I am shocked that comming in this late, I found no comments on what I consider the MOST important reason ALL DRM IS OFFENSIVE:
Restraint of development
It's not just DRM, it's a neccessary evil of mature capitalist organizations - you can't create a standard without trying to sabotage technology development in that area.
In fact, that's the whole business model behind DRM... You are not to prevent dick from giving a copy to Jane, so much as prevent Dick from inventing a new use before you do that makes Jane stop thinking of you as the only source.
For example, If you are a television media company, you want to do anything you can to prevent someone from inventing a TIVO before you can figure out how to secure a monopoly in that market and control the release and development of that tech - otherwise you may not have a place in the new market at all. If they do invent a TIVO, you have to do everything in you power to sabotage that new market so that you can regain control with a new, and (apparently) better thing.
Ideally, as a monopoly, you are the only one legally allowed to bring new technologies to market.
I really can't believe this question was taken seriously, then no one just spit out the bottom line: Obviously all DRM is distasteful, it's whole purpose is to restrain technological human development.
I understand that many people feel that overall human development is not as important as immediate artist prosperity - I disagree, but I understand that view. But even if I agreed with that view, it makes DRM no less distasteful, just "neccessary".
Finally, I have seen the argument that it is impossible to maintain artistic creation in a society without our current lottery of potentially large financial reward; to that, I say Bu11shit.
I don't give a damn about my right to personally evaluate "Fair Use" compared to my right to develop new uses and technologies from emerging standards!
I am interested in finding out what metrics this is based on. I've never heard this position before.
It's counter-intuitive, to say the least! I'm a pilot, and am constantly dismayed by the overwhelming dominance of "human" ecosystems over "natural" ones... but I do recognise that this is exaggreated by the fact that I live in central Canada and see it's landscape more than most.
I would be pleased to find out that my observations have been wrong.
...for God's sake, please don't tell me you meant that we have already used 30% of all of the arable cropland... I think I'd start my own SUV-burning crusade if it were that bad!
You are saying that the WWW is a predominantly Private media, which, by exception can be made public?
If that is really what you were saying - there is nothing wrong with that concept; after all, other parts of the internet, like FTP are certainly that way... But I think you have a few hundred-million minds to change before people "get" that! (And some might already be attached to the web as a 'social' venue.)
I commend your thouroughness and admit - I was primarily thinking of this from a management point of view.
I also admit I thought the concern was for Apple consistently asking for overtime as an attempt to reduce training (Thus hedging on China & staying prepared to pull out). The other reason companies do this is simply poor management - and I think that is far too common. Nevertheless, I will re-read with more attention since you are right, I may have mis-judged that point.
Finally, I will admit that you have intrigued me and I will read up on some economic/social theory in this area. It may also be true that common belief in Management that productivity drops after 40 hours may be a product of our culture not theirs. I guess I am not qualified to speak on effective value from Apple's point of view.
However, I still think there is one error in looking at it from D.F. Schloss' "Lump of Labour Falacy"; The Falacy seems to refer to Gross employment accross an economy. The situation that the Chinese are trying to optimize is a constant production budget at Apple compared to a variable Labour quantity. In Shcloss' original treatise on "The Lump of Labour Falacy" in 1891, he even specifies that shorter hours will create more jobs only if weekly pay is also cut - which is exactly what I am saying. I am pointing out that for the Chinese, there is more value in 2 good paying jobs than in one outstanding one; and the only way to get that from Apple is through Labour Laws.
Fear not, I will read more on this and I may yet realise the error of my ways!;)
It is an interesting supposition, and I had honestly never considered looking into statistics on it. I will do so.
...
Yeah, OK.
Possibly because I am Canadian and was raised that way, or possibly because I am too naive for my own good, I started actually researching this.
And No, I am not going to continue. I realised I am wasting my time ressearching the obvious. You are the one with the fringe theory - you show that developed countries have been wrong about this, I will certainly tip my hat to you and condemn labour laws.
Unless, of course, higher employment comes at the cost of lower productivity and less income - as I understand it did in the Soviet Union.
You don't even provide a hypothetical mechanism through which productivity is decreased. (I assume you mean financially "poorer"?) Maybe you are talking about a theoretical state with zero percent unemployment and zero low-paying jobs - In which case I agree with you.
Unfortunately, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about Chineese Apple employees working more than 60 hrs per week as a standard. No matter how many iPods you buy, Apple does not have infinite funds and therefore must limit staffing to fit their budget for a given productive output.
If you want to learn about optimizing work-week productivity, feel free to inform us with some links on sustained long work weeks and how that can possibly generate an increase in job positions. Maybe you'd be interested in checking out scandinavian countries with higher standard of living than us in North America. Compare Vacation times, Work week length, and unemployment rates. I'd love to hear what you find - especially if it is something different that we've all heard 100 times before.
If you want a quick lead on references to all kinds of research check out Bruce OHara's work.
http://www.swt.org/policy.htm
However, as an industry matures, employment approaches a zero sum game.
Farming, Mining, & Forestry (and maybe Software Industry subsets like Spreadsheets) have all reached a point of constant or diminishing worker numbers. Employment increases with population, or when non-mature industries mature, or with development (Creation of new industries).
