The problem with this argument is that your unvaccinated (due to your choice) kid can kill my unvaccinated (not due to my choice) kid, when otherwise my kid would live a normal life.
Kids under six months of age can't be vaccinated against pertussis, so those who opt out after that age increase the risk of death for kids younger than this. Some people have allergies that prevent vaccination.
So, this isn't a choice that parents make that subject only their own children to risk, but it affects everybody. That makes it everybody's business, and hence in the realm of government regulation.
And yes, I often lean libertarian, but a completely legitimate function of government is to protect individuals from bad choices that other people make.
I love them. They're not super-close, but since they're brick and mortar my local BB will price-match their ads. Since MC aims to compete with amazon/newegg that means I can get half-decent prices for stuff that is local.
If the meters still internally capture the true readings, then sooner or later there will be an issue when the property changes hands. Often utilities will do a manual reading when the account changes name, and there will be a reckoning.
Now, if the meter itself is tampered with, or doesn't see all the current, then obviously there will be little to detect.
Oh, I suspect 7 will be around for a long time. Big companies are likely to switch from XP to 7 one of these years, and then they'll begin fossilizing on that OS just as they did with XP. Unless the next Windows version offers some feature that actually saves companies money that they can't save in any other way, they're going to stay put.
Switching OS versions can cost a company millions of dollars by the time everything is done. Most of the time there is no upside, other that avoiding even larger costs if you don't switch. Well, companies are going to wait until those costs actually start to show up before switching. What costs so much? Well, for starters you have all the obvious logistics. Then you have application testing. Then you have all the disruptions because of all the apps you didn't test (nobody knows all the software at a big company). Then you have all the disruptions that you'd have even if everything went "perfectly" as people re-acclimate/etc, or find that some file wasn't stored on the network and somebody has to restore a backup, and so on.
I have a car. I know it is going to die one of these days. And yet, I don't replace it, because I don't need to. It is just as useful when it is 10 years old as it was when it was new, and a new car doesn't really give me much utility over the old one. I keep the old one, until it becomes cheaper to get a new one (which can include a lot of factors beyond just repairs).
Google doesn't really own any natural monopolies. Android has a big network-effect advantage, as does Google+ (though the latter has very low market share).
The areas where government really has to step in are things like telecoms (especially when monopoly status is codified in law), and situations where somebody has gotten a huge majority where a network effect matters.
While I'll agree with what somebody else said that research can be an acquired skill, I do think that problem solving and analytical thinking in general tend to be talents that emerge fairly early in life. I do agree that the ability to do research isn't identical to intelligence.
One thing you should probably also think about is whether research in and of itself is a career you actually WANT to pursue. That was my problem - I got rather far along before I decided that even though I was very good at it I wasn't really all that interested in it, which in the end limits your ability to truly excel. Research is long and slow. You can read about classical experiments in books and get this sense that breakthroughs just happen all the time. In real life one scientist might work at a single problem for decades and really only come up with a truly amazing discovery once a decade if they're very good. When you move from books to the lab the pace goes WAY down, and it becomes a grind.
Many people do just fine with that, but I wasn't one of them. However, it isn't that big of a problem if things turn out that way - if you're exceptional at STEM there are lots of good careers still left in the US. What you can't afford to be is mediocre, unless you have some other skills to fall back on.
Actually, I think my point is still perfectly valid. The career path you illustrate is not based on your ability to do science, but rather your ability to relate to people. If you're exceptional at it, you can do well in many fields. I specifically listed BSing as a skillset in my post.
Obviously no career is built on a single skill - to the degree that your BS skills are good, your science skills can probably be a little worse.
Agreed. My observation is that you can make a decent living doing ANYTHING IFF you are exceptionally good at it. That doesn't mean getting A's in the average watered-down school class - it means pursuing it with a passion and being recognized outside of school by "peers" who are already established in that industry. Now, that doesn't have to be something recognized as a "profession" per se in school - it could be a trade, or even just your ability to BS or play poker.
What you can't afford to do is be mediocre at just anything. There are fields you can make a survivable income on with mediocre performance, but science is definitely not one of them. In fact, I'm not sure a college degree is even a worthwhile pursuit for most of them - those incomes are much less survivable if you're repaying $50k in loans.
