Dude! That was the best spot in the entire park system to get stuck at.
(I've been to WDW many times, my mom works there, and there probably isn't a ride on the park I haven't gotten stuck on for at least a few minutes. 2nd nicest is at the very top of Spaceship Earth)
Um, they were fairly law-abiding until they decided to overthrow IBM and DOS \ OS/2. Of course, at that point, they were only a small software shop best-known for putting out a really great Flight Simulator. (and a pretty good word processor)
That's what drives me batty about our current system. Ultimately, the Best Product pretty much cannot win. Whichever company has the slickest marketing and the most underhanded back-room tactics wins. And that's almost never the guy with the best product since he will assume he can win through market pressures.
While it certainly wasn't a perfect operating system, just imagine what the last decade of computing would've been like had OS/2 become the standard instead of Windows...
I think the primary point, however, is that if they continue behaving this way, the heavy hammer is eventually going to fall on them. All it would really take is an administration a bit less beholden to Corporate interests than the current one, and they're in a world of excrement.
Remember, Clinton was all for smacking them down. Then when Bush got into office, he told Ashcroft to let them off the hook. (well, presumably. The order technically just came from Ashcroft, but I can't imagine him doing that without Presidential OKing)
With it very possible Bush will be tossed out in a year - which means a more moderate Democratic president - they are behaving in an incredibly short-sighted and possibly self-destructive manner. Right NOW is precisely when they should be playing nice, to hedge their bets against a hostile administration coming to power next year.
Except that, as the article points out, they're unlikely to actually *lose* a fraction of the 1 bil, and will in fact likely recoup nearly all of it right back.
That's an excellent point. Does your court system allow for Amacus Briefs to be filed by anyone? It might be worth sending one in, pointing out this flaw in the plan.
I wouldn't've modded that "Funny." You're pretty much right. Most Americans live in little bubbles where they have no personal responsibility in their lives at all, there are no coincidental accidents, and whenever anything bad happens to them, it must be traced to someone else, usually richer than them, on whose shoulders the blame can be placed. And whenever they aren't suing someone when something goes wrong, they're willingly handing over their rights to the government.
I think this case is a perfect example of the mindset. (which, thankfully, was tossed out of court by the judge)
And yes, I AM an American, and this behavior just sickens me. It never seems to dawn on these people that they're making their own lives miserable through this behavior. Except they're ruining mine along with it.
You do know they just sent out notices to a whole bunch of people they saw sharing illegally, right? Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?
Yes. Absolutely. It is THEIR responsibility. Period.
Filing baseless lawsuits is very much illegal. That cases *continue* to crop up where they're suing people who have nothing to do with piracy pretty much proves A)that they are NOT fulfilling their legal obligations to investigate the cases before launching, and B)that apparently they don't really care.
There is a word for what they're doing, and it is "barratry." A barratry suit hasn't been brought in a long time, but they are quickly proving themselves to be a perfect target of one. The *first* time it was conclusively shown that they had targetted an innocent party, it became their legal responsibility to overhaul their method of detecting pirates. Which they, from all evidence, have not done.
They may be within their legal right to protect their copyrights, but they are *NOT* in their legal right to harass and\or blackmail innocent citizens with threats of legal action, because they cannot be bothered to actually investigate the lawsuits they're filing. And if they are unable to investigate their cases prior to suing, then too bad for them - the rights of the citizenry to not be blackmailed by overeager corporations outweighs the RIAA's right to a slightly higher profit margin. Period.
No, because that would imply that a major American company is taking a diametric turn from the growing trend to consider employees as completely interchangeable commodities.
Globalization is a big part of that. TWICE now, I've worked for a Tech company only to have it bought out by a foreign investor and subsequently raped and pillaged. Both times, I'd been there about 2 years, had just started really moving past the bottom rungs and looking like I could get into at least lower-middle-management, and then BAM. Buyout.
