That page shows four bulbs, which the author describe as 'rare finds'. How is that 'not entirely uncommon'? Also, nowhere on that page does it say those bulbs were in continuous use, or even that they had ever been used at all. In fact, one of them was still in it's original package.
Just last week my wife stopped and got a Blu-ray disc from RedBox, after about a year of using only Netflix streaming, etc. About a minute into the movie we were both wondering how we ever go so lazy that it was worth giving up the quality of Blu-ray just so we didn't have to go get a disc.
I have a computer desk that I bought from them about 7 years ago. It cost about $40. I don't know what it is made of, some sort of honeycomb construction I imagine, because it is very light. Anyway, after 7 years of holding up a 17 inch CRT it has not sagged at all. I have no complaints at all about their furniture.
Taxes are calculated at fixed intervals of time. It is entirely possible for the tax year to close after the money was spent (cost) but before the movie was released. That would result, for that tax year, in a quite legal loss of the entire cost of the movie. Of course, the next year they would have enormous profits, which they will then pay tax on.
Well, that is exactly what happens, isn't it? You don't even have to add the crap about pinstripes and claiming it is a brand new car. If your investment ends prior to the car becoming profitable, you get none of the profits, even if subsequent sales make the car profitable.
What, exactly, do you think is shady about that? You can't start claiming profits until your expenses are gone. You can't just defer costs until a later point in time, and pretend that by doing so you are profitable now.
Alan Freed did not invent rock and roll, he named it. The songs already existed. It wasn't called a rock and roll song when it was recorded, but you can certainly look back and say 'that is the first song that sounds like what I call rock and roll'.
The hosting company (Carpathia) has not been prevented from doing anything by the DOJ. They are free to continue operating. MegaUpload is the company saying that the servers should be kept online (with their data).
I never made a prediction of how you, I, or anyone else would react in a given situation. In fact, I clearly said there is no way of knowing what the reaction would be. I merely offered an explanation as to why SOME of the people who found themselves in this situation did not do the things that people on here think are obvious. I reject the notion that all of these people were stupid, or somehow didn't understand that turning a car off or taking it out of gear would cause it to slow down. Everybody who ever drove a car knows those things. Clearly something was interfering with their thought processes, and it seems to me the most likely explanation is panic.
The fact that you, in certain situations, did not panic (which by the way is nothing special) does not mean that there is no driving situation you could be put in which would cause you to panic, and thinking otherwise is pure hubris. I am sure that this CHP officer was in many, many, scarier situations than you have been in, and he did not panic in them. But, for some reason, whether it is the fact that his family was in the car, or it was an unfamiliar car, or that the car was accelerating by itself, or some other factor, this time it appears he panicked.
The only prediction I made on how anyone would act was that ONCE YOU PANIC, instincts take over and thinking stops. At that point, 'what you were taught to do' is completely meaningless, unless you have practiced that situation so often it became instinctive.
The problem with your (and all the other) response is that every situation, and every persons response to the situation, is different. You can not say how you would react in the situation this driver was in, because you were not in that exact situation with the exact conditions that he was. Some people were killed, so obviously not everyone reacts the same way. In the case cited in the article, the driver who was killed was a highway patrolman. Do you really think your driving skills, knowledge of vehicles, and emergency training are superior to his?
Every driver comes across unexpected things while driving and most of the time they deal with them just fine.
Why do you think professions like the military, police, firemen, pilots, surgeons, etc spend so much time practicing? It is precisely so they are equipped to act properly when a dangerous situation arises, without thinking about it.
Yeah, pulling out in the wrong direction from a dead stop is EXACTLY the same type of threat and likely to cause EXACTLY the same type of response as already being at highway speed, in traffic, and continuing to accelerate uncontrolled. What was the big 'danger' you were in - threat of a scratch on your bumper?
Seeing a chipmunk in your backyard is not going to cause the same reaction as a grizzly bear approaching you in the woods.
If you are on a commercial flight and the plane develops trouble, do you want a pilot that was 'told what to do' once 20 years ago, or do you want a pilot who has spent so much time in a simulator that he knows exactly what to do without thinking about it? Being 'told what to do' isn't worth shit when you are threatened with death.
