I really don't see the ethical problem. Cable television is not a fundamental need. It's not like they are bundling your only supply of water with a purchase of 1000 corn dogs. I can understand you not wanting to buy it, though.
Verizon wanted to offer better granularity of service to their customers, but ESPN claims it's in violation of their contracts. If ESPN is right, then Verizon backed themselves into a corner.
If you read the article, they give stats on this, but I don't understand them because they seem to contradict themselves:
According to Parks Associates, 68 percent of all American households watch streaming video on PCs, with about 53 percent of all streaming video consumed on computers. But many, many more have given up the PC to watch movies on connected TVs: 89 percent, Parks says.
So...53% of all streaming video is on computers and 89% is on TVs instead?
Other statistics I've seen corroborate the PC thing, even if that surprises you. I don't know where that 89% number comes from or what it refers to. Maybe people's future plans?
In your mind, wanting kids to be vaccinated means being desperate to live in China?
Children are legally required to go to school. The law cannot legally mandate that children put themselves in undue danger (that's a constitutional right). Therefore, public schools must be provided that are full of children that are reasonably safe for other children to be around.
If you don't want this situation, then the thing to push back on is the legal requirement for children to be educated. I still wouldn't agree with that position but it's more consistent.
I talk about movies with friends weeks after they are released. We don't usually all go the every movie in absolute sync.
A full season of TV released at once is like a super-movie.
I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't think it's worth it, nor do I think it really eliminates it. After all, A Song of Ice and Fire came out a book at a time. A whole series worth of content. And then it takes years to get the next book. He had forums dedicated to speculation too. It's still serialized, it's just bigger chunks coming in slower. On the other hand, in the past, some things published as novels now were kind of just collected magazine serial stories edited together.
The flip side is that they *could* release 5 minutes every day until the season is done. I think most agree that's too little at a time and would probably only watch when the slow drip of content reached a certain threshold.
I greatly prefer watching the whole season at once. In fact I often intentionally delay watching real world TV until I can binge-watch it.
I don't quite get that objection. It's not like it's particularly new. Magazines and newspapers were subscription-based and full of ads, for instance.
Mind you I choose to only watch Hulu and not pay for Hulu plus. Netflix is already the best and I have Amazon Prime because it comes with ancillary benefits. The benefits from Hulu Plus that I don't get some other way are too small.
350k puts you in 5.88%. To get to 1%, you need 800k.
You have got to realise that even on Slashdot, which skews high-income due to tech being a generally high income field, lots of people don't have a net worth of 350k let alone 800k.
(Also, you have to realize that 1% initially referred specifically to income inequality in the United States.)
If you want to propose your own number, cite or shut up.
I should be thrown in jail?
Quit being a drama queen. You are literally the only person on this thread to mention jail or prison in this entire thread as of the time of writing. We get it; you're offended that people aren't neutral on the subject of Joseph Goebbels. You can get over it.
If you don't care about him orchestrating war crimes, maybe you will accept he's a criminal due to him murdering six children (his own children) before his sucide? Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.... Those were by his own hand.
Here's a philosophical question. What's worse, murdering your own children by your own hand, or intentionally causing the deaths of 60 million people (the vast majority of whom should be presumed innocent of any crime), but at arm's length? I'd go with the latter, but they are both pretty damned bad.
The only reason he wasn't tried for war crimes was he was already dead:
The IMT decided not to try them posthumously so as not to create the impression that they might still be alive.
It's not like it's unusual to not press charges on dead people. It doesn't do much good to anybody. Pretty safe bet he'd have been convicted.
It's not like this was an accident, that he couldn't have known what he was doing. It's certainly not thought crimes. We don't know Goebbels' thoughts, we know his actions.
From the images on their web it looks like they have about 40-ish employees. If the average salary before was around 50k then this alone would be sufficient to cover that.
You don't need to infer from images. This article tells you there are 120 people on staff, and that aside from the CEO salary cut, 75-80 percent of the company's current projected profits are being transformed into salary: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...
