I created what I call an "unfuck script" that does this and a number of other things (such as moving the documents folder into a cloud sync floating profile folder, where I have a bunch of portable apps sitting so that I don't need to run a bunch of installers) that way installing a fresh copy of Windows on any of my machines and fully configuring it afterwards takes me about 5 minutes, and because it's all scripted I don't forget important things (such as using my upstream bandwidth for other people to get windows updates.)
Now, people who belittle those with mental illness - they should be ostracized. It no better than taunting somebody who gets cancer.
That's fine and all, except in reality people love to shame it anyways. Especially on slashdot. Just read the comments about any summary that has to do with somebody being a psychopath, which is a mental illness. CEO's are frequently psychopaths, and people here love to name and shame them over it.
The same is also true of pedophiles. I don't think anybody anywhere ever just decides one day "I'd like to be a pedophile."
Borrowing is at the heart of countless fortunes. Many of the classic rags-to-riches tales start off with "Mr. X had an idea. So he borrowed from his friends/relatives/random people on the street" to get enough capital to start his business. Today it's worth XX billion dollars. Without checking, I'd lay even money that one of the names you could substitute for "X" is Bill Gates.
Actually there is wisdom in it, but you're assuming risk. You have to accept the reality that it's more likely that you'll end up poor (at least for a while) when doing this. However that's not to say that you shouldn't do it. Just when people say "the few hold all of the wealth" they're really discounting the fact that most people who are poor put themselves there, and going to places like payday or title loan shops is a good way to end up there.
Which by the way, notice how those places don't advertise to rich people?
Surely - I have and do. A small example of this is the credit card conundrum. I have two credit cards One that I live on, and one for fuel. Cashback cards. I pay off the bill in full every month, then get cash back at the end of the year.
I do the same thing, but I don't consider it borrowing. If you already have the cash reserves and pay it back before it accrues interest, then you're not the category of person I'm referring to.
When I say that, I'm speaking in terms of building your own net worth. Renting a house doesn't do that, instead it adds to somebody else's net worth. Borrowing money and paying interest does the same thing.
Which by the way, my savings alone didn't pay cash for the house I just bought, rather it was the result of having a mortgage on a house in 2011, and selling it in 2014. If I had rented in 2011 instead, I'd have nothing. Instead it was sold at $116,000 above what it was purchased for (after realtor fees, closing costs, and whatnot) and added my monthly savings over the course of a few years to pay cash on another house.
This is exactly why I equate renting to borrowing money. It's also why somebody else is building my net worth. I'm sure some random derp is going to call me out for being greedy, but so be it. Unlike most, I save money, and invest wisely. No amount of me telling this to other people is going to make them change their ways, even when I point out how stupid their status quo is, so I may as well take advantage, and I will.
That's a nice sounding ideology but the reality is that even if you start with a good 100% accurate street map, chances are you'll never be able to keep up with the updates on your own as governments build and change roads. That's of course, assuming you even have the resources to create one to begin with.
Since this is a one man operation, I really doubt your suggestion is at all practical.
This is because of some cookie that Forbes gives you which tells them that ad blocking is disabled. I don't know the exact details (only read about it) if you just make this cookie on your own then you'll skip past it anyways.
In my area, renting tends to cost about 30% more than a mortgage. I'm not sure why, or even where else this applies, but it just is.
I think the economics of it is that a lot of people either lack the credit or the down payment (both of which come from a lack of managing one's own finances) hence the demand for rent would increase.
So a very small percentage of people owning almost all America's wealth is the fault of the Chinese?
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but in my opinion it's the fault of those who routinely carry debt. Most people in America don't know shit about finances. They borrow heavily, and wonder why they never have any money. You know who profits? People who don't borrow. Not necessarily even the lenders, rather, just people who don't borrow.
And no, no amount of usury laws will change that. Usury laws create loan sharks, and unlike legitimate lenders, loan sharks don't answer to the law. Most people are just plain stupid and will borrow money at insanely dumb interest rates, even from dangerous people if they have to, just because they have no idea how to manage their own finances.
