Sure it is. Whether it's wholesale, retail, or a private sale, the buyer and seller have to agree on a price. If I'm in the market for a car, I can ask the dealer how much they want for it or I can tell the dealer how much I'm willing to spend. Either way we have to agree on a price or the deal doesn't go through. What's the difference which party names that price first?
You're talking about marriage. ShooterNeo was likely referring to a dating relationship, when the woman often has the upper hand. Man pursues woman, man must conciliate woman.
Or perhaps a separate article for the armchair automotive engineers, so the Ford engineers have a handy reference for everything they failed to consider before proposing such a system.
the NIMBY folks refusing to allow wind farms to be built near them
tidal power is an option... but that would be a tourism nightmare: there's tons of dive sites in California that attract divers from around the world, myself included
I think you've demonstrated that we're all "NIMBY folks" in some form or another. You dive, so you recognize the value of preserving dive sites. The folks who object to wind farms surely have their own reasons that many of us just don't see or understand. Ditto for the cohorts opposed to hydro or nuclear.
The USCG doesn't care whether Syfert folds, they just want to discourage other attorneys from offering the same type of legal assistance. Despite the outcome of this suit, the next guy who thinks about offering $20 self-representation instruction packets will have one more cost to consider when assessing the profitability of that product -- the cost and hassle of being sued (successfully or not) by the USCG.
We know very well what our elected leaders allow -- we're just too lazy to do anything about it until a very public disaster occurs, at which point we (and our elected leaders) will overreact.
What's wrong with that? I don't see how computer-based communication is inherently less personal than letters or phone calls. Perhaps you're more comfortable with the latter methods, but that's a personal preference.
it should be pretty simple to stamp out a TI-83(or 89, the hardware doesn't exactly differ wildly) for absolute peanuts, not $100 a pop.
The cost isn't in the components, it's in putting them together, distributing the product, and marketing the product. Those costs the same whether you're using 1990 tech or 2010 tech. It's no different than paying $0.85 for a 12-ounce can of Coke and $1.25 for a two-liter bottle containing significantly more product -- each one cost about the same to produce.
Forming the red-neck militia and stocking up on canned bacon isn't the way to go about changing it. We have laws. We have law makers. Getting one to change the other is the way. Oh, you can't get rid of your local politician because everyone else votes for him? Well, that doesn't give you the right skip the democratic process just because you don't like the results. "It's not tyranny when I do it" just doesn't cut it.
Um, you do know how the United States became an independent country, no? I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether the founding fathers should have fought it out in Parliament instead of on the battlefield the Revolutionary War, but their choice WAS the foundation of the country.
An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:
...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
What is the price, exactly? Each of the customers you've described upgraded when it became necessary. Yes, it cost them money, but it would easily have cost them MORE money to have made incremental upgrades all along for no other reason than "staying current."
Stick to it no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT. You see a huge saving? Look at your list and if it isn't on there, do NOT buy it.
That's an awfully naive approach to shopping. Let's say I just bought laundry detergent last week. I don't put that on my list. Wow! 50% laundry detergent today! Aw shucks, can't buy any -- it's not on my list.
This.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with my high school's head chef ("cook"?) after a special event dinner. He had prepared an excellent meal of restaurant quality in the cafeteria, and I commented, "if only you had time to do this during the school day!" He replied that it wasn't an issue of time, but one of cost. He said he could prepare healthy, restaurant quality meals every day if only he had the budget for it.
This way of thinking is why we have more laws than anyone can keep track of. Do you really want to live in a society where the goal of the legal system is to completely and fully represent an "ideal" system of ethics? Perhaps the lunch lady gabbing about what your 5-year-old has for lunch is a bad example (anecdotal observations of this data are probably less than worthless), but in general should we really justify an activity by pointing out that there is no law against it (or excuse lack of an action by pointing out that there is no law obligating the action)?
