$9.50/hr *160 hours/mo = $1520/mo - $1200 rent = $320/mo for food, transportation, utilities, phone, internet, clothing etc. Someone might actually pull that off if they were working 80 hours a week...but you probably wouldn't find them commenting on/. ($9.50 in Washington DC is the highest state minimum wage in the US. most places it is significantly lower)
Just like most mutations are unsuccessful, most creative ideas are not "welfare increasing", after all, the status quo came about for a reason and your idea has to be pretty clever to beat it in all, or even most, metrics.
Of course, on the off chance a creative idea *is* successful, we're all for it, but that's pretty hard to determine in advance. And more importantly, after the fact, all the discomfort from change (and one shouldn't underestimate how much change hurts psychologically) has already been paid for, so we can simply enjoy the benefits.
Bad analogy since it is a myth that most mutations are unsuccessful. They have found that each individual has 60 to 100 genetic mutations...all quite functional.
Another creation of the All powerful bike lobby. Helmets are just a particularly sturdy stepping stone on the way towards totalitarianism.
Yeah...This seems pretty raving out of context. Just FYI, here is the context http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWf2JyIKrN4 There are more videos about this and it is a long standing sore spot in NYC
This has always been a no brainer to me. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The people ARE the government and they govern through their duly appointed representatives. When this system is circumvented by any means to place people in positions of power who were NOT duly elected by the people, then that is a change of government or, quite literally, the overthrow of the government of the United States, which under US code is punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison.
It could indeed be argued that such an act would constitute an act of war and therefore rise to treason but I really doubt any court would accept that (Even thought I would advocate it but I am rather intolerant of such acts).
But the fact is, the government of the United States has indeed been overthrown. We the People are no longer in control because the authority of our duly appointed representatives, and by proxy our own authority, has been usurped.
The inevitable argument of "well wouldn't you do the same if you felt it would save the country" has popped up here as well. The answer is a very vehement NO! The drafters of our constitution were not some ignorant hacks that threw something together that just happened to work. They were long time students of political theory who had spent years studying various real world applications of political concepts. They based our system of government on what has worked in the real world down through history, and time has proved them right. Read up on John Adams' statements on France's attempts and failures to form a new government. This system is a critical balance. You upset that balance at your own risk. It must, above all, remain a government of the people whether you or I agree with the decisions of the people or not. It must be our representatives in control. Not those appointed by some individual or small group who think they know better.
So now you have been overthrown. What do you intend to do about it?
While it doesn't address the issue directly, this actually highlights the fundamental difference between Microsoft and all other competitors in this market and is the primary reason Microsoft keeps kicking butt in this market even though their products are technically inferior.
Many, many years ago I worked in an auto body shop. The owner of the shop had a simple rule, it didn't matter what went into the repair job. For all he cared you could fill a hole in a quarter panel with moldy donuts and used up steel wool pads, just as long as the end result appeared completely professional to the customer.
This is the strategy Microsoft has followed and it works, obviously. It isn't so much a matter of things working one way in windows and another way in OS X. Take window sizing for example. In windows, grab the corner, side, top, bottom or even right click the task bar icon. It makes no difference...it all works. Want to change the name? Slowly double click the file, or right click and select rename or just about any other way that seems logical, Windows is right there for you looking very professional. Want to delete a file? Highlight and hit the delete key, or drag to the waste basket, or right click and select delete, whatever works easiest for you, we are all different and windows is right there for you looking completely professional no matter how you waant to do it.
Mac people, and for that matter linux people and the bulk of the open source community just don't get this at all. Once the functionality is there and it can be accessed some way, they figure the job is done. When you complain that it doesn't work well with your work flow they say, "Tough cookies, it's my way or the highway." Microsoft's response is, "You want it this way? Fine, no problem! You want it that way? well there you go! You want it another way? Well that is in there too!"
That is all the average customer ever sees and they assume that everything behind it, right down to the kernel, is just as professionally put together. They never see the bailing wire and duct tape holding that fine professional interface in place. Out of sight, out of mind. And that is why Microsoft is going to continue to dominate the market even though everything they make is crap.
