I am a woman. I do not feel harassed. Stop fucking speaking for women and let us stand up for ourselves if it is necessary.
So only the individual being wronged has any standing in defending against aggression. Sorry, in my experience that gives a free hand to all kinds of exploitation and aggression, since many people -- maybe a majority -- people do not stand up for themselves when necessary, but that doesn't mean they deserve that treatment. We should celebrate those who are willing to step in and help others, not scold them.
You don't sign an agreement to eat in a buffet, but there's an understanding that if you start stuffing chicken wings in your pockets you might be thrown out.
I hadn't noticed it at first, but s/he did write "infinitely small print", I guess because if it's OK for T-mobile to have fine print, then, being the little guy, s/he should be allowed to arbitrarily change a contract, unilaterally, just because.
I'm not a lawyer, but there's a big difference between an ad and a contract. A contract requires consideration: both parties must exchange something real for the contract to be valid. But an ad has no consideration (beyond wasting your time, etc.)... it's a 1-way offer. It's probably much easier to resolve a contract dispute than a false-advertising claim, in court. There's also the PR/goodwill aspect that Bestbuy is concerned about: clear, unambiguous evidence that Bestbuy doesn't sell what it advertises would probably make headlines, at least in the tech press and twitterdom, and would cause Bestbuy to lose customers.
You can't tolerate the disconnect between the marketing words and the actual agreement, and you understood this before you signed. It sounds like you don't like T-mobile's business practices, so you had a choice to make: sign the agreement and stomach their supposed sleaziness, or don't sign and don't enjoy the pretty substantial network, as "limited" as it truly may be, but, in making your principled stand against misleading marketing, you bask in the light of righteousness. You chose to sign, in doing so, aligned yourself with your new business partner, T-mobile.
I actually wasn't trolling, and even used my real Slashdot ID, while you're hiding anonymously.
Please, provide a substantive retort, not an ad hominem attack. My remark about marketing is sincere: it is normal and expected, by decent people in the real world I was born in, not to headline every possible deficiency, weakness or insecurity in a negotiation, e.g., job interview, craigslist sale, courting possible spouses, etc. People put their best face forward, but if asked a direct, unambiguous, detailed question, they don't respond in a way that is technically wrong. Yes, there is a dance, where people don't want to reveal too much, too soon. I believe most people know this or at least act as if they know this, and do it themselves. Somehow, in this instance, you think this practical reality of adult life shouldn't apply.
An absolutely unlimited internet connection is technically impossible, since the bandwidth of any network in the universe, however measured, is finite, and I believe you understand this. So you know that what is being marketed to you cannot *literally* be true, without some sort of qualification. By insisting that the pretty reasonable limitation imposed by T-mobile (de-prioritization beyond 21GB, the 97 percentile of users) is beyond the pale, it's hard to take your complaint seriously. If you say it should instead be the 98 percentile, well, we could discuss that. Instead you are, in effect, complaining about the laws of physics.
To be generous to you, perhaps you're instead worried about all the naive users who are buying the "unlimited" plan, but they don't understand that truly "unlimited" plans violate physical laws, and so they think that what they've got is *truly* unlimited. I'm sorry, that argument doesn't fly for me either, as I find it difficult to imagine any substantial number of users too uninformed or uneducated to understand the universal finiteness of network capacity and yet realistically able to configure their own tethering set-ups such that they're in the group that T-mobile is going after. Maybe it's possible if a friend set it up for them, but then that friend would understand the situation. So, practically, it is unlimited for the users that don't understand, and for those that do, well, they expect and can read the fine print.
"Unlimited data, $X / month" is a pretty clear statement, if they want to caveat the hell out of it in the small print that's their problem
If you sign up with such fine print, then, well, you actually agreed to it. I suppose you'd get angry about the old "Coke adds life" ads because Coke drinkers don't have longer lives, according to the fine print that some Coca Cola lawyer probably (should have) added to the bottom of the ad for fear of the wrath of folks who never really had to market anything themselves.
