Slashdot Mirror

We could spend less than 1% of our GDP on defense and still have a larger military than most countries out there.

Thanks for making my point.

Second, what infrastructure? Be specific.

Is "public" a specific enough modifier for you?

I was a truck driver for years, and if you're going to mention highways and bridges - don't bother. You're wrong.

I don't find your personal anecdotal experience very compelling. I find multiple reports from credible sources far more convincing.

We are responsible for quite a few things, military-wise...[blah blah blah]

I asked for accomplishments, not responsibilities. Care to try again?

Did you even read that link?

No. Why would I? All I did was accurately observe that you didn't add anything to the discussion.

I defined "threat" by the only measure it should be defined: based on the actual reality of the situation [...] Is that the reality? Yes.

Uh huh. Another prick on the internet who claims to know the true reality of the situation.

We face a much larger threat from people who can't use their brain properly.

I assume that would that include people who claim that North Korea "shot a missle over Japan", right?

"I'd think, as a pedestrian, you'd prefer to have self-walking shoes."

Ask, and ye shall receive:
http://fortune.com/2015/08/07/...

Hear! Hear! Let's start with the oil subsidies, since Exxon Mobil is the second most profitable corporation in the Forbes 500.

Citation please, because as of this year, Amazon is finally bringing in profits. They stole the Costco/SamsClub model and are making money through a membership program that incentives a small number of people to spend dramatically more.

That said, I sold all my AMZN shares years ago. I probably should have kept them, I could have paid off my house with them.

Even mighty Apple could not dislodge the king of the hill of the map Google maps.

Apple already has "dislodged" Google Maps on Apple devices....

http://fortune.com/2015/06/16/...

"At WWDC last week Apple announced that it receives 5 billion requests per week for its mapping services and that Apple Maps is used 3.5 times more frequently than âoethe next leading maps appââ"i.e. Google Maps."

on IOS only.

And lets face it, Apple users are used to being lost. I think between all platforms Google will be receiving more than 5 billion requests per day. 5 billion requests is only 5 requests per Android user.

I tried to use Apple Maps for the first time in 2 years the other day. It still cant find basic landmarks like train stations here in Perth. Not like the state government makes that information free to anyone who wants to contact Landgate for it or anything.

Also, if you could provide an article that isn't a blatant advertisement for Apple, that'd be golden.

Even mighty Apple could not dislodge the king of the hill of the map Google maps.

Apple already has "dislodged" Google Maps on Apple devices....

http://fortune.com/2015/06/16/...

"At WWDC last week Apple announced that it receives 5 billion requests per week for its mapping services and that Apple Maps is used 3.5 times more frequently than âoethe next leading maps appââ"i.e. Google Maps."

That claim is such utter bullshit that it isn't even worth for a citation. Use your head, man. I mean, how utterly ignorant can you be?

Yes, it's worth a citation. In fact, I have a couple for you. Here's a Fortune Magazine article that shows my claim is true. There's even a nifty graph for you to look at and not understand.

http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/...

https://fortunedotcom.files.wo...

http://nelp.org/publication/gr...

the fact is that the US has one of the highest effective corporate tax rates in the world (go look it up).

Yeah, I looked it up:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex...

And here's the full (peer-reviewed) article, for your perusal. Let's hope you are more capable of perusal than you are of simple Google searches.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Pa...

The biggest issue it has is battery life.

From real-life experience, that's not been an issue at all. You just charge it at night when you go to sleep, or if you forget while you take a shower, and that is enough.

It has other issues, but battery life simply is not one of them.

Sure for fitness tracking it's good but there are better fitness trackers out there

Just like there are better cameras than an iPhone, but the iPhone takes more photos than any of them because the REAL better camera/fitness tracker is the one you have with you. I never, ever would have bought a fitness tracker, I didn't even want that from the Apple Watch at all, but I actually use that feature all the time because it's so well done - and it is there.

Whereas the Apple Watch is just more of a gimmick

I totally agree the Apple Watch is not a game-changer. I don't think everyone will want or need one.

