The drug supply, on the other hand, has never been stronger. So may be, we should stop focusing on limiting the drug supply, since that part of the War on Drugs hasn't been working, and we should start focusing on what has_been_working, whatever that may be.
"and cocaine use alone has declined by 75% since 1987."
What about ecstacy? I don't know anyone who takes cocaine anymore, it's not as trendy as it used to be.
Your response is good, but too long. If you want your answer to spread to the average joe, it needs to be as short as a television soundbite.
Our Reply should be something like: "The data loss resulting from not being able to do backups costs consumers around $32.0 billion annually."
This response could probably be improved upon, but you get the idea.
If anyone of us is ever interviewed, this answer needs to be delivered like a smiling politician doing a broken record. In other words, you'll have to repeat the same answer over and over again using slightly different words no matter what the question is.
"One of the strongest arguments the prohibitionists had was that liquor establishments were already engaging in corrupt business practices, and that saloons were as much about gambling and prostitution (already crimes) as they were about liquor. "
That's a good point. Let's not only legalize marijuana, but also prostitution and gambling in every State.
"There are severe penalties against drinking and driving in every State today. Obviously this is far short of a solution. "
In California, I know a girl who was caught driving under the influence. Somehow, the judge gave her six months probation plus no driving for six months, but still in one month -- she got her drivers license back. Apparently, "the severe penalties" you're talking about only kick in when an innocent bystandard gets killed. By then, it's usually too late.
"If you're this upstart who was there since day one doing what no one else did, taking the risks back then which aren't really risks today (relatively speaking), you'd be pretty mad. "
Amazon was not the first. Around 1985, the French government started "ecommerce" in a big way through the "Minitel". Even at that time, the Minitel allowed you to buy porn, books, train tickets, plane tickets, etc.
"Rewind 8 or 9 years.
No one bought anything over the internet. E-commerce didn't quite exist. "
No, 15 years ago, everyone in France bought things through the Minitel. Those Minitel network computers were given out for free at the post office instead of phone books and the government poured so much money down that black hole, everybody started using them. On a side-note, it also turned out to be the biggest blunder the French government ever made, but that's besides the point.
" A position where my customers are leaving to buy from my copycat because they can't tell the difference anymore no matter what we do. "
I haven't left. My mind still perceives a difference. I still buy books from Amazon.
"Amazon is getting patents because it seems like the only way to fight off their idiot copycat competitors. "
No, it's not the only way to fight off copycat competition, branding is also another way. Just ask Coca Cola, Cheerios, and Cocoa Puffs.
"It's kind of a mixed bag. It sucks that Amazon does it, but it's not going to stop me from supporting them. Why? I'll put myself in their position.
The position is one where my shareholders are screaming at me to protect their investment which they entrusted in me."
A lot of shareholders have been screaming at their companies to protect their investments. This fact doesn't excuse in any way the behavior of those companies.
"Advertising does work, or it wouldn't be such a huge market. "
How do you know it is a huge market? Are you basing this assumption on the number of spam emails you're receiving? Any stupid twelve year old kids can spam, I am not sure this means they're making any money at it. And even if the spammers did make money, I doubt they would make that information public.
"Which would be a moral victory for Google, but perhaps a commercial disaster. "
A commercial disaster? Why? Wouldn't it be a financial victory instead?
And yes, I understand that some other companies might try to impersonate Google, but I can't see this as a negative.
"Why the heck are so many groups trying so hard to preserve a form of advertising that no one pays attention to? [...] "
I don't think any big corporation is trying to "preserve this form of advertising". Myself, I'd like to see this problem solved (or at least mitigated) with technology, not new laws. Somehow, I don't trust the government to be effective in dealing with Spam.
Open Office doesn't work swell, but nevertheless, the poster is right to some extent, Linux will certainly give you a new lease on life for your legacy systems.
Scripts should be used for prototyping and if the prototype doesn't do the trick, then the original programmer who wrote the script can convert the program to the language of choice.
"I have a FreeBSD box routing Wi cards over a cable connection in my house. I have no home phone, just a cell. Who needs to pay $40+ for a house phone when I have a cell that for $30 that has unlimited night and weekends (the time you'd actually use a house phone)."
I don't think they're talking about you in the article. In my state, low-income people get unlimited local phone service for a very nominal fee. I would assume the same thing goes on nationwide.
In the UK, on the other hand, cell phones are indeed much cheaper and much easier to get than landlines, and cell phones became ubiquitous among poor people years ago.
