Gates will be remembered, rightly or wrongly, as leading the computer revolution by taking it from the hobbyist era to what it is today.
Then wrongly, of course. It was Dan Bricklin primarily, and the IBM logo secondarily. I.e. Apple ][ was making inroads into business with Visicalc before the IBM PC came along. The IBM logo just gave businesses cover to save face. And of course that's not even mentioning the whole Digital Research and QDOS stories you were hinting at.
That's the conundrum, isn't it? Does history remember the pioneers or populizers? While Gates certainly played a significant role and was a pioneer with Basic, others created the environment for him to succeed. Apple had quite a few advantages early on (VisiCalc, Applewriter and later AppleWorks) but didn't capitalize on their position. DR certainly blew it big time. History may very well mark the beginning of the PC era as the introduction of the IBM PC, and place Gates at the center of the revolution and relegate others to a lesser role.
"I think their rationale is crap; the primary reason behind their valuation is that I have no leadership experience. I would be a 'rookie' supervisor with no more value than a 4-year grad coming in off the street. It seems a couple things are missing from their calculations. One is that they don't give me credit for the 'global' projects I've led to complete success (completed on time, under budget, all goals met, blah, blah, blah). Apparently PM doesn't have anything to do with leadership in their eyes. My current employer doesn't actually understand what PM is and has no one with the skills I have who actually practices it other than me.
PM skills don't equate to leadership - while some PM's are good leaders it's because they bring another set of skills to the table beyond project management. I've seen plenty of really good PM's who are poor leaders and managers; and while their PM skills are valuable they really have no value as a manager.
Leadership is a learned skill - take advantage of the opportunity. Negotiate to get training in leadership and ask for a mentor. Build up skills to match your PM skills and you'll become much more valuable - either to them or someone else. When you go to meetings, look and see what drives decisions - why do the senior leaders decide a certain way and what arguments did they find compelling? Learn to frame your arguments that way. I work with a lot of technical folks and spend a good bit of time helping them understand how to make an argument so they right solution is selected - because an in-depth technical analysis isn't going to be compelling (or even read all the way through) so frame it in a way that drives a positive decision.
Some people have made snarky comments about "now you need to learn to make your boss look good instead of doing work." Well, yeah. Making your boss look good is part of leadership, and you can do that by continuing to deliver results; and learn to be a good leader at the same time.
50 years from now, there will be a chapter, or at least a paragraph, of Jobs' handiwork in an industrial design textbook (or eBook). No one will care what Gates did because the environmental condition that permitted his tactics -- closed-source, closed file-format, vendor lock-in, intentional incompatibility with competitors -- will never exist again.
Hard to say. Was Jobs on par with Loewy? Goertz? I doubt it. Apple has some nice designs, but the jury is still out if Job's was as influential as some of the great industrial designers. In addition, much wasn't really his work. He was a genius, but that alone is not enough to remain in textbooks as other than a foot note.
No matter what happens to the software model in the future, Gates will be remembered, rightly or wrongly, as leading the computer revolution by taking it from the hobbyist era to what it is today.
Do they both deserve to be remembered? Sure, but history has a short memory.
Actually, it was the Police Commissioner saying that:
“It's one thing when providers learn what pizza or movies you like. It’s another to create a database of stops and arrests by police,” [Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne] said in an email statement. “On the plus side, the videos may capture images of suspects in the vicinity of a stop and be helpful to the police in that regard. Presumably, the NYCLU database will [include] the names of the videographers and provide a rich vein of potential witnesses to crimes being investigated by the NYPD and other authorities.”
Translation: we're coming after the videographers. You upload a video, expect a knock at your door from a hostile police officer, demanding to know what you saw, why you were in the area, maybe you were part of the crime, what's your alibi, mind if I look around your house, we're going to need you to come downtown and answer some questions, etc.
While some individual cop may decide to do that; my experience is that most police agencies don't have the time to waste doing that nor, in general, are even interested in doing what you say. They really do want to catch bad guys while not trampling civil rights, believe it or not. That's not to say they all are perfect or card carrying ACLU members, but they do care about following the law.
