Production companies are ultimately ventures to make money for their investors. If making movies becomes unprofitable or significantly less profitable (due to actual or percieved theft) fewer movies will be produced.
The wealthly investors that are putting their money up will find some other less risky or higher ROI avenue to use their money and the stuntmen and painters will indeed be SOL.
It's great that you think you don't have a need to know but the FOIA gives people a right to know - on the off chance that they are not as trusting as you.
And what is so special about 'being a reporter' that should give people access to certain records under FOIA while just being a citizen should not?
You seem to place a lot of blind trust in the government and think that everything will work out. What do you base this on? It certainly can't be recent events and I'm sure it is not history in general.
significant disadvantage is a little over statment. You only know about 2 cards per person in the deal. Your advantage really isn't all that much.
You are basically tipping the odds in your favor. How much the odds move would depend on the particular cards so for some hands it would be a minor help while for others it would mean a lock.
There is somethign about when we played that way that turned other players away. Your right in that you would have an advantage, but i doubt you could use that advantage to amount to any significant winnings. Thats just my experience with it though.
I would imagine that just like wihth any con you have to be subtle enough to keep things interesting. It sounds the other player was either losing every hand or was tired of seeing too many players fold. I suppose it would be real work to do this so that you come out ahead and don't bore the hell out of the other player.
Of course if you are playing to enjoy yourself then this is all pointelss...
If you know what cards your friends are holding it helps you figure the odds of what the remaining player can make. Since he doesn't have the same info about you or your friends' hands he would be at a significant disadvantage.
Have you tried lossles codecs like Monkey's Audio or FLAC? I originally tried playing mp3's on my home setup and was not pleased with the results. I have a decent receiver (not total garbage but nothing high end) and was running digital from a soundblaster audigy (which I realize is not anywhere near a great card). Moving to lossless (Monkey's for no particular reason)did make a tremendous difference.
With storage as cheap as it is today using lossless encoding seems like a no-brainer if you are into sound quality.
As an added benefit you can reencode for portables at an appropriate bit rate ( small flash player for running gets ~128, iPod gets ~200) and you are future proof as you can reencode to new formats if/when they catch on.
1) Blockbuster's selection sucks and will continue to suck. I would imagine that part of this is their need to censor content in order to appeal to certain groups that they view as their customer base.
2) Don't know what is going to happen here but I'd imagine the bottom line is what kind of deal you can negotiate and how well integrated your infrastructure is. Walmart is good at the former but then again this is when dealing with smaller frye than the studios. Netflix has distribution down cold.
3) Postage has always been free for us.
4) I've seen the digital delivery methods and they suck rocks. Big pixelated ATARI 2600 rocks. The cable companies are trying to cram too much down one pipe so their digital programming looks like shit. (Time Warner in NY is where I see this first hand). I'm not even talking about channel 500 or something, I'm talking about HBO and other premium channels. Some people don't seem to notice but it makes my eyes bleed. When anyone mentions HD I laugh.
For this reason alone I belive I'll be watching DVDs via mail for some time to come. It's a good low-tech meets high-tech solution that keeps operating costs low and delivers a huge selection.
Yes, he was able to find a job which fits hit expertise. Unfortunately he will be unable to accept the offer if the non-compete holds up.
To reiterate that which you so cleverly dismiss with handwaving: In many technology fields you either sign a non-compete or you will not find a job in that field. For certain permium-paying technology fields this is standard operating procedure adopted by employers across the board.
Perhaps this is not an immediate or significant drawback when you are starting out post graduation but after specializing in a field for a number of years it is or more importance as you are only marketable at/near your current pay in an increasingly limited number of firms/positions.
Your options then are simple - sign the non-compete or be under or unemployed. When you have a family to support the choice becomes amazingly clear.
Noncompetes may have a place - and I say may because there are other ways that are less corp-friendly of handling the situation. When noncompetes become a standard for tech jobs (which they are for many areas) then it is time to call bullshit - the truth is that powerful corporations are forcing individuals into effectilvely one-sided contracts.
Or 'which is why' the credit reporting agencies should piss off.
If someone says something untrue about you in public and it measurably damages you, slander laws come into play. If a corporation does so as part of its day-to-day operations then moreso.
What could be more damaging than impugning your ability to pay a debt (in a capatalist world).
