Our 15% unemployment is a fake number. double it for the real number.
THIS. Good point - people always forget that "discouraged job seekers" (those who stop looking for work or are dropped from underemployment rolls) are not counted in the official figures.
There's lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.;)
THANK YOU for stating this, even though you shouldn't have to. If I have to listen to one more person automatically paint corporations as "bad" because they think it makes them sound intellectual I'm going to puke. And don't get me started on those douches with their Che stickers on their Macbooks... ugh!;)
I too saw Wolverine this weekend and liked it pretty well. I've never read the comics so I'm not really familiar with all of the characters and story lines, and I have no idea if it follows them well or not.
It won't win any awards, but it was a good popcorn action flick to help kick off the summer season. I'm going to see Star Trek this week, which should be great. And let us not forget Terminator which opens soon... that should be good as well!
Let's be honest: if they're doing anything to prevent skype from functioning, it's purely a financial decision.
I've never seen anyone use an airplane phone. Granted, I've only flown 20 times total in my life thus far, but still... I don't think "forcing" people to use their phones is a decision that will really help them stay financially viable.
Well I, for one, don't agree with them. And I see nothing wrong what-so-ever in raising a public stink about it everytime they do it. Its complete bullshit, and they deserve the backlash for being money grubbing assholes.
It's a business, not a charity. They don't need to give anything away for free. Clearly, the market will withstand the $10 they are asking otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Yes, some people like you will copy the update illegally, but many many more will pay the measly $10.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment about being legally obligated to charge for it, but it makes business sense to me. Don't give away things for free when you can make a profit off of it.
*EVERY* time Apple announce something new for the touch/iphone, it costs an extra $10 on the touch. *EVERY* time someone moans about that.
Plus, watching people with $300 digital music/movie players WITH WiFi internet access(!!) whine about a $10 update is priceless. That's two pints at the local pub with tip, get over it.
Did you know there it at least one city in America with over 1/3 of a million residents but no public transit system?
Did I know that there is a city with more that 333,333.333 residents but no public transit system? No. But it sounds like a crappy place to live with poor city planning. I'd move!
Nerds end wars faster than soldiers? Interesting theory. Another thing to look at is all of the nerds (mathematicians, physicists, electric and mechanical engineers, and all of the people in other areas of expertise) that were needed for the Manhattan Project, which eventually lead to the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan, which most likely ended the war earlier than a direct assault on Japan would have.
In fact, they could insert local ads based on your location, which could be based on your billing address.
Exactly, they should actually put some thought into creative thinking about where they would like to see the industry go and revenue come from, rather than their usual protectionist actions that deprive users of access to content in order to keep life support going on an outdated business model.
It's just plain laziness and a very wrong idea about "deserved" revenues. They don't deserve to make any money if they don't keep their customers happy and actually provide people with what they want.
It actually struck me for the first time how weird it is that a cable TV company is my Internet provider. Of course they are going to be against unlimited streaming video, as it directly competes with their existing business model. They have been too lazy to figure out how to properly monetize it, so they'll just slowly choke off access. Maybe it'll be time to look into Clear (WiMax service) soon...
Besides, the cable model is inherently unfair anyway. One both pays the cable co. and must sit through commercials. Most people won't admit that they're getting double billed, but they can feel it. They will migrate to better models as they become available.
Yes, and they still charge an arm and a leg for their premium offerings... I know people who pay between $150 - $200 a month for cable - that is insane!
I don't mind sitting through commercials when I watch online because it's mostly free (besides the cost of internet), but commercials on cable TV are aggravating. Its little wonder DVRs are so popular.
The only reason I can see where the cost of cable is worth it is to be provided with your shows in hi-def if you own a nice LCD or Plasma display, which you could easily pirate and send to your TV if you know what you're doing.
Yes, professional with professional quality equipment, and I never try and hide what I'm doing... I'm out there taking pictures with my big-ass camera. Which is also what makes it so weird that people want to confront me. If I was *trying* to be sneaky, I'd sit in a car and use a telephoto to snap pictures from several blocks away. I walk around with my camera in full view around my neck... it's kind of hard to hide a Nikon DSLR.
I bet if I stood out on the street and took pictures of their house and posted them on my blog they wouldn't notice or care. But Google has lots of cash, so they sue them.
You must not be a photographer. You have no idea how many weird situations I've gotten into because people are paranoid freaks.
I take photos of industrial architecture and, for lack of a better word, old junk (half torn down buildings, rusted bars that form neat shapes, old tractors without wheels, things like that). I've had plenty of private citizens and rent-a-cops (though no real cops) jump down my throat because they perceive me as some sort of "threat". It's really quite amusing, as if they would actually be interesting enough for me to waste my time on... a white guy with a big black camera sure is scary! *sigh*
Ah, good to know. I suddenly couldn't recall if they were the same or not. That's what I get for being a dumb yank trying to use them fancy English words.;)
Ubuntu kept this women from her online classes the same way trying to fill a petrol car with diesel would keep someone else from attending a normal lecture... USER ERROR.
