The problem is that the CEOs who did the price fixing back them are most likely well and good in new positions in other companies and couldn't care less about the long term effect of their decisions back them. The fines should be applied at least in part to the CEOs responsible to adequately deter this kind of behavior.
I agree with most of what you said, but we are not entirely off topic here. DPI is the natural progression of traffic shaping and (non-deep) packet inspection, and all of them threaten net neutrality.
DPI is never a good thing. Period. You should not be able to prioritize any type of package on your network if you are a ISP, that goes against net neutrality even if you do not charge extra for it. Net neutrality has no exceptions, it means that it doesn't matter what flows, it will all be treated the same.
But the financial situation is exactly the point here. Regardless of the motives the risks are in average much higher for employees than for investors, even though ideally it should be the opposite. Lack of savings and lack of desired skillsets are terms that can be applied to more and more people as time passes.
How is that any different than just giving them wages? Every employee has the opportunity to use their pay to buy shares in the company they work for. If you are referring to giving them stock on top of their current wages, that is no difference than just giving them a raise (a raise where you force them to spend it a certain way).
Not all companies have open capital and shares available to the public. Most don't.
You are right about those that have it. It is basically nothing different from simply giving people money as it happens now, as long as they can't just create more shares and dilute value and other shady things that are unfortunately allowed in the stock market under certain conditions.
For the majority of companies that don't have public available shares, this mechanism would make all the difference in the world, though.
There are plenty of laws in place to protect shareholders and assure that their rights are upheld. Surely not the right to dividends but the right to share the benefits of a company's growth by having their shares raising in value with nothing but an initial investment. Workers on the other hand, do not share the same benefits. They exchange their work for the same fixed wages no mater how well the company goes. You may argue that means they have a lower risk, but that again is false if a company goes badly chances are the employees will be cut. So in a way he is taking even greater risks than the investor.
As it is, with the system working as you pointed, laborers are always at the losing side. Labor demand decreases because of automation, outsourcing and newer technologies, unemployment increases, wages diminish, capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands and the structure is doomed to collapse sooner or later. One way to try to avoid it would be by forcing employees to pay part of the wages with shares, as I suggest.
That was not a blanket statement at all, it was just a logical consequence of a very verifiable fact. If you consider the workforce and the capital as a whole both are equally important because they are equally necessary to generate any result. Sure a single worker is not as critical, but then again a single share isn't either.
If both things are equally important and there are many laws to enforce the rights of shareholders regarding the share of the profits, why shouldn't there be similar laws to enforce the right of workers? Like, for example forcing the companies to give shares to workers.
But more often than not you only read the EULA AFTER you paid for the product, when you are about to install it. That alone should make it null and void.
Providing work is every bit as important as providing money. Without work there is no result, period. Still you seem to think that the people who provided money deserve increasing compensations while the people providing work do not.
Sure, but not everybody needs to be a leader, nor decide about broad issues outside his area of expertise as a leader usually does. In many tasks the person responsible is not meant to lead anything, just get your work done. If he is the expert and can do it better by not bothering to ask to everybody what they think about it, and even being plainly hostile to the people that happen to freely offer their "invaluable" insight, so be it.
Self-confidence and arrogance are two sides of the same coin, you can't really have one without the other. The best professionals I have ever met were considerably arrogant, and they wouldn't likely be better if they were humbler. For high level functions justified arrogance is by far less harmful than lack of confidence and excess of codependency.
Deadlines are short nowadays. Refusing to listen a myriad of different opinions about what one should do or not is sometimes the difference between concluding something and not doing it in time.
Information is not always valuable. Sometimes it is deceiving, sometimes it is a waste of time, sometimes it is worth it. Listening takes time and has a cost, which is often greater than it is worth it, if the one listening is the specialist.
Listening to others is sometimes a hindrance and a sign of indecisiveness. Sometimes it is much better to have a person who knows what to do and is able to do it regardless of what people say what he should do. Especially when trying to do something new. A lot of opinions is not necessarily better than a single one.
Re:Did Zuckerberg ever have to get past HR?
on
Just Say No To College
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Again, depends on what you are meant to do. Listening to others is some fields is a liability instead of an asset. The problem of trying to standardize requirements throughout tasks is that you end with a lot of generalists that can't really perform adequately the tasks they are attributed with. For many projects I would rather have a single anti-social savant programmer than a handful of sociable mediocre ones, for example.
Re:Did Zuckerberg ever have to get past HR?
on
Just Say No To College
·
· Score: 5, Informative
You certainly don't need it, but it helps. If it helps enough to compensate the additional time spent on it depends on what you plan to do though. In some areas, for examples, you must have a specific graduation degree to be even allowed in.
I agree that it would be much more sensible and fair if you were always judged by what you know and not by what title you have, but unfortunately that is not always the case.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the CEOs who did the price fixing back them are most likely well and good in new positions in other companies and couldn't care less about the long term effect of their decisions back them. The fines should be applied at least in part to the CEOs responsible to adequately deter this kind of behavior.
