he gets people talking around his comment and, eventually, more understanding comes out of it.
I don't agree. All that I have seen is people bandying around stats from Wikipedia either for or against. No one has demonstrated an understanding of the factors involved in occupational suicide rates, which I suspect is quite different from national rates of suicide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
As far as being ineffective... when the hell have you ever seen even a well composed argument not torn to shreds by at least one person who has a bur up their ass.
I wonder how much cheaper devices would be if everyone stopped resorting to breaking FRAND agreements or suing over silly IP patents that should never have been issued in the first place.
I reckon it wouldn't be a lot. Trouble is that the numbers of units these guys are talking about it makes a very nice pile of money for the patent owner. (eg Apples 37m iPhones in a quarter, and someone makes 20c off each one - $7-8m dollars.)
I don't agree. All that I have seen is people bandying around stats from Wikipedia either for or against. No one has demonstrated an understanding of the factors involved in occupational suicide rates, which I suspect is quite different from national rates of suicide.
He doesn't make apologies for it, nor should he need to. He's tolerated by the mods, and the regulars know where he's coming from. If he's truly concerned that his message gets thru then he may modify his "style". . . or perhaps not. He's the only one who really knows the message he's trying to convey and perhaps it's just the way he intended.
I don't take offense at it as long as he's not attacking other forum members on a personal basis.
I appreciate that he's straightforward and plainspoken but I don't care for the bigotry and racial overtones so I've put him on my ignore list
As you mentioned, nobody can be 100% sure of what the hell he means... but, he gets people talking around his comment and, eventually, more understanding comes out of it.
As far as being ineffective... when the hell have you ever seen even a well composed argument not torn to shreds by at least one person who has a bur up their ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0
I reckon it wouldn't be a lot. Trouble is that the numbers of units these guys are talking about it makes a very nice pile of money for the patent owner. (eg Apples 37m iPhones in a quarter, and someone makes 20c off each one - $7-8m dollars.)
I suspect that it is much higher than that. I don't know which of Microsoft's IP Android may have used but it accounts for something like $10 per Android phone. Then factor in the fact that WP7 assures OEMs no IP headaches (ie they must be paying Apple some royalities and visa-versa), then factor in the inflated prices that firms have paid to purchase portfolios
No one has demonstrated an understanding of the factors involved in occupational suicide rates, which I suspect is quite different from national rates of suicide.
On another thread a few weeks a few posters (myself included) tried to find info on that very subject. There doesn't seem to be any.
Things we considered: How does their suicide rates compare to the Chinese population when you remove those are physically or mentally handicapped, too young, too old or otherwise can't work? How does the suicide rate compare to the age ranges that committed suicide at Foxconn? What about the level of financial demographic from which they came? Does the dorm situation make it worse, better, or just give it a sense of being worse because suicides are more likely to occur on company property?
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.
On another thread a few weeks a few posters (myself included) tried to find info on that very subject. There doesn't seem to be any.
Things we considered: How does their suicide rates compare to the Chinese population when you remove those are physically or mentally handicapped, too young, too old or otherwise can't work? How does the suicide rate compare to the age ranges that committed suicide at Foxconn? What about the level of financial demographic from which they came? Does the dorm situation make it worse, better, or just give it a sense of being worse because suicides are more likely to occur on company property?
When we talk about work place/occupational suicides maybe we should study farmer suicides in India in the "suicide belt".
Now, if Foxconn was showing those numbers then we'd have something to really worry about.
When we talk about work place/occupational suicides maybe we should study farmer suicides in India in the "suicide belt".
Now, if Foxconn was showing those numbers then we'd have something to really worry about.
I think that suicides in general, anywhere in the world, can often be work related. Why do people kill themselves to begin with? It's usually over some silly reason, like money, a job, some dumb woman or relationship gone bad etc.
I think that suicides in general, anywhere in the world, can often be work related. Why do people kill themselves to begin with? It's usually over some silly reason, like money, a job, some dumb woman or relationship gone bad etc.
When the suicide rate gets well above the national average, that's when you have a real and obvious problem.
When the suicide rate gets well above the national average, that's when you have a real and obvious problem.
I'd agree with that. So when the suicide rate at Foxconn drastically exceeds that average, then maybe the protesters will have a legitimate reason to whine about it, instead of lying and fabricating stories which is what they are doing today.
Oftentimes he has a point. He just doesn't understand how to craft it so that his reader is willing or able to see it. An interesting point of view gets wasted by having a poor understanding of how to relay it to the others here.
This statement has exceeded the arrogance quota for any one post.
There seems to be a fair degree of assumption that others don't agree with or understand his views.
And the irony of one very pro-Android poster posting on an Apple forum giving advice on how to relay a message is definitely most amusing.
