Yes, but those are a small minority of Windows users. That's roughly akin to Apple doing something to all their users just because the ones who bought Apple TV are Ok with it.
Yes, there really are. If enough people were to vote for a 3rd party, it's quite possible one of the two main parties could collapse entirely. We'll of course go right back to a 2-party system quickly, but we are not in any way stuck with our two current parties. We've had the same voting system since the Constitution was ratified, and back in the 1800s we had different parties, namely the Whigs. The Whigs collapsed and the Democratic-Republican party split in two. Something like that could very well happen today; The Republican party could die and the Democratic party could split in two, or the Dems could become the new right-wing party and the Greens could rise up as the new left-wing party.
That sounds like a band that's actually trying to "make it big".
The guys I knew who played gigs were in a jazz band and played at local restaurants. They didn't have CDs, a website, T-shirts, or anything like that. Nor did they have "rehearsal space" (they just went to someone's house), or need a sound guy. They just played on weekend nights here and there for a little cash and because it was fun. They had day jobs as engineers; they weren't hurting for money, nor were they looking to go pro. You're talking about something entirely different.
I've literally never seen a person talk on their phone in the theatre. That's the kind of behaviour that would get your ass kicked out... Is it an American thing?
Probably, yes. People do text on their phones a lot these days, probably a lot more than talking on them.
Go to a theatre with reserved seating, or arrive there early.
Reserved seating? You're kidding, right? I've never, ever, ever, ever seen a theater like that in my many decades of theater-going.
Arriving early isn't going to help that much; now you get some well-positioned seats but you're crowded in by too many people, a bunch of whom are texting or talking to each other or loudly crunching on their popcorn.
What country do you live in where people are all well-behaved? Maybe I should look for a job there.
We've had modern 3D since Avatar came out in 2009, and still no one's shown that it can be used to any really good effect. Avatar was really the only movie where it added anything at all. Sorry, but so far it's just looking like a gimmick.
Yeah, what the other guy said: they went to the wrong place!!!
Actually, to be fair, I will note that there are some theaters where you can have a fairly nice experience (though still no pause or rewind capabilities). Usually these are called "dinner theaters"; you get a huge comfy chair, and can order a full meal (and alcohol if you want) and eat while you watch the movie. I also hear good things about Alamo Drafthouse. Most theaters aren't like this though, and they aren't available everywhere.
Fuck you too. I have played music, but never for money or for a crowd. If you're playing gigs to make a big profit, you're an idiot. If you're doing it because it's fun, that's fine; I've known guys who did just this and I can see why they'd like it. But they didn't bitch and complain about how they weren't getting paid enough; they knew it was just a hobby-job, and they did it because they loved to play music, not because they were trying to strike it rich.
Would you still own those instruments, amps, etc., if you decided to quit the gigging, or would you sell it all on Craigslist?
I have a guitar and amp too. I don't play in a band, and obviously don't play gigs either. I don't count the value of my guitar, amp, etc. towards anything because it's not a business, it's just something I do for fun in the evenings, just like a game console for other people is something they buy to have fun and isn't counted towards any business profit calculations. I would hope that any real musician didn't buy himself a guitar just to make money.
If you did spend a ton of money on performance equipment that you otherwise would never have bought, then there's two possibilities: 1) you're really dumb for taking on a side hobby-job that's actually negative-profit to that magnitude, or 2) you love playing live so much that you're willing to sink some extra money into the equipment needed to do it well. (I guess there's also 3) you think there's a chance you could hit it big, in which case it's really a risky investment.) #1 is pretty stupid, but I would never fault someone for #2 (or #3 as long as they really enjoy what they're doing and won't be sore if they don't hit it big).
Yes, I get all that, but does no one here understand how profit is calculated? When your expenses are zero, any money you make at all is profit. (Though for a gig 100 miles away, the gas for that is going to cost a few dollars.) This isn't a profession, it's a hobby job, so the costs of the gear aren't accounted for, and the musician needs the car anyway to go to his day job so that doesn't count either (though the mileage does).
