Questioning methodology is considered to be whining?
My retort, that you quoted, was an attempt to demonstrate that given the available data it is not possible to say with any authority whether Foxconn employees are more or less likely to commit suicide as a direct result of Foxconn's relationship with Apple.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, and seemingly without any whining.
Unless you have some kind of theoretical argument or a formal statistical test, your use of 'QED' is just puerile.
The bottom line is, there is simply no evidence that suicide rates are higher at Foxconn than in the general Chinese population from which employees are drawn. Which, in turn, is the proximate reason for this entire conversation worldwide. Get with the program and figure out what people are arguing.
You said that the use of suicides to score points was insensitive. I responded that what the original reporters - and their water carriers in Forums like these - did was worse. You have not responded to that.
Guess what? It's typical. Seen it many times before. Don't take it personally.
Questioning methodology is considered to be whining?
My retort, that you quoted, was an attempt to demonstrate that given the available data it is not possible to say with any authority whether Foxconn employees are more or less likely to commit suicide as a direct result of Foxconn's relationship with Apple.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, and seemingly without any whining.
I have no idea why you continue to argue with me on this matter, and why you persist on holding positions for which you have no facts to back it up.
Neither Google nor Motorola legal teams are idiots. Google's offer and Motorola's acceptance, on this I am quite certain, is not based on a wink and a handshake. Such agreements are both extensive and thoroughly negotiated. Why would you assume the contingencies you argue for are not covered by the agreement? Of course, they are. Google cannot just on a whim decide to not go through with the purchase. They can only do so by reference to negotiated terms outlining the conditions in which withdrawal is allowed.
Google's involvement in these suits involving Apple, based on this agreement, of which we are not privy, are undoubtedly spelled out in this agreement as are Moto's responsibilities. What is fairly clear, or at least presumed, is that Google's purchase of Moto was predicated on Google's use of Moto's patent portfolio to give Google leverage against Apple's and perhaps Oracle's suits against it. As such, Moto's value to Google, and Google's offer and support is likely (and again not being privy to the agreement, I can only surmise), contingent Moto's (successful?) pursuit of claims against Apple. What is also clear is that Google's offer to Moto accounts for the risk Moto's suits against Apple will fail.
Since I don't understand some of what you just said or what point you're trying to make, you win. I don't have any idea why I would continue to argue with you.
I challenge any liberals whose vocabulary consists of the word "puerile" to refute any of the claims or facts that I've laid out, if they take issue with it. I provide links which clearly lay waste to the absurd and false claims coming from certain people who constantly whine and repeat lies about Apple. Prove me wrong, though I of course won't be holding my breath while waiting for any liberal to prove me wrong.
Sometimes the truth hurts, get used to it. What is truly offensive is people who would exaggerate, lie and spread misinformation, attempting to score a point for their feel good, baloney cause of the week, such as the very low suicide rates amongst a certain group of people, and attempting to somehow smear Apple with that total non-issue.
And when the liberal can't win an argument based on either facts or logic, there's always the old "racism" card which these people can pull out of their pockets. The fact of the matter is that I couldn't care less where these suicides were happening. Suicide is a totally normal thing and it takes place all over the world. No race, color or creed is spared.
How quaint, I am being chided by someone whose signature looks like a 90's Benetton marketing man's wet dream.
The ease with which you exercise hypocrisy is breath taking, to wit you feign being offended by the misappropriation and misuse of suicide rates, before then bragging about how you don't care about the suicided.
Your racism seems to be akin to that of the European colonialists, or slave owners who considered certain other nationalities to be inferior beings, dehumanised chattle. China has a 1.3bn population, Evidently you are labouring under the delusion that those not in the employ of Foxconn are standing in paddy fields.
BTW I take no offence to being called a liberal, largely because I am not sure in which context you are using the term. Do you mean one who believes in freedom from from unrepresentative monarchs (a la the American revolutionists)?