Or he could just halve all his existing employees pay and hire double the people, for the same result! It's not nearly so straightforward as you're saying.
The article says the new minimum pay is 70k, and the old average was 48k. It *also* says that it's going to happen over 3 years, so it's not effective immediately.
I do not know the market for payment processors well, but I'm really doubtful you can just hire another 40% of staff and suddenly have revenue increases. It might not have 0 effect, but then again, I'm pretty sure this will be amazing for employee retention which helps the expense side of things.
I'm going to say that any reasonable definition of Free Will that is incompatible with determinism is a definition for a thing that doesn't exist, regardless of how deterministic or non-deterministic the environment is.
I will however accept that reasonable definitions for Free Will can be made that are compatible with determinism (and non-determinism). I feel that the difference between Compatibilism and Incompatibilism is, at that point, simply a matter of the semantics around "free will", which has never had a simple, universal, well-posed definition.
It's not that men are better negotiators, it's that they are more likely to try to negotiate in the first place, when an offer is not explicitly described as negotiable.*
It's actually often cited as a big reason for the gender pay gap, especially when you consider that negotiation isn't just about salary but also about position.
* There are also further possibilities, not fully proven, that can compound that. One you've already identified: perhaps women are just worse at it, either biologically or through socialization. Another is that people on the other end of the negotiating table might be better at negotiating against women, again either biologically or through socialization or other economic factors.
That only makes sense if negotiation is a core competency of your job.
It *will* bias the company away from hiring people who are good at their jobs and *also* good negotiators...but at the same time it should tend to bias them toward hiring people who are good at their jobs and *bad* negotiators.
Spaces are unquestionably useful in some cases. Tabs need to justify their existence.
I can virtually guarantee if you were inventing the first character set today, with no backward-compatibility constraints and no knowledge of the real world's history of keyboarding, you would not include a tab key. It's a relic of the typewriter era, and it's redundant. You *would* probably have a "change the currently focussed element" key, but I suspect it would be related to the arrow keys and would be positional rather than linear. Word processors would have a different affordance for "indent bulleted list".
Disk space for source code tabs vs. spaces is irrelevant.
To me, the tab character causes problems and the only real problem it solves (different tastes for how much width to indent) are better solved by an IDE which is already solving the same problem in so many other contexts, like syntax highlighting in different colours etc.. An IDE could easily say that a line that starts with a string of X consecutive spaces should be represented as Y consecutive spaces. Y may even be a fraction, or a function if you choose to have tab mean "align to previous", but 2, 4, and 8 fixed-width spaces are pretty common. Personally I like 3, but at my workplace the standard is 4 and that's just fine.
Extortion is not necessarily violence (though violent extortion is certainly a real thing). The definition of violence requires physical force. There seems to be a trend of people confusing "violence" and "force" with coercion. They aren't the same thing.
You should go argue with the other AC who claims that your side is the side of feminists abusing the term rape.
At *best* this is a conflation. The guy used the same word, rape, to mean two completely different things in that sentence. Once about forced sexual intercourse and once about an invasion of privacy (albeit with a sexual component).
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean nobody seems to care? It's all we ever hear about in any article about women's representation in STEM.
No, I think you have a deviant definition for suffering. And for opposite.
For instance, the opposite of "too cold" is "too hot". But there is such a thing as being neither too hot nor too cold.
There's a difference between these three things:
- Thinking something isn't illegal
- Thinking something shouldn't be illegal
- Liking something
I really don't see the ethical problem. Cable television is not a fundamental need. It's not like they are bundling your only supply of water with a purchase of 1000 corn dogs. I can understand you not wanting to buy it, though.
Verizon wanted to offer better granularity of service to their customers, but ESPN claims it's in violation of their contracts. If ESPN is right, then Verizon backed themselves into a corner.
If they aren't going to Canada, they are half-assing their honeymoon.
That's the "detriment of others" part, not putting themselves first.
What you said makes sense, but wasn't obvious contextually because they were talking about movies before and after. Now I get it.
