Or, in other words, are you really sure where exactly you belong on the deserve more/less curve?
It doesn't matter where I think I belong, I get exactly what I deserve, no more, no less. As it happens, I get considerably more than average, which I don't feel in the least guilty about, because I earn it.:)
Yes they are easily replaced, but that doesn't imply they have "no" (as you said) value. Sure, you can get good ideas from the guys from the floor, but again, that doesn't imply that they're hard to replace. Their value is still proportional to how many people can do the job.
If someone is consistently giving good ideas, then if the company is smart, they'll reward that someone because he/she is showing themselves as more valuable than average (assuming it's a non-union shop, if it's a union shop, then you're SOL if you want to be paid for merit). If he or she is underappreciated, then they should find another job.
Value is not necessrily measured by hours worked, nor calories expended. The guys on the factor floor make peanuts because they are easily replaced, not because anyone is exploiting them.
I have absolutely no problem saying I should get less than some other people. Some other people have intrinsically rarer and more valuable talent than me. Of course, the tricky word here is "should". Generally speaking, people are paid exactly what they're worth (by definition), the problem (if there is one) is that some people's perceived worth doesn't match reality.:)
I should also say that I don't care what other people make, and have no illusions that someone making a lot of money has anything to do with what anyone else makes or doesn't make.
Everyone working for the sake of everyone, right? How is that bad?
Because that really means, "productive people working for the sake of slackers." I'm not equal to everyone else, and have no problem with recognition of the fact. I should get more than most people.
Because the author of the summary was Scuttlemonkey, who I highly doubt is that clued in to the thing. And even if he was, he doesn't give us enough evidence in the summary, nor does the story give us enough evidence (i.e., a back history of who the players actually are) to make an informed judgment about whether a hijack was really going on. All the reader knows is that there are two competing stories, yet we are only told that one is true and one is not without any evidence.
Sheesh, maybe, just maybe, Scuttlemonkey, there is more to the story than the one side's view of events? Why are you assuming there is a "hijack" going on here?
It is absolutely ridiculous to say that climate changes can't lead to mass extinctions
And yet, life survived. I don't argue that climate changes don't cause, well, changes, but it's equally ridiculous to say that climate changes will sterilize the earth and make it unliveable for any life, particularly humans. Considering we currently live in every kind of climate (with a low-high temperature differential of 200 degrees F).
As others have pointed out, if a "reasonable person" could think it was stolen (i.e., $1800 laptop for $300), then willful ignorance is no excuse. If you think about it, it makes sense. Otherwise, criminals could launder stolen goods with impunity. All they have to do is claim "I didn't know it was stolen".
In practice, if you buy something stolen but naively thought you were just "getting a good deal", then you'll probably get off with a slap on the wrist. Make it a habit, though, and you'll be in big trouble.
But that's the point. There is every reason for this to happen. The earth has gone through massive change before, and will go through it again, yet has always kept to a relatively narrow band of livable conditions. What keeps the earth in equilibrium?
However, the Earth might be in a condition that we won't survive.
Right, but what makes you think that life will continue to include homo sapiens as a species?
Because large mammals have been around for a billion years -- even without our technological advantages. What makes YOU think that the environment can be changed so radically that it's impossible for anything to survive? There is zero evidence for that, even from the craziest climatologist.
If you are buying a new computer in order to run Vista, it may as well be a Macintosh. How is that not totally awesome?
Well, that brings us back to my original point.:) How many people are going to pay the extra money for the Apple premium on top of having to pay for Vista?
And back to the OP's point, how is that going to get OS/X any more attention? Their point seemed to be that suddenly everyone will want to write comparison articles between OS/X and Vista, and I don't think that's going to happen (at least, happen any more than it does now).
I totally disagree. And it is a whole hell of a lot better than emulation. Games will work.
All right, I'll grant you that. Still, how many people are going to care about that? The point of the original poster is that OS/X will suddenly get a lot of attention because of Vista, and I don't see how OS/X will get more attention than it does now.
Except those Mac boxes can also run Vista. If you think that isn't going to matter...
No, I don't think that'll matter. Mac fans aren't going to toss OS/X for Vista. So who is going to pay a premium for Apple hardware AND pay another $200 (or whatever) for Vista who is not intrinsically an Apple fan? Just to run exactly the same hardware they can get from Dell, except in a prettier box?
The only significant thing about Vista on Apple is that you can run Vista alongside OS/X a bit better than you could under emulation in the past, but a very small minority care about that.
