Actually we do know what happened. They put up a video on YouTube which was a friend of the woman in question simulating giving a blowjob. I'm sure you have a problem with that woman too. "I don't trust this guy because his significant other is a political activist who has a friend that made a video of herself simulating a blowjob on the viewer of the video." You're a fucking tool, plain and simple.
You're not only a bad judge of character - apparently your reading comprehension isn't so great. I see you've backed off your original statement of "she tried to trade BJs for votes to get elected to the Belgian senate" - let's look at the actual story behind your claim that his s/o actually offered blowjobs for votes:
Seems to me the satirical nature of that poster and the associated campaign is pretty clear. But hey, let's just smear a guy because of something that you claim his s/o did, which she didn't actually do, shall we? So much more fun that way.
That seems highly unlikely, if you actually look at the map. California's entire coastline, except for the San Diego area, skews heavily blue (and even San Diego is lightly blue), so the opposite would probably be true - only California 4 (on his map) would likely elect Republican senators. Keep in mind the coasts are also far more heavily populated. So it'd probably be 8-2 the other way.
Uh, hang on. Oz the Great and Powerful was a Disney movie. The Wizard of Oz (1939) was an MGM movie. Just wanted to clarify that for anyone that's confused, like the previous two posters.
You must not have read the article (big surprise). It was supposed to be voluntary; apparently a number of people didn't feel like it was voluntary at all, given what they actually experienced.
MSNBC and Fox get what, a few million viewers, max, per day? A tiny fraction of the population of the US.
Your false dichotomy is a direct result of your desire to feel like you know something that everyone else doesn't, or at least, most other people, all of whom you regard as being not as smart as yourself. It's a ridiculous point of view bred by your narcissism.
Lemme guess, you can also tell us about the real story behind 9/11, that only you and a few other really smart people know about. "Really smart" in this case meaning you read websites that aren't "on anyone else's radar."
Yes, those dirty filthy peasants that are only paying $450/night SHOULD be paying for wifi. After all, $450 a night isn't a "real" luxury hotel. How dare they assume to be as deserving as I am!
That's his point exactly, and a good illustration of why high-end hotels charge for internet while others don't. You're not looking at it from a corporate viewpoint - it's irrelevant what the soda costs to make. If people are willing to pay $2 per glass, then the corporate mindset is "We're losing money if we don't charge $2 per glass." It was ONLY when some places started offering free refills (because they realized it "keeps you in the store where you're more likely to buy something else") that everyone started offering free refills on soda, because of the competition. Until then, it wasn't a question of what that soda cost to make; it was merely a question of maximizing profit.
If one semi-high-end hotel chain, say, maybe, Hilton, starts offering free wifi to all customers, then you'll see others follow suit. Until then, they'll all charge, only because the majority of their customers are willing to pay it, or are on corporate stays that pay for their internet charges anyway.
"Hey, I'm so rich, that I don't care about a $9.95 internet fee tacked onto my hotel bill per night"
-- said many (not all, granted) rich people, every day.
And that's why high-end hotels don't offer free wifi.
While that may be true, one could easily make the argument that that was only because the OS's immediately preceding it and following it were widely rejected by the computer-buying public, all at a point in history where pretty much everyone "had" to have a desktop or laptop, so pointing at the shiny things as the reason for its success seems an exaggeration.
It's nice that you have to money to be willing to pay twice as much for tickets. But wait, here's a revelation for you: you still can! It's called first or business class, and you'll still get your ass kissed, and you'll have plenty of space for your carry-on, and no one will mess with your legroom (and you'll have more of it).
on the other hand, if you're still buying coach fares, then you're full of shit, and don't really miss paying double. Pick one.
I dont believe a drive-in needs more than 150dpi on the screen
Well, good news then. A SMALL drive-in screen is only 60 feet by 30 feet, so your 150 dots-per-inch requirement would only necessitate a projector with a resolution of 108,000 by 54,000. How much is that unit?
Of course, dpi is a printer-resolution measurement, so unless you're looking to print out a film at a drive-in, I suppose it's possible that you're just pulling stuff out of your bunghole at this point.
Sure, because the cost of converting every single film you show from digital to a 35mm print is probably about the same as the 30 quid you paid for your home projector. Problem solved! Now go work on world peace.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually we do know what happened. They put up a video on YouTube which was a friend of the woman in question simulating giving a blowjob. I'm sure you have a problem with that woman too. "I don't trust this guy because his significant other is a political activist who has a friend that made a video of herself simulating a blowjob on the viewer of the video." You're a fucking tool, plain and simple.
You're not only a bad judge of character - apparently your reading comprehension isn't so great. I see you've backed off your original statement of "she tried to trade BJs for votes to get elected to the Belgian senate" - let's look at the actual story behind your claim that his s/o actually offered blowjobs for votes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEE
Seems to me the satirical nature of that poster and the associated campaign is pretty clear. But hey, let's just smear a guy because of something that you claim his s/o did, which she didn't actually do, shall we? So much more fun that way.
