However I think a return to full-reserve banking would be a treatment that's worse than the disease, at least as it currently stands. We need to banks more responsible for the loans they write, and strongly discourage them from lending out money to people who can't repay it. We need to accept, as a society, that not everyone has a right to a huge house financed with an even bigger mortgage. And we need to take a very hard look at the unsecured-loan industry that's financing much of the nation's consumer debt (in the form of either straightforward loans or credit cards).
I think we need to stop white collar criminals from getting off with a wrist slap. Although not directly tied into the bank system the collapse of Enron and World com and the continued pseudo criminal nature some of the corporation's should be more transparently punished. Perhaps tie jail sentences to how many of millions your fraud cost as well as expenses incurred investigating. And perhaps extend some personal liability to the Directors and upper management of corporations for misdeeds done under their direction.
I can tolerate a lot. Someone mentioned that nobody was hurt in the process, and that is a good point. Perhaps it is not illegal in that form. But while I am a believer in free speech, I also believe that society must have SOME limits, and I shall not apologize for objecting to deliberate child pornography, even if it is fantasy.
The "you must be new here" is not a critique of your position. Merely outlining that that you may not be aware but unless ordered by a court of law or at the whim of a editor, slashdot does not delete posts. It get modded into oblivion quickly and if you view at 0 and higher or 1 and higher you wont' see such garbage.
Now a critique of your position: Freedom of speech is the prohibition of the government from censoring ideas. The spirit behind it is very much "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" vein. So while we can all agree such content is objectionable it is not right to outlaw it if it does not pose or derive from the harm of another. So child pornography in the form of videos, pictures recording etc.. involve and harm a child. Thus should be outlawed. Fiction ought not be. As we may disagree with it, ti harms no one. We do not have to give it a free pass. We can of course limit it's distribution (mod -1 troll) and react negatively to it's author. But we must tolerate the persons right to say it/write it. Because cherry picking rights leads to some unpleasantness and the more you do so the easier it becomes. First it's grow indecent fiction, then artistic works involving children (pretty baby), then it's protecting children from ideas we deem harmful etc.. the whole slippery slope things is cliche but if you draw then line at anything except freedom you risk the progressive redrawing of that line through inaction.
I watched that series and found it mostly informative. The parts explaining the basics of banking and how our debt money system came to be is accurate I think. However, his conclusions about exponential growth being unsustainable and citing a need to control natural resources and population growth sounded like socialist FUD to me. I agree that having immensely powerful bank CEO's using their influence to manipulate society (e.g. not lending money to a auto manufacturer that wants to build an electric car, or something like that) would be bad, but whether that sort of thing really goes on starts to get into kook conspiracy theory territory. Also, his call for an end to all interest on loans, saying usury was immoral, and suggesting making the government the sole lender of money sounded like communist tripe to me as well. At least he didn't get totally whacky and start blaming the Jews or the Freemasons or something.
Thats not actually totally FUD. It's a universal rule of thumb that nothing in this universe grow exponentially forever (except the size of the universe maybe). They are probably over stating our proximity to the limit of such growth but we need to be aware that a limit exists. If you whole system is build on the notions we'll always be growing.. when we hit the plateau of the logarithm we may face some issues. Population tends to be self regulating but the mechanisms are sometimes unpleasant. So at some point in the future we need to weigh the evils of active artificial regulations of it or a Malthusian dystopia.
If our population has a natural self regulating limit that doesn't involve unpleasantness, when we hit that limit the economy may not grow anymore. Much of the west has stopped growing due to changes in social variables. These include the spread of legalized abortion, the spread of contraception, the delay in procreation, the shifting of the economic value of children from positive to negative, etc.. these factors may not catch on with the rest of the world and we may still get unpleasantness from those who do not curb their growth.
When a bank lends money that's backed by someone's mortgage, it's backed by a very "real asset": the mortgaged property.
IANAE, The corollary is that the mortgage must be for an amount that is very close to the value of that asset. If you have massive over estimates of property values due to something like a real estate bubble, once the bubble burst the revaluation throws the system out of whack. Banks says they have X dollars but due to over valuation they actually only have Y% of X dollars where Y is 100. If there is a crash like that and a simultaneous extreme cash call from the banks actual creditors (their customers) then the whole system collapses.
Gold backed currencies aren't subject to this rare circumstance but Gold standards have a lot of draw backs. Thus even with the known failure conditions of the current system it's still better then the gold standard.
