I was just thinking about how cool it would be to bring a chick home to a place like this. She'd probably be really impressed at first, but then if she became your girlfriend and moved in, she would make you change it.
Its garbage like this that does not make me the slightest bit sympathetic to jobs being lost in the 'annoyance marketing industry'. When a company uses tactics that are obviously unwanted by their supposed customers, they should go out of business. For companies that are affected by new laws aimed at spam or telemarketing, there is a way they could improve their bottom line: Stop selling crap that nobody wants. If the only way a product can be sold is to trick or berate someone into buying it, sales are SUPPOSED to suffer. I am not the slightest bit impressed by companies who make some lame excuse about why they can legally telemarket or spam me after I've made it clear that I don't want their solicitations.
I think most Americans share this opinion. They would much rather pay a flat monthly fee or a one time price for something than to be nickle and dimed constantly. For example, hardly any cell phone companies charge by the minute anymore. You pay for a certain number of minutes to use, and you only pay per minute if you go over. There are many restaurants with an 'all you can eat' buffet, and they are quite popular. At the very least, most restaurants have free drink refills. Bottom line, if you're trying to sell to Americans, you'll make a lot more money taking monthly payments than on a per-use basis. Even Blockbuster now has a plan where you can pay a monthly fee to rent a certain number of movies (monthly recurring charge on your credit card of course).
While this may be popular for certain types of sites, I can't see it becoming too widespread in the U.S. anyway. I agree that it would be nice to be able to pay for one time access to some site that I would not use often enough to subscribe, but if I were going there on a regular basis, I would prefer the subscription model. In addition to the user preference issue, this type of payment system would probably be more vulerable to hacking than the credit card payment systems that most sites use now. At the very least, it may be harder to get customers to trust it enough to use it.
I really don't see how this would benefit Google long term at all. Their reputation would suffer, which would have about as much, or more, effect on the IPO as any SCO allegations would. Google would be placed in a position where they would become SCO's bitch. SCO would be able to increase the licensing fees whenever the contract came up for renewal and Google would either have to accept or redesign their entire search engine to not use Linux. What would the alternative be, MS Server 2003? Compare this to the alternative of telling SCO to drop dead and daring them to sue. This would come at a time when many people, even financial types, are beginning to suspect that SCO really has no case. The only way Google would accept this deal is if the execs were looking to cash out right after the IPO and there was nobody in power at Google that actually cared about the long term success of the company. While the management of some public companies certainly operates like this, it does not seem to be the case with Google management.
Assuming a company did decide to pay SCO a 'go away fee', I would think they would force SCO to agree to a non-disclosure as well. A reputable company would not want to be considered part of the SCO scam, which they would be if they were identified as a licensee. Look at what people have been saying about Microsoft and Sun for obtaining an 'SCO IP license'. They don't seem to care about the perception that they are in on it with SCO, but many companies catering to Linux enthusiasts would care.
The guy high up in the chain has the money, or other means, to fight back. Judging by their cowardly approach so far, I'd say they would prefer to avoid dealing with this guy if at all possible.
Communist countries did in fact try to catch up industrially. Remember the Yugo, what a whopping success that was. If anything, these efforts go to show how communism is a complete and total failure as an economic system. The Soviet Union established labor camps with the goal of competing with American industry, and they never came close despite lots of government effort. Supporters of communism/socialism/markism (its all the same, when it comes down to it) are well aware of this, hence their reason for pushing this system is to bring down industrialized society. Flame me if you wish, but my point remains. Now, Black Parrot, do you care to back up what you said or were you just posting drivel?
Perhaps the polls in Florida should consist of mind reading psychics who would judge the 'true intent' of the voters. Of course these psychics would be completely honest and impartial.
This does not have to be a difficult situation. If someone wants to leave a race blank, this can be easily accommodated. If someone says "Screw it, I don't want to vote for anyone", a big red Cancel button should be available. If the voter walks away from the screen without pushing anything, a poll worker should be able to press Cancel. If it weren't Florida, this would not even be an issue.