The only people trying to be 'cool' are the idiots who decide what to listen to based on such important criteria as what label a band is (or is not) signed to, or how they obtained the music. Everyone else just listens to stuff they enjoy. Honestly, you indie-only people are every bit as pretentious as wine snobs, food snobs, and audiophiles.
Simple, they panic. I know everyone on here thinks they are far too smart, and this could never happen to them, but it can. When your car starts accelerating wildly, your brain goes into 'I am about to be killed' mode. You do not think, you react. Your instincts take over. If you are an experienced driver, your only instinct is 'mash the brakes as hard as possible'. When that doesn't work, you get even more panicky. Now your instincts are 'curl up and hope for the best'.
Unless you have been specially trained, your instincts are not going to be 'turn off the key (but not so far as to lock the wheel)', or 'put it in neutral', or any of the other ideas people think are so obvious.
This is also why a child can think of the 'turn off the key' option: first, they are not fully aware of the terrible danger they are in, so they don't panic. Second, they have no driving instinct to hit the brakes. They are calm enough to think of another option.
What is wrong with that? The goal of the playback system is to accurately play the music, as it was recorded. Everything that happens up until the final product is produced is part of the sound of that product. There are very few cases where perfect reproduction of the sound of the instruments is desirable. If you are recording a symphony, are you going to do it in an anechoic chamber, or in a great concert hall? The hall is adding it's own sound to the recording, and the recording is better for it. Why is the decision to record at Sun Studios, with it's analog equipment, any different than the decision to record at Carnegie Hall? Both are adding something to the recording that otherwise wouldn't be there - it is part of the desired sound.
I'm not sure trains are the best comparison to use here. Trains do not exactly sneak up on you. Grade crossings often have gates that block the road, flashing lights, and a bell. In addition, the train has a bright always-on headlight, and an extremely loud horn that can be heard for at least a mile and is sounded well ahead of the train entering the crossing. Not to mention that the train itself is incredibly loud.
One of the problems with that is that you would never be able to prove who was responsible for someone getting sick. Another problem is that some people will get sick even though they were immunized. These people can infect other people before they show symptoms.
What makes you think the majority of the people don't support the security at airports? Sure, everyone complains about it, but given the choice do you really believe that the majority of the people would want them removed? How long do you think that opinion would last the next time someone tries to light a shoe bomb on a plane?
Your examples are pretty bad. First, how can you make the argument that 'due to herd immunity the threat to others is not high, therefore voluntarily weakening herd immunity is not a problem'? That makes no sense at all.
As for your shoe tread example: defective treads on your shoes are highly unlikely to cause harm to others. Defective tires on your car however are likely to cause harm to others, and the government regulates that.
Finally, acting under your own conscience does not absolve you of responsibilities. If your own conscience allows you to create a fall hazard, and someone falls and gets injured or killed, you will be held responsible for that - civilly, criminally, or both. If however, your conscience says it is ok to not vaccinate your kid, and as a result someone else's child gets sick or dies, there is no way to hold you responsible. You have completely shifted the burden of your stupidity to the victims.
No, I did not say that. Certainly the case has to do with fact that illegal price fixing caused the prices to rise. However, even in the absence of illegal price fixing the price of ebooks could still rise, and ebooks could still cost more than paper, and there is nothing illegal or wrong with that. If people are willing to pay more for a good, the price goes up.
Your post which I first responded do did not say anything about price fixing. It said that because COSTS are lower with ebooks, PRICE should naturally be lower. This is simply not true. Price reflects the point at which the seller thinks he will make the most money, not the 'cost' of the product. Too high, sales drop more than the increase in unit price adds. Too low, sales increase but not enough to make up the difference in the lower unit price.
When you say that the companies are skilled at hiding their true margins you are basically accusing them of securities and tax fraud. If you have any evidence of this I'm sure that the SEC and IRS (and probably many other state and international governments) would love to hear from you, and there could be a big reward in it for you. Is that the case?
Slashdot Mirror
That page shows four bulbs, which the author describe as 'rare finds'. How is that 'not entirely uncommon'? Also, nowhere on that page does it say those bulbs were in continuous use, or even that they had ever been used at all. In fact, one of them was still in it's original package.