They're selling unlimited data *for phones*, and the vast, vast majority of the population understands this, as, I'd wager, do the tetherers. A pushback on tethering is no bait-and-switch maneuver. Maybe they could change your "unlimited data, $X/month" to "unlimited PHONE data, $X/month", but I can't imagine that satisfying you. I think the reality is that tetherers and their apologists want everyone else to subsidize such fringe use of the network. Such anti-social behavior is a close analog of the free-rider problem in economics, and *is* abusive.
Now, if you get cut off for watching too much Youtube or Netflix *on your phone*, well then, that's a different story and I'm right there with ya.
So? This still doesn't help people take the games seriously.
And the worst thing in the world is people not taking games seriously.
Not the worst thing, but it's a bloody drag that gaming is less socially acceptable --- among highly educated people such as those for whom the popular professional sports might be of little interest --- than things that might get you lynched (by different folks) only a few generations ago. Unlike knowledge of obscure paintings, music, or writing, which might spark interest at a formal dinner party, sharing one's knowledge of gaming there would, frankly, most likely be received with rolled-eyes, whispers or, even worse, pure silence. People who admit to a serious interest in gaming, save possibly for pure strategy gaming, generally come across as lacking gravitas. Such admissions are definitely not recommended when meeting your future spouse for the first time, say, or a when interviewing to become partner.
Pricing software is very easy, it's whatever the buyer is willing to pay.
Pricing needs agreement from the seller too. Otherwise, I'd like everything free, thank you very much.
Asking $100K for specialized engineering software isn't insane when you consider how much specialized dedication, education and talent may be required. It's definitely not just "coding".
Don't surgeons and other medical specialists charge huge fees, and yet their impact is narrower since they only help one person at a time? Please don't say research engineers & scientists ought to be poor because they're not from a "blessed" profession like medicine, law or finance. Research engineers are way underpaid relative to their impact on society, and somehow accept the situation because they're doing something they love. Don't physicians like helping people too?
Doctors and lawyers have a weak guild system (via medical and law licensing boards) which helps them constrain membership growth and reduce foreign competition. Thus they're paid well. The profession engineering designations (mostly CivE and MechE) don't really apply to high tech (EE, robotics) & the IEEE doesn't have clout (& hasn't been much help with H1B). Engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, who create the future, are politically weak, while doctors and lawyers, who fundamentally protect the status quo (bodies and property), are politically strong. This has to change.
I don't give two shits about my co-workers health. If they don't want to get sick, maybe they should take a day off.
Seriously, your co-worker should take off a day to avoid getting your plague? So I guess you also don't care if co-worker Foobar makes you and everyone else at your workplace sick, since by symmetry Foobar shouldn't give two shits about anyone else's health either. Or are you somehow special? Golden rule much?
That's not the choice we were talking about. Only about using up vacation days in lieu of spreading sickness. I'd be a heck of a lot more sympathetic with someone whose job was in jeopardy rather than their tan on the beach.
They have to because they only have so many sick days and, being unable to control how many days per year they'll be sick, it's only smart to save the things until they're desperately needed. Otherwise you end up vomiting one day and have to cut into your vacation time by taking a vacation day. Wonderful vacation there, staying home vomiting all day long...SNIP.. People go to work when they're sick because they don't have a choice.
So you're saying people would rather to spread sickness to others than use up their vacation. That sounds like choice to me.
Just because someone gave you something for free, like software, that doesn't entitle you to anything else. Yes, I know it is natural to hope that a gravy train won't end, that everything at the store is sold below cost like that weekly special, but when we grow up we come to understand things like loss leaders. If it was our fruit stand, or software shop, or brothel, we'd have to do the same thing to compete.
The customer wants free beer. "Fine, mister, here you go. But my half hour in the bedroom is extra."
I'm sorry, I don't so easily rationalize forsaking people in a society where there's barely anything worthy of being called a safety net. It sounds like you'd feel comfortable saying "too bad you weren't born into as much wealth/looks/smarts/energy/love/support/connections/education/safety/etc as I was; nonetheless I MERIT all the cookies I get based on my advantages since I performed better and objective performance is all that matters sucker. It's the law of the jungle."
