The linkages between work being done and "getting paid" are not always so clear as you seem to think in your example. For example, the person who is supposed to clean the toilets at a local food chain. This isnt directly contributing to the product that is sold, but it is critical nonetheless, and it isnt a very fun job.
Your argument is without actual basis. Please provide me with an example organization that runs without any management.
I suppose in my world, managers must be leaders, so there is a disconnect between my world and the other posters (including you) responding to my message.
I currently run a startup. We have 12 employees. The employees are great people, but without me as a manager, they wouldnt work the same way.
I suppose you guys are talking about excess management. Regular, good management, is the same thing as leadership. Hence my examples concerning parents, judges, etc do apply when you use my definition.
Regardless, show me a fast food restaurant (shitty jobs with low paid workers) that would work without management who isnt a leader.:) Sorry, but it isnt going to happen.
Although I agree that in most companies, management + leadership should be in the same person (and in my world, they are), but regardless there are good examples where you need distinct positions where workers can not manage themselves.
"Management IS OVERHEAD. You can run a company profitably with only workers (it will most likely be inefficient, but it WILL run). If you only have management, you will not survive."
Wrong, And just plain silly. Without management no work gets done, becuase there is no incentive. If everyone was just going to get their paycheck, no matter what they did, then not many would work. You can not run a company without some form of management. Can you teach school without teachers? Can you have a courtroom without judge? Can you have a family without a parent? Management and Leadership have been existent in society since society has existed, and probably before (Alpha Male In Animal Packs, etc).
Good management has a necessary role in any company or organization. Management provides vision, linkages between department (IE figure out compromises between IT and Sales), and makes the organization possible. A lopsided organization either way is incredibly bad (Too Much Management, or Not Enough).
In the case of the topic at hand, management is still not overhead. BUt they are replaceable, and should be. Besides, all those who are at a company and who dont like or appreciate the management role, should just leave. Go start your own company, hire employees, and then you will begin to understand the role of management.
Actually, he is not incorrect, just not very precise.
He is referring to the fact that there have been no modern day skyscraper like buildings that have ever burned down from fire. Many have burned, sometimes for days, with no structural integrity problems resulting. They are all built to withstand the hottest of fires.
Obviously, airplanes flying through walls is special condition, but not for Building 7, which was fire only. The (conspiracy) theory is based on the fact that building 7 went down from fire, which I would argue is not a horrible basis for concern.
The reason for my comment concerning hamburgers was intended to be an example why limited liability is important, not a justification for only providing people the cost of the hamburger. The cost of damages is always much higher from negligence, but the investors should not be liable for everyday human error -- hence why limited liability is a good thing.
My part was not to argue that we should remove either, just to point out how bad it would be to create actual liability for investors in the situation of a "bad hamburger".
The corporate limited liability is the only thing that has prevented our society from spiraling into a litigous mass of nothingness. At least, until we change our tort laws so that the maximum payout is the maximum input.
So if you get sick from a hamburger, fine, you get your money back, but thats all, not 40 million dollars. Otherwise, corporate limited liability MUST stay.
I'm ok with responsibility and fairness, provided it goes BOTH ways. Otherwise, we might as well just shutdown any reasonably sized business, becuase they will just be sued into oblivion without limited liability.
Not to be snide, but in what sense is call records public? Maybe you could say public if they called from a public phone, or called a public place (government office, library, etc). But how is it public if I call my sister down the street. That should be NOT public.
Using your logic, any website should be able to sell the fact that I did business with them, when, for how much, and paid via whatever method. ISP's should be able to sell my browsing history, etc. Thats all complete BS, all of those should be private and confidential, and available only through court order.
Granted, I dont really believe in software patents.
But there is more litigation ALSO becuase there is more theft. Using your logic, its not OK for a small company to fight back against a bigger company, just becuase that bigger company put out a product first.
Thats not fair, and that ruins innovation too.
Small companies with patents have little recourse in the marketplace outside of lawsuits if a big player starts using their tech. It takes big money to compete with deep pocketed companies, and its just not possible without legal help.