Everyone just needs a hug. If we did more hugging in business we wouldn't have these problems. Come to reasonable cross licensing agreements and move on please.
Why does apple need to cross license their own patents when they already are using a valid license to the patents in question.
Ahh yes, I see your point. It would be more logical to assume that the least reasonable explanation is most likely the true one.
I'm just speculating on the rest of the speculation out there in the business rags. There's a lot of intrigue about the motivations behind this deal.
There's intrigue about why Google upped their already substantial bid by $3 billion just 8 days after their initial offer was made, all the while there were no other parties interested in Motorola Mobility. There's a lot of intrigue about how Motorola drove the negotiations through Qatalyst and how they negotiated the extraordinary $2.5 billion reverse termination fee plus an additional $1 billion in damages if Google looses interest in the deal. The implication being that Motorola Mobility is taking a huge risk and had something on the table Google was willing to put $3.5 billion up against. And there is also considerable intrigue about the incredible haste in which the deal was made and the so called "astronomical fees" the deal makers have attached to the 8 day deal.
It has been "speculated" that what Motorola had to bargain with was the withdrawal of their lawsuit against Apple. Even if there's truth behind the speculation, it's never going to become public knowledge but it's interesting nonetheless. As I said in my previous post, it's interesting that this letter terminating all licensing with respects to Apple arrives January 11th 2011, just seven days after Motorola split into two companies on January 4th 2011. Sanjay Jha is personally making a cool $66 million out of this deal, and Qatalyst Partners stands to make around $55 million all up, it's hard to say there's not a perception of risk floating around.
I'm just speculating on the rest of the speculation out there in the business rags. There's a lot of intrigue about the motivations behind this deal.
There's intrigue about why Google upped their already substantial bid by $3 billion just 8 days after their initial offer was made, all the while there were no other parties interested in Motorola Mobility. There's a lot of intrigue about how Motorola drove the negotiations through Qatalyst and how they negotiated the extraordinary $2.5 billion reverse termination fee plus an additional $1 billion in damages if Google looses interest in the deal. The implication being that Motorola Mobility is taking a huge risk and had something on the table Google was willing to put $3.5 billion up against. And there is also considerable intrigue about the incredible haste in which the deal was made and the so called "astronomical fees" the deal makers have attached to the 8 day deal.
It has been "speculated" that what Motorola had to bargain with was the withdrawal of their lawsuit against Apple. Even if there's truth behind the speculation, it's never going to become public knowledge but it's interesting nonetheless. As I said in my previous post, it's interesting that this letter terminating all licensing with respects to Apple arrives January 11th 2011, just seven days after Motorola split into two companies on January 4th 2011. Sanjay Jha is personally making a cool $66 million out of this deal, and Qatalyst Partners stands to make around $55 million all up, it's hard to say there's not a perception of risk floating around.
To add to your speculations, there were reports of other interested parties for Moto's patent pool, among them Microsoft. That's been used more often to explain the haste shown in putting the deal together. From appearances Mr. Jha was just looking for the highest bidder, with encouragement (really pressure) from their largest shareholder Mr. Icahn. IMHO Moto was able to bluff Google into a better deal that Moto deserved.
Unless you have some kind of theoretical argument or a formal statistical test, your use of 'QED' is just puerile.
The bottom line is, there is simply no evidence that suicide rates are higher at Foxconn than in the general Chinese population from which employees are drawn. Which, in turn, is the proximate reason for this entire conversation worldwide. Get with the program and figure out what people are arguing.
You said that the use of suicides to score points was insensitive. I responded that what the original reporters - and their water carriers in Forums like these - did was worse. You have not responded to that.
Guess what? It's typical. Seen it many times before. Don't take it personally.
The use of QED is not puerile, it might be pretentious though.
You asked me to demonstrate my point. My point was that I do not know if Foxconn employees are any more likely to commit suicide, I also asserted that no one else here knows either and evidenced that by trying to point out the futility of simply comparing national rates of suicide without taking into account other factors. Ergo the use of QED.
