I can't believe how many of my peers digress into banal discussions about evil landlords and evil tenants when examining a piece like this. I have my students do case studies every week. When they come across an interesting piece, like this one, that does not immediately seem related to networking or technology (the subjects I teach), I ask them to make the connection for me. That point of connection is usually the main point we, as tech professionals, can take away.
In this case, it demonstrates a flaw in the Craigslist community--an honor-based system--that allows people to post for any address. If anyone can log on and post an ad that refers to any address (e.g. "Change of staff--new office holder wants to redecorate--take what you want from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C.), you might say "didn't see that coming" the first time, but you sure can anticipate the copycats. Think of what the credit card industry went through--once upon a time you could order and have something shipped anywhere. Now, you are mostly limited to shipping to your billing address. If Craigslist were my firm (and for the case studies, I ask my students to put themselves in that position), I would look at devising a way to limit posts to the verified address of a registered user only.
Should Craigslist do this? That's their call. I'm just saying that instead of griping and moaning about bad landlords and rental experiences, we should look at an item like this and say "what can I learn from it." I would not want to risk even implied liability for my company by allowing such fraud to be propogated on my watch. Didn't online firms learn anything from that online check service that allowed anyone to register checking accounts without verifying their owners?
Microsoft will keep licensees for a time. If the buzz becomes great enough, and if the right tools (with the right compatibility) are developed, people will eventually be able to bid Microsoft adieu.
I've worked in IT for 14 years now (not as long as some, but quite the realization for me). I've serviced both Macs and PCs. I've always owned PCs, but I've been thinking about a Mac for a long time. Microsoft has done well by me, but--after tasting Windows XP MCE--I have no desire to use Vista. I'm ready to try Mac. The only thing holding me back is the cost (I typically buy bargain-priced PCs and then tweak them). Then again, my primary laptop is nearing the end of its life, and I'm not likely to skimp on that.
I think the real key here was stated at the end of the article. It is the buzz that will make a difference. Such is usually been the case with many other products (whether or not they were worthy of the buzz--think Cabbage Patch kids, or Tickle Me eXtrememe Elmo). Many consumers not only want to keep up with the Joneses, but they want to one-up them. That's the kind of irrational stuff that feeds buzz. Only time will tell whether that type of buzz is developing for Apple, whether the products are good enough to support it, and whether or not it will impact Microsoft.
That's the real american dream. and like dreams, not all become true. It's not luck, it's sheer willpower.
I don't want to nit-pick, but I do want to temper one of your points. I agree with the first half of that statement abpit the real American Dream. As to the second half ("sheer willpower"), I do not believe it to be entirely true. While will power plays a very important role (perhaps the most important role), you cannot discount that some people simply were in the right place at the right time--they came to market at a time where an unrealized demand peaked, or some other socio-political event caused market demands to shift dramatically. Think of the first person to open a restaurant in a small town. It may not be the best restaurant, and it does not have to fight for customers. It has a high likelihood of success because the town (assuming it is large enough to support it) will frequent the restaurant. In such a case, there will be success unless the venture is horribly mismanaged (and I know, because I destroyed my first entrepreneurial venture--a pizza place--that way).
My father was born penniless in Russia. He escaped the ravages of war with little more than his life. While most in the US would not call me wealthy, I am well-off. There just might be more American Dream going on than most people realize, but expectations are so high that people see anything less than billionaire status as some kind of failure.
I would argue that ethical bankruptcy is a risk of our economic system, not a given. There are many businesses that still strive to operate in an ethical manner, but they typically fly under the radar. One big example (and the name of the firm escapes me) was the company in the Norhteast United States that manufactured (while it was still uncommon) that synthetic "polar fleece" type of material. After a tremendous plant fire, the business owner nearly bankrupted the firm by continuing salary and benefits for his employees far beyond what was deemed wise by his financial advisors (we're not talking days and weeks, but many months).
It may only be one example, but it does prove that ethical bankruptcy is not the defacto model for all US businesses. Ethical bankruptcy is a choice made by people who worship at that altar of greed and profit. Not all businesses worship there, and neither do all US citizens.
Could Google build a system? Possibly, yes [the first things pirates would do would be to change the clip/track names and numbering to avoid the filters], but that's not the point. The law does not place the burden on Google. The law places the burden on the content owner to identify infringement and demand action. Must the media companies scan for every potential new infringing clip? As the law now stands, yes.
