Saddly the people who donated money to him are probably the same people who cast their eyes away from homeless people or those who are on welfare
Except, those people have no right to the money they receive. They didn't put any in. This guy is just making a withdrawl from an account he's been depositing money into for who knows how long. And, he only gets to withdraw a certain % of what he put in. It's not a hand-out.
I have no problem with unemployment. It's the able bodied welfare recepients that have never worked a day in their life that piss me off. I say give them their free food, pay for their child care, their rent, their cable TV, whatever - but damnit, make them do something (anything) for it. Have them pick up garbage or mow taxpayer's lawns for free if you can't find something better for them to do.
Well, Xerox machines won't copy money anymore. All Xerox machines have technology that recoginzes money and stops it from being reproduced correctly. I think their 1st gen color machines did, but not anymore.
If you knew anything about how copy machines work, you'd know that what you just posted is a big line of bullshit. Xerox's new PC based copiers notwithstanding, what you've posted is impossible.
Yes, but what doesn't seem plausible is that people who are watching these movies ever had any intention of buying them. I've downloaded movies and the quality could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch. Nobody in their right mind would actually skip buying the DVD for the stomach churning pleasure of watching a DiVX rip...
It was a minor irritation, but with the rampant CC theft and Mexican border crossings, it was worth it to me.
I had the same thing happen with my AMEX Blue card. I bought a rather unique sports car and flew down to pick it up and drive it home. It was a 13 hour drive, so my Blue card got heavy use. First plane tickets, then a hotel room (pre-paid the day before I left). These cars have a known issue with fuel gauges, so I was pulling over roughly every 120 miles to gas up: I didn't trust the gauge and I had never traveled there before so I had no idea when I would come across the next gas station.
All of it went on my card. About halfway home, I stopped for the fifth or so time to fill up, and the card was declined. I called American Express on my cellphone and was told the account was flagged for suspected fraud. After answering a few questions, they put a note on my account and all was taken care of.
My thoughts? I loved it! Totally worth my time. If my card had been stolen (and I totally see how the buying pattern would indicate that), the thieves would have been stopped in their tracks. I have absolutely no problem with this, and the people at American Express were more than helpful. I doubt I'll ever get rid of this card. (Though, we'll see how they do if I have to charge something back some day...)
Anyone remember the lady that spent $400 on a PS2 box? To his credit, the ad never said there was actually a PS2 in it, but the guy who sold it was still slime and lost his eBay account.
Basically, you have to buy something before they let you see the catalog.
Well that's just fscking stupid. Who would pay for that? How do you know if you even want to buy something from them if you can't see the catalog until after you've sent your $10?
If this were changed a little, you could be onto something. To apply this to/., you pay $10 per quarter to access it. However, that $10 is 100% refundable towards the purchase of something at the/. store. Mugs, caps, other neat little toys -/. could make their money from selling these items. Kind of a "We'll let you use the site, but you have to buy $10 worth of stuff from our store a few times a year." I for one would never pay to use/., but if I could buy a toy and get preferred access to boot - you bet!
This is slightly off topic, but consumers should remember not only to do their homework about online payment mechanisms, but their credit cards as well.
I learned this the hard way when shop4paintball.com ripped me off. Sent me shitty paintballs, verbally guaranteed them over the phone, then refused to allow me to return them. Nextcard, the "Internet Visa", did jack shit to help. In fact, the bitch who handled my complaint chastised ME! She said I "should have known the prices were too good to be true" and cited the merchant's web site, where they proclaimed "No returns, all sales final" in tiny letters five links deep. Nevermind the fact that I didn't place the order on their fscking web site, I placed it over the telephone and was lied to and given false promises.
I filed a complaint with the merchant's BBB, but they were of little help. They called back 3 months later to get more details from me, which I provided, but I never heard from them again.
$75 lesson learned. Now, I only use my local credit union's cards. I've been a member for 10 years and they treat their customers like family. Better, if I ever do have a problem I can walk my ass down there and talk to a real person face to face.
