<PARAPHRASING>You can't stop societal problems with technical solutions. Spam is an example of a societal problem.<PARAPHRASING>
Oh yeah? What about pop-up ads? They seem to fit your description of a "societal problem" too, and yet I haven't seen a single pop-up ad in over a year, thanks to Mozilla (a technical solution).
Re:Idiocy - bluetooth just taking off
on
Is Bluetooth Dead?
·
· Score: 1
we still have three different types of cell networks out here (CDMA, TDMA, Sprint PCS, and now GSM).
No, "every" SMTP server would NOT have to be changed. You'd simply point your mail client to one of the (huge) new ones that uses this model. As the article noted, they would probably be run by the Post Office, courier services, or maybe even telcos. You'd use one of their giganto-STMP servers, instead of your ISP's piddly local one.
Incoming mail from an SMTP server that is not one of these authenticating-and-billing ones would be subject to the scrutiny of your Bayesian filter, which could have its threshold cranked up from "healthily skeptical" to "downright cynical."
Here's a cheaper idea: I tell everyone I know to start the subject line with "goat" if they want to e-mail me. Then I filter all e-mail without "goat" as the first word in the subject...
Sure, sounds good, but you might want to pick a different word....
You don't get it. You wouldn't have to "change your email software" - you'd simply change the SMTP server you're sending your email through. You'd send it through this "pay" server, instead of your normal server. The pay server would recognize you every time you send an email through them, and automatically debit your (pre-arranged, pre-paid, or credit-connected) account. Your email client wouldn't have to do anything. The "pay" part happens on the server.
You're wrong. The only reason spam works is because it is free to send. If they send out 5,000,000 emails and get a 0.1% response rate, with a profit of $5 per sale, then they've just earned $25,000. Since it cost them nothing to send those emails, then that is $25,000 of pure profit. Hell, even if they only sold one product through those 5,000,000 emails, then the $5 profit is worth it, because it is more than their cost (which was nothing).
If the emails cost 1 cent to send, then those 5,000,000 spams now cost them $50,000 to send, which obliterates their $25,000 profit, and then some. Suddenly, it's not worth it. And they'll stop doing it.
Then learn to live with spam. The bottom line is, as long as it is free, spam will flourish. That's what it really comes down to. That's what every spam-attacking strategy must work with or against. It has to cost something, and these compromises are all about finding a "something" that is insignificant for normal users sending < 1000 emails a month, but prohibitive when it reaches up into the millions of emails per month.
If you are unwilling to compromise on your "zero-cost" requirement, then you will never be rid of spam. It's as simple as that.
Inside sources at Microsoft have revealed that as part of their effort to focus more on security, the next release of Windows, "Longhorn," will feature a handy "My Viruses" folder, to accompany the popular and mature "My Documents," "My Pictures," and "My Music" folders. Also, the OfficeXP assistant, Clippy, has been enhanced. Users of the next-generation leading desktop OS can look forward to Clippy popping his helpful head up from the corner and exclaiming,
"It looks like you're writing a virus. Would you like to:
She never signed anything agreeing to the terms, but they extended her the credit anyway. Max that puppy out! And when the bill comes, call them up and tell them you'd like them to remove you from their mailing list.:)
Fact is, album sales were down BEFORE file sharing become widely available. Album sales are UP since 2000, even though file sharing has continued to become even more widely available.
You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You are WRONG. What you just said is a LIE. You didn't provide any links or references at all to back up your claim, you just throw it out there, call it a "fact," and expect people to take your word for it. That makes it trivally easy for someone like me to come along and blow your whole post to bits with actual facts.
album sales were down BEFORE file sharing become widely available.
WRONG. 2001 was the first year in a decade that there was a decline in album sales. Here's a novel concept: Link to reference supporting my statement. From that article: "Album sales in the US dropped by almost 3% in 2001 - the first year for a decade that has seen a decline."
Album sales are UP since 2000
WRONG. Here's another reference: "2003 sales to date point to a third consecutive year of decline; the total stands at 179.4 million albums, down 8% from last year's 194.1 million."
Are you starting to get my point? You're just plain WRONG! Album sales were increasing until Napster/Kazaa/et al appeared on the scene, and they've been decreasing ever since. That is why the RIAA is all up in arms. So your assertion that widespread filesharing would allow people to sample more music, and subsequently buy more music is the complete and utter opposite of what is actually happening!
