I really should have known something was amiss after "Jizz Cola", but I kept reading. I even clicked the link to display the entire comment. It was horrible, possibly written by a geek descendent of Lovecraft. Excuse me now while I wash my brain out with soap...
Yes, and each one of these laws has been supported by them and signed by Bush in order to make law.
And Bush also signed the DMCA. Stupid Republican Presidents! What's that...Clinton signed the DMCA? Ummm...well...stupid Republican Congress! Yeah, that's the ticket.
we will have matrix 4 (they planned from the start to have a 5 movie series)
Really? From what I understood, it was part of a pre-planned trilogy. Would you happen to have a sourec for this? I suppose that we could see another two sequels in a few years if Revolutions grosses as much as Reloaded.
Can RFID tage be deactivated? Once the product is purchased, is the tag still active or can the store "kill" it?
If the tags can't be deactivated I can see some privacy issues arising from unauthorized detection. What if Walmart were to hide a sensor outside the doors of a competitor's store, scanning and logging every product in their customers' bags?
If the tags can be deactivated, what's to stop shoplifters from acquiring this technology? We all know that any security is eventually broken.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This could drop inventory costs to a quarter of what they were before -- no more all-nighters trying to discover what's in stock and what isn't.
I'm betting that manual inventories would still be required periodically. It might only happen once a year instead of every quarter, but there would still have to be some proof for the accountants. This would be especially true in the first few years of the system, when the bugs are still being worked out.
My friend's GF got fired for rounding people's bills up. Everyone in the place did it, she got caught.
I don't feel sorry for her at all. She was blatantly cheating people out of money. It makes not difference that it was only a small amount or that it was common practice. They are plenty of people (myself included) who round up when figuring out the tip. I'd bet that most people would leave a $7 tip instead of a $6.88 tip.
I've always wondered why restaurants don't include "suggested" calculated tips on the bill for 15%, 18% and 20%. It would be trivial to implement and would assist those who are math impaired. It would also "hint" to poor tippers that perhaps they should leave a few more dollars.
Your comments are dead-on correct. I worked at a cinema near you for many years (Showcase Woburn). When I started, there were full-time projectionists whose only duty was to keep the movies running smoothly. As the years passed, the full-time projectionists were phased out and replaced by managers who had received basic training at "booth school".
These managers viewed running the projectors as simply one in a huge list of duties. In between dealing with irate customers and making sure the theaters were clean (yes, all theaters are cleaned in between shows), the manager who had drawn projectionist duty that day would thread up projectors. Problems with the film were rarely taken care of unless a customer or usher noticed them.
I think that digital projection has the potential to solve some of the current problems while introducing new ones. Digital projection will eliminate scratches, tears, and other damage that occurs over time. Even the best kept projector eventually degrades the film. A poorly maintained projector could degrade it by the end of the first weekend. However, new issues will arise to challenge the technically inept managers. If there's any possible way to crash a digital projector, it will happen, often. With the proper training these problems could be minimal, but I doubt theater will invest in anything more than the most basic instruction.
To sum it up, digital projection certainly has the potential to make the movies more enjoyable. But there's certainly going to be growing pains while the technology matures.
I wonder how rapidly this price will come down. I'm not sure what a standard projector costs, but are there any reasons why a digital projector should cost more once they go mainstream and economy of scale takes over? I'd figure that there must be less moving parts in a digital projector and tons of room for integration and refinement of the electronics.
I recall that one catcher was supposedly told by an umpire that he wanted to call a lot of those pitches strikes, but he couldn't.
I find that unlikely since the QuesTec system seems to show that umpires call slightly fewer strikes than they should (32.1% to 31.4%). To clarify, I believe this actually occurred, but I doubt that this umpire was forced to call a ball when the pitch was actually a strike. Most likely, he was forced to correctly call a ball instead of incorrectly calling a strike.
Obviously the umpires don't want to lose their jobs to machines, but I don't think that's the real issue here. Replacing the umps with an automated system isn't even being considered right now. What has the umps upset is that this system can objectively judge their performance.
Before QuesTec was implemented, it was very difficult to accurately judge an umpire's ability to call balls and strikes. Unless someone was standing right beside the umpire the whole game, they weren't in proper position to judge the ball's position when it crossed the plate. With QuesTec, it's possible to judge every single call an umpire makes.