However, there's no way it's a gimmick. It is quite useful already, and with just a bit of understanding of what apps can do with WatchOS 2, you can see a lot of third party power being brought to bear on how useful the device is - but even without them core features are compelling enough that there will be a substantial number of people who enjoy using the watch.

Customer satisfaction numbers for Apple Watch owners are even higher than the iPhone, higher still among non-technical users - THAT is a huge clue to anyone willing to think about the implications. A product with satisfaction numbers that high is not a gimmick, and will have staying power in the market because people will keep using them, and furthermore tell friends they enjoy using it.

I suppose the fact that tech conferences sell women (In case you've never been) doesn't tell you anything about the current state of the industry? And only this year has it occurred to anyone that using strippers to sell gadgets is unprofessional.

It is not that women can't pursue technical careers, but that misogynistic attitudes and cultures discourage them from hanging out with a bunch of disrespectful cads that treat them like hunks of meat.

Specifics of the deal said this would make Bing the default search provider for AOL for 10 years instead of Google. Google still has around 64% of the search market, but numbers seem to indicate that Microsoft is gaining ground on them with 20% market share. Rik van der Kooi, vice president of Microsoft’s ad business, said Bing is a self-sustaining business, or "sustainable and standalone." https://fortune.com/2015/06/30...

superior compensation. period.

I don't think so:
The manager usually does not have control of compensation.
Compensate is not a strong motivator. https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-m... Personally, I do feel more of a commitment when I realize I have a high salary but it is small relative to other motivations
The main reason people quit is because of bad managers http://fortune.com/2015/04/02/...
A good manager is competent and has good people skills https://hbr.org/2014/03/why-go...

You missed the key word: RETAIL. Tesla isn't a retail store. Tesla is a vertical market

"Retail" only means the products are sold to the end user rather than a reseller.

Tesla is most certainly a retailer of cars, because you can go buy one from them right now.

JC Penney doesn't make their own clothes, they sell other people's clothes for more money than they spent on acquiring them

JC Penney most certainly makes their own clothes. In fact, they started by making their own clothes in 1914 and today they're betting their future on their own house brands.

https://fortune.com/2014/12/22...

Microsoft just lost the Ford account to BlackBerry. I'm more inclined to think Microsoft sees the value in BlackBerry QNX in the IoT arena. BlackBerry is positioning itself to be the middleware glue for medical, auto, automation, and a host of other fields.

This Fortune article from last month says that the tax man disagrees with you.

Want to try again? :-)

Mind you, I thing all churches should pay taxes ...

Do you understand what 'rich fuckers' do now?

Yes I do! They avoid paying taxes using the following strategies:

-Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich
-Foreign Holdings
-Inversion
-Stock Options
-Living Trusts
-Blind Trusts
-Public Welfare
-Many, Many, More

These strategies do not even account for the many ways that they screw their workforce.

They then take the enormous pile money that they have and use it to buy politicians and
manipulate the system.

They also use the system to privatize anything that can have money squeezed out of it, such as schools, healthcare, and roads. Finally, they use the money to distort the reality of what they have done so people consider them to be "Heros", "Pillars of the Community", and such. The Nobel prize, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. That is what those "Rich Fuckers" do.

another link about possible merger

Hilarious!

The U.S. is helping China build a novel, superior nuclear reactor

Thorium Power Is the Safer Future of Nuclear Energy

China blazes trail for 'clean' nuclear power from thorium

Tell me more about Chinese renewables.

.

Not sure if Buddy's gay, but he's certainly bent.

It's deeper than that though.

Previously you had science majors complaining about taking humanities courses (and vice versa) since it wasn't necessary to their field, and with the exponential increase in the cost of education, there was some justification that having a broad classical humanities education as a basis for further studies was not cost effective. Welcome to the birth of diploma mills and the loss of normalization that EVERY college graduate should be competent in both science and the humanities.

Further, the standards for education plummeted, and recent graduates are less capable in nearly every measure, and worse, they are too dumb to know what they do not know. This leads to arrogance and an over-inflated sense of worth.

http://fortune.com/2015/03/10/...

That should give everyone a moment of pause. It's not just STEM, it across the board that capability is falling behind.

