Wow! An homage to Tom Lehrer's album "That Was the Year That Was." One of my all-time favorite albums even to today. Intelligent, accurate, and entertaining. Some of the most artfully done political and social satire EVER.
Thank you for making my day.
If only he were around now to do something about Trump.
My experience is that the advertising industry has inserted itself into the relationship between the customer and the supplier. Coming from a rural community, this was what I saw. My parents and grandparents were farmers. They didn't buy anything until they *needed* it. I can't emphasize the word *needed* enough. We were not flush with cash so many times we just made do with what we had.
On the rare occasion one of us would actually intend to purchase something, we would go to the local feed store or grocery store and ask questions of the owners or the other customers. Back in those days, that's how it worked. There was such a thing as a community. People who lived and worked close together. They also had the tendency to look out for one another and help one another. So that's where you got your product info. Not from some "jacked up" "insanely enthusiastic" huckster. These neighbors and store owners were the early version of Consumers' Reports." If a product was good, you found out about it. And once you found out about it you... and this is KEY... looked for it because *you were interested* in it. You didn't buy it because some person on amphetamines was pitching it.
Okay, sorry for the rant, but the point is there has to be a desire for a product before the chance of a purchase exists. Just because a manufacturer decides to flood the freakin" society in every conceivable form and fashion with their exaggerated claims and "in your face" effects does not mean their product will sell any more.
So here's my advice to manufacturers. Make a good product and sell it at a reasonable price. You'll probably find that people will buy it and like it and you'll develop a reputation for having a good product at a reasonable price. Then tell the advertising hucksters to go pack sand. If you have a good marketing department you won't need much advertising. And if your product/service is good, you won't need to lie your ass off to sell it.
So AFAIC, you advertising people and just STFU. If and when I want your product and if I find out it's worthwhile, I'll come looking for it.
What is the basis for this claim; ie, the PC is dying? I get the impression someone is pushing an agenda.
It may be that people who were using their PC primarily for gaming are beginning to opt for consoles more (if I understand the term "console" correctly), but there are a lot of people who don't play video/online games.
And if the major software manufacturers decide to move to consoles, I think that will encourage more people to use FOSS.
I have a hard time imagining SAP or Oracle releasing their products on consoles. And wouldn't they end up all wanting their own console? Imagine having a console for each business application.
Of course the best outcome is everyone goes indie and the RIAA dies quickly, but that's just a dream.
I hope that actually happens. However, my cynical side sees the RIAA having their lobbyists influence congress to outlaw indie music because, you know, "free market," capitalism, otherwise total economic collapse.
I'm sorry you miss the obvious problem that employees are forced to take cuts in salary and benefits while CEOs continue to get obscenely huge salaries, benefits, and separation packages which contribute directly to the cost of a product or service. And the only ones making decisions about a CEO's salary are other CEOs that sit on the company's board.
Note that the CEOs are not the free market. Neither the free market or the investors have any influence re CEO salaries and benefits. And also note that even when shareholders vote to reduce or limit a CEO's salary and benefits, the board (again, typically made up of other CEOs) can choose (and typically does) to ignore the shareholders' request. So no free market controls on CEO salaries and benefits, but there are on the employees'.
At least AOL wasn't trying to pass Snopes and Polifact off as being unbiased.
In my experience, they are not biased.
I used Snopes primarily to defend Bush Jr during most of his two terms. And I've used it again to defend Obama during his.
IMO that makes them unbiased sources. Take some time to look at them. They both have archives so you can look back at both Republicans and Democrats. More recently you'll find they defend Trump on several claims. If someone is spreading something about him that is inaccurate, I want to know. I strive to be as objective in my assessment as possible and both of these sources have served me well.
The fact that you make the claim these sources are biased without making any reference to any examples puts your claim in doubt. Therefore, I have to assume that you are biased. I've come across others who have made the same claim and, for some reason, they are always Trump supporters. And in light of what I just pointed out above, that's puzzling. When Trump is being defended by each of those sources, why would a Trump supporter claim they are biased. If anything one might assume they are biased in favor of Trump.
The statement re "private" society mobilizing to create change is still valid.
