This is soo sad, its not even funny..
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Well, it is funny.. *checking my calender to see if its april 1st*
Come on, the classic game of tag has been played in various forms, seemingly, for ever. With few to almost none getting hurt. My goodness, we are are rasing a bunch of whiny little snots who can't even take a little bruse. What, I wonder will they do, be when they grow up. (best friends with lawyers or a lawyer themselves I suspect, where NOTHING is ever their fault).
My exact words were: 3: It saves them some money for the long term use of their data centers.
If you are reducing costs of your total operation (office space), and your office space by definition (google's) is somewhat modular, and your bread and butter, as it were, are your data centers, any costs you can shave to bring more of them online is important. I did not say, it saves money ON the data centers, I said it saves money ON the long term use of their data centers. Subtle difference, but distinct.. so please do not issue RTFA's to me.
It is amazing how many people here are stuck on the money factor (which has yet to be shown by them.. We don't know the numbers they got (remember, they have some investment in a solar firm.. so its not like they are paying retail for this I'm sure). People, google is doing this for three reasons if you ask me:
1: It goes with their motto. (Do no evil) 2: It gives them a proving ground for their solar investment and on a fairly large scale. (and on this topic, don't you think their investment might have paid off with some R&D to make solar panels more efficent? I mean they don't invest just for the sake of investing). 3: It saves them some money for the long term use of their data centers.
Also, remember I doubt seriously that they are going to switch over completely to solar power.. I suspect its more like redundancy power "Sun's on full?.. then dial down the Grid (not off)... Clouds are out, then crank it up to 11").
Give them the benefit of the doubt to see how this plays out. But lets not throw stones when all we know is one small piece of the puzzle. For all we know, it may pay off... I personally suspect it will (not to the extent that they might believe but succeed it will). But I'm content to let it ride a little before we start throwing stones.
If I may... The estranged husband of an Oakland woman who has been missing for more than a month was arrested today on suspicion of murder
To me, this is a fishing expedition by the police where they don't have enough real evidence, but he seems to be the one pin they can nail. (woman disappears, it MUST be the husband/boyfriend/father etc... (eg: crime of passion)).
Hopefully they will have nothing, but sadly the damage has already been done.. his life is crap now.
I would take it a step further, by mentioning that MS pretty much bribed some of the schools to switch from the PET and the Apple IIe in schools to IBM PC's running windows. But after that, you are correct.. if you can get it in their hands today, they will most assuredly choose your product tomorrow.
No one jumps in the schools for purely humanitarian reasons. Its mostly about consoldation of market share. ("Hook'em while their young").
I don't recall any governmental policies that have ever said "we will shoot down/kill X if they disagree with us" (that would be a declaration of war)
But lets be honest. It is, as you said, a military term, and it will be used by military minds. And to the military mind, if you are not 100% with us, you are a liability that can and will be delt with in a decisive manner. Look over human history (US is no exception) and tell me that, that has not happened. Technology developed to "keep the peace" and/or "to have a edge just in case" quickly turn into weapons of conquest and used as part of their diplomacy when negotiating with others (if they even negotiate).
As I said, Jaded... but humanity is a nasty little creature.
Its a good idea in theory.. "ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries"
The problem with such notions is that this falls right back into who the US decides is not worthy to pursue actions in space. Which pretty much means, its direct allies (ie: those sucking on its teat and/or those who are completely dependant on it) can obtain space (following the strict controls the US sets).
Anyone not of their particular mindset will be viewed as a prelude to war, or at the very least, considered "aggressive actions". I'm pretty sure that if China said tomorrow, we are going to space, you would see some sanctions pretty quickly (and possibly some quiet "accidents").
Yes, I know this is taking a very jaded view, but I believe in two things when it comes down to people who are in power:
1: They believe their way is the right and only way. (and you are pretty much screwed if you are not, at least publicly, on their bandwagon.
2: Once power is obtained, they will do ANYTHING (I repeat ANYTHING) to maintain that power. Up to and including disregarding their "rules" and principle. Which means their ideals are only temporarily. Ideals are those you fight to preserve, not discard when its advantages to do so.
