This sound, and most of the others people list, are still around. Kids still watch old movies and television shows. Typewriter sounds are very common. Rotary phone sound is more rare but still recorded in several contexts.
Although some movies get it wrong. They have a sound effects artist recreate what they think the sound was or what sounds better. Which is why you don't hear the tape drives on those fifties scifi movies.
Yes but we're in a divided society, people of different political backgrounds don't want to talk to each other. So one group will get together and notice that it's really really cold on the east coast right now, and laugh at all the liberals shivering over global warming. If those nearby actually have some reason and understand the issue they'll still keep quiet lest they out themselves and be ridiculed. Doesn't matter what the science is or the information that's available, laughing at climate change over the dinner table is common.
There's also a group in the middle that sort of understands the issues but doesn't want to do much because it'll disrupt the status quo. As in "what's the point of conserving energy if China is just going to do whatever they want, it'll put us behind economically?"
But the solution implies doing something different than we do now, therefore the problem must not exist! It's a plot to destroy my oil stock prices, get rid of jobs for conservatives and replace them with jobs for liberals, and raise taxes. Scuse me while I stick my head back in the sand and sing hallelujah.
Gore blew it by assuming the Nader followers would vote for him even if he ignored them.
And the only climate change became political is because Gore talked about it. Ie, politician that one side despises automatically makes everything he says hated. If Gore had championed motherhood and apple pie, then the other side would have been eating mincemeat and avoiding all sex.
This was free CC education only for those with high grades, if you read the article.
As for "free" stuff, many of the things paid for by taxes have improved both the economy and the country (ie, non-monetary improvements). Such as the interstate system and public infrastructure, a lot of which is now breaking down because we've been too stingy to fix it. And public education for K-12 which is absolutely a net-positive win.
Transferred credits is not always the same as transferred courses. The major may require additonal prerequisites before taking upper division courses, and if those transferred classes don't qualify then there's extra time to waste. Also you may need to take an entrance test before you can take some classes; just because you took community college calculus 1 does not mean the student is prepared for university level calculus 2. Sure, transferred credits is great for the majors that need lots of credits to fill up a graduation requirement, but in most engineering majors you end up with far more credits than are necessary merely by taking required courses for the major.
I think he was also referring to education before college, from kindergarten through high school. There are private alternatives but most people can't afford those.
In return though there are huge economic benefits as the return on investments. We have citizens who can read, citizens who are more informed, citizens better equipped to find jobs, etc.
As for paying for college, a 20 year debt is amazingly high. I paid mine off in less than 3 years I think for 5 years of university; but I also paid more than the minimum repayment on each bill (seriously, everyone should do that), the bill was not that high as I worked par ttime during college and summers (seriously, everyone should do that), got grants (ok not everyone gets those), and so forth. The highest percentage of a college bill is often room and board, especially if you're at a state subsidized college.
There is major Muslim outcry over these acts. The media just doesn't pay attention because it's not as interesting a story, they'd rather take pictures of the blood stains caused by a single pair of brothers.
When I bought my place I had to sign that I had received a copy of the HOA rules as part of two foot high stack of paperwork to sign. I remember seeing in there that I am legally required to present the rules to any person I later sold the unit to. So what happens this fails to happen? I suspect that this varies greatly from state to state.
No matter where you go though there will be petty politics when you arrive. If you ever find a group of like minded and enlightened indivuduals maybe things will work out briefly until someone cranky moves in and disagrees with everyone else. Soon you get a big collection of nutty guys in the neighborhood and they start getting elected to the HOA board, which is actually pretty common because the sane people want nothing to do with being on the board.
Then it turns out that to "take your business elsewhere" is an extremely onerous task - uproot yourself and the family, sell the house at a loss, move to another neighborhood, and take your chances all over again.
Some dumpy areas have them to. Typically happens to neighborhoods built within the last 30 years or so. This is especially the case for condominium or townhouse developments that have property in common with the neighbors.
One piece maybe. There was nothing in the Dish package that I would pay $20 for. Sure other people may want this though. I'd want a bundle with AMC, IFC, BBCA, and maybe TNT (which is in Dish package). But only if it also had episodes that never expired or a way to make a DVR service from it.
Bummed that Netflix sometimes makes things go away, probably due to licensing. But it's all about how much pain you're willing to take (be it cost or inconvenience) in exchange for the stuff you do get. I'm adapting to it though, and I just can't see myself going back to a more traditional channel oriented thing ala Dish package. I don't care about "channels" that much anymore, but instead individual shows.
True, it's not essential. But if the kids or spouse whine to much you give in and pay too much for too little in return. There's still often no choice of providers and the provider that does exist is highly resistant to changing or adapting or even giving good service, because it doesn't have to. The problem absolutely is with the monopoly status: monopoly granted by the city decades ago, politicians who cave in and disallow alternatives, too high a cost to lay new wires, etc.
