The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest
Ah yes. A great Biblical scholar. All Biblical scholars know that Jesus definitely was trying to protect self-interest. So was Paul, when he said
Philippians 2:3 (New International Version) Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
And Jesus when He talked about being meek, humble, lowly, generous, forgiving, feeding the poor, clothing the naked. And the rest of the Bible when it talks about humility, that God hates the pride, that God "sides" with the humble, that God resists the proud, that God sees the poor and needy, that God judges the unjust - especially when they are rich and they unjustly treat the poor...
Definitely "an endorsement of self-interest." Frankly, I would guess that Griffiths has never read the Bible but pulled that quote from somewhere because he was in St. Paul's Cathedral and thus wanted to appear religious in some way. To most people that actually have read the Bible and even more so to people that believe it, he only comes off as being ignorant and just using the words of Jesus to excuse his own selfishness and greed (also talked about in the Bible in quite condemning terms). Not sure that's what he meant to do.
When people honestly cannot afford to follow the rules, as long as they aren't hurting others, we'll look the other way.
But that depends on why they can't afford it. I spent all my money gambling; I can't afford to pay for [insert something here]. I don't want to work. I'll use it for free.
I didn't say they were baby murderers. I said they apparently don't care much about their customer. In my experience, if someone doesn't care about treating another business ethically and running their business ethically, they don't care too much about treating their customers ethically, either.
If you don't have the money to pay for commercial software, look into alternatives. Isn't that what most people do for most things that aren't easily gotten without paying for them?
"Hmmm, this house is too much. Guess I won't buy any house."
"Hmmm, I can't afford this car. Guess I won't by any car."
... most people look for cheaper alternatives that are legal because most people don't want to steal a house (heh) or a car. When it comes to pirating software, I wonder how many of those mentioned in this particular situation actually looked to see if there was a free alternative or if they immediately thought "well, we may not be able to afford this, so let's just rip it for free."
And if their first inclination/thought was to take the "easy" way and simply not pay for it while still using it - illegally - then I can't imagine their other business practice/ethics are very good, either. "Well, we can't afford to give all of these customers the same support. Oh well. Let's keep charging them for it and just let them have busy signals. We'll make up for it later."
Free software is only free if your time is valueless.
Sometimes I agree with that. But except for powerpoint vs. impress, openoffice is pretty good and not a difficult switch. In my experience, of course. and if the boss needs ppt, buy one copy of it... most employees won't need it though (except maybe a viewer, which is free).
Unfortunately, the management at many are too stupid
No wonder the tech startups in your town are underfunded. Maybe they "stupid management" companies should go out of business and make room for "smart management" companies/opportunities/whatever..
If you are willing to steal from other companies, pirate software, etc., and openly lie about it, then chances are you don't particularly care about your customer, either. You care literally only about money, apparently.
Of course. As much of a right to be upset as if Starbucks raised their coffee prices "randomly." I just don't think it's really that big of a deal and it's certainly not somehow "unethical"... IMO... to raise prices.
That is 25% of the total cost, which isn't as big of a deal if you're in month 1 of your contract. What about when you're in month 8 or 9 or 10 though?
Then you got ~10 months for free. Plus the phone.
Third, this is more than likely a way to scare users into staying with a service they may not even want.
It's a contract. Don't take it if you don't want it? Don't sign it? Read the dotted line? Argue with them and see if they will be willing to change it? But don't sign the contract and then complain about the contract you just signed as if you didn't know what was in it. Unless they added it to your contract and you didn't know it, but...
Fourth, it makes no sense to double the fee to further subsidize phones. They've been subsidizing phones for years at their $175 ETF rate, or cheaper. Suddenly they feel the need to double that? Really? Ok Verizon, I'll just trust that your subsidization's doubled in cost.
Maybe their average plan cost, thus "lost" revenue goes up. Maybe they decided people could afford more. Maybe they decided phones were getting more expensive or that people were opting for more expensive phones now. Maybe they just wanted more money. Don't like it? Be mad then, but don't act like you deserve a lower ETF "just because."
(Also, the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $100 a month or more? Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something?)
Meh. Family plan. Data plans are expensive, too, though...
You would be right if the contract actually worked both ways. If you have problem with your service, or a billing dispute, or any of a number of other problems, their answer is likely to be "Too bad."
Not really. We've have billing disputes and problems with both Verizon and AT&T. We got a discount from AT&T and refunds from Verizon. Is it difficult to actually talk to someone who knows what they are talking about and works with you? Yes. It's not impossible though, and we were not told "too bad."
