It's kind of cute how you try to make it sound like Motorola woke up one day and said 'let's screw with Apple'. Did you miss the whole part about how Apple started this by suing (attempting to crush, in your words) Motorola for daring to compete in 'their' market?
Did you ever hear the phrase 'don't bite the hand that feeds you'? Apparently Apple did not.
That does not matter. It took quite a while to get to this state, and it is going to take a while to get out of it. Instead, we need to set an example. Let's take Apple for instance. Here we have a hugely successful company, enormous market cap and profit, brand recognition like no other, etc. What do you think would happen if, instead of meaning 'I am the coolest dude on the block', the Apple logo started to mean 'I support child labor and environmental destruction'? How long do you think Apple would be able to sustain that loss in customers before it got it's act together and effected real change? What do you think the effect would be on the other manufacturers when they see what happened to Apple?
You don't get it. Immediately stopping all purchases from China is impractical and unnecessary, although it is exactly what you would get with your 'deny entry' proposal. However, it would be extremely easy to pick a company or product that is not necessary for daily life, and refuse to buy it. Apple is a perfect starting place. You don't think Apple would be putting the screws to it's suppliers (or moving manufacturing elsewhere) if Apple's revenue suddenly took a nosedive while a well-publicized boycott is occurring? You don't think that would put the entire electronics industry on notice? Do the same for a different industry, say apparel. Don't buy any American Eagle clothing made in China.
Forced? I didn't think we were talking about basic subsistence items, I thought we were talking about 100% discretionary items like HDTVs and iPads. I think what you meant was 'consumers don't have any money, but still think they are entitled to have whatever luxury they want, and they are willing to give up on their supposed principles to get it, as long as they can blame someone else'.
You do have a choice - it's called 'not buying'. If enough people felt strongly enough about the problem that they were willing to make even a small sacrifice (OMG! can you believe I can't get a tablet!), you can bet some company (either an established company or a start-up) would take notice and start manufacturing here.
Care to point out the law that requires anyone to buy an iPad? If you don't approve of how a product is made, DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT! Gee, that wasn't so tough, was it? In the 1960's and 70's many people went without grapes and lettuce for five years to protest the treatment of farm laborers. You can't even give up a freaking toy? This is the crux of the problem - people like you are completely unwilling to place the blame where it belongs, on us. Instead, it is ever so much easier to blame 'evil corporations' and 'corrupt governments'. If you think manufacturing in China is a problem, do your part and don't buy Chinese products, even if it causes you to sacrifice a little.
Why does anyone have to DEMAND any ACTION? If you don't approve of China's labor, etc, don't buy products made in China. If enough people do that, companies will get the hint. Yes, this may mean that people may actually have to voluntarily give up having some things they otherwise might have. Oh, the horror! On the other hand, if people don't stop buying Chinese products, what makes you think they actually want policies that prevent them from getting Chinese products? The problem is not the two-party system. The problem is that people are unwilling to take the simple actions that can make a difference, because taking those simple actions (which they claim to so strongly believe in) inconveniences them. Blaming politicians and government is just taking the easy way out - placing the blame on someone else instead of where it belongs, firmly on the shoulders of consumers.
Being from Florida, you may never had heard of these things called 'mountains'. They are very prevalent in east central NY and VT. They are basically very large, irregularly shaped lumps of earth that reach up a few thousand feet into the sky. When rain falls on them, it tries to go downhill (it's a fact, you can look it up). When rain from a very large area is channeled into a small area, you have a lot of water moving very fast. A tree blown over by 130MPH wind is going to do one hell of lot less damage than a tree carried away in water rushing downhill at 30MPH. Then guess what happens? The water gets to the bottom of the mountain and now has very little energy left, so it just sort of lays around, slowly taking with it homes, cars, trees, etc.
On the other hand, when IBM was in deep trouble in the early 90's it brought in a CEO with no tech background at all. He came from RJR/Nabisco (cigarettes and food). At the time, IBM was in the process of being split up into smaller companies, and he put a stop to that.
