They're not granted the sole ability to create currency. You can make a currency whenever you want, and people have. Look up the Liberty Dollar.
Interesting, if true. I'll look it up. While you still might be right, the Liberty dollar is not likely 'good for all debts, public and private,' however.
Yes, they can still tax your sheep.. Not for social security though, at least within the bounds of the Constitution. Look at what I said: "The government will not take your sheep away from you to spend on social security if you trade in sheep.
No, but they'll likely value whatever you got in return for your sheep, and want x * 2 amount in US dollars (one for you as employee, and one for you as employer), since the items would technically be 'income.' Note that they CAN tax corporate gifts you receieve as income to you. Thats the logic im using that you'd still have to pay tax.
Property is a legal construct, and it comes from living under the stable rule of law.
No, intellecual property is a legal construct, that comes from living under the stable rule of law.
Physical property ownership does not need law. In an anarchist state, you own whatever you posses. I could claim ownership by sneaking it away from you or beating the crap out of you and taking it.
The law is merely there to say that stealing is not a valid way of acquiring property.
You tell me how you're going to save for your lavish retirement without a stable government protecting your precious "property" as well as your sorry ass!
I likely would not need to worry about my 'retirement' since w/o a gov't things would get violent. So your point is irrelevent.
What's so injust about me choosing to give it to my kids?
It tends to make your kids asshole's that think the world revolves around them and their money? that giving it to them tends to make them believe they are better then everyone else? That they have no appreciate of how difficult it actually is to build your own wealth?
I'm never met the child of a rich person that wasn't an arrogant, spoiled brat, that doesn't contribute anything useful to society.
Oh, you might also want to research just how hard it was to even start an income based tax, because early attempts were rule unconstitutional. They had to pass an amendment to give the gov't authority to tax.
So just b/c they print the money, does not mean they can just take it (since it represents property).
Funny, I thought this was supposed to be a goverment by the people, for the people...so that if we don't like the gov'ts rules, we can change them.
Also, how is one a citizen of this country, in which the gov't is granted the sole ability to create currency, but not allowed to use said currency? You're not even from the US are you?
BTW, if you do happen to trade sheep, the gov't can STILL tax you.
Fine..but i don't think the general welfare is supported by keeping people alive as long as medically possible.
The largest expense seniors have is drugs / medical attention. Maybe we should rethink the current idea of keeping people alive no matter what even if their mind is long since gone and they can't even stand without some sort of assistance.
Personally I hope I don't live long enough to get that disabled. I wouldn't want to burden anyone with my existance, and I certainly wouldn't want to be trapped in body that does not function properly.
Wow, I thought my wife and I were the only ones that noticed that.
It does seem as most ads targeted at families depict the dad as stupid and inept, with a silly grin on his face, while the mother can do anything.
Even in sitcoms it seems.
I espcially like the commercial where the dad's motorcycle runs out of gas, and the mom saves the day by putting the bike inthe back of the minivan...which is odd, b/c motorcycles get ALOT better MPG then minivans...
Interesting that you assume I'm anti-gun. This whole discussion to me was simply using guns as an example. Substitute knife and have me asking which one is best to stab my wife with. The weapon is irrelevant.
You argued for allowing knives to be sold, but against guns. What did you expect me to think? If weapon is irrelevent, why did you try to point out other uses for the knife?
It's only when the seller is providing something that he EXPECTS to be used in a criminal manner that I feel they should be liable. Note that I'm not saying "could be", or "suspects that it could be", but that the seller actually holds the sincere belief that what they just sold will be used to commit a crime.
So now its on the whim of a sales clerk that determines if someone is fit to purchase something or not? What if his gut is wrong? You're saying he should be liable, even though his 'feelings' didn't give him any reason to worry. What if he's wrong and refuses to sell? Will that stop the buyer from going somewhere else (possibly underground, where your chances of tracing the gun are much lower)? Either way, if someone really wants something, they'll get it. Look at the failed war on drugs if you don't believe me.
There are so many obvious reasons for holding the funder responsible that I have to wonder if I've been trolled.
Not trolling. There are good reasons to hold the funder responsible. My problem is where that reasoning leads. You hold the shop owner liable. OK sure. Why not hold the gun companies themselves liable? They made it. Why not hold the steel / mining companies liable? If they didn't sell to the gun makers they couldn't make guns to begin with.
