"I may have said it more succinctly, but that's basically what this person is saying."
-Matt Bennet's Mom
No, they weren't saying "lets kill kids" or "let the kids die"... They were saying (and correct me if I'm wrong, SPR) "let nature take it's course". Albeit in a very cynical way.
I think the feel of the article was a little too alarmist. It's already been said that there are other things to worry about than TV's dropping on heads here. It's even been discussed about the different meanings of "numbers on the rise" (good point, Dorpus).
But I think we've lost a bit of perspective in that article. Yeah, TV's on heads is bad. Yeah, heavy things on heads is bad. OK... furniture can be dangerous... got it.
But there are so many things out there that can kill a child, and all of them by accident. List? OK.
-Allergic reaction to bee-sting
-run over by car
-shot in a drive by
-trip over a shoestring and crack head on furniture on way by
-fall out of tree
-hit by run-away car or reckless driver
-food poisoning
-SIDS
-severe illness
-school bus hit by train
Before anyone says it, yes it is horrible when a young person dies of any of these kind of accidents. It is a terrible tragedy and I agree with that. And suggesting that anyone here, by their arguments, is "in favor of killing toddlers" is simply childish and irresponsible. Way to go "mom".
What I don't agree with and what I don't understand is why this "TV epidemic" is getting any kind of knee-jerk reaction. This isn't new. It isn't some new killer technology. This is death by blunt-force trauma. And it's not, statistically, higher than any of these other things (again, good point Dorpus). While I don't think we should ignore the danger of TV's falling on children, or really, any of the other things I listed, I don't think that this is something "that we MUST!!! do something about."
We already should have been doing something about it. It's called "parenting". Yeah, I know I know... not everyone can be home all the time to watch their kids 24/7. Fine. No problem. But guess what: you can't watch your kid for every danger in the world 24/7 either.
Shit is going to happen people. It's horrible when it happens to kids, but we're not going to be able to protect every child every minute of every day. Nor should we. If we coddle our kids that much, they'll never be able to make it in "the real world" where they have to overcome such danger on their own. Anyone hear about lower immunities to basic illness? Exactly.
I've screwed myself up on many occasions as a kid. Usually doing stupid things. But guess what. I know not to touch the red glowing thingy on the stove. I know that just because it fits, a key doesn't go into a light socket. I know that if the hill looks really steep, there is danger involved in riding a bike down it. I know to ask others before messing with stuff about which I don't know.
I'd hate for my kids to suffer the pain I've been through growing up. But I was always angry with my dad for "keeping my from learning the hard way as he did". I'm proud of my mistakes and the lessons I've learned. I'm just fortunate that I'm still around to have that pride. Others aren’t. And that's how it will always (and should always) be.
OK... I'm a ballroom dancer. Later in the month, I plan on doing a performance dance which, obviously is done to music. I plan on having that dance recorded for 2 reasons. 1) so I can view it and learn from it (like sports training), and 2) so I can put it on MySpace so my friends can see. Not all of my friends can make it to see the dance.
Now this dance is not a paid performance... there's no admission or cover fee. I'm not getting paid for this and no one is paying to see it (except gas money to get there). so....
If I don't license the song to which I'm dancing, would the RIAA come after me? Should they? More importantly, I purchased that song legally (yes, believe it or not, it's a legal MP3).
Seriously... the video is about me dancing, not the song that's playing. And it's my song. Shouldn't I be able to dance to it? Shouldn't I be able to let my friends see it? Shouldn't I be able to record that so other friends can see it?
As to the argument that someone could rip the song from the vid and record it... so? How is that my responsibility? How could I be liable for some action that someone else might take?
oh, and I do want to put my 2cents in on a previous comment:
"All of these items lead to the central point that if you project what appear to be minor threats into the broader picture the RIAA has too act now before a precedent is set. "
-Mark P
The RIAA should act now to protect their interests... but not as they have been. They should be changing their business model to meet new competition. Not suing the hand that feeds them.
"If they never would have tried anything, and programs like napster and kazaa had been allowed to flourish, the situation would certainly be worse for the record industry."
-Gunnar
No... I'm going to stick with my belief that it wasn't this alleged "piracy" that would have killed the beast, it would have been the reliance on a business model that over-charges for unusable content. And it wouldn't have "killed the music industry"... it would have hastened the trend we're seeing now: musicians self-releasing their music on download and making money on other things to sell (shirts, tickets, etc).
Besides, the whole "piracy" is still a legal debate anyway.
"I'm not aggreeing with their tactics, they should have from day 1 worked with downloaders, not against them."
-Gunnar
Now this one, I agree with. I was reading through the article linked in the post and realized something that I hadn't really put together until then. The RIAA has certainly had a "hulk smash!" approach to this. It dawned on me finally when I read the comment from XM about how (paraphrase here) "lawsuits are the RIAA's negotiating tactic".