The article alluded to the ACLU keeping the up loaders info along with the video. If that's the case, the person filming could conceivably become a witness and the video used in a court case. As was noted, that could help law enforcement (or defendant claiming police abuse) defending a stop or developing a case against someone who turned out to have committed a crime.
Both sides know that there is no such thing as bug free software. Never has been. Never will be.
Expectations to the contrary are not reasonable, and never have been.
Expectations of indentured servitude went out with the 13th amendment, and no contract can bring that back.
Expectations of being sued into indentured servitude, however, did not go out with the 13th (nor did indentured, only involuntary, servitude)
I defense of INS, they are enforcing th laws Congress passes; even if they disagree and would rather spend time catching the real criminals and bad actors. Congress decided to take away much of the common sense aspects of enforcement; and of course people scream when some government official says he or she won't enforce some aspect of the law. Some do, at personal and political risk, such as the mayor of a small Georgia town that has said not only will he not enforce GA's new immigration law but helps people get basic services such as medical care even if it legally makes him a criminal for transporting an illegal alien.
I am an American. I could have written this when I was 8 or 9 when I started playing with QBasic and all that shit. Not all Americans are stupid. Just the vast vast majority.
Many of whom would realize there is no such thing as a vast vast (or even vast) majority. A programmer should realize majority is a binary state, either a 1 (it is) or 0 (it is not).
I *don't* have an MBA, but with my long experience in IT and business process, I would have insisted on defining the expected outcome, with metrics to measure success. That would have uncovered a demographic mismatch, and likely other problems as well.
While that is a good start, part of the problem was there is really no good data to show relationships between clicks, dealer visits, and actual sales. While their are desired outcomes (buy a car) the metrics and targets used for more traditional advertising probably is not relevant to online ads on Facebook, especially given FB's pricing model. Without good data and analysis, GM essentially said "Hell, let's give it a try. $40 mill? We spend more than that parties and booth bases and stall studs at car shows. Give it a try and let's see what happens." When it flopped the simply ended the trial.
NPR had a nice piece on Morning Edition - they actually ran a test with a NO pizza place. End results - $240 spent on ads after much refining of terms to use for placement, $0 sales and one $10 donation from someone who thought it was cool they were on Facebook.
I have worked with MBA's, and most of them are idiots. They can't seem to think using the material from their coursework. And the newly minted MBA's? Holy shit, they think they walk on water, when I wouldn't trust most of them to walk my dog.
Sounds like most new grads, no matter their major.
SMS has a ridiculous markup, in the thousands of percent - sorry, telcos, but the gig is up. You've had your free lunch and it's over, how about instead you give us better data options so you can at least make some money out of all these free services?
Face it - SMS and phone calls are a dying business, data is the future so invest in your infrastructure, encourage its use and profit from the fact that nobody's likely to offer free universal data any time soon.
A couple of thoughts:
The cost of producing something only determines if it will produced, based on what people are willing to pay. Since people are willing to pay for SMS carries sell it; at a price that people are willing to pay.
While the current delivery methods for SMS and phones may be dying; the need for them isn't. I also don't think the free model as in Skype can sustain itself if it became the predominate model; rather Skype wouldld push people to pay plans for non-Skype to Skype calls if only to help pay for the infrastructure. Want free Skype to Skye? Pay for a line for non-Skype calls and you get Skype to Skype. Vonage already does this.
Even as he complains but icons he uses terms whose origins are shrouded in mystery for many. He uses the clip board as an example and wonders why is should mean cut and not paste. Perhaps paste would be better served by a bottle of rubber cement to harken back to the days of page layout where you actually cut text and pasted in replacements. Even so, how may people have actually cut and pasted something?
We use symbols to represent actions or things as a way of communicating; even if the original meaning is lost to antiquity the symbols is not so it's still an effective tool. Replacing it with more modern designs merely means people have to relearn what they mean even though they have an already effective set in broad use.