Although I think TV series should be bucketed with movies as far as DRM goes.
If you read the article, they give stats on this, but I don't understand them because they seem to contradict themselves:
According to Parks Associates, 68 percent of all American households watch streaming video on PCs, with about 53 percent of all streaming video consumed on computers. But many, many more have given up the PC to watch movies on connected TVs: 89 percent, Parks says.
So...53% of all streaming video is on computers and 89% is on TVs instead?
Other statistics I've seen corroborate the PC thing, even if that surprises you. I don't know where that 89% number comes from or what it refers to. Maybe people's future plans?
In your mind, wanting kids to be vaccinated means being desperate to live in China?
Children are legally required to go to school. The law cannot legally mandate that children put themselves in undue danger (that's a constitutional right). Therefore, public schools must be provided that are full of children that are reasonably safe for other children to be around.
If you don't want this situation, then the thing to push back on is the legal requirement for children to be educated. I still wouldn't agree with that position but it's more consistent.
Slippery slope arguments are a slippery slope to a stagnant and decadent society.
The reason you'd care about their business model is because you are doing business with them.
I talk about movies with friends weeks after they are released. We don't usually all go the every movie in absolute sync.
A full season of TV released at once is like a super-movie.
I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't think it's worth it, nor do I think it really eliminates it. After all, A Song of Ice and Fire came out a book at a time. A whole series worth of content. And then it takes years to get the next book. He had forums dedicated to speculation too. It's still serialized, it's just bigger chunks coming in slower. On the other hand, in the past, some things published as novels now were kind of just collected magazine serial stories edited together.
The flip side is that they *could* release 5 minutes every day until the season is done. I think most agree that's too little at a time and would probably only watch when the slow drip of content reached a certain threshold.
I greatly prefer watching the whole season at once. In fact I often intentionally delay watching real world TV until I can binge-watch it.
I don't quite get that objection. It's not like it's particularly new. Magazines and newspapers were subscription-based and full of ads, for instance.
Mind you I choose to only watch Hulu and not pay for Hulu plus. Netflix is already the best and I have Amazon Prime because it comes with ancillary benefits. The benefits from Hulu Plus that I don't get some other way are too small.
Others have pointed out your math error. You, or others who share your opinion, seem to be making the same mistake over and over.
Here's a real statistic:
https://amourtan.com/2013/02/g...
350k puts you in 5.88%. To get to 1%, you need 800k.
You have got to realise that even on Slashdot, which skews high-income due to tech being a generally high income field, lots of people don't have a net worth of 350k let alone 800k.
(Also, you have to realize that 1% initially referred specifically to income inequality in the United States.)
60 million is the number now?
Yes, 60 million is the number "now". Are you implying that at some point in the past almost 70 years, fewer people were thought to have died in WWII?
Let me guess, if I don't believe your statements
There are 5 references to the original crime, and a sixth to the definition of the actual definition of the crime committed. You gave 0 references.
Here's some more references for the specific number of 60 million deaths broken down by country:
http://www.nationalww2museum.o...
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m....
If you want to propose your own number, cite or shut up.
I should be thrown in jail?
Quit being a drama queen. You are literally the only person on this thread to mention jail or prison in this entire thread as of the time of writing. We get it; you're offended that people aren't neutral on the subject of Joseph Goebbels. You can get over it.
If you don't care about him orchestrating war crimes, maybe you will accept he's a criminal due to him murdering six children (his own children) before his sucide? Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.... Those were by his own hand.
Here's a philosophical question. What's worse, murdering your own children by your own hand, or intentionally causing the deaths of 60 million people (the vast majority of whom should be presumed innocent of any crime), but at arm's length? I'd go with the latter, but they are both pretty damned bad.
The only reason he wasn't tried for war crimes was he was already dead:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ar...
The IMT decided not to try them posthumously so as not to create the impression that they might still be alive.
It's not like it's unusual to not press charges on dead people. It doesn't do much good to anybody. Pretty safe bet he'd have been convicted.