I believe the current actions in the world are pretty much bearing this out. (not exclusively with Bush, though I think he and his crones are doing a fine job of being an example for me.. Hey, thanks Bush. Gives me something to scare the kiddies with)
And yes, as most have already pointed out.. if you want to see it changed, then vote.. change the system.. But the problem is I think quite a few have done that, and have been disillusioned with just how effective their vote actually is. (if you really feel that your vote counts and will effect change, you will do so.. but in the past vote where one person one the "popular" vote and lost the "electorial" vote, quite a lot of people say.. "Awww.. fuck it.. its broke and I'm not playing this game anymore".
So, I repeat. A good idea in theory.. but in practice. Well... I think most of you have already mentioned some of the worst case senarios.
Barring some limitations of a physical entity (single creature) vs. a Social entity (government, corporation, etc...) I think the analogy is quite apt.
Successful corporations have envolved (core products shift), they Reproduce (patents, mergers, and company splits), they spread. (see above). they eat (innvoating, and producing new services/items for purchase), they deficate (discarding old products/services once their purpose has been complete or no longer financially viable) Its lifeblood is cash/influence (cut either one off and they die)
I think you can see where this is going. And like every organisim, they have defenses against anything that threatens their life cycle and/or territory. In this part, Microsoft is more like a locust than a typical creature. (locusts tend to swarm into a new territory, consume all resources, and move on.. which is roughly akin to Microsoft. (a new channel which has some financial promise is discovered, and they move in, attempt to wipe out the competition, reproduce, and move on. (think, X-Box, their myspace product, their IPTV product, their IM and portal products, their mobile phone "OS", their hardware (OEM) line, their auction site (yes, they have one in the works), etc). And what is left in their wake is struggling players who can make better, cheaper products, but get swatted down by microsoft through mergers, purchasing, FUD, or just simply marketing. (they have billions to market.. the little guy doesn't). Just enough to say "No, we are not a monopoly.. See that guy over there on life support? and what about that lady there limping? We have competition. Its not our fault if they can't win".
Two things come to mind: 1: Anyone have a can of Raid? 2: Why make 31 flavours if you can't get vanilla right?
I don't think you understand my position on my peeve. Things that encourage more people to READ. (I'm less concerned with WHAT they read these days, than just opening a book).
Amazon has built into their distribution rights the ability to publish exerpts of some books from some of their publishers. As does B&N. Because they are a for profit business (with books being their most known revenue stream), it would get VERY dicey if they did not seek such permission. (might fall into that hawking copies on the street line I made).
As google is not in the book distribution business, its in a different position. As there really is no direct analog right now, this will sound a little crazy.. but its like having a pretty good exerpt of the book you are searching for on the card catalog cards.
Let me say, No. I don't think they are infringing on the publishers rights. (and before the tomatos fly, let me explain)
In the case of public domain works, google provides the complete text (no different than the guttenberg (sp) project. I for one fully support this effort as far too many people DON'T read more than what is required. This may encourage more people to read the complete work (not part of the argument, but it is a peeve of mine)
In the case of copy writed works, they provide an exerpt of the work, not the complete work. (yes, they scan the entire thing because there is no way for a search to be effective, but publicly available).
I can see how some publishers may complain. "Hey, you are copying my book"
But really that is not the case. Fairuse I believe goes into the same scheme.(if I am at the library and decide I want to photocopy the whole bloody thing, (provided I have enough money) I can do so. Things fall into the illegal realm if I make several copies of said work and start distrubuting them or worse, selling them (which just compounds the crime). This argument is akin to having an photographic memory and reciting lines from the book in response to someone's questions. (umm.. ironically no complaints about Amazon, B&N, Alibris, etc. who provide this exact same functionality on a smaller scale).
I for one, applaude Google's efforts because its sorely needed. The big publishers are worried because they THINK they are loosing money (something like how the RIAA thinks they are loosing money with all the MP3's floating about when in fact, almost every study shows this actually increases sales and exposure because much of the target audience doesn't have the cash (or luxary of time) to sample every CD out there to find their likes. This notion of "copywrite" laws is a pretext to fight this. But like most such cases, it hinges on the notion of "harm done" which is why their is such a rant about "stealing" and "its depriving the artists of their money" (when I think most artists would agree, the Publishers/RIAA have been doing for years. (and like most criminal groups, they don't like it when someone intrudes on their turf))
As some of the smaller publishers already realize (and ironically the same is true with the smaller music groups/bands) all this "information exchange" actually HELPS by exposure at the least.
