Except for may people, eating the snacks is part of the "Movie Going Experience." Theater owneer complain about losing attendance due to TV, DVDs and other forms of entertainment, yet they can't comprhend that the biggest reason to see a movie in the theater is the "experience." If they make that experience too expensive for the consumer, of course people will stay away.
What they need to do is organize as a group and put pressure back on the studies to 1) create better movies and 2) lower the cost of the theater to license the movie. Perhaps instead of a flat rate to the theater to show a film, the studios should get a reasonable percentage of the box office.
Then again, theaters are slowly becoming irrelevant. With the techonlogy we have now, why not go straight to the consumer and cut out the middleman?
Slightly OT but...
I can't tell you if you're being sarcastic, but if your not, stay away from the crap lawnmowers like the plague. I learned this lesson the hard way. The $99 lawnmowers will choke if you forget to cut your grass one week and it's more then a couple of inches high. They have a tendency to clog the discharge chute if the grass is the least bit moist, leaving clumps of grass all over the lawn. They will often rip the grass rather then cut it as well.
I spent 2000 putting in a new front lawn last year only to have it destroyed by a $99 dollars walmart lawnmower. This year I learned my lesson, and shelled out the money for a better lawnmower. Not only does my grass look better for it, but it's 10 times easier to maneuver around the lawn. What used to take 2 hours to cut, now takes less then 20 minutes.
I just looked at the Dell 1505 and to get the nearest equipped 1505 to match the lowend macbook, it would cost you $2040. Granted there is an additional mail in rebate of 250, but that still only puts you 200 less then the macbook. (The model for 1500 is kind of similar to the macbook, but they scrimp on certain hardware.)
So for 200 dollars more, I could get something that can run not only Windows, but also Mac OS X. The extra software that comes with the Mac and the tight integration between the OS and the hardware make this a no brainer for me. Not to mention the dell is heavier and bigger.:)
I work in the Casino industry, check out the systems by DVtel. You can use your existing analog cameras, hook each one to their encoder boxs. The back end software runs on windows, but it's on a plain jane server, and data can he stored on a regular array or on a NAS or SAN. The nice part about their system is it's and modular, and you don't have to buy the hardware from them. It's all of the shelf components. They just sell the software and encoder boxes.
In some peoples mind, AMD still equates with Chips for those on a budget. I'm sure part of the reason was the brand name recognition Intel has in the market among the general population. (Not the/. crowd) Yes, the AMD vs Intel debate matters to us, but not to Joe sixpack.
For a company that has always prided itself on selling "Premium" computers, I do think part of the reason was they did not want to associate their brand with anything that connotate "Budget." That's just my 2 cents.
The issue is at some point, Bellsouth is getting paid already. They don't operate the backbones networks out of the goodness of their heart. And at some point, Bellsouth customers are using other providers backbones. Should those providers start charging Bellsouth a premium to let their traffic on the Network?
Suscribers are paying for the access already, content providers are paying for their bandwidth, carriers are paying each other to connect to their respective networks, and NOW Bellsouth wants to charge the content providers again? Sounds like double (or triple) dipping to me.
Unless a carrier operates their own complete network from end point to endpoint, I don't see how it's fair to charge content providers access to the network when at some point, somebody has already paid for that access. Of course lifes not fair, but this could be disruptive enough to the consumer if Bellsouth and then other carriers started doing this, that it should be discouraged.
Actually that saying was about the fascists under Mussolini, not the Nazi's. Of course it was a given that the Nazi's kept their trains running, as they had a lot "stuff" they were moving around.
If you had RTFA, you would see that analysts predict that Sony's system, (at today's prices) will cost them approximately $600 to make. Intitial estimates on sony's retail price put it around $400-450 dollars.
With a 6 month production lead time, Microsoft will have gained enough efficencies in their systems that they will probably be the one to institute a price drop, forcing Sony to price accordingly. As such, Sony will still be paying the close to $600 per unit, competing against Microsoft's by then cost of approximetly $400 per unit.
