Joined: Sep 22, 2008 Age: 76 Posts: 29311 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:08 pm Post subject:
Some are unethical and some are not. Exactly the same could be said of non-rich people.
The fact that someone is richer than his neighbor does not imply he take his wealth dishonestly from his neighbor. Who did Steve Jobs rob, for example.
If there is a blame to be assigned then it is the chummy relation between some of the very rich and the government. Don't blame rich folk for bribing government people without blaming government people for taking the bribe. It takes two to tango.
ruveyn
Joined: Aug 12, 2011 Posts: 3254 Location: OK let's go.
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:10 pm Post subject:
ruveyn wrote:
...Who did Steve Jobs rob, for example...ruveyn
Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated)...
From Wikipedia-
The Xerox Alto
Most of these developments were included in the Alto, which added the now familiar SRI-developed mouse[5] unifying into a single model most aspects of now-standard personal computer use. The integration of Ethernet prompted the development of the PARC Universal Packet architecture, much like today's Internet.
[edit] The GUI
Xerox has been heavily criticized (particularly by business historians) for failing to properly commercialize and profitably exploit PARC's innovations. A favorite example is the GUI, initially developed at PARC for the Alto and then commercialized as the Xerox Star by the Xerox Systems Development Department. Although very significant in terms of its influence on future system design, it is deemed a failure because it only sold approximately 25,000 units. A small group from PARC led by David Liddle and Charles Irby formed Metaphor Computer Systems. They extended the Star desktop concept into an animated graphic and communicating office-automation model and sold the company to IBM.
[edit] Adoption by Apple
The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6] Much later, in the midst of the 1988-1994 Apple vs. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]
Joined: Dec 29, 2011 Posts: 785 Location: Interplanetary
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:15 pm Post subject:
ruveyn wrote:
Some are unethical and some are not. Exactly the same could be said of non-rich people.
The fact that someone is richer than his neighbor does not imply he take his wealth dishonestly from his neighbor. Who did Steve Jobs rob, for example.
If there is a blame to be assigned then it is the chummy relation between some of the very rich and the government. Don't blame rich folk for bribing government people without blaming government people for taking the bribe. It takes two to tango.
ruveyn
I agree. _________________ Aspie score: 161 of 200
Neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 38 of 200
Autistic/BAP -123 aloof, 124 rigid and 108 pragmatic
Autism Spectrum quotient: 41, Empathy Quotient: 19
Joined: Sep 22, 2008 Age: 76 Posts: 29311 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:15 pm Post subject:
shrox wrote:
The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6] Much later, in the midst of the 1988-1994 Apple vs. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]
Did PARC properly patent the idea? If so, did they take legal action for patent infringment. If not, then they implicitly permitted both Jobs and Gates using the idea. No theft here. If PARC did not commercialize a good idea, that was their problem.
I don't think you can make blanket statements. Some rich people are unethical, just as some ordinary people are unethical. Those would include anyone who knowingly commits white collar or corporate crime, the executives of tobacco companies, those who lobby the government to act in their interest rather than that of society at large etc.
Despite being a socialist, I don't feel that you can say all rich people are unethical. Most would probably feel that they are doing what's right. I disagree with possessing such ridiculously large sums of money (more than you would ever need) and the opulent life-style, but I think that the rich have been socialized not to think about it. They have been socialized not to think about the poor not because they don't care, but simply because they are out of sight and out of mind. They are products of the capitalist system, and it is the system that is to blame for most of their practices that I disapprove of, not the individuals themselves.
Joined: Aug 12, 2011 Posts: 3254 Location: OK let's go.
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:29 pm Post subject:
ruveyn wrote:
shrox wrote:
The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6] Much later, in the midst of the 1988-1994 Apple vs. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]
Did PARC properly patent the idea? If so, did they take legal action for patent infringment. If not, then they implicitly permitted both Jobs and Gates using the idea. No theft here. If PARC did not commercialize a good idea, that was their problem.