On a side-note, if the US government had actually allowed cell phone networks to surcharge the callers (through the use of special area codes) instead of surcharging the recipients for receiving calls on their cell phones -- most americans and most poor americans would have gotten cell phones years ago (in fact, I would probably have two cell phones right now if that were the case, one where people could call me for free and one where people could call me with a surcharge).
"Actually, I would be happier with a settlement that forced atm usage to be free. "
My last post was labeled as a troll, I am offended. Hey I dislike atm fees as much as anybody else, but I don't see how forcing someone to provide a free service for the rest of us is going to help. Here is one argument against ATM fees. Its excerpt is lifted from the Cato institute at http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-27-98.html
"...If the senator were to look a little closer at the issue, he might realize that the recent boom in the ATM industry -- which has made life far more convenient for consumers -- is the result of increased ATM fees. And if consumers are prohibited from paying for ATM services, they may lose the vast ATM network they now enjoy.
Consumers in our fast-paced society value quick, convenient access to their money. The first people to realize that were not banks but private entrepreneurs, who saw that they could make a buck by placing ATMs in convenient locations. It was the ATM fee that allowed those companies, which have no other way to recoup their costs for providing and operating the machines, to meet consumer demand. From 1995 to 1996 the number of ATMs ordered from manufacturers increased 40 percent. The number of orders during that time exceeded the orders from 1991 to 1993. Approximately half of those orders were placed, not by "big banks," but by non-banking companies that make most of their revenue from ATM fees.
The fact that this growth occurred after the two largest ATM networks in the country (Cirrus and Plus) rescinded their ban on surcharges is no coincidence. ATMs in more convenient locations mean that consumers save time and money. Bank customers demand this convenience, and they are willing to pay for it.
In the past, when there were no charges for ATM use, there were far fewer ATMs. A low-cost ATM needs at least 3,000 transactions a month to break even. With a fee, that number is cut to 500.
But consumers often say, "I used to get this service without a fee, so why do I have to pay now?" The reason is that ATMs are not free. In the past, when there were no charges for ATM use, there were far fewer ATMs. A low-cost ATM needs at least 3,000 transactions a month to break even. With a fee, that number is cut to 500. Economist David Humphrey of Florida State University found that, although early studies of ATMs predicted savings for banks, the reality is that banks are actually taking a loss to provide this convenience. The consulting firm of McKinsey & Co. estimates that ATMs have cost the industry $1.5 billion and saved only $200 million.
Banks, like all businesses, want to make money. If they are going to lose money on a service, they will not provide it. With ATM fees, banks and non-bank ATM owners can place ATMs in places that were once not cost justified. Those places include grocery stores, convenience stores, airports and many other sites where people are happy to pay for quick access to cash. As a result, consumers don't have to drive 20 minutes across town to get money out of the bank; instead, they can choose to pay the fee for the convenience of ATMs.
Many smaller banks also complain because they cannot support vast ATM networks, which are common to larger banks. At the Senate hearings, Wayne Cottle, president of the Dean Co-operative Bank in Franklin, Massachusetts, expressed his fear "that there will be a substantial deposit migration away from my institution." In other words, "I cannot compete in this economy, therefore the government should protect me." Is that any way to run our economy?
In the American economy, firms that do not provide the services consumers demand are replaced by those that do. What has made this county's economy so prosperous is its refusal to interfere with competition and innovation. Competition is not something the banking industry lacks, given its 200,000 ATMs and 10,000 financial institutions. That free and open competition led to the invention of the ATM in the first place.
Another important fact to remember is that getting access to your money without a fee is still very easy. Customers can write a check, use a debit card or credit card or simply visit their own bank's ATMs. Those who value convenience less still have other options for getting money, while those who would prefer to pay for this convenience can do so. If Senator D'Amato gets his wish, consumers will lose not only the fees that he despises so much but also the large network of ATMs on which consumers have come to rely. "
"...people whose servers get slashdotted? Does she counsel those people too? "
No, they were talking about permanent losses, not temporary inconveniences. Losing broadband access for a couple of days does not constitute a permanent loss (although I'm sure someone will try to argue otherwise).
"It's time to think outside the box!" My standard response: Then why the eff did you put us in cubicles?
You took the bait. You differentiated yourself as a non-compliant player and I assume you were rewarded accordingly. Please don't take my statement the wrong way, I am not saying that the system is just, I am just calling the rules of the game as I see them.
" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005V0XF/ diramyspla
What the hell? You insert Amazon Affiliate links into your recommendations in everyday, informal communication suggesting a movie??? Do you do this in conversation, too? "
By the way, how can you tell a link is an affiliate link? A typical amazon link is pretty complicated already. Is "ASIN" the marker for it? On a side question, does anyone actually make any money doing this? And how does one go about registering for their affiliate program?