In the first case, they literally hung us out to dry. They took all our profits, and gave virtually nothing back. Within a year, of course, the center was forced to shut down. (we suspect that it was some sort of tax writeoff scheme, since you can get rebates on failed business ventures)
The second one did something similar. They, for one thing, took over half of our building and turned it into a warehouse. No shit. Then, with our capacity for work suddenly halved, we started losing money, and sure enough, everyone laid off and the center closed down. Then suddenly all operations got moved to Canada and India, who had been seeing support from Corporate all along.
IT's because the home PC market is hugely competitive and profit margins are generally tiny. Dell makes very little off home computers, while they can gouge corporations for loads of money in large doses.
Of course, this is just part of a disturbing larger trend where, increasingly, you simply don't matter if you aren't part of a corporate entity. Every sales\manufacturing company out there makes far more money off stocks and selling stuff to other coporations, so whenever it comes time to cut corners, it's the average Joes who get the shaft - yet even if all the Joes ganged up and boycotted the company, it would likely only represent a tiny dip in their profit margins.
Gotta agree with that... I worked for one of the outsourcers that Dell used. While I wasn't on the Dell project, one of my best friends was, and thus I spent a lot of time hanging around the Dell section and being completely horrified at what I was hearing.
I have no doubt that call center was a large part of the patented "Reformat\Reinstall" solution to hardware problems.
The really sad thing? It wasn't really Dell's fault. The people who ran that center doled out people to various contracts solely based on workload. So we'd have complete twits working on Dell, while legitimately experienced computer techs got stuck troubleshooting Internet services or worse. I think out of all the people working Dell in that center, a couple dozen or so were truly qualified to do full-system troubleshooting.
And just to add an interesting bit of trivia, a lot of people don't know she's the until-recently-estranged daughter of world-famous Indian musician Ravi Shankar.
(And if you don't know THAT name, he was the guy who introduced The Beatles to the sitar.)
Well, the byline made it clear it wasn't Berke. But still, point being, if you can't write the character, why try to write an interview? (especially since she also didn't exaggerate his personality in the other direction, to create an ironic effect either...)
Agreed. I can't stand the feel of XP and 2K. At this point I'm running - don't laugh too hard - an ME machine. But a very tweaked and customized ME. Have stripped out most of the Microsoft crap, using Litestep for the desktop, OpenOffice, WinAmp for media, etc. The core ME kernel is actually quite stable - it's all the other stuff on top of it that causes problems.
I would probably jump ship to a Linux-only box rather than migrate to XP. I can't stand it. It's like the McDonalds of computers.
I do remember the brand, actually, but you are right. It was just a generic 486 clone machine, no real "name" attached to it.
But then again, that's pretty much been the story since the inception of the PC. I mean, what was the first? "IBM PC." There was the "Junior" I suppose. (which I did own and, in fact, recall fondly) There aren't really any makes\models of PC ever that were that memorable.
Or was that "Opus" almost nothing like the one we know? And if the author can't write the character correctly, and put in things about Burke writing dialogue, why do the mock interview at all?
Hey, I loved my 486. I started with a/33 in something like '91 and effectively taught myself computers on it. By the time it finally died (in truly spectacular fashion) four or five years later, every piece of equipment in that thing (besides the mobo) had been upgraded at least once and it actually spent more time with the hood off than on. And I had it tweaked and customized out the wazoo. I had, for example, an intricate system of argument-driven batch files worked out that let me do virtually anything from anywhere on the computer, and I had its memory management down to a fine art. (I had something like 605k of low DOS memory free even with a CD-ROM and SB-16 (and later a Gravis Ultrasound))
I still wax fondly over that computer. I've gone through three since, and I've never had one that felt remotely as *mine* as that one had been. Windows 95+, I think, in bringing computers to the masses, really took away a lot of the ability to have intimate, detailed knowledge and control of every aspect of the computer. And I miss that.
One of these days I need to start really learning Linux...
Eh, Machiavelli was pulling half of it out of his arse. The problem with the Prince is that most of the policies are self-destructive in the long run. A leader who employs them will certainly be successful for awhile, but the longer he keeps using them, the more unstable everything becomes.
