OK, whoever the decision makers at your company are, they obviously have never paid attention to the history of Microsoft. When Microsoft said that Silverlight would be "everywhere", they meant that it would be on all computers running a Microsoft OS (assuming that they didn't decide that Silverlight had become obsolete before that happened--which it did). Second, why would you use a Microsoft development tool if you wanted something to be cross platform (unless by cross platform you mean running on both Apple and Microsoft computers)?
Can you point out *any* low incidence, high impact risks that Humanity has dealt with effectively?
Excessive horse manure. In the late 19th century, there was much discussion about how cities in America and Western Europe would be overwhelmed by the amount of horse manure being generated by the increasing commerce going on. There was a significant amount of talk that economic growth would have to stop because of reaching the limit of horse manure that could be dealt with.
That is interesting and if it is well enough documented I hope the lawyers arguing against this law bring it up. The conservative Justices on this Court are very receptive to "original intent" arguments. I think that even 99 years is way too long, but it would be nice to have a Supreme Court ruling that says that anything more than 99 years clearly exceeds "limited time" as understood by the Framers of the Constitution.
The thing is that there has been a change of four Justices since the Eldred ruling. I don't know how the new Justices will rule on this issue. I would expect Kagan and Sotomayer to rule against Golan, since they, generally, favor a very expansive interpretation of the Commerce clause. However, liberals are often anti-copyright, so they may surprise me. I have no idea how Roberts or Alito view copyright (in particular the copyright clause of the Constitution).
I think that this decision will tell us a lot about this Court.
A couple of years ago, someone did the math. At today's tuition rates, if you get out of high school, get a job that pays average for a person with a high school degree (and continue to hold a job that pays average for a person with a high school degree and your amount of experience), immediately start putting the maximum into a 401K plan, you will have more money at retirement age than someone who gets an undergraduate degree that holds down a job that pays the average for an undergraduate degree and pays off their student loan and saves for retirement.
The question is whether or not Apple thinks the market for people who create content is large enough to bother with. It is possible that Apple thinks there is a chance that they can do just fine with people producing content for their devices on equipment purchased from other vendors. It is, also, possible that they think that IOS devices will be powerful enough to be used to create content before this strategy comes to fruition.
To repeat, I do not think this yet reaches the level of corporate strategy. I would bet that at this point it represents a strategy of positioning the company to follow this strategy if future developments continue in the direction that at least some of Apple planners expect it to.
I rarely actually click on the link in stories like this, the summary is sufficient (so it is really not very effective link bait in my case). Personally, I think there is something to this conjecture, although probably not to the level of an actual corporate strategy. I would think it would be more of a, "This looks like a successful direction to move over the next several years. Let's position the IOS portion of our business to do this, while continuing to maintain our current Macintosh strategy." I could easily see Apple setting up the IOS side up to replace OSX, while at the same time maintaining OSX and researching where to take it in the future. Then if the IOS division swallows the OSX market, great. But if it doesn't, or some new development takes the OSX division into new areas that IOS cannot follow, then continue with OSX (or its successor OS).
You know there is one problem. The poster you replied to said, "...the designers still make plenty of money," and you replied, "This is generally nonsense. Most high end fashion companies make very little money." Well, you see "designers" aren't companies, they are people. You even go on to support his statement when you say, "Their labor costs are very, very high,..." Who do you think those high labor costs go to? That's right, to the designers.
Of course, that does mean that the OP's point doesn't really work either. However, whether or not the fashion industry represents a workable model for the rest of the "creative" industries to thrive without copyright is a very complex issue that is not amenable to careful analysis in a forum such as this.
Actually, this is partly because of the way their system works. There is a two stage process going on here. The first part is that no company in China would make such a statement unless they were instructed to do so by the government. Second, since if such an attack against a Chinese company was coming from a city in a foreign country, China would assume it was government sponsored, they assume that Google and other foreign groups are making a veiled statement that this attack is coming from the Chinese government. Of course, the fact that this attack probably is coming from the Chinese government increases their paranoia.
The Chinese still have trouble understanding that there is not some group that actually controls the U.S government with elected officials just being fronts for that group. While there is something to the idea that there are behind the scenes people who manipulate U.S. government policy, those people are not a monolithic group that has a clear hierarchy of who is in charge. Instead the behind the scenes people who strongly influence U.S. government policy (sometimes to the degree of actually controlling it) are people with competing interests whose ability to influence U.S. government policy waxes and wanes depending on the outcome of each election (and who is able to get their proxies elected and how much control they have over that particular set of politicians).
To be fair, there are a few Democrats who are in bed with a few industries, but nothing like the wholesale sellout that is the modern Republican party.
You are blind. The overwhelming majority of the richest counties in the U.S. vote overwhelmingly Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is the party of big government and big corporations. The Democratic Party favors more government regulation of various industries. So do large corporations (government regulation creates a barrier to entry to potential competitors). The only reason for a poor or working class person to vote for a Democrat is because they like being dependent on the government.
What made you think that? When have I ever shown Democratic Party leanings? Despite what they teach you in schools, the Democratic Party is the party of big corporations.