It's not like this was an accident, that he couldn't have known what he was doing. It's certainly not thought crimes. We don't know Goebbels' thoughts, we know his actions.
From the images on their web it looks like they have about 40-ish employees. If the average salary before was around 50k then this alone would be sufficient to cover that.
You don't need to infer from images. This article tells you there are 120 people on staff, and that aside from the CEO salary cut, 75-80 percent of the company's current projected profits are being transformed into salary: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...
Or he could just halve all his existing employees pay and hire double the people, for the same result! It's not nearly so straightforward as you're saying.
The article says the new minimum pay is 70k, and the old average was 48k. It *also* says that it's going to happen over 3 years, so it's not effective immediately.
I do not know the market for payment processors well, but I'm really doubtful you can just hire another 40% of staff and suddenly have revenue increases. It might not have 0 effect, but then again, I'm pretty sure this will be amazing for employee retention which helps the expense side of things.
Dilemma of determinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
I'm going to say that any reasonable definition of Free Will that is incompatible with determinism is a definition for a thing that doesn't exist, regardless of how deterministic or non-deterministic the environment is.
I will however accept that reasonable definitions for Free Will can be made that are compatible with determinism (and non-determinism). I feel that the difference between Compatibilism and Incompatibilism is, at that point, simply a matter of the semantics around "free will", which has never had a simple, universal, well-posed definition.
It's not that men are better negotiators, it's that they are more likely to try to negotiate in the first place, when an offer is not explicitly described as negotiable.*
I thought this was really well known. It is scientifically recorded -- one citation is here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18...
It's actually often cited as a big reason for the gender pay gap, especially when you consider that negotiation isn't just about salary but also about position.
* There are also further possibilities, not fully proven, that can compound that. One you've already identified: perhaps women are just worse at it, either biologically or through socialization. Another is that people on the other end of the negotiating table might be better at negotiating against women, again either biologically or through socialization or other economic factors.
That only makes sense if negotiation is a core competency of your job.
It *will* bias the company away from hiring people who are good at their jobs and *also* good negotiators...but at the same time it should tend to bias them toward hiring people who are good at their jobs and *bad* negotiators.
The problem with ignorance is that you have no good basis on which to choose what not to be ignorant about.
Spaces are unquestionably useful in some cases. Tabs need to justify their existence.
I can virtually guarantee if you were inventing the first character set today, with no backward-compatibility constraints and no knowledge of the real world's history of keyboarding, you would not include a tab key. It's a relic of the typewriter era, and it's redundant. You *would* probably have a "change the currently focussed element" key, but I suspect it would be related to the arrow keys and would be positional rather than linear. Word processors would have a different affordance for "indent bulleted list".
Disk space for source code tabs vs. spaces is irrelevant.
To me, the tab character causes problems and the only real problem it solves (different tastes for how much width to indent) are better solved by an IDE which is already solving the same problem in so many other contexts, like syntax highlighting in different colours etc.. An IDE could easily say that a line that starts with a string of X consecutive spaces should be represented as Y consecutive spaces. Y may even be a fraction, or a function if you choose to have tab mean "align to previous", but 2, 4, and 8 fixed-width spaces are pretty common. Personally I like 3, but at my workplace the standard is 4 and that's just fine.
Depends what you mean by "easily transportable".
A packet of powder is harder to break than a glass, and if it does break, less devastating to other contents of your backpack.
Extortion is not necessarily violence (though violent extortion is certainly a real thing). The definition of violence requires physical force. There seems to be a trend of people confusing "violence" and "force" with coercion. They aren't the same thing.
A bank robber who robs 5 banks is charged with 5 bank robberies.
This guy isn't extorting a consortium of 10000 people over a single something they all share, he's doing 10000 extortions.
You should go argue with the other AC who claims that your side is the side of feminists abusing the term rape.
At *best* this is a conflation. The guy used the same word, rape, to mean two completely different things in that sentence. Once about forced sexual intercourse and once about an invasion of privacy (albeit with a sexual component).