Oh well, lets hope they get smart soon.. but somehow I doubt it. (stupidity does seem to be infectious, and no one wants to take the cure).
I would venture to say, there is a difference between "long hours" and quality and ethics of work.
I am sure you know the person who spends 30 hours working on one task, but the other guy gets it done in 7. The boss prasies the bloke who worked 30 hours because it looks productive, but the reality is, its not.
And the sad fact remains that though SOME are hard working... MOST people I encounter in the US simply want gold on a platter. (no work, or very little). (of course, this attitude is spreading rapidly to other parts of the world as everyone hops on the "westernization" bandwagon)
Nope.. Never touched spam items. I've been a large scale network architect and Engineer (think Time Warner Cable Network, the US Army's Network, etc...).
google is a different beast for me (For many reasons) but before jumping in the tank, I would like to find out from the guys on the sidelines if there are any sharks or other unwanted items in there.
Millions of women who pretty much believe that all men are scum, or are crazy, or have MAJOR attitude problems (read the above, and more), or believe that dark skinned males are going to "get" them, or other reasons. (the list is quite long). As a general rule, I NEVER date anyone in NYC. I've only run across about 10 people that are worth much, and we are good friends (coupled with the fact that they are lesbian and gay keeps them off the list of possibilities).
Hey, lets talk... I'm considering working there (proj Manager) and would love the skinny on the firm before putting ink to paper. (currently work for the evil empire)
I was 2 when I father brought me to IBM and taught me JCL and assembly programming. (my uncle took the weekends to teach me Large Scale Network Design (worked for CIA and IRS at the time).
If you kids show an interest in what you do, include them in.. the rewards are great (speaking as the "kid", not the parent)
Considering that my long time GF lives/works in Seattle, and I live/work in NYC. I have to say, distance does make a difference (slightly less hard than my previous GF who lived in Osaka when I was in Melbourne, but tricky none the less). But mostly in how you approach things. Communication is important, spending time is critical, getting to know each other and your friends are essential (Especially as all the local ones are going to trash you when you are not there (eg: "Dump him for someone local" and "I know this great guy, you should meet him and ditch the other one" - And speaking of which, why do you women do that?). These days, webcams and telephones make it much easier to stay in touch (I fly out there every other week). But it is hard.
The most important thing however is to have a plan/goal that you can work together towards. (if its a serious one, the first should be getting closer geographically).
Technically speaking, anything which one can derive pleasure from the use of and anguish from the abstinence of can be considered addictive.
Some people have an addictive personality which means if they are not addicted to one thing, they will be addicted to another. The good part is that at least this addiction, when used properly, has some economic benefit to the user. (I've never heard of anyone selling their home for one last hit of the MBE (megabyte express) (of course, given how much the ISP's want to abuse us with charges, that day may come soon).
So enjoy your addiction. I for one, enjoy a little hit of Cable every now and then. A quick click before work, and some fun after work. But I can handle it. *smile*
It seems that everyone has it in for apple. From the people on the street that say "Don't go ipod, buy something else" (ummm.. no one is making a public move relating to windows on that.. and there are FAR more windows users than podHeads).
To the music business that keeps wanting to raise prices because they feel they are not getting "enough" money.. (dispite the fact that they actually save money from the elimination of the distribution/packaging/shipping/retail costs.. but oh well, sure, they need another solid gold toilet)
To the movie business (ditto above, except its a solid gold dildo)
And now walmart is scared because someone might out-price them. Forgetting the simple fact that a sizable chunk of the people that shop in walmart are not heavy on-line purchasers (for other goods and services) so they loose a little money in one department but make it up in another. (it would be better for them to partner with apple, like they do now with the itunes credits) and clip a little off the top for those impulse purchases, than whine that we are not making enough money because the big bad apple (funny huh?) is taking our lunch money.
Give me a break wal-mart, so you lost a little ground in a particular market because of a different distribution channel. Big Whoop.