So, the important question to ask is just how good you really are. Being above-average in school just isn't going to cut it in most fields - there are no jobs just waiting out there for anybody who can apply and check the 4-year-degree box on. When I size up kids in high school with dreams I usually ask them what they're already doing to achieve them. If they think that the path to success is to do what their teachers tell them to and go to the right college, I inform them that they are in for a world of hurt. If they aren't already doing it outside of school, then chances are they'll never be doing it. Oh, sure, the NIH won't give you a job without so many degrees, but there are lots of "sciency" things you can do on your own time without anybody's permission - whether it be exploratory programs or just reading a lot of good books and interacting online.
Would-be programmers have no excuses at all - I wish I had half the access to online resources that kids have today when I was their age. There is no reason that a kid in high school can't be making very strong contributions to FOSS/etc. If they aren't, then good luck ever getting a job in the current market.
Hmm - when I was a kid I thought Omega was fun. Never heard of OGRE. Omega featured the ability to have tanks communicate as a team, though some of the instructions were buggy and I remember having to code workarounds (acknowledging a communication didn't work, so when a tank got a message it asked another tank to send it what was essentially an NOP signal). Tanks had sensors, weapons, movement, etc.
They might have asked the authors for their unpublished raw data, in which case a confidentiality agreement becomes plausible.
I'm sure that was what they did. It might have been unethical to do anything else. You can't even do a study on higher animals unless you can argue that you stand to learn something new (simply doing it to try to reproduce old results may not be accepted as a valid reason). If you need to experiment on people the bar is considerably higher.
Plus, fully reproducing studies from scratch is very expensive. Papers rarely include full details on how they are conducted, either.
Yup, and only a matter of time before the RIAA finds another judge who isn't fed up with them...
They only need one order from any judge in the entire country to get their subpoena. Then they can get the list from the ISPs. At that point, what happens is moot, because they have the data, which is all that they were looking for. They just dismiss the case.
He learned something when he took office. Something scary. Because otherwise he just burned a ton of political capital (with every intention of running for a second turn) for no reason. That doesn't make sense for a capable, career politician.
No doubt, but that doesn't mean that these policies are necessarily in the interests of American citizens in general. It merely means that Obama had some kind of incentive to pass them.
I think the obvious solution is a better compromise. I think most people are fine with the idea of making money off of creating things, whether they be movies, drugs, or whatever. The issue is that there is no end to the greed of the companies that control these things. It isn't like the average musician is making loads of money - it all goes to line executive pockets, and shareholders.
Copyrights and patents need to be reigned in and given durations appropriate to their nature. Go ahead and let Apple have a year or two lead if they come up with multitouch or whatever, but after that anybody can use it. If a new song comes out, give the artist a year or two to make a load of money on it, and then it goes in the bargain bin. Perhaps books last a little longer (not sure what the profits vs costs look like there). Let movies have a month of theater protection, and two years of DVD/streaming protection. Maybe for drugs set a cap on profits - you get 10 years from market approval (and another 10 years to get it to market as long as you actively pursue it), or a few billion dollars, whichever comes first.
There is nothing wrong with rewarding people who create things that are useful to society, even if only for entertainment. The issue is that these rights get used to stifle all kinds of potential innovation, and are far in excess of what is required to create an incentive.
Well, I'm not sure I'd call the security settings on unix systems all that much more secure than on Windows. (And I run linux as my primary desktop.)
If I browse some site that exploits a browser vulnerability on windows, it will install some code that will run either as a user or system account and generally snoop my data/keystrokes and send out spam. It will modify user-level or system-level configuration settings so that it runs on every boot.
If I browse some site that exploits a browser vulnerability on linux, it will install some code that will run under my user account and generally snoop my data/keystrokes and send out spam. It will modify user-level configuration settings so that it runs on every login or x session.
Now, on linux other users on the same system are less likely to have their data snooped. However, as with Windows it is pretty common that there are no other users on a linux desktop. For server installations the extra security potentially does help, assuming the served applications don't have access to modify their own configuration settings/etc.
Now, trojans on linux are less of an issue only because most linux distros don't make it as easy to execute random downloaded binaries. However, I have heard of exceptions (like mapping the exe file extension to wine or whatever). Also, not all files need to be executable to execute them. If aunt tizzy got an email saying to right-click on the attachment, hit save, then open a shell and type ". funstuff" that is pretty much all you need to launch a trojan.
