Translation: Everyone who spoke up about any new ideas has been fired and replaced with a quiet, imaginationless drone. The rest of the work was outsourced.
Maximum revenue, minimum cost, almost totally riskless, and none of those edjicated types interrupting meetings with newfangled ideas.
Just the way corporate middle management likes it.
Want to know why business is so fucked? Apple rolls out a successful service to tens of millions of new customers, and Wall Street fucks their stock price for over six percent.
Guess they should lay off a few thousand people. That'll impress the suits, right? Hey, it's just an extra bonus discount for the smart money.
These are all good announcements because it means there will be more competition, lower prices and higher quality. The music will get better too as more bands start distributing electronically.
Oh, and Apple has now sold TEN million songs from iTunes.
But that's okay, you keep racking up those charges on your credit card, while the rest of us will continue our boycott of the RIAA until they begin distributing a good product for a fair price.
Like what? Free?
iTunes is proof that a fair price is possible. For $.99 people can get just about any song they want, and everyone gets paid. Everybody wins. It's a brilliant solution. Absolutely brilliant.
You have pulled that 30% number straight from the air.
It's an estimate. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of entire industries that would stop completely without copyrights. Millions of people would lose their jobs and careers. This is a fact.
Why discuss this at all? This isn't about licensing any more. It's about ignoring copyrights and trademarks completely in favor of "we want it for free."
So why not just repeal the copyright laws? Why not repeal trademarks too? If you really want it all for free, then just repeal the law.
Of course that won't happen, because the reality is that there won't be any "it" to have for free without copyrights.
Without copyright and trademark law, 30% of the economy evaporates instantly.
Anyway, what Apple needs to do now is lower their prices even further to bring them on par with the likes of the mass-market Dells. Otherwise, Apple may find itself a thing of the past.
As long as they keep building stuff like the G5, iPod and 17" Powerbook, there is no commodity manufacturer that can compete with Apple.
Apple builds a premium product and charges a premium price, and there is always room in any market for such a company, because they don't compete on price and volume.
music The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
The fact that Red Hat is getting rid of the in store boxes should be a good indicator for how often the boxed sets are purchased.
Well, that and the fact that retail store shelf distribution is obsolete and fantastically expensive.
Even so, I'd be willing to gamble that the vast majority of installed linux distros were downloaded for free.
It's possible. I'd be willing to believe that a significant number of them were purchased, however, especially when they are used in businesses.
I'm interested to see how well the online offerings work.
They seem to work fine for now, it's just that nobody is actually using it because they have concluded, incorrectly, that distributing something on the Internet automatically reduces its value to zero. The contrary is actually true: the fact that it is available on line increases its value.
However, once all music is digitally distributed, the convenience factor might be greatly diminished.
It's almost assuredly going make more and better music available to more people more often and less expensively.
No matter who you work for, you are your own boss. You are the only boss who will ever care about your career, your goals, your well-being or the well-being of your family.
This is one of the key reasons the workplace is such a shithole these days. It wasn't like this 40 and 50 years ago, when coworkers (including management) were part of the community just like neighbors.
It's not a coincidence that people were actually "employed" then, as opposed to "being paid for a while." It was not uncommon for people to work at the same company for decades.
After all, why would people bother to pay for CDs if they can get the -exact- equivalent for free?
Convenience: the exact reason people buy Linux distributions when they can download ISO images on-line. The same reason iTunes can sell a "free" mp3 for $.99
...and there have been dozens upon dozens of copyright-is-now-obsolete technologies in the past, each promising to make it impossible for copyright holders to make a cent, and each time, content (I hate that word) sales, distribution and quality have improved, usually dramatically.
As just one example, music has been available for free on the radio for decades, and yet people still buy music.
I almost feel dirty resorting to the cliche, but maybe having a boy/girfriend (or even normal friends) is too much to ask of most people around here.
Yes, of course. Someone says $52K isn't enough, therefore they don't have a boyfriend/girlfriend. Makes sense.
I have to work 12 hour days, so finding a girlfriend at this point would not only be difficult, but pointless because I wouldn't be able to spend any time with her.
I work 12 hour days because I, like thousands of others, got screwed out of my career a few years ago.
I shouldn't have to connect the dots, and I'm sick and tired of having to pay double price for the benefit of the doubt.
