Since price to run over 5 years makes TCO about the same as a $35k sedan, it doesn't seem so bad to me. If you spend a bit of time in the car, and don't mind a longer term (3-5 year) loan, 70% of annual salary isn't atrocious to spend on a car. That makes this a toy for the middle class, not the rich. That's still less than half of the population, but these things have a way of working their way down, just like cellphones and home theater systems. Most of the stuff that comes standard on KIAs now started out as expensive options on high end luxury cars, and became cheaper over time.
The target market here is probably meant to include the market segment that buys SUVs, thus the high seating capacity and extensive trunk space. Pricing it in that range makes some sense.
Why wouldn't they? If the government is handing out free money, they would be stupid *not* to ask for some. Sure they could fund this other ways too, but they're going to take what they can get, because that's how you do business.
No incentive for bothering to amend the law so that people who you acknowledge as inappropriately imprisoned (not illegally, just inappropriately) can be exonerated? If people incorrectly punished by a legal system designed to protect the innocent wherever possible isn't an incentive than what is?
It's not "Protect child predators". It's "Protect teachers when kinds find out that texting a teacher naughty pictures and then reporting them to the police is a way to get revenge for that bad grade". It's "Protect parents when their beach vacation photo is deemed provocative". These protections aren't for the benefit of the guilty, because the law isn't about the guilty. These protections are for the innocent, and lawmakers need to remember that anyone who hasn't been convicted is, by default, innocent. How many innocent lives are you willing to ruin in the pursuit of your goals? This is the question that separates "evil" from "not evil".
I don't understand. How do suggest this will get changed if these kids don't step up and fight the battle? This isn't a battle that a teenager can let some adult fight, that would just be reinforcing the implicit point that teens are subhuman and can't take care of themselves.
I've always been a little vague on this whole "tried as an adult" idea. Why don't just move the various ages of consent (Drinking, driving, smoking, voting, all of the damn things) to the minimum age for an adult trial. I mean, the whole logic of having those ages is that children are irresponsible idiots, right? Has anyone gone a week without running into an irresponsible and idiotic decision made by an adult?
I for one am sick of assuming that everyone else is stupid, dangerous, and irresponsible. I think we should assume and expect that anyone over the age of twelve and not otherwise impaired is adequately aware of the nature of actions and consequences to function as a human being and generally cope with whatever they have to cope with. I'm sure some people out there will disappoint, but it seems to me that people are much more likely to actually act like adults if they find it consistently expected of them.
A certain subsegment, however, can get sexual gratification... There are people who can get sexual gratification from a potted plant. That's not the point. <br>
I wonder if it would be possible to integrate several of those links into a well constructed essay, and send it along to the offices of every elected representative in the country. Just make sure they get wrapped in something obfuscating, and see what happens. I mean, if clicking a link is grounds for arrest, there suddenly becomes a high-stakes version of the goatse game.
My Touch Pro has been extremely stable, even the third party apps are remarkably stable. The touch interface is good, and it has an amazing keyboard with tactile feedback, so that I can use it without looking at what I'm typing. Really, the only downside is that the physical screen could be larger, but at least it has an acceptable resolution. Oh, and the browser supports flash and java.
By your logic, it is *your* responsibility to design an alternative to every system in use anywhere in society that you dislike, before complaining about it. Nobody is telling you not to buy the game. We are warning you of the potential consequences of buying the game. We are telling the developers and the publishers that *we* will not buy the game. We are not obligated to tell them why, but we are, because we desire to be happy customers, and we see a method by which they could make us happy customers easily. They are not obligated to take our advice, anymore than we are obligated to be their customers.
When we *are* their customers, they are obligated to meet the implicit terms of the business agreement, or risk lawsuits.
When we *are* their customers, we are entitled to complain however we want, about whatever aspects of their product we want. They are entitled to listen to, or ignore, our complaining.
If you believe it is the responsibility of the customer to devise an alternative to DRM, than I submit that it is equally the responsibility of the customer to devise alternatives to batteries for electric cars. No wonder the big automakers aren't building them yet, their customers haven't sent them working designs.<br> If you can't grasp this simple concept because you're obligated not to, by some industry agreement, than this is wasted. If, however, you really think that the burden is on the consumer to come up with an alternative, than why should any firm ever innovate. Just demand that their customers come up with the newer better ways? The burden of innovation is on the guy who wants to sell x. If people don't want to buy it, for whatever reason, they don't have to. If they are generous enough to explain to him why, then he should feel fortunate to be given the kind of market data other companies spend thousands or millions of dollars trying to collect.
