Don't forget a cinema hall worth of possibly traumatised, or at least psychologically hurt, people. Witnessing an acted out fire fight on a movie screen is quite different than witnessing someone being shot dead next to you, and knowing that this bullet could have taken a slightly different trajectory and go through your own head instead.
The proper question to debate is: why is it even legal to carry guns in a movie theatre? This regardless of being allowed to keep a weapon at home, or even to walk around with it on public streets.
Movie theatres tend to be private businesses. So they don't even need a law to prohibit people bringing guns on their premises, they can just put a sign at the door. No guns. It'd make me feel a lot safer going to such a theatre, than to one where the audience may join the characters on screen in a shoot-out.
Then there would have been at least two crazy guys clinging to bringing their gun everywhere.
One dead and one wounded is more than enough for a simple argument. And that's just the physical aspect of it, not considering the psychological damage of the surviving (and wounded) wife, and the rest of the people present in the theatre who easily could have been hit by a stray bullet.
Which, afaik, is typically about domestic helpers and similar low-skilled jobs.
In Hong Kong, there is a population of about 400,000 helpers (>90% female), about half Philipino, half Indonesian, and a few from other countries such as Sri Lanka and Nepal (on a population of about 7 mln total). They are paid low wages indeed, and no local would want to do the job. They have a special minimum wage that's about 1/3 of the regular minimum wage, have to live with the employer (so no housing and food expenses), and have other special rules and regulation. Salary while low for local standards is really good compared what they get back home, which is why they want to move.
Other imported labour gets at least the same salaries as local staff. That are typically higher educated people, who are pretty well off at home already, and have not much incentive to move. They will only move if they can indeed improve their already good living conditions significantly. Also such labour can only be imported if the employer can show they have a special skill that is not available locally. No doubt the Indian this story is about falls in this upper class.
In contrast, in many Asian countries, it are the western ex-pats that are asked by their employer to move that get payed more than the local staff. And on top of that extra pay, they often get housing allowance, schooling allowance for their children, and other benefits local employees do not get. These salaries are not only higher than what locals get, they're also higher than what they'd get back home. The justification is that these people are exceptionally good at what they do, and are worth their money, and that the company needs this foreign talent. So they receive the extra cash and benefits as incentive to move.
Now of course it's more common that people move from high-paying countries to low-paying countries, however it's quite reasonable for that Indian employee to not only get offered a salary at least as much as what the US locals get, but also other allowances. Indeed that $50k will be a lot more than he gets in India, though cost of living in the US are far higher as well. It may very well be that at say $20k in India he can have a higher standard of living (big house, car, various domestic staff such as a butler, gardener and a maid) than he can have at this $50k in the US.
The guy is considered so good, they want to move him to the other side of the world. That generally means he's at least as good as, if not better than, the top performers of his US counterparts. Otherwise a company would not normally bother with the efforts of moving an employee.
Knowing Microsoft, this is what they're going to do:
- Remove Right-Click capability
What's wrong with that? Until not so long time ago, Apple never even had a right mouse button to click! It'd just confuse the user, having to think of which button to click.
Which may indeed warrant imprisonment, and if suspicion is strong enough being held awaiting trial, but not solitary confinement. He's not likely a danger to other inmates based on such an accusation.
Said like a typical USAian whose world isn't bigger than that.
Laws and regulations vary. Trademarked in one country doesn't mean it's trademarked in the rest of the world (trademarks are specifically location and product related).
Using such photos varies per country, but in general it's not considered OK to use one's face as endorsement for a product, without this person knowing about it. That's also in part the reason those famous sports players or movie stars can get those lucrative product endorsement contracts. That you and I are not famous beyond our fifteen people or minutes, doesn't change this basic rule.
And the whole story just another endorsement of my "no likes" policy. I don't "like" anything, except for some non-commercial pages that I like to follow. (And thanks to that @#$&$ newsfeed I still don't get the updates I ask for! Not clicking on a post, or not commenting/liking it, doesn't mean I don't want to see more of their updates.)
The reason why? Easy - if I want to know about your product, I'll go Google it,
And how are you going to Google for "the latest, greatest, newest product that I don't know about yet"? Google is great to get more information about stuff you heard about already. These fairs are meant to find stuff you don't know about yet.
Is there some software kit out there? Some kind crypto-currency-kit? With such currencies apprearing left, right and centre it really makes me feel like that's how they do it.
It has nothing to do with how innovative the product is - even though it did bring something that no other apps did at the time, what matters is that it had many users. That's all that counts.
Except for this little bit in the italics below the main article text:
All of the capabilities mentioned are real as of 2013, and have some degree of availability. No-one has a product that provides them all as yet. Full disclosure: I once proposed this to a device manufacturer, who thought no-one would ever need it.
I've never heard before of goods being destroyed without the owner knowing about it.
It is destruction of evidence: these flutes were allegedly imported illegally (agricultural products, according to customs), which is an offense, maybe a crime. In such a case the illegal goods are normally confiscated and stored in secure customs warehouse for further investigations, but not destroyed. Based on the results of the investigation they may be returned (not illegal after all, or owner can provide the required paperwork and import license for a restricted item), or they're confirmed illegal imports and the owner is prosecuted.
