...even if Telecom Cable wins, the max damages amount to pocket change for Comcast, and, if my understanding is correct, Telecom Cable still remains irreparably harmed, probably out of business. So Comcast wins no matter what happens.
Not necessarily. It creates dangerous precedent that could encourage others to pursue similar lawsuits. That's what I'm rooting for, anyway.
Second. I've used gmail since 2010 (I think) and you know what? I still use it on a daily basis. It's packed with features, integrates well with devices and apps and, best of all, it's not Yahoo!:-) the only downside is the whole privacy thing. But, then, privacy is dead.
No, it's not. In fact, both the title and summary are moronically wrong. The crux of the article is that they used gravitational lensing to explain some weird stellar phenomena. I don't blame you for not having read TFA, I just did to kill time...
First, as many previous commenters pointed out, you can't prove something to someone who's dead. Also, this has been proved 100 years ago (by Einstein himself, of all people). That being said, I bothered to read TFA and the article from Science and, as you can imagine, it says nothing of the sort. Rather:
Here lies the importance of Sahu et al.’s project. Their astrometric lensing mea surements show convincingly that Stein 2051 B is not an exotic “iron core” white dwarf but a rather typical one, with a carbon-oxygen core and a normal mass and radius, thus resolving the long-standing debate over its nature.
(sic)
So, they didn't prove that gravitational lensing exists (duh), but rather it was used to explain some weird anomaly. Cool, but definitely not as headline grabby as "Scientists Prove Einstein Wrong".
This. And, from what I understand, many prisons are privately run with revenue determined by the number of people incarcerated. Talk about some f'ed up incentives.
I once taught math at a "Top Tier" college and was absolutely appalled by what I saw: kids cared more about whining for better grades than actually working for them. I once had a student who got upset that I deducted 1/3 of her quiz grade because she left one of the questions blank (out of three). She could not understand, for the life of her, why I would do such a thing. Another complained to the chair that I gave him a poor grade on his final project (half was blank, and what was written managed to contradict itself). Additionally, for my exams, I tried to focus on applying concepts we've learned in class, yet many of them had noticeable difficulty doing anything that wasn't directly regurgitated from class. It's entirely possible that I was an ineffective professor, however when your feedback to your teaching is either "no comment", "you suck" or "you're awesome", it's hard to know for sure.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but to be fair, (s)he seems to be the only one posting anything. Scrolling down the first page, of the 15 or so articles only 3 were posted by someone else (msmash). The remaining is all BeauHD.
Smith college, a private institution, openly does not accept male students for admission (yet if you enter as a woman and change, that's perfectly fine). I have yet to see a straight male work at Victoria's Secret. Similarly, I've worked at a local gym for quite some time and when I expressed interest in working as a babysitter (I'm good with kids), in addition to my role at front desk, I was never given that role. Thus far only females have had it.
Harvard is proudly hosting a black-only graduation event while some UMichigan students are demanding a non-white safe-space.
It's only discriminatory if it applies to non-white cisgender males.
The hoops some people jump through to justify this.
I hope so too, but looking at the article there is no mention of any form of solid evidence she had against the company. On the contrary, statements like "Although she had positive performance evaluations, she felt she had to transfer out of general assembly to the purchasing department" (emphasis mine) seem to imply that this was based more on feelings than fact. Of course, I could be wrong, but with all the free-riders playing the woman-card and a lack of evidence (at least based on the posted article), I'm naturally disinclined to believe her.
It's been quite some time since I last listened to what he had to say so spoonfeeding you the evidence would require that I go back and listen to all his crap again (which, quite frankly, I won't bother since I have way bigger fish to fry right now). That being said, if you're that defensive over mere assertions of bias then i fear there's nothing anybody could ever show you that would sway your opinion.
p.s. I'm Independent. Nice try though.
This is scary considering how wrong or incredibly misleading (read: biased) he has been on issues I'm more familiar with. I'll go ahead and assume the same level of bias on other topics as well. The fact that people (millenials?) gobble up his crap without second thought is mindboggling (FWIW, I am NOT a republican)
Such as? Yes, we get it, you're not Republican, you're Alt-Right. Have any non-alternative facts to back up your assertion?
