Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.
Ok, should you ever be in the process/act of breaking the law and failing to comply with police officers' demands to comply, which method would you prefer be used to subdue you?
no problem, look at how Taser International's massive legal team can get all the maimings and deaths by electrocution swept under the run by buying off judges and doctors and county coroners. The military-industrial complex can steam-roll over peons, it's just operating costs and part of the business plan.
The term for the Taser and other similar law enforcement devices is "less lethal". You are much more likely to perish or suffer permanent injury from a high speed lead bullet than a Taser strike.
Thank-you. The very same law (though worded and located differently, of course) exists in Canada. I've had to remind employers and their subordinates that they were NOT permitted to open my mail, regardless of the address of their business or the placement of "c/o" in the address field.
Actually, no. That's quite a common myth. In point of fact, a lot of married couples find themselves in very tough situations due to their lack of financial/credit awareness.
To wit; a lot of married couples will put most (or all) of the debt into the name of the primary breadwinner. Sooner or later it will come to pass that the other income earner in the household will need to lend their income to a credit application in order to qualify for the loan and their credit will be so thin / weak they simply won't qualify.
I counsel many of my clients to put both names on major purchases so they can spread the debt load between them. After all, marriage implies "community property", so no matter whose name is on the item and/or the loan, both the asset and the debt belong to both partners equally anyways, so you might as well spread it out when you can so you have available servicing room and income when it counts (eg; when you need to re-fi your mortgage!).
"If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you". They imply that if you can see the mirrors, then the driver can see you [...]
This
is absolutely not the case.
It means exactly what it says and nothing more. If you can't even see the mirrors be extra cautious. It doesn't mean or imply, if you can't see the mirrors, be careless.
Seriously, learn basic logic rules before making use of words like "imply" and trying to make logical conclusions. I'm sick and tired of obviously wrong converse arguments. Fresh snow is white but that doesn't imply white stuff is snow. Is that so hard to understand?
Based on the statistical number of non-truck vehicles that cause accidents with trucks, and the general population's general lack of understanding of trucks and their drivers, and the empirical evidence of dozens of truck drivers I've spoken to (my father included) the original poster is absolutely correct. People presume that when they can see the mirrors, the warning is no longer in effect and they're free to do/act any way they please.
Over analyzing the situation isn't going to change the opinion of the general public.
BTW; there are enhanced warning signs that both illustrate a driver's face in the mirror and are adorned with the saying "If you can't see me in my mirrors, I can't see you." which eliminates the logical loophole quite nicely.
Until somebody bumps into my mirror in a parking lot, and I drive off thinking it's giving me the same view of the adjacent lane that it gave me on the way to the store.
I'll keep a sliver of my car's bodywork visible in the mirror as a reference, thanks.
Why? It takes 3 seconds to check the same reference points when you have your mirrors adjusted properly. Lean left, see car. Lean right, see car. Done. You can do this while you wait for your oil pump to start circulating and warm up your engine for a few seconds before setting off.
Any more strawmen from the overlapping mirror crowd?
This is a bit of an urban legend. To be really safe you need to have a portion of your car visible in the mirrors, otherwise you have no reference of what you are looking at.
It can't be an urban legend if hundreds of thousands of people (myself included) use it every day.
The problem with that method is that it requires that you be 100% confident in the placement of your mirrors because there is no feedback on their location until it becomes critical.
So did the old method, until people got used to it. This method, however, works better.
In contrast, when the mirrors are showing you part of your car, it provides an automatic reference point to judge the location of the images that does not depend on the precise mirror position. Furthermore, if your car does not show in your side-view mirrors, then it indicates that their alignment is off.
Since the standard interface with rear and side view mirrors includes easy adjustments, I'd rather not depend on the placement being accurate.
I'd rather have a proper view beside and behind my car without having to physically move my head (I still do anyways, but it gives me next to no new information when making a maneuver).
As to the notion that people will move your mirrors around, many new cars today come with memory seats and mirrors so you can have settings for 2 or 3 drivers programmed. Simple.
I, on the other hand, work in the car industry so I can set my seat, wheel, mirrors (and optionally pedals) and radio station presets in any given car within about 45 seconds, so it's not a huge problem for me. However if you practice in whatever car you personally operate you can get the hang of it in a few hours of driving.
...and that really is kind of offensive. I'm perfectly qualified to drive at night, thank you very much. Although driving at night on roads where there are no streetlights is kind of dangerous, and really no one should be doing it if it can be helped. Btw the road I'm talking about had "exactly zero lights".
Actually, if you're afraid to drive in any given circumstance, you're not qualified to drive. If you don't know how to operate the fundamental controls of your vehicle without so much as moving your eyes, you're not qualified to drive.
Then again, I sell cars. When people like you get involved in or involve others in accidents, I sell more cars. Feel free to carry on.
If you're routinely driving on interstates at night, you have a death wish. Even if you're not sleepy, others on the road might be. And even if they're not sleepy, they might be smugglers. Speeding to avoid the border patrol / police. Without headlights. On the wrong side of the road. Yes, this has happened.
There are a thousand things that can and will happen on a given road at any given time. It's how you deal with it that's important. Drive defensively and be confident in your abilities or get off the road. It's not complicated.
