And you won't land in jail in the US for denying the Holocaust in an attempt to whitewash the Nazis: you're thinking of Europe and Canada, where they don't quite get the whole freedom of speech thing.
I always find it ironic whenever a USAmerican tries to paint USAmerica as "freer" than Canada. In Canada, the legal age of consent is 14 (vs. 18 in the US), smoking 29 grams of pot won't land you in jail or give you a criminal record, the drinking age is 19 (vs. 21 in the US), prostitution is legal (as long as its all carried out in private), and copying CDs is perfectly legal. We have no PATRIOT act or DMCA breathing down our throats and threatening us at every digital turn.
But sure - the US is freer, because you have more freedom with guns (although in Canada, it's perfectly legal to own many of the same guns). Suuuuuuure, whatever you say. Boy, it sure sucks to live up here in Canada. We've got all these other benefits I just listed, but I have to register my.50 cal handguns. Maybe I should move to the US.
The distinction between "checking" and "savings" accounts these days is very subjective. I have checks for both my checking and savings accounts at CIBC. There is effectively no difference between the accounts, except I access one using the name "Checking" at an ATM, and the other using "Savings."
if you roll that money into a mutual fund, COD or other type of investment and you try to withdraw you will encur some major penalities, tax and otherwise.
Say you and I put $10,000 aside for emergencies. You put yours in a ssvings account yielding 1.2% per annum, while I invest mine in a balanced blue-chip mutual fund.
Time goes on, and 10 years later, we both lose our jobs. Your $10,000 is now worth $11,266.92. I had the misfortune of investing during a bad time and only manage to earn about 5% on my money. I would have $16,288.95. I choose to sell this mutual fund, and the fee is $100. It was unregistered, so the tax calculations are not complicated - I simply owe capital gains on $6,288.95. This is Canada, so I would basically pay income tax on half of that. Income tax, in my tax bracket (which would be low, since in our hypothetical situation here, I've been unemployed for a while, and thus earning no money) on $3,144.47 (the 50% of my gains that are taxable) would probably be about 1/3, or $1038, which would leave me with $15,150.95, or about $3880 more money than you.
Now, if you'd rather give up $3880 than suffer the "headache" of filling out a form to declare those capital gains (it'd take you 10 minutes), then that's your perogative. But to me, $3880 for 10 minutes work is a pretty good bargain. Keep in mind that in this example, you're unemployed. $3880 would buy me at least a couple more months of bills, in a pinch.
And of course, keep in mind that that's during a *bad* period. During a normal economic period, you could expect to easily realize 8-10% gains, which would of course work out to far more money (roughly $13,000 after taxes and fees, in this example).
Clearly, it is far, far better to invest that money than to let it sit and rot in a savings account. Even after all the fees and taxes are factored in, the potential gains are much greater in the long run.
But that's exactly the whole point of a savings account.
No it's not - a savings account is for frequent transactions. It is definitely not an investment vehicle. Savings account yield what, about 1.5% interest, at a maximum? That doesn't even keep pace with inflation.
Keeping that kind of money in the bank even if you're raking in cash is definitely not stupid.
Yes it is. If you're raking it in, put that money into mutual funds. You can cash them out at any time. If an emergency comes up, or you lose your job, then you call them up and say "I would like to sell these mutual funds," and 2 days later, $20,000 materializes in your savings account.
[Re: Line of Credit] LOL! With no job? That's rich! (pun intended)
I don't understand. You get the line of credit while you're employed. I have one. I'm employed. If I were to become unemployed, I would still have my line of credit. If I were to become unemployed, I'd put the call into my investment insitution to liquidate some mutual funds. Until I got that money, if for some reason my savings account was virtually empty and I had some big, undelayble expenses coming up, then I'd take the money out of my line of credit and put it into my savings account to pay those bills until I got at the mutual fund money. Then, I'd pay off the line of credit. At most, I'd have tapped into maybe a couple grand of the line of credit, for 1 week, max, immediately after being laid off, then I'd have paid it off. I'd spend the rest of my unemployment living off of that investment money, liquidating more mutual funds, as necessary. Hopefully not for very long!
if you don't [have 6 months of money saved up], and you're currently employed, then you're an idiot. Plain and simple.
This is incorrect. If you have 6 months worth of living expenses saved up ($15,000+ for me), just sitting in an account somewhere, "just in case," then you're an idiot.
That's what a line of credit is for.
Sure, of course you should be investing and everything. I've got money invested in plenty of places. But if I were to lose my job tomorrow, I've got a $15,000 line of credit I could live off of for a couple of weeks or more, while I did some paperwork to liquidate some of my investments, as necessary.
I get at the money, pay back the line of credit, and live off of the retirement money I need, until I get another job. In the meantime, that money was working hard for me in interest-bearing investment vehicles, instead of just sitting in an account somewhere, not even keeping up with inflation (thus, becoming worth less and less).
