This is truer of the US than the UK. The only thing the US exports is intellectual property and military equipment - IT stuff and media products like films and music.
(Chalmers Johnson calls the military a makework program with a giant foothold in places where manufacturing jobs disappeared and local reps have no choice but to give their constituents a Lockheed plant. )
First off, that 50% is a fantastic click-thru rate, though I'm sure they'll find a way to make the glass half empty.
There are so many great comments here that collectively sum up the news industry, especially reliance on AP and every paper having essentially the same content. However, I'm surprised that no slash-dotters have mentioned the obvious fact of many "articles" simply being paid ads. I'm sure many Americans are aware of this.
Last summer I attended the Mayborn Literary Non-Fiction Conference in Dallas (and hosted by my alma mater, UNT) and had my suspicions confirmed by fashion "reporter" Joy Sewing of the Houston Chronicle. In a presentation which essentially boiled down to a defense of her paper's increased emphasis on fluffy content, she let the truth come out with the following quote about fashion top-ten and gift lists: "If Macy's buys an ad in my paper, then guess what? Macy's is in my article."
Since hearing Ms. Sewing's admission, I've made it my personal goal to quote her to the world -- please pass it on! People like her are willingly turning journalism into a farce, even as they admit to knowing better. Shrugging shoulders and saying it's "Nature of the business" is saying you don't care about quality as long as you're getting paid. It also makes it more difficult for people like me to get work.
My girlfriend and I previously have worked for a private investigation company concerned entirely with insurance fraud. There are many similar companies, but ours was a nationwide company with clients like Walmart, AIG, the Hartford, Prudential, GEICO and many others you can think of. Insurance co's will use any information they can get to deny your coverage, and they will take very extreme steps. Once an investigator followed a target to firefighter training and participated in a daylong course with a hidden camera showing the target hauling heavy gear and "injured" people.
While there are many frauds out there, and the vast majority of cases in our company were almost certainly fraudulent, it's important to know that the VERY first thing they do is a regular Google/Facebook/Myspace search. It's amazing how many people don't keep their profiles privately viewable. (One pattern I noticed was a common tendency to use Myspace as proof of one's "coolness" and you don't want that private when there's a whole world who needs to know.)
If you ever are on disability or making insurance claims that might LOOK shady, you should know that there will almost certainly be someone watching you from the street in a car with curtains on the windows. They will follow you across state lines, they will follow you to Walmart, they will follow you to the strip club and they will sit outside your house and photograph you when you come out to check the mail. The photos and videos will be presented to you in court, if not beforehand.
It'd be interesting to see this happen and might even be good. For example, there are several EXCELLENT auction sites out there whose only flaw is not being eBay -- They just don't have the traffic to remove the risk of migrating your eBay store.
Also, these top 1000 are often big brands and destinations that people know about already. So what if Expedia no longer shows up? I remember the name and URL.
(off-topic)This Murdoch-Google spat gets to the core of what the Internet actually exists to do: share information. This function is served whether or not someone makes money off of it. Search engines are just a way to bring that information to you. By saying you don't want to be part of Google's results, you're really saying that your information won't be found.
I noticed there seemed to be two stereotypes in the Army... people who tended to give everything to their goals and aspirations and work hard, and those who were just collecting a paycheck at a job they knew they wouldn't be fired from (you could be fired, but you'd have to do something completely stupid...)
Please don't get me wrong, there is a certain virtue in patriotism, etc. etc. I am speaking only in terms of the Gervais Principle and its labels, which sound negative and more like personal attacks than objective observations of corporate behavior. "Clueless" does not have to equal "stupid." For example, Andy in the Office is more talented and personally developed in more facets than almost everyone on the show -- he sings a capella, plays banjo, kicks ass at shooter video games, is hopelessly romantic and loyal, graduated from Dartmouth... But his inability to adapt to the corporate environment is a weakness -- his personal motivations and desire to be liked mark him as a clueless loser, which would be the first type you describe. Advancement will be only based on his usefulness and exploitability to someone above him in the chain of command (most likely a sociopath or aspiring sociopath). Andy's real-life equivalent might actually be Pat Tillman, an amazing human being in many ways, who it pains me to label "clueless." The second type you describe is the underperforming loser, who knows they are losing in the bargain and trying to get the most out of the least effort -- incredibly smart if being fired is a long-odds proposition!
