I'm not sure what you can reliably take away from these statistics. Since it is only rentals it excludes the following conditions:
Did they go see it in the theater and now own the DVD? (will probably never rent) Did they go see it in theaters and didn't care for it? (will probably never rent)
This means that the stats only capture those who 1) Didn't see it in theaters - i.e. it wasn't a big deal to see it / they didn't consider it worth the ticket price 2) Are curious enough about it to rent it later
After renting once, did they buy it for their personal library, or say 'meh' and never watch it again?
Amazon: "We're hemorrhaging money but we're selling LOTS of product!"
Comparing a software product delivered electronically to a physical device that must be assembled, stored, shipped and maintained is an apples-oranges comparison.
Only the US has an embargo in effect against Cuba - all the rest of the world is free to trade with them. Who's really responsible for the average wage being $20 a month?
We haven't fought a victorious full-scale battle on our own since the Civil War. And I can't think of any occasion where we have won a battle against a half-way decent foe.
Another way of looking at it is that your property represents hours of your life. If that TV walking out your front door cost you a month's wages to buy, the thief is stealing a month of your life. If you have insurance it abstracts the loss (deductible + higher insurance premiums over time) but doesn't change the fact that property = money = hours of your life.
It's functionally the same as the thief kidnapping you and making you work for him for a month. i.e slavery
You selected the wrong entry from the Standard List of Villains. The correct comment would have been: "What's the chance the EVIL OIL COMPANIES will buy this out and kill it?"
Kelson: "America continues to worry about losing its edge in the high-tech industry. But that couldn't possibly be related to poor science education, could it?"
I don't think anyone would argue that acceptance of evolution has been an ongoing process in America. This would mean that currently more Americans believe in evolution than at any time in the past. Conversely, it would mean that during the period of America's greatest technological and scientific dominance, there was less belief in evolution than at present.
If anything, this factoid would tend to support that the *acceptance*, not *rejection*, of evolutionary theory correlates with any perceived reduction in America's technological and scientific dominance.
*insert obligatory comment about correlation, causation and coincidence here*
There *was* a country that rigorously enforced evolutionary scientific education, religion was not tolerated in any way in it's schools. It's name was... the Soviet Union... and it doesn't exist anymore.
YOU may be able to install a free OS and get it to work.
Please consider the many thousands who would look at the no-OS savings and say "Oooo, cheap computer!". They will buy these and end up tying up support for hours at a time troubleshooting their free OS related problems ("My computer won't run XXXXX"!).
Computer profit margins are razor thin now. Take away the small profit on the OS and add in the increase in support costs and you wipe out all profit on no-OS computers. And don't think the manufacturers will get away with NOT supporting no-OS computers, governments would just legislate that they HAVE to support all their products.
I'm guessing the solution is that HP simply charges the same amount for the box whether or not an OS is installed. That would provide a profit cushion for support and remove the burning need for people to buy w/o OS.
Thank you for so graphically describing how a small % of people can come to own the vast majority of the world's wealth, the subject of another discussion. Circumstance dealt him a series of "losing" hands, but he didn't bitch and moan and expect someone else to "make it right". He worked, very hard I'm betting, and became wealthy.
Based on what's I've read in that other discussion, he must have been a very wicked and greedy man.
One thing people always forget is how much social co-operation is involved when moving around/though other people. People don't try and walk though you in a crowd. On a battlefield, you don't shoot in a particular direction because a friendly is there. You don't change lanes on the motorway because you know there's a car present or is overtaking you.
Individual invisibility breaks these cooperative behaviors. If there's an opening in a crowd, someone will probably try and use it. Soldiers/tanks will shoot at targets without respect for their invisible buddy in the line of fire. How many times have you changed course in a crowd and bumped into someone because you thought that direction was clear? An invisible person would have to be continuously watching everyone around him to dodge out of their way.
The goal of outsourcing is to not have ANY "jewel" employees - just a neverending supply of interchangible cogs that can be replaced at will.
THIS is why management has become concerned with protecting against their own employees. Rather than pay what it takes to hire and retain loyal, honest employees, they spend even more money preventing the bargain-basement employees from stealing from them.
I'm hoping to get an HP 65" microdisplay with wobulation someday. Review here. Wobulation blends the pixels together to almost eliminate screen-dooring.