Personally, I never considered a bunch of screaming idiots to be a draw; I go for the music.
As do I. Likewise when I visit the Air Canada Centre I go for the hockey, but the cheering crowd is a large factor in the experience.
You've been hyped, and fallen for it. A wedding is an uncommon special occasion. A rock concert is not (unless you're talking about Woodstock 1969).
Sure, but Woodstock was a festival, not a concert.:)
In my experience, especially in the summer time, weddings are far from rare, special occasions. I've been to more weddings in my life than concerts and I find them deplorable, boring and usually quite offensive. It all comes down to one's perspective, but I digress. A large venue event that often requires plans to coordinate and is looked forward to for some time is a special event. Going to a baseball game with my dad for the first time in over a decade was a special event and we were in cheap seats.
Money is just a tool. There's a sentiment against foolish wastefulness and overpricing, and against the worship of money. Only a fool worships a tool. There's also a sentiment against people who exploit the poor. There's sentiment against government welfare for the rich.
Absolutely and I couldn't agree more. However what I was referring to were the folks who get agitated when any hint comes out that another poster or an article submitter lives at a level higher than subsistence. Even when an article comes out about some new electronic gadget I see people ranting about the "rich yuppie idiots" who have the ability to go out and buy them, etc.
The notion that "real fans" are people who have shitloads of money is a lot more insulting.
The only people who've implied that thus far are the very same people demonstrating the anti-money sentiment I spoke about.
In another post I'd discussed the notion that when something is a priority in one's life, they will find a way to acheive it. Many people in the stands at concerts are brick layers, sandwich makers, wait staff, ditch diggers, etc. They're not all stock brokers and tycoons.
I think the sentiment against people like you isn't your money, but your sense of entitlement; you think you're better than anyone else.
Firstly, I don't like to think of myself as a "person" of any particular type. Moreover, there is no sense of entitlement here. Am I proud of what I've accomplished in my years in the work force? Absolutely. Would I ever lord it over someone? Absolutely not. Do I think I'm better than anyone because of my economic position in society? Of course not. Now, that's not to say there aren't types of people out there I look down on, but those are for reasons that have nothing to do with money.
What I do see quite often however is people who cast a sense of entitlement on people with money around them. I've actually witnessed a young(ish) gentleman utter something along the lines of "*&^@# rich asshole" as hey keyed a Jaguar parked in a parking lot, doing nothing but occupying one of many available spaces. That's the kind of sentiment I see portrayed here on Slashdot all too often lately that I'm talking about.
So all I am saying is that this shouldn't be about what you or I can afford but rather what a large portion of the appropriate fan base can afford.
What is the impetus from the point of view of the owners of the organization, managers of the band or venue to lower the prices if they're selling out all the seats?
There are only x days per year in which they can schedule an event. There are only y seats in the venue. That allows for (x*y)*$ where y, of course, is a variable depending on seat proximity, colour, amenities, etc.
Now, if the venue is selling out at an aggregate average price of $60 per ticket, and they reduce that average to $30 per ticket, those in the higher income brackets that have always flooded the seats will continue to do so (they'll just have more money left over in their wallets aftwards), still pushing out a lot of the lower income brackets who may not have the ability or speed to purchase tickets quickly, yet the people on the back end will lose 50% of their revenue.
So where's the upside for them to lower their price?!?
So... you assume that everyone who is successful got there by virtue of luck... and should thus sacrifice their success for those who haven't. Correct?
Basically, you're a fan of equality of condition.
Yeah, I've often heard this philosophy myself. When you really boil someone's situation down, however, you typically find choices along the way that one may equate to "bad luck". If you chose to associate with that bad crowd of people and landed in jail - bad luck? If you chose to have unprotected sex and got an STI/STD and/or someone got pregnant - bad luck? If you chose to go rock climbing and fell and broke your legs - bad luck?
There's a million examples, but I see it all the time when people complain about their luck all the while they've made and often continue to make poor choices which lead them further down the path they're on.
Much as I'm not a great believer of things like "The Secret" (movie, book et al.) I do believe quite strongly that one's attitude and outlook will have great bearing on one's successes or failures in life.
The corollary to this is those who always believe someone's out to get them / keep them down. Usually they find themselves being put in an almost constant state of "down" and their attitude becomes self fulfilling.
I do draw the line at positive hopeful outlooks that border on the naivete, however. You can't pray your way out of bankruptcy, folks.
I agree with you that the GP's "rich boy" call was out of place, but so is your "change your life" argument.
My statement was meant to be taken as a whole. People need to learn to accept their lot in life. If you don't like it, change your situation. Complaining about it focuses negative energy and generally gets you nowhere but further down in the hole.
I'd never presume to make a judgment about what a person has or earns; however I make judgments all the time about someone who earns X but wants to live the lifestyle of someone who earns X*2. I know many people who have combined household incomes that are well below my own income but who are perfectly happy. Conversely, I know people who's incomes are vastly superior to my own who are miserable.
We live to our means and easy credit and "keep up with the Jones's" syndrome runs rampant in our society.
