You are aware that in this nation one race held another as slaves until the 1860s? And then continued to systematically exploit the same race?
That's two life-times ago. The Stephen-Colbert-color-blindness is cute, but utterly ignorant.
The Black Belt needs help. The slums of the inner-city need help. Some white areas (Appalachia in particular) need help. And at the end of the day, it's a national security issue.
If we assume that smarter, academically successful people tend to make better teachers, then paying them more will get some of these people to become teachers instead of doctors, lawyers, and businesspeople.
No, there's no hard evidence that I'm aware of to support this claim. But I think it's fair to say that many lawyers would have chosen a different career path if they were looking at a teacher's salary in their future.
I actually think it's pretty stupid to _not_ think that more qualified people will enter the field if their paid better.
If the amount of time it would take to set up a MythTV box exceeds the equivalent of $900, then it is not a wise decision if your goal is saving money.
If not, then you can buy a TiVo. Which of course is based on Linux, so it's a FOSS solution anyway.
First, and foremost, -ALL- public sector jobs are unproductive tax fed jobs.
Are you kidding me? Police are unproductive? Firefighters are unproductive? Teachers do nothing of value if they happen to teach at public school?
It's one thing to argue that the private sector could do some things more efficiently, but you are oversimplifying economics to the point of uselessness. Of course taxes are higher when there are more government programs -- but parents will have to pay for their children's education whether it is through taxes or monthly bills. Sure, you could claim that we ought to move public institutions to private holders (which many believe is more expensive), but I don't think Ayn Rand herself would propose this considering the horrific state of the economy. There is just not enough capital to invest in these private-sector replacements nor are there enough middle-class families who could afford a private school's fees unless classrooms of 100 students are acceptable.
You have stated that there is an "excess" of government jobs that could be eliminated. Again, what are they?
"Shouldn't the least productive, public tax fed jobs be pruned first?"
And what jobs would those be?
And how would firing public sector workers help the private sector employees? The government didn't fire workers in the private sector to save jobs in the public sector, you know.
The bottom fraction don't pay taxes because they make so little above what they _have_ to spend to survive. Wages simply haven't kept pace with the cost of living. You seem to imply that the poor have a lobby that has screwed over the higher classes. Absolutely absurd.
You can use 'air quotes' to discredit research since anti-intellectualism is rather popular these days, but data is useful in economics. Here's someone who found some very compelling evidence for the commonly accepted premise that the middle class is disappearing:
Oh please. While the cost of living has been rising over the past five decades, real wages have been stagnant -- our middle class is dying because our government has neglected necessary social structures that don't build themselves outside of government control or encouragement.
The idea that the "poor" lobby has any power whatsoever is laughable. You Robin Hood scenario is as baseless as the existence of a vast class of "welfare queens".
A video game isn't (normally) a replication of a real activity -- it's an activity in and of itself. Just because it is based on a sport doesn't mean it's a simulation intended to replace said sport. Using your logic, people who play ping pong ought to go play tennis since ping pong was inspired by tennis (IIRC).
I don't really like bowling, but I like Wii Bowling. It's more convenient, cheaper, and much faster. Not to mention that I suck at bowling, and would have to invest a significant chunk of time and money to become proficient enough to actually enjoy it.
I find it hilarious that people spend their valuable time on Slashdot arguing that others aren't wasting their time the correct way.
2. It's pretty damn freezing. Tell me when I can wear shorts and a muscle T in December and I'll believe in AGW.
9. I'm freezing my ass off and could do with some global bloody warming right now. So where the hell is it?
These quotes show a complete lack of seriousness on your behalf. I don't believe you are actually this stupid.
The rest of your questions could be answered via Google, but you don't really care about the truth, do you?
ALL STORES GET THE WALMART APPROVED COPY, INCLUDING COMPETITORS
This is simple not true.
Many albums released have a Wal-Mart version and a version they sell elsewhere. I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is simple wrong.
Its too expensive to print the 'Walmart' copy, and the 'Everybody else' copy
Again, not true.
It is slightly more expensive to print different versions of a cover. But the cost of that is negligible. If a magazine cared enough, they could easily print two different covers. The fact is it doesn't matter enough to them.
I have no problem with so-called 'offensive' material, but I (or you) don't speak for a large portion of the market. Wal-Mart caters to the largest percentage of the market, and that is their choice.