Now, if you've been employed for a while, and don't even have a retirement fund big enough to support you for 6 months in an emergency, then I'd agree, you'd be an idiot.
Sitting on a pile of cash, not gaining interest, is stupid. Plain and simple.
That's as ludicrous as suggesting that a 10 year old would make a better driver than Mom and Dad. Remember that we're talking about completely inexperienced children here. 5 minutes ago, he was outside riding his bike. Now, he's going to install Linux, without Dad's help?
How old were you when you started toying with computer programming? I don't know about you, but I was about 10. Now, your curt, smug comment seems pretty stupid when you consider that a 10 year old has neither the hardware nor the experience to install Linux. Think about it. The family probably has 1 computer. Mom and Dad use this computer to check their email, or maybe one of them works from home on it sometimes. Do you really think that they're going to let little 10-year old Johnnie wipe the hard drive and install Linux? Or are they supposed to buy Johnnie his own $1000 computer. For a 10 year old who might not give a rat's behind about computers by this time next week.
Riiiiiight. I suppose the little tyke could just repartition the hard drive and install a dual-booter like LILO to make sure Mom and Dad can still use Windows, right? Would YOU trust a 10-year old who knows nothing about Linux or programming repartition your hard drive for you?
Remember: we're talking about children here! Not teens!
No? Who did they steal BOB from? Word? Excel? Visual Studio? Visual Basic?.NET? Windows NT/XP/2000? XBox?
I call BS. Sure, like virtually every other company in existance, Microsoft occassionally bought into a tech that was already seeded, and then enhanced it, rather than starting from scratch. There's nothing nefarious about that - that's just good business.
But to claim that they've created nothing new is pure ignorance.
First, Microsoft should dump all money losing divisions.
Such a rapid, massive contraction would be suicide for the stock price.
Second, drop product activation.
Why? To be nice? Bottom line is, it increases their profits.
Third, stop the egregious software assurance type deals
I don't follow you here. What deals are you talking about?
Fourth, stop with those outrageous deals to stop Linux. You know the ones, when India, China, or Germany wants to switch to open source, Microsoft bends over backwards to give practically free software.
Why would they stop that? It increases profits. You claim that it is pissing off their other, paying customers, and suggest that it may be making them so mad that they'll switch to another solution, but do you have any evidence at all to back that up? If not, why would Microsoft take your advice, when there isn't a shred of evidence suggesting that their current approach is costing them money? FACT: It's all about profits, and a company with millions of dollars invested in Microsoft licenses, infrastructure, support, and trained personnel is NOT going to drop it all out of "spite." Get real.
Fifth, stop using the BSA police to force deals.
Why? It increases profits. That's what the BSA is there for - to reduce piracy. In many cases, the suspicious organizations do have illegal copies of the software, and thus by employing the BSA (whom Microsoft is paying for, whether they use them or not) they sell more licenses and thus increase profits.
Every one of your points can be easily countered by simply asking "Why would they do that, when your suggestion would obviously lead to less revenue?" It's all about money. That's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it's just a thing. It's how a capitalist society works. It's probably where your paycheck comes from (assuming you're gainfully employed, and not just a wet-behind-the-ears, naive student, preaching from an ivory tower).
You can see her in the photo, entering the house, presumeably to hide from the helicopter. I've highlighted the specific area of the picture and enlarged it a bit. See it here.
Does this change the legality of the photograph? Does this bolster the argument that it is an invasion of privacy?
Only if that's what all your neighbors watch also! GOd help you if you are the only person that hates that stuff in a community. Now EVERY ad will be offensive and NO ad will be anything you "want" to see.
Uhm, is this realistic? I mean, think about it. If your TV is bombarded with ads for walking canes and elderly life insurance, then you're probably living in a community with a very high density of old people. Why would you be living there, unless you're an old person yourself? I mean, sure, most neighborhoods will have a few, but you said what if "you are the only person that hates that stuff", meaning EVERYONE else in your neighborhood is in the target demographic, except you.
If that's the case, than I suggest that you made a drastic mistake when choosing where to live. Don't people generally want to live around other people like them?
How many "innocent" people are out there, driving around, with some type of offense on their plates that they didn't deserve?
If you are driving with an expired registration, suspended license, arrest warrant, or stolen tags, then you are not "innocent."
So I repeat: how would this lead to them catching "innocent" people? What type of "innocent" people would come up in their computer as having some type of offense on their license plate?
It really doesn't take that much brains to think of that trick.
That's because it's a incredibly stupid thing to do. People with normal intelligence are smart enough to realize that "hey, if that judge took my license and told me not to drive for a while, maybe I should listen."
And flesh and blood cops are not omnipresent and cannot run checks on every plate they see. That's a good thing imho.
Uhm,... why, exactly?
There are criminals out there. There are cops out there. If the cops could "validate" every car they see, then statistically, they would catch more criminals that they would otherwise miss. How is this a bad thing?
