You have confused the value of what they do with the difficulty of what they do. Or maybe you think your personal opinion of both should be the measure used by all?
Fact is that a lot of people will pay to see what they do. Who else should be getting a significant share of that money?
Whether what they do is difficult, or requires a great deal of skill, isn't the point. If people will pay to see someone pick their nose, then that someone picking their nose has a value.
Whether you personally value their work is of no relevance to anyone but yourself. More than enough people are of the opposing view.
Sorry, you are going to have to explain how "the rest of the world" buying a branded, 100% genuine, drug for a fraction of the US price drives up the price in the US. You also might give an example where patents are being ignored in those same markets.
Here's a recent example of a man being charged $3,766 for Zovirax cold sore cream in hospital. The same product could be bought in Walmart for $181.66 . UK price $7.
Anyone can create a Facebook account with any name. They do not have to have unique names, or be unique in any other way. So there is no need to spell a name slightly differently to set up a fake account. Nor does setting up an account with your name stop anyone else creating another account with your name.
Are they not doing this already in CSI? I'm sure I saw them enhance an office security video of a post-it note, reflected off a monitor screen, magnified a couple of times, and there they had it; complete dialog in stereo, with accompanying analysis of voice stress so they knew who was lying. Isn't science wonderful?
I don't think there are many who decided to become a child molester.
I hate psychics (it's just an example). I didn't decide to hate psychics, it just naturally happened. However, if I ever decided to become a psychic assaulter, could I use the same defence?
The authors earn less and many would only be able to indulge their hobby part time, whilst working at another career, is just a normal part of social change.
But is it a good social change? Or don't we care? Is making writing something people can only ever afford to do part-time going to result in better books?
Is the author the best person to decide who would be the best illustrator, proof-reader, typesetter etc for their book? Their skill is in writing, what do they know anything about these things?
So perhaps the writer needs someone who does know, someone who does it for a living and can advise and source the best for their book. Maybe this person can work on a percentage of sales, ensuring that everyone gets paid and profits accordingly from a successful book. What do we call them.. ? How about "Publisher"?
While I abhor middlemen, it really struck me as not being Amazon's place to stick their nose into.
Amazon is a middleman. They aren't removing middlemen, all they are doing is pushing other middlemen out of the picture to establish a monopoly for themselves.
You appear have no-one driving your grammar and punctuation. Consequently, when I read your post all the words ended up in a massive pile-up at the end. I'm taking you to court for being at fail.
Congratulations, you have just created a false dichotomy.
Having access to a computer does not prevent the reading of "actual" books, and not having access to a computer does not guarantee the reading of "actual" books.
Besides, it saves me from using Creative's bloatware.
This is what comes to my mind whenever I hear of Creative. Nice enough hardware, but shockingly bad software, 80% of which no-one ever had any need for. And it would invariably all be set up to load at boot-time, sucking up resources and RAM.
If you are just starting out learning to program, you are not in a position to determine which language is best to learn by. You have to take advice, or take what you are given. If you feel 'force fed' you are either way over-opinionated for someone who knows nothing, or are an idiot who has booked themselves onto the wrong course.
This is pretty common on slashdot. A hazard of submitted stories where the person submitting it is very familiar with the people/companies/concepts/software/whatever concerned, and can't imagine anyone who isn't.
You just hope to god they don't also write documentation.
This statement is not the conclusion of the article, it's the headline of the article.
The journalist is using a basic journalistic technique of stating the position in the simpliest, bluntest and most provacative way possible. That makes it easy for the casual browser to grasp the topic, and hopefully draws them in.
so that they can converse with other people with similar mental character and interests
It's a fair point, but what exactly is being shared? Having a shared high IQ is no guarantee at all of the shared or compatible interests, personality, life aims or values. All the kind of stuff that helps in a social club, and relationship most definitely needs.
The only thing they have in common is an interest in knowing how smart they, and other people are, by one particular yardstick. As interest go, that's pretty shallow.
To be fair, it's not just climate change deniers who do this. All manner of nutters have the same tactic.
Make a fact up because it feels right and in line with their particular agenda, state it, hope no-one notices they made it up, keep stating it, forget that they made it up, continue stating it, hey! it's almost as good as true now!
I think they work to the tactic that if they keep saying something, it gradually becomes true through repetition.
Slashdot Mirror
You have confused the value of what they do with the difficulty of what they do. Or maybe you think your personal opinion of both should be the measure used by all?
Fact is that a lot of people will pay to see what they do. Who else should be getting a significant share of that money?
Whether what they do is difficult, or requires a great deal of skill, isn't the point. If people will pay to see someone pick their nose, then that someone picking their nose has a value.
Whether you personally value their work is of no relevance to anyone but yourself. More than enough people are of the opposing view.
Sorry, you are going to have to explain how "the rest of the world" buying a branded, 100% genuine, drug for a fraction of the US price drives up the price in the US. You also might give an example where patents are being ignored in those same markets.
