Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Obama (Score -1, Flamebait) 211

Well I got my free healthcare so sucks to be you! haha!

Sorry kiddos, you can't have everything. Politics is about "choosing between given choices", not "getting what you want".

And that means making tradeoffs.

Is free healthcare more important than Patent reform? Because fuck patent reform if that means I lose free healthcare.

Do you think you would have been better off under a McCain/Palin administration? Because I got news for you if you think they would have given what you wanted in Copyrights, Patents, and Guantanamo Bay.

Again: politics is about choosing between given choices. It is NOT about getting what you want.

Very few people get that.

Comment: Advertising is very influential (Score 0) 254

by mozumder (#47300203) Attached to: The Bursting Social Media Advertising Bubble

Are you an idiot? Because you must be, since advertising is very influential. The entire global economy revolves around it. Every single dollar revolves around some form of advertising.

It must cause your head to explode when you find out people actually BUY newspapers and magazines BECAUSE of the ads, or when they watch random teams in the Superbowl BECAUSE of the ads...

Don't be a douchebag libertarian narcissist that thinks their lives are above influence by others.

"I am so awesome that advertising has no effect on me."

Introverted libertarian narcissist geeks such as yourself are the worst. Your narcissism prevents you from understanding how the real world operates, where advertising is actually DESIRED, because people are interested in other people's lives, and becoming like those people.

Unlike you, where you're stuck comfortably in the awesomeness of your own life, but you don't know about your low social status, or complain about how other awesome people are actually somehow not awesome? hah.

Given all that, social media advertising itself is a terrible concept, because it goes against the basic nature of how advertising and marketing and marketing works. Mainly, the rule of life that says people want to associate themselves with people more powerful than themselves.

Why would a brand place their ad next to a picture of your friend from high-school throwing up, when they can place their brand's ad next to an awesome picture of Kate Moss in Vogue? Or next to an awesome sports figure on ESPN (the most valuable media property in the world)?

If you understand that, THEN you understand how advertising really works, and how influential it actually is. Understand this rule, and you can pretty much make any brand.

Of course, the libertarian narcissist douchebag doesn't understand that other people are higher power than them (because obviously their narcissistic disorder causes them to think they're just too awesome themselves) so this basic fundamental of advertising flies right over their head.

Comment: Re:Good! (Score -1) 619

by mozumder (#47277077) Attached to: 2 US Senators Propose 12-Cent Gas Tax Increase

New taxes are never the solution. Ever.

Taxes are the costs of living in a society. I own this country, and I don't want you to live in this country without paying me something for it.

That is because humans are territorial animals. I have no desire to allow you to live in this country for free, when I can take all the resources of this land for myself. If you want to live on this land, you're going to have to pay me, and the rest of us citizenry. Otherwise, GTFO.

Taxes are the tribute you, as a citizen, pay to other citizens like me, for allowing you to live in this country.

This is the punishment you get for having little power in life. Sucks, but your libertarian philosophy mistakenly led you to believe you had more power than you thought you had. This is why adults never teach their children to be libertarian, because that is the incorrect view of life.

Remember, life isn't free. People live under the power of others, and no one is interested in allowing you freedom to live your life on your own. You will always have to live your life under the rule of someone else, because someone else controls the land you live in.

If you don't like that system you will have to find a way to rule over the land you wish to live on without any other rulers over it. Maybe you can try your hand at becoming a Somali warlord?

Comment: Mods need to get over their sensitivities (Score -1) 411

by mozumder (#47149305) Attached to: Apple WWDC 2014: Tim Cook Unveils Yosemite

If you think this is 'flame bait' then you really need to get a grip on your narcissism.

The things you think are important aren't important to other people, and you'll have to do a better job of moderating so that you appeal to what other people think are important, instead of what YOU think is important.

So get over your sensitivities, princess.

Comment: Re:what's wrong with public transportation? (Score -1) 190

California has the biggest surplus in nearly a decade.

"bankrupt" is the exact opposite of what you think it means

Since California has so much extra money, what should they pay to build to make sure their infrastructure survives over the long-term?

We have a surplus because us big-government statists voted a big-government statist into power. Us big-government statists are always better at building economies and societies than freedom-loving libertarians.

Had a freedom-loving libertarian been elected, California definitely would be bankrupted, because freedom-loving libertarians are terrible at economic policy, since they don't like to tax people and think people make their own money, which is incorrect. We big-government statists know that government is the source of all money and is the reason people are allowed to make money in the first place.

Never vote for a freedom-loving libertarian, because that's how people become poor.

Always vote for big-government statists if you want to be rich.

And most people don't want to be poor.

Comment: Re:Fight for consumers (Score 0) 211

by mozumder (#47115545) Attached to: Amazon Confirms Hachette Spat Is To "Get a Better Deal"

How is reducing profit to authors a "fight for consumers"?

You do realize that when writers don't get paid, they don't write?

Publishers have to take risks on authors, because only a few authors actually profit a publisher. And when Amazon cuts their margins, they take less risks and do things like eliminate advances and reduce royalties to where they're insignificant. Or they might cut marketing for that author.

And when that happens, that writers you liked starts working at Starbucks instead of writing.

So how does NOT having your book help consumers?

