We build our own machines. But there is always down time and we're all extremely tech savvy to take care of our systems.
Another thing to add in the equation at a large company is the cost of assemblyman. Like yous aid an average IT employee is probably at least $100 an hour. Dell has trained $10 an hour employees. Taking off valuable employees to build computers isn't nearly as efficient as DELL who can hire out to assembly line workers.
Should have thought about that before creating a competing fork.
I find it pretty silly that they couldn't see the conflict of interest. (I find it more silly that anyone thinks a serious meeting could take place over IRC... but that's another discussion). Their product is competing to replace Open Office as the dominant office suite. It would be like Bill Gates being a board member for Microsoft and Apple. You can contribute. You can own stock. But to be in a leadership position is just ridiculous.
Free Office means it's not very good. If it were good it would cost money and not be given away for free.
If you want to market OpenOffice then you want to sell the customer on why it's desirable. If you say it's desirable because it's free then you are telling the customer that its only advantage is on cost.
Or you can just avoid ripping off Microsoft's branding all together and come up with a completely original branding. However, the current name does communicate to a customer exactly all that OpenOffice has ever striven to achieve so it's been very effective in explaining that it's just a rip off of MS Office but open source.
They should call it something new like:
Venture, Endeavor, Enlighten, Slate... something related to productivity and work but not named after Office.
This. The thing about Net Neutrality isn't that you *can't* regulate or packet shape your network. You just have to do it fairly. You can throw out all packets if you felt like it. Just can't inspect them to give any one source or destination an advantage.
If you want to say that a phone can only receive 20 control packets per hour and after that the tower won't respond then so be it. Just can't write a AT&T app then that does the same thing. Send them a text message "An app on your phone has exceeded its terms of use on the T-Mobile network. Please uninstall the application. You will be able to access your data plan in 59 minutes."
That's a terrible idea that proves nothing. If someone payed me at works to use a slower system I would do it. But the company would lose money on the deal if my productivity suffered. If we charge $300 an hour and over the course of the year I lose an hour of productivity using a slower tool I don't see the cost but I got a "cheaper software" bonus.
I love the ribbon. Everyone I know loves the ribbon. The only people I've ever met who hate the ribbon are people like my Grandpa who have trouble adapting to a new system regardless of its quality.
Well seeing as my Mother isn't a government agent and is more likely to be a political dissident than I am I would find a slightly different slogan in this instance.
Blah blah blah blah. Doesn't change the fact that a law is being broken and it's not "evil" for a company to assist another company protect their business--even if that business is careening towards an abyss.
If Blockbuster video wants technology to better enforce its late fees--it's not evil--it's just speeding along the inevitable demise of an out of date business model.
Also people are morally spineless. Myself included. If I found out that my cell phone carrier was killing puppies in Uganda but the other that I get good reception with was killing kittens in Portugal I wouldn't switch to a carrier with poor reception. Sometimes there is a monopoly on availability even if there weren't any artificial limit on spectrum.
And whether we like it or not we can't really function anymore without cell phones any more than I can function without running water.
Awesome so instead of my current system where I do nothing until the end of the year... spend a few minutes filling in some boxes and get back to my life I could depend on the government bureaucracy mailing me a check based on the same sort of form. How is that an improvement? I give them money... then they give me back money? Why not just let me keep my money?
no, as a word from the consumer, either be responsible and make sure everyone knows what your systems exactly do and the dangers of them, or B make a standard dumb machine and mind your own bees wax
You aren't the consumer. The person who bough the copier in part because of this advertised feature is the consumer. You're just a user. A user who doesn't need to know there are security protocols to protect customer information. The people who need to know about the feature I'm sure are well aware of it.
It probably is moot. From my reading of the patent summary they actually did do something sort of unique and clever with the buffers to trick standard OpenGL/DX instructions to compress video.
But it's mostly moot now that we have DxCompute etc.
Actually that's the opposite point of inception. The point of inception was that even though the virtual dream world is comforting and nice you have responsibilities in the real world you can't neglect and you have to wake up eventually and take care of them.
That's why they left the dream originally and the initial inception was created: to remind us that fantasy isn't a substitute for our real families.
If the point of inception was that it doesn't matter as long as we're happy then the main character would have stayed in Limbo with his fake wife forever blissfully unaware.
