Now, every single for-pay streaming site generates their own content, and that's a conflict of interest for the consumer side, as those streaming sites will not lease out (certainly not for a reasonable amount) their original content to other streaming sites. So if I want to watch Game of Thrones, I need to subscribe to HBO. If I want to watch Black Mirror, I need to subscribe to Netflix. If I want to watch The Tick, I need to subscribe to Amazon Prime. If I want to watch Castle Rock, I get to subscribe to Hulu. And in a couple years, if I want to watch ANYTHING from Disney/Pixar/Marvel/Lucasfilm/Fox(probably), I'll have to subscribe to Disney's streaming service.
Exclusive contracts and exclusive content drive piracy. Period.
Asterix is still funny! I grew up with Tintin as well. It's definitely "of a different era," but that makes it more interesting to a certain extent.
I'll second that. Both are fun for all ages, and I'd say a good place to start if you're new to the comic/graphic novel format
I also find the humour in Asterix similar to that of the Discworld series
That, and the action in Asterix is totally cartoonish while not being too ridiculous to enjoy. I mean, I usually don't like cartoonish action, but somehow it WORKS in Asterix. It's a good thing the Romans never actually suffered life-threatening injuries, because seeing Obelix grab one and use him as a club to knock out five other Romans at once while the other Gauls sing "Happy Birthday" to him just makes me giddy.
Why do people act like books are magically better than other mediums?
Because you get much more depth and complexity than you can with any other medium. It also forces you to engage your imagination more, which involves the brain a bit more than if something is already visualized for you.
Or it could be that we as a people have evolved organically over the years to be a bit more mindful of those who traditionally have not been in power, rather than just thinking that they belong in the gutter we've always consigned them to.
I am afraid the culprit has a lot to do with my first statement. Larger state colleges offer a lot of perks as well as robust athletic programs and are typically offset by government subsidies. Meanwhile smaller colleges are forced to raise tuition to make ends meet which is counter productive to the problem.
Maybe the choir college needs a robust football program. The end zone celebrations would be fantastic.
Actually, they just spoof the first 6 digits of your number and add a random 4 digits on the end, to make you think it's one of your neighbors calling.
I came to that conclusion myself in this past six months. The robodialers had been trying to find a way to disguise their numbers because people have started to use online spam-alert websites like 800notes.com, and some services, like my Pixel 2, automatically flag an incoming call as "spam" if it's been reported as such. I've learned that if a call comes from the first six digits of my own phone number, it's spam. Someone using my prefix is not going to be a neighbor, in the age of cell phones, a prefix no longer ties you to a geographic area.
More than anything else, I want to break the ability that companies have to spoof their numbers. At this point I don't particularly care about what actual legal uses this would break, or if there's some side effect. It can't be worth the current abuse of the system.
Your compensation for a job is far more than just some checkboxes in categories with fixed compensation amounts for each box in a spreadsheet. Two people with the same duties can get different compensations, and there are many reasons for that. Maybe employee A gets along better with his coworkers than employee B. Maybe A has a better track record of collaboration.
And here's one of the biggest reasons why both employers like to keep compensation figures private: Maybe employee A asked for a raise, and, not wanting to lose him, the company agreed to it. Employee B did not and gets paid at the same rate. Saying that because A and B do similar work that both should get the promotion because A felt he was worth it inflates salaries across the board, even though maybe employee A is the better employee and deserves the raise, even though B is not. Keeping salaries private gives more negotiation flexibility for both sides. Because even if A deserved the bonus, when B finds out A got a raise and he did not, it causes resentment and a hostile workplace environment.
The business and employees will always be clashing with the pay rate. The employees want as much as they can get, and the companies want to pay as little as they can get away with. Somewhere, a balance is found between the two interests. Public salary information can throw that balance out of whack and ends up causing more strife between individual employees as opposed to between an employee who wants a raise and management who doesn't give it.
Bad comparison. Everyone is equally good/bad at wine tasting, as it comes down to personal preferences. "This wine tastes bad".
I'm not a wine snob, and even I know this is hardly a correct statement. Sure, anyone can say "This tastes fine" or "this tastes like vinegar." But some folks, either due to a natural ability to taste, or because they've trained their palette more, are better able to taste and appreciate complexities, or more subtle notes.
