Normally by the time Authorities find it, and determine it is extremist, the damage has been done, as the content would probably be out there for days or weeks. Most of the Extremist ideas are stupid, but the people who is creating it and spewing it are not idiots, being extremists they will feel compelled to spew it, and will find ways around national authorities, and get the word out just as fast as before.
As I stated the invisible hand of capitalism causes a lot of pain the in the process. If prices get too high for people to afford, the company will go out of business due to lack of customers, or be forced to lower its prices. But for this correction to happen a lot of people will be hurt in the process.
This is why Socialism is a popular alternative, with higher regulations attached to a free market, it allows a lot of the pain to be eased. At the expense of massive growth.
knowing it is sarcasm. However Ill bite. If you are an iPhone user, you really don't need to upgrade every year. Every 4 to 6 years probably. Year 1: Congrads! you have a top of the line phone. Year 2: You are finally getting apps that will support your phones new features. (btw 6 months ago there was an Android competitor that is superior to your phone) Year 3: Your phone is getting kinda boring, Works fine, the apps have some new features that you really don't need too much. The features that were toys on your phone are starting to mature and become useful. Year 4: Your phone is starting to feel sluggish, but still usable. Just the newest apps out there don't work well. Year 5: That last iOS update gives you no real advantages, except for security patches. Everything you seem to run that you have updated is starting to run slow. Why are all the apps seeming to be 4 times as slow, as like they are staying current with mores law. Year 6: iOS will not support any updates on your phone, as also most apps will not update anymore. It is slow and starting to hinder anything productive you may want to use the phone for.
Going from an iPhone X to and Xs will not give you much, espctially as all the cool features on your X is now being supported.
The real problem isn't the economic system but the management withing the organization.
If rules are setup where a person or group is granted extra power and authority without correct checks and balances then one group will get everything and the other will not.
Communism and Socialism to a lesser extent needs an effective and fair governance to make sure just distribution of resources is given. Capitalism is can work with less governance as its invisible hand of Supply vs Demand will normally keep things balanced on the whole. However people are smart and abuse the system and can create a lot of extra pain and suffering on the way of being balanced. Where we are having government trying to guide this hand.
I try to avoid sarcasm online. Back in the mid-90's I made some sarcastic comments about a flat earth trying to point how how stupid it was to avoid Occam's Razor. Then a decade later I see this Flat Earth movement and I fear I may had helped cause that. I now avoid Sarcasm on the internet.
No, I got an MBA and they didn't teach that either. They did teach selling a product at a fare market value, and not to short sell your product and putting yourself in a race to the bottom. They also taught that it is difficult to raise a price of a product too much without the customers getting pissed and switch to alternatives.
I also took my MBA post Enron, so there was also a lot more emphasis in ethics. So much of this nonsense that these guys do was actually discouraged.
I think the guy in this story is misinterpreting "Maximizing profits for the shareholder" from Milton Friedman. Which tries to separate a company from being a charity at the expense of the shareholders. Say for example you have invested $100,000 into a company and you are a shareholder. Now the CEO decides not to use your investment towards company growth and operations but under the company donate your money anonymously to his church, where you will not get the investment back. Vs. the company using your money to support flood victims, with the Company Logo hanging proudly. The second scenario your money is going towards advertising and public relations which would in the long run help out the company, while the first is them taking your money then giving it to charity without your permission. The company is ethically responsible to properly deal with its money. But short term bonuses to shareholder isn't the point of the Friedman doctrinaire and isn't necessarily ethical especially if your company is suppose to be working for the public good.
It is not hypocritical if you think it in ways of doing the most political expedient way.
e-Cigarettes those are the things for those Millennial that everyone seems to hate, and it doesn't help that the jerkiest among them like to adjust their e-Cigarettes to puff vapor at a crazy level. But every generation had Jerks, like those Gen Xers who drive down the streets with cars with the mufflers modified to not muffle, with the bass on the radios shaking the town. Of those Boomers back in the 1960's with their Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll.
In comparison the e-Cigarettes, Cell phone using and Avocados are rather sane in comparison.
