While I can agree that there is a certain degree of fear mongering, you also know that you could just as easily replace that last sentence you wrote as:
"If you're not exercising your Constitutional right to dissent against your government, you wouldn't need worry about being called a terrorist".
The fact is, in politics, as you progress, you either get bought or your opponent does. It is rare that a candidate pulls up the ranks without dragging a few sleazes on his coat tails. Companies will wine you, dine you, bribe you, cajole you, and if necessary, threaten your voters directly (plant closures if so and so gets elected).
Sometimes, I think inexperience is a good thing. I'd say it's possible to advance rapidly if you just get lucky. Maybe this is what Obama has done. Right place at the right time. But maybe the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.
He said all the right words to point to Ruby or ROR as the platform they chose:
- The illusion of popularity based upon buzz - Lack of employable gurus who are familiar with production level platform development.
Most of the folks who have the latter work for a firm or work as "consultants". There are few folks with enterprise or production experience with ruby systems to actually employ to develop and maintain an entire codebase, especially one expected to be a jack-of-all-trades, as their 'single web developer' issue probably requires him to be.
I'm not saying that Ruby isn't a great development platform. I'm just pointing out that it's adoption and dissemination have not allowed it to reach the stage of.NET/LAMP/Perl/Python in terms of available production man power.
Re:Government Maps - of course
on
Open US GPS Data?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Perhaps I'm wrong, but when you publish a web page on the internet, you are only ASSUMING that the users are choosing to render the code in a method that you intend. You can, I suppose, disable the site with javascript for anyone not using your approved browser, but beyond that, the standard http: request isn't returning a beautiful web page, it is returning ugly lines of code which the CLIENT must render into an understandable form. Beyond blocking your site, can you COERCE me to render?
Posting articles like this, which barely qualify as news and are INTENTIONALLY sensationalized, only serve to damage Slashdot's thin journalistic credibility. The author even admits that he injected the "rootkit" description in order to drive site/SEO traffic. I understand that it's a slow news day, but this is pure FUD. There's too much out there to post crap like this without doing legwork. The editor should have at least clarified the article in the summary so that we were aware of the content.
You can type a WHOLE lot, and still not have thought things through.
The fee that you pay to TimeWarner or SBC does not pay the salaries of people who work at Slashdot, or NYT, or other companies that provide valuable content. Claiming that YOUR fee pays for an exclusive right to access all internet content free of charge is asinine. The companies pay for their own bandwidth as well, so it isn't like the data your pull is a one-way street. For every meg you "take", they pay for the same meg on their side. And then they have to pay for the content to be developed, and we don't live in a "gift society".
Also, when you buy the newspaper, you don't have to READ the ads, but they are still there. You can't just put on special glasses that white out the ads while you read the paper. So, advertisers will continue to pay for news print ads because they will consistently be there. However, AdBlock does allow you to simply white out the ads. But if the ads were there, you still wouldn't have to read them. You could ignore them just like you do with newspapers. YOu just couldn't make them go away, and that is the CONTENT publishers right, because they pay for their web hosting, their own pipeline, and the people who create. Your internet fee doesn't give THEM a dime.
I'm just not sure why you are not getting it, though. In EVERY other example you mentioned, you pointed out a medium where you can't truly ELIMINATE the ads, only choose to ignore them. Why should web content providers not desire the same thing? Your cable bill doesn't pay for the TV shows that you might like to watch, your car payment doesn't pay for the radio you might listen to in it, and your mortgage doesn't pay for the newspaper content that Jimmy the Paperboy throws in your driveway. Somehow claiming that your internet connection (which comes with no implied or guaranteed rights other than that you have a pipe that will move internet traffic) is sufficient payment for ALL internet content is a little misguided. I'm not even sure how you are able to reconcile it when the differences are so vastly clear.
And before people ask, I'm an IT guy. I have nothing to do with advertising. And I don't have a monetized website of any sort, so it doesn't affect me either way.
I should check on these more often, but I'll reply anyway.
I think that yes, it is a lot to read out of the statement unless you have a fairly solid grasp of the history already. It is unfortunate that not everyone does, but it's still the truth.
My assumption about the original poster is that he either a) had a solid grasp and wasn't properly explaining his position, or b) was just parroting a correct assertion while, while less impressive, doesn't make the assertion any less correct.