If you remember the last generation, it was Microsoft who first dropped the price, forcing Sony to play the game. Left alone in the market, Sony may still have continued to charge $299 for their systems. Sony likes to pretend they are a boutique brand, and prices accordingly.
"IBM also has designed chips at the heart of the competing video-game systems -- the Playstation 3 from Sony and Nintendo's forthcoming Revolution system, both of which are due next year. Crotty expects that Sony's loss on the Playstation 3 may be even wider, as the cell processor that IBM, Toshiba, and Sony designed for the system is more complex.
Estimates vary as to how much the cell processor will cost. Richard Doherty of Envisioneering Group in Seaford, N.Y., expects the cell chip to cost about 50% more than the Microsoft chip. "Based on what we've seen so far, the Playstation 3 could cost as much as $600 to make in today's pricing," Doherty says.
And Crotty says that since it's a more complex chip, its price will fall more slowly than the price on the Xbox chip."
Really?? Because my USB hard drives work fine on my XP box, consistently. So my anectodal evidence cancels yours out.
I've got MS servers & Linux servers that run for years with little more maintenance then patch management. Proper configuration, administration, and planning go a long way on both systems towards ensuring reliability.
RTFA. Microsoft never lied to the guy, they just didn't tell him what the were planning on using the name for. They had no legal or ethical obligation to to volunteer that information. IF he had asked, then the lawyers would have been obliged to tell him that they were planning on using it for a product name.
Microsoft does own the trademark for the Windows in Australia, so they never lied.
Furthermore, the gentlemen states in the article that since he had discontinued development on "Windows Defender" more then 18 months ago, it wasn't worth it to him to fight Microsoft. He made the business decision to turn over the name, nobody forced him to.
So you're telling me that prior service people don't learn interpersonal skills? Because we all know the military is all about the individual. I call BS.
Well of course the most ideal situatuion is to give kids dixie cups full of water and tell them to have fun.
The system worked for what was need. I can tell you that making the pool shallower would have cost more then this system and resulted in complaints from patrons.
As stated above, adding more lifeguards is more expensive and not as effective. In this case the system worked faster then the lifeguard. Who's to say they lifeguard would have seen it?
It was the lifeguards complaints of not being able to see, that prompted the purchase of the system in the first place. Sure maybe the pool could have been designed better in the first place, but we're living in the now, not "should have land. The pools in the ground now. It would cost a lot more to dig a new pool that was engineered right in the first place.
If painting the pool would fix it, don't you think it would have been done? There is a reason that the majority of pools built have white or bluish walls. It is the most effective color at making the water look clear. Try watching someone swim in a black pool, you can't see a darn thing.
I don't even know why I bother. Don't you think people who know alot more about swimming pool design and safety have spent alot of time thinking about these things? What, because you're on/. you know more then everyone else on every subject?
What I find hilarious is that you're not able to comprehend that this system is not a replacement for lifeguards, but an additional tool to help them do their job. A tool that is more cost effective then adding another lifeguard. If 5 lifeguards can't see the bottom of a pool on a busy day, 6 isn't going to do much better.
By your reckoning, maybe banks should get rid of 6 security cameras and put more 3 security guards in place. Because we all know how reliable witness's memories are after a traumatic event, who needs a machine to record exactly what happened?
This system also provides a way to review a situation to see why something happened. Having worked as a lifeguard for many years, I can tell you that it can be very hard to catch someone in distress in a crowded situtation. If I had something that woulds help me prioritize my attention, it would have been great. Because in that 1 minute that I've got my head turned to tell some kid to stop running on the deck and send him back to the shallow end, somebody else could be in trouble and I would never see it.
Just like accounting software isn't meant to replace the accounting department, this is a tool to help avoid human errors.
The the idea is to help the lifeguards here, not give them one more thing they have to look at. In a drowning, minutes count.
Also even if you add a dedicated lifeguard to monitor this system, their pay and benefits over the course of 2 years will exceed the cost of the system. (assuming $10 an hour, plus payroll taxes, benefits etc at 12 hours a day, over 300 days a year (indoor pool))
The last thing you want is some jury rigged solution. First time it fails and someone dies, someone's relative is going to be looking to sue for negligence.
