They think of japanese people as very polite, very happy/smiley. They do act that way a lot of the time. But underneath it I see something else.
I don't mean to say that japanese people are all fake. I just see the immense cultural pressures as affecting a lot of the population. It is a good guess at an explanation for things like the suicides and the general sexual perversion. Whether it's different from other cultures is always hard to say, but for me it does feel distinctly different.
Thanks jumpfroggy. You hit the nail on the head (it must have been a deteru kugi!) The Japanese are no politer than anyone else. If you ride the trains with them, you can find it downright rude (though it is only rude from an outsider's perspective). The Japanese language contains very few swear words. If you want to curse someone out, you raise your voice a little and just speak to them in less polite terms than they would feel entitled to. This of course only translates into normal politeness levels for us English speakers.
But underneath it I see something else.
The Japanese have a powerful cultural concept called Honne and Tatamae. Honne is what is actually felt and kept inside, and Tatamae is what you express outwardly. In my culture, this is called being Two-faced but in Japanese culture this exists to protect the Wa or harmony. This goes back to the group aspect. Direct questions are rude, disagreement is rude, my friend here used to teach English, and he said he could never get the Japanese to deate an issue because everyone would "agree" no matter what they really felt.
Now, my experience is basically Tokyo Biased. I have found in other areas, such as Osaka, and Kyuushuu, people tend to be far more direct.
The incident you described happened not that long ago. I am not sure of the details. I thought it was another student that was killed, but it may have been the parents. I also thought the student was the one who put head in front of the school.
I don't think the sexual perversion here is any greater than anywhere else, but it certainly is more mainstream and accepted.
How long were you in Japan and what part did you live in?
But then, at that point I'm going off into a rant
Hehehehe that makes me laugh for some reason. I think everyone who lives here has many a rant with his fellow gaijin over beers! It is different world here, but I enjoy it!
"I have to wonder, what is it about Japanese culture that produces these people in such high numbers?"
When you says these people I am going to assume you means suicides in general, and not just suicide clubs. First of all I want to say that 26 people in 2 months having died in suicide clubs, is likely FAR below the number that actually happened with clubs, and is definitely far below the number of actual suicides.
I take the train in Tokyo to work everyday often, probably once per week, a train that I am riding on is delyed due to a "jishin jikko" which basically means self death incidient. Suicide is common in Japan. As to what cultural aspects influence this, not being a cultural expert, I can only guess at several.
1) Historically suicide was a way to maintain, or regain your honour. Honour and spirit are very important in Japanese culture. It is more important to the older generation than the younger generation, however, the younger generation cannot help but having these ideals ingrained into their subconscious.
2) Group thinking. The Japanese are extremely group oriented. The group is more important than the individual. Being ostracized by your group, and being in a position where you have let your group down can be extremely painful. It can be painful in any culture, but in Japan it is something more. There is an expression in Japan that says "The nail that sticks out must be hammered down!" This means that everyone should be alike and that anyone who is different should be forced to comply or exiled. For people who have never been in a group, or have been exiled from a group, the idea of joining a group again, where you are understood if even for a short time, could be a big motivator to join a suicide club.
3) Pride. Japanese people are very proud and adverse to failure. There have been cases where people have starved to death rather than go onto any kind of government assitance. There are very clear cultural rules regarding what is proper or improper behaviour and people would rather literally die than break some of those rules and be shamed in front of their friends and family.
4) Gaman suru! Gama suru essentially means to endure. In Japan, it is expected for people to endure hardships. To silently put up with tough situations and keep going. This is seen in many aspects of life here, whether it is pain, tough business situations, or the loss of a loved one. When the pressures get too high, it is hard to be able to talk to people and often suicide is seen as the easiest, most honourable out.
5) School system. The school system here is incredibly competitive. The study ethic here is higher than anywhere else I have seen in the world, and the pressure to perform is incredible. Students often finish school and then go to a private school for more intense training in the evenings. Getting into a good university here is the hardest part, and it can determine your life. Pressure and failures at school are huge stresses on the students, and it is often easier to kill yourself, than to admit failure.
If you look at the reasons above, and combine them together, it paints a better picture. There are probably reasons I have missed but I think the picture I have drawn is essentially correct. I have been in Japan for 6 years now, and am getting married to a Japanese woman in April. When we have children, I won't want them to go through a typical school in Japan.
I totally understand your points, and they are valid, but I think that the difference is that you have to put thought into getting a safety deposit box, renting an apartment, etc. In the environment I manage, I can totaly see an executive thinking, "Hey, this is great. I can search from various computers!" and just clicking through the "standard" agreements without really thinking about what is going on.
Well what this does, is bypasses both our security measures, and our legal measures that our company has invested in over the years. Now, google can be served for our data, and it isn't our lawyers dealing with it. Also google can be hacked, and it isn't our security defending it. As someone stated earlier, all it takes is one employee making $10 or $20 per hour to get disgruntled and your data is out there.
From a personal privacy perspective, I have no issue with it. People can choose to use the service or not. From a business perspective, this scares me.
Even if you do have all of your systems locked down so the users cannot install software, if anyone is going to be an exception, it will be an executive, or an owner, who absolutely needs to have admin rights (read wants to install whatever catches their fancy) on their machine.
It just so happens that they also tend to have the most sensitive data.
I have not seen THX-1138, but what you say isn't surprising. We already have an educational system that is setup much the same way.
The problems are systemic. It is not just one problem, but many of them together. We live in a time of instant communications but a political environment that was setup to govern people essentially through one way communications. The government in no way really represents the will of the people it is designed to serve. Changing that could best happen from within, but people are generally to apathetic. I really like the model that Switzerland uses. Most major decisions are made through a referendum that all citizenry vote on. These referendum's happen all the time. I have never lived there, so I can't speak as to how it works practically, but I certainly like the theory. Big business would have to convince the people that this was best.
All in all, even with all of the problems, we certainly live in a time of comfort an luxury, especially compared to the rest of the world. I really like Japan because it is in many ways like living in the past in North American (I am from Canada). It is a totally different world here, but at the same time it is almost like the 50's. It is hard to explain, but essentially, it is pretty safe to walk the streets. You don't have to worry about everything you say being politically correct, there are no real frivolus lawsuits going on, no direct to consumer marketing of ethical drugs...things like that. Many other issues but all in all I like it here.
