This is why our stock market driven economy is so messed up. Gee, they didn't make super numbers this quarter because they were building for the future....
As opposed to the DotCom era where spectacular losses made the stock rise because companies were building for the future.
I love this quote "Investors wanted less spending, more growth"....
Yes that's a pretty generic statement, most likely there were some specific expectations investors had that weren't met.
OW. See, as much as I support the fields of science and research into all things, I'm concerned about screwing with time. It makes my head hurt and the possible consequences scare me a little.
It doesn't hurt once you realize there is no such thing as "free will," and all our actions are merely the results of a series of electrochemical reactions.
Or we could just impeach their asses and try them for treason. Either way, there needs to be way more than righteous anger. There needs to be action by every day citizens and not just marches either..
So what specifically are you are revolting against that can't be fixed in the current system? What steps have you taken so far to try and change the country? There are a number of systems in place to allow change in structured manner, rather than revolution. The country is very different from how it was 200 years ago, in some ways better, in some ways worse... but in general it reflects the will of the people. Armed revolts are a messy business, are you willing to shoot your family who does not agree with you to accomplish your goal?
In other words, her lawyers screwed up, and had to fix their mistakes at her expense. Also, once they learned that she was the winner and their bills would be paid, they started "frenetic activity" which they billed her for. (page 9). Also, they nickel-and-dimed her to the tune of about $1,500 on things like copy and fax costs (they charged $1.50 per fax page, where the court found $0.20 to be "generous"). (page 13).
There are also questions as to how -useful- laptops are. Over the last 10-20 years, as computers were introduced in US schools (high schools?), did grades (or any other educational indicator) go up overall? The few 1-3 nerds in every class might've benefited, but overall, I doubt technology impacted everyone's ability to learn (if not caused more harm).
Teaching with technology isn't better than older methods of teaching reading or math, but I would say that children are more familiar with technology. The last generation there were a handful of students in each classroom with computer skills, now it's majority. Scores for subjects have pretty much remained flat, but periphery skills such as computer literacy, video presentation, are definately improved.
Where else do you think they acquire the funds to pay a fine?
Companies will usually take the hit to their profits not pass it along to the customer. If they had the pricing leverage, they already would have been charging more.
Of course, capitalism won't work in this economy, simply because the basic premise of capitalism, that all goods are scarce, will no longer be valid. I do, however, expect the old monopolies (akin to the feudal lords who fought capitalism tooth and nail) will try to hold on to their empire for as long as possible. But, assuming no Law (the scientific kind) is found that prevents this from taking place, I see it as inevitable that "digitalism" or "digital-socialism" will eventually wipe it out.
Mass production was supposed to satiate people, however, it merely demonstrated that people have unlimited wants. No matter how much we get we will always find ways to consume more. Capitalism will still apply in the digital world, although there is no scarcity in physical production, scarcity remains in ideas and time. There may be no competition for resources, but people will still fight for fame, style, and other intangibles of society. What's interesting is that these ideas are being tested. Second-life is a good look into such an all-digitized economy.
This is one of the critical errors in Adam Smith's scheme, the fact that the consumers are often ignorant and/or purposefully misinformed on a large sacle and thus unable to participate in the marketplace in a way that leads to true competition between sellers.
Seems that our fundamental philosophical difference is you are looking for a structural method of protecting people from their own ignorance. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't fit with my definition of freedom.
You mean it didn't work for him in whipping hysteria with all sorts of bizarre fabrications prior to launching his PNAC designed plan to conquer and loot Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, unheard of before war profiteering schemes and, now, wholesale fire-sale of Iraq to his closest corporate benefactors?
That wasn't mass marketing, that was leveraging the bully pulpit. The mass marketing stunts like "mission accomplished" have failed miserably.
There are a miriad companies world-wide which make soft drinks identical in taste to that of Coca-Cola and yet they are forever doomed to tiny market shares because by now people will buy, completely instinctively at this point, like Pavlovian dogs, either Pepsi or Coke. Subsequently this duo-poly has 90%+ ownership of all fast food associated carbonated drink delivery. "Free market" my ass.
