Did they get the permission of all the people in the photos? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but if they didn't, they may own the photos, but they're still not legally allowed to distribute them.
Doesn't take long after the incorporation to see the legal bullying come out, does it?
You read all sorts of bullshit 1984esque redefinitions of intelligence these days. It's been taking the teaching profession by storm. If someone is a jock that can't pass any of his classes, they don't say he's dumb, they say he "has a focus on physical intelligence" and they push him ahead because the harm to his social development which supposedly occurs when he's held back a year is deemed more significant than the harm to his education that occurs when they just keep shoving him into more advanced classes when he hasn't learned the basics.
Because of this, you can't really have a meaningful debate about intelligence these days, because there is a concerted effort underway by the establishment (teachers, psychiatrists, etc) to destroy the word in an effort to be more politically correct and to avoid discouraging people.
Personally, I'd describe intelligence as "a measure of the number of different variables, concepts and ideas that a person can effectively operate on at any particular time in their attempts to draw meaningful relationships between them."
So, to use a metaphor, Einstein would be looking at the world around him with his eyes wide open, utilizing everything he sees in his quest for truth, while a dumb person would be looking around with one eye closed and a toilet paper tube held up to the other, narrowing his field of view.
When I look at modern research techniques and methodologies, they seem in a very real fashion to be architected to facilitate the ability of lesser minds to find answers despite their limitations.
To put it another way, where a genius would see everything, draw out the relationships and have a eureka moment, the teeming masses of rather average people popping out the other end of universities these days aren't capable of internalizing enough of the world at any one moment to achieve this, so they use a process to help them put together the little pieces.
Not going to find that in any dictionary though. Prob too complicated for all the non-genius' out there:P
Not the case. The Anandtech benchmarks a few days ago showed that the PPC970 has an extremely weak FPU compared to either Pentium-4 or Athlon 64/Opteron. It also has abysmal memory latency (more than double the Opteron) and it's integer performance isn't anything to write home about either.
You might want to read it again. The article didn't say anything of the sort. What it said was that between the poor design of OSX and the failings of the GCC compiler when it comes to optimization, the PPC isn't living up to its potential because the software is holding it back. Yeah, the Opteron runs circles around them where the memory subsystem is concerned, but the Opteron also kicks the shit out of all of Intels offerings in that regard as well, they've got the best on the market... which didn't stop Apple from going with Intel instead.
OK, shithead, please show me _one_ USA law that says a corporation _must_ "take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit". You are talking out of your @ss. There are _no_ laws that force a publicly traded corp to do what you suggest. So get off your fairy-tale horse and stop beeing an @ss-hole.
Don't mind the hippy sounding url, the article was first published in the January/February 2002 issue of Business Ethics and written by a corporate securities lawyer with 23 years experience.
The relevant passage would be
In short, the law creates corporate purpose. That purpose is to operate in the interests of shareholders. In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:
...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders....
Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.
You can also find some more general background on the subject here. Harverd Business School reputable enough for you?
Oh, and what you were referring to, the giving of money for hurricane relief, is called instrumental corporate social responsibility. It is permitted if the CEO is able to demonstrate that the philanthropy generates increased shareholder value, generally through there being more value generated by the resulting public goodwill than was lost by the expenditure.
Wow, don't you look stupid now. Who was the dumb asshole again?
It doesn't surprise me in the least that companies - which exist in a capitalist system for the sole purpose of taking money from people - are stomping all over people's rights for the purpose of fattening their wallets.
This sounds like some teeny-bopper or 20-something that has never had to live in the real world yet and raise a family. All corporations are not bad. In fact, most corps in the USA have nothing to do with the DMCA. I work for a fortune 500. The DMCA has _nothing_ to do with our line of business. However, idiots like the GP, just throw out their blanket statements and assume that all corps are like MS, RIAA or MPAA.
It doesn't take much to start a corporation. You just need to pay a small fee and you can have your own corp. Some of my fellow programmers work as independent contractors under their own corporation. I guess they are just as evil? The best thing you can do is just add idiots like the GP to your Foe list and mark them down -6 or something. Being a corporation is not bad. Many/most small businesses get a corporate license to protect their own personal finances from sue happy freaks. Being a corp is not bad, it is only _some_ of the big corps that are abusing Capitalism and the corporate title.
You're right. It's not all the corporations, just the publicly traded ones that are legally obligated to take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit without regards for how their actions affect others.