No, the cost is what the consumer is willing to pay. Number of channels is not important, what is more important is the number of channels that the consumer actually uses. So in the past if we paid $40 for cable and we had plenty to watch every day, then we were happy with the product and the price it was at. But if today we pay $100 for a bunch of crap and only a tiny handful of shows then the price per entertainment unit is too high. If those shows are available elsewhere then the cord gets cut.
Bundling versus unbundling isn't really the issue so much, it is instead the quality to cost ratio. Sure we want better bundles or unbundling because we think we can get a better choice. Maybe we've had the issue in the past that one channel we like is at the higher tier bundle but we don't think we want to pay another $20 just for that channel. But it still boils down to the consumer trying to get what they want for a price they're also willing to pay.
Still what is needed is choice; not a bundled-only approach or an unbundled-only approach. If the local cable company doesn't provide the service we want at the price we like we should be allowed to select a competitor. But with the traditional cable model there are very often no competitors available! Sometimes they do exist, I went with satellite because it was better service, higher quality, and a lower price. I cut the cord eventually because I could get even cheaper service with better quality. Competition allows better products to rise to the top, whereas right now the cable company at the top of the heap happens to also be the most hated company in America, which is totally illogical. But we are starting to see a shake up. Streaming won't really be mainstream for awhile but it's enough now to make the traditional services jittery.
That's fine though. Maybe those smaller channels will have to find an alternative business model. Maybe they'll gather together and offer a bundling, but offer it as an option. If some channels die, well that's sad but not my problem.
Remember, it is not our job as consumers to provide charity to businesses. If someone wrote an article saying I should be paying $1000 a month for cable because otherwise some niche channels would go away, I'd be laughing. I listen to a lot of pledge drives, and even those only ask for money if you actually watch or listen to the channel, they're not asking for money from non-viewers.
The fault of the article is that it presents a binary choice - bundled channels from a monopoly versus unbundled channels from a monopoly. What we need is a choice here. Give the customer an option of several different media suppliers, some of them have bundling, some don't have bundling, some have smaller bundles, some have new experimental business plans, etc.
Ie, right now if you look at streaming services, they're mostly bundled packages. Netflix is one giant bundler, albeit with a vastly smaller price tag than cable companies. Other streaming services are unbundled, you buy each show separately. The key though is that they're not the monopoly systems and there's some actual competition and experimentation happening again.
What the customer cutting the cord wants though is a better price, better choice, and better service. Three things that the traditional monopolies are unwilling to provide.
Bundling or unbundling, if everyone had just one of those two choices only then presumably the costs would be higher. The goal with a monpoly is to maximize profits. What's really need is competition! If one alternative provides unbundling and the other alternative had the more classic bundled model, then we could find out which model resulted in better prices, which model attracted more customers (which may not always be the cheapest), and so forth.
Articles about how changing the monopoly's business model will raise rates almost always transparent editorials by the monopolies themselves. What they really mean to say is "we will be forced to raise rates in order to keep the profit margins the same".
Most politicians of either stripe really don't care about their party. They're in politics because they have no skills for other professions. It's like joining either Kiwanis or Rotary clubs, you pick one then profess undying loyalty. Because it's their profession they'll do whatever dirty deeds need to be done to keep their job, regardless of whether this matches the chosen party's platform. That's why many professional local politicans all seem to walk, talk, and act the same no matter what party they have.
Reading about this guy (KIRBY DELAUTER*) and what he's done in the past and what he's whined about, he seems like your generic professional local politicians - get on the board, get control with your friends, get in bed with developers, do whatever the developers want so that you can get campaign funds. Now maybe I have it wrong about KIRBY DELAUTER* because I've only been reading hatchet jobs by people out to destroy KIRBY DELAUTER*, because you know politicians-on-the-other-side are always out to get politicians-on-our-side and the local media has a well know anti-our-side bias. Democrat versus Republican is a non-issue, because in different years or in different counties it's one side or the other that's claims to the aggrieved party. The fact that KIRBY DELAUTER'S* party happens to be Republican is just a coincidence that this was the party he chose when beginning his professional local politician career.
Haha, ya, democracy as an experiment is very goofy. I suspect you will find similar soap operas and comedies in most every county of the country in recent history.
Slashdot Mirror
This sound, and most of the others people list, are still around. Kids still watch old movies and television shows. Typewriter sounds are very common. Rotary phone sound is more rare but still recorded in several contexts.
Although some movies get it wrong. They have a sound effects artist recreate what they think the sound was or what sounds better. Which is why you don't hear the tape drives on those fifties scifi movies.
