It obvious that you're still a relatively young person or at least someone who doesn't have many responsibilities outside of work.
Wrong. I'm 43 years old, have worked for many companies, have started many companies (in fact, I was fired from my own start-up after we got V.C. funding, leaving me with a family and no job). I have a wife, two kids, and a large mortgage to support. Believe me, I understand being screwed and I understand "not fair". I just don't whine about it, and I just do what is necessary to support my life. Life is not fair.
amazing. your whole post was 'stop whining'. what a content-free post!
No, the content was "stop whining" AND "value is not based on what you think it ought to be".
I'm a principle engineer with a few decades of field experience. I'm far from entry-level yet you tell me to 'grow up'?
Damn straight. Apparently you have a mistaken notion that the world owes you something for having a "few decades" of experience. I'm sure the buggy-whip makers with decades of experience were pissed off when they were no longer able to make as much money.
even if I'm the best contributor in my field, if the bean counters are swayed by cost and cost alone, this is a losing battle.
If you're the best contributor in your field, and that's not enough for someone to pay you what *YOU* think you're worth, then -- shock -- do something else that's more valuable. The world changes. Adapt or perish.
clearly you have not lived this experience. YOU grow up and then you'll see it, first hand.
You're right, I haven't lived this experience -- primarily because I've adapted my working knowledge to the world as it has changed (If I was still doing what I was doing 20 years ago, I'd be making peanuts). But if, for some reason, I found myself left high and dry because my particular niche wasn't as valuable, I assure you I wouldn't be blaming the "bean counters". I would be looking at the market to see what *was* making money. In fact, I typically do that anyway.
I know this sounds crazy, but you could... I dunno, check the job listings to see what companies are actually hiring for. They sometimes even tell you the wage scale!
no matter how you cut it, its unfair and its NOT the employee's fault. grow up and you'll see this - and stop blaming US workers, its NOT our fault most of the time. its the bean counters.
Sheesh, grow up. You're too old for this kind of whining. It's ALWAYS the employee's fault. You're either valuable or you aren't, and -- by definition -- your value is based on what someone is willing to give you. If someone isn't willing to give you the pay you want, then you're not worth that much.
Either take a job at a lower pay, move somewhere else where the pay is better (or it's cheaper to live), or find a different niche to fill. But for God's sake, take responsibility for your life and stop expecting other people to take care of you.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but seriously, read back what you wrote. Time to become an adult.
What blew me away was when they were hoisting the Olympic flag in the Opening Ceremonies... and the Chinese soldiers were saluting it? WTF? Did we do that, too, when we hoisted the Olympic flag in games that were held in the U.S.? If so, that's just WRONG.
What's so wrong about it? A salute is just a gesture of respect. To my eyes, a salute to the Olympic flag is the equivalent of "Let the best man win."
In a discussion elsewhere, someone stated that the facial animation was good, but the body movement was unrealistic. Since the body movement was actually a live actor,[...]
I noticed, too, that there seemed to be too much weird movement. I actually suspect that's due to the real actress hamming it up too much for the capturing process, trying too hard to make it natural. I bet if they used someone who didn't know what it was for, it would've come out better.
First off, they failed at getting passed the "uncanny valley". That video is still creepy looking.
I could tell it was phony as well -- but it would be interesting if I had seen it without knowing ahead of time it was phony. This is definitely getting closer to fooling people.
From what i understood, this is simply an easier kind of motion capture that works straight from video without the need for sensors etc. That's not the same as creative animation, you still need a real person talking and moving.
I haven't seen motion capture look this good. But anyway, the point of this is that you could, for example, use a cheap (read: plain) actress for the recording of scenes, and then animate the perfect, beautiful princess character using her mannerisms. Let's face it -- actors get paid the big bucks for their looks, and not so much their talent. There is a hell of lot of acting talent out there that doesn't necessarily have the right "look".
No, they use FUD to scare people. Linux and Open Office infringe on 238 Microsoft patents? They keep saying that but they have not named one patent that was infringed.
A lot of crap comes out of Ballmer's mouth. But look at what they do, not what they say. And what they do is rarely, if ever, sue their competition. And supporting SCO was done for a lot of complex reasons. That SCO sued IBM doesn't mean that was the sole reason Microsoft supported SCO.
Meanwhile it's Microsoft that's a convicted monopoly not Apple.
Well, Microsoft was convicted of something utterly stupid, which was bundling a browser with an operating system. The horror! Meanwhile, history proved Microsoft was right -- a browser is an entirely proper and expected tool of a complete operating system. Not to say that Microsoft wasn't guilty of a lot of things, but the actual conviction was stupid.
