How would moving a company's global headquarters to another country be "betrayal"? Some sense of loyalty? Like most large international corporations, IBM's operational decisions appear to be driven by little more than shareholder value and legal requirements.
Consider that IBM is already primarily a global company. More than two thirds of the IBM workforce is outside the US, according to IBM's 2008 annual report.
To call IBM a "US company" right now would be very misleading. Even if the headquarters and senior management were moved to India, the large majority of the company would continue to be international. It is extremely likely that a large number of employees would continue to be needed in the US, regardless of where it is headquartered.
However, even if IBM did entirely abandon the US, this would not amount to a betrayal of the US. The effect would likely be that IBM's competitors and partners, including, Dell, HP, EMC, Oracle, Cisco, etc. would gain much of the marketshare and many employees that IBM would lose as result of such a move.
(Interesting side note: The US was the only country specifically broken out with employment numbers in IBM's 2008 annual report.)
the entire company, middle management and upper management, is moving to india. they have an internal timeframe for this, sped up and slowed down by economic and political influences. of course they will retain a toehold here, but it will be a shell of its former self
good for india. bad for the usa. ibm has betrayed the usa
1. This assertion appears to be completely unfounded, inflammatory, and extremely unlikely for practical reasons. 2. Even if this assertion were true, this would not constitute betrayal of the USA.
IBM appears to be following the money. The seem to be employing more people in growth markets, fewer people in stagnating or declining markets, presumably to position themselves to do more business where the money is. Reporting only global numbers may make it more difficult for various governments to say "you're not employing enough of your people here to do business here".
Companies that operate contrary to the national interest of the countries they operate in, shouldn't be allowed to operate in those countries.
I don't see how reporting only global employment numbers is "against the national interests" of the US. If the US cared about this, they would pass a law requiring companies to report US employment numbers.
If what's needed to support national interests is not required by the government, then the government is the party who is doing something wrong.
This is the big failure of conventional journalism. They leave out a lot of important details and get what's left badly wrong. Just about any subject matter expert that examines the output of journalism as it relates to their specialty will find journalism shockingly bad. I suspect this is the true genesis of the demise of corporate journalism. The more interconnected people become, the more able people are to communicate about this sort of thing. People from different walks of life can share with each other just how WRONG journalists are.
There are journalists who are insightful and thorough, journalists who produce large quantities of poor quality output, and there are journalists with undisclosed biases or agendas. In these respects, conventional journalists are identical to "unconventional" journalists (independent internet journalists writing for small internet publications or blogs).
I'd argue that there isn't any more "conventional" journalism; all mass media publications are now easily subject to the same review/critique as the independent media, in near real time.
What you've pointed out is that most non-experts in a given field have a hard time understanding and accurately representing even slightly complex information from a given field of specialization. This difficulty is no different for "journalists" than it is for other non-experts. The problem is not that journalists are prone to be misunderstanding, but that people in general are prone to misunderstanding.
This is why the most respected "journals" are (and have been) "peer reviewed", that is, subject to review by other experts in the same field, before publication. So, why don't we call those experts "journalists"? The do publish in journals, after all.
Yes, I was probably a bit pedantic. I'm just careful about separating the "compensating the artist" part from the "providing for your family" part, since in the context of the US copyright system, the two are, I believe, inappropriately comingled.
A true artist doesn't need compensation AFTER HIS DEATH. Nobody actually does.
Maybe a true artist doesn't, but I certainly need compensation after death. It's called life insurance. I have plenty so if I get hit by a bus my wife and son get a paid off house and a chance at a good life without me providing for them.
Mmmm... So you're making the point. YOU will not receive, nor do you need, compensation after your death.
The issue of life insurance is a red herring. The point was that nobody needs to be paid for their creative work after they die. If someone wants to provide money to his family, friends, etc. after he dies, he buys into the peculiar form of savings plan/gambling that we call "life insurance", or some other form of savings vehicle.
I infer (and admittedly I'm reading a fair amount into it) that another part of the point is that life insurance and financial tools such as trust funds (among other things) are the most appropriate means for someone to transfer money to his heirs, whereas 90+ years of copyright protection is an abuse of the spirit (if not the letter) of the copyright clause of the US Constitution.