If you're a privatly held corporation, you don't have to pursue profit to the exclusion of all other motivations. Of course, you're still shielded from any personal liability should you choose to do so.
I do work for a big corporation and support my kid with the money I earn in doing so as well. Made my compromises just like you. But I can still recognize the effects of my decisions and the realities of our system, and understand that the GP is RIGHT in this regard. If you feel the need to pretend that you have no feet of clay and deny the existance of your compromises so you can live with your decisions, that's up to you, but making disparaging remarks about the GP like you've done only makes YOU look like an idiot.
Better stick me on your foe list quick there... wouldn't want to risk your precious illusions.
Sorry, driving is NOT a right, it is priviledge which is doled out by the powers that be and therefore is not subject to due process.
The powers that be have no capacity to dole out privilege. They are limited to restricting activities and providing services. In their absence, I am lord and master of all I behold, able to walk, bike, ride horseback, drive, sail and fly anywhere I choose.
They do have the capacity to tell you that you don't have the right to do things. At the end of the day, all that means is that they'll send the guys with the guns your way if you don't listen to them.
What's the difference? When you're master of your domain co-operating with the rules out of enlightened self interest for long term mutual benefit, the ruler is your leader. On the other hand, when you're a good little citizen of the state asking for priviledges to things you otherwise have no right to, the ruler is your master.
You should be more careful about which propaganda you integrate into your thinking.
Hope you're wrong. With this evil DRM conspiracy going on between Apple, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, RIAA and Hollywood... what company is more likely to fight for truth and justice than a bunch of comic book geeks?
These sound like just the right guys to be owning a chip making company!
None of which changes the fact that they spent a fucking fortune on R&D and it was largely wasted. They could have made more profit if they'd skipped the R&D expenditures and just made faster P3 aka PMs.
That they worked isn't the point. The point is that they didn't work as well as the architecture that preceded them, and neither did the Itaniums.
Is this concept really that hard to grasp? If you spend a lot of money and it's not a significant improvement over the architecture you already have, it's a failure.
Perhaps based on the fact that they abandoned it because it put out too much heat to be scalable and returned to their previous architecture? And perhaps because when they did so, their previous architecture beats the P4 hands down?
What are you talking about? Intel is SHIT at R&D. They sunk a ton of money into Itanium, and it was a flop. They sunk a ton of money into the P4 architecture, and it too was a flop. Yeah, they sold a lot of them, but they were shit. What's their best processor? The Pentium M, aka the P3 with modern fab and some marketing spin.
Yeah, they've got a lot of money to spend, but they just keep churning out crap. AMD has never had more than a fraction of Intels cash to spend, but they absoutely kick the shit out of them where effective R&D is concerned, and have for some years now.
Intel has 2 things going for them. They churn out the volume, and they have good marketing. Which is more than good enough to keep them in business, despite the fact that they come up with lemons every time they try something new.
That only works on a subset of people that aren't already watching what you are doing.
No, it doesn't. It works on everyone. You just notice and dislike it when it's conflicting with your higher-intellect functions telling you to be suspicious, like when you're dealing with salespeople. I bet it doesn't bother you when your doctor does it to you to set your mind at ease. They don't reserve bedside manner for those that they like, they use it on everyone.
Which primarly works on people with a rather low awareness of their own inner workings. And yes, that probably makes the potential "victims" the majority.
You're kidding yourself. It doesn't matter worth a damn if you're aware of them or not, they still affect you. Everyone is subject to emotional responses. Most of the "I'm so smart" people who read slashdot will likely agree with you, and I'm sure you're going to be moderated up, because everyone likes to think that they're "above" such things when they're pointed out in such a bald-faced fashion as I have done, but the truth is they're not.
You paint a very ugly face upon the whole idea of inspiring trust in others with behavior because it furthers your point to depict yourself as having the moral high ground and attacking abhorant behavior, but these are not just the principles of a used car salesman or a con artist.
These are the principles you use when you're a leader of men, or so said my father, who was such a one before he retired. They're the principles you learn when you're studying to be a shrink so you can help people with illnesses, or so says my brother, who's studying for med school now. They're the principles you learn when you're studying to be a teacher, or so said my ex, who was one. Or a coach for a sports team, which I've studied and done. Or a doctor, or nurse, or emergency response team member. They teach you these skills when you're studying higher levels of first aid, which I did. They're the skills you use when you're making new friends, or picking up girls, which I appear to be very good at, in contrast to the stereotypical slashdotter:D
They're called social skills. There are better uses to inspiring trust than just to betray it and get the fuck out of dodge.
