Actually, the US has the largest workforce in the 'developed' world who are willing to work for next to nothing. It's called the working poor, and it exists almost exclusively in the US.
It's a project similar to colonialist Britain's jailing/exporting the lower class. Making the poor go bankrupt or die if they so much as break their arm or get involved in a car accident.
being at the bottom of the page...
But really, what's with Slashdotters favouring a corporate statement over a campaign by an environmental (I hesitate to say charitable) organisation? Obviously one has a very solid agenda of making more money, whereas the other has an agenda of addressing environmental concerns.
An even better application:
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
Selling in Australia might sound like an easy way to make bonus money, but you have to realise that this is a different country here with different rules. Globalisation 101: Even though other countries may be English speaking and capitalistic, doesn't mean applying a business model designed for America to a different country won't result in failure.
In Australia, the five television networks fight and bid about who gets what programme. Sometimes it's a matter of them being smart enough to buy a programme that the other networks haven't discovered yet, but usually it's a matter of competing with them for the rights to show it. Coupled with the fact that Australian TV networks have to buy the HD versions, and buying a tv show from an American production company is really expensive.
I'm not entirely sure of how the licensing system works, but once someone's bought the rights to broadcast a certain show in Australia they remain pretty influential in how it's distributed by any other means within Australia.
Again, I don't know how this would apply to something like iTunes, but for example when the Channel Ten (FTA) bought The O.C., and Arena (pay tv channel) wanted to show it, there was no way Arena could show an episode before Channel Ten had broadcast it. I don't know if it's because Arena had to buy the rights from Channel Ten to rebroadcast it in Australia or what, but such an environment means iTunes releasing episodes of certain shows before the massive FTA networks had gotten around to showing them would probably result in a lot of issues. It's the same kind of problem which has resulted in pay tv networks being pretty terrible failures in Australia - the FTA networks have a lot of money, and individual pay tv channels have very little money in comparison, so they have no bidding power against the FTA networks, and if they get to show a certain programme at all they're not going to be allowed to gain any competitive advantage over the FTA network showing the same programme.
Then there's the whole question of shows not even coming to Australia. I doubt that's really the fault of the American production companies... We only have five FTA channels, four commercial and three mainstream and rich enough to buy the sought-after programmes, which means prime-time 'space' is very limited - if the show isn't going to be sickeningly popular enough to have at least a third of the Australian population gizzing all over it every week then it's entirely not worth spending millions of dollars buying the rights for.
Or perhaps it is worth buying the rights for, then just leaving in a cupboard so no other network can show it and maybe showing it every now and then at 11pm to very cautiously see how it fairs (cough ROME cough).
Well maybe if some merchants actually did follow some steps to reducing fraud, like maybe checking the signature on the card properly and have measures in place for staff to easily deal with a potential fraud (where the signatures don't appear similar enough for their satisfaction), then they might cut down on fraud.
I do think it's up to merchants to bear the cost of fraud, because there are very simple measures they can take into account to reduce fraud significantly. The department stores here in Australia require photo ID for cc purchases over $50, as an example.
Internet commerce has no measures to prevent fraud, it's just the credit card number, and maybe the CVC number. I guess then at least they'd have the customer's address, but that's fairly unstable.
If the French are so enthusiastic about being open source and/or moving away from Microsoft, why is their France24 video stream on their website Microsoft-only?
France24 is supposed to be the bastion of everything French to the rest of the world and you can't watch it online unless you're using IE, running Windows, have WMP, etc.
But leaning back means you're stretching your arms to reach the keyboard and mouse, which puts a lot of strain on your tendons and can result in RSI/carpel tunnel.
Let me clarify that "minimum amount of force necessary" doesn't necessarily mean low levels of force. That might very well be maximum force possible, minimum force necessary to do the job and maximum amount of force available aren't mutually exclusive - and, yes, sometimes maximum amount of force possible simply isn't enough.
I think that that's completely irrelevant. I don't care if the person being arrested had just burnt a little girl to death, shot a police officer and resisted arrest with any kinds of weapons blaring.
It's simply not up to police to deal out punishment in a way they think fit. It is their place to detain the person in question, using the absolute minimum amount of force necessary to get them tied up and in a car and off to proper judgement.
A skill a good police officer needs to have is the ability to stay clear and focused and not absolutely batshit crazy no matter what the situation. It's the kind of people they are arresting who aren't able to do this and kill their step-child when they realise the child is not theirs.
Obviously the person in the video probably didn't commit the aforementioned crimes but even if they had the way the police officers behaved was completely unreasonable.
Umm, to be quite honest YouTube was never a source of copyrighted material for me or anybody I know.
YouTube is about the latest whatever craze, homemade humourous imitations and newsworthy/topical ads and other video content.
I've never seen anything from comedy central, in fact the only copyrighted material I've come across is some Family Guy excepts.
The quality of that terrible flash player in YouTube does not make it a worthwhile source of media content, and I'm actually quite surprised at the responses from Slashdot and others that the removal of copyrighted material from YouTube would actually impact its content or its popularity.
Slashdot Mirror
I wehcome us new honourabrr car overrrords
Yeah maybe your corrupt-arse government. The ACCC is not a revenue-generating arm.
High petrol prices are the best way to decrease car usage, it's a fairly simple formula.
Actually, the US has the largest workforce in the 'developed' world who are willing to work for next to nothing. It's called the working poor, and it exists almost exclusively in the US.
Why do aliens only land in America?
