That's no longer true. Most american workers are now afraid to lose their job because they might not get another one again.
They are working us 12 hour days at work and no one has quit or complained. The second the economy improves or they get a hot skill set, I expect that to change.
On top of that we have hundreds of offshore people in india.
I hope so- I think we need over 50% of the electorate unemployed before things will change. Before that, folks who can't find jobs will be viewed as losers.
It has the potential to get really ugly. Hope it doesn't.
Also not sure how well the "automated" society will survive our next major war.
You are out of touch. People with an associates 2 year degree are starting at $43k job (plus bonus). Starting salaries for IT people are higher (if they can get them). Full 4 year degrees are still worth something.
But turning it around- how much would you pay for college if you did only get $40k per year (below the mean salary by the way)?
And starting next month, 1,000,000 people a month go off the unemployment roles unless benefits are extended. So we'll start seeing the 9.6% rate dropping while folks without money for food.
I have no idea how to fix it. I really am starting to think machine productivity combined with 3rd world cheap labor has reached a point where there are not enough and will never be enough jobs again.
> Online retailer Diapers.com employs more than 350 of the robots in three warehouses, and is adding "hundreds per month,"
> At El Camino Hospital in Silicon Valley, 19 robots fulfill a range of tasks, from delivering medication and food to taking out trash. Hiring as many humans to make deliveries would have cost the hospital more than $1 million a year, says Ken King, vice-president of facilities and support services. Leasing the robots from Aethon costs $350,000 a year, which helps the hospital contain costs and offer patients affordable health care, he says.
Don't get too comfortable. The indians are doing a very good job at my company. We have hundreds of them. They are extremely competent, good communication skills, and pleasant.
Fact is, at $100k a year, the US salaries are going stagnate or drop while indians and chinese who can do the same things salaries will rise from $20k a year. There are a lot of them. The average is going to be on the lower end.
Torrents are not always available. Torrents have a tiny risk of virii & trojans Torrents have a small risk of big legal problems.
Netflix is instant, $10 is cheap (heck $15 is cheap).
Cable has gotten ridiculously expensive. Pricing itself out of the market for many. But they don't care if they lose 3 customers and keep 1 at the higher rate as long as their net profit is $.01 higher. Yield management.
That's about 10 60 watt bulbs. What the heck are you using? I want one?
I got the new 40watt LED ($24 at home depot) and it ROCKS. Unfortunately the 60 watt by the same mfg weighs 2 pounds (I'm not joking- it may be over 2 pounds) and is much bigger). My "hydra neck" fixture immediately sags to the ground with that bulb in place.
I think LED is "close" except for price. But given the life span and current draw, it's awesome for difficult to change fixtures or lights you want to leave on all the time (like the porch light).
It's not illegal to download. And there are many legal ways you could end up with an MP3 of a song on your computer.
It is illegal to upload tho. You are helping create a new copy of the work. It's exactly the point of "copy" "right" an artifical right we grant artists which has been abused and twisted by corporate money to be way too long.
The fines are insane too. Completely irrational- I can't understand how a jury backed these.
What I mean by the first minute is that instead of delivering at full speed they take longer to buffer you. But you are basically correct now that I think of it.
Netflix doesn't need higher bandwidth for columbo, most movies, etc. They are not in HD.
I love it as it is. I don't need HD over the internet. That might be another more expensive service after the bandwidth costs are included.
As far as blu-ray quality goes- since i'm not 6.75 feet from my 55" screen, I can't tell the frakkin difference in quality. My head is 13' from the screen. DVD and Blu-Ray are basically equivalent unless I went to an 80" screen.
I do have questions about that. Who the hell are these people?
Are they like the lady on my jury that kept saying, "But they haven't PROVED the defendant is innocent!!!"
I also have to wonder about her defense council.
Is this that group in east texas which gives especially harsh penalties so they keep suing there? Or is it random juries in various states. If enough juries rule this way, I have to assume some good arguments are being made.
I can't see any argument that would convince me to allow this kind of fine. Perhaps the defendant was rude or cheeky and the jury turned vicious?
But it is a jury. Perhaps the law is set up in such a way they don't much of have an option and they don't know about jury nullification as a way to veto unreasonable laws.
I'm comparing similar items to see if there is a just outcome.
At worst, this lady did the equivalent of stealing 500 songs and distributing them in the mall.
