Thank you Mr. Anonymous, but that wasn't meant to be a "I support the troops no matter what statement" but a "these people are doing a job that you (not *YOU* personally) do not have the balls to do, yet criticize them for doing it" statement. That is to say, I'm not saying fighting in Iraq is saving your or anyone's family from anything, but is a consequence of joining the military. You could join and find yourself defending against an invading enemy or end up being the invading enemy. One never knows. I don't subscribe to that "My country, right or wrong" nonsense.
"My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober." -- GK Chesterton
I'm in NYC. City Hall. Worth St. My brother is in the Army, in Iraq right now doing a job that he doesn't even want to be doing, but he does it. It takes a *real* man to do a dirty job that no one else wants to do, including the person doing it. Just because those men and weoman are over there doing what they do doesn't mean they agree with it. Your comments clearly show that you have *no* clue about the average Soldier's, Marine's, Airman's or Sailor's outlook on life. While it may be true that some of them are of the "KILL KILL KILL" ilk, the vast majority just want it to be over so they can come home to their family. So, until you risk your life on a daily basis for people like yourself, who spit on those that step in front of a bullet aimed at you, shut your fucking mouth. Your ignorance is embarrassing us.
Optimum cable, in Brooklyn, charges $0 for their HD channels. They even send a tech to your house with the HD digital box for free. Their internet is as fast as FiOS, too.
It isn't always money. AT&T may give away a few hundred phones to the likes of Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt in exchange for a non-financial profit from these parties.
Wouldn't the profit they get from that sort of transaction be people saying "OH! Paris has that phone, so *I* have to have that phone!" So the sheeple run out and get it, thus making the carrier MORE money? I fail to see how that is non-financial profit.
Exactly, but could Gucci really claim that they lost sales because someone is selling a knock off for $35? I mean, that's a HUGE price gap, and I doubt the person paying the lower price could ever afford to drop that much on the bag, and as you said, the people that can afford it will buy it. I don't see how they can claim it's hurting their business model when the people that are buying the knock offs are probably NEVER going to buy, anyway.
That's not entirely true. The people that host the trackers can be said to be making a profit by advertising on their sites. Even if the majority of the $ goes to paying the hosting fees, a profit of $1 is a profit. Now, if they donated any and all $ they made to organizations that promote and fight causes such as there are against the RIAA et al....
100% agreed. As an aside, the same girl that spends thousands for those bags has trouble paying to have her car repaired when it breaks down. It boggles the mind.
I agree with your first point. My girlfriend has a friend that buys the legit bags for those obscene amounts of money.
The second point is a little bit more tricky, though. Yes, more than anything you're paying for a name when you spend that 3k on the bag, but the manufacturer spent time and money building up that name. I guess you could say the value IS the name, even if it's just for social status. Not that I think any kind of bag should cost that much money, but that's people for you. Stupid humans.
I think it depends on what you're buying. In Chinatown, here in NYC, you can buy a purse for $35 that looks EXACTLY like a $3000 gucci or whatever. Which would you want to pay? It's all down to the money. If thousands of people decide to buy the $35 knock-off the legit companies are out quite a lot of money. Same holds true for the RIAA.
I buy the music of the artists I like. Thankfully, they all sell their own music via the net. I do "obtain" my classical selections, but those dudes have been dead for a while now, and won't be seeing a penny. I don't see the point in giving my money to someone that didn't have jack to do with creating that art.
It still comes down to god's creations being evil. I'm an atheist, but I dated a southern babtist a long time ago and went to church with her one Sunday. The preacher's sermon was about the doctrine of predestination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvi nism), and it upset pretty much everyone at the service. This is in a small, rural Georgia town. A couple weeks later she told me that they'd run that preacher out of found another for their church. I always liked to imagine that that sermon planted some seeds of doubt in some minds. Then, I wonder, how many people wiped that sermon from their memory in much the same way a victim of child abuse forgets the abuse to stay sane?
Have you ever been to NYC? Seen pictures? I work in an office on the 10th floor near City Hall. Across the street are some high class condos. If they leave their blinds open you can see directly inside their ENTIRE unit. About 5k people work in this building, and I'm sure even more work in the Federal Building, which is directly across the street from the condo on the opposing side. Now, how can you expect these people to expect a little privacy when, if they leave their blinds open, they can be seen by around 10k people at any given time during the day? Should we not be allowed to look out the window? I can't see anything BUT that condo when I look out my window, so what do you suggest I do? I think the situation for 'expected privacy' changes in situations like you find in NYC, LA, etc. You can't expect to leave your blinds/curtains/mirrored windows open and expect total, or even partial, privacy when there are so many people around that have every right to walk down the street and look around or look out their own windows. In that case, it's down to the person wanting the privacy to make sure they have it. I'm not one to complain, though, since the woman on the 9th floor across the way likes to do a little topless sunbathing out on her balcony.:)
Maybe, in some cases, the desire is generated by the addiction, but probably not in many. True, a lot of people hurt other people, steal, etc. to continue their habit. One has to ask, though, if it were as easy to get what they were after as it is to get cigarettes or alcohol (both of which are highly addictive drugs) would there be as much crime from drug use? I'm merely saying that, like alcohol, a drug can limit a person's inhibition to do a thing, but the desire to do it was already there.
