I'll do you one better than buying: if you watch movies regularly, a DVD-at-a-time plan with Blu-Ray option is around $11 per month ($9 for regular DVDs), delivered to your door. If you don't, RedBox rents movies for $1.25/night on DVD, and are all over the place (local pharmacy/CVS, gas station, outside the grocery store). Again, the only penalty is waiting slightly longer for availability, but I have an effective cost of $2/movie on average, which is cheaper than your metro ride to the theater.
If you like to watch them repeatedly, then buying is slightly more convenient, and maybe cheaper long-term, but Netflix and RedBox have created a rental experience that makes theater-going even more painful by comparison.
They theaters don't make the ticket money, just the concessions money. The ticket money all goes back to Hollywood, who pretends to pay it out to some shell company so that they can claim a loss, and avoid paying people and taxes.
I stopped going to the theater several years ago when the MPAA started persecuting the author of DeCSS (now libdvdcss, I think), and subsequently realized that I was happier for it. I'll watch movies at home; I have a projector and surround sound in my living room, the food is better, the bathrooms are cleaner, and the company far less annoying (well, at least usually, but at home I can smack the idiot with the cell phone).
That wouldn't be surprising. I recall reading that 3D versions of films make far more money; both by attracting viewers who (like me) don't bother to see 2D films in theaters, and by sucking in an extra $2-5 per ticket. If you look at the math, they'll (the theaters, the studios) absolutely want more 3D shows than 2D shows.
I regularly refuse to go to the cinema because the movies are 2D. I have a high-def projector and surround-sound in my living room, and that $11 movie theater ticket pays for a whole month of Netflix. Bringing a date to that movie? The $11 for the extra ticket and $6+ for popcorn or soda is enough for a pizza and a six pack, some microwave popcorn, and a jumbo bag of whatever M&MMars product strikes your fancy; now I have dinner and a movie for four, and if that guy next to me won't shut up during the film, I can a) rewind and/or b) smack him/kick him out.
Ebert hit the nail on the head. I love movies; I'm a sucker for a story. But if you want me to go to your movie theater, you need to offer me something worth the price you're charging. That hasn't happened in quite a few years. I've made a few exceptions for 3D, because I can't cheaply/easily replicate that experience in my living room (yet), but the Movie Theater experience lately is not worth the money.
WRT character development, I think that's an unfortunate side-effect of the advances in special effects. When your explosion is a firecracker filmed from an odd angle, you'll leave it on the screen for much less time than when it's a work of CGI art. I'm not saying that the explosions and effects in modern films aren't impressive, but I think they receive a lot more screen time than they used to, which cuts into the amount of time available for character development.
A friend of mine in school once dug up a cassette tape her father had made by taping songs of the radio in the 1970's. Boy, was there a lot of crap! However, the music from the '70's that's still played is the good stuff, and it's been kept, skewing our perception.
That said, in the past 5-10 years, the number of movies with original stories that get front-page treatment has plummeted. It seems like everything out there is a sequel or a remake of some earlier film, or another "comic book adaptation."
Recently, I saw that they're making a movie based on the game "Battleship." Yes, the one where you call out grid coordinates and your opponent tells you whether you've hit or missed. No, I'm not kidding. I recall there being a movie sometime in the 1980's about a chimp that could pick out popular sitcoms; maybe Cheetah the chimp was working for Hollywood right up until the end?
So, they'll reimburse you for fees incurred as a result of a bounced check? I realize that they've cleaned up their acts with regard to returning the money, but that's still a huge risk.
It does require you to link the account to them, enabling the ACH payment. While this doesn't automatically authorize a recurring payment of a variable amount (one of my biggest pet peeves about the automatic bill payment systems of most utility-esque companies), they do have direct access to your account.
I haven't read the article, but I guessed (and have apparently guessed correctly) that this is exactly what they meant. Companies like being paid in full, when they decide to be paid. They love consistency. So, they're going to encourage you to give them direct access to your money so they can take what they want, when they want.
This is a non-surprise, but I'd hardly call it a non-story. The summary is horrible, but this is Slashdot.
It doesn't provide the same buffer. If there's a fraudulent charge on your debit card, the money has already been removed from your bank account by the time you contest it. If there's a fraudulent account on a credit card, your bank account is untouched and the bank is out the cash until you notice the mistake, not you.