Except thaat assuming each lifeguard get paid $10 an hour. Now figure the pool is open 12 hours. 12 staff hours a day equals 120. Now adding in all the extra taxes and benefits it cost to support that employee we'll call it an round $150 dollars a day to add 1 more set of eyes.
From what I can get, this was in an indoor pool. That means it's probably open all year. Let's just assume counting holidays and other events, for the sake of this argument, the pool is open 300 days a year. That means to add one more employee it costs the pool operators $45000 a year.
This system pays for itself in little over 2 years, without the problems of boredom, inattention etc, plus no problems with employee turnaround or management. Sounds like adding even 1 lifeguard would be more expensive many times over over the lifetime of this system.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't feel bad, you actually did read the "article" seeing as the blurb in the submission WAS the whole article. Must be a slow newsday on /.
You need to think harder. See the part in the "forward looking statements" section that reads:
"Any statements in this press release about future expectations..." (emphasis mine)
It even states right in the "article" it is a Press Release!
Actually, according to the TFA about the original heist, the cannon never really belonged to Caltech, it was "borrowed" from another school.
What they need to do is organize as a group and put pressure back on the studies to 1) create better movies and 2) lower the cost of the theater to license the movie. Perhaps instead of a flat rate to the theater to show a film, the studios should get a reasonable percentage of the box office.
Then again, theaters are slowly becoming irrelevant. With the techonlogy we have now, why not go straight to the consumer and cut out the middleman?
Slightly OT but... I can't tell you if you're being sarcastic, but if your not, stay away from the crap lawnmowers like the plague. I learned this lesson the hard way. The $99 lawnmowers will choke if you forget to cut your grass one week and it's more then a couple of inches high. They have a tendency to clog the discharge chute if the grass is the least bit moist, leaving clumps of grass all over the lawn. They will often rip the grass rather then cut it as well. I spent 2000 putting in a new front lawn last year only to have it destroyed by a $99 dollars walmart lawnmower. This year I learned my lesson, and shelled out the money for a better lawnmower. Not only does my grass look better for it, but it's 10 times easier to maneuver around the lawn. What used to take 2 hours to cut, now takes less then 20 minutes.
So for 200 dollars more, I could get something that can run not only Windows, but also Mac OS X. The extra software that comes with the Mac and the tight integration between the OS and the hardware make this a no brainer for me. Not to mention the dell is heavier and bigger.
Is it really self incrimination if the evidence is on a company owned laptop with company owned files on it?
I work in the Casino industry, check out the systems by DVtel. You can use your existing analog cameras, hook each one to their encoder boxs. The back end software runs on windows, but it's on a plain jane server, and data can he stored on a regular array or on a NAS or SAN. The nice part about their system is it's and modular, and you don't have to buy the hardware from them. It's all of the shelf components. They just sell the software and encoder boxes.
For a company that has always prided itself on selling "Premium" computers, I do think part of the reason was they did not want to associate their brand with anything that connotate "Budget." That's just my 2 cents.
Suscribers are paying for the access already, content providers are paying for their bandwidth, carriers are paying each other to connect to their respective networks, and NOW Bellsouth wants to charge the content providers again? Sounds like double (or triple) dipping to me.
Unless a carrier operates their own complete network from end point to endpoint, I don't see how it's fair to charge content providers access to the network when at some point, somebody has already paid for that access. Of course lifes not fair, but this could be disruptive enough to the consumer if Bellsouth and then other carriers started doing this, that it should be discouraged.
Actually that saying was about the fascists under Mussolini, not the Nazi's. Of course it was a given that the Nazi's kept their trains running, as they had a lot "stuff" they were moving around.
With a 6 month production lead time, Microsoft will have gained enough efficencies in their systems that they will probably be the one to institute a price drop, forcing Sony to price accordingly. As such, Sony will still be paying the close to $600 per unit, competing against Microsoft's by then cost of approximetly $400 per unit.