Not sure what your budget is, but a 58" inch version is also available.
In an office, ``you're able to put teams together that can learn very aggressively and rapidly from each other,'' he(Mott) said.
What I haven't heard mentioned about this plan is that remote employees are not required to relocate to a site with their team. Just one of the "core" sites.
Allow me to repeat for emphasis: Relocating telework employees are not required to move to the site where their core team resides.
This means that the stated goal - to increase productivity through interpersonal interactions - is a farce.
Please don't forget that he had them and used them. It's what's unknown is whether he still had some prior to the invasion. Since there is now evidence that he had detailed intel about the invasion - it lies easily within the realm of possiblity that he arranged to have his remaining stockpiles moved out of the country. There is now some indication that Russian troops were involved in moving weapons to Syria (though only conventional weapons are mentioned).
before his death he made it quite clear that he's not fond at all of the "Solaris" version made by Steven Soderbergh.
Well that makes at least two of us. However "not fond" is too bland of an expression. Solaris is the family benchmark for bad movies. I stayed on until the end out of morbid curiosity but afterwards I wanted those 99 minutes back.
You seem to be a bit conflicted on how children are to be protected. "It isn't the government's job, it's the parents. Oh, and parents shouldn't protect them from every little thing either." What is a little thing? This discussion concerns child molestors, but I'm sure you don't consider them a "little thing".
I've seen this "you can't protect them or they will be defenseless when they are out on their own" argument before (and elsewhere in this thread). I'm not picking on you, simply using your post to make my point.
Let's play with this argument, shall we?
1) Food? Clothes!?? If I give them those they'll be unprepared if they have to live on the street! 2) "See Georgie, this is why you have to get on *top* of the rottweiler before it pins you to the ground and mauls you. Then you can strangle it from safety. Whoa! But that's ok, people live normal lives with one eye all the time!" 3) If I lock up the chemicals beneath the sink, how will the kid will never learn they are dangerous? 4) If I stop her from hitch-hiking to New York, how will she ever learn how to defend herself? 5) If he doesn't have his girlfriend come over for sleepovers, how will he ever learn self control? 6) If I hide the "Slut Weekly" magazines from her, she won't know how things are done in the real world.
Picture all these scenarios with a 26 year old, then 24,22,20,18,16 and so on down to 2. Analyze the scenario's opposing gender. You will probably come to an age where each scenario becomes unreasonable (#2 is probably unreasonable at any age) and that prior to that age you agree that a child should be prevented (i.e. protected) from the activity. If you start getting turned on by this exercise, you prove my point - shut up and go away.
Which brings me back to "you can't protect children from every little thing". 1) At various ages it *is* appropriate to protect children from "every little thing". Where this age-appropriate line is drawn is completely subjective. 2) In my experience there is a disconnect between physical protection and emotional/moral protection. Everyone will agree that children should be defended from hunger and the elements, but protecting those same children from situations where their inexperience can lead them to make life-altering decisions is labeled as "overprotective".
My standard is simple - children should be protected from any activity that can have results beyond the child's responsibility level. My job as a parent is to teach the child how to take complete responsibility for their life and decisions prior to "adulthood" (21 in the US). The vast majority of societies problems are rooted in people engaging in activities when they are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the consequences of those activities.
Please, elementary school graduate, identify another country that was, at it's founding, based on the principle of individual rights? Certainly not any country in Europe, they began as monarchies and evolved into democracies (i.e. The French revolution did not create the country of France, merely transformed it into a republic). The reality is, that in recent history, very few countries have been founded where there was no country before - the US being one of them.
Since you did not cite even one example country in your retort, I assume that your response was completely emotional/irrational. Should you desire to answer my question, you probably will want to focus your research on South American and/or African countries.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what you can reliably take away from these statistics. Since it is only rentals it excludes the following conditions:
Did they go see it in the theater and now own the DVD? (will probably never rent)
Did they go see it in theaters and didn't care for it? (will probably never rent)
This means that the stats only capture those who
1) Didn't see it in theaters - i.e. it wasn't a big deal to see it / they didn't consider it worth the ticket price
2) Are curious enough about it to rent it later
After renting once, did they buy it for their personal library, or say 'meh' and never watch it again?
