subsidizes the manufacturing of American solar panels then the tariff effectively inflates the cost of a new solar panel in America. Sounds like a bum deal to me and it does to these guys too - https://www.wired.com/story/wh...
Also bear in mind that while producing power through solar panels in America is heavily subsidized, the manufacturing of the solar panels is not. Forbes notes that solar production is heavily subsidized by the American tax payer. I'm sure that hurts some people's feelings but honestly I think anything that creates a real incentive for Americans to invest in real green technology should be labeled A Good Thing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
I'd argue that anecdotal evidence is acceptable in this case since the CEO is in effect saying that it makes sense to replace cashiers with kiosks in all his franchises - it may be a bum deal especially for his low volume franchises. The McDonald's that I speak of in the anecdote, however, is high-volume since it is the only McDonald's in town and they keep their service times low by bottle-necking the order-placing process. They do always keep two drive-thru cashiers though. And don't expect the manager to permanently replace any one employee - their job is to perform administrative duties and to assist the team during rush and you're definitely not gonna get some of them to ever take out the trash or mop up a spilt drink. Anecdotal though my argument may be, my argument stands - it may make sense in some restaurants but not all of them and there's a good chance that the franchise owners have already put thought into it and decided that the franchise is just trying to sell them something that it's hard for them to afford.
Usually when I walk into a fast food restaurant there is exactly one person working the register. If business picks up, a manager will open a second register.
Assuming the restaurant is open twelve hours a day for walk-in business, the gross cost of labor is ~48k at 11/hr before payroll taxes for having a cashier up front.
Oh, wait, we would still need that cashier up front to assist customers. Whether it's helping the user navigate the UI, or correcting bad orders (customer meant to hit no pickles, not extra pickles), or simply greeting customers, running orders to tables, bussing tables, dealing with jammed cash kiosks, etc. So really the worker was never eliminated - they just became more efficient at their job. I'm sure the business owner (not the corporation! The franchise isn't giving away free kiosks!) would see a return on his investment in a kiosk... Eventually.
And don't try to tell me that these kiosks are bullet-proof. The McDonald's down the street from me has one, and it's been down for months now. I guess they can't afford the maintenance cost.
If the idea is to identify Psy Ops performed by the Russkies then indeed this bill is missing the forest for the trees. Just think Pizzagate - no one in their right mind would consider that a political ad. Still, it played a part in discrediting the Democrats and the Clinton campaign. I still think it's a good bill though - online political ads should be treated no differently than tv ads. Just don't miss the forest for the trees..
Wrong thread
Stuxnet, as stated in another thread, definitely happened, along with the Russian oil pipeline explosion in 1982. Those are definitely category one's. So yeah I'm with you, there's more to worry about than just Amazon going down for a couple of days. Still, I'd anticipate the attack vectors to be something other than municipal systems, depending on the motivation of the actor.
No, you're right, those are all terrible things that are allegedly feasible through cyber attacks. However, the director insinuated that a category one cyber attack had never ever occurred before. Again, that may be true in the UK, but I guarantee the other two events that I listed warranted a "category one" cyber attack in their respective countries.
Maybe he's talking about in the UK specifically, or maybe his definition of a category one cyber-attack is different from my own (confession - I didn't RTFA to find out how cyber attacks are classified!)
But if you want to talk about major acts of sabotage perpetuated through "cyber" -
http://www.zdnet.com/article/u...
Also, that whole Stuxnet thing
Assuming that most of the Rotten Tomato users aren't reviewing a pirated copy of a movie, one review, good or bad, equals one ticket sold. Unless the movie was so bad that you demanded your money back from the theatre, but it seems a little disingenuous to review a movie that you didn't even watch all of;)
Being connected to the internet is basically a necessity these days to get any job or benefits, and a basic smartphone costs maybe twenty bucks. Do you really expect people to lift themselves up by the bootstraps if they can't even apply for a shift at McDonald's?
That could be the case, but I doubt it. First, I doubt that human resources actually ever looked at any real work. Secondly, I doubt that my project manager would've downright begged me to apply to the permanent position if she didn't actually want to hire me. But what do I know? I'm sure that the correct answer is that I suck at life and I've just been waiting for a stranger on the internet to tell me. That doesn't mean you're not right, though.
I worked my last position as a contract-to-hire for two and half years. Since I only have an associate's degree, they were barely able to get me approved at the initial hire. Human resources ended up making that bachelor's degree mandatory by the end of my contract and they refused to even consider hiring me. But I'm okay now, because somebody else hired me, eventually. Fingers crossed that this contract-to-hire works out!
