So would the guys a few milliseconds behind - that isn't a relevant point. And that's not even what the parent was referring to about "social value". They mean about giving a sense of "worth" to publicly traded companies, which compels them to make sound business decisions. And the "siphoning" refers to a lack of a "level playing field", which is the reason we have laws against monopolies, price-fixing, etc...

Wrong. There is still the same work that needs to be done, and companies will still have it done whether it's done with free or cheap(er) labor. And if there are ones eliminated, those are probably the ones who are just getting coffee and other menial, non-educational tasks - the ones that should be eliminated anyway.

MS will still have its big niche in the corporate world, mainly because no one really touches this area yet. The thing is that before smartphones and tablets, this niche was the only game in town for all computing needs. Remember Apple before OSX? Now if Apple decided to try its hand with cost-effective, enterprise-wide software, ...hmmmm....

...would you like fries with that? ;p

...woah.....

I could easily imagine a potential employer reasoning that you can't have a better test than try you out with the real deal. Hard to fault that logic. And just interview people as an ongoing, ever-changing consulting source? You know how cost-inefficient that would be compared to just hiring someone? There's a reason why job-searching sites exist and are a viable business - it costs time and money to find candidates. And finally, even if they get a freebie from you - were you planning on somehow monetizing it yourself?

Using a negative term like "killing" rather than "becoming more efficient" or a like term to describe technological progression. We don't know what the future holds for us (oh wait, we've never known that), and it seems to make the terms "bad" and "bad for me" synonymous. The fact that the notion of having to be an adaptable workforce is borderline catastrophic says to me that we've had it pretty well for quite a while.

Well I have my Ph.D, and I work with a lot of Ph.Ds. The fact that this goes on a lot is hardly any secret. Where are you getting this notion from?

Yeah the "herded" comment could come across as being rather conceited. I've seen this guy talk at a gathering before in person, and let's just say I think he's pretty used to preaching to the choir.

The answer was definite "no" with the Wii, but now it's much closer to a "yes" (especially if you want 2 players), and you get all the other benefits of a computer besides gaming. I personally think Nintendo misread why they did so well with the Wii - I personally don't think they'll be repeating that success.

I guess I was referring to an individual or activist group that takes the minority employee % of a company or organization, and uses that as ammunition against them in court. You're probably right though - it's probably not a law, maybe just a court ruling or precedent or something.

But this is my point: the Supreme Court could rule that indirect discrimination goes against the intent of the law (disallowing hiring based on the employer's prejudice.), and thus would not be considered discrimination anymore.

I'm interested to see what will happen if a case involving this goes to the Supreme Court. The lawyers could conceivably argue, "Our minority employment % doesn't fit the current laws. However, we nonetheless didn't actually discriminate, and WE CAN PROVE IT. Please toss the law."

Don't know if people older than 30 in Russia would agree with you.

Indeed. Apple culture groupthink - a fine example of pitfalls of extrapolation.