Amazon: "We're hemorrhaging money but we're selling LOTS of product!"
Comparing a software product delivered electronically to a physical device that must be assembled, stored, shipped and maintained is an apples-oranges comparison.
"Insightful"? "Funny" perhaps.
Only the US has an embargo in effect against Cuba - all the rest of the world is free to trade with them. Who's really responsible for the average wage being $20 a month?
Viva le People's Paradise!!!
We haven't fought a victorious full-scale battle on our own since the Civil War. And I can't think of any occasion where we have won a battle against a half-way decent foe.
This took me 2 minutes to find, anonymous little troll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima
Looks like we are on our way to J.P. Hogan's technology-based "telepathy" from "The Genesis Machine".
Very cool.
Another way of looking at it is that your property represents hours of your life. If that TV walking out your front door cost you a month's wages to buy, the thief is stealing a month of your life. If you have insurance it abstracts the loss (deductible + higher insurance premiums over time) but doesn't change the fact that property = money = hours of your life.
It's functionally the same as the thief kidnapping you and making you work for him for a month. i.e slavery
This SO reminds me of a comment one of our business users made to my boss a couple years back:
"We don't need sockets anymore, everything is going to Web now..."
You selected the wrong entry from the Standard List of Villains. The correct comment would have been:
"What's the chance the EVIL OIL COMPANIES will buy this out and kill it?"
Kelson:
... the Soviet Union ... and it doesn't exist anymore.
"America continues to worry about losing its edge in the high-tech industry.
But that couldn't possibly be related to poor science education, could it?"
I don't think anyone would argue that acceptance of evolution has been an ongoing process in America.
This would mean that currently more Americans believe in evolution than at any time in the past.
Conversely, it would mean that during the period of America's greatest technological and scientific dominance, there was less belief in evolution than at present.
If anything, this factoid would tend to support that the *acceptance*, not *rejection*, of evolutionary theory correlates with any perceived reduction in America's technological and scientific dominance.
*insert obligatory comment about correlation, causation and coincidence here*
There *was* a country that rigorously enforced evolutionary scientific education, religion was not tolerated in any way in it's schools. It's name was
YOU may be able to install a free OS and get it to work.
Please consider the many thousands who would look at the no-OS savings and say "Oooo, cheap computer!". They will buy these and end up tying up support for hours at a time troubleshooting their free OS related problems ("My computer won't run XXXXX"!).
Computer profit margins are razor thin now. Take away the small profit on the OS and add in the increase in support costs and you wipe out all profit on no-OS computers. And don't think the manufacturers will get away with NOT supporting no-OS computers, governments would just legislate that they HAVE to support all their products.
I'm guessing the solution is that HP simply charges the same amount for the box whether or not an OS is installed. That would provide a profit cushion for support and remove the burning need for people to buy w/o OS.
Thank you for so graphically describing how a small % of people can come to own the vast majority of the world's wealth, the subject of another discussion.
Circumstance dealt him a series of "losing" hands, but he didn't bitch and moan and expect someone else to "make it right". He worked, very hard I'm betting, and became wealthy.
Based on what's I've read in that other discussion, he must have been a very wicked and greedy man.
I salute him.
...may make life harder for some companies, but they will benefit others.
The same way US tax law makes life harder for "some" (MOST) companies but benefits the parasitical "tax accountant".
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while congress is in session" - Mark Twain
No, I think it might be more like "yours has 4 cylinders and mine has 12". Or 4 wheels vs 10.
The changes they seeing produce functional differences - not cosmetic.
My thoughts exactly.
:(
Sorry I don't have mod points
It is a bit above his range, but it's a really great printer. I love the fact that it comes standard with network support.
One thing people always forget is how much social co-operation is involved when moving around/though other people. People don't try and walk though you in a crowd. On a battlefield, you don't shoot in a particular direction because a friendly is there. You don't change lanes on the motorway because you know there's a car present or is overtaking you.
Individual invisibility breaks these cooperative behaviors. If there's an opening in a crowd, someone will probably try and use it. Soldiers/tanks will shoot at targets without respect for their invisible buddy in the line of fire. How many times have you changed course in a crowd and bumped into someone because you thought that direction was clear? An invisible person would have to be continuously watching everyone around him to dodge out of their way.
