Chances are, if you are proud of the company you work for, and are happy to be there, nobody in that company needs to ask you to astroturf, or do any kind of promotion.
If you are here asking the question as to what you should do... then I think you already know that answer.
And that answer is to get a better job, with someone you enjoy working for. Or at least, someone who won't make you want to shower every time you come home at night to wash the slime off. Yes, it's a tough economy -- but it got that way by the immoral actions of the minority. They way out of it, is not by further immoral actions.
And at risk of Godwinning the thread, the "only obeying orders" is an excuse, never a defense. You are responsible for your own moral actions. Internally, for your own peace of mind -- and in the eyes of the law.
There's no law requiring anyone to have a Facebook account (yet, anyway). And anyone who has their real name as their Facebook account is naive at best.
The images loaded for me -- it was the Enterprise A. And it looked great in the pics, it has to be said.
Can't really see the issue they had. Everything in Vegas gets blown up after a decade or so. It would have paid for itself in that time -- especially if it looked as good as it does in the pics, and did inside too.
If they installed working phasers they could have taken a lot of work out of demolishing casinos!
I've got a better idea: How about we build some sewers, electricity, get them some running water, and then setup some better agricultural facilities
These things have been done for decades. Does NOT work! All that does is create a culture of dependence. And of resentment, where middle-class patronizing aid workers and missionaries come and pat the heads of poor people and tell them how to live their lives. You want to breed terrorism, that's the way to go.
The only aid they need is education. They have plenty of resources and cheap manpower. They can build anything, if they were only educated enough to throw off their dictator governments, and fight corruption. As it is now the corruption does really well off aid projects. Giving aid, however well meaning, is the wrong way to go.
They need information and ideas, that is all. They already have everything else they need.
NGO's, Charities, pressure groups, etc... they all try to make money when someone is "offended". Plead outrage -> release angry statement -> remind people that they exist, and make it look as though they are doing something about their cause -> then go cap in hand for donations = profit.
It's easy, easy, easy money. Usually costs nothing more than a press release, and rakes in a lot of $$$
Nobody -- absolutely nobody -- is ever actually fucking offended, nor outraged, nor emotionally damaged by any of these things. Sticks and stones. It's just the parasitical rights orgs that are taking up the offense on their behalf, in order to cash-in.
Obviously NY doesn't want the political hassle or potential lawsuits. In some ways I can understand that, the one word that people who always bang on about minority rights all the time cannot tolerate, is the word "no". It's about time someone did say "no" to them, and they lose their easy gravy-train. By giving in to this politically correct garbage, they are just taking society towards Idiocracy all the quicker.
But then, Education is really all about money too (higher education, especially). At the end of the day, very few of them actually care whether anyone actually learns anything, as long as the checks keep coming in.
Apparently, the first known usage of "truck" was in 1611 when it referred to the small strong wheels on ships' cannon carriages.
Ergo, what you pedantically think is a truck isn't a frickin truck either.
Or, alternatively, we can enjoy the fact the the English language is a dynamic and malleable tool which we can use to our own ends. Thus we can call this a truck if we damn well want to, and stick our middle fingers up to the small-minded pedants and grammar nazi's who want to kill all the fucking creativity in the world.
If only the original grammar nazi, Dr Johnson, had not written that fucking dictionary... The world would be a more interesting place without people with a bug up their ass about what they think everyone MUST do. The world was completely fine for millennia with variable spellings, metaphorical meanings, and grammar, it's only the past 200 years that people have been anal about it. Seriously, we do not really need it as much as some people think we do. Shakespeare made words up all the time -- made an whole career out of it. And we are all the better for it. Deal with it... quietly.
Why can't we have a long term positive male companion?
Probably because the BBC is trying to hit the right advertising demographic in the US. It's one of the very few scripted shows that the BBC can sell abroad, and they want to milk every penny out of it they can (even though its production is wholly subsidized). The BBC loves to get paid twice for things -- and more so with Dr Who as it has lots of merchandising too.
They did used to have male companions, back in the days when the BBC actually gave a fuck about its Charter. It was originally supposed to be an educational show for children, but now it's wholly-commercial, ratings-driven TV (of variable quality) -- something the BBC is not supposed to produce.
Hopefully this girl can act better than the ginger girl, who could not act to save her life. But since this new girl is an ex-soap opera actress, I'd think it's likely she's been hired for her other assets.
You'll probably only see a male companion if the Doctor gets a sex change.