And especially as Millennials are the most educated (and most in debit) generation ever, it's clear that education policy is failing, there is bloat across the board in education, and worst of all, kids don't even have recess anymore. That's fucked up.

Focusing on STEM won't decrease the cost of education (where curiously, online courses generally cost more than traditional instruction. Where's the cost savings that technology was suppose to bring?), won't making education more rigorous, nor is it the only area where the US is hurting: the skilled trades are also lacking qualified applicants.

It is damnable that in this Age of the Internet, where information is more available than it has ever been before, people are getting stupider, and education resembles indoctrination more than having the framework to be autodidactic after college.

You have it backwards. Heinz is buying Kraft. http://fortune.com/2015/03/24/...

"It's nothing but a short-term profit grab" What else have US corporations become in the last 20 to 30 years?

Amazon is a pretty good example of bucking the trend. They've caused plenty of conniptions among the Wall Street "in-crowd" by eschewing short term profits, and instead investing in long term strategies. Look at where they're at compared to IBM now. Wall street only cares about the next quarter's earnings.

Or is it USA?

The US doesn't have the explosive growth of China (which is showing signs of slowing, btw), but that's only because China is transitioning from third-world to first-world status. That doesn't mean the US is necessarily in decline, just that it's relative dominance is decreasing. There's nothing wrong with that. We'll remain competitive for the foreseeable future, because this is still a country where start-ups can make it big. When that changes, you know we'll be in trouble.

On the other hand, don't count your chickens before they are hatched; remember IBM was also dead back in the nineties

Notice I said a *slow death*. They've been declining for a while. Given their size, they can still probably hold out for another couple of decades, but unless they take some radical reforming steps, like cutting down it's 13 layers of management and bureaucracy, and actually attempting to innovate rather than simply grabbing onto anything that looks profitable (like this boneheaded move), they'll just dwindle down to nothing. Remember, it took about fifteen years for Kodak to implode from when they were still a behemoth. Sheer inertia can keep a massive company going for a very long time.

The files are out there, find the torrent!
http://fortune.com/2015/01/13/...

The Apple Store for Education does, however, suggest they market directly at students.

The App Store/iTunes sells games, movies, and books, even more people are fond of those than students. Students also don't have lots of disposable money, if you're following the student debt crisis. The vast majority of spending is on entertainment, ~90% of Google's store revenue in 2014 was games, I'd imagine entertainment vastly dwarfs education on the Apple platform.

Particularly since the new MacBook is sold to students at a discount.

Implying only the new ones, or MacBooks are discounted? Nearly all mac products are discounted if you're involved in education.

Shop the Apple Store for Education, save up to $200 on a new Mac, and up to $20 on a new iPad. Education pricing is available to college students, students accepted to college, parents buying for college students, faculty, homeschool teachers, and staff at all grade levels.*

They're not unique in offering discounts, nor is this a new trend - what people learn with is very important when becoming a professional. Additionally, how do you explain all the Apple devices in movies? They're not used by students exclusively there either. It's a fashion statement, which applies to significantly larger monied demographics.

It's arbitrary as far as an individual business is concerned, and that business doesn't necessarily have any control, insight or predictive ability over why it happens.

Sure they do. They can hire an SEO company to link-farm them, and then Google will shut their ass down, like they did to JC Penney.

http://fortune.com/2011/02/14/...

It's absolutely, totally, a negative control knob, but if some dumbass wants to turn that knob, they surely can. And the result is totally and completely predictable.

Interesting article addressing why we're not seeing new chemistries/materials:

http://fortune.com/2014/08/15/...

Women, for example, may select a career for its monetary benefits, as a way to command their own independence; while men may seek a career for a perception about women being hot under the skirt for doctors, lawyers, and executives. Overwhelmingly, the decision is based in what is interesting.