Borrowing also includes renting, by the way. Part of this comes from people who insist upon living in upscale expensive areas (i.e. New York, San Francisco) when it's clearly beyond their means, have a super high rent, and then wonder why they live paycheck to paycheck.
I personally have never made a whole lot (my current income at my IT job is just under $50k) but am already taking advantage of the situation. That is, I just paid cash on a shitty house, fixed it up, and now have renters in it paying me every month. (And no, I am not a slumlord, the last owner was, hence it was shitty, however unlike him I'm still in the process of bringing improvements to the property even while tenants are in it.)
Use anti-adblock killer. Anyways, I think this would be a good thing to start lawsuits over. That is, if Forbes serves you a ransomeware ad, hold them liable for the cost.
If the courts find Forbes not liable, then we need laws to make it happen.
A pirated game, movie or song is a lost sale. A transformed copy is not. The MPAA/RIAA/BSA/ESA etc, don't see it that way. They see both a transformed copy and a counterfeit copy as lost sales. This is the one point that pirates and fair use advocates agree on.
You could argue a that a counterfeit sale is a lost sale to an extent, but somebody downloading a torrent or copying a CD isn't. This comes down to simple price elasticity. Here's a real world example:
At the college I went to, a soda vending machine typically sells sodas for $1.50 per 24 oz bottle. One day, during a long economics course, during the break time, a student walks out and comes back with a soda, and announces to the class that the vending machine is erroneously selling them for 5 cents a bottle. So, most of the class gets up and buys a soda.
Had the soda been regular price, almost none of them would have purchased a soda, except for the one student that found the price to begin with. In such a scenario of it being regular price, does that mean they lost a sale from those 20 something students? Of course not. It just means that at regular price, the demand for a soda is lower, and those people never would have paid for a soda anyways.
The same thing applies for downloading free copies off of torrent sites or copying a CD: When the price becomes free, then more people want a copy. However those same people still wouldn't pay for a copy otherwise.
So you see, that's why each pirated copy doesn't result in a lost sale. However that doesn't mean that no sales are lost. Because some people know that there's a way to get it free, they might just say "meh, I won't pay anyways" even if they really want a copy. It's difficult to quantify just how many people that is, but the reality is that for some 90% of pirates, no matter whether they can get it free or not, they just won't pay for a copy, even if piracy wasn't a thing at all. Usually what they do (if they can't get it free) is opt for a substitute good, which when it comes to entertainment, can be just about anything that's fun and (for the person) free, anything from swimming to masturbating.
Now let's consider a counterfeit sale; let's say that the counterfeit copy was sold at half price. That does mean that if the publisher did sell the copy at half price themselves, they could have made that extra money instead. And guess what, they do actually do this: In some markets where people have less money, (especially Eastern Europe and Asian markets) they know that they can't ask the same prices that they can in first world markets. So, in order to get any sales at all, they sell at a lower price there. This is exactly why movie studios love region locks: They like to make sure that Westerners don't buy an identical copy of the same movie in cheaper markets, because they want to charge the Westerners more. Game studios do the same thing, by the way.
Anyways that's somewhat going off topic, but even a basic understanding of economics should tell you why a pirated copy isn't a lost sale.
Probably because he sounds like a "tough on crime" advocate. Putting marijuana users in jail was bad enough. If you put every pirate in jail, then half of the US would be in jail right now. I'm not sure how you'd fund that.
I don't think that's it. Volvo mainly has a bad reputation in the US because of its poor reliability; i.e. how much it costs to maintain in the long term. Shit just always goes wrong with them.
In Europe on the other hand, reliability seems to play less of a deciding factor for what somebody will purchase. They seem to like cars that are trendy or "slick" in appearance.
Perhaps next time you could come forth with a technical solution beyond "dumb the fuck out of it", which only makes you look like a moron.
There's actually a good reason for that without even getting into security issues: Odds are those "smart" features will be obsolete before your TV is, so instead of paying extra for "smart" features, it's probably better to pay less for an STB that you can replace every so often instead.
