And the rest of the money ends up in the hands of the business owners who take it out via dividends or capital gains. Just like they do now.
News Flash: The 1% do not have incomes to tax.
Crazily, once you get over about 150k p/y and can afford to take advantages of loopholes you pay less of your income as a % in taxes than you do if you make less than that.
The fact that there are billionaires out there who pay $0 in income tax because they structure their ownings to look like a net negative in the eye's of the law (even though their wealth is growing) is frankly disgusting.
To be fair, saying "Only unemployed people got it" isn't 100% correct. If those unemployed people got a job, they kept getting the $690 each month. But your point about it not being a true UBI is well taken.
$690 a month isn't much. It would be hard to find a place to rent for that price. That's before food and clothing. I expect living must be cheaper in Finland.
I realize many want flash to disappear as soon as possible, and i won't make myself popular when i say 'too bad it'll go, it has it's uses'.
Sure, it makes somethings easier, but what % of security compromises on home computers were from non-up-to-date flash exploitations on people's machines? I don't remember the %, but I remember it was shockingly high.
I don't gripe so much when I come across a "legacy" usage, something that's obviously been around for years. I recognize how it can be difficult to get the bosses to spend money to "fix what ain't broke" in their eyes.
But recently I went for the first time to try out Comcast's site where you can remote control your DVR. That is a pretty new site, definitely just the last few years, and of course it's all built on Flash. For a huge corp with lots of resources to make such a decision just baffles me.
Comcast has a reputation to uphold. They can't just start doing things which are secure or customer friendly; people will start to think they're a reputable company.
Too long... and the company I work for just "upgraded" their timekeeping software to one that requires flash. I question the logic, but don't make enough money to influence the decision.
...each season got progressively of a lower quality.
Watch it backwards. That's what I'm doing with The Office. It really picks up when they introduce Michael and then keeps getting progressively better.
That's an interesting idea. But only if watching last episode first... watching the contents of an episode in reverse might be annoying, especially trying to understand what they're saying.
They seemed to build their end of the Channel Tunnel in the same length of time as it took the British to do their half. In the mean time you can't get a f---ing tunnel everyone knows needs building that goes 1/20th of the distance in the US because of politics, and it'll cost 10x as much if it ever gets built. So I'd say the French are fine actually with their 30 hour weeks - it seems fewer hours = more productive. Who knew?
I don't know about 30hours vs 40hour workweeks- but there have been studies that show increasing work hours per week does have diminishing returns up until a point where adding more hours does actually result in lower overall productivity.
There have also been studies that show that taking a lot of vacation actually increases productivity over the year than forcing people to go to work 50 weeks a year and only have 2 weeks vacation. America's stingy vacation policy actually negatively impacts productivity. If you want your workers to be more productive over a year- give them 6 weeks off not 2.
I'd like to do the same, but I am considering a third for guests. I've noticed in the last few years that "can I get on your wi-fi?" has become as common as "can I use your restroom?"
So good manners these days involves, not only offering the workman a cup of tea, but your wifi password too.
"Would you like a spot of tea and a Wi-Fi password whilst you fix our driveway?"
How else are the workmen going to use you-tube to look up how they do their job?
On the plus side, if they block people from using messaging devices, that's fewer people they have to kill when people use the messaging devices to report on news that Russia finds embarrassing.
And that is why one should be almost religious about separating networks. In particular networks for "home automation" from the rest. Event at home I have one wifi for home automation and one for the rest.
Good Suggestion.
I'm not a fan of my current home router and have been considering getting a new one. I think I might follow your suggestion and do the same. Keep the old one for my IOT devices and put computers and cell phones on a new one.
They aren't sacrificing anything. The studios they license content from are pulling content or increasing the the licensing terms to exorbitant amounts as they try to capitalize on Netflix's success or are terrified of it cannibalizing theirs...which in some areas it is. Netflix's OC of the Marvel characters was unexpectedly a huge hit. Which may explain why Disney is taking all of their content and rolling out their own competing streaming service.
