Yup, I've been hearing that since 2000. How much longer do you think? 20 more years? 50? A century? I don't think so. Show the PHB two salary numbers, he's going to pick the lower one, never mind any other factors (e.g. overall cost).
Actually, it's already happening. US companies that are moving IS jobs over seas are behind the curve. Companies that shipped jobs over in the 1990s are starting to bring them back.
One reason out-sourcing/off-shoring doesn't same money is management. You need on site management where ever the programmers are, but you still need the management structure at the home office to oversee projects.
Another reason is just we just haven't figured out how to work in remote teams. There certainly are exception, instances where teams of people geographically separate have turned out a successful project. But those are the exceptions. In most cases, conference calls and shared desktops just can't replace sitting next to someone and looking over their shoulder at the screen.
Not much of advantage anymore. You can just host on rapidshare/megaupload/similar site.
And that's why people (used to) go to Download.com.
If I'm looking for warez I might go to rapidshare/megaupload/similar site. And I'll assume anything I get from those sites has a trojan/virus/bot until I can prove otherwise.
If I know what app or utility I need, I'll go directly to that site. If I don't have a particular name in mind, I used to go to Download.com. For example, I recently needed to get some updated codecs, but didn't know the exact package or provider I needed.
I don't feel a Google search on "codecs" tells me the software I'm downloading is going to do what it says it does (and nothing else). Maybe my trust was misplaced, but that's what I expected Download.com to do.
So in my recent search, I found a codec on Download.com and noticed what I got was a remote installer and not the codec package. Of course, that is just the sort of thing I was using Download.com to avoid. So I'm done using and recommending that site.
Of course I can't get too upset. "Hey! That thing that cost me nothing and that I did nothing to support is no longer being spoon fed to me!"
Thanks. Everyone seems to like the median income public salary. Explaining the retirement bonus is a lot harder.
Try.
Why is it a good idea to pay someone not to serve? Not that I'm thrilled with the current pension system for elected officials, but under your system, for districts that vote heavily for one party, what's to prevent 2 well-connected candidates from just switching off every 2 years (for example for the HoR)?
One person comes in to serve for 2 years, while the other person leaves with 2-years pay. Then in 2 years they swap spots. We essentially end up paying 2 people for one position.
Alright, that may be far-fetched. So instead of the same 2 people, we get a new person in every 2 years. Since they're all taking orders from the real power brokers behind the scenes, the real politics don't change. But we've essentially doubled pay. Nothing changes except the names.
Is it really worth that much to you to get rid of incumbents?
You say that as if human deaths are a bad thing, you know we're in the middle of a major population and food crisis right?
Actually, we're in no such middle, at least in terms of population. Those areas with food issues are victims of politics, mostly, or economics.
When food aid to drought-stricken areas is stolen by gangs (government-affiliated and otherwise), are those people left hungry because of the world population?
When the USA is afflicted with inner city 'food deserts' with bodegas and fast food joints only serving over processed fats and salt in the shape of food and no access to markets with real food, is that because the USA can't feed its people or just won't?
There's no technical or environmental reason for humans to not be 100% well fed. Our population isn't close to the limits of the food we can produce. The reasons there are hunger and malnutrition are political.
No, what he is saying is: "Many times before we've seen people do things on this scale that supposedly would only have benefits with no downside. And many times before we've seen there were in fact downsides. Why is this the exception?"
In other words, TANSTAAFL. Tell me the side effects are minor or are out-weighed by the potential benefits, I may be convinced. Tell me there are no side effects, then I know either you are lying or haven't thought this through all the way.
That's Johnathan Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. "Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad." I don't remember what the Lesser Internet Fuckwad Theory is, it's been years since I took Intro to Internetrics.
While the GIF is well supported by experience, the LIF is a fallacy.
Well, that technology's history now and the language has gone with it.
Yes, because things like "LOL" and "WTF" have disappeared from the lexicon.
On wait, no they haven't. Turns out this guy is wrong on all counts. The technology is still here, and has in fact spread, and the language it has inspired is not gone, and has in fact spread.
To pull out a fact like, less than 10% of text messages contain LOL-speak like abbreviations does not mean that will not be a lasting part of the language, it just means it's not a new language. What percentage of text messages contain 'yacht' or some other word pertaining to watercraft? If it's less than 10%, does that mean those words are not part of the language?
