And they can usually get a job that pays something approaching real, professional wages during the summer.
And we don't often require them to have a degree that's specific to teaching and isn't terribly useful (aside from "any degree will do" situations) outside of teaching.
Yeah, we totally don't owe them anything for those months school isn't in session since they could, theoretically, in some fantasy land make real money doing something else in the summer and aren't effectively giving up a giant percentage of their earning potential during the off months so they can be available to teach the rest of the year.
It felt like the script needed another good once-over and a trim. It's a thematic mess and takes about twice as long as it ought to to introduce the characters and (poorly, repetitively) present their motivations. Some of the delivery was pretty wooden, especially in the first half, but that may have been the result of mediocre editing (there were also a couple awkward cuts, IMO, so maybe that was it) or the piss-poor dialog. Filled with painful talking-to-the-audience exposition that's so bad it was comical—again, a writing issue.
For the entire first half I was worried that I'd walk out hating the movie, but fortunately improved somewhat, nearer the end.
The audio was poor. A fair bit of the dialog (not just Bane's) was hard to pick up. Bane sounded like he wasn't even in the same room—more like a voiceover— an effect which, it seems to me, can only be called an outright mistake on the part of the filmmakers.
Actually, there is a big vault with money waiting in the wings for PRIVATE enterprise. The private sector creates new things and services and sells them at a profit, and that money does, indeed pile up.
Wow, that sounds really wasteful.
There isn't any money in the wings for the public sector because it lives off of the private sector. It doesn't make things or services for profit, it's 100% an expense. Even if the government "creates" a job, it does it with money from the private sector. It isn't truly creating that job, it's simply redistributing the taxpayer's money.
And businesses simply redistribute customers' and investors' (and taxpayers') money. Economic activity is redistribution. I guess that means no jobs are ever created. No wonder this economic slump is so bad.
It would all be fine if government were as efficient as the private sector at spending money, but that is sadly very much not the case.
The rich do not "release" money. There is no great big vault with money waiting in the wings. What happens is they appropriate money from customers, investors, and taxpayers, keep a portion for things they won't tell you about and then graciously invest the rest of it in China.
This money cannot stimulate the economy because it is a net loss.
I honestly don't know how police departments will react to not having all sorts of ways to get money from drivers, and reasons to stop you to snoop around your shit for drugs or whatever. They're not going to give up the money, I think, even if those things also mean lower costs for the departments, but I'm not sure how they'll make up for it.
I live in terror that one day Sony will realize how much money they could make if they ran their store more like Steam--how many games they could sell if they cut the normal prices a bit and ran occasional steep sales, how easy it would be to kill Redbox by allowing me to rent movies I can't find on Netflix at a competitive price (instead of the current you'd-have-to-be-insane-or-stupid-to-pay-it rate that amounts to half the cost of the damn DVD just to "rent" the digital file), no more points bullshit (do they still do that? I haven't looked in so long...), etc.
If they'd done that a couple years ago they'd likely have seen a few hundred dollars from me instead of the $20 or so I've spent with things the way they are. I'd buy more digital copies of games "new" during sales rather than doing what I usually do now and buying the discs used, and I might actually use their movie service.
Thank god they haven't figured that out. They could have gotten a lot of money from me, the bastards.
Except that the open source development community has basically shown that they can reverse engineer hardware and produce their own shitty drivers provided your hardware is very common and at least a year old, or, if obscure, at least three years old but nor more than five, and if it's a USB device that's not a HID or mass storage, forget about it.
Apple absolutely claim they will reject apps because they're shit. They in fact do reject apps that are just websites loaded in a webview, or that are nothing but marketing material, or are inferior clones of apps of a type that are already numerous in the store (the way they put it is something like "we have enough fart apps, thank you"). They also reject apps with obvious bugs, or that just work very poorly.
That's not to say there aren't examples of all of those things that make it through, but if you try submitting a sluggish app that does nothing but load your website, which just has a really crappy HTML5 Tetris clone on it, odds are good you won't meet with much success.
