but it actually is simply possible for someone working 30 hours a week to go to the library and get a book and read it
It's possible for some people to do that, not all. You act like opportunity is universal (even if inequitable), but it's not. Do you think every little town in rural areas has a library? Do you think that every poor person has the spare cash for gas to get to the library, even if they have a car? Or the money for a bicycle? Or the time away from taking care of a family or taking care of basic needs?
It's not that you are intentionally making false statements I guess, it's that you don't know that they are false.
And as for learning skills from books at a library -- how exactly is that going to help them get better employment? What skills would they learn that are both able to be learned from books and useful in a poor rural economy? I think you're totally misguided about how the real world works for the poor. Sure, there are more resources for the urban poor -- but don't assume their situation applies to all the poor in the US.
This does NOT suck. ... In other words, the more ludicrous the little battles are, the better chance we have of winning the war.
I wish it worked that way, but it doesn't. What happens is that we get accustomed to each new ludicrous action, and in the end, we've got ridiculous laws that few people have much of a problem with. Too few people are concerned about restrictions on selling used CDs, and the same will be true of the next draconian measure taken.
Three hundred million people in the US, it's pretty hard to get any kind of momentum building in a population that large. We're the frog in the pot, and the temperature is slowly rising... but collectively, we'll sit there until we're cooked.
I don't think you're a bastard, though I disagree with your position -- what I have a problem with is that you make blatantly false statements to support your positions.
By accepting client information (including ss#, which is illegal to request for purposes other than identification for federal services) and money in exchange for providing services, the company waives its right to freely share confidential client information with other entities.
Oh? Since when does the act of accepting information mean that information can't be shared with others? It's convention, due to good business sense, to keep client information confidential -- but in no way is the right to do so waived unless expressly waived in the terms of the business transaction.
Why should I speak up on the matter since it doesn't affect me?
Do you think that other telcomms won't follow suit? It'll be much cheaper for them to do the same as Verizon than to fight the government. Once the big guy does it, then other companies (including cable companies) will have a much easier time justifying the same actions on their part.
They can make more money by simply working more. They can make more money by acquiring some sort of skill. There is opportunity for the taking.
Sounds like someone who's nhad a firly privileged life.
Simply working more? What, like there is such an excess of jobs that someone can simply find one when they want to work more hours? And that they'll automatically get hired, even though they may not even be qualified for a lot of miimum wage jobs?
They can acquire some sort of skill? How, exactly? Can they afford to take classes? Can they afford to be without work while they are taking classes?
There is opportunity for the taking if you come from the right background. The barriers to most poor taking advantage of that opportunity are too high to be overcome by most.
But screw them if they want to start blurring the line between State and Federal. We have states for a reason.
Start? Start blurirng the line? What is left of State sovereignty is a joke, since any state that doesn't toe the line gets funding pulled from it. Sure, there is variety allowed on some issues, until the nation comes to a consensus, but the federal/state power ratio is pretty nicely summed up by the federal/state tax burden ratio.
Add in support for Samba Domain Controllers and Linux Authentication, Offline Access and Evolution Support and we might finally have our long desired Open Source Exchange killer.
So let me get this straight -- we're finally getting an Open Source Exchange, and now you're hoping we have something that kills it?
Seriously, though, I'd be interested to see Comcast's reasoning on changing to Zimbra from Exchange -- might make it a lot easier to justify similar changes elsewhere.
they gave us something we didn't want in the first place, and now they're using the taking away of it to justify a higher price? WTF?
Well, lots of sellers like to justify an increase in price, whether by touting better features or cost increases. What I like, if we ignore the quality issue of the pricing, is that the labels' allowing non-DRM'd songs to be sold for a higher price is admitting that DRM causes the product to be crippled.
This is just a continuation of the trend towards higher prices for music, in spite of plummeting costs for media and distribution. Wax cylinders -> Lps -> tapes -> Cds -> downloads - it just gets easier to move the data, but the price never goes down!
That's because pricing has nothing to do with production costs. Record companies don't exist to make $X profit per album -- they exist to maximize $X.
1. I think it's fairly obvious now that the retail box is to pay for the time and effort of developing the client and the monthly fees are to cover bandwith and server maintenance.
The fee for the client is mostly to encourage subscriptions, IMO. Once someone has invested $50, they're not likely to subscribe for a month and then drop it, or they'll have wasted $60, not $10. I think the pricing is determined by how to maximize revenue, not how to cover specific costs -- though it's important that subscription revenues are greater than bandwidth/server costs.
At any rate, it's the opposite of a dealer giving someone crack for free to get them hooked -- instead they make them pay enough that they're hooked out of a sense of money already invested...
Allowing you to sell your account leads to the sale of high level accounts which denies them money for having that same player buy the box new and level on his own.
