To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two mont
From: "How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates" http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/ [greenspun.com] """ William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle's National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III. In some of the later lessons, you will be encouraged to take entrepreneurial risks.
Bill Gate's could have spent his lifetime writing free software. That being born a multi-millionaire was not enough for him is a sign of an illness that causes "financial obesity", not something to be emulated. But, in the end, it is not Bill Gates who has destroyed our society as much as all the people who want to be the next Bill Gates and support regressive social policies they hope to benefit from someday.
It's a poor, twisted soul that even thinks to call wealth 'financial obesity', or refer to it as an
You are engaging in an ad hominem (personal) attack and creating strawmen arguments, and saying there is no point to dialog, which all suggests your points are weak.
The term "financial obesity" comes from the author James P. Hogan, who is one of the most optimistic people around, believing strongly in the value of learning and effort and advanced technology. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear [wikipedia.org]
But even market capitalism cannot function if wealth is too centralized. You'
You are engaging in an ad hominem (personal) attack and creating strawmen arguments, and saying there is no point to dialog, which all suggests your points are weak.
The market is failing for several mathematical reasons, so Sowell, even though wrong about many historic psychological things, is irrelevant (look up Marshall Sahlin's work on "The Original Affluent Society" or Alfie Kohn's work on motivation with lots of references to the scientific literature). http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html [gnu.org]
The market does not account well for positive or negative externalities (stuff like pollution). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [wikipedia.org] The market can not price in its own systemic risk of failure from bubbles or banking failures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk [wikipedia.org] The market can not distribute income widely when a few players have most of the capital, resulting in unmet human needs and starvation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income [wikipedia.org] The market needs human labor less and less because of automation and better design, producing falling wages and increasing unemployment, given limited demand for most consumer goods in the long term beyond some basic saturation level that the USA has already overshot and the globe will soon catch up with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless_recovery [wikipedia.org] Cheaper computers are driving the cost of everything towards zero by supporting better design and smarter devices, but even cheap stuff is too expensive if you don't have a job. http://www.shirky.com/writings/divide.html [shirky.com] Real markets (as opposed to theoretical ones) often have the richest players changing the laws in their favor (and even in a libertarian ideal, the richest can become the government through purchasing military might or votes). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture [wikipedia.org] All these factors are creating market problems. The current economic collapse is one aspect of that. Things will only get worse in all of these ways. The market has many virtues, but those virtues can not be realized in an extreme form without various controls on the market (legal, social, religious, whatever).
There are many economic simulations about these issues. There are many negative real examples (Iceland) and positive examples (Western Europe with a stronger social safety net is doing better in the collapse; all industrialized countries that have comprehensive medical care pay less for medical care that has better outcomes; kids are happier in most other industrialized countries, etc.). The USA is even getting to be a less and less happy place for the rich who can afford health care, as emergency rooms go on diversion and epidemics get spread through poor people who have less resistance. And even if you are wealthy in the USA, it is only too easy to lose it all, as Bernie Madoff's clients can attest to. But the fact is, for most people, losing money to Madoff is a fantasy, and they live paycheck to paycheck, and the social tension is rising right now with rising unemployment and collapsing social institutions (even the shelters are closing for lack of money). We are just in the beginnings of this unless we take serious action as a society to deal with these *structural* issues with a failing economic control system and a dysfunctional (fossil fuel based) physical plant.
You are asking for a higher level of proof than created the current disaster. That's a good thing to do, I agree. It is a fair demand. That kind of evidence is the kind of thing someone like Bill Gates could make real inroads into with more computer simulations and with his foundation funding regional alternative experiments (like a basic income in a town), if he had a truly open mind. But it is very hard to get someone to give up the mechanism behind their personal success, even if many others might be hurt by it.
