An article by The Guardian talking about how we should have some more big government? Well, what a surprise.
OK, the article mentions someone working 100+ hours in a week as a doctor (ironically, in the state run NHS). That's ludicrous and unsustainable. No-one should be working high-risk, safety conscious jobs for so long.
Your 35-40 hours thing is simplistic, though. It's completely down to the nature of the work. Coding is quite mentally exhausting, but attending client meetings is a breeze for me. When I was a PM, I could do much longer days, as the work was about supporting staff, dealing with clients. Much less intense, but my presence and availability helped my job. The cap on my time wasn't about how tired I was, but what else I wanted and needed to do.
I'll tell you why - because it acts as a disincentive to people wanting to set up in business.
That is bad for everyone - consumers have less choice of suppliers, and employees have less choice of employers.
You should check out some of the French regulations.
Mandatory 35 hour weeks. That is, even if you want the overtime to get that iPod Nano quicker and your boss is happy to give you the extra hours, you can't do it.
Unemployment regulations that mean that if you are made redundant, your employer has to find you put you in an available job in the company, even if it means training you, and regardless of your suitability.
You want to be a baker? You have to bake bread in a certain way, and pass tests. You can't just bake bread the way you feel like.
The biggest problem with the French regs is that we exist in a global market. Young entreprenuers who operate internationally are moving to London because they can get moving without the red tape of France.
Anyone reading this, there are contractors with other experiences.
I worked for HP for a few months as a contractor and was made to feel like part of the team from an early stage. I felt no us vs them at all, unlike some other places.
Not all Brits are like that. I have to pay into the National Heath Service (NHS), an organisation that exists far more for it's own good than to serve people. The whole tone is about the doctors and nurses, not the patients.
For my money, I get long waiting lists (someone I saw recently was waiting a year for a hearing test), arrogant doctors in hospitals with little or no manners who attempt to bully you into doing things their way, and some dreadful systems inefficiencies (hand written forms written into other hand written forms), people with no manners who when an appointment cannot be made, fail to notify people that this is the case.
Of course, if someone agreed to meet me at my company and didn't then turn up, I have an option - I can tell them to kiss goodbye any further work, and I can find another supplier. The NHS means that I have no choice, that if they fail, I'm still stuck with them. This does not improve customer service.
Millions of people in the UK opt for private health cover, even though they are in effect paying twice. Personally, I'd rather have my taxes back and choose my health provider, not have it chosen for me (look how good state run industry was in the USSR).
The old east is where the action is now. Countries like the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania.
People there remember what it was like, and are working hard, minimising the state and in 20 years now, people in the west will be scratching their heads at how they got so successful.
it's not such a far-fetched idea. Suggest it to Apple!
Here in the UK, people pay about £0-50 for a phone which is heavily subsidised to tie people in. They are also prepared to often pay £200+ for an iPod (almost no-one buys a full price phone because people just choose the alternative).
But, give people an iPod+phone, and they'll start comparing it not with another phone, but with an iPod.
How much would the extra electronics be to turn an iPod into a phone? My guess is not that much. If it could be done for £50 per unit, I think it could generate sales.
There's quite a few other places - Staples, John Lewis, games shops, and local computer guys.
It's a shame there isn't a really good franchise of computer stores/internet cafes out there. Somewhere that you know that whatever town you are in, you'll get at least a reasonable level of service.
I think that VoIP is a winner. I'm just very sceptical of people saying "Google will buy Skype".
Why does every guy from every financial paper assume that people will only opt to grow by mergers and acquisitions?
I've not used Skype, but Google Talk is great, and they've got 100 times the brand power of Skype.
Skype better hope that some M&A obsessed CEO buys them, because the big guys will crush them. If you would a bank, would you lend money to Skype with Google sitting on their shoulder?
Google don't need Skype, and over time, it will be dead.
I don't even really see the benefit of Skype out. A lot of my buddies are online anyway. For the odd person I know that works abroad and isn't at a PC, I can cope with just using a real phone.
