I predict it won't take very long after the first incident of rights management abuse by Microsoft for Stallman's home page to get knocked off the top google spot for the 'RMS' search term, simply due to the millions of clueless users posting their 'RMS Error' problem to one of those windows message boards where the threads are hundreds of 'Me too' messages long and the only solution ever provided is to reinstall.
As Nintendo swims in profits, they probably are surprised by Microsoft. They're probably surpirsed that Microsoft doesn't even seem to care if their console is profitable. Sure, Nintendo may not be making the profits they're used to, but when the competition is willing to flush money down the toilet all day to woo your customers, a half a billion a year in profits is nothing to shake a stick at. Nintendo is in it for the money, and they certainly know how to rake it in.
If its so overrated, then why can used game stores still charge 50 bucks for it?
Before you read what I'm about to say, just remember: you asked.
There's only one reason why a game can continue to sell for $50 used over a year after release, and this is true regardless of how good the game actually is: It's relative quality compared to all the other games on the (expensive) platform is high. That means that Halo is still popular because there is a decided lack of quality titles for the platform it has been exclusive on since the game was released. Were such quality titles available, Halo's popularity would have passed no matter how good the game was.
Besides, I game has to be highly thought of to be overrated.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax?
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
Finally, you're right, income doesn't tell the whole story. It's a big country, with disparate cost of living levels. I'm having trouble thinking of a better way, though. Any ideas?
Subtract the average cost of living in your area from your base salary and use that figure to determine your base tax rate perhaps? You could make the regions large enough such that people wouldn't benefit from living in a wealthy neighborhood... The current compansation is to allow mortgage payments to be tax deductable, but that has the side effect of creating a barrier to entry to home ownership. I'm tired of being told I'm rich when I can't afford a place to live within 200 miles of a job that pays enough to afford it.
As far as saying "tax the rich", you're right, I probably would fall into that group, as would all politicians, Democrat or Republican. So what? Does that mean I can't be pro-progressive tax, and anti-regressive.
Obviously you can be whatever you want. It's important to realize the consequences though. New jobs are created through investments. Rich people don't stuff their money under mattresses, they invest it (even if they just put it in a bank account... the bank invests it), so every dollar you take away is one less dollar that could be creating new jobs out there. Now, I'm certainly not saying this means we should stop taxing rich people, or even that taxes shouldn't be progressive (though it's something worth considering), I'm just saying it's a careful ballance and it's not a good idea to just raise taxes on rich people all willy nilly whenever there's a budget crunch. If we can't be in agreement on what is or isn't rich, than I'd say we'd be acting foolishly by making any decisions.
You cannot force people to become productive members of society.
Tell that to the people I saw on the highway this morning in orange jumpsuits. I'm not saying they should have any dignity.
The other part is that people have the physical right to refuse to do whatever it is you require of them, and you can't really do much except threaten to kill them.
If they refuse, then throw them in jail, but jail shouldn't be the default.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax?
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
That's funny, your link seems to support his point, you just used a different definition of rich. It's nice that you consider only the top 1% of earners to be "rich" but you better talk to your political candidate of choice, because I bet you'll be shocked to find what he/she considers rich. It will likely be around $40k per year per household. Depending on who you ask though, they may tell you that you're rich if your family's joint income is more than $26,000 per year. When you say "tax the rich" you're probably saying "tax me", because given that you have access to post on this website, you most likely fall under the definition of "rich" used in the Democratic party's rhetoric.
Just as an aside, it's just plain wrong to use income level to determine wealth. The cost of living in the area you need to live in to maintain your salary needs to be taken into account. Making $75k (joint income) in the Boston or San Francisco areas leaves you with less money than making $40k in Nebraska or Arkansas, thus making you less wealthy dispite the near double salary level.
I guess the Enron exec, who defrauded millions from their employees and shareholders should walk away free then?
No, he shouldn't. But he doesn't give anybody their money back by rotting in a cell.
there is NOTHING else that will stop the career spamming from spamming other than locking him up
Spammers spam for money. If the chances of getting caught are higher than not, and getting caught means you loose all financial rewards from your actions, there will be no incentive to spam.
Why should we waste money keeping these people in prison when they're not a physical threat to anybody, and when we can force them to become productive members of society? Don't spend my money throwing spammers in prison, use their ill-gotten gains to catch other spammers, and then force them to work at a job that helps the economy rather than forcing them to sit behind bars and have gay sex on the taxpayer tab.