I would strongly advise media companies to revisit fair use provisions, develop something fair to all parties. I would never accept as (or suggest that it be) allowed for whole episodes of a program to be posted, even if they were chunked into "fair use" sized portions. Now, would it be possible for someone, finding dozens or hundreds of "fair use" portions, to stitch together again the whole program or track? Yes, but it would again be the content owner's responsibility to protect their content.
When Google was notified of infringing content, the take-down notice inlcuded items that were not even infringing! If the content owner doesn't know the difference, how can you expect Google, no matter how technically proficient, to know what is or is not infringing content?
Not to mention the fact that she will not be dealing with the same level of gravity as the runners on Earth. Sure, she may be tethered to the treadmill, but it will not be comparable. It will still be a significant feat, but I do not believe she should be credited with participation in the Boston Marathon since she is running under such disperate conditions.
While not a lawyer, the precedent in this case is in the realm of flea markets. Copyright owners are responsible for identifying infringing content, not the organizers of the flea market.
Now, if it became clear that flea market organizers kept welcoming DVD pirates back (after the infringing content has been discovered previously), then the organizer may be setting him/herself up for some argument of complicity...
I'm glad to see a balanced thought here. I do think a "report this" button could work if there was a popup or some guidance (e.g. Report this only if you know it to contain content from another source--movies, TV, radio, etc.--in excess of 15 seconds [or other fair use limit]. All reported clips will be placed in a library for review by copyright holders). Otherwise, it becomes a Salem witch hunt.
I still believe that the content owner bears responsibility for identifying infringing content. Perhaps the content owners can create links on their sites (if they have them), asking their fanbase to report cases of infringement, no matter where they are on the web.
If infringement is going on, I don't oppose legal action. The case here is that (under current law) the copyright owner MUST identify the infringing content and ask for its removal. This lawsuit contends that Google is providing a safe harbor for illegal content. Google is just telling the copyright owners to (do their duty under law and) name the infringing content so they can remove it.
Each party has a role to play. Google says it is willing to do its part. Suing Google just to get around a legal requirement for dealing with infringement is no way to skirt the law.
YouTube has made it clear that posters are responsible for the content they post which is stored on Google's/YouTube's servers [I know, Napster disclaimed responsibility for the content, but I know not enough about that case to address it here]. In addition, Google has fully cooperated with the law in pulling materials that were deemed to be infringing. I don't need to be a lawyer to know that current law requires copyright owners to identify infringing content and request its removal. They, for example, would need to find bootleg DVDs at a flea market in order to make a claim of infringement--they cannot simply order all flea markets to screen all their sellers, or prevent all DVD sales. Google's argument is that the same rules apply on YouTube. If someone claims infringement, let them identify the infringing content and Google will pull it down. It is a reasonable scenario. Otherwise, EVERY company that hosts ANY potentially infringing content (read: any webpage, web host, ISP, service, etc.) would need to screen ALL content for ANY potential violation against EVERY CONTENT OWNER IN THE WORLD!
That would be untenable and an undue burden. The history of law in the United States (and, if memory serves correctly, from much of the British Common Law tradition that led to current intellectual property law) holds that the intellectual property owners are responsible for safeguarding their property. While it would be illegal (without express permission) for someone to print and bind their own copies of the Harry Potter books, for example, it falls to Rowling and/or her publishing house to identify such infringing copies, demand that the pirate cease operations, and then to sue for damages (if desired).
You're wrong here. It was absolutely necessary for Google to make a public stand on this issue. Google's reputation was sullied in the public eye by the news coverage of the pending litigation. By writing the open editorial piece, Google is taking a firm and purposed position in defense of its reputation. You can't believe that the average citizen is going to be following this via Slashdot, much less by looking at the public record of the legal precedings.
Besides, such editorial comments have been a part of journalistic history in the United States. They are often one of the few things that keep traditional media outlets mildly interesting.
As a citizen, it is important for me to know when a corporation is trying to hose me through its actions against other companies. IANAL, but I do have experience as an educator, and copyright has a tremendous impact in that arena. Google's arguments are spot-on when it comes to who is responsible for identifying infringing material. Perhaps Google's letter will inspire some citizens (those targeted by the RIAA, for example), to challenge the settlement offers and legal threats that they currently swallow without a second thought. The fact is this: unless you stand up to a bully (preferably in front of witnesses and the bully's lackeys), the bully will continue to steal your lunch money.
