But Windows and OS X cost money, where iOS does not. Maybe $99 is more than the $30 (or whatever) you paid for Windows, but when you subtract the price of the OS, "substantial" starts to become less substantial.
It was impossible to uninstall without rooting, and the marketplace page for it is just page after page of people giving it one-star reviews and complaining that it was installed without their consent. I think it's some type of augmented-reality program.
Why not just ignore it? Did you "have to" root your tablet, or did you root your tablet because you have a semi-irrational, obsessive dislike of Layar (and/or other bits of software)?
"Don't tell me what to do!" is one thing from a child to a parent, another from a slave to his master, a third from a man to his government, and yet a fourth from a purchaser of a product to its seller. Unless you feel all purchasers are children, the demand is not necessarily children.
Don't fricken buy it then.
"Don't tell me what to do!" from a purchaser to a seller is exactly the purchaser being a child. The purchaser has 100% control of a transaction before it occurs. Don't buy it. Negotiate "Don't tell me what to do!" as part of the purchase contract. Or live with the terms of the purchases you make, like an adult.
If a study looked at various 'controversies' in evolutionary biology, and ruled each of them in favor of evolution actually occurring, would a proper headline be 'New study on evolution contradicts previous creationism study,' "New study on evolution,'.or 'New study confirms evolution is a real phenomenon?' I'd go with choice 3.
Perhaps "New study indicates evolution is a real phenomenon" or "New study indicates evolution occurs". Otherwise, who was the new study confirming?
Evolution isn't controversial to most people without the implied (or expressed) "and therefore you must give up your religion and your cultural traditions". We aren't supposed to tell immigrants to give up their religion or their cultural traditions. We aren't supposed to mock them either. Why shouldn't the Evolution crowd be expected to be tolerant?
It's hard to put all the article content in the headline. It's also hard to put all the points and counterpoints about the content in the headline.
That said, headlines should be opinion-neutral for non-propaganda news (which is exceedingly rare these days). Examples: "New Study on GM crop safety contradicts previous study on GM crop safety" or just "New study on GM crop safety". Slashdot is clearly not interested in non-propaganda news -- presumably because straight news gets fewer comments and fewer page hits.
The sad part is that you are almost certainly a wage earner. A worker instead of a capitalist. You have been trained to believe it's noble to take side of people who would piss on your head and call it rain.
I think the real difference is that I'm not a bigot. I'm not motivated by hatred, like you apparently are.
I also don't want to steal money from people, nor do I want to spend money I didn't earn.
That's up to the CEO and the company to negotiate. The company is voluntarily choosing to pay their own money. The CEO is voluntarily choosing to work for that pay. It's none of anyone else's business what the amount is. You get to spend your money, the company gets to spend the company's money.
Exactly the same thing happens with the coal miner. The company is voluntarily choosing to pay their own money. The coal miner is voluntarily choosing to work in exchange. It's none of your business how much the amount is.
At some companies, the CEO is paid less than some good salesmen. At some other companies, the CEO takes a salary of $1 plus stock options as an incentive to create a turnaround at the company.
The CEO, the miner, or the star salesman are free to leave at any time if they can get a better offer. It's up to them. They get to decide. Not you.
Whatever the wage, it's paid in exchange for work.
--
You still haven't answered: Who deserves a greater benefit from Samsung's investment spending than Samsung? Why?
So you're suggesting we elect politicians who are pure, never make mistakes, and are impossible to corrupt? Please explain how this will occur.
Even if you could find perfect leaders, a powerful government can't be "good". Wielding power against people is, at best, a necessary evil. And governments can't become big and powerful without stealing power and resources from individuals. Stealing isn't "good".
Get used to Hollywood determining what you can and can't link to then. They can play the analogy game too. And they're better at power politics than you.
If you can pretend your neighbors' light bulbs are your concern, then Hollywood can pretend your web links are their concern.
They lied and lied and lied and the drooling masses lapped it up, with the result that the liars gained power.
Congrats on helping to create the biggest, most powerful government ever for them to wield. Bravo.
If we had a small, weak, mostly insignificant government, it wouldn't matter much who was in charge of it. But then you wouldn't be able to wield it against your many, many, hated enemies either.
How about supporting smaller, weaker, less expensive, less powerful government? Then when someone wants to (mis)use government power... there won't be much government power. A powerless government is a harmless government. And a weak government can only do limited harm.