Frankly, one could probably use the same kind of reasoning to justify the near elimination of policing in the rough areas of town, since the people from the wealthy areas shouldn't have to pay for the safety of those in poor areas: it's tough luck for those kids born into those areas!
Both sides of an argument can refer to the -ism ("X-ism is right" or "X-ism is wrong"), so therefore your complaint about its invocation alone is quite lame. And his/her argument wasn't the -ism itself; the -ism was just its name. He did provide some reasoning, which you ignored.
The new congress has huge de facto influence over the lame duck session. Even highly influential and currently seated members have argued against passing legislation during the lame duck session since it violates the will of the people.
Methinks that until the lame duck session is eliminated through legal means, it should be regarded both formally and rhetorically as being fully in-session. Outcry otherwise is basically encouraging law makers to break the law (e.g., being paid to legislate without actually doing so).
I am bloody impressed with how the Democrats blew through that Tea Party anti-legal reasoning. Go New Start. Blessed end of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Ooh rah!
I certainly wasn't trolling. Though I personally support Death Taxes and dislike superlong copyright-after-death, I can see how others disagree. My point is not to go one way or the other, but that the two issues are strongly related: you can't be against Death Taxes and for superlong copyright-after-death.
Property rights (to land and other physical things, say) also take away rights from others, such as their right to sleep on your lovely hillside, to which you have a deed. (Sleeping there should be anyone's natural right since it's so pretty and grassy there, la, la, la---look I think I saw a leprichaun. Um, no.)
How exactly do the rights of the dependents encourage the dead person to go on creating works?
Because the creator, when alive, is motivated by the knowledge that her dependents will be provided for when she is dead.
If you care about what's in your Will (and especially how big your estate is so that your Will matters to anyone), you probably would care about copyright extending beyond your death.
That's way easier said than done. Simple backup doesn't cut it for the corruption example, as the backup may have been corrupt too unless you noticed the problem before making the next backup. Basically your backup regime would require a history of backups much like Time Machine, so that you can always find a backup dated from before the corruption was introduced.
I hardly think it's fair to say you deserve what you get. Frankly, backup "should" be transparent. Of course, that makes privacy a concern with your entire history stored somewhere. Sometimes, things just need to get shredded, physically or virtually... and backup is diametrically opposed to that.
Making it illegal to purchase certain games without parental consent solves nothing. Kids will just play those games over at their friends' houses whose parents do buy them for their kids. If you don't do actual parenting and investigate the environments and people that your kids are hanging around, things you might rather not happen can do so easily.
I for one don't believe that kids need to be insulated from much of anything. Maturity happens from experience, and understanding cannot occur without knowledge.
I suppose you also hold people responsible for falling down open manholes unmarked by pylons: why mark them since you could have just "investigated" it yourself before you fell in? The world is too bloody big to do everything by yourself. You need help and support, & have to be able to trust in things & people that you don't have the time/energy/resources to investigate/fix yourself. When you hire people to take care of your kid, how can you be certain they're doing right by your kid? You have trust. But trust requires some mutual understanding of acceptability.
Whether a formal law is required to limit violence isn't the point: your reasoning about parenting would suggest that even the voluntary ID checks for M-rated games are pointless. Whether it's enforced by law or de facto by stores themselves, I'm pretty bloody satisfied that I can trust a that there are some bounds on content that are easily accessed by my kid in the years to come. These bounds are NOT perfect and can be worked around, but even kids have only so much time/$/ability, so at least it has the effect of reducing exposure, if not eliminating it.
You understand, that this argument here, itself, is us being "part of a village" taking care of our kids. The very communication itself, I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a woman. I do not feel harassed. Stop fucking speaking for women and let us stand up for ourselves if it is necessary.
