Definitely not in this case. I decided to break it up into individual parts, so that I would have more time to think about the content between parts... and perhaps even change my view by the end of it. I am currently in the middle of season 3... and Walter has been displaying too much altruism for my taste of late.
Diamondhead, I agree re:Jessie - partially. Though I am a fan of black and white, I think Walt is simply not so cut and dry. It is my opinion that Walt's character is sympathetic to Jessie from the very beginning. Even towards the middle of season 3, when Walt finds himself needing to protect himself from Jessie, he still has more than just protection in mind. He really does care for Jessie. What else would explain him not deciding to outright have him murdered? Saul, after all, does mention the possibility of having to explore "other options." At that suggestion, Walt scoffs at Saul and instead proceeds to offer Jessie the partnership. Granted, I question some of the altruistic tendencies in Walt - though mostly he is out for himself and his family.
I had decided to break this up into parts, because it will allow me to think about what I will write more carefully. At the same time, I had wanted to publish what I prepared in my mind, while it was still fresh.
Thank you for your feedback. I will be following this up with part 2 tomorrow.
No, this is not for ad impressions. I have zero ads on my blog. There's a reason I quit the world of advertising after a year at an advertising agency.
The feeling i get with parts is that it'll be ramblings of an unsaturated chain of thoughts. If its one big piece i asume careful thought went into the structuring and each section has been revisited once if not twice.
This not directed at you personally in any way and of course my personal bias. No evil intent was assumed :)
And he was an adopted child, whom wasn't exactly born into a super-privileged family:
"Jobs was adopted by the family of Paul Jobs and Clara Jobs (née Hagopian) who moved to Mountain View, California when he was five years old.[1][2] Paul and Clara later adopted a daughter, Patti. Paul Jobs, a machinist for a company that made lasers, taught his son rudimentary electronics and how to work with his hands.[1] His adoptive mother was an accountant.[18] Asked in a 1995 interview what he wanted to pass on to his children, Jobs replied, "Just to try to be as good a father to them as my father was to me. I think about that every day of my life." When asked about his "adoptive parents," Jobs replied emphatically that Paul and Clara Jobs "were my parents." [18]"
-From the Wikipedia article on S. Jobs
>Most "objectivists" are intellectually unoriginal. They've taken Ayn Rand's philosophy literally because it sounds good to an adolescent mind and is illustrated with reasonably well-crafted stories, not on any actual merits.
Do you realize that some of the leading Objectivist philosophers have studied all other schools of philosophy, can speak about it freely, and understand it deeply? Would you posit that said Objectivist philosophers have adolescent minds?
Are you familiar with Mr. John Allison IV? He is an Objectivist and former CEO of BB&T (BB&T Corporation (Branch Banking & Trust) (NYSE: BBT) is an American bank with assets of $157 billion (March 2011)).
"Reasonably well crafted stories, with no actual merits"?
>Yet objectivism as usually deployed is nothing more than apologism for the existing, status quo, corporate elite: one that houses few intellectuals and no artists
You are absolutely wrong and have said nothing factual. No true Objectivist apologizes for the corporate elite - especially if said corporate elite earned its elite status through pandering to government and the status quo.
As for artists, are you familiar with, for example: http://www.cordair.com/? Would you not call that art?
>I would actually prefer socialism to corporate capitalism driven by private-sector social-climbing and bureaucracy. Socialism may tax the most productive in order to feed mediocrities.
I would prefer neither - because neither system protects the individual. Both systems eventually fail - one being far more nefarious in its crony and duplicitous ways. At least the Socialists didn't hide what they were after.
> I don't think his "philosophy of life" is very practical for average people.
I think that the notion of people as "average" is the root of the problem. There are no average people. There are individuals, whom may choose to become average by leading an average life. There are other individuals, whom may choose or be coerced into being less than average. And on the other side of average, you have those who by virtue of their choices and the guidance they receive from their mentors, choose to live a better than average life - and follow all or part of the "philosophy of life" that Jobs espoused.
>My point is that what worked for him doesn't work for most people.
It can work, if people choose to live life based on such a philosophy.
>If you are a person like Steve Jobs in an average position, you're looking at a string of 6- to 12-month jobs and eventual unemployment once your CV looks like Ypres.
There are two issues with this statement: average by whose measure, and whether one chooses to be average.
>otherwise, you'll be mired in mediocrity because that's what most people like and want. But if you're a normal person who has to pay the bills, to throw all of that social stupidity to the wind is putting the cart a bit before the horse.
I despise mediocrity with a passion. I hire people based on the best that they offer, and fire them based on what they don't. And I know plenty of people who think similarly. It is how I've lived my life.
>But if you're a normal person who has to pay the bills, to throw all of that social stupidity to the wind is putting the cart a bit before the horse.
I completely agree that it is "social stupidity" - and that is why I spend hours rooting it out by sharing posts like these :)
By "average", I meant "of average means". Whether there are "average people" is a silly argument. When I said "average people", I meant "people of average means".
If "average people" means "people of average talent and ambition", then we're talking about people who neither have the talent nor desire to do what Jobs did, so the discussion's irrelevant.
From what I understand of his life story, he came from "average means" and achieved his success through his own creative capabilities.
Ok, I agree with what you are saying, but a few things are worth attention.
First, he made a very smart decision. He started working before he had to, which meant that he could start attacking problems that interested him and working in ways that would enable him to grow right away. This may be a "secret" advantage of dropping out of college; you can start working before you have to do so because of social expectations, and therefore you get to do better work. Having to work is one of the biggest obstacles most people face in their working lives, because it means they can't concentrate on the best work.
Second, the 1970s in Silicon Valley was an atypical time when a 20-year-old nobody was taken seriously by highly influential people. That era has come and gone. The only 20-year-olds who can get sit-down meetings with partners at Sequoia in 2011 are those with rich parents. We may have a more open society in the geographical aggregate, but our world is much more closed than Northern California was in the 1970s.
What is a philosophy? What makes Objectivists second handers? You are pointing fingers and spouting hyperbole, without an iota of a substantive argument.
> Not everyone who makes stuff and cares about quality control is an "ethical egoist," or whatever you call it.
I agree. But, Steve Jobs was indeed an ethical egoist in words and in actions. I think this statement alone, supported by his entire life's work, testifies to his having been an "ethical egoist":
“Don’t be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice.” -Steve Jobs (2005 Stanford Commencement Address)
or this:
"Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle." -Steve Jobs, Stanford Address
I think that Craig Biddle's conclusions are correct - whether or not Jobs himself ever said he was or wasn't an Objectivist.
FYI, have you seen this interview with Woz:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/74391682/#ooid=8xMWJyMjoT9XMT...
Around 9:00:
"STEVE WOZNIAK: …And he did want to have a successful company, and he had a lot of ideas. He must’ve read some books that really were his guide in life, you know, and I think… Well, Atlas Shrugged might’ve been one of them that he mentioned back then. But they were his guides in life as to how you make a difference in the world. And it starts with a company. You build products and you gotta make your profit, and that allows you to invest the profit and then make better products that make more profit. I would say, how good a company is, it’s fair to measure it by its profitability."
I won't even begin to quote the Think Different(tm) commercial or Jobs' line of reasoning for why Apple did that entire campaign.
We're certified as PCI Level 1 Compliant (the highest level). You can definitely build a market place on top of Stripe. We don't, at the moment, have an easy way for you to take money and then pay it out to other people, but if you're able to handle that step on your own then Stripe can be a great way to collect payments for your marketplace.
