I think the artist has it right. Apple is not a museum or a library, and free speech is not at issue. They are more like a grocer, where they stock as much inventory as possible that they feel is appropriate to their venue. And like a grocer, they screw up sometimes. OK, often.
No, my proposal would not be "idiots" it would be official cars whose job it is to remove the incentive to speed around and get that last few seconds of advantage. You'd have to actually plan your trip at the legal speed limit. Now you can argue that the speed limit is too slow, but if passing people to go 80 MPH only made a small difference in your time because of my "asshole brigades," then it might just clear up traffic and make commute times bearable.
I've also tried to think of a way to design on and offramps to reduce this problem. We need a third dimension -- the problem seems too constrained in 2D. All you can do is add space between vehicles, strenuously enforced.
If that is indeed the entire reason, then their actions are logical. The next step is to look and see, is Foxconn the only company that pays a "suicide dividend," and if so, do they have the same issue? I mean, if you paid my family a million dollars for me to kill myself, I would not do it. So there also has to be that the worker is otherwise unhappy and unable to provide.
I'd always assumed everyone would have to be plugged into an automated system, but actually, maybe it only takes a relative few cars. In fact, if you just drove a line of cars side by side along the freeway at the speed limit so that nobody could pass them, and just kept such barriers every 10 or 20 or 30 miles, then I think it would help to eliminate the incentive for everyone to act so crazy to gain 30 seconds' advantage, thereby causing congestion. I've always thought it was the lange changes and sudden maneuvers that cause the most problems in traffic.
actually, from the standpoint of getting results, I'm sure that stopping compensating people for committing suicide will reduce the suicide rate. And I agree that a much more effective strategy would be finding out why it is that being dead is better than working at your plant.
Who said anything about socialism? I'm talking about businesses that are not motivated purely by greed, and you assume I'm a socialist. I think you have been indoctrinated into a very narrow mindset.
I think of pure capitalism as an oversimplification of what motivates humans. As a chemical engineer, we used to have a joke about estimating the milk a cow can produce: "Assume the cow is a perfect sphere radiating milk in all directions." Capitalism assumes that human beings act in their own self interest at all times in matters of goods exchange. This is just not the case, and it's a significant error.
the only way you would know that your business is serving people is if it makes a profit.
Obviously and demonstrably false. And the profits from the business goes back to the people it serves. The Grameen bank does not use its profits to enrich its owners at the expense of the poor. It does not seek to maximize shareholder value above all else. It's a matter of recognizing that a business exists for something MORE than just making a profit. Money should not be the end goal. If you don't get this, keep thinking about it. Maybe when you are over your cynicism about your life, you can start to understand that the worth of a company cannot be measured purely in dollars.
This is the excuse that people give for focusing EXCLUSIVELY on profit. I did not say "profit is evil." I said what I said. Re-read it. I understand free markets, capitalism etc. YOU sir seem to not understand what it means to be a human being. Are we supposed to be slaves to money? Is your life's purpose to maximize shareholder's value so you can buy another ski jet and park it in your garage? What is money for? These are not simply idle questions for a conversation over beer.
LOL. It is an infomercial looking site, but I do not consider them to be scammy. The AMP program itself is very cool, and yes, I think that if they focus on money they will become a bunch of corrupt assholes. Just because I shop at Walmart doesn't make my point invalid.
Perfect! You dismiss my main point and focus back on business being solely for profit. Inside of that world, yes, absolutely, Microsoft, Apple, Google, they are the heroes of the world. Have you ever noticed that under that paradigm, businesses get more and more evil? The search for power and profit as an end in itself is a short-sighted context. I'm a scientist and a darwinist and I understand the arguments for it. I'm just saying it does not work -- it causes pathologies and we need to keep our humanity even as we use money to serve our needs as human beings.
A relentless focus on profit over all else is the scourge of capitalism in our nation. We have forgotten that business exists to serve people, people do not exist for the sake of money. There are other business models other than focusing purely on profit. For example, ask Muhammad Yunus: 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Winner; Founder, Grameen Bank.