My argument is to live within your means and be happy with what you have. Individuals are the authors of our own destiny. Hence my statement that if you don't like what you have, work to change it. If you're not willing to take positive steps to change what you have; don't complain about it, and certainly don't rail against someone who has [more|better|different] standard of living than you. It does no good for anybody. Am I wrong?
This isn't a personal attack by the way. I'm just answering your question about "why does mentioning the fact that one has money produce so much hate"
It's not even a case of mentioning money; it seems to be a case where someone mentions something that would require money, and that in and of itself becomes a target of ire.
One of my goals in life was to have stability and financial security. I achieved that some years ago and now I'm working towards the next level. I have my own goals in mind. I also have non monetary goals which I'm also working to achieve. There are people who have other goals in life, many of which are non monetary, which make them happy, and that's great for them.
If you're not happy in what you're doing or where you are, you have to ask yourself why you're doing it or why you're there. If there's a drastic change necessary to alter your situation to the point where you're happy you should consider making it. One area where I draw the line is people who don't feel the need to improve themselves or their personal situations. That's always driven me up the wall.
Back to the topic at hand, if premium concert tickets at major venues is one of your goals in life, you'll prioritize it and find a way to make it happen. If it's not a priority it won't happen. Sometimes it takes sacrifice in other areas of one's life to attain certain other things and that's a choice we all have to make. When I was struggling working 3 jobs to make ends meet, there were times when I decided that I was simply going to have {$X} and there was nothing anybody could to do stand in my way, and I made it happen.
For those who don't like concerts, rock shows, major venues or Ticketmaster; why expend the energy on this thread complaining about it? What good is it accomplishing in their lives?
Thanks for letting me know you didn't read my post. Since I now know there's nothing in your reply which is relevant, I'll return the favour.
You need to pay closer attention my friend. I never said I didn't read your post, I merely lost interest in whatever point you were attempting to make because of your ad hominem opening.
It's amazing how much correlation there is between poverty and bitterness.
Let me walk you through this douchebag argument as it applies to musicians:
"Musicians are supposed to love the music, not money. That's why they should be happy if they get paid enough to finance their tour bus and a few pop-tarts. That's why $5-10 is the most anyone should pay for a ticket."
I get to hear this a lot, all over the Internet (and unfortunately more and more in real life):
"Why should doctors make money? They're supposed to be in it to help people, so they should not expect to be able to buy a house or have a nice car. They should be happy with whatever they get. If they wanted money they should not have gone into medicine, and should instead have done X (where X is whatever profession the speaker doesn't belong to and despises for making money)."
There has to be a term for this argument, because I hear it a lot, and it seems very consistent across many enterprises. But familiarity with it doesn't make me want to punch whoever said it in the face any less...
Hear hear. What people apparently don't realize about those arguments is the fact that they're describing Communism. Everyone should work to the common good, nobody should have more than anybody else,...
But hey, it worked so well in the Soviet Union, right?
As I said, there's this trend that's cropped up lately that's decidedly anti-money, anti-success, etc. I can get behind the whole anti-corporation and anti-monopoly arguments but aren't we all out to improve ourselves and our lives? If not; why are we here?
Perhaps Slashdot just has a higher than average representation of the lowest rung of the technical ladder. I suppose it makes sense that the most lowly employees of any given company and the unemployed would have disproportionately more time to comment on stories and therefore their group-think would overwhelm the discussions at hand.
See, you lost me right there. I never said I was rich, I just said I was far from bring poor. I work a lot of hours and yes, I make a decent living. Your sour grapes go nowhere to further your argument and instead make you appear to be a sad, pathetic retch who would rather complain than change something about their life.
As I said before; If you don't like your lot in life, change it. If you don't want to change your lot in life, quit bitching about it. I didn't like my lot in life so I worked to change it. I worked hard and earned every damned penny. So if you think your tirade against people who have earned their success is going to take anything away from me then you're delusional.
Go sit at a free show and delude yourself into thinking this is the be-all and end-all to music. But always remember that the band you're seeing is most likely doing this so they can ultimately wind up in a large venue playing to thousands of fans. That's what drives musicians and that's what created the music industry and those mega successful bands are where your local, indy bands got their inspiration.
Go sit and suffer in silence in the filth you've created for yourself and let the world be.
You could always just not go to the show. When concert tickets already cost $100 or even much more, and then Ticket Master adds a $12 "convenience fee", which is mandatory, because there is no other way to get tickets, then I stop going to concerts.
This I'll agree with. TicketMaster have created a monopoly on the ticket industry and therefore the "convenience" of buying tickets from them is rather akin to a convenience charge to buy Microsoft Windows or gasoline anymore.
When I was in university, and I went to a lot of concerts, they were usually small shows at local bars. We never paid more than $20 for a concert ticket, sometimes as little as $5. And there's a lot of free tickets to interesting bands if you keep your eyes open. Why would I want to pay $100 to go to a venue with terrible sound, and sit 200 ft. from the band and the crowd is just filled with a bunch of people who happen to have a lot of money, but aren't all that interested in the music, when I can go to a smaller venue, pay $10, be 10 ft. from the band, the sound isn't any worse, and the crowd is really into it.