And the book is less universal as it was more focused on politics and technologies of the day. Nowadays, the "peasants" don't need to lead a revolutionary war to defeat the leaders - all they have to do is refuse to come to work. Plus it was written at a time that "democracy" was pretty much unheard of - things WERE solely about how to keep the peasants in line.
I mean, this is the book that says it's better for a leader to be feared than loved. A company whose leaders are feared - and by extension, hated - by the workers is probably going to be a flash in the pan. Even Wal-Mart has to put on pretenses of being nice to its employees to keep them from doing mass walkouts.
Re:Best Management Book ever written?
on
In Search of Stupidity
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You appear to be making the fundamental mistake of assuming that "common sense" is indeed common.
If the lessons in the book were that obvious, why would the RIAA be waging war on its own customer base? Or SCO emboiled in a series of ever-escalating court battles (rather similar to a seige) that will one way or another end in its destruction? Or (here's some flamebait) why did our government send troops halfway across the world without any sort of good plan on what to do after the battle was over?
Jesus's advice in the Bible seems pretty clear too - be nice to people and they'll usually be nice to you. Yet after 2,000 years we also haven't gotten that one down. (and Christians are often the WORST offenders...)
Slashdot Mirror
Just doin' my part. :-)
(I've been to WDW many times, my mom works there, and there probably isn't a ride on the park I haven't gotten stuck on for at least a few minutes. 2nd nicest is at the very top of Spaceship Earth)
And there go my cliche points for the day.
That's what drives me batty about our current system. Ultimately, the Best Product pretty much cannot win. Whichever company has the slickest marketing and the most underhanded back-room tactics wins. And that's almost never the guy with the best product since he will assume he can win through market pressures.
While it certainly wasn't a perfect operating system, just imagine what the last decade of computing would've been like had OS/2 become the standard instead of Windows...
Remember, Clinton was all for smacking them down. Then when Bush got into office, he told Ashcroft to let them off the hook. (well, presumably. The order technically just came from Ashcroft, but I can't imagine him doing that without Presidential OKing)
With it very possible Bush will be tossed out in a year - which means a more moderate Democratic president - they are behaving in an incredibly short-sighted and possibly self-destructive manner. Right NOW is precisely when they should be playing nice, to hedge their bets against a hostile administration coming to power next year.
Except that, as the article points out, they're unlikely to actually *lose* a fraction of the 1 bil, and will in fact likely recoup nearly all of it right back.
That's an excellent point. Does your court system allow for Amacus Briefs to be filed by anyone? It might be worth sending one in, pointing out this flaw in the plan.
I think this case is a perfect example of the mindset. (which, thankfully, was tossed out of court by the judge)
And yes, I AM an American, and this behavior just sickens me. It never seems to dawn on these people that they're making their own lives miserable through this behavior. Except they're ruining mine along with it.
Yes. Absolutely. It is THEIR responsibility. Period.
Filing baseless lawsuits is very much illegal. That cases *continue* to crop up where they're suing people who have nothing to do with piracy pretty much proves A)that they are NOT fulfilling their legal obligations to investigate the cases before launching, and B)that apparently they don't really care.
There is a word for what they're doing, and it is "barratry." A barratry suit hasn't been brought in a long time, but they are quickly proving themselves to be a perfect target of one. The *first* time it was conclusively shown that they had targetted an innocent party, it became their legal responsibility to overhaul their method of detecting pirates. Which they, from all evidence, have not done.
They may be within their legal right to protect their copyrights, but they are *NOT* in their legal right to harass and\or blackmail innocent citizens with threats of legal action, because they cannot be bothered to actually investigate the lawsuits they're filing. And if they are unable to investigate their cases prior to suing, then too bad for them - the rights of the citizenry to not be blackmailed by overeager corporations outweighs the RIAA's right to a slightly higher profit margin. Period.