Enlisting because the Marines advertisement says you will become an exceptional human being (few AND proud) is clueless because it shows a lack of critical thought/analysis of the bargain involved. Indeed, the slogan doesn't even attempt to convey the possibility of a promotion or material benefits -- it's essentially "Put yourself at risk of death in return for the admiration of your countrymen."
Enlisting for these reasons (patriotism and service to your country, honor, tradition and personal development) are what mark the clueless. Losers know they will get material benefits and dispense with the patriotism -- they are willing to make the (questionable) trade-off of risking their own lives for tuition and health care. Sociopaths benefit from "most normal people" who you say "know" to equate military service with patriotism.
Semi-related questions and comments: Why are other forms of service and sacrifice not considered patriotic? Like, Americorps or Peace Corps or volunteering within the community? Surely these may offer a better trade-off for the clueless than being a target in a foreign country?
Tradition and personal development can be achieved and maintained non-militarily as well. Why admire someone who buys into the military's brands of tradition and personal development, which are clearly marketed to the clueless? "The Few. The Proud. The Marines." cleverly manages to leave out that enlistees will be expendable grunts and used as such.
Congratulations, AC, you just outed yourself as clueless
All creative works can be said to carry a message or bias within their text.
Whether it's intentional or not, consumerism is included in games like the Sims, where self-improvement comes from purchasing items. Or Katamari Damacy, where the player is confronted with the reality of a world full of stuff and the difficulty of finding and cataloging every last object. (You could also say there is a commentary on the idea that people are as worthless as material objects since they are just another thing to be picked up in your giant ball of stuff)
Then there are things like Metal Gear, which may be read as anti-violence (you're supposed to avoid killing and confrontation) or anti-war through the story lines which never depict such things as glorious or positive - only as necessary evils.
Of course, Mario games completely avoid this through their sheer absurdity
My battery life has been shite ever since I upgraded from Dapper to Edgy... it went from about 3 hours to 20 minutes and has been that way since. Laptop-mode and powertop haven't done anything for it, nor the kernel upgrade that went tickless. I did some searching through the forums and couldn't find anything too helpful, though plenty of people shared the complaint, especially my fellow Dell owners.
Sorry, I may have inaccurately given its name. It might be ubuntu-laptop-mode or laptop-tools (a Google search returned these and a couple other variations). It may also now be integrated with recent versions of Ubuntu.
I had a similar strategy with Sim Ant! It was ridiculously simple and actually ruined the game for me: pile rocks around the entrances to red nests. Nobody can get in or out, so they just run out of resources. Put Soldier ants all around and if another anthill pops up have them block it right away.
Or maybe it's just because most black Americans live in or around poverty, which leads to an increased willingness to take risks both for economic gain (ie., crime) and social justice and support (ie., gangs). After a generation or two of these community institutions, the community's most visible leaders will be those who gained from them, thus leading younger members of the community to adopt practices of the role models at hand. But, you know, that sounds too complicated and your simplified explanation devoid of any context makes a lot more sense.
No, you can get the most profit in a short amount of time, but what good is it to the company if it proves unsustainable? Making "trillions" of dollars back in the heady days of the SUV boom didn't prevent GM's bankruptcy, did it? Good business practice includes stewardship and long-term planning. GM clearly had neither, producing too many brands, too many gas guzzlers and too many models in both categories.
What I meant by "unrealistic and short-sighted" is that, sure, someone made money, but sacrificed the future of the company in doing so.
I'm not sure where I said they'd NEVER be so short-sighted. They obviously were, as were many companies over the last decade. At GM, someone got rich from answering the question "how can we make the most profit in the shortest amount of time?" The plan surely looked good to everyone during the SUV bubble, from the CEO down to Johnny Shareholder, but it was a bad practice to invest so heavily in SUVs.
If you want to argue that it was a good business model, where is all that money now and how did the company benefit from it (or America, since what's "good for GM is good for America.") If it was such a successful business model, why are my tax dollars propping this company up? Why will it now be owned by Fiat?
I'm with you on pretty much the whole post though I am concerned about Toyota as they locate in states where unions are nearly non-existent and impossible to start. (Looking at you, SC!) I hate seeing the death of unions in this country...
Slashdot Mirror
If this happened, it would be the ultimate troll!
This is truer of the US than the UK. The only thing the US exports is intellectual property and military equipment - IT stuff and media products like films and music.
(Chalmers Johnson calls the military a makework program with a giant foothold in places where manufacturing jobs disappeared and local reps have no choice but to give their constituents a Lockheed plant. )
First off, that 50% is a fantastic click-thru rate, though I'm sure they'll find a way to make the glass half empty.