You don't even have to be omniscient. A retarded monkey could design a better universe. Unless the very fundamental nature of the universe changed after it was created any universe based on increasing entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is destined to fill with 'Sin'.
Why do we eat and not have little fusion reactors? Why not just magic energy out of the air.
The world we know: plants, animals, food, rocks, gravity-- it's all designed to operate in a world whose very physical laws destroy and mame.
But how long before the average 'cost' of an employee is $4m? That's precisely my point. $1B datacenter. 50 full time employees.
When that becomes the norm a fortune 500 company will employ 500 people. You say it frees us to do other things. True. But if it cost $20m in infrastructure per person then the average business will have less than one employee. Without employees nobody earns money and without money nobody spends it on Amazon, Apple etc...
Take a grocery store. With RFID you could shop, go out to your car, and leave. You've just put 10 people out of work. Efficiency! But what do those people do now? Go work at McDonalds? You forget that McDonalds went automatic. Perhaps they could mow lawns? No, Roomba Yard does that really well. Work at the Gap? Gap went VR years ago, see how it looks/fits in an augmented reality mirror and then try it on the next day in the Amazon Fresh delivery, don't like it just put it back in the Amazon fresh pickup.
Those who are employed will make more and more. And more and more will be unemployed.
Am I the only one who finds it extremely unsettling that Apple plans to run a $1B facility with up to 50 people and *maybe* employ up to 250 more minimum wage people for security etc?
That's a trend that's not going to go away. Welcome to the information economy where people are in a surplus. How long until a $10B facility is managed by 2 people (excluding the ISS)?
So what you're saying is that a lot of unemployed people won't have enough money to spend on less expensive goods. I'm sure they'll take comfort in knowing all the things they can't afford are cheaper than they used to be.
This is the problem with free market thinking. Yes, the GDP will improve. Prices will drop. Efficiency will go up. But even if all of our prices drop by 50% at the expense of 50% unemployment only a select few in the current economy can benefit from those reduced prices. Without income it doesn't matter what something costs--you can't afford it. On the brighter side you can cut the food stamps you're giving them since the grocery prices are reduced.
The rich get richer and the poor still have nothing.
It would probably handle bad drivers better than we do.
The definition of a Bad Driver is one who doesn't follow the rules and drives unpredictably. With an unpredictable, erratic driver who doesn't follow rules you can't anticipate their actions and it comes down purely to reaction time. Computers win in a battle of reflexes. Not only that they can swerve to avoid them and also be aware of the full 360 degree area around them. So if there is a car to the left they can swerve to the right. A human driver might sideswipe someone to avoid an accident.
Last I checked low stock prices wasn't a problem afflicting our economy.
Obama has pledged to cut taxes on the economic drivers: consumers. Do you think people will not want a piece of a profitable company's success as more affluent spenders seek businesses to give their dollars to?
You give everyone $5,000 and you will create jobs. Businesses would HAVE to hire people to handle the demand and keep enough product on their shelves. You give an investor $500,000 and what do they do with it? They buy some bonds. They put it in a company who is laying off workers and therefore becoming more profitable.
Giving people cash is a free market principle. Businesses are on an even footing to get the cash from the consumers, they just have to create compelling products and services to get that stimulus. It's capitalism at its finest. Those who create the most desirable product will get the most money.
You know what would drive expansion in our business? Customers.
If we had more customers we would hire more employees to fulfill the demand. We wouldn't need "investment" we would be responding to the market.
It's also one of the most "free market" solutions to the problem. Instead of "encouraging" investment--whatever that means you just give people money. That money will then be spent through free market principles. If you want a piece of that "stimulus" then you have to demonstrate that your product and service is useful and superior to the competitors.
Don't give businesses tax breaks to hire people blindly. If the business is a sound business the People Stimulus will bring those dollars to them to purchase their goods and services.
The real question though that nobody is asking is: "Do we need all these people?" Is there enough work for the entire population anymore to work full time? Do we want a 40 hour week with 10% unemployment or a 36 hour week with 0 unemployment? But that's unrealistic because you require training, persistence of attention to tasks etc. With automation I just can't see our economy lasting into the future as it currently is. Look at Amazon. In the not too distant future freight will be all but automated. Warehousing will be all but automated. You'll be able to run amazon with a relatively microscopic workforce that serves everybody that the grocery store, target and specialty store once serviced. VR will be sufficient to have no need to actually journey to a shop to play with it before buying it. VR will let you try on clothing, see how it looks on you.
