unlike most other person running, she isn't overly corrupt and she's not bat shit crazy.
What the fuck? Whitewater? Travelgate? Filegate? Character assassinations during the Lewinsky scandal? (which she said was a just a big right wing conspiracy right up until Bill admitted to it) Benghazi? Doing official government business on a private email server?
And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
If that was the case, then satellite providers wouldn't exist.
It comes down to this: Presently content companies are making a killing on per subscriber rates. The amounts they charge are hidden from the end consumer (they just pay one cable bill) but you know they're high because every now and then there's a big publicized dispute over it where the content companies try to encourage their customers to switch to satellite, or if its a satellite provider then they encourage them to switch to cable.
Remember, Intel spent some $1.5 billion dollars developing an over the top TV platform that they were convinced was REALLY good. The problem? The content industries (think Viacom, A&E, Turner, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) wouldn't agree to have their programming delivered over something like that, because they were afraid that it would create more competition to their already lucrative per subscriber rates that they get from cable companies. So they ended up scrapping the project and sold it to Verizon at a fraction of what it cost to create it.
The cable TV industry is VERY ripe for disruption, but the problem is the content owners have a virtual monopoly that they want to milk for all they can.
I don't think this is a cable company vs consumers issue so much as it is a content companies vs consumers issue.
A few cable companies (Charter is the biggest one with this view that I know of) said they'd be fine with just becoming a broadband company only. A few smaller ones have already done exactly that.
The cable companies who also happen to be content companies (Comcast) are fighting this the worst. That and the wireless providers (AT&T, Verizon) who presently have metered data penned as their new growth sector and have already bet a lot of future investments towards that end (all with no intention of actually competing on price.)
If it weren't for the content providers trying to fight this tooth and nail, over the top Cable TV services would have become mainstream years ago. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and (especially) Intel have dumped a ton of money to try to provide over the top services, but because they can't get the content providers to play ball, it's borderline impossible. Only just now Dish was able to get some content deals, but it comes at a huge cost (DVR timeshifting isn't permitted, only one person can watch at a time, blackout rules, and if the subscriber count grows over 2 million the providers can pull out of the service.)
In my (libertarian) opinion, there should be fewer government protections on copyright. Namely, any action of collusion of more than one entity to drive the overall prices of content up (namely, multiple content companies forming an agreement that they won't permit contracts with any company that doesn't have at least a large number of them on board in advance) should be subject to antitrust laws.
Interviewing is all about self marketing. Nobody is going to hire a stranger unless they have a good reason to. Especially for IT related jobs because they have to trust that you'll handle sensitive data responsibly instead of selling it to some guy in China for your own personal profit.
I think that in the end they might make it harder for themselves to recruit talent.
E.g. they find a really talented person who already has a job, but they REALLY want THIS person, so they make an offer. This person already makes at or near the amount offered, so he/she wants to negotiate for more before considering taking the position. End result is they don't acquire the talent they want and settle for something else.
I personally haven't tried to bargain for more, but I'm still rather fresh out of college so I've been rather satisfied with the offers I've received.
I've been told by a lot of foreign people that they like the way English sounds, in spite of it being hard to learn.
But its difficulty might be one of its strengths. The English language is somewhat remarkable at incorporating new words or foreign words into the mainstream vocabulary rather easily.
Maybe it's not being a parent and all, but I remember when I was 11 finding playboys and using swear words with my friends, and from what I understand this is basically normal for all kids of every generation, except in the older generations prior to pornography where the kids were more likely to engage in the real deal instead.
My first thought is: Why even use youtube for kids? Is content on youtube REALLY that damaging? I figure that at the worst, younger kids wouldn't understand what they're seeing, let alone somehow be damaged by it.
I'm going to stand out from the rest here and say that I think 8k is a good place to stop, similar to how VGA stopped at 24-bit color (not counting an added brightness channel, which will have a use in the future for better dynamic range IMO.)
The reason why is because soon enough, 72" TVs will be common, and 4k won't be enough if you sit less than 6 feet away from such a screen.
No, for Democrats it comes down to hoping that they'll make the hard/unpopular choices of keeping the environment clean, protecting citizens' rights in the face of "for the children" and "or the terrorists win"
Other than environment, I honestly can't think of any democrats that have promised that nor do I know of many democrats who have voted towards that end. Usually the focus is on taking things away to guarantee safety. In the case of this article, Pelosi wants to take away the first amendment. Democrats also frequently want to take away the second and fourth amendments as well, again, in the name of safety.
I believe what they're saying is that in this case they're able to troubleshoot issues from both the driver perspective and the game engine perspective. In the past you could only work with one or the other, and any problems found were harder to resolve because at the end of the day you had only a very narrow understanding of what the other is doing at the particular moment when the problem occurred.
