Stealing $5 from you isn't so much an annoyance as it is downright illegal. That's a different matter entirely.
First, they don't have to outright steal it. Then can easily bury somewhere in the contract in a 3pt font that for instance you get to check your voicemail for free once per day, and a second check is going to cost you $5.
If you agree to the contract then you only have yourself to blame. Are you saying that you agree to a contract you don't understand? That you assume they'll do the right thing? The responsibility to be aware of what you agree to is yours.
Or something else of that sort.
Second, how is that not regulation? I don't see how "It's illegal to take $5 unlawfully" is not regulation, but "It's illegal to make ads annoyingly loud" is.
Theft is against the law - it's the forced removal of property from someone. Having ads (which you voluntary watch) loud is not removing any of your freedoms. It is not illegal.
But again, way to miss the point. Even if stealing $5 is illegal, how many people are going to get into a lawsuit or to switch provider over that? Even getting into small claims court is going to cost you considerably more than $5. Switching provider, if it costs even $1/month more is going to be more expensive as well.
Then we, the apathetic masses are letting these companies get away with it. The solution is an uproar - make everyone aware of how dodgy the company is. If you willingly let people rip you off and do nothing, then your acceptance is letting them get away with it. Only by standing up and saying "NO" will they ever stop.
Just plain dealing with the cancellations department will probably take enough time that you could earn more than what you lost by doing that amount of overtime.
Yeah, maybe you and a few people will do it on principle. Congrats, you have your $5 back. But the company still earns enough from the people that ignored it even with having to ocassionally give the money back and losing a few customers. It still makes financial sense for them to keep doing it. So from their point of view there's little downside. And there's no reason why every other company wouldn't take note and do the same thing, since it makes money overall.
It's an overly regulated system that has turned us into apathetic "let them get away with it" consumers. Regulation says "she'll be right, the state will look after you". That's the wrong way of solving problems like this. The solution should always come from the bottom up. By the people, for the people. Regulation (and socialism in general) are both systems that see us abdicate our personal responsibilities in favour of the state, and the end result is not only apathy, but also the state now has way more power and perceived responsibility than it should ever had had. All because "it's too difficult to stand up for myself".
But then people are free to annoy you a little bit.
Suppose your phone company screws you out of $500. That one is easy. Huge outcry, lots of people switch, company feels how it backfires even without the government stepping in.
Now suppose your phone company screws you out of $5. Virtually for everybody, just calling and complaining to the company probably isn't worth it. Cancelling service over that is a huge pain and overall much more costly than the damage done. And chances are, every company does something on this level, leaving you without a choice that doesn't result in getting screwed somehow.
If by screwing you out of $5 you mean the company has reneged on their contract with you, then you would have a legal case against them. Breaking such a contract is illegal. I don't consider the legal upholding of a contract as "regulation".
Stealing $5 from you isn't so much an annoyance as it is downright illegal. That's a different matter entirely.
Yes, we do. We do not have to watch channels that have tactics we do not like. We can circumvent advertising with digital recorders. We have a lot of power over this
.
Which is all done in your house without any feedback back to the producers and broadcasters of the commercials. The money has already changed hands. The economic effect is done. Unless you're a Nielsen family, you have no power because you have no feedback. The Networks don't know you exist.
If loud ads are an important enough issue, then you tell them why you are boycotting them. If enough people do the same, then they will eventually listen. A large enough collective is an effective way to bring power back to the people.
Regulation is good, especially in monopolistic situations
Regulation is bad. Period.
How very axiomatic of you! How dare anyone correct a market inefficiency!
How are loud ads a market inefficiency? I believe solutions to such problems should not involve the state as they have too much power already. We don't need yet more laws in the law books. We don't need to justify them taking even more taxes off us.
Regulation is bad. Period. The loudness of advertising is none of the states business.
The problem is, I think that without regulation you won't get anywhere. There exists a large class of small annoyances that most people won't bother taking any action over.
Then I'd suggest nothing needs to be done. I don't think the state needs to step in to remove annoyances. At the end of the day people voluntarily decide to watch TV. No-one forces them to.
