The power to sway voters.
I honestly think the choice for VP has more to do with how voters will react than how that person would perform as president.
Microsoft and it's 3rd party developers made money primarily off businesses. There are and were plenty of businesses that pirated software too but many of them made at least a half-hearted attempt to be "legal". PC Software also cost a lot more that what people are willing to pay for phone apps and until relatively recently distribution was primarily through some sort of media, - be it a floppy disk, cd, or DVD.
Until the widespread availability of broadband, it was also not so easy to download pirated versions of software, you had to get a physical copy from somebody.
So even though there's always been piracy, and there's always been a sort of arms race between the pirates and the software developers, it's really never been so easy to pirate an app as it is now. It's a different world and today you have one phone OS vender that helps protect its developers from piracy (for its own benefit no doubt) and one that until recently didn't. It's only natural to compare Android development to IOS development. Comparing the state of the Android world today against the Windows world of 10 or 20 years ago doesn't make a lot of sense.
While I'm not sure that using a hand saw and eating a slightly dirty hot dog really does much to instill leadership skills, Scouting does have a lot to offer.
However, I think Scouts would be better served by letting go of some of the traditions and beliefs that marginalize them in the eyes of the many parents.
1. Lose the military/law enforcement style uniform
2. leave the religious messages out
3. Allow gay/lesbian leadership
In today's world, #3 should be a no brainer.
The first is pretty tough partly because of tradition and partly because having a uniform serves a purpose.
The second I think is also one that is deeply rooted in the organization. Religious observations are not terribly overt and do not play a major role in scouting but they are there.
What I'm trying to say is that eliminating the app store model doesn't get rid of this problem. If development of an app is stopped for ANY reason, system software updates may at any point break it. Software has a lifespan. An app store doesn't change that.
In this case Apple is pulling the plug before the court has made a ruling and I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind that, but the software will continue to function.
Eventually the developer will either win, lose, or settle with the company bringing the lawsuit. Development of the software will either continue or not. If does, then it returns to the app store. If not, you have the same problem as you would without the app store model.
What app stores have done is create an explosion of software. This software may have never existed in the first place without it.
It's a legitimate concern and a good reason not to update the version of IOS on that iPad. And if this was an Android platform we were talking about and the app developer was legally forced to quit developing the software, you'd have the same issue. An Android update could break the software.
Let's be clear. It's the app developer that's being sued by another company. If they lose, the app is likely history. Even if had been developed for Android and was still floating around on some app site, that doesn't mean an an Android update wouldn't break it.
If the parents are worried, don't update the iPad. Get another one for general use. The app will continue to function as it always has.
Before too long the dispute will be resolved one way or another. This app will return and if not, another one will come along that's better. That's the nature of software.
Actually, the bad publicity generated by this lawsuit may force a resolution sooner rather than later.
We had a similar discussion with my son's middle school science teacher. We asked why there wasn't more hands on activities. He said that he would like to do more but that getting the materials can be expensive; preparing a lab takes a lot more time than preparing a lecture, and a great deal of time is spent policing the kids to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to do. Further, he was limited to things that could be started and completed within an hour.
The previous science teacher was much better about preparing hands on stuff, but she got burnt out and quit after a few years.
If you really want to teach science in a manor that would engage kids, you need some exceptional teachers. Short of that, building some flexibility into the schedule might help. Give science teachers more prep time. Instead of having science 5 days a week for 50 minutes at a shot, make it four days with one of the days being longer for lab time.
I think the older generation like myself still prefer email to texting. Personally, I like email because an immediate response is not expected. I'm much funnier when I have time to think about it.;-)
I'm also less likely to say something I'll regret later and there is a record. In my opinion there will always be room for that type of communication.
Younger people seem to prefer texting or Skype because communication is more real-time and it's easier to include more people. It also allows them to be braver than they would be over the phone. This is not always good.
When there's no serious competition, market rate will be higher. If someone does try to come in to compete, the big manufacturers lower the price again until the fledgling competitor, whose pockets are not nearly as deep, drops out.
Jobs often poked his nose in the types of decisions that a typical CEO would let someone much farther down the ladder deal with. He'd even exchange emails with random customers.
