How about I send them a penny in the mail for the work? Then it's not for free. I say that because I think many feel that, relatively speaking, that's how big business collectively compensates the hard work of peons. And I do mean hard work. Like, back-breaking work. I don't really think that sitting back and making money simply by investing is "hard work", but the richest people get by just by doing that.
I think of more people had more disposable income, they'd see more sales. I think that Johnny Minimum Wage should be able to enjoy art without having to choose between licensing fees or rent.
I've signed mine again and again, with a sharpie. It always comes off. It's been the case for virtually every "sign strip" I've ever seen on a credit card.
I agree. Had I seen the ad, I would have clicked it just out of curiosity. Just as if I saw a sign saying "ENTER HERE TO GET BEATEN WITH A BALL BAT" above some business downtown, I'd have to peek in just to see what was up.
The separation of powers is referring to the branches of government: legislative, judicial, and executive. No matter how efficient a single branch is, it can't circumvent the checks and balances but on it by the other branches. So having three or four organizations that are all part of, say, the executive branch that all do the same thing is a waste. There's no benefit there. On the contrary, having to have all three branches approve of something is a very smart thing. Congress passes laws, but the president can veto it, or a judge could rule the law unconstitutional. For the different "departments", congress has to approve their budgets -- with whatever provisions they want to put in -- and all they actions are still subject to the scrutiny of constitution by way of the judicial branch.
So in other words, even with a totally efficient, effective government, all three branches would still have to agree on a course of action for it to happen, and that includes sending millions to their deaths.
My thoughts exactly. I played UO back then. I wanted to play it because I loved the Ultima series. Boy was I surprised to find how different the gameplay was. I actually left OSI for the "player shards" of the day, mostly because of the PK'ing. Once they added Trammel, I came back to UO. I eventually left again and went back to player servers that were strongly roleplay-focused (like the original games.)
It wasn't the dying, it was the looting, really. It just pretty much sucks all around to work days or weeks for something, only to have it all snatched away because someone killed you. With WoW, I don't have to worry about all that.
I have a couple friends who played on the player servers with me who now play WoW, and we both sit there and sigh, saying how fun it was, and how much we miss UO. We enjoyed the custom things, like working on craft skills. Crafting in WoW is a big joke compared to what it was in UO.
Ah, but I'm digressing... Anyway, I agree with you, I don't think Trammel killed UO. I think EQ appealed to a lot of people because it was 3D, and had fewer options. Unlike the completely open-ended UO, where you could make your character completely useless, in EQ you had a class, and everyone of xxxx class pretty much did the same thing. It was a simpler game.
What if we prove sexuality is genetic. Does that this would prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation?
What about other issues -- such as a disposition to being late. Or having trouble socializing with others because of a genetic psychological problem? Is the bill that far reaching? If we can prove some trait that would otherwise cost us a job is "genetic" we get it anyway?
In some states, the laws concerning termination are different. Here in Tennessee, anyone can fire anyone for just about anything. You're right, it's very, very hard to prove it was because of reason x and not reason y. I know I could get fired for a lot of things if my boss wanted to get rid of me. I'm not a model employee: I'm late a lot, I don't meet my deadlines always, and I spend a lot of time beating around the bush. On the flipside, they're getting the services I offer to a much cheaper price than they could otherwise. I also don't have enough experience/education to be hired in doing what I'm doing now. They pulled me off the front desk as receptionist to give me this job, because they realized it would be a good deal for all parties.
For a small (20 employees), familial company like the one I work for, however, I'm the ideal employee: I get the job done well enough, and everyone there likes me. I fit in. It would take a lot, but if I made my boss unhappy with me, there are plenty of legitimate reasons there to fire me. I'm sure it's the case with most people who don't work for a company that hates them.
The "safety net" provided by unemployment doesn't always catch everyone. And if you quit your job, for ethical reasons or otherwise, I don't think you're eligible for unemployment.
I just have to wonder if you've ever went to bed hungry.
Ethics is further down the list of things to be true to than survival. Especially since we're talking about something as abstract as violating a copyright. No babies are being eaten, and no Nazis are riding dinosaurs. Choosing to to honor IP laws that are themselves ethically questionable over one's own survival is not something I expect anyone to do, regardless of the law. Maybe he has kids to feed. Maybe he lives paycheck to paycheck. There are a lot of reasons he might not be able to just quit.
I think anyone who's ever gone to bed hungry would totally appreciate that.
So getting the zero day FLAC rip of the CD from TPB or *torrent should be capitalism at it's finest, eh? I can find a way to get without paying for it, so I should be able to because I'm so clever.
Time is a much more scarce resource for me than money
Must be nice.
I build my own machines because I can usually only afford to get it a part at a time, and so I can overclock a relatively cheap part to perform at the level of a relatively expensive part.
I don't think that's quite fair. The RIAA, MPAA, etc., are in the business of litigation, and seek to win in court. That's about all they care about. Everyone already hates them, but it doesn't matter because the law works whether you like it or not.
