Do telcos actually make money off of robocalls? If so, how?
I would imagine very few people now pay by the minute, and that most of the time robocalls just stresses the network for no additional revenue to the telcos. How much money do you think telcos make with each incremental call?
I think you're absolutely spot-on. Netflix of old is gone, or soon will be gone. Every media company is now realizing the value of owning the Internet distribution channel, and won't easily lease rights to a 3rd-party, which ultimately means a fragmentation of the market, the death of Netflix/Hulu, and a lot of Disney/HBO/etc. streaming services.
The one problem media companies are not seeing is that Netflix is/was successful because it was an aggregator of content; people don't necessarily want to pay for the Disney Channel on its own at $15/month, that option always existed (more or less) via cable. I posit that as the market fragments itself, consumers will simply go back to piracy, because that's the only convenient and cheap way of getting the content.
So instead of getting shot at, you just get censored due to religion...It's better, for sure, but that doesn't make religion better. It's just a religion, you (not you literally, the figurative you) believe what the heck you want and others can do what the heck they please, including drawing comics about your figurehead. Drawing Jesus comics doesn't infringe on your religious rights; however, if you decide to censor, or worse, retaliate against the creators, that just means religion is given way too much power or you're a terrorist.
That's great news and I want to point and laugh at the scammer as much as the next guy... it's just too bad the common folk still have to suffer scammer calls (and a minority actually fall for it) with really no recourse. The FBI surely wouldn't help me if I tried to setup a sting on a scammer...
Frankly at this point, there's so much distrust you maybe shouldn't use anything from any company you don't have direct jurisdiction over. Huawei or Cisco may or may not have backdoors in the equipment, the point is you won't know for sure and won't be able to do anything in case they do, so...
French/Belgian comics "feel" different from American ones, and it's a whole different cultural thing. Manga for example is still growing in the US, even if traditional superhero comics are not, and I'd argue French/Belgian ones are more similar to manga. It's just a medium to communicate a story, whereas in the US "comics" are traditionally all about superheros (at least that's my knowledge of US comics).
Well, he's right... We've been complaining here about inequality and how trickle-down economics don't work, and that's exactly what he's saying. It's not news though. The billionaires took control of politics and have been accumulating both money and power, and have been lying and getting votes from the exact people that would benefit most from redistribution. But that's okay... we prefer to believe we all have a chance at the American Dream, rather than have anything that resembles socialism.
Remind me, what's net neutrality again? About.. not doing anything to alter traffic speed? A law that enforces net neutrality literally asks ISPs to do nothing. There's nothing to interpret. It says "do not f*ck around with your network", which is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.
This problem was 100% PEBCAK. Sure, the state could have clarified was "conspicuous" means - it's not without fault. However the lawmakers weren't programmers and didn't write exception handling in their law, and some employee at CenturyLink decided to do something stupid, probably without asking their Legal department that would have then clarified the ask.
By the way, interesting article today that kind of adds to my point by saying not only can we afford it, the US is also unique in its consumption because of how much we value instant gratification.
But... life isn't different in other countries. In most countries you can't be late to work without facing consequences, and you work the same hours, and you also need to eat and have coffee. None of that requires an SUV, disposable coffee cups, plastic bottles for yogurt, etc. And the importance of a job on your social status is pretty universal as well (especially in Asian countries).
The difference is just... money, mostly. You could wake up earlier, make your own coffee and breakfast (which would be cheaper), and drive a smaller car. You choose not to, because you can afford not to. You can exchange money for convenience. Let's face it, people don't really care about the environment, not if it demands them to make different, inconvenient choices. Why do you think China's emissions are going up? Because they're getting richer, producing more, consuming more. That's all. Chinese people used to recycle paper and aluminium 50 years ago, before it was a thing in the West. Why? Because they could sell old newspapers by the pound to a guy that would sell it to a facility that would produce "new" paper cheaper with the old newspapers. Now, there's actually less recycling, because that amount of money is inconsequential. The US and Canada are just way past that... a minority of people choose to actively care and modify their behavior for the environment; most people don't, and yes that's because we're all assholes (not just in the US or Canada) and we can afford to.
... 31 percent with an average credit limit of about $5,700. Higher than any other age group. That means the average millenial carries around a $2000 credit card debt.