The article and research it's based on sound more like an undergraduate paper than mature research. Where are the comparisons to the telegraph and telephone? This is not the first time technology has changed the way we communicate and the language we use.
Or you could just communicate with your developers, be aware of the work they're doing and judge their performance based on their effective productivity from your perspective. I've heard this called "management" before, but I know that word has been twisted to mean something more sinister as of late.
That won't work, because we laid off all the middle managers years ago. Developers are all exactly the same - we just need to know which ones to slot into the critical path.
Sounds like you did it right. Most places I've seen laid off the developers, out sourced that work, and added a layer of management to manage the over-seas team.
For my cosmology class, heavy on general relativity, I find that I can't type the equations fast enough and so switch to an app which has fantastic stylus response. Both apps allow exporting as PDF (among other things) and so for classes where I use both notebooks, I export to PDF and merge the pages in the proper order.
Why not take a picture of the board/projection screen/presentation?
A lot of minimum wage earners get tips. This is essentially the same as a bonus. If you do an excellent job, you get a big tip. if you do a fair job, you get an average tip. If you do a horrible job, you for some reason still get a tip. Just like the bonus structure.
Actually, for many jobs where tips are expected to a major portion of the total remuneration, such as for wait staff, the fixed salary is less than minimum wage.
So I have no problem with bankers, brokers, and etc. making 2 bucks an hour based on a 40-hr work week and getting a performance-based bonus.
I have an issue with the idea that someone making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in salary needs additional incentive to do a job.
But let's drop the pretense. The bonuses we're talking have nothing to do with performance. The 1%--to use the parlance of our times--have figured out it's better for them to transfer wealth from the 99% using "bonuses" rather than "salary", but it's all just a way to drain value from companies, shareholders, and employees.
I would have thought this myth of the executive performance bonus would be dead by now. When the market was the tide raising all boats in the 1990s, it was, look at the value we bring to the table. When stocks crashed in the 2000s, it was, we need this incentive to stay with a troubled company. When companies like Enron went out of business, it was, we need this extra incentive to stay through the process of bankruptcy.
Sorry, that's not a bonus--if the executives get paid when the company does well, and get paid anyway when the company does poorly, and get paid even more when the company goes out of business. And it's nothing like the tipping culture because the people getting the service aren't the ones setting the bonus.
The real problem isn't that bankers are making bonuses, though.
Actually, that's exactly the problem. People making minimum wage don't get bonuses. They get paid, and they're expected to work.
Why wouldn't the same concept apply to bankers? They get paid, they're expected to work. If you need a "bonus" to get someone to do their job, they're not going to do that job no matter how much you pay them.
Working for commission is a different matter. If these risk takers and job creators had no guaranteed salary, and only get paid a percentage if they add value for the company, which no moving the goal posts if targets aren't met, that's fine.
But to say, we're paying you a salary to show up and pretend to do your job, and you get a bonus if you actually do your job, don't sounds like a good system to me.
I don't have any hard data yet, but anecdotal evidence so far says you're incorrect. ArsTechnica's poll of their employees with a 4S indicate anywhere from 3-15 average Siri uses per day. My wife already prefers it to typing on the phone. I think it's especially interesting since it integrates fairly well with a car's bluetooth integration.
I can imagine a future screen-less phone that's just a stick with a speaker, mic, and button, with everything being done via voice...
How is the voice recognition? Other than the Garmin with came with a little microphone to strap on to the steering wheel, I have yet to encounter voice recognition system that didn't require me to repeat everything multiple times.
People aren't going to use Siri very much, because talking to your phone makes you look stupid.
How do you make phone calls then without looking stupid?
By talking "through" your phone, not *to* it. You would look pretty dumb if your coworkers overheard you say "phone, tell my mom hi for me, and that i will be late for dinner"... When you could just, for example, press the button to call your mom and have that conversation...
Or, you know, you could just shout up the basement stairs.
People aren't going to use Siri very much, because talking to your phone makes you look stupid.
How do you make phone calls then without looking stupid?
Easy. I connect to another person and talk with my phone, not too my phone.
But seriously, for the folks with Siri, is it that useful? Do you use that often?
I've played around with the voice recognition features of droid, and they're more annoying than useful. Part of it is, the only time I'd really want any of those features is when driving. Otherwise, my fingers are much more accurate than my voice.