I find it hard to decipher precisely what you're trying to say in your third paragraph. You appear to be suggesting that learning social skills causes you to suffer from self doubt and at the same time develop some sort of split personality disorder. Care to clarify?
1) Smile. If you smile, they smile, they feel good, they like you, they trust people they like.
2) Eye contact. If you look them in the eyes when you speak to them, they feel that you're not hiding anything.
3) Mirroring. Talk like they do. The speed they do, the inflection they do, the lingo they do, a hint of their accent. It can be noticible if it doesn't come across forced. You're just like them. People like people just like them. If they like you, they trust you.
4) Agree with them. People think others that agree with them are smart and on their side. People trust others that are smart and on their side.
5) Take control. If you take control of the situation, you're an authority figure who has a plan. People respect and trust authority figures to look out for their best interests. Just like mom and dad.
6) Become familiar. Find excuses to enter their environment. All they need to do is see you a few times. In their minds, you cease to be a stranger without them even knowing a thing about you. People trust those that are part of their normal environment.
There are LOTS of ways to go about establishing trust in someone without proving yourself trustworthy and against their will. If you think otherwise, you're the one that's naive.
Wishful thinking. You're dealing with a group that thinks nothing of "renewing" their cable-TV operating system every month, of buying a new car every year or so, of purchasing "use-once-and-destroy" goods, of spending around $1,000 to ensure each of their children gets the best out of their "free" education. To say nothing of "low monthly payments" on the Home Shopping Network.
Don't forget the Swiffer. With environmental this and environmental that everywhere you look, and recycling programs everywhere, someone invents a replacement for nigh-infinitely reusable mop and broom involving a disposable diaper on the end of a stick, throws in some slick marketing, and people eat it up.
There is not a chance in hell that people will reject subscription operating systems. They are stupid sheep that take what they are given and break their backs so they can afford whatever crap they are told they want.
Just because that guy patents his device does not mean he will make shitloads of money with this (could still happen, but hasn't to. The world is full of poor inventors). OTOH he will likely not be able to manufacture it himself. Most manufacturers who look at this will want to have a more or less exclusive deal before they even will look closer at it. And this exclusivity can only be guaranteed by having a patent on it.
That is SUCH a load of crap. If an automaker approached one of their manufacturers and said "we've been approached by this guy, he's got a design we think is good and there are no IP encumberances involved. We want this thing in all our cars if you can do it at this price point, and we'll sign a contract for XXXX units if you'll make them for us. The inventor is prepared to act as a consultant to help you get it set up." and there was a dime of profit to be made after infrastructure investment and manufacturing costs, there would be a plant built, exclusive deal or no. Exclusive deals are only "necessary" when you're building the manufacturing plants without a guaranteed sale on the goods to safeguard against being undercut. If you've already got a contract with an automaker that leaves you in the black after your plant is set up and the contract fulfilled, that's all that's required.
Oh, and there's nothing knee-jerk about my response at all. The automakers think it's too expensive to make standard on every car, patent encumberance drives costs up and drives risk up for those who would build a plant, and exclusive manufacturing deals ALSO drive cost up further for the automakers. And it's ALL about "no one gets to use the idea unless i get paid" greed. If you ever manage to get this FACT integrated into your thinking, a whole lot of things that seem like knee-jerk responses to you now will become common-sense. Until that time, why don't you save your cutesy little +/-5 crap for someone else. The implication that I'm some sort of tofu-eating IP hippy with a sign and a slogan where his brain should be is not appreciated.
His kid gets injured driving drunk and gets brain damage.
He works on a device that will alert a driver that they are drunk, possibly preventing needless injuries and deaths like what happened to his son.
Then he patents it, driving the cost up.
Then he makes noises about wanting it standard on all cars, and they make noises about it being too expensive...
Hey asshole, if you want to make an invention and make have it standard everywhere because you think it will benefit humanity, try NOT patenting it and driving the cost up so no one gets to use it, you piece of shit.
If anyone should be in a position to rise above their greed and just share an idea with society, it OUGHT to be this guy. This just makes me fucking sick.