Also, I believe (though, I am not entirely sure) that the Netherlands profits from its allowing the sale of drugs by taxing them. Much as the US does with tobacco and alcohol.
*Decreased resistance* is the key phrase there. Do you already of to resist shooting people? The point it that, yes the drug may take away the inhibition to do those horrible things, but the will to do it is already there. Blaming the drug is an out is all too easy to use when one does something wrong. People need to take responsibility for their actions. The Netherlands have areas of legal drug use and the country enjoys a crime / murder rate much lower than quite a lot of the civilized world.
It follows that we must also ban anything with caffeine in it, all tobacco products, most video games (especially MMOs), alcohol, pornography, etc., etc., etc.
You're also completely ignoring the problems with so many other forms of addiction that aren't illegal and fought by a "War on [noun]."
There's no limit to what a person can be addicted to and no way of stopping the personality changes that can come from said addictions. How should society handle that? How about a War on Addiction, since it seems to be working so well for the drugs. Moderation is something every responsible person should be able to come to terms with. If they can't, only then, should they have to suffer the consequences put forth by whatever law of the land may be in place to deal with whatever situation arises from their lack of responsibility.
Are you also taking into consideration that children can be very, *very* good actors? Are you sure that the "hurt" you see doesn't turn into giggles and mutterings of "I can't believe they fell for it, again!" as soon as you're out of hearing? Children can be a lot more manipulative then you'll let yourself believe, especially your own kids. This is coming from an uncle whose nephews see him as the "cool geek with all the neat toys." They confide in me. They're generally very well behaved, but know how to play the system. Perhaps your kids have just learned that a very hurt look and a heartfelt-sounding "I'm sorry!" gets them off the hook. Then again, maybe they really are that easily disciplined. There's no telling, but I know I always benefited from a good smack, and I'm no worse for it.
As an aside I was talking with a friend over the weekend, and he was telling me about his girlfriend's sister's kid yelling at his mom "I'm going to kill your husband!" This is coming from a 6 year old...the husband in question would be the kid's dad. Do you think that warrants a "I'm very disappointed in you!" and a stern look, or a smack and a good long talk? And no, this kid has NEVER been spanked or otherwise physically punished. I can say that he is VERY badly behaved, and my own opinion is he is that way precisely because he knows all he gets is a talk about how he shouldn't say or do things. How exactly is that a consequence to a bad action?
I get 15Mb/s down and 1.5Mb/s up with Optimum Online in Brooklyn (I've actually exceeded those speeds in actual use). Does that mean uncapped I would be able to achieve 5x those speeds?!
That's a damn shame because sometimes the most creative among us are also the craziest. Take Richard Dadd, for example; Killed his father, spent most of his life in asylum and created some of the most beautiful works of art. One never can tell....
Bah! In *my* day I had to connect to a certain BBS in Atlanta with a 14.4K dial-up connection if I wanted to 'obtain' software. And there was no heat in my mom's basement!
I see a lot of talk about gun ownership and all that, but what about he 'ol "Guns don't kill people, people kill people?" If he hadn't had access to gun could he have not found some other way to kill? And, even if guns were illegal, could he not have obtained one? Drugs are illegal here (USA), but I could go out and get pretty much whatever I want in that respect. Hell, I could have a lot of it delivered. (I live in NYC) At any rate, I think the situation has little to do with gun laws, but more with the fact that this was a disturbed individual. Nothing, short of monitoring this person's thoughts, would have prevented this from happening.
Speaking as someone who is in the military, and comes from a military family I feel I can answer this question reasonably well. It's because, when that camera gets put in your face, you know far before hand that it will be there and you are told what you will and will not say by your superiors. How good will it look for a soldier, sailor or marine to say "I fucking hate it here, this whole operation is futile and I want to go home." The sad truth of the matter is that we have to follow orders, and those are the orders we are given. We do the best we can, though. Being a medic, I can tell you that more often that not it is Iraqis we treat for wounds and sickness that our own troops, regardless of which side they may be on. We make sure they're fed as best we can. What you see on the news and read in the paper does not represent the vast majority of how things go down over there. If you see a man in uniform, please, thank him. He or she may not like the job he's doing. He or she might even disagree with it, but at least they have the sense of honor and the courage to get it done.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you Mr. Anonymous, but that wasn't meant to be a "I support the troops no matter what statement" but a "these people are doing a job that you (not *YOU* personally) do not have the balls to do, yet criticize them for doing it" statement. That is to say, I'm not saying fighting in Iraq is saving your or anyone's family from anything, but is a consequence of joining the military. You could join and find yourself defending against an invading enemy or end up being the invading enemy. One never knows. I don't subscribe to that "My country, right or wrong" nonsense.