Even if they don't go obsolete, chances are your TV manufacturer won't provide any feature additions as they come. If you want them, you'll have to buy next year's model, which is dumb.
That means I'm completely unqualified to talk about systematic repression, so I don't feel qualified to criticize less fortunate population segments.
You only qualified the second part of your sentence with the first part. The first part isn't qualified by anything at all. You don't need to experience something in order to talk about it. That would be like saying you can't talk about Timbuktu just because you've never been in Timbuktu. It's false.
That's why I think a voucher system would be a good idea. It would empower parents to select which school their kids attend, public or private. It would also keep the shithead students out of the good schools. See my earlier post for why I think that's a good thing:
What I keep hearing about private schools is that they can get rid of disruptive students, while the public school system can't do that anywhere near as easily.
In my opinion, that alone would make private school way superior. I got shit grades in junior high and early high school for that exact reason (senior year wasn't quite as bad because most of the shitheads either matured or dropped out.) I thought college was the easiest time of my life, and I think it's because I didn't have to put up with a bunch of shitheads (even publicly subsidized colleges can kick them out.) I'd probably be much better off if I had decent grades
In fact, that's perhaps the biggest reason I favor school vouchers. Bleeding hearts raise a shit because their mollycoddled shithead students, being the shitheads that they are, will get left behind. You know what my response is? So be it.
"Please pay X if you wish the brakes to resume functioning. Otherwise, brake and acceleration control will not be available to the user."
How would that change anything? That's basically how a Volvo already works.
I have to say though, it is fitting that they pair the shittiest smartphone platform with the shittiest car company. That is the ultimate form of trolling for customers who don't read the JD Power reliability ratings before buying their cars. Well done sirs, well done.
Slashdot Mirror
I created what I call an "unfuck script" that does this and a number of other things (such as moving the documents folder into a cloud sync floating profile folder, where I have a bunch of portable apps sitting so that I don't need to run a bunch of installers) that way installing a fresh copy of Windows on any of my machines and fully configuring it afterwards takes me about 5 minutes, and because it's all scripted I don't forget important things (such as using my upstream bandwidth for other people to get windows updates.)
http://pastebin.com/MmKimr3H
Yeah, they are typically a bad investment. I wouldn't have bought this house if I hadn't gotten it so cheap.
Now, people who belittle those with mental illness - they should be ostracized. It no better than taunting somebody who gets cancer.
That's fine and all, except in reality people love to shame it anyways. Especially on slashdot. Just read the comments about any summary that has to do with somebody being a psychopath, which is a mental illness. CEO's are frequently psychopaths, and people here love to name and shame them over it.
The same is also true of pedophiles. I don't think anybody anywhere ever just decides one day "I'd like to be a pedophile."
Borrowing is at the heart of countless fortunes. Many of the classic rags-to-riches tales start off with "Mr. X had an idea. So he borrowed from his friends/relatives/random people on the street" to get enough capital to start his business. Today it's worth XX billion dollars. Without checking, I'd lay even money that one of the names you could substitute for "X" is Bill Gates.
Actually there is wisdom in it, but you're assuming risk. You have to accept the reality that it's more likely that you'll end up poor (at least for a while) when doing this. However that's not to say that you shouldn't do it. Just when people say "the few hold all of the wealth" they're really discounting the fact that most people who are poor put themselves there, and going to places like payday or title loan shops is a good way to end up there.
Which by the way, notice how those places don't advertise to rich people?
Surely - I have and do. A small example of this is the credit card conundrum. I have two credit cards One that I live on, and one for fuel. Cashback cards. I pay off the bill in full every month, then get cash back at the end of the year.
I do the same thing, but I don't consider it borrowing. If you already have the cash reserves and pay it back before it accrues interest, then you're not the category of person I'm referring to.
When somebody takes out a loan, they aren't offered death as an alternative.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm not by any means rich, yet I've never felt it necessary to take out a loan.
When I say that, I'm speaking in terms of building your own net worth. Renting a house doesn't do that, instead it adds to somebody else's net worth. Borrowing money and paying interest does the same thing.