So, I kind of filled in the blanks. Sorry if it came off antagonistic at all.
So the point you're attempting to make is that we should treat women DIFFERENTLY in the work place by automatically trusting and respecting their skills in a way that we would not do for a fellow male coworker, because she MIGHT be the target of some form of possible harassment? Women should get BETTER than equal treatment?
Because I HAVE a child, I take less risks in my career. I have to always be sure that there is good insurance, and know how long it will take to kick in. THese days, if it takes more the 30 days to get benefits, I won't even consider it. I certainly won't take the risk of starting that business I always wanted to. It's not my savings at risk anymore, it's my kids college tuition. Luckily, my wife has a pretty good job, so I'm a little more flexible of late, but I'm still not going to be out on a limb risking a years worth of ramen subsistence when I have kids to worry about.
No, I believe it's his contention that before the attack on Pearl Harbor (and allow me to clarify, the loss of life that entailed, not the strip of land it encompassed), Americans were quite content to let the Fuhrer enjoy his reign of slaughter across Europe uninterrupted. He was Time's Man of the Year, after all!
Americans committed and committed hard after that, and sure, not everyone was asleep at the wheel before that time. But, in an age that lacked mass media and instant information, not to mention the literacy level of the time, it was easy to ignore what went on thousands of miles away until it affected Americans. In the end, it was double-plus good for us, because no matter how crappy we Americans are in Europe, the fleeting shadow of WWII still provides us with a final layer of protection. And it stimulated our economy in multiple ways, as well as paved the way for women in the workplace. Huzzah.
I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. Cell phones are less expensive outside the US. Cell phone PLANS are less expensive outside the US. So, you're asking if I want to pay $149 for a high end phone on sign up and $70 a month for full service for 2 years HERE, or pay $40 a month with nothing up front for two years for the same thing, but a more feature rich phone which is easily number portable and always unlocked...
Gee, AC. I dunno. Math is really hard. I'm going to need you to guide me here. Strangely...these cell phone companies still make money. Probably by trading in on the 3rd world living standards of Europe and Japan!
Also, European phones are quad band mostly, and both EU and Japan offer FAR faster and more flexible broadband and text messaging features on their networks than we do, whatever initials we chose to use.
Yes, but overall, European GDP climbed at a higher percentage than US GDP for the first time in...oh...forever. THat might not be alarming, if we were not rapidly racing to sell ourselves into debt by living beyond our means. A trend, I might add, that is partially addressed in this article, because part of this "conspicuous consumption" is purchasing goods and services at inflated prices due to lack of market pressure. You cannot go somewhere else, because there are only a few true cell providers, and there is no entry into the space, because they effectively own the space due to unfair FCC auctions.
We can only hope the new wireless auctions will be fair and open competition. I'm not holding my breath, though.
The cost of living in every country on that list with cheaper broadband than us is anywhere between equivalent to exhorbitantly more expensive than our own. Average office worker salary in S Korea is $27k-68k (20-50M Korea Won). So, any talk about cost/income is bogus, because none of them cheaper than us are 'cheap labor' third world countries.
Before I start this, I should probably mention: I believe Contra Costa should pay IBM. I'm not by NATURE socialistic or anti-corporate. I don't think you need to be a socialist to believe in fairer distribution of wealth. But hey, don't take my word for it, here's the CIA Factbook:
The US has... a per capita GDP [PPP] of $42,000... The [recent] onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market"... Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households... The rise in GDP in 2004 and 2005 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity... Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. -CIA factbook on the US economy, 2005 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world -factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
The increase in productivity profit is being eaten up primarily by the people who already had the money. And, as a 401K holder and a pension owner, I am a shareholder. But I'm also a human being. Wealth inequity is a societal problem, and CEO pay is but one of a number of factors in that. As a member of society and a thinking human, I have every right to question those decisions.
Allow me to clear up some of your business misconceptions when it comes to this. As a former Dell employee, one who has seen it fall from it's glory days to this hellish nightmare in which it wallows, one thing can be said: The Dell business model was LIGHTYEARS ahead of all of its competitors.