Yep. Without subsidies, wind is not economically viable at present -- probably never will be. A lot of people are making good money from the subsidies right now, including even (in Europe) being paid not to operate the farms.
What people seem to forget is that this was also politically-fashionable in the 80's for a while too, there's plenty of rusting turbine hulks in California and Hawaii -- albeit of less efficient machines. When wind finally runs out of subsidies, it will die another death -- just like the last time.
There are better, more efficient, sustainable sources of energy out there. Just all the money's being wasted on wind right now, because that's where the free lunch is. This is not a good thing.
When did the holodeck ever work as planned? I assume its software was designed by the great, great, great, great, great grandson of the guy who thought IE6 was a good idea.
Seriously, no-one thought of sandboxing the holodeck? Even after the first 10 times the ship got pwned by it?
This (and the Doomsday Clock) are just stupid gimmicks. They get in the way of facts. It's just lousy journalism.
Just state the percentage chance -- percentages are clear. Even if they are just probabilities and do not necessarily reflect what will happen in any way.
Considering Iran's leadership, anything could happen at any time. Using a retarded clock with a deliberately confusing scale isn't going to make that any clearer.
And if your book is any good, you can hire them for a lot less than 75% of all future royalties.
Exactly. There's plenty of people doing these jobs freelance. Their rates are not beyond the range of most people. To go to them directly and cut out the wholly unnecessary middlemen is good for you, good for them, and good for the consumer.
In addition, if you are going to sell millions, then you can do that just as easily with an agent or manager -- who works for you. There's no reason for publishers to be involved in digital media at all.
Ironic to have Guardian journalists complaining about privacy. Not only are they as guilty as most of the UK press in phone hacking, their paper is full of links to Facebook.
This article brought to you by the newspaper that condemns rich people avoiding tax, and hedge funds -- whilst being almost entirely funded by an hedge fund operating from the Caymans.
I'd never heard of this car before. So I checked out its wikipedia entry... and noted that absolutely none of any of the controversy about it is listed there. There is a great deal of information about the car -- marketing information, that is. I can find out how many awards it has won (like that really matters), I can find out how good it is at so many things.
What I can't find, is any objective truth there. Admittedly, no surprise, since I've never seen any wikipedia car entry that isn't so-obviously written by a fan, or the marketing dept of the manufacturer. The Volt's page was clearly written by someone with connections to GM. Just like so many other wikipedia pages. It's a complete waste of time using wikipedia for anything that has a fanbase, commercial interests, or political implications.
I know they say they own the rights -- but that will not stop the RIAA from trying to lawyer them off the net. Doesn't matter that they are above board and within their rights -- these mere details never stopped Big Music from fucking people over. Or, at least, trying to. And them trying to, will still cost a lot of lawyerage.
What killed Kodak was simple marketing. They were too late to associate digital photography with the Kodak brand.
Maybe. Though, I'm curious to understand why Fuji succeeded and Kodak failed.
There seems to be very little external difference between the two companies. They both made film for stills and motion pictures, they both made basic consumer cameras. I'm not personally aware of any more marketing that Fuji did that Kodak didn't. Kodak most usually had the advantage of being the first in most of its technologies, with Fuji following.
That makes me think that the real problem must have been internal. Layers of entrenched inflexible management and processes, resistance to change, etc -- all the usual things that all corporations inevitably stagnate from, due to internal bureaucracy and the curse that is HR.
No actually, it doesn't. Poverty is not a reason for scamming.
Absolutely true.
It really annoys me to hear people (champagne socialists, usually) talking about poverty being the source of crime. It absolutely is not.
Some of the world's greatest artists, humanitarians, scientists and social reformers have come from poverty far worse than anyone currently living in the West has ever experienced, and probably far worse than most Nigerians too, for that matter.
There's proportionally just as much crime committed by rich people as poor people -- there's just a lot more poor people.
Crime is a lifestyle choice for most people who commit it -- it's not borne out of desperation, nor out of need.
I doubt lectures are better. I've no idea why Professors are finding it doesn't work -- I suspect ineptitude, indolence/a lack of will, and/or a lack of communication skills.
Many lectures are held with about 300 people sitting half-asleep in one room. On average they probably pay attention for the first 10 minutes, and maybe a few other minutes on and off through the hour. Most do not ask questions.