Why don't we all stick to the topics at hand, and stop throwing stones in this big ol' glasshouse?
Fanboisim is not an excuse for insensitivity or racism.
He wasn't being racist or insensitive though.
I've spent time in the far east and if you thinking working in a paddy field is a nice place, then I suggest you go try it. As for working 60 hours a week - someone working in a paddy field will be putting in far more hours than 60. The people I knew who worked the fields worked 6 days a week at 12-14 hours, plus a 'short' day on Sunday of 8 hours.
So best part of 90 hours per week, and they'll have been paid 1/3rd of what a Foxconn worker makes, probably even less.
I remember one of the family members worked at IBM, and her wages were used to support the rest of the family she was so well paid in comparison to the rest of them.
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.
Most liberals have no idea about poverty. Poverty to them is not being able to afford DirectTV.
.... does not grant him the right to be offensive.
Offensiveness is often in the eyes of the beholder. For instance, his political views are a bit extreme, but I try not to get offended. We're all grown-ups here.
Incidentally, laying the blame for suicides on Foxconn by using false statistics, innuendo, thin lines of reasoning, and conflating Apple with Foxconn in report after report (to drive who knows what political agenda) are perhaps the most cynical and insensitive use of suicides that I have seen.
I don't agree. All that I have seen is people bandying around stats from Wikipedia either for or against. No one has demonstrated an understanding of the factors involved in occupational suicide rates, which I suspect is quite different from national rates of suicide.
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.
Why would they be allowed to meddle with old business or management of everyday business decisions at Moto when there's realistic chances the purchase won't even happen, needing approval from a lot of different authorities including those in China, Israel, Taiwan, the US and the EU? Think of the possible ramifications from Moto stockholders if Google were to order an end to any actions against Apple but never follows thru with purchasing the company? Or worse, they order Moto to ramp up the lawsuits, then say adios and back out of the deal if the heat from Apple gets too hot. It makes no sense and therefor probably isn't true that Google's calling all the shots.
But if you want to hold on to the teeny tiny possibility that this is all Google's doing, Moto's shareholders are being deceived by the evil Google who is secretly in control and use it to cloud your thinking it's your choice of course.
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.
Comments
he gets people talking around his comment and, eventually, more understanding comes out of it.
I don't agree. All that I have seen is people bandying around stats from Wikipedia either for or against. No one has demonstrated an understanding of the factors involved in occupational suicide rates, which I suspect is quite different from national rates of suicide.
As far as being ineffective... when the hell have you ever seen even a well composed argument not torn to shreds by at least one person who has a bur up their ass.
Now that is a good point.
I wonder how much cheaper devices would be if everyone stopped resorting to breaking FRAND agreements or suing over silly IP patents that should never have been issued in the first place.
I reckon it wouldn't be a lot. Trouble is that the numbers of units these guys are talking about it makes a very nice pile of money for the patent owner. (eg Apples 37m iPhones in a quarter, and someone makes 20c off each one - $7-8m dollars.)
I don't agree. All that I have seen is people bandying around stats from Wikipedia either for or against. No one has demonstrated an understanding of the factors involved in occupational suicide rates, which I suspect is quite different from national rates of suicide.
... and, you prove my point exactly.
He doesn't make apologies for it, nor should he need to. He's tolerated by the mods, and the regulars know where he's coming from. If he's truly concerned that his message gets thru then he may modify his "style". . . or perhaps not. He's the only one who really knows the message he's trying to convey and perhaps it's just the way he intended.
I don't take offense at it as long as he's not attacking other forum members on a personal basis.
I appreciate that he's straightforward and plainspoken but I don't care for the bigotry and racial overtones so I've put him on my ignore list
I appreciate that he's straightforward and plainspoken but I don't care for the bigotry and racial overtones so I've put him on my ignore list
Yes, you're right... bigotry and racism should not be ignored (or should be in this case... hmmmm)... that's when it goes too far.
As you mentioned, nobody can be 100% sure of what the hell he means... but, he gets people talking around his comment and, eventually, more understanding comes out of it.
As far as being ineffective... when the hell have you ever seen even a well composed argument not torn to shreds by at least one person who has a bur up their ass.
I reckon it wouldn't be a lot. Trouble is that the numbers of units these guys are talking about it makes a very nice pile of money for the patent owner. (eg Apples 37m iPhones in a quarter, and someone makes 20c off each one - $7-8m dollars.)
I suspect that it is much higher than that. I don't know which of Microsoft's IP Android may have used but it accounts for something like $10 per Android phone. Then factor in the fact that WP7 assures OEMs no IP headaches (ie they must be paying Apple some royalities and visa-versa), then factor in the inflated prices that firms have paid to purchase portfolios
No one has demonstrated an understanding of the factors involved in occupational suicide rates, which I suspect is quite different from national rates of suicide.
