To be fair, ignoring Catholic teachings is not something I would criticise a legislature for.
Nor I; I was just pointing out that not all Christians think evolution and faith can't coexist. In fact, some actually support the idea that evolution is a valid scientific theory for explaining how we came to be and that that does not imply the lack of a God.
Pornography has always been at the forefront of technology. VHS, DVD, they were the first to really start using DRM on video content, too. A quick search on Google for 'porn technology' will give you lots of articles on the subject.
Shoot, go back to the dawn of the printing press, sculpture, painting etc. All modern times has done is change the delivery format.
I'd bet that Ogg and Thagg, after drawing the latest hunt on the cave walls then did a little drawing about Oggette and her friends. And then started the flame war over obsidian vs flint for spear points.
This "God" to whom you refer, is he the one who is claimed to have created that Adam fellow from mud? Of what was this "mud" composed? Was it the standard mud that supplies nutrients to growing plants? Or is it a metaphor for some sort of advanced technology, the grey goo of scifi? Or is it a metaphor for aggregate composition of order from chaos over time? Or is it simply Divine Will, a metaphor for something one refuses to further investigate?
That, of course, depends on one's beliefs and which God (if any) is the basis of those beliefs.
Or is religion (a) originally an attempt at explaining nature's wonders; and (b) now simply a means of forming and maintaining social groups?
Probably bot at the same time.
I would agree that your religion and evolution were not mutually exclusive if your religion's statements about Man's origins provided testable theories that bore the weight of the evidence.
They need not be testable if you no do not believe they are literal explanations of how we came into being. After all, we scientists and engineers often explain phenomena in a manner that is understandable but necessarily 100% accurate in order to get ideas across to lay people.
So, from that perspective there is no contradiction for someone to believe in God and accept evolution as a rational scientific explanation for how we came to be.
What I find interesting about your post is I did not at any time profess to believe in any particular religion or God, yet you immediately reacted in a negative and condescending manner. That, IMHO, is what prevents dialogue between opposing viewpoints.
I can't remember the last time I've gone a month without hearing of somebody dying due to their own stupidity.
That's because stupidity is supposed to be painful; it teaches us not to do the stupid thing again. Unfortunately, extreme stupidity can also be lethal.
and thus the Darwin Awards are appropriately named...
we can not fathom how God accomplishes his goals. One is faith, the other science and neither need be exclusive.
Good fathoming. Is it your conclusion that God's goal is war leading to extinction of humans? That seems the only way to interpret your assertion that God's means are "science" and "faith".
No, war is the result of our being given free will.
I can see where my ending could be misconstrued - I did not mean that faith and science are means; rather that a belief in a God that created man is faith and evolution is science and those two items do not need to be mutually exclusive.
Has anyone in the Oklahoma heard of the First Amendment? Cultural diversity? WTF does cultural diversity have to to do with science, anyway?.
That's a nice buzzword to make people who oppose their actions appear intolerant and narrow minded. Ignorance is now part of that vast cultural diversity that we must all respect.
Of course, the legislature ignores that Catholic teachings allow for the coexistence of evolution and creation; after all we can not fathom how God accomplishes his goals. One is faith, the other science and neither need be exclusive.
Of course, many of those same legislators might not consider Catholics Christian (and no, that's not sarcasm but experience).
So all in all, I must say I'm quite impressed with digital distribution (at least when it comes to Steam), as long as you don't lose your account credentials. Makes me wonder what happens if Steam ever goes permanently down though. I think I'll continue buying physical copies of games as long as they are offered, so I have something to fall back to if the digital distribution part completely fails.
That's one of the main issues I see with digital distribution that does not give you a standalone version of the software - you are dependent on the survival of the company to play the game.
A second issue, especially for console games, is portability. I see a lot of people who take their copy of a game to a friends house to play. If consoles go digital you lose that ability; unless you can d/l and play the game on more than 1 machine. I don't see console makers push as hard for digital because it is harder to pirate those games and portability is both valued by the gamers and a way to increase sales.
Finally, digital distribution opens the door for multiple licensing schemes. You could do a combination of buy for one price rent for another, and with pretty detailed sales numbers you could decide when to lower the price of the buy option which would get you more revenue over time if done right. All this will potentially increasing the revenue you get from a game; making it an interesting option from a publisher's viewpoint.
As an aside, independent game publishers may find it easier to get in the game because their is little cost associated with hosting a game for download versus distributing one on a disk.
There's nothing special about the foreigners. We can make more.
Well, not exactly. THEY can make more. If we make them, they're not foreigners.
While that is true; making more requires actually knowing, very intimately, a member of the opposite sex. This being slashdot; well, you get the idea...
