Khanna's firing will only further raise the memo's profile.
You'd think they'd be smarter about manipulating the public's attention. But then the GOP is still wondering how a bunch of tubes can sneak around and bite them in the ass.
This can go one of several ways: First option, we operate our generating facilities under the supervision of the US government, with police and/or military troops responsible for the requisite security. Not likely in the USA or other 'free market' economy. Even if the plant operations were handled by private business and the public were to provide the police force, the operator would not tolerate the required restrictions on their operations (not being able to hire the boss' idiot security risk nephew, for example). Or something akin to the TSA (the idiot nephew rises again).
The second option, having private industry provide their own security leads down a path to minimum wage, mall cop type security.
The final option, compensating private industry for the regulatory 'bother' of dealing with government security requirements leads to something akin to our military industrial complex. Thousand dollar toilet seats, our legislature mandating and funding crap that isn't effective, and finally Blackwater type security contractors (mall cop security at $600/hammer prices).
We secure actual nuclear weapons production facilities, so why can't we secure facilities intended to not produce weapons.
Because the final customer for nuclear weapons doesn't have a profit motive. The government provides security and is the customer for weapons systems no matter what the cost. Power generation is one of the most jealously guarded profit centers in our economy. Things haven't changed much since the utility holding company days of the 1920's. Its a great place to hide billions of dollars of capital transfers in a virtually non-competitive environment. Remember Enron? Private business will only let you pry that out of their cold, dead hands.
So its possible that the NSA will step in and ask that Dotcom's extradition and US copyright infringement case be dropped. The alternative would be to try him and risk not only NZ intelligence data but that of the US, UK, AUS and others.
Now we'll get to see see just how powerful the MPAA/RIAA really are.
Governments have significant conflicts of interest and are generally not well equipped to manage corporations.
I hear this argument often. But I never seem to hear any evidence to support this position. First; owning equity in and managing a corporation are two different things. I'm not 'well equipped' to manage a corporation. And yet, I own a share of many (significant shares in a few). Second; governments often manage budgets and staffs that dwarf many corporations. And in some cases, they do a reasonable job. Not always great, but if the same public oversight was applied to the inefficiencies of some private orporations, managers would be in federal prisons.
If you are a competitor to a company that has the government as a shareholder, you can easily find yourself in a very bad situation because it is no longer a level playing field. The government can change the laws to favor the company they own.
And yet, they seem to co-exist. More so in Europe than the USA. But the EU has just institutionalized what goes on under the table in the USA: Government officials with private interests in corporations that they regulate. Some minor repairs have been made to this situation under the Obama administration.
Take the fines in the form of equity. It hits the owners (shareholders) by diluting their equity. And with enough equity, the government can become an activist shareholder and move around a few managers or set pay. Look how GM and the banks screamed when the bailout was given in the form of equity.
I've been saying for a while now that we should close the trade deficit by exporting American middle-managers to China.
Its a shame this story isn't true. Back when I was at the Lazy B, I had this article pinned up on my bulletin board. It got a lot of nervous looks (Boeing was just beginning to export work to China).
The USA has the skilled workers. Japan (and others) have better managers.
We had similar situations at Boeing. Boeing-owned plants couldn't build parts worth crap. Boeing sold them off (to a few foreign owners) who brought in competent management teams and now they do quality work.
Better reason: Because producing 'works for hire' in the copyright realm assumes that the job could be done by any one of a number of persons skilled in the art. You pay an author or artist to produce some work given some contract terms and they perform. Applying that standard to technical work would disqualify the product from being patentable. The solution would not be obvious to one skilled in the art, so no employer could expect to hire anyone to solve the problem.
You raise a good point: Asians, Japanese, Chinese and their distant relatives Native Americans don't process alcohol nearly as well as Northern Europeans or Slavic people. Trying not to be racist here; there are scientific explanations for stereotypes of drunk Indians or tipsy Chinese and Japanese*.
So, while drinking among themselves may have been a sign of macho (or whatever) they aren't likely to do as well up against a German or Irishman. Perhaps this is why Samsung management is trying to change their company culture. It's all about saving face an status, but now in an international setting.
