But in America, there is usually never a pedestrian phase. The "don't walk" and "walk" lights mean "walk now to get run over by speeding oncoming vehicles" and "walk now to get run over by slower turning vehicles", respectively. So when you pressed the walk button, all it would do is accelerate the normal cycle and let the other cars go. Sometimes people would jump out of their cars and press the pedestrian button so they could go sooner. It's part of the reason why half the population fled the cities in the 50's through 90's, and why the other half ignore the lights altogether.
I must change my earlier estimations of you - you're not a moron, you're not an illiterate moron, you're a fucking stupid illiterate moron with the pathetic delusions of adequacy.
But in all seriousness, the question we have to ask is this: will forcing the monetization of art actually benefit society by producing more, higher quality art? Or have we exceeded the limit of how much art society is willing to subsidize? Obviously, people don't think the music they're downloading is worth what the record companies are charging. No amount of legal action will change that.
I don't mean to get up on a soapbox here, but it has been pointed out before that the modern view of how musicians get paid is wildly different from anything in history. Even without an infinite stream of royalties, composers and performers have survived and persisted for centuries. Accepting that digital recordings are not a gold mine isn't going to suddenly make them all disappear.
Now that we have all these recordings, what value is there in producing more? And how much *total* compensation does a performer--or a record company--deserve for producing a new recording? This is what we need to ask ourselves when deciding on the value of digital recordings.
A fact is something that can be corroborated with some form of evidence. Since you provided none, I expressed my opinion of your statement.
I was merely hoping for a citation noting a significant difference. My original post did not claim all schools are identical; it merely compared the difference in quality to the difference in cost and made a conclusion. I apologizing for not providing evidence originally but hereitis. If you wish to rebut this claim, please provide references to the contrary.
That's kind of the point, they're trying to generate money out of thin air. GP is suggesting that those "profits" shouldn't exist in the first place. Not that the CEOs will buy it.
Being from a Big-Name School these days just isn't worth the extra $50,000.
That's an opinion - not a fact. There is a difference you know.
And that is another opinion. Do you have facts to back it up? Like, say, comparing the salaries of graduates of the top ten public and top ten private universities? Is there a big enough difference to make a return on the extra investment?
What you want is an optional "no cover" line that anybody can go through, where you walk through a hidden body scanner so everybody in the club can see it. Then only noobs and blondes will go through it.
I started my subscription when they picked up Bleach. I don't follow it that religiously, but I have watched a dozen or so shows from their archive and the HD option is really nice. But like I said, I pay mostly just to support the industry, not because the service is really that valuable.
If I hadn't gotten in I would have been extremely surprised that a public college would turn down someone with a near-perfect GPA, an entire semester of AP credits (good for college credit), and relevant extracurricular activity. And concluded that I didn't want to go there after all and gone to the community college for year. Sure, it wasn't totally transparent, but it was pretty obvious.
I know some people don't like stressing about one number, grades, and you can see it to an extreme in Asian countries and the like, but I think it beats stressing over whether you have enough other crap on your resume--in addition to grades, not instead of. Plus I wonder how many people who get into college on something other than their grades actually get a job to pay off their loans. There's a point at which you just say fuck it and use the simpler, more predictable, less "equitable" metric.
Okay, now I'm rambling, but that reminded me of a chapter in a book I read about Canada's hockey player recruiting strategy. Basically, everybody has to compete against other kids born in the same year as them, and as early as age 10 the best players of each year get selected for better training camps. The problem is the kids born in January and February are essentially a year older than the kids born in November and December, and the almost-eleven-year-olds beat the crap out of the just-turned-ten-year-olds, and they get selected. So if you're born in the second half of the year, you can't play hockey in Canada.
Which is why I applied to exactly ONE college, where I knew I would get in wanted to go. Half the people I know apply to Stanford and crap just so their parents can brag about it, and brag even more if they get accepted. They have no intention of actually going there.
But frankly, the elephant in the room is that the students they DO accept get stuck with loans they can't pay off--proving their education was wildly overpriced. Being from a Big-Name School these days just isn't worth the extra $50,000. It's insane.