The lawyers representing the umpires have argued that the system "does not have the credibility, financial stability, independence or technical expertise to evaluate major league umpires,â and that it isn't âoeaccurate, reliable, consistent, scientifically valid or fair.â They didn't provide any evidence of these assertions. If there are calibration problems with the system, fix them. The lawyers have failed to prove there's anything fundamentally wrong with QuesTec.
I think that QuesTec is a valuable tool for rating the umpires. It's necessary for Major League Baseball to have the most accurate and unbiased umpires available and a similar system to judge them.
whereas a programmer off the street (looking for work, so probably in the bottom 6.1% in terms of talent
That's an utterly idiotic statement. In order for that be even remotely true, you've have to assume that every company is perfect judge of talent and hires only the best candidates. Also, take into account that the IT unemployment rate is considerably higher than 6.1%.
I agree that it's not prudent to replace an experience programmer with one who's unfamiliar with the system. Just remember that there's some very talented people without jobs right now and some real idiots with them.
Then K-Mart moved across the street, and Ames went out of business.
And a few years before that, Ames bought out Zayre Stores and closed over 70 of them. It's a cycle that won't end until there's just one chain of stores.
The original poster had his facts wrong. $65,000 is above even the combined household income. The actual value is closer to $35,000 for a full-time employee.
I do agree with your main argument, that it's important to collect taxes that are due. I think my previous post went off on a tangent somewhat.
I would like to point out though that many taxes are tolerated only because of lax enforcement. It's similar to speed tickets. If every person who drove over the speed limit was issued a citation, the law would be repealed within a week. If tax enforcement is tightened, people may be less receptive to future tax proposals.
If we assume for a moment that you have a government who spends their collected taxes wisely (not always true, I'll admit), then that money gets put to good use.
It's very difficult to gauge how well a government spends its collected tax. Budgets are huge and nearly unreadable by the average citizen.
The main problem stems from the fact that everyone has their own idea of what constitiutes a "wise" expenditure. Liberals may consider national health care good ways to spend tax dollars while Conservatives may favor defense programs.
In my opinion, the example of paying more for a DVD and receiving better health care is a little too simplistic. What if every product's price had to be raised 30% in order to provide better health care? Would that be acceptable? What if the prices had to be raised 40%? 50%? 20%? What about when another program such as education needs more funding? Should the prices be raised another 25%?
As far as I'm concerned, "One Size Fits All" plans don't work in practice. Some one who requires extensive, long-term medical services should pay more than some one who barely uses the system. People with six kids should pay more for education than the family with one child. The amount of the payment (or tax) should be proportionate the services used. It makes sense in virtually every other area of life, why not with the government?
I guarantee you that any service contract you clicked through gave them the right to change whatever they wanted.
That's exactly what is wrong with almost every EULA. The buyer must agree that the seller can change the terms of the contract at any time. That's absurd.
A company should have the right to include whatever restrictions or limitations they want, but only in the original contract. That way, the buyer can decide if he wishes to accept those terms. Even if the buyer studies every single line of the EULA, there's no way of knowing that the contract won't be changed sometime in the future. IANAL, but I can't see how a contract can be legal when it can be altered at will by only one party.
IIRC with WinXP you are only purchasing a subscription for a year or so.
I deal with MS software purchasing and I've never heard of an XP "subscription". Technical support subscription, sure. But I'm afraid you're not recalling correctly on this issue.
I always enjoy the crowd that expects the government to provide services, but refuses to fund them with their taxes.
Yes, and I always enjoy the crowd that expects the government to provide them with services, but plays no part in funding those services. For example, the bottom third of US taxpayers. They expect free schooling, subsidized housing, welfare checks, and yet don't pay a dime in federal income tax. In fact, they may get a few thousand dollars back if they have kids.
It's "less worthy" than internet access for schools and libraries because you're paying for other people to have cheaper phone service. Schools and libraries benefit an entire community, either directly or indirectly. Subsidizing Rural Rick's phone service doesn't beenfit the community. It benefits Rick. I'd certainly consider that to be "less worthy".
Slashdot Mirror
I really should have known something was amiss after "Jizz Cola", but I kept reading. I even clicked the link to display the entire comment. It was horrible, possibly written by a geek descendent of Lovecraft. Excuse me now while I wash my brain out with soap...
Yes, and each one of these laws has been supported by them and signed by Bush in order to make law.
