Are you implying that a western nation. such as the U.S. perhaps, is better off without people like me that make it a "cultural zoo?" DIAF please.
Japan has a history of disliking Koreans and the Chinese. They let everyone know in WW2. Although VERY much has changed in terms of their sentiments and superiority complex since then, I would NOT be surprised if those feelings are still lingering around in the form of odd immigration policies.
It's funny how many of my fellow right-leaning americans (yes I can tell you are one by your post) discount everything they disagree with as Left Wing. As if your opinion is a wall, and anything outside of your wall is a land populated by undesirables and kooks.
I have lived there before, though not recently. I'd attribute those prices to a naturally higher cost of living in Japan, import costs/taxes, and the fact that Japanese people love products written or spoken in English for some odd reason. Bonus points if the sample bit of English doesn't make sense.
I'm having a difficult time hating wal-mart on this issue.
On one hand we have Walmart--a company known for undercutting their competitors and forcing everyone in their supply chain to work for peanuts...On the other we have a small collection of telecom giants forcing the U.S. market to pay inflated prices because of the lack of real competition.
Sometimes walmart puts up a necessary fight. Imagine what the music industry would be charging for a Ke$ha album if it wasn't for walmart's influence. Yeah $10-15 is still overpaying, but if the music industry had their way this garbage would probably be selling for $20-25USD today.
Yes walmart has a nasty track record of unfair competitive practices. But in this instance I think walmart has correctly identified a discrepancy in market pricing, and is now using its dominant position to profit and steer the industry in a more healthy direction
The odds that you will get your stuff stolen are pretty low. Security systems are mostly a waste of money. Just get some realistic looking ADT stickers (from eBay) that will make the thieves think you have a security system. Having an actual system will get you ZERO extra security, just costs.
I'd have to disagree. Theft is VERY common. Besides, the same statement could be applied to the IT security field and slashdotters would flip out on you.
Insurance doesn't deter crime, its an after-the-fact remedy. It replaces stolen possesions but it doesn't protect you or your family from harm. those ADT stickers are a good start, as it is an economical deterrant. But acting as if a problem doesn't exist is equally dangerous as having no security at all.
You may think you will NEVER be a victim of crime in your own home... but what's the penalty if you are wrong? Personally, I think addressing that risk is worth a paycheck or two.
This is exactly what I find concerning. CEO's can take such massive risk and run a company into a wall without penalty.
A CEO's position is backed by insurance. The CEO does something bad, the company doesn't pay for it, the insurance underwriter does.
A CEO doesn't own the company (well shares in stock yeah..)so if they get sued, lose money, make a bad decision, the shareholders and employees pay for it.
If a CEO does bad enough to convince the shareholders and the board to remove him he will get fired (or resign to spend more time with family.) But the company will PAY the CEO to leave.
Owners of private companies would NEVER dream of accepting the level of risk CEO's of corporations take, because the penalty of failure would be PERSONAL financial ruin. There is no equivalent risk to a corporation.
Imagine you are in a restaurant minding your own business and enjoying a meal with your family. Your ninja alert beeps of as an enemy approaches the dinner table. An adversary (random stranger) has received the same alert...and at this point there is only one thing you both can do.
Jump up on the table. Stomp your bread roll and kick off the lobster bisque. Out from your guts you scream NINJAAAAA BATTTLLLLLLLLE!!!!
At the end one enjoys victory, the other tastes defeat. But both of you will share a chuckle.
If the internet is equivalent to the highways, can my ISP be my limo driver? Some Limo companies have log books on their trips and customers. Other limo companies value your privacy and keep your name off the books. Will I be allowed to choose the ISP...errr Limo driver that cares for me most? Lack of record keeping doesn't stop the cops from questioning the company. Seems fair right?
If I am a suspected criminal, they can monitor me all they want (as long as it doesn't turn into harrasment--queue the lawyers)...but they DO NOT require me to log my whereabouts in detail to make their job easier.