Which by the way, my savings alone didn't pay cash for the house I just bought, rather it was the result of having a mortgage on a house in 2011, and selling it in 2014. If I had rented in 2011 instead, I'd have nothing. Instead it was sold at $116,000 above what it was purchased for (after realtor fees, closing costs, and whatnot) and added my monthly savings over the course of a few years to pay cash on another house.
This is exactly why I equate renting to borrowing money. It's also why somebody else is building my net worth. I'm sure some random derp is going to call me out for being greedy, but so be it. Unlike most, I save money, and invest wisely. No amount of me telling this to other people is going to make them change their ways, even when I point out how stupid their status quo is, so I may as well take advantage, and I will.
That's a nice sounding ideology but the reality is that even if you start with a good 100% accurate street map, chances are you'll never be able to keep up with the updates on your own as governments build and change roads. That's of course, assuming you even have the resources to create one to begin with.
Since this is a one man operation, I really doubt your suggestion is at all practical.
Is that why the Japanese do it?
This is because of some cookie that Forbes gives you which tells them that ad blocking is disabled. I don't know the exact details (only read about it) if you just make this cookie on your own then you'll skip past it anyways.
In my area, renting tends to cost about 30% more than a mortgage. I'm not sure why, or even where else this applies, but it just is.
I think the economics of it is that a lot of people either lack the credit or the down payment (both of which come from a lack of managing one's own finances) hence the demand for rent would increase.
If you're renting, you're borrowing a property. It's basically the same as paying interest.
So a very small percentage of people owning almost all America's wealth is the fault of the Chinese?
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but in my opinion it's the fault of those who routinely carry debt. Most people in America don't know shit about finances. They borrow heavily, and wonder why they never have any money. You know who profits? People who don't borrow. Not necessarily even the lenders, rather, just people who don't borrow.
And no, no amount of usury laws will change that. Usury laws create loan sharks, and unlike legitimate lenders, loan sharks don't answer to the law. Most people are just plain stupid and will borrow money at insanely dumb interest rates, even from dangerous people if they have to, just because they have no idea how to manage their own finances.
Borrowing also includes renting, by the way. Part of this comes from people who insist upon living in upscale expensive areas (i.e. New York, San Francisco) when it's clearly beyond their means, have a super high rent, and then wonder why they live paycheck to paycheck.
I personally have never made a whole lot (my current income at my IT job is just under $50k) but am already taking advantage of the situation. That is, I just paid cash on a shitty house, fixed it up, and now have renters in it paying me every month. (And no, I am not a slumlord, the last owner was, hence it was shitty, however unlike him I'm still in the process of bringing improvements to the property even while tenants are in it.)
Considering they don't get ad revenue from adblockers anyways, I don't think they care if people who use adblockers stop visiting anyways.
Use anti-adblock killer. Anyways, I think this would be a good thing to start lawsuits over. That is, if Forbes serves you a ransomeware ad, hold them liable for the cost.
If the courts find Forbes not liable, then we need laws to make it happen.
These people aren't using anti-adblock killer.
Bullshit and y'all know it.
No, it's not, and I'll show you why below.
A pirated game, movie or song is a lost sale. A transformed copy is not. The MPAA/RIAA/BSA/ESA etc, don't see it that way. They see both a transformed copy and a counterfeit copy as lost sales. This is the one point that pirates and fair use advocates agree on.
You could argue a that a counterfeit sale is a lost sale to an extent, but somebody downloading a torrent or copying a CD isn't. This comes down to simple price elasticity. Here's a real world example:
At the college I went to, a soda vending machine typically sells sodas for $1.50 per 24 oz bottle. One day, during a long economics course, during the break time, a student walks out and comes back with a soda, and announces to the class that the vending machine is erroneously selling them for 5 cents a bottle. So, most of the class gets up and buys a soda.
Had the soda been regular price, almost none of them would have purchased a soda, except for the one student that found the price to begin with. In such a scenario of it being regular price, does that mean they lost a sale from those 20 something students? Of course not. It just means that at regular price, the demand for a soda is lower, and those people never would have paid for a soda anyways.
