That's what they wanted you to think, but really, can you prove that? That's a huge conjecture. And even if it was true, I don't like the current state of the economy nor all of the power the government has usurped from productive citizens. All the government did was to make the hangover temporarily go away by drinking more alcohol. You don't cure a hangover that way. You endure the pain, and you don't get wasted in the future.
Cool, another internet homespun philosopher who's been educated in the University Of Life and don't need no fancy economics professor to tell him what o'clock it is when the cows need milking.
I don't know how you guys did it but in the UK we bought the banks. We own them now. When we sell them off we will get back what we paid for them, perhaps even a bit of profit. The bailout wasn't free money, we expect a return. Of course we still had to borrow that cash so it is costing us in interest payments, but the idea that we just gave away hundreds of billions is nonsense. As an added bonus we could lean on those banks to reduce bonus payments and act responsibly. The previous administration made a start but unfortunately the current government won't carry on the policy.
We should have nationalised the lot of them. Banks are basically utility companies. If you're a business (or individual) you need a bank account the same way you need a water or electricity supplier. They should all be publicly owned, non-profit-making entities. All the false activity of derivatives-of-derivatives-of-derivatives gambling should be made illegal, as it serves no useful purpose whatsoever, beyond making bankers rich by leeching off the real economy.
The government controls money supply and interest rates, it should also control the banks.
I apologise for any heart attacks or apopleptic seizures caused to American readers.
These banks took unnecessary risks and should fail, and the shareholders would be on the hook for the "non-payments"
No they wouldn't. Shareholders' liability is limited to the nominal value of their shares, i.e. their theoretical investment. This is because they don't actually run the company. It's why they're called limited companies (in the UK). If a stupid management team are allowed to bankrupt a company, it is the stupid managers who should be liable, criminally and financially.
Being able to buy a game on physical media, insert it in my game PC which is not connected to the Internet, and play it is my only unchangable criteria for whether or not I buy a game.
Only old people use physical media, didn't you get the slashdot memo?
OnLive still owns patents regarding this market so until someone bigger gobbles them up, they are very relevant.
As I'd never heard of them, I had a quick look on Wikipedia and it seems as though their patents aren't worth as much as they like(d) to think:
"It was revealed in October 2012 that OnLive was sold for only $4.8m. For a company that analysts once estimated was worth approximately $1.8bn, there was some surprise at the low figure for which the company was sold off. Some analysts speculated that the true value of the patents held by the company was potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but that the firm's poor bargaining position led to the cheap sale."
Call me old-fashioned, but in my eyes a company that sells for $4.8m is worth, well, $4.8m.
Gaming in the cloud is good if you don't like owning property.
You're trying to sex it up by implying that it's either for (a) dedicated anarchists living off the grid as they work to subvert the system or (b) gangsters/drug dealers/spies who don't want to leave a financial trace that could convict them.
I suggest they try kickstarter, and ask for $5000 from each contributor, so that they can get a slower, lowe resolution "cloud" version of the games they already have on their PCs., but over the internet.
Since you can play farmville-level games for free directly in facebook already, they'd have to do something really clever to make their service appealing to such casual gamers.
In a rare turn for me, I'm going to guess they're more interested in making sure commercial places of accomodation are up to code for numerous health and safety reasons.
Stop defending the actions of a government, that's forbidden on slashdot. So-called taxes health and safety laws are just an excuse for Collectivist intervention in the smooth running of the free market, as a way of redistributing money from innocent businesses to undeserving welfare layabouts AT THE POINT OF A GUN.
I give my charity contributions to The Salvation Army.
Sure. They are religious. But...
The bang for the buck is awesome and they do not tie their help to what religion the beneficiary is.
The fact that they are religious disqualifies them from my help. If they're religious, why can't their fucking god do something about the misery around them?
Ooh, I know, evil atheists want babies to die in the streets rather than support god-botherers.
Lol only silly people think that people like bill gates and oprah control their money. They are brands beholden to their shareholders. So they might claim that money but only retards believe it is theres to spend and donate.
What does that even mean? Bill Gates made his money from Microsoft. Microsoft shareholders do not therefore control what he does with his money. Do you really think that an insurance company (or whoever) with a large block of Microsoft shares is going to want to fund polio vaccinations in Africa?
I once heard someone say that you can tell how corrupt a charity is by the kind of car its director drives. If a charity's director is driving a new Mercedes, it's a pretty safe bet that most of your donations aren't going to feed hungry children. So now that's my rule of thumb for a charity: look into the intentions and lifestyles of the heads of the charity and you will probably see its true heart.
The counter-argument is that it is better for a charity to have one billion in donations and pay the director a million, rather than to have one million in donations and pay the director nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what they wanted you to think, but really, can you prove that? That's a huge conjecture. And even if it was true, I don't like the current state of the economy nor all of the power the government has usurped from productive citizens. All the government did was to make the hangover temporarily go away by drinking more alcohol. You don't cure a hangover that way. You endure the pain, and you don't get wasted in the future.
Cool, another internet homespun philosopher who's been educated in the University Of Life and don't need no fancy economics professor to tell him what o'clock it is when the cows need milking.
here, here.
I would also add that the government should not be forcing (coercing) banks to make mortgages that are riskier than they would otherwise make.
*golfclap*
Obviously, everything is "the government's" fault. If only we'd let the market sort everything out!
Cue the "our current system is neither free market nor capitalist, it is a horrible socialist mess" arguments from the libertarians in 3...2...