I believe there is a couple key point to the American Dream that you (and many others) inadvertantly miss. First, the American Dream cannot be realized by most people if they are willing to work for someone else. The American Dream--time and again--has been realized by those who, for whatever reason, could not or would not allow themselves to be wage-slaves. They started cottage industries--some failed, and some succeeded. Those who succeeded saw the American Dream fulfilled. Those who did not succeed faced a choice--either try again (to achieve the Dream) or believe that the American Dream is a lie. There is a third choice for those who taste failure. Most accept it as the default option but they typically will not assent to it: the American Dream is real, but they reinvent it as being something different--having a modest wage, access to credit, and some luxuries that fit their preconceptions. For them, that is good enough.
The second point that is often missed when discussing the American Dream is what made it possible: something I will call the "American Spirit"--that we, as a people, are willing to reach out and give others a hand along the way. I, by no means, suggest that this spirit is unique to America, but I do believe that--at one time--the world would have been hard-pressed to find more of it per-capita than anywhere else in the world. Today, sadly, it is in decline. Up-and-comers demonstrated this spirit by giving good jobs to their employees, and by contributing to those in need. Socially responsible corporations, while tending to long-term profitability and short-term objectives, did this by having a sense of loyalty to those who helped build the corporation. If we, in America, have had any failure, it is in this second aspect--a failure of the American Spirit.
What disgusts me most about the Circuit City scenario (which is also played out in many other industries every day) is that these "artificial persons" (for what is a corporation if not a legally recognized entity under law?) have forsaken their responsibility to society in order to worship at the altar of profitability.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that businesses cannot take action to maintain their profitability--my degree is in business management and technology, so I understand the factors--but I would argue that it was a failure of management that brought them to this place. Had the leadership of Circuit City fully exercised their duty to their business, the could have stemmed this time years ago. Yes, I know many of you will scream "armchair quarterback" or "20/20 hindsight," but it was clear (to me, at least) that Circuit City expanded too aggressively, they did little to differentiate from their fierce competitors, and they never looked (successfully, at least) strategically at their industry and market trends. In other words: they should have seen this coming and made a minor course correction before they were thousands of miles at sea.
After reading the article today, and other recent news on Circuit City, I'm just glad I never accepted a position with them back in 1997. The American Dream is not holy writ that allows us each to pursue our interests at the expense of our neighbors. It is objectification of the notion that we all have the opportunity to reach toward a lofty goal--of establishing a place in this world, a good home for our families, adding stability to our communities, and having a (positive) impact on society along the way. Do all achieve this dream? No, but we can be part of it.
One correction: Most of EG takes place during preparations for war rather than during the war itself. That, alone, is a significant distinction because the military leaders operate as if we had been constantly at war for the past few hundred years.
I agree that the danger is that the film producers will focus on the battle scenes--most likely the battle room and the video game.
I don't believe there was any incest between Ender and Valentine, but I must agree that the narration was lent itself to speculation along those lines, especially eary/mid-book.
The thing that most astounded me while I read the book was struggling with the fact that the internal dialog of Ender, only a child, read like that of an adult. That will be very hard to portray on the screen without adding dialog that was not written--like conversations at the cafeteria table. Unfortunately, in doing so they would undermine one of the main aspects of Ender's training: that they wanted him to feel isolated from his peers.
I disagree that EG was "almost nothing but action." Many of the scenes were built around active settings (e.g., the battle room), but the voice of the narrative did not focus on the mechanics of evey motion, blast of the beam weapons, or every little detail of each conflict. Enough details were included to highlight important aspects of the scene, but I was amazed by how short many of the battle room descriptions were. Many presented one main aspect of the battle, then moved on the the ultimate victory.
Let's agree to disagree on how much EG highlights the human condition, but I will concur that cramming anything of depth into a film slot will always leave out much of the subtext that made the written works come to life. But that is true in every genre of literature, not just sci-fi.
Agreed. About it I feel similar to hearing about the LOTR movies before they were released. I really hoped they didn't get screwed up (IMO, thankfully, they didn't). Ender's Game holds the same potential, but will they be able to portray it in a way that makes it plausible enough to suck us in?