Holy crap, I love Canada! You USAmericans mock Canada's slightly higher taxes, but when it comes to things like education and healthcare, it is quite obviously us Canucks who are laughing both last and loudest.
You give RIT as an example. I've seen the commercials, and it looks to me like a pretty low-rated school (I don't believe it qualifies as a "university"), and you're saying the tuition there is $26,000 USD per year, or about $35,700 Canadian. That's insane.
My alma-mater is Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. It is the most expensive undergraduate university in Canada (although I believe Dalhousie is very close). Students who attend there are issued brand new IBM laptops (not for keeps, but they get them for the full term). Every single dorm room is wired for ethernet. It is a beautiful, historic campus with a wide range of world-renowned programs. Tuition is $6584 CDN ($4788 USD) per year (8 months).
Out of sheer curiousity, I checked out Harvard's rates. Oddly, it is $26,488 USD - almost exactly the value you quoted for RIT. I can only assume that you included all other expenses in your value, while the fee I found for Harvard (as well as the number I quoted for Acadia) are for tuition only.
Oh yeah, and of course there's the health care thing. In Canada, if you get sick, you go to the hospital and they help you. If it's not urgent, you make an appointment to go and see your doctor, and he/she helps you. Nobody asks for your credit card or insurance information. And sure, while our taxes may be 1 or 2 percent higher, we're not shelling out $300/month in health insurance premiums, either.
"I guarantee that if [the RIAA] try to pull this sh*t on us there will be a lot more retaliation against them than just a few DDoS attacks."
Uh, like what, Eric? What else can a bunch of globally-distrubuted hackers do? Are you threatening to physically harm Hillary Rosen and other staff of the RIAA? Are you suggesting that their homes and vehicles may/should be vandalized?
What, precisely, were you alluding to when you said "a lot more retaliation against them than just a few DDoS attacks"?
"I'll gladly release the dogs of war in defense of piracy."
Well, it's pretty obvious where you stand on things then. Clearly, you're still a child and don't yet make any actual money off of selling software, if you hold such an ignorant point of view. You openly admit that you will "defend piracy." Unbelievable.
As a former Nortel Networks employee, I am glad to hear this type of news. Part of the whole reason for the telecom meltdown was predicted demand that never materialized. The growth of traffic was unfolding as expected, but in a quest for better profits, the telecom companies decided to curb demand instead of increasing supply. So instead of expanding backbones, they capped downloads.
They can only do this for so long. With the rollout of large-scale gaming networks like Sony's and Microsoft's (for the X-Box), the demand will keep growing, one way or another. Sooner or later, the Qwests and MCIs are going to have to bite the bullet and buy some terabit optical switches. They're going to have to open up their wallets, and then we should start seeing a rebound in the high-tech market.
So support your high-tech buddies! Saturate your network connection, make your ISP feel the bandwidth pain, nag them to upgrade!:)
I don't think this is as big of a problem as it is being made out to be, for several reasons.
First of all, I think your numbers are wrong. If Syria really were printing and smuggling that much fake US money, we'd already be "liberating" them.
Secondly, if the counterfeits are so effective that they are virtually indistinguishable from the real deal, then they are already in circulation in the US, being passed through transactions, and even fooling the banks. If this is the case, then so what? What's the big deal? You've got someone out there helping out your treasury department, and printing your currency for you for free. Someone takes a phony 20 for a transaction, and its like they were just robbed of their merchandise. But if they don't know it's fake, and they turn around and use it somewhere else, then what's the difference whether the bill was fake or not? If it had been real, the transactions would have occurred in exactly the same way. Only the person stuck holding the bill when it's finally detected as fake gets the shaft. Everyone inbetween is unaffected.
The merchant can refuse (not "deny") to accept cash, if they want. They can insist on being paid via debit, credit card, or gold bullion, if they wish. They don't have to accept cash.
It's not that they are "allowed" to refuse payment of more than $1 in pennies, because they are "allowed" to refuse payment of ANY amount, in ANY denomination, if they want.
The rule you're thinking of is the 'Limitations' section of the Currency Act, bill C-52, Section 8(2), subsections (a) through (e). This section states that it is illegal for merchants to accept payment for transactions exceeding 25 cents (not $1, as you incorrectly stated) if the denomination is pennies. It's all spelled out right here.
Don't claim you've "read the law," then offer such grossly inaccurate information.
Whoever modded this as "Offtopic" is on crack. The topic is TELEVISION. The poster is discussing TELEVISION by advising you to give it up. He might be a "Troll," or it might be "Flamebait," but it is most definitely NOT "Offtopic." Personally, I think he's got a point.
I hope this travesty gets weeded out in the metamods, 'cause someone really screwed up here.
Hordes of people, after getting a bachelor's degree a few years ago, went off to industry to get rich
Excuse me??? I didn't go "off to industry to get rich," I went "off to industry" because that's what you do after school. It's called "getting on with your life." It's hard to buy a car and get a mortgage and pay for a wedding and raise kids and save for retirement when you're too scared to leave school and join the real world.
