No, I believe you basically heard correctly. I remember that being one of Qwest's competitive advantages at the time they got started. When everyone else was stuck negotiating for rights to use other people's land to place their fiber cabling, Qwest could usually just use the "right of way" land along the sides of the train tracks instead.
I think in the end though, it didn't change much of anything for the "end user/customer". Eventually, the big telcos all found ways to get things cabled up where they wanted to cable them up. Qwest might have gotten it done for less money initially, but they all have similar costs of operation and pricing models today.
To be honest, *private* school didn't help me. (I don't think I'm qualified to speak for everyone else who attended my school. I'm not that familiar with how the rest of their lives worked out for them.)
I attended a private school between 7th. grade and sophmore year of high school. Today, looking back, I can safely say those were 4 of the worst years of my life. The combination of faculty who insisted on running things in a fascist military style, while often doing a questionable job of teaching the material, plus the abundance of "spoiled, rich kids" did nothing for me. Switching to a public school, after MUCH begging and pleading to my parents, was the BEST move I made.
The school systems DO waste a lot of people's time and money. I just don't think it's always fair to single out "public schools" as the only problems. Private schools currently have the ability to make themselves look good "on paper" by refusing or kicking out anyone who doesn't help them keep an artificially good image. They also tend to hide behind their religious affiliations. (EG. "Come on now, Johnny. Your school can't be THAT bad! You're being taught by Catholic brothers!")
I understand, except my suspicion/fear is that a cracker could examine a number of valid keys to figure out a good idea of which small portion of the complete keyspace was used in their generation - and tailor a keygen accordingly.
Anyone working at a retail store (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) would have a relatively easy time accessing a number of valid keys by simply opening a few boxes and peeking inside before re-sealing them.
I recently bought the native OS X version of Call of Duty 4. (I had the PS3 version for a little while, but I can't get used to playing a 1st. person shooter with the console controller....)
I only got to play online a few times before I was greeting with a "CD key already in use" message and kicked offline. Apparently, quite a few people are suffering from the same issue. Tech. support suggests that improperly exiting the game can cause the main server to hold onto your login info for a while, and to "wait a little while and try again". They also suggest that an "overloaded master server" could temporarily cause it.
Well, that may be true in *some* situations, but the more obvious problem is that pirates have created key-generator programs that make valid keys that wind up matching ones paid for by customers like me. Will they issue me a new key though? No way! Forget it! I've barely been able to play in the last few weeks..... If I finally get online with my key, I guess I need to leave my Mac connected all the time? Ridiculous!
My best friend had the exact same issue with Quake 4 a while ago - which prompted him to stop buying any more 1st. person shooters requiring keys for online play. Activision refused to help him with his problem -- so he was essentially better off just pirating.
The legal issue is, OS X was never really sold as a "full install" product. It's only sold as an "upgrade license" - because the assumption is, your original OS X license came with your Apple computer when it was originally purchased.
Psystar is buying these OS X retail "upgrade editions" and using them in a way that runs counter to the licensing agreement.
Additionally, they have to put out modified versions of some of Apple's OS X software updates, to ensure they don't break their non-standard systems. That means, Apple has a claim that they're reverse engineering their code without permission too.
Exactly! But again, that smacks of logic and common sense. Don't expect much of either during this administration.
Did you see any big improvements since the "drug czar" was appointed? (I'd say none, unless you're referring to the increased levels of THC found in most marijuana over the last couple decades.)
Yeah... I actually thought of this back in the mid 90's, when going out to lunch with fellow I.T. co-workers. At that time, everyone said "Wow... why DON'T restaurants have that already, anyway??"
To this day, it seems they still don't.
Long ago, I decided the problem was one of the expense of the hardware, vs. one of people "coming up with the idea".
Almost all restaurants use Point of Sale systems provided to them under contract by one of only a handful of providers out there (IBM being one of them). My buddy works for one such company right now, and they definitely have a little market niche. The touch-screen terminals and software are proprietary, and although large users manuals may be provided for modifying the software, 99% of people in the restaurant business have no time or inclination to tackle doing all of that themselves. Therefore, they're stuck paying huge hourly fees for changes every time they re-price some things or change around menu items, or ??
