Congratulations Google, you just made my interest level in your OS go from "very interested" to "couldn't pay me to use it". No way in hell am I leaving all of my data on Google's servers.
So basically, you're pissed that the guy doesn't trust our oh so wonderful rulers. Gotcha, all I needed to know. If you'd had a reason other than that, your argument wouldn't keep going back to "I disagree with him, therefore he must be trolling".
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree. I think the real issue is the person at the newspaper who tracked him down and caused trouble because someone said a word he didn't like. Was the poster a loser? Sure, but if you're running a website open to the public for comments, you're going to get stupid things posted from time to time. Acting like a child and tracking them down and throwing a hissy fit won't stop people from posting stupid shit, it just makes you look bad as well for not being able to simply ignore the trolls.
So let's say this guy thought the submitted was serious and though he was being funny - that's still not trolling, or do we have a new rule here where anyone who doesn't get a joke gets modded down?
Except that the line in the summary could be taken either way. We don't know the person who wrote the summary - they could be being sarcastic or they could be dumb enough to actually think that the government would only use it for legal purposes.
Question: How does this get modded troll? Slashdot is known for it's blatant distrust of government surveillance, so how does pointing out that there's no reason to believe the government's claims that they won't use this for cracking anything but legally seized computers amount to trolling?
In my humble opinion, the money wasted on video cameras would be better spent on health & education for the poor, incentivizing smart people to become police officers by paying them more, and vocational rehabilitation of offenders.
Or the money could be given to decent people who can't afford to move to a better city.
Meow boy, what is so funny? Do I look like q cat to you? Do you see me jumping around all nimbley bimbley? Am I drinking milk from a saucer? Stop laughing meow!
Well to be fair, the people talking about suicide might be terrified of Obama getting re-elected in 2012 - not the same "end of the world" as what's in the movie.
I'd love to see info for those numbers. Seriously. I don't know of a single person outside of teaching who has a masters and makes under $60k a year (and that was with very little experience) or anyone outside of teaching who has more than a few years experience and makes under $45k a year with a bachelor's -- and I live in a city that has a significantly lower than average cost of living.
I'm sorry, but teachers are not underpaid.
Then become a teacher. If you think that they're adequately compensated for all the bullshit they put up with plus 12-15 hour work days, then do it. Weren't you one of the ones claiming that "they get 4 months of vacation"? Except you won't, because you know that it's not even close to being worth it, but for whatever reason you want to demean them and insist that they deserve to be paid shit for dealing with things that would cause most people to either 1) quit their job or 2) commit suicide.
Did you miss the part where the average salary with a bachelors degree is $45000?
Average starting salary? Sure. However, average teachers salary starting out is in the $30-35k range. Also, teachers are required to get a masters degree. The average pay for a masters degree (regardless of experience) is well over $51,000.
Teacher's are well paid, as they should be.
You obviously don't know any teachers or you'd know the insane number of hours they put in every weeknight after school. They aren't paid enough for that alone. Add all the bullshit they have to put up with from dipshit kids and asshole parents on top of it and they're extremely underpaid. No one on here would put up with the shit they do for that little pay - that's why the turnover rate for teachers is so high. Many do it for a couple of years and say "Fuck this, I don't need this shit" and change careers.
Teaching is a service - teachers are paid to provide a service. The creating of lesson plans is NOT part of the service. Does it allow one to perform said service? Yes, but it is separate.
If you write software for a living, you can't go home and sell your days coding, it belongs to your employer.
Totally different. This would be akin to you being hired to write program X for a company. In order to do X, you MUST have code Y, which they won't provide you with and will not pay you to write. You must write code Y on your own time and at your own expense. This means that the company owns X, but you still own Y.
It's not compulsory, it's an exchange where you get money to buy shiny things and your employer get whatever they pay you for.
So you're one of those people that thinks that because you take a job, they own you and everything you do 24/7/365. That's not how it works - they get you for the contracted hours and anything outside of that is your time. The fact that most teachers go in an hour before school starts and then end up working until 9pm or so after they get home doesn't mean that "they get paid for it". No, they don't. They do work without getting paid so that they can do a better job / keep up with what's required. If you actually knew any teachers, you're realize how idiotic your point is. I know many teachers, both friends and family, and I've seen the insane amount of hours that they put in coupled with putting up with your stupid brats all day.
That is, your friend should wait a few months or pay $10-$15 more.