Interestingly the Chinese economy is reportedly 2% better because of this women in short supply men need to attract them however this is something that has been happening for eons males always tried to show they were bigger, stronger, faster and lately richer or smarter and women wanted these attributes as it would mean their offspring would be protected men could then have their pick, usually the most attractive. Lately women wanting to be independent or increase the quality of male they attract can take steps and go into a career or use the attributes to gain finances until they are attractive to a mate http://fortune.com/2013/02/15/... On the doctors lawyer executive this is for the money just ask any construction worker renovating their houses

This really intrigues me because it never struck me that this could be a mechanism for antibiotic resistance. It is even more interesting to me knowing the first CRE (Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae)

clearly arose in India [source]

but the reasons weren't clear to me and I just naively assumed it was a random mutation. India, also according to to that same paper has quite a problem with antibiotic resistance which one wouldn't expect as there isn't so much of a problem with antibiotic overuse as there seems to be in the West. So, maybe not so random and maybe we have honed in on a legit reason for growing resistance.

The other problem in India and similar places is that the dosage wasn't what the label said. The doctor may have prescribed 500 mg of amoxicillin, and the patient bought capsules in a bottle labeled 500mg amoxicillin, but what was in those capsules was a fraction of the prescribed dosage.

Case in point is Ranbaxy who sold millions of doses of what they knew was non-performing anti-retroviral drugs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...
And more like this:
http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/...
http://fortune.com/2013/01/10/...

The bad part is Ranbaxy only got caught because one of their executives was an American who ratted them out.
Ranbaxy only got into trouble because they tried to sell their crap in the USA, otherwise nothing would have happened to them.
There are numerous other drug companies with the same ethics, but they don't try to sell in the USA or Europe, so they'll never get caught.

Another thing I did not know is that the FDA almost never test drugs for efficacy.
What happens is the drug company does the tests and the FDA looks at the drug companies documentation and procedures and signs off on that. This is why cheaters don't get caught - they are grading their own papers, so to speak.

BTW, Ranbaxy was bought by Sun Pharma, so Who Knows where their drugs are going now.

This really intrigues me because it never struck me that this could be a mechanism for antibiotic resistance. It is even more interesting to me knowing the first CRE (Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae)

clearly arose in India [source]

but the reasons weren't clear to me and I just naively assumed it was a random mutation. India, also according to to that same paper has quite a problem with antibiotic resistance which one wouldn't expect as there isn't so much of a problem with antibiotic overuse as there seems to be in the West. So, maybe not so random and maybe we have honed in on a legit reason for growing resistance.

The other problem in India and similar places is that the dosage wasn't what the label said. The doctor may have prescribed 500 mg of amoxicillin, and the patient bought capsules in a bottle labeled 500mg amoxicillin, but what was in those capsules was a fraction of the prescribed dosage.

Case in point is Ranbaxy who sold millions of doses of what they knew was non-performing anti-retroviral drugs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...
And more like this:
http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/...
http://fortune.com/2013/01/10/...

The bad part is Ranbaxy only got caught because one of their executives was an American who ratted them out.
Ranbaxy only got into trouble because they tried to sell their crap in the USA, otherwise nothing would have happened to them.
There are numerous other drug companies with the same ethics, but they don't try to sell in the USA or Europe, so they'll never get caught.

Another thing I did not know is that the FDA almost never test drugs for efficacy.
What happens is the drug company does the tests and the FDA looks at the drug companies documentation and procedures and signs off on that. This is why cheaters don't get caught - they are grading their own papers, so to speak.

BTW, Ranbaxy was bought by Sun Pharma, so Who Knows where their drugs are going now.

"How many times has this administration embraced a petition and moved forward with it?"

How many times has this administration helped make the U.S. government better for its citizens in any way?

The U.S. government has been arranging that the rich get richer, allowing the violent to be more violent, and helping those who want to make money by killing people.

For example, the "Affordable Care Act" is, in my opinion, in the direction of other recent changes in government. Instead of 2 organizations between you and a health care provider, there now are 3 or 4. The ACA gathers money from those like myself who never get sick. See, for example, Oregon Health Care Cost Increases under the Affordable Care Act.

The ACA was announced and pretended to be in operation before the software was ready: How Obamacare's epic fail exposed our government's biggest tech problem. Whoever is at the top of the U.S. government was obviously completely incompetent. (Often a U.S. president merely pretends to be in charge, hiding what is actually happening, and who is arranging it.)

The ACA helped technology companies take advantage of state officials who are completely ignorant about technology development. For example, Oregon sues Oracle over failed Obamacare website.

