Your rambling is nonsensical. A tablet is indeed a toy for simple use in limited situations, I agree. It's worth $99 to many people. It's _not_ worth $500+, I agree with you there and you're an idiot if you spend $500 on a iPod XL.
As for software, you are clueless. Of course you can sell software for a loss. If I spend $50k on developers to make a piece of software then sell it for a penny, expecting to sell 10000 copies, I have sold the software at a loss. It's really not complicated to understand.
I agree, US politicians have been bought and paid for. I agree Switzerland is closer to the ideal, but that's only because things are so batshit insane in the US. There should be reasonable protections for copyright holders and reasonable penalties for violators. Maybe if you share out an album and get caught you pay a $200 fine, something like this. If you run a website that sells pirated content, maybe you face a $50k fine. None of this $500 per album per infraction for personal use and then they inflate it to 500 infractions, etc... nonsense.
You don't get it because it's _ridiculous_. I read some stupid shit on Slashdot, but this article is way up there. You needn't have bothered the reasoned reply, as what you're replying to is beneath detailed analysis. It's the little known economic theory of "theft is ok because it all evens out!".
It doesn't make you wonder anything because the "study" is idiotic. It's based on the little known theory of (lol) "it all evens out!". I mean if you murder someone, their family will murder someone in your family - it all evens out!
They should be embarrassed for presenting this "study", and anyone who buys it should be embarrassed for believing it. It's risible. The reason they go after pirates is because "game studios, film, music" companies aren't one nebulous blob where as long as the money goes in somewhere it's all the same.
I'm going to do a study on how allowing people to steal in Wal-Mart would actually be good for the economy because the money they save would then be spent on other "retail stores". I mean, they're all the same so why would Wal-Mart care that Target is making more money off the theft of Wal-Mart merchandise.
Your wall of text misses a central point. We don't exist to be cogs in the economy. It would benefit the economy greatly if I just decided to work for free, maybe my government should enslave me for the betterment of society? The content belongs to the copyright holders, and this is simply condoned theft. If you steal some of my shit, why would I _conceivably_ care if you're then going to go spend that money somewhere else anyway?
Let's make identity theft legal. I mean you can't really "steal" my identity from me, I still have it. And when you put me $50k in debt I'll work harder to pay it back which is great for society.
Switzerland - where laws are made based on obscure economic "it all evens out!" arguments.
I don't get it. So selling their product at a lower price to compete with generic competitors (who can also make the drug and sell it as cheaply as they are able) is somehow not capitalism? Please explain this fundamental disconnect between your words and the actual definition of "capitalism".
Pfizer is working on new drugs, they're just trying to compete on price with their existing drug. Nothing wrong with it.
I'd be more outraged if they had somehow lobbied Congress to extend their patent somehow. _That_ is broken capitalism. Drug patents should last 7-10 years and no more.
The Eskimo myth. Are you serious? First of all they do have plenty of cardiovascular disease. Google "eskimo heart disease myth".
Second of all, it's all about the type of fat. Fish fat is (possibly) healthy. Saturated fat - not healthy.
Statistically, a high ratio of LDL to HDL cholesterol will increase your chances of heart disease. You can partake in Internet quackery and deny this all you like, but wouldn't your time be better spent analyzing a frame by frame picture of the 9/11 crashes and coming up with crackpot theories there, instead?
I'm confused. How exactly is what Pfizer is doing damaging affordable healthcare? They are literally selling their own brand at effectively prices competitive with generics. So the end-user gets cheap drugs either way. This is much dramatic language and false ado about _nothing_.
I agree. I still have a 19" TV I view from my couch 10 feet away. I don't know why anyone would want a bigger screen to see things on or to interact with.
Because largely the deniers are stupid people. If validated, this study only shows that AGW is based on _science_ and that the people behind it are willing to revise their opinions based on data and reason. That things aren't as bad as previously thought would be good, but it doesn't mean AGW isn't real. Personally I believe AGW but also believe it's caused a lot of chicken little-ism and profiteering from scumbags like Al Gore. We need to keep studying the issue and we need to reduce pollution (of all types) as much as we can over time. We _don't_ need to panic...yet.
"Such acts are illegal". No they're not. If Novell had a contract and MS violated it, Novell can then sue MS for breach of contract and it's a slam dunk case. Where's the contract?
Yeah, nobody ever gets stabbed to death here in the US or in the UK. Same thing with drunk driving, that never happens, I'm glad they never solved that problem.
My sarcasm is boring even me. The simple fact is you're positing some simple solution that doesn't exist. Do you think Linux, for example, is immune to security holes defined by user idiocy? It most certainly is not. There's no knife that you can cut meat with that you can't cut a person with. There's no care you can run over a pothole with that you can't run over a person with. That's the analogy.
MS has made some strides in this arena, but making a large, complex general purpose system perfectly secure is very nearly impossible. Android, OS/X, Linux, Windows, etc... all suffer from the same fundamental issue - people can run apps that someone else developed.
