We're told to work hard, get an education, take some risks and you will become rich - it's a GIVEN!
That's a flat-out lie. Either someone lied to you and you were unusually gullible, or you're lying now. I believe the latter.
No one's ever said anything like that to me, or to anyone that I know of. You and I almost certainly won't get rich, but you create your own opportunities. Work creating value and you can do all right. The world doesn't owe you anything.
1. Charging more than you "have to" isn't stealing, it's making a profit. This is a good thing, since it's the only way to stay in business. Stealing is a crime, selling a product at a mutually agreeable price is not.
2. If customers have no better choice than you, then you're the best choice available. Either the lowest price, fastest delivery, best product, or any combination of these. Again, being the best is a good thing.
And since when is an image of a document considered to be the original document? The Original Contract is a signed piece of paper in someone's files, not a jpg of a pdf of a scan...
It's always about "a couple of morons." Why do you think it's illegal to discharge a firearm in the city? You may have a range set up in your back yard and never miss the target of go over the wall, but you can be there's "a couple of morons" who will.
Or speed limits on the highways (in most places)? Most people would probably drive fairly safely, but there's always "a couple of morons" (in this case a whole lot more than a couple) who ruin it for everyone. And the problem in both cases is that the morons don't just kill themselves, which would make the world a better place. Instead they end up hurting or killing someone else. Yes, a lot of such safety-related laws are over-reactionary and probably unnecessary, but it is the morons who bring them about.
...they can afford to sell it for $150 and be turning a profit...
So, you're the Profit Police and will have the authority to determine profit for others. No, thanks.
...another reason to stay from intel and move to amd.
If, and only if, AMD's products offer better value. That tends to vary. My current PC is AMD, my next one very well might not be. I'll buy Intel if they have a better value proposition.
... they can sell a really heavily performing cpu for a really cheap cost cause they can afford to...
But, they don't have to. That's one of the two edges of having a (somewhat) free economy. You can buy products based on the value that you place on the, and others can price products to meet that demans. Thankfully, the government hasn't started enforcing prices or profit margins on chips, cars, dry cleaning, etc.
If they said "You can overclock this to 3GHz" then you're perfectly entitled to do so and should be upset if you can't. If it's sold as "2GHZ, period," then what it's actually capable of is immaterial. You might be able to overclock it, you might not. It might work, it might burn up. Either way, not Intel's problem since the product was clearly labelled.
...the price of the product is artificial...
No, it's tied to its worth, which is determined by what people will pay. In a duopoly it's not quite as fluid as say white-box PC manufacture, but you still have a choice between the cost of the chip and its capabilities. Some people here seem to want to slap their foreheads, say "Wow! I coulda had a V-8", and have Intel give them a free V-8 even though they chose something else previously.
That is so completely wrong, it's hard to imagine that it's not meant as a joke. The cost to product is completely unrelated to the final price. The only thing that determines price is what it's worth *to the buyer*. An informed buyer won't pay more for a chip than it's worth to them, and a seller won't sell it for less than it's worth to them. Should Intel reduce their prices simply because somebody wants their product cheaper? Should Apple? Should Ferrari? For that matter, should AMD? Should I work for less pay if I'm able?
This assumes a free market, and even in a duopoly that's possible since any one else is free to make chips. If there's actual collusion between companies to prop up prices, that's both wrong and illegal and isn't what's being discussed here, as far as I know. In these examples, you bought a $300 chip because it was worth $300 to you, not because the manufacturer paid $299 to build it.
Exactly. A frightening number of people seem to believe that "cost" is related to "value." If something doesn't cost the manufacturer extra, then they should be required, by the government, to give it away. People will always whine about not getting the best deal that they could have, even if they've gotten exactly what they willingly paid for.
Then you've purchased a faster chip. The fact that their products are better than they claim doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. You've still gotten every penny of value from your purchase since you knew what it could do and how much it cost. You're not entitled to any more than that, you're just whining because you have that mindset. I'll keep buying Intel, or AMD, whichever one offers the best value at the time.
You'd have to be an idiot to see this as a scam. Intel, and every company, and every person, owes you what your purchase agreement states. The fact that there's more on the table that you *might* be able to use is irrelevant.
Which features that were listed in the product spec when you bought the chip did you not get? I can see that as a problem along the lines of fraud. But specs that were not disclosed? You never paid for them. Since you picked that particular model, it seems you didn't even want them.
Productive isn't about raw lines of code generated, its about doing it right the first time. (Because you have made the mistakes, or seen others make them, before.)
True, but that doesn't make the question invalid. The issue is whether you, with your experience and ability to get it done right the first time, substantially more valuable than someone inexperienced. The answer should certainly be "yes," but then you have to ask how much more valuable. 2x? 4x? At some point you may be better than the newbies, but you're not that much better.
Come on, cut zget some slack. By his number he's probably been programming for about 3 days or so.