With respect to labour laws in China, the government must look at employment as a number relative to it's population. Labour laws exist all around the world, and are not some random effort for govts to exert oppresive control over it's citizens lives - they exist as part of a calculated effort to distribute wealth and slow the division between rich and poor.
In my Personal case, I know two people I went to school with who could do large parts of my job, but are doing un-skilled help-desk jobs instead while they continue to look for better work year after year (actually one of them gave up looking abbout a year ago). My employer is not an option for either of those people, because the people in my work group work far more than the norm and there is no work left to do. Work in my office is definitely a zero sum situation. As a public servant, there are no sales to win new contracts (away from other companies), so the only way we have more work is when we take over a different Govt. department, or the population grows, causing more demand.
The bottom line, in my personal situation, is that if everyone in my office were forced to limit ourselves to 40hrs per week, we would need 3 or 4 more people to do the same work - and my employer would be paying a similar amount to get the same results. in my case, definitely a zero-sum game.
I shouldn't have implied that it is always a zero sum game: but it is in some industries, and there is always an "I win, You lose" element when I choose to take work that otherwise would have required someone else.
All that being said - you are right. I probably did not need to call it entirely zero-sum in order to make my point. (That labour laws are not designed to opress)
I agree that less industry means less jobs. That is not related to what I said.
What I said was: Apple is paying for 80 hours per week to get result Z; Labour laws in China exist to ensure that 2 people each get half of that money, instead of one getting all of it.
I am pretty sure that you aren't asking for data that shows 40 is one half of 80.
Maybe your argument is that Apple would pull out of China if it had to hire 2 staff at 40 hours each instead of 1 at 80? If that is what you are implying... I hadn't thought of that possibility. Please explain why that would happen.
I do have an education in management theory, and everything I've ever come accross says that when considering extended periods, 2 staff X 40 hours produce much more than 1 staff X 80 hours. Exceptions include non-replaceable artisans, brief work intensives, and short projects with solid deadlines and specialized training requirements. None of these scenarios apply to Apple's on-going standard work environment. Some do apply to projects at Apple, which explains why long work weeks happen - that doesn't mean Apple management sees it as any more desireable than does the Chineese govt. When deadlinies loom, sometimes there is only so much that a manager can do to fix a problem.
I'm confused. Guy wants to work more and make more money, when he's currently dirt poor. Apple is (you allege) circumventing a tyrannical system that doesn't let the guy do it...
You are conveniently forgetting that especially in developing economies overtime for one person means poverty for another. I don't pretend to know anything about the welfare system in China, but I do know that abject poverty there has a greater impact than the worst of poverty in Canada (where I am).
So, I regularly work a 70 hr work week. That displaces one person or small family from the work force. So what. No one starves in Canada. Welfare here forces you to give up vacations, not Refrigeration, TV, Healthcare, or Pizza.
In China, I kind of suspect that being forced to the bottom has a bit bigger impact.
Labour laws are there for a reason; to prevent an arms race of escalating sacrifice among workers - not to be "tyrannical"
To be Clear - What I do is closer to "tyrannical". I have education, training, and experience advantage that gives me a strangle hold on my job. No matter how hard an outsider works, she can not "win" a job from my employer, because I am already getting the work done.
When behaviour like mine is common, it means the would-be applicant is virtually powerless to improve her life since the tyrannical "upper middle class" has seized control and is taking home two, or three, or four "lower middle class" incomes. It's not literally "Tyranny", but it's a lot closer than your definition.
Those are all Obvious to me because they are all private communications which are never committed in or to public.
Music... Not so; That is why many people do not "Get" that it should be restricted. It is the public VS private guideline that people intuitively use, and that is the principle that the RIAA has to quash if they want these personal judgements to be "obvious" to the public.
It is Obvious to me that if I hear something, the law should protect my right to tell someone else what I heard.
I also agree that if it does not take away from the common wealth, we should have special laws to help artists and inventors be compensated more than non-creative citizens. (Via Copywrite & Patents)
For better or worse, I see evolution of personal communication as one of the most important developments our age is producing; so No, I'm sorry, it is not obvious that repeating the chords of a song hurts an artist more than it helps our culture.
If it is so obvious to you, that's fine, but it does not help your position to pretend that the other viewpoint is so worthless that you didn't even notice it.
After 8, 9, 10 ? years of trying to play.MOV files on windows boxen and always failing, I'm finally tempted to get a MAC just to see the friggin videos that people are talking about!
Apple doesn't even provide a link to download the player on the pages that offer the damn media! And the "Update" functino in QuickTime Player always says "codec unavailable" or "Program is up to date".
On the one hand - I understand it'd "Just Work" on a MAC, but on the other hand, QT Player is made by Apple - if it won't even play their own ads, should I believe that it would work any better if I had a MAC instead of WinXP?
Over the years, the only video software that has been more UNreliable than QuickTime is Real - And you KNOW it's bad when your software is compared to Real!
If anyone has any tips on how you get these Videos to play, please let me know - I know that I am the exception, but for the life of me, I've never had any luck with.MOV files! Maybe it can't work behind firewalls? I have no other ideas.
I agree. They argue that with every "info-mercial, press release, and "4 out of 5 dentists" advert produced. I hear it everywhere, whether I want to or not.
