This is, of course, nonsense. What is holding the entire process back is greed.
Apple makes large margins on the sales of iProducts. If they were interested, they could pass some, not even a lot, of that back to their suppliers and conditions there would improve. But they do not; they keep those margins, which are as large as they are precisely because they pay their suppliers as little as possible.
These people are in poor working conditions, not because it is inevitable, but because it is cheap.
Listen if you come into my cubicle and say, "clustered indexes do not feature data on the leaf level," I am not discussing it with you, either. You don't know what you're talking about and deep down we both know it. If you don't trust me to do my job then don't come to me for my expertise. Why should I let your ignorance waste my time? If you don't care enough to get even a basic education on the subject, then trust the experts.
The kind of people refusing vaccinations are often also the kind who will be the first in line to sue you when their precious baby contracts polio and they read on the Internet that you could have prevented it.
It might not be the applicant's fault. I used to send resumes in plain text because that was the IT way when I was a lad, but most recruiters and a lot of employers explicitly ask for Word format these days. I finally gave in about a year ago.
Neither, actually. The truth is that for all the noise, piracy hasn't hurt the movie industry in any demonstrable way (best three box office years in history? 2009, 2010, and 2011, despite record piracy and a bad economy.) However, they can use it as a pretense to maintain/raise prices in the face of falling costs, and as a scare tactic to push through advantageous legislation. There is no reason for them to actually want to win this war - they are making far more money "fighting" it than they would gain if it stopped.
There is a large difference between pointing out that posting NO MURDER signs is ineffective and expensive and should be discontinued, and saying that trying to stop murder is a waste of time.
DRM doesn't address piracy in the least and has the most negative impact on paying customers. It is a blatantly terrible solution. So why is it used? The industry mindset seems to be to eradicate piracy entirely, which is just as misguided as making policies that will (fail to) completely eradicate murder. That does not mean that there are not other ways to effectively combat the piracy that matters - the actual lost sales. The article suggests a couple of ways to do that.
It is not an unreasonable stance, nor particularly pro-piracy.
Companies don't think long-term anymore. The short-term incredible windfall from curing AIDS would make everyone on the board among the richest people who ever lived. Nobody is going to pass on that so that the company will be healthier in twenty years time.
Irrelevant; getting something wrong isn't evolution, it's just incorrect.
Words have meanings. These meanings cannot be arbitrary, or they lose their purpose. Words can and do change over time, but after the change there still exist correct and incorrect uses of those words! Accept a correction, learn, and move on. Don't argue that you are re-inventing language with your ignorance. Expecting the world to standardize to your understanding instead of bothering to learn the standard everyone else is using is the height of arrogance, whether lazy people like it or not.
That is true, but when unemployment and underemployment are approaching 20% while companies record profits at an all-time high, it's not bad luck anymore.
People weren't demonstrating in 2006, even though the wealth disparity was just as bad. Nobody is really demanding that the super-rich rain their dollars into the streets; all anybody wants is a slice of the pie big enough to eat. The masses have proven for twenty years that they are not that difficult to pacify, but unbridled greed doesn't even want to let crumbs fall from the table.
Even taking recent gains into account, since 2007 we've lost over a million jobs. That means over a million people are not working, not because they are lazy or worthless, but because there is no job for them. A lot more people aren't technically unemployed, but are underemployed. I can see your eyes glazing over already, because I'm not talking about you.
Do I have to do the math to show you that taking out a mortgage when you have a job, then losing that job through no fault of your own, does not equal a bad-faith transaction with the bank? Your job hasn't been shipped to India; congratulations, but remaining blissfully unaware, while a valid choice, does not require stupidly trumpeting your ignorance for all to see. It's a sub-optimal decision you're making.
Even then it's not BigCorp's fault, but still somehow the doing of poor people; they did it with their welfare and tax breaks and bad mortgages. The poor obviously have all the power in this country, and rich people are being exploited. If you listen closely you can hear the fairway weeping.
Anything is better than actually thinking about this issue, isn't it? Those people are there because they deserve to be, by God. Now, back to the cricket scores, eh wot?
Depends on the root problem. The anti-intellectualism could simply be a defense mechanism adopted by people who perceive that things like computing and higher education are not available to them, and so adopt an attitude that what they cannot have is undesirable anyway. If you change this perception, they might begin to abandon the attitude.
If there was a vested interest in hiding it, it could be very, very hard. I would hesitate to underestimate the financial creativity of corporate America.
Have not been repeated yet. People have been hurt. It's only a matter of time before some Occupy kids decide they've had enough and actually fight back; if some of the cops are willing to assault completely peaceful protesters, what will they do given a reason to be afraid? It seems very unlikely to me that they will suddenly become professionals with a modicum of restraint. It doesn't take a corrupt police force; just one coward with a gun. We've already seen that those are being deployed to these events. I think it is inevitable unless the protests die out fairly quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
This is, of course, nonsense. What is holding the entire process back is greed.
Apple makes large margins on the sales of iProducts. If they were interested, they could pass some, not even a lot, of that back to their suppliers and conditions there would improve. But they do not; they keep those margins, which are as large as they are precisely because they pay their suppliers as little as possible.
