1. They were asking for 'healthcare reform', not mandatory insurance.
I tend to agree. Moreover, when something is mandatory it is NOT insurance. It is really more of a tax -- collected from everyone and providing societal benefits to all.
2. Just becasue people think they need something, that doesn't mean it's a priority.
Are you a politician by trade? That must be the kind of logic allowing our elected politicians to blithely ignore things that a majority of people (even across parties) demand. If 80% of people want something, you'd think that _would_ make it a priority for democratically elected representatives? They are elected to represent, not to make unilateral decisions for the unwashed masses.
Weird. Last I looked 'unemployment' was going down, but so was the number of Americans with jobs.
There is a logical explanation to that! Unemployment only considers people who are LOOKING for work (in last 6 months, I think). So if 100,000 people lose their jobs, but 200,000 people stop looking for work, then you have an effective reduction in unemployment rate (since the total effect is there are 100,000 LESS people who are considered "unemployed").
It's a somewhat skewed system.
Sure, you can just take a "complete works of [author name]", read it once cover to cover, and think you understood it, but it's almost certain you didn't.
Personally I strongly dislike the theory that to really "understand" someone works you need to have many experts who will tell you about the real deep hidden meaning. Obviously, that's not an option with Shakespear/Bible, but there had been plenty of cases where the original author was quite surprised to learn what his/her work actually meant, because they had no idea despite actually writing it.
So no one can understand literary works (not even the author), unless a few experts properly analyze it? Does that apply to all works, or just "serious" works? Do we need literary experts to sift through the x-men comics to research and properly understand?
You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.
The one thing I do not understand is why is this happening in so many countries. Is it that easy to get rich everywhere - just make ridiculous, useless, 6-figure machines? In London, there is not even a pat-down option if you are selected (so I am not flying out of there).
And who benefits from the ridiculous 3-ounce liquid rules, besides the vendors inside airports??
"I'm just doing my job" is the standard rationalization.
More importantly -- "I'm just doing the job and if I didn't, someone else will step in to replace me in a heartbeat", which is even true.
We don't even know if this was the 2nd or the 3rd law firm that agreed to do the work.
Maybe the right question is, are you getting a worse ratio-vs.-price situation than is found in most markets in your country?
You say that like there IS a market in US (Centurylink seems to be a US provider). So what if price/ratio is really bad? What is the poster going to do -- pack up and move to get better internet??
few of them will be hired back (probably at much higher rates than they originally worked)
Contractors get no benefits/health insurance and each 100K of full-time salary can easily cost 160K-180K when you factor in all the benefits (health insurance, 401K matching, self-employed tax subsidies, paid vacation, the list goes on and on....).
This does not invalidate your point, but I'd add that if these employees are rehired as "contractors" at 50% higher rate, the company will likely end up saving money as a result (for CEO bonuses and such).
The revolution of automotive transport put a lot of horse dung collectors out of work too. Society should advance. Period. That that means some jobs are erased is a good thing.
I don't know if anyone (except RIAA) is arguing against that. But I am sick and tired of them claiming that this is done to improve economy and that they are gonna save lots of money and hire lots of people. That part is bullshit -- they are going to sit on the money and maybe hand out small dividents. If they needed "core" hires, they would have already made these hires. Few companies are making hiring decisions based on whether they currently have any cash available.
They knowingly and willingly over sold their infrastructure (bait) and now that customers are trying to use the service they signed up for, their service is being throttled (switch). Period.
Keep in mind that by now the grand-fathered plans are probably expired and are month-to-month at this point. I don't know that they guaranteed to provide unlimited bandwidth to their customers in perpetuity...
And even if they weren't month-to-month, anyone would be able to break that contract due to provider pushed changes.
Better yet, get rid of the ridiculous idea of "data plans" in the first place. Charge users a certain per-megabyte fee...
That would not benefit the provider, so that won't happen
The beauty of tiered plans is that everyone overpays. You either pay for stuff you don't use (like on those months when you don't use 3Gigs or whatever your tier is), AND you get the privilege of paying a ridiculously high price for going over limit ($10/1G, seriously?). Naturally, they encourage you to plan high, pointing out that over-plan costs are very high.
And since humans lack the capacity to predict their monthly usage, EVERYONE overpays - one way or another. Allowing you to buy what you need stops the overpaying bonanza.
The answer is so obvious to get your own laptop that I can't believe this even made it on the boards. Slow nerd day?
And I can't believe this hit +4 Insightful, so that makes us even. The answer is obvious, but that's an answer to a DIFFERENT QUESTION. Very common on slashdot.
He (she?) very specifically mentions travel, and having one laptop is hassle enough to travel (airport security, general weight of your bag, etc.). Buying a 2nd laptop is not practical. You might as well carry a desktop around.