So, while unix generally is secure, there is no reason it couldn't be harder hit by vulnerabilities if people bothered to target it.
Agreed. There is little value to society in punishing people for having adverse reactions to drugs, even if the reaction involved killing people. Punish people for the decisions they make, not for the results of those decisions. In this case the guy's only decision might have been to follow an order to take a required medication. Do we really think that was an "unlawful order" that should be disregarded?
Now, obviously all of this should be investigated. I'd just hate to see somebody punished simply so that we can say that we "did something about it" when if the drug is the root cause we might have not actually done anything to prevent a recurrence. From what I've read you could give this drug to your grandmother and she might mow down 10 people in a mall.
Why? If a person is willing to work that long, why should it be illegal to do so?
Suppose my wife needs a major surgery that costs $200k. Suppose a company likes the work I do and offers to front me the money if I agree to work for them until I've paid back that loan - they'll pay me a salary like $70k, which will go directly to loan repayments, minus some allowance to cover my living expenses while I live in the company dormitory.
Such arrangements were common as recently as 200 years ago. They were entered into completely voluntarily. And, of course, they are completely illegal today as they should be. Even slavery historically was often an arrangement entered into voluntarily (though certainly not in the US - I'm talking about ancient history).
The problem is that the general labor pool has relatively little power to negotiate working conditions on the large scale except through legislation. Labor practices like indentured servitude take advantage of people in desperate situations and trap them in situations that are only somewhat less desperate.
In any case, there is really little need in our society for excessive working hours and the problems that it brings like unemployment, health issues, and child raising issues that we all pay for in the end. Employers have to pay what the market demands, and restrictions on hours will increase demand for workers and chances are everybody who actually works for a living will be making the same money or more. The only people who lose out in such a system are those whose main source of income is from ownership of capital, and, well, if things get too bad for them they can always get a job.
Of course, the only way such a system can actually work is if you place tariffs on imports from nations that do not have similar laws. Otherwise companies will simply shift the jobs elsewhere. The US and Europe already suffer from this problem to various degrees.
mod parent up - thinking of lactose intolerance as a disorder is European-centric thinking. The genetic markers for the ability to digest lactose into adulthood are fairly well-understood and if you look at the frequency chart on this page you'll see that almost nobody that wasn't descended from Europeans can digest lactose into adulthood.
An unfortunate consequence of the increasing range of weaponry - to remain safe naval units have to exclude hostiles from a huge area of territory - and in constrained waters like the Persian Gulf that means far into non-conflict airspace.
That particular incident might have been prevented if some mistakes weren't made, but I'm sure others like it will happen eventually. Other than accepting the occasional loss of a warship in a surprise attack there isn't much that can be done to make that sort of situation impossible.
A laser the size of what they're doing here wouldn't be much of a warning shot.
If fired at anything other than the boat it would probably be nearly invisible. If fired at a small boat, then, well, no more boat, and certainly no working eyeballs on the boat.
Sounds like autism is one of those things where everybody seems pretty clear on what the culprit is. Just none of them agree. You have the vaccines camp, the genetics camp, the chemical pollution camp, the nothing-new-here-just-better-reported camp, and so on.
Ie, we aren't all that clear on what the culprit is, otherwise we'd have moved on.
While the Korean flight was clearly a problem, the U2 incident really doesn't fit into the same category.
If a US aircraft declared an emergency and asked permission to land at a Soviet base, chances are they'd have let them do so (for intelligence value if nothing else).
The U2 overflights were surveillance missions, and clearly military in nature. No nation tolerates deliberate military overflights, nor are they required to do so by international law.
Yup. If you're the only guy in the market, and you're already way better than the competition, then the return on investment for just about any amount of R&D is near-zero (unless you can expand the market). The problem was that Apple and Google didn't release a phone that was way worse than a Blackberry and then marginally increment it over many years (allowing the giant to wake up and keep up). Instead, both companies worked on a phone internally, and didn't release anything until it was feature-superior to anything RIM had on the market. Overnight RIM went from first place to near-last.
And the RIM CEOs kept collecting their bonuses for years, so it isn't like they've been punished for that decision. Wall Street rewards bottom-line thinking, and the disasters that result become the next person's problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this argument is that your unvaccinated (due to your choice) kid can kill my unvaccinated (not due to my choice) kid, when otherwise my kid would live a normal life.
