I, for one, love the larger sized drinks at the theater. I throw lots of it away, but it can have lots of ice and stay cold for a long time, but the melting ice doesn't do much to water down the soda as it sits for 2 hours.
Or they just started paying off the Mayor. The ban includes bottled drinks as well. Think about it - I'm using Southern Illinois prices here:
You're having a small event and you want to buy a small amount of soda for everyone. Say 8-oz per person for 8 people. You can get a 2-liter bottle of soda for around $1 - $1.25 on a good sale. If this ban passes, then you have to buy 4 16-oz bottles instead, and each bottle is at least $1.
So the soda company gets nearly quadruple the profits, maybe a bit less after you subtract the extra plastic.
The ban would affect bottled drinks as well. Throwing a party or get-together? You can't buy the much cheaper 2-liter bottles. You have to buy individually packaged beverages, like 12-packs of cans for 3-4 times the price. I am guessing the soda companies bought and paid for this ban with $ signs in their eyes.
Not to mention getting one size up is much cheaper than buying two separate drinks for yourself and significant other. Very often at fast food restaurants when trying hard to save money, I'll buy the large drink and split it rather than paying almost twice as much to get two smalls. This "ban" is just making more money for the vendors when people have to buy two separate drinks or two drinks for themselves if they're really addicted.
That's more polite than some. Many years ago - I was maybe 16, and I got a call from a telemarketer trying to sell long distance service.
They asked for my parent, and I said that they had died just the week before. They did briefly say "I'm sorry" and then went on to ask if I was now in charge of the long distance bill.
You're multiplying total price by 20. The labor cost is the only thing that would rise by 20. The parts and markup make up a large part of the price and won't need to be bumped up 20x.
Because the low-income employment of one new person doesn't provide enough income to provide enough new employment in service industries. They have to keep money for themselves to build a savings, they pay taxes and reap benefits of taxes. Hypothetically, let's say there's 1 job position available in the entire country. Someone takes that job for $22k/year. Yes, they go to Wal-Mart and to McDonalds, and spend a lot of their money. But they still extract $22k/yr. from the economy and put back maybe $10k/year. A net drain.
The same thought process would apply to other population control measures as well. Of course, you'd then say that population growth or growing your economy via exports is just one big pyramid scheme, and you'd be right. If we didn't live in a world of income inequality, then more people coming in would be just fine. But since we are a nation of people who strive to have more and more wealth, more people is just competition.
Step 2. For movies, push hard for a "Steam" like solution where you can buy once, redownload if you lose a copy and run it on any player. The MPAA members can go with this or they can face the fate of the RIAA. I think given that choice, they will go with the steam method and find that it actually increases sales and profits, especially on older stuff that can be put on sale at times.
Have you heard of Ultraviolet? I don't *want* a steam-like solution. I want something that's guaranteed to continue to work no matter how many companies go bankrupt in the next 20 years. I would much rather have DVD and Blu-Ray, although I would like for it to be legal to make my own backup copies. Sure, if you always get a free streaming copy with purchase of physical media that's fine with me too.
You ever watch COPS and see the guys' faces blurred out? That's because they didn't approve their likeness being displayed. Behind the scenes, studio employees are running around with waivers hoping to get them signed. If their face isn't recognizable, like a tiny face in a huge crowd, then the rule doesn't apply.
There are probably a lot of bands that have uploaded their albums, for example. Facebook would be quite within their rights to put these on iTunes or Amazon. It wouldn't take many people buying them to push them over the $18 mark. The same with photographs - they've already sold some of these to Starbucks for advertising, they're probably in a good position to compete with the likes of iStockPhoto.
They can't sell what they don't have the rights to sell. Photos uploaded to Facebook can contain photos of other people's likeness - who may not even be users of Facebook. Commercial use of someone's likeness without their permission is not legal. For music, the music industry has bought and paid for quite a few laws. Per-copy sold, the songwriters still get royalties via ASCAP/BMI. If recorded by a label, the record label owns the rights to the recording itself - if band members uploading it, it might be fair use - but they don't have the authority to grant Facebook the wide license they claim.
And no - that wouldn't drive up album prices. They wouldn't be the exclusive distributor of the music. The band/label would still be able to sell. That might drive prices down, but not up in your scenario. In fact, Amazon/iTunes might not accept the duplicate albums from the alternate source, due to already having an agreement with the band/label. So Facebook would have to come up with its own music service to compete at all.
Because at the very least, you'll be likely to beat inflation with your investments. Money put under the mattress loses value as the value of a dollar goes down, and savings accounts don't pay much either.
