Lets give credit where credit is due. Murdoch is an old school (see: unscrupulous) news-man, and good at what he does, but he is standing on the shoulders of giants where shilling bullshit is concerned.
Idiots do not realize they are stupid. (If you don't know there are 2 homophones of "there," then you won't know if you're using it wrong.)
Example 2: If you do not know how to spell "Kruger," you will not realize you've misspelled it until you post your comment and see the one right above yours with the correct spelling.
Of the children who neither blogged nor used social network sites, 47% rated their writing as "good" or "very good", while 61% of the bloggers and 56% of the social networkers said the same.
It is baffling as to why anyone even bothered running this survey. Even if we assume that these kids are not intentionally lying, studies have shown that people generally tend to rate themselves as above average. To paraphrase these studies:
Idiots do not realize they are stupid. (If you don't know there are 2 homophones of "there," then you won't know if you're using it wrong.) Exceptionally intelligent types underestimate how much smarter they are than Joe-average ("I can't be the only one who thought that was easy") And Joe-average tends to think he's Joe-average+1. (No one wants to be average.)
I imagine they pull your GPS location if you call 911 and, given the issues with 911 handling on a cellphone, I'd be pleased to hear that they did. Is this 8 million incidents of the police trying to locate a suspect, or 8 million incidents of a 911 dispatcher reacting to a "Oh my god there's blood everywher~..."
I appreciate it could be a little of both, and I am displeased if the police have been given unfettered access to this data for non-emergencies, but I'm witholding my outrage until I get some context on this one.
I think the distinction here is that "very little" exercise is still infinitely more than none. The average geek gets very little exercise, but we're supermen compared to the lab-meat analogue of a quadriplegic infant.
Hmmm... Is creating patents for things like this "evil"? Seeking to prevent others from saving energy (unless they pay a toll) is not good for this planet, and I'm not sure if passes for "good".
A patent merely grants you control over the invention's licensing, it is possible to wield a patent in an open manner; or not. We'll have to see how they play it.
However, unlike some of the more obvious software patents floating around; this sounds like a genuinely clever idea. If they choose to sit on it to stay ahead of their competition; I don't know that it's fair to say they're "preventing" anyone from saving energy. It's not like anyone would have used this method had they not invented it; and they are somehow depriving the public of it. I would file it under "indifferent," not sharing isn't nice, but it's a far cry from evil.
Of course, you then have to somehow ensure that the mercs aren't on the pirate's payroll.
Go by reputation, easy enough. Hiring security guards seems expensive. I would expect that if you looked at the statistics of getting hijacked, it may not prove cost effective to hire mercenaries in the long run.
I guess I read some level of government oversight into your scheme. I appologize. I agree that shipping companies would do well to arm their vessels; and simply sequester them offshore as needed. A few gyro stabilized platforms with a laser range finder mounted fore and aft that can be operated from the bridge; bolt a 14.5mm or 20mm gun on them when at sea; offload onto private weapons barge when not needed. A single round of that caliber would punch a great big hole all the way through any fiberglass hull a mile out; add some HE or incendiary for flavor and you've got a pretty strong deterrent.
And really this wouldn't need to be done at the ports, just at either end of dangerous shipping routes. Should reduce the logistical burden of the whole thing.
You're not talking about a tollbooth here. You're talking about a port, outside the port, or a series of small boats that have to be operated, maintained, and inventoried in a quickly auditable fashion that can tie weapons to vessels, and be verified both visually and electronically. You have to ensure that the offloaded weapons lockers contain all weapons. What if they lose one, or "lose" several in transit and the logs don't match. Does customs have to investigate it? What standards are to be set internationally; who are they to maintained by? If this is handled in international waters you're talking about possibly the largest UN operation ever. Who is going to pay for it?
And the broadband companies take legal action to prevent private citizens and communities from creating their own broadband systems why?
Because we were just about to do that. Besides, you guys shouldn't be worrying your pretty little heads about this network stuff, you know how confused you get when you get emotional.
So what you're saying is that by assigning responsibility to an entity that is immune from liability, the judge is protecting other government agencies, like maybe state and municipal bodies, from being held liable? I find that interesting.
That's certainly my interpretation. But to see the government do something so genuinely clever, just makes all the times they do something genuinely stupid hurt a little more. It seems they only area they truly excel in is covering their own ass.
It's not the beeps that get us... we can live with that... it's... ENHANCE
BTW, anyone have an earliest reference for this atrocious meme? So far, my brother and I have identified Patriot Games as the earliest reference we could find...
