Just a thought; why not get involved with a project you're interested in and make it your job. You might not get it, but there might be some positions that involve travel that you're qualified for.
I don't know your personal situation, perhaps you have kids or something, maybe it is entirely out of the question. But if I had a nickel for every time someone suggested something "obvious" to me that I hadn't considered before...
PDHoss writes: "Damn, if only there was a way to, I don't know, rate the moderators' moderations."
I know what you mean (metamoderation). I guess I'm more lamenting the fact that the moderation schema, as it exists on slashdot, leads to Death By Disagreement and a general theme of dismissal than real conversation. You don't need to argue your point, you just -1 the person. Not a lot of neurons involved in that one.
How often do you see really good, long threads on Slashdot? Why not? Because as your message becomes more and more narrow and drawn out, it is much more likely to be modded down and much less likely to be modded up because of the decreased focus and the lack of people reading the thread that far down.
I don't really give a rat's ass about the karma hit. That isn't the point. The point is that Slashdot has a bright pool of readers and I think the moderation scheme squanders it.
How on earth did I get modded down as a 'troll' asking this this question in response to this kind of story? I realize that OS-baiting is the canonical troll, but the post is about cross-OS perception.
It's funny -- I'd like to take some comfort in the response to my posts this week:
Sunday December 01, @06:52PM (Replies:3; Score:5, Insightful) Saturday November 30, @03:25PM (Replies:5; Score:5, Informative) Thursday November 28, @01:38PM (Replies:2; Score:4, Insightful) Thursday November 28, @01:01PM (Replies:1; Score:4, Interesting) Thursday November 28, @12:01PM (Replies:3; Score:5, Insightful) Wednesday November 27, @10:09PM (Score:5, Funny) Wednesday November 27, @08:00PM (Replies:2; Score:5, Funny)
...but how can I take any sort of pride in these when it is clear that the moderators are gits? I have to assume that my positively-moderated posts are just as cluelessly viewed as the negatively-moderated ones if I'm going to be consistent, don't I?
Oh, foo. And I was all stoked, too.
Note to world: Stop worrying about your fucking karma score. Just write. Think I'm disingenous?
HEY MODERATORS! GOATSE.CX. Please mod this post down.
You are not your fucking karma score. This perception is why Slashdot is largely viewed as a bunch of self-important blowhards. Maybe I can get a "-1, Flame" for that line alone.
I'd like to see a poll on who likes Microsoft less; Mac users or Linux users. I'd also like to see a poll on what Mac users think of Linux (which would shed a lot of light on their technical accumen given OS X) and vice versa.
If a single molecule can store an image, what happens if you tell it to store a picture of itself in action? Do you get one of those camcorder-pointed-at-monitor recursive brainfarts?
Is taking a picture of several of them with a scanning electron microscope, in effect, compression? =)
carpe writes: "This is such a hopelessly short review that I have no idea what the commenter actually thought of the film."
He was pretty clear in the review. It had good points (visually impressive), it had bad points (plot was overworked and unoriginal), some groups might like it (sci-fi fans), some might not (non sci-fi fans).
Not trying to be a dick, but this is a farily good review. Most people take the tact that if they don't like it, it sucked, period, and you won't (or shouldn't) either. Michael had the presence of mind to look at this from more than one angle.
Hi, I'm your friendly neighbourhood installation program. I will make you very happy, but first, we've got some business to take care of.
I need a content.tgz package and I can't find one in the./ dir. I really can't work without it. If you don't have it, please press CTRL-C and quickly get it, before I get swapped out. Otherwise, please tell me where you've hidden it: Bye.
----[%snip]----
What the heck?
Philip K. Dick Nod/Reference
on
Equilibrium
·
· Score: 2
From the review:
"The advent of the drug Prozium has helped erase war, murder, and all of the other things that the oppressive powers that be determine is forbidden and each member of society injects the drug to suppress their moods and stave off that hideous thing known as emotion."
If this movie is 1/3rd as good as the trailer looks, it's gonna be amazing. And we all know that movies are quite capable of being less than 1/3rd as good as the trailer looks.