Spoken like someone who's never lost their spouse at the mall. I'd much rather track her RFID panties down with my Dick Tracy watch than have her show up at our meeting place an hour late with a thousand dollars worth of clothes that make her look fat in any mirror besides the one in the store...
"Oh no, her heart rate spiked! I'd better get over there before she gets to the sales counter!"
Some of us smart people are capable of something called "disassociation". It's where we can and do argue either side of an argument because the whole argument is not about convincing other people, but to glean new ideas from the interplay.
Personally, I hate it when people get so damned attached to their ideas that they consider the questioning of their ideas to be a personal attack on them. I love it when people argue with me and attack my ideas. And when I'm wrong, I'll learn from it... but I'll still defend my ideas fiercely and attack yours because I don't like integrating an idea into my thinking until I've proven to myself that I can't tear it down.
Why do stupid people think the idea is more important than the debate?
cartel - A group of companies or countries acting together to control the supply and price of certain goods or services. Cartels are formed to produce higher profits than would ordinarily be earned.
Source: Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms for Today's Investor by David L. Scott.
and
cartel - n : a consortium of independent organizations formed to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a product or service; "they set up the trust in the hope of gaining a monopoly" [syn: trust, corporate trust, combine]
"Fuck off and die, IE" Haha, spoken like a true bitter OSS zealot
Or a web developer... or a network administrator... or an accountant... or a construction worker... or a dentist... or a single mom... or a student... or a man... or a woman... or a child... or...
Slashdot Mirror
Did they get the permission of all the people in the photos? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but if they didn't, they may own the photos, but they're still not legally allowed to distribute them. Doesn't take long after the incorporation to see the legal bullying come out, does it?
How about YOUR HEAD.
Is it really that hard to remember a bunch of catch phrases?
Here's a great slashdot password:
I mod my foes at plus 6 because I take great glee in seeing their reaction when my insightful post makes them look stupid
Immfap6bItggistrwmipmtls
It's strong and almost impossible to forget once you've typed it in 3 times.
Need a banking password?
Give me back my money you greedy bastards
Gmbmmygb
Perfect for those retarded online banks that restrict you to 8 characters in your passwords.
And of course, you need a password to log into that windows box you're forced to earn a living on...
Please oh please don't crash this time, is 10 productive minutes too much to ask?
Popdctti10pmtmta
Damn, even your mom can manage this stuff!
You can combine this with some mental self-help programming if you like, something like:
I'm a brilliant man and through hard work I will achieve my goals
IabmathwIwamg
When you're running through it in your head every single time windows crashes and you have to log back in, that's a LOT of repetition!
You read all sorts of bullshit 1984esque redefinitions of intelligence these days. It's been taking the teaching profession by storm. If someone is a jock that can't pass any of his classes, they don't say he's dumb, they say he "has a focus on physical intelligence" and they push him ahead because the harm to his social development which supposedly occurs when he's held back a year is deemed more significant than the harm to his education that occurs when they just keep shoving him into more advanced classes when he hasn't learned the basics.
:P
Because of this, you can't really have a meaningful debate about intelligence these days, because there is a concerted effort underway by the establishment (teachers, psychiatrists, etc) to destroy the word in an effort to be more politically correct and to avoid discouraging people.
Personally, I'd describe intelligence as "a measure of the number of different variables, concepts and ideas that a person can effectively operate on at any particular time in their attempts to draw meaningful relationships between them."
So, to use a metaphor, Einstein would be looking at the world around him with his eyes wide open, utilizing everything he sees in his quest for truth, while a dumb person would be looking around with one eye closed and a toilet paper tube held up to the other, narrowing his field of view.
When I look at modern research techniques and methodologies, they seem in a very real fashion to be architected to facilitate the ability of lesser minds to find answers despite their limitations.
To put it another way, where a genius would see everything, draw out the relationships and have a eureka moment, the teeming masses of rather average people popping out the other end of universities these days aren't capable of internalizing enough of the world at any one moment to achieve this, so they use a process to help them put together the little pieces.
Not going to find that in any dictionary though. Prob too complicated for all the non-genius' out there
Not the case. The Anandtech benchmarks a few days ago showed that the PPC970 has an extremely weak FPU compared to either Pentium-4 or Athlon 64/Opteron. It also has abysmal memory latency (more than double the Opteron) and it's integer performance isn't anything to write home about either.