It pains me to say it, but I'm pretty sure patient zero was Blade Runner. I'll understand if you're experiencing a lot of confusing emotions right now.
more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.
"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country" - General George S. Patton
My friend General Patton and I disagree with you, they sacrificed more that is for certain but Sacrifice != Winning
All winning requires sacrifice.
Point being that it wasn't their death that helped win, it was what they accomplished before/as they died. Stating that Russia's contribution to victory is equal to their losses does not take into account all the Russians who died utterly in vain as a result of reckless and ineffectual orders, malnutrition, and poor training.
I am currently accepting investors to help build a one billion core supercomputer to create high resolution climate models that take into account the waste heat from a 100 million core supercomputer making a high resolution climate model.
(Seriously, how much heat is that thing going to put out?)
On one hand, yes, media companies (and indies, etc) should develop things that people are willing to pay for
Problem is, that is only the first part of the equation. To make money they have to make me want to pay, then they have to actually make it possible for me to pay. Let's say I love Dollhouse, many do not, that's fine. Fact is Fox has made a show that I am more than willing to pay for, but I have no way to do so as I simply am not home watching TV when the show airs. I watch it on Hulu, but Hulu doesn't pay shit. So here we are: I'm standing here waving a fistful of cash around and no one will take it, meanwhile Dollhouse's ratings go to shit; Fox is losing profits, and once it's finally cancelled: we both lose.
This is because they are, in effect, refusing my business. I can respect copyright all day and make sweet, imaginary love to it all night; it isn't going to get my money into their wallet if they refuse to take it.
I just hope they don't remotely control spiders in the future... I hate those things:P
Seriously? Because a remote controlled jumping-spider (with cameras) would be the coolest RC toy ever. Have you ever seen how fast those things are? They don't even move, they just shift through time over small distances.
In short, I am all you have left, and I am hanging by a string. Try not to piss me off.
I think you have me confused with a Network Execubot, like your friend Mr. Orca. I am a Broadcast Marketing Execubot. I don't care which network I use; and I don't care how they get viewers. I just pay the one who has the most people who will look at my fine advertisements. Discerning, principled TV viewers like yourself are a statistical anomaly; easily replaced by the hordes watching reality/game shows.
By not watching ads, you don't hurt the advertiser. You hurt the network. When a show's ratings drop below the rate the advertiser paid for, the network has to either refund their money, or give them free advertising against the new rate to make up for what they paid for. The advertiser does not suffer when a show fails, the advertiser simply invests elsewhere.
Watching your ad is not the same thing as purchasing your product, in some cases if the ads are bad enough it drives people away from buying your good/service.
~Bzzzt, whirrr, click~ DOES NOT COMPUTE. Initiate directive 1: If at first you don't succeed, spend more money. (And raise the volume another notch. What the hell are we paying you people for?)
Hello, I am the sponsor who keeps your favorite show on the air. Have we met? No? Well let me introduce myself.
I am not a magical entity, I am merely a corporation looking to protect my bottom line. I do not like or dislike shows, I do not judge them in any way. I don't have the internet, and I don't read your fan forums. So I don't know how many of you really like the show; all I know is whether you saw my ad or not. I pay your favorite show's bills because people that I trust tell me that you watch my commercials. If I found out that you were not watching my commercials, I would stop wasting my money on you, and your show would die.
Are popular Sci-fi shows canceled because they are more expensive? Probably, the return on investment for special effects and such is not so great when compared to a sitcom. But is the return on investment made even worse because a much larger percentage of their fans torrent, DVR, or otherwise remove themselves from the Nielsen numbers? More than likely.
I think we do better against the self-styled "guardians of morality" if we treat each of these games that push the controvery envelope as sui generis, rather than comparing them to each other and making it look like a general trend towards total depravity in computer gaming
It is well established that a pixelated nipple is far more repellent to these people than even the most shocking displays of violence. I think we'd do better against them if 'we' released more games with exposed breasts alongside controversially violent titles. Throwing out a well timed 'nipple slip' a'la HotCoffee or or Activision's own 'BMX XXX' would probably throw them off the scent entirely.
You have to put up money to cover maintenance for the life of the plant and cleanup.
If you host a DRM scheme, I submit that you should be required to hold in escrow funds to keep that system running until the content secured by the system falls into public domain. I would further suggest that Disney should suck it, and finally reap what they have sown.
Slashdot Mirror
"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.
Did your boss walk by or something? Please expand on that a little.
Lets give credit where credit is due. Murdoch is an old school (see: unscrupulous) news-man, and good at what he does, but he is standing on the shoulders of giants where shilling bullshit is concerned.