Wait wait what. Help me understand. Credit limit of 5.7K just means credit limit, not average carry-over balance, right? And only 31% of Millenials use credit cards? Unless you're telling me 31% of Millenials have a month-to-month balance, and the average balance is for these guys is 5.7K, in which case daaaamn, I want to find the data source because that's screwed up.
The solution to that is perhaps to legislate the price of energy, and also mandate a switch to a more sustainable production mix. Most countries actually do have the first one (even the US); if you also mandate the production switch, what will happen is private companies will make less money in order to achieve the goal, not plunge the entire country into a doomsday scenario. Oh, and if the cost to shift production is so extravagant a private company can't afford it? Well then maybe if we consider energy as a matter of life and death for the population, it's something the government should control and fund.
There's a difference between network speed and data usage/bandwidth though? Like... with low speed (e.g., 3G) you can still use massive data, it just takes longer to do so. Unless files start taking more space (e.g., 4K streaming instead of normal 720p), there's no reason for your data consumption to change between 4G and 5G. 5G is all-in-all a net benefit (assuming a constant consumer price).
Sure, but if you read the original summary it feels like this is about classifying loot boxes as a form of gambling, which is regulated, and is illegal when targeting non-adults. Presumably if the game makers could guarantee no minor is allowed to pay for loot boxes (impossible, I know) and would disclose the odds (like the lottery), it would be fine. Again, this is not even "banning", this is saying "you're a form of gambling, act like it" and companies prefer to get out rather than obey the law.
Otherwise yeah, I agree you can't just ban everything that's potentially addicting. However you do forget to address the fact drugs are banned, and alcohol is regulated, and that's fine...
What's wrong with that? Belgium (and the EU in general, though this is Belgium only for now) believes loot boxes are detrimental to their population, especially the young people targeted by that business model. It's a model that can have massive (negative) financial impacts on the individual, and fosters addiction. Now, you may not believe that about loot boxes, and that's your right, but the Belgian government does, and as a self-respecting government thinking about doing the best for its population, it decided to act.
It's not that different from banning drugs, or having regulations around gambling, or laws against underage drinking, or a TSA agent that prevents me from carrying a pocket knife, except in this case your personal freedom isn't even infringed. A government that cares about its population legislates in order to prevent for-profit, private entities to do what they want to the detriment of the people. If you call that a nanny state... fine? Does it really go against your freedom? No, it's about mandating corporations to do the right thing. Heck, what's the alternative, a Wild West where the government does nothing, and corporations can do what they want?
That's exactly right, vast parts of the land are completely uninhabited, and yet those lands have to be crossed to install the physical things needed for proper broadband. You can't run wires over that distance, and even installing a cell tower is a major undertaking.
Example, Grise Fiord up in the Arctic? Like a 100 people, only reachable by boat or plane (and only in the summer). Any telecom construction that needs to get there requires you to plan 1 year in advance, pack everything (_everything_, because there is no Home Depot and if you realize you're missing a tie-wrap to affix something at the last minute, tough luck) into a boat, and then it takes months to get up there because there's only a handful of boats that actually go up there. By the way, they do have a cellphone tower with internet now, but that's the exception (and I'm sure it was government subsidized). Do you think any capitalistic telecom company wants to spend millions to install broadband for 100 people?
Yes, but in all those countries where public transit is cheap and efficient, it's usually government-paid. I don't know the specifics of the Beijing subway, but it's not ran as a private company, is it? It's likely managed like a division of the municipal government, and taxes go into it. The problem in North America is we don't want to subsidize public transit too much, and there's never enough capital to invest in large public transit projects, which leads us to the situation we're in. I call it a societal choice (maybe not yours, not mine, but the choice of politicians voted in by the population). Alas. At least Amazon is getting tax breaks...
While I hate LBOs as much as the next person (in fairness probably even more), I expect Dell's shareholders to want that extra 50c and to damn the company and its employees. Unless you're both an employee and a shareholder... the plan is to take the shares off of your hand, why would you care what happens to the company afterwards? The Board of Directors is responsible to shareholders, not employees. Rationally, they'd probably vote for Dell to get gutted. Yay, unbridled capitalism.
