More interesting to me is the fact that I'll be 60 by the time an American steps on Mars. I'm really hoping someone else gets there earlier, I don't want to be worrying that the inevitable delays mean I never see it.
Don't worry, by that time the Singularity will have come and we'll all be living in silicon eternity and able to land a "man" on the "Sun" if we want to.
Why the inverted commas around "stealing"? Is it because it is not solid physical property like a house brick? Because you can certainly steal money, even though you're just moving 0s and 1s between bank accounts.
(english in not my first language, and I have to revise better my posts. When reading them, I am painfully aware of where are the mistakes)
Your post made more sense and contained fewer grammatical quirks than most on slashdot written by people with English as their only language, so I wouldn't worry too much.
Movies will be paid for by trailers created in order to generate pre-creation funding. You'll see trailers for movies that haven't been created yet, based on subjects you're interested in and directors you trust. If you like the trailer you see, you'll pledge money taken in escrow. If all goes well, you'll get to see the movie, but otherwise you'll get your money back with a trivial amount of interest. Everyone will get to see the movie for free if it gets made, nobody will make movies that flop and nobody will be punished for sharing numbers.
Trailers are notoriously misleading.
If everyone gets to see the movie for free if it gets made, why would anyone pay money up front?
Most seriously, how would you encourage more experimental or controversial movies if they were dependent on pre-funding based on people's pre-conceived ideas of what they want to see? That is not a good basis for creating challenging works of art.
I see several flaws in your plan, but at least you haven't fallen back on the "well they can always sell action figures to make money" argument for free distribution of digital works.
We get a few rotten people in Queensland as well unfortunately.
We were at a local cinema - near Brisbane, Australia - (Event Cinemas [used to be BCC] in Indooroopilly) and we in fact had a lady with children who encouraged one to take a piss in the isle on a seat about 2 rows down from us. Giving credit to the staff we did actually get a voucher to go see the movie again but I can see why this behavior would turn people away from the cinemas.
Wow, I'm impressed that you have even worse behaved kids in Oz than here in the UK. I thought that was one area where we were still world leaders.
Whether they pirate movies, music or software, pirates seem to be mostly driven by moral considerations. They also tend to have a strong moral code of conduct - don't attribute other group's releases to yourself, always provide the necessary cracks, add an "if you like it, buy it" clause, and so on.
I can see a movie once and then see it over and over again without further charge. It's called memory. Let the MPAA try to use night vision to find me memorizing stuff.
And like most of us you have a perfect photographic memory. Obvs.
Boyfriend/girlfriend sounds right in all cases. "Partner" does not, because it is ambiguous. A partner can be a business relationship. Or you can be playing tennis. You don't need to be a "boy" or "girl" to be a boyfriend/girlfriend
No, anyone over 30 using the term boyfriend/girlfriend sounds retarded. "Partner" is perfectly acceptable, it should be obvious from the context what you mean, and you'd generally say "business partner" if that's what you meant anyway.
Sometimes "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" just don't sound right. I'm over 50 and in a relationship who is also over 50. I'm not a boy, and she isn't a girl. And what if one of my parents dies and the other begins a new relationship? "Boys" and "girls" over 80?
In the UK we just the general term "shag-piece".
As a bonus, you can also use it to address black cab drivers and nightclub bouncers.
The information in this post is not guaranteed to be accurate.
The example from the summary of the law passed in New York is a perfect example of lawmaking run amok. That lawmakers seriously spend their time working on laws like this whole leaving tons of others in committee is ridiculous.
One issue with that law is the bizarrely specific nature of it. But the other is the very existence of laws that are intended to prevent people from making stupid decisions that only affect them (nanny laws).
I think the law is there to protect the tigers, which are an endangered species.
When people are killed by zoo animals, they generally have the animal put down don't they?
The law allows zoos to pre-empt idiots getting themselves and valuable tigers killed.
large scale wars tend to kill off a disproportionate number of healthy young males. Quite why this would have any evolutionary advantage is unclear to me.
It's a private hire/limo company? How is Uber any different from someone calling a private hire/limo company, negotiating a price for the journey and then being picked up kerbside? All of which is legal in most cities.
The only difference in the process (from the customer's point of view) is that it is much more efficient.