I now have this politcal-cartoon-esque image in my mind of a cave man labeled "RIAA" standing over a slain game animal labeled "business model", swinging a club labeled "lawsuits" around at anything that moves. I have that image of a grunting, unthinking Neanderthal just trying to save its meal from anything that may try to take it. Like his own shadow, for example.
If there are any cartoonists around, feel free to yoink that. I'd love to see it in ink. :)
Makes you wonder, with the "digital age" making so many business models oboslete... did they have this problem at the dawn of the industrial revolution? Hmm...
"Hey, Gabriel Tane.
Give it up. The smart folks know. The other just don't listen."
-Anonymous Coward
No, you've got it wrong. Its "paranoid folks believe. The others just don't care".
And paranoid folks believing are scary as hell. Me; I don't care. I can watch my own ass when it comes to business, so I don't need to rely on the "protection" of simpler contracts or whatever else people are clamoring for in the name of "fairness"
"1) legalese is there to obfuscate, not clairify. Those contracts are intentionally hard to read. It is not an accident."
-Maximus
Ah, the proliferation of the tinfoil-hat market. I need to buy stock in that.
A business doesn't form and intentionally look for ways to hoodwink customers. The cry of "the big bad company is out to get me" is getting really old.
I said it before and I'm not recanting: those contracts are there to prevent fraud. Period. Some sales people may (and probably due) use the confusing language to their advantage, but I can guarantee you that the board members of Verizon aren't sitting around the table discussing strategies on how to better cheat their customers.
You know, it really doesn't have to be an "us against them" thing.
"2) You are correct that they are in the business to make money. The #1 moneymaker for these companies is .... wait for it .... FINES AND FEES."
-Maximus
Yeah, and? Are you surprised that a company is going to try to maximize their earnings.
"Did you know that the way a football team moves the ball downfield furthest is to give it to their best runner or passer?" Well howdy-do.
Yeah, they may be a little underhanded about it, but that's not Big-Bad Corporation's policy. You get middle management yahoos who try to make themselves look good and save the company money by being sticklers for rules (that are defined by the contract) and not bend in ways that would be considered "fair" by us. They give these non-bending policies down to the supervisors and service reps who say "sorry, my hands are tied".
Again, not surprised there.
And everyone says "you'd think that they'd make and exception for me since (insert reason here, usually based on longevity and monies-paid)". Well what about the thousands of other people exactly like you? Shouldn't the same exception be made for every one of them? If that happened, the company would go bankrupt.
Yes they get the majority of their money from fines and fees. Play by the rules and you don't have to pay those.
And for the stories of ex.'s and brothers and other things "beyond your control"... stop being hostile towards the people you're trying to get to help you. That's half the problem there. You get hostile; they get defensive and tight-lipped and don't want to help you. Flies with honey and all that.
"Of course, i start yelling, which makes the nerdy sales manager shut down and cease to respond."
-Adios Verizon
Case-in-point. And how much did all of that yelling accomplish?
Sorry... this one slipped in while I was replying other comments... damned real-time existance. meh.
"Gabriel Tane are you a moron or dense? I've read this thread up to your comment, and haven't read any posts from anyone "whinning" about the mobile phone provider ripping them off when it was in their contract.
One stated that his contract was for 1500 minutes, but Verizon charged him for excessive minutes over 1300.
Well, there was one comment of someone not liking the additional charges added on to the price. Which, when I saw them for the first time, did blow me away also. Virtually doubling the advertised price of the service. It would be nice if those charges where displayed up front in ordering, instead of vague legalease which does NOT state the amounts of the charges."
-Anonymous Coward (imagine that)
Moron or dense? Neither, actually. I am intelligent enough to read between the lines and apply my experience to what I perceive.
I'd like to take people at their word, but when I hear someone say "...but less than the 1500 they promised" my first reaction is either:
1) A sales person lied and you didn't do your research, or
2) You misunderstood what was being told to you.
"... in vague legalese that does NOT state the amount of the charges." Why are you signing something that is that vague? Or, more to my point, why are you signing it and then complaining about it later? (not you, personally... "you" as in the person complaining about "hidden" charges).
My point is this: no one is putting a gun to your head to sign those contracts. No one is telling you to sign without letting you read them first. If you agree to something that you don't understand, it's your own damned fault if it comes back to bite you on the ass.
This kind of coddling of "victims" is what's allowing our general intelligence as a society to decline. Instead of making strides to educate the masses and making sure they can stand up for themselves, we're behaving like over-protective parents. Every child of an over-protective parent that I've ever know has turned into an adult that can't take care of themselves. So that's the kind of society we're setting up. Nice.
Oh, by the way... my response would not have been moronic or dense. If you want to say anything, you could say I over racted and preached about something larger than the symptoms that were stated. Nice personal attack there.
