Is that any different than people donating to create movies/albums/charitable efforts? People combining resources so they can pay other people to produce a product they want isn't that radical.
If you donate money to a charity you don't expect anything back personally in return.
If you want to be part of a group making something, you need to decide whether it's a business or hobby. Personally, I count giving money to strangers in the expectation of receiving a product later as business.
You're assuming it was done on purpose. I do not. I think most people that complain about other people's grammar are just as bad.
You're assuming that it was done on purpose: I am not. I think that most people who complain about other people's grammar are just as bad as the people they complain about.
What is this "truth in advertising" you refer to? The purpose of advertising is to sell things to people that they don't need and likely can't afford, and that can't be done through truth in advertising. I have yet to see an ad for a game that is not "enhanced" in some way. The same is true for most consumer products; they're photo-shopped more than supermodels
There is a range of behaviour between total honesty and downright lying. In a civilised society, we try to balance things with laws so that companies can still use marketing and advertising to help sell stuff without being allowed to defraud their customers entirely.
Now, the free market libertarian answer is to have no such laws and let everybody fight it out through the courts. Which, er, require a legal system to work. Extreme libertarians would presumably just have literal fighting, so the person with the biggest fists/guns wins.
It may come as a surprise, but there are actually honest people out there who want to deliver what they promise. They are actually, believe it or not, the majority of businesspeople out there.
I know some pretty disillusioned contributors to Kickstarter projects that would say otherwise.
I know it's heretical to say this on slashdot, but why not just not invest in Kickstarter projects and wait for a viable product from a real company instead?
At the very least you should treat your contribution as a mixture of donation and gamble.
Nothing in itself, as long as it's advertised as horse meat.
In countries where horse meat isn't generally eaten (like here in the UK and I assume the US), it's usually synonymous with illegal attempts to pass off potentially spoiled or poor quality meat as something else.
Internet hate has been growing for a long time now.
At basically the same rate non-techies have started adopting the internet in their every day lives I suspect.
The internet was a nice place before all the normals started using it.
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
The early internet was full of weirdoes and loonies, there just weren't so many of them in absolute numbers.
SJWs rarely work that way, opting to mete out their own version of justice by harassing and finding ways to ruin the victims lives by getting them fired, evicted, etc.
If you are fired because you exposed by a "SJW" as doing something that is a fire-able offence, maybe you should not have committed that offence in the first place.
Disclaimer: I'm not in the US, so it's not easy to fire people out of hand here.
I don't understand when the scam is. He makes crappy books by scrapping public-domain services. Okay, probably low-quality and not much added value, but could be useful. He pushes them up with fake review. Okay, immoral, but a lot of people do it.
TFA says that what he's doing is probably not actually illegal.
But just because something's legal doesn't mean that it's right.
Just read the negative and average reviews before buying and you should avoid it, no ? Am I missing something ?
If you have hundreds of fake positive reviews, the occasional honest negative review will get overlooked. Who reads every review anyway? And who bothers to write negative reviews, come to think of it? If I'd downloaded a book and it was crap, I really wouldn't feel much incentive to waste more of my time writing a review. This applies even more so if the book was free.
Saying "yes" to "are you prepared to die" is not the same as saying yes to "are you prepared to live in a shitty cramped tiny colony with other strangers for the rest of your life".
It reminds me of a quote from Dr Johnson: "No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned."
Think about it: Imagine Anthony Hopkins playing the role of a young teenager. Sure, he's a really talented actor, but it would just be really...odd..
The more serious issue is that you seldom get female lead roles for 35 to 70 year olds in mainstream movies. So being "outed" as 38 instead of 29 could render you unemployable.
Additionally, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that climate change deniers skew more religious than climate change acceptors.
What's more, I vaguely recall reading some actual religious arguments against anthropogenic climate change. Something vaguely like:
[1] "The climate is not changing significantly enough to harm humanity, because God would not let that happen"
and/or
[2] "Only God is powerful enough to change the climate".
And then there's the US's ridiculous Rapture cult, who would WELCOME an Extinction Level Event because they're convinced they'd be Raptured. Don't even get me started on THAT crowd.
There is also the view frequently seen on slashdot that we don't need to worry about climate change because technology/human ingenuity/clever programming will provide a solution at some point before it all goes too seriously wrong.
In terms of unfalsifiability, it is up there with more obviously religious beliefs.
When there is a shortage, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOSE.
Here in the UK after the Second World War, the government imposed rationing and higher taxes. Everybody lost out to some extent, but at least there wasn't mass starvation or a civil war.
There are two choices: higher prices, or some sort of rationing. The higher prices are always better for sellers, and usually better for buyers as well.
What you mean is, higher prices are better for rich buyers.