This is scary considering how wrong or incredibly misleading (read: biased) he has been on issues I'm more familiar with. I'll go ahead and assume the same level of bias on other topics as well. The fact that people (millenials?) gobble up his crap without second thought is mindboggling (FWIW, I am NOT a republican)
The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) produce the chips for the great and the good of the PC hardware market... well, specifically Nvidia and latterly AMD.
Maybe this is early AM here, but what the hell does this even mean? I also found grammar errors including missing punctuation. Not saying that this source is incorrect, but it lost a shit ton of credibility here. Please, real news sources, guys!
We're actually smart, if not faulty. Problem is that charisma is a good way to charm people into being disposed to believing you (look at Jonestown), narcisism means that they will use if to their advantage. There's a good book on this: Influence: the psychology of persuasion. It liists quite well known psychological "faults" of the human mind and how it can easily be exploited (and how to avoid it in the first place).
Hopefully. Call me cynical, but question: of all the $$ they dish out for ad revenue, what fraction goes to small-time videos? Could be a good way to cut down on costs. Any google-ites care to chime in?
If a movie is only good because it's on a big-screen, then it's likely a shite movie to begin with. I watched avatar at home (on my computer) and realized that it was a piece of trash. Utterly boring with only cinematics that's actually worth anything, and even so.... I was soooooo glad I didn't have to pay $20 to see THAT! piece of crap.
2. People everywhere.
Yeah, nothing better than: 1) watching someone look at their cell phones with a screen bright enough to rival the bat signal or 2) hearing people chatting about whatever the fuck they need to talk about mid movie. Yeah, gonna miss that.
3. Focus.
Right...see my rebuttal to #2.
4. Relentlessness. Part of the advantage of that kind of focus is that movies that are tense, scary, or deeply emotional can cast much more of a spell over you...
If, like parent said, the movie is any good. I don't want boredom or stupidity (again, Avatar) enhanced. Home viewing was bad enough.
5. A massive speaker system.
Huh!? How's that any good? Get a decent sound system (a couple hundred bucks should do just fine) with bluetooth headphone compatibility and you have the cinema beat. Cheaper in the LR, too.
6. Previews.
OK, ok. I love previews - but not $20 worth. Also NO ADS at home, right!?
7. Disruption.
Disruption (no change there)
8. Alone time.
huh!? what about #2? You know: 'people everywhere'? If you're lonely surrounded by lots of people, you have bigger issues than where to watch a movie (I know -- I've been through that).
9. 32 ounces of cola in the dark.
Last I checked (2+ years ago), a soda and popcorn was cost as much as the already over-priced movie. No thanks.
10. Bragging rights.
This is just dumb
So there you have it: 10 reasons why the movie experience is over-rated (and over priced)
Think of it this way: Compare a traditional restaurant vs all-you-can eat buffet. In a restaurant, you typically get one meal and perhaps a desert and call it a night. In an all-you-can eat buffet, you stuff yourself until they have to wheel you out. Why? Because in the first case you're limited by price constraints; the more you buy the more you pay. In the latter, since you paid for it might as well take the most advantage out of the situation as possible so you use the product as much as possible for as long as you can. Same goes with tech workers: hourly pay means higher cost for longer hours. Salaried means lower cost for longer hours (in an hourly basis).
So, let me get this straight: Mr. Green drives through a green light then WHAM! gets t-boned because Mr. Red blew the red light. Are you saying that they both share the blame because Mr Green didn't look both ways? How, good sir, is this any different? There's a reason why it's a "walk" sign (a pedestrian green light, if you will). Because, you know, it's safe for you to walk (but only if others follow the rules)...
That's all good if the pedestrian just mindlessly walks into traffic and didn't have the right of way. Sometimes it's the driver who's to blame. Just this morning I was poking around in the phone while waiting for the "walk" light (and sound). I hear it, briefly look up and start walking...only to almost be hit by a car. Fortunately, I was in the most hospital dense part of the country, but what the hell!? This never would have happened had the driver not ran the red light!
Don't get me wrong - pedestrians can really be asshats who "deserve" to get run over (go drive by Harvard square and Boston University and you'll see what I mean), but other times it's the cars to blame. The reason we see more pedestrian deaths is that, regardless of whose fault it is, they are the small 150lbs of squishy meat. Not much compared to 2 tons of metal, so of course pedestrians lose. Point is: we all suck and need to be more attentive to what's around us.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. It creates dangerous precedent that could encourage others to pursue similar lawsuits. That's what I'm rooting for, anyway.