Since we no longer (or never did) have objective public news media, advertising has come to a point where they can say that they are providing a value-add, and people actually consider it a possibility.
That being said, I understand people's reactions - there are the starry-eyed idealists that still hope that the internet can one day become an un-biased knowledge base and news commons, and even the marketing folk who drink their own kool-aid probably recognise that their whole purpose is to bias views, which, by definition , means to divorce sales & production from merit.
I know it sucks, but as long as marketers are good at marketing, they will control most of our economy; That means they also control information. You can fight it, but you're a fool if you expect to "win". If they say Advertising is a service, well... they're the one's who define "Service".
I wonder the same thing. It would require a huge hit to affect the net overall. (Doesn't seem like a possible outcome to me).
But there is an equally attractive alternative: the creation of a new net. Definitely not easy, but some dedicated Open Source EE combined with modern wireless broadband tech could re-create the hobby of personal/private networks. There would be a lot of l33t-cr3d to be had for creating/joining a private net - but there may also be some serious resources put into outlawing and policing them too...and I still can't envision a solution to the inter-city bandwidth issue (Without big corps, I don't know if this is possible).
If it is accomplished and stabilized, I think it would be a long, long, long, long time before enough of the mainstream population left the mainstream net to gain control of the geek-net.
Are you trolling? Please re-read my post; especially the part you highlighted. There is nothing inconsistent between the two statements.
Maybe you meant to point out the same thing that I pointed out in my post; that my opinion is worth no more than that of a shill since I also failed to provide evidence. If that is what you think makes me a "fucking idiot", then I simply disagree - I stand by my argument that everyone should do their own research - and I still feel that the lack of evidence in our "discussion" is an effective demonstration of that argument.
Hrmmm... I now see that was probably wrong... I should have read some of your previous posts before concluding you are a Shill.
A Shill is a professional who can use the tools of logic and emotion to influence public views. I know that you are aware of what Ad hominem means (Your own post ) , unfortunately for you sir, so do Slashdot readers. A professional Shill would not focus nearly exclusively on such techniques in this forum. I can therefore only conclude that you are simply a troll (someone seeking reactions). I therefore must move to more meaningful discussions.
This AC has pinpointed the critical point here. Lawyers have become essential even if the charge and circumstance are trivial! "Justice For All" is Long gone.
This disgusts and angers me every time I see it. Calling this amphiboly is inappropriate because Sharing, copying, and Human Advancement ARE as logically linked as they are intuitively. There is no ambiguity in his statement.
The dead give-away that you are a shill:Your blind assertions without any evidence to back up your statements.
For example, I do know a good number of people who believe that Copyright Law is a Good Thing (tm), but not even they would be so audacious as to claim that it is "actually very useful for 'human culture and advancement.'". I think they see it as useful for drawing corporations into the "advancement" game, and therefore useful for drawing more money into human "Culture" and Advancement. I hope that it is obvious to readers that more money does not necessarily mean more advancement (Especially with respect to culture, where I see the opposite as true). These freinds of mine either feel that an engineered culture is better than a grassroots one, or that individual opportunities should outweigh social "advancement". (Although I disagree, I can respect that belief).
Here you just like making cartoon attack against the USA...
Now this is a good example of "amphiboly"! His statements were not Comical, Silly, Or Joke-like to me, nor would they be to anyone I know, even those who dis-agree with him. As someone who lives in Canada, I see the fight every single month in the news where our nation is in a constant struggle to balance our values with those that the US tries to impose on us through trade laws. It is currently in the interest of the USA to propogate IP laws since US corporations currently have an advantagous position in IP ownership worldwide. It is possible that Americans are less aware of this; I wouldn't know since I am not up on American media coverage. But I can assure you that Canadians are well aware that our current process to "Harmonize" copyright laws with the USA are not because of Canadians think it would make us "Civilized", or that our Economy depends on it. The fact is we must decide which is of more value: the US market for our Softwood lumber, Beef, etc., or the loss of some more of our sharing values... like someone else in this tread said; we all give up freedoms from 9 to 5 Monday to Friday in exchange for financial security.
...strong IP rules make good economies...the link is blatantly obvious to anybody who has taken time to study this.
Shill. Yes. I have studied this. Extensively. I invite ALL readers to do the same for themselves! Do not be influenced by Shills! Obviously, I came to dramatically differring conclusions from the parent, but readers should not listen to me or anyone else who makes assertions that contain words like "obviously" or attempt to characterize his opponent as a "Cartoon", "Junior High schooler", or "damn fool" (or "Shill" for that matter).
Do your own research
or some idiot, shill, or angry person will do it for you!
Oh Yeah...
we as a society have come to understand that there are necessary limits, for the good of all, to how intellectual goods can be distributed.
You either have not read slashdot, talked to anyone, nor left your house in the last few years... Or you are a Shill.
I encourage readers to ask the people they know how Copyright law works, and if they feel good about it. I was sure shocked at the variety of (mis)understandings of IP law that I found.
Not only did they fail, I don't think the CD technology would have survived if those market forces hadn't allowed consumers to continue duplicating.
I can't speak for your neck of the woods, but where I live (Central Canada) no one switched to CDs until Recordable CD drives were available for computers.