Quoting: Oregon's suit, filed Friday in state court, alleges that Oracle, the largest tech contractor working on the website, made falsely convinced officials to buy "hundreds of millions of dollars of Oracle products and services that failed to perform as promised." It is seeking $200 million in damages.

If you love the U.S. like I do, help deal with the immense problems and lack of good leadership.

We already know what happens in middle and high school: social pressure to fit in, and follow socially accepted roles, where "socially accepted" is defined, in large part, by underage peers. Being a "nerdy engineer" is socially acceptable for men because it provides the opportunity to make a pretty good living, which makes them socially desirable as a mate. There's little of the same incentive for women, who aren't ranked as much in desirability by their salary -- despite the fact that women under 30 are actually earning more than men anyway. Men are more easily incentivized by monetary rewards because money gives us status, and status makes us desirable. We gain more benefit from money than having money. Until there are external rewards beyond monetary compensation for women, they probably aren't going to start flocking to engineering programs.

But to echo the GP, honestly, equality means equality, not special treatment. If we need to make efforts to get more women in science and technology, then we also need to make efforts to get women into construction (97% men), soldiering (84% men), and manufacturing (72% men), and efforts to get men into healthcare (78% women), education (69% women), and social work (73% women). I'm all for equal opportunity, as best as possible, and we can certainly make improvements in that area, especially for economically disadvantaged people, of which single mothers are a significant part. That said, I'm not at all convinced, and have seen no empirical evidence that there's an objective problem with gender representation that doesn't mirror the general population.

And men aren't necessarily driving the division either. For example, women prefer a male boss even more than men do. Has anyone bothered to ask them how interested they are in science and technology? And if results show that they aren't, then why are we (collectively) trying to tell them that their preferences are wrong? That seems like the opposite of empowerment to me.

Then they came out with Final Cut Pro X and when their users complained about the rampant bugs, overly simplified iMovie style interface and defeaturization, Apple told their user base to go fuck themselves -- as Apple is want to do and Premier went back to being on top again.

http://fortune.com/2011/06/22/...
https://discussions.apple.com/...

Anyway, far from being a learning moment for Apple -- this has been wholly adopted as their corporate ideology when it comes to their user apps. A lot of it is a focus on iOS and trying to make everything fall in line with iOS -- this was clear as early as 2007 when a trip to the Apple store had their laptop and desktop add-ons shunted to dusty corners while iPhone cases and accessories dominated the store. So this has beed a mentality years in the making based solely on spreadsheets of product sales and not user needs regarding user experience.

Even Woz wrote a rant (now pulled it seems) about ditching OS X in favor of Linux over the frustration of the mounting shit-pile of bugs and anoyances with OS X You can read comments about Woz' post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/i...

. . .

So it is like an individual can playback sing for an individual actor - but a choir cannot. Due to the inevitable differences in frequencies and timings of members of the choir.

This gets to the heart of it. The type of person you put in an organization obviously fuels the traits of an organization but over time it will be trumped by the structure of an organization.

First off, If you haven't read "The Peter Principle" (1969) find a copy. It is funny but the humor is built on the fact that it is based on truth. Once you start getting a feel for how the normal actions of people are influenced by life inside a hierarchy then turn your head to the problem of how people get to the upper portions of the hierarchy. The leading motivations of people will be getting a raise or bonus, getting a better position or a promotion, and avoiding being terminated. The way you do this is by currying favor with people above you in the hierarchy, and creating alliances with people at the same level or below you. (And yes, "currying favor" can be as simple as simply doing a good job but it also includes making other people's work look bad...)
The number one way to accomplish this is to have a convincing, persuasive personality. The ability to actively manipulate someones impression of you is not tied to any level of morality and is commonly found in sociopaths. A famous quote, "Power corrupts ..." leads in to an observation in many financial news sources over the last 10 years that CEOs have a MUCH higher percentage of psychopaths then the general population. Just one example: Do psychopaths make good CEOs? The pretty obvious conclusion that the tendencies that lend well to the "climb to the top" also tend to lean away from moral functioning.

