That is honestly the best and worst response to my comment ever. It seems you and I are in agreement. Unfortunately that agreement is that the work world is generally screwed up deeply.
This just reinforces my belief that we would have to work half as hard in a job if we cut out all this kind of bull.
In other words, don't do shit that would ever cast a shadow of doubt on you, EVER. They are betting literally Billions of dollars on you, along with the livelihood of all your cow-orkers, and are not about to take any chances of you screwing it up while drunk at a party, dancing with a lampshade on your head.
Wanna drink? Get loaded at your own home all you want, just don't be late for work, and make sure you can pass a piss test in the morning.
There are plenty of people out there like this, and if you don't fit the bill, someone else will. As long as you're not after that job, it won't matter to you, though.
the cyberscholar Viktor Mayer-Schönberger cites the case of Stacy Snyder — who was denied a teaching certificate on the basis of a single photo on MySpace
Wow, the requirements for getting a teaching certificate sure have been getting strenuous...
Are you saying that if someone has ever in their entire life done something that you might object with, and you know about it, you won't be friends with them, and no one else should either?
Isn't alienation a big problem with ex-convicts that because no one likes them anymore and they can't get a job anywhere they often turn back to crime?
Honestly, everyone has something in their past that you probably won't agree with. I believe what the GP was trying to say is that if we are open and honest, and try to improve ourselves, why should it stand in the way? If no one will ever hire someone or befriend someone that drank in college, then that person is going to get old, lonely, bitter, and probably start drinking to try and cope.
Meanwhile in your hiring analogy, you're stuck with the employee that's actually pretty good at hiding his cocaine addiction and only does a line at his desk while you're not watching.
I know there are people out there that live fairly clean lives, but not enough that you can just the the rest to F off.
My earlier thoughts were muddied. Let me rephrase that. The police force spends more than they get back because they are a service to the community, and in fact doesn't see a personal profit from success. The RIAA spends more than they get to further goals (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that) and they do get money back from it, but only what the court prescribes.
That comparison is not close enough to the situation. In your example, the money being spent is spent on hunting down the criminal. In the RIAA's case, the money is spent on lawyers to convince the court that a person owes them as much money as possible. The police will hopefully recover exactly the value of what was stolen, and put a criminal behind bars. The RIAA hopes to recover many times the cost of what was infringed upon, and leave the infringing citizen in their own home, likely imprisoned by debt.
Long story short, the RIAA is fighting to get some fairly arbitrary amount of money awarded to them by the courts. And also, honestly, it's not like there's a crime ring being taken down when these individuals are sued. This is not a public service, it is a company trying, however misguided they may be, to protect their profits. The only person that benefits is them, not the whole of society.
Personally, I don't understand what the huge draw to unnatural colors is anyway. If it's the bleaches, and the dyes, and the whatnot that's killing us, why not consider getting rid of that pointless step. Hell, you could probably drum up more business by putting on labels talking about how natural it is...
He's not employed by them is he? Because if he's not, I don't think their trade secrets mean squat to him. If I mess around and discover coke's trade secret recipe, they're not going to come knocking on my door. And they wouldn't have any legal precedent to do so in the first place. If you discover someone else's trade secret, it's fair game. You can even sell a product using that trade secret as long as you didn't work for them and take it, or buy it from someone who did.
well, I am with you, I don't mean we're HUGE burdens on society (pun not intended). But I mean, on an airplane or some such crowded area it can be a problem. And I personally find buying an extra seat for my ass to be too far to go to not be a burden. But yes, it's minor in that respect...
Of course we'll ignore the increased hospital attendance due to heart attacks, diabetes related complications and such...
As a lardass myself, I will mention that I try to move out of the way for other people as much as possible. It's possible to be polite and knowledgeable about the fact that you're a burden on the rest of society.
Also, side note, I could still see this having a purpose in urban areas where you end up needing to walk a few miles across downtown to get where you're going, and only after having spent the first half of your lunch break on the phone with some utility or other such useless task that you can only handle in the middle of the workday.
being a porn site isn't the silver bullet that means you will make money. Also, there was a slashdot article saying that more porn sites were infected than expected. I'm not exactly sure how these two articles mesh up, but specifically that article had said that people in the porn industry tend to trade content to lower operating costs. So all it takes is one link in the chain putting malware in that content to infect multiple sites.
