That's rather easy to explain. Businesses never really had ethics. They're out to make money, and these kinds of situations are simple risk vs. reward calculations. The activity brings in more money, and any laws to curtail corporate misbehavior have long since been rendered toothless. The only consideration is whether customers would leave en masse, but between the early termination fees and the fact that most costumers have some pathological fear of standing up for themselves when a corporation jerks them around, that's rather unlikely.
It largely depends on what you consider failure. WSJ cites that if you base success on breaking-even, 95% of start-ups fail, but if you base it on businesses failing so badly that investors are left with nothing at all, then it's closer to 30-40%.
Hard. Sometimes viciously. Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive. The business world is the same way. Take your kum-buy-yah bullshit and go sell it to someone else. I have work to do so my company can kick your company's ass and put them out of business.
Not all species, nay, not even all human cultures and periods of history follow this rule. If you look across the continuum of group sizes, that's not even true at all levels in even the most competitive society. It's rather unfortunate (and rather telling of how immature we as a culture are) that so many aspects of our lives are ruled by cutthroat competition, where 0.9 + 0.95 + 1 = ~1 rather than something closer to 2.85.
We've figured out that at the smaller sizes, cooperation is superior. After all, small teams of people get more done than a whole bunch of individuals who are each working towards their own ends, especially if you tell the individuals that they have to expend some of their effort to fend off attacks from others and attack in kind. We still struggle at the sizes involved at the corporate level, where some companies unify vision and goals rather than pit each department against one another.
When there's some external stimulus (usually some common threat), people figure out real quick that it's better to work together. Perhaps one day, we will evolve to the point where people don't need prodding to stop the bullshit and put their resources to work towards common ends, or at least not spend so much effort opposing one another.
That's precisely why it's a nice anecdote. Weeding and sweeping especially are shit jobs that people do because they have to. Finding a millionaire company owner who's still willing to get down-and-dirty is a good sign that he isn't full of himself. Buy the man a beer.
And what do you mean by "at your own expense"? Can't these kinds of skills be learned for free from any computer with an Internet connection?
That depends largely on what it is you need to learn. Most (all?) programming languages are free to learn, but many technical standards (e.g., ANSI, IEEE) are not.
If his claim was true, hundreds of people would know about it, and all of them would know they were breaking the law. Some of these people would be in government, but many of them would be in telecom companies, that would have no reason to cooperate, and plenty of reason not to (losing customers, end of career, prison time, etc.).
I thought we learned from the warrant-less wiretapping of US citizens that most government employees don't give a damn about infringing rights and breaking the law and that Congress will fall all over itself to pass new laws to shield telecoms. Not that I believe this guy's story... I simply feel compelled to point out that the only thing preventing large-scale surveillance and storage of communications is the technical capability to do so.
At my old job, we had a pretty revolutionary strategy for picking someone: We talked with them.
The beauty of hiring people based upon a program is that it's not the hiring manager's fault when the new hires are terrible. It's the computer's fault.
If strangers have the right to "see" me with their eyes as I walk the street and walk in to a store, is it so different if that "seeing" is recorded? Is that REALLY a violation of "privacy" when one is in a public place? I don't see a huge difference nor do I see it as a 'privacy' violation.
Now think what happens when a stranger decides to follow you around all day, every day.
The authors of the US Constitution were genius systems engineers who were far ahead of their time. From many comments I read almost daily, I suspect they remain far ahead of many in this "modern" age as well, including many if not most of the leaders of both political parties and our elected & unelected officials in the Federal Government.
But alas, they failed to check for security holes in the design. Political parties and lobbyists have done an end-run around most of the checks built into the system.
It just so happens this 1%er problem also happens to serve the general public's interest as well. I'm more than happy for Eric Schmidt to use his fame and resources to fight a fight which benefits me in at least a small part as well.
This. The submitter has made an assumption that there will be hundreds of thousands of users. There might not. The only sure thing is that if he spends all his time trying to build a platform capable of serving hundreds of thousands of users right out of the gate, the project will probably fail before a single user sees it.
Remember: not even Facebook, Twitter, or eBay started off with platforms capable of handling their current load. They all started with something quick and built things out as their respective user bases grew.