So tell me, is it really some miner or mining company somewhere that is responsible for someone's death by gun? Do you honestly believe that? Where do you stop going down the chain for responsibility?
The fact is, you could shut the gun industry down completely, and it would have no effect except to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Criminals will always get them somewhere else. They'll be smuggled into the country. Now that you've held all these other people liable, what have you really acomplished? Nothing more then just holding the shooter liable.
So if I pay someone $10,000 to kill you and they do, then I'm free and clear in your opinion? After all, odds are that person wouldn't ever have run into you much less killed you, if it wasn't for my incentives.
He might not have killed ME w/o your incentives...but I'd argue that someone willing to kill for money is willing to kill for other reasons as well...I might just as easly cut him off on the way to work. To say that a killer wouldn't kill w/o the money incentive I think is flawed; they already lack the conscience not to kill.
Well, it seems to me that if you make murder illegal, then a natural consequence is that you make paying for murder illegal as well.
It might seem nature, but its where that line of reasoning goes that I'm against. Is it now natural to ban talking about it? Thinking about it? Writing about it? How many stories here are trying to blame video games for thier kids' lack of conscience?
b.) you start a process that you know will eventually lead to what you want to create, but get see all the interesting things that happen along the way
But God already knows the interesting things that happen along the way, so why bother?
The only saving point for that theory is that he setup a process in which even he CANNOT see the outcome...but then he's no longer all knowing is he?
If you need to change your faith to adapt to real evidence, isn't that admitting your faith is wrong to begin with?
It's not that you are expected to necessarily know. It's if you do happen to know, as in I walk in ask you which gun you think would be my best choice for my upcoming bank robbery.
This is typical of the anti-gun rally...as you counter their arguements, they come back with more and more absurd ones. How many people do you think would ask that? How many do you think would be serious and not joking? People can say whatever they want, you don't really know what their intentions are. Given that, how can it possibly be the shop owners responsiblity?
If person A tells person B to kill someone, BOTH people are legally liable for it. You're suggesting that I could openly pay to have someone killed, but only the actual shooter is repsonsible.
I realize that's how the law is now. And it is silly. You can pay someone to do a hit for you and they could even take the money. Must they still carry out the hit? Or do they still have the choice of walking off with your money and not committing murder?
Its the person who's willing to kill for money we should be careful of, not the one that is willing only to pay someone else to. You pay someone else to do it because you can't do it yourself.
It's just a matter of finding the right buttons and pushing them over and over.
And that is a flaw in the person who's buttons are being pushed, not the one pushing them. If you get offended, thats your fault and your problem. Learn to deal with things outside your little world.
There's a difference between selling a tool whose purpose is to kill someone and selling a tool that you know will be used to commit a crime.
So how do you know what the buyers intent is? Do store owners now have to be physic? Guns are not only used to commit crimes. Self defense and hunting are two other ligitimate uses.
Well, you can be arrested for urging people to commit crimes.
Which i believe is wrong. If i tell someone to commit a crime, they are still have the power not to. Its not mind control or anything.
And if you actually fund it? Conspiracy to commit said crime for sure. Further, it's stupid to say that it isn't in part your fault. If more crime is commited because well, you fund it, then you are responsible for creating the excess crime.
Thinking about doing something and actually doing it are two different things. One should not be punished, and one should. As far as funding goes, do you hold people responsible if they don't know they are funding? Could you be 'funding' by purchasing something at your local EB and one of the clecks uses his paycheck to commit crimes? If you say no, then whatever happened to 'ignorance is no excuse to break the law?' Also, please define 'excess crime.' Is there a point where we have too much? How much is too much? It seems your logic is popping up alot of absurdities and questions.
This argument misses one crucial thing. By making it more difficult to obtain a gun for criminal use, we can reduce the number of incidents of crimes commited with guns.
If its now no harder to get a gun after the shop is shut down, please tell me how it follows that shutting the shop down results in fewer gun crimes?
Bad analogy. Knives are also used to cut paper, twine, and vegetables.
Guns are used in hunting, sport shooting and self defense. All of those are legitimate uses, are they not?