The customer is left with two choices - a very costly and unlikely to succeed lawsuit, or to walk.
I suppose this depends on the nature of the issue. In the case of an early termination, I can't see how you have a leg to stand on in the first place. If you mean overcharges or something like that, I have personal experience with having resolved those over the phone or by going into a store and talking to someone. I have heard of "accidents" that people do and they want Verizon to refund them (because they didn't know it charged more or because they didn't "know" they were signing up for something when they said "Yes, sign me up"... or whatever) and they are refused... which, again, makes sense to me...
If you buy a smartphone through Verizon, be prepared for an increase in the early termination fee. Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350.
You sign a contract with Verizon. Verizon is providing the services. You are contracting with them and saying you will use their services for X years. It's a contract. Breaking a contract is something where both parties agree what the response should be. In this case, Verizon is saying that you are charged $350 if you break your contract and stop paying them what you said you would pay them.
Honestly, I don't see what the deal is. Chances are you are paying what... average of $100 a month for a Verizon plan? So $350 is 3.5 months? Paying 3.5 months for breaking a 24 month contract doesn't seem so unreasonable.
The fact that they ARE using that money to subsidize their "free phone" stuff is irrelevant. If they are able to apply money they get from termination fees to offer cheaper phones and get more customers that way, I see no problem with that.
But... oh well. It's much more interesting to complain about early termination fees as if they are hidden or sneaky or something. As if contracts should be able to be broken by either party without any consequences...
It's almost like you blame Linux for the fact your hardware vendor tries so hard to lock out 3rd party support.
You're right. Some people do. Because Linux "evangelists" like to say that Linux can do everything Windows can do...except better, AND it's more secure, AND it's free, AND it has a GREAT community.
MOST of which is true. It may or may not be better, it is more secure and it's free and it does have a good community (there are plenty of Windows communities as well, of course).
But it does not do everything Windows can do, because not everything runs on Linux. And most people do not want to lose hardware that works well for them for the sake of switching to Linux. Like iPods and iPhones.
Sure, blame Apple and not Linux for the actual hardware issue (interesting: Apple is a great company at Slashdot until it is convenient for it not to be a great company at Slashdot:) my experience, anyways)... but blame Linux fans for claiming things that either aren't true or are only true if you are more committed to using Linux than using your existing proprietary hardware. Some people care more about their existing hardware that works well and that they like than whether or not it works with Linux. And it's a perfectly valid reason, too. Doesn't mean Linux is bad, it just means some people have different priorities.
Even geeks on slashdot refer to it as "Linux" and distros are named "RedHat Linux" and "Ubuntu Linux" and "SuSE Linux."
If you called your car a "Mercedes Car" you might be under the impression that the entire thing was called a "car" and that "Mercedes" made a "version" of it. You probably wouldn't think that the "car" was actually just the engine and all the rest was called a "distribution.":)
And frankly, I'm fine with calling it as a whole "Linux" just like people refer to Windows as a whole as "Windows," even if it's Windows XP or Windows 2003 or Windows Vista or Windows 3.1. Most people differentiate, but not all the time.... "Windows" is the least common denominator. "Linux" is the least common denominator.:)
Most people aren't concerned about proprietary interfaces. They buy what is cheap that has the features they need or want. They aren't concerned with the "information wants to be free" debate and they aren't concerned with RMS.
You say that it's "so easy to avoid if people just think first." Yes, tell that to someone that isn't completely sure what a "filesystem" is, let alone how an iPod syncs or why one browser is more secure than another browser (sure, people understand a top-level idea of "security," but they don't understand much more than that).
Slashdot Mirror
Somalia
I hear there are a lot of copyright infringers there!
The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest
Ah yes. A great Biblical scholar. All Biblical scholars know that Jesus definitely was trying to protect self-interest. So was Paul, when he said
Philippians 2:3 (New International Version)
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
And Jesus when He talked about being meek, humble, lowly, generous, forgiving, feeding the poor, clothing the naked. And the rest of the Bible when it talks about humility, that God hates the pride, that God "sides" with the humble, that God resists the proud, that God sees the poor and needy, that God judges the unjust - especially when they are rich and they unjustly treat the poor ...
Definitely "an endorsement of self-interest." Frankly, I would guess that Griffiths has never read the Bible but pulled that quote from somewhere because he was in St. Paul's Cathedral and thus wanted to appear religious in some way. To most people that actually have read the Bible and even more so to people that believe it, he only comes off as being ignorant and just using the words of Jesus to excuse his own selfishness and greed (also talked about in the Bible in quite condemning terms). Not sure that's what he meant to do.
