Your DVD player/does/ have a "fast forward" button. Not "Skip". Not "Menu". "Fast Forward". You're still forced to watch the commercial-- but at 30X the speed and without sound.
Among such feats as learning to add and compare numbers, these digital life forms also once avoided scientists attempts at "killing" them, by playing dead. You can download the project yourself from SourceForge."
Let me get this straight. You, the scientists who created "viruses" that can become intelligent and nigh-unkillable, want me, and 1,000,000 computer geeks, to download and run said viruses?
Yeah, I've seen one too many Outer Limits to fall for that one...
Credit card merchant services typically charge around 3% to process a credit card transaction, so retailers must build this cost into the final cost of the product they are selling. Would you prefer no cash discount is offered to customers who want to pay for a particular product using cash?
No, I'd prefer the merchants to suck it up. It's the cost of doing business. And in fact, it/is/ against the law, and against the merchant's service contract with Visa/MC, to charge the consumer the 3%. It's shady enough to have the 3% cash discount. It's shady enough that Visa, if they desired, can cancel the retailer's access to the credid card network.
Back to the suck it up part: If a merchant wants to increase their customer base, they have to pay SOMETHING: Advertisment, better customer service reps, higher quality product-- all of thse are associated with a higher cost of running the business. The credit card is no different. It is a convenience they are offereing to their customers, in order to entice a wider customer base to shop there. That 3% is the cost. So they have to ask themselves: will I make more profit from the increased amount of paying customers to outweigh the 3%?
If not, they can raise their prices. As long as they ask themselves: Will the increased profit from the raised prices outweigh the loss of profit from customers who won't want to pay the higher price? (If they're product and serivce is good enough, it will...)
Or they can chose to not raise their prices, and not accept credit cards. As long as they ask themselves: Will the money saved by not having credit cards compensate for the loss of potential sales from credit card only customers?
So, like I said to the retailers: Suck it up. Do some risk analysis, and chose what is best for your business.
And to the consumer: The 3% sucks, but does it suck hard enough to go to a different retailer? And, if you really hate that 3%, can you pay by cash?
So, I suppose the consumers should suck it up too, and learn to be/smart/ consumers.
Only 0.0001% of college students own a screwdriver, can opener, or stapler. That 0.0001% is me. The 99.9999% is every one else, who come to me to borrow my screwdriver, can opener and stapler.
Executive summary: Stop buying $300 cell phones, and take a trip to the dollar store, you mooches!
I'll admit... that's a good analogy. And since the final decision is going to come down to, most likely, an old guy who doesn't use computers... the ability to draw analogies to stuff he does understand is going to be big.
Of course, the analogy is flawed, since a cop-dog is searching for a specific, legistrated crime (drug running), a packet sniffer is only looking for "suspicious" activity, to which can later be attributed to any crime the "dog" handlers wish.
It'd be like training a dog to sniff for halhal spices, then using that as "reasonable" cause for arresting the Middle Eastern gentleman, because he "might" be involved with terrorism.
It's the same philosphy that all the computer hacking / security courses I took in college followed. If you're going to be a system administrator, you HAVE to know how people are going to try to break into your system, so you can prevent it.
The responsibilty of schools are to teach. It's the responsibility of the student to use the knowledge responsibly.
How much lethal knowledge do you think your average doctor (MD) has?
If an employee blogs on her own time, but on matters related to the company and identifying herself with the company, she owns the material but will likely face consequences.
This is total BS. Girls don't know how to use the Internet!
If we had any control over where that "radar" was pointing, I wouldn't have an issue.
Is it monitoring "terrorist" websites? Maybe. What about child porn websites. Possibly. Those are all concidered "legitimate" targets, right?
Who decided?
What if they decide to monitor pro-marijuana sites? Well, people shouldn't be smoking that stuff anyways. Hmm. Okay, then what about sites with the word "gay" or "lesbian". We can weed out those underisables. They can tag any "abortion" sites too.
