I have had my share of trouble with Amazon's app store and apps/games acquired through it. Guess what happens to your apps/games when you remove the Amazon app store? Nothing works. Not going to play that game any longer... I quit that game quite some time ago. But it seems Google's store (play) is similar though no one actually removes the play store do they?
So the only way to be in control of your apps is to pirate them or acquire them directly from the maker which is often not an available option.
Seriously, I feel icky downloading a $3 app or game from a torrent site. I'd rather pay for it. But there are advantages to getting it the other way... and risks... and I still pay when I can. $3-$5 apps is the way things ought to be!
Google, an advertising/marketing company, puts out an OS for phones and tablets and gives it away for free and then allows users access to a repository system where free apps and games are often supplied... for free.
I'd say it was implied.
That said? I do not feel obligated to donate my bandwidth for free. I run AdFree which is a hosts file modifier. It's fairly effective.
I'll just have to get updates from non-market sources.
That's the thing. These are people who care enough about it to want to offer their user perspective. The issue (in this case) is that Save/Save As removed the ability to save as the format it was opened as. Users now have to "export." It's clumsy, unintuitive and is difficult to get used to in light of the fact that the original behavior is more normal across GUI applications. (The whole point of a GUI is that apps work the same so that learning and user comfort is maximized.)
Anyway, just because the users think, feel and respond does not make them self-entitled whiners.
There has been a lot of flack about changes made in the 2.8.x GIMP. The developers insist "this is how it is and how it will be, no more discussion" despite the wrongness of it all. Many users wish to support the developers out of gratitude. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. People who speak out are slapped down and it doesn't matter if they have a good point or not. They just don't want to listen to their users and have said "if you're not a developer, you are not contributing, so shut up."
That is a HUGE and ugly truth about Apple. But it is also why they have shied away from the business and government markets -- they don't want to be required to do anythying for anyone. Apple is like "you like what we have and that is all there is." You can't ask Apple for anything -- they have already decided what they will offer and what you need.
That the human brain generally works a particular way is no indication of how the neanderthal brain worked.
We know, for example (thanks to a slashdot story) that a man with like 1/4th of a brain's normal volume (http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Quarter-Brained-Man-60542.shtml) can lead a pretty normal life. We also know that brains route around damage and adapt. So what is it with this obsessive belief that brain size is equated with X, Y and Z of intelligence and behavior?
While the article presents an interesting hypothesis which fits in with why humans would have dominated neanderthals (better group behavior/communications), it can't really be said for sure based on the size of the eyes. There's a WHOLE lot of assumption and speculation going on there.
I find it interesting that the notion of being "really smart" (based on brain size) but without good communication skills. This would imply they were effectively advanced apes... unable to learn from one another, but able to learn on their own and through mimmickry. (No stored knowledge means no building or accumulation of knowledge.)
It is the carriers which are responsible for the locking. The suppliers don't give a rat's tail about whether a phone is locked or not. The carriers make the requests and the suppliers deliver on that request. Suppliers have no dog in the fight over locked vs. unlocked beyond the mild fact that a locked phone will likely stay in the region in which it was procured. But people who relocate and wish to take their phones with them are an insignificant minority.
I get the feeling this is a blame and information deflecting piece intended to point people in directions which are not relevant.
I think it is demonstrably false that "the people" elect these people. There is ample evidence of cheating and fraud in elections and the whole process even without tampering prevents the people from selecting the selection.
The people of the US *DO NOT* control who is in office. I really wish we could put that stale argument [troll?] to rest.
That doesn't do much to account for WHO is murdering. That drop is significant, I imagine, but knowing which demographic groups are contributing less to the statistical count would be worthy of note. After all, video games are not played by all. Does the reduction coincide with [potential] gamers?
Married, 3 sons, loads of nephews and nieces (4 brothers, two half-sisters, all with kids). I come from a big, old-fashioned family lead and educated by grandparents who had experienced the great depression and passed down a wealth of family values.
My opinions are unpopular. They are old fashioned. I believe there is value in spanking (to a point) and lots of value in appreciating the true mission of parenting. Among these include leading by example, ("do as I say *AND* do as I do.") speak with them not at them, being a parent and not a "friend" and lots more. Today's parenting stems from al of the broken-ness we have in our lives -- partly due to our ambitions, partly due to the economy and LARGELY due to our own selfishness.