So only the individual being wronged has any standing in defending against aggression. Sorry, in my experience that gives a free hand to all kinds of exploitation and aggression, since many people -- maybe a majority -- people do not stand up for themselves when necessary, but that doesn't mean they deserve that treatment. We should celebrate those who are willing to step in and help others, not scold them.
You don't sign an agreement to eat in a buffet, but there's an understanding that if you start stuffing chicken wings in your pockets you might be thrown out.
Well put.
I hadn't noticed it at first, but s/he did write "infinitely small print", I guess because if it's OK for T-mobile to have fine print, then, being the little guy, s/he should be allowed to arbitrarily change a contract, unilaterally, just because.
I'm not a lawyer, but there's a big difference between an ad and a contract. A contract requires consideration: both parties must exchange something real for the contract to be valid. But an ad has no consideration (beyond wasting your time, etc.)... it's a 1-way offer. It's probably much easier to resolve a contract dispute than a false-advertising claim, in court. There's also the PR/goodwill aspect that Bestbuy is concerned about: clear, unambiguous evidence that Bestbuy doesn't sell what it advertises would probably make headlines, at least in the tech press and twitterdom, and would cause Bestbuy to lose customers.
I like your "practically unlimited*" marketing slogan.
OK, you're trolling me now.
You can't tolerate the disconnect between the marketing words and the actual agreement, and you understood this before you signed. It sounds like you don't like T-mobile's business practices, so you had a choice to make: sign the agreement and stomach their supposed sleaziness, or don't sign and don't enjoy the pretty substantial network, as "limited" as it truly may be, but, in making your principled stand against misleading marketing, you bask in the light of righteousness. You chose to sign, in doing so, aligned yourself with your new business partner, T-mobile.
I actually wasn't trolling, and even used my real Slashdot ID, while you're hiding anonymously.
Please, provide a substantive retort, not an ad hominem attack. My remark about marketing is sincere: it is normal and expected, by decent people in the real world I was born in, not to headline every possible deficiency, weakness or insecurity in a negotiation, e.g., job interview, craigslist sale, courting possible spouses, etc. People put their best face forward, but if asked a direct, unambiguous, detailed question, they don't respond in a way that is technically wrong. Yes, there is a dance, where people don't want to reveal too much, too soon. I believe most people know this or at least act as if they know this, and do it themselves. Somehow, in this instance, you think this practical reality of adult life shouldn't apply.
An absolutely unlimited internet connection is technically impossible, since the bandwidth of any network in the universe, however measured, is finite, and I believe you understand this. So you know that what is being marketed to you cannot *literally* be true, without some sort of qualification. By insisting that the pretty reasonable limitation imposed by T-mobile (de-prioritization beyond 21GB, the 97 percentile of users) is beyond the pale, it's hard to take your complaint seriously. If you say it should instead be the 98 percentile, well, we could discuss that. Instead you are, in effect, complaining about the laws of physics.
To be generous to you, perhaps you're instead worried about all the naive users who are buying the "unlimited" plan, but they don't understand that truly "unlimited" plans violate physical laws, and so they think that what they've got is *truly* unlimited. I'm sorry, that argument doesn't fly for me either, as I find it difficult to imagine any substantial number of users too uninformed or uneducated to understand the universal finiteness of network capacity and yet realistically able to configure their own tethering set-ups such that they're in the group that T-mobile is going after. Maybe it's possible if a friend set it up for them, but then that friend would understand the situation. So, practically, it is unlimited for the users that don't understand, and for those that do, well, they expect and can read the fine print.
"Unlimited data, $X / month" is a pretty clear statement, if they want to caveat the hell out of it in the small print that's their problem
If you sign up with such fine print, then, well, you actually agreed to it. I suppose you'd get angry about the old "Coke adds life" ads because Coke drinkers don't have longer lives, according to the fine print that some Coca Cola lawyer probably (should have) added to the bottom of the ad for fear of the wrath of folks who never really had to market anything themselves.