Keirsey's also Four Temperaments uses Star Wars Characters to illustrate for basic types of human behavior as well. Similar to Meyers briggs, it classifies people's personality types based on how the interact and make decisions.
When i read the annotated black box transcript a few weeks ago, i asked airplane experts about this. They told me:
If one pilot pulls and the other pushes the stick, there is an optical and audio signal.
Also the person was questioned if he pulls the stick and he confirmed it. Unluckily it was already too late by then.
I am no expert, but the root cause was IMHO the crew ressource management and training problem.
While I agree it was a CRM issue; the control system design contributed to this, IMHO. Just because there is a visual and auditory clue at some point does not mean that is understood and remembered; or that it was even heard on more than a subconscious level. Having a visual clue helps, so when you look at a control you see the actual order to the system, rather than a neutral position. That helps operators realize what the system is doing and will help them realize when something is not in a position they expect for a given situation.
Personally, I prefer Boeing's approach of having the controls positioned where they represent the input the system is receiving, that allows a pilot to scan the controls and develop an accurate mental model of what the plane is being told to do; which they can then determine if it is appropriate for the current situation. Not having that picture requires much more inquiry and analysis which may take critical seconds away from correcting the problem.
This is not a problem unique to the aviation industry; I've seen it happen in others where there are complicated systems that have a myriad of controls and require an good understanding of the current conditions to ensure operators respond correctly. Three Mile Island is a good example of a similar set of conditions that lead operators to make bad decisions that were compounded by the control system design.
Unfortunately, it is far easier to say "pilot or operator error" than fix the underlying causes that lead to that error when they are system control related.
I wondered why the pilots didn't respond to a stall by instinct. The feel of the plane should have been a major clue that something was wrong with their course of action. A lack of feel in the FBW system would certainly be a contributing factor in this kind of situation.
The problem is your "feel" could be completely wrong when you lack visual clues and lead you to actions that worsen a situation. Pilots are trained to trust their instruments rather than what their body is telling them because of this.
The rates themselves are, by law, the lowest rate that the stations charge (to avoid stations charging different rates based on whether they support that candidate)
In this line: in how far are stations allowed to accept/reject certain ads?
For starters they have limited time in which to put advertisements (is there any regulation on that in the US? Such as no more than so many minutes per hour for ads on a TV channel?). So one candidate may simply buy up all advertising slots, and bring a few five-minute ads every hour.
Secondly I know advertisements are sometimes rejected based on "objectional content" - content or a product that the media channel doesn't agree with or whatever.
In the US, any qualified candidate (such as being on a ballot) has the right to run uncensored ads at the lowest available rate, as defined by US law and FCC rules. That doesn't mean he or she can buy up all the ad time - there are equal access rules to prevent that nor does a station have to sell them a spot for any specific broadcast, so a station can refuse to run an ad during the Super Bowl (as one did recently), they only have to provide "reasonable" access.
Of course, someone could get on the ballot and then basically run what ever ads they want; and if a state has easy ballot access laws someone could game the system.
Currently, this information is available, but only by driving to the stations during business hours to view them, which is of course not very useful.
That is really the key point of this rule - it makes the information easily accessible; something it currently isn't. A recent NPR piece on this vote pointed out that stations can charge copying fees and one charged 50 cents per page which limits availability from both an access an economic perspective.
At least broadcasters are being honest by saying they don't want their best prices to be too public because it will cost them money. OTOH, if I bought ad space i'd take the time to get this info from any stations where I was doing a buy so I could see how much of a premium they were demanding and try to negotiate a lower rate. I would not be surprised if some companies already do that; this just males it easier and potentially more wide spread.
Sure, Aussies pay more because they will, and have the option to not buy a product if they don't like the costs. Conversely, should they be forced to pay higher prices if another US product costs more in the US than Australia? For example, should US companies be forced by US law to charge US prices for drugs to any buyer worldwide? Or, should Australian companies (or any any where for that matter) only be allowed to charge as much in their home market as they do in the US? Oddly enough, I can sometimes get products from Europe cheaper in the US than in Europe, adjusted for the exchange rate and VAT.