Main Entry: 1American
Pronunciation: \-mer--kn, -mr-, -me-r-\
Function: noun
Date: 1568
1 : an American Indian of North America or South America
2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America 3 : a citizen of the United States
4 : american english
Sense 4 is a particularly scary development, however.
There's a significant difference between regulating net neutrality and breaking up the whole freaking company. Breaking up an ISP would likely be met with a helluva lot more criticism from ISPs than imposing a few regs that limit the ISPs ability to tweak their profit margin. Rightfully so, IMHO. The monopoly police (Department of Justice) missed their chance when they rubberstamped the competition-eliminating merger approvals to begin with -- they shouldn't get to say "oops, our bad, we're breaking you up" years after a merger is settled.
I've noticed that as I get older I can relate more and more to people who just want things to work. It was one thing to dick around with a shell script for 20 hours in desktop support to automate something that would have taken me only 2 hours to do manually (fully admitting that the bulk of the value was in the learning experience), but now that my time is valuable (to both me and the people paying me) I like to get on with what I'm supposed to be doing. When shit breaks and it isn't my job to fix it, I'm now very likely to hand the problem off to whomever does have the job of fixing it. There's only so much time available, and if I dig into everything that looks cool I'll forever be jack of all trades, master of none. OTOH, maybe I've just become jaded.
Certainly don't mean to criticize the hacker spirit, only to give some perspective for "wanting it to work." I'll bet there are several things these teens care about the elegance (or cruft) of -- but none of them happen to be the net.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it is. Whether it's wholesale, retail, or a private sale, the buyer and seller have to agree on a price. If I'm in the market for a car, I can ask the dealer how much they want for it or I can tell the dealer how much I'm willing to spend. Either way we have to agree on a price or the deal doesn't go through. What's the difference which party names that price first?
You're talking about marriage. ShooterNeo was likely referring to a dating relationship, when the woman often has the upper hand. Man pursues woman, man must conciliate woman.
Or perhaps a separate article for the armchair automotive engineers, so the Ford engineers have a handy reference for everything they failed to consider before proposing such a system.
That makes no fucking sense. None whatsoever.
Agreed. Looks like opportunism to me.
For their 0.3 billion, American taxpayers have access to 4G service that wasn't available before.
the NIMBY folks refusing to allow wind farms to be built near them
tidal power is an option... but that would be a tourism nightmare: there's tons of dive sites in California that attract divers from around the world, myself included
I think you've demonstrated that we're all "NIMBY folks" in some form or another. You dive, so you recognize the value of preserving dive sites. The folks who object to wind farms surely have their own reasons that many of us just don't see or understand. Ditto for the cohorts opposed to hydro or nuclear.
The USCG doesn't care whether Syfert folds, they just want to discourage other attorneys from offering the same type of legal assistance. Despite the outcome of this suit, the next guy who thinks about offering $20 self-representation instruction packets will have one more cost to consider when assessing the profitability of that product -- the cost and hassle of being sued (successfully or not) by the USCG.
We know very well what our elected leaders allow -- we're just too lazy to do anything about it until a very public disaster occurs, at which point we (and our elected leaders) will overreact.
Well, nobody sends serious data without good encryption
Just like no one ever keeps important data without good backups.
computer maintained relationships
What's wrong with that? I don't see how computer-based communication is inherently less personal than letters or phone calls. Perhaps you're more comfortable with the latter methods, but that's a personal preference.
Of course. No one votes for a candidate whom the media marginalizes.
it should be pretty simple to stamp out a TI-83(or 89, the hardware doesn't exactly differ wildly) for absolute peanuts, not $100 a pop.
The cost isn't in the components, it's in putting them together, distributing the product, and marketing the product. Those costs the same whether you're using 1990 tech or 2010 tech. It's no different than paying $0.85 for a 12-ounce can of Coke and $1.25 for a two-liter bottle containing significantly more product -- each one cost about the same to produce.
