Doh! Yeah, that was the reference. I can't believe I misremembered that. (Not that it was one of their greatest songs and I should remember it that clearly.)
Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers? That was their job after all. They seem better at managing public perception before, after, and outside the classroom and fairly incompetent in the courtroom itself.
Yes, the patent system is highly dysfunctional. Yes, the law seems highly dysfunctional. But isn't the job of a high-powered attorney to factor all those vectors, and many more, into their presentation and execution?
Agreed. Why do people feel the need to be anxious? It's just not necessary. Besides, what really matters is composition. And as crazy has already noted, this really only applies to heavily composed photography, not spontaneous. So, yeah, stock photographers might need to be on the lookout, but photojournalists? Not so much.
The comparison to AOL is probably more apt than the one to Apple. I get that Apple walls its garden when it comes to available apps for the iPhone, but that doesn't limit the ways you can access the internet. (Though I think it bears exploring about the ways those apps limit, for good and for bad, limit access.) Amazon is also repeating Apple's play in this regard. Does that mean Amazon has more walls? Taller ones? Ah, the limits of metaphor.
Pundits like to state this, but I always wonder how Windows is an open system? Don't get me wrong: I love the various *nixes I run -- which includes Linux and Mac OS X (one open and one closed) -- but the only clear winner in a previous epic battle was Windows over Mac OS, but neither was open. And so what does Otellini base his conclusion, apart from the wishful thinking of individuals with whom he'd rather not deal in most cases? (E.g., the various open and free movements that have an uncomfortable relationship at best with IP-warchested Intel.)
It seems to me that Google is right on time: the time in the sun for social networks seems to be about up.
Call it a land rush; call it a bubble; call it a craze. The social networks like FaceBook, MySpace, and the social network apps like Digg enjoyed a moment in the sun as the fleshed out one dimension of the webbernet that hadn't really been fully articulated. Now that it has, you're seeing a lot of the ideas articulated by those sites rolled into more mature, more complex, and more interesting sites and services.
Of course, community for the sake of community was something I always thought was best done face to face, sitting next to someone on a barstool or at a coffee shop. Me, if I am going to look for community on the web, which is really more like what we used to call "association" (that is, a gathering of like-minded individuals), I'm going to look for sites that possess the traits I'm interested in. Like SlashDot or ArsTechnica et cetera.
I might be considered a casual Slashdot reader: I check the site frequently, at least daily, and I follow the links in the stories that interest me. Sometimes I read the discussion on/. itself. From my perspective, the current system mostly works: a wide variety of material comes across the front page of/. and keeps my eyes on the bigger pictures.
I do wish some of the discussions were more substantive and on-topic, but I'm not entirely sure how you might go about achieving that. It's something that every association deals with -- hey, if you want to know why I don't consider on-line groups to be communities, then you'll have to check out my website. (But I'm not going to link to it.)
Oh those temporary laws. Interning Japanese. Taking over the property of folks with German last names.
I'd like to take your militaristic ass and throw it in a detention camp for five years and then tell me how it all evens out in the end.
Yeah, grand pronouncements like this just make me throw up in my mouth. Then I swallow it, and the grand pronouncement has come and gone and not too too much has changed. Which is another way of saying that we have a lot of very cool technology, which has opened up all sorts of access to means of producing, we still aren't very clear on what creativity is -- and it ain't (can't be) entirely something new and it's not entirely something old but always in between.
Gibson's last few novels have not done very well, so I guess he's opting to become a pundit. It's what a lot of folks do -- whether they were once successful in their chosen field or not. (Or, in the case of business book writers: their business if the business of punditry.)
I say bring it on. Let them totally lock down content and the way people interact with it. For years now we have all relied on alternative media and distribution systems while at the same time relying on traditional "big content" for the stuff getting delivered. It's time for a creative revolution on the content side.
I don't really see what the problem is. This is good news for everyone here, isn't it? The upshot of all this is: YOU CAN CHARGE MORE. You can make a living. You can afford to hire some other folks, maybe even put together a vibrant little company where you can enjoy what you and make a living doing it. Isn't that ALL good news?
Late in my thirties, I hate to resort to Forrest Gump's "momma always said," but in my case my mother is a damn fine business woman who charges a $100 an hour just to talk to her about interior design for your home or business. Her adage has always been: If you underestimate your worth, you can bet others will only make it worse.
I'm an university professor who does a lot of consulting on the side, a great deal of it for free in the public sector, but when I get involved in private scetor contracts, I charge the going day rate. First, I don't want to undermine independent contractors out there who depend on that kind of income to make a living. Second, I damn sure want people to respect my worth -- you never know when I might decide to leave the university and need to make a living myself at customary rates.
My sense is that you should consider the bidding process a bit of "market research" as it were. You've learned a bit more about what the going rates are for those kinds of projects. Bid more and bid often; keep pace with the market. Enjoy the fact that the market for your abilities is "up" right now.
Having seen management from both ends of the spectrum, plenty of times someone's pay is what it is and no one thinks "Gee, we're really giving X the shaft, woo hoo!" on a regular basis. You're just on their radar in that way. Suddenly, you say you've gotten a nice offer and are considering it and they realize that they could and would like to keep you. Counter offer made. Nine times out of ten, they aren't going to suspect you or distrust you. A counter offer represents a statement of their valuation of you.
No one here can tell you how to decide, but don't let your decision to decline the counter offer be based on imagined suspicions of you. Most managers I know, and when I was one myself, just don't have the time. If you're valued, you're valued. --> Which is what some folks have already said: what kind of boss is this counter offer coming from. If he's a good guy, it's an honest re-evaluation of your importance. If he's not, then, yeah, maybe the counter offer isn't such a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Doh! Yeah, that was the reference. I can't believe I misremembered that. (Not that it was one of their greatest songs and I should remember it that clearly.)
Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers? That was their job after all. They seem better at managing public perception before, after, and outside the classroom and fairly incompetent in the courtroom itself. Yes, the patent system is highly dysfunctional. Yes, the law seems highly dysfunctional. But isn't the job of a high-powered attorney to factor all those vectors, and many more, into their presentation and execution?
Agreed. Why do people feel the need to be anxious? It's just not necessary. Besides, what really matters is composition. And as crazy has already noted, this really only applies to heavily composed photography, not spontaneous. So, yeah, stock photographers might need to be on the lookout, but photojournalists? Not so much.
The comparison to AOL is probably more apt than the one to Apple. I get that Apple walls its garden when it comes to available apps for the iPhone, but that doesn't limit the ways you can access the internet. (Though I think it bears exploring about the ways those apps limit, for good and for bad, limit access.) Amazon is also repeating Apple's play in this regard. Does that mean Amazon has more walls? Taller ones? Ah, the limits of metaphor.
Pundits like to state this, but I always wonder how Windows is an open system? Don't get me wrong: I love the various *nixes I run -- which includes Linux and Mac OS X (one open and one closed) -- but the only clear winner in a previous epic battle was Windows over Mac OS, but neither was open. And so what does Otellini base his conclusion, apart from the wishful thinking of individuals with whom he'd rather not deal in most cases? (E.g., the various open and free movements that have an uncomfortable relationship at best with IP-warchested Intel.)
It seems to me that Google is right on time: the time in the sun for social networks seems to be about up. Call it a land rush; call it a bubble; call it a craze. The social networks like FaceBook, MySpace, and the social network apps like Digg enjoyed a moment in the sun as the fleshed out one dimension of the webbernet that hadn't really been fully articulated. Now that it has, you're seeing a lot of the ideas articulated by those sites rolled into more mature, more complex, and more interesting sites and services. Of course, community for the sake of community was something I always thought was best done face to face, sitting next to someone on a barstool or at a coffee shop. Me, if I am going to look for community on the web, which is really more like what we used to call "association" (that is, a gathering of like-minded individuals), I'm going to look for sites that possess the traits I'm interested in. Like SlashDot or ArsTechnica et cetera.
How long had he been in prison or held hostage?
I might be considered a casual Slashdot reader: I check the site frequently, at least daily, and I follow the links in the stories that interest me. Sometimes I read the discussion on /. itself. From my perspective, the current system mostly works: a wide variety of material comes across the front page of /. and keeps my eyes on the bigger pictures.
I do wish some of the discussions were more substantive and on-topic, but I'm not entirely sure how you might go about achieving that. It's something that every association deals with -- hey, if you want to know why I don't consider on-line groups to be communities, then you'll have to check out my website. (But I'm not going to link to it.)
So there.
Oh those temporary laws. Interning Japanese. Taking over the property of folks with German last names. I'd like to take your militaristic ass and throw it in a detention camp for five years and then tell me how it all evens out in the end.
Yeah, grand pronouncements like this just make me throw up in my mouth. Then I swallow it, and the grand pronouncement has come and gone and not too too much has changed. Which is another way of saying that we have a lot of very cool technology, which has opened up all sorts of access to means of producing, we still aren't very clear on what creativity is -- and it ain't (can't be) entirely something new and it's not entirely something old but always in between.
Gibson's last few novels have not done very well, so I guess he's opting to become a pundit. It's what a lot of folks do -- whether they were once successful in their chosen field or not. (Or, in the case of business book writers: their business if the business of punditry.)
I say bring it on. Let them totally lock down content and the way people interact with it. For years now we have all relied on alternative media and distribution systems while at the same time relying on traditional "big content" for the stuff getting delivered. It's time for a creative revolution on the content side.
I don't really see what the problem is. This is good news for everyone here, isn't it? The upshot of all this is: YOU CAN CHARGE MORE. You can make a living. You can afford to hire some other folks, maybe even put together a vibrant little company where you can enjoy what you and make a living doing it. Isn't that ALL good news?
Late in my thirties, I hate to resort to Forrest Gump's "momma always said," but in my case my mother is a damn fine business woman who charges a $100 an hour just to talk to her about interior design for your home or business. Her adage has always been: If you underestimate your worth, you can bet others will only make it worse.
I'm an university professor who does a lot of consulting on the side, a great deal of it for free in the public sector, but when I get involved in private scetor contracts, I charge the going day rate. First, I don't want to undermine independent contractors out there who depend on that kind of income to make a living. Second, I damn sure want people to respect my worth -- you never know when I might decide to leave the university and need to make a living myself at customary rates.
My sense is that you should consider the bidding process a bit of "market research" as it were. You've learned a bit more about what the going rates are for those kinds of projects. Bid more and bid often; keep pace with the market. Enjoy the fact that the market for your abilities is "up" right now.
It could be a lot, lot, lot worse.
Having seen management from both ends of the spectrum, plenty of times someone's pay is what it is and no one thinks "Gee, we're really giving X the shaft, woo hoo!" on a regular basis. You're just on their radar in that way. Suddenly, you say you've gotten a nice offer and are considering it and they realize that they could and would like to keep you. Counter offer made. Nine times out of ten, they aren't going to suspect you or distrust you. A counter offer represents a statement of their valuation of you.
No one here can tell you how to decide, but don't let your decision to decline the counter offer be based on imagined suspicions of you. Most managers I know, and when I was one myself, just don't have the time. If you're valued, you're valued. --> Which is what some folks have already said: what kind of boss is this counter offer coming from. If he's a good guy, it's an honest re-evaluation of your importance. If he's not, then, yeah, maybe the counter offer isn't such a good idea.