There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to.
Is it really "their own property" as long as they pay money annually for the right to live on it? (Property taxes)
When you choose to make your home somewhere, you implicitly agreeing to comply with the laws of that location, local, state, and federal. If you don't comply with some of those laws (for example, because they're stupid/repressive/unconstitutional laws) then you implicitly accept that you may have to face undesirable consequences, even if you're right and may eventually prevail in your arguments.
I'd rather see pictures of the property before I draw the conclusion that the city is being as completely idiotic as it seems. My guess is if the neighbors don't dislike the landscaping they've done, they'll be sufficiently supportive to get the city to back down.
I'm absolutely delighted to report that my neighbors do not share your views of property rights.
Fat kids abound; instead of parents taking responsibility for their children's diets, maybe we should ban the sale of candy bars and soda pop to minors.
Note that while kids are in school (getting food from school cafeterias), parents have no effective way to control their children's diets, other than regulation via school boards or government (which can be corrupted/influenced by $$ from snack vendors). Is this an intended part of your analogy?
By the time folks have reached 40, they've (hopefully) got a good sense of how to make good decisions about what products and features to develop and how, not just how to write efficient code.
The knowledge useful for choosing what product or features to develop has pretty much fuck-all to do with knowing how to do code well or architect a program. The person in charge at the design level and the person in charge at the administrative level just need a rough estimate of how much it'll cost to develop particular software or features. BR You rarely see mechanics being put in charge of the make-up of a car companies' offerings, or what features to add to specifics vehicles.
As others have already noted, the career path of technical people often moves beyond "just programming" at some point. By the time folks have reached 40, they've (hopefully) got a good sense of how to make good decisions about what products and features to develop and how, not just how to write efficient code.
While some of the technical leaders in my area do write some code, the bulk of what they are needed for is making decisions about what we ought to be doing, and providing guidance for the younger programmers or ensuring quality communication with other lead developers.
Great post, as a rant. However, what I think it really means is:
You are the only person who can effectively protect your own privacy. If you create permanent, or even transient, records of what you do by using conveniences such as credit cards, telephones, the Internet, or a diary, you are creating some potential (maybe likely) privacy exposures. Note that some activities have a much higher likelihood of exposing information you would rather not be publicly available.
Just as in other aspects of your life, what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. If you exercise a modest amount of discretion, you can expect a modest amount of privacy. If you exercise no discretion, your life will be an open book for everyone.
Keep in mind that privacy isn't, and never was, absolute. Just think before you act. If you're using social media, think twice before you act.
If you knew what the words "duties", "imposts", "excise", "naturalization", "abridging", "redress", "infringed", "effects", "affirmation" meant in second grade, I congratulate you on the extraordinary good fortune you experienced in your early education.
As it is, someone who actually does understand what those words mean in the context where they are applied cannot fail to find some ambiguity in these passages. The broad concepts are generally quite clear, but real-world application introduces subtleties that require interpretation. Just as a fairly non-controversial example, there are various valid opinions about what constitutes a "peaceable" assembly.
There is no vagueness at all. The constitution is very simple and easy to read. Anyone and their mother can read the constitution and know exactly what it means.
I'm not sure if this deserves a "+1 Funny", or a "-1 More retarded than Sarah Palin" mod.
The researchers have programmed Shelley to handle like a racecar by using a set of computer calculations called algorithms
See what happens when you let Liberal Arts majors playing journalist direct the public's understanding of technical things?
Soon: "John's car rolled out of his driveway all by itself and hit a fire hydrant, honey! He should sue General Motors for faulty algorithms!"
You're ridiculing the author for clearly and correctly defining the terminology? If the intended audience of the article is unlikely to know what "algorithm" means, don't you think a concise definition is in order? Now, I'm sure that writers assuming an Ivy League audience would reasonably expect people to know what the big words mean.
Not to mention the fact that there are many Computer Science and Engineering majors who are also capable of effective communication; this is not the sole domain of "liberal arts" majors. Journalism majors... well, make your own judgements.
An encription algorythm is also a number and you can steal that as well all information stored electronically is a number. But pirate's will come up with any excuse.
