>>This is not a hard concept, but you seem to want to resist it rather than proceed with the next logical step of our discussion.
>You want to force them to cater for whatever you want, the concept of a free market seems to elude you, why is that?
I rest my case. You are unable to respond without equivocating one position as being a completely different one. When you can respond to what I'm actually saying, you might get a real response instead of a meta-analysis of your failure to be able to debate.
I'm glad somebody gets it. My original comment quickly got moderated to 5 (which is like.. a 1 in 200 comment thing for me), but man that other guy is up my ass about it.;)
Yes. McDonalds not offering chicken would affect your freedom of choice in chicken. You would have fewer places to go for chicken and, depending on where you live, would have to trade more resources for an equal amount of chicken. (McDonald's is the closest "restaurant" to me, if they offer something, then revoke it, I spend more gas to go elsewhere, and that affects the resource management decisions on whether getting chicken is worth it.)
This is not a hard concept, but you seem to want to resist it rather than proceed with the next logical step of our discussion.
Freedoms aren't absolutes, they come in degrees and shades of grey, like almost everything on the planet. For example, when they say "now you can only protest in 1st amendment designated zones, not any public space", you still have freedom of speech, but it is limited. Limited is not the same as destroyed or non-existent, just like limited freedom of choice is not the same as having no choice.
If you can only think in black and white, you'll never be able to fathom any of these concepts (or many others).
You're not forced to take a drug test, either. Enjoy your freedom of choice in [retail, minimum-wage] employers.
I'm sorry you don't see the bigger picture, just get angry, and respond to my position of 'it does affect your freedom of choice' to the fallacious hyperbolic version that reads 'everything in the world should be everything to everyone'. I regret to inform you that strawman attacks do not constitute rational debate -- therefore this is not a discussion. When you want to actually have one, let me know. Future fallacious responses will likely be ignored, unless you say something incredibly stupid.
It does affect your freedom of choice - there are apps you can't run because you're unwilling to deal with Apple's restrictions. I managed to get around that by somebody giving me an old iPhone they don't want anymore - which is how I arrived at my grand list of the ways Android beats iPhone, and the 14 or so ways my wife's $130 phone beat the iPhone I have (which cost $600 when it came out, tho that was probably with some other included bullshit). And I have apps that cannot work on the Android phone.
If Apple bought up an equivalent market share of restaurants, then banned all tomatoes from them, your freedom of choice would be affected, even though you are free to go to a non-apple store. Freedom of choice doesn't mean that if you have one choice, 100% of your freedom is there. "Take a piss test or be homeless" isn't full freedom of choice either.
The same entitlement complex that those who enforce anti-trust laws have.
Also, whoosh. My point went over your head based on your metaphor that does not represent the situation at all.
A more apt metaphor would be: What if new devices started using proprietary screwdriver bits? Maybe they get a kickback from the screwdriver bit industry, or manufacture the bits themselves to pad their profit (remember the outrage when the iPhone changed its screws?). The "if you don't want that tool, buy another tool" metaphor simply does not work. You cannot use their tool because they have changed it to be less adaptable. People can buy phillips and flathead screwed devices 'til the cow comes home, but there's enough mindless consumers and people that it would not change the bottom line enough for $CORPORATION to change their ways. After another company sees the money they make, they start using proprietary screws too. Eventually, it becomes an industry trend. You can either shell out for the proprietary screwdriver, or use none of these devices. Either way, your unwillingness to go with a bullshit 'feature' does nothing to stop that bullshit from creeping into every device in existence; you merely stuck your head in the sand.