I'd hope that the same is still true - consumers won't accept a new format unless it allows thm to continue making their "Mix Tapes", and trading songs with friends like they've done since Cassettes were introduced.
As tech-aware people, I think it is our resposibility to educate our non-techy friends & family about what the IP industry is doing. If we aren't vigilant, they will con the public and steal what's left of our culture & heritage. I don't think it can be understated - they won't stop until all thought, speech, sound, sights, & senses are regulated by the monopolies and restricted to the wealthy.
Bzzzt. Sorry; you're wrong. Calling someone wrong is incorrect unless their statement is mutually exclusive of something proven to be true. Therefore, you are wrong since the parent is not wrong.
Further, you don't seriously believe that un-informed people will get involved with govt, do you?
Usually the only reason a populace stops "giving a rat's ass" what the govt does, is because the govt has effectively distorted the populace's views.
Given how easy it is for govts to control media, I know of no other way of safely motivating/educating the public other than grassroots information sources (Currently led by the internet).
You want the height of corruption? 1 - get the public involved (that is, "inform" them) 2 - arm them to the teeth (giving them confidence that the info was correct) 3 - Unify the hell out of them by promoting nationalism! 3 - retain control of their sources of information 4 - Profit! (Knowing that your populace will back your profit machine till death)
Am I the only one who gets confused when someone pops up who calls MSOffice just "Office"?
Everyone I know in real life calls it "MS Office", but every now & then on SlashDot, someone abbrevites it that way... I mean - They're All called "Office"!
StarOffice OpenOffice MSOffice CorelOffice ...
Does MS have such market penetration in some areas that people don't even think of the others?
I'm a Deskside Support monkey & in my geographical area, MS is installed in (at most)50% of the corps I'm familiar with; and it's never the only office suite in the organization.
Similar to the first thing I thought - I would give Apple my first-born for an instant/USB way to posess any computer with the Spirit of my Mac!
That is, if I had a Mac... And if I *did* have a Mac, I would want it to be the size of the mac mini (including the neccessary battery) and be able to do what this thing does! It would be Ideal for School or work environments where there are countless computers to use, but none of them are yours, nor are they Macs!
Which begs the question...could someone knowledgeable about USB Hosts/Clients write something to make any *nix system behave like this?
These Phosphate Lithium Ion batteries got around the heat/explosion problems that standard Lithium Ion Cells have at high Amperes, they last longer, and they can be produced at a lower total cost.
In the last year, they've taken a good chunk of the laptop battery field, as you predicted; but I suspect this was an interim market for them since the whole point of their approach was to meet vehicular demands that have not been met technologically until now.
Faster than you've predicted, they are already powering Segway scooters, and other Niche market vehicles (forklifts, golf-carts, etc.) But the exciting part is how effective this technology has been for the Kit and Custom Car market.
This has become the battery technology of choice for high-speed vehicles. It was identified as the best option by CalCars: Modified Prius gets up to 180 Miles Per Gallon and other electric car manufacturers - and now they are the fore-runner in Toyota's search for the next generation of off-the-lot hybrids.
The big time for electric is upon us.
...And don't forget - effective Hydrogen cars will still depend on battery tech like this being mature.
Erm. So what do you do when you want your local police and fire services to be active, but don't want soldiers to burn children?
What you do is:
Put FIRST priority on keeping personal religion out of government, development of international equality, high priority on human rights, and acceptance of differing political and social systems when you VOTE!
If your choosen candidate puts national interests (economic or cultural) before international stability, co-operation, and development - then you are voting TO burn the child.
If your choosen candidates first priority is building liberal diversity, international economic development, and the international diplomatic structure, then you are voting AGAINST burning the child.
War is not an environment like propogandists portray. The seeds of Atrocities are bred in all "Us vs.Them" thinking. We set up Police and external Media to (usually)prevent it during peace time, but in war the police join the "Us vs.Them" and are supported by the Media - by definition, war changes our limits.
In (effective) democratic systems, paying taxes is a statement of faith that the system of govt can correct the wrongs of the current govt. - so long as you didn't vote for those wrongs. If the current Govt is changing the System of govt such that the wrongs can not be corrected - then you have the same options that non-democratic (or broken-democratic) states have - revolt. I might support someone's decision to stop paying taxes in this phase, but I would not suggest that it is a Safe decision... at this point you become "Them".
free but still can be subject to every whim of the government if they felt like it
And that differs from the US-model in what way...?
Microsoft: Make the citizens stop that! US Government: OK! That'll be $9.99M; Come again! un-noticed geek backlash against loss of freedoms ensues
???? Microsoft: Profit!!!
It has kept up with, surpassed, and fallen behind in fits and spurts since the 1950's and the Green Revolution.
The green revolution was an outstanding optimization of agricultural capacity - although the loss of biodiversity and nutrition diversity that resulted is troublesome. (1.6 billion hectares of efficient cropland does NOT = Nature!)
Post-Green Revolution, The increase has matched the increase in land use.
Advances in Dwarfism and climate-to-crop matching aside, Increase in food production will continue to be a problem until we stop using land for food production.