The Obama FCC passed a rule classifying any device that could be made capable of robo-dialing (which incluses ALL smartphones, since they can insstall auto-dial apps) as being a robo-dialer and thus ANYBODY making an unwanted phone call with one
You started out so well...
Trump's FCC guy opposed your beloved "net neutrality" scam (also known as the "help Apple/Facebook/Netflix get richer at the expense of telcos" rule)
And then you veer off in such a fucking STUPID manner.
You have it backwards, it is narrow abd contrived interpretations that are a threat to the rule of law.
No, the law should always be interpreted narrowly.
For example, a backcountry sheriff that insists he did right by putting some troublesome outsiders in jail for disturbing the peace.
That's an overbroad interpretation of disturbing the peace, not a narrow one. Narrow vs broad interpretation also has nothing to do with with whether something should be enforced or prosecuted.
And yet you gracefully allow the removal of yet another consumer protection law.
It was not a consumer-protection law. It was a single anti-consumer section inside a consumer protection law, which itself still stands. But someone mentioned that douchebag Ajit Pai and everyone freaks out and suddenly discussion is over.
Russia attacked a NATO country and Donald Trump is still sucking Vladimir Putin's dick.
Lock this traitor up right fucking now.
The US issued sanctions as a result of the polonium assassination, it might issue more in response to this. This particular action is in response to Venezuela's attempt to circumvent existing sanctions.
Neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein were in any way close to good candidates. I would have loved to throw a vote towards them, but their absolutely cluelessness made me despair that they would be any better. I ended up just putting in a write-in.
Your employer is paying you for a service. Don't help the competition and screw up their business. Don't blab about your employer on social media or anywhere else.
I learned pretty quickly: I like my job. I want my company to do well, and I want to do well as well. I have no social need to appear 'cool' on the Internet; I'm not that weak. Others do not need to know what products my company is launching. They don't.
As per usual with he left, irrational fear of progress and chemicals killed off millions of people - in this instance, through malaria. Humorously your single post furthering this lie may kill more children than any kind of attack ever has or will.
3) Anyone who disagrees is directly responsible for killing children.
3) He did not say anything close to your twisted straw-man version.
Sounds like he summed it up pretty accurately to me.
For the most part "problems" with gluten in Europe are imagined... Same goes for anywhere else. Very few people actually have Celiac or a gluten intolerance and most people pretending gluten is a problem for them are just following a fad diet.
Which I'm totally fine with. My sister has Celiac's and the various places that either have gluten-free offerings or don't look at you like you're crazy when you ask what can be made gluten-free means she can usually dine out with us now. So maybe there's some fad stuff going around, but it side-benefits those who absolutely can't have gluten.
So, can you give us a definition of "GMO" that this bad, such that non-bad things don't fall under that definition? Because 'GMO' is a very vague term that could refer to either insect-killing pesticide-built-in corn, or it could be as simple as Golden Rice which has beta-carotene.
Personally, while it's beneficial to everyone, who cares?
But it's not beneficial to everyone. To put the same in a different light, it doesn't matter if you can get products for a bit cheaper if your job has been eliminated and you're competing with everyone else for the few that are left. Automation and conglomeration lead to fewer jobs, not more.
is an artefact of the rural, where strangers are to be feared rather than to be welcomed as trading partners.
Yikes. I've found the opposite -- I am far more insular since I moved to the city. I avoid eye contact with people on the street, I don't talk to strangers there, I walk on by. It's been mentioned often that people in many other areas of the country might be more open and warm, but myself, and the people around grew this way defensively. Nearly everyone who approaches you on the street has some sort of angle. "Hey, do you have any money?" "I've got some brain-dead petition to sign you up for." "Want to subscribe to this magazine?" "Money money money money." The answer is: no, I don't want to give out any money, and I don't like being seen as a walking ATM either (I wouldn't say I dress or look fancy either -- this happens to EVERYONE who doesn't look like he's homeless). When every conversation leads to some sort of shakedown, you avoid conversation. That's life in the big city. You can be gregarious at clubs, at home, at work... but elsewhere, it's a hassle.
Slashdot Mirror
And Tom Brady threw for over 100 more yards than Nick Foles
Yeah, but Nick Foles caught more passes than Brady did.