If as part of a business operation a corp. is disseminating information then I would say the onus is upon the corp. to ensure that said information is accurate.
If it isn't then it is time to pay damages.
These corps. traffic in information. Because there are only a very few credit reporting agencies this information has serious weight - and for TRW/ Experian, etc. SERIOUS value.
Inasmuch as there is money to be made it is important that there is a significant penalty to be paid for trafficking in falsehoods.
Corps. only understand two things:Profit good. Loss bad. Laws should help corps. make the right choice.
If the ultimate goal of MS is to block open source or even closed source Linux products from interoperating/competing this could get interesting.
Large companies are already looking at desktop Linux; many Linux vendors are also working in this direction. By the time Longhorn ships I think there is a good chance that Linux on the desktop will have matured to the point where significant implementations will be in place. If MS's efforts hinder Linux interop it may be a very strong incentive to ditch Windows in larger corps.
Of course it remains to be seen how this will play out.
Re:cc companies and security
on
RFID MasterCard
·
· Score: 1
But remember that the pointy-haired bosses are the ones that call the shots.
Back when I was running NT w/a modem I was surprised as hell when I installed ZoneAlarm one day and found that I was indeed being hit with quite a few attempts to open ports on which exploits were common.
I'd shut down externally visible services during setup so the box was OK.
I'm still missing the logic in this one. You are driving, exhibiting no signs of illegal behaviour and they pull you over and ask you for - your papers please.
This is exactly what unreasonable search means. There was no indication that you were doing anything wrong and you are being stopped/searched. WTF?
You are on the money - TiVo is being locked out but I have a feeling that it has something to do with the cable companies eagerness to maintain their closed and quasi-monopolistic networks.
It reminds me of when I was young and my parents had to lease a phone from The Phone Company. What is amazing is that the same thing that was going on ~30 years ago is going on today.
If the F.C.C cared about competition in the broadcast/broadband arena they would force open-spec cable/sat networks where any player could pay to have their unit approved by a testing body. Then the consumer would get to choose their AV gear based on best-fit, not because their sole cable provider has locked everyone out and made a deal with a single provider.
If this were to happen you would see some amazing convergence applications - true home entertainment systems - that worked together seamlessly, in short order. The economies of scale would be there and the competition would drive product development.
So then how do you respond to companies that support destruction of the environment and near-slave working conditions by shipping labor to nations with next to nothing in terms of environmental protection and (enforced) labor rules.
Do you buy their products to make sure that you aren't an isolationist or do you spend your money with a company that isn't fleecing the world to make a buck?
So what is your point? If Apple produced an OS that ran on all kinds of hardware then it would be less stable?
Are they stupid for trying to make a quality product (user experience, not OS by the way) by controlling a critical factor in stability (the hardware)?
I've seen several mentions over the past few days about Google keeping your mail forever, how this practice would run afoul of European privacy laws, etc. When I read the info about GMail on google's site I didn't get the impression that they would be keeping your mail forever.
All they said was that the average user would probably never have to delete any mail.
Where did they originally state that they intended to keep mail forever? Even their current statement doesn't indicate that they had ever intended to do so and only seems like a clarification; perhaps for certain polidioticians on both sides of the Atlantic.
Look on the bright side: The next time a group of terrorits blows something up the media will have some decent pictures after the fact instead of blurry surveilance photos.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but someone might use it to write an exploit that will magically get loaded over the wire by the CLR because the nextgen IE told it to.
The wealthly investors that are putting their money up will find some other less risky or higher ROI avenue to use their money and the stuntmen and painters will indeed be SOL.
And what is so special about 'being a reporter' that should give people access to certain records under FOIA while just being a citizen should not?
You seem to place a lot of blind trust in the government and think that everything will work out. What do you base this on? It certainly can't be recent events and I'm sure it is not history in general.
Sounds great can I come to. I'll bring the Grey Poupon.
Of course if you are playing to enjoy yourself then this is all pointelss...
If you know what cards your friends are holding it helps you figure the odds of what the remaining player can make. Since he doesn't have the same info about you or your friends' hands he would be at a significant disadvantage.
With storage as cheap as it is today using lossless encoding seems like a no-brainer if you are into sound quality.
As an added benefit you can reencode for portables at an appropriate bit rate ( small flash player for running gets ~128, iPod gets ~200) and you are future proof as you can reencode to new formats if/when they catch on.