Can we do that? Or do you need a huge, powerful, active government to enact your schemes upon your neighbors?
Like ESR (whom I quoted below), I wonder if anyone here will ever learn.
It’s a bad bill, all right. It’s a terrible bill – awful from start to finish, idiotic to the core, corruptly pandering to a powerful special-interest group at the cost of everyone else’s liberty.
But I can’t help noticing that a lot of the righteous panic about it is being ginned up by people who were cheerfully on board for the last seventeen or so government power grabs – cap and trade, campaign finance “reform”, the incandescent lightbulb ban, Obamacare, you name it – and I have to wonder
Don’t these people ever learn? Anything? Do they even listen to themselves?
It’s bizarre and entertaining to hear people who yesterday were all about allegedly benign and intelligent government interventions suddenly discovering that in practice, what they get is stupid and vicious legislation that has been captured by a venal and evil interest group.
Yeah, no shit? How...how do they avoid noticing that in reality it’s like this all the time?
A coal miner works considerably harder than a trust fund baby who collects a sizable income because his parents are rich. Money and work are not "inherently connected". Do you believe your boss works harder than you? Do you believe the CEO of the energy company works harder than the coal miner?
The "trust fund baby" has money because his parents worked. Or their parents. They worked and saved and invested to provide for their children.
As for the coal miner, he can't do the CEO's job. But the CEO could learn to do the miner's job after a training period. The CEO's work has much more value than the coal miner's work, regardless of whether they're both tired at the end of the day.
And if the coal miner quits, someone else will be hired to do the coal mining within a short time. A good replacement CEO is harder to find.
Both the CEO's work and the coal miner's work should be honored and respected. But they don't have equal commercial value.
.Are you really saying that Samsung should invest $9 Billion building a fabrication facility, but they shouldn't receive "the biggest benefit" from their investment?
Not if that benefit comes from every taxpayer having to pay more to cover the tax abatement that Samsung gets for putting their plant in a certain state, county or municipality. If Samsung's business model makes them a profit, that's great, but if the profit is based on them off-loading the externalities, then no, absolutely not.
You should post where you live and vote, so companies can add it to the list of places to avoid investing and hiring. Then you won't have to worry about all the money that these employers aren't paying in property taxes.
Who should receive a bigger benefit than Samsung from Samsung's investments?
If you really need, let me know and I'll break it down in simpler terms. I think it's important for you to understand the conceptual error you're making, because it's sort of warping your world-view, friend.
Could you explain it some more?
When I invest my money in something, I remember where I got the money. It was originally paid to me in my paycheck, which I received in exchange for my work. It seems clear that money and work are inherently connected.
Also, a company like Apple or Samsung consists of a group of people. Employees and shareholders are people. Even when shares are owned by an organization like a pension fund, that organization still represents the people involved. The money used to purchase the shares was originally earned by someone.
Are you really saying that Samsung should invest $9 Billion building a fabrication facility, but they shouldn't receive "the biggest benefit" from their investment? Who should Samsung's money and work benefit instead of the people involved in Samsung?
Because if 27% of people snooped on private info, then at least 27% know of someone snooping on private info. It can't be 26%.
If you assume lying, the survey results don't matter. You can assume they all lied and the numbers are effectively random. There's no point in talking about that case.
Hence: "(That's not precisely what the survey in TFA said about the percentages, but the point is still the same.)"
If 26% "know of" some activity, it's likely that less than 26% participated in that activity. They could also all be lying, but then the discussion about this article is moot anyway.
Discussions like these show just how far Slasdot is alienated from regular society.
TV is:
- the NFL (National Football League -- football is a sport), - other stuff.
After the NFL, there are other sports and other shows. But the ratings are dominated by NFL games. Any talk about TV content and pricing without the NFL is missing the real picture. If you don't pay attention to the NFL, you're going to have a hard time understanding the TV business. If you don't value sports, your cable plan wasn't designed for you. Your cable bill includes a large amount of money to pay for sports programming.
Telling the truth on an anonymous survey isn't much of a virtue.
Also, if you RTFA it says "26 percent said that they were aware of an IT staff member abusing a privileged login to illicitly access sensitive information". Not "I accessed" but "someone accessed".
Slashdot Mirror
Borrowing a Mac from someone, or buying a used Mac doesn't cost $599.
But whatever, $99 isn't prohibitive and this discussion is somewhat silly. Don't make iPhone software if you can't or won't pay $99.