Meaningful competitors? Microsoft has always had meaningful competitors, there has not existed a time in history when they didn't. Linux, Apple, IBM, HP, Sun, DR-DOS, you name it. There's always been at least a few, and generally by broad definition a few dozen.
How did MS perjure themselves? And make sure not to use an oversimplification concerning whether IE could be removed from the OS. It's a stupid question to ask because on some level the answer to any "can XXX happen" question is 'yes', given sufficient resources or, well, magic.
If you prevent a company from doing the same things their competitors are doing (from a feature-add perspective), you're not preventing a monopoly but are instead hamstringing them to create a "fair" playing field. The EU is all about that kind of shit, the US shouldn't be but we're moving more in that direction.
The law should be used to prevent a monopoly from leveraging its monopoly power to do things their smaller competitors can't do because they lack said monopoly power. Putting a browser (or anti-virus) in your OS does not by any stretch fall into that category.
Ahh yes. That's why I have a cabinet full of knives I can't stab myself or someone else with. What could be a simpler problem than making safe knives, amirite?
This is wrong, and fatally flawed thinking. The intent of the law is to prevent monopolies from abusing powers that only monopolies have. An example would be telling someone that if they buy any of your competitor's products they will not be allowed to buy yours.
The intent of the law is not to de facto hinder a company with a monopoly from keeping up with features or capabilities their competitors have. If Apple can build something in, so can Microsoft. Any other interpretation of the law is rationally substandard.
That said, monopoly law _really_ is meant to punish successful companies and is just used as a bludgeon by competitors, so I'm sure someone would make the facile argument that you are making.
How did this fucking numbskull get modded up? What exactly is the "marketing trick" in making new episodes of a show so that people will subscribe to your service? If that's a "marketing trick", every show is a "marketing trick".
The stupidity around here sometimes makes my fucking face hurt.
Lol, oh my God! You figured them out! Netflix isn't getting Arrested Development for the good of the world, it's a "bullshit marketing trick!". You've really got me thinking now, I wonder if _every show made_ isn't a "marketing trick".
I'm kidding, of course. You didn't make me think at all and in fact your post tried to make me dumber but I fought through it.
Slashdot Mirror
Does make Google look silly, doesn't it. It's humorous they think solar power is going to solve our energy issues.
Your rambling is nonsensical. A tablet is indeed a toy for simple use in limited situations, I agree. It's worth $99 to many people. It's _not_ worth $500+, I agree with you there and you're an idiot if you spend $500 on a iPod XL.
As for software, you are clueless. Of course you can sell software for a loss. If I spend $50k on developers to make a piece of software then sell it for a penny, expecting to sell 10000 copies, I have sold the software at a loss. It's really not complicated to understand.
Yeah, going to a website and trying to order something is _such_ an ordeal!
I agree, US politicians have been bought and paid for. I agree Switzerland is closer to the ideal, but that's only because things are so batshit insane in the US. There should be reasonable protections for copyright holders and reasonable penalties for violators. Maybe if you share out an album and get caught you pay a $200 fine, something like this. If you run a website that sells pirated content, maybe you face a $50k fine. None of this $500 per album per infraction for personal use and then they inflate it to 500 infractions, etc... nonsense.
You don't get it because it's _ridiculous_. I read some stupid shit on Slashdot, but this article is way up there. You needn't have bothered the reasoned reply, as what you're replying to is beneath detailed analysis. It's the little known economic theory of "theft is ok because it all evens out!".
It doesn't make you wonder anything because the "study" is idiotic. It's based on the little known theory of (lol) "it all evens out!". I mean if you murder someone, their family will murder someone in your family - it all evens out!
They should be embarrassed for presenting this "study", and anyone who buys it should be embarrassed for believing it. It's risible. The reason they go after pirates is because "game studios, film, music" companies aren't one nebulous blob where as long as the money goes in somewhere it's all the same.
I'm going to do a study on how allowing people to steal in Wal-Mart would actually be good for the economy because the money they save would then be spent on other "retail stores". I mean, they're all the same so why would Wal-Mart care that Target is making more money off the theft of Wal-Mart merchandise.
Your wall of text misses a central point. We don't exist to be cogs in the economy. It would benefit the economy greatly if I just decided to work for free, maybe my government should enslave me for the betterment of society? The content belongs to the copyright holders, and this is simply condoned theft. If you steal some of my shit, why would I _conceivably_ care if you're then going to go spend that money somewhere else anyway?
Let's make identity theft legal. I mean you can't really "steal" my identity from me, I still have it. And when you put me $50k in debt I'll work harder to pay it back which is great for society.
Switzerland - where laws are made based on obscure economic "it all evens out!" arguments.
I don't get it. So selling their product at a lower price to compete with generic competitors (who can also make the drug and sell it as cheaply as they are able) is somehow not capitalism? Please explain this fundamental disconnect between your words and the actual definition of "capitalism".
Pfizer is working on new drugs, they're just trying to compete on price with their existing drug. Nothing wrong with it.