Finally! I get to see a movie that looks really good within 1.5 years of finding out about it!
Pardon me stating the obvious, but the way technology and the Bush administration are rolling along utterly without any reigns -- either external or internal -- this might be nothing short of a documentary. Yes, I realize I'm being bombastic. And yes, I really think we're heading toward this.
To be blunt, I consider the other fellow to be an idiot. I do not consider you to be an idiot. I consider your arguments to be at least lucid and thought-out and not simply contrarian for the sake of it. But I do expect that my messages are read carefully before they are refuted.
NDPTAL85 writes: "So whats the main benefit other than saving money from your resistance to runaway consumerism. Is it mainly that you can now look down on others as they shop? Do you tour malls now just so you can feel better about yourself over all the things you aren't buying now?"
The point is to come to your own, rational conclusion about what truly enhances your life and purchase these things within your means. This also means that you need to become cognizant of how your idea of 'need' is affected by advertising. Products fill holes. Some are natural (food), some are artificial (the Nike brand, for example). The very point of post mid-80's advertising is to shift focus away from the product itself and install the concept of a 'brand' in your mind. Then it is only necessary to convey the idea that you are not quite what you could be if you don't have Dasani Brand Water (Pepsi spent $18,000,000 last year promoting that brand, btw). This is the point, not your strawman.
NDPTAL85 continues: "Not many people spend 80hours a week at work. The average is closer to 40."
This is actually where I stopped reading your post. I never said anyone works 80 hours a week. I wrote, "so you must be arguing that they provide a "quality of life" upgrade that warrants the 80 hours you spent working to acquire them?"
If you haven't bothered to grasp even the basic syntax of my post, I think it's safe to assume you just hit reply and started ranting and my point never really had much of a chance, regardless of its merits. You can't, therefore, expect me to take your response seriously.
Christopher writes: "It represents people paying for the privilege of buying things a month earlier than they otherwise would be able to. Whether that's a calculated expenditure or bad planning depends on the person."
I guess you didn't read the article I linked to. Here, let me...
From the article: "But the RBA reported in December 2001 that three in four card balances incurred interest payments. The credit card companies have strongly opposed the RBA's moves to reform the industry and clip profits."
A full 75% of households didn't pay their cards on time. This means that 75% of people were not merely buying a month in advance as you suggest. Not staying within your means is known in the vernacular as "irrational." Oh, and 75% is known as "chronic."
The article continues: "The report found the poorest carry the highest proportion of interest- bearing debt, as a percentage of household income."
What? Are you going to suggest that the poor don't age? Do you also shrug off as mere coincidence that the poor are more likely to use television as an entertainment vehicle?
Christopher adds: "Again, you fail to demonstrate that most income is spent on frivolities."
Ah, the dreaded "impossibility tactic." I'll provide this when you provide me with a list of what qualifies as "frivolous." Fair?
Christopher closes with: "And without that point, your argument just doesn't hold. Calling me names won't go further towards supporting your argument."
Agreed. But I think there comes a point where you have to look at some people -- those who deny the holocaust, for example -- and realize that their opinion is so utterly out of whack with even the most obvious, empirical of facts that there isn't a single thing you could every possibly say to get them to utter the phrase, "you're right."
I think you've reached that point to such a degree that I can quite comfortably rest my case knowing that nobody reading our exchange could possibly take you seriously. And you're welcome to look through my past replies. I don't think I've ever deigned to rebuke someone this sharply, nevermind in my last 25 posts. I never dismiss someone out-of-hand. But your stupidity has also surpassed virtually anything I see posted on Slashdot.
Hell, goatse.cx-laced replies have more content than this.
Christopher writes: "Advertising influences _what_ people buy quite strongly (by building brand awareness), but not so much how much they spend on buying things. It represents corporations slugging it out with each other to make sure that the money that will be spent, will be spent on them."
With all due respect, bullshit. There is no other word for it.