I wasnt trying to be impolite, simply accurate. My apologies.
However, I still disagree with your premise.
And, as far as I can tell, so do the companies you speak about. Verizon is,and has been, and will continue to be, deploying the FIOS Fiber Network. It has announced plans to do this throughout the US. SBC (now AT&T) has decided to compete against verizon, and has been doing beta runs of the same thing.
Why wires and not wireless? Simple. The speed is worth the extra cost. That speed in fiber allows them to push other stuff beyond internet, like movies, tv, telephone, video telephone, etc etc.
These are things that wireless currently isnt capable of doing. Even 100mb wireless isnt capable of doing these things reliably. And cell carriers arent even close to having 100mb wireless deployed anywhere significant.
So again, why would someone want to try to provide all those additional (and profit-making) services over wireless, which is unstable and ill-suited. Certainly, Wireless has its advantages, but in the busienss world, it has very limited real profit potential. All INTERNET only type of services move towards commoditization -- like Dialup.
But hey -- Just remember this post in 5 years, and we find out who is right. Unless there is some badass improvement to the speed and stability of wireless, my bet is still on wires.
Your business logic is suprisingly poor and short-sighted. The reason that wires work from a business model is simply BECAUSE of the (expensive) cost. The reason that wireless WONT work as a business is simply BECAUSE of the (cheap) cost.
Wireless is too cheap to put in, but very expensive to maintain. So it becomes commoditized very quickly, and prevents profits. This is why large scale wifi has not occured. Wi-Max may fix that, but it remains to be seen.
Wires allow stability once implemented, and they are valuable becuase you can charge others to use them. Wires will always be faster, more reliable, and more versatile than wireless.
The only way wireless will become a nationwide deal is through the cell carriers improvements or maybe google's world domination. Everyone else will just go from DSL/Cable, to Fiber, and rightly so.
As much money as the music and film industry have, it doesnt hold a candle to the banking, financial services, legal services, and insurance businesses, all of which would be interested in the GP's DRM mention.
This does not guarantee that every US citizen can have comprehensive healthcare regardless of their means or employment.
There should be no comprehensive healthcare that is mandatory for US Citizens. That is silly. It should be comprehensive for minors, but after that, it should be a financial choice. Tax and Spend policies do not work. Hence why Britain and EU are starting to reform their healthcare policies. The problem with comprehensive healthcare for everyone is that those who can afford to pay still wont, and this dilutes the system. The free system should be for those who need it, not everyone. The regulation of insurance companies will make it easier and more possible for those non-minors who WANT insurance to have it. Heavy regulation on profits and spending, and no denial of coverage will allow everyone to have coverage -- IF they want it.
This does not resolve the problem of almost all the economic resources in the nation pooling at the top.
Yes, actually it does. But slowly. Very. It does not do it overnight. What it DOES do is re-introduce the concept of social mobility. See Below.
The rest of your post rests on the work ethic fallacy. Hard work is not a formula for success and it never has been.
You dilude yourself. Hard work has, until recently, always been the formula for success. Since cavemen. It is the more natural order. Perverse tax systems and incorrectly designed welfare systems have caused this to disappear.
More over, the US has more social and economic mobility than any european country. In both directions. It seems that you would prefer that instead of basing incentives on work ethic, that we base incentives on born-into conditions. This is wrong, and introduces many problems into society. Social and economic mobility is a good thing.
In referencing #3, There is nothing concrete in this point. It does not address the problem that my suggestion solves. Corporations will always play tricks with taxes. The only way to assure that corporations pay taxes is to have a minimum rate.
Actually, my solution introduces accountability and fairness among businesses of all sizes. Your solution simply punishes businesses for being businesses. This is absurd. It is not the small business that play the tax foolishness game, but rather the large ones. They are also the same companies that get the most tax breaks from cities and states. This should stop. Small businesses provide real economic growth, not large businesses.
Yes we got it. You fall in the top 20% who pay the lion share of the taxes. Unfortunately the lion share you pay is not in proportion to the income you have.
