Movie that cost more to make than they bring in are called "failures."
And people who make them don't get to make any more, unless the government pays for it. That is called "socialism," which is another word for "welfare for people who can't hold down a real job flipping burgers." Which is another word for "failure."
I'm thinking that at any given time, the Hollywood stuff will be limited to about twice the local stuff that's available, but they'll rotate the catalog on a daily basis.
How is this supposed to work anyway? Say Netflix has 3000 films available for streaming today in a particular country. Replacing a third of them would mean needing to find 1000 local films, which would likely require scraping the bottom of the barrel in the case of countries that lack a film scene.
Or, if they already have 100 local films, simply reducing the catalog of everything else to 300 titles, rotated on a regular (perhaps even daily) basis.
Netflix and Amazon aren't going to be spending a dime more than they do now on European made stuff.
Indeed. But after Netflix and Amazon meet the 30% quote by reducing everything else down to twice as much as the locally produced stuff, Marvel (and other Disney pap) movies will be about all that's left to watch.
This will result in zero new production in Europe, and the increase in the streaming of European produced stuff will be lose in the noise.
If Amazon devoted all of their record profits from the 2nd quarter of this year to employee raises (for over half a million people), it would amount to about $30/week for each one. That is not the difference between what they make now and a living wage. (Not to mention pissing off shareholders - many of whom are middle class people hoping their 401k won't be toilet paper when they retire).
The problem is a lot more complicated than "fuck rich people" can solve. No matter how emotionally satisfying chanting "fuck rich people" might be on your break from flipping burgers at McDonald's.
What it's "worth" and how much profits it makes are, these days, only vaguely related to each other.
Amazon's profits was $2 billion for the second quarter of this year, a record level for them. That's $2.00/hour for each employee, while fucking the shareholders - many of whom are hoping their 401k will not completely disappear before they can retire at age 95 - out of any profits whatsoever.
I repeat: "The problem is a lot more complicated than "fuck rich people" can solve."
Yeah, that'll really make the world a better place.
Amazon employs over half a million people. If you give each and every one of them a $1.00/hour raise, that's a billion dollars a year.
(Not to mention over half of all Americans own some sort of stock, generally in a retirement fund, so the "rich people" you fuck are, in fact, the workers you are trying to help.)
The problem is a lot more complicated than "fuck rich people" can solve.
That's OK. Socialist scion Bernie Sanders has about as much chance of getting a bill outlawing raping babies on live television pass right now as he does of beating Hillary Clinton in the last Presidential primary.
This is a ploy to extract donations from his base for his next reelection run. And that's all it is.
Says the fast, Cheetos-stained loser from his mother's basement, because he's too fat, and the stairs too slippery with Cheetos dust, to climb upstairs anyway. Anonymously.
Typical liberal: Cowardly, stupid, and nothing but namecalling because you can't actually dispute anything.
The phrase you're looking for is "Trump Derangement Syndrome." It's real, and it's seriously debilitating. It renders the patient utterly incapable of identifying reality, much less interact with it.
Fortunately, it's so obvious, there's zero chance of anyone not suffering from it taking anyone who is seriously.
It's going to be hysterically funny in November, when the Republicans pick up more seats in both houses of Congress.
Glenn Curtiss built the first flying car over a hundred years ago. There have been many others since.
There has never been a technical obstacle to flying cars. The obstacles are
1) Cost, since airplanes must be built to much higher safety and reliability standards because when they break down, you don't pull over to the shoulder to wait for a tow truck so much as fall out of the sky and explode.
2) To have flying cars, you have to have pilots, and a pilot's license is much more demanding to get, and needs to be, because again, if something goes wrong, you don't pull over to the shoulder to wait for a tow truck so much as fall out of the sky and explode.
3) Traffic control in three dimensions rather than two is at least an order of magnitude more complicated.
Yeah, in theory, self piloting flying cars will eliminate 2 and 3 (while making 1 that much worse), but the technology doesn't exist and no one alive today will live long enough to see it. We can't build a ground car that can drive itself in the rain, at night, on an unfamiliar road, past a construction crew. Again, adding a third dimension adds an order of magnitude more complication. To both driving the thing and traffic control.