How can that possibly be better than to have the same information imparted via a video or audio show, which they can 1. Pause, 2. Rewind, and 3. Watch at a time when they are fully ready to concentrate? Especially since they will have the ability to email, facebook, or twat questions -- and may even have questions after fully taking in the entire lecture.
Leave face time for labs and tutorials, forget lectures -- they are a relic of the middle-ages, along with the need to have term and vacation times that match the harvests.
I suspect that most objections to this are just stubbornness, laziness and fear of change. (Which also translates to fear of losing cash in Uni depts -- there really is far less reason for students to pay vast sums to go daily to over-large college buildings any more, nor reside in them either. And since Education is really a racket that's all about money, that's a reason to fear change.)
Firms have been taking humans out of the interview process for years. You can't seriously tell me that HR staff are human.
This might be better than having HR staff. Let's face it, HR people are failures -- at everything. Nobody ever, ever dreamed of working in HR as a kid. Nobody ever wants to do it. Hence the only people who do have no skills, no ambition, no creativity, not much in the way of brains, and have failed at something else. And thus have a chip on their shoulder with regards to absolutely everyone with any ability whatsoever.
This fact alone, explains why mediocrity exists in most corporations and government organizations. These clowns are the gatekeepers of everything else. This is why corporations lack the creativity and drive of smaller firms that have no HR.
Here's a crazy thought, mimic small firms. Have managers that actually manage, and use the technology that is available for admin and personnel management. Make decisions -- especially hiring decisions -- at the lowest possible common denominator level. Empower the lowest possible level of employees, make them involved in the quality of everything the firm does. Give them pride in their jobs. Build quality from the bottom up.
I guarantee that firing everyone in HR will increase productivity, profit and employee job satisfaction within 5 years. We simply do not need anyone working in HR in the modern age, they are a cancer at the heart of society.
The other advantage of this model suggested in the article is that it opens up the demographic again.
Currently, there's generally pretty much only two types of movies being made: 1. big studio movies that get general release and are deliberately targeted at the average under 25's (big, loud, dumb, and 3d where possible) -- this being the only significant viable cinema-going audience, and 2. niche art house movies that are only designed to appeal to movie students, critics, film buffs, and the clinically depressed.
These are the only two viable production models under the current distribution system. If you are over 25 and don't really want to watch some angst-ridden, slow, dreary, politically-correct, mirror on society, nobody is making movies you want to see right now.
Say, for example, a movie like the Sand Pebbles. That movie would be impossible to make in the current market. Unless you either, slashed the budget so it took place in a few rooms, or if you cast Shia LeDouche, Mila Kunis and had lots of car chases in 3d in it. There's no way a movie will make any money at all unless it's either mass appeal, or funded by some European government socialist film fund. We will never see another Sand Pebbles, nor 2001 A Space Oddysey, nor anything by Robert Altman, nor any similar movie, under the current system.
However, if you broadened the distribution system away from cinemas and DVDs, it is possible to target adults again, and release an whole range of genres. It would be like the late 60's and 70's where big-name directors and big stars could experiment, and produce art that was also extremely entertaining (rather than dreary and narcissistic, like the current art house crap).
it's one of the few actively maintained sites that doesn't have advertising.
Not quite. It's the BBC, so they are not allowed to advertise. But... they do, all the time. They are just more devious about it. Sure, yes, there's no banners or sidebars with ads. But they will make sure they get team's sponsor's logos in their pics, they'll mention sponsors names where possible, etc. As well as the fact that sport is a big-business commercial product all by itself. You can absolutely guarantee a lot of corporate branding on that website, by stealth, all through the Olympics.
Their sport pages admittedly seem to have less ads than their other webpages and TV and radio channels -- which are absolutely stacked full of viral marketing, press releases and "accidental" product shots.
There's nothing that some of the BBC's employed and sub-contracted producers, journalists, DJ's, and presenters like more, than to be paid twice for their job. Even if it is illegal under their Charter.
Thanks for posting the direct link, it's far more useful than the Godawful summary, and the even worse "full" article, which is full of backlinks and keyword spamming for other blogs.
The Museum's been open since 1994-ish, so why samzenpus thinks this is an article worthy of anything, is far beyond my understanding.
This article comes via the Guardian. This is a UK dead tree press company, which has survived mainly due to being funded by a network of hedge funds.
It's wise to look deeper into what those funds are invested in. It wouldn't be too difficult to trace those funds to companies who also have a Chinese manufacturing base, and who will thus inevitably have workers that are considered exploited by most western consumer standards.