While I'm not going to suggest that I, alone, constitute a control group, I can personally attest that since giving up TV in 1996 and radio in 1997 -- and I lived in Boston so no car, thus no billboards -- I now go into stores like Target (generally when someone I'm with goes) and it's, "nope, don't need that, nope, don't need that... All I see when I go, though, is people walking around, aimlessly, picking things up and sticking it in their cart. I used to be more or less just like them. The difference is beyond palpable.
Doesn't affect us? Have you positively lost your mind? Do you truly believe that the abdominizer ads didn't convince a few million people they needed one in the first place? Clearly, the further toward 'utterly frivolous and useless' you get, the less likely a person is to buy it, but there is a huge grey area.
Car rims are a great example. Does anyone really need those new rims? Presumably you don't consider them "necessary," so you must be arguing that they provide a "quality of life" upgrade that warrants the 80 hours you spent working to acquire them? Or are you going to argue that nobody actually buys rims?
Christopher continues: "The rest of us spend most of it on things that are necessities (rent/mortgage, food) or things that do substantially increase our quality of life (getting a car instead of using public transit, eating a fancy meal, going to a movie)."
I normally don't take this hardline of a stance but then I rarely see an argument as silly as yours. People regularly drive themselves into massive debt to fulfull this commercial-subsidized vision of what we are supposed to be. Your position is not only ignorant but insulting.
Also, while you might be a nice guy, you're a full-on idiot when it comes to how advertising works, and demonstrably so.
I just gotta know... Why 19 parts? Not 24? Not 48. Not 12. WHY 19?? I could see if they cordoned off each file to represent a fixed timelength of music, which would result in different filesizes, and thus the count would be screwy, but even that isn't the case.
forkboy writes: "Imagine going to your boss and saying "Hey, I don't need as much money to live since I stopped buting things, so I'm only coming in 2 days a week now. You can cut my salary if you like." Tell me how that works out for you and what jobs you'll be applying for next. "
I've got this crazy thought. How about you find a part-time job? Perish the thought!
Besides, you sound like a guy saying, "man, my dealer isn't going to like that I'm going to stop using heroin." Who gives a flying !@#$ what your boss does or does not like. Is this not enough of an indication that you're a slave when you cannot even bring yourself to determine how much you're compelled to work??
"You see, there's this thing called disposable income. When you have a job that pays X dollars per year as a salary, once you remove the cost of living (rent, food, clothes, etc) the rest is what gets spent on toys, vacations, and all that other fun stuff. Sure people get caught up in material things, but how will it be any better if they hoard their money? "
Can you really be missing the point this badly? I'm not suggesting they work just as long so they can hoarde money, I'm suggesting they work less to begin with. I'm also not suggesting that you forego "fun stuff." I'm suggesting that you re-evaluate what qualifies as "fun stuff" and most importantly, what you're giving up to get it. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps you're giving up your time -- and thus your life -- to get something of lesser value?
My question is "should we?" Your answer is "we can," which doesn't really address the problem, does it?
HisMother writes: "Kids, if we don't buy anything, where are the jobs going to come from?"
You're muddying the issue, though I'll grant that I don't believe you're doing it on purpose. The issue is not buying anything, the issue is buying too much.
Remember that tv spot back in the 80's where there is a guy walking in a circle, saying, "I do cocaine...so I can work longer...so I can make more money...so I can do more cocaine..." and it just keeps going faster and faster? The guy turns out to be in a bottle? This is the same issue.
You ask where the jobs are going to come from. I'm pointing out that if you didn't have this burning need to buy pointless things, then you wouldn't need to work as hard to begin with. Ie, your need to have a job to support your habit would be gone. Imagine only working 20 hours a week because that's all the money you need to keep yourself supported! Imagine that! An extra 1,000 hours every year to explore your life, experience your kids, take up a hobby!
And, to be clear, it is only the pointless things I'm bitching about, though it is very easy to rationalize almost anything if you try hard enough.
Yes, buying things drives the economy. But the economy only needs to be driven as hard as it is because it has a habit to support. Don't you see the circularity in your argument?