Slashdot Mirror
The drug supply, on the other hand, has never been stronger. So may be, we should stop focusing on limiting the drug supply, since that part of the War on Drugs hasn't been working, and we should start focusing on what has_been_working, whatever that may be.
"and cocaine use alone has declined by 75% since 1987."
What about ecstacy? I don't know anyone who takes cocaine anymore, it's not as trendy as it used to be.
If anyone of us is ever interviewed, this answer needs to be delivered like a smiling politician doing a broken record. In other words, you'll have to repeat the same answer over and over again using slightly different words no matter what the question is.
I watched three shows. The show was crap. I am 27 years old, so I am probably not in their demographics.
That's a good point. Let's not only legalize marijuana, but also prostitution and gambling in every State.
In California, I know a girl who was caught driving under the influence. Somehow, the judge gave her six months probation plus no driving for six months, but still in one month -- she got her drivers license back. Apparently, "the severe penalties" you're talking about only kick in when an innocent bystandard gets killed. By then, it's usually too late.
Our tobacco policy has also been a success. A success without putting anyone in jail, I might add.
Amazon was not the first. Around 1985, the French government started "ecommerce" in a big way through the "Minitel". Even at that time, the Minitel allowed you to buy porn, books, train tickets, plane tickets, etc.
"Rewind 8 or 9 years. No one bought anything over the internet. E-commerce didn't quite exist. "
No, 15 years ago, everyone in France bought things through the Minitel. Those Minitel network computers were given out for free at the post office instead of phone books and the government poured so much money down that black hole, everybody started using them. On a side-note, it also turned out to be the biggest blunder the French government ever made, but that's besides the point.
" A position where my customers are leaving to buy from my copycat because they can't tell the difference anymore no matter what we do. "
I haven't left. My mind still perceives a difference. I still buy books from Amazon.
"Amazon is getting patents because it seems like the only way to fight off their idiot copycat competitors. "
No, it's not the only way to fight off copycat competition, branding is also another way. Just ask Coca Cola, Cheerios, and Cocoa Puffs.
"It's kind of a mixed bag. It sucks that Amazon does it, but it's not going to stop me from supporting them. Why? I'll put myself in their position. The position is one where my shareholders are screaming at me to protect their investment which they entrusted in me."
A lot of shareholders have been screaming at their companies to protect their investments. This fact doesn't excuse in any way the behavior of those companies.
Their defense: Let's prosecute those german hackers.
Or it would be like someone taking the word "cola" and putting it into their name.
How do you know it is a huge market? Are you basing this assumption on the number of spam emails you're receiving? Any stupid twelve year old kids can spam, I am not sure this means they're making any money at it. And even if the spammers did make money, I doubt they would make that information public.
A commercial disaster? Why? Wouldn't it be a financial victory instead? And yes, I understand that some other companies might try to impersonate Google, but I can't see this as a negative.
I don't think any big corporation is trying to "preserve this form of advertising". Myself, I'd like to see this problem solved (or at least mitigated) with technology, not new laws. Somehow, I don't trust the government to be effective in dealing with Spam.
(1) ATM providers would decrease the number of ATMs they have around
(2) ATM providers would decrease the maintainance of the ATMs that already exist
(3) People would switch their accounts to smaller banks with fewer ATMs (since the number of ATMs at a bank has wouldn't matter to them anymore)
(4) Long lines would start to form at popular ATMs
(5) ATMs would be harder to find and less convenient
(6) Since all those effects reinforce each other, recurse ad infinitum and go back to step (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)
Open Office doesn't work swell, but nevertheless, the poster is right to some extent, Linux will certainly give you a new lease on life for your legacy systems.
This looks more like a publicity stunt than a viable business model.
Wireless access doesn't tie up your land line.
Scripts should be used for prototyping and if the prototype doesn't do the trick, then the original programmer who wrote the script can convert the program to the language of choice.
I don't think they're talking about you in the article. In my state, low-income people get unlimited local phone service for a very nominal fee. I would assume the same thing goes on nationwide.
In the UK, on the other hand, cell phones are indeed much cheaper and much easier to get than landlines, and cell phones became ubiquitous among poor people years ago.
On a side-note, if the US government had actually allowed cell phone networks to surcharge the callers (through the use of special area codes) instead of surcharging the recipients for receiving calls on their cell phones -- most americans and most poor americans would have gotten cell phones years ago (in fact, I would probably have two cell phones right now if that were the case, one where people could call me for free and one where people could call me with a surcharge).