On another thread a few weeks a few posters (myself included) tried to find info on that very subject. There doesn't seem to be any.
Things we considered: How does their suicide rates compare to the Chinese population when you remove those are physically or mentally handicapped, too young, too old or otherwise can't work? How does the suicide rate compare to the age ranges that committed suicide at Foxconn? What about the level of financial demographic from which they came? Does the dorm situation make it worse, better, or just give it a sense of being worse because suicides are more likely to occur on company property?
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.
On another thread a few weeks a few posters (myself included) tried to find info on that very subject. There doesn't seem to be any.
Things we considered: How does their suicide rates compare to the Chinese population when you remove those are physically or mentally handicapped, too young, too old or otherwise can't work? How does the suicide rate compare to the age ranges that committed suicide at Foxconn? What about the level of financial demographic from which they came? Does the dorm situation make it worse, better, or just give it a sense of being worse because suicides are more likely to occur on company property?
When we talk about work place/occupational suicides maybe we should study farmer suicides in India in the "suicide belt".
Now, if Foxconn was showing those numbers then we'd have something to really worry about.
When we talk about work place/occupational suicides maybe we should study farmer suicides in India in the "suicide belt".
Now, if Foxconn was showing those numbers then we'd have something to really worry about.
I think that suicides in general, anywhere in the world, can often be work related. Why do people kill themselves to begin with? It's usually over some silly reason, like money, a job, some dumb woman or relationship gone bad etc.
I think that suicides in general, anywhere in the world, can often be work related. Why do people kill themselves to begin with? It's usually over some silly reason, like money, a job, some dumb woman or relationship gone bad etc.
When the suicide rate gets well above the national average, that's when you have a real and obvious problem.
When the suicide rate gets well above the national average, that's when you have a real and obvious problem.
I'd agree with that. So when the suicide rate at Foxconn drastically exceeds that average, then maybe the protesters will have a legitimate reason to whine about it, instead of lying and fabricating stories which is what they are doing today.
Oftentimes he has a point. He just doesn't understand how to craft it so that his reader is willing or able to see it. An interesting point of view gets wasted by having a poor understanding of how to relay it to the others here.
This statement has exceeded the arrogance quota for any one post.
There seems to be a fair degree of assumption that others don't agree with or understand his views.
And the irony of one very pro-Android poster posting on an Apple forum giving advice on how to relay a message is definitely most amusing.
Why don't we all stick to the topics at hand, and stop throwing stones in this big ol' glasshouse?
Fanboisim is not an excuse for insensitivity or racism.
He wasn't being racist or insensitive though.
I've spent time in the far east and if you thinking working in a paddy field is a nice place, then I suggest you go try it. As for working 60 hours a week - someone working in a paddy field will be putting in far more hours than 60. The people I knew who worked the fields worked 6 days a week at 12-14 hours, plus a 'short' day on Sunday of 8 hours.
So best part of 90 hours per week, and they'll have been paid 1/3rd of what a Foxconn worker makes, probably even less.
I remember one of the family members worked at IBM, and her wages were used to support the rest of the family she was so well paid in comparison to the rest of them.
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.
Most liberals have no idea about poverty. Poverty to them is not being able to afford DirectTV.
.... does not grant him the right to be offensive.
Offensiveness is often in the eyes of the beholder. For instance, his political views are a bit extreme, but I try not to get offended. We're all grown-ups here.
Incidentally, laying the blame for suicides on Foxconn by using false statistics, innuendo, thin lines of reasoning, and conflating Apple with Foxconn in report after report (to drive who knows what political agenda) are perhaps the most cynical and insensitive use of suicides that I have seen.
... and who the fuck uses words like "puerile" on a public forum. Now that's offensive.
I do - I think it's a very nice word.
I don't agree. All that I have seen is people bandying around stats from Wikipedia either for or against. No one has demonstrated an understanding of the factors involved in occupational suicide rates, which I suspect is quite different from national rates of suicide.
Then stop the whining and demonstrate for us.
Then stop the whining and demonstrate for us.
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.
Why would they be allowed to meddle with old business or management of everyday business decisions at Moto when there's realistic chances the purchase won't even happen, needing approval from a lot of different authorities including those in China, Israel, Taiwan, the US and the EU? Think of the possible ramifications from Moto stockholders if Google were to order an end to any actions against Apple but never follows thru with purchasing the company? Or worse, they order Moto to ramp up the lawsuits, then say adios and back out of the deal if the heat from Apple gets too hot. It makes no sense and therefor probably isn't true that Google's calling all the shots.
But if you want to hold on to the teeny tiny possibility that this is all Google's doing, Moto's shareholders are being deceived by the evil Google who is secretly in control and use it to cloud your thinking it's your choice of course.
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.