Is this what we can expect from the latest incarnation of slashdot?
Well, given that that is what we saw out of every recent incarnation of slashdot, I don't really expect to see anything different.
The burden shouldn't be on the consumer unless they knowingly purchased it and installed it themselves.
Well, the burden also shouldn't be on the body shop unless they knowingly purchased it and installed it. Neither should it be on the Insurance Company unless they told the company to use the knowingly bad product. The burden of the cost should be on the Chinese company that sold it.
Paul Ryan asks "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?", which is funny since he knows Mitt Romney shipped them overseas.
I'm confused. Wouldn't Mitt Romney need to be president first before blaming him for sending all the jobs overseas?
I have to pay for schools and I don't have kids.
I have to pay for roads and I don't have a car....
You benefit from both of these. Almost everywhere you go is over a public roadway. almost everything in your house got there over a public roadway. If schools were not paid for, then nobody would be creating the products that you enjoy consuming, and the only job that people would be smart enough to get would be stealing.
No sex in the future?
How absurd! We've already figured out that millions of fake friends are better than a couple of real ones. Surely in 15 years, we'll be bragging about our millions of virtual sex partners while some lame-o nerds are out there having old fashioned non-virtual sex with just a couple of hot, real girls.
I have absolutely NO desire for my alarm clock to talk to my shower OR anything else.
I like how the article keeps wandering back and forth from centralist (everything on one device) to decentralist (a device for each thing). There are only two things on his desk at work, one of them being an extremely inefficient to use monitor interface; yet for some reason, there needs to be a dedicated alarm clock instead of using some other device like a smartphone.
Was in college, playing around with Intel Pentium computers with black and white CRT monitors.
Wow, 15 years ago, I had a 21" super VGA monitor. Yes, It was expensive, but definitely available. Now I can get a 27" IPS for the same price. I am trying to remember when I last used a black and white monitor. We had them in the computer lab at school in 1989, but my computer back in the dorm room had a CGA monitor. As a matter of fact, my very first computer had a color monitor, and that was 30 years ago.
I would in fact argue that the social networks that existed in the 1980s were far more social than the ones that we have now. You didn't have 1 million friends on your BBS, but the ones you had were real friends, and being on a BBS and especially running one required that you had to have more than one working brain cell.
We had all kinds of revolutionary changes in the 1950s and 1960s and early 1970s and then government stopped investing in research and education and little of value has happened since.
The CN Tower is a mere 147 storeys tall.
Looks like it has maybe half a dozen floors to me, but I've never been there. Given that most buildings of that size have floors that are about 15 feet high, it is about as tall as a 120 story building.
regardless of the fact that the "official" inflation rate is currently 1.7% but they raise your rates by 3 times that amount.
Well, that is what happens when the rate of inflation is 3 times the "official" inflation rate. Unfortunately, you are dealing with an entity whose largest costs are taxes and insurance, both of which increase much faster than inflation overall. Local taxing authorities regularly increase the assessed value of real property by 6-10% every year even in a market where the value of the property is falling. For example, my house is assessed by the local tax guys at $425,000, but I recently failed to refinance it due to being "upside down" even though I owe only about $260,000 on it. Insurance similarly goes up by about 10-20% per year, especially on rental property.
I agree with you. I have a laptop and a desktop. I use the laptop at work because my desktop is too large to lug it to work and it is mine so IT wouldn't support it. At home, I much prefer my desktop. It has more RAM, a 10 times faster CPU, a 1000 times better graphics card, 3 times the screen space even including the second monitor at work, 4 times the disk space, and I could just keep going on. It is just a much better user experience. Plus I could go and upgrade memory, throw in a hard drive, plug in a faster CPU, or just build a whole new system from the motherboard up with the same power supply and case. Compared to my desktop, a laptop is like an etch-a-sketch that won't even erase when you shake it.
Sadly, the assumption that the desktop is going away and people are moving towards "smart" devices has led some manufacturers of decent laptops (like Dell) to stop offering the 17" laptop screen on some of their product lines. This is horrible for people who actually USE these machines for work and are not just watching videos or playing Angry Birds.
there are 12,000 people making more than $50k.... which is actually a thriving industry.
I don't know about that. If they are all in the U.S., that is only 240 musicians per state that earns a living wage, or about 1 per every two cities. That seems kind of sucky.
