Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O
on
Adobe Lightroom Review
·
· Score: 1
The resultant photo will then be a collaboration. What you were seeing through the viewfinder when you took it, and what they think it should look like.
If that's ok with you, then go for it. But it won't be 'yours' any more.
I repudiate copyright and ownership of thought and content anyway. Everything I write, code, photograph or paint is free for all to use (in the public domain). Yet I don't mind collaborating, in fact, I prefer it.
If it takes an hour to d/l, analyze, process, and send back...well...$5/hour isn't worth getting out of bed for.
I'm not looking for professionals, I'm looking for students or pro-ams who want to make some money while having things to practice on.
That being said, if I have 500 photos a year I take that I'd like to have enhanced a little, $2500 for what is probably a 25-50 hours or so project isn't so bad.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O
on
Adobe Lightroom Review
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're right that a lot of photographers like working on their photos. For me, hobby photography came directly from the fact that I am on the move so much -- some days I'll be out and about for almost 14 hours! I see interesting things every day -- accidents, government workers slacking off, funny occurences, even saw a UFO once (I think it was a bird caught in the wind, it was just unidentifiable).
I like taking the photos, and I think I've become pretty good at it. I think the photos would be better with a little bit of tweaking, and I'd be happy to pay someone to "soup up" some of my favorite shots. I've messed with it myself, but I just don't find the pictures getting better.
My consulting business spends a lot of money (still) on paper marketing (for our customers), and the quality of production of some of my print shops is amazing. On some occasions we've seen GITO (garbage in-treasure out). They don't offer any photo editing as a single item I could buy, and none of their editors wants to moonlight for me.
I also tried the Bates method, but there have been some debates over it. I've tried a few different ones over the year. In the last 6 months I stopped the exercises and I believe my vision isn't as "quick" as it had been, but this could be mind over matter as well.
Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit OT]?
on
Adobe Lightroom Review
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Aperture is awesome, and I assume Lightroom will be as well.
I'm an amateur photographer (I just have a D50 right now as my first DSLR but was an SLR user for almost a decade beforehand). I love the new line of DSLRs, they are completely a step ahead of the SLRs for my needs and the quality is amazing. I've ruined a few rolls of film in the past, so I'm glad I'm much safer with the digital storage.
My off-topic question that sort of remains on-topic is this: With all the cheap labor available online (from students, amateurs and those trying to build portfolios of work), does anyone know of good websites where I can upload my photographs and let others "compete" openly to making them look better?
Time is "expensive" for me, I try to live my life by time preference. I don't mind paying someone to do something better than I can, especially if the cost saves me time. I don't believe that time is money, the opposite is true: money is time. I'll be happy to pay up to $5 per photo (even $20 in some cases) to have them cleaned up as needed by semi-pros or even pros. I'm sure there is a market for such a thing, but I just can't find it.
Anyone know of a decent site, as well as what the popular software is for the "doing it for income" photo editor?
I've read the infoshop.org post, but that's for the link again:) I'm not an Friedmanite AnarCap, either. I do hold the belief that some common bonding of society must exist -- I just don't like the idea of government being it. I have no problem with contract governing -- agreements that are backed by contract insurers.
For example: you want to live in a certain community where the property of that community is owned by a co-op of current owners. You enter the community co-op by buying a share. The "laws" of the community are governed by a contract stipulating that you won't violate the laws. If you do violate the laws, you agree to arbitration. If you fail at the arbitration, you own a fine. If the fine is not paid, your contract insurance pays the fine and you get a negative moderation (like eBay feedback) for the world to see.
The Internet is in a state of anarchy through capitalism as no one is stopping my from competing with anyone, and no one can stop what I want to view -- even "illegal" items if I wanted to.
Actually, when I was single and got rid of my real glasses I wore fake glasses because it increased my success rate with women. Go figure. I also think girls in glasses are far more attractive that girls without glasses (when the wife wants to get some, she wears her glasses, too).
My vision DID get better though -- based on my current annual eye exam.
Actually, I believe that crash testing should be done by manufacturer co-ops, not the federal government, but that's another story:)
In the long run, having a relationship with a middle man (retailer, dotcom, whatever) is key to providing the end user with long term level of happiness. I believe that most retailers historically did more than just provide a product -- they also made sure the product was safe/performed as advertised/worked out of the box/fill in the blank. The retailer did the shopping for the customer to make sure the product was good.
Retailers are able to get insurance against items failing. I know, I am (soon to be was) a retailer. We had a multimillion dollar policy that cost us very little as we researched our suppliers. By giving the consumer this insurance company as a sales tactic, we increased a reason to buy from us. Most dotcoms push claims straight to the manufacturer which really screws things up for the marketplace in general.
Manufacturers used to let dealers fix broken products -- in and out of warranty. The retailer had a key element in helping the consumer with their problems, and the retailer received a much higher margin in the long run. Now, when a consumer is unhappy, they contact the manufacturer, who has to spend more money on customer service, etc.
It is a really complicated problem, but I do believe that the retailer should be the one liable for the products they sell, both in tort as well as in bad products in general. If manufacturers make bad products, leave it to the retailer to stop carrying them, as they'll be responsible for the product.