I can see, now, how tough a "sell" it would be to convince a small restaurant they should pay for a secure wireless network and all of these proprietary card readers for EACH table, PLUS however much money for a corresponding software upgrade to the PoS software back-end.
They're going to say "No obvious bottom line cost savings? Just something to save my waiter or waitress from doing an extra little bit of work? Umm.... no."
Did it ever occur to you that the authors of PithHelmet might be to blame, and not Apple?
What's Apple supposed to do here? Make sure they don't modify their OWN software in any way, shape or form that causes PithHelmet to break? If it does, wait on their release until the PithHelmet guys say it's ok to proceed?
(I'm just saying... if you're making threats about your next Mac being some kind of hacked "Franken-Mac" over this? That's more than just a little extreme.)
I think this is more important than many people realize. You do want to see evidence of experience and a grasp of concepts. (Some people, while eager, are simply trying to "bite off more than they can chew" by interviewing for too complicated a position for their current skills.)
But overall, yes! The person who "lives and breathes I.T." will be FAR superior to the person who views it as "just a way to get a paycheck every couple weeks".
I think you're right, but the big name hardware makers all wanted that "symbiotic relationship" with Microsoft. EG. You supply the OS/software, and we'll supply the hardware. Together, we'll both PROFIT!
It may not be all "love and roses" these days, with Vista not living up to its promises and all. But can you really imagine HP, Dell, or any of that lot suddenly coming out with their OWN operating system, this late in the game, and doing a decent job of it? You know the ONE company who had a shot at it, right? That was IBM, with OS/2, but they blew it too - out of greed, and the attraction of the "simplicity" of just letting Microsoft handle it for them instead.
Say what you will about Apple, but they're the last standing hold-out from the era when all "personal computers" ran operating systems designed by and supported solely by the same companies that made the hardware. (Commodore, Atari, Tandy/TRS-80, etc. etc.)
I haven't worked at MS either, but I did know a guy who worked on MS Outlook for them for a while. His assessment of the organization was much like what "girlintraining" detailed.
I remember one time, he told me how they had problems with promoting people internally. Developers didn't WANT to get a promotion that meant they'd become a "project lead" - and thereby be held accountable for all the problems. (Not to mention, the raises weren't deemed worth the additional hours they'd get stuck putting in.)
Sure people want cheap computers, just like they want anything else to be as cheap as possible. Nobody likes to spend more than they have to.
The fact remains though, a number of people will spend more as long as they believe that they "get what they pay for". That's why Apple has been so successful, really. They charge more for nicely configured systems with more expensive case designs and better support (you can still take one in to any of hundreds of retail stores for servicing, unlike any other major brand of PC I can think of).
Vista's problem is, it doesn't really make people feel like they "got what they paid for" in many cases. You generally need twice as much system memory as you did with XP to get comparable performance, and all the pretty f/x demand an actual 3D graphics card with decent capabilities. (Sure, it runs fine without that, but then you're negating one of the benefits that was supposed to make a user feel like they really had something "slick" when they used it.)
When you buy a machine that actually runs Vista well, you're not buying a low-end bargain machine -- so that means people have higher expectations for that extra money spent.
I don't think it delivers on those expectations -- and SURELY won't when you go the budget machine route.
Yep! Same experience here. I avoided those "social networking" sites for a long time, because I'm 37 - and didn't see a need to put my profile right next to all the teens and early 20-somethings. I wanted to post pictures of interesting events I attended, or of my kid, or what-have-you. No point putting that up in the same place everyone else has their 250 poorly focused snapshots they took from last night's big party.....
But Facebook really did let me re-connect with a lot of people I last saw as long ago as 3rd. or 4th. grade! Within a week of making a profile there, I had 5 or 6 friend requests, all legitimate and from people I really lost touch with. I was impressed.
I also had some luck with Friendster, since it seems to be a much less "hip" or "trendy" site these days. It seems like an older crowd uses it, just because they started out with it before competing sites really got off the ground, and stuck with it after that.
Are you suggesting that these regulations have no effect on the potential for people to discover new things?
I'd argue that irresponsibility can't be fixed by any amount of regulation. Attempts to do so only make it more difficult for the responsible to contribute to society in positive ways.
