It may be a crime but, in my experience at least, the only enforcement actions I've heard of were purely anecdotal. Mostly it seems to come down to issues of liability in the case of an accident. If you're jaywalking, you're probably liable for damages in the event of an accident unless the driver was doing something even worse, like driving drunk.
So they traded.000000001% of Iowa's corn for.000000001% of Microsoft's earnings?
(Actually, according to this, Iowa produced 2.16B bushels of corn in 2005. An average bushel is 90,000 kernels, and an average ear produces ~500 kernels, so that's 180 ears per bushel, or ~390B ears of corn produced. So 1M ears would be ~0.00026% of Iowa's yearly production.)
Someone who is poor and hungry shouting that "everyone", including himself, should be fed is less noble, yes. He's using sympathy for the plight of the world for his personal gain. What is he sacrificing?
The same thing everyone else sacrifices. The only resource we have: time.
are you seriously comparing creating the iPod to doing great works for humanity?
No, I'm comparing levels of respect, something which Jobs seems to have in abundance. Of course it's difficult to quantize respect, but we routinely praise people who work for monetary gain (athletes, CEOs, etc.), so why is working for something that benefits self AND others less respectable?
But the level of worship that follows him around is not necessarily justified.
Maybe it's just me, but I see far more criticism than worship. At any rate, it's certainly more noble to praise his efforts than to criticize his motives, especially when there's nothing to be gained by the latter except, perhaps, a feeling of self-satisfaction.
His current salary at Apple officially remains US$1 per year, although he has traditionally been the recipient of a number of lucrative "executive gifts" from the board, including a US$46 million jet in 1999 and just under 30 million shares of restricted stock in 2000-2002. As such, Jobs is well compensated for his efforts at Apple despite the nominal one-dollar salary. This approach reduces his personal tax liability because, under current U.S. tax law, salary income is taxed at a significantly higher rate (currently up to 35%) than the capital gains tax (currently a maximum of 15%) applied to profits arising from the sale of stock grants. Obtaining remuneration through stock instead of salary is a common extrinsic rewarding technique which ties management performance to financial benefits. Furthermore, it acts as a tax minimization strategy.
So only people who aren't hungry would be noble for (re)solving world hunger? I agree that it's more impressive when people do things without (apparent) personal gain, but I don't hear anyone faulting Jobs because the iPod makes him shit tons of money either. In other words, good work is good work, whether or not there is personal gain.
I, for one, welcome Spiderman's coming out. From hiding. It's about time he stopped trying to deny... that he existed. And it's obvious from the undertones... that the harmony will be fantastic. Of course, Mary Jane will be sorely disappointed... since she prefers opera to musicals. But I am not afraid to say that I would take Spiderman anytime and anywhere... he needed to go.
Since the minimum age for firearm ownership is 21, the number of students carrying would be limited to begin with. I suspect that the numbers of students who (legally) carried concealed would be trivial in day-to-day experience, although probably somewhat higher after Monday's events. I agree that it's not necessarily a good thing to have a bunch of armed individuals on campus (hell, they don't even carry guns to class at military academies), but with zero security checks in place at any of the buildings, let alone a secure campus border, it's the next best alternative. I'm pro-gun ownership, however I don't believe guns have any place in a learning environment, but I do believe it's necessary to enforce that ban with at least casual security checks at the entrances to buildings, otherwise you're just disarming a large population without taking any effective measures to offset their vulnerability.
Actually, Virginia has very liberal (conservative?) buyer and concealed carry laws. Just about anyone without a record can obtain both with little effort, so by your logic, we should be seeing shooting sprees all over VA. In reality, the firearm death rate was below the median for 2003 (only year I could find), and the murder rate has been about average (usually below, sometimes above) for the past decade.