A couple of token managers don't count. India and China do not open their employment markets, nor any of their markets, in the manner in which they argue we should.
Yea, that's right open them up. Droves of Americans are willing to work long hours for little pay in a factory, or drone endlessly in a call center.
But the first time I visited I could not BELIEVE the awful, tacky, in-your-face patriotism. Flags from every freaking house (here, flags are pretty much just for government buildings etc). HUGE flags on the side of highways and stuff for no apparent reason (why? seriously, why?). In a way, the US displays its national symbol so much and so often that it loses it's importance and meaning I think.
It may be hard to understand but for many Americans the flag has meaning beyond merely being the "national symbol." It's the embodiment of our country and ideals; it represents our Constitution and our fight to free us from a king. When we pledge allegiance to it; it's not to the flag but to our ideals.
It's hard to explain; it's just the way we are. I guess the best way to say it is we show our flag because we are Americans. Sure, it manifests itself in strange ways; that others may find odd. It's not better or worse, just different from other countries viewpoints. Yes, we have our share of problems but we're trying to muddle through and do the best we can.
Most countries have traditions others find odd. Whenever I'm in the UK I find the fascination with the Queen and all the HRH / ER symbols a bit odd. She's a nice old lady with little relevance to daily life; yet the Brits seem to like here a whole lot and her picture seems to be everywhere. In fact, that whole monarchy thing is a bit strange, if you ask me. Then again, it's their country and they have their traditions. Not better, not worse, just different.
BTW, I've found the Australians to be the closest to Americans in terms of worldview and viewpoints about things like rules and authority. I wonder if it because we share a common approach to creating a large country as a nation of immigrants.
You demonstrate an unsurpassed lack of understanding of macro-economics.
If the labor is expensive, than pray thee, how do you make american products compete in the international market? There is a reason why global markets are flooded with China-made products. They are cheaper than competing products of similar quality.
Productivity. It's not the cost of labor but the cost per unit of production. If an item is labor intensive then the cost of labor is a significant input and you will look to lower your production cost by seeking cheap labor. This is general an item that requires little skill to produce. OTOH, if you can produce a lot of products or a high value product with your labor, the cost of the labor is less important. In many cases, this requires a skilled labor pool that is not easily replicated by simply moving a factory.
China produces a lot of goods because they can be mass produced cheaply with a lot of labor; and labor is easy to get rid of when demand drops. China is just starting to see the social costs it faces as a result of its economic model; from both the downturn and competition from other places that are even cheaper. That's nothing new, it happened to the US, Japan and Korea as other countries became cheaper sources of labor; and companies moved to more those places or went up the food chain to higher end products and automation to become more productive.
The problem with most of Microsoft's research is, it ends up (usually poorly) imitating a competitor that is obvious in the eyes of a consumer. Someone looks at the Zune and can immediately compare it to the iPod, Live Search to Google, MSN to AIM (or IRC, etc), and the XBox to the PS2.
MS' business model, in general, is to be the fast follower. They let someone else test the waters with a new idea; and if it looks like it will be successful MS jumps in to grab marketshare. They have been quite successful with that model, even with a few flops.
Their cash and market strength plays well with such a model.
R&D give them things they can incorporate in existing products as well as some new ones; but in general MS is not a company that seeks to be first to market with a new idea.
Arguably, laws shouldn't exist regarding libel either (although I can see their purpose).
Libel (and slander) laws do not infringe on free speech. You are still free to say or print such statements; the laws hold you responsible for the content. Free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for you speech. Think of it as free as in beer; not as in hangover.
Anytime the union decides to strike, the auto companies have a choice to let the unions have their way or go out of business, because they can't produce anything (strikebreakers are against the law),
They can hire replacement workers - the law you reference refers to strikebreakers - people whose repeatedly work at struck companies for the purpose of ending strikes. That's different than replacing strikers with new employees.
so they accept the contract that the UAW dictates to them. Because of the capital intensive nature of the automobile business (factories, supply lines for Steel, etc.) the big 3 have always given in to the union instead of moving to a state that will allow them to negotiate with the union on equal terms.
That's management's key error - they assumed the market would not change and basically gave away the store; then refused to believe that fundamental shifts were occurring in the car market and clung to their old ways of doing business. Now that it's time for one or more to downsize and or disappear, management goes to big government for a bailout. Bankruptcy would at least let them reorganize under more favorable conditions, shed a lot of the dealer network and have a shot at long term survivability. Of course, no one involved wants that because it would end all their gravy trains.