YOU actually come off as the entitled one here, except that you feel entitlement for the faceless corporations that are only interested in your money, rather than for yourself and your own freedom of market choice. You somehow feel that if they were forced to offer something that costs the same to make, but allows people greater freedom, that somehow this affects your livelihood or your "feelings" on what a corporation should be allowed to do. Unless you're a CEO yourself, you're simply loving to learn the taste of the boots you lick. In fact, simply boycotting a product does not make its shitty features go away. And corporations were originally only allowed to continue existing if they served the public good; otherwise they died a mandatory, automatic death sentence. (That is, before those same corporations and their cronies re-wrote the law so that they have more rights than actual people. Privatize profits, socialize losses, no death penalty if you're a corp, and if you're a CEO you can kill someone and not go to jail because you're deemed more important than others.)
I mean, imagine someone saying "if you don't like the fact that airbags can decapitate your baby, then don't get a car with airbags". Do you think that stopped them from coming? Now I am in danger of responding to your bad metaphor with another metaphor, but my point -- which still stands -- is that simply avoiding something you don't like does not make it go away.
It's not a "simple solution". It is neither simple, nor a solution. It is not simple to reduce your freedom of choice, and it is not a solution in any way, shape, or form. A solution solves a problem. The problem still exists. You've done nothing.
"Don't like wars over oil? Then don't buy gas!"
"Don't like abortions? Then don't have one!" (This is a trick example, as I *love* abortions. But to someone who thinks abortions represent a problem {which is not me} -- this 'solution' does not actually solve the 'problem'.)
"Don't like the encroachment of civil liberties in the name of the drug war? Then don't do drugs (alternate: move to another country)."
"Don't like cops tasering people? Then don't mouth off to cops!"
Anyone who thinks this attitude constitutes a solution has a major cognitive logic defect.
Reminds me of when drug testing started to take hold in the 1970s - "If you don't want to drug test, you can choose to work at a job where you don't." Except generally, assholism comes with built-in scope creep. Now you can't get a job at Home Depot pushing carts without having machines inspect your personal fluids to determine your off-work behavior. The simply "if you don't like X, then go elsewhere" so-called 'solution' is a fallacy, and always has been. It's a way to avoid a problem; it does not fix anything, or prevent a problem from getting worse.
Another great example - "Don't like crime in this city? Move to another city." Or "Don't like the shitty laws here? Move to another country." {And when the countries of the world unite to form a cartel of shitty laws worldwide -- for instance ACTA -- they will be far harder to fight.}
And some studies have shown that a single CT scan can increase your chance of cancer by 1 in 260. Please refer to the TSA stories being posted on Slashdot.
Nobody could ever repeat those motions as much as they repeat motions on a device they hold in their hands. Unless you're opening 30 pickle jars a second for 8 hrs a day, it's a disingenuous comparison.
Considering I avoid touchscreens as much as possible (vastly preferring my wife's android phone with a real keyboard and trackball; also great if your touchscreen develops a deadspot), and get repetitive stress injuries easily (had to drive one-handed for 6 months once from lifting a beer keg into my car), I see no reason to dispute this article. Touchscreens absolutely put more wear and tear on parts of my body never accustomed to it. At least keyboard-strain is something I've learned to cope with -- don't sleep with my hand under the pillow anymore; drive with whatever hand is the good hand that month; mouse with my off-hand (left, cause i'm right-handed), etc etc. But yes, this is a new kind of strain. Just got my first touchscreen device this year, a GPS. I very quickly learned what the unlabeled buttons did, as my fingers are f'in sore after using it.
Isn't that mostly a function of peoples' monetary ability to pay for special treatments? I suppose this could make it slightly more expensive for the 875,000 americans who go to other countries to get cheaper treatments. Besides, don't the laws of supply and demand dictate ticket prices? Less demand = more money. I'm still trying to figure out, other than medical tourism, how a cheap plane ticket will extend my life.
Yes, the economy is more important than not killing people. In fact, can I kill you and take your money? It's for the good of society. That money's gotta keep changing hands. I'll be by tonite.
Tell that to art critics, and all professors who ever had criticism over works of literature. And Siskel & Ebert while you're at it. You're operating on all kinds of fallacies here... Just admit your bias.