Having stuff not available for digital sale but only physical media is old-fashioned. Since at least a decade most music can be bought from multiple sources in digital format - why is video lagging behind so badly?
Maybe. But then I'd first have to buy a Blu-Ray player. DVD player is broken; still have to go get a new one; then at least my son can watch his DVDs again, which for long time was our only use of that device.
Disks and other physical media are passé - it's been like eight years since I had a CD/DVD player in my computer even, simply no use for it. HD storage is so much more convenient.
There's nothing "clearly losing money for both industries" about it.
Of course not. That's the standard line. First you complain about piracy, how it's so bad for business, how you obviously lose billions, and next you post the best revenue and profits ever, showing that, on a per-person basis, people have actually spent MORE on movie tickets, CDs, DVDs, online services, etc, than the year before. Despite all that piracy. Or should I say, thanks to all that piracy?
For me living in a country where Games of Thrones is not on TV or available via any other channel, TPB is the only reasonable option. Recently I saw some promo of HBO pay-TV having that show, sorry, not going to pay a buy a channel subscription for a single season of a single show (and of course subscriptions go per year). And that's not even considering past shows that I didn't watch yet.
And honestly TPB serves me so well that I don't even bother checking out the other options.
That'd mean a lot more destruction to the ATM, and as a result instant detection of the crime. Instead of days or weeks later when the number of notes in the machine was compared with the ledger (no idea how frequently that's done).
Security cameras are only to record what happens, for later viewing. They don't help prevent crime, they only help solving it (they might prevent some because of the higher risk of getting caught).
These thieves did their best to not have their work detected. They drilled the hole, installed the software, then patched up the hole. Later they came back to get the money out of the machine - basically by nicely asking the machine to give it to them. And that again was detected only much later when the notes in the machine were counted and the numbers were found to be off, which in turn triggered an investigation, taking even more time before the bank finally found out what was going on.
Those security cameras did nothing. A smart thieve will wear a cap or so, inconspicuous (wearing a mask would make you stand out of course) but it hides your face from the overhead camera, so even seeing them do it won't give many clues.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget a cinema hall worth of possibly traumatised, or at least psychologically hurt, people. Witnessing an acted out fire fight on a movie screen is quite different than witnessing someone being shot dead next to you, and knowing that this bullet could have taken a slightly different trajectory and go through your own head instead.
Isn't that called "stand your ground" nowadays?
The proper question to debate is: why is it even legal to carry guns in a movie theatre? This regardless of being allowed to keep a weapon at home, or even to walk around with it on public streets.
Movie theatres tend to be private businesses. So they don't even need a law to prohibit people bringing guns on their premises, they can just put a sign at the door. No guns. It'd make me feel a lot safer going to such a theatre, than to one where the audience may join the characters on screen in a shoot-out.
Then there would have been at least two crazy guys clinging to bringing their gun everywhere.
One dead and one wounded is more than enough for a simple argument. And that's just the physical aspect of it, not considering the psychological damage of the surviving (and wounded) wife, and the rest of the people present in the theatre who easily could have been hit by a stray bullet.
Death penalty? What you're saying there is, "Killing someone is a bad thing to do, so we'll kill you." Pure hypocrisy.
It was a retired cop.
And I do wonder why people would carry a gun when going to the movies.
Which, afaik, is typically about domestic helpers and similar low-skilled jobs.
In Hong Kong, there is a population of about 400,000 helpers (>90% female), about half Philipino, half Indonesian, and a few from other countries such as Sri Lanka and Nepal (on a population of about 7 mln total). They are paid low wages indeed, and no local would want to do the job. They have a special minimum wage that's about 1/3 of the regular minimum wage, have to live with the employer (so no housing and food expenses), and have other special rules and regulation. Salary while low for local standards is really good compared what they get back home, which is why they want to move.
Other imported labour gets at least the same salaries as local staff. That are typically higher educated people, who are pretty well off at home already, and have not much incentive to move. They will only move if they can indeed improve their already good living conditions significantly. Also such labour can only be imported if the employer can show they have a special skill that is not available locally. No doubt the Indian this story is about falls in this upper class.
In contrast, in many Asian countries, it are the western ex-pats that are asked by their employer to move that get payed more than the local staff. And on top of that extra pay, they often get housing allowance, schooling allowance for their children, and other benefits local employees do not get. These salaries are not only higher than what locals get, they're also higher than what they'd get back home. The justification is that these people are exceptionally good at what they do, and are worth their money, and that the company needs this foreign talent. So they receive the extra cash and benefits as incentive to move.
Now of course it's more common that people move from high-paying countries to low-paying countries, however it's quite reasonable for that Indian employee to not only get offered a salary at least as much as what the US locals get, but also other allowances. Indeed that $50k will be a lot more than he gets in India, though cost of living in the US are far higher as well. It may very well be that at say $20k in India he can have a higher standard of living (big house, car, various domestic staff such as a butler, gardener and a maid) than he can have at this $50k in the US.
