i'm saying, just convince people to stop watching TV altogether, you've always got that option. but ESPN is betting that they can dictate these terms because, at the end of the day, the people that want it, really really want and would stop watching TV without ESPN, and the people that don't want it, don't care enough to stop watching TV over it.
nope, you can still vote with your wallet. just convince enough people to make verizon's financial burden more costly for keeping ESPN and losing you than the other way around.
People realize that 111 million people tuned in for the superbowl in the US right? out of a population of 320 million? a good portion of that 1 in 3 americans loves the hell out of their cable package with sports.
wow, go figure, slashdot is full of people who have no fondness of hand-egg ball and ball stick throw, and run run kick kick net.
:) depends on the business you're in. but it's how it's done in at least one fast-paced industry... trucking... and probably a shit-ton more than that.
you get a relationship, you forgo the contract. payment on delivery, and you don't quibble over the small stuff. establish terms, and if the other guy delivers on time, you pay him, if he says you owe him money, you verify it, and you pay him. If he fucks something up, he gives you a discount on the invoice or he pays for it. You don't fucking jeopardize your relationship over... what certainly amounts to less than a fucking percent of your operating costs.
and yes, you get pay, because the other guy delivered on 30 things, and if you quibble over one, you quibble over one. But you do it above board, because you're both making money out of the relationship, and it's retarded to jeopardize the future profits for... a pittance.
it seems it was 1 exploit that affected 30 systems. so the point is moot.
as an exercise though, yes, yes you do.
if this were a business decision/transaction at all you would.
if it were 30 separate exploits, you would pay him for 30 exploits, and charge him damages for the 1 that got away. Penalties or what have you. And you do this because it's more orderly that way, and you're trying to be aboveboard with this individual and with the community as a whole. For future collaboration.
You do it so the guy has no story to spread, about how you don't honor your agreement... because again, it's business.
In your example, this is one of the only guys that mows lawns in your area, and guess what, the lawn mower's association is pretty fucking tight-knit... and it's all illegals, so that 20 buck sounds about right. You've asked around, and anybody else that you want to do it will cost 40 buck a week to do the same thing that these guys wanted 20 buck per mowing wanted. and they only had to come around every other week. Oh, and guess what, you're in california, and this grass is dry as fuck. And if fire ever comes back and you've got an unmowed lawn, your headquarters is going to burn the hell down.
this would be a parallel situation. you suck it up, and treat it like business, and show that you'll pay for work done, and honor your word, otherwise you're out bigger money one way or the other.
for one exploit that was refused, how is it legitimate to deny the bounty for the other 29?
i imagine they just made an enemy, or at least lost an ally, over 10k at most?
you how bad a hit they'd take if they had a theft of data? target claims that their data breach depressed their holiday profits by 47 percent... i think groupon has got yearly profits in the billions range... and they're quibbling over a few thousand?
... to be fair, you're sitting in a thin metal tube in the fucking sky, hurtling along at speeds men were never designed to go. You're also cramped in, uncomfortable and it's loud.
I don't know about you, but if my fucking plane popped a bunch of oxygen masks out, i'd freak out. If i was in the air, i'd be like, holy shit, something went really fucking wrong. If we were already on the ground, it'd really make me question the maintenance on all the planes in the fleet. So yeah, scared.
The people on his flight, didn't agree to be part of any kind of "statement" he would be making. So yeah, he's a damn troll.
like women's only pro-gaming, and women's only chess. i knew it existed, but i don't know if anyone actually takes it seriously except for the prize money.
i thought the argument was that there was no difference between the ways girls and boys thought, it was all "imposed by society." if we throw enough money at the problem, we'll have more female programmers in no time... never mind if they actually want to do it or not.
... title 9 works and is OK i think in part because there's a necessary division between male and female sports. Sexual dimorphism and all that. Girls that want to play a sport have no way of competing on a level playing field if they're competing vs. the guys typically, so separate but equal... is a necessary evil.
where it doesn't seem to apply is in the case where there is no innate barrier to entry. Like saying "lets separate men and women's chess"... or men's and women's academics...
they are internalizing and adopting the stance that there is an innate inferiority in girls that would prevent them from competing with the boys in CS unless outright given their own "league" to play in.
men run faster, jump higher and are stronger than women, typically and at the summit...
are we also suggesting that they think harder now?
sorry, that affordability bit was left in, was going to remove that entire train, but it was along the lines of the line between the man and the equipment he uses. similar to the prosthesis arguments, when it gets to the point that tangible benefits yada yada, would you chop off your arms and feet if you could toss jet engines in their place? i mean, they're weight. etc. etc.