The competition, on the other hand, reminds me of a guy I knew back in the 70s. He had this old beat up Chevy, ran like a fine clock. Blow the doors off of anything on the road. Mechanically prefect from one end to the other. It was also four different shades of primer and you had to crawl through the windows to get in.
If this was true anyone working in a UPS environment would be a sick nutter.
I'm not saying this is true, but your argument against it is faulty. The human neurochemical system is complex with wide diversity. Think of it this way: If you add red to another color, what color will the result be? It could be just about any color of the rainbow depending on how much red you add and what color you are adding it to.
It is the same with psychotropic drugs or anything else that affects human neurology. It could have no obvious effect on one person, but turn the next person into a total nutcase. There is no one-size-fits-all in this type of thing.
It costs a very large percentage of a sale to sell something on eBay
You know...I keep hearing this nonsense all over the place. Compared to what in particular are e-bay's selling fees high? Have you ever run a brick and mortar retail business? I have and I will take e-bay's charges any day. Have you ever sold anything through a real world local auction? Have you ever tried to sell something through a consignment shop? Ebay is virtually free in comparison. Have you checked the prices on classified ads in the local paper? You can't even run a garage sale for free and if you do you end up with pennies on the dollar of what you get for the same stuff on ebay. Why do you think so many real world businesses are flocking to ebay. Even major national retailers are selling overstock and return items through ebay and they don't bother to cheat on the price/shipping. They know this is a bargain.
I hear the same criticism of paypal's fees. Have you ever tried to set up any kind of credit processing for a retail outlet? I have and paypal is a pretty good deal for small time operators. The problem here is that everyone seems to think that, if it isn't free it costs too much. As Heinlein was fond of saying TANSTAAFL. Get over it. Sure, I welcome competition, but don't expect too much from it unless Microsoft sticks its big nose in and starts offering the service for "free". And we all know that story. We will all end up paying for it with higher prices for Windows.
I will go one better on that. I read a comment in a recent Archaeology Magazine something to the effect that, when archaeologists find stone tools thousands of years old, they automatically, without the slightest hesitation, jump to the conclusion they were made by humans...just something to think about...
"I still hold as most true and indisputable the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun." -- Galileo Galilei, June 22, 1633 after being tortured by the Inquisition.
As a former crisis intervention counselor, I cringe every time I see a discussion like this about suicide because such discussions tend to perpetuate dangerous myths. You should never, ever use dependents of a suicidal person as extortion to force them to stay alive.
At the risk of slashdotting my own meager web site, here are the correct procedures for dealing with potential suicide. Dealing with Suicide Potential.
It is also rather interesting that such a law against suicide information could make my own page about it illegal.
"I still hold as most true and indisputable the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun." -- Galileo Galilei, June 22, 1633 after being tortured by the Inquisition.
I read something about this about 30 years ago and IIRC it had more to do with driving habits than actual accident rates. If you see someone weaving through traffic at a high speed it is far more likely to be a male driver. This is much the same type of thing as the fact that males are more likely to succeed at suicide because they tend to use more violent methods...but that is another discussion.
On the other hand, if you see someone making a small, inconsequential mistake in traffic, it is more likely to be a female. After I read that I started watching for myself just to see if it was true and sure enough, every time I saw someone making some silly little driving mistake it was a woman.
So I thought I would get smart with that bit of information. I started commenting to my wife about mistakes we saw other drivers make, and I always referred to the driver as female before we were close enough to make that distinction. Of course she would ask how I knew it was a woman driver and I would respond, "You don't think a guy would drive like that do you?" What really got her was that I was right every single time and this went on for a couple years.
Then one night I was driving down the freeway and I noticed a car ahead made several very nice moves that showed he was very aware and alert to what was going on around him. I commented to my wife, "Now that guy is a really good driver!" Yeah...I'm sure you all see this one coming. As we passed the car in question my wife glanced over and said, "Yeah...SHE sure is."
Let me get this straight. What I basically said was that many people don't need cell phones. You responded with the opening statement that, "This is just foolishness." Then after a longwinded tribute to the importance of your own communications, you stated the exact same sentiment that "Many people don't need cell phones." Wouldn't you say that is a bit circular? How is your statement of this fact any less foolish than mine?
