Well, $3000 * 12 = $36,000 so it doesn't really hurt that bad on 6 figures after all. That's why they live their; they're not actually complaining about it being too expensive for their pay, they're just bragging about how much money they make.
Let's not sit here and assume that obscene rent prices are the only cost that's increased considerably in the area.
If rent is that high, then I can't imagine what home ownership might cost you, for those who may not to want to stay permanently enslaved. As if the average cost of a house isn't high enough, the properly taxes and insurance are equally fucked.
Bottom line is even those pay rates don't afford much bragging rights in various parts of the country, this being one of them.
i think the problem is that they havent been taught to give a shit.
Give me a break.
Over and over again, consumers hear stories on the nightly news about hackers stealing identities and the costly impact, followed up by the "top 10 worst passwords" list that hasn't changed in decades. Also fighting against statistics and common sense is the it'll-never-happen-to-me syndrome.
Of course, capitalism responded in kind, creating entirely new insurance industries (e.g. Lifelock), to at least insure those who refuse to change their favorite pet-name password they've had since high school, as well as ransomware blooming into a $500-million dollar juggernaut.
It's rather sad, but this isn't simple ignorance anymore. It's willful ignorance, also known as not giving a shit.
Watch and see how nothing will change regarding human behavior, no matter how the masses are manipulated.
Seriously, I am not sure how to take this. Instant noodles are hugely popular across asia, consumed in vast quantities every day, and yet asia still has low obesity rates. So is it the noodles that are the problem OR how the people respond to what they eat?
I could not believe how bad the American obesity rate was until I traveled outside of the US. I scratched my head because the foreign diet did not seem particularly healthy, so I looked at other factors.
When comparing other countries, I believe the lack of exercise impacts obesity rates far more than diet does. People can easily get fat off eating an Asian diet if leading a sedentary lifestyle. Other countries are far more mobile and active, which I believe plays a large part here.
Well it's been around half a century of that diet now. Around 50 million people have tried it and we aren't hearing any complaints from them...Feel free to argue against those 50 million. Rant and rave! Your opinion is surely equal to theirs.
50 million people tried it, and 49.9 million people didn't stick with it. I'd say that pretty much sums up the "complaint" department. Of course, sticking with a diet loaded with saturated fat, salt and red meat will likely lead to heart disease, but hey, at least you'll be a skinny corpse.
If we've learned anything in the last 100 years, fad diets of any kind are a temporary measure at best. What actually works is a permanent lifestyle change, consisting of eating healthy and regular exercise. Arguments for fad diets are not supported when losing weight is simple math for the overwhelming majority of humans(consume less than you burn), and has stood the test of time.
If you are so wrong about this, how can you be correct about your other assertions?
I'm well aware of the history here, but to clarify my statement, the internet as we know it today did not exist 30 years ago.
ARPANET is so prehistoric it only offers a genetic marker of TCP/IP. BBS is hardly compared to what social media offers. And a user today can't even fathom how the hell the internet ever even worked via dial-up.
If anything, these facts reinforce my assertions, because no one was capable of predicting the internet of today in 1987.
I'm quite certain there have been plenty of examples throughout history of brilliant late-night inspiration and breakthroughs, fueled by Nerds and Noodles.
Rumor has it Steve Jobs invented the iMac after snorting several lines of ramen seasoning packets...
I suggest you start with yourself for displaying the dangerous narcissistic attitude that everyone's use case is exactly yours and anyone who disagrees is a paid shill.
Speaking of things that don't exist, feel free to provide the massive list of people who asked for a 4K HDR screen in a smartphone that justified this.
As far as useful resolution, I'm quite certain screen technology will continue well beyond the capability of the human eye, in the name of profit.
(Claim in 1939) "We're going to put a man on the moon within 30 years."
(Society in 1939) "What a fucking moron. That will never happen."
Since the feedback here is essentially the same as it would have been in Society circa 1939, perhaps we should re-think the ignorance of automatically denying this claim, or dismissing Mr. Son as some kind of idiot. You would have been fucking wrong to do so in 1939.
What does the next 30 years bring? I'd say we can't even dream what may be possible. 30 years ago, the internet didn't exist. Chew on that fact for a minute.