At no point have i suggested that any given firm is responsible for Foxconn staff suicide rate. Nor to the best of my knowledge did I say that "use of suicides to score points was insensitive" . I did however flag comments such as "So a few people committed suicide? Big fucking deal." as being offensive.
I didn't reply to the second paragraph in your earlier post (158) because it was not relevant to anything that I had said (see above).
The bottom line is, there is simply no evidence that suicide rates are higher at Foxconn than in the general Chinese population from which employees are drawn. Which, in turn, is the proximate reason for this entire conversation worldwide. Get with the program and figure out what people are arguing.
The following is not intended to be a slight on you or anyone else
Perhaps it would be more useful to compare suicide rates amongst similar Chinese firms as a starting point. Rather than simply comparing foxconn rates with the national average.
The following is not intended to be a slight on you or anyone else
Perhaps it would be more useful to compare suicide rates amongst similar Chinese firms as a starting point. Rather than simply comparing foxconn rates with the national average.
If we compare lie-to-like, then there will be a real answer, and fewer people can cite bogus statistics and claim that they are right.
How quaint, I am being chided by someone whose signature looks like a 90's Benetton marketing man's wet dream.
The ease with which you exercise hypocrisy is breath taking, to wit you feign being offended by the misappropriation and misuse of suicide rates, before then bragging about how you don't care about the suicided.
Your racism seems to be akin to that of the European colonialists, or slave owners who considered certain other nationalities to be inferior beings, dehumanised chattle. China has a 1.3bn population, Evidently you are labouring under the delusion that those not in the employ of Foxconn are standing in paddy fields.
BTW I take no offence to being called a liberal, largely because I am not sure in which context you are using the term. Do you mean one who believes in freedom from from unrepresentative monarchs (a la the American revolutionists)?
Actually, Apple ][ is correct and not being racist at all.
I visit China on a regular basis. Many of Foxconn's employees come from the poorer, regional sections that rely heavily on farming. Fields, as he described, are all over the place. Unfortunately, they are easily affected by droughts.
In fact, in the majority of suicide cases throughout all of China, a large portion are caused from separation from family, not working conditions.
Were you not aware of this?
If you're going to call someone a racist, make sure you know what you're talking about, asshole.
If we compare lie-to-like, then there will be a real answer, and fewer people can cite bogus statistics and claim that they are right.
What fun is that?
Like-for-like would only be the starting point though. Stats are evidence of something rather than an explaination though. The fun will still be there, in the interpretation of the stats.
The following is not intended to be a slight on you or anyone else
Perhaps it would be more useful to compare suicide rates amongst similar Chinese firms as a starting point. Rather than simply comparing foxconn rates with the national average.
Actually, as another member, who is a statistician, pointed out to me, the law of large numbers will take over at this point.
Only if the suicide rate at Foxconn was well above the national average would it be of any concern. When you are talking about a company that employs over 500,000 employees then you can just deduce that if the number of suicides is the same as or below the national average then it is a normal suicide rate and is to be expected.
After reading the various responses to my early post, I have no choice but to conclude this is the biggest group of elite assholes I have ever met. After 18 years of Internet flamefests, that's an achievement.
And we honestly wonder why there are people who want Apple & its supporters to fail.
I second that, especially tallest skill, is he bragging? Well, he shouldn't.
I wonder if the person who is trying to make fun of my signature realizes that it uses the same color scheme and the same order of colors as found in the original from Apple.
Comments
I do - I think it's a very nice word.
I was actually going somewhere with that but be damned if it wasn't you that took the bait.
Questioning methodology is considered to be whining?
My retort, that you quoted, was an attempt to demonstrate that given the available data it is not possible to say with any authority whether Foxconn employees are more or less likely to commit suicide as a direct result of Foxconn's relationship with Apple.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, and seemingly without any whining.