What's more, what you are beaming is much more easily placed onto a computer hard disk and shared at large, albeit by circumventing controls in the Replay unit.
So? This should make the Replay unit illegal? You can do the same thing with a video capture card or firewire port & DV camera. Perhaps those should be illegal, too?
Would it be okay for a friend to videotape it for them and then loan it to them to watch it later?
Yes, would be. It's called time shifting and is no different than if she recorded it herself and watched it later. True, she's not paying for HBO, but her friend is, and if she went to her friend's house to watch it while it aired there would be nothing wrong with that. Borrowing her friend's VCR and recording it is essentially the same thing.
That said, what is the difference if she downloads it from Morpheus? As far as I can tell, there isn't any. I do see the concern: If everyone just downloaded it, HBO will lose money. I'm sympathetic to that. But on the other hand, it really is no different than if she drove to a friend's house and watched a recording that was made the previous night OR borrowed said recording for her own personal use - and both situations are perfectly legal.
There's got to be a common ground here somewhere, but I can't find it. Personally, I think if they flat out allowed everyone to copy their broadcasts, they'd make plenty of money. I'd even be willing to bet subscriptions would go up. Just once I would love to see someone try an open approach with their customers - I bet the popularity of the show would go through the roof, and with that popularity will come more subscriptions from people who want to watch it first, when it's broadcast.
All it takes is one person with a highly successful TV show to not only give up on copying, but to encourage it. Then you'll have real numbers. How about it, HBO? Are you willing to take the risk on "Sex and the City?"
If the grinder was being used to make illegal keys then owning it would also be illegal.
NO, it wouldn't be! The grinder would be SEIZED from the felon for using it illegally, but the grinder itself would NOT be illegal! In other words, we would not say, "You're using it for an illegal purpose. All grinders are now illegal. Round up any merchants selling grinders, seize their property and throw them in jail."
I dunno, I could be talking out my ass here, but doesn't Nintendo require a royalty for every game anyone makes?
That's impossible. "You're not allowed to make a game that runs on our hardware?" WTF? It's not THEIR hardware. When you buy it, it's YOUR hardware, and you can do whatever you damn well please with it. If you want to make a game, there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
Now, mass producing and selling your game in a store, there might be something there. Perhaps they have a copyright on the cartridge design, or something like that. But making your own game for your own use, I don't see how they can prevent you from doing that...
So people who have minimum wage jobs do not deserve to own their own homes and should be stuck paying rent the rest of their lives?
If you want to live in a socialist country, go elsewhere. In the United States, people are supposed to work for what they own, not have it handed to them because "everyone should own a home." If you don't want to pay rent for the rest of your life, go find a real job. Don't expect to be paid $10 an hour for flipping burgers.
Many of the people flipping burger are minorities, who already are having problems with economic racism (lack of quality affordable housing in minority neighborhoods, redlining in non-minority neighborhoods, etc). Saying that they should not own their own homes is tantamount to condoning economic racism.
Don't pull the racism bullshit on me. My next door neighbor is hispanic. He works hard for a living and owns an expensive home, new vehicles, etc. A black friend of mine manages a local (fine dining) restaurant and as of a few months ago finally saved up enough for a down payment. He's now shopping for home as well. "Disadvantaged minorities?" Please, spare me the tears. Life is what you make of it. Minorities are more advantaged here than anywhere else. Thanks to affirmative action, they can get into college and obtain financial aid much easier than "White Ditto-heads" such as myself.
It's sad to see that racism is alive and well on Slashdot. Why you even brought it up is beyond me.
I'm trying to move data from one point to another, and some machines in the middle are discriminating against my data
Just wait a minute there Jethro... "machines in the middle" are not discriminating against your data. It's not like your mail passes through this machine that says, "Hey, you're a bad bad person! Go away."
In fact, the recipients are the servers refusing to deal with you. Sure, it's because they've subscribed to a list, but the list is not the one refusing you, it's the server that reads from it.