Kids under six months of age can't be vaccinated against pertussis, so those who opt out after that age increase the risk of death for kids younger than this. Some people have allergies that prevent vaccination.
So, this isn't a choice that parents make that subject only their own children to risk, but it affects everybody. That makes it everybody's business, and hence in the realm of government regulation.
And yes, I often lean libertarian, but a completely legitimate function of government is to protect individuals from bad choices that other people make.
Yeah, good luck with that...
I love them. They're not super-close, but since they're brick and mortar my local BB will price-match their ads. Since MC aims to compete with amazon/newegg that means I can get half-decent prices for stuff that is local.
If the meters still internally capture the true readings, then sooner or later there will be an issue when the property changes hands. Often utilities will do a manual reading when the account changes name, and there will be a reckoning.
Now, if the meter itself is tampered with, or doesn't see all the current, then obviously there will be little to detect.
Oh, I suspect 7 will be around for a long time. Big companies are likely to switch from XP to 7 one of these years, and then they'll begin fossilizing on that OS just as they did with XP. Unless the next Windows version offers some feature that actually saves companies money that they can't save in any other way, they're going to stay put.
Switching OS versions can cost a company millions of dollars by the time everything is done. Most of the time there is no upside, other that avoiding even larger costs if you don't switch. Well, companies are going to wait until those costs actually start to show up before switching. What costs so much? Well, for starters you have all the obvious logistics. Then you have application testing. Then you have all the disruptions because of all the apps you didn't test (nobody knows all the software at a big company). Then you have all the disruptions that you'd have even if everything went "perfectly" as people re-acclimate/etc, or find that some file wasn't stored on the network and somebody has to restore a backup, and so on.
I have a car. I know it is going to die one of these days. And yet, I don't replace it, because I don't need to. It is just as useful when it is 10 years old as it was when it was new, and a new car doesn't really give me much utility over the old one. I keep the old one, until it becomes cheaper to get a new one (which can include a lot of factors beyond just repairs).
Google doesn't really own any natural monopolies. Android has a big network-effect advantage, as does Google+ (though the latter has very low market share).
The areas where government really has to step in are things like telecoms (especially when monopoly status is codified in law), and situations where somebody has gotten a huge majority where a network effect matters.
While I'll agree with what somebody else said that research can be an acquired skill, I do think that problem solving and analytical thinking in general tend to be talents that emerge fairly early in life. I do agree that the ability to do research isn't identical to intelligence.
One thing you should probably also think about is whether research in and of itself is a career you actually WANT to pursue. That was my problem - I got rather far along before I decided that even though I was very good at it I wasn't really all that interested in it, which in the end limits your ability to truly excel. Research is long and slow. You can read about classical experiments in books and get this sense that breakthroughs just happen all the time. In real life one scientist might work at a single problem for decades and really only come up with a truly amazing discovery once a decade if they're very good. When you move from books to the lab the pace goes WAY down, and it becomes a grind.
Many people do just fine with that, but I wasn't one of them. However, it isn't that big of a problem if things turn out that way - if you're exceptional at STEM there are lots of good careers still left in the US. What you can't afford to be is mediocre, unless you have some other skills to fall back on.
Actually, I think my point is still perfectly valid. The career path you illustrate is not based on your ability to do science, but rather your ability to relate to people. If you're exceptional at it, you can do well in many fields. I specifically listed BSing as a skillset in my post.
Obviously no career is built on a single skill - to the degree that your BS skills are good, your science skills can probably be a little worse.
Agreed. My observation is that you can make a decent living doing ANYTHING IFF you are exceptionally good at it. That doesn't mean getting A's in the average watered-down school class - it means pursuing it with a passion and being recognized outside of school by "peers" who are already established in that industry. Now, that doesn't have to be something recognized as a "profession" per se in school - it could be a trade, or even just your ability to BS or play poker.
What you can't afford to do is be mediocre at just anything. There are fields you can make a survivable income on with mediocre performance, but science is definitely not one of them. In fact, I'm not sure a college degree is even a worthwhile pursuit for most of them - those incomes are much less survivable if you're repaying $50k in loans.