In addition, though, technological progress has been speeding up over time. A 20-year expiration for patents may have made sense in the late 1700s, but it hardly makes sense in most modern industries, and especially computer hardware/software.
The most 1:1 mapping I can think of to use for this would be to assign baton movements to gestures and define some output value to it. For example, you could play specific pitch tones in a pair of headphones for the blind singer whenever the baton moves, and each tone would indicate the beat and tempo to use.
The reaction to someone saying that we should do more thorough background/psychological checks on NASCAR drivers, however, would probably be accepted. Similar calls to shore up loopholes in background check laws for guns (like at gun shows) have been met with cries of oppression.
Why should it be any different legally if I order an item from a retailer across the state line and if I were to drive to the retailer and purchase it in person?
My state shouldn't be owed taxes in either scenario. It is only sane if the retailer's home state is the one collecting taxes for the sale.
If a law is written such that the purchaser's state/county/city gets the taxes, you can kiss most smaller online retailers goodbye, because the tax codes across every town in the US are far more complex than people realize.
Unfortunately, you're missing a third group: people who look to be offended so they can play a victim and get attention. Adria's in this last group.
The truly despicable part about this last group is that in the face of a true problem and real victims, this third group makes the problem worse for everyone. It detracts from the real victims' ability to stand up for their rights, reinforces the stereotypes held by the people causing the problem, and paints a larger group as aggressors because the group causing the problem happens to be a subset.
Luckily, while I'm a guy and risk being demonized, I'm saved by another geek stereotype of which I strongly adhere - I'm too anti-social to find myself in the position of making inappropriate jokes with anyone, and I care more about learning the technologies presented at conferences to be chatting during a talk even if I wasn't..
Slashdot Mirror
Why do big businesses lose their ethics?
That's rather easy to explain. Businesses never really had ethics. They're out to make money, and these kinds of situations are simple risk vs. reward calculations. The activity brings in more money, and any laws to curtail corporate misbehavior have long since been rendered toothless. The only consideration is whether customers would leave en masse, but between the early termination fees and the fact that most costumers have some pathological fear of standing up for themselves when a corporation jerks them around, that's rather unlikely.
It largely depends on what you consider failure. WSJ cites that if you base success on breaking-even, 95% of start-ups fail, but if you base it on businesses failing so badly that investors are left with nothing at all, then it's closer to 30-40%.
Why limit it to one? At premium prices, customers demand premium quality. US history books will have all four.
Hard. Sometimes viciously. Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive. The business world is the same way. Take your kum-buy-yah bullshit and go sell it to someone else. I have work to do so my company can kick your company's ass and put them out of business.
Not all species, nay, not even all human cultures and periods of history follow this rule. If you look across the continuum of group sizes, that's not even true at all levels in even the most competitive society. It's rather unfortunate (and rather telling of how immature we as a culture are) that so many aspects of our lives are ruled by cutthroat competition, where 0.9 + 0.95 + 1 = ~1 rather than something closer to 2.85.
We've figured out that at the smaller sizes, cooperation is superior. After all, small teams of people get more done than a whole bunch of individuals who are each working towards their own ends, especially if you tell the individuals that they have to expend some of their effort to fend off attacks from others and attack in kind. We still struggle at the sizes involved at the corporate level, where some companies unify vision and goals rather than pit each department against one another.
When there's some external stimulus (usually some common threat), people figure out real quick that it's better to work together. Perhaps one day, we will evolve to the point where people don't need prodding to stop the bullshit and put their resources to work towards common ends, or at least not spend so much effort opposing one another.
That's precisely why it's a nice anecdote. Weeding and sweeping especially are shit jobs that people do because they have to. Finding a millionaire company owner who's still willing to get down-and-dirty is a good sign that he isn't full of himself. Buy the man a beer.
Nearly all the really creepy ones are, too.
That only makes sense when you take it for granted that it is normal to have a large prison population. The US is #1 in terms of prisoners per capita.
No more needing to know how to do anything.
That is probably the most apt observation I have seen to explain why management is usually terrible.
And what do you mean by "at your own expense"? Can't these kinds of skills be learned for free from any computer with an Internet connection?
