"You'd be correct if the companies were trying to serve with customers and workers. This is not the point of a company at all! They exist to serve stockholders and gain profits"
They also exist to serve the workers and customers. They must satisfy these two other groups or they will not succeed.
"The best means to maximise this is to pay your employees the least and charge the customers the most."
And the want to be paid more, or to pay less. However, if the employee is paid for less than the value of the work, the employee will leave and the company will fail. (Companies also fail if the workers are paid way above the value of the work: see the factories that die due to union wage demands that have no relation to value of work and money available). If the customer is overcharged, he will go elsewhere (and the company will fail). The company must serve them in order to succeed.
"We'll you can't massively reduce the number of employees without impacting production"
GM has done it. Between their own incompetance, frivolous lawsuits (Ford now has to pay millions to the family of a guy who was drunk and speeding and rolled an SUV!) greedy union thugs, and regulations, they have had to greatly reduce their work force. The company is slowly dying compared to Asian companies.
"Well, move the whole company to India! But, what does that mean, really?"
"The company" does not make this decision. Rather, the regulations force the company to go out of business and fire its workers. A company in India arises and hires people to serve the customers that the American government crushed the American company for trying to serve.
"Those efforts are intentionally half-assed, of course, "
They should be. The regulations being discussed are not needed at all, and get in the way of people pursuing a living. The one of "work 40 hours? You get paid a lot extra in health insurance" is one such bad regulation. The value of the work should be left to the employer and the company, not outsiders who know nothing about their affairs. It is better that bad regulations get enforced weakly than enforced strongly. It would be even better if they were taken off the books.
"The idea that the capital will flee makes sense if you're Cambodia"
Capital has nothing to do with it.
"Regulation isn't about preventing companies from serving their customers and workers"
Mostly, it is. The law books are filled with such regulations. That is what the regulations do. Want to work a few hours a week as a teenager for $3 an hour? You can't: Minimum wage law forces company to not hire you: now you get $0 an hour. (the power of the minimum wage law to keep money out of worker's pockets). Want to buy a toilet that actually flushes well? As a consumer, you can't: thanks to yet another unnecessary government regulation. Want to buy lawn darts? The government courts allowed utterly frivolous lawsuits to go through: you can't except as antiques. The regulations prevent the companies from serving their stakeholders.
I know why you defend Pakistan, even the government is wrong about things and engages in religious oppression. Read Article 19 of your Constitution. It is even illegal for you to look at Islam with an open, critical mind: press freedom must only be for "the glory of Islam".
I understand why you say this stuff now. No honest person would make these claims on their own.
Eh? I ommitted them because we were talking about Pakistan, not every other country on the face of the earth. Yes, I do despise all religion controlled governments. Turkey, at least in this respect, is an example that should be emulated. It seems that you are attempting to divert the subject. Answer this: do you think that having Islam forced on the people through government law is a good thing? Or not? Answer this without irrelevant "but Slobovians are forced to be Zoroastrian Scientologists 900 miles away!" red herrings.
"The items you omit speak volumes. Again, it shows that morals are weak. You despise religion-controlled governments but yet accept them willingly because ultimately financial gain is more important."
"That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, even if it's been distorted by years of dogma"
No, the statements about Pakistan are fact, and not mere opinion. Years of dogma? Hahaha. You think that the United States has a vast propaganda machine brainwashing people about Pakistan and Kashmir. (Did you hear? Ted Turner is really a Hindu, and he airs 8 hours a day of pro-India propaganda on CNN!)
"They live in a state of occupation. It's sad state to be in."
Yes, by the terrorist invaders from Pakistan. At least before the invasion, they had relative freedom of religion. Now they are forced by terrorists warlords to bow down before the Muslim god. The Pakistani occupation of Kashmir can not even begin to approach legitimacy unless it becomes entirely secular.
"willingly because ultimately financial gain is more important"
You are the one arguing financial matters. Feel free to argue with yourself. You care, I do not. To me, it matters less than a lot of things, such as basic decisions of conscience. Religion is one of these.
Back to the topic, you said that Pakistan is a place of intellectual freedom. How can this be when Pakistan does not have freedom of the press? Here is something from Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: "'Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be Freedom of the Press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam". Intellectual strength is gone from a place that will not let you criticize Islam like anything else. Not to mention that Pakistan is officially an "Islamic Republic": that's intellectual suicide right there.
If you want to argue off-topic stuff like atheists in China, post a link to your Slashdot journal or blog. I'll be happy to meet you there.
I don't have a bias against Muslims. In the eyes of the law, Muslims and Islam should be treated exactly the same as everything nonMuslim and nonIslamic.