I really resent the tone you put in your post, as if people who stay in school, year after year, getting piece of paper after piece of paper, running up massive student loan bills are somehow better than those who just want to get their lives started, and start producing in the industry they're interested in.
I realize it's hard for you to visualize people working because they like it. For as long as you can remember, your life has been about going to school. You don't know any differently. That's "order" to you. You lack the long-term vision to plan beyond a semester. That's fine, stay in school until you're ready to join the real world, as long as you're not doing it on my nickel. Just don't cock your head way back and look down your nose at those who simply got tired of paying geezers to be spoon-fed outdate information at a nice, non-offensive, general pace when we'd prefer the freedom of learning whatever we want, at our own pace, on our own time, while contributing to something we care about at the same time (and getting paid to do it).
You can't stay in school forever.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
I had no oblighation to pay to receive advertising;
Am I the only one getting sick of this FUD? Every time someone implies that spammers are "hijacking" your resources, or that it costs you money to receive their spam, my skin crawls.
First of all, it's a lie. You don't pay to receive spam. You pay for your network connection. The tiny bit of spam that comes down is a small fraction of everything else you download. So it might work out to a fraction of a cent of your monthly bill went to downloading spam. It's negligible.
Secondly, what makes you think that just because you pay for something, that makes it off-limits for advertising? I pay a phone bill, but telemarketers still call me. I pay a cable bill, but 20% of all content is advertising. I own a home, but salesmen still come to my door. I pay for my car and I pay for gas, but I'm subjected to billboards along the highway.
So I pay for my Internet connection and I receive some spam. So what. It's annoying. So are commercials. Big deal. Quit crying. If you want to do something about it, then install spam filters or lobby for change. But don't pretend like it's the only thing in the world where advertising content is sent down a stream that YOU have paid for, because there are numerous examples which prove that society has already said that "that's OK."
So it's the usual story. Corporations looking out for their bottom line.
<SARCASM>Oh those evil bastards.</SARCASM> Come on, enough business-bashing. Who here doesn't work for a company? Who here doesn't depend on profits to keep their paychecks coming? Why is it all-of-a-sudden unpatriotic to try and make some money? Isn't that the "American Dream"(TM)? When did "profit" become a bad word?
Of course it's about money. Right now, people are paying $40/month or so for ADSL and broadband connections. Sure, fibre would boost those speeds, but who'll be willing to pay increased fees for it? Would your Mom be willing to shell out $90/month for fibre when she's already getting megabit service for less than half that?
The majority of the customer base will not be willing to pay more than they're paying now. We're at a nice, comfortable equilibrium at the moment. It would cost BILLIONS to roll out a fibre-to-the-home network nationwide, and the only way to recoup that cost would be to raise rates. And the telcos don't seem too confident that there will be enough people willing to pony up the extra green to make it more profitable than the existing network.
It sure is easy to blame the "Big, Bad Corporations" though, isn't it. It's not quite that simple though. If you want to blame someone, blame the masses who are content with megabit service, and who aren't willing to pay more than $40/month for Internet (or phone, or cable, for that matter). People are used to the price they're already paying, and anything more than that will seem like a ripoff.
If you're white and you beat up a black person, its a hate crime. If you're white and beat up another white, its just assault and battery.
Not exactly. It depends why you beat him up. If you (a white guy) beat him (a black guy) up because he slept with your wife, then it wouldn't be charged under hate crime legislation. But if you beat him up because "he was a n*gger," then that would be a hate crime. Your motive is important in determing the severity of your crime.
The distinction is subtle, but important. It's the same reason there are varying "degrees" of murder. Killing someone in a fit of furious passion isn't as bad as meticulously planning an assassination.
Back to the "hate crime" example, the second guy is more dangerous to society (and thus faces harsher "hate crime" penalties) because of his reason for killing the second guy. He could have killed any black man, without warning, for no reason other than the fact that the guy was black. The first guy, however, only killed because the guy slept with his wife. Thus, he's not as much of a danger to the general public. Don't sleep with his wife, and he probably won't kill you. Simple. Still a bad guy, but it's not like he has a big, murderous hate-on for a large segment of the general population.
That is why there is specific hate-crime legislation. It has a purpose.
Are you kidding? Cops face more scrutiny in these situations. If a cop lets his emotions get the better of him (during the course of an extremely emotional job) for even an instant, he faces the loss of his job, or even faces jail time. See the case of Julie Cayer in Ottawa. A cop arrests a belligerent, abusive, resisting suspect, and in one brief moment while subduing her, bangs her head onto his car, and bang, he's guilty of assault.
Cops have to be extremely careful in everything they do. The benefit of the doubt is with the drug-smoking, wife-beating perp, who has every reason to lie. It's an extremely tough job.
Slashdot Mirror
And you won't land in jail in the US for denying the Holocaust in an attempt to whitewash the Nazis: you're thinking of Europe and Canada, where they don't quite get the whole freedom of speech thing.