As for more company friendly states, GM and Ford closed plants in Georgia which is a lot less pro-union than Detroit. KIA, OTOH, just opened a large factory in GA.
In the end, as long as the union and management believe the government will bail them out they both will continue to strike deals that line their pockets at the expense of long term survivability. And why not; they get the money, we get the bill.
I was working as a Temp once for Adecco and was put into a position that required I see how much I was being billed out for. It was about 40% of my pay. I had been in this position for a few years without a raise. At this point the Temp agency was making 40% of my hourly pay for doing nothing but send me the check. I did not get enough hours to qualify for benefits. I had well compensated them fairly for finding this position. Now it's just a milking scheme.
While 40% gross margin may seem excessive, you need to consider their entire cost of doing business is paid out of that margin. Their profit is often considerably less.
If it was a bad deal, you're better off going as an independent; just be sure you factor in all the expenses before you deice. You may need to subtract a "name premium: as well; i.e. the agency can charge more because of reputation and ongoing relationships than an independent.
I say this as a consultant who has looked at the numbers and decided that I'm better off with a little more stable cash flow than a slightly higher one with wild swings. I view my employment as building my reputation and developing a book of recommendations that I will fall back on if times dictate it. Until then I will happily stay where I am. YMMV
Yes, the UAW is working against the long-term interests of auto workers. They're great at gaining long-term concessions, but in the long run the Big Three simply can't afford how the UAW is bleeding them dry.
Then the companies should not agree to the terms the union wants. It's a contract, pure and simple, and both sides agreed to it. Companies would be the first to scream if the union said "you're doing better than you thought so we want more money" and point to the contract and say "live with it." The union, OTOH, has to decide what they are willing to do to try to save their member's jobs and pensions.
Executives at companies do things to protect themselves, such as bankrupt-proof their pensions, and then cry foul when unions refuse to play along? Sorry, but I have no sympathy for corporations that made bad deals and then want to back out of them.
BTW, I've heard from a family member who is a Kaiser HMO patient that Kaiser does not allow Big Pharma reps direct access to its staff phyicians, and instead funnels them to some sort of departmental liaison; if that's true, that is certainly one good thing that an HMO is doing.
Having worked with both hospitals and service providers; that model is more common. It used to be you sold the drug / tool to the Doc; that's why you saw a bevy of young lovelies wheeling rep bags around the hospital. Today, heatlthcare systems have committees of clinicians, administrators, etc. that decide what to buy, They are looking for results based outcomes and to standardize purchases to control costs. If A and B give the same results then they buy whatever is cheaper. Reps no longer are allowed in to see Drs. They still sell via seminars, medical education, etc. but that is no longer as effective as direct sales calls.
The ones I work with were actively looking for ways to get the best possible results based on sound research and science. They have no desire to prescribe what is expensive or run extra tests; they are as concerned with the costs of healthcare as anyone else. As a bonus, sound evidence would help shield them from the "why didn't you run test X" lawsuits and lessen the practice of defensive medicine, further reducing costs and freeing up clinicians' time to see more patients.
(Disclaimer: Go talk to someone in the military about that whole free government provided healthcare...you get what you pay for...)
Been there. got the free care. You know what - it's pretty darn good; at least as good as what I know get in the private sector. Tricare may not be gold plated, but it's not a bad system; and the VA does a decent job as well.
Your example is flawed, the cop isn't escalating anything and neither are you - he could just arrest you on the spot as the first interraction, to let you go on your way with a ticket is just a courtesy.
You don't understand what signing a ticket means. Your signing is an agreement to appear, if you refuse to sign you are arrested to ensure you appear in court. My example is quite appropriate to the argument.
Ok, as I understand from other comments (no, I still haven't read TFA), she wasn't arrested at all, but let's assume that she was, for the sake of argument.
Teacher thinks pupil has cell phone, pupil refuses to hand phone over or be searched. Police officer is called. Now, pupils with cell phones are none of the Police's business - they're not there to enforce school rules, and the officer should have walked away.
You should RTFA - the first interaction was with the school safety officer (who may be a real cop - in my district they are). There job is to ensure the safety of the school, which they first attempted to do without arresting or searching the student.
However, they didn't - they are assuming that failing further indications, the worse this pupil is carrying is a contraband phone (not illegal), they try to search.
Pupil refuses consent for search. Refusal to volunteer to be searched does not create probable cause.
Once she insisted she had no phone but was obviously hiding something they had probable cause for search, IMHO.
Officer performs semi-intimate search anyway and comes up with contraband phone. Officer then starts questioning pupil about how to contact their parents (again, none of their business), this is information that the school should have had to hand, pupil is evasive.