There are so many great comments here that collectively sum up the news industry, especially reliance on AP and every paper having essentially the same content. However, I'm surprised that no slash-dotters have mentioned the obvious fact of many "articles" simply being paid ads. I'm sure many Americans are aware of this.
Last summer I attended the Mayborn Literary Non-Fiction Conference in Dallas (and hosted by my alma mater, UNT) and had my suspicions confirmed by fashion "reporter" Joy Sewing of the Houston Chronicle. In a presentation which essentially boiled down to a defense of her paper's increased emphasis on fluffy content, she let the truth come out with the following quote about fashion top-ten and gift lists: "If Macy's buys an ad in my paper, then guess what? Macy's is in my article."
Since hearing Ms. Sewing's admission, I've made it my personal goal to quote her to the world -- please pass it on! People like her are willingly turning journalism into a farce, even as they admit to knowing better. Shrugging shoulders and saying it's "Nature of the business" is saying you don't care about quality as long as you're getting paid. It also makes it more difficult for people like me to get work.
My girlfriend and I previously have worked for a private investigation company concerned entirely with insurance fraud. There are many similar companies, but ours was a nationwide company with clients like Walmart, AIG, the Hartford, Prudential, GEICO and many others you can think of. Insurance co's will use any information they can get to deny your coverage, and they will take very extreme steps. Once an investigator followed a target to firefighter training and participated in a daylong course with a hidden camera showing the target hauling heavy gear and "injured" people.
While there are many frauds out there, and the vast majority of cases in our company were almost certainly fraudulent, it's important to know that the VERY first thing they do is a regular Google/Facebook/Myspace search. It's amazing how many people don't keep their profiles privately viewable. (One pattern I noticed was a common tendency to use Myspace as proof of one's "coolness" and you don't want that private when there's a whole world who needs to know.)
If you ever are on disability or making insurance claims that might LOOK shady, you should know that there will almost certainly be someone watching you from the street in a car with curtains on the windows. They will follow you across state lines, they will follow you to Walmart, they will follow you to the strip club and they will sit outside your house and photograph you when you come out to check the mail. The photos and videos will be presented to you in court, if not beforehand.
It'd be interesting to see this happen and might even be good. For example, there are several EXCELLENT auction sites out there whose only flaw is not being eBay -- They just don't have the traffic to remove the risk of migrating your eBay store.
Also, these top 1000 are often big brands and destinations that people know about already. So what if Expedia no longer shows up? I remember the name and URL.
(off-topic)This Murdoch-Google spat gets to the core of what the Internet actually exists to do: share information. This function is served whether or not someone makes money off of it. Search engines are just a way to bring that information to you. By saying you don't want to be part of Google's results, you're really saying that your information won't be found.
Please don't get me wrong, there is a certain virtue in patriotism, etc. etc. I am speaking only in terms of the Gervais Principle and its labels, which sound negative and more like personal attacks than objective observations of corporate behavior. "Clueless" does not have to equal "stupid." For example, Andy in the Office is more talented and personally developed in more facets than almost everyone on the show -- he sings a capella, plays banjo, kicks ass at shooter video games, is hopelessly romantic and loyal, graduated from Dartmouth... But his inability to adapt to the corporate environment is a weakness -- his personal motivations and desire to be liked mark him as a clueless loser, which would be the first type you describe. Advancement will be only based on his usefulness and exploitability to someone above him in the chain of command (most likely a sociopath or aspiring sociopath). Andy's real-life equivalent might actually be Pat Tillman, an amazing human being in many ways, who it pains me to label "clueless." The second type you describe is the underperforming loser, who knows they are losing in the bargain and trying to get the most out of the least effort -- incredibly smart if being fired is a long-odds proposition!
Enlisting because the Marines advertisement says you will become an exceptional human being (few AND proud) is clueless because it shows a lack of critical thought/analysis of the bargain involved. Indeed, the slogan doesn't even attempt to convey the possibility of a promotion or material benefits -- it's essentially "Put yourself at risk of death in return for the admiration of your countrymen."
/trying not to instigate a poflawa
Enlisting for these reasons (patriotism and service to your country, honor, tradition and personal development) are what mark the clueless. Losers know they will get material benefits and dispense with the patriotism -- they are willing to make the (questionable) trade-off of risking their own lives for tuition and health care. Sociopaths benefit from "most normal people" who you say "know" to equate military service with patriotism.
Semi-related questions and comments: Why are other forms of service and sacrifice not considered patriotic? Like, Americorps or Peace Corps or volunteering within the community? Surely these may offer a better trade-off for the clueless than being a target in a foreign country?