I lived in Blacksburg about a decade ago, and my sister is a recent VT alumni who used to live in West AJ, where the shootings started. Many of my friends and family are VT alumni, and while I'm now half a world away, this tragedy hit rather close to home, although obviously not nearly as close as for current students, faculty, residents, and their families. Nonetheless, I can't help but wonder what might have happened if someone with a concealed carry permit had been nearby, or in the class, and had been able to take action. Instead, firearms are completely prohibited on campus -- which makes sense, but only if the playing field is leveled by bag checks and metal detectors at all building entrances. The "honor system" for this sort of thing only harms those who follow the laws and regulations of the state and campus.
I'm personally shocked by this event. As anyone who's ever been to Blacksburg can attest, it's not at all the sort of place where you'd expect anything like this to happen. (Not to say there's anywhere you would expect a massacre, but some places are obviously better candidates than others.) It's a very small-town atmosphere, despite a university population (including faculty) of about 35,000. The environment is very casual and laid back, and people are generally very friendly and trusting. It's almost impossible for anyone to not find a group of peers to which they can "belong," in such a place, especially where so many so-called "nerds" and other social "misfits" abound. Unfortunately, there are always people who feel isolated, alone, and without support, as most of us have from time to time, whether real or imagined, no matter how friendly and open the community is. My deepest sympathy and condolances go out to all who were affected by this tragedy.
people generally respect a personal opinion more so than a fake corporate one.
I think it's more that they respect a disinterested third party opinion rather than corp. vs. individual. For example, if I found out Google used Linux distribution X exclusively, I might be more inclined to check it out. At the same time, just because someone tells me something good about themselves doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to believe them. Unless it's my mom. I love you mama!
How about, and this is really revolutionary, if you want to enjoy someone's work, you kick some money their way so they can continue to produce the things you enjoy?
Or how about I just continue to go to the library to borrow the books I want to read and you stop trying to lay a guilt trip just because I don't value something enough to hand over my hard earned cash for it? If you want me to buy something, you'd better have a better incentive than "you should pay me," especially if I can get the same thing elsewhere for little to nothing. And should we only pay for the works of living authors? Should we pay their children? Should I pay if I go to a friend's house to watch something? What if they bring it over to mine? We've got to draw the line somewhere, and "if I like it, and I feel like giving you money" is as good as any. It's not like we collectively commissioned an author to write something. He or she decided to write knowing full well that it might be received well or poorly, and that there are few guarantees of either. Writing isn't a viable career any more than surfing, or playing golf. True, some people may do well enough to make a living at it, but on the whole we do it because we enjoy it. Enjoyment is (or should be) the primary motivation, and anything else is just a fringe benefit.
Not even Shakespeare tried to make a living selling books. If plays just aren't profitable enough for you, then here's a thought: find other work.
Basically, you just don't want to pay for stuff because it can be copied cheaply/freely.
Basically, the publishers would like to charge me as much as they possibly can. They have in the past, and they will continue in the future. Unfortunately for them, they dynamic is changing such that "as much as they possibly can" is decreasing, thanks to the lower cost of electronic duplication. In other words, they wanted to take advantage of the fact that people didn't have their own printing presses in the past, so why shouldn't I want to take advantage of the fact that we do now?
At any rate, books provide added value, in that you have a convenient, somewhat durable, and highly portable medium. Sure, you can download the text of a book, but unless you like reading off a monitor, or thumbing through sheets of 8.5x11, you'd probably prefer to have a bound book. Some day that may change, but books are probably safe for now.
Slashdot Mirror
There, there, I think you meant "Hear, hear!"
I notice that murder accounts for a similar minority of crimes.
Here's a thought: Maybe the cost to society counts for more than the quantity of the crime. Almost as if there were various degrees of infraction...
It may be a crime but, in my experience at least, the only enforcement actions I've heard of were purely anecdotal. Mostly it seems to come down to issues of liability in the case of an accident. If you're jaywalking, you're probably liable for damages in the event of an accident unless the driver was doing something even worse, like driving drunk.
Or until they're stopped at a @#$%ing DUI checkpoint.
Not that I've ever been in that situation.....
