Not that similar. United Artists made a flap over the similarity of "Goldmember" to "Goldfinger". Of course parody is a Constitutionally protected part of free speech, but they were arguing based some agreement between studios. Or something. The situation was resolved by showing trailers for the next James Bond movie before "Goldmember".
This seems more like Spider-Man, which took forever to make because a half dozen studios had the rights to make it. Or the flap over the Hobbit, in which New Line had the rights to make it, but MGM had the rights to distribute - for which they wanted a cool $500 million, IIRC. No idea how that one got resolved, but I would really, really like to have been one of their lawyers on that case.
If Apple were to completely revamp their OS or even get rid of it, it wouldn't have that much affect on their sales. If they went all Wintell and just slapped an Apple logo on a Dell, but still have their iPod and other products completely integrated, I still don't think there would be much of an affect on their sales.
Brand loyalty is based on how much consumers like the product, so you don't go changing a successful product willy-nilly and maintain the same level of success. See: New Coke. Or for a better example, Marvel Comics around 1990, when they were the biggest, most profitable comic company. Then the CEO literally stated that talent didn't matter, and that the books would sell themselves. So they stopped paying good money for artists and writers and doubled the amount of titles they put out. So readership plummeted and the company swirled around in bankruptcy until the movies started to bring in the money.
The problem with the Harley comparison is that while both Apple and Harley are good brands, Apple is also known for their quality. So no, they can't just slap a Mac sticker on a supplier-of-the-week Dell POS Special and expect their customer base to keep buying.
You know, plenty of other rag-tag militia have had considerable success against modern armies in the past couple of decades, what makes you think that American revolutionaries would be any different?
Because even more rag-tag militia's have not met success, but mass slaughter. The Confederates couldn't pull it off, except they were a first class army instead of a militia.
I don't think he could have done Kashyyyk in Return.
So drop Kashyyyk then, if it was even established at the time that the planet had miles high trees. The Empire liked using Wookies as slaves, and had built a huge shield generator on Endor. Between that and the huge space station they were constructing in orbit, they would have needed plenty of labor.
Couldn't pull it off? I can't imagine that it would be easier to assemble an army of "small actors" for Ewoks than it would be to get to get some college baseketball players (tall, thin) to play Wookies.
Uh, are you the rule or the exception? The median download speed for the U.S. is 1.97 Mpbs. For Finland, it's 21 Mpbs, and 63 for Japan. So do you honestly think that your isolated example has any meaning whatsoever for the average American?
But the first step is to start with REASONABLE goals, not stupid ones.
I made the Scandinavian comparison because it shoots down the "America is too rural" excuse. And why is it unreasonable to set goals that other countries have already met? Sure, I understand that living in the Midwest, I'm not likely to see a 100 Mpbs duplex connection any time soon. But that doesn't explain why those living in Manhattan, one of the most densely populated cities in the world, are also SOL.
Yup, there's also the American penchant for lobbying, advertising and giving the board of directors their annual 15% pay increase on their multi-million dollar salaries. You're right in that the FA doesn't go in to how much of foreign networks are subsidized, but neither does it go into how much of your $55 a month for your 3Mbps/512Kpbs connection goes into the above expenses.
You're blaming government-granted monopolies on the free market?
...and you can always count on Republican Dogma to be backed up with misdirection and red herrings.
Government doesn't create utility monopolies, The Last Mile does. It isn't realistic to expect two or more companies to make massive investments in infrastructure if only 1 line can be used at a time, so agreements are made with local governments so one company can serve all the customers in an area, yet have to put up with some regulation in order to prevent abuse of a captive audience.
And yes, internet access speeds have been entirely left to the free market in the U.S. You may have only one cable line and one phone line to your house, but the competition between the two has left us with an anemic average download speed of 1.97 Mpbs, compared to Finland (21) or Japan (63!).
The one decision that really saddled us with crappy access was the FCC ruling that internet access was an information service rather than a telecommunication service - so telecos no longer had to lease their lines at wholesale prices to competitors.
Scandinavian countries have lower population densities than we do yet have much better access. And the "rural" argument might make sense for why you can't get good access on a farm in Kansas, but then why don't we have 100 Mbps consumer connections in San Francisco or Manhattan?