Software makes people's lives easier. If you can learn your job in a few months or even a year a machine will be able to do it better in the not very distant future. Before too long we'll be running up against the limitations of many people's abilities to adapt. We're going to start people who are literally unemployable through no fault of their own. They'll be obsolete. What do we do with a population (and race) that's from a labor standpoint obsolete? How does the market operate when you hit 50% unemployment? The last remnants of 'moral superiority' in the rich will be gone. It'll be obvious that the unemployed aren't lazy. They're normal people who just are unneeded. I doubt we'll see our populations shrink. So I think we're going to have to start readjusting our incentives. If you want to work great, there are huge rewards for that. If you don't want to work, that's fine, we don't need you to, here is your pension, stay out of trouble... if you like try and come up with something cool.
If you look the online communities surrounding games for instance you'll see that people with too much free time and no profit motive still create things of value. Maybe a sub-market will emerge where you sell your idea online. As you emerge as creating something which people value you could spend it to move beyond the 'base' income into a more luxurious life style.
Me? I hope to work till I die. Stop paying me and I'll keep working because it's what I like to do. If you want to go sit on a beach 365 days a week be my guest, I would get bored. I would certainly in such a world work less but like work today if you wanted one of the coveted positions you would probably have to stick around for the shitty work in addition to the cool work.
Didn't you get the memo? Only wealthy people are smart and productive. If we didn't have rich people the stupid plebes would just wander around with a tin cup wanting for something to do. Now if the poor peasants had enough money themselves to start a business like the wealthy individual I'm SURE they wouldn't start businesses of their own. No, they are poor because they are lazy and stupid and deserve to be poor. The wealthy are wealthy by their own merit without any assistance. And their wealth is proof that they're just better than other people.
Geez get with the times.
Oh and if the Rich were taxed at 90% they wouldn't want to start businesses because they would all rather make minimum wage than subject themselves to a paltry $100k a year. It's demeaning to suggest that someone could make ends meet on $100k.
Slashdot Mirror
We build our own machines. But there is always down time and we're all extremely tech savvy to take care of our systems.
Another thing to add in the equation at a large company is the cost of assemblyman. Like yous aid an average IT employee is probably at least $100 an hour. Dell has trained $10 an hour employees. Taking off valuable employees to build computers isn't nearly as efficient as DELL who can hire out to assembly line workers.
Should have thought about that before creating a competing fork.
I find it pretty silly that they couldn't see the conflict of interest. (I find it more silly that anyone thinks a serious meeting could take place over IRC... but that's another discussion). Their product is competing to replace Open Office as the dominant office suite. It would be like Bill Gates being a board member for Microsoft and Apple. You can contribute. You can own stock. But to be in a leadership position is just ridiculous.
i'm not sure how tacking an english word onto a Spanish one makes sense.
Colorado River?
Free Office means it's not very good. If it were good it would cost money and not be given away for free.
If you want to market OpenOffice then you want to sell the customer on why it's desirable. If you say it's desirable because it's free then you are telling the customer that its only advantage is on cost.
Or you can just avoid ripping off Microsoft's branding all together and come up with a completely original branding. However, the current name does communicate to a customer exactly all that OpenOffice has ever striven to achieve so it's been very effective in explaining that it's just a rip off of MS Office but open source.
They should call it something new like:
Venture, Endeavor, Enlighten, Slate... something related to productivity and work but not named after Office.
This. The thing about Net Neutrality isn't that you *can't* regulate or packet shape your network. You just have to do it fairly. You can throw out all packets if you felt like it. Just can't inspect them to give any one source or destination an advantage.
If you want to say that a phone can only receive 20 control packets per hour and after that the tower won't respond then so be it. Just can't write a AT&T app then that does the same thing. Send them a text message "An app on your phone has exceeded its terms of use on the T-Mobile network. Please uninstall the application. You will be able to access your data plan in 59 minutes."
That's a terrible idea that proves nothing. If someone payed me at works to use a slower system I would do it. But the company would lose money on the deal if my productivity suffered. If we charge $300 an hour and over the course of the year I lose an hour of productivity using a slower tool I don't see the cost but I got a "cheaper software" bonus.
I love the ribbon. Everyone I know loves the ribbon. The only people I've ever met who hate the ribbon are people like my Grandpa who have trouble adapting to a new system regardless of its quality.