Actually that could be a pretty good idea. You could have a few types of portal spawning lemmings. One would invariably have to shoot it somehow, but one could create one in the path, and it could lead to other types of puzzle dynamics.... And would hopefully replace the painfully annoying stair building ones that always make me lose lemmings.
That's all good and well. But I don't think that head of security would just say "Aww, how cute, he's testing. Let's leave him to his work." Even if his punishment is akin to a slap on the wrist, it's going to be a hard one with the warning that if he continues, he will be treated as if his intentions are malicious. In other words, the experiment is over, one way or another.
"Oh hey, I shot you and now you're dead. Well it really was your fault, after all, you weren't wearing a bullet proof vest, and the target was nearby and stationary, being seated on my couch. Don't get mad at ME. If you didn't want to be shot, YOU should have secured yourself better!"
I agree with you. A lot of people have the unfortunate problem of an over-inflated sense of entitlement these days, but that "If it can be done, I should be able to do it" attitude takes it to a whole new level.
"You know what's da bomb? The G20 summit."
"Animal Farm bored me to death too. The capitalist swine story I wrote is much better."
"How many farms do you suppose it would take to use one hundred pounds of nitrated fertilizer?"
Personally, I would think a fair number of adult sites would WANT to move to.xxx.
I mean, obviously it will be banned at work, schools, libraries, so there will still be sites on.com for the people that are trying to grab that demographic, but if the majority of porn users are actually adults in their own homes LOOKING for porn, the.xxx domain would make it very easy to know where the porn is. And as a result the porn sites will move there to get more exposure to their best customers: people who want, can pay for, are legally allowed to consume, and are currently in a place where they can browse porn.
That said, I am still against the gov't trying to regulate what is and isn't porn and requiring sites to move.
So the punishment from misleading consumers is a ban on misleading consumers. Does that mean if they mislead consumers again they get another ban? Or would they actually get a real punishment.
To employ Godwin's law: Hitler, we have all gotten together and we agree... No more Holocausts for 10 years, okay? Thanks Adolf.
But by how much? If you offer two completely identical products to someone at the same price, but one is illegal and one is legal, obviously they will choose the legal one. Now if it was only mildly more expensive but still the same product, yes, some people will go with the cheaper illegal copy, but I'd like to believe the people's consciences cost more than a couple bucks on average.
Not to mention the kicker: The movie studios have the data first. They have a jump on the competition. If they remove the ads you can't skip and the often pointless DRM, they can push a better quality product earlier and hopefully more efficiently. I would think someone would pay more to get more as well as knowing they aren't supporting illegal activites.
Just a thought.
This is another one of those stealing v. infringing arguments. Stealing the car is not only providing someone with a free car, but preventing someone else of its use/sale.
And besides, that isn't the point being made here. The point is that although in a perfect world, no one would pirate content, if that option were removed from the pool, the amount of people buying wouldn't be going up by the amount of people that were pirating, and likely it would barely go up at all. The point is that if a similar business model to this was employed by the MPAA, they would capture a much larger portion of the market. And yes, in some sense it seems unfair to the legitimate business they once had, I'm sure, but they are going to have to change themselves to adapt to this new change. I'm sure actors and more specifically owners of theatres complained a large amount when motion pictures first came into play because people would stop patronizing the arts if they could just watch the actors on screen instead of having to pay for the real performance each time, but that didn't stop movies from becoming a driving force in our culture.
The chair was created a long time ago. I'm certain by now it's PD.
It would be much closer to compare it to building the latest and greatest "as seen on tv" stuff for your use. There is a patent in place so you certainly can't produce it to sell it, but making it for your own use fits the gray area much better.
Slashdot Mirror
That is honestly the best and worst response to my comment ever. It seems you and I are in agreement. Unfortunately that agreement is that the work world is generally screwed up deeply.
This just reinforces my belief that we would have to work half as hard in a job if we cut out all this kind of bull.
