My first thought was, "Wow, 13 symphonies take up a third of an entire room?", and then I thought about it and realized it's probably time for more coffee.
The envelope works out, though. iPod Minis were only 4-6 GB, so you're only talking 1300MB-2GB of space used. 100MB per symphony is reasonable for a 30+ minutes of high-bitrate music.
Immigration policies? They're really a governmental issue that has become heavily politicized but they seem to me to be ripe for change.
Intellectual property? Will there be progress made or will we still be arguing about copyright length, patent trolls, and trademark infringement? IP issues don't seem to be in the same category of basic human equality, though at times they reach that point (drug medication?)
Universal healthcare? Work/Life balance?
I don't think these are the "IP issues" to which he was referring.
The self control aspect of drug tests are probably a pretty good proxy for IQ—ADHD is correlated with a substantial 10 point drop in IQ.
You could just as well test for salt consumption as cocaine. The point is to check whether the applicant can hold their shit together for a few days for something as important as a job.
An IQ test is also a good proxy for an IQ test: but there would probably be an outcry if companies started basing performance reviews directly on an IQ test.
It may be reasonable to handle childcare and healthcare individually with privatised services. It may be reasonable to have them handled centrally for almost everyone by the government, as in Scandinavia.
But having to rely on your relations with employer for these issues is just begging to be abused, and often is - where the employees are sufficiently vulnerable, they get abused even more by this.
And, when parental leave is mostly split equally, you remove the basis for discrimination against women in this area.
(This is presuming there is exactly one man in the relationship, there could be 0, 1 or 2)
To me, the future should be free of workplaces offering parental leave and children benefits as it discriminates against those that 1) don't want children or 2) can't have them.
Under 20% of women are still childless by 40-44 (i.e. the practical end of their child-bearing years), and that number seems to have peaked. That means 80% of women (and presumably men assuming things are at least somewhat symmetric) will have children at some point. It's a basic biological function that is relevant to the large majority of the population at some point in their lives that society has unsurprisingly found a way to accommodate.
Not to mention that having and raising children generates a large positive externality. You benefit in the present from the assumption that people will continue to have children in the future. E.g. investment into Silicon Valley is modulated on their being tons of 18-25 year olds to watch advertising 10, 20, 30 years from now. Raising an educating a future taxpayer is literally an investment in the country and in all the businesses that will still be around 10, 20, 30 years from now and need young workers.
Interesting comparison. It's not unusual for companies to offer a cash alternative for employees who don't use the company parking lot.
Maybe child care will end up something like that. For example: providing a cash bonus or complementary gym membership if the employee doesn't make use of the company daycare program.
FYI, family & marital status is a "protected class" in the EU. (Though we don't use that 'protected class' terminology).
If the next 60 years are anything like the last 60 years then holy crap the changes will be huge.
Offices. There will still be buildings in 60 years but office parks and sprawl in general will be gone.
40+ hour work weeks, screens, sitting, just about any physical job today. I'd like to think with the increase of technology the number of actual hours people work will drop considerably
- Requiring someone to physically appear or give any indication of race/gender/age during an interview. I could see this becoming the norm in 60 years where you interview people wearing suits like in a scanner darkly.
- General acceptance of the gradient between gay and straight.
* headline worthy
"US Presidential candidates Toshiko Abe, Jennifer Summers, Linda Powell Jr and Frank Lancaster to debate the digital constructs of Douglas Adams, Anthony Burgess, Jon Stewart and Mr Rogers. Moderated by George Carlin's head in jar." ... gotta have hope!
As far as I know, some orchestras do this already. When interviewing a new person, the applicant plays behind a screen. Once they started doing that, they found they were hiring more women. (i.e. there was a previous subconscience bias against a women)
Ehhhhh, I wouldn't hope for "digital recreations" based on someone's subjective impression of a person :p
Some of the rest sounds nice, though!
This hasn't been the case in the past 60 years. What makes you think it will be the case in the next 60?
I imagine this will start to flatline, and increasing demand isn't going to be sustainable enough to fully employ even half the workforce. I could be wrong.
So, it was really affirmative action (for veterans)!
Q: But what I sense among the young people these days is a real concern over the risk taking in a highly competitive environment. Do you have any words of wisdom on this?
A: Ed David was concerned about the general loss of nerve in our society. It does seem to me that we've gone through various periods. Coming out of the war, coming out of Los Alamos where we built the bomb, coming out of building the radars and so on, there came into the mathematics department, and the research area, a group of people with a lot of guts. They've just seen things done; they've just won a war which was fantastic. We had reasons for having courage and therefore we did a great deal. I can't arrange that situation to do it again. I cannot blame the present generation for not having it, but I agree with what you say; I just cannot attach blame to it. It doesn't seem to me they have the desire for greatness; they lack the courage to do it. But we had, because we were in a favorable circumstance to have it; we just came through a tremendously successful war. In the war we were looking very, very bad for a long while; it was a very desperate struggle as you well know. And our success, I think, gave us courage and self confidence; that's why you see, beginning in the late forties through the fifties, a tremendous productivity at the labs which was stimulated from the earlier times. Because many of us were earlier forced to learn other things - we were forced to learn the things we didn't want to learn, we were forced to have an open door - and then we could exploit those things we learned. It is true, and I can't do anything about it; I cannot blame the present generation either. It's just a fact.
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html - the best essay on doing great work that I know of.
We _have_ affirmative action because of these more extreme forms of discrimination.
