IBM has been around for over a century. They are no longer a major tech powerhouse like they once were, but that is not because they hired young innovative people. Quite the opposite, they sat on their laurels and missed one opportunity after another because of a failure to adapt and an ossified workforce.
They problem is that they pan everything. Most tech products fail, so if you say "that will never work" to everything, you will be right 90% of the time, but you will also miss the 10% that make up for the failures a hundred times over.
Like they say on Wall Street: Bears sound smart. Bulls make money.
What you don't realize is that with age comes perspective.
This is not supported by evidence. Nearly all successful tech companies skew young. If oldsters were really so valuable, then where are the successful companies cashing in on that value by scooping up the seniors?
an experienced guy can tell you why it's a bad idea and poke holes in the concept.
Do you mean the way geezers on Slashdot panned the iPhone, and insisted that Facebook was going nowhere?
I don't see any successful tech companies that got where they are by hiring cynical naysayers.
As people age, their salary expectations increase, but often their skills don't.
If they were really as valuable as they think they are, then some enterprising company should be able to hire them all and out-compete the companies staffed by younglings. Obviously, that isn't happening.
Most people don't get old and wise. They just get old.
What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
The problem is that Facebook is not doing this by their own volition. They are being pressured into it under threat of government action. So this is basically backhanded censorship.
Many people will accept this because they are, after all, a basket of deplorables. But the whacko right has raised serious issues in the past, such as their outrage about Ruby Ridge and Waco. Those government actions were shocking, and absolutely should not have happened in a free and just society. Everything the whackos claimed in their conspiracy theories turned out to be true, as the leaked tapes revealed, with lying and felony obstruction of justice going at least as far as Janet Reno.
Of course, no one was brought to justice for these crimes. Who is going to arrest the attorney general? But at least we know what happened. In our new world of corporation-enforced censorship, next time we may not.
Most objects that pass through these altitudes are big or are in elliptical orbits. Collisions will likely lead to faster deorbiting. India's target satellite was in a circular orbit, and it is unlikely that any part of it will survive longer than a few months at most.
Orbital junk is a problem, but this is not adding to it.
Militarization of space is a problem, but the biggest escalator, by far, is America.
The real purpose of this launch is to give Modi's BJP party a boost before general elections next month. They will most likely win, despite being the moral equivalent of the KKK. Modi is divisive and bigoted, and not the sort of person who should be leading a nation with nukes.
Nope. No space debris. The satellite was destroyed in very low earth orbit. Really in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. The orbits of the smaller pieces will decay within hours. The bigger chunks will de-orbit in a few days or weeks.
India did this test far more responsibly than China's 2007 test, most likely because of the worldwide condemnation of China's behavior.
Since self-checkouts were introduced, every American family has an extra $10 per month through lower than expected food-price inflation.
How do you spend that marginal $10? That is where the new jobs were created.
Different families likely spend the extra money differently. Some go out to a restaurant more often, some buy an extra book on Amazon, some save for a cave diving excursion, etc. The jobs are diffused through the economy. But that does not make them any less real.
Your concept of the Job Creators and Trickle Down Theory as the driving engine of more jobs being created than destroyed is interesting.
Cheaper groceries are not "trickle down". Since the poor spend more of their income on groceries than the rich, if anything, it is trickle up.
It has also been happening for 300 years, with a 20-fold increase in living standards, so it is not a "theory".
My last 35 plus years in the workforce has shown me that the employee is considered the enemy
Perhaps you should chose your jobs more carefully. My employer paid my college tuition, paid for continuing education, and even sent me on a Perl-Hacker cruise to Alaska back in the 1990s (with Larry Wall onboard). I have considered most of my bosses to be personal friends. My former boss's daughter babysits my kids.
If everyone you worked with for 35 years was an asshole, you may be misidentifying the problem. Perhaps you should do some self examination.
I honestly have no idea who you mean by "these people".
Do you mean:
1. Obamatards who imposed silly rules? 2. Trumptards who don't care about pollution? 3. Stupid consumers incapable of understand long vs short term costs? 4. Greedy light bulb companies wanting short-lifetime bulbs? 5. Slashdot editors who post silly articles? 6. Frist-posters?
The answer they always give is that, "We can't predict them
Actually, we can predict exactly where the new jobs will be.
Grocery stores spend 14% of their sales on labor, and those with self-checkout have reduced their labor costs by 25%, or 3.5% of sales.
Since the grocery business is very competitive, much of those savings has gone into lower food price inflation. The rest has gone into dividends for shareholders. Either way, that extra money goes into someone's pocket.
What do they spend that extra money on? That is where the new jobs are.
Problem isn't so much about the total economic output, but rather the distribution of the wealth.
