To you and all others who dragged in the "Russian Mafia". It is irrelevant, and not just because the godfather lives in the Kremlin. It is irrelevant mostly because there is virtually no "piracy" in Russia. The distribution that takes place is entirely legal and is carried out by legitimate businesses.
If one signs a torture warrant, one's words will result in torture. Given just the right circumstances, one can create a violent mob by using nothing but words.
You cannot go to prison for just writing something.
If you describe a plan to assassinate the president and state your intention to proceed with that plan, you may end up in prison.
If it is not OK to beat up whoever you want, then it is not OK to write whatever you want. Depending on who you are and who is reading, the words you write may hurt or kill people.
Anyone who is going to comment on "paying for stolen items out of their own pay check" being illegal, please consider that there are ways to do that besides charging. I describe the situation as well as I understand it in a post above. In short, it is done through a bonus reduction, and it never affects the hourly pay. It does hurt financially, though, since a very substantial part of the wages comes from bonuses. It is probably quite legal, yet you cannot deny that, as a matter of fact, managers are paying for shrinkage.
If you suppose that you may find yourself one day in a situation where you (1) steal $1000 in parts and service and then (2) murder a guy who tries to detain you without hurting you in any significant way, I'd say that your lifestyle is quite extraordinary. I would be surprised that you are still free. I am sure that if you were in the customer's place, you would do exactly what he did: pay, and drive away in your new pimp car, as opposed to a boring police cruiser.
In defence of the manager I must say: I think that his action was appropriate in that situation. I will be first to agree: when some dumb fuck at the door is blocking your way without a probable cause, he deserves to be punched. First of all, because they are ALL instructed, countless times, that they are NOT to prevent customers from exiting. It is illegal, against the store policy, and just plain rude. If, on the other hand, one actually sees with his own eyes that a customer is about to drive away with $1000 worth of goodies (by that robbing everyone in the department), one is perfetly justified to conduct a citizen's arrest -- a perfectly legal procedure, the same one that store detectives are employing. The same one that you could employ if you caught a thief in your house: you have a right to detain that person without using lethal force, and a responsibility to notify the police.
OK, correct me, someone who worked on the floor at Fry's: my information is second-hand. It is my impression that managers get (1) a regular paycheck, which is pretty low and (2) commissions and bonuses, which can often double the amount of money they get per month. The former is guaranteed no matter what, but the latter -- bonuses and such -- get reduced if there is shrinkage of any kind. Since the base pay at Fry's is not that great (or should I say, god-damn-awful), theft of expensive goods really does hit the manager's pockets. Whatever exactly is the policy, I am pretty sure it is legal. No conspiracy there.
There are plenty of ways to run a perfectly legal swetshop in USA, and Fry brothers are almost as good at it as Lee Scott:)
if you must steal, steal from the big box stores because they have already accounted for you.
I worked for a while for Fry brothers, in the loss prevention department. The attitude there is just the opposite of "it's been accounted for". While they, no doubt, have to adjust their pricing due to theft, you should know that they are doing everything they can to minimize the losses -- all the way to zero.
One way they do it is, of course, by increasing security. And the other way -- by having employees (mostly managers) to pay for stolen items out of their own pay checks (so they do at Fry's -- I don't know about other stores). I have been treated to a tale about one courageous manager who literally dragged a customer out of his car through the window, because the latter was about to drive away without paying for his new car audio system.
The moral is: stealing is difficult and risky, regardless of the store size. And I would say, it only gets harder as the potential loss goes up. If you want to have it easy, you have to steal something that no one else is stealing, but then you won't be stealing anything worthwhile:)
Re:My favourite learning song
on
Singing Science
·
· Score: 1
Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph-null bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around, aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall.
Re:ZFS with DTrace are serious arguments for Solar
on
Sun Releases ZFS
·
· Score: 1
I am a slacker (pun intended), so, though I've been using Slackware for many years, I never found out why Pat thinks that 2.4 is better. I don't care. All I know is that the stable branch of 2.6 compiles and works perfectly.
Why must religion remain in the same state it was 2000 years ago, and not advance with the rest of society?
I can fill that. There's absolutely no point to advance the religion. There is nothing wrong with Christianity, or Buddhism, or Daoism, or [world religion of your choice], except that they have never been tried.
Ironic indeed, but it was not always so. Early Christian writers rejected "magics" of the day because they were widely used to further one's own goals at the expense of the neighbour. They did not oppose the kind of magic that was helping the community or was bringing glory to the Jewish god and Jesus as his son (cf. the entire New Testament). All that is magical, both now and then, boils down to communicating with powerful spirits and getting them to do stuff for you in the spiritual realm. The early Christian attitude was different: submit to god and allow the good spirit (the Holy Spirit) to use your body to do stuff in the corporeal realm.