This is already how the patent process is supposed to work, in the USA at least. We have a first to invent patent process here, which is supposed to mean that you can not get a patent on something that another person has already invented and been using.
I do know it's a first to invent system but why are ridiculous things like patents for "1-click" shopping lawsuits happening? Amazon and a few others had that feature before the patent was filed?
I propose a axillary test for obviousness. If two or more companies already implemented your patent before your initial application date then your invention was too obvious to patent. This seems like a common sense idea. That if someone is already using your proposed idea you ought not to be able to patent it. This would drastically cut down on patent trolling.
What amazes me is the difference between average IT salaries in Europe and the US. Here in Europe, an average 30-year-old IT worker could expect to be making about 3000 euros before taxes every month (i.e. 36,000 a year). Reading that article, I gather the average US IT salary is about $80,000, which is about 56,000.
Can anybody explain this huge difference? Is the cost of living in the US just so much higher than in Europe? Or does IT just pay a lot more in the US?
A very high density of IT employees live in expensive places. Silicon valley has one of the highest cost of livings int he united states. Subsequently your seeing a inflated figure due to this bias. When you make $80,000 a year but an apple is $2.50 a lb or eggs are $6 a dozen your really effectively only making $40,000 compared to the rest of the US.
I blame it in part on your (USA) housing bubble. Wait 2-3 years for the housing market to drop 50% and you should all be very happy! (Assuming you didn't first go bankrupt on your ARM sub-prime mortgage! heh)
Up here in Canada, you're lucky to get 4% raise/Yr in IT. Wages in general have been quite stagnent in the past 3 or 4 years (except Alberta Oil cities), yet our housing prices are climbing in mutliple urban cities at double digit percentage rates/Yr. Don't worry, our bubble will also be popping soon... then maybe we can all go down to Cuba an cry over our losses with cheap Tequilas & Cubans (cigars) in hand.
Adeptus
In Edmonton the average wage of the union job I had increased at ~5% per year. In the last 5 years the housing market doubled the value of homes. Gas went up by around 60%. Utilities also went up about 30%. Everything but computers went up in price by about 5% so depending on where you are in life you may be only slightly behind or vastly behind inflation. And inflation is extreme here due to the economic boom.
Inflation is probably not outpacing your salary, all those reasons inflation is overstated are rock solid. Compare your spending and consumption with last year. If your taxes increased (property taxes often do) factor that in. Unless your salary remained constant or you took a pay cut, it is impossible for inflation alone to account for a decline in real income, probably taxes and new purchases.
Thats regional and age specific. If you are 35+ have a older mortgage on a house and build some equity then inflation doesn't hit you as hard. If your 18-34 inflation tend sot hit you harder since you still have to buy all that stuff you need for a stable life. I watched as the housing market here doubled in price over 5 years. The average local wage did not go up a similar 100%. We're in the middle of a economic boom but it's higher demand and not higher wages that raised the prices. The high demand for labor has drawn many individuals from other parts of the country here.
I live in Edmonton AB Canada. I'm 28 and looking to buy a house. It's not a good time for that.
Is that legal? In Canada, there's laws saying that they can only raise your rent around 2% per year. If they raise it more, there has to be a good reason, like electricity bills skyrocketing, and the electricity being included in the rent.
Depends on your municipality. In mine the landlord may raise it once a year and must give a certain amount of notice but he can raise it any arbitrary amount. This is Edmonton, AB.
Why is everyone so concerned about a company having their URL history? I mean, they already have your searches(Google), your email(gmail) and your documents(google docs), what does it matter?
coming soon to a web browser near you it's GSoul. Why sing away your should to just anybody. Choose the best. Choose Google*!
*offer void where prohibited. Google promises not to do anything it considers evil with your soul. Google reserves the right to eat your soul. In the states of Utah and Nevada Google may also take possession of any Dependants souls. side effects may include loss of reflection, nausea, vomiting, anal bleeding, vampirism, and cold feet.
Risking being modded flamebait, but Apple is quite good at creating hypes too... So why shouldn't they succeed if they try to cut the studios and signing up artists directly? I could well see them create some kind of "Apple download chart show" on a few networks that only consist of songs downloaded from ITMS.
Possibly. At this point they aren't trying because the highly sought after content is under label control and doing this would create an instant hostile response. If all the labels opt out of iTune, then Apple has no reason not to proceed.. except for that injunction by Apple corp. Due to a previous legal settlement they can't become a music label as the label Apple corp already exists. There was a lawsuit before and it was settled with an agreement for Apple computers to not enter a mostly music content venture to respect apple corps trademark. Apple computers won the case with iTunes as it's content isn't Apple computers but instead the major labels. But going in as a indie label may be venturing too far into Apple corps space.