Living on credit is stupid, but failing to earn points and interest on your money is a poor move, too. Use a credit card that pays points or some kind of rewards (Airline miles, cash back, whatever fits your lifestyle). Pay bills with the card, then pay the card off at the end of the month. That 1% rebate (in equivalent value, on average) plus the 1% you can make by keeping your money in an interest bearing account will add up over time.
Additionally, I think debit cards are among the dumbest personal financial options known to man, if for no other reason than this: if someone fraudulently charges my credit card tomorrow, I still have time to figure out what happened and correct it. If someone fraudulently charged my debit card tomorrow, my rent check would bounce, causing a huge hassle, loads of fees (from my bank, my landlord's bank, etc.) and a general nuisance.
To cite a quote whose origins are muddy at best (and at any rate, I've forgotten them): "A statesman is a dead politician. Heaven knows we need more statesmen."
Tragically, they're one of three possible vendors for Intel VPro SSL certs, and in order to obtain such a cert, you must call their support (you can't go create one just through the web interface).
Shareholders don't pay anything: after the IPO, companies don't receive money from the sale of their stock (unless they sell off more of the company). Shareholders, as part owners of your company, do have authority in decisions regarding the board, etc. I think this is something of a mistake.
I think it's a selection issue. People who are good at business, run businesses. People who don't have a clue about running businesses go out and buy MBAs, then ruin businesses. Earning the MBA doesn't inherently prevent someone from being good at business, but the people who have the spark don't usually bother.
If 95% of MBA candidates suck at running businesses, then I'm better off avoiding them, because those 5% aren't going to be applying at my company; they've already built their own.
And carriers can, and do, use this database as an excuse to prevent people from re-using old phones instead of buying new. Paraphrased from a conversation a friend of mine had with support for her carrier:
: My phone broke, and my contract isn't up for another six months. However, I have my previous phone. Can you reactivate it so that I can use a phone until my contract runs out and I can get a new one?
: Well, it looks like that phone was reported stolen, so I can't activate it. You can buy a refurbished phone from us, though. They're slightly less expensive than buying a brand new phone for full price, and since no one wants to buy a refurbished cell phone, we've got tons!
: How could this phone have been reported stolen? It's been in a drawer in my apartment for a year and a half.
: I'm sorry, once it's on the list, you can't get it removed without spending two weeks in line waiting to talk to the Wizard. But we have these refurbished phones. I can transfer you to sales if you like.
I think the parent poster was suggesting a class action suit in the US, on the grounds that Australia has been doing this for ten years and US carriers haven't.
Note that while in Australia they probably aren't bricking phones that weren't reported stolen, I'm not sure that'd be the case with US carriers. : We're not making enough money. : Well, I've heard that some people, when their two year contract runs out, just keep their phones, instead of signing new contracts and getting new ones! : Well, the problem is that sometimes, phones will still work, even after two years. What if those phones stopped working, say, a month or two after the contract expires? : Brilliant! Waitress, another round of kickbacks for my friend and I!
Burgers don't need kimche, but they're pretty tasty if you add it. I would agree that IT is a sector that wouldn't benefit terribly from unions, but only because IT came about well after unions had dramatically improved working conditions for everyone in the United States.
You appear to think unions are ruining the American economy, starting with Detroit and health care? Have you examined the role of Obscene Executive Compensation and lousy management in those sectors?
The bottom line is that power must be balanced. The owners of industry wield tremendous power over working conditions, pay, etc. That's probably the way it should be, but employees (without whom no business could run) need someone on their side. Since the government is lobbied by the owners (who have the money to buy the lobbying), we need unions to balance that power. I'm not saying the existing unions are doing a good job, but until we have a viable replacement for them, it would be devastating to remove them.
How is it? I have no idea. But it is, of that I am certain. Working with management is a lot like the popular stereotype of marriage. It doesn't matter how "correct" you were; if you disagreed with the boss, you're still wrong, no matter the outcome.
CALs are probably not an issue - an organization of that size suing Microsoft software at all probably has a Campus Agreement, which means they pay a fee per-user/employee, that covers some pre-definied collection of products (CALs are a minimum, it may also include a license for Office, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
I'll do you one better than buying: if you watch movies regularly, a DVD-at-a-time plan with Blu-Ray option is around $11 per month ($9 for regular DVDs), delivered to your door. If you don't, RedBox rents movies for $1.25/night on DVD, and are all over the place (local pharmacy/CVS, gas station, outside the grocery store). Again, the only penalty is waiting slightly longer for availability, but I have an effective cost of $2/movie on average, which is cheaper than your metro ride to the theater.