They're selling unlimited data *for phones*, and the vast, vast majority of the population understands this, as, I'd wager, do the tetherers. A pushback on tethering is no bait-and-switch maneuver. Maybe they could change your "unlimited data, $X/month" to "unlimited PHONE data, $X/month", but I can't imagine that satisfying you. I think the reality is that tetherers and their apologists want everyone else to subsidize such fringe use of the network. Such anti-social behavior is a close analog of the free-rider problem in economics, and *is* abusive.
Now, if you get cut off for watching too much Youtube or Netflix *on your phone*, well then, that's a different story and I'm right there with ya.
I disagree with intellectual censorship in any form, at any age.
I'm sure they're thankful you spared them the horrors of Santa by shattering the myth before they were forced to endure their first Christmas morning.
So? This still doesn't help people take the games seriously.
And the worst thing in the world is people not taking games seriously.
Not the worst thing, but it's a bloody drag that gaming is less socially acceptable --- among highly educated people such as those for whom the popular professional sports might be of little interest --- than things that might get you lynched (by different folks) only a few generations ago. Unlike knowledge of obscure paintings, music, or writing, which might spark interest at a formal dinner party, sharing one's knowledge of gaming there would, frankly, most likely be received with rolled-eyes, whispers or, even worse, pure silence. People who admit to a serious interest in gaming, save possibly for pure strategy gaming, generally come across as lacking gravitas. Such admissions are definitely not recommended when meeting your future spouse for the first time, say, or a when interviewing to become partner.
Pricing software is very easy, it's whatever the buyer is willing to pay.
Pricing needs agreement from the seller too. Otherwise, I'd like everything free, thank you very much.
Asking $100K for specialized engineering software isn't insane when you consider how much specialized dedication, education and talent may be required. It's definitely not just "coding".
Don't surgeons and other medical specialists charge huge fees, and yet their impact is narrower since they only help one person at a time? Please don't say research engineers & scientists ought to be poor because they're not from a "blessed" profession like medicine, law or finance. Research engineers are way underpaid relative to their impact on society, and somehow accept the situation because they're doing something they love. Don't physicians like helping people too?
Doctors and lawyers have a weak guild system (via medical and law licensing boards) which helps them constrain membership growth and reduce foreign competition. Thus they're paid well. The profession engineering designations (mostly CivE and MechE) don't really apply to high tech (EE, robotics) & the IEEE doesn't have clout (& hasn't been much help with H1B). Engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, who create the future, are politically weak, while doctors and lawyers, who fundamentally protect the status quo (bodies and property), are politically strong. This has to change.
I don't give two shits about my co-workers health. If they don't want to get sick, maybe they should take a day off.
Seriously, your co-worker should take off a day to avoid getting your plague? So I guess you also don't care if co-worker Foobar makes you and everyone else at your workplace sick, since by symmetry Foobar shouldn't give two shits about anyone else's health either. Or are you somehow special? Golden rule much?
That's not the choice we were talking about. Only about using up vacation days in lieu of spreading sickness. I'd be a heck of a lot more sympathetic with someone whose job was in jeopardy rather than their tan on the beach.
They have to because they only have so many sick days and, being unable to control how many days per year they'll be sick, it's only smart to save the things until they're desperately needed. Otherwise you end up vomiting one day and have to cut into your vacation time by taking a vacation day. Wonderful vacation there, staying home vomiting all day long. ..SNIP.. People go to work when they're sick because they don't have a choice.
So you're saying people would rather to spread sickness to others than use up their vacation. That sounds like choice to me.
Just because someone gave you something for free, like software, that doesn't entitle you to anything else. Yes, I know it is natural to hope that a gravy train won't end, that everything at the store is sold below cost like that weekly special, but when we grow up we come to understand things like loss leaders. If it was our fruit stand, or software shop, or brothel, we'd have to do the same thing to compete. The customer wants free beer. "Fine, mister, here you go. But my half hour in the bedroom is extra."