Computers certainly are chilled with real water. For instance, an IBM Z196 requires two connections to the building chilled water at up to 21GPM each. This water has requirements such as pH range, bacteria counts, turbidity, hardness, etc. It is real (not pure) water.
It is stupidity like this that gets people in trouble. The last hurricane of this size to come near NYC was Gloria in 1985. It did several hundred millions of dollars of damage to NYC. If it had been a little closer to NYC and hit at high tide it would have been catastrophic.
Your nice little X of packing tape is going to do a whole lot to stop a tree limb or 2x4 that is carried in 90MPH winds.
What are you talking about? The purpose of patents (in the US anyway) is to "Promote the progress of science and the useful arts". Progress happens in small steps as well as giant leaps. Furthermore, the patent law starts out with "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." It does not say "Whoever invents or discovers something completely unlike anything the world has ever seen...". Just 'new' and 'useful'.
To use your example of the transistor: in the last 60 years we have progressed from that first (gigantic) transistor to the latest microprocessors capable of doing things not even dreamed of 60 years ago. By your bizarro definition, none of the steps that got us from there to here was progress and thus worthy of patent protection (after all, a microprocessor is nothing more than an arrangement of a few billion transisitors).
Your odor system example is likewise flawed. You can not patent an 'idea' or a 'concept', you patent a working thing. Yes, millions of people can say 'it would be cool if you could smell things in a TV show'. That is not patentable. The first person to actually make that work rightfully deserves a patent.
Not this stupid argument again. Where does this supposed requirement that someone with ordinary skill could not have come up with the idea come from? There is no such requirement. The only requirement related to that is the methods described by the patent are not OBVIOUS to someone with ordinary skill in the art. And here is the important part: the obviousness test is applied BEFORE that patent is made public.
If you describe the same problem to 10 different engineers, and they do not all come up with the exact same method of solution, then the patent is NOT obvious. Furthermore, if the solution requires any sort of research, etc, then by definition it is not obvious.
And what the hell do you mean anything an engineer can come up with is 'by definition, not inventive'? The definition of the word invent is 'to think up, devise, or fabricate in the mind'. That is something decent engineers do every day. I see nothing in the definition of 'invent' that implies any sort of extraordinary skill.
But the article is not about concepts or classes of products, it is about individual products. The people who said those things about the early automobiles were correct - no matter how many years those particular cars stayed on the market, no-one was going to buy them. People came out with DIFFERENT products that addressed those issues, then the idea caught on.
A lot of people on here seem to be confusing 'self-effacing' with 'deferential'. The things you describe as being successful (less frequent contact, etc) ARE self-effacing actions. You are making yourself inconspicuous, shy, or modest, the definition of self-effacing. On the other hand, Purse Carrying Man is not self-effacing - he is front and center, doing whatever she wants.
Exactly. Also, being a braggart (the opposite of self-effacing) is like a spoiler for a book or movie. Even if what you brag about is true, there is no mystery or reason to get to know you better - you already put it all out there. Worse, she is likely to assume that if you are a braggart, much of what you say is probably NOT true, so any attempt to get to know you better will be looking for negative information - not a great way to have a relationship. On the other hand, if you are self-effacing there is good reason to get to know you better. You have hinted at the positive qualities you have, and now she gets to explore them - a great way to become closer with someone.
IF the person knows what medicine they need, and IF they know the correct dosage, and IF they fully understand the interactions that may occur with other medications, and IF they get the medicine they ordered, and IF the received dosage is correct, and IF the medicine is not tainted, then you MAY have a point. The odds of all that occurring with someone who is not an MD and who is ordering from an unlicensed, unregulated, illegal pharmacy is extremely small. For everyone else, there is a very real possibility of harm occurring. And you are really going to have to explain how 'a lot of money is made by denying access to medication'.
Hey, guess what! Some of those people who see that ad actually ARE depressed, and the ad may help them realize that is not normal, and there is help available. Some of the men who go to the doctor to get Viagra may find out they actually have heart problems they were otherwise unaware of, and they would never mention such an embarrassing symptom if they didn't know there was treatment for it. I personally know of a teenage girl who saw an ad for some diabetes related medicine and told her parents she matched the symptoms they described, and she was right.