Similar experience here. EA's DLC system for the ME/DA games is awful. I still haven't managed to get non-broken archives of the two largest DLC for ME2. I don't have problems with large downloads from anyone else. That's on top of the huge hassle their site is to navigate (whoever designed it should never ever be allowed to design a user interface again) and their stupid "points" you have to purchase to buy things.
Their DLC portal is shit, Origin is shit, and both seem designed to make giving them money as painful/undersirable as possible. EA can go to hell.
It's a common phenomenon in board games. Players who no longer have a chance of winning may accept a worse or earlier loss in order to play "kingmaker" and give their favored adversary the victory over another who may otherwise have had the win locked up. Risk is especially notorious for this, since one can usual tell when one's position is hopeless before every avenue of suicidal but devastating attack has been cut off.
It's one of the ways that too much player interaction in a game can make it worse, especially in games that feature slow decline and ultimate elimination of players well before the resolution, and it's one of the things that just about every game strives to avoid—even Risk, in pretty much every edition/rule set other than classic.
Linux was unusable because its video card drivers only sort-of understood how to use the thing's GPU, so I switched to win7--now, with proper drivers, 1080p works if it's a codec that gets offloaded to the GPU, but becomes a stuttering mess if it has to do it in software.
Count me as someone who will never buy an Atom again. Some of them may be fine, but the platform consistency is dodgy as hell. Too risky.
The closest I can find are 27" 2560 x 1440 screens, which start around $700. There are some 30"ers that push the second number up to 1600, but they start around $400 higher than the 27"ers and gain any pixel density.
In any case, that's the sort of thing I was thinking of, but it's not a great comparison since those screens are larger but have much lower pixel density. I'd wager the 27"ers would come close to the 15" retina display in price--if you could actually find one for sale that's not attached to an Apple laptop--but that's really just a guess.
I'm hoping Apple's recent pixel bumps drive other companies to do the same; economies of scale will kick in, and a PC monitor that matches or beats my 22" HP CRT may finally drop to a reasonable price.
Outside of my foreign language classes, there were maybe two or three courses that seemed to actually need all the time allotted them.
Then there were the first year classes that were just a review of grades 7 (!!!) to 12. If I'd known better I'd have just tested out of them, but by the time I wised up it was too late for most of 'em. Didn't even occur to me beforehand that non-remedial college courses might just be a review of junior high and high school material.
Consumer protection in general is far, far better in Europe than the US.
As with many other areas, we've decided not to support restrictions on people who are trying to fuck us because, damn it, one day we might get to be the ones doing the fucking.
Or, if you prefer, in the US maintaining the purity of abstract ideology wins over demonstrable real-world benefits just about 100% of the time.
See also: health care, mandatory vacation, sick days, and maternity leave, labeling laws, etc., etc.
This really is Economics 101. The maximum profit margin comes at the point where the supply curve and the demand curve meet. Raising prices above that point results in fewer sales and therefore less profit. Companies won't stop following this rule just because they have an "excuse" for raising prices. Partly because they didn't need an excuse in the first place, but mostly because they still have to compete with other companies.
Maybe you should have stuck around for Economics 102.
It is entirely absurd to expect a majority of the population to invest the time and effort required to understand enough about politics, economics, international relations, etc. to make anything approaching intelligent decisions on most legislation.
Hell, people can't even be bothered to understand how existing legislation affects them, even when it's something as direct and quantifiable as how much money they pay on their taxes.
Choosing representatives to do it for us is far simpler, and we're not even good at that. Direct voting on bills would be a disaster.
I just want to pay more than the cost of adding HBO to cable service but less than it costs for a cable subscription + HBO to watch HBO's original shows online. Seems like a reasonable proposition to me.
Bingo. I'd pay more for HBO Go than I do for all of Netflix, but I don't have the option unless I *also* pay for cable, and I want exactly nothing from cable except HBO. I don't want to pay $100+ for the DVDs because I doubt I'll re-watch the show.
I'd have to pay something like $60 a month (a guess--it might be higher) for one channel, which is ridiculous. $20/month for all of HBO Go? Hell yeah.
I would guess it's just yet another person who hasn't looked up what "corporatism" actually means on Wikipedia, and is consequently misinterpreting that sort-of famous Mussolini quote.