This is not about catalog ordering. It's nothing so simple as "go to a restaurant and get what you one". Imagine if you did run your restaurant, but you had to prepare every dish you conceived someone might order, and then send it out and hope your waiters could "sell" those dishes to the customers. This is how retail computer sales had worked to this point. The Dell business model is about three words: SUPPLY CHAIN, INVENTORY, and CASH FLOW CYCLE (technically, 6 words, three concepts, but who's counting). Dell managed to work out a system that was so effective that Dell managed to maintain only 3 days of inventory and still produce products ON TIME. At the same time, the direct payment model changed the way cash flowed to the company. At companies like Compaq, the company basically built each machine on speculation. They would build the machine, send it to the distributor, that would go to the retail store, and the sales floor would sell it. This meant that Compaq, at any given time, would have up to 3 WEEKS of inventory on hand, and would not receive the money for the actual machine they built for 15-20 days. Dells cash flow was -4 days. Because users paid online before the machine was built, Dell never had to borrow capital...the money was already in the bank. They would never default, and never had to worry about overages or returns.
Where Dell went wrong was it's relentless pursuit for #1, at all costs. When we were #3, behind Compaq and HP, there was always that...we'll be #1. When Michael was in charge, it was about being #1 by doing what was right by the customer, by being the better company. But he placed his company in the hands of micro-managers, and it was about being #1 by doing anything you had to. Cutting costs, cutting service, cutting jobs, cutting corners. At this point, it's an uphill battle for Dell, and unless Mr Dell tries to recapture that old magic, they will remain floundering, in my opinion.
Raising a crop requires land. Land requires capital. Capital is available only through a lending institution or employment. Lending is out unless you already have some employment or collateral. Then, once you raise a crop, the price of that crop is dictated by large corporate farms that produce hundreds or thousands of times your own volume. THere is a reason the "American Farmer" is dead or dying. There may be some value to going "organic", but that can be a crapshoot depending upon region.
Building a house requires not only land, but also materials, permits, and possibly other considerations. Painting a picture...well, I suppose if you have enough talent, is cheap enough to have a positive return.
I could go on with little examples and smart-aleck responses all night, but in reality, the fact is that the vast majority of our lives are dominated at the highest level by corporate interest. It isn't like the top 20% are content with where they are, and are going to start letting everyone else in on the productivity profits. The fact is, the top 20% will continue to contentedly make 8/10ths of every dollar in the US. There is absolutely NO evidence that the United States is becoming better at the distribution of wealth, and numerous indicators that the wealth gap is, in fact, increasing. The folks at the top scrape and struggle to maintain their relative positions in society, even if it means others suffer.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you these facts, but I will anyway.
The Average CEO salary can employ 411 average workers in that same company. (So in essence, the pay of the CEOs of the Fortune 1000 eat up approximately 400,000 jobs) The GROWTH of pay for CEOs has climbed 300% since 1990, adjusted for inflation. In contrast, average company profits have risen only a third of that number, and average worker pay has climbed only 4.3%. The value of minimum wage has declined about 9% over that same period.
Yup, that growth will "trickle down" to everyone, I'm sure. It's done a great job of it so far! It's not like it's just the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. After all, the middle class is getting poorer, too.
In other news, the German government is following up the successful wins of it's German soccer teams by agreeing to build a new $300M soccer and sporting stadium. Shortly after Germany's world cup win, celebratory Germans and disappointed Brazilians alike took to the streets to commemorate the end of soccer season, overturning hundreds of cars, lighting fire to 17 city blocks of Berlin, and leaving dozens dead and wounded after a night of intense partying. Asked to comment, German parliament was too drunk to be coherent.
You seem to be missing the point by enforcing the original point. WoW is billed as an MMORPG, but the RPG aspect dies when you hit 60, unless you wish to play over as another faction, in which case the 2nd time dies around 45 or so, since the high levels of end game generally overlap. Raiding does not have a single RPG aspect, and is more like strategic warfare than roleplaying. In that, you're right, it's like a whole different game.