Thus, boycotting Apple, makes as much sense as boycotting the Guardian. At least Apple aren't being hypocritical about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Chances are, if you are proud of the company you work for, and are happy to be there, nobody in that company needs to ask you to astroturf, or do any kind of promotion.
If you are here asking the question as to what you should do... then I think you already know that answer.
And that answer is to get a better job, with someone you enjoy working for. Or at least, someone who won't make you want to shower every time you come home at night to wash the slime off. Yes, it's a tough economy -- but it got that way by the immoral actions of the minority. They way out of it, is not by further immoral actions.
And at risk of Godwinning the thread, the "only obeying orders" is an excuse, never a defense. You are responsible for your own moral actions. Internally, for your own peace of mind -- and in the eyes of the law.
There's no law requiring anyone to have a Facebook account (yet, anyway). And anyone who has their real name as their Facebook account is naive at best.
The images loaded for me -- it was the Enterprise A. And it looked great in the pics, it has to be said.
Can't really see the issue they had. Everything in Vegas gets blown up after a decade or so. It would have paid for itself in that time -- especially if it looked as good as it does in the pics, and did inside too.
If they installed working phasers they could have taken a lot of work out of demolishing casinos!
These things have been done for decades. Does NOT work! All that does is create a culture of dependence. And of resentment, where middle-class patronizing aid workers and missionaries come and pat the heads of poor people and tell them how to live their lives. You want to breed terrorism, that's the way to go.
The only aid they need is education. They have plenty of resources and cheap manpower. They can build anything, if they were only educated enough to throw off their dictator governments, and fight corruption. As it is now the corruption does really well off aid projects. Giving aid, however well meaning, is the wrong way to go.
They need information and ideas, that is all. They already have everything else they need.
You can buy politicians without paying taxes.
This is all about money.
NGO's, Charities, pressure groups, etc... they all try to make money when someone is "offended". Plead outrage -> release angry statement -> remind people that they exist, and make it look as though they are doing something about their cause -> then go cap in hand for donations = profit.
It's easy, easy, easy money. Usually costs nothing more than a press release, and rakes in a lot of $$$
Nobody -- absolutely nobody -- is ever actually fucking offended, nor outraged, nor emotionally damaged by any of these things. Sticks and stones. It's just the parasitical rights orgs that are taking up the offense on their behalf, in order to cash-in.
Obviously NY doesn't want the political hassle or potential lawsuits. In some ways I can understand that, the one word that people who always bang on about minority rights all the time cannot tolerate, is the word "no". It's about time someone did say "no" to them, and they lose their easy gravy-train. By giving in to this politically correct garbage, they are just taking society towards Idiocracy all the quicker.
But then, Education is really all about money too (higher education, especially). At the end of the day, very few of them actually care whether anyone actually learns anything, as long as the checks keep coming in.
Apparently, the first known usage of "truck" was in 1611 when it referred to the small strong wheels on ships' cannon carriages.
Ergo, what you pedantically think is a truck isn't a frickin truck either.
Or, alternatively, we can enjoy the fact the the English language is a dynamic and malleable tool which we can use to our own ends. Thus we can call this a truck if we damn well want to, and stick our middle fingers up to the small-minded pedants and grammar nazi's who want to kill all the fucking creativity in the world.
If only the original grammar nazi, Dr Johnson, had not written that fucking dictionary... The world would be a more interesting place without people with a bug up their ass about what they think everyone MUST do. The world was completely fine for millennia with variable spellings, metaphorical meanings, and grammar, it's only the past 200 years that people have been anal about it. Seriously, we do not really need it as much as some people think we do. Shakespeare made words up all the time -- made an whole career out of it. And we are all the better for it. Deal with it... quietly.
Probably because the BBC is trying to hit the right advertising demographic in the US. It's one of the very few scripted shows that the BBC can sell abroad, and they want to milk every penny out of it they can (even though its production is wholly subsidized). The BBC loves to get paid twice for things -- and more so with Dr Who as it has lots of merchandising too.
They did used to have male companions, back in the days when the BBC actually gave a fuck about its Charter. It was originally supposed to be an educational show for children, but now it's wholly-commercial, ratings-driven TV (of variable quality) -- something the BBC is not supposed to produce.
Hopefully this girl can act better than the ginger girl, who could not act to save her life. But since this new girl is an ex-soap opera actress, I'd think it's likely she's been hired for her other assets.
You'll probably only see a male companion if the Doctor gets a sex change.