"My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober." -- GK Chesterton
I'm in NYC. City Hall. Worth St. My brother is in the Army, in Iraq right now doing a job that he doesn't even want to be doing, but he does it. It takes a *real* man to do a dirty job that no one else wants to do, including the person doing it. Just because those men and weoman are over there doing what they do doesn't mean they agree with it. Your comments clearly show that you have *no* clue about the average Soldier's, Marine's, Airman's or Sailor's outlook on life. While it may be true that some of them are of the "KILL KILL KILL" ilk, the vast majority just want it to be over so they can come home to their family. So, until you risk your life on a daily basis for people like yourself, who spit on those that step in front of a bullet aimed at you, shut your fucking mouth. Your ignorance is embarrassing us.
Optimum cable, in Brooklyn, charges $0 for their HD channels. They even send a tech to your house with the HD digital box for free. Their internet is as fast as FiOS, too.
Exactly, but could Gucci really claim that they lost sales because someone is selling a knock off for $35? I mean, that's a HUGE price gap, and I doubt the person paying the lower price could ever afford to drop that much on the bag, and as you said, the people that can afford it will buy it. I don't see how they can claim it's hurting their business model when the people that are buying the knock offs are probably NEVER going to buy, anyway.
That's not entirely true. The people that host the trackers can be said to be making a profit by advertising on their sites. Even if the majority of the $ goes to paying the hosting fees, a profit of $1 is a profit. Now, if they donated any and all $ they made to organizations that promote and fight causes such as there are against the RIAA et al....
100% agreed. As an aside, the same girl that spends thousands for those bags has trouble paying to have her car repaired when it breaks down. It boggles the mind.
I agree with your first point. My girlfriend has a friend that buys the legit bags for those obscene amounts of money. The second point is a little bit more tricky, though. Yes, more than anything you're paying for a name when you spend that 3k on the bag, but the manufacturer spent time and money building up that name. I guess you could say the value IS the name, even if it's just for social status. Not that I think any kind of bag should cost that much money, but that's people for you. Stupid humans.
I think it depends on what you're buying. In Chinatown, here in NYC, you can buy a purse for $35 that looks EXACTLY like a $3000 gucci or whatever. Which would you want to pay? It's all down to the money. If thousands of people decide to buy the $35 knock-off the legit companies are out quite a lot of money. Same holds true for the RIAA.
I buy the music of the artists I like. Thankfully, they all sell their own music via the net. I do "obtain" my classical selections, but those dudes have been dead for a while now, and won't be seeing a penny. I don't see the point in giving my money to someone that didn't have jack to do with creating that art.
It still comes down to god's creations being evil. I'm an atheist, but I dated a southern babtist a long time ago and went to church with her one Sunday. The preacher's sermon was about the doctrine of predestination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvi nism), and it upset pretty much everyone at the service. This is in a small, rural Georgia town. A couple weeks later she told me that they'd run that preacher out of found another for their church. I always liked to imagine that that sermon planted some seeds of doubt in some minds. Then, I wonder, how many people wiped that sermon from their memory in much the same way a victim of child abuse forgets the abuse to stay sane?
Have you ever been to NYC? Seen pictures? I work in an office on the 10th floor near City Hall. Across the street are some high class condos. If they leave their blinds open you can see directly inside their ENTIRE unit. About 5k people work in this building, and I'm sure even more work in the Federal Building, which is directly across the street from the condo on the opposing side. Now, how can you expect these people to expect a little privacy when, if they leave their blinds open, they can be seen by around 10k people at any given time during the day? Should we not be allowed to look out the window? I can't see anything BUT that condo when I look out my window, so what do you suggest I do? I think the situation for 'expected privacy' changes in situations like you find in NYC, LA, etc. You can't expect to leave your blinds/curtains/mirrored windows open and expect total, or even partial, privacy when there are so many people around that have every right to walk down the street and look around or look out their own windows. In that case, it's down to the person wanting the privacy to make sure they have it. I'm not one to complain, though, since the woman on the 9th floor across the way likes to do a little topless sunbathing out on her balcony. :)
Maybe, in some cases, the desire is generated by the addiction, but probably not in many. True, a lot of people hurt other people, steal, etc. to continue their habit. One has to ask, though, if it were as easy to get what they were after as it is to get cigarettes or alcohol (both of which are highly addictive drugs) would there be as much crime from drug use? I'm merely saying that, like alcohol, a drug can limit a person's inhibition to do a thing, but the desire to do it was already there. Also, I believe (though, I am not entirely sure) that the Netherlands profits from its allowing the sale of drugs by taxing them. Much as the US does with tobacco and alcohol.