What always makes me think "this is crapola" about stories like this is the assumption that the earth is fragile, and all it takes is a bit too much of [whatever behavior] to knock it out of balance into some cataclysm. The earth is NOT fragile.
I think the thing we most don't understand about the environment are the incredibly powerful equilibrium mechanisms that hold the earth's environment in check. The evidence for these is that life on earth has survived for BILLIONS of years. It's as though a lot of climatologist chicken littles think that environmental changes have never occurred on earth. HUGE changes have occurred, yet the earth has always pulled back to an equilibrium point that has provided life.
I predict that someday we'll find out that for everything we're doing, there will be some incredibly powerful mechanism that will balance it out, like how more carbon dioxide causes more plants to grow, which balances with creating more oxygen.
Microsoft is going to spend (pinkie to mouth) 100 hundred billion dollars on promoting Vista. That's going to make a lot of noise, which Apple can cheaply ride on the back of. Imagine, loads of mainstream publications will cover Vista, and if Apple launches at the same time they'll surely do comparisons.
If they don't do it know, why will they do it then? People don't care what chip is in the box. The Mac boxes are going to look exactly the same.
Now, if Apple allowed OS/X to run on the boxes that everyone already had, then we would see some interest. But since Apple is not going to allow that (at least, above ground), Apple is still going to be a ghetto platform that only a small minority cares about.
Hmmm. I'm picturing some long-time horse-and-buggy engineer in the 1800s looking at a locomotive train, saying...
"Ga-dang-it, the day they make me get on one of them newfangled RAY-UL-roads is the day I retahr. Don't they know the hum-ane body can't stand speeds over 50 miles per hour??"
I already did: "PC downward price pressure". What, you think Apple came out with the Mac mini just because they're so noble and wonderful? Please. They did it to compete with the $500 PCs.
And if this eagerness, nay, devotion leads the Mac to be more expensive than your average "good enough" PC, which I'll allow it very well may, then you're mistaken to characterize it as the result of some obsession with class or status symbolism.
Apple is not more expensive because of higher quality, it's more expensive because they think they can get away with it. Or do you think shaping plastic in a different way is enormously more expensive? Most of Apple's components are exactly the same as PCs, except sell for more.
I will grant you that Apple often pays more attention to design, but the point is still that Apple historically does charge far more than other manufacturers, and the only reason they don't gouge even more is that they can only charge so much of a premium when everyone knows what computers "really" cost. We have a baseline from the PC market.
Well, you came round and summed up my point by ridiculing the very thing you had just done.
No, it just means I'm mentally flexible enough to consider many alternate scenarios, even if they may be unlikely in a global sense.:)
The point still stands that it would have been horrific for the industry and the world if Apple had won and gotten themselves a monopoly-level marketshare.
Do you think if Apple was a monopoly, the prices would be 10,000 per machine?
No question about it. As "passionate" as Steve is, he's not known for cut-rate pricing. Apple has always charged a premium. What makes you think it'd be different in an Apple monopolized world?
Would not have Linux have much better opportunity in such times? After all, Linux is trying to fight a $300 operating system and could be winning with some more effort. With a $5000 operating system, and another $5000 for hardware, Linux would make sure Apple could not remain a monopoly.
No question about it, but the timeline here is the 90s. It would be a golden opportunity for someone else, but remember the primary achilles heel of any alternate operating system -- Applications. Developers don't want to spend money to develop for minority machines, and minority machines can't gain traction without applications. But in our $10K/machine alternate reality, that'd be a big incentive to break the monopoly.
Do you think if Apple was a monopoly, it would not innovate?
Do you not remember the absolute pathetic failure that was Copland? Prior to OS/X, Apple had a terrible recent track record of innovation (albeit with a few bright spots). And that was in a time of fighting for survival! If Apple was fat and raking in the money with the same ol' crap, would they innovate?
How much did, say, Quark Xpress innovate and develop once they reached their market dominance? Many people *despise* the arrogance of Quark. That's what happens when you get fat, and I highly doubt Apple would be any different, especially with the natural arrogance of their corporate culture (you can't deny that).
I don't get it. How could you possibly have a monopoly and the most expensive product on the market?
Operating systems are natural monopolies. How do you think Microsoft gained hold of so much power? It's because almost everyone develops to the dominant platform, and it's expensive to develop for other platforms.
Now, suppose it was Apple that had somehow gained, say, 85 or 90% marketshare in the 80s, and all the app developers stayed on Apple. You'd have the same situation we have today, where no new O/S can gain a foothold, because they need applications. The difference is that it would be far worse -- Apple would have a monopoly not just on the OS, but on the hardware as well.