In other words, don't do shit that would ever cast a shadow of doubt on you, EVER. They are betting literally Billions of dollars on you, along with the livelihood of all your cow-orkers, and are not about to take any chances of you screwing it up while drunk at a party, dancing with a lampshade on your head. Wanna drink? Get loaded at your own home all you want, just don't be late for work, and make sure you can pass a piss test in the morning.
There are plenty of people out there like this, and if you don't fit the bill, someone else will. As long as you're not after that job, it won't matter to you, though.
the cyberscholar Viktor Mayer-Schönberger cites the case of Stacy Snyder — who was denied a teaching certificate on the basis of a single photo on MySpace
Wow, the requirements for getting a teaching certificate sure have been getting strenuous...
Are you saying that if someone has ever in their entire life done something that you might object with, and you know about it, you won't be friends with them, and no one else should either?
Isn't alienation a big problem with ex-convicts that because no one likes them anymore and they can't get a job anywhere they often turn back to crime?
Honestly, everyone has something in their past that you probably won't agree with. I believe what the GP was trying to say is that if we are open and honest, and try to improve ourselves, why should it stand in the way? If no one will ever hire someone or befriend someone that drank in college, then that person is going to get old, lonely, bitter, and probably start drinking to try and cope.
Meanwhile in your hiring analogy, you're stuck with the employee that's actually pretty good at hiding his cocaine addiction and only does a line at his desk while you're not watching.
I know there are people out there that live fairly clean lives, but not enough that you can just the the rest to F off.
My earlier thoughts were muddied. Let me rephrase that. The police force spends more than they get back because they are a service to the community, and in fact doesn't see a personal profit from success. The RIAA spends more than they get to further goals (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that) and they do get money back from it, but only what the court prescribes.
That comparison is not close enough to the situation. In your example, the money being spent is spent on hunting down the criminal. In the RIAA's case, the money is spent on lawyers to convince the court that a person owes them as much money as possible. The police will hopefully recover exactly the value of what was stolen, and put a criminal behind bars. The RIAA hopes to recover many times the cost of what was infringed upon, and leave the infringing citizen in their own home, likely imprisoned by debt.
Long story short, the RIAA is fighting to get some fairly arbitrary amount of money awarded to them by the courts. And also, honestly, it's not like there's a crime ring being taken down when these individuals are sued. This is not a public service, it is a company trying, however misguided they may be, to protect their profits. The only person that benefits is them, not the whole of society.
Personally, I don't understand what the huge draw to unnatural colors is anyway. If it's the bleaches, and the dyes, and the whatnot that's killing us, why not consider getting rid of that pointless step. Hell, you could probably drum up more business by putting on labels talking about how natural it is...
It makes no difference for sick bastards like the OP, who are clearly into ponies.
This sounds like a matter of projection to me...
He's not employed by them is he? Because if he's not, I don't think their trade secrets mean squat to him. If I mess around and discover coke's trade secret recipe, they're not going to come knocking on my door. And they wouldn't have any legal precedent to do so in the first place. If you discover someone else's trade secret, it's fair game. You can even sell a product using that trade secret as long as you didn't work for them and take it, or buy it from someone who did.
well, I am with you, I don't mean we're HUGE burdens on society (pun not intended). But I mean, on an airplane or some such crowded area it can be a problem. And I personally find buying an extra seat for my ass to be too far to go to not be a burden. But yes, it's minor in that respect...
Of course we'll ignore the increased hospital attendance due to heart attacks, diabetes related complications and such...
As a lardass myself, I will mention that I try to move out of the way for other people as much as possible. It's possible to be polite and knowledgeable about the fact that you're a burden on the rest of society.
Also, side note, I could still see this having a purpose in urban areas where you end up needing to walk a few miles across downtown to get where you're going, and only after having spent the first half of your lunch break on the phone with some utility or other such useless task that you can only handle in the middle of the workday.
BAN DIMONOXIDE!
Di means 2, mono means 1.
Dimonoxide means a group of 2 of a group of 1 oxygen.
Dioxide would be the correct word.