The fact that a very few CEOs might actually respond to public concern does happen. McDonald's is one example. Another is Johnson's Wax. The then CEO Sam Johnson was aware of the damage to the ozone caused by chlorofluorocarbons. He instituted a complete change in all their aerosol products and thus was compliant before it ever became law. Sam and, more recently, his son also instituted alternative energy strategies that have resulted in one of their plants going almost entirely off-grid.
So, yes, "some" CEOs have a moral character. They actually understand the business value of being environmentally responsible. But they are the exception, not the rule. Typically the onus of being environmentally responsible falls to the public.
That effort confirms there are not "thousands of people" voting multiple times or "thousands of dead people" voting for someones candidate. So now the Republicans can stop inciting that paranoia during elections.
And what most of the population doesn't understand is THIS ACTIVITY by business (ie, "paying to get the laws you want") is actually what "big government" is. Granted there are inefficiencies and some unnecessary regulations, but, I believe, the bulk of the "big government" complaint has to do with all the laws the big corporations are getting passed without the general population being aware. The cable companies, big ag, pharmaceuticals, etc have all been doing this.
The "big government" complaint is actually misdirection on the part of the corporate community and their lobbyists. They want us to think the government is wasteful and so we must remove safety net programs and cut educational funding. All these efforts do is create a general population of desperate people still trying to find opportunity in this country while large business gets to use the "invisible hand of the market" as an excuse to suppress wages and benefits while shipping what were good paying jobs to other countries.
Note that I've seen other people discussing this (ie, big business getting laws made to protect their interests) on the "start a petition" web sites.
I can't remember the last time I was allowed to have any input on a law passed by congress much less vote on it. Just as "regulatory capture" happens to regulatory agencies in the marketplace, our government has been captured. Now we have legislators for hire.
Consider how net neutrality is at risk. Those of us who understand why it's important have NO chance of preserving it. Especially now with the new admin about to take over. I can imagine the internet provider CEOs drooling and panting with anticipation about how they are going to extract even more profit from the general population once they kill net neutrality and take total control of the internet.
I get the impression that most of the "big government" growth has been initiated by big corporations and business interests. I suppose their lobbyists have to do something to justify their salaries.
I used Snopes to defend Bush Jr through part of his first and his entire second administration. People were sending me emails that were obviously inaccurate re him and his admin. I did this regardless of my political views. I just want the truth so we can make intelligent, informed decisions re our government.
I haven't met anyone on the right who has demonstrated that same level objectivity.
If Snopes were left-leaning, it would have been impossible for me to defend Bush all those years.
I've been trying to explain to people that the reason the ISPs want control is so they can monetize every freakin' thing that has to do with the internet.
If net neutrality is lost, the ISPs will find a way to make us pay for anything. And you can bet the ISPs will give priority to advertisers. Our stuff will sink to the bottom the list.
So let corporations be in control? I can't agree with that.
Corporations have shown time and again they have NO interest in supplying good service at a reasonable cost to their customers. (Comcast and TW) They want to maximize profit. They will find every way possible to achieve that goal. History proves this. The recent recession is a great example of that behavior. Not to mention Enron and a lot more.
Currently the ISPs have monopoly power. That's why I'm paying $85/mo for 20Mbps/2Mbps service. And it keeps going up because there is any competition.
@Shanen: I wholeheartedly agree. GE exists only because of inertia. But I think Immelt's management style has changed "the General" a little bit.
I've also been exposed to GE and their management philosophy. Welch was/is clueless. His "management style" is crude at best. Especially his idea that a manager can be effective anywhere in the organization. (IOW once you know how to manage, you can manage anything.) When Welch was running his massive PR campaign prior to his retirement from GE, he made a big deal about his basic management principals like he was some kind of management guru. The blowback he got from several business people via the WSJ was immediate and critical. Especially his idea that every year you fire the bottom 10% of performers in every department. Those critics exposed all kinds of problems in Welch's ideas. Suddenly Welch was adding all sorts of "qualifications" and "clarifications" to defend and explain his principals.
Welch was lucky he came on the scene when he did. GE had just turned itself into a bank with their finance service. That service became the primary revenue generator for the company. So Welch looked good.