Unless you have some kind of theoretical argument or a formal statistical test, your use of 'QED' is just puerile.
The bottom line is, there is simply no evidence that suicide rates are higher at Foxconn than in the general Chinese population from which employees are drawn. Which, in turn, is the proximate reason for this entire conversation worldwide. Get with the program and figure out what people are arguing.
You said that the use of suicides to score points was insensitive. I responded that what the original reporters - and their water carriers in Forums like these - did was worse. You have not responded to that.
Guess what? It's typical. Seen it many times before. Don't take it personally.
I was actually going somewhere with that but be damned if it wasn't you that took the bait.
Actually, the word came in handy! See above. Thanks.
Questioning methodology is considered to be whining?
My retort, that you quoted, was an attempt to demonstrate that given the available data it is not possible to say with any authority whether Foxconn employees are more or less likely to commit suicide as a direct result of Foxconn's relationship with Apple.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, and seemingly without any whining.
Less likely with Apple.
More likely with Samsung.
I have no idea why you continue to argue with me on this matter, and why you persist on holding positions for which you have no facts to back it up.
Neither Google nor Motorola legal teams are idiots. Google's offer and Motorola's acceptance, on this I am quite certain, is not based on a wink and a handshake. Such agreements are both extensive and thoroughly negotiated. Why would you assume the contingencies you argue for are not covered by the agreement? Of course, they are. Google cannot just on a whim decide to not go through with the purchase. They can only do so by reference to negotiated terms outlining the conditions in which withdrawal is allowed.
Google's involvement in these suits involving Apple, based on this agreement, of which we are not privy, are undoubtedly spelled out in this agreement as are Moto's responsibilities. What is fairly clear, or at least presumed, is that Google's purchase of Moto was predicated on Google's use of Moto's patent portfolio to give Google leverage against Apple's and perhaps Oracle's suits against it. As such, Moto's value to Google, and Google's offer and support is likely (and again not being privy to the agreement, I can only surmise), contingent Moto's (successful?) pursuit of claims against Apple. What is also clear is that Google's offer to Moto accounts for the risk Moto's suits against Apple will fail.
Since I don't understand some of what you just said or what point you're trying to make, you win. I don't have any idea why I would continue to argue with you.
I have no idea why you continue to argue with me on this matter, and why you persist on holding positions for which you have no facts to back it up.
Neither Google nor Motorola legal teams are idiots.
Probably not. Samsung seems to have a monopoly on the idiot lawyers.
(Still shaking my head over their inability to distinguish between an iPad and a Tab).
Most liberals have no idea about poverty. Poverty to them is not being able to afford DirectTV.
That is one of the most asinine statements I've ever seen.
I challenge any liberals whose vocabulary consists of the word "puerile" to refute any of the claims or facts that I've laid out, if they take issue with it. I provide links which clearly lay waste to the absurd and false claims coming from certain people who constantly whine and repeat lies about Apple. Prove me wrong, though I of course won't be holding my breath while waiting for any liberal to prove me wrong.
Sometimes the truth hurts, get used to it. What is truly offensive is people who would exaggerate, lie and spread misinformation, attempting to score a point for their feel good, baloney cause of the week, such as the very low suicide rates amongst a certain group of people, and attempting to somehow smear Apple with that total non-issue.
And when the liberal can't win an argument based on either facts or logic, there's always the old "racism" card which these people can pull out of their pockets.
How quaint, I am being chided by someone whose signature looks like a 90's Benetton marketing man's wet dream.
The ease with which you exercise hypocrisy is breath taking, to wit you feign being offended by the misappropriation and misuse of suicide rates, before then bragging about how you don't care about the suicided.
Your racism seems to be akin to that of the European colonialists, or slave owners who considered certain other nationalities to be inferior beings, dehumanised chattle. China has a 1.3bn population, Evidently you are labouring under the delusion that those not in the employ of Foxconn are standing in paddy fields.