Although as time passes the relevance of Apple corps (who managed the Beatles catalog) Trademark may diminish. As almost everyone knows apple computers but not that many are aware of apple corp. I do imagine this is exactly what Apple corp had feared.
Aren't most record companies part of bigger media companies? There doesn't seem to be anyone above them saying, "you are aren't adapting to the changing market dynamics, start adapting."
Has there been any change in management or management philosophy that I am not aware of?
Not yet. My generation is the first of the "less TV" generation. We watch less then our older counter parts did and tend towards other sedentary activities like video games. Once we get into power we may start changing things. IF the major media giants don't adapt they may become irrelevant. Viewer ship in the prized 18-34 male demo is slipping. So perhaps when todays 18-34 year olds become studio heads we may see some change.
The only way the labels can make a profit off of digital downloads is to offer a subscription to their entire library, with on-demand access to any album, available at home and on the road, without any restrictions. That way, you eliminate the need for illegal downloads and file sharing. People will gladly pay for that. I would. And this, of course, does not apply to people who still want to buy CD's for the sake of an official tangible package from the artist. The day this happens, we all win.
iTunes showed that most people weren't in it so much for the "free" music as for the "convenient" music. So while there are many who will never pay for music or pay more then a subscription fee, Apple showed there is a significant number that doesn't mind paying $0.99 for a song.
And this is where the music industry as it stands fails to see the logical end to their model: If it is more profitable for them to pull out of an aggregating portal site and run their own, then what's to prevent artists from doing the same? Why should artists remain with them in this scenario? Artists could, gasp, make their own deals with iTunes or the like. Odds are that artists will wind up with agents that manage that for them in return for a fee.
At the moment the Labels still have control over traditional media. So While you could theoretically make a living via web distribution it still requires people be aware of who you are. Word of mouth can do it but traditional media has the power of hype. Word of mouth is a natural hype. Traditional media brokers in an artificial hype.
I think it's inevitable that the internet replaces traditional media but it means the death of the super star. We'll go back to more regional artists with few cross region cross overs if there is a lack of a artificial national hype machine like the labels.
I think that may be a good thing. You don't' need millions to produce good music and may mean that instead of a lottery mentality in artists you'd have more of a real natural industry. Instead of 90% going to the super stars and 10% divided over the desperate numbers of struggling artists you might have a profession where you could actually live off playing music without having to be a superstar or have a second job.
Re:video gamers have their own version of reality
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
Wrong, simply because the link between the term "to gyp" and the ethnic group "gypsy" is by-and-large broken, except for the hyper-sensitive few, such as yourself. IOW, the words can't be synonymous because the vast majority of people aren't even aware they're connected. Go on, walk down the street and ask random people if a) they think the term "gypped" is racist, and b) what race or ethnic group they associate the term with. I'd be *shocked* if more than a small minority even know of the connection you're railing against.
Racism isn't about the majority it's about the minority. It's not if G dubya has an issue with the word "chink" it's if Asians have a problem with that word. In North America the odds of meeting a Romani is slim. why? Because the US enacted laws to prevent the immigration of gypsies/Romani. Canada has a small population. So while you may have a almost 0% chance of offending someone by using gypped, here in Canada it's a non 0 percentage. In many parts of Europe the associating between the word and the race is much stronger. Do they feel bad about it? I had a acquaintance once who was part Romani. He was annoyed at the connection with his ethnicity and being a thief. So to you the link is dead. sample size: 1, objective meaning: hard to say. To him it's a racial slur. So does it mean it's okay so long as no one of that race is around?
As well hysterical was originally coined because Hippocrates thought the uterus was actually wandering around within a womans body. The word has fallen out of professional psychiatric use. So in fact that profession did take steps to avoid a somewhat loaded word.
In the end I'm not asking anyone to be aware of the history of each word they use. I merely point out the history of a word and the implied meaning and I let it up to the speaker to decide what to do. If in light of this information you continue to use the word it paints you in a certain way. Thats the nature of free speech. Say it however you like but deal with the consequences. If you didn't know who can fault you. Now you do know, continued use of the word may paint you as a racist, it is a consequence of your decision.
I don't understand how virtual realities like this have become popular. Do people's real lives suck so badly that they need to frivolously spend money to create their own little world where things don't suck?
some people knit. Some people have sex. Others create intricate simulated worlds... where they knit and have sex.