Incorrect. My income places me at the low end of middle class currently. But I am working to move beyond that. I work 80 hours a week. It is not easy.
In what world is it logical to punish someone for more work? The tax problems I speak of not only punish middle class who are nearing upper middle class, but also those in poverty who are nearly out of poverty. As soon as they cross a certain line in the sand, their tax rate jumps. So making $9999 (example purposes only) actually results in more REAL income than $10000, if the line is at 10000. This is stupid. If the rate is the same, those in poverty will always work to improve their situation, without fear of being trapped at a "tax wall".
Not the worst idea I have heard nor the best. I can not speak for other areas of school spending but I have seen numerous schools that have entire labs filled with overpowered pc that have LCD displays (in every case on a desk or table that would have accomadated a CRT equally well).
I'm not sure how this related to the overall discussion, but I have seen this as well. So what? Education has, and always will be, a local issue. Especially in the USA. But the federal grants allow those school corps that want to change, the opportunity. The three main problems with average inner city school systems is lack of funds, lack of qu
1 - No govt healthcare, but regulation of insurance companies. This is better. Competition, with limits. Executive pay limits, mandatory coverage for those who are working, etc.
2 - Tax everyone the same. Flat tax. Those who are at a reasonable poverty line will recieve their taxes back in the form of food coupons. Everyone is equal, everyone pays the same rate. This creates incentives for those with little money to work harder and gain more money. Its ludicrous to punish those who work harder by more taxes.
3 - Cut out subsidies, corporate tax breaks, state-driven corporate tax relief. Make corporations all pay the same tax rate. Allow reasonable deductions just as you would a citizen. Punish heavily those who commit tax or financial fraud.
4 - Promote small business loans, small business community incentives, and small business government assistance (not money, but help DEALING with the government regulations -- ie employment tax issues, healthcare issues, employer requirements, etc)
5 - Cut the defense budget, and put the rest into completely reforming schools through optional (but significant) federal incentives. So school townships that dont want to change, or that are working and have money, dont have to change, but those who are poor, change to work better. Hire teachers with real degress from real universities, and pay them free-market wages (you know, like, $60k for teaching, instead of 32k).
While you are at it, lets clean up a few more things...
1 - Campaign Finance Reform -- No Donations From Anyone. Equal government money to all candidates with a set number of signatures. This is all they get. Deal with it.
2 - Enact a constitutional amendment that prevents the federal governments from going into debt for longer than 12 months except in wartime.
(And if this case succeeds, you can kiss any open-sourc PVR software goodbye, you know)
Untrue. Just becuase we make it illegal here in the US doesnt mean that developers hosted in Sweden cant continue. And we all know that if it continues there, I will be able to download it here. Thats the whole beauty of the internet thing.
To me, it gets at the root that concepts of self and other are fairly arbitrary. It often makes more sense thinging about who I am in the context of family, work, and society.
Thats interesting. Seriously, becuase I really dont think about that. For me, it often makes more sense thinking about who I am in the context of my personal accomplishments and failures, dreams and aspirations, and all of my past experiences. Family and Society only come in loosely, but dont really affect how I think about myself.
Speaking with my japanese friends about topics like this, they seem to tend more towards you. Oh well.
I see what you are saying, but this type of stuff is a silly line to draw. And people only do it with microsoft.
Microsoft was trying to improve their operating system by including functionality into the OPERATING system by default. What people call bundling I call integration. This is a distinction made only be software people, and it is really only made by disgruntled software people (IE Netscape, AOL) and states looking for money.
So, in essence, its crap, but because MS was considered a monopoly (also crap) they have a special rulebook to play from.
Oh well, Perhaps I think this way becuase I own a company.
Put more simply... Marketing is marketing, regardless of who it is coming from. Everyone wants you on their side, provided you are a white male with money.
Although, in this case, I would tend to think that Sony buying their standards competitor, would mean that their Blu-Ray will win. Unless someone else wants to take up the HD DVD cause...