"Innocent people need to be watched by the police so that guilty people can't go free."
Really?
I read this sentence over at least a dozen times and I can't figure out a single way to rationalize the statement. I don't know whats worse, treating innocent people like suspects and criminals, or the idea of wasting precious law enforcement resources on innocent people.
The bank account scenario wasn't a very good example I know. But...If you were a corporation with as much financial power as Apple, yes, You could get a loan for next to nothing, then take that cash and put it with a bank willing to give you a higher percentage for it.
Of course, lenders do typically ask how the money is going to be used. And in Apple's instance they would be more likely to use it to buy other companies, invest in R&D, or pay off other debts incurred with higher interest rates.
Either way, it would be cheaper for companies of this size to borrow rather than spend their own money. Leveraging debt allows them to maximize profits on their current assets.
They actually do borrow money even though they have are very cash rich.
At current interest rates, borrowing is a BETTER idea than to use their own cash. The cash they have can sit in a bank account and collect interest that's higher than the interest rate at which they are borrowing. Or they could use that cash on investments that return 10-12%
Borrowing money (even when not needed) is a strategy most large companies take advantage of. Shareholders like this as well.
Is it just me, or does "Perfect Citizen" sound like the most completely sinister project name you could give? Seriously, shouldn't they try harder to disguise the intentions with a name like "Save the children security project" or "Patriotic Minutemen project"????
This is evidence that most of those who engage in piracy aren't looking for a freebie, but merely looking for a product at a fair price delivered in a format they want, to be played at a venue of their choosing. Its capitalism biting the MPAA right in its behind.
People now understand that pressing copy of a DVD could sell for $10 rather than $20-30 and still make a profit for the producer. People also know that extra digital copies can be made at virtually zero cost to the producer...yet the industry still insists on charging you $30 for that product.
People also understand that their is no longer a scarcity of these works of art. Why pay such a high price to watch a blockbuster movie when its plot line has been recycled in other films 13 times last summer?
I think *invest* is a poor choice of words here. The benefit of "investing" would be a return on that investment. If the movie is to be released for free, there will be no return on investment for someone that paid.
This sounds more like paying money in exchange for a product...except there's a chance the project won't make it to completion, and you'll be out your share of the cash. If it is completed and you watch it and fully enjoy it, you've broken even, at best. If the movie is terrible then you may perceive the value of your contribution as a waste of money...a loss.
Overall this sounds like a crafty group of entrepeneurs are trying to find "investors" that will accept all the risks of production and buy the end product, finished or unfinished. Hipsters will love it and buy it, because its released for free in an open venue. Very good sales pitch. Make the customer feel like an investor, rather than a sucker.
Or maybe its because there's no reward/benefit for a criminal to be licesned in the first place... Why license when its easier (and cheaper) to buy a gun off the street and commit crimes anonymously?
Crimes are rarely commited by the people that obtain licenses because they aren't criminals and would like to remain law abiding citizens. If an otherwise upstanding citizen were required to obtain a license and does not, then that citizen is now a criminal.
Essentially I'm trying to say licensing isn't preventing the crime. It just indicates who's willing to jump through hoops, and far less likely to break the law.
The world has many questions to be answered and problems to be solved. Are you suggesting we should funnel the talents and resources of these experts to something else (regardless of subjects they are experts in) because you believe its more important?
Slashdot Mirror
Are you implying that a western nation. such as the U.S. perhaps, is better off without people like me that make it a "cultural zoo?" DIAF please.
Japan has a history of disliking Koreans and the Chinese. They let everyone know in WW2. Although VERY much has changed in terms of their sentiments and superiority complex since then, I would NOT be surprised if those feelings are still lingering around in the form of odd immigration policies.
It's funny how many of my fellow right-leaning americans (yes I can tell you are one by your post) discount everything they disagree with as Left Wing. As if your opinion is a wall, and anything outside of your wall is a land populated by undesirables and kooks.