Not quite so transient with MP4. You get the I-frame which has the complete picture. That picture only lasts maybe 1/24 of a second. But following that I-frame are B and P-frames. Those are deltas from the I-frame, and would contain those errors PLUS the errors from the delta for the new frames.
One can rent until one has enough money saved up to buy a house with cash.
Sure, you save on Interest, but all money paid on rent goes down the drain instead of building equity and is arguably more than you would be losing in interest. Renting long enough to get a better down payment might be sensible, but avoiding a loan just to give the money to someone else doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Finding a way to make the Mac read NTFS beats using MacDrive for HFS+ on the Windows side. NTFS just doesn't corrupt as easily with a power failure as HFS+, in my experience. Ideally, I would just use networked storage and access it from Mac OSX with afpd or NFS, from Windows with Samba, and linux with NFS.
I think it's kind of an uncanny valley of sorts. Everything is too sharp, but if everything was even sharper but shown at 500fps, our eyes would probably blur the image like real life. I don't think 48fps or even 120fps is fast enough. The eye can make out the distinct frames, but it's still too slow so that the eye actually perceives the sharpness of each frame in turn. 24fps is slow enough that everything blurs the same as the real eye would do at 500+fps.
Which makes sense. If you said "troy regular" to me with no context, I wouldn't have a guess at all. That's certainly a better guess than assuming troy ounces.
Try using standard units like Megawatt hours. Your example gives a saving of 0.11 Megawatt Hours (mWh) or 111 kWh. Then, you compared to actual kWh assuming it was interchangeable with what's essentially megawatt-seconds.
This isn't true about going to zero, but having the brightness set above around 50% on new LCD's tend to blast out parts of the picture. And they come out of the box set too high. People just want to be dazzled by bright screens, nevermind the fact that they lost the difference between medium light grey and white with that setting.
It's certainly possible, but it's more similar to how an OCR does it minus the actual deciphering of characters. Open a PDF file in notepad and you'll have an idea how hard it is (it's not a binary format at all if you have no pictures). Most systems that do an accurate job rendering it to plain text render the PDF and then try to reproduce the spacing/formatting in text form.
If ALL you want is the keywords, there are easier ways of getting the text out, but they aren't all reliable.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite a misconception. Unless you have high blood pressure, there's no problem with eating salt. Salt alone doesn't cause high blood pressure.
I, for one, love the larger sized drinks at the theater. I throw lots of it away, but it can have lots of ice and stay cold for a long time, but the melting ice doesn't do much to water down the soda as it sits for 2 hours.
Or they just started paying off the Mayor. The ban includes bottled drinks as well. Think about it - I'm using Southern Illinois prices here:
You're having a small event and you want to buy a small amount of soda for everyone. Say 8-oz per person for 8 people.
You can get a 2-liter bottle of soda for around $1 - $1.25 on a good sale.
If this ban passes, then you have to buy 4 16-oz bottles instead, and each bottle is at least $1.
So the soda company gets nearly quadruple the profits, maybe a bit less after you subtract the extra plastic.
The ban would affect bottled drinks as well. Throwing a party or get-together? You can't buy the much cheaper 2-liter bottles. You have to buy individually packaged beverages, like 12-packs of cans for 3-4 times the price. I am guessing the soda companies bought and paid for this ban with $ signs in their eyes.
Not to mention getting one size up is much cheaper than buying two separate drinks for yourself and significant other. Very often at fast food restaurants when trying hard to save money, I'll buy the large drink and split it rather than paying almost twice as much to get two smalls. This "ban" is just making more money for the vendors when people have to buy two separate drinks or two drinks for themselves if they're really addicted.
That's more polite than some. Many years ago - I was maybe 16, and I got a call from a telemarketer trying to sell long distance service.
They asked for my parent, and I said that they had died just the week before. They did briefly say "I'm sorry" and then went on to ask if I was now in charge of the long distance bill.
Your Comcast cap is 37GB?
You're multiplying total price by 20. The labor cost is the only thing that would rise by 20. The parts and markup make up a large part of the price and won't need to be bumped up 20x.
Because the low-income employment of one new person doesn't provide enough income to provide enough new employment in service industries. They have to keep money for themselves to build a savings, they pay taxes and reap benefits of taxes. Hypothetically, let's say there's 1 job position available in the entire country. Someone takes that job for $22k/year. Yes, they go to Wal-Mart and to McDonalds, and spend a lot of their money. But they still extract $22k/yr. from the economy and put back maybe $10k/year. A net drain.
The same thought process would apply to other population control measures as well. Of course, you'd then say that population growth or growing your economy via exports is just one big pyramid scheme, and you'd be right. If we didn't live in a world of income inequality, then more people coming in would be just fine. But since we are a nation of people who strive to have more and more wealth, more people is just competition.