What this guy did right was to give something to his daughter that came from him. But she is 3. She'll be hard remembering this, let alone appreciating it. But the act of gift giving is a selfish act all by itself. He wanted to extract from her smiles and her approval. He got what he wanted. But that's the pattern I find the most disturbing. This pattern of trying to win and buy a child's love the way we do is simply wrong.
My first marriage ended with two children who chose to be with their father despite the fact that I was the one who spanked them, punished them and gave them all the hell in the world as I tried to teach them things. I haven't always been a hard-ass and most of the time, I'm quite fun. One day they even came to me saying "we like you because you're always tricking us." (I often teach by trying to fool them in some way... giving them the riddle or problem to resolve.) From me they learned everything from shoe tying to food preparation. They didn't get computer hackery from me -- no such interest, but both my older sons graduated from their schooling in "IB" programs and did quite well at it.
I am none of the things you think. I'm a serious family man who would prefer his children not go out into the world unprepared and are mentally and emotionally ready for it. One son is presently a nuke in the US Navy somewhere deep under the ocean at the moment. (They don't always do what you want, but I taught him to make up his own mind about things... I never expected to agree with everything he does.) My middle son is well on his way to building his life and my little one?:) Well, we're still having a lot of fun.
And I have to say, despite it being old fashioned, my wife stays home. When I come home, there's a meal cooking and my little one usually runs out the front door when he hears my car to greet me with a big smile on his face yelling "Daaaaadeeeeeeee!" And we do his homework together until dinner is ready.
Still think I'm a single geek living with his mother? Think I'm a bad parent?
I beg to differ. Parenting is about teaching, not catering.
If he TAUGHT her how to hack the game and she did it, then I'd be like "Parenting - you're doing it right." But to just give her this interesting gift? Let's just hope it's not a life-long pattern for either of them. Doing nice things is nice. Not saying that. But have you ever seen a child get angry because they didn't like the gift they were given? I have. Creepy. And you have to wonder how it got that way.
... let's just hope his daughter doesn't want two moms. Just sayin' we know what he'll be hacking next is all.
What is the deal with this "gender empowerment" thing? Guys like to play as female characters all the time. Read anything into it that you like. But the fact is that largely, the media fits the audience.
How is this gender empowerment when a man does it for a woman? At best it's "I want, I get" empowerment which is just kind of the wrong message I think here. "I deserve because I'm female" doesn't make sense to me and shouldn't make sense to anyone with a sense of respect.
What is this drive everywhere we look? "How can we change the world [superficially] so women feel more empowered?" The world got the way it was/is because of men doing a lot of things. Driven men. Hard working men. I'm not saying there aren't driven women and hard working women. I'm saying there's not enough of them to make a difference. So why are men responsible for women and their lack of interest or lack of ambition? The world already accomodates women who are driven and have ambition. Why do we have to do more?
"Oh hey! It's a game dude! Why are you making such a big deal out of it?" Because it's in childhood that expectations of life are formed. "Back in the day" people were extremely concerned about spoiling children. Well, back in the day, I was all for it... I was a child after all. But lately, I'm beginning to understand what it was all about. Childhood is a stage in which many of our ideas about life are formed. The notions we carry into adulthood were often formed during childhood. (Why do boys marry women who were like their mothers? Girls attracted to men like their fathers?) So yes, it makes sense we shouldn't spoil our children.
And what of it? A little princess of a girl goes out into the world expecting everyone to treat her like daddy and the boys at school did? The real world wants something in exchange and before long she wants what she had badly enough that she will give whatever it takes to get it back. We all know where this goes I suppose. Instead of catering, we should be teaching and training for the world they will live in. Parents should be teaching their children how to live in this world and if they don't like the world, how to help change it for the better.
"Women in the workplace." "Women in _______" We say these things like they are new ideas. These weren't exactly new ideas before I was born. Why are they still being studied 50+ years later? We know we can't make women more like men. And we shouldn't. It's an insult to women. So instead what are we doing? Making men more like women?!? How is that not an insult to men?
Okay... somehow my rant button was pushed instead of "wake up and get ready for work." Hope it was at least entertaining.
I don't think you're getting it. Sales and marketing are, of course, important aspect. But the thing they are saying is instead of selling new things, they are selling old things (sometimes with incremental improvements) in new ways.