My last post was labeled as a troll, I am offended. Hey I dislike atm fees as much as anybody else, but I don't see how forcing someone to provide a free service for the rest of us is going to help. Here is one argument against ATM fees. Its excerpt is lifted from the Cato institute at http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-27-98.html
"...If the senator were to look a little closer at the issue, he might realize that the recent boom in the ATM industry -- which has made life far more convenient for consumers -- is the result of increased ATM fees. And if consumers are prohibited from paying for ATM services, they may lose the vast ATM network they now enjoy.
Consumers in our fast-paced society value quick, convenient access to their money. The first people to realize that were not banks but private entrepreneurs, who saw that they could make a buck by placing ATMs in convenient locations. It was the ATM fee that allowed those companies, which have no other way to recoup their costs for providing and operating the machines, to meet consumer demand. From 1995 to 1996 the number of ATMs ordered from manufacturers increased 40 percent. The number of orders during that time exceeded the orders from 1991 to 1993. Approximately half of those orders were placed, not by "big banks," but by non-banking companies that make most of their revenue from ATM fees.
The fact that this growth occurred after the two largest ATM networks in the country (Cirrus and Plus) rescinded their ban on surcharges is no coincidence. ATMs in more convenient locations mean that consumers save time and money. Bank customers demand this convenience, and they are willing to pay for it.
In the past, when there were no charges for ATM use, there were far fewer ATMs. A low-cost ATM needs at least 3,000 transactions a month to break even. With a fee, that number is cut to 500.
But consumers often say, "I used to get this service without a fee, so why do I have to pay now?" The reason is that ATMs are not free. In the past, when there were no charges for ATM use, there were far fewer ATMs. A low-cost ATM needs at least 3,000 transactions a month to break even. With a fee, that number is cut to 500. Economist David Humphrey of Florida State University found that, although early studies of ATMs predicted savings for banks, the reality is that banks are actually taking a loss to provide this convenience. The consulting firm of McKinsey & Co. estimates that ATMs have cost the industry $1.5 billion and saved only $200 million.
Banks, like all businesses, want to make money. If they are going to lose money on a service, they will not provide it. With ATM fees, banks and non-bank ATM owners can place ATMs in places that were once not cost justified. Those places include grocery stores, convenience stores, airports and many other sites where people are happy to pay for quick access to cash. As a result, consumers don't have to drive 20 minutes across town to get money out of the bank; instead, they can choose to pay the fee for the convenience of ATMs.
Many smaller banks also complain because they cannot support vast ATM networks, which are common to larger banks. At the Senate hearings, Wayne Cottle, president of the Dean Co-operative Bank in Franklin, Massachusetts, expressed his fear "that there will be a substantial deposit migration away from my institution." In other words, "I cannot compete in this economy, therefore the government should protect me." Is that any way to run our economy?
In the American economy, firms that do not provide the services consumers demand are replaced by those that do. What has made this county's economy so prosperous is its refusal to interfere with competition and innovation. Competition is not something the banking industry lacks, given its 200,000 ATMs and 10,000 financial institutions. That free and open competition led to the invention of the ATM in the first place.
Another important fact to remember is that getting access to your money without a fee is still very easy. Customers can write a check, use a debit card or credit card or simply visit their own bank's ATMs. Those who value convenience less still have other options for getting money, while those who would prefer to pay for this convenience can do so. If Senator D'Amato gets his wish, consumers will lose not only the fees that he despises so much but also the large network of ATMs on which consumers have come to rely. "
For a longer pdf report, go to http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-036.pdf
No, they were talking about permanent losses, not temporary inconveniences. Losing broadband access for a couple of days does not constitute a permanent loss (although I'm sure someone will try to argue otherwise).
You took the bait. You differentiated yourself as a non-compliant player and I assume you were rewarded accordingly. Please don't take my statement the wrong way, I am not saying that the system is just, I am just calling the rules of the game as I see them.
Why stop there? Why don't you force all business owners to let us use their phones for free?
What the hell? You insert Amazon Affiliate links into your recommendations in everyday, informal communication suggesting a movie??? Do you do this in conversation, too? "
By the way, how can you tell a link is an affiliate link? A typical amazon link is pretty complicated already. Is "ASIN" the marker for it? On a side question, does anyone actually make any money doing this? And how does one go about registering for their affiliate program?
Hey kid, don't give unsolicited advice. Only losers give unsolicited advice.
I can take the goat thing. Avoid links with the word "kitten" in them. You've got to trust me on this one.