This, however, I will wholeheartedly disagree with. The last rock concert I went to at {$Major_Venue} was phenomenal. The crowd of thousands was entirely into the show to the point where people stood when the band fired some cannon shots to start the show and never sat down again. Screaming, yelling, cheering, chanting and thousands of people belting out lyrics to the more lively songs is something you can never experience at a bar. That and extreme pyrotechnics.
There's vast differences between a show at a bar (I've been to hundreds) and a rock concert. Namely a show at a bar is something you can do because it's Friday. A major concert event is an uncommon special occasion.
I guess there's just too many people with too much money, and that's the reason they can demand outrageous prices,
I've noticed quite a trend of people on Slashdot being anti-money. Is there a problem with people who work hard and earn more than $40k/year (or 50, 60; whatever the waterline may be) or something? Or must one suffer and live in one's parents' basement earning paltry sums in order to maintain credibility?
and even stoop to things like paperless tickets that you can't resell. Granted there are more people without money, but that's not important, because as long as there are enough people in each city on the tour to buy the tickets, it doesn't matter how much the real fans can afford.
It's simple market economics. You price a good at a level the market will bear. If you sell tickets for $100 apiece and the show sells out in 6 minutes, you price the next show at $120. If it also sells out in under 10 minutes you know your good is priced below market value and you make future pricing decisions accordingly.
The notion that "real fans" are people who have no money and must go to shows only on half price pint night is rather insulting. I'm a music lover and I assure you I am not poor.
If you don't like your lot in life, change it. If you don't want to change your lot in life, quit bitching about it.
I completely trust Murduch's outlets, because I know they are biased and can read through it... It's much, much harder with media that claims to be unbiased
What part of the Fox News motto "Fair and Balanced" do you believe is not a claim to be unbiased?
ISTM that "balanced" and "biased" in this context are direct contradictions. But I could be wrong.
They weren't annoying becuase they were ads! They were annoying because someone wassticking distracting nonsense in the way of what I was trying to do.
I have fucking PacMan on MAME on my PC at home. I played it last week, even. It doesn't belong on my search engine.
Sooo.. Boycott Google if it offends you so much. Otherwise lighten up and quit bitching over petty nonsense?
Yeah... tell that to the guy who just got fired because he just loaded up google when The Owner walked by.
I hope I'm only kidding.
If my boss walked by when I opened Google and asked what was going on, I'd tell him to go to his computer and go to Google as well. I'd take 10 seconds to explain that it's the 30th anniversary of the game and Google put up a tribute to it, then we'd resume talking about business (or he'd resume walking wherever he was going) and that would be the end of the discussion.
If I ever worked for a boss that was so anal retentive they'd consider discipline for such a thing, or if ever I found myself in a position where by boss trusted me so little as to believe I was wasting time on the company's dime, I'd quit my job and promptly find another.
You can't put hardly anything on a rescue floppy. Conversely, I can put a full suite of diagnostic tools, partition software, anti-virus applications, password recovery tools and then some on a CD and still have plenty of room for expansion. Alternatively, I can put an entire usable Linux distribution on a CD.
I haven't used a rescue floppy in well over a decade.
Many people are too lazy/stupid to read the whole contract, and many companies offering such contracts will go to considerable lengths to prevent you reading it all...
The contract will be long, and written in barely legible print which gives you eye strain... And as you're reading it, the salesman will be getting impatient and trying to hurry you along. Try telling them you can't sign the contract right away, but you want to take a copy away so you can show it to your lawyer.
I think you'll find it can be quite the opposite, actually. In Ontario, Canada we've had new legislation implemented that's aimed at protecting consumers and forcing them to be aware of their rights and obligations under an automotive contract, yet people still brazenly autograph it as quickly as possible so as to move on with other things.
In point of fact, it is now mandated by law in Ontario that all sales contracts contain the following text, in bold-face 12 point font, with the first two words being mandated to be in 14 point font. The wording must be directly adjacent to the signature line so as to give the consumer every opportunity to read it prior to finalizing the contract. Vis;
Sales Final. Please review the entire contract, including all attached statements, before signing. This contract is final and binding once I have signed it unless the motor vehicle dealer has failed to comply with certain legal obligations. No other promises or terms have been made to me that are not part of this contract.
It's amazing how many customers come into the dealership days later asking why they can't just "forget the whole thing", or who demand other things be "thrown in" that are not part of the contract, or who don't understand the clauses on the reverse of the contract that talk about liquidation of damages from one's deposit should they fail to accept delivery or pay. "Oh, I didn't know that's what that said"
I'm not asking people to read the fine print, but it would be nice if they'd atleast read the 14 point bold face print that's 1 inch away from their signature.
You friend is stupid, too- overpaying by almost 4x the market rate, and with an interest rate that high, it's going to be years before she pays it off.
Last year I got a loan at 4.9%...
I don't think you quite understand the sub-prime finance market.
Try this. Start paying half the minimum payments on all your credit cards and loans, skip every other month on everything, pick 2-3 debts that you don't like and just stop paying for them entirely. After about a year, go into your bank and ask if that 4.9% is still available.
Slashdot Mirror
Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.
Tell that to poor old Robert Dziekanski.
Wow. One famous Taser victim. Care for a larger sample size?
False dichotomy. Stay in school, Bud.