Your post didn't answer the first point, and ignored the second. Finland has 5.3 million people in 130,000 square miles. Wisconsin has 5.7 million people in 65,000 square miles. So, obviously Finland is gong to have a lot more open areas than Wisconsin, yet it has a median download speed of 21 Mbps, compared to less than 2 Mbps for the United States. I don't have figures for Wisconsin, but what do you think the chances are they will be remotely close to Finland?
And I have yet to see any apologists offer a reason why you can't get access in densely populated American cities like Manhattan to match what Europe is able to deliver to their people in the sticks.
However, with many unions, even a manager who wants to do a good job, is unable to, because, due to union contracts, can't fire those who need to be fired, ends up firing those who should stay on, simply because they have the least seniority, and can't promote people who really deserve to be promoted.
Sorry, but that's another myth. There is nothing about unions that prevents workers for being fired with cause. Zilch, nada, zip. Sure, you might have some anecdotes about union members who managed to stay on after gross misconduct, but then I can match it with my anecdote of a guy who said to a young female employee "I'd like to rape the shit out of you" and wasn't terminated, at a virulently anti-union company. Or the line supervisor who was caught sleeping in the break room when he was supposed to be working - twice. He still has his job, while hourly employees at the same place have been fired for coming in two minutes late.
Bad cases are not examples of systemic flaws in union or non-union shops, but as you say, are examples of bad management.
Not the old "but America is rural!" chestnut again. Scandinavian countries have lower population densities than we do yet have much better access. And the "rural" argument might make sense for why you can't get good access on a farm in Kansas, but then why don't we have 100 Mbps consumer connections in San Francisco or Manhattan?
As tech workers in the US, we have a pretty sweet deal.
Being expected to work huge amounts of overtime without compensation is sweet how, exactly?
Let's remember the lesson of the union workers for the steel industry, auto workers, etc, and let's take a moment to reflect on outsourcing...then let's make sure this gun isn't pointed at our collective foot.
Uh, no. Like most offshoring, the steel industry moved out because of executive greed, not because workers wanted too much money. In the auto industry, executives are rewarded with millions of dollars in compensation and have their severance packages secured regardless of performance. GM has lost almost $70 billion in the last few years, yet their board of directors keeps the CEO who presided over all that loss.
Interesting. Have you worked for companies that don't have a unionized work force? Then no doubt you've met people with good attitudes and work ethics that have passed over for promotion while those who put in far less effort are rewarded because they have a connection or some more billets on their resume. No doubt you've also seen people suffer no consequences for misconduct that would have gotten you written up or fired because they're on good terms with their supervisor. If you've been in the work force for a while, I'm sure you can think of several examples. So why wouldn't those cases be proof of how businesses are a failure? And you complain about unions holding back your inner leetness when it comes to compensation, yet companies have their pay scales. It doesn't matter if your ability matches your ego, because the company will only pay you a max of $X per year for the position you are at.
Workers in unions earn more than those who don't, straight up. You're sacrificing increased pay, benefits and job security in favor of an illusion. You might make $4 less per hour, have worse insurance and less vacation time, but you've saved yourself a thousand dollars a year in union dues! Brilliant!
It's more convenient to download a torrent from Pirate Bay overnight than it is to drive to Best Buy and fork over $60 for a game you'll finish in a weekend. It is more convenient to play a cracked copy of a game than it is to put up with DRM on top of CD checks or Steam. Make a decent game with few bugs, make a good demo for people download, and price it to sell, and you'll make money. Painkiller was an impulse buy for me at $30 at BB, for example.
Unfortunately the purpose for the download of copyrighted material does not make it anymore legal, no matter how one rationalizes it, it's just simply not your right.
One reason we don't shed a tear for the recording, radio, cable TV and movie industries is they were all founded on piracy themselves. Film makers didn't set up shop in Hollywood just for the nice weather, they did it to get away from Thomas Edison's patents on cameras. The rest took advantage of loopholes to make money from other people's content without paying for it.
Copyright violations aren't the problem these industries have with Napster or Bittorrent, it's that they aren't controlled by industry so they can make money from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Is anybody beginning to understand why I would prefer that these devices not be allowed on airplanes?"
No. I do understand that you seem to like Security Theater, however.
Not that similar. United Artists made a flap over the similarity of "Goldmember" to "Goldfinger". Of course parody is a Constitutionally protected part of free speech, but they were arguing based some agreement between studios. Or something. The situation was resolved by showing trailers for the next James Bond movie before "Goldmember".