On the other hand, Apple has been more monopolistic and anti-consumer than Microsoft ever dreamed of being. They just weren't "convicted" of anything because they screw a relatively small number of consumers, and aren't a dominant entity.
Ten years? According to the link, they're working on Windows® XP/2003 compatibility. Neither XP nor 2003 are ten years old.
If you read a little more in-depth, you'll see they are striving for NT compatibility, which is about 15 years old. XP/2003/Vista are just different versions of NT.
However I bet many programs for XP and 2003 won't run on Vista, or the next Windows.
Be serious. The only apps that won't run on XP are *maybe* a few games that take advantage of some Vista features. Other apps would have to be crazy to only run on Vista, considering pre-Vista operating systems probably still have 85-90% marketshare. And that will continue for some time.
And when they do either MS will have broken Windows or they'll slap a lawsuit on ReactOS. Even if they don't who will still be using either Windows?
And how many lawsuits has Microsoft filed against the WINE guys? How about CodeWeavers, which allows Microsoft Office to run under Linux? How about the SAMBA guys? And why would Microsoft *wait* for a stable releaase to file this lawsuit, when it's a GPL application and already out in the wild? How are they going to get that genie back in the bottle?
And I assure you, a significant number of people will be using XP for the next 3-5 years. Considering the vast majority of applications and hardware still run on Win2K, I don't think it'll be a huge problem.
It is interesting to me how when one politician changes his stance due to recognition of the will of the people, he is vilified as a panderer or "flip-flopper." Yet it is called evolutionary when the other does the same thing.
The problem with flip-floppers is that you never where they stand on anything. Say you vote for a candidate because of their stand on stem-cell research. Are you happy when they get in office and suddenly decide to switch to the opposite position because some supporter with a lot of cash asks them to vote a certain way?
And we ABSOLUTELY do not want politicians who simply vote based on opinion polls. One, because they constantly change, and two, because the mass public is generally ignorant of the subtleties of policy. That's why we elect representative -- to study the issues and to do what's most probably correct, rather than just what everyone says they want. Of course, this is the ideal.
They're monopolies because big companies bribed politicians into giving them monopolies.
Don't be absurd. They've been monopolies since the beginning of time because no one wants multiple sets of wires runnings through their neighborhood, or multiple sets of water pipes, or multiple sets of gas pipes, etc.
The pharmaceutical industry. Virtually no newcomers due to interlocking patent issues.
That's so absurd as to be parody. Exactly which patent stops someone from opening a lab and doing research? Here are two that I found in about five seconds of searching:
It is simply not possible to make a "clean room" clone of, say, Windows 2000. [snip ridiculous nonsense] It is far too complicated to make EXACTLY the same systems from scratch.
and if anyone who has access to the source code tries to re-implement part of Windows Microsoft will sue them and win easily.
As I pointed out to someone else in this thread, say what you want about Microsoft, but they have rarely, if ever, used lawsuits as weapons (unlike, say, Apple). The ReactOS project has been around over 10 years. I assure you that Microsoft knows about it. If they were going to try and crush the life out of them, they would've done it before now, when they have an XP-level beta release possibly coming out this year.
Also note that the WINE project has also not been crushed out of existence, despite the fact that you typically need to use real Windows DLLs to make it truly functional. See also: CodeWeavers, which makes *MS Office* run under Linux.
Of course, your own example of Samba also kills your argument. Last I checked, Microsoft hasn't sued them out of existence.
At least try and do a little research before posting rants like this.
Want to actually make enough to do something besides eat, sleep, and (explative deleted)? Then you have to go to a competitive school.
Sorry, but this is simply not true. You can be perfectly successful going to a mid-tier, reasonable school. Most employers only care about the degree, not where it came from, with the exception of the very high tier or the very low tier. And experience is *always* 10x more valuable than the college education.
Really, the primary thing the upper tier schools offer are the connections. Those are certainly valuable to someone starting out, but hardly necessary in the long run.
In theory perhaps but not in real life. You don't think MS won't slap a lawsuit on a competitor who tries to clone Windows?
I'm tired of this whole subject, but let me just address this: Say what you want about Microsoft, but they have rarely, if ever, used lawsuits as a weapon against competitors (unlike, say, Apple). Proof? See these guys. They've been working on a Windows clone for 10 years now, and not a peep out of Microsoft (I assure you, they know about it). And they're getting close to a usable beta release.
[Once] you took a job with Company A, you could never use your skills for Company B, C, or D. You were useless in your chosen field. [...] This is wrong, and needs to be restrained. In fact, I think one of the most important roles of Government today is to reign in the accumulation of power by corporations.