My personal tax solution has served me well for 5 years now. It was extremely affordable, did not require activation, runs on several platforms, works for an unlimited number of unique users, does not require updating between tax years, and will never expire.
Well, I suppose eventually, it'll get too short from repeated sharpenings, and I'll need to buy a new pencil... but you get my point.
Geez, people, do all of you guys file as your own business? Personal taxes are not that hard. At least, not up here in Canada. Why are people so afraid of 'em? You get some slips in the mail, you copy the numbers over onto the forms, do a little math, and presto, you get some money back. They'll even double-check your numbers for you, and if you missed a deduction, they'll adjust for you, and you'll get more money back.
What's the big attraction about spending $30/year or whatever on the latest-and-greatest tax software, or paying some suit at H&R Block to do simple arithmetic for you?
Aren't we supposed to be among the smartest of society? Or at least among the most mathematically adept? Why the big fear? The satisfaction of filing your own taxes and doing it all on paper is pretty rewarding, I must say.
Illegal filesharers typically buy MORE music than non-filesharing customers.
Repeating something does not make it true. To your credit, you're not the only person repeating this lie, but that doesn't make it any less false. The above statement is pure horse-sh*t, with no basis in reality, and absolutely no scientific data to support the absurd claim.
It make a nice, fluffy mantra to justify illegal filesharing, but it just plan has no basis in reality. Everyone I know who occassionally downloads songs admits that they find themselves buying fewer CDs in recent years. Of course, they say it's because the "music is getting worse," but that doesn't change the fact that your statement is directly contradicted by my anecdotal evidence.
Whoo, boy, this'll invite the "Flamebait" mods, but here goes anyway.
the RIAA strategy of suing its customers.
This is such a blatant spin, I can only shake my head in awe. The RIAA is not "suing its customers" - it is suing illegal filesharers. While I suppose it is remotely possible that a small fraction of those people actually occassionally buy a CD every few months, and would thus technically make them "customers", the logical connection drawn by the inflammatory statement in the story summary is completely backwards.
If Microsoft, acting with the BSA, took action against an illegal OfficeXP piracy ring in Korea, would you say that Microsoft is "attacking its customers?"
Actually, yeah, you probably would, sorry, bad example. I forgot. Microsoft is evil too. Lemmie see if I can come up with a better one.
If a hacker (oops, "cracker," I'm all over the negative mods today, aren't I) broke into Valve and copied the Halflife2 sourcecode, managed to get it to compile, and started giving away binaries from his website, and Valve sued to shut him down and get injunctions against all those who downloaded the binary, would you say Valve is "going after its customers?"
It's ridiculous. Give us a little credit guys, come on.
Two 17" displays are better than one 17" display, but one 24" widescreen display is even better still.
I disagree. I use 2 17" monitors at work, and I would vastly prefer this to a single, wide monitor. The reason is simple. Sure, if I had one, 24" wide monitor, I could fit quite a bit of stuff on the screen (almost as much as my pair of 17's). However, I'd have to manually manipulate the window sizes in order to make the most of that space.
With 2 monitors, each monitor is its own desktop. If I have an app on one screen and I maximize it, it instantly and automatically fills that entire, single monitor, leaving the other monitor untouched. I can then do the same thing to another app in the other window with another app, and with two easy clicks, I now have both my apps each making maximum use of my viewing space, without having to carefully drag window borders around manually.
This may sound like a small thing, but the few seconds you waste clicking on window borders and resizing quickly becomes an irritating and unnecessary annoyance.
But the tasks I found benefitted most from dual monitors was when I was learning something new. I could open up the API/User Guide/Tutorial/Examples in one window, while having another entire 17" monitor available to actually run the app I was learning, and follow through the tutorial without having to constantly switch virtual desktops, minimize/maximize, or ALT-TAB around.
I can't imagine going back to a single monitor, regardless of its size.
First of all, it is incredibly hypocritical of a society to shelter their young from naked bodies doing sticky things, while guns, explosions, and violence are all A-OK to be shown right after SpongeBob's timeslot.
Secondly, it is also hypocritical of a society to preach the virtues of peace, condemn violent art and video games, while simultaneously waging a bloody, arbitrary war on nameless strangers a world away.
