They got what they earned. "Lazy" is your word. Using that terms denotes a moral judgement. I'm not judging poor people, lazy or otherwise. I just don't think people who have been financially responsible should have to pay those who have been irresponsible, any more than I think irresponsible people should be *forced* to be responsible. Let people live the lives they choose to live. It's kind of like freedom...ya know?
Value is subjective. So there is no absolute value that can be placed on "...a generation of children with free access to the classic writings", although I think maybe you meant to phrase that as "...a generation of children with access to the classic writings" (without the "free").
However, since value is subjective, each person can reasonably place a value on his child, or himself, having access to classic writings. And that's where the free-market shines, and government funded things like libraries fail miserably. We don't all have the same interests/strengths, but a library can only hold so many books to try and cover all our interests...which very likely leads to a library with books not distributed in topics even close to the interests of the actual population.
If it's cheaper to fund schools than pay welfare for 50% of the population, then it's a better deal for everyone if we collectively fund schools instead of increased welfare.
Of course that's a true statement. But my whole point was that we should be paying for neither wefare, nor public education. You are trying to continue a debate on a premise that isn't agreed upon. The thing I would like to know is, how much would we be paying if neither of the above conditions existed. Also, I suspect their would be far (like something in the 90% range) few people unable to feed themselves if things like welfare didn't exist...but I'm certain we will never know.
It's not wether the life was "happily chosen", rather, it's simply a stance that people should get what they earn in general. If you work your ass off and make millions of dollars, you are entitled to keep that. On the other hand, if you decide to do nothing, or just party..or whatever, everyone else in the world shouldn't be forced to pay you to do that.
By the way, I would say I grew up poor. Not as poor as some found in (for example) the delta regions of Mississippi or Arkansas, but certainly nowhere near what you would consider middle or lower-middle class. I can tell you for sure that I always knew I wanted better. And I'm certain even the poorest able-bodied person is also capable of knowing what he/she wants, no matter how much folks like yourself want to paint someone without money as also being unable to think.
Second, school teachers (and I assume you chose them as an example of a low-paid profession) absolutely did make a choice about entering such a career....they certainly weren't forced into it.
Even if you never drive a car, the publicly-funded roads benefit you by helping to reduce shipping costs for the products you buy.
Assuming I never drive a car, but buy lots of products, it's not likely I'm paying much for roads, since a large portion of the cost of roads comes from gasoline tax. So, this is sort of an inverse example. Of course it benefits me to gain benefit from something I never pay for.
Even if you never have kids, the publicly-funded school systems benefit you by helping to improve the education of those with whom you share a society (and to whom you might otherwise be contributing more tax dollars for welfare/entitlement programs).
First, even though I do pay for public schools, there are still lots of uneducated (or just stupid?) people around. So it seems my money is just being wasted. Second, the whole "you might otherwise be contributing more tax dollars for..." arguments is kind of silly. I question having to subsidize the activities of others, and you respond with "well, you would still have to do it anyway". The point is, if someone wants to be educated, they should have to pay for it. If they choose not to be educated (i.e. qualify for welfare, etc.) they should have to pay for that too (where in this case, "paying for it" means simply living with the consequences).
Two points:
1) I feel fairly certain that if I ever do use a library, it won't be often enough to offset the amount I will pay for it through the course of my life.
2) I'm not sure what you meant by "Not everything is about me", but I feel certain it's a reference to "poor people". Perhaps that's not what you were referring to, but it's already been mentioned once, so I'll go ahead and address that issue anway:
This may come as a surprise to many people, but most "poor people" are not poor because of something innate about themselves...such as, retardation, physical or mental. Most people who don't make a lot of money, do so because of bad choices they made. In some cases, it may have been too much partying at a young age, and not enough attention to thinking about the future (such as working on education, or some technical skills such as plumbing or carpentry...). In other cases, it may have simply been due to laziness.
In any case, for those who are truly unable to care for themselves, I do have compassion. I believe charity is a good thing, and we each have a responsibility to take care of our fellow man. However, for those who simply chose not to take care of themselves, I have no compassion. I do not feel negatively toward someone who chooses to be a bum. On the contrary, I would congratulate that person, as much as I would congratulate a person who achieved his dream of becoming a billionaire. Both are equally good dreams. I frequently dream of being able to sit on my porch all day long drinking a 40oz. But alas, I will probably never achieve that dream. Just as I do not have the fortitude it takes to become a doctor (all the studying and years of hard work for little pay), neither do I have the fortitude to resign myself to eating chicken, potatos and ramen noodles for the rest of my life. Maybe it's a character flaw.
