Most of the people who are smashing atoms and charting the cosmos are economic martyrs.
Baloney. Here in the Netherlands, scientists working at universities and research institutes get a pretty decent salary. Sure, they don't get filthy rich, but fortunately there are more than enough people who don't care about that. The thing is: if getting rich is your primary objective, you're not going to save the world anyway. People working on antibiotics just because it's the best paying job, will leave as soon as another job gets them more money. You can't solve that by fixing the system, because it's not the system that's broken.
"Baloney. Here in the Netherlands, scientists working at universities and research institutes get a pretty decent salary. Sure, they don't get filthy rich, but fortunately there are more than enough people who don't care about that."
Maybe it's baloney in the Netherlands, but it's not baloney in the states. I do happen to know what a post-doc makes in the Netherlands (I had a job offer there), and it wasn't anything to get excited about (it was about on par with the earning power of a post-doc in a mid-sized city in the US -- which isn't much). But you're right about one thing: nobody is in danger of getting rich.
That said, I believe you're overlooking one incredibly important difference between life in the US and life in the Netherlands: we don't have a robust social welfare system to support us in old age. Taking 10+ years to do a PhD and post-doc in the US eats into your prime earning years, and puts retirement at risk. From this perspective, the "system" is indeed broken; there's a much stronger financial incentive to start saving while you're young.
€ 2800 per month is definitely not a bad salary. You're right, I can't speak for the US, but here you can live a comfortable life with that (and if you keep rising through the ranks, you'll have a nice retirement when you're done). And I should probably mention that getting your PhD is a paid job here as well (at least the first four years, in which you're expected to obtain your PhD). Anyone who thinks that is economic martyrdom isn't going to solve poverty, no matter how the system works. You just don't get to be a businessman and a hero at the same time.
If that's a salary, it's a pre-tax number. I don't know the tax code in the Netherlands, but in Belgium that would amount to about EUR 1700 after taxes. That's enough to live a comfortable life, but don't even think about buying a house with that [alone].
That's enough to live a comfortable life, but don't even think about buying a house with that [alone].
That's my point: it's not economic martyrdom. Sure, it's limiting, but it's not some huge sacrifice that you can't possibly expect people to make.
It just sounds as if TFA is saying "Woe me, I am smart and talented and I want to make the world better, but society expects me to do that for less than what I can make somehwere else." Well, boo hoo. How about you (the writer of TFA) be thankful for being "just" smart and talented and be satisfied with a decent salary? Or else, just quit claiming that you want to save the world.
(Disclaimer: I have a master's degree, not a PhD, and I make considerably less than 2800 pre-tax with a job that requires that master's degree. This is not abnormal. And yes, I live a comfortable life)
It's not about "filthy rich" it's about living a normal, middle-class lifestyle. It takes as long to become a research scientist as it does to become a doctor, dentist, etc. And the pay is not even half.
Then again in the UK anything "technical" doesn't get a lot of respect. Engineers do a bit better than scientists, but nowhere near lawyers or accountants. Science and engineering are not even considered among "the professions". IT is one of the few niches where meritocracy at least prevails, not even there is it guaranteed tho'.
Well, not quite. I don't think the conclusion applies at the scope of individual people. I think it's saying either that
A) Successful behavioral patterns will flourish (which is what Hayek says in The Fatal Conceit, and also reminds me of the ideas of The Selfish Gene); or
B) Societies that display successful behavioral patterns will themselves flourish.
People's behavior evolves (independent of people's genetics) to suit the surrounding culture, in cultures that permit people to adopt and benefit from new behaviors (I suppose as opposed to formally stratified cultures that would just beat you down for trying to leave / rise above your station).
Well, if I'm the (non-criminal) customer and you're the game producer, what's wrong with it is that you're making your problem my problem. It isn't, it shouldn't be and I'm not going to let it be (and no, I don't pirate, I just don't buy stuff I dislike).
That's why I said "without crippling the game." You're right, though; most developers will make their problem your problem, either to a small degree (by making sure that some useful things are only accessible for authenticated online clients) or a large degree (requiring always-on connectivity, nutty DRM schemes.)
I don't think there's really anything "wrong" with that, though. It's not very fair, but that's how the world works. Given that people are going to continue to try making money from games, it seems like an optimal outcome.
I'm not sure it's an optimal outcome. It might help it some cases, but it definitely feeds the problem it's trying to solve. The less people like you, the less guilty they'll feel screwing you over. I don't pirate games, but pirating Activision titles would feel downright good.
It also often creates the paradox that pirates get a better experience. Once the pirates work around all your antifeatures, the pirated version is actually a better product than the one you're selling (which makes piracy even more tempting).
"I used [something most people use] every minute of every day, but I decided to stop using [that something] alltogether and now I feel [free/empowered/at peace/intellectually stimulated/etc]."
I used moderation every minute of every day, but I decided to stop using moderation altogether and now I feel immoderate.
Regarding cell phones, I haven't carried one for years, since I was a consultant, and it was necessary. People look at me like I am insane, and they cannot imagine how I function in modern society. I am called a Luddite, even though I am far more deeply and enthusiastically involved with technology than they ever will be.
Sometimes, trying to arrange spontaneous social gatherings, I wish I had one, but that is rare. I carry an iPad, which does mitigate, since I can exchange texts, and receive voicemail via Google Voice.
Primarily, though, I don't feel empowered, but I do feel that my deep indignation of other people's cell phone related rudeness is more pure if I don't carry one.
You don't have to answer every single call. I carry my phone all the time but I don't answer calls from unknown numbers. A lot of times I don't answer calls from friends either. They know I'll get back to them when I feel like it. Nobody has ever gotten their feelings hurt because of it.
If I was head of the Coxsackie-Athens High School, I'd be damn proud. You've taught your students well if they end up concluding you've been doing it wrong all the time.
Baloney. Here in the Netherlands, scientists working at universities and research institutes get a pretty decent salary. Sure, they don't get filthy rich, but fortunately there are more than enough people who don't care about that. The thing is: if getting rich is your primary objective, you're not going to save the world anyway. People working on antibiotics just because it's the best paying job, will leave as soon as another job gets them more money. You can't solve that by fixing the system, because it's not the system that's broken.