I think regulation has much better chances of having an effect in cases like that. The individual damage some things cause is very small, but if you let them get away with it, everybody is going to be inconvenienced a little, and over enough people and time that adds up to quite a lot.
Regulation almost always erodes our freedoms, and it diminishes the need for people to make a stand. It abdicates personal responsibility. Sure, forcing companies to comply is "easy", but being easy doesn't make it right. In my opinion, issues like this need to be solved from the bottom up, not from the top down.
What principle? You, as a consumer, have no power in this.
Yes, we do. We do not have to watch channels that have tactics we do not like. We can circumvent advertising with digital recorders. We have a lot of power over this.
Every broadcaster does it, and even if some didn't, you can't "vote with your wallet" short of just not paying for TV.
That's a valid response. If the masses stood up and said "we'll support the station that doesn't have loud ads", then those broadcasters would eventually listen.
Regulation is good, especially in monopolistic situations
Regulation is bad. Period. The loudness of advertising is none of the states business.
KDE4 was a step backwards from KDE3.5 in terms of how it handles multiple monitors. I currently run a triple head setup up with two of the monitors being driven by one Nvidia card in TwinView mode, and the 3rd monitor running as a separate KDE instance. You cannot do that in KDE4, and it's the reason I have not upgraded.
What about bigamy? Why should the state be able to outlaw a "marriage" that involves more than two people? My opinion is that it's none of the state's business, and people should be able to enter into any relationship they like and call that relationship what they like, so long as the people involved are consenting adults.
The government (and in this case I'm referring to the US government) is socialist - it seeks to limit the freedoms of otherwise free people. This is but one example. You are right though - marriage should have absolutely nothing to do with the government. It's none of their business.
I live in NZ (Tauranga specifically) and my internet connection is fine. According to local speed test sites I have a 8.6Mb/s down speed and 0.75Mb/s upload speed. I'm happy with that.
Would that use the local video card for acceleration? What I would like is a solution that would allow me to connect to a remote KDE session and have compiz-fusion work over the NX connection. At the moment if compiz is enables on the server, it is not used in the NXClient end, even if the client desktop has compiz enabled too.
Any.ism ever has been greatly misused by the same type of people no matter what the underlying philosophy has been.
Socialism (and other political philosophies that are based on compulsion) are flawed from the beginning - they don't need to be "misused" to cause harm. All that is required for them to cause harm is simple use.
RMS arguing for software freedom is like trying to repair a small hole in the side of the Titanic and ignoring the huge gash down the side. Wanting freedom is a grand and just desire - BUT people should come before software. Sure - he can pick whatever fight he wants, but I consider fighting for the liberties of people to be a much more noble and worthwhile cause than fighting for the freedom of software.
I'd take him more seriously if his desire for freedom was directed towards *people* and not *software*. People need to be free, and that can never happen under a socialist system, because socialism is based on compulsion. If only RMS would direct some of his "freedom loving" energy towards the freeing of people instead of just software.
Freedom also includes the freedom to make choices that may be perceived as non-free. If I want to let someone else host services for me and control a certain amount of my data, then I am (and should be) perfectly free to do that.
A key aspect of freedom is the freedom to choose, even if that choice somehow limits my freedom. What isn't ok is making that choice on someone else's behalf. That's why socialism is a flawed system as it allows one man to limit the primary freedoms of another.
Selling bread that knowingly harms people would be illegal and knowingly harming people is the sort of thing the state exists for to prevent. But ensuring we can easily charge our mobile phones? No. That's none of the governments business.
Slashdot Mirror
First, they don't have to outright steal it. Then can easily bury somewhere in the contract in a 3pt font that for instance you get to check your voicemail for free once per day, and a second check is going to cost you $5.
If you agree to the contract then you only have yourself to blame. Are you saying that you agree to a contract you don't understand? That you assume they'll do the right thing? The responsibility to be aware of what you agree to is yours.
Or something else of that sort.
Second, how is that not regulation? I don't see how "It's illegal to take $5 unlawfully" is not regulation, but "It's illegal to make ads annoyingly loud" is.