Funding is not the problem with government acquisition. Lack of funding is not what causes it to take 6 months to buy a simple commercially-available part, it's sheer bureaucracy. Some idiot Congressman gets the idea that they need to set up a huge government program to look through all the government's property to make sure they don't have that $5 part in inventory somewhere, even though it'll take much more than $5 to get it and ship it after you account for the time and salaries of all these government workers, but they do this to "prevent government waste".
If you're playing gigs as a side job, then presumably you have some kind of real job. McDonald's is not going to hire you to work 3 hours every weekend, so that's an invalid comparison.
As for practice, that's free: if you're counting your practice hours, you're doing it wrong. Music is a hobby that you're making some side money on by playing local gigs, it's not an actual profession for you if you're in this position.
It's only a "waste of time" if you don't truly love playing music. People who do that do it because they really like playing music, and they play gigs to make extra cash because they can. If the gigs dried up, they're not going to sell their instruments and go play video games instead, they do it because they love it.
If you're playing locally and they give you at least $5, that's still enough to turn a profit. That's enough for 2.5 gallons of gasoline, which should be enough to drive you 50 miles at a bare minimum. My whole point is that there are nearly zero expenses if you're a musician; your vehicle is the only cost. So unless you're traveling far to perform, it really shouldn't cost you anything except your time.
Sorry, but theaters are obsolete, and gimmicks like 3D are only going to slightly delay the inevitable. Why would I want to waste my time and money watching a movie at a theater when I can just watch it at home and get many benefits: no screaming kids, no people talking on their cellphones, a rewind button so I can go back if I didn't understand a line of dialog, a pause button so I can go to the bathroom, no sticky floors, the best-positioned seat instead of one way off to the side, whatever food I want instead of some crappy overpriced concessions, whatever kind of seat I want (such as a recliner), and the ability to watch the movie at whatever time I want?
How do you not turn a profit playing in a band? How is "breaking even" even a consideration? Your expenses should be very close to zero. I would hope you already own your own instruments (which you would have anyway if you're a musician), so the only expenses are going to be minor incidentals like the gas needed to drive to the gig, and maybe consumables like guitar strings. If you're not making enough money to pay for gas and strings, you're doing something really wrong.
What you need is software in the phone that detects how you swipe your finger over the sensor. So, if you down-swipe, it unlocks the phone and works fine. But if you up-swipe, then it erases the phone and then unlocks it.
To avoid you getting prosecuted for destruction of evidence, the software needs to "wipe" the device back to an innocuous-looking state: delete all the photos, contacts, texts, etc., except for a few pre-selected harmless cat photos, and the only contacts and calls and texts left are ones to your mom.
He never said that at all. Did you miss the bit about round-trip tickets? I could easily spend that much on round-trip tickets to Vegas, without the hotel.
I'm not saying Russia's government doesn't have its own bureaucratic problems, but 1) its government is smaller than ours, and smaller organizations tend to be more agile than bigger ones, and 2) smart people are more likely to go to work for the government there than here in my opinion. Russia doesn't have a Silicon Valley or booming tech sector for their smart computer experts. Even in a government with bureaucratic problems, smart people are going to do a much better job with computer security than utterly incompetent people who can't get a job in the private sector.
Actually, it is a bit of a surprise (well, not really):
The thing about Bernie is that he could actually win the election: his polling numbers are much higher than Hillary's when you poll everyone, not just Dem voters. He was a lot like Obama in 2008: he energized the youth vote (youth apathy has long been a big problem for the Dem party), and if he was on the ticket they'd be out there in droves voting for him, and also for down-ticket Dem candidates.
This just isn't the case with Hillary: the younger people either despise her or at least have no enthusiasm whatsoever for her.
She's still likely to win (but it's not a sure thing), but only because the Rep candidate is so awful. If she were running against McCain or Romney or even Jeb, I'd fully expect her to lose.
So the only thing that's surprising is that the DNC is so dumb that they'd double down on such a lousy candidate, banking on the Republican candidate being even more horrible (and they decided to back her *long* before anyone had a clue that Trump was going to win; most people probably assumed that Jeb would).
I'm not endorsing Trump or anything but lets not pretend the last couple Democratic administrations knew what they were doing.