"You must work for a cell phone company. Your mention to making a profit is a joke.....you should just say its okay to gouge people."
-Corp. Dork
I'll assume that was pointed at me since your "reply to post" doesn't reference which one you were replying to. If I'm wrong, please tell me.
A joke? I'd seriously like to know where people get the financial data to make these assumptions. Are there special receivers in those tinfoil hats that just pluck this info out of the ether?
According to Verizon Communications, Inc.'s year-end financial statement (http://investor.verizon.com/financial/quarterly/pdf/05VZ_AR.pdf), they showed a 9.85% profit margin. Holy shit-damn... I need to make some investments here!!!11!!one
Seriously. Where do you get this image that all corporations are out to just rape the public? There is a section of the public that doesn't scream "rape" everytime... know who it is? It's the people who've invested money into a company and don't want to see it lose money.
And no, I don't work for a cell phone company. You won't believe me when I say that, but I don't really care.
----------
"3am? In Europe it was probably midday. Do you honestly think an American wrote a post of that quality. I suppose it's still theoretically possible..."
-Dave Keys
Actually, with the spelling errors, I did think it was an American... I just didn't want to say anything. I have a bad habit of getting on soap-boxes about using a spell checker.
----------
"Fair enough, all civilizations have been corrupt to some degree. But there was an optimistic time in America where a large number of ordinary people believed in the value of a person's word of honour and some institutions were deemed trustworthy, and many people in high places had regard for the trust placed in them.
Unfortunately the rot won't have the desired effect. It will give rise to the survival of the meanest. The only weapon against it is brainpower. And in the USA, that is being eroded by drugs, poor education, anti-intellectual consumer culture, and the mean spirited people who count on it support this agenda while proclaiming the opposite."
-Anonymous Marsupial
"The real problem lies in the fact that Verizon employs many lawyers to help write these impressively long and confusing contracts, and then counts on a large percentage of the population "giving in" to the normal human psychological pressure ["I just stopped in this shoppe to get a new cell phone, I don't want to spend the rest of my life here" syndrome]. As the majority of cell phone users do not drive around with their lawyers in the trunk of the car [hmmm, there's an idea, but I digress!], they end up signing the copious pages with only a general idea of what they contain. There is no real knowledge of the specifics.
"
-Anonymous Coward
Meh... not really. Contrary to popular belief, most companies don't have a bullpen full of lawyers for things like this. They employ a (usually small) department of paralegals for their day-to-day forms and get an outside (sometimes retained) lawyer to proof the big things. While the general public does suffer from the "giving in" syndrome, that's not the purpose of these contracts. The true purpose of these contracts is to lay out, in no uncertain terms, the responsibility of each party. Now, yes, large companies have an advantage over the "little guy" or the "everyday joe" in that consumers aren't as educated on contract language as they are. But whose fault is that? Contract language for things like cell phones really isn't that complex or confusing. Read an insurance policy sometime... that's some confusing shit.
"Once again, the lawyers have designed lawyer-speak that justifies their own existence and pays for their services at the same time. One wonders if we removed the lawyers and their contracts at the same point in time, whether society would really collapse or not."
-Same Anonymous Coward
No... lawyer-speak, or legalese, was designed to eliminate guessing and "creative interpretation". What would happen if we eliminated lawyers and contracts at the same time? Easy: no one would sell a thing. No one would want to take the chance on having someone taking advantage of a loophole and taking them for a ride. I could use my cell phone for hours and hours and hours and not have to pay a dime because I found a "the" where there should have been an "is" in the agreement. Or I could remember our verbal agreement was different than the company remembered. And without a concise and non-ambiguous contract, there's nothing that the company could do to stop me.
Here's the question we should be asking: "What would happen if we educated our society and maintained ethics in our law?"
Funny... I've had verizon for about 2 or 3 years now and I've never had a problem with them... except when I talk too much or text too much. Hell, I just added my girlfriend to my account and got her a phone and there's still no problem.
Look people, it's really simple. Read the freakin' contract. Know what you can and can't do before you sign the thing and then play by the rules! Don't like the rules? Then don't sign them. No one is forcing you to buy a cell phone. No one is forcing you to go with one company or another. But as soon as you sign a contract, someone is forcing you to play by their rules. And guess what... that "someone" includes yourself. Too bad you changed your mind later. You should have thought of that at the beginning.
I get sick of hearing "my cell phone company is ripping me off because they didn't tell me about this charge"... waaaaahhhh. Well guess what: they did tell you about those charges. Where? Say it with me folks... "in the contract".
Or, even better: "my cell phone company is ripping me off because I didn't realize I only had XX minutes"... boo-freakin-hoo. How is the cell phone company's fault that you talked too much? How is it their fault that you exceeded the limit that both you and they agreed to?
I'm putting this one right up there with people who sue over "not enough warning labels".