Oddly enough, I was only partly sarcastic on that note - I DO think that landless food production will help us postpone population problems. There really are companies working on growing meat without growing animals. Check out :
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, that's the whole business model behind DRM...
You are not to prevent dick from giving a copy to Jane, so much as prevent Dick from inventing a new use before you do that makes Jane stop thinking of you as the only source.
For example, If you are a television media company, you want to do anything you can to prevent someone from inventing a TIVO before you can figure out how to secure a monopoly in that market and control the release and development of that tech - otherwise you may not have a place in the new market at all.
If they do invent a TIVO, you have to do everything in you power to sabotage that new market so that you can regain control with a new, and (apparently) better thing.
Ideally, as a monopoly, you are the only one legally allowed to bring new technologies to market.
I really can't believe this question was taken seriously, then no one just spit out the bottom line:
Obviously all DRM is distasteful, it's whole purpose is to restrain technological human development.
I understand that many people feel that overall human development is not as important as immediate artist prosperity - I disagree, but I understand that view.
But even if I agreed with that view, it makes DRM no less distasteful, just "neccessary".
Finally, I have seen the argument that it is impossible to maintain artistic creation in a society without our current lottery of potentially large financial reward; to that, I say Bu11shit.
I don't give a damn about my right to personally evaluate "Fair Use" compared to my right to develop new uses and technologies from emerging standards!
I am interested in finding out what metrics this is based on.
I've never heard this position before.
It's counter-intuitive, to say the least! I'm a pilot, and am constantly dismayed by the overwhelming dominance of "human" ecosystems over "natural" ones... but I do recognise that this is exaggreated by the fact that I live in central Canada and see it's landscape more than most.
I would be pleased to find out that my observations have been wrong.
...for God's sake, please don't tell me you meant that we have already used 30% of all of the arable cropland... I think I'd start my own SUV-burning crusade if it were that bad!
You are saying that the WWW is a predominantly Private media, which, by exception can be made public?
If that is really what you were saying - there is nothing wrong with that concept; after all, other parts of the internet, like FTP are certainly that way...
But I think you have a few hundred-million minds to change before people "get" that!
(And some might already be attached to the web as a 'social' venue.)
I commend your thouroughness and admit - I was primarily thinking of this from a management point of view.
;)
I also admit I thought the concern was for Apple consistently asking for overtime as an attempt to reduce training (Thus hedging on China & staying prepared to pull out). The other reason companies do this is simply poor management - and I think that is far too common.
Nevertheless, I will re-read with more attention since you are right, I may have mis-judged that point.
Finally, I will admit that you have intrigued me and I will read up on some economic/social theory in this area.
It may also be true that common belief in Management that productivity drops after 40 hours may be a product of our culture not theirs. I guess I am not qualified to speak on effective value from Apple's point of view.
However, I still think there is one error in looking at it from D.F. Schloss' "Lump of Labour Falacy"; The Falacy seems to refer to Gross employment accross an economy. The situation that the Chinese are trying to optimize is a constant production budget at Apple compared to a variable Labour quantity. In Shcloss' original treatise on "The Lump of Labour Falacy" in 1891, he even specifies that shorter hours will create more jobs only if weekly pay is also cut - which is exactly what I am saying. I am pointing out that for the Chinese, there is more value in 2 good paying jobs than in one outstanding one; and the only way to get that from Apple is through Labour Laws.
Fear not, I will read more on this and I may yet realise the error of my ways!
It is an interesting supposition, and I had honestly never considered looking into statistics on it.
...
I will do so.
Yeah, OK. Possibly because I am Canadian and was raised that way, or possibly because I am too naive for my own good, I started actually researching this.
And No, I am not going to continue. I realised I am wasting my time ressearching the obvious. You are the one with the fringe theory - you show that developed countries have been wrong about this, I will certainly tip my hat to you and condemn labour laws.
Unless, of course, higher employment comes at the cost of lower productivity and less income - as I understand it did in the Soviet Union.
You don't even provide a hypothetical mechanism through which productivity is decreased. (I assume you mean financially "poorer"?) Maybe you are talking about a theoretical state with zero percent unemployment and zero low-paying jobs - In which case I agree with you.
Unfortunately, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about Chineese Apple employees working more than 60 hrs per week as a standard. No matter how many iPods you buy, Apple does not have infinite funds and therefore must limit staffing to fit their budget for a given productive output.
If you want to learn about optimizing work-week productivity, feel free to inform us with some links on sustained long work weeks and how that can possibly generate an increase in job positions. Maybe you'd be interested in checking out scandinavian countries with higher standard of living than us in North America. Compare Vacation times, Work week length, and unemployment rates. I'd love to hear what you find - especially if it is something different that we've all heard 100 times before.
If you want a quick lead on references to all kinds of research check out Bruce OHara's work. http://www.swt.org/policy.htm
True.
I made a dramatic over-simplification.
However, as an industry matures, employment approaches a zero sum game.
Farming, Mining, & Forestry (and maybe Software Industry subsets like Spreadsheets) have all reached a point of constant or diminishing worker numbers. Employment increases with population, or when non-mature industries mature, or with development (Creation of new industries).