I haven't played much with Siri on my wife's 4S, but if it's anything like the voice recognition on Apple's help line, I'll pass. Getting Apple Care+ set up took about 10 calls. 5 calls ended with some variation of "that information is on our website. goodbye," which sent Apple straight to the bottom of my customer support rankings. You do not hang up on a customer, ever. Another 4 calls sent me to support for people with Apple Care+, not sales for people who want Apple Care+. And on the 10th call I finally got a person who could help me. How's that for "it just works"?
Most of my messaging happens in the office or other places where I want to be typing rather than speaking. If I'm checking the weather, that's information I can gather much more quickly visually than aurally. I'm just having a hard time thinking of situations where I'd use this feature.
I wasn't clear? than ask for details. When I say "If a science guy or whoever did basic math cannot understand that", by that I am referring to what I wrote, the simple proof that an eternal universe has a prime cause and that evolution occurs in time so can be object of creation and not alternative to it.
The religious guy who blocks the video is irrefutably a jerk, as I already said.
The science guy in that debate, since he wasn't debating with me, was not obliged to understand anything. You, on the other hand, should be. The problem is that we are discussing the idiocy of one guy instead of the idiocy of the entire theme that was debated. Pointing that this is the bigger problem doesn't make my observation the opposite of the truth.
But what you wrote is meaningless. You didn't prove anything.
Even if we agreed on your "proof," you don't make any conclusions applicable to the real world. Your f(t)=t doesn't model the universe we live in. Your assumptions don't work.
First, f(t)=t? Like 1=1, 2=2? You might be trying to say the state of the universe is a function of time, but that's not what that equation means.
Second, you assume f(t) is defined for all real values of t. That is a BIG assumption, and not one we all agree to.
I don't eat popcorn either;) If I'm bored I'll whip out my phone and do some browsing, or simply sit thinking about something else.
It's not that I want them to produce bland commercials. I appreciate fun commercials. Though I often forget what the nice commercials are for, and only remember the things I hated. Doesn't seem like the best marketing.
Another question is how to introduce astronomy to kids in developed counties, in areas where light pollution prevents them from seeing stars when they look up to the night's sky.
I have tried in the past to suggest this and no one seemed to get it. Frankly I think we need to dump the Occupy and the Tea Party and bring back the Bull Moose party. Just read up and Teddy Roosevelt and his square deal. Take his basic concepts and goals and update them for the 21st century. He as far from perfect but he had some good ideas about limit the power of big business the betterment of the nation. Frankly if you think that what one of the greatest Republican presidents did 100 years ago is too liberal.... Well you have issues.
That's a tall order, considering the folks now in control of the Republican party think what a Republican president did 40 years ago is too liberal. (Nixon and the EPA and Clean Water Act)
The fundamental problem Strong Copyright has with piracy is that technology is going to *continue* to advance. This will make copying even easier in the future than it is now.
Yes, that is an issue, but not the fundamental problem.
The fundamental problem is fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
No...wait, that's not it.
Look at movies and home video. Movie studios were so fearful of video tapes and home video, so fearful of change. And now? It's not that home video hasn't bankrupted Hollywood, it's in fact made Hollywood more profitable. The "pirates" saved the movie barons from themselves.
It's the same with music. I'm convinced the CD was on its way out before mp3 came along. The pirates showed the music industry a more profitable way to distribute music. CD singles? Were those going to keep RIAA members in business? But now anyone can buy a single song from iTunes. And pay a premium to do it.
If you want to argue the battle of technology and piracy, you really talking about producers v. distributors. Technology (home video, music downloads, sheet music back in the day) favors the distributors with a wider reach at cost to the performer (live theatre, live music).
Of course, now technology is progressed to the point to shift the balance of power back towards the producer. I can self-publish my eBook, I can put my mp3 on MySapce, I can blog or tweet without going hat in hand to the main stream distributors.
The way it ought to be.
Each advance in technology has been like a vaccine. You don't want it, it hurts for a moment, but it makes you stronger.
And if you think it causes autism, you were probably retarded to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
> It might take a few years...
Yup, I've been hearing that since 2000. How much longer do you think? 20 more years? 50? A century? I don't think so. Show the PHB two salary numbers, he's going to pick the lower one, never mind any other factors (e.g. overall cost).
Actually, it's already happening. US companies that are moving IS jobs over seas are behind the curve. Companies that shipped jobs over in the 1990s are starting to bring them back.
One reason out-sourcing/off-shoring doesn't same money is management. You need on site management where ever the programmers are, but you still need the management structure at the home office to oversee projects.