* I'm searching for a PC way to break this to a couple of friends of mine. A Japanese woman and Native American man. Both, after a few drinks, start developing a distinct 'eau de wino' due to their livers' inability to metabolize alcohol properly. In the case of the Japanese, this is particularly weird, since their culture places quite a stigma on bad smells.
It's a different sort of 'toughness'. And you make a valid point: being able to handle a lot of booze is a toughness with questionable value.
Alcohol interferes with testosterone production, and its promotion of muscle mass creation. There are several other mechanisms related to alcohol consumption that increase body fat. So it seems to be one type of toughness at the expense of others. The whole flabby body image as one of power might be involved here. In the past, corpulence (to use a nice word) was associated with economic and social power. Just as being thin was a sign of poverty. It is still so in some parts of this country (USA). Think of the 'Boss Hogg' image of the big man in town, still a prevalent stereotype in some backward parts of the country. That would make the big (in more than one sense) drinker an attractive image.
Yeah, yeah. Why people equate heavy drinking with some sort of toughness, I'll never know. It's just one means of group bonding through shared experience. Personally, I'd rather hang out with some mountain climbers than a bunch of sloppy drunks. Samsung management might be figuring this out and attempting to change the company culture.
Slashdot Mirror
Khanna's firing will only further raise the memo's profile.
You'd think they'd be smarter about manipulating the public's attention. But then the GOP is still wondering how a bunch of tubes can sneak around and bite them in the ass.
Both sides are in bed with corporations
In bed with? You make it sound so romantic. More like dragged into the alley, a** raped and thrown into the dumpster.
and do it under high security.
This can go one of several ways: First option, we operate our generating facilities under the supervision of the US government, with police and/or military troops responsible for the requisite security. Not likely in the USA or other 'free market' economy. Even if the plant operations were handled by private business and the public were to provide the police force, the operator would not tolerate the required restrictions on their operations (not being able to hire the boss' idiot security risk nephew, for example). Or something akin to the TSA (the idiot nephew rises again).
The second option, having private industry provide their own security leads down a path to minimum wage, mall cop type security.
The final option, compensating private industry for the regulatory 'bother' of dealing with government security requirements leads to something akin to our military industrial complex. Thousand dollar toilet seats, our legislature mandating and funding crap that isn't effective, and finally Blackwater type security contractors (mall cop security at $600/hammer prices).
We secure actual nuclear weapons production facilities, so why can't we secure facilities intended to not produce weapons.
Because the final customer for nuclear weapons doesn't have a profit motive. The government provides security and is the customer for weapons systems no matter what the cost. Power generation is one of the most jealously guarded profit centers in our economy. Things haven't changed much since the utility holding company days of the 1920's. Its a great place to hide billions of dollars of capital transfers in a virtually non-competitive environment. Remember Enron? Private business will only let you pry that out of their cold, dead hands.
Being torn into bite-sized chunks from mere pressure simply isn't scary, you see, whereas being instantly cooked away is.
If I've got to die, I'd rather it be by snu-snu.
So its possible that the NSA will step in and ask that Dotcom's extradition and US copyright infringement case be dropped. The alternative would be to try him and risk not only NZ intelligence data but that of the US, UK, AUS and others.
Now we'll get to see see just how powerful the MPAA/RIAA really are.
Ah yes. The Tragic Macpad.
He couldn't open it. The latch clearly read "Occupied".
Governments have significant conflicts of interest and are generally not well equipped to manage corporations.
I hear this argument often. But I never seem to hear any evidence to support this position. First; owning equity in and managing a corporation are two different things. I'm not 'well equipped' to manage a corporation. And yet, I own a share of many (significant shares in a few). Second; governments often manage budgets and staffs that dwarf many corporations. And in some cases, they do a reasonable job. Not always great, but if the same public oversight was applied to the inefficiencies of some private orporations, managers would be in federal prisons.