At that time you could choose Windows ME or Windows 2000.
I don't know about anyone else, but I loved Windows 2000 professional. I ran it on my personal machine for years, until I finally bought a Laptop that came with WinXP. Windows 2000 always ran very solid for me and didn't cause any problems (until I tried to install a HDD that was larger than Windows could recognize).
You don't need a new TV though, just a converter box.
And that's only if you don't already have cable or satellite TV. One of my local channels has been running a "test" every day during their morning news broadcast to help inform the technologically illiterate folks on their readiness for the switch. What they do is shut off their analog transmitter for about 10 seconds, then switch it back on. They then tell the people "if you could see us the whole time, you have nothing to worry about, but if we went away you are going to need a converter box or cable/satellite television".
I *love* how the country seems to be in a semi-panic over losing their crappy free TV signal. If your TV turns off after the switch, you weren't watching anything of value any ways.
New TVs are not that expensive. Even pensioners could buy a new one. I don't think the government should be paying for any of this.
The Government, along with the major media conglomerates, would very much like to continue their effective propaganda campaign against US citizens. An easy way to do this is to is to continue providing lazy Americans with free TV in their house, ensuring that the message delivery system that is piped directly into homes stays intact.
It's quite brilliant, really. I am not a tinfoil hatter (don't even get me started on those "contrails kill!!" idiots) but I believe this.
Slashdot Mirror
Our 15% unemployment is a fake number. double it for the real number.
THIS. Good point - people always forget that "discouraged job seekers" (those who stop looking for work or are dropped from underemployment rolls) are not counted in the official figures.
There's lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. ;)
If this is a prequel, it will have to be about the egg of that first alien before it hatched.
What came first, the alien or the egg?
no phone in the history of the universe has had a front facing video camera
My nearly 3 year old Samsung t809 has a camera on top that can be swiveled to face the front or back. It can also record video. Doh. Picture: http://www.66mobile.com/phones/samsung/Samsung-D820-T809-T-Mobile.html/
THANK YOU for stating this, even though you shouldn't have to. If I have to listen to one more person automatically paint corporations as "bad" because they think it makes them sound intellectual I'm going to puke. And don't get me started on those douches with their Che stickers on their Macbooks... ugh! ;)
I too saw Wolverine this weekend and liked it pretty well. I've never read the comics so I'm not really familiar with all of the characters and story lines, and I have no idea if it follows them well or not.
It won't win any awards, but it was a good popcorn action flick to help kick off the summer season. I'm going to see Star Trek this week, which should be great. And let us not forget Terminator which opens soon... that should be good as well!
Let's be honest: if they're doing anything to prevent skype from functioning, it's purely a financial decision.
I've never seen anyone use an airplane phone. Granted, I've only flown 20 times total in my life thus far, but still... I don't think "forcing" people to use their phones is a decision that will really help them stay financially viable.
Sometimes the silence really is deafening and noise helps you concentrate.
Exactly why I never did any work in the library, but rather in the student union hall, coffee shops, etc.
$69 for a can of pop (Soda for the retarded), yeah, a bit expensive.
Seriously? You sound like a rube when you say "pop", or that your vocabulary didn't progress beyond the age of 5.
Well I, for one, don't agree with them. And I see nothing wrong what-so-ever in raising a public stink about it everytime they do it. Its complete bullshit, and they deserve the backlash for being money grubbing assholes.
It's a business, not a charity. They don't need to give anything away for free. Clearly, the market will withstand the $10 they are asking otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Yes, some people like you will copy the update illegally, but many many more will pay the measly $10.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment about being legally obligated to charge for it, but it makes business sense to me. Don't give away things for free when you can make a profit off of it.
*EVERY* time Apple announce something new for the touch/iphone, it costs an extra $10 on the touch. *EVERY* time someone moans about that.
Plus, watching people with $300 digital music/movie players WITH WiFi internet access(!!) whine about a $10 update is priceless. That's two pints at the local pub with tip, get over it.
Did you know there it at least one city in America with over 1/3 of a million residents but no public transit system?
Did I know that there is a city with more that 333,333.333 residents but no public transit system? No. But it sounds like a crappy place to live with poor city planning. I'd move!
Nerds end wars faster than soldiers? Interesting theory. Another thing to look at is all of the nerds (mathematicians, physicists, electric and mechanical engineers, and all of the people in other areas of expertise) that were needed for the Manhattan Project, which eventually lead to the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan, which most likely ended the war earlier than a direct assault on Japan would have.
