I agree that musicians don't somehow intrinsically deserve to be millionaires, but the role of music today is much broader than the court jesters. After court jesters, you had artists like Mozart and Beethoven, who wrote music for the Aristocracy. Eventually, music became something delivered to the Burgeois, and later on through the rise of ragtime, blues, etc., music became something that is delivered to Everybody. Music is a huge part of many of our lives today; we connect with it and identify with it. It changes our perception of reality. It addresses our emotional needs. Artists don't need millions to live, but they ought to be appreciated more than what it sounds like you're giving them.
At the same time, Apple may become the catalyst for broad 3g adoption in the US, which is good for the whole world, because cell phone companies can then develop the same phones for the North American market as they do for Asia and Europe. Of course, our 'version' of 3g may be so butchered by marketing types that all functionality is reduced to the sharing of digital photos (why is it that marketoids seem to think all we want to do with small devices is share photos?).
When I've been given stock options, I chose not to exercise them, because once I purchase the stock, I then have taxable income to report. Employees do not have to report stock options. In fact, to do so is really risky, because you will be taxed the following year based on any unrealized gains. So, you purchase 500 options valued at 10 dollars apiece, the next year they're worth 50 dollars, you now are taxed on 20,000 of income in the form of unrealized gain. Next year, if the company tanks, you'd have spent all that money on taxes only to wind up with nothing to show for it. Basically, this is why options exist, so you can have a tangible asset that is not taxable.
Can I get a source for that, please? Not that I'm doubting, but if that is true, I'm going to probably wind up telling everyone I know, and I'll look like an idiot if I don't have something to back it up.
This view is one which is rarely expressed nowadays,
I agree.
yet, usually the less it is heard of, the more true it is.
I disagree. Your post is mindless drivel based on a loose and ungrounded interpretation of world events. `Poverty' is a necessity for capitalism only in the sense that not everyone may posess the same amount of wealth. But if you compare the poverty level in a developed nation like the United States versus a developing nation like China, you'll see why you should be qualifying a lot of the statements you just made. I've been to China within the last ten years. I've seen what they call `poverty.' Think going outside, peeling bark off a tree, and boiling it for food. The beggars on the street here where I live in Texas make above minimum wage.
Thank you for that beautiful dissection of one of the most stupid, stupid, stupid posts I've ever seen masquerade as something insightful, AND get modded +5. There is hope in the world.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Almost every single USA law? That's ridiculous...you could rattle off "USA laws" all day and still not recite enough laws to cover a chapter in the hypothetical "USA law book."
All local communities and states create laws to protect children. Sometimes they go too far...let's leave the Puritans out of this, and try to focus on problems at hand, mkay?
Re:Part of a general trend: consumer as commodity
on
Sears Installs Spyware
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You're like...completely right (in my opinion).
To expand on the economic side a bit, the stock holders own shares of publicly traded companies because they believe those companies will earn profit and grow in the future. Investment is a beautiful but risky thing. A company that no longer maintains the ability to expand and sell more widgets/services will not realize the growth needed to bring a return on the investments. That means a company like Sears always needs to expand and sell more and more stuff in order to compensate for the "interest" that must be paid out to the investors. Basically, investors will pull out if a company can't realize a certain growth in share value, so the company must grow. Hence, it is reasonable for the company to try and push spyware on to products they sell, because it opens them up to a new customer base--advertising companies willing to pay to gain access to marketing information people's computers. Companies who's cash is 'borrowed' from investors will always face this problem. They can't afford not to grow.
Do I lay blame to these "evil" companies for trying to screw over the consumer? Some of it is their fault, but I tend to also (read: not entirely) lay blame the consumer for making spam, spyware, rootkits, etc. profitable. Just as companies have an ethical code we more or less hold them to, consumers also must take responsibility and understand that their choices also effect change in the marketplace.
I really like supporting companies like Google and Whole Foods whose management teams profess to see value in giving back to the community. I also respect individuals who understand that the only way large, evil companies can seem to rule the world is if the majority of a society tolerate them. And if the majority of the society is not willing to tolerate these companies, then they won't buy the crapware filled computers, and no laws are needed. If the majority of the society is willing to tolerate these companies, than "Democracy" has failed.
Basically, I find that a society that needs huge amounts of laws above and beyond basic things like anti-trust in order to keep corporations in check will end up having a bunch of citizens who can't make responsible decisions for themselves. That means that such a society cannot support a democracy. Scary thought to me.
I offer you something at a given price with a restriction. You break the restriction so you get unlimited, unrestricted use. The thing I sold you came at a low price because of that restriction.