But Windows and OS X cost money, where iOS does not. Maybe $99 is more than the $30 (or whatever) you paid for Windows, but when you subtract the price of the OS, "substantial" starts to become less substantial.
It was impossible to uninstall without rooting, and the marketplace page for it is just page after page of people giving it one-star reviews and complaining that it was installed without their consent. I think it's some type of augmented-reality program.
Why not just ignore it? Did you "have to" root your tablet, or did you root your tablet because you have a semi-irrational, obsessive dislike of Layar (and/or other bits of software)?
"Don't tell me what to do!" is one thing from a child to a parent, another from a slave to his master, a third from a man to his government, and yet a fourth from a purchaser of a product to its seller. Unless you feel all purchasers are children, the demand is not necessarily children.
Don't fricken buy it then.
"Don't tell me what to do!" from a purchaser to a seller is exactly the purchaser being a child. The purchaser has 100% control of a transaction before it occurs. Don't buy it. Negotiate "Don't tell me what to do!" as part of the purchase contract. Or live with the terms of the purchases you make, like an adult.
The best defense against such a tactic: Don't fight and kill people.
It reminds me of the "drugs like crack were created by the CIA to kill black people" conspiracy. Ok, so don't smoke crack then.
If a study looked at various 'controversies' in evolutionary biology, and ruled each of them in favor of evolution actually occurring, would a proper headline be 'New study on evolution contradicts previous creationism study,' "New study on evolution,'.or 'New study confirms evolution is a real phenomenon?' I'd go with choice 3.
Perhaps "New study indicates evolution is a real phenomenon" or "New study indicates evolution occurs". Otherwise, who was the new study confirming?
Evolution isn't controversial to most people without the implied (or expressed) "and therefore you must give up your religion and your cultural traditions". We aren't supposed to tell immigrants to give up their religion or their cultural traditions. We aren't supposed to mock them either. Why shouldn't the Evolution crowd be expected to be tolerant?
It's hard to put all the article content in the headline. It's also hard to put all the points and counterpoints about the content in the headline.
That said, headlines should be opinion-neutral for non-propaganda news (which is exceedingly rare these days). Examples: "New Study on GM crop safety contradicts previous study on GM crop safety" or just "New study on GM crop safety". Slashdot is clearly not interested in non-propaganda news -- presumably because straight news gets fewer comments and fewer page hits.
The sad part is that you are almost certainly a wage earner. A worker instead of a capitalist. You have been trained to believe it's noble to take side of people who would piss on your head and call it rain.
I think the real difference is that I'm not a bigot. I'm not motivated by hatred, like you apparently are.
I also don't want to steal money from people, nor do I want to spend money I didn't earn.
But how much more "value" does it have?
That's up to the CEO and the company to negotiate. The company is voluntarily choosing to pay their own money. The CEO is voluntarily choosing to work for that pay. It's none of anyone else's business what the amount is. You get to spend your money, the company gets to spend the company's money.
Exactly the same thing happens with the coal miner. The company is voluntarily choosing to pay their own money. The coal miner is voluntarily choosing to work in exchange. It's none of your business how much the amount is.
At some companies, the CEO is paid less than some good salesmen. At some other companies, the CEO takes a salary of $1 plus stock options as an incentive to create a turnaround at the company.
The CEO, the miner, or the star salesman are free to leave at any time if they can get a better offer. It's up to them. They get to decide. Not you.
Whatever the wage, it's paid in exchange for work.
--
You still haven't answered: Who deserves a greater benefit from Samsung's investment spending than Samsung? Why?
So you're suggesting we elect politicians who are pure, never make mistakes, and are impossible to corrupt? Please explain how this will occur.
Even if you could find perfect leaders, a powerful government can't be "good". Wielding power against people is, at best, a necessary evil. And governments can't become big and powerful without stealing power and resources from individuals. Stealing isn't "good".
Get used to Hollywood determining what you can and can't link to then. They can play the analogy game too. And they're better at power politics than you.
If you can pretend your neighbors' light bulbs are your concern, then Hollywood can pretend your web links are their concern.
"Don't these people ever learn?"
They lied and lied and lied and the drooling masses lapped it up, with the result that the liars gained power.
Congrats on helping to create the biggest, most powerful government ever for them to wield. Bravo.