With Microsoft, they're about sales. So they're going to do whatever they can to get sales. Making a product people want to buy is close to the top of the list of how to get sales. Granted, Microsoft is a monopolist, so it's by far not their only strategy, or perhaps not even their main strategy. It's still an important part of their business model, though. I think Vista is going to be a stumble for them, unless the upcoming service pack changes the OS in a significant way (like SP2 for XP). Either they'll fix a lot of the problems people have with it, or they'll quickly develop the next windows, and Vista will turn into an ME. I do hope the misstep gives other OS's an opportunity to increase market share.
Remember, in Linux, everything is a file and the boot process is very clearly defined. If something is running on your machine, you can find what it is and why it is running.
Everything is clearly defined in Windows, too.
Unfortunately, average joe user isn't going to know where to look in Linux or Windows. It's not a problem that can be easily solved. You've got a long list of things that need to run on either OS, that joe user isn't going to understand the significance of. He's never going to be able to pick through a big list and know what to let run and what to deny, even if it were painfully simple to access such a list.
Myspace hasn't been cool for a while, I don't think. It's more like a necessary evil. Everyone admits it sucks, no one really likes it, all the cool people have it, and you're forced into using it because it's what all your friends are on. Kinda like AOL circa 1997. They they added AIM, which still sucked, but let you use your own ISP. ICQ was way better then, but it failed (I think largely due to the fact that AOL bought Mirabilis). I'm not sure what ICQ is like anymore, but it doesn't matter, because no one uses it.
But letting the "free market" handle it is suicide. You'd end up with multiple "tiers" of schools.
The public education system already has that, along with every other public "service". In rich areas, the schools are better, the roads are better, police services are better -- you name it, and it's better in a rich neighborhood than in a poor one. It's particularly obvious where I'm from, because one of the richest counties is right next to one of the poorest.
It's easy to understand why, though. It's because the rich counties have more tax dollars to spend in addition to the state/federal funds they receive.
Totally. I work for a small company doing basically all their IT stuff, and I'm working way more than I thought I would be when I agreed to my salary. I don't think a large corporation would expect that of me. OTOH, I do love what I do. I just wish I could do less of it.
Isn't something like this already happening in some video games? I think it's a great idea. I'm a lot more likely to want to drink a coke if Captain Picard drinks one than if some random person sings a poorly-written piece of music.
Slashdot Mirror
How about I send them a penny in the mail for the work? Then it's not for free. I say that because I think many feel that, relatively speaking, that's how big business collectively compensates the hard work of peons. And I do mean hard work. Like, back-breaking work. I don't really think that sitting back and making money simply by investing is "hard work", but the richest people get by just by doing that.
I think of more people had more disposable income, they'd see more sales. I think that Johnny Minimum Wage should be able to enjoy art without having to choose between licensing fees or rent.
I've signed mine again and again, with a sharpie. It always comes off. It's been the case for virtually every "sign strip" I've ever seen on a credit card.
I agree. Had I seen the ad, I would have clicked it just out of curiosity. Just as if I saw a sign saying "ENTER HERE TO GET BEATEN WITH A BALL BAT" above some business downtown, I'd have to peek in just to see what was up.
Two things:
1) Sodas use High Fructose Corn Syrup, not sugar. Sugar would be a lot better! Also, diet sodas have a HUGE market.
2) Caffeine has a number of beneficial effects on the body.
If it were passed by unanimous vote, it wouldn't have mattered whether or not he vetoed it. You only need 2/3rd's support to pass a bill over a veto.
The separation of powers is referring to the branches of government: legislative, judicial, and executive. No matter how efficient a single branch is, it can't circumvent the checks and balances but on it by the other branches. So having three or four organizations that are all part of, say, the executive branch that all do the same thing is a waste. There's no benefit there. On the contrary, having to have all three branches approve of something is a very smart thing. Congress passes laws, but the president can veto it, or a judge could rule the law unconstitutional. For the different "departments", congress has to approve their budgets -- with whatever provisions they want to put in -- and all they actions are still subject to the scrutiny of constitution by way of the judicial branch.
So in other words, even with a totally efficient, effective government, all three branches would still have to agree on a course of action for it to happen, and that includes sending millions to their deaths.
My thoughts exactly. I played UO back then. I wanted to play it because I loved the Ultima series. Boy was I surprised to find how different the gameplay was. I actually left OSI for the "player shards" of the day, mostly because of the PK'ing. Once they added Trammel, I came back to UO. I eventually left again and went back to player servers that were strongly roleplay-focused (like the original games.)
It wasn't the dying, it was the looting, really. It just pretty much sucks all around to work days or weeks for something, only to have it all snatched away because someone killed you. With WoW, I don't have to worry about all that.
I have a couple friends who played on the player servers with me who now play WoW, and we both sit there and sigh, saying how fun it was, and how much we miss UO. We enjoyed the custom things, like working on craft skills. Crafting in WoW is a big joke compared to what it was in UO.