Yea, except he's not going to pay that (and it's not "a few months" - more like "a few years" at best for a movie to drop to $10). So it's either he downloads it or he just doesn't buy it. Either way, he's not paying the MPAA's excessive fees. So what motivation is there for him to not download it? The MPAA makes the same profit either way ($0), it's costs are the same either way ($0), so the only variable is if he sees the movie / tv series or not.
It's a flawed argument that speaks as to your motiviation.
Flawed argument that people dislike excessive profit margins? Really? It's called "an oligopoly" and people always despise them, it's just that the government refuses to do anything about it because said oligopoly pays politicians too much.
No, I buy them on sale, but I'm a collector. Don't assume.
Just because I know many people who do pirate for that very reason (that they're too expensive) doesn't mean I do. But hey, you can just go ahead and look like a jackass without having a clue about my spending habits!
What people want is reasonable prices. When companies make insane profits (not saying that they don't have a right to, cuz they do), they're obviously charging way more than is necessary - pirating is people's way of saying "I like what you're producing, but you're charging too much - cut the cost and I'll buy it". I guarantee that if the average new movie price was $10 instead of $25, they'd sell a LOT more dvd's and there'd be a lot less pirating going on. Same with seasons of tv shows - since the cost of producing the show is covered by advertising, everything they make beyond the $4-$5 it costs to make the dvd/packaging is pure profit. If seasons of tv shows dropped to $25 from $55, you'd sell a hell of a lot more and there'd be less pirating too.
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. What you describe is exactly the opposite: a coercive, authoritarian market.
If you have protectionist tariffs then your market is neither free nor libertarian. If these tariffs were in fact "critical economically" then free, libertarian markets would be a contradiction. Fortunately, they're not.
Oh, I agree with you completely, tariffs ALONE would result in a coercive authoritarian market.
But we already have a coercive authoritarian market because of a seemingly infinite collection of government social engineering regulations.
At least some of the time, one simple tariff can cancel out the distorting effects of hundreds of govt social engineering regulations, leaving an almost free market. Thats why they are critical economically, not subtracting out the cost of regulations via tariffs is like not subtracting expenses from incomes to get profit, or something truly basic like that.
Example, using political prisoners is free for the Chinese, giving them a $10 unfair advantage over free Americans. No free market can exist. Adding a $10 tariff results in something almost like a free market.
Tariffs and government regulation must be balanced, they algebraically cancel each other, like yin and yang or whatever.
Example, using political prisoners is free for the Chinese, giving them a $10 unfair advantage over free Americans. No free market can exist. Adding a $10 tariff results in something almost like a free market.
No...just...no....
Here's how tarrifs work - country A decides that they're mad at country B for whatever reason (being better at producing a good, cheaper labor, pollution, whatever) and institutes a tariff on any number of goods made by country B. Country B then says "Oh yea? Screw you!" and institutes tariffs against country A. Prices on goods made in country B rise in country A and vice versa. Both countries also experience lower exports due to the tariffs and businesses then need fewer workers so workers are cut / hours are cut. The end result? Citizens of both countries A and B lose while the asshats in the government of each country thinks that they are helping their country.
I can't see why ability to pay/earn should make you more or less worthy or deserving of treatment.
Can you understand why the ability to pay should make you more or less worthy of buying a home? Or a car? Or an expensive computer? Probably not. That inability of yours? It's called "greed" - you think that others should be forced to pay for you instead of your paying your own way.
Yea, great idea! In fact, we shouldn't "ration" anything based on ability to pay! Cars are now free! All clothing, books, movies, housing, everything is free!
If you want something in life, you have to earn it. Just because you're greedy and think that everyone else exists to provide for you, doesn't make it right.
Oh, before you bitch that I'm some "rich" person, I've made about $20,000 this year (before taxes) and have to pay for my own insurance because I don't get it through my job. However, I realize the difference between right and wrong and realize that stealing (yes, having the government steal for you is still stealing) is wrong and that you have to work for what you want. Being alive doesn't make you special. Quit thinking that you're so amazing that if you don't bother to pay for health care and die that the world will be a worse place. It won't (and that goes for everyone, including me).
That study you quote (31st) is a lie. I don't remember the details of the article (I threw it out a week or two ago), but it mentioned how the study took the actual quality of care and then factored in the amount spent and then some other non-health related things. The bottom line is that the number was intentionally skewed to make the US look bad when the actual number when they took out the non-relavent variables put the US somewhere like #12.
If you want to look it up (I know you won't because it contradicts your point that we need the government ruling every aspect of our lives), it was in the WSJ a week or two ago.