Consumption, by definition, increases demand for goods. Increased demand for goods creates jobs. Jobs give people the means to buy what they want/need. This is good. Consumption helps these areas which are impoverished.
Your arguments are based on false economic ideas. Unfortunately, people rarely understand how economics works. Read up on the issue and I think you'll understand that the problems of the world are not formed by our culture but because of tyrannical or just plain stupid leaders of countries.
Leaving the realm of economics...you speak out against conformity in your post. I ask: what is so wrong with conforming? People don't understand that it is impossible to not conform. You must belong to some sort of 'crowd' to survive, both mentally and physically. You are not defined by the clothes you wear, what OS you use, what TV you own, or what bands you listen to. As such, don't reject something simply because it is popular. A lot of/.'ers seem to hate the idea that even a big company can have a good idea or product.
Compare the salary of a CEO in the 1980's to one today. The increase is far greater than that of inflation.
One likely reason is that companies do not want to pay the average wage for a CEO -- they want to pay for a "good" one. This raises the average, and companies have to pay more and more to hire a "good" CEO.
CEO's deserve big bucks if the actually make a difference. But it is shocking that a CEO gets paid so much money that could be instead invested into capital goods; seems like bad business to me.
Unless the non-protected version is below current CD quality, it will sound no different than the "high-quality" version.
CD's were designed to sound perfect. They are 16-bits...the human ear and only tell differences up to 13 or 14 bits. Of course the industry would like you to believe that a 'better' format exists, it does not. Recording studios actually worry about picking up the sound of air moving in a recording booth.
CD's could be made more durable, hold more music, or support more channels of sound, but the quality of sound is already perfect.
And let's face it...people don't want to think about copy-protection when they but a product.
Look, they are just proposing that videogames be subject to the same rules that violent/sexual movies are ALREADY subject to.
Not exactly.
The movie industry does this voluntarily. They invented the ratings. They also 'enforce' them...I grew a goatee when I was 15 and never was asked for identification when I tried to buy a ticket for an R movie.
This is a bit closer to the government prohibiting the sale of tabacco to minors. If a theatre breaks the movie policy it's no big deal--they didn't really break any law. But if a 7-11 sells cigarettes to minors? Bad stuff.
But you are 100% correct that worrying about 19/21 year-olds going 'overboard' when they play a violent video game is THE stupidest idea ever on Slashdot. There are arguments against implementing these laws...but that sure as hell isn't one.
The ideas are free... but the median can be charged for. That's basically what they do now. Why else would hardcover books sell at the price they charge for them? It makes sense -- I'd be more inclined to buy a book if I knew it was good.
Don't underestimate the social value of having a nice library.
1. Gives the impression the the porn industry is not trying to attract kids. The industry will ALWAYS be under attack, but this will (even though it wasn't their idea) give them a little bit of room to argue that they have compromised in the past. This is better than forcing the sites to verify that it's visitors are old enough.
2. It will keep the onus on the parents. It will also make it possible for them to prevent access to these sites. I'm not fully sure of this, but couldn't an ISP (at the parents request) prevent the loading of these sites? I'm sure ingenious child could circumvent it...but if he really wants it there's always Kazaa.
3. It will help in your web-surfing experience. You could tell your browser to not visit sites that are.prn sites. Pretty simple really...and prevents those million pop-up porn traps that plague all of our surfing experiences.
4. And yes, it will keep kids away from porn. Junior won't run into 'whitehouse.com' and wonder why the govenment consist of hot naked females. And this is, at least for kids, a good thing.
Travel the world and the seven seas...I am watching you from a camera!
As it is now, the cost of a CD (getting up around 20$) is outrageous. I can buy a DVD (sometimes two) for that price. For this reason I don't feel so bad downloaded music for free. I can honestly say I would not buy 99% of the stuff I download at that cost.
Buuuuut...if I can download a track for 20c, or a full CD in the $2 to $2.50 range, I'm going to have some trouble downloading music without having that twang of guilt.
And let's say only 10% of the people change to paying for their MP3's...which is a conservative guess in my opinion. That's still a LOT of money -- a lot of money that the recording companies/artists did not get previously.
Allow me to play devil's advocate and say this might not be such an awful idea, so long as it is clear that it is a redone film and that the original is mentioned somewhere during the credits.