Anyhow, enough of my pre-coffee rambling. I have to get ready for work.
Totally appreciate the way you think. Everything you said is valid. So you mean it? Want to change the world? We could join forces.
I think we are in a new age, and still playing by the old age rules. Rules that are no longer necessary or valid. This is a transitional period, and an age that will have a large place in the history books of tomorrow. We will never live to see the results, but we are certainly in a position to affect change...just no one really wants to.
I have to say, I find your opinion repugnant. As someone who HAS the disease, and most likely WILL be dying of the disease, your belief that big pharma deserves to price their products out of the reach of the people who actually need them the most to 'make more than a pro golfer' shows a lack of understanding for the magnitude of the issue. People are DYING here. Millons of people ARE going to die.
First of all, I am sorry to that you are one of the people who has this terrible disease. There are many people dying from it and many other conditions. In a perfect world, these would all be curable and we wouldn't have these issues. I would like to restate a couple of things because I don't think you quite read it properly. First, I never said that they should price it out of reach. Second I said that who ever does find a cure should certainly be rewarded for that. I compared it to a pro golfer because I certainly believe that finding the cure for aids is of significantly higher value to society than knocking a ball into a hole, albeit very skillfully.
As for your comment about going out of pocket, my yearly drug costs are already $20,000 a year, largely paid by me, to these same pharma companies for drugs that have recouped all costs, many, many, many times over.
My point about going out of pocket was for people who don't have the disease, yet are hiding behind the argument that the Pharma companies should make their products available cheaply. I think that people who feel that strongly should put their money where there mouth is to help people like you who have these huge expenses.
Now, if it wasn't for the innovations in medicine, you wouldn't even have the option of medicine. You would likely already be dead. Harsh, yes. Reality, yes. Greed drives the business, true enough, but because of this greed there are products available that can help. Hopefully because of this greed, there will be products available that will cure this, or vaccinate against it. If the price is too high to get to the people who need it, then the product will not sell.
Are there problems in the industry. Certainly. I would love to see every product available to everyone who needs it. I would also love to be in a world where we all just get along and everybody is happy, but that is not the world we live in, and it won't be in our lifetimes. For now it is what we have. Kill the motivation, and you will kill the innovation. In my opionion the absolute worst part of Greed would be if companies intentionally did not find cures in order to keep people paying all the time for treaments. That would be inexcusable.
I hope that innovations move forward, and that everyone suffering from this disease are fortunate enough to have a cure available.
"You must not watch much TV. The growth in direct advertising to consumers of prescription drugs is phenomenal. I would be overjoyed if drug companies did focus all their marketing resources on doctors, but in recent years they simply don't. Drug companies increasingly are providing consumers with howto guides on what to tell their doctor in order to acquire the drug they want to sell. Marketing of psychiatric drugs are especially bad, especially when targeted at problem children. You have a problem child, we have the fix for you, put them on an expensive psychiatric drug regimen for the rest of their childhood, some of which were known to have safety issues when given to children."
You are right, I don't watch much TV, but the more critical factor here is that I work in Asia, where direct to consumer marketing of ethical drugs is forbidden. My mistake! I think direct to comsumer marketing is not in the best interest of the consumers, however, I also think the consumers are partly to blame as well. No one wants to take responsibility for their lives and everyone wants the quick fix.
I think a purely publically funded system wouldn't work unless it was done in conjunction with business as usual. Profits motivate. Being exessively greedy, in any industry, is not a good thing and leads to the valid points you have mentioned above. But having mix of private and public research is much stronger, from a discovery perspective, than either private or public alone.
And what "breakthroughs" would those be? Drugs to help old white men get it up and shameless patent extensions for existing drugs, is what. You're right that it's big business, and big business is about maximum profit. And nowhere is it written that maximum profits are achieved by actually doing your best to produce drugs that help people.
Ahh a cowardly troll, let see how well you dance.
I don't know what the next breakthroughs will be. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the next big ones will be related to Viruses, Genetics, and Cancer. More specifically...hmmm perhaps understanding how to use viruses to target specific gene sequences, and of course curing cancer. If, off course, big pharma can manage to give you a hard-on along the way, what's the harm? Of course a proper diet, exercise, and a calmer mind would help more than drugs...but who wants to be responsible these days?
You are right that Big Business is about maximum profit. It is the era we are in. Everyone is incredibly selfish, and unwilling to take responsibility. That is why we get a bunch of angry people blaming everything on everyone but themselves. This is reflected in the levels of greed apparant today in business. The maximize profit mode will shift back to a more customer, enviornment, people focused model with time, but changes like that do not come about over night. Google is Big business, and if they can keep on their track, and still be strong, they will be an example. Gates is also giving back which is nice to see. You can fight and kick and scream against the era in which you live and accomplish very little, or you can accept it, understand it, surf it and affect change. If you are really good, you can triumph over large parts of it an implement change. Or, if you prefer, you can sit back and enjoy the ride.
I won't disagree with that point. But that brings us to a whole separate set of issues.
Leave pharma aside for a moment. Generally in any industry, huge amounts are spent on marketing. Why is so much spent on marketing? Because marketing is effective? Why is marketing so effective? Because people generally don't think. We are hypnotized, sleeping, whatever you want to call it. Marketers know our inner drives better than most of us know ourselves.
Now, back to Pharma. Your typical marketing strategies won't work here. There are very very strict rules to play by. Much of a marketing budget is organizing events in order to get your message across to Dr's. Why this product is better etc. etc. You can have the greatest medicine in the world, and if you don't market it you won't get it out there. If you don't get it out there, your 1 in 10 chance of success is wasted.
I am not saying that it is all a bed of roses, but it is business, and it is how business works. People do not go into business to fail and go banrupt. Ethics are important, and everyone I have met in industry is very concerned with ethics. Ethics and profit, however, are not mutually exclusive. Pharma is a juicy target because it hits us all close to home, but concerning contributions to society, it is no worse a business than any other, and a hell of a lot better than most.
