The western world is not "broke." When the western world is "in debt" the next question is "two whom?" That's where you will find some obvious answers to obvious questions.
We don't need to do business with China. We *want* to save a few bucks to increase our profits or at least to lower our costs. Without these savings or cost reductions, how can we guarantee a ridiculously large bonus... a bonus so large that even people in the top 25% earning bracket would never make so much in a life time.
We live in a time of incredible greed and lust for power. The banks own the nations of the world. But I learned something about debt some time ago. It's only something to worry about when someone else is willing to do something to you as a result. In our case, it's pretty much nothing to worry about. The "federal reserve bank" is not about to foreclose on the US or any other country. The moment they do, they become immediately visible and all debts get cancelled by virtue of revolution.
Indeed. Even though Samsung's continued ability to do business is important in both the short and long terms, they may have to assess what their long term ability to stay in business may be and adjust to better assure their future. If they feel that future is threatened by Apple's legal actions, they may just have to temporarily interrupt a source of income in order to slow down the assault against them.
One might look at it this way:
(finctional) US Arms manufacturers during WW2 were selling to Japan and Germany. Meanwhile, the US is sending soldiers out to fight enemies which are armed with US made weapons. So the dilemma is obvious in that case right? The enemy is a source of revenue. On the other hand, continuing to supply them with weapons may enable them to more easily kick our asses. What a difficult choice this is.
Obviously, in the fictitious scenario, the government would step in and charge someone with supplying arms to the enemy. But in the case of Apple v. Samsung, it's a bit more murky. After all, breaking an arms contract with the enemy is trivial in war. Breaking a contract "in business" is quite a different matter.
Well so there you have it. There's a difference between what is legal and what is right. In the end, the police told us "...don't bother reporting this. Just confiscate and let them get on the plane." The police didn't want to be bothered with it. And let's see some humanity here -- the guy was a frikken amputee. Cutting the guy some slack was partially what was on my mind.
I attempted to exercise conscience when executing my duties. It's just not always possible... in fact, it rarely is.
I suppose this is just another thing that needs to be repeated until it is generally accepted. You know, kind of like "smoking is bad for you and everyone around you."
There are ample examples of how doing business in China have turned really bad on all scales. It is especially obvious when heavy tech such as aircraft and train manufacturing have been screwed over by the promises of the Chinese government which were later revoked causing amazing damage to the companies who put their faith in what they were told.
We all want to have those WalMart prices in everything we buy. Lower costs of everything from materials and manufacturing to labor and delivery are things we ALL want. But there are risks and I measure those risks with every transaction I make on eBay. (And I am talking about pennies, not billions of dollars.) The risk is heavy on my mind always. But then again, it's the question of risk isn't it?
These days, whether people realize it or not, but the risk to business has largely been shifted to employees and the general population. When things fail or go badly, who feels the pinch worse? The people on wall street or the people on the street? Somehow, we got to a place where risk is socialized and rewards are privatized.
So yeah.... there is risk to doing business with china, but the risk is socialized... it's on all of us and we have little we can say or do about it.
I have a hard time with the idea of abortion. I don't see "parasite" most of the time. I see "baby" and I love babies. That said, I am troubled by the notion of abortion because of what it means to society and the human race. My rational side says "unwanted children" are a problem for society at large and for society's development and future and it respresents a burden and even a threat to everyone. The quality of life for everyone is on the table in every case. But I think it's not my place to make the decision to add to the pool of unwanted and unsupported/undersupported children in the world.
On the other hand, I get a rather sick feeling at the idea of abortion. I have actually been close to the issue once before and while I believe the choice which was made was rational, it didn't stop the illness... it still doesn't.
For example, I have a son who, like myself, have "social adjustment challenges" due to some level of autistic spectrum disorder. It has taken my whole life to the present to manage the challenges associated with it. (My first two sons are just fine though... one is quite the social butterfly... very alien to me.) In theory, my rational side would say "kill him." If I had known before he was born that he would have these challenges, I would have been faced with the question of whether or not to abort because his life would be at least as hard as my own has been. I do not want that kind of suffering for any human being. On the other hand, I love my son deeply. At times, he is the only reason I can raise a smile on some days. Also, because of my experience and special understanding of what he is going through, I am uniquely capable of helping and advising him through adjusting for his own problems. So you see my problem. The rational/logical versus the emotional and this doesn't even address how my wife would have felt not understanding what's going on in the deepest sense.