What's more disturbing for little Timmy to see? "Terminator 2" or CNN? Why is fake violence so heavily restricted and regulated, but actual people bleeding and dying is completely OK? Would you scold your neighbor if you found out your kid was visiting while the father was watching CNN? What if he was watching porn?
You see, that's a major problem with North American culture, and it really surprises me that so few people recognize it.
Screw all these morons, who [...] think that video games are for some reason not protected forms of expression
Uh, since when is a video game a "form of expression?" What exactly are the authors of GTA:VC trying to "say"?
They're not "expressing" anything. They're just trying to make money. They're producing a commodity to appeal to a marketshare whom they think will be profitable to them. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just don't pretend like its some noble form of meaningful expression. It's not. It's just a game, it's just business. Nothing more.
I'm in a hurry, but I have to post this. I was just awash in irony.
First of all, for a site full of people so gung-ho about privacy invasions and all that, you all seem extremely adept at acquiring personal, private information of people you deem "bad." Newsflash: the government thinks it is only using its invasive powers on bad people. That's ironic.
And, I was reading the comments for this article, and - you're not going to believe this - a telemarketer called me. I sh*t you not. 2 incredible ironies in 5 minutes.
Now I must run off and watch Trading Spaces 100 Grand.:)
Because over 80% of all new small businesses fail in their first 24 months. And they take a frightening amount of capital with them. If you've been unemployed for 2 years, where would you get the money to pour into a new business? How long would you keep pouring money into that business if it was operating in the red?
This advice is not very practical. I live in Canada. When you get laid off from a high-tech firm up here (as I and 4 of my closest friends have been), you get nothing from the government until your severance runs out. The government's calculations, however, are a little different from your former employer's. Your former employer gives you about 4 months of salary, which the government believes should last you 6 months. Then, there is a 2 week grace period, then your EI benefits start. However, you get paid at the end of each period, so there's 2 more weeks with no money coming in, for a total of 7 months.
Now, EI in Canada caps off at $400/week (minus income tax, of course - you gotta charge income tax on EI benefits, it only makes sense, right?), so you see about $700 every two weeks, once the benefits kick in. They'll keep on flowing for 50 weeks.
If you get a job during this time - any job - the benefits stop and the clock resets.
Now do some math. You get almost a full year of benefits, paying $400/week. You would have to find a full-time job that paid at least $10/hour just to match that. And while you were flipping those burgers at Micky-D's, earning a ludicrous salary compared to your high-school co-workers, you are unable to look for a job in your field because you're too busy cleaning deep friers and asking "you want fries with that?"
The banks, however, still expect you to keep paying the $500/month you owe them for those student loans they gave you to get that fancy, expensive techy education. Of course, they give you a break on the interest while you're unemployed (if you file for interest relief), but now that you're working again, they expect you to resume the payments.
Not to mention rent, gas, insurance, utilities, groceries... all that was OK when EI was kicking in the $400/week, because you could devote 100% of your time to looking for a job and getting back into the game. But if we took your advice (which amounts to little more than "suck it up and take a crappy job which gives you less than you'd get from EI doing nothing at all"), we'd be stuck in that low-paying sh*t job indefinitely, as we slowly bled ourselves into bankruptcy.
I remember the first time I installed NT 4.0 Workstation on my PC back in university. A friend who'd used it before was helping me, and the first time we booted it, the dialog appeared, advising me to hit CTRL+ALT+DEL to login. Having never heard of this before, my immediate response was to ask my friend, "Huh? CTRL+ALT+DEL to login? How do I reboot? 'Enter'?"
You don't think that masses of people who know what LinkSys is doing won't cost them money when there's a LinkSys product and someone else's similar product sitting side-by-side on the same shelf?
No, I don't. Any effect would be negligible. People don't care as much as you seem to think they do. Look at all the crap Microsoft pulls, but you don't see people flocking to WordPerfect, do you? People known LinkSys makes great hardware for the money. They're not going to pay more for a crappier product, just to make a stupid stand about some license they never really understood anyway. Open your eyes, kid.
Not too bright on the whole "I care but not when it means I have to actually pay more for a crappier product" thing, are you?