Re:Employer has not be heard of for about ever
on
New Pope Selected
·
· Score: 2
In real life, assume you've been given the reigns of a company that issues new shares every quarter, produces nothing but annual letters, and pays your every expenses and allows you to live in luxury, with no Board of Directors to oversee your actions. Would you really tell your shareholders "y'know, that Board of Directors doesn't exist and we're selling you pipe dreams?"
Nothing was _lost_ for BitCoin, or for the employer, or for the market as a whole. But you, the individual that had a winning number and got told "oops, sorry, not for you this time", you'll feel as if you lost something. Now you have to toil for another month to wait for a chance to win.
It may be a simple technical flaw that is easily fixed, but for the person impacted, it's not just that. It doesn't build confidence. Would you work for such an employer?
Moderate Islam? No, Islam is the religion, with its list of dogmas and its holy book. Most religions, to me, seem to be founded by nutjobs and have their share of crazy things, but not every believer thinks everything in their holy book is real and must be followed to the letter. That's why we have moderate Muslims.
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
But you know what? Most Christians and Jews are moderate, and don't seek to put my head to the sword.
I fully agree with you but you also have to think that EA has accumulated years of bad press and anger, from DRM, bad treatment of its employees, buying up beloved studios and burning them down to the most recent "please insert your newborn baby to refuel your car."
I don't blame EA for Origins. It's annoying, but as you say, it's equivalent to Steam. For the rest though? Companies like Valve are liked because they (so far) haven't released a game that was "free-to-play" but in reality pay-to-play (yes, I'm thinking of having to pay to service your car in Real Racing 3), a game with annoying DLC reminders (Dragon Age or whatever else) and because Valve doesn't behave like a douchebag bully with its customers and employees. That's why in a EA vs Valve fight, Valve wins.
This goodwill is however not eternal. 7-8 years ago, Google was amazing, everyone loved them. "Do no evil", it was said... and yet now, there is slowly some creeping criticism. Don't sow what you're not willing to reap. EA's ripe for the reaping.
Y'know it's not _quite_ the same, depending on what type of DLC we're talking about?
Back then, you could buy a game, play it, finish it, and enjoy it, and nothing mentioned any expansion packs. If you got an expansion, it was usually adding a new storyline, brand new levels, whatever, but a "new" game using the same game engine and same game universe.
Example:
Diablo 1: Finished the game, enjoyed it? Good. Oh wow, an expansion. Want to play as a monk, explore two new levels? Get the expansion. Don't want to? That's okay, no one will force you
Dragon Age Origins: Hey look, an area on my map. *goes to area* Hey look, an NPC with a quest! *talks to NPC* Uh. What do you mean, I have to pay to download a DLC to play the quest you just offered?... I don't want to. Why do you have an area, why do you exist in my freaking game?
And _that_ is the difference. Expansions don't prompt me, within my original game, to spend more money. It's entirely voluntary. DLCs just tease you.
The western world had its industrial revolution more than a hundred years ago. It polluted its own rivers, its own cities, and had adults and children alike working in terrible conditions. Slowly but surely, its population realized this was not sustainable, that the costs were too great, and instigated changes such as environmental controls, laws on working conditions, etc. Businesses and factories had to adapt to the changing conditions and the lack of close-to-slave labour, but the price was worth paying.
Fast-forward to the future, and with the advent of new technologies and speedier communication methods and transports, we live in a globalized world. It is now possible to manufacture goods in another country than yours at a lower cost. These countries have just started their industrial revolution, do not know better or are dealing with a very accelerated developmental process and its growing pains, while usually having the short end of the stick due to an imbalance in power in global politics. Capitalists everywhere jump at the opportunity to maximize their profits, but at the same time, they also offer cheaper goods to their customers. Everyone wins.