Try opening a letter or preparing a salad with a revolver.
I never said guns are an all in one gadget; you're just being silly here. Does it matter that a gun can't open a letter? I can't listen to music with my knife either, so what?
Further, accidents with knives kill far fewer people than guns do, another indication of the difference in lethality between the two tools.
And I bet traffic deaths far outweigh both, but we aren't banning cars are we? Hell, we aren't even making it tougher to get a driver's license are we? As an aside, I believe I heard that far more people are attacked with knives then guns anyway. I'll see if I can find a stat later..
If we look at tools that actually are pretty lethal, we find that they usually require some sort of permit or license to use. For example, automobiles, planes, boats, etc all require some degree of certification and insurance. Explosives are particularly regulated. What makes guns more special?
They aren't. Most states require extra home owners insurance if you own a gun, and require a permit to own and a seperate one to carry. The only thing making them more 'special' is that people are constantly trying to take them away.
As I said before, traffic deaths far exceed gun deaths, but no one is saying we need tougher driving tests are they?
if the store is selling the gun knowlingly so that person can go murder someone or rob someone, they can be held responsible.
The purpose of a gun is to kill someone. And thats exactly what I want to do if someone is breaking into my house. Robbery would be harder if all the potential victims are armed too.
this is all about previous knowledge. if you give money to someone so they will commit a crime, you are responsible. if you give money/goods to someone, and they decide to commit a crime (without your forknowledge) you shouldnt be responsible.
And if i tell someone to commit a crime, its my fault they did too? Wrong. I know its wrong, I may have funded it...but I'm not actually the one that went and committed the crime. It was ultimately their decision to go through with it. They could have stopped at any time.
there was a case in wisconsin, a majority of guns used in murders in the states came from one single store. (and it isnt a major store either, big, but not that big).
Um, so what? The people buying the guns didn't have to go commit crimes with them. Shutting him down won't stop crimes either...criminals will always have guns, no amount of wishing and legislation will change that.
you think they didnt know what was going on? rightttttt.......
I think everyone that sells knives should have a permit too. After all you can kill someone with a knife. Its sole purpose is to cut flesh.
There are lots of ways to kill people, I don't know why everyone is obsessed with just one way to do it.
I completely agree with you, but the guy she was flirting with couldn't rate her a '100' on a scale of 1-10 if he were to take an exit survey.
No, but he might rate her a 10.
but let's face it: you're not going to get flirted with by your helpdesk representative every time.
I didn't say that. It doesn't really matter if I get flirted with..more important is that the converstation is pleasant. But being flirted with is always a pleasant thing I suppose.
Besides, the caller initiated the flirtation. If the helpdesk rep wanted to continue that conversation she could easily do it "offline" after her shift.
Does it matter who initiated? And way up the trail of posts, isn't that what she did by giving the caller her private #?
but I know that in a big call center that is handling 1000's of calls per day, flirting with a customer for an extra 5 minutes will probably be looked down upon as "unproductive work" which it really is.
Personally, I'd walk away (well, hang up) from the converstion happier if the CS rep is more pleseant. Companies who's reps do the bear minium and really aren't that nice to talk to leave me with a sore taste in my mouth...so that next tiem something goes wrong, I'm more likely to abandon them.
I think its pretty narrow to define productivity in CS reps soley by the # of calls they burn through. Keeping the customer happy should be a high priority, and if that takes a few extra minutes so be it.
Therein lies a major problem in this debate. The two sides are coming to it with fundamentally different assumptions and persisting in "I know you are, but what am I" arguments.
Yes, I realize that...which prompted my reply to that statement. I didn't feel it added anything, and that was my way to point that out.
Bunk. A digital music file stored on physical media is "information" in the sense that it is a representation of a performance past. Yet an MP3 of an symphony orchestra performing an original composition is no more "information" than is fine piece of furniture simply because it can be distributed digitally. Both are fruits of an artisan's labor.
An artist creates a one of a kind thing. He doesn't create the same thing over and over and over again. If we have a machine that can faithfully replicate the artists work, is it still art, or is it now a product for mass sale? I hope you're not argueing my desk from Kmart is art..
I agree that this is economic reality, yes. The ease with which digital music files can be reproduced is the reason that they are not scare, the reason they can be obtained at no cost. It is not justification for doing so.