The world may not stop at 5PM EST, but it's also realistic for companies to grasp the idea that doing sales/support on a global scale requires hiring shifts of people to cover the additional hours.
I'm not saying it's ALWAYS unreasonable to call you at an inconvenient hour, if a huge problem really was caused by your coding mistake and you're their best hope of a rapid fix. But employers regularly demanding a 60 or 80 hour work week from people, under the belief that it's "ok, because I pay them salary"? That's corporate slavery, really. Sure, some people will attempt to do what's demanded of them. Maybe they're a "workaholic" anyway, or they mistakenly believe they're "better" than other people because they do it, or maybe it's a huge hardship on them that they endure because they really need the paycheck? It doesn't make it "ok".
My point is, an employee a company expects to be happy and productive needs to be given a good bit of time outside the office to have a social life, etc. We're all humans, not robots - and this is a basic requirement of getting maximum productivity from us.
I'd argue that you're absolutely wrong. Paying someone a salary, vs. an hourly wage means there's an understanding that neither party thinks it necessary to track every minute that you're working. The employer benefits because he/she gains flexibility. (EG. You might be asked to stay late when a new piece of software is rolled out, and part of the setup can't even be done while the 9-5 employees are around and using the app.) The employee benefits because he/she is freed from a degree of micro-management. (EG. No more getting "write ups" and "warnings" just because a traffic accident or snowstorm caused you to get in 3 minutes late. No big problems if you wind up taking an extra long lunch break when you meet up with some friends you rarely see.)
It's sort of a "gentleman's agreement", not written anyplace, but understood. If either employer or employee abuses it too much, then it creates problems, and the other party is going to consider terminating the employment contract.
Salary was never a written agreement to become a corporate servant.
If there's really any "flaw" to the concept of having totally unregulated free markets, it's probably that it's a concept thought of by intelligent "long term" thinkers.
In theory, it's a very good, workable idea. But it counts on people doing what's *really* the "wisest choice" in given situations, vs. attempting to lay down enough rules to attempt to force individuals to make the wisest choices.
I consider myself libertarian, but far from "delusional" (contrary the remark made below). I simply realize that political change is rather like steering a huge ship. It takes considerable time and effort to reverse its course. Right now, I see it moving ahead, full-steam, with leaders pushing all of their variations of government expansion. If we really had a Libertarian president elected, by the time he or she put all those "radically different, small govt." ideas out there to be watered down or randomly rejected by Congress and the Senate, it *might* be JUST enough to alter the "ship"'s course. We wouldn't wind up with some kind of "utopian but unworkable" perfect-world Libertarian nation.
My parents were always staunch Republican voters, but post "Reagan era", I've watched that party slide "off the deep end" into promoting fascism and "big government", while trying to win most of their votes by bashing the Democrats for being the "tax and spend" types we "all have to avoid".
(People can say what they like about Ronald Reagan, but I think in hindsight, it's apparent he was part of a dying breed of American leaders who really believed the United States was "the greatest place in the world to live", complete with our values of freedom as they were written in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I won't try to argue whether or not he "went about some things the wrong way". But I can't envision him talking about our Constitution as a "worthless piece of paper" as Bush, Jr. did - or even continuing to fight a "war on terror" that had no clearly defined "end goal". I'm not even too sure he'd be up there pushing for the huge bailout either.)
The problem *I* now see is, EVERYBODY has abandoned those "3 pillars" you speak of, except for the 3rd. party candidates, who can't even seem to stop fighting amongst themselves this year. (When I heard rumors that Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was going to offer Ron Paul a chance to be his running mate, I got excited for a moment. I think that could have been a powerful enough combination to get some attention for the party. But instead, it seems Ron Paul chose to snub the L.P. - causing them to lash out against him as simply trying to be a "Cult of Personality", etc. Then, the "Constitution party" (who did practically ZERO campaigning) seemed to spend all their effort just encouraging people to "unify" somehow - and vote for Barr, Paul OR their party (pretty please?? with cherries on top?).
An awful lot of people are going to cast a vote for Obama because they feel it's really the ONLY option besides the screwed-up status-quo we've had for decades. My prediction? The "change" he'll give us amounts to being able to say we finally got a president with darker colored skin, and a little more socialism vs. fascism.
