If it's not worth wasting your money on to buy, then why on earth did you waste your time downloading and watching it? Either a product is worth the asking price or it's not. If it is worth it to you, buy it. If not, do without...
Until you watch it, how can you know if it was worth the asking price? (irregardless of how you obtained it)
You have to price that risk in yourself. And "irregardless" isn't a word.
This problem solves itself once all the white men are run out of Texas, which demographically will be in about 25 years. Eventually they will all be concentrated in Idaho, and we can nuke that from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I find it hypocritical that you got positive moderation for this when a similar post aimed at a different race would have modded down as the racist garbage that it is.
It's OK to be racist against white people, where have you been?
For some reason this reminded me of the dialogs (and the dialogue) that comes up when you discover something in the old Civilization games. I even heard it in the voice of that narrator.
But while your developers, artists, voice actors etc. will all make good money and feed their family, your investors will have to scrape by on a lousy 8%, which is not how we do things here.
Would you risk a large amount of capital for the prospect of an 8% return?
No, you wouldn't. Thats why blackjack pays 100% ROI every hand you beat the dealer, and 150% when dealt a winning blackjack.
No one would play if the possible outcomes were: lose everything, or get 8% ROI.
Venture capital is another form of [legalized] gambling. And they lose far more often than they win. So wins need to cover all their losses, and a decent compensation for their risk.
Also, they should look further than the current economic situation. It is getting too easy for people to site that as the cause for decline.
That's always been the case in a "down economy." Those of us who were around for the dot-com crash in the late 90s/early 2000s will remember tons of companies citing "bad market timing" and an "inability to raise more capital in the climate." While this may have been the case for a few unfortunate startups, it was mostly just that they were poorly executed ideas or just poor ideas.:)
People will always seek to reassign blame, nothing new there.
Immigration tightened regulations last year to such extent, that even on one day car trips across the border, either to Mexico or Canada, all US citizens must do so with a valid passport or passport card, any other form of ID is no longer adequate.
It's worth nothing that you don't need anything but a body to get into Mexico, it's the getting back into the US that is controlled.:)
Here in the Netherlands we have to be able to prove our identity any time the police asks for it. The only way accepted by them is to show your passport, so we officialy HAVE TO carry our passports with us any time we are outside. Thank you America and your 'War on Terror' to give our political creeps an excuse to put that one through our throats!
You really found a way to blame your country's [perceived] fascism on another country thousands of miles away? Congrats.
There are theoretical and non-theoretical (read: spotted in the wild) ways to get the target's browser into thinking a MITM'd HTTPS connection has valid SSL certs. But even if there weren't, I'd anecdotally offer a good 7/10 noobs will click right past those silly warnings anyway. This is largely the fault of the popular browsers (yes, both IE and Mozilla-based) for not giving a more useful UI when a cert isn't valid. Expired, self-signed, doesn't match the hostname, etc. should all look wildly different to the end user.
PS am I the only one who finds something terribly wrong with a rich guy polluting the world just so he can provide for his own selfish pleasure? (please pass cap-and-trade soon...)
This is Slashdot, not Reddit. GTFO with that nonsense.
It's interesting that you should mention that, as the FLIR article you linked on Wikipedia notes that "the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant"(Kyllo v. United States).
So are they planning to completely ignore that, use a different kind of technology (which I think would still probably be not-quite-right by the spirit of that court ruling), or just haven't realized how blatantly stupid it is yet?
That ruling would only apply if the person was in their home. Not if they were out and about in "public."
If something takes place in public, I don't think there's any violation of here. If they put a camera in the sky that can "see" through walls, or bounce lasers off our home windows to "hear" what's going on inside WITHOUT a warrant and trust me, I'll grab the pitchfork, you grab the torch.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll close their eyes if they see something in your privacy fenced-in backyard.
Oh, this reminds me of a beaut I heard up here in Snowanada
It appears that a politician running for mayor in fair Calgary, Alberta, may accept funds from, say, land and commercial developers, for his campaign. What ever is left over is his/hers to keep, personally.
I bet they even get a discount on new homes in new developments...
Of course it is.. where did you think money donated to a political candidate went after the election? Most of the time, a more visible candidate will donate the excess funds to his or her political party - but not always.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a serious question:
If it's not worth wasting your money on to buy, then why on earth did you waste your time downloading and watching it? Either a product is worth the asking price or it's not. If it is worth it to you, buy it. If not, do without...
Until you watch it, how can you know if it was worth the asking price? (irregardless of how you obtained it)
You have to price that risk in yourself. And "irregardless" isn't a word.
Yeah, why should people have a right to make a lot of money?? Especially when it infringes on your constitutional right to buy cheap music CDs!
This problem solves itself once all the white men are run out of Texas, which demographically will be in about 25 years. Eventually they will all be concentrated in Idaho, and we can nuke that from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I find it hypocritical that you got positive moderation for this when a similar post aimed at a different race would have modded down as the racist garbage that it is.
