That law may be a good idea, but it drastically cripples American companies' ability to profit from, and provide revenue to, oppressive violators of human rights.
There, fixed that for you.
Of course, if you want to make an argument that such is the legitimate business of American corporations...I'll probably just be unsurprised.
As long as someone is posting how I am too stupid to see that this saves space, I feel that it is within my rights to note why I don't like this product and will not buy it.
Not only that, but a lot of people seem to be taking it personally when folks tell them that something they want to buy will be a commercial failure. It's not all about the few/.ers who think they could maybe use this thing, it's about the millions of people who don't. So, double fuck the GP.
Yeah... your post might be brilliant if it didn't ignore the fact that Amazon didn't try to charge a premium for their service, and in fact discounted book prices heavily. You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're trying to compare apples and the trucks that deliver them.
Re:Will they ever listen?
on
The Cult of Kindle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Darn right, its like I've been telling the upstart RCA: People who don't like radio aren't going to come around if you put it on a screen.
That attempt at sarcasm would be funny, except that people never did come around to radio on the TV. TV developed its own content while radio maintained its dominance of music until the CD era. You lose more funny points by failing to note that radio is still a major form of portable music for most people, and for the same reasons that books are still the dominant form of reading: bargain-basement pricing and portability.
Why would Amazon want me to spend twice that money on a dedicated reader?
There, I fixed your question so that the answer becomes more obvious - they just assume you're a fool with too much disposable income.
Re:They're trying for the next iPod. Wouldn't you?
on
The Cult of Kindle
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Amazon has been watching the iPod and iPhone phenomena, and it wants the same thing.
Then they're missing the point. Lots of folks like Apple because they're like a fashion brand - they have a well-cultivated media image based on unique design, appeals to hipness, and high prices. (No, I'm not saying that's all they have going for them. Hold your fire.)
Amazon has a reputation for discount books and Super Saver Shipping. I don't see how they hope to translate that into getting suckers to part with $400 for a fragile and empty book.
I'm sure there are supporters of the kindle for legit reasons
Well, the author points out the reasons given by those supporters, and then points out that they ignore the reasons why e-book readers have invariably failed before. He's not saying "Kindle suxxor," he's saying "This will never sell, especially for $400 bucks." How, exactly, is that flamage?
Alright, Amazon, I'm only going to tell you this one more time.
People who don't like books aren't going to come around if you put them on a screen.
People who like books like, well, BOOKS. And as the reviewer points out, $400 is a load of money for what is essentially a blank, fragile, battery-powered book.
1. Run around screaming that the sky is falling
2. Develop and market a product that fixes the sky
3. ?
4. Profit!
This would make more sense if step 3 was actually a mystery. I thought step 3 was obvious: "Convince influential idiots with money that your product is the greatest and most urgently needed thing since free porn."
Indeed. We demand that our presidents' faces be "presidential," discriminating against those with "non-presidential" faces. Facial discrimination is the great unspoken tragedy that stalks this nation. Fight facism now!
Well, yes. The courts are very inconsistent in their application of the commerce clause (the perceived source of federal authority in many laws.) Throughout history, judges have often decided the federal / state power question based on their own political inclinations, and then written court opinions creatively interpreting the commerce clause in support.
You can find examples of this in recent history. The Rehnquist court overturned the Gun-Free School Zone Act (U.S. v. Lopez, 1995)and the Violence Against Women Act (U.S. v. Morrison, 2000) in the name of states rights, and then decided that California did not have the right to determine its own cannabis policy in Gonzales v. Raich (2005).
It's nothing new in history, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. The commerce clause's ambiguity has enabled the judiciary to slowly increase or decrease the scope of the federal government in response to social and political change. The originalists might not like it, but that's the way it is.
Historically, hasn't one bomb has been the payload of the majority of bombers used in war? Or maybe one big bomb and a few smaller ones (e.g. a Stuka might have had one 1000kg bomb and four 50kg bombs).
Yes, when Air Corps tactics involved filling the sky with small airplanes based on attrition calculations. The concepts of sustained air superiority and strategic bombing put an end to that. Now you have big bombers with big bombs, and small ground attack fighters with multiple small bombs. It's been that way for awhile now.
Now watch all the states-rights conservatives suddenly jump to the other side of the divide and argue the federal government should get its way.
Of course. "States rights" isn't some sort of coherent ideology. It's the convenient political pose of whoever happens to be on the losing side of the votes. There's no such thing as a "states rights" conservative with any practical influence in Washington, and the ones you meet in everyday life or read on the Internet generally seem to miss the forest for the trees. Or, at least, they fail to remember that we tried operating as a loose confederation of states once before, and it sucked seven ways to Sunday.
Though for this to be a realistic goal, we (America) need to start building new plants now, to the scale of France.
It's a good idea, but don't phrase it like that in public, or you'll find sizable grassroots political opposition. I mean, France? Don't they just eat cheese and surrender?
Now, if you translate the gains into "hours of porn surfing/Xbox usage," you'll get your votes.