*Decreased resistance* is the key phrase there. Do you already of to resist shooting people? The point it that, yes the drug may take away the inhibition to do those horrible things, but the will to do it is already there. Blaming the drug is an out is all too easy to use when one does something wrong. People need to take responsibility for their actions. The Netherlands have areas of legal drug use and the country enjoys a crime / murder rate much lower than quite a lot of the civilized world.
A drug causes someone to do something about as much as a gun causes a person to shoot someone. The potential for the thing is already there.
It follows that we must also ban anything with caffeine in it, all tobacco products, most video games (especially MMOs), alcohol, pornography, etc., etc., etc.
You're also completely ignoring the problems with so many other forms of addiction that aren't illegal and fought by a "War on [noun]."
There's no limit to what a person can be addicted to and no way of stopping the personality changes that can come from said addictions. How should society handle that? How about a War on Addiction, since it seems to be working so well for the drugs. Moderation is something every responsible person should be able to come to terms with. If they can't, only then, should they have to suffer the consequences put forth by whatever law of the land may be in place to deal with whatever situation arises from their lack of responsibility.
Are you also taking into consideration that children can be very, *very* good actors? Are you sure that the "hurt" you see doesn't turn into giggles and mutterings of "I can't believe they fell for it, again!" as soon as you're out of hearing? Children can be a lot more manipulative then you'll let yourself believe, especially your own kids. This is coming from an uncle whose nephews see him as the "cool geek with all the neat toys." They confide in me. They're generally very well behaved, but know how to play the system. Perhaps your kids have just learned that a very hurt look and a heartfelt-sounding "I'm sorry!" gets them off the hook. Then again, maybe they really are that easily disciplined. There's no telling, but I know I always benefited from a good smack, and I'm no worse for it.
As an aside I was talking with a friend over the weekend, and he was telling me about his girlfriend's sister's kid yelling at his mom "I'm going to kill your husband!" This is coming from a 6 year old...the husband in question would be the kid's dad. Do you think that warrants a "I'm very disappointed in you!" and a stern look, or a smack and a good long talk? And no, this kid has NEVER been spanked or otherwise physically punished. I can say that he is VERY badly behaved, and my own opinion is he is that way precisely because he knows all he gets is a talk about how he shouldn't say or do things. How exactly is that a consequence to a bad action?
i don't have any problem connecting to my router (linksys) with FF; in windows or in linux.
no, that's the advertised speed. check their web page.
I get 15Mb/s down and 1.5Mb/s up with Optimum Online in Brooklyn (I've actually exceeded those speeds in actual use). Does that mean uncapped I would be able to achieve 5x those speeds?!
That's a damn shame because sometimes the most creative among us are also the craziest. Take Richard Dadd, for example; Killed his father, spent most of his life in asylum and created some of the most beautiful works of art. One never can tell....
So how do you determine which ones those are before they commit the crimes? Send all of those authors to therapy?
So, any author that's ever written a horror novel or thriller should be arrested?
Bah! In *my* day I had to connect to a certain BBS in Atlanta with a 14.4K dial-up connection if I wanted to 'obtain' software. And there was no heat in my mom's basement!
I see a lot of talk about gun ownership and all that, but what about he 'ol "Guns don't kill people, people kill people?" If he hadn't had access to gun could he have not found some other way to kill? And, even if guns were illegal, could he not have obtained one? Drugs are illegal here (USA), but I could go out and get pretty much whatever I want in that respect. Hell, I could have a lot of it delivered. (I live in NYC) At any rate, I think the situation has little to do with gun laws, but more with the fact that this was a disturbed individual. Nothing, short of monitoring this person's thoughts, would have prevented this from happening.
Speaking as someone who is in the military, and comes from a military family I feel I can answer this question reasonably well. It's because, when that camera gets put in your face, you know far before hand that it will be there and you are told what you will and will not say by your superiors. How good will it look for a soldier, sailor or marine to say "I fucking hate it here, this whole operation is futile and I want to go home." The sad truth of the matter is that we have to follow orders, and those are the orders we are given. We do the best we can, though. Being a medic, I can tell you that more often that not it is Iraqis we treat for wounds and sickness that our own troops, regardless of which side they may be on. We make sure they're fed as best we can. What you see on the news and read in the paper does not represent the vast majority of how things go down over there. If you see a man in uniform, please, thank him. He or she may not like the job he's doing. He or she might even disagree with it, but at least they have the sense of honor and the courage to get it done.