The study you mentioned.
being a porn site isn't the silver bullet that means you will make money. Also, there was a slashdot article saying that more porn sites were infected than expected. I'm not exactly sure how these two articles mesh up, but specifically that article had said that people in the porn industry tend to trade content to lower operating costs. So all it takes is one link in the chain putting malware in that content to infect multiple sites.
That is why you should always practice safe sex.
Actually that could be a pretty good idea. You could have a few types of portal spawning lemmings. One would invariably have to shoot it somehow, but one could create one in the path, and it could lead to other types of puzzle dynamics.... And would hopefully replace the painfully annoying stair building ones that always make me lose lemmings.
And on top of all that, who knows where SanDisk will be in 100 years. Possibly bankrupt from having to refund everyone's WORM SD card.
That's all good and well. But I don't think that head of security would just say "Aww, how cute, he's testing. Let's leave him to his work." Even if his punishment is akin to a slap on the wrist, it's going to be a hard one with the warning that if he continues, he will be treated as if his intentions are malicious. In other words, the experiment is over, one way or another.
"Oh hey, I shot you and now you're dead. Well it really was your fault, after all, you weren't wearing a bullet proof vest, and the target was nearby and stationary, being seated on my couch. Don't get mad at ME. If you didn't want to be shot, YOU should have secured yourself better!"
I agree with you. A lot of people have the unfortunate problem of an over-inflated sense of entitlement these days, but that "If it can be done, I should be able to do it" attitude takes it to a whole new level.
"You know what's da bomb? The G20 summit."
"Animal Farm bored me to death too. The capitalist swine story I wrote is much better."
"How many farms do you suppose it would take to use one hundred pounds of nitrated fertilizer?"
ED is so common that it's stupid.
With ED being that common, I bet the women are very frustrated.
Personally, I would think a fair number of adult sites would WANT to move to .xxx. .com for the people that are trying to grab that demographic, but if the majority of porn users are actually adults in their own homes LOOKING for porn, the .xxx domain would make it very easy to know where the porn is. And as a result the porn sites will move there to get more exposure to their best customers: people who want, can pay for, are legally allowed to consume, and are currently in a place where they can browse porn.
I mean, obviously it will be banned at work, schools, libraries, so there will still be sites on
That said, I am still against the gov't trying to regulate what is and isn't porn and requiring sites to move.
So the punishment from misleading consumers is a ban on misleading consumers. Does that mean if they mislead consumers again they get another ban? Or would they actually get a real punishment.
To employ Godwin's law: Hitler, we have all gotten together and we agree... No more Holocausts for 10 years, okay? Thanks Adolf.
But by how much? If you offer two completely identical products to someone at the same price, but one is illegal and one is legal, obviously they will choose the legal one. Now if it was only mildly more expensive but still the same product, yes, some people will go with the cheaper illegal copy, but I'd like to believe the people's consciences cost more than a couple bucks on average.
Not to mention the kicker: The movie studios have the data first. They have a jump on the competition. If they remove the ads you can't skip and the often pointless DRM, they can push a better quality product earlier and hopefully more efficiently. I would think someone would pay more to get more as well as knowing they aren't supporting illegal activites.
Just a thought.
This is another one of those stealing v. infringing arguments. Stealing the car is not only providing someone with a free car, but preventing someone else of its use/sale.
And besides, that isn't the point being made here. The point is that although in a perfect world, no one would pirate content, if that option were removed from the pool, the amount of people buying wouldn't be going up by the amount of people that were pirating, and likely it would barely go up at all. The point is that if a similar business model to this was employed by the MPAA, they would capture a much larger portion of the market. And yes, in some sense it seems unfair to the legitimate business they once had, I'm sure, but they are going to have to change themselves to adapt to this new change. I'm sure actors and more specifically owners of theatres complained a large amount when motion pictures first came into play because people would stop patronizing the arts if they could just watch the actors on screen instead of having to pay for the real performance each time, but that didn't stop movies from becoming a driving force in our culture.
The chair was created a long time ago. I'm certain by now it's PD.
It would be much closer to compare it to building the latest and greatest "as seen on tv" stuff for your use. There is a patent in place so you certainly can't produce it to sell it, but making it for your own use fits the gray area much better.