If you sign a contract without reading it, you don't get to complain about it later. You'll have no one else to blame but yourself.
Yes, cell phone contracts could be a little easier to read. But the legalese is necessary because without it, people will find and exploit loopholes in the "looser" language. That's why the contracts are as they are now (not just in cell phones, this is in almost everything)... to plug those holes that were being exploited. Contracts like that have evolved to protect the company's interest. And rightly so. They do have to make a profit here. It is a business, not a charitable organization.
Bottom line for this though: if you can't read the contract for yourself, why are you signing it? This is not one of those situations where you are being taken advantage of because they know you have no choice... this is one where you're letting it happen yourself. Sorry folks, you're not getting any sympathy from me.
It seems in the movie industry, there has been an unnecessary emphasis placed on how much the movie cost to make. The 'big boys' are always heralded based on the insanely large cost involved. As if the only merit of a movie is it's price tag. While yes, some of them really didn't go over that well, others were good on their own merit. But, unfortunatly, of all of the adjectives used in describing a blockbuster over the last few years, how many are remembered as easily as the cost?
I'd be interested to see if this kind of shift-of-thought leads to reminding Hollywood that we're not interested in the cost but in the quality of the movie. It dosn't have to be expensive, just... well... good.
While the etymology of "blockbuster" may be linked to WWII bombs that could destroy whole blocks, that doesn't mean that HW should "bust the block" by dropping a big sack of money on it.
"I stand by my original "whoopty freakin doo"... Put some _real_ names in the list and then ya, maybe, but not them. Come on!!"
-Dude
I don't know if this is how you meant it, but it sound to me like you don't think these artists are worth mention just because you don't like their music. I seriously hope I'm misreading this.
You'd be surprised how much following is behind those bands you don't like. You may be just as surprised that there are more people out there that like the things you don't like as opposed to those that like the things you do. Your opinion (which I do recognize and respect) isn't the end-all and be-all.
Me? I hate Avril. I'd love to do bad, -BAD- things to her for her whole "look at me... I'm all bad-ass and hard-kore" image... which is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I can't stand BNL. I punch things (usually inanimate) when I have to hear their drivel. I do like Sarah McLachlan's music though.
But none of that matters for this discussion. They are artists with recognizable names and a fan base. Which means they have clout. Which means their voice does have sway. This little stance isn't going to change anything overnight... but it does get things started.
Name some "real bands", as you put it, who's voice would get things changed any quicker. Sorry, but it's not that simple.
"some canuck artists make up a group, oooo, like that will intimidate someone?"
-Dude
Did you not read some of the artists involved? Sarah "Lillith Fair" McLachlan, Avril "I have a marketable image" Lavigne, Barenaked "You'll never get our songs out of your head... ever" Ladies... These artists aren't just "some canucks"... they do have some clout in the music industry. If even more "more important" artists follow suit here, things can change.
One thing's for sure. At least they're doing something. Sitting around moping about it hasn't changed anything.
You hear that US Artists? If my memory serves me correctly, the RIAA is pretty much a US plague. (correct me if I'm wrong).
If Canadian artists can do this, why can't you? Stop sucking at the corporate teat for a few seconds (and you groups over there... yeah, STOP SUING YOUR FREAKIN' FANS!) and give some support back to those that support you.
We're your fans here. We buy your stuff, go to your concerts, wear your logos and shirts. Who's going to be doing that when all of our disposable income is flowing into RIAA "settlements" (read: extortion funds)?
Metallica... you guys were nothing until your fans gave you a following and a rep. And you're not the only band like that.
A call to all US Artists:
WE, YOUR FANS, NEED YOUR HELP!!! Stand with us, or stand there with noone listening to you.
Well, Bill, I'm glad we can agree that this argument has gone on for far too long. Neither one of us is going to (openly) admit defeat, but I'll claim a victory anyway. I'll feel better that way.
There are glaring faults in your logic. Some I've pointed out, some I haven't. But to paraphrase REM, "I've had my fun, but now it's time" to go. I've wasted enough time on this and I'm satisfied with my victory.
"Hey, Gabriel Tane, You muscles ATRPOHY while systems generally ENTROPHY."
-Bill
::sigh:: I don't know why I have to repeat this. 'Entropy' is a noun. A system cannot 'noun'.
Also, 'atrophy' is not restricted to purely medical use. Anything that is subject to decline or degradation can atrophy.
If you wish to stick by the assertion that these words are limited to what you wrote above, then you invalidate your own argument, since as you put it: "Systems generally entophy" (which, I'm sure you meant 'entroPY). Penmanship isn't a 'system'. Penmanship is an ability or skill, and a measure of how aesthetically pleasing someone's writing is.
"Hey Gabriel Tane, maybe you should look at a dictionary."
-Bill
I did look up the definition of entropy before I made my post. I even linked to the web pages from which I found the definitions I used in my defense in the post. Thank you.
