Also, let's not forget that Apple were not the first phone company to have a touch screen device that used the swipe to unlock process. They were just the first to patent, and the other company went bust...
If this were true, then the patent is obviously invalid. But since this has never been the argument in court, I'm guessing your assertion mostly false. If you have proof that there was another company who had a product with this idea before the priority date of the patent, then I'd love to see it.
An American tourist was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked.
Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The tourist complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.
The Mexican replied, "Only a little while."
The tourist then asked, "Why didn't you stay out longer and catch more fish?"
The Mexican said, "With this I have more than enough to support my family's needs."
The tourist then asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"
The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life."
The tourist scoffed, " I can help you. You should spend more time fishing; and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat: With the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats. Eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor; eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You could leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles and eventually New York where you could run your ever-expanding enterprise."
The Mexican fisherman asked, "But, how long will this all take?"
The tourist replied, "15 to 20 years."
"But what then?" asked the Mexican.
The tourist laughed and said, "That's the best part. When the time is right you would sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions."
The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."
He's saying that in real life the fisherman's job is a bit worse than presented, and the American's a bit better, due to things like healthcare, and financial planning for emergencies and retirement.
And the correct response to that is yes, its a parable, the answer isn't to become a fisherman or necessarily start your business, but to find a good middleground for yourself that keeps the point of the parable in mind.
And yet, another extension of the story has the American go to the next fishermen, and they open up a big company together, fishing up all the fish and leaving none for the first guy, plus the supply drives the prices down and make things even worse for him.
Oh, I think they'll just go to the government and arrange to transfer the right to fish to private ownership. That way they can make a profit from leasing out the resource rights, and force the people to pay if the want to catch their own food.
Meanwhile, thousands of people get to eat nutritious fish instead of the stringy pork and stone-baked weeds they were eating before. The population's mean IQ increases a couple of points over the course of a generation. They experience an accompanying rise in various standards of living, from their high-school graduation rate to their average lifespan.
Eventually, the tuna are overfished and the agricultural conglomerates switch to farmed tilapia. Everybody complains loudly... but by now, nobody but a few old fishermen remember how much subsistence farming sucked.
Not quite sure what the follow up is supposed to teach ?
Is it a critic of EU/US development plans in developing countries in Africa. Come in, transform self-sustaining economies into EU/US dependent one (eg: replacing traditional crop by commercial crop complemented by food import), ruin them for profit, and then rebuild them for profit (or using public funds) ?
I think that the difference between the mindset of the American penal system (from a British point of view) seems to be that in America you are in prison FOR punishment. There seems to be an expectation that in prison you should endure additional hardship in the form of work and potentially rape (the USA is the only country in the world with a higher level of _reported_ male rape than female rape, due to the large number of prisoners and the abuse that occurs in there).
In the UK and Europe we see prison as THE punishment. Being deprived of your liberty and freedom is generally considered punishment enough. Some of the most successful prisons (in terms of re-offender rates) are in Denmark, where prisons are pretty damn comfortable and prisoners have many rights and access to support (and even the ability to leave the prison for periods of the day if they are trusted and to mix with prisoners of the opposite sex and civilians who choose to live in boarding available in prisons.
It really seems like the distinction you're trying to draw between the UK and US prison systems is essentially based on an implied allegation that prison rape is condoned in the US. That's an egregiously inflammatory argument to make, one that essentially kneecaps the rest of the discussion. It's also false, and papers over the fact that rape is endemic in the UK penal system as well.
It's too bad, because your second graf raises some interesting questions.
In any case: this has nothing to do with the story we're commenting on.
In some places gaps in your CV are a big problem, as they want to know exactly what you were doing and why you were not employable. The idea that you might have chosen to take time out is pretty new in some areas.
Exactly, we the consumers are not being tasked with paying for the cost of recoverable electronics. Car manufacturers have been made to improve the recyclability of cars and in the end the actual cost to the buyer has not risen much - and now at the end of a cars life the value is higher due to the easier and more efficient recycling of the materials.
Until we actually pay for the full cost of ownership, then we will continue to pollute. I'd love it if we also had to pay for the actual costs of our energy too - such as the costs that coal powered plants have on society.
> Until we actually pay for the full cost of ownership, then we will continue to pollute. I'd love it if we also had to pay for the actual costs of our energy too - such as the costs that coal powered plants have on society.
I'd love that. But I need to find a new way to argue for it, since most of the time I mention CO₂ emission tax, I get accused of being a bad man who wants fuel to be more expensive.
In what way? Both are suggesting that it is the responsibility of charities to support the changes that disabled people need to be able to participate in society. If you believe that deal charities should pay for subtitling, why shouldn't other charities convert my business to make it accessible?