So, the important question to ask is just how good you really are. Being above-average in school just isn't going to cut it in most fields - there are no jobs just waiting out there for anybody who can apply and check the 4-year-degree box on. When I size up kids in high school with dreams I usually ask them what they're already doing to achieve them. If they think that the path to success is to do what their teachers tell them to and go to the right college, I inform them that they are in for a world of hurt. If they aren't already doing it outside of school, then chances are they'll never be doing it. Oh, sure, the NIH won't give you a job without so many degrees, but there are lots of "sciency" things you can do on your own time without anybody's permission - whether it be exploratory programs or just reading a lot of good books and interacting online.
Would-be programmers have no excuses at all - I wish I had half the access to online resources that kids have today when I was their age. There is no reason that a kid in high school can't be making very strong contributions to FOSS/etc. If they aren't, then good luck ever getting a job in the current market.
Hmm - when I was a kid I thought Omega was fun. Never heard of OGRE. Omega featured the ability to have tanks communicate as a team, though some of the instructions were buggy and I remember having to code workarounds (acknowledging a communication didn't work, so when a tank got a message it asked another tank to send it what was essentially an NOP signal). Tanks had sensors, weapons, movement, etc.
They might have asked the authors for their unpublished raw data, in which case a confidentiality agreement becomes plausible.
I'm sure that was what they did. It might have been unethical to do anything else. You can't even do a study on higher animals unless you can argue that you stand to learn something new (simply doing it to try to reproduce old results may not be accepted as a valid reason). If you need to experiment on people the bar is considerably higher.
Plus, fully reproducing studies from scratch is very expensive. Papers rarely include full details on how they are conducted, either.
Yup, and only a matter of time before the RIAA finds another judge who isn't fed up with them...
They only need one order from any judge in the entire country to get their subpoena. Then they can get the list from the ISPs. At that point, what happens is moot, because they have the data, which is all that they were looking for. They just dismiss the case.
He learned something when he took office. Something scary. Because otherwise he just burned a ton of political capital (with every intention of running for a second turn) for no reason. That doesn't make sense for a capable, career politician.
No doubt, but that doesn't mean that these policies are necessarily in the interests of American citizens in general. It merely means that Obama had some kind of incentive to pass them.
I think the obvious solution is a better compromise. I think most people are fine with the idea of making money off of creating things, whether they be movies, drugs, or whatever. The issue is that there is no end to the greed of the companies that control these things. It isn't like the average musician is making loads of money - it all goes to line executive pockets, and shareholders.
Copyrights and patents need to be reigned in and given durations appropriate to their nature. Go ahead and let Apple have a year or two lead if they come up with multitouch or whatever, but after that anybody can use it. If a new song comes out, give the artist a year or two to make a load of money on it, and then it goes in the bargain bin. Perhaps books last a little longer (not sure what the profits vs costs look like there). Let movies have a month of theater protection, and two years of DVD/streaming protection. Maybe for drugs set a cap on profits - you get 10 years from market approval (and another 10 years to get it to market as long as you actively pursue it), or a few billion dollars, whichever comes first.
There is nothing wrong with rewarding people who create things that are useful to society, even if only for entertainment. The issue is that these rights get used to stifle all kinds of potential innovation, and are far in excess of what is required to create an incentive.
Well, I'm not sure I'd call the security settings on unix systems all that much more secure than on Windows. (And I run linux as my primary desktop.)
If I browse some site that exploits a browser vulnerability on windows, it will install some code that will run either as a user or system account and generally snoop my data/keystrokes and send out spam. It will modify user-level or system-level configuration settings so that it runs on every boot.
If I browse some site that exploits a browser vulnerability on linux, it will install some code that will run under my user account and generally snoop my data/keystrokes and send out spam. It will modify user-level configuration settings so that it runs on every login or x session.
Now, on linux other users on the same system are less likely to have their data snooped. However, as with Windows it is pretty common that there are no other users on a linux desktop. For server installations the extra security potentially does help, assuming the served applications don't have access to modify their own configuration settings/etc.
Now, trojans on linux are less of an issue only because most linux distros don't make it as easy to execute random downloaded binaries. However, I have heard of exceptions (like mapping the exe file extension to wine or whatever). Also, not all files need to be executable to execute them. If aunt tizzy got an email saying to right-click on the attachment, hit save, then open a shell and type ". funstuff" that is pretty much all you need to launch a trojan.
So, while unix generally is secure, there is no reason it couldn't be harder hit by vulnerabilities if people bothered to target it.