Come on, at least understand what you're criticizing. A perpetual lifelong compete clause has always been illegal. They *always* have a time limit, normally a year, and often are geographically limited. If it's so restrictive that it prevents you from earning a living, then it's illegal.
I'm of two minds about noncompetes. On the one hand, I can understand that it sucks if there's no reasonable competitive reason to have it on you.
On the other hand, for, say, a salesman, I can totally understand that it would suck as a business to have your salesman, who knows your entire customer base and contracts, jumping to another competitor -- his primary value being, of course, that he knows all your customers and the deals they have. That sets up a market for spies to simply work at various competitors and sell the information to the highest bidder. Yeah, yeah, confidential information, trade secrets, yadda yadda. But in practice, it would be very difficult to stop a competitor from "coincidentally" contacting the customers.
So I believe that there are cases where non-competes are reasonable. Unfortunately, companies tend to blanket all their professional employees with them. I wish California had taken a more balanced approach to it, and issued strict guidelines for it.
they SHOULD be allowed to "fudge" their explanation to the bumbling consumers who come in off the street with no clue of how finances work.
Explain to me how they "fudged" the explanation of payments exceeding ability to pay. Or does the average person have so little clue of "how finances work" that they don't know whether they have the ability to pay.
The fact of the matter is people were trying to score in the "forever" growing market. Perhaps they should be protected from their own greed, but don't argue they didn't understand what they were doing. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Being scammed by a con artist usually involves a bunch of voluntary steps, too. I don't think that a society where that kind of predatory behavior was unregulated would be a very pleasant one to live in.
I'm not arguing against regulation -- though, in this case, I don't think it was people being fooled so much as being greedy (by trying to flip their house), or thinking somehow things would work out when their payments were so high compared to their income.
The point to all this is that at least I can choose which lender to deal with. There is no law that compels me to deal with a "predatory" lender.
I think I understand the concepts of society.. but then again I think I understand the concepts of Santa Claus too.. neither actually exist.
Okay, I get it. You think you have some grand philosophical insight that no one has ever thought of -- abstractions don't have physical reality. -gasp!-
Sorry, but this is just childish. Everybody knows that we are under no physical obligation to follow the abstract rules of society. Everybody knows this. It's just most people consider it 1) so obvious as to be not worth mentioning, and 2) completely irrelevant to a practical, fulfilled life.
You can pretend that you're so intellectually above everyone that only you realize that you have "true mental freedom from the constraints of abstractions" but it's just silliness. If your actions are influenced in any way by external rules (such as, say, paying the rent), then you have recognized the reality of the abstraction of society. After all, if it doesn't exist in any way (similar to God), why would it influence your behavior?
I know, I know. The rental contract's abstraction is as real as Santa Claus. True, but Santa Claus doesn't toss you out of your apartment if you don't pay the rent.
And by the way, when you get down to it, *everything* is unprovable to be real, except your own existence*. But most of us choose to play the fictional game that comes in through our senses.
*Well, this is actually arguable, but tangential to my point.
Practically, every product sold has a certain level of risk if used in a particular manner. If a buyer accurately understands the risks but decides to uses a product in a unsafe manner then he absolves the manufacturer of any liability. If the CEO or someone else at Ford lied to people or knew about, yet ignored important safety information then yes, that person *not* his "fictional corporation" should be liable.
Read what you wrote! We have *exactly* the world you want! Individuals can and are liable when they "lie or know about important safety information." And what you call the "manufacturer" -- that you say should be protected from liability if consumers understand the risk -- is simply a collective entity with liability rules. And just for fun, in the case of disputes, we'll allow the consumer to sue the entity so as to determine whether it's the "manufacturer" or the management at fault. Congratulations, you have invented the corporation.:D
Society is a myth, its a fiction. You can refer to it, but its a fabrication created in your mind not dissimilar to how a child would believe in Santa Clause. People are individuals not groups.
You misunderstand what society is. You seem to think that society is a collective group of individuals, but it's not. Society is the *rules*, the *structure*, by which the individuals function together. Society is as real as the written law books, and as real as social ostracization if certain unwritten rules are broken.
No, government can be shaped by the people to reflect their needs and values, corporations cannot.
Which has a more direct effect:
A single vote among two candidates that represent a broad spectrum of issues (some I agree with, some I don't)... OR
Choosing DSL because my Cable Internet is too expensive, AND choosing the iPhone because I like the browser better instead of Nokia, AND driving a Honda instead of an American car brand because of better quality, AND going to the gas station across the street from the other one because it's 10 cents cheaper, AND... a thousand other daily decisions that DIRECTLY influence the behavior of various corporations because of the power of my money spending decisions.