Large gross receipts do not equal large (or even any) profits. Hosting, data rates, licensing, royalties, compliance costs, lawyers...none of that is cheap, especially at the amounts, sizes, and amount of pure red tape involved. Much of that income is also from streaming non-US/RIAA artists and content as well.
Ultimately, the labels and RIAA-type organizations are doomed. The very nature of how people acquire and listen to music has totally changed and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
I still see it as a race to the bottom. My issue isn't whether this affects the labels' bottom line. I write my own music, I perform my own music, I'm interested in copyrighting my own music, I want to use Spotify to provide another avenue for listeners to hear my music. If I get lucky enough to get featured on a playlist, I'd like to think people would actually hear my work, not maybe hear it after listening to fifty fluffer tracks that Spotify put in there. I know better than to expect to become rich from the streaming, but you know what if I put out a hit that I spent my own time/money on equipment, mixing, mastering, copyrighting, all that jazz, I don't want someone reneging on the rate that we agreed to. I just don't understand how you don't see this practice as unethical of Spotify. If it were ethical, I am certain that they would have no problem being forthcoming about the practice.
Spotify reported $3 billion in revenue last year, so I imagine that they're doing okay. I'm sure that they'd say that they were on a shoe-string budget if you asked them though.
I do commend you for pulling in solid cash doing session work. It does speak to your skill. Charging a flat fee (at what I'm sure is a premium price) is smart too. Then you don't have to worry about whether the act is getting screwed over by his label or whatever.
Don't get me wrong, good music is good music, "filler" or not. And you're absolutely right - it's up to an artist to demand the value of their work. What I see is that Spotify is doing really well off a royalty system and feels the need to push the royalty rates even lower by contriving competition by commissioning music. It's whatever. Gotta play to win, right?
Streaming is a legitimate means of advertising one's material to a larger audience thereby earning more gigs. I'm sure that as a life-long musician with an illustrious career that you understand the need to use many different avenues for advertising your work to new markets. So no of course the royalties from streaming is worth next to nothing but the marketing you get from having people actually hear your music is. If the charts are ate up by a bunch of filler, there's no room for yooouuuuu
Slashdot Mirror
subsidizes the manufacturing of American solar panels then the tariff effectively inflates the cost of a new solar panel in America. Sounds like a bum deal to me and it does to these guys too - https://www.wired.com/story/wh... Also bear in mind that while producing power through solar panels in America is heavily subsidized, the manufacturing of the solar panels is not. Forbes notes that solar production is heavily subsidized by the American tax payer. I'm sure that hurts some people's feelings but honestly I think anything that creates a real incentive for Americans to invest in real green technology should be labeled A Good Thing. https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
I beat you to it. I got a 'Do Not Resuscitate' tattoo across my lower back. I'll never regret that.
I can just roll up my clothes and smoke them when I'm done with them. I'll throw in a Tide pod for an extra kick.
Well I can't argue with that kind of logic.
I'd argue that anecdotal evidence is acceptable in this case since the CEO is in effect saying that it makes sense to replace cashiers with kiosks in all his franchises - it may be a bum deal especially for his low volume franchises. The McDonald's that I speak of in the anecdote, however, is high-volume since it is the only McDonald's in town and they keep their service times low by bottle-necking the order-placing process. They do always keep two drive-thru cashiers though. And don't expect the manager to permanently replace any one employee - their job is to perform administrative duties and to assist the team during rush and you're definitely not gonna get some of them to ever take out the trash or mop up a spilt drink. Anecdotal though my argument may be, my argument stands - it may make sense in some restaurants but not all of them and there's a good chance that the franchise owners have already put thought into it and decided that the franchise is just trying to sell them something that it's hard for them to afford.
Usually when I walk into a fast food restaurant there is exactly one person working the register. If business picks up, a manager will open a second register. Assuming the restaurant is open twelve hours a day for walk-in business, the gross cost of labor is ~48k at 11/hr before payroll taxes for having a cashier up front. Oh, wait, we would still need that cashier up front to assist customers. Whether it's helping the user navigate the UI, or correcting bad orders (customer meant to hit no pickles, not extra pickles), or simply greeting customers, running orders to tables, bussing tables, dealing with jammed cash kiosks, etc. So really the worker was never eliminated - they just became more efficient at their job. I'm sure the business owner (not the corporation! The franchise isn't giving away free kiosks!) would see a return on his investment in a kiosk... Eventually. And don't try to tell me that these kiosks are bullet-proof. The McDonald's down the street from me has one, and it's been down for months now. I guess they can't afford the maintenance cost.
If the idea is to identify Psy Ops performed by the Russkies then indeed this bill is missing the forest for the trees. Just think Pizzagate - no one in their right mind would consider that a political ad. Still, it played a part in discrediting the Democrats and the Clinton campaign. I still think it's a good bill though - online political ads should be treated no differently than tv ads. Just don't miss the forest for the trees..
