"I don't see how it's more difficult to account for money streams on small channels anyway"
I will thank you to note that I didn't say that it was.
My point was that the overhead is probably fixed but the revenue stream is not, so there need to be a minimum view rate for YouTube to cover their own costs. Less than that, it's cheaper just to show the video with no ad at all.
That comparison site is only useful if you are assuming that the VPN itself cannot be a threat, a point which is refuted by the very article we are posting about.
The site even includes this disclaimer, which you have glossed over: "including if a given VPN service is not transparent and does not make the data available on their official site."
"The released emails from the Clinton campaign illustrated behavior that many voters can objectionable, and the only response I've ever heard was to accuse the alleged hackers who stole the data and released it."
What the emails did NOT illustrate was whether the Republican campaign was doing any better. While the release the emails gave us data, it did not give us information relevant to the choice between Republican and Democrat yet it was claimed to do so.
"I find them irritating, slow, awkward, and inaccurate"
This is exactly how I would describe a TrackPoint. It takes forever to move the pointer anywhere, yet even with that slowness I am still left spiraling around the target I am trying to hit.
1) You enable American workers to fill highly qualified positions by opening up the junior positions where they can become qualified. 2) Junior positions may be cheaper to fill from overseas, but senior positions are not.
I will thank you to note that no where did I make any statement about the way things *SHOULD* be, only about how there are. Any claim that you make about my preferences is speculation on your part.
Minimum time from application to accession thus far has been 2 years 10 months for Finland. The Law Society of Scotland found it plausible that Scotland already meet the Copenhagen criteria: http://www.parliament.scot/S4_...
There is no queue. Evaluation of the Copenhagen criteria occurs in parallel for all applicants. For example, Cyprus applied in 1990 and acceded in 2004, while Finland applied in 1992 and acceded in 1995.
"as productivity increases, so does supply which reduces costs"
This is a problem only if you assume that everyone already is getting everything they need or want, otherwise this means that standards of living increase.
"that typically means doing so by limiting productivity or creating jobs which do nothing productive."
This is true only if you assume that all useful work is already being done. Are all the potholes being filled in ass soon as they open up? Is all the food being distributed and cooked as soon as it is grown? Are all possible book and movies and paintings already in production? Are all houses people could live in already in production?
Basically, you have presented a position that depends on rejecting capitalism in favor of mercantilism.
"The Content on this Web Site is for your personal use only and not for commercial exploitation"
"You may not use the Content to determine a consumer's eligibility for: (a) credit or insurance for personal, family, or household purposes; (b) employment; or (c) a government license or benefit. "
"You may not copy, modify, reproduce, republish, distribute, display, or transmit for commercial, non-profit or public purposes all or any portion of this Web Site, except to the extent permitted above. "
So you can't use this as a source for many cases where the average non-lawyer might want to look up a law, or even quote a law from this source.
Hello, number without context! Are you large or small?
Without knowing what other forms of listening pay out, we can't tell whether the streaming sources are villains or victims. Note that royalties are not paid to the artist but to the label; the label pays the artist. So just knowing that the artist is receiving less from streaming sources is not enough to tell you that streaming sources are getting a great deal.
Roll call 199 was to call the question, i.e. to stop the debating procedure and have the vote on the bill. All Republicans and one Democrat voted Yea; no Republican voted Nay: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
Roll call 200 was for some additional resolution regarding the bill. All republicans and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
Roll call 201 was to table some appeal about a rule of order, i.e. to not consider it now. All but one Republican and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
Roll call 202 was the actual vote on the bill. 15 Republicans and all Democrats voted against it; the rest of the Republicans voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
'One' is impersonal, indefinite, and may refer to a first- or second-person as well as third-person. Singular 'they' is personal, definite, and always refers to the third-person.
(I will cite Oregon traffic regulations from https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DM... as those are what I have at hand and mjw has not idsmissed them out of hand.)
Not being able to clear the intersection is about whether there is sufficient space in the roadway leaving the intersection. This violation can happen even when the light is green, and does not necessarily happen when the light is red, E.g. ORS 811.290(2) "The offense described in this section applies whether or not a traffic control device indicates to proceed." Therefore being in the intersection is not equal to blocking the intersection and this case is orthogonal to the question of being in the intersection when the light turns red.
The rule for a green signal plainly states that a vehicle already in the intersection has right of way, e.g. ORS 811.260(1) "...A driver shall yield right of way to other vehicles within the intersection at the time the green light is shown."
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between breaking the "rules" and directly committing crimes.
"it's much better to simply not show ads on those channels"
This is what they are doing.
"I don't see how it's more difficult to account for money streams on small channels anyway"
I will thank you to note that I didn't say that it was.
My point was that the overhead is probably fixed but the revenue stream is not, so there need to be a minimum view rate for YouTube to cover their own costs. Less than that, it's cheaper just to show the video with no ad at all.
"The way I read it is that it would cut down on incoming revenue to YouTube: "
It also cuts down the overhead of accounting for the money streams on small channels, so they're probably doing it because it's a net win.
Maybe he wants to buy some stuff?