.50 cal handguns. Maybe I should move to the US.
I always find it ironic whenever a USAmerican tries to paint USAmerica as "freer" than Canada. In Canada, the legal age of consent is 14 (vs. 18 in the US), smoking 29 grams of pot won't land you in jail or give you a criminal record, the drinking age is 19 (vs. 21 in the US), prostitution is legal (as long as its all carried out in private), and copying CDs is perfectly legal. We have no PATRIOT act or DMCA breathing down our throats and threatening us at every digital turn.
But sure - the US is freer, because you have more freedom with guns (although in Canada, it's perfectly legal to own many of the same guns). Suuuuuuure, whatever you say. Boy, it sure sucks to live up here in Canada. We've got all these other benefits I just listed, but I have to register my
The distinction between "checking" and "savings" accounts these days is very subjective. I have checks for both my checking and savings accounts at CIBC. There is effectively no difference between the accounts, except I access one using the name "Checking" at an ATM, and the other using "Savings."
if you roll that money into a mutual fund, COD or other type of investment and you try to withdraw you will encur some major penalities, tax and otherwise.
Say you and I put $10,000 aside for emergencies. You put yours in a ssvings account yielding 1.2% per annum, while I invest mine in a balanced blue-chip mutual fund.
Time goes on, and 10 years later, we both lose our jobs. Your $10,000 is now worth $11,266.92. I had the misfortune of investing during a bad time and only manage to earn about 5% on my money. I would have $16,288.95. I choose to sell this mutual fund, and the fee is $100. It was unregistered, so the tax calculations are not complicated - I simply owe capital gains on $6,288.95. This is Canada, so I would basically pay income tax on half of that. Income tax, in my tax bracket (which would be low, since in our hypothetical situation here, I've been unemployed for a while, and thus earning no money) on $3,144.47 (the 50% of my gains that are taxable) would probably be about 1/3, or $1038, which would leave me with $15,150.95, or about $3880 more money than you.
Now, if you'd rather give up $3880 than suffer the "headache" of filling out a form to declare those capital gains (it'd take you 10 minutes), then that's your perogative. But to me, $3880 for 10 minutes work is a pretty good bargain. Keep in mind that in this example, you're unemployed. $3880 would buy me at least a couple more months of bills, in a pinch.
And of course, keep in mind that that's during a *bad* period. During a normal economic period, you could expect to easily realize 8-10% gains, which would of course work out to far more money
(roughly $13,000 after taxes and fees, in this example).
Clearly, it is far, far better to invest that money than to let it sit and rot in a savings account. Even after all the fees and taxes are factored in, the potential gains are much greater in the long run.
But that's exactly the whole point of a savings account.
No it's not - a savings account is for frequent transactions. It is definitely not an investment vehicle. Savings account yield what, about 1.5% interest, at a maximum? That doesn't even keep pace with inflation.
Keeping that kind of money in the bank even if you're raking in cash is definitely not stupid.
Yes it is. If you're raking it in, put that money into mutual funds. You can cash them out at any time. If an emergency comes up, or you lose your job, then you call them up and say "I would like to sell these mutual funds," and 2 days later, $20,000 materializes in your savings account.
[Re: Line of Credit]
LOL! With no job? That's rich! (pun intended)
I don't understand. You get the line of credit while you're employed. I have one. I'm employed. If I were to become unemployed, I would still have my line of credit. If I were to become unemployed, I'd put the call into my investment insitution to liquidate some mutual funds. Until I got that money, if for some reason my savings account was virtually empty and I had some big, undelayble expenses coming up, then I'd take the money out of my line of credit and put it into my savings account to pay those bills until I got at the mutual fund money. Then, I'd pay off the line of credit. At most, I'd have tapped into maybe a couple grand of the line of credit, for 1 week, max, immediately after being laid off, then I'd have paid it off. I'd spend the rest of my unemployment living off of that investment money, liquidating more mutual funds, as necessary. Hopefully not for very long!
Where's the problem here?
if you don't [have 6 months of money saved up], and you're currently employed, then you're an idiot. Plain and simple.
This is incorrect. If you have 6 months worth of living expenses saved up ($15,000+ for me), just sitting in an account somewhere, "just in case," then you're an idiot.
That's what a line of credit is for.
Sure, of course you should be investing and everything. I've got money invested in plenty of places. But if I were to lose my job tomorrow, I've got a $15,000 line of credit I could live off of for a couple of weeks or more, while I did some paperwork to liquidate some of my investments, as necessary.
I get at the money, pay back the line of credit, and live off of the retirement money I need, until I get another job. In the meantime, that money was working hard for me in interest-bearing investment vehicles, instead of just sitting in an account somewhere, not even keeping up with inflation (thus, becoming worth less and less).
Now, if you've been employed for a while, and don't even have a retirement fund big enough to support you for 6 months in an emergency, then I'd agree, you'd be an idiot.
