"People complain about the early cancellation fees, but "forget" that their "free" cell phone was actually several hundred bucks, and that there's no reason for $EVIL_PHONE_CO to eat that"
Where that true, then why is the cancellation fee a fixed amount, rather than the amount of the phone? I bought the least expensive phones I could, but my cancellation fee, I believe, is the same as for those with the expensive phones.
And the above is a great argument for customer's buying their own phones.
I already had signed contracts for both phones. So, I could not get new ones. And I think the experience points up that the structure of the deal isn't all that great for the consumer.
Pray tell, where are these? I went into a verizon store to replace the two phones my kids lost, and *after* all the discounts and what not, I walked out abut $120.00 poorer. Now, that is at the top end of your range, but still, after hearing over and over how the service contract makes the phones dirt cheap.... And the way the prices were advertised was misleading. There was a large font price on the card, with an attractive price. A smaller font price below. I didn't see it for a while. Course, that is the price I had to pay.
Then, they rang it up, and it kept coming up to 140 something. I kept pointing out that the base price I was told plus even ten percent was less than the total. By about 20 bucks. Blank stare. I don't know, but I have to wonder if that is some kind of revenue enhancing tactic.
I think Scott Adams had it right. The whole thing is a confusopoly.
If private part(ies) light a fire outside my house, and it is in danger of catching fire, I would say I have the right to stick my nose in.
"You seemed to be implying that all workers should rise up and overthrow their corporate masters, which sounds like something right out of the Marx Manifesto. The only way such a thing works is people continue to produce, rather than just stealing everything from their former bosses. And, this creates a giant disincentive to become a successful boss yourself, since you'll just be the next target when a bunch of disgruntled workers think you have too much."
That would be a slight misreading. I think those that consider themselves our corporate masters should pull their heads out of their third point of contact and realize where their true best interests lie, go ahead and make a profit, even a large one, but stop with the over the top stuff.
But say they did. I would only shed tears over actual blood. But I do agree with you, as I have repeatedly mentioned, that people would have to produce.
I think, actually, that the best thing would be to make it such that corporations had no official or unofficial contact with government. No campaign contributions, no lobbying, no nothing. I think the market would then be freer, and closer to something that worked for everyone, rich and poor.
It is entirely possible that your assumptions about my post are warranted, coming in the middle of a bunch of posts that I have not thoroughly read, but realize that my point was that healthcare should be available and affordable, not necessarily socialized.
"Actually, no they aren't. Some people have no value, some people have negative value."
People, in general are. Your couple of examples really dont change the fundamentals.
"Simple: money to live on. If they don't want to work, then they don't get any money, and they starve to death. What are they going to do, take all the CEOs into slavery and make them work the fields? There's not enough CEOs to produce that much food."
I never said people should not work. In fact, I did say that "there should be enough insecurity to prompt productivity" ( or words to that effect ). But why cant that work ( and hard work ) produce an ability to have a couple small conveniences and food and healthcare? Perhaps you will come back with "what about (some small number ) of people who choose cigarettes and hookers and a million other bad choice items" rather than these other things. Your argument I would hold true, for them, but not everyone, nor even most do that.
"And what's with all the complaining about CEOs?"
There is lots there to complain about.
"something that's completely the fault of the Democrats"
Which is? The complaining, or the events leading to the complaining. I have a hard time believeing Every Democrat is 100% to blame, and all Republican is 100% pure as the driven snow in this. I am going to suggest you examine your bias.
"If you're not a stockholder, your opinion on their pay is irrelevant."
They affect society, I am part of society, so I have to say I dont agree with the above.
"And if you are a stockholder, look in the mirror for someone to blame"
I'm not, and you have a point, but it only goes so far. My only option as a stockholder is to withhold my funding. ( Something I would do were I in a position to invest. ) Stockholder control of the company is too diffuse to allow stockholders, in general, to do anything. Unfortunately, as we see, ethical or moral based investing does not keep unethical companies from getting investors.
"Overpaid CEOs usually mean companies that don't perform as well as the competition."
I agree, over the long term. Wall street is focused on the short term.
"If everyone did this, companies wouldn't waste so much on CEO paychecks."
Absolutely, but this has as much chance as working in the real world as Marx's Utopia.
What is the base purpose? For a few to accumulate much, live high, while others endure hardship, or for most to live OK ( with enough security so they don't just die from lack of basic necessities ( food, basic healthcare ) ) but with enough insecurity to incentive hard work and production, and still a few ( and probably more, since the "feeding ground" would be larger ) wealthy living high?
If the economy only has the purpose of remaking the aristocracy and serf conditions of long ago, then I am at a lose as to why the many should participate. CEO's get away with "what is in it for me". What is in it for those "less than" the CEO's?
So, why? Because people are more important than money.
OK, do it now. Read up on the law about what you are allowed and not allowed to do, then go really ride, as a way to actually get somewhere, not just go two blocks to visit.
"Huh? Whenever I use a bicycle I _always_ use the sidewalks, stop at intersections, and generally behave like a pedestrian. It's much more practical and safe for ALL parties involved. I even see bike cops doing it unless there's a dedicated bike lane."