For democrats, it mainly comes down to the belief that their guy will give them free stuff (money for nothing, chicks for free.)
For republicans, it mainly comes down to "is he conservative enough" without any clear definition of what "conservative" actually is. The British equivalent (if you're from there) would be that they want to make sure he's a True Scottsman.
Furthermore, I'm not sure why they're gloating about beating Arizona here. Arizona's largest metro area (Phoenix) receives all (and then some) of its electricity from clean power sources (nuclear and hydro) and even generates such an abundance of power that California actually buys 25% of its electricity from Arizona (and meanwhile California is still unable to meet its own power needs.)
First of all, those laws only apply for export and not usage. Second of all, those laws basically became moot after Phil Zimmermann argued (and prevailed) that all he would have to do is print his code to a book and then just mail it overseas. Since the book itself is protected by the first amendment (free speech) no laws can restrict its distribution.
The only way I could see the FBI getting anywhere with their case is if they were to forbid companies from selling devices domestically that included unbreakable encryption out of the box. If that was the case, there's still nothing stopping people from installing it by themselves.
That's a tricky question because poverty is defined strictly based on income and ignores wealth entirely. I've met the definition of poverty most of my life, but because of all of the material goods I've owned it would be easy to think I was what most people define as middle class. You could live in a mansion, but if you have low or no income then you're officially part of the poverty statistic.
Strange, I read that the cause of this was high amounts of lead in the environment. Why is it that all of a sudden the low tax rate is the cause of it?
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I always see a lot of people with very high end degrees eating a lot of junk food. For example, I know of few programmers whose dinner doesn't routinely consist of doritos and mountain dew.
I think what this might go to show is that a lot of drug enforcement officers are corrupt and keep a lot of the money they find in drug busts. Unlike what otherwise happens with loose cash, bitcoin allowed their activity to be traced.
That, along with the fact that a lot of police don't want drugs legalized, kind of hints that they get a lot of revenue from drug busts, while funding the busts themselves with taxpayer money.
Slashdot Mirror
More than that, would this work for rod cells? I have Congenital Stationary Night Blindness due to the rod cells not functioning properly.
unlike most other person running, she isn't overly corrupt and she's not bat shit crazy.
What the fuck? Whitewater? Travelgate? Filegate? Character assassinations during the Lewinsky scandal? (which she said was a just a big right wing conspiracy right up until Bill admitted to it) Benghazi? Doing official government business on a private email server?
And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
If that was the case, then satellite providers wouldn't exist.
It comes down to this: Presently content companies are making a killing on per subscriber rates. The amounts they charge are hidden from the end consumer (they just pay one cable bill) but you know they're high because every now and then there's a big publicized dispute over it where the content companies try to encourage their customers to switch to satellite, or if its a satellite provider then they encourage them to switch to cable.
Remember, Intel spent some $1.5 billion dollars developing an over the top TV platform that they were convinced was REALLY good. The problem? The content industries (think Viacom, A&E, Turner, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) wouldn't agree to have their programming delivered over something like that, because they were afraid that it would create more competition to their already lucrative per subscriber rates that they get from cable companies. So they ended up scrapping the project and sold it to Verizon at a fraction of what it cost to create it.
The cable TV industry is VERY ripe for disruption, but the problem is the content owners have a virtual monopoly that they want to milk for all they can.
I don't think this is a cable company vs consumers issue so much as it is a content companies vs consumers issue.
A few cable companies (Charter is the biggest one with this view that I know of) said they'd be fine with just becoming a broadband company only. A few smaller ones have already done exactly that.
The cable companies who also happen to be content companies (Comcast) are fighting this the worst. That and the wireless providers (AT&T, Verizon) who presently have metered data penned as their new growth sector and have already bet a lot of future investments towards that end (all with no intention of actually competing on price.)
If it weren't for the content providers trying to fight this tooth and nail, over the top Cable TV services would have become mainstream years ago. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and (especially) Intel have dumped a ton of money to try to provide over the top services, but because they can't get the content providers to play ball, it's borderline impossible. Only just now Dish was able to get some content deals, but it comes at a huge cost (DVR timeshifting isn't permitted, only one person can watch at a time, blackout rules, and if the subscriber count grows over 2 million the providers can pull out of the service.)
In my (libertarian) opinion, there should be fewer government protections on copyright. Namely, any action of collusion of more than one entity to drive the overall prices of content up (namely, multiple content companies forming an agreement that they won't permit contracts with any company that doesn't have at least a large number of them on board in advance) should be subject to antitrust laws.
Usually when somebody is sought after like that, they already have a reputation of being good at what they do.
Interviewing is all about self marketing. Nobody is going to hire a stranger unless they have a good reason to. Especially for IT related jobs because they have to trust that you'll handle sensitive data responsibly instead of selling it to some guy in China for your own personal profit.