Why people feel this powerlessness with the eeeevil corporations is beyond me. You have ultimate power, because you have what they desperately want: money.
Government grants this protection to business men so they can operate with immunity. Does this seam fair?
It is absolutely more fair than the alternative. Let's say you're the CEO of Ford, and someone has an accident and dies in one of your cars. Should the CEO be brought up on charges of Involuntary Manslaughter? On every single accident? Basically, every company CEO would be *personally* responsible for everything that ever happened in the company, whether they personally designed anything or not. Does that seem fair? You might be thinking, "Good! Then they'll be extra careful!" Except that it's literally impossible for anyone to be perfectly in charge of everything.
So make those directly in charge responsible? So, basically, you're saying that any engineer that works on a car is at risk of going to jail for any defect? Or any programmer that works on medical equipment? How would do it?
In the world you want, nothing risky would ever get created. Certainly no one is going to try creating a new drug -- you'd have to be insane, if the risk was murder charges. And look at the false charges from the silicone breast implants -- that was totally fraudulent. In your world, the designers and/or CEO all would've gone to jail.
There is a reason corporations exist. It's because society couldn't function without them.
In the free market, a *true* free market, there are no special protections awarded to people.
Exactly - organized crime (ie corporations) would take over if the feds withdrew. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Congratulations on winning a debate that we weren't even having. Who talked about the feds "withdrawing"? Of course government is necessary to step in and maintain law and order, and other protections of civil rights. That doesn't mean that I don't prefer, all things being equal, to voluntarily dealing with a corporation than involuntarily dealing with the government.
Or, you disagree with the policies of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. They send men to shoot you. [...] You're a fool if you think corporations can't hurt you without your consent.
Sheesh, that's called "organized crime". If you think Microsoft sends the black helicopters out to kill people, then I can't help you.
On the other hand, we know that government can and does put people in jail for trivial reasons. See: That guy in Austria who was put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts about the Holocaust.
With sufficiently predatory lending practices and things of that nature, it becomes far less than "voluntary" too.
Good example! "Predatory"? Who held a gun to the head of these idiots who got loans they couldn't afford? As I said, being exploited by a corporation is entirely *voluntary*.
On the other hand, try opting out of various laws that you don't like. I'm sure I don't need to make a list of various laws that are stupid, yet you have no choice to suffer them.
Wrong. This sounds like something a Randian would say.
Sheesh, any time the concept of business is defended, I must be a "Randian". Sorry to disappoint you, but I believe Libertarians (and "Objectivists"_ are simplistic and deluded.
Try getting electric power from a different company than your local utility. Sorry, there's no competition, as it's a monopoly.
First of all, electric power is a *government* monopoly. Second of all, I can generate my own power anytime I want. Ever heard of private generators? Solar? The reason power is a monopoly is because of the wiring issue.
In many industries, you're not allowed to create a new, competitive company, because all the technology is wrapped up in patents, so that the entrenched players can keep out the newcomers. Patents are another government-granted monopoly.
Oh, please. Name the industry that is so dominated by patents that newcomers can't enter it. In any case, the whole point of patents is to protect the individual inventor. Don't like corporations dominating an industry? Try a world without patents.
It's hard to compete against a much larger company that has big economies of scale, or can afford to sell at a loss until you go under.
Exactly! You understand, yet don't like patents? That's just bizarre. Anytime a small inventor invents something, the big companies would simply out-manufacture them instantly and put them out of business.
How would another company compete against a behemoth[Microsoft] of that size?
Incredibly easily, actually. The problem is that no one has had the balls to produce a redesigned, absolutely, positively, 100%-compatible Windows clone. And don't give me the old wrong answer about "Microsoft will just change Windows to make it incompatible." That's always been crap. Sure, Microsoft can break their own products, but they can't break everyone else's products, and you can also keep an antitrust war chest to sue Microsoft if they tried to make Office incompatible.
The first company that produces a *good* Windows clone will make billions. They'll instantly get 20-30% marketshare.
At least in theory, the government is elected by the people, and is subject to the court system, elected officials, etc. Corporations are only subject to their upper management.
The "people" is not just you, it's also everyone else. Even if the government listened to "the people", that doesn't mean you agree with whatever the whims of "the people" happen to be. With a corporate world you don't need to beg politicians to do whatever you want. And also notice that corporations are OWNED by "the people" -- which you also can own -- and that's a hell of a lot more direct power.
Slashdot Mirror
It obvious that you're still a relatively young person or at least someone who doesn't have many responsibilities outside of work.