It only gets infinitely close in a finite domain. In an infinite domain it reaches it.
Well seeing as my Mother isn't a government agent and is more likely to be a political dissident than I am I would find a slightly different slogan in this instance.
Blah blah blah blah. Doesn't change the fact that a law is being broken and it's not "evil" for a company to assist another company protect their business--even if that business is careening towards an abyss.
If Blockbuster video wants technology to better enforce its late fees--it's not evil--it's just speeding along the inevitable demise of an out of date business model.
Furthermore they're doing business in helping a company protect its legal rights.
Google providing search engine technology to help another company do business? EVIL!
Also people are morally spineless. Myself included. If I found out that my cell phone carrier was killing puppies in Uganda but the other that I get good reception with was killing kittens in Portugal I wouldn't switch to a carrier with poor reception. Sometimes there is a monopoly on availability even if there weren't any artificial limit on spectrum.
And whether we like it or not we can't really function anymore without cell phones any more than I can function without running water.
Awesome so instead of my current system where I do nothing until the end of the year... spend a few minutes filling in some boxes and get back to my life I could depend on the government bureaucracy mailing me a check based on the same sort of form. How is that an improvement? I give them money... then they give me back money? Why not just let me keep my money?
no, as a word from the consumer, either be responsible and make sure everyone knows what your systems exactly do and the dangers of them, or B make a standard dumb machine and mind your own bees wax
You aren't the consumer. The person who bough the copier in part because of this advertised feature is the consumer. You're just a user. A user who doesn't need to know there are security protocols to protect customer information. The people who need to know about the feature I'm sure are well aware of it.
It probably is moot. From my reading of the patent summary they actually did do something sort of unique and clever with the buffers to trick standard OpenGL/DX instructions to compress video.
But it's mostly moot now that we have DxCompute etc.
Actually that's the opposite point of inception. The point of inception was that even though the virtual dream world is comforting and nice you have responsibilities in the real world you can't neglect and you have to wake up eventually and take care of them.
That's why they left the dream originally and the initial inception was created: to remind us that fantasy isn't a substitute for our real families.
If the point of inception was that it doesn't matter as long as we're happy then the main character would have stayed in Limbo with his fake wife forever blissfully unaware.
You don't even have to be omniscient. A retarded monkey could design a better universe. Unless the very fundamental nature of the universe changed after it was created any universe based on increasing entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is destined to fill with 'Sin'.
Why do we eat and not have little fusion reactors? Why not just magic energy out of the air.
The world we know: plants, animals, food, rocks, gravity-- it's all designed to operate in a world whose very physical laws destroy and mame.
But how long before the average 'cost' of an employee is $4m? That's precisely my point. $1B datacenter. 50 full time employees.
When that becomes the norm a fortune 500 company will employ 500 people. You say it frees us to do other things. True. But if it cost $20m in infrastructure per person then the average business will have less than one employee. Without employees nobody earns money and without money nobody spends it on Amazon, Apple etc...
Take a grocery store. With RFID you could shop, go out to your car, and leave. You've just put 10 people out of work. Efficiency! But what do those people do now? Go work at McDonalds? You forget that McDonalds went automatic. Perhaps they could mow lawns? No, Roomba Yard does that really well. Work at the Gap? Gap went VR years ago, see how it looks/fits in an augmented reality mirror and then try it on the next day in the Amazon Fresh delivery, don't like it just put it back in the Amazon fresh pickup.
Those who are employed will make more and more. And more and more will be unemployed.
Am I the only one who finds it extremely unsettling that Apple plans to run a $1B facility with up to 50 people and *maybe* employ up to 250 more minimum wage people for security etc?
That's a trend that's not going to go away. Welcome to the information economy where people are in a surplus. How long until a $10B facility is managed by 2 people (excluding the ISS)?
I've actually read that self-serve vs full service gas stations cost about the same to run. The added insurance costs for self-serve offset the wages.
So what you're saying is that a lot of unemployed people won't have enough money to spend on less expensive goods. I'm sure they'll take comfort in knowing all the things they can't afford are cheaper than they used to be.
This is the problem with free market thinking. Yes, the GDP will improve. Prices will drop. Efficiency will go up. But even if all of our prices drop by 50% at the expense of 50% unemployment only a select few in the current economy can benefit from those reduced prices. Without income it doesn't matter what something costs--you can't afford it. On the brighter side you can cut the food stamps you're giving them since the grocery prices are reduced.