If enough people demanded something else then fast food companies would sell it. Are you saying it's wrong for people to be satisfied? As you say there are plenty of alternative products (carbonated beverages are not the only products in the drink market), people just choose not choose something else.
This is one sad rationalization of your own mental shackles, installed compliments of the corporate brainwashing operations. What do you suppose is the perecentage of "travellers" amongst people who patronize those franchises? And even then of course you can get a shrimp burger (no kidding) at the Tokyo McDonalds. But you did know to expect that, right? For your next shock try the ones in Thailand. Then come back talking about "risk aversion" of "travellers". The only thing which is consistent for these franchises is their brand. And that is their true prime property, the key element in their success, based on the art of psychological manipulation (a victim of which you appear to be yourself).
I would say a large percentage of people are in the "traveller" market. The fact that I can get the same "burger" on the other side of town is just as important as getting it on the other side of the world. As for Tokyo and Thailand, and elsewhere yes they have localized products (Typically a lot more chicken products that I prefer over burgers), but those are expansions of the core menu. I can still buy the same Big Mac in Tokyo, get the same fries.
You keep missing the main point: allowing gigantic mega-corps destroying local businesses is not good for the long-term health of the society in those areas. Yes, there are some short-term, superficial "benefits", but in the long term the locals simply lose their ability to generate income, because the "niche", "specialty", odd-ball businesses cannot provide well-paid and gainful employment on the same scale as those "inefficient" Mom & Pop operations did prior to the mega-corp arriving on the scene, with its super-efficiency and minimum wage part-time jobs. Some will survive, sure, but the overall employment and income situation will worsen as an immediate result of killing the Mom & Pop stores, and in the long term as a delayed result of killing all the manufacturers who no longer can compete with Made in Wazoostan commodity products, purely on price, a fact which is missed by those shoppers (mostly under the influence of the inane immediate gratification "culture" also heavily prmoted by the same people who own the media and the mega-corp store).
The problem with your analogy is that the scarcity of money is essential to its value - with infinite money, it all becomes worthless green paper. Music, on the other hand, retains its essential value as it is copied - more copies just allow more people to enjoy that music. If everyone copies music, it does lose its market value, but that market value only existed in the first place due to an artificially imposed scarcity.
Money also is an artificially imposed scarce resource. In both cases the reason is purely to retain value, the difference is one only affects a specific market (music) while the other would destroy the overall economy.
Artists themselves would still record music, both out of the desire to make music, and as a way of advertising. They could then make money primarily from touring.
Unless the rich hype machines decide to make their money by leveraging their control of venues and taking the music from the individual artist and having their own [more marketable] performers do the act.
They could also sell merchandise, and sell nice shiny releases of their music with attractive cover art.
That merchandise is valuable because of the same rules of artificial scarcity.
With music being free, the best music would rise to the top and find an audience over the internet. Many more people would enjoy great new music that under the current system they might never find.
The signal to noise becomes worse with free music, and it becomes more difficult to find what you want. Look at all the great videos on YouTube, there's much more worthless low quality stuff to the point that it's difficult to find anything good.
Compare Indiana Jones (cool effects, humour, dialogues and story) vs. Episodes I, II, III (ridiculous dialogues and plots cut and pasted with special FX).
Ah the fallacy of nostaligia. We always compare a classic movie that we remember to one that sucks today. How about comparing "Star Trek The Motion Picture" to Episode I - Hollywood hasn't changed.
There isn't any building from scratch or standing around wondering how to pull off a scene.
In meatspace movie making if you need a phone on the set, you buy a phone and put it there; in CG movie making you need to build the phone from scratch. Yes you don't need as much imagination on how to "pull off" a scene, but at the same time it lets you be more creative with the actual scene because you don't need to think about that. The Star Wars Jabba scene is a good example, they shot it as best as they could figure, but it was cut because they couldn't figure how to pull it off.
American workers aren't investing in R&D education at least in part because of the low wages to be expected from it.
Then we agree everybody is greedy, both corporations and individuals.
Importing foreigners or outsourcing the work, on the grounds that there aren't enough PhD's is a bit of a lie. Rather, there aren't enough CHEAP PhD's.