Might this yet change (Re: Ender's Game)?
on
The Sci-Fi Movie Stigma
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I am waiting to see if the movie adaptation of Ender's Game (by Orson Scott Card) will receive similar treatment (be actionized). It has much to say on the human condition, and would be a great catalyst back toward intelligent science fiction as commentary on the human condition and current events.
There are a few reasons why I don't buy CDs anymore--one of which being that I don't find much music I like anymore (a sign that I am getting older)--but the main one goes back to the days of my youth.
I remembered vacation after vacation with my mother's stack of 8-track tapes. I remember her LP collection. I remember my brothers' collections of 45s. I remember the Victrolla in the basement and the 78s I would pick up at rummage sales. I remember my first album, and my first cassette player. Most importantly, I remember when CD music first hit the scene, and I remember--as clearly as if it were yesterday--how CDs would eventually make music so much less expensive becuase they cost less to produce and ship than did tapes.
Well, here we are in 2007 and CDs are just as expensive (even more expensive) than they were back in the day. So, RIAA, kiss my keister. If I want music now (beyond the CDs I have acquired over the years--almost all of them 2nd-hand), I'll sit on my couch with my guitar and play.
For as screwed up as our legal system sometimes appears to be, I find it wonderful to see examples where it may actually be working within the confines of justice and fairness.
You've read me too far to one end of the spectrum, and perhaps I've done the same for you.
I'm not suggesting that we can get away from all meetings and face-time, but I have lost too many hours to meetings that are held "just because we have a weekly meeting." I think everything we do should be based on business value, whether in the office, working offsite, or in a meeting. I think that a healthy balance can be developed that facilitate alternate work arrangements for those who want them while still acknowledging the team aspect of much work. Although I have enjoyed my work-from-home positions, with kids at home there are often times where I would rather be in the office and away from those distractions. I do believe that most of our current management model is outmoded, irregardless on one's position on alternative work schedules, but I am also opposed to throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Those alternate work schedules are a perk desired by many people, so I find them as a valuable tool. As long as people are not abusing the perk, I'll continue to advocate for it.
You're missing two factors that actually may push the industry toward some of these sit-at-home-scratchers and away from the face-time crowd: globalization and facilities costs.
I know it may sound like a lame card to play, but the globalized economy means that some programmer's preferred core hours (e.g. 11 PM to 3 AM) may sit smack in the middle of some other team's workday. Also, virtual presence technologies and a realization that many aspects of development projects are not linear make development one of those jobs that fits this new model. I have a friend who wrote code for a major US Bank. Most of his coding work was done overnights and on odd weekends. He still made his face-to-face meetings when they came up, but there was no practical business reason to constrain his working hours to 8 AM - 5 PM Monday through Friday.
The other factor that is not getting much press is the cost of maintaining commercial real estate. Every employee you can push out the door (to a cybercafe or home) saves a quantifiable number of dollars every year. There are no longer any costs for wiring a floorbox, providing lighting or electricity, water and sewer, HVAC, or cafeteria services. Unused floorspace can be reclaimed for other uses, or leased out to other companies. I've already seen offices with large numbers of traveling staff get rid of designated offices/cubes--now floor space is on a first-come-first-served basis. In my last workplace I estimated they could save over $2,800 per year for every employee that works from home full-time (and that's after factoring in increased costs associated with increased remote access support).
It will be interesting to see if the decentralized model gains in popularity. My guess is that it will not happen (broadly) until the current generation of managers ages and dies. Until then, some companies (e.g. Best Buy) will forge ahead and experiment with a decentralized workplace.
You've hit it here. In the ideal world, some positions would be solely results oriented, but the fact remains that most of the current management pool made it to where they are through face time. I think we need to promote performance-based management (and I think the broader corporate world will eventually warm to it), but for now we need to live with what's offered or head out on our own.
In order to make such ultra-flexible work arrangements possible, however, managers will need to be much more familiar with the jobs of those they manage. Otherwise, how will a manager know if the amount of code (in lines, objects, or other deliverables/milestones) an employee produces is in line with the time they claimed to work?