...Now, you'd be facing destruction of evidence of obstruction of justice charges but, that is probably better than what you would have been facing had the phone been unlocked.
Fucking seriously?
Unless you're engaged in some seriously illegal activity that you rather enjoy conducting on your smartphone, perhaps you should *really* sit and think about those charges before making such a statement. Gut feeling is a criminal record will impact you a hell of a lot more than your Facebook data being confiscated.
It would be *very* easy to have smartphones with adequate security from all sorts of perspectives. Secure key storage, secure storage, secure communications, secure boot, secure containers, secure remote management, secure (multiple factor) authentication, secure arbitration of what hardware can access what memory etc.
It would be *very* easy for citizens to give a shit enough about their privacy to not carry around their entire lives in a cellular tracking device too.
Simple fact is, they don't give a shit, convenience trumps privacy every time, and it's gonna take a hell of a lot more than a dozen border patrol searches gone overboard to change human behavior.
The thing is: if your target audience is largely 15 year old girls, then you probably have commercial priorities elsewhere.
Yeah right. Everyone from 7 - 70 years old uses a cellular device these days, and the models are hardly different no matter who is using it. Governments rather enjoy insecure civilian communications and devices. They also know you will gladly surrender your Rights in exchange for giving back the precious confiscated cell phone. Addiction is often an easy exploit in order to enforce Control.
I would honestly be happy to trade able-to-repair for free-repair rules on a lot of things that I am just not competent or equipped to repair with or without a manual.
You are failing to see the big picture here. The things you do know how to repair, or maybe even make a living from doing, will also be attacked.
It won't be a "lot of things". It will slowly become every fucking thing once every other market sees the profit margins enjoyed by industries who have lobbied and won.
And giving away the console would merely result in a price increase of every game by 30%, proving what has always been true; nothing is free.
Yes it is. If you own the item, then all of the rights of ownership are to be afforded to you. You get to do with it as you please, and that includes repairing it.
It's a derived right, to be sure, but it is a right, nonetheless.
Wake up as to what is happening today. From cell phones to SaaS, the concept of true ownership is becoming extinct.
Once cars become autonomous, it will be "too dangerous" to allow Joe Mechanic to work on one. Autonomous taxi service vehicles will be owned by a corporation for the same reason.
Computers are already become non-serviceable devices (e.g. New Macbook Pro sealed and soldered case design), so the argument of repair has become moot.
Whether it's an bubble-wrapped version of liability, damage to sensitive designs, or merely attempts to prevent "hacking", traditional ownership will continue to die off, in favor of Greed.
And I strongly doubt there's anything that anyone is going to be able to do to stop it.
Oh, you mean not every 18-year old is over 6 feet tall, and possesses the athletic ability to dunk a basketball?
You just pointed out the stupidity of your own analogy.
Not everyone is cut out to learn coding, in much the same way not everyone is cut out to understand advanced mathematics. You can try and drill it into Little Johnny Dumbass all you want, but if he doesn't "get it", he doesn't get it. If you're only 5 feet tall, you can jump up and down all you want, chances are you're not gonna dunk a basketball.
Can't believe I actually had to explain exactly how my analogy fits.
I think it should be mandatory that all college freshman students participate in one hour of basketball dunking per day.
Oh, you mean not every 18-year old is over 6 feet tall, and possesses the athletic ability to dunk a basketball?
Gosh, that must mean that not everyone is cut out for it. You know, kind of like coding, so how about we stop with this pointless "mandatory" bullshit already.
Looking for a skill that would truly benefit future generations? Perhaps we should mandate an hour of studying the Constitution every day, for an enslaved society is still enslaved, no matter how skilled they are.
Not being argumentative here, but many forms of cancer are, in fact, things where successful treatment nowadays does mean a cure with no further treatment required; like in the old days when the main job of pharmacology was curing infections, and unlike the current paradigm of lifelong treatments of things that would otherwise be fatal, like HIV or diabetes or autoimmune stuff.
Your prescribed current paradigm tends to contradict your initial statement, but does tend to reinforce what I've been saying all along. More on that below.
In fact, it seems to me that the occasions where people are not cured and require lifelong treatments for cancer tend not to last for a particularly long life, by and large.
