I predict that movie rental stores will outlast this technology. I predict that movie rental stores will outlast DVD technology. Why? Because it's convenient, pay-per-view isn't nearly as convenient, streaming media is only for those willing to fork over 50 bucks a month for internet(not nearly as large a slice of the population that the slashdot crowd thinks), tivo limited technology, and people's natural tendency is to have convenience(buy or rent depends on the circumstances.)
Single use DVD won't carry the market. DVD's and VHS tapes will, at least for the next 5-10 years.
BTW....where are your sources that this market is dying? Sounds like bullshit to me.
Funny, I thought genetically inferior for a community-based species such as our's would mean the socially inept, physically unattractive, and the isolated. Looks like the/. crowd is heading for extinction.
Clinton go into trouble because he lied under oath. The bj is for the divorce court to handle. As for Enron, boy, you really don't pay attention do you? "This Enron deal" is nothing compared to an impeachment. It's not even as big as the S&L crisis.
The internet bubble grew during Clinton's years in office. The bubble burst in 2000, remember? That would be under Clinton's watch, dipshit. Trillions of dollars sunk into vapordotcom's will have an effect on the economy. Your claim that the dot com failures had an extremely minimal effect on the market smokes of someone who simply didn't pay attention.
Yes, the Dow goes up and down. It does that, especially in times of great uncertainty and ambiguity. Institutional investors, the drivers of the market, are quite prone to jumping ship when it starts to rock a little bit.
BTW....if you saw what was heading our way, how's life? You know, with those billions you made shorting stocks. Oh wait. You didn't do that, did you. Life just isn't fair for the unbelievably bright, is it?
I'm not trying to be an ass...I really want to know. Could you give me a starting point? The topic of how the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire seems to be a rather harsh starting point. Is there any particular name or subject I could search for?
Sysadmin aren't the bottom ring of any company. From the very very large(GE, Kraft, anyone?) to the very small(20 employees) sysadmin are NEVER the bottom rung. That spot is reserved for the new marketing employee. The sysadmin's I work with control my life, and get my respect.
Could they code? Sure. Most of em have. Do they enjoy tinkering with machines and toys rather than chasing down the one cascading error in thousand's of lines of code? Looks like it.
I'm at a loss. Why on earth would someone cover this review? There's no new information, and the whole article reads like an advertisement for the X-Box. WTF? Am I the only one not enamoured with this gigantic POS?
A year and a half ago, I walked into a place(trading shop) and the tech's there had three or four monitors they switched between by moving their mouse. How is this any big deal? Not only did they have several monitors, they could choose which computer under their desk actually displayed on each monitor...so each computer spewed onto one or many monitors, depending on what they wanted. How is this better?
Actually, dipshit, if you had bother to watch the news instead of hitting the waterbong/masturbating again/sleeping through class/masturbating AGAIN you would've seen that from the VERY ONSET it has never been about getting one person. The demands relayed to the Taliban SPECIFICALLY RELAYED THIS.
Grow up, and stop dreaming about sodomizing the little boys next door.
How can you separate these issues when one is facilitated by the other? If I don't need an ID, how can they do the background check? If I don't need a background check then what's the purpose of all the info on the ID?
These issues are related, but not necessarily equal. Don't fall for a slippery slope argument. Just because B requires A doesn't mean that implementing A implicitly implements B.
No, a search is not the checking of ID. The checking of ID is authentication. They challenge your right to be there, and YOU provide the proof that you are allowed here. The key difference is that YOU provide they proof...they don't check your pockets for your wallet, in this instance.
How does my freedom of movement remain unfettered when I have to submit to a "search" every time I want to move?
Where is this freedom outlayed in the U.S. Constitution?
How does my freedom of association remain intact when they're checking me against everyone who ever lived at the same address?
Who says they're checking you EVERY time? Who says they're checking you personally at all?
How does my freedom of speech still exist when I get a background check, allowed by the existence of my ID and facilitated by my need to fly, whenever I go to a protest?
You do not have a constitutional right to airline service. Just clearing the air here. You can protest. You might not be able to take the privately owned airplane, but such is life.
I don't really care if the ignorant masses "don't mind" the idea of a national ID card. I _do_ mind.
Well, I don't know how to take this. Either its fallacious logic(anyone who disagrees with me is incorrect), elitism(anyone who disagrees with me is part of an ignorant mob), or both. No matter....you're betraying a rather ugly streak here.
Last I checked the constitution couldn't be overridden just by getting a majority of mislead people to agree to a national phone poll and I'm pretty damned chafed that you and the Bush administration are trying to get away with it.
The most common mistake of the novice is oversimplification.
You had a Jr. High to attend. You had veteran's benefits. Your benefits paid 75% of tuition. You're still lucky.