You might want to read it again. The article didn't say anything of the sort. What it said was that between the poor design of OSX and the failings of the GCC compiler when it comes to optimization, the PPC isn't living up to its potential because the software is holding it back. Yeah, the Opteron runs circles around them where the memory subsystem is concerned, but the Opteron also kicks the shit out of all of Intels offerings in that regard as well, they've got the best on the market... which didn't stop Apple from going with Intel instead.
Generally true. But a little clever scripting with IFRAMEs and you can make your AJAX work in older browsers, so they're not totally useless.
OK, shithead, please show me _one_ USA law that says a corporation _must_ "take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit". You are talking out of your @ss. There are _no_ laws that force a publicly traded corp to do what you suggest. So get off your fairy-tale horse and stop beeing an @ss-hole.
...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders....
Here you go
Don't mind the hippy sounding url, the article was first published in the January/February 2002 issue of Business Ethics and written by a corporate securities lawyer with 23 years experience.
The relevant passage would be
In short, the law creates corporate purpose. That purpose is to operate in the interests of shareholders. In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:
Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.
You can also find some more general background on the subject here. Harverd Business School reputable enough for you?
Oh, and what you were referring to, the giving of money for hurricane relief, is called instrumental corporate social responsibility. It is permitted if the CEO is able to demonstrate that the philanthropy generates increased shareholder value, generally through there being more value generated by the resulting public goodwill than was lost by the expenditure.
Wow, don't you look stupid now. Who was the dumb asshole again?
It doesn't surprise me in the least that companies - which exist in a capitalist system for the sole purpose of taking money from people - are stomping all over people's rights for the purpose of fattening their wallets.
This sounds like some teeny-bopper or 20-something that has never had to live in the real world yet and raise a family. All corporations are not bad. In fact, most corps in the USA have nothing to do with the DMCA. I work for a fortune 500. The DMCA has _nothing_ to do with our line of business. However, idiots like the GP, just throw out their blanket statements and assume that all corps are like MS, RIAA or MPAA.
It doesn't take much to start a corporation. You just need to pay a small fee and you can have your own corp. Some of my fellow programmers work as independent contractors under their own corporation. I guess they are just as evil? The best thing you can do is just add idiots like the GP to your Foe list and mark them down -6 or something. Being a corporation is not bad. Many/most small businesses get a corporate license to protect their own personal finances from sue happy freaks. Being a corp is not bad, it is only _some_ of the big corps that are abusing Capitalism and the corporate title.
You're right. It's not all the corporations, just the publicly traded ones that are legally obligated to take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit without regards for how their actions affect others.
If you're a privatly held corporation, you don't have to pursue profit to the exclusion of all other motivations. Of course, you're still shielded from any personal liability should you choose to do so.
I do work for a big corporation and support my kid with the money I earn in doing so as well. Made my compromises just like you. But I can still recognize the effects of my decisions and the realities of our system, and understand that the GP is RIGHT in this regard. If you feel the need to pretend that you have no feet of clay and deny the existance of your compromises so you can live with your decisions, that's up to you, but making disparaging remarks about the GP like you've done only makes YOU look like an idiot.
Better stick me on your foe list quick there... wouldn't want to risk your precious illusions.
Asshole
Sorry, driving is NOT a right, it is priviledge which is doled out by the powers that be and therefore is not subject to due process.
The powers that be have no capacity to dole out privilege. They are limited to restricting activities and providing services. In their absence, I am lord and master of all I behold, able to walk, bike, ride horseback, drive, sail and fly anywhere I choose.
They do have the capacity to tell you that you don't have the right to do things. At the end of the day, all that means is that they'll send the guys with the guns your way if you don't listen to them.
What's the difference? When you're master of your domain co-operating with the rules out of enlightened self interest for long term mutual benefit, the ruler is your leader. On the other hand, when you're a good little citizen of the state asking for priviledges to things you otherwise have no right to, the ruler is your master.
You should be more careful about which propaganda you integrate into your thinking.
Transmeta isn't going out of business just yet.
Hope you're wrong. With this evil DRM conspiracy going on between Apple, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, RIAA and Hollywood... what company is more likely to fight for truth and justice than a bunch of comic book geeks?
These sound like just the right guys to be owning a chip making company!
None of which changes the fact that they spent a fucking fortune on R&D and it was largely wasted. They could have made more profit if they'd skipped the R&D expenditures and just made faster P3 aka PMs.
