Congratulations, what a spectacular waste of money.
This is always my first thought. I don't care whether these sorts of things are supposed to be status or anything stupid like that.
Why would I ever need to spend thousands of dollars on a stupid fancy watch, when it's of no better quality than one I can buy for ~$100 or less?
"But the expensive one has a lifetime warranty against all damage," you say. "My Fossil watch has a 10 year warranty against all damage, and if it breaks after that, I can use a very small amount of the thousands I didn't spend to just buy another," I reply.
In the area I live up north, you'd probably be safer if everyone thought your bag or whatever was a fake...
Sometimes I feel like it's a feat of bravery just to walk around with my nice dSLR, kind of the equivalent of walking around with a hundred $20 notes hanging off your shoulder. And I mean that has a practical purpose, I can't imagine what would possess someone to do something similar with a bag, just as an obvious indication of status. Maybe an LED belt buckle scrolling your net worth would be safer and more effective?
In any case, this is a case of our government pandering to the rich and the desire to be exclusive. Now, if these items were circumventing customs and being smuggled into the country, that would be a problem. But as far as I can see from that video, they aren't. And you know, maybe it's a good thing that people are seeing how these exclusive products can be so easily replicated. Maybe it will force the brand names to be more innovative and create better products that can't be so easily reproduced.
It wasn't really clear in my previous post, but I agree here. I'd prefer law enforcement resources to focus on what I consider to be more practical matters. Sure companies have a right to protect their intellectual property, but yeah... bags.
This is always my first thought. I don't care whether these sorts of things are supposed to be status or anything stupid like that.
I have no real problem with how people choose to spend their money as long as it's not hurting anyone. Nice clothes are nice and stuff. But I usually spend money on experiences rather than things, and the things that I do buy tend to have a practical bent. I feel pretty good about dedicating funds to investment and finanical independence too.
Anyway, because those status symbols aren't really a priority for me, I don't find them impressive. But if you like 'em, go nuts - it's your life and your money.
I have no real problem with how people choose to spend their money as long as it's not hurting anyone. [...] Anyway, because those status symbols aren't really a priority for me, I don't find them impressive. But if you like 'em, go nuts - it's your life and your money.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed or feel justified in wasting their money on pointless opulence. I'm saying that I, like you, find it in no way impressive. I'm also saying that while the point of such objects is to show off towards others, I don't understand why anyone ever is impressed by such and so I feel like the attempt at showing off in said manner is, and should be, completely worthless.
In other words, I think people who care about such things are irretrievably shallow. They're allowed to be shallow, but that doesn't make being so worthwhile.
We need over priced garbage. Too many rich people just sit on their money instead of circulating it through the economy.
Yeah, I'd rather it circulate because something has actual value, not because something has overly inflated fake value that becomes massive profit margins, the majority of which go to someone else who will...sit on the money.
How about showing opulence by always buying fair trade? By showing how much that kind of money can help communities? Shouldn't that be what makes people look at you and go "Wow", rather than the brand of bag you happen to carry?
I mean, I guess it's not hurting anyone technically, but it certainly isn't *helping* anyone, and they certainly could afford to help people. It sort of depends on how you skew it ethically. Walking past a woman who has fallen into the street and letting her get hit by a car technically isn't hurting someone, it's just "not helping", but we tend to view these things as more dire when it's implicitly allowing harm to be done by a physical means nearby rather than by a systematic means that supports starvation and poor living standards from a geographically farther off point.
Yow! CreativeAmerica steals content from us SOPA/PIPA opponents in order to support anti-copying bills! They broke their own law in order to kill all of us Internet users! Morons! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Patrick Leahy can choke for all I care. He's so obviously in the pocket of lobbyists. How are people like that constitutionally allowed to serve? That no law prohibits lobbying proves how very irreparably broken the system is.