But there has been a big push to vilify the Millennial (probably due to being the first generation in America where the white majority is under 50%)
While Cigarettes are still the recreational drug of the hard worker class white man boomer. Who will vote in the elections.
Well they are banning flavored e-cigarettes not all e-cigarettes. As a non-smoker while I would love to see all smoking stopping. There is still too much of an economy behind tobacco to ban it. It is easier to ban small markets that are harmful then large ones which may be more harmful. Besides, they are too many smokers who would rebel.
The issue isn't What Microsoft did, but how they did it. Microsoft has the right to advertise their browser, however to intercept a on call to run a program and do a particular action because it is a competitors product is just bad form.
That would be like Linux putting an alert because you ran some non-gpl code in the OS. and you are getting a lecture on how Closed Source Software is so bad.
That is Google.com doing that not Chrome. That is an issue of a web page detecting your browser that you connect to its site and decided to show additional content.
What this seems to be doing, is intercepting particular OS CALLS AND ASKING YOU NOT TO RUN A COMPATIBLE PROGRAM
The problem with the boomer generation is that they never wanted to confront aging and death. The generation who said never trust anyone over 35, is now in their 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Previous generation had put in effort in supporting their kids and new employees and mentoring to be able to replace them when they were gone and working up the company ladder to success. Not so much now. The boomers will see a “kid” and if they are good at there job they will not fire him that day, or keep him in that position because he does a good job there. Vs seeing potential and giving them more responsibility and perhaps a raise to show for the new greater responsibilities.
You know this is Slashdot right? A place considered a haven for the stereotype guy living in his parents basement never going out and only communicating via computers. This stereotype is for the late baby boomers and gen X. Then we also had couch potatoes for kids who just sat there and watched TV all day.
Preteen and teen years are just brutal. Most of your friends are just kids who have their own problems but are tolerating your presence with them. That is why when we grow up many of our high school friends disappear from our lives. Heck texting and social media is probably preferred because it reduces the kid doesn’t blurt out something stupid that will get them made fun of.
Also of note the article just mentions the amount of time used not what there preferences are. Talking in person is often a difficult being that others can hear yourself on your phone, or just having to travel distance to meet people where you may not have a car.
Well the normal fear of technology was still prevalent even back in the 1960's The idea that machines and computers will in general make our lives useless was still an idea back then. The real problem is that technology never replaced workers, it just changed their work, and things that only a large company could do, is now possible with the smaller company, thus allowing its labor force to change its work, to help further expansion.
If the admin staff doesn't need to take all week to figure out how many hours each employee worked. Then they can focus on handling Vacation time, and sick days, then move their job to actual human resource work.
However the issue of 40 hours vs. 32 hours is more of a case of human ability vs. technology. 40 hours 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. is an easy to manage number. However having employees work 5 days a week at 6+ hours or 4 days a week at 8 hours. It solves the employee life problems, but it is just difficult for the company to manage coverage. This we can probably use computers to help calculate.
Being a Linux/Unix guy myself. With a trained administrator good a user policies Windows is actually rather good at security settings, and has been a stable system for over a decade now. It really took them 20 years to get to what they said Windows 95 would be like.
I normally feel like I am scamming my employer, because there is so much more I could do, but I keep on doing these simple things, and they are a like "Wow this is cool" However it is light years from what I would consider a proper solution.
If you are working in a job that is in High Demand, where there is a small supply. You are going to be wanted to be paid more. It isn't entitlement but Economics. Employees are their own independent business people. Millennial or not they are going to try to get the most of what people are willing to pay for them.
For the bean counters this makes sense. However if you are to dig further, you will find a skilled over-qualified worker can be 5x more effective then hiring some guy who says they know technology. I recently did a skill assessment for a job interview. The questions were so simple that I took more time trying to make sure they weren't trick questions. I have over 20+ years experience in the area. So such questions are no problem, however having given similar assessments in the past, I see so many jr. developers just fumble on the basic questions, this quiz that took me 30 minutes (mostly making sure I was following the questions) took these other developers hours to complete.