Not its not. "Buy yourself another laptop" is not a smart response at all! What is wrong with people who want to answer their own questions rather than the question asked? How retarded do you think the question originator is, anyway? Would they not think of such elegant solution on their own?? The original description specifically mentions travel, and having ONE laptop is hassle enough in the airport and weight-wise. Carrying a 2nd laptop defeats the whole "portability" factor.
The smart answers are "Carry a swappable hard drive for personal use" or "Have an external drive plus a live Knopplix boot drive".
And yes, trying to swap images on a work drive is a bad, bad idea, no argument here.
You're absolutely right--and as many other people in this thread have pointed out, the appropriate response to this if you do not like it is, very simply: do not give that company your business.
Problem is, they are not disclosing everything in big red letters. If I buy a game, I reasonably expect single-player to run without internet connection. I also expect that I will be able to re-sell that game. Because I certainly know that there is no way in hell I can return the game if it is not adequate
Otherwise they sell me a game that is defective and I am left with no recourse. Would be better if I could make the decisions to not give them money _before_ I purchase.
Software as a service... Is never a good idea for the purchaser.
Why do you say that? Game as a service _may_ be a good idea for the purchaser. Of course game publishers implemented it in the greediest way possible, so it isn't currently. For example, if I could subscribe to World of Warcraft for a month and try it out, I probably would. But somehow I need to pay $60 for the game and _then_ the monthly subscription. Game itself should be free if you are selling a service.
It would also be nice to encourage more use of bicycles (and even walking) as an alternative to the almighty automobile
There are very few bike lanes on US roads. Sometimes there aren't even good sidewalks. Bicyclists weaving between cars are a terrible traffic hazard in my opinion.
The problem lies with the rest of the population who didn't do their part to protest, not the government passing a law.
No, no. The problem lies with politicians operating on an assumption that any legislation is ok as long as 50% of people aren't protesting on the street. Elected politicians are supposed to represent the population. It's their job.
What is sorely needed is an easy mechanism to initiate a vote of no confidence (and if 51% vote to recall, politician immediately gets removed from post and banned from running for 2 years). If a legislation that pissed off a lot of people had such potential consequence (and SOPA appears to qualify), politicians would be so much more careful in what they vote for. As it stands, by the time they are running for re-election 2+ years may have passed...
They all failed because they can't compete with China.
According to what I read, they failed because they thought people would pay more for good product. Something to the tune of 30% extra for better quality panels. Last decade had shown the opposite trend, where people would buy things at 1/2 quality that don't last a full year, as long as it saves 15% off the price.
Same shit as passive safety systems, window mounted stop lights, seatbelts and so on.
No, it isn't. A number of posters estimated that optimistic cases (i.e. where all deaths are prevented) will work out to $7-$12M/person. Without any analysis, I am going to guess that seatbelts have a much lower cost per life saved ratio
There are probably better ways to spend the money and save more human lives per $ million.
continue to pay Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year to people who hate our guts and will kill after we (inadvertently) burn some of their holy books (despite our president's gracious apology).
Are you F**CKING kidding me? They don't hate our guts for burning a holy book. They hate our guts for killing their civilians by automated drones. As far as I know, our president has not yet to apologized for any of the civilians killed by the unmanned drones.
Until PayPal is regulated by the federal government as a bank properly (which they are, de facto) only an idiot would do business with them.
Oh, how I hate crusaders on a high horse. Only idiots or people who make money selling on eBay or people making donations, you mean? Do you really expect all people to stop using eBay (to sell and buy) and to stop donating money (most organizations only take Paypal) until Paypal is regulated? I mean, where is that ideal world in which you live?
For the record, Paypal is bad and should be regulated or disbanded. But it is not only a de-facto bank, but also a de-facto monopoly for a number of things that people may have to use.
Or wire transfer, or money orders, or checks, or credit cards, or cash in an envelope...
How stupid do you think we are? I'd love to fully boycott Paypal, but have you ever _tried_ to pay with any of the above methods? No one on eBay would accept it (anymore). International recipients (for donations) can't take money orders or checks or cash. And do you know how much bank wire transfers cost? Also, often times when a small vendor "takes credit cards", they still mean Paypal
I mean, seriously, are you just listing payment methods, or have you given any thought to the practicality here?
There are times when Paypal is _required_ to use. Sometimes I need eBay, for example. Sometimes a cause I care about is only accepting Paypal donations (esp. if they are not based in US). If we had a viable competitor, it'd be much easier to boycott Paypal. You know, if Paypal weren't a de-facto monopoly in a number of areas.
Slashdot Mirror
1. They were asking for 'healthcare reform', not mandatory insurance.
I tend to agree. Moreover, when something is mandatory it is NOT insurance. It is really more of a tax -- collected from everyone and providing societal benefits to all.