Thankfully, I didn't know in advance and wasn't troubled with the horrible question. All three sons have well above average intelligence. I would say they got it from me, but I am not quite so certain that my intelligence is so far above average... I used to think so, but not so much lately. (My sons, in many ways are smarter than I was/am.) And life without any one or plurality of them is simply unimaginable. Some issues are a matter for individual exploration and determination. There is no cookie-cutter policy that should or could work when it comes to this. It's a painful decision to make either way. Government has no place in it other than to protect and guarantee the right to make such choices individually.
On the other hand, I have definitely had some experience with being falsely accused and convicted. Okay, not exactly convicted, but damned close. It simply ruins lives even when there is no conviction. The process of being accused is damaging enough!! It is outside of my experience to actually be convicted of something which was not done. But I am quite certain the problems only get worse for people whose lives have been harmed in this way.
So "death penalty" is something which I would hope to avoid whenever and wherever possible. It should be allowed, however, in cases which are ridiculously certain and obvious. And it is especially true in instances where people have admitted to having done it and are not sorry for it. As a society, we can't afford to support those people within the system or within society. It doesn't make sense. And to simply prolong the life of misery in prison? Sorry, but I can't fathom it. Even if they were to be released later, a conviction is a life sentence. Whole aspects and opportunities of life are simply removed. What can one hope for in life after that? Just survival? Never being able to rise above certain levels in life? "Better off dead" sometimes occurs in my mind when I consider these things.
So yeah. On the surface, it might seem weird to be pro-choice and anti-death penalty. But these are no simple matters.
The players in the system are people who are often prevented from exercising their better sense and judgement by their regulations and policied. "Failure to act" generally leads to being fired. Here's a good case in point.
In many of my commentaries, I have shared the fact that I spent some time as a TSA screener. I have been faced with some rather unenviable duties both as a passenger screener and as a baggage screener. For the first two+ years of TSA's existance, I knew the system pretty well. (I don't think much has changed since then) Among these duties, I had to screen people who... were not typical. While screening people, I had to do a manual patdown of a person with only one leg.
Though it seems unseemly, I actually did pat around the area where there was no leg. Something was in his pocket in that vicinity and had him pull things from his pockets. Among the items was a small bag of marijuana. I attempted to exercise my sense of better judgement and IGNORED the pot. (Oh, how I wished he told me "oh, it's green tea." because I could have easily had an out on the matter... in fact, I wish I had thought to say "oh! This must be green tea. I hear it is very healthy" giving HIM the idea...) But I attempted to ignore it. Another screener noticed it and started to report it. I had to fall into place or risk problems to myself.
The guy was held, then eventually wheeled away my police. Later, the police said "people, for such small amounts, please don't bother us?!" Policy actually changed to reflect better sense. But the fact was, there was no clear instruction at the time.
But we see policies and procedures often get in the way of better sense and judgement everywhere we go. From law enforcement to public education, we see stupid crap all day long. Are people REALLY that stupid or are we playing "CYA" too much to the point that things are simply ridiculous? I favor the second while I recognize that SOME people are not capable of particularly rational judgement.
Because someone's crony needs a new job... and of course the staff that acts like they know what they are doing. It rather reminds me of where I work now. For some reason, IT department is stressed with too much work and not enough people. (We have one person out as we're seriously feeling the pain... that's a shrinking company of about 300 and 5 IT infrastructure and support people. Meanwhile, HR department has a small army of people... 17 at last count.)
You're right to point out that it's a waste of money. But the cause is something else.
Well, to be fair, "some" of this comes from the associated press news wire. And they do tend to over-utilize it and simply use it wrong. In my view, the AP is essentially an unverified source of news. Each time it is used, the reporting agency should take when is given, verified and restated. One could argue about accuracy of story retelling, but on the other hand, when a wrong story is reported over the AP, then much worse things happen.