If you switch to hydrogen you need an infrastructure to manufacture and distribute it. So who do you trust to do that?
The invisible hand of the free market, like everything else in America, that's who. Why, if a whole bunch of hydrogen blows up due to short-sighted cost-cutting measures, we'll know to buy our hydrogen from the other guy!
Nah, I'm just kidding. We'll just have to make sure that Congress and the President regulate hydrogen as effectively as they have oh I give up, we're fucked.
And despite its light appearance, the aircraft will be able to carry a 2,000-pound multi-sensor payload, plus a custom fender, flame stickers for an extra speed punch and/or synthetic leather finish.
... and say, a bomb.
You must be joking. Product diversification is the name of the game, and bombers sell for a lot more than prop-driven recon birds. Besides, carrying one Mk84 does not a bomber make.
It has the ability to order no such thing. UN authorization of force is nothing more than a "the world agrees with you" stamp on any military incursion a member state wishes to undertake.
Well, yeah. So?
The U.N. is a mechanism that grants a cover of legality to particular members' acts of violence. These particular members are chosen by popular mandate of the constituent states, as are the targets of violence, regardless of their own desires (if they are in the minority.) It's the same relationship that our state and federal governments have with law enforcement. Government sanction allows individuals to act on behalf of the state to violate the personal sovereignty of selected individuals. U.N. sanction allows particular states to act on behalf of "the world" to violate the national sovereignty of selected states. Both derive their mandate from popular support, although both are also subject to the over-representation of particular factions (defense contractors; security council members.)
Sounds like a form of relatively limited government to me.
Since it has authority to order military intervention in the affairs of its constituent states on the basis of policies enacted by representatives of other constituent states.
Sorry, but you're quite wrong. I'm not arguing that the B&MGF somehow makes up for the douchiness of MS. Quite the contrary: I'm arguing against the logic which produces both the preceding statement and your own statement about the B&MGF not making up for the douchiness of MS. If you believe either statement, then you're buying into the same overreaching frame of reference as the PR folks.
How about this:
Bill Gates' business acts in an oft-reprehensible manner. Bill Gates' foundation acts in an oft-commendable manner.
Hey, look, those statements refer to completely different activities. Why should either be taken as a reflection of the other?
Meanwhile, what does this say about Bill Gates as a person; is he bad or good? Well, he's a bad person with regards to the computer industry, and a good person for the charitable works industry. Why is it necessary to conflate both into some abstract "person?"
Frankly, I think it's pointless to assume that a person's or a company's good deeds can make up for, or fail to make up for, their bad deeds, and I think it's illogical to assume otherwise. Nothing personal, as it's a very common form of illogic that I catch myself in all the time, and usually in hindsight.
I don't see the contradiction. My point was that no event is joyous or depressing without an observer that is capable of experiencing the subjective effects of said event.
My apologies if I misunderstood your sentiment. I read your quote as equating the response to direct electrical stimulation to the response to attaining money, and I think those can only be equated in epiphenomenalist terms: "Since all joy is the result of electrochemical processes in the brain, direct manipulation of those processes can induce any state understood electrochemically." I would argue that the pleasure states of human existence cannot be understood in that way.
I agree with you that it is a mistake to look for the source of our aesthetics in something "external" or "objective," but I didn't think that was the point you made in your post.
Are you claiming that my post makes me an epiphenomenalist?
No. I'm claiming that this statement is only supported by epiphenomenalist reasoning:
Electrically induced joy is every bit as real as monetarily induced joy.
I would suggest that this equivocates the reaction involved in two entirely different circumstances for a reason that only makes sense from the epiphenomenalist standpoint. If you reject epiphenomenalism and at the same time stand by the above quote, I would suggest that this is a contradiction deserving your attention.
I don't think of "epiphenomenalist" as some sort of slur, by the way, since it described my own answer to the mind/body problem until relatively recently. It's a reasonably compelling argument that seems to underpin a lot of mainstream scientific thought. I just don't believe it supports its claims about character and free will.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll have to land and go inside the caves if they want to find the harmoniums.
Yeah... your post might be brilliant if it didn't ignore the fact that Amazon didn't try to charge a premium for their service, and in fact discounted book prices heavily. You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're trying to compare apples and the trucks that deliver them.
Plus, if the fascists take over, a mass e-book deletion is somewhat lacking as a visual symbol.
Alright, Amazon, I'm only going to tell you this one more time. People who don't like books aren't going to come around if you put them on a screen. People who like books like, well, BOOKS. And as the reviewer points out, $400 is a load of money for what is essentially a blank, fragile, battery-powered book.
This would make more sense if step 3 was actually a mystery. I thought step 3 was obvious: "Convince influential idiots with money that your product is the greatest and most urgently needed thing since free porn."
Indeed. We demand that our presidents' faces be "presidential," discriminating against those with "non-presidential" faces. Facial discrimination is the great unspoken tragedy that stalks this nation. Fight facism now!