That said, it's not very nice to remove you from such a list once you've demonstrated your server is fixed.
Let me clarify, I'm not saying we should pay people $4 an hour, and I agree that the minimum wage should be enough to "barely scrape by on." I'm simply saying $7 an hour is too high for a minimum wage and I think the federal minimum wage is right on target. That's all.
The minimum wage should be enough for a person to scrape by wherever they're living.
It is. $5.25 an hour = $910 a month. Make it $750 after taxes. Where I live, a 2 bedroom apartment goes for $400 including utilities. Another $350 is enough for a single person to barely scrape by on. And I do mean barely.
Put more simply, let me reiterate: two weeks from now it could be you flipping burgers. Chew on that.
I already "chewed" on that and gave you an answer. Now it's my turn to reiterate: If I lost my job tomorrow and couldn't find another one, you're right, I COULD be flipping burgers for shit pay. But you know what? I wouldn't piss and moan because I'm not making enough money. I'd be out looking for better work every single day. I sure as hell wouldn't be so arrogant to think my new job should make my house payment.
Sorry but my minimum wage is my living wage and not a learning wage.
Only because you choose to make it as such.
Hey, after the.com crash I went as a helpdesk tech making 34k a year to stocking shelves at a staples for $7hr for 50-60 hours a week.
So you're obviously talented, why are you wasting that intelligence working at Staples? Sure, when you have no money and no job you'll take what you can get (I would, too), but this should only be a short term thing for you. Which means it's NOT your living wage, it's your "getting by for a short time until you can find something better" wage. I really doubt you'll spend the rest of your career stocking shelves. If you do, I feel horrible for you: You can do better. You already have.
and you, who apparently doesn't think that everybody in this country deserves a livable wage
There's where you're wrong: I do think everyone in this country deserves a livable wage. I simply don't think McDonalds was ever supposed to qualify, and forcing it to do so actually puts the workers at a disadvantage. The more money you can make flipping burgers, the less incentive you have to find yourself a real job where you can make real money. This is especially true when you start talking about couples working minimum wage jobs together - the higher it goes, the more they make, and the happier they are. It's a pity that people like this may never find their real talent (everyone is talented in some way, and everyone can be successful) because they're lured into a false sense of wealth.
The federal minimum wage is perfect. It's enough money to barely scrape by on - and I do mean barely. When you're living such a meager existence, you've got all sorts of incentive to research more options. When minimum wage is $7 an hour on up, between two people you're making $30k a year and that's not half bad. If you don't believe in yourself, why would you ever believe you could do better? (If you're making $5.25 an hour, you're almost forced to do better)
See this post for a longer explanation. And thank you for the compliment - I'm glad you enjoyed my other posts. It's too bad this one was so misunderstood. (Personally, I also enjoyed your post - the part about fucking the horse I rode in on was especially funny.:) )
As have I. My first four years of employment were at minimum wage jobs.
Minimum wage *has* to be a living wage because sometimes it's all that someone can get.
So why don't we make it $10 an hour then? Why not $15? That's all some people can get, and we wouldn't want them to have a hard life, right? Let's remove any and all incentives for them to do something better with their lives by giving them enough money to live a middle class lifestyle. If I lost my job tomorrow and couldn't find another one, you're right, I COULD be flipping burgers for shit pay. But you know what? I wouldn't piss and moan because I'm not making enough money. I'd be out looking for better work every single day. I sure as hell wouldn't be so arrogant to think my new job should make my house payment.
Besides, the idea that "that's all someone can get" is bullshit. With all of the opportunities in America, anyone can get a better than minimum wage job. All it takes is a little effort.