Like it or not, eminant domain had practical purposes when dealing with larger issues. The needs of the many often outweigh the needs of the few or the one. I don't advocate the use of eminant domain lightly, but we're talking about managing the nation's energy needs and the quality of the air and, of course, global warming. I don't advocate eminant domain for private industry. That sickens me. I do advocate it when it serves to better the general situation.
Changes in the US infrastructure need to be made. Long ago, decisions were made to favor cars over trains. The auto lobby's interests won out and now we've got problems which would have been more manageable had they not. Government addiction to corporate money was a problem long ago and remains a huge problem today. To be a bit fascist now isn't any worse than what we have today... which is already a bit fascist as it turns out.
It all starts with land. After land comes everything else. Land is a means of production, quite often... some land better than others. Land offers means of transportation... some land better than others. You get the idea. Throughout man's existance as a thinking being, land has been the most significant thing. Heck, for that matter, you don't even have to be human. Other animals value land too. And that's where it all begins.
Global warming will affect the land and what you can do with it. It will make valuable land worthless and worthless land valuable. And with value comes people trying to take it away... and when that happens...
They are only conspiracy nuts when it's not the government thinking these thoughts? Uh... Got news for you jack. The government is people. And so are the conspiracy nuts. So... seriously... how different is it all really? After all, we've got government ignoring, banning and denying science and other facts left and right, day in and day out. Sure, it might make you sleep better believing your god (government in this case) is always watching over you, but really? How much government nonsense do you buy on a daily basis? I never ONCE believed that going to Iraq or Afghanistan was "for our freedom." They were never a threat to that. The only threat there is from the people who want to take it... correction, from the people who have taken it.
Now I have to take issue with your sense of what is dangerous. Terrorist attack is dangerous. Lions are dangerous too. We just don't have them in my neighborhood. Tornadoes are dangerous too. Just that they are slightly less rare than lions walking down the street.
Now if you were to substitute "likely" for "danger" you might be making some sense. But then again, global warming [aka climate change... change we can believe in] already here and things are already changing. Coastal areas should be becoming less valuable. Inland areas, especially plains areas (though not in tornado alley) should be becoming more valuable. It's all about the weather and those beautiful beaches might still be attracting tourism and vacationing, but business would be well advised not to be there where hurricanes can take our your data centers for weeks on end.
New weather patterns call for new ways of doing things. Some things will be more valuable while others less. Smart people will consider that a bit more.
I'm sorry. But no. All of these "on a computer" and "over the internet" patents have got to go. And making a product design so simple that its design is completely utilitarian does not a design patent make.
Companies suing each other into oblivion is no way for competition to reign. It's supposed to be about marketing, customer service and product quality... isn't it?
I can tell you first-hand that the Japanese companies I have had exposure to do not value "up-to-date" equipment, software, policies or practices. They spend less money and maintain far older infrastructure. And let me tell you that just because it has "America" in the title doesn't make it an American company run to American standards.
And Sony is definitely a Japanese company... it all comes from the top. After the top US defense companies were compomised, they tightened security and became a lot more proactive. When the top Japanese defense companies were compromised [at about the same time] they did "something" but were compromised several times after the initial series of events. I see the pattern as a refusal to take information security seriously.
But some things are simply cultural. For example, the times I have visited Japan, I could always tell when a shop was run by Japanese people or by foreigners. Those run by Japanese people I always felt comfortable in. Those run by others generally sent a vibe that said "I am being watched and not trusted."
I think no singular explanation could describe the whole problem, but the most significant symptom here is that they are not responsive to information security needs. That needs to change... and by change I mean, "Die! Sony, Die!" or "Sony straightens up and invests in good infrastructure and practices."
That a leader within Sony left doesn't mean he was responsible. I have seen many non-Japanese people leave Japanese companies purely out of frustration. There comes a time when doing things right is more important than the money and continued employment. This guy just may have left because no one has been listening to him.
Windows 8 and Windows mobile/tablet efforts will fail horribly. There is nothing "business" about these things and therefore they can't effectively tie them in with their Windows+AD+Office network of offerings. That's the only strategy that works for Microsoft and they should keep doing it. They are, instead, changing direction, chasing after a market they don't fully understand with things people don't exactly want.