However, as you know, I never said "Cell phones are only ego trips". What I said is, "For most people, cell phones are only ego trips," which is a very different statement that you have said nothing to refute.
People will keep phoning, then, they'll sue the phone manufacturers in order to force them to build more secure devices.
I have never owned a cell phone and I have only used one once in my life (I am 52). Maybe this is flame bait but for most people, cell phones are only ego trips. Guess what, you aren't that important and what you have to say isn't that important that it can't wait 'til you get to a land line phone. Yes, there are exceptions but they are extremely rare.
The biggest problem I have faced in rejecting this technology is peer pressure. I suspect that will show in some of the replies I get to this post. I will get even by outliving them:o]
Thats brilliant, Sherlock. You must have rubbed together both of your last two neurons to work that out.
If my employer quits paying me, I'm not "losing" any money. Guess what, if an employer stops paying me, its not called "theft" its called either
1) "You're fired/laid off"
2) "Breach of Contract" (if I was a contract worker with a specified rate) or
3) "Breach of minimum wage laws".
(Optionally, add 4) Slavery, which is also illegal in our country)
Try harder next time. You can at least state the truth, you just need a little work in understanding what it is you're saying.
Exactly! Now try following through and extending this logic to include the people creating the music. You can't have it both ways.
As the anti-copyright people here have pointed out again and again, every single one of those involves taking something from someone else, who then must do without or obtain a new material good to replace it, as opposed to copying a song, which takes it from nobody unless you steal the master then beat the lyric writer, singer, and musicians dead.
Hey! I really like that logic. It means that it is ok for your employer to stop paying you because, since you don't have the money yet, you aren't "losing" anything. You're hired man! When can you start?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it has something to do with the accelerator
And I pay $1200/m making minimum wage.
$9.50/hr *160 hours/mo = $1520/mo - $1200 rent = $320/mo for food, transportation, utilities, phone, internet, clothing etc. Someone might actually pull that off if they were working 80 hours a week...but you probably wouldn't find them commenting on /. ($9.50 in Washington DC is the highest state minimum wage in the US. most places it is significantly lower)
So pretty much the same people who decided on Bush and Obama would decide what television options survive? Um...I'll pass, thanks...
Just like most mutations are unsuccessful, most creative ideas are not "welfare increasing", after all, the status quo came about for a reason and your idea has to be pretty clever to beat it in all, or even most, metrics.
Of course, on the off chance a creative idea *is* successful, we're all for it, but that's pretty hard to determine in advance. And more importantly, after the fact, all the discomfort from change (and one shouldn't underestimate how much change hurts psychologically) has already been paid for, so we can simply enjoy the benefits.
Bad analogy since it is a myth that most mutations are unsuccessful. They have found that each individual has 60 to 100 genetic mutations...all quite functional.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/30692/title/Our-own-60-mutations/
Another creation of the All powerful bike lobby. Helmets are just a particularly sturdy stepping stone on the way towards totalitarianism.
Yeah...This seems pretty raving out of context. Just FYI, here is the context http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWf2JyIKrN4 There are more videos about this and it is a long standing sore spot in NYC
tell him to make the sword out of rhenium diboride
such ethics are so expensive only because they are so rare.
This has always been a no brainer to me. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The people ARE the government and they govern through their duly appointed representatives. When this system is circumvented by any means to place people in positions of power who were NOT duly elected by the people, then that is a change of government or, quite literally, the overthrow of the government of the United States, which under US code is punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison.
It could indeed be argued that such an act would constitute an act of war and therefore rise to treason but I really doubt any court would accept that (Even thought I would advocate it but I am rather intolerant of such acts).
But the fact is, the government of the United States has indeed been overthrown. We the People are no longer in control because the authority of our duly appointed representatives, and by proxy our own authority, has been usurped.
The inevitable argument of "well wouldn't you do the same if you felt it would save the country" has popped up here as well. The answer is a very vehement NO! The drafters of our constitution were not some ignorant hacks that threw something together that just happened to work. They were long time students of political theory who had spent years studying various real world applications of political concepts. They based our system of government on what has worked in the real world down through history, and time has proved them right. Read up on John Adams' statements on France's attempts and failures to form a new government. This system is a critical balance. You upset that balance at your own risk. It must, above all, remain a government of the people whether you or I agree with the decisions of the people or not. It must be our representatives in control. Not those appointed by some individual or small group who think they know better.