A buys from B, B should back up the product. B buys from C (manufacturer) only if C has a history of making a good, profitable product for B.
I've been a regular over at the AVSForums for years -- I'm a confessed home theater geek/snob. A few years ago someone mentioned that they had a light source behind their TV -- just a soft white light. In total darkness, the white light reduced eye tension as it allowed the eye to go from the bright TV to a gradient light to the dark wall, and it also increased the visible contrast of the TV.
I started doing it immediately (Standard Definition) and have always increased my use of it as time goes on. My current theater is a projector, and I have a soft light behind my screen matting. I definitely find less eye strain if I have the light on.
About 2 years ago I tried it with my computer monitor (I'm a dual monitor user on the rare occasion that I'm not using my PDA; PC use is down to less than 5% of my computing time). I can say that I have less eye strain for sure when I use the soft lighting.
I tried to do a quick Google search but my PDA won't let me display any articles that talk about the light behind the display. Maybe someone with a real PC can find one and post a link -- I'm sure I've seen studies backing up the usage of the light behind the display, but I don't have any links for now.
On a tinfoil hat conspiracy sidenote: I was an eye glass wearer for a very long time. My vision deteriorated every year or two it seemed. I stopped wearing glasses a few years back and tried some of the eye exercises (as a friend recommended) and I was able to drop my driving restriction and I pass every eye test I've taken for the past few years -- without my glasses on. Anyone else have similar problems with glasses?
Yet the rate of insured goes down, almost non-stop, for the past 60 years. Every time the feds pass a new (unconstitutional) law providing benefits for people, those able to pay for their benefits privately decreases.
The inflation in medical costs is directly caused by federal intervention and mandates -- every honest doctor, clinic and hospital will tell you that's the case.
Government offers health care, more people lose health care. How is this good? The poor get bad health care and the middle class get none? This is fair and equitable?
It is included, but I was just making an estimate based on my phone bill. I recently added a phone line to my house (haven't had one in 3-4 years) specifically to get on the "DO CALL LIST" because I want to set a precedent for telemarketers:)
Even with international calling (which I do very heavily) I barely pay $40 a month all included.
I don't know why you say this. At worst, they shut down one storefront and open another, but they never go out of business without government intervention (criminal investigation and/or civil lawsuit). No one who tried or succeeded in ripping me off on the Internet is out of business.
You're right, I misphrased a bit.
The "new market" of the Internet is teaching people every day how to perform trades. Moderation (like eBay's feedback) is still becoming something the masses are learning about. I believe eBay will soon offer their feedback system for non-ebay trades (including competitor products).
As the masses learn about moderation, they'll see that trusting someone with 0 feedback is the same as trusting someone with -10. In the long run, the guy with 5000 good feedback over the guy with 25 will win -- keep your customers happy. I know you can "buy" feedback with thousands of $1 sales, but eBay will fix this soon too with an average feedback price (total goods sold divided by auctions). This will let you know if you're buying a $5000 TV from a guy with 10,000 feedback but only a $2 auction-average.
Despite your post being modded up to 5, it is an incorrect assessment of the current state of individual-to-individual Internet trade. Your assessment is correct only for trading between larger corporations, and then only because they are vulnerable to governmental regulation and control of their Internet trades.
In the past, maybe. Even 2 years ago was the ancient past. I'm talking about the now and the future -- as moderation system become more popular, we'll see less reason to require government force to back up a trade. I'd love to see eBay's feedback mechanism available for EVERY job my company does, hell I'd ask each individual employee at a customer's office to leave me feedback on every tiny project we do. $100 project here, $500 project there, we'd gobble up positive feedback and surpass our competitors in weeks!
You're right -- I didn't mean to infer to STICK with companies. Put yourself in a mentorship position so that you can strike out on your own and run your own business. Even in my worst years of entrepreneurship, I learned more about business than I would have earning "average pay for average work."
The DOJ handles federal CRIMES. Constitutionality is a matter of LAW.
No, the Constitution sets up what powers the federal government has over the governed -- including what crimes the federal government can police.
Give me a break! You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Loopholes and over-regulation. Sounds like you want no laws on accounting so you can freely defraud anyone you want. Caveat Emptor after all.
Yes, caveat emptor. When the buyer knows to beware, the buyer spends more time becoming informed. When they see a barrier to getting information, they'll refuse to buy a product, invest in a megacorporation or support a person's services. People enter into trade now thinking they'll be protected by the law if they get screwed. I've heard it from friends and family when they get screwed in a deal: "There should be a law!!!" instead of "I really should have thought about this twice."
Then you obviously are not competent to argue this issue.
Moreso than you I'm guessing. Did the KKK perform any acts of piracy, treason or counterfeit? Those are the only crimes the federal government is constitutionally allowed to police.
Doesn't matter WHAT you believe, you have to obey laws on the books. Work via legislation to get them changed.
How can you use the legislation to fix what the legislature broke? Congress has no power to make laws about gun registrations or any of the above situations -- they broke their oath to uphold the Constitution, I want to see public legal hangings, not voting.