Uber is making money because they ignore the law and regulations in the industry it is entering in.
Can you quote the precise statues regarding the ride sharing industry that they are violating, please?
Or are you insisting on claiming they are taxis without medallions, and given the illegality of gypsy cabs, and gypsy cab with a passenger in it is subject to $100 fines in San Francisco, and San Francisco is notorious for fining the heck out of everyone... I guess that money is just rolling in, right? Wait... police don't stop Uber, because they've been told they are not to stop ride sharing services, only gypsy cabs?!? But wouldn't that meant... they're not a taxi service?!?! OMG!!! That's *exactly* what the city of San Francisco is saying by not stopping each and every Uber car with passengers in it!!!
So let's give up on this whole trying to classify them as a taxi to make them illegal crap, M'Kay?
Fuck off, if you pay someone to take you somewhere in a car they're a taxi service.
When the payroll is on someone's desktop PC - or worse yet, a traveling laptop - and you're a Fortune Corporation, there's a lot of risk.
You clearly have never worked anywhere with a payroll of more than a dozen people.
Even moderate sized companies take great care to secure their payroll systems. You simply can't not pay your staff. You can hold off paying your suppliers, but if it's pay day and people's bank accounts don't get credited, you have the prospect of your whole company grinding to a halt.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I'm not looking to buy such a keyboard any time soon, and I agree, he probably wasted his time. But it was his time to waste.
Obviouly, but that doesn't mean slashdot has to waste our time on it.
More interesting to me is the fact that I'll be 60 by the time an American steps on Mars. I'm really hoping someone else gets there earlier, I don't want to be worrying that the inevitable delays mean I never see it.
Don't worry, by that time the Singularity will have come and we'll all be living in silicon eternity and able to land a "man" on the "Sun" if we want to.
Why the inverted commas around "stealing"? Is it because it is not solid physical property like a house brick? Because you can certainly steal money, even though you're just moving 0s and 1s between bank accounts.
(english in not my first language, and I have to revise better my posts. When reading them, I am painfully aware of where are the mistakes)
Your post made more sense and contained fewer grammatical quirks than most on slashdot written by people with English as their only language, so I wouldn't worry too much.
Movies will be paid for by trailers created in order to generate pre-creation funding. You'll see trailers for movies that haven't been created yet, based on subjects you're interested in and directors you trust. If you like the trailer you see, you'll pledge money taken in escrow. If all goes well, you'll get to see the movie, but otherwise you'll get your money back with a trivial amount of interest. Everyone will get to see the movie for free if it gets made, nobody will make movies that flop and nobody will be punished for sharing numbers.
Trailers are notoriously misleading.
If everyone gets to see the movie for free if it gets made, why would anyone pay money up front?
Most seriously, how would you encourage more experimental or controversial movies if they were dependent on pre-funding based on people's pre-conceived ideas of what they want to see? That is not a good basis for creating challenging works of art.
I see several flaws in your plan, but at least you haven't fallen back on the "well they can always sell action figures to make money" argument for free distribution of digital works.
Why bother, slip him two C-notes and have him record it for you.
Or pay the regular entry fee and watch the film like everyone else? Or isn't that edgy and disruptive enough?
We get a few rotten people in Queensland as well unfortunately.
We were at a local cinema - near Brisbane, Australia - (Event Cinemas [used to be BCC] in Indooroopilly) and we in fact had a lady with children who encouraged one to take a piss in the isle on a seat about 2 rows down from us. Giving credit to the staff we did actually get a voucher to go see the movie again but I can see why this behavior would turn people away from the cinemas.
Wow, I'm impressed that you have even worse behaved kids in Oz than here in the UK. I thought that was one area where we were still world leaders.
Whether they pirate movies, music or software, pirates seem to be mostly driven by moral considerations. They also tend to have a strong moral code of conduct - don't attribute other group's releases to yourself, always provide the necessary cracks, add an "if you like it, buy it" clause, and so on.
User name gives you away, Jim laaad.
I can see a movie once and then see it over and over again without further charge. It's called memory. Let the MPAA try to use night vision to find me memorizing stuff.
And like most of us you have a perfect photographic memory. Obvs.