Every budget is a sacrifice. If you spend more creating original content, obviously you aren't spending that money on existing content. It very well might be true that providers are yanking content away or raising costs; but it's also true that Netflix is no longer as willing to spend as much on non-original content and their budget has been redirected. It's quite astonishing the lack of variety on Netflix compared to 10 years ago. It used to be if you remembered a show you once watched (or failed to watch but wanted to), you could look it up on Netflix and it was almost guaranteed to be there. Nowadays it is almost guaranteed not to be.
Probably for the best. Chuck was a great show in the early seasons, but each season got progressively of a lower quality. Netflix probably saved you from the last few seasons, which, honestly, probably shouldn't have been made.
Netflix participates in production of original material, but also the other parties have rights of ditribution.
Only a part of the netflix original content is netflix exclusive.
in other words:
original != exclusive distribution.
No, they use the "Netflix original" for exclusive content they had NO part in producing. I have seen it applied to shows made in the 1980s.
Hulu does this too. It's funny seeing shows that I watched play originally on the BBC being labeled as "Hulu Original" or "Netflix Original" years later in the US.
Netflix original content now drives 20% of viewership.
Up from 12% a year ago. So the OC portion of their business is growing rapidly. According to TFA, they spent $8B on content last year, but it doesn't say how much they spent on licensed content vs original content. Their 2017 revenue was about $12B, so 2/3 of that went to pay for content.
In general their OC has been good quality programming. There have been some misses, but certainly a lot higher % of hits than network TV. The problem is though, that they are increasing OC at the expense of catalogue size. There are far fewer shows available than there used to be. I guess the benefit for them is that they don't have to "keep paying" to offer the content because they own it, so eventually their catalogue will be bigger.
Ordered something and did next day delivery to an Amazon store as I needed the part for a repair and no one locally had it. The site said it would be there by 8pm, although I was hoping it would arrive sooner as the store is in the town I work in, where as I live 40 minutes away and it was to be delivered on a Friday.
Long store short, 8:03pm hit before Amazon updated that my package was delayed by the carrier but they couldn't give a why, even though the status in the app said the package had been delivered to the carrier. It updated my delivery to be "Monday to Wednesday". I called Amazon to complain as I paid the extra for the next day. They refunded that cost and I asked how they didn't know when it would arrive as THEY are the carrier. They said it would be there Tuesday. Guess what arrived over the weekend (I can't remember now if it showed up Saturday or Sunday).
Amazon's Logistics/delivery service (or whoever they contract out to and slap that label on) is utter crap.
I tried the Amazon Prime free month thing over xmas-time. Was very dissatisfied with it. Over half the prime shipping they sent me took longer than the two days they promised at the electronic check-out. (Probably due to being the busiest shipping time of the year...) that's the only time I've really been dissatisfied by Amazon. The extra day (or two days for one package) delay in Prime shipping wasn't a big deal, I didn't need it then, but it didn't bode well for the free-trial, and bothered me that they promised on date when I checked out and couldn't keep that promise. (granted, I never intended to buy Prime anyway- but it didn't look good for the service)
I rather suspect that he has access to really good base information on the subject
I'm sure he has access to more information about USPS than the rest of us. I'm also sure he's not looking at that information because it would require reading, which he is apparently unwilling to do. He is most likely basing his complaints about USPS on his personal grudge against Jeff Bezos and some misinformation he heard on Fox News, since personal grudges and TV propaganda are the same tools he uses to make all his other decisions.
But rather than ever admit he's wrong he will make up false facts and spend the remaining two and a half years of his presidency bashing Amazon.
Unlike Trump, Bezos is a real billionaire. Trump actually has a net negative net worth, but he considers the "Trump" brand as an asset worth billions. The reason Trump doesn't want his income tax statements public is that he lives off borrowed money and doesn't pay taxes because he technically doesn't earn any money.
Oh good grief. Trump won the nomination as a rejection of the fake Republicans he was running against and then the same people voted for him over Hillary Clinton. NOBODY was swayed by a damned Facebook ad. That's just delusional.