NDPTAL85 writes: "Whats wrong with consumerism? What if you don't like doing anything other than being a consumer? I like being able to buy the things I like. Am I supposed to feel guilty about that now?"
What is wrong with consumerism? Nothing. I'm not worried about people consuming things. Hell, bugs are consumers.
I'm worried about runaway consumerism.
Advertising works because it makes a hole that you now need to fill with the product in question. It tells you that you stink, you're stupid, you're abs aren't trim enough, that you aren't dating someone cute enough, that you'd be OH SO MUCH HAPPIER if you could just get that new Lexus, a PalmPilot, or maybe a device that spoots salad ingredients out like an ak-47. Then they can sell you thing x.
For you to argue that runaway consumerism doesn't exist is to argue that advertising does not work and more importantly, cause people to perceive things irrationally. Years ago Michael Jackson -- bless his nose -- pimped Pepsi despite admitting, in public, that he'd never touch the stuff. It was an enormous success. Why was it a success? Because people like(d) Jacko's music and damnit, if it was good enough for His Transparency, it was good enough for them! *sigh
If I close my eyes and squint just a little, I can imagine your question being paraphrased at an AA meeting. "What is wrong with drinking six pints of vodka at a party? What if that's all you like to do? Am I supposed to feel guilty about it now?"
No, you're supposed to recognize your addiction. One of the best signs of an addiction is being unable to stop whilst claiming that there isn't really a problem and that you could, really, stop at any time.
Look, I normally hate the "this is a duplicate" posts just as much as the next guy, but this is just stunning.
I can see someone forgetting an old story that was posted. Maybe even something as young as a month, really. And I can see two posts being placed at the same time because the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. But almost precisely 24 hours apart? That's wonderful!
Face Transplants On The Way On Thursday November 28, @11:55AM with 36 comments kwertii writes "A British surgeon claims face transplants are just a few months off. The procedure "could involve a patient being given new lips, chin, ears,... Section: Main > News
Getting More Face Time On Wednesday November 27, @12:07PM with 239 comments ApharmdB writes "The BBC has a story about the possibility of performing face transplants within the year. Obviously, people are worried about the ethical... Section: Science > Science
Karma hit be damned, don't buy anyone a damned thing. Draw them a picture. Write them a letter. Fold them an oragami barn complete with animals.
I realize the point of this post is to be informative and this is a tech/nerd site. So be it. I'm suggesting that the best tech gift you can give someone is more of your time which, I might point out, is going to be spent working -- as opposed to spending time with them -- to earn the money for that runaway consuermism, optical, wifi, 3D, open-source imbedded OS GPS-capable caffienated, programmable biometric teeshirt.
ldarubicin writes: "Your complaint sounds something like, "Yankee Stadium was built right out in public view. Anybody can just walk right up to it. It's unfair that as a condition of entry, the owners can charge money for access. Members of the public should be able to walk right in and wander about whenever they feel like it. I mean, it should be okay as long as they don't take somebody else's seat, right?""
There are two very relevant distinctions.
First, I am not arguing that a person has no right to protect their content.
Second, when you purchase a bit of land you are provided with very specific rights on that land. For example, you have the right of exclusion; you can bar people from entering it. I am not aware of any such right on the internet.
A suitable analogy for the internet is someone painting a picture and putting it on the sidewalk, then charging those who walk by and look at it. The data in question is not on an intranet. This is not a password protected site. Perhaps there is intent by the author to only mean these people, but he has not stated as much, instead branding anyone with anti-popup software as thieves.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to think that Tim Burton and Darren Aronofsky co-producting this movie would be incredible.
Just a thought; why not get involved with a project you're interested in and make it your job. You might not get it, but there might be some positions that involve travel that you're qualified for.
I don't know your personal situation, perhaps you have kids or something, maybe it is entirely out of the question. But if I had a nickel for every time someone suggested something "obvious" to me that I hadn't considered before...
PDHoss writes:
"Damn, if only there was a way to, I don't know, rate the moderators' moderations."