Speaking of which, here's a great example of that "manage anywhere/anything" idea. A guy whose claim to fame as a manager was installing a GPS on every locomotive was transferred to become director of marketing for one of the medical device operations. Seriously. Like there is no difference between an MRI machine and a locomotive. To top it off, this guy was arrogant and crude. He alienated so many customers it was like a dark comedy. While at a big sales show, he shouted after one customer after alienating them that they would be back because "we are GE." Classy. Real classy. This guy never should have been a manager in the first place.
I am still in contact with previous coworkers so I hear about what is going on inside at least one of the GE divisions on a regular basis.
I'm hoping this is an aberration of sorts or a reflection of the angry political dialogue that has been going on for sometime now. Nobody can be objective anymore. They're caught up in the "somebody is wrong on the internet" thing and just can't let it go until they call that "somebody" out.
Let's get back to tech, science, etc. You know "News for Nerds."
Anyway...
You could say I've lost my belief in our politicians.
They all seem like game show hosts to me.
Sting -- If I ever lose my faith in you from the album Ten Summoner's Tales
You are absolutely correct, Jason unlike "tripleevenfall" who clearly has some kind of political agenda with re to that party on "the other side of the aisle" thing.
I recommend "tripleevenfall" review the origins of the Patriot Act. First of all, it was signed into law by a Republican Admin, but you'll see that everybody (ie, both political parties) were involved by introducing additional provisions, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
If only he were around now
He's not dead. He just gave up political satire after Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Oh yeah. That probably really discouraged him. Thanks for the follow-up.
That's not my department, says Werner Von Braun!
Wow! An homage to Tom Lehrer's album "That Was the Year That Was." One of my all-time favorite albums even to today. Intelligent, accurate, and entertaining. Some of the most artfully done political and social satire EVER.
Thank you for making my day.
If only he were around now to do something about Trump.
That instantly disqualifies him for management or political office.
We may need a new mod rating for statements like this: ie, sad but true.
My experience is that the advertising industry has inserted itself into the relationship between the customer and the supplier. Coming from a rural community, this was what I saw. My parents and grandparents were farmers. They didn't buy anything until they *needed* it. I can't emphasize the word *needed* enough. We were not flush with cash so many times we just made do with what we had.
On the rare occasion one of us would actually intend to purchase something, we would go to the local feed store or grocery store and ask questions of the owners or the other customers. Back in those days, that's how it worked. There was such a thing as a community. People who lived and worked close together. They also had the tendency to look out for one another and help one another. So that's where you got your product info. Not from some "jacked up" "insanely enthusiastic" huckster. These neighbors and store owners were the early version of Consumers' Reports." If a product was good, you found out about it. And once you found out about it you... and this is KEY... looked for it because *you were interested* in it. You didn't buy it because some person on amphetamines was pitching it.
Okay, sorry for the rant, but the point is there has to be a desire for a product before the chance of a purchase exists. Just because a manufacturer decides to flood the freakin" society in every conceivable form and fashion with their exaggerated claims and "in your face" effects does not mean their product will sell any more.
So here's my advice to manufacturers. Make a good product and sell it at a reasonable price. You'll probably find that people will buy it and like it and you'll develop a reputation for having a good product at a reasonable price. Then tell the advertising hucksters to go pack sand. If you have a good marketing department you won't need much advertising. And if your product/service is good, you won't need to lie your ass off to sell it.
So AFAIC, you advertising people and just STFU. If and when I want your product and if I find out it's worthwhile, I'll come looking for it.
What is the basis for this claim; ie, the PC is dying? I get the impression someone is pushing an agenda.
It may be that people who were using their PC primarily for gaming are beginning to opt for consoles more (if I understand the term "console" correctly), but there are a lot of people who don't play video/online games.
And if the major software manufacturers decide to move to consoles, I think that will encourage more people to use FOSS.
I have a hard time imagining SAP or Oracle releasing their products on consoles. And wouldn't they end up all wanting their own console? Imagine having a console for each business application.
Of course the best outcome is everyone goes indie and the RIAA dies quickly, but that's just a dream.
