If stiff sentences were an effective deterrent then the US would be the safest country in the world. This is what I call governing by one's gut. It seems like it should make sense it would work that way, but the science doesn't support it. It is just a big cost to everyone. 22 years is likely 1/3 of his life.
I find it a bit appalling that this guy got 22 years for robbery. Had he killed the guy, he would have got only a little bit more time. This sentence is disproportionate and does not serve the public at all. Now the tax payers are forced to support this guy for the next 22 years at a ridiculous cost. When he gets out, they will likely have to support him some more given the lack of training in prison, and opportunities afterward. If this guy had kids, this sentence could potentially alter the children's lives toward a life of crime too (though that is speculation, but statistically supported). Why not put the guy in prison for a year, with intense training, followed by 5 year years of probation. After leaving prison, his record will be sealed, and if he is well behaved on his probation for 5 years, cleared. Something a bit innovative. No one is being served by this guy going to jail for 22 years for a simple armed robbery.
Move is possible with international corporations. People cannot just move to another country. It takes years to immigrate to another country, possibly your prime earning years. If my job is outsourced to India for 20% of my pay, I cannot simply move to India to take up that job. And I can't really take an 80% paycut and continue my job here. It just doesn't work. The free market needs to start thinking more protectionist, or there will be a revolution if what is predicted by Bill and Alan comes to pass.
Not everyone can evolve like you say. Some jobs will be gone and people will be left behind. What we do about those people is what needs to change. Right now they are left to fend for themselves because we accuse them of not seeing the writing on the wall so it is their own fault. But the people at the top are very smart, and they are actively working against the people at the bottom to increase their profits. If the people at Ford could replace their skilled manufacturers with robots that cost $250 grand a piece, they would hop to it in an instant. That could be a virtual overnight change in manufacturing in the entire country if robots could be made dexterous enough to replace humans. We are probably only a few years away from doing that. Those people cannot all be left to fend for themselves, and upgrade their skills to do something else. It is beyond scale that is possible.
First time accepted submitter markboyer writes "The Solar Impulse just landed at Moffett Field in Mountain View, California to announce a journey that will take it from San Francisco to New York without using a single drop of fuel. The 'Across America' tour will kick off this May when founders Bertrand Piccard and André Borschberg take off from San Francisco. From there the plane will visit four cities across the states before landing in New York."
This is true. But I don't think SimCity is really a factor here. The game is a very small chunk in the EA empire. If SimCity was a major issue they likely would have fired the leader of Maxis or someone down there rather than take out the CEO; he was clearly under performing long before SimCity came out.
Right, but surely there must be cases where people actually do tire of being the CEO. He clearly doesn't need the money. It is hard to infer from the press release what actually happened. He likely was fired for poor performance, but it is not impossible that he actually decided himself to leave for his own reasons and the board didn't try to convince him to stay.
Doesn't this mean that any time a CEO decided to pursue other interests he is fired? Sounds like the only way he would go without being fired is retire or it was long planned like with Bill Gates. John Riccitiello might show up as the head a new company very soon and it all his own doing of wanting to leave. The stock price fell very far already and was trending up; seems like odd timing to oust the CEO. I would have expected it to happen a few years ago instead of now.
Wise stuff. Spend billions making it, then cancel instead of a couple more billion to finish. Scrapping it will probably cost half a billion.
If the thing is half built or more, then why cancel it. That is a real waste of money. You don't half do things, you find things that are yet to be started and cut those!
Why do you think this would mean they wouldn't use Intel anymore? Intel is not allowed to prevent Dell from buying their processors; if they owned AMD they can still sell Intel CPU's. Would almost certainly be for different markets, and likely the Brazos stuff specifically.
Actually, we should quarter him in public for such a heinous crime! Imagine sending someone an email that they didn't ask for. I can't think of something worse in the world than doing this. Sometimes perspective helps...
It sounds by your reasoning than anyone that sends real junk mail, you know, in an envelope to your door, should be fined much more. If the fine is 100 dollars for an email, I couldn't see the fine for real life junk mail to be any less than $20,000 per piece of junk mail, given the resources it requires for someone to open the envelope (possibly cutting themselves), lifting the paper to your eyes, determining it is useless, and throwing it in the trash or recycling, and then taking that package to the curb. While spam is a nuisance, be realistic. Popups, advertising online, it is just the way of the Internet and people have accepted it. This is a ridiculous fine. All they should legally be able to do is seize every dollar he earned and an extra 10 k for wasting people's time. At least then they might actually collect the money.
To be free you have to be free to commit crime. This idea isn't making it impossible to commit crime, but you are giving up too much in the hopes of finding more criminals, and turning people into being afraid to commit crime so they stop. That seems to be the goal of this, make detection so perfect that criminals know they will get caught. Sounds like DRM, and we know that has worked perfectly. Why not spend money on reducing the incentive for crime rather than battling criminals. The theory of taking away the incentive (make sure people have access to jobs and homes if they want them) is just as sound as the theory all criminals can be found with a DNA database.
I was not guessing. I was stating a fact. But you are right, it would be possible, just not with this title on this server architecture.