I have a friend who's visually impaired (I'd say blind, but he's not TOTALLY blind, he's only about 90-95% blind). He can see if he's right on top of the computer / tv screen. He plays some games and he's actually not too bad (though watching him do racing games is a riot once you start getting really fast cars and he can't see the sharp turn coming up). He fully realizes that due to his vision, he can't play some games - and he's not stupid enough to try to sue game companies for that. He realizes that games are a luxury and that by their definition are inherently visual. This kid who's suing needs a good ass kicking, preferably by other blind people who aren't total assholes like him. This kid just wants easy money and is making all other blind people look bad.
There are some things (like Windows....well, pretty much only Windows) that I pirate and would pay for (well, at least for Windows 7) but they charge such an absurd price for it that they won't get my money regardless of if I pirate it or not. If people are pirating your product in large quantities, it's a huge flag that says "you're chargint too much!" - that's why MS has dropped the price of Windows to about $50 in China - because so many people pirated it. If you could buy a full version of Windows 7 for $100, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Instead, for $150 or so, you get a feature-deprived UPGRADE copy. If you want a real copy of the OS, it'll run you $300-400.
The other things I pirate are because I want to try it before I pay money. If it's good, I'll buy it (I own several hundred dvd's I've bought). If it's not good, I won't buy it. Now, some might try to claimt that I'd have bought the not so good ones anyways - wrong. If I don't know that something is good, I won't buy it. That means not only would they still not have recieved money for the crappy movies, but they wouldn't have recieved the money I paid for the good ones because I'd never have tried them and saw that they were good. Every other product you can try before you buy it, movies / tv shows shouldn't be any different.
If you bothered to read what I write, you'd notice that I said they should make it say 3 hours before they start throttling you and then that they should do it slowly (say 95% to start). Also, you're confusing "using the Internet" with "downloading files". You can browse sites all day and never come close to tripping their limit.
Virtually no one uses their Internet non-stop for a month and, unless you're doing torrents, you'll rarely be using it full speed for more than 15 - 20 minutes in a row, broken up into chunks. Web browsing only takes a couple seconds to download, IM uses jack shit, and most non-torrent downloads take less than 15 minutes (unless you have a really low speed account).
It's like with cable - you pay for a month but virtually no one has the tv turned on 24/7 - you watch a few shows a day / week and that's it.
Slashdot Mirror
all data will be stored in the cloud
Congratulations Google, you just made my interest level in your OS go from "very interested" to "couldn't pay me to use it". No way in hell am I leaving all of my data on Google's servers.
So basically, you're pissed that the guy doesn't trust our oh so wonderful rulers. Gotcha, all I needed to know. If you'd had a reason other than that, your argument wouldn't keep going back to "I disagree with him, therefore he must be trolling".
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree. I think the real issue is the person at the newspaper who tracked him down and caused trouble because someone said a word he didn't like. Was the poster a loser? Sure, but if you're running a website open to the public for comments, you're going to get stupid things posted from time to time. Acting like a child and tracking them down and throwing a hissy fit won't stop people from posting stupid shit, it just makes you look bad as well for not being able to simply ignore the trolls.
So let's say this guy thought the submitted was serious and though he was being funny - that's still not trolling, or do we have a new rule here where anyone who doesn't get a joke gets modded down?
Except that the line in the summary could be taken either way. We don't know the person who wrote the summary - they could be being sarcastic or they could be dumb enough to actually think that the government would only use it for legal purposes.
Question: How does this get modded troll? Slashdot is known for it's blatant distrust of government surveillance, so how does pointing out that there's no reason to believe the government's claims that they won't use this for cracking anything but legally seized computers amount to trolling?
In my humble opinion, the money wasted on video cameras would be better spent on health & education for the poor, incentivizing smart people to become police officers by paying them more, and vocational rehabilitation of offenders.
Or the money could be given to decent people who can't afford to move to a better city.
Meow boy, what is so funny? Do I look like q cat to you? Do you see me jumping around all nimbley bimbley? Am I drinking milk from a saucer? Stop laughing meow!
Well to be fair, the people talking about suicide might be terrified of Obama getting re-elected in 2012 - not the same "end of the world" as what's in the movie.
I'd love to see info for those numbers. Seriously. I don't know of a single person outside of teaching who has a masters and makes under $60k a year (and that was with very little experience) or anyone outside of teaching who has more than a few years experience and makes under $45k a year with a bachelor's -- and I live in a city that has a significantly lower than average cost of living.
I'm sorry, but teachers are not underpaid.
