Board members would laugh at you for owning a cell phone? Those dinosaurs.
Your post is stupidly hysterical, you've gone out on a huge limb and decided that because some cell phone companies are pushy, there must be something wrong with cell phones.
I use "Cricket" and it's been a godsend. Their business model is to give everyone unlimited minutes / SMS texting, but limit the non-roaming service range to the local metropolitan area. It's targeted towards people who use their phone a lot but don't leave the city often.
On top of being able to get unlimited service for $45/mo., the best part is that there are no contracts. That's right, you don't have to agree to a 1 or 2 year service period... you pay month-to-month and there's no penalty for discontinuing service.
This might still seem superfluous, but you must understand that I don't pay for a landline telephone... the cell phone is the only phone I'll ever need.
Really, couldn't you hysterically bitch about almost any company in any industry re: how "all they want is the cash out of your pocket?" Of course I think companies realize (at least some of them) that good customer service makes people more willing to take the case out of their pockets.
what I think about reserve requirements is that if you're going to play with trust-based or market-based currency, it ought to be up to you what reserve requirements you personally set as a minimum before doing business in that currency
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Reserve requirements placed upon banks are something different than a margin account.
The point is that we need regulations sometimes. Without reserve requirements placed upon banks we'd be setting ourselves up for another great depression.
Yeah, if it weren't for PC games I'd have no business owning a PC that features a quad-core 2.4ghz AMD Phenom, 8gb of 1066 mhz DDR2 RAM, and a 1gb Radeon 3870x2 PCI-E 2.0 GPU.
Because "each and every time" is only an average of maybe once a year, probably more like once every two years. Figuring out how to make Crysis run in Linux sounds like more of a hassle, to me, than reinstalling windows once in a blue moon. I'm also pretty skeptical of the idea that Linux is "virus-immune," it seems to me that you could fuck up a Linux install just as easily as a Windows install by running a malware-infested executable.
Yeah, you gotta love how decisions using microeconomic reasoning are almost the exact opposite of the decisions one would reach using macroeconomic reasoning. Too bad people in government keep forgetting that their job is to consider the macroeconomic picture...
Yeah, that's true. But sometimes there's only one way to kill malware. It helps if you keep all of your driver/basic application install utilities in a separate folder in your "essential files" group (which should be on a different drive than the operating system). Also, luckily I only have to do it once in a blue moon because, unlike the OP, I don't have any computer-illiterates mucking about with my stuff. Might change if I get married.
We didn't lose out on ANY tax money! The government still dipped its greedy fingers in whatever alternate transactions the consumer made with with $58 billion instead of having spent it on IP
And that's assuming the pirates even had $58 billion to begin with. But yeah, you're totally right. Glad I'm not the only one here who can see the light coming into the cave.
Well, they're just avoiding a whole buttload of cognitive dissonance by making irrational rationalizations. It's a defense mechanism for the weak-minded.
What I meant to say was that total piracy != total # of losses. Frankly speaking, there are people out there who DO want a new blender, but can't spend $$$ to buy one. However, if a new blender was FREE, they'd jump all over it. That's where the additional demand comes from. Yes, piracy is theft, yes, not all pirates are broke and some would pay otherwise, yes, DRM is not an excuse to pirate. Frankly, I'm an amoral, agnostic nihilist, and I don't have to justify anything to myself or anyone else.
But this isn't about who pirates, who doesn't pirate, or whether or not piracy is wrong. We all know it's theft. But the point is that the "$58 billion in economic damages" figure is a sham, a total lie. Everybody who downloaded would not shell out money for the things they downloaded; media is a luxury item, and the demand for luxury is items is highly price elastic.
By the way, if you want an example of a business that is providing something for free and making money at it, check out www.southparkstudios.com. But you're right; companies have to make money somewhere. I never said that. All I said was that if you make something free, more people will partake in it than they would if it cost $10, $5, or even $1. Demand is directly related to price and so the folly of these analysts is assuming that every case of piracy is a "lost sale."
Alright, that's true, technically I should have said piracy != the amount of losses that they are reporting. I didn't edit enough before posting (it is just/. after all). My point still stands, though. And the people quoting those bloated losses are professionals -- I'm just an undergraduate!
From her speech: "Overall, the U.S. economy lost $58 billion in output that would have been realized if piracy had not occurred. In addition, the U.S. lost 373,375 jobs due to piracy, and federal and state governments lose $2.6 billion annually through unrealized tax revenue."