With respect to labour laws in China, the government must look at employment as a number relative to it's population. Labour laws exist all around the world, and are not some random effort for govts to exert oppresive control over it's citizens lives - they exist as part of a calculated effort to distribute wealth and slow the division between rich and poor.
In my Personal case, I know two people I went to school with who could do large parts of my job, but are doing un-skilled help-desk jobs instead while they continue to look for better work year after year (actually one of them gave up looking abbout a year ago). My employer is not an option for either of those people, because the people in my work group work far more than the norm and there is no work left to do. Work in my office is definitely a zero sum situation. As a public servant, there are no sales to win new contracts (away from other companies), so the only way we have more work is when we take over a different Govt. department, or the population grows, causing more demand.
The bottom line, in my personal situation, is that if everyone in my office were forced to limit ourselves to 40hrs per week, we would need 3 or 4 more people to do the same work - and my employer would be paying a similar amount to get the same results. in my case, definitely a zero-sum game.
I shouldn't have implied that it is always a zero sum game: but it is in some industries, and there is always an "I win, You lose" element when I choose to take work that otherwise would have required someone else.
All that being said - you are right.
I probably did not need to call it entirely zero-sum in order to make my point.
(That labour laws are not designed to opress)
I agree that less industry means less jobs.
That is not related to what I said.
What I said was:
Apple is paying for 80 hours per week to get result Z;
Labour laws in China exist to ensure that 2 people each get half of that money,
instead of one getting all of it.
I am pretty sure that you aren't asking for data that shows 40 is one half of 80.
Maybe your argument is that Apple would pull out of China if it had to hire 2 staff at 40 hours each instead of 1 at 80? If that is what you are implying... I hadn't thought of that possibility. Please explain why that would happen.
I do have an education in management theory, and everything I've ever come accross says that when considering extended periods, 2 staff X 40 hours produce much more than 1 staff X 80 hours. Exceptions include non-replaceable artisans, brief work intensives, and short projects with solid deadlines and specialized training requirements. None of these scenarios apply to Apple's on-going standard work environment. Some do apply to projects at Apple, which explains why long work weeks happen - that doesn't mean Apple management sees it as any more desireable than does the Chineese govt. When deadlinies loom, sometimes there is only so much that a manager can do to fix a problem.
You are conveniently forgetting that especially in developing economies overtime for one person means poverty for another. I don't pretend to know anything about the welfare system in China, but I do know that abject poverty there has a greater impact than the worst of poverty in Canada (where I am).
So, I regularly work a 70 hr work week. That displaces one person or small family from the work force. So what. No one starves in Canada. Welfare here forces you to give up vacations, not Refrigeration, TV, Healthcare, or Pizza.
In China, I kind of suspect that being forced to the bottom has a bit bigger impact.
Labour laws are there for a reason;
to prevent an arms race of escalating sacrifice among workers - not to be "tyrannical"
To be Clear - What I do is closer to "tyrannical". I have education, training, and experience advantage that gives me a strangle hold on my job. No matter how hard an outsider works, she can not "win" a job from my employer, because I am already getting the work done.
When behaviour like mine is common, it means the would-be applicant is virtually powerless to improve her life since the tyrannical "upper middle class" has seized control and is taking home two, or three, or four "lower middle class" incomes. It's not literally "Tyranny", but it's a lot closer than your definition.
Yes. You hit the nail on the head.
Those are all Obvious to me because they are all private communications which are never committed in or to public.
Music... Not so; That is why many people do not "Get" that it should be restricted. It is the public VS private guideline that people intuitively use, and that is the principle that the RIAA has to quash if they want these personal judgements to be "obvious" to the public.
Please explain what makes that so "Obvious".
It is Obvious to me that if I hear something, the law should protect my right to tell someone else what I heard.
I also agree that if it does not take away from the common wealth, we should have special laws to help artists and inventors be compensated more than non-creative citizens. (Via Copywrite & Patents)
For better or worse, I see evolution of personal communication as one of the most important developments our age is producing; so No, I'm sorry, it is not obvious that repeating the chords of a song hurts an artist more than it helps our culture.
If it is so obvious to you, that's fine, but it does not help your position to pretend that the other viewpoint is so worthless that you didn't even notice it.
After 8, 9, 10 ? years of trying to play .MOV files on windows boxen and always failing, I'm finally tempted to get a MAC just to see the friggin videos that people are talking about!
.MOV files! Maybe it can't work behind firewalls? I have no other ideas.
Apple doesn't even provide a link to download the player on the pages that offer the damn media! And the "Update" functino in QuickTime Player always says "codec unavailable" or "Program is up to date".
On the one hand - I understand it'd "Just Work" on a MAC, but on the other hand, QT Player is made by Apple - if it won't even play their own ads, should I believe that it would work any better if I had a MAC instead of WinXP?
Over the years, the only video software that has been more UNreliable than QuickTime is Real - And you KNOW it's bad when your software is compared to Real!
If anyone has any tips on how you get these Videos to play, please let me know - I know that I am the exception, but for the life of me, I've never had any luck with
I agree. They argue that with every "info-mercial, press release, and "4 out of 5 dentists" advert produced.
I hear it everywhere, whether I want to or not.
Since we no longer (or never did) have objective public news media, advertising has come to a point where they can say that they are providing a value-add, and people actually consider it a possibility.
