You miss the point, I think. There are 200 posts here. People are "outraged" about it. The questions was "What if they turn off the servers?!!!!!". It's tagged with the DRM tags.
But it works fine if you unplug your Ethernet. So every single one of those posts, all the people outraged and concerned and just pissing and moaning, all of them don't understand that it's not an issue with this disc. They're upset over nothing as usual.
This is something in the PS3 firmware that needs to be fixed. The network access should timeout and fail instead of hanging. That's ALL that's going on. And once again, Slashdot doesn't get it.
You can't restrict the money used to pay for speech without restricting that speech as a consequence.
So money might not be speech, but it must have the same protections for the speech protections to actually, you know, protect speech.
Saying the money isn't protected is like saying air is not protected. "We're not silencing the speakers, we're just cutting off their air so they can't breathe to make sounds. They can still move their lips. Free speech is protected."
It would seem that any form of communications used by House members on any subject would be Constitutionally protected by Amendment 1. These rule changes seem odd in that context.
Buying a stock in a company with overseas offices does absolutely nothing to avoid the tax consequences of my investment.
The company's profit will be taxed less. That leaves the company with more after-tax profit. You benefit by receiving higher dividends or an increased capital gain on your investment. These are then taxed at the normal rate, which is double taxation. But you benefited when the money was taxed less the first time it was taxed.
Any benefit that a public company receives can be shared by anyone. All you need to do is buy shares of the stock. That's the simplest answer to how to get the benefit.
I offer the simplest answer because many comments on Slashdot are predicated on the hatred and envy of corporations. Buying stock is a fix for that. There's no need to envy a group of people when anyone can join the club.
Yeah. Not you. The people who criticize "American Exceptionalism". They're objectively wrong. There's a lot of other things not to like about them too, but when you can easily prove people "objectively wrong" there's not much reason to consider anything else they might say until they wise up a little.
Because people who work at companies aren't citizens? They may know a lot more than you about finance, but that doesn't make them alien. They originated on Earth.
Here's an easy answer for you: buy stock in a company with overseas offices.
Money is leaving the government and entering the private sector. How is that not spending?
#1 it's borrowed from the private sector to start with #2 lending is not spending. If I put money in a bank, I have lent that money to a bank. It has "left" me and the bank has it now. Is it "spent"? No. Buying investment securities is simply a more complicated version of this.
American exceptionalism is commonly laughed at as something for fools and demagogues...
Because liking your country is bad when Americans do it but it's good for South Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Africans, Asians, Australians, and anyone else. But not Americans. Americans who like their country and are proud of American success are "fools". Right?
And is it completely irrational to suggest that since America's success has been exceptional, it might be because of some quality that's exceptional -- even if it's just exceptional luck? How foolish is it to draw an obvious conclusion from the available facts?
What is the non-exceptional thing that has led to America's exceptional success? Keep in mind the definition of exceptional: "exceeding: far beyond what is usual in magnitude or degree". If everything in the US is "usual" and the same as everywhere else, then how can the results be different here?
Borrowing money and then moving the money from one account to another and then buying investments with it is not "spending". Investments either go up or down or they mature and pay out in full or they're defaulted on. That leaves either more or less money in the account.
It's not "spending". It's not "pissed away" either unless all the investments are defaulted on and assume a zero value.
This is just a clarification from the rational world. Feel free to ignore it. People who are "outraged" and have bumper-sticker wisdom don't need facts or rationality. It just slows them down.
What do you expect them to do? The taxes they pay outweigh the benefits that they receive. Taxes are simply a bad deal for them.
Did you notice when the gas price went up? The response from about 49% of the politicians was "we should punish the oil companies by raising their taxes". How does raising taxes on oil companies reduce the price of gas? Obviously, it does the opposite: raises the cost of producing gas, and raising the price the producers need to charge to make a profit. Did the media point this out? No.
Hatred and envy and greed are the motivating factor for tax policy (and a lot of other policies) for much or the electorate and their chosen representatives.