Yes, I would take the person who has proven that she can stand up to corrupt politicians and big business over the proto-fascist currently in the White House.
And while it is true that "you can't take their guns" is a reasonable inference from "they are ready and waiting for you", it is also a reasonable inference that "you can't take their trousers" or "you can't quarter soldiers in their homes", but for some reason you don't mention either of those,...
That is because the British soldiers that Revere talked to on this occassion were marching in order to take away the colonists' guns, not their trousers, nor to quarter soldiers in their homes.
I have actually seen the video of her comment and what she said was consistent with the history of the incident, see ArcherB's post further down the thread.
Maybe, but most of the opponents of it were opponents of it before that report came out. For that matter most of the opponents of the voucher program were opponents of it before it was introduced.
The problem with large schools is accountability. It is very hard for parents in a large school district to hold the administration of the school district accountable. Considering how badly most public schools in the U.S. do at teaching basic skills (reading, writing, math), I think worrying about schools having a wide variety of advanced classes is putting the cart before the horse. First we need to make sure that the overwhelming majority of students are well taught the basic skills, then we can start to think about how to tweak the system to teach advanced subjects. Right now, if your kid is one of the few who would benefit from those advanced subjects being taught in high school, pony up and send them to a private school that does so.
The purpose of the modern education system is to precisely be replacement parents so that the real parents can be off being "productive members of society" in factories/cube farms.
Actually, modern education was designed to become replacement parents because the founding thinkers of the academic discipline of efucation did not like the values that many parents taught their children. Unfortunately, we as a society are discovering that the values those "thinkers" preferred are not a very good base for a stable society.
You are right about it being a political position, but who do you think funds most election campaigns for school district positions? For the most part, the majority of campaign contributions for school board seats come from the teachers' unions.
Or, you can be like DC and pay more for schools and have a large crime problem.
I would agree with your idea of small, local elementary schools, but not just elementary schools, all the way through high school. I would suggest that the education system in this country would be vastly improved by reversing the school consolidation of the 20th Century.
Sorry, rich parents were not eligible for the DC voucher program. Want to try again? (I'll give you a hint, look at the list of largest campaign donors, see if you can recognize one that has an interest in preserving the status quo of the education system).
Perhaps you are unaware that not all private schools in DC are as expensive as Sidwell Friends School? As a matter of fact, I am quite confident that no other private schools in DC are as expensive as Sidwell Friends School.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, whoever the decision makers at your company are, they obviously have never paid attention to the history of Microsoft. When Microsoft said that Silverlight would be "everywhere", they meant that it would be on all computers running a Microsoft OS (assuming that they didn't decide that Silverlight had become obsolete before that happened--which it did). Second, why would you use a Microsoft development tool if you wanted something to be cross platform (unless by cross platform you mean running on both Apple and Microsoft computers)?
Can you point out *any* low incidence, high impact risks that Humanity has dealt with effectively?
Excessive horse manure. In the late 19th century, there was much discussion about how cities in America and Western Europe would be overwhelmed by the amount of horse manure being generated by the increasing commerce going on. There was a significant amount of talk that economic growth would have to stop because of reaching the limit of horse manure that could be dealt with.
That is interesting and if it is well enough documented I hope the lawyers arguing against this law bring it up. The conservative Justices on this Court are very receptive to "original intent" arguments. I think that even 99 years is way too long, but it would be nice to have a Supreme Court ruling that says that anything more than 99 years clearly exceeds "limited time" as understood by the Framers of the Constitution.
The thing is that there has been a change of four Justices since the Eldred ruling. I don't know how the new Justices will rule on this issue. I would expect Kagan and Sotomayer to rule against Golan, since they, generally, favor a very expansive interpretation of the Commerce clause. However, liberals are often anti-copyright, so they may surprise me. I have no idea how Roberts or Alito view copyright (in particular the copyright clause of the Constitution).
I think that this decision will tell us a lot about this Court.
Obama is more of a George Soros sock-puppet than Palin is a Koch Industries sock-puppet.
A couple of years ago, someone did the math. At today's tuition rates, if you get out of high school, get a job that pays average for a person with a high school degree (and continue to hold a job that pays average for a person with a high school degree and your amount of experience), immediately start putting the maximum into a 401K plan, you will have more money at retirement age than someone who gets an undergraduate degree that holds down a job that pays the average for an undergraduate degree and pays off their student loan and saves for retirement.
The question is whether or not Apple thinks the market for people who create content is large enough to bother with. It is possible that Apple thinks there is a chance that they can do just fine with people producing content for their devices on equipment purchased from other vendors. It is, also, possible that they think that IOS devices will be powerful enough to be used to create content before this strategy comes to fruition.
To repeat, I do not think this yet reaches the level of corporate strategy. I would bet that at this point it represents a strategy of positioning the company to follow this strategy if future developments continue in the direction that at least some of Apple planners expect it to.