Maybe in some fantasy world people will automatically know what are symptoms of problems that should be reported to a doctor. Maybe in this fantasy world someone will be spend a few million dollars on a SuperBowl ad to inform people of symptoms without trying to sell something. In the real world however, the ads DO make people more educated.
Furthermore, that is $1B spent in all health care advertising, not just illegal healthcare advertising. I imagine that the illegal spending is a small fraction of that.
Uh, yeah. The $500M is all of the income from the illegal ads, PLUS the estimated profits that the illegal pharmacies made. Sure sounds like a sweet deal to me.
Oh yeah? Well, according to their own annual report:
We generate revenue primarily by delivering relevant, cost-effective online advertising. Businesses use our AdWords program to promote their products and services with targeted advertising. In addition, the third parties that comprise the Google Network use our AdSense program to deliver relevant ads that generate revenue and enhance the user experience.
And in the financial details, they reveal that in 2010 they had $28.2B revenue from advertising, and $1B revenue from all other sources. You would think that an 'IT' company would have most of it's income from IT things, wouldn't you? Saying Google is an IT company is like saying Ford is a 'metal and plastic shaping' company.
Right, which is why they only go after pharmacies selling drugs made by US manufacturers, right? Oh wait, that's not the case? You mean the FDA is properly doing it's job of protecting the American public by making sure prescription drugs are only dispensed when ordered by a licensed medical doctor, by a pharmacy that is similarly licensed, employing pharmacists who are licensed? No, that can't be the case, it just HAS to be some sort of corruption and consipracy.
Interstate commerce is under federal, not local jurisdiction, which is why the law says websites are responsible for advertisements breaking federal laws. Somehow TV networks, radio networks, and print media manage to not advertise illegal pharmacies, but Google can't handle it? Maybe they ought to tighten up their business practices a bit, instead of just having a "we'll take anyone's money" attitude.
Google is not an IT company, they are an advertising company. If you are an advertising company, it is your responsibility to know and obey the laws regarding advertising.
Slashdot Mirror
It's kind of cute how you try to make it sound like Motorola woke up one day and said 'let's screw with Apple'. Did you miss the whole part about how Apple started this by suing (attempting to crush, in your words) Motorola for daring to compete in 'their' market?
Did you ever hear the phrase 'don't bite the hand that feeds you'? Apparently Apple did not.
That does not matter. It took quite a while to get to this state, and it is going to take a while to get out of it. Instead, we need to set an example. Let's take Apple for instance. Here we have a hugely successful company, enormous market cap and profit, brand recognition like no other, etc. What do you think would happen if, instead of meaning 'I am the coolest dude on the block', the Apple logo started to mean 'I support child labor and environmental destruction'? How long do you think Apple would be able to sustain that loss in customers before it got it's act together and effected real change? What do you think the effect would be on the other manufacturers when they see what happened to Apple?
You don't get it. Immediately stopping all purchases from China is impractical and unnecessary, although it is exactly what you would get with your 'deny entry' proposal. However, it would be extremely easy to pick a company or product that is not necessary for daily life, and refuse to buy it. Apple is a perfect starting place. You don't think Apple would be putting the screws to it's suppliers (or moving manufacturing elsewhere) if Apple's revenue suddenly took a nosedive while a well-publicized boycott is occurring? You don't think that would put the entire electronics industry on notice? Do the same for a different industry, say apparel. Don't buy any American Eagle clothing made in China.
Forced? I didn't think we were talking about basic subsistence items, I thought we were talking about 100% discretionary items like HDTVs and iPads. I think what you meant was 'consumers don't have any money, but still think they are entitled to have whatever luxury they want, and they are willing to give up on their supposed principles to get it, as long as they can blame someone else'.
You do have a choice - it's called 'not buying'. If enough people felt strongly enough about the problem that they were willing to make even a small sacrifice (OMG! can you believe I can't get a tablet!), you can bet some company (either an established company or a start-up) would take notice and start manufacturing here.