The same thing applies for downloading free copies off of torrent sites or copying a CD: When the price becomes free, then more people want a copy. However those same people still wouldn't pay for a copy otherwise.
So you see, that's why each pirated copy doesn't result in a lost sale. However that doesn't mean that no sales are lost. Because some people know that there's a way to get it free, they might just say "meh, I won't pay anyways" even if they really want a copy. It's difficult to quantify just how many people that is, but the reality is that for some 90% of pirates, no matter whether they can get it free or not, they just won't pay for a copy, even if piracy wasn't a thing at all. Usually what they do (if they can't get it free) is opt for a substitute good, which when it comes to entertainment, can be just about anything that's fun and (for the person) free, anything from swimming to masturbating.
Now let's consider a counterfeit sale; let's say that the counterfeit copy was sold at half price. That does mean that if the publisher did sell the copy at half price themselves, they could have made that extra money instead. And guess what, they do actually do this: In some markets where people have less money, (especially Eastern Europe and Asian markets) they know that they can't ask the same prices that they can in first world markets. So, in order to get any sales at all, they sell at a lower price there. This is exactly why movie studios love region locks: They like to make sure that Westerners don't buy an identical copy of the same movie in cheaper markets, because they want to charge the Westerners more. Game studios do the same thing, by the way.
Anyways that's somewhat going off topic, but even a basic understanding of economics should tell you why a pirated copy isn't a lost sale.
Probably because he sounds like a "tough on crime" advocate. Putting marijuana users in jail was bad enough. If you put every pirate in jail, then half of the US would be in jail right now. I'm not sure how you'd fund that.
I don't think that's it. Volvo mainly has a bad reputation in the US because of its poor reliability; i.e. how much it costs to maintain in the long term. Shit just always goes wrong with them.
In Europe on the other hand, reliability seems to play less of a deciding factor for what somebody will purchase. They seem to like cars that are trendy or "slick" in appearance.
Perhaps next time you could come forth with a technical solution beyond "dumb the fuck out of it", which only makes you look like a moron.
There's actually a good reason for that without even getting into security issues: Odds are those "smart" features will be obsolete before your TV is, so instead of paying extra for "smart" features, it's probably better to pay less for an STB that you can replace every so often instead.
Even if they don't go obsolete, chances are your TV manufacturer won't provide any feature additions as they come. If you want them, you'll have to buy next year's model, which is dumb.
That means I'm completely unqualified to talk about systematic repression, so I don't feel qualified to criticize less fortunate population segments.
You only qualified the second part of your sentence with the first part. The first part isn't qualified by anything at all. You don't need to experience something in order to talk about it. That would be like saying you can't talk about Timbuktu just because you've never been in Timbuktu. It's false.
That's why I think a voucher system would be a good idea. It would empower parents to select which school their kids attend, public or private. It would also keep the shithead students out of the good schools. See my earlier post for why I think that's a good thing:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
What I keep hearing about private schools is that they can get rid of disruptive students, while the public school system can't do that anywhere near as easily.
In my opinion, that alone would make private school way superior. I got shit grades in junior high and early high school for that exact reason (senior year wasn't quite as bad because most of the shitheads either matured or dropped out.) I thought college was the easiest time of my life, and I think it's because I didn't have to put up with a bunch of shitheads (even publicly subsidized colleges can kick them out.) I'd probably be much better off if I had decent grades
In fact, that's perhaps the biggest reason I favor school vouchers. Bleeding hearts raise a shit because their mollycoddled shithead students, being the shitheads that they are, will get left behind. You know what my response is? So be it.
"Please pay X if you wish the brakes to resume functioning. Otherwise, brake and acceleration control will not be available to the user."
How would that change anything? That's basically how a Volvo already works.
I have to say though, it is fitting that they pair the shittiest smartphone platform with the shittiest car company. That is the ultimate form of trolling for customers who don't read the JD Power reliability ratings before buying their cars. Well done sirs, well done.
I think it's more likely that they'll refer to the old way as "binge reading".