Slashdot Mirror
<PARAPHRASING>You can't stop societal problems with technical solutions. Spam is an example of a societal problem.<PARAPHRASING>
Oh yeah? What about pop-up ads? They seem to fit your description of a "societal problem" too, and yet I haven't seen a single pop-up ad in over a year, thanks to Mozilla (a technical solution).
we still have three different types of cell networks out here (CDMA, TDMA, Sprint PCS, and now GSM).
:)
That's 4. And you forgot AMPS.
No, "every" SMTP server would NOT have to be changed. You'd simply point your mail client to one of the (huge) new ones that uses this model. As the article noted, they would probably be run by the Post Office, courier services, or maybe even telcos. You'd use one of their giganto-STMP servers, instead of your ISP's piddly local one.
Incoming mail from an SMTP server that is not one of these authenticating-and-billing ones would be subject to the scrutiny of your Bayesian filter, which could have its threshold cranked up from "healthily skeptical" to "downright cynical."
Here's a cheaper idea: I tell everyone I know to start the subject line with "goat" if they want to e-mail me. Then I filter all e-mail without "goat" as the first word in the subject...
....
Sure, sounds good, but you might want to pick a different word
If a family spends less than a penny on food for the day, then I respectfully suggest that the cost of email is not their primary concern.
People that poor don't have email. They don't even have a computer. They barely even have food, as you just illustrated.
You don't get it. You wouldn't have to "change your email software" - you'd simply change the SMTP server you're sending your email through. You'd send it through this "pay" server, instead of your normal server. The pay server would recognize you every time you send an email through them, and automatically debit your (pre-arranged, pre-paid, or credit-connected) account. Your email client wouldn't have to do anything. The "pay" part happens on the server.
Most spammers would gladly pay 1c per email
You're wrong. The only reason spam works is because it is free to send. If they send out 5,000,000 emails and get a 0.1% response rate, with a profit of $5 per sale, then they've just earned $25,000. Since it cost them nothing to send those emails, then that is $25,000 of pure profit. Hell, even if they only sold one product through those 5,000,000 emails, then the $5 profit is worth it, because it is more than their cost (which was nothing).
If the emails cost 1 cent to send, then those 5,000,000 spams now cost them $50,000 to send, which obliterates their $25,000 profit, and then some. Suddenly, it's not worth it. And they'll stop doing it.
I dont want to pay to send email. I just dont
Then learn to live with spam. The bottom line is, as long as it is free, spam will flourish. That's what it really comes down to. That's what every spam-attacking strategy must work with or against. It has to cost something, and these compromises are all about finding a "something" that is insignificant for normal users sending < 1000 emails a month, but prohibitive when it reaches up into the millions of emails per month.
If you are unwilling to compromise on your "zero-cost" requirement, then you will never be rid of spam. It's as simple as that.
"It looks like you're writing a virus. Would you like to:
Use it!
:)
She never signed anything agreeing to the terms, but they extended her the credit anyway. Max that puppy out! And when the bill comes, call them up and tell them you'd like them to remove you from their mailing list.
You never signed anything. Free money!
Name one.
Hint: Not everyone can afford a computer. No state will ever make electronic filing mandatory, for that exact reason. It would be seen as "anti-poor."
Fact is, album sales were down BEFORE file sharing become widely available. Album sales are UP since 2000, even though file sharing has continued to become even more widely available.
You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You are WRONG. What you just said is a LIE. You didn't provide any links or references at all to back up your claim, you just throw it out there, call it a "fact," and expect people to take your word for it. That makes it trivally easy for someone like me to come along and blow your whole post to bits with actual facts.
album sales were down BEFORE file sharing become widely available.
WRONG. 2001 was the first year in a decade that there was a decline in album sales. Here's a novel concept: Link to reference supporting my statement. From that article: "Album sales in the US dropped by almost 3% in 2001 - the first year for a decade that has seen a decline."
Album sales are UP since 2000
WRONG. Here's another reference: "2003 sales to date point to a third consecutive year of decline; the total stands at 179.4 million albums, down 8% from last year's 194.1 million."
Are you starting to get my point? You're just plain WRONG! Album sales were increasing until Napster/Kazaa/et al appeared on the scene, and they've been decreasing ever since. That is why the RIAA is all up in arms. So your assertion that widespread filesharing would allow people to sample more music, and subsequently buy more music is the complete and utter opposite of what is actually happening!