I think the parent was talking about selling the license, not a character account. This touches back on my last point -- if you don't pay $50 for the box/license, you're less likely to maintain a subscription. $50 is paltry compared to two years of subscriber fees; the trick is to get them invested in their character(s) enough that they're hooked.
Well, if the Starbucks/Tim Hortons comparison are true, then yes, yes you should be afeared of them inserting nanotech spy devices into trinkets given away.
It's a known fact that Starbucks is on a quest for domination of the US, and will not rest until there is a Starbucks on every street corner and every American is hooked. They plant the listening devices so they can make sure that you are getting your grande triple skim mocha latte extra mocha extra whip twice daily. How else do you expect them to ensure that they have gotten every last person in the US addicted and compliant?
It's no surprise that the Canadian equivalent of Starbucks would do the same, in fact I'd miagine that they are collaborating on a North American takeover. Anyone know the Mexican equivalent of Starbucks/Tim Hortons?
Forget about gas mileage 'cause you've spent all your money getting high and tasting colours and you ain't go nowhere.
As long as you have the engine off, in that case the gas mileage will equal infinity if you roll the VW forward a couple feet. I think you've just solved the fuel crisis... instead of burning fossil fuels for transport to another location, we'll burn hallucinogenics for transport to another dimension.
Japan's situation is different than say, the Chinese, because of the yen decline... the yuan hwoever, is a different story.
factor in the 5 - 15% decline in the yen vs. the dollar and they are getting a 20% return on their USD debt investments.
T-Bills are returning around 5% right now, a 15% Yen decline yields about 23% annually when you factor the two together. A sharp decline in the dollar would wipe out a lot of those gains right now.
Would you care to elaborate on this? Wherever intuition born from experience provides value - in engineering, for example - you would expect experienced employees to be payed more.
The marginal value of that experience increases more slowly than the cost to employ someone with that experience. You can't pay a 20-year veteran engineer what you'd pay someone with 2 years experience under their belt; yet for a lot of jobs, the gain you'd see from that experience is less than the difference in cost between the two engineers. Hence, companies release people from the top of the pay scale when they can.
T-Bills have value because the US government always pays it's debts (so far). The dollar has dropped 25% but the value of US Bonds stays strong.
The value of US Bonds is dependent on the interest rate given on them. In addition, expectations of a weakening dollar reduces the values of US Bonds. US Bonds have the highest rating becaue the US hasn't welched yet, but the rating of the bond is only one factor in its value.
It doesn't matter what currency oil trades in, because if you have Euros, Pesos, or Yuan you're still going to use them to buy US assets.
Not really. If oil is traded in Euros, and there is expectation of a weakening dollar, investors will want to stay away from US assets (like T-Bills).
Say the rate right now is 1.0000. I spend 500 EUR, I get 500 USD worth of bonds. Say as those bonds get closer to maturing, they gain 1%. Now I have 505 USD worth -- but if the exchange rate is now 1.1, I've lost money, because that 505 USD is now worth only 459.09 EUR. This means that to foreign investors without dollars to burn (i.e., without petrodollars) T-Bills are a bad investment.
since oil is traded in US$, and US$ is falling almost as fast as the price of oil is rising.
Insulates you in Great Britain; doesn't insulate the US. Furthermore, we're very close to seeing oil traded in EUR or in a 'basket' of currencies. One of the primary reasons for the current war in Iraq was that Iraq was starting to sell oil in EUR (another was the hope that US control of Iraqi oilfields could have broken the back of OPEC).
If oil comes off the dollar, the US is even more screwed, since petrodollars will stop coming into the US, and other nations will have less reason to hold USD. Furthermore, there will be less incentive for countries like Korea, China, and Japan to buy T-Bills (which they currently do for a *negative* return once dollar depreciation is factored in) -- which results in them selling them off, which then causes the dollar to drop further.
All in all, there are several major factors currently propping up the USD, and if any one of them were to fail, it's likely the others would follow, resulting in economic disaster for the US, with much of the world to follow.
Note that depreciation of the dollar is a positive for USD debt servicing, which is a major reason why it's been allowed to continue. As soon as the US is forced to take it's debt in other currencies, however (which will likely be around when oil comes off the USD), then the US is in a world of pain.
As for me, I'm contributing to the problem by investing most of my money overseas -- but I can't accept the risk to my long-term investments by having them here in the US.
I'll take a look. Out of curiosity, does the NYer article happen to compare stock price and profits to projected stock price and profits if the layoffs hadn't happened? It's quite possible that layoffs adverting stock declines and net losses are overlooked...
If we are able to replace US workers for a fraction of the cost, then why aren't consumers able to shop from non-US corporations at a fraction of the cost?