Well, yes. Although if you didn't pay for all the NHS bureaucracy and overpriced (and then binned) computer systems through petrol, they'd only put it on income tax/VAT whatever.
It's a cute guilt/patrician trick, though. "We're taxing you to save the planet" (ignoring the fact that CO2 is not a local problem, and therefore, pointless being taxed except as an international issue).
I'm tired of posting this, but I'll do it again, just to make it clear...
That 40 billion dollars is owned by the shareholders. Shareholders expect a return, whether on capital growth, or returns as dividends.
If Microsoft stop performing well, the shares will drop in price, unless they make payouts to shareholders (who would think it's a good investment). Shareholders will start coveting that large stash of money and demanding a piece of it.
That 40 billion could disappear in a second, from out of the company into the pockets of shareholders.
It's not going to fly. Once people hear that Blu-Ray requires it, they'll say "why?", and no-one will have an answer to the effect that it's in the consumer's interest.
I really want the content industry to create something so unpleasant that consumers (beyond geeks) wake up to what's going on and it becomes an issue.
If I was working for a company that turned into a SCO, I'd get out. I'd get out fast.
Not just on a "this is embarrasing" basis, but that I'd want to make my choice to leave and find the right company and before I looked like a rat on the sinking ship.
I don't think it's about shaky evidence. What it's really about is that these groups don't want a jury trial.
Dealing with people based on the cold facts of the law is different to a jury. Jurors do not always interpret the letter of the law with regard to the evidence presented to them. They will sometimes challenge the law and acquit people guilty of a crime, which then reflects on their feelings about a law.
Of 12 random adults, how many are going to have children of their own or have at one time downloaded something from Napster (real Napster)? Most people just don't view it as a crime, certainly not like theft or violence. Many certainly wouldn't want to see a mother bankrupted/heavily fined for something as harmless as their child downloading a few songs.
The problem is that someone's called the bluff now. If they go to trial and get a jury that chooses not to convict, it won't set a precedent, but next time they threaten, people will say "bring it on" and not settle. If they back down, it will send a message that opting for trial is a good idea as they'll back down.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, when I see a company wasting money, it makes me glad, because I know that that makes my rates all the more competitive.
OK, the article mentions someone working 100+ hours in a week as a doctor (ironically, in the state run NHS). That's ludicrous and unsustainable. No-one should be working high-risk, safety conscious jobs for so long.
Your 35-40 hours thing is simplistic, though. It's completely down to the nature of the work. Coding is quite mentally exhausting, but attending client meetings is a breeze for me. When I was a PM, I could do much longer days, as the work was about supporting staff, dealing with clients. Much less intense, but my presence and availability helped my job. The cap on my time wasn't about how tired I was, but what else I wanted and needed to do.
That is bad for everyone - consumers have less choice of suppliers, and employees have less choice of employers.
You should check out some of the French regulations.
Mandatory 35 hour weeks. That is, even if you want the overtime to get that iPod Nano quicker and your boss is happy to give you the extra hours, you can't do it.
Unemployment regulations that mean that if you are made redundant, your employer has to find you put you in an available job in the company, even if it means training you, and regardless of your suitability.
You want to be a baker? You have to bake bread in a certain way, and pass tests. You can't just bake bread the way you feel like.
The biggest problem with the French regs is that we exist in a global market. Young entreprenuers who operate internationally are moving to London because they can get moving without the red tape of France.
I worked for HP for a few months as a contractor and was made to feel like part of the team from an early stage. I felt no us vs them at all, unlike some other places.
For my money, I get long waiting lists (someone I saw recently was waiting a year for a hearing test), arrogant doctors in hospitals with little or no manners who attempt to bully you into doing things their way, and some dreadful systems inefficiencies (hand written forms written into other hand written forms), people with no manners who when an appointment cannot be made, fail to notify people that this is the case.