The goal of outsourcing is to not have ANY "jewel" employees - just a neverending supply of interchangible cogs that can be replaced at will.
THIS is why management has become concerned with protecting against their own employees. Rather than pay what it takes to hire and retain loyal, honest employees, they spend even more money preventing the bargain-basement employees from stealing from them.
is a real technology. :)
Read about it at PopSci online
I'm hoping to get an HP 65" microdisplay with wobulation someday. Review here. Wobulation blends the pixels together to almost eliminate screen-dooring.
Not sure what your budget is, but a 58" inch version is also available.
In an office, ``you're able to put teams together that can learn very aggressively and rapidly from each other,'' he(Mott) said.
What I haven't heard mentioned about this plan is that remote employees are not required to relocate to a site with their team. Just one of the "core" sites.
Allow me to repeat for emphasis:
Relocating telework employees are not required to move to the site where their core team resides.
This means that the stated goal - to increase productivity through interpersonal interactions - is a farce.
Please don't forget that he had them and used them. It's what's unknown is whether he still had some prior to the invasion.
Since there is now evidence that he had detailed intel about the invasion - it lies easily within the realm of possiblity that he arranged to have his remaining stockpiles moved out of the country. There is now some indication that Russian troops were involved in moving weapons to Syria (though only conventional weapons are mentioned).
before his death he made it quite clear that he's not fond at all of the "Solaris" version made by Steven Soderbergh.
Well that makes at least two of us. However "not fond" is too bland of an expression. Solaris is the family benchmark for bad movies. I stayed on until the end out of morbid curiosity but afterwards I wanted those 99 minutes back.
You seem to be a bit conflicted on how children are to be protected. "It isn't the government's job, it's the parents. Oh, and parents shouldn't protect them from every little thing either." What is a little thing? This discussion concerns child molestors, but I'm sure you don't consider them a "little thing".
I've seen this "you can't protect them or they will be defenseless when they are out on their own" argument before (and elsewhere in this thread). I'm not picking on you, simply using your post to make my point.
Let's play with this argument, shall we?
1) Food? Clothes!?? If I give them those they'll be unprepared if they have to live on the street!
2) "See Georgie, this is why you have to get on *top* of the rottweiler before it pins you to the ground and mauls you. Then you can strangle it from safety. Whoa! But that's ok, people live normal lives with one eye all the time!"
3) If I lock up the chemicals beneath the sink, how will the kid will never learn they are dangerous?
4) If I stop her from hitch-hiking to New York, how will she ever learn how to defend herself?
5) If he doesn't have his girlfriend come over for sleepovers, how will he ever learn self control?
6) If I hide the "Slut Weekly" magazines from her, she won't know how things are done in the real world.
Picture all these scenarios with a 26 year old, then 24,22,20,18,16 and so on down to 2. Analyze the scenario's opposing gender. You will probably come to an age where each scenario becomes unreasonable (#2 is probably unreasonable at any age) and that prior to that age you agree that a child should be prevented (i.e. protected) from the activity. If you start getting turned on by this exercise, you prove my point - shut up and go away.
Which brings me back to "you can't protect children from every little thing".
1) At various ages it *is* appropriate to protect children from "every little thing". Where this age-appropriate line is drawn is completely subjective.
2) In my experience there is a disconnect between physical protection and emotional/moral protection. Everyone will agree that children should be defended from hunger and the elements, but protecting those same children from situations where their inexperience can lead them to make life-altering decisions is labeled as "overprotective".
My standard is simple - children should be protected from any activity that can have results beyond the child's responsibility level. My job as a parent is to teach the child how to take complete responsibility for their life and decisions prior to "adulthood" (21 in the US). The vast majority of societies problems are rooted in people engaging in activities when they are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the consequences of those activities.
Please, elementary school graduate, identify another country that was, at it's founding, based on the principle of individual rights? Certainly not any country in Europe, they began as monarchies and evolved into democracies (i.e. The French revolution did not create the country of France, merely transformed it into a republic). The reality is, that in recent history, very few countries have been founded where there was no country before - the US being one of them.
Since you did not cite even one example country in your retort, I assume that your response was completely emotional/irrational. Should you desire to answer my question, you probably will want to focus your research on South American and/or African countries.
all very cool, until someone loses a life.