Assuming she is under the age of majority it is their business - although I agree the school should have that information.
The other side SHOULD have backed down, because in the end they took it too far (which has been my point all along). The choice to arrest a person is not made by the arrestee. It was the Police Officer's decision, and theirs alone to arrest this girl. It was the wrong decision and I hope they end up signing their paycheck over to her every month for at least the next year because of it.
This is where we disagree. Her actions resulted in the arrest. At any point prior to that she could have ended the matter by handing over the phone.
Schools have to maintain order in the classroom. This girl chose to disrupt the class and then continue to act in a stupid manner that got her deeper in trouble. Their backing down would simply reinforce the notion you can be disruptive and get away with it; in addition from TFA it appears this is not the first time she has caused problems in school.
I doubt she'll be collecting anyone else's paycheck anytime soon. She is responsible for her actions and the consequences of making dumb decisions.
1 - I have high hopes that the RIAA settles in such a way that it damages all their other cases, and Patti is both vindicated and compensated - even if we never known what that compensation was.
I doubt it - they probably will keep the settlement private; and since it was not decided at trial there is no impact on other cases.
Usually these spammers insulate themselves from the effect of negative verdicts against them by moving all their assets to offshore accounts where the fed can't touch them and neither can lawyers looking to claim their $x million in damages.
If only we could literally take the shirts off their backs in partial fulfillment of their obligations we might start to make some headway against the spam kings. Any other suggestions?
Don't underestimate the ability of the feds to get at accounts; the most powerful being imprisoning them on contempt charges.
Exactly until they people handling the sensitive or classified material learn how to handle it with the care it needs we will keep seeing things like this. I mean how many times a week do we see something about a lost or stolen laptop or device that contained sensitive information. The issue (as per normal) is the USERS
While I fully agree that it is a user issue; i do not absolve p2p networks fully of any responsibility.
Proper system design can help avoid such issues without user intervention. For example, file sharing should require user intervention to select the type, location, and other attributes of files to be shared. Sharing should not be enabled by default.
While users can (and will) still do stupid things; proper systems design can help avoid problems. Having been involved with human factors design, I've seen plenty of cases of operator error where the system played a key role in enabling the error. To simply blame the error on the operator fails to solve the problem.
Which title would you buy, one that has the text 2 speech or one that doesn't? Seems like this is a value add, and any publisher would be loosing out by asking Amazon to withhold kindle.
So, Amazon in a sense wins, because I'm willing to bet most titles will end up with text 2 speech anyways.
I agree - I think it will give authors and publishers an opportunity to experiment to determine if T2S has any value to consumers.
For example, if the tech allows it, you could offer two tier pricing - with T2S costing a little more. Tinker with pricing and see what happens to sales.
You seem to complain about the media's and politicians' problem with speculators, yet you forget that the vast majority of CDS contracts out in the wild are written for purely speculation purposes.
If an entity has invested X dollars into company Y, yes there should be some financial instrument available to this entity to protect its investment. I agree with you there. However, if entity X has 0 dollars invested in company Y, this entity shouldn't have the right to buy a financial instrument targeting company Y and protecting X from Y's default. That is gambling, not investing.
Actually, what you describe is a fundamental part of investing; and not a new concept. If I think a company is going to do better than expected over some period of time I can either buy their stock or buy a call option. If I buy the stock I assume all the risk of ownership - it may fall to zero and I lose my entire investment. If I buy an option I get any upside but have no downside risk beyond the initial option price; plus I get a greater return since the option allows me to control more stock than a straight purchase would. At any rate, the option is a bet on a company's performance without having an interest in the company.
Speculators are a necessary part of the market - you need a counterparty in order to sell your derivative. If no one was willing to bet that oil would go down in price and sell an airline a futures contract then the airline could not hedge fuel costs. Or, you may be a company that wants to sell it's accounts receivable cash flow to raise cash for other more immediate uses. Unless their is someone willing to assume the associated credit risk you can't make the sell. They buyer may even want a CDS to cover the risk they assume.
Speculators put money at risk and help people unload risk; a needed part of a financial market. To be successful they need to be real good at assessing risk; and if they are they provide an ancillary service of letting people assess risk by the pricing associated with various financial instruments.
What people forget is that for every dollar A loses B gains a dollar (absent fees for the deal) so it really is a zero sum game.
Problems arise when the guarantors of the transaction, such as banks promising to pay if a note goes bust can't pay; that's why they really need to assess the underlying risk and price accordingly. Had they done that their may have been no market for many CDS since the cost of the swap would be too high for the potential buyer.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, ignoring Catholic teachings is not something I would criticise a legislature for.