I think is suppose to mean that companies wan't software developers more then the measurable amount they pay back to the company.
Typically for a Software Company, if the product they are making and selling brings in more revenue then the cost to pay the developers, then they are worth the expense. In other sectors, The cost of a developer should be less then it would be to buy and pay for a support contract from such company listed above.
Those are the typical measure of value. However I think most of these companies are hiring developers for what use to be called Research and Development, however R&D is now considered a useless expense that will not get outside funding. However software development, even if it does everything that R&D does, just a different name, will get funding.
Most software developers have college degrees or at least equivalent amount of experience. The work required for successful development projects, actually needs such levels of education/experience. Most businesses need workers, but not too much in terms of highly trained specialists. So the businesses just don't know how to handle Software Developers. Either they just treat them like their normal work staff. Where they are micromanaged and just hindered from creating and thinking, thus paying them and not being able to improve your business because you are leaving skills on the table, because the management just doesn't understand why improving on something (even if it currently works) is valuable . Or they are treated as some aloof subgroup, where their is no leadership or direction thus they are not working on the right things to help improve the business. Often both conditions are how businesses handle the groups they are hindered from being creative and never working on a project that is needed. In theory if a company (assuming a non software development firm) could properly manger their development staff, then these developers would be extremely valuable to the company. However in practice, the development staff is so inefficient that they would be first to be laid off, not due to bad people, but bad management.
While this could be open for abuse, I don't think IBM was trying to be racist in this case, it is just a visual factor to help narrow down a search. Just like how law enforcement will also identify people by the tattoos or scars they may have.
1. If you look at the picture, it isn't a sharp corner. The curve radius is bigger then the earth. 2. Hexagons are natural aspects of squishing circles together. We see it in bubbles forming together and what bees make. It appears that there is some sort of outward force fighting the inward forces.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally by the time Authorities find it, and determine it is extremist, the damage has been done, as the content would probably be out there for days or weeks. Most of the Extremist ideas are stupid, but the people who is creating it and spewing it are not idiots, being extremists they will feel compelled to spew it, and will find ways around national authorities, and get the word out just as fast as before.
Technically that is normally years 3-5
As I stated the invisible hand of capitalism causes a lot of pain the in the process. If prices get too high for people to afford, the company will go out of business due to lack of customers, or be forced to lower its prices. But for this correction to happen a lot of people will be hurt in the process.
This is why Socialism is a popular alternative, with higher regulations attached to a free market, it allows a lot of the pain to be eased. At the expense of massive growth.
X Plus sounds like a clothing size for fat people.
knowing it is sarcasm. However Ill bite.
If you are an iPhone user, you really don't need to upgrade every year. Every 4 to 6 years probably.
Year 1: Congrads! you have a top of the line phone.
Year 2: You are finally getting apps that will support your phones new features. (btw 6 months ago there was an Android competitor that is superior to your phone)
Year 3: Your phone is getting kinda boring, Works fine, the apps have some new features that you really don't need too much. The features that were toys on your phone are starting to mature and become useful.
Year 4: Your phone is starting to feel sluggish, but still usable. Just the newest apps out there don't work well.
Year 5: That last iOS update gives you no real advantages, except for security patches. Everything you seem to run that you have updated is starting to run slow. Why are all the apps seeming to be 4 times as slow, as like they are staying current with mores law.
Year 6: iOS will not support any updates on your phone, as also most apps will not update anymore. It is slow and starting to hinder anything productive you may want to use the phone for.
Going from an iPhone X to and Xs will not give you much, espctially as all the cool features on your X is now being supported.
The real problem isn't the economic system but the management withing the organization.
If rules are setup where a person or group is granted extra power and authority without correct checks and balances then one group will get everything and the other will not.
Communism and Socialism to a lesser extent needs an effective and fair governance to make sure just distribution of resources is given.
Capitalism is can work with less governance as its invisible hand of Supply vs Demand will normally keep things balanced on the whole. However people are smart and abuse the system and can create a lot of extra pain and suffering on the way of being balanced. Where we are having government trying to guide this hand.