I don't know how you guys did it but in the UK we bought the banks. We own them now. When we sell them off we will get back what we paid for them, perhaps even a bit of profit. The bailout wasn't free money, we expect a return. Of course we still had to borrow that cash so it is costing us in interest payments, but the idea that we just gave away hundreds of billions is nonsense. As an added bonus we could lean on those banks to reduce bonus payments and act responsibly. The previous administration made a start but unfortunately the current government won't carry on the policy.
We should have nationalised the lot of them. Banks are basically utility companies. If you're a business (or individual) you need a bank account the same way you need a water or electricity supplier. They should all be publicly owned, non-profit-making entities. All the false activity of derivatives-of-derivatives-of-derivatives gambling should be made illegal, as it serves no useful purpose whatsoever, beyond making bankers rich by leeching off the real economy.
The government controls money supply and interest rates, it should also control the banks.
I apologise for any heart attacks or apopleptic seizures caused to American readers.
These banks took unnecessary risks and should fail, and the shareholders would be on the hook for the "non-payments"
No they wouldn't. Shareholders' liability is limited to the nominal value of their shares, i.e. their theoretical investment. This is because they don't actually run the company. It's why they're called limited companies (in the UK). If a stupid management team are allowed to bankrupt a company, it is the stupid managers who should be liable, criminally and financially.
If I was a web developer I would kill myself.
The seven figure salary makes the pain bearable, my dear chap.
What does 'stande pede' mean? Google just shows lots of Dutch/German links.
Being able to buy a game on physical media, insert it in my game PC which is not connected to the Internet, and play it is my only unchangable criteria for whether or not I buy a game.
Only old people use physical media, didn't you get the slashdot memo?
OnLive still owns patents regarding this market so until someone bigger gobbles them up, they are very relevant.
As I'd never heard of them, I had a quick look on Wikipedia and it seems as though their patents aren't worth as much as they like(d) to think:
"It was revealed in October 2012 that OnLive was sold for only $4.8m. For a company that analysts once estimated was worth approximately $1.8bn, there was some surprise at the low figure for which the company was sold off. Some analysts speculated that the true value of the patents held by the company was potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but that the firm's poor bargaining position led to the cheap sale."
Call me old-fashioned, but in my eyes a company that sells for $4.8m is worth, well, $4.8m.
If you think that controlling a few bots in a game is AI, then we achieved the fucking singularity about fifteen years ago.
Gaming in the cloud is good if you don't like owning property.
You're trying to sex it up by implying that it's either for (a) dedicated anarchists living off the grid as they work to subvert the system or (b) gangsters/drug dealers/spies who don't want to leave a financial trace that could convict them.
Interactive fiction/storytelling has never really taken off in the West amongst gamers, although I hear it's big in Japan.
Much more fun than playing Onquack Lifailure.
Haha, did you see what I did there?
No.
Just in case you didn't pick up on the joke, I changed "OnLive" to resemble Barack Obama's name.
No, you didn't.
I am the funniest person.
No, you're not.
And they are going to pay for that how?
I suggest they try kickstarter, and ask for $5000 from each contributor, so that they can get a slower, lowe resolution "cloud" version of the games they already have on their PCs., but over the internet.
Since you can play farmville-level games for free directly in facebook already, they'd have to do something really clever to make their service appealing to such casual gamers.
MMORPGs players are picky about graphics? Everyone I know put the graphics at minimum to prevent loading lag.
Truly 1337 players turn off graphics entirely and play by feeling the 1s and 0s directly flowing over the screen, like in the Matrix. Or something.
So while it is probably infeasible over current ADSL services, it is quite feasible over Gigabit ethernet
Somehow, I doubt they'll be using that as their advertising slogan.
I live in the middle of nowhere Okanogan county Washington. Even this far out, i have access to a 10 meg connection.
Right, so everyone in the whole world must also have a 10 meg connection, yes?
It's better than the original because I sell it over the internet.
airbnb always offered a superior experience to sleeping on the streets
Genius.
Gosh, evil governments use information freely given to them by retards over the internet to help catch moronic criminals. The horror.
I think that, by definition, the submitter always has first post.
In a rare turn for me, I'm going to guess they're more interested in making sure commercial places of accomodation are up to code for numerous health and safety reasons.
Stop defending the actions of a government, that's forbidden on slashdot. So-called taxes health and safety laws are just an excuse for Collectivist intervention in the smooth running of the free market, as a way of redistributing money from innocent businesses to undeserving welfare layabouts AT THE POINT OF A GUN.
I give my charity contributions to The Salvation Army. Sure. They are religious. But... The bang for the buck is awesome and they do not tie their help to what religion the beneficiary is.
The fact that they are religious disqualifies them from my help. If they're religious, why can't their fucking god do something about the misery around them?
Ooh, I know, evil atheists want babies to die in the streets rather than support god-botherers.
Lol only silly people think that people like bill gates and oprah control their money. They are brands beholden to their shareholders. So they might claim that money but only retards believe it is theres to spend and donate.
What does that even mean? Bill Gates made his money from Microsoft. Microsoft shareholders do not therefore control what he does with his money. Do you really think that an insurance company (or whoever) with a large block of Microsoft shares is going to want to fund polio vaccinations in Africa?
I once heard someone say that you can tell how corrupt a charity is by the kind of car its director drives. If a charity's director is driving a new Mercedes, it's a pretty safe bet that most of your donations aren't going to feed hungry children. So now that's my rule of thumb for a charity: look into the intentions and lifestyles of the heads of the charity and you will probably see its true heart.
The counter-argument is that it is better for a charity to have one billion in donations and pay the director a million, rather than to have one million in donations and pay the director nothing.