Umm... for starters, because Apple owns the store selling these iPhone apps, and store owners have ALWAYS had the right to choose not to stock/sell whatever items they wanted.
There are alternatives for running these apps on iPhones (jailbreaking). As many people have probably noticed, Apple really hasn't made any direct moves to prevent jailbreaking apps from working properly. They've quietly allowed all of that to go on, simply saying they won't be responsible for modified phones. (Makes perfect sense, because what company would want to support and warranty one of their deviced used outside the scope they originally defined for it?)
If Apple was constantly sending out updates that defeated jailbreaking (a la Sony and their firmware updates for PSP!), then you might have some kind of argument.
I suppose the Blackberry is currently the biggest direct competitor to the iPhone (despite lots of lame iPhone look-alikes coming out).
I've used the Blackberry though, and my ex-g/f even had one, which she opted to buy instead of an iPhone.
My opinion of them isn't so high though. I'm at a bit of a loss to explain why people see them as so "superior". The little "roller ball" they use to move around the screen feels "cheap" and tends to get gunked up, losing its responsiveness.
Sure, the iPhone can't do "cut and paste" (yet), but I haven't ever felt like I missed it either? It *is* smart enough to link up things to the appropriate apps that work with them. So, for example, if someone emails me a phone number, the number can be tapped to dial it, and easily added to my contacts list from there, etc.
Blackberries also have smaller screens, so I can view less of a web page or email on the screen at one time -- a big negative that bothers me EVERY time I use one.
Umm, no.... The point is, if a person can afford to spend $60 for a console game, then they can obviously afford prices like 99 cents or even $4.99 for a piece of phone software.
My iPhone purchase was never about it being a "status symbol". I simply have owned several "smartphones" in the past, because I like the idea of my cellphone also being capable of doing web browsing and checking my email on the go. I don't need to see some full-blown "Flash enabled" web site. But I might want to look up info on a restaurant or hotel before I go there, see what current online pricing is on something before I buy it locally, etc. The iPhone BLOWS AWAY the older phones I used, some of which I paid more than my iPhone for when they were new. Treo 650, Treo 600, Kyocera 7135, etc. etc.
Sure, you can probably show me some people earning $25K/yr. between two people in a family of 4 or 5 who bought an iPhone, and are spending money on the plan despite asking for food stamps. That's a problem.
But saying the trend of people in the "$25K to $50K" salary category to use iPhones shows our collective tendency to "live beyond our means"? I sure hope not! It's a pretty sad state of affairs if you can earn that far above the "poverty level", working at least 40 hours a week, and people are telling you that you can't even afford to buy yourself a decent cellphone with an unlimited data plan on it.
The trend I've seen, especially with single moms and the like, is to use a higher-end smartphone and data plan as their PRIMARY form of Internet access. For some of these people, spending the $199 on the phone, and the $60 or so a month for the data is CHEAPER than the desktop PC and broadband alternative.
Really, I don't see this at all? About the ONLY time an app for the iPhone was denied by Apple on what was obviously an "arbitrary" decision was that useless "Pull My Finger" app. (If you ask me, Apple's biggest mistake here might simply have been letting too many other "lame" apps through. Banning "Pull My Finger" makes sense to me, if they're thinking "Hey, this isn't something that shows off our product in a positive light. People are going to see this and think the quality of things you can buy in our store is much lower than it really is." But they missed another dozen or so apps that needed to be given the boot too. Maybe they were too generous?)
Just about every other time, it amounts to someone trying to release an app that would have wound up offering some kind of functionality that duplicated something Apple was working on and secretly planning for a firmware update, or encouraged people to stop using the default app Apple included for the task in question.
(Oh, and there was the "tethering" app, which seems to have been killed off only because AT&T wouldn't go for it, despite Apple trying to work something out to bring it back.)
This might piss off the minority who really wanted to use Opera as their browser instead of Safari, on their iPhone. But trust me... 99.9% of iPhone users don't really care.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I believe you basically heard correctly. I remember that being one of Qwest's competitive advantages at the time they got started. When everyone else was stuck negotiating for rights to use other people's land to place their fiber cabling, Qwest could usually just use the "right of way" land along the sides of the train tracks instead.