You seem to be close to understanding my point. The justification for optaining music (for free) is that it is no longer scarce. You can see this in real estate.
In NYC, a 5000 sq. ft. apartment might be more then 20 acres of land in the middle of New Mexico. The reason is that alot more people are using alot less space..or that space is more scarce in NYC then NM.
Are you advocating an economy in which the only way to make money would be by performing manual labor or selling a physical good?
Or performing a service. Take software; alot of companies want software that is really custom to their needs. Nothing wrong with charging for building that software to thier specifications. I'm not advocating the world, just stating that's what our economics dictate.
Absolutely not. I was pointing out that someone who profits by co-opting a digital work has done even less to deserve that profit.
Yes, it seemed you were implying the digital 'pirate' was less deserving b/c he did less work then the physical pirate.
No, not really. I think that being able to plant the GPS without a warrant means they can plant one just to see if you happen to do anything illegal. Typically, police need to have a reason to monitor you, not monitor you until they find something.
Well, without requiring a court order first, the police could harrass people that want to change the face of the country. You don't think the police would just install one on MLK's car? Thats my problem with the ruling that a court order isn't needed; they can now harrass you for being part of an activist group that the gov't disagrees with.
The police don't even have to find that you're guilty of anything, just saying that you visit a sex shop a few times a month may do enough damage.
I think as things become increasily easier for police and the gov't to stick their nose into information, I think more and more they should be requiring court orders. Just to keep their newfound powers in check.
It's just a new way of doing the same things that have been done for decades.
That's kinda the point, its more then a new way, its a new, much more powerful way. If its just a new way, then the police don't need GPS at all then do they?
So my question to you is: What's wrong with requiring police to obtain a warrent before they use this technology?
Slashdot Mirror
Viable embroys that are not wanted otherwise.
You act as if there are women getting pregnant to cell their embroys for research. This is not the case. They are going to be aborted anyway.
They're not granted the sole ability to create currency. You can make a currency whenever you want, and people have. Look up the Liberty Dollar.
Interesting, if true. I'll look it up. While you still might be right, the Liberty dollar is not likely 'good for all debts, public and private,' however.
Yes, they can still tax your sheep.. Not for social security though, at least within the bounds of the Constitution. Look at what I said: "The government will not take your sheep away from you to spend on social security if you trade in sheep.
No, but they'll likely value whatever you got in return for your sheep, and want x * 2 amount in US dollars (one for you as employee, and one for you as employer), since the items would technically be 'income.' Note that they CAN tax corporate gifts you receieve as income to you. Thats the logic im using that you'd still have to pay tax.
Property is a legal construct, and it comes from living under the stable rule of law.
No, intellecual property is a legal construct, that comes from living under the stable rule of law.
Physical property ownership does not need law. In an anarchist state, you own whatever you posses. I could claim ownership by sneaking it away from you or beating the crap out of you and taking it.
The law is merely there to say that stealing is not a valid way of acquiring property.
You tell me how you're going to save for your lavish retirement without a stable government protecting your precious "property" as well as your sorry ass!
I likely would not need to worry about my 'retirement' since w/o a gov't things would get violent. So your point is irrelevent.
What's so injust about me choosing to give it to my kids?
It tends to make your kids asshole's that think the world revolves around them and their money? that giving it to them tends to make them believe they are better then everyone else? That they have no appreciate of how difficult it actually is to build your own wealth?
I'm never met the child of a rich person that wasn't an arrogant, spoiled brat, that doesn't contribute anything useful to society.
So yes, I'm against inheritence.
Oh, you might also want to research just how hard it was to even start an income based tax, because early attempts were rule unconstitutional. They had to pass an amendment to give the gov't authority to tax.
So just b/c they print the money, does not mean they can just take it (since it represents property).
Funny, I thought this was supposed to be a goverment by the people, for the people...so that if we don't like the gov'ts rules, we can change them.
Also, how is one a citizen of this country, in which the gov't is granted the sole ability to create currency, but not allowed to use said currency? You're not even from the US are you?
BTW, if you do happen to trade sheep, the gov't can STILL tax you.
Fine..but i don't think the general welfare is supported by keeping people alive as long as medically possible.