Care to point out the law that requires anyone to buy an iPad? If you don't approve of how a product is made, DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT! Gee, that wasn't so tough, was it? In the 1960's and 70's many people went without grapes and lettuce for five years to protest the treatment of farm laborers. You can't even give up a freaking toy? This is the crux of the problem - people like you are completely unwilling to place the blame where it belongs, on us. Instead, it is ever so much easier to blame 'evil corporations' and 'corrupt governments'. If you think manufacturing in China is a problem, do your part and don't buy Chinese products, even if it causes you to sacrifice a little.
Why does anyone have to DEMAND any ACTION? If you don't approve of China's labor, etc, don't buy products made in China. If enough people do that, companies will get the hint. Yes, this may mean that people may actually have to voluntarily give up having some things they otherwise might have. Oh, the horror! On the other hand, if people don't stop buying Chinese products, what makes you think they actually want policies that prevent them from getting Chinese products? The problem is not the two-party system. The problem is that people are unwilling to take the simple actions that can make a difference, because taking those simple actions (which they claim to so strongly believe in) inconveniences them. Blaming politicians and government is just taking the easy way out - placing the blame on someone else instead of where it belongs, firmly on the shoulders of consumers.
Being from Florida, you may never had heard of these things called 'mountains'. They are very prevalent in east central NY and VT. They are basically very large, irregularly shaped lumps of earth that reach up a few thousand feet into the sky. When rain falls on them, it tries to go downhill (it's a fact, you can look it up). When rain from a very large area is channeled into a small area, you have a lot of water moving very fast. A tree blown over by 130MPH wind is going to do one hell of lot less damage than a tree carried away in water rushing downhill at 30MPH. Then guess what happens? The water gets to the bottom of the mountain and now has very little energy left, so it just sort of lays around, slowly taking with it homes, cars, trees, etc.
On the other hand, when IBM was in deep trouble in the early 90's it brought in a CEO with no tech background at all. He came from RJR/Nabisco (cigarettes and food). At the time, IBM was in the process of being split up into smaller companies, and he put a stop to that.
Computers certainly are chilled with real water. For instance, an IBM Z196 requires two connections to the building chilled water at up to 21GPM each. This water has requirements such as pH range, bacteria counts, turbidity, hardness, etc. It is real (not pure) water.
It is stupidity like this that gets people in trouble. The last hurricane of this size to come near NYC was Gloria in 1985. It did several hundred millions of dollars of damage to NYC. If it had been a little closer to NYC and hit at high tide it would have been catastrophic.
Your nice little X of packing tape is going to do a whole lot to stop a tree limb or 2x4 that is carried in 90MPH winds.
What are you talking about? The purpose of patents (in the US anyway) is to "Promote the progress of science and the useful arts". Progress happens in small steps as well as giant leaps. Furthermore, the patent law starts out with "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." It does not say "Whoever invents or discovers something completely unlike anything the world has ever seen...". Just 'new' and 'useful'.
To use your example of the transistor: in the last 60 years we have progressed from that first (gigantic) transistor to the latest microprocessors capable of doing things not even dreamed of 60 years ago. By your bizarro definition, none of the steps that got us from there to here was progress and thus worthy of patent protection (after all, a microprocessor is nothing more than an arrangement of a few billion transisitors).
Your odor system example is likewise flawed. You can not patent an 'idea' or a 'concept', you patent a working thing. Yes, millions of people can say 'it would be cool if you could smell things in a TV show'. That is not patentable. The first person to actually make that work rightfully deserves a patent.
Not this stupid argument again. Where does this supposed requirement that someone with ordinary skill could not have come up with the idea come from? There is no such requirement. The only requirement related to that is the methods described by the patent are not OBVIOUS to someone with ordinary skill in the art. And here is the important part: the obviousness test is applied BEFORE that patent is made public.
If you describe the same problem to 10 different engineers, and they do not all come up with the exact same method of solution, then the patent is NOT obvious. Furthermore, if the solution requires any sort of research, etc, then by definition it is not obvious.
And what the hell do you mean anything an engineer can come up with is 'by definition, not inventive'? The definition of the word invent is 'to think up, devise, or fabricate in the mind'. That is something decent engineers do every day. I see nothing in the definition of 'invent' that implies any sort of extraordinary skill.