Not if it involves Interstate Commerce. Last time I checked the Internet (and mail) crossed state lines. The FEDERAL Government has the power in that regard.
No, they don't. The federal government has the power to make sure no state interrupts free trade between the states. The Interstate Commerce clause was not meant to regulate people, but states. Read it again.
I think there are limits, I think medical/religous uses of Marijuna should be OK, but not other drugs like Cocaine. I'll support legislation to that regard. But until the laws are passed, the DOJ has to enforce them.
Heroin is the best drug to be prescribed for migraines and cancer pain -- in prescription amount it is less addictive than the new opiates. Cocaine is a great medicinal medication also. I think all people should be free to judge what they want to take into their bodies. Tell me why they shouldn't be.
Give me a F*cking break, You are an Anarchist. And racist too it appears. I'm against minority hiring quota's but the Civil Rights laws directly follow from the quote ".. we hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Since you have such disregard for our system of laws, break a few and get caught and you can see they ARE real and are VERY constitutional.
I'm no racist but I know it is harder to hire blacks and disabled people because of the laws "protecting" them. The ADA doesn't help the disabled, it hurts them big time. The Civil Rights laws don't help blacks (I'm biracial, by the way), it hurts them. Read James Bovard's various books and you'll see the sadness in federal "hate crime" legislation.
I just do walk-ins at less busy times..Walk right in and walk back out 10 mins later. Lunch and waiting for a telcon to start about a several million dollar deal we are closing.
Telcon? Sounds like you're one of those working for a crony that takes in nice government-mandated monopolist business. If so, you're worse than the tyrants in office, you accept the freebies stolen from the pocketbooks of others.
Considering that insurance is heavily abused by millions, I think they should investigate claims. In the past, insurance was something one used for emergencies. Insurance was inexpensive because there was no Medicare or public mandates to treat even those who can't pay.
As government got involved with health care, the price (of course) went up. The required hospitals to treat everyone -- raising the rates enormously for those who can pay. This was passed on to insurance companies.
In order to get around taxes using loopholes, corporations started to give insurance to employees as a fringe benefit. As more people received insurance without paying for it, they took advantage of using it -- for simple things such as doctor visits, headaches and even sore throats. As the demand on doctors went up (due to health care provided for free in order to avoix tax situations) and the supply of doctors went down (as lobbied for by the political group called the AMA), the price of doctors went up. This caused more people to use their free insurance (paid for by their employers) for common problems.
Then we received copays, which gave people even more reason to use insurance haphazardly. Throw in the increased costs to doctors and clinics and hospitals from Medicare, Medicaid and Public Aid, and you have MUCH higher costs which get paid by insurance companies, paid for partially by employers and partially by employees.
These problems in health care came from government, continued because of government, and will end up being paid entirely by government as taxpayers demand free health care. We'll end up with subpar health care, which is why you'll see more wealthy Americans getting their medical needs performed in Costa Rica and other countries with smaller overhead in their health care systems.
This is a great review breakdown, concise and to the point. I think slashdot should have a "Tip" button for good articles.
Some points from a guy with absolutely no experience in internship, but as someone who has performed mentorship programs, which are an old fashioned internship to learn a trade:
1. Offer the company you are interviewing the sense that you will be valuable in your position. Remember, in any market exchange, the manufacturer has to offer the consumer sonething for their money. You are manufacturing labor, the company is consuming it -- they are YOUR customer.
2. Understand that BIGGER is not always BETTER. Trying to get in with Microsoft, Google and those guys is a huge task, but if you're one small fish in a very big pond, is there a likelihood that you'll get far? Consider talking with smaller companies -- even much smaller companies. The most successful friends I know are ones who "interned" with small companies and then struck out to start their own: stock brokers, accountants and even retail store owners that all worked in much smaller corporations.
3. Time preference is key. The reviewer here points to that -- chasing after the 1/10th of a point of GPA doesn't translate into time well spent. The old adage that time is money is not really true actually -- MONEY is TIME. Make sure the time you're going to spend with this company translates to earning potential in the future. Don't be a lemming and don't always follow the masses, do proper research in finding out what the real benefits will be.
4. Search for the disgruntled. Use Google and other search engines to find out what made previous employees and interns mad about the company/ies you're talking to. Be aware of the shortcomings of the company, and even use it in your negotiations (although don't be specific, of course). When I lost a profitable business this year due to inept partners, it really hurt my short term ability to bring on new "interns." They point to the lost company (which had my name in big letters on the letterhead) and I know that I am in a decreased position of bargaining. Don't take advantage of the information in such an obvious way, but use it to your benefit. Companies with a sour public record for a given reason will likely be looking for people to help them not have another sour situation. I wonder if Sony is a good place to intern at.
This is a great question. Constitutionally, the federal government has no jurisdiction over matters of civil tort.
Before looking at what tort "reforms" would be necessary, I have to first say that I believe that you should only go after someone for matters of civil tort if the person actually did a crime against you. If a gun manufacturer makes a gun and someone buys that gun and shoots you, you should go after the criminal who shot the gun. If you work at a job that has obvious safety problems, you should verify that the job site you are working on is safe -- you are your best safety supervisor. Mining is VERY dangerous, but people keep doing it, most safely.
