Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Sanders amazes me (Score 2) 243

by circletimessquare (#49603599) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

plenty of those wealthy only get their wealth by warping the laws of the land to bring more wealth in their direction. we're not talking about hard working small business owners here, we're talking about parasites

additionally, i am not sure why we should worry about these "patriotic americans" fleeing the country being that doing so would give us more leverage to seize the means of their ill gotten gains, which is the real problem

so good fucking riddance should they flee

Comment: Re:Sanders amazes me (Score 1) 243

by circletimessquare (#49603269) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

there's a certain kind of american who thinks "socialist" means "communist totalitarianism"

it's a kneejerk pavlovian response from cold war era propaganda without any thought education or historical awareness

i'm not a socialist and i can think of problems with socialism. but at least i can talk about the concept on its merits and lack thereof, rather than being a blind moron as to what the word really means and substituting ignorance from an expired era, the cold war, when considering the word emptily, rather than the real ideology the word actually represents

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 0, Troll) 275

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

misandry exists and is real

but it is tiny compared to the systemic misogyny in the power structures and social norms in jobs and schools, especially STEM jobs and schools

so to ask for the false balance with the esoteric minor misandry, when examining the very strong and very real misogyny, is yet another example of someone, in this case you, just not fucking getting it, and being out of touch with the reality of pervasive misogyny

you are out of touch with reality

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 0, Troll) 275

no, wrong

women suffer from sexism far more than men in general society, and especially in STEM careers/ academia

this is actual reality

it's like says racism against whites by blacks balances racism against blacks by whites. completely ignoring history and reality of who actually suffers far, far worse effects

and of course there is misandry in this world, that's real, that exists

but it's the misogyny that is far, far more worse and embedded in social norms and power structures in jobs and schools, especially in STEM jobs and scholarly pursuits

that's reality. if you don't agree with that or understand that, you don't understand reality

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 1, Insightful) 275

the point is the bias is real and serious. if ridiculous drama like that reaction to the guy's t shirt exists, this is minor sideshow crap compared to the very real, very serious, very unfunny sexism

but in certain minds, the blowback over a t shirt is the "real" issue, and the actual sexism is unnoticed and invisible, or a reason to make jokes, on a topic which is not funny

revealing the bias and prejudice to be very real

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 0, Troll) 275

you are modded funny, and make a joke, when men ARE privileged

as proven by the story you are commenting other

yet everyone is laughing

so the problem is real, because everyone thinks the subject is a joke

it's like a story showing racism's bad effects, and people make racist jokes underneath

unexamined prejudice is alive and well in the slashdot comments

Comment: Re:K Bye. (Score 1) 222

by circletimessquare (#49596711) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

The *industry* doesn't care, since a lack of streaming just means they can go back to making sales on CDs.

that will never happen again. customers will share files online

but in your sentence is exactly the stupidity that shows why the music industry is dying. for not embracing the technology where their customers are

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 0) 222

by circletimessquare (#49593177) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

people are poor and don't have time for a hassle and want to listen to music right now for free. if you yell at them this is wrong, they won't care: they want to listen to music. hardly a grave moral transgression

so they do. because they can. because the internet allows for myriad ways to share files

so what you are left with is a classic situation in human history: new technology changes the balance of power and the old way of doing things is thrown out. let the old guard grimaces and sputters with rage. who cares?

in the future, recorded music will be nothing but free advertising for the artist. the artist gets his income from live shows, ancillary items, advertising, etc. this crazy arrangement used to function with an esoteric strange technology called "radio": music for free, supported by ads, and artists get exposure to make money in other ways. so we're hardly in weird new territory here

is it written somewhere in the bible or the quran that making money off of recorded music is some sort of basic human right? no, there is merely a legal convention from the last one hundred years only, when recorded music existed on physical medium. for thousands of years before that, and now forever more from this century on, you make money form live performance, patronage, ads, ancillary revenue, etc.

idiots gnashing their teeth over a hollow legal arrangement based on a technology that has been leapfrogged don't mean anything except an example of how people can be clueless

the words you say are in defense of a temporary power arrangement, physical media, that is almost done completely fading away

Comment: Re:K Bye. (Score 3, Insightful) 222

by circletimessquare (#49593077) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

if the music companies were smart, they'd continue to operate the site

"we shut down the pirates! that will end this threat once and for all!"