I agree with most of what you said, but we are not entirely off topic here. DPI is the natural progression of traffic shaping and (non-deep) packet inspection, and all of them threaten net neutrality.
Traffic shaping is not to way to solve anything. If you lack resources, limit the use, not the protocols.
Not necessarily. Although their prices will certainly increases chances are they will pull the price down far more than their price will be pushed up.
DPI is never a good thing. Period. You should not be able to prioritize any type of package on your network if you are a ISP, that goes against net neutrality even if you do not charge extra for it. Net neutrality has no exceptions, it means that it doesn't matter what flows, it will all be treated the same.
How is that any different than just giving them wages? Every employee has the opportunity to use their pay to buy shares in the company they work for. If you are referring to giving them stock on top of their current wages, that is no difference than just giving them a raise (a raise where you force them to spend it a certain way).
Not all companies have open capital and shares available to the public. Most don't.
You are right about those that have it. It is basically nothing different from simply giving people money as it happens now, as long as they can't just create more shares and dilute value and other shady things that are unfortunately allowed in the stock market under certain conditions.
For the majority of companies that don't have public available shares, this mechanism would make all the difference in the world, though.
There are plenty of laws in place to protect shareholders and assure that their rights are upheld. Surely not the right to dividends but the right to share the benefits of a company's growth by having their shares raising in value with nothing but an initial investment. Workers on the other hand, do not share the same benefits. They exchange their work for the same fixed wages no mater how well the company goes. You may argue that means they have a lower risk, but that again is false if a company goes badly chances are the employees will be cut. So in a way he is taking even greater risks than the investor.
As it is, with the system working as you pointed, laborers are always at the losing side. Labor demand decreases because of automation, outsourcing and newer technologies, unemployment increases, wages diminish, capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands and the structure is doomed to collapse sooner or later. One way to try to avoid it would be by forcing employees to pay part of the wages with shares, as I suggest.
That was not a blanket statement at all, it was just a logical consequence of a very verifiable fact. If you consider the workforce and the capital as a whole both are equally important because they are equally necessary to generate any result. Sure a single worker is not as critical, but then again a single share isn't either.
If both things are equally important and there are many laws to enforce the rights of shareholders regarding the share of the profits, why shouldn't there be similar laws to enforce the right of workers? Like, for example forcing the companies to give shares to workers.
But more often than not you only read the EULA AFTER you paid for the product, when you are about to install it. That alone should make it null and void.
Providing work is every bit as important as providing money. Without work there is no result, period. Still you seem to think that the people who provided money deserve increasing compensations while the people providing work do not.
Sure, but not everybody needs to be a leader, nor decide about broad issues outside his area of expertise as a leader usually does. In many tasks the person responsible is not meant to lead anything, just get your work done. If he is the expert and can do it better by not bothering to ask to everybody what they think about it, and even being plainly hostile to the people that happen to freely offer their "invaluable" insight, so be it.
Self-confidence and arrogance are two sides of the same coin, you can't really have one without the other. The best professionals I have ever met were considerably arrogant, and they wouldn't likely be better if they were humbler. For high level functions justified arrogance is by far less harmful than lack of confidence and excess of codependency.
Or someone that can't even spell a poster's name right apparently.
Any entity in control of any links in any country will shutdown their links, if the country's government decides to force them to do so.
Deadlines are short nowadays. Refusing to listen a myriad of different opinions about what one should do or not is sometimes the difference between concluding something and not doing it in time.
Information is not always valuable. Sometimes it is deceiving, sometimes it is a waste of time, sometimes it is worth it. Listening takes time and has a cost, which is often greater than it is worth it, if the one listening is the specialist.
Having to listen to people and formulate and defend your opinions is a time hindrance. It has a cost and it is often not worth the cost.
Listening to others is sometimes a hindrance and a sign of indecisiveness. Sometimes it is much better to have a person who knows what to do and is able to do it regardless of what people say what he should do. Especially when trying to do something new. A lot of opinions is not necessarily better than a single one.
Nope. They are just condemned to bankruptcy and a life of poverty for having illegally downloading copyrighted porn. Obviously much better!
Does it need to be on Earth? :(
Again, depends on what you are meant to do. Listening to others is some fields is a liability instead of an asset. The problem of trying to standardize requirements throughout tasks is that you end with a lot of generalists that can't really perform adequately the tasks they are attributed with. For many projects I would rather have a single anti-social savant programmer than a handful of sociable mediocre ones, for example.
You certainly don't need it, but it helps. If it helps enough to compensate the additional time spent on it depends on what you plan to do though. In some areas, for examples, you must have a specific graduation degree to be even allowed in.
I agree that it would be much more sensible and fair if you were always judged by what you know and not by what title you have, but unfortunately that is not always the case.
That is why I said, "a bit more than most".
Wrong. Copyright exists from the moment of PUBLISHING.
You gravely overestimate the knowledge levels of the average internet user.