Its been that way all throughout history. (the milkman lost his job because of the grocery store, the news paper boy lost his job because of mailing lists, the indie bands lost their money because of the RIAA, etc...)
I'm sure that left to their own devices, applie would probubly open up the codec structure to allow other non-DRM formats. But then they would have the RIAA all over their keisters blaming them for the loss of that penny last week at lunch.
To use the anonology above, the apple car would keep getting pulled over for DWB (Driving While Black) by the RIAA (police).
So whats the point of going through that if you don't have to. And if you can make a little more money along the way, why not.
Quite a lot of us have been disillusioned by the backdoor (eg: silent) philanthopist. But would you not agree that the Carnagee/Mellon foundation which has "invested" so much in music and in the library system. and quite a number of other large very visible charitable organizations (ie: red cross, etc...).
Just because they choose to operate as a for-profit org which sidesteps quite a number of problems with the current non-profit struture, doesn't make it a PR stunt (though I am sure some PR thought has gone into it) or false. To my mind, this works perfectly with their current structure.
Google is notoriously secreative about is going on within the "googleplex". As a non-profit charity that has ANY association with google.com, anything that passes between (eg: knowledge, people, resources, etc...) them must be public for review and inspection. vs. a for-profit charity is a shell that does good, while still keeping the business structure.
Personally, before we start firing up the torches and sharpening the pitchforks, lets give them a chance. Yes, we have been abused by many monsters (AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, etc...) but just because its a little ugly doesn't mean its a blood sucker too.
There is a quite a difference between a moralistic push (eg: condoms in school) vs. one that is economic that just happens to have environmental and some societal benefit. So lets not start that "If they do this, when does it end...." arguement.
For Profit-Charities have been a around a while, but most don't set them up because they lack some of the tax benefit that traditional "non-profit" charities offer. Plus they depend on grants and contributions of others for subsistance vs. a for profit charity can be run very much like a business, so long as its specific mission statement does not alter and has social benefit.
The recent Red Cross scandal is a reminder that charitable nonprofit organizations sometimes act poorly. Meanwhile, many for-profit commercial organizations try to do good--by helping poor coffee growers, or providing hurricane relief, or supporting schools. Yet the good-doing nonprofits enjoy tax benefits denied to the good-doing for-profits. Why should this be the case? It turns out that there is no reason for discriminating against commercial operations that provide charitable benefits. Indeed, the incentive structures of a profit-making business could be used to enhance the efficiency of charities. Hence the case for the "for-profit charity." Click here for the argument (an abstract of the paper is below).
Abstract: Nonprofit firms may not distribute profits to owners but instead must retain them or reinvest them. Nonprofits that are "charitable organizations" under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code may receive donations from individuals who are allowed to deduct their donations from their income for tax purposes. We argue that the law should not link tax benefits to corporate form in this way. There may be good arguments for recognizing the nonprofit form and good arguments for providing tax subsidies to charities or donors to charities, but there is no good argument for making those tax subsidies available only to charities that adopt the nonprofit form. Consequently, the "for-profit charity" may well be a desirable institution. Currently, no such entity exists, but the reason is surely discriminatory tax treatment; the charitable activities of many commercial firms suggest that in the absence of discriminatory tax treatment for-profit charities would flourish. Current tax benefits for charitable nonprofits should be extended to for-profit charities, and to the charitable activities of for-profit commercial firms." From: http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/misc_ideas/ index.html
I think his point is that there have to be a limit. When your actions are ineffectual at best, and playing into their hands at worst, sometimes a tactical retreat is best.
For me and my family, we are leaving this little false paradise... and for most of the people I know, they are leaving to. Ummm.. Interesting. I seem to recall history where shortly before the demise of a civilization or when things turned REALLY bad (think Germany and Italy), there was a mass exodus.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it is funny.. *checking my calender to see if its april 1st*
Come on, the classic game of tag has been played in various forms, seemingly, for ever. With few to almost none getting hurt. My goodness, we are are rasing a bunch of whiny little snots who can't even take a little bruse. What, I wonder will they do, be when they grow up. (best friends with lawyers or a lawyer themselves I suspect, where NOTHING is ever their fault).