Another reason is just we just haven't figured out how to work in remote teams. There certainly are exception, instances where teams of people geographically separate have turned out a successful project. But those are the exceptions. In most cases, conference calls and shared desktops just can't replace sitting next to someone and looking over their shoulder at the screen.
Not much of advantage anymore. You can just host on rapidshare/megaupload/similar site.
And that's why people (used to) go to Download.com.
If I'm looking for warez I might go to rapidshare/megaupload/similar site. And I'll assume anything I get from those sites has a trojan/virus/bot until I can prove otherwise.
If I know what app or utility I need, I'll go directly to that site. If I don't have a particular name in mind, I used to go to Download.com. For example, I recently needed to get some updated codecs, but didn't know the exact package or provider I needed.
I don't feel a Google search on "codecs" tells me the software I'm downloading is going to do what it says it does (and nothing else). Maybe my trust was misplaced, but that's what I expected Download.com to do.
So in my recent search, I found a codec on Download.com and noticed what I got was a remote installer and not the codec package. Of course, that is just the sort of thing I was using Download.com to avoid. So I'm done using and recommending that site.
Of course I can't get too upset. "Hey! That thing that cost me nothing and that I did nothing to support is no longer being spoon fed to me!"
Thanks. Everyone seems to like the median income public salary. Explaining the retirement bonus is a lot harder.
Try.
Why is it a good idea to pay someone not to serve? Not that I'm thrilled with the current pension system for elected officials, but under your system, for districts that vote heavily for one party, what's to prevent 2 well-connected candidates from just switching off every 2 years (for example for the HoR)?
One person comes in to serve for 2 years, while the other person leaves with 2-years pay. Then in 2 years they swap spots. We essentially end up paying 2 people for one position.
Alright, that may be far-fetched. So instead of the same 2 people, we get a new person in every 2 years. Since they're all taking orders from the real power brokers behind the scenes, the real politics don't change. But we've essentially doubled pay. Nothing changes except the names.
Is it really worth that much to you to get rid of incumbents?
You say that as if human deaths are a bad thing, you know we're in the middle of a major population and food crisis right?
Actually, we're in no such middle, at least in terms of population. Those areas with food issues are victims of politics, mostly, or economics.
When food aid to drought-stricken areas is stolen by gangs (government-affiliated and otherwise), are those people left hungry because of the world population?
When the USA is afflicted with inner city 'food deserts' with bodegas and fast food joints only serving over processed fats and salt in the shape of food and no access to markets with real food, is that because the USA can't feed its people or just won't?
There's no technical or environmental reason for humans to not be 100% well fed. Our population isn't close to the limits of the food we can produce. The reasons there are hunger and malnutrition are political.
No, what he is saying is:
"Many times before we've seen people do things on this scale that supposedly would only have benefits with no downside. And many times before we've seen there were in fact downsides. Why is this the exception?"
In other words, TANSTAAFL. Tell me the side effects are minor or are out-weighed by the potential benefits, I may be convinced. Tell me there are no side effects, then I know either you are lying or haven't thought this through all the way.
That's Johnathan Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. "Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad." I don't remember what the Lesser Internet Fuckwad Theory is, it's been years since I took Intro to Internetrics.
While the GIF is well supported by experience, the LIF is a fallacy.
There are no lesser fuckwards on the internet.
Well, that technology's history now and the language has gone with it.
Yes, because things like "LOL" and "WTF" have disappeared from the lexicon.
On wait, no they haven't. Turns out this guy is wrong on all counts. The technology is still here, and has in fact spread, and the language it has inspired is not gone, and has in fact spread.
To pull out a fact like, less than 10% of text messages contain LOL-speak like abbreviations does not mean that will not be a lasting part of the language, it just means it's not a new language. What percentage of text messages contain 'yacht' or some other word pertaining to watercraft? If it's less than 10%, does that mean those words are not part of the language?
The article and research it's based on sound more like an undergraduate paper than mature research. Where are the comparisons to the telegraph and telephone? This is not the first time technology has changed the way we communicate and the language we use.
Or you could just communicate with your developers, be aware of the work they're doing and judge their performance based on their effective productivity from your perspective. I've heard this called "management" before, but I know that word has been twisted to mean something more sinister as of late.
That won't work, because we laid off all the middle managers years ago. Developers are all exactly the same - we just need to know which ones to slot into the critical path.