I think it's no coincidence that all the major media players use exactly the same words to describe events. Case in point? The description of the election was "razor tight" was repeated everywhere. Now if this were a commonly used expression, I wouldn't have noticed. But this is a ridiculous and meaningless expression. what is "tight" about a razor? Nothing. Razors are sharp. Razors are thin. Razors are not "tight." But that the media repeated this across the board says a lot to me.
It says they are there to repeat what they are told to say and to use that repetition to drive the masses to think and believe in particular ways. And of course it works...
"Support the troops!" Right? It doesn't mean what I think it should mean. Of course it *does* mean that we don't reject them when they return from tours of destruction and unaccounted for "collateral damage" which may or may not include the killing of children or other innocents. It means we don't blame them for doing what they were told... or even if they were doing more than they were told. (Really, we don't know what they were told to do.) But that it should mean is that wounded fighters should have their lives taken care of for the rest of their lives... you know, like the congressmen, senators and presidents who sent them off into harm's way to do their bidding in persuit of their agenda. We don't do that. Our government has no interest in doing that. No one actually supports the troops in any meaningful way... in fact, on Veteran's day, the one "holiday" where *I* (a veteran of the first Iraq 'thing') should get recognized and the day off and all that, I don't. Who does? Banks, the postal service, some schools... Not me though.
"Support the troops!" means something else. It actually means "support our agenda unquestioningly" and that is exactly what has been happening.
There are ample examples of how provable and testable facts are unable to trump belief and tradition. Belief and tradition are parts of who people are. Facts are independant of people and no one owns them. To have a fact conflict with belief is literally to loose a part of one's identity and most are far too egotistical to allow any part of themselves to be lost or cast into doubt.
Life is hard unless you were gifted with good resources and they remain with you throughout your life. I was not. Everything I have ever had came from work. Everything I have ever lost was either taken from me or lost out of my own ignorance or frivolity.
The first step to surviving reality is identifying reality. If your perception of reality doesn't quite work in the world you live in, your perception is broken and needs to be corrected. After all, how can you work with what you have if you don't know what you have?
Whether or not there is an avalanche of contradictory evidence, most people will remain true to their beliefs and will ignore and deny facts that don't agree with them until they die.
This is a human failing. And it is pointless to blame humans for being human. It's hard if not impossible to change the thinking of a single person. Now imagine the scale of impossiblity it would be to change the thinking of the whole human species?
Pretty darned impossible. So what do you do about it? Well? Sometimes there simply NOTHING you can do about it. Unfortunately, the economy no longer makes "retirement" an option for everyone. And if you don't have it, you're destined to end up somewhere miserable in your twilight years hoping for death to take you when you're sleeping. Why? Because there is simply no chance of changing the world of people and their ideas that older people are incapable. Best hope is comfortable retirement if you can......and people need to start planning for their retirement in their 20s these days. And are 20-somethings thinking about retirement in their immortal years of adulthood? No. What about 30s? Yeah, sometimes, but often times not... they are thinking of buying bigger and better things all the time for the most part. And 40s? Oh crap... now it's definitely time to think about retirement and if you're not making a lot of money to invest in your retirement, then you are either going to have to put almost all of your extra cash in there (that's money after paying your bills and buying food on a tight budget) until that fateful day arrives when you simply can't get any more work... and then......then?...Then hope that a bunch of wallstreet assholes don't tank your retirement with ponzi schemes. This is what happened to a lot of people with the economic crash.
TL;DR?
You can't change the world. Change what you do in it and hope for the best.
Apple was neasr death without Jobs. Jobs ain't coming back. They are doing well now. But give it another year or so and Apple's image will fail badly. Apple will maintain their niche market areas as they always did, but the next leaders of the mainstream will not be Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
The western world is not "broke." When the western world is "in debt" the next question is "two whom?" That's where you will find some obvious answers to obvious questions.
We don't need to do business with China. We *want* to save a few bucks to increase our profits or at least to lower our costs. Without these savings or cost reductions, how can we guarantee a ridiculously large bonus... a bonus so large that even people in the top 25% earning bracket would never make so much in a life time.