Yea, but things had been settled for quite some time before the world wars caused the west to simply decide "oh by the way, we're going to insert a country right here, get out of your house, you don't own it anymore".
Slashdot Mirror
I rest my case. You are unable to respond without equivocating one position as being a completely different one. When you can respond to what I'm actually saying, you might get a real response instead of a meta-analysis of your failure to be able to debate.
This may help you in the future: CHART
I'm glad somebody gets it. My original comment quickly got moderated to 5 (which is like.. a 1 in 200 comment thing for me), but man that other guy is up my ass about it. ;)
This is not a hard concept, but you seem to want to resist it rather than proceed with the next logical step of our discussion.
Freedoms aren't absolutes, they come in degrees and shades of grey, like almost everything on the planet. For example, when they say "now you can only protest in 1st amendment designated zones, not any public space", you still have freedom of speech, but it is limited. Limited is not the same as destroyed or non-existent, just like limited freedom of choice is not the same as having no choice.
If you can only think in black and white, you'll never be able to fathom any of these concepts (or many others).
You're not forced to take a drug test, either. Enjoy your freedom of choice in [retail, minimum-wage] employers.
I'm sorry you don't see the bigger picture, just get angry, and respond to my position of 'it does affect your freedom of choice' to the fallacious hyperbolic version that reads 'everything in the world should be everything to everyone'. I regret to inform you that strawman attacks do not constitute rational debate -- therefore this is not a discussion. When you want to actually have one, let me know. Future fallacious responses will likely be ignored, unless you say something incredibly stupid.
Hehe thanks :) My karma is actually excellent, but, y'know, I figured I'd join in the .signature posturing trend! :) :)
If Apple bought up an equivalent market share of restaurants, then banned all tomatoes from them, your freedom of choice would be affected, even though you are free to go to a non-apple store. Freedom of choice doesn't mean that if you have one choice, 100% of your freedom is there. "Take a piss test or be homeless" isn't full freedom of choice either.
Also, whoosh. My point went over your head based on your metaphor that does not represent the situation at all.
A more apt metaphor would be: What if new devices started using proprietary screwdriver bits? Maybe they get a kickback from the screwdriver bit industry, or manufacture the bits themselves to pad their profit (remember the outrage when the iPhone changed its screws?). The "if you don't want that tool, buy another tool" metaphor simply does not work. You cannot use their tool because they have changed it to be less adaptable. People can buy phillips and flathead screwed devices 'til the cow comes home, but there's enough mindless consumers and people that it would not change the bottom line enough for $CORPORATION to change their ways. After another company sees the money they make, they start using proprietary screws too. Eventually, it becomes an industry trend. You can either shell out for the proprietary screwdriver, or use none of these devices. Either way, your unwillingness to go with a bullshit 'feature' does nothing to stop that bullshit from creeping into every device in existence; you merely stuck your head in the sand.
YOU actually come off as the entitled one here, except that you feel entitlement for the faceless corporations that are only interested in your money, rather than for yourself and your own freedom of market choice. You somehow feel that if they were forced to offer something that costs the same to make, but allows people greater freedom, that somehow this affects your livelihood or your "feelings" on what a corporation should be allowed to do. Unless you're a CEO yourself, you're simply loving to learn the taste of the boots you lick. In fact, simply boycotting a product does not make its shitty features go away. And corporations were originally only allowed to continue existing if they served the public good; otherwise they died a mandatory, automatic death sentence. (That is, before those same corporations and their cronies re-wrote the law so that they have more rights than actual people. Privatize profits, socialize losses, no death penalty if you're a corp, and if you're a CEO you can kill someone and not go to jail because you're deemed more important than others.)
I mean, imagine someone saying "if you don't like the fact that airbags can decapitate your baby, then don't get a car with airbags". Do you think that stopped them from coming? Now I am in danger of responding to your bad metaphor with another metaphor, but my point -- which still stands -- is that simply avoiding something you don't like does not make it go away.