If you remember the last generation, it was Microsoft who first dropped the price, forcing Sony to play the game. Left alone in the market, Sony may still have continued to charge $299 for their systems. Sony likes to pretend they are a boutique brand, and prices accordingly.
"IBM also has designed chips at the heart of the competing video-game systems -- the Playstation 3 from Sony and Nintendo's forthcoming Revolution system, both of which are due next year. Crotty expects that Sony's loss on the Playstation 3 may be even wider, as the cell processor that IBM, Toshiba, and Sony designed for the system is more complex.
Estimates vary as to how much the cell processor will cost. Richard Doherty of Envisioneering Group in Seaford, N.Y., expects the cell chip to cost about 50% more than the Microsoft chip. "Based on what we've seen so far, the Playstation 3 could cost as much as $600 to make in today's pricing," Doherty says.
And Crotty says that since it's a more complex chip, its price will fall more slowly than the price on the Xbox chip."
I've got MS servers & Linux servers that run for years with little more maintenance then patch management. Proper configuration, administration, and planning go a long way on both systems towards ensuring reliability.
Microsoft does own the trademark for the Windows in Australia, so they never lied.
Furthermore, the gentlemen states in the article that since he had discontinued development on "Windows Defender" more then 18 months ago, it wasn't worth it to him to fight Microsoft. He made the business decision to turn over the name, nobody forced him to.
So you're telling me that prior service people don't learn interpersonal skills? Because we all know the military is all about the individual. I call BS.
It is my god given right as an American to piss standing up. I say let them install those devices here, I'll piss on it too.
My anectodal comment cancels out your anectodal comment, so we both just wasted approximately 2 minutes of our lives on something that sums up to 0.
Funny how people who complain about price gouging have no problem with selling a house they paid $80000 for a couple of years ago for over 400000 now.
As stated above, adding more lifeguards is more expensive and not as effective. In this case the system worked faster then the lifeguard. Who's to say they lifeguard would have seen it?
It was the lifeguards complaints of not being able to see, that prompted the purchase of the system in the first place. Sure maybe the pool could have been designed better in the first place, but we're living in the now, not "should have land. The pools in the ground now. It would cost a lot more to dig a new pool that was engineered right in the first place.
If painting the pool would fix it, don't you think it would have been done? There is a reason that the majority of pools built have white or bluish walls. It is the most effective color at making the water look clear. Try watching someone swim in a black pool, you can't see a darn thing.
I don't even know why I bother. Don't you think people who know alot more about swimming pool design and safety have spent alot of time thinking about these things? What, because you're on /. you know more then everyone else on every subject?
By your reckoning, maybe banks should get rid of 6 security cameras and put more 3 security guards in place. Because we all know how reliable witness's memories are after a traumatic event, who needs a machine to record exactly what happened?
This system also provides a way to review a situation to see why something happened. Having worked as a lifeguard for many years, I can tell you that it can be very hard to catch someone in distress in a crowded situtation. If I had something that woulds help me prioritize my attention, it would have been great. Because in that 1 minute that I've got my head turned to tell some kid to stop running on the deck and send him back to the shallow end, somebody else could be in trouble and I would never see it.
Just like accounting software isn't meant to replace the accounting department, this is a tool to help avoid human errors.
Also even if you add a dedicated lifeguard to monitor this system, their pay and benefits over the course of 2 years will exceed the cost of the system. (assuming $10 an hour, plus payroll taxes, benefits etc at 12 hours a day, over 300 days a year (indoor pool))
The last thing you want is some jury rigged solution. First time it fails and someone dies, someone's relative is going to be looking to sue for negligence.
From what I can get, this was in an indoor pool. That means it's probably open all year. Let's just assume counting holidays and other events, for the sake of this argument, the pool is open 300 days a year. That means to add one more employee it costs the pool operators $45000 a year.
This system pays for itself in little over 2 years, without the problems of boredom, inattention etc, plus no problems with employee turnaround or management. Sounds like adding even 1 lifeguard would be more expensive many times over over the lifetime of this system.
You could buy a new $15 shredder at Walmart every week for the next 38+ years for that price!
Not on Moroccan keyboards. :)