Musicians make money by playing venues.
Unless, of course, they are Studio Musicians, or Songwriters, or Lyricists, or Backup Vocalists, etc., etc.
I would have to say that the best musicians I know very rarely play venues.
When something is sold, it is no longer the sellers, it's the buyers.
Well, that just makes sense. Unfortunately, the sellers don't seem to like that. But if they don't like that, then perhaps they should just keep it and not sell it at all. Or they could 'license" it at a severely reduced charge and take all the responsibility for the product.
In exchange for letting us do whatever we want with our purchased product, we could agree to not sue them or even complain when the product breaks when not used for its intended purpose. They can feel free to only warrant the product for its intended use and if we want to do something with it outside of that scope, then the warranty becomes null and void.
For example, if you want to install Linux on your PS#, then Sony should not be allowed to prevent you, but should not have to be responsible if you brick your PS3 or it will no longer play games.
In fact specific to cars, isn't the car sold to a dealer by the car company and then you buy it from the dealer? In terms of registering it with the state and getting a title you look like the first buyer but its not the first time the car was "sold", just the first time it was titled. In fact, dealers buy and sale cars from each other all of the time and then sale it to you. It's not considered used because it was never titled.
That's not even just specific to cars. Just about everything you buy (including most of the "wholesale to the public" stuff) has already been purchased by a company once and is being resold to you. A retail shop buys its stuff from a wholesaler and the resells it to you. Logically, if the government is going to say that you can't resell an item you purchased, that should also extend to the retailer, who is also reselling the product without even the addition of a value-add to make it a technically different product. Of course, the government will not do this because retailers are a powerful lobby, unlike consumers, who can do no worse than voting for the OTHER tyrant.
Welcome to the U.S. Nobody can sell anything used - just throw it away. You wouldn't be able to throw it away. That is a transfer of ownership. You would instead have to hope that someone will steal it from you, thus making them do the illegal thing instead of you. But if you try to arrange it to where it is easy to steal the item, they still might get you for aiding an abetting or something similar.
A ruling supporting this idiotic idea would kill American Manufacturing...
Yes, it would be literally killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. You move all manufacturing offshore, lowering costs somewhat, but not as much as you think. Meanwhile, you lay off all of your American workers, you bring in all of these goods that are slightly cheaper than if they had been made in the USA, and... nobody buys them except for the rich executives who profited from closing down American plants. Except, there are not enough rich executives to buy enough of the product, so the company goes bankrupt and people in China get laid off.
Except that Kelo was completely constitutional. It says right in the constitution that the government can seize property as long as they properly compensate the previous owner.
I actually saw this happen in a nearby city. There was an area predominantly populated by fixed income, older people who owned their own homes mortgage free. The city decided that they wanted to build a commercial area there. Cities hate residents, because residents cost them money, while commerce pays them money, so it is easy to understand why they would want to move commercial in. They ended up making lowball offers on hundreds of houses. Some people took them, some didn't. The city would also let you move your house, but they would only approve the moving permit from the city's chosen contractor, which was expensive. The longer people stayed, the lower the offers got, until finally some people had their house condemned out from under them for refusing to sell. Those who did move had to go from having no mortgage to having a mortgage on a more expensive house because most of these houses were in the $50k range and houses nearby that were available cost more like $75k, and they were only compensated about $35k for their houses. The city determined that was fair market rate because they were just going to tear the house down anyway, and nobody else would offer anywhere near $35k for a house that was going to be torn down.
If robots are doing the work, once you figure in the shipping lag, the cost of shipping materials to there, the cost of shipping the finished product back here, the socio-economic ramifications of building in one market for purchase in another, it makes far more sense to undertake the cost of building a factory in the target market.
One hates helping people, the other is required to.>
I'm a Republican and a Christian and I like helping people. I think most Republicans like helping people. I think they just don't like it when somebody else tries to tell them who they have to help, nor do they like when someone takes money away from them that they might have been able to help others with, skims 50% or more off the top and then gives it to people that the Republican doesn't feel should get the money.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this what we can expect from the latest incarnation of slashdot?
Well, given that that is what we saw out of every recent incarnation of slashdot, I don't really expect to see anything different.
The burden shouldn't be on the consumer unless they knowingly purchased it and installed it themselves.