Yes but we're in a divided society, people of different political backgrounds don't want to talk to each other. So one group will get together and notice that it's really really cold on the east coast right now, and laugh at all the liberals shivering over global warming. If those nearby actually have some reason and understand the issue they'll still keep quiet lest they out themselves and be ridiculed. Doesn't matter what the science is or the information that's available, laughing at climate change over the dinner table is common.
There's also a group in the middle that sort of understands the issues but doesn't want to do much because it'll disrupt the status quo. As in "what's the point of conserving energy if China is just going to do whatever they want, it'll put us behind economically?"
But the solution implies doing something different than we do now, therefore the problem must not exist! It's a plot to destroy my oil stock prices, get rid of jobs for conservatives and replace them with jobs for liberals, and raise taxes. Scuse me while I stick my head back in the sand and sing hallelujah.
Gore blew it by assuming the Nader followers would vote for him even if he ignored them.
And the only climate change became political is because Gore talked about it. Ie, politician that one side despises automatically makes everything he says hated. If Gore had championed motherhood and apple pie, then the other side would have been eating mincemeat and avoiding all sex.
This was free CC education only for those with high grades, if you read the article.
As for "free" stuff, many of the things paid for by taxes have improved both the economy and the country (ie, non-monetary improvements). Such as the interstate system and public infrastructure, a lot of which is now breaking down because we've been too stingy to fix it. And public education for K-12 which is absolutely a net-positive win.
Transferred credits is not always the same as transferred courses. The major may require additonal prerequisites before taking upper division courses, and if those transferred classes don't qualify then there's extra time to waste. Also you may need to take an entrance test before you can take some classes; just because you took community college calculus 1 does not mean the student is prepared for university level calculus 2. Sure, transferred credits is great for the majors that need lots of credits to fill up a graduation requirement, but in most engineering majors you end up with far more credits than are necessary merely by taking required courses for the major.
I think he was also referring to education before college, from kindergarten through high school. There are private alternatives but most people can't afford those.
In return though there are huge economic benefits as the return on investments. We have citizens who can read, citizens who are more informed, citizens better equipped to find jobs, etc.
As for paying for college, a 20 year debt is amazingly high. I paid mine off in less than 3 years I think for 5 years of university; but I also paid more than the minimum repayment on each bill (seriously, everyone should do that), the bill was not that high as I worked par ttime during college and summers (seriously, everyone should do that), got grants (ok not everyone gets those), and so forth. The highest percentage of a college bill is often room and board, especially if you're at a state subsidized college.
Maybe he can't tell the difference between insults and friendly banter between good friends disguised as sarcastic insults?
Once you stop trying to understand, in that moment understanding will arrive.
I always though the 140 char limit on twitter was a stupid thing. Why reduce the amount that someone has to say? But now I understand.
There is major Muslim outcry over these acts. The media just doesn't pay attention because it's not as interesting a story, they'd rather take pictures of the blood stains caused by a single pair of brothers.
In this case, your ominous "they" was a pair of brothers.
I thought almost all these tricks in Minecraft were done using editor mode, not game mode. Thus no creepers to worry about, no mining, etc.
When I bought my place I had to sign that I had received a copy of the HOA rules as part of two foot high stack of paperwork to sign. I remember seeing in there that I am legally required to present the rules to any person I later sold the unit to. So what happens this fails to happen? I suspect that this varies greatly from state to state.
No matter where you go though there will be petty politics when you arrive. If you ever find a group of like minded and enlightened indivuduals maybe things will work out briefly until someone cranky moves in and disagrees with everyone else. Soon you get a big collection of nutty guys in the neighborhood and they start getting elected to the HOA board, which is actually pretty common because the sane people want nothing to do with being on the board.
Then it turns out that to "take your business elsewhere" is an extremely onerous task - uproot yourself and the family, sell the house at a loss, move to another neighborhood, and take your chances all over again.
Some dumpy areas have them to. Typically happens to neighborhoods built within the last 30 years or so. This is especially the case for condominium or townhouse developments that have property in common with the neighbors.
Ya, I'd like to see a non-partial review. Instead people point me to highly partisan sites to give their roundup.
One piece maybe. There was nothing in the Dish package that I would pay $20 for. Sure other people may want this though. I'd want a bundle with AMC, IFC, BBCA, and maybe TNT (which is in Dish package). But only if it also had episodes that never expired or a way to make a DVR service from it.
Bummed that Netflix sometimes makes things go away, probably due to licensing. But it's all about how much pain you're willing to take (be it cost or inconvenience) in exchange for the stuff you do get. I'm adapting to it though, and I just can't see myself going back to a more traditional channel oriented thing ala Dish package. I don't care about "channels" that much anymore, but instead individual shows.