And my original message wasn't a troll, though I fully expected it to be modded down. It was genuine frustration over the mindset of people just like yourself (and damn near everyone else who replied to this thread). People who honestly feel that minimum wage earners can't do something better for themselves. Unlike you, I believe in people. I believe that everyone has the ability to get a decent job, to do something better for themselves. I don't buy the "Some people aren't smart enough" bullshit. EVERYONE is intelligent in some way. I know a guy who doesn't seem very smart at all when you talk to him, and he worked minimum wage for years because he thought he was too stupid to get a better job. Well, turns out, he understands how to build things, and he finally got himself a construction job that pays $25 an hour. He owns his own home now, never worries about money, and stays fit to boot. So don't tell me that some people are incapable of getting a better job.
Minimum wage IS a learning wage. McDonalds jobs are important: They teach you work ethic and give you something productive to do with your time. But they're not meant to buy a house and raise a family on. They never were.
Actually, the fsckers up here in Washington have the minimum wage all screwed up. Last I checked it was over $6.50 an hour, is set to head above $7 here in the next year or so, and will continue to grow by a certain % every year.
As a result, most fast food joints have raised their prices significantly. So, when I buy a cheeseburger for lunch with the money I earned through hard work and education, I'm subsidizing the lifestyle of the moron behind the counter who will likely never get an education because hey, between him and his wife, minimum wage pays for a decent house and a new car, and that's good enough for him. Grrrrr.... Minimum wage is supposed to be a learning wage, not a living wage...
I fully accept the fact that my ISP logs what I'm accessing. For legal and law enforcement reasons, that only makes sense.
It does?
If I put a camera in your bedroom to make sure your wife never gave you a blow job (that's sodomy and is illegal in many states), would it make sense "for legal and law enforcement reasons" ??
If I listened to all of your phone conversations and logged all of your IRC chats to make sure you were't cheating on your wife (that's adultery and is also illegal), would it make sense?
Do you really want a third party acting as a proxy for the thought police, watching your every move? "Uh oh. That mystery bowler guy is up to no good again. He's visited right wing news sites 5 times this morning, researched firearms, and topped it off with a healthy dose of pr0n from hotpu$$y.com. Better setup a swat team, we don't need the likes of him in our community."
ISPs have no right to watch what you do, ESPECIALLY if they're doing it for "law enforcement reasons." Just like your neighbors have no right to peek in your window. Just like your phone company has no right to tap your phone line without a warrant. There is an expectation of privacy here. If you've done something wrong and the police get a warrant, fine, they can watch you. But to watch you 24/7 just in case you do something wrong is bullshit.
That cost will only be passed to consumers who are not willing to pay.
On the contrary, consumers ARE willing to pay: For good content. Look at the millions who subscribe to premium services such as HBO as proof. So what happens when there's a Tivo in every house removing the commercials and consumers have to start paying by the channel? The garbage will die off and programming quality as a whole will rise. Which doesn't bother me one bit.
For $4.99 you get not only a DVD, but a tasty snack!
Cool! Set 'em up so they're not edible until they're watched. The heat from the laser will "cook" them, so when you're done watching, they're ready to munch.
You could even have different flavors in different sections. The movie could be Strawberry, but the special features would be something completely different. Then you just look at the bottom of the disc when you eject it, decide which section you want to eat based on the color, and break it apart like a cookie.
Of course, then you'll have college students eating them raw (ala Top Ramon) just for the sake of being unique, but what the hell...
The thing that bothers me the most about this is how much time and money it cost Chip just to defend himself.
This bothers me too. Chip, how 'bout it? Care to disclose how much this has cost you? I'd like to know. Personally, I think the plaintiff should be forced to reimburse Chip for all of his expenses + some percentage of that for wasting his time. Otherwise, what's to stop companies from simply dragging things out until you can no longer afford your legal bills? I for one find it bullshit that Chip should have to spend a single penny of his own money on this.
If someone came after my domain, I don't know what I'd do. I don't have many thousands of dollars laying around to defend myself. I suppose I could go into debt and spend the next 10 years paying it off, but how fair is that?
Slashdot Mirror
Saddly the people who donated money to him are probably the same people who cast their eyes away from homeless people or those who are on welfare
Except, those people have no right to the money they receive. They didn't put any in. This guy is just making a withdrawl from an account he's been depositing money into for who knows how long. And, he only gets to withdraw a certain % of what he put in. It's not a hand-out.