There's a reason that lifelong treatments are limited. It has to do with the average bank account that can afford to pay for it. I can assure you that Big Data has carefully calculated the MSRP of unending treatments down to the penny to maximize revenue streams while minimizing burden. In other words, they know how long they can suck you dry from a financial standpoint, and know when to call Hospice.
People will gladly give up privacy in exchange for a "free" price tag
Are you sure about that? Now people will sure give their name and address to some company for a free price tag -- but it comes with the expectation that it will only be used by the company they gave it to.
That's the disconnect of ignorance. People who haven't had reason to consider the issue in depth don't really expect that their data is being sold to 47 "partners" and stolen by hackers 3 times a year because the site is too lazy or incompetent to secure their system. We expect the data to be used for in-house things like product planning and flyer layout.
We've been told for centuries that business is the end-all-be-all and we tend to trust them until they break trust rather than requiring them to earn trust in the first place.
When the end result is a constant stream of hacks leaking consumer data, it's still willful ignorance, no matter how you want to paint it. If a company contracted to never sell user information and secured it using the best encryption, but charged $5 for their product, no one would buy it. People bitch about 99 cents these days. Willful ignorance at its finest.
With regards to hacking and consequence, it's the it'll-never-happen-to-me syndrome. That same ignorance leads to humans ignoring medical signs that lead to cancer being detected in the too-late stage, over and over again.
Bottom line is if consumers actually gave a shit, they wouldn't be handing over their most sensitive information. Convenience trumps privacy. Every time.
...And the hospitals -- who needs one everyone's partner or friend or neighbor is a fully trained doctor? But of course that's not the way the real world works and we really shouldn't expect everyone to have specialized knowledge online either.
Actually, it's ironic that the real world still requires 8 years of highly specialized schooling and a doctorate degree in order to for someone to be legally authorized to do work on a human body, and yet we recommend 30 days worth of training and a certification to work on a computer holding your most sensitive information. Funny how that shit works, isn't it. Again, mass ignorance at its finest.
Good argument. But wall street isn't the only player. And some (say Bill Gates) have made their money and have no problem funding cures.
When it comes to Bill Gates or any other human on this planet, I only have one thing to say regarding cures, and the ability to disrupt the Cancer Treatment Complex.
I was just commenting on the premise that greed == always bad == corporations.
Greed can also exist in individual scientists and bureaucrats and can be against the best interest of the corporation (or the funders of the project).
Cancer cures are a good thing.
Cancer cures requires work and investment capital.
Scientists need to be paid (along with everyone else including HR and people mopping the floors)
Investment capital needs to be repaid with dividends.
All the above are good good things.
Common F. Sense agrees that all of the above are good things
The problem is Greed N. Corruption isn't really interested in curing jack shit anymore, and will always favor perpetual treatments to feed profits.
Treatments create unending profits.
Treatments create unending jobs.
Cures ultimately destroy jobs and severely limit perpetual revenue and profits, which does not pay the dividends that Wall Street now demands.
Those running counter to the best interests of those in Control will ultimately be removed from the equation.
Slashdot Mirror
He makes 160k, with bonuses I make 80k. He pays $3k in rent, my Mortgage is $1500 a month. I'm not broke, somehow this guy is?
Given the housing market, I'd say the key difference between you and him is that you obviously can afford to own something.
Pay rates are not just about income. It's about creating options and a future as well.
Well, $3000 * 12 = $36,000 so it doesn't really hurt that bad on 6 figures after all. That's why they live their; they're not actually complaining about it being too expensive for their pay, they're just bragging about how much money they make.
Let's not sit here and assume that obscene rent prices are the only cost that's increased considerably in the area.
If rent is that high, then I can't imagine what home ownership might cost you, for those who may not to want to stay permanently enslaved. As if the average cost of a house isn't high enough, the properly taxes and insurance are equally fucked.
Bottom line is even those pay rates don't afford much bragging rights in various parts of the country, this being one of them.
"Simple fact is, they don't give a shit"
i think the problem is that they havent been taught to give a shit.
Give me a break.