That they worked isn't the point. The point is that they didn't work as well as the architecture that preceded them, and neither did the Itaniums.
Is this concept really that hard to grasp? If you spend a lot of money and it's not a significant improvement over the architecture you already have, it's a failure.
Perhaps based on the fact that they abandoned it because it put out too much heat to be scalable and returned to their previous architecture? And perhaps because when they did so, their previous architecture beats the P4 hands down?
What are you talking about? Intel is SHIT at R&D. They sunk a ton of money into Itanium, and it was a flop. They sunk a ton of money into the P4 architecture, and it too was a flop. Yeah, they sold a lot of them, but they were shit. What's their best processor? The Pentium M, aka the P3 with modern fab and some marketing spin.
Yeah, they've got a lot of money to spend, but they just keep churning out crap. AMD has never had more than a fraction of Intels cash to spend, but they absoutely kick the shit out of them where effective R&D is concerned, and have for some years now.
Intel has 2 things going for them. They churn out the volume, and they have good marketing. Which is more than good enough to keep them in business, despite the fact that they come up with lemons every time they try something new.
That only works on a subset of people that aren't already watching what you are doing.
No, it doesn't. It works on everyone. You just notice and dislike it when it's conflicting with your higher-intellect functions telling you to be suspicious, like when you're dealing with salespeople. I bet it doesn't bother you when your doctor does it to you to set your mind at ease. They don't reserve bedside manner for those that they like, they use it on everyone.
Which primarly works on people with a rather low awareness of their own inner workings. And yes, that probably makes the potential "victims" the majority.
:D
You're kidding yourself. It doesn't matter worth a damn if you're aware of them or not, they still affect you. Everyone is subject to emotional responses. Most of the "I'm so smart" people who read slashdot will likely agree with you, and I'm sure you're going to be moderated up, because everyone likes to think that they're "above" such things when they're pointed out in such a bald-faced fashion as I have done, but the truth is they're not.
You paint a very ugly face upon the whole idea of inspiring trust in others with behavior because it furthers your point to depict yourself as having the moral high ground and attacking abhorant behavior, but these are not just the principles of a used car salesman or a con artist. These are the principles you use when you're a leader of men, or so said my father, who was such a one before he retired. They're the principles you learn when you're studying to be a shrink so you can help people with illnesses, or so says my brother, who's studying for med school now. They're the principles you learn when you're studying to be a teacher, or so said my ex, who was one. Or a coach for a sports team, which I've studied and done. Or a doctor, or nurse, or emergency response team member. They teach you these skills when you're studying higher levels of first aid, which I did. They're the skills you use when you're making new friends, or picking up girls, which I appear to be very good at, in contrast to the stereotypical slashdotter
They're called social skills. There are better uses to inspiring trust than just to betray it and get the fuck out of dodge.
I find it hard to decipher precisely what you're trying to say in your third paragraph. You appear to be suggesting that learning social skills causes you to suffer from self doubt and at the same time develop some sort of split personality disorder. Care to clarify?
How to inspire trust:
1) Smile. If you smile, they smile, they feel good, they like you, they trust people they like.
2) Eye contact. If you look them in the eyes when you speak to them, they feel that you're not hiding anything.
3) Mirroring. Talk like they do. The speed they do, the inflection they do, the lingo they do, a hint of their accent. It can be noticible if it doesn't come across forced. You're just like them. People like people just like them. If they like you, they trust you.
4) Agree with them. People think others that agree with them are smart and on their side. People trust others that are smart and on their side.
5) Take control. If you take control of the situation, you're an authority figure who has a plan. People respect and trust authority figures to look out for their best interests. Just like mom and dad.
6) Become familiar. Find excuses to enter their environment. All they need to do is see you a few times. In their minds, you cease to be a stranger without them even knowing a thing about you. People trust those that are part of their normal environment.
There are LOTS of ways to go about establishing trust in someone without proving yourself trustworthy and against their will. If you think otherwise, you're the one that's naive.
Wishful thinking. You're dealing with a group that thinks nothing of "renewing" their cable-TV operating system every month, of buying a new car every year or so, of purchasing "use-once-and-destroy" goods, of spending around $1,000 to ensure each of their children gets the best out of their "free" education. To say nothing of "low monthly payments" on the Home Shopping Network.