The point being made was that, for a game world with such a rich history, and a company with a record of innovative storyline, the world of WoW quickly becomes stale, and fails to provide players with fresh encounters or the ability to move or manipulate the story at all. This is a common failing of MMOs, that provide little new meaningful content, instead relying on the player interaction or gear accumulation to keep player interest. A notable exception to this was Asheron's Call, which even to this day has the most superior player/story interaction of any MMO ever made. Major content updates came monthly, which moved the story along, introduced new dungeons, new villains, new items, new spells, and new ways for players to interact with the world. When The Burning Crusade expansions comes out, it will feel like a story LURCHING forward, because aside from AQ, there has been no forward movement of the WoW storyline in the game. The whole game could take place in the same day, for all the impact anyone has made on the world itself. When the first raid group brought down Kel'thuzad...well, nothing at all changed. Instance reset, good game, let's do it again next week.
First of all, not everyone CAN have lots of spare money in a capitalist model. To put it bluntly, the "have mosts" who control and direct the capitalist markets are largely unwilling to part with their own money, so any increase in spare money (ie, wage increases) to the "have leasts" is turned into price increases (inflation) that is paid for by the "have somes" (ie, the middle class). What this induces is a state in which the upper levels of the "have somes" scramble to join the "have mosts" ranks in order to escape the situation, while the bottom and middle sections of the "have somes" slowly drop off into the "have leasts" because of these inflated prices. The capitalist system is designed to allow some mobility between the stratas, but was designed to ensure there would ALWAYS be stratas, and that the lower strata would likely never live a much better life than they already do.
Which is why, despite what some may think, "Capitalism" is a system of economy, NOT a system of government.
I hate it when people say things like "Money isn't everything" and "move on to another job" or whatever such nonsense.
It's NOT easy to get a new job. And the cost of daycare is high. Not only does your job have to cover the cost of living, but these costs as well. And unless you're making a significant amount, you likely have two working parents (which is most common these days), and if you ARE making a significant amount, chances are that your work requires your attention proportionally, in the form of additional hours and responsibilities. And it's even worse when you're a single parent, because two incomes isn't even an option, unless you're working two jobs yourself.
I'm not saying that you should put your job first, because I don't believe that. But let's stop pretending like it's SOOO easy to just flush the job when it interferes. Relationships are complex entities. They can require understanding and sacrifice, and it's one that people are too often not willing to make. Financial uncertainty can and often does cause far more stress than too many late hours in the office, a fact that is often lost on people until AFTER they are confronted with that reality.
Except, polls don't blow people up. Al Qaeda doesn't have to poll well. They just have to be left alone. Until the citizens harass them and expel them from their midst, it doesn't matter at all how it polls.
He didn't say "a fine". He said "restitution". These are not the same. Currently, people pay fines, and most of these fines go to the government, and tend to be smaller than the amount they scammed. Instead, a financial criminal should have to pay restitution in the form of total compensation for all losses, and possibly potential losses, as well as the legal expenses incurred, such that the total financial restitution is equal to or (preferrably) greater than the monetary gains that they garnered. This would not go to the GOVERNMENT, but directly to shareholders, employees, and other individuals who were financially harmed by the crime.
Do you know how one of these companies could be a "leader"?
They could start by unifying features into a tight and manageable product set, and eliminate some degree of confusion about features and chipsets from the market.
-AND-
They could stop working on the "problem" of pushing more triangles, and work on the real problem with modern video cards: Power. Personally, I don't really need photorealistic graphic quality if it means I have to keep two power supplies in my system, or plug my video card directly into the wall.
Graphic quality is already impressively high, so maybe it's time to step back and improve the underlying technology and give the market time to absorb and upgrade. Like others, I still work on my ATI Radeon Pro 9800 with 256MB of RAM. I'm not upgrading anytime soon, because there are fewer and fewer AGP cards available, and I'm not willing to replace my entire otherwise completely functional system just to get a PCI-E slot. There are a lot of people like me, who are waiting, and I'm no Luddite. I like my gadgets. But keeping up with PC improvements has become a game of diminishing returns, since I run huge graphics and multimedia applications, plus most of the games on the market, very comfortably on my AMD64 3400+ processor with 1GB of RAM. I have yet to find a game I WANT to play that doesn't play quite nicely on my hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
While I can agree that there is a certain degree of fear mongering, you also know that you could just as easily replace that last sentence you wrote as:
"If you're not exercising your Constitutional right to dissent against your government, you wouldn't need worry about being called a terrorist".