Nor I; I was just pointing out that not all Christians think evolution and faith can't coexist. In fact, some actually support the idea that evolution is a valid scientific theory for explaining how we came to be and that that does not imply the lack of a God.
Pornography has always been at the forefront of technology. VHS, DVD, they were the first to really start using DRM on video content, too. A quick search on Google for 'porn technology' will give you lots of articles on the subject.
Shoot, go back to the dawn of the printing press, sculpture, painting etc. All modern times has done is change the delivery format.
I'd bet that Ogg and Thagg, after drawing the latest hunt on the cave walls then did a little drawing about Oggette and her friends. And then started the flame war over obsidian vs flint for spear points.
Some things never change...
Men read erotica, too!
Yea, that's the ticket. They don't just look at the pictures.
This "God" to whom you refer, is he the one who is claimed to have created that Adam fellow from mud? Of what was this "mud" composed? Was it the standard mud that supplies nutrients to growing plants? Or is it a metaphor for some sort of advanced technology, the grey goo of scifi? Or is it a metaphor for aggregate composition of order from chaos over time? Or is it simply Divine Will, a metaphor for something one refuses to further investigate?
That, of course, depends on one's beliefs and which God (if any) is the basis of those beliefs.
Or is religion (a) originally an attempt at explaining nature's wonders; and (b) now simply a means of forming and maintaining social groups?
Probably bot at the same time.
I would agree that your religion and evolution were not mutually exclusive if your religion's statements about Man's origins provided testable theories that bore the weight of the evidence.
They need not be testable if you no do not believe they are literal explanations of how we came into being. After all, we scientists and engineers often explain phenomena in a manner that is understandable but necessarily 100% accurate in order to get ideas across to lay people.
So, from that perspective there is no contradiction for someone to believe in God and accept evolution as a rational scientific explanation for how we came to be.
What I find interesting about your post is I did not at any time profess to believe in any particular religion or God, yet you immediately reacted in a negative and condescending manner. That, IMHO, is what prevents dialogue between opposing viewpoints.
I can't remember the last time I've gone a month without hearing of somebody dying due to their own stupidity.
That's because stupidity is supposed to be painful; it teaches us not to do the stupid thing again. Unfortunately, extreme stupidity can also be lethal.
and thus the Darwin Awards are appropriately named...
we can not fathom how God accomplishes his goals. One is faith, the other science and neither need be exclusive.
Good fathoming. Is it your conclusion that God's goal is war leading to extinction of humans? That seems the only way to interpret your assertion that God's means are "science" and "faith".
No, war is the result of our being given free will.
I can see where my ending could be misconstrued - I did not mean that faith and science are means; rather that a belief in a God that created man is faith and evolution is science and those two items do not need to be mutually exclusive.
Has anyone in the Oklahoma heard of the First Amendment? Cultural diversity? WTF does cultural diversity have to to do with science, anyway?.
That's a nice buzzword to make people who oppose their actions appear intolerant and narrow minded. Ignorance is now part of that vast cultural diversity that we must all respect.
Of course, the legislature ignores that Catholic teachings allow for the coexistence of evolution and creation; after all we can not fathom how God accomplishes his goals. One is faith, the other science and neither need be exclusive.
Of course, many of those same legislators might not consider Catholics Christian (and no, that's not sarcasm but experience).
So all in all, I must say I'm quite impressed with digital distribution (at least when it comes to Steam), as long as you don't lose your account credentials. Makes me wonder what happens if Steam ever goes permanently down though. I think I'll continue buying physical copies of games as long as they are offered, so I have something to fall back to if the digital distribution part completely fails.
That's one of the main issues I see with digital distribution that does not give you a standalone version of the software - you are dependent on the survival of the company to play the game.
A second issue, especially for console games, is portability. I see a lot of people who take their copy of a game to a friends house to play. If consoles go digital you lose that ability; unless you can d/l and play the game on more than 1 machine. I don't see console makers push as hard for digital because it is harder to pirate those games and portability is both valued by the gamers and a way to increase sales.
Finally, digital distribution opens the door for multiple licensing schemes. You could do a combination of buy for one price rent for another, and with pretty detailed sales numbers you could decide when to lower the price of the buy option which would get you more revenue over time if done right. All this will potentially increasing the revenue you get from a game; making it an interesting option from a publisher's viewpoint.
As an aside, independent game publishers may find it easier to get in the game because their is little cost associated with hosting a game for download versus distributing one on a disk.
There's nothing special about the foreigners. We can make more.
Well, not exactly. THEY can make more. If we make them, they're not foreigners.