Re:video gamers have their own version of reality
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
You know what? You're a hyper-sensitive idiot. If you can't understand why there's a clear difference between deliberately using a slur to attack someone, and innocently using a word while ignorant of the fact that it's etymological roots are based in racism, then there's no possible way I can reason with you. Clearly, you see racism, bigotry, and hate everywhere, even where there is none. Frankly, I feel kind of sad for you... your world must be a pretty horrible place.
You get this from my objection to certain words being used?
It's similar to sexual harassment. You may not mean to offend your female co-workers by making lewd jokes or putting up porn, but they needn't have to tell you to stop. My GF loves porn. Enjoys watching it etc.. but it should be up to her where and when she views it.
Casual use of slurs is one of the more callous forms of racism. It's a systemic form. It means that the associations of a stereo type and ethnicity is so ingrained that the word is now synonymous. Now, If I were jewish and people casually used Jewed as a verb it does in fact belittle me in the same way as if it was deliberate. You associate my ethnicity with a negative stereo type. what is the difference between openly attacking someone and casually attacking someone?
Are you a minority? Can you honestly tell me there is no racism? There is significant racism within my own community. In North America it's been mitigated by a lot of idealism regarding equality but it didn't come about because people let things go. Racism isn't' gone but it's laying low only because individuals like myself react to it.
I am exercising my right to free speech. I criticize a person for using a word. I have never said he should be forcefully prevented form using that word but I have merely stated the link and the reasoning for my objection. Perhaps you should investigate why you react to my reasoning with such vitriol.
The software that runs the phone is part of the phone.
If you buy a Chevy arnd replace the engine with some aftermarket engine, Chevy isn't going to fix it when you break it.
In most markets, if you buy a Chevy and replace the engine and then find the door hinge is defective. They must fix the door hinge. Any part not directly affected the replacement. The manufacturer would obviously not want to fix anything. Laws vary by jurisdiction.
Re:video gamers have their own version of reality
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
Only if people realize that "gyp" is short for "gypsy". And since most don't, the slur has no power, and becomes just another word.
Frankly, I would argue it is *you* that is the problem. By getting offended, you are essentially imbuing the word with power it didn't previously have. Oh well, I'm sure you can get offended enough for the rest of us, while we find better things to do.
By the way, I'd recommend watching the season 4 episode of Southpark entitled "Chef Goes Nanners"... it might be enlightening.
The power of a slur is it makes certain people feel smaller. Fighting it by doing nothing just lets people get away with that. The whole idea is a slur denigrates someone for something they have no control over. I can brush off random internet people calling me stuff but if it's in real life and if it's your peers, school mates, boss, teacher, friends. Thats different. In my days at school if someone called me a chink either someone would tell a teacher and they'd get in trouble or there'd be a scuffle. Back in my older cousins day or my uncles day the only alternative would be a scuffle because if they told someone they'd be told back "suck it up chinamen."
Letting it go is not the way to stand up for your rights or to prevent this form of social violence. Making it a issues is how you stand up for yourself. SO what did I do, I put my neck out to stand up for a disadvantaged minority whom I don't know. Look back in this thread. I never let anyone get to me but I tried to stand up for the little guys because not each one is as able to fight. History hasn't shown "letting it go" to be a very good strategy.
Isnèt being a Gypsy (sp) more of a lifestyle choice
It was one ethnicity that the word referred to. Irish travelers were similar but of a separate ethnic stock and have a different name. The topic is veyr heated. Many want it to be just a lifestyle choice so that they can ban it. But it is a word associated with a ethnic group.
It's a good thing I kept my collection of XP drivers for this laptop.. I misread that as "good thing I kept my collection of porn".. Freudian slip I suppose.
PS. Take that 15 mil with a grain of salt. It's form wikipedia. They are a existing minority. The word gypsy is slowly turning into a archaic word as they seemed to have tried to use a different word for themselves. It's not universal as the population is heterogeneous and nomadic. Some like gypsies. some like Romani. But there is a lot of hate for them all over europe. They were one of the major ethnic groups the Nazi's decided didn't have a right to live.
While I get this (and myself became aware this was a slur only a few years ago after having heard the term since childhood) but... just how many gypsies are there today? "roving wanderes"? Do they still exist? We get to use slurs against cultures which haven't existed for a long time - oh, say, cavemen in certain TV commercials, right?
Look up the Romani. They are a medium sized eastern European minority. Somewhere around 15 million total.