Oops, slightly bad math by me - there's 12 total, so I'd guess 8 go Dem, 2 GOP, and 2 toss-up? Sorry bout that.
That seems highly unlikely, if you actually look at the map. California's entire coastline, except for the San Diego area, skews heavily blue (and even San Diego is lightly blue), so the opposite would probably be true - only California 4 (on his map) would likely elect Republican senators. Keep in mind the coasts are also far more heavily populated. So it'd probably be 8-2 the other way.
http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/US_election/figs/CA.png
Uh, hang on. Oz the Great and Powerful was a Disney movie. The Wizard of Oz (1939) was an MGM movie. Just wanted to clarify that for anyone that's confused, like the previous two posters.
THIS is the comment that should be modded up.
You must not have read the article (big surprise). It was supposed to be voluntary; apparently a number of people didn't feel like it was voluntary at all, given what they actually experienced.
Wilson also had a sense of humor.
I live comfortably on about $500-700 per month in the Phoenix area.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Envisioning the implosion of a corrupt, bankrupt police state? Brilliant! Most populous country on Earth is in the ascent? Wizard!
The difference between someoldguy and "Yoda" appears to be that someoldguy is really good at predicting the exact same things in hindsight.
MSNBC and Fox get what, a few million viewers, max, per day? A tiny fraction of the population of the US.
Your false dichotomy is a direct result of your desire to feel like you know something that everyone else doesn't, or at least, most other people, all of whom you regard as being not as smart as yourself. It's a ridiculous point of view bred by your narcissism.
Lemme guess, you can also tell us about the real story behind 9/11, that only you and a few other really smart people know about. "Really smart" in this case meaning you read websites that aren't "on anyone else's radar."
{{citation needed}}
Yes, those dirty filthy peasants that are only paying $450/night SHOULD be paying for wifi. After all, $450 a night isn't a "real" luxury hotel. How dare they assume to be as deserving as I am!
Perhaps my sense of honor and rightness are a little too finely developed. :-)
Perhaps????
That's his point exactly, and a good illustration of why high-end hotels charge for internet while others don't. You're not looking at it from a corporate viewpoint - it's irrelevant what the soda costs to make. If people are willing to pay $2 per glass, then the corporate mindset is "We're losing money if we don't charge $2 per glass." It was ONLY when some places started offering free refills (because they realized it "keeps you in the store where you're more likely to buy something else") that everyone started offering free refills on soda, because of the competition. Until then, it wasn't a question of what that soda cost to make; it was merely a question of maximizing profit.
If one semi-high-end hotel chain, say, maybe, Hilton, starts offering free wifi to all customers, then you'll see others follow suit. Until then, they'll all charge, only because the majority of their customers are willing to pay it, or are on corporate stays that pay for their internet charges anyway.
Your comments on this matter are a good explanation of why you don't own a restaurant or deli.
That's an oversimplification.
"Hey, I'm so rich, that I don't care about a $9.95 internet fee tacked onto my hotel bill per night" -- said many (not all, granted) rich people, every day.
And that's why high-end hotels don't offer free wifi.
While that may be true, one could easily make the argument that that was only because the OS's immediately preceding it and following it were widely rejected by the computer-buying public, all at a point in history where pretty much everyone "had" to have a desktop or laptop, so pointing at the shiny things as the reason for its success seems an exaggeration.
Yes, vigilante justice is the best answer to all of our problems. It's worked out so well in the past.
That's because those passengers are as dumb as you are in believing that sending a text message will cause the plane to crash.
It's nice that you have to money to be willing to pay twice as much for tickets. But wait, here's a revelation for you: you still can! It's called first or business class, and you'll still get your ass kissed, and you'll have plenty of space for your carry-on, and no one will mess with your legroom (and you'll have more of it).
on the other hand, if you're still buying coach fares, then you're full of shit, and don't really miss paying double. Pick one.
That would not be nearly as profitable.
Alas, they have some of the best routes to Asia, so I must use them.
"Well, no reason to stop treating this guy like shit!" --United rep
I dont believe a drive-in needs more than 150dpi on the screen
Well, good news then. A SMALL drive-in screen is only 60 feet by 30 feet, so your 150 dots-per-inch requirement would only necessitate a projector with a resolution of 108,000 by 54,000. How much is that unit?
Of course, dpi is a printer-resolution measurement, so unless you're looking to print out a film at a drive-in, I suppose it's possible that you're just pulling stuff out of your bunghole at this point.
Sure, because the cost of converting every single film you show from digital to a 35mm print is probably about the same as the 30 quid you paid for your home projector. Problem solved! Now go work on world peace.