The politicians are afraid of the people who drive these things and they will do nothing to mandate more fuel efficiency nor safety (unless it's the SUV's occupants).
This fear that you mention is strogest at a national level. Local politicians aren't typically afraid of they're consitiuents, in fact they're typically members of the vocal minority. That's why I think the training and license programs can work; they wouldn't be introduced at the national level. Of course, you'd have a problem introducing such a plan in areas where the politicians are the same types of people that drive these things for status, but if you start where it's easy the idea should gain support - even in areas where initially it would be less popular. It worked with boating regulations...
My fiancee works in a research facility that requires disinfection of all items brought in. To bring her cell phone in she puts it in a zip lock bag and dips it in whatever they use as a disinfectant solution. The phone works fine through the bag without a headset.
Currently I use wildcards in DNS, and I ping unresolved IP addresses to a page which tells the user that their page was not found. Then give them the option to search google for it.
What is this "page" thing you speak of... Oh, wait... I see. You're equating the web with the internet. They're not the same thing, you know.
But subsidization didn't. Every time the industry is in trouble they get bailed out. They never need to learn their lesson.
What do you wish for? Failure of the airlines or is it just cheaper tickets?
Neither. I want courtesy, privacy, convienience, and a transaction process that somebody on this planet is capable of understanding. It would also be nice to be able to make plans days (not weeks or months) in advance and still pay a reasonable rate, since My lifestyle is such that I can't plan free time very far in advance. None of these things are provided by the majority of current carriers.
People don't mill about at the airport and shop for last minute fares (like at a broadway show). Travel requires substantial preplanning on the part of both comsumer and provider. Perhaps your tavel plans are that flexible, but that would not be typical.
You've got the cause and effect mixed up. Last minute fares aren't high because people don't fly at the last minute, people don't fly at the last minute because fares are higher. Add to that practically arbitrary restrictions on when you can come and go, and how long you have to stay to get a "deal", and nobody will fly somewhere when they suddenly find they have a three day weekend available. You'll have a hard time convincing me that on a half empty plane you wouldn't sell four times as many half price tickets at the last minute than double price tickets. Do you have any idea how many companies would drop last minute travel restrictions if the flights got cheaper instead of more expensive? Then add in how many tourists would consider flying on a moments notice... People would still need to reserve full price tickets ahead of time because they would need to be guaranteed a seat, and way more flights would be full.
Those of us that use SUVs for the 'U' part would prefer that you don't make them useless, thank you. When you can't afford to have multiple vehicles, it's nice to have a vehicle that you can fit either several sheets of plywood or four passengers in. You can't do that with a pickup (4 door extended cab with a 3' bed isn't a truck) or sedan, and you can't drive a mini-van at a job site (that's off-road, folks).
Instead of phyhsically transforming SUVs into pure status symbols (instead of them just being such in practice), why not teach people how to drive them safely? Your vehicle weighs more than 4000 lbs? You should need special training and a special license. Your bumper more than 18" off the ground? Yet other special training and licensing. I'm sure states would love to collect the additional fees, and the need for the training will reduce the number of vehicles on the road while increasing (at least slightly) the safety of the ones that are out there. Best of all, those of us that do actual work with our SUVs won't be stuck in a world where an SUV is a station wagon with big tires.
In other words, they failed to get the resolution high enough for use in displays and standard digital paper, and now they only thing it's good for is billboards. Cool, but not nearly as cool as what all the digital ink companies promised we'd have by now.
Not only is that the case, but people tend to tune in to what they already agree with anyway. Very few people want to listen to somebody challenge their principles, so people who dissagree with, say, CNN are more likely to tune it out than change their views or viewing habits if CNN becomes the only option.
That being said, the broadcast airwaves are (as currently regulated) an extremely limited resource. You can't let poeople have free reign over something that's not freely available. You either need full regulation or zero regulation or the system breaks down. Since zero regulation isn't currently possible, the FCC deregulation was a bad move.
Once the flight departs, the empty seat is worthless. Thus if you wait until the last minute your price will be higher.
Your logic is exactly backwards. Once the plane takes off the seat is worthless, therefore at the lat minute the price should be less. If you're going to loose the seat, don't you think that you should encourage any sort of cashflow rather than discourage it? Seats sold through Ticketmaster aren't commodities? I don't understand why you think a plane ticket is any different than a ticket to, say, a broadway show (where the prices drop by as much as half in the hour beforehand).
You're free to start your own airline using your improved business model. I assume your doctorate in transportation economics will save us all from capitalism.