That being said, I understand people's reactions
- there are the starry-eyed idealists that still hope that the internet can one day become an un-biased knowledge base and news commons,
and even the marketing folk who drink their own kool-aid probably recognise that their whole purpose is to bias views, which, by definition , means to divorce sales & production from merit.
I know it sucks, but as long as marketers are good at marketing, they will control most of our economy; That means they also control information.
You can fight it, but you're a fool if you expect to "win". If they say Advertising is a service, well... they're the one's who define "Service".
I wonder the same thing. It would require a huge hit to affect the net overall. (Doesn't seem like a possible outcome to me).
But there is an equally attractive alternative:
the creation of a new net. Definitely not easy, but some dedicated Open Source EE combined with modern wireless broadband tech could re-create the hobby of personal/private networks. There would be a lot of l33t-cr3d to be had for creating/joining a private net - but there may also be some serious resources put into outlawing and policing them too...and I still can't envision a solution to the inter-city bandwidth issue (Without big corps, I don't know if this is possible).
If it is accomplished and stabilized, I think it would be a long, long, long, long time before enough of the mainstream population left the mainstream net to gain control of the geek-net.
Are you trolling?
Please re-read my post; especially the part you highlighted. There is nothing inconsistent between the two statements.
Maybe you meant to point out the same thing that I pointed out in my post; that my opinion is worth no more than that of a shill since I also failed to provide evidence. If that is what you think makes me a "fucking idiot", then I simply disagree - I stand by my argument that everyone should do their own research - and I still feel that the lack of evidence in our "discussion" is an effective demonstration of that argument.
Hrmmm...
I now see that was probably wrong... I should have read some of your previous posts before concluding you are a Shill.
A Shill is a professional who can use the tools of logic and emotion to influence public views. I know that you are aware of what Ad hominem means (Your own post ) , unfortunately for you sir, so do Slashdot readers. A professional Shill would not focus nearly exclusively on such techniques in this forum. I can therefore only conclude that you are simply a troll (someone seeking reactions). I therefore must move to more meaningful discussions.
Good day.
If I hadn't already posted in this thread...
This AC has pinpointed the critical point here. Lawyers have become essential even if the charge and circumstance are trivial! "Justice For All" is Long gone.
This disgusts and angers me every time I see it.
Calling this amphiboly is inappropriate because Sharing, copying, and Human Advancement ARE as logically linked as they are intuitively. There is no ambiguity in his statement.
The dead give-away that you are a shill:Your blind assertions without any evidence to back up your statements.
For example, I do know a good number of people who believe that Copyright Law is a Good Thing (tm), but not even they would be so audacious as to claim that it is "actually very useful for 'human culture and advancement.'". I think they see it as useful for drawing corporations into the "advancement" game, and therefore useful for drawing more money into human "Culture" and Advancement. I hope that it is obvious to readers that more money does not necessarily mean more advancement (Especially with respect to culture, where I see the opposite as true). These freinds of mine either feel that an engineered culture is better than a grassroots one, or that individual opportunities should outweigh social "advancement".
(Although I disagree, I can respect that belief).
Now this is a good example of "amphiboly"!
His statements were not Comical, Silly, Or Joke-like to me, nor would they be to anyone I know, even those who dis-agree with him. As someone who lives in Canada, I see the fight every single month in the news where our nation is in a constant struggle to balance our values with those that the US tries to impose on us through trade laws. It is currently in the interest of the USA to propogate IP laws since US corporations currently have an advantagous position in IP ownership worldwide. It is possible that Americans are less aware of this; I wouldn't know since I am not up on American media coverage. But I can assure you that Canadians are well aware that our current process to "Harmonize" copyright laws with the USA are not because of Canadians think it would make us "Civilized", or that our Economy depends on it. The fact is we must decide which is of more value: the US market for our Softwood lumber, Beef, etc., or the loss of some more of our sharing values... like someone else in this tread said; we all give up freedoms from 9 to 5 Monday to Friday in exchange for financial security.
Shill.
Yes. I have studied this. Extensively.
I invite ALL readers to do the same for themselves! Do not be influenced by Shills!
Obviously, I came to dramatically differring conclusions from the parent, but readers should not listen to me or anyone else who makes assertions that contain words like "obviously" or attempt to characterize his opponent as a "Cartoon", "Junior High schooler", or "damn fool" (or "Shill" for that matter).
- Do your own research
or some idiot, shill, or angry person will do it for you!Oh Yeah...
You either have not read slashdot, talked to anyone, nor left your house in the last few years... Or you are a Shill.
I encourage readers to ask the people they know how Copyright law works, and if they feel good about it.
I was sure shocked at the variety of (mis)understandings of IP law that I found.
Not only did they fail, I don't think the CD technology would have survived if those market forces hadn't allowed consumers to continue duplicating.
I can't speak for your neck of the woods, but where I live (Central Canada) no one switched to CDs until Recordable CD drives were available for computers.
I'd hope that the same is still true - consumers won't accept a new format unless it allows thm to continue making their "Mix Tapes", and trading songs with friends like they've done since Cassettes were introduced.