So they traded .000000001% of Iowa's corn for .000000001% of Microsoft's earnings?
(Actually, according to this, Iowa produced 2.16B bushels of corn in 2005. An average bushel is 90,000 kernels, and an average ear produces ~500 kernels, so that's 180 ears per bushel, or ~390B ears of corn produced. So 1M ears would be ~0.00026% of Iowa's yearly production.)
I don't recall saying that.
Almost.
Someone who is poor and hungry shouting that "everyone", including himself, should be fed is less noble, yes. He's using sympathy for the plight of the world for his personal gain. What is he sacrificing?
The same thing everyone else sacrifices. The only resource we have: time.
are you seriously comparing creating the iPod to doing great works for humanity?
No, I'm comparing levels of respect, something which Jobs seems to have in abundance. Of course it's difficult to quantize respect, but we routinely praise people who work for monetary gain (athletes, CEOs, etc.), so why is working for something that benefits self AND others less respectable?
But the level of worship that follows him around is not necessarily justified.
Maybe it's just me, but I see far more criticism than worship. At any rate, it's certainly more noble to praise his efforts than to criticize his motives, especially when there's nothing to be gained by the latter except, perhaps, a feeling of self-satisfaction.
I think a few people might...
His current salary at Apple officially remains US$1 per year, although he has traditionally been the recipient of a number of lucrative "executive gifts" from the board, including a US$46 million jet in 1999 and just under 30 million shares of restricted stock in 2000-2002. As such, Jobs is well compensated for his efforts at Apple despite the nominal one-dollar salary. This approach reduces his personal tax liability because, under current U.S. tax law, salary income is taxed at a significantly higher rate (currently up to 35%) than the capital gains tax (currently a maximum of 15%) applied to profits arising from the sale of stock grants. Obtaining remuneration through stock instead of salary is a common extrinsic rewarding technique which ties management performance to financial benefits. Furthermore, it acts as a tax minimization strategy.
So only people who aren't hungry would be noble for (re)solving world hunger? I agree that it's more impressive when people do things without (apparent) personal gain, but I don't hear anyone faulting Jobs because the iPod makes him shit tons of money either. In other words, good work is good work, whether or not there is personal gain.
I vote that the next person who uses a tired slashdot meme gets a great disturbance to the braincase.
Not to mention one vinyl for the home, one for the computer, one for the car, and one for the portable record player.
I'd rather see him say "Put up or put out."
I, for one, welcome Spiderman's coming out. From hiding. It's about time he stopped trying to deny... that he existed. And it's obvious from the undertones... that the harmony will be fantastic. Of course, Mary Jane will be sorely disappointed... since she prefers opera to musicals. But I am not afraid to say that I would take Spiderman anytime and anywhere... he needed to go.
hopefully we don't have to wait around 64 million years to draw a conclusion on this hypothesis.
Because we're going to invent a time machine, or because we're going to teleport the solar system to another part of the galaxy?
This sentence should have a comma in it but you used them all.
Since the minimum age for firearm ownership is 21, the number of students carrying would be limited to begin with. I suspect that the numbers of students who (legally) carried concealed would be trivial in day-to-day experience, although probably somewhat higher after Monday's events. I agree that it's not necessarily a good thing to have a bunch of armed individuals on campus (hell, they don't even carry guns to class at military academies), but with zero security checks in place at any of the buildings, let alone a secure campus border, it's the next best alternative. I'm pro-gun ownership, however I don't believe guns have any place in a learning environment, but I do believe it's necessary to enforce that ban with at least casual security checks at the entrances to buildings, otherwise you're just disarming a large population without taking any effective measures to offset their vulnerability.
Actually, Virginia has very liberal (conservative?) buyer and concealed carry laws. Just about anyone without a record can obtain both with little effort, so by your logic, we should be seeing shooting sprees all over VA. In reality, the firearm death rate was below the median for 2003 (only year I could find), and the murder rate has been about average (usually below, sometimes above) for the past decade.