I think that in the end they might make it harder for themselves to recruit talent.
E.g. they find a really talented person who already has a job, but they REALLY want THIS person, so they make an offer. This person already makes at or near the amount offered, so he/she wants to negotiate for more before considering taking the position. End result is they don't acquire the talent they want and settle for something else.
I personally haven't tried to bargain for more, but I'm still rather fresh out of college so I've been rather satisfied with the offers I've received.
I've been told by a lot of foreign people that they like the way English sounds, in spite of it being hard to learn.
But its difficulty might be one of its strengths. The English language is somewhat remarkable at incorporating new words or foreign words into the mainstream vocabulary rather easily.
Unless your password is longer than 28 characters then that doesn't hold true.
I made no commentary on politician promises. My commentary is on what the voters believe about their guy.
Maybe it's not being a parent and all, but I remember when I was 11 finding playboys and using swear words with my friends, and from what I understand this is basically normal for all kids of every generation, except in the older generations prior to pornography where the kids were more likely to engage in the real deal instead.
My first thought is: Why even use youtube for kids? Is content on youtube REALLY that damaging? I figure that at the worst, younger kids wouldn't understand what they're seeing, let alone somehow be damaged by it.
Just use normal youtube with ad filtering.
Ok, and don't say you didn't ask for this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm going to stand out from the rest here and say that I think 8k is a good place to stop, similar to how VGA stopped at 24-bit color (not counting an added brightness channel, which will have a use in the future for better dynamic range IMO.)
The reason why is because soon enough, 72" TVs will be common, and 4k won't be enough if you sit less than 6 feet away from such a screen.
What's wrong with a 2048-bit salt and 1000x sha256? That seems pretty secure to me.
No, for Democrats it comes down to hoping that they'll make the hard/unpopular choices of keeping the environment clean, protecting citizens' rights in the face of "for the children" and "or the terrorists win"
Other than environment, I honestly can't think of any democrats that have promised that nor do I know of many democrats who have voted towards that end. Usually the focus is on taking things away to guarantee safety. In the case of this article, Pelosi wants to take away the first amendment. Democrats also frequently want to take away the second and fourth amendments as well, again, in the name of safety.
I believe what they're saying is that in this case they're able to troubleshoot issues from both the driver perspective and the game engine perspective. In the past you could only work with one or the other, and any problems found were harder to resolve because at the end of the day you had only a very narrow understanding of what the other is doing at the particular moment when the problem occurred.
Or you know, the Democrats could nominate somebody competent for a change.
They don't have to be liars either, they can just be incredibly dumb and still get re-elected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
For democrats, it mainly comes down to the belief that their guy will give them free stuff (money for nothing, chicks for free.)
For republicans, it mainly comes down to "is he conservative enough" without any clear definition of what "conservative" actually is. The British equivalent (if you're from there) would be that they want to make sure he's a True Scottsman.
Furthermore, I'm not sure why they're gloating about beating Arizona here. Arizona's largest metro area (Phoenix) receives all (and then some) of its electricity from clean power sources (nuclear and hydro) and even generates such an abundance of power that California actually buys 25% of its electricity from Arizona (and meanwhile California is still unable to meet its own power needs.)
First of all, those laws only apply for export and not usage. Second of all, those laws basically became moot after Phil Zimmermann argued (and prevailed) that all he would have to do is print his code to a book and then just mail it overseas. Since the book itself is protected by the first amendment (free speech) no laws can restrict its distribution.
The only way I could see the FBI getting anywhere with their case is if they were to forbid companies from selling devices domestically that included unbreakable encryption out of the box. If that was the case, there's still nothing stopping people from installing it by themselves.
was it like that when growing up?
For me? Yeah, and same for many others I know.
what kind of poverty are we talking here anyhow?
That's a tricky question because poverty is defined strictly based on income and ignores wealth entirely. I've met the definition of poverty most of my life, but because of all of the material goods I've owned it would be easy to think I was what most people define as middle class. You could live in a mansion, but if you have low or no income then you're officially part of the poverty statistic.
Strange, I read that the cause of this was high amounts of lead in the environment. Why is it that all of a sudden the low tax rate is the cause of it?
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I always see a lot of people with very high end degrees eating a lot of junk food. For example, I know of few programmers whose dinner doesn't routinely consist of doritos and mountain dew.
I think what this might go to show is that a lot of drug enforcement officers are corrupt and keep a lot of the money they find in drug busts. Unlike what otherwise happens with loose cash, bitcoin allowed their activity to be traced.
That, along with the fact that a lot of police don't want drugs legalized, kind of hints that they get a lot of revenue from drug busts, while funding the busts themselves with taxpayer money.