I think in the end though, it didn't change much of anything for the "end user/customer". Eventually, the big telcos all found ways to get things cabled up where they wanted to cable them up. Qwest might have gotten it done for less money initially, but they all have similar costs of operation and pricing models today.
To be honest, *private* school didn't help me. (I don't think I'm qualified to speak for everyone else who attended my school. I'm not that familiar with how the rest of their lives worked out for them.)
I attended a private school between 7th. grade and sophmore year of high school. Today, looking back, I can safely say those were 4 of the worst years of my life. The combination of faculty who insisted on running things in a fascist military style, while often doing a questionable job of teaching the material, plus the abundance of "spoiled, rich kids" did nothing for me. Switching to a public school, after MUCH begging and pleading to my parents, was the BEST move I made.
The school systems DO waste a lot of people's time and money. I just don't think it's always fair to single out "public schools" as the only problems. Private schools currently have the ability to make themselves look good "on paper" by refusing or kicking out anyone who doesn't help them keep an artificially good image. They also tend to hide behind their religious affiliations. (EG. "Come on now, Johnny. Your school can't be THAT bad! You're being taught by Catholic brothers!")
I understand, except my suspicion/fear is that a cracker could examine a number of valid keys to figure out a good idea of which small portion of the complete keyspace was used in their generation - and tailor a keygen accordingly.
Anyone working at a retail store (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) would have a relatively easy time accessing a number of valid keys by simply opening a few boxes and peeking inside before re-sealing them.
I recently bought the native OS X version of Call of Duty 4. (I had the PS3 version for a little while, but I can't get used to playing a 1st. person shooter with the console controller....)
I only got to play online a few times before I was greeting with a "CD key already in use" message and kicked offline. Apparently, quite a few people are suffering from the same issue. Tech. support suggests that improperly exiting the game can cause the main server to hold onto your login info for a while, and to "wait a little while and try again". They also suggest that an "overloaded master server" could temporarily cause it.
Well, that may be true in *some* situations, but the more obvious problem is that pirates have created key-generator programs that make valid keys that wind up matching ones paid for by customers like me. Will they issue me a new key though? No way! Forget it! I've barely been able to play in the last few weeks..... If I finally get online with my key, I guess I need to leave my Mac connected all the time? Ridiculous!
My best friend had the exact same issue with Quake 4 a while ago - which prompted him to stop buying any more 1st. person shooters requiring keys for online play. Activision refused to help him with his problem -- so he was essentially better off just pirating.
The issue is a little more technical than that.
The legal issue is, OS X was never really sold as a "full install" product. It's only sold as an "upgrade license" - because the assumption is, your original OS X license came with your Apple computer when it was originally purchased.
Psystar is buying these OS X retail "upgrade editions" and using them in a way that runs counter to the licensing agreement.
Additionally, they have to put out modified versions of some of Apple's OS X software updates, to ensure they don't break their non-standard systems. That means, Apple has a claim that they're reverse engineering their code without permission too.
... the smart thing for Apple to do would be to buy out Psystar. Look at the innovative hardware patents they'd gain access to, then!
The G4 *cube* was original? Hah... with the help of Psystar, they can do Intel-based RECTANGLES!
Exactly! But again, that smacks of logic and common sense. Don't expect much of either during this administration.
Did you see any big improvements since the "drug czar" was appointed? (I'd say none, unless you're referring to the increased levels of THC found in most marijuana over the last couple decades.)
Yeah... I actually thought of this back in the mid 90's, when going out to lunch with fellow I.T. co-workers. At that time, everyone said "Wow... why DON'T restaurants have that already, anyway??"
To this day, it seems they still don't.
Long ago, I decided the problem was one of the expense of the hardware, vs. one of people "coming up with the idea".
Almost all restaurants use Point of Sale systems provided to them under contract by one of only a handful of providers out there (IBM being one of them). My buddy works for one such company right now, and they definitely have a little market niche. The touch-screen terminals and software are proprietary, and although large users manuals may be provided for modifying the software, 99% of people in the restaurant business have no time or inclination to tackle doing all of that themselves. Therefore, they're stuck paying huge hourly fees for changes every time they re-price some things or change around menu items, or ??
I can see, now, how tough a "sell" it would be to convince a small restaurant they should pay for a secure wireless network and all of these proprietary card readers for EACH table, PLUS however much money for a corresponding software upgrade to the PoS software back-end.