So they won a huge price because their invention "could be a significant contributor to the future energy technologies ". OK, so when does this happen again?
Folks, our government has been lying to us. They knew the area of the spill on the surface and the rate of the leak. You can compute whether there is any missing oil, and the missing oil must be subsurface. So why are scientists amazed that so much is underwater? doesn't simple math show it must be?
I suppose that's one interpretation. Just because they start enjoying a better standard of living does not mean they have to have a catastrophic banking crisis brought about by poor government incentivizing in the marketplace. And I believe I explicitly said respecting their culture does not have to include the nasty bits.
Nationalistic bickering aside, this is very good news. As living standards rise around the globe, labor will get more expensive, sure, and our iPods might cost 20% more or something, and in return, human beings on the other side of the planet have food on their table and work to do. It's good for the world that labor in china is getting more expensive in every way except the most short-term "I want my shit cheap right now" way.
We are not going to be able to bully China into submission like we are used to doing around the world. How about if we start trading with her and learning to respect their culture? That doesn't mean ignoring human rights abuses, but it means respectful engagement.
Whether it is Apple's failure that Firefox fails is not the point. This whole discussion is confusing "standards" with "interoperability." Standards should in theory lead to better interoperability by giving folks an agreed upon, um, standard to operate on. But if nobody follows the standard, then A) maybe it's not a standard after all and B) interoperability will not occur. In this case, A is not the case as HTML5 is definitely a standard. Apparently Firefox does not follow this standard. Neither HTML5 nor Firefox nor Apple is evil here. Apple is advocating a standard. Firefox is not following it. OK. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Apple's site for actual complaince with HTML5 standards. I am assuming it complies. If not, then yes, they are being silly at least and perhaps hypocritical.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if they ever review and reverse rejections that are not widely publicized. If anyone had a story like that, it would be interesting to hear.
I think the artist has it right. Apple is not a museum or a library, and free speech is not at issue. They are more like a grocer, where they stock as much inventory as possible that they feel is appropriate to their venue. And like a grocer, they screw up sometimes. OK, often.
No, my proposal would not be "idiots" it would be official cars whose job it is to remove the incentive to speed around and get that last few seconds of advantage. You'd have to actually plan your trip at the legal speed limit. Now you can argue that the speed limit is too slow, but if passing people to go 80 MPH only made a small difference in your time because of my "asshole brigades," then it might just clear up traffic and make commute times bearable.
I've also tried to think of a way to design on and offramps to reduce this problem. We need a third dimension -- the problem seems too constrained in 2D. All you can do is add space between vehicles, strenuously enforced.
Yes, that's why I said that stopping compensating people will reduce the suicide rate.
If that is indeed the entire reason, then their actions are logical. The next step is to look and see, is Foxconn the only company that pays a "suicide dividend," and if so, do they have the same issue? I mean, if you paid my family a million dollars for me to kill myself, I would not do it. So there also has to be that the worker is otherwise unhappy and unable to provide.
I'd always assumed everyone would have to be plugged into an automated system, but actually, maybe it only takes a relative few cars. In fact, if you just drove a line of cars side by side along the freeway at the speed limit so that nobody could pass them, and just kept such barriers every 10 or 20 or 30 miles, then I think it would help to eliminate the incentive for everyone to act so crazy to gain 30 seconds' advantage, thereby causing congestion. I've always thought it was the lange changes and sudden maneuvers that cause the most problems in traffic.
actually, from the standpoint of getting results, I'm sure that stopping compensating people for committing suicide will reduce the suicide rate. And I agree that a much more effective strategy would be finding out why it is that being dead is better than working at your plant.
Who said anything about socialism? I'm talking about businesses that are not motivated purely by greed, and you assume I'm a socialist. I think you have been indoctrinated into a very narrow mindset.
I think of pure capitalism as an oversimplification of what motivates humans. As a chemical engineer, we used to have a joke about estimating the milk a cow can produce: "Assume the cow is a perfect sphere radiating milk in all directions." Capitalism assumes that human beings act in their own self interest at all times in matters of goods exchange. This is just not the case, and it's a significant error.
the only way you would know that your business is serving people is if it makes a profit.