Ok, should you ever be in the process/act of breaking the law and failing to comply with police officers' demands to comply, which method would you prefer be used to subdue you?
no problem, look at how Taser International's massive legal team can get all the maimings and deaths by electrocution swept under the run by buying off judges and doctors and county coroners. The military-industrial complex can steam-roll over peons, it's just operating costs and part of the business plan.
The term for the Taser and other similar law enforcement devices is "less lethal". You are much more likely to perish or suffer permanent injury from a high speed lead bullet than a Taser strike.
Nonsense. It's the addressee that matters.
US Code Title 18 Chapter 83 Sec. 1702 reads
(snip)
Thank-you. The very same law (though worded and located differently, of course) exists in Canada. I've had to remind employers and their subordinates that they were NOT permitted to open my mail, regardless of the address of their business or the placement of "c/o" in the address field.
You share a credit rating?
Actually, no. That's quite a common myth. In point of fact, a lot of married couples find themselves in very tough situations due to their lack of financial/credit awareness.
To wit; a lot of married couples will put most (or all) of the debt into the name of the primary breadwinner. Sooner or later it will come to pass that the other income earner in the household will need to lend their income to a credit application in order to qualify for the loan and their credit will be so thin / weak they simply won't qualify.
I counsel many of my clients to put both names on major purchases so they can spread the debt load between them. After all, marriage implies "community property", so no matter whose name is on the item and/or the loan, both the asset and the debt belong to both partners equally anyways, so you might as well spread it out when you can so you have available servicing room and income when it counts (eg; when you need to re-fi your mortgage!).
"If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you". They imply that if you can see the mirrors, then the driver can see you [...]
This
is absolutely not the case.
It means exactly what it says and nothing more. If you can't even see the mirrors be extra cautious. It doesn't mean or imply, if you can't see the mirrors, be careless. Seriously, learn basic logic rules before making use of words like "imply" and trying to make logical conclusions. I'm sick and tired of obviously wrong converse arguments. Fresh snow is white but that doesn't imply white stuff is snow. Is that so hard to understand?
Based on the statistical number of non-truck vehicles that cause accidents with trucks, and the general population's general lack of understanding of trucks and their drivers, and the empirical evidence of dozens of truck drivers I've spoken to (my father included) the original poster is absolutely correct. People presume that when they can see the mirrors, the warning is no longer in effect and they're free to do/act any way they please.
Over analyzing the situation isn't going to change the opinion of the general public.
BTW; there are enhanced warning signs that both illustrate a driver's face in the mirror and are adorned with the saying "If you can't see me in my mirrors, I can't see you." which eliminates the logical loophole quite nicely.
But thanks for playing.
Until somebody bumps into my mirror in a parking lot, and I drive off thinking it's giving me the same view of the adjacent lane that it gave me on the way to the store.
I'll keep a sliver of my car's bodywork visible in the mirror as a reference, thanks.
Why? It takes 3 seconds to check the same reference points when you have your mirrors adjusted properly. Lean left, see car. Lean right, see car. Done. You can do this while you wait for your oil pump to start circulating and warm up your engine for a few seconds before setting off.
Any more strawmen from the overlapping mirror crowd?
This is a bit of an urban legend. To be really safe you need to have a portion of your car visible in the mirrors, otherwise you have no reference of what you are looking at.
It can't be an urban legend if hundreds of thousands of people (myself included) use it every day.
The problem with that method is that it requires that you be 100% confident in the placement of your mirrors because there is no feedback on their location until it becomes critical.
So did the old method, until people got used to it. This method, however, works better.
In contrast, when the mirrors are showing you part of your car, it provides an automatic reference point to judge the location of the images that does not depend on the precise mirror position. Furthermore, if your car does not show in your side-view mirrors, then it indicates that their alignment is off.
Since the standard interface with rear and side view mirrors includes easy adjustments, I'd rather not depend on the placement being accurate.
I'd rather have a proper view beside and behind my car without having to physically move my head (I still do anyways, but it gives me next to no new information when making a maneuver).
As to the notion that people will move your mirrors around, many new cars today come with memory seats and mirrors so you can have settings for 2 or 3 drivers programmed. Simple.
I, on the other hand, work in the car industry so I can set my seat, wheel, mirrors (and optionally pedals) and radio station presets in any given car within about 45 seconds, so it's not a huge problem for me. However if you practice in whatever car you personally operate you can get the hang of it in a few hours of driving.
...and that really is kind of offensive. I'm perfectly qualified to drive at night, thank you very much. Although driving at night on roads where there are no streetlights is kind of dangerous, and really no one should be doing it if it can be helped. Btw the road I'm talking about had "exactly zero lights".
Actually, if you're afraid to drive in any given circumstance, you're not qualified to drive. If you don't know how to operate the fundamental controls of your vehicle without so much as moving your eyes, you're not qualified to drive.
Then again, I sell cars. When people like you get involved in or involve others in accidents, I sell more cars. Feel free to carry on.
If you're routinely driving on interstates at night, you have a death wish. Even if you're not sleepy, others on the road might be. And even if they're not sleepy, they might be smugglers. Speeding to avoid the border patrol / police. Without headlights. On the wrong side of the road. Yes, this has happened.