Existing in a framework of power is not a way to build toward actions that would be perceived as moral. A new organization can be a wonderful thing because it was created in situ. But as time passes the inexorable influences of a hierarchy will bend it in much less altruistic directions. Over time your only real influences to counter this are the need to counter outside negative perception ("Hey! They aren't moral!") and the need to fight stagnation which leads to reorganization.

MS just donate to politicians to reduce the amount of taxes they pay

Kinda sort of but not really. What most posters here seem not to understand is that it is 100% normal for companies who employ lots of people in area X to negotiate with that city/county/state's government to say in effect "because of us you have many thousands more people paying property/school/sales taxes and supporting the local economy. Other places would be willing to offer us a break on our corporate taxes if we moved there instead and benefitted their economy. So why don't you?"

On some level this sounds like playing dirty pool but it's really not... it's the exact same thing you would do if you had your employer behind the eight ball in salary negotiations: "Other companies are willing to pay me X for my skills, so why don't you match it or I will leave?"

So long story short, every company with the clout of Microsoft (which IIRC employs >40K employees in Washington State/Seattle Metro area) gets local or state tax breaks that Joe Schmoe's auto garage does not. Apple gets tax breaks in Cupertino, Google gets them in Mountain View, Sprint gets them in Kansas City, Verizon gets them in Basking Ridge NJ. In the greater Seattle area, Microsoft, Costco, Starbucks and other businesses with HQs there get them... Seattle felt the sting years ago of not offering enough tax breaks to Boeing and seeing their corporate HQ relocated to Chicago. (If you're interested to see who's probably getting big tax breaks where, look at the map of Fortune 500 headquarters by city.

So it's rational to give large companies tax breaks to keep them in your city as a way to keep your economy strong. It may seem unfair, but all these cities and states have done enough research to conclude that doing tax favors for these big companies is worth more than taxing them at regular rates and losing the employment. So it's neither illegal or irrational on the part of the government or the corporations.

It's also good not to put all your eggs in one basket because not all the generics may be the same: http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/...

On the flip side, there have been few articles that talk about why men often avoid female dominated jobs such as

Hm.

primary school teaching

Accusations of sexual abuse are a career killer at a minimum.

social working

Accusations of sexual abuse are a career killer at a minimum.

accounting

WTF? Citations please.

This what I found: http://fortune.com/2013/03/11/...

Hardly ruled by and indeed, a recent change.

Concerning housekeeping and nursing, men generally do not get hired for those. Instead, they are pushed to other marginal jobs that are more dangerous and dirty; although to be fair, there are very different levels of nursing with some being just one step removed from being an actual M.D.

With regard to Windows Phone you may have a point. Microsoft and Nokia have really aggressively pursued the low end of smartphones, particularly outside the USA, and have been seeing some traction in terms of devices sold.

However, in terms of profits, it's pretty much Apple and Samsung [running Android]. Bleeding millions of dollars has certainly done something, but I'm not sure what Microsoft's plan for the endgame is at this point.

Not buying it without some sort of citation.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/0... http://qz.com/127861/its-time-... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... http://fortune.com/2013/09/20/... http://www.mhpbooks.com/indepe... Those were just the first few results from a simple google search. Why is it that every time someone asks for a citation, the "proof" is the first hit from a simple google search? In this case: "number of bookstores in the USA".

Hrrm. Pretty much all only deal with what seems to be opportunistic growth after the fall of Borders since 2009, and based on the same American Booksellers Association data. Assuming these numbers reflect the reality and are a constant percentage of all total bookstores in the USA, it still only deals with a recent phenominon with obvious cause, and even then "The current total is less than half the 1990s peak of around 4,000." Although amounts vary, everything else I've seen says the same thing, the number of bookstores is going down.

Not buying it without some sort of citation.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/0...
http://qz.com/127861/its-time-...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
http://fortune.com/2013/09/20/...
http://www.mhpbooks.com/indepe...

Those were just the first few results from a simple google search. Why is it that every time someone asks for a citation, the "proof" is the first hit from a simple google search? In this case: "number of bookstores in the USA".

It's not stupid they have them there, but it is usually exploitative. http://fortune.com/2014/02/12/...