If you like to watch them repeatedly, then buying is slightly more convenient, and maybe cheaper long-term, but Netflix and RedBox have created a rental experience that makes theater-going even more painful by comparison.
They theaters don't make the ticket money, just the concessions money. The ticket money all goes back to Hollywood, who pretends to pay it out to some shell company so that they can claim a loss, and avoid paying people and taxes.
I stopped going to the theater several years ago when the MPAA started persecuting the author of DeCSS (now libdvdcss, I think), and subsequently realized that I was happier for it. I'll watch movies at home; I have a projector and surround sound in my living room, the food is better, the bathrooms are cleaner, and the company far less annoying (well, at least usually, but at home I can smack the idiot with the cell phone).
Yes. America is a mediocracy.
On second thought, let's just fire the entire movie industry into the sun and start again.
Now there's an original storyline! At least, I'd probably see it...
That wouldn't be surprising. I recall reading that 3D versions of films make far more money; both by attracting viewers who (like me) don't bother to see 2D films in theaters, and by sucking in an extra $2-5 per ticket. If you look at the math, they'll (the theaters, the studios) absolutely want more 3D shows than 2D shows.
I regularly refuse to go to the cinema because the movies are 2D. I have a high-def projector and surround-sound in my living room, and that $11 movie theater ticket pays for a whole month of Netflix. Bringing a date to that movie? The $11 for the extra ticket and $6+ for popcorn or soda is enough for a pizza and a six pack, some microwave popcorn, and a jumbo bag of whatever M&MMars product strikes your fancy; now I have dinner and a movie for four, and if that guy next to me won't shut up during the film, I can a) rewind and/or b) smack him/kick him out.
Ebert hit the nail on the head. I love movies; I'm a sucker for a story. But if you want me to go to your movie theater, you need to offer me something worth the price you're charging. That hasn't happened in quite a few years. I've made a few exceptions for 3D, because I can't cheaply/easily replicate that experience in my living room (yet), but the Movie Theater experience lately is not worth the money.
WRT character development, I think that's an unfortunate side-effect of the advances in special effects. When your explosion is a firecracker filmed from an odd angle, you'll leave it on the screen for much less time than when it's a work of CGI art. I'm not saying that the explosions and effects in modern films aren't impressive, but I think they receive a lot more screen time than they used to, which cuts into the amount of time available for character development.
Unless they were really, really bad. That stuff sticks around forever.
A friend of mine in school once dug up a cassette tape her father had made by taping songs of the radio in the 1970's. Boy, was there a lot of crap! However, the music from the '70's that's still played is the good stuff, and it's been kept, skewing our perception.
That said, in the past 5-10 years, the number of movies with original stories that get front-page treatment has plummeted. It seems like everything out there is a sequel or a remake of some earlier film, or another "comic book adaptation."
Recently, I saw that they're making a movie based on the game "Battleship." Yes, the one where you call out grid coordinates and your opponent tells you whether you've hit or missed. No, I'm not kidding. I recall there being a movie sometime in the 1980's about a chimp that could pick out popular sitcoms; maybe Cheetah the chimp was working for Hollywood right up until the end?
So, they'll reimburse you for fees incurred as a result of a bounced check? I realize that they've cleaned up their acts with regard to returning the money, but that's still a huge risk.
It does require you to link the account to them, enabling the ACH payment. While this doesn't automatically authorize a recurring payment of a variable amount (one of my biggest pet peeves about the automatic bill payment systems of most utility-esque companies), they do have direct access to your account.
I haven't read the article, but I guessed (and have apparently guessed correctly) that this is exactly what they meant. Companies like being paid in full, when they decide to be paid. They love consistency. So, they're going to encourage you to give them direct access to your money so they can take what they want, when they want.
This is a non-surprise, but I'd hardly call it a non-story. The summary is horrible, but this is Slashdot.
It doesn't provide the same buffer. If there's a fraudulent charge on your debit card, the money has already been removed from your bank account by the time you contest it. If there's a fraudulent account on a credit card, your bank account is untouched and the bank is out the cash until you notice the mistake, not you.