Maybe because you are riding 2 blocks at less than 5 miles per hour. Try riding 50 miles at close to 20 miles per hour. You will get what I mean then.
Seriously, try riding a bike in traffic the way the law allows. You will change your tune.
"Pedestrians have the right of way on a cross-walk, should they jump out into traffic? Your analogy is flawed."
Your complaint is that cyclists in traffic are a nuisance, keeping you from barreling down the road without having to use your eyes or your brain. So, no the analogy is not flawed. Your premis that you should be able to drive stupid, and not have to be careful or pay attention is what is flawed.
"If bicyclists could drive at 45-60mph, and wore leather like motorcyclists do, I'd welcome them on the road, and treat them like motorcyclists."
Hard to do with a human powered craft. So, no rights or access for human powered items in your mind.
"As things stand now, a bicycle is no different from a go-cart or suped-up lawnmower, and go-carts and lawnmowers aren't road-legal."
Unfortunately for you, cyclists *are* road legal. You don't like it, but there it is.
While they should not ride *over* the line, riding the line is basic defensive riding. If you try riding near the curb, you will have to come over to clear an idiot car parked, then you *will* eventually get clobbered by some fool driving a car, because you were not visible to them until you came out.
And your "getting in the way of a vehicle that is going 2x+ as fast as them, and weighs easily 5x-10x+ more than" is *nothing* more than "I have force on my side, do what I say, or I will kill you". Does might make right? I don't think so.
Why don't you go ride a bike, exactly the way the law allows, for a while and tell me you aren't just as torked off as some other posters here.
I don't know about helicopters, but older car automatic transmissions used circulating transmission fluid to determine what gear the car should be in, when the shifts should happen. I think that qualifies as a hydraulic computer.
Slashdot Mirror
You have it exactly right.
"People complain about the early cancellation fees, but "forget" that their "free" cell phone was actually several hundred bucks, and that there's no reason for $EVIL_PHONE_CO to eat that"
Where that true, then why is the cancellation fee a fixed amount, rather than the amount of the phone? I bought the least expensive phones I could, but my cancellation fee, I believe, is the same as for those with the expensive phones.
And the above is a great argument for customer's buying their own phones.
I already had signed contracts for both phones. So, I could not get new ones. And I think the experience points up that the structure of the deal isn't all that great for the consumer.
No, it wasnt. With tax, the amount should have been 120 something.
"cell phones being "free" or 20-60 dollars"
Pray tell, where are these? I went into a verizon store to replace the two phones my kids lost, and *after* all the discounts and what not, I walked out abut $120.00 poorer. Now, that is at the top end of your range, but still, after hearing over and over how the service contract makes the phones dirt cheap.... And the way the prices were advertised was misleading. There was a large font price on the card, with an attractive price. A smaller font price below. I didn't see it for a while. Course, that is the price I had to pay.
Then, they rang it up, and it kept coming up to 140 something. I kept pointing out that the base price I was told plus even ten percent was less than the total. By about 20 bucks. Blank stare. I don't know, but I have to wonder if that is some kind of revenue enhancing tactic.
I think Scott Adams had it right. The whole thing is a confusopoly.
I always grow a vat of people, then I have a vetting array. I use the array, then dispose of it.
Mostly posting because I accidentally modded someone redundant when I mean insightful.
"Yes, but again these are all private parties. "
If private part(ies) light a fire outside my house, and it is in danger of catching fire, I would say I have the right to stick my nose in.
"You seemed to be implying that all workers should rise up and overthrow their corporate masters, which sounds like something right out of the Marx Manifesto. The only way such a thing works is people continue to produce, rather than just stealing everything from their former bosses. And, this creates a giant disincentive to become a successful boss yourself, since you'll just be the next target when a bunch of disgruntled workers think you have too much."
That would be a slight misreading. I think those that consider themselves our corporate masters should pull their heads out of their third point of contact and realize where their true best interests lie, go ahead and make a profit, even a large one, but stop with the over the top stuff.
But say they did. I would only shed tears over actual blood. But I do agree with you, as I have repeatedly mentioned, that people would have to produce.
I think, actually, that the best thing would be to make it such that corporations had no official or unofficial contact with government. No campaign contributions, no lobbying, no nothing. I think the market would then be freer, and closer to something that worked for everyone, rich and poor.
Do not look at spark plug with remaining eye?
""The" base purpose? What do you mean, like, carved into the DNA of the universe?"
No, of the economy. DNA's purpose is to create more DNA thru offspring.
It is entirely possible that your assumptions about my post are warranted, coming in the middle of a bunch of posts that I have not thoroughly read, but realize that my point was that healthcare should be available and affordable, not necessarily socialized.
"Actually, no they aren't. Some people have no value, some people have negative value."
People, in general are. Your couple of examples really dont change the fundamentals.
"Simple: money to live on. If they don't want to work, then they don't get any money, and they starve to death. What are they going to do, take all the CEOs into slavery and make them work the fields? There's not enough CEOs to produce that much food."