So while while he was the "decider", he made decisions that had a perspective from inside the trenches was well as from inside the boardrooms. I think that's something that's missing in many large companies, - even ones where consensus plays a bigger role in major decisions.
Taking it a step further, I think that's what goes on with some of these dictators like Assad. They're so insulated from the bulk of their country that they truly don't have a grasp on the magnitude of the discontent. Jobs had his own RDF but he could see through it enough to create products that people wanted, though there were some notable failures.
that's cool. so you'll use your purchasing power in your company to support your own ideological agenda (happy shiny workers) rather than what's in the best interest of the company... super. would you feel responsible if layoffs resulted from your suboptimal business purchases? how does that figure into the worker equation?
Because corporate survival trumps all else? I think that's why we have the problems we do with exploited workers and environmental disasters.
Somebody has to care about the bigger picture and use what influence they have to make a positive difference.
Besides, I sincerely doubt that my organization's health depends on whether we use iPads or Galaxy Tabs.
", while his work has been discredited, Michael Daisey wasn't inaccurate in his claims that working conditions are poor in iPhone and iPad factories."
That statement is nonsense.
Michael Daisey was discredited because working conditions were fine for iPhone or iPad factories; none of the horrible things he had reported on were true upon his visit...
If you listened to the full retraction you would have heard an interview with a more reliable source that confirms that working conditions are poor. Overtime guidelines set by Apple are routinely exceeded and Apple has done nothing. There's been two explosions at plants producing iPads that have killed at least 4 and injured scores. The explosions were caused by a build up of aluminum dust. A problem that is easily dealt with but wasn't.
It's not really so much about Apple in particular but if there are worker friendlier options, I'd like to vote with my dollars. Yes I agree that Nike may be even worse, but that's not a topic for slashdot and still doesn't help me with choosing a smart phone or tablet.
If you listened all the way to the end of the retraction show, Ira Glass interviewed somebody else who did a more even handed investigation into Apple and Foxconn.
The biggest problem I have with what Apple does is that IT sets the price they are willing to pay allowing only a thin margin of profit for the supplier. Because being a supplier for Apple carries with it a certain amount of prestige, the suppliers are willing to go along with this.
The problem is that this leaves little money for improving worker conditions even though Apple is making huge margins on their products overall.
Apple currently holds a lot of power over these suppliers, they could lower their own margins, pass more money back to the suppliers and dictate that some it goes back to improving the lot of the worker. Apple would survive just fine and could actually do some good. Maybe by applying a little pressure, consumers could help move them and other electronic makers in the right direction.
I'm not only a consumer who owns an iPhone, I also have significant influence over the IT purchases at our small company. We currently have a smattering of MacBooks and almost a dozen iPads along with the usual collection of Windows laptops, desktops, and some linux servers. Two weeks ago I presented at a conference regarding our successful use of the iPads in the field.
Tomorrow I'll be at a meeting where we will be discussing the future direction of that field project. Though continued use of iPads isn't the main topic, I am seriously considering a switch at some point and I may suggest it during that meeting but I don't want end up using a product from a company who is just as bad or worse when it comes to the working conditions at their factories.
As for my phone? My contract is almost up. So, yes I would really purchase a "friendly" phone and try to influence others to follow suit.
They'll work. "Quite well" is open to interpretation. I'm not anti-Mac. I'm posting from one now.
My point is that there are aspects to most people's jobs that they don't like but they're willing to put up with. So if you're somebody who doesn't feel that Macs (or whatever) are the best choice, it's one thing to support a few of them, but quite another if the entire company is going to switch over. Especially if you think it's a bad decision, you made your opinion known, and felt you were ignored.
I'm an IT Manager. If I decided that we were going 100% Mac (even just on the desktop), my network admin would definitely voice his displeasure. If I decided to go ahead anyway, it would not surprise me in the least if he quit. He might decide to stay anyway but our working relationship would suffer, at least for awhile. His job performance may also decline.
Some times it's best if an employee and an employer part ways. It's far better for the OP to look for a job he likes than to stay and be a unhappy, crappy employee.
Just curious. What if you given an edict that all all new desktop and laptop purchases would be Macs? And, oh, since all the desktops are going to be Macs, you're going to have run OS X server and get rid of AD or whatever you use.
