If the consumer creates jobs, then there is no reason for employers. Consumer can just pool their money and create a company. Kickstarter style. But wait,even in Kickstarter, there needs to be someone to pitch the product, invest in a prototype, take the risk of launching the product. And not all Kickstarter campaigns succeed and the producer takes a wash. And if the Kickstarter succeeds, then the producer hires employees to create the product. Employees which were either unemployed before or underemployed. So, who created those jobs? The Kickstarter producer or the consumer? Did the Kickstarter producer allocate land, labor, and capital to meet a need of the consumer? Where were the consumers before the product was created? Where were the employees before the producer came along?
Why would publishing it be automatically considered as an intent to give up your ownership over your intellectual property. And if that is the case, then the same should apply to copyrights. If you don't register with the copyright office your blog post, article, music, source code, graphic design, etc, before making it public, than those would automatically be public domain, where I can take your IP, put my name on it, and sell it for a profit.
But copyrights are basically free, and apply automatically at the moment they are created by their authors.
"Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States
(title 17,U.S.Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including
literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This
protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106
of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive
right to do and to authorize others to do the following"
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is cre
ated in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship
immediately becomes the property of the author who cre
ated the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights
through the author can rightfully claim copyright"
"Is my copyright good in other countries?"
"The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights."
So if you create a story about a boy wizard who goes to wizarding school, you own that work and you also get to own the imaginary characters that you created, No one can write a story using your specific boy wizard character. All this happens instantaneously, across multiple countries, for free as soon as you write it.
You spend thousands creating a better internal combustion engine, you have to go the patent office (and maybe get a patent lawyer), pay huge sums of money, wait years to hear from the patent office. and after all that you get to claim that you own your own invention. And you have to do this across each country you want to claim that you own your own invention, so that others can't take it, put their name on it, and sell it for a profit and give you nothing.
If I come up with an invention, and pay the state money, I can claim ownership of it.
If I come up with an invention, and not pay the state, or (in the EU) not pay the state before I publicize it, the state takes ownership of it (steals it).
Does that make sense to anyone? If so, I sure would like to hear it.
For $160, you can buy a Lenovo 7" tablet that comes with a display, battery, storage, wifi, bluetooth, etc. You can then interface with anything you like via wifi/bluetooth or a usb breakout board.
People knew the taper wasn't happening weeks beforehand, without any insider knowledge;
Cry me a river, average teacher in Wisconsin makes $90k/year (salary + benefits). If you refuse to teach basic English and math concepts for $90k, QUIT and let someone else who wants to be there do it.
Even monopolies can fire their employees, try firing a teacher from a public school with teachers unions and tenure.
Why is it a false equivalence? I take the job either at the stated price or by underbiding everyone else, once I get it, I stop work and ask for more.
I hire a contractor for $2000 to fix my roof. He takes the job and begins work. Halfway through he says that $2000 is not enough for his isolation and high altitude. He stops the work, goes on strike demanding more money and prevents me from hiring another contractor. Someone care to explain how that is legal and not a breach of contract?
Who is to say the guy replacing him is any better? Look at Steve Jobs' replacement, a supply chain guy. As if Apple was successful because of their supply chain. If that were the case, Walmart would have been the top mp3 player/phone/tablet maker a long time ago.
Ford paid $5 a day to its workers in 1914. In today's dollars that's $116.75, or $14.60 an hour. The average salary at an Apple store is $11.64 an hour.
Companies are not willing to train people in-house.
Why should they? Isn't that the point of going to college in the first place? Get training? If you go to a mechanics school for 4 years to learn how to fix cars, you want Midas to teach you how to change the brakes on the job?
Don't waste your breath. Anyone who doesn't immediately understand why a iPhone interface is not suitable for the desktop will never be persuaded by any post.
From the article:"There’s a level of risk and creativity going on that would never have happened two years ago.”
Creativity is not forcing people to use an iPad interface on their desktops, a better word would be idiocy. Idiocy, as in forcing system admins to use an iPad interface on Windows Server 2012. Idiocy, as in having two taskbars, one on the bottom, and one auto-hiding on the right side.
Win8 is fully functional as a general-purpose OS
Any OS that has two taskbars is not functional.