It's estimated that the full cost of replacing a full-time employee is somewhere between 1 and 3 times their annual salary.
However, since the labor market is so much cheaper overseas, this cost will be made up in a relatively short period of time. As to the communications problems, etc, that you mention, I refer again to the lessening importance of the US market. The US is still the world's biggest tech market -- but that's changing. Fairly soon, the time zone/cultural difference will be problematic if the employment base is primarily in the US.
In the long term, it's painfully obvious to most economists that the US tech hegemony has one foot in the grave. It's only natural for the job market to disperse overseas just as the endmarket for tech products and services has been doing. It sucks for tech workers in the US, but that's a consequence of the end of empire.
Since Americans started getting squeamish about hearing the term "Massive layoffs"
And I'd say this may mark the beginning of the end of the economic free-for-all in the US over the past decade. Rising unemployment will lead to the collapse of the mortgaged house of cards that is currently our banking situation, to be followed by the collapse of the dollar.
A huge announcement of these layoffs, followed by similar announcements by other companies in the coming months, would trigger massive sell-offs in the stock market, further exacerbating the economic situation as more capital flows offshore.
If IBM does it quietly, it may cause their stock price to rise a bit, instead of sparking a sell-off as overyone's fears about a collapsed US economy become self-fulfilling.
Lopping off half the technical staff, as Global Services is apparently about to do, will eliminate much of the company's traditional wisdom and corporate memory in an act that some people might label as age discrimination.
And others might label as cost-cutting, since the benefit of experience in a lot of positions is outweighed by the price of that experience.
Really, this is not surprising at all -- what is surprising is how many US companies are not doing the same thing. If the US were slated to remain the largest market for tech services, then it would make sense to make sure the workforce was largely American.
Now, I'm sure to be modded into oblivion, but I think it's important for tech workers especially to understand that they are likely replacable at a fraction of their cost -- and the more experience under their belt, the more this holds true.
Another thing not mentioned by Cringely is that IBM is also diversifying its employment base. Given the ticking time-bomb that is the US over-leveraged economy, this makes good sense for the long-term security of a company. I'd be shocked if other big international companies aren't thinking along the same lines.
Now, as for Cringely's opinion that this move is just to boost stock price, thereby enriching the current executive group, I think that's only part of the equation. It's easy to blame management greed for decisions that are unpopular amongst the rank-and-file. It's not so easy to understand that the stock market rewards moves like this precisely because they ARE good for the company. Sometimes it's a case of management simply making the best of a very sticky situation, when pain is unavoidable.
All that said, neither I nor Cringely know the full details, and so I'd take what either one of us has to say with a rather large grain of salt (and since I'm an unkown, two rather large grains of salt for me).
That said, I think the Military Industrial Complex is a far more insidious and dangerous entity and poses a much stronger threat to Democracy in the United States.
Not anymore. Now the biggest threat is the borrower-industrial complex. Finance has overtaken military as the industry with close ties to government and the largest ability to further destroy the American economy and democracy. Soon we'll be indentured servants to the banking industry, who the government has sold its assets to foreign nations in order to protect.
Slashdot Mirror
Great summary. Lots of informative links, accurate and intriguing summary of the article(s). No gratuitous inflammatory question.
Someone pinch me, I think I'm dreaming.
It's not that you are intentionally making false statements I guess, it's that you don't know that they are false.
And as for learning skills from books at a library -- how exactly is that going to help them get better employment? What skills would they learn that are both able to be learned from books and useful in a poor rural economy? I think you're totally misguided about how the real world works for the poor. Sure, there are more resources for the urban poor -- but don't assume their situation applies to all the poor in the US.
Three hundred million people in the US, it's pretty hard to get any kind of momentum building in a population that large. We're the frog in the pot, and the temperature is slowly rising... but collectively, we'll sit there until we're cooked.
I don't think you're a bastard, though I disagree with your position -- what I have a problem with is that you make blatantly false statements to support your positions.
Simply working more? What, like there is such an excess of jobs that someone can simply find one when they want to work more hours? And that they'll automatically get hired, even though they may not even be qualified for a lot of miimum wage jobs?
They can acquire some sort of skill? How, exactly? Can they afford to take classes? Can they afford to be without work while they are taking classes?
There is opportunity for the taking if you come from the right background. The barriers to most poor taking advantage of that opportunity are too high to be overcome by most.
Seriously, though, I'd be interested to see Comcast's reasoning on changing to Zimbra from Exchange -- might make it a lot easier to justify similar changes elsewhere.
That's because pricing has nothing to do with production costs. Record companies don't exist to make $X profit per album -- they exist to maximize $X.