(two weeks later, 20 more sites)

it should have been:

"this is a popular site. now that we own it we will modify it slightly so that we derive some revenue from it while not pissing off the listeners, thus gracefully transitioning to a new distribution model that listeners desire"

Comment: Re:standard operating procedure for monopolies (Score 1) 179

no one has the money to rebuild an entire redundant fiber rollout

you would need to sink billions to just begin to compete, with no guarantee of a profit (and less with predatory pricing shutting you down)

it's called a natural monopoly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

the financial barrier to market entry is too high

nevermind no one wants their streets constantly torn up to lay competing fiber even if there were multiple googles willing to try to compete as just a sideshow because they have a large cushion of billions in the bank

the problem you identify as the government is actually the corporations: they corrupt and bribe local and state officials

how is that the corporation corrupting your government is the fault of government? you want to remove the corruption and corruptors, not remove the regulations and the government. those are the only things protecting you

this is the problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

so you want to pass laws against that, and enforce them. i didn't say that was easy, but it's certainly a hell of a lot better than no government regulation and complete uncontrollable and unstoppable oligopolies that rip customers even more and abuse start up competitors even more, with no accountability or redress (since you removed the government regulation)

if you like capitalism, and i do, what you do is you have the government own the fiber, and maintain it. then various companies lease fractional portions of the cable and offer various services. that pays for the infrastructure. kind of like how we handle wireless spectrum: auction off portions of it. that's how you have fair competition

but that fair competition only works with a platform provided by the government

Comment: Re:standard operating procedure for monopolies (Score 1) 179

it's like dealing with a creationist or an antivaxxer

simple basic history and well-established economic facts just don't mean a damn thing to you deluded fucks. it's like the religious tenets of some low iq cult: just keep asserting a simpleminded wrong belief, contrary to all facts and history, and you can continue in your quasireligious moronic bullshit

1. predatory pricing is real

2.. predatory pricing happens constantly

3. only government regulations can catch it and punish it

these are all ironclad bedrock truths of the world you live in

predatory pricing is being used here to drain the upstart fiber service of customers

now cover your eyes and ears like a pridefully ignorant asshole, right?

learn you dumb fuck:

http://www.google.com/#q=preda...

that's a random dip into current news. predatory pricing examples everywhere. tomorrow there will be dozens of new examples

what did you say?

The term predatory pricing comes from the time when massive consolidation of railroads and oil was driving down prices. Smaller competitors sought reasons to stop it. The price increases never came, of course. Same as computers today.

you're a moron

not baseless insult. an objective description of the quality of your thought

what you wrote is hilariously solidly wrong. you blindly and blatantly deny basic facts of a subject matter you inject your puerile ignorance into

you're deluded uneducated wackjob and if you had any shame you would stop lying and making yourself look like a feeble crackpot to anyone who actually understands the simple basics of this subject matter

just shut the fuck up about what you clearly do not understand you dumb ignorant fuck

Comment: standard operating procedure for monopolies (Score 3, Insightful) 179

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Predatory pricing (also undercutting) is a pricing strategy where a product or service is set at a very low price, intending to drive competitors out of the market, or create barriers to entry for potential new competitors. If competitors or potential competitors cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business or choose not to enter the business. The predatory merchant then has fewer competitors or is even a de facto monopoly.

In many countries predatory pricing is considered anti-competitive and is illegal under competition laws. It is usually difficult to prove that prices dropped because of deliberate predatory pricing rather than legitimate price competition. In any case, competitors may be driven out of the market before the case is ever heard.

many morons think markets don't need government regulation. that they "self-regulate"

predatory pricing must be an example of what they are talking about i suppose

Seen on a button at an SF Convention: Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1990-1951.

Working...