Most of the gains in the global economy are going to those at the bottom. Ask a garment worker in Bangladesh how globalization is working out. They have seen their incomes soar.
Do these 'reports' in these 'newspapers' actually have any real credibility, or are they as full of shit as I think they are?
The latter. They are spewing economic nonsense.
Since the industrial revolution began three centuries ago, nearly every job has been automated out of existence, starting with spinners, weavers, and agriculture. Yet incomes have risen 20-fold and we currently have a full employment economy.
For fuck's sake people, every time there's a technological breakthrough of some sort human civilization has gone through this shit
Quick rule of thumb: 1. All automation in the past was GOOD. 2. All automation in the future will be BAD. The is what the public has believed for at least three centuries.
Firing supermarket checkout assistants and installing self-checkout lanes that force customers to do the work is not automation, its fuck the consumer business as usual.
Before Woolworths opened the first "department store" in the 1880s, customers would enter the store, hand their list to a clerk, who would then go back into the "store" and retrieve the items. It was quite a revolution to allow the customers to go into the "store" area and select their own items.
So instead of whining about the check-outs, you should be outraged that you have to walk into the store at all. Why should you do the clerk's job?
Slashdot Mirror
Read them again in 20 years and let me know how smart you think you were when you wrote them.
In 20 years, I won't be wiser, just more self-interested.
Of course old people see themselves as valuable.
Their problem is that nobody else sees it that way.
Name a single successful tech company started by an over-50.
IBM has been around for over a century. They are no longer a major tech powerhouse like they once were, but that is not because they hired young innovative people. Quite the opposite, they sat on their laurels and missed one opportunity after another because of a failure to adapt and an ossified workforce.
They problem is that they pan everything. Most tech products fail, so if you say "that will never work" to everything, you will be right 90% of the time, but you will also miss the 10% that make up for the failures a hundred times over.
Like they say on Wall Street: Bears sound smart. Bulls make money.
You'll also notice that successful startups often end up re-writing their entire codebase to fix the poor decisions of their early employees.
That is the smart thing to do. You move fast, get the product out the door, and fix it later after you are funded.
Meanwhile, the perfectionist geezer is still whining about improper indentation 5 years after the market window closed.
What you don't realize is that with age comes perspective.
This is not supported by evidence. Nearly all successful tech companies skew young. If oldsters were really so valuable, then where are the successful companies cashing in on that value by scooping up the seniors?
an experienced guy can tell you why it's a bad idea and poke holes in the concept.
Do you mean the way geezers on Slashdot panned the iPhone, and insisted that Facebook was going nowhere?
I don't see any successful tech companies that got where they are by hiring cynical naysayers.
As people age, their salary expectations increase, but often their skills don't.
If they were really as valuable as they think they are, then some enterprising company should be able to hire them all and out-compete the companies staffed by younglings. Obviously, that isn't happening.
Most people don't get old and wise. They just get old.
What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
The problem is that Facebook is not doing this by their own volition. They are being pressured into it under threat of government action. So this is basically backhanded censorship.
Many people will accept this because they are, after all, a basket of deplorables. But the whacko right has raised serious issues in the past, such as their outrage about Ruby Ridge and Waco. Those government actions were shocking, and absolutely should not have happened in a free and just society. Everything the whackos claimed in their conspiracy theories turned out to be true, as the leaked tapes revealed, with lying and felony obstruction of justice going at least as far as Janet Reno.
Of course, no one was brought to justice for these crimes. Who is going to arrest the attorney general? But at least we know what happened. In our new world of corporation-enforced censorship, next time we may not.
Most objects that pass through these altitudes are big or are in elliptical orbits. Collisions will likely lead to faster deorbiting. India's target satellite was in a circular orbit, and it is unlikely that any part of it will survive longer than a few months at most.
Orbital junk is a problem, but this is not adding to it.
Militarization of space is a problem, but the biggest escalator, by far, is America.
The real purpose of this launch is to give Modi's BJP party a boost before general elections next month. They will most likely win, despite being the moral equivalent of the KKK. Modi is divisive and bigoted, and not the sort of person who should be leading a nation with nukes.
Nope. No space debris. The satellite was destroyed in very low earth orbit. Really in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. The orbits of the smaller pieces will decay within hours. The bigger chunks will de-orbit in a few days or weeks.
India did this test far more responsibly than China's 2007 test, most likely because of the worldwide condemnation of China's behavior.
Democrats blew the best opportunity we've ever had to get constructive NN passed.
The probability of this bill passing the senate and being signed into law by Donald Trump is precisely 0%.
It is a political stunt for the sole purpose of framing the issue for the 2020 election.
The actual content of the bill is completely irrelevant.
Not where, but what employment?
Since self-checkouts were introduced, every American family has an extra $10 per month through lower than expected food-price inflation.