That argument applies when looking at bachelor's degrees, but for PhD's there is a shortage "More than half (55%) of engineering doctorates were awarded to students on temporary visas". So companies have a choice, offer more money in hopes that in 10 years enough Americans will be attracted to go to graduate school to fill the required positions, or find a way to fill those positions with foreigners who are graduating now.
By the way, a couple of reasons that there are so few American grad students in engineering and the sciences are (a) the ballooning costs of student loans, often with interest accruing while in school; and (b) the image (often perpetuated by Slashdot) that engineering and science are dead end roads that get no respect. We need to find a way to correct these problems.
It would require a drastic cultural change, people just follow the money. If you are talented you will make more leaving school after 4 years than going to school for 8.
I don't see how this move will help Microsoft to recruit and retain quality programmers. There are plenty of quality programmers in the U.S.
These are research not programming jobs. Most American programmers go into industry after 4 years of education following the money. About half of graduate students in engineering are foreign born, that's why there are shortages without H1Bs.
Sure, you need a four year education, but you as a worker are replaceable commodity.
In this case the R&D positions are for people with 8 years of education, which most Americans aren't getting. If the US isn't growing it's own PhD's and is restricting importing them, then of course companies are going to move elsewhere to get the talent. What's particularly sad is most of them are being trained in US universities. We invest resources training foreign students, then lock them out when they want to come to the US to become productive workers.
Pure free market capitalism is extremely useful in ensuring that goods and services are properly distributed in a society.
I would argue capitalism is extremely useful in ensuring efficient production of goods & services, not distribution. Extreme example is capitalism will keep the bread out of a starving person's mouth because there is a marginal loss of producing one more loaf. That is not to say capitalism is evil, because efficiency is vital for the overall economy to function effectively. Like you say, societies are far to complex with too many competing goals and needs for any simple system to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes that's a pretty generic statement, most likely there were some specific expectations investors had that weren't met.
Armed revolts are a messy business, are you willing to shoot your family who does not agree with you to accomplish your goal?
Scores for subjects have pretty much remained flat, but periphery skills such as computer literacy, video presentation, are definately improved.
What's interesting is that these ideas are being tested. Second-life is a good look into such an all-digitized economy.
Seems that our fundamental philosophical difference is you are looking for a structural method of protecting people from their own ignorance. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't fit with my definition of freedom.
That wasn't mass marketing, that was leveraging the bully pulpit. The mass marketing stunts like "mission accomplished" have failed miserably.
If enough people demanded something else then fast food companies would sell it. Are you saying it's wrong for people to be satisfied? As you say there are plenty of alternative products (carbonated beverages are not the only products in the drink market), people just choose not choose something else.
I would say a large percentage of people are in the "traveller" market. The fact that I can get the same "burger" on the other side of town is just as important as getting it on the other side of the world. As for Tokyo and Thailand, and elsewhere yes they have localized products (Typically a lot more chicken products that I prefer over burgers), but those are expansions of the core menu. I can still buy the same Big Mac in Tokyo, get the same fries.
Unless the rich hype machines decide to make their money by leveraging their control of venues and taking the music from the individual artist and having their own [more marketable] performers do the act.
That merchandise is valuable because of the same rules of artificial scarcity.
The signal to noise becomes worse with free music, and it becomes more difficult to find what you want. Look at all the great videos on YouTube, there's much more worthless low quality stuff to the point that it's difficult to find anything good.
Last Starfighter
Showed that a really bad film with lots of CG is still a really bad film
That argument applies when looking at bachelor's degrees, but for PhD's there is a shortage "More than half (55%) of engineering doctorates were awarded to students on temporary visas".
So companies have a choice, offer more money in hopes that in 10 years enough Americans will be attracted to go to graduate school to fill the required positions, or find a way to fill those positions with foreigners who are graduating now.
What's particularly sad is most of them are being trained in US universities. We invest resources training foreign students, then lock them out when they want to come to the US to become productive workers.
Like you say, societies are far to complex with too many competing goals and needs for any simple system to work.