Monopolies typically charge whatever they want, because where else are you going to go? Apple would have no incentive to lower prices. The only reason Apple is "only" 20-50% more expensive these days is because of PC downward price pressure. Without that, Apple would be far, far more expensive. Why not? Apple isn't exactly known for cut-rate pricing. If Steve could charge 10K for the "honor" of owning one of his machines, he'd do it in a heartbeat.
No facts? How about history? What, do you think Apple would have graciously agreed to open up their hardware if they'd had a full-blown monopoly when they haven't done it even in the face of competition? Do you think they would have granted us wonderfully low prices when, again, they haven't already? Apple freakin' SUED when others dared to create a GUI interface in the 80s! I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Apple would have somehow become a nicer company with a Monopoly instead of steadily more arrogant.
The Truth is, Apple could not have become a Monopoly, because Apple more-or-less created Microsoft. Microsoft won because they embraced open hardware, which was exactly why Apple lost. So it's not really realistic to ask "what if" when the scenerio was pretty impossible anyway. If Microsoft hadn't won, someone else would have, and Apple would be in the same position they are now.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter where I think I belong, I get exactly what I deserve, no more, no less. As it happens, I get considerably more than average, which I don't feel in the least guilty about, because I earn it. :)
If someone is consistently giving good ideas, then if the company is smart, they'll reward that someone because he/she is showing themselves as more valuable than average (assuming it's a non-union shop, if it's a union shop, then you're SOL if you want to be paid for merit). If he or she is underappreciated, then they should find another job.
I've read my statement like, 10 times, and I can't figure out where you figured I said that.
Value is not necessrily measured by hours worked, nor calories expended. The guys on the factor floor make peanuts because they are easily replaced, not because anyone is exploiting them.
I should also say that I don't care what other people make, and have no illusions that someone making a lot of money has anything to do with what anyone else makes or doesn't make.
Because that really means, "productive people working for the sake of slackers." I'm not equal to everyone else, and have no problem with recognition of the fact. I should get more than most people.
Because the author of the summary was Scuttlemonkey, who I highly doubt is that clued in to the thing. And even if he was, he doesn't give us enough evidence in the summary, nor does the story give us enough evidence (i.e., a back history of who the players actually are) to make an informed judgment about whether a hijack was really going on. All the reader knows is that there are two competing stories, yet we are only told that one is true and one is not without any evidence.
Sheesh, maybe, just maybe, Scuttlemonkey, there is more to the story than the one side's view of events? Why are you assuming there is a "hijack" going on here?
And yet, life survived. I don't argue that climate changes don't cause, well, changes, but it's equally ridiculous to say that climate changes will sterilize the earth and make it unliveable for any life, particularly humans. Considering we currently live in every kind of climate (with a low-high temperature differential of 200 degrees F).
Hmm, good question. I would imagine that's a hard nut to crack, but I found this link which is interesting regarding some local regulations.
In practice, if you buy something stolen but naively thought you were just "getting a good deal", then you'll probably get off with a slap on the wrist. Make it a habit, though, and you'll be in big trouble.
But that's the point. There is every reason for this to happen. The earth has gone through massive change before, and will go through it again, yet has always kept to a relatively narrow band of livable conditions. What keeps the earth in equilibrium?
However, the Earth might be in a condition that we won't survive.
A single human is fragile, the human race is not.
Because large mammals have been around for a billion years -- even without our technological advantages. What makes YOU think that the environment can be changed so radically that it's impossible for anything to survive? There is zero evidence for that, even from the craziest climatologist.
Well, that brings us back to my original point. :) How many people are going to pay the extra money for the Apple premium on top of having to pay for Vista?
And back to the OP's point, how is that going to get OS/X any more attention? Their point seemed to be that suddenly everyone will want to write comparison articles between OS/X and Vista, and I don't think that's going to happen (at least, happen any more than it does now).
All right, I'll grant you that. Still, how many people are going to care about that? The point of the original poster is that OS/X will suddenly get a lot of attention because of Vista, and I don't see how OS/X will get more attention than it does now.
No, I don't think that'll matter. Mac fans aren't going to toss OS/X for Vista. So who is going to pay a premium for Apple hardware AND pay another $200 (or whatever) for Vista who is not intrinsically an Apple fan? Just to run exactly the same hardware they can get from Dell, except in a prettier box?
The only significant thing about Vista on Apple is that you can run Vista alongside OS/X a bit better than you could under emulation in the past, but a very small minority care about that.