Any American who claims to understand this film entirely is mistaken...the plot and meaning of all of the elements is understandable, but none of us fully understand the culture and context the story exists in. Think about most any American film...it doesn't translate verbatim to Japanses culture. Do they really understand Pulp Fiction? No...the conversations lose their touch when it's not in your native language. Does American Pie translate well at all? Doubt it...their culture is very different than ours.
I'm expecting nothing spectacular, but it might be good. I wish him luck!
I stand (or sit) corrected on the population issue. But China could still make a hell of a mess over in Europe/Asia and do quite a bit with a few alliances. You are correct that population doesn't decide everything in war, but it is an important factor to consider.
The 4th point clarification: The original message stated that the money could better be spent on solving poverty or other issues. Government spending is a great way to help solve this. Putting money in the hands of people (by paying them for products, in this case of military nature) and people with money in there hands spend it. Those who get money buy selling them goods or services will spend it...and the cycle continues. This would reduce poverty.
Thanks for setting me strait about those first few points though...I feel a bit relieved:).
you must concede that the United States already has by far the most technologically advanced military in the world, and even without devices like this no other country can seriously challenge the United States in a conventional war
Wrong.
Superior technology != victory in war.
Someone may have already mentioned China. The US has ~220 million citizens last I heard. China has billions. Granted, transporting anyone over would be tough, but China could obliterate Asia and Europe in a few decades pretty easily if it had the desire.
And how about this technology for defense? Technology needs to continue to progress for one to compete in ANY realm...be it business or in military. We could back from finding new technology in the military, but surely nobody else would. Complacency has been the end of many civilizations.
Now for the economic advantage...the government is spending money on a PRODUCT. This money goes into employees hands and they spend it. Then those who they paid for product/service spend it again. This is the beauty of economics. Government spending is GOOD for the economy, regardless of what political alignment you are. This money could be spent on saving trees or welfare...but our the economic benefits are nil.
Slashdot Mirror
You are aware that in this nation one race held another as slaves until the 1860s? And then continued to systematically exploit the same race?
That's two life-times ago. The Stephen-Colbert-color-blindness is cute, but utterly ignorant.
The Black Belt needs help. The slums of the inner-city need help. Some white areas (Appalachia in particular) need help. And at the end of the day, it's a national security issue.
Citation needed
The problem with a post-xian society is that multicultural secularism isn't able to combat forces that are pre-post-islam.
This is patently absurd.
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. How is it that only a Christian nation can fight it?
You've got to at least attempt to justify your non-obvious claims.
If we assume that smarter, academically successful people tend to make better teachers, then paying them more will get some of these people to become teachers instead of doctors, lawyers, and businesspeople.
No, there's no hard evidence that I'm aware of to support this claim. But I think it's fair to say that many lawyers would have chosen a different career path if they were looking at a teacher's salary in their future.
I actually think it's pretty stupid to _not_ think that more qualified people will enter the field if their paid better.
If the amount of time it would take to set up a MythTV box exceeds the equivalent of $900, then it is not a wise decision if your goal is saving money.
If not, then you can buy a TiVo. Which of course is based on Linux, so it's a FOSS solution anyway.
First, and foremost, -ALL- public sector jobs are unproductive tax fed jobs.
Are you kidding me? Police are unproductive? Firefighters are unproductive? Teachers do nothing of value if they happen to teach at public school?
It's one thing to argue that the private sector could do some things more efficiently, but you are oversimplifying economics to the point of uselessness. Of course taxes are higher when there are more government programs -- but parents will have to pay for their children's education whether it is through taxes or monthly bills. Sure, you could claim that we ought to move public institutions to private holders (which many believe is more expensive), but I don't think Ayn Rand herself would propose this considering the horrific state of the economy. There is just not enough capital to invest in these private-sector replacements nor are there enough middle-class families who could afford a private school's fees unless classrooms of 100 students are acceptable.
You have stated that there is an "excess" of government jobs that could be eliminated. Again, what are they?
"Shouldn't the least productive, public tax fed jobs be pruned first?"
And what jobs would those be?
And how would firing public sector workers help the private sector employees? The government didn't fire workers in the private sector to save jobs in the public sector, you know.
The bottom fraction don't pay taxes because they make so little above what they _have_ to spend to survive. Wages simply haven't kept pace with the cost of living. You seem to imply that the poor have a lobby that has screwed over the higher classes. Absolutely absurd.