In fact, they could insert local ads based on your location, which could be based on your billing address.
Exactly, they should actually put some thought into creative thinking about where they would like to see the industry go and revenue come from, rather than their usual protectionist actions that deprive users of access to content in order to keep life support going on an outdated business model.
It's just plain laziness and a very wrong idea about "deserved" revenues. They don't deserve to make any money if they don't keep their customers happy and actually provide people with what they want.
It actually struck me for the first time how weird it is that a cable TV company is my Internet provider. Of course they are going to be against unlimited streaming video, as it directly competes with their existing business model. They have been too lazy to figure out how to properly monetize it, so they'll just slowly choke off access. Maybe it'll be time to look into Clear (WiMax service) soon...
Besides, the cable model is inherently unfair anyway. One both pays the cable co. and must sit through commercials. Most people won't admit that they're getting double billed, but they can feel it. They will migrate to better models as they become available.
Yes, and they still charge an arm and a leg for their premium offerings... I know people who pay between $150 - $200 a month for cable - that is insane!
I don't mind sitting through commercials when I watch online because it's mostly free (besides the cost of internet), but commercials on cable TV are aggravating. Its little wonder DVRs are so popular.
The only reason I can see where the cost of cable is worth it is to be provided with your shows in hi-def if you own a nice LCD or Plasma display, which you could easily pirate and send to your TV if you know what you're doing.
er... rather, I would have told him that a Nikon was a much better choice. Not sure what happened with my typing there....
Yes, professional with professional quality equipment, and I never try and hide what I'm doing... I'm out there taking pictures with my big-ass camera. Which is also what makes it so weird that people want to confront me. If I was *trying* to be sneaky, I'd sit in a car and use a telephoto to snap pictures from several blocks away. I walk around with my camera in full view around my neck... it's kind of hard to hide a Nikon DSLR.
They would probably get really freaked out if a big black guy with a white camera showed up!
Yeah, I'd ask him why he bought that POS limited edition white Pentax DSLR: http://nexus404.com/Blog/2008/12/17/pentax-limited-edition-k2000-white-dslr-k2000-double-zoom-slr-kit/. I would have told him an Nikon was a much choice. ;)
I bet if I stood out on the street and took pictures of their house and posted them on my blog they wouldn't notice or care. But Google has lots of cash, so they sue them.
You must not be a photographer. You have no idea how many weird situations I've gotten into because people are paranoid freaks.
I take photos of industrial architecture and, for lack of a better word, old junk (half torn down buildings, rusted bars that form neat shapes, old tractors without wheels, things like that). I've had plenty of private citizens and rent-a-cops (though no real cops) jump down my throat because they perceive me as some sort of "threat". It's really quite amusing, as if they would actually be interesting enough for me to waste my time on... a white guy with a big black camera sure is scary! *sigh*
Ah, good to know. I suddenly couldn't recall if they were the same or not. That's what I get for being a dumb yank trying to use them fancy English words. ;)
Ok, now I'm responding to my own post... bad user!
Is petrol the same as diesel? Maybe I should have stuck with using "gasoline".
Ubuntu kept this women from her online classes the same way trying to fill a petrol car with diesel would keep someone else from attending a normal lecture... USER ERROR.
I see - you're near - a - Starbucks. Don't you - want - to get - a - latte?
Is that with the William Shatner voice module turned on?
At that time you could choose Windows ME or Windows 2000.
I don't know about anyone else, but I loved Windows 2000 professional. I ran it on my personal machine for years, until I finally bought a Laptop that came with WinXP. Windows 2000 always ran very solid for me and didn't cause any problems (until I tried to install a HDD that was larger than Windows could recognize).
You don't need a new TV though, just a converter box.
And that's only if you don't already have cable or satellite TV. One of my local channels has been running a "test" every day during their morning news broadcast to help inform the technologically illiterate folks on their readiness for the switch. What they do is shut off their analog transmitter for about 10 seconds, then switch it back on. They then tell the people "if you could see us the whole time, you have nothing to worry about, but if we went away you are going to need a converter box or cable/satellite television".
I *love* how the country seems to be in a semi-panic over losing their crappy free TV signal. If your TV turns off after the switch, you weren't watching anything of value any ways.
New TVs are not that expensive. Even pensioners could buy a new one. I don't think the government should be paying for any of this.
The Government, along with the major media conglomerates, would very much like to continue their effective propaganda campaign against US citizens. An easy way to do this is to is to continue providing lazy Americans with free TV in their house, ensuring that the message delivery system that is piped directly into homes stays intact.
It's quite brilliant, really. I am not a tinfoil hatter (don't even get me started on those "contrails kill!!" idiots) but I believe this.