We live in a time of incredible greed and lust for power. The banks own the nations of the world. But I learned something about debt some time ago. It's only something to worry about when someone else is willing to do something to you as a result. In our case, it's pretty much nothing to worry about. The "federal reserve bank" is not about to foreclose on the US or any other country. The moment they do, they become immediately visible and all debts get cancelled by virtue of revolution.
Indeed. Even though Samsung's continued ability to do business is important in both the short and long terms, they may have to assess what their long term ability to stay in business may be and adjust to better assure their future. If they feel that future is threatened by Apple's legal actions, they may just have to temporarily interrupt a source of income in order to slow down the assault against them.
One might look at it this way:
(finctional) US Arms manufacturers during WW2 were selling to Japan and Germany. Meanwhile, the US is sending soldiers out to fight enemies which are armed with US made weapons. So the dilemma is obvious in that case right? The enemy is a source of revenue. On the other hand, continuing to supply them with weapons may enable them to more easily kick our asses. What a difficult choice this is.
Obviously, in the fictitious scenario, the government would step in and charge someone with supplying arms to the enemy. But in the case of Apple v. Samsung, it's a bit more murky. After all, breaking an arms contract with the enemy is trivial in war. Breaking a contract "in business" is quite a different matter.
Well so there you have it. There's a difference between what is legal and what is right. In the end, the police told us "...don't bother reporting this. Just confiscate and let them get on the plane." The police didn't want to be bothered with it. And let's see some humanity here -- the guy was a frikken amputee. Cutting the guy some slack was partially what was on my mind.
I attempted to exercise conscience when executing my duties. It's just not always possible... in fact, it rarely is.
It's always a good idea if you are weighing risk and reward. What Rosa Parks did was risky... heroic and brave, but risky.
Most people are risk averse.
I suppose this is just another thing that needs to be repeated until it is generally accepted. You know, kind of like "smoking is bad for you and everyone around you."
There are ample examples of how doing business in China have turned really bad on all scales. It is especially obvious when heavy tech such as aircraft and train manufacturing have been screwed over by the promises of the Chinese government which were later revoked causing amazing damage to the companies who put their faith in what they were told.
We all want to have those WalMart prices in everything we buy. Lower costs of everything from materials and manufacturing to labor and delivery are things we ALL want. But there are risks and I measure those risks with every transaction I make on eBay. (And I am talking about pennies, not billions of dollars.) The risk is heavy on my mind always. But then again, it's the question of risk isn't it?
These days, whether people realize it or not, but the risk to business has largely been shifted to employees and the general population. When things fail or go badly, who feels the pinch worse? The people on wall street or the people on the street? Somehow, we got to a place where risk is socialized and rewards are privatized.
So yeah.... there is risk to doing business with china, but the risk is socialized... it's on all of us and we have little we can say or do about it.
Position: atheist, pro-choice, anti-death penalty (with exceptions)
I have a hard time with the idea of abortion. I don't see "parasite" most of the time. I see "baby" and I love babies. That said, I am troubled by the notion of abortion because of what it means to society and the human race. My rational side says "unwanted children" are a problem for society at large and for society's development and future and it respresents a burden and even a threat to everyone. The quality of life for everyone is on the table in every case. But I think it's not my place to make the decision to add to the pool of unwanted and unsupported/undersupported children in the world.
On the other hand, I get a rather sick feeling at the idea of abortion. I have actually been close to the issue once before and while I believe the choice which was made was rational, it didn't stop the illness... it still doesn't.
For example, I have a son who, like myself, have "social adjustment challenges" due to some level of autistic spectrum disorder. It has taken my whole life to the present to manage the challenges associated with it. (My first two sons are just fine though... one is quite the social butterfly... very alien to me.) In theory, my rational side would say "kill him." If I had known before he was born that he would have these challenges, I would have been faced with the question of whether or not to abort because his life would be at least as hard as my own has been. I do not want that kind of suffering for any human being. On the other hand, I love my son deeply. At times, he is the only reason I can raise a smile on some days. Also, because of my experience and special understanding of what he is going through, I am uniquely capable of helping and advising him through adjusting for his own problems. So you see my problem. The rational/logical versus the emotional and this doesn't even address how my wife would have felt not understanding what's going on in the deepest sense.