I wouldn't feel much sympathy if the major movie studios and anyone who does business with them were to burn.
Me neither, but then again I don't watch big Hollywood movies.
If you do, your comment makes no sense.
Boyfriend/girlfriend sounds right in all cases. "Partner" does not, because it is ambiguous. A partner can be a business relationship. Or you can be playing tennis. You don't need to be a "boy" or "girl" to be a boyfriend/girlfriend
No, anyone over 30 using the term boyfriend/girlfriend sounds retarded. "Partner" is perfectly acceptable, it should be obvious from the context what you mean, and you'd generally say "business partner" if that's what you meant anyway.
Sometimes "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" just don't sound right. I'm over 50 and in a relationship who is also over 50. I'm not a boy, and she isn't a girl. And what if one of my parents dies and the other begins a new relationship? "Boys" and "girls" over 80?
In the UK we just the general term "shag-piece".
As a bonus, you can also use it to address black cab drivers and nightclub bouncers.
The information in this post is not guaranteed to be accurate.
If not, you have verified the uselessness of Groupon for businesses.
If they have that cash pile, then why are they seeking venture capital in India?
Why do Apple sit on their cash pile instead of distributing it as dividends?
Because they can.
What the fuck is a multi-unicorn?
The example from the summary of the law passed in New York is a perfect example of lawmaking run amok. That lawmakers seriously spend their time working on laws like this whole leaving tons of others in committee is ridiculous.
One issue with that law is the bizarrely specific nature of it. But the other is the very existence of laws that are intended to prevent people from making stupid decisions that only affect them (nanny laws).
I think the law is there to protect the tigers, which are an endangered species.
When people are killed by zoo animals, they generally have the animal put down don't they?
The law allows zoos to pre-empt idiots getting themselves and valuable tigers killed.
large scale wars tend to kill off a disproportionate number of healthy young males. Quite why this would have any evolutionary advantage is unclear to me.
Awww, how typically Russian. Everything's forbidden.
I prefer the US model. Everything's allowed, let God/evolution (either is fine with me) cull stupidity.
Clearly there's nothing in between the two extremes.
Life's so easy when everything's a binary choice isn't it?
So, ban selfie sticks on rides. Why should responsible people have to suffer the ban? This is the reason we can't have nice toys, like hand grenades.
There is no situation in which a real hand grenade is a toy.
the running of the balls
ouch
It's a private hire/limo company? How is Uber any different from someone calling a private hire/limo company, negotiating a price for the journey and then being picked up kerbside? All of which is legal in most cities. The only difference in the process (from the customer's point of view) is that it is much more efficient.
A private hire limo is just a posh taxi.
Uber is making money because they ignore the law and regulations in the industry it is entering in.
Can you quote the precise statues regarding the ride sharing industry that they are violating, please?
Or are you insisting on claiming they are taxis without medallions, and given the illegality of gypsy cabs, and gypsy cab with a passenger in it is subject to $100 fines in San Francisco, and San Francisco is notorious for fining the heck out of everyone ... I guess that money is just rolling in, right? Wait ... police don't stop Uber, because they've been told they are not to stop ride sharing services, only gypsy cabs?!? But wouldn't that meant ... they're not a taxi service?!?! OMG!!! That's *exactly* what the city of San Francisco is saying by not stopping each and every Uber car with passengers in it!!!
So let's give up on this whole trying to classify them as a taxi to make them illegal crap, M'Kay?
Fuck off, if you pay someone to take you somewhere in a car they're a taxi service.
Ride-sharing involves no profit element.
You mean they ignore laws lobbied by cab unions that drive up costs to consumers?
*golfclap*
Well done for coming up with an even more ludicrous scapegoat than the "cab owners in league with corrupt politicians" one.
When the payroll is on someone's desktop PC - or worse yet, a traveling laptop - and you're a Fortune Corporation, there's a lot of risk.
You clearly have never worked anywhere with a payroll of more than a dozen people.
Even moderate sized companies take great care to secure their payroll systems. You simply can't not pay your staff. You can hold off paying your suppliers, but if it's pay day and people's bank accounts don't get credited, you have the prospect of your whole company grinding to a halt.
Ah yes, the now-legendary "cab companies and government" conspiracy theory.