It's easy to argue for lower prices but the same argument applies to raising them.
Typhoid Macintosh. Seriously, this is nothing new - years ago when I did some publishing on the Mac we'd often get Word docs infected with various stuff; it got to the point we simply ignored the warnings since even when we emailed the author a warning we'd often get another article with the same infection.
turning the HBR publications such as Harvard Business Review and the many other journals they publish into open access journals? I'd like that, because it means the articles I've written for them I could no give away for free rather than pay a copying fee for each one.
The first corporation that has the insight to fire all its HR people will wipe the floor with its competition within 5 years. They will have all the advantages of a small business, mixed with the power of a corporation. And they will have MUCH happier, more productive, employees.
I agree, until of course, someone critical leaves and they discover "Opps, we didn't have a non-compete or even a non-solicit signed by them." Or "We're being sued because some manager violated a bunch of employment laws during the hiring process." That person we just hired as a driver? It would have been nice to know he had six DUIs before we gave him the keys to one of out trucks.
It seems to me that art has gone from creating something beautiful (well, usually beautiful) and letting the work speak for itself to now just making something and then having the artist tell people himself what kind of statement he's trying to make, or why it should be significant. Just like if you have to explain a joke it's probably not funny, if the artist has to explain his work then it's probably not art. People can look at the Pieta, or the Sistene Chapel, or Starry Night and figure out what it is. Much of what is passed off as "art" today requires explanation.
Actually, much art has both a allegorical and artistic component. You can enjoy a piece by looking at it; but the meaning behind all of it's symbolism may require explanation to understand what the artist is saying. For example, the National Gallery has many pretty pieces of art and you can simply walk around and admire them; but as one docent explained you really need to stop and look at what's in the work, consider the times and what various things meant, to understand a piece. he then went on to explain in great detail all the meaning behind the various things depicted in a particular work. Did it make it less beautiful or art because it required explanation? No; but it added a whole new dimension to the work.
I'd hope the companies that own the underlying programs that are the basis for the art see in it in the spirit of "Variations on a theme by "insert famous composer." rather than "Hey, that's a derivative of my product..." Ideally it would be a fair use similar to some sampling.
Slashdot Mirror
While some individual cop may decide to do that
How many "individual" cops does it take before it stops being "individual" and starts becoming systemic?
I don't know, but if you get about fifty people a day doing it.... You just might think it's a movement.
Then wrongly, of course. It was Dan Bricklin primarily, and the IBM logo secondarily. I.e. Apple ][ was making inroads into business with Visicalc before the IBM PC came along. The IBM logo just gave businesses cover to save face. And of course that's not even mentioning the whole Digital Research and QDOS stories you were hinting at.
That's the conundrum, isn't it? Does history remember the pioneers or populizers? While Gates certainly played a significant role and was a pioneer with Basic, others created the environment for him to succeed. Apple had quite a few advantages early on (VisiCalc, Applewriter and later AppleWorks) but didn't capitalize on their position. DR certainly blew it big time. History may very well mark the beginning of the PC era as the introduction of the IBM PC, and place Gates at the center of the revolution and relegate others to a lesser role.
"I think their rationale is crap; the primary reason behind their valuation is that I have no leadership experience. I would be a 'rookie' supervisor with no more value than a 4-year grad coming in off the street. It seems a couple things are missing from their calculations. One is that they don't give me credit for the 'global' projects I've led to complete success (completed on time, under budget, all goals met, blah, blah, blah). Apparently PM doesn't have anything to do with leadership in their eyes. My current employer doesn't actually understand what PM is and has no one with the skills I have who actually practices it other than me.
PM skills don't equate to leadership - while some PM's are good leaders it's because they bring another set of skills to the table beyond project management. I've seen plenty of really good PM's who are poor leaders and managers; and while their PM skills are valuable they really have no value as a manager.