I won't say that greed doesn't play a part, of course it does, just the scale is different. Greed plays a part in all business, in Pharma, the stakes are higher. In a Non profit model, the executives of successful ventures will still earn millions. They have to, or else you will end up in a position where the talent stays in the most profitable sectors.
Now, it could be possible to find a balance of both, but it wouldn't be easy. Startup funding would also be a challenge. Who is going to put up millions of dollars, unless it is being managed by proven executives.
Challenges can be overcome, but this would take big bucks to get off the ground.
"Pharmaceuticals don't need patents to recoup their costs or even to rake in the cash hand over fist: Why Drug Companies Don't Need Patents"
I work in pharma. I only read the first article, but it was one of the weakest sets of arguments I have ever heard in my life. It sounds good on the surface, but it is based in neither logic nor sense.
1) The historical argument is baseless one. It argues that the countries with the least Patent protection were the ones that made the most innovations between the mid 1800's and 1980. What it implies is that if your country has no patent protection, then your companies product cannot either, and yopu are more productive. This is intentionally misleading, or just plain stupid. The biggest market in the world for Pharma is the US. No matter where your research is initially being done, you will bring your products to the US market to sell them. You do so knowing that in the world's biggest market (over 50% of the world market for Pharma if I am not mistaken) your products will be patent protected.
2) The second argument states that Patents Hinder drug research, and that many molecular entities are not being studied due to the liability of patent infringement or the fact that the owners of these products want unreasonable licensing fees. Out of all the arguments made here, this one is the most powerful but it is still slanted in ways that show the author's point of view as opposed to looking at it objectively. Patents do interfere here, but if a product is interesting enough and has enough potential, licensing deals are made and research moves forward. This is a commom practice. New pharmacologically active molecular entities are discovered all the time. Only a handful make it to market. Why? because the risks are high and most active entities will not pass the test. The focus is on the most positive entities, the ones with the chances of returning the greatest profits. Companies with weak or no research look to develop those entities with the most potential. Why should a company that has discovered them give them away?
3) This argument speaks about publically funded drug development. It is too circular and not focused enough to state concisely so I will try to summarize...err this is difficult.. basically public funding was 55% of the top 5 products in 1995---public funding = tax dollars = we as a society think that creating drugs is good = funding is spent on drug that pharma have no interest in = why patent protection = big bad pharma making profits = no benefit. Then it goes on to throw random facts without any frame of reference.
Hmmm that argument is designed to say absolutely nothing yet sound good. Our taxes for good of man kind! Big bad Pharma profits, patents bad! but there is no equation here. Here is the real deal. The development of drugs is important. A lot of research does occur in public institutions (Universities) and this is an important part the cycle. Universities are in no position to create, develop, manufacture, market and distribute ethical (prescription) drugs. They do research and creation. They also patent and license this research. When a public institution has discovered a new entity, you can be damn sure they haven't conducted clinical (in vivo or inside a person) trials on it. They has discovered something in vitro that has potential. They then patent the entity and license the technology to pharma companies that are interested in spending the millions of dollars to develop it. After lets say 6 or 7 years, if all goes well, the product will get to market where the Pharma company starts to recoupe some of its losses. Oh, and on average, only 1 out of 10 promising new entities actually make it to market. The institutions stand to profit from licensing deal, without the risk inherent in the rest of the process of bring a product to market. Research is what most universities are about. The big money get spent during the clinical trial (or development) phases.
4) Builds on three but doesn't get into the patent iss
I just hope the "owners" can put aside huge profits for once, and make the drug available for as near cost as practicable.
I feel the need to comment on this last part. You definitely put it politely, so please don't feel this whole rant is directed at you, but I get tired of people who slag the Pharmaceutical industry for making profits. The dollars involved in reasearch and development are huge! On average it takes 1.8 Billion USD to bring an NME (new molecular entity) to market. The successes fund the next breakthroughs, the failures really hurt. If a pharma company is ever at risk of developing a product that could be forced to be sold as "cheaply as possible" that will weigh heavily on their decision to research it. It is business.
What is better? 20 companies devoting billions of dollars to the creation of a cure in search of profits, or 2 devoting millions in search of altruism? I put my money on the 20 to come up with something faster. For those who feel like giving money away, whether they be companies, or individuals, they are more than welcome to do so when a cure has been discovered.
Anyone who wants to say "Those big bad pharma companies should make little to no profit on their discoveries." is welcome to do so, but my reply to that is,
"If you feel so strongly about it, do something yourself. Go out of pocket. Make a sacrifice. Take as much of your disposable income as possible and donate to an organization that will see to it that people get this cure."
Most people aren't willing to do that. Most people would rather complain about Pharma. Personally, I think if someone comes up with a cure for this, they should get filthy stinking rich from it, or at least, make more than a pro golfer!
Again, sorry, this wasn't meant to flame you, and as I said, your post was very polite about it, and certain parts of me agree with you, but I would rather see people pulling together and doing something than hiding behind the excuse that Big Pharma should save the world....and cheaply at that.
Microsoft expects to ship its "Amnesia(TM)" DRM technology by the next year. However, the first people who tested it complained that their enjoyment experience was erased too. Microsoft is currently working on a bugfix.
Given the state of decline in the quality of movies, I would have to say that's not a bug...its a feature!
It has gone from "The customer is always right" to "The corporation will tell us what is right, and if you disagree we will have laws created to enforce it! Or we will use an existing unrelated law to threaten you knowing that you cannot afford to defend yourself in our legal arena." Please don't get me wrong, I am not against government, corporations, or even lawyers (well....that last one might be a bit of a stretch;) ). What bothers me is that we are stuck in this system that in its best form is pretending to serve the people, but giving us no real choice. Sure I can choose to not fly on an American airline because they think my cigar clippers and lighter are a recipe for disaster. I can choose not to purchase Altiris software because of their affiliations with the SCO group. I can choose not to buy CD's because I think it is crazy that the RIAA is suing its customers.
I can choose this. I can choose this easily. But it feels futile. What does my one little drop in the hat amount to with these mega corporations.