Well, yes. The courts are very inconsistent in their application of the commerce clause (the perceived source of federal authority in many laws.) Throughout history, judges have often decided the federal / state power question based on their own political inclinations, and then written court opinions creatively interpreting the commerce clause in support.
You can find examples of this in recent history. The Rehnquist court overturned the Gun-Free School Zone Act (U.S. v. Lopez, 1995)and the Violence Against Women Act (U.S. v. Morrison, 2000) in the name of states rights, and then decided that California did not have the right to determine its own cannabis policy in Gonzales v. Raich (2005).
It's nothing new in history, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. The commerce clause's ambiguity has enabled the judiciary to slowly increase or decrease the scope of the federal government in response to social and political change. The originalists might not like it, but that's the way it is.
Yes, when Air Corps tactics involved filling the sky with small airplanes based on attrition calculations. The concepts of sustained air superiority and strategic bombing put an end to that. Now you have big bombers with big bombs, and small ground attack fighters with multiple small bombs. It's been that way for awhile now.
Of course. "States rights" isn't some sort of coherent ideology. It's the convenient political pose of whoever happens to be on the losing side of the votes. There's no such thing as a "states rights" conservative with any practical influence in Washington, and the ones you meet in everyday life or read on the Internet generally seem to miss the forest for the trees. Or, at least, they fail to remember that we tried operating as a loose confederation of states once before, and it sucked seven ways to Sunday.
It's a good idea, but don't phrase it like that in public, or you'll find sizable grassroots political opposition. I mean, France? Don't they just eat cheese and surrender?
Now, if you translate the gains into "hours of porn surfing/Xbox usage," you'll get your votes.
The invisible hand of the free market, like everything else in America, that's who. Why, if a whole bunch of hydrogen blows up due to short-sighted cost-cutting measures, we'll know to buy our hydrogen from the other guy!
Nah, I'm just kidding. We'll just have to make sure that Congress and the President regulate hydrogen as effectively as they have oh I give up, we're fucked.
You must be joking. Product diversification is the name of the game, and bombers sell for a lot more than prop-driven recon birds. Besides, carrying one Mk84 does not a bomber make.
Well, yeah. So?
The U.N. is a mechanism that grants a cover of legality to particular members' acts of violence. These particular members are chosen by popular mandate of the constituent states, as are the targets of violence, regardless of their own desires (if they are in the minority.) It's the same relationship that our state and federal governments have with law enforcement. Government sanction allows individuals to act on behalf of the state to violate the personal sovereignty of selected individuals. U.N. sanction allows particular states to act on behalf of "the world" to violate the national sovereignty of selected states. Both derive their mandate from popular support, although both are also subject to the over-representation of particular factions (defense contractors; security council members.)
Sounds like a form of relatively limited government to me.
Since it has authority to order military intervention in the affairs of its constituent states on the basis of policies enacted by representatives of other constituent states.
Sorry, but you're quite wrong. I'm not arguing that the B&MGF somehow makes up for the douchiness of MS. Quite the contrary: I'm arguing against the logic which produces both the preceding statement and your own statement about the B&MGF not making up for the douchiness of MS. If you believe either statement, then you're buying into the same overreaching frame of reference as the PR folks.
How about this:
Bill Gates' business acts in an oft-reprehensible manner.
Bill Gates' foundation acts in an oft-commendable manner.
Hey, look, those statements refer to completely different activities. Why should either be taken as a reflection of the other?
Meanwhile, what does this say about Bill Gates as a person; is he bad or good? Well, he's a bad person with regards to the computer industry, and a good person for the charitable works industry. Why is it necessary to conflate both into some abstract "person?"
Frankly, I think it's pointless to assume that a person's or a company's good deeds can make up for, or fail to make up for, their bad deeds, and I think it's illogical to assume otherwise. Nothing personal, as it's a very common form of illogic that I catch myself in all the time, and usually in hindsight.
My apologies if I misunderstood your sentiment. I read your quote as equating the response to direct electrical stimulation to the response to attaining money, and I think those can only be equated in epiphenomenalist terms: "Since all joy is the result of electrochemical processes in the brain, direct manipulation of those processes can induce any state understood electrochemically." I would argue that the pleasure states of human existence cannot be understood in that way.
I agree with you that it is a mistake to look for the source of our aesthetics in something "external" or "objective," but I didn't think that was the point you made in your post.
Microsoft is starving children in Africa? Perspective, please.
No. I'm claiming that this statement is only supported by epiphenomenalist reasoning:
I would suggest that this equivocates the reaction involved in two entirely different circumstances for a reason that only makes sense from the epiphenomenalist standpoint. If you reject epiphenomenalism and at the same time stand by the above quote, I would suggest that this is a contradiction deserving your attention.
I don't think of "epiphenomenalist" as some sort of slur, by the way, since it described my own answer to the mind/body problem until relatively recently. It's a reasonably compelling argument that seems to underpin a lot of mainstream scientific thought. I just don't believe it supports its claims about character and free will.