I have never had a Facebook account and think the whole idea of a global gossip site is asinine... but could we PLEASE stop treating any little piece of crap about Facebook as news? All this FUD is pissing me of and consume electrons that could be used to transit real news.
I'm not on facebook either. I think it's asinine too. HOWEVER, when an organization has over a billion users worldwide, and over 50% of the US voting age population, it becomes newsworthy. Facebook directly impacts most voting Americans. Indirectly, they have data on all Americans. They are a major player in advertising, broadcasting, and news distribution and data collection.
It's naïve to think that they don't matter just because you don't use them.
Facebook had ZERO to do with the outcome of the election. Not one Trump voter in the country is now thinking to themselves "wow, Facebook tricked me into voting for Trump!". All of these BS excuses are nothing but delusions to avoid facing the reality of being rejected.
Not one person in the US thinks, wow that Pepsi commercial made me want to drink a Pepsi. Yet people do drink Pepsi, and Pepsi continues to advertise.
No one thinks they're being influenced by ads, or political propaganda. Everyone thinks they're above that, but here's a secret: you are influenced by ads. You're at a store all it has is Pepsi, Coke, or Smith's off-brand cola and you want a cola... odds are very high you pick a Pepsi or a Coke because you're familiar with them- or if you do buy a Smith's it is because it is cheaper. Brand familiarity has made Pepsi or Coke more appealing.
Same happens with these political BS stories. Trump is kinda like Pepsi- he's always throwing his name out there to get publicity. This facebook campaign was like an expensive ad campaign (and ignored by financing laws). No-one, not one person, thinks they were influenced by the fake stories... but they probably think that whilst drinking a Coke or a Pepsi.
Slashdot Mirror
For a fee, your business can be a landmark used to help give directions on Google Maps.
And the rest of the money ends up in the hands of the business owners who take it out via dividends or capital gains. Just like they do now.
News Flash: The 1% do not have incomes to tax.
Crazily, once you get over about 150k p/y and can afford to take advantages of loopholes you pay less of your income as a % in taxes than you do if you make less than that.
The fact that there are billionaires out there who pay $0 in income tax because they structure their ownings to look like a net negative in the eye's of the law (even though their wealth is growing) is frankly disgusting.
To be fair, saying "Only unemployed people got it" isn't 100% correct. If those unemployed people got a job, they kept getting the $690 each month. But your point about it not being a true UBI is well taken.
$690 a month isn't much. It would be hard to find a place to rent for that price. That's before food and clothing. I expect living must be cheaper in Finland.
I realize many want flash to disappear as soon as possible, and i won't make myself popular when i say 'too bad it'll go, it has it's uses'.
Sure, it makes somethings easier, but what % of security compromises on home computers were from non-up-to-date flash exploitations on people's machines? I don't remember the %, but I remember it was shockingly high.
I don't gripe so much when I come across a "legacy" usage, something that's obviously been around for years. I recognize how it can be difficult to get the bosses to spend money to "fix what ain't broke" in their eyes.
But recently I went for the first time to try out Comcast's site where you can remote control your DVR. That is a pretty new site, definitely just the last few years, and of course it's all built on Flash. For a huge corp with lots of resources to make such a decision just baffles me.
Comcast has a reputation to uphold. They can't just start doing things which are secure or customer friendly; people will start to think they're a reputable company.
Taking a long to die though.
Too long... and the company I work for just "upgraded" their timekeeping software to one that requires flash. I question the logic, but don't make enough money to influence the decision.
...each season got progressively of a lower quality.
Watch it backwards. That's what I'm doing with The Office. It really picks up when they introduce Michael and then keeps getting progressively better.
That's an interesting idea. But only if watching last episode first... watching the contents of an episode in reverse might be annoying, especially trying to understand what they're saying.
They seemed to build their end of the Channel Tunnel in the same length of time as it took the British to do their half. In the mean time you can't get a f---ing tunnel everyone knows needs building that goes 1/20th of the distance in the US because of politics, and it'll cost 10x as much if it ever gets built. So I'd say the French are fine actually with their 30 hour weeks - it seems fewer hours = more productive. Who knew?