Slashdot Mirror
However I think a return to full-reserve banking would be a treatment that's worse than the disease, at least as it currently stands. We need to banks more responsible for the loans they write, and strongly discourage them from lending out money to people who can't repay it. We need to accept, as a society, that not everyone has a right to a huge house financed with an even bigger mortgage. And we need to take a very hard look at the unsecured-loan industry that's financing much of the nation's consumer debt (in the form of either straightforward loans or credit cards).
I think we need to stop white collar criminals from getting off with a wrist slap. Although not directly tied into the bank system the collapse of Enron and World com and the continued pseudo criminal nature some of the corporation's should be more transparently punished. Perhaps tie jail sentences to how many of millions your fraud cost as well as expenses incurred investigating. And perhaps extend some personal liability to the Directors and upper management of corporations for misdeeds done under their direction.
I can tolerate a lot. Someone mentioned that nobody was hurt in the process, and that is a good point. Perhaps it is not illegal in that form. But while I am a believer in free speech, I also believe that society must have SOME limits, and I shall not apologize for objecting to deliberate child pornography, even if it is fantasy.
The "you must be new here" is not a critique of your position. Merely outlining that that you may not be aware but unless ordered by a court of law or at the whim of a editor, slashdot does not delete posts. It get modded into oblivion quickly and if you view at 0 and higher or 1 and higher you wont' see such garbage.
Now a critique of your position: Freedom of speech is the prohibition of the government from censoring ideas. The spirit behind it is very much "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" vein. So while we can all agree such content is objectionable it is not right to outlaw it if it does not pose or derive from the harm of another. So child pornography in the form of videos, pictures recording etc.. involve and harm a child. Thus should be outlawed. Fiction ought not be. As we may disagree with it, ti harms no one. We do not have to give it a free pass. We can of course limit it's distribution (mod -1 troll) and react negatively to it's author. But we must tolerate the persons right to say it/write it. Because cherry picking rights leads to some unpleasantness and the more you do so the easier it becomes. First it's grow indecent fiction, then artistic works involving children (pretty baby), then it's protecting children from ideas we deem harmful etc.. the whole slippery slope things is cliche but if you draw then line at anything except freedom you risk the progressive redrawing of that line through inaction.
I watched that series and found it mostly informative. The parts explaining the basics of banking and how our debt money system came to be is accurate I think. However, his conclusions about exponential growth being unsustainable and citing a need to control natural resources and population growth sounded like socialist FUD to me. I agree that having immensely powerful bank CEO's using their influence to manipulate society (e.g. not lending money to a auto manufacturer that wants to build an electric car, or something like that) would be bad, but whether that sort of thing really goes on starts to get into kook conspiracy theory territory. Also, his call for an end to all interest on loans, saying usury was immoral, and suggesting making the government the sole lender of money sounded like communist tripe to me as well. At least he didn't get totally whacky and start blaming the Jews or the Freemasons or something.
Thats not actually totally FUD. It's a universal rule of thumb that nothing in this universe grow exponentially forever (except the size of the universe maybe). They are probably over stating our proximity to the limit of such growth but we need to be aware that a limit exists. If you whole system is build on the notions we'll always be growing.. when we hit the plateau of the logarithm we may face some issues. Population tends to be self regulating but the mechanisms are sometimes unpleasant. So at some point in the future we need to weigh the evils of active artificial regulations of it or a Malthusian dystopia.
If our population has a natural self regulating limit that doesn't involve unpleasantness, when we hit that limit the economy may not grow anymore. Much of the west has stopped growing due to changes in social variables. These include the spread of legalized abortion, the spread of contraception, the delay in procreation, the shifting of the economic value of children from positive to negative, etc.. these factors may not catch on with the rest of the world and we may still get unpleasantness from those who do not curb their growth.
When a bank lends money that's backed by someone's mortgage, it's backed by a very "real asset": the mortgaged property.
IANAE, The corollary is that the mortgage must be for an amount that is very close to the value of that asset. If you have massive over estimates of property values due to something like a real estate bubble, once the bubble burst the revaluation throws the system out of whack. Banks says they have X dollars but due to over valuation they actually only have Y% of X dollars where Y is 100. If there is a crash like that and a simultaneous extreme cash call from the banks actual creditors (their customers) then the whole system collapses.
Gold backed currencies aren't subject to this rare circumstance but Gold standards have a lot of draw backs. Thus even with the known failure conditions of the current system it's still better then the gold standard.