Thankfully, I didn't know in advance and wasn't troubled with the horrible question. All three sons have well above average intelligence. I would say they got it from me, but I am not quite so certain that my intelligence is so far above average... I used to think so, but not so much lately. (My sons, in many ways are smarter than I was/am.) And life without any one or plurality of them is simply unimaginable. Some issues are a matter for individual exploration and determination. There is no cookie-cutter policy that should or could work when it comes to this. It's a painful decision to make either way. Government has no place in it other than to protect and guarantee the right to make such choices individually.
On the other hand, I have definitely had some experience with being falsely accused and convicted. Okay, not exactly convicted, but damned close. It simply ruins lives even when there is no conviction. The process of being accused is damaging enough!! It is outside of my experience to actually be convicted of something which was not done. But I am quite certain the problems only get worse for people whose lives have been harmed in this way.
So "death penalty" is something which I would hope to avoid whenever and wherever possible. It should be allowed, however, in cases which are ridiculously certain and obvious. And it is especially true in instances where people have admitted to having done it and are not sorry for it. As a society, we can't afford to support those people within the system or within society. It doesn't make sense. And to simply prolong the life of misery in prison? Sorry, but I can't fathom it. Even if they were to be released later, a conviction is a life sentence. Whole aspects and opportunities of life are simply removed. What can one hope for in life after that? Just survival? Never being able to rise above certain levels in life? "Better off dead" sometimes occurs in my mind when I consider these things.
So yeah. On the surface, it might seem weird to be pro-choice and anti-death penalty. But these are no simple matters.
The players in the system are people who are often prevented from exercising their better sense and judgement by their regulations and policied. "Failure to act" generally leads to being fired. Here's a good case in point.
In many of my commentaries, I have shared the fact that I spent some time as a TSA screener. I have been faced with some rather unenviable duties both as a passenger screener and as a baggage screener. For the first two+ years of TSA's existance, I knew the system pretty well. (I don't think much has changed since then) Among these duties, I had to screen people who ... were not typical. While screening people, I had to do a manual patdown of a person with only one leg.
Though it seems unseemly, I actually did pat around the area where there was no leg. Something was in his pocket in that vicinity and had him pull things from his pockets. Among the items was a small bag of marijuana. I attempted to exercise my sense of better judgement and IGNORED the pot. (Oh, how I wished he told me "oh, it's green tea." because I could have easily had an out on the matter... in fact, I wish I had thought to say "oh! This must be green tea. I hear it is very healthy" giving HIM the idea...) But I attempted to ignore it. Another screener noticed it and started to report it. I had to fall into place or risk problems to myself.
The guy was held, then eventually wheeled away my police. Later, the police said "people, for such small amounts, please don't bother us?!" Policy actually changed to reflect better sense. But the fact was, there was no clear instruction at the time.
But we see policies and procedures often get in the way of better sense and judgement everywhere we go. From law enforcement to public education, we see stupid crap all day long. Are people REALLY that stupid or are we playing "CYA" too much to the point that things are simply ridiculous? I favor the second while I recognize that SOME people are not capable of particularly rational judgement.
Because someone's crony needs a new job... and of course the staff that acts like they know what they are doing. It rather reminds me of where I work now. For some reason, IT department is stressed with too much work and not enough people. (We have one person out as we're seriously feeling the pain... that's a shrinking company of about 300 and 5 IT infrastructure and support people. Meanwhile, HR department has a small army of people... 17 at last count.)
You're right to point out that it's a waste of money. But the cause is something else.
Well, to be fair, "some" of this comes from the associated press news wire. And they do tend to over-utilize it and simply use it wrong. In my view, the AP is essentially an unverified source of news. Each time it is used, the reporting agency should take when is given, verified and restated. One could argue about accuracy of story retelling, but on the other hand, when a wrong story is reported over the AP, then much worse things happen.