If a company wants me to purchase a product, and doesn't want to get sued when that product doesn't work as advertised, the burden is on them. If I made commercial image editing software, and the DRM caused it to stop working, and as a result a bunch of my clients were screwed, I would be sued into the ground, and out of business in weeks or months, and everyone on/. would be calling me an idiot and saying I got what I deserved, but when a company does the same thing to private customers, people leap to defend that company "because of the pirates". It's a strawman, and I'm sick of it. The "pirates" copies of the games work. The copy that people paid for doesn't. The major drive behind DRM may be made because of the fear of piracy, and sold to publishing executives who simply don't understand computers, but I think the drive behind DRM is primarily about fighting the used games market. <br> <br> But to return to my actual point, the people who are currently complaining have a 100% legitimate grievance, they were sold a product that does not work as advertised. Epic should be counting themselves lucky that class action suits have not already been filed. <br> <br> <quote>They've already decided by using DRM. You're complaining about the DRM so offer an alternative or don't complain.</quote> Ok, here are three:<br> Don't buy Epic games in future, sue epic for purchase price of game + legal fees + court costs + small punitive damages. Epic probably goes out of business. That's an alternative, and it's the alternative that's being implied. You may not like that alternative, it certainly isn't good for Epic, but it is the alternative that most people are prepared to offer. Remember, Epic is trying to sell people a game. It is incumbent upon them to make that game something that enough people want to buy. It is *not* incumbent upon their potential customers to come up with a way for them to do that, nor are they obligated not complain about your way when it interferes with what they want.
No, but it was put their by people who knowingly and deliberately attempt to make the "talent" work 60, 80, and even 100 hour weeks, for no extra pay, attempt to deny you your fair use rights, not to mention your right of first sale, and do everything in their power to weasel out of even admitting this too you until after you have made a purchase. At least the pirates are honest.
That are accused of fighting alongside (or, potentially, simply supporting) terrorists. If I accuse you of fighting alongside terrorists, wouldn't you like to have a trial?
So the next time you find yourself, say driving without a license, and the cop decides that you must be a furriner cause you don't have any id, and so you get arrested, and while you're sitting in the interrogation room some suit comes in and explains that they planted 500 kilos of semtex in your trunk, "found" your car, and as a result they all get more funding, while you don't get to talk to anyone before we hang you, you would be fine with that?
What if you were arrested on vacation, in, say, England, or Australia? Wouldn't you like to get a fair trial, at least by their standards? Or is it okay for them to stick you in a hole, have you extradited to a country where you are tortured, convict you in absentia, and maybe even execute you, because you aren't a citizen, and only citizens get rights?
That's because it isn't. On the other hand, you don't want it to become so progressive that there's no incentive to make more. I've always wondered why the top few brackets aren't broke out more by order of magnitude. In any event, under the US system (and ignoring deductions), it is always better to make more $.
Not if tax brackets are applied retroactively. I don't know of anywhere that this is still done, but suppose you paid 20% if you made less than 50k, and 25%(of the total) if you made more. On 50k (25/hr x40hrs x50 wks) you pay 10k, and keep 40k. On 25/hr x40.8hrs x50wks, you make 51k, of which you pay 12.75k, leaving you with less than you started with. This corrects for itself eventually, and I don't know anywhere that actually taxes like this (making this a strawman if you want to take it that way), but the tax rate doesn't have to be 100% for it to cost you more to make more.
Coverage hours probably means mandatory shifts and pre-defined lunch hours. It's a necessary side effect of needing something to be always monitored from, say, 7AM to 8PM. Our office does 9 hour days, five days a week, with a fixed half hour for lunch, because, well, working from home cuts our productivity substantially (not so much that we don't do it in the event of weather issues, or what have you, but enough that we don't do it just for the hell of it) and we each have a different shift, scheduled so that they overlap during the period where call/email volume is highest, and only a couple people are on early and late, when volume is low. It works out really well, but there's no flexibility, and no easy way to introduce it.
Slashdot Mirror
Since price to run over 5 years makes TCO about the same as a $35k sedan, it doesn't seem so bad to me. If you spend a bit of time in the car, and don't mind a longer term (3-5 year) loan, 70% of annual salary isn't atrocious to spend on a car. That makes this a toy for the middle class, not the rich. That's still less than half of the population, but these things have a way of working their way down, just like cellphones and home theater systems. Most of the stuff that comes standard on KIAs now started out as expensive options on high end luxury cars, and became cheaper over time.
