By that logic we have to arrest all men who like adult rape porn, and adult japanese porn too since so many of the women are pretending not to want it..
But this guy is just suspected of possessing child pornography, not making it, right?
Raping children is bad and all, but if that is the case, this is a ridiculous attempt to control what people fap to rather than an attempt to prevent more child rape.
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like opening a letter and then leaving it open, taped to your mailbox outside. Anyone walking down the street can then read it, including the government.
When email worked the way it use to, and you use to download it from the server and removed it from the server - that would be like you take a letter into your house, and then read it, and keep it inside your house. THEN you could expect privacy. But the way the majority of people use email changed, yet people still expected the same amount of privacy - which isn't reasonable.
It depends on what you consider a "check." If you look for emails when you look at the time, then that's a check. If you only look at the time, then that's not a "check" in the sense that we're talking about. Personally I can look at the time without unlocking my phone, but not emails and such, and do so often. I can't look at emails while I'm playing angry birds, etc. It's not like a computer where you can be reading your email and reading facebook at the same time... at least, my phone isn't.
What is meant is that they are paid the same as someone that DOESN'T check their smartphone all day when off work. I.e. someone is working 40 hours and being paid the same as someone that is working 60 hours, in the office or at home.
It's also partially the fault of other people that can't do those things. If Joe is getting x amount of work done because he's working when he's suppose to be off too, then they expect Bob to do the same amount of work.
People tend to end up where they started. The main cause of poverty is your parents being poor. If your parents were doing okay they could afford to live near a good school, so you will probably do okay. If they are rich you are made in any case.
I really think that is correlation and not causation nowadays in the US.
Even the poorest people in the US have access to the internet in some form. It's not always a computer in their home. It's more often a smart phone, but there's also computers in libraries and computers in schools (though they are usually crappy computers). Even if you go to the shittiest school in the country, you have access to curricula better schools are using, access to knowledge from some of the top universities, etc. for free.
It's just a question of being driven to acquire that knowledge. I've lived in poverty in the US, and contrary to popular belief, it really isn't all that bad, and not everyone in it wants to put in the effort to get out. Why bother to go into debt getting an education, and then work for 40 years at a shitty job where you'll have to pay taxes and bills, and have little if any time to enjoy the money you have left over; when instead you can just sit in your house - looking at porn, getting high, text messaging, whatever strikes your fancy - and have everything paid for for you and then some? If your parents did it, and you saw that life was pretty cushy for them, why would you want to bother trying to live the other lifestyle, which everyone online is always saying sucks?
Replace "pro-democracy writings" with "sexual stories involving fictional characters said to be under age 18" or "pictures of fully clothed people under the age of 18" and you'll find many cases...
They didn't stop making the Dreamcast because it died. The Dreamcast was actually doing pretty well. It just wasn't enough to get SEGA out of their debt (by that point, there was pretty much nothing they could do to get out of it), so they had to kill it.
I totally agree that no one would bother with it, but that doesn't change the fact that, should this unlikely event come to pass, the same amount of bandwidth would be used.
- It cost you more to watch it on Netflix than it would to just pirate it. You pay for Netflix by the month, but piracy is free. Piracy is free no matter if you watch it once, or watch it over and over. And if you just want to watch the same movie over and over, it is often cheaper to "buy" it on Amazon (which means you can watch it over and over at no extra cost) than to pay for a month of Netflix. Netflix is ONLY cost effective if you want to watch multiple things but don't want to pirate them for whatever reason.
- Did you actually read the quote you quoted? We're talking about people that will pay for Netflix for a month, rip ("download") some movies, and then NOT pay for Netflix for the next few months. Then, when they want to rip a DIFFERENT movie, they will pay for Netflix for the month again. (Yes, you pay by the month, but at any point you can choose to stop and re-start your subscription.) Even that is only cost effective if you are watching multiple things, because even just ripping 1 movie every 6 months (and therefore paying for Netflix for 1 month every 6 months) may cost more than "buying" 1 movie on Amazon every 6 months.