You can use 'air quotes' to discredit research since anti-intellectualism is rather popular these days, but data is useful in economics. Here's someone who found some very compelling evidence for the commonly accepted premise that the middle class is disappearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
Oh please. While the cost of living has been rising over the past five decades, real wages have been stagnant -- our middle class is dying because our government has neglected necessary social structures that don't build themselves outside of government control or encouragement.
The idea that the "poor" lobby has any power whatsoever is laughable. You Robin Hood scenario is as baseless as the existence of a vast class of "welfare queens".
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257&tid=107
A quick perusing shows many highly-modded comments extolling the iPod, and no comments supporting your claims.
Ditto for the iPod Mini.
A video game isn't (normally) a replication of a real activity -- it's an activity in and of itself. Just because it is based on a sport doesn't mean it's a simulation intended to replace said sport. Using your logic, people who play ping pong ought to go play tennis since ping pong was inspired by tennis (IIRC).
I don't really like bowling, but I like Wii Bowling. It's more convenient, cheaper, and much faster. Not to mention that I suck at bowling, and would have to invest a significant chunk of time and money to become proficient enough to actually enjoy it.
I find it hilarious that people spend their valuable time on Slashdot arguing that others aren't wasting their time the correct way.
2. It's pretty damn freezing. Tell me when I can wear shorts and a muscle T in December and I'll believe in AGW.
9. I'm freezing my ass off and could do with some global bloody warming right now. So where the hell is it?
These quotes show a complete lack of seriousness on your behalf. I don't believe you are actually this stupid. The rest of your questions could be answered via Google, but you don't really care about the truth, do you?
ALL STORES GET THE WALMART APPROVED COPY, INCLUDING COMPETITORS
This is simple not true.
Many albums released have a Wal-Mart version and a version they sell elsewhere. I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is simple wrong.
Its too expensive to print the 'Walmart' copy, and the 'Everybody else' copy
Again, not true.
It is slightly more expensive to print different versions of a cover. But the cost of that is negligible. If a magazine cared enough, they could easily print two different covers. The fact is it doesn't matter enough to them.
I have no problem with so-called 'offensive' material, but I (or you) don't speak for a large portion of the market. Wal-Mart caters to the largest percentage of the market, and that is their choice.
Find something else to whine about.
-Matt
University of California at Berkel
Methinks the author means Berkeley.
-Matt
Goodbye karma...I shall miss thee...
/.'ers seem to hate the idea that even a big company can have a good idea or product.
Consumption, by definition, increases demand for goods. Increased demand for goods creates jobs. Jobs give people the means to buy what they want/need. This is good. Consumption helps these areas which are impoverished.
Your arguments are based on false economic ideas. Unfortunately, people rarely understand how economics works. Read up on the issue and I think you'll understand that the problems of the world are not formed by our culture but because of tyrannical or just plain stupid leaders of countries.
Leaving the realm of economics...you speak out against conformity in your post. I ask: what is so wrong with conforming? People don't understand that it is impossible to not conform. You must belong to some sort of 'crowd' to survive, both mentally and physically. You are not defined by the clothes you wear, what OS you use, what TV you own, or what bands you listen to. As such, don't reject something simply because it is popular. A lot of
Why is it shocking they're paid so much?
Compare the salary of a CEO in the 1980's to one today. The increase is far greater than that of inflation.
One likely reason is that companies do not want to pay the average wage for a CEO -- they want to pay for a "good" one. This raises the average, and companies have to pay more and more to hire a "good" CEO.
CEO's deserve big bucks if the actually make a difference. But it is shocking that a CEO gets paid so much money that could be instead invested into capital goods; seems like bad business to me.
-Matt
Unless the non-protected version is below current CD quality, it will sound no different than the "high-quality" version.
CD's were designed to sound perfect. They are 16-bits...the human ear and only tell differences up to 13 or 14 bits. Of course the industry would like you to believe that a 'better' format exists, it does not. Recording studios actually worry about picking up the sound of air moving in a recording booth.
CD's could be made more durable, hold more music, or support more channels of sound, but the quality of sound is already perfect.
And let's face it...people don't want to think about copy-protection when they but a product.
-Matt
Look, they are just proposing that videogames be subject to the same rules that violent/sexual movies are ALREADY subject to.
Not exactly.
The movie industry does this voluntarily. They invented the ratings. They also 'enforce' them...I grew a goatee when I was 15 and never was asked for identification when I tried to buy a ticket for an R movie.