As far as the correction of your usage, I still stand by that. Your statement was:
"...I'd also like to bring up how the use of technology has caused penmanship to entropy over the years"
This gave the impression that your meaning was that technology has led to either 1) the decline in the use of penmanship, or 2) the decline in the quality of penmanship. In either case, 'entropy' is the wrong word.
"Caused penmanship to entropy" puts 'entropy' as the verb in the sentence. In your own dictionary Copy & Paste (feel the magic, people), 'entropy' is listed as a noun. Yes, 'entropy' means decay and decline, but the word 'entropy' itself is not the action of decline or decay. It is the decay. That's like saying "I car to work in the morning" No, I drive to work in a car. 'Car' is the noun, 'drive' is the verb.
I'm not going to use your exact Copy & Paste for 'atrophy' in my defense, because you left out the part that shows it to be a verb as well as a noun (something your dictionary did not show for entropy... yes, I found the source you used.) So here's the rest of it:
v. at•ro•phied, at•ro•phy•ing, at•ro•phies
v. tr.
To cause to wither or deteriorate; affect with atrophy.
v. intr.
To waste away; wither or deteriorate.
To imply that penmanship is not what it once was is to say that it deteriorated or withered. Although, you would not be able to just substitute 'atrophy' for 'entopy'... you would have to reword the sentence as: "technology has atrophied penmanship over the years". According to this dictionary, the verb form of 'atrophy' does not include a word-form that would properly fit the order you used.
So yes, I look at a dictionary. And yes, I can use one.
On the post: Cell Phones: Safe. TV Sets: Killers
Re: Not Putting Words in Mouths
No, they weren't saying "lets kill kids" or "let the kids die"... They were saying (and correct me if I'm wrong, SPR) "let nature take it's course". Albeit in a very cynical way.
On the post: Cell Phones: Safe. TV Sets: Killers
Out of proportion
But I think we've lost a bit of perspective in that article. Yeah, TV's on heads is bad. Yeah, heavy things on heads is bad. OK... furniture can be dangerous... got it.
But there are so many things out there that can kill a child, and all of them by accident. List? OK.
Before anyone says it, yes it is horrible when a young person dies of any of these kind of accidents. It is a terrible tragedy and I agree with that. And suggesting that anyone here, by their arguments, is "in favor of killing toddlers" is simply childish and irresponsible. Way to go "mom".
What I don't agree with and what I don't understand is why this "TV epidemic" is getting any kind of knee-jerk reaction. This isn't new. It isn't some new killer technology. This is death by blunt-force trauma. And it's not, statistically, higher than any of these other things (again, good point Dorpus). While I don't think we should ignore the danger of TV's falling on children, or really, any of the other things I listed, I don't think that this is something "that we MUST!!! do something about."
We already should have been doing something about it. It's called "parenting". Yeah, I know I know... not everyone can be home all the time to watch their kids 24/7. Fine. No problem. But guess what: you can't watch your kid for every danger in the world 24/7 either.
Shit is going to happen people. It's horrible when it happens to kids, but we're not going to be able to protect every child every minute of every day. Nor should we. If we coddle our kids that much, they'll never be able to make it in "the real world" where they have to overcome such danger on their own. Anyone hear about lower immunities to basic illness? Exactly.
I've screwed myself up on many occasions as a kid. Usually doing stupid things. But guess what. I know not to touch the red glowing thingy on the stove. I know that just because it fits, a key doesn't go into a light socket. I know that if the hill looks really steep, there is danger involved in riding a bike down it. I know to ask others before messing with stuff about which I don't know.
I'd hate for my kids to suffer the pain I've been through growing up. But I was always angry with my dad for "keeping my from learning the hard way as he did". I'm proud of my mistakes and the lessons I've learned. I'm just fortunate that I'm still around to have that pride. Others aren’t. And that's how it will always (and should always) be.
On the post: The RIAA Says No Dancing To Music On YouTube
Not a challange, just a question
Now this dance is not a paid performance... there's no admission or cover fee. I'm not getting paid for this and no one is paying to see it (except gas money to get there). so....
If I don't license the song to which I'm dancing, would the RIAA come after me? Should they? More importantly, I purchased that song legally (yes, believe it or not, it's a legal MP3).
Seriously... the video is about me dancing, not the song that's playing. And it's my song. Shouldn't I be able to dance to it? Shouldn't I be able to let my friends see it? Shouldn't I be able to record that so other friends can see it?
As to the argument that someone could rip the song from the vid and record it... so? How is that my responsibility? How could I be liable for some action that someone else might take?
oh, and I do want to put my 2cents in on a previous comment:
The RIAA should act now to protect their interests... but not as they have been. They should be changing their business model to meet new competition. Not suing the hand that feeds them.