I don't know about 30hours vs 40hour workweeks- but there have been studies that show increasing work hours per week does have diminishing returns up until a point where adding more hours does actually result in lower overall productivity.
There have also been studies that show that taking a lot of vacation actually increases productivity over the year than forcing people to go to work 50 weeks a year and only have 2 weeks vacation. America's stingy vacation policy actually negatively impacts productivity. If you want your workers to be more productive over a year- give them 6 weeks off not 2.
I'd like to do the same, but I am considering a third for guests. I've noticed in the last few years that "can I get on your wi-fi?" has become as common as "can I use your restroom?"
So good manners these days involves, not only offering the workman a cup of tea, but your wifi password too.
"Would you like a spot of tea and a Wi-Fi password whilst you fix our driveway?"
How else are the workmen going to use you-tube to look up how they do their job?
On the plus side, if they block people from using messaging devices, that's fewer people they have to kill when people use the messaging devices to report on news that Russia finds embarrassing.
RIP Borodin.
And that is why one should be almost religious about separating networks. In particular networks for "home automation" from the rest. Event at home I have one wifi for home automation and one for the rest.
Good Suggestion.
I'm not a fan of my current home router and have been considering getting a new one. I think I might follow your suggestion and do the same. Keep the old one for my IOT devices and put computers and cell phones on a new one.
They aren't sacrificing anything. The studios they license content from are pulling content or increasing the the licensing terms to exorbitant amounts as they try to capitalize on Netflix's success or are terrified of it cannibalizing theirs...which in some areas it is. Netflix's OC of the Marvel characters was unexpectedly a huge hit. Which may explain why Disney is taking all of their content and rolling out their own competing streaming service.
Every budget is a sacrifice. If you spend more creating original content, obviously you aren't spending that money on existing content. It very well might be true that providers are yanking content away or raising costs; but it's also true that Netflix is no longer as willing to spend as much on non-original content and their budget has been redirected. It's quite astonishing the lack of variety on Netflix compared to 10 years ago. It used to be if you remembered a show you once watched (or failed to watch but wanted to), you could look it up on Netflix and it was almost guaranteed to be there. Nowadays it is almost guaranteed not to be.
Netflix killed it halfway through watching.
Probably for the best. Chuck was a great show in the early seasons, but each season got progressively of a lower quality. Netflix probably saved you from the last few seasons, which, honestly, probably shouldn't have been made.
Netflix participates in production of original material, but also the other parties have rights of ditribution.
Only a part of the netflix original content is netflix exclusive.
in other words:
original != exclusive distribution.
No, they use the "Netflix original" for exclusive content they had NO part in producing. I have seen it applied to shows made in the 1980s.
Hulu does this too. It's funny seeing shows that I watched play originally on the BBC being labeled as "Hulu Original" or "Netflix Original" years later in the US.
Netflix original content now drives 20% of viewership.
Up from 12% a year ago. So the OC portion of their business is growing rapidly. According to TFA, they spent $8B on content last year, but it doesn't say how much they spent on licensed content vs original content. Their 2017 revenue was about $12B, so 2/3 of that went to pay for content.
In general their OC has been good quality programming. There have been some misses, but certainly a lot higher % of hits than network TV. The problem is though, that they are increasing OC at the expense of catalogue size. There are far fewer shows available than there used to be. I guess the benefit for them is that they don't have to "keep paying" to offer the content because they own it, so eventually their catalogue will be bigger.
So not onlly are we going to waste tons of electricity, we're going to pollute now too.
Coal is the future. Coal powered power stations, coal powered cars, coal powered politicians. Dissing coal will get you sent to the gulag.
It's possible if most of them are inactive accounts. If I have an account that never use, it's easier to delete it, and also less noticeable.
An astute theory. If your account is already inactive you might be more inclined to go ahead and just delete your account.
If I had an account I would delete mine.
Not only this, but they're logistics suck.
Ordered something and did next day delivery to an Amazon store as I needed the part for a repair and no one locally had it. The site said it would be there by 8pm, although I was hoping it would arrive sooner as the store is in the town I work in, where as I live 40 minutes away and it was to be delivered on a Friday.