Wrong. I'm 43 years old, have worked for many companies, have started many companies (in fact, I was fired from my own start-up after we got V.C. funding, leaving me with a family and no job). I have a wife, two kids, and a large mortgage to support. Believe me, I understand being screwed and I understand "not fair". I just don't whine about it, and I just do what is necessary to support my life. Life is not fair.
amazing. your whole post was 'stop whining'. what a content-free post!
No, the content was "stop whining" AND "value is not based on what you think it ought to be".
I'm a principle engineer with a few decades of field experience. I'm far from entry-level yet you tell me to 'grow up'?
Damn straight. Apparently you have a mistaken notion that the world owes you something for having a "few decades" of experience. I'm sure the buggy-whip makers with decades of experience were pissed off when they were no longer able to make as much money.
even if I'm the best contributor in my field, if the bean counters are swayed by cost and cost alone, this is a losing battle.
If you're the best contributor in your field, and that's not enough for someone to pay you what *YOU* think you're worth, then -- shock -- do something else that's more valuable. The world changes. Adapt or perish.
clearly you have not lived this experience. YOU grow up and then you'll see it, first hand.
You're right, I haven't lived this experience -- primarily because I've adapted my working knowledge to the world as it has changed (If I was still doing what I was doing 20 years ago, I'd be making peanuts). But if, for some reason, I found myself left high and dry because my particular niche wasn't as valuable, I assure you I wouldn't be blaming the "bean counters". I would be looking at the market to see what *was* making money. In fact, I typically do that anyway.
Any idea what skill(s) is(/are) invaluable?
I know this sounds crazy, but you could... I dunno, check the job listings to see what companies are actually hiring for. They sometimes even tell you the wage scale!
no matter how you cut it, its unfair and its NOT the employee's fault. grow up and you'll see this - and stop blaming US workers, its NOT our fault most of the time. its the bean counters.
Sheesh, grow up. You're too old for this kind of whining. It's ALWAYS the employee's fault. You're either valuable or you aren't, and -- by definition -- your value is based on what someone is willing to give you. If someone isn't willing to give you the pay you want, then you're not worth that much.
Either take a job at a lower pay, move somewhere else where the pay is better (or it's cheaper to live), or find a different niche to fill. But for God's sake, take responsibility for your life and stop expecting other people to take care of you.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but seriously, read back what you wrote. Time to become an adult.
What blew me away was when they were hoisting the Olympic flag in the Opening Ceremonies... and the Chinese soldiers were saluting it? WTF? Did we do that, too, when we hoisted the Olympic flag in games that were held in the U.S.? If so, that's just WRONG.
What's so wrong about it? A salute is just a gesture of respect. To my eyes, a salute to the Olympic flag is the equivalent of "Let the best man win."
It is surprising the IOC would cover this up when they allowed Russia to compete in the Olympics while they were invading Georgia?
It's not the IOC's job to take sides in every conflict.
In a discussion elsewhere, someone stated that the facial animation was good, but the body movement was unrealistic. Since the body movement was actually a live actor,[...]
I noticed, too, that there seemed to be too much weird movement. I actually suspect that's due to the real actress hamming it up too much for the capturing process, trying too hard to make it natural. I bet if they used someone who didn't know what it was for, it would've come out better.
First off, they failed at getting passed the "uncanny valley". That video is still creepy looking.
I could tell it was phony as well -- but it would be interesting if I had seen it without knowing ahead of time it was phony. This is definitely getting closer to fooling people.
From what i understood, this is simply an easier kind of motion capture that works straight from video without the need for sensors etc. That's not the same as creative animation, you still need a real person talking and moving.
I haven't seen motion capture look this good. But anyway, the point of this is that you could, for example, use a cheap (read: plain) actress for the recording of scenes, and then animate the perfect, beautiful princess character using her mannerisms. Let's face it -- actors get paid the big bucks for their looks, and not so much their talent. There is a hell of lot of acting talent out there that doesn't necessarily have the right "look".
No, they use FUD to scare people. Linux and Open Office infringe on 238 Microsoft patents? They keep saying that but they have not named one patent that was infringed.
A lot of crap comes out of Ballmer's mouth. But look at what they do, not what they say. And what they do is rarely, if ever, sue their competition. And supporting SCO was done for a lot of complex reasons. That SCO sued IBM doesn't mean that was the sole reason Microsoft supported SCO.
Meanwhile it's Microsoft that's a convicted monopoly not Apple.
Well, Microsoft was convicted of something utterly stupid, which was bundling a browser with an operating system. The horror! Meanwhile, history proved Microsoft was right -- a browser is an entirely proper and expected tool of a complete operating system. Not to say that Microsoft wasn't guilty of a lot of things, but the actual conviction was stupid.