On the post: RIAA Now Reaches Denial Stage
Re: Admission of defeat
I didn't think of that. Wow. Talk about spin-tactics. That goes right up there with "I didn't sell out, they bought in".
On the post: RIAA Now Reaches Denial Stage
Re: Why do people think their efforts are in vain
No... I'm going to stick with my belief that it wasn't this alleged "piracy" that would have killed the beast, it would have been the reliance on a business model that over-charges for unusable content. And it wouldn't have "killed the music industry"... it would have hastened the trend we're seeing now: musicians self-releasing their music on download and making money on other things to sell (shirts, tickets, etc).
Besides, the whole "piracy" is still a legal debate anyway.
Now this one, I agree with. I was reading through the article linked in the post and realized something that I hadn't really put together until then. The RIAA has certainly had a "hulk smash!" approach to this. It dawned on me finally when I read the comment from XM about how (paraphrase here) "lawsuits are the RIAA's negotiating tactic".
I now have this politcal-cartoon-esque image in my mind of a cave man labeled "RIAA" standing over a slain game animal labeled "business model", swinging a club labeled "lawsuits" around at anything that moves. I have that image of a grunting, unthinking Neanderthal just trying to save its meal from anything that may try to take it. Like his own shadow, for example.
If there are any cartoonists around, feel free to yoink that. I'd love to see it in ink. :)
On the post: TV Networks, Studios Sue Cablevision For Helping Them Attract Viewers
Industrial revolution?
On the post: Verizon Explains How Telling Credit Agencies About Your Slow Payment Is A Gift
Re:
No, you've got it wrong. Its "paranoid folks believe. The others just don't care".
And paranoid folks believing are scary as hell. Me; I don't care. I can watch my own ass when it comes to business, so I don't need to rely on the "protection" of simpler contracts or whatever else people are clamoring for in the name of "fairness"
But you're right, Caveat Emptor.
On the post: Verizon Explains How Telling Credit Agencies About Your Slow Payment Is A Gift
Re: Ever have service with Verizon?
Ah, the proliferation of the tinfoil-hat market. I need to buy stock in that.
A business doesn't form and intentionally look for ways to hoodwink customers. The cry of "the big bad company is out to get me" is getting really old.
I said it before and I'm not recanting: those contracts are there to prevent fraud. Period. Some sales people may (and probably due) use the confusing language to their advantage, but I can guarantee you that the board members of Verizon aren't sitting around the table discussing strategies on how to better cheat their customers.
You know, it really doesn't have to be an "us against them" thing.
Yeah, and? Are you surprised that a company is going to try to maximize their earnings.
"Did you know that the way a football team moves the ball downfield furthest is to give it to their best runner or passer?" Well howdy-do.
Yeah, they may be a little underhanded about it, but that's not Big-Bad Corporation's policy. You get middle management yahoos who try to make themselves look good and save the company money by being sticklers for rules (that are defined by the contract) and not bend in ways that would be considered "fair" by us. They give these non-bending policies down to the supervisors and service reps who say "sorry, my hands are tied".
Again, not surprised there.
And everyone says "you'd think that they'd make and exception for me since (insert reason here, usually based on longevity and monies-paid)". Well what about the thousands of other people exactly like you? Shouldn't the same exception be made for every one of them? If that happened, the company would go bankrupt.
Yes they get the majority of their money from fines and fees. Play by the rules and you don't have to pay those.
And for the stories of ex.'s and brothers and other things "beyond your control"... stop being hostile towards the people you're trying to get to help you. That's half the problem there. You get hostile; they get defensive and tight-lipped and don't want to help you. Flies with honey and all that.
Case-in-point. And how much did all of that yelling accomplish?
On the post: Verizon Explains How Telling Credit Agencies About Your Slow Payment Is A Gift
Re: Ever have service with Verizon?
Moron or dense? Neither, actually. I am intelligent enough to read between the lines and apply my experience to what I perceive.
I'd like to take people at their word, but when I hear someone say "...but less than the 1500 they promised" my first reaction is either:
1) A sales person lied and you didn't do your research, or
2) You misunderstood what was being told to you.
"... in vague legalese that does NOT state the amount of the charges." Why are you signing something that is that vague? Or, more to my point, why are you signing it and then complaining about it later? (not you, personally... "you" as in the person complaining about "hidden" charges).
My point is this: no one is putting a gun to your head to sign those contracts. No one is telling you to sign without letting you read them first. If you agree to something that you don't understand, it's your own damned fault if it comes back to bite you on the ass.
This kind of coddling of "victims" is what's allowing our general intelligence as a society to decline. Instead of making strides to educate the masses and making sure they can stand up for themselves, we're behaving like over-protective parents. Every child of an over-protective parent that I've ever know has turned into an adult that can't take care of themselves. So that's the kind of society we're setting up. Nice.