The fact is, in politics, as you progress, you either get bought or your opponent does. It is rare that a candidate pulls up the ranks without dragging a few sleazes on his coat tails. Companies will wine you, dine you, bribe you, cajole you, and if necessary, threaten your voters directly (plant closures if so and so gets elected).
Sometimes, I think inexperience is a good thing. I'd say it's possible to advance rapidly if you just get lucky. Maybe this is what Obama has done. Right place at the right time. But maybe the other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.
He said all the right words to point to Ruby or ROR as the platform they chose:
.NET/LAMP/Perl/Python in terms of available production man power.
- The illusion of popularity based upon buzz
- Lack of employable gurus who are familiar with production level platform development.
Most of the folks who have the latter work for a firm or work as "consultants". There are few folks with enterprise or production experience with ruby systems to actually employ to develop and maintain an entire codebase, especially one expected to be a jack-of-all-trades, as their 'single web developer' issue probably requires him to be.
I'm not saying that Ruby isn't a great development platform. I'm just pointing out that it's adoption and dissemination have not allowed it to reach the stage of
*cough*google maps street view*cough**cough*
Perhaps I'm wrong, but when you publish a web page on the internet, you are only ASSUMING that the users are choosing to render the code in a method that you intend. You can, I suppose, disable the site with javascript for anyone not using your approved browser, but beyond that, the standard http: request isn't returning a beautiful web page, it is returning ugly lines of code which the CLIENT must render into an understandable form. Beyond blocking your site, can you COERCE me to render?
Web design and lawyers seldom mix.
Posting articles like this, which barely qualify as news and are INTENTIONALLY sensationalized, only serve to damage Slashdot's thin journalistic credibility. The author even admits that he injected the "rootkit" description in order to drive site/SEO traffic. I understand that it's a slow news day, but this is pure FUD. There's too much out there to post crap like this without doing legwork. The editor should have at least clarified the article in the summary so that we were aware of the content.
You can type a WHOLE lot, and still not have thought things through.
The fee that you pay to TimeWarner or SBC does not pay the salaries of people who work at Slashdot, or NYT, or other companies that provide valuable content. Claiming that YOUR fee pays for an exclusive right to access all internet content free of charge is asinine. The companies pay for their own bandwidth as well, so it isn't like the data your pull is a one-way street. For every meg you "take", they pay for the same meg on their side. And then they have to pay for the content to be developed, and we don't live in a "gift society".
Also, when you buy the newspaper, you don't have to READ the ads, but they are still there. You can't just put on special glasses that white out the ads while you read the paper. So, advertisers will continue to pay for news print ads because they will consistently be there. However, AdBlock does allow you to simply white out the ads. But if the ads were there, you still wouldn't have to read them. You could ignore them just like you do with newspapers. YOu just couldn't make them go away, and that is the CONTENT publishers right, because they pay for their web hosting, their own pipeline, and the people who create. Your internet fee doesn't give THEM a dime.
I'm just not sure why you are not getting it, though. In EVERY other example you mentioned, you pointed out a medium where you can't truly ELIMINATE the ads, only choose to ignore them. Why should web content providers not desire the same thing? Your cable bill doesn't pay for the TV shows that you might like to watch, your car payment doesn't pay for the radio you might listen to in it, and your mortgage doesn't pay for the newspaper content that Jimmy the Paperboy throws in your driveway. Somehow claiming that your internet connection (which comes with no implied or guaranteed rights other than that you have a pipe that will move internet traffic) is sufficient payment for ALL internet content is a little misguided. I'm not even sure how you are able to reconcile it when the differences are so vastly clear.
And before people ask, I'm an IT guy. I have nothing to do with advertising. And I don't have a monetized website of any sort, so it doesn't affect me either way.
I should check on these more often, but I'll reply anyway.
I think that yes, it is a lot to read out of the statement unless you have a fairly solid grasp of the history already. It is unfortunate that not everyone does, but it's still the truth.
My assumption about the original poster is that he either a) had a solid grasp and wasn't properly explaining his position, or b) was just parroting a correct assertion while, while less impressive, doesn't make the assertion any less correct.
So, I kind of filled in the blanks. Sorry if it came off antagonistic at all.
God, you're so wrong.
