Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

On Aug 15, 4:55*pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>
> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> Really? *What's your IQ, then? *I'm curious what number corresponds to
> "fairly above average".
> __________________________________________________ _____________________________
> Don Geddis * * * * * * * * *http://don.geddis.org/* * * * * * * d...@geddis.org
> Under capitalism, man exploits man. *Under communism, it's just the opposite.
> * * * * -- John Kenneth Galbraith

lol
-20

On Aug 16, 8:41*am, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
> >> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> >> Really? *What's your IQ, then? *I'm curious what number corresponds to
> >> "fairly above average".
>
> > So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>
> I've been making no claims about my IQ.
>
> You're the one who seemed to have no problem discussing your own IQ.
> So I was curious what the number was. *After all, you brought it up.
>
> As for me: I will admit this: my IQ, as measured by clinical professionals,
> is within a few standard deviations of normal. *At most 4-5 deviations from
> average, surely not more than that.
>
> * * * * -- Don
> __________________________________________________ _____________________________
> Don Geddis * * * * * * * * *http://don.geddis.org/* * * * * * * d...@geddis.org
> If you want to sue somebody, just get a little plastic skeleton and lay it in
> their yard. *Then tell them their ants ate your baby.
> * * * * -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

my iq is 890

John Thingstad wrote:
> På Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:56:44 +0200, skrev Pascal J. Bourguignon
> <pjb@informatimago.com>:
>
>> namekuseijin <namekuseijin@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4 set, 06:10, Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blaze...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Shit man we only do pop music, what the
>>>> hell do you need those kind of crup? So continue playing vanilla pop
>>>> at work and program at home why the bozo practices Fifth Caprice.
>>>
>>> Yep. Shame there's an audience for well-crafted, ingenious music even
>>> outside musicians themselves but not an audience for well-crafted,
>>> ingenious code outside a few literate programmers, let alone users of
>>> software made out of such code. Programmers work at the
>>> backstage... :P
>>
>> But when the front stage is occupied by a star such as Steve Jobs,
>> it's ok. Could be better, there could be a market for luxe computer
>> programs sold a price if you need to ask you don't have the means to
>> buy them, but I'm not sure we would be able to write them yet.
>> Perhaps some AI programmer could.
>>
>
> Naw, I think Jobs has perfected the art of charging something for nothing.
> Charging for making a copy of individual tunes.
> Clearly making programs takes effort so there is better profit in just
> copying other peoples work

Making music also takes effort.


Pascal

--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/

gavino wrote:

> my iq is 890

You are a very clever person, because you manage to post like someone with
1/10 of your stated IQ.

--
Frank Buss, fb@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de

På Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:01:17 +0200, skrev Pascal Costanza <pc@p-cos.net>:

>
> Making music also takes effort.
>

But making a copy of it one it is recorded doesn't and Jobs is not
involved in the making of the music merely the distribution.

--------------
John Thingstad

On 2008-09-06 07:09:19 -0400, "John Thingstad" <jpthing@online.no> said:

> But making a copy of it one it is recorded doesn't and Jobs is not
> involved in the making of the music merely the distribution.

Making a copy of any software would take as little effort. By this
argument programmers shouldn't get paid either; nor actors, nor
writers, nor graphic artists, nor biochemists developing new drugs,
etc., etc.

Just in case it's not completely obvious at this point, in a society
with knowledge workers, we don't count the value of their work as the
cost of merely copying it.

Internet culture has legitimized theft as long as the victims are
musicians or hollywood. Sad how cheap people have elevated their
unwillingness to part with money to some sort of faux natural law of
information technology.

På Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:11:55 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro
<raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:

> On 2008-09-06 07:09:19 -0400, "John Thingstad" <jpthing@online.no> said:
>
>> But making a copy of it one it is recorded doesn't and Jobs is not
>> involved in the making of the music merely the distribution.
>
> Making a copy of any software would take as little effort. By this
> argument programmers shouldn't get paid either; nor actors, nor writers,
> nor graphic artists, nor biochemists developing new drugs, etc., etc.
>
> Just in case it's not completely obvious at this point, in a society
> with knowledge workers, we don't count the value of their work as the
> cost of merely copying it.
>
> Internet culture has legitimized theft as long as the victims are
> musicians or hollywood. Sad how cheap people have elevated their
> unwillingness to part with money to some sort of faux natural law of
> information technology.
>

These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the artist's
don't.
No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit
margins.
You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
Seems to me sellers of a popular ice cream experience nothing like this.
Most of the income goes into manefacture.
But since copying cost next to nothing sucess can lead to ridicolus
earnings.
The people who speculate on the 'winners' just go along for the ride.

