The judge would not judge something too defavorable to the lawyer, just to avoid setting bad precedent (better a justice that favor the lawyers than impunity, no?).
There is plenty of down time in a 5 years proceeding, possibly years with little to no action at all expect for a paralegal pushing some paper around a few times, and this type of case is very unlikely to fail after the initial leg work.
Maybe not the money printing scheme/. crowd think generally, but certainly not a bad business model in this economy.
Politically speaking, that does not work in most places. People will complain, Management will hear about the complain and you will have to waste time justifying that those complain were not justified. You will have at best waste meeting time that could be use to address your real issues. At worse, you will anger some PHB, or some other PHB will understand that the fact that you allow people to use another browser is not a feature but a sign of incompetence,...
Really, if the company is a tiny bit dysfunctional and is not making money directly from IT, the safest solution is to simply prevent people to use stuff you don't fully support. Otherwise the opportunities for trouble are almost unlimited. That is the same thing with supporting smartphones and tablets, there is no way you can even think about letting the user get away with that without the CTO publicly asking for it.
That may be true when comparing evolution of a third world country, but for first world countries, the live expectancy is already so high that it really does not mean much. I have had people in my family that were kept in a state that I do not qualify living (for years my grand-father was lucid about 1 hour per day during which he was begging people to end his misery. My so father spent 2 years in a coma before dying.)
Quality of life is what matter, we would need something like: fully valid life expectancy, a metric that consider you out as soon as you can get any type of disability benefit. Increase of this metric would mean decrease in congenital disability (better screening), increase in rehabilitation, better prevention, not just pumping some drug in a poor human body so that his misery last longer.
Also there is more money to be made curing psychosomatic type disease than real one. I'm sure big pharma would be happy to get rid of scary sickness like cancer so that people live longer and pay more attention to take their variety of "psychological disorders'. Pill to cure sadness, boredom,... that where long term money is.
And worse, you are never really ready. People with laser disk are still waiting for their content and people with first gen *anything* have to buy a third/fourth gen of the same gadget when the content is available (I fell for that, I have this nice Marrantz DVD player, that can only read the DVD from 10 years ago, not the bulk of the DVD created later).
Also happened with the tech itself: "upgradable" motherboard as long as socket, base frequencies, multiplicator, port, ram, or disk tech do not change in the meanwhile - i.e. upgradable for 6 months at most.
That is nice to see that written in history books. When you are contemporary with the events, that is a lot less fun. Go have a look how all those ex-manufacturing heavy region of the US or Europe and see how outsourcing is improving the world quality of life and economy. Go back in time and explain to the native american how, from their death, one of the greatest nation on earth will rise.
The interesting bit is how we will deal with the collateral damage, because, let's be honest, the IT guy that will lose his job will not qualify for the new positions. Worse, the new jobs will be lagging a few years after the "erased jobs". So for a few years there will be some poor IT people stuck between fighting everyday to keep their job in a shrinking market and at simultaneously cross-training to be competitive in another market. (because you know low/no qualification jobs have been "erased" already)
So yeah, society advance, that is a good thing. However, I don't think we have advanced enough to have a better answer to them than "tough luck, suck to be you", and that is not a good thing !
Not really. As an employee or an exec, you can still be charged for illegal action you took, even if you were ordered to.
If your organisation is big enough (read generous enough with their overlord), you can get away with it, generally by even preventing the law that makes it illegal to even exist in the first place.
No what he and businesses want is Google to work as a giant billboard instead of an index as it currently does.
Considering that Google is making money solely on advertisement, a very successful one making billions every year, you may understand why they get confused. At the end of the day, businesses pay for what the rest of the world enjoys for free. They don't want censorship, they just want to get their money worth.
Of course, that is no good for us and I hope that the Justice does not set a bad precedent here.
China need to keep a balance between the healthy (for China) stealing of foreign IP with protection, otherwise countries will looking at plan B. In this case,
Apple is also the largest semiconductor client in the world. Apple is a very big and very prominent customer of China. If China piss them off too much and Apple find another place to manufacture its stuff that would be a catastrophic message for manufacturing in China.
Another aspect, is that at some point China wants to create a healthy middle class of consumer to support its own economy. Brand recognition is something that will be increasingly important for China: at some point they will want Chinese people to buy high margin products.