Nothing, nada zilch. Not even noticeable. Perhaps when there are many people who feel strongly about issues they do notice the drop in sales, but perhaps they do not understand the reason.
I often read slash-dot comments where people say to stop complaining, and to speak with their wallets. We can choose to speak to the corporations directly by simply refusing to put our hard earned, over taxed incomes into coffers that are not representing our interests.
I hear this theme over and over again. So lets actually do it.
Lets create a site where consumers can come and discuss issues at hand. Can argue and debate in a free forum. Can hear a variety of opinions and see a variety of evidence. And then they can make decisions about where they want to spend their money. I want people to come and register. To start, participate in, and track boycotts of companies. I want people who are already boycotting companies to make this known. We don't all have to agree on every issue, but the people who do agree should feel free to join an existing boycott or to create a new one.
Lets create a site where the corporations can come and see just why their sales have dropped a large percentage during their 4th Quarter bonus deciding pre budget meeting preparations.
/rant
My web development skills don't go much past rant/rant (network/infrastructure guy)..but I have infrastructure. Fast internet, reliable servers.
So, if there is anyone out there that can work with me to develop this kind of site, lets stop just bitching and bump it up a notch.
If a bunch of pissed of geeks can't get this going, then no one can.
I just reread what I typed and want to preface the below with "When I say Japan, I really mean Tokyo and it surrounding areas."
I agree with most of what you have said except the last part about Japanese spending less on gadgets. I think percentage-of-dispoasable income wise they spend less, but in dollar value per person I am sure they spend more. Especially if you count mobile phones as gadgets. The basic fact is that here in Japan everyone has a much larger disposable income. If you are scraping by, you are earning $2000 US/month. For middle class salaried employees taking $3000 - $5000 per month is normal. I am not talking about expats here, I am talking about regular Japanese people.
Granted, Tokyo is a very expensive place to live. But when you have the higher income, it is much easier to say, well I am going to knuckle down this month and go without the evening's out, and any extra's, and by the end of the month it is easy to save a couple of thousand dollars to buy that fancy gadget you wanted.
On top of that, in Japan you get paid once per month, so what ever your take home is is deposited in one big chunk in your bank account. Every summer and winter, you get a bonus. This used to be around 2 extra months salary in the summer, and two extra months in the Winter, but the system is changing and a lot of people I know have been hit in the bonuses in the current economy (note, not in the salary, and I don't know anyone here who has been laid off...though I see small businesses going bankrupt regularly.)
The last factor is people here are not having many children. The costs of raising children in Japan are very high. A lot of people are either only having one, or not having any children. This will have the biggest impact on the economy here down the road, but it has made it easier for foreigners to enter and work in Japan.
So everyone who is having trouble with their jobs being outsourced, forget what the "experts" say about the economy and come give Japan a try. It has its annoying moments, but even fervent Slashdot readers get lucky here...and the gadgets rock!
Someone mod the parent up please. a Symbiotic relationship encompasses many different relationships including parasitism. It is the term used define a close ecological relationship between different species whether beneficial or not.
Seriously....this kind of insanity goes on here regularly. Now, if NTT wants to make it really take off, what they do is they make an imode version (Mobile phone internet version), and they have a small crystal ball that hangs off the phone as an accessory. Then you will continually have the annoying teenage (which in Japan is any girl under 30 despite what teenage means) crowd sniffing away like crazy on the trains.
The only main benefit I can see about it, is it will at least cover up the strange Oji-san smell.
Go NTT!!!!
Or...perhaps we can get a phermone version..............
you would have to watch through the whole fucking movie to get them.
Err I usually enjoy watching through the whole movie;)
Seriously though, sorry, I misunderstood.
It sounded in your orignal post that you were talking about going through the Chapter menu, not searching through the actual files to find the hidden ones.
Easter Eggs are a different story. Easter eggs are hidden and not normally accessible unless you do certain click patterns. The Matrix extras were not hidden.
Try putting the Star Wars DVD in a regular player and see if you can find this easter egg.
I don't know about everyone else, but when I order servers, a $359 dollar price tag for an Enterprise OS doesn't even enter into my mind!
Due to corporate policies, we are generally a Windows shop as far as the global infrastructure is concerned. If I want to setup a mail server with Windows, I am looking at purchasing Windows 2003 Enterprise version, Exchange 2003 Enterprise Version, Client access licenses for the servers, and possibly Terminal Server licenses as well. Figure the server hardware will cost around $10,000, and to get fully decked out with an Enterprise Level OS and Email system from MS will cost me around $5000. That is 50% the cost of the hardware. This doesn't even begin to address support costs.
I have switched from Dell in the server room to HP, so I am not sure what the Dell server prices are like in terms of dollars, but I do know they tend to be cheaper (at least in Asia). I recently compared a similar hardware Dell quote and an HP quote for a Korean associate and the Dell quote was 40% cheaper. So, if we say a Dell server is around $6000 and the enterprise level OS that runs on it is $359, we see that the software is priced at roughly 6% of the hardware. Even the $799 version is only 13% of the hardware price, and this is assuming the hardware is 40% cheaper than the Microsoft comparison.
Not exactly over priced in my opinion in. In fact 2 support calls to Microsoft cost this much. Once we get into the higher level offerings from Redhat then the ratio changes a little, but the point to remember here is that this includes support!
RHEL AS Server is $2499/year and includes
Web and phone based comprehensive support
24 x 7
1 hour response
Unlimited incidents
1 year Red Hat Network
1 hour response time costs! You have to have higher prices to even begin to offer this. For environments where you do not need 1 hour response (the best Dell offers is 4 hours -- in Japan;) ) time from your vendor, you do not need to pay for it. With the Microsoft offering, I am paying large sums of money without any support included.
I personally run Debian at home for my mail/web server (and Gentoo when I feel like getting frustrated) but if we were ever to switch to Linux in the server room, one of the biggest deciding factors would be the quality and availability of support. Red Hat's target is certainly not the geek home user who balks at a $359 price tag and doesn't require support. It is the Corporate Enterprise market where when the server is down and the company's business is impacted people are glad to have paid for support. In that market, their prices are excellent in my opinion. If they were charging peanuts, they would not be taken seriously by the people making the business decisions for a company. Businessmen tend to understand that you can't get something for nothing, especially service.