I could get a loaf of bread, some lunchmeat, a couple bags of chips, a block of cheese,
That's ($1.50 + $2.50 + $4 + $3) $11 right there.
Once again, I almost feel bad for you, but wherever you're living is most decidedly not typical.
Maybe not, but it's the reality. The problem is exacerbated by the impossibly bleak employment situation.
What's really tragic is that I'm among the more fortunate.
What difference does it make? Are you going to argue about the numbers because you know more about it even though you don't live there?
The numbers are accurate. The facts are accurate. It is impossible to support one person and pay all the necessary costs on $52,000 a year. If someone can subsist for a while, great, but that's not going to get them any closer to a home, a family, college funds for the kids, retirement, etc.
Note the advertising campaign: go ahead and fire your employees, because you don't need them.
Ask your IT department to explain what they do, but keep tapping your watch so you can be sure to publically remove every shred of their dignity and make them perform like a trained animal.
Only respond when they mention money, thereby reinforcing greed and pettiness as business virtues.
Look at people quizzically and with a slight element of fear when they get excited about anything, especially something they accomplished at work.
It is not necessary to understand. Just point and click and the money appears.
I'd say one of two things: either that's really unlikely (the insurance and savings alone would run to almost 20% of your gross income), or you're a financial genius.
I guess you define "lower-middle-class" differently then I (and the rest of the world) do.
This is getting repetitive:
Acceptable income is everything independently paid: housing, food, clothing, utilities, furniture, insurance (auto, health), transportation (payments, repairs, gas) and taxes, PLUS the ability to save at least 10% a year. You're looking at $70K minimum. $80K would be comfortable.
If you can do all that on $35K a year, then great. It cannot be done here. Period.
You didn't specifically say that, but it would have to be in that high range somewhere to even come close to supporting your original claim.
$35,000 to $23,000 is $1000 a month, which isn't enough to rent an apartment within 100 miles of a $52K job.
$200/day would wipe out my share of the rent in around 2-3 days, the monthly power+gas+phone+cable+vehicle fuel in another day, and whatever's left could be used for anything else.
Your share of the rent. Having roommates is an extraordinary arrangement. People should be able to afford housing without organizing a committee to pay for it.
i'm in a waterfront apartment for only $600/month+utilities and splitting that with someone, even.
Your expenses are not yet significant, and $600 a month around here wouldn't buy storage. I know what the expenses are, having paid them for 12 years. It costs $70 a month just to run a small refrigerator (brand new, energy saver and all that). A trip to the store for a half dozen items is $20 to $30, enough for perhaps two days.
One bedroom apartments are $1250. Two bedrooms: $1700. $2000 move-ins with 12 month leases are the rule, not the exception. And don't forget the sparkling credit. One smudge on that report and the door slams and they keep the $225 application fee.
Again, the fact is that $52,000 is almost, but not enough, to support one lower-middle-class person. This is not open to debate. The numbers just don't add up.
Acceptable income is everything independently paid: housing, food, clothing, utilities, furniture, insurance (auto, health), transportation (payments, repairs, gas) and taxes, PLUS the ability to save at least 10% a year. You're looking at $70K minimum. $80K would be comfortable.
However, here's the other fun part: about the time a person starts saving 10% a year, job go bye-bye and their credit rating, savings, rental history and career go straight into the shitpipe, and they get to start over in their mid-30s, probably making $52,000 and just not quite being able to keep that one bill a month from going 30 days overdue.
Because there ain't no reliable $80K jobs anymore.
Nope. After taxes, it's about $35,000. After housing, it's about $23,000 (and that's being really generous.) After food, it's $17,000. Car repairs, gas, insurance, it's $12,000. Utilities: $9,000. And so on.
As I said, it'll almost support one lower-middle-class person and a ten-year-old car with no savings.
Then they'll sign that first apartment lease right after filing their first REAL 1040 and realize that $200/day is almost, but not quite, enough to support one lower-middle-class person and one ten-year-old car with no savings.
Slashdot Mirror
Translation: Everyone who spoke up about any new ideas has been fired and replaced with a quiet, imaginationless drone. The rest of the work was outsourced.
Maximum revenue, minimum cost, almost totally riskless, and none of those edjicated types interrupting meetings with newfangled ideas.
Just the way corporate middle management likes it.