Here I break with some of the proponnents of such non-face-time work arrangements. Some in that camp may argue that it does not matter if it takes me only four hours at home to do something that might take me eight hours in the office because the goal is reached in either case. If as a manager, however, I know you can code in half the time of some other office-based employee, I might expect twice as much code from you rather than that you both produce the same amount regardless of the time. In such circumstances, what is really wanted is something like an industrial piece-rate (e.g., earn $x for each garment sewn). If they are getting paid by the deliverable (like most consultants), than it is a fine model. Most employees (if salaried), however, are hired with an assumption that they will give the company a core number of hours each week in exchange for their pay--it has nothing to do with deliverables! That's one of the main factors that the old-school of management still plays when looking at these issues (even though, in my opinion, they play it only when they are not willing to trust their employees).
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe how many of my peers digress into banal discussions about evil landlords and evil tenants when examining a piece like this. I have my students do case studies every week. When they come across an interesting piece, like this one, that does not immediately seem related to networking or technology (the subjects I teach), I ask them to make the connection for me. That point of connection is usually the main point we, as tech professionals, can take away.
In this case, it demonstrates a flaw in the Craigslist community--an honor-based system--that allows people to post for any address. If anyone can log on and post an ad that refers to any address (e.g. "Change of staff--new office holder wants to redecorate--take what you want from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C.), you might say "didn't see that coming" the first time, but you sure can anticipate the copycats. Think of what the credit card industry went through--once upon a time you could order and have something shipped anywhere. Now, you are mostly limited to shipping to your billing address. If Craigslist were my firm (and for the case studies, I ask my students to put themselves in that position), I would look at devising a way to limit posts to the verified address of a registered user only.
Should Craigslist do this? That's their call. I'm just saying that instead of griping and moaning about bad landlords and rental experiences, we should look at an item like this and say "what can I learn from it." I would not want to risk even implied liability for my company by allowing such fraud to be propogated on my watch. Didn't online firms learn anything from that online check service that allowed anyone to register checking accounts without verifying their owners?
Microsoft will keep licensees for a time. If the buzz becomes great enough, and if the right tools (with the right compatibility) are developed, people will eventually be able to bid Microsoft adieu.
I've worked in IT for 14 years now (not as long as some, but quite the realization for me). I've serviced both Macs and PCs. I've always owned PCs, but I've been thinking about a Mac for a long time. Microsoft has done well by me, but--after tasting Windows XP MCE--I have no desire to use Vista. I'm ready to try Mac. The only thing holding me back is the cost (I typically buy bargain-priced PCs and then tweak them). Then again, my primary laptop is nearing the end of its life, and I'm not likely to skimp on that.
I think the real key here was stated at the end of the article. It is the buzz that will make a difference. Such is usually been the case with many other products (whether or not they were worthy of the buzz--think Cabbage Patch kids, or Tickle Me eXtrememe Elmo). Many consumers not only want to keep up with the Joneses, but they want to one-up them. That's the kind of irrational stuff that feeds buzz. Only time will tell whether that type of buzz is developing for Apple, whether the products are good enough to support it, and whether or not it will impact Microsoft.
My father was born penniless in Russia. He escaped the ravages of war with little more than his life. While most in the US would not call me wealthy, I am well-off. There just might be more American Dream going on than most people realize, but expectations are so high that people see anything less than billionaire status as some kind of failure.
I would argue that ethical bankruptcy is a risk of our economic system, not a given. There are many businesses that still strive to operate in an ethical manner, but they typically fly under the radar. One big example (and the name of the firm escapes me) was the company in the Norhteast United States that manufactured (while it was still uncommon) that synthetic "polar fleece" type of material. After a tremendous plant fire, the business owner nearly bankrupted the firm by continuing salary and benefits for his employees far beyond what was deemed wise by his financial advisors (we're not talking days and weeks, but many months).
It may only be one example, but it does prove that ethical bankruptcy is not the defacto model for all US businesses. Ethical bankruptcy is a choice made by people who worship at that altar of greed and profit. Not all businesses worship there, and neither do all US citizens.
Could Google build a system? Possibly, yes [the first things pirates would do would be to change the clip/track names and numbering to avoid the filters], but that's not the point. The law does not place the burden on Google. The law places the burden on the content owner to identify infringement and demand action. Must the media companies scan for every potential new infringing clip? As the law now stands, yes.
I would strongly advise media companies to revisit fair use provisions, develop something fair to all parties. I would never accept as (or suggest that it be) allowed for whole episodes of a program to be posted, even if they were chunked into "fair use" sized portions. Now, would it be possible for someone, finding dozens or hundreds of "fair use" portions, to stitch together again the whole program or track? Yes, but it would again be the content owner's responsibility to protect their content.