Regardless, I am inclined to bite, but only responding to a minor point. And I will cite sources, instead of conjecture.
P.S. That's the explanation why USA has such high crime rate.
Im fairly certain you are not from G.B., but I will use crime statistics from there just as a point of fact.
Please consult this article, from a few years back (outdated, I suppose, could be your argument, but I think it is still valid.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/post s Quote: "The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales."
Lets continue, shall we? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_percap You should check this site out. Certainly, the US is pretty high in Murders, but is that the only metric of crime? Try Burglaries/Robberies, and other statistics.
I'm not saying that the US has a low crime rate, but I am saying that your claim that we have the "worst" crime rate is a little simplistic and a lot incorrect. Good day.
Its ridiculous to assume any human being can be without bias. So the key here is FULL DISCLOSURE, not attempting to sound unbiased. Most European press have figured this out. They openly declare support for this candidate or that, so its pretty obvious who's side they are on. THey present the story in their fashion, and you know what you are getting. The opposite side presents in their fasion, and you know what you get. You get both sides, including the bias, and becuase you know who is biased in what way, you come out better.
We here in the US seem to believe that press MUST be fact only, and thats stupid. A better idea would be to expect, demand, require press organizations to disclose their ideas and beliefs, and we can proceed accordingly. Otherwise, places like Fox news present biased reports but claim to be "just reporting the facts".
Slashdot Mirror
Thats a very interesting world you live in. 20% of workers can manage themselves.
Do you think the local restaurant could implement this strategy?
Do you think government agencies could implement this strategy?
Again, please cite EXAMPLES of organizations that operate without management. I am very curious to see if you can find any. If not, why not?
B
The linkages between work being done and "getting paid" are not always so clear as you seem to think in your example. For example, the person who is supposed to clean the toilets at a local food chain. This isnt directly contributing to the product that is sold, but it is critical nonetheless, and it isnt a very fun job.
Your argument is without actual basis. Please provide me with an example organization that runs without any management.
I am eagerly awaiting your examples.
Thanks.
I suppose in my world, managers must be leaders, so there is a disconnect between my world and the other posters (including you) responding to my message.
:) Sorry, but it isnt going to happen.
I currently run a startup. We have 12 employees. The employees are great people, but without me as a manager, they wouldnt work the same way.
I suppose you guys are talking about excess management. Regular, good management, is the same thing as leadership. Hence my examples concerning parents, judges, etc do apply when you use my definition.
Regardless, show me a fast food restaurant (shitty jobs with low paid workers) that would work without management who isnt a leader.
Although I agree that in most companies, management + leadership should be in the same person (and in my world, they are), but regardless there are good examples where you need distinct positions where workers can not manage themselves.
"Management IS OVERHEAD. You can run a company profitably with only workers (it will most likely be inefficient, but it WILL run). If you only have management, you will not survive."
Wrong, And just plain silly. Without management no work gets done, becuase there is no incentive. If everyone was just going to get their paycheck, no matter what they did, then not many would work. You can not run a company without some form of management. Can you teach school without teachers? Can you have a courtroom without judge? Can you have a family without a parent? Management and Leadership have been existent in society since society has existed, and probably before (Alpha Male In Animal Packs, etc).
Good management has a necessary role in any company or organization. Management provides vision, linkages between department (IE figure out compromises between IT and Sales), and makes the organization possible. A lopsided organization either way is incredibly bad (Too Much Management, or Not Enough).
In the case of the topic at hand, management is still not overhead. BUt they are replaceable, and should be. Besides, all those who are at a company and who dont like or appreciate the management role, should just leave. Go start your own company, hire employees, and then you will begin to understand the role of management.
Actually, he is not incorrect, just not very precise. He is referring to the fact that there have been no modern day skyscraper like buildings that have ever burned down from fire. Many have burned, sometimes for days, with no structural integrity problems resulting. They are all built to withstand the hottest of fires. Obviously, airplanes flying through walls is special condition, but not for Building 7, which was fire only. The (conspiracy) theory is based on the fact that building 7 went down from fire, which I would argue is not a horrible basis for concern.