Here's a recent example of a man being charged $3,766 for Zovirax cold sore cream in hospital. The same product could be bought in Walmart for $181.66 . UK price $7.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140728/GJNEWS_01/140729484
Drug prices in the US are entirely down to the insane US health system.
Anyone can create a Facebook account with any name. They do not have to have unique names, or be unique in any other way. So there is no need to spell a name slightly differently to set up a fake account. Nor does setting up an account with your name stop anyone else creating another account with your name.
Are they not doing this already in CSI? I'm sure I saw them enhance an office security video of a post-it note, reflected off a monitor screen, magnified a couple of times, and there they had it; complete dialog in stereo, with accompanying analysis of voice stress so they knew who was lying. Isn't science wonderful?
I don't think there are many who decided to become a child molester.
I hate psychics (it's just an example). I didn't decide to hate psychics, it just naturally happened. However, if I ever decided to become a psychic assaulter, could I use the same defence?
It must be wonderful though, to have so much trust in your Government not to abuse the privileges granted them.
Or are Singaporeans all naive idealists getting taken for a ride?
The authors earn less and many would only be able to indulge their hobby part time, whilst working at another career, is just a normal part of social change.
But is it a good social change? Or don't we care? Is making writing something people can only ever afford to do part-time going to result in better books?
Is the author the best person to decide who would be the best illustrator, proof-reader, typesetter etc for their book? Their skill is in writing, what do they know anything about these things?
So perhaps the writer needs someone who does know, someone who does it for a living and can advise and source the best for their book. Maybe this person can work on a percentage of sales, ensuring that everyone gets paid and profits accordingly from a successful book. What do we call them.. ? How about "Publisher"?
Hang on, haven't we come full circle here?
While I abhor middlemen, it really struck me as not being Amazon's place to stick their nose into.
Amazon is a middleman. They aren't removing middlemen, all they are doing is pushing other middlemen out of the picture to establish a monopoly for themselves.
The problem there is not in the choice, but that of an adult allowing it to be made by a child.
Your post has caused me emotional distress to the tune of $2m. Well, so my lawyer tells me. See you in court.
You appear have no-one driving your grammar and punctuation. Consequently, when I read your post all the words ended up in a massive pile-up at the end. I'm taking you to court for being at fail.
Congratulations, you have just created a false dichotomy.
Having access to a computer does not prevent the reading of "actual" books, and not having access to a computer does not guarantee the reading of "actual" books.
Indeed, now what are you going to do with an empty submarine base?
Not pour billions of pounds down the drain into it?
that it's quite likely to lose
You appear to know something that the opinion polls don't. What is it?
probably its permanent seat on the UN security council
Where did you pull this nonsense from?
Besides, it saves me from using Creative's bloatware.
This is what comes to my mind whenever I hear of Creative. Nice enough hardware, but shockingly bad software, 80% of which no-one ever had any need for. And it would invariably all be set up to load at boot-time, sucking up resources and RAM.
If you are just starting out learning to program, you are not in a position to determine which language is best to learn by. You have to take advice, or take what you are given. If you feel 'force fed' you are either way over-opinionated for someone who knows nothing, or are an idiot who has booked themselves onto the wrong course.
This is pretty common on slashdot. A hazard of submitted stories where the person submitting it is very familiar with the people/companies/concepts/software/whatever concerned, and can't imagine anyone who isn't.
You just hope to god they don't also write documentation.
This statement is not the conclusion of the article, it's the headline of the article.
The journalist is using a basic journalistic technique of stating the position in the simpliest, bluntest and most provacative way possible. That makes it easy for the casual browser to grasp the topic, and hopefully draws them in.
The article then goes on to modify and explain.
Saying "Wiki" when you mean "Wikipedia" is like saying "internet" when you mean "slashdot".
That's simply not true.
I wasn't trying to "invalidate" anything
Can you spot where people might think you were?
"carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas tied to climate change, is being released into Earth's atmosphere on a global scale."
And here was me thinking it was being released on a inter-galactic scale.
Isn't that exactly what LG have done?
so that they can converse with other people with similar mental character and interests
It's a fair point, but what exactly is being shared? Having a shared high IQ is no guarantee at all of the shared or compatible interests, personality, life aims or values. All the kind of stuff that helps in a social club, and relationship most definitely needs.
The only thing they have in common is an interest in knowing how smart they, and other people are, by one particular yardstick. As interest go, that's pretty shallow.
To be fair, it's not just climate change deniers who do this. All manner of nutters have the same tactic.
Make a fact up because it feels right and in line with their particular agenda, state it, hope no-one notices they made it up, keep stating it, forget that they made it up, continue stating it, hey! it's almost as good as true now!
I think they work to the tactic that if they keep saying something, it gradually becomes true through repetition.