I never said people should not work. In fact, I did say that "there should be enough insecurity to prompt productivity" ( or words to that effect ). But why cant that work ( and hard work ) produce an ability to have a couple small conveniences and food and healthcare? Perhaps you will come back with "what about (some small number ) of people who choose cigarettes and hookers and a million other bad choice items" rather than these other things. Your argument I would hold true, for them, but not everyone, nor even most do that.
"And what's with all the complaining about CEOs?"
There is lots there to complain about.
"something that's completely the fault of the Democrats"
Which is? The complaining, or the events leading to the complaining. I have a hard time believeing Every Democrat is 100% to blame, and all Republican is 100% pure as the driven snow in this. I am going to suggest you examine your bias.
"If you're not a stockholder, your opinion on their pay is irrelevant."
They affect society, I am part of society, so I have to say I dont agree with the above.
"And if you are a stockholder, look in the mirror for someone to blame"
I'm not, and you have a point, but it only goes so far. My only option as a stockholder is to withhold my funding. ( Something I would do were I in a position to invest. ) Stockholder control of the company is too diffuse to allow stockholders, in general, to do anything. Unfortunately, as we see, ethical or moral based investing does not keep unethical companies from getting investors.
"Overpaid CEOs usually mean companies that don't perform as well as the competition."
I agree, over the long term. Wall street is focused on the short term.
"If everyone did this, companies wouldn't waste so much on CEO paychecks."
Absolutely, but this has as much chance as working in the real world as Marx's Utopia.
Why?
What is the base purpose? For a few to accumulate much, live high, while others endure hardship, or for most to live OK ( with enough security so they don't just die from lack of basic necessities ( food, basic healthcare ) ) but with enough insecurity to incentive hard work and production, and still a few ( and probably more, since the "feeding ground" would be larger ) wealthy living high?
If the economy only has the purpose of remaking the aristocracy and serf conditions of long ago, then I am at a lose as to why the many should participate. CEO's get away with "what is in it for me". What is in it for those "less than" the CEO's?
So, why? Because people are more important than money.
Just curious, what was the sound made when that joke went *way* over your head? :-)
It's cause it is all downhill to get back.
Funny! I was looking to buy a BMW last year, looking thru the craigslist ads, I found more ads that talked about the car having a V6 than anything.
OK, do it now. Read up on the law about what you are allowed and not allowed to do, then go really ride, as a way to actually get somewhere, not just go two blocks to visit.
Isn't it more like if someone threw away the printing press used to make the book, rather than the book itself?
If they had thrown away the binaries, I would agree with your analogy.
"Huh? Whenever I use a bicycle I _always_ use the sidewalks, stop at intersections, and generally behave like a pedestrian. It's much more practical and safe for ALL parties involved. I even see bike cops doing it unless there's a dedicated bike lane."
Maybe because you are riding 2 blocks at less than 5 miles per hour. Try riding 50 miles at close to 20 miles per hour. You will get what I mean then.
Seriously, try riding a bike in traffic the way the law allows. You will change your tune.
"Pedestrians have the right of way on a cross-walk, should they jump out into traffic? Your analogy is flawed."
Your complaint is that cyclists in traffic are a nuisance, keeping you from barreling down the road without having to use your eyes or your brain. So, no the analogy is not flawed. Your premis that you should be able to drive stupid, and not have to be careful or pay attention is what is flawed.
"If bicyclists could drive at 45-60mph, and wore leather like motorcyclists do, I'd welcome them on the road, and treat them like motorcyclists."
Hard to do with a human powered craft. So, no rights or access for human powered items in your mind.
"As things stand now, a bicycle is no different from a go-cart or suped-up lawnmower, and go-carts and lawnmowers aren't road-legal."
Unfortunately for you, cyclists *are* road legal. You don't like it, but there it is.
While they should not ride *over* the line, riding the line is basic defensive riding. If you try riding near the curb, you will have to come over to clear an idiot car parked, then you *will* eventually get clobbered by some fool driving a car, because you were not visible to them until you came out.
And your "getting in the way of a vehicle that is going 2x+ as fast as them, and weighs easily 5x-10x+ more than" is *nothing* more than "I have force on my side, do what I say, or I will kill you". Does might make right? I don't think so.
Why don't you go ride a bike, exactly the way the law allows, for a while and tell me you aren't just as torked off as some other posters here.
Cyclist are not allowed to use sidewalks.
Not to mention that using sidewalks are impractical as a cyclist.
That car in front of you that is being inconvenient and a nuisance, should they drive on the sidewalk as well?
"commentary on how Slashdot is hugely Anti-MS to the point of being retarded"
Which is why the first three comments are pro MS, and modded up, I suppose.
I don't know about helicopters, but older car automatic transmissions used circulating transmission fluid to determine what gear the car should be in, when the shifts should happen. I think that qualifies as a hydraulic computer.
There would have been too many rounds of "profit taking".
You can bing it.
Paint it white until we have the solar cells ready.