I suppose the point here is that it is, in fact, hard to understand the huge difference between "theft" and "accessing information illegally" or "using illegally obtained information to commit crimes."
Hello Mr. Retard. I hear the United Kingdom is a great place for socialist totalitarians. Please leave this fine capitalist democracy with your crazy ideas.
Wow, good eye! You were able to determine that the GP was in Estonia based on that one post?
Sorry everybody, but I find it more disturbing that my every move is recorded and stored than that some person checks my genitals. The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody - my travels, my bank account, my posts online, my phone conversations - those are things that make me unique. Those matter far more.
Those matter for your security. Having parts of your body covered preserve your privacy. The two are different.
Really? I tend to think of the details of where I go, what I do with my money, the details of whom I talk with, and what I say to other private citizens to be among the most important aspects what is protected by privacy, just as much (or more so) than what I look like naked. There are aspects of those details I exect to be private that may also affect my financial or physical security, but that is a distinctly different concern.
The GP's point, I think, was that the part of your physical appearance that is normally hidden by clothing is only one detail protected by privacy, and possibly not the most important one. This is reasonably debatable, of course; I think various people have good reasons for protecting their unseen physical appearance to be a greater or lesser privacy concern.
That one benefit to allowing the government to track how people vote on referenda and then hold them personally accountable would be that people would actually wake the hell out on how much government costs. The first time the working class and lower middle class get pounded back into the stone age financially for voting for expensive new programs would be the last time they'd automatically vote themselves largesse from the treasury!
Err... Isn't the problem that those folks have already been "pounded back into the stone financially," and therefore they're voting for expensive new programs that promise to provide them new or better jobs?
...And a fine example of how dreadfully unfunny Mad TV was, too. Still, they get bonus points for the fact that Apple used the name.
In this case it's unfunny because men fear menstruation more than death. But yes, it's really impressive that, Mad TV, show after show, has been able to home in on and fully exploit the essence of non-humor.
Slashdot Mirror
How would moving a company's global headquarters to another country be "betrayal"? Some sense of loyalty? Like most large international corporations, IBM's operational decisions appear to be driven by little more than shareholder value and legal requirements.
Consider that IBM is already primarily a global company. More than two thirds of the IBM workforce is outside the US, according to IBM's 2008 annual report.
To call IBM a "US company" right now would be very misleading. Even if the headquarters and senior management were moved to India, the large majority of the company would continue to be international. It is extremely likely that a large number of employees would continue to be needed in the US, regardless of where it is headquartered.
However, even if IBM did entirely abandon the US, this would not amount to a betrayal of the US. The effect would likely be that IBM's competitors and partners, including, Dell, HP, EMC, Oracle, Cisco, etc. would gain much of the marketshare and many employees that IBM would lose as result of such a move.
(Interesting side note: The US was the only country specifically broken out with employment numbers in IBM's 2008 annual report.)
the entire company, middle management and upper management, is moving to india. they have an internal timeframe for this, sped up and slowed down by economic and political influences. of course they will retain a toehold here, but it will be a shell of its former self
good for india. bad for the usa. ibm has betrayed the usa
1. This assertion appears to be completely unfounded, inflammatory, and extremely unlikely for practical reasons.
2. Even if this assertion were true, this would not constitute betrayal of the USA.
...then why are you hiding it?
IBM appears to be following the money. The seem to be employing more people in growth markets, fewer people in stagnating or declining markets, presumably to position themselves to do more business where the money is. Reporting only global numbers may make it more difficult for various governments to say "you're not employing enough of your people here to do business here".
Companies that operate contrary to the national interest of the countries they operate in, shouldn't be allowed to operate in those countries.
I don't see how reporting only global employment numbers is "against the national interests" of the US. If the US cared about this, they would pass a law requiring companies to report US employment numbers.
If what's needed to support national interests is not required by the government, then the government is the party who is doing something wrong.
Without religious fanatics how do you feed the lions ?
Hmmm... perhaps there's a problem with the religious fanatic population. Man, you try to eliminate one pest and the whole ecosystem gets messed up.