It is the assumption of infeasibility of civilisation between 2 solar systems (interstellar). Unless you move the whole humanity in a denser area of the galaxy, humanity will not be interstellar regardless if they live on a planet or an asteroid or an artificial construct. Without some fast communication they can only disperse past the solar system like trees and plants on earth.
Of course, if the average human life span increase by an order of magnitude or more (regardless the means, including uploading yourself in a data center) and society become stable enough to think in decades/centuries rather than quarter, maybe that become workable. Still a lot less exiting than what people have in mind when talking about the subject.
They are also too young to need money. When they start looking for work and feeding a family, their enlightment will dim pretty fast.
We have had that before, remember the hippies, flower power and everything (or May 1968 generation in France) ? All this 1% business, financial crisis, threat against the middle class,... has been happening under their watch. The current society they control has almost diametrically opposed values than the one they promoted in their youth.
Without faster than light you can get off this rock but you cannot support a civilisation. The closest star is already 4 light years away. Even at light speed, a return trip would take 8 years and that is already too much to maintain the relationship required for a civilisation - after a few generations, there will be nothing in common between the 2 worlds.
One of the major problems we have in America is the confusion about science. Science is the product of a particular philosophy, and that philosophy stands in opposition to most of the world's religions.
That is indeed a typical american problem - a polarised view on science. In the rest of the civilised world, science is a tool rather than a philosophy. It does not clash with religion. You don't see the Pope arguing against science, and he is as closed minded and "blind by faith" as you can get. Sometime science gives hard truth, there are denials, there are request for counter studies, there are difference in interpretation and it can get ugly. But nobody blame the process.
Wow, those are misleading numbers. You cannot have any idea of fairness from those numbers at all.
At the very least you need to compare the tax burden of the top 1% relative to their wealth and income. Simplistic example: if I rent my car to 99%, I will assume 100% of the tax burden related to the ownership of the car, and the 99 other nothing. But that would be very misleading to say the 1% pay 100% of the tax burden.
Also, a fair system is not necessarily linear with wealth and income. It is not unacceptable for the very rich to pay a proportionally unfair amount of taxes. After all, above a certain wealth having more money is less useful than a similar amount spread among people that will spend it.
Awful idea ! That would only exclude author from getting copyright on their work. The big companies will probably be able to get around it using loopholes or bully some politician for exemption. For example Disney would just bully some random community somewhere to foot the bill for them in exchange of creating 5 mac jobs, or other hollywood accounting type stuff
Yes - they produce but don't consume enough to keep their production level. So the problem is not as clear cut as you think. China need the US and the rest of the Western World to be wealthy enough to fund China rise to power, and once they have risen to power, they will just be another Japan. So when it is rough for the US, it is also rough for China. The difference is that rough in the US means people losing stuff, and rough in China means conditions not improving for people that have already nothing.
Well duh ! That is one the major reason you create that kind of lab in the first place: you found something in the real world then you craft a similar scenario in the lab and make that part of either your test case, or benchmark. Obviously part of the crafting the scenario is to make sure that it behaves the same as in the real world. Other uses include debugging, analysis of edge cases (i.e. stuff difficult to find the real world, or stuff that does not yet exist)
Considering the renewed competition on the browser market, I don't think we can doubt that Microsoft is indeed benchmarking the other browser in its lab. You can also bet that they are running the major benchmark, and doing plenty of real tests. Just because MS is a shitty company burden by a country-level bureaucracy does not mean that they would screw up something obvious like that.
What is really noteworthy, is how far they committed to IE. They could have dropped the ball and just created a half decent me too browser cheaply from webkit just to please granma and IT.
That's the capitalistic rule: there will always be someone desperate enough to take a crappy job if there is not good alternative. And there will always be someone with little enough ethic or moral value to exploit a business opportunity as long as it is legal.
People that hope that capitalism without strong regulation and social security will self-regulate and lead us to a better world are deluding themselves. Same as communism, that does not work, human nature prevents it.
Spain, as the rest of weak Euro-zone members are bankrupting themselves with work cost similar to Germany. I have friend working in the green sector in Spain, all the work is done in Germany - there no benefit to do anything in spain, except sale. Even for support, considering a lot of the sites are far away from anything, there is almost no time difference shipping an engineer from Germany or the closest spanish city.