But in turn, that is also the kind of evidence you should demand from mainstream economists. Anyway, are you suggesting that the mainstream economics advisors who created the current crisis are the ones who have some kind of scientific basis to their claims? What proof do they have that competition helps promote innovation when 80% of suggestions come from customers? What proof do economists have that extrinsic rewards motivate people to be more *creative* in the long term? What proof do economists have that extending the length and scope of copyrights and patents increases innovation? What proof do economists have that the market can prevent people from starvation when most jobs can be automated? What proof do economist have that consumer demand is infinite? What proof do economists have that free markets don't promote war rackets and Armageddon by promoting arms sales? What proof do economists have that free markets don't cause obesity through advertising and dysfunctional shifts in the food supply? What proof do economists have that most work is even necessary? And so on.
From:
"The aboliton of work" http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html [whywork.org] """ I don't suggest that most work is salvageable in this way. But then most work isn't worth trying to save. Only a small and diminishing fraction of work serves any useful purpose independent of the defense and reproduction of the work-system and its political and legal appendages. Twenty years ago, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just five percent of the work then being done -- presumably the figure, if accurate, is lower now -- would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing and shelter. Theirs was only an educated guess but the main point is quite clear: directly or indirectly, most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control. Right off the bat we can liberate tens of millions of salesmen, soldiers, managers, cops, stockbrokers, clergymen, bankers, lawyers, teachers, landlords, security guards, ad-men and everyone who works for them. There is a snowball effect since every time you idle some bigshot you liberate his flunkies and underlings also. Thus the economy implodes. """
We need to work through the structural problems in the economy. That is hard to do with people, such as yourself, denying the very existence of structural problems even as the economy collapses around them. Sowell's comments on differing views of human nature might be worthwhile to consider, after we all acknowledge there is a fundamental structural problem with a market economy based on rationing everything in the face of advanced automation and design removing the need for most human involvement (and Bill Gates and many others have helped bring about this situation, and whether it is a blessing or a curse depends on how we approach abundance socially). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Triple_Revolution [wikipedia.org]
Ok, obviously someone is abusing the moderation system here to have a go at this guy or we have a moderator that is on a bad acid trip. I'll be flagging it as such and maybe some other moderators will redress the situation.
"Love your country but never trust its government."
-- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania
Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 (Score:5, Interesting)
By William Henry Gates III
February 3, 1976
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two mont
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From:
"How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates"
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/ [greenspun.com]
"""
William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle's National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III. In some of the later lessons, you will be encouraged to take entrepreneurial risks.
financial obesity? illness? What gall! (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill Gate's could have spent his lifetime writing free software. That being born a multi-millionaire was not enough for him is a sign of an illness that causes "financial obesity", not something to be emulated. But, in the end, it is not Bill Gates who has destroyed our society as much as all the people who want to be the next Bill Gates and support regressive social policies they hope to benefit from someday.
It's a poor, twisted soul that even thinks to call wealth 'financial obesity', or refer to it as an
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
You are engaging in an ad hominem (personal) attack and creating strawmen arguments, and saying there is no point to dialog, which all suggests your points are weak.
The term "financial obesity" comes from the author James P. Hogan, who is one of the most optimistic people around, believing strongly in the value of learning and effort and advanced technology. Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear [wikipedia.org]
But even market capitalism cannot function if wealth is too centralized. You'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are engaging in an ad hominem (personal) attack and creating strawmen arguments, and saying there is no point to dialog, which all suggests your points are weak.
The differing underlying premises we operate from, and how that will generally make us talk past each other, is detailed in part by Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles [amazon.com].
Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination to write a book, so I merely allude to the fact that the premises underlying our
Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! (Score:2, Insightful)
The market is failing for several mathematical reasons, so Sowell, even though wrong about many historic psychological things, is irrelevant (look up Marshall Sahlin's work on "The Original Affluent Society" or Alfie Kohn's work on motivation with lots of references to the scientific literature).