I lived in Blacksburg about a decade ago, and my sister is a recent VT alumni who used to live in West AJ, where the shootings started. Many of my friends and family are VT alumni, and while I'm now half a world away, this tragedy hit rather close to home, although obviously not nearly as close as for current students, faculty, residents, and their families. Nonetheless, I can't help but wonder what might have happened if someone with a concealed carry permit had been nearby, or in the class, and had been able to take action. Instead, firearms are completely prohibited on campus -- which makes sense, but only if the playing field is leveled by bag checks and metal detectors at all building entrances. The "honor system" for this sort of thing only harms those who follow the laws and regulations of the state and campus.
I'm personally shocked by this event. As anyone who's ever been to Blacksburg can attest, it's not at all the sort of place where you'd expect anything like this to happen. (Not to say there's anywhere you would expect a massacre, but some places are obviously better candidates than others.) It's a very small-town atmosphere, despite a university population (including faculty) of about 35,000. The environment is very casual and laid back, and people are generally very friendly and trusting. It's almost impossible for anyone to not find a group of peers to which they can "belong," in such a place, especially where so many so-called "nerds" and other social "misfits" abound. Unfortunately, there are always people who feel isolated, alone, and without support, as most of us have from time to time, whether real or imagined, no matter how friendly and open the community is. My deepest sympathy and condolances go out to all who were affected by this tragedy.
I don't know anyone who doesn't block doubleclick.
Me neither : (
true multicast support
better alt.bin retention
higher speed of C for lower satellite ping times
unlimited bandwidth
n'when they caem 2 bloc me, there wuz no 1 left 2 protest, 4 all the sites were gone:((
people generally respect a personal opinion more so than a fake corporate one.
I think it's more that they respect a disinterested third party opinion rather than corp. vs. individual. For example, if I found out Google used Linux distribution X exclusively, I might be more inclined to check it out. At the same time, just because someone tells me something good about themselves doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to believe them. Unless it's my mom. I love you mama!
I heard that release died unexpectedly.
How about, and this is really revolutionary, if you want to enjoy someone's work, you kick some money their way so they can continue to produce the things you enjoy?
Or how about I just continue to go to the library to borrow the books I want to read and you stop trying to lay a guilt trip just because I don't value something enough to hand over my hard earned cash for it? If you want me to buy something, you'd better have a better incentive than "you should pay me," especially if I can get the same thing elsewhere for little to nothing. And should we only pay for the works of living authors? Should we pay their children? Should I pay if I go to a friend's house to watch something? What if they bring it over to mine? We've got to draw the line somewhere, and "if I like it, and I feel like giving you money" is as good as any. It's not like we collectively commissioned an author to write something. He or she decided to write knowing full well that it might be received well or poorly, and that there are few guarantees of either. Writing isn't a viable career any more than surfing, or playing golf. True, some people may do well enough to make a living at it, but on the whole we do it because we enjoy it. Enjoyment is (or should be) the primary motivation, and anything else is just a fringe benefit.
Not even Shakespeare tried to make a living selling books. If plays just aren't profitable enough for you, then here's a thought: find other work.
Basically, you just don't want to pay for stuff because it can be copied cheaply/freely.
Basically, the publishers would like to charge me as much as they possibly can. They have in the past, and they will continue in the future. Unfortunately for them, they dynamic is changing such that "as much as they possibly can" is decreasing, thanks to the lower cost of electronic duplication. In other words, they wanted to take advantage of the fact that people didn't have their own printing presses in the past, so why shouldn't I want to take advantage of the fact that we do now?
At any rate, books provide added value, in that you have a convenient, somewhat durable, and highly portable medium. Sure, you can download the text of a book, but unless you like reading off a monitor, or thumbing through sheets of 8.5x11, you'd probably prefer to have a bound book. Some day that may change, but books are probably safe for now.
That may not be an urban legend, but it certainly has all the hallmarks of one.