It is self evident that if you're a billionaire you're likely to prefer to pay rather than wait your turn.
Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to not understand this?
There's not some sitting in Uber HQ with his hand on a knob that controls the surge amount. Surge pricing is based on an algorithm which is based on the ride data. It has no idea about terror attacks or other disasters.
Then perhaps the whole basis of Uber is flawed?
The fact that you can make money from something does not necessarily make it acceptable. Slavery made lots of people lots of profit until the "evil government" stepped in with anti-free market laws making it illegal.
I don't understand the problem myself. Without Uber you wouldn't have had a ride at all. If you don't like the pricing try waiting for a taxi or use another service.
Repeat after me: Uber is NOT run by the government... that's both what makes it good... AND what leads to scenarios like this. You can't have the good (low fares, clean cars, drivers that give a shit) without allowing them to work with the free market (supply / demand).
No, that is a false dichotomy, which is only logical if you start from the premise that anything to do with "government" is automatically bad.
It is perfectly normal to have constraints on pure free market business unless you are an ultra-libertarian who thinks for example that there should be no banking regulation, no environmental protection or consumer safety laws, and so on.
I've often wondered what prevents (aside from stupendous cost) someone from launching up to one of these and taking it over while it's not occupied?
I'm just guessing, but what prevents someone from launching up to one of these and taking it over while it's not occupied is probably the stupendous cost.
If I posted an old picture of a friend from college, and that friend said "hey, I'd rather not have that on the Internet," I'd immediately take it down.
Yes, but you wouldn't expect him to sue you if you refused, although it would presumably mean the end of your friendship. I think it is evident that the daughter and parents are well past the stage of being on friendly terms.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that any different than people donating to create movies/albums/charitable efforts? People combining resources so they can pay other people to produce a product they want isn't that radical.
If you donate money to a charity you don't expect anything back personally in return.
If you want to be part of a group making something, you need to decide whether it's a business or hobby. Personally, I count giving money to strangers in the expectation of receiving a product later as business.
You're assuming it was done on purpose. I do not. I think most people that complain about other people's grammar are just as bad.
You're assuming that it was done on purpose: I am not. I think that most people who complain about other people's grammar are just as bad as the people they complain about.
Pedantry really is the gift that goes on giving.
What is this "truth in advertising" you refer to? The purpose of advertising is to sell things to people that they don't need and likely can't afford, and that can't be done through truth in advertising. I have yet to see an ad for a game that is not "enhanced" in some way. The same is true for most consumer products; they're photo-shopped more than supermodels
There is a range of behaviour between total honesty and downright lying. In a civilised society, we try to balance things with laws so that companies can still use marketing and advertising to help sell stuff without being allowed to defraud their customers entirely.
Now, the free market libertarian answer is to have no such laws and let everybody fight it out through the courts. Which, er, require a legal system to work. Extreme libertarians would presumably just have literal fighting, so the person with the biggest fists/guns wins.
It may come as a surprise, but there are actually honest people out there who want to deliver what they promise. They are actually, believe it or not, the majority of businesspeople out there.
I know some pretty disillusioned contributors to Kickstarter projects that would say otherwise.
I know it's heretical to say this on slashdot, but why not just not invest in Kickstarter projects and wait for a viable product from a real company instead?
At the very least you should treat your contribution as a mixture of donation and gamble.
What's wrong with horse meat?
Nothing in itself, as long as it's advertised as horse meat.
In countries where horse meat isn't generally eaten (like here in the UK and I assume the US), it's usually synonymous with illegal attempts to pass off potentially spoiled or poor quality meat as something else.
Mustaches like that were very popular in the inter-war years. Only fucking idiots associate them particularly with Hitler.
Yeah, and the Swastika is an old religious symbol, so people using it on a flag have nothing to do with the Nazis, right?
Context is everything.
Internet hate has been growing for a long time now.
At basically the same rate non-techies have started adopting the internet in their every day lives I suspect. The internet was a nice place before all the normals started using it.
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
The early internet was full of weirdoes and loonies, there just weren't so many of them in absolute numbers.
SJWs rarely work that way, opting to mete out their own version of justice by harassing and finding ways to ruin the victims lives by getting them fired, evicted, etc.
If you are fired because you exposed by a "SJW" as doing something that is a fire-able offence, maybe you should not have committed that offence in the first place.
Disclaimer: I'm not in the US, so it's not easy to fire people out of hand here.
I don't understand when the scam is. He makes crappy books by scrapping public-domain services. Okay, probably low-quality and not much added value, but could be useful. He pushes them up with fake review. Okay, immoral, but a lot of people do it.
TFA says that what he's doing is probably not actually illegal.
But just because something's legal doesn't mean that it's right.