"Socialism typically encourages governments to distribute the..."
Socialism encourages the ruling elites to amass power and goods, and to make decisions (such as those mentioned) which serve the interests of the ruling class and not the people as a whole. Yes, it is corporate protectionism, but in socialism, the corporation being protected is the government itself.
Also, "controlling prices" (instead of letting them reach their actual value on the market) has been a hallmark of socialism. The more extreme version of this is Stalin's "5 Year Plans" in which the price and amount of everything was dictated by the socialist government.
"So conservatives should give up on copyright and just let things play out"
What simplified world do you live in in which all (or almost all) conservatives support copyright and all (or almost all) liberals oppose it? You would be in for a rude shock if the conservatives actually went and all threw in the towel on it: you'd find that most of the liberals would still be supporting copyright, and nothing would have changed.
"And don't even get me started on the way women are treated throughout India. Hinduism forces shackles upon them"
Less, so, than Islam. When is the last time that the India criminal justice system imposed a sentence of rape on a woman? Yet, Pakistan's government did this a couple of years ago (The national government only arrested the rapists after strong international pressure, but then released them, thus approving of what they did). However, if your point is to make Pakistan's unjust system look good by saying "see, they are worse!", why don't you cut to the chase and bring up North Korea and the Spanish Inquisition? Pakistan is not as bad as either of those two examples, so by golly it sure must be swell! End of argument.
"I would debate you on Kashmir...but it is futile since you a tool of the propaganda fed..."
Your definition of "propaganda" means information that you do not like. You are wrong, anyway. I do not recall my government ever saying anything on it. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that there is no justification for Pakistan's war against and imperialist claims against Kashmir.
I supposed such arguments from your side would contain "might makes right" and Pakistan's necessary imperial ambition.
"You claim you do not like religion forcing government.
I did, and I said ALL religions. I even mentioned Christianity before you did. The topic was Pakistan, so Pakistan was discussed.
The influence of socialism is a problem in India, which means that is government is too strong at the expense of the governed. Controlled prices for things are always bad news.
I don't have a bias against Muslims. I do, however, have a bias against any government that forces religion. Religion is a personal choice, to decide or ignore if you want. It is not something to be forced by the government. I have a "bias" against any forced religion. It happens that Pakistan's law forces Islam upon citizens, so Islam is relevant here in this thread.
So, do you think that opposition to forced Islam means opposition to Islam in general? Then there is the unjustified aggression and occupation by Pakistan against Kashmir. Kashmir never threatened or attacked Pakistan.
"I think Pakistan is seen as a much more attractive venue for logistical and scientific work."
Not really. It only works if you are Muslim and male there. Pakistan actually has laws which include rape as a punishment for women, and the system also encourages killing of non-Muslims by specifically (in the code of law) making the killing of a non-Muslim a minor crime compared to the killing of a Muslim. I can provide links to both horrific laws if you want. That is not very intellectual or nurturing. Islam has absolutely no place in law, and any country that governs by Islamic law is declaring a war on those who don't worship the Muslim god. That is rather anti-intellectual. The same goes, of course, for any government that forces any religion on its people, including Christianity.
I remember when a friend came up to me and said. "Have you seen all those Juarez web sites?". I had no idea what he was talking about, except maybe that he was fascinated by going to a part of Mexico not known for tourism. Eventually I found out he meant warez, and sincerely was reading it wrong.
Is it a law violation? From the looks of it, it does not seem illegal. If the government punishes a company for hiring regular workers, it is not outright illegal to hire temps/contract workers who do not come burdened with the pricey government requirements and mandated extra costs.
I veell seenk yuoor sheep und ploonder yuoor buuty und peellege-a yuoor vumee. Avast, yuoor feelleges und buets veell feer. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Arrrghh. I vurk vurk vurk und em keelhaul zee scuoorge-a ooff zee ooceuns. Um gesh dee vork vork vork!
There are some good tests for fake pirates. Go ahead, ask if you can pound a foot-long spike through that "peg leg". And if there is really no eye behind that eyepatch, he won't mind a bit if you jab a pencil in the hole. Arrrr!
"However, should government mandate universal employment standards, prohibit behaviours designed to thwart them and aggressivly pursue enforcement, then what are these corporations going to do? They'll have to pony up."
Or not. Government efforts that unnecessarily discourage employment still end up discouraging employment. The results include such things as massive reductions in the number of employees, increased automation, outsourcing, or even moving the entire company to a place where government regulations do not discourage employment.
"The ineffectivenes of regulation is due in large part to the wishywashiness of government regulators, not a de facto result of regulation per se."