I, myself, have no interest in doing that sort of work. Other people do, and are. You should be very afraid. Once the lobbying dollars run out, and the airline busines actualy starts to resemble a capatilistic market (i.e. the government stops propping up your failed business), your time will be up.
They don't satisfy the customer, but not every reason for complicated fares is bogus.
At the end of the day, if you scare the customers away you go out of business. Complicated fares keep people from flying, and not because they don't understand them, but because they feel they're being ripped off. If you look at it relative to what some other passengers are paying on the same flight, quite frequently they are. No passengers, no airline... It's worse if you don't know when to buy because any given hour of the day may mean a different price. I'm starting to get redundant here. Of course if you're so smart how come you're not making any money? Some airlines have figured it out, so don't give me any "the economy" or "fear of terrorists" bullshit.
Its safe because of organizations like the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and Air Line Pilots Assoc. ask questions like these and push for other safety improvements.
Safety should come through design, not through regulatory aftertought; if only because people will disregard the regulations.
But since you feel that is a reflection on our inability to make money, I would like make a few points. First, the airline business is unbelievably capital intensive. Just a minor economic downturn can put an end to an airline. If enough of them go under, count on paying more. Second, yeah, tickets are expensive, but they're much cheaper today than they were 15 or 30 years ago
The pricing schemes for airline tickets on most airlines are idiotic. They fly in the face of how every other ticket selling business prices their tickets to make money, even though the principles are exactly the same. Disregard for customer convienience is only one reason why the airline buisness in essentially broken right now. We'd be better off in the long run if the major airlines collapsed and were built from scratch. Unfortunatly, the short term consequenses of that would be disasterous, so we are left with no choice but to criticize you until you get your acts together or the market replaces you.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been getting Nigerian scam letters via snail mail recently. Nigerian stamp and all. Only to my domain contact address though...
I predict it won't take very long after the first incident of rights management abuse by Microsoft for Stallman's home page to get knocked off the top google spot for the 'RMS' search term, simply due to the millions of clueless users posting their 'RMS Error' problem to one of those windows message boards where the threads are hundreds of 'Me too' messages long and the only solution ever provided is to reinstall.
http://www.the-magicbox.com/
These "hard to find" numbers that gamespy has, plus the numbers you're looking for, updated weekly.
As Nintendo swims in profits, they probably are surprised by Microsoft. They're probably surpirsed that Microsoft doesn't even seem to care if their console is profitable. Sure, Nintendo may not be making the profits they're used to, but when the competition is willing to flush money down the toilet all day to woo your customers, a half a billion a year in profits is nothing to shake a stick at. Nintendo is in it for the money, and they certainly know how to rake it in.
If its so overrated, then why can used game stores still charge 50 bucks for it?
Before you read what I'm about to say, just remember: you asked.
There's only one reason why a game can continue to sell for $50 used over a year after release, and this is true regardless of how good the game actually is: It's relative quality compared to all the other games on the (expensive) platform is high. That means that Halo is still popular because there is a decided lack of quality titles for the platform it has been exclusive on since the game was released. Were such quality titles available, Halo's popularity would have passed no matter how good the game was.
Besides, I game has to be highly thought of to be overrated.
Finally, you're right, income doesn't tell the whole story. It's a big country, with disparate cost of living levels. I'm having trouble thinking of a better way, though. Any ideas?
Subtract the average cost of living in your area from your base salary and use that figure to determine your base tax rate perhaps? You could make the regions large enough such that people wouldn't benefit from living in a wealthy neighborhood... The current compansation is to allow mortgage payments to be tax deductable, but that has the side effect of creating a barrier to entry to home ownership. I'm tired of being told I'm rich when I can't afford a place to live within 200 miles of a job that pays enough to afford it.
As far as saying "tax the rich", you're right, I probably would fall into that group, as would all politicians, Democrat or Republican. So what? Does that mean I can't be pro-progressive tax, and anti-regressive.
Obviously you can be whatever you want. It's important to realize the consequences though. New jobs are created through investments. Rich people don't stuff their money under mattresses, they invest it (even if they just put it in a bank account... the bank invests it), so every dollar you take away is one less dollar that could be creating new jobs out there. Now, I'm certainly not saying this means we should stop taxing rich people, or even that taxes shouldn't be progressive (though it's something worth considering), I'm just saying it's a careful ballance and it's not a good idea to just raise taxes on rich people all willy nilly whenever there's a budget crunch. If we can't be in agreement on what is or isn't rich, than I'd say we'd be acting foolishly by making any decisions.