Living on credit is stupid, but failing to earn points and interest on your money is a poor move, too. Use a credit card that pays points or some kind of rewards (Airline miles, cash back, whatever fits your lifestyle). Pay bills with the card, then pay the card off at the end of the month. That 1% rebate (in equivalent value, on average) plus the 1% you can make by keeping your money in an interest bearing account will add up over time.
Additionally, I think debit cards are among the dumbest personal financial options known to man, if for no other reason than this: if someone fraudulently charges my credit card tomorrow, I still have time to figure out what happened and correct it. If someone fraudulently charged my debit card tomorrow, my rent check would bounce, causing a huge hassle, loads of fees (from my bank, my landlord's bank, etc.) and a general nuisance.
To cite a quote whose origins are muddy at best (and at any rate, I've forgotten them):
"A statesman is a dead politician. Heaven knows we need more statesmen."
Tragically, they're one of three possible vendors for Intel VPro SSL certs, and in order to obtain such a cert, you must call their support (you can't go create one just through the web interface).
And now I have the Peter Gunn theme music stuck in my head. Thanks.
That's harder than you'd think. Sure, you can get their attention, but you'll never occupy their whole attention...
Shareholders don't pay anything: after the IPO, companies don't receive money from the sale of their stock (unless they sell off more of the company). Shareholders, as part owners of your company, do have authority in decisions regarding the board, etc. I think this is something of a mistake.
I think it's a selection issue. People who are good at business, run businesses. People who don't have a clue about running businesses go out and buy MBAs, then ruin businesses. Earning the MBA doesn't inherently prevent someone from being good at business, but the people who have the spark don't usually bother.
If 95% of MBA candidates suck at running businesses, then I'm better off avoiding them, because those 5% aren't going to be applying at my company; they've already built their own.
And carriers can, and do, use this database as an excuse to prevent people from re-using old phones instead of buying new. Paraphrased from a conversation a friend of mine had with support for her carrier:
: My phone broke, and my contract isn't up for another six months. However, I have my previous phone. Can you reactivate it so that I can use a phone until my contract runs out and I can get a new one?
: Well, it looks like that phone was reported stolen, so I can't activate it. You can buy a refurbished phone from us, though. They're slightly less expensive than buying a brand new phone for full price, and since no one wants to buy a refurbished cell phone, we've got tons!
: How could this phone have been reported stolen? It's been in a drawer in my apartment for a year and a half.
: I'm sorry, once it's on the list, you can't get it removed without spending two weeks in line waiting to talk to the Wizard. But we have these refurbished phones. I can transfer you to sales if you like.
I think the parent poster was suggesting a class action suit in the US, on the grounds that Australia has been doing this for ten years and US carriers haven't.
Note that while in Australia they probably aren't bricking phones that weren't reported stolen, I'm not sure that'd be the case with US carriers.
: We're not making enough money.
: Well, I've heard that some people, when their two year contract runs out, just keep their phones, instead of signing new contracts and getting new ones!
: Well, the problem is that sometimes, phones will still work, even after two years. What if those phones stopped working, say, a month or two after the contract expires?
: Brilliant! Waitress, another round of kickbacks for my friend and I!
Burgers don't need kimche, but they're pretty tasty if you add it. I would agree that IT is a sector that wouldn't benefit terribly from unions, but only because IT came about well after unions had dramatically improved working conditions for everyone in the United States.
You appear to think unions are ruining the American economy, starting with Detroit and health care? Have you examined the role of Obscene Executive Compensation and lousy management in those sectors?
The bottom line is that power must be balanced. The owners of industry wield tremendous power over working conditions, pay, etc. That's probably the way it should be, but employees (without whom no business could run) need someone on their side. Since the government is lobbied by the owners (who have the money to buy the lobbying), we need unions to balance that power. I'm not saying the existing unions are doing a good job, but until we have a viable replacement for them, it would be devastating to remove them.
How is it? I have no idea. But it is, of that I am certain. Working with management is a lot like the popular stereotype of marriage. It doesn't matter how "correct" you were; if you disagreed with the boss, you're still wrong, no matter the outcome.
CALs are probably not an issue - an organization of that size suing Microsoft software at all probably has a Campus Agreement, which means they pay a fee per-user/employee, that covers some pre-definied collection of products (CALs are a minimum, it may also include a license for Office, etc.).