Idiots do not realize they are stupid. (If you don't know there are 2 homophones of "there," then you won't know if you're using it wrong.)
Example 2: If you do not know how to spell "Kruger," you will not realize you've misspelled it until you post your comment and see the one right above yours with the correct spelling.
Of the children who neither blogged nor used social network sites, 47% rated their writing as "good" or "very good", while 61% of the bloggers and 56% of the social networkers said the same.
It is baffling as to why anyone even bothered running this survey. Even if we assume that these kids are not intentionally lying, studies have shown that people generally tend to rate themselves as above average. To paraphrase these studies:
Idiots do not realize they are stupid. (If you don't know there are 2 homophones of "there," then you won't know if you're using it wrong.)
Exceptionally intelligent types underestimate how much smarter they are than Joe-average ("I can't be the only one who thought that was easy")
And Joe-average tends to think he's Joe-average+1. (No one wants to be average.)
I imagine they pull your GPS location if you call 911 and, given the issues with 911 handling on a cellphone, I'd be pleased to hear that they did. Is this 8 million incidents of the police trying to locate a suspect, or 8 million incidents of a 911 dispatcher reacting to a "Oh my god there's blood everywher~..."
I appreciate it could be a little of both, and I am displeased if the police have been given unfettered access to this data for non-emergencies, but I'm witholding my outrage until I get some context on this one.
I think the distinction here is that "very little" exercise is still infinitely more than none. The average geek gets very little exercise, but we're supermen compared to the lab-meat analogue of a quadriplegic infant.
Hmmm... Is creating patents for things like this "evil"? Seeking to prevent others from saving energy (unless they pay a toll) is not good for this planet, and I'm not sure if passes for "good".
A patent merely grants you control over the invention's licensing, it is possible to wield a patent in an open manner; or not. We'll have to see how they play it.
However, unlike some of the more obvious software patents floating around; this sounds like a genuinely clever idea. If they choose to sit on it to stay ahead of their competition; I don't know that it's fair to say they're "preventing" anyone from saving energy. It's not like anyone would have used this method had they not invented it; and they are somehow depriving the public of it. I would file it under "indifferent," not sharing isn't nice, but it's a far cry from evil.
Of course, you then have to somehow ensure that the mercs aren't on the pirate's payroll.
Go by reputation, easy enough. Hiring security guards seems expensive. I would expect that if you looked at the statistics of getting hijacked, it may not prove cost effective to hire mercenaries in the long run.
I guess I read some level of government oversight into your scheme. I appologize. I agree that shipping companies would do well to arm their vessels; and simply sequester them offshore as needed. A few gyro stabilized platforms with a laser range finder mounted fore and aft that can be operated from the bridge; bolt a 14.5mm or 20mm gun on them when at sea; offload onto private weapons barge when not needed. A single round of that caliber would punch a great big hole all the way through any fiberglass hull a mile out; add some HE or incendiary for flavor and you've got a pretty strong deterrent.
And really this wouldn't need to be done at the ports, just at either end of dangerous shipping routes. Should reduce the logistical burden of the whole thing.
Not hard. Why do people make this so hard?
Because it is hard.
You're not talking about a tollbooth here. You're talking about a port, outside the port, or a series of small boats that have to be operated, maintained, and inventoried in a quickly auditable fashion that can tie weapons to vessels, and be verified both visually and electronically. You have to ensure that the offloaded weapons lockers contain all weapons. What if they lose one, or "lose" several in transit and the logs don't match. Does customs have to investigate it? What standards are to be set internationally; who are they to maintained by? If this is handled in international waters you're talking about possibly the largest UN operation ever. Who is going to pay for it?
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
And the broadband companies take legal action to prevent private citizens and communities from creating their own broadband systems why?
Because we were just about to do that. Besides, you guys shouldn't be worrying your pretty little heads about this network stuff, you know how confused you get when you get emotional.
Now where's my dinner.
So what you're saying is that by assigning responsibility to an entity that is immune from liability, the judge is protecting other government agencies, like maybe state and municipal bodies, from being held liable? I find that interesting.
That's certainly my interpretation. But to see the government do something so genuinely clever, just makes all the times they do something genuinely stupid hurt a little more. It seems they only area they truly excel in is covering their own ass.
It's not the beeps that get us... we can live with that... it's... ENHANCE
BTW, anyone have an earliest reference for this atrocious meme? So far, my brother and I have identified Patriot Games as the earliest reference we could find...
It pains me to say it, but I'm pretty sure patient zero was Blade Runner. I'll understand if you're experiencing a lot of confusing emotions right now.
more Russians died than in all of America's wars combined fighting Adolph Hitler. Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.