Leadership is a learned skill - take advantage of the opportunity. Negotiate to get training in leadership and ask for a mentor. Build up skills to match your PM skills and you'll become much more valuable - either to them or someone else. When you go to meetings, look and see what drives decisions - why do the senior leaders decide a certain way and what arguments did they find compelling? Learn to frame your arguments that way. I work with a lot of technical folks and spend a good bit of time helping them understand how to make an argument so they right solution is selected - because an in-depth technical analysis isn't going to be compelling (or even read all the way through) so frame it in a way that drives a positive decision.
Some people have made snarky comments about "now you need to learn to make your boss look good instead of doing work." Well, yeah. Making your boss look good is part of leadership, and you can do that by continuing to deliver results; and learn to be a good leader at the same time.
50 years from now, there will be a chapter, or at least a paragraph, of Jobs' handiwork in an industrial design textbook (or eBook). No one will care what Gates did because the environmental condition that permitted his tactics -- closed-source, closed file-format, vendor lock-in, intentional incompatibility with competitors -- will never exist again.
Hard to say. Was Jobs on par with Loewy? Goertz? I doubt it. Apple has some nice designs, but the jury is still out if Job's was as influential as some of the great industrial designers. In addition, much wasn't really his work. He was a genius, but that alone is not enough to remain in textbooks as other than a foot note.
No matter what happens to the software model in the future, Gates will be remembered, rightly or wrongly, as leading the computer revolution by taking it from the hobbyist era to what it is today.
Do they both deserve to be remembered? Sure, but history has a short memory.
Actually, it was the Police Commissioner saying that:
“It's one thing when providers learn what pizza or movies you like. It’s another to create a database of stops and arrests by police,” [Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne] said in an email statement. “On the plus side, the videos may capture images of suspects in the vicinity of a stop and be helpful to the police in that regard. Presumably, the NYCLU database will [include] the names of the videographers and provide a rich vein of potential witnesses to crimes being investigated by the NYPD and other authorities.”
Translation: we're coming after the videographers. You upload a video, expect a knock at your door from a hostile police officer, demanding to know what you saw, why you were in the area, maybe you were part of the crime, what's your alibi, mind if I look around your house, we're going to need you to come downtown and answer some questions, etc.
While some individual cop may decide to do that; my experience is that most police agencies don't have the time to waste doing that nor, in general, are even interested in doing what you say. They really do want to catch bad guys while not trampling civil rights, believe it or not. That's not to say they all are perfect or card carrying ACLU members, but they do care about following the law.
The article alluded to the ACLU keeping the up loaders info along with the video. If that's the case, the person filming could conceivably become a witness and the video used in a court case. As was noted, that could help law enforcement (or defendant claiming police abuse) defending a stop or developing a case against someone who turned out to have committed a crime.
Both sides know that there is no such thing as bug free software. Never has been. Never will be. Expectations to the contrary are not reasonable, and never have been. Expectations of indentured servitude went out with the 13th amendment, and no contract can bring that back.
Expectations of being sued into indentured servitude, however, did not go out with the 13th (nor did indentured, only involuntary, servitude)
I defense of INS, they are enforcing th laws Congress passes; even if they disagree and would rather spend time catching the real criminals and bad actors. Congress decided to take away much of the common sense aspects of enforcement; and of course people scream when some government official says he or she won't enforce some aspect of the law. Some do, at personal and political risk, such as the mayor of a small Georgia town that has said not only will he not enforce GA's new immigration law but helps people get basic services such as medical care even if it legally makes him a criminal for transporting an illegal alien.
I am an American. I could have written this when I was 8 or 9 when I started playing with QBasic and all that shit. Not all Americans are stupid. Just the vast vast majority.
Many of whom would realize there is no such thing as a vast vast (or even vast) majority. A programmer should realize majority is a binary state, either a 1 (it is) or 0 (it is not).
I *don't* have an MBA, but with my long experience in IT and business process, I would have insisted on defining the expected outcome, with metrics to measure success. That would have uncovered a demographic mismatch, and likely other problems as well.