That is total BS. Piracy != losses; most (or at least many) people who pirate would not otherwise purchase the product. She needs to go take Economics 101 and realize that if you make something free (which is what piracy does), the demand is going to skyrocket beyond what it would normally be at any reasonable price level.
Statements like this are dangerous because if people really believe piracy caused $58 billion of damage to the economy, then they will be willing to spend similar sums of money in order to combat piracy.
In fact, maybe she realizes that this is total FUD, and just wants to justify an exorbitant budget for her department in order to "combat piracy."
As I said: where's an economist when you need one?
Agreed. And that new law about S&M porn is pure moralistic censorship with a thin, fabricated "think of the women/children!" justification.
Going after legitimate businesses like kink.com and insex.com is counterproductive to what SHOULD be the real concern: pornography that features nonconsensual acts.
Those kinky porn models enjoy what they do and get paid well for it. In fact, if you check out the 6th preview video for all of the segments featured on www.free-hardcore.com, you'll notice that pretty much every model that does a shoot says they'd like to do it again. Which is probably pretty shocking to all of those censor-happy prudes in government, considering the subject matter and the fact that they themselves are probably not interested in such sex acts. Otherwise they'd have to realize how stupidly ridiculous all of this is.
However it is disruptive and annoying like most Spam. Especially if done en masse. The student needed to consider the ethical and moral issues behind what she did and failed to do so.
I'm sorry, "moral and ethical issues?" Aren't you taking this just a little too seriously?
Knowing how to use a computer to do research and formulate an academic paper are important skills for students; at my university, the library has extensive online databases of scholarly journal articles, and you can do research online much faster than you can at the brick & mortar library itself. Not to mention that access to this database is provided to several universities, and oftentimes you can find things online that you simply couldn't find in your brick & mortar library. This is especially true of recently issued scholarly journals as the library can only get them so fast; they're published online instantly.
Using a computer for other tasks is important as well. Computer science studies aside, many people will need to know how to use spreadsheets (like Excel) in their professional careers; many high schools have classes that teach basic spreadsheet use. Computers can also be substituted for graphing calculators such as the ever-popular TI-83.
And keep in mind that many high schools have computer classes; of course, not everyone takes these classes at the same time, and not everyone takes all of the classes (AP computer science, for instance).
This means that you don't need a 1:1 computer-to-student ratio in order to provide these essential classes; to get everyone in-and-out of their computer-oriented courses, you probably need a much more conservative ratio like 1:10.
If our students are educated on fax machines, filing cabinets and typewriters, they're going to be sorely under-equipped to deal with the challenges their adult life will throw at them. Computers are used in nearly every profession today.
Is the illegality really what stopped you? Or was it your own personal & informed decision? Have you considered the costs and benefits of drug prohibition? We squander hundreds of billions of dollars trying to prevent something that happens anyway, we drive up the prices of goods people are demanding, and put the money in the pockets of violent criminal gangs with no respect for the law. We're literally spending money to stifle our own economy and encourage criminal behavior. How does that make any sense? I wish that someone somewhere in government had enough will to avoid letting their "moral compass" seize hold of their reason.
Wow, I never thought that Wal-Mart would be good for something. But you're right, they hold a ton of clout in negotiations because their chain is so large, and they frequently throw this clout around to force manufacturers into allowing their goods to be sold there on the cheap. I remember reading an old article about how John Deere decided not to sell their tractors in the store, because the price that Wal-Mart was asking for was so low that they'd have to send them sub-quality tractors, and whoever was in charge of making the decision decided not to because they felt that those tractors would undermine the quality and reputation of the brand.
I forget where I read that, but incidentally, if you check out their website, you'll notice that the only John Deere products are toy tractors for children, calendars, and so forth -- no actual tractors or lawn mowers.
Slashdot Mirror
Board members would laugh at you for owning a cell phone? Those dinosaurs.
Your post is stupidly hysterical, you've gone out on a huge limb and decided that because some cell phone companies are pushy, there must be something wrong with cell phones.
I use "Cricket" and it's been a godsend. Their business model is to give everyone unlimited minutes / SMS texting, but limit the non-roaming service range to the local metropolitan area. It's targeted towards people who use their phone a lot but don't leave the city often.
On top of being able to get unlimited service for $45/mo., the best part is that there are no contracts. That's right, you don't have to agree to a 1 or 2 year service period ... you pay month-to-month and there's no penalty for discontinuing service.