I wouldn't call it stealing, but it sure is wrong. If you think DRM is wrong, don't buy it--but it is still wrong to buy DRM'ed junk, then remove that DRM and enjoy the junk at bargain price.
This is going to be -1, Redundant, but I don't care. OP is the best example of a "pro"-piracy post I've seen on/. The argument that piracy is 'OK' because the companies that produce the 'content' are evil is baseless and silly, but the argument that those companies are trying to take away rights that we used to have twenty years ago makes perfect sense.
I don't think you did...I think the original parent had a good point...I apologize if this offends, but I think you're just making the same social commentary that every teenager with half a brain comes up with as part of his 'rite of passage' to enter the intellectual world.
The guy that responded to you was being a bit of a jerk, but I will say that a lot of times 'bugs' are just misunderstandings about how the program works...one could argue that software the misconception is the result of a bug either in the program's design or the documentation, but in reality if you have enough users, any change in the behavior of the program to suit one user can upset another.
I agree with you in general, though. I'm just saying that a lot of the complaints users consider bugs are...well...just complaints that you can't do anything about.
Could memory-alpha.org be part of the reason? I know I go there for all things Trek (huge nerd here...get over it). I can't remember ever going to ST.com for anything.
Hey! Stop that right now! I read every word of the title, and over 50% of the words in the summary, and skipped on down to the comment section because I wanted to join the Slashdot circle jerk and submit a anti US government "me-too" post.
You had to bring in 1. real facts, 2. critical analysis of those facts, and 3. a reasonable conclusion. You spoiled the fun.
So, in response to your post, I think you're a bit too critical of free software. I think Apple has a much more consistent development platform and user experience, but I also think that if you suggested the idea that a Free Software desktop would have had as much success as it has had and still continue to be growing, say, 10 years ago, people would think you're ridiculous. I think it's amazing that a movement that is so dedicated towards the idea that the freedom to collaborate is a moral imperative has fragmented so much, but I think it's even more amazing how much free software there is today, and how high the quality has become.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that musicians don't somehow intrinsically deserve to be millionaires, but the role of music today is much broader than the court jesters. After court jesters, you had artists like Mozart and Beethoven, who wrote music for the Aristocracy. Eventually, music became something delivered to the Burgeois, and later on through the rise of ragtime, blues, etc., music became something that is delivered to Everybody. Music is a huge part of many of our lives today; we connect with it and identify with it. It changes our perception of reality. It addresses our emotional needs. Artists don't need millions to live, but they ought to be appreciated more than what it sounds like you're giving them.
fork() and clone().....fork() and clone().....you'd have to go out of your way to screw over non-2^n core chips.
At the same time, Apple may become the catalyst for broad 3g adoption in the US, which is good for the whole world, because cell phone companies can then develop the same phones for the North American market as they do for Asia and Europe. Of course, our 'version' of 3g may be so butchered by marketing types that all functionality is reduced to the sharing of digital photos (why is it that marketoids seem to think all we want to do with small devices is share photos?).
When I've been given stock options, I chose not to exercise them, because once I purchase the stock, I then have taxable income to report. Employees do not have to report stock options. In fact, to do so is really risky, because you will be taxed the following year based on any unrealized gains. So, you purchase 500 options valued at 10 dollars apiece, the next year they're worth 50 dollars, you now are taxed on 20,000 of income in the form of unrealized gain. Next year, if the company tanks, you'd have spent all that money on taxes only to wind up with nothing to show for it. Basically, this is why options exist, so you can have a tangible asset that is not taxable.
Can I get a source for that, please? Not that I'm doubting, but if that is true, I'm going to probably wind up telling everyone I know, and I'll look like an idiot if I don't have something to back it up.
But I have a patent pending on using electrical signals for any kind of communication...in bed. I don't cross license with strangers, though...
This view is one which is rarely expressed nowadays,
I agree.
yet, usually the less it is heard of, the more true it is.
I disagree. Your post is mindless drivel based on a loose and ungrounded interpretation of world events. `Poverty' is a necessity for capitalism only in the sense that not everyone may posess the same amount of wealth. But if you compare the poverty level in a developed nation like the United States versus a developing nation like China, you'll see why you should be qualifying a lot of the statements you just made. I've been to China within the last ten years. I've seen what they call `poverty.' Think going outside, peeling bark off a tree, and boiling it for food. The beggars on the street here where I live in Texas make above minimum wage.
Thank you for that beautiful dissection of one of the most stupid, stupid, stupid posts I've ever seen masquerade as something insightful, AND get modded +5. There is hope in the world.
Well, people certainly don't die from coding, unless you count failing to reproduce...