Bush wrecked the economy too with his various actions (including two big wars).
The simple fact is that none of the administrations (D or R) in the last 20 or so years have had any clue what they were doing. And it's not going to change for the foreseeable future either, no matter who gets elected.
WikiLeaks has shown great interest in anti-US material, and comparatively very little interest in anything that disparages Russia. Their bias has been analysed pretty thoroughly, and it calls their motives into question.
No, not necessarily. You're assuming that it's equally easy to get damaging materials from both countries. That's an incorrect assumption.
The explanation is simple: the US government does a horrible job with data security, and the Russian government is actually competent at it.
Anyone who's worked in or with the US government and dealt with USG computer systems and IT people knows just how incompetent they are. It's no wonder they're constantly being hacked. And also remember, here in the US, if you're a competent computer security professional, there's plenty of great-paying work for you in the private sector, since the tech companies are doing so well in this country. Why would you waste your time going to work for the government for lousy pay and having to deal with ridiculous bureaucracy? You can't even purchase a $5 piece of equipment you need for your job without filling out a bunch of forms and then waiting 6 months (I'm not exaggerating). So the only people who take these jobs are the ones who are utterly incompetent.
Over in Russia, things aren't the same; they don't have a booming tech sector like we do, so it's probably a pretty good move to go to work for the government there.
If hackers can easily steal emails from US government systems, but Russian government systems are locked up tight, then it stands to reason that WikiLeaks would post lots of US stuff instead. You can't get blood from a stone.
So basically you're mad as hell at Apple, so you're going to keep using Apple products anyway? No wonder Apple does stuff like this; their customers absolutely refuse to abandon them, no matter how badly they're treated.
This is Apple we're talking about. They're not going to standardize a new audio jack, not the way you're thinking at least. Their idea of "standardization" is to make up their own all-new interface, patent it, then charge every huge licensing fees to use it. So a $5 set of minibuds will now cost $45, with $40 of that being Apple's licensing fee.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but those are a small minority of Windows users. That's roughly akin to Apple doing something to all their users just because the ones who bought Apple TV are Ok with it.
Yes, there really are. If enough people were to vote for a 3rd party, it's quite possible one of the two main parties could collapse entirely. We'll of course go right back to a 2-party system quickly, but we are not in any way stuck with our two current parties. We've had the same voting system since the Constitution was ratified, and back in the 1800s we had different parties, namely the Whigs. The Whigs collapsed and the Democratic-Republican party split in two. Something like that could very well happen today; The Republican party could die and the Democratic party could split in two, or the Dems could become the new right-wing party and the Greens could rise up as the new left-wing party.
Someone actually keeps track of that? And will rat you out for it?
That sounds like a band that's actually trying to "make it big".
The guys I knew who played gigs were in a jazz band and played at local restaurants. They didn't have CDs, a website, T-shirts, or anything like that. Nor did they have "rehearsal space" (they just went to someone's house), or need a sound guy. They just played on weekend nights here and there for a little cash and because it was fun. They had day jobs as engineers; they weren't hurting for money, nor were they looking to go pro. You're talking about something entirely different.
I've literally never seen a person talk on their phone in the theatre. That's the kind of behaviour that would get your ass kicked out... Is it an American thing?
Probably, yes. People do text on their phones a lot these days, probably a lot more than talking on them.
Go to a theatre with reserved seating, or arrive there early.
Reserved seating? You're kidding, right? I've never, ever, ever, ever seen a theater like that in my many decades of theater-going.
Arriving early isn't going to help that much; now you get some well-positioned seats but you're crowded in by too many people, a bunch of whom are texting or talking to each other or loudly crunching on their popcorn.
What country do you live in where people are all well-behaved? Maybe I should look for a job there.
We've had modern 3D since Avatar came out in 2009, and still no one's shown that it can be used to any really good effect. Avatar was really the only movie where it added anything at all. Sorry, but so far it's just looking like a gimmick.
Yeah, what the other guy said: they went to the wrong place!!!