On the other hand, Apple has been more monopolistic and anti-consumer than Microsoft ever dreamed of being. They just weren't "convicted" of anything because they screw a relatively small number of consumers, and aren't a dominant entity.
Ten years? According to the link, they're working on Windows® XP/2003 compatibility. Neither XP nor 2003 are ten years old.
If you read a little more in-depth, you'll see they are striving for NT compatibility, which is about 15 years old. XP/2003/Vista are just different versions of NT.
However I bet many programs for XP and 2003 won't run on Vista, or the next Windows.
Be serious. The only apps that won't run on XP are *maybe* a few games that take advantage of some Vista features. Other apps would have to be crazy to only run on Vista, considering pre-Vista operating systems probably still have 85-90% marketshare. And that will continue for some time.
And when they do either MS will have broken Windows or they'll slap a lawsuit on ReactOS. Even if they don't who will still be using either Windows?
And how many lawsuits has Microsoft filed against the WINE guys? How about CodeWeavers, which allows Microsoft Office to run under Linux? How about the SAMBA guys? And why would Microsoft *wait* for a stable releaase to file this lawsuit, when it's a GPL application and already out in the wild? How are they going to get that genie back in the bottle?
And I assure you, a significant number of people will be using XP for the next 3-5 years. Considering the vast majority of applications and hardware still run on Win2K, I don't think it'll be a huge problem.
It is interesting to me how when one politician changes his stance due to recognition of the will of the people, he is vilified as a panderer or "flip-flopper." Yet it is called evolutionary when the other does the same thing.
The problem with flip-floppers is that you never where they stand on anything. Say you vote for a candidate because of their stand on stem-cell research. Are you happy when they get in office and suddenly decide to switch to the opposite position because some supporter with a lot of cash asks them to vote a certain way?
And we ABSOLUTELY do not want politicians who simply vote based on opinion polls. One, because they constantly change, and two, because the mass public is generally ignorant of the subtleties of policy. That's why we elect representative -- to study the issues and to do what's most probably correct, rather than just what everyone says they want. Of course, this is the ideal.
They're monopolies because big companies bribed politicians into giving them monopolies.
Don't be absurd. They've been monopolies since the beginning of time because no one wants multiple sets of wires runnings through their neighborhood, or multiple sets of water pipes, or multiple sets of gas pipes, etc.
The pharmaceutical industry. Virtually no newcomers due to interlocking patent issues.
That's so absurd as to be parody. Exactly which patent stops someone from opening a lab and doing research? Here are two that I found in about five seconds of searching:
New pharma 1
New pharma 2
It is simply not possible to make a "clean room" clone of, say, Windows 2000. [snip ridiculous nonsense] It is far too complicated to make EXACTLY the same systems from scratch.
*cough*ReactOS*cough*
and if anyone who has access to the source code tries to re-implement part of Windows Microsoft will sue them and win easily.
As I pointed out to someone else in this thread, say what you want about Microsoft, but they have rarely, if ever, used lawsuits as weapons (unlike, say, Apple). The ReactOS project has been around over 10 years. I assure you that Microsoft knows about it. If they were going to try and crush the life out of them, they would've done it before now, when they have an XP-level beta release possibly coming out this year.
Also note that the WINE project has also not been crushed out of existence, despite the fact that you typically need to use real Windows DLLs to make it truly functional. See also: CodeWeavers, which makes *MS Office* run under Linux.
Of course, your own example of Samba also kills your argument. Last I checked, Microsoft hasn't sued them out of existence.
At least try and do a little research before posting rants like this.
Want to actually make enough to do something besides eat, sleep, and (explative deleted)? Then you have to go to a competitive school.
Sorry, but this is simply not true. You can be perfectly successful going to a mid-tier, reasonable school. Most employers only care about the degree, not where it came from, with the exception of the very high tier or the very low tier. And experience is *always* 10x more valuable than the college education.
Really, the primary thing the upper tier schools offer are the connections. Those are certainly valuable to someone starting out, but hardly necessary in the long run.
In theory perhaps but not in real life. You don't think MS won't slap a lawsuit on a competitor who tries to clone Windows?
I'm tired of this whole subject, but let me just address this: Say what you want about Microsoft, but they have rarely, if ever, used lawsuits as a weapon against competitors (unlike, say, Apple). Proof? See these guys. They've been working on a Windows clone for 10 years now, and not a peep out of Microsoft (I assure you, they know about it). And they're getting close to a usable beta release.