True, it's not essential. But if the kids or spouse whine to much you give in and pay too much for too little in return. There's still often no choice of providers and the provider that does exist is highly resistant to changing or adapting or even giving good service, because it doesn't have to. The problem absolutely is with the monopoly status: monopoly granted by the city decades ago, politicians who cave in and disallow alternatives, too high a cost to lay new wires, etc.
No, the cost is what the consumer is willing to pay. Number of channels is not important, what is more important is the number of channels that the consumer actually uses. So in the past if we paid $40 for cable and we had plenty to watch every day, then we were happy with the product and the price it was at. But if today we pay $100 for a bunch of crap and only a tiny handful of shows then the price per entertainment unit is too high. If those shows are available elsewhere then the cord gets cut.
Bundling versus unbundling isn't really the issue so much, it is instead the quality to cost ratio. Sure we want better bundles or unbundling because we think we can get a better choice. Maybe we've had the issue in the past that one channel we like is at the higher tier bundle but we don't think we want to pay another $20 just for that channel. But it still boils down to the consumer trying to get what they want for a price they're also willing to pay.
Still what is needed is choice; not a bundled-only approach or an unbundled-only approach. If the local cable company doesn't provide the service we want at the price we like we should be allowed to select a competitor. But with the traditional cable model there are very often no competitors available! Sometimes they do exist, I went with satellite because it was better service, higher quality, and a lower price. I cut the cord eventually because I could get even cheaper service with better quality. Competition allows better products to rise to the top, whereas right now the cable company at the top of the heap happens to also be the most hated company in America, which is totally illogical. But we are starting to see a shake up. Streaming won't really be mainstream for awhile but it's enough now to make the traditional services jittery.
That's fine though. Maybe those smaller channels will have to find an alternative business model. Maybe they'll gather together and offer a bundling, but offer it as an option. If some channels die, well that's sad but not my problem.
Remember, it is not our job as consumers to provide charity to businesses. If someone wrote an article saying I should be paying $1000 a month for cable because otherwise some niche channels would go away, I'd be laughing. I listen to a lot of pledge drives, and even those only ask for money if you actually watch or listen to the channel, they're not asking for money from non-viewers.
The fault of the article is that it presents a binary choice - bundled channels from a monopoly versus unbundled channels from a monopoly. What we need is a choice here. Give the customer an option of several different media suppliers, some of them have bundling, some don't have bundling, some have smaller bundles, some have new experimental business plans, etc.
Ie, right now if you look at streaming services, they're mostly bundled packages. Netflix is one giant bundler, albeit with a vastly smaller price tag than cable companies. Other streaming services are unbundled, you buy each show separately. The key though is that they're not the monopoly systems and there's some actual competition and experimentation happening again.
What the customer cutting the cord wants though is a better price, better choice, and better service. Three things that the traditional monopolies are unwilling to provide.
Bundling or unbundling, if everyone had just one of those two choices only then presumably the costs would be higher. The goal with a monpoly is to maximize profits. What's really need is competition! If one alternative provides unbundling and the other alternative had the more classic bundled model, then we could find out which model resulted in better prices, which model attracted more customers (which may not always be the cheapest), and so forth.
Articles about how changing the monopoly's business model will raise rates almost always transparent editorials by the monopolies themselves. What they really mean to say is "we will be forced to raise rates in order to keep the profit margins the same".
Most politicians of either stripe really don't care about their party. They're in politics because they have no skills for other professions. It's like joining either Kiwanis or Rotary clubs, you pick one then profess undying loyalty. Because it's their profession they'll do whatever dirty deeds need to be done to keep their job, regardless of whether this matches the chosen party's platform. That's why many professional local politicans all seem to walk, talk, and act the same no matter what party they have.
Reading about this guy (KIRBY DELAUTER*) and what he's done in the past and what he's whined about, he seems like your generic professional local politicians - get on the board, get control with your friends, get in bed with developers, do whatever the developers want so that you can get campaign funds. Now maybe I have it wrong about KIRBY DELAUTER* because I've only been reading hatchet jobs by people out to destroy KIRBY DELAUTER*, because you know politicians-on-the-other-side are always out to get politicians-on-our-side and the local media has a well know anti-our-side bias. Democrat versus Republican is a non-issue, because in different years or in different counties it's one side or the other that's claims to the aggrieved party. The fact that KIRBY DELAUTER'S* party happens to be Republican is just a coincidence that this was the party he chose when beginning his professional local politician career.
* or as is known in lower case, Kirby Delauter
Who did the others vote for, "none of the above"?
Haha, ya, democracy as an experiment is very goofy. I suspect you will find similar soap operas and comedies in most every county of the country in recent history.