In a situation where someone creates something that is obviously unsafe, you have to make the decision not to use that product or service, or not take that job. That is common sense. If someone creates an item that looks safe but ends up not being safe, I believe that you can file a tort suit against the vendor (not the manufacturer in most cases). When you make a purchase, you can contractually obligate the vendor to making sure that the product that they sell performs the job it should, and is not inherently unsafe.
The problem with tort today is that it wants to see everyone for one user's incompetence and incapacity to understand personal responsibility. Tort matters deal with criminal intent, not what is deals with today. The New Deal was the beginning of the end for proper tort in this country, as Paul Craig Roberts shows here. Tort became a tool for achieving public welfare goals, but in the end protected no one but government and the cronies protected by government.
Tort deals with the harm done to one person by another. We've gone so far beyond the proper definition of tort that we no longer allow people to realize they have to be responsible for their actions -- and they have to walk away from situations that might be dangerous. People believe they have a right to be safe, and that is why we have such tragedies.
Ask any honest doctor who pays for Medicare's administrative costs -- the clinics and doctors. In fact, many raise their rates for insured patients to compensate for medicare's high cost of acceptance.
My doctor refuses Medicare and public aid. He is still allowed to by law, but this may change. Because he refuses public insurance, he can lower his prices (and he still makes housecalls).
All these industries, when regulated, were also subsidized. By de-regulating them, the subsidies disappeared, so the end user of course pays more. But you'll find yourself paying less (in the form of taxes) if the subsidies were stopped. If you're not, that just means that government moved the subsidies to other markets.
Deregulation also must be complete instead of just a title to a law. Some "deregulation" attempts were actually just regulation modifications, such as Enron's case. I'm talking completely deregulation and complete desubsidization.
That's advice you'll get from people who think you can pay off your debt over 3 or 5 years. It won't happen. The overall percentage of people who pay off their debt by paying it over years is closer to 0% than 100%.
When you take on extra work to pay off debt, you want to pay off the smallest debt first -- it gives you a feeling of accomplishment, it gives you one less bill to pay in the future, and it cuts back on one possible collection attempt if you're in that pit. I've helped dozens of friends and relatives get out of debt using my "3 jobs for 1 year" technique, and they all tried the "pay the highest rate first and take 3-5 years" plan and failed.
Of course, if you feel like paying interest for years, 21% over 18% cards do cost much more. If you want to get out of debt completely in a year or less, that 3-5% difference is inconsequential.
There are a LOT of Federal Crimes on the books with which the DOJ is charged with enforcing and prosecuting.
Unconstitutional federal crimes, right?
Based on what you said the Feds could never have gone after Enron, Worldcomm or others except on SEC crimes like stock fraud.
Actually, Enron and Worldcomm used powerful lawyers and accountants to find loopholes in the SEC rules -- loopholes that did exist. I blame the SEC for overregulating accounting practices that end up costing consumers tens of billions of dollars in higher costs and less choice.
They could have never prosecuted the KKK
I'm not sure what the KKK did that was a federal crime. Anything the KKK might have done that was illegal would be better suited in State or County court.
they could have never enforced Handgun Registrations,
I'm against registering handguns and I believe handgun registrations are tyrannical.
or broken up Chid Porn rings
This is a State crime per the 9th and 10th amendments.
or intercept drugs from Colombia.
The War on Drugs is a war on freedoms. I don't do drugs but I support the right of others to.
The DOJ is the parent organization of the FBI, Civil Rights, BATF,DEA and many others.
Civil Rights laws are unconstitutional and these laws were passed in order to combat other bad laws of government. On top of that many Civil Rights legislations makes it harder to hire minorities. The FBI, the BATF and the DEA are unconstitutional.
You mean DED because I just showed you all the unconstitutional departments the DOJ supports.
I'm surprised you have so much time to post on/. on such topics since you are supposed to be managing a LOT of projects and putting in mega-hours to earn your 60% profit margins in your consulting business.
Actually, I'm waiting for my barber to free up for the past 45 minutes. Nice to have slashdot on the go so I can take are of e-mails, handle questions from customers and browse slashdot while I make money. What are you doing?
Actually, you're spot on. I do believe that the Internet is the best form of anarchocapitalism that we've ever seen and I hope to see it instill some faith in voluntary cooperation (ie, capitalism) over time.
Everyone I know who has done business online has been screwed once. They had no real recourse through legal means, and in the end the guy who ripped people off went out of business. The great thing about the de-regulated economy online is that the costs are lower, so in the rare occasion that you do get ripped off you are still ahead once you factor in the taxes you'd have paid (that are supposed to be used to protect you).
Slashdot Mirror
The resultant photo will then be a collaboration. What you were seeing through the viewfinder when you took it, and what they think it should look like.
If that's ok with you, then go for it. But it won't be 'yours' any more.
I repudiate copyright and ownership of thought and content anyway. Everything I write, code, photograph or paint is free for all to use (in the public domain). Yet I don't mind collaborating, in fact, I prefer it.