The largest expense seniors have is drugs / medical attention. Maybe we should rethink the current idea of keeping people alive no matter what even if their mind is long since gone and they can't even stand without some sort of assistance.
Personally I hope I don't live long enough to get that disabled. I wouldn't want to burden anyone with my existance, and I certainly wouldn't want to be trapped in body that does not function properly.
you get cancer and your insurance policy drops you, yea it happens. your retirement just went to paying for cemo (sp)
Maybe you should forgo treatment and leave your retirement to you SO or children.
Wow, I thought my wife and I were the only ones that noticed that.
It does seem as most ads targeted at families depict the dad as stupid and inept, with a silly grin on his face, while the mother can do anything.
Even in sitcoms it seems.
I espcially like the commercial where the dad's motorcycle runs out of gas, and the mom saves the day by putting the bike inthe back of the minivan...which is odd, b/c motorcycles get ALOT better MPG then minivans...
Wow...good thing Galelo didn't take that advice.
And how is that at all relevent the to design of a GUI / computer interface?
Interesting that you assume I'm anti-gun. This whole discussion to me was simply using guns as an example. Substitute knife and have me asking which one is best to stab my wife with. The weapon is irrelevant.
You argued for allowing knives to be sold, but against guns. What did you expect me to think? If weapon is irrelevent, why did you try to point out other uses for the knife?
It's only when the seller is providing something that he EXPECTS to be used in a criminal manner that I feel they should be liable. Note that I'm not saying "could be", or "suspects that it could be", but that the seller actually holds the sincere belief that what they just sold will be used to commit a crime.
So now its on the whim of a sales clerk that determines if someone is fit to purchase something or not? What if his gut is wrong? You're saying he should be liable, even though his 'feelings' didn't give him any reason to worry. What if he's wrong and refuses to sell? Will that stop the buyer from going somewhere else (possibly underground, where your chances of tracing the gun are much lower)? Either way, if someone really wants something, they'll get it. Look at the failed war on drugs if you don't believe me.
There are so many obvious reasons for holding the funder responsible that I have to wonder if I've been trolled.
Not trolling. There are good reasons to hold the funder responsible. My problem is where that reasoning leads. You hold the shop owner liable. OK sure. Why not hold the gun companies themselves liable? They made it. Why not hold the steel / mining companies liable? If they didn't sell to the gun makers they couldn't make guns to begin with.
So tell me, is it really some miner or mining company somewhere that is responsible for someone's death by gun? Do you honestly believe that? Where do you stop going down the chain for responsibility?
The fact is, you could shut the gun industry down completely, and it would have no effect except to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Criminals will always get them somewhere else. They'll be smuggled into the country. Now that you've held all these other people liable, what have you really acomplished? Nothing more then just holding the shooter liable.
So if I pay someone $10,000 to kill you and they do, then I'm free and clear in your opinion? After all, odds are that person wouldn't ever have run into you much less killed you, if it wasn't for my incentives.
He might not have killed ME w/o your incentives...but I'd argue that someone willing to kill for money is willing to kill for other reasons as well...I might just as easly cut him off on the way to work. To say that a killer wouldn't kill w/o the money incentive I think is flawed; they already lack the conscience not to kill.
Well, it seems to me that if you make murder illegal, then a natural consequence is that you make paying for murder illegal as well.
It might seem nature, but its where that line of reasoning goes that I'm against. Is it now natural to ban talking about it? Thinking about it? Writing about it? How many stories here are trying to blame video games for thier kids' lack of conscience?
b.) you start a process that you know will eventually lead to what you want to create, but get see all the interesting things that happen along the way
But God already knows the interesting things that happen along the way, so why bother?
The only saving point for that theory is that he setup a process in which even he CANNOT see the outcome...but then he's no longer all knowing is he?
If you need to change your faith to adapt to real evidence, isn't that admitting your faith is wrong to begin with?
It's not that you are expected to necessarily know. It's if you do happen to know, as in I walk in ask you which gun you think would be my best choice for my upcoming bank robbery.
This is typical of the anti-gun rally...as you counter their arguements, they come back with more and more absurd ones. How many people do you think would ask that? How many do you think would be serious and not joking? People can say whatever they want, you don't really know what their intentions are. Given that, how can it possibly be the shop owners responsiblity?