Second. I've used gmail since 2010 (I think) and you know what? I still use it on a daily basis. It's packed with features, integrates well with devices and apps and, best of all, it's not Yahoo! :-) the only downside is the whole privacy thing. But, then, privacy is dead.
No, it's not. In fact, both the title and summary are moronically wrong. The crux of the article is that they used gravitational lensing to explain some weird stellar phenomena. I don't blame you for not having read TFA, I just did to kill time...
Here lies the importance of Sahu et al.’s project. Their astrometric lensing mea surements show convincingly that Stein 2051 B is not an exotic “iron core” white dwarf but a rather typical one, with a carbon-oxygen core and a normal mass and radius, thus resolving the long-standing debate over its nature.
(sic) So, they didn't prove that gravitational lensing exists (duh), but rather it was used to explain some weird anomaly. Cool, but definitely not as headline grabby as "Scientists Prove Einstein Wrong".
May 29 1919 is very, very old news.
well, this is Slashdot...
Great account of the events that changed WWII. Good book, too.
This. And, from what I understand, many prisons are privately run with revenue determined by the number of people incarcerated. Talk about some f'ed up incentives.
I once taught math at a "Top Tier" college and was absolutely appalled by what I saw: kids cared more about whining for better grades than actually working for them. I once had a student who got upset that I deducted 1/3 of her quiz grade because she left one of the questions blank (out of three). She could not understand, for the life of her, why I would do such a thing. Another complained to the chair that I gave him a poor grade on his final project (half was blank, and what was written managed to contradict itself). Additionally, for my exams, I tried to focus on applying concepts we've learned in class, yet many of them had noticeable difficulty doing anything that wasn't directly regurgitated from class. It's entirely possible that I was an ineffective professor, however when your feedback to your teaching is either "no comment", "you suck" or "you're awesome", it's hard to know for sure.
He did this because he's powerful enough to get away with it, not because he's the saint of Freedom of Speech.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but to be fair, (s)he seems to be the only one posting anything. Scrolling down the first page, of the 15 or so articles only 3 were posted by someone else (msmash). The remaining is all BeauHD.
Smith college, a private institution, openly does not accept male students for admission (yet if you enter as a woman and change, that's perfectly fine). I have yet to see a straight male work at Victoria's Secret. Similarly, I've worked at a local gym for quite some time and when I expressed interest in working as a babysitter (I'm good with kids), in addition to my role at front desk, I was never given that role. Thus far only females have had it.
Harvard is proudly hosting a black-only graduation event while some UMichigan students are demanding a non-white safe-space.
It's only discriminatory if it applies to non-white cisgender males.
The hoops some people jump through to justify this.
I hope so too, but looking at the article there is no mention of any form of solid evidence she had against the company. On the contrary, statements like "Although she had positive performance evaluations, she felt she had to transfer out of general assembly to the purchasing department" (emphasis mine) seem to imply that this was based more on feelings than fact. Of course, I could be wrong, but with all the free-riders playing the woman-card and a lack of evidence (at least based on the posted article), I'm naturally disinclined to believe her.
Hell no
Last time I saw someone hallucinate on that (back in college), she thought I was the devil. It was really weird.
I think you mean Paint Drying II: The Other Wall. Wow! Can't wait! Another glorious 10 hours of watching paint dry!
It's been quite some time since I last listened to what he had to say so spoonfeeding you the evidence would require that I go back and listen to all his crap again (which, quite frankly, I won't bother since I have way bigger fish to fry right now). That being said, if you're that defensive over mere assertions of bias then i fear there's nothing anybody could ever show you that would sway your opinion.
p.s. I'm Independent. Nice try though.
This is scary considering how wrong or incredibly misleading (read: biased) he has been on issues I'm more familiar with. I'll go ahead and assume the same level of bias on other topics as well. The fact that people (millenials?) gobble up his crap without second thought is mindboggling (FWIW, I am NOT a republican)
Such as? Yes, we get it, you're not Republican, you're Alt-Right. Have any non-alternative facts to back up your assertion?