I try to avoid sarcasm online. Back in the mid-90's I made some sarcastic comments about a flat earth trying to point how how stupid it was to avoid Occam's Razor. Then a decade later I see this Flat Earth movement and I fear I may had helped cause that. I now avoid Sarcasm on the internet.
No, I got an MBA and they didn't teach that either.
They did teach selling a product at a fare market value, and not to short sell your product and putting yourself in a race to the bottom. They also taught that it is difficult to raise a price of a product too much without the customers getting pissed and switch to alternatives.
I also took my MBA post Enron, so there was also a lot more emphasis in ethics. So much of this nonsense that these guys do was actually discouraged.
I think the guy in this story is misinterpreting "Maximizing profits for the shareholder" from Milton Friedman. Which tries to separate a company from being a charity at the expense of the shareholders. Say for example you have invested $100,000 into a company and you are a shareholder. Now the CEO decides not to use your investment towards company growth and operations but under the company donate your money anonymously to his church, where you will not get the investment back. Vs. the company using your money to support flood victims, with the Company Logo hanging proudly. The second scenario your money is going towards advertising and public relations which would in the long run help out the company, while the first is them taking your money then giving it to charity without your permission. The company is ethically responsible to properly deal with its money. But short term bonuses to shareholder isn't the point of the Friedman doctrinaire and isn't necessarily ethical especially if your company is suppose to be working for the public good.
It is not hypocritical if you think it in ways of doing the most political expedient way.
e-Cigarettes those are the things for those Millennial that everyone seems to hate, and it doesn't help that the jerkiest among them like to adjust their e-Cigarettes to puff vapor at a crazy level. But every generation had Jerks, like those Gen Xers who drive down the streets with cars with the mufflers modified to not muffle, with the bass on the radios shaking the town. Of those Boomers back in the 1960's with their Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll.
In comparison the e-Cigarettes, Cell phone using and Avocados are rather sane in comparison.
But there has been a big push to vilify the Millennial (probably due to being the first generation in America where the white majority is under 50%)
While Cigarettes are still the recreational drug of the hard worker class white man boomer. Who will vote in the elections.
Well they are banning flavored e-cigarettes not all e-cigarettes. As a non-smoker while I would love to see all smoking stopping. There is still too much of an economy behind tobacco to ban it. It is easier to ban small markets that are harmful then large ones which may be more harmful.
Besides, they are too many smokers who would rebel.
The issue isn't What Microsoft did, but how they did it. Microsoft has the right to advertise their browser, however to intercept a on call to run a program and do a particular action because it is a competitors product is just bad form.
That would be like Linux putting an alert because you ran some non-gpl code in the OS. and you are getting a lecture on how Closed Source Software is so bad.
That is Google.com doing that not Chrome.
That is an issue of a web page detecting your browser that you connect to its site and decided to show additional content.
What this seems to be doing, is intercepting particular OS CALLS AND ASKING YOU NOT TO RUN A COMPATIBLE PROGRAM
The problem with the boomer generation is that they never wanted to confront aging and death. The generation who said never trust anyone over 35, is now in their 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.
Previous generation had put in effort in supporting their kids and new employees and mentoring to be able to replace them when they were gone and working up the company ladder to success.
Not so much now. The boomers will see a “kid” and if they are good at there job they will not fire him that day, or keep him in that position because he does a good job there. Vs seeing potential and giving them more responsibility and perhaps a raise to show for the new greater responsibilities.
You know this is Slashdot right? A place considered a haven for the stereotype guy living in his parents basement never going out and only communicating via computers.
This stereotype is for the late baby boomers and gen X.
Then we also had couch potatoes for kids who just sat there and watched TV all day.
Preteen and teen years are just brutal. Most of your friends are just kids who have their own problems but are tolerating your presence with them. That is why when we grow up many of our high school friends disappear from our lives.
Heck texting and social media is probably preferred because it reduces the kid doesn’t blurt out something stupid that will get them made fun of.