So indeed, green = jobs. There is just not enough competitive advantages to have the bulk of the jobs Spain when there a cheaper, (almost) next door, industrial powerhouse like Germany that also happens to be in charge of your currency.
They were worried about Irak forces aswell. Praising the enemy force is an old PR tactic used literally since the Antiquity. They just prepare the country for a long war because they cannot win against Iran in a better fashion than they won in Iraq - not with guns anyway.
Well, yes something is lost: the desire to hear that music or see that movie. I'm not saying that it is the same scale of loss, no by an order of magnitude, but saying that nothing is lost is ignoring that at its core, the billions Google make are just based on selling ads, i.e. influence people desire.
However, although they definitively lost something, they also gain something. They got free ads, which is also worth something (see Google, again) and more insidiously, they steal the market from their competitor. Microsoft, Adobe,... are the best example. Pirated Windows choked Linux in third world countries, and Adobe sneak in the workflow of people long before they become professionals.
So no, this is no sharing, this is more like giving free sample to people in a shop, without being able to control how much you give away.
The thing is, in your example, the problem is not the incompetent old employee feeling entitled, it is that his mediocrity has never been an issue in his career so far. He got raised to his level by inertia. The core reason why experienced worker don't find a work is that the companies cannot identify competent employee (young or old) - they cannot see what experience save them. So instead, they hire boat load of cheap ones and hope that by chance there are enough good in them to make up for the lack or experience or the problems brought by the shit ones.
Another problem, is that you forget the concept. I have known people that sacrifice their expertise to specialize in some specific in-house shitty tech, by duty to their company (the old school way: enter a company as a kid, do what it takes and retire from the same company). So yeah they feel entitled because they are entitled - they saved the company butt for 20 years. In the past that would have meant at least respect, now that means they get threaten to be replaced by cheapo worker.
So yeah, shitty worker stay employed and dutiful employee get exploited, that's your problem.
Unicode encode old characters of a dead languages only a few professor will ever use, that makes a lot less sense than emoticons, character that are actually used daily by lots of people.
Re:Why can't more politicians do this?
on
EU ACTA Chief Resigns
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
What is the difference with other politicians really ? He apologized at the end, after he screwed everyone ? That is even worse IMO than a politician that is convinced he is doing something good: this one completed something that was against his opinion without complaining until it was too late.
Slashdot Mirror
The judge would not judge something too defavorable to the lawyer, just to avoid setting bad precedent (better a justice that favor the lawyers than impunity, no?).
There is plenty of down time in a 5 years proceeding, possibly years with little to no action at all expect for a paralegal pushing some paper around a few times, and this type of case is very unlikely to fail after the initial leg work.
Maybe not the money printing scheme /. crowd think generally, but certainly not a bad business model in this economy.
Politically speaking, that does not work in most places. People will complain, Management will hear about the complain and you will have to waste time justifying that those complain were not justified. You will have at best waste meeting time that could be use to address your real issues. At worse, you will anger some PHB, or some other PHB will understand that the fact that you allow people to use another browser is not a feature but a sign of incompetence, ...
Really, if the company is a tiny bit dysfunctional and is not making money directly from IT, the safest solution is to simply prevent people to use stuff you don't fully support. Otherwise the opportunities for trouble are almost unlimited. That is the same thing with supporting smartphones and tablets, there is no way you can even think about letting the user get away with that without the CTO publicly asking for it.
That may be true when comparing evolution of a third world country, but for first world countries, the live expectancy is already so high that it really does not mean much. I have had people in my family that were kept in a state that I do not qualify living (for years my grand-father was lucid about 1 hour per day during which he was begging people to end his misery. My so father spent 2 years in a coma before dying.)
Quality of life is what matter, we would need something like: fully valid life expectancy, a metric that consider you out as soon as you can get any type of disability benefit. Increase of this metric would mean decrease in congenital disability (better screening), increase in rehabilitation, better prevention, not just pumping some drug in a poor human body so that his misery last longer.
Also there is more money to be made curing psychosomatic type disease than real one. I'm sure big pharma would be happy to get rid of scary sickness like cancer so that people live longer and pay more attention to take their variety of "psychological disorders'. Pill to cure sadness, boredom, ... that where long term money is.