Thanks for the civility; Slashdot may have gone downhill over the years, but it's still one of the few sites where discussions like this can take place without always turning in to a mess.
Slashdot Mirror
And they can usually get a job that pays something approaching real, professional wages during the summer.
And we don't often require them to have a degree that's specific to teaching and isn't terribly useful (aside from "any degree will do" situations) outside of teaching.
Yeah, we totally don't owe them anything for those months school isn't in session since they could, theoretically, in some fantasy land make real money doing something else in the summer and aren't effectively giving up a giant percentage of their earning potential during the off months so they can be available to teach the rest of the year.
I didn't like it much.
It felt like the script needed another good once-over and a trim. It's a thematic mess and takes about twice as long as it ought to to introduce the characters and (poorly, repetitively) present their motivations. Some of the delivery was pretty wooden, especially in the first half, but that may have been the result of mediocre editing (there were also a couple awkward cuts, IMO, so maybe that was it) or the piss-poor dialog. Filled with painful talking-to-the-audience exposition that's so bad it was comical—again, a writing issue.
For the entire first half I was worried that I'd walk out hating the movie, but fortunately improved somewhat, nearer the end.
The audio was poor. A fair bit of the dialog (not just Bane's) was hard to pick up. Bane sounded like he wasn't even in the same room—more like a voiceover— an effect which, it seems to me, can only be called an outright mistake on the part of the filmmakers.
The ending's OK I guess?
Wow, that sounds really wasteful.
And businesses simply redistribute customers' and investors' (and taxpayers') money. Economic activity is redistribution. I guess that means no jobs are ever created. No wonder this economic slump is so bad.
My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid.
The rich do not "release" money. There is no great big vault with money waiting in the wings. What happens is they appropriate money from customers, investors, and taxpayers, keep a portion for things they won't tell you about and then graciously invest the rest of it in China.
This money cannot stimulate the economy because it is a net loss.
OK, maybe. But what percentage of good apps are written in HTML5?
Send some stealth tanks to find the source of the missiles, follow up with APCs and Tick Tanks.
Flame tanks.
Chemical missile.
I honestly don't know how police departments will react to not having all sorts of ways to get money from drivers, and reasons to stop you to snoop around your shit for drugs or whatever. They're not going to give up the money, I think, even if those things also mean lower costs for the departments, but I'm not sure how they'll make up for it.
I live in terror that one day Sony will realize how much money they could make if they ran their store more like Steam--how many games they could sell if they cut the normal prices a bit and ran occasional steep sales, how easy it would be to kill Redbox by allowing me to rent movies I can't find on Netflix at a competitive price (instead of the current you'd-have-to-be-insane-or-stupid-to-pay-it rate that amounts to half the cost of the damn DVD just to "rent" the digital file), no more points bullshit (do they still do that? I haven't looked in so long...), etc.
If they'd done that a couple years ago they'd likely have seen a few hundred dollars from me instead of the $20 or so I've spent with things the way they are. I'd buy more digital copies of games "new" during sales rather than doing what I usually do now and buying the discs used, and I might actually use their movie service.
Thank god they haven't figured that out. They could have gotten a lot of money from me, the bastards.
FTFY.
Apple absolutely claim they will reject apps because they're shit. They in fact do reject apps that are just websites loaded in a webview, or that are nothing but marketing material, or are inferior clones of apps of a type that are already numerous in the store (the way they put it is something like "we have enough fart apps, thank you"). They also reject apps with obvious bugs, or that just work very poorly.
That's not to say there aren't examples of all of those things that make it through, but if you try submitting a sluggish app that does nothing but load your website, which just has a really crappy HTML5 Tetris clone on it, odds are good you won't meet with much success.
Similar experience here. EA's DLC system for the ME/DA games is awful. I still haven't managed to get non-broken archives of the two largest DLC for ME2. I don't have problems with large downloads from anyone else. That's on top of the huge hassle their site is to navigate (whoever designed it should never ever be allowed to design a user interface again) and their stupid "points" you have to purchase to buy things.
Their DLC portal is shit, Origin is shit, and both seem designed to make giving them money as painful/undersirable as possible. EA can go to hell.
