China is collectivist. It's common in Eastern Asia cultures.
Socialist governments do care for their people, more than the US does. They aren't perfect. The US has been lowering the standard of living of millions and millions of people, FWIW.
Right. Communists committed many megamurders. Nobody's arguing about that.
I'm talking about the rate of megamurders. I'm saying that, if Germany and Japan hadn't been stopped in WWII, but had been able to continue killing people, their totals would have exceeded Communist totals. In addition, they also had really nasty dictatorships, so the government types are comparably horrible.
Let's see. They don't have to make a more durable phone for Europe, they just charge more.
Also, your claims of damage are completely contrary to my experience and every statistic I've seen on the subject. Either your cow-orkers are doing unspeakable things with their phones, or you're making this up.
The plaintiffs could indeed show a design flaw and Apple could be legally required to do something about it. The court has said that Apple is not required to honor a warranty it never issued.
Have you ever dealt with Apple's customer service? It's great. Apple has also been known to take care of customers at their own expense. Remember the iPhone 4 complaints? Apple gave every purchaser a free iPhone case of pretty good quality. My case was just fine after three years when I got a 5S.
At what profit point should a company eat any unexpected customer expense? Let's get specific here. Apple is a business. It is the primary purpose of a business to make money. Now, Apple often does eat such costs as part of being nice to their customers, in fact, and if you want a longer warranty you can pay more. In my experience, their stuff is sufficiently reliable that it would have cost my family a lot of money to buy such warranties.
Apple does make durable goods most of the time. You can find that out by looking at such overall stats as we have. That doesn't mean warranty coverage is free.
Apple sells on ease of use and quality of manufacture. If the quality is low on a particular product, Apple can fix it or take a reputation hit.
In other words, they sell with qualities many nerds don't particularly care about, so some nerds come up with unfounded disparaging reasons why people buy them.
Why do you put up with this crap? Do you think it saves you money?
It probably does. Warranties are basically insurance policies. Premiums are calculated so the insurance company makes a profit, which means that it's always cheaper to drop the insurance and just pay for repairs or whatever. Insurance is for cases where such payment would be unduly difficult for you, so you pay someone else to absorb the risk.
It's perfectly legal. It just won't be legal tender. You can pay any US government anything you owe in dollars. Courts award judgments and impose fines in dollars. Debts are accounted in dollars. You're free to make any deals you like that don't involve illegal actions.
Companies can't pass atypical costs onto the public. If the company could get more out of the public, it already would have. The costs get pushed back to the stockholders.
Just-in-case thinking. If Kaspersky is the mostly harmless company it claims to be, the ban is unnecessary. If Kaspersky is spying on the US government, then Kaspersky is doubtless putting additional features in so they can pwn US computers.
Therefore, it makes very little sense to uninstall Kaspersky in the standard manner. Either it is insufficient, or id didn't need to be done.
This is about the DHS telling government agencies to avoid Kaspersky. I haven't heard anything from US intelligence agencies. I am completely unaffected by any such request. I'm not a government agency, but rather a private citizen. Personally, I"m not worried about the Russian government spying on me, so I'm fine with Kaspersky.
Of course, no antivirus vendor whose product didn't detect the Sony rootkit (which is pretty much all of them) can be trusted.
Modern Socialism works in democracies, not authoritarian systems. It depends on helping the individual, while authoritarian governments tend to be collectivist.
The GOP is another name for the Republican Party. There can be nothing that the GOP and the Republicans differ on. When you talk about two sets of people, you really should give them actual distinguishing labels.
Almost everyone believes in FREEDOM, freedom to decide, freedom to change.
Why? If a pollster asks me a question, I'll answer it. It doesn't bother me if somebody else disapproves of my beliefs and opinions. I wouldn't be on Slashdot if it did. If someone had power over me, I'd start considering tailoring my answers, but researchers have no power over their subjects.
Most intelligent people I know who claim to be libertarian are interested in looking at all different philosophies related to a core idea that people have natural rights and freedoms, and these shouldn't be taken away by a central government.
So are most intelligent people who don't claim to be libertarian. It's like "no more government than necessary":: approximately nobody wants more government than necessary. People differ on what these rights, freedoms, and necessities are.
As a leftist,who wouldn't be mistaken for a libertarian at night in a downpour by a nearsighted observer, I heartily agree that people have natural rights and freedoms that should not be taken away by anyone, including government. I strongly believe that government should be no larger than necessary. I believe that typical libertarians are unwilling to protect these rights and freedoms in general, and that they want to cut the government to the point that it can't perform a lot of necessary functions.
I'd like the people who identify as libertarian to tell us why they're different from the rest of us, instead of claiming to believe what we all believe and virtue signalling with slogans that few disagree with.
Slashdot Mirror
It's going to be a LOT easier to influence a political party than to forge a new one and get it to major party status.
China is collectivist. It's common in Eastern Asia cultures.
Socialist governments do care for their people, more than the US does. They aren't perfect. The US has been lowering the standard of living of millions and millions of people, FWIW.