3 months was just an example of "a few months," but my comment works if you replace 3 with whatever your idea of "a few months" is. If they were going to watch the same movie(s) over and over, why bother paying for Netflix at all? It's much easier - and free - to download the movies that someone else has already ripped (long before they are on Netflix) than to pay for Netflix every few months and rip them yourself. And unless you're ripping ("downloading") every single movie you watch and saving them for a year - which most people aren't going to have the disk space, nor the desire to do - you're not going to predict you're going to want to watch that movie again in a year just from the Netflix description. So you'd watch it, think "Hey, I liked that, I think I'll save that one" - and THEN rip it, using the same bandwidth as if you'd watched it twice.
If the people in the scenario AREN'T watching new movies every few months, then your comment (in reply to a scenario where people are paying netflix every few months) makes even less sense. Heck, there is already a service that allows you to pay once and then stream the same movie again and again forever (Amazon); with both a legal, cheaper than Netflix option, and an easy piracy option, why would anyone bother paying a higher price and going through the trouble of ripping?
You PAY FOR 60 Mbps downstream cable... are you actually getting it at the time that you are experiencing these problems?
I have 25 Mbps cable, and the only time I experienced such problems was when some wires outside needed to be replaced. I have not experienced any issues since they (my ISP) replaced those wires.
I know that for those of us on Slashdot, our view of how the "mainstream" - or as I like to call it "normal people" - deals with/uses technology is skewed... but my kids have many friends that are normal people or at least come from families of normal people, and if they are anything to judge by, The Pirate Bay is more "mainstream" (more used by normal people) than Netflix.
How would their bandwidth go down? People would still be watching the exact same amount of movies, so they would be using the same amount of bandwidth, they'd just be using it all in 1 month and paying for 1 month, vs using it over 3 months and paying for 3 months. Since people are using the same amount of bandwidth, but paying for 1 month instead of 3, Netflix's profit would be reduced.
Your argument would only be valid if people were "downloading" 1 movie and watching it again and again over that 3 months, vs streaming the same movie multiple times over that 3 months.
Slashdot Mirror
They make women happy too! This is just unhappy feminists that want to take away the happiness of EVERYONE else.
A lot of booth babes are butterface ugly.
Since both ugly and pretty people can keep their bodies looking good, this is not discriminatory.
If it were reasonable we wouldn't need a new bill to tell us it's reasonable.
or gets off to the thought
By that logic we have to arrest all men who like adult rape porn, and adult japanese porn too since so many of the women are pretending not to want it..
But this guy is just suspected of possessing child pornography, not making it, right?
Raping children is bad and all, but if that is the case, this is a ridiculous attempt to control what people fap to rather than an attempt to prevent more child rape.
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like opening a letter and then leaving it open, taped to your mailbox outside. Anyone walking down the street can then read it, including the government.
When email worked the way it use to, and you use to download it from the server and removed it from the server - that would be like you take a letter into your house, and then read it, and keep it inside your house. THEN you could expect privacy. But the way the majority of people use email changed, yet people still expected the same amount of privacy - which isn't reasonable.
It depends on what you consider a "check." If you look for emails when you look at the time, then that's a check. If you only look at the time, then that's not a "check" in the sense that we're talking about. Personally I can look at the time without unlocking my phone, but not emails and such, and do so often. I can't look at emails while I'm playing angry birds, etc. It's not like a computer where you can be reading your email and reading facebook at the same time... at least, my phone isn't.
You're equating education and schools. They are separate things.
What is meant is that they are paid the same as someone that DOESN'T check their smartphone all day when off work. I.e. someone is working 40 hours and being paid the same as someone that is working 60 hours, in the office or at home.
It's also partially the fault of other people that can't do those things. If Joe is getting x amount of work done because he's working when he's suppose to be off too, then they expect Bob to do the same amount of work.
They're not putting it down/turning the screen off between checks.
Check phone. Play angry birds. Check again before setting it down. Go get a drink. Check again. Browse facebook. Check again.
People tend to end up where they started. The main cause of poverty is your parents being poor. If your parents were doing okay they could afford to live near a good school, so you will probably do okay. If they are rich you are made in any case.
I really think that is correlation and not causation nowadays in the US.
Even the poorest people in the US have access to the internet in some form. It's not always a computer in their home. It's more often a smart phone, but there's also computers in libraries and computers in schools (though they are usually crappy computers). Even if you go to the shittiest school in the country, you have access to curricula better schools are using, access to knowledge from some of the top universities, etc. for free.