Why wouldn't a company want to move their operations out of the US? It's cheaper and it's further away from the people who hate them and want to punish them (and have the power to do it).
If half of the people at my office hated me, and if I could get a better job somewhere else, I'd leave. Companies decide similarly.
When there are no rules, the real-life consequences don't add suspense. There's always a magic way to escape any problem or difficulty. Part of the connection with the audience is lost when the author can just change the rules to save the characters.
The real characters seemed to care too much about the dream characters sometimes.
And then the real characters crossed the river and nothing that happened in the last 100 pages made any difference to the rest of the story.
You expect your users to go on business trips and carry 2 computers with them so they can run personal applications on one and business applications on the other one?
Those were some good books, but the "it's all a dream" aspect of the setting can lead authors into self-indulgences. Essentially, there are no rules for the world. That was the major problem with it. Also, since "it's all a dream", a lot of the drama seemed false. The real characters were interesting but most of the time spent with the dream characters is just that many more pages of inconsequential stuff.
The "no rules for the world" quality would destroy an MMO. You can't just change the rules all the time or all the players will just hang out in the part with the most advantageous rules.
i have to walk through a security check point every morning to get to my desk. if the card reader dies at that entrance, the policy is to redirect all employees to another entrance. it takes me 20 minutes to get into work when that happens. that policy makes my life more difficult, but is it legitimate?
We don't have that at our office. If we did, it would not be legitimate. In your case, I have no idea.
What if all the card readers are broken? Shut the company down? Someone could order a new one, but they can't check in to the building to get to their desk to put through the order. So there's nothing anyone can do. It's sad really.
there's no reason to have iTunes on a work computer
Even a laptop? You expect your users to go on business trips and carry 2 computers with them so they can run personal applications on one and business applications on the other one?
It is my job to insure that the network and attached devices runs smoothly.
Why let the users login at all then?
He's still wrong for using the resources and I'm right for doing my job.
And it's "who's right" that matters.
Bob can be pissed if he wants to.
You seem to want him pissed off. Because you can piss him off and be "right", you have authority. Everyone knows this is the real reason behind a lot of IT decisions. When you have an unhelpful attitude, people will assume it's the reason behind all of your decisions.
there is no reason why IT is so special that you are allowed to break legitimate policies to make life easier for someone.
And that calls the legitimacy of those policies into question.
then first i would have the department build a business case for it.
is it her personal camera? tough nuggets.
In other words, getting work done is secondary to "process" and "going through the motions" and your own preference to offer no help on anything.
I'm guessing you work for the government or some large utility or some company that has a monopoly or near-monopoly and so it can afford to be completely process-bound in every way.
Help them when they're trying to get their work done. What if you have a list of "approved" software and someone downloads something like firefox or GIMP or some other utility to get their work done? Do you help them get their work done? Or do you stand in their way because their software isn't on the "approved" list?
What if Sally from HR took some pictures for documentation for work and needs your help to mount her digital camera?
See, you don't sound helpful at all. You don't want your users to be happy, you want your job to be easier.
They're installing RAM boosters because their computer is too slow. You should see about making it faster for them. They're installing twitter to talk to their friends. News flash: people talk to their friends at work. It's not IT's job to enforce production -- that is a manager's job.
When you find a bad twitter program, you don't point them to a good one, do you? Or a web site where they can use Twitter without causing problems? (I don't use it so I don't know all the details.)
It was about 50 employees. Maybe a few less. They really liked me because I cared about them getting their work done and I made it obvious that their productivity was the #1 deciding factor in things. Also, I was good at it.
When I asked them not to put certain things on their computers, they listened because I tried to get them what they needed (when possible) instead of trying to make things easier for myself.
Slashdot Mirror
You miss the point, I think. There are 200 posts here. People are "outraged" about it. The questions was "What if they turn off the servers?!!!!!". It's tagged with the DRM tags.
But it works fine if you unplug your Ethernet. So every single one of those posts, all the people outraged and concerned and just pissing and moaning, all of them don't understand that it's not an issue with this disc. They're upset over nothing as usual.