If we had a small, weak, mostly insignificant government, it wouldn't matter much who was in charge of it. But then you wouldn't be able to wield it against your many, many, hated enemies either.
This is your point? How about minding your own business about what lightbulbs people use?
If you can choose your neighbors' light bulbs, why shouldn't Hollywood get to choose what content you can and can't link to?
How about supporting smaller, weaker, less expensive, less powerful government? Then when someone wants to (mis)use government power ... there won't be much government power. A powerless government is a harmless government. And a weak government can only do limited harm.
Can we do that? Or do you need a huge, powerful, active government to enact your schemes upon your neighbors?
Like ESR (whom I quoted below), I wonder if anyone here will ever learn.
ESR on SOPA opponents:
A coal miner works considerably harder than a trust fund baby who collects a sizable income because his parents are rich. Money and work are not "inherently connected". Do you believe your boss works harder than you? Do you believe the CEO of the energy company works harder than the coal miner?
The "trust fund baby" has money because his parents worked. Or their parents. They worked and saved and invested to provide for their children.
As for the coal miner, he can't do the CEO's job. But the CEO could learn to do the miner's job after a training period. The CEO's work has much more value than the coal miner's work, regardless of whether they're both tired at the end of the day.
And if the coal miner quits, someone else will be hired to do the coal mining within a short time. A good replacement CEO is harder to find.
Both the CEO's work and the coal miner's work should be honored and respected. But they don't have equal commercial value.
Not if that benefit comes from every taxpayer having to pay more to cover the tax abatement that Samsung gets for putting their plant in a certain state, county or municipality. If Samsung's business model makes them a profit, that's great, but if the profit is based on them off-loading the externalities, then no, absolutely not.
You should post where you live and vote, so companies can add it to the list of places to avoid investing and hiring. Then you won't have to worry about all the money that these employers aren't paying in property taxes.
Who should receive a bigger benefit than Samsung from Samsung's investments?
If you really need, let me know and I'll break it down in simpler terms. I think it's important for you to understand the conceptual error you're making, because it's sort of warping your world-view, friend.
Could you explain it some more?
When I invest my money in something, I remember where I got the money. It was originally paid to me in my paycheck, which I received in exchange for my work. It seems clear that money and work are inherently connected.
Also, a company like Apple or Samsung consists of a group of people. Employees and shareholders are people. Even when shares are owned by an organization like a pension fund, that organization still represents the people involved. The money used to purchase the shares was originally earned by someone.
Are you really saying that Samsung should invest $9 Billion building a fabrication facility, but they shouldn't receive "the biggest benefit" from their investment? Who should Samsung's money and work benefit instead of the people involved in Samsung?
In the 21st century, when a company builds a plant in the US or creates jobs, they are the ones enjoying the biggest benefit.
So the people spending all the money and doing all the work are getting "the biggest benefit"? What's the world coming to?!
What's next, farmers being allowed to eat some of the food they grow?
Some of us do. Others think they're entitled to some kind of utopian existence of leisure and self indulgence at our expense.
All honest work is noble. Anyone who does an honest day's work and tries to do a good job should have our respect. They certainly have mine.
The article writer makes emotion-based arguments. UI design is a rational exercise, so emotion-based criticisms are of little value.
A UI is for getting something useful done. It's not about how you feel.
Because if 27% of people snooped on private info, then at least 27% know of someone snooping on private info. It can't be 26%.
If you assume lying, the survey results don't matter. You can assume they all lied and the numbers are effectively random. There's no point in talking about that case.
Hence: "(That's not precisely what the survey in TFA said about the percentages, but the point is still the same.)"
If 26% "know of" some activity, it's likely that less than 26% participated in that activity. They could also all be lying, but then the discussion about this article is moot anyway.
Discussions like these show just how far Slasdot is alienated from regular society.
TV is:
- the NFL (National Football League -- football is a sport),
- other stuff.
After the NFL, there are other sports and other shows. But the ratings are dominated by NFL games. Any talk about TV content and pricing without the NFL is missing the real picture. If you don't pay attention to the NFL, you're going to have a hard time understanding the TV business. If you don't value sports, your cable plan wasn't designed for you. Your cable bill includes a large amount of money to pay for sports programming.
Telling the truth on an anonymous survey isn't much of a virtue.
Also, if you RTFA it says "26 percent said that they were aware of an IT staff member abusing a privileged login to illicitly access sensitive information". Not "I accessed" but "someone accessed".