When Google was notified of infringing content, the take-down notice inlcuded items that were not even infringing! If the content owner doesn't know the difference, how can you expect Google, no matter how technically proficient, to know what is or is not infringing content?
Not to mention the fact that she will not be dealing with the same level of gravity as the runners on Earth. Sure, she may be tethered to the treadmill, but it will not be comparable. It will still be a significant feat, but I do not believe she should be credited with participation in the Boston Marathon since she is running under such disperate conditions.
While not a lawyer, the precedent in this case is in the realm of flea markets. Copyright owners are responsible for identifying infringing content, not the organizers of the flea market.
Now, if it became clear that flea market organizers kept welcoming DVD pirates back (after the infringing content has been discovered previously), then the organizer may be setting him/herself up for some argument of complicity...
I'm glad to see a balanced thought here. I do think a "report this" button could work if there was a popup or some guidance (e.g. Report this only if you know it to contain content from another source--movies, TV, radio, etc.--in excess of 15 seconds [or other fair use limit]. All reported clips will be placed in a library for review by copyright holders). Otherwise, it becomes a Salem witch hunt.
I still believe that the content owner bears responsibility for identifying infringing content. Perhaps the content owners can create links on their sites (if they have them), asking their fanbase to report cases of infringement, no matter where they are on the web.
If infringement is going on, I don't oppose legal action. The case here is that (under current law) the copyright owner MUST identify the infringing content and ask for its removal. This lawsuit contends that Google is providing a safe harbor for illegal content. Google is just telling the copyright owners to (do their duty under law and) name the infringing content so they can remove it.
Each party has a role to play. Google says it is willing to do its part. Suing Google just to get around a legal requirement for dealing with infringement is no way to skirt the law.
YouTube has made it clear that posters are responsible for the content they post which is stored on Google's/YouTube's servers [I know, Napster disclaimed responsibility for the content, but I know not enough about that case to address it here]. In addition, Google has fully cooperated with the law in pulling materials that were deemed to be infringing. I don't need to be a lawyer to know that current law requires copyright owners to identify infringing content and request its removal. They, for example, would need to find bootleg DVDs at a flea market in order to make a claim of infringement--they cannot simply order all flea markets to screen all their sellers, or prevent all DVD sales. Google's argument is that the same rules apply on YouTube. If someone claims infringement, let them identify the infringing content and Google will pull it down. It is a reasonable scenario. Otherwise, EVERY company that hosts ANY potentially infringing content (read: any webpage, web host, ISP, service, etc.) would need to screen ALL content for ANY potential violation against EVERY CONTENT OWNER IN THE WORLD!
That would be untenable and an undue burden. The history of law in the United States (and, if memory serves correctly, from much of the British Common Law tradition that led to current intellectual property law) holds that the intellectual property owners are responsible for safeguarding their property. While it would be illegal (without express permission) for someone to print and bind their own copies of the Harry Potter books, for example, it falls to Rowling and/or her publishing house to identify such infringing copies, demand that the pirate cease operations, and then to sue for damages (if desired).
You're wrong here. It was absolutely necessary for Google to make a public stand on this issue. Google's reputation was sullied in the public eye by the news coverage of the pending litigation. By writing the open editorial piece, Google is taking a firm and purposed position in defense of its reputation. You can't believe that the average citizen is going to be following this via Slashdot, much less by looking at the public record of the legal precedings.
Besides, such editorial comments have been a part of journalistic history in the United States. They are often one of the few things that keep traditional media outlets mildly interesting.
As a citizen, it is important for me to know when a corporation is trying to hose me through its actions against other companies. IANAL, but I do have experience as an educator, and copyright has a tremendous impact in that arena. Google's arguments are spot-on when it comes to who is responsible for identifying infringing material. Perhaps Google's letter will inspire some citizens (those targeted by the RIAA, for example), to challenge the settlement offers and legal threats that they currently swallow without a second thought. The fact is this: unless you stand up to a bully (preferably in front of witnesses and the bully's lackeys), the bully will continue to steal your lunch money.