2. Just becasue people think they need something, that doesn't mean it's a priority.
Are you a politician by trade? That must be the kind of logic allowing our elected politicians to blithely ignore things that a majority of people (even across parties) demand. If 80% of people want something, you'd think that _would_ make it a priority for democratically elected representatives? They are elected to represent, not to make unilateral decisions for the unwashed masses.
Weird. Last I looked 'unemployment' was going down, but so was the number of Americans with jobs.
There is a logical explanation to that! Unemployment only considers people who are LOOKING for work (in last 6 months, I think). So if 100,000 people lose their jobs, but 200,000 people stop looking for work, then you have an effective reduction in unemployment rate (since the total effect is there are 100,000 LESS people who are considered "unemployed").
It's a somewhat skewed system.
Sure, you can just take a "complete works of [author name]", read it once cover to cover, and think you understood it, but it's almost certain you didn't.
Personally I strongly dislike the theory that to really "understand" someone works you need to have many experts who will tell you about the real deep hidden meaning. Obviously, that's not an option with Shakespear/Bible, but there had been plenty of cases where the original author was quite surprised to learn what his/her work actually meant, because they had no idea despite actually writing it.
So no one can understand literary works (not even the author), unless a few experts properly analyze it? Does that apply to all works, or just "serious" works? Do we need literary experts to sift through the x-men comics to research and properly understand?
You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.
The one thing I do not understand is why is this happening in so many countries. Is it that easy to get rich everywhere - just make ridiculous, useless, 6-figure machines? In London, there is not even a pat-down option if you are selected (so I am not flying out of there).
And who benefits from the ridiculous 3-ounce liquid rules, besides the vendors inside airports??
"I'm just doing my job" is the standard rationalization.
More importantly -- "I'm just doing the job and if I didn't, someone else will step in to replace me in a heartbeat", which is even true.
We don't even know if this was the 2nd or the 3rd law firm that agreed to do the work.
Well, at least in my area we have two high-speed providers competing for my business: Cox, and Verizon FiOS.
Does Verizon require having a landline telephone? Do people without a landline have the same choice?
I haven't had one since 2002.
Maybe the right question is, are you getting a worse ratio-vs.-price situation than is found in most markets in your country?
You say that like there IS a market in US (Centurylink seems to be a US provider). So what if price/ratio is really bad? What is the poster going to do -- pack up and move to get better internet??
The self destructing DVDs weren't a terrible idea.
I think the environment disagrees with that. Only the digital content self-destructed.
few of them will be hired back (probably at much higher rates than they originally worked)
Contractors get no benefits/health insurance and each 100K of full-time salary can easily cost 160K-180K when you factor in all the benefits (health insurance, 401K matching, self-employed tax subsidies, paid vacation, the list goes on and on....).
This does not invalidate your point, but I'd add that if these employees are rehired as "contractors" at 50% higher rate, the company will likely end up saving money as a result (for CEO bonuses and such).
The revolution of automotive transport put a lot of horse dung collectors out of work too. Society should advance. Period. That that means some jobs are erased is a good thing.
I don't know if anyone (except RIAA) is arguing against that. But I am sick and tired of them claiming that this is done to improve economy and that they are gonna save lots of money and hire lots of people. That part is bullshit -- they are going to sit on the money and maybe hand out small dividents. If they needed "core" hires, they would have already made these hires. Few companies are making hiring decisions based on whether they currently have any cash available.
They knowingly and willingly over sold their infrastructure (bait) and now that customers are trying to use the service they signed up for, their service is being throttled (switch). Period.
Keep in mind that by now the grand-fathered plans are probably expired and are month-to-month at this point. I don't know that they guaranteed to provide unlimited bandwidth to their customers in perpetuity...
And even if they weren't month-to-month, anyone would be able to break that contract due to provider pushed changes.
Better yet, get rid of the ridiculous idea of "data plans" in the first place. Charge users a certain per-megabyte fee...
That would not benefit the provider, so that won't happen
The beauty of tiered plans is that everyone overpays. You either pay for stuff you don't use (like on those months when you don't use 3Gigs or whatever your tier is), AND you get the privilege of paying a ridiculously high price for going over limit ($10/1G, seriously?). Naturally, they encourage you to plan high, pointing out that over-plan costs are very high.
And since humans lack the capacity to predict their monthly usage, EVERYONE overpays - one way or another. Allowing you to buy what you need stops the overpaying bonanza.
The answer is so obvious to get your own laptop that I can't believe this even made it on the boards. Slow nerd day?
And I can't believe this hit +4 Insightful, so that makes us even. The answer is obvious, but that's an answer to a DIFFERENT QUESTION. Very common on slashdot.
He (she?) very specifically mentions travel, and having one laptop is hassle enough to travel (airport security, general weight of your bag, etc.). Buying a 2nd laptop is not practical. You might as well carry a desktop around.
Smartest thing I've read all day.