That depends largely on what it is you need to learn. Most (all?) programming languages are free to learn, but many technical standards (e.g., ANSI, IEEE) are not.
We are merely mice voting for black or white cats.
Because now they're worried the guns will inadvertently kill the people who fire them.
If his claim was true, hundreds of people would know about it, and all of them would know they were breaking the law. Some of these people would be in government, but many of them would be in telecom companies, that would have no reason to cooperate, and plenty of reason not to (losing customers, end of career, prison time, etc.).
I thought we learned from the warrant-less wiretapping of US citizens that most government employees don't give a damn about infringing rights and breaking the law and that Congress will fall all over itself to pass new laws to shield telecoms. Not that I believe this guy's story... I simply feel compelled to point out that the only thing preventing large-scale surveillance and storage of communications is the technical capability to do so.
At my old job, we had a pretty revolutionary strategy for picking someone: We talked with them.
The beauty of hiring people based upon a program is that it's not the hiring manager's fault when the new hires are terrible. It's the computer's fault.
If strangers have the right to "see" me with their eyes as I walk the street and walk in to a store, is it so different if that "seeing" is recorded? Is that REALLY a violation of "privacy" when one is in a public place? I don't see a huge difference nor do I see it as a 'privacy' violation.
Now think what happens when a stranger decides to follow you around all day, every day.
The authors of the US Constitution were genius systems engineers who were far ahead of their time. From many comments I read almost daily, I suspect they remain far ahead of many in this "modern" age as well, including many if not most of the leaders of both political parties and our elected & unelected officials in the Federal Government.
But alas, they failed to check for security holes in the design. Political parties and lobbyists have done an end-run around most of the checks built into the system.
It just so happens this 1%er problem also happens to serve the general public's interest as well. I'm more than happy for Eric Schmidt to use his fame and resources to fight a fight which benefits me in at least a small part as well.
This. The submitter has made an assumption that there will be hundreds of thousands of users. There might not. The only sure thing is that if he spends all his time trying to build a platform capable of serving hundreds of thousands of users right out of the gate, the project will probably fail before a single user sees it.
Remember: not even Facebook, Twitter, or eBay started off with platforms capable of handling their current load. They all started with something quick and built things out as their respective user bases grew.
In addition, though, technological progress has been speeding up over time. A 20-year expiration for patents may have made sense in the late 1700s, but it hardly makes sense in most modern industries, and especially computer hardware/software.
The most 1:1 mapping I can think of to use for this would be to assign baton movements to gestures and define some output value to it. For example, you could play specific pitch tones in a pair of headphones for the blind singer whenever the baton moves, and each tone would indicate the beat and tempo to use.
What was the point of seizing them at security?
Aside from the obvious security theater, they also sell the items.
Coal power disasters make for more interesting entertainment, anyways.
Besides, it's only truly a danger if they can start 3D printing video games.
The reaction to someone saying that we should do more thorough background/psychological checks on NASCAR drivers, however, would probably be accepted. Similar calls to shore up loopholes in background check laws for guns (like at gun shows) have been met with cries of oppression.
Why should it be any different legally if I order an item from a retailer across the state line and if I were to drive to the retailer and purchase it in person?
My state shouldn't be owed taxes in either scenario. It is only sane if the retailer's home state is the one collecting taxes for the sale.
If a law is written such that the purchaser's state/county/city gets the taxes, you can kiss most smaller online retailers goodbye, because the tax codes across every town in the US are far more complex than people realize.
Unfortunately, you're missing a third group: people who look to be offended so they can play a victim and get attention. Adria's in this last group.
The truly despicable part about this last group is that in the face of a true problem and real victims, this third group makes the problem worse for everyone. It detracts from the real victims' ability to stand up for their rights, reinforces the stereotypes held by the people causing the problem, and paints a larger group as aggressors because the group causing the problem happens to be a subset.
Luckily, while I'm a guy and risk being demonized, I'm saved by another geek stereotype of which I strongly adhere - I'm too anti-social to find myself in the position of making inappropriate jokes with anyone, and I care more about learning the technologies presented at conferences to be chatting during a talk even if I wasn't..