I'm not sure I'd consider automation to be a "performance technology."
That said, the other day I remarked that I'd love to see someone enter an automated vehicle in NASCAR. It'd be like Kasparov vs. Deep Blue...for rednecks!
On the other hand, this is a clear conflict of interest. One company should not control the creation and distribution platforms.
Uh, Dude? Where've you been? That used to be the case up until the mid-80s or so.
The argument for the change was that the network TV model didn't work in the days of cable television. When you're one of only have 3 channels, you can be assured of a decent sized audience. When you're one of 100+ channels, not so much. Meanwhile, the studios showed their stuff on broadcast TV and then made money on the back-end with syndication and DVD, which the networks got none of. So the law was rescinded and networks could now own the content that they showed.
That's why ABC is owned by Disney, NBC is owned by Universal, CBS is owned by Viacom (which also owns Paramount), and Fox is owned by, you guessed it, 20th Century Fox. At the time, the networks insisted that wouldn't make any difference in what they chose to show. Now-a-days, of course, you can't watch a show on ABC without finding it at least partially owned by Disney or a subsidiary (eg Marvel or ABC Studios).
Heck, just lob a few largish asteroids at our major cities and wait for a year or two for the resulting "nuclear" winter and general chaos to starve most of the population, and probably cause the near total collapse of civilization in the process.
Or perhaps raise the temperature on the planet. Maybe aliens like a warmer planet. I mean, did any of these "Anthropogenic Global Warming" people ever check to see if it wasn't being caused by aliens?
Actually, as I understand it (and I may be wrong) the idea is that "Free Speech" is not a defense for actions that happen as a direct result of your speech.
For example, if I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and nobody leaves and the show continues and nothing happens, I can't be arrested just for yelling "Fire!" If I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and the show stops and everybody gets up and calmly leaves the theater, the theater owner could require that I pay for a whole new show for those people. And, of course, if I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and everyone panics and runs for the exits and tramples others and they're injured or killed, I can't claim "Free Speech" as a defense when I'm held accountable for the deaths of those people.
Free speech is not a "get out of jail free" card.
That said, I do think we're seeing more and more laws coming down the pike that try to prevent bad things from happening by basically saying, "You can't say that!"
Yeah, I'd be sitting in the driver's seat paying attention for the first few weeks. Then I'd be sitting in the driver's seat reading my phone and glancing up from time-to-time if the car did something. Later, I'd probably be sitting in the backseat and staring at my phone.
A bit more seriously, it would be interesting to see something like this with NASCAR. It'd be like Deep Blue versus Gary Kasparov, except for rednecks.
let's slam legislators and encourage legislation to close tax loopholes and simplify the tax code.
I agree, somewhat. It's that "simplify the tax code" that runs into problems.
I'm reminded of an old joke about the IRS's new "simplified tax code":
What was your income?
What were your expenses?
How much did you have left?
Send it in.
Short, direct, and simple, right? I mean, the joke is that you have to send it all. So, obviously, you need to start saying, "Okay, well, if you had this much left, we'll tax it at this rate and if you had that much left we'll tax it at that rate" and so on.
And what are "expenses"? Did the company buy a Lamborghini for the CEO? That's certainly an expense. But there isn't a real reason why the company should have bought that Lamborghini for the CEO other than he wanted one. So if I'd have to pay taxes on, say, $500,000 worth of income, I could just go buy an expensive car and then say, "Oops! Didn't make any money this year! No taxes for me. Sorry." So we kind of need to define what "expenses" really are in these cases. And we probably need to think about income as well.
And that doesn't even get into charitable giving and things like that.
Suddenly, that "simple" tax code isn't so simple anymore.
There is no such thing as "the spirit of the law."
Well, that's not entirely true.
Courts look at what the people who wrote the law intended to have the law mean. Remember, courts interpret the laws, applying them to specific cases. Now, the court may not agree with what I think the people who wrote the law intended and they are the ultimate arbiters of such cases,
The idea behind H1Bs is good. But there's a hole in there somewhere and we need to find it and close it and burn it with fire so it remains closed.
Offshore? As I've said, the same technology that allows me to work from home allows someone to work from wherever. If that place is somewhere cheaper than where you live, maybe you need to find somewhere cheaper to live. For example, Silicon Valley has a high cost of living. Nebraska has a pretty low cost of living. I can do the same job you can but I live in Nebraska and will work for 60% of your wages and feel like I'm making out like a bandit. Do you figure that you need to be protected from those people in Nebraska taking your job?