Then become a teacher. If you think that they're adequately compensated for all the bullshit they put up with plus 12-15 hour work days, then do it. Weren't you one of the ones claiming that "they get 4 months of vacation"? Except you won't, because you know that it's not even close to being worth it, but for whatever reason you want to demean them and insist that they deserve to be paid shit for dealing with things that would cause most people to either 1) quit their job or 2) commit suicide.
Did you miss the part where the average salary with a bachelors degree is $45000?
Average starting salary? Sure. However, average teachers salary starting out is in the $30-35k range. Also, teachers are required to get a masters degree. The average pay for a masters degree (regardless of experience) is well over $51,000.
Teacher's are well paid, as they should be.
You obviously don't know any teachers or you'd know the insane number of hours they put in every weeknight after school. They aren't paid enough for that alone. Add all the bullshit they have to put up with from dipshit kids and asshole parents on top of it and they're extremely underpaid. No one on here would put up with the shit they do for that little pay - that's why the turnover rate for teachers is so high. Many do it for a couple of years and say "Fuck this, I don't need this shit" and change careers.
Teaching is a service - teachers are paid to provide a service. The creating of lesson plans is NOT part of the service. Does it allow one to perform said service? Yes, but it is separate.
If you write software for a living, you can't go home and sell your days coding, it belongs to your employer.
Totally different. This would be akin to you being hired to write program X for a company. In order to do X, you MUST have code Y, which they won't provide you with and will not pay you to write. You must write code Y on your own time and at your own expense. This means that the company owns X, but you still own Y.
It's not compulsory, it's an exchange where you get money to buy shiny things and your employer get whatever they pay you for.
So you're one of those people that thinks that because you take a job, they own you and everything you do 24/7/365. That's not how it works - they get you for the contracted hours and anything outside of that is your time. The fact that most teachers go in an hour before school starts and then end up working until 9pm or so after they get home doesn't mean that "they get paid for it". No, they don't. They do work without getting paid so that they can do a better job / keep up with what's required. If you actually knew any teachers, you're realize how idiotic your point is. I know many teachers, both friends and family, and I've seen the insane amount of hours that they put in coupled with putting up with your stupid brats all day.
You can't spell unethical without UN.
That is, your friend should wait a few months or pay $10-$15 more.
Yea, except he's not going to pay that (and it's not "a few months" - more like "a few years" at best for a movie to drop to $10). So it's either he downloads it or he just doesn't buy it. Either way, he's not paying the MPAA's excessive fees. So what motivation is there for him to not download it? The MPAA makes the same profit either way ($0), it's costs are the same either way ($0), so the only variable is if he sees the movie / tv series or not.
It's a flawed argument that speaks as to your motiviation.
Flawed argument that people dislike excessive profit margins? Really? It's called "an oligopoly" and people always despise them, it's just that the government refuses to do anything about it because said oligopoly pays politicians too much.
That's why with AT&T the ETF is $180 or so and every month you complete, they take $5 off.
No, I buy them on sale, but I'm a collector. Don't assume.
Just because I know many people who do pirate for that very reason (that they're too expensive) doesn't mean I do. But hey, you can just go ahead and look like a jackass without having a clue about my spending habits!
What people want is reasonable prices. When companies make insane profits (not saying that they don't have a right to, cuz they do), they're obviously charging way more than is necessary - pirating is people's way of saying "I like what you're producing, but you're charging too much - cut the cost and I'll buy it". I guarantee that if the average new movie price was $10 instead of $25, they'd sell a LOT more dvd's and there'd be a lot less pirating going on. Same with seasons of tv shows - since the cost of producing the show is covered by advertising, everything they make beyond the $4-$5 it costs to make the dvd/packaging is pure profit. If seasons of tv shows dropped to $25 from $55, you'd sell a hell of a lot more and there'd be less pirating too.
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. What you describe is exactly the opposite: a coercive, authoritarian market.
If you have protectionist tariffs then your market is neither free nor libertarian. If these tariffs were in fact "critical economically" then free, libertarian markets would be a contradiction. Fortunately, they're not.
Oh, I agree with you completely, tariffs ALONE would result in a coercive authoritarian market.
But we already have a coercive authoritarian market because of a seemingly infinite collection of government social engineering regulations.
At least some of the time, one simple tariff can cancel out the distorting effects of hundreds of govt social engineering regulations, leaving an almost free market. Thats why they are critical economically, not subtracting out the cost of regulations via tariffs is like not subtracting expenses from incomes to get profit, or something truly basic like that.
Example, using political prisoners is free for the Chinese, giving them a $10 unfair advantage over free Americans. No free market can exist. Adding a $10 tariff results in something almost like a free market.