If it takes an hour to d/l, analyze, process, and send back...well...$5/hour isn't worth getting out of bed for.
I'm not looking for professionals, I'm looking for students or pro-ams who want to make some money while having things to practice on.
That being said, if I have 500 photos a year I take that I'd like to have enhanced a little, $2500 for what is probably a 25-50 hours or so project isn't so bad.
You're right that a lot of photographers like working on their photos. For me, hobby photography came directly from the fact that I am on the move so much -- some days I'll be out and about for almost 14 hours! I see interesting things every day -- accidents, government workers slacking off, funny occurences, even saw a UFO once (I think it was a bird caught in the wind, it was just unidentifiable).
I like taking the photos, and I think I've become pretty good at it. I think the photos would be better with a little bit of tweaking, and I'd be happy to pay someone to "soup up" some of my favorite shots. I've messed with it myself, but I just don't find the pictures getting better.
My consulting business spends a lot of money (still) on paper marketing (for our customers), and the quality of production of some of my print shops is amazing. On some occasions we've seen GITO (garbage in-treasure out). They don't offer any photo editing as a single item I could buy, and none of their editors wants to moonlight for me.
I can't get to the site I usually use (my PDA won't load it) but Google offered one that is similar:
http://wiki.ehow.com/Exercise-Your-Eyes
I also tried the Bates method, but there have been some debates over it. I've tried a few different ones over the year. In the last 6 months I stopped the exercises and I believe my vision isn't as "quick" as it had been, but this could be mind over matter as well.
Aperture is awesome, and I assume Lightroom will be as well.
I'm an amateur photographer (I just have a D50 right now as my first DSLR but was an SLR user for almost a decade beforehand). I love the new line of DSLRs, they are completely a step ahead of the SLRs for my needs and the quality is amazing. I've ruined a few rolls of film in the past, so I'm glad I'm much safer with the digital storage.
My off-topic question that sort of remains on-topic is this: With all the cheap labor available online (from students, amateurs and those trying to build portfolios of work), does anyone know of good websites where I can upload my photographs and let others "compete" openly to making them look better?
Time is "expensive" for me, I try to live my life by time preference. I don't mind paying someone to do something better than I can, especially if the cost saves me time. I don't believe that time is money, the opposite is true: money is time. I'll be happy to pay up to $5 per photo (even $20 in some cases) to have them cleaned up as needed by semi-pros or even pros. I'm sure there is a market for such a thing, but I just can't find it.
Anyone know of a decent site, as well as what the popular software is for the "doing it for income" photo editor?
I've read the infoshop.org post, but that's for the link again :) I'm not an Friedmanite AnarCap, either. I do hold the belief that some common bonding of society must exist -- I just don't like the idea of government being it. I have no problem with contract governing -- agreements that are backed by contract insurers.
For example: you want to live in a certain community where the property of that community is owned by a co-op of current owners. You enter the community co-op by buying a share. The "laws" of the community are governed by a contract stipulating that you won't violate the laws. If you do violate the laws, you agree to arbitration. If you fail at the arbitration, you own a fine. If the fine is not paid, your contract insurance pays the fine and you get a negative moderation (like eBay feedback) for the world to see.
The Internet is in a state of anarchy through capitalism as no one is stopping my from competing with anyone, and no one can stop what I want to view -- even "illegal" items if I wanted to.
No one yet, at least.
Absolutely. My screen (projector) doesn't suffer from light wash because I put the light entirely behind it.
FYI, anyone who put a light behind their screen that far back is a video geek. Don't let the wife find out.
Actually, when I was single and got rid of my real glasses I wore fake glasses because it increased my success rate with women. Go figure. I also think girls in glasses are far more attractive that girls without glasses (when the wife wants to get some, she wears her glasses, too).
My vision DID get better though -- based on my current annual eye exam.
Actually, I believe that crash testing should be done by manufacturer co-ops, not the federal government, but that's another story :)
In the long run, having a relationship with a middle man (retailer, dotcom, whatever) is key to providing the end user with long term level of happiness. I believe that most retailers historically did more than just provide a product -- they also made sure the product was safe/performed as advertised/worked out of the box/fill in the blank. The retailer did the shopping for the customer to make sure the product was good.
Retailers are able to get insurance against items failing. I know, I am (soon to be was) a retailer. We had a multimillion dollar policy that cost us very little as we researched our suppliers. By giving the consumer this insurance company as a sales tactic, we increased a reason to buy from us. Most dotcoms push claims straight to the manufacturer which really screws things up for the marketplace in general.
Manufacturers used to let dealers fix broken products -- in and out of warranty. The retailer had a key element in helping the consumer with their problems, and the retailer received a much higher margin in the long run. Now, when a consumer is unhappy, they contact the manufacturer, who has to spend more money on customer service, etc.
It is a really complicated problem, but I do believe that the retailer should be the one liable for the products they sell, both in tort as well as in bad products in general. If manufacturers make bad products, leave it to the retailer to stop carrying them, as they'll be responsible for the product.
A buys from B, B should back up the product. B buys from C (manufacturer) only if C has a history of making a good, profitable product for B.