The target market here is probably meant to include the market segment that buys SUVs, thus the high seating capacity and extensive trunk space. Pricing it in that range makes some sense.
Why wouldn't they? If the government is handing out free money, they would be stupid *not* to ask for some. Sure they could fund this other ways too, but they're going to take what they can get, because that's how you do business.
The Germans and Japanese don't seem to complain too loudly about the Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, etc. games.
No number of offended people is sufficiently high to justify censorship. Not Being Offended is not a right.
Unlike the Girl Scouts, the Police are, nominally, legally obligated *NOT* to what you describe. That is all.
there's no incentive for bothering to do so.
No incentive for bothering to amend the law so that people who you acknowledge as inappropriately imprisoned (not illegally, just inappropriately) can be exonerated? If people incorrectly punished by a legal system designed to protect the innocent wherever possible isn't an incentive than what is?
Simply make "breathing" illegal, common sense and prosecutorial discretion will ensure that we only imprison the bad breathers.
It's not "Protect child predators". It's "Protect teachers when kinds find out that texting a teacher naughty pictures and then reporting them to the police is a way to get revenge for that bad grade". It's "Protect parents when their beach vacation photo is deemed provocative". These protections aren't for the benefit of the guilty, because the law isn't about the guilty. These protections are for the innocent, and lawmakers need to remember that anyone who hasn't been convicted is, by default, innocent. How many innocent lives are you willing to ruin in the pursuit of your goals? This is the question that separates "evil" from "not evil".
I don't understand. How do suggest this will get changed if these kids don't step up and fight the battle? This isn't a battle that a teenager can let some adult fight, that would just be reinforcing the implicit point that teens are subhuman and can't take care of themselves.
I've always been a little vague on this whole "tried as an adult" idea. Why don't just move the various ages of consent (Drinking, driving, smoking, voting, all of the damn things) to the minimum age for an adult trial. I mean, the whole logic of having those ages is that children are irresponsible idiots, right? Has anyone gone a week without running into an irresponsible and idiotic decision made by an adult?
I for one am sick of assuming that everyone else is stupid, dangerous, and irresponsible. I think we should assume and expect that anyone over the age of twelve and not otherwise impaired is adequately aware of the nature of actions and consequences to function as a human being and generally cope with whatever they have to cope with. I'm sure some people out there will disappoint, but it seems to me that people are much more likely to actually act like adults if they find it consistently expected of them.
A certain subsegment, however, can get sexual gratification...
There are people who can get sexual gratification from a potted plant. That's not the point. <br>
I wonder if it would be possible to integrate several of those links into a well constructed essay, and send it along to the offices of every elected representative in the country. Just make sure they get wrapped in something obfuscating, and see what happens. I mean, if clicking a link is grounds for arrest, there suddenly becomes a high-stakes version of the goatse game.
My Touch Pro has been extremely stable, even the third party apps are remarkably stable. The touch interface is good, and it has an amazing keyboard with tactile feedback, so that I can use it without looking at what I'm typing. Really, the only downside is that the physical screen could be larger, but at least it has an acceptable resolution. Oh, and the browser supports flash and java.
I was thinking of the "Windows 95 = Mac 89" bumper stickers from around that era. iPhone 2009 = Windows Mobile 2003?
It does interest me that every feature on the list is available on my Windows Mobile phone... It's like Windows 95 in reverse.
The cameras were bought with a DHS grant, which my have to be repaid.
By your logic, it is *your* responsibility to design an alternative to every system in use anywhere in society that you dislike, before complaining about it.
Nobody is telling you not to buy the game. We are warning you of the potential consequences of buying the game. We are telling the developers and the publishers that *we* will not buy the game. We are not obligated to tell them why, but we are, because we desire to be happy customers, and we see a method by which they could make us happy customers easily. They are not obligated to take our advice, anymore than we are obligated to be their customers.
When we *are* their customers, they are obligated to meet the implicit terms of the business agreement, or risk lawsuits.
When we *are* their customers, we are entitled to complain however we want, about whatever aspects of their product we want. They are entitled to listen to, or ignore, our complaining.