Great. You worked hard, and got where you are. There's no joy in being bitter about the fact that no one was there when you needed it. People don't need to be treated like animals in order for a company to turn a profit.
Yes, I can do simple math, such as what you displayed. How about a little more complex math. Employees of type A cost x. Employees of type B cost 1.25x, but do twice the amount of work that type A does. Why do they do this? Because they work harder. Why do they work harder? Because hiring policy dictates that only hard workers are to be hired.
Cost for all type A? Ax.
Cost for hiring all type B? (.5A)*(1.25x) = (.6125)Ax.
Cost savings? Hmm...a paltry 38.75%. Even if a significant number of people hired as type B are actually type A, the cost is still lower provided the majority of the workers are type B.
Buddy, we've lived the same life. Same path through the shithole jobs, same type of jobs even.
But.
You had the hope that you could escape. So did I. That's why I went to school, that's why I'm doing well now. I know too many people who don't have that hope. I have no idea how I had it....but I did.
There is an alternative to this situation. Oddly, it struck me when I was working one of these shit jobs. On one occasion, we had six people working a shift at the fastfood place. Five managers, and me. Man, we fucking flew. Work was easy, no one was stressed, and it actually didn't suck. Next shift, next day, thirteen people, one of em a manager. Nothing was going anywhere, chaos ruled, and life sucked. I know damn well the managers were earning about 50% more than the employees. The idea that I drew from this was as follows: open up a fastfood joint, hire 50% of the people, pay at management rates. Advertise this fact to the MANAGERS at the other shops. They could earn their pay and have LESS responsibility? I asked my managers then if they would jump. To the man(and woman) they all said yes.
Respect for your employees empowers them, especially if they have nothing else going for them. Thus, I put the onus on the employer to show respect for the individual.
Everyone has to work. Not everyone has to work for an asshole.
Ahhh...the false dilemma fallacy. How common you are here, among the spoiled brats who aren't nearly as intelligent as they are lucky.
Well, let's see...alternatives. Pay them $10 an hour, and pay for benefits. Rough cost? Hmm, in a mediocre plan, roughly $400 a month. Translates into about $2.50 raise. Not exactly going to break the bank.
Hmm. The despotic tactics could go. Treating people with respect costs less than you think.
Oh hell, what do I know. I should bask in the glow eminating from luminaries such as yourself.
Meaningful work is actually important to a large portion of the population. Salary? Beyond taking care of basic concerns(food, rent, transportation to work) money is not nearly as important as you make it out to be. People get used to their level of income within six months, no matter what the change. I'm not talking out my ass...I earn about 200% what I earned three years ago(database is good....), and to tell the truth, I have more stuff, but quality of life is roughly the same.
I'm going to pretend that you aren't as ignorant as you make yourself out to be, given the tone of your post.
Instead, I'm going to work with the premise that you've lived a very comfortable life(using world-wide living standards) and you simply don't know how it feels to do an automaton job.
Not only that, I'm going to work on the premise that you're young, which means that you still see the responsibility that companies have towards their employees.
However, there is one mistake I am going to call you down on. You're obliviously maelevolent attitude to people who have been screwed by their company will in the end hurt you and those around you who could really use your support when the big boys bend everyone else over the table.
Don't think this could happen to you? Think your intelligence and oh-so-sophisticated view of the business world will carry you over troubled waters? One word, little man. Enron.
Jeezus friggin' Christ, you'd think most of the posters here are anti-social jackasses, if you just read their posts.
There is a legal requirement(last I heard 65% of average wage) regarding the wages of H-1B visa holders. No, they aren't allowed to be threatened. Yeah yeah, your friend heard that someone was breaking the rules. That's the exception.
Here's another clue for you. At no point in history did people stay at a job for 50 to 60 years. Take a look at the average lifespan of individuals and the average starting working age to understand why. On average, people have between three and five career changes. This means people average about a decade in any one field.
One last clue... intelligence means nothing when it comes to job retention. Getting along with your coworkers, understanding the business of where you work, and being reasonably proficient at getting shit done on time are all vastly more important that base intelligence.
Actually, it depends on whether or not your infinite series is a convergent or divergent series. Your series of rocks around Great Britain is most likely of the convergent type. Yes, you may keep counting forever, but there is an asymptote you'll be able to observe. Take a math class beyond calculus I...they'll get to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction.
Rental = on way home from work, on way to work
FlexPlay = on way home from work.
Big fucking deal. The argument is not sound. It is highly simplistic and biased.
Already suffering? Did you fall on your head? Blockbuster, suffering? Try again. If they're suffering, why are they opening up new stores every month?
I PREDICT....
I predict that movie rental stores will outlast this technology. I predict that movie rental stores will outlast DVD technology. Why? Because it's convenient, pay-per-view isn't nearly as convenient, streaming media is only for those willing to fork over 50 bucks a month for internet(not nearly as large a slice of the population that the slashdot crowd thinks), tivo limited technology, and people's natural tendency is to have convenience(buy or rent depends on the circumstances.)