Slashdot Mirror
They think of japanese people as very polite, very happy/smiley. They do act that way a lot of the time. But underneath it I see something else.
I don't mean to say that japanese people are all fake. I just see the immense cultural pressures as affecting a lot of the population. It is a good guess at an explanation for things like the suicides and the general sexual perversion. Whether it's different from other cultures is always hard to say, but for me it does feel distinctly different.
Thanks jumpfroggy. You hit the nail on the head (it must have been a deteru kugi!) The Japanese are no politer than anyone else. If you ride the trains with them, you can find it downright rude (though it is only rude from an outsider's perspective). The Japanese language contains very few swear words. If you want to curse someone out, you raise your voice a little and just speak to them in less polite terms than they would feel entitled to. This of course only translates into normal politeness levels for us English speakers.
But underneath it I see something else.
The Japanese have a powerful cultural concept called Honne and Tatamae. Honne is what is actually felt and kept inside, and Tatamae is what you express outwardly. In my culture, this is called being Two-faced but in Japanese culture this exists to protect the Wa or harmony. This goes back to the group aspect. Direct questions are rude, disagreement is rude, my friend here used to teach English, and he said he could never get the Japanese to deate an issue because everyone would "agree" no matter what they really felt.
Now, my experience is basically Tokyo Biased. I have found in other areas, such as Osaka, and Kyuushuu, people tend to be far more direct.
The incident you described happened not that long ago. I am not sure of the details. I thought it was another student that was killed, but it may have been the parents. I also thought the student was the one who put head in front of the school.
I don't think the sexual perversion here is any greater than anywhere else, but it certainly is more mainstream and accepted.
How long were you in Japan and what part did you live in?
But then, at that point I'm going off into a rant
Hehehehe that makes me laugh for some reason. I think everyone who lives here has many a rant with his fellow gaijin over beers! It is different world here, but I enjoy it!
Cheers,
CB
"I have to wonder, what is it about Japanese culture that produces these people in such high numbers?"
When you says these people I am going to assume you means suicides in general, and not just suicide clubs. First of all I want to say that 26 people in 2 months having died in suicide clubs, is likely FAR below the number that actually happened with clubs, and is definitely far below the number of actual suicides.
I take the train in Tokyo to work everyday often, probably once per week, a train that I am riding on is delyed due to a "jishin jikko" which basically means self death incidient. Suicide is common in Japan. As to what cultural aspects influence this, not being a cultural expert, I can only guess at several.
1) Historically suicide was a way to maintain, or regain your honour. Honour and spirit are very important in Japanese culture. It is more important to the older generation than the younger generation, however, the younger generation cannot help but having these ideals ingrained into their subconscious.
2) Group thinking. The Japanese are extremely group oriented. The group is more important than the individual. Being ostracized by your group, and being in a position where you have let your group down can be extremely painful. It can be painful in any culture, but in Japan it is something more. There is an expression in Japan that says "The nail that sticks out must be hammered down!" This means that everyone should be alike and that anyone who is different should be forced to comply or exiled. For people who have never been in a group, or have been exiled from a group, the idea of joining a group again, where you are understood if even for a short time, could be a big motivator to join a suicide club.
3) Pride. Japanese people are very proud and adverse to failure. There have been cases where people have starved to death rather than go onto any kind of government assitance. There are very clear cultural rules regarding what is proper or improper behaviour and people would rather literally die than break some of those rules and be shamed in front of their friends and family.
4) Gaman suru! Gama suru essentially means to endure. In Japan, it is expected for people to endure hardships. To silently put up with tough situations and keep going. This is seen in many aspects of life here, whether it is pain, tough business situations, or the loss of a loved one. When the pressures get too high, it is hard to be able to talk to people and often suicide is seen as the easiest, most honourable out.
5) School system. The school system here is incredibly competitive. The study ethic here is higher than anywhere else I have seen in the world, and the pressure to perform is incredible. Students often finish school and then go to a private school for more intense training in the evenings. Getting into a good university here is the hardest part, and it can determine your life. Pressure and failures at school are huge stresses on the students, and it is often easier to kill yourself, than to admit failure.
If you look at the reasons above, and combine them together, it paints a better picture. There are probably reasons I have missed but I think the picture I have drawn is essentially correct. I have been in Japan for 6 years now, and am getting married to a Japanese woman in April. When we have children, I won't want them to go through a typical school in Japan.
Cheers,
CB
I totally understand your points, and they are valid, but I think that the difference is that you have to put thought into getting a safety deposit box, renting an apartment, etc. In the environment I manage, I can totaly see an executive thinking, "Hey, this is great. I can search from various computers!" and just clicking through the "standard" agreements without really thinking about what is going on.
Well what this does, is bypasses both our security measures, and our legal measures that our company has invested in over the years. Now, google can be served for our data, and it isn't our lawyers dealing with it. Also google can be hacked, and it isn't our security defending it. As someone stated earlier, all it takes is one employee making $10 or $20 per hour to get disgruntled and your data is out there.
From a personal privacy perspective, I have no issue with it. People can choose to use the service or not. From a business perspective, this scares me.
Exactly!
Even if you do have all of your systems locked down so the users cannot install software, if anyone is going to be an exception, it will be an executive, or an owner, who absolutely needs to have admin rights (read wants to install whatever catches their fancy) on their machine.
It just so happens that they also tend to have the most sensitive data.
CB
I have not seen THX-1138, but what you say isn't surprising. We already have an educational system that is setup much the same way.
The problems are systemic. It is not just one problem, but many of them together. We live in a time of instant communications but a political environment that was setup to govern people essentially through one way communications. The government in no way really represents the will of the people it is designed to serve. Changing that could best happen from within, but people are generally to apathetic. I really like the model that Switzerland uses. Most major decisions are made through a referendum that all citizenry vote on. These referendum's happen all the time. I have never lived there, so I can't speak as to how it works practically, but I certainly like the theory. Big business would have to convince the people that this was best.
