So you're saying that people who are self employed are irrelevant?
No, being self-employed myself, I would never say that. I have a hunch you know this, but are trying to refocus your argument -- it's not a useful tactic, BTW.
You began by saying there were more people employed due to population growth. This is incorrect. You then switched your argument to include "household" payroll.
You obviously very much want to say "more people are employed today than before the tax cuts." That is fine, and you are correct given your use of the household figure.
But saying that "Bush will be the first president to preside over a net job loss since Hoover" is something I very much want to say. And I am correct, given my (and Cheney's and Wall Street's) use of the payroll number.
So we're both right, which is what people often find with statistics.
Whether anyone who reads this finds your argument more compelling, or mine, given what we've decided to believe (the National Review, or everyone else) is of course, up to them.;-)
As an aside: I don't believe Bush's tax cuts have anything to do with jobs, just like I don't think Clinton's policies had anything do do with jobs. To answer the original poster: Presidents do not make or lose jobs.
The fact is, the payroll survery is not a true indicator of actual employment
Of course it's not. No labor statistic is "true indicator" -- it is simply a statistic which has meaning only when compared to itself.
Notwithstanding the National Review's "spin," the simple fact is that the Wall Street, the media, and politicians on both sides talk about "jobs" they mean the Payroll numbers. In fact, Cheney referred to the 144K Payroll jobs added this past month said this yesterday:
We think we've made very significant results -- progress out of that. You can look at the fact we've added 1.7 million new jobs over the course of the last year. (Applause.) We've got growth for the last four quarters of about 4.8 percent in GDP; 144,000 jobs last month alone. Source: White House
Interesting that he didn't mention the "HOUSEHOLD" numbers, huh? No, not interesting at all. The Household numbers are a nice way of supporting the National Review's so-called "gain of 2.15 million jobs" under Bush, but even Cheney and the White House know that it's the Payroll numbers that count.
And under Bush that figure is and will be a net loss since his "tax cuts alone."
FACT: There are more people employed today than there were in 2000 simply because the population has grown at a greater rate than the unemployment rate.
Actually, you're mistaken.
The jobs figure is an absolute measurement. It does not depend on the population. In fact, it has to increase by about 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. Thus, in a flat ecnomony, the expectation is 150,000 jobs per month.
By comparison, the unemployment rate is a percentage of people who don't have jobs, but want one. It obviously is affected by population growth.
Both figures have meaning, but are not correlated in the way you imply.
FACT: The only reason the unemployment rate has stayed at 5.6% is because 392,000 people have left the work force. Hence, fewer people are looking for work.
FACT: there is truly a net loss of jobs since 2000. As of last month's figures: Bush had created 343,000 jobs over his tenure, while losing 2.3 million jobs. This month he did better, but he is still on track to be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs in the U.S.
Also, for people who have added a scroll mouse to their Macs, how well supported are the additional buttons and scroll wheel across various Mac applications?
I used to have a 2 button + scroll wheel mouse -- simply plugged it in and it worked in every app I tried it in.
Now I use a Kensington Turbo Mouse with trackball, 4 buttons + scroll wheel. Works like a charm.
why Apple would use a slight variation on an existing word rather than something new
Product branding is tough. While fanciful terms offer the best trademark protection, they require a good deal of marketing to bring explain what it actually is to consumers. Sometimes, an existing word can strike a good balance between protection and recognition. Cloud is an actual word that would make an okay tissue product name, whereas Kleenex is a great fanciful term.
and/or descriptive.
Using a descriptive term is a mistake a lot of inexperienced companies make. You are almost guaranteed not to have any trademark protection for a descriptive term, so your value of your brand is pretty much nil. It's like calling your tissue product "PillowSoft Tissues" -- you'll have no recourse to stop competitors from coming out with "Kleenex Pillow Soft".
My answers were designed specifically to provide little information, so there is no need for criticism. The site provided questions and I supply them with answers, if more details are requested, then I would support it. Compared to previous generation interviews, I redesigned my answers from the ground up and I think my word count was outstanding. Yes, Apple provides the answers sometimes. We supply them with talking points and let our quotes speak for themselves. The guys at ATI do a good job of squeezing out interesting information during their interviews, but our answers have a lot more headroom. Other differences include:
I support my pants with suspenders and they do not.