Yes. The rest of us find it repugnant :P
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Almost every single USA law? That's ridiculous...you could rattle off "USA laws" all day and still not recite enough laws to cover a chapter in the hypothetical "USA law book."
All local communities and states create laws to protect children. Sometimes they go too far...let's leave the Puritans out of this, and try to focus on problems at hand, mkay?
You're like...completely right (in my opinion).
To expand on the economic side a bit, the stock holders own shares of publicly traded companies because they believe those companies will earn profit and grow in the future. Investment is a beautiful but risky thing. A company that no longer maintains the ability to expand and sell more widgets/services will not realize the growth needed to bring a return on the investments. That means a company like Sears always needs to expand and sell more and more stuff in order to compensate for the "interest" that must be paid out to the investors. Basically, investors will pull out if a company can't realize a certain growth in share value, so the company must grow. Hence, it is reasonable for the company to try and push spyware on to products they sell, because it opens them up to a new customer base--advertising companies willing to pay to gain access to marketing information people's computers. Companies who's cash is 'borrowed' from investors will always face this problem. They can't afford not to grow.
Do I lay blame to these "evil" companies for trying to screw over the consumer? Some of it is their fault, but I tend to also (read: not entirely) lay blame the consumer for making spam, spyware, rootkits, etc. profitable. Just as companies have an ethical code we more or less hold them to, consumers also must take responsibility and understand that their choices also effect change in the marketplace.
I really like supporting companies like Google and Whole Foods whose management teams profess to see value in giving back to the community. I also respect individuals who understand that the only way large, evil companies can seem to rule the world is if the majority of a society tolerate them. And if the majority of the society is not willing to tolerate these companies, then they won't buy the crapware filled computers, and no laws are needed. If the majority of the society is willing to tolerate these companies, than "Democracy" has failed.
Basically, I find that a society that needs huge amounts of laws above and beyond basic things like anti-trust in order to keep corporations in check will end up having a bunch of citizens who can't make responsible decisions for themselves. That means that such a society cannot support a democracy. Scary thought to me.
I offer you something at a given price with a restriction. You break the restriction so you get unlimited, unrestricted use. The thing I sold you came at a low price because of that restriction.
I wouldn't call it stealing, but it sure is wrong. If you think DRM is wrong, don't buy it--but it is still wrong to buy DRM'ed junk, then remove that DRM and enjoy the junk at bargain price.
This is going to be -1, Redundant, but I don't care. OP is the best example of a "pro"-piracy post I've seen on /. The argument that piracy is 'OK' because the companies that produce the 'content' are evil is baseless and silly, but the argument that those companies are trying to take away rights that we used to have twenty years ago makes perfect sense.
I don't think you did...I think the original parent had a good point...I apologize if this offends, but I think you're just making the same social commentary that every teenager with half a brain comes up with as part of his 'rite of passage' to enter the intellectual world.
You can pry my Zach Morris out of my cold, dead hands.
TANSTAAFL = "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
The guy that responded to you was being a bit of a jerk, but I will say that a lot of times 'bugs' are just misunderstandings about how the program works...one could argue that software the misconception is the result of a bug either in the program's design or the documentation, but in reality if you have enough users, any change in the behavior of the program to suit one user can upset another.
I agree with you in general, though. I'm just saying that a lot of the complaints users consider bugs are...well...just complaints that you can't do anything about.
Wow...actually forgot what website I was reading...it's really time for bed :)
Could memory-alpha.org be part of the reason? I know I go there for all things Trek (huge nerd here...get over it). I can't remember ever going to ST.com for anything.
*Cough.* Michael. *Cough.*
I'm very sorry...I seem to have something stuck in my throat.
Hey! Stop that right now! I read every word of the title, and over 50% of the words in the summary, and skipped on down to the comment section because I wanted to join the Slashdot circle jerk and submit a anti US government "me-too" post.
You had to bring in 1. real facts, 2. critical analysis of those facts, and 3. a reasonable conclusion. You spoiled the fun.
You must be working for the CIA.
So, in response to your post, I think you're a bit too critical of free software. I think Apple has a much more consistent development platform and user experience, but I also think that if you suggested the idea that a Free Software desktop would have had as much success as it has had and still continue to be growing, say, 10 years ago, people would think you're ridiculous. I think it's amazing that a movement that is so dedicated towards the idea that the freedom to collaborate is a moral imperative has fragmented so much, but I think it's even more amazing how much free software there is today, and how high the quality has become.
But GOD gave rock and roll to us....through Kiss! The music is as timeless as the Man Upstairs.
Eww. Why don't you try dropping in a real transmission?