The rich get richer and the poor still have nothing.
It would probably handle bad drivers better than we do.
The definition of a Bad Driver is one who doesn't follow the rules and drives unpredictably. With an unpredictable, erratic driver who doesn't follow rules you can't anticipate their actions and it comes down purely to reaction time. Computers win in a battle of reflexes. Not only that they can swerve to avoid them and also be aware of the full 360 degree area around them. So if there is a car to the left they can swerve to the right. A human driver might sideswipe someone to avoid an accident.
Last I checked low stock prices wasn't a problem afflicting our economy.
Obama has pledged to cut taxes on the economic drivers: consumers. Do you think people will not want a piece of a profitable company's success as more affluent spenders seek businesses to give their dollars to?
You give everyone $5,000 and you will create jobs. Businesses would HAVE to hire people to handle the demand and keep enough product on their shelves. You give an investor $500,000 and what do they do with it? They buy some bonds. They put it in a company who is laying off workers and therefore becoming more profitable.
Giving people cash is a free market principle. Businesses are on an even footing to get the cash from the consumers, they just have to create compelling products and services to get that stimulus. It's capitalism at its finest. Those who create the most desirable product will get the most money.
You know what would drive expansion in our business? Customers.
If we had more customers we would hire more employees to fulfill the demand. We wouldn't need "investment" we would be responding to the market.
It's also one of the most "free market" solutions to the problem. Instead of "encouraging" investment--whatever that means you just give people money. That money will then be spent through free market principles. If you want a piece of that "stimulus" then you have to demonstrate that your product and service is useful and superior to the competitors.
Don't give businesses tax breaks to hire people blindly. If the business is a sound business the People Stimulus will bring those dollars to them to purchase their goods and services.
The real question though that nobody is asking is: "Do we need all these people?" Is there enough work for the entire population anymore to work full time? Do we want a 40 hour week with 10% unemployment or a 36 hour week with 0 unemployment? But that's unrealistic because you require training, persistence of attention to tasks etc. With automation I just can't see our economy lasting into the future as it currently is. Look at Amazon. In the not too distant future freight will be all but automated. Warehousing will be all but automated. You'll be able to run amazon with a relatively microscopic workforce that serves everybody that the grocery store, target and specialty store once serviced. VR will be sufficient to have no need to actually journey to a shop to play with it before buying it. VR will let you try on clothing, see how it looks on you.
Software makes people's lives easier. If you can learn your job in a few months or even a year a machine will be able to do it better in the not very distant future. Before too long we'll be running up against the limitations of many people's abilities to adapt. We're going to start people who are literally unemployable through no fault of their own. They'll be obsolete. What do we do with a population (and race) that's from a labor standpoint obsolete? How does the market operate when you hit 50% unemployment? The last remnants of 'moral superiority' in the rich will be gone. It'll be obvious that the unemployed aren't lazy. They're normal people who just are unneeded. I doubt we'll see our populations shrink. So I think we're going to have to start readjusting our incentives. If you want to work great, there are huge rewards for that. If you don't want to work, that's fine, we don't need you to, here is your pension, stay out of trouble... if you like try and come up with something cool.
If you look the online communities surrounding games for instance you'll see that people with too much free time and no profit motive still create things of value. Maybe a sub-market will emerge where you sell your idea online. As you emerge as creating something which people value you could spend it to move beyond the 'base' income into a more luxurious life style.
Me? I hope to work till I die. Stop paying me and I'll keep working because it's what I like to do. If you want to go sit on a beach 365 days a week be my guest, I would get bored. I would certainly in such a world work less but like work today if you wanted one of the coveted positions you would probably have to stick around for the shitty work in addition to the cool work.
Didn't you get the memo? Only wealthy people are smart and productive. If we didn't have rich people the stupid plebes would just wander around with a tin cup wanting for something to do. Now if the poor peasants had enough money themselves to start a business like the wealthy individual I'm SURE they wouldn't start businesses of their own. No, they are poor because they are lazy and stupid and deserve to be poor. The wealthy are wealthy by their own merit without any assistance. And their wealth is proof that they're just better than other people.
Geez get with the times.
Oh and if the Rich were taxed at 90% they wouldn't want to start businesses because they would all rather make minimum wage than subject themselves to a paltry $100k a year. It's demeaning to suggest that someone could make ends meet on $100k.