Is it a fine or is it "damages"?
Step 2. For movies, push hard for a "Steam" like solution where you can buy once, redownload if you lose a copy and run it on any player. The MPAA members can go with this or they can face the fate of the RIAA. I think given that choice, they will go with the steam method and find that it actually increases sales and profits, especially on older stuff that can be put on sale at times.
Have you heard of Ultraviolet? I don't *want* a steam-like solution. I want something that's guaranteed to continue to work no matter how many companies go bankrupt in the next 20 years. I would much rather have DVD and Blu-Ray, although I would like for it to be legal to make my own backup copies. Sure, if you always get a free streaming copy with purchase of physical media that's fine with me too.
This ought to explain enough of it.
You ever watch COPS and see the guys' faces blurred out? That's because they didn't approve their likeness being displayed. Behind the scenes, studio employees are running around with waivers hoping to get them signed. If their face isn't recognizable, like a tiny face in a huge crowd, then the rule doesn't apply.
There are probably a lot of bands that have uploaded their albums, for example. Facebook would be quite within their rights to put these on iTunes or Amazon. It wouldn't take many people buying them to push them over the $18 mark. The same with photographs - they've already sold some of these to Starbucks for advertising, they're probably in a good position to compete with the likes of iStockPhoto.
They can't sell what they don't have the rights to sell. Photos uploaded to Facebook can contain photos of other people's likeness - who may not even be users of Facebook. Commercial use of someone's likeness without their permission is not legal. For music, the music industry has bought and paid for quite a few laws. Per-copy sold, the songwriters still get royalties via ASCAP/BMI. If recorded by a label, the record label owns the rights to the recording itself - if band members uploading it, it might be fair use - but they don't have the authority to grant Facebook the wide license they claim.
And no - that wouldn't drive up album prices. They wouldn't be the exclusive distributor of the music. The band/label would still be able to sell. That might drive prices down, but not up in your scenario. In fact, Amazon/iTunes might not accept the duplicate albums from the alternate source, due to already having an agreement with the band/label. So Facebook would have to come up with its own music service to compete at all.
Because at the very least, you'll be likely to beat inflation with your investments. Money put under the mattress loses value as the value of a dollar goes down, and savings accounts don't pay much either.
Not quite so transient with MP4. You get the I-frame which has the complete picture. That picture only lasts maybe 1/24 of a second. But following that I-frame are B and P-frames. Those are deltas from the I-frame, and would contain those errors PLUS the errors from the delta for the new frames.
One can rent until one has enough money saved up to buy a house with cash.
Sure, you save on Interest, but all money paid on rent goes down the drain instead of building equity and is arguably more than you would be losing in interest. Renting long enough to get a better down payment might be sensible, but avoiding a loan just to give the money to someone else doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Finding a way to make the Mac read NTFS beats using MacDrive for HFS+ on the Windows side. NTFS just doesn't corrupt as easily with a power failure as HFS+, in my experience. Ideally, I would just use networked storage and access it from Mac OSX with afpd or NFS, from Windows with Samba, and linux with NFS.
That doesn't sound very portable.
I think it's kind of an uncanny valley of sorts. Everything is too sharp, but if everything was even sharper but shown at 500fps, our eyes would probably blur the image like real life. I don't think 48fps or even 120fps is fast enough. The eye can make out the distinct frames, but it's still too slow so that the eye actually perceives the sharpness of each frame in turn. 24fps is slow enough that everything blurs the same as the real eye would do at 500+fps.
And just like colorized B&W movies, there will be enough complaints to stop it from going on for too long.
Which makes sense. If you said "troy regular" to me with no context, I wouldn't have a guess at all. That's certainly a better guess than assuming troy ounces.
Voice recognition is at it limits phonetically
Not if you're from Scotland.
Try using standard units like Megawatt hours. Your example gives a saving of 0.11 Megawatt Hours (mWh) or 111 kWh. Then, you compared to actual kWh assuming it was interchangeable with what's essentially megawatt-seconds.
This isn't true about going to zero, but having the brightness set above around 50% on new LCD's tend to blast out parts of the picture. And they come out of the box set too high. People just want to be dazzled by bright screens, nevermind the fact that they lost the difference between medium light grey and white with that setting.
See also: Store TV displays
It's certainly possible, but it's more similar to how an OCR does it minus the actual deciphering of characters. Open a PDF file in notepad and you'll have an idea how hard it is (it's not a binary format at all if you have no pictures). Most systems that do an accurate job rendering it to plain text render the PDF and then try to reproduce the spacing/formatting in text form.
If ALL you want is the keywords, there are easier ways of getting the text out, but they aren't all reliable.