As to the original question of "Am I too old?", just try & see. If you can learn a new language, then the answer would be "no."
Well, if nobody has decided on the merits of the case, but you're immediately providing an offer to settle which is lower than likely legal fees... I fail to see how this is anything but extortion.
Or it's an effort to save yourself and the defendant both some time and money
What's to stop this lawyer from filing suit against a bunch of people who you have no evidence against whatsoever?
The same thing that stops them now. Virtually nothing.
So, this is a completely baseless suit, with an immediate offer to settle, and with NO legal grounds for the suit in the first place.
Right. This is the problem, not the offer to settle.
You may not have read the actual legal case, but seriously, RTFA and you might know why this is happening.
Seriously, this is happening because anyone, including you and me, has the right to bring suit against anyone else. It would be a much bigger problem if that right is taken away. The problem is that there seems to rarely be any significant penalty to bringing a baseless suit.
I don't know but could this be a case of the Police where right and people are jumping to conclusions and then bands of criminals are exploiting the situation?
No. Impossible. That could never happen. These aren't criminals breaking into local stores and stealing, they're "disaffected youth" and they're "redistributing wealth." Haven't you been paying attention?
Seriously, if someone points what appears to be a gun, whether it's a real gun, starter's pistol, or replica, there's no such thing as "excessive force" when responding in my opinion. It takes only an instant for a trigger to be pulled, and if you wait until then to respond it's too late.
Yes. When an EC2 instance is "turned off" it's destroyed, along with any data- unless you're using an EBS volume (the special provision) which is persistent, or S3. Not to say that there couldn't be issues with the data on those either, in the face of an extremely sudden, unexpected shutdown.
Shutting off an EC2 instance is equivalent to deleting a VMware VM. You then have to start a new one from a template (AMI).
You're mostly right, but you need to look up "price gouging." Since there are so many alternatives to Vmware, *including using physical servers*. Not liking the alternatives isn't the same as having none. A company's failure to consider alternatives, regardless of the reason, is tacit approval of their current vendor's product and pricing.
Slashdot Mirror
We're told to work hard, get an education, take some risks and you will become rich - it's a GIVEN!
That's a flat-out lie. Either someone lied to you and you were unusually gullible, or you're lying now. I believe the latter.
No one's ever said anything like that to me, or to anyone that I know of. You and I almost certainly won't get rich, but you create your own opportunities. Work creating value and you can do all right. The world doesn't owe you anything.
1. Charging more than you "have to" isn't stealing, it's making a profit. This is a good thing, since it's the only way to stay in business. Stealing is a crime, selling a product at a mutually agreeable price is not.
2. If customers have no better choice than you, then you're the best choice available. Either the lowest price, fastest delivery, best product, or any combination of these. Again, being the best is a good thing.
True, but completely irrelevant to the case at hand.
And since when is an image of a document considered to be the original document? The Original Contract is a signed piece of paper in someone's files, not a jpg of a pdf of a scan...
It's always about "a couple of morons." Why do you think it's illegal to discharge a firearm in the city? You may have a range set up in your back yard and never miss the target of go over the wall, but you can be there's "a couple of morons" who will.
Or speed limits on the highways (in most places)? Most people would probably drive fairly safely, but there's always "a couple of morons" (in this case a whole lot more than a couple) who ruin it for everyone. And the problem in both cases is that the morons don't just kill themselves, which would make the world a better place. Instead they end up hurting or killing someone else. Yes, a lot of such safety-related laws are over-reactionary and probably unnecessary, but it is the morons who bring them about.
...they can afford to sell it for $150 and be turning a profit...
So, you're the Profit Police and will have the authority to determine profit for others. No, thanks.
...another reason to stay from intel and move to amd.
If, and only if, AMD's products offer better value. That tends to vary. My current PC is AMD, my next one very well might not be. I'll buy Intel if they have a better value proposition.
... they can sell a really heavily performing cpu for a really cheap cost cause they can afford to...
But, they don't have to. That's one of the two edges of having a (somewhat) free economy. You can buy products based on the value that you place on the, and others can price products to meet that demans. Thankfully, the government hasn't started enforcing prices or profit margins on chips, cars, dry cleaning, etc.
If it does exactly what it says, then their obligation has been fulfilled.
If they said "You can overclock this to 3GHz" then you're perfectly entitled to do so and should be upset if you can't. If it's sold as "2GHZ, period," then what it's actually capable of is immaterial. You might be able to overclock it, you might not. It might work, it might burn up. Either way, not Intel's problem since the product was clearly labelled.
...the price of the product is artificial...
No, it's tied to its worth, which is determined by what people will pay. In a duopoly it's not quite as fluid as say white-box PC manufacture, but you still have a choice between the cost of the chip and its capabilities. Some people here seem to want to slap their foreheads, say "Wow! I coulda had a V-8", and have Intel give them a free V-8 even though they chose something else previously.