I rarely actually click on the link in stories like this, the summary is sufficient (so it is really not very effective link bait in my case). Personally, I think there is something to this conjecture, although probably not to the level of an actual corporate strategy. I would think it would be more of a, "This looks like a successful direction to move over the next several years. Let's position the IOS portion of our business to do this, while continuing to maintain our current Macintosh strategy." I could easily see Apple setting up the IOS side up to replace OSX, while at the same time maintaining OSX and researching where to take it in the future. Then if the IOS division swallows the OSX market, great. But if it doesn't, or some new development takes the OSX division into new areas that IOS cannot follow, then continue with OSX (or its successor OS).
You know there is one problem. The poster you replied to said, "...the designers still make plenty of money," and you replied, "This is generally nonsense. Most high end fashion companies make very little money." Well, you see "designers" aren't companies, they are people. You even go on to support his statement when you say, "Their labor costs are very, very high,..." Who do you think those high labor costs go to? That's right, to the designers.
Of course, that does mean that the OP's point doesn't really work either. However, whether or not the fashion industry represents a workable model for the rest of the "creative" industries to thrive without copyright is a very complex issue that is not amenable to careful analysis in a forum such as this.
Actually, this is partly because of the way their system works. There is a two stage process going on here. The first part is that no company in China would make such a statement unless they were instructed to do so by the government. Second, since if such an attack against a Chinese company was coming from a city in a foreign country, China would assume it was government sponsored, they assume that Google and other foreign groups are making a veiled statement that this attack is coming from the Chinese government. Of course, the fact that this attack probably is coming from the Chinese government increases their paranoia.
The Chinese still have trouble understanding that there is not some group that actually controls the U.S government with elected officials just being fronts for that group. While there is something to the idea that there are behind the scenes people who manipulate U.S. government policy, those people are not a monolithic group that has a clear hierarchy of who is in charge. Instead the behind the scenes people who strongly influence U.S. government policy (sometimes to the degree of actually controlling it) are people with competing interests whose ability to influence U.S. government policy waxes and wanes depending on the outcome of each election (and who is able to get their proxies elected and how much control they have over that particular set of politicians).
To be fair, there are a few Democrats who are in bed with a few industries, but nothing like the wholesale sellout that is the modern Republican party.
You are blind. The overwhelming majority of the richest counties in the U.S. vote overwhelmingly Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is the party of big government and big corporations. The Democratic Party favors more government regulation of various industries. So do large corporations (government regulation creates a barrier to entry to potential competitors). The only reason for a poor or working class person to vote for a Democrat is because they like being dependent on the government.
But I thought you were all for corporations?
What made you think that? When have I ever shown Democratic Party leanings? Despite what they teach you in schools, the Democratic Party is the party of big corporations.
Yes, I would take the person who has proven that she can stand up to corrupt politicians and big business over the proto-fascist currently in the White House.
As opposed to the current President? Absolutely.
Well, it's better than what liberals do and just pretend that their heros didn't say the things they said (Obama, "I have visited all 57 states").
And while it is true that "you can't take their guns" is a reasonable inference from "they are ready and waiting for you", it is also a reasonable inference that "you can't take their trousers" or "you can't quarter soldiers in their homes", but for some reason you don't mention either of those,...
That is because the British soldiers that Revere talked to on this occassion were marching in order to take away the colonists' guns, not their trousers, nor to quarter soldiers in their homes.
I have actually seen the video of her comment and what she said was consistent with the history of the incident, see ArcherB's post further down the thread.
You do realize that Paul Revere was captured on his ride and did warn the British that they would not be able to take away the colonists' guns?
Maybe, but most of the opponents of it were opponents of it before that report came out. For that matter most of the opponents of the voucher program were opponents of it before it was introduced.
The problem with large schools is accountability. It is very hard for parents in a large school district to hold the administration of the school district accountable. Considering how badly most public schools in the U.S. do at teaching basic skills (reading, writing, math), I think worrying about schools having a wide variety of advanced classes is putting the cart before the horse. First we need to make sure that the overwhelming majority of students are well taught the basic skills, then we can start to think about how to tweak the system to teach advanced subjects. Right now, if your kid is one of the few who would benefit from those advanced subjects being taught in high school, pony up and send them to a private school that does so.
The purpose of the modern education system is to precisely be replacement parents so that the real parents can be off being "productive members of society" in factories/cube farms.
Actually, modern education was designed to become replacement parents because the founding thinkers of the academic discipline of efucation did not like the values that many parents taught their children. Unfortunately, we as a society are discovering that the values those "thinkers" preferred are not a very good base for a stable society.
You are right about it being a political position, but who do you think funds most election campaigns for school district positions? For the most part, the majority of campaign contributions for school board seats come from the teachers' unions.
Or, you can be like DC and pay more for schools and have a large crime problem.
I would agree with your idea of small, local elementary schools, but not just elementary schools, all the way through high school. I would suggest that the education system in this country would be vastly improved by reversing the school consolidation of the 20th Century.
Sorry, rich parents were not eligible for the DC voucher program. Want to try again? (I'll give you a hint, look at the list of largest campaign donors, see if you can recognize one that has an interest in preserving the status quo of the education system).
Perhaps you are unaware that not all private schools in DC are as expensive as Sidwell Friends School? As a matter of fact, I am quite confident that no other private schools in DC are as expensive as Sidwell Friends School.