These people are in poor working conditions, not because it is inevitable, but because it is cheap.
The diamond industry begs to differ.
Bailouts are not free; you must invest in lobbyists to see a return.
Listen if you come into my cubicle and say, "clustered indexes do not feature data on the leaf level," I am not discussing it with you, either. You don't know what you're talking about and deep down we both know it. If you don't trust me to do my job then don't come to me for my expertise. Why should I let your ignorance waste my time? If you don't care enough to get even a basic education on the subject, then trust the experts.
The kind of people refusing vaccinations are often also the kind who will be the first in line to sue you when their precious baby contracts polio and they read on the Internet that you could have prevented it.
It might not be the applicant's fault. I used to send resumes in plain text because that was the IT way when I was a lad, but most recruiters and a lot of employers explicitly ask for Word format these days. I finally gave in about a year ago.
This isn't how patents work. You are confusing them with trademark law.
Neither, actually. The truth is that for all the noise, piracy hasn't hurt the movie industry in any demonstrable way (best three box office years in history? 2009, 2010, and 2011, despite record piracy and a bad economy.) However, they can use it as a pretense to maintain/raise prices in the face of falling costs, and as a scare tactic to push through advantageous legislation. There is no reason for them to actually want to win this war - they are making far more money "fighting" it than they would gain if it stopped.
They are not stupid; they are businessmen.
There is a large difference between pointing out that posting NO MURDER signs is ineffective and expensive and should be discontinued, and saying that trying to stop murder is a waste of time.
DRM doesn't address piracy in the least and has the most negative impact on paying customers. It is a blatantly terrible solution. So why is it used? The industry mindset seems to be to eradicate piracy entirely, which is just as misguided as making policies that will (fail to) completely eradicate murder. That does not mean that there are not other ways to effectively combat the piracy that matters - the actual lost sales. The article suggests a couple of ways to do that.
It is not an unreasonable stance, nor particularly pro-piracy.
If you can't take the Rolls or send your manservant then you're not really committed to the idea.
There is also a big difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. You should understand this, Travis.
Companies don't think long-term anymore. The short-term incredible windfall from curing AIDS would make everyone on the board among the richest people who ever lived. Nobody is going to pass on that so that the company will be healthier in twenty years time.
Irrelevant; getting something wrong isn't evolution, it's just incorrect.
Words have meanings. These meanings cannot be arbitrary, or they lose their purpose. Words can and do change over time, but after the change there still exist correct and incorrect uses of those words! Accept a correction, learn, and move on. Don't argue that you are re-inventing language with your ignorance. Expecting the world to standardize to your understanding instead of bothering to learn the standard everyone else is using is the height of arrogance, whether lazy people like it or not.
You could have made the same arguments for slavery a couple hundred years ago.
That is true, but when unemployment and underemployment are approaching 20% while companies record profits at an all-time high, it's not bad luck anymore.
People weren't demonstrating in 2006, even though the wealth disparity was just as bad. Nobody is really demanding that the super-rich rain their dollars into the streets; all anybody wants is a slice of the pie big enough to eat. The masses have proven for twenty years that they are not that difficult to pacify, but unbridled greed doesn't even want to let crumbs fall from the table.
What do they call a poor family that does anything other than succeed wildly?
Poor
Even taking recent gains into account, since 2007 we've lost over a million jobs. That means over a million people are not working, not because they are lazy or worthless, but because there is no job for them. A lot more people aren't technically unemployed, but are underemployed. I can see your eyes glazing over already, because I'm not talking about you.
Do I have to do the math to show you that taking out a mortgage when you have a job, then losing that job through no fault of your own, does not equal a bad-faith transaction with the bank? Your job hasn't been shipped to India; congratulations, but remaining blissfully unaware, while a valid choice, does not require stupidly trumpeting your ignorance for all to see. It's a sub-optimal decision you're making.
Even then it's not BigCorp's fault, but still somehow the doing of poor people; they did it with their welfare and tax breaks and bad mortgages. The poor obviously have all the power in this country, and rich people are being exploited. If you listen closely you can hear the fairway weeping.
Anything is better than actually thinking about this issue, isn't it? Those people are there because they deserve to be, by God. Now, back to the cricket scores, eh wot?
Yes, poor people are poor because they do not invest their funds properly. That's logic of the highest order.
Depends on the root problem. The anti-intellectualism could simply be a defense mechanism adopted by people who perceive that things like computing and higher education are not available to them, and so adopt an attitude that what they cannot have is undesirable anyway. If you change this perception, they might begin to abandon the attitude.
If there was a vested interest in hiding it, it could be very, very hard. I would hesitate to underestimate the financial creativity of corporate America.
I might agree with that. The problem would then be that we've dropped the moderation.
That struck me, too. I wonder whether this is merely a psychological ploy.
Have not been repeated yet. People have been hurt. It's only a matter of time before some Occupy kids decide they've had enough and actually fight back; if some of the cops are willing to assault completely peaceful protesters, what will they do given a reason to be afraid? It seems very unlikely to me that they will suddenly become professionals with a modicum of restraint. It doesn't take a corrupt police force; just one coward with a gun. We've already seen that those are being deployed to these events. I think it is inevitable unless the protests die out fairly quickly.