Inspired by does not mean stole.
ruveyn
The people that worked on the ideas at PARC considered them ripped off. So yes, someone's blood sweat and tears were stolen. No price on that...
He did test it at intersections and with quizes. Seems like there is something to it. The phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" probably works on a sliding scale as well.
Some people may get a successful result through hard work and may then become accustomed to a certain result and begin to expect that positive results are their right, whatever it takes.
In response to the Peter Singer video, I understand his point of view, however, there is always someone in the world who is less fortunate than ourselves.... as an example, when I go to the food store, should I argue that I shouldn't buy a piece of fish for dinner; instead maybe just a can of soup - or starve, because there are starving people in the world? I'm not a saint, but I am keenly aware of what he's stating.
That's not the point. The point is that it is a moral obligation to help others.
(To be fair, he explains it better in a chapter of his book. Here?)
ruveyn wrote:
Some are unethical and some are not. Exactly the same could be said of non-rich people.
That's not the point either. That some people of group B will have traits that some people in group A also have is entirely obvious. There are "good people" who are also rich, and "bad people" who are poor. The point is to find whether there are more rich or poor people who act unethical. Bringing up all the Bill Gates in the world is just anecdotic.
(I somewhat disagree about bribes. Government officials alone should be blamed. I don't blame the rich for that.
AstroGeek wrote:
Most would probably feel that they are doing what's right.
That, or they justify their behaviour to resolve cognitive dissonances.
Last edited by enrico_dandolo on Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Some are unethical and some are not. Exactly the same could be said of non-rich people.
True, but the ratio between ethical / compassionate and unethical / ruthless people is probably different among the filthy rich. In order to rise to the top in a merciless capitalist system, you need many or all of the following traits:
• High self-confidence
• Desire for power and wealth
• Glibness and charm
• Cunning
• The ability to manipulate others
• Lack of remorse / guilt
• A low degree of empathy
• A certain amount of arrogance
• Shamelessness
• The ability to lie convincingly
I've just described a successful car salesman, a Wall Street banker, the CEO of a health insurance company, a senator... and a pathological narcissist. The US economy rewards narcissism like few other economic systems. I don't think that's a good idea.
Joined: Dec 29, 2011 Posts: 785 Location: Interplanetary
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:58 pm Post subject:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
(To be fair, he explains it better in a chapter of his book. Here?)
Please know that I think I understand, enrico. I've been there in the past; but I'm not really there now, and I'd rather not get into my past. I tend to be a person of great extremes, but it's not healthy for me. We all have an internet connection and a computer (except those connecting in a library), but these are not necessities for living.
I apologize for taking this thread off topic. _________________ Aspie score: 161 of 200
Neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 38 of 200
Autistic/BAP -123 aloof, 124 rigid and 108 pragmatic
Autism Spectrum quotient: 41, Empathy Quotient: 19
Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated)...
From Wikipedia-
The Xerox Alto
Most of these developments were included in the Alto, which added the now familiar SRI-developed mouse[5] unifying into a single model most aspects of now-standard personal computer use. The integration of Ethernet prompted the development of the PARC Universal Packet architecture, much like today's Internet.
[edit] The GUI
Xerox has been heavily criticized (particularly by business historians) for failing to properly commercialize and profitably exploit PARC's innovations. A favorite example is the GUI, initially developed at PARC for the Alto and then commercialized as the Xerox Star by the Xerox Systems Development Department. Although very significant in terms of its influence on future system design, it is deemed a failure because it only sold approximately 25,000 units. A small group from PARC led by David Liddle and Charles Irby formed Metaphor Computer Systems. They extended the Star desktop concept into an animated graphic and communicating office-automation model and sold the company to IBM.
[edit] Adoption by Apple
The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6] Much later, in the midst of the 1988-1994 Apple vs. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]
Jobs also had many narcissistic traits. He was a visionary, but also an arrogant control freak with little compassion for working class people.