This is a bit closer to the government prohibiting the sale of tabacco to minors. If a theatre breaks the movie policy it's no big deal--they didn't really break any law. But if a 7-11 sells cigarettes to minors? Bad stuff.
But you are 100% correct that worrying about 19/21 year-olds going 'overboard' when they play a violent video game is THE stupidest idea ever on Slashdot. There are arguments against implementing these laws...but that sure as hell isn't one.
-Matt
The ideas are free... but the median can be charged for. That's basically what they do now. Why else would hardcover books sell at the price they charge for them? It makes sense -- I'd be more inclined to buy a book if I knew it was good.
Don't underestimate the social value of having a nice library.
For a few reasons:
.prn sites. Pretty simple really...and prevents those million pop-up porn traps that plague all of our surfing experiences.
1. Gives the impression the the porn industry is not trying to attract kids. The industry will ALWAYS be under attack, but this will (even though it wasn't their idea) give them a little bit of room to argue that they have compromised in the past. This is better than forcing the sites to verify that it's visitors are old enough.
2. It will keep the onus on the parents. It will also make it possible for them to prevent access to these sites. I'm not fully sure of this, but couldn't an ISP (at the parents request) prevent the loading of these sites? I'm sure ingenious child could circumvent it...but if he really wants it there's always Kazaa.
3. It will help in your web-surfing experience. You could tell your browser to not visit sites that are
4. And yes, it will keep kids away from porn. Junior won't run into 'whitehouse.com' and wonder why the govenment consist of hot naked females. And this is, at least for kids, a good thing.
Travel the world and the seven seas...I am watching you from a camera!
I disagree.
As it is now, the cost of a CD (getting up around 20$) is outrageous. I can buy a DVD (sometimes two) for that price. For this reason I don't feel so bad downloaded music for free. I can honestly say I would not buy 99% of the stuff I download at that cost.
Buuuuut...if I can download a track for 20c, or a full CD in the $2 to $2.50 range, I'm going to have some trouble downloading music without having that twang of guilt.
And let's say only 10% of the people change to paying for their MP3's...which is a conservative guess in my opinion. That's still a LOT of money -- a lot of money that the recording companies/artists did not get previously.
Don't underestimate people's scruples.
Rediculous. Preposterous. Idiotic. Stupid. Video games addictive? HA!
I'd write more but I have a great game of Civ going...
Allow me to play devil's advocate and say this might not be such an awful idea, so long as it is clear that it is a redone film and that the original is mentioned somewhere during the credits.
Any American who claims to understand this film entirely is mistaken...the plot and meaning of all of the elements is understandable, but none of us fully understand the culture and context the story exists in. Think about most any American film...it doesn't translate verbatim to Japanses culture. Do they really understand Pulp Fiction? No...the conversations lose their touch when it's not in your native language. Does American Pie translate well at all? Doubt it...their culture is very different than ours.
I'm expecting nothing spectacular, but it might be good. I wish him luck!
Matt
I stand (or sit) corrected on the population issue. But China could still make a hell of a mess over in Europe/Asia and do quite a bit with a few alliances. You are correct that population doesn't decide everything in war, but it is an important factor to consider.
:).
The 4th point clarification: The original message stated that the money could better be spent on solving poverty or other issues. Government spending is a great way to help solve this. Putting money in the hands of people (by paying them for products, in this case of military nature) and people with money in there hands spend it. Those who get money buy selling them goods or services will spend it...and the cycle continues. This would reduce poverty.
Thanks for setting me strait about those first few points though...I feel a bit relieved
--Matt
you must concede that the United States already has by far the most technologically advanced military in the world, and even without devices like this no other country can seriously challenge the United States in a conventional war
Wrong.
Superior technology != victory in war.
Someone may have already mentioned China. The US has ~220 million citizens last I heard. China has billions. Granted, transporting anyone over would be tough, but China could obliterate Asia and Europe in a few decades pretty easily if it had the desire.
And how about this technology for defense? Technology needs to continue to progress for one to compete in ANY realm...be it business or in military. We could back from finding new technology in the military, but surely nobody else would. Complacency has been the end of many civilizations.
Now for the economic advantage...the government is spending money on a PRODUCT. This money goes into employees hands and they spend it. Then those who they paid for product/service spend it again. This is the beauty of economics. Government spending is GOOD for the economy, regardless of what political alignment you are. This money could be spent on saving trees or welfare...but our the economic benefits are nil.
Go USA.
--Matt