I speak marketing-speak fluently, and they don't.
I am the first one to make my points using bullets.
I answer questions with no add-ins of emotion. There is no technical reason why I would answer otherwise.
I reckon it won't be long (after the IPO?) before Google expand their APIs a lot further, to make image, news and group searching available to third party apps. Then things will get really interesting.
One problem with the Google APIs is that the licensing agreement is awfully restrictive: its fine for clever hacks, but not esepcially conducive to thrid-party commercial development.
Of course, it's always possible to communicate with Google via HTTP. For example, my company's image searching desktop app for Mac OS X, Beholder queries Google, AltaVista, Ditto, etc. by implementing its own web browser. So, things can actually get "really interesting" today.
Since I am old enough to experience and remember this I refute his assertion that business was the prime user at the PCs inception. PCs were the tools for education mainly (along w/Apple IIs).
No, that is flat wrong; and I'm also old enough to remember.
Yes, PCs were used in education, but not "mainly" -- and certainly not more than in business. The education market was back then much as it is now, underfunded and certainly not large enough to support Apple, IBM, Commodore, Osbourne and the others who fought in the first PC wars.
And the reason is this: the first "killer app" VisiCalc changed the personal computer from hobbyist's plaything to business tool in 1979. Initally, this saved the Apple because every business wanted to run VisiCalc and the Apple II was the only platform it ran on. This caused IBM to release the IBM PC in 1981 which quickly because the PC of choice for business because 1) a version of VisiCalc was written for it and 2) the name carried weight -- many businesses knew IBM from their mainframe business.
There are now more than 100,000 computers in U.S. schools
and
In 1980 some two dozen firms sold 724,000 personal computers for $1.8 billion. The following year 20 more companies joined the stampede, including giant IBM, and sales doubled to 1.4 million units at just under $3 billion. When the final figures are in for 1982, according to Dataquest, a California research firm, more than 100 companies will probably have sold 2.8 million units for $4.9 billion.
So, 100,000 units total installed base in education vs. almost 5 million computers units sold in three years.
Was education important? Yes. But was it "mainly" where you found personal computers? Absolutely not.
I did sysadmin work back in the day and I fondly remember the great uptimes of our VAXen (running 4.2 BSD); in fact, what usually brought a system down was a disk crash -- those seemed to happen ALL the time. Thanks goodness for nighly tape dumps!
Yeah, you're missing something, but I don't blame you, the write-up is confusing.
First, the poster mentions: on OS X he created Desktop Manager, the GPL solution for VirtualDesktops
So, you see, the poster is using "VirtualDesktops" as a name for "virtual desktop technology," not as "VirtualDesktop Lite/Pro, the product from the company CodeTek."
Second, the list at the end is suppose to be read this way:
Highlights are: - secret APIs in OS X for [virtual desktop technology] - who [is it that] steals GPL source [?] - why beginner programmers are at a disadvantage now
Thus, it's just a list of interesting items from the interview; it isn't supposed to be read "blah blah blah CodeTek, who steals".
Finally, the answer to the second "highlight" -- is indeed in the article posed as:
You mentioned all of your code being released as GPL, and much of it isn't throw-away stuff. Do you ever worry or wonder about it being 'lifted' and incorporated into proprietary software?
So, yep, it's in there: "lifted" instead of "steals." Interesting answer from Rich, too.
The problem isn't one of trust, it's one of reducing a company's liability by implementing sound risk management. Of course a company should hire trusted professionals, but assuming that in a worst-case scenario one bad apple (no pun intended) slips through the hiring process, an extra line of defense (banning copying devices) can insure that one's company is protected.
To put it another way: just because you park your car in a safe neighborhood doesn't mean you shouldn't lock the doors.
No, not an Apple employee, an independent developer. The concept of which (a developer not upset about ths Konfabulator non-issue) appears to really confuse those who bandy about terms such a "Microsoftian" and "zealotry."
I don't love Apple, the company, the "lifestyle" or the products, but their platform has allowed me to earn me a living (as has Windows). Clearly that makes me an "apologist" in your eyes, but I prefer "realist." To each their own I suppose.