[Once] you took a job with Company A, you could never use your skills for Company B, C, or D. You were useless in your chosen field. [...] This is wrong, and needs to be restrained. In fact, I think one of the most important roles of Government today is to reign in the accumulation of power by corporations.
Come on, at least understand what you're criticizing. A perpetual lifelong compete clause has always been illegal. They *always* have a time limit, normally a year, and often are geographically limited. If it's so restrictive that it prevents you from earning a living, then it's illegal.
I'm of two minds about noncompetes. On the one hand, I can understand that it sucks if there's no reasonable competitive reason to have it on you.
On the other hand, for, say, a salesman, I can totally understand that it would suck as a business to have your salesman, who knows your entire customer base and contracts, jumping to another competitor -- his primary value being, of course, that he knows all your customers and the deals they have. That sets up a market for spies to simply work at various competitors and sell the information to the highest bidder. Yeah, yeah, confidential information, trade secrets, yadda yadda. But in practice, it would be very difficult to stop a competitor from "coincidentally" contacting the customers.
So I believe that there are cases where non-competes are reasonable. Unfortunately, companies tend to blanket all their professional employees with them. I wish California had taken a more balanced approach to it, and issued strict guidelines for it.
they SHOULD be allowed to "fudge" their explanation to the bumbling consumers who come in off the street with no clue of how finances work.
Explain to me how they "fudged" the explanation of payments exceeding ability to pay. Or does the average person have so little clue of "how finances work" that they don't know whether they have the ability to pay.
The fact of the matter is people were trying to score in the "forever" growing market. Perhaps they should be protected from their own greed, but don't argue they didn't understand what they were doing. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Being scammed by a con artist usually involves a bunch of voluntary steps, too. I don't think that a society where that kind of predatory behavior was unregulated would be a very pleasant one to live in.
I'm not arguing against regulation -- though, in this case, I don't think it was people being fooled so much as being greedy (by trying to flip their house), or thinking somehow things would work out when their payments were so high compared to their income.
The point to all this is that at least I can choose which lender to deal with. There is no law that compels me to deal with a "predatory" lender.
I think I understand the concepts of society.. but then again I think I understand the concepts of Santa Claus too.. neither actually exist.
Okay, I get it. You think you have some grand philosophical insight that no one has ever thought of -- abstractions don't have physical reality. -gasp!-
Sorry, but this is just childish. Everybody knows that we are under no physical obligation to follow the abstract rules of society. Everybody knows this. It's just most people consider it 1) so obvious as to be not worth mentioning, and 2) completely irrelevant to a practical, fulfilled life.
You can pretend that you're so intellectually above everyone that only you realize that you have "true mental freedom from the constraints of abstractions" but it's just silliness. If your actions are influenced in any way by external rules (such as, say, paying the rent), then you have recognized the reality of the abstraction of society. After all, if it doesn't exist in any way (similar to God), why would it influence your behavior?
I know, I know. The rental contract's abstraction is as real as Santa Claus. True, but Santa Claus doesn't toss you out of your apartment if you don't pay the rent.
And by the way, when you get down to it, *everything* is unprovable to be real, except your own existence*. But most of us choose to play the fictional game that comes in through our senses.
*Well, this is actually arguable, but tangential to my point.
Practically, every product sold has a certain level of risk if used in a particular manner. If a buyer accurately understands the risks but decides to uses a product in a unsafe manner then he absolves the manufacturer of any liability. If the CEO or someone else at Ford lied to people or knew about, yet ignored important safety information then yes, that person *not* his "fictional corporation" should be liable.
Read what you wrote! We have *exactly* the world you want! Individuals can and are liable when they "lie or know about important safety information." And what you call the "manufacturer" -- that you say should be protected from liability if consumers understand the risk -- is simply a collective entity with liability rules. And just for fun, in the case of disputes, we'll allow the consumer to sue the entity so as to determine whether it's the "manufacturer" or the management at fault. Congratulations, you have invented the corporation. :D
Society is a myth, its a fiction. You can refer to it, but its a fabrication created in your mind not dissimilar to how a child would believe in Santa Clause. People are individuals not groups.
You misunderstand what society is. You seem to think that society is a collective group of individuals, but it's not. Society is the *rules*, the *structure*, by which the individuals function together. Society is as real as the written law books, and as real as social ostracization if certain unwritten rules are broken.
No, government can be shaped by the people to reflect their needs and values, corporations cannot.
Which has a more direct effect:
A single vote among two candidates that represent a broad spectrum of issues (some I agree with, some I don't)... OR
Choosing DSL because my Cable Internet is too expensive, AND choosing the iPhone because I like the browser better instead of Nokia, AND driving a Honda instead of an American car brand because of better quality, AND going to the gas station across the street from the other one because it's 10 cents cheaper, AND... a thousand other daily decisions that DIRECTLY influence the behavior of various corporations because of the power of my money spending decisions.