Right. Communists committed many megamurders. Nobody's arguing about that.
I'm talking about the rate of megamurders. I'm saying that, if Germany and Japan hadn't been stopped in WWII, but had been able to continue killing people, their totals would have exceeded Communist totals. In addition, they also had really nasty dictatorships, so the government types are comparably horrible.
Good imagination, but sticking closer to reality will make you more believable.
Let's see. They don't have to make a more durable phone for Europe, they just charge more.
Also, your claims of damage are completely contrary to my experience and every statistic I've seen on the subject. Either your cow-orkers are doing unspeakable things with their phones, or you're making this up.
You also paid more for that phone than you would have in the US. The additional year's warranty does not come free.
The plaintiffs could indeed show a design flaw and Apple could be legally required to do something about it. The court has said that Apple is not required to honor a warranty it never issued.
Antennagate was overblown, and Apple gave everyone affected a free iPhone case.
Or not bother with any sort of additional warranty, which generally costs even less.
So what is it you do do to your iPhones? That's not normal. Do you have excessively noisy power or something?
Have you ever dealt with Apple's customer service? It's great. Apple has also been known to take care of customers at their own expense. Remember the iPhone 4 complaints? Apple gave every purchaser a free iPhone case of pretty good quality. My case was just fine after three years when I got a 5S.
At what profit point should a company eat any unexpected customer expense? Let's get specific here. Apple is a business. It is the primary purpose of a business to make money. Now, Apple often does eat such costs as part of being nice to their customers, in fact, and if you want a longer warranty you can pay more. In my experience, their stuff is sufficiently reliable that it would have cost my family a lot of money to buy such warranties.
Apple does make durable goods most of the time. You can find that out by looking at such overall stats as we have. That doesn't mean warranty coverage is free.
Apple sells on ease of use and quality of manufacture. If the quality is low on a particular product, Apple can fix it or take a reputation hit.
In other words, they sell with qualities many nerds don't particularly care about, so some nerds come up with unfounded disparaging reasons why people buy them.
Car loan: I hold the title, but the lien is on it.
Home loan: I hold the title. It's mine.
Rent to own: it's theirs until paid off. That's one reason I don't like rent-to-own.
It probably does. Warranties are basically insurance policies. Premiums are calculated so the insurance company makes a profit, which means that it's always cheaper to drop the insurance and just pay for repairs or whatever. Insurance is for cases where such payment would be unduly difficult for you, so you pay someone else to absorb the risk.
It's perfectly legal. It just won't be legal tender. You can pay any US government anything you owe in dollars. Courts award judgments and impose fines in dollars. Debts are accounted in dollars. You're free to make any deals you like that don't involve illegal actions.
Companies can't pass atypical costs onto the public. If the company could get more out of the public, it already would have. The costs get pushed back to the stockholders.
Just-in-case thinking. If Kaspersky is the mostly harmless company it claims to be, the ban is unnecessary. If Kaspersky is spying on the US government, then Kaspersky is doubtless putting additional features in so they can pwn US computers.
Therefore, it makes very little sense to uninstall Kaspersky in the standard manner. Either it is insufficient, or id didn't need to be done.
This is about the DHS telling government agencies to avoid Kaspersky. I haven't heard anything from US intelligence agencies. I am completely unaffected by any such request. I'm not a government agency, but rather a private citizen. Personally, I"m not worried about the Russian government spying on me, so I'm fine with Kaspersky.
Of course, no antivirus vendor whose product didn't detect the Sony rootkit (which is pretty much all of them) can be trusted.
Modern Socialism works in democracies, not authoritarian systems. It depends on helping the individual, while authoritarian governments tend to be collectivist.
The GOP is another name for the Republican Party. There can be nothing that the GOP and the Republicans differ on. When you talk about two sets of people, you really should give them actual distinguishing labels.
Almost everyone believes in FREEDOM, freedom to decide, freedom to change.
I think the alt-right cretins on Slashdot predate Breitbart.
Why? If a pollster asks me a question, I'll answer it. It doesn't bother me if somebody else disapproves of my beliefs and opinions. I wouldn't be on Slashdot if it did. If someone had power over me, I'd start considering tailoring my answers, but researchers have no power over their subjects.
I really miss the kind of Republicans they had when I was a kid. Get off my lawn, fascist sympathizers!
So are most intelligent people who don't claim to be libertarian. It's like "no more government than necessary":: approximately nobody wants more government than necessary. People differ on what these rights, freedoms, and necessities are.
As a leftist,who wouldn't be mistaken for a libertarian at night in a downpour by a nearsighted observer, I heartily agree that people have natural rights and freedoms that should not be taken away by anyone, including government. I strongly believe that government should be no larger than necessary. I believe that typical libertarians are unwilling to protect these rights and freedoms in general, and that they want to cut the government to the point that it can't perform a lot of necessary functions.
I'd like the people who identify as libertarian to tell us why they're different from the rest of us, instead of claiming to believe what we all believe and virtue signalling with slogans that few disagree with.