That would be a felony and merit (maybe) a $50k fine. We would never fine someone 1.5 million dollars. It's unreasonable and should be unconstitutional. It's like successfully suing someone 1.5 million dollars for insulting you, or splashing red paint on their 50,000 mink stole.
People should be responsible for their actions. A fine is in order here. But this is ridiculous.
I agree with you however as a society (even waaaay back) we did agree to create a reasonable period where artists had exclusive rights to create copies of their work.
By the social contract, we are obligated for at least a period of time to compensate artists. It's to our own benefit to encourage creation of new artwork.
However... that reasonable period was less than a life time. And afterwards the works went into the public domain for all society to use. It's been corrupted and is no longer reasonable. Our culture is being stolen by corporations.
---
We face a VERY similar challenge SOON in the area of work. Both through computer automation and outright robotics, many jobs are going to be destroyed over the next decade and I'm not sure there will be new jobs to replace them this time.
We may need an entirely new model for society as over 25% could be unemployed for years. The mass market these corporations depend on ceases to exist when every corporation successfully eliminates their labor force and replaces them with automated systems and robots. In the U.S. leasing a robot which can successfully replace a basic message and medicine delivering nurses assistant costs $15,000. That's already happening. Replacing warehouse workers is also already happening- it even has bonuses- no need to climate control the warehouse- no need to light it for humans.
If your ratio is.95:1, you haven't even distributed a complete copy of a song yet (even if you distributed parts to 1000 people).
In any case, distributing along those lines is equivalent to broadcasting. A fairer approach would be to bill her the same as radio stations who forget to license ahead of time. When radio stations or bars are found to be playing songs without having paid the fees (distributing songs to dozens or hundreds of listeners), they are hit with much smaller amounts (tho still enough to make some bars stop playing music).
Okay, with regard to the rest above, I agree that I'm probably conflating a lot of concepts.
But I think even if the "Book is thrown at you" that these fines are completely out of line and only illustrate how corrupt the process is and how our "justice" system has been captured by corporate interests.
I can't support it. As I posted elsewhere, the irony is that I could legally get these 24 songs for free within 3 hours (and many others). So essentially, she is being fined a huge amount for failing to pay per song licensing fees for broadcasting.
And other sites it looked like ASCAP 4000 "credits" (based on play time, popularity, rotation, market size) results in about $7000 owed (maybe $1.75 per song? Seems high compared to the above number). For this they can "distribute" the song to hordes of people with various recording devices.
This really is a "travesty of justice". It's absurd.
Google: fine, theft, shoplifting and you find things like this.
My court date is next month an i am so scared. The thing i stole was only $49.00 and heard that the fine can be anywhere from $250-$500 hopefully no more. and
If no police were called, there won't be a fine. They let you go because *the amount was too low* for them to prosecute you.
---
Okay, $50 item, $250 to $500 fine.
Song is $.99. What should the fine be?
---
Let's say they put the fine at $1.5 million.
Now-- how much did it cost the citizens of the state to run that trial for them? Probably in the thousands of dollars. Why are we willing to pay thousands of dollars to prosecute $23 dollars worth of songs?
RIAA probably spent a lot more. If they can't collect it, then they can't afford to keep this up for long.
Personally, I haven't bought a RIAA song in a decade. I'm done. I either record off the radio, TV, or similar source. I'm sure I support them partially through my $10 a month XM radio subscription (which is apparently what unlimited songs are really worth- $10 a month).
It's much more important for her to force an unpayable multi million dollar judgment. It might actually open people's eyes that corporations have convinced the government to treat copyright infringement harsher than murder and rape.
A reasonable fine would be on the order of $50 to $100 per song.
Slashdot Mirror
That's no longer true. Most american workers are now afraid to lose their job because they might not get another one again.
They are working us 12 hour days at work and no one has quit or complained. The second the economy improves or they get a hot skill set, I expect that to change.
On top of that we have hundreds of offshore people in india.
I hope so- I think we need over 50% of the electorate unemployed before things will change. Before that, folks who can't find jobs will be viewed as losers.
It has the potential to get really ugly. Hope it doesn't.
Also not sure how well the "automated" society will survive our next major war.
You are out of touch. People with an associates 2 year degree are starting at $43k job (plus bonus). Starting salaries for IT people are higher (if they can get them). Full 4 year degrees are still worth something.