So what do we need? Regulators in jackboots and sharkskin coats enforcing a police state? Anything to prevent companies from trying to serve their customers and workers despite burdensome regulations that discourage this?
"Are they running databases on their vending machines now?"
You betcha. Would you like me to send you the database that has all 1,087 JPG files of everyone who purchased a Mountain Dew from 2002 to 2004? It was pretty easy for them to gather the information. They had a tiny camera that took a picture every time someone dropped money into the machine. The camera was hidden on the front of the "Diet Blue Dr Pepper" can, which ensured that it would never be disturbed by a purchase.
Anonymous 2:00 AM phone call: "Hello. This is Captain Nightbyte of the `0Hack L33T Legion`. It has come to my attention that you actually ordered a spam sandwich with Cheez Whiz, not once, but 18 times back in 2002."
"No, no no, it's Simplot & OreIda that offers potatoes. HP in Boise makes printers. Unfortunately, a printer weighs more than 30lbs and it doesn't fit in a bag very well."
Why a Potato is better than a Printer.
As you said, printer weighs more than 30lbs and it doesn't fit in a bag very well.
There are two ways to spell potato. Just ask Dan Quayle.
No "do I use USB or Centronics?" dilemma with a potato.
French-fry grease stains easier to clean up than a busted box of laserjet toner.
No one has ever had their identity stolen when someone pulled a potato skin out of the trash.
You don't have to run out to Staples and spend $43 in supplies just to use a potato.
When you are through with a potato, you don't need to shred it just to be safe.
You can get cool potato guns. No one sells a printergun yet.
Tater Tots taste a lot better than Lil' Lexmarks.
For digital rights, the PC must live.
on
The PC Is Not Dead
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The PC (and the Mac, etc) must survive in order for us to retain digital rights.
It is a lot easier to overcome fair-rights-denying DRM on a console where you can run and write programs that do this for you. It is a lot harder on an "Audrey", an iPod, or a Palm Pilot.
Do you think there would be anything like "PlayFair"/ hymm (which let us listen on our own machines to something we paid for) for iTunes files if iPods typically were connected directly to the Internet for music download, and there was no PC or Mac in between?
"Why does that sound like the Cubs and the Tigers teaming up to win the world series?"
You have a good point. However, despite a decades-long record of console failures, Atari still has a good name in the public eye, and there was a time when they got things right. Not only that, Atari was pretty good with controllers and Nokia needs a lot of help there.
I think something with the Atari name involved with a better user interface would do better as a game platform than what they are doing with N-Gage right now.
Not only that, if the actual Atari were involved, they could easily and cheaply ship every N-Gage with all of the 2600/etc games built in.
"Yeah, more people may be employed, but only because for each two people you fire, you can hire three contractors since you don't need to kick in for medical, pension, and benefits."
Exactly. This is what happens with the government passes regulations which strongly encourage the company NOT to have regular full-time employees (or they will pay a lot more for them)
Slashdot Mirror
They also exist to serve the workers and customers. They must satisfy these two other groups or they will not succeed.
"The best means to maximise this is to pay your employees the least and charge the customers the most."
And the want to be paid more, or to pay less. However, if the employee is paid for less than the value of the work, the employee will leave and the company will fail. (Companies also fail if the workers are paid way above the value of the work: see the factories that die due to union wage demands that have no relation to value of work and money available). If the customer is overcharged, he will go elsewhere (and the company will fail). The company must serve them in order to succeed.
GM has done it. Between their own incompetance, frivolous lawsuits (Ford now has to pay millions to the family of a guy who was drunk and speeding and rolled an SUV!) greedy union thugs, and regulations, they have had to greatly reduce their work force. The company is slowly dying compared to Asian companies.
"Well, move the whole company to India! But, what does that mean, really?"
"The company" does not make this decision. Rather, the regulations force the company to go out of business and fire its workers. A company in India arises and hires people to serve the customers that the American government crushed the American company for trying to serve.
"Those efforts are intentionally half-assed, of course, "
They should be. The regulations being discussed are not needed at all, and get in the way of people pursuing a living. The one of "work 40 hours? You get paid a lot extra in health insurance" is one such bad regulation. The value of the work should be left to the employer and the company, not outsiders who know nothing about their affairs. It is better that bad regulations get enforced weakly than enforced strongly. It would be even better if they were taken off the books.
"The idea that the capital will flee makes sense if you're Cambodia"
Capital has nothing to do with it.