According to Fortune magazine (latest print edition, just got it yesterday), this is true of almost all Generation Y people as well.

Specifically:

10. 80 hours a week - to Gen Y this means you can't do your job right, it's supposed to be 40.
09. Promotions - to Gen Y if they don't get promoted and given responsibility from Day 1, they aren't working for you.
08. Benefits and maternity (sp?) leave - again, this concept of no benefits is something only a boomer or Gen X would want.
07. Family time - true of all Gen Y.
06. This is a canard. Sure, guys don't listen, but at least computers do.
05. Actually, this is where guys meet their wives.
04. Totally fabrication. Grow up.
03. True, and respect is something all Gen Y demand. Period.
02. True. But can you blame them? A real job would have a sauna, steam room, and hot tub, anyway.
01. No, this is old fogie Gen X thinking. Gen Y women have no problem telling you this.

The question I anticipate that most readers will want to ask (and that isn't really answered in the feature story) is: Why doesn't Microsoft identify the specific patents and explain what specific aspects of free software infringe them. I did ask Gutierrez that question, and here was his answer: "We do. But in private conversations in the process of licensing discussions with companies that are looking in good faith for ways of resolving the situation." In those contexts, he says, "we walk through a number of exemplary patents and go as deep as they want us to go. Our experience has been every time we've done that, it doesn't take companies a long time to figure out that there is an issue here."

Why won't he do the same thing in public? "There are a number of legal reasons why companies don't do that. No company does that. IBM (IBM) doesn't do that. HP (HPQ) doesn't. Fujitsu (FJTSY.PK) doesn't. For a number of practical reasons. Once you've made that statement from a public perspective, anybody in the world can go to court and ask for a declaratory judgment. That would spur potentially hundreds or thousands of lawsuits around the world, or reexaminations of patents around the world. Even if they're perfectly good patents, it would create an administrative nightmare."

Directly contradicting this story, I read the print edition of the Wall Street Journal (expensive subscription required) and it said that in point of fact - as also backed by articles in Fortune and Forbes - that Sony is losing the format war to HD-DVD, due to low adoption rates by pr0n providers, low sales of the PS3 consoles, and labels shunning the format. Perhaps if someone were prognosticating back in October 2007, such a forecast might have seemed reasonable, but the post-Christmas sales figures in the US and Japan as well as worldwide show that adoption rates are sub-par.

But, live in a dream world if you must.

I totally don't get how one could apply the razor concept to the PS3. The razor concept depend on the idea that the razor is cheap so that people buy it without thinking, and then buy the relatively expensive blades over time without noticing since in absolute terms the blades still don't cost very much and the purchases are spread out over time.

I can help. Based on the articles in Fortune, it appears Sony intends to make us pay lots of money for DRM-enhanced Music and Movies that we will buy in the Blu-Ray format. Their selling point will be that they have extra video and even mini-game addons for those.

I think it's a very long shot. I remember when I got rid of my BMG Music subscription when I found out they sold unrippable CDs. I paid for the music, I'll be darned if I'll pay just to store it on my (cheap) MP3 player.

Fortune Magazine: What has always distinguished the products of the
companies you've led is the design aesthetic. Is your obsession with design
an inborn instinct or what?

Steve Jobs: We don't have good language to talk about this kind of thing.
In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer. It's interior decorating.
It's the fabric of the curtains and the sofa. But to me, nothing could be
further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a
man-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers
of the product or service. The iMac is not just the colour or translucence or
the shape of the shell. The essence of the iMac is to be the finest possible
consumer computer in which each element plays together.

On our latest iMac, I was adamant that we get rid of the fan, because it is
much more pleasant to work on a computer that doesn't drone all the time.
That was not just "Steve's decision" to pull out the fan; it required an
enormous engineering effort to figure out how to manage power better and do
a better job of thermal conduction through the machine. That is the furthest
thing from veneer. It was at the core of the product the day we started.