I have no problem with unemployment. It's the able bodied welfare recepients that have never worked a day in their life that piss me off. I say give them their free food, pay for their child care, their rent, their cable TV, whatever - but damnit, make them do something (anything) for it. Have them pick up garbage or mow taxpayer's lawns for free if you can't find something better for them to do.
Well, Xerox machines won't copy money anymore. All Xerox machines have technology that recoginzes money and stops it from being reproduced correctly. I think their 1st gen color machines did, but not anymore.
If you knew anything about how copy machines work, you'd know that what you just posted is a big line of bullshit. Xerox's new PC based copiers notwithstanding, what you've posted is impossible.
Seems plausible.
Yes, but what doesn't seem plausible is that people who are watching these movies ever had any intention of buying them. I've downloaded movies and the quality could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch. Nobody in their right mind would actually skip buying the DVD for the stomach churning pleasure of watching a DiVX rip...
It was a minor irritation, but with the rampant CC theft and Mexican border crossings, it was worth it to me.
I had the same thing happen with my AMEX Blue card. I bought a rather unique sports car and flew down to pick it up and drive it home. It was a 13 hour drive, so my Blue card got heavy use. First plane tickets, then a hotel room (pre-paid the day before I left). These cars have a known issue with fuel gauges, so I was pulling over roughly every 120 miles to gas up: I didn't trust the gauge and I had never traveled there before so I had no idea when I would come across the next gas station.
All of it went on my card. About halfway home, I stopped for the fifth or so time to fill up, and the card was declined. I called American Express on my cellphone and was told the account was flagged for suspected fraud. After answering a few questions, they put a note on my account and all was taken care of.
My thoughts? I loved it! Totally worth my time. If my card had been stolen (and I totally see how the buying pattern would indicate that), the thieves would have been stopped in their tracks. I have absolutely no problem with this, and the people at American Express were more than helpful. I doubt I'll ever get rid of this card. (Though, we'll see how they do if I have to charge something back some day...)
Anyone remember the lady that spent $400 on a PS2 box? To his credit, the ad never said there was actually a PS2 in it, but the guy who sold it was still slime and lost his eBay account.
Basically, you have to buy something before they let you see the catalog.
/., you pay $10 per quarter to access it. However, that $10 is 100% refundable towards the purchase of something at the /. store. Mugs, caps, other neat little toys - /. could make their money from selling these items. Kind of a "We'll let you use the site, but you have to buy $10 worth of stuff from our store a few times a year." I for one would never pay to use /., but if I could buy a toy and get preferred access to boot - you bet!
Well that's just fscking stupid. Who would pay for that? How do you know if you even want to buy something from them if you can't see the catalog until after you've sent your $10?
If this were changed a little, you could be onto something. To apply this to
This is slightly off topic, but consumers should remember not only to do their homework about online payment mechanisms, but their credit cards as well.
I learned this the hard way when shop4paintball.com ripped me off. Sent me shitty paintballs, verbally guaranteed them over the phone, then refused to allow me to return them. Nextcard, the "Internet Visa", did jack shit to help. In fact, the bitch who handled my complaint chastised ME! She said I "should have known the prices were too good to be true" and cited the merchant's web site, where they proclaimed "No returns, all sales final" in tiny letters five links deep. Nevermind the fact that I didn't place the order on their fscking web site, I placed it over the telephone and was lied to and given false promises.
I filed a complaint with the merchant's BBB, but they were of little help. They called back 3 months later to get more details from me, which I provided, but I never heard from them again.
$75 lesson learned. Now, I only use my local credit union's cards. I've been a member for 10 years and they treat their customers like family. Better, if I ever do have a problem I can walk my ass down there and talk to a real person face to face.
What's more, what you are beaming is much more easily placed onto a computer hard disk and shared at large, albeit by circumventing controls in the Replay unit.