There are a thousand things that can and will happen on a given road at any given time. It's how you deal with it that's important. Drive defensively and be confident in your abilities or get off the road. It's not complicated.
So, uh, what's the consequence of gay marriage?
Gay children?
Personally, I never considered a bunch of screaming idiots to be a draw; I go for the music.
As do I. Likewise when I visit the Air Canada Centre I go for the hockey, but the cheering crowd is a large factor in the experience.
You've been hyped, and fallen for it. A wedding is an uncommon special occasion. A rock concert is not (unless you're talking about Woodstock 1969).
Sure, but Woodstock was a festival, not a concert. :)
In my experience, especially in the summer time, weddings are far from rare, special occasions. I've been to more weddings in my life than concerts and I find them deplorable, boring and usually quite offensive. It all comes down to one's perspective, but I digress. A large venue event that often requires plans to coordinate and is looked forward to for some time is a special event. Going to a baseball game with my dad for the first time in over a decade was a special event and we were in cheap seats.
Money is just a tool. There's a sentiment against foolish wastefulness and overpricing, and against the worship of money. Only a fool worships a tool. There's also a sentiment against people who exploit the poor. There's sentiment against government welfare for the rich.
Absolutely and I couldn't agree more. However what I was referring to were the folks who get agitated when any hint comes out that another poster or an article submitter lives at a level higher than subsistence. Even when an article comes out about some new electronic gadget I see people ranting about the "rich yuppie idiots" who have the ability to go out and buy them, etc.
The notion that "real fans" are people who have shitloads of money is a lot more insulting.
The only people who've implied that thus far are the very same people demonstrating the anti-money sentiment I spoke about.
In another post I'd discussed the notion that when something is a priority in one's life, they will find a way to acheive it. Many people in the stands at concerts are brick layers, sandwich makers, wait staff, ditch diggers, etc. They're not all stock brokers and tycoons.
I think the sentiment against people like you isn't your money, but your sense of entitlement; you think you're better than anyone else.
Firstly, I don't like to think of myself as a "person" of any particular type. Moreover, there is no sense of entitlement here. Am I proud of what I've accomplished in my years in the work force? Absolutely. Would I ever lord it over someone? Absolutely not. Do I think I'm better than anyone because of my economic position in society? Of course not. Now, that's not to say there aren't types of people out there I look down on, but those are for reasons that have nothing to do with money.
What I do see quite often however is people who cast a sense of entitlement on people with money around them. I've actually witnessed a young(ish) gentleman utter something along the lines of "*&^@# rich asshole" as hey keyed a Jaguar parked in a parking lot, doing nothing but occupying one of many available spaces. That's the kind of sentiment I see portrayed here on Slashdot all too often lately that I'm talking about.
So all I am saying is that this shouldn't be about what you or I can afford but rather what a large portion of the appropriate fan base can afford.
What is the impetus from the point of view of the owners of the organization, managers of the band or venue to lower the prices if they're selling out all the seats?
There are only x days per year in which they can schedule an event. There are only y seats in the venue. That allows for (x*y)*$ where y, of course, is a variable depending on seat proximity, colour, amenities, etc.
Now, if the venue is selling out at an aggregate average price of $60 per ticket, and they reduce that average to $30 per ticket, those in the higher income brackets that have always flooded the seats will continue to do so (they'll just have more money left over in their wallets aftwards), still pushing out a lot of the lower income brackets who may not have the ability or speed to purchase tickets quickly, yet the people on the back end will lose 50% of their revenue.
So where's the upside for them to lower their price?!?
So... you assume that everyone who is successful got there by virtue of luck... and should thus sacrifice their success for those who haven't. Correct?
Basically, you're a fan of equality of condition.
Yeah, I've often heard this philosophy myself. When you really boil someone's situation down, however, you typically find choices along the way that one may equate to "bad luck". If you chose to associate with that bad crowd of people and landed in jail - bad luck? If you chose to have unprotected sex and got an STI/STD and/or someone got pregnant - bad luck? If you chose to go rock climbing and fell and broke your legs - bad luck?
There's a million examples, but I see it all the time when people complain about their luck all the while they've made and often continue to make poor choices which lead them further down the path they're on.
Much as I'm not a great believer of things like "The Secret" (movie, book et al.) I do believe quite strongly that one's attitude and outlook will have great bearing on one's successes or failures in life.
The corollary to this is those who always believe someone's out to get them / keep them down. Usually they find themselves being put in an almost constant state of "down" and their attitude becomes self fulfilling.
I do draw the line at positive hopeful outlooks that border on the naivete, however. You can't pray your way out of bankruptcy, folks.
I agree with you that the GP's "rich boy" call was out of place, but so is your "change your life" argument.
My statement was meant to be taken as a whole. People need to learn to accept their lot in life. If you don't like it, change your situation. Complaining about it focuses negative energy and generally gets you nowhere but further down in the hole.
I'd never presume to make a judgment about what a person has or earns; however I make judgments all the time about someone who earns X but wants to live the lifestyle of someone who earns X*2. I know many people who have combined household incomes that are well below my own income but who are perfectly happy. Conversely, I know people who's incomes are vastly superior to my own who are miserable.