So now you have been overthrown. What do you intend to do about it?
While it doesn't address the issue directly, this actually highlights the fundamental difference between Microsoft and all other competitors in this market and is the primary reason Microsoft keeps kicking butt in this market even though their products are technically inferior.
Many, many years ago I worked in an auto body shop. The owner of the shop had a simple rule, it didn't matter what went into the repair job. For all he cared you could fill a hole in a quarter panel with moldy donuts and used up steel wool pads, just as long as the end result appeared completely professional to the customer.
This is the strategy Microsoft has followed and it works, obviously. It isn't so much a matter of things working one way in windows and another way in OS X. Take window sizing for example. In windows, grab the corner, side, top, bottom or even right click the task bar icon. It makes no difference...it all works. Want to change the name? Slowly double click the file, or right click and select rename or just about any other way that seems logical, Windows is right there for you looking very professional. Want to delete a file? Highlight and hit the delete key, or drag to the waste basket, or right click and select delete, whatever works easiest for you, we are all different and windows is right there for you looking completely professional no matter how you waant to do it.
Mac people, and for that matter linux people and the bulk of the open source community just don't get this at all. Once the functionality is there and it can be accessed some way, they figure the job is done. When you complain that it doesn't work well with your work flow they say, "Tough cookies, it's my way or the highway." Microsoft's response is, "You want it this way? Fine, no problem! You want it that way? well there you go! You want it another way? Well that is in there too!"
That is all the average customer ever sees and they assume that everything behind it, right down to the kernel, is just as professionally put together. They never see the bailing wire and duct tape holding that fine professional interface in place. Out of sight, out of mind. And that is why Microsoft is going to continue to dominate the market even though everything they make is crap.
The competition, on the other hand, reminds me of a guy I knew back in the 70s. He had this old beat up Chevy, ran like a fine clock. Blow the doors off of anything on the road. Mechanically prefect from one end to the other. It was also four different shades of primer and you had to crawl through the windows to get in.
Ugh, please don't coin this term to refer to Google buying YouTube. It sounds like some Elmer's glue product, or a porn site.
ok...how about UGoob?
If this was true anyone working in a UPS environment would be a sick nutter.
I'm not saying this is true, but your argument against it is faulty. The human neurochemical system is complex with wide diversity. Think of it this way: If you add red to another color, what color will the result be? It could be just about any color of the rainbow depending on how much red you add and what color you are adding it to.
It is the same with psychotropic drugs or anything else that affects human neurology. It could have no obvious effect on one person, but turn the next person into a total nutcase. There is no one-size-fits-all in this type of thing.
It costs a very large percentage of a sale to sell something on eBay
You know...I keep hearing this nonsense all over the place. Compared to what in particular are e-bay's selling fees high? Have you ever run a brick and mortar retail business? I have and I will take e-bay's charges any day. Have you ever sold anything through a real world local auction? Have you ever tried to sell something through a consignment shop? Ebay is virtually free in comparison. Have you checked the prices on classified ads in the local paper? You can't even run a garage sale for free and if you do you end up with pennies on the dollar of what you get for the same stuff on ebay. Why do you think so many real world businesses are flocking to ebay. Even major national retailers are selling overstock and return items through ebay and they don't bother to cheat on the price/shipping. They know this is a bargain.
I hear the same criticism of paypal's fees. Have you ever tried to set up any kind of credit processing for a retail outlet? I have and paypal is a pretty good deal for small time operators. The problem here is that everyone seems to think that, if it isn't free it costs too much. As Heinlein was fond of saying TANSTAAFL. Get over it. Sure, I welcome competition, but don't expect too much from it unless Microsoft sticks its big nose in and starts offering the service for "free". And we all know that story. We will all end up paying for it with higher prices for Windows.
I will go one better on that. I read a comment in a recent Archaeology Magazine something to the effect that, when archaeologists find stone tools thousands of years old, they automatically, without the slightest hesitation, jump to the conclusion they were made by humans...just something to think about...