Forming the red-neck militia and stocking up on canned bacon isn't the way to go about changing it. We have laws. We have law makers. Getting one to change the other is the way. Oh, you can't get rid of your local politician because everyone else votes for him? Well, that doesn't give you the right skip the democratic process just because you don't like the results. "It's not tyranny when I do it" just doesn't cut it.
Um, you do know how the United States became an independent country, no? I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether the founding fathers should have fought it out in Parliament instead of on the battlefield the Revolutionary War, but their choice WAS the foundation of the country.
An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:
Or pay the price.
What is the price, exactly? Each of the customers you've described upgraded when it became necessary. Yes, it cost them money, but it would easily have cost them MORE money to have made incremental upgrades all along for no other reason than "staying current."
Stick to it no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT. You see a huge saving? Look at your list and if it isn't on there, do NOT buy it.
That's an awfully naive approach to shopping. Let's say I just bought laundry detergent last week. I don't put that on my list. Wow! 50% laundry detergent today! Aw shucks, can't buy any -- it's not on my list.
This. Reminds me of a conversation I had with my high school's head chef ("cook"?) after a special event dinner. He had prepared an excellent meal of restaurant quality in the cafeteria, and I commented, "if only you had time to do this during the school day!" He replied that it wasn't an issue of time, but one of cost. He said he could prepare healthy, restaurant quality meals every day if only he had the budget for it.
she's not legally bound to respect your privacy
This way of thinking is why we have more laws than anyone can keep track of. Do you really want to live in a society where the goal of the legal system is to completely and fully represent an "ideal" system of ethics? Perhaps the lunch lady gabbing about what your 5-year-old has for lunch is a bad example (anecdotal observations of this data are probably less than worthless), but in general should we really justify an activity by pointing out that there is no law against it (or excuse lack of an action by pointing out that there is no law obligating the action)?
just download it all every now and again via the POP3 interface and burn it/keep it locally
The only problem with that is you lose all of your tags/labels. All you manage to download is a TON of unsorted email.
See sense 3:
Main Entry: 1American
Pronunciation: \-mer--kn, -mr-, -me-r-\
Function: noun
Date: 1568
1 : an American Indian of North America or South America
2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America
3 : a citizen of the United States
4 : american english
Sense 4 is a particularly scary development, however.
You and I define appropriate salary a lot differently I think.
Who the hell are you to tell anyone what they should earn annually? You're happy with less than $75k/year so that's more than enough for anyone?
I doubt that much innovation ever followed the phrase "perfectly adequate."
There's a significant difference between regulating net neutrality and breaking up the whole freaking company. Breaking up an ISP would likely be met with a helluva lot more criticism from ISPs than imposing a few regs that limit the ISPs ability to tweak their profit margin. Rightfully so, IMHO. The monopoly police (Department of Justice) missed their chance when they rubberstamped the competition-eliminating merger approvals to begin with -- they shouldn't get to say "oops, our bad, we're breaking you up" years after a merger is settled.
I've noticed that as I get older I can relate more and more to people who just want things to work. It was one thing to dick around with a shell script for 20 hours in desktop support to automate something that would have taken me only 2 hours to do manually (fully admitting that the bulk of the value was in the learning experience), but now that my time is valuable (to both me and the people paying me) I like to get on with what I'm supposed to be doing. When shit breaks and it isn't my job to fix it, I'm now very likely to hand the problem off to whomever does have the job of fixing it. There's only so much time available, and if I dig into everything that looks cool I'll forever be jack of all trades, master of none. OTOH, maybe I've just become jaded.
Certainly don't mean to criticize the hacker spirit, only to give some perspective for "wanting it to work." I'll bet there are several things these teens care about the elegance (or cruft) of -- but none of them happen to be the net.
I could probably buy ten Hundai sedans for the price of a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean I would be satisfied with any of them.
I suspect they meant "heretofore undetected." As in, the sysadmins didn't catch it but the security consultants did.