We live to our means and easy credit and "keep up with the Jones's" syndrome runs rampant in our society.
My argument is to live within your means and be happy with what you have. Individuals are the authors of our own destiny. Hence my statement that if you don't like what you have, work to change it. If you're not willing to take positive steps to change what you have; don't complain about it, and certainly don't rail against someone who has [more|better|different] standard of living than you. It does no good for anybody. Am I wrong?
This isn't a personal attack by the way. I'm just answering your question about "why does mentioning the fact that one has money produce so much hate"
It's not even a case of mentioning money; it seems to be a case where someone mentions something that would require money, and that in and of itself becomes a target of ire.
One of my goals in life was to have stability and financial security. I achieved that some years ago and now I'm working towards the next level. I have my own goals in mind. I also have non monetary goals which I'm also working to achieve. There are people who have other goals in life, many of which are non monetary, which make them happy, and that's great for them.
If you're not happy in what you're doing or where you are, you have to ask yourself why you're doing it or why you're there. If there's a drastic change necessary to alter your situation to the point where you're happy you should consider making it. One area where I draw the line is people who don't feel the need to improve themselves or their personal situations. That's always driven me up the wall.
Back to the topic at hand, if premium concert tickets at major venues is one of your goals in life, you'll prioritize it and find a way to make it happen. If it's not a priority it won't happen. Sometimes it takes sacrifice in other areas of one's life to attain certain other things and that's a choice we all have to make. When I was struggling working 3 jobs to make ends meet, there were times when I decided that I was simply going to have {$X} and there was nothing anybody could to do stand in my way, and I made it happen.
For those who don't like concerts, rock shows, major venues or Ticketmaster; why expend the energy on this thread complaining about it? What good is it accomplishing in their lives?
See, you lost me right there.
Thanks for letting me know you didn't read my post. Since I now know there's nothing in your reply which is relevant, I'll return the favour.
You need to pay closer attention my friend. I never said I didn't read your post, I merely lost interest in whatever point you were attempting to make because of your ad hominem opening.
It's amazing how much correlation there is between poverty and bitterness.
Let me walk you through this douchebag argument as it applies to musicians:
"Musicians are supposed to love the music, not money. That's why they should be happy if they get paid enough to finance their tour bus and a few pop-tarts. That's why $5-10 is the most anyone should pay for a ticket."
I get to hear this a lot, all over the Internet (and unfortunately more and more in real life): "Why should doctors make money? They're supposed to be in it to help people, so they should not expect to be able to buy a house or have a nice car. They should be happy with whatever they get. If they wanted money they should not have gone into medicine, and should instead have done X (where X is whatever profession the speaker doesn't belong to and despises for making money)."
There has to be a term for this argument, because I hear it a lot, and it seems very consistent across many enterprises. But familiarity with it doesn't make me want to punch whoever said it in the face any less...
Hear hear. What people apparently don't realize about those arguments is the fact that they're describing Communism. Everyone should work to the common good, nobody should have more than anybody else, ...
But hey, it worked so well in the Soviet Union, right?
As I said, there's this trend that's cropped up lately that's decidedly anti-money, anti-success, etc. I can get behind the whole anti-corporation and anti-monopoly arguments but aren't we all out to improve ourselves and our lives? If not; why are we here?
Perhaps Slashdot just has a higher than average representation of the lowest rung of the technical ladder. I suppose it makes sense that the most lowly employees of any given company and the unemployed would have disproportionately more time to comment on stories and therefore their group-think would overwhelm the discussions at hand.
Alas, I digress ...
Ok, rich boy.
See, you lost me right there. I never said I was rich, I just said I was far from bring poor. I work a lot of hours and yes, I make a decent living. Your sour grapes go nowhere to further your argument and instead make you appear to be a sad, pathetic retch who would rather complain than change something about their life.
As I said before; If you don't like your lot in life, change it. If you don't want to change your lot in life, quit bitching about it. I didn't like my lot in life so I worked to change it. I worked hard and earned every damned penny. So if you think your tirade against people who have earned their success is going to take anything away from me then you're delusional.
Go sit at a free show and delude yourself into thinking this is the be-all and end-all to music. But always remember that the band you're seeing is most likely doing this so they can ultimately wind up in a large venue playing to thousands of fans. That's what drives musicians and that's what created the music industry and those mega successful bands are where your local, indy bands got their inspiration.
Go sit and suffer in silence in the filth you've created for yourself and let the world be.
You could always just not go to the show. When concert tickets already cost $100 or even much more, and then Ticket Master adds a $12 "convenience fee", which is mandatory, because there is no other way to get tickets, then I stop going to concerts.
This I'll agree with. TicketMaster have created a monopoly on the ticket industry and therefore the "convenience" of buying tickets from them is rather akin to a convenience charge to buy Microsoft Windows or gasoline anymore.
When I was in university, and I went to a lot of concerts, they were usually small shows at local bars. We never paid more than $20 for a concert ticket, sometimes as little as $5. And there's a lot of free tickets to interesting bands if you keep your eyes open. Why would I want to pay $100 to go to a venue with terrible sound, and sit 200 ft. from the band and the crowd is just filled with a bunch of people who happen to have a lot of money, but aren't all that interested in the music, when I can go to a smaller venue, pay $10, be 10 ft. from the band, the sound isn't any worse, and the crowd is really into it.