Sounds like you did it right. Most places I've seen laid off the developers, out sourced that work, and added a layer of management to manage the over-seas team.
For my cosmology class, heavy on general relativity, I find that I can't type the equations fast enough and so switch to an app which has fantastic stylus response. Both apps allow exporting as PDF (among other things) and so for classes where I use both notebooks, I export to PDF and merge the pages in the proper order.
Why not take a picture of the board/projection screen/presentation?
A lot of minimum wage earners get tips. This is essentially the same as a bonus. If you do an excellent job, you get a big tip. if you do a fair job, you get an average tip. If you do a horrible job, you for some reason still get a tip. Just like the bonus structure.
Actually, for many jobs where tips are expected to a major portion of the total remuneration, such as for wait staff, the fixed salary is less than minimum wage.
So I have no problem with bankers, brokers, and etc. making 2 bucks an hour based on a 40-hr work week and getting a performance-based bonus.
I have an issue with the idea that someone making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in salary needs additional incentive to do a job.
But let's drop the pretense. The bonuses we're talking have nothing to do with performance. The 1%--to use the parlance of our times--have figured out it's better for them to transfer wealth from the 99% using "bonuses" rather than "salary", but it's all just a way to drain value from companies, shareholders, and employees.
I would have thought this myth of the executive performance bonus would be dead by now. When the market was the tide raising all boats in the 1990s, it was, look at the value we bring to the table. When stocks crashed in the 2000s, it was, we need this incentive to stay with a troubled company. When companies like Enron went out of business, it was, we need this extra incentive to stay through the process of bankruptcy.
Sorry, that's not a bonus--if the executives get paid when the company does well, and get paid anyway when the company does poorly, and get paid even more when the company goes out of business. And it's nothing like the tipping culture because the people getting the service aren't the ones setting the bonus.
The real problem isn't that bankers are making bonuses, though.
Actually, that's exactly the problem. People making minimum wage don't get bonuses. They get paid, and they're expected to work.
Why wouldn't the same concept apply to bankers? They get paid, they're expected to work. If you need a "bonus" to get someone to do their job, they're not going to do that job no matter how much you pay them.
Working for commission is a different matter. If these risk takers and job creators had no guaranteed salary, and only get paid a percentage if they add value for the company, which no moving the goal posts if targets aren't met, that's fine.
But to say, we're paying you a salary to show up and pretend to do your job, and you get a bonus if you actually do your job, don't sounds like a good system to me.
I don't have any hard data yet, but anecdotal evidence so far says you're incorrect. ArsTechnica's poll of their employees with a 4S indicate anywhere from 3-15 average Siri uses per day. My wife already prefers it to typing on the phone. I think it's especially interesting since it integrates fairly well with a car's bluetooth integration.
I can imagine a future screen-less phone that's just a stick with a speaker, mic, and button, with everything being done via voice...
How is the voice recognition? Other than the Garmin with came with a little microphone to strap on to the steering wheel, I have yet to encounter voice recognition system that didn't require me to repeat everything multiple times.
People aren't going to use Siri very much, because talking to your phone makes you look stupid.
How do you make phone calls then without looking stupid?
By talking "through" your phone, not *to* it. You would look pretty dumb if your coworkers overheard you say "phone, tell my mom hi for me, and that i will be late for dinner"... When you could just, for example, press the button to call your mom and have that conversation...
Or, you know, you could just shout up the basement stairs.
People aren't going to use Siri very much, because talking to your phone makes you look stupid.
How do you make phone calls then without looking stupid?
Easy. I connect to another person and talk with my phone, not too my phone.
But seriously, for the folks with Siri, is it that useful? Do you use that often?
I've played around with the voice recognition features of droid, and they're more annoying than useful. Part of it is, the only time I'd really want any of those features is when driving. Otherwise, my fingers are much more accurate than my voice.
I haven't played much with Siri on my wife's 4S, but if it's anything like the voice recognition on Apple's help line, I'll pass. Getting Apple Care+ set up took about 10 calls. 5 calls ended with some variation of "that information is on our website. goodbye," which sent Apple straight to the bottom of my customer support rankings. You do not hang up on a customer, ever. Another 4 calls sent me to support for people with Apple Care+, not sales for people who want Apple Care+. And on the 10th call I finally got a person who could help me. How's that for "it just works"?
