Not that I disagree with the assessment that nobody wants a $500 phone, but does anyone else really doubt how accurate these online marketing surveys are? To qualify (and get paid) you usually have to answer a question like the following one from a survey to gather information about enterprise class printers:
How many people work in your company worldwide?
1
2-5
6-15
16-100
101-10000
Well, you know that if you don't answer with the last one, you don't get to participate or get paid. You know that people lie their asses off.
I always tell my customers that if you don't have an off-site backup, you're really not backed up. Of course, we have an off-site backup service, so take that with a grain of salt. But, like they say with real estate, "location location, location." Except in this case, "redundancy, redundancy, redundancy."
From my understanding, this has always been legal. Where we live, the size, configuration, value and tax record of your house is public information. So what would people do with this information that is so sinister?
Way to go straight to the insulting and demeaning tone, they definitely bolster your case.
You can write a whole book if you want, but you know damn well that no real news organization is ever going to use the headline that Slashdot did in this case. No amount of obfuscation on your part will change that.
The problem is that oftentimes there is no real way to quantify whether someone is bragging or simply stating what they believe to be facts without any attempt to glorify themselves. For instance, if I say that I won three gold medals in the last Olympics, I could be bragging or I could just be stating facts. It is especially difficult to claim that Bill is bragging in this case because he is answering questions in an interview instead of just giving an unsolicited opinion.
The problem is that it involves a value judgment on the part of the reader or listener, and in this case, someone made that judgment. If the article shows that Bill is indeed bragging, why not let the reader come to her/his own conclusion?
What would be your opinion if Fox News ran a value-judgment headline in reference to President Clinton that referred to him as "the Playboy President?" Or how about if CNN ran one that used the terminology "Shotgun Dick Cheney?" These organizations might lose credibility with you because that is the sort of headline that you would expect to see on a smear website or being used by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
Slashdot *does* claim to be a news source and being an editor has a higher responsibility than some anonymous individual posting on a thread; if the editor wished to be seen as credible, she/he should refrain from this type of thing.
One does not have to be insulting to be rude and simply stating facts is not always appropriate.
For instance, what if someone walked up to you and your wife and introduced himself as a guy that used to have sex with your wife, and proceeded to tell you the various positions they used and the sounds that she made? It's not an insult and he's just "stating the facts without sugar coating them."
The fact is that if you're in customer service, your job *is* to bend over. If you can't handle that, then look for another career. Unfortunately for this clown, he's going to have that decision made for him. What's more, he deserves it for puffing up ("manager of all customer service"), pointing out that the prospective customer was wrong ("which is, despite what you say, completely clear") and being a snotty little prick.
You're kidding right? Nobody cares that Lycos's ToS spelled it out. Nobody cares that this woman should have known the policy. Nobody cares that she should have backed up her email.
We're only hearing about this situation due to this guy's behavior. And now Lycos has probably lost business and he's going to get broken off first thing Monday morning. And why? Because he's "honest?" No, because he's a pompous ass who used his position to be unnecessarily rude to a prospective customer.
Of course, his final response to her might have something to with it: 'I'm sorry, no one here has any intentions of helping you with anything. I am the manager of all of Customer Service. There is no one higher than me that you will speak with. You violated our policy, which is, despite what you say, completely clear. No one is holding anything hostage. Your e-mails have been completely deleted, and no amount of money can now restore them.'" Sounds like someone needs to brush up on their corporatespeak.
But if it would have been Jobs talking about Mac, or Linus talking about Linux it would have been "Steve Jobs/Linus Torvalds Extols Virtues of Mac/Linux, Totally Demolishes Microsoft's Pathetic Ads."
Admitedly, everything Bill says in that interview is a load of crap, but does that really excuse that bias-laden headline? For God's sake, can we at least pretend that there is a shred of credibility here?
It's called predatory pricing. Mainly it's when a larger company with more marketshare prices their products below profitability in order to bankrupt their competitor.
It's one of the main reasons that straight free markets don't work.
Some years back, I worked in a department of a Fortune 100 company that produced weekly sales circulars. Even though the average level of experience in the dept was well over 10 years, our egomaniacal and clueless boss insisted on having twice daily production meetings where she would circle "glaring errors" with a red marker.
The funny thing is that at the end of the week the circular was exactly where it had started and she didn't even know it.
Monday: "Replace picture A001 with A002."
Tuesday: "The picture doesn't 'pop,' bump up the red on picture A002."
Wednesday: "Why does picture A002 look so red to me? Fix it."
Thursday: "Who used picture A002, replace it with A001"
Friday: "Another excellent job, team! Send it to the printers."