Tariffs and government regulation must be balanced, they algebraically cancel each other, like yin and yang or whatever.
Example, using political prisoners is free for the Chinese, giving them a $10 unfair advantage over free Americans. No free market can exist. Adding a $10 tariff results in something almost like a free market.
No...just...no....
Here's how tarrifs work - country A decides that they're mad at country B for whatever reason (being better at producing a good, cheaper labor, pollution, whatever) and institutes a tariff on any number of goods made by country B. Country B then says "Oh yea? Screw you!" and institutes tariffs against country A. Prices on goods made in country B rise in country A and vice versa. Both countries also experience lower exports due to the tariffs and businesses then need fewer workers so workers are cut / hours are cut. The end result? Citizens of both countries A and B lose while the asshats in the government of each country thinks that they are helping their country.
I can't see why ability to pay/earn should make you more or less worthy or deserving of treatment.
Can you understand why the ability to pay should make you more or less worthy of buying a home? Or a car? Or an expensive computer? Probably not. That inability of yours? It's called "greed" - you think that others should be forced to pay for you instead of your paying your own way.
Yea, great idea! In fact, we shouldn't "ration" anything based on ability to pay! Cars are now free! All clothing, books, movies, housing, everything is free!
If you want something in life, you have to earn it. Just because you're greedy and think that everyone else exists to provide for you, doesn't make it right.
Oh, before you bitch that I'm some "rich" person, I've made about $20,000 this year (before taxes) and have to pay for my own insurance because I don't get it through my job. However, I realize the difference between right and wrong and realize that stealing (yes, having the government steal for you is still stealing) is wrong and that you have to work for what you want. Being alive doesn't make you special. Quit thinking that you're so amazing that if you don't bother to pay for health care and die that the world will be a worse place. It won't (and that goes for everyone, including me).
That study you quote (31st) is a lie. I don't remember the details of the article (I threw it out a week or two ago), but it mentioned how the study took the actual quality of care and then factored in the amount spent and then some other non-health related things. The bottom line is that the number was intentionally skewed to make the US look bad when the actual number when they took out the non-relavent variables put the US somewhere like #12.
If you want to look it up (I know you won't because it contradicts your point that we need the government ruling every aspect of our lives), it was in the WSJ a week or two ago.
I have a friend who's visually impaired (I'd say blind, but he's not TOTALLY blind, he's only about 90-95% blind). He can see if he's right on top of the computer / tv screen. He plays some games and he's actually not too bad (though watching him do racing games is a riot once you start getting really fast cars and he can't see the sharp turn coming up). He fully realizes that due to his vision, he can't play some games - and he's not stupid enough to try to sue game companies for that. He realizes that games are a luxury and that by their definition are inherently visual. This kid who's suing needs a good ass kicking, preferably by other blind people who aren't total assholes like him. This kid just wants easy money and is making all other blind people look bad.
There are some things (like Windows....well, pretty much only Windows) that I pirate and would pay for (well, at least for Windows 7) but they charge such an absurd price for it that they won't get my money regardless of if I pirate it or not. If people are pirating your product in large quantities, it's a huge flag that says "you're chargint too much!" - that's why MS has dropped the price of Windows to about $50 in China - because so many people pirated it. If you could buy a full version of Windows 7 for $100, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Instead, for $150 or so, you get a feature-deprived UPGRADE copy. If you want a real copy of the OS, it'll run you $300-400.
The other things I pirate are because I want to try it before I pay money. If it's good, I'll buy it (I own several hundred dvd's I've bought). If it's not good, I won't buy it. Now, some might try to claimt that I'd have bought the not so good ones anyways - wrong. If I don't know that something is good, I won't buy it. That means not only would they still not have recieved money for the crappy movies, but they wouldn't have recieved the money I paid for the good ones because I'd never have tried them and saw that they were good. Every other product you can try before you buy it, movies / tv shows shouldn't be any different.
If you bothered to read what I write, you'd notice that I said they should make it say 3 hours before they start throttling you and then that they should do it slowly (say 95% to start). Also, you're confusing "using the Internet" with "downloading files". You can browse sites all day and never come close to tripping their limit.
Virtually no one uses their Internet non-stop for a month and, unless you're doing torrents, you'll rarely be using it full speed for more than 15 - 20 minutes in a row, broken up into chunks. Web browsing only takes a couple seconds to download, IM uses jack shit, and most non-torrent downloads take less than 15 minutes (unless you have a really low speed account).
It's like with cable - you pay for a month but virtually no one has the tv turned on 24/7 - you watch a few shows a day / week and that's it.