This is what customers pay us for--to sweat all these details so it's easy
and pleasant for them to use our computers. We're supposed to be really good
at this. That doesn't mean we don't listen to customers, but it's hard for
them to tell you what they want when they've never seen anything remotely
like it.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/2000/01/24/app6.htm l

If the PS3 fails to ignite blu-ray sales, Sony is going to have to back down and start licensing the blu-ray technology to manufacturers of hybrids

They've already been forced to license it in China, due to widescale piracy of the tech. At least, according to Fortune and the Wall Street Journal. Showed up in an interview with the Scottish CEO of Sony and then followup articles in the WSJ.

i think this is very good for microsoft. they're finally looking beyond where the OS ends, and actually thinking of the whole experience.

imitation is the sincerest form of flaterry, and apple's excellence in design has forced microsoft
to think more broadly about the user's experience. its nice to see them broadening their horizons -- even
if ever so slightly. ;-}

for consumers, the box and the OS are one and the same. apple has always known this -- they are not an either/OR
hardware OR software company -- they are a both/AND company, they build value reciprocally, by looking at them as a whole.

microsoft has traditionally never done this. that they are, is a sign that they're making their first steps towards actually
thinking about the computer as a 'whole widget' -- good for them. :D

they're not requiring compliance, but they are offering a way for those who want to take part of a coherent design -- to do so. let them continue to play catch-up to apple's innovation. :D

in the meantime -- here's some words from the very ones they're trying to immitate:

From:

Jonathan Ive on Design

Certainly, the PC industry has never revered design, preferring blocky
beige boxes or, more recently, coloured go-faster curves devoid of real
function. He's scornful of those who use 'swoopy shapes to look good,
stuff that is so aggressively designed, just to catch the eye. I think
that's arrogance, it's not done for the benefit of the user.'

By contrast, he says, 'you won't be able to find a single thing on an
Apple that hasn't had thought put into it'...

With the first iMac the goal wasn't to look different, but to build the
best integrated consumer computer we could. If as a consequence the shape
is different, then that's how it is. The thing is, it's very easy to be
different, but very difficult to be better. That's what we have tried to
do with the new iMac.'

(THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME, Interview with Jonathan Ive,
  Charles Arthur talks to the designer of the iMac, January 14 2002)

Steve Jobs on Design

Fortune Magazine: What has always distinguished the products of the
companies you've led is the design aesthetic. Is your obsession with design
an inborn instinct or what?

Steve Jobs: We don't have good language to talk about this kind of thing.
In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer. It's interior decorating.
It's the fabric of the curtains and the sofa. But to me, nothing could be
further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a
man-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers
of the product or service. The iMac is not just the colour or translucence or
the shape of the shell. The essence of the iMac is to be the finest possible
consumer computer in which each element plays together.

On our latest iMac, I was adamant that we get rid of the fan, because it is
much more pleasant to work on a computer that doesn't drone all the time.
That was not just "Steve's decision" to pull out the fan; it required an
enormous engineering effort to figure out how to manage power better and do
a better job of thermal conduction through the machine. That is the furthest
thing from veneer. It was at the core of the product the day we started.

This is what customers pay us for--to sweat all these details so it's easy
and pleasant for them to use our computers. We're supposed to be really good
at this. That doesn't mean we don't listen to customers, but it's hard for
them to tell you what they want when they've never seen anything remotely
like it.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/2000/01/24/app6.htm l

you're assuming that if I have 300 million people (the US) that a single store chain having some higher proportion of sales (less than a million) means there aren't a few hundred million non-HDTV sets out there that people aren't upgrading from.

Based on articles in Fortune and the Wall Street Journal.

Seriously, they even brought in a non-tech Scot. We have to remember that Sony's major profits come from Finance and Insurance - yes, you heard that right - and he's trying to sell you on Blu-Ray for films/movies, music, and games. From that perspective (non-tech), the PS3 is basically a computer with a Blu-Ray drive, as that's where his profits lie - in getting the market to reward Sony with market dominance over competing standards so that they get license fees for every movie, music, or game disc you buy.

Don't believe me? Check out Fortune magazine for an in-depth interview of the two head honchos at Sony. I'm basing part of this on the print edition of the Wall Street Journal as well.

It could be that is the reason for the drift away from MS, either because he wants to make friends with Steve Jobs or a backroom deal has actually already been done.