BTW I take no offence to being called a liberal, largely because I am not sure in which context you are using the term. Do you mean one who believes in freedom from from unrepresentative monarchs (a la the American revolutionists)?
Everyone just needs a hug. If we did more hugging in business we wouldn't have these problems. Come to reasonable cross licensing agreements and move on please.
Why does apple need to cross license their own patents when they already are using a valid license to the patents in question.
Ahh yes, I see your point. It would be more logical to assume that the least reasonable explanation is most likely the true one.
I'm just speculating on the rest of the speculation out there in the business rags. There's a lot of intrigue about the motivations behind this deal.
There's intrigue about why Google upped their already substantial bid by $3 billion just 8 days after their initial offer was made, all the while there were no other parties interested in Motorola Mobility. There's a lot of intrigue about how Motorola drove the negotiations through Qatalyst and how they negotiated the extraordinary $2.5 billion reverse termination fee plus an additional $1 billion in damages if Google looses interest in the deal. The implication being that Motorola Mobility is taking a huge risk and had something on the table Google was willing to put $3.5 billion up against. And there is also considerable intrigue about the incredible haste in which the deal was made and the so called "astronomical fees" the deal makers have attached to the 8 day deal.
It has been "speculated" that what Motorola had to bargain with was the withdrawal of their lawsuit against Apple. Even if there's truth behind the speculation, it's never going to become public knowledge but it's interesting nonetheless. As I said in my previous post, it's interesting that this letter terminating all licensing with respects to Apple arrives January 11th 2011, just seven days after Motorola split into two companies on January 4th 2011. Sanjay Jha is personally making a cool $66 million out of this deal, and Qatalyst Partners stands to make around $55 million all up, it's hard to say there's not a perception of risk floating around.
I'm just speculating on the rest of the speculation out there in the business rags. There's a lot of intrigue about the motivations behind this deal.
There's intrigue about why Google upped their already substantial bid by $3 billion just 8 days after their initial offer was made, all the while there were no other parties interested in Motorola Mobility. There's a lot of intrigue about how Motorola drove the negotiations through Qatalyst and how they negotiated the extraordinary $2.5 billion reverse termination fee plus an additional $1 billion in damages if Google looses interest in the deal. The implication being that Motorola Mobility is taking a huge risk and had something on the table Google was willing to put $3.5 billion up against. And there is also considerable intrigue about the incredible haste in which the deal was made and the so called "astronomical fees" the deal makers have attached to the 8 day deal.
It has been "speculated" that what Motorola had to bargain with was the withdrawal of their lawsuit against Apple. Even if there's truth behind the speculation, it's never going to become public knowledge but it's interesting nonetheless. As I said in my previous post, it's interesting that this letter terminating all licensing with respects to Apple arrives January 11th 2011, just seven days after Motorola split into two companies on January 4th 2011. Sanjay Jha is personally making a cool $66 million out of this deal, and Qatalyst Partners stands to make around $55 million all up, it's hard to say there's not a perception of risk floating around.
To add to your speculations, there were reports of other interested parties for Moto's patent pool, among them Microsoft. That's been used more often to explain the haste shown in putting the deal together. From appearances Mr. Jha was just looking for the highest bidder, with encouragement (really pressure) from their largest shareholder Mr. Icahn. IMHO Moto was able to bluff Google into a better deal that Moto deserved.
Unless you have some kind of theoretical argument or a formal statistical test, your use of 'QED' is just puerile.
The bottom line is, there is simply no evidence that suicide rates are higher at Foxconn than in the general Chinese population from which employees are drawn. Which, in turn, is the proximate reason for this entire conversation worldwide. Get with the program and figure out what people are arguing.
You said that the use of suicides to score points was insensitive. I responded that what the original reporters - and their water carriers in Forums like these - did was worse. You have not responded to that.
Guess what? It's typical. Seen it many times before. Don't take it personally.
The use of QED is not puerile, it might be pretentious though.