So? This should make the Replay unit illegal? You can do the same thing with a video capture card or firewire port & DV camera. Perhaps those should be illegal, too?
Would it be okay for a friend to videotape it for them and then loan it to them to watch it later?
Yes, would be. It's called time shifting and is no different than if she recorded it herself and watched it later. True, she's not paying for HBO, but her friend is, and if she went to her friend's house to watch it while it aired there would be nothing wrong with that. Borrowing her friend's VCR and recording it is essentially the same thing.
That said, what is the difference if she downloads it from Morpheus? As far as I can tell, there isn't any. I do see the concern: If everyone just downloaded it, HBO will lose money. I'm sympathetic to that. But on the other hand, it really is no different than if she drove to a friend's house and watched a recording that was made the previous night OR borrowed said recording for her own personal use - and both situations are perfectly legal.
There's got to be a common ground here somewhere, but I can't find it. Personally, I think if they flat out allowed everyone to copy their broadcasts, they'd make plenty of money. I'd even be willing to bet subscriptions would go up. Just once I would love to see someone try an open approach with their customers - I bet the popularity of the show would go through the roof, and with that popularity will come more subscriptions from people who want to watch it first, when it's broadcast.
All it takes is one person with a highly successful TV show to not only give up on copying, but to encourage it. Then you'll have real numbers. How about it, HBO? Are you willing to take the risk on "Sex and the City?"
If the grinder was being used to make illegal keys then owning it would also be illegal.
NO, it wouldn't be! The grinder would be SEIZED from the felon for using it illegally, but the grinder itself would NOT be illegal! In other words, we would not say, "You're using it for an illegal purpose. All grinders are now illegal. Round up any merchants selling grinders, seize their property and throw them in jail."
That's effectively what's happening here...
I dunno, I could be talking out my ass here, but doesn't Nintendo require a royalty for every game anyone makes?
That's impossible. "You're not allowed to make a game that runs on our hardware?" WTF? It's not THEIR hardware. When you buy it, it's YOUR hardware, and you can do whatever you damn well please with it. If you want to make a game, there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
Now, mass producing and selling your game in a store, there might be something there. Perhaps they have a copyright on the cartridge design, or something like that. But making your own game for your own use, I don't see how they can prevent you from doing that...
So people who have minimum wage jobs do not deserve to own their own homes and should be stuck paying rent the rest of their lives?
If you want to live in a socialist country, go elsewhere. In the United States, people are supposed to work for what they own, not have it handed to them because "everyone should own a home." If you don't want to pay rent for the rest of your life, go find a real job. Don't expect to be paid $10 an hour for flipping burgers.
Many of the people flipping burger are minorities, who already are having problems with economic racism (lack of quality affordable housing in minority neighborhoods, redlining in non-minority neighborhoods, etc). Saying that they should not own their own homes is tantamount to condoning economic racism.
Don't pull the racism bullshit on me. My next door neighbor is hispanic. He works hard for a living and owns an expensive home, new vehicles, etc. A black friend of mine manages a local (fine dining) restaurant and as of a few months ago finally saved up enough for a down payment. He's now shopping for home as well. "Disadvantaged minorities?" Please, spare me the tears. Life is what you make of it. Minorities are more advantaged here than anywhere else. Thanks to affirmative action, they can get into college and obtain financial aid much easier than "White Ditto-heads" such as myself.
It's sad to see that racism is alive and well on Slashdot. Why you even brought it up is beyond me.
That said, it's not very nice to remove you from such a list once you've demonstrated your server is fixed.
...
Oops. That should have said, "It's not very nice to refuse to remove you"
I'm trying to move data from one point to another, and some machines in the middle are discriminating against my data
Just wait a minute there Jethro... "machines in the middle" are not discriminating against your data. It's not like your mail passes through this machine that says, "Hey, you're a bad bad person! Go away."
In fact, the recipients are the servers refusing to deal with you. Sure, it's because they've subscribed to a list, but the list is not the one refusing you, it's the server that reads from it.