The only streaming site I pay is Crunchyroll.com, because it gives no ads to paying customers and is the only place I can legally pay for anime without buying overpriced DVDs. Of course their selection is kinda limited, but I like to think it makes up a little for all the stuff I torrent.
So, the only reason to pay is if you legitimately want to contribute to the production company through a non-evil distributor. Ads for paying customers automatically make them evil.
If you pay for huluPLUS can you not watch hulu regular? If they both have ads, will you notice the difference? Is there something else that implies you aren't getting your money's worth?
Even netflix/crunchyroll/etc don't have all their content in HD. Crunchyroll in particular uses the same pricing model (except for no ads if you pay): A lot of things are free with ads, but only in low def, and you get new shows a week late. If you pay $7/mo you get HD for any shows they have it, new shows when they air, and *no ads*.
They pay for cable because they are old fogies who don't want the intertubes to interfere with their TV. I think the market of people who will pay for internet, pay for Hulu, deal with getting a PC hooked up and browser open every time they watch, *and* sit through ads when all that is done will be much smaller than the market for cable TV with ads.
Not that I don't believe you (it's happened to me too when using them correctly), but you don't happen to use them for chisels and crowbars a lot, do you?
I don't think the screwdriver manufacturers are worried about you making a pin-punch from it. I think they're worried about their screwdriver breaking. If you've ever had the tip on a screwdriver crack off you know what I'm talking about.
I want to make a pair of pants where I can make the fly pop open automatically. Then I'll go commando so my wing-wang will flop out when they touch my crotch.
I can scream "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!" at that point.
At which point they will point a gun/taser at you and start yelling. Unless it's the opening of a bad porno.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a link: http://facilitiesnet.com/bom/bomproducts/0107/
And the manufacture themselves: http://www.us.schindler.com/
But in America, there is usually never a pedestrian phase. The "don't walk" and "walk" lights mean "walk now to get run over by speeding oncoming vehicles" and "walk now to get run over by slower turning vehicles", respectively. So when you pressed the walk button, all it would do is accelerate the normal cycle and let the other cars go. Sometimes people would jump out of their cars and press the pedestrian button so they could go sooner. It's part of the reason why half the population fled the cities in the 50's through 90's, and why the other half ignore the lights altogether.
I must change my earlier estimations of you - you're not a moron, you're not an illiterate moron, you're a fucking stupid illiterate moron with the pathetic delusions of adequacy.
And a successful troll. Congratulations.
...by what the actual issue is here? And I did RTFA.
Something about Intel pushing a new proprietary graphics bus into a new chipset...they never actually mentioned how the FTC thing got started.
Sure it did, it's a digital copy!
But in all seriousness, the question we have to ask is this: will forcing the monetization of art actually benefit society by producing more, higher quality art? Or have we exceeded the limit of how much art society is willing to subsidize? Obviously, people don't think the music they're downloading is worth what the record companies are charging. No amount of legal action will change that.
I don't mean to get up on a soapbox here, but it has been pointed out before that the modern view of how musicians get paid is wildly different from anything in history. Even without an infinite stream of royalties, composers and performers have survived and persisted for centuries. Accepting that digital recordings are not a gold mine isn't going to suddenly make them all disappear.
Now that we have all these recordings, what value is there in producing more? And how much *total* compensation does a performer--or a record company--deserve for producing a new recording? This is what we need to ask ourselves when deciding on the value of digital recordings.
A fact is something that can be corroborated with some form of evidence. Since you provided none, I expressed my opinion of your statement.
I was merely hoping for a citation noting a significant difference. My original post did not claim all schools are identical; it merely compared the difference in quality to the difference in cost and made a conclusion. I apologizing for not providing evidence originally but here it is. If you wish to rebut this claim, please provide references to the contrary.
That's kind of the point, they're trying to generate money out of thin air. GP is suggesting that those "profits" shouldn't exist in the first place. Not that the CEOs will buy it.
Ok, then that is just stupid. Why would they want to restrict Hulu-only shows from paying customers on other devices? It makes no sense.
Back to the torrents, I guess.
The book was Outliers by Malcom Gladwell.
That's an opinion - not a fact. There is a difference you know.