I recall reading he will possibly be banned from selling his DVDs and Videos due to some federal laws prohibiting the candidates' names from being advertised in commmercial products, or something of that nature;
No, not quite. The federal election laws apply to advertising including images of candidates. Whether or not this will affect the advertising of F911 and it's subsequent DVD releases is something that the FEC is studying, but the DVDs (and VHSs) themselves are not threatened by any such action.
Re:Attention: Important info about Apple
on
Apple Delays New iMac
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Not content with ripping off Watson, they've now stolen the features for another product without proper recompense and included it in their "Tiger" OS.
Not content with doing any actual research on this story, now you've propogated the misconception that Dashboard was "stolen" from Konfabulator.
For John Gruber's excellent write-up on why this "spin" is plain wrong, read here.
And not to be OT: I think the Vegas monorail (at its magnitidue) is an excellent proof-of-concept for solving metropolitan congestion where a subway is either prohibitively expensive or infeasible. If it's a success, maybe we'll see more cities following suit?
I thought this was already open, how does this differ from apps that have been out for some time like HOWL
Rendezvous, like HOWL, is an implementation of Zeroconf.
This sounds allot like apple's dashboard, and how it's a direct rip of Konfabulator!
FYI, Rendezvous was released to the public July 17, 2002, almost a year before HOWL (June 10, 2003). Apple released it open source, so it's not surpising that they now have released cross-platform implementations.
Regardless of the issue of a oral/written/imagined non-compete, if Orkut actually used some of the code from his previous employer's project, then that is indeed copyright violation. The non-compete issue is separate.
If this kind of research interest you, and you're a student looking for an area of study, Computional Lingustics is an (IMHO) amazingly rich field of study, sausage notwithstanding.
void CShameless:Plug() { If you're running OS X, check out theConcept for an example of statistical language processing in action. }
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that people who are self employed are irrelevant?
;-)
No, being self-employed myself, I would never say that. I have a hunch you know this, but are trying to refocus your argument -- it's not a useful tactic, BTW.
You began by saying there were more people employed due to population growth. This is incorrect. You then switched your argument to include "household" payroll.
You obviously very much want to say "more people are employed today than before the tax cuts." That is fine, and you are correct given your use of the household figure.
But saying that "Bush will be the first president to preside over a net job loss since Hoover" is something I very much want to say. And I am correct, given my (and Cheney's and Wall Street's) use of the payroll number.
So we're both right, which is what people often find with statistics.
Whether anyone who reads this finds your argument more compelling, or mine, given what we've decided to believe (the National Review, or everyone else) is of course, up to them.
As an aside: I don't believe Bush's tax cuts have anything to do with jobs, just like I don't think Clinton's policies had anything do do with jobs. To answer the original poster: Presidents do not make or lose jobs.
The fact is, the payroll survery is not a true indicator of actual employment
Of course it's not. No labor statistic is "true indicator" -- it is simply a statistic which has meaning only when compared to itself.
Notwithstanding the National Review's "spin," the simple fact is that the Wall Street, the media, and politicians on both sides talk about "jobs" they mean the Payroll numbers. In fact, Cheney referred to the 144K Payroll jobs added this past month said this yesterday:
We think we've made very significant results -- progress out of that. You can look at the fact we've added 1.7 million new jobs over the course of the last year. (Applause.) We've got growth for the last four quarters of about 4.8 percent in GDP; 144,000 jobs last month alone. Source: White House
Interesting that he didn't mention the "HOUSEHOLD" numbers, huh? No, not interesting at all. The Household numbers are a nice way of supporting the National Review's so-called "gain of 2.15 million jobs" under Bush, but even Cheney and the White House know that it's the Payroll numbers that count.
And under Bush that figure is and will be a net loss since his "tax cuts alone."
FACT: There are more people employed today than there were in 2000 simply because the population has grown at a greater rate than the unemployment rate.
Actually, you're mistaken.
The jobs figure is an absolute measurement. It does not depend on the population. In fact, it has to increase by about 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. Thus, in a flat ecnomony, the expectation is 150,000 jobs per month.
By comparison, the unemployment rate is a percentage of people who don't have jobs, but want one. It obviously is affected by population growth.
Both figures have meaning, but are not correlated in the way you imply.