Actually, to be fair, I will note that there are some theaters where you can have a fairly nice experience (though still no pause or rewind capabilities). Usually these are called "dinner theaters"; you get a huge comfy chair, and can order a full meal (and alcohol if you want) and eat while you watch the movie. I also hear good things about Alamo Drafthouse. Most theaters aren't like this though, and they aren't available everywhere.
Fuck you too. I have played music, but never for money or for a crowd. If you're playing gigs to make a big profit, you're an idiot. If you're doing it because it's fun, that's fine; I've known guys who did just this and I can see why they'd like it. But they didn't bitch and complain about how they weren't getting paid enough; they knew it was just a hobby-job, and they did it because they loved to play music, not because they were trying to strike it rich.
Would you still own those instruments, amps, etc., if you decided to quit the gigging, or would you sell it all on Craigslist?
I have a guitar and amp too. I don't play in a band, and obviously don't play gigs either. I don't count the value of my guitar, amp, etc. towards anything because it's not a business, it's just something I do for fun in the evenings, just like a game console for other people is something they buy to have fun and isn't counted towards any business profit calculations. I would hope that any real musician didn't buy himself a guitar just to make money.
If you did spend a ton of money on performance equipment that you otherwise would never have bought, then there's two possibilities: 1) you're really dumb for taking on a side hobby-job that's actually negative-profit to that magnitude, or 2) you love playing live so much that you're willing to sink some extra money into the equipment needed to do it well. (I guess there's also 3) you think there's a chance you could hit it big, in which case it's really a risky investment.) #1 is pretty stupid, but I would never fault someone for #2 (or #3 as long as they really enjoy what they're doing and won't be sore if they don't hit it big).
Yes, I get all that, but does no one here understand how profit is calculated? When your expenses are zero, any money you make at all is profit. (Though for a gig 100 miles away, the gas for that is going to cost a few dollars.) This isn't a profession, it's a hobby job, so the costs of the gear aren't accounted for, and the musician needs the car anyway to go to his day job so that doesn't count either (though the mileage does).
Funding is not the problem with government acquisition. Lack of funding is not what causes it to take 6 months to buy a simple commercially-available part, it's sheer bureaucracy. Some idiot Congressman gets the idea that they need to set up a huge government program to look through all the government's property to make sure they don't have that $5 part in inventory somewhere, even though it'll take much more than $5 to get it and ship it after you account for the time and salaries of all these government workers, but they do this to "prevent government waste".
If you're playing gigs as a side job, then presumably you have some kind of real job. McDonald's is not going to hire you to work 3 hours every weekend, so that's an invalid comparison.
As for practice, that's free: if you're counting your practice hours, you're doing it wrong. Music is a hobby that you're making some side money on by playing local gigs, it's not an actual profession for you if you're in this position.
It's only a "waste of time" if you don't truly love playing music. People who do that do it because they really like playing music, and they play gigs to make extra cash because they can. If the gigs dried up, they're not going to sell their instruments and go play video games instead, they do it because they love it.
If you're playing locally and they give you at least $5, that's still enough to turn a profit. That's enough for 2.5 gallons of gasoline, which should be enough to drive you 50 miles at a bare minimum. My whole point is that there are nearly zero expenses if you're a musician; your vehicle is the only cost. So unless you're traveling far to perform, it really shouldn't cost you anything except your time.
Sorry, but theaters are obsolete, and gimmicks like 3D are only going to slightly delay the inevitable. Why would I want to waste my time and money watching a movie at a theater when I can just watch it at home and get many benefits: no screaming kids, no people talking on their cellphones, a rewind button so I can go back if I didn't understand a line of dialog, a pause button so I can go to the bathroom, no sticky floors, the best-positioned seat instead of one way off to the side, whatever food I want instead of some crappy overpriced concessions, whatever kind of seat I want (such as a recliner), and the ability to watch the movie at whatever time I want?
How do you not turn a profit playing in a band? How is "breaking even" even a consideration? Your expenses should be very close to zero. I would hope you already own your own instruments (which you would have anyway if you're a musician), so the only expenses are going to be minor incidentals like the gas needed to drive to the gig, and maybe consumables like guitar strings. If you're not making enough money to pay for gas and strings, you're doing something really wrong.