Did someone just visit a "9/11" site? Let's get them before they start thinking uncomfortable thoughts.
And so on, and so on.
There's a reason why search warrants exist, and this is the exact reason. If you give the "police" (fbi, police, whoever they may be) the freedom to indiscrimitaly hunt for people who "might" do something "bad", as defined by those same police, you get... well, 1984. Cliche, but poignent.
You want to cache and store all internet requests for future review? Sure. But you better have a damn good reason before anyone is allowed to collect and prosecute with that data.
Step 1: Have workers make lots of units
Step 2: Sell lots of units
Step 3: Fire workers so you don't have to spend the money you just made on their salaries
Step 4: Profit
Whaddya know? No missing step!
Why couldn't have Sega gotten out of the sports market YEARS ago? If they had, there'd be better Genesis selections in the Rummage Bin than the standard "50000 copies of Madden '94"
Bringing phone prices dows is a good thing, and cutting down on components is too. But I think the disposable cell phone sounds like it's further than 2-3 years away...
I hate to tell you this, but cellphones already are disposable. Socially, if not technologically. My gf's brother goes through something like 4 phones a year, because he "needs" the new features.
Now, I am of the mindset that very few teenagers actually "need" cell phones, and those who do have no "need" for all the bonus features.
I think it is a very sad commentary on our society (I speak only of North American... it may be the same outside of NA, but from lack of experience I cannot say) when non-disposable items are treated as disposable, but I digress.
And in response to the article, I can't believe that they are theorizing that this "may" usher in an era of cheap-phones-but-expensive-plans. Excuse me? Has the author ever BEEN cell phone shopping? 99.99999% of the phones out there are dirt cheap, if not free-- as long as you sell your soul to the company store in the form of multi-year contracts loaded with exhorborant rates and a plethora of hidden user fees.
Cell phone companies have been more than happy to practically give away cell phones to teenagers for quite a while now, because they know it means free reign of the parent's wallets.
Except this one will be set on the moons of Mars instead of on Earth. And instead of aliens, they'll be monsters from Hell. And instead of government agents, they'll be gun-slinging Space Marines.
Slashdot Mirror
Your DVD player /does/ have a "fast forward" button. Not "Skip". Not "Menu". "Fast Forward". You're still forced to watch the commercial-- but at 30X the speed and without sound.
I second that. Bring back Wesley. Especially in light of JMS's policy, which is, in paraphrase-ese: "No cute kids or robots. Ever. Unless they die."
Yup.
"Stop repeating everything I'm saying!"
"Stallman's a dork."
"Stallman's a... HEY!"
Let me get this straight. You, the scientists who created "viruses" that can become intelligent and nigh-unkillable, want me, and 1,000,000 computer geeks, to download and run said viruses?
Yeah, I've seen one too many Outer Limits to fall for that one...
No, I'd prefer the merchants to suck it up. It's the cost of doing business. And in fact, it /is/ against the law, and against the merchant's service contract with Visa/MC, to charge the consumer the 3%. It's shady enough to have the 3% cash discount. It's shady enough that Visa, if they desired, can cancel the retailer's access to the credid card network.
Back to the suck it up part: If a merchant wants to increase their customer base, they have to pay SOMETHING: Advertisment, better customer service reps, higher quality product-- all of thse are associated with a higher cost of running the business. The credit card is no different. It is a convenience they are offereing to their customers, in order to entice a wider customer base to shop there. That 3% is the cost. So they have to ask themselves: will I make more profit from the increased amount of paying customers to outweigh the 3%?
If not, they can raise their prices. As long as they ask themselves: Will the increased profit from the raised prices outweigh the loss of profit from customers who won't want to pay the higher price? (If they're product and serivce is good enough, it will...)
Or they can chose to not raise their prices, and not accept credit cards. As long as they ask themselves: Will the money saved by not having credit cards compensate for the loss of potential sales from credit card only customers?