And, it's the promotion of drug use in kids again. We're only now really getting it how much TBI these guys are really getting, and what the effects are. And i think parents are being a lot less willing to let their kids lead with their heads so to speak.
baseball, kids are already getting significant surgery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... to you know, compete. throw in some steroid abuse, and what a wonderful environment we create.
adults can make their own poor decisions. If they want to beat the crap out of each other fine. But we try to protect the minors. so i don't think we'll ever condone policy that would make it mandatory to kill yourself slowly to compete.
terrible. part of the reason why it's a terrible idea is that many of those really impactful drugs dramatically shorten your expected lifespan. And i'm sure some athletes would be willing to make the trade, fame and prestige for years, but that's not the kind of behavior we really should be encouraging in our youths.
similarly with swim wear... there's the affordability aspect, you're endorsing an artificially intentionally unlevelled playing field. And it gets harder and harder to draw the line where technology ends and human achievement begins.
hypothetically, we'll progress to the point where we'll be able to simulate miniature universes. Which will soon thereafter outnumber the number of our universes. x:1
If each universe eventually spawned ever just two universes... i mean binary growth and all that. The probability that we exist in the root universe, of all the universes that could be created vanishes to zero.
And the God of our universe could really be a snot-nosed 16 year old who likes to mess with his creations.
Slashdot Mirror
no simple about it. it sounds like monumental, epic dickery.
i'm saying, just convince people to stop watching TV altogether, you've always got that option. but ESPN is betting that they can dictate these terms because, at the end of the day, the people that want it, really really want and would stop watching TV without ESPN, and the people that don't want it, don't care enough to stop watching TV over it.
nope, you can still vote with your wallet. just convince enough people to make verizon's financial burden more costly for keeping ESPN and losing you than the other way around.
Just stop using verizon unless they drop ESPN.
People realize that 111 million people tuned in for the superbowl in the US right? out of a population of 320 million? a good portion of that 1 in 3 americans loves the hell out of their cable package with sports.
wow, go figure, slashdot is full of people who have no fondness of hand-egg ball and ball stick throw, and run run kick kick net.
:) depends on the business you're in. but it's how it's done in at least one fast-paced industry... trucking... and probably a shit-ton more than that.
you get a relationship, you forgo the contract. payment on delivery, and you don't quibble over the small stuff. establish terms, and if the other guy delivers on time, you pay him, if he says you owe him money, you verify it, and you pay him. If he fucks something up, he gives you a discount on the invoice or he pays for it. You don't fucking jeopardize your relationship over... what certainly amounts to less than a fucking percent of your operating costs.
and yes, you get pay, because the other guy delivered on 30 things, and if you quibble over one, you quibble over one. But you do it above board, because you're both making money out of the relationship, and it's retarded to jeopardize the future profits for... a pittance.
it seems it was 1 exploit that affected 30 systems. so the point is moot.
as an exercise though, yes, yes you do.
if this were a business decision/transaction at all you would.
if it were 30 separate exploits, you would pay him for 30 exploits, and charge him damages for the 1 that got away. Penalties or what have you. And you do this because it's more orderly that way, and you're trying to be aboveboard with this individual and with the community as a whole. For future collaboration.
You do it so the guy has no story to spread, about how you don't honor your agreement... because again, it's business.
In your example, this is one of the only guys that mows lawns in your area, and guess what, the lawn mower's association is pretty fucking tight-knit... and it's all illegals, so that 20 buck sounds about right.
You've asked around, and anybody else that you want to do it will cost 40 buck a week to do the same thing that these guys wanted 20 buck per mowing wanted. and they only had to come around every other week. Oh, and guess what, you're in california, and this grass is dry as fuck. And if fire ever comes back and you've got an unmowed lawn, your headquarters is going to burn the hell down.
this would be a parallel situation. you suck it up, and treat it like business, and show that you'll pay for work done, and honor your word, otherwise you're out bigger money one way or the other.
targets report 47 % drop in profits during the period immediately following... compared to i believe expectations of a year earlier.
for one exploit that was refused, how is it legitimate to deny the bounty for the other 29?
i imagine they just made an enemy, or at least lost an ally, over 10k at most?
you how bad a hit they'd take if they had a theft of data? target claims that their data breach depressed their holiday profits by 47 percent...
i think groupon has got yearly profits in the billions range... and they're quibbling over a few thousand?
i think it just means we need to stop all broadcasts immediately, and pray that the star eater hasn't noticed us yet.
yet
... to be fair, you're sitting in a thin metal tube in the fucking sky, hurtling along at speeds men were never designed to go. You're also cramped in, uncomfortable and it's loud.
