Not computers that don't run the ISP's anti-virus package, not computers that aren't up-to-date on Windows, but computers that're actively showing the tell-tale signatures of known infections
For example, computers that run non-approved Operating Systems such as Linux?
Obviously, there's nothing that can't be blamed on the Greens and Independents. Major party comes up with a stupid idea? It must be the fault of the smaller parties for holding the balance of power!
I assume that wages or the employer are directly taxed in some way to cover the pension. The tax is a labor cost that would go away.
But why would wages rise (as you predict) upon removal of that tax, if it were not actually a cost of labor?
The dynamics of the "magic Free Market Fairy" are well understood and that's how they operate.
No, the dynamics of the market are not well understood. If they were, we wouldn't be having so many problems with the market. Economists like to claim that it's a well-understood science, but they are shown to be wrong time and time again.
You lower the cost of labor by dropping the pension tax,
But you said that wages would also rise, but overall the cost of labor would be lower. What evidence do you have to back that up? The government absorbs a lot of externalities. It could very well cost the employer more to provide for retirement privately via increased wages or other benefits.
I'm not saying it will or will not, just that you don't give any evidence. Your argument amounts to "it doesn't involve taxes so it must be cheaper" which is not a valid or complete argument. You don't allow for any possibility other than your own ideologically derived conclusion.
Congratulations, AGENT-KAGURA on your successful work in the cyberspace battlefront managing this latest "event." Your work will not go unnoticed by the Overseer. 2MWPQB56
Retirement isn't a cost of labor. And if you think otherwise, call my bluff. Get rid of public pensions. Wages will probably rise...
You just contradicted yourself. If retirement isn't a cost of labor, then why would removing public pensions have any effect on wages?
...and the net cost of employees fall as the income tax portion of pensions is split between employer and employee.
[citation needed] Oh wait, you were just talking out of your ass. Economic prognostication. It's so easy when you can just make stuff up about what would happen, without any kind of evidence. You just appeal to the magic Free Market Fairy who makes everything right.
So far, not a single comment along those lines. Nor would I expect them. Perhaps your slashdot crystal ball is broken?
Not nearly nerdy enough
on
Linux Radio
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If it were being broadcast on a shortwave radio band rather than internet radio, it might classify as one of the nerdier things ever. The internet is just so conventional.
Evidently, you do no understand how a corporation works. Once you are incorporated, you can't spend company money on yourself or your personal needs.
But if you are a corporation, your personal needs become corporate needs.
That's called embezzlement and you can be imprisoned for embezzlement from your own company
How can you embezzle from your company if you are the company?
Again, your ideas seem perverse. It all comes down to punishing the individual, but letting the corporate get off scott-free. As you say, when a person does it, it's embezzlement and is punished with prison. When a corporation commits graft and fraud, it's just business as usual.
If someone incorporated themselves, they would still have to pay themselves a wage and it would be taxed on their personal income in which they would need to pay income taxes on.
Why should a person have to pay tax on their income, but not a company? Again, horrific double-standards.
But more importantly, it's accounted for when it hits the private person and ceases to provide jobs and benefits for the so called powerless and society in general.
It's not accounted for, because the wealthy and powerful don't have to pay for the consequences of their decisions, it's all paid for by the average person who has no say in the decisions. The elite don't pay income tax, it's all return on investments put into tax havens with maximum evasion.
And then no company will want to set up shop in your country again. Why would they, when the risk is driven up that high?
So, basically, you're saying countries should just let themselves be held hostage by corporations? If there was a rash of bank robberies, would you throw up your arms and say "We should just give them all the money in our banks. After all, if we don't let them, who would want to rob our banks in the future?"
Personally, I think they should do away with corporate taxes altogether. All money corporations make either go to the share holder by way of dividend, or is invested into expanding the company.
In that case, won't everybody just form their own corporation to become tax-free? Your idea sounds really backwards - let the people who make the most by exploiting society go tax free, and leave it to the powerless individual to foot the bill.
...didn't get them, gave him back his hardware and let him go.
... after detaining and interrogating him for five hours. I don't care if the outcome was that he got free ice cream and a blow job, that is still ridiculous treatment.
You are aware that when someone says they "ignored a warning sign" they were at least aware of its existence and quite likely read it?
Then why don't you use more precise language? Ignore does imply that you are deliberately avoiding its existence.
Thus, I don't know if you think you have a point or if you are just trying to "save face" by claiming that's your point.
Why would I need to "save face"?
Neiter of these claims are based on any facts in our discussion so we should be cool.