When people honestly cannot afford to follow the rules, as long as they aren't hurting others, we'll look the other way.
But that depends on why they can't afford it. I spent all my money gambling; I can't afford to pay for [insert something here]. I don't want to work. I'll use it for free.
But I agree with the rest, hehe.
Using "like" like that is a travesty of English grammar. Incidentally, periods go inside of quotes. ;)
I didn't say they were baby murderers. I said they apparently don't care much about their customer. In my experience, if someone doesn't care about treating another business ethically and running their business ethically, they don't care too much about treating their customers ethically, either.
If you don't have the money to pay for commercial software, look into alternatives. Isn't that what most people do for most things that aren't easily gotten without paying for them?
"Hmmm, this house is too much. Guess I won't buy any house."
"Hmmm, I can't afford this car. Guess I won't by any car."
... most people look for cheaper alternatives that are legal because most people don't want to steal a house (heh) or a car. When it comes to pirating software, I wonder how many of those mentioned in this particular situation actually looked to see if there was a free alternative or if they immediately thought "well, we may not be able to afford this, so let's just rip it for free."
And if their first inclination/thought was to take the "easy" way and simply not pay for it while still using it - illegally - then I can't imagine their other business practice/ethics are very good, either. "Well, we can't afford to give all of these customers the same support. Oh well. Let's keep charging them for it and just let them have busy signals. We'll make up for it later."
Free software is only free if your time is valueless.
Sometimes I agree with that. But except for powerpoint vs. impress, openoffice is pretty good and not a difficult switch. In my experience, of course. and if the boss needs ppt, buy one copy of it... most employees won't need it though (except maybe a viewer, which is free).
Unfortunately, the management at many are too stupid
No wonder the tech startups in your town are underfunded. Maybe they "stupid management" companies should go out of business and make room for "smart management" companies/opportunities/whatever..
So is not paying for software.
If you are willing to steal from other companies, pirate software, etc., and openly lie about it, then chances are you don't particularly care about your customer, either. You care literally only about money, apparently.
I wish I had an answer.
[Silver|Moon]light!
;)
Isn't this bug specifically talking about cross-site scripting? So it depends on how Silverlight manages that. I don't know the answer to that.
That's what I originally figured but openSUSE and SLES titles both have it capitalized on their websites...
I think it looks better uncapitalized. Oh well. They didn't ask me. ;)
People have a right to be upset.
Of course. As much of a right to be upset as if Starbucks raised their coffee prices "randomly." I just don't think it's really that big of a deal and it's certainly not somehow "unethical" ... IMO ... to raise prices.
That is 25% of the total cost, which isn't as big of a deal if you're in month 1 of your contract. What about when you're in month 8 or 9 or 10 though?
Then you got ~10 months for free. Plus the phone.
Third, this is more than likely a way to scare users into staying with a service they may not even want.
It's a contract. Don't take it if you don't want it? Don't sign it? Read the dotted line? Argue with them and see if they will be willing to change it? But don't sign the contract and then complain about the contract you just signed as if you didn't know what was in it. Unless they added it to your contract and you didn't know it, but ...
Fourth, it makes no sense to double the fee to further subsidize phones. They've been subsidizing phones for years at their $175 ETF rate, or cheaper. Suddenly they feel the need to double that? Really? Ok Verizon, I'll just trust that your subsidization's doubled in cost.
Maybe their average plan cost, thus "lost" revenue goes up. Maybe they decided people could afford more. Maybe they decided phones were getting more expensive or that people were opting for more expensive phones now. Maybe they just wanted more money. Don't like it? Be mad then, but don't act like you deserve a lower ETF "just because."
[...] you pay for it.
How strange, you mean it's not free? :(
(Also, the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $100 a month or more? Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something?)
Meh. Family plan. Data plans are expensive, too, though...
You would be right if the contract actually worked both ways. If you have problem with your service, or a billing dispute, or any of a number of other problems, their answer is likely to be "Too bad."
Not really. We've have billing disputes and problems with both Verizon and AT&T. We got a discount from AT&T and refunds from Verizon. Is it difficult to actually talk to someone who knows what they are talking about and works with you? Yes. It's not impossible though, and we were not told "too bad."
The customer is left with two choices - a very costly and unlikely to succeed lawsuit, or to walk.
I suppose this depends on the nature of the issue. In the case of an early termination, I can't see how you have a leg to stand on in the first place. If you mean overcharges or something like that, I have personal experience with having resolved those over the phone or by going into a store and talking to someone. I have heard of "accidents" that people do and they want Verizon to refund them (because they didn't know it charged more or because they didn't "know" they were signing up for something when they said "Yes, sign me up" ... or whatever) and they are refused... which, again, makes sense to me...