This is something in the PS3 firmware that needs to be fixed. The network access should timeout and fail instead of hanging. That's ALL that's going on. And once again, Slashdot doesn't get it.
You can't restrict the money used to pay for speech without restricting that speech as a consequence.
So money might not be speech, but it must have the same protections for the speech protections to actually, you know, protect speech.
Saying the money isn't protected is like saying air is not protected. "We're not silencing the speakers, we're just cutting off their air so they can't breathe to make sounds. They can still move their lips. Free speech is protected."
McCain Feingold is clearly unconstitutional too. The SCOTUS got it wrong.
It would seem that any form of communications used by House members on any subject would be Constitutionally protected by Amendment 1. These rule changes seem odd in that context.
Buying a stock in a company with overseas offices does absolutely nothing to avoid the tax consequences of my investment.
The company's profit will be taxed less. That leaves the company with more after-tax profit. You benefit by receiving higher dividends or an increased capital gain on your investment. These are then taxed at the normal rate, which is double taxation. But you benefited when the money was taxed less the first time it was taxed.
Any benefit that a public company receives can be shared by anyone. All you need to do is buy shares of the stock. That's the simplest answer to how to get the benefit.
I offer the simplest answer because many comments on Slashdot are predicated on the hatred and envy of corporations. Buying stock is a fix for that. There's no need to envy a group of people when anyone can join the club.
Yeah. Not you. The people who criticize "American Exceptionalism". They're objectively wrong. There's a lot of other things not to like about them too, but when you can easily prove people "objectively wrong" there's not much reason to consider anything else they might say until they wise up a little.
How do we, the citizens get in on this?
Because people who work at companies aren't citizens? They may know a lot more than you about finance, but that doesn't make them alien. They originated on Earth.
Here's an easy answer for you: buy stock in a company with overseas offices.
Let them hang from your long white beard.
Money is leaving the government and entering the private sector. How is that not spending?
#1 it's borrowed from the private sector to start with
#2 lending is not spending. If I put money in a bank, I have lent that money to a bank. It has "left" me and the bank has it now. Is it "spent"? No. Buying investment securities is simply a more complicated version of this.
American exceptionalism is commonly laughed at as something for fools and demagogues...
Because liking your country is bad when Americans do it but it's good for South Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Africans, Asians, Australians, and anyone else. But not Americans. Americans who like their country and are proud of American success are "fools". Right?
And is it completely irrational to suggest that since America's success has been exceptional, it might be because of some quality that's exceptional -- even if it's just exceptional luck? How foolish is it to draw an obvious conclusion from the available facts?
What is the non-exceptional thing that has led to America's exceptional success? Keep in mind the definition of exceptional: "exceeding: far beyond what is usual in magnitude or degree". If everything in the US is "usual" and the same as everywhere else, then how can the results be different here?
Borrowing money and then moving the money from one account to another and then buying investments with it is not "spending". Investments either go up or down or they mature and pay out in full or they're defaulted on. That leaves either more or less money in the account.
It's not "spending". It's not "pissed away" either unless all the investments are defaulted on and assume a zero value.
This is just a clarification from the rational world. Feel free to ignore it. People who are "outraged" and have bumper-sticker wisdom don't need facts or rationality. It just slows them down.
What do you expect them to do? The taxes they pay outweigh the benefits that they receive. Taxes are simply a bad deal for them.
Did you notice when the gas price went up? The response from about 49% of the politicians was "we should punish the oil companies by raising their taxes". How does raising taxes on oil companies reduce the price of gas? Obviously, it does the opposite: raises the cost of producing gas, and raising the price the producers need to charge to make a profit. Did the media point this out? No.
Hatred and envy and greed are the motivating factor for tax policy (and a lot of other policies) for much or the electorate and their chosen representatives.
Why wouldn't a company want to move their operations out of the US? It's cheaper and it's further away from the people who hate them and want to punish them (and have the power to do it).