The reason counties across the nations are still using antiquated voting equipment is simply because it still gets the job done (most of the time). With county and state budgets stretched tightly, officials would rather spend money on roads, schools, or something else that the general public can see and appreciate on a daily basis. Machines that are used only every couple years, and even then usually by less than half of the population, just aren't a priority for government spending.
And you just hit the nail on the head, but I don't think you meant to. While environmentalism is not a bad thing by itself, most hard core environmentalists are much more interested in political-economic changes than they are in actually 'saving the earth'. Once socialism and communism were widely regarded as failures, the leftists needed some other method of advocating their anti capitalist beliefs. What better way to bring down capitalism than through extreme environmentalism. Make it too expensive and too difficult to produce anything or even to go about our daily lives, and industrialized society will crumble. Once again, I'm not saying all environmentalists have this goal in mind, and I for one don't want corporations to be able to legally dump mercury in a river or anything like that, but many hard core enviro-freaks are also die hard socialists.
The farther removed schools are from the decision makers, the worse they perform. When states started taking control of the schools away from local school boards, educational quality began to really suffer. Decisions regarding schools became purely political plays. Now that there is more federal involvement, American schools are nearly at a crisis, with a growing segment of society practically uneducated. Someone who cannot figure out what 10% of 100 is without a calculator is uneducated, regardless of any degree they may hold. My point is, schools only perform well when there is accountability. When parents have power over local school officials who make decisions on how to run the school, the results are always better than being subject to the whims of vote seeking politicians. Yes, I know, school board members are elected, but who would actually serve on a school board if they didn't truely value education?
This is absolutely correct. If you feel that a store has inadequate security measures, it should concern you. If management does not seem capable or willing to address your concern, take your business elsewhere. You'll be safe, and if enough people become concerned, the company will be forced to fix the vulnerabilities. You know how scared the general public can become if it is even rumored that a website does not secure their credit card info.
This will hurt Yahoo a lot more than it will hurt Google. Google's search technology is very advanced, once you weed through the garbage links. Yahoo, before they used Google technology, would usually take forever to find any relevant results. Yahoo will go back to being the search engine with huge name recognition and little effective use.
Once Google starts showing banner ads, popup ads, screen covering ads, and other MSN-like junk, they will have completely lost their competitive advantage. Any company with a little spare cash can make a search engine, but google is what they are because people generally like using it since its fast, effective and trouble free (minus the link spams of course).
Yes, I'm sure Google is just going to roll over and give SCO whatever they want, and not fight them or anything... It will be a cold day in hell before SCO gets ANY licensing fees from Google.
Heh, any employee can detain you, I love that one. I'm sure some pimply faced minimum wage theater employee is going to tackle some 6'5" camcorder holding guy. It better contain provisions for what to do when the guy knocks out the employee with one well placed blow. In reality, I doubt theater management will be concerned with spending any extra effort to enforce the camera ban, since the pirating of movies hurts the studio primarily.
First, the parent post is definitely not a troll. The reason the US, among other countries imports cheap products from other nations is because consumers demand it. They want their $50 Wal Mart DVD player and they don't give a rat's ass where or how it was made. Sure, there are some people who would pay more for a 'made in America by union labor' player, but there would not be enough buyers for such a company to be profitable. When it comes down to it, most people want the best they can get at the lowest price. Some people will even resort to illegal means to get something cheap or free, such as the many people who pirate cable TV or satellite.
This is because Swiss made products have earned a worldwide reputation for excellence. They are not the cheapest, but they are the best in most cases. American products on the other hand are not necessarily junk, but they are not always top quality just because they are made here. I've found that many products that proudly advertise 'made in USA' with a big American flag on the front tend to be low quality crap. The company is simply trying to cash in on people's sense of patriotism and hopes that people buy without considering quality.
It would be nice if Windows came with Messenger turned off by default, since anyone who would actually use it probably knows how to turn it on. For that matter, any software requiring the service could automatically activate it.
cars should be banned because they cause more than 0 deaths per year.
The only reason someone hasn't seriously proposed this is because automobiles are so essential to modern society and the alternatives (going back to horses and buggies) would not necessarily be much safer.
Slashdot Mirror
I was just thinking about how cool it would be to bring a chick home to a place like this. She'd probably be really impressed at first, but then if she became your girlfriend and moved in, she would make you change it.