It is most ironic especially because the modern theology have turned Christian god into a vending machine. Today, god is dispensing pleasure to those who are kissing his ass. When people go to church and pray to get a stable income (I am kidding you not), better jobs, a spouse -- they, in fact, are trying to manipulate god. That is exactly the selfish magic which the gospel writers were so incensed by.
Winners write the history. The ones who survive will call themselves "righteous" and "faithful". (Not countering your argument, just spicing it up with some Nietzsche.)
Your excellent post outlines yet more problems with privatized pharmaceutical research. While I am still flaming, let me make a few comments.
Volume SMALL. [Or there would be epidemia.]
Cancer, AIDS (in US) -- not all deadly diseases are epidemic, even if they are contagious. My point is: a lot of people are negatively affected by these patents.
And I am well aware that they (private sector) would be at loss. And I am saying: well, if you cannot heal us while turning a profit, then get the hell off the stage. There's a thing called "government-funded research", and that's only one way in which drugs can be created without being encumbered with patents.
GGP mentioned that US is the leader in drug research. I agree again. It may as well be true that patents are the most effective way to encourage this type of research. But what good is all that knowledge if we have to pay for it by becoming assholes who will not even allow poor people to heal themselves?
You must know something I do not. Take a person who has no insurance and who cannot afford a patented drug, but can afford generic treatment, which is less effective. Now suppose that the patented drug can be manufactured at the cost comparable to that of the generic treatment. If you have a reason -- an ethical reason, mind you -- not to sell this guy the patented drug at cost, I would like to hear it.
What would be the ethical reason to prevent poor countries from manufacture patented anti-AIDS drugs without a license? While it is not nearly as important, what would be the economical reason? They cannot pay for the license, no matter what!
If private companies cannot avoid this dilemma in healthcare, they have to give way. Life-saving drugs should not be patentable. There are other, more ethical ways to create new drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
To you and all others who dragged in the "Russian Mafia". It is irrelevant, and not just because the godfather lives in the Kremlin. It is irrelevant mostly because there is virtually no "piracy" in Russia. The distribution that takes place is entirely legal and is carried out by legitimate businesses.
If one signs a torture warrant, one's words will result in torture. Given just the right circumstances, one can create a violent mob by using nothing but words.
You cannot go to prison for just writing something.
If you describe a plan to assassinate the president and state your intention to proceed with that plan, you may end up in prison.
If it is not OK to beat up whoever you want, then it is not OK to write whatever you want. Depending on who you are and who is reading, the words you write may hurt or kill people.
Anyone who is going to comment on "paying for stolen items out of their own pay check" being illegal, please consider that there are ways to do that besides charging. I describe the situation as well as I understand it in a post above. In short, it is done through a bonus reduction, and it never affects the hourly pay. It does hurt financially, though, since a very substantial part of the wages comes from bonuses. It is probably quite legal, yet you cannot deny that, as a matter of fact, managers are paying for shrinkage.
If you suppose that you may find yourself one day in a situation where you (1) steal $1000 in parts and service and then (2) murder a guy who tries to detain you without hurting you in any significant way, I'd say that your lifestyle is quite extraordinary. I would be surprised that you are still free. I am sure that if you were in the customer's place, you would do exactly what he did: pay, and drive away in your new pimp car, as opposed to a boring police cruiser.
In defence of the manager I must say: I think that his action was appropriate in that situation. I will be first to agree: when some dumb fuck at the door is blocking your way without a probable cause, he deserves to be punched. First of all, because they are ALL instructed, countless times, that they are NOT to prevent customers from exiting. It is illegal, against the store policy, and just plain rude. If, on the other hand, one actually sees with his own eyes that a customer is about to drive away with $1000 worth of goodies (by that robbing everyone in the department), one is perfetly justified to conduct a citizen's arrest -- a perfectly legal procedure, the same one that store detectives are employing. The same one that you could employ if you caught a thief in your house: you have a right to detain that person without using lethal force, and a responsibility to notify the police.
OK, correct me, someone who worked on the floor at Fry's: my information is second-hand. It is my impression that managers get (1) a regular paycheck, which is pretty low and (2) commissions and bonuses, which can often double the amount of money they get per month. The former is guaranteed no matter what, but the latter -- bonuses and such -- get reduced if there is shrinkage of any kind. Since the base pay at Fry's is not that great (or should I say, god-damn-awful), theft of expensive goods really does hit the manager's pockets. Whatever exactly is the policy, I am pretty sure it is legal. No conspiracy there.