Most of my messaging happens in the office or other places where I want to be typing rather than speaking. If I'm checking the weather, that's information I can gather much more quickly visually than aurally. I'm just having a hard time thinking of situations where I'd use this feature.
Do the scanners really pose a health threat?
Radiation only kills off the weak cells.
As a result, the remaining cells, and by extension my body, on average are stronger.
And yes, drinking alcohol does make you smarter.
I wasn't clear? than ask for details. When I say "If a science guy or whoever did basic math cannot understand that", by that I am referring to what I wrote, the simple proof that an eternal universe has a prime cause and that evolution occurs in time so can be object of creation and not alternative to it.
The religious guy who blocks the video is irrefutably a jerk, as I already said.
The science guy in that debate, since he wasn't debating with me, was not obliged to understand anything. You, on the other hand, should be.
The problem is that we are discussing the idiocy of one guy instead of the idiocy of the entire theme that was debated. Pointing that this is the bigger problem doesn't make my observation the opposite of the truth.
But what you wrote is meaningless. You didn't prove anything.
Even if we agreed on your "proof," you don't make any conclusions applicable to the real world. Your f(t)=t doesn't model the universe we live in. Your assumptions don't work.
First, f(t)=t? Like 1=1, 2=2? You might be trying to say the state of the universe is a function of time, but that's not what that equation means.
Second, you assume f(t) is defined for all real values of t. That is a BIG assumption, and not one we all agree to.
They make GPUs
How the hell did he convince anyone to fund a cold fusion reactor anyways?
Why do people buy Powerball tickets? Similar chance of success: both round to zero.
That's like saying dead is the same as mostly dead. There's a wide chasm between highly unlikely and impossible.
Disagree? There are people who win Powerball. It's just highly unlikely you'll be one of them. What this guy claims isn't unlikely, it's impossible.
Are you saying cold fusion reactors work, but it's unlikely this particular reactor will work?
I don't eat popcorn either ;) If I'm bored I'll whip out my phone and do some browsing, or simply sit thinking about something else.
It's not that I want them to produce bland commercials. I appreciate fun commercials. Though I often forget what the nice commercials are for, and only remember the things I hated. Doesn't seem like the best marketing.
And yet you're in a movie theatre, using a phone.
At least two commercials worked.
Another question is how to introduce astronomy to kids in developed counties, in areas where light pollution prevents them from seeing stars when they look up to the night's sky.
I have tried in the past to suggest this and no one seemed to get it. Frankly I think we need to dump the Occupy and the Tea Party and bring back the Bull Moose party. Just read up and Teddy Roosevelt and his square deal. Take his basic concepts and goals and update them for the 21st century. He as far from perfect but he had some good ideas about limit the power of big business the betterment of the nation. Frankly if you think that what one of the greatest Republican presidents did 100 years ago is too liberal.... Well you have issues.
That's a tall order, considering the folks now in control of the Republican party think what a Republican president did 40 years ago is too liberal. (Nixon and the EPA and Clean Water Act)
There is no internal mail server. This replaces the internal mail server.
The fundamental problem Strong Copyright has with piracy is that technology is going to *continue* to advance. This will make copying even easier in the future than it is now.
Yes, that is an issue, but not the fundamental problem.
The fundamental problem is fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
No...wait, that's not it.
Look at movies and home video. Movie studios were so fearful of video tapes and home video, so fearful of change. And now? It's not that home video hasn't bankrupted Hollywood, it's in fact made Hollywood more profitable. The "pirates" saved the movie barons from themselves.
It's the same with music. I'm convinced the CD was on its way out before mp3 came along. The pirates showed the music industry a more profitable way to distribute music. CD singles? Were those going to keep RIAA members in business? But now anyone can buy a single song from iTunes. And pay a premium to do it.
If you want to argue the battle of technology and piracy, you really talking about producers v. distributors. Technology (home video, music downloads, sheet music back in the day) favors the distributors with a wider reach at cost to the performer (live theatre, live music).
Of course, now technology is progressed to the point to shift the balance of power back towards the producer. I can self-publish my eBook, I can put my mp3 on MySapce, I can blog or tweet without going hat in hand to the main stream distributors.
The way it ought to be.
Each advance in technology has been like a vaccine. You don't want it, it hurts for a moment, but it makes you stronger.
And if you think it causes autism, you were probably retarded to begin with.
More like lawsuit time.
Wait til Ballmer hears about this. Hasn't Bing been sampling Google for years?
Web 2.0 legit 2.0 quit?