But this problem is much larger really. Everything from music to movies and TV shows are doing this sort of thing. How many super hero movies? The new territory seems to be fairy tales. Why aren't they writing really original stuff?
The crap we have going on in the US pales in comparison. We've got far more serious corruption at every turn and we've got problems which even exceed that.
The online ad model is stupid. These ad companies want to host ttheir own ads so they can count each hit. This is how they hope to maximize their income. The problem is, it's working against them and they are STILL doing it. They need to go back to the broadcast and print model where the "sponsor" trusts the publisher to present the ads faithfully. Once the ads are moved from sites like "doubleclick" to the originating site, the ads become more difficult to block.
But I would prefer they sef-destruct due to their own greed and lack of trust.
...not any more than anything else. And you know, people have been violent since LONG before current pop culture has and for some reason, I think the violence was actually WORSE than it is today... or perhaps simply more sanitary and remote.
Google most definitely does things which people like. I'm not saying it does ONLY stuff which people like. But what keeps the people coming back are useful services including, but not limited to, search, email, chat, forums, shopping... things people like with a quality they can appreciate.
Google is a service which gets its audience by doing nice things for people. (read: providing value) For all the things you might fear Google, they keep people coming back with pretty neat and entertaining stuff. They are capitalizing on good will and will defend that whenevery and whereever possible. It is their business model. (Exceptions exist... China)
In my mind, this is more "Tom and Jerry." Tom has spent billions on lawyers, lobbying, bribes/donations/contributions, pulling dirty tricks and stunts and more recently, Scroogled campaigns. Lots of Tom's efforts are comical failures but still caused Jerry a bit of trouble... there are more Jerrys than Google because I'm talking about lots of comical things like the SCO case, OOXML and all that sort of stuff you might read on Groklaw.
As the article is essentially baseless accusaiton, I'm not going to say "oh they snitched alright." And I'm not going to say they are justified or that they should have. (After all, anyone who hates Microsoft could have done it and there are a LOT of Microsoft haters out there... it could have been me!! Why does it have to be Google?) But I will say, that if it was one of Google's lawyers who did? Then this is Jerry escaping from a a Jerry-mouse sandwich, substituting himself for Tom's tail and then pulling the chair out from under Tom. As Tom sits down, he bites his tail off and flies around screaming which alerts the big bulldog in the yard to his presense and gets subsequently beaten.
The comical part is Microsoft did all the things necessary to set up the gag and Jerry, whoever it was, made minimal effort to strike a blow against Tom while defending his life.
The only unfortunate thing about this post is now I am hearing Tom and Jerry music in my head....... and SO ARE YOU!!!
Lasership doesn't deliver. Turns out they receive things and pass them off to "private contractors" instead of employees that are vetted through some sort of screening process. They have taken the sacred duty of parcel and mail delivery... you know, that darkest night, coldest winter thing? They took that and moved it over to something less than that of a pizza delivery. I say less than because when you complain to Lasership? They claim they aren't responsible -- it's the contractor... the private contractor. Yeah.
So please. Read through some of the stories. Among them someone does the homework of identifying the people who put Lasership together and we learn all sorts of things like what a shady group of people these are. Once you learn these things, you begin to go... hrm... yeah. Not gonna risk my stuff going through them.
Are you talking to people who aren't human? Because if you are, that's fine. But if you're talking to humans, then you certainly don't understand them. Among the things that distinguish humans above other animals is that we have a NEED to share. Not just a sense of generosity, but a need... an instinctive need. Countless studies have demonstrated this. That some people can be utterly selfish doesn't change the fact and we have a name for those outliers anyway -- sociopaths.
Sharing is a human thing. That some would insist that they need to change human nature, part of what makes us great and successful as a species, so they can make even more money speaks volumes about what and who they are.
I buy things to show my appreciation and for no other reason. If someone wants to share, I say good. I like to share too. I contribute to charity. I do good deeds. And making someone's life a little better does not and will not make me a criminal. It takes a selfish, greedy sociopath to want other people to suffer or do without so that they can enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this how we do science now? I get it when it's anti-science, we form a consensus and deny everything we don't like. But this?
C'mon!!
You can!
You do, however, have to be aware of what not to do.