I feel that even if this law passes, it will be every bit as ineffectual as previous laws to the same effect. The internet is mutable and will change to find a way around it. And I'll probably get a ton of work done in the interim. On that blackout day that's scheduled, I'll probably spend my time trying to figure out if there's some way to chemically reduce the amount of sleep we actually need to stay functional. Doing that could prolong a lifespan by about fifty years in hours. And I could then devote all that time to gaming and still remain productive during the day.
I feel like I've strayed off topic, but that's what happens when I'm sick and delirious.
It's pretty much dead now. Now, they're saying that the only bill for this they would let pass would deal with foreign websites that would not hamper on free speech... so yeah. All the sites people really care about wouldn't be affected. That's *if* they rewrite the bill to pass with the criteria. They are sticking with their guns of policing domestic sites(which makes sense considering all the money and manpower put into it already...a new bill would just add to the workload, not replace it).
Unfortunately ignorance abounds in both conservative and liberal new sites. Mother Jones, being a liberal news site, attracts as much crazy as Fox. Well, maybe not as much, but enough.
I think copyright/patents is still important. Especially patents. I mean, they aren't forever, for one thing, and they protect the inventor/scientist so they can receive some reward for discovering something first. And then after seven years, everyone can have it. Also, it helps innovation since it forces competitors to find a better way of doing things to stay on top instead of just jumping on the bandwagon immediately.
I bet world productivity will be through the roof once Tumblr and Reddit go down. I've no idea if TV Tropes is going down, but that would also greatly increase productivity.
So the author got butthurt by some retard on the Internet and wants to use SOPA to nuke the little idiot's blog?
Sounds fair.
Oh, and yes, I know the article is facetious. At least, I hope it's facetious.
You must have turned off your sarcasm/facetiosity detector because that article was dripping with it. It was basted in sarcasm before being smothered in a layer of facetious gravy and served up on a plate of pure snark.
I thought it was a rather clever and funny way of introducing people to why this bill is wrong, what with him showing how it could be used to enact petty revenge on someone who isn't really pirating all that much.
Comments
Why would I ever need to spend thousands of dollars on a stupid fancy watch, when it's of no better quality than one I can buy for ~$100 or less?
"But the expensive one has a lifetime warranty against all damage," you say. "My Fossil watch has a 10 year warranty against all damage, and if it breaks after that, I can use a very small amount of the thousands I didn't spend to just buy another," I reply.
Sometimes I feel like it's a feat of bravery just to walk around with my nice dSLR, kind of the equivalent of walking around with a hundred $20 notes hanging off your shoulder. And I mean that has a practical purpose, I can't imagine what would possess someone to do something similar with a bag, just as an obvious indication of status. Maybe an LED belt buckle scrolling your net worth would be safer and more effective?
It wasn't really clear in my previous post, but I agree here. I'd prefer law enforcement resources to focus on what I consider to be more practical matters. Sure companies have a right to protect their intellectual property, but yeah... bags.
I have no real problem with how people choose to spend their money as long as it's not hurting anyone. Nice clothes are nice and stuff. But I usually spend money on experiences rather than things, and the things that I do buy tend to have a practical bent. I feel pretty good about dedicating funds to investment and finanical independence too.
Anyway, because those status symbols aren't really a priority for me, I don't find them impressive. But if you like 'em, go nuts - it's your life and your money.
In other words, I think people who care about such things are irretrievably shallow. They're allowed to be shallow, but that doesn't make being so worthwhile.
How about showing opulence by always buying fair trade? By showing how much that kind of money can help communities? Shouldn't that be what makes people look at you and go "Wow", rather than the brand of bag you happen to carry?