For most people, being poor is a lifestyle choice. Some people couldn't care less about having nice clothes, eating good food, or any of the other thngs enjoyed by people who maintain a decent job. For those, they are willing to live a certain way to not have to work (or only work a little), or have the opportunity to party through thier 20's. There is nothing wrong with that choice, but the rest of us shouldn't be forced to subsidize that desire to do nothing anymore than everyone in the U.S. should be forced to send me $1.
people who actually use libraries would have to bear the cost of having the books availabe (through membership fees, donations, selling old books, whatever). I honestly don't think I've used a public library in the last 15-20 years (I'm only 27)...and I certainly don't think I should have to pay for something I never use.
The master slave does determine the clock speed of the controller....so it does indirectly "control" the workings of the slave. Granted, it may not be a control in the same sense that we would normally use the terms, but it's a fair proximity and alternate usage of the terms.
...against the emergence of new challenges such as... child pornography, which have convinced many governments of the need for international regulation and enforcement.
Sounds like a great idea, since third-world countries are so much better at controlling things like child pronography.
You sell an item for real-life cash. Your character (who happens to be a thief) transfers the item, in-game, to the buyer. The thief (strictly within the context of the game) then steals the item back. Should you have a legal ground to get paid still (assuming you haven't already received your money)? If you have already been paid, should he have legal ground to get his money back?
So, what if you wait a week before stealing the item back, does that change your answer?
Note: I never said "DOES he have legal ground", but rather chose the wording "SHOULD he lave legal ground", because I believe this is an issue of how things SHOULD BE rather than a debate on how things currently are. However, it could be discussed in either sense, I just find the former more interesting.
And I wouldn't work for you. Nor would I work for anyone who can't see a larger picture. A word having an alternate meaning in a very small context among a very small group of people doesn't necesitate that the alternate meaning should be forced upon the rest of the world.
The funny thing is, the people who originally started using the prefixes in this approximate way KNEW that was the case...it's idiots like yourself who passed first year CS and think too highly of themselves who have decided to file an equally idiotic lawsuit.
Perhaps you shouldn't read too much into the article....or learn something about binary math.
Noone (at least according to the article) is suggesting they altered in any way the meaning of the term byte. They are arguing that the HD manufacturers aren't holding true to the computer science definition of the terms mega, kilo and giga....which are incorrect definitions. The funny thing is, computer scientists know the terms are incorrect. They only used the terms as approximations.
It's hardly the fault of the HD manufacturers that these particular consumers know just enough about binary math to make asses of themselves, and make incorrect assumptions about the term giga.
but I also understand that the term "kilo" was only used (knowingly incorrectly) because it was APPROXIMATELY 1000. For a manufacturer to say "1000K" and actually mean 1000, is correct. Assuming he means 1024, is incorrect.
I'm glad these people are suing...and I hope their lawyers charge them out the ass at the end, they deserve it.
If I offer 10 widgets and 5 fidgets for a price, and deliver (for agreed upon price) 11 widgets and 5 fidgets, you can hardly complain because I didn't also deliver an extra 1/2 fidget.
The switchover happened when computer scientists started using Mega (1 Million) to refer to something other than 1 million (and kilo to be something other than 1000 and so on). HD manufacturers may have been true to the "computer science" use of MB early on, but they certainly weren't required to in any ethical sense. We have meanings for words for a reason. If a HD manufacture advertises 1K, and throws in an extra 24, great for all of us, but they only committed to 1000...not 1024.
I like how you casually dismiss the dictionary. If the dictionary is nothing else, at the very least it's a common acceptable explanation of usage of words. You can hardly hold someone at fault for using a term according to the usage defined in a dictionary.
Mega means "1 million". Computer scientists started using the term Mega to identify 2^20, which isn't actually 1 million....they were approximating.
In this case, it's the computer scientists who gave an alternate meaning to a common numerical term...not HD manufacturers.
even more careless with their health. Why stop smoking when
If smoking had no negative affects (either because of genetic engineering, or because of a "magic pill", or whatever...) it really isn't that careless of an act, now is it?
As someone who is as strongly opposed to patents as just about anyone on this planet, and who has argued time and again that MS never even had a monopoly....good point. It still concerns me, but only in a much larger sense (support of patents in general), rather than this particular ruling). While I agree that a thief "had it coming", it's still not right to allow thieves to practice their trade, even if they are only stealing from other thieves at the moment...
Slashdot Mirror
They got what they earned. "Lazy" is your word. Using that terms denotes a moral judgement. I'm not judging poor people, lazy or otherwise. I just don't think people who have been financially responsible should have to pay those who have been irresponsible, any more than I think irresponsible people should be *forced* to be responsible. Let people live the lives they choose to live. It's kind of like freedom...ya know?