I have lived there before, though not recently. I'd attribute those prices to a naturally higher cost of living in Japan, import costs/taxes, and the fact that Japanese people love products written or spoken in English for some odd reason. Bonus points if the sample bit of English doesn't make sense.
I'm having a difficult time hating wal-mart on this issue.
On one hand we have Walmart--a company known for undercutting their competitors and forcing everyone in their supply chain to work for peanuts...On the other we have a small collection of telecom giants forcing the U.S. market to pay inflated prices because of the lack of real competition.
Sometimes walmart puts up a necessary fight. Imagine what the music industry would be charging for a Ke$ha album if it wasn't for walmart's influence. Yeah $10-15 is still overpaying, but if the music industry had their way this garbage would probably be selling for $20-25USD today.
Yes walmart has a nasty track record of unfair competitive practices. But in this instance I think walmart has correctly identified a discrepancy in market pricing, and is now using its dominant position to profit and steer the industry in a more healthy direction
Someone here is going to forget to remove their finger...
So this is why the local news stations were the big early adopters of HD?
Their make-up artists had to refine their techniques because HD was very unflattering on the facial pores clogged with beauty goop.
You do realize that the chimp in that video has had just as much time and "evolutionary development" as we have, don't you?
Yeah something like six thousand years. :P
*removes flamesuit*
The odds that you will get your stuff stolen are pretty low. Security systems are mostly a waste of money. Just get some realistic looking ADT stickers (from eBay) that will make the thieves think you have a security system. Having an actual system will get you ZERO extra security, just costs.
I'd have to disagree. Theft is VERY common. Besides, the same statement could be applied to the IT security field and slashdotters would flip out on you.
Insurance doesn't deter crime, its an after-the-fact remedy. It replaces stolen possesions but it doesn't protect you or your family from harm. those ADT stickers are a good start, as it is an economical deterrant. But acting as if a problem doesn't exist is equally dangerous as having no security at all.
You may think you will NEVER be a victim of crime in your own home... but what's the penalty if you are wrong? Personally, I think addressing that risk is worth a paycheck or two.
This is exactly what I find concerning. CEO's can take such massive risk and run a company into a wall without penalty.
A CEO's position is backed by insurance. The CEO does something bad, the company doesn't pay for it, the insurance underwriter does.
A CEO doesn't own the company (well shares in stock yeah..)so if they get sued, lose money, make a bad decision, the shareholders and employees pay for it.
If a CEO does bad enough to convince the shareholders and the board to remove him he will get fired (or resign to spend more time with family.) But the company will PAY the CEO to leave.
Owners of private companies would NEVER dream of accepting the level of risk CEO's of corporations take, because the penalty of failure would be PERSONAL financial ruin. There is no equivalent risk to a corporation.
Imagine you are in a restaurant minding your own business and enjoying a meal with your family. Your ninja alert beeps of as an enemy approaches the dinner table. An adversary (random stranger) has received the same alert...and at this point there is only one thing you both can do.
Jump up on the table. Stomp your bread roll and kick off the lobster bisque. Out from your guts you scream NINJAAAAA BATTTLLLLLLLLE!!!!
At the end one enjoys victory, the other tastes defeat. But both of you will share a chuckle.
If the internet is equivalent to the highways, can my ISP be my limo driver? Some Limo companies have log books on their trips and customers. Other limo companies value your privacy and keep your name off the books. Will I be allowed to choose the ISP...errr Limo driver that cares for me most? Lack of record keeping doesn't stop the cops from questioning the company. Seems fair right?
"Innocent people need to be watched by the police so that guilty people can't go free"
It is better to have ten criminals go free than to have ONE innocent person inconvenienced by unjust practice of law.
If I am a suspected criminal, they can monitor me all they want (as long as it doesn't turn into harrasment--queue the lawyers)...but they DO NOT require me to log my whereabouts in detail to make their job easier.