I think the parent was talking about selling the license, not a character account. This touches back on my last point -- if you don't pay $50 for the box/license, you're less likely to maintain a subscription. $50 is paltry compared to two years of subscriber fees; the trick is to get them invested in their character(s) enough that they're hooked.
Well, if the Starbucks/Tim Hortons comparison are true, then yes, yes you should be afeared of them inserting nanotech spy devices into trinkets given away.
It's a known fact that Starbucks is on a quest for domination of the US, and will not rest until there is a Starbucks on every street corner and every American is hooked. They plant the listening devices so they can make sure that you are getting your grande triple skim mocha latte extra mocha extra whip twice daily. How else do you expect them to ensure that they have gotten every last person in the US addicted and compliant?
It's no surprise that the Canadian equivalent of Starbucks would do the same, in fact I'd miagine that they are collaborating on a North American takeover. Anyone know the Mexican equivalent of Starbucks/Tim Hortons?
No, it's Half-life 2, not Street Fighter.
Better to carry the taint of evil and fight it, than to tacitly allow it to grow around you and believe that's enough to stop it.
Not really. If oil is traded in Euros, and there is expectation of a weakening dollar, investors will want to stay away from US assets (like T-Bills).
Say the rate right now is 1.0000. I spend 500 EUR, I get 500 USD worth of bonds. Say as those bonds get closer to maturing, they gain 1%. Now I have 505 USD worth -- but if the exchange rate is now 1.1, I've lost money, because that 505 USD is now worth only 459.09 EUR. This means that to foreign investors without dollars to burn (i.e., without petrodollars) T-Bills are a bad investment.
If oil comes off the dollar, the US is even more screwed, since petrodollars will stop coming into the US, and other nations will have less reason to hold USD. Furthermore, there will be less incentive for countries like Korea, China, and Japan to buy T-Bills (which they currently do for a *negative* return once dollar depreciation is factored in) -- which results in them selling them off, which then causes the dollar to drop further.
All in all, there are several major factors currently propping up the USD, and if any one of them were to fail, it's likely the others would follow, resulting in economic disaster for the US, with much of the world to follow.
Note that depreciation of the dollar is a positive for USD debt servicing, which is a major reason why it's been allowed to continue. As soon as the US is forced to take it's debt in other currencies, however (which will likely be around when oil comes off the USD), then the US is in a world of pain.
As for me, I'm contributing to the problem by investing most of my money overseas -- but I can't accept the risk to my long-term investments by having them here in the US.
I'll take a look. Out of curiosity, does the NYer article happen to compare stock price and profits to projected stock price and profits if the layoffs hadn't happened? It's quite possible that layoffs adverting stock declines and net losses are overlooked...
It's estimated that the full cost of replacing a full-time employee is somewhere between 1 and 3 times their annual salary.
However, since the labor market is so much cheaper overseas, this cost will be made up in a relatively short period of time. As to the communications problems, etc, that you mention, I refer again to the lessening importance of the US market. The US is still the world's biggest tech market -- but that's changing. Fairly soon, the time zone/cultural difference will be problematic if the employment base is primarily in the US.
In the long term, it's painfully obvious to most economists that the US tech hegemony has one foot in the grave. It's only natural for the job market to disperse overseas just as the endmarket for tech products and services has been doing. It sucks for tech workers in the US, but that's a consequence of the end of empire.
A huge announcement of these layoffs, followed by similar announcements by other companies in the coming months, would trigger massive sell-offs in the stock market, further exacerbating the economic situation as more capital flows offshore.
If IBM does it quietly, it may cause their stock price to rise a bit, instead of sparking a sell-off as overyone's fears about a collapsed US economy become self-fulfilling.
Really, this is not surprising at all -- what is surprising is how many US companies are not doing the same thing. If the US were slated to remain the largest market for tech services, then it would make sense to make sure the workforce was largely American.
Now, I'm sure to be modded into oblivion, but I think it's important for tech workers especially to understand that they are likely replacable at a fraction of their cost -- and the more experience under their belt, the more this holds true.
Another thing not mentioned by Cringely is that IBM is also diversifying its employment base. Given the ticking time-bomb that is the US over-leveraged economy, this makes good sense for the long-term security of a company. I'd be shocked if other big international companies aren't thinking along the same lines.
Now, as for Cringely's opinion that this move is just to boost stock price, thereby enriching the current executive group, I think that's only part of the equation. It's easy to blame management greed for decisions that are unpopular amongst the rank-and-file. It's not so easy to understand that the stock market rewards moves like this precisely because they ARE good for the company. Sometimes it's a case of management simply making the best of a very sticky situation, when pain is unavoidable.
All that said, neither I nor Cringely know the full details, and so I'd take what either one of us has to say with a rather large grain of salt (and since I'm an unkown, two rather large grains of salt for me).