Well, in their defense, the Indians have been screwed over by the US Government continually over the last 200-or-so years. A little affirmative action could definitely help them in their plight.
I have no problem with off-shoring. Sure, I don't like it, but the same technology that lets me work from home means that my job can be done from pretty much anywhere on the planet. And if that area has a lower cost of living so that someone can charge less? Again, I don't like it, but there's not much I can do. Competition is a good thing.
If the work is being off-shored, though, then it shouldn't be done here. There should be no reason for anyone to have to come here for training. If they want in-person training, they'd better be sending me over there. Otherwise, we can do video-conferences and document our work and they can take it over.
I would agree with all of your examples, but I'd point out an issue or two.
In many of those cases, Apple went from their proprietary solution to something more open. AppleTalk ran over LocalTalk--Apple's proprietary networking (which was basically twisted pair). Another company--I don't remember their name--came alone and just used cheaper wires (PhoneNet). Apple developed EtherTalk--AppleTalk over Ethernet--before going to TCP/IP.
One analogy that sort of works is the move to ADB. The Apple Desktop Bus was designed for keyboards, mice, and other low-bandwidth device (I think someone did an ADB modem, I remember using ADB colorimeters, etc.) The reason for ADB was to save Apple money--rather than having a bunch of different connectors, one would do the job. There wasn't a whole lot of benefit--you'd have to throw out your old modem and buy a new one. That said, they kept the serial ports around for quite awhile.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I'd consider automation to be a "performance technology."
That said, the other day I remarked that I'd love to see someone enter an automated vehicle in NASCAR. It'd be like Kasparov vs. Deep Blue...for rednecks!
On the other hand, this is a clear conflict of interest. One company should not control the creation and distribution platforms.
Uh, Dude? Where've you been? That used to be the case up until the mid-80s or so.
The argument for the change was that the network TV model didn't work in the days of cable television. When you're one of only have 3 channels, you can be assured of a decent sized audience. When you're one of 100+ channels, not so much. Meanwhile, the studios showed their stuff on broadcast TV and then made money on the back-end with syndication and DVD, which the networks got none of. So the law was rescinded and networks could now own the content that they showed.
That's why ABC is owned by Disney, NBC is owned by Universal, CBS is owned by Viacom (which also owns Paramount), and Fox is owned by, you guessed it, 20th Century Fox. At the time, the networks insisted that wouldn't make any difference in what they chose to show. Now-a-days, of course, you can't watch a show on ABC without finding it at least partially owned by Disney or a subsidiary (eg Marvel or ABC Studios).
[...] certified ethical hackers at Offensi.com [...]
Okay, who is the governing body that does this? Because I totally want a certificate that says that I am ethical.
But it wasn't the rats! It was the fleas!
Heck, just lob a few largish asteroids at our major cities and wait for a year or two for the resulting "nuclear" winter and general chaos to starve most of the population, and probably cause the near total collapse of civilization in the process.
Or perhaps raise the temperature on the planet. Maybe aliens like a warmer planet. I mean, did any of these "Anthropogenic Global Warming" people ever check to see if it wasn't being caused by aliens?
Just sayin'...
(And, yes, I'm being facetious.)
Actually, as I understand it (and I may be wrong) the idea is that "Free Speech" is not a defense for actions that happen as a direct result of your speech.
For example, if I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and nobody leaves and the show continues and nothing happens, I can't be arrested just for yelling "Fire!" If I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and the show stops and everybody gets up and calmly leaves the theater, the theater owner could require that I pay for a whole new show for those people. And, of course, if I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and everyone panics and runs for the exits and tramples others and they're injured or killed, I can't claim "Free Speech" as a defense when I'm held accountable for the deaths of those people.
Free speech is not a "get out of jail free" card.
That said, I do think we're seeing more and more laws coming down the pike that try to prevent bad things from happening by basically saying, "You can't say that!"
I have a couple of games, Yelp and Shazam, Speed Test, two-work related apps and a couple of my own that I wrote for fun.
While I can do lots of things on my phone, I'd rather do my photo editing on a bigger screen.
Or at least until it becomes commonplace.
Yeah, I'd be sitting in the driver's seat paying attention for the first few weeks. Then I'd be sitting in the driver's seat reading my phone and glancing up from time-to-time if the car did something. Later, I'd probably be sitting in the backseat and staring at my phone.