Like it or not, eminant domain had practical purposes when dealing with larger issues. The needs of the many often outweigh the needs of the few or the one. I don't advocate the use of eminant domain lightly, but we're talking about managing the nation's energy needs and the quality of the air and, of course, global warming. I don't advocate eminant domain for private industry. That sickens me. I do advocate it when it serves to better the general situation.
Changes in the US infrastructure need to be made. Long ago, decisions were made to favor cars over trains. The auto lobby's interests won out and now we've got problems which would have been more manageable had they not. Government addiction to corporate money was a problem long ago and remains a huge problem today. To be a bit fascist now isn't any worse than what we have today... which is already a bit fascist as it turns out.
This is Microsoft we're talking about. There is the obgligatory "...of death" which must be added to every Microsoft based failure.
NIMBYs are thwarted by using eminant domain laws. And they will be used as needed.
It all starts with land. After land comes everything else. Land is a means of production, quite often... some land better than others. Land offers means of transportation... some land better than others. You get the idea. Throughout man's existance as a thinking being, land has been the most significant thing. Heck, for that matter, you don't even have to be human. Other animals value land too. And that's where it all begins.
Global warming will affect the land and what you can do with it. It will make valuable land worthless and worthless land valuable. And with value comes people trying to take it away... and when that happens...
I suspect the fight against wind power has more to do with other energy producers than eco-nuts.
After all, anyone with last can set up wind power.
They are only conspiracy nuts when it's not the government thinking these thoughts? Uh... Got news for you jack. The government is people. And so are the conspiracy nuts. So... seriously... how different is it all really? After all, we've got government ignoring, banning and denying science and other facts left and right, day in and day out. Sure, it might make you sleep better believing your god (government in this case) is always watching over you, but really? How much government nonsense do you buy on a daily basis? I never ONCE believed that going to Iraq or Afghanistan was "for our freedom." They were never a threat to that. The only threat there is from the people who want to take it... correction, from the people who have taken it.
Now I have to take issue with your sense of what is dangerous. Terrorist attack is dangerous. Lions are dangerous too. We just don't have them in my neighborhood. Tornadoes are dangerous too. Just that they are slightly less rare than lions walking down the street.
Now if you were to substitute "likely" for "danger" you might be making some sense. But then again, global warming [aka climate change... change we can believe in] already here and things are already changing. Coastal areas should be becoming less valuable. Inland areas, especially plains areas (though not in tornado alley) should be becoming more valuable. It's all about the weather and those beautiful beaches might still be attracting tourism and vacationing, but business would be well advised not to be there where hurricanes can take our your data centers for weeks on end.
New weather patterns call for new ways of doing things. Some things will be more valuable while others less. Smart people will consider that a bit more.
In the last line of the summary, replace patents with germs and then imagine what a phone might look like with over 250,000 covering it.
I'm sorry. But no. All of these "on a computer" and "over the internet" patents have got to go. And making a product design so simple that its design is completely utilitarian does not a design patent make.
Companies suing each other into oblivion is no way for competition to reign. It's supposed to be about marketing, customer service and product quality... isn't it?
I can tell you first-hand that the Japanese companies I have had exposure to do not value "up-to-date" equipment, software, policies or practices. They spend less money and maintain far older infrastructure. And let me tell you that just because it has "America" in the title doesn't make it an American company run to American standards.
And Sony is definitely a Japanese company... it all comes from the top. After the top US defense companies were compomised, they tightened security and became a lot more proactive. When the top Japanese defense companies were compromised [at about the same time] they did "something" but were compromised several times after the initial series of events. I see the pattern as a refusal to take information security seriously.
But some things are simply cultural. For example, the times I have visited Japan, I could always tell when a shop was run by Japanese people or by foreigners. Those run by Japanese people I always felt comfortable in. Those run by others generally sent a vibe that said "I am being watched and not trusted."
I think no singular explanation could describe the whole problem, but the most significant symptom here is that they are not responsive to information security needs. That needs to change... and by change I mean, "Die! Sony, Die!" or "Sony straightens up and invests in good infrastructure and practices."
That a leader within Sony left doesn't mean he was responsible. I have seen many non-Japanese people leave Japanese companies purely out of frustration. There comes a time when doing things right is more important than the money and continued employment. This guy just may have left because no one has been listening to him.