I know what you mean (metamoderation). I guess I'm more lamenting the fact that the moderation schema, as it exists on slashdot, leads to Death By Disagreement and a general theme of dismissal than real conversation. You don't need to argue your point, you just -1 the person. Not a lot of neurons involved in that one.
How often do you see really good, long threads on Slashdot? Why not? Because as your message becomes more and more narrow and drawn out, it is much more likely to be modded down and much less likely to be modded up because of the decreased focus and the lack of people reading the thread that far down.
I don't really give a rat's ass about the karma hit. That isn't the point. The point is that Slashdot has a bright pool of readers and I think the moderation scheme squanders it.
It's funny -- I'd like to take some comfort in the response to my posts this week:
Sunday December 01, @06:52PM (Replies:3; Score:5, Insightful)
Saturday November 30, @03:25PM (Replies:5; Score:5, Informative)
Thursday November 28, @01:38PM (Replies:2; Score:4, Insightful)
Thursday November 28, @01:01PM (Replies:1; Score:4, Interesting)
Thursday November 28, @12:01PM (Replies:3; Score:5, Insightful)
Wednesday November 27, @10:09PM (Score:5, Funny)
Wednesday November 27, @08:00PM (Replies:2; Score:5, Funny)
Oh, foo. And I was all stoked, too.
Note to world: Stop worrying about your fucking karma score. Just write. Think I'm disingenous?
HEY MODERATORS! GOATSE.CX. Please mod this post down.
You are not your fucking karma score. This perception is why Slashdot is largely viewed as a bunch of self-important blowhards. Maybe I can get a "-1, Flame" for that line alone.
I'd like to see a poll on who likes Microsoft less; Mac users or Linux users. I'd also like to see a poll on what Mac users think of Linux (which would shed a lot of light on their technical accumen given OS X) and vice versa.
If a single molecule can store an image, what happens if you tell it to store a picture of itself in action? Do you get one of those camcorder-pointed-at-monitor recursive brainfarts?
Is taking a picture of several of them with a scanning electron microscope, in effect, compression? =)
carpe writes:
"This is such a hopelessly short review that I have no idea what the commenter actually thought of the film."
He was pretty clear in the review. It had good points (visually impressive), it had bad points (plot was overworked and unoriginal), some groups might like it (sci-fi fans), some might not (non sci-fi fans).
Not trying to be a dick, but this is a farily good review. Most people take the tact that if they don't like it, it sucked, period, and you won't (or shouldn't) either. Michael had the presence of mind to look at this from more than one angle.
jason@oliver:~/quarantine$ chmod 700 uqm-0.1-linux-static.she $ ./uqm-0.1-linux-static.sh
.tgz package and I can't find one in ./ dir. I really can't work without it.
jason@oliver:~/quarantin
-== The Ur-Quan Masters installation ==-
Hi, I'm your friendly neighbourhood installation program.
I will make you very happy, but first, we've got some business to take care
of.
I need a content
the
If you don't have it, please press CTRL-C and quickly get it, before I get
swapped out.
Otherwise, please tell me where you've hidden it:
Bye.
----[%snip]----
What the heck?
"The advent of the drug Prozium has helped erase war, murder, and all of the other things that the oppressive powers that be determine is forbidden and each member of society injects the drug to suppress their moods and stave off that hideous thing known as emotion."
Sounds like Philip K. Dick's " Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep "?
"My schedule for today lists a six-hour self-accusatory depression," Iran said.
"What? Why did you schedule that?" It defeated the whole purpose of the mood organ. "I didn't even know you could set it for that," he said gloomily.
If this movie is 1/3rd as good as the trailer looks, it's gonna be amazing. And we all know that movies are quite capable of being less than 1/3rd as good as the trailer looks.
Finally! I get to see a movie that looks really good within 1.5 years of finding out about it!
Pardon me stating the obvious, but the way technology and the Bush administration are rolling along utterly without any reigns -- either external or internal -- this might be nothing short of a documentary. Yes, I realize I'm being bombastic. And yes, I really think we're heading toward this.