Agreed. Not much of challenge.
Turn left.
Turn left.
Turn left.
Turn left...
A bit more seriously, it would be interesting to see something like this with NASCAR. It'd be like Deep Blue versus Gary Kasparov, except for rednecks.
Do or Do Not. There is no Undo.
Risk Reward.
High Risk: My phone could be bricked.
Low Reward: Access to teh new shiny is delayed 'til I get home.
Yeah...think I know what I'm choosing.
let's slam legislators and encourage legislation to close tax loopholes and simplify the tax code.
I agree, somewhat. It's that "simplify the tax code" that runs into problems.
I'm reminded of an old joke about the IRS's new "simplified tax code":
Short, direct, and simple, right? I mean, the joke is that you have to send it all. So, obviously, you need to start saying, "Okay, well, if you had this much left, we'll tax it at this rate and if you had that much left we'll tax it at that rate" and so on.
And what are "expenses"? Did the company buy a Lamborghini for the CEO? That's certainly an expense. But there isn't a real reason why the company should have bought that Lamborghini for the CEO other than he wanted one. So if I'd have to pay taxes on, say, $500,000 worth of income, I could just go buy an expensive car and then say, "Oops! Didn't make any money this year! No taxes for me. Sorry." So we kind of need to define what "expenses" really are in these cases. And we probably need to think about income as well.
And that doesn't even get into charitable giving and things like that.
Suddenly, that "simple" tax code isn't so simple anymore.
There is no such thing as "the spirit of the law."
Well, that's not entirely true.
Courts look at what the people who wrote the law intended to have the law mean. Remember, courts interpret the laws, applying them to specific cases. Now, the court may not agree with what I think the people who wrote the law intended and they are the ultimate arbiters of such cases,
Little? Uh, the thing's the size of a small SUV...
Right on 1. Wrong on 2.
The idea behind H1Bs is good. But there's a hole in there somewhere and we need to find it and close it and burn it with fire so it remains closed.
Offshore? As I've said, the same technology that allows me to work from home allows someone to work from wherever. If that place is somewhere cheaper than where you live, maybe you need to find somewhere cheaper to live. For example, Silicon Valley has a high cost of living. Nebraska has a pretty low cost of living. I can do the same job you can but I live in Nebraska and will work for 60% of your wages and feel like I'm making out like a bandit. Do you figure that you need to be protected from those people in Nebraska taking your job?
Or is it just those bloody fireners?
Well, in their defense, the Indians have been screwed over by the US Government continually over the last 200-or-so years. A little affirmative action could definitely help them in their plight.
What? Not those Indians? Oh.
Never mind.
If they'd deliver Qdoba Queso, I would sign up in a minute.
...and can you express it in Libraries of Congress?
"...the people are fucked"
--George Carlin
Exactly!
I have no problem with off-shoring. Sure, I don't like it, but the same technology that lets me work from home means that my job can be done from pretty much anywhere on the planet. And if that area has a lower cost of living so that someone can charge less? Again, I don't like it, but there's not much I can do. Competition is a good thing.
If the work is being off-shored, though, then it shouldn't be done here. There should be no reason for anyone to have to come here for training. If they want in-person training, they'd better be sending me over there. Otherwise, we can do video-conferences and document our work and they can take it over.
I would agree with all of your examples, but I'd point out an issue or two.
In many of those cases, Apple went from their proprietary solution to something more open. AppleTalk ran over LocalTalk--Apple's proprietary networking (which was basically twisted pair). Another company--I don't remember their name--came alone and just used cheaper wires (PhoneNet). Apple developed EtherTalk--AppleTalk over Ethernet--before going to TCP/IP.
One analogy that sort of works is the move to ADB. The Apple Desktop Bus was designed for keyboards, mice, and other low-bandwidth device (I think someone did an ADB modem, I remember using ADB colorimeters, etc.) The reason for ADB was to save Apple money--rather than having a bunch of different connectors, one would do the job. There wasn't a whole lot of benefit--you'd have to throw out your old modem and buy a new one. That said, they kept the serial ports around for quite awhile.
So either they hook up through the analog adapter or they design a Lightning version.
...and pay royalties to Apple.
Ka-ching!
Perhaps they've improved the battery such that you can listen all day at the office and the phone won't be dead for the walk home.
Reference.
Kill all mosquitos? There are other options...