Why people feel this powerlessness with the eeeevil corporations is beyond me. You have ultimate power, because you have what they desperately want: money.
Government grants this protection to business men so they can operate with immunity. Does this seam fair?
It is absolutely more fair than the alternative. Let's say you're the CEO of Ford, and someone has an accident and dies in one of your cars. Should the CEO be brought up on charges of Involuntary Manslaughter? On every single accident? Basically, every company CEO would be *personally* responsible for everything that ever happened in the company, whether they personally designed anything or not. Does that seem fair? You might be thinking, "Good! Then they'll be extra careful!" Except that it's literally impossible for anyone to be perfectly in charge of everything.
So make those directly in charge responsible? So, basically, you're saying that any engineer that works on a car is at risk of going to jail for any defect? Or any programmer that works on medical equipment? How would do it?
In the world you want, nothing risky would ever get created. Certainly no one is going to try creating a new drug -- you'd have to be insane, if the risk was murder charges. And look at the false charges from the silicone breast implants -- that was totally fraudulent. In your world, the designers and/or CEO all would've gone to jail.
There is a reason corporations exist. It's because society couldn't function without them.
In the free market, a *true* free market, there are no special protections awarded to people.
In a "true" free market, society falls apart.
Exactly - organized crime (ie corporations) would take over if the feds withdrew. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Congratulations on winning a debate that we weren't even having. Who talked about the feds "withdrawing"? Of course government is necessary to step in and maintain law and order, and other protections of civil rights. That doesn't mean that I don't prefer, all things being equal, to voluntarily dealing with a corporation than involuntarily dealing with the government.
Or, you disagree with the policies of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. They send men to shoot you. [...] You're a fool if you think corporations can't hurt you without your consent.
Sheesh, that's called "organized crime". If you think Microsoft sends the black helicopters out to kill people, then I can't help you.
On the other hand, we know that government can and does put people in jail for trivial reasons. See: That guy in Austria who was put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts about the Holocaust.
With sufficiently predatory lending practices and things of that nature, it becomes far less than "voluntary" too.
Good example! "Predatory"? Who held a gun to the head of these idiots who got loans they couldn't afford? As I said, being exploited by a corporation is entirely *voluntary*.
On the other hand, try opting out of various laws that you don't like. I'm sure I don't need to make a list of various laws that are stupid, yet you have no choice to suffer them.
Wrong. This sounds like something a Randian would say.
Sheesh, any time the concept of business is defended, I must be a "Randian". Sorry to disappoint you, but I believe Libertarians (and "Objectivists"_ are simplistic and deluded.
Try getting electric power from a different company than your local utility. Sorry, there's no competition, as it's a monopoly.
First of all, electric power is a *government* monopoly. Second of all, I can generate my own power anytime I want. Ever heard of private generators? Solar? The reason power is a monopoly is because of the wiring issue.
In many industries, you're not allowed to create a new, competitive company, because all the technology is wrapped up in patents, so that the entrenched players can keep out the newcomers. Patents are another government-granted monopoly.
Oh, please. Name the industry that is so dominated by patents that newcomers can't enter it. In any case, the whole point of patents is to protect the individual inventor. Don't like corporations dominating an industry? Try a world without patents.
It's hard to compete against a much larger company that has big economies of scale, or can afford to sell at a loss until you go under.
Exactly! You understand, yet don't like patents? That's just bizarre. Anytime a small inventor invents something, the big companies would simply out-manufacture them instantly and put them out of business.
How would another company compete against a behemoth[Microsoft] of that size?
Incredibly easily, actually. The problem is that no one has had the balls to produce a redesigned, absolutely, positively, 100%-compatible Windows clone. And don't give me the old wrong answer about "Microsoft will just change Windows to make it incompatible." That's always been crap. Sure, Microsoft can break their own products, but they can't break everyone else's products, and you can also keep an antitrust war chest to sue Microsoft if they tried to make Office incompatible.
The first company that produces a *good* Windows clone will make billions. They'll instantly get 20-30% marketshare.
At least in theory, the government is elected by the people, and is subject to the court system, elected officials, etc. Corporations are only subject to their upper management.
The "people" is not just you, it's also everyone else. Even if the government listened to "the people", that doesn't mean you agree with whatever the whims of "the people" happen to be. With a corporate world you don't need to beg politicians to do whatever you want. And also notice that corporations are OWNED by "the people" -- which you also can own -- and that's a hell of a lot more direct power.