So, like I said to the retailers: Suck it up. Do some risk analysis, and chose what is best for your business.
And to the consumer: The 3% sucks, but does it suck hard enough to go to a different retailer? And, if you really hate that 3%, can you pay by cash?
So, I suppose the consumers should suck it up too, and learn to be /smart/ consumers.
At least, this is how I've been running my music collection for a long time now...
Executive summary: Stop buying $300 cell phones, and take a trip to the dollar store, you mooches!
Seriously.
Of course, the analogy is flawed, since a cop-dog is searching for a specific, legistrated crime (drug running), a packet sniffer is only looking for "suspicious" activity, to which can later be attributed to any crime the "dog" handlers wish.
It'd be like training a dog to sniff for halhal spices, then using that as "reasonable" cause for arresting the Middle Eastern gentleman, because he "might" be involved with terrorism.
EB didn't go bankrupt.
{shrug}
It's the same philosphy that all the computer hacking / security courses I took in college followed. If you're going to be a system administrator, you HAVE to know how people are going to try to break into your system, so you can prevent it.
The responsibilty of schools are to teach. It's the responsibility of the student to use the knowledge responsibly.
How much lethal knowledge do you think your average doctor (MD) has?
This is total BS. Girls don't know how to use the Internet!
And since when are they allowed to work?
Is it monitoring "terrorist" websites? Maybe. What about child porn websites. Possibly. Those are all concidered "legitimate" targets, right?
Who decided?
What if they decide to monitor pro-marijuana sites? Well, people shouldn't be smoking that stuff anyways. Hmm. Okay, then what about sites with the word "gay" or "lesbian". We can weed out those underisables. They can tag any "abortion" sites too.
Did someone just visit a "9/11" site? Let's get them before they start thinking uncomfortable thoughts.
And so on, and so on.
There's a reason why search warrants exist, and this is the exact reason. If you give the "police" (fbi, police, whoever they may be) the freedom to indiscrimitaly hunt for people who "might" do something "bad", as defined by those same police, you get... well, 1984. Cliche, but poignent.
You want to cache and store all internet requests for future review? Sure. But you better have a damn good reason before anyone is allowed to collect and prosecute with that data.
Simpson, you're fired!
Can I have some sais genetically modified for me? I love sais, and genetically modified sais would be even cooler!
[Sidenote: It's a joke, take a pill]
Step 1: Have workers make lots of units Step 2: Sell lots of units Step 3: Fire workers so you don't have to spend the money you just made on their salaries Step 4: Profit Whaddya know? No missing step!
It's dead, Jim. Let it go.
Suck it.
Why couldn't have Sega gotten out of the sports market YEARS ago? If they had, there'd be better Genesis selections in the Rummage Bin than the standard "50000 copies of Madden '94"
I hate to tell you this, but cellphones already are disposable. Socially, if not technologically. My gf's brother goes through something like 4 phones a year, because he "needs" the new features.
Now, I am of the mindset that very few teenagers actually "need" cell phones, and those who do have no "need" for all the bonus features.
I think it is a very sad commentary on our society (I speak only of North American... it may be the same outside of NA, but from lack of experience I cannot say) when non-disposable items are treated as disposable, but I digress.
And in response to the article, I can't believe that they are theorizing that this "may" usher in an era of cheap-phones-but-expensive-plans. Excuse me? Has the author ever BEEN cell phone shopping? 99.99999% of the phones out there are dirt cheap, if not free-- as long as you sell your soul to the company store in the form of multi-year contracts loaded with exhorborant rates and a plethora of hidden user fees.
Cell phone companies have been more than happy to practically give away cell phones to teenagers for quite a while now, because they know it means free reign of the parent's wallets.
"That's the fscking point!"
Bring on the assfucking! Yeehaw!
Mitchel Powell released a public statement today, announcing his retirement. It read simply, "Fuck all y'all. Love, Mitch."
{sigh} I miss Doom.
{melt}