And this happened in spite of your strong objections and the fact that you probably are more knowledgeable about the subject than those who made the decision?
My guess is that at minimum you'd be pretty pissed and feel completely undervalued.
Having a job in this economy is something to be thankful for. Still, you spend much of your waking hours at work and you'll be a much happier person if you enjoy your job.
If he can find work he likes better, - for whatever reason, why shouldn't he switch?
I've left a job because I didn't find it challenging enough. I left another one because I didn't like the way they ran their projects and I wasn't in a position to change it. An important aspect of any job I take is that the company or organization be one that benefits society in some way. I tend to end up at non-profits. So I'm kind of picky. Luckily there's been enough opportunities that I can afford to be.
When I'm hiring I look for someone who's going to be enthusiastic about the position and the company. If he's at odds with management, they are both better off if he goes some place else.
Fewer bugs?
setting good deadlines and meeting them?
Happier users?
There are lots of different software development "methodologies". To me that's what you're talking about. Which one is right for you depends on a number of factors. Whatever organization you end up working for might already have one and your job will be to learn it. If you're in a position where you are the one to decide what your process is going to be, then you've got some research to do.
Not all methodologies are appropriate for all applications. I suggest starting to learn about the "agile" family of methodologies if you're working in a small team.
Oh, and it's capitalism that leads to things like the patent system. Capitalism wants to put a price tag on everything and creates this concept of "ownership", whether it's food, a service, a design, or an idea.
I'm not advocate for communism, but I don't believe that pure capitalism is a better system. It needs strict controls for it to work for anything beyond the minority of people that end up controlling most of the resources. A mixed economy is the way to go and the right mix varies from place to place.
In order for a capitalist society to exist, at least in the type that the US is, you have winners and you have losers.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Economics is not a zero-sum game. In a capitalist society, you have big winners and you have small winners. Every transaction is made because both participants feel it is advantageous for them to make it. If either party feels a transaction will make them a "loser", they simply will not make the transaction. Failing to be a big winner is not losing.
If you're consistently generating losers, that points to a problem either in your implementation of capitalism (e.g. overly broad patents prevent competition from introducing and lowering prices for flat, rectangular computing devices), or in the people (lack of education/information, or irrational decision making).
For a transaction to occur both parties have to have something that the other wants. It could be an object of some sort, a service, or a form of currency. If you have little (you're poor), you are at an inherent disadvantage. You can certainly still provide some sort of service, but if there are millions of other people as poor or poorer than you, they may be willing to exchange their services for less.
Further complicating the problem, - what if machines are introduced that can perform the service for even cheaper? It doesn't take machines to wreak havoc on the system though. What if the potential buyers of said service collude, and agree that none of them will pay any more than a paltry sum?
The more you have, the more you can control the nature of the transactions and the exchange rate. The less you have, the more you are at the whims of those that do. This is playing out every day. It has nothing to do with patents or irrational decision making.
Playing a simple game of Monopoly bears this out fairly quickly. It's not hard to grasp.
It's been a while, but 10 or 15 years ago, economists were freaking out over the tight labor market. It was driving up costs and was bound to lead to trouble. You know what? There were still lots of people unemployed. Capitalism depends on having a supply of employed people, - i.e. losers.
Almost 15 years ago I went to work for a company in a very similar role. I did everything from coding to user support to network admin. Now we have about 100 employees and I'm the director of the small IT department (6 employees and two contractors).
If the company didn't care about IT they wouldn't have hired a full time tech dude. Jobs like that can be extremely challenging but also extremely fun because you control everything.
Having the technical capabilities we have in a company our size (that isn't a tech company) is rare and allows us to land contracts we'd otherwise not be able to get.
My job has its downsides. It's not for everyone and there's been times I've seriously considered leaving but mostly it's been good. All companies are different and so are the people that work in them. If he likes the job there's no reason he shouldn't keep it unless he thinks the place is headed down the toilet.
Slashdot Mirror
So they would be seeking to ban the sale of a product that contains their own parts, thereby limiting their own sales?
The power to sway voters. I honestly think the choice for VP has more to do with how voters will react than how that person would perform as president.