If half of the people at my office hated me, and if I could get a better job somewhere else, I'd leave. Companies decide similarly.
When there are no rules, the real-life consequences don't add suspense. There's always a magic way to escape any problem or difficulty. Part of the connection with the audience is lost when the author can just change the rules to save the characters.
The real characters seemed to care too much about the dream characters sometimes.
And then the real characters crossed the river and nothing that happened in the last 100 pages made any difference to the rest of the story.
Tolkien? There's a game called Lord of the Rings Online.
People say it's good and they think they should really play it sometime. But they keep playing WoW instead.
Few will go use the zones with the hard rules. MMO players respond to risk/reward.
But you didn't answer the question:
You expect your users to go on business trips and carry 2 computers with them so they can run personal applications on one and business applications on the other one?
Those were some good books, but the "it's all a dream" aspect of the setting can lead authors into self-indulgences. Essentially, there are no rules for the world. That was the major problem with it. Also, since "it's all a dream", a lot of the drama seemed false. The real characters were interesting but most of the time spent with the dream characters is just that many more pages of inconsequential stuff.
The "no rules for the world" quality would destroy an MMO. You can't just change the rules all the time or all the players will just hang out in the part with the most advantageous rules.
i have to walk through a security check point every morning to get to my desk. if the card reader dies at that entrance, the policy is to redirect all employees to another entrance. it takes me 20 minutes to get into work when that happens. that policy makes my life more difficult, but is it legitimate?
We don't have that at our office. If we did, it would not be legitimate. In your case, I have no idea.
What if all the card readers are broken? Shut the company down? Someone could order a new one, but they can't check in to the building to get to their desk to put through the order. So there's nothing anyone can do. It's sad really.
One more thing.
there's no reason to have iTunes on a work computer
Even a laptop? You expect your users to go on business trips and carry 2 computers with them so they can run personal applications on one and business applications on the other one?
You don't really sound helpful either.
It is my job to insure that the network and attached devices runs smoothly.
Why let the users login at all then?
He's still wrong for using the resources and I'm right for doing my job.
And it's "who's right" that matters.
Bob can be pissed if he wants to.
You seem to want him pissed off. Because you can piss him off and be "right", you have authority. Everyone knows this is the real reason behind a lot of IT decisions. When you have an unhelpful attitude, people will assume it's the reason behind all of your decisions.
there is no reason why IT is so special that you are allowed to break legitimate policies to make life easier for someone.
And that calls the legitimacy of those policies into question.
then first i would have the department build a business case for it.
is it her personal camera? tough nuggets.
In other words, getting work done is secondary to "process" and "going through the motions" and your own preference to offer no help on anything.
I'm guessing you work for the government or some large utility or some company that has a monopoly or near-monopoly and so it can afford to be completely process-bound in every way.
Help them when they're trying to get their work done. What if you have a list of "approved" software and someone downloads something like firefox or GIMP or some other utility to get their work done? Do you help them get their work done? Or do you stand in their way because their software isn't on the "approved" list?
What if Sally from HR took some pictures for documentation for work and needs your help to mount her digital camera?
See, you don't sound helpful at all. You don't want your users to be happy, you want your job to be easier.
They're installing RAM boosters because their computer is too slow. You should see about making it faster for them. They're installing twitter to talk to their friends. News flash: people talk to their friends at work. It's not IT's job to enforce production -- that is a manager's job.
When you find a bad twitter program, you don't point them to a good one, do you? Or a web site where they can use Twitter without causing problems? (I don't use it so I don't know all the details.)
It was about 50 employees. Maybe a few less. They really liked me because I cared about them getting their work done and I made it obvious that their productivity was the #1 deciding factor in things. Also, I was good at it.
When I asked them not to put certain things on their computers, they listened because I tried to get them what they needed (when possible) instead of trying to make things easier for myself.
When IT doesn't serve the users, the users have to be their own IT. Users are bad at it and it causes problems.
The answer is to stop saying NO when users ask for reasonable (non-harmful) things. Help the users instead of trying to make your own job easier.