost him his status as elite. The other runs North Korea. Investing in a strong central government is a risk, but siding with the Kim Jong Un's of the world because we won't even try to stand up to them isn't the answer.

Think of it this way. You're on a bridge and a train is coming. It's going to kill you. You can jump, but you don't know if you'll survive the fall. Do you wait for the train?

Once again, I'm open to a third option. I'd love to say the train is going to stop. But for 2000+ years of human history it hasn't...

Individual humans are chaotic in broad we're quiet predictable, and getting more so every day. Google 'Big Data' and see what I mean. Also, you're using a classic 'slippery slope' argument and assuming that as soon as we start regulating banks and eliminating wealth inequality the next logical step is fascism.

See, being a progressive is _hard_. It's hard because you don't have an ideology. You have the ability to make a hypothesis, take action based on it, and observe the results. It'd be so much easier when I can just do what I want based on an ideology and use that to make all my decisions.

So I'm stuck having to do a _lot_ of extra work. I've got to decide, as a progressive, if the benefit of regulating soda outweighs the downsides. And I've got to do that for _everything_. This is why we need 'elites'. One man's elite is another man's subject matter expert.

also, google for 'Railroad Monopoly' and 'Trusts'. Also the history of Unions and how they needed strong outside help from central government before they were effective at raising wages.

it's a chance you take. But at least it's a _chance_. Without the gov't you've got nothing to oppose the massive wealth of the uber-rich. Wealth inequality grows and grows. A rising tide drowns all but the biggest boats.

the hallmark of progressives progress. A focus on a better way of life for everyone. The second feature of progressivism is applying the scientific method to society and politics. Specifically observation and a willingness to change you're mind (See Tim Minchin's Storm for a better (and funnier) explanation of science, and apply that to politics and society.

What progressives have observed, time and again, is that power collects at the top. No matter what. People pass the advantages they have to their offspring, who use those advantages to increase their share of wealth and power at everyone else's expense. The American housing bust is a great example. Millions lost their homes and the equity in them. That wealth wasn't destroyed. It's was claimed by banks owned by the 1%.

So if power is going to gather at the top we're left with two choices. Either a strong central government that can stand up to that power, or hoping against hope that the money and wealth 'trickle's down'. We've also seen that money and wealth don't do that.

I'm open to alternatives (I'm a progressive after all). But I've never once heard one that doesn't boil down to some form of socialism, or that isn't just wishful thinking.