Value is subjective. So there is no absolute value that can be placed on "...a generation of children with free access to the classic writings", although I think maybe you meant to phrase that as "...a generation of children with access to the classic writings" (without the "free").
However, since value is subjective, each person can reasonably place a value on his child, or himself, having access to classic writings. And that's where the free-market shines, and government funded things like libraries fail miserably. We don't all have the same interests/strengths, but a library can only hold so many books to try and cover all our interests...which very likely leads to a library with books not distributed in topics even close to the interests of the actual population.
If it's cheaper to fund schools than pay welfare for 50% of the population, then it's a better deal for everyone if we collectively fund schools instead of increased welfare.
Of course that's a true statement. But my whole point was that we should be paying for neither wefare, nor public education. You are trying to continue a debate on a premise that isn't agreed upon. The thing I would like to know is, how much would we be paying if neither of the above conditions existed. Also, I suspect their would be far (like something in the 90% range) few people unable to feed themselves if things like welfare didn't exist...but I'm certain we will never know.
It's not wether the life was "happily chosen", rather, it's simply a stance that people should get what they earn in general. If you work your ass off and make millions of dollars, you are entitled to keep that. On the other hand, if you decide to do nothing, or just party..or whatever, everyone else in the world shouldn't be forced to pay you to do that.
By the way, I would say I grew up poor. Not as poor as some found in (for example) the delta regions of Mississippi or Arkansas, but certainly nowhere near what you would consider middle or lower-middle class. I can tell you for sure that I always knew I wanted better. And I'm certain even the poorest able-bodied person is also capable of knowing what he/she wants, no matter how much folks like yourself want to paint someone without money as also being unable to think.
First, I never referred to anyone as a "bum".
Second, school teachers (and I assume you chose them as an example of a low-paid profession) absolutely did make a choice about entering such a career....they certainly weren't forced into it.
Even if you never drive a car, the publicly-funded roads benefit you by helping to reduce shipping costs for the products you buy.
Assuming I never drive a car, but buy lots of products, it's not likely I'm paying much for roads, since a large portion of the cost of roads comes from gasoline tax. So, this is sort of an inverse example. Of course it benefits me to gain benefit from something I never pay for.
Even if you never have kids, the publicly-funded school systems benefit you by helping to improve the education of those with whom you share a society (and to whom you might otherwise be contributing more tax dollars for welfare/entitlement programs).
First, even though I do pay for public schools, there are still lots of uneducated (or just stupid?) people around. So it seems my money is just being wasted. Second, the whole "you might otherwise be contributing more tax dollars for..." arguments is kind of silly. I question having to subsidize the activities of others, and you respond with "well, you would still have to do it anyway". The point is, if someone wants to be educated, they should have to pay for it. If they choose not to be educated (i.e. qualify for welfare, etc.) they should have to pay for that too (where in this case, "paying for it" means simply living with the consequences).
Two points:
1) I feel fairly certain that if I ever do use a library, it won't be often enough to offset the amount I will pay for it through the course of my life.
2) I'm not sure what you meant by "Not everything is about me", but I feel certain it's a reference to "poor people". Perhaps that's not what you were referring to, but it's already been mentioned once, so I'll go ahead and address that issue anway:
This may come as a surprise to many people, but most "poor people" are not poor because of something innate about themselves...such as, retardation, physical or mental. Most people who don't make a lot of money, do so because of bad choices they made. In some cases, it may have been too much partying at a young age, and not enough attention to thinking about the future (such as working on education, or some technical skills such as plumbing or carpentry...). In other cases, it may have simply been due to laziness.
In any case, for those who are truly unable to care for themselves, I do have compassion. I believe charity is a good thing, and we each have a responsibility to take care of our fellow man. However, for those who simply chose not to take care of themselves, I have no compassion. I do not feel negatively toward someone who chooses to be a bum. On the contrary, I would congratulate that person, as much as I would congratulate a person who achieved his dream of becoming a billionaire. Both are equally good dreams. I frequently dream of being able to sit on my porch all day long drinking a 40oz. But alas, I will probably never achieve that dream. Just as I do not have the fortitude it takes to become a doctor (all the studying and years of hard work for little pay), neither do I have the fortitude to resign myself to eating chicken, potatos and ramen noodles for the rest of my life. Maybe it's a character flaw.
For most people, being poor is a lifestyle choice. Some people couldn't care less about having nice clothes, eating good food, or any of the other thngs enjoyed by people who maintain a decent job. For those, they are willing to live a certain way to not have to work (or only work a little), or have the opportunity to party through thier 20's. There is nothing wrong with that choice, but the rest of us shouldn't be forced to subsidize that desire to do nothing anymore than everyone in the U.S. should be forced to send me $1.
and some of us don't believe a thing like a library should be a "public good"...but go right on shoving that down our throats.