You cannot force people to become productive members of society.
Tell that to the people I saw on the highway this morning in orange jumpsuits. I'm not saying they should have any dignity.
The other part is that people have the physical right to refuse to do whatever it is you require of them, and you can't really do much except threaten to kill them.
If they refuse, then throw them in jail, but jail shouldn't be the default.
That's funny, your link seems to support his point, you just used a different definition of rich. It's nice that you consider only the top 1% of earners to be "rich" but you better talk to your political candidate of choice, because I bet you'll be shocked to find what he/she considers rich. It will likely be around $40k per year per household. Depending on who you ask though, they may tell you that you're rich if your family's joint income is more than $26,000 per year. When you say "tax the rich" you're probably saying "tax me", because given that you have access to post on this website, you most likely fall under the definition of "rich" used in the Democratic party's rhetoric.
Just as an aside, it's just plain wrong to use income level to determine wealth. The cost of living in the area you need to live in to maintain your salary needs to be taken into account. Making $75k (joint income) in the Boston or San Francisco areas leaves you with less money than making $40k in Nebraska or Arkansas, thus making you less wealthy dispite the near double salary level.
Perhaps because you already waste money keeping recreational pot smokers in prison?
<ponders briefly> Hmm... I don't recall ever having thrown anybody in prison... Care to refresh my memory?
Actually I even think there are NO penalties that would make them stop before-the-fact.
May as well give up then, huh?
We need to make an example of one or more of them. Nothing else will help.
I thought you said that wouldn't work in the last sentence?
I guess the Enron exec, who defrauded millions from their employees and shareholders should walk away free then?
No, he shouldn't. But he doesn't give anybody their money back by rotting in a cell.
there is NOTHING else that will stop the career spamming from spamming other than locking him up
Spammers spam for money. If the chances of getting caught are higher than not, and getting caught means you loose all financial rewards from your actions, there will be no incentive to spam.
Why should we waste money keeping these people in prison when they're not a physical threat to anybody, and when we can force them to become productive members of society? Don't spend my money throwing spammers in prison, use their ill-gotten gains to catch other spammers, and then force them to work at a job that helps the economy rather than forcing them to sit behind bars and have gay sex on the taxpayer tab.
The hype was simply to trick gamers into providing their e-mail address in the beta test application so they could sell the list to spammers.
That's my prediction anyway.
Yes, it's their, not they're... Gah. Need to proofread better....
The politicians are afraid of the people who drive these things and they will do nothing to mandate more fuel efficiency nor safety (unless it's the SUV's occupants).
This fear that you mention is strogest at a national level. Local politicians aren't typically afraid of they're consitiuents, in fact they're typically members of the vocal minority. That's why I think the training and license programs can work; they wouldn't be introduced at the national level. Of course, you'd have a problem introducing such a plan in areas where the politicians are the same types of people that drive these things for status, but if you start where it's easy the idea should gain support - even in areas where initially it would be less popular. It worked with boating regulations...
My fiancee works in a research facility that requires disinfection of all items brought in. To bring her cell phone in she puts it in a zip lock bag and dips it in whatever they use as a disinfectant solution. The phone works fine through the bag without a headset.
Currently I use wildcards in DNS, and I ping unresolved IP addresses to a page which tells the user that their page was not found. Then give them the option to search google for it.
What is this "page" thing you speak of... Oh, wait... I see. You're equating the web with the internet. They're not the same thing, you know.
Deregulation occurred back in the late 1970's.
But subsidization didn't. Every time the industry is in trouble they get bailed out. They never need to learn their lesson.
What do you wish for? Failure of the airlines or is it just cheaper tickets?
Neither. I want courtesy, privacy, convienience, and a transaction process that somebody on this planet is capable of understanding. It would also be nice to be able to make plans days (not weeks or months) in advance and still pay a reasonable rate, since My lifestyle is such that I can't plan free time very far in advance. None of these things are provided by the majority of current carriers.
People don't mill about at the airport and shop for last minute fares (like at a broadway show). Travel requires substantial preplanning on the part of both comsumer and provider. Perhaps your tavel plans are that flexible, but that would not be typical.