Sheez.. stuff like this gets me sick.
My exact words were: 3: It saves them some money for the long term use of their data centers.
If you are reducing costs of your total operation (office space), and your office space by definition (google's) is somewhat modular, and your bread and butter, as it were, are your data centers, any costs you can shave to bring more of them online is important. I did not say, it saves money ON the data centers, I said it saves money ON the long term use of their data centers. Subtle difference, but distinct.. so please do not issue RTFA's to me.
It is amazing how many people here are stuck on the money factor (which has yet to be shown by them.. We don't know the numbers they got (remember, they have some investment in a solar firm.. so its not like they are paying retail for this I'm sure). People, google is doing this for three reasons if you ask me:
1: It goes with their motto. (Do no evil)
2: It gives them a proving ground for their solar investment and on a fairly large scale. (and on this topic, don't you think their investment might have paid off with some R&D to make solar panels more efficent? I mean they don't invest just for the sake of investing).
3: It saves them some money for the long term use of their data centers.
Also, remember I doubt seriously that they are going to switch over completely to solar power.. I suspect its more like redundancy power "Sun's on full?.. then dial down the Grid (not off)... Clouds are out, then crank it up to 11").
Give them the benefit of the doubt to see how this plays out. But lets not throw stones when all we know is one small piece of the puzzle. For all we know, it may pay off... I personally suspect it will (not to the extent that they might believe but succeed it will). But I'm content to let it ride a little before we start throwing stones.
If I may... The estranged husband of an Oakland woman who has been missing for more than a month was arrested today on suspicion of murder
To me, this is a fishing expedition by the police where they don't have enough real evidence, but he seems to be the one pin they can nail. (woman disappears, it MUST be the husband/boyfriend/father etc... (eg: crime of passion)).
Hopefully they will have nothing, but sadly the damage has already been done.. his life is crap now.
Since I still have my TWIGGY doll.. I think it counts..
*shutup laughing ok.. Umm.. it was my sisters.. yeah.. my sisters.. that sounds right*
I would take it a step further, by mentioning that MS pretty much bribed some of the schools to switch from the PET and the Apple IIe in schools to IBM PC's running windows. But after that, you are correct.. if you can get it in their hands today, they will most assuredly choose your product tomorrow.
No one jumps in the schools for purely humanitarian reasons. Its mostly about consoldation of market share. ("Hook'em while their young").
I don't recall any governmental policies that have ever said "we will shoot down/kill X if they disagree with us" (that would be a declaration of war)
But lets be honest. It is, as you said, a military term, and it will be used by military minds. And to the military mind, if you are not 100% with us, you are a liability that can and will be delt with in a decisive manner. Look over human history (US is no exception) and tell me that, that has not happened. Technology developed to "keep the peace" and/or "to have a edge just in case" quickly turn into weapons of conquest and used as part of their diplomacy when negotiating with others (if they even negotiate).
As I said, Jaded... but humanity is a nasty little creature.
Its a good idea in theory.. "ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries"
The problem with such notions is that this falls right back into who the US decides is not worthy to pursue actions in space. Which pretty much means, its direct allies (ie: those sucking on its teat and/or those who are completely dependant on it) can obtain space (following the strict controls the US sets).
Anyone not of their particular mindset will be viewed as a prelude to war, or at the very least, considered "aggressive actions". I'm pretty sure that if China said tomorrow, we are going to space, you would see some sanctions pretty quickly (and possibly some quiet "accidents").
Yes, I know this is taking a very jaded view, but I believe in two things when it comes down to people who are in power:
1: They believe their way is the right and only way. (and you are pretty much screwed if you are not, at least publicly, on their bandwagon.
2: Once power is obtained, they will do ANYTHING (I repeat ANYTHING) to maintain that power. Up to and including disregarding their "rules" and principle. Which means their ideals are only temporarily. Ideals are those you fight to preserve, not discard when its advantages to do so.