Now, every single for-pay streaming site generates their own content, and that's a conflict of interest for the consumer side, as those streaming sites will not lease out (certainly not for a reasonable amount) their original content to other streaming sites. So if I want to watch Game of Thrones, I need to subscribe to HBO. If I want to watch Black Mirror, I need to subscribe to Netflix. If I want to watch The Tick, I need to subscribe to Amazon Prime. If I want to watch Castle Rock, I get to subscribe to Hulu. And in a couple years, if I want to watch ANYTHING from Disney/Pixar/Marvel/Lucasfilm/Fox(probably), I'll have to subscribe to Disney's streaming service.
Exclusive contracts and exclusive content drive piracy. Period.
Asterix is still funny!
I grew up with Tintin as well. It's definitely "of a different era," but that makes it more interesting to a certain extent.
I'll second that. Both are fun for all ages, and I'd say a good place to start if you're new to the comic/graphic novel format
I also find the humour in Asterix similar to that of the Discworld series
That, and the action in Asterix is totally cartoonish while not being too ridiculous to enjoy. I mean, I usually don't like cartoonish action, but somehow it WORKS in Asterix. It's a good thing the Romans never actually suffered life-threatening injuries, because seeing Obelix grab one and use him as a club to knock out five other Romans at once while the other Gauls sing "Happy Birthday" to him just makes me giddy.
Why do people act like books are magically better than other mediums?
Because you get much more depth and complexity than you can with any other medium.
It also forces you to engage your imagination more, which involves the brain a bit more than if something is already visualized for you.
Asterix is still funny!
I grew up with Tintin as well. It's definitely "of a different era," but that makes it more interesting to a certain extent.
Or it could be that we as a people have evolved organically over the years to be a bit more mindful of those who traditionally have not been in power, rather than just thinking that they belong in the gutter we've always consigned them to.
I am afraid the culprit has a lot to do with my first statement. Larger state colleges offer a lot of perks as well as robust athletic programs and are typically offset by government subsidies. Meanwhile smaller colleges are forced to raise tuition to make ends meet which is counter productive to the problem.
Maybe the choir college needs a robust football program.
The end zone celebrations would be fantastic.
Fake news: Any news that disagrees with your political party of choice.
No, you can objectively say whether something is correct or not.
Actually, they just spoof the first 6 digits of your number and add a random 4 digits on the end, to make you think it's one of your neighbors calling.
I came to that conclusion myself in this past six months. The robodialers had been trying to find a way to disguise their numbers because people have started to use online spam-alert websites like 800notes.com, and some services, like my Pixel 2, automatically flag an incoming call as "spam" if it's been reported as such. I've learned that if a call comes from the first six digits of my own phone number, it's spam. Someone using my prefix is not going to be a neighbor, in the age of cell phones, a prefix no longer ties you to a geographic area.
More than anything else, I want to break the ability that companies have to spoof their numbers. At this point I don't particularly care about what actual legal uses this would break, or if there's some side effect. It can't be worth the current abuse of the system.
Trolling stalkers are lame.
Mod this up!
Your compensation for a job is far more than just some checkboxes in categories with fixed compensation amounts for each box in a spreadsheet. Two people with the same duties can get different compensations, and there are many reasons for that. Maybe employee A gets along better with his coworkers than employee B. Maybe A has a better track record of collaboration.
And here's one of the biggest reasons why both employers like to keep compensation figures private: Maybe employee A asked for a raise, and, not wanting to lose him, the company agreed to it. Employee B did not and gets paid at the same rate. Saying that because A and B do similar work that both should get the promotion because A felt he was worth it inflates salaries across the board, even though maybe employee A is the better employee and deserves the raise, even though B is not. Keeping salaries private gives more negotiation flexibility for both sides. Because even if A deserved the bonus, when B finds out A got a raise and he did not, it causes resentment and a hostile workplace environment.
The business and employees will always be clashing with the pay rate. The employees want as much as they can get, and the companies want to pay as little as they can get away with. Somewhere, a balance is found between the two interests. Public salary information can throw that balance out of whack and ends up causing more strife between individual employees as opposed to between an employee who wants a raise and management who doesn't give it.
Bad comparison. Everyone is equally good/bad at wine tasting, as it comes down to personal preferences. "This wine tastes bad".
I'm not a wine snob, and even I know this is hardly a correct statement.
Sure, anyone can say "This tastes fine" or "this tastes like vinegar."
But some folks, either due to a natural ability to taste, or because they've trained their palette more, are better able to taste and appreciate complexities, or more subtle notes.