The guy is considered so good, they want to move him to the other side of the world. That generally means he's at least as good as, if not better than, the top performers of his US counterparts. Otherwise a company would not normally bother with the efforts of moving an employee.
Knowing Microsoft, this is what they're going to do:
- Remove Right-Click capability
What's wrong with that? Until not so long time ago, Apple never even had a right mouse button to click! It'd just confuse the user, having to think of which button to click.
You're going to give that shop assistant a hard time... the hardest of which is probably finding the warranty text in the first place.
Which may indeed warrant imprisonment, and if suspicion is strong enough being held awaiting trial, but not solitary confinement. He's not likely a danger to other inmates based on such an accusation.
If only the news feed reliably worked like that...
Said like a typical USAian whose world isn't bigger than that.
Laws and regulations vary. Trademarked in one country doesn't mean it's trademarked in the rest of the world (trademarks are specifically location and product related).
Using such photos varies per country, but in general it's not considered OK to use one's face as endorsement for a product, without this person knowing about it. That's also in part the reason those famous sports players or movie stars can get those lucrative product endorsement contracts. That you and I are not famous beyond our fifteen people or minutes, doesn't change this basic rule.
And the whole story just another endorsement of my "no likes" policy. I don't "like" anything, except for some non-commercial pages that I like to follow. (And thanks to that @#$&$ newsfeed I still don't get the updates I ask for! Not clicking on a post, or not commenting/liking it, doesn't mean I don't want to see more of their updates.)
Now how useful is your great idea, if no-one knows about it?
The reason why? Easy - if I want to know about your product, I'll go Google it,
And how are you going to Google for "the latest, greatest, newest product that I don't know about yet"? Google is great to get more information about stuff you heard about already. These fairs are meant to find stuff you don't know about yet.
Is there some software kit out there? Some kind crypto-currency-kit? With such currencies apprearing left, right and centre it really makes me feel like that's how they do it.
It has nothing to do with how innovative the product is - even though it did bring something that no other apps did at the time, what matters is that it had many users. That's all that counts.
Except for this little bit in the italics below the main article text:
All of the capabilities mentioned are real as of 2013, and have some degree of availability. No-one has a product that provides them all as yet. Full disclosure: I once proposed this to a device manufacturer, who thought no-one would ever need it.
Sorry, it still is a fable.
I really don't believe this story.
I've never heard before of goods being destroyed without the owner knowing about it.
It is destruction of evidence: these flutes were allegedly imported illegally (agricultural products, according to customs), which is an offense, maybe a crime. In such a case the illegal goods are normally confiscated and stored in secure customs warehouse for further investigations, but not destroyed. Based on the results of the investigation they may be returned (not illegal after all, or owner can provide the required paperwork and import license for a restricted item), or they're confirmed illegal imports and the owner is prosecuted.
Having stuff not available for digital sale but only physical media is old-fashioned. Since at least a decade most music can be bought from multiple sources in digital format - why is video lagging behind so badly?
Maybe. But then I'd first have to buy a Blu-Ray player. DVD player is broken; still have to go get a new one; then at least my son can watch his DVDs again, which for long time was our only use of that device.
Disks and other physical media are passé - it's been like eight years since I had a CD/DVD player in my computer even, simply no use for it. HD storage is so much more convenient.
There's nothing "clearly losing money for both industries" about it.
Of course not. That's the standard line. First you complain about piracy, how it's so bad for business, how you obviously lose billions, and next you post the best revenue and profits ever, showing that, on a per-person basis, people have actually spent MORE on movie tickets, CDs, DVDs, online services, etc, than the year before. Despite all that piracy. Or should I say, thanks to all that piracy?
For me living in a country where Games of Thrones is not on TV or available via any other channel, TPB is the only reasonable option. Recently I saw some promo of HBO pay-TV having that show, sorry, not going to pay a buy a channel subscription for a single season of a single show (and of course subscriptions go per year). And that's not even considering past shows that I didn't watch yet.
And honestly TPB serves me so well that I don't even bother checking out the other options.
That'd mean a lot more destruction to the ATM, and as a result instant detection of the crime. Instead of days or weeks later when the number of notes in the machine was compared with the ledger (no idea how frequently that's done).
Security cameras are only to record what happens, for later viewing. They don't help prevent crime, they only help solving it (they might prevent some because of the higher risk of getting caught).
These thieves did their best to not have their work detected. They drilled the hole, installed the software, then patched up the hole. Later they came back to get the money out of the machine - basically by nicely asking the machine to give it to them. And that again was detected only much later when the notes in the machine were counted and the numbers were found to be off, which in turn triggered an investigation, taking even more time before the bank finally found out what was going on.
Those security cameras did nothing. A smart thieve will wear a cap or so, inconspicuous (wearing a mask would make you stand out of course) but it hides your face from the overhead camera, so even seeing them do it won't give many clues.