I hope that actually happens. However, my cynical side sees the RIAA having their lobbyists influence congress to outlaw indie music because, you know, "free market," capitalism, otherwise total economic collapse.
Yah. An AC. Go figure.
I'm sorry you miss the obvious problem that employees are forced to take cuts in salary and benefits while CEOs continue to get obscenely huge salaries, benefits, and separation packages which contribute directly to the cost of a product or service. And the only ones making decisions about a CEO's salary are other CEOs that sit on the company's board.
Note that the CEOs are not the free market. Neither the free market or the investors have any influence re CEO salaries and benefits. And also note that even when shareholders vote to reduce or limit a CEO's salary and benefits, the board (again, typically made up of other CEOs) can choose (and typically does) to ignore the shareholders' request. So no free market controls on CEO salaries and benefits, but there are on the employees'.
Yup. That seems fair.
At least AOL wasn't trying to pass Snopes and Polifact off as being unbiased.
In my experience, they are not biased.
I used Snopes primarily to defend Bush Jr during most of his two terms. And I've used it again to defend Obama during his.
IMO that makes them unbiased sources. Take some time to look at them. They both have archives so you can look back at both Republicans and Democrats. More recently you'll find they defend Trump on several claims. If someone is spreading something about him that is inaccurate, I want to know. I strive to be as objective in my assessment as possible and both of these sources have served me well.
The fact that you make the claim these sources are biased without making any reference to any examples puts your claim in doubt. Therefore, I have to assume that you are biased. I've come across others who have made the same claim and, for some reason, they are always Trump supporters. And in light of what I just pointed out above, that's puzzling. When Trump is being defended by each of those sources, why would a Trump supporter claim they are biased. If anything one might assume they are biased in favor of Trump.
The statement re "private" society mobilizing to create change is still valid.
The fact that a very few CEOs might actually respond to public concern does happen. McDonald's is one example. Another is Johnson's Wax. The then CEO Sam Johnson was aware of the damage to the ozone caused by chlorofluorocarbons. He instituted a complete change in all their aerosol products and thus was compliant before it ever became law. Sam and, more recently, his son also instituted alternative energy strategies that have resulted in one of their plants going almost entirely off-grid.
So, yes, "some" CEOs have a moral character. They actually understand the business value of being environmentally responsible. But they are the exception, not the rule. Typically the onus of being environmentally responsible falls to the public.
That effort confirms there are not "thousands of people" voting multiple times or "thousands of dead people" voting for someones candidate. So now the Republicans can stop inciting that paranoia during elections.
And what most of the population doesn't understand is THIS ACTIVITY by business (ie, "paying to get the laws you want") is actually what "big government" is. Granted there are inefficiencies and some unnecessary regulations, but, I believe, the bulk of the "big government" complaint has to do with all the laws the big corporations are getting passed without the general population being aware. The cable companies, big ag, pharmaceuticals, etc have all been doing this.
The "big government" complaint is actually misdirection on the part of the corporate community and their lobbyists. They want us to think the government is wasteful and so we must remove safety net programs and cut educational funding. All these efforts do is create a general population of desperate people still trying to find opportunity in this country while large business gets to use the "invisible hand of the market" as an excuse to suppress wages and benefits while shipping what were good paying jobs to other countries.
Note that I've seen other people discussing this (ie, big business getting laws made to protect their interests) on the "start a petition" web sites.
I can't remember the last time I was allowed to have any input on a law passed by congress much less vote on it. Just as "regulatory capture" happens to regulatory agencies in the marketplace, our government has been captured. Now we have legislators for hire.
Consider how net neutrality is at risk. Those of us who understand why it's important have NO chance of preserving it. Especially now with the new admin about to take over. I can imagine the internet provider CEOs drooling and panting with anticipation about how they are going to extract even more profit from the general population once they kill net neutrality and take total control of the internet.
There's that big government problem again.
I get the impression that most of the "big government" growth has been initiated by big corporations and business interests. I suppose their lobbyists have to do something to justify their salaries.
I used Snopes to defend Bush Jr through part of his first and his entire second administration. People were sending me emails that were obviously inaccurate re him and his admin. I did this regardless of my political views. I just want the truth so we can make intelligent, informed decisions re our government.