Agreed. There is little value to society in punishing people for having adverse reactions to drugs, even if the reaction involved killing people. Punish people for the decisions they make, not for the results of those decisions. In this case the guy's only decision might have been to follow an order to take a required medication. Do we really think that was an "unlawful order" that should be disregarded?
Now, obviously all of this should be investigated. I'd just hate to see somebody punished simply so that we can say that we "did something about it" when if the drug is the root cause we might have not actually done anything to prevent a recurrence. From what I've read you could give this drug to your grandmother and she might mow down 10 people in a mall.
Well, easy, that should be illegal as well.
Why? If a person is willing to work that long, why should it be illegal to do so?
Suppose my wife needs a major surgery that costs $200k. Suppose a company likes the work I do and offers to front me the money if I agree to work for them until I've paid back that loan - they'll pay me a salary like $70k, which will go directly to loan repayments, minus some allowance to cover my living expenses while I live in the company dormitory.
Such arrangements were common as recently as 200 years ago. They were entered into completely voluntarily. And, of course, they are completely illegal today as they should be. Even slavery historically was often an arrangement entered into voluntarily (though certainly not in the US - I'm talking about ancient history).
The problem is that the general labor pool has relatively little power to negotiate working conditions on the large scale except through legislation. Labor practices like indentured servitude take advantage of people in desperate situations and trap them in situations that are only somewhat less desperate.
In any case, there is really little need in our society for excessive working hours and the problems that it brings like unemployment, health issues, and child raising issues that we all pay for in the end. Employers have to pay what the market demands, and restrictions on hours will increase demand for workers and chances are everybody who actually works for a living will be making the same money or more. The only people who lose out in such a system are those whose main source of income is from ownership of capital, and, well, if things get too bad for them they can always get a job.
Of course, the only way such a system can actually work is if you place tariffs on imports from nations that do not have similar laws. Otherwise companies will simply shift the jobs elsewhere. The US and Europe already suffer from this problem to various degrees.
mod parent up - thinking of lactose intolerance as a disorder is European-centric thinking. The genetic markers for the ability to digest lactose into adulthood are fairly well-understood and if you look at the frequency chart on this page you'll see that almost nobody that wasn't descended from Europeans can digest lactose into adulthood.
Yes. Rhetoric is a subject separate from philosophy or logic.
Excellent, maybe I'll go back to college and write a few term papers!
An unfortunate consequence of the increasing range of weaponry - to remain safe naval units have to exclude hostiles from a huge area of territory - and in constrained waters like the Persian Gulf that means far into non-conflict airspace.
That particular incident might have been prevented if some mistakes weren't made, but I'm sure others like it will happen eventually. Other than accepting the occasional loss of a warship in a surprise attack there isn't much that can be done to make that sort of situation impossible.
Depends on the duty cycle. If you can run it off of supercapacitors and the duty cycle is fairly low then you can probably power it off of a 15A plug.
A laser the size of what they're doing here wouldn't be much of a warning shot.
If fired at anything other than the boat it would probably be nearly invisible. If fired at a small boat, then, well, no more boat, and certainly no working eyeballs on the boat.
Sounds like autism is one of those things where everybody seems pretty clear on what the culprit is. Just none of them agree. You have the vaccines camp, the genetics camp, the chemical pollution camp, the nothing-new-here-just-better-reported camp, and so on.
Ie, we aren't all that clear on what the culprit is, otherwise we'd have moved on.
While the Korean flight was clearly a problem, the U2 incident really doesn't fit into the same category.
If a US aircraft declared an emergency and asked permission to land at a Soviet base, chances are they'd have let them do so (for intelligence value if nothing else).
The U2 overflights were surveillance missions, and clearly military in nature. No nation tolerates deliberate military overflights, nor are they required to do so by international law.
Yup. If you're the only guy in the market, and you're already way better than the competition, then the return on investment for just about any amount of R&D is near-zero (unless you can expand the market). The problem was that Apple and Google didn't release a phone that was way worse than a Blackberry and then marginally increment it over many years (allowing the giant to wake up and keep up). Instead, both companies worked on a phone internally, and didn't release anything until it was feature-superior to anything RIM had on the market. Overnight RIM went from first place to near-last.
And the RIM CEOs kept collecting their bonuses for years, so it isn't like they've been punished for that decision. Wall Street rewards bottom-line thinking, and the disasters that result become the next person's problem.