Everyone wins? No, everyone wins here, in the western world. You and I enjoy products (of varying quality, I must admit) that are cheaper than if they were produced here. Consumers rejoice, and send a clear message: keep it coming, that's what we want. We are happy to maintain a high quality of life, in a a safe and healthy environment. Someone, somewhere though is paying the price, and that is the workers in south-east Asia or elsewhere, who die in their cancer villages. Is it your fault, my fault, our fault? Not directly. I sure as hell don't control environmental politics in China. I also am not responsible for managing the development of a country of a billion people. I do however have the choice of buying products that were made by companies respectful of the environment and its employees. Slashdot likes to decry the conditions of the Foxconn workers, and the western world pointing fingers at it and sending that message to Apple makes them care just a tad bit more, but somehow when the environment is concerned, it's their own goddamn problem? A lot of the pollution problems in developing countries is incurred because they are developing, because of _us_ caring only about a cheaper price and results and not one iota about their conditions. We're not willing to pay for them to have environmental regulations.
The Chinese industrial revolution is barely 30 years old, and they haven't yet learned to stand up for themselves. They're starting though, slowly. Give them time, give them the hundred years the western world had. We'll see then. Meanwhile, enjoy your cheap stuff and keep blaming them for the world's environmental problems.
PS: This post is not against _you_ in particular. I'm just trying to argue that fault is not very clear-cut, but I do think that part of it is ours.
No no. Google, Dell, Apple, Microsoft.. those are all companies that _make money_. They make money by producing something, by _creating_ something. That's not what Bitcoin is doing.
The proper analogy is that a few people found shiny rocks in a riverbed. They then go "nice, shiny!", get together and discover few people own those shiny rocks. They then proceed to convince everyone that these shiny rocks should be worth something and that it can be used as a currency, since it's rare and easily transportable. In the beginning, most people don't care, and so the founders accumulate a lot of shiny rocks. By the time shiny rocks become popular, there are few to be found in the riverbed, but some suckers still come by and look for fragments of shiny rocks.
It's not exactly a Ponzi scheme because no new member is directly paying old members through the scheme. They are all increasing the value of shiny rocks however, as they become more commonly used. The only problem is that those shiny rocks have absolutely no use, and do not produce anything (that's why I didn't say gold; gold has uses). While it's fun for as long as it works, one day people might realize they could use something else than shiny rocks, and their values will drop. Or, or maybe the feudal lord ruling over the place decides that he won't accept shiny rocks but prefers paper bills written "United States of America" and "legal tender" for you to pay your taxes and dues, who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
Do telcos actually make money off of robocalls? If so, how?
I would imagine very few people now pay by the minute, and that most of the time robocalls just stresses the network for no additional revenue to the telcos. How much money do you think telcos make with each incremental call?
I think you're absolutely spot-on. Netflix of old is gone, or soon will be gone. Every media company is now realizing the value of owning the Internet distribution channel, and won't easily lease rights to a 3rd-party, which ultimately means a fragmentation of the market, the death of Netflix/Hulu, and a lot of Disney/HBO/etc. streaming services.
The one problem media companies are not seeing is that Netflix is/was successful because it was an aggregator of content; people don't necessarily want to pay for the Disney Channel on its own at $15/month, that option always existed (more or less) via cable. I posit that as the market fragments itself, consumers will simply go back to piracy, because that's the only convenient and cheap way of getting the content.
So instead of getting shot at, you just get censored due to religion...It's better, for sure, but that doesn't make religion better. It's just a religion, you (not you literally, the figurative you) believe what the heck you want and others can do what the heck they please, including drawing comics about your figurehead. Drawing Jesus comics doesn't infringe on your religious rights; however, if you decide to censor, or worse, retaliate against the creators, that just means religion is given way too much power or you're a terrorist.
That's great news and I want to point and laugh at the scammer as much as the next guy... it's just too bad the common folk still have to suffer scammer calls (and a minority actually fall for it) with really no recourse. The FBI surely wouldn't help me if I tried to setup a sting on a scammer...
Frankly at this point, there's so much distrust you maybe shouldn't use anything from any company you don't have direct jurisdiction over. Huawei or Cisco may or may not have backdoors in the equipment, the point is you won't know for sure and won't be able to do anything in case they do, so...
French/Belgian comics "feel" different from American ones, and it's a whole different cultural thing. Manga for example is still growing in the US, even if traditional superhero comics are not, and I'd argue French/Belgian ones are more similar to manga. It's just a medium to communicate a story, whereas in the US "comics" are traditionally all about superheros (at least that's my knowledge of US comics).