This seems more like Spider-Man, which took forever to make because a half dozen studios had the rights to make it. Or the flap over the Hobbit, in which New Line had the rights to make it, but MGM had the rights to distribute - for which they wanted a cool $500 million, IIRC. No idea how that one got resolved, but I would really, really like to have been one of their lawyers on that case.
If Apple were to completely revamp their OS or even get rid of it, it wouldn't have that much affect on their sales. If they went all Wintell and just slapped an Apple logo on a Dell, but still have their iPod and other products completely integrated, I still don't think there would be much of an affect on their sales.
Brand loyalty is based on how much consumers like the product, so you don't go changing a successful product willy-nilly and maintain the same level of success. See: New Coke. Or for a better example, Marvel Comics around 1990, when they were the biggest, most profitable comic company. Then the CEO literally stated that talent didn't matter, and that the books would sell themselves. So they stopped paying good money for artists and writers and doubled the amount of titles they put out. So readership plummeted and the company swirled around in bankruptcy until the movies started to bring in the money.
The problem with the Harley comparison is that while both Apple and Harley are good brands, Apple is also known for their quality. So no, they can't just slap a Mac sticker on a supplier-of-the-week Dell POS Special and expect their customer base to keep buying.
So schools should teach Scientology then? How about man-boy love?
You know, plenty of other rag-tag militia have had considerable success against modern armies in the past couple of decades, what makes you think that American revolutionaries would be any different?
Because even more rag-tag militia's have not met success, but mass slaughter. The Confederates couldn't pull it off, except they were a first class army instead of a militia.
However, it should still be taught.
Why.
If you could get scientists to stick to the parts of evolution supported by the evidence
You mean the only thing they've ever done?
Then you fire him for not meeting the job description.
I don't think he could have done Kashyyyk in Return.
So drop Kashyyyk then, if it was even established at the time that the planet had miles high trees. The Empire liked using Wookies as slaves, and had built a huge shield generator on Endor. Between that and the huge space station they were constructing in orbit, they would have needed plenty of labor.
Couldn't pull it off? I can't imagine that it would be easier to assemble an army of "small actors" for Ewoks than it would be to get to get some college baseketball players (tall, thin) to play Wookies.
Uh, are you the rule or the exception? The median download speed for the U.S. is 1.97 Mpbs. For Finland, it's 21 Mpbs, and 63 for Japan. So do you honestly think that your isolated example has any meaning whatsoever for the average American?
But the first step is to start with REASONABLE goals, not stupid ones.
I made the Scandinavian comparison because it shoots down the "America is too rural" excuse. And why is it unreasonable to set goals that other countries have already met? Sure, I understand that living in the Midwest, I'm not likely to see a 100 Mpbs duplex connection any time soon. But that doesn't explain why those living in Manhattan, one of the most densely populated cities in the world, are also SOL.
There's more than just population density.
Yup, there's also the American penchant for lobbying, advertising and giving the board of directors their annual 15% pay increase on their multi-million dollar salaries. You're right in that the FA doesn't go in to how much of foreign networks are subsidized, but neither does it go into how much of your $55 a month for your 3Mbps/512Kpbs connection goes into the above expenses.
Riiiight. And what do offshore oil platforms have to do with residential internet access, exactly?
You're blaming government-granted monopolies on the free market?
...and you can always count on Republican Dogma to be backed up with misdirection and red herrings.
Government doesn't create utility monopolies, The Last Mile does. It isn't realistic to expect two or more companies to make massive investments in infrastructure if only 1 line can be used at a time, so agreements are made with local governments so one company can serve all the customers in an area, yet have to put up with some regulation in order to prevent abuse of a captive audience.
And yes, internet access speeds have been entirely left to the free market in the U.S. You may have only one cable line and one phone line to your house, but the competition between the two has left us with an anemic average download speed of 1.97 Mpbs, compared to Finland (21) or Japan (63!).
The one decision that really saddled us with crappy access was the FCC ruling that internet access was an information service rather than a telecommunication service - so telecos no longer had to lease their lines at wholesale prices to competitors.
Since you ignored it the first time:
Scandinavian countries have lower population densities than we do yet have much better access. And the "rural" argument might make sense for why you can't get good access on a farm in Kansas, but then why don't we have 100 Mbps consumer connections in San Francisco or Manhattan?