Oh, by the way... my response would not have been moronic or dense. If you want to say anything, you could say I over racted and preached about something larger than the symptoms that were stated. Nice personal attack there.
On the post: Verizon Explains How Telling Credit Agencies About Your Slow Payment Is A Gift
Re: Re: Re: how it works
I'll assume that was pointed at me since your "reply to post" doesn't reference which one you were replying to. If I'm wrong, please tell me.
A joke? I'd seriously like to know where people get the financial data to make these assumptions. Are there special receivers in those tinfoil hats that just pluck this info out of the ether?
According to Verizon Communications, Inc.'s year-end financial statement (http://investor.verizon.com/financial/quarterly/pdf/05VZ_AR.pdf), they showed a 9.85% profit margin. Holy shit-damn... I need to make some investments here!!!11!!one
Seriously. Where do you get this image that all corporations are out to just rape the public? There is a section of the public that doesn't scream "rape" everytime... know who it is? It's the people who've invested money into a company and don't want to see it lose money.
And no, I don't work for a cell phone company. You won't believe me when I say that, but I don't really care.
----------
Actually, with the spelling errors, I did think it was an American... I just didn't want to say anything. I have a bad habit of getting on soap-boxes about using a spell checker.
----------
::applause:: Well said.
On the post: Verizon Explains How Telling Credit Agencies About Your Slow Payment Is A Gift
Re: Ever have service with Verizon?
Meh... not really. Contrary to popular belief, most companies don't have a bullpen full of lawyers for things like this. They employ a (usually small) department of paralegals for their day-to-day forms and get an outside (sometimes retained) lawyer to proof the big things. While the general public does suffer from the "giving in" syndrome, that's not the purpose of these contracts. The true purpose of these contracts is to lay out, in no uncertain terms, the responsibility of each party. Now, yes, large companies have an advantage over the "little guy" or the "everyday joe" in that consumers aren't as educated on contract language as they are. But whose fault is that? Contract language for things like cell phones really isn't that complex or confusing. Read an insurance policy sometime... that's some confusing shit.
No... lawyer-speak, or legalese, was designed to eliminate guessing and "creative interpretation". What would happen if we eliminated lawyers and contracts at the same time? Easy: no one would sell a thing. No one would want to take the chance on having someone taking advantage of a loophole and taking them for a ride. I could use my cell phone for hours and hours and hours and not have to pay a dime because I found a "the" where there should have been an "is" in the agreement. Or I could remember our verbal agreement was different than the company remembered. And without a concise and non-ambiguous contract, there's nothing that the company could do to stop me.
Here's the question we should be asking: "What would happen if we educated our society and maintained ethics in our law?"
On the post: Verizon Explains How Telling Credit Agencies About Your Slow Payment Is A Gift
Re: Ever have service with Verizon?
Look people, it's really simple. Read the freakin' contract. Know what you can and can't do before you sign the thing and then play by the rules! Don't like the rules? Then don't sign them. No one is forcing you to buy a cell phone. No one is forcing you to go with one company or another. But as soon as you sign a contract, someone is forcing you to play by their rules. And guess what... that "someone" includes yourself. Too bad you changed your mind later. You should have thought of that at the beginning.
I get sick of hearing "my cell phone company is ripping me off because they didn't tell me about this charge"... waaaaahhhh. Well guess what: they did tell you about those charges. Where? Say it with me folks... "in the contract".
Or, even better: "my cell phone company is ripping me off because I didn't realize I only had XX minutes"... boo-freakin-hoo. How is the cell phone company's fault that you talked too much? How is it their fault that you exceeded the limit that both you and they agreed to?
I'm putting this one right up there with people who sue over "not enough warning labels".
If you sign a contract without reading it, you don't get to complain about it later. You'll have no one else to blame but yourself.
Yes, cell phone contracts could be a little easier to read. But the legalese is necessary because without it, people will find and exploit loopholes in the "looser" language. That's why the contracts are as they are now (not just in cell phones, this is in almost everything)... to plug those holes that were being exploited. Contracts like that have evolved to protect the company's interest. And rightly so. They do have to make a profit here. It is a business, not a charitable organization.
Bottom line for this though: if you can't read the contract for yourself, why are you signing it? This is not one of those situations where you are being taken advantage of because they know you have no choice... this is one where you're letting it happen yourself. Sorry folks, you're not getting any sympathy from me.
On the post: Politician Reveals Lobbying Tactics Of The Recording Industry: All About Fear
Can I get that on a t-shirt?!?
On the post: The Answer To The $200 Million Movie Question
Quality vs. Cost
I'd be interested to see if this kind of shift-of-thought leads to reminding Hollywood that we're not interested in the cost but in the quality of the movie. It dosn't have to be expensive, just... well... good.
While the etymology of "blockbuster" may be linked to WWII bombs that could destroy whole blocks, that doesn't mean that HW should "bust the block" by dropping a big sack of money on it.