"Regulation isn't about preventing companies from serving their customers and workers"
Mostly, it is. The law books are filled with such regulations. That is what the regulations do. Want to work a few hours a week as a teenager for $3 an hour? You can't: Minimum wage law forces company to not hire you: now you get $0 an hour. (the power of the minimum wage law to keep money out of worker's pockets). Want to buy a toilet that actually flushes well? As a consumer, you can't: thanks to yet another unnecessary government regulation. Want to buy lawn darts? The government courts allowed utterly frivolous lawsuits to go through: you can't except as antiques. The regulations prevent the companies from serving their stakeholders.
I know why you defend Pakistan, even the government is wrong about things and engages in religious oppression. Read Article 19 of your Constitution. It is even illegal for you to look at Islam with an open, critical mind: press freedom must only be for "the glory of Islam". I understand why you say this stuff now. No honest person would make these claims on their own.
Eh? I ommitted them because we were talking about Pakistan, not every other country on the face of the earth. Yes, I do despise all religion controlled governments. Turkey, at least in this respect, is an example that should be emulated. It seems that you are attempting to divert the subject. Answer this: do you think that having Islam forced on the people through government law is a good thing? Or not? Answer this without irrelevant "but Slobovians are forced to be Zoroastrian Scientologists 900 miles away!" red herrings.
"The items you omit speak volumes. Again, it shows that morals are weak. You despise religion-controlled governments but yet accept them willingly because ultimately financial gain is more important."
"That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, even if it's been distorted by years of dogma"
No, the statements about Pakistan are fact, and not mere opinion. Years of dogma? Hahaha. You think that the United States has a vast propaganda machine brainwashing people about Pakistan and Kashmir. (Did you hear? Ted Turner is really a Hindu, and he airs 8 hours a day of pro-India propaganda on CNN!)
"They live in a state of occupation. It's sad state to be in."
Yes, by the terrorist invaders from Pakistan. At least before the invasion, they had relative freedom of religion. Now they are forced by terrorists warlords to bow down before the Muslim god. The Pakistani occupation of Kashmir can not even begin to approach legitimacy unless it becomes entirely secular.
"willingly because ultimately financial gain is more important"
You are the one arguing financial matters. Feel free to argue with yourself. You care, I do not. To me, it matters less than a lot of things, such as basic decisions of conscience. Religion is one of these.
Back to the topic, you said that Pakistan is a place of intellectual freedom. How can this be when Pakistan does not have freedom of the press? Here is something from Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: "'Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be Freedom of the Press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam". Intellectual strength is gone from a place that will not let you criticize Islam like anything else. Not to mention that Pakistan is officially an "Islamic Republic": that's intellectual suicide right there.
If you want to argue off-topic stuff like atheists in China, post a link to your Slashdot journal or blog. I'll be happy to meet you there.
I don't have a bias against Muslims. In the eyes of the law, Muslims and Islam should be treated exactly the same as everything nonMuslim and nonIslamic.
Socialism encourages the ruling elites to amass power and goods, and to make decisions (such as those mentioned) which serve the interests of the ruling class and not the people as a whole. Yes, it is corporate protectionism, but in socialism, the corporation being protected is the government itself.
Also, "controlling prices" (instead of letting them reach their actual value on the market) has been a hallmark of socialism. The more extreme version of this is Stalin's "5 Year Plans" in which the price and amount of everything was dictated by the socialist government.
What simplified world do you live in in which all (or almost all) conservatives support copyright and all (or almost all) liberals oppose it? You would be in for a rude shock if the conservatives actually went and all threw in the towel on it: you'd find that most of the liberals would still be supporting copyright, and nothing would have changed.
Less, so, than Islam. When is the last time that the India criminal justice system imposed a sentence of rape on a woman? Yet, Pakistan's government did this a couple of years ago (The national government only arrested the rapists after strong international pressure, but then released them, thus approving of what they did). However, if your point is to make Pakistan's unjust system look good by saying "see, they are worse!", why don't you cut to the chase and bring up North Korea and the Spanish Inquisition? Pakistan is not as bad as either of those two examples, so by golly it sure must be swell! End of argument.
Yeah. I was waiting for the part where the tigers turned into butter.
Your definition of "propaganda" means information that you do not like. You are wrong, anyway. I do not recall my government ever saying anything on it. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that there is no justification for Pakistan's war against and imperialist claims against Kashmir.
I supposed such arguments from your side would contain "might makes right" and Pakistan's necessary imperial ambition.
"You claim you do not like religion forcing government.
I did, and I said ALL religions. I even mentioned Christianity before you did. The topic was Pakistan, so Pakistan was discussed.
The influence of socialism is a problem in India, which means that is government is too strong at the expense of the governed. Controlled prices for things are always bad news.