Want to know why business is so fucked? Apple rolls out a successful service to tens of millions of new customers, and Wall Street fucks their stock price for over six percent.
Guess they should lay off a few thousand people. That'll impress the suits, right? Hey, it's just an extra bonus discount for the smart money.
These are all good announcements because it means there will be more competition, lower prices and higher quality. The music will get better too as more bands start distributing electronically.
Oh, and Apple has now sold TEN million songs from iTunes.
But that's okay, you keep racking up those charges on your credit card, while the rest of us will continue our boycott of the RIAA until they begin distributing a good product for a fair price.
Like what? Free?
iTunes is proof that a fair price is possible. For $.99 people can get just about any song they want, and everyone gets paid. Everybody wins. It's a brilliant solution. Absolutely brilliant.
The HR blimp would call him "overqualified" and middle management would ignore him because his agency told him to "put his education last."
You have pulled that 30% number straight from the air.
It's an estimate. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of entire industries that would stop completely without copyrights. Millions of people would lose their jobs and careers. This is a fact.
Why discuss this at all? This isn't about licensing any more. It's about ignoring copyrights and trademarks completely in favor of "we want it for free."
So why not just repeal the copyright laws? Why not repeal trademarks too? If you really want it all for free, then just repeal the law.
Of course that won't happen, because the reality is that there won't be any "it" to have for free without copyrights.
Without copyright and trademark law, 30% of the economy evaporates instantly.
Anyway, what Apple needs to do now is lower their prices even further to bring them on par with the likes of the mass-market Dells. Otherwise, Apple may find itself a thing of the past.
As long as they keep building stuff like the G5, iPod and 17" Powerbook, there is no commodity manufacturer that can compete with Apple.
Apple builds a premium product and charges a premium price, and there is always room in any market for such a company, because they don't compete on price and volume.
music The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
Random sounds are not music.
Our technology is:
"Build a great product and sell it."
The fact that Red Hat is getting rid of the in store boxes should be a good indicator for how often the boxed sets are purchased.
Well, that and the fact that retail store shelf distribution is obsolete and fantastically expensive.
Even so, I'd be willing to gamble that the vast majority of installed linux distros were downloaded for free.
It's possible. I'd be willing to believe that a significant number of them were purchased, however, especially when they are used in businesses.
I'm interested to see how well the online offerings work.
They seem to work fine for now, it's just that nobody is actually using it because they have concluded, incorrectly, that distributing something on the Internet automatically reduces its value to zero. The contrary is actually true: the fact that it is available on line increases its value.
However, once all music is digitally distributed, the convenience factor might be greatly diminished.
It's almost assuredly going make more and better music available to more people more often and less expensively.
No matter who you work for, you are your own boss. You are the only boss who will ever care about your career, your goals, your well-being or the well-being of your family.
This is one of the key reasons the workplace is such a shithole these days. It wasn't like this 40 and 50 years ago, when coworkers (including management) were part of the community just like neighbors.
It's not a coincidence that people were actually "employed" then, as opposed to "being paid for a while." It was not uncommon for people to work at the same company for decades.
After all, why would people bother to pay for CDs if they can get the -exact- equivalent for free?
Convenience: the exact reason people buy Linux distributions when they can download ISO images on-line. The same reason iTunes can sell a "free" mp3 for $.99
...and there have been dozens upon dozens of copyright-is-now-obsolete technologies in the past, each promising to make it impossible for copyright holders to make a cent, and each time, content (I hate that word) sales, distribution and quality have improved, usually dramatically.
As just one example, music has been available for free on the radio for decades, and yet people still buy music.
I almost feel dirty resorting to the cliche, but maybe having a boy/girfriend (or even normal friends) is too much to ask of most people around here.
Yes, of course. Someone says $52K isn't enough, therefore they don't have a boyfriend/girlfriend. Makes sense.
I have to work 12 hour days, so finding a girlfriend at this point would not only be difficult, but pointless because I wouldn't be able to spend any time with her.
I work 12 hour days because I, like thousands of others, got screwed out of my career a few years ago.
I shouldn't have to connect the dots, and I'm sick and tired of having to pay double price for the benefit of the doubt.
I could get a loaf of bread, some lunchmeat, a couple bags of chips, a block of cheese,
That's ($1.50 + $2.50 + $4 + $3) $11 right there.