BlueUnderwear writes:
"ALTER TABLE [table] DROP COLUMN [column];"
That actually looks like what it would be, don't know why I didn't think of it. PostgreSQL uses the "ALTER TABLE" syntax too.
baywulf writes:
"I don't think even Oracle had the drop column feature until Oracle 8i or something."
I must be missing something here. I have to wonder why they would not put such a useful feature in the first release. *shrug
WOOHOO!
DROP COLUMN [column] FROM TABLE [table];
This up-until-now lacking feature has been the bane of my existence. I HATE cruft being left lying around.
(btw, I don't know if that is the correct syntax, just a guess)
NDPTAL85,
To be blunt, I consider the other fellow to be an idiot. I do not consider you to be an idiot. I consider your arguments to be at least lucid and thought-out and not simply contrarian for the sake of it. But I do expect that my messages are read carefully before they are refuted.
NDPTAL85 writes:
"So whats the main benefit other than saving money from your resistance to runaway consumerism. Is it mainly that you can now look down on others as they shop? Do you tour malls now just so you can feel better about yourself over all the things you aren't buying now?"
The point is to come to your own, rational conclusion about what truly enhances your life and purchase these things within your means. This also means that you need to become cognizant of how your idea of 'need' is affected by advertising. Products fill holes. Some are natural (food), some are artificial (the Nike brand, for example). The very point of post mid-80's advertising is to shift focus away from the product itself and install the concept of a 'brand' in your mind. Then it is only necessary to convey the idea that you are not quite what you could be if you don't have Dasani Brand Water (Pepsi spent $18,000,000 last year promoting that brand, btw). This is the point, not your strawman.
NDPTAL85 continues:
"Not many people spend 80hours a week at work. The average is closer to 40."
This is actually where I stopped reading your post. I never said anyone works 80 hours a week. I wrote, "so you must be arguing that they provide a "quality of life" upgrade that warrants the 80 hours you spent working to acquire them?"
If you haven't bothered to grasp even the basic syntax of my post, I think it's safe to assume you just hit reply and started ranting and my point never really had much of a chance, regardless of its merits. You can't, therefore, expect me to take your response seriously.
Christopher writes:
"It represents people paying for the privilege of buying things a month earlier than they otherwise would be able to. Whether that's a calculated expenditure or bad planning depends on the person."
I guess you didn't read the article I linked to. Here, let me...
From the article:
"But the RBA reported in December 2001 that three in four card balances incurred interest payments. The credit card companies have strongly opposed the RBA's moves to reform the industry and clip profits."
A full 75% of households didn't pay their cards on time. This means that 75% of people were not merely buying a month in advance as you suggest. Not staying within your means is known in the vernacular as "irrational." Oh, and 75% is known as "chronic."
The article continues:
"The report found the poorest carry the highest proportion of interest- bearing debt, as a percentage of household income."
What? Are you going to suggest that the poor don't age? Do you also shrug off as mere coincidence that the poor are more likely to use television as an entertainment vehicle?
Christopher adds:
"Again, you fail to demonstrate that most income is spent on frivolities."
Ah, the dreaded "impossibility tactic." I'll provide this when you provide me with a list of what qualifies as "frivolous." Fair?
Christopher closes with:
"And without that point, your argument just doesn't hold. Calling me names won't go further towards supporting your argument."
Agreed. But I think there comes a point where you have to look at some people -- those who deny the holocaust, for example -- and realize that their opinion is so utterly out of whack with even the most obvious, empirical of facts that there isn't a single thing you could every possibly say to get them to utter the phrase, "you're right."
I think you've reached that point to such a degree that I can quite comfortably rest my case knowing that nobody reading our exchange could possibly take you seriously. And you're welcome to look through my past replies. I don't think I've ever deigned to rebuke someone this sharply, nevermind in my last 25 posts. I never dismiss someone out-of-hand. But your stupidity has also surpassed virtually anything I see posted on Slashdot.
Hell, goatse.cx-laced replies have more content than this.
Christopher writes:
"Advertising influences _what_ people buy quite strongly (by building brand awareness), but not so much how much they spend on buying things. It represents corporations slugging it out with each other to make sure that the money that will be spent, will be spent on them."