I believe the current actions in the world are pretty much bearing this out. (not exclusively with Bush, though I think he and his crones are doing a fine job of being an example for me.. Hey, thanks Bush. Gives me something to scare the kiddies with)
And yes, as most have already pointed out.. if you want to see it changed, then vote.. change the system.. But the problem is I think quite a few have done that, and have been disillusioned with just how effective their vote actually is. (if you really feel that your vote counts and will effect change, you will do so.. but in the past vote where one person one the "popular" vote and lost the "electorial" vote, quite a lot of people say.. "Awww.. fuck it.. its broke and I'm not playing this game anymore".
So, I repeat. A good idea in theory.. but in practice. Well... I think most of you have already mentioned some of the worst case senarios.
Barring some limitations of a physical entity (single creature) vs. a Social entity (government, corporation, etc...) I think the analogy is quite apt.
Successful corporations have envolved (core products shift),
they Reproduce (patents, mergers, and company splits),
they spread. (see above).
they eat (innvoating, and producing new services/items for purchase),
they deficate (discarding old products/services once their purpose has been complete or no longer financially viable)
Its lifeblood is cash/influence (cut either one off and they die)
I think you can see where this is going. And like every organisim, they have defenses against anything that threatens their life cycle and/or territory. In this part, Microsoft is more like a locust than a typical creature. (locusts tend to swarm into a new territory, consume all resources, and move on.. which is roughly akin to Microsoft. (a new channel which has some financial promise is discovered, and they move in, attempt to wipe out the competition, reproduce, and move on. (think, X-Box, their myspace product, their IPTV product, their IM and portal products, their mobile phone "OS", their hardware (OEM) line, their auction site (yes, they have one in the works), etc). And what is left in their wake is struggling players who can make better, cheaper products, but get swatted down by microsoft through mergers, purchasing, FUD, or just simply marketing. (they have billions to market.. the little guy doesn't). Just enough to say "No, we are not a monopoly.. See that guy over there on life support? and what about that lady there limping? We have competition. Its not our fault if they can't win".
Two things come to mind:
1: Anyone have a can of Raid?
2: Why make 31 flavours if you can't get vanilla right?
I don't think you understand my position on my peeve. Things that encourage more people to READ. (I'm less concerned with WHAT they read these days, than just opening a book).
Amazon has built into their distribution rights the ability to publish exerpts of some books from some of their publishers. As does B&N. Because they are a for profit business (with books being their most known revenue stream), it would get VERY dicey if they did not seek such permission. (might fall into that hawking copies on the street line I made).
As google is not in the book distribution business, its in a different position. As there really is no direct analog right now, this will sound a little crazy.. but its like having a pretty good exerpt of the book you are searching for on the card catalog cards.
Let me say, No. I don't think they are infringing on the publishers rights. (and before the tomatos fly, let me explain)
In the case of public domain works, google provides the complete text (no different than the guttenberg (sp) project. I for one fully support this effort as far too many people DON'T read more than what is required. This may encourage more people to read the complete work (not part of the argument, but it is a peeve of mine)
In the case of copy writed works, they provide an exerpt of the work, not the complete work. (yes, they scan the entire thing because there is no way for a search to be effective, but publicly available).
I can see how some publishers may complain. "Hey, you are copying my book"
But really that is not the case. Fairuse I believe goes into the same scheme.(if I am at the library and decide I want to photocopy the whole bloody thing, (provided I have enough money) I can do so. Things fall into the illegal realm if I make several copies of said work and start distrubuting them or worse, selling them (which just compounds the crime). This argument is akin to having an photographic memory and reciting lines from the book in response to someone's questions. (umm.. ironically no complaints about Amazon, B&N, Alibris, etc. who provide this exact same functionality on a smaller scale).
I for one, applaude Google's efforts because its sorely needed. The big publishers are worried because they THINK they are loosing money (something like how the RIAA thinks they are loosing money with all the MP3's floating about when in fact, almost every study shows this actually increases sales and exposure because much of the target audience doesn't have the cash (or luxary of time) to sample every CD out there to find their likes. This notion of "copywrite" laws is a pretext to fight this. But like most such cases, it hinges on the notion of "harm done" which is why their is such a rant about "stealing" and "its depriving the artists of their money" (when I think most artists would agree, the Publishers/RIAA have been doing for years. (and like most criminal groups, they don't like it when someone intrudes on their turf))
As some of the smaller publishers already realize (and ironically the same is true with the smaller music groups/bands) all this "information exchange" actually HELPS by exposure at the least.