All in all, even with all of the problems, we certainly live in a time of comfort an luxury, especially compared to the rest of the world. I really like Japan because it is in many ways like living in the past in North American (I am from Canada). It is a totally different world here, but at the same time it is almost like the 50's. It is hard to explain, but essentially, it is pretty safe to walk the streets. You don't have to worry about everything you say being politically correct, there are no real frivolus lawsuits going on, no direct to consumer marketing of ethical drugs...things like that. Many other issues but all in all I like it here.
Anyhow, enough of my pre-coffee rambling. I have to get ready for work.
Cheers,
CB
Totally appreciate the way you think. Everything you said is valid. So you mean it? Want to change the world? We could join forces.
I think we are in a new age, and still playing by the old age rules. Rules that are no longer necessary or valid. This is a transitional period, and an age that will have a large place in the history books of tomorrow. We will never live to see the results, but we are certainly in a position to affect change...just no one really wants to.
I am glib, but I am also serious...
Cheers,
SGCB
Seriously Glib CB
I have to say, I find your opinion repugnant. As someone who HAS the disease, and most likely WILL be dying of the disease, your belief that big pharma deserves to price their products out of the reach of the people who actually need them the most to 'make more than a pro golfer' shows a lack of understanding for the magnitude of the issue. People are DYING here. Millons of people ARE going to die.
First of all, I am sorry to that you are one of the people who has this terrible disease. There are many people dying from it and many other conditions. In a perfect world, these would all be curable and we wouldn't have these issues. I would like to restate a couple of things because I don't think you quite read it properly. First, I never said that they should price it out of reach. Second I said that who ever does find a cure should certainly be rewarded for that. I compared it to a pro golfer because I certainly believe that finding the cure for aids is of significantly higher value to society than knocking a ball into a hole, albeit very skillfully.
As for your comment about going out of pocket, my yearly drug costs are already $20,000 a year, largely paid by me, to these same pharma companies for drugs that have recouped all costs, many, many, many times over.
My point about going out of pocket was for people who don't have the disease, yet are hiding behind the argument that the Pharma companies should make their products available cheaply. I think that people who feel that strongly should put their money where there mouth is to help people like you who have these huge expenses.
Now, if it wasn't for the innovations in medicine, you wouldn't even have the option of medicine. You would likely already be dead. Harsh, yes. Reality, yes. Greed drives the business, true enough, but because of this greed there are products available that can help. Hopefully because of this greed, there will be products available that will cure this, or vaccinate against it. If the price is too high to get to the people who need it, then the product will not sell.
Are there problems in the industry. Certainly. I would love to see every product available to everyone who needs it. I would also love to be in a world where we all just get along and everybody is happy, but that is not the world we live in, and it won't be in our lifetimes. For now it is what we have. Kill the motivation, and you will kill the innovation. In my opionion the absolute worst part of Greed would be if companies intentionally did not find cures in order to keep people paying all the time for treaments.
That would be inexcusable.
I hope that innovations move forward, and that everyone suffering from this disease are fortunate enough to have a cure available.
"You must not watch much TV. The growth in direct advertising to consumers of prescription drugs is phenomenal. I would be overjoyed if drug companies did focus all their marketing resources on doctors, but in recent years they simply don't. Drug companies increasingly are providing consumers with howto guides on what to tell their doctor in order to acquire the drug they want to sell. Marketing of psychiatric drugs are especially bad, especially when targeted at problem children. You have a problem child, we have the fix for you, put them on an expensive psychiatric drug regimen for the rest of their childhood, some of which were known to have safety issues when given to children."
You are right, I don't watch much TV, but the more critical factor here is that I work in Asia, where direct to consumer marketing of ethical drugs is forbidden. My mistake! I think direct to comsumer marketing is not in the best interest of the consumers, however, I also think the consumers are partly to blame as well. No one wants to take responsibility for their lives and everyone wants the quick fix.
I think a purely publically funded system wouldn't work unless it was done in conjunction with business as usual. Profits motivate. Being exessively greedy, in any industry, is not a good thing and leads to the valid points you have mentioned above. But having mix of private and public research is much stronger, from a discovery perspective, than either private or public alone.
Cheers,
Steve
And what "breakthroughs" would those be? Drugs to help old white men get it up and shameless patent extensions for existing drugs, is what. You're right that it's big business, and big business is about maximum profit. And nowhere is it written that maximum profits are achieved by actually doing your best to produce drugs that help people.
Ahh a cowardly troll, let see how well you dance.
I don't know what the next breakthroughs will be. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the next big ones will be related to Viruses, Genetics, and Cancer. More specifically...hmmm perhaps understanding how to use viruses to target specific gene sequences, and of course curing cancer. If, off course, big pharma can manage to give you a hard-on along the way, what's the harm? Of course a proper diet, exercise, and a calmer mind would help more than drugs...but who wants to be responsible these days?
You are right that Big Business is about maximum profit. It is the era we are in. Everyone is incredibly selfish, and unwilling to take responsibility. That is why we get a bunch of angry people blaming everything on everyone but themselves. This is reflected in the levels of greed apparant today in business. The maximize profit mode will shift back to a more customer, enviornment, people focused model with time, but changes like that do not come about over night. Google is Big business, and if they can keep on their track, and still be strong, they will be an example. Gates is also giving back which is nice to see. You can fight and kick and scream against the era in which you live and accomplish very little, or you can accept it, understand it, surf it and affect change. If you are really good, you can triumph over large parts of it an implement change. Or, if you prefer, you can sit back and enjoy the ride.
CB
I won't disagree with that point. But that brings us to a whole separate set of issues.
Leave pharma aside for a moment. Generally in any industry, huge amounts are spent on marketing. Why is so much spent on marketing? Because marketing is effective? Why is marketing so effective? Because people generally don't think. We are hypnotized, sleeping, whatever you want to call it. Marketers know our inner drives better than most of us know ourselves.
Now, back to Pharma. Your typical marketing strategies won't work here. There are very very strict rules to play by. Much of a marketing budget is organizing events in order to get your message across to Dr's. Why this product is better etc. etc. You can have the greatest medicine in the world, and if you don't market it you won't get it out there. If you don't get it out there, your 1 in 10 chance of success is wasted.