But they would most certainly still be able to afford cable...
people who actually use libraries would have to bear the cost of having the books availabe (through membership fees, donations, selling old books, whatever). I honestly don't think I've used a public library in the last 15-20 years (I'm only 27)...and I certainly don't think I should have to pay for something I never use.
The master slave does determine the clock speed of the controller....so it does indirectly "control" the workings of the slave. Granted, it may not be a control in the same sense that we would normally use the terms, but it's a fair proximity and alternate usage of the terms.
...against the emergence of new challenges such as ... child pornography, which have convinced many governments of the need for international regulation and enforcement.
Sounds like a great idea, since third-world countries are so much better at controlling things like child pronography.
You sell an item for real-life cash. Your character (who happens to be a thief) transfers the item, in-game, to the buyer. The thief (strictly within the context of the game) then steals the item back. Should you have a legal ground to get paid still (assuming you haven't already received your money)? If you have already been paid, should he have legal ground to get his money back?
So, what if you wait a week before stealing the item back, does that change your answer?
Note: I never said "DOES he have legal ground", but rather chose the wording "SHOULD he lave legal ground", because I believe this is an issue of how things SHOULD BE rather than a debate on how things currently are. However, it could be discussed in either sense, I just find the former more interesting.
And I wouldn't work for you. Nor would I work for anyone who can't see a larger picture. A word having an alternate meaning in a very small context among a very small group of people doesn't necesitate that the alternate meaning should be forced upon the rest of the world.
The funny thing is, the people who originally started using the prefixes in this approximate way KNEW that was the case...it's idiots like yourself who passed first year CS and think too highly of themselves who have decided to file an equally idiotic lawsuit.
some computer scientist umpteen years ago decided to round 1024 to be a kilo....that doesn't make a standard.
You should really get over your first-year CS education...it doens't make you that special.
Perhaps you shouldn't read too much into the article....or learn something about binary math.
Noone (at least according to the article) is suggesting they altered in any way the meaning of the term byte. They are arguing that the HD manufacturers aren't holding true to the computer science definition of the terms mega, kilo and giga....which are incorrect definitions. The funny thing is, computer scientists know the terms are incorrect. They only used the terms as approximations.
It's hardly the fault of the HD manufacturers that these particular consumers know just enough about binary math to make asses of themselves, and make incorrect assumptions about the term giga.
but I also understand that the term "kilo" was only used (knowingly incorrectly) because it was APPROXIMATELY 1000. For a manufacturer to say "1000K" and actually mean 1000, is correct. Assuming he means 1024, is incorrect. I'm glad these people are suing...and I hope their lawyers charge them out the ass at the end, they deserve it.
If I offer 10 widgets and 5 fidgets for a price, and deliver (for agreed upon price) 11 widgets and 5 fidgets, you can hardly complain because I didn't also deliver an extra 1/2 fidget.
The switchover happened when computer scientists started using Mega (1 Million) to refer to something other than 1 million (and kilo to be something other than 1000 and so on). HD manufacturers may have been true to the "computer science" use of MB early on, but they certainly weren't required to in any ethical sense. We have meanings for words for a reason. If a HD manufacture advertises 1K, and throws in an extra 24, great for all of us, but they only committed to 1000...not 1024.
I like how you casually dismiss the dictionary. If the dictionary is nothing else, at the very least it's a common acceptable explanation of usage of words. You can hardly hold someone at fault for using a term according to the usage defined in a dictionary.
Mega means "1 million". Computer scientists started using the term Mega to identify 2^20, which isn't actually 1 million....they were approximating. In this case, it's the computer scientists who gave an alternate meaning to a common numerical term...not HD manufacturers.
even more careless with their health. Why stop smoking when
If smoking had no negative affects (either because of genetic engineering, or because of a "magic pill", or whatever...) it really isn't that careless of an act, now is it?
As someone who is as strongly opposed to patents as just about anyone on this planet, and who has argued time and again that MS never even had a monopoly....good point. It still concerns me, but only in a much larger sense (support of patents in general), rather than this particular ruling). While I agree that a thief "had it coming", it's still not right to allow thieves to practice their trade, even if they are only stealing from other thieves at the moment...
More FUD. That's simply not true.
You have no idea what you are talking about...I work there.
Has any MMORGP gone totally without duping problems? Not to my knowledge. Star Wars has only been out a month, and already had some (small) dupe bugs.
When that happens....maybe.