Oh well, lets hope they get smart soon.. but somehow I doubt it. (stupidity does seem to be infectious, and no one wants to take the cure).
I think this is part of that arguement that DRM hurts consumers and the industry (because you KNOW they pass that cost on to us.. *grin*)
What's that smell..
Oh that's right.. a lawsuit.
Hold on to your hats boys and girls, its going to get fun.
I would venture to say, there is a difference between "long hours" and quality and ethics of work.
I am sure you know the person who spends 30 hours working on one task, but the other guy gets it done in 7. The boss prasies the bloke who worked 30 hours because it looks productive, but the reality is, its not.
And the sad fact remains that though SOME are hard working... MOST people I encounter in the US simply want gold on a platter. (no work, or very little). (of course, this attitude is spreading rapidly to other parts of the world as everyone hops on the "westernization" bandwagon)
Nope.. Never touched spam items. I've been a large scale network architect and Engineer (think Time Warner Cable Network, the US Army's Network, etc...).
google is a different beast for me (For many reasons) but before jumping in the tank, I would like to find out from the guys on the sidelines if there are any sharks or other unwanted items in there.
Millions of women who pretty much believe that all men are scum, or are crazy, or have MAJOR attitude problems (read the above, and more), or believe that dark skinned males are going to "get" them, or other reasons. (the list is quite long). As a general rule, I NEVER date anyone in NYC. I've only run across about 10 people that are worth much, and we are good friends (coupled with the fact that they are lesbian and gay keeps them off the list of possibilities).
Hey, lets talk... I'm considering working there (proj Manager) and would love the skinny on the firm before putting ink to paper. (currently work for the evil empire)
AIM: mrdmiller2
ICQ: 2467471
Hey, its how I got started..
I was 2 when I father brought me to IBM and taught me JCL and assembly programming. (my uncle took the weekends to teach me Large Scale Network Design (worked for CIA and IRS at the time).
If you kids show an interest in what you do, include them in.. the rewards are great (speaking as the "kid", not the parent)
Considering that my long time GF lives/works in Seattle, and I live/work in NYC. I have to say, distance does make a difference (slightly less hard than my previous GF who lived in Osaka when I was in Melbourne, but tricky none the less). But mostly in how you approach things. Communication is important, spending time is critical, getting to know each other and your friends are essential (Especially as all the local ones are going to trash you when you are not there (eg: "Dump him for someone local" and "I know this great guy, you should meet him and ditch the other one" - And speaking of which, why do you women do that?). These days, webcams and telephones make it much easier to stay in touch (I fly out there every other week). But it is hard.
The most important thing however is to have a plan/goal that you can work together towards. (if its a serious one, the first should be getting closer geographically).
Technically speaking, anything which one can derive pleasure from the use of and anguish from the abstinence of can be considered addictive.
Some people have an addictive personality which means if they are not addicted to one thing, they will be addicted to another. The good part is that at least this addiction, when used properly, has some economic benefit to the user. (I've never heard of anyone selling their home for one last hit of the MBE (megabyte express) (of course, given how much the ISP's want to abuse us with charges, that day may come soon).
So enjoy your addiction. I for one, enjoy a little hit of Cable every now and then. A quick click before work, and some fun after work. But I can handle it. *smile*
Ciao for now people, my connection is back on.
It seems that everyone has it in for apple. From the people on the street that say "Don't go ipod, buy something else" (ummm.. no one is making a public move relating to windows on that.. and there are FAR more windows users than podHeads).
To the music business that keeps wanting to raise prices because they feel they are not getting "enough" money.. (dispite the fact that they actually save money from the elimination of the distribution/packaging/shipping/retail costs.. but oh well, sure, they need another solid gold toilet)
To the movie business (ditto above, except its a solid gold dildo)
And now walmart is scared because someone might out-price them. Forgetting the simple fact that a sizable chunk of the people that shop in walmart are not heavy on-line purchasers (for other goods and services) so they loose a little money in one department but make it up in another. (it would be better for them to partner with apple, like they do now with the itunes credits) and clip a little off the top for those impulse purchases, than whine that we are not making enough money because the big bad apple (funny huh?) is taking our lunch money.