Well, the burden also shouldn't be on the body shop unless they knowingly purchased it and installed it. Neither should it be on the Insurance Company unless they told the company to use the knowingly bad product. The burden of the cost should be on the Chinese company that sold it.
Paul Ryan asks "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?", which is funny since he knows Mitt Romney shipped them overseas.
I'm confused. Wouldn't Mitt Romney need to be president first before blaming him for sending all the jobs overseas?
I have to pay for schools and I don't have kids. I have to pay for roads and I don't have a car. ...
You benefit from both of these. Almost everywhere you go is over a public roadway. almost everything in your house got there over a public roadway. If schools were not paid for, then nobody would be creating the products that you enjoy consuming, and the only job that people would be smart enough to get would be stealing.
Take a hint from The Simpsons. Trillion dollar satellites can't find anything unless it is on the roof. Time to invest in some cheap metal buildings.
No sex in the future?
How absurd! We've already figured out that millions of fake friends are better than a couple of real ones. Surely in 15 years, we'll be bragging about our millions of virtual sex partners while some lame-o nerds are out there having old fashioned non-virtual sex with just a couple of hot, real girls.
I have absolutely NO desire for my alarm clock to talk to my shower OR anything else.
I like how the article keeps wandering back and forth from centralist (everything on one device) to decentralist (a device for each thing). There are only two things on his desk at work, one of them being an extremely inefficient to use monitor interface; yet for some reason, there needs to be a dedicated alarm clock instead of using some other device like a smartphone.
Was in college, playing around with Intel Pentium computers with black and white CRT monitors.
Wow, 15 years ago, I had a 21" super VGA monitor. Yes, It was expensive, but definitely available. Now I can get a 27" IPS for the same price. I am trying to remember when I last used a black and white monitor. We had them in the computer lab at school in 1989, but my computer back in the dorm room had a CGA monitor. As a matter of fact, my very first computer had a color monitor, and that was 30 years ago.
I would in fact argue that the social networks that existed in the 1980s were far more social than the ones that we have now. You didn't have 1 million friends on your BBS, but the ones you had were real friends, and being on a BBS and especially running one required that you had to have more than one working brain cell.
We had all kinds of revolutionary changes in the 1950s and 1960s and early 1970s and then government stopped investing in research and education and little of value has happened since.
The CN Tower is a mere 147 storeys tall.
Looks like it has maybe half a dozen floors to me, but I've never been there. Given that most buildings of that size have floors that are about 15 feet high, it is about as tall as a 120 story building.
regardless of the fact that the "official" inflation rate is currently 1.7% but they raise your rates by 3 times that amount.
Well, that is what happens when the rate of inflation is 3 times the "official" inflation rate. Unfortunately, you are dealing with an entity whose largest costs are taxes and insurance, both of which increase much faster than inflation overall. Local taxing authorities regularly increase the assessed value of real property by 6-10% every year even in a market where the value of the property is falling. For example, my house is assessed by the local tax guys at $425,000, but I recently failed to refinance it due to being "upside down" even though I owe only about $260,000 on it. Insurance similarly goes up by about 10-20% per year, especially on rental property.
Why on earth would I still have 'a desktop' 15 years from now
I don't know. I had one 15 years ago, so I assume I would have one 15 years from now.
I agree with you. I have a laptop and a desktop. I use the laptop at work because my desktop is too large to lug it to work and it is mine so IT wouldn't support it. At home, I much prefer my desktop. It has more RAM, a 10 times faster CPU, a 1000 times better graphics card, 3 times the screen space even including the second monitor at work, 4 times the disk space, and I could just keep going on. It is just a much better user experience. Plus I could go and upgrade memory, throw in a hard drive, plug in a faster CPU, or just build a whole new system from the motherboard up with the same power supply and case. Compared to my desktop, a laptop is like an etch-a-sketch that won't even erase when you shake it.
Sadly, the assumption that the desktop is going away and people are moving towards "smart" devices has led some manufacturers of decent laptops (like Dell) to stop offering the 17" laptop screen on some of their product lines. This is horrible for people who actually USE these machines for work and are not just watching videos or playing Angry Birds.
Drake and Wayne, good on you.
I guess they must get paid more for the people who specifically ask not to have to hear them.
there are 12,000 people making more than $50k.... which is actually a thriving industry.