But who are the companies making money? The ones marketing towards consumers or the ones selling to businesses who are more likely to pay?
Are they established companies in established markets that are well known and can afford to build in their own anti-piracy schemes?
What is the average cost of a software title on Windows vs on IOS or Android?
Windows and Android/IOS are vastly different worlds. I don't think comparisons between the two have much validity.
Microsoft and it's 3rd party developers made money primarily off businesses. There are and were plenty of businesses that pirated software too but many of them made at least a half-hearted attempt to be "legal". PC Software also cost a lot more that what people are willing to pay for phone apps and until relatively recently distribution was primarily through some sort of media, - be it a floppy disk, cd, or DVD.
Until the widespread availability of broadband, it was also not so easy to download pirated versions of software, you had to get a physical copy from somebody.
So even though there's always been piracy, and there's always been a sort of arms race between the pirates and the software developers, it's really never been so easy to pirate an app as it is now. It's a different world and today you have one phone OS vender that helps protect its developers from piracy (for its own benefit no doubt) and one that until recently didn't. It's only natural to compare Android development to IOS development. Comparing the state of the Android world today against the Windows world of 10 or 20 years ago doesn't make a lot of sense.
While I'm not sure that using a hand saw and eating a slightly dirty hot dog really does much to instill leadership skills, Scouting does have a lot to offer. However, I think Scouts would be better served by letting go of some of the traditions and beliefs that marginalize them in the eyes of the many parents.
1. Lose the military/law enforcement style uniform
2. leave the religious messages out
3. Allow gay/lesbian leadership
In today's world, #3 should be a no brainer.
The first is pretty tough partly because of tradition and partly because having a uniform serves a purpose.
The second I think is also one that is deeply rooted in the organization. Religious observations are not terribly overt and do not play a major role in scouting but they are there.
What I'm trying to say is that eliminating the app store model doesn't get rid of this problem. If development of an app is stopped for ANY reason, system software updates may at any point break it. Software has a lifespan. An app store doesn't change that.
In this case Apple is pulling the plug before the court has made a ruling and I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind that, but the software will continue to function.
Eventually the developer will either win, lose, or settle with the company bringing the lawsuit. Development of the software will either continue or not. If does, then it returns to the app store. If not, you have the same problem as you would without the app store model.
What app stores have done is create an explosion of software. This software may have never existed in the first place without it.
It's a legitimate concern and a good reason not to update the version of IOS on that iPad. And if this was an Android platform we were talking about and the app developer was legally forced to quit developing the software, you'd have the same issue. An Android update could break the software.
Let's be clear. It's the app developer that's being sued by another company. If they lose, the app is likely history. Even if had been developed for Android and was still floating around on some app site, that doesn't mean an an Android update wouldn't break it.
If the parents are worried, don't update the iPad. Get another one for general use. The app will continue to function as it always has.
Before too long the dispute will be resolved one way or another. This app will return and if not, another one will come along that's better. That's the nature of software.
Actually, the bad publicity generated by this lawsuit may force a resolution sooner rather than later.
We had a similar discussion with my son's middle school science teacher. We asked why there wasn't more hands on activities. He said that he would like to do more but that getting the materials can be expensive; preparing a lab takes a lot more time than preparing a lecture, and a great deal of time is spent policing the kids to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to do. Further, he was limited to things that could be started and completed within an hour.
The previous science teacher was much better about preparing hands on stuff, but she got burnt out and quit after a few years.
If you really want to teach science in a manor that would engage kids, you need some exceptional teachers. Short of that, building some flexibility into the schedule might help. Give science teachers more prep time. Instead of having science 5 days a week for 50 minutes at a shot, make it four days with one of the days being longer for lab time.
I think the older generation like myself still prefer email to texting. Personally, I like email because an immediate response is not expected. I'm much funnier when I have time to think about it. ;-)
I'm also less likely to say something I'll regret later and there is a record. In my opinion there will always be room for that type of communication.
Younger people seem to prefer texting or Skype because communication is more real-time and it's easier to include more people. It also allows them to be braver than they would be over the phone. This is not always good.
When there's no serious competition, market rate will be higher. If someone does try to come in to compete, the big manufacturers lower the price again until the fledgling competitor, whose pockets are not nearly as deep, drops out.