And worse, you are never really ready. People with laser disk are still waiting for their content and people with first gen *anything* have to buy a third/fourth gen of the same gadget when the content is available (I fell for that, I have this nice Marrantz DVD player, that can only read the DVD from 10 years ago, not the bulk of the DVD created later).
Also happened with the tech itself: "upgradable" motherboard as long as socket, base frequencies, multiplicator, port, ram, or disk tech do not change in the meanwhile - i.e. upgradable for 6 months at most.
The interesting bit is how we will deal with the collateral damage, because, let's be honest, the IT guy that will lose his job will not qualify for the new positions. Worse, the new jobs will be lagging a few years after the "erased jobs". So for a few years there will be some poor IT people stuck between fighting everyday to keep their job in a shrinking market and at simultaneously cross-training to be competitive in another market. (because you know low/no qualification jobs have been "erased" already)
So yeah, society advance, that is a good thing. However, I don't think we have advanced enough to have a better answer to them than "tough luck, suck to be you", and that is not a good thing !
Not really. As an employee or an exec, you can still be charged for illegal action you took, even if you were ordered to.
If your organisation is big enough (read generous enough with their overlord), you can get away with it, generally by even preventing the law that makes it illegal to even exist in the first place.
No what he and businesses want is Google to work as a giant billboard instead of an index as it currently does.
Considering that Google is making money solely on advertisement, a very successful one making billions every year, you may understand why they get confused. At the end of the day, businesses pay for what the rest of the world enjoys for free. They don't want censorship, they just want to get their money worth.
Of course, that is no good for us and I hope that the Justice does not set a bad precedent here.
China need to keep a balance between the healthy (for China) stealing of foreign IP with protection, otherwise countries will looking at plan B. In this case, Apple is also the largest semiconductor client in the world. Apple is a very big and very prominent customer of China. If China piss them off too much and Apple find another place to manufacture its stuff that would be a catastrophic message for manufacturing in China.
Another aspect, is that at some point China wants to create a healthy middle class of consumer to support its own economy. Brand recognition is something that will be increasingly important for China: at some point they will want Chinese people to buy high margin products.
Of course, if the average human life span increase by an order of magnitude or more (regardless the means, including uploading yourself in a data center) and society become stable enough to think in decades/centuries rather than quarter, maybe that become workable. Still a lot less exiting than what people have in mind when talking about the subject.
They are also too young to need money. When they start looking for work and feeding a family, their enlightment will dim pretty fast.
We have had that before, remember the hippies, flower power and everything (or May 1968 generation in France) ? All this 1% business, financial crisis, threat against the middle class, ... has been happening under their watch. The current society they control has almost diametrically opposed values than the one they promoted in their youth.
Without faster than light you can get off this rock but you cannot support a civilisation. The closest star is already 4 light years away. Even at light speed, a return trip would take 8 years and that is already too much to maintain the relationship required for a civilisation - after a few generations, there will be nothing in common between the 2 worlds.
One of the major problems we have in America is the confusion about science. Science is the product of a particular philosophy, and that philosophy stands in opposition to most of the world's religions.
That is indeed a typical american problem - a polarised view on science. In the rest of the civilised world, science is a tool rather than a philosophy. It does not clash with religion. You don't see the Pope arguing against science, and he is as closed minded and "blind by faith" as you can get. Sometime science gives hard truth, there are denials, there are request for counter studies, there are difference in interpretation and it can get ugly. But nobody blame the process.
Wow, those are misleading numbers. You cannot have any idea of fairness from those numbers at all. At the very least you need to compare the tax burden of the top 1% relative to their wealth and income. Simplistic example: if I rent my car to 99%, I will assume 100% of the tax burden related to the ownership of the car, and the 99 other nothing. But that would be very misleading to say the 1% pay 100% of the tax burden.
Also, a fair system is not necessarily linear with wealth and income. It is not unacceptable for the very rich to pay a proportionally unfair amount of taxes. After all, above a certain wealth having more money is less useful than a similar amount spread among people that will spend it.