Reservations by fax, or, because it's actually the 21st century, take reservations online like Yosemite does as well.
The Obama FCC passed a rule classifying any device that could be made capable of robo-dialing (which incluses ALL smartphones, since they can insstall auto-dial apps) as being a robo-dialer and thus ANYBODY making an unwanted phone call with one
You started out so well...
Trump's FCC guy opposed your beloved "net neutrality" scam (also known as the "help Apple/Facebook/Netflix get richer at the expense of telcos" rule)
And then you veer off in such a fucking STUPID manner.
You have it backwards, it is narrow abd contrived interpretations that are a threat to the rule of law.
No, the law should always be interpreted narrowly.
For example, a backcountry sheriff that insists he did right by putting some troublesome outsiders in jail for disturbing the peace.
That's an overbroad interpretation of disturbing the peace, not a narrow one.
Narrow vs broad interpretation also has nothing to do with with whether something should be enforced or prosecuted.
How about this: for these appointments, we have a national vote. The big ones. The FCC, USDA, FDA, DEA, FBI, SCOTUS, the important stuff.
We already do. It's called the Presidential Election.
And yet you gracefully allow the removal of yet another consumer protection law.
It was not a consumer-protection law. It was a single anti-consumer section inside a consumer protection law, which itself still stands.
But someone mentioned that douchebag Ajit Pai and everyone freaks out and suddenly discussion is over.
Russia attacked a NATO country and Donald Trump is still sucking Vladimir Putin's dick.
Lock this traitor up right fucking now.
The US issued sanctions as a result of the polonium assassination, it might issue more in response to this.
This particular action is in response to Venezuela's attempt to circumvent existing sanctions.
Neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein were in any way close to good candidates. I would have loved to throw a vote towards them, but their absolutely cluelessness made me despair that they would be any better. I ended up just putting in a write-in.
Your employer is paying you for a service. Don't help the competition and screw up their business. Don't blab about your employer on social media or anywhere else.
I learned pretty quickly: I like my job. I want my company to do well, and I want to do well as well. I have no social need to appear 'cool' on the Internet; I'm not that weak. Others do not need to know what products my company is launching. They don't.
As per usual with he left, irrational fear of progress and chemicals killed off millions of people - in this instance, through malaria. Humorously your single post furthering this lie may kill more children than any kind of attack ever has or will.
3) Anyone who disagrees is directly responsible for killing children.
3) He did not say anything close to your twisted straw-man version.
Sounds like he summed it up pretty accurately to me.
For the most part "problems" with gluten in Europe are imagined... Same goes for anywhere else. Very few people actually have Celiac or a gluten intolerance and most people pretending gluten is a problem for them are just following a fad diet.
Which I'm totally fine with. My sister has Celiac's and the various places that either have gluten-free offerings or don't look at you like you're crazy when you ask what can be made gluten-free means she can usually dine out with us now. So maybe there's some fad stuff going around, but it side-benefits those who absolutely can't have gluten.
So, can you give us a definition of "GMO" that this bad, such that non-bad things don't fall under that definition? Because 'GMO' is a very vague term that could refer to either insect-killing pesticide-built-in corn, or it could be as simple as Golden Rice which has beta-carotene.
Personally, while it's beneficial to everyone, who cares?
But it's not beneficial to everyone.
To put the same in a different light, it doesn't matter if you can get products for a bit cheaper if your job has been eliminated and you're competing with everyone else for the few that are left.
Automation and conglomeration lead to fewer jobs, not more.
is an artefact of the rural, where strangers are to be feared rather than to be welcomed as trading partners.
Yikes. I've found the opposite -- I am far more insular since I moved to the city. I avoid eye contact with people on the street, I don't talk to strangers there, I walk on by. It's been mentioned often that people in many other areas of the country might be more open and warm, but myself, and the people around grew this way defensively. Nearly everyone who approaches you on the street has some sort of angle. "Hey, do you have any money?" "I've got some brain-dead petition to sign you up for." "Want to subscribe to this magazine?" "Money money money money." The answer is: no, I don't want to give out any money, and I don't like being seen as a walking ATM either (I wouldn't say I dress or look fancy either -- this happens to EVERYONE who doesn't look like he's homeless). When every conversation leads to some sort of shakedown, you avoid conversation. That's life in the big city. You can be gregarious at clubs, at home, at work... but elsewhere, it's a hassle.