You see this all the time.
Jobs often poked his nose in the types of decisions that a typical CEO would let someone much farther down the ladder deal with. He'd even exchange emails with random customers.
So while while he was the "decider", he made decisions that had a perspective from inside the trenches was well as from inside the boardrooms. I think that's something that's missing in many large companies, - even ones where consensus plays a bigger role in major decisions.
Taking it a step further, I think that's what goes on with some of these dictators like Assad. They're so insulated from the bulk of their country that they truly don't have a grasp on the magnitude of the discontent. Jobs had his own RDF but he could see through it enough to create products that people wanted, though there were some notable failures.
that's cool. so you'll use your purchasing power in your company to support your own ideological agenda (happy shiny workers) rather than what's in the best interest of the company... super. would you feel responsible if layoffs resulted from your suboptimal business purchases? how does that figure into the worker equation?
Because corporate survival trumps all else? I think that's why we have the problems we do with exploited workers and environmental disasters.
Somebody has to care about the bigger picture and use what influence they have to make a positive difference.
Besides, I sincerely doubt that my organization's health depends on whether we use iPads or Galaxy Tabs.
", while his work has been discredited, Michael Daisey wasn't inaccurate in his claims that working conditions are poor in iPhone and iPad factories."
That statement is nonsense.
Michael Daisey was discredited because working conditions were fine for iPhone or iPad factories; none of the horrible things he had reported on were true upon his visit...
If you listened to the full retraction you would have heard an interview with a more reliable source that confirms that working conditions are poor. Overtime guidelines set by Apple are routinely exceeded and Apple has done nothing. There's been two explosions at plants producing iPads that have killed at least 4 and injured scores. The explosions were caused by a build up of aluminum dust. A problem that is easily dealt with but wasn't.
It's not really so much about Apple in particular but if there are worker friendlier options, I'd like to vote with my dollars. Yes I agree that Nike may be even worse, but that's not a topic for slashdot and still doesn't help me with choosing a smart phone or tablet.
I think that's a poor justification.
If you listened all the way to the end of the retraction show, Ira Glass interviewed somebody else who did a more even handed investigation into Apple and Foxconn.
The biggest problem I have with what Apple does is that IT sets the price they are willing to pay allowing only a thin margin of profit for the supplier. Because being a supplier for Apple carries with it a certain amount of prestige, the suppliers are willing to go along with this.
The problem is that this leaves little money for improving worker conditions even though Apple is making huge margins on their products overall.
Apple currently holds a lot of power over these suppliers, they could lower their own margins, pass more money back to the suppliers and dictate that some it goes back to improving the lot of the worker. Apple would survive just fine and could actually do some good. Maybe by applying a little pressure, consumers could help move them and other electronic makers in the right direction.
Well, I'm the author.
I'm not only a consumer who owns an iPhone, I also have significant influence over the IT purchases at our small company. We currently have a smattering of MacBooks and almost a dozen iPads along with the usual collection of Windows laptops, desktops, and some linux servers. Two weeks ago I presented at a conference regarding our successful use of the iPads in the field.
Tomorrow I'll be at a meeting where we will be discussing the future direction of that field project. Though continued use of iPads isn't the main topic, I am seriously considering a switch at some point and I may suggest it during that meeting but I don't want end up using a product from a company who is just as bad or worse when it comes to the working conditions at their factories.
As for my phone? My contract is almost up. So, yes I would really purchase a "friendly" phone and try to influence others to follow suit.
They'll work. "Quite well" is open to interpretation. I'm not anti-Mac. I'm posting from one now.
My point is that there are aspects to most people's jobs that they don't like but they're willing to put up with. So if you're somebody who doesn't feel that Macs (or whatever) are the best choice, it's one thing to support a few of them, but quite another if the entire company is going to switch over. Especially if you think it's a bad decision, you made your opinion known, and felt you were ignored.
I'm an IT Manager. If I decided that we were going 100% Mac (even just on the desktop), my network admin would definitely voice his displeasure. If I decided to go ahead anyway, it would not surprise me in the least if he quit. He might decide to stay anyway but our working relationship would suffer, at least for awhile. His job performance may also decline.