If you believe it is the responsibility of the customer to devise an alternative to DRM, than I submit that it is equally the responsibility of the customer to devise alternatives to batteries for electric cars. No wonder the big automakers aren't building them yet, their customers haven't sent them working designs.<br>
If you can't grasp this simple concept because you're obligated not to, by some industry agreement, than this is wasted. If, however, you really think that the burden is on the consumer to come up with an alternative, than why should any firm ever innovate. Just demand that their customers come up with the newer better ways? The burden of innovation is on the guy who wants to sell x. If people don't want to buy it, for whatever reason, they don't have to. If they are generous enough to explain to him why, then he should feel fortunate to be given the kind of market data other companies spend thousands or millions of dollars trying to collect.
If a company wants me to purchase a product, and doesn't want to get sued when that product doesn't work as advertised, the burden is on them. If I made commercial image editing software, and the DRM caused it to stop working, and as a result a bunch of my clients were screwed, I would be sued into the ground, and out of business in weeks or months, and everyone on /. would be calling me an idiot and saying I got what I deserved, but when a company does the same thing to private customers, people leap to defend that company "because of the pirates". It's a strawman, and I'm sick of it. The "pirates" copies of the games work. The copy that people paid for doesn't. The major drive behind DRM may be made because of the fear of piracy, and sold to publishing executives who simply don't understand computers, but I think the drive behind DRM is primarily about fighting the used games market. <br>
<br>
But to return to my actual point, the people who are currently complaining have a 100% legitimate grievance, they were sold a product that does not work as advertised. Epic should be counting themselves lucky that class action suits have not already been filed. <br>
<br>
<quote>They've already decided by using DRM. You're complaining about the DRM so offer an alternative or don't complain.</quote>
Ok, here are three:<br>
Don't buy Epic games in future, sue epic for purchase price of game + legal fees + court costs + small punitive damages. Epic probably goes out of business. That's an alternative, and it's the alternative that's being implied. You may not like that alternative, it certainly isn't good for Epic, but it is the alternative that most people are prepared to offer. Remember, Epic is trying to sell people a game. It is incumbent upon them to make that game something that enough people want to buy. It is *not* incumbent upon their potential customers to come up with a way for them to do that, nor are they obligated not complain about your way when it interferes with what they want.
No, but it was put their by people who knowingly and deliberately attempt to make the "talent" work 60, 80, and even 100 hour weeks, for no extra pay, attempt to deny you your fair use rights, not to mention your right of first sale, and do everything in their power to weasel out of even admitting this too you until after you have made a purchase. At least the pirates are honest.
While companies like EA and Sony work very hard to overcome the trust issues of "Legitimate" software.
</rimshot>
That are accused of fighting alongside (or, potentially, simply supporting) terrorists. If I accuse you of fighting alongside terrorists, wouldn't you like to have a trial?
So the next time you find yourself, say driving without a license, and the cop decides that you must be a furriner cause you don't have any id, and so you get arrested, and while you're sitting in the interrogation room some suit comes in and explains that they planted 500 kilos of semtex in your trunk, "found" your car, and as a result they all get more funding, while you don't get to talk to anyone before we hang you, you would be fine with that?
What if you were arrested on vacation, in, say, England, or Australia? Wouldn't you like to get a fair trial, at least by their standards? Or is it okay for them to stick you in a hole, have you extradited to a country where you are tortured, convict you in absentia, and maybe even execute you, because you aren't a citizen, and only citizens get rights?
That's because it isn't. On the other hand, you don't want it to become so progressive that there's no incentive to make more. I've always wondered why the top few brackets aren't broke out more by order of magnitude. In any event, under the US system (and ignoring deductions), it is always better to make more $.
Not if tax brackets are applied retroactively. I don't know of anywhere that this is still done, but suppose you paid 20% if you made less than 50k, and 25%(of the total) if you made more. On 50k (25/hr x40hrs x50 wks) you pay 10k, and keep 40k. On 25/hr x40.8hrs x50wks, you make 51k, of which you pay 12.75k, leaving you with less than you started with. This corrects for itself eventually, and I don't know anywhere that actually taxes like this (making this a strawman if you want to take it that way), but the tax rate doesn't have to be 100% for it to cost you more to make more.
Coverage hours probably means mandatory shifts and pre-defined lunch hours. It's a necessary side effect of needing something to be always monitored from, say, 7AM to 8PM. Our office does 9 hour days, five days a week, with a fixed half hour for lunch, because, well, working from home cuts our productivity substantially (not so much that we don't do it in the event of weather issues, or what have you, but enough that we don't do it just for the hell of it) and we each have a different shift, scheduled so that they overlap during the period where call/email volume is highest, and only a couple people are on early and late, when volume is low. It works out really well, but there's no flexibility, and no easy way to introduce it.