"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country" - General George S. Patton
My friend General Patton and I disagree with you, they sacrificed more that is for certain but Sacrifice != Winning
All winning requires sacrifice.
Point being that it wasn't their death that helped win, it was what they accomplished before/as they died. Stating that Russia's contribution to victory is equal to their losses does not take into account all the Russians who died utterly in vain as a result of reckless and ineffectual orders, malnutrition, and poor training.
I am currently accepting investors to help build a one billion core supercomputer to create high resolution climate models that take into account the waste heat from a 100 million core supercomputer making a high resolution climate model.
(Seriously, how much heat is that thing going to put out?)
On one hand, yes, media companies (and indies, etc) should develop things that people are willing to pay for
Problem is, that is only the first part of the equation. To make money they have to make me want to pay, then they have to actually make it possible for me to pay. Let's say I love Dollhouse, many do not, that's fine. Fact is Fox has made a show that I am more than willing to pay for, but I have no way to do so as I simply am not home watching TV when the show airs. I watch it on Hulu, but Hulu doesn't pay shit. So here we are: I'm standing here waving a fistful of cash around and no one will take it, meanwhile Dollhouse's ratings go to shit; Fox is losing profits, and once it's finally cancelled: we both lose.
This is because they are, in effect, refusing my business. I can respect copyright all day and make sweet, imaginary love to it all night; it isn't going to get my money into their wallet if they refuse to take it.
I just hope they don't remotely control spiders in the future... I hate those things :P
Seriously? Because a remote controlled jumping-spider (with cameras) would be the coolest RC toy ever. Have you ever seen how fast those things are? They don't even move, they just shift through time over small distances.
I think your apparent inability to lie is going to be more detrimental to your campaign than your actual politics.
In short, I am all you have left, and I am hanging by a string. Try not to piss me off.
I think you have me confused with a Network Execubot, like your friend Mr. Orca. I am a Broadcast Marketing Execubot. I don't care which network I use; and I don't care how they get viewers. I just pay the one who has the most people who will look at my fine advertisements. Discerning, principled TV viewers like yourself are a statistical anomaly; easily replaced by the hordes watching reality/game shows.
By not watching ads, you don't hurt the advertiser. You hurt the network. When a show's ratings drop below the rate the advertiser paid for, the network has to either refund their money, or give them free advertising against the new rate to make up for what they paid for. The advertiser does not suffer when a show fails, the advertiser simply invests elsewhere.
Internet, ha! CBS assures me that no one uses internet, I think I'll keep paying top dollar for live-broadcast commercials, thank you very much.
Watching your ad is not the same thing as purchasing your product, in some cases if the ads are bad enough it drives people away from buying your good/service.
~Bzzzt, whirrr, click~
DOES NOT COMPUTE.
Initiate directive 1: If at first you don't succeed, spend more money.
(And raise the volume another notch. What the hell are we paying you people for?)
Hello, I am the sponsor who keeps your favorite show on the air. Have we met? No? Well let me introduce myself.
I am not a magical entity, I am merely a corporation looking to protect my bottom line. I do not like or dislike shows, I do not judge them in any way. I don't have the internet, and I don't read your fan forums. So I don't know how many of you really like the show; all I know is whether you saw my ad or not. I pay your favorite show's bills because people that I trust tell me that you watch my commercials. If I found out that you were not watching my commercials, I would stop wasting my money on you, and your show would die.
Are popular Sci-fi shows canceled because they are more expensive? Probably, the return on investment for special effects and such is not so great when compared to a sitcom. But is the return on investment made even worse because a much larger percentage of their fans torrent, DVR, or otherwise remove themselves from the Nielsen numbers? More than likely.
I think we do better against the self-styled "guardians of morality" if we treat each of these games that push the controvery envelope as sui generis, rather than comparing them to each other and making it look like a general trend towards total depravity in computer gaming
It is well established that a pixelated nipple is far more repellent to these people than even the most shocking displays of violence. I think we'd do better against them if 'we' released more games with exposed breasts alongside controversially violent titles. Throwing out a well timed 'nipple slip' a'la HotCoffee or or Activision's own 'BMX XXX' would probably throw them off the scent entirely.
You have to put up money to cover maintenance for the life of the plant and cleanup.
If you host a DRM scheme, I submit that you should be required to hold in escrow funds to keep that system running until the content secured by the system falls into public domain. I would further suggest that Disney should suck it, and finally reap what they have sown.
It makes me sad that you had to ask. Sad at life.