If person A tells person B to kill someone, BOTH people are legally liable for it. You're suggesting that I could openly pay to have someone killed, but only the actual shooter is repsonsible.
I realize that's how the law is now. And it is silly. You can pay someone to do a hit for you and they could even take the money. Must they still carry out the hit? Or do they still have the choice of walking off with your money and not committing murder?
Its the person who's willing to kill for money we should be careful of, not the one that is willing only to pay someone else to. You pay someone else to do it because you can't do it yourself.
It's just a matter of finding the right buttons and pushing them over and over.
And that is a flaw in the person who's buttons are being pushed, not the one pushing them. If you get offended, thats your fault and your problem. Learn to deal with things outside your little world.
They were in the court HOUSE, not the court ROOM, dumbass. Ever hear of a lobby?
Please explain how telling jokes is a 'public nuisance.'
There's a difference between selling a tool whose purpose is to kill someone and selling a tool that you know will be used to commit a crime.
So how do you know what the buyers intent is? Do store owners now have to be physic? Guns are not only used to commit crimes. Self defense and hunting are two other ligitimate uses.
Well, you can be arrested for urging people to commit crimes.
Which i believe is wrong. If i tell someone to commit a crime, they are still have the power not to. Its not mind control or anything.
And if you actually fund it? Conspiracy to commit said crime for sure. Further, it's stupid to say that it isn't in part your fault. If more crime is commited because well, you fund it, then you are responsible for creating the excess crime.
Thinking about doing something and actually doing it are two different things. One should not be punished, and one should. As far as funding goes, do you hold people responsible if they don't know they are funding? Could you be 'funding' by purchasing something at your local EB and one of the clecks uses his paycheck to commit crimes? If you say no, then whatever happened to 'ignorance is no excuse to break the law?' Also, please define 'excess crime.' Is there a point where we have too much? How much is too much? It seems your logic is popping up alot of absurdities and questions.
This argument misses one crucial thing. By making it more difficult to obtain a gun for criminal use, we can reduce the number of incidents of crimes commited with guns.
If its now no harder to get a gun after the shop is shut down, please tell me how it follows that shutting the shop down results in fewer gun crimes?
Bad analogy. Knives are also used to cut paper, twine, and vegetables.
Guns are used in hunting, sport shooting and self defense. All of those are legitimate uses, are they not?
Try opening a letter or preparing a salad with a revolver.
I never said guns are an all in one gadget; you're just being silly here. Does it matter that a gun can't open a letter? I can't listen to music with my knife either, so what?
Further, accidents with knives kill far fewer people than guns do, another indication of the difference in lethality between the two tools.
And I bet traffic deaths far outweigh both, but we aren't banning cars are we? Hell, we aren't even making it tougher to get a driver's license are we? As an aside, I believe I heard that far more people are attacked with knives then guns anyway. I'll see if I can find a stat later..
If we look at tools that actually are pretty lethal, we find that they usually require some sort of permit or license to use. For example, automobiles, planes, boats, etc all require some degree of certification and insurance. Explosives are particularly regulated. What makes guns more special?
They aren't. Most states require extra home owners insurance if you own a gun, and require a permit to own and a seperate one to carry. The only thing making them more 'special' is that people are constantly trying to take them away.
As I said before, traffic deaths far exceed gun deaths, but no one is saying we need tougher driving tests are they?
your logic is flawed.
I think yours is..
if the store is selling the gun knowlingly so that person can go murder someone or rob someone, they can be held responsible.
The purpose of a gun is to kill someone. And thats exactly what I want to do if someone is breaking into my house. Robbery would be harder if all the potential victims are armed too.
this is all about previous knowledge. if you give money to someone so they will commit a crime, you are responsible. if you give money/goods to someone, and they decide to commit a crime (without your forknowledge) you shouldnt be responsible.
And if i tell someone to commit a crime, its my fault they did too? Wrong. I know its wrong, I may have funded it...but I'm not actually the one that went and committed the crime. It was ultimately their decision to go through with it. They could have stopped at any time.
there was a case in wisconsin, a majority of guns used in murders in the states came from one single store. (and it isnt a major store either, big, but not that big).