You've got it all wrong. It's all about being a space cyborg from the future doing everything on your mobile telephony device nowadays.
Is that what they teach in Christian high schools now?
No. $ is used for "dollars" no matter which dollars it means.
It's a project similar to colonialist Britain's jailing/exporting the lower class. Making the poor go bankrupt or die if they so much as break their arm or get involved in a car accident.
being at the bottom of the page...
But really, what's with Slashdotters favouring a corporate statement over a campaign by an environmental (I hesitate to say charitable) organisation? Obviously one has a very solid agenda of making more money, whereas the other has an agenda of addressing environmental concerns.
"Speed trap ahead"
The trees might offset the enormous amounts of methane generated from fat nerds farting and burping in second life.
Map of the World
Oceania is made up of Kangaroos and Xena and the few surrounding unmarked islands.
Obviously you didnt look at the pictures.
Well it might be a good opportunity to use IPv6 so IP hoarding won't be too much of a problem.
In Australia, the five television networks fight and bid about who gets what programme. Sometimes it's a matter of them being smart enough to buy a programme that the other networks haven't discovered yet, but usually it's a matter of competing with them for the rights to show it. Coupled with the fact that Australian TV networks have to buy the HD versions, and buying a tv show from an American production company is really expensive.
I'm not entirely sure of how the licensing system works, but once someone's bought the rights to broadcast a certain show in Australia they remain pretty influential in how it's distributed by any other means within Australia.
Again, I don't know how this would apply to something like iTunes, but for example when the Channel Ten (FTA) bought The O.C., and Arena (pay tv channel) wanted to show it, there was no way Arena could show an episode before Channel Ten had broadcast it. I don't know if it's because Arena had to buy the rights from Channel Ten to rebroadcast it in Australia or what, but such an environment means iTunes releasing episodes of certain shows before the massive FTA networks had gotten around to showing them would probably result in a lot of issues. It's the same kind of problem which has resulted in pay tv networks being pretty terrible failures in Australia - the FTA networks have a lot of money, and individual pay tv channels have very little money in comparison, so they have no bidding power against the FTA networks, and if they get to show a certain programme at all they're not going to be allowed to gain any competitive advantage over the FTA network showing the same programme.
Then there's the whole question of shows not even coming to Australia. I doubt that's really the fault of the American production companies... We only have five FTA channels, four commercial and three mainstream and rich enough to buy the sought-after programmes, which means prime-time 'space' is very limited - if the show isn't going to be sickeningly popular enough to have at least a third of the Australian population gizzing all over it every week then it's entirely not worth spending millions of dollars buying the rights for.
Or perhaps it is worth buying the rights for, then just leaving in a cupboard so no other network can show it and maybe showing it every now and then at 11pm to very cautiously see how it fairs (cough ROME cough).
Well maybe if some merchants actually did follow some steps to reducing fraud, like maybe checking the signature on the card properly and have measures in place for staff to easily deal with a potential fraud (where the signatures don't appear similar enough for their satisfaction), then they might cut down on fraud.
I do think it's up to merchants to bear the cost of fraud, because there are very simple measures they can take into account to reduce fraud significantly. The department stores here in Australia require photo ID for cc purchases over $50, as an example.
Internet commerce has no measures to prevent fraud, it's just the credit card number, and maybe the CVC number. I guess then at least they'd have the customer's address, but that's fairly unstable.
Well here in Australia CDs do cost over $30 each and have for a very long time.
If the French are so enthusiastic about being open source and/or moving away from Microsoft, why is their France24 video stream on their website Microsoft-only?
France24 is supposed to be the bastion of everything French to the rest of the world and you can't watch it online unless you're using IE, running Windows, have WMP, etc.
Um Vodafone's been doing this for ages.
But leaning back means you're stretching your arms to reach the keyboard and mouse, which puts a lot of strain on your tendons and can result in RSI/carpel tunnel.
Let me point your attention to http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206138&cid =16810520
I didn't mean "being gentle" - I meant being rational and level headed. Police getting all adrenaline rushy and power trippy doesn't help anyone.
Let me clarify that "minimum amount of force necessary" doesn't necessarily mean low levels of force. That might very well be maximum force possible, minimum force necessary to do the job and maximum amount of force available aren't mutually exclusive - and, yes, sometimes maximum amount of force possible simply isn't enough.
I think that that's completely irrelevant. I don't care if the person being arrested had just burnt a little girl to death, shot a police officer and resisted arrest with any kinds of weapons blaring.
It's simply not up to police to deal out punishment in a way they think fit. It is their place to detain the person in question, using the absolute minimum amount of force necessary to get them tied up and in a car and off to proper judgement.
A skill a good police officer needs to have is the ability to stay clear and focused and not absolutely batshit crazy no matter what the situation. It's the kind of people they are arresting who aren't able to do this and kill their step-child when they realise the child is not theirs.
Obviously the person in the video probably didn't commit the aforementioned crimes but even if they had the way the police officers behaved was completely unreasonable.
Umm, to be quite honest YouTube was never a source of copyrighted material for me or anybody I know. YouTube is about the latest whatever craze, homemade humourous imitations and newsworthy/topical ads and other video content. I've never seen anything from comedy central, in fact the only copyrighted material I've come across is some Family Guy excepts. The quality of that terrible flash player in YouTube does not make it a worthwhile source of media content, and I'm actually quite surprised at the responses from Slashdot and others that the removal of copyrighted material from YouTube would actually impact its content or its popularity.