And that is another opinion. Do you have facts to back it up? Like, say, comparing the salaries of graduates of the top ten public and top ten private universities? Is there a big enough difference to make a return on the extra investment?
they have invested so much in this technology, because it's obviously technologically and ethically flawed.
FTFY.
What you want is an optional "no cover" line that anybody can go through, where you walk through a hidden body scanner so everybody in the club can see it. Then only noobs and blondes will go through it.
I started my subscription when they picked up Bleach. I don't follow it that religiously, but I have watched a dozen or so shows from their archive and the HD option is really nice. But like I said, I pay mostly just to support the industry, not because the service is really that valuable.
If I hadn't gotten in I would have been extremely surprised that a public college would turn down someone with a near-perfect GPA, an entire semester of AP credits (good for college credit), and relevant extracurricular activity. And concluded that I didn't want to go there after all and gone to the community college for year. Sure, it wasn't totally transparent, but it was pretty obvious.
I know some people don't like stressing about one number, grades, and you can see it to an extreme in Asian countries and the like, but I think it beats stressing over whether you have enough other crap on your resume--in addition to grades, not instead of. Plus I wonder how many people who get into college on something other than their grades actually get a job to pay off their loans. There's a point at which you just say fuck it and use the simpler, more predictable, less "equitable" metric.
Okay, now I'm rambling, but that reminded me of a chapter in a book I read about Canada's hockey player recruiting strategy. Basically, everybody has to compete against other kids born in the same year as them, and as early as age 10 the best players of each year get selected for better training camps. The problem is the kids born in January and February are essentially a year older than the kids born in November and December, and the almost-eleven-year-olds beat the crap out of the just-turned-ten-year-olds, and they get selected. So if you're born in the second half of the year, you can't play hockey in Canada.
Which is why I applied to exactly ONE college, where I knew I would get in wanted to go. Half the people I know apply to Stanford and crap just so their parents can brag about it, and brag even more if they get accepted. They have no intention of actually going there.
But frankly, the elephant in the room is that the students they DO accept get stuck with loans they can't pay off--proving their education was wildly overpriced. Being from a Big-Name School these days just isn't worth the extra $50,000. It's insane.
The only streaming site I pay is Crunchyroll.com, because it gives no ads to paying customers and is the only place I can legally pay for anime without buying overpriced DVDs. Of course their selection is kinda limited, but I like to think it makes up a little for all the stuff I torrent.
So, the only reason to pay is if you legitimately want to contribute to the production company through a non-evil distributor. Ads for paying customers automatically make them evil.
If you pay for huluPLUS can you not watch hulu regular? If they both have ads, will you notice the difference? Is there something else that implies you aren't getting your money's worth?
Even netflix/crunchyroll/etc don't have all their content in HD. Crunchyroll in particular uses the same pricing model (except for no ads if you pay): A lot of things are free with ads, but only in low def, and you get new shows a week late. If you pay $7/mo you get HD for any shows they have it, new shows when they air, and *no ads*.
They pay for cable because they are old fogies who don't want the intertubes to interfere with their TV. I think the market of people who will pay for internet, pay for Hulu, deal with getting a PC hooked up and browser open every time they watch, *and* sit through ads when all that is done will be much smaller than the market for cable TV with ads.
Child-Labor Nepotism: Only a good idea on TV.
Not that I don't believe you (it's happened to me too when using them correctly), but you don't happen to use them for chisels and crowbars a lot, do you?
I thought it was just good for ratings. Now you're telling me it was all scientifically reasoned???!?
Or does this sound like a bit of a stretch?
I don't think the screwdriver manufacturers are worried about you making a pin-punch from it. I think they're worried about their screwdriver breaking. If you've ever had the tip on a screwdriver crack off you know what I'm talking about.
The hospital scans the inside of your body. The TSA scans the outside of your body. The TSA can recoup their costs selling the images to porn sites.
I want to make a pair of pants where I can make the fly pop open automatically. Then I'll go commando so my wing-wang will flop out when they touch my crotch.
I can scream "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!" at that point.
At which point they will point a gun/taser at you and start yelling. Unless it's the opening of a bad porno.