And right now, traffic control is still run by human judgement, with a few thousand planes in the air at any given time. Increase the number of vehicles by three orders of magnitude, with a minimum of a thousand feet required between them at all times, and remember, most of them will be piloted by someone shaving their armpits and eating breakfast at the same time, and you have a good pitch for a sit-com, or a prospectus with which to fleece investors, but not something we'll see any time soon.
I feel a certain commonality with you. I've been at my job for 25 years, and while I could make more money elsewhere, I've never looked because places that pay more in retail have to pay more to get any employees at all. We have insurance, a 401k a minimum of two weeks paid vacation, and EAP for the direst circumstances. None of which is especially good compared to other industries, but all of which are rare privileges in retail.
And during the Great Recession, we closed two locations, and every employee at both was offered a position at another location.
(And, for what it's worth, we're the most profitable dealer in our national franchise, because the employees care as much as the bosses.)
It is rare, but there are good employers out there.
While your common sense definition of "discrimination" is, indeed, common sense, the law disagrees. Inadvertent discrimination might bring smaller fines, but it does happen, and does get called out by enforcers.
Now you're proposing that hotel security employees are going to force their way through a privacy lock that a) conclusively demonstrates that someone is in the room, and b) conclusively demonstrates they have made a conscious decision to enforce their privacy.
At that point, the hotel employees do deserve to be shot and killed for forcing their way in.
This isn't about attendees illegally breaking into each other's rooms at a hacker conference to rape their teddy bears. This is about hotel security employees inspecting rooms without notice. Try to pay attention.
I have never once been in a hotel (or motel) that doesn't have a mechanical privacy lock on the door. It can't be opened from the outside without considerable trouble (and noise).
Slashdot Mirror
Movie that cost more to make than they bring in are called "failures."
And people who make them don't get to make any more, unless the government pays for it. That is called "socialism," which is another word for "welfare for people who can't hold down a real job flipping burgers." Which is another word for "failure."
You can't expect them to create anti-Islamic programming; That would cause people to get killed.
And worse, cause elected officials to lose re-election.
I'm thinking that at any given time, the Hollywood stuff will be limited to about twice the local stuff that's available, but they'll rotate the catalog on a daily basis.
Which means TV Guide may be making a comeback.
And since the BBC will be Brexiting soon, what little good stuff they do produce won't count.
How is this supposed to work anyway? Say Netflix has 3000 films available for streaming today in a particular country. Replacing a third of them would mean needing to find 1000 local films, which would likely require scraping the bottom of the barrel in the case of countries that lack a film scene.
Or, if they already have 100 local films, simply reducing the catalog of everything else to 300 titles, rotated on a regular (perhaps even daily) basis.
Netflix and Amazon aren't going to be spending a dime more than they do now on European made stuff.
Indeed. But after Netflix and Amazon meet the 30% quote by reducing everything else down to twice as much as the locally produced stuff, Marvel (and other Disney pap) movies will be about all that's left to watch.
This will result in zero new production in Europe, and the increase in the streaming of European produced stuff will be lose in the noise.
If Amazon devoted all of their record profits from the 2nd quarter of this year to employee raises (for over half a million people), it would amount to about $30/week for each one. That is not the difference between what they make now and a living wage. (Not to mention pissing off shareholders - many of whom are middle class people hoping their 401k won't be toilet paper when they retire).
The problem is a lot more complicated than "fuck rich people" can solve. No matter how emotionally satisfying chanting "fuck rich people" might be on your break from flipping burgers at McDonald's.
Is failing at 4th grade math a requirement to be a liberal these days?
What it's "worth" and how much profits it makes are, these days, only vaguely related to each other.
Amazon's profits was $2 billion for the second quarter of this year, a record level for them. That's $2.00/hour for each employee, while fucking the shareholders - many of whom are hoping their 401k will not completely disappear before they can retire at age 95 - out of any profits whatsoever.
I repeat: "The problem is a lot more complicated than "fuck rich people" can solve."
Yeah, that'll really make the world a better place.
Amazon employs over half a million people. If you give each and every one of them a $1.00/hour raise, that's a billion dollars a year.
(Not to mention over half of all Americans own some sort of stock, generally in a retirement fund, so the "rich people" you fuck are, in fact, the workers you are trying to help.)
The problem is a lot more complicated than "fuck rich people" can solve.
500 employees isn't "very few companies," it's a lot of medium sized businesses. And tens of millions of Americans are on SNAP.