I am not saying that it is all a bed of roses, but it is business, and it is how business works. People do not go into business to fail and go banrupt. Ethics are important, and everyone I have met in industry is very concerned with ethics. Ethics and profit, however, are not mutually exclusive. Pharma is a juicy target because it hits us all close to home, but concerning contributions to society, it is no worse a business than any other, and a hell of a lot better than most.
Cheers,
CB
I won't say that greed doesn't play a part, of course it does, just the scale is different. Greed plays a part in all business, in Pharma, the stakes are higher. In a Non profit model, the executives of successful ventures will still earn millions. They have to, or else you will end up in a position where the talent stays in the most profitable sectors.
Now, it could be possible to find a balance of both, but it wouldn't be easy. Startup funding would also be a challenge. Who is going to put up millions of dollars, unless it is being managed by proven executives.
Challenges can be overcome, but this would take big bucks to get off the ground.
CB
"Pharmaceuticals don't need patents to recoup their costs or even to rake in the cash hand over fist: Why Drug Companies Don't Need Patents"
I work in pharma. I only read the first article, but it was one of the weakest sets of arguments I have ever heard in my life. It sounds good on the surface, but it is based in neither logic nor sense.
1) The historical argument is baseless one. It argues that the countries with the least Patent protection were the ones that made the most innovations between the mid 1800's and 1980. What it implies is that if your country has no patent protection, then your companies product cannot either, and yopu are more productive. This is intentionally misleading, or just plain stupid. The biggest market in the world for Pharma is the US. No matter where your research is initially being done, you will bring your products to the US market to sell them. You do so knowing that in the world's biggest market (over 50% of the world market for Pharma if I am not mistaken) your products will be patent protected.
2) The second argument states that Patents Hinder drug research, and that many molecular entities are not being studied due to the liability of patent infringement or the fact that the owners of these products want unreasonable licensing fees. Out of all the arguments made here, this one is the most powerful but it is still slanted in ways that show the author's point of view as opposed to looking at it objectively. Patents do interfere here, but if a product is interesting enough and has enough potential, licensing deals are made and research moves forward. This is a commom practice. New pharmacologically active molecular entities are discovered all the time. Only a handful make it to market. Why? because the risks are high and most active entities will not pass the test. The focus is on the most positive entities, the ones with the chances of returning the greatest profits. Companies with weak or no research look to develop those entities with the most potential. Why should a company that has discovered them give them away?
3) This argument speaks about publically funded drug development. It is too circular and not focused enough to state concisely so I will try to summarize...err this is difficult.. basically public funding was 55% of the top 5 products in 1995---public funding = tax dollars = we as a society think that creating drugs is good = funding is spent on drug that pharma have no interest in = why patent protection = big bad pharma making profits = no benefit. Then it goes on to throw random facts without any frame of reference.
Hmmm that argument is designed to say absolutely nothing yet sound good. Our taxes for good of man kind! Big bad Pharma profits, patents bad! but there is no equation here. Here is the real deal. The development of drugs is important. A lot of research does occur in public institutions (Universities) and this is an important part the cycle. Universities are in no position to create, develop, manufacture, market and distribute ethical (prescription) drugs. They do research and creation. They also patent and license this research. When a public institution has discovered a new entity, you can be damn sure they haven't conducted clinical (in vivo or inside a person) trials on it. They has discovered something in vitro that has potential. They then patent the entity and license the technology to pharma companies that are interested in spending the millions of dollars to develop it. After lets say 6 or 7 years, if all goes well, the product will get to market where the Pharma company starts to recoupe some of its losses. Oh, and on average, only 1 out of 10 promising new entities actually make it to market. The institutions stand to profit from licensing deal, without the risk inherent in the rest of the process of bring a product to market. Research is what most universities are about. The big money get spent during the clinical trial (or development) phases.
4) Builds on three but doesn't get into the patent iss
I just hope the "owners" can put aside huge profits for once, and make the drug available for as near cost as practicable.
I feel the need to comment on this last part. You definitely put it politely, so please don't feel this whole rant is directed at you, but I get tired of people who slag the Pharmaceutical industry for making profits. The dollars involved in reasearch and development are huge! On average it takes 1.8 Billion USD to bring an NME (new molecular entity) to market. The successes fund the next breakthroughs, the failures really hurt. If a pharma company is ever at risk of developing a product that could be forced to be sold as "cheaply as possible" that will weigh heavily on their decision to research it. It is business.
What is better? 20 companies devoting billions of dollars to the creation of a cure in search of profits, or 2 devoting millions in search of altruism? I put my money on the 20 to come up with something faster. For those who feel like giving money away, whether they be companies, or individuals, they are more than welcome to do so when a cure has been discovered.
Anyone who wants to say "Those big bad pharma companies should make little to no profit on their discoveries." is welcome to do so, but my reply to that is,
"If you feel so strongly about it, do something yourself. Go out of pocket. Make a sacrifice. Take as much of your disposable income as possible and donate to an organization that will see to it that people get this cure."
Most people aren't willing to do that. Most people would rather complain about Pharma. Personally, I think if someone comes up with a cure for this, they should get filthy stinking rich from it, or at least, make more than a pro golfer!
Again, sorry, this wasn't meant to flame you, and as I said, your post was very polite about it, and certain parts of me agree with you, but I would rather see people pulling together and doing something than hiding behind the excuse that Big Pharma should save the world....and cheaply at that.
Given the state of decline in the quality of movies, I would have to say that's not a bug...its a feature!
rant
It has gone from "The customer is always right" to "The corporation will tell us what is right, and if you disagree we will have laws created to enforce it! Or we will use an existing unrelated law to threaten you knowing that you cannot afford to defend yourself in our legal arena." Please don't get me wrong, I am not against government, corporations, or even lawyers (well....that last one might be a bit of a stretch ;) ). What bothers me is that we are stuck in this system that in its best form is pretending to serve the people, but giving us no real choice. Sure I can choose to not fly on an American airline because they think my cigar clippers and lighter are a recipe for disaster. I can choose not to purchase Altiris software because of their affiliations with the SCO group. I can choose not to buy CD's because I think it is crazy that the RIAA is suing its customers.