This is scary considering how wrong or incredibly misleading (read: biased) he has been on issues I'm more familiar with. I'll go ahead and assume the same level of bias on other topics as well. The fact that people (millenials?) gobble up his crap without second thought is mindboggling (FWIW, I am NOT a republican)
Maybe this is early AM here, but what the hell does this even mean? I also found grammar errors including missing punctuation. Not saying that this source is incorrect, but it lost a shit ton of credibility here. Please, real news sources, guys!
We're actually smart, if not faulty. Problem is that charisma is a good way to charm people into being disposed to believing you (look at Jonestown), narcisism means that they will use if to their advantage. There's a good book on this: Influence: the psychology of persuasion. It liists quite well known psychological "faults" of the human mind and how it can easily be exploited (and how to avoid it in the first place).
'nuff said.
Hopefully. Call me cynical, but question: of all the $$ they dish out for ad revenue, what fraction goes to small-time videos? Could be a good way to cut down on costs. Any google-ites care to chime in?
1. The big screen.
If a movie is only good because it's on a big-screen, then it's likely a shite movie to begin with. I watched avatar at home (on my computer) and realized that it was a piece of trash. Utterly boring with only cinematics that's actually worth anything, and even so.... I was soooooo glad I didn't have to pay $20 to see THAT! piece of crap.
2. People everywhere.
Yeah, nothing better than: 1) watching someone look at their cell phones with a screen bright enough to rival the bat signal or 2) hearing people chatting about whatever the fuck they need to talk about mid movie. Yeah, gonna miss that.
3. Focus.
Right...see my rebuttal to #2.
4. Relentlessness. Part of the advantage of that kind of focus is that movies that are tense, scary, or deeply emotional can cast much more of a spell over you...
If, like parent said, the movie is any good. I don't want boredom or stupidity (again, Avatar) enhanced. Home viewing was bad enough.
5. A massive speaker system.
Huh!? How's that any good? Get a decent sound system (a couple hundred bucks should do just fine) with bluetooth headphone compatibility and you have the cinema beat. Cheaper in the LR, too.
6. Previews.
OK, ok. I love previews - but not $20 worth. Also NO ADS at home, right!?
7. Disruption.
Disruption (no change there)
8. Alone time.
huh!? what about #2? You know: 'people everywhere'? If you're lonely surrounded by lots of people, you have bigger issues than where to watch a movie (I know -- I've been through that).
9. 32 ounces of cola in the dark.
Last I checked (2+ years ago), a soda and popcorn was cost as much as the already over-priced movie. No thanks.
10. Bragging rights.
This is just dumb
So there you have it: 10 reasons why the movie experience is over-rated (and over priced)
Think of it this way: Compare a traditional restaurant vs all-you-can eat buffet. In a restaurant, you typically get one meal and perhaps a desert and call it a night. In an all-you-can eat buffet, you stuff yourself until they have to wheel you out. Why? Because in the first case you're limited by price constraints; the more you buy the more you pay. In the latter, since you paid for it might as well take the most advantage out of the situation as possible so you use the product as much as possible for as long as you can. Same goes with tech workers: hourly pay means higher cost for longer hours. Salaried means lower cost for longer hours (in an hourly basis).
So, let me get this straight: Mr. Green drives through a green light then WHAM! gets t-boned because Mr. Red blew the red light. Are you saying that they both share the blame because Mr Green didn't look both ways? How, good sir, is this any different? There's a reason why it's a "walk" sign (a pedestrian green light, if you will). Because, you know, it's safe for you to walk (but only if others follow the rules)...
That's all good if the pedestrian just mindlessly walks into traffic and didn't have the right of way. Sometimes it's the driver who's to blame. Just this morning I was poking around in the phone while waiting for the "walk" light (and sound). I hear it, briefly look up and start walking...only to almost be hit by a car. Fortunately, I was in the most hospital dense part of the country, but what the hell!? This never would have happened had the driver not ran the red light!
Don't get me wrong - pedestrians can really be asshats who "deserve" to get run over (go drive by Harvard square and Boston University and you'll see what I mean), but other times it's the cars to blame. The reason we see more pedestrian deaths is that, regardless of whose fault it is, they are the small 150lbs of squishy meat. Not much compared to 2 tons of metal, so of course pedestrians lose. Point is: we all suck and need to be more attentive to what's around us.