Actually, you indicated that you stupidly ignore labels. So why would that be a far fetched interpretation?
Yes. And a thousand other labels lie in your face to stop you from playing.
What the hell are you talking about? I've never seen a product with more than a handful of warning labels. Is reading such a chore that it seems like thousands to you?
I specified the grace period of a month for a reason. After I can reasonably assume I heard of the really bad pitfalls, I use my property as I see fit. If that means I will potentially break it, that is my privilege.
It's unclear what you meant by the "months grace" it sounded like you were talking about some kind of warranty or return period - i.e that you should be able to return the product within a month, even if you break it due to not reading warnings.
It's still not clear what you mean. Assuming that you "would have heard" is just stupid. Your actions just don't sound very intelligent, sorry.
You are looking at it with the benefit of hindsight, and selective memory.
It was also heavy (although other MP3 players were heavier), had a somewhat fragile HDD that was a bit too small for a lot of music collections,
A bit too small? It was way bigger than the majority of the competition at the time, which was mostly 64-128 Megabyte Flash memory players. Or players that used laptop hard-drives, and were too big to be portable.
Also, few people had MP3 collections in the Gigabytes in those days.
and had kinda mediocre battery life thanks to having to spin that hard drive.
It had excellent battery life for the time, and for its storage capacity. It also had Firewire, which meant you could actually sync it with a computer in a reasonable amount of time compared to the other devices which relied on the frustratingly slow USB 1.1.
The clickwheel was also prone to damage.
Compared to the chintzy plastic buttons on the other players of the era? I don't think so. Even if it was, it provided a far superior interface. The other players were basically portable CD players in comparison. The iPod was completely different in so many ways.
That, or I have learned to ignore warnings for the ignorant. I refuse to follow those and simply apply common sense
Common sense involves reading the fucking labels. Whether you disregard those labels due to prior experience with a particular product is another matter, but completely ignoring that the label exists is just stupidity. Especially in this case, when it is a new label that hasn't been seen before.
I think you might be the kind of person who ignores the "do not look into laser with remaining good eye" warning label. After all, how is this a "label for the ignorant" as you put it? The product in question does exactly what the label says it will do, so the ignorant person would be one who dismisses the label thinking that it would not do as promised.
There are a lot of such stickers and we have come to learned to ignore them.
I'm not sure who "we" is, but your "learning" obviously isn't very useful, as this article demonstrates that if you did ignore the warning, problems happen. Not such a good idea to ignore it, was it?
Ignorance is the opposite of knowledge, which is gained by learning. Basically, you have learned to be ignorant. Or ignore learning.
Perhaps for the same reason we don't solder memory to our motherboards anymore?
What reason would that be? Very few people upgrade RAM in their machines after they have bought it. Furthermore, by the time you want to upgrade your RAM, the specs for RAM have changed a lot, and the RAM that suits your machine is now obsolete and almost impossible to source, unless you want to pay a premium.
I'm just trying to figure out why this would fall into the Idle category?
I would guess because it's completely useless. It's the equivalent of someone high on weed (or Alanis Morrisette) making an "insightful" comment about irony. Next Week: online journal publishes article about the potential dangers of the internet on the internet!!!!!!!
It goes back a lot further than Hearst. How about the churches, for example? They controlled a lot of the information flow, well before the printing press was invented.
They had a huge number of exclusives and if you wanted to listen to it away from your computer or laptop you were stuck using an iPod or degrading the sound quality further by burning it to CD and ripping it.
Meanwhile, the competitors (Windows Media... and some RealNetworks thing, I think) often didn't allow burning the DRMed files to CD at all, or any other form of media portability. And Apple had the "Rip, Mix, Burn" campaign that encouraged digital copying, and was the target of music industry outrage.
But Google does nothing to restrict how you use their products.
Right. Which is why Google has all those EULAs and copyright notices. If you try to use Google products in unauthorized ways, you will come up against a very well funded legal team that will eat you for lunch.
Definitely not for nerds
on
2010 Geek IQ Test
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I can see why they call it a "geek" test, what with geeks being the aspirational losers of the intellectual landscape, and this test mainly being about useless trivia. A "nerd" test would contain more substantive questions, you know, stuff that matters. Sure, many nerds would ace this geek trivia quiz, but the geeks would be lost on the nerd quiz.
Slashdot Mirror
Not computers that don't run the ISP's anti-virus package, not computers that aren't up-to-date on Windows, but computers that're actively showing the tell-tale signatures of known infections
For example, computers that run non-approved Operating Systems such as Linux?