While that is true; making more requires actually knowing, very intimately, a member of the opposite sex. This being slashdot; well, you get the idea...
A couple of token managers don't count. India and China do not open their employment markets, nor any of their markets, in the manner in which they argue we should.
Yea, that's right open them up. Droves of Americans are willing to work long hours for little pay in a factory, or drone endlessly in a call center.
But the first time I visited I could not BELIEVE the awful, tacky, in-your-face patriotism. Flags from every freaking house (here, flags are pretty much just for government buildings etc). HUGE flags on the side of highways and stuff for no apparent reason (why? seriously, why?). In a way, the US displays its national symbol so much and so often that it loses it's importance and meaning I think.
It may be hard to understand but for many Americans the flag has meaning beyond merely being the "national symbol." It's the embodiment of our country and ideals; it represents our Constitution and our fight to free us from a king. When we pledge allegiance to it; it's not to the flag but to our ideals.
It's hard to explain; it's just the way we are. I guess the best way to say it is we show our flag because we are Americans. Sure, it manifests itself in strange ways; that others may find odd. It's not better or worse, just different from other countries viewpoints. Yes, we have our share of problems but we're trying to muddle through and do the best we can.
Most countries have traditions others find odd. Whenever I'm in the UK I find the fascination with the Queen and all the HRH / ER symbols a bit odd. She's a nice old lady with little relevance to daily life; yet the Brits seem to like here a whole lot and her picture seems to be everywhere. In fact, that whole monarchy thing is a bit strange, if you ask me. Then again, it's their country and they have their traditions. Not better, not worse, just different.
BTW, I've found the Australians to be the closest to Americans in terms of worldview and viewpoints about things like rules and authority. I wonder if it because we share a common approach to creating a large country as a nation of immigrants.
You demonstrate an unsurpassed lack of understanding of macro-economics.
If the labor is expensive, than pray thee, how do you make american products compete in the international market? There is a reason why global markets are flooded with China-made products. They are cheaper than competing products of similar quality.
Productivity. It's not the cost of labor but the cost per unit of production. If an item is labor intensive then the cost of labor is a significant input and you will look to lower your production cost by seeking cheap labor. This is general an item that requires little skill to produce. OTOH, if you can produce a lot of products or a high value product with your labor, the cost of the labor is less important. In many cases, this requires a skilled labor pool that is not easily replicated by simply moving a factory.
China produces a lot of goods because they can be mass produced cheaply with a lot of labor; and labor is easy to get rid of when demand drops. China is just starting to see the social costs it faces as a result of its economic model; from both the downturn and competition from other places that are even cheaper. That's nothing new, it happened to the US, Japan and Korea as other countries became cheaper sources of labor; and companies moved to more those places or went up the food chain to higher end products and automation to become more productive.
The problem with most of Microsoft's research is, it ends up (usually poorly) imitating a competitor that is obvious in the eyes of a consumer. Someone looks at the Zune and can immediately compare it to the iPod, Live Search to Google, MSN to AIM (or IRC, etc), and the XBox to the PS2.
MS' business model, in general, is to be the fast follower. They let someone else test the waters with a new idea; and if it looks like it will be successful MS jumps in to grab marketshare. They have been quite successful with that model, even with a few flops.
Their cash and market strength plays well with such a model.
R&D give them things they can incorporate in existing products as well as some new ones; but in general MS is not a company that seeks to be first to market with a new idea.
Arguably, laws shouldn't exist regarding libel either (although I can see their purpose).
Libel (and slander) laws do not infringe on free speech. You are still free to say or print such statements; the laws hold you responsible for the content. Free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for you speech. Think of it as free as in beer; not as in hangover.
Anytime the union decides to strike, the auto companies have a choice to let the unions have their way or go out of business, because they can't produce anything (strikebreakers are against the law),
They can hire replacement workers - the law you reference refers to strikebreakers - people whose repeatedly work at struck companies for the purpose of ending strikes. That's different than replacing strikers with new employees.
so they accept the contract that the UAW dictates to them. Because of the capital intensive nature of the automobile business (factories, supply lines for Steel, etc.) the big 3 have always given in to the union instead of moving to a state that will allow them to negotiate with the union on equal terms.
That's management's key error - they assumed the market would not change and basically gave away the store; then refused to believe that fundamental shifts were occurring in the car market and clung to their old ways of doing business. Now that it's time for one or more to downsize and or disappear, management goes to big government for a bailout. Bankruptcy would at least let them reorganize under more favorable conditions, shed a lot of the dealer network and have a shot at long term survivability. Of course, no one involved wants that because it would end all their gravy trains.