Give me a break wal-mart, so you lost a little ground in a particular market because of a different distribution channel. Big Whoop.
Its been that way all throughout history. (the milkman lost his job because of the grocery store, the news paper boy lost his job because of mailing lists, the indie bands lost their money because of the RIAA, etc...)
I'm sure that left to their own devices, applie would probubly open up the codec structure to allow other non-DRM formats. But then they would have the RIAA all over their keisters blaming them for the loss of that penny last week at lunch.
To use the anonology above, the apple car would keep getting pulled over for DWB (Driving While Black) by the RIAA (police).
So whats the point of going through that if you don't have to. And if you can make a little more money along the way, why not.
I would not agree with that statement.
Quite a lot of us have been disillusioned by the backdoor (eg: silent) philanthopist. But would you not agree that the Carnagee/Mellon foundation which has "invested" so much in music and in the library system. and quite a number of other large very visible charitable organizations (ie: red cross, etc...).
Just because they choose to operate as a for-profit org which sidesteps quite a number of problems with the current non-profit struture, doesn't make it a PR stunt (though I am sure some PR thought has gone into it) or false. To my mind, this works perfectly with their current structure.
Google is notoriously secreative about is going on within the "googleplex". As a non-profit charity that has ANY association with google.com, anything that passes between (eg: knowledge, people, resources, etc...) them must be public for review and inspection. vs. a for-profit charity is a shell that does good, while still keeping the business structure.
Personally, before we start firing up the torches and sharpening the pitchforks, lets give them a chance. Yes, we have been abused by many monsters (AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, etc...) but just because its a little ugly doesn't mean its a blood sucker too.
There is a quite a difference between a moralistic push (eg: condoms in school) vs. one that is economic that just happens to have environmental and some societal benefit. So lets not start that "If they do this, when does it end...." arguement.
/ index.html
For Profit-Charities have been a around a while, but most don't set them up because they lack some of the tax benefit that traditional "non-profit" charities offer. Plus they depend on grants and contributions of others for subsistance vs. a for profit charity can be run very much like a business, so long as its specific mission statement does not alter and has social benefit.
Another chunk of data to read: http://www.tgci.com/magazine/98winter/profit.asp
"For-Profit Charities
The recent Red Cross scandal is a reminder that charitable nonprofit organizations sometimes act poorly. Meanwhile, many for-profit commercial organizations try to do good--by helping poor coffee growers, or providing hurricane relief, or supporting schools. Yet the good-doing nonprofits enjoy tax benefits denied to the good-doing for-profits. Why should this be the case? It turns out that there is no reason for discriminating against commercial operations that provide charitable benefits. Indeed, the incentive structures of a profit-making business could be used to enhance the efficiency of charities. Hence the case for the "for-profit charity." Click here for the argument (an abstract of the paper is below).
Abstract:
Nonprofit firms may not distribute profits to owners but instead must retain them or reinvest them. Nonprofits that are "charitable organizations" under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code may receive donations from individuals who are allowed to deduct their donations from their income for tax purposes. We argue that the law should not link tax benefits to corporate form in this way. There may be good arguments for recognizing the nonprofit form and good arguments for providing tax subsidies to charities or donors to charities, but there is no good argument for making those tax subsidies available only to charities that adopt the nonprofit form. Consequently, the "for-profit charity" may well be a desirable institution. Currently, no such entity exists, but the reason is surely discriminatory tax treatment; the charitable activities of many commercial firms suggest that in the absence of discriminatory tax treatment for-profit charities would flourish. Current tax benefits for charitable nonprofits should be extended to for-profit charities, and to the charitable activities of for-profit commercial firms."
From: http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/misc_ideas
I think his point is that there have to be a limit. When your actions are ineffectual at best, and playing into their hands at worst, sometimes a tactical retreat is best.
For me and my family, we are leaving this little false paradise... and for most of the people I know, they are leaving to. Ummm.. Interesting. I seem to recall history where shortly before the demise of a civilization or when things turned REALLY bad (think Germany and Italy), there was a mass exodus.