Can the parent comment be deleted? It is extremely offensive and possibly illegal.
You must be new around here.
This is already how the patent process is supposed to work, in the USA at least. We have a first to invent patent process here, which is supposed to mean that you can not get a patent on something that another person has already invented and been using.
I do know it's a first to invent system but why are ridiculous things like patents for "1-click" shopping lawsuits happening? Amazon and a few others had that feature before the patent was filed?
I propose a axillary test for obviousness. If two or more companies already implemented your patent before your initial application date then your invention was too obvious to patent. This seems like a common sense idea. That if someone is already using your proposed idea you ought not to be able to patent it. This would drastically cut down on patent trolling.
What amazes me is the difference between average IT salaries in Europe and the US. Here in Europe, an average 30-year-old IT worker could expect to be making about 3000 euros before taxes every month (i.e. 36,000 a year). Reading that article, I gather the average US IT salary is about $80,000, which is about 56,000.
Can anybody explain this huge difference? Is the cost of living in the US just so much higher than in Europe? Or does IT just pay a lot more in the US?
A very high density of IT employees live in expensive places. Silicon valley has one of the highest cost of livings int he united states. Subsequently your seeing a inflated figure due to this bias. When you make $80,000 a year but an apple is $2.50 a lb or eggs are $6 a dozen your really effectively only making $40,000 compared to the rest of the US.
I blame it in part on your (USA) housing bubble. Wait 2-3 years for the housing market to drop 50% and you should all be very happy! (Assuming you didn't first go bankrupt on your ARM sub-prime mortgage! heh)
/Yr. Don't worry, our bubble will also be popping soon... then maybe we can all go down to Cuba an cry over our losses with cheap Tequilas & Cubans (cigars) in hand.
Up here in Canada, you're lucky to get 4% raise/Yr in IT. Wages in general have been quite stagnent in the past 3 or 4 years (except Alberta Oil cities), yet our housing prices are climbing in mutliple urban cities at double digit percentage rates
Adeptus
In Edmonton the average wage of the union job I had increased at ~5% per year. In the last 5 years the housing market doubled the value of homes. Gas went up by around 60%. Utilities also went up about 30%. Everything but computers went up in price by about 5% so depending on where you are in life you may be only slightly behind or vastly behind inflation. And inflation is extreme here due to the economic boom.
Inflation is probably not outpacing your salary, all those reasons inflation is overstated are rock solid. Compare your spending and consumption with last year. If your taxes increased (property taxes often do) factor that in. Unless your salary remained constant or you took a pay cut, it is impossible for inflation alone to account for a decline in real income, probably taxes and new purchases.
Thats regional and age specific. If you are 35+ have a older mortgage on a house and build some equity then inflation doesn't hit you as hard. If your 18-34 inflation tend sot hit you harder since you still have to buy all that stuff you need for a stable life. I watched as the housing market here doubled in price over 5 years. The average local wage did not go up a similar 100%. We're in the middle of a economic boom but it's higher demand and not higher wages that raised the prices. The high demand for labor has drawn many individuals from other parts of the country here.
I live in Edmonton AB Canada. I'm 28 and looking to buy a house. It's not a good time for that.
Is that legal? In Canada, there's laws saying that they can only raise your rent around 2% per year. If they raise it more, there has to be a good reason, like electricity bills skyrocketing, and the electricity being included in the rent.
Depends on your municipality. In mine the landlord may raise it once a year and must give a certain amount of notice but he can raise it any arbitrary amount. This is Edmonton, AB.
Why is everyone so concerned about a company having their URL history? I mean, they already have your searches(Google), your email(gmail) and your documents(google docs), what does it matter?
coming soon to a web browser near you it's GSoul. Why sing away your should to just anybody. Choose the best. Choose Google*!
*offer void where prohibited. Google promises not to do anything it considers evil with your soul. Google reserves the right to eat your soul. In the states of Utah and Nevada Google may also take possession of any Dependants souls. side effects may include loss of reflection, nausea, vomiting, anal bleeding, vampirism, and cold feet.
Risking being modded flamebait, but Apple is quite good at creating hypes too... So why shouldn't they succeed if they try to cut the studios and signing up artists directly? I could well see them create some kind of "Apple download chart show" on a few networks that only consist of songs downloaded from ITMS.