Sitting on a pile of cash, not gaining interest, is stupid. Plain and simple.
That's as ludicrous as suggesting that a 10 year old would make a better driver than Mom and Dad. Remember that we're talking about completely inexperienced children here. 5 minutes ago, he was outside riding his bike. Now, he's going to install Linux, without Dad's help?
Install Linux.
How old were you when you started toying with computer programming? I don't know about you, but I was about 10. Now, your curt, smug comment seems pretty stupid when you consider that a 10 year old has neither the hardware nor the experience to install Linux. Think about it. The family probably has 1 computer. Mom and Dad use this computer to check their email, or maybe one of them works from home on it sometimes. Do you really think that they're going to let little 10-year old Johnnie wipe the hard drive and install Linux? Or are they supposed to buy Johnnie his own $1000 computer. For a 10 year old who might not give a rat's behind about computers by this time next week.
Riiiiiight. I suppose the little tyke could just repartition the hard drive and install a dual-booter like LILO to make sure Mom and Dad can still use Windows, right? Would YOU trust a 10-year old who knows nothing about Linux or programming repartition your hard drive for you?
Remember: we're talking about children here! Not teens!
No, Microsoft doesn't create software.
.NET? Windows NT/XP/2000? XBox?
No? Who did they steal BOB from? Word? Excel? Visual Studio? Visual Basic?
I call BS. Sure, like virtually every other company in existance, Microsoft occassionally bought into a tech that was already seeded, and then enhanced it, rather than starting from scratch. There's nothing nefarious about that - that's just good business.
But to claim that they've created nothing new is pure ignorance.
Kevin.
First, Microsoft should dump all money losing divisions.
Such a rapid, massive contraction would be suicide for the stock price.
Second, drop product activation.
Why? To be nice? Bottom line is, it increases their profits.
Third, stop the egregious software assurance type deals
I don't follow you here. What deals are you talking about?
Fourth, stop with those outrageous deals to stop Linux. You know the ones, when India, China, or Germany wants to switch to open source, Microsoft bends over backwards to give practically free software.
Why would they stop that? It increases profits. You claim that it is pissing off their other, paying customers, and suggest that it may be making them so mad that they'll switch to another solution, but do you have any evidence at all to back that up? If not, why would Microsoft take your advice, when there isn't a shred of evidence suggesting that their current approach is costing them money? FACT: It's all about profits, and a company with millions of dollars invested in Microsoft licenses, infrastructure, support, and trained personnel is NOT going to drop it all out of "spite." Get real.
Fifth, stop using the BSA police to force deals.
Why? It increases profits. That's what the BSA is there for - to reduce piracy. In many cases, the suspicious organizations do have illegal copies of the software, and thus by employing the BSA (whom Microsoft is paying for, whether they use them or not) they sell more licenses and thus increase profits.
Every one of your points can be easily countered by simply asking "Why would they do that, when your suggestion would obviously lead to less revenue?" It's all about money. That's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it's just a thing. It's how a capitalist society works. It's probably where your paycheck comes from (assuming you're gainfully employed, and not just a wet-behind-the-ears, naive student, preaching from an ivory tower).
You can see her in the photo, entering the house, presumeably to hide from the helicopter. I've highlighted the specific area of the picture and enlarged it a bit. See it here.
Does this change the legality of the photograph? Does this bolster the argument that it is an invasion of privacy?
Only if that's what all your neighbors watch also! GOd help you if you are the only person that hates that stuff in a community. Now EVERY ad will be offensive and NO ad will be anything you "want" to see.
Uhm, is this realistic? I mean, think about it. If your TV is bombarded with ads for walking canes and elderly life insurance, then you're probably living in a community with a very high density of old people. Why would you be living there, unless you're an old person yourself? I mean, sure, most neighborhoods will have a few, but you said what if "you are the only person that hates that stuff", meaning EVERYONE else in your neighborhood is in the target demographic, except you.
If that's the case, than I suggest that you made a drastic mistake when choosing where to live. Don't people generally want to live around other people like them?
How many "innocent" people are out there, driving around, with some type of offense on their plates that they didn't deserve?
If you are driving with an expired registration, suspended license, arrest warrant, or stolen tags, then you are not "innocent."
So I repeat: how would this lead to them catching "innocent" people? What type of "innocent" people would come up in their computer as having some type of offense on their license plate?
It really doesn't take that much brains to think of that trick.
That's because it's a incredibly stupid thing to do. People with normal intelligence are smart enough to realize that "hey, if that judge took my license and told me not to drive for a while, maybe I should listen."
And flesh and blood cops are not omnipresent and cannot run checks on every plate they see. That's a good thing imho.
... why, exactly?
Uhm,
There are criminals out there. There are cops out there. If the cops could "validate" every car they see, then statistically, they would catch more criminals that they would otherwise miss. How is this a bad thing?
Weren't the Washington snipers caught through their plates?
I know you were being sarcastic, but I wanted to throw in a serious example to back you up.
