Well fair labor rate is relative since the cost of living isn't the same everywhere. Not to mention the standard of living. Unless you want Chinese workers to live in mansions just because everyone in southern California does.
Excuse me, but I live in Southern California and I have to ask you this: does an 1100 sq. ft. duplex count as a mansion?
Dick Cheney for one. The only real hearts he has are the ones hes eaten.
I am very offended by this remark. Dick Cheney has never eaten a human heart. He's cut them out, certainly, but the only hearts he's eaten are puppy hearts.
Paying for articles has a long history [...] and of itself is not what is "wrong" with what gizmodo did.
While you're right that checkbook journalism does have a long history, it's none the less considered to be unethical by professional journalists, most of whom would say that paying for the iPhone story was indeed just as wrong as any other part of what Gizmodo did.
... the only bad PR Apple is going to receive over excluding Gizmodo is going to come from those sources that are always looking for bad things to say about the company no matter what.
Like Slashdot, you mean?
Well, yeah, but I was thinking more main stream No one who matters reads Slashdot.
As any rational person knows, the law is not the same as justice. There have been plenty of examples of unjust laws all over the world, and especially in the US (Jim Crow laws, slavery, laws requiring escaped slaves to be taken back to their owners, the DMCA, etc).
Please tell me that you aren't really comparing the laws concerning a stolen cell phone with the Fugitive Slave Act. Please. Because I'd really prefer to believe that I'm dealing with the "rational person" who just claimed that rational people know the law is not the same as justice.
Denying press credentials to any legitimate news organization, which is Gizmodo sure as hell is, is rotten PR at the very least.
I think that under the circumstances, the only bad PR Apple is going to receive over excluding Gizmodo is going to come from those sources that are always looking for bad things to say about the company no matter what. More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.
As for Gizmodo being a legitimate news organization, well, that's debatable, isn't it? IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property. And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen. I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it.
Good idea but, unfortunately for Gizmodo, tickets to the WWDC were sold out long before the iPhone prototype fiasco hit the Intertubes.
Nothing Apple could do about that...
I don't know this for sure but I suspect that admission to the WWDC involves the standard contract that's put on most event tickets. That usually includes a section stating that the event sponsor (Apple in this case) maintains the right to exclude anybody they choose after they refund the ticket price.
I never knew this was illegal. My phone has been ringing non-stop for three weeks in the evenings.. And I'm in California.
Same here--I'm also a Californian and I get a boatload (bot-load?) of robocalls from candidates and advocates on all sides of every issue before each election. I had no idea that they were illegal here.
I'm not defending Kolakwski by any means, I hate robocalls and hang up immediately whenever I get one, but she's not really doing anything that a lot of other people are doing.
Ah, an ad hominem attack. The last resort of someone who is out of his depth. The gloves can come off now.
I'll match my knowledge of history with yours any day of the week. My study of history is why I'm a Libertarian.
I suspect that, like most Capital "L "Libertarians, your "study of history" consists mainly of reading Ayn Rand novels. I didn't need to study it myself--I lived through it and as a working-class guy have been suffering the consequences ever since.
All *you're* doing is repeating the standard big-government propaganda line.
No sir, I'm not a fan of big government nor am I affiliated with any political party; in fact, I'm a lower-case "L" libertarian. I am a fan of trade unionism, though, the which is apparently something you skipped over in your reading of history.
Reagan, contrary to the liberal propaganda line, wasn't very successful in rolling back regulation of business
Perhaps not by the standards of a Big "L" Libertarian; by the standards of any rational person, however, he was quite successful.
The tax cuts didn't actually reduce tax revenues
No? Then explain the ballooning of the federal deficit during Reagan's term.
If firing striking air traffic controllers who violated their contract and endangered the public is "declaring war on labor unions", I say lock and load.
That was only the opening salvo. His DOJ systematically dismantled all the protections afforded to unionized labor in the name of "free markets." Of course, if you were really a student of history, you would know all this. But you're not--you're a ideologue.
Oh, for Christ's sake. Reagan did what he could to slow the growth of the number one enemy of anyone who works for a living in this country.
Sorry, but you're deluded. Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation benefited only the wealthy and big business; they did nothing to help the middle class it. Not only that, his policies essentially declared war on labor unions. Like it or not, it was the unions that created the American middle class in the first place.
I think you need to stop listening to talk radio and start reading up on your history; as it is now, all you're doing is regurgitating right-wing talking points.
If you've got Parkinson's Disease, this could get really expensive.
I'm thinking about a friend of mine who's got mild-to-moderate Tourette's syndrome (I am not making this up). He could go broke in a matter of minutes.
If you imagine that government protects you from corporations, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Oh, no, I have no illusions about that. It's just that the Libertarians (note upper-case "L" here) would pretty much eliminate what few legal protections I do have and throw all recourse into the civil courts--a solution that favors the wealthy.
Libertarianism is nothing but a continuation of Ronald Reagan's assault on the working class in the U.S.
Fear the Libertarians! If they get their way, the government will leave you alone! Oh, the Horror!
It's not that I fear the government leaving me alone, it's that I fear that if the Libertarians have their way, the corporations will not leave me alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Never tell me the odds!
6 to 1 that someone will.
The really cool and dedicated-to-the-cult kids upgraded to the C128.
Hah! All the really cool kids had the C129! At least according to InfoWorld they did.
Well fair labor rate is relative since the cost of living isn't the same everywhere. Not to mention the standard of living. Unless you want Chinese workers to live in mansions just because everyone in southern California does.
Excuse me, but I live in Southern California and I have to ask you this: does an 1100 sq. ft. duplex count as a mansion?
Depends on the topic. Female anatomy is millions of years old, but it would still count as news for nerds.