Over and over again, consumers hear stories on the nightly news about hackers stealing identities and the costly impact, followed up by the "top 10 worst passwords" list that hasn't changed in decades. Also fighting against statistics and common sense is the it'll-never-happen-to-me syndrome.
Of course, capitalism responded in kind, creating entirely new insurance industries (e.g. Lifelock), to at least insure those who refuse to change their favorite pet-name password they've had since high school, as well as ransomware blooming into a $500-million dollar juggernaut.
It's rather sad, but this isn't simple ignorance anymore. It's willful ignorance, also known as not giving a shit.
Watch and see how nothing will change regarding human behavior, no matter how the masses are manipulated.
Seriously, I am not sure how to take this. Instant noodles are hugely popular across asia, consumed in vast quantities every day, and yet asia still has low obesity rates. So is it the noodles that are the problem OR how the people respond to what they eat?
I could not believe how bad the American obesity rate was until I traveled outside of the US. I scratched my head because the foreign diet did not seem particularly healthy, so I looked at other factors.
When comparing other countries, I believe the lack of exercise impacts obesity rates far more than diet does. People can easily get fat off eating an Asian diet if leading a sedentary lifestyle. Other countries are far more mobile and active, which I believe plays a large part here.
Well it's been around half a century of that diet now. Around 50 million people have tried it and we aren't hearing any complaints from them...Feel free to argue against those 50 million. Rant and rave! Your opinion is surely equal to theirs.
50 million people tried it, and 49.9 million people didn't stick with it. I'd say that pretty much sums up the "complaint" department. Of course, sticking with a diet loaded with saturated fat, salt and red meat will likely lead to heart disease, but hey, at least you'll be a skinny corpse.
If we've learned anything in the last 100 years, fad diets of any kind are a temporary measure at best. What actually works is a permanent lifestyle change, consisting of eating healthy and regular exercise. Arguments for fad diets are not supported when losing weight is simple math for the overwhelming majority of humans(consume less than you burn), and has stood the test of time.
30 years ago, the internet didn't exist
If you are so wrong about this, how can you be correct about your other assertions?
I'm well aware of the history here, but to clarify my statement, the internet as we know it today did not exist 30 years ago.
ARPANET is so prehistoric it only offers a genetic marker of TCP/IP. BBS is hardly compared to what social media offers. And a user today can't even fathom how the hell the internet ever even worked via dial-up.
If anything, these facts reinforce my assertions, because no one was capable of predicting the internet of today in 1987.
30 years ago, the internet didn't exist.
Wrong.
Give me a break. Hand a website today a modem and get back to me.
Noodles for nerds?
I'm quite certain there have been plenty of examples throughout history of brilliant late-night inspiration and breakthroughs, fueled by Nerds and Noodles.
Rumor has it Steve Jobs invented the iMac after snorting several lines of ramen seasoning packets...
I suggest you start with yourself for displaying the dangerous narcissistic attitude that everyone's use case is exactly yours and anyone who disagrees is a paid shill.
Speaking of things that don't exist, feel free to provide the massive list of people who asked for a 4K HDR screen in a smartphone that justified this.
As far as useful resolution, I'm quite certain screen technology will continue well beyond the capability of the human eye, in the name of profit.
(Claim in 1939) "We're going to put a man on the moon within 30 years."
(Society in 1939) "What a fucking moron. That will never happen."
Since the feedback here is essentially the same as it would have been in Society circa 1939, perhaps we should re-think the ignorance of automatically denying this claim, or dismissing Mr. Son as some kind of idiot. You would have been fucking wrong to do so in 1939.
What does the next 30 years bring? I'd say we can't even dream what may be possible. 30 years ago, the internet didn't exist. Chew on that fact for a minute.
Picture, better at home
Picture is a fucking smartphone screen. A laptop is considered a reason to host a Superbowl party for today's generation.
Sound, better at home
Free earbuds are now considered audiophile-grade hardware, color me surprised.
Food, better at home
Of course it is. A bag of cheetos and a jar of nutella is an amazing "foodie" experience, when you're high as a kite.
Seating, better at home
Translation: My preferred movie experience is in my underwear.
Rest of Audience behavior, more controllable at home
Since introvert is the new fashionable thing, the only acceptable audience is none.