After awhile, we just started keeping two working copies of the circular and only did meaningful changes on the original.
You have touched upon the main problem with getting anything done with this problem. Most people simply refuse to be inconvenienced to the point that is probably necessary to affect it. We all bitch and moan that the gov't isn't doing enough (and they aren't), but we continue to to drive alone to work in our large autos, turn our thermostats to 75 degrees in the winter instead of putting on a sweater, never walk, never ride a bicycle, etc.
Consider people like Al Gore (who admittedly has done a lot to get the word out), who owns a 10Kft^2 and a 4Kft^2 home while lecturing the rest of us. On the other hand, people who try to act consistently with their professed beliefs, like actor Ed Begley, Jr. are considered such freaks that they're making a TV show about his life.
This problem will not be solved by gov't intervention as much as by people changing their attitudes.
To be fair, Costco competes with the club store branch of Walmart, which is Sam's Club. I believe employees at Sam's Club are paid more than those at Walmart stores.
But to your point, it is possible to be a profitable company and not abuse your employees and suppliers. Trader Joes is a privately held grocery store/health food store company that pays employees far above the industry average. Also, many suppliers like to do business with TJs, since they pay in cash, instead of stretching out the supplier for 90 days or more.
I think what we're hearing are subtly encoded messages saying, "Pass this law, or something like it; we just can't look like we wanted it to pass." So, Congress should give them what they want, even if they can't ask for it directly.
Translation: We don't have the balls to stand on principle and we don't want the loss of revenue that would result from getting out of these markets, so we have to be able to say that our gov't made us do it.
or maybe she was frightened by rogue clowns from outer space who just flew into the room wearing nothing but loincloths and Cyndi Lauper concert T-shirts. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation too.
Atlas Shrugged is a melodramatic joke of a book with such a childish storyline that I'm surprised that anyone takes her "philosophy" seriously. As other posters have indicated, her "serious" philosophical work is regarded with derision by most in the field. Her so-called ethical system had been demolished by others more rigorous and of greater intellect (Kant, Hume, Hobbes, Kierkegaard) before she was even born.
Like you, I have to admit to a experiential distaste for her adherents. I have found that those espousing her philosophy are usually just selfish creatures trying to justify their own selfishness. Bleh...
Another example: some years back, the combined income that my wife and I earned pushed us just past the the AGI for student loan deductions. Losing that deduction actually cost us more than the increase in income.
The other side of the argument is that eventually most people will move to an even higher income level and, in a lifetime, will recoup that loss and more.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I disagree with the assessment that nobody wants a $500 phone, but does anyone else really doubt how accurate these online marketing surveys are? To qualify (and get paid) you usually have to answer a question like the following one from a survey to gather information about enterprise class printers:
How many people work in your company worldwide?
- 1
- 2-5
- 6-15
- 16-100
- 101-10000
Well, you know that if you don't answer with the last one, you don't get to participate or get paid. You know that people lie their asses off.I always tell my customers that if you don't have an off-site backup, you're really not backed up. Of course, we have an off-site backup service, so take that with a grain of salt. But, like they say with real estate, "location location, location." Except in this case, "redundancy, redundancy, redundancy."
What seems "very, very fishy?"
From my understanding, this has always been legal. Where we live, the size, configuration, value and tax record of your house is public information. So what would people do with this information that is so sinister?
Way to go straight to the insulting and demeaning tone, they definitely bolster your case.
You can write a whole book if you want, but you know damn well that no real news organization is ever going to use the headline that Slashdot did in this case. No amount of obfuscation on your part will change that.
The problem is that oftentimes there is no real way to quantify whether someone is bragging or simply stating what they believe to be facts without any attempt to glorify themselves. For instance, if I say that I won three gold medals in the last Olympics, I could be bragging or I could just be stating facts. It is especially difficult to claim that Bill is bragging in this case because he is answering questions in an interview instead of just giving an unsolicited opinion.
The problem is that it involves a value judgment on the part of the reader or listener, and in this case, someone made that judgment. If the article shows that Bill is indeed bragging, why not let the reader come to her/his own conclusion?
What would be your opinion if Fox News ran a value-judgment headline in reference to President Clinton that referred to him as "the Playboy President?" Or how about if CNN ran one that used the terminology "Shotgun Dick Cheney?" These organizations might lose credibility with you because that is the sort of headline that you would expect to see on a smear website or being used by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
Slashdot *does* claim to be a news source and being an editor has a higher responsibility than some anonymous individual posting on a thread; if the editor wished to be seen as credible, she/he should refrain from this type of thing.
Like this? http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail152.html
Can I have your account number or identity theft please?
One does not have to be insulting to be rude and simply stating facts is not always appropriate.