Long store short, 8:03pm hit before Amazon updated that my package was delayed by the carrier but they couldn't give a why, even though the status in the app said the package had been delivered to the carrier. It updated my delivery to be "Monday to Wednesday". I called Amazon to complain as I paid the extra for the next day. They refunded that cost and I asked how they didn't know when it would arrive as THEY are the carrier. They said it would be there Tuesday. Guess what arrived over the weekend (I can't remember now if it showed up Saturday or Sunday).
Amazon's Logistics/delivery service (or whoever they contract out to and slap that label on) is utter crap.
I tried the Amazon Prime free month thing over xmas-time. Was very dissatisfied with it. Over half the prime shipping they sent me took longer than the two days they promised at the electronic check-out. (Probably due to being the busiest shipping time of the year...) that's the only time I've really been dissatisfied by Amazon. The extra day (or two days for one package) delay in Prime shipping wasn't a big deal, I didn't need it then, but it didn't bode well for the free-trial, and bothered me that they promised on date when I checked out and couldn't keep that promise. (granted, I never intended to buy Prime anyway- but it didn't look good for the service)
I'm sure he has access to more information about USPS than the rest of us. I'm also sure he's not looking at that information because it would require reading, which he is apparently unwilling to do. He is most likely basing his complaints about USPS on his personal grudge against Jeff Bezos and some misinformation he heard on Fox News, since personal grudges and TV propaganda are the same tools he uses to make all his other decisions.
But rather than ever admit he's wrong he will make up false facts and spend the remaining two and a half years of his presidency bashing Amazon.
Someone is mighty jealous of Bezos net worth.
Unlike Trump, Bezos is a real billionaire. Trump actually has a net negative net worth, but he considers the "Trump" brand as an asset worth billions. The reason Trump doesn't want his income tax statements public is that he lives off borrowed money and doesn't pay taxes because he technically doesn't earn any money.
Or just use the same list as they do for hurricanes.
You're going to need a longer list.
Oh good grief. Trump won the nomination as a rejection of the fake Republicans he was running against and then the same people voted for him over Hillary Clinton. NOBODY was swayed by a damned Facebook ad. That's just delusional.
And no one ever buys Pepsi cola.
I have never had a Facebook account and think the whole idea of a global gossip site is asinine... but could we PLEASE stop treating any little piece of crap about Facebook as news? All this FUD is pissing me of and consume electrons that could be used to transit real news.
I'm not on facebook either. I think it's asinine too. HOWEVER, when an organization has over a billion users worldwide, and over 50% of the US voting age population, it becomes newsworthy. Facebook directly impacts most voting Americans. Indirectly, they have data on all Americans. They are a major player in advertising, broadcasting, and news distribution and data collection.
It's naïve to think that they don't matter just because you don't use them.
Facebook had ZERO to do with the outcome of the election. Not one Trump voter in the country is now thinking to themselves "wow, Facebook tricked me into voting for Trump!". All of these BS excuses are nothing but delusions to avoid facing the reality of being rejected.
Not one person in the US thinks, wow that Pepsi commercial made me want to drink a Pepsi. Yet people do drink Pepsi, and Pepsi continues to advertise.
No one thinks they're being influenced by ads, or political propaganda. Everyone thinks they're above that, but here's a secret: you are influenced by ads. You're at a store all it has is Pepsi, Coke, or Smith's off-brand cola and you want a cola... odds are very high you pick a Pepsi or a Coke because you're familiar with them- or if you do buy a Smith's it is because it is cheaper. Brand familiarity has made Pepsi or Coke more appealing.
Same happens with these political BS stories. Trump is kinda like Pepsi- he's always throwing his name out there to get publicity. This facebook campaign was like an expensive ad campaign (and ignored by financing laws). No-one, not one person, thinks they were influenced by the fake stories... but they probably think that whilst drinking a Coke or a Pepsi.
Facebook Launches Bug Bounty Program To Report Data Thieves (cnet.com)
Hello, I would like to report Mark Zuckerburg please!