Holy crap, I love Canada! You USAmericans mock Canada's slightly higher taxes, but when it comes to things like education and healthcare, it is quite obviously us Canucks who are laughing both last and loudest.
You give RIT as an example. I've seen the commercials, and it looks to me like a pretty low-rated school (I don't believe it qualifies as a "university"), and you're saying the tuition there is $26,000 USD per year, or about $35,700 Canadian. That's insane.
My alma-mater is Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. It is the most expensive undergraduate university in Canada (although I believe Dalhousie is very close). Students who attend there are issued brand new IBM laptops (not for keeps, but they get them for the full term). Every single dorm room is wired for ethernet. It is a beautiful, historic campus with a wide range of world-renowned programs. Tuition is $6584 CDN ($4788 USD) per year (8 months).
Out of sheer curiousity, I checked out Harvard's rates. Oddly, it is $26,488 USD - almost exactly the value you quoted for RIT. I can only assume that you included all other expenses in your value, while the fee I found for Harvard (as well as the number I quoted for Acadia) are for tuition only.
Oh yeah, and of course there's the health care thing. In Canada, if you get sick, you go to the hospital and they help you. If it's not urgent, you make an appointment to go and see your doctor, and he/she helps you. Nobody asks for your credit card or insurance information. And sure, while our taxes may be 1 or 2 percent higher, we're not shelling out $300/month in health insurance premiums, either.
Hmm, yeah, I just checked out your website.
"I guarantee that if [the RIAA] try to pull this sh*t on us there will be a lot more retaliation against them than just a few DDoS attacks."
Uh, like what, Eric? What else can a bunch of globally-distrubuted hackers do? Are you threatening to physically harm Hillary Rosen and other staff of the RIAA? Are you suggesting that their homes and vehicles may/should be vandalized?
What, precisely, were you alluding to when you said "a lot more retaliation against them than just a few DDoS attacks"?
"I'll gladly release the dogs of war in defense of piracy."
Well, it's pretty obvious where you stand on things then. Clearly, you're still a child and don't yet make any actual money off of selling software, if you hold such an ignorant point of view. You openly admit that you will "defend piracy." Unbelievable.
As a former Nortel Networks employee, I am glad to hear this type of news. Part of the whole reason for the telecom meltdown was predicted demand that never materialized. The growth of traffic was unfolding as expected, but in a quest for better profits, the telecom companies decided to curb demand instead of increasing supply. So instead of expanding backbones, they capped downloads.
:)
They can only do this for so long. With the rollout of large-scale gaming networks like Sony's and Microsoft's (for the X-Box), the demand will keep growing, one way or another. Sooner or later, the Qwests and MCIs are going to have to bite the bullet and buy some terabit optical switches. They're going to have to open up their wallets, and then we should start seeing a rebound in the high-tech market.
So support your high-tech buddies! Saturate your network connection, make your ISP feel the bandwidth pain, nag them to upgrade!
I don't think this is as big of a problem as it is being made out to be, for several reasons.
First of all, I think your numbers are wrong. If Syria really were printing and smuggling that much fake US money, we'd already be "liberating" them.
Secondly, if the counterfeits are so effective that they are virtually indistinguishable from the real deal, then they are already in circulation in the US, being passed through transactions, and even fooling the banks. If this is the case, then so what? What's the big deal? You've got someone out there helping out your treasury department, and printing your currency for you for free. Someone takes a phony 20 for a transaction, and its like they were just robbed of their merchandise. But if they don't know it's fake, and they turn around and use it somewhere else, then what's the difference whether the bill was fake or not? If it had been real, the transactions would have occurred in exactly the same way. Only the person stuck holding the bill when it's finally detected as fake gets the shaft. Everyone inbetween is unaffected.
You're misinformed.
The merchant can refuse (not "deny") to accept cash, if they want. They can insist on being paid via debit, credit card, or gold bullion, if they wish. They don't have to accept cash.
It's not that they are "allowed" to refuse payment of more than $1 in pennies, because they are "allowed" to refuse payment of ANY amount, in ANY denomination, if they want.
The rule you're thinking of is the 'Limitations' section of the Currency Act, bill C-52, Section 8(2), subsections (a) through (e). This section states that it is illegal for merchants to accept payment for transactions exceeding 25 cents (not $1, as you incorrectly stated) if the denomination is pennies. It's all spelled out right here.
Don't claim you've "read the law," then offer such grossly inaccurate information.
Whoever modded this as "Offtopic" is on crack. The topic is TELEVISION. The poster is discussing TELEVISION by advising you to give it up. He might be a "Troll," or it might be "Flamebait," but it is most definitely NOT "Offtopic." Personally, I think he's got a point.
I hope this travesty gets weeded out in the metamods, 'cause someone really screwed up here.