While that is a good start, part of the problem was there is really no good data to show relationships between clicks, dealer visits, and actual sales. While their are desired outcomes (buy a car) the metrics and targets used for more traditional advertising probably is not relevant to online ads on Facebook, especially given FB's pricing model. Without good data and analysis, GM essentially said "Hell, let's give it a try. $40 mill? We spend more than that parties and booth bases and stall studs at car shows. Give it a try and let's see what happens." When it flopped the simply ended the trial.
NPR had a nice piece on Morning Edition - they actually ran a test with a NO pizza place. End results - $240 spent on ads after much refining of terms to use for placement, $0 sales and one $10 donation from someone who thought it was cool they were on Facebook.
I have worked with MBA's, and most of them are idiots. They can't seem to think using the material from their coursework. And the newly minted MBA's? Holy shit, they think they walk on water, when I wouldn't trust most of them to walk my dog.
Sounds like most new grads, no matter their major.
SMS has a ridiculous markup, in the thousands of percent - sorry, telcos, but the gig is up. You've had your free lunch and it's over, how about instead you give us better data options so you can at least make some money out of all these free services? Face it - SMS and phone calls are a dying business, data is the future so invest in your infrastructure, encourage its use and profit from the fact that nobody's likely to offer free universal data any time soon.
A couple of thoughts:
The cost of producing something only determines if it will produced, based on what people are willing to pay. Since people are willing to pay for SMS carries sell it; at a price that people are willing to pay.
While the current delivery methods for SMS and phones may be dying; the need for them isn't. I also don't think the free model as in Skype can sustain itself if it became the predominate model; rather Skype wouldld push people to pay plans for non-Skype to Skype calls if only to help pay for the infrastructure. Want free Skype to Skye? Pay for a line for non-Skype calls and you get Skype to Skype. Vonage already does this.
We use symbols to represent actions or things as a way of communicating; even if the original meaning is lost to antiquity the symbols is not so it's still an effective tool. Replacing it with more modern designs merely means people have to relearn what they mean even though they have an already effective set in broad use.
Seems there's another issue here besides the jukebox.
Actually, no. It's not a tavern as in bar but as in eatery. The Billy Goat Tavern is a Chicago landmark with a varied and colorful history.
What the hell? Somebody want to fill me in? I just spent ten minutes googling for some news item about this and came up empty handed ...
Rumor has it they told the students "Cheeps. no fries" and "Cheeboyger" whenever they got near the juke box.
Keirsey's also Four Temperaments uses Star Wars Characters to illustrate for basic types of human behavior as well. Similar to Meyers briggs, it classifies people's personality types based on how the interact and make decisions.
When i read the annotated black box transcript a few weeks ago, i asked airplane experts about this. They told me:
If one pilot pulls and the other pushes the stick, there is an optical and audio signal.
Also the person was questioned if he pulls the stick and he confirmed it. Unluckily it was already too late by then.
I am no expert, but the root cause was IMHO the crew ressource management and training problem.
While I agree it was a CRM issue; the control system design contributed to this, IMHO. Just because there is a visual and auditory clue at some point does not mean that is understood and remembered; or that it was even heard on more than a subconscious level. Having a visual clue helps, so when you look at a control you see the actual order to the system, rather than a neutral position. That helps operators realize what the system is doing and will help them realize when something is not in a position they expect for a given situation.
Personally, I prefer Boeing's approach of having the controls positioned where they represent the input the system is receiving, that allows a pilot to scan the controls and develop an accurate mental model of what the plane is being told to do; which they can then determine if it is appropriate for the current situation. Not having that picture requires much more inquiry and analysis which may take critical seconds away from correcting the problem.
This is not a problem unique to the aviation industry; I've seen it happen in others where there are complicated systems that have a myriad of controls and require an good understanding of the current conditions to ensure operators respond correctly. Three Mile Island is a good example of a similar set of conditions that lead operators to make bad decisions that were compounded by the control system design.
Unfortunately, it is far easier to say "pilot or operator error" than fix the underlying causes that lead to that error when they are system control related.
I wondered why the pilots didn't respond to a stall by instinct. The feel of the plane should have been a major clue that something was wrong with their course of action. A lack of feel in the FBW system would certainly be a contributing factor in this kind of situation.