This might still seem superfluous, but you must understand that I don't pay for a landline telephone ... the cell phone is the only phone I'll ever need.
Really, couldn't you hysterically bitch about almost any company in any industry re: how "all they want is the cash out of your pocket?" Of course I think companies realize (at least some of them) that good customer service makes people more willing to take the case out of their pockets.
In summary ... man, lay off the crazy pills.
You said it brother.
what I think about reserve requirements is that if you're going to play with trust-based or market-based currency, it ought to be up to you what reserve requirements you personally set as a minimum before doing business in that currency
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Reserve requirements placed upon banks are something different than a margin account.
The point is that we need regulations sometimes. Without reserve requirements placed upon banks we'd be setting ourselves up for another great depression.
Yeah, if it weren't for PC games I'd have no business owning a PC that features a quad-core 2.4ghz AMD Phenom, 8gb of 1066 mhz DDR2 RAM, and a 1gb Radeon 3870x2 PCI-E 2.0 GPU.
Because "each and every time" is only an average of maybe once a year, probably more like once every two years. Figuring out how to make Crysis run in Linux sounds like more of a hassle, to me, than reinstalling windows once in a blue moon. I'm also pretty skeptical of the idea that Linux is "virus-immune," it seems to me that you could fuck up a Linux install just as easily as a Windows install by running a malware-infested executable.
Yeah, you gotta love how decisions using microeconomic reasoning are almost the exact opposite of the decisions one would reach using macroeconomic reasoning. Too bad people in government keep forgetting that their job is to consider the macroeconomic picture ...
Or perhaps he'll devise an alternative form of transportation and save all our dumb asses.
So, how do you feel about reserve requirements placed upon commercial and investment banks?
Yeah, that's true. But sometimes there's only one way to kill malware. It helps if you keep all of your driver/basic application install utilities in a separate folder in your "essential files" group (which should be on a different drive than the operating system). Also, luckily I only have to do it once in a blue moon because, unlike the OP, I don't have any computer-illiterates mucking about with my stuff. Might change if I get married.
It's tenacious grip on my XP install forced me to look for an alternative.
I don't see why you needed an alternative. Just backup your essential files, format your harddrive, re-install Windows, and bam! You're done.
We didn't lose out on ANY tax money! The government still dipped its greedy fingers in whatever alternate transactions the consumer made with with $58 billion instead of having spent it on IP
And that's assuming the pirates even had $58 billion to begin with. But yeah, you're totally right. Glad I'm not the only one here who can see the light coming into the cave.
Well, they're just avoiding a whole buttload of cognitive dissonance by making irrational rationalizations. It's a defense mechanism for the weak-minded.
What I meant to say was that total piracy != total # of losses. Frankly speaking, there are people out there who DO want a new blender, but can't spend $$$ to buy one. However, if a new blender was FREE, they'd jump all over it. That's where the additional demand comes from. Yes, piracy is theft, yes, not all pirates are broke and some would pay otherwise, yes, DRM is not an excuse to pirate. Frankly, I'm an amoral, agnostic nihilist, and I don't have to justify anything to myself or anyone else.
But this isn't about who pirates, who doesn't pirate, or whether or not piracy is wrong. We all know it's theft. But the point is that the "$58 billion in economic damages" figure is a sham, a total lie. Everybody who downloaded would not shell out money for the things they downloaded; media is a luxury item, and the demand for luxury is items is highly price elastic.
By the way, if you want an example of a business that is providing something for free and making money at it, check out www.southparkstudios.com. But you're right; companies have to make money somewhere. I never said that. All I said was that if you make something free, more people will partake in it than they would if it cost $10, $5, or even $1. Demand is directly related to price and so the folly of these analysts is assuming that every case of piracy is a "lost sale."
Alright, that's true, technically I should have said piracy != the amount of losses that they are reporting. I didn't edit enough before posting (it is just /. after all). My point still stands, though. And the people quoting those bloated losses are professionals -- I'm just an undergraduate!
From her speech: "Overall, the U.S. economy lost $58 billion in output that would have been realized if piracy had not occurred. In addition, the U.S. lost 373,375 jobs due to piracy, and federal and state governments lose $2.6 billion annually through unrealized tax revenue."