That said, it's not very nice to remove you from such a list once you've demonstrated your server is fixed.
Let me clarify, I'm not saying we should pay people $4 an hour, and I agree that the minimum wage should be enough to "barely scrape by on." I'm simply saying $7 an hour is too high for a minimum wage and I think the federal minimum wage is right on target. That's all.
The minimum wage should be enough for a person to scrape by wherever they're living.
It is. $5.25 an hour = $910 a month. Make it $750 after taxes. Where I live, a 2 bedroom apartment goes for $400 including utilities. Another $350 is enough for a single person to barely scrape by on. And I do mean barely.
Put more simply, let me reiterate: two weeks from now it could be you flipping burgers. Chew on that.
I already "chewed" on that and gave you an answer. Now it's my turn to reiterate: If I lost my job tomorrow and couldn't find another one, you're right, I COULD be flipping burgers for shit pay. But you know what? I wouldn't piss and moan because I'm not making enough money. I'd be out looking for better work every single day. I sure as hell wouldn't be so arrogant to think my new job should make my house payment.
Sorry but my minimum wage is my living wage and not a learning wage.
.com crash I went as a helpdesk tech making 34k a year to stocking shelves at a staples for $7hr for 50-60 hours a week.
Only because you choose to make it as such.
Hey, after the
So you're obviously talented, why are you wasting that intelligence working at Staples? Sure, when you have no money and no job you'll take what you can get (I would, too), but this should only be a short term thing for you. Which means it's NOT your living wage, it's your "getting by for a short time until you can find something better" wage. I really doubt you'll spend the rest of your career stocking shelves. If you do, I feel horrible for you: You can do better. You already have.
and you, who apparently doesn't think that everybody in this country deserves a livable wage
:) )
There's where you're wrong: I do think everyone in this country deserves a livable wage. I simply don't think McDonalds was ever supposed to qualify, and forcing it to do so actually puts the workers at a disadvantage. The more money you can make flipping burgers, the less incentive you have to find yourself a real job where you can make real money. This is especially true when you start talking about couples working minimum wage jobs together - the higher it goes, the more they make, and the happier they are. It's a pity that people like this may never find their real talent (everyone is talented in some way, and everyone can be successful) because they're lured into a false sense of wealth.
The federal minimum wage is perfect. It's enough money to barely scrape by on - and I do mean barely. When you're living such a meager existence, you've got all sorts of incentive to research more options. When minimum wage is $7 an hour on up, between two people you're making $30k a year and that's not half bad. If you don't believe in yourself, why would you ever believe you could do better? (If you're making $5.25 an hour, you're almost forced to do better)
See this post for a longer explanation. And thank you for the compliment - I'm glad you enjoyed my other posts. It's too bad this one was so misunderstood. (Personally, I also enjoyed your post - the part about fucking the horse I rode in on was especially funny.
You know, I've worked plenty of those jobs.
As have I. My first four years of employment were at minimum wage jobs.
Minimum wage *has* to be a living wage because sometimes it's all that someone can get.
So why don't we make it $10 an hour then? Why not $15? That's all some people can get, and we wouldn't want them to have a hard life, right? Let's remove any and all incentives for them to do something better with their lives by giving them enough money to live a middle class lifestyle. If I lost my job tomorrow and couldn't find another one, you're right, I COULD be flipping burgers for shit pay. But you know what? I wouldn't piss and moan because I'm not making enough money. I'd be out looking for better work every single day. I sure as hell wouldn't be so arrogant to think my new job should make my house payment.
Besides, the idea that "that's all someone can get" is bullshit. With all of the opportunities in America, anyone can get a better than minimum wage job. All it takes is a little effort.