We WILL learn to respect your intellect, your humor, and your personality.
We will still stare at your boobs. Maybe less overtly, maybe just a sly glance time and again. But will won't ever really stop.
And if you think working with gay men fixes that, think again. It's a well known fact that gay men are just as fascinated with boobs.
So the point you're attempting to make is that we should treat women DIFFERENTLY in the work place by automatically trusting and respecting their skills in a way that we would not do for a fellow male coworker, because she MIGHT be the target of some form of possible harassment? Women should get BETTER than equal treatment?
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
Because I HAVE a child, I take less risks in my career. I have to always be sure that there is good insurance, and know how long it will take to kick in. THese days, if it takes more the 30 days to get benefits, I won't even consider it. I certainly won't take the risk of starting that business I always wanted to. It's not my savings at risk anymore, it's my kids college tuition. Luckily, my wife has a pretty good job, so I'm a little more flexible of late, but I'm still not going to be out on a limb risking a years worth of ramen subsistence when I have kids to worry about.
No, I believe it's his contention that before the attack on Pearl Harbor (and allow me to clarify, the loss of life that entailed, not the strip of land it encompassed), Americans were quite content to let the Fuhrer enjoy his reign of slaughter across Europe uninterrupted. He was Time's Man of the Year, after all!
Americans committed and committed hard after that, and sure, not everyone was asleep at the wheel before that time. But, in an age that lacked mass media and instant information, not to mention the literacy level of the time, it was easy to ignore what went on thousands of miles away until it affected Americans. In the end, it was double-plus good for us, because no matter how crappy we Americans are in Europe, the fleeting shadow of WWII still provides us with a final layer of protection. And it stimulated our economy in multiple ways, as well as paved the way for women in the workplace. Huzzah.
I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. Cell phones are less expensive outside the US. Cell phone PLANS are less expensive outside the US. So, you're asking if I want to pay $149 for a high end phone on sign up and $70 a month for full service for 2 years HERE, or pay $40 a month with nothing up front for two years for the same thing, but a more feature rich phone which is easily number portable and always unlocked...
Gee, AC. I dunno. Math is really hard. I'm going to need you to guide me here. Strangely...these cell phone companies still make money. Probably by trading in on the 3rd world living standards of Europe and Japan!
Also, European phones are quad band mostly, and both EU and Japan offer FAR faster and more flexible broadband and text messaging features on their networks than we do, whatever initials we chose to use.
Yes, but overall, European GDP climbed at a higher percentage than US GDP for the first time in...oh...forever. THat might not be alarming, if we were not rapidly racing to sell ourselves into debt by living beyond our means. A trend, I might add, that is partially addressed in this article, because part of this "conspicuous consumption" is purchasing goods and services at inflated prices due to lack of market pressure. You cannot go somewhere else, because there are only a few true cell providers, and there is no entry into the space, because they effectively own the space due to unfair FCC auctions.
We can only hope the new wireless auctions will be fair and open competition. I'm not holding my breath, though.
The cost of living in every country on that list with cheaper broadband than us is anywhere between equivalent to exhorbitantly more expensive than our own. Average office worker salary in S Korea is $27k-68k (20-50M Korea Won). So, any talk about cost/income is bogus, because none of them cheaper than us are 'cheap labor' third world countries.
Before I start this, I should probably mention: I believe Contra Costa should pay IBM. I'm not by NATURE socialistic or anti-corporate. I don't think you need to be a socialist to believe in fairer distribution of wealth. But hey, don't take my word for it, here's the CIA Factbook:
d -factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
The US has... a per capita GDP [PPP] of $42,000... The [recent] onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market"... Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households... The rise in GDP in 2004 and 2005 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity... Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. -CIA factbook on the US economy, 2005 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worl
The increase in productivity profit is being eaten up primarily by the people who already had the money. And, as a 401K holder and a pension owner, I am a shareholder. But I'm also a human being. Wealth inequity is a societal problem, and CEO pay is but one of a number of factors in that. As a member of society and a thinking human, I have every right to question those decisions.
Allow me to clear up some of your business misconceptions when it comes to this. As a former Dell employee, one who has seen it fall from it's glory days to this hellish nightmare in which it wallows, one thing can be said: The Dell business model was LIGHTYEARS ahead of all of its competitors.