That is total BS. Piracy != losses; most (or at least many) people who pirate would not otherwise purchase the product. She needs to go take Economics 101 and realize that if you make something free (which is what piracy does), the demand is going to skyrocket beyond what it would normally be at any reasonable price level.
Statements like this are dangerous because if people really believe piracy caused $58 billion of damage to the economy, then they will be willing to spend similar sums of money in order to combat piracy.
In fact, maybe she realizes that this is total FUD, and just wants to justify an exorbitant budget for her department in order to "combat piracy."
As I said: where's an economist when you need one?
Agreed. And that new law about S&M porn is pure moralistic censorship with a thin, fabricated "think of the women/children!" justification.
Going after legitimate businesses like kink.com and insex.com is counterproductive to what SHOULD be the real concern: pornography that features nonconsensual acts.
Those kinky porn models enjoy what they do and get paid well for it. In fact, if you check out the 6th preview video for all of the segments featured on www.free-hardcore.com, you'll notice that pretty much every model that does a shoot says they'd like to do it again. Which is probably pretty shocking to all of those censor-happy prudes in government, considering the subject matter and the fact that they themselves are probably not interested in such sex acts. Otherwise they'd have to realize how stupidly ridiculous all of this is.
That right there should tell you something.
All that tells me is that you don't like Zunes. You never established why.
Besides ... what if his mother gave him that Zune? I mean, if you didn't have an .mp3 player, and somebody gave you a Zune, wouldn't you use it?
Especially considering that it was from your mother?
Tycho put it best.
However it is disruptive and annoying like most Spam. Especially if done en masse. The student needed to consider the ethical and moral issues behind what she did and failed to do so.
I'm sorry, "moral and ethical issues?" Aren't you taking this just a little too seriously?
Or they'll just change their online banking passwords.
Knowing how to use a computer to do research and formulate an academic paper are important skills for students; at my university, the library has extensive online databases of scholarly journal articles, and you can do research online much faster than you can at the brick & mortar library itself. Not to mention that access to this database is provided to several universities, and oftentimes you can find things online that you simply couldn't find in your brick & mortar library. This is especially true of recently issued scholarly journals as the library can only get them so fast; they're published online instantly.
Using a computer for other tasks is important as well. Computer science studies aside, many people will need to know how to use spreadsheets (like Excel) in their professional careers; many high schools have classes that teach basic spreadsheet use. Computers can also be substituted for graphing calculators such as the ever-popular TI-83.
And keep in mind that many high schools have computer classes; of course, not everyone takes these classes at the same time, and not everyone takes all of the classes (AP computer science, for instance).
This means that you don't need a 1:1 computer-to-student ratio in order to provide these essential classes; to get everyone in-and-out of their computer-oriented courses, you probably need a much more conservative ratio like 1:10.
If our students are educated on fax machines, filing cabinets and typewriters, they're going to be sorely under-equipped to deal with the challenges their adult life will throw at them. Computers are used in nearly every profession today.
Is the illegality really what stopped you? Or was it your own personal & informed decision? Have you considered the costs and benefits of drug prohibition? We squander hundreds of billions of dollars trying to prevent something that happens anyway, we drive up the prices of goods people are demanding, and put the money in the pockets of violent criminal gangs with no respect for the law. We're literally spending money to stifle our own economy and encourage criminal behavior. How does that make any sense? I wish that someone somewhere in government had enough will to avoid letting their "moral compass" seize hold of their reason.
But I also realise both me and you are in the minority.
You can say that again. Too bad the grandparent is too bad throwing a self-righteous hissy fit to realize it.
Well, it's true that the article is little more than another way of saying "damn, China is HUGE!"
And you're right, that's just not news at all.
Whoever modded you "flamebait" really squandered their mod point, lol.
Wow, I never thought that Wal-Mart would be good for something. But you're right, they hold a ton of clout in negotiations because their chain is so large, and they frequently throw this clout around to force manufacturers into allowing their goods to be sold there on the cheap. I remember reading an old article about how John Deere decided not to sell their tractors in the store, because the price that Wal-Mart was asking for was so low that they'd have to send them sub-quality tractors, and whoever was in charge of making the decision decided not to because they felt that those tractors would undermine the quality and reputation of the brand.
I forget where I read that, but incidentally, if you check out their website, you'll notice that the only John Deere products are toy tractors for children, calendars, and so forth -- no actual tractors or lawn mowers.
I don't get what's insulting about this. They just said .cn is currently the 2nd most popular ... nobody said it was the first.