Comment: Re:How is she relevant (Score -1) 255

by mozumder (#47096657) Attached to: Chelsea Clinton At NCWIT: More PE, Less Zuckerberg

Sorry to burst your bubble, but people expect things that are completely unfair, such as how pretty you are, or your family lineage, to be rewarded.

Your work you do in life isn't the only thing that should be rewarded.

Be glad that this intrinsic unfairness exists in life.. it causes you to work harder. The worst thing you can do is to make everyone equal.

The fact that princesses and Kardashians exist is EXACTLY what gives life its meaning. Your work you do in life is nothing without them.

Comment: Re:Why would anyone want it? (Score -1) 254

by mozumder (#47066783) Attached to: 5 Years Later, 'Do Not Track' System Ineffective

No -- that's certainly not why people buy newspapers, except for those people who just want the coupon section (which is generally segregated from the rest of the paper). Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?

People buy the sunday paper because of the ads. The big coupon supplement is the whole reason to buy it.

As for magazines, there are some which clearly seem to be able the ads -- particularly style magazines and such. Mostly it's something to allow people to drool over clothes and other luxury fashion items they can't afford (or could barely afford). But yeah -- SOME magazines seem to be bought for the ads.

Not just some, MOST magazines that have a growth business model exist because people buy them for the ads.

The ones that people don't buy for the ads, like news magazines, are the only ones that are dying. Look at the MPA reports on magazine circulation numbers by years, and you can spot the trend. The ones people buy for the ads, like fashion, home shit, etc.. are all actually growing.

In sum -- yeah, sometimes people buy things that have ads when they want to see ads. But on the internet, people often just want to get tasks done too -- whether it's sending email via webmail or interacting on Facebook or whatever. I have NEVER EVER in my life heard a person say, "Gee -- I really love how Facebook keeps adding more ads to my newsfeed" or "I really wish that my webmail would have more pop-ups to get in my way when I'm trying to read a message."

You're not in the target market for the ads you see, then.

You really should study how people in the real world respond to advertising... they fucking love it. A fashion shopper goes apeshit when they see their favorite Miu Miu shoes go on sale at Net-a-porter. They get so excited that they email their friends about telling them to buy it.

Do you? Of course not, because you are a narcissist libertarian geek. You think you are important, even though you are a lowly geek.

It is only the narcissist libertarian geek that tries to avoid ads. "I'm so important, look at me, I hate advertising because i am more important than advertisers. I am so important that I don't want ads on the website I don't pay to visit! Look at me! WEEE!"

Do you think people watch the Superbowl, the BIGGEST EVENT on television, because of the teams?

It's amazing how little narcissistic libertarian geeks know about real-world social norms. Just amazing.

There's a reason your favorite ad-blockers aren't used by fashion shoppers, aka the majority of the population that prefers to look good with expensive clothes than look like an ugly nerd with no sense of fashion taste and low social status because of their lack of taste.

Comment: Why would anyone want it? (Score -1, Insightful) 254

by mozumder (#47065705) Attached to: 5 Years Later, 'Do Not Track' System Ineffective

Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want.

Do-not-track only means you're going to end up with ads you hate. It's not a "do-not-advertise". It's not going to stop ads at all.

Right now, most geeks think of advertising as bad things, because they hate the ads served to them as geeks are a horrible audience demographic. They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.

Besides, it's the website that decides how they want to treat their audience, not the viewer. The only thing the viewer can/should do is to not visit the website in the first place if they feel their usage rights are violated, and right now, no one is going to miss losing an audience demographic of geeks.

Comment: Re:Not denying something is different from forcing (Score 1, Interesting) 406

by mozumder (#47033763) Attached to: Did Mozilla Have No Choice But To Add DRM To Firefox?

1) DRM is bad.

Did you nerds think your cunning plan all the way through to make this statement?

It's a very democratic thing to say DRM is bad, because it treats information as a free resource, allowing the poor and the weak to gain information. This is why RMS wants information to be free.

But the opposite is actually better: information should NOT be free. There should be costs associated with gaining information.

You can obviously figure out the many reasons why there should be costs for information. But the BEST reason to keep information expensive is so that it maintains an imbalance among people.

Free information allows everyone to be equal. That actually is a TERRIBLE thing, because it treats everyone equally.

But the key thing in life, is that, NO ONE wants to be treated equally. Instead, EVERYONE wants to gain power over others. This is the basic law of life: to gain power over others. You do this in everything you do. You brush your teeth in the morning because you want to be better than the uglies that don't. You get a job because you want to be better than the homeless people that don't. And so on.

Evolution is why this happens. Animals, and you, find mates because you are able to project a gain of power over others.

It's amazing how people say they want equality in life, when they do everything they can to be unequal.

Socially clueless and inept nerds obviously haven't figured this out, as their low social status demonstrates, but the real world is filled with people gaining power over you. There is no such thing as a person that wants to reduce power.

Gaining power is the fundamental meaning of life, as evolution has shown. It is not the content of your character that matters in life. It is your power.

And treating information as a valuable resource, instead of a commodity, is a way to maintain power over others.

And that's something you, and everyone else in the world, wants.

This is why those in power, who control expensive content, want DRM.

I guess maybe in your next life, you will have more power, and you will know why DRM is a good thing. But right now, most people don't want to be treated the same as a homeless person.

The world is not octal despite DEC.