They're going to say "No obvious bottom line cost savings? Just something to save my waiter or waitress from doing an extra little bit of work? Umm.... no."
Did it ever occur to you that the authors of PithHelmet might be to blame, and not Apple?
What's Apple supposed to do here? Make sure they don't modify their OWN software in any way, shape or form that causes PithHelmet to break? If it does, wait on their release until the PithHelmet guys say it's ok to proceed?
(I'm just saying ... if you're making threats about your next Mac being some kind of hacked "Franken-Mac" over this? That's more than just a little extreme.)
Wish I could mod you up at the moment.
I think this is more important than many people realize. You do want to see evidence of experience and a grasp of concepts. (Some people, while eager, are simply trying to "bite off more than they can chew" by interviewing for too complicated a position for their current skills.)
But overall, yes! The person who "lives and breathes I.T." will be FAR superior to the person who views it as "just a way to get a paycheck every couple weeks".
I think you're right, but the big name hardware makers all wanted that "symbiotic relationship" with Microsoft. EG. You supply the OS/software, and we'll supply the hardware. Together, we'll both PROFIT!
It may not be all "love and roses" these days, with Vista not living up to its promises and all. But can you really imagine HP, Dell, or any of that lot suddenly coming out with their OWN operating system, this late in the game, and doing a decent job of it? You know the ONE company who had a shot at it, right? That was IBM, with OS/2, but they blew it too - out of greed, and the attraction of the "simplicity" of just letting Microsoft handle it for them instead.
Say what you will about Apple, but they're the last standing hold-out from the era when all "personal computers" ran operating systems designed by and supported solely by the same companies that made the hardware. (Commodore, Atari, Tandy/TRS-80, etc. etc.)
I haven't worked at MS either, but I did know a guy who worked on MS Outlook for them for a while. His assessment of the organization was much like what "girlintraining" detailed.
I remember one time, he told me how they had problems with promoting people internally. Developers didn't WANT to get a promotion that meant they'd become a "project lead" - and thereby be held accountable for all the problems. (Not to mention, the raises weren't deemed worth the additional hours they'd get stuck putting in.)
Sure people want cheap computers, just like they want anything else to be as cheap as possible. Nobody likes to spend more than they have to.
The fact remains though, a number of people will spend more as long as they believe that they "get what they pay for". That's why Apple has been so successful, really. They charge more for nicely configured systems with more expensive case designs and better support (you can still take one in to any of hundreds of retail stores for servicing, unlike any other major brand of PC I can think of).
Vista's problem is, it doesn't really make people feel like they "got what they paid for" in many cases. You generally need twice as much system memory as you did with XP to get comparable performance, and all the pretty f/x demand an actual 3D graphics card with decent capabilities. (Sure, it runs fine without that, but then you're negating one of the benefits that was supposed to make a user feel like they really had something "slick" when they used it.)
When you buy a machine that actually runs Vista well, you're not buying a low-end bargain machine -- so that means people have higher expectations for that extra money spent.
I don't think it delivers on those expectations -- and SURELY won't when you go the budget machine route.
Yep! Same experience here. I avoided those "social networking" sites for a long time, because I'm 37 - and didn't see a need to put my profile right next to all the teens and early 20-somethings. I wanted to post pictures of interesting events I attended, or of my kid, or what-have-you. No point putting that up in the same place everyone else has their 250 poorly focused snapshots they took from last night's big party.....
But Facebook really did let me re-connect with a lot of people I last saw as long ago as 3rd. or 4th. grade! Within a week of making a profile there, I had 5 or 6 friend requests, all legitimate and from people I really lost touch with. I was impressed.
I also had some luck with Friendster, since it seems to be a much less "hip" or "trendy" site these days. It seems like an older crowd uses it, just because they started out with it before competing sites really got off the ground, and stuck with it after that.
Are you suggesting that these regulations have no effect on the potential for people to discover new things?
I'd argue that irresponsibility can't be fixed by any amount of regulation. Attempts to do so only make it more difficult for the responsible to contribute to society in positive ways.
The world may not stop at 5PM EST, but it's also realistic for companies to grasp the idea that doing sales/support on a global scale requires hiring shifts of people to cover the additional hours.