Of course, if someone agreed to meet me at my company and didn't then turn up, I have an option - I can tell them to kiss goodbye any further work, and I can find another supplier. The NHS means that I have no choice, that if they fail, I'm still stuck with them. This does not improve customer service.
Millions of people in the UK opt for private health cover, even though they are in effect paying twice. Personally, I'd rather have my taxes back and choose my health provider, not have it chosen for me (look how good state run industry was in the USSR).
People there remember what it was like, and are working hard, minimising the state and in 20 years now, people in the west will be scratching their heads at how they got so successful.
Why do I want Skype? I can have Google Talk, and it uses my Gmail contacts. Simple.
A TV episode, featuring a leather jacketed cool guy from the 1950s, riding his motorbike over a tank containing a shark.
Do you own a toy shop? ;)
You can have occassionally good mergers, but this looks like a complete turkey. Where's the synergy?
Here in the UK, people pay about £0-50 for a phone which is heavily subsidised to tie people in. They are also prepared to often pay £200+ for an iPod (almost no-one buys a full price phone because people just choose the alternative).
But, give people an iPod+phone, and they'll start comparing it not with another phone, but with an iPod.
How much would the extra electronics be to turn an iPod into a phone? My guess is not that much. If it could be done for £50 per unit, I think it could generate sales.
It's a shame there isn't a really good franchise of computer stores/internet cafes out there. Somewhere that you know that whatever town you are in, you'll get at least a reasonable level of service.
Why does every guy from every financial paper assume that people will only opt to grow by mergers and acquisitions?
I've not used Skype, but Google Talk is great, and they've got 100 times the brand power of Skype.
Skype better hope that some M&A obsessed CEO buys them, because the big guys will crush them. If you would a bank, would you lend money to Skype with Google sitting on their shoulder?
I don't even really see the benefit of Skype out. A lot of my buddies are online anyway. For the odd person I know that works abroad and isn't at a PC, I can cope with just using a real phone.
I think we'll see a case about this - where someone caught downloading something didn't get dismissed, and someone else did.
The difference is that newspapers/TV report it now.
It's a cute guilt/patrician trick, though. "We're taxing you to save the planet" (ignoring the fact that CO2 is not a local problem, and therefore, pointless being taxed except as an international issue).
If you want to deal with the price of your driving, the solution is political, not scientific. Is it 75 or 80% of fuel cost which is duty?
Trust me, if someone can make hydrogen that costs 1p/litre from the refinery, you'll still end up paying 70p/litre at the pump.
That 40 billion dollars is owned by the shareholders. Shareholders expect a return, whether on capital growth, or returns as dividends.
If Microsoft stop performing well, the shares will drop in price, unless they make payouts to shareholders (who would think it's a good investment). Shareholders will start coveting that large stash of money and demanding a piece of it.
That 40 billion could disappear in a second, from out of the company into the pockets of shareholders.
I really want the content industry to create something so unpleasant that consumers (beyond geeks) wake up to what's going on and it becomes an issue.
Not just on a "this is embarrasing" basis, but that I'd want to make my choice to leave and find the right company and before I looked like a rat on the sinking ship.
Dealing with people based on the cold facts of the law is different to a jury. Jurors do not always interpret the letter of the law with regard to the evidence presented to them. They will sometimes challenge the law and acquit people guilty of a crime, which then reflects on their feelings about a law.
Of 12 random adults, how many are going to have children of their own or have at one time downloaded something from Napster (real Napster)? Most people just don't view it as a crime, certainly not like theft or violence. Many certainly wouldn't want to see a mother bankrupted/heavily fined for something as harmless as their child downloading a few songs.
The problem is that someone's called the bluff now. If they go to trial and get a jury that chooses not to convict, it won't set a precedent, but next time they threaten, people will say "bring it on" and not settle. If they back down, it will send a message that opting for trial is a good idea as they'll back down.
Think yourself lucky. At least you didn't watch the whole of Madagascar.
I think we'll need some more advances in speech recognition first.
Also, from what I recall, manuals give better mileage.
Then again, I think our roads are often quite different.