So, do you think that opposition to forced Islam means opposition to Islam in general? Then there is the unjustified aggression and occupation by Pakistan against Kashmir. Kashmir never threatened or attacked Pakistan.
Not really. It only works if you are Muslim and male there. Pakistan actually has laws which include rape as a punishment for women, and the system also encourages killing of non-Muslims by specifically (in the code of law) making the killing of a non-Muslim a minor crime compared to the killing of a Muslim. I can provide links to both horrific laws if you want. That is not very intellectual or nurturing. Islam has absolutely no place in law, and any country that governs by Islamic law is declaring a war on those who don't worship the Muslim god. That is rather anti-intellectual. The same goes, of course, for any government that forces any religion on its people, including Christianity.
Well said. Now, watch for flamebait about "curry" and Indians stealing jobs from Americans.
I remember when a friend came up to me and said. "Have you seen all those Juarez web sites?". I had no idea what he was talking about, except maybe that he was fascinated by going to a part of Mexico not known for tourism. Eventually I found out he meant warez, and sincerely was reading it wrong.
Is it a law violation? From the looks of it, it does not seem illegal. If the government punishes a company for hiring regular workers, it is not outright illegal to hire temps/contract workers who do not come burdened with the pricey government requirements and mandated extra costs.
I veell seenk yuoor sheep und ploonder yuoor buuty und peellege-a yuoor vumee. Avast, yuoor feelleges und buets veell feer. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Arrrghh. I vurk vurk vurk und em keelhaul zee scuoorge-a ooff zee ooceuns. Um gesh dee vork vork vork!
There are some good tests for fake pirates. Go ahead, ask if you can pound a foot-long spike through that "peg leg". And if there is really no eye behind that eyepatch, he won't mind a bit if you jab a pencil in the hole. Arrrr!
Sign up today. You, too, can be a member of the "Blinking Midnight VCR Club"
Or not. Government efforts that unnecessarily discourage employment still end up discouraging employment. The results include such things as massive reductions in the number of employees, increased automation, outsourcing, or even moving the entire company to a place where government regulations do not discourage employment.
"The ineffectivenes of regulation is due in large part to the wishywashiness of government regulators, not a de facto result of regulation per se."
So what do we need? Regulators in jackboots and sharkskin coats enforcing a police state? Anything to prevent companies from trying to serve their customers and workers despite burdensome regulations that discourage this?
You betcha. Would you like me to send you the database that has all 1,087 JPG files of everyone who purchased a Mountain Dew from 2002 to 2004? It was pretty easy for them to gather the information. They had a tiny camera that took a picture every time someone dropped money into the machine. The camera was hidden on the front of the "Diet Blue Dr Pepper" can, which ensured that it would never be disturbed by a purchase.
Anonymous 2:00 AM phone call: "Hello. This is Captain Nightbyte of the `0Hack L33T Legion`. It has come to my attention that you actually ordered a spam sandwich with Cheez Whiz, not once, but 18 times back in 2002."
Why a Potato is better than a Printer.
As you said, printer weighs more than 30lbs and it doesn't fit in a bag very well.
There are two ways to spell potato. Just ask Dan Quayle.
No "do I use USB or Centronics?" dilemma with a potato.
French-fry grease stains easier to clean up than a busted box of laserjet toner.
No one has ever had their identity stolen when someone pulled a potato skin out of the trash.
You don't have to run out to Staples and spend $43 in supplies just to use a potato.
When you are through with a potato, you don't need to shred it just to be safe.
You can get cool potato guns. No one sells a printergun yet.
Tater Tots taste a lot better than Lil' Lexmarks.
It is a lot easier to overcome fair-rights-denying DRM on a console where you can run and write programs that do this for you. It is a lot harder on an "Audrey", an iPod, or a Palm Pilot.
Do you think there would be anything like "PlayFair"/ hymm (which let us listen on our own machines to something we paid for) for iTunes files if iPods typically were connected directly to the Internet for music download, and there was no PC or Mac in between?
You have a good point. However, despite a decades-long record of console failures, Atari still has a good name in the public eye, and there was a time when they got things right. Not only that, Atari was pretty good with controllers and Nokia needs a lot of help there.
I think something with the Atari name involved with a better user interface would do better as a game platform than what they are doing with N-Gage right now.
Not only that, if the actual Atari were involved, they could easily and cheaply ship every N-Gage with all of the 2600/etc games built in.
Exactly. This is what happens with the government passes regulations which strongly encourage the company NOT to have regular full-time employees (or they will pay a lot more for them)