My personal tax solution has served me well for 5 years now. It was extremely affordable, did not require activation, runs on several platforms, works for an unlimited number of unique users, does not require updating between tax years, and will never expire.
Well, I suppose eventually, it'll get too short from repeated sharpenings, and I'll need to buy a new pencil... but you get my point.
Geez, people, do all of you guys file as your own business? Personal taxes are not that hard. At least, not up here in Canada. Why are people so afraid of 'em? You get some slips in the mail, you copy the numbers over onto the forms, do a little math, and presto, you get some money back. They'll even double-check your numbers for you, and if you missed a deduction, they'll adjust for you, and you'll get more money back.
What's the big attraction about spending $30/year or whatever on the latest-and-greatest tax software, or paying some suit at H&R Block to do simple arithmetic for you?
Aren't we supposed to be among the smartest of society? Or at least among the most mathematically adept? Why the big fear? The satisfaction of filing your own taxes and doing it all on paper is pretty rewarding, I must say.
Illegal filesharers typically buy MORE music than non-filesharing customers.
Repeating something does not make it true. To your credit, you're not the only person repeating this lie, but that doesn't make it any less false. The above statement is pure horse-sh*t, with no basis in reality, and absolutely no scientific data to support the absurd claim.
It make a nice, fluffy mantra to justify illegal filesharing, but it just plan has no basis in reality. Everyone I know who occassionally downloads songs admits that they find themselves buying fewer CDs in recent years. Of course, they say it's because the "music is getting worse," but that doesn't change the fact that your statement is directly contradicted by my anecdotal evidence.
Whoo, boy, this'll invite the "Flamebait" mods, but here goes anyway.
the RIAA strategy of suing its customers.
This is such a blatant spin, I can only shake my head in awe. The RIAA is not "suing its customers" - it is suing illegal filesharers. While I suppose it is remotely possible that a small fraction of those people actually occassionally buy a CD every few months, and would thus technically make them "customers", the logical connection drawn by the inflammatory statement in the story summary is completely backwards.
If Microsoft, acting with the BSA, took action against an illegal OfficeXP piracy ring in Korea, would you say that Microsoft is "attacking its customers?"
Actually, yeah, you probably would, sorry, bad example. I forgot. Microsoft is evil too. Lemmie see if I can come up with a better one.
If a hacker (oops, "cracker," I'm all over the negative mods today, aren't I) broke into Valve and copied the Halflife2 sourcecode, managed to get it to compile, and started giving away binaries from his website, and Valve sued to shut him down and get injunctions against all those who downloaded the binary, would you say Valve is "going after its customers?"
It's ridiculous. Give us a little credit guys, come on.
Two 17" displays are better than one 17" display, but one 24" widescreen display is even better still.
I disagree. I use 2 17" monitors at work, and I would vastly prefer this to a single, wide monitor. The reason is simple. Sure, if I had one, 24" wide monitor, I could fit quite a bit of stuff on the screen (almost as much as my pair of 17's). However, I'd have to manually manipulate the window sizes in order to make the most of that space.
With 2 monitors, each monitor is its own desktop. If I have an app on one screen and I maximize it, it instantly and automatically fills that entire, single monitor, leaving the other monitor untouched. I can then do the same thing to another app in the other window with another app, and with two easy clicks, I now have both my apps each making maximum use of my viewing space, without having to carefully drag window borders around manually.
This may sound like a small thing, but the few seconds you waste clicking on window borders and resizing quickly becomes an irritating and unnecessary annoyance.
But the tasks I found benefitted most from dual monitors was when I was learning something new. I could open up the API/User Guide/Tutorial/Examples in one window, while having another entire 17" monitor available to actually run the app I was learning, and follow through the tutorial without having to constantly switch virtual desktops, minimize/maximize, or ALT-TAB around.
I can't imagine going back to a single monitor, regardless of its size.
First of all, it is incredibly hypocritical of a society to shelter their young from naked bodies doing sticky things, while guns, explosions, and violence are all A-OK to be shown right after SpongeBob's timeslot.
Secondly, it is also hypocritical of a society to preach the virtues of peace, condemn violent art and video games, while simultaneously waging a bloody, arbitrary war on nameless strangers a world away.