Yeah, but the discussion wasn't Netflix vs RedBox, it was Blu-ray vs streaming.
Look up 'outlier'.
Just last week my wife stopped and got a Blu-ray disc from RedBox, after about a year of using only Netflix streaming, etc. About a minute into the movie we were both wondering how we ever go so lazy that it was worth giving up the quality of Blu-ray just so we didn't have to go get a disc.
I have a computer desk that I bought from them about 7 years ago. It cost about $40. I don't know what it is made of, some sort of honeycomb construction I imagine, because it is very light. Anyway, after 7 years of holding up a 17 inch CRT it has not sagged at all. I have no complaints at all about their furniture.
Taxes are calculated at fixed intervals of time. It is entirely possible for the tax year to close after the money was spent (cost) but before the movie was released. That would result, for that tax year, in a quite legal loss of the entire cost of the movie. Of course, the next year they would have enormous profits, which they will then pay tax on.
Well, that is exactly what happens, isn't it? You don't even have to add the crap about pinstripes and claiming it is a brand new car. If your investment ends prior to the car becoming profitable, you get none of the profits, even if subsequent sales make the car profitable.
What, exactly, do you think is shady about that? You can't start claiming profits until your expenses are gone. You can't just defer costs until a later point in time, and pretend that by doing so you are profitable now.
He specifically said 'at a given altitude and airspeed'. You are talking about planes that operate at DIFFERENT altitudes and airspeeds.
Alan Freed did not invent rock and roll, he named it. The songs already existed. It wasn't called a rock and roll song when it was recorded, but you can certainly look back and say 'that is the first song that sounds like what I call rock and roll'.
The hosting company (Carpathia) has not been prevented from doing anything by the DOJ. They are free to continue operating. MegaUpload is the company saying that the servers should be kept online (with their data).
I never made a prediction of how you, I, or anyone else would react in a given situation. In fact, I clearly said there is no way of knowing what the reaction would be. I merely offered an explanation as to why SOME of the people who found themselves in this situation did not do the things that people on here think are obvious. I reject the notion that all of these people were stupid, or somehow didn't understand that turning a car off or taking it out of gear would cause it to slow down. Everybody who ever drove a car knows those things. Clearly something was interfering with their thought processes, and it seems to me the most likely explanation is panic.
The fact that you, in certain situations, did not panic (which by the way is nothing special) does not mean that there is no driving situation you could be put in which would cause you to panic, and thinking otherwise is pure hubris. I am sure that this CHP officer was in many, many, scarier situations than you have been in, and he did not panic in them. But, for some reason, whether it is the fact that his family was in the car, or it was an unfamiliar car, or that the car was accelerating by itself, or some other factor, this time it appears he panicked.
The only prediction I made on how anyone would act was that ONCE YOU PANIC, instincts take over and thinking stops. At that point, 'what you were taught to do' is completely meaningless, unless you have practiced that situation so often it became instinctive.
Gaa, you are of course correct.
The problem with your (and all the other) response is that every situation, and every persons response to the situation, is different. You can not say how you would react in the situation this driver was in, because you were not in that exact situation with the exact conditions that he was. Some people were killed, so obviously not everyone reacts the same way. In the case cited in the article, the driver who was killed was a highway patrolman. Do you really think your driving skills, knowledge of vehicles, and emergency training are superior to his?
Every driver comes across unexpected things while driving and most of the time they deal with them just fine.
Why do you think professions like the military, police, firemen, pilots, surgeons, etc spend so much time practicing? It is precisely so they are equipped to act properly when a dangerous situation arises, without thinking about it.
Yeah, pulling out in the wrong direction from a dead stop is EXACTLY the same type of threat and likely to cause EXACTLY the same type of response as already being at highway speed, in traffic, and continuing to accelerate uncontrolled. What was the big 'danger' you were in - threat of a scratch on your bumper?
Seeing a chipmunk in your backyard is not going to cause the same reaction as a grizzly bear approaching you in the woods.
If you are on a commercial flight and the plane develops trouble, do you want a pilot that was 'told what to do' once 20 years ago, or do you want a pilot who has spent so much time in a simulator that he knows exactly what to do without thinking about it? Being 'told what to do' isn't worth shit when you are threatened with death.
