The difference is environmental selection vs intellectual selection.
I love how we can discuss this rationally, yet as soon as someone mentions the FSM tweaking our DNA a few billion years ago to cultivate us out of the primordial soup of Earth, people call him a blasphemer and accuse him of that most dreadful of sins: Creationism.
(It's ok. Flame-retardant suit is on. Let it fly.)
Actually, I wanted to read real comments. Instead I just see whining about how you all hate reading news sites this day. Let's call it even and both stop bitching about it.
A case can be made either way. If a second person for a task is necessary, then it's necessary. But from the outside looking in, it seems like the response in case of the ATC employee was an automatic one -- not necessarily based on actual need, particularly because that particular airport receives very little overnight traffic.
Though firing squads are a different beast - that's pretty much done for the psychological well being of the executioners as well as the psychological effect on observers. In reality ten rounds from one weapon will kill as well as one round from each of ten.
Yeah, instead of you getting 150% base salary everyone gets 200% base salary. Woe is you.
Woe is me indeed. Because now this little punk next to me who takes breaks every 30 minutes is getting paid 200% base salary when he's really worth 50%. Not only is he getting paid more than he's worth, it's also now much more difficult to fire him for incompetence; other people (at the same base pay) have to do the work he's failing to do; and the company is paying the cost of that blanket increased base pay. It's a safe bet that they're not eating that cost -- some if not all will be passed on to the consumer. (cf production costs for unionized US auto manufacturing vs non)
The only people who benefit from this in the long term are those who are ultimately less capable, as they become a protected species. As far as setting minimum pay: it doesn't take a lot of digging to find what most unions' stance on merit-based pay is.
I'd take it one step further. Set up a funding pool - anyone can donate any amount, tax-deductible for person or corporation. However, any candidate can use it. Candidates can use ONLY that funding. Allow NO personal or outside funding. This way it's not the deepest pockets (and biggest ad campaign) that wins elections.
Not that I never said there was a problem with the original logic behind unions - they were a necessary thing and a great force in improving conditions, wages, and safety for workers. But that was over a century ago. (Longer for some types, shorter for others.)
A major problem of collective bargaining is that it doesn't permit individual bargaining. Seems self-evident, but it's often overlooked. It's great if everybody is performing equally - but anybody who's worked for a living can tell you that rarely happens. It's also great for those people who are performing at or below the average. It's the ones who perform above average who have to pay one of the the long-term prices.
I'm not talking about unions as they originally were - those were, without argument, absolutely necessary. And if that was the focus of unions today - safe working conditions, well-being of employees - I'd not say a word against them.
Those unions went out of style many decades ago. I'm talking about the corrupt, forced-membership unions of today which seem to exist to serve themselves first - no matter the cost to anybody else.
Have you ever tried to set up for a convention in a city like Philadelphia? You can't. You have to hire union labor -- which is slower, less efficient, and more costly than pretty much anything you had planned. Or what about the ATC who fell asleep on the job? His union says that clearly the answer is to... um, hire another union member.
When I see that it becomes 1.5-4x as expensive to hire help for construction jobs because several union members "suggest" that things will go badly for the site if they don't hire union... well, that's all I need to know about what unions stand for. Even better is when local union affiliates manage to get laws passed that mandate use of union labor. Competition? Who needs that, when you can have a legislated monopoly?
There was a union shop locally a few years ago - union leadership encouraged workers to work extra hard to finish deadlines, strike, lose pay, then return for a benefits increase that doesn't even cover the two weeks lost work. The company in question (I believe it was a local power company but I'd have to check w/ the union rep who was on the negotiating team at the time) actually showed *increased* profits for the quarter because of the extra work done and the enforced two week vacation of its work force.
The best part is that management and union leadership had already agreed to the terms before the strike occurred - it but it proceeded anyway to make both parties look good (and to give a nice boost to company numbers for the quarter.)
You'll need to do more than tell me I'm wrong to convince me that I haven't seen the kind of abuse and misuse I've seen first- and second-hand
When designing an app there can be a huge (and beneficial) difference in layout , UI, and control mechanisms between a 3.7" screen and a 7, 10, or 11" screen. The same apps will often work (if looking a bit pixelated) but it will offer far from the best user experience.
Oh wait, you need a Twitter/Flickr account and need to have given them data about yourself? I guess I'll have to spread some seeds for it and check back later. I'll get right on that...
Sure, they don't care now. The point of Creepy is to maybe put a dent in the apathy. If a proper news source were to pick this up under the banner of "A stalker could be after your kids using this app!", people might start to care.