This is the big failure of conventional journalism. They leave out a lot of important details and get what's left badly wrong. Just about any subject matter expert that examines the output of journalism as it relates to their specialty will find journalism shockingly bad. I suspect this is the true genesis of the demise of corporate journalism. The more interconnected people become, the more able people are to communicate about this sort of thing. People from different walks of life can share with each other just how WRONG journalists are.
There are journalists who are insightful and thorough, journalists who produce large quantities of poor quality output, and there are journalists with undisclosed biases or agendas. In these respects, conventional journalists are identical to "unconventional" journalists (independent internet journalists writing for small internet publications or blogs).
I'd argue that there isn't any more "conventional" journalism; all mass media publications are now easily subject to the same review/critique as the independent media, in near real time.
What you've pointed out is that most non-experts in a given field have a hard time understanding and accurately representing even slightly complex information from a given field of specialization. This difficulty is no different for "journalists" than it is for other non-experts. The problem is not that journalists are prone to be misunderstanding, but that people in general are prone to misunderstanding.
This is why the most respected "journals" are (and have been) "peer reviewed", that is, subject to review by other experts in the same field, before publication. So, why don't we call those experts "journalists"? The do publish in journals, after all.
Yes, I was probably a bit pedantic. I'm just careful about separating the "compensating the artist" part from the "providing for your family" part, since in the context of the US copyright system, the two are, I believe, inappropriately comingled.
I'm just looking forward to being able to definitively call pop music soulless tripe and having hard facts to back it up.
No worries; I found those hard facts you were looking for.
Thank you; this made me smile. Your reflection on the US legal framework for copyright as well as the plight of many artists is succinct and funny.
A true artist doesn't need compensation AFTER HIS DEATH. Nobody actually does.
Maybe a true artist doesn't, but I certainly need compensation after death. It's called life insurance. I have plenty so if I get hit by a bus my wife and son get a paid off house and a chance at a good life without me providing for them.
Mmmm... So you're making the point. YOU will not receive, nor do you need, compensation after your death.
The issue of life insurance is a red herring. The point was that nobody needs to be paid for their creative work after they die. If someone wants to provide money to his family, friends, etc. after he dies, he buys into the peculiar form of savings plan/gambling that we call "life insurance", or some other form of savings vehicle.
I infer (and admittedly I'm reading a fair amount into it) that another part of the point is that life insurance and financial tools such as trust funds (among other things) are the most appropriate means for someone to transfer money to his heirs, whereas 90+ years of copyright protection is an abuse of the spirit (if not the letter) of the copyright clause of the US Constitution.
Hmmm... Apparently funnier, in any case.
+1 to you, sir, for following the instructions. :-)
There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to.
Everyone benefits from an internet largely free of infected machines. Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.
Baloney. Only *******s benefit from an educated and healthy society. *******s benefit from the alternative.
And yes, asterisks benefit from self-censors.
(Go on, count them to figure out whether you're offended.)
if it's quadrennial
Good observation. That's (part of) the joke.
Fat kids abound; instead of parents taking responsibility for their children's diets, maybe we should ban the sale of candy bars and soda pop to minors.
Note that while kids are in school (getting food from school cafeterias), parents have no effective way to control their children's diets, other than regulation via school boards or government (which can be corrupted/influenced by $$ from snack vendors). Is this an intended part of your analogy?
The knowledge useful for choosing what product or features to develop has pretty much fuck-all to do with knowing how to do code well or architect a program. The person in charge at the design level and the person in charge at the administrative level just need a rough estimate of how much it'll cost to develop particular software or features.
BR You rarely see mechanics being put in charge of the make-up of a car companies' offerings, or what features to add to specifics vehicles.
Hmmm. Engineers design cars, Mechanics (hopefully) repair them.
The current president and CEO of Ford Motor Company is an example of an engineer whose career path led him to do exactly what you imply he could not.
As others have already noted, the career path of technical people often moves beyond "just programming" at some point. By the time folks have reached 40, they've (hopefully) got a good sense of how to make good decisions about what products and features to develop and how, not just how to write efficient code.
While some of the technical leaders in my area do write some code, the bulk of what they are needed for is making decisions about what we ought to be doing, and providing guidance for the younger programmers or ensuring quality communication with other lead developers.