But Sanders is irrelevant, and will remain so even if the Democrats manage to regain control of both houses of Congress, so it's not really a concern.
That's OK. Socialist scion Bernie Sanders has about as much chance of getting a bill outlawing raping babies on live television pass right now as he does of beating Hillary Clinton in the last Presidential primary.
This is a ploy to extract donations from his base for his next reelection run. And that's all it is.
Says the fast, Cheetos-stained loser from his mother's basement, because he's too fat, and the stairs too slippery with Cheetos dust, to climb upstairs anyway. Anonymously.
Typical liberal: Cowardly, stupid, and nothing but namecalling because you can't actually dispute anything.
Loser.
The phrase you're looking for is "Trump Derangement Syndrome." It's real, and it's seriously debilitating. It renders the patient utterly incapable of identifying reality, much less interact with it.
Fortunately, it's so obvious, there's zero chance of anyone not suffering from it taking anyone who is seriously.
It's going to be hysterically funny in November, when the Republicans pick up more seats in both houses of Congress.
The first step in draining the swamp is to identify the most decayed parts.
None of these people were peaceful, law-abiding citizens of upstanding character before Trump was elected.
Antifa has a long history of using violence to achieve their goals.
Recruiters, being whom and what they are, are less likely to think
I deleted the extra words you put at the end for you.
Given that Japan is an island surrounded by ocean, I suspect a lot of their flying cars will end up submarines anyway.
Glenn Curtiss built the first flying car over a hundred years ago. There have been many others since.
There has never been a technical obstacle to flying cars. The obstacles are
1) Cost, since airplanes must be built to much higher safety and reliability standards because when they break down, you don't pull over to the shoulder to wait for a tow truck so much as fall out of the sky and explode.
2) To have flying cars, you have to have pilots, and a pilot's license is much more demanding to get, and needs to be, because again, if something goes wrong, you don't pull over to the shoulder to wait for a tow truck so much as fall out of the sky and explode.
3) Traffic control in three dimensions rather than two is at least an order of magnitude more complicated.
Yeah, in theory, self piloting flying cars will eliminate 2 and 3 (while making 1 that much worse), but the technology doesn't exist and no one alive today will live long enough to see it. We can't build a ground car that can drive itself in the rain, at night, on an unfamiliar road, past a construction crew. Again, adding a third dimension adds an order of magnitude more complication. To both driving the thing and traffic control.
And right now, traffic control is still run by human judgement, with a few thousand planes in the air at any given time. Increase the number of vehicles by three orders of magnitude, with a minimum of a thousand feet required between them at all times, and remember, most of them will be piloted by someone shaving their armpits and eating breakfast at the same time, and you have a good pitch for a sit-com, or a prospectus with which to fleece investors, but not something we'll see any time soon.
I'm pretty sure our recruiter's automated application system automatically filters out anyone named "Anonymous Coward."
I feel a certain commonality with you. I've been at my job for 25 years, and while I could make more money elsewhere, I've never looked because places that pay more in retail have to pay more to get any employees at all. We have insurance, a 401k a minimum of two weeks paid vacation, and EAP for the direst circumstances. None of which is especially good compared to other industries, but all of which are rare privileges in retail.
And during the Great Recession, we closed two locations, and every employee at both was offered a position at another location.
(And, for what it's worth, we're the most profitable dealer in our national franchise, because the employees care as much as the bosses.)
It is rare, but there are good employers out there.
While what you say is true, why do you conclude that is the applicant's problem?
While your common sense definition of "discrimination" is, indeed, common sense, the law disagrees. Inadvertent discrimination might bring smaller fines, but it does happen, and does get called out by enforcers.
Now you're proposing that hotel security employees are going to force their way through a privacy lock that a) conclusively demonstrates that someone is in the room, and b) conclusively demonstrates they have made a conscious decision to enforce their privacy.
At that point, the hotel employees do deserve to be shot and killed for forcing their way in.
This isn't about attendees illegally breaking into each other's rooms at a hacker conference to rape their teddy bears. This is about hotel security employees inspecting rooms without notice. Try to pay attention.
I have never once been in a hotel (or motel) that doesn't have a mechanical privacy lock on the door. It can't be opened from the outside without considerable trouble (and noise).
Do people not know what these are for?