Obviously and demonstrably false. And the profits from the business goes back to the people it serves. The Grameen bank does not use its profits to enrich its owners at the expense of the poor. It does not seek to maximize shareholder value above all else. It's a matter of recognizing that a business exists for something MORE than just making a profit. Money should not be the end goal. If you don't get this, keep thinking about it. Maybe when you are over your cynicism about your life, you can start to understand that the worth of a company cannot be measured purely in dollars.
This is the excuse that people give for focusing EXCLUSIVELY on profit. I did not say "profit is evil." I said what I said. Re-read it. I understand free markets, capitalism etc. YOU sir seem to not understand what it means to be a human being. Are we supposed to be slaves to money? Is your life's purpose to maximize shareholder's value so you can buy another ski jet and park it in your garage? What is money for? These are not simply idle questions for a conversation over beer.
LOL. It is an infomercial looking site, but I do not consider them to be scammy. The AMP program itself is very cool, and yes, I think that if they focus on money they will become a bunch of corrupt assholes. Just because I shop at Walmart doesn't make my point invalid.
PS I forgot to mention. The possessive "its" does not have an apostrophe.
Perfect! You dismiss my main point and focus back on business being solely for profit. Inside of that world, yes, absolutely, Microsoft, Apple, Google, they are the heroes of the world. Have you ever noticed that under that paradigm, businesses get more and more evil? The search for power and profit as an end in itself is a short-sighted context. I'm a scientist and a darwinist and I understand the arguments for it. I'm just saying it does not work -- it causes pathologies and we need to keep our humanity even as we use money to serve our needs as human beings.
A relentless focus on profit over all else is the scourge of capitalism in our nation. We have forgotten that business exists to serve people, people do not exist for the sake of money. There are other business models other than focusing purely on profit. For example, ask Muhammad Yunus: 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Winner; Founder, Grameen Bank.
So they won a huge price because their invention "could be a significant contributor to the future energy technologies ". OK, so when does this happen again?
OMG, you are right! Poe's law indeed. Thank you for spotting such a clear example of it.
He's got the kid gloves because in order to get access to the wealthy for an interview or book material from them, you have to kiss their ass.
Does that mean 67% as stale?
Folks, our government has been lying to us. They knew the area of the spill on the surface and the rate of the leak. You can compute whether there is any missing oil, and the missing oil must be subsurface. So why are scientists amazed that so much is underwater? doesn't simple math show it must be?
My intuition tells me this guy had better watch his speed in the near future. LOL
I suppose that's one interpretation. Just because they start enjoying a better standard of living does not mean they have to have a catastrophic banking crisis brought about by poor government incentivizing in the marketplace. And I believe I explicitly said respecting their culture does not have to include the nasty bits.
Nationalistic bickering aside, this is very good news. As living standards rise around the globe, labor will get more expensive, sure, and our iPods might cost 20% more or something, and in return, human beings on the other side of the planet have food on their table and work to do. It's good for the world that labor in china is getting more expensive in every way except the most short-term "I want my shit cheap right now" way.
We are not going to be able to bully China into submission like we are used to doing around the world. How about if we start trading with her and learning to respect their culture? That doesn't mean ignoring human rights abuses, but it means respectful engagement.
Whether it is Apple's failure that Firefox fails is not the point. This whole discussion is confusing "standards" with "interoperability." Standards should in theory lead to better interoperability by giving folks an agreed upon, um, standard to operate on. But if nobody follows the standard, then A) maybe it's not a standard after all and B) interoperability will not occur. In this case, A is not the case as HTML5 is definitely a standard. Apparently Firefox does not follow this standard. Neither HTML5 nor Firefox nor Apple is evil here. Apple is advocating a standard. Firefox is not following it. OK. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Apple's site for actual complaince with HTML5 standards. I am assuming it complies. If not, then yes, they are being silly at least and perhaps hypocritical.