Huh? What is this "Female" thing of which you speak?
Wright's Law: If something can go right, it will, for someone else.
I thought Wright's Law stated that anything that can go rong will go rong.
Great. Now we're gonna start getting spammed by North Korean pharmacies instead of just the Canadian ones.
I noticed that too. Hardly counts as News for Nerds when it's a year old.
Dick Cheney for one. The only real hearts he has are the ones hes eaten.
I am very offended by this remark. Dick Cheney has never eaten a human heart. He's cut them out, certainly, but the only hearts he's eaten are puppy hearts.
Please retract your statement.
Paying for articles has a long history [...] and of itself is not what is "wrong" with what gizmodo did.
While you're right that checkbook journalism does have a long history, it's none the less considered to be unethical by professional journalists, most of whom would say that paying for the iPhone story was indeed just as wrong as any other part of what Gizmodo did.
AKA, "libertarianism". The autism of politics.
I thank you for that, sir. It made me laugh out loud.
Like Slashdot, you mean?
Well, yeah, but I was thinking more main stream No one who matters reads Slashdot.
As any rational person knows, the law is not the same as justice. There have been plenty of examples of unjust laws all over the world, and especially in the US (Jim Crow laws, slavery, laws requiring escaped slaves to be taken back to their owners, the DMCA, etc).
Please tell me that you aren't really comparing the laws concerning a stolen cell phone with the Fugitive Slave Act. Please. Because I'd really prefer to believe that I'm dealing with the "rational person" who just claimed that rational people know the law is not the same as justice.
No, a legitimate news organization just makes its stories up.
Wait, wait--you're saying that Fox is a legitimate news organization, then? Who knew...
Heh, you make me laugh with your impotent rage.
I stand corrected.
Denying press credentials to any legitimate news organization, which is Gizmodo sure as hell is, is rotten PR at the very least.
I think that under the circumstances, the only bad PR Apple is going to receive over excluding Gizmodo is going to come from those sources that are always looking for bad things to say about the company no matter what. More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.
As for Gizmodo being a legitimate news organization, well, that's debatable, isn't it? IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property. And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen. I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it.
Good idea but, unfortunately for Gizmodo, tickets to the WWDC were sold out long before the iPhone prototype fiasco hit the Intertubes.
Nothing Apple could do about that...
I don't know this for sure but I suspect that admission to the WWDC involves the standard contract that's put on most event tickets. That usually includes a section stating that the event sponsor (Apple in this case) maintains the right to exclude anybody they choose after they refund the ticket price.
I never knew this was illegal. My phone has been ringing non-stop for three weeks in the evenings.. And I'm in California.
Same here--I'm also a Californian and I get a boatload (bot-load?) of robocalls from candidates and advocates on all sides of every issue before each election. I had no idea that they were illegal here.
I'm not defending Kolakwski by any means, I hate robocalls and hang up immediately whenever I get one, but she's not really doing anything that a lot of other people are doing.
Right back at you, pinkbot.
Ah, an ad hominem attack. The last resort of someone who is out of his depth. The gloves can come off now.
I'll match my knowledge of history with yours any day of the week. My study of history is why I'm a Libertarian.
I suspect that, like most Capital "L "Libertarians, your "study of history" consists mainly of reading Ayn Rand novels. I didn't need to study it myself--I lived through it and as a working-class guy have been suffering the consequences ever since.
All *you're* doing is repeating the standard big-government propaganda line.
No sir, I'm not a fan of big government nor am I affiliated with any political party; in fact, I'm a lower-case "L" libertarian. I am a fan of trade unionism, though, the which is apparently something you skipped over in your reading of history.
Reagan, contrary to the liberal propaganda line, wasn't very successful in rolling back regulation of business
Perhaps not by the standards of a Big "L" Libertarian; by the standards of any rational person, however, he was quite successful.
The tax cuts didn't actually reduce tax revenues
No? Then explain the ballooning of the federal deficit during Reagan's term.
If firing striking air traffic controllers who violated their contract and endangered the public is "declaring war on labor unions", I say lock and load.
That was only the opening salvo. His DOJ systematically dismantled all the protections afforded to unionized labor in the name of "free markets." Of course, if you were really a student of history, you would know all this. But you're not--you're a ideologue.
What do you do when you run out of wind?
Same as when you run out of gasoline--walk.
Oh, for Christ's sake. Reagan did what he could to slow the growth of the number one enemy of anyone who works for a living in this country.
Sorry, but you're deluded. Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation benefited only the wealthy and big business; they did nothing to help the middle class it. Not only that, his policies essentially declared war on labor unions. Like it or not, it was the unions that created the American middle class in the first place.
I think you need to stop listening to talk radio and start reading up on your history; as it is now, all you're doing is regurgitating right-wing talking points.
If you've got Parkinson's Disease, this could get really expensive.
I'm thinking about a friend of mine who's got mild-to-moderate Tourette's syndrome (I am not making this up). He could go broke in a matter of minutes.
If you imagine that government protects you from corporations, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Oh, no, I have no illusions about that. It's just that the Libertarians (note upper-case "L" here) would pretty much eliminate what few legal protections I do have and throw all recourse into the civil courts--a solution that favors the wealthy.
Libertarianism is nothing but a continuation of Ronald Reagan's assault on the working class in the U.S.
Fear the Libertarians! If they get their way, the government will leave you alone! Oh, the Horror!
It's not that I fear the government leaving me alone, it's that I fear that if the Libertarians have their way, the corporations will not leave me alone.
Come on, how many of you immediately think of "kung fu" (or worse, "karate") when you see a Chinese person? Associations are there and they are real.
Not me. I think of Mu Shu Pork. Mmmmmmmmmm....