I haven't met anyone on the right who has demonstrated that same level objectivity.
If Snopes were left-leaning, it would have been impossible for me to defend Bush all those years.
Republican Senator Ron Johnson in WI thinks they're competitors. I suspect you'll be able to find other Senators from both parties who feel the same.
I emphatically agree!
I've been trying to explain to people that the reason the ISPs want control is so they can monetize every freakin' thing that has to do with the internet.
If net neutrality is lost, the ISPs will find a way to make us pay for anything. And you can bet the ISPs will give priority to advertisers. Our stuff will sink to the bottom the list.
Do you mean there actually are anti-trust laws that are being enforced?
So let corporations be in control? I can't agree with that.
Corporations have shown time and again they have NO interest in supplying good service at a reasonable cost to their customers. (Comcast and TW) They want to maximize profit. They will find every way possible to achieve that goal. History proves this. The recent recession is a great example of that behavior. Not to mention Enron and a lot more.
Currently the ISPs have monopoly power. That's why I'm paying $85/mo for 20Mbps/2Mbps service. And it keeps going up because there is any competition.
@Shanen: I wholeheartedly agree. GE exists only because of inertia. But I think Immelt's management style has changed "the General" a little bit.
I've also been exposed to GE and their management philosophy. Welch was/is clueless. His "management style" is crude at best. Especially his idea that a manager can be effective anywhere in the organization. (IOW once you know how to manage, you can manage anything.) When Welch was running his massive PR campaign prior to his retirement from GE, he made a big deal about his basic management principals like he was some kind of management guru. The blowback he got from several business people via the WSJ was immediate and critical. Especially his idea that every year you fire the bottom 10% of performers in every department. Those critics exposed all kinds of problems in Welch's ideas. Suddenly Welch was adding all sorts of "qualifications" and "clarifications" to defend and explain his principals.
Welch was lucky he came on the scene when he did. GE had just turned itself into a bank with their finance service. That service became the primary revenue generator for the company. So Welch looked good.
Speaking of which, here's a great example of that "manage anywhere/anything" idea. A guy whose claim to fame as a manager was installing a GPS on every locomotive was transferred to become director of marketing for one of the medical device operations. Seriously. Like there is no difference between an MRI machine and a locomotive. To top it off, this guy was arrogant and crude. He alienated so many customers it was like a dark comedy. While at a big sales show, he shouted after one customer after alienating them that they would be back because "we are GE." Classy. Real classy. This guy never should have been a manager in the first place.
I am still in contact with previous coworkers so I hear about what is going on inside at least one of the GE divisions on a regular basis.
Shanen has it right.
I think you're right, jmd.
I'm hoping this is an aberration of sorts or a reflection of the angry political dialogue that has been going on for sometime now. Nobody can be objective anymore. They're caught up in the "somebody is wrong on the internet" thing and just can't let it go until they call that "somebody" out.
Let's get back to tech, science, etc. You know "News for Nerds."
Anyway...
You could say I've lost my belief in our politicians.
They all seem like game show hosts to me.
Sting -- If I ever lose my faith in you from the album Ten Summoner's Tales
You could say I've lost my belief in our politicians.
They all seem like game show hosts to me.
Sting -- If I ever lose my faith in you from the album Ten Summoner's Tales
Thank you for this. I have no mod points... so, again, thank you for this. It's past time for the "gutter sniping little shiats" to STFU.
You are absolutely correct, Jason unlike "tripleevenfall" who clearly has some kind of political agenda with re to that party on "the other side of the aisle" thing.
I recommend "tripleevenfall" review the origins of the Patriot Act. First of all, it was signed into law by a Republican Admin, but you'll see that everybody (ie, both political parties) were involved by introducing additional provisions, etc.
Axiom #10: It's easier to ask for forgiveness that it is for permission.
Midwest -- TWC -- 20down/2up -- $65/mo
I know the Dems are in favor of background checks. In fact, I think a majority of the population is in favor of that.
But I'm not aware of anyone saying that they "want to take our guns."
Have I missed something? Because I wouldn't be in favor of anyone taking our guns.