But turning it around- how much would you pay for college if you did only get $40k per year (below the mean salary by the way)?
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
Looks more like 23%.
And starting next month, 1,000,000 people a month go off the unemployment roles unless benefits are extended. So we'll start seeing the 9.6% rate dropping while folks without money for food.
I have no idea how to fix it. I really am starting to think machine productivity combined with 3rd world cheap labor has reached a point where there are not enough and will never be enough jobs again.
Which means a new paradigm.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2010/tc2010061_798891.htm
> Online retailer Diapers.com employs more than 350 of the robots in three warehouses, and is adding "hundreds per month,"
> At El Camino Hospital in Silicon Valley, 19 robots fulfill a range of tasks, from delivering medication and food to taking out trash. Hiring as many humans to make deliveries would have cost the hospital more than $1 million a year, says Ken King, vice-president of facilities and support services. Leasing the robots from Aethon costs $350,000 a year, which helps the hospital contain costs and offer patients affordable health care, he says.
It's already here.
Oh... and considering that-- how the hell does a college justify charging $20k a year for a degree which is only going to pay $60 to $70k?
Don't get too comfortable. The indians are doing a very good job at my company. We have hundreds of them. They are extremely competent, good communication skills, and pleasant.
Fact is, at $100k a year, the US salaries are going stagnate or drop while indians and chinese who can do the same things salaries will rise from $20k a year. There are a lot of them. The average is going to be on the lower end.
And Indians are toast compared to computerized support systems which now handle every "standard" call.
Automation and robotics are going to change everything.
Thank you! That's nice. Huge amount of light for 100 watts.
I need to follow that line and see if they have something about 50watts at 3500lumens.
Torrents are not always available.
Torrents have a tiny risk of virii & trojans
Torrents have a small risk of big legal problems.
Netflix is instant, $10 is cheap (heck $15 is cheap).
Cable has gotten ridiculously expensive. Pricing itself out of the market for many. But they don't care if they lose 3 customers and keep 1 at the higher rate as long as their net profit is $.01 higher. Yield management.
Not sure how it works but netflix has an app.
I'm not sure what rez it runs at- sure it's not HD.
My phone shows that I've received 1.9GB of data in about three months (part of august, september, october, part of november).
Fu Manchu: I had no idea that mere domestic power could be so stimulating.
That's about 10 60 watt bulbs. What the heck are you using? I want one?
I got the new 40watt LED ($24 at home depot) and it ROCKS. Unfortunately the 60 watt by the same mfg weighs 2 pounds (I'm not joking- it may be over 2 pounds) and is much bigger). My "hydra neck" fixture immediately sags to the ground with that bulb in place.
I think LED is "close" except for price. But given the life span and current draw, it's awesome for difficult to change fixtures or lights you want to leave on all the time (like the porch light).
I went through this myself a year ago.
It's not illegal to download. And there are many legal ways you could end up with an MP3 of a song on your computer.
It is illegal to upload tho. You are helping create a new copy of the work. It's exactly the point of "copy" "right" an artifical right we grant artists which has been abused and twisted by corporate money to be way too long.
The fines are insane too. Completely irrational- I can't understand how a jury backed these.
Netflix looks great on my 55" TV.
What I mean by the first minute is that instead of delivering at full speed they take longer to buffer you. But you are basically correct now that I think of it.
Netflix doesn't need higher bandwidth for columbo, most movies, etc. They are not in HD.
I love it as it is. I don't need HD over the internet. That might be another more expensive service after the bandwidth costs are included.
As far as blu-ray quality goes- since i'm not 6.75 feet from my 55" screen, I can't tell the frakkin difference in quality. My head is 13' from the screen. DVD and Blu-Ray are basically equivalent unless I went to an 80" screen.
I do have questions about that. Who the hell are these people?
Are they like the lady on my jury that kept saying, "But they haven't PROVED the defendant is innocent!!!"
I also have to wonder about her defense council.
Is this that group in east texas which gives especially harsh penalties so they keep suing there? Or is it random juries in various states. If enough juries rule this way, I have to assume some good arguments are being made.
I can't see any argument that would convince me to allow this kind of fine. Perhaps the defendant was rude or cheeky and the jury turned vicious?
But it is a jury. Perhaps the law is set up in such a way they don't much of have an option and they don't know about jury nullification as a way to veto unreasonable laws.
