Actually, P/E is a terrible measure these days given the crazy valuations in the market. It would be fine with sane valuations. But I agree in principle that capital is worth more than 0.
But even minus a specific metric, it would stand to reason that pay should have scaled roughly with productivity in a fair system. But note that pay is stagnant for decades while productivity has risen steadily.
Another metric would be executive compensation to median wage. That has gone from 30 or so up into the hundreds.
Small business actually tends to be a bit closer to reasonable since the owner tends to also act as an employee (out of necessity).
It's funny you mention bubbles. We seem to have a lot of them. That would be capital sucking royally at it's job. What is supposed to happen when you suck royally at your job? When's the last time you saw a former investment banker asking "want fries with that?"?
Perhaps once the more egregious abuses are hammered out and the question can be discussed rationally and publically, we can settle on reasonable numbers. But first we need to get the thumbs off of the scale.
That's the more legitimate questions. There is a need to go up the chain. Someone somewhere on that chain applied threats without having threats applied to them. That's where the buck stops.
Conspiracy is a loaded word. In the case of Firefox and Gnome, the connotations are likely not warranted at all. We can, however, say in fairness that all decision makers involved are fully deserving of whatever credit or blame the result may bring. In the case of Gnome and Firefox, I would say more blame than credit, and not a small measure of shame. Of course, that does not involve criminal charges.
The same is true in Volkswagen, the decision makers are all due credit or blame. Here, there is certainly blame but in addition, there ARE criminal charges to be shared. Because of that, the connotations of 'conspiracy' really do fit.
Pure unadulterated sophistry, and un-Constitutional at that. First, I don't recall any region codes on the Constitution. Second, what flag flies over the U.S. base in Cuba? Is Castro in charge on the base?
No, it's based on making sure the many other people who labored to create those things get their fair share. Otherwise you'll have libertarian pseudo-heroes acting as if their 'great works' were accomplished single handed.
For example, iFixit broke their legal agreement with Apple: is that "criminal" behavior? You could say that, no, it's not, because it's a civil dispute and not technically "criminal".
Correct. It is a civil matter.
On the other hand, copyright, trademark, and patent disputes are generally civil disputes, so can Apple remove content where the intellectual property ownership is in dispute?
If a takedown is issues, they can in order to comply with the DMCA, but they MUST pout it back up if a counter-claim is filed. Otherwise, they may take it down if they receive a court order to do so.
If Apple would care to shed this ethical obligation, they can open the walled garden a bit by issuing an update that permits iPhones to side load.
If they're suing for trademark, then they kind of have to.
Actually, they don't, that's a myth created by assholes that don't want to look like assholes. Other valid defenses of the mark include sending a letter granting a one time only limited license and cautioning the person not to do it again, offering a license for $1, granting a revocable continuing license, etc.
However, when the ad is for 5 years experience in 3 year old technology, it shouldn't be that hard to nail them to the wall if they hire an H1-B for the position since he provably doesn't meet that requirement.
So what makes aircraft especially privileged? The airspace belongs to the people and so users of it must share equitably with each other. Manned aircraft have no special moral claim to priority in that sharing.
For safety reasons, it makes sense to segregate air traffic and there is a compelling interest in keeping manned aircraft flying but that doesn't mean drones shouldn't be operating with as few impediments as possible.
However, It's not as important to get my app approved by Google since Android doesn't refuse to install apps from other sources even if Google hates them.By building the garden walls so high, Apple takes on an ethical obligation to be open to anything non-criminal that doesn't actually harm the user.
True, and if Apple's response had been to strike them off the list for any future pre-release products, I would find that completely understandable. But in addition, Apple pulled their app from the app store.
You still seem unable/unwilling to understand that the chip and pin is totally worthless as a security measure for anything but a card present transaction.
Your workplace will rapidly fill with nothing but the deadwood who couldn't get a job anywhere else. If someone decent accidentally goes to work for you, he'll be gone as soon as his resume finishes printing.
The PHONE would be circa 1970 (no reader, no nothing, just voice), the transaction could be taking place this very moment and the chip in the card does nothing. That is, all that supposed extra security can be readily bypassed by a carder, and so it isn't really all that secure.
They wouldn't really need to carry the device around, they could just connect it to their PC (USB would be more than fast enough) for ordering over the web.
I think you whooshed. I mean you are talking to someone on your plain old telephone circa 1970 and read your card details off to pay for something. No TPM, no chip, just like the insecure old days. If that goes through, then none of the new measures matter much in the long run, they just shift the problem a bit.
So what happens if you order over the web or phone? I'm guessing the front door looks like a bank vault and the back door is a flimsy screen door as always.
To really be secure, the card should be usable with a small terminal to sign web transactions.
Slashdot Mirror
They may do so in order to comply with the law. I grant that mostly because I don't see where they should be ethically compelled to violate the law.
I am not aware of any law that allows for take down notices based on alleged violation of an NDA, are you?
If they would like to give it a try, they could seek a court order to take down the iFixit app on the basis of an NDA violation.
But them doing it on their own vs based on a court order is the difference between due process and vigilante justice.
Actually, P/E is a terrible measure these days given the crazy valuations in the market. It would be fine with sane valuations. But I agree in principle that capital is worth more than 0.