Once again, I almost feel bad for you, but wherever you're living is most decidedly not typical.
Maybe not, but it's the reality. The problem is exacerbated by the impossibly bleak employment situation.
What's really tragic is that I'm among the more fortunate.
What difference does it make? Are you going to argue about the numbers because you know more about it even though you don't live there?
The numbers are accurate. The facts are accurate. It is impossible to support one person and pay all the necessary costs on $52,000 a year. If someone can subsist for a while, great, but that's not going to get them any closer to a home, a family, college funds for the kids, retirement, etc.
If you have coke coming from faucet at home, how much would you pay for a bottle?
There's a whole aisle of water at the grocery store.
this is probably THE busienss model we've been biatching for. If this venture fails, lets try to make sure its not because of lack of demand.
hear hear
Note the advertising campaign: go ahead and fire your employees, because you don't need them.
Ask your IT department to explain what they do, but keep tapping your watch so you can be sure to publically remove every shred of their dignity and make them perform like a trained animal.
Only respond when they mention money, thereby reinforcing greed and pettiness as business virtues.
Look at people quizzically and with a slight element of fear when they get excited about anything, especially something they accomplished at work.
It is not necessary to understand. Just point and click and the money appears.
And, I have all that. On $35,000 a year.
I'd say one of two things: either that's really unlikely (the insurance and savings alone would run to almost 20% of your gross income), or you're a financial genius.
I guess you define "lower-middle-class" differently then I (and the rest of the world) do.
This is getting repetitive:
Acceptable income is everything independently paid: housing, food, clothing, utilities, furniture, insurance (auto, health), transportation (payments, repairs, gas) and taxes, PLUS the ability to save at least 10% a year. You're looking at $70K minimum. $80K would be comfortable.
If you can do all that on $35K a year, then great. It cannot be done here. Period.
You didn't specifically say that, but it would have to be in that high range somewhere to even come close to supporting your original claim.
$35,000 to $23,000 is $1000 a month, which isn't enough to rent an apartment within 100 miles of a $52K job.
$200/day would wipe out my share of the rent in around 2-3 days, the monthly power+gas+phone+cable+vehicle fuel in another day, and whatever's left could be used for anything else.
Your share of the rent. Having roommates is an extraordinary arrangement. People should be able to afford housing without organizing a committee to pay for it.
i'm in a waterfront apartment for only $600/month+utilities and splitting that with someone, even.
Your expenses are not yet significant, and $600 a month around here wouldn't buy storage. I know what the expenses are, having paid them for 12 years. It costs $70 a month just to run a small refrigerator (brand new, energy saver and all that). A trip to the store for a half dozen items is $20 to $30, enough for perhaps two days.
One bedroom apartments are $1250. Two bedrooms: $1700. $2000 move-ins with 12 month leases are the rule, not the exception. And don't forget the sparkling credit. One smudge on that report and the door slams and they keep the $225 application fee.
Again, the fact is that $52,000 is almost, but not enough, to support one lower-middle-class person. This is not open to debate. The numbers just don't add up.
Acceptable income is everything independently paid: housing, food, clothing, utilities, furniture, insurance (auto, health), transportation (payments, repairs, gas) and taxes, PLUS the ability to save at least 10% a year. You're looking at $70K minimum. $80K would be comfortable.
However, here's the other fun part: about the time a person starts saving 10% a year, job go bye-bye and their credit rating, savings, rental history and career go straight into the shitpipe, and they get to start over in their mid-30s, probably making $52,000 and just not quite being able to keep that one bill a month from going 30 days overdue.
Because there ain't no reliable $80K jobs anymore.
Where did I say $2000 a month rent?
$52,000 a year is moderate to low income. It is not enough to support a middle-class family without recurring money problems and no savings.
$52000 a year isn't a lot?
Nope. After taxes, it's about $35,000. After housing, it's about $23,000 (and that's being really generous.) After food, it's $17,000. Car repairs, gas, insurance, it's $12,000. Utilities: $9,000. And so on.
As I said, it'll almost support one lower-middle-class person and a ten-year-old car with no savings.
Then they'll sign that first apartment lease right after filing their first REAL 1040 and realize that $200/day is almost, but not quite, enough to support one lower-middle-class person and one ten-year-old car with no savings.