Not its not. "Buy yourself another laptop" is not a smart response at all! What is wrong with people who want to answer their own questions rather than the question asked? How retarded do you think the question originator is, anyway? Would they not think of such elegant solution on their own?? The original description specifically mentions travel, and having ONE laptop is hassle enough in the airport and weight-wise. Carrying a 2nd laptop defeats the whole "portability" factor.
The smart answers are "Carry a swappable hard drive for personal use" or "Have an external drive plus a live Knopplix boot drive".
And yes, trying to swap images on a work drive is a bad, bad idea, no argument here.
You're absolutely right--and as many other people in this thread have pointed out, the appropriate response to this if you do not like it is, very simply: do not give that company your business.
Problem is, they are not disclosing everything in big red letters. If I buy a game, I reasonably expect single-player to run without internet connection. I also expect that I will be able to re-sell that game. Because I certainly know that there is no way in hell I can return the game if it is not adequate
Otherwise they sell me a game that is defective and I am left with no recourse. Would be better if I could make the decisions to not give them money _before_ I purchase.
Software as a service ... Is never a good idea for the purchaser.
Why do you say that? Game as a service _may_ be a good idea for the purchaser. Of course game publishers implemented it in the greediest way possible, so it isn't currently. For example, if I could subscribe to World of Warcraft for a month and try it out, I probably would. But somehow I need to pay $60 for the game and _then_ the monthly subscription. Game itself should be free if you are selling a service.
It would also be nice to encourage more use of bicycles (and even walking) as an alternative to the almighty automobile
There are very few bike lanes on US roads. Sometimes there aren't even good sidewalks. Bicyclists weaving between cars are a terrible traffic hazard in my opinion.
The problem lies with the rest of the population who didn't do their part to protest, not the government passing a law.
No, no. The problem lies with politicians operating on an assumption that any legislation is ok as long as 50% of people aren't protesting on the street. Elected politicians are supposed to represent the population. It's their job.
What is sorely needed is an easy mechanism to initiate a vote of no confidence (and if 51% vote to recall, politician immediately gets removed from post and banned from running for 2 years). If a legislation that pissed off a lot of people had such potential consequence (and SOPA appears to qualify), politicians would be so much more careful in what they vote for. As it stands, by the time they are running for re-election 2+ years may have passed...
They all failed because they can't compete with China.
According to what I read, they failed because they thought people would pay more for good product. Something to the tune of 30% extra for better quality panels. Last decade had shown the opposite trend, where people would buy things at 1/2 quality that don't last a full year, as long as it saves 15% off the price.
Same shit as passive safety systems, window mounted stop lights, seatbelts and so on.
No, it isn't. A number of posters estimated that optimistic cases (i.e. where all deaths are prevented) will work out to $7-$12M/person. Without any analysis, I am going to guess that seatbelts have a much lower cost per life saved ratio
There are probably better ways to spend the money and save more human lives per $ million.
continue to pay Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year to people who hate our guts and will kill after we (inadvertently) burn some of their holy books (despite our president's gracious apology).
Are you F**CKING kidding me? They don't hate our guts for burning a holy book. They hate our guts for killing their civilians by automated drones. As far as I know, our president has not yet to apologized for any of the civilians killed by the unmanned drones.
Until PayPal is regulated by the federal government as a bank properly (which they are, de facto) only an idiot would do business with them.
Oh, how I hate crusaders on a high horse. Only idiots or people who make money selling on eBay or people making donations, you mean?
Do you really expect all people to stop using eBay (to sell and buy) and to stop donating money (most organizations only take Paypal) until Paypal is regulated? I mean, where is that ideal world in which you live?
For the record, Paypal is bad and should be regulated or disbanded. But it is not only a de-facto bank, but also a de-facto monopoly for a number of things that people may have to use.
Or wire transfer, or money orders, or checks, or credit cards, or cash in an envelope...
How stupid do you think we are? I'd love to fully boycott Paypal, but have you ever _tried_ to pay with any of the above methods? No one on eBay would accept it (anymore). International recipients (for donations) can't take money orders or checks or cash. And do you know how much bank wire transfers cost? Also, often times when a small vendor "takes credit cards", they still mean Paypal
I mean, seriously, are you just listing payment methods, or have you given any thought to the practicality here?
Yet another reason to NOT use Paypal ever...
There are times when Paypal is _required_ to use. Sometimes I need eBay, for example. Sometimes a cause I care about is only accepting Paypal donations (esp. if they are not based in US). If we had a viable competitor, it'd be much easier to boycott Paypal. You know, if Paypal weren't a de-facto monopoly in a number of areas.
Ever seen those Faces of Meth advertisements? It's quite harmful to the user as well as the bystander.
And the harm to the bystanders comes from the heart attacks caused the scary sight of "Faces of Meth"? We should also ban the documentaries then.