Possibly. At this point they aren't trying because the highly sought after content is under label control and doing this would create an instant hostile response. If all the labels opt out of iTune, then Apple has no reason not to proceed.. except for that injunction by Apple corp. Due to a previous legal settlement they can't become a music label as the label Apple corp already exists. There was a lawsuit before and it was settled with an agreement for Apple computers to not enter a mostly music content venture to respect apple corps trademark. Apple computers won the case with iTunes as it's content isn't Apple computers but instead the major labels. But going in as a indie label may be venturing too far into Apple corps space.
Although as time passes the relevance of Apple corps (who managed the Beatles catalog) Trademark may diminish. As almost everyone knows apple computers but not that many are aware of apple corp. I do imagine this is exactly what Apple corp had feared.
Aren't most record companies part of bigger media companies? There doesn't seem to be anyone above them saying, "you are aren't adapting to the changing market dynamics, start adapting."
Has there been any change in management or management philosophy that I am not aware of?
Not yet. My generation is the first of the "less TV" generation. We watch less then our older counter parts did and tend towards other sedentary activities like video games. Once we get into power we may start changing things. IF the major media giants don't adapt they may become irrelevant. Viewer ship in the prized 18-34 male demo is slipping. So perhaps when todays 18-34 year olds become studio heads we may see some change.
The only way the labels can make a profit off of digital downloads is to offer a subscription to their entire library, with on-demand access to any album, available at home and on the road, without any restrictions. That way, you eliminate the need for illegal downloads and file sharing. People will gladly pay for that. I would. And this, of course, does not apply to people who still want to buy CD's for the sake of an official tangible package from the artist. The day this happens, we all win.
iTunes showed that most people weren't in it so much for the "free" music as for the "convenient" music. So while there are many who will never pay for music or pay more then a subscription fee, Apple showed there is a significant number that doesn't mind paying $0.99 for a song.
And this is where the music industry as it stands fails to see the logical end to their model: If it is more profitable for them to pull out of an aggregating portal site and run their own, then what's to prevent artists from doing the same? Why should artists remain with them in this scenario? Artists could, gasp, make their own deals with iTunes or the like. Odds are that artists will wind up with agents that manage that for them in return for a fee.
At the moment the Labels still have control over traditional media. So While you could theoretically make a living via web distribution it still requires people be aware of who you are. Word of mouth can do it but traditional media has the power of hype. Word of mouth is a natural hype. Traditional media brokers in an artificial hype.
I think it's inevitable that the internet replaces traditional media but it means the death of the super star. We'll go back to more regional artists with few cross region cross overs if there is a lack of a artificial national hype machine like the labels.
I think that may be a good thing. You don't' need millions to produce good music and may mean that instead of a lottery mentality in artists you'd have more of a real natural industry. Instead of 90% going to the super stars and 10% divided over the desperate numbers of struggling artists you might have a profession where you could actually live off playing music without having to be a superstar or have a second job.
Wrong, simply because the link between the term "to gyp" and the ethnic group "gypsy" is by-and-large broken, except for the hyper-sensitive few, such as yourself. IOW, the words can't be synonymous because the vast majority of people aren't even aware they're connected. Go on, walk down the street and ask random people if a) they think the term "gypped" is racist, and b) what race or ethnic group they associate the term with. I'd be *shocked* if more than a small minority even know of the connection you're railing against.
Racism isn't about the majority it's about the minority. It's not if G dubya has an issue with the word "chink" it's if Asians have a problem with that word. In North America the odds of meeting a Romani is slim. why? Because the US enacted laws to prevent the immigration of gypsies/Romani. Canada has a small population. So while you may have a almost 0% chance of offending someone by using gypped, here in Canada it's a non 0 percentage. In many parts of Europe the associating between the word and the race is much stronger. Do they feel bad about it? I had a acquaintance once who was part Romani. He was annoyed at the connection with his ethnicity and being a thief. So to you the link is dead. sample size: 1, objective meaning: hard to say. To him it's a racial slur. So does it mean it's okay so long as no one of that race is around?
As well hysterical was originally coined because Hippocrates thought the uterus was actually wandering around within a womans body. The word has fallen out of professional psychiatric use. So in fact that profession did take steps to avoid a somewhat loaded word.
In the end I'm not asking anyone to be aware of the history of each word they use. I merely point out the history of a word and the implied meaning and I let it up to the speaker to decide what to do. If in light of this information you continue to use the word it paints you in a certain way. Thats the nature of free speech. Say it however you like but deal with the consequences. If you didn't know who can fault you. Now you do know, continued use of the word may paint you as a racist, it is a consequence of your decision.