Don't forget he was also a cofounder at Pyra, so he has all of that filthy Google lucre as well.
Just because it has a Spanish name doesn't mean that it's bad.
That comparison site is only useful if you are assuming that the VPN itself cannot be a threat, a point which is refuted by the very article we are posting about.
The site even includes this disclaimer, which you have glossed over: "including if a given VPN service is not transparent and does not make the data available on their official site."
"The released emails from the Clinton campaign illustrated behavior that many voters can objectionable, and the only response I've ever heard was to accuse the alleged hackers who stole the data and released it."
What the emails did NOT illustrate was whether the Republican campaign was doing any better. While the release the emails gave us data, it did not give us information relevant to the choice between Republican and Democrat yet it was claimed to do so.
You are mistaking curators for messengers.
"I find them irritating, slow, awkward, and inaccurate"
This is exactly how I would describe a TrackPoint. It takes forever to move the pointer anywhere, yet even with that slowness I am still left spiraling around the target I am trying to hit.
That's the joke
1) You enable American workers to fill highly qualified positions by opening up the junior positions where they can become qualified.
2) Junior positions may be cheaper to fill from overseas, but senior positions are not.
"Your view that we should"
I will thank you to note that no where did I make any statement about the way things *SHOULD* be, only about how there are. Any claim that you make about my preferences is speculation on your part.
The Law Society of Scotland found it plausible that Scotland already meet the Copenhagen criteria:
http://www.parliament.scot/S4_...
Minimum time from application to accession thus far has been 2 years 10 months for Finland. The Law Society of Scotland found it plausible that Scotland already meet the Copenhagen criteria: http://www.parliament.scot/S4_...
There is no queue. Evaluation of the Copenhagen criteria occurs in parallel for all applicants. For example, Cyprus applied in 1990 and acceded in 2004, while Finland applied in 1992 and acceded in 1995.
"as productivity increases, so does supply which reduces costs"
This is a problem only if you assume that everyone already is getting everything they need or want, otherwise this means that standards of living increase.
"that typically means doing so by limiting productivity or creating jobs which do nothing productive."
This is true only if you assume that all useful work is already being done. Are all the potholes being filled in ass soon as they open up? Is all the food being distributed and cooked as soon as it is grown? Are all possible book and movies and paintings already in production? Are all houses people could live in already in production?
Basically, you have presented a position that depends on rejecting capitalism in favor of mercantilism.
Terms and Conditions: https://www.lexisnexis.com/ter...
which include...
"The Content on this Web Site is for your personal use only and not for commercial exploitation"
"You may not use the Content to determine a consumer's eligibility for: (a) credit or insurance for personal, family, or household purposes; (b) employment; or (c) a government license or benefit. "
"You may not copy, modify, reproduce, republish, distribute, display, or transmit for commercial, non-profit or public purposes all or any portion of this Web Site, except to the extent permitted above. "
So you can't use this as a source for many cases where the average non-lawyer might want to look up a law, or even quote a law from this source.
-1, irrelevant
What you quoted is only about works *created* by US government employees. It does not apply to works CITED by US government employees.
Majority of the old music was rubbish too
Hello, number without context! Are you large or small?
Without knowing what other forms of listening pay out, we can't tell whether the streaming sources are villains or victims. Note that royalties are not paid to the artist but to the label; the label pays the artist. So just knowing that the artist is receiving less from streaming sources is not enough to tell you that streaming sources are getting a great deal.
Roll call 199 was to call the question, i.e. to stop the debating procedure and have the vote on the bill. All Republicans and one Democrat voted Yea; no Republican voted Nay: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
Roll call 200 was for some additional resolution regarding the bill. All republicans and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
Roll call 201 was to table some appeal about a rule of order, i.e. to not consider it now. All but one Republican and no Democrats voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
Roll call 202 was the actual vote on the bill. 15 Republicans and all Democrats voted against it; the rest of the Republicans voted for it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
Strangely, this sequence of votes is not listed on the Floor Summary for 3/28: http://clerk.house.gov/floorsu...
I haven't found links for what the additional resolution and the tabled appeal, so I don't know what they are.
"part of journalism is, in fact, writing down what the subject tells you"
But just one part, otherwise you're a stenographer.
'One' is impersonal, indefinite, and may refer to a first- or second-person as well as third-person. Singular 'they' is personal, definite, and always refers to the third-person.
(I will cite Oregon traffic regulations from https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DM... as those are what I have at hand and mjw has not idsmissed them out of hand.)
Not being able to clear the intersection is about whether there is sufficient space in the roadway leaving the intersection. This violation can happen even when the light is green, and does not necessarily happen when the light is red, E.g. ORS 811.290(2) "The offense described in this section applies whether or not a traffic control device indicates to proceed." Therefore being in the intersection is not equal to blocking the intersection and this case is orthogonal to the question of being in the intersection when the light turns red.
The rule for a green signal plainly states that a vehicle already in the intersection has right of way, e.g. ORS 811.260(1) "...A driver shall yield right of way to other vehicles within the intersection at the time the green light is shown."