I have had my share of trouble with Amazon's app store and apps/games acquired through it. Guess what happens to your apps/games when you remove the Amazon app store? Nothing works. Not going to play that game any longer... I quit that game quite some time ago. But it seems Google's store (play) is similar though no one actually removes the play store do they?
So the only way to be in control of your apps is to pirate them or acquire them directly from the maker which is often not an available option.
Seriously, I feel icky downloading a $3 app or game from a torrent site. I'd rather pay for it. But there are advantages to getting it the other way... and risks... and I still pay when I can. $3-$5 apps is the way things ought to be!
Uh... let's just glance at the situation:
Google, an advertising/marketing company, puts out an OS for phones and tablets and gives it away for free and then allows users access to a repository system where free apps and games are often supplied... for free.
I'd say it was implied.
That said? I do not feel obligated to donate my bandwidth for free. I run AdFree which is a hosts file modifier. It's fairly effective.
I'll just have to get updates from non-market sources.
Well said and way to show contempt.
That's the thing. These are people who care enough about it to want to offer their user perspective. The issue (in this case) is that Save/Save As removed the ability to save as the format it was opened as. Users now have to "export." It's clumsy, unintuitive and is difficult to get used to in light of the fact that the original behavior is more normal across GUI applications. (The whole point of a GUI is that apps work the same so that learning and user comfort is maximized.)
Anyway, just because the users think, feel and respond does not make them self-entitled whiners.
There has been a lot of flack about changes made in the 2.8.x GIMP. The developers insist "this is how it is and how it will be, no more discussion" despite the wrongness of it all. Many users wish to support the developers out of gratitude. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. People who speak out are slapped down and it doesn't matter if they have a good point or not. They just don't want to listen to their users and have said "if you're not a developer, you are not contributing, so shut up."
It's just wrong... and bad...
That is a HUGE and ugly truth about Apple. But it is also why they have shied away from the business and government markets -- they don't want to be required to do anythying for anyone. Apple is like "you like what we have and that is all there is." You can't ask Apple for anything -- they have already decided what they will offer and what you need.
/sarcasm>
{sarcasm} sorry... {/sarcasm}
That the human brain generally works a particular way is no indication of how the neanderthal brain worked.
We know, for example (thanks to a slashdot story) that a man with like 1/4th of a brain's normal volume (http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Quarter-Brained-Man-60542.shtml) can lead a pretty normal life. We also know that brains route around damage and adapt. So what is it with this obsessive belief that brain size is equated with X, Y and Z of intelligence and behavior?
While the article presents an interesting hypothesis which fits in with why humans would have dominated neanderthals (better group behavior/communications), it can't really be said for sure based on the size of the eyes. There's a WHOLE lot of assumption and speculation going on there.
I find it interesting that the notion of being "really smart" (based on brain size) but without good communication skills. This would imply they were effectively advanced apes... unable to learn from one another, but able to learn on their own and through mimmickry. (No stored knowledge means no building or accumulation of knowledge.)
It is the carriers which are responsible for the locking. The suppliers don't give a rat's tail about whether a phone is locked or not. The carriers make the requests and the suppliers deliver on that request. Suppliers have no dog in the fight over locked vs. unlocked beyond the mild fact that a locked phone will likely stay in the region in which it was procured. But people who relocate and wish to take their phones with them are an insignificant minority.
I get the feeling this is a blame and information deflecting piece intended to point people in directions which are not relevant.
I think it is demonstrably false that "the people" elect these people. There is ample evidence of cheating and fraud in elections and the whole process even without tampering prevents the people from selecting the selection.
The people of the US *DO NOT* control who is in office. I really wish we could put that stale argument [troll?] to rest.
That doesn't do much to account for WHO is murdering. That drop is significant, I imagine, but knowing which demographic groups are contributing less to the statistical count would be worthy of note. After all, video games are not played by all. Does the reduction coincide with [potential] gamers?
Married, 3 sons, loads of nephews and nieces (4 brothers, two half-sisters, all with kids). I come from a big, old-fashioned family lead and educated by grandparents who had experienced the great depression and passed down a wealth of family values.
My opinions are unpopular. They are old fashioned. I believe there is value in spanking (to a point) and lots of value in appreciating the true mission of parenting. Among these include leading by example, ("do as I say *AND* do as I do.") speak with them not at them, being a parent and not a "friend" and lots more. Today's parenting stems from al of the broken-ness we have in our lives -- partly due to our ambitions, partly due to the economy and LARGELY due to our own selfishness.