I'm not saying it's ALWAYS unreasonable to call you at an inconvenient hour, if a huge problem really was caused by your coding mistake and you're their best hope of a rapid fix. But employers regularly demanding a 60 or 80 hour work week from people, under the belief that it's "ok, because I pay them salary"? That's corporate slavery, really. Sure, some people will attempt to do what's demanded of them. Maybe they're a "workaholic" anyway, or they mistakenly believe they're "better" than other people because they do it, or maybe it's a huge hardship on them that they endure because they really need the paycheck? It doesn't make it "ok".
My point is, an employee a company expects to be happy and productive needs to be given a good bit of time outside the office to have a social life, etc. We're all humans, not robots - and this is a basic requirement of getting maximum productivity from us.
I'd argue that you're absolutely wrong. Paying someone a salary, vs. an hourly wage means there's an understanding that neither party thinks it necessary to track every minute that you're working. The employer benefits because he/she gains flexibility. (EG. You might be asked to stay late when a new piece of software is rolled out, and part of the setup can't even be done while the 9-5 employees are around and using the app.) The employee benefits because he/she is freed from a degree of micro-management. (EG. No more getting "write ups" and "warnings" just because a traffic accident or snowstorm caused you to get in 3 minutes late. No big problems if you wind up taking an extra long lunch break when you meet up with some friends you rarely see.)
It's sort of a "gentleman's agreement", not written anyplace, but understood. If either employer or employee abuses it too much, then it creates problems, and the other party is going to consider terminating the employment contract.
Salary was never a written agreement to become a corporate servant.
I often think the BEST way to justify your position as an I.T. administrator or support type person is simply to take a long vacation.
Remind people what it's like when they can't just pick up the phone and ask you to "come over and take a look at this problem I'm having".
If your boss calls your cellphone with questions, let them roll to voicemail and don't return them for a while.
I guarantee they'll back off on that whole request to "provide a financial justification for your job".....
If there's really any "flaw" to the concept of having totally unregulated free markets, it's probably that it's a concept thought of by intelligent "long term" thinkers.
In theory, it's a very good, workable idea. But it counts on people doing what's *really* the "wisest choice" in given situations, vs. attempting to lay down enough rules to attempt to force individuals to make the wisest choices.
I consider myself libertarian, but far from "delusional" (contrary the remark made below). I simply realize that political change is rather like steering a huge ship. It takes considerable time and effort to reverse its course. Right now, I see it moving ahead, full-steam, with leaders pushing all of their variations of government expansion. If we really had a Libertarian president elected, by the time he or she put all those "radically different, small govt." ideas out there to be watered down or randomly rejected by Congress and the Senate, it *might* be JUST enough to alter the "ship"'s course. We wouldn't wind up with some kind of "utopian but unworkable" perfect-world Libertarian nation.
My parents were always staunch Republican voters, but post "Reagan era", I've watched that party slide "off the deep end" into promoting fascism and "big government", while trying to win most of their votes by bashing the Democrats for being the "tax and spend" types we "all have to avoid".
(People can say what they like about Ronald Reagan, but I think in hindsight, it's apparent he was part of a dying breed of American leaders who really believed the United States was "the greatest place in the world to live", complete with our values of freedom as they were written in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I won't try to argue whether or not he "went about some things the wrong way". But I can't envision him talking about our Constitution as a "worthless piece of paper" as Bush, Jr. did - or even continuing to fight a "war on terror" that had no clearly defined "end goal". I'm not even too sure he'd be up there pushing for the huge bailout either.)
The problem *I* now see is, EVERYBODY has abandoned those "3 pillars" you speak of, except for the 3rd. party candidates, who can't even seem to stop fighting amongst themselves this year. (When I heard rumors that Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was going to offer Ron Paul a chance to be his running mate, I got excited for a moment. I think that could have been a powerful enough combination to get some attention for the party. But instead, it seems Ron Paul chose to snub the L.P. - causing them to lash out against him as simply trying to be a "Cult of Personality", etc. Then, the "Constitution party" (who did practically ZERO campaigning) seemed to spend all their effort just encouraging people to "unify" somehow - and vote for Barr, Paul OR their party (pretty please?? with cherries on top?).