With all due respect, bullshit. There is no other word for it.
While I'm not going to suggest that I, alone, constitute a control group, I can personally attest that since giving up TV in 1996 and radio in 1997 -- and I lived in Boston so no car, thus no billboards -- I now go into stores like Target (generally when someone I'm with goes) and it's, "nope, don't need that, nope, don't need that... All I see when I go, though, is people walking around, aimlessly, picking things up and sticking it in their cart. I used to be more or less just like them. The difference is beyond palpable.
Doesn't affect us? Have you positively lost your mind? Do you truly believe that the abdominizer ads didn't convince a few million people they needed one in the first place? Clearly, the further toward 'utterly frivolous and useless' you get, the less likely a person is to buy it, but there is a huge grey area.
Car rims are a great example. Does anyone really need those new rims? Presumably you don't consider them "necessary," so you must be arguing that they provide a "quality of life" upgrade that warrants the 80 hours you spent working to acquire them? Or are you going to argue that nobody actually buys rims?
Christopher continues:
"The rest of us spend most of it on things that are necessities (rent/mortgage, food) or things that do substantially increase our quality of life (getting a car instead of using public transit, eating a fancy meal, going to a movie)."
And as for the control group, I'm curious; which category does 21B (that's nine zeros) in credit card debt fit into? The "neccessary" or the "increase in quality of life?"
I normally don't take this hardline of a stance but then I rarely see an argument as silly as yours. People regularly drive themselves into massive debt to fulfull this commercial-subsidized vision of what we are supposed to be. Your position is not only ignorant but insulting.
Also, while you might be a nice guy, you're a full-on idiot when it comes to how advertising works, and demonstrably so.
I just gotta know... Why 19 parts? Not 24? Not 48. Not 12. WHY 19?? I could see if they cordoned off each file to represent a fixed timelength of music, which would result in different filesizes, and thus the count would be screwy, but even that isn't the case.
forkboy writes:
"Imagine going to your boss and saying "Hey, I don't need as much money to live since I stopped buting things, so I'm only coming in 2 days a week now. You can cut my salary if you like." Tell me how that works out for you and what jobs you'll be applying for next. "
I've got this crazy thought. How about you find a part-time job? Perish the thought!
Besides, you sound like a guy saying, "man, my dealer isn't going to like that I'm going to stop using heroin." Who gives a flying !@#$ what your boss does or does not like. Is this not enough of an indication that you're a slave when you cannot even bring yourself to determine how much you're compelled to work??
"You see, there's this thing called disposable income. When you have a job that pays X dollars per year as a salary, once you remove the cost of living (rent, food, clothes, etc) the rest is what gets spent on toys, vacations, and all that other fun stuff. Sure people get caught up in material things, but how will it be any better if they hoard their money? "
Can you really be missing the point this badly? I'm not suggesting they work just as long so they can hoarde money, I'm suggesting they work less to begin with. I'm also not suggesting that you forego "fun stuff." I'm suggesting that you re-evaluate what qualifies as "fun stuff" and most importantly, what you're giving up to get it. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps you're giving up your time -- and thus your life -- to get something of lesser value?
My question is "should we?" Your answer is "we can," which doesn't really address the problem, does it?
HisMother writes:
...so I can work longer ...so I can make more money ...so I can do more cocaine..." and it just keeps going faster and faster? The guy turns out to be in a bottle? This is the same issue.
"Kids, if we don't buy anything, where are the jobs going to come from?"
You're muddying the issue, though I'll grant that I don't believe you're doing it on purpose. The issue is not buying anything, the issue is buying too much.
Remember that tv spot back in the 80's where there is a guy walking in a circle, saying, "I do cocaine
You ask where the jobs are going to come from. I'm pointing out that if you didn't have this burning need to buy pointless things, then you wouldn't need to work as hard to begin with. Ie, your need to have a job to support your habit would be gone. Imagine only working 20 hours a week because that's all the money you need to keep yourself supported! Imagine that! An extra 1,000 hours every year to explore your life, experience your kids, take up a hobby!