Well, he's right... We've been complaining here about inequality and how trickle-down economics don't work, and that's exactly what he's saying. It's not news though. The billionaires took control of politics and have been accumulating both money and power, and have been lying and getting votes from the exact people that would benefit most from redistribution. But that's okay... we prefer to believe we all have a chance at the American Dream, rather than have anything that resembles socialism.
Remind me, what's net neutrality again? About.. not doing anything to alter traffic speed? A law that enforces net neutrality literally asks ISPs to do nothing. There's nothing to interpret. It says "do not f*ck around with your network", which is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.
This problem was 100% PEBCAK. Sure, the state could have clarified was "conspicuous" means - it's not without fault. However the lawmakers weren't programmers and didn't write exception handling in their law, and some employee at CenturyLink decided to do something stupid, probably without asking their Legal department that would have then clarified the ask.
And many places have flexible hours in the US.
By the way, interesting article today that kind of adds to my point by saying not only can we afford it, the US is also unique in its consumption because of how much we value instant gratification.
But... life isn't different in other countries. In most countries you can't be late to work without facing consequences, and you work the same hours, and you also need to eat and have coffee. None of that requires an SUV, disposable coffee cups, plastic bottles for yogurt, etc. And the importance of a job on your social status is pretty universal as well (especially in Asian countries).
The difference is just... money, mostly. You could wake up earlier, make your own coffee and breakfast (which would be cheaper), and drive a smaller car. You choose not to, because you can afford not to. You can exchange money for convenience. Let's face it, people don't really care about the environment, not if it demands them to make different, inconvenient choices. Why do you think China's emissions are going up? Because they're getting richer, producing more, consuming more. That's all. Chinese people used to recycle paper and aluminium 50 years ago, before it was a thing in the West. Why? Because they could sell old newspapers by the pound to a guy that would sell it to a facility that would produce "new" paper cheaper with the old newspapers. Now, there's actually less recycling, because that amount of money is inconsequential. The US and Canada are just way past that... a minority of people choose to actively care and modify their behavior for the environment; most people don't, and yes that's because we're all assholes (not just in the US or Canada) and we can afford to.
... 31 percent with an average credit limit of about $5,700. Higher than any other age group. That means the average millenial carries around a $2000 credit card debt.
Wait wait what. Help me understand. Credit limit of 5.7K just means credit limit, not average carry-over balance, right? And only 31% of Millenials use credit cards? Unless you're telling me 31% of Millenials have a month-to-month balance, and the average balance is for these guys is 5.7K, in which case daaaamn, I want to find the data source because that's screwed up.
The solution to that is perhaps to legislate the price of energy, and also mandate a switch to a more sustainable production mix. Most countries actually do have the first one (even the US); if you also mandate the production switch, what will happen is private companies will make less money in order to achieve the goal, not plunge the entire country into a doomsday scenario. Oh, and if the cost to shift production is so extravagant a private company can't afford it? Well then maybe if we consider energy as a matter of life and death for the population, it's something the government should control and fund.
There's a difference between network speed and data usage/bandwidth though? Like... with low speed (e.g., 3G) you can still use massive data, it just takes longer to do so. Unless files start taking more space (e.g., 4K streaming instead of normal 720p), there's no reason for your data consumption to change between 4G and 5G. 5G is all-in-all a net benefit (assuming a constant consumer price).
Sure, but if you read the original summary it feels like this is about classifying loot boxes as a form of gambling, which is regulated, and is illegal when targeting non-adults. Presumably if the game makers could guarantee no minor is allowed to pay for loot boxes (impossible, I know) and would disclose the odds (like the lottery), it would be fine. Again, this is not even "banning", this is saying "you're a form of gambling, act like it" and companies prefer to get out rather than obey the law.
Otherwise yeah, I agree you can't just ban everything that's potentially addicting. However you do forget to address the fact drugs are banned, and alcohol is regulated, and that's fine...
What's wrong with that? Belgium (and the EU in general, though this is Belgium only for now) believes loot boxes are detrimental to their population, especially the young people targeted by that business model. It's a model that can have massive (negative) financial impacts on the individual, and fosters addiction. Now, you may not believe that about loot boxes, and that's your right, but the Belgian government does, and as a self-respecting government thinking about doing the best for its population, it decided to act.