This is not about catalog ordering. It's nothing so simple as "go to a restaurant and get what you one". Imagine if you did run your restaurant, but you had to prepare every dish you conceived someone might order, and then send it out and hope your waiters could "sell" those dishes to the customers. This is how retail computer sales had worked to this point. The Dell business model is about three words: SUPPLY CHAIN, INVENTORY, and CASH FLOW CYCLE (technically, 6 words, three concepts, but who's counting). Dell managed to work out a system that was so effective that Dell managed to maintain only 3 days of inventory and still produce products ON TIME. At the same time, the direct payment model changed the way cash flowed to the company. At companies like Compaq, the company basically built each machine on speculation. They would build the machine, send it to the distributor, that would go to the retail store, and the sales floor would sell it. This meant that Compaq, at any given time, would have up to 3 WEEKS of inventory on hand, and would not receive the money for the actual machine they built for 15-20 days. Dells cash flow was -4 days. Because users paid online before the machine was built, Dell never had to borrow capital...the money was already in the bank. They would never default, and never had to worry about overages or returns.
Where Dell went wrong was it's relentless pursuit for #1, at all costs. When we were #3, behind Compaq and HP, there was always that...we'll be #1. When Michael was in charge, it was about being #1 by doing what was right by the customer, by being the better company. But he placed his company in the hands of micro-managers, and it was about being #1 by doing anything you had to. Cutting costs, cutting service, cutting jobs, cutting corners. At this point, it's an uphill battle for Dell, and unless Mr Dell tries to recapture that old magic, they will remain floundering, in my opinion.
Except for a few things:
Raising a crop requires land. Land requires capital. Capital is available only through a lending institution or employment. Lending is out unless you already have some employment or collateral. Then, once you raise a crop, the price of that crop is dictated by large corporate farms that produce hundreds or thousands of times your own volume. THere is a reason the "American Farmer" is dead or dying. There may be some value to going "organic", but that can be a crapshoot depending upon region.
Building a house requires not only land, but also materials, permits, and possibly other considerations.
Painting a picture...well, I suppose if you have enough talent, is cheap enough to have a positive return.
I could go on with little examples and smart-aleck responses all night, but in reality, the fact is that the vast majority of our lives are dominated at the highest level by corporate interest. It isn't like the top 20% are content with where they are, and are going to start letting everyone else in on the productivity profits. The fact is, the top 20% will continue to contentedly make 8/10ths of every dollar in the US. There is absolutely NO evidence that the United States is becoming better at the distribution of wealth, and numerous indicators that the wealth gap is, in fact, increasing. The folks at the top scrape and struggle to maintain their relative positions in society, even if it means others suffer.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you these facts, but I will anyway.
The Average CEO salary can employ 411 average workers in that same company. (So in essence, the pay of the CEOs of the Fortune 1000 eat up approximately 400,000 jobs)
The GROWTH of pay for CEOs has climbed 300% since 1990, adjusted for inflation. In contrast, average company profits have risen only a third of that number, and average worker pay has climbed only 4.3%. The value of minimum wage has declined about 9% over that same period.
Yup, that growth will "trickle down" to everyone, I'm sure. It's done a great job of it so far! It's not like it's just the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. After all, the middle class is getting poorer, too.
In other news, the German government is following up the successful wins of it's German soccer teams by agreeing to build a new $300M soccer and sporting stadium. Shortly after Germany's world cup win, celebratory Germans and disappointed Brazilians alike took to the streets to commemorate the end of soccer season, overturning hundreds of cars, lighting fire to 17 city blocks of Berlin, and leaving dozens dead and wounded after a night of intense partying. Asked to comment, German parliament was too drunk to be coherent.
You seem to be missing the point by enforcing the original point. WoW is billed as an MMORPG, but the RPG aspect dies when you hit 60, unless you wish to play over as another faction, in which case the 2nd time dies around 45 or so, since the high levels of end game generally overlap. Raiding does not have a single RPG aspect, and is more like strategic warfare than roleplaying. In that, you're right, it's like a whole different game.