I don't understand how virtual realities like this have become popular. Do people's real lives suck so badly that they need to frivolously spend money to create their own little world where things don't suck?
some people knit. Some people have sex. Others create intricate simulated worlds... where they knit and have sex.
You know what? You're a hyper-sensitive idiot. If you can't understand why there's a clear difference between deliberately using a slur to attack someone, and innocently using a word while ignorant of the fact that it's etymological roots are based in racism, then there's no possible way I can reason with you. Clearly, you see racism, bigotry, and hate everywhere, even where there is none. Frankly, I feel kind of sad for you... your world must be a pretty horrible place.
You get this from my objection to certain words being used?
It's similar to sexual harassment. You may not mean to offend your female co-workers by making lewd jokes or putting up porn, but they needn't have to tell you to stop. My GF loves porn. Enjoys watching it etc.. but it should be up to her where and when she views it.
Casual use of slurs is one of the more callous forms of racism. It's a systemic form. It means that the associations of a stereo type and ethnicity is so ingrained that the word is now synonymous. Now, If I were jewish and people casually used Jewed as a verb it does in fact belittle me in the same way as if it was deliberate. You associate my ethnicity with a negative stereo type. what is the difference between openly attacking someone and casually attacking someone?
Are you a minority? Can you honestly tell me there is no racism? There is significant racism within my own community. In North America it's been mitigated by a lot of idealism regarding equality but it didn't come about because people let things go. Racism isn't' gone but it's laying low only because individuals like myself react to it.
I am exercising my right to free speech. I criticize a person for using a word. I have never said he should be forcefully prevented form using that word but I have merely stated the link and the reasoning for my objection. Perhaps you should investigate why you react to my reasoning with such vitriol.
The software that runs the phone is part of the phone.
If you buy a Chevy arnd replace the engine with some aftermarket engine, Chevy isn't going to fix it when you break it.
In most markets, if you buy a Chevy and replace the engine and then find the door hinge is defective. They must fix the door hinge. Any part not directly affected the replacement. The manufacturer would obviously not want to fix anything. Laws vary by jurisdiction.
Only if people realize that "gyp" is short for "gypsy". And since most don't, the slur has no power, and becomes just another word.
Frankly, I would argue it is *you* that is the problem. By getting offended, you are essentially imbuing the word with power it didn't previously have. Oh well, I'm sure you can get offended enough for the rest of us, while we find better things to do.
By the way, I'd recommend watching the season 4 episode of Southpark entitled "Chef Goes Nanners"... it might be enlightening.
The power of a slur is it makes certain people feel smaller. Fighting it by doing nothing just lets people get away with that. The whole idea is a slur denigrates someone for something they have no control over. I can brush off random internet people calling me stuff but if it's in real life and if it's your peers, school mates, boss, teacher, friends. Thats different. In my days at school if someone called me a chink either someone would tell a teacher and they'd get in trouble or there'd be a scuffle. Back in my older cousins day or my uncles day the only alternative would be a scuffle because if they told someone they'd be told back "suck it up chinamen."
Letting it go is not the way to stand up for your rights or to prevent this form of social violence. Making it a issues is how you stand up for yourself. SO what did I do, I put my neck out to stand up for a disadvantaged minority whom I don't know. Look back in this thread. I never let anyone get to me but I tried to stand up for the little guys because not each one is as able to fight. History hasn't shown "letting it go" to be a very good strategy.
Isnèt being a Gypsy (sp) more of a lifestyle choice
It was one ethnicity that the word referred to. Irish travelers were similar but of a separate ethnic stock and have a different name. The topic is veyr heated. Many want it to be just a lifestyle choice so that they can ban it. But it is a word associated with a ethnic group.
It's a good thing I kept my collection of XP drivers for this laptop .. I misread that as "good thing I kept my collection of porn".. Freudian slip I suppose.
PS. Take that 15 mil with a grain of salt. It's form wikipedia. They are a existing minority. The word gypsy is slowly turning into a archaic word as they seemed to have tried to use a different word for themselves. It's not universal as the population is heterogeneous and nomadic. Some like gypsies. some like Romani. But there is a lot of hate for them all over europe. They were one of the major ethnic groups the Nazi's decided didn't have a right to live.
While I get this (and myself became aware this was a slur only a few years ago after having heard the term since childhood) but ... just how many gypsies are there today? "roving wanderes"? Do they still exist? We get to use slurs against cultures which haven't existed for a long time - oh, say, cavemen in certain TV commercials, right?
Look up the Romani. They are a medium sized eastern European minority. Somewhere around 15 million total.