I think the thing we most don't understand about the environment are the incredibly powerful equilibrium mechanisms that hold the earth's environment in check. The evidence for these is that life on earth has survived for BILLIONS of years. It's as though a lot of climatologist chicken littles think that environmental changes have never occurred on earth. HUGE changes have occurred, yet the earth has always pulled back to an equilibrium point that has provided life.
I predict that someday we'll find out that for everything we're doing, there will be some incredibly powerful mechanism that will balance it out, like how more carbon dioxide causes more plants to grow, which balances with creating more oxygen.
If they don't do it know, why will they do it then? People don't care what chip is in the box. The Mac boxes are going to look exactly the same.
Now, if Apple allowed OS/X to run on the boxes that everyone already had, then we would see some interest. But since Apple is not going to allow that (at least, above ground), Apple is still going to be a ghetto platform that only a small minority cares about.
I'd be curious to know which aspects are better than Photoshop.
"Ga-dang-it, the day they make me get on one of them newfangled RAY-UL-roads is the day I retahr. Don't they know the hum-ane body can't stand speeds over 50 miles per hour??"
I already did: "PC downward price pressure". What, you think Apple came out with the Mac mini just because they're so noble and wonderful? Please. They did it to compete with the $500 PCs.
And if this eagerness, nay, devotion leads the Mac to be more expensive than your average "good enough" PC, which I'll allow it very well may, then you're mistaken to characterize it as the result of some obsession with class or status symbolism.
Apple is not more expensive because of higher quality, it's more expensive because they think they can get away with it. Or do you think shaping plastic in a different way is enormously more expensive? Most of Apple's components are exactly the same as PCs, except sell for more.
I will grant you that Apple often pays more attention to design, but the point is still that Apple historically does charge far more than other manufacturers, and the only reason they don't gouge even more is that they can only charge so much of a premium when everyone knows what computers "really" cost. We have a baseline from the PC market.
No, it just means I'm mentally flexible enough to consider many alternate scenarios, even if they may be unlikely in a global sense. :)
The point still stands that it would have been horrific for the industry and the world if Apple had won and gotten themselves a monopoly-level marketshare.
No question about it. As "passionate" as Steve is, he's not known for cut-rate pricing. Apple has always charged a premium. What makes you think it'd be different in an Apple monopolized world?
Would not have Linux have much better opportunity in such times? After all, Linux is trying to fight a $300 operating system and could be winning with some more effort. With a $5000 operating system, and another $5000 for hardware, Linux would make sure Apple could not remain a monopoly.
No question about it, but the timeline here is the 90s. It would be a golden opportunity for someone else, but remember the primary achilles heel of any alternate operating system -- Applications. Developers don't want to spend money to develop for minority machines, and minority machines can't gain traction without applications. But in our $10K/machine alternate reality, that'd be a big incentive to break the monopoly.
Do you think if Apple was a monopoly, it would not innovate?
Do you not remember the absolute pathetic failure that was Copland? Prior to OS/X, Apple had a terrible recent track record of innovation (albeit with a few bright spots). And that was in a time of fighting for survival! If Apple was fat and raking in the money with the same ol' crap, would they innovate?
How much did, say, Quark Xpress innovate and develop once they reached their market dominance? Many people *despise* the arrogance of Quark. That's what happens when you get fat, and I highly doubt Apple would be any different, especially with the natural arrogance of their corporate culture (you can't deny that).
Operating systems are natural monopolies. How do you think Microsoft gained hold of so much power? It's because almost everyone develops to the dominant platform, and it's expensive to develop for other platforms.
Now, suppose it was Apple that had somehow gained, say, 85 or 90% marketshare in the 80s, and all the app developers stayed on Apple. You'd have the same situation we have today, where no new O/S can gain a foothold, because they need applications. The difference is that it would be far worse -- Apple would have a monopoly not just on the OS, but on the hardware as well.
Monopolies typically charge whatever they want, because where else are you going to go? Apple would have no incentive to lower prices. The only reason Apple is "only" 20-50% more expensive these days is because of PC downward price pressure. Without that, Apple would be far, far more expensive. Why not? Apple isn't exactly known for cut-rate pricing. If Steve could charge 10K for the "honor" of owning one of his machines, he'd do it in a heartbeat.
The Truth is, Apple could not have become a Monopoly, because Apple more-or-less created Microsoft. Microsoft won because they embraced open hardware, which was exactly why Apple lost. So it's not really realistic to ask "what if" when the scenerio was pretty impossible anyway. If Microsoft hadn't won, someone else would have, and Apple would be in the same position they are now.