I mean, I guess it's not hurting anyone technically, but it certainly isn't *helping* anyone, and they certainly could afford to help people. It sort of depends on how you skew it ethically. Walking past a woman who has fallen into the street and letting her get hit by a car technically isn't hurting someone, it's just "not helping", but we tend to view these things as more dire when it's implicitly allowing harm to be done by a physical means nearby rather than by a systematic means that supports starvation and poor living standards from a geographically farther off point.
http://www.webpronews.com/lamar-smith-offers-further-sopa-clarification-2012-01
Yow! CreativeAmerica steals content from us SOPA/PIPA opponents in order to support anti-copying bills! They broke their own law in order to kill all of us Internet users! Morons! :mad: :mad: :mad:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/10592617366/creativeamerica-copies-content-to-support-anti-copying-bills.shtml
This thing still has some time to play out, though.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398800,00.asp
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115188-Congressman-Plays-League-of-Legends-Backs-Riot-Games-SOPA-Opposition
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/203737-hollywood-or-silicon-obama-must-choose
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/281037/20120112/lamar-smith-sopa-bill-author-infringing-copyright.htm
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/white-house-vows-to-protect-web-openness-while-fighting-online-piracy-20120114
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/obama-administration-joins-the-ranks-of-sopa-skeptics.ars
http://amandapeyton.com/blog/2012/01/my-call-to-senator-schumers-office-on-pipa-its-so-much-worse-than-i-thought/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78185937/Letter-from-6-Senators-Telling-Reid-NOT-to-Schedule-a-Vote-on-Internet-Blacklist-Bill-aka-PIPA
Senator Patrick Leahy is only delaying the DNS blocking provisions in PIPA:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/18452517396/dont-be-fooled-leahy-is-not-removing-dns-blocking-provisions-merely-delaying-them.shtml
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6348642.html?tag=newsticker%3Bheadline%3B1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/16/sopa-shelved-obama-piracy-legislation
I feel like I've strayed off topic, but that's what happens when I'm sick and delirious.
http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=1909
http://cardin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/cardin-statement-on-protect-ip-act
http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/resetting-pipa
Rupert Murdoch's SOPA attack is rebuffed by Google
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/11495217418/its-official-wikipedia-to-go-dark-wednesday.shtml
http://www.csoonline.com/article/698107/tide-turns-against-sopa-but-it-s-not-dead-yet
SOPA/PIPA with sock puppets!
The Web Blackout is still occurring tomorrow, though. Woot.
Well, looks like a full day of Mass Effect and GTA for me, then.
Yes, I'm talking about the person who thinks copyright and similar should be abolished.
Bad news: The SOPA voting markup is rescheduled for February! Boooo! :mad:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120117/12563317437/its-baaaaaaaaack-lamar-smith-says-sopa-markup-to-resume-february.shtml
(badly contrasted gif of Harry Potter looking somewhat disappointed)
So the author got butthurt by some retard on the Internet and wants to use SOPA to nuke the little idiot's blog?
Sounds fair.
Oh, and yes, I know the article is facetious. At least, I hope it's facetious.
You must have turned off your sarcasm/facetiosity detector because that article was dripping with it. It was basted in sarcasm before being smothered in a layer of facetious gravy and served up on a plate of pure snark.
I thought it was a rather clever and funny way of introducing people to why this bill is wrong, what with him showing how it could be used to enact petty revenge on someone who isn't really pirating all that much.
It's supposed to start at 12 am EST. So in an hour and 40 minutes. But apparently some sites started early.
Edit: And it looks like it's just the Elder Scrolls wiki, not all of Wikia as of yet.
http://www.firstpost.com/tech/twitter-facebook-say-no-to-internet-blackout-over-sopa-185851.html
Also, Lamar Smith and the lying MPAA attack the blackout by claiming that it's "just a publicity stunt"! Idiots! :mad:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120117/13254717438/lamar-smith-mpaa-brush-off-wikipedia-blackout-as-just-publicity-stunt.shtml
Official: Microsoft now opposes SOPA... as written.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120117/18324117442/microsoft-finally-makes-it-official-that-it-opposes-sopa-as-written.shtml
How is that good?
You know what's really ironic? That Lamar Smith and MPAA claiming that the Wikipedia blackout is a "Publicity Stunt" is, in itself, a Publicity Stunt.