Quote:
"You're headed for a one-term presidency," [Jobs] told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.
Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform." Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.
...
Jobs suggested that Obama meet six or seven other CEOs who could express the needs of innovative businesses -- but when White House aides added more names to the list, Jobs insisted that it was growing too big and that "he had no intention of coming." In preparation for the dinner, Jobs exhibited his notorious attention to detail, telling venture capitalist John Doerr that the menu of shrimp, cod and lentil salad was "far too fancy" and objecting to a chocolate truffle dessert.
...
Bill Gates was fascinated by Steve Jobs but found him "fundamentally odd" and "weirdly flawed as a human being," and his tendency to be "either in the mode of saying you were sh** or trying to seduce you."
Jobs once declared about Gates, "He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger."
...
Meeting His Biological Father
... Jobs ... had no desire to see him. "I was a wealthy man by then, and I didn't trust him not to try to blackmail me or go to the press about it."
Interestingly, the article also mentions that Jobs used to be a liberal, but turned into a conservative. Which goes to show how profoundly wealth can change people and rob them of empathy and compassion.
Joined: Feb 07, 2006 Age: 39 Posts: 3025 Location: Croydon
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:48 pm Post subject:
AstroGeek wrote:
I don't think you can make blanket statements. Some rich people are unethical, just as some ordinary people are unethical. Those would include anyone who knowingly commits white collar or corporate crime, the executives of tobacco companies, those who lobby the government to act in their interest rather than that of society at large etc.
Despite being a socialist, I don't feel that you can say all rich people are unethical. Most would probably feel that they are doing what's right. I disagree with possessing such ridiculously large sums of money (more than you would ever need) and the opulent life-style, but I think that the rich have been socialized not to think about it. They have been socialized not to think about the poor not because they don't care, but simply because they are out of sight and out of mind. They are products of the capitalist system, and it is the system that is to blame for most of their practices that I disapprove of, not the individuals themselves.
Well said. More or less what I would say but turn it around towards socialism.
The short story I can give is. Once the only job I had was a lowly council worker. Probably the least useful in the office. Never got that programming job I wanted. Then I bought a car, out of boardem. I went to a couple of boots sale to buy things to sell on Amazon, then I specialise in books. Now I sell some books for silly money and my income has doubled. I pay taxes that go back into the economy, and create jobs for the career, Amazon FBA centre, accountent, gas station, car maintainance garage .
We often forget that the rich/super rich create wealth when they either spend or save their money. I should know . Just recently I have sold a book about aeroplane seats for £210 pounds to someone who lived in Wimbledon Vellage.
Joined: Aug 12, 2011 Posts: 3254 Location: OK let's go.
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:54 pm Post subject:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
....Jobs also had many narcissistic traits. He was a visionary, but also an arrogant control freak with little compassion for working class people.
Quote:
"You're headed for a one-term presidency," [Jobs] told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.
Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform." Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.
...
Jobs suggested that Obama meet six or seven other CEOs who could express the needs of innovative businesses -- but when White House aides added more names to the list, Jobs insisted that it was growing too big and that "he had no intention of coming." In preparation for the dinner, Jobs exhibited his notorious attention to detail, telling venture capitalist John Doerr that the menu of shrimp, cod and lentil salad was "far too fancy" and objecting to a chocolate truffle dessert.
...
Bill Gates was fascinated by Steve Jobs but found him "fundamentally odd" and "weirdly flawed as a human being," and his tendency to be "either in the mode of saying you were sh** or trying to seduce you."
Jobs once declared about Gates, "He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger."
...
Meeting His Biological Father
... Jobs ... had no desire to see him. "I was a wealthy man by then, and I didn't trust him not to try to blackmail me or go to the press about it."
Interestingly, the article also mentions that Jobs used to be a liberal, but turned into a conservative. Which goes to show how profoundly wealth can change people and rob them of empathy and compassion.
This movie is a great dramatization of rise of Apple and Microsoft.
It made a great story. Damn you, internet 