I've been a regular over at the AVSForums for years -- I'm a confessed home theater geek/snob. A few years ago someone mentioned that they had a light source behind their TV -- just a soft white light. In total darkness, the white light reduced eye tension as it allowed the eye to go from the bright TV to a gradient light to the dark wall, and it also increased the visible contrast of the TV.
I started doing it immediately (Standard Definition) and have always increased my use of it as time goes on. My current theater is a projector, and I have a soft light behind my screen matting. I definitely find less eye strain if I have the light on.
About 2 years ago I tried it with my computer monitor (I'm a dual monitor user on the rare occasion that I'm not using my PDA; PC use is down to less than 5% of my computing time). I can say that I have less eye strain for sure when I use the soft lighting.
I tried to do a quick Google search but my PDA won't let me display any articles that talk about the light behind the display. Maybe someone with a real PC can find one and post a link -- I'm sure I've seen studies backing up the usage of the light behind the display, but I don't have any links for now.
On a tinfoil hat conspiracy sidenote: I was an eye glass wearer for a very long time. My vision deteriorated every year or two it seemed. I stopped wearing glasses a few years back and tried some of the eye exercises (as a friend recommended) and I was able to drop my driving restriction and I pass every eye test I've taken for the past few years -- without my glasses on. Anyone else have similar problems with glasses?
Yet the rate of insured goes down, almost non-stop, for the past 60 years. Every time the feds pass a new (unconstitutional) law providing benefits for people, those able to pay for their benefits privately decreases.
The inflation in medical costs is directly caused by federal intervention and mandates -- every honest doctor, clinic and hospital will tell you that's the case.
Government offers health care, more people lose health care. How is this good? The poor get bad health care and the middle class get none? This is fair and equitable?
VoIP.
:)
It is included, but I was just making an estimate based on my phone bill. I recently added a phone line to my house (haven't had one in 3-4 years) specifically to get on the "DO CALL LIST" because I want to set a precedent for telemarketers
Even with international calling (which I do very heavily) I barely pay $40 a month all included.
I don't know why you say this. At worst, they shut down one storefront and open another, but they never go out of business without government intervention (criminal investigation and/or civil lawsuit). No one who tried or succeeded in ripping me off on the Internet is out of business.
You're right, I misphrased a bit.
The "new market" of the Internet is teaching people every day how to perform trades. Moderation (like eBay's feedback) is still becoming something the masses are learning about. I believe eBay will soon offer their feedback system for non-ebay trades (including competitor products).
As the masses learn about moderation, they'll see that trusting someone with 0 feedback is the same as trusting someone with -10. In the long run, the guy with 5000 good feedback over the guy with 25 will win -- keep your customers happy. I know you can "buy" feedback with thousands of $1 sales, but eBay will fix this soon too with an average feedback price (total goods sold divided by auctions). This will let you know if you're buying a $5000 TV from a guy with 10,000 feedback but only a $2 auction-average.
Despite your post being modded up to 5, it is an incorrect assessment of the current state of individual-to-individual Internet trade. Your assessment is correct only for trading between larger corporations, and then only because they are vulnerable to governmental regulation and control of their Internet trades.
In the past, maybe. Even 2 years ago was the ancient past. I'm talking about the now and the future -- as moderation system become more popular, we'll see less reason to require government force to back up a trade. I'd love to see eBay's feedback mechanism available for EVERY job my company does, hell I'd ask each individual employee at a customer's office to leave me feedback on every tiny project we do. $100 project here, $500 project there, we'd gobble up positive feedback and surpass our competitors in weeks!
Dig?
You're right -- I didn't mean to infer to STICK with companies. Put yourself in a mentorship position so that you can strike out on your own and run your own business. Even in my worst years of entrepreneurship, I learned more about business than I would have earning "average pay for average work."
Good reply, I appreciate the insight.
The DOJ handles federal CRIMES. Constitutionality is a matter of LAW.
No, the Constitution sets up what powers the federal government has over the governed -- including what crimes the federal government can police.
Give me a break! You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Loopholes and over-regulation. Sounds like you want no laws on accounting so you can freely defraud anyone you want. Caveat Emptor after all.
Yes, caveat emptor. When the buyer knows to beware, the buyer spends more time becoming informed. When they see a barrier to getting information, they'll refuse to buy a product, invest in a megacorporation or support a person's services. People enter into trade now thinking they'll be protected by the law if they get screwed. I've heard it from friends and family when they get screwed in a deal: "There should be a law!!!" instead of "I really should have thought about this twice."
Then you obviously are not competent to argue this issue.
Moreso than you I'm guessing. Did the KKK perform any acts of piracy, treason or counterfeit? Those are the only crimes the federal government is constitutionally allowed to police.
Doesn't matter WHAT you believe, you have to obey laws on the books. Work via legislation to get them changed.
How can you use the legislation to fix what the legislature broke? Congress has no power to make laws about gun registrations or any of the above situations -- they broke their oath to uphold the Constitution, I want to see public legal hangings, not voting.
Not if it involves Interstate Commerce. Last time I checked the Internet (and mail) crossed state lines. The FEDERAL Government has the power in that regard.
