[QUOTE=Zoggie]
It was also a plot on “The Simpsons.” Except the buyout offer was…not so nice.
[/QUOTE]
“You didn’t think I got so rich by writing a lot of cheques, did you?” (Evil Bill Gates laugh.)
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Nitpick: Trickle-down is intended to aid in innovation, not income.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, as the middle class scrambles to find new and inventive ways to keep the lights on and water running. 
[QUOTE=Szlater]
That’s not a Gary Larson/Farside cartoon, it’s a Sydney Harris cartoon. link. More of Harris’ cartoons
[/QUOTE]
Sure it was. I just saw it on my daily calenader not too long ago. With the caption “I’m not sure about this step here” or something like that.
[QUOTE=diku]
Sure it was. I just saw it on my daily calenader not too long ago. With the caption “I’m not sure about this step here” or something like that.
[/QUOTE]
You might want to provide some proof here. I just tried and all I could come up with are people that claim the same as you but are shot down when the Harris cartoon is mentioned. If you can provide evidence of Larson being the first to come up with this cartoon I’d be interested. Either two artists came up with about the same cartoon at the same time or one copied the other. Would make for a good discussion.
From what I’ve read on the 'net people claim that it is a Larson Classic and the Harris one seems to be copyrighted in '07. Possible that Harris saw the Larson classic a long time ago and it later sub-conscientiously popped into his head and he re-did it and took credit.
I’d be very surprised to see that as a Larson. His science strips tend to be more absurd, less sciencey.
I’ve been wrong before, though.
[QUOTE=diku]
Sure it was. I just saw it on my daily calenader not too long ago. With the caption “I’m not sure about this step here” or something like that.
[/QUOTE]
Well Harris’ cartoon predates any similar Far Side cartoon..
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense]
From what I’ve read on the 'net people claim that it is a Larson Classic and the Harris one seems to be copyrighted in '07. Possible that Harris saw the Larson classic a long time ago and it later sub-conscientiously popped into his head and he re-did it and took credit.
[/QUOTE]
The copy of the Harris cartoon that I have on my wall cites Harris’ book “What’s so funny about science?” and Amazon gives the publication date as June 1977.
Harris rightly gets the credit, not Larson. Coincidentally enough, my son’s math teacher showed that cartoon just last night during her presentation on the class’s math curriculum!
[QUOTE=Hello Again]
As I recall, it was a dig at some of the more dubious internet business plans out there.
[/QUOTE]
It was also inspired in part by an Elmer Fudd cartoon where he’s an elf trying to explain capitalism to an old shoemaker, with the B plot being a cat who attempts to change Elmer into a mouse by having the shoemaker say “Jehosephat!”
[QUOTE=Johnny Angel]
Of course, I know the rationalization usually given. Yet, wherefore the growing wealth gap?
[/QUOTE]
a) Liberals won’t give it a long enough chance to work and keep wasting money on social welfare programs that just enable deadbeats.
b) Conservatives keep enacting Trickle-Down economics theories to benefit the rich and have no intention of helping the poor and middle class.
Feel free to subscribe to whichever one makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Miller:
But his business plan involved his being a monopoly on coffee in South Park, so it wasn’t entirely unreasonable. It was only when Starbuck’s attempted to invade his turf that his business plan’s flaw was exposed. And he very intelligently tried to manipulate people by appealing to their emotions rather than compete on price or flavor.
The Underpants Gnomes weren’t an allegorical criticism of Mister Tweek, whose anti-big-business crusade was knowingly a cynical ploy to maintain his monopoly, but of the townspeople who mindlessly went along with him (until they got a taste of Starbuck’s).
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
As well the Far Side comic of years ago with scientists around a chalkboard with many zany equations to the left, the solution on the right, and in the center: “Then a miracle occurs”.
[/QUOTE]
Sadly enough, I’ve seen that scenario played out all too many times in the IT field. People who have no concept of Analysis, Design and Programming allowed to create timelines for projects that do not take major parts of the process into account.
Like at Prudential, where after more than 6 months, the project plan (a 2.5 inch thick book) gave a 14 month timeline for the project that allowed only 30 days for the actual programming effort. A seven page list of people attached to the project, neglected to list the programmers. (The PM hated programmers and thus had no business working in IT.)
I joked at the time that the box for the programming part may as well say “And then a Miracle occurs”.
A month later, it was revised. It would now take three years. But the programming part of it was still only allocated 30 days. That is the point at which I bailed out of Prudential.
Within six months, the project was cancelled and the entire 125 person division was shitcanned.
[QUOTE=pokey]
But what does trickle-down have to do with mouldy diarrhea?
[/QUOTE]
Y’see, there’s this thing called gravity…