Its garbage like this that does not make me the slightest bit sympathetic to jobs being lost in the 'annoyance marketing industry'. When a company uses tactics that are obviously unwanted by their supposed customers, they should go out of business. For companies that are affected by new laws aimed at spam or telemarketing, there is a way they could improve their bottom line: Stop selling crap that nobody wants. If the only way a product can be sold is to trick or berate someone into buying it, sales are SUPPOSED to suffer. I am not the slightest bit impressed by companies who make some lame excuse about why they can legally telemarket or spam me after I've made it clear that I don't want their solicitations.
I think most Americans share this opinion. They would much rather pay a flat monthly fee or a one time price for something than to be nickle and dimed constantly. For example, hardly any cell phone companies charge by the minute anymore. You pay for a certain number of minutes to use, and you only pay per minute if you go over. There are many restaurants with an 'all you can eat' buffet, and they are quite popular. At the very least, most restaurants have free drink refills. Bottom line, if you're trying to sell to Americans, you'll make a lot more money taking monthly payments than on a per-use basis. Even Blockbuster now has a plan where you can pay a monthly fee to rent a certain number of movies (monthly recurring charge on your credit card of course).
While this may be popular for certain types of sites, I can't see it becoming too widespread in the U.S. anyway. I agree that it would be nice to be able to pay for one time access to some site that I would not use often enough to subscribe, but if I were going there on a regular basis, I would prefer the subscription model. In addition to the user preference issue, this type of payment system would probably be more vulerable to hacking than the credit card payment systems that most sites use now. At the very least, it may be harder to get customers to trust it enough to use it.
But then they get very pissed when someone does the same to them.
I really don't see how this would benefit Google long term at all. Their reputation would suffer, which would have about as much, or more, effect on the IPO as any SCO allegations would. Google would be placed in a position where they would become SCO's bitch. SCO would be able to increase the licensing fees whenever the contract came up for renewal and Google would either have to accept or redesign their entire search engine to not use Linux. What would the alternative be, MS Server 2003? Compare this to the alternative of telling SCO to drop dead and daring them to sue. This would come at a time when many people, even financial types, are beginning to suspect that SCO really has no case. The only way Google would accept this deal is if the execs were looking to cash out right after the IPO and there was nobody in power at Google that actually cared about the long term success of the company. While the management of some public companies certainly operates like this, it does not seem to be the case with Google management.
Assuming a company did decide to pay SCO a 'go away fee', I would think they would force SCO to agree to a non-disclosure as well. A reputable company would not want to be considered part of the SCO scam, which they would be if they were identified as a licensee. Look at what people have been saying about Microsoft and Sun for obtaining an 'SCO IP license'. They don't seem to care about the perception that they are in on it with SCO, but many companies catering to Linux enthusiasts would care.
The guy high up in the chain has the money, or other means, to fight back. Judging by their cowardly approach so far, I'd say they would prefer to avoid dealing with this guy if at all possible.
Communist countries did in fact try to catch up industrially. Remember the Yugo, what a whopping success that was. If anything, these efforts go to show how communism is a complete and total failure as an economic system. The Soviet Union established labor camps with the goal of competing with American industry, and they never came close despite lots of government effort. Supporters of communism/socialism/markism (its all the same, when it comes down to it) are well aware of this, hence their reason for pushing this system is to bring down industrialized society. Flame me if you wish, but my point remains. Now, Black Parrot, do you care to back up what you said or were you just posting drivel?
Perhaps the polls in Florida should consist of mind reading psychics who would judge the 'true intent' of the voters. Of course these psychics would be completely honest and impartial.
This does not have to be a difficult situation. If someone wants to leave a race blank, this can be easily accommodated. If someone says "Screw it, I don't want to vote for anyone", a big red Cancel button should be available. If the voter walks away from the screen without pushing anything, a poll worker should be able to press Cancel. If it weren't Florida, this would not even be an issue.
The reason counties across the nations are still using antiquated voting equipment is simply because it still gets the job done (most of the time). With county and state budgets stretched tightly, officials would rather spend money on roads, schools, or something else that the general public can see and appreciate on a daily basis. Machines that are used only every couple years, and even then usually by less than half of the population, just aren't a priority for government spending.