Also of note the article just mentions the amount of time used not what there preferences are. Talking in person is often a difficult being that others can hear yourself on your phone, or just having to travel distance to meet people where you may not have a car.
Well the normal fear of technology was still prevalent even back in the 1960's The idea that machines and computers will in general make our lives useless was still an idea back then.
The real problem is that technology never replaced workers, it just changed their work, and things that only a large company could do, is now possible with the smaller company, thus allowing its labor force to change its work, to help further expansion.
If the admin staff doesn't need to take all week to figure out how many hours each employee worked. Then they can focus on handling Vacation time, and sick days, then move their job to actual human resource work.
However the issue of 40 hours vs. 32 hours is more of a case of human ability vs. technology. 40 hours 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. is an easy to manage number. However having employees work 5 days a week at 6+ hours or 4 days a week at 8 hours. It solves the employee life problems, but it is just difficult for the company to manage coverage. This we can probably use computers to help calculate.
I thought right to repair laws were interesting to Slashdot?
For many large farms, their farming equipment is far more advanced and cutting edge, then most silicon valley firms.
If you really want to play with the high tech stuff go into farming.
Being a Linux/Unix guy myself. With a trained administrator good a user policies Windows is actually rather good at security settings, and has been a stable system for over a decade now.
It really took them 20 years to get to what they said Windows 95 would be like.
I normally feel like I am scamming my employer, because there is so much more I could do, but I keep on doing these simple things, and they are a like "Wow this is cool" However it is light years from what I would consider a proper solution.
If you are working in a job that is in High Demand, where there is a small supply. You are going to be wanted to be paid more. It isn't entitlement but Economics.
Employees are their own independent business people. Millennial or not they are going to try to get the most of what people are willing to pay for them.
For the bean counters this makes sense. However if you are to dig further, you will find a skilled over-qualified worker can be 5x more effective then hiring some guy who says they know technology.
I recently did a skill assessment for a job interview. The questions were so simple that I took more time trying to make sure they weren't trick questions. I have over 20+ years experience in the area. So such questions are no problem, however having given similar assessments in the past, I see so many jr. developers just fumble on the basic questions, this quiz that took me 30 minutes (mostly making sure I was following the questions) took these other developers hours to complete.
I think is suppose to mean that companies wan't software developers more then the measurable amount they pay back to the company.
Typically for a Software Company, if the product they are making and selling brings in more revenue then the cost to pay the developers, then they are worth the expense.
In other sectors, The cost of a developer should be less then it would be to buy and pay for a support contract from such company listed above.
Those are the typical measure of value.
However I think most of these companies are hiring developers for what use to be called Research and Development, however R&D is now considered a useless expense that will not get outside funding. However software development, even if it does everything that R&D does, just a different name, will get funding.
Most software developers have college degrees or at least equivalent amount of experience. The work required for successful development projects, actually needs such levels of education/experience.
Most businesses need workers, but not too much in terms of highly trained specialists. So the businesses just don't know how to handle Software Developers. Either they just treat them like their normal work staff. Where they are micromanaged and just hindered from creating and thinking, thus paying them and not being able to improve your business because you are leaving skills on the table, because the management just doesn't understand why improving on something (even if it currently works) is valuable . Or they are treated as some aloof subgroup, where their is no leadership or direction thus they are not working on the right things to help improve the business.
Often both conditions are how businesses handle the groups they are hindered from being creative and never working on a project that is needed. In theory if a company (assuming a non software development firm) could properly manger their development staff, then these developers would be extremely valuable to the company. However in practice, the development staff is so inefficient that they would be first to be laid off, not due to bad people, but bad management.
While this could be open for abuse, I don't think IBM was trying to be racist in this case, it is just a visual factor to help narrow down a search. Just like how law enforcement will also identify people by the tattoos or scars they may have.
1. If you look at the picture, it isn't a sharp corner. The curve radius is bigger then the earth.
2. Hexagons are natural aspects of squishing circles together. We see it in bubbles forming together and what bees make. It appears that there is some sort of outward force fighting the inward forces.
Well it probably reduces the sound of it shaking on the ground.