How do you spend that marginal $10? That is where the new jobs were created.
Different families likely spend the extra money differently. Some go out to a restaurant more often, some buy an extra book on Amazon, some save for a cave diving excursion, etc. The jobs are diffused through the economy. But that does not make them any less real.
Your concept of the Job Creators and Trickle Down Theory as the driving engine of more jobs being created than destroyed is interesting.
Cheaper groceries are not "trickle down". Since the poor spend more of their income on groceries than the rich, if anything, it is trickle up.
It has also been happening for 300 years, with a 20-fold increase in living standards, so it is not a "theory".
My last 35 plus years in the workforce has shown me that the employee is considered the enemy
Perhaps you should chose your jobs more carefully. My employer paid my college tuition, paid for continuing education, and even sent me on a Perl-Hacker cruise to Alaska back in the 1990s (with Larry Wall onboard). I have considered most of my bosses to be personal friends. My former boss's daughter babysits my kids.
If everyone you worked with for 35 years was an asshole, you may be misidentifying the problem. Perhaps you should do some self examination.
Maybe some day they will advocate for sensible IP laws.... but I doubt it.
No way. Big corps sue each other over IP, but except for legal fees, that is zero sum.
But IP laws are a win for big companies because they can use IP to crush small companies and dominate markets.
Apple owns no factories and has very little capital equipment. Yet they are the most valuable corporation in the history of the world.
Nearly all of that value is in the form of intellectual property.
Obvious solution: Buy them online, after reading the reviews.
I buy mine from Amazon, and only if they have at least 4.5 stars after several hundred reviews.
No problems so far.
You used to be able to buy long-lasting incandescent bulbs for slightly more and they did last longer.
They also used more energy per lumen.
...to stop these people?
I honestly have no idea who you mean by "these people".
Do you mean:
1. Obamatards who imposed silly rules?
2. Trumptards who don't care about pollution?
3. Stupid consumers incapable of understand long vs short term costs?
4. Greedy light bulb companies wanting short-lifetime bulbs?
5. Slashdot editors who post silly articles?
6. Frist-posters?
Please clarify.
If they did this, an obvious counter-measure would be for the drug gangs to pay an insider to smear a bit of cocaine paste on random packages.
Misting all the packages with capsaicin would also work.
Because the money would got to the wrong people, mostly in South America.
If it was legal, they would no longer be the "wrong" people. They would be law abiding capitalists.
During prohibition, alcohol sales and distribution was control by criminals. Today, brewers and distillers are just normal businesses.
The same can happen with cocaine and heroin.
The answer they always give is that, "We can't predict them
Actually, we can predict exactly where the new jobs will be.
Grocery stores spend 14% of their sales on labor, and those with self-checkout have reduced their labor costs by 25%, or 3.5% of sales.
Since the grocery business is very competitive, much of those savings has gone into lower food price inflation. The rest has gone into dividends for shareholders. Either way, that extra money goes into someone's pocket.
What do they spend that extra money on? That is where the new jobs are.
So you're against YouTube taking down ISIS beheading videos?
No. But I am against the government requiring them to take down the videos.
Censorship is a FAR greater danger to our freedom than terrorism.
Live-streaming murder is illegal.
Why not just make murder illegal, whether it is live-streamed or not?
For us now but not for the people at the time. Go and read some Dickens. Life sucked very hard for a lot of people.
Life sucked because they were poor, not because they were getting poorer, because they weren't.
People moved to the city and took factory jobs because it was an improvement over the crushing rural poverty that they left behind.
Problem isn't so much about the total economic output, but rather the distribution of the wealth.
Most of the gains in the global economy are going to those at the bottom. Ask a garment worker in Bangladesh how globalization is working out. They have seen their incomes soar.
Do these 'reports' in these 'newspapers' actually have any real credibility, or are they as full of shit as I think they are?
The latter. They are spewing economic nonsense.
Since the industrial revolution began three centuries ago, nearly every job has been automated out of existence, starting with spinners, weavers, and agriculture. Yet incomes have risen 20-fold and we currently have a full employment economy.
For fuck's sake people, every time there's a technological breakthrough of some sort human civilization has gone through this shit
Quick rule of thumb:
1. All automation in the past was GOOD.
2. All automation in the future will be BAD.
The is what the public has believed for at least three centuries.
Firing supermarket checkout assistants and installing self-checkout lanes that force customers to do the work is not automation, its fuck the consumer business as usual.
Before Woolworths opened the first "department store" in the 1880s, customers would enter the store, hand their list to a clerk, who would then go back into the "store" and retrieve the items. It was quite a revolution to allow the customers to go into the "store" area and select their own items.
So instead of whining about the check-outs, you should be outraged that you have to walk into the store at all. Why should you do the clerk's job?