I believe there is a couple key point to the American Dream that you (and many others) inadvertantly miss. First, the American Dream cannot be realized by most people if they are willing to work for someone else. The American Dream--time and again--has been realized by those who, for whatever reason, could not or would not allow themselves to be wage-slaves. They started cottage industries--some failed, and some succeeded. Those who succeeded saw the American Dream fulfilled. Those who did not succeed faced a choice--either try again (to achieve the Dream) or believe that the American Dream is a lie. There is a third choice for those who taste failure. Most accept it as the default option but they typically will not assent to it: the American Dream is real, but they reinvent it as being something different--having a modest wage, access to credit, and some luxuries that fit their preconceptions. For them, that is good enough.
The second point that is often missed when discussing the American Dream is what made it possible: something I will call the "American Spirit"--that we, as a people, are willing to reach out and give others a hand along the way. I, by no means, suggest that this spirit is unique to America, but I do believe that--at one time--the world would have been hard-pressed to find more of it per-capita than anywhere else in the world. Today, sadly, it is in decline. Up-and-comers demonstrated this spirit by giving good jobs to their employees, and by contributing to those in need. Socially responsible corporations, while tending to long-term profitability and short-term objectives, did this by having a sense of loyalty to those who helped build the corporation. If we, in America, have had any failure, it is in this second aspect--a failure of the American Spirit.
What disgusts me most about the Circuit City scenario (which is also played out in many other industries every day) is that these "artificial persons" (for what is a corporation if not a legally recognized entity under law?) have forsaken their responsibility to society in order to worship at the altar of profitability.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that businesses cannot take action to maintain their profitability--my degree is in business management and technology, so I understand the factors--but I would argue that it was a failure of management that brought them to this place. Had the leadership of Circuit City fully exercised their duty to their business, the could have stemmed this time years ago. Yes, I know many of you will scream "armchair quarterback" or "20/20 hindsight," but it was clear (to me, at least) that Circuit City expanded too aggressively, they did little to differentiate from their fierce competitors, and they never looked (successfully, at least) strategically at their industry and market trends. In other words: they should have seen this coming and made a minor course correction before they were thousands of miles at sea.
After reading the article today, and other recent news on Circuit City, I'm just glad I never accepted a position with them back in 1997. The American Dream is not holy writ that allows us each to pursue our interests at the expense of our neighbors. It is objectification of the notion that we all have the opportunity to reach toward a lofty goal--of establishing a place in this world, a good home for our families, adding stability to our communities, and having a (positive) impact on society along the way. Do all achieve this dream? No, but we can be part of it.
And credentials do nothing to limit the influence of subjective opinions.
One correction: Most of EG takes place during preparations for war rather than during the war itself. That, alone, is a significant distinction because the military leaders operate as if we had been constantly at war for the past few hundred years.
I agree that the danger is that the film producers will focus on the battle scenes--most likely the battle room and the video game.
I don't believe there was any incest between Ender and Valentine, but I must agree that the narration was lent itself to speculation along those lines, especially eary/mid-book.
The thing that most astounded me while I read the book was struggling with the fact that the internal dialog of Ender, only a child, read like that of an adult. That will be very hard to portray on the screen without adding dialog that was not written--like conversations at the cafeteria table. Unfortunately, in doing so they would undermine one of the main aspects of Ender's training: that they wanted him to feel isolated from his peers.
I disagree that EG was "almost nothing but action." Many of the scenes were built around active settings (e.g., the battle room), but the voice of the narrative did not focus on the mechanics of evey motion, blast of the beam weapons, or every little detail of each conflict. Enough details were included to highlight important aspects of the scene, but I was amazed by how short many of the battle room descriptions were. Many presented one main aspect of the battle, then moved on the the ultimate victory.
Maybe actors could learn to speak in italics?
rofl
Let's agree to disagree on how much EG highlights the human condition, but I will concur that cramming anything of depth into a film slot will always leave out much of the subtext that made the written works come to life. But that is true in every genre of literature, not just sci-fi.
Agreed. About it I feel similar to hearing about the LOTR movies before they were released. I really hoped they didn't get screwed up (IMO, thankfully, they didn't). Ender's Game holds the same potential, but will they be able to portray it in a way that makes it plausible enough to suck us in?
I am waiting to see if the movie adaptation of Ender's Game (by Orson Scott Card) will receive similar treatment (be actionized). It has much to say on the human condition, and would be a great catalyst back toward intelligent science fiction as commentary on the human condition and current events.
There are a few reasons why I don't buy CDs anymore--one of which being that I don't find much music I like anymore (a sign that I am getting older)--but the main one goes back to the days of my youth.