Obviously, there's nothing that can't be blamed on the Greens and Independents. Major party comes up with a stupid idea? It must be the fault of the smaller parties for holding the balance of power!
I assume that wages or the employer are directly taxed in some way to cover the pension. The tax is a labor cost that would go away.
But why would wages rise (as you predict) upon removal of that tax, if it were not actually a cost of labor?
The dynamics of the "magic Free Market Fairy" are well understood and that's how they operate.
No, the dynamics of the market are not well understood. If they were, we wouldn't be having so many problems with the market. Economists like to claim that it's a well-understood science, but they are shown to be wrong time and time again.
You lower the cost of labor by dropping the pension tax,
But you said that wages would also rise, but overall the cost of labor would be lower. What evidence do you have to back that up? The government absorbs a lot of externalities. It could very well cost the employer more to provide for retirement privately via increased wages or other benefits.
I'm not saying it will or will not, just that you don't give any evidence. Your argument amounts to "it doesn't involve taxes so it must be cheaper" which is not a valid or complete argument. You don't allow for any possibility other than your own ideologically derived conclusion.
Congratulations, AGENT-KAGURA on your successful work in the cyberspace battlefront managing this latest "event." Your work will not go unnoticed by the Overseer. 2MWPQB56
Retirement isn't a cost of labor. And if you think otherwise, call my bluff. Get rid of public pensions. Wages will probably rise...
You just contradicted yourself. If retirement isn't a cost of labor, then why would removing public pensions have any effect on wages?
...and the net cost of employees fall as the income tax portion of pensions is split between employer and employee.
[citation needed] Oh wait, you were just talking out of your ass. Economic prognostication. It's so easy when you can just make stuff up about what would happen, without any kind of evidence. You just appeal to the magic Free Market Fairy who makes everything right.
Why in the world would anyone sane google for a product, go to that site, and enter a credit card number?
Because it's quick and convenient?
1. Google is teh evil for it's algorithms
2. Let's harass this asshat
3. The BBB/police/FBI/NY AG is inept
So far, not a single comment along those lines. Nor would I expect them. Perhaps your slashdot crystal ball is broken?
If it were being broadcast on a shortwave radio band rather than internet radio, it might classify as one of the nerdier things ever. The internet is just so conventional.
Evidently, you do no understand how a corporation works. Once you are incorporated, you can't spend company money on yourself or your personal needs.
But if you are a corporation, your personal needs become corporate needs.
That's called embezzlement and you can be imprisoned for embezzlement from your own company
How can you embezzle from your company if you are the company?
Again, your ideas seem perverse. It all comes down to punishing the individual, but letting the corporate get off scott-free. As you say, when a person does it, it's embezzlement and is punished with prison. When a corporation commits graft and fraud, it's just business as usual.
If someone incorporated themselves, they would still have to pay themselves a wage and it would be taxed on their personal income in which they would need to pay income taxes on.
Why should a person have to pay tax on their income, but not a company? Again, horrific double-standards.
But more importantly, it's accounted for when it hits the private person and ceases to provide jobs and benefits for the so called powerless and society in general.
It's not accounted for, because the wealthy and powerful don't have to pay for the consequences of their decisions, it's all paid for by the average person who has no say in the decisions. The elite don't pay income tax, it's all return on investments put into tax havens with maximum evasion.
And then no company will want to set up shop in your country again. Why would they, when the risk is driven up that high?
So, basically, you're saying countries should just let themselves be held hostage by corporations? If there was a rash of bank robberies, would you throw up your arms and say "We should just give them all the money in our banks. After all, if we don't let them, who would want to rob our banks in the future?"
Personally, I think they should do away with corporate taxes altogether. All money corporations make either go to the share holder by way of dividend, or is invested into expanding the company.
In that case, won't everybody just form their own corporation to become tax-free? Your idea sounds really backwards - let the people who make the most by exploiting society go tax free, and leave it to the powerless individual to foot the bill.
...didn't get them, gave him back his hardware and let him go.
... after detaining and interrogating him for five hours. I don't care if the outcome was that he got free ice cream and a blow job, that is still ridiculous treatment.
You are aware that when someone says they "ignored a warning sign" they were at least aware of its existence and quite likely read it?
Then why don't you use more precise language? Ignore does imply that you are deliberately avoiding its existence.
Thus, I don't know if you think you have a point or if you are just trying to "save face" by claiming that's your point.
Why would I need to "save face"?
Neiter of these claims are based on any facts in our discussion so we should be cool.
Actually, you indicated that you stupidly ignore labels. So why would that be a far fetched interpretation?