It was a feature. But don't tell the press that!
Wrong thread Stuxnet, as stated in another thread, definitely happened, along with the Russian oil pipeline explosion in 1982. Those are definitely category one's. So yeah I'm with you, there's more to worry about than just Amazon going down for a couple of days. Still, I'd anticipate the attack vectors to be something other than municipal systems, depending on the motivation of the actor.
No, you're right, those are all terrible things that are allegedly feasible through cyber attacks. However, the director insinuated that a category one cyber attack had never ever occurred before. Again, that may be true in the UK, but I guarantee the other two events that I listed warranted a "category one" cyber attack in their respective countries.
Maybe he's talking about in the UK specifically, or maybe his definition of a category one cyber-attack is different from my own (confession - I didn't RTFA to find out how cyber attacks are classified!) But if you want to talk about major acts of sabotage perpetuated through "cyber" - http://www.zdnet.com/article/u... Also, that whole Stuxnet thing
Assuming that most of the Rotten Tomato users aren't reviewing a pirated copy of a movie, one review, good or bad, equals one ticket sold. Unless the movie was so bad that you demanded your money back from the theatre, but it seems a little disingenuous to review a movie that you didn't even watch all of ;)
Being connected to the internet is basically a necessity these days to get any job or benefits, and a basic smartphone costs maybe twenty bucks. Do you really expect people to lift themselves up by the bootstraps if they can't even apply for a shift at McDonald's?
Now implementing the blink tag, that's just too far!
Then we could all enjoy a stim-fast diet!
It gives a whole new meaning to the term "white-hat hacker"
“Luck Is What Happens When Preparation Meets Opportunity" -- Seneca
That's when you write some really hacky code but it's okay because somebody else signed off on it.
That could be the case, but I doubt it. First, I doubt that human resources actually ever looked at any real work. Secondly, I doubt that my project manager would've downright begged me to apply to the permanent position if she didn't actually want to hire me. But what do I know? I'm sure that the correct answer is that I suck at life and I've just been waiting for a stranger on the internet to tell me. That doesn't mean you're not right, though.
I worked my last position as a contract-to-hire for two and half years. Since I only have an associate's degree, they were barely able to get me approved at the initial hire. Human resources ended up making that bachelor's degree mandatory by the end of my contract and they refused to even consider hiring me. But I'm okay now, because somebody else hired me, eventually. Fingers crossed that this contract-to-hire works out!
M*A*S*H was a documentary, right?
Large gross receipts do not equal large (or even any) profits. Hosting, data rates, licensing, royalties, compliance costs, lawyers...none of that is cheap, especially at the amounts, sizes, and amount of pure red tape involved. Much of that income is also from streaming non-US/RIAA artists and content as well.
Ultimately, the labels and RIAA-type organizations are doomed. The very nature of how people acquire and listen to music has totally changed and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
I still see it as a race to the bottom. My issue isn't whether this affects the labels' bottom line. I write my own music, I perform my own music, I'm interested in copyrighting my own music, I want to use Spotify to provide another avenue for listeners to hear my music. If I get lucky enough to get featured on a playlist, I'd like to think people would actually hear my work, not maybe hear it after listening to fifty fluffer tracks that Spotify put in there. I know better than to expect to become rich from the streaming, but you know what if I put out a hit that I spent my own time/money on equipment, mixing, mastering, copyrighting, all that jazz, I don't want someone reneging on the rate that we agreed to. I just don't understand how you don't see this practice as unethical of Spotify. If it were ethical, I am certain that they would have no problem being forthcoming about the practice.
Here's another wikipedia about nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Spotify reported $3 billion in revenue last year, so I imagine that they're doing okay. I'm sure that they'd say that they were on a shoe-string budget if you asked them though. I do commend you for pulling in solid cash doing session work. It does speak to your skill. Charging a flat fee (at what I'm sure is a premium price) is smart too. Then you don't have to worry about whether the act is getting screwed over by his label or whatever. Don't get me wrong, good music is good music, "filler" or not. And you're absolutely right - it's up to an artist to demand the value of their work. What I see is that Spotify is doing really well off a royalty system and feels the need to push the royalty rates even lower by contriving competition by commissioning music. It's whatever. Gotta play to win, right?
Streaming is a legitimate means of advertising one's material to a larger audience thereby earning more gigs. I'm sure that as a life-long musician with an illustrious career that you understand the need to use many different avenues for advertising your work to new markets. So no of course the royalties from streaming is worth next to nothing but the marketing you get from having people actually hear your music is. If the charts are ate up by a bunch of filler, there's no room for yooouuuuu