No, I think you and I are in agreement.
The reason for my comment concerning hamburgers was intended to be an example why limited liability is important, not a justification for only providing people the cost of the hamburger. The cost of damages is always much higher from negligence, but the investors should not be liable for everyday human error -- hence why limited liability is a good thing.
My part was not to argue that we should remove either, just to point out how bad it would be to create actual liability for investors in the situation of a "bad hamburger".
B
The corporate limited liability is the only thing that has prevented our society from spiraling into a litigous mass of nothingness. At least, until we change our tort laws so that the maximum payout is the maximum input.
So if you get sick from a hamburger, fine, you get your money back, but thats all, not 40 million dollars. Otherwise, corporate limited liability MUST stay.
I'm ok with responsibility and fairness, provided it goes BOTH ways. Otherwise, we might as well just shutdown any reasonably sized business, becuase they will just be sued into oblivion without limited liability.
Not to be snide, but in what sense is call records public? Maybe you could say public if they called from a public phone, or called a public place (government office, library, etc). But how is it public if I call my sister down the street. That should be NOT public.
Using your logic, any website should be able to sell the fact that I did business with them, when, for how much, and paid via whatever method. ISP's should be able to sell my browsing history, etc. Thats all complete BS, all of those should be private and confidential, and available only through court order.
B
Granted, I dont really believe in software patents.
But there is more litigation ALSO becuase there is more theft. Using your logic, its not OK for a small company to fight back against a bigger company, just becuase that bigger company put out a product first.
Thats not fair, and that ruins innovation too.
Small companies with patents have little recourse in the marketplace outside of lawsuits if a big player starts using their tech. It takes big money to compete with deep pocketed companies, and its just not possible without legal help.
I wasnt trying to be impolite, simply accurate. My apologies.
However, I still disagree with your premise.
And, as far as I can tell, so do the companies you speak about. Verizon is,and has been, and will continue to be, deploying the FIOS Fiber Network. It has announced plans to do this throughout the US. SBC (now AT&T) has decided to compete against verizon, and has been doing beta runs of the same thing.
Why wires and not wireless? Simple. The speed is worth the extra cost. That speed in fiber allows them to push other stuff beyond internet, like movies, tv, telephone, video telephone, etc etc.
These are things that wireless currently isnt capable of doing. Even 100mb wireless isnt capable of doing these things reliably. And cell carriers arent even close to having 100mb wireless deployed anywhere significant.
So again, why would someone want to try to provide all those additional (and profit-making) services over wireless, which is unstable and ill-suited. Certainly, Wireless has its advantages, but in the busienss world, it has very limited real profit potential. All INTERNET only type of services move towards commoditization -- like Dialup.
But hey -- Just remember this post in 5 years, and we find out who is right. Unless there is some badass improvement to the speed and stability of wireless, my bet is still on wires.
B
Your business logic is suprisingly poor and short-sighted. The reason that wires work from a business model is simply BECAUSE of the (expensive) cost. The reason that wireless WONT work as a business is simply BECAUSE of the (cheap) cost.
Wireless is too cheap to put in, but very expensive to maintain. So it becomes commoditized very quickly, and prevents profits. This is why large scale wifi has not occured. Wi-Max may fix that, but it remains to be seen.
Wires allow stability once implemented, and they are valuable becuase you can charge others to use them. Wires will always be faster, more reliable, and more versatile than wireless.
The only way wireless will become a nationwide deal is through the cell carriers improvements or maybe google's world domination. Everyone else will just go from DSL/Cable, to Fiber, and rightly so.
B
Pure Crap.
As much money as the music and film industry have, it doesnt hold a candle to the banking, financial services, legal services, and insurance businesses, all of which would be interested in the GP's DRM mention.
Nice try.
B
This does not guarantee that every US citizen can have comprehensive healthcare regardless of their means or employment.