Oh please no. Because once that happens, the politicians will get involved. And nothing good can ever come of that.
Somewhere, I have an account with an old high-4s uid kicking around. Alas, I've long since forgotten the details - including name, email address, and password so you've only my word on that.
So with that said: I also think you're reading too much into the OP's original post, grampa. It wasn't a fart joke, but it was also a fairly predictable joke given the content of the article. The patent reference was about the only thing unexpected there - and that *could* have been thrown in there as a catch-all, just in case people didn't find the rest amusing.
And that's by design... so why try circumventing the design when it's not *supposed* to give karma? As the paraphrased faq says if you want to be funny great... but you're rewarded for saying something meaningful.
Oh, and nice racism there, calling QQ "Chinese", thus implying it is strange and weird.
Whoah, dude. He likely just called it "Chinese" because it appears to be a Chinese company. From the imqq home page summary: "Connecting the information in China that you need, you have now the tools to discover, meet and experience with others who share your vision of China" Funny how nobody referred to or appeared to intend racism or stereotyping until you replied...
QQ has been in use for ages. It is very big in South Africa...uh-oh, South Africa has a lot of black people. Yikes, when we start stereotyping, it's a minefield!
Please clarify how naming a product "Chinese" is stereotyping?
Somebody's worried about US companies selling censor software to countries to whom we also sell bombs and warplanes. Talk about the Skewed Geek Perspective!
I'm all for applying that label where it makes sense; but this is very similar to those who post "is THIS the best thing our legislators can do with their time?" Legislators -- and the rest of us -- are able to maintain awareness of and yea, even concern for multiple problems at the same time. I would wager a guess that the author of TFA is qualified to speak on this particular topic; whereas he probably is not on the subject of government-supplied weapons. This does not mean that he holds no concern for it - only that he knows better than to make a fool of himself for speaking authoritatively on subjects for which he is no authority.
You say in "today's world" 14 years is too long; but you don't explain why; nor do you explain the source for "typical sales records".
This can be easily abused by those who make their living profiting off of others' work. For example, studios would gain a huge advantage in terms of book-to-movie deals. It can take months to proceed to the point of getting an offer; with a two year limit the seller is now forced to take the first offer for fear of losing all rights while trying to negotiate. Even better (for the studio)... by tacit agreement all studios could simply place a moratorium on buying movie rights, so they'd all be free to use anything they wanted as source material after two years. This effectively means they can begin production as soon as the book is off the presses -- since many movies span years in production.
This doesn't get into the huge disincentive a 2 year span (or even 5 year) provides for most people engaged in the act of creating for profit. Most authors are not best-selling authors; they rely on long-term sales to make a living. While 75+ years is preposterous, 14+14 was and still is reasonable. Oh, and hey - you know all that GPL code in the wild? Well under this law, GPL would no longer apply for the vast majority of it. Free for all. And while that's a more accurate portrayal of "information wants to be free", it's not one that most proponents of that belief will subscribe to.
On the other hand if "today's world" means "the world of people who must have it all now - and will take it whether you're ready or not", you might be right. 14 years is too long. But for most of that crowd, 2 weeks is too long - no change to copyright law (short of eliminating it) will prevent them from doing what they do; copyright law doesn't exist for the benefit of those who won't respect it anyway.
No, it has mostly failed not because of lack of incentive but simply because *I* want to be the controller of my individual identity online--not some third-party or government sponsored gatekeeper.
That's why it failed for you, me, and the relatively small subset of thinking individuals who feel the same way. For most others, I think TFA's description is more accurate -- if they were ever aware of the possibility at all.
It's not like the group who funded the study is pushing an agenda or anything, is it? Certainly it's not like they have a history of commissioning so-called "studies" whenever there's a hint of trouble with a nuclear plant?
What's great about this is that it's been picked up by hundreds of blogs over the last couple of days - so now it's quoted all over the place as if it actually has some significance beyond being a study funded by an anti-coal, anti-nuke group. Their past "scientific polls" and studies have also been treated similarly.
That's what I don't understand. It's not like EVERY state in the union doesn't already collection mileage data at every re-registration. Which means that cars already have all the tools needed - a friggin odometer. No retrofit required, no new tracking required.
And frankly,t he attitude expressed by the comittee head in TFA is just offensive. "It will be easy to get manufacturers to include this for new card" (paraphrased). Wait, what? easy for you, I'm sure -- you can just wave your legislative wand about and say "let it be done". Never mind that there are real costs associated with doing it - costs that must be passed on to the consumer directly (price increase) or indirectly (government subsidy to auto to cover the expense).