Theft is against the law - it's the forced removal of property from someone. Having ads (which you voluntary watch) loud is not removing any of your freedoms. It is not illegal.
But again, way to miss the point. Even if stealing $5 is illegal, how many people are going to get into a lawsuit or to switch provider over that? Even getting into small claims court is going to cost you considerably more than $5. Switching provider, if it costs even $1/month more is going to be more expensive as well.
Then we, the apathetic masses are letting these companies get away with it. The solution is an uproar - make everyone aware of how dodgy the company is. If you willingly let people rip you off and do nothing, then your acceptance is letting them get away with it. Only by standing up and saying "NO" will they ever stop.
Just plain dealing with the cancellations department will probably take enough time that you could earn more than what you lost by doing that amount of overtime.
Yeah, maybe you and a few people will do it on principle. Congrats, you have your $5 back. But the company still earns enough from the people that ignored it even with having to ocassionally give the money back and losing a few customers. It still makes financial sense for them to keep doing it. So from their point of view there's little downside. And there's no reason why every other company wouldn't take note and do the same thing, since it makes money overall.
It's an overly regulated system that has turned us into apathetic "let them get away with it" consumers. Regulation says "she'll be right, the state will look after you". That's the wrong way of solving problems like this. The solution should always come from the bottom up. By the people, for the people. Regulation (and socialism in general) are both systems that see us abdicate our personal responsibilities in favour of the state, and the end result is not only apathy, but also the state now has way more power and perceived responsibility than it should ever had had. All because "it's too difficult to stand up for myself".
But then people are free to annoy you a little bit.
Suppose your phone company screws you out of $500. That one is easy. Huge outcry, lots of people switch, company feels how it backfires even without the government stepping in.
Now suppose your phone company screws you out of $5. Virtually for everybody, just calling and complaining to the company probably isn't worth it. Cancelling service over that is a huge pain and overall much more costly than the damage done. And chances are, every company does something on this level, leaving you without a choice that doesn't result in getting screwed somehow.
If by screwing you out of $5 you mean the company has reneged on their contract with you, then you would have a legal case against them. Breaking such a contract is illegal. I don't consider the legal upholding of a contract as "regulation".
Stealing $5 from you isn't so much an annoyance as it is downright illegal. That's a different matter entirely.
Yes, we do. We do not have to watch channels that have tactics we do not like.
We can circumvent advertising with digital recorders.
We have a lot of power over this
.
Which is all done in your house without any feedback back to the producers and broadcasters of the commercials. The money has already changed hands. The economic effect is done. Unless you're a Nielsen family, you have no power because you have no feedback. The Networks don't know you exist.
If loud ads are an important enough issue, then you tell them why you are boycotting them. If enough people do the same, then they will eventually listen. A large enough collective is an effective way to bring power back to the people.
Regulation is good, especially in monopolistic situations
Regulation is bad. Period.
How very axiomatic of you! How dare anyone correct a market inefficiency!
How are loud ads a market inefficiency? I believe solutions to such problems should not involve the state as they have too much power already. We don't need yet more laws in the law books. We don't need to justify them taking even more taxes off us.
The problem is, I think that without regulation you won't get anywhere. There exists a large class of small annoyances that most people won't bother taking any action over.
Then I'd suggest nothing needs to be done. I don't think the state needs to step in to remove annoyances. At the end of the day people voluntarily decide to watch TV. No-one forces them to.
I think regulation has much better chances of having an effect in cases like that. The individual damage some things cause is very small, but if you let them get away with it, everybody is going to be inconvenienced a little, and over enough people and time that adds up to quite a lot.
Regulation almost always erodes our freedoms, and it diminishes the need for people to make a stand. It abdicates personal responsibility. Sure, forcing companies to comply is "easy", but being easy doesn't make it right. In my opinion, issues like this need to be solved from the bottom up, not from the top down.
What principle? You, as a consumer, have no power in this.
Yes, we do. We do not have to watch channels that have tactics we do not like.
We can circumvent advertising with digital recorders.
We have a lot of power over this.
Every broadcaster does it, and even if some didn't, you can't "vote with your wallet" short of just not paying for TV.