Yes. And a thousand other labels lie in your face to stop you from playing.
What the hell are you talking about? I've never seen a product with more than a handful of warning labels. Is reading such a chore that it seems like thousands to you?
I specified the grace period of a month for a reason. After I can reasonably assume I heard of the really bad pitfalls, I use my property as I see fit. If that means I will potentially break it, that is my privilege.
It's unclear what you meant by the "months grace" it sounded like you were talking about some kind of warranty or return period - i.e that you should be able to return the product within a month, even if you break it due to not reading warnings.
It's still not clear what you mean. Assuming that you "would have heard" is just stupid. Your actions just don't sound very intelligent, sorry.
You are looking at it with the benefit of hindsight, and selective memory.
It was also heavy (although other MP3 players were heavier), had a somewhat fragile HDD that was a bit too small for a lot of music collections,
A bit too small? It was way bigger than the majority of the competition at the time, which was mostly 64-128 Megabyte Flash memory players. Or players that used laptop hard-drives, and were too big to be portable.
Also, few people had MP3 collections in the Gigabytes in those days.
and had kinda mediocre battery life thanks to having to spin that hard drive.
It had excellent battery life for the time, and for its storage capacity. It also had Firewire, which meant you could actually sync it with a computer in a reasonable amount of time compared to the other devices which relied on the frustratingly slow USB 1.1.
The clickwheel was also prone to damage.
Compared to the chintzy plastic buttons on the other players of the era? I don't think so. Even if it was, it provided a far superior interface. The other players were basically portable CD players in comparison. The iPod was completely different in so many ways.
That, or I have learned to ignore warnings for the ignorant. I refuse to follow those and simply apply common sense
Common sense involves reading the fucking labels. Whether you disregard those labels due to prior experience with a particular product is another matter, but completely ignoring that the label exists is just stupidity. Especially in this case, when it is a new label that hasn't been seen before.
I think you might be the kind of person who ignores the "do not look into laser with remaining good eye" warning label. After all, how is this a "label for the ignorant" as you put it? The product in question does exactly what the label says it will do, so the ignorant person would be one who dismisses the label thinking that it would not do as promised.
I really want to turn this into a sexual innuendo, but I just can't figure out how.
Have you tried a gender-bender?
There are a lot of such stickers and we have come to learned to ignore them.
I'm not sure who "we" is, but your "learning" obviously isn't very useful, as this article demonstrates that if you did ignore the warning, problems happen. Not such a good idea to ignore it, was it?
Ignorance is the opposite of knowledge, which is gained by learning. Basically, you have learned to be ignorant. Or ignore learning.
Perhaps for the same reason we don't solder memory to our motherboards anymore?
What reason would that be? Very few people upgrade RAM in their machines after they have bought it. Furthermore, by the time you want to upgrade your RAM, the specs for RAM have changed a lot, and the RAM that suits your machine is now obsolete and almost impossible to source, unless you want to pay a premium.
So, why not solder RAM to the motherboard?
And without us keeping everything running your arrogant people gonads would be in a sling.
How does biting the heads off chickens "keep things running?
I'm just trying to figure out why this would fall into the Idle category?
I would guess because it's completely useless. It's the equivalent of someone high on weed (or Alanis Morrisette) making an "insightful" comment about irony. Next Week: online journal publishes article about the potential dangers of the internet on the internet!!!!!!!
It goes back a lot further than Hearst. How about the churches, for example? They controlled a lot of the information flow, well before the printing press was invented.
They had a huge number of exclusives and if you wanted to listen to it away from your computer or laptop you were stuck using an iPod or degrading the sound quality further by burning it to CD and ripping it.
Meanwhile, the competitors (Windows Media... and some RealNetworks thing, I think) often didn't allow burning the DRMed files to CD at all, or any other form of media portability. And Apple had the "Rip, Mix, Burn" campaign that encouraged digital copying, and was the target of music industry outrage.
Uh, they already are
Isn't that exactly what the post you were replying to said? So why did you reply as if you disagreed with it?
But Google does nothing to restrict how you use their products.
Right. Which is why Google has all those EULAs and copyright notices. If you try to use Google products in unauthorized ways, you will come up against a very well funded legal team that will eat you for lunch.
I can see why they call it a "geek" test, what with geeks being the aspirational losers of the intellectual landscape, and this test mainly being about useless trivia. A "nerd" test would contain more substantive questions, you know, stuff that matters. Sure, many nerds would ace this geek trivia quiz, but the geeks would be lost on the nerd quiz.