What this guy did right was to give something to his daughter that came from him. But she is 3. She'll be hard remembering this, let alone appreciating it. But the act of gift giving is a selfish act all by itself. He wanted to extract from her smiles and her approval. He got what he wanted. But that's the pattern I find the most disturbing. This pattern of trying to win and buy a child's love the way we do is simply wrong.
My first marriage ended with two children who chose to be with their father despite the fact that I was the one who spanked them, punished them and gave them all the hell in the world as I tried to teach them things. I haven't always been a hard-ass and most of the time, I'm quite fun. One day they even came to me saying "we like you because you're always tricking us." (I often teach by trying to fool them in some way... giving them the riddle or problem to resolve.) From me they learned everything from shoe tying to food preparation. They didn't get computer hackery from me -- no such interest, but both my older sons graduated from their schooling in "IB" programs and did quite well at it.
I am none of the things you think. I'm a serious family man who would prefer his children not go out into the world unprepared and are mentally and emotionally ready for it. One son is presently a nuke in the US Navy somewhere deep under the ocean at the moment. (They don't always do what you want, but I taught him to make up his own mind about things... I never expected to agree with everything he does.) My middle son is well on his way to building his life and my little one? :) Well, we're still having a lot of fun.
And I have to say, despite it being old fashioned, my wife stays home. When I come home, there's a meal cooking and my little one usually runs out the front door when he hears my car to greet me with a big smile on his face yelling "Daaaaadeeeeeeee!" And we do his homework together until dinner is ready.
Still think I'm a single geek living with his mother? Think I'm a bad parent?
I beg to differ. Parenting is about teaching, not catering.
If he TAUGHT her how to hack the game and she did it, then I'd be like "Parenting - you're doing it right." But to just give her this interesting gift? Let's just hope it's not a life-long pattern for either of them. Doing nice things is nice. Not saying that. But have you ever seen a child get angry because they didn't like the gift they were given? I have. Creepy. And you have to wonder how it got that way.
... let's just hope his daughter doesn't want two moms. Just sayin' we know what he'll be hacking next is all.
What is the deal with this "gender empowerment" thing? Guys like to play as female characters all the time. Read anything into it that you like. But the fact is that largely, the media fits the audience.
How is this gender empowerment when a man does it for a woman? At best it's "I want, I get" empowerment which is just kind of the wrong message I think here. "I deserve because I'm female" doesn't make sense to me and shouldn't make sense to anyone with a sense of respect.
What is this drive everywhere we look? "How can we change the world [superficially] so women feel more empowered?" The world got the way it was/is because of men doing a lot of things. Driven men. Hard working men. I'm not saying there aren't driven women and hard working women. I'm saying there's not enough of them to make a difference. So why are men responsible for women and their lack of interest or lack of ambition? The world already accomodates women who are driven and have ambition. Why do we have to do more?
"Oh hey! It's a game dude! Why are you making such a big deal out of it?" Because it's in childhood that expectations of life are formed. "Back in the day" people were extremely concerned about spoiling children. Well, back in the day, I was all for it... I was a child after all. But lately, I'm beginning to understand what it was all about. Childhood is a stage in which many of our ideas about life are formed. The notions we carry into adulthood were often formed during childhood. (Why do boys marry women who were like their mothers? Girls attracted to men like their fathers?) So yes, it makes sense we shouldn't spoil our children.
And what of it? A little princess of a girl goes out into the world expecting everyone to treat her like daddy and the boys at school did? The real world wants something in exchange and before long she wants what she had badly enough that she will give whatever it takes to get it back. We all know where this goes I suppose. Instead of catering, we should be teaching and training for the world they will live in. Parents should be teaching their children how to live in this world and if they don't like the world, how to help change it for the better.
"Women in the workplace." "Women in _______" We say these things like they are new ideas. These weren't exactly new ideas before I was born. Why are they still being studied 50+ years later? We know we can't make women more like men. And we shouldn't. It's an insult to women. So instead what are we doing? Making men more like women?!? How is that not an insult to men?
Okay... somehow my rant button was pushed instead of "wake up and get ready for work." Hope it was at least entertaining.
I don't think you're getting it. Sales and marketing are, of course, important aspect. But the thing they are saying is instead of selling new things, they are selling old things (sometimes with incremental improvements) in new ways.