Tradition and personal development can be achieved and maintained non-militarily as well. Why admire someone who buys into the military's brands of tradition and personal development, which are clearly marketed to the clueless? "The Few. The Proud. The Marines." cleverly manages to leave out that enlistees will be expendable grunts and used as such.
Congratulations, AC, you just outed yourself as clueless
If I had any mod points, I'd give you a "+1 Educational for Dumb Americans" /leaving this country before the implosion
All creative works can be said to carry a message or bias within their text.
Whether it's intentional or not, consumerism is included in games like the Sims, where self-improvement comes from purchasing items. Or Katamari Damacy, where the player is confronted with the reality of a world full of stuff and the difficulty of finding and cataloging every last object. (You could also say there is a commentary on the idea that people are as worthless as material objects since they are just another thing to be picked up in your giant ball of stuff)
Then there are things like Metal Gear, which may be read as anti-violence (you're supposed to avoid killing and confrontation) or anti-war through the story lines which never depict such things as glorious or positive - only as necessary evils.
Of course, Mario games completely avoid this through their sheer absurdity
He also has 500 cable channels. All blocked out, except for the driftwood channel, which he believes is educational
Its first use will be figuring out the secret ingredient in a Flaming Moe
I know you're being sarcastic but it's the simplest answer with the most obvious motive and the US provides an environment conducive to such dealings.
Just sayin'
My battery life has been shite ever since I upgraded from Dapper to Edgy... it went from about 3 hours to 20 minutes and has been that way since. Laptop-mode and powertop haven't done anything for it, nor the kernel upgrade that went tickless. I did some searching through the forums and couldn't find anything too helpful, though plenty of people shared the complaint, especially my fellow Dell owners.
Good luck with it
Sorry, I may have inaccurately given its name. It might be ubuntu-laptop-mode or laptop-tools (a Google search returned these and a couple other variations). It may also now be integrated with recent versions of Ubuntu.
Ubuntu recognizes when it's on a laptop. the program laptop-mode comes with every version I've installed (since Breezy Badger)
If it doesn't work right, all one has to do is "apt-get install laptop-mode" and it works seamlessly, for free
"This is how we do it in the US, mate"
There, fixed that for you
8-Bit Lagerfeuer FTW!
I had a similar strategy with Sim Ant! It was ridiculously simple and actually ruined the game for me: pile rocks around the entrances to red nests. Nobody can get in or out, so they just run out of resources. Put Soldier ants all around and if another anthill pops up have them block it right away.
But parking wants to be free! Let's stop patronizing the corrupt monopoly local governments have over parking spaces.
Or maybe it's just because most black Americans live in or around poverty, which leads to an increased willingness to take risks both for economic gain (ie., crime) and social justice and support (ie., gangs). After a generation or two of these community institutions, the community's most visible leaders will be those who gained from them, thus leading younger members of the community to adopt practices of the role models at hand. But, you know, that sounds too complicated and your simplified explanation devoid of any context makes a lot more sense.
No, your friend was right. You shat yourself, tainting the pants with RIAA
No, you can get the most profit in a short amount of time, but what good is it to the company if it proves unsustainable? Making "trillions" of dollars back in the heady days of the SUV boom didn't prevent GM's bankruptcy, did it? Good business practice includes stewardship and long-term planning. GM clearly had neither, producing too many brands, too many gas guzzlers and too many models in both categories.
What I meant by "unrealistic and short-sighted" is that, sure, someone made money, but sacrificed the future of the company in doing so.
I'm not sure where I said they'd NEVER be so short-sighted. They obviously were, as were many companies over the last decade. At GM, someone got rich from answering the question "how can we make the most profit in the shortest amount of time?" The plan surely looked good to everyone during the SUV bubble, from the CEO down to Johnny Shareholder, but it was a bad practice to invest so heavily in SUVs.
If you want to argue that it was a good business model, where is all that money now and how did the company benefit from it (or America, since what's "good for GM is good for America.") If it was such a successful business model, why are my tax dollars propping this company up? Why will it now be owned by Fiat?
Unfortunately, HR 676, calling for just such a thing, is dying a slow death in committee.
Yeah, a 72% approval rating must mean he isn't mainstream enough ...
I'm with you on pretty much the whole post though I am concerned about Toyota as they locate in states where unions are nearly non-existent and impossible to start. (Looking at you, SC!) I hate seeing the death of unions in this country ...