But even minus a specific metric, it would stand to reason that pay should have scaled roughly with productivity in a fair system. But note that pay is stagnant for decades while productivity has risen steadily.
Another metric would be executive compensation to median wage. That has gone from 30 or so up into the hundreds.
Small business actually tends to be a bit closer to reasonable since the owner tends to also act as an employee (out of necessity).
It's funny you mention bubbles. We seem to have a lot of them. That would be capital sucking royally at it's job. What is supposed to happen when you suck royally at your job? When's the last time you saw a former investment banker asking "want fries with that?"?
Perhaps once the more egregious abuses are hammered out and the question can be discussed rationally and publically, we can settle on reasonable numbers. But first we need to get the thumbs off of the scale.
That's the more legitimate questions. There is a need to go up the chain. Someone somewhere on that chain applied threats without having threats applied to them. That's where the buck stops.
Conspiracy is a loaded word. In the case of Firefox and Gnome, the connotations are likely not warranted at all. We can, however, say in fairness that all decision makers involved are fully deserving of whatever credit or blame the result may bring. In the case of Gnome and Firefox, I would say more blame than credit, and not a small measure of shame. Of course, that does not involve criminal charges.
The same is true in Volkswagen, the decision makers are all due credit or blame. Here, there is certainly blame but in addition, there ARE criminal charges to be shared. Because of that, the connotations of 'conspiracy' really do fit.
Pure unadulterated sophistry, and un-Constitutional at that. First, I don't recall any region codes on the Constitution. Second, what flag flies over the U.S. base in Cuba? Is Castro in charge on the base?
I'm fairly sure they would have to have an extradition hearing before handing you over. They could detain you for that hearing.
Or he (and many here) disagree with the Supreme court on that.
No, it's based on making sure the many other people who labored to create those things get their fair share. Otherwise you'll have libertarian pseudo-heroes acting as if their 'great works' were accomplished single handed.
For example, iFixit broke their legal agreement with Apple: is that "criminal" behavior? You could say that, no, it's not, because it's a civil dispute and not technically "criminal".
Correct. It is a civil matter.
On the other hand, copyright, trademark, and patent disputes are generally civil disputes, so can Apple remove content where the intellectual property ownership is in dispute?
If a takedown is issues, they can in order to comply with the DMCA, but they MUST pout it back up if a counter-claim is filed. Otherwise, they may take it down if they receive a court order to do so.
If Apple would care to shed this ethical obligation, they can open the walled garden a bit by issuing an update that permits iPhones to side load.
If they're suing for trademark, then they kind of have to.
Actually, they don't, that's a myth created by assholes that don't want to look like assholes. Other valid defenses of the mark include sending a letter granting a one time only limited license and cautioning the person not to do it again, offering a license for $1, granting a revocable continuing license, etc.
However, when the ad is for 5 years experience in 3 year old technology, it shouldn't be that hard to nail them to the wall if they hire an H1-B for the position since he provably doesn't meet that requirement.
Sure, but that has yet to be done, so...
So what makes aircraft especially privileged? The airspace belongs to the people and so users of it must share equitably with each other. Manned aircraft have no special moral claim to priority in that sharing.
For safety reasons, it makes sense to segregate air traffic and there is a compelling interest in keeping manned aircraft flying but that doesn't mean drones shouldn't be operating with as few impediments as possible.
However, It's not as important to get my app approved by Google since Android doesn't refuse to install apps from other sources even if Google hates them.By building the garden walls so high, Apple takes on an ethical obligation to be open to anything non-criminal that doesn't actually harm the user.
True, and if Apple's response had been to strike them off the list for any future pre-release products, I would find that completely understandable. But in addition, Apple pulled their app from the app store.
They committed a few million counts of fraud.
If an individual did this, they would have manufactured a list of charges a mile long by now based on the craziest of legal theories.
Here, fraud presents itself quite naturally and they can't seem to find it.
So they'll order by mail or the web.
You still seem unable/unwilling to understand that the chip and pin is totally worthless as a security measure for anything but a card present transaction.
Your workplace will rapidly fill with nothing but the deadwood who couldn't get a job anywhere else. If someone decent accidentally goes to work for you, he'll be gone as soon as his resume finishes printing.
The PHONE would be circa 1970 (no reader, no nothing, just voice), the transaction could be taking place this very moment and the chip in the card does nothing. That is, all that supposed extra security can be readily bypassed by a carder, and so it isn't really all that secure.
They wouldn't really need to carry the device around, they could just connect it to their PC (USB would be more than fast enough) for ordering over the web.
I think you whooshed. I mean you are talking to someone on your plain old telephone circa 1970 and read your card details off to pay for something. No TPM, no chip, just like the insecure old days. If that goes through, then none of the new measures matter much in the long run, they just shift the problem a bit.
So what happens if you order over the web or phone? I'm guessing the front door looks like a bank vault and the back door is a flimsy screen door as always.
To really be secure, the card should be usable with a small terminal to sign web transactions.
Nor is anyone willing to be reasonable in the offer of license.
So your argument is that since we have had theft as long as there have been things to steal, it's not really wrong to steal?
VW defrauded a few million people.