That's a valid response. If the masses stood up and said "we'll support the station that doesn't have loud ads", then those broadcasters would eventually listen.
Regulation is good, especially in monopolistic situations
Regulation is bad. Period. The loudness of advertising is none of the states business.
KDE4 was a step backwards from KDE3.5 in terms of how it handles multiple monitors. I currently run a triple head setup up with two of the monitors being driven by one Nvidia card in TwinView mode, and the 3rd monitor running as a separate KDE instance. You cannot do that in KDE4, and it's the reason I have not upgraded.
What about bigamy? Why should the state be able to outlaw a "marriage" that involves more than two people? My opinion is that it's none of the state's business, and people should be able to enter into any relationship they like and call that relationship what they like, so long as the people involved are consenting adults.
The government (and in this case I'm referring to the US government) is socialist - it seeks to limit the freedoms of otherwise free people. This is but one example. You are right though - marriage should have absolutely nothing to do with the government. It's none of their business.
Yes, that works. Thanks:
wget -U "QuickTime/7.6.2" http://movies.apple.com/movies/fox/avatar/avatar2009aug0820a-tsr_h1080p.mov
I live in NZ (Tauranga specifically) and my internet connection is fine. According to local speed test sites I have a 8.6Mb/s down speed and 0.75Mb/s upload speed. I'm happy with that.
Would that use the local video card for acceleration? What I would like is a solution that would allow me to connect to a remote KDE session and have compiz-fusion work over the NX connection. At the moment if compiz is enables on the server, it is not used in the NXClient end, even if the client desktop has compiz enabled too.
Were you using a desktop with as much eye candy and visual features as is available today?
They are not reimplementing it, they are providing a wrapper to the X11 protocol so it performs better on low bandwidth, high latency links.
Ever tried do to remote X over, say, a 2Mb/s connection? Try it again with FreeNX and notice the large improvement in display performance.
Now if only they would somehow include GL in remote X.
Firstly, don't use terms like "meatspace" in, er, meatspace.
So long as it is funded by voluntary donation and not compulsarily via taxes, I agree with you.
Any .ism ever has been greatly misused by the same type of people no matter what the underlying philosophy has been.
Socialism (and other political philosophies that are based on compulsion) are flawed from the beginning - they don't need to be "misused" to cause harm. All that is required for them to cause harm is simple use.
RMS arguing for software freedom is like trying to repair a small hole in the side of the Titanic and ignoring the huge gash down the side. Wanting freedom is a grand and just desire - BUT people should come before software. Sure - he can pick whatever fight he wants, but I consider fighting for the liberties of people to be a much more noble and worthwhile cause than fighting for the freedom of software.
I'd take him more seriously if his desire for freedom was directed towards *people* and not *software*. People need to be free, and that can never happen under a socialist system, because socialism is based on compulsion. If only RMS would direct some of his "freedom loving" energy towards the freeing of people instead of just software.
Agreed. RMS's advice seems to be to run your own server...
How handy would a local Facebook server be when you're the only user on it?
How useful would a local Google server be when it's only indexing your local lan?
Indeed. I wonder whether RMS uses google - if he does then isn't he a hypocrite?
Freedom also includes the freedom to make choices that may be perceived as non-free. If I want to let someone else host services for me and control a certain amount of my data, then I am (and should be) perfectly free to do that.
A key aspect of freedom is the freedom to choose, even if that choice somehow limits my freedom. What isn't ok is making that choice on someone else's behalf. That's why socialism is a flawed system as it allows one man to limit the primary freedoms of another.
No, I'm saying that the legal backing behind the GPL is copyright law.
Take away copyright law and the GPL becomes ineffective in its current form.
Don't forget that the GPL is effective because it is based on the protection of copyright.
Selling bread that knowingly harms people would be illegal and knowingly harming people is the sort of thing the state exists for to prevent. But ensuring we can easily charge our mobile phones? No. That's none of the governments business.
They need to replace it with a network that is designed to survive a nuclear attack. Oh wait, hang on....
Yes. This is removing the freedom of private companies. It's not a primary function of government ensure we can easily charge our mobile phones.