It's just a question of being driven to acquire that knowledge. I've lived in poverty in the US, and contrary to popular belief, it really isn't all that bad, and not everyone in it wants to put in the effort to get out. Why bother to go into debt getting an education, and then work for 40 years at a shitty job where you'll have to pay taxes and bills, and have little if any time to enjoy the money you have left over; when instead you can just sit in your house - looking at porn, getting high, text messaging, whatever strikes your fancy - and have everything paid for for you and then some? If your parents did it, and you saw that life was pretty cushy for them, why would you want to bother trying to live the other lifestyle, which everyone online is always saying sucks?
Then they are discriminating against people that can not give birth. That includes men, some women, and some people in between.
Replace "pro-democracy writings" with "sexual stories involving fictional characters said to be under age 18" or "pictures of fully clothed people under the age of 18" and you'll find many cases...
I occasionally have to use it to get a password reset email because I used it to register for some site years ago...
Okay, you're just an idiot, I understand now.
They still have phone jacks in Japan.
I'm pretty sure everyone that actually gave a shit at SEGA have left.
They didn't stop making the Dreamcast because it died. The Dreamcast was actually doing pretty well. It just wasn't enough to get SEGA out of their debt (by that point, there was pretty much nothing they could do to get out of it), so they had to kill it.
I totally agree that no one would bother with it, but that doesn't change the fact that, should this unlikely event come to pass, the same amount of bandwidth would be used.
- It cost you more to watch it on Netflix than it would to just pirate it. You pay for Netflix by the month, but piracy is free. Piracy is free no matter if you watch it once, or watch it over and over. And if you just want to watch the same movie over and over, it is often cheaper to "buy" it on Amazon (which means you can watch it over and over at no extra cost) than to pay for a month of Netflix. Netflix is ONLY cost effective if you want to watch multiple things but don't want to pirate them for whatever reason.
- Did you actually read the quote you quoted? We're talking about people that will pay for Netflix for a month, rip ("download") some movies, and then NOT pay for Netflix for the next few months. Then, when they want to rip a DIFFERENT movie, they will pay for Netflix for the month again. (Yes, you pay by the month, but at any point you can choose to stop and re-start your subscription.) Even that is only cost effective if you are watching multiple things, because even just ripping 1 movie every 6 months (and therefore paying for Netflix for 1 month every 6 months) may cost more than "buying" 1 movie on Amazon every 6 months.
3 months was just an example of "a few months," but my comment works if you replace 3 with whatever your idea of "a few months" is. If they were going to watch the same movie(s) over and over, why bother paying for Netflix at all? It's much easier - and free - to download the movies that someone else has already ripped (long before they are on Netflix) than to pay for Netflix every few months and rip them yourself. And unless you're ripping ("downloading") every single movie you watch and saving them for a year - which most people aren't going to have the disk space, nor the desire to do - you're not going to predict you're going to want to watch that movie again in a year just from the Netflix description. So you'd watch it, think "Hey, I liked that, I think I'll save that one" - and THEN rip it, using the same bandwidth as if you'd watched it twice.
If the people in the scenario AREN'T watching new movies every few months, then your comment (in reply to a scenario where people are paying netflix every few months) makes even less sense. Heck, there is already a service that allows you to pay once and then stream the same movie again and again forever (Amazon); with both a legal, cheaper than Netflix option, and an easy piracy option, why would anyone bother paying a higher price and going through the trouble of ripping?
You PAY FOR 60 Mbps downstream cable... are you actually getting it at the time that you are experiencing these problems?
I have 25 Mbps cable, and the only time I experienced such problems was when some wires outside needed to be replaced. I have not experienced any issues since they (my ISP) replaced those wires.
I know that for those of us on Slashdot, our view of how the "mainstream" - or as I like to call it "normal people" - deals with/uses technology is skewed... but my kids have many friends that are normal people or at least come from families of normal people, and if they are anything to judge by, The Pirate Bay is more "mainstream" (more used by normal people) than Netflix.
How would their bandwidth go down? People would still be watching the exact same amount of movies, so they would be using the same amount of bandwidth, they'd just be using it all in 1 month and paying for 1 month, vs using it over 3 months and paying for 3 months. Since people are using the same amount of bandwidth, but paying for 1 month instead of 3, Netflix's profit would be reduced.
Your argument would only be valid if people were "downloading" 1 movie and watching it again and again over that 3 months, vs streaming the same movie multiple times over that 3 months.