No, they don't. The federal government has the power to make sure no state interrupts free trade between the states. The Interstate Commerce clause was not meant to regulate people, but states. Read it again.
I think there are limits, I think medical/religous uses of Marijuna should be OK, but not other drugs like Cocaine. I'll support legislation to that regard. But until the laws are passed, the DOJ has to enforce them.
Heroin is the best drug to be prescribed for migraines and cancer pain -- in prescription amount it is less addictive than the new opiates. Cocaine is a great medicinal medication also. I think all people should be free to judge what they want to take into their bodies. Tell me why they shouldn't be.
Give me a F*cking break, You are an Anarchist. And racist too it appears. I'm against minority hiring quota's but the Civil Rights laws directly follow from the quote ".. we hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Since you have such disregard for our system of laws, break a few and get caught and you can see they ARE real and are VERY constitutional.
I'm no racist but I know it is harder to hire blacks and disabled people because of the laws "protecting" them. The ADA doesn't help the disabled, it hurts them big time. The Civil Rights laws don't help blacks (I'm biracial, by the way), it hurts them. Read James Bovard's various books and you'll see the sadness in federal "hate crime" legislation.
I just do walk-ins at less busy times..Walk right in and walk back out 10 mins later. Lunch and waiting for a telcon to start about a several million dollar deal we are closing.
Telcon? Sounds like you're one of those working for a crony that takes in nice government-mandated monopolist business. If so, you're worse than the tyrants in office, you accept the freebies stolen from the pocketbooks of others.
Considering that insurance is heavily abused by millions, I think they should investigate claims. In the past, insurance was something one used for emergencies. Insurance was inexpensive because there was no Medicare or public mandates to treat even those who can't pay.
As government got involved with health care, the price (of course) went up. The required hospitals to treat everyone -- raising the rates enormously for those who can pay. This was passed on to insurance companies.
In order to get around taxes using loopholes, corporations started to give insurance to employees as a fringe benefit. As more people received insurance without paying for it, they took advantage of using it -- for simple things such as doctor visits, headaches and even sore throats. As the demand on doctors went up (due to health care provided for free in order to avoix tax situations) and the supply of doctors went down (as lobbied for by the political group called the AMA), the price of doctors went up. This caused more people to use their free insurance (paid for by their employers) for common problems.
Then we received copays, which gave people even more reason to use insurance haphazardly. Throw in the increased costs to doctors and clinics and hospitals from Medicare, Medicaid and Public Aid, and you have MUCH higher costs which get paid by insurance companies, paid for partially by employers and partially by employees.
These problems in health care came from government, continued because of government, and will end up being paid entirely by government as taxpayers demand free health care. We'll end up with subpar health care, which is why you'll see more wealthy Americans getting their medical needs performed in Costa Rica and other countries with smaller overhead in their health care systems.
This is a great review breakdown, concise and to the point. I think slashdot should have a "Tip" button for good articles.
Some points from a guy with absolutely no experience in internship, but as someone who has performed mentorship programs, which are an old fashioned internship to learn a trade:
1. Offer the company you are interviewing the sense that you will be valuable in your position. Remember, in any market exchange, the manufacturer has to offer the consumer sonething for their money. You are manufacturing labor, the company is consuming it -- they are YOUR customer.
2. Understand that BIGGER is not always BETTER. Trying to get in with Microsoft, Google and those guys is a huge task, but if you're one small fish in a very big pond, is there a likelihood that you'll get far? Consider talking with smaller companies -- even much smaller companies. The most successful friends I know are ones who "interned" with small companies and then struck out to start their own: stock brokers, accountants and even retail store owners that all worked in much smaller corporations.
3. Time preference is key. The reviewer here points to that -- chasing after the 1/10th of a point of GPA doesn't translate into time well spent. The old adage that time is money is not really true actually -- MONEY is TIME. Make sure the time you're going to spend with this company translates to earning potential in the future. Don't be a lemming and don't always follow the masses, do proper research in finding out what the real benefits will be.
4. Search for the disgruntled. Use Google and other search engines to find out what made previous employees and interns mad about the company/ies you're talking to. Be aware of the shortcomings of the company, and even use it in your negotiations (although don't be specific, of course). When I lost a profitable business this year due to inept partners, it really hurt my short term ability to bring on new "interns." They point to the lost company (which had my name in big letters on the letterhead) and I know that I am in a decreased position of bargaining. Don't take advantage of the information in such an obvious way, but use it to your benefit. Companies with a sour public record for a given reason will likely be looking for people to help them not have another sour situation. I wonder if Sony is a good place to intern at.
In what way would you overhaul tort laws?
This is a great question. Constitutionally, the federal government has no jurisdiction over matters of civil tort.
Before looking at what tort "reforms" would be necessary, I have to first say that I believe that you should only go after someone for matters of civil tort if the person actually did a crime against you. If a gun manufacturer makes a gun and someone buys that gun and shoots you, you should go after the criminal who shot the gun. If you work at a job that has obvious safety problems, you should verify that the job site you are working on is safe -- you are your best safety supervisor. Mining is VERY dangerous, but people keep doing it, most safely.