The only people trying to be 'cool' are the idiots who decide what to listen to based on such important criteria as what label a band is (or is not) signed to, or how they obtained the music. Everyone else just listens to stuff they enjoy. Honestly, you indie-only people are every bit as pretentious as wine snobs, food snobs, and audiophiles.
It is their quantum computing research group. http://stationq.ucsb.edu/
It is widely considered that the first rock and roll song was "Delta 88", recorded by Ike Turner at Sun Studios, in 1951.
Simple, they panic. I know everyone on here thinks they are far too smart, and this could never happen to them, but it can. When your car starts accelerating wildly, your brain goes into 'I am about to be killed' mode. You do not think, you react. Your instincts take over. If you are an experienced driver, your only instinct is 'mash the brakes as hard as possible'. When that doesn't work, you get even more panicky. Now your instincts are 'curl up and hope for the best'.
Unless you have been specially trained, your instincts are not going to be 'turn off the key (but not so far as to lock the wheel)', or 'put it in neutral', or any of the other ideas people think are so obvious.
This is also why a child can think of the 'turn off the key' option: first, they are not fully aware of the terrible danger they are in, so they don't panic. Second, they have no driving instinct to hit the brakes. They are calm enough to think of another option.
What is wrong with that? The goal of the playback system is to accurately play the music, as it was recorded. Everything that happens up until the final product is produced is part of the sound of that product. There are very few cases where perfect reproduction of the sound of the instruments is desirable. If you are recording a symphony, are you going to do it in an anechoic chamber, or in a great concert hall? The hall is adding it's own sound to the recording, and the recording is better for it. Why is the decision to record at Sun Studios, with it's analog equipment, any different than the decision to record at Carnegie Hall? Both are adding something to the recording that otherwise wouldn't be there - it is part of the desired sound.
I'm not sure trains are the best comparison to use here. Trains do not exactly sneak up on you. Grade crossings often have gates that block the road, flashing lights, and a bell. In addition, the train has a bright always-on headlight, and an extremely loud horn that can be heard for at least a mile and is sounded well ahead of the train entering the crossing. Not to mention that the train itself is incredibly loud.
One of the problems with that is that you would never be able to prove who was responsible for someone getting sick. Another problem is that some people will get sick even though they were immunized. These people can infect other people before they show symptoms.
What makes you think the majority of the people don't support the security at airports? Sure, everyone complains about it, but given the choice do you really believe that the majority of the people would want them removed? How long do you think that opinion would last the next time someone tries to light a shoe bomb on a plane?
Your examples are pretty bad. First, how can you make the argument that 'due to herd immunity the threat to others is not high, therefore voluntarily weakening herd immunity is not a problem'? That makes no sense at all.
As for your shoe tread example: defective treads on your shoes are highly unlikely to cause harm to others. Defective tires on your car however are likely to cause harm to others, and the government regulates that.
Finally, acting under your own conscience does not absolve you of responsibilities. If your own conscience allows you to create a fall hazard, and someone falls and gets injured or killed, you will be held responsible for that - civilly, criminally, or both. If however, your conscience says it is ok to not vaccinate your kid, and as a result someone else's child gets sick or dies, there is no way to hold you responsible. You have completely shifted the burden of your stupidity to the victims.
No, I did not say that. Certainly the case has to do with fact that illegal price fixing caused the prices to rise. However, even in the absence of illegal price fixing the price of ebooks could still rise, and ebooks could still cost more than paper, and there is nothing illegal or wrong with that. If people are willing to pay more for a good, the price goes up.
Your post which I first responded do did not say anything about price fixing. It said that because COSTS are lower with ebooks, PRICE should naturally be lower. This is simply not true. Price reflects the point at which the seller thinks he will make the most money, not the 'cost' of the product. Too high, sales drop more than the increase in unit price adds. Too low, sales increase but not enough to make up the difference in the lower unit price.
When you say that the companies are skilled at hiding their true margins you are basically accusing them of securities and tax fraud. If you have any evidence of this I'm sure that the SEC and IRS (and probably many other state and international governments) would love to hear from you, and there could be a big reward in it for you. Is that the case?