And Bush also signed the DMCA. Stupid Republican Presidents! What's that...Clinton signed the DMCA? Ummm...well...stupid Republican Congress! Yeah, that's the ticket.
Are you sure he wasn't referring to an algorithm for finding large prime factors?
we will have matrix 4 (they planned from the start to have a 5 movie series)
Really? From what I understood, it was part of a pre-planned trilogy. Would you happen to have a sourec for this? I suppose that we could see another two sequels in a few years if Revolutions grosses as much as Reloaded.
Microsoft: We know where you've gone today.
Can RFID tage be deactivated? Once the product is purchased, is the tag still active or can the store "kill" it?
If the tags can't be deactivated I can see some privacy issues arising from unauthorized detection. What if Walmart were to hide a sensor outside the doors of a competitor's store, scanning and logging every product in their customers' bags?
If the tags can be deactivated, what's to stop shoplifters from acquiring this technology? We all know that any security is eventually broken.
This could drop inventory costs to a quarter of what they were before -- no more all-nighters trying to discover what's in stock and what isn't.
I'm betting that manual inventories would still be required periodically. It might only happen once a year instead of every quarter, but there would still have to be some proof for the accountants. This would be especially true in the first few years of the system, when the bugs are still being worked out.
My friend's GF got fired for rounding people's bills up. Everyone in the place did it, she got caught.
I don't feel sorry for her at all. She was blatantly cheating people out of money. It makes not difference that it was only a small amount or that it was common practice. They are plenty of people (myself included) who round up when figuring out the tip. I'd bet that most people would leave a $7 tip instead of a $6.88 tip.
I've always wondered why restaurants don't include "suggested" calculated tips on the bill for 15%, 18% and 20%. It would be trivial to implement and would assist those who are math impaired. It would also "hint" to poor tippers that perhaps they should leave a few more dollars.
Your comments are dead-on correct. I worked at a cinema near you for many years (Showcase Woburn). When I started, there were full-time projectionists whose only duty was to keep the movies running smoothly. As the years passed, the full-time projectionists were phased out and replaced by managers who had received basic training at "booth school".
These managers viewed running the projectors as simply one in a huge list of duties. In between dealing with irate customers and making sure the theaters were clean (yes, all theaters are cleaned in between shows), the manager who had drawn projectionist duty that day would thread up projectors. Problems with the film were rarely taken care of unless a customer or usher noticed them.
I think that digital projection has the potential to solve some of the current problems while introducing new ones. Digital projection will eliminate scratches, tears, and other damage that occurs over time. Even the best kept projector eventually degrades the film. A poorly maintained projector could degrade it by the end of the first weekend. However, new issues will arise to challenge the technically inept managers. If there's any possible way to crash a digital projector, it will happen, often. With the proper training these problems could be minimal, but I doubt theater will invest in anything more than the most basic instruction.
To sum it up, digital projection certainly has the potential to make the movies more enjoyable. But there's certainly going to be growing pains while the technology matures.
I wonder how rapidly this price will come down. I'm not sure what a standard projector costs, but are there any reasons why a digital projector should cost more once they go mainstream and economy of scale takes over? I'd figure that there must be less moving parts in a digital projector and tons of room for integration and refinement of the electronics.
...wondering what's the point of underwear that's so small that you could swallow it without even noticing.
I didn't realize that all underwear was edible.
I recall that one catcher was supposedly told by an umpire that he wanted to call a lot of those pitches strikes, but he couldn't.
I find that unlikely since the QuesTec system seems to show that umpires call slightly fewer strikes than they should (32.1% to 31.4%). To clarify, I believe this actually occurred, but I doubt that this umpire was forced to call a ball when the pitch was actually a strike. Most likely, he was forced to correctly call a ball instead of incorrectly calling a strike.
Obviously the umpires don't want to lose their jobs to machines, but I don't think that's the real issue here. Replacing the umps with an automated system isn't even being considered right now. What has the umps upset is that this system can objectively judge their performance.
Before QuesTec was implemented, it was very difficult to accurately judge an umpire's ability to call balls and strikes. Unless someone was standing right beside the umpire the whole game, they weren't in proper position to judge the ball's position when it crossed the plate. With QuesTec, it's possible to judge every single call an umpire makes.