If you buy a smartphone through Verizon, be prepared for an increase in the early termination fee. Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350.
You sign a contract with Verizon. Verizon is providing the services. You are contracting with them and saying you will use their services for X years. It's a contract. Breaking a contract is something where both parties agree what the response should be. In this case, Verizon is saying that you are charged $350 if you break your contract and stop paying them what you said you would pay them.
Honestly, I don't see what the deal is. Chances are you are paying what... average of $100 a month for a Verizon plan? So $350 is 3.5 months? Paying 3.5 months for breaking a 24 month contract doesn't seem so unreasonable.
The fact that they ARE using that money to subsidize their "free phone" stuff is irrelevant. If they are able to apply money they get from termination fees to offer cheaper phones and get more customers that way, I see no problem with that.
But... oh well. It's much more interesting to complain about early termination fees as if they are hidden or sneaky or something. As if contracts should be able to be broken by either party without any consequences...
Next up: immediate support in FireFox, WebKit, and Apache -- and deafening silence from IE and IIS.
Hum. Not Chrome? ;)
The only positive comments I ever see about it are comparing it to Windows.
That happens quite frequently, which may be why I feel the Apple-is-cool vibe/Mac-is-better or whatever. :)
For some i[insert word]s anyways, yes.
Doesn't exactly look simple or easy or "better" ...
If your iPod database has become corrupted (because you disconnected your device at an unfortunate point in time, because of an Amarok failure, ...)
Heh. :)
Well, if they ever *gasp* upgrade their kernel, I guess they'll be doing a heart transplant...
I knew upgrades were scary things sometimes, but...
I know it's openSUSE or SLES... it's actually "SUSE Linux Enterprise Server" if you want to be picky. I've used openSUSE personally and SLES at work.
(I actually had the capitalization wrong though, I thought the U wasn't capitalized. Oh well. Learn something new...)
But most people don't get caught up in saying exactly the right name, I don't think. Nobody calls it GNU/Linux ;) (hehe)
Seems that most people call it by the distro name first, though, since most distros market it as such, I guess...
It's almost like you blame Linux for the fact your hardware vendor tries so hard to lock out 3rd party support.
You're right. Some people do. Because Linux "evangelists" like to say that Linux can do everything Windows can do.. .except better, AND it's more secure, AND it's free, AND it has a GREAT community.
MOST of which is true. It may or may not be better, it is more secure and it's free and it does have a good community (there are plenty of Windows communities as well, of course).
But it does not do everything Windows can do, because not everything runs on Linux. And most people do not want to lose hardware that works well for them for the sake of switching to Linux. Like iPods and iPhones.
Sure, blame Apple and not Linux for the actual hardware issue (interesting: Apple is a great company at Slashdot until it is convenient for it not to be a great company at Slashdot :) my experience, anyways)... but blame Linux fans for claiming things that either aren't true or are only true if you are more committed to using Linux than using your existing proprietary hardware. Some people care more about their existing hardware that works well and that they like than whether or not it works with Linux. And it's a perfectly valid reason, too. Doesn't mean Linux is bad, it just means some people have different priorities.
10.1 and 10.3 and wifi worked fine for me (I actually really liked 10.3 and was excited ... until 11.0), 10.2 and 11.0 weren't so great.
Even geeks on slashdot refer to it as "Linux" and distros are named "RedHat Linux" and "Ubuntu Linux" and "SuSE Linux."
If you called your car a "Mercedes Car" you might be under the impression that the entire thing was called a "car" and that "Mercedes" made a "version" of it. You probably wouldn't think that the "car" was actually just the engine and all the rest was called a "distribution." :)
And frankly, I'm fine with calling it as a whole "Linux" just like people refer to Windows as a whole as "Windows," even if it's Windows XP or Windows 2003 or Windows Vista or Windows 3.1. Most people differentiate, but not all the time.... "Windows" is the least common denominator. "Linux" is the least common denominator. :)
Most people aren't concerned about proprietary interfaces. They buy what is cheap that has the features they need or want. They aren't concerned with the "information wants to be free" debate and they aren't concerned with RMS.
You say that it's "so easy to avoid if people just think first." Yes, tell that to someone that isn't completely sure what a "filesystem" is, let alone how an iPod syncs or why one browser is more secure than another browser (sure, people understand a top-level idea of "security," but they don't understand much more than that).