Some times it's best if an employee and an employer part ways. It's far better for the OP to look for a job he likes than to stay and be a unhappy, crappy employee.
Just curious. What if you given an edict that all all new desktop and laptop purchases would be Macs? And, oh, since all the desktops are going to be Macs, you're going to have run OS X server and get rid of AD or whatever you use.
And this happened in spite of your strong objections and the fact that you probably are more knowledgeable about the subject than those who made the decision?
My guess is that at minimum you'd be pretty pissed and feel completely undervalued.
Having a job in this economy is something to be thankful for. Still, you spend much of your waking hours at work and you'll be a much happier person if you enjoy your job.
If he can find work he likes better, - for whatever reason, why shouldn't he switch?
I've left a job because I didn't find it challenging enough. I left another one because I didn't like the way they ran their projects and I wasn't in a position to change it. An important aspect of any job I take is that the company or organization be one that benefits society in some way. I tend to end up at non-profits. So I'm kind of picky. Luckily there's been enough opportunities that I can afford to be.
When I'm hiring I look for someone who's going to be enthusiastic about the position and the company. If he's at odds with management, they are both better off if he goes some place else.
Fewer bugs?
setting good deadlines and meeting them?
Happier users?
There are lots of different software development "methodologies". To me that's what you're talking about. Which one is right for you depends on a number of factors. Whatever organization you end up working for might already have one and your job will be to learn it. If you're in a position where you are the one to decide what your process is going to be, then you've got some research to do.
Not all methodologies are appropriate for all applications. I suggest starting to learn about the "agile" family of methodologies if you're working in a small team.
Neither melting ice caps nor a new ice age sound particularly appealing.
Oh, and it's capitalism that leads to things like the patent system. Capitalism wants to put a price tag on everything and creates this concept of "ownership", whether it's food, a service, a design, or an idea.
I'm not advocate for communism, but I don't believe that pure capitalism is a better system. It needs strict controls for it to work for anything beyond the minority of people that end up controlling most of the resources. A mixed economy is the way to go and the right mix varies from place to place.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Economics is not a zero-sum game. In a capitalist society, you have big winners and you have small winners. Every transaction is made because both participants feel it is advantageous for them to make it. If either party feels a transaction will make them a "loser", they simply will not make the transaction. Failing to be a big winner is not losing. If you're consistently generating losers, that points to a problem either in your implementation of capitalism (e.g. overly broad patents prevent competition from introducing and lowering prices for flat, rectangular computing devices), or in the people (lack of education/information, or irrational decision making).
For a transaction to occur both parties have to have something that the other wants. It could be an object of some sort, a service, or a form of currency. If you have little (you're poor), you are at an inherent disadvantage. You can certainly still provide some sort of service, but if there are millions of other people as poor or poorer than you, they may be willing to exchange their services for less.
Further complicating the problem, - what if machines are introduced that can perform the service for even cheaper? It doesn't take machines to wreak havoc on the system though. What if the potential buyers of said service collude, and agree that none of them will pay any more than a paltry sum?
The more you have, the more you can control the nature of the transactions and the exchange rate. The less you have, the more you are at the whims of those that do. This is playing out every day. It has nothing to do with patents or irrational decision making.
Playing a simple game of Monopoly bears this out fairly quickly. It's not hard to grasp.
It's been a while, but 10 or 15 years ago, economists were freaking out over the tight labor market. It was driving up costs and was bound to lead to trouble. You know what? There were still lots of people unemployed. Capitalism depends on having a supply of employed people, - i.e. losers.
Almost 15 years ago I went to work for a company in a very similar role. I did everything from coding to user support to network admin. Now we have about 100 employees and I'm the director of the small IT department (6 employees and two contractors).
If the company didn't care about IT they wouldn't have hired a full time tech dude. Jobs like that can be extremely challenging but also extremely fun because you control everything.
Having the technical capabilities we have in a company our size (that isn't a tech company) is rare and allows us to land contracts we'd otherwise not be able to get.
My job has its downsides. It's not for everyone and there's been times I've seriously considered leaving but mostly it's been good. All companies are different and so are the people that work in them. If he likes the job there's no reason he shouldn't keep it unless he thinks the place is headed down the toilet.