Yep. Without subsidies, wind is not economically viable at present -- probably never will be. A lot of people are making good money from the subsidies right now, including even (in Europe) being paid not to operate the farms.
What people seem to forget is that this was also politically-fashionable in the 80's for a while too, there's plenty of rusting turbine hulks in California and Hawaii -- albeit of less efficient machines. When wind finally runs out of subsidies, it will die another death -- just like the last time.
There are better, more efficient, sustainable sources of energy out there. Just all the money's being wasted on wind right now, because that's where the free lunch is. This is not a good thing.
When did the holodeck ever work as planned? I assume its software was designed by the great, great, great, great, great grandson of the guy who thought IE6 was a good idea.
Seriously, no-one thought of sandboxing the holodeck? Even after the first 10 times the ship got pwned by it?
This (and the Doomsday Clock) are just stupid gimmicks. They get in the way of facts. It's just lousy journalism.
Just state the percentage chance -- percentages are clear. Even if they are just probabilities and do not necessarily reflect what will happen in any way.
Considering Iran's leadership, anything could happen at any time. Using a retarded clock with a deliberately confusing scale isn't going to make that any clearer.
Exactly. There's plenty of people doing these jobs freelance. Their rates are not beyond the range of most people. To go to them directly and cut out the wholly unnecessary middlemen is good for you, good for them, and good for the consumer.
In addition, if you are going to sell millions, then you can do that just as easily with an agent or manager -- who works for you. There's no reason for publishers to be involved in digital media at all.
Ironic to have Guardian journalists complaining about privacy. Not only are they as guilty as most of the UK press in phone hacking, their paper is full of links to Facebook.
This article brought to you by the newspaper that condemns rich people avoiding tax, and hedge funds -- whilst being almost entirely funded by an hedge fund operating from the Caymans.
I'd never heard of this car before. So I checked out its wikipedia entry... and noted that absolutely none of any of the controversy about it is listed there. There is a great deal of information about the car -- marketing information, that is. I can find out how many awards it has won (like that really matters), I can find out how good it is at so many things.
What I can't find, is any objective truth there. Admittedly, no surprise, since I've never seen any wikipedia car entry that isn't so-obviously written by a fan, or the marketing dept of the manufacturer. The Volt's page was clearly written by someone with connections to GM. Just like so many other wikipedia pages. It's a complete waste of time using wikipedia for anything that has a fanbase, commercial interests, or political implications.
You forgot to add lawyers in the Expenses column.
I know they say they own the rights -- but that will not stop the RIAA from trying to lawyer them off the net. Doesn't matter that they are above board and within their rights -- these mere details never stopped Big Music from fucking people over. Or, at least, trying to. And them trying to, will still cost a lot of lawyerage.
Maybe. Though, I'm curious to understand why Fuji succeeded and Kodak failed.
There seems to be very little external difference between the two companies. They both made film for stills and motion pictures, they both made basic consumer cameras. I'm not personally aware of any more marketing that Fuji did that Kodak didn't. Kodak most usually had the advantage of being the first in most of its technologies, with Fuji following.
That makes me think that the real problem must have been internal. Layers of entrenched inflexible management and processes, resistance to change, etc -- all the usual things that all corporations inevitably stagnate from, due to internal bureaucracy and the curse that is HR.
Absolutely true.
It really annoys me to hear people (champagne socialists, usually) talking about poverty being the source of crime. It absolutely is not.
Some of the world's greatest artists, humanitarians, scientists and social reformers have come from poverty far worse than anyone currently living in the West has ever experienced, and probably far worse than most Nigerians too, for that matter.
There's proportionally just as much crime committed by rich people as poor people -- there's just a lot more poor people.
Crime is a lifestyle choice for most people who commit it -- it's not borne out of desperation, nor out of need.
I doubt lectures are better. I've no idea why Professors are finding it doesn't work -- I suspect ineptitude, indolence/a lack of will, and/or a lack of communication skills.
Many lectures are held with about 300 people sitting half-asleep in one room. On average they probably pay attention for the first 10 minutes, and maybe a few other minutes on and off through the hour. Most do not ask questions.
How can that possibly be better than to have the same information imparted via a video or audio show, which they can 1. Pause, 2. Rewind, and 3. Watch at a time when they are fully ready to concentrate? Especially since they will have the ability to email, facebook, or twat questions -- and may even have questions after fully taking in the entire lecture.