So you are trying to tell us you just read playboy.com for the mirror files...
"I still hold as most true and indisputable the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun." -- Galileo Galilei, June 22, 1633 after being tortured by the Inquisition.
As a former crisis intervention counselor, I cringe every time I see a discussion like this about suicide because such discussions tend to perpetuate dangerous myths. You should never, ever use dependents of a suicidal person as extortion to force them to stay alive.
At the risk of slashdotting my own meager web site, here are the correct procedures for dealing with potential suicide. Dealing with Suicide Potential.
It is also rather interesting that such a law against suicide information could make my own page about it illegal.
"I still hold as most true and indisputable the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun." -- Galileo Galilei, June 22, 1633 after being tortured by the Inquisition.
I read something about this about 30 years ago and IIRC it had more to do with driving habits than actual accident rates. If you see someone weaving through traffic at a high speed it is far more likely to be a male driver. This is much the same type of thing as the fact that males are more likely to succeed at suicide because they tend to use more violent methods...but that is another discussion.
On the other hand, if you see someone making a small, inconsequential mistake in traffic, it is more likely to be a female. After I read that I started watching for myself just to see if it was true and sure enough, every time I saw someone making some silly little driving mistake it was a woman.
So I thought I would get smart with that bit of information. I started commenting to my wife about mistakes we saw other drivers make, and I always referred to the driver as female before we were close enough to make that distinction. Of course she would ask how I knew it was a woman driver and I would respond, "You don't think a guy would drive like that do you?" What really got her was that I was right every single time and this went on for a couple years.
Then one night I was driving down the freeway and I noticed a car ahead made several very nice moves that showed he was very aware and alert to what was going on around him. I commented to my wife, "Now that guy is a really good driver!" Yeah...I'm sure you all see this one coming. As we passed the car in question my wife glanced over and said, "Yeah...SHE sure is."
OK...I just couldn't resist doing this...In keeping with the American tradition of compassionate response to disaster...
Get your souvenir T-shirts and coffee cups HERE!
Let me get this straight. What I basically said was that many people don't need cell phones. You responded with the opening statement that, "This is just foolishness." Then after a longwinded tribute to the importance of your own communications, you stated the exact same sentiment that "Many people don't need cell phones." Wouldn't you say that is a bit circular? How is your statement of this fact any less foolish than mine?
Nice "Straw man" fallacy!
However, as you know, I never said "Cell phones are only ego trips". What I said is, "For most people, cell phones are only ego trips," which is a very different statement that you have said nothing to refute.
People will keep phoning, then, they'll sue the phone manufacturers in order to force them to build more secure devices.
:o]
I have never owned a cell phone and I have only used one once in my life (I am 52). Maybe this is flame bait but for most people, cell phones are only ego trips. Guess what, you aren't that important and what you have to say isn't that important that it can't wait 'til you get to a land line phone. Yes, there are exceptions but they are extremely rare.
The biggest problem I have faced in rejecting this technology is peer pressure. I suspect that will show in some of the replies I get to this post. I will get even by outliving them
China has 'got to start putting people in jail.'
So they can use them as slave labor to make cheap knock-offs of U.S. products?
Thats brilliant, Sherlock. You must have rubbed together both of your last two neurons to work that out.
If my employer quits paying me, I'm not "losing" any money. Guess what, if an employer stops paying me, its not called "theft" its called either
1) "You're fired/laid off"
2) "Breach of Contract" (if I was a contract worker with a specified rate) or
3) "Breach of minimum wage laws". (Optionally, add 4) Slavery, which is also illegal in our country)
Try harder next time. You can at least state the truth, you just need a little work in understanding what it is you're saying.
Exactly! Now try following through and extending this logic to include the people creating the music. You can't have it both ways.
As the anti-copyright people here have pointed out again and again, every single one of those involves taking something from someone else, who then must do without or obtain a new material good to replace it, as opposed to copying a song, which takes it from nobody unless you steal the master then beat the lyric writer, singer, and musicians dead.
Hey! I really like that logic. It means that it is ok for your employer to stop paying you because, since you don't have the money yet, you aren't "losing" anything. You're hired man! When can you start?