Edit: it seems like you also mean that firing someone cannot be affirmative action. I disagree.
Veterans and service-disabled veterans are federally (and in some states) given privileges in contracting and some employment (police, civil service, etc.).
As well, NG/Reserve service is legally protected.
edit: Veterans' not Veteran's
Some people think males are automatically privileged, and veterans (especially back then) are and were overwhelmingly male.
I think that's a misunderstanding of the concept (that is, an idea that applies to a group does not automatically apply to every individual in that group) but there you have it.
What's the difference? In one case the less-privileged person had a job for a while and made some money, in the other case they never got a job in the first place.
Oh kiss my ass.
In those days the men worked, and the women stayed home to take care of the children.
It's not like the returning soldiers could marry employed women and then be house-husbands.
And you know it.
Secondly, the period referred to in the original post was like a century later than that referred to in the feminist bullshit.
Thirdly, the feminist bullshit is trying to "put to bed" the "myths" of the nuclear household, non-working woman and the child-devoted mother. You try telling the matriarchs in my family that these are "myths".
And fourthly, even if the feminist bullshit were true, you still didn't address my point that the returning soldier 70 years ago couldn't get away with being a house husband. Hell, I doubt you could get away with that now.
I admire how you managed to squeeze so much wrongness into just two lines of comment.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce#19th_cen... (and onward)
And the feminist bullshit wikipedia page section on the 20th century contradicts you (and itself).
Money quote: "In the beginning of the 20th century ... The role of men was to support the family financially."
I tire of this. Either you somehow evidence how the hell a returning soldier in 1945 could become a house-husband or shut the hell up.
In the beginning of the 20th century, women were regarded as society's guardians of morality; they were seen as made finer than men and were expected to act as such. Their role was not defined as workers or money makers. Women were expected to hold on to their innocence until the right man came along so that they can start a family and inculcate that morality they were in charge of preserving. The role of men was to support the family financially.
In other words, the idealized (upper-middle-class) role was that men should be able to support their family financially, but obviously not all of them actually did.
Let me clue you in on some basic history.
Way back when, it wasn't just the women but the whole damn family who were working, in horrible dangerous conditions down the coal mine.
Social reform led to the children being pulled out of the mine and put in school. And it became a normative thing. The children were expected to be in bloody school. And this was an excellent result.
Slower than it should have happened, women got dragged out of the mine and put in the kitchen. And it became a normative thing. Women were expected to be in the bloody kitchen. And this was an excellent result.
Finally, men increasingly got dragged out of horrid, dangerous jobs like coal mining and sewage-toshing, and more into safer, more lucrative jobs like manufacturing or trucking or even (gasp!) office jobs. With their children safely in school, and their wives safely at home, men were expected to be the bloody breadwinners. And this was an excellent result. A massive, hard-won 20th century social advancement over what came before.
Then, a bunch of Joan Collins shoulderpad-wearing idiots out of the Women's studies department decided that this advance was "Oppression" and "Male privilege", completely missing the unbalanced expectations on men.
And since the 1970s these harpies have been putting out the kind of garbage that you linked to, trying to undermine the massive social advance that was the "1950s" family norm.
Note that the fight to get women and children out of the mines and mills was all about the working classes and never about the rich, because the rich didn't need to go down the mine anyway.
I'm sure if you google for "family wage" you can find more details about it. Here is one link I found
Out of curiosity I had a look at your comment history and seriously: tone down the insults and anger will you. It doesn't help.
Programming on paper from home, that's incredible.
That's a pretty twisted mindset. What in the world was IBM hoping to achieve by such policies? And how had they come into the business of supervising societal roles, instead of making money for their shareholders by hiring the most qualified people for the job?
Thus, a woman who worked while married was shirking her duties to her husband and children, and taking away some man's chance to build a family. And that man was probably a war veteran! Support the troops!!!
IBM's shareholder would probably have sold their shared in disgust and boycotted their products if they had openly undermined these norms.
Obviously the whole thing is pretty regressive and messed up by modern lights, but the emphasized passage is a mitigating factor, one that, I think, shows that while there was plenty of institutionalized prejudice, there was little actual malice.
IBM's policy was, "Naturally women should go home and be housewives if their husbands have jobs. But if their husbands don't have jobs, and the family depends on the wife's income, then the woman can keep her job." The first part is the risible bit, the second part much less so.
An officer disciplines his soldiers. He has authority over dress, behavior, language, hygiene. His role doesn't end with teaching them how to fight and giving them fighting orders. Teachers had similar authority. It did't end with school.
Landlords in the days when they were a class had similar authority. So did priests. etc. etc.
"Oh they'll get irrational and emotional! They won't be able to do high pressure things, and will break down and cry when the going gets tough. They will just fawn over a baby when they see one. They're also not very good at mathematics"
Additionally, the presidency of the company changed hands from Thomas Watson Sr to Thomas Watson Jr around that time, and he may have been more progressive. He drafted the "company's first equal opportunity policy letter" in 1953.
Almost certainly there are many newer policies in IBM which state now that marital status and gender aren't to be taken into account.
More broadly: the feminist movement.
This is anachronistic in terms of gender roles and whatnot but if you set that aside you see that IBM (and presumably all big employers) saw themselves as having a paternal-like role. Something associated with social democrat policies in the West and a Confucianist mentality in the east. Either way it's probably related to hints or requests by the Nation's Leaders. It's not very "Free Market^," in its modern interpretation.
^Quotes because I don't think Adam Smith, for example, would have had a problem with it.