Um, so what? The people buying the guns didn't have to go commit crimes with them. Shutting him down won't stop crimes either...criminals will always have guns, no amount of wishing and legislation will change that.
you think they didnt know what was going on? rightttttt.......
I think everyone that sells knives should have a permit too. After all you can kill someone with a knife. Its sole purpose is to cut flesh.
There are lots of ways to kill people, I don't know why everyone is obsessed with just one way to do it.
I completely agree with you, but the guy she was flirting with couldn't rate her a '100' on a scale of 1-10 if he were to take an exit survey.
No, but he might rate her a 10.
but let's face it: you're not going to get flirted with by your helpdesk representative every time.
I didn't say that. It doesn't really matter if I get flirted with..more important is that the converstation is pleasant. But being flirted with is always a pleasant thing I suppose.
Besides, the caller initiated the flirtation. If the helpdesk rep wanted to continue that conversation she could easily do it "offline" after her shift.
Does it matter who initiated? And way up the trail of posts, isn't that what she did by giving the caller her private #?
but I know that in a big call center that is handling 1000's of calls per day, flirting with a customer for an extra 5 minutes will probably be looked down upon as "unproductive work" which it really is.
Personally, I'd walk away (well, hang up) from the converstion happier if the CS rep is more pleseant. Companies who's reps do the bear minium and really aren't that nice to talk to leave me with a sore taste in my mouth...so that next tiem something goes wrong, I'm more likely to abandon them.
I think its pretty narrow to define productivity in CS reps soley by the # of calls they burn through. Keeping the customer happy should be a high priority, and if that takes a few extra minutes so be it.
Therein lies a major problem in this debate. The two sides are coming to it with fundamentally different assumptions and persisting in "I know you are, but what am I" arguments.
Yes, I realize that...which prompted my reply to that statement. I didn't feel it added anything, and that was my way to point that out.
Bunk. A digital music file stored on physical media is "information" in the sense that it is a representation of a performance past. Yet an MP3 of an symphony orchestra performing an original composition is no more "information" than is fine piece of furniture simply because it can be distributed digitally. Both are fruits of an artisan's labor.
An artist creates a one of a kind thing. He doesn't create the same thing over and over and over again. If we have a machine that can faithfully replicate the artists work, is it still art, or is it now a product for mass sale? I hope you're not argueing my desk from Kmart is art..
I agree that this is economic reality, yes. The ease with which digital music files can be reproduced is the reason that they are not scare, the reason they can be obtained at no cost. It is not justification for doing so.
You seem to be close to understanding my point. The justification for optaining music (for free) is that it is no longer scarce. You can see this in real estate.
In NYC, a 5000 sq. ft. apartment might be more then 20 acres of land in the middle of New Mexico. The reason is that alot more people are using alot less space..or that space is more scarce in NYC then NM.
Are you advocating an economy in which the only way to make money would be by performing manual labor or selling a physical good?
Or performing a service. Take software; alot of companies want software that is really custom to their needs. Nothing wrong with charging for building that software to thier specifications. I'm not advocating the world, just stating that's what our economics dictate.
Absolutely not. I was pointing out that someone who profits by co-opting a digital work has done even less to deserve that profit.
Yes, it seemed you were implying the digital 'pirate' was less deserving b/c he did less work then the physical pirate.
No, not really. I think that being able to plant the GPS without a warrant means they can plant one just to see if you happen to do anything illegal. Typically, police need to have a reason to monitor you, not monitor you until they find something.
Well, without requiring a court order first, the police could harrass people that want to change the face of the country. You don't think the police would just install one on MLK's car? Thats my problem with the ruling that a court order isn't needed; they can now harrass you for being part of an activist group that the gov't disagrees with.
The police don't even have to find that you're guilty of anything, just saying that you visit a sex shop a few times a month may do enough damage.
I think as things become increasily easier for police and the gov't to stick their nose into information, I think more and more they should be requiring court orders. Just to keep their newfound powers in check.
It's just a new way of doing the same things that have been done for decades.
That's kinda the point, its more then a new way, its a new, much more powerful way. If its just a new way, then the police don't need GPS at all then do they?
So my question to you is: What's wrong with requiring police to obtain a warrent before they use this technology?