2) Don't know what is going to happen here but I'd imagine the bottom line is what kind of deal you can negotiate and how well integrated your infrastructure is. Walmart is good at the former but then again this is when dealing with smaller frye than the studios. Netflix has distribution down cold.
3) Postage has always been free for us.
4) I've seen the digital delivery methods and they suck rocks. Big pixelated ATARI 2600 rocks. The cable companies are trying to cram too much down one pipe so their digital programming looks like shit. (Time Warner in NY is where I see this first hand). I'm not even talking about channel 500 or something, I'm talking about HBO and other premium channels. Some people don't seem to notice but it makes my eyes bleed. When anyone mentions HD I laugh.
For this reason alone I belive I'll be watching DVDs via mail for some time to come. It's a good low-tech meets high-tech solution that keeps operating costs low and delivers a huge selection.
... their biggest customers start using dialup.
To reiterate that which you so cleverly dismiss with handwaving: In many technology fields you either sign a non-compete or you will not find a job in that field. For certain permium-paying technology fields this is standard operating procedure adopted by employers across the board.
Perhaps this is not an immediate or significant drawback when you are starting out post graduation but after specializing in a field for a number of years it is or more importance as you are only marketable at/near your current pay in an increasingly limited number of firms/positions.
Your options then are simple - sign the non-compete or be under or unemployed. When you have a family to support the choice becomes amazingly clear.
Noncompetes may have a place - and I say may because there are other ways that are less corp-friendly of handling the situation. When noncompetes become a standard for tech jobs (which they are for many areas) then it is time to call bullshit - the truth is that powerful corporations are forcing individuals into effectilvely one-sided contracts.
No, accoring to your link Paul Wellstone did.
If someone says something untrue about you in public and it measurably damages you, slander laws come into play. If a corporation does so as part of its day-to-day operations then moreso. What could be more damaging than impugning your ability to pay a debt (in a capatalist world).
If as part of a business operation a corp. is disseminating information then I would say the onus is upon the corp. to ensure that said information is accurate.
If it isn't then it is time to pay damages.
These corps. traffic in information. Because there are only a very few credit reporting agencies this information has serious weight - and for TRW/ Experian, etc. SERIOUS value.
Inasmuch as there is money to be made it is important that there is a significant penalty to be paid for trafficking in falsehoods.
Corps. only understand two things :Profit good. Loss bad. Laws should help corps. make the right choice.
Large companies are already looking at desktop Linux; many Linux vendors are also working in this direction. By the time Longhorn ships I think there is a good chance that Linux on the desktop will have matured to the point where significant implementations will be in place. If MS's efforts hinder Linux interop it may be a very strong incentive to ditch Windows in larger corps.
Of course it remains to be seen how this will play out.
But remember that the pointy-haired bosses are the ones that call the shots.
I'd shut down externally visible services during setup so the box was OK.
This is exactly what unreasonable search means. There was no indication that you were doing anything wrong and you are being stopped/searched. WTF?
It reminds me of when I was young and my parents had to lease a phone from The Phone Company. What is amazing is that the same thing that was going on ~30 years ago is going on today.
If the F.C.C cared about competition in the broadcast/broadband arena they would force open-spec cable/sat networks where any player could pay to have their unit approved by a testing body. Then the consumer would get to choose their AV gear based on best-fit, not because their sole cable provider has locked everyone out and made a deal with a single provider.
If this were to happen you would see some amazing convergence applications - true home entertainment systems - that worked together seamlessly, in short order. The economies of scale would be there and the competition would drive product development.
Which brings us to the topic. How? What is it that workers here can do to compete with people whose cost of living is fraction of what it is here?
Do you buy their products to make sure that you aren't an isolationist or do you spend your money with a company that isn't fleecing the world to make a buck?
Are they stupid for trying to make a quality product (user experience, not OS by the way) by controlling a critical factor in stability (the hardware)?
All they said was that the average user would probably never have to delete any mail.
Where did they originally state that they intended to keep mail forever? Even their current statement doesn't indicate that they had ever intended to do so and only seems like a clarification; perhaps for certain polidioticians on both sides of the Atlantic.
Programs are often more secure when they have fewer features of any kind. Pick something simple and do it well.
If you are using an OO language, use it properly. If you want to program in C then do so.
How does this help protect me again?
Oh look bread and circuses...what was I saying?