This, however, I will wholeheartedly disagree with. The last rock concert I went to at {$Major_Venue} was phenomenal. The crowd of thousands was entirely into the show to the point where people stood when the band fired some cannon shots to start the show and never sat down again. Screaming, yelling, cheering, chanting and thousands of people belting out lyrics to the more lively songs is something you can never experience at a bar. That and extreme pyrotechnics.
There's vast differences between a show at a bar (I've been to hundreds) and a rock concert. Namely a show at a bar is something you can do because it's Friday. A major concert event is an uncommon special occasion.
I guess there's just too many people with too much money, and that's the reason they can demand outrageous prices,
I've noticed quite a trend of people on Slashdot being anti-money. Is there a problem with people who work hard and earn more than $40k/year (or 50, 60; whatever the waterline may be) or something? Or must one suffer and live in one's parents' basement earning paltry sums in order to maintain credibility?
and even stoop to things like paperless tickets that you can't resell. Granted there are more people without money, but that's not important, because as long as there are enough people in each city on the tour to buy the tickets, it doesn't matter how much the real fans can afford.
It's simple market economics. You price a good at a level the market will bear. If you sell tickets for $100 apiece and the show sells out in 6 minutes, you price the next show at $120. If it also sells out in under 10 minutes you know your good is priced below market value and you make future pricing decisions accordingly.
The notion that "real fans" are people who have no money and must go to shows only on half price pint night is rather insulting. I'm a music lover and I assure you I am not poor.
If you don't like your lot in life, change it. If you don't want to change your lot in life, quit bitching about it.
What part of the Fox News motto "Fair and Balanced" do you believe is not a claim to be unbiased?
ISTM that "balanced" and "biased" in this context are direct contradictions. But I could be wrong.
They weren't annoying becuase they were ads! They were annoying because someone wassticking distracting nonsense in the way of what I was trying to do.
I have fucking PacMan on MAME on my PC at home. I played it last week, even. It doesn't belong on my search engine.
Sooo.. Boycott Google if it offends you so much. Otherwise lighten up and quit bitching over petty nonsense?
Just a suggestion. Life is too short.
Yeah... tell that to the guy who just got fired because he just loaded up google when The Owner walked by. I hope I'm only kidding.
If my boss walked by when I opened Google and asked what was going on, I'd tell him to go to his computer and go to Google as well. I'd take 10 seconds to explain that it's the 30th anniversary of the game and Google put up a tribute to it, then we'd resume talking about business (or he'd resume walking wherever he was going) and that would be the end of the discussion.
If I ever worked for a boss that was so anal retentive they'd consider discipline for such a thing, or if ever I found myself in a position where by boss trusted me so little as to believe I was wasting time on the company's dime, I'd quit my job and promptly find another.
What about rescue disks?
You can't put hardly anything on a rescue floppy. Conversely, I can put a full suite of diagnostic tools, partition software, anti-virus applications, password recovery tools and then some on a CD and still have plenty of room for expansion. Alternatively, I can put an entire usable Linux distribution on a CD.
I haven't used a rescue floppy in well over a decade.
Many people are too lazy/stupid to read the whole contract, and many companies offering such contracts will go to considerable lengths to prevent you reading it all... The contract will be long, and written in barely legible print which gives you eye strain... And as you're reading it, the salesman will be getting impatient and trying to hurry you along. Try telling them you can't sign the contract right away, but you want to take a copy away so you can show it to your lawyer.
I think you'll find it can be quite the opposite, actually. In Ontario, Canada we've had new legislation implemented that's aimed at protecting consumers and forcing them to be aware of their rights and obligations under an automotive contract, yet people still brazenly autograph it as quickly as possible so as to move on with other things.
In point of fact, it is now mandated by law in Ontario that all sales contracts contain the following text, in bold-face 12 point font, with the first two words being mandated to be in 14 point font. The wording must be directly adjacent to the signature line so as to give the consumer every opportunity to read it prior to finalizing the contract. Vis;
Sales Final. Please review the entire contract, including all attached statements, before signing. This contract is final and binding once I have signed it unless the motor vehicle dealer has failed to comply with certain legal obligations. No other promises or terms have been made to me that are not part of this contract.
It's amazing how many customers come into the dealership days later asking why they can't just "forget the whole thing", or who demand other things be "thrown in" that are not part of the contract, or who don't understand the clauses on the reverse of the contract that talk about liquidation of damages from one's deposit should they fail to accept delivery or pay. "Oh, I didn't know that's what that said"
I'm not asking people to read the fine print, but it would be nice if they'd atleast read the 14 point bold face print that's 1 inch away from their signature.
You friend is stupid, too- overpaying by almost 4x the market rate, and with an interest rate that high, it's going to be years before she pays it off. Last year I got a loan at 4.9%...
I don't think you quite understand the sub-prime finance market.
Try this. Start paying half the minimum payments on all your credit cards and loans, skip every other month on everything, pick 2-3 debts that you don't like and just stop paying for them entirely. After about a year, go into your bank and ask if that 4.9% is still available.