Hordes of people, after getting a bachelor's degree a few years ago, went off to industry to get rich
Excuse me??? I didn't go "off to industry to get rich," I went "off to industry" because that's what you do after school. It's called "getting on with your life." It's hard to buy a car and get a mortgage and pay for a wedding and raise kids and save for retirement when you're too scared to leave school and join the real world.
I really resent the tone you put in your post, as if people who stay in school, year after year, getting piece of paper after piece of paper, running up massive student loan bills are somehow better than those who just want to get their lives started, and start producing in the industry they're interested in.
I realize it's hard for you to visualize people working because they like it. For as long as you can remember, your life has been about going to school. You don't know any differently. That's "order" to you. You lack the long-term vision to plan beyond a semester. That's fine, stay in school until you're ready to join the real world, as long as you're not doing it on my nickel. Just don't cock your head way back and look down your nose at those who simply got tired of paying geezers to be spoon-fed outdate information at a nice, non-offensive, general pace when we'd prefer the freedom of learning whatever we want, at our own pace, on our own time, while contributing to something we care about at the same time (and getting paid to do it).
You can't stay in school forever.
I had no oblighation to pay to receive advertising;
Am I the only one getting sick of this FUD? Every time someone implies that spammers are "hijacking" your resources, or that it costs you money to receive their spam, my skin crawls.
First of all, it's a lie. You don't pay to receive spam. You pay for your network connection. The tiny bit of spam that comes down is a small fraction of everything else you download. So it might work out to a fraction of a cent of your monthly bill went to downloading spam. It's negligible.
Secondly, what makes you think that just because you pay for something, that makes it off-limits for advertising? I pay a phone bill, but telemarketers still call me. I pay a cable bill, but 20% of all content is advertising. I own a home, but salesmen still come to my door. I pay for my car and I pay for gas, but I'm subjected to billboards along the highway.
So I pay for my Internet connection and I receive some spam. So what. It's annoying. So are commercials. Big deal. Quit crying. If you want to do something about it, then install spam filters or lobby for change. But don't pretend like it's the only thing in the world where advertising content is sent down a stream that YOU have paid for, because there are numerous examples which prove that society has already said that "that's OK."
So it's the usual story. Corporations looking out for their bottom line.
<SARCASM>Oh those evil bastards.</SARCASM> Come on, enough business-bashing. Who here doesn't work for a company? Who here doesn't depend on profits to keep their paychecks coming? Why is it all-of-a-sudden unpatriotic to try and make some money? Isn't that the "American Dream"(TM)? When did "profit" become a bad word?
Of course it's about money. Right now, people are paying $40/month or so for ADSL and broadband connections. Sure, fibre would boost those speeds, but who'll be willing to pay increased fees for it? Would your Mom be willing to shell out $90/month for fibre when she's already getting megabit service for less than half that?
The majority of the customer base will not be willing to pay more than they're paying now. We're at a nice, comfortable equilibrium at the moment. It would cost BILLIONS to roll out a fibre-to-the-home network nationwide, and the only way to recoup that cost would be to raise rates. And the telcos don't seem too confident that there will be enough people willing to pony up the extra green to make it more profitable than the existing network.
It sure is easy to blame the "Big, Bad Corporations" though, isn't it. It's not quite that simple though. If you want to blame someone, blame the masses who are content with megabit service, and who aren't willing to pay more than $40/month for Internet (or phone, or cable, for that matter). People are used to the price they're already paying, and anything more than that will seem like a ripoff.
If you're white and you beat up a black person, its a hate crime.
If you're white and beat up another white, its just assault and battery.
Not exactly. It depends why you beat him up. If you (a white guy) beat him (a black guy) up because he slept with your wife, then it wouldn't be charged under hate crime legislation. But if you beat him up because "he was a n*gger," then that would be a hate crime. Your motive is important in determing the severity of your crime.
The distinction is subtle, but important. It's the same reason there are varying "degrees" of murder. Killing someone in a fit of furious passion isn't as bad as meticulously planning an assassination.
Back to the "hate crime" example, the second guy is more dangerous to society (and thus faces harsher "hate crime" penalties) because of his reason for killing the second guy. He could have killed any black man, without warning, for no reason other than the fact that the guy was black. The first guy, however, only killed because the guy slept with his wife. Thus, he's not as much of a danger to the general public. Don't sleep with his wife, and he probably won't kill you. Simple. Still a bad guy, but it's not like he has a big, murderous hate-on for a large segment of the general population.
That is why there is specific hate-crime legislation. It has a purpose.
Are you kidding? Cops face more scrutiny in these situations. If a cop lets his emotions get the better of him (during the course of an extremely emotional job) for even an instant, he faces the loss of his job, or even faces jail time. See the case of Julie Cayer in Ottawa. A cop arrests a belligerent, abusive, resisting suspect, and in one brief moment while subduing her, bangs her head onto his car, and bang, he's guilty of assault.
Cops have to be extremely careful in everything they do. The benefit of the doubt is with the drug-smoking, wife-beating perp, who has every reason to lie. It's an extremely tough job.