Awful idea ! That would only exclude author from getting copyright on their work. The big companies will probably be able to get around it using loopholes or bully some politician for exemption. For example Disney would just bully some random community somewhere to foot the bill for them in exchange of creating 5 mac jobs, or other hollywood accounting type stuff
Yes - they produce but don't consume enough to keep their production level. So the problem is not as clear cut as you think. China need the US and the rest of the Western World to be wealthy enough to fund China rise to power, and once they have risen to power, they will just be another Japan. So when it is rough for the US, it is also rough for China. The difference is that rough in the US means people losing stuff, and rough in China means conditions not improving for people that have already nothing.
Well duh ! That is one the major reason you create that kind of lab in the first place: you found something in the real world then you craft a similar scenario in the lab and make that part of either your test case, or benchmark. Obviously part of the crafting the scenario is to make sure that it behaves the same as in the real world. Other uses include debugging, analysis of edge cases (i.e. stuff difficult to find the real world, or stuff that does not yet exist)
Considering the renewed competition on the browser market, I don't think we can doubt that Microsoft is indeed benchmarking the other browser in its lab. You can also bet that they are running the major benchmark, and doing plenty of real tests. Just because MS is a shitty company burden by a country-level bureaucracy does not mean that they would screw up something obvious like that.
What is really noteworthy, is how far they committed to IE. They could have dropped the ball and just created a half decent me too browser cheaply from webkit just to please granma and IT.
That's the capitalistic rule: there will always be someone desperate enough to take a crappy job if there is not good alternative. And there will always be someone with little enough ethic or moral value to exploit a business opportunity as long as it is legal.
People that hope that capitalism without strong regulation and social security will self-regulate and lead us to a better world are deluding themselves. Same as communism, that does not work, human nature prevents it.
Spain, as the rest of weak Euro-zone members are bankrupting themselves with work cost similar to Germany. I have friend working in the green sector in Spain, all the work is done in Germany - there no benefit to do anything in spain, except sale. Even for support, considering a lot of the sites are far away from anything, there is almost no time difference shipping an engineer from Germany or the closest spanish city.
So indeed, green = jobs. There is just not enough competitive advantages to have the bulk of the jobs Spain when there a cheaper, (almost) next door, industrial powerhouse like Germany that also happens to be in charge of your currency.
They were worried about Irak forces aswell. Praising the enemy force is an old PR tactic used literally since the Antiquity. They just prepare the country for a long war because they cannot win against Iran in a better fashion than they won in Iraq - not with guns anyway.
And what was the world reaction at the lack of looting ? Widespread disbelief, amazement, ...
Even more so, nothing is lost.
Well, yes something is lost: the desire to hear that music or see that movie. I'm not saying that it is the same scale of loss, no by an order of magnitude, but saying that nothing is lost is ignoring that at its core, the billions Google make are just based on selling ads, i.e. influence people desire.
However, although they definitively lost something, they also gain something. They got free ads, which is also worth something (see Google, again) and more insidiously, they steal the market from their competitor. Microsoft, Adobe, ... are the best example. Pirated Windows choked Linux in third world countries, and Adobe sneak in the workflow of people long before they become professionals.
So no, this is no sharing, this is more like giving free sample to people in a shop, without being able to control how much you give away.
The thing is, in your example, the problem is not the incompetent old employee feeling entitled, it is that his mediocrity has never been an issue in his career so far. He got raised to his level by inertia. The core reason why experienced worker don't find a work is that the companies cannot identify competent employee (young or old) - they cannot see what experience save them. So instead, they hire boat load of cheap ones and hope that by chance there are enough good in them to make up for the lack or experience or the problems brought by the shit ones.
Another problem, is that you forget the concept. I have known people that sacrifice their expertise to specialize in some specific in-house shitty tech, by duty to their company (the old school way: enter a company as a kid, do what it takes and retire from the same company). So yeah they feel entitled because they are entitled - they saved the company butt for 20 years. In the past that would have meant at least respect, now that means they get threaten to be replaced by cheapo worker.
So yeah, shitty worker stay employed and dutiful employee get exploited, that's your problem.
Unicode encode old characters of a dead languages only a few professor will ever use, that makes a lot less sense than emoticons, character that are actually used daily by lots of people.
What is the difference with other politicians really ? He apologized at the end, after he screwed everyone ? That is even worse IMO than a politician that is convinced he is doing something good: this one completed something that was against his opinion without complaining until it was too late.