I remembered vacation after vacation with my mother's stack of 8-track tapes. I remember her LP collection. I remember my brothers' collections of 45s. I remember the Victrolla in the basement and the 78s I would pick up at rummage sales. I remember my first album, and my first cassette player. Most importantly, I remember when CD music first hit the scene, and I remember--as clearly as if it were yesterday--how CDs would eventually make music so much less expensive becuase they cost less to produce and ship than did tapes.
Well, here we are in 2007 and CDs are just as expensive (even more expensive) than they were back in the day. So, RIAA, kiss my keister. If I want music now (beyond the CDs I have acquired over the years--almost all of them 2nd-hand), I'll sit on my couch with my guitar and play.
For as screwed up as our legal system sometimes appears to be, I find it wonderful to see examples where it may actually be working within the confines of justice and fairness.
You've read me too far to one end of the spectrum, and perhaps I've done the same for you.
I'm not suggesting that we can get away from all meetings and face-time, but I have lost too many hours to meetings that are held "just because we have a weekly meeting." I think everything we do should be based on business value, whether in the office, working offsite, or in a meeting. I think that a healthy balance can be developed that facilitate alternate work arrangements for those who want them while still acknowledging the team aspect of much work. Although I have enjoyed my work-from-home positions, with kids at home there are often times where I would rather be in the office and away from those distractions. I do believe that most of our current management model is outmoded, irregardless on one's position on alternative work schedules, but I am also opposed to throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Those alternate work schedules are a perk desired by many people, so I find them as a valuable tool. As long as people are not abusing the perk, I'll continue to advocate for it.
You're missing two factors that actually may push the industry toward some of these sit-at-home-scratchers and away from the face-time crowd: globalization and facilities costs. I know it may sound like a lame card to play, but the globalized economy means that some programmer's preferred core hours (e.g. 11 PM to 3 AM) may sit smack in the middle of some other team's workday. Also, virtual presence technologies and a realization that many aspects of development projects are not linear make development one of those jobs that fits this new model. I have a friend who wrote code for a major US Bank. Most of his coding work was done overnights and on odd weekends. He still made his face-to-face meetings when they came up, but there was no practical business reason to constrain his working hours to 8 AM - 5 PM Monday through Friday.
The other factor that is not getting much press is the cost of maintaining commercial real estate. Every employee you can push out the door (to a cybercafe or home) saves a quantifiable number of dollars every year. There are no longer any costs for wiring a floorbox, providing lighting or electricity, water and sewer, HVAC, or cafeteria services. Unused floorspace can be reclaimed for other uses, or leased out to other companies. I've already seen offices with large numbers of traveling staff get rid of designated offices/cubes--now floor space is on a first-come-first-served basis. In my last workplace I estimated they could save over $2,800 per year for every employee that works from home full-time (and that's after factoring in increased costs associated with increased remote access support).
It will be interesting to see if the decentralized model gains in popularity. My guess is that it will not happen (broadly) until the current generation of managers ages and dies. Until then, some companies (e.g. Best Buy) will forge ahead and experiment with a decentralized workplace.
You've hit it here. In the ideal world, some positions would be solely results oriented, but the fact remains that most of the current management pool made it to where they are through face time. I think we need to promote performance-based management (and I think the broader corporate world will eventually warm to it), but for now we need to live with what's offered or head out on our own.
In order to make such ultra-flexible work arrangements possible, however, managers will need to be much more familiar with the jobs of those they manage. Otherwise, how will a manager know if the amount of code (in lines, objects, or other deliverables/milestones) an employee produces is in line with the time they claimed to work?
Here I break with some of the proponnents of such non-face-time work arrangements. Some in that camp may argue that it does not matter if it takes me only four hours at home to do something that might take me eight hours in the office because the goal is reached in either case. If as a manager, however, I know you can code in half the time of some other office-based employee, I might expect twice as much code from you rather than that you both produce the same amount regardless of the time. In such circumstances, what is really wanted is something like an industrial piece-rate (e.g., earn $x for each garment sewn). If they are getting paid by the deliverable (like most consultants), than it is a fine model. Most employees (if salaried), however, are hired with an assumption that they will give the company a core number of hours each week in exchange for their pay--it has nothing to do with deliverables! That's one of the main factors that the old-school of management still plays when looking at these issues (even though, in my opinion, they play it only when they are not willing to trust their employees).