Windows 8 and Windows mobile/tablet efforts will fail horribly. There is nothing "business" about these things and therefore they can't effectively tie them in with their Windows+AD+Office network of offerings. That's the only strategy that works for Microsoft and they should keep doing it. They are, instead, changing direction, chasing after a market they don't fully understand with things people don't exactly want.
I think it's no coincidence that all the major media players use exactly the same words to describe events. Case in point? The description of the election was "razor tight" was repeated everywhere. Now if this were a commonly used expression, I wouldn't have noticed. But this is a ridiculous and meaningless expression. what is "tight" about a razor? Nothing. Razors are sharp. Razors are thin. Razors are not "tight." But that the media repeated this across the board says a lot to me.
It says they are there to repeat what they are told to say and to use that repetition to drive the masses to think and believe in particular ways. And of course it works...
"Support the troops!" Right? It doesn't mean what I think it should mean. Of course it *does* mean that we don't reject them when they return from tours of destruction and unaccounted for "collateral damage" which may or may not include the killing of children or other innocents. It means we don't blame them for doing what they were told... or even if they were doing more than they were told. (Really, we don't know what they were told to do.) But that it should mean is that wounded fighters should have their lives taken care of for the rest of their lives... you know, like the congressmen, senators and presidents who sent them off into harm's way to do their bidding in persuit of their agenda. We don't do that. Our government has no interest in doing that. No one actually supports the troops in any meaningful way... in fact, on Veteran's day, the one "holiday" where *I* (a veteran of the first Iraq 'thing') should get recognized and the day off and all that, I don't. Who does? Banks, the postal service, some schools... Not me though.
"Support the troops!" means something else. It actually means "support our agenda unquestioningly" and that is exactly what has been happening.
There are ample examples of how provable and testable facts are unable to trump belief and tradition. Belief and tradition are parts of who people are. Facts are independant of people and no one owns them. To have a fact conflict with belief is literally to loose a part of one's identity and most are far too egotistical to allow any part of themselves to be lost or cast into doubt.
Life is hard unless you were gifted with good resources and they remain with you throughout your life. I was not. Everything I have ever had came from work. Everything I have ever lost was either taken from me or lost out of my own ignorance or frivolity.
The first step to surviving reality is identifying reality. If your perception of reality doesn't quite work in the world you live in, your perception is broken and needs to be corrected. After all, how can you work with what you have if you don't know what you have?
Whether or not there is an avalanche of contradictory evidence, most people will remain true to their beliefs and will ignore and deny facts that don't agree with them until they die.
This is a human failing. And it is pointless to blame humans for being human. It's hard if not impossible to change the thinking of a single person. Now imagine the scale of impossiblity it would be to change the thinking of the whole human species?
Pretty darned impossible. So what do you do about it? Well? Sometimes there simply NOTHING you can do about it. Unfortunately, the economy no longer makes "retirement" an option for everyone. And if you don't have it, you're destined to end up somewhere miserable in your twilight years hoping for death to take you when you're sleeping. Why? Because there is simply no chance of changing the world of people and their ideas that older people are incapable. Best hope is comfortable retirement if you can... ...and people need to start planning for their retirement in their 20s these days. And are 20-somethings thinking about retirement in their immortal years of adulthood? No. What about 30s? Yeah, sometimes, but often times not... they are thinking of buying bigger and better things all the time for the most part. And 40s? Oh crap... now it's definitely time to think about retirement and if you're not making a lot of money to invest in your retirement, then you are either going to have to put almost all of your extra cash in there (that's money after paying your bills and buying food on a tight budget) until that fateful day arrives when you simply can't get any more work... and then... ...then? ...Then hope that a bunch of wallstreet assholes don't tank your retirement with ponzi schemes. This is what happened to a lot of people with the economic crash.
TL;DR?
You can't change the world. Change what you do in it and hope for the best.
Apple was neasr death without Jobs. Jobs ain't coming back. They are doing well now. But give it another year or so and Apple's image will fail badly. Apple will maintain their niche market areas as they always did, but the next leaders of the mainstream will not be Apple.