FACT: The only reason the unemployment rate has stayed at 5.6% is because 392,000 people have left the work force. Hence, fewer people are looking for work.
FACT: there is truly a net loss of jobs since 2000. As of last month's figures: Bush had created 343,000 jobs over his tenure, while losing 2.3 million jobs. This month he did better, but he is still on track to be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs in the U.S.
For more info see:
MSNBC
Also, for people who have added a scroll mouse to their Macs, how well supported are the additional buttons and scroll wheel across various Mac applications?
I used to have a 2 button + scroll wheel mouse -- simply plugged it in and it worked in every app I tried it in.
Now I use a Kensington Turbo Mouse with trackball, 4 buttons + scroll wheel. Works like a charm.
...Anatoly Rosenflanz was still able to get Scotty's formula off his original Macintosh after all these years.
Since he's a Mac OS X user, he could have used Trapeze to drag and drop convert his PDF to HTML. If he had to do it over again, of course.
Or perhaps even Mesa Dynamics, for their search engine data mining technology...
</plug>
why Apple would use a slight variation on an existing word rather than something new
Product branding is tough. While fanciful terms offer the best trademark protection, they require a good deal of marketing to bring explain what it actually is to consumers. Sometimes, an existing word can strike a good balance between protection and recognition. Cloud is an actual word that would make an okay tissue product name, whereas Kleenex is a great fanciful term.
and/or descriptive.
Using a descriptive term is a mistake a lot of inexperienced companies make. You are almost guaranteed not to have any trademark protection for a descriptive term, so your value of your brand is pretty much nil. It's like calling your tissue product "PillowSoft Tissues" -- you'll have no recourse to stop competitors from coming out with "Kleenex Pillow Soft".
I answer questions with no add-ins of emotion. There is no technical reason why I would answer otherwise.
Sincerely,
Ujesh Desai
I reckon it won't be long (after the IPO?) before Google expand their APIs a lot further, to make image, news and group searching available to third party apps. Then things will get really interesting.
One problem with the Google APIs is that the licensing agreement is awfully restrictive: its fine for clever hacks, but not esepcially conducive to thrid-party commercial development.
Of course, it's always possible to communicate with Google via HTTP. For example, my company's image searching desktop app for Mac OS X, Beholder queries Google, AltaVista, Ditto, etc. by implementing its own web browser. So, things can actually get "really interesting" today.
I was born in Las Vegas as a result of the 1950's atomic tests.
Interesting, so this must be you.
Since I am old enough to experience and remember this I refute his assertion that business was the prime user at the PCs inception. PCs were the tools for education mainly (along w/Apple IIs).
No, that is flat wrong; and I'm also old enough to remember.
Yes, PCs were used in education, but not "mainly" -- and certainly not more than in business. The education market was back then much as it is now, underfunded and certainly not large enough to support Apple, IBM, Commodore, Osbourne and the others who fought in the first PC wars.
And the reason is this: the first "killer app" VisiCalc changed the personal computer from hobbyist's plaything to business tool in 1979. Initally, this saved the Apple because every business wanted to run VisiCalc and the Apple II was the only platform it ran on. This caused IBM to release the IBM PC in 1981 which quickly because the PC of choice for business because 1) a version of VisiCalc was written for it and 2) the name carried weight -- many businesses knew IBM from their mainframe business.
In 1982, Time magazine named the computer "man of the year." Read the article for yourself. Here are some pertient quotes:
There are now more than 100,000 computers in U.S. schools
and
In 1980 some two dozen firms sold 724,000 personal computers for $1.8 billion. The following year 20 more companies joined the stampede, including giant IBM, and sales doubled to 1.4 million units at just under $3 billion. When the final figures are in for 1982, according to Dataquest, a California research firm, more than 100 companies will probably have sold 2.8 million units for $4.9 billion.
So, 100,000 units total installed base in education vs. almost 5 million computers units sold in three years.
Was education important? Yes. But was it "mainly" where you found personal computers? Absolutely not.
Now be honest, how many software developers here have copies of source code from every company they've ever worked for?
And how many software developers here have hacked into their previous employer's system to get a copy of that source code?
Archiving source code from previous jobs is one thing, breaking in to grab it after being fired is, well, clearly illegal.