Slashdot Mirror
I love how we can discuss this rationally, yet as soon as someone mentions the FSM tweaking our DNA a few billion years ago to cultivate us out of the primordial soup of Earth, people call him a blasphemer and accuse him of that most dreadful of sins: Creationism.
(It's ok. Flame-retardant suit is on. Let it fly.)
Actually, I wanted to read real comments. Instead I just see whining about how you all hate reading news sites this day. Let's call it even and both stop bitching about it.
Though firing squads are a different beast - that's pretty much done for the psychological well being of the executioners as well as the psychological effect on observers. In reality ten rounds from one weapon will kill as well as one round from each of ten.
Yeah, instead of you getting 150% base salary everyone gets 200% base salary. Woe is you.
Woe is me indeed. Because now this little punk next to me who takes breaks every 30 minutes is getting paid 200% base salary when he's really worth 50%. Not only is he getting paid more than he's worth, it's also now much more difficult to fire him for incompetence; other people (at the same base pay) have to do the work he's failing to do; and the company is paying the cost of that blanket increased base pay. It's a safe bet that they're not eating that cost -- some if not all will be passed on to the consumer. (cf production costs for unionized US auto manufacturing vs non)
The only people who benefit from this in the long term are those who are ultimately less capable, as they become a protected species. As far as setting minimum pay: it doesn't take a lot of digging to find what most unions' stance on merit-based pay is.
I'd take it one step further. Set up a funding pool - anyone can donate any amount, tax-deductible for person or corporation. However, any candidate can use it. Candidates can use ONLY that funding. Allow NO personal or outside funding. This way it's not the deepest pockets (and biggest ad campaign) that wins elections.
Not that I never said there was a problem with the original logic behind unions - they were a necessary thing and a great force in improving conditions, wages, and safety for workers. But that was over a century ago. (Longer for some types, shorter for others.)
A major problem of collective bargaining is that it doesn't permit individual bargaining. Seems self-evident, but it's often overlooked. It's great if everybody is performing equally - but anybody who's worked for a living can tell you that rarely happens. It's also great for those people who are performing at or below the average. It's the ones who perform above average who have to pay one of the the long-term prices.
Those unions went out of style many decades ago. I'm talking about the corrupt, forced-membership unions of today which seem to exist to serve themselves first - no matter the cost to anybody else.
Have you ever tried to set up for a convention in a city like Philadelphia? You can't. You have to hire union labor -- which is slower, less efficient, and more costly than pretty much anything you had planned. Or what about the ATC who fell asleep on the job? His union says that clearly the answer is to... um, hire another union member.
When I see that it becomes 1.5-4x as expensive to hire help for construction jobs because several union members "suggest" that things will go badly for the site if they don't hire union... well, that's all I need to know about what unions stand for. Even better is when local union affiliates manage to get laws passed that mandate use of union labor. Competition? Who needs that, when you can have a legislated monopoly?
There was a union shop locally a few years ago - union leadership encouraged workers to work extra hard to finish deadlines, strike, lose pay, then return for a benefits increase that doesn't even cover the two weeks lost work. The company in question (I believe it was a local power company but I'd have to check w/ the union rep who was on the negotiating team at the time) actually showed *increased* profits for the quarter because of the extra work done and the enforced two week vacation of its work force.
The best part is that management and union leadership had already agreed to the terms before the strike occurred - it but it proceeded anyway to make both parties look good (and to give a nice boost to company numbers for the quarter.)
You'll need to do more than tell me I'm wrong to convince me that I haven't seen the kind of abuse and misuse I've seen first- and second-hand
Unions are the balance to corporations,
You owe me a new keyboard.
Oh, wait, what? You were serious? My bad.
When designing an app there can be a huge (and beneficial) difference in layout , UI, and control mechanisms between a 3.7" screen and a 7, 10, or 11" screen. The same apps will often work (if looking a bit pixelated) but it will offer far from the best user experience.
Oh wait, you need a Twitter/Flickr account and need to have given them data about yourself? I guess I'll have to spread some seeds for it and check back later. I'll get right on that...
Thank you Captain Obvious!
Sure, they don't care now. The point of Creepy is to maybe put a dent in the apathy. If a proper news source were to pick this up under the banner of "A stalker could be after your kids using this app!", people might start to care.
Oh please no. Because once that happens, the politicians will get involved. And nothing good can ever come of that.