It's not that different from banning drugs, or having regulations around gambling, or laws against underage drinking, or a TSA agent that prevents me from carrying a pocket knife, except in this case your personal freedom isn't even infringed. A government that cares about its population legislates in order to prevent for-profit, private entities to do what they want to the detriment of the people. If you call that a nanny state... fine? Does it really go against your freedom? No, it's about mandating corporations to do the right thing. Heck, what's the alternative, a Wild West where the government does nothing, and corporations can do what they want?
That's exactly right, vast parts of the land are completely uninhabited, and yet those lands have to be crossed to install the physical things needed for proper broadband. You can't run wires over that distance, and even installing a cell tower is a major undertaking.
Example, Grise Fiord up in the Arctic? Like a 100 people, only reachable by boat or plane (and only in the summer). Any telecom construction that needs to get there requires you to plan 1 year in advance, pack everything (_everything_, because there is no Home Depot and if you realize you're missing a tie-wrap to affix something at the last minute, tough luck) into a boat, and then it takes months to get up there because there's only a handful of boats that actually go up there. By the way, they do have a cellphone tower with internet now, but that's the exception (and I'm sure it was government subsidized). Do you think any capitalistic telecom company wants to spend millions to install broadband for 100 people?
Yes, but in all those countries where public transit is cheap and efficient, it's usually government-paid. I don't know the specifics of the Beijing subway, but it's not ran as a private company, is it? It's likely managed like a division of the municipal government, and taxes go into it. The problem in North America is we don't want to subsidize public transit too much, and there's never enough capital to invest in large public transit projects, which leads us to the situation we're in. I call it a societal choice (maybe not yours, not mine, but the choice of politicians voted in by the population). Alas. At least Amazon is getting tax breaks...
While I hate LBOs as much as the next person (in fairness probably even more), I expect Dell's shareholders to want that extra 50c and to damn the company and its employees. Unless you're both an employee and a shareholder... the plan is to take the shares off of your hand, why would you care what happens to the company afterwards? The Board of Directors is responsible to shareholders, not employees. Rationally, they'd probably vote for Dell to get gutted. Yay, unbridled capitalism.
In real life, assume you've been given the reigns of a company that issues new shares every quarter, produces nothing but annual letters, and pays your every expenses and allows you to live in luxury, with no Board of Directors to oversee your actions. Would you really tell your shareholders "y'know, that Board of Directors doesn't exist and we're selling you pipe dreams?"
Uhm. Yes, yes it sounds like they've lost.
Nothing was _lost_ for BitCoin, or for the employer, or for the market as a whole. But you, the individual that had a winning number and got told "oops, sorry, not for you this time", you'll feel as if you lost something. Now you have to toil for another month to wait for a chance to win.
It may be a simple technical flaw that is easily fixed, but for the person impacted, it's not just that. It doesn't build confidence. Would you work for such an employer?
Moderate Islam? No, Islam is the religion, with its list of dogmas and its holy book. Most religions, to me, seem to be founded by nutjobs and have their share of crazy things, but not every believer thinks everything in their holy book is real and must be followed to the letter. That's why we have moderate Muslims.
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
But you know what? Most Christians and Jews are moderate, and don't seek to put my head to the sword.
I fully agree with you but you also have to think that EA has accumulated years of bad press and anger, from DRM, bad treatment of its employees, buying up beloved studios and burning them down to the most recent "please insert your newborn baby to refuel your car."
I don't blame EA for Origins. It's annoying, but as you say, it's equivalent to Steam. For the rest though? Companies like Valve are liked because they (so far) haven't released a game that was "free-to-play" but in reality pay-to-play (yes, I'm thinking of having to pay to service your car in Real Racing 3), a game with annoying DLC reminders (Dragon Age or whatever else) and because Valve doesn't behave like a douchebag bully with its customers and employees. That's why in a EA vs Valve fight, Valve wins.
This goodwill is however not eternal. 7-8 years ago, Google was amazing, everyone loved them. "Do no evil", it was said... and yet now, there is slowly some creeping criticism. Don't sow what you're not willing to reap. EA's ripe for the reaping.
Y'know it's not _quite_ the same, depending on what type of DLC we're talking about?