I did sysadmin work back in the day and I fondly remember the great uptimes of our VAXen (running 4.2 BSD); in fact, what usually brought a system down was a disk crash -- those seemed to happen ALL the time. Thanks goodness for nighly tape dumps!
Yeah, you're missing something, but I don't blame you, the write-up is confusing.
First, the poster mentions: on OS X he created Desktop Manager, the GPL solution for VirtualDesktops
So, you see, the poster is using "VirtualDesktops" as a name for "virtual desktop technology," not as "VirtualDesktop Lite/Pro, the product from the company CodeTek."
Second, the list at the end is suppose to be read this way:
Highlights are:
- secret APIs in OS X for [virtual desktop technology]
- who [is it that] steals GPL source [?]
- why beginner programmers are at a disadvantage now
Thus, it's just a list of interesting items from the interview; it isn't supposed to be read "blah blah blah CodeTek, who steals".
Finally, the answer to the second "highlight" -- is indeed in the article posed as:
You mentioned all of your code being released as GPL, and much of it isn't throw-away stuff. Do you ever worry or wonder about it being 'lifted' and incorporated into proprietary software?
So, yep, it's in there: "lifted" instead of "steals." Interesting answer from Rich, too.
The problem isn't one of trust, it's one of reducing a company's liability by implementing sound risk management. Of course a company should hire trusted professionals, but assuming that in a worst-case scenario one bad apple (no pun intended) slips through the hiring process, an extra line of defense (banning copying devices) can insure that one's company is protected.
To put it another way: just because you park your car in a safe neighborhood doesn't mean you shouldn't lock the doors.
Genuinely interested: are you an Apple employee?
No, not an Apple employee, an independent developer. The concept of which (a developer not upset about ths Konfabulator non-issue) appears to really confuse those who bandy about terms such a "Microsoftian" and "zealotry."
I don't love Apple, the company, the "lifestyle" or the products, but their platform has allowed me to earn me a living (as has Windows). Clearly that makes me an "apologist" in your eyes, but I prefer "realist." To each their own I suppose.
No matter what code Apple releases with OS X 10.4, there will forever be the stain of the Konfabulator.
You forgot to add, "IMHO." Not all developers feel as you do.
Better yet, read John Gruber's take on this non-issue, and see if you still feel the same way.
I recall reading he will possibly be banned from selling his DVDs and Videos due to some federal laws prohibiting the candidates' names from being advertised in commmercial products, or something of that nature;
No, not quite. The federal election laws apply to advertising including images of candidates. Whether or not this will affect the advertising of F911 and it's subsequent DVD releases is something that the FEC is studying, but the DVDs (and VHSs) themselves are not threatened by any such action.
Not content with ripping off Watson, they've now stolen the features for another product without proper recompense and included it in their "Tiger" OS.
Not content with doing any actual research on this story, now you've propogated the misconception that Dashboard was "stolen" from Konfabulator.
For John Gruber's excellent write-up on why this "spin" is plain wrong, read here.
Interestingly, Marge vs. the Monorail has the distinction of being one of the few epsiodes written by Conan O'Brien (yes, that Conan O'Brien). He also wrote the brilliant (IMHO) Homer Goes to College.
And not to be OT: I think the Vegas monorail (at its magnitidue) is an excellent proof-of-concept for solving metropolitan congestion where a subway is either prohibitively expensive or infeasible. If it's a success, maybe we'll see more cities following suit?
I thought this was already open, how does this differ from apps that have been out for some time like HOWL
Rendezvous, like HOWL, is an implementation of Zeroconf.
This sounds allot like apple's dashboard, and how it's a direct rip of Konfabulator!
FYI, Rendezvous was released to the public July 17, 2002, almost a year before HOWL (June 10, 2003). Apple released it open source, so it's not surpising that they now have released cross-platform implementations.
Regardless of the issue of a oral/written/imagined non-compete, if Orkut actually used some of the code from his previous employer's project, then that is indeed copyright violation. The non-compete issue is separate.
This should last them for a while, at least until the base is discovered.
If this kind of research interest you, and you're a student looking for an area of study, Computional Lingustics is an (IMHO) amazingly rich field of study, sausage notwithstanding.
void CShameless:Plug()
{
If you're running OS X, check out theConcept for an example of statistical language processing in action.
}