Single use DVD won't carry the market. DVD's and VHS tapes will, at least for the next 5-10 years.
BTW....where are your sources that this market is dying? Sounds like bullshit to me.
Genetically inferior?
/. crowd is heading for extinction.
Funny, I thought genetically inferior for a community-based species such as our's would mean the socially inept, physically unattractive, and the isolated. Looks like the
Clinton go into trouble because he lied under oath. The bj is for the divorce court to handle. As for Enron, boy, you really don't pay attention do you? "This Enron deal" is nothing compared to an impeachment. It's not even as big as the S&L crisis.
The internet bubble grew during Clinton's years in office. The bubble burst in 2000, remember? That would be under Clinton's watch, dipshit. Trillions of dollars sunk into vapordotcom's will have an effect on the economy. Your claim that the dot com failures had an extremely minimal effect on the market smokes of someone who simply didn't pay attention.
Yes, the Dow goes up and down. It does that, especially in times of great uncertainty and ambiguity. Institutional investors, the drivers of the market, are quite prone to jumping ship when it starts to rock a little bit.
BTW....if you saw what was heading our way, how's life? You know, with those billions you made shorting stocks. Oh wait. You didn't do that, did you. Life just isn't fair for the unbelievably bright, is it?
What's sad is that we think athletes and entertainers are hero's in the first place.
Wait a minute...what's with this "we" bullshit?
I'm not trying to be an ass...I really want to know. Could you give me a starting point? The topic of how the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire seems to be a rather harsh starting point. Is there any particular name or subject I could search for?
Don't be an idiot.
Sysadmin aren't the bottom ring of any company. From the very very large(GE, Kraft, anyone?) to the very small(20 employees) sysadmin are NEVER the bottom rung. That spot is reserved for the new marketing employee. The sysadmin's I work with control my life, and get my respect.
Could they code? Sure. Most of em have. Do they enjoy tinkering with machines and toys rather than chasing down the one cascading error in thousand's of lines of code? Looks like it.
Sounds to me like you have an attitude problem.
...they better have the next book ready to go, cuz I'm going to burn through this one. I'm very much looking forward to picking this up.
I still remember the looks I got for blowing a snot(drinking a pop while reading BofH is not a good idea) when I read my first story.
Shut up! At least he's recommending that the people here on slashdot actually get out and MEET people!
I'm at a loss. Why on earth would someone cover this review? There's no new information, and the whole article reads like an advertisement for the X-Box. WTF? Am I the only one not enamoured with this gigantic POS?
A year and a half ago, I walked into a place(trading shop) and the tech's there had three or four monitors they switched between by moving their mouse. How is this any big deal? Not only did they have several monitors, they could choose which computer under their desk actually displayed on each monitor...so each computer spewed onto one or many monitors, depending on what they wanted. How is this better?
Actually, dipshit, if you had bother to watch the news instead of hitting the waterbong/masturbating again/sleeping through class/masturbating AGAIN you would've seen that from the VERY ONSET it has never been about getting one person. The demands relayed to the Taliban SPECIFICALLY RELAYED THIS.
Grow up, and stop dreaming about sodomizing the little boys next door.
Trading Places. Funny movie.
How can you separate these issues when one is facilitated by the other? If I don't need an ID, how can they do the background check? If I don't need a background check then what's the purpose of all the info on the ID?
These issues are related, but not necessarily equal. Don't fall for a slippery slope argument. Just because B requires A doesn't mean that implementing A implicitly implements B.
No, a search is not the checking of ID. The checking of ID is authentication. They challenge your right to be there, and YOU provide the proof that you are allowed here. The key difference is that YOU provide they proof...they don't check your pockets for your wallet, in this instance.
How does my freedom of movement remain unfettered when I have to submit to a "search" every time I want to move?
Where is this freedom outlayed in the U.S. Constitution?
How does my freedom of association remain intact when they're checking me against everyone who ever lived at the same address?
Who says they're checking you EVERY time? Who says they're checking you personally at all?
How does my freedom of speech still exist when I get a background check, allowed by the existence of my ID and facilitated by my need to fly, whenever I go to a protest?
You do not have a constitutional right to airline service. Just clearing the air here. You can protest. You might not be able to take the privately owned airplane, but such is life.
I don't really care if the ignorant masses "don't mind" the idea of a national ID card. I _do_ mind.
Well, I don't know how to take this. Either its fallacious logic(anyone who disagrees with me is incorrect), elitism(anyone who disagrees with me is part of an ignorant mob), or both. No matter....you're betraying a rather ugly streak here.