What you need is software in the phone that detects how you swipe your finger over the sensor. So, if you down-swipe, it unlocks the phone and works fine. But if you up-swipe, then it erases the phone and then unlocks it.
To avoid you getting prosecuted for destruction of evidence, the software needs to "wipe" the device back to an innocuous-looking state: delete all the photos, contacts, texts, etc., except for a few pre-selected harmless cat photos, and the only contacts and calls and texts left are ones to your mom.
They'll vote for him sooner than they'll vote for Trump.
He never said that at all. Did you miss the bit about round-trip tickets? I could easily spend that much on round-trip tickets to Vegas, without the hotel.
I'm not saying Russia's government doesn't have its own bureaucratic problems, but 1) its government is smaller than ours, and smaller organizations tend to be more agile than bigger ones, and 2) smart people are more likely to go to work for the government there than here in my opinion. Russia doesn't have a Silicon Valley or booming tech sector for their smart computer experts. Even in a government with bureaucratic problems, smart people are going to do a much better job with computer security than utterly incompetent people who can't get a job in the private sector.
Actually, it is a bit of a surprise (well, not really):
The thing about Bernie is that he could actually win the election: his polling numbers are much higher than Hillary's when you poll everyone, not just Dem voters. He was a lot like Obama in 2008: he energized the youth vote (youth apathy has long been a big problem for the Dem party), and if he was on the ticket they'd be out there in droves voting for him, and also for down-ticket Dem candidates.
This just isn't the case with Hillary: the younger people either despise her or at least have no enthusiasm whatsoever for her.
She's still likely to win (but it's not a sure thing), but only because the Rep candidate is so awful. If she were running against McCain or Romney or even Jeb, I'd fully expect her to lose.
So the only thing that's surprising is that the DNC is so dumb that they'd double down on such a lousy candidate, banking on the Republican candidate being even more horrible (and they decided to back her *long* before anyone had a clue that Trump was going to win; most people probably assumed that Jeb would).
I'm not endorsing Trump or anything but lets not pretend the last couple Democratic administrations knew what they were doing.
Bush wrecked the economy too with his various actions (including two big wars).
The simple fact is that none of the administrations (D or R) in the last 20 or so years have had any clue what they were doing. And it's not going to change for the foreseeable future either, no matter who gets elected.
WikiLeaks has shown great interest in anti-US material, and comparatively very little interest in anything that disparages Russia. Their bias has been analysed pretty thoroughly, and it calls their motives into question.
No, not necessarily. You're assuming that it's equally easy to get damaging materials from both countries. That's an incorrect assumption.
The explanation is simple: the US government does a horrible job with data security, and the Russian government is actually competent at it.
Anyone who's worked in or with the US government and dealt with USG computer systems and IT people knows just how incompetent they are. It's no wonder they're constantly being hacked. And also remember, here in the US, if you're a competent computer security professional, there's plenty of great-paying work for you in the private sector, since the tech companies are doing so well in this country. Why would you waste your time going to work for the government for lousy pay and having to deal with ridiculous bureaucracy? You can't even purchase a $5 piece of equipment you need for your job without filling out a bunch of forms and then waiting 6 months (I'm not exaggerating). So the only people who take these jobs are the ones who are utterly incompetent.
Over in Russia, things aren't the same; they don't have a booming tech sector like we do, so it's probably a pretty good move to go to work for the government there.
If hackers can easily steal emails from US government systems, but Russian government systems are locked up tight, then it stands to reason that WikiLeaks would post lots of US stuff instead. You can't get blood from a stone.
So basically you're mad as hell at Apple, so you're going to keep using Apple products anyway? No wonder Apple does stuff like this; their customers absolutely refuse to abandon them, no matter how badly they're treated.
No, Apple was not a big developer for CUPS; they bought that from some small company.
This is Apple we're talking about. They're not going to standardize a new audio jack, not the way you're thinking at least. Their idea of "standardization" is to make up their own all-new interface, patent it, then charge every huge licensing fees to use it. So a $5 set of minibuds will now cost $45, with $40 of that being Apple's licensing fee.