But the article is not about concepts or classes of products, it is about individual products. The people who said those things about the early automobiles were correct - no matter how many years those particular cars stayed on the market, no-one was going to buy them. People came out with DIFFERENT products that addressed those issues, then the idea caught on.
A lot of people on here seem to be confusing 'self-effacing' with 'deferential'. The things you describe as being successful (less frequent contact, etc) ARE self-effacing actions. You are making yourself inconspicuous, shy, or modest, the definition of self-effacing. On the other hand, Purse Carrying Man is not self-effacing - he is front and center, doing whatever she wants.
Exactly. Also, being a braggart (the opposite of self-effacing) is like a spoiler for a book or movie. Even if what you brag about is true, there is no mystery or reason to get to know you better - you already put it all out there. Worse, she is likely to assume that if you are a braggart, much of what you say is probably NOT true, so any attempt to get to know you better will be looking for negative information - not a great way to have a relationship. On the other hand, if you are self-effacing there is good reason to get to know you better. You have hinted at the positive qualities you have, and now she gets to explore them - a great way to become closer with someone.
IF the person knows what medicine they need, and IF they know the correct dosage, and IF they fully understand the interactions that may occur with other medications, and IF they get the medicine they ordered, and IF the received dosage is correct, and IF the medicine is not tainted, then you MAY have a point. The odds of all that occurring with someone who is not an MD and who is ordering from an unlicensed, unregulated, illegal pharmacy is extremely small. For everyone else, there is a very real possibility of harm occurring. And you are really going to have to explain how 'a lot of money is made by denying access to medication'.
Hey, guess what! Some of those people who see that ad actually ARE depressed, and the ad may help them realize that is not normal, and there is help available. Some of the men who go to the doctor to get Viagra may find out they actually have heart problems they were otherwise unaware of, and they would never mention such an embarrassing symptom if they didn't know there was treatment for it. I personally know of a teenage girl who saw an ad for some diabetes related medicine and told her parents she matched the symptoms they described, and she was right.
Maybe in some fantasy world people will automatically know what are symptoms of problems that should be reported to a doctor. Maybe in this fantasy world someone will be spend a few million dollars on a SuperBowl ad to inform people of symptoms without trying to sell something. In the real world however, the ads DO make people more educated.
Furthermore, that is $1B spent in all health care advertising, not just illegal healthcare advertising. I imagine that the illegal spending is a small fraction of that.
Uh, yeah. The $500M is all of the income from the illegal ads, PLUS the estimated profits that the illegal pharmacies made. Sure sounds like a sweet deal to me.
Yeah, the US FDA has a whole lot of jurisdiction over Canadian pharmacies.
Oh yeah? Well, according to their own annual report:
We generate revenue primarily by delivering relevant, cost-effective online advertising. Businesses use our AdWords program to promote their products and services with targeted advertising. In addition, the third parties that comprise the Google Network use our AdSense program to deliver relevant ads that generate revenue and enhance the user experience.
And in the financial details, they reveal that in 2010 they had $28.2B revenue from advertising, and $1B revenue from all other sources. You would think that an 'IT' company would have most of it's income from IT things, wouldn't you? Saying Google is an IT company is like saying Ford is a 'metal and plastic shaping' company.
Right, which is why they only go after pharmacies selling drugs made by US manufacturers, right? Oh wait, that's not the case? You mean the FDA is properly doing it's job of protecting the American public by making sure prescription drugs are only dispensed when ordered by a licensed medical doctor, by a pharmacy that is similarly licensed, employing pharmacists who are licensed? No, that can't be the case, it just HAS to be some sort of corruption and consipracy.
Interstate commerce is under federal, not local jurisdiction, which is why the law says websites are responsible for advertisements breaking federal laws. Somehow TV networks, radio networks, and print media manage to not advertise illegal pharmacies, but Google can't handle it? Maybe they ought to tighten up their business practices a bit, instead of just having a "we'll take anyone's money" attitude.
Google is not an IT company, they are an advertising company. If you are an advertising company, it is your responsibility to know and obey the laws regarding advertising.