As for more company friendly states, GM and Ford closed plants in Georgia which is a lot less pro-union than Detroit. KIA, OTOH, just opened a large factory in GA.
In the end, as long as the union and management believe the government will bail them out they both will continue to strike deals that line their pockets at the expense of long term survivability. And why not; they get the money, we get the bill.
I was working as a Temp once for Adecco and was put into a position that required I see how much I was being billed out for. It was about 40% of my pay. I had been in this position for a few years without a raise. At this point the Temp agency was making 40% of my hourly pay for doing nothing but send me the check. I did not get enough hours to qualify for benefits. I had well compensated them fairly for finding this position. Now it's just a milking scheme.
While 40% gross margin may seem excessive, you need to consider their entire cost of doing business is paid out of that margin. Their profit is often considerably less.
If it was a bad deal, you're better off going as an independent; just be sure you factor in all the expenses before you deice. You may need to subtract a "name premium: as well; i.e. the agency can charge more because of reputation and ongoing relationships than an independent.
I say this as a consultant who has looked at the numbers and decided that I'm better off with a little more stable cash flow than a slightly higher one with wild swings. I view my employment as building my reputation and developing a book of recommendations that I will fall back on if times dictate it. Until then I will happily stay where I am. YMMV
Yes, the UAW is working against the long-term interests of auto workers. They're great at gaining long-term concessions, but in the long run the Big Three simply can't afford how the UAW is bleeding them dry.
Then the companies should not agree to the terms the union wants. It's a contract, pure and simple, and both sides agreed to it. Companies would be the first to scream if the union said "you're doing better than you thought so we want more money" and point to the contract and say "live with it." The union, OTOH, has to decide what they are willing to do to try to save their member's jobs and pensions.
Executives at companies do things to protect themselves, such as bankrupt-proof their pensions, and then cry foul when unions refuse to play along? Sorry, but I have no sympathy for corporations that made bad deals and then want to back out of them.
BTW, I've heard from a family member who is a Kaiser HMO patient that Kaiser does not allow Big Pharma reps direct access to its staff phyicians, and instead funnels them to some sort of departmental liaison; if that's true, that is certainly one good thing that an HMO is doing.
Having worked with both hospitals and service providers; that model is more common. It used to be you sold the drug / tool to the Doc; that's why you saw a bevy of young lovelies wheeling rep bags around the hospital. Today, heatlthcare systems have committees of clinicians, administrators, etc. that decide what to buy, They are looking for results based outcomes and to standardize purchases to control costs. If A and B give the same results then they buy whatever is cheaper. Reps no longer are allowed in to see Drs. They still sell via seminars, medical education, etc. but that is no longer as effective as direct sales calls.
The ones I work with were actively looking for ways to get the best possible results based on sound research and science. They have no desire to prescribe what is expensive or run extra tests; they are as concerned with the costs of healthcare as anyone else. As a bonus, sound evidence would help shield them from the "why didn't you run test X" lawsuits and lessen the practice of defensive medicine, further reducing costs and freeing up clinicians' time to see more patients.
(Disclaimer: Go talk to someone in the military about that whole free government provided healthcare...you get what you pay for...)
Been there. got the free care. You know what - it's pretty darn good; at least as good as what I know get in the private sector. Tricare may not be gold plated, but it's not a bad system; and the VA does a decent job as well.
Your example is flawed, the cop isn't escalating anything and neither are you - he could just arrest you on the spot as the first interraction, to let you go on your way with a ticket is just a courtesy.
You don't understand what signing a ticket means. Your signing is an agreement to appear, if you refuse to sign you are arrested to ensure you appear in court. My example is quite appropriate to the argument.
Ok, as I understand from other comments (no, I still haven't read TFA), she wasn't arrested at all, but let's assume that she was, for the sake of argument.
Teacher thinks pupil has cell phone, pupil refuses to hand phone over or be searched. Police officer is called. Now, pupils with cell phones are none of the Police's business - they're not there to enforce school rules, and the officer should have walked away.
You should RTFA - the first interaction was with the school safety officer (who may be a real cop - in my district they are). There job is to ensure the safety of the school, which they first attempted to do without arresting or searching the student.
However, they didn't - they are assuming that failing further indications, the worse this pupil is carrying is a contraband phone (not illegal), they try to search. Pupil refuses consent for search. Refusal to volunteer to be searched does not create probable cause.
Once she insisted she had no phone but was obviously hiding something they had probable cause for search, IMHO.
Officer performs semi-intimate search anyway and comes up with contraband phone. Officer then starts questioning pupil about how to contact their parents (again, none of their business), this is information that the school should have had to hand, pupil is evasive.