There are plenty of ways to run a perfectly legal swetshop in USA, and Fry brothers are almost as good at it as Lee Scott :)
if you must steal, steal from the big box stores because they have already accounted for you.
I worked for a while for Fry brothers, in the loss prevention department. The attitude there is just the opposite of "it's been accounted for". While they, no doubt, have to adjust their pricing due to theft, you should know that they are doing everything they can to minimize the losses -- all the way to zero.
One way they do it is, of course, by increasing security. And the other way -- by having employees (mostly managers) to pay for stolen items out of their own pay checks (so they do at Fry's -- I don't know about other stores). I have been treated to a tale about one courageous manager who literally dragged a customer out of his car through the window, because the latter was about to drive away without paying for his new car audio system.
The moral is: stealing is difficult and risky, regardless of the store size. And I would say, it only gets harder as the potential loss goes up. If you want to have it easy, you have to steal something that no one else is stealing, but then you won't be stealing anything worthwhile :)
Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph-null bottles of beer. Take one down and pass it around, aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall.
I don't get it
I am a slacker (pun intended), so, though I've been using Slackware for many years, I never found out why Pat thinks that 2.4 is better. I don't care. All I know is that the stable branch of 2.6 compiles and works perfectly.
Go Pat.
Posts like these make my reading of /. almost worthwhile :)
I cannot find any porn. I think it is broken.
It is well known that real men use vi.
You've lost me at "existance"...
You forgot porn:
:= <entity> (' on ' <entity>)+ := ['wo'] 'man'
<porn plot>
<entity>
Too bad prof. Stallman never makes predictions about the stock market. I would be reading his site 3 times a day instead of 1.
This man is my hero!
A great post.
Why must religion remain in the same state it was 2000 years ago, and not advance with the rest of society?
I can fill that. There's absolutely no point to advance the religion. There is nothing wrong with Christianity, or Buddhism, or Daoism, or [world religion of your choice], except that they have never been tried.
Ironic indeed, but it was not always so. Early Christian writers rejected "magics" of the day because they were widely used to further one's own goals at the expense of the neighbour. They did not oppose the kind of magic that was helping the community or was bringing glory to the Jewish god and Jesus as his son (cf. the entire New Testament). All that is magical, both now and then, boils down to communicating with powerful spirits and getting them to do stuff for you in the spiritual realm. The early Christian attitude was different: submit to god and allow the good spirit (the Holy Spirit) to use your body to do stuff in the corporeal realm.
It is most ironic especially because the modern theology have turned Christian god into a vending machine. Today, god is dispensing pleasure to those who are kissing his ass. When people go to church and pray to get a stable income (I am kidding you not), better jobs, a spouse -- they, in fact, are trying to manipulate god. That is exactly the selfish magic which the gospel writers were so incensed by.
"He who brings into existence whatever exists" does not exist. That has something of a Buddhist taste to it.
"He who is" does not exist. That is just funky...
Winners write the history. The ones who survive will call themselves "righteous" and "faithful". (Not countering your argument, just spicing it up with some Nietzsche.)
A very true mean answer above :P
I take it as a sign that if Syracuse had the entire MIT instead of one Archimedes, we would not be hearing the story at all. Go Greeks.
Your excellent post outlines yet more problems with privatized pharmaceutical research. While I am still flaming, let me make a few comments.
Volume SMALL. [Or there would be epidemia.]
Cancer, AIDS (in US) -- not all deadly diseases are epidemic, even if they are contagious. My point is: a lot of people are negatively affected by these patents.
And I am well aware that they (private sector) would be at loss. And I am saying: well, if you cannot heal us while turning a profit, then get the hell off the stage. There's a thing called "government-funded research", and that's only one way in which drugs can be created without being encumbered with patents.
GGP mentioned that US is the leader in drug research. I agree again. It may as well be true that patents are the most effective way to encourage this type of research. But what good is all that knowledge if we have to pay for it by becoming assholes who will not even allow poor people to heal themselves?
You must know something I do not. Take a person who has no insurance and who cannot afford a patented drug, but can afford generic treatment, which is less effective. Now suppose that the patented drug can be manufactured at the cost comparable to that of the generic treatment. If you have a reason -- an ethical reason, mind you -- not to sell this guy the patented drug at cost, I would like to hear it.
What would be the ethical reason to prevent poor countries from manufacture patented anti-AIDS drugs without a license? While it is not nearly as important, what would be the economical reason? They cannot pay for the license, no matter what!
If private companies cannot avoid this dilemma in healthcare, they have to give way. Life-saving drugs should not be patentable. There are other, more ethical ways to create new drugs.