Oh and I'm not confusing them at all.
I'm comparing similar items to see if there is a just outcome.
At worst, this lady did the equivalent of stealing 500 songs and distributing them in the mall.
That would be a felony and merit (maybe) a $50k fine. We would never fine someone 1.5 million dollars. It's unreasonable and should be unconstitutional. It's like successfully suing someone 1.5 million dollars for insulting you, or splashing red paint on their 50,000 mink stole.
People should be responsible for their actions. A fine is in order here. But this is ridiculous.
I agree with you however as a society (even waaaay back) we did agree to create a reasonable period where artists had exclusive rights to create copies of their work.
By the social contract, we are obligated for at least a period of time to compensate artists. It's to our own benefit to encourage creation of new artwork.
However... that reasonable period was less than a life time. And afterwards the works went into the public domain for all society to use. It's been corrupted and is no longer reasonable. Our culture is being stolen by corporations.
---
We face a VERY similar challenge SOON in the area of work. Both through computer automation and outright robotics, many jobs are going to be destroyed over the next decade and I'm not sure there will be new jobs to replace them this time.
We may need an entirely new model for society as over 25% could be unemployed for years. The mass market these corporations depend on ceases to exist when every corporation successfully eliminates their labor force and replaces them with automated systems and robots. In the U.S. leasing a robot which can successfully replace a basic message and medicine delivering nurses assistant costs $15,000. That's already happening. Replacing warehouse workers is also already happening- it even has bonuses- no need to climate control the warehouse- no need to light it for humans.
If your ratio is .95:1, you haven't even distributed a complete copy of a song yet (even if you distributed parts to 1000 people).
In any case, distributing along those lines is equivalent to broadcasting. A fairer approach would be to bill her the same as radio stations who forget to license ahead of time. When radio stations or bars are found to be playing songs without having paid the fees (distributing songs to dozens or hundreds of listeners), they are hit with much smaller amounts (tho still enough to make some bars stop playing music).
Okay, with regard to the rest above, I agree that I'm probably conflating a lot of concepts.
But I think even if the "Book is thrown at you" that these fines are completely out of line and only illustrate how corrupt the process is and how our "justice" system has been captured by corporate interests.
I can't support it. As I posted elsewhere, the irony is that I could legally get these 24 songs for free within 3 hours (and many others). So essentially, she is being fined a huge amount for failing to pay per song licensing fees for broadcasting.
From this site, .20cents per track.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080221121424AAe9Y18
Copyright Royalty Board runs things in US, pays about
And other sites it looked like ASCAP 4000 "credits" (based on play time, popularity, rotation, market size) results in about $7000 owed (maybe $1.75 per song? Seems high compared to the above number). For this they can "distribute" the song to hordes of people with various recording devices.
This really is a "travesty of justice". It's absurd.
Do you think a fine of $62,500 per 99 cent song is fair and just and moral or not. (or even justifiable).
I don't.
Google: fine, theft, shoplifting and you find things like this.
My court date is next month an i am so scared. The thing i stole was only $49.00 and heard that the fine can be anywhere from $250-$500 hopefully no more.
and
If no police were called, there won't be a fine. They let you go because *the amount was too low* for them to prosecute you.
---
Okay, $50 item, $250 to $500 fine.
Song is $.99. What should the fine be?
---
Let's say they put the fine at $1.5 million.
Now-- how much did it cost the citizens of the state to run that trial for them? Probably in the thousands of dollars.
Why are we willing to pay thousands of dollars to prosecute $23 dollars worth of songs?
RIAA probably spent a lot more. If they can't collect it, then they can't afford to keep this up for long.
Personally, I haven't bought a RIAA song in a decade. I'm done. I either record off the radio, TV, or similar source. I'm sure I support them partially through my $10 a month XM radio subscription (which is apparently what unlimited songs are really worth- $10 a month).
Funny thing is...
I could get all those songs (and many more) in less than 3 hours both *free* and *completely legally*.
It's much more important for her to force an unpayable multi million dollar judgment. It might actually open people's eyes that corporations have convinced the government to treat copyright infringement harsher than murder and rape.
A reasonable fine would be on the order of $50 to $100 per song.
I've seen it happen. Something symbolic about that day makes people out others in affairs and for discrete affairs to become indiscreet.