And you just hit the nail on the head, but I don't think you meant to. While environmentalism is not a bad thing by itself, most hard core environmentalists are much more interested in political-economic changes than they are in actually 'saving the earth'. Once socialism and communism were widely regarded as failures, the leftists needed some other method of advocating their anti capitalist beliefs. What better way to bring down capitalism than through extreme environmentalism. Make it too expensive and too difficult to produce anything or even to go about our daily lives, and industrialized society will crumble. Once again, I'm not saying all environmentalists have this goal in mind, and I for one don't want corporations to be able to legally dump mercury in a river or anything like that, but many hard core enviro-freaks are also die hard socialists.
And if we're lucky, his main client will be all of Canopy, not just SCO.
Some of them were more like money disposal houses.
The farther removed schools are from the decision makers, the worse they perform. When states started taking control of the schools away from local school boards, educational quality began to really suffer. Decisions regarding schools became purely political plays. Now that there is more federal involvement, American schools are nearly at a crisis, with a growing segment of society practically uneducated. Someone who cannot figure out what 10% of 100 is without a calculator is uneducated, regardless of any degree they may hold. My point is, schools only perform well when there is accountability. When parents have power over local school officials who make decisions on how to run the school, the results are always better than being subject to the whims of vote seeking politicians. Yes, I know, school board members are elected, but who would actually serve on a school board if they didn't truely value education?
This is absolutely correct. If you feel that a store has inadequate security measures, it should concern you. If management does not seem capable or willing to address your concern, take your business elsewhere. You'll be safe, and if enough people become concerned, the company will be forced to fix the vulnerabilities. You know how scared the general public can become if it is even rumored that a website does not secure their credit card info.
It seems these recent letters only affect SCO's current customers. Yet another reason to never license anything from SCO.
This will hurt Yahoo a lot more than it will hurt Google. Google's search technology is very advanced, once you weed through the garbage links. Yahoo, before they used Google technology, would usually take forever to find any relevant results. Yahoo will go back to being the search engine with huge name recognition and little effective use.
Once Google starts showing banner ads, popup ads, screen covering ads, and other MSN-like junk, they will have completely lost their competitive advantage. Any company with a little spare cash can make a search engine, but google is what they are because people generally like using it since its fast, effective and trouble free (minus the link spams of course).
Yes, I'm sure Google is just going to roll over and give SCO whatever they want, and not fight them or anything... It will be a cold day in hell before SCO gets ANY licensing fees from Google.
Heh, any employee can detain you, I love that one. I'm sure some pimply faced minimum wage theater employee is going to tackle some 6'5" camcorder holding guy. It better contain provisions for what to do when the guy knocks out the employee with one well placed blow. In reality, I doubt theater management will be concerned with spending any extra effort to enforce the camera ban, since the pirating of movies hurts the studio primarily.
First, the parent post is definitely not a troll. The reason the US, among other countries imports cheap products from other nations is because consumers demand it. They want their $50 Wal Mart DVD player and they don't give a rat's ass where or how it was made. Sure, there are some people who would pay more for a 'made in America by union labor' player, but there would not be enough buyers for such a company to be profitable. When it comes down to it, most people want the best they can get at the lowest price. Some people will even resort to illegal means to get something cheap or free, such as the many people who pirate cable TV or satellite.
This is because Swiss made products have earned a worldwide reputation for excellence. They are not the cheapest, but they are the best in most cases. American products on the other hand are not necessarily junk, but they are not always top quality just because they are made here. I've found that many products that proudly advertise 'made in USA' with a big American flag on the front tend to be low quality crap. The company is simply trying to cash in on people's sense of patriotism and hopes that people buy without considering quality.
It would be nice if Windows came with Messenger turned off by default, since anyone who would actually use it probably knows how to turn it on. For that matter, any software requiring the service could automatically activate it.
cars should be banned because they cause more than 0 deaths per year.
The only reason someone hasn't seriously proposed this is because automobiles are so essential to modern society and the alternatives (going back to horses and buggies) would not necessarily be much safer.