It's a common phenomenon in board games. Players who no longer have a chance of winning may accept a worse or earlier loss in order to play "kingmaker" and give their favored adversary the victory over another who may otherwise have had the win locked up. Risk is especially notorious for this, since one can usual tell when one's position is hopeless before every avenue of suicidal but devastating attack has been cut off.
It's one of the ways that too much player interaction in a game can make it worse, especially in games that feature slow decline and ultimate elimination of players well before the resolution, and it's one of the things that just about every game strives to avoid—even Risk, in pretty much every edition/rule set other than classic.
My dual-core Atom can't handle 1080p in software.
Linux was unusable because its video card drivers only sort-of understood how to use the thing's GPU, so I switched to win7--now, with proper drivers, 1080p works if it's a codec that gets offloaded to the GPU, but becomes a stuttering mess if it has to do it in software.
Count me as someone who will never buy an Atom again. Some of them may be fine, but the platform consistency is dodgy as hell. Too risky.
The closest I can find are 27" 2560 x 1440 screens, which start around $700. There are some 30"ers that push the second number up to 1600, but they start around $400 higher than the 27"ers and gain any pixel density.
In any case, that's the sort of thing I was thinking of, but it's not a great comparison since those screens are larger but have much lower pixel density. I'd wager the 27"ers would come close to the 15" retina display in price--if you could actually find one for sale that's not attached to an Apple laptop--but that's really just a guess.
I'm hoping Apple's recent pixel bumps drive other companies to do the same; economies of scale will kick in, and a PC monitor that matches or beats my 22" HP CRT may finally drop to a reasonable price.
Or a bit more than one, with displays pushing at least as many pixels and SSDs that large.
Denmark, Norway, Poland, the Benelux states, etc., should consider moving them elsewhere.
Shit, even college felt that way to me.
Outside of my foreign language classes, there were maybe two or three courses that seemed to actually need all the time allotted them.
Then there were the first year classes that were just a review of grades 7 (!!!) to 12. If I'd known better I'd have just tested out of them, but by the time I wised up it was too late for most of 'em. Didn't even occur to me beforehand that non-remedial college courses might just be a review of junior high and high school material.
Consumer protection in general is far, far better in Europe than the US.
As with many other areas, we've decided not to support restrictions on people who are trying to fuck us because, damn it, one day we might get to be the ones doing the fucking.
Or, if you prefer, in the US maintaining the purity of abstract ideology wins over demonstrable real-world benefits just about 100% of the time.
See also: health care, mandatory vacation, sick days, and maternity leave, labeling laws, etc., etc.
Maybe you should have stuck around for Economics 102.
I don't want cable with one channel--I want HBO streaming.
Netflix can do it. I'd pay *more* for HBO, despite its smaller amount of content. They could make it work, they just choose not to.
It is entirely absurd to expect a majority of the population to invest the time and effort required to understand enough about politics, economics, international relations, etc. to make anything approaching intelligent decisions on most legislation.
Hell, people can't even be bothered to understand how existing legislation affects them, even when it's something as direct and quantifiable as how much money they pay on their taxes.
Choosing representatives to do it for us is far simpler, and we're not even good at that. Direct voting on bills would be a disaster.
What advertising revenue? Does HBO have ads now?
I just want to pay more than the cost of adding HBO to cable service but less than it costs for a cable subscription + HBO to watch HBO's original shows online. Seems like a reasonable proposition to me.
Bingo. I'd pay more for HBO Go than I do for all of Netflix, but I don't have the option unless I *also* pay for cable, and I want exactly nothing from cable except HBO. I don't want to pay $100+ for the DVDs because I doubt I'll re-watch the show.
I'd have to pay something like $60 a month (a guess--it might be higher) for one channel, which is ridiculous. $20/month for all of HBO Go? Hell yeah.
I would guess it's just yet another person who hasn't looked up what "corporatism" actually means on Wikipedia, and is consequently misinterpreting that sort-of famous Mussolini quote.
Quite possible.
Thanks for the civility; Slashdot may have gone downhill over the years, but it's still one of the few sites where discussions like this can take place without always turning in to a mess.