It just does not speak for the implementation of a Democracy, when democratic principles are violated or corrupted, just because the system has to stand pressure (terrorism in this case).
1,352 karma · joined November 1, 2013
How can Google, MS or the other players know, that the customers don't infringe on their patents? Don't they have the right to inspect? (trust is good, prove is better ...) Or does just a lazy sysadmin sell my data in this moment to the competition?
I also wonder, if the price drops now are a reaction to a big trust-drop (also because of Snowden) by the users ...
I think, cloud based services are a good idea, but until such issues are addressed, I would really recommend to think twice, which data can go cloud.
The "free market" system is just an illusion. When you are on the side of those with the lowest power (e.g. the workforce), the system does not work.
So much about the notion, that the "free market" system will correct itself.
What is the benefit, if your scripting language is the price-winner from Harvard Business school or something else, but nobody knows it and wants to learn it. So many (good) languages have passed away, nearly unnoticed.
One of the big attractions of Java and JavaScript: The syntax. The C/C++ like syntax was and is just in fashion ... even when it is criticized by many. But everybody knows it and everybody (it seems) like it.
Has anybody experience, how the integration overhead is? Looks as this could be integrated very simply. The problem is, that it is in alpha stage and how stable and complete is it currently?
That is one trouble I see so often in the computer business. Some invention is made with bright ideas and good intentions, but it is doomed to fail or at least to produce unnecessary additional costs, just because of one reason: It is unnecessary complicated.
Some bright guy (I don't remember who) said: Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. That is the art, to find the right measure of complexity and make it as simple as possible. Somebody else said, that something is only than finished, when there is nothing left to delete from it.
I know your thoughts very well. I myself have worked for 18 years or so as employee building the dream of someone else -- or better to say: building the wealth of someone else.
I think, a lot is said already, so I want to restrict myself to my personal opinion: If you have this feeling you describe, you should definitively search for your island! And don't give up until you found it.
I am searching now for ten to fifteen years I think and have not found it yet. But I hope, my current project (an online medieval strategy game) will bring me thus far. I dumped until now at least three projects that resulted in a situation that I had to say I can not do it with my resources or in one case the project proved itself to be not profitable. Currently I also dumped my employer to be fully able to find the island I am looking for.
Today, I think, the biggest problem is to find one or more good partners. If you have one, good for you! It makes things easier. But it is so difficult to find one and I have not, since some are just not reliable enough and with others I was not able to find a common target.
The problem is, that if you are in a group you have to give up parts of your own dreaming to find a common dream.
If you read my statements carefully, I did not say that. But in my country there are different laws and I know that many cloud service providers do not have privacy holes as Hotmail has in their legal statements.
I also said, that I don't know how the law in the US is, but some statements here made the impression, that companies like MS could just do what they want.
But after this happening, MS can write anything in their statements, it can not be trusted! (since statements can be changed anyway)
I am really amused about the law feeling in the US. It seems to me, that in the US it is enough that a big company thinks that it can get a court order -- in that case nothing else is needed -- don't waste the time of the courts just go on.
Why not allow MS to also do the punishment -- don't waste any court-time!
Really cute!
To come to your question: There are cases, where you can get warrants because you infringe patents. So, when MS thinks, that I could infringe one -- why not search my office documents first??
Is this enough example? I would say, there could be thousands ... just imagine a world where the lawyers of the big companies make the court decisions ... <sarcastic>would be OK, they are making the laws anyway!</sarcastic>
If this is the case: I don't think, that many companies are aware of this. But that would render the worth of online services to void for many companies.
Or are we living in a world of morons?
So I disagree with your statement, at least in my country it would be not wasting anything ... but DOING THE RIGHT THING!
And I would really wonder, if in the US the landlord could just search your house, because he thinks that you might have stolen something of him -- with the argument, that he does not want to "waste anybodies time"!
And: In my opinion, they just pretend! In my country, such a behavior could well be contested in court in my opinion, because we normally have strong rights protecting communications.
Something I just can't comprehend.
When you act rightfully, it is never wasting time of the legal system!
Because I can do something (without asking anybody else) it needs not to be right!
How can I know, that MS will not open my Word or Excel documents that I have in the Online-Office system, because it may contain information of value to its business -- or it may infringe on patents MS holds?