The lawyers representing the umpires have argued that the system "does not have the credibility, financial stability, independence or technical expertise to evaluate major league umpires,â and that it isn't âoeaccurate, reliable, consistent, scientifically valid or fair.â They didn't provide any evidence of these assertions. If there are calibration problems with the system, fix them. The lawyers have failed to prove there's anything fundamentally wrong with QuesTec.
I think that QuesTec is a valuable tool for rating the umpires. It's necessary for Major League Baseball to have the most accurate and unbiased umpires available and a similar system to judge them.
That is, until you get busted for wazes and have to pay a £20,000 fine.
Yes, but you'd still be saving money after your 500th game!
whereas a programmer off the street (looking for work, so probably in the bottom 6.1% in terms of talent
That's an utterly idiotic statement. In order for that be even remotely true, you've have to assume that every company is perfect judge of talent and hires only the best candidates. Also, take into account that the IT unemployment rate is considerably higher than 6.1%.
I agree that it's not prudent to replace an experience programmer with one who's unfamiliar with the system. Just remember that there's some very talented people without jobs right now and some real idiots with them.
It doesn't impress drunk chicks.
a google search of kama sutra might.
As someone stated above:
No. No, it wouldn't.
Then K-Mart moved across the street, and Ames went out of business.
And a few years before that, Ames bought out Zayre Stores and closed over 70 of them. It's a cycle that won't end until there's just one chain of stores.
The original poster had his facts wrong. $65,000 is above even the combined household income. The actual value is closer to $35,000 for a full-time employee.
I do agree with your main argument, that it's important to collect taxes that are due. I think my previous post went off on a tangent somewhat.
I would like to point out though that many taxes are tolerated only because of lax enforcement. It's similar to speed tickets. If every person who drove over the speed limit was issued a citation, the law would be repealed within a week. If tax enforcement is tightened, people may be less receptive to future tax proposals.
If we assume for a moment that you have a government who spends their collected taxes wisely (not always true, I'll admit), then that money gets put to good use.
It's very difficult to gauge how well a government spends its collected tax. Budgets are huge and nearly unreadable by the average citizen.
The main problem stems from the fact that everyone has their own idea of what constitiutes a "wise" expenditure. Liberals may consider national health care good ways to spend tax dollars while Conservatives may favor defense programs.
In my opinion, the example of paying more for a DVD and receiving better health care is a little too simplistic. What if every product's price had to be raised 30% in order to provide better health care? Would that be acceptable? What if the prices had to be raised 40%? 50%? 20%? What about when another program such as education needs more funding? Should the prices be raised another 25%?
As far as I'm concerned, "One Size Fits All" plans don't work in practice. Some one who requires extensive, long-term medical services should pay more than some one who barely uses the system. People with six kids should pay more for education than the family with one child. The amount of the payment (or tax) should be proportionate the services used. It makes sense in virtually every other area of life, why not with the government?
I guarantee you that any service contract you clicked through gave them the right to change whatever they wanted.
That's exactly what is wrong with almost every EULA. The buyer must agree that the seller can change the terms of the contract at any time. That's absurd.
A company should have the right to include whatever restrictions or limitations they want, but only in the original contract. That way, the buyer can decide if he wishes to accept those terms. Even if the buyer studies every single line of the EULA, there's no way of knowing that the contract won't be changed sometime in the future. IANAL, but I can't see how a contract can be legal when it can be altered at will by only one party.
IIRC with WinXP you are only purchasing a subscription for a year or so.
I deal with MS software purchasing and I've never heard of an XP "subscription". Technical support subscription, sure. But I'm afraid you're not recalling correctly on this issue.
Sorry, forgot to close the bracket. Speaking of brackets, take a look here to see how the tax burden is divided in the US.
I always enjoy the crowd that expects the government to provide services, but refuses to fund them with their taxes.
Yes, and I always enjoy the crowd that expects the government to provide them with services, but plays no part in funding those services. For example, the bottom third of US taxpayers. They expect free schooling, subsidized housing, welfare checks, and yet don't pay a dime in federal income tax. In fact, they may get a few thousand dollars back if they have kids.
It's "less worthy" than internet access for schools and libraries because you're paying for other people to have cheaper phone service. Schools and libraries benefit an entire community, either directly or indirectly. Subsidizing Rural Rick's phone service doesn't beenfit the community. It benefits Rick. I'd certainly consider that to be "less worthy".