I don't know about you, but if my fucking plane popped a bunch of oxygen masks out, i'd freak out. If i was in the air, i'd be like, holy shit, something went really fucking wrong. If we were already on the ground, it'd really make me question the maintenance on all the planes in the fleet. So yeah, scared.
The people on his flight, didn't agree to be part of any kind of "statement" he would be making. So yeah, he's a damn troll.
like women's only pro-gaming, and women's only chess. i knew it existed, but i don't know if anyone actually takes it seriously except for the prize money.
i thought the argument was that there was no difference between the ways girls and boys thought, it was all "imposed by society." if we throw enough money at the problem, we'll have more female programmers in no time... never mind if they actually want to do it or not.
... title 9 works and is OK i think in part because there's a necessary division between male and female sports. Sexual dimorphism and all that. Girls that want to play a sport have no way of competing on a level playing field if they're competing vs. the guys typically, so separate but equal... is a necessary evil.
where it doesn't seem to apply is in the case where there is no innate barrier to entry. Like saying "lets separate men and women's chess"... or men's and women's academics...
they are internalizing and adopting the stance that there is an innate inferiority in girls that would prevent them from competing with the boys in CS unless outright given their own "league" to play in.
men run faster, jump higher and are stronger than women, typically and at the summit...
are we also suggesting that they think harder now?
sorry, that affordability bit was left in, was going to remove that entire train, but it was along the lines of the line between the man and the equipment he uses. similar to the prosthesis arguments, when it gets to the point that tangible benefits yada yada, would you chop off your arms and feet if you could toss jet engines in their place? i mean, they're weight. etc. etc.
And, it's the promotion of drug use in kids again. We're only now really getting it how much TBI these guys are really getting, and what the effects are. And i think parents are being a lot less willing to let their kids lead with their heads so to speak.
baseball, kids are already getting significant surgery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
to you know, compete. throw in some steroid abuse, and what a wonderful environment we create.
adults can make their own poor decisions. If they want to beat the crap out of each other fine. But we try to protect the minors. so i don't think we'll ever condone policy that would make it mandatory to kill yourself slowly to compete.
atheists commit crimes all the time. i think we say, "he didn't commit the crime because he was an atheist."
terrible. part of the reason why it's a terrible idea is that many of those really impactful drugs dramatically shorten your expected lifespan. And i'm sure some athletes would be willing to make the trade, fame and prestige for years, but that's not the kind of behavior we really should be encouraging in our youths.
similarly with swim wear... there's the affordability aspect, you're endorsing an artificially intentionally unlevelled playing field. And it gets harder and harder to draw the line where technology ends and human achievement begins.
... ... "nyeh nyeh nyeh, your break from the fundamentals of reality is not as glaring and harsh as our own, so you can't be part of our club."
i'd say scientology is more or less as credible as jediism... or pastafarianism... or mormonism.
i mean, scientology just seems like mormonism at a younger point in adoption
Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the house of God.
good movie, at least the scientologists haven't been protecting pedophiles for the better part of like a thousand years.
Just make more easy fossil fuels :)
really easy recipe, just don't die off in a couple hundred million years, voila, new fossil fuels.
exoplanet? also, it's not immutable,
hard to classify something that we barely see as a planet... it's just not useful.
i'm like, super confident it'll change if and when we develop the capability of seeing if planet-sized satellites of extrasolar stellar objects.
hypothetically, we'll progress to the point where we'll be able to simulate miniature universes. Which will soon thereafter outnumber the number of our universes. x:1
If each universe eventually spawned ever just two universes... i mean binary growth and all that. The probability that we exist in the root universe, of all the universes that could be created vanishes to zero.
And the God of our universe could really be a snot-nosed 16 year old who likes to mess with his creations.
Wouldn't that suck?
bzzt, wrong.
i mean, it's obvious to any thinking man that we're all living in a simulation produced in the real universe.
but that one will be more real, and more awesome than ours, because the information density has to necessarily be greater than our own.
well, obviously, went without saying.
no earthly bonds can hold a ninja, it's one of their racial bonuses.
... the per capita income in phillipines in 2013 was 3000... yeah... more than they could earn in a month.
well, oxygen does kinda wreck everything.
it kinda just like... super-wants all the electrons... all of them, in everything, everywhere.