But this problem is much larger really. Everything from music to movies and TV shows are doing this sort of thing. How many super hero movies? The new territory seems to be fairy tales. Why aren't they writing really original stuff?
We, the Pots, are calling the Kettle black.
The crap we have going on in the US pales in comparison. We've got far more serious corruption at every turn and we've got problems which even exceed that.
They also block them because ad sites are notorious for getting hacked and hosting malware for drive-by infections.
The online ad model is stupid. These ad companies want to host ttheir own ads so they can count each hit. This is how they hope to maximize their income. The problem is, it's working against them and they are STILL doing it. They need to go back to the broadcast and print model where the "sponsor" trusts the publisher to present the ads faithfully. Once the ads are moved from sites like "doubleclick" to the originating site, the ads become more difficult to block.
But I would prefer they sef-destruct due to their own greed and lack of trust.
...not any more than anything else. And you know, people have been violent since LONG before current pop culture has and for some reason, I think the violence was actually WORSE than it is today... or perhaps simply more sanitary and remote.
Google most definitely does things which people like. I'm not saying it does ONLY stuff which people like. But what keeps the people coming back are useful services including, but not limited to, search, email, chat, forums, shopping... things people like with a quality they can appreciate.
You've got that wrong.
Google is a service which gets its audience by doing nice things for people. (read: providing value) For all the things you might fear Google, they keep people coming back with pretty neat and entertaining stuff. They are capitalizing on good will and will defend that whenevery and whereever possible. It is their business model. (Exceptions exist... China)
In my mind, this is more "Tom and Jerry." Tom has spent billions on lawyers, lobbying, bribes/donations/contributions, pulling dirty tricks and stunts and more recently, Scroogled campaigns. Lots of Tom's efforts are comical failures but still caused Jerry a bit of trouble... there are more Jerrys than Google because I'm talking about lots of comical things like the SCO case, OOXML and all that sort of stuff you might read on Groklaw.
As the article is essentially baseless accusaiton, I'm not going to say "oh they snitched alright." And I'm not going to say they are justified or that they should have. (After all, anyone who hates Microsoft could have done it and there are a LOT of Microsoft haters out there... it could have been me!! Why does it have to be Google?) But I will say, that if it was one of Google's lawyers who did? Then this is Jerry escaping from a a Jerry-mouse sandwich, substituting himself for Tom's tail and then pulling the chair out from under Tom. As Tom sits down, he bites his tail off and flies around screaming which alerts the big bulldog in the yard to his presense and gets subsequently beaten.
The comical part is Microsoft did all the things necessary to set up the gag and Jerry, whoever it was, made minimal effort to strike a blow against Tom while defending his life.
The only unfortunate thing about this post is now I am hearing Tom and Jerry music in my head.... ... and SO ARE YOU!!!
Lasership doesn't deliver. Turns out they receive things and pass them off to "private contractors" instead of employees that are vetted through some sort of screening process. They have taken the sacred duty of parcel and mail delivery... you know, that darkest night, coldest winter thing? They took that and moved it over to something less than that of a pizza delivery. I say less than because when you complain to Lasership? They claim they aren't responsible -- it's the contractor... the private contractor. Yeah.
So please. Read through some of the stories. Among them someone does the homework of identifying the people who put Lasership together and we learn all sorts of things like what a shady group of people these are. Once you learn these things, you begin to go... hrm... yeah. Not gonna risk my stuff going through them.
Are you talking to people who aren't human? Because if you are, that's fine. But if you're talking to humans, then you certainly don't understand them. Among the things that distinguish humans above other animals is that we have a NEED to share. Not just a sense of generosity, but a need... an instinctive need. Countless studies have demonstrated this. That some people can be utterly selfish doesn't change the fact and we have a name for those outliers anyway -- sociopaths.
Sharing is a human thing. That some would insist that they need to change human nature, part of what makes us great and successful as a species, so they can make even more money speaks volumes about what and who they are.
I buy things to show my appreciation and for no other reason. If someone wants to share, I say good. I like to share too. I contribute to charity. I do good deeds. And making someone's life a little better does not and will not make me a criminal. It takes a selfish, greedy sociopath to want other people to suffer or do without so that they can enrich themselves at the expense of others.
And that's all I've got to say about that.