I'd be more outraged if they had somehow lobbied Congress to extend their patent somehow. _That_ is broken capitalism. Drug patents should last 7-10 years and no more.
I love reading health kookery on the Internet.
The Eskimo myth. Are you serious? First of all they do have plenty of cardiovascular disease. Google "eskimo heart disease myth".
Second of all, it's all about the type of fat. Fish fat is (possibly) healthy. Saturated fat - not healthy.
Statistically, a high ratio of LDL to HDL cholesterol will increase your chances of heart disease. You can partake in Internet quackery and deny this all you like, but wouldn't your time be better spent analyzing a frame by frame picture of the 9/11 crashes and coming up with crackpot theories there, instead?
I'm confused. How exactly is what Pfizer is doing damaging affordable healthcare? They are literally selling their own brand at effectively prices competitive with generics. So the end-user gets cheap drugs either way. This is much dramatic language and false ado about _nothing_.
I agree. I still have a 19" TV I view from my couch 10 feet away. I don't know why anyone would want a bigger screen to see things on or to interact with.
Lol. You got modded troll for posting something that is 100% undeniably true.
Don't post stuff to facebook that you wouldn't want public.
I'm kidding, that's insane - who could possibly follow such a lunatic policy?
Because largely the deniers are stupid people. If validated, this study only shows that AGW is based on _science_ and that the people behind it are willing to revise their opinions based on data and reason. That things aren't as bad as previously thought would be good, but it doesn't mean AGW isn't real. Personally I believe AGW but also believe it's caused a lot of chicken little-ism and profiteering from scumbags like Al Gore. We need to keep studying the issue and we need to reduce pollution (of all types) as much as we can over time. We _don't_ need to panic...yet.
Sounds like someone's trying to backdoor the evil bit into existence!
Antitrust law is silly. Anything you do can be construed as illegal. A good enough lawyer would argue it is largely ex post facto.
"Such acts are illegal". No they're not. If Novell had a contract and MS violated it, Novell can then sue MS for breach of contract and it's a slam dunk case. Where's the contract?
Yeah, nobody ever gets stabbed to death here in the US or in the UK. Same thing with drunk driving, that never happens, I'm glad they never solved that problem.
My sarcasm is boring even me. The simple fact is you're positing some simple solution that doesn't exist. Do you think Linux, for example, is immune to security holes defined by user idiocy? It most certainly is not. There's no knife that you can cut meat with that you can't cut a person with. There's no care you can run over a pothole with that you can't run over a person with. That's the analogy.
MS has made some strides in this arena, but making a large, complex general purpose system perfectly secure is very nearly impossible. Android, OS/X, Linux, Windows, etc... all suffer from the same fundamental issue - people can run apps that someone else developed.
Meaningful competitors? Microsoft has always had meaningful competitors, there has not existed a time in history when they didn't. Linux, Apple, IBM, HP, Sun, DR-DOS, you name it. There's always been at least a few, and generally by broad definition a few dozen.
How did MS perjure themselves? And make sure not to use an oversimplification concerning whether IE could be removed from the OS. It's a stupid question to ask because on some level the answer to any "can XXX happen" question is 'yes', given sufficient resources or, well, magic.
If you prevent a company from doing the same things their competitors are doing (from a feature-add perspective), you're not preventing a monopoly but are instead hamstringing them to create a "fair" playing field. The EU is all about that kind of shit, the US shouldn't be but we're moving more in that direction.
The law should be used to prevent a monopoly from leveraging its monopoly power to do things their smaller competitors can't do because they lack said monopoly power. Putting a browser (or anti-virus) in your OS does not by any stretch fall into that category.
Ahh yes. That's why I have a cabinet full of knives I can't stab myself or someone else with. What could be a simpler problem than making safe knives, amirite?
We already have white listing. IE will tell me if I'm about to download something that's questionable (generally, not popularly downloaded).
This is wrong, and fatally flawed thinking. The intent of the law is to prevent monopolies from abusing powers that only monopolies have. An example would be telling someone that if they buy any of your competitor's products they will not be allowed to buy yours.
The intent of the law is not to de facto hinder a company with a monopoly from keeping up with features or capabilities their competitors have. If Apple can build something in, so can Microsoft. Any other interpretation of the law is rationally substandard.
That said, monopoly law _really_ is meant to punish successful companies and is just used as a bludgeon by competitors, so I'm sure someone would make the facile argument that you are making.
How did this fucking numbskull get modded up? What exactly is the "marketing trick" in making new episodes of a show so that people will subscribe to your service? If that's a "marketing trick", every show is a "marketing trick".
The stupidity around here sometimes makes my fucking face hurt.
Lol, oh my God! You figured them out! Netflix isn't getting Arrested Development for the good of the world, it's a "bullshit marketing trick!". You've really got me thinking now, I wonder if _every show made_ isn't a "marketing trick".
I'm kidding, of course. You didn't make me think at all and in fact your post tried to make me dumber but I fought through it.
Bullshit. It's the other way around. Very few machines will be locked down to prevent alternate OS's from being installed. It's all a bunch of FUD.