In a situation where someone creates something that is obviously unsafe, you have to make the decision not to use that product or service, or not take that job. That is common sense. If someone creates an item that looks safe but ends up not being safe, I believe that you can file a tort suit against the vendor (not the manufacturer in most cases). When you make a purchase, you can contractually obligate the vendor to making sure that the product that they sell performs the job it should, and is not inherently unsafe.
The problem with tort today is that it wants to see everyone for one user's incompetence and incapacity to understand personal responsibility. Tort matters deal with criminal intent, not what is deals with today. The New Deal was the beginning of the end for proper tort in this country, as Paul Craig Roberts shows here. Tort became a tool for achieving public welfare goals, but in the end protected no one but government and the cronies protected by government.
Tort deals with the harm done to one person by another. We've gone so far beyond the proper definition of tort that we no longer allow people to realize they have to be responsible for their actions -- and they have to walk away from situations that might be dangerous. People believe they have a right to be safe, and that is why we have such tragedies.
Haha, jackass.
:) Worthy of a good laugh at myself at least once a day.
Thanks though, you're right. I appreciate the editing
but if it helps one person, then kudos.
*Shudder*
If it helps one but hurts thousands, it is ok? We should randomly shoot anyone who looks like a crook -- "if it helps one person, then kudos."
Why can't you switch to another cable provider or satellite? Is your local government so tyrannical that you reduce your choice?
Haha that was funny.
Ask any honest doctor who pays for Medicare's administrative costs -- the clinics and doctors. In fact, many raise their rates for insured patients to compensate for medicare's high cost of acceptance.
My doctor refuses Medicare and public aid. He is still allowed to by law, but this may change. Because he refuses public insurance, he can lower his prices (and he still makes housecalls).
All these industries, when regulated, were also subsidized. By de-regulating them, the subsidies disappeared, so the end user of course pays more. But you'll find yourself paying less (in the form of taxes) if the subsidies were stopped. If you're not, that just means that government moved the subsidies to other markets.
Deregulation also must be complete instead of just a title to a law. Some "deregulation" attempts were actually just regulation modifications, such as Enron's case. I'm talking completely deregulation and complete desubsidization.
That's advice you'll get from people who think you can pay off your debt over 3 or 5 years. It won't happen. The overall percentage of people who pay off their debt by paying it over years is closer to 0% than 100%.
When you take on extra work to pay off debt, you want to pay off the smallest debt first -- it gives you a feeling of accomplishment, it gives you one less bill to pay in the future, and it cuts back on one possible collection attempt if you're in that pit. I've helped dozens of friends and relatives get out of debt using my "3 jobs for 1 year" technique, and they all tried the "pay the highest rate first and take 3-5 years" plan and failed.
Of course, if you feel like paying interest for years, 21% over 18% cards do cost much more. If you want to get out of debt completely in a year or less, that 3-5% difference is inconsequential.
There are a LOT of Federal Crimes on the books with which the DOJ is charged with enforcing and prosecuting.
/. on such topics since you are supposed to be managing a LOT of projects and putting in mega-hours to earn your 60% profit margins in your consulting business.
Unconstitutional federal crimes, right?
Based on what you said the Feds could never have gone after Enron, Worldcomm or others except on SEC crimes like stock fraud.
Actually, Enron and Worldcomm used powerful lawyers and accountants to find loopholes in the SEC rules -- loopholes that did exist. I blame the SEC for overregulating accounting practices that end up costing consumers tens of billions of dollars in higher costs and less choice.
They could have never prosecuted the KKK
I'm not sure what the KKK did that was a federal crime. Anything the KKK might have done that was illegal would be better suited in State or County court.
they could have never enforced Handgun Registrations,
I'm against registering handguns and I believe handgun registrations are tyrannical.
or broken up Chid Porn rings
This is a State crime per the 9th and 10th amendments.
or intercept drugs from Colombia.
The War on Drugs is a war on freedoms. I don't do drugs but I support the right of others to.
The DOJ is the parent organization of the FBI, Civil Rights, BATF,DEA and many others.
Civil Rights laws are unconstitutional and these laws were passed in order to combat other bad laws of government. On top of that many Civil Rights legislations makes it harder to hire minorities. The FBI, the BATF and the DEA are unconstitutional.
Take a look at http://wwww.doj.gov./ Therefore your post is 99.75% WRONG QED
You mean DED because I just showed you all the unconstitutional departments the DOJ supports.
I'm surprised you have so much time to post on
Actually, I'm waiting for my barber to free up for the past 45 minutes. Nice to have slashdot on the go so I can take are of e-mails, handle questions from customers and browse slashdot while I make money. What are you doing?
Whoa, smart!
Actually, you're spot on. I do believe that the Internet is the best form of anarchocapitalism that we've ever seen and I hope to see it instill some faith in voluntary cooperation (ie, capitalism) over time.
Everyone I know who has done business online has been screwed once. They had no real recourse through legal means, and in the end the guy who ripped people off went out of business. The great thing about the de-regulated economy online is that the costs are lower, so in the rare occasion that you do get ripped off you are still ahead once you factor in the taxes you'd have paid (that are supposed to be used to protect you).