On the post: Major Canadian Musicians Say The Recording Industry Doesn't Represent Them
More comments by Dude
I don't know if this is how you meant it, but it sound to me like you don't think these artists are worth mention just because you don't like their music. I seriously hope I'm misreading this.
You'd be surprised how much following is behind those bands you don't like. You may be just as surprised that there are more people out there that like the things you don't like as opposed to those that like the things you do. Your opinion (which I do recognize and respect) isn't the end-all and be-all.
Me? I hate Avril. I'd love to do bad, -BAD- things to her for her whole "look at me... I'm all bad-ass and hard-kore" image... which is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I can't stand BNL. I punch things (usually inanimate) when I have to hear their drivel. I do like Sarah McLachlan's music though.
But none of that matters for this discussion. They are artists with recognizable names and a fan base. Which means they have clout. Which means their voice does have sway. This little stance isn't going to change anything overnight... but it does get things started.
Name some "real bands", as you put it, who's voice would get things changed any quicker. Sorry, but it's not that simple.
On the post: Major Canadian Musicians Say The Recording Industry Doesn't Represent Them
Dude's Comments
Did you not read some of the artists involved? Sarah "Lillith Fair" McLachlan, Avril "I have a marketable image" Lavigne, Barenaked "You'll never get our songs out of your head... ever" Ladies... These artists aren't just "some canucks"... they do have some clout in the music industry. If even more "more important" artists follow suit here, things can change.
One thing's for sure. At least they're doing something. Sitting around moping about it hasn't changed anything.
On the post: Major Canadian Musicians Say The Recording Industry Doesn't Represent Them
::bells ring::
If Canadian artists can do this, why can't you? Stop sucking at the corporate teat for a few seconds (and you groups over there... yeah, STOP SUING YOUR FREAKIN' FANS!) and give some support back to those that support you.
We're your fans here. We buy your stuff, go to your concerts, wear your logos and shirts. Who's going to be doing that when all of our disposable income is flowing into RIAA "settlements" (read: extortion funds)?
Metallica... you guys were nothing until your fans gave you a following and a rep. And you're not the only band like that.
A call to all US Artists:
WE, YOUR FANS, NEED YOUR HELP!!! Stand with us, or stand there with noone listening to you.
On the post: Big Words Make You Look Dumb?
Re:
There are glaring faults in your logic. Some I've pointed out, some I haven't. But to paraphrase REM, "I've had my fun, but now it's time" to go. I've wasted enough time on this and I'm satisfied with my victory.
Thanks for being such a fun opponent.
Love, luck & lolli-pops
Gabriel
On the post: Big Words Make You Look Dumb?
Entorpy vs Atrophy
::sigh:: I don't know why I have to repeat this. 'Entropy' is a noun. A system cannot 'noun'.
Also, 'atrophy' is not restricted to purely medical use. Anything that is subject to decline or degradation can atrophy.
If you wish to stick by the assertion that these words are limited to what you wrote above, then you invalidate your own argument, since as you put it: "Systems generally entophy" (which, I'm sure you meant 'entroPY). Penmanship isn't a 'system'. Penmanship is an ability or skill, and a measure of how aesthetically pleasing someone's writing is.
On the post: Big Words Make You Look Dumb?
I did look at a dictionary
I did look up the definition of entropy before I made my post. I even linked to the web pages from which I found the definitions I used in my defense in the post. Thank you.
As far as the correction of your usage, I still stand by that. Your statement was:
This gave the impression that your meaning was that technology has led to either 1) the decline in the use of penmanship, or 2) the decline in the quality of penmanship. In either case, 'entropy' is the wrong word.
"Caused penmanship to entropy" puts 'entropy' as the verb in the sentence. In your own dictionary Copy & Paste (feel the magic, people), 'entropy' is listed as a noun. Yes, 'entropy' means decay and decline, but the word 'entropy' itself is not the action of decline or decay. It is the decay. That's like saying "I car to work in the morning" No, I drive to work in a car. 'Car' is the noun, 'drive' is the verb.
I'm not going to use your exact Copy & Paste for 'atrophy' in my defense, because you left out the part that shows it to be a verb as well as a noun (something your dictionary did not show for entropy... yes, I found the source you used.) So here's the rest of it:
v. at•ro•phied, at•ro•phy•ing, at•ro•phies
v. tr.
To cause to wither or deteriorate; affect with atrophy.
v. intr.
To waste away; wither or deteriorate.
To imply that penmanship is not what it once was is to say that it deteriorated or withered. Although, you would not be able to just substitute 'atrophy' for 'entopy'... you would have to reword the sentence as: "technology has atrophied penmanship over the years". According to this dictionary, the verb form of 'atrophy' does not include a word-form that would properly fit the order you used.
So yes, I look at a dictionary. And yes, I can use one.
Next >>