It's OK to be racist against white people, where have you been?
Don't let reality get in the way of cool sounding stories or posts.
Congrats on not understanding how the internet works.
GP's point was that no one with opportunities (which are the desirable people) will sign an overly broad NDA. I tend to agree.
Well, that's what it meant before we started nationalizing auto companies..
Closed captioning sponsored by Apple.
Yes, and 127 is an enormous sample.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance
With two catastrophic failures out of 127 STS missions flown, they are achieving well within the original estimates.
When the program was being designed, it was estimated there would be a 1 in 75 "disaster potential."
For some reason this reminded me of the dialogs (and the dialogue) that comes up when you discover something in the old Civilization games. I even heard it in the voice of that narrator.
Could give way to an interesting class action [counter-] suit of sorts. IANAL
But while your developers, artists, voice actors etc. will all make good money and feed their family, your investors will have to scrape by on a lousy 8%, which is not how we do things here.
Would you risk a large amount of capital for the prospect of an 8% return?
No, you wouldn't. Thats why blackjack pays 100% ROI every hand you beat the dealer, and 150% when dealt a winning blackjack.
No one would play if the possible outcomes were: lose everything, or get 8% ROI.
Venture capital is another form of [legalized] gambling. And they lose far more often than they win. So wins need to cover all their losses, and a decent compensation for their risk.
Also, they should look further than the current economic situation. It is getting too easy for people to site that as the cause for decline.
That's always been the case in a "down economy." Those of us who were around for the dot-com crash in the late 90s/early 2000s will remember tons of companies citing "bad market timing" and an "inability to raise more capital in the climate." While this may have been the case for a few unfortunate startups, it was mostly just that they were poorly executed ideas or just poor ideas. :)
People will always seek to reassign blame, nothing new there.
Immigration tightened regulations last year to such extent, that even on one day car trips across the border, either to Mexico or Canada, all US citizens must do so with a valid passport or passport card, any other form of ID is no longer adequate.
It's worth nothing that you don't need anything but a body to get into Mexico, it's the getting back into the US that is controlled. :)
The joke among bouncers evidently is: the guy who shows up with a passport probably lost his license for too many DUIs.
Or prefers to present his passport because it doesn't get scanned (magstripe), and doesn't have your home address or even home state printed on it.
Here in the Netherlands we have to be able to prove our identity any time the police asks for it. The only way accepted by them is to show your passport, so we officialy HAVE TO carry our passports with us any time we are outside.
Thank you America and your 'War on Terror' to give our political creeps an excuse to put that one through our throats!
You really found a way to blame your country's [perceived] fascism on another country thousands of miles away? Congrats.
While not binary, such a filter does exist.
This is why you don't see any ads when you search for things like Mapquest, Wikipedia, et al.
Mapquest has maintained as one of the top searched terms for years, but usually triggers no ads on Google when searched.
There are theoretical and non-theoretical (read: spotted in the wild) ways to get the target's browser into thinking a MITM'd HTTPS connection has valid SSL certs. But even if there weren't, I'd anecdotally offer a good 7/10 noobs will click right past those silly warnings anyway. This is largely the fault of the popular browsers (yes, both IE and Mozilla-based) for not giving a more useful UI when a cert isn't valid. Expired, self-signed, doesn't match the hostname, etc. should all look wildly different to the end user.
PS am I the only one who finds something terribly wrong with a rich guy polluting the world just so he can provide for his own selfish pleasure? (please pass cap-and-trade soon...)
This is Slashdot, not Reddit. GTFO with that nonsense.
It's interesting that you should mention that, as the FLIR article you linked on Wikipedia notes that "the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant"(Kyllo v. United States).
So are they planning to completely ignore that, use a different kind of technology (which I think would still probably be not-quite-right by the spirit of that court ruling), or just haven't realized how blatantly stupid it is yet?
That ruling would only apply if the person was in their home. Not if they were out and about in "public."
If something takes place in public, I don't think there's any violation of here. If they put a camera in the sky that can "see" through walls, or bounce lasers off our home windows to "hear" what's going on inside WITHOUT a warrant and trust me, I'll grab the pitchfork, you grab the torch.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll close their eyes if they see something in your privacy fenced-in backyard.
No, that's something like http://www.amazon.com/Canon-600mm-Super-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009R6X9 which is an order of magnitude cheaper :)
Can I have my check now please?
Depends.. is said project shovel-ready?
Oh, this reminds me of a beaut I heard up here in Snowanada
It appears that a politician running for mayor in fair Calgary, Alberta, may accept funds from, say, land and commercial developers, for his campaign. What ever is left over is his/hers to keep, personally.
I bet they even get a discount on new homes in new developments...
Of course it is.. where did you think money donated to a political candidate went after the election? Most of the time, a more visible candidate will donate the excess funds to his or her political party - but not always.