Leave face time for labs and tutorials, forget lectures -- they are a relic of the middle-ages, along with the need to have term and vacation times that match the harvests.
I suspect that most objections to this are just stubbornness, laziness and fear of change. (Which also translates to fear of losing cash in Uni depts -- there really is far less reason for students to pay vast sums to go daily to over-large college buildings any more, nor reside in them either. And since Education is really a racket that's all about money, that's a reason to fear change.)
What is six times seven?
Firms have been taking humans out of the interview process for years. You can't seriously tell me that HR staff are human.
This might be better than having HR staff. Let's face it, HR people are failures -- at everything. Nobody ever, ever dreamed of working in HR as a kid. Nobody ever wants to do it. Hence the only people who do have no skills, no ambition, no creativity, not much in the way of brains, and have failed at something else. And thus have a chip on their shoulder with regards to absolutely everyone with any ability whatsoever.
This fact alone, explains why mediocrity exists in most corporations and government organizations. These clowns are the gatekeepers of everything else. This is why corporations lack the creativity and drive of smaller firms that have no HR.
Here's a crazy thought, mimic small firms. Have managers that actually manage, and use the technology that is available for admin and personnel management. Make decisions -- especially hiring decisions -- at the lowest possible common denominator level. Empower the lowest possible level of employees, make them involved in the quality of everything the firm does. Give them pride in their jobs. Build quality from the bottom up.
I guarantee that firing everyone in HR will increase productivity, profit and employee job satisfaction within 5 years. We simply do not need anyone working in HR in the modern age, they are a cancer at the heart of society.
The other advantage of this model suggested in the article is that it opens up the demographic again.
Currently, there's generally pretty much only two types of movies being made: 1. big studio movies that get general release and are deliberately targeted at the average under 25's (big, loud, dumb, and 3d where possible) -- this being the only significant viable cinema-going audience, and 2. niche art house movies that are only designed to appeal to movie students, critics, film buffs, and the clinically depressed.
These are the only two viable production models under the current distribution system. If you are over 25 and don't really want to watch some angst-ridden, slow, dreary, politically-correct, mirror on society, nobody is making movies you want to see right now.
Say, for example, a movie like the Sand Pebbles. That movie would be impossible to make in the current market. Unless you either, slashed the budget so it took place in a few rooms, or if you cast Shia LeDouche, Mila Kunis and had lots of car chases in 3d in it. There's no way a movie will make any money at all unless it's either mass appeal, or funded by some European government socialist film fund. We will never see another Sand Pebbles, nor 2001 A Space Oddysey, nor anything by Robert Altman, nor any similar movie, under the current system.
However, if you broadened the distribution system away from cinemas and DVDs, it is possible to target adults again, and release an whole range of genres. It would be like the late 60's and 70's where big-name directors and big stars could experiment, and produce art that was also extremely entertaining (rather than dreary and narcissistic, like the current art house crap).
I think you are right that they won't beat out Android or iPhone -- however, all RIM's users will belong to MS, very, very soon.
Not quite. It's the BBC, so they are not allowed to advertise. But... they do, all the time. They are just more devious about it. Sure, yes, there's no banners or sidebars with ads. But they will make sure they get team's sponsor's logos in their pics, they'll mention sponsors names where possible, etc. As well as the fact that sport is a big-business commercial product all by itself. You can absolutely guarantee a lot of corporate branding on that website, by stealth, all through the Olympics.
Their sport pages admittedly seem to have less ads than their other webpages and TV and radio channels -- which are absolutely stacked full of viral marketing, press releases and "accidental" product shots.
There's nothing that some of the BBC's employed and sub-contracted producers, journalists, DJ's, and presenters like more, than to be paid twice for their job. Even if it is illegal under their Charter.
Thanks for posting the direct link, it's far more useful than the Godawful summary, and the even worse "full" article, which is full of backlinks and keyword spamming for other blogs.
The Museum's been open since 1994-ish, so why samzenpus thinks this is an article worthy of anything, is far beyond my understanding.
This article comes via the Guardian. This is a UK dead tree press company, which has survived mainly due to being funded by a network of hedge funds.
It's wise to look deeper into what those funds are invested in. It wouldn't be too difficult to trace those funds to companies who also have a Chinese manufacturing base, and who will thus inevitably have workers that are considered exploited by most western consumer standards.
Thus, boycotting Apple, makes as much sense as boycotting the Guardian. At least Apple aren't being hypocritical about it.