Last I checked the constitution couldn't be overridden just by getting a majority of mislead people to agree to a national phone poll and I'm pretty damned chafed that you and the Bush administration are trying to get away with it.
The most common mistake of the novice is oversimplification.
You had a Jr. High to attend. You had veteran's benefits. Your benefits paid 75% of tuition. You're still lucky.
Great. You worked hard, and got where you are. There's no joy in being bitter about the fact that no one was there when you needed it. People don't need to be treated like animals in order for a company to turn a profit.
Yes, I can do simple math, such as what you displayed. How about a little more complex math. Employees of type A cost x. Employees of type B cost 1.25x, but do twice the amount of work that type A does. Why do they do this? Because they work harder. Why do they work harder? Because hiring policy dictates that only hard workers are to be hired.
Cost for all type A? Ax.
Cost for hiring all type B? (.5A)*(1.25x) = (.6125)Ax.
Cost savings? Hmm...a paltry 38.75%. Even if a significant number of people hired as type B are actually type A, the cost is still lower provided the majority of the workers are type B.
I think I'll try some other visionary.
Buddy, we've lived the same life. Same path through the shithole jobs, same type of jobs even.
But.
You had the hope that you could escape. So did I. That's why I went to school, that's why I'm doing well now. I know too many people who don't have that hope. I have no idea how I had it....but I did.
There is an alternative to this situation. Oddly, it struck me when I was working one of these shit jobs. On one occasion, we had six people working a shift at the fastfood place. Five managers, and me. Man, we fucking flew. Work was easy, no one was stressed, and it actually didn't suck. Next shift, next day, thirteen people, one of em a manager. Nothing was going anywhere, chaos ruled, and life sucked. I know damn well the managers were earning about 50% more than the employees. The idea that I drew from this was as follows: open up a fastfood joint, hire 50% of the people, pay at management rates. Advertise this fact to the MANAGERS at the other shops. They could earn their pay and have LESS responsibility? I asked my managers then if they would jump. To the man(and woman) they all said yes.
Respect for your employees empowers them, especially if they have nothing else going for them. Thus, I put the onus on the employer to show respect for the individual.
Everyone has to work. Not everyone has to work for an asshole.
You're right. Math time.
65% != 25%.
65% != 50%.
Ahhh...the false dilemma fallacy. How common you are here, among the spoiled brats who aren't nearly as intelligent as they are lucky.
Well, let's see...alternatives. Pay them $10 an hour, and pay for benefits. Rough cost? Hmm, in a mediocre plan, roughly $400 a month. Translates into about $2.50 raise. Not exactly going to break the bank.
Hmm. The despotic tactics could go. Treating people with respect costs less than you think.
Oh hell, what do I know. I should bask in the glow eminating from luminaries such as yourself.
You're being facile.
Meaningful work is actually important to a large portion of the population. Salary? Beyond taking care of basic concerns(food, rent, transportation to work) money is not nearly as important as you make it out to be. People get used to their level of income within six months, no matter what the change. I'm not talking out my ass...I earn about 200% what I earned three years ago(database is good....), and to tell the truth, I have more stuff, but quality of life is roughly the same.
I'm guessing you're just karma-whoring. Oh well.
I'm going to pretend that you aren't as ignorant as you make yourself out to be, given the tone of your post.
Instead, I'm going to work with the premise that you've lived a very comfortable life(using world-wide living standards) and you simply don't know how it feels to do an automaton job.
Not only that, I'm going to work on the premise that you're young, which means that you still see the responsibility that companies have towards their employees.
However, there is one mistake I am going to call you down on. You're obliviously maelevolent attitude to people who have been screwed by their company will in the end hurt you and those around you who could really use your support when the big boys bend everyone else over the table.
Don't think this could happen to you? Think your intelligence and oh-so-sophisticated view of the business world will carry you over troubled waters? One word, little man. Enron.
Jeezus friggin' Christ, you'd think most of the posters here are anti-social jackasses, if you just read their posts.
Bullshit.
There is a legal requirement(last I heard 65% of average wage) regarding the wages of H-1B visa holders. No, they aren't allowed to be threatened. Yeah yeah, your friend heard that someone was breaking the rules. That's the exception.
Here's another clue for you. At no point in history did people stay at a job for 50 to 60 years. Take a look at the average lifespan of individuals and the average starting working age to understand why. On average, people have between three and five career changes. This means people average about a decade in any one field.
One last clue... intelligence means nothing when it comes to job retention. Getting along with your coworkers, understanding the business of where you work, and being reasonably proficient at getting shit done on time are all vastly more important that base intelligence.
No, it doesn't.
Actually, it depends on whether or not your infinite series is a convergent or divergent series. Your series of rocks around Great Britain is most likely of the convergent type. Yes, you may keep counting forever, but there is an asymptote you'll be able to observe. Take a math class beyond calculus I...they'll get to it.