For instance, what if someone walked up to you and your wife and introduced himself as a guy that used to have sex with your wife, and proceeded to tell you the various positions they used and the sounds that she made? It's not an insult and he's just "stating the facts without sugar coating them."
The fact is that if you're in customer service, your job *is* to bend over. If you can't handle that, then look for another career. Unfortunately for this clown, he's going to have that decision made for him. What's more, he deserves it for puffing up ("manager of all customer service"), pointing out that the prospective customer was wrong ("which is, despite what you say, completely clear") and being a snotty little prick.
You're kidding right? Nobody cares that Lycos's ToS spelled it out. Nobody cares that this woman should have known the policy. Nobody cares that she should have backed up her email.
We're only hearing about this situation due to this guy's behavior. And now Lycos has probably lost business and he's going to get broken off first thing Monday morning. And why? Because he's "honest?" No, because he's a pompous ass who used his position to be unnecessarily rude to a prospective customer.
But if it would have been Jobs talking about Mac, or Linus talking about Linux it would have been "Steve Jobs/Linus Torvalds Extols Virtues of Mac/Linux, Totally Demolishes Microsoft's Pathetic Ads."
See the qualitative difference?
That's some pretty big talk for a company with Microsoft's record, isn't it? Especially compared to Mac.
Admitedly, everything Bill says in that interview is a load of crap, but does that really excuse that bias-laden headline? For God's sake, can we at least pretend that there is a shred of credibility here?
Right.
Relax, it's just a little joke.
It's called predatory pricing. Mainly it's when a larger company with more marketshare prices their products below profitability in order to bankrupt their competitor.
It's one of the main reasons that straight free markets don't work.
Hah, he must have worked there too. That's too funny.
Some years back, I worked in a department of a Fortune 100 company that produced weekly sales circulars. Even though the average level of experience in the dept was well over 10 years, our egomaniacal and clueless boss insisted on having twice daily production meetings where she would circle "glaring errors" with a red marker.
The funny thing is that at the end of the week the circular was exactly where it had started and she didn't even know it.
After awhile, we just started keeping two working copies of the circular and only did meaningful changes on the original.
You have touched upon the main problem with getting anything done with this problem. Most people simply refuse to be inconvenienced to the point that is probably necessary to affect it. We all bitch and moan that the gov't isn't doing enough (and they aren't), but we continue to to drive alone to work in our large autos, turn our thermostats to 75 degrees in the winter instead of putting on a sweater, never walk, never ride a bicycle, etc.
Consider people like Al Gore (who admittedly has done a lot to get the word out), who owns a 10Kft^2 and a 4Kft^2 home while lecturing the rest of us. On the other hand, people who try to act consistently with their professed beliefs, like actor Ed Begley, Jr. are considered such freaks that they're making a TV show about his life.
This problem will not be solved by gov't intervention as much as by people changing their attitudes.
To be fair, Costco competes with the club store branch of Walmart, which is Sam's Club. I believe employees at Sam's Club are paid more than those at Walmart stores.
But to your point, it is possible to be a profitable company and not abuse your employees and suppliers. Trader Joes is a privately held grocery store/health food store company that pays employees far above the industry average. Also, many suppliers like to do business with TJs, since they pay in cash, instead of stretching out the supplier for 90 days or more.
I couldn't agree more; when one does the right thing it often has very negative consequences.
I think what we're hearing are subtly encoded messages saying, "Pass this law, or something like it; we just can't look like we wanted it to pass." So, Congress should give them what they want, even if they can't ask for it directly.
Translation: We don't have the balls to stand on principle and we don't want the loss of revenue that would result from getting out of these markets, so we have to be able to say that our gov't made us do it.
or maybe she was frightened by rogue clowns from outer space who just flew into the room wearing nothing but loincloths and Cyndi Lauper concert T-shirts. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation too.
Atlas Shrugged is a melodramatic joke of a book with such a childish storyline that I'm surprised that anyone takes her "philosophy" seriously. As other posters have indicated, her "serious" philosophical work is regarded with derision by most in the field. Her so-called ethical system had been demolished by others more rigorous and of greater intellect (Kant, Hume, Hobbes, Kierkegaard) before she was even born.
Like you, I have to admit to a experiential distaste for her adherents. I have found that those espousing her philosophy are usually just selfish creatures trying to justify their own selfishness. Bleh...
Another example: some years back, the combined income that my wife and I earned pushed us just past the the AGI for student loan deductions. Losing that deduction actually cost us more than the increase in income.
The other side of the argument is that eventually most people will move to an even higher income level and, in a lifetime, will recoup that loss and more.