Your post didn't answer the first point, and ignored the second. Finland has 5.3 million people in 130,000 square miles. Wisconsin has 5.7 million people in 65,000 square miles. So, obviously Finland is gong to have a lot more open areas than Wisconsin, yet it has a median download speed of 21 Mbps, compared to less than 2 Mbps for the United States. I don't have figures for Wisconsin, but what do you think the chances are they will be remotely close to Finland?
And I have yet to see any apologists offer a reason why you can't get access in densely populated American cities like Manhattan to match what Europe is able to deliver to their people in the sticks.
However, with many unions, even a manager who wants to do a good job, is unable to, because, due to union contracts, can't fire those who need to be fired, ends up firing those who should stay on, simply because they have the least seniority, and can't promote people who really deserve to be promoted.
Sorry, but that's another myth. There is nothing about unions that prevents workers for being fired with cause. Zilch, nada, zip. Sure, you might have some anecdotes about union members who managed to stay on after gross misconduct, but then I can match it with my anecdote of a guy who said to a young female employee "I'd like to rape the shit out of you" and wasn't terminated, at a virulently anti-union company. Or the line supervisor who was caught sleeping in the break room when he was supposed to be working - twice. He still has his job, while hourly employees at the same place have been fired for coming in two minutes late.
Bad cases are not examples of systemic flaws in union or non-union shops, but as you say, are examples of bad management.
Uhhh, the climate is always changing.
Another denier who confuses weather with climate.
but the ice in the Antarctic is growing
Misdirection. The ice isn't growing because it's getting colder there, but because of increased precipitation.
Not the old "but America is rural!" chestnut again. Scandinavian countries have lower population densities than we do yet have much better access. And the "rural" argument might make sense for why you can't get good access on a farm in Kansas, but then why don't we have 100 Mbps consumer connections in San Francisco or Manhattan?
Internet access and health care are two perfect examples of why government can do good things, contrary to Republican dogma.
I hate having to deal with time-cards and I hate being told I can't do something (ie: work 80 hours this week then work 20 the next)
And if your job is actually like that, more power to you. But generally "salaried" means "put in more than 40 hours a week without getting more pay".
As tech workers in the US, we have a pretty sweet deal.
Being expected to work huge amounts of overtime without compensation is sweet how, exactly?
Let's remember the lesson of the union workers for the steel industry, auto workers, etc, and let's take a moment to reflect on outsourcing...then let's make sure this gun isn't pointed at our collective foot.
Uh, no. Like most offshoring, the steel industry moved out because of executive greed, not because workers wanted too much money. In the auto industry, executives are rewarded with millions of dollars in compensation and have their severance packages secured regardless of performance. GM has lost almost $70 billion in the last few years, yet their board of directors keeps the CEO who presided over all that loss.
Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Interesting. Have you worked for companies that don't have a unionized work force? Then no doubt you've met people with good attitudes and work ethics that have passed over for promotion while those who put in far less effort are rewarded because they have a connection or some more billets on their resume. No doubt you've also seen people suffer no consequences for misconduct that would have gotten you written up or fired because they're on good terms with their supervisor. If you've been in the work force for a while, I'm sure you can think of several examples. So why wouldn't those cases be proof of how businesses are a failure? And you complain about unions holding back your inner leetness when it comes to compensation, yet companies have their pay scales. It doesn't matter if your ability matches your ego, because the company will only pay you a max of $X per year for the position you are at.
Workers in unions earn more than those who don't, straight up. You're sacrificing increased pay, benefits and job security in favor of an illusion. You might make $4 less per hour, have worse insurance and less vacation time, but you've saved yourself a thousand dollars a year in union dues! Brilliant!
It's more convenient to download a torrent from Pirate Bay overnight than it is to drive to Best Buy and fork over $60 for a game you'll finish in a weekend. It is more convenient to play a cracked copy of a game than it is to put up with DRM on top of CD checks or Steam. Make a decent game with few bugs, make a good demo for people download, and price it to sell, and you'll make money. Painkiller was an impulse buy for me at $30 at BB, for example.
Unfortunately the purpose for the download of copyrighted material does not make it anymore legal, no matter how one rationalizes it, it's just simply not your right.
One reason we don't shed a tear for the recording, radio, cable TV and movie industries is they were all founded on piracy themselves. Film makers didn't set up shop in Hollywood just for the nice weather, they did it to get away from Thomas Edison's patents on cameras. The rest took advantage of loopholes to make money from other people's content without paying for it.
Copyright violations aren't the problem these industries have with Napster or Bittorrent, it's that they aren't controlled by industry so they can make money from it.