As tech-aware people, I think it is our resposibility to educate our non-techy friends & family about what the IP industry is doing. If we aren't vigilant, they will con the public and steal what's left of our culture & heritage. I don't think it can be understated - they won't stop until all thought, speech, sound, sights, & senses are regulated by the monopolies and restricted to the wealthy.
Bzzzt. Sorry; you're wrong. Calling someone wrong is incorrect unless their statement is mutually exclusive of something proven to be true. Therefore, you are wrong since the parent is not wrong.
Further, you don't seriously believe that un-informed people will get involved with govt, do you?
Usually the only reason a populace stops "giving a rat's ass" what the govt does, is because the govt has effectively distorted the populace's views.
Given how easy it is for govts to control media, I know of no other way of safely motivating/educating the public other than grassroots information sources (Currently led by the internet).
You want the height of corruption?
1 - get the public involved (that is, "inform" them)
2 - arm them to the teeth (giving them confidence that the info was correct)
3 - Unify the hell out of them by promoting nationalism!
3 - retain control of their sources of information
4 - Profit!
(Knowing that your populace will back your profit machine till death)
I also used to love eBay but have been pushed away by the junk-product-spammers.
Could this open API enable a good samaritan to create some kind of filter that removes all sellers with more than 5 items for sale?
Gawd! I would LOVE to have the old eBay back!
Am I the only one who gets confused when someone pops up who calls MSOffice just "Office"?
Everyone I know in real life calls it "MS Office", but every now & then on SlashDot, someone abbrevites it that way... I mean - They're All called "Office"!
StarOffice
OpenOffice
MSOffice
CorelOffice
...
Does MS have such market penetration in some areas that people don't even think of the others?
I'm a Deskside Support monkey & in my geographical area, MS is installed in (at most)50% of the corps I'm familiar with; and it's never the only office suite in the organization.
Is it different elsewhere?
Similar to the first thing I thought - I would give Apple my first-born for an instant/USB way to posess any computer with the Spirit of my Mac!
That is, if I had a Mac... And if I *did* have a Mac, I would want it to be the size of the mac mini (including the neccessary battery) and be able to do what this thing does! It would be Ideal for School or work environments where there are countless computers to use, but none of them are yours, nor are they Macs!
Which begs the question...could someone knowledgeable about USB Hosts/Clients write something to make any *nix system behave like this?
How about in the next year?
http://www.valence.com/saphion.asp
These Phosphate Lithium Ion batteries got around the heat/explosion problems that standard Lithium Ion Cells have at high Amperes, they last longer, and they can be produced at a lower total cost.
In the last year, they've taken a good chunk of the laptop battery field, as you predicted; but I suspect this was an interim market for them since the whole point of their approach was to meet vehicular demands that have not been met technologically until now.
Faster than you've predicted, they are already powering Segway scooters, and other Niche market vehicles (forklifts, golf-carts, etc.) But the exciting part is how effective this technology has been for the Kit and Custom Car market.
This has become the battery technology of choice for high-speed vehicles. It was identified as the best option by CalCars: Modified Prius gets up to 180 Miles Per Gallon and other electric car manufacturers - and now they are the fore-runner in Toyota's search for the next generation of off-the-lot hybrids.
The big time for electric is upon us.
What you do is:
Put FIRST priority on keeping personal religion out of government, development of international equality, high priority on human rights, and acceptance of differing political and social systems when you VOTE!
If your choosen candidate puts national interests (economic or cultural) before international stability, co-operation, and development - then you are voting TO burn the child.
If your choosen candidates first priority is building liberal diversity, international economic development, and the international diplomatic structure, then you are voting AGAINST burning the child.
War is not an environment like propogandists portray. The seeds of Atrocities are bred in all "Us vs.Them" thinking. We set up Police and external Media to (usually)prevent it during peace time, but in war the police join the "Us vs.Them" and are supported by the Media - by definition, war changes our limits.
In (effective) democratic systems, paying taxes is a statement of faith that the system of govt can correct the wrongs of the current govt. - so long as you didn't vote for those wrongs. If the current Govt is changing the System of govt such that the wrongs can not be corrected - then you have the same options that non-democratic (or broken-democratic) states have - revolt. I might support someone's decision to stop paying taxes in this phase, but I would not suggest that it is a Safe decision... at this point you become "Them".
free but still can be subject to every whim of the government if they felt like it
And that differs from the US-model in what way...?
Microsoft: Make the citizens stop that!
US Government: OK! That'll be $9.99M; Come again!
un-noticed geek backlash against loss of freedoms ensues
????
Microsoft: Profit!!!
Yes, I have.
And no, I haven't.
It has kept up with, surpassed, and fallen behind in fits and spurts since the 1950's and the Green Revolution.
The green revolution was an outstanding optimization of agricultural capacity - although the loss of biodiversity and nutrition diversity that resulted is troublesome. (1.6 billion hectares of efficient cropland does NOT = Nature!)
Post-Green Revolution, The increase has matched the increase in land use.
Advances in Dwarfism and climate-to-crop matching aside, Increase in food production will continue to be a problem until we stop using land for food production.
Oddly enough, I was only partly sarcastic on that note - I DO think that landless food production will help us postpone population problems. There really are companies working on growing meat without growing animals. Check out :
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/harvesting_mea t.html