An awful lot of people are going to cast a vote for Obama because they feel it's really the ONLY option besides the screwed-up status-quo we've had for decades. My prediction? The "change" he'll give us amounts to being able to say we finally got a president with darker colored skin, and a little more socialism vs. fascism.
Umm... for starters, because Apple owns the store selling these iPhone apps, and store owners have ALWAYS had the right to choose not to stock/sell whatever items they wanted.
There are alternatives for running these apps on iPhones (jailbreaking). As many people have probably noticed, Apple really hasn't made any direct moves to prevent jailbreaking apps from working properly. They've quietly allowed all of that to go on, simply saying they won't be responsible for modified phones. (Makes perfect sense, because what company would want to support and warranty one of their deviced used outside the scope they originally defined for it?)
If Apple was constantly sending out updates that defeated jailbreaking (a la Sony and their firmware updates for PSP!), then you might have some kind of argument.
I suppose the Blackberry is currently the biggest direct competitor to the iPhone (despite lots of lame iPhone look-alikes coming out).
I've used the Blackberry though, and my ex-g/f even had one, which she opted to buy instead of an iPhone.
My opinion of them isn't so high though. I'm at a bit of a loss to explain why people see them as so "superior". The little "roller ball" they use to move around the screen feels "cheap" and tends to get gunked up, losing its responsiveness.
Sure, the iPhone can't do "cut and paste" (yet), but I haven't ever felt like I missed it either? It *is* smart enough to link up things to the appropriate apps that work with them. So, for example, if someone emails me a phone number, the number can be tapped to dial it, and easily added to my contacts list from there, etc.
Blackberries also have smaller screens, so I can view less of a web page or email on the screen at one time -- a big negative that bothers me EVERY time I use one.
Umm, no.... The point is, if a person can afford to spend $60 for a console game, then they can obviously afford prices like 99 cents or even $4.99 for a piece of phone software.
My iPhone purchase was never about it being a "status symbol". I simply have owned several "smartphones" in the past, because I like the idea of my cellphone also being capable of doing web browsing and checking my email on the go. I don't need to see some full-blown "Flash enabled" web site. But I might want to look up info on a restaurant or hotel before I go there, see what current online pricing is on something before I buy it locally, etc. The iPhone BLOWS AWAY the older phones I used, some of which I paid more than my iPhone for when they were new. Treo 650, Treo 600, Kyocera 7135, etc. etc.
What a gross oveer-simplification!
Sure, you can probably show me some people earning $25K/yr. between two people in a family of 4 or 5 who bought an iPhone, and are spending money on the plan despite asking for food stamps. That's a problem.
But saying the trend of people in the "$25K to $50K" salary category to use iPhones shows our collective tendency to "live beyond our means"? I sure hope not! It's a pretty sad state of affairs if you can earn that far above the "poverty level", working at least 40 hours a week, and people are telling you that you can't even afford to buy yourself a decent cellphone with an unlimited data plan on it.
The trend I've seen, especially with single moms and the like, is to use a higher-end smartphone and data plan as their PRIMARY form of Internet access. For some of these people, spending the $199 on the phone, and the $60 or so a month for the data is CHEAPER than the desktop PC and broadband alternative.
Really, I don't see this at all? About the ONLY time an app for the iPhone was denied by Apple on what was obviously an "arbitrary" decision was that useless "Pull My Finger" app. (If you ask me, Apple's biggest mistake here might simply have been letting too many other "lame" apps through. Banning "Pull My Finger" makes sense to me, if they're thinking "Hey, this isn't something that shows off our product in a positive light. People are going to see this and think the quality of things you can buy in our store is much lower than it really is." But they missed another dozen or so apps that needed to be given the boot too. Maybe they were too generous?)
Just about every other time, it amounts to someone trying to release an app that would have wound up offering some kind of functionality that duplicated something Apple was working on and secretly planning for a firmware update, or encouraged people to stop using the default app Apple included for the task in question.
(Oh, and there was the "tethering" app, which seems to have been killed off only because AT&T wouldn't go for it, despite Apple trying to work something out to bring it back.)
This might piss off the minority who really wanted to use Opera as their browser instead of Safari, on their iPhone. But trust me... 99.9% of iPhone users don't really care.