Globalization is a big part of that. TWICE now, I've worked for a Tech company only to have it bought out by a foreign investor and subsequently raped and pillaged. Both times, I'd been there about 2 years, had just started really moving past the bottom rungs and looking like I could get into at least lower-middle-management, and then BAM. Buyout.
In the first case, they literally hung us out to dry. They took all our profits, and gave virtually nothing back. Within a year, of course, the center was forced to shut down. (we suspect that it was some sort of tax writeoff scheme, since you can get rebates on failed business ventures)
The second one did something similar. They, for one thing, took over half of our building and turned it into a warehouse. No shit. Then, with our capacity for work suddenly halved, we started losing money, and sure enough, everyone laid off and the center closed down. Then suddenly all operations got moved to Canada and India, who had been seeing support from Corporate all along.
Of course, this is just part of a disturbing larger trend where, increasingly, you simply don't matter if you aren't part of a corporate entity. Every sales\manufacturing company out there makes far more money off stocks and selling stuff to other coporations, so whenever it comes time to cut corners, it's the average Joes who get the shaft - yet even if all the Joes ganged up and boycotted the company, it would likely only represent a tiny dip in their profit margins.
I have no doubt that call center was a large part of the patented "Reformat\Reinstall" solution to hardware problems.
The really sad thing? It wasn't really Dell's fault. The people who ran that center doled out people to various contracts solely based on workload. So we'd have complete twits working on Dell, while legitimately experienced computer techs got stuck troubleshooting Internet services or worse. I think out of all the people working Dell in that center, a couple dozen or so were truly qualified to do full-system troubleshooting.
(And if you don't know THAT name, he was the guy who introduced The Beatles to the sitar.)
I love /. I post up a self-indulgent ramble of a memory lane trip about my favorite computer, and it gets modded up to 4... :-)
Well, the byline made it clear it wasn't Berke. But still, point being, if you can't write the character, why try to write an interview? (especially since she also didn't exaggerate his personality in the other direction, to create an ironic effect either...)
I would probably jump ship to a Linux-only box rather than migrate to XP. I can't stand it. It's like the McDonalds of computers.
But then again, that's pretty much been the story since the inception of the PC. I mean, what was the first? "IBM PC." There was the "Junior" I suppose. (which I did own and, in fact, recall fondly) There aren't really any makes\models of PC ever that were that memorable.
Or was that "Opus" almost nothing like the one we know? And if the author can't write the character correctly, and put in things about Burke writing dialogue, why do the mock interview at all?
I still wax fondly over that computer. I've gone through three since, and I've never had one that felt remotely as *mine* as that one had been. Windows 95+, I think, in bringing computers to the masses, really took away a lot of the ability to have intimate, detailed knowledge and control of every aspect of the computer. And I miss that.
One of these days I need to start really learning Linux...
Get an account before calling users "worthless" XOXOXO
Hee hee...
Do you always take illustrative examples as an excuse to go off on rants with no relevance to the topic at hand?
I suppose if they only read that line and ignored the rest of it...
And the book is less universal as it was more focused on politics and technologies of the day. Nowadays, the "peasants" don't need to lead a revolutionary war to defeat the leaders - all they have to do is refuse to come to work. Plus it was written at a time that "democracy" was pretty much unheard of - things WERE solely about how to keep the peasants in line.
I mean, this is the book that says it's better for a leader to be feared than loved. A company whose leaders are feared - and by extension, hated - by the workers is probably going to be a flash in the pan. Even Wal-Mart has to put on pretenses of being nice to its employees to keep them from doing mass walkouts.
If the lessons in the book were that obvious, why would the RIAA be waging war on its own customer base? Or SCO emboiled in a series of ever-escalating court battles (rather similar to a seige) that will one way or another end in its destruction? Or (here's some flamebait) why did our government send troops halfway across the world without any sort of good plan on what to do after the battle was over?
Jesus's advice in the Bible seems pretty clear too - be nice to people and they'll usually be nice to you. Yet after 2,000 years we also haven't gotten that one down. (and Christians are often the WORST offenders...)