Other than a lock on new releases the theatres have nothing. Producers would make more money with a secure direct to home pay per view service.
Catering to demands is always the name of the game, no matter how pathetic it looks.
Not sure who I want to slap more, idiot marketeers who think there's a point behind a pocket-sized 4K HDR screen...
...or the morons standing in line at midnight helping justify this shit with their wallets, while ironically bitching about the cost of tech today.
People will accidentally wipe the phones. There would be 10 legitimate use and 10,000,000 acciddental customers with lost data and liability claims.
There would be zero liability claims, and you would agree to that in the EULA you never read.
I, as a phone / OS provider, would fight this feature. I, as a phone user, would fight this feature.
Of course you would.
So would the rest of society, because privacy is the concept that "won't fly" anymore.
...Now, you'd be facing destruction of evidence of obstruction of justice charges but, that is probably better than what you would have been facing had the phone been unlocked.
Fucking seriously?
Unless you're engaged in some seriously illegal activity that you rather enjoy conducting on your smartphone, perhaps you should *really* sit and think about those charges before making such a statement. Gut feeling is a criminal record will impact you a hell of a lot more than your Facebook data being confiscated.
It would be *very* easy to have smartphones with adequate security from all sorts of perspectives. Secure key storage, secure storage, secure communications, secure boot, secure containers, secure remote management, secure (multiple factor) authentication, secure arbitration of what hardware can access what memory etc.
It would be *very* easy for citizens to give a shit enough about their privacy to not carry around their entire lives in a cellular tracking device too.
Simple fact is, they don't give a shit, convenience trumps privacy every time, and it's gonna take a hell of a lot more than a dozen border patrol searches gone overboard to change human behavior.
The thing is: if your target audience is largely 15 year old girls, then you probably have commercial priorities elsewhere.
Yeah right. Everyone from 7 - 70 years old uses a cellular device these days, and the models are hardly different no matter who is using it. Governments rather enjoy insecure civilian communications and devices. They also know you will gladly surrender your Rights in exchange for giving back the precious confiscated cell phone. Addiction is often an easy exploit in order to enforce Control.
Now shut the fuck up and send more money.
Signed - Microsoft, Apple, Sony
Corporate Arrogance is very real today, and because of that, you're being far too fucking polite with your wording.
I would honestly be happy to trade able-to-repair for free-repair rules on a lot of things that I am just not competent or equipped to repair with or without a manual.
You are failing to see the big picture here. The things you do know how to repair, or maybe even make a living from doing, will also be attacked.
It won't be a "lot of things". It will slowly become every fucking thing once every other market sees the profit margins enjoyed by industries who have lobbied and won.
And giving away the console would merely result in a price increase of every game by 30%, proving what has always been true; nothing is free.
Yes it is. If you own the item, then all of the rights of ownership are to be afforded to you. You get to do with it as you please, and that includes repairing it.
It's a derived right, to be sure, but it is a right, nonetheless.
Wake up as to what is happening today. From cell phones to SaaS, the concept of true ownership is becoming extinct.
Once cars become autonomous, it will be "too dangerous" to allow Joe Mechanic to work on one. Autonomous taxi service vehicles will be owned by a corporation for the same reason.
Computers are already become non-serviceable devices (e.g. New Macbook Pro sealed and soldered case design), so the argument of repair has become moot.
Whether it's an bubble-wrapped version of liability, damage to sensitive designs, or merely attempts to prevent "hacking", traditional ownership will continue to die off, in favor of Greed.
And I strongly doubt there's anything that anyone is going to be able to do to stop it.
Oh, you mean not every 18-year old is over 6 feet tall, and possesses the athletic ability to dunk a basketball?
You just pointed out the stupidity of your own analogy.
Not everyone is cut out to learn coding, in much the same way not everyone is cut out to understand advanced mathematics. You can try and drill it into Little Johnny Dumbass all you want, but if he doesn't "get it", he doesn't get it. If you're only 5 feet tall, you can jump up and down all you want, chances are you're not gonna dunk a basketball.
Can't believe I actually had to explain exactly how my analogy fits.
I think it should be mandatory that all college freshman students participate in one hour of basketball dunking per day.