--------------
John Thingstad

On 2008-09-06 10:36:58 -0400, "John Thingstad" <jpthing@online.no> said:

> These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the
> artist's don't.

Most knowledge workers of any kind don't become billionaires. This is
no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.

> No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit margins.

Profit margins are high in industries which are not commoditized. This
is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.

> You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.

This is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.

> Seems to me sellers of a popular ice cream experience nothing like this.

Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream are both billionaires.

> Most of the income goes into manefacture.
> But since copying cost next to nothing sucess can lead to ridicolus earnings.

Again, just because *some* knowledge workers have "ridiculous earnings"
is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.

> The people who speculate on the 'winners' just go along for the ride.

Apple is providing a useful service to both cosumers and
artists/labels, namely, making available, legal and authorized copies
of these artists' works in a convenient form. Apple can make money by
doing this only because legal download options are not yet a commodity
item (thanks to the record labels holding out against legal downloads
for years). Once there are a number of players in this market it will
become less profitable. Mind you, Apple makes more money from the iPods
sold than from the iTunes store purchases anyway.

På Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:07:07 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro
<raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com>:

> On 2008-09-06 10:36:58 -0400, "John Thingstad" <jpthing@online.no> said:
>
>> These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the
>> artist's don't.
>
> Most knowledge workers of any kind don't become billionaires. This is no
> reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
>> No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit
>> margins.
>
> Profit margins are high in industries which are not commoditized. This
> is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
>> You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
>
> This is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
>> Seems to me sellers of a popular ice cream experience nothing like this.
>
> Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream are both billionaires.
>
>> Most of the income goes into manefacture.
>> But since copying cost next to nothing sucess can lead to ridicolus
>> earnings.
>
> Again, just because *some* knowledge workers have "ridiculous earnings"
> is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.
>
>> The people who speculate on the 'winners' just go along for the ride.
>
> Apple is providing a useful service to both cosumers and artists/labels,
> namely, making available, legal and authorized copies of these artists'
> works in a convenient form. Apple can make money by doing this only
> because legal download options are not yet a commodity item (thanks to
> the record labels holding out against legal downloads for years). Once
> there are a number of players in this market it will become less
> profitable. Mind you, Apple makes more money from the iPods sold than
> from the iTunes store purchases anyway.
>
>

Who said anything about stealing?
I was thinking more along the line of Ritchard Stallmans GNU incentive.
To provide a more relaistic pricing of services.


--------------
John Thingstad

Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:

> On 2008-09-06 10:36:58 -0400, "John Thingstad" <jpthing@online.no> said:
>
>> These people become billionares from copying things. Most of the
>> artist's don't.
>
> Most knowledge workers of any kind don't become billionaires. This is
> no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.

John refered to the people who make copies, not to the knowledge
workers.

If programmers earned so much money with their art, they wouldn't be
giving their work for free on the Internet. Some musical artists also
start to do the same.

Those who earn a lot of money are the editors, the production
companies.


>> No other industry execept entertaiment and programs have these profit margins.
>
> Profit margins are high in industries which are not commoditized. This
> is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.

Go tell them, go tell to the "industries" with these high profit margins.


If they sell knowledge products for such a high price, why don't they
give back more to the knowledge workers?


>> You have thousand that barely get by but a popular few make millions.
>
> This is no reason to steal knowledge workers' work product.

Who steals?


--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/

ADVISORY: There is an extremely small but nonzero chance that,
through a process known as "tunneling," this product may
spontaneously disappear from its present location and reappear at
any random place in the universe, including your neighbor's
domicile. The manufacturer will not be responsible for any damages
or inconveniences that may result.