I'm sorry, I don't so easily rationalize forsaking people in a society where there's barely anything worthy of being called a safety net. It sounds like you'd feel comfortable saying "too bad you weren't born into as much wealth/looks/smarts/energy/love/support/connections/education/safety/etc as I was; nonetheless I MERIT all the cookies I get based on my advantages since I performed better and objective performance is all that matters sucker. It's the law of the jungle." Frankly, one could probably use the same kind of reasoning to justify the near elimination of policing in the rough areas of town, since the people from the wealthy areas shouldn't have to pay for the safety of those in poor areas: it's tough luck for those kids born into those areas!
Both sides of an argument can refer to the -ism ("X-ism is right" or "X-ism is wrong"), so therefore your complaint about its invocation alone is quite lame. And his/her argument wasn't the -ism itself; the -ism was just its name. He did provide some reasoning, which you ignored.
The new congress has huge de facto influence over the lame duck session. Even highly influential and currently seated members have argued against passing legislation during the lame duck session since it violates the will of the people. Methinks that until the lame duck session is eliminated through legal means, it should be regarded both formally and rhetorically as being fully in-session. Outcry otherwise is basically encouraging law makers to break the law (e.g., being paid to legislate without actually doing so). I am bloody impressed with how the Democrats blew through that Tea Party anti-legal reasoning. Go New Start. Blessed end of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Ooh rah!
I certainly wasn't trolling. Though I personally support Death Taxes and dislike superlong copyright-after-death, I can see how others disagree. My point is not to go one way or the other, but that the two issues are strongly related: you can't be against Death Taxes and for superlong copyright-after-death.
Property rights (to land and other physical things, say) also take away rights from others, such as their right to sleep on your lovely hillside, to which you have a deed. (Sleeping there should be anyone's natural right since it's so pretty and grassy there, la, la, la---look I think I saw a leprichaun. Um, no.)
So you support a 100% Death Tax (a tax on one's estate), so that you can leave nothing to anyone when you die... it all goes to the State.
How exactly do the rights of the dependents encourage the dead person to go on creating works?
Because the creator, when alive, is motivated by the knowledge that her dependents will be provided for when she is dead. If you care about what's in your Will (and especially how big your estate is so that your Will matters to anyone), you probably would care about copyright extending beyond your death.
That's way easier said than done. Simple backup doesn't cut it for the corruption example, as the backup may have been corrupt too unless you noticed the problem before making the next backup. Basically your backup regime would require a history of backups much like Time Machine, so that you can always find a backup dated from before the corruption was introduced. I hardly think it's fair to say you deserve what you get. Frankly, backup "should" be transparent. Of course, that makes privacy a concern with your entire history stored somewhere. Sometimes, things just need to get shredded, physically or virtually... and backup is diametrically opposed to that.
Making it illegal to purchase certain games without parental consent solves nothing. Kids will just play those games over at their friends' houses whose parents do buy them for their kids. If you don't do actual parenting and investigate the environments and people that your kids are hanging around, things you might rather not happen can do so easily. I for one don't believe that kids need to be insulated from much of anything. Maturity happens from experience, and understanding cannot occur without knowledge.
I suppose you also hold people responsible for falling down open manholes unmarked by pylons: why mark them since you could have just "investigated" it yourself before you fell in? The world is too bloody big to do everything by yourself. You need help and support, & have to be able to trust in things & people that you don't have the time/energy/resources to investigate/fix yourself. When you hire people to take care of your kid, how can you be certain they're doing right by your kid? You have trust. But trust requires some mutual understanding of acceptability. Whether a formal law is required to limit violence isn't the point: your reasoning about parenting would suggest that even the voluntary ID checks for M-rated games are pointless. Whether it's enforced by law or de facto by stores themselves, I'm pretty bloody satisfied that I can trust a that there are some bounds on content that are easily accessed by my kid in the years to come. These bounds are NOT perfect and can be worked around, but even kids have only so much time/$/ability, so at least it has the effect of reducing exposure, if not eliminating it. You understand, that this argument here, itself, is us being "part of a village" taking care of our kids. The very communication itself, I mean.
Also, your work visa may not allow you to accept cash for work of another employer.