I know you shouldn't explain the joke, but...
Apple = fruit = gay
Yep, yep - still a fail even after explanation.
So with that said: I also think you're reading too much into the OP's original post, grampa. It wasn't a fart joke, but it was also a fairly predictable joke given the content of the article. The patent reference was about the only thing unexpected there - and that *could* have been thrown in there as a catch-all, just in case people didn't find the rest amusing.
And that's by design... so why try circumventing the design when it's not *supposed* to give karma? As the paraphrased faq says if you want to be funny great... but you're rewarded for saying something meaningful.
Seems to me it's more like "Look, I made a funny! Didn't you see it?!"
What makes you think they haven't and aren't pursuing other means?
Oh, and nice racism there, calling QQ "Chinese", thus implying it is strange and weird.
Whoah, dude. He likely just called it "Chinese" because it appears to be a Chinese company. From the imqq home page summary: "Connecting the information in China that you need, you have now the tools to discover, meet and experience with others who share your vision of China" Funny how nobody referred to or appeared to intend racism or stereotyping until you replied...
QQ has been in use for ages. It is very big in South Africa...uh-oh, South Africa has a lot of black people. Yikes, when we start stereotyping, it's a minefield!
Please clarify how naming a product "Chinese" is stereotyping?
Somebody's worried about US companies selling censor software to countries to whom we also sell bombs and warplanes. Talk about the Skewed Geek Perspective!
I'm all for applying that label where it makes sense; but this is very similar to those who post "is THIS the best thing our legislators can do with their time?" Legislators -- and the rest of us -- are able to maintain awareness of and yea, even concern for multiple problems at the same time. I would wager a guess that the author of TFA is qualified to speak on this particular topic; whereas he probably is not on the subject of government-supplied weapons. This does not mean that he holds no concern for it - only that he knows better than to make a fool of himself for speaking authoritatively on subjects for which he is no authority.
may not have been so 10 or 20 years ago.
We've had the internet for over a decade now, and yet "ON TEH INTARWEBS!!1!" is still supposedly a novel and non-obvious way to do things.
It's like the old adage about how to read fortunes from fortune cookies. Except instead of the usual, you substitute "on the web" to get your patent.
Maybe I'm reading too much into what I see - but it looks to me like most of the people in those pictures are about ready to weep.
This can be easily abused by those who make their living profiting off of others' work. For example, studios would gain a huge advantage in terms of book-to-movie deals. It can take months to proceed to the point of getting an offer; with a two year limit the seller is now forced to take the first offer for fear of losing all rights while trying to negotiate. Even better (for the studio) ... by tacit agreement all studios could simply place a moratorium on buying movie rights, so they'd all be free to use anything they wanted as source material after two years. This effectively means they can begin production as soon as the book is off the presses -- since many movies span years in production.
This doesn't get into the huge disincentive a 2 year span (or even 5 year) provides for most people engaged in the act of creating for profit. Most authors are not best-selling authors; they rely on long-term sales to make a living. While 75+ years is preposterous, 14+14 was and still is reasonable. Oh, and hey - you know all that GPL code in the wild? Well under this law, GPL would no longer apply for the vast majority of it. Free for all. And while that's a more accurate portrayal of "information wants to be free", it's not one that most proponents of that belief will subscribe to.
On the other hand if "today's world" means "the world of people who must have it all now - and will take it whether you're ready or not", you might be right. 14 years is too long. But for most of that crowd, 2 weeks is too long - no change to copyright law (short of eliminating it) will prevent them from doing what they do; copyright law doesn't exist for the benefit of those who won't respect it anyway.
No, it has mostly failed not because of lack of incentive but simply because *I* want to be the controller of my individual identity online--not some third-party or government sponsored gatekeeper.
That's why it failed for you, me, and the relatively small subset of thinking individuals who feel the same way. For most others, I think TFA's description is more accurate -- if they were ever aware of the possibility at all.
What's great about this is that it's been picked up by hundreds of blogs over the last couple of days - so now it's quoted all over the place as if it actually has some significance beyond being a study funded by an anti-coal, anti-nuke group. Their past "scientific polls" and studies have also been treated similarly.
And frankly,t he attitude expressed by the comittee head in TFA is just offensive. "It will be easy to get manufacturers to include this for new card" (paraphrased). Wait, what? easy for you, I'm sure -- you can just wave your legislative wand about and say "let it be done". Never mind that there are real costs associated with doing it - costs that must be passed on to the consumer directly (price increase) or indirectly (government subsidy to auto to cover the expense).