And my original message wasn't a troll, though I fully expected it to be modded down. It was genuine frustration over the mindset of people just like yourself (and damn near everyone else who replied to this thread). People who honestly feel that minimum wage earners can't do something better for themselves. Unlike you, I believe in people. I believe that everyone has the ability to get a decent job, to do something better for themselves. I don't buy the "Some people aren't smart enough" bullshit. EVERYONE is intelligent in some way. I know a guy who doesn't seem very smart at all when you talk to him, and he worked minimum wage for years because he thought he was too stupid to get a better job. Well, turns out, he understands how to build things, and he finally got himself a construction job that pays $25 an hour. He owns his own home now, never worries about money, and stays fit to boot. So don't tell me that some people are incapable of getting a better job.
Minimum wage IS a learning wage. McDonalds jobs are important: They teach you work ethic and give you something productive to do with your time. But they're not meant to buy a house and raise a family on. They never were.
an overworked MS hack being paid $5.50/hr
Actually, the fsckers up here in Washington have the minimum wage all screwed up. Last I checked it was over $6.50 an hour, is set to head above $7 here in the next year or so, and will continue to grow by a certain % every year.
As a result, most fast food joints have raised their prices significantly. So, when I buy a cheeseburger for lunch with the money I earned through hard work and education, I'm subsidizing the lifestyle of the moron behind the counter who will likely never get an education because hey, between him and his wife, minimum wage pays for a decent house and a new car, and that's good enough for him. Grrrrr.... Minimum wage is supposed to be a learning wage, not a living wage...
Score: -1, Offtopic
I fully accept the fact that my ISP logs what I'm accessing. For legal and law enforcement reasons, that only makes sense.
It does?
If I put a camera in your bedroom to make sure your wife never gave you a blow job (that's sodomy and is illegal in many states), would it make sense "for legal and law enforcement reasons" ??
If I listened to all of your phone conversations and logged all of your IRC chats to make sure you were't cheating on your wife (that's adultery and is also illegal), would it make sense?
Do you really want a third party acting as a proxy for the thought police, watching your every move? "Uh oh. That mystery bowler guy is up to no good again. He's visited right wing news sites 5 times this morning, researched firearms, and topped it off with a healthy dose of pr0n from hotpu$$y.com. Better setup a swat team, we don't need the likes of him in our community."
ISPs have no right to watch what you do, ESPECIALLY if they're doing it for "law enforcement reasons." Just like your neighbors have no right to peek in your window. Just like your phone company has no right to tap your phone line without a warrant. There is an expectation of privacy here. If you've done something wrong and the police get a warrant, fine, they can watch you. But to watch you 24/7 just in case you do something wrong is bullshit.
That cost will only be passed to consumers who are not willing to pay.
On the contrary, consumers ARE willing to pay: For good content. Look at the millions who subscribe to premium services such as HBO as proof. So what happens when there's a Tivo in every house removing the commercials and consumers have to start paying by the channel? The garbage will die off and programming quality as a whole will rise. Which doesn't bother me one bit.
For $4.99 you get not only a DVD, but a tasty snack!
Cool! Set 'em up so they're not edible until they're watched. The heat from the laser will "cook" them, so when you're done watching, they're ready to munch.
You could even have different flavors in different sections. The movie could be Strawberry, but the special features would be something completely different. Then you just look at the bottom of the disc when you eject it, decide which section you want to eat based on the color, and break it apart like a cookie.
Of course, then you'll have college students eating them raw (ala Top Ramon) just for the sake of being unique, but what the hell...
The thing that bothers me the most about this is how much time and money it cost Chip just to defend himself.
This bothers me too. Chip, how 'bout it? Care to disclose how much this has cost you? I'd like to know. Personally, I think the plaintiff should be forced to reimburse Chip for all of his expenses + some percentage of that for wasting his time. Otherwise, what's to stop companies from simply dragging things out until you can no longer afford your legal bills? I for one find it bullshit that Chip should have to spend a single penny of his own money on this.
If someone came after my domain, I don't know what I'd do. I don't have many thousands of dollars laying around to defend myself. I suppose I could go into debt and spend the next 10 years paying it off, but how fair is that?
The people who run the servers that all of this traffic goes over need to fund those servers somehow.
What, $22 a month from x-million users isn't enough?