There should be no comprehensive healthcare that is mandatory for US Citizens. That is silly. It should be comprehensive for minors, but after that, it should be a financial choice. Tax and Spend policies do not work. Hence why Britain and EU are starting to reform their healthcare policies. The problem with comprehensive healthcare for everyone is that those who can afford to pay still wont, and this dilutes the system. The free system should be for those who need it, not everyone. The regulation of insurance companies will make it easier and more possible for those non-minors who WANT insurance to have it. Heavy regulation on profits and spending, and no denial of coverage will allow everyone to have coverage -- IF they want it.
This does not resolve the problem of almost all the economic resources in the nation pooling at the top.
Yes, actually it does. But slowly. Very. It does not do it overnight. What it DOES do is re-introduce the concept of social mobility. See Below.
The rest of your post rests on the work ethic fallacy. Hard work is not a formula for success and it never has been.
You dilude yourself. Hard work has, until recently, always been the formula for success. Since cavemen. It is the more natural order. Perverse tax systems and incorrectly designed welfare systems have caused this to disappear.
More over, the US has more social and economic mobility than any european country. In both directions. It seems that you would prefer that instead of basing incentives on work ethic, that we base incentives on born-into conditions. This is wrong, and introduces many problems into society. Social and economic mobility is a good thing.
In referencing #3, There is nothing concrete in this point. It does not address the problem that my suggestion solves. Corporations will always play tricks with taxes. The only way to assure that corporations pay taxes is to have a minimum rate.
Actually, my solution introduces accountability and fairness among businesses of all sizes. Your solution simply punishes businesses for being businesses. This is absurd. It is not the small business that play the tax foolishness game, but rather the large ones. They are also the same companies that get the most tax breaks from cities and states. This should stop. Small businesses provide real economic growth, not large businesses.
Yes we got it. You fall in the top 20% who pay the lion share of the taxes. Unfortunately the lion share you pay is not in proportion to the income you have.
Incorrect. My income places me at the low end of middle class currently. But I am working to move beyond that. I work 80 hours a week. It is not easy.
In what world is it logical to punish someone for more work? The tax problems I speak of not only punish middle class who are nearing upper middle class, but also those in poverty who are nearly out of poverty. As soon as they cross a certain line in the sand, their tax rate jumps. So making $9999 (example purposes only) actually results in more REAL income than $10000, if the line is at 10000. This is stupid. If the rate is the same, those in poverty will always work to improve their situation, without fear of being trapped at a "tax wall".
Not the worst idea I have heard nor the best. I can not speak for other areas of school spending but I have seen numerous schools that have entire labs filled with overpowered pc that have LCD displays (in every case on a desk or table that would have accomadated a CRT equally well).
I'm not sure how this related to the overall discussion, but I have seen this as well. So what? Education has, and always will be, a local issue. Especially in the USA. But the federal grants allow those school corps that want to change, the opportunity. The three main problems with average inner city school systems is lack of funds, lack of qu
I have a better solution.
1 - No govt healthcare, but regulation of insurance companies. This is better. Competition, with limits. Executive pay limits, mandatory coverage for those who are working, etc.
2 - Tax everyone the same. Flat tax. Those who are at a reasonable poverty line will recieve their taxes back in the form of food coupons. Everyone is equal, everyone pays the same rate. This creates incentives for those with little money to work harder and gain more money. Its ludicrous to punish those who work harder by more taxes.
3 - Cut out subsidies, corporate tax breaks, state-driven corporate tax relief. Make corporations all pay the same tax rate. Allow reasonable deductions just as you would a citizen. Punish heavily those who commit tax or financial fraud.
4 - Promote small business loans, small business community incentives, and small business government assistance (not money, but help DEALING with the government regulations -- ie employment tax issues, healthcare issues, employer requirements, etc)
5 - Cut the defense budget, and put the rest into completely reforming schools through optional (but significant) federal incentives. So school townships that dont want to change, or that are working and have money, dont have to change, but those who are poor, change to work better. Hire teachers with real degress from real universities, and pay them free-market wages (you know, like, $60k for teaching, instead of 32k).