"Innocent people need to be watched by the police so that guilty people can't go free."
Really?
I read this sentence over at least a dozen times and I can't figure out a single way to rationalize the statement. I don't know whats worse, treating innocent people like suspects and criminals, or the idea of wasting precious law enforcement resources on innocent people.
My head is about to explode.
The bank account scenario wasn't a very good example I know. But...If you were a corporation with as much financial power as Apple, yes, You could get a loan for next to nothing, then take that cash and put it with a bank willing to give you a higher percentage for it.
Of course, lenders do typically ask how the money is going to be used. And in Apple's instance they would be more likely to use it to buy other companies, invest in R&D, or pay off other debts incurred with higher interest rates.
Either way, it would be cheaper for companies of this size to borrow rather than spend their own money. Leveraging debt allows them to maximize profits on their current assets.
They actually do borrow money even though they have are very cash rich.
At current interest rates, borrowing is a BETTER idea than to use their own cash. The cash they have can sit in a bank account and collect interest that's higher than the interest rate at which they are borrowing. Or they could use that cash on investments that return 10-12%
Borrowing money (even when not needed) is a strategy most large companies take advantage of. Shareholders like this as well.
"To me this represents a huge leap forward in understanding nerd psychology."
wat.
Is it just me, or does "Perfect Citizen" sound like the most completely sinister project name you could give?
Seriously, shouldn't they try harder to disguise the intentions with a name like "Save the children security project" or "Patriotic Minutemen project"????
This is evidence that most of those who engage in piracy aren't looking for a freebie, but merely looking for a product at a fair price delivered in a format they want, to be played at a venue of their choosing. Its capitalism biting the MPAA right in its behind.
People now understand that pressing copy of a DVD could sell for $10 rather than $20-30 and still make a profit for the producer. People also know that extra digital copies can be made at virtually zero cost to the producer...yet the industry still insists on charging you $30 for that product.
People also understand that their is no longer a scarcity of these works of art. Why pay such a high price to watch a blockbuster movie when its plot line has been recycled in other films 13 times last summer?
I think *invest* is a poor choice of words here. The benefit of "investing" would be a return on that investment. If the movie is to be released for free, there will be no return on investment for someone that paid.
This sounds more like paying money in exchange for a product...except there's a chance the project won't make it to completion, and you'll be out your share of the cash. If it is completed and you watch it and fully enjoy it, you've broken even, at best. If the movie is terrible then you may perceive the value of your contribution as a waste of money...a loss.
Overall this sounds like a crafty group of entrepeneurs are trying to find "investors" that will accept all the risks of production and buy the end product, finished or unfinished. Hipsters will love it and buy it, because its released for free in an open venue. Very good sales pitch. Make the customer feel like an investor, rather than a sucker.
Or maybe its because there's no reward/benefit for a criminal to be licesned in the first place... Why license when its easier (and cheaper) to buy a gun off the street and commit crimes anonymously?
Crimes are rarely commited by the people that obtain licenses because they aren't criminals and would like to remain law abiding citizens. If an otherwise upstanding citizen were required to obtain a license and does not, then that citizen is now a criminal.
Essentially I'm trying to say licensing isn't preventing the crime. It just indicates who's willing to jump through hoops, and far less likely to break the law.
The world has many questions to be answered and problems to be solved. Are you suggesting we should funnel the talents and resources of these experts to something else (regardless of subjects they are experts in) because you believe its more important?
People in a pitch-black prison are still quite visible in terms of all the other wavelengths of "light" they emit and reflect.
Vin Diesel would like to disprove you.
they have those nerdy-ass throat mics. Pretend you're Spec Ops in the datacenter. Because you are so cool.
Don't you have a right to face your accuser?
You didn't even have to wait for Obama to abuse the PATRIOT Act. Bush did that rather well while he was still in office too.