What's more disturbing for little Timmy to see? "Terminator 2" or CNN? Why is fake violence so heavily restricted and regulated, but actual people bleeding and dying is completely OK? Would you scold your neighbor if you found out your kid was visiting while the father was watching CNN? What if he was watching porn?
You see, that's a major problem with North American culture, and it really surprises me that so few people recognize it.
Screw all these morons, who [...] think that video games are for some reason not protected forms of expression
Uh, since when is a video game a "form of expression?" What exactly are the authors of GTA:VC trying to "say"?
They're not "expressing" anything. They're just trying to make money. They're producing a commodity to appeal to a marketshare whom they think will be profitable to them. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just don't pretend like its some noble form of meaningful expression. It's not. It's just a game, it's just business. Nothing more.
That's just untrue and false.
// ...
... :)
I hope you write code more efficiently than you write English.
if (!flag && (flag == false))
I see some room for optimization there
I'm in a hurry, but I have to post this. I was just awash in irony.
:)
First of all, for a site full of people so gung-ho about privacy invasions and all that, you all seem extremely adept at acquiring personal, private information of people you deem "bad." Newsflash: the government thinks it is only using its invasive powers on bad people. That's ironic.
And, I was reading the comments for this article, and - you're not going to believe this - a telemarketer called me. I sh*t you not. 2 incredible ironies in 5 minutes.
Now I must run off and watch Trading Spaces 100 Grand.
Wow, that's great, good for you.
You don't need as much money as you think you do.
How's that retirement saving coming along?
Because over 80% of all new small businesses fail in their first 24 months. And they take a frightening amount of capital with them. If you've been unemployed for 2 years, where would you get the money to pour into a new business? How long would you keep pouring money into that business if it was operating in the red?
This advice is not very practical. I live in Canada. When you get laid off from a high-tech firm up here (as I and 4 of my closest friends have been), you get nothing from the government until your severance runs out. The government's calculations, however, are a little different from your former employer's. Your former employer gives you about 4 months of salary, which the government believes should last you 6 months. Then, there is a 2 week grace period, then your EI benefits start. However, you get paid at the end of each period, so there's 2 more weeks with no money coming in, for a total of 7 months.
Now, EI in Canada caps off at $400/week (minus income tax, of course - you gotta charge income tax on EI benefits, it only makes sense, right?), so you see about $700 every two weeks, once the benefits kick in. They'll keep on flowing for 50 weeks.
If you get a job during this time - any job - the benefits stop and the clock resets.
Now do some math. You get almost a full year of benefits, paying $400/week. You would have to find a full-time job that paid at least $10/hour just to match that. And while you were flipping those burgers at Micky-D's, earning a ludicrous salary compared to your high-school co-workers, you are unable to look for a job in your field because you're too busy cleaning deep friers and asking "you want fries with that?"
The banks, however, still expect you to keep paying the $500/month you owe them for those student loans they gave you to get that fancy, expensive techy education. Of course, they give you a break on the interest while you're unemployed (if you file for interest relief), but now that you're working again, they expect you to resume the payments.
Not to mention rent, gas, insurance, utilities, groceries... all that was OK when EI was kicking in the $400/week, because you could devote 100% of your time to looking for a job and getting back into the game. But if we took your advice (which amounts to little more than "suck it up and take a crappy job which gives you less than you'd get from EI doing nothing at all"), we'd be stuck in that low-paying sh*t job indefinitely, as we slowly bled ourselves into bankruptcy.
Great advice.
I remember the first time I installed NT 4.0 Workstation on my PC back in university. A friend who'd used it before was helping me, and the first time we booted it, the dialog appeared, advising me to hit CTRL+ALT+DEL to login. Having never heard of this before, my immediate response was to ask my friend, "Huh? CTRL+ALT+DEL to login? How do I reboot? 'Enter'?"
You don't think that masses of people who know what LinkSys is doing won't cost them money when there's a LinkSys product and someone else's similar product sitting side-by-side on the same shelf?
No, I don't. Any effect would be negligible. People don't care as much as you seem to think they do. Look at all the crap Microsoft pulls, but you don't see people flocking to WordPerfect, do you? People known LinkSys makes great hardware for the money. They're not going to pay more for a crappier product, just to make a stupid stand about some license they never really understood anyway. Open your eyes, kid.
Not too bright on the whole "I care but not when it means I have to actually pay more for a crappier product" thing, are you?