I don't know about that. If they are all in the U.S., that is only 240 musicians per state that earns a living wage, or about 1 per every two cities. That seems kind of sucky.
Musicians make money by playing venues.
Unless, of course, they are Studio Musicians, or Songwriters, or Lyricists, or Backup Vocalists, etc., etc.
I would have to say that the best musicians I know very rarely play venues.
When something is sold, it is no longer the sellers, it's the buyers.
Well, that just makes sense. Unfortunately, the sellers don't seem to like that. But if they don't like that, then perhaps they should just keep it and not sell it at all. Or they could 'license" it at a severely reduced charge and take all the responsibility for the product.
In exchange for letting us do whatever we want with our purchased product, we could agree to not sue them or even complain when the product breaks when not used for its intended purpose. They can feel free to only warrant the product for its intended use and if we want to do something with it outside of that scope, then the warranty becomes null and void.
For example, if you want to install Linux on your PS#, then Sony should not be allowed to prevent you, but should not have to be responsible if you brick your PS3 or it will no longer play games.
In fact specific to cars, isn't the car sold to a dealer by the car company and then you buy it from the dealer? In terms of registering it with the state and getting a title you look like the first buyer but its not the first time the car was "sold", just the first time it was titled. In fact, dealers buy and sale cars from each other all of the time and then sale it to you. It's not considered used because it was never titled.
That's not even just specific to cars. Just about everything you buy (including most of the "wholesale to the public" stuff) has already been purchased by a company once and is being resold to you. A retail shop buys its stuff from a wholesaler and the resells it to you. Logically, if the government is going to say that you can't resell an item you purchased, that should also extend to the retailer, who is also reselling the product without even the addition of a value-add to make it a technically different product. Of course, the government will not do this because retailers are a powerful lobby, unlike consumers, who can do no worse than voting for the OTHER tyrant.
Welcome to the U.S. Nobody can sell anything used - just throw it away.
You wouldn't be able to throw it away. That is a transfer of ownership. You would instead have to hope that someone will steal it from you, thus making them do the illegal thing instead of you. But if you try to arrange it to where it is easy to steal the item, they still might get you for aiding an abetting or something similar.
A ruling supporting this idiotic idea would kill American Manufacturing...
Yes, it would be literally killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. You move all manufacturing offshore, lowering costs somewhat, but not as much as you think. Meanwhile, you lay off all of your American workers, you bring in all of these goods that are slightly cheaper than if they had been made in the USA, and... nobody buys them except for the rich executives who profited from closing down American plants. Except, there are not enough rich executives to buy enough of the product, so the company goes bankrupt and people in China get laid off.
Except that Kelo was completely constitutional. It says right in the constitution that the government can seize property as long as they properly compensate the previous owner.
I actually saw this happen in a nearby city. There was an area predominantly populated by fixed income, older people who owned their own homes mortgage free. The city decided that they wanted to build a commercial area there. Cities hate residents, because residents cost them money, while commerce pays them money, so it is easy to understand why they would want to move commercial in. They ended up making lowball offers on hundreds of houses. Some people took them, some didn't. The city would also let you move your house, but they would only approve the moving permit from the city's chosen contractor, which was expensive. The longer people stayed, the lower the offers got, until finally some people had their house condemned out from under them for refusing to sell. Those who did move had to go from having no mortgage to having a mortgage on a more expensive house because most of these houses were in the $50k range and houses nearby that were available cost more like $75k, and they were only compensated about $35k for their houses. The city determined that was fair market rate because they were just going to tear the house down anyway, and nobody else would offer anywhere near $35k for a house that was going to be torn down.
Has lawsuits stopped downloading movies and music?
No, and neither has a "technological solution" stopped it.
If robots are doing the work, once you figure in the shipping lag, the cost of shipping materials to there, the cost of shipping the finished product back here, the socio-economic ramifications of building in one market for purchase in another, it makes far more sense to undertake the cost of building a factory in the target market.
You can't be a republican AND a christian.
One hates helping people, the other is required to.>
I'm a Republican and a Christian and I like helping people. I think most Republicans like helping people. I think they just don't like it when somebody else tries to tell them who they have to help, nor do they like when someone takes money away from them that they might have been able to help others with, skims 50% or more off the top and then gives it to people that the Republican doesn't feel should get the money.