You've got the cause and effect mixed up. Last minute fares aren't high because people don't fly at the last minute, people don't fly at the last minute because fares are higher. Add to that practically arbitrary restrictions on when you can come and go, and how long you have to stay to get a "deal", and nobody will fly somewhere when they suddenly find they have a three day weekend available. You'll have a hard time convincing me that on a half empty plane you wouldn't sell four times as many half price tickets at the last minute than double price tickets. Do you have any idea how many companies would drop last minute travel restrictions if the flights got cheaper instead of more expensive? Then add in how many tourists would consider flying on a moments notice... People would still need to reserve full price tickets ahead of time because they would need to be guaranteed a seat, and way more flights would be full.
Those of us that use SUVs for the 'U' part would prefer that you don't make them useless, thank you. When you can't afford to have multiple vehicles, it's nice to have a vehicle that you can fit either several sheets of plywood or four passengers in. You can't do that with a pickup (4 door extended cab with a 3' bed isn't a truck) or sedan, and you can't drive a mini-van at a job site (that's off-road, folks).
Instead of phyhsically transforming SUVs into pure status symbols (instead of them just being such in practice), why not teach people how to drive them safely? Your vehicle weighs more than 4000 lbs? You should need special training and a special license. Your bumper more than 18" off the ground? Yet other special training and licensing. I'm sure states would love to collect the additional fees, and the need for the training will reduce the number of vehicles on the road while increasing (at least slightly) the safety of the ones that are out there. Best of all, those of us that do actual work with our SUVs won't be stuck in a world where an SUV is a station wagon with big tires.
In other words, they failed to get the resolution high enough for use in displays and standard digital paper, and now they only thing it's good for is billboards. Cool, but not nearly as cool as what all the digital ink companies promised we'd have by now.
Not only is that the case, but people tend to tune in to what they already agree with anyway. Very few people want to listen to somebody challenge their principles, so people who dissagree with, say, CNN are more likely to tune it out than change their views or viewing habits if CNN becomes the only option.
That being said, the broadcast airwaves are (as currently regulated) an extremely limited resource. You can't let poeople have free reign over something that's not freely available. You either need full regulation or zero regulation or the system breaks down. Since zero regulation isn't currently possible, the FCC deregulation was a bad move.
It's false advertising at best
At best? Really? What is it at worst then?
Problem being that the name still resolved. You're still getting entirely different behavior than you were yesterday.
Once the flight departs, the empty seat is worthless. Thus if you wait until the last minute your price will be higher.
Your logic is exactly backwards. Once the plane takes off the seat is worthless, therefore at the lat minute the price should be less. If you're going to loose the seat, don't you think that you should encourage any sort of cashflow rather than discourage it? Seats sold through Ticketmaster aren't commodities? I don't understand why you think a plane ticket is any different than a ticket to, say, a broadway show (where the prices drop by as much as half in the hour beforehand).
You're free to start your own airline using your improved business model. I assume your doctorate in transportation economics will save us all from capitalism.
I, myself, have no interest in doing that sort of work. Other people do, and are. You should be very afraid. Once the lobbying dollars run out, and the airline busines actualy starts to resemble a capatilistic market (i.e. the government stops propping up your failed business), your time will be up.
They don't satisfy the customer, but not every reason for complicated fares is bogus.
At the end of the day, if you scare the customers away you go out of business. Complicated fares keep people from flying, and not because they don't understand them, but because they feel they're being ripped off. If you look at it relative to what some other passengers are paying on the same flight, quite frequently they are. No passengers, no airline... It's worse if you don't know when to buy because any given hour of the day may mean a different price. I'm starting to get redundant here. Of course if you're so smart how come you're not making any money? Some airlines have figured it out, so don't give me any "the economy" or "fear of terrorists" bullshit.
Its safe because of organizations like the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and Air Line Pilots Assoc. ask questions like these and push for other safety improvements.
Safety should come through design, not through regulatory aftertought; if only because people will disregard the regulations.
But since you feel that is a reflection on our inability to make money, I would like make a few points. First, the airline business is unbelievably capital intensive. Just a minor economic downturn can put an end to an airline. If enough of them go under, count on paying more.
Second, yeah, tickets are expensive, but they're much cheaper today than they were 15 or 30 years ago
The pricing schemes for airline tickets on most airlines are idiotic. They fly in the face of how every other ticket selling business prices their tickets to make money, even though the principles are exactly the same. Disregard for customer convienience is only one reason why the airline buisness in essentially broken right now. We'd be better off in the long run if the major airlines collapsed and were built from scratch. Unfortunatly, the short term consequenses of that would be disasterous, so we are left with no choice but to criticize you until you get your acts together or the market replaces you.