Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:They're bums, why keep them around (Score 1) 741

by Tom (#49788521) Attached to: Greece Is Running Out of Money, Cannot Make June IMF Repayment

stronger government regulation and nationalization, your support for large amounts of spending on "education and public services" have been driving politics again and again in German history

Obviously, you are entirely ignorant about recent politics in this country, which copied every neo-conservative idea coming out of US think tanks and added a couple of their own on top of it.

You never learnt the history of social security systems either, or very badly. When Bismarck created the foundations of the social security systems still in effect in Germany, his intention was so right-wing that Republicans would immediately support him as president: He wanted to undercut the growing influence of unions and socialist parties, by creating a stripped-down version of their vision. Now that the working class was not fighting for survival anymore, he could pretend it's a non-issue and catch their votes on other topics.

After WW2, it was the USA that, let's say "strongly encouraged" western Germany and other european countries to adopt what we call "social capitalism", a blend of the cut-throat capitalism of the US and the socialism of the communist countries. A mostly capitalist system with strong social security protections in place. Again the purpose was purely political: America was afraid that especially in war-torn Europe where many people had lost everything, a pure unleashed capitalism with its income gaps and class divides would drive too many people to embrace socialistic ideals, widening the sphere of influence of communist Russia. The purpose was, again, to give people just enough to make the political alternative less interesting.

As for "disastrous results", let's talk about the Wirtschaftswunder and how Germany, #16 in the world by population, became the #1 export nation for many years and has never for the past 60 years not been in the top 3.

Comment: Re:"Annoying ads" (Score 2) 291

by Tom (#49788473) Attached to: Adblock Plus Victorious Again In Court

Actually their acceptable ads

The real kicker (and why I switched to AdBlock Edge a long time ago) is that they ask for 30% revenue share on those acceptable ads, and with that they got too much into bed with the advertisement industry.

Especially given that AdBlock now belongs to a group of advertisement companies, and they whitelist all the ads from their network by default.

They sold out, simple as that, and they fight in court not for the good cause (though that is a side-effect and a very good one) but to protect their revenue stream.

Comment: Re:Out of curiosity (Score 1) 291

by Tom (#49788465) Attached to: Adblock Plus Victorious Again In Court

If you like something you support it, right?

So if you like my home, you should pay me for inviting you?

Outside the crazy world of advertisement, it doesn't work like that. You can offer a good or service for money, or you can offer it for free, those are two very simple choices everybody in the world understands.

Advertisers are trying to have the cake, and eat it. They understand that more people take a free offer. Check what sites run on advertisement. Mostly those where large numbers of customers by themselves are a KPI. Media sites, social networks, such like.
They could easily paywall themselves, but they choose not to, because in their sphere they are more important if they have more visitors. So they lure visitors in with the appearance of free service, but actually it is not for free, because ads. That's a bait-and-switch, if not for the fact that we all know the game.

If you post your newspaper online, I am free to read it. If you try to collect money for it, I am free to ignore you. The same as if you go to the park and make a public performance and then pass a hat around. I can decide to give you money or not, but you don't have a right to my money. If you want to have a right to my money, play in a hall and sell tickets.

Comment: Re:Love it (Score 1) 291

by Tom (#49788415) Attached to: Adblock Plus Victorious Again In Court

There used to be a time when it was easy: .com was for commercial purposes and that's it.

If only we had an organization that manages the TLDs and makes some rules about them... It would be so easy to say that if you have a .com domain you can buy and sell and do whatever you want, and if you have a .org domain you can not.

I would even welcome a seperate non-profit TLD where any and all advertisement is strictly forbidden. I would instantly switch all my domains and if Google gave us an option to prioritize results from that TLD I would turn it up to the highest setting.

Comment: Re:Duh (Score 1) 291

by Tom (#49788379) Attached to: Adblock Plus Victorious Again In Court

I look forward to the day when somebody makes augmented reality glasses that block meatspace advertising like billboards, TVs in airports and bars, logos on clothes, all it. I'll be the first in line.

Only if you bring me a couple, otherwise you'll have to fight me for it.

Every time I have to use the Internet on someone elses non-adblocked computer, I'm shocked and I wonder how people can possibly use this shit at all. And in meast space, it's becoming worse and worse. Since they've started putting ads into toilets, you can't even take a piss anymore without someone staring at you.

Comment: Re:They're bums, why keep them around (Score 1) 741

by Tom (#49783639) Attached to: Greece Is Running Out of Money, Cannot Make June IMF Repayment

However, this observation didn't actually form part of my argument; I just noted disapprovingly how your arguments and views illustrate how common fascist beliefs still are among Germans.

Yes, we still believe that doing sports is good for health, soccer is a good game, the Autobahn is pretty awesome, and we haven't abolished mothers day.

Of course, you meant nothing of the kind, hiding behind an unspecific, unsubstantiated phrase instead of risking to make a statement that could be falsified.

EOT

Comment: Re:reasons (Score 1) 315

by squiggleslash (#49781275) Attached to: Why PowerPoint Should Be Banned

It's not the same thing three times though, and the context of this very discussion should tell you that.

Each of the three components is radically different, but there shouldn't be much redundancy - each of the three serves an entirely different purpose and only one actually contains the core information you need to remember.

The introduction ("you tell them what you are going to tell them") is warning you what's coming. That means giving you context and a road map for the information that follows. Think of it as, say, the marketing blurb for the book you're about to read.

The second ("You tell them") is the information. This is long, and your brain under normal circumstances isn't going to be prepared for that information. Hence the warning and roadmap.

The last ("then tell them what you told them") is the reminder, the overview that makes it easier to remember the information. It's the roadmap for returning here, rather than the simplified roadmap for finding your way there for the first time.

If someone is repeating the same thing three times, they're doing it wrong. As you saw, it's easy to set context without being overly redundant, and a reminder of what you just heard is always helpful.

Out of interest, while this was a little TL;DR (doesn't matter if you're stuck in a meeting ;-), did you feel it was overly redundant? The "Each of" paragraph was "you tell them what you are going to tell them", the "If someone is repeating the same thing three times" was the "then tell them what you told them". The bit in the middle was the core information. I'm not a great communicator, but I doubt you spent the entire thing saying "Why does he keep saying the same thing over and over again? What a jerk!" But if I'd launched into just that middle part, and not provided context, it wouldn't have immediately clicked as to what relevance it has to your concerns.

Comment: Re:It's kinda cute (Score 1) 416

by jmv (#49780141) Attached to: Creationists Manipulating Search Results

I do not know a single politician outside the US who would think that even remotely considering pushing an agenda as harebrained as creationism is anything but political suicide. ...well, except in Canada these days. A couple years ago, our minister of *science* was refusing to answer questions about whether he believed in evolution. More recently, Alberta also had a creationist minister of education.. So unfortunately, some of the madness has escaped North of the US.

Comment: Re:They're bums, why keep them around (Score 1) 741

by Tom (#49778637) Attached to: Greece Is Running Out of Money, Cannot Make June IMF Repayment

Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank, which you yourself point out is also effectively run by the German federal government.

I point out it's the other way around.

The other claim is backed up by every news article on the subject that you care to google.

I.e., they are lending money for purposes where any rational investor would say "Hell, no, too risky!" You know, like solar panels and the Greek government.

Crazy pills?

No, it's a "bank" in the sense that you would like all banks to be

You have an agenda here, and it is not to have an interesting discussion or provide useful information, therefore I'm wasting my time. Good bye.

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Paul Erlich

Working...