I can choose this. I can choose this easily. But it feels futile. What does my one little drop in the hat amount to with these mega corporations.
Nothing, nada zilch. Not even noticeable. Perhaps when there are many people who feel strongly about issues they do notice the drop in sales, but perhaps they do not understand the reason.
I often read slash-dot comments where people say to stop complaining, and to speak with their wallets. We can choose to speak to the corporations directly by simply refusing to put our hard earned, over taxed incomes into coffers that are not representing our interests.
I hear this theme over and over again. So lets actually do it.
Lets create a site where consumers can come and discuss issues at hand. Can argue and debate in a free forum. Can hear a variety of opinions and see a variety of evidence. And then they can make decisions about where they want to spend their money. I want people to come and register. To start, participate in, and track boycotts of companies. I want people who are already boycotting companies to make this known. We don't all have to agree on every issue, but the people who do agree should feel free to join an existing boycott or to create a new one.
Lets create a site where the corporations can come and see just why their sales have dropped a large percentage during their 4th Quarter bonus deciding pre budget meeting preparations.
My web development skills don't go much past rant/rant (network/infrastructure guy)..but I have infrastructure. Fast internet, reliable servers. So, if there is anyone out there that can work with me to develop this kind of site, lets stop just bitching and bump it up a notch.
If a bunch of pissed of geeks can't get this going, then no one can.
Cheers,
CB
Well at least someone is effectively marketing for Apple!
I think the words are transposed. I think is is supposed to be "It Works...just"
I agree with most of what you have said except the last part about Japanese spending less on gadgets. I think percentage-of-dispoasable income wise they spend less, but in dollar value per person I am sure they spend more. Especially if you count mobile phones as gadgets. The basic fact is that here in Japan everyone has a much larger disposable income. If you are scraping by, you are earning $2000 US/month. For middle class salaried employees taking $3000 - $5000 per month is normal. I am not talking about expats here, I am talking about regular Japanese people.
Granted, Tokyo is a very expensive place to live. But when you have the higher income, it is much easier to say, well I am going to knuckle down this month and go without the evening's out, and any extra's, and by the end of the month it is easy to save a couple of thousand dollars to buy that fancy gadget you wanted.
On top of that, in Japan you get paid once per month, so what ever your take home is is deposited in one big chunk in your bank account. Every summer and winter, you get a bonus. This used to be around 2 extra months salary in the summer, and two extra months in the Winter, but the system is changing and a lot of people I know have been hit in the bonuses in the current economy (note, not in the salary, and I don't know anyone here who has been laid off...though I see small businesses going bankrupt regularly.)
The last factor is people here are not having many children. The costs of raising children in Japan are very high. A lot of people are either only having one, or not having any children. This will have the biggest impact on the economy here down the road, but it has made it easier for foreigners to enter and work in Japan.
So everyone who is having trouble with their jobs being outsourced, forget what the "experts" say about the economy and come give Japan a try. It has its annoying moments, but even fervent Slashdot readers get lucky here...and the gadgets rock!
Someone mod the parent up please. a Symbiotic relationship encompasses many different relationships including parasitism. It is the term used define a close ecological relationship between different species whether beneficial or not.
Hmmm maybe..........
.........if i had a yen for it.
The only main benefit I can see about it, is it will at least cover up the strange Oji-san smell.
Go NTT!!!!
Or...perhaps we can get a phermone version..............
But I will never want to be associate with a company called ISmell....and most certainly not IANAL.....and if they combine the two, IAMSOOUTTAHERE!
Seriously though, sorry, I misunderstood.
It sounded in your orignal post that you were talking about going through the Chapter menu, not searching through the actual files to find the hidden ones.
Try putting the Star Wars DVD in a regular player and see if you can find this easter egg.
Due to corporate policies, we are generally a Windows shop as far as the global infrastructure is concerned. If I want to setup a mail server with Windows, I am looking at purchasing Windows 2003 Enterprise version, Exchange 2003 Enterprise Version, Client access licenses for the servers, and possibly Terminal Server licenses as well. Figure the server hardware will cost around $10,000, and to get fully decked out with an Enterprise Level OS and Email system from MS will cost me around $5000. That is 50% the cost of the hardware. This doesn't even begin to address support costs.
I have switched from Dell in the server room to HP, so I am not sure what the Dell server prices are like in terms of dollars, but I do know they tend to be cheaper (at least in Asia). I recently compared a similar hardware Dell quote and an HP quote for a Korean associate and the Dell quote was 40% cheaper. So, if we say a Dell server is around $6000 and the enterprise level OS that runs on it is $359, we see that the software is priced at roughly 6% of the hardware. Even the $799 version is only 13% of the hardware price, and this is assuming the hardware is 40% cheaper than the Microsoft comparison.
Not exactly over priced in my opinion in. In fact 2 support calls to Microsoft cost this much. Once we get into the higher level offerings from Redhat then the ratio changes a little, but the point to remember here is that this includes support!
RHEL AS Server is $2499/year and includes Web and phone based comprehensive support 24 x 7 1 hour response Unlimited incidents 1 year Red Hat Network
1 hour response time costs! You have to have higher prices to even begin to offer this. For environments where you do not need 1 hour response (the best Dell offers is 4 hours -- in Japan ;) ) time from your vendor, you do not need to pay for it. With the Microsoft offering, I am paying large sums of money without any support included.
I personally run Debian at home for my mail/web server (and Gentoo when I feel like getting frustrated) but if we were ever to switch to Linux in the server room, one of the biggest deciding factors would be the quality and availability of support. Red Hat's target is certainly not the geek home user who balks at a $359 price tag and doesn't require support. It is the Corporate Enterprise market where when the server is down and the company's business is impacted people are glad to have paid for support. In that market, their prices are excellent in my opinion. If they were charging peanuts, they would not be taken seriously by the people making the business decisions for a company. Businessmen tend to understand that you can't get something for nothing, especially service.