While you are at it, lets clean up a few more things...
1 - Campaign Finance Reform -- No Donations From Anyone. Equal government money to all candidates with a set number of signatures. This is all they get. Deal with it.
2 - Enact a constitutional amendment that prevents the federal governments from going into debt for longer than 12 months except in wartime.
Shit thats just a start.... Ive got more.
(And if this case succeeds, you can kiss any open-sourc PVR software goodbye, you know)
Untrue. Just becuase we make it illegal here in the US doesnt mean that developers hosted in Sweden cant continue. And we all know that if it continues there, I will be able to download it here. Thats the whole beauty of the internet thing.
B
To me, it gets at the root that concepts of self and other are fairly arbitrary. It often makes more sense thinging about who I am in the context of family, work, and society.
Thats interesting. Seriously, becuase I really dont think about that. For me, it often makes more sense thinking about who I am in the context of my personal accomplishments and failures, dreams and aspirations, and all of my past experiences. Family and Society only come in loosely, but dont really affect how I think about myself.
Speaking with my japanese friends about topics like this, they seem to tend more towards you. Oh well.
I see what you are saying, but this type of stuff is a silly line to draw. And people only do it with microsoft.
Microsoft was trying to improve their operating system by including functionality into the OPERATING system by default. What people call bundling I call integration. This is a distinction made only be software people, and it is really only made by disgruntled software people (IE Netscape, AOL) and states looking for money.
So, in essence, its crap, but because MS was considered a monopoly (also crap) they have a special rulebook to play from.
Oh well, Perhaps I think this way becuase I own a company.
B
Put more simply... Marketing is marketing, regardless of who it is coming from. Everyone wants you on their side, provided you are a white male with money.
The move may pave the way for reconciliation between the two next-generation optical disc formats, Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD.
I guess that means that Sony has learned since the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BetamaxBetamax Fiasco
Although, in this case, I would tend to think that Sony buying their standards competitor, would mean that their Blu-Ray will win. Unless someone else wants to take up the HD DVD cause...
What a delicious troll you are.
t s
p You should check this site out. Certainly, the US is pretty high in Murders, but is that the only metric of crime? Try Burglaries/Robberies, and other statistics.
Regardless, I am inclined to bite, but only responding to a minor point. And I will cite sources, instead of conjecture.
P.S. That's the explanation why USA has such high crime rate.
Im fairly certain you are not from G.B., but I will use crime statistics from there just as a point of fact.
Please consult this article, from a few years back (outdated, I suppose, could be your argument, but I think it is still valid.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/pos
Quote: "The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales."
Lets continue, shall we?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_perca
I'm not saying that the US has a low crime rate, but I am saying that your claim that we have the "worst" crime rate is a little simplistic and a lot incorrect. Good day.
correction http://www.mmaglobal.com/ Sorry
NOt only that, the statistics are WRONG.
4 billion text messages per month are sent in the US. This is according to the Mobile Messaging Alliance, a industry group of carriers. www.mma.com
Maybe they ment 700 Million per year for Virgin? Thats about right.
And it is indeed a myth, at least in Indianapolis metro. Unsure about rural areas, I dont live there...
I'm not sure why your post was modded troll. Your arguments are logical, your assumptions sound. Great job, moderators.
Your idea is why places like Fox News are so bad.
Its ridiculous to assume any human being can be without bias. So the key here is FULL DISCLOSURE, not attempting to sound unbiased. Most European press have figured this out. They openly declare support for this candidate or that, so its pretty obvious who's side they are on. THey present the story in their fashion, and you know what you are getting. The opposite side presents in their fasion, and you know what you get. You get both sides, including the bias, and becuase you know who is biased in what way, you come out better.
We here in the US seem to believe that press MUST be fact only, and thats stupid. A better idea would be to expect, demand, require press organizations to disclose their ideas and beliefs, and we can proceed accordingly. Otherwise, places like Fox news present biased reports but claim to be "just reporting the facts".