And, to be clear, it is only the pointless things I'm bitching about, though it is very easy to rationalize almost anything if you try hard enough.
Yes, buying things drives the economy. But the economy only needs to be driven as hard as it is because it has a habit to support. Don't you see the circularity in your argument?
Not a flame, just a thought.
NDPTAL85 writes:
"Whats wrong with consumerism? What if you don't like doing anything other than being a consumer? I like being able to buy the things I like. Am I supposed to feel guilty about that now?"
What is wrong with consumerism? Nothing. I'm not worried about people consuming things. Hell, bugs are consumers.
I'm worried about runaway consumerism.
Advertising works because it makes a hole that you now need to fill with the product in question. It tells you that you stink, you're stupid, you're abs aren't trim enough, that you aren't dating someone cute enough, that you'd be OH SO MUCH HAPPIER if you could just get that new Lexus, a PalmPilot, or maybe a device that spoots salad ingredients out like an ak-47. Then they can sell you thing x.
For you to argue that runaway consumerism doesn't exist is to argue that advertising does not work and more importantly, cause people to perceive things irrationally. Years ago Michael Jackson -- bless his nose -- pimped Pepsi despite admitting, in public, that he'd never touch the stuff. It was an enormous success. Why was it a success? Because people like(d) Jacko's music and damnit, if it was good enough for His Transparency, it was good enough for them! *sigh
If I close my eyes and squint just a little, I can imagine your question being paraphrased at an AA meeting. "What is wrong with drinking six pints of vodka at a party? What if that's all you like to do? Am I supposed to feel guilty about it now?"
No, you're supposed to recognize your addiction. One of the best signs of an addiction is being unable to stop whilst claiming that there isn't really a problem and that you could, really, stop at any time.
Look, I normally hate the "this is a duplicate" posts just as much as the next guy, but this is just stunning.
I can see someone forgetting an old story that was posted. Maybe even something as young as a month, really. And I can see two posts being placed at the same time because the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. But almost precisely 24 hours apart? That's wonderful!
Face Transplants On The Way
On Thursday November 28, @11:55AM with 36 comments
kwertii writes "A British surgeon claims face transplants are just a few months off. The procedure "could involve a patient being given new lips, chin, ears,...
Section: Main > News
Getting More Face Time
On Wednesday November 27, @12:07PM with 239 comments
ApharmdB writes "The BBC has a story about the possibility of performing face transplants within the year. Obviously, people are worried about the ethical...
Section: Science > Science
Karma hit be damned, don't buy anyone a damned thing. Draw them a picture. Write them a letter. Fold them an oragami barn complete with animals.
I realize the point of this post is to be informative and this is a tech/nerd site. So be it. I'm suggesting that the best tech gift you can give someone is more of your time which, I might point out, is going to be spent working -- as opposed to spending time with them -- to earn the money for that runaway consuermism, optical, wifi, 3D, open-source imbedded OS GPS-capable caffienated, programmable biometric teeshirt.
Yeesh.
Speare writes:
"The actual value of your opinion is $0.02, while your fee is $90.00. Pretty nice mark-up!"
I should clarify. The two pennies if for parts. The other $89.98 is labor. =)
ldarubicin writes:
"Your complaint sounds something like, "Yankee Stadium was built right out in public view. Anybody can just walk right up to it. It's unfair that as a condition of entry, the owners can charge money for access. Members of the public should be able to walk right in and wander about whenever they feel like it. I mean, it should be okay as long as they don't take somebody else's seat, right?""
There are two very relevant distinctions.
First, I am not arguing that a person has no right to protect their content.
Second, when you purchase a bit of land you are provided with very specific rights on that land. For example, you have the right of exclusion; you can bar people from entering it. I am not aware of any such right on the internet.
A suitable analogy for the internet is someone painting a picture and putting it on the sidewalk, then charging those who walk by and look at it. The data in question is not on an intranet. This is not a password protected site. Perhaps there is intent by the author to only mean these people, but he has not stated as much, instead branding anyone with anti-popup software as thieves.