Ah, but I'm digressing... Anyway, I agree with you, I don't think Trammel killed UO. I think EQ appealed to a lot of people because it was 3D, and had fewer options. Unlike the completely open-ended UO, where you could make your character completely useless, in EQ you had a class, and everyone of xxxx class pretty much did the same thing. It was a simpler game.
What if we prove sexuality is genetic. Does that this would prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation?
What about other issues -- such as a disposition to being late. Or having trouble socializing with others because of a genetic psychological problem? Is the bill that far reaching? If we can prove some trait that would otherwise cost us a job is "genetic" we get it anyway?
In some states, the laws concerning termination are different. Here in Tennessee, anyone can fire anyone for just about anything. You're right, it's very, very hard to prove it was because of reason x and not reason y. I know I could get fired for a lot of things if my boss wanted to get rid of me. I'm not a model employee: I'm late a lot, I don't meet my deadlines always, and I spend a lot of time beating around the bush. On the flipside, they're getting the services I offer to a much cheaper price than they could otherwise. I also don't have enough experience/education to be hired in doing what I'm doing now. They pulled me off the front desk as receptionist to give me this job, because they realized it would be a good deal for all parties.
For a small (20 employees), familial company like the one I work for, however, I'm the ideal employee: I get the job done well enough, and everyone there likes me. I fit in. It would take a lot, but if I made my boss unhappy with me, there are plenty of legitimate reasons there to fire me. I'm sure it's the case with most people who don't work for a company that hates them.
The "safety net" provided by unemployment doesn't always catch everyone. And if you quit your job, for ethical reasons or otherwise, I don't think you're eligible for unemployment.
And let his children go hungry while he litigates?
I just have to wonder if you've ever went to bed hungry.
Ethics is further down the list of things to be true to than survival. Especially since we're talking about something as abstract as violating a copyright. No babies are being eaten, and no Nazis are riding dinosaurs. Choosing to to honor IP laws that are themselves ethically questionable over one's own survival is not something I expect anyone to do, regardless of the law. Maybe he has kids to feed. Maybe he lives paycheck to paycheck. There are a lot of reasons he might not be able to just quit.
I think anyone who's ever gone to bed hungry would totally appreciate that.
So getting the zero day FLAC rip of the CD from TPB or *torrent should be capitalism at it's finest, eh? I can find a way to get without paying for it, so I should be able to because I'm so clever.
Must be nice.
I build my own machines because I can usually only afford to get it a part at a time, and so I can overclock a relatively cheap part to perform at the level of a relatively expensive part.
I don't think that's quite fair. The RIAA, MPAA, etc., are in the business of litigation, and seek to win in court. That's about all they care about. Everyone already hates them, but it doesn't matter because the law works whether you like it or not.
With Microsoft, they're about sales. So they're going to do whatever they can to get sales. Making a product people want to buy is close to the top of the list of how to get sales. Granted, Microsoft is a monopolist, so it's by far not their only strategy, or perhaps not even their main strategy. It's still an important part of their business model, though. I think Vista is going to be a stumble for them, unless the upcoming service pack changes the OS in a significant way (like SP2 for XP). Either they'll fix a lot of the problems people have with it, or they'll quickly develop the next windows, and Vista will turn into an ME. I do hope the misstep gives other OS's an opportunity to increase market share.
Everything is clearly defined in Windows, too.
Unfortunately, average joe user isn't going to know where to look in Linux or Windows. It's not a problem that can be easily solved. You've got a long list of things that need to run on either OS, that joe user isn't going to understand the significance of. He's never going to be able to pick through a big list and know what to let run and what to deny, even if it were painfully simple to access such a list.
Then your parents must have been rather selfish indeed, for your attitude is certainly one absent careful rearing.
Myspace hasn't been cool for a while, I don't think. It's more like a necessary evil. Everyone admits it sucks, no one really likes it, all the cool people have it, and you're forced into using it because it's what all your friends are on. Kinda like AOL circa 1997. They they added AIM, which still sucked, but let you use your own ISP. ICQ was way better then, but it failed (I think largely due to the fact that AOL bought Mirabilis). I'm not sure what ICQ is like anymore, but it doesn't matter, because no one uses it.
But letting the "free market" handle it is suicide. You'd end up with multiple "tiers" of schools.
The public education system already has that, along with every other public "service". In rich areas, the schools are better, the roads are better, police services are better -- you name it, and it's better in a rich neighborhood than in a poor one. It's particularly obvious where I'm from, because one of the richest counties is right next to one of the poorest.
It's easy to understand why, though. It's because the rich counties have more tax dollars to spend in addition to the state/federal funds they receive.
So it's illegal for gay people not to swap up their meals?
And all the facts about Chuck Norris.
The entirety of the world's useful knowledge... and most of its useless.
Totally. I work for a small company doing basically all their IT stuff, and I'm working way more than I thought I would be when I agreed to my salary. I don't think a large corporation would expect that of me. OTOH, I do love what I do. I just wish I could do less of it.
Isn't something like this already happening in some video games? I think it's a great idea. I'm a lot more likely to want to drink a coke if Captain Picard drinks one than if some random person sings a poorly-written piece of music.