If you are a competitor to a company that has the government as a shareholder, you can easily find yourself in a very bad situation because it is no longer a level playing field. The government can change the laws to favor the company they own.
And yet, they seem to co-exist. More so in Europe than the USA. But the EU has just institutionalized what goes on under the table in the USA: Government officials with private interests in corporations that they regulate. Some minor repairs have been made to this situation under the Obama administration.
Oh, they'll let you land all right. Taking off again is another matter.
Imagine arguing with your significant other and then seeing marriage counseling ads on the TV
Unless Smith and Wesson buys those ad words first. Or a local divorce attorney.
Take the fines in the form of equity. It hits the owners (shareholders) by diluting their equity. And with enough equity, the government can become an activist shareholder and move around a few managers or set pay. Look how GM and the banks screamed when the bailout was given in the form of equity.
I've been saying for a while now that we should close the trade deficit by exporting American middle-managers to China.
Its a shame this story isn't true. Back when I was at the Lazy B, I had this article pinned up on my bulletin board. It got a lot of nervous looks (Boeing was just beginning to export work to China).
The USA has the skilled workers. Japan (and others) have better managers.
We had similar situations at Boeing. Boeing-owned plants couldn't build parts worth crap. Boeing sold them off (to a few foreign owners) who brought in competent management teams and now they do quality work.
Setting: Two peasants are out working in the mud in Farmville.
Mark Zuckerberg rides up.
Peasant 1: Who's that then?
Peasant 2: I dunno, must be a king.
Peasant 1: Why?
Peasant 2: He hasn't got shit all over him.
Peasant 1: Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective ...
When I was your age, we took the hoods off our cars and drove them around like that.
Now get off my lawn, kid!
I'm posting from your future and I have to say aircraft are the noob move. What with the 4.2 GW laser pointers available at the 7-11 checkout aisle.
No.
Better reason: Because producing 'works for hire' in the copyright realm assumes that the job could be done by any one of a number of persons skilled in the art. You pay an author or artist to produce some work given some contract terms and they perform. Applying that standard to technical work would disqualify the product from being patentable. The solution would not be obvious to one skilled in the art, so no employer could expect to hire anyone to solve the problem.
Some photos are on the way. There's a one hour turn around time at the film lab.
You raise a good point: Asians, Japanese, Chinese and their distant relatives Native Americans don't process alcohol nearly as well as Northern Europeans or Slavic people. Trying not to be racist here; there are scientific explanations for stereotypes of drunk Indians or tipsy Chinese and Japanese*.
So, while drinking among themselves may have been a sign of macho (or whatever) they aren't likely to do as well up against a German or Irishman. Perhaps this is why Samsung management is trying to change their company culture. It's all about saving face an status, but now in an international setting.
* I'm searching for a PC way to break this to a couple of friends of mine. A Japanese woman and Native American man. Both, after a few drinks, start developing a distinct 'eau de wino' due to their livers' inability to metabolize alcohol properly. In the case of the Japanese, this is particularly weird, since their culture places quite a stigma on bad smells.
It's a different sort of 'toughness'. And you make a valid point: being able to handle a lot of booze is a toughness with questionable value.
Alcohol interferes with testosterone production, and its promotion of muscle mass creation. There are several other mechanisms related to alcohol consumption that increase body fat. So it seems to be one type of toughness at the expense of others. The whole flabby body image as one of power might be involved here. In the past, corpulence (to use a nice word) was associated with economic and social power. Just as being thin was a sign of poverty. It is still so in some parts of this country (USA). Think of the 'Boss Hogg' image of the big man in town, still a prevalent stereotype in some backward parts of the country. That would make the big (in more than one sense) drinker an attractive image.
Yeah, yeah. Why people equate heavy drinking with some sort of toughness, I'll never know. It's just one means of group bonding through shared experience. Personally, I'd rather hang out with some mountain climbers than a bunch of sloppy drunks. Samsung management might be figuring this out and attempting to change the company culture.
I wish them luck.
Seen them. Now what?
strings /dev/urandom | tr -dc '/.'
Damn! Now I have this image stuck in my head.