The problem is your "feel" could be completely wrong when you lack visual clues and lead you to actions that worsen a situation. Pilots are trained to trust their instruments rather than what their body is telling them because of this.
The rates themselves are, by law, the lowest rate that the stations charge (to avoid stations charging different rates based on whether they support that candidate)
In this line: in how far are stations allowed to accept/reject certain ads?
For starters they have limited time in which to put advertisements (is there any regulation on that in the US? Such as no more than so many minutes per hour for ads on a TV channel?). So one candidate may simply buy up all advertising slots, and bring a few five-minute ads every hour.
Secondly I know advertisements are sometimes rejected based on "objectional content" - content or a product that the media channel doesn't agree with or whatever.
In the US, any qualified candidate (such as being on a ballot) has the right to run uncensored ads at the lowest available rate, as defined by US law and FCC rules. That doesn't mean he or she can buy up all the ad time - there are equal access rules to prevent that nor does a station have to sell them a spot for any specific broadcast, so a station can refuse to run an ad during the Super Bowl (as one did recently), they only have to provide "reasonable" access.
Of course, someone could get on the ballot and then basically run what ever ads they want; and if a state has easy ballot access laws someone could game the system.
Currently, this information is available, but only by driving to the stations during business hours to view them, which is of course not very useful.
That is really the key point of this rule - it makes the information easily accessible; something it currently isn't. A recent NPR piece on this vote pointed out that stations can charge copying fees and one charged 50 cents per page which limits availability from both an access an economic perspective.
At least broadcasters are being honest by saying they don't want their best prices to be too public because it will cost them money. OTOH, if I bought ad space i'd take the time to get this info from any stations where I was doing a buy so I could see how much of a premium they were demanding and try to negotiate a lower rate. I would not be surprised if some companies already do that; this just males it easier and potentially more wide spread.
It's easy to argue for lower prices but the same argument applies to raising them.
Typhoid Macintosh. Seriously, this is nothing new - years ago when I did some publishing on the Mac we'd often get Word docs infected with various stuff; it got to the point we simply ignored the warnings since even when we emailed the author a warning we'd often get another article with the same infection.
turning the HBR publications such as Harvard Business Review and the many other journals they publish into open access journals? I'd like that, because it means the articles I've written for them I could no give away for free rather than pay a copying fee for each one.
The first corporation that has the insight to fire all its HR people will wipe the floor with its competition within 5 years. They will have all the advantages of a small business, mixed with the power of a corporation. And they will have MUCH happier, more productive, employees.
I agree, until of course, someone critical leaves and they discover "Opps, we didn't have a non-compete or even a non-solicit signed by them." Or "We're being sued because some manager violated a bunch of employment laws during the hiring process." That person we just hired as a driver? It would have been nice to know he had six DUIs before we gave him the keys to one of out trucks.
It seems to me that art has gone from creating something beautiful (well, usually beautiful) and letting the work speak for itself to now just making something and then having the artist tell people himself what kind of statement he's trying to make, or why it should be significant. Just like if you have to explain a joke it's probably not funny, if the artist has to explain his work then it's probably not art. People can look at the Pieta, or the Sistene Chapel, or Starry Night and figure out what it is. Much of what is passed off as "art" today requires explanation.
Actually, much art has both a allegorical and artistic component. You can enjoy a piece by looking at it; but the meaning behind all of it's symbolism may require explanation to understand what the artist is saying. For example, the National Gallery has many pretty pieces of art and you can simply walk around and admire them; but as one docent explained you really need to stop and look at what's in the work, consider the times and what various things meant, to understand a piece. he then went on to explain in great detail all the meaning behind the various things depicted in a particular work. Did it make it less beautiful or art because it required explanation? No; but it added a whole new dimension to the work.
I'd hope the companies that own the underlying programs that are the basis for the art see in it in the spirit of "Variations on a theme by "insert famous composer." rather than "Hey, that's a derivative of my product..." Ideally it would be a fair use similar to some sampling.