Don't forget the Swiffer. With environmental this and environmental that everywhere you look, and recycling programs everywhere, someone invents a replacement for nigh-infinitely reusable mop and broom involving a disposable diaper on the end of a stick, throws in some slick marketing, and people eat it up.
There is not a chance in hell that people will reject subscription operating systems. They are stupid sheep that take what they are given and break their backs so they can afford whatever crap they are told they want.
No, he was completely cleared of those allegations. A bunch of journalists got fired over their fabrications.
Just because that guy patents his device does not mean he will make shitloads of money with this (could still happen, but hasn't to. The world is full of poor inventors). OTOH he will likely not be able to manufacture it himself. Most manufacturers who look at this will want to have a more or less exclusive deal before they even will look closer at it. And this exclusivity can only be guaranteed by having a patent on it.
That is SUCH a load of crap. If an automaker approached one of their manufacturers and said "we've been approached by this guy, he's got a design we think is good and there are no IP encumberances involved. We want this thing in all our cars if you can do it at this price point, and we'll sign a contract for XXXX units if you'll make them for us. The inventor is prepared to act as a consultant to help you get it set up." and there was a dime of profit to be made after infrastructure investment and manufacturing costs, there would be a plant built, exclusive deal or no. Exclusive deals are only "necessary" when you're building the manufacturing plants without a guaranteed sale on the goods to safeguard against being undercut. If you've already got a contract with an automaker that leaves you in the black after your plant is set up and the contract fulfilled, that's all that's required.
Oh, and there's nothing knee-jerk about my response at all. The automakers think it's too expensive to make standard on every car, patent encumberance drives costs up and drives risk up for those who would build a plant, and exclusive manufacturing deals ALSO drive cost up further for the automakers. And it's ALL about "no one gets to use the idea unless i get paid" greed. If you ever manage to get this FACT integrated into your thinking, a whole lot of things that seem like knee-jerk responses to you now will become common-sense. Until that time, why don't you save your cutesy little +/-5 crap for someone else. The implication that I'm some sort of tofu-eating IP hippy with a sign and a slogan where his brain should be is not appreciated.
His kid gets injured driving drunk and gets brain damage. He works on a device that will alert a driver that they are drunk, possibly preventing needless injuries and deaths like what happened to his son. Then he patents it, driving the cost up. Then he makes noises about wanting it standard on all cars, and they make noises about it being too expensive... Hey asshole, if you want to make an invention and make have it standard everywhere because you think it will benefit humanity, try NOT patenting it and driving the cost up so no one gets to use it, you piece of shit. If anyone should be in a position to rise above their greed and just share an idea with society, it OUGHT to be this guy. This just makes me fucking sick.
Spoken like someone who's never lost their spouse at the mall. I'd much rather track her RFID panties down with my Dick Tracy watch than have her show up at our meeting place an hour late with a thousand dollars worth of clothes that make her look fat in any mirror besides the one in the store...
"Oh no, her heart rate spiked! I'd better get over there before she gets to the sales counter!"
Some of us smart people are capable of something called "disassociation". It's where we can and do argue either side of an argument because the whole argument is not about convincing other people, but to glean new ideas from the interplay.
Personally, I hate it when people get so damned attached to their ideas that they consider the questioning of their ideas to be a personal attack on them. I love it when people argue with me and attack my ideas. And when I'm wrong, I'll learn from it... but I'll still defend my ideas fiercely and attack yours because I don't like integrating an idea into my thinking until I've proven to myself that I can't tear it down.
Why do stupid people think the idea is more important than the debate?
You forgot
cartel - A group of companies or countries acting together to control the supply and price of certain goods or services. Cartels are formed to produce higher profits than would ordinarily be earned.
Source: Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms for Today's Investor by David L. Scott.
and
cartel - n : a consortium of independent organizations formed to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a product or service; "they set up the trust in the hope of gaining a monopoly" [syn: trust, corporate trust, combine]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
"Fuck off and die, IE" Haha, spoken like a true bitter OSS zealot
Or a web developer... or a network administrator... or an accountant... or a construction worker... or a dentist... or a single mom... or a student... or a man... or a woman... or a child... or...
Let's lose the emotive language. The movie industry isn't a monopoly, and nor is it a cartel.
What characteristics does it have that differentiate it from a cartel?
Apple, unlike Microsoft, had nothing to lose. What was their market share, non-existant? Microsoft has the world to lose.