Assuming she is under the age of majority it is their business - although I agree the school should have that information.
The other side SHOULD have backed down, because in the end they took it too far (which has been my point all along). The choice to arrest a person is not made by the arrestee. It was the Police Officer's decision, and theirs alone to arrest this girl. It was the wrong decision and I hope they end up signing their paycheck over to her every month for at least the next year because of it.
This is where we disagree. Her actions resulted in the arrest. At any point prior to that she could have ended the matter by handing over the phone.
Schools have to maintain order in the classroom. This girl chose to disrupt the class and then continue to act in a stupid manner that got her deeper in trouble. Their backing down would simply reinforce the notion you can be disruptive and get away with it; in addition from TFA it appears this is not the first time she has caused problems in school.
I doubt she'll be collecting anyone else's paycheck anytime soon. She is responsible for her actions and the consequences of making dumb decisions.
I have just two things to say (basically)
1 - I have high hopes that the RIAA settles in such a way that it damages all their other cases, and Patti is both vindicated and compensated - even if we never known what that compensation was.
I doubt it - they probably will keep the settlement private; and since it was not decided at trial there is no impact on other cases.
Usually these spammers insulate themselves from the effect of negative verdicts against them by moving all their assets to offshore accounts where the fed can't touch them and neither can lawyers looking to claim their $x million in damages.
If only we could literally take the shirts off their backs in partial fulfillment of their obligations we might start to make some headway against the spam kings. Any other suggestions?
Don't underestimate the ability of the feds to get at accounts; the most powerful being imprisoning them on contempt charges.
Exactly until they people handling the sensitive or classified material learn how to handle it with the care it needs we will keep seeing things like this. I mean how many times a week do we see something about a lost or stolen laptop or device that contained sensitive information. The issue (as per normal) is the USERS
While I fully agree that it is a user issue; i do not absolve p2p networks fully of any responsibility.
Proper system design can help avoid such issues without user intervention. For example, file sharing should require user intervention to select the type, location, and other attributes of files to be shared. Sharing should not be enabled by default.
While users can (and will) still do stupid things; proper systems design can help avoid problems. Having been involved with human factors design, I've seen plenty of cases of operator error where the system played a key role in enabling the error. To simply blame the error on the operator fails to solve the problem.
Which title would you buy, one that has the text 2 speech or one that doesn't? Seems like this is a value add, and any publisher would be loosing out by asking Amazon to withhold kindle.
So, Amazon in a sense wins, because I'm willing to bet most titles will end up with text 2 speech anyways.
I agree - I think it will give authors and publishers an opportunity to experiment to determine if T2S has any value to consumers.
For example, if the tech allows it, you could offer two tier pricing - with T2S costing a little more. Tinker with pricing and see what happens to sales.
You seem to complain about the media's and politicians' problem with speculators, yet you forget that the vast majority of CDS contracts out in the wild are written for purely speculation purposes.
If an entity has invested X dollars into company Y, yes there should be some financial instrument available to this entity to protect its investment. I agree with you there. However, if entity X has 0 dollars invested in company Y, this entity shouldn't have the right to buy a financial instrument targeting company Y and protecting X from Y's default. That is gambling, not investing.
Actually, what you describe is a fundamental part of investing; and not a new concept. If I think a company is going to do better than expected over some period of time I can either buy their stock or buy a call option. If I buy the stock I assume all the risk of ownership - it may fall to zero and I lose my entire investment. If I buy an option I get any upside but have no downside risk beyond the initial option price; plus I get a greater return since the option allows me to control more stock than a straight purchase would. At any rate, the option is a bet on a company's performance without having an interest in the company.
Speculators are a necessary part of the market - you need a counterparty in order to sell your derivative. If no one was willing to bet that oil would go down in price and sell an airline a futures contract then the airline could not hedge fuel costs. Or, you may be a company that wants to sell it's accounts receivable cash flow to raise cash for other more immediate uses. Unless their is someone willing to assume the associated credit risk you can't make the sell. They buyer may even want a CDS to cover the risk they assume.
Speculators put money at risk and help people unload risk; a needed part of a financial market. To be successful they need to be real good at assessing risk; and if they are they provide an ancillary service of letting people assess risk by the pricing associated with various financial instruments.
What people forget is that for every dollar A loses B gains a dollar (absent fees for the deal) so it really is a zero sum game.
Problems arise when the guarantors of the transaction, such as banks promising to pay if a note goes bust can't pay; that's why they really need to assess the underlying risk and price accordingly. Had they done that their may have been no market for many CDS since the cost of the swap would be too high for the potential buyer.