Great post, as a rant. However, what I think it really means is:
You are the only person who can effectively protect your own privacy. If you create permanent, or even transient, records of what you do by using conveniences such as credit cards, telephones, the Internet, or a diary, you are creating some potential (maybe likely) privacy exposures. Note that some activities have a much higher likelihood of exposing information you would rather not be publicly available.
Just as in other aspects of your life, what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. If you exercise a modest amount of discretion, you can expect a modest amount of privacy. If you exercise no discretion, your life will be an open book for everyone.
Keep in mind that privacy isn't, and never was, absolute. Just think before you act. If you're using social media, think twice before you act.
If you knew what the words "duties", "imposts", "excise", "naturalization", "abridging", "redress", "infringed", "effects", "affirmation" meant in second grade, I congratulate you on the extraordinary good fortune you experienced in your early education.
As it is, someone who actually does understand what those words mean in the context where they are applied cannot fail to find some ambiguity in these passages. The broad concepts are generally quite clear, but real-world application introduces subtleties that require interpretation. Just as a fairly non-controversial example, there are various valid opinions about what constitutes a "peaceable" assembly.
There is no vagueness at all. The constitution is very simple and easy to read. Anyone and their mother can read the constitution and know exactly what it means.
I'm not sure if this deserves a "+1 Funny", or a "-1 More retarded than Sarah Palin" mod.
The researchers have programmed Shelley to handle like a racecar by using a set of computer calculations called algorithms
See what happens when you let Liberal Arts majors playing journalist direct the public's understanding of technical things?
Soon: "John's car rolled out of his driveway all by itself and hit a fire hydrant, honey! He should sue General Motors for faulty algorithms!"
You're ridiculing the author for clearly and correctly defining the terminology? If the intended audience of the article is unlikely to know what "algorithm" means, don't you think a concise definition is in order? Now, I'm sure that writers assuming an Ivy League audience would reasonably expect people to know what the big words mean.
Not to mention the fact that there are many Computer Science and Engineering majors who are also capable of effective communication; this is not the sole domain of "liberal arts" majors. Journalism majors... well, make your own judgements.
An encription algorythm is also a number and you can steal that as well all information stored electronically is a number. But pirate's will come up with any excuse.
I suppose the point here is that it is, in fact, hard to understand the huge difference between "theft" and "accessing information illegally" or "using illegally obtained information to commit crimes."
I trust Google more than MSN with my information
Hello Mr. Retard. I hear the United Kingdom is a great place for socialist totalitarians. Please leave this fine capitalist democracy with your crazy ideas.
Wow, good eye! You were able to determine that the GP was in Estonia based on that one post?
Those matter for your security. Having parts of your body covered preserve your privacy. The two are different.
Really? I tend to think of the details of where I go, what I do with my money, the details of whom I talk with, and what I say to other private citizens to be among the most important aspects what is protected by privacy, just as much (or more so) than what I look like naked. There are aspects of those details I exect to be private that may also affect my financial or physical security, but that is a distinctly different concern.
The GP's point, I think, was that the part of your physical appearance that is normally hidden by clothing is only one detail protected by privacy, and possibly not the most important one. This is reasonably debatable, of course; I think various people have good reasons for protecting their unseen physical appearance to be a greater or lesser privacy concern.
That one benefit to allowing the government to track how people vote on referenda and then hold them personally accountable would be that people would actually wake the hell out on how much government costs. The first time the working class and lower middle class get pounded back into the stone age financially for voting for expensive new programs would be the last time they'd automatically vote themselves largesse from the treasury!
Err... Isn't the problem that those folks have already been "pounded back into the stone financially," and therefore they're voting for expensive new programs that promise to provide them new or better jobs?
Ipad as a name is about as bad as it can get for apple, due to all the jokes and the SNL skit. Is itablet also trademarked?
It's actually a MAD TV Skit
...And a fine example of how dreadfully unfunny Mad TV was, too. Still, they get bonus points for the fact that Apple used the name.
In this case it's unfunny because men fear menstruation more than death. But yes, it's really impressive that, Mad TV, show after show, has been able to home in on and fully exploit the essence of non-humor.
In my humble opinion. :-)