That is so completely wrong, it's hard to imagine that it's not meant as a joke. The cost to product is completely unrelated to the final price. The only thing that determines price is what it's worth *to the buyer*. An informed buyer won't pay more for a chip than it's worth to them, and a seller won't sell it for less than it's worth to them. Should Intel reduce their prices simply because somebody wants their product cheaper? Should Apple? Should Ferrari? For that matter, should AMD? Should I work for less pay if I'm able?
This assumes a free market, and even in a duopoly that's possible since any one else is free to make chips. If there's actual collusion between companies to prop up prices, that's both wrong and illegal and isn't what's being discussed here, as far as I know. In these examples, you bought a $300 chip because it was worth $300 to you, not because the manufacturer paid $299 to build it.
This argument is just silly.
Exactly. A frightening number of people seem to believe that "cost" is related to "value." If something doesn't cost the manufacturer extra, then they should be required, by the government, to give it away. People will always whine about not getting the best deal that they could have, even if they've gotten exactly what they willingly paid for.
Then you've purchased a faster chip. The fact that their products are better than they claim doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. You've still gotten every penny of value from your purchase since you knew what it could do and how much it cost. You're not entitled to any more than that, you're just whining because you have that mindset. I'll keep buying Intel, or AMD, whichever one offers the best value at the time. You'd have to be an idiot to see this as a scam. Intel, and every company, and every person, owes you what your purchase agreement states. The fact that there's more on the table that you *might* be able to use is irrelevant.
And you were willing to pay $200 for a chip that doesn't. Looks like everyone's happy, except the whiners who think they're entitled. Look up "scam".
... to enable the features that you've paid for!"
Which features that were listed in the product spec when you bought the chip did you not get? I can see that as a problem along the lines of fraud. But specs that were not disclosed? You never paid for them. Since you picked that particular model, it seems you didn't even want them.
Productive isn't about raw lines of code generated, its about doing it right the first time. (Because you have made the mistakes, or seen others make them, before.)
True, but that doesn't make the question invalid. The issue is whether you, with your experience and ability to get it done right the first time, substantially more valuable than someone inexperienced. The answer should certainly be "yes," but then you have to ask how much more valuable. 2x? 4x? At some point you may be better than the newbies, but you're not that much better.
Come on, cut zget some slack. By his number he's probably been programming for about 3 days or so. As to the original question of "Am I too old?", just try & see. If you can learn a new language, then the answer would be "no."
In other words, you give your money to those who give you value. Funny how radical that idea seems here.
And more costly for the individual. No thanks.
You receive thousands of emails and calls each day from one agency? You should have complained a long time ago.
Well, if nobody has decided on the merits of the case, but you're immediately providing an offer to settle which is lower than likely legal fees ... I fail to see how this is anything but extortion.
Or it's an effort to save yourself and the defendant both some time and money
What's to stop this lawyer from filing suit against a bunch of people who you have no evidence against whatsoever?
The same thing that stops them now. Virtually nothing.
So, this is a completely baseless suit, with an immediate offer to settle, and with NO legal grounds for the suit in the first place.
Right. This is the problem, not the offer to settle.
You may not have read the actual legal case, but seriously, RTFA and you might know why this is happening.
Seriously, this is happening because anyone, including you and me, has the right to bring suit against anyone else. It would be a much bigger problem if that right is taken away. The problem is that there seems to rarely be any significant penalty to bringing a baseless suit.
I don't know but could this be a case of the Police where right and people are jumping to conclusions and then bands of criminals are exploiting the situation?
No. Impossible. That could never happen. These aren't criminals breaking into local stores and stealing, they're "disaffected youth" and they're "redistributing wealth." Haven't you been paying attention?
Seriously, if someone points what appears to be a gun, whether it's a real gun, starter's pistol, or replica, there's no such thing as "excessive force" when responding in my opinion. It takes only an instant for a trigger to be pulled, and if you wait until then to respond it's too late.
Yes. When an EC2 instance is "turned off" it's destroyed, along with any data- unless you're using an EBS volume (the special provision) which is persistent, or S3. Not to say that there couldn't be issues with the data on those either, in the face of an extremely sudden, unexpected shutdown. Shutting off an EC2 instance is equivalent to deleting a VMware VM. You then have to start a new one from a template (AMI).
IED != RPG
You have support troops in the convoy anyway.
You're mostly right, but you need to look up "price gouging." Since there are so many alternatives to Vmware, *including using physical servers*. Not liking the alternatives isn't the same as having none. A company's failure to consider alternatives, regardless of the reason, is tacit approval of their current vendor's product and pricing.
I have one question for you. What is 'created money'?
Bitcoins, the currency of the new and magical Internet!
I'd really like an answer a tad beyond "money that's created".
Oops, never mind.
I'm wondering how you envision unleashed natural wonder and curiosity creating it.
That'll be coming to a late-night informercial soon.