Oh, you mean not every 18-year old is over 6 feet tall, and possesses the athletic ability to dunk a basketball?
Gosh, that must mean that not everyone is cut out for it. You know, kind of like coding, so how about we stop with this pointless "mandatory" bullshit already.
Looking for a skill that would truly benefit future generations? Perhaps we should mandate an hour of studying the Constitution every day, for an enslaved society is still enslaved, no matter how skilled they are.
Not being argumentative here, but many forms of cancer are, in fact, things where successful treatment nowadays does mean a cure with no further treatment required; like in the old days when the main job of pharmacology was curing infections, and unlike the current paradigm of lifelong treatments of things that would otherwise be fatal, like HIV or diabetes or autoimmune stuff.
Your prescribed current paradigm tends to contradict your initial statement, but does tend to reinforce what I've been saying all along. More on that below.
In fact, it seems to me that the occasions where people are not cured and require lifelong treatments for cancer tend not to last for a particularly long life, by and large.
There's a reason that lifelong treatments are limited. It has to do with the average bank account that can afford to pay for it. I can assure you that Big Data has carefully calculated the MSRP of unending treatments down to the penny to maximize revenue streams while minimizing burden. In other words, they know how long they can suck you dry from a financial standpoint, and know when to call Hospice.
People will gladly give up privacy in exchange for a "free" price tag
Are you sure about that? Now people will sure give their name and address to some company for a free price tag -- but it comes with the expectation that it will only be used by the company they gave it to.
That's the disconnect of ignorance. People who haven't had reason to consider the issue in depth don't really expect that their data is being sold to 47 "partners" and stolen by hackers 3 times a year because the site is too lazy or incompetent to secure their system. We expect the data to be used for in-house things like product planning and flyer layout.
We've been told for centuries that business is the end-all-be-all and we tend to trust them until they break trust rather than requiring them to earn trust in the first place.
When the end result is a constant stream of hacks leaking consumer data, it's still willful ignorance, no matter how you want to paint it. If a company contracted to never sell user information and secured it using the best encryption, but charged $5 for their product, no one would buy it. People bitch about 99 cents these days. Willful ignorance at its finest.
With regards to hacking and consequence, it's the it'll-never-happen-to-me syndrome. That same ignorance leads to humans ignoring medical signs that lead to cancer being detected in the too-late stage, over and over again.
Bottom line is if consumers actually gave a shit, they wouldn't be handing over their most sensitive information. Convenience trumps privacy. Every time.
...And the hospitals -- who needs one everyone's partner or friend or neighbor is a fully trained doctor? But of course that's not the way the real world works and we really shouldn't expect everyone to have specialized knowledge online either.
Actually, it's ironic that the real world still requires 8 years of highly specialized schooling and a doctorate degree in order to for someone to be legally authorized to do work on a human body, and yet we recommend 30 days worth of training and a certification to work on a computer holding your most sensitive information. Funny how that shit works, isn't it. Again, mass ignorance at its finest.
People keep using the same shitty passwords for the same reason they believe their job is safe.
It's the It'll-never-happen-to-me syndrome.
Mass ignorance is alive and well.
Good argument. But wall street isn't the only player. And some (say Bill Gates) have made their money and have no problem funding cures.
When it comes to Bill Gates or any other human on this planet, I only have one thing to say regarding cures, and the ability to disrupt the Cancer Treatment Complex.
Fucking Prove It.
I was just commenting on the premise that greed == always bad == corporations. Greed can also exist in individual scientists and bureaucrats and can be against the best interest of the corporation (or the funders of the project). Cancer cures are a good thing. Cancer cures requires work and investment capital. Scientists need to be paid (along with everyone else including HR and people mopping the floors) Investment capital needs to be repaid with dividends. All the above are good good things.
Common F. Sense agrees that all of the above are good things
The problem is Greed N. Corruption isn't really interested in curing jack shit anymore, and will always favor perpetual treatments to feed profits.
Treatments create unending profits.
Treatments create unending jobs.
Cures ultimately destroy jobs and severely limit perpetual revenue and profits, which does not pay the dividends that Wall Street now demands.
Those running counter to the best interests of those in Control will ultimately be removed from the equation.