Just read the negative and average reviews before buying and you should avoid it, no ? Am I missing something ?
If you have hundreds of fake positive reviews, the occasional honest negative review will get overlooked. Who reads every review anyway? And who bothers to write negative reviews, come to think of it? If I'd downloaded a book and it was crap, I really wouldn't feel much incentive to waste more of my time writing a review. This applies even more so if the book was free.
Saying "yes" to "are you prepared to die" is not the same as saying yes to "are you prepared to live in a shitty cramped tiny colony with other strangers for the rest of your life".
It reminds me of a quote from Dr Johnson: "No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned."
getting a rocket 3-5x the size of saturn V's into orbit ?? hahaha
In the immortal slashdot phrase, it's just an engineering problem.
APK that is you.
Still don't get out much? Good.
Can't be APK it's not just going on about host files.
Plus it's written in normal English.
Think about it: Imagine Anthony Hopkins playing the role of a young teenager. Sure, he's a really talented actor, but it would just be really...odd..
The more serious issue is that you seldom get female lead roles for 35 to 70 year olds in mainstream movies. So being "outed" as 38 instead of 29 could render you unemployable.
And, yes, obviously there are exceptions.
. Plain, ordinary folks who haven't experienced mind rot as a result of being entrenched in ivory halls of academia
That's a fancy definition of "poorly educated" you got there, son.
Additionally, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that climate change deniers skew more religious than climate change acceptors.
What's more, I vaguely recall reading some actual religious arguments against anthropogenic climate change. Something vaguely like:
[1] "The climate is not changing significantly enough to harm humanity, because God would not let that happen"
and/or
[2] "Only God is powerful enough to change the climate".
And then there's the US's ridiculous Rapture cult, who would WELCOME an Extinction Level Event because they're convinced they'd be Raptured. Don't even get me started on THAT crowd.
There is also the view frequently seen on slashdot that we don't need to worry about climate change because technology/human ingenuity/clever programming will provide a solution at some point before it all goes too seriously wrong.
In terms of unfalsifiability, it is up there with more obviously religious beliefs.
Am I the only one who is scared about the fact that these clueless fuckwits have enough data on us to diagnose which of us has prostate cancer?
Diagnosing that someone has prostate cancer because they've googled "symptoms of prostate cancer" isn't rocket surgery.
When there is a shortage, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOSE.
Here in the UK after the Second World War, the government imposed rationing and higher taxes. Everybody lost out to some extent, but at least there wasn't mass starvation or a civil war.
There are two choices: higher prices, or some sort of rationing. The higher prices are always better for sellers, and usually better for buyers as well.
What you mean is, higher prices are better for rich buyers.
It is self evident that if you're a billionaire you're likely to prefer to pay rather than wait your turn.
Allocation of scarce resources by price is not market failure.
No, it's moral failure.
Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to not understand this?
There's not some sitting in Uber HQ with his hand on a knob that controls the surge amount. Surge pricing is based on an algorithm which is based on the ride data. It has no idea about terror attacks or other disasters.
Then perhaps the whole basis of Uber is flawed?
The fact that you can make money from something does not necessarily make it acceptable. Slavery made lots of people lots of profit until the "evil government" stepped in with anti-free market laws making it illegal.
If taxis are so much better than Uber in NYC, then how to Uber drivers make enough money to stay on the road?
It's always easy to make money if you ignore the law. There are costs involved in maintaining a civilised society.
Exactly.
I don't understand the problem myself. Without Uber you wouldn't have had a ride at all. If you don't like the pricing try waiting for a taxi or use another service.
Repeat after me: Uber is NOT run by the government... that's both what makes it good... AND what leads to scenarios like this. You can't have the good (low fares, clean cars, drivers that give a shit) without allowing them to work with the free market (supply / demand).
No, that is a false dichotomy, which is only logical if you start from the premise that anything to do with "government" is automatically bad.
It is perfectly normal to have constraints on pure free market business unless you are an ultra-libertarian who thinks for example that there should be no banking regulation, no environmental protection or consumer safety laws, and so on.
I've often wondered what prevents (aside from stupendous cost) someone from launching up to one of these and taking it over while it's not occupied?
I'm just guessing, but what prevents someone from launching up to one of these and taking it over while it's not occupied is probably the stupendous cost.
Kids pictures from the parent without the adult childs consent is rather hindering.
Unless you have some psychotic belief that you were never a child, what exactly is the problem?
If I posted an old picture of a friend from college, and that friend said "hey, I'd rather not have that on the Internet," I'd immediately take it down.
Yes, but you wouldn't expect him to sue you if you refused, although it would presumably mean the end of your friendship. I think it is evident that the daughter and parents are well past the stage of being on friendly terms.