The point being made was that, for a game world with such a rich history, and a company with a record of innovative storyline, the world of WoW quickly becomes stale, and fails to provide players with fresh encounters or the ability to move or manipulate the story at all. This is a common failing of MMOs, that provide little new meaningful content, instead relying on the player interaction or gear accumulation to keep player interest. A notable exception to this was Asheron's Call, which even to this day has the most superior player/story interaction of any MMO ever made. Major content updates came monthly, which moved the story along, introduced new dungeons, new villains, new items, new spells, and new ways for players to interact with the world. When The Burning Crusade expansions comes out, it will feel like a story LURCHING forward, because aside from AQ, there has been no forward movement of the WoW storyline in the game. The whole game could take place in the same day, for all the impact anyone has made on the world itself. When the first raid group brought down Kel'thuzad...well, nothing at all changed. Instance reset, good game, let's do it again next week.
Nice thought, but incorrect.
First of all, not everyone CAN have lots of spare money in a capitalist model. To put it bluntly, the "have mosts" who control and direct the capitalist markets are largely unwilling to part with their own money, so any increase in spare money (ie, wage increases) to the "have leasts" is turned into price increases (inflation) that is paid for by the "have somes" (ie, the middle class). What this induces is a state in which the upper levels of the "have somes" scramble to join the "have mosts" ranks in order to escape the situation, while the bottom and middle sections of the "have somes" slowly drop off into the "have leasts" because of these inflated prices. The capitalist system is designed to allow some mobility between the stratas, but was designed to ensure there would ALWAYS be stratas, and that the lower strata would likely never live a much better life than they already do.
Which is why, despite what some may think, "Capitalism" is a system of economy, NOT a system of government.
I hate it when people say things like "Money isn't everything" and "move on to another job" or whatever such nonsense.
It's NOT easy to get a new job. And the cost of daycare is high. Not only does your job have to cover the cost of living, but these costs as well. And unless you're making a significant amount, you likely have two working parents (which is most common these days), and if you ARE making a significant amount, chances are that your work requires your attention proportionally, in the form of additional hours and responsibilities. And it's even worse when you're a single parent, because two incomes isn't even an option, unless you're working two jobs yourself.
I'm not saying that you should put your job first, because I don't believe that. But let's stop pretending like it's SOOO easy to just flush the job when it interferes. Relationships are complex entities. They can require understanding and sacrifice, and it's one that people are too often not willing to make. Financial uncertainty can and often does cause far more stress than too many late hours in the office, a fact that is often lost on people until AFTER they are confronted with that reality.
That's great!
Except, polls don't blow people up. Al Qaeda doesn't have to poll well. They just have to be left alone. Until the citizens harass them and expel them from their midst, it doesn't matter at all how it polls.
He didn't say "a fine". He said "restitution". These are not the same. Currently, people pay fines, and most of these fines go to the government, and tend to be smaller than the amount they scammed. Instead, a financial criminal should have to pay restitution in the form of total compensation for all losses, and possibly potential losses, as well as the legal expenses incurred, such that the total financial restitution is equal to or (preferrably) greater than the monetary gains that they garnered. This would not go to the GOVERNMENT, but directly to shareholders, employees, and other individuals who were financially harmed by the crime.
Do you know how one of these companies could be a "leader"?
They could start by unifying features into a tight and manageable product set, and eliminate some degree of confusion about features and chipsets from the market.
-AND-
They could stop working on the "problem" of pushing more triangles, and work on the real problem with modern video cards: Power. Personally, I don't really need photorealistic graphic quality if it means I have to keep two power supplies in my system, or plug my video card directly into the wall.
Graphic quality is already impressively high, so maybe it's time to step back and improve the underlying technology and give the market time to absorb and upgrade. Like others, I still work on my ATI Radeon Pro 9800 with 256MB of RAM. I'm not upgrading anytime soon, because there are fewer and fewer AGP cards available, and I'm not willing to replace my entire otherwise completely functional system just to get a PCI-E slot. There are a lot of people like me, who are waiting, and I'm no Luddite. I like my gadgets. But keeping up with PC improvements has become a game of diminishing returns, since I run huge graphics and multimedia applications, plus most of the games on the market, very comfortably on my AMD64 3400+ processor with 1GB of RAM. I have yet to find a game I WANT to play that doesn't play quite nicely on my hardware.