Back then, you could buy a game, play it, finish it, and enjoy it, and nothing mentioned any expansion packs. If you got an expansion, it was usually adding a new storyline, brand new levels, whatever, but a "new" game using the same game engine and same game universe.
Example:
Diablo 1: Finished the game, enjoyed it? Good. Oh wow, an expansion. Want to play as a monk, explore two new levels? Get the expansion. Don't want to? That's okay, no one will force you
Dragon Age Origins: Hey look, an area on my map. *goes to area* Hey look, an NPC with a quest! *talks to NPC* Uh. What do you mean, I have to pay to download a DLC to play the quest you just offered?... I don't want to. Why do you have an area, why do you exist in my freaking game?
And _that_ is the difference. Expansions don't prompt me, within my original game, to spend more money. It's entirely voluntary. DLCs just tease you.
It's not your fault, not directly.
The western world had its industrial revolution more than a hundred years ago. It polluted its own rivers, its own cities, and had adults and children alike working in terrible conditions. Slowly but surely, its population realized this was not sustainable, that the costs were too great, and instigated changes such as environmental controls, laws on working conditions, etc. Businesses and factories had to adapt to the changing conditions and the lack of close-to-slave labour, but the price was worth paying.
Fast-forward to the future, and with the advent of new technologies and speedier communication methods and transports, we live in a globalized world. It is now possible to manufacture goods in another country than yours at a lower cost. These countries have just started their industrial revolution, do not know better or are dealing with a very accelerated developmental process and its growing pains, while usually having the short end of the stick due to an imbalance in power in global politics. Capitalists everywhere jump at the opportunity to maximize their profits, but at the same time, they also offer cheaper goods to their customers. Everyone wins.
Everyone wins? No, everyone wins here, in the western world. You and I enjoy products (of varying quality, I must admit) that are cheaper than if they were produced here. Consumers rejoice, and send a clear message: keep it coming, that's what we want. We are happy to maintain a high quality of life, in a a safe and healthy environment. Someone, somewhere though is paying the price, and that is the workers in south-east Asia or elsewhere, who die in their cancer villages. Is it your fault, my fault, our fault? Not directly. I sure as hell don't control environmental politics in China. I also am not responsible for managing the development of a country of a billion people. I do however have the choice of buying products that were made by companies respectful of the environment and its employees. Slashdot likes to decry the conditions of the Foxconn workers, and the western world pointing fingers at it and sending that message to Apple makes them care just a tad bit more, but somehow when the environment is concerned, it's their own goddamn problem? A lot of the pollution problems in developing countries is incurred because they are developing, because of _us_ caring only about a cheaper price and results and not one iota about their conditions. We're not willing to pay for them to have environmental regulations.
The Chinese industrial revolution is barely 30 years old, and they haven't yet learned to stand up for themselves. They're starting though, slowly. Give them time, give them the hundred years the western world had. We'll see then. Meanwhile, enjoy your cheap stuff and keep blaming them for the world's environmental problems.
PS: This post is not against _you_ in particular. I'm just trying to argue that fault is not very clear-cut, but I do think that part of it is ours.
No no. Google, Dell, Apple, Microsoft.. those are all companies that _make money_. They make money by producing something, by _creating_ something. That's not what Bitcoin is doing.
The proper analogy is that a few people found shiny rocks in a riverbed. They then go "nice, shiny!", get together and discover few people own those shiny rocks. They then proceed to convince everyone that these shiny rocks should be worth something and that it can be used as a currency, since it's rare and easily transportable. In the beginning, most people don't care, and so the founders accumulate a lot of shiny rocks. By the time shiny rocks become popular, there are few to be found in the riverbed, but some suckers still come by and look for fragments of shiny rocks.
It's not exactly a Ponzi scheme because no new member is directly paying old members through the scheme. They are all increasing the value of shiny rocks however, as they become more commonly used. The only problem is that those shiny rocks have absolutely no use, and do not produce anything (that's why I didn't say gold; gold has uses). While it's fun for as long as it works, one day people might realize they could use something else than shiny rocks, and their values will drop. Or, or maybe the feudal lord ruling over the place decides that he won't accept shiny rocks but prefers paper bills written "United States of America" and "legal tender" for you to pay your taxes and dues, who knows.