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html [gnu.org]
The market does not account well for positive or negative externalities (stuff like pollution).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [wikipedia.org]
The market can not price in its own systemic risk of failure from bubbles or banking failures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk [wikipedia.org]
The market can not distribute income widely when a few players have most of the capital, resulting in unmet human needs and starvation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income [wikipedia.org]
The market needs human labor less and less because of automation and better design, producing falling wages and increasing unemployment, given limited demand for most consumer goods in the long term beyond some basic saturation level that the USA has already overshot and the globe will soon catch up with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless_recovery [wikipedia.org]
Cheaper computers are driving the cost of everything towards zero by supporting better design and smarter devices, but even cheap stuff is too expensive if you don't have a job.
http://www.shirky.com/writings/divide.html [shirky.com]
Real markets (as opposed to theoretical ones) often have the richest players changing the laws in their favor (and even in a libertarian ideal, the richest can become the government through purchasing military might or votes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture [wikipedia.org]
All these factors are creating market problems. The current economic collapse is one aspect of that. Things will only get worse in all of these ways. The market has many virtues, but those virtues can not be realized in an extreme form without various controls on the market (legal, social, religious, whatever).
There are many economic simulations about these issues. There are many negative real examples (Iceland) and positive examples (Western Europe with a stronger social safety net is doing better in the collapse; all industrialized countries that have comprehensive medical care pay less for medical care that has better outcomes; kids are happier in most other industrialized countries, etc.). The USA is even getting to be a less and less happy place for the rich who can afford health care, as emergency rooms go on diversion and epidemics get spread through poor people who have less resistance. And even if you are wealthy in the USA, it is only too easy to lose it all, as Bernie Madoff's clients can attest to. But the fact is, for most people, losing money to Madoff is a fantasy, and they live paycheck to paycheck, and the social tension is rising right now with rising unemployment and collapsing social institutions (even the shelters are closing for lack of money). We are just in the beginnings of this unless we take serious action as a society to deal with these *structural* issues with a failing economic control system and a dysfunctional (fossil fuel based) physical plant.
You are asking for a higher level of proof than created the current disaster. That's a good thing to do, I agree. It is a fair demand. That kind of evidence is the kind of thing someone like Bill Gates could make real inroads into with more computer simulations and with his foundation funding regional alternative experiments (like a basic income in a town), if he had a truly open mind. But it is very hard to get someone to give up the mechanism behind their personal success, even if many others might be hurt by it.
But in turn, that is also the kind of evidence you should demand from mainstream economists. Anyway, are you suggesting that the mainstream economics advisors who created the current crisis are the ones who have some kind of scientific basis to their claims? What proof do they have that competition helps promote innovation when 80% of suggestions come from customers? What proof do economists have that extrinsic rewards motivate people to be more *creative* in the long term? What proof do economists have that extending the length and scope of copyrights and patents increases innovation? What proof do economists have that the market can prevent people from starvation when most jobs can be automated? What proof do economist have that consumer demand is infinite? What proof do economists have that free markets don't promote war rackets and Armageddon by promoting arms sales? What proof do economists have that free markets don't cause obesity through advertising and dysfunctional shifts in the food supply? What proof do economists have that most work is even necessary? And so on.
From:
"The aboliton of work"
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html [whywork.org]
"""
I don't suggest that most work is salvageable in this way. But then most work isn't worth trying to save. Only a small and diminishing fraction of work serves any useful purpose independent of the defense and reproduction of the work-system and its political and legal appendages. Twenty years ago, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just five percent of the work then being done -- presumably the figure, if accurate, is lower now -- would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing and shelter. Theirs was only an educated guess but the main point is quite clear: directly or indirectly, most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control. Right off the bat we can liberate tens of millions of salesmen, soldiers, managers, cops, stockbrokers, clergymen, bankers, lawyers, teachers, landlords, security guards, ad-men and everyone who works for them. There is a snowball effect since every time you idle some bigshot you liberate his flunkies and underlings also. Thus the economy implodes.
"""
We need to work through the structural problems in the economy. That is hard to do with people, such as yourself, denying the very existence of structural problems even as the economy collapses around them. Sowell's comments on differing views of human nature might be worthwhile to consider, after we all acknowledge there is a fundamental structural problem with a market economy based on rationing everything in the face of advanced automation and design removing the need for most human involvement (and Bill Gates and many others have helped bring about this situation, and whether it is a blessing or a curse depends on how we approach abundance socially).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Triple_Revolution [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)