It's not a "simple solution". It is neither simple, nor a solution. It is not simple to reduce your freedom of choice, and it is not a solution in any way, shape, or form. A solution solves a problem. The problem still exists. You've done nothing.
"Don't like wars over oil? Then don't buy gas!"
"Don't like abortions? Then don't have one!" (This is a trick example, as I *love* abortions. But to someone who thinks abortions represent a problem {which is not me} -- this 'solution' does not actually solve the 'problem'.)
"Don't like the encroachment of civil liberties in the name of the drug war? Then don't do drugs (alternate: move to another country)."
"Don't like cops tasering people? Then don't mouth off to cops!"
Anyone who thinks this attitude constitutes a solution has a major cognitive logic defect.
Reminds me of when drug testing started to take hold in the 1970s - "If you don't want to drug test, you can choose to work at a job where you don't." Except generally, assholism comes with built-in scope creep. Now you can't get a job at Home Depot pushing carts without having machines inspect your personal fluids to determine your off-work behavior. The simply "if you don't like X, then go elsewhere" so-called 'solution' is a fallacy, and always has been. It's a way to avoid a problem; it does not fix anything, or prevent a problem from getting worse.
Another great example - "Don't like crime in this city? Move to another city." Or "Don't like the shitty laws here? Move to another country." {And when the countries of the world unite to form a cartel of shitty laws worldwide -- for instance ACTA -- they will be far harder to fight.}
And some studies have shown that a single CT scan can increase your chance of cancer by 1 in 260. Please refer to the TSA stories being posted on Slashdot.
NEVER!
You're not the first to point this out, but you're the funniest. :)
[Though I think most of the comments here would apply to both, and they were what drove me to post my comment. :)]
Now, think about the choice of the word "expand". HAHAHA
Nobody could ever repeat those motions as much as they repeat motions on a device they hold in their hands. Unless you're opening 30 pickle jars a second for 8 hrs a day, it's a disingenuous comparison.
Considering I avoid touchscreens as much as possible (vastly preferring my wife's android phone with a real keyboard and trackball; also great if your touchscreen develops a deadspot), and get repetitive stress injuries easily (had to drive one-handed for 6 months once from lifting a beer keg into my car), I see no reason to dispute this article. Touchscreens absolutely put more wear and tear on parts of my body never accustomed to it. At least keyboard-strain is something I've learned to cope with -- don't sleep with my hand under the pillow anymore; drive with whatever hand is the good hand that month; mouse with my off-hand (left, cause i'm right-handed), etc etc. But yes, this is a new kind of strain. Just got my first touchscreen device this year, a GPS. I very quickly learned what the unlabeled buttons did, as my fingers are f'in sore after using it.
(snicker) Oceans.
$500M of a corporation's money, vs a person's right to fly on a plane without cracked wings. Tough indeed.
Isn't that mostly a function of peoples' monetary ability to pay for special treatments? I suppose this could make it slightly more expensive for the 875,000 americans who go to other countries to get cheaper treatments. Besides, don't the laws of supply and demand dictate ticket prices? Less demand = more money. I'm still trying to figure out, other than medical tourism, how a cheap plane ticket will extend my life.
Yes, the economy is more important than not killing people. In fact, can I kill you and take your money? It's for the good of society. That money's gotta keep changing hands. I'll be by tonite.
Thanks for the lol :)
5? I can name over 20. Google: Do you use it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
Modify my statement to be better - I may just learn something :)
From what I've seen in history, only democracies nuke civilians.
Tell that to art critics, and all professors who ever had criticism over works of literature. And Siskel & Ebert while you're at it. You're operating on all kinds of fallacies here... Just admit your bias.
I'm sorry, are people required to give a solution to posit a problem? Seems that attitude would thwart a lot of things (like math).
Yea, but things had been settled for quite some time before the world wars caused the west to simply decide "oh by the way, we're going to insert a country right here, get out of your house, you don't own it anymore".