You asked me to demonstrate my point. My point was that I do not know if Foxconn employees are any more likely to commit suicide, I also asserted that no one else here knows either and evidenced that by trying to point out the futility of simply comparing national rates of suicide without taking into account other factors. Ergo the use of QED.
At no point have i suggested that any given firm is responsible for Foxconn staff suicide rate. Nor to the best of my knowledge did I say that "use of suicides to score points was insensitive" . I did however flag comments such as "So a few people committed suicide? Big fucking deal." as being offensive.
I didn't reply to the second paragraph in your earlier post (158) because it was not relevant to anything that I had said (see above).
Actually, the word came in handy! See above. Thanks.
Inappropriate use (see my post-above)... I hand the proverbial ball back to Island Hermit
The bottom line is, there is simply no evidence that suicide rates are higher at Foxconn than in the general Chinese population from which employees are drawn. Which, in turn, is the proximate reason for this entire conversation worldwide. Get with the program and figure out what people are arguing.
The following is not intended to be a slight on you or anyone else
Perhaps it would be more useful to compare suicide rates amongst similar Chinese firms as a starting point. Rather than simply comparing foxconn rates with the national average.
The following is not intended to be a slight on you or anyone else
Perhaps it would be more useful to compare suicide rates amongst similar Chinese firms as a starting point. Rather than simply comparing foxconn rates with the national average.
If we compare lie-to-like, then there will be a real answer, and fewer people can cite bogus statistics and claim that they are right.
What fun is that?
How quaint, I am being chided by someone whose signature looks like a 90's Benetton marketing man's wet dream.
The ease with which you exercise hypocrisy is breath taking, to wit you feign being offended by the misappropriation and misuse of suicide rates, before then bragging about how you don't care about the suicided.
Your racism seems to be akin to that of the European colonialists, or slave owners who considered certain other nationalities to be inferior beings, dehumanised chattle. China has a 1.3bn population, Evidently you are labouring under the delusion that those not in the employ of Foxconn are standing in paddy fields.
BTW I take no offence to being called a liberal, largely because I am not sure in which context you are using the term. Do you mean one who believes in freedom from from unrepresentative monarchs (a la the American revolutionists)?
Actually, Apple ][ is correct and not being racist at all.
I visit China on a regular basis. Many of Foxconn's employees come from the poorer, regional sections that rely heavily on farming. Fields, as he described, are all over the place. Unfortunately, they are easily affected by droughts.
In fact, in the majority of suicide cases throughout all of China, a large portion are caused from separation from family, not working conditions.
Were you not aware of this?
If you're going to call someone a racist, make sure you know what you're talking about, asshole.
If we compare lie-to-like, then there will be a real answer, and fewer people can cite bogus statistics and claim that they are right.
What fun is that?
Like-for-like would only be the starting point though. Stats are evidence of something rather than an explaination though. The fun will still be there, in the interpretation of the stats.
The following is not intended to be a slight on you or anyone else
Perhaps it would be more useful to compare suicide rates amongst similar Chinese firms as a starting point. Rather than simply comparing foxconn rates with the national average.
Actually, as another member, who is a statistician, pointed out to me, the law of large numbers will take over at this point.
Only if the suicide rate at Foxconn was well above the national average would it be of any concern. When you are talking about a company that employs over 500,000 employees then you can just deduce that if the number of suicides is the same as or below the national average then it is a normal suicide rate and is to be expected.
After reading the various responses to my early post, I have no choice but to conclude this is the biggest group of elite assholes I have ever met. After 18 years of Internet flamefests, that's an achievement.
And we honestly wonder why there are people who want Apple & its supporters to fail.
I second that, especially tallest skill, is he bragging? Well, he shouldn't.
Inappropriate use (see my post-above)...
Really? I suggest you look up a dictionary (in the event that English is not your first language, like mine is not).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puerile
Here's a hint: It says, "juvenile, childish, silly".
I was referring to your posts, of course. Not you (since I don't know you).