So, neither MS online mail products, nor online office systems can be trusted any more! Any business owner should know this and withdraw from usage of any MS owned online systems.
This is an important one. Because they always claim, that make the IP rights stronger does strengthen the innovators. The opposite is true!
You see it also in the patent system. When old (and stupid) patents hinder innovation (what happens all day today), than the patent system becomes the biggest hindrance to innovation.
The point is good: When it is better to "own" old IP than to make new one, the system is strangling innovation, nothing else.
This system is for the "owners" not for the "creators"!
No, because I deny that they made any improvement. Only because it is shown in TV, it is not true!
Today's companies are great in creating "pseudo values". Of course, short term, there might be an improvement. But who checks for the long term effects? I also heard about countries where farmers wanted to go back to their old crop, since after paying the price for the crops (and the pesticides, that are sometimes additionally needed), the value was negative! But say what? They could not, because the old crops where swept from market!
Then there is a problem. There are gmo crops out there which are resistant (e.g. by poison) against X, but there are also some side effects, that critics have found out. The X (e.g. some bugs) are becoming themselves resistant against the poison. And often times those crops need more fertilizers or pesticides because of other reasons. And because the gmo crops are often times dominating the old crops, the chance is high, that we loose the old crops -- so in the end we might end up with crops that need more care and that fully have replaced the old crops -- and the X, we made those crops in the first place, might be stronger than before.
Such companies already have a tremendous influence on politics and the whole live we have. The financial system is roaming the lands for new "investments". There is not to few money around, it is way to much -- and it is in the hands of the few.
The result is, that companies, the finance sector and the big shareholders own us all! We are at the verge of a state, where it will not be possible to live without paying "life-taxes" to specific companies. So the difference of the Having (and I don't mean a million bucks or even a billion bucks -- far more!) and the Not-Having will grow. There might be some kind of new middle-class formed by the millionaires of today -- but the old middle-class will go down.
At last, there will be the new aristocrats (as in the middle ages -- max. 0.01% of the people), their handymen (~ 1%) and the rest of the pack, that will be living in rags.
I don't know, if this will come to pass, but we are at the verge of it and the neo-capitalism is going exactly that direction! Already some aristocrats are building homes for the millionaires -- secure and apart of the pack!
When you say: This is just bullshit: Look into your countries government -- who makes the laws? In the US, in the EU, in .... (where you live). Open your eyes! (if you are able to)
I also don't want to say that everything was good before Thatcher or that a socialistic approach is always better or even good. But what I wanted to say, that many of the long term results of Thatcherism are hurting the country till today, even when it was brought out of economic decline.
I think, that neither socialism nor pure thinking that capitalism and market will "just make it all right" work in the long run.
The results of "market makes it alright" are visible in the sweat shops of the 3rd world countries. In the western countries we have a long tradition of market regulation and that is our luck -- but it seems we are running out of luck.
What is the impact on the people and the state in general? Which factors are also important in this time.
The thing is, that economic bad times change with better times -- even with no change at all in politics. To consider every time a success of the leading party is often times just statistical brainwashing.
The Germans also had a bigger raise in economy with the opposite politics.
Also look how the long term results are, since the Thatcherian politics are still followed by the successors. The privatization of many areas like railway and water services resulted in worse quality of service. Also the UK today has nearly killed of all its industry base. Instead they have only left their banks, so they are largely susceptible now to blackmail of this sector, that is the reason why the banking sector can not be reorganized in Europe, since it is blocked by the veto of the British.
What is left is a poor leftover of capitalism.
Of course it is white-washed by statistical figures that always skip the negatives, since the advocates of unregulated capitalism want to prove their point.
There are also contractors that admitted that they had to cheat the tax system to stay afloat. Many have gone bankrupt and the people involved are often left without social security. That's all inside the "System Hermes".
But since it seems to me, that Hermes was one of the first in the Germany based parcel delivery businesses to use this concept, they have no excuse. What kind of excuse is it anyway to say "the others are doing it too!". Tell that in a courtroom after a murder!
It is the same game, btw. that western companies play in 3rd world companies. They do not open the sweat shops themselves, but work with contractors or sub-contractors or even sub-sub-contractors. And when a sweat shop burns down, to many workers kill themselves (all things that already happen(ed)) or something else happens -- they know about nothing and are horrified by the "bad behavior" of their contractor that they would "never imagine"!