You'll notice that wedding photography has already reverted to this model. In the 20th century, the photographer shot your wedding for free or for a token fee. You then paid for copies of the photos. The increasing quality of scanners and color printers forced wedding photographers to abandon this model. Nowadays, you hire the wedding photographer for a large enough fee to cover all their costs (the "patron" model). The prints (or digital copies) are given to you for a token sum, or even for free.
Yes, but what professional wedding photographers don't do is spend several hours of their own time at the wedding using equipment that they've had to pay for, then give you a copy of all the photos on a memory stick and rely on your goodwill to pay them for copies of any you like.
And in reality, there's no difference between paying (made up figures) five hundred quid for the photographer's time and getting 'free' prints, or paying him nothing and spending five hundred quid on a reasonable choice of photos.
Copying is, in fact, a natural right: you need to exert violence to avoid it. Copy rights are in fact not rights but a privilege: you apply state violence against those that otherwise could freely copy/distribute what they know/they have
Found the libertarian.
By this definition, any law requires 'violence' to enforce it, as the penalty for breaking a law has to involve some form of constraint on property or person.
The iceberg will be melting the whole time. Most of the fresh water will escape into the ocean and become useless seawater by the time it's at Dubai.
How the hell is that different than what will happen anyway? Icebergs melt..... That's all they do... I take that back, sometimes they sink ships.... Sink ships and melt... That's all...
There's two things that icebergs do: melt, sink ships and display an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
To me cinema was never about the movies.It was more about have an experience with friends. When I was younger, we would go with some people, watch it and
talk about it over a few beers (Europe, differ drinking age)
When I was younger, a movie was just two hours of drinking time wasted. If you want crap to talk about, just watch the TV.
I do wonder where the justification for this comes from? Most people have problems managing to charge their phone at night, why would they manage to keep their car charged if the phone is too challenging?
Unless you are taking serious drugs or passing out from excess alcohol each night, charging your phone is really not an issue for most people.
Last time I had to get a carb prime button for my 25 year old 2 stroke mower, the guy at the mower shop offered me $600 for it. When lawn guys drive by and I'm mowing they slow down. I have to lock it up.
You guys sure are competitive about your garden implements.
Anyone with eyeballs. Just watch cars go by. 70-80% have a single occupant. That is "normal use".
That car will be quite usable, quite comfortable, to drive under all conditions, save the occasional wildfire fire, flood, earthquake, blizzard and so on. When you need passenger or cargo space, it will be there. When you need range, speed or acceleration, it will be there.
That is assuming the current model of owning one vehicle to do everything. The point is that if it was economically and technically possible, it would make much more sense to have a one-seater with a lunchbox-carrying capacity for your solo commute, a two-seater with some luggage capacity for taking your partner shopping and a six-seater with a trailer for taking the whole family camping once a year.
Three wheels isn't considered a motorcycle. That's why you can drive a trike without a motorcycle license.
At least here in the UK, bubble cars, Reliants and trikes were only really ever a thing precisely because you COULD drive them on a motorcycle license. Back in the 1950s/60s car licenses were relatively unusual and it was extremely easy to get a motorcycle license.
Once you have a car license there are no obvious advantages of a 3 wheeler over 4.
Oxford (fucking) university gives out Masters of Science degrees in 'Women's Studies'. WTF?
A quick google suggests it is actually an MSt (Master of Studies) degree in Women's Studies.
At Oxford, you always used to be able to get an MA as a freebie (basically just by staying alive for a few years after getting your BA and paying a nominal fee) so they needed to have a different award for a Master's degree where you did some actual work, hence the MSt.
Just like any comment starting "No offence, but..." is going to be offensive, so any sentence starting "It's not racist but.." is going to sound like Donald Trump.
By demanding some insanely high minimum "living wage", what you are really doing is killing millions of small part time jobs that would otherwise exist and let people choose to work at the level they desired. Your train of thought is literally forcing people into full time jobs (since full time work are the only kind of jobs left beyond a certain minimum wage), the ones that can find them that is as lower end jobs shut down... truly you are a monster, nearly on the level of Stalin but honestly more cruel to your fellow man. You are forcing more people than ever before to be cogs at a time when everyone could truly be free, you seek to shackle and enslave them forever more. A pox on both your houses.
Well, here in the UK "living wage" refers to the hourly rate, just like "minimum wage". Obviously, if you only work 10 hours a week you're not going to be on the same as someone working 40 regardless.
So tell us, what actually is his salary? Actual salary, not the stock and options compensation typical of start-ups. It's a public company, it should be out there. Or are you yourself hand-waving to imply that he's one of those evil rich guys draining the business dry with his salary while his workers starve?
Ah yes, the old "CEO agreed to only pay himself $1 salary this year" gag.
This, exactly, is the problem. Every CEO of every major company these days is paid like a precious, one-of-a-kind, irreplaceable snowflake. Very few actually are. Thanks to my career choices I've worked directly with a good number of top-level executives in several companies from small to 5000+ employees.
OK, but why didn't you take the job then? You could have made dramatically more money.
I've worked with people in sales who earned a lot more money than me. It doesn't mean that I could do their job, even if I wanted to. The point is that there are plenty of other people who could. They have a specific skill set, but they are not uniquely talented geniuses like Albert Einstein (or George Clooney or Usain Bolt).
"Last year, McDonald’s boss Steve Easterbrook earned $21.7m while the McDonald’s workers earned a median wage of just $7,017 – a CEO to worker pay ratio of 3,101 to one."
$7,017 is less than half the federal minimum wage. Clearly this "study" includes part time workers.
OK, so say the pay ratio is more like 1000 to 1. Does that really make any difference to the argument? It's still hugely disproportionate compared to 50 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Being arrogant makes you more likely to do something big.
No, because it depends on whether the arrogance is based on reality.
There are just as many idiots as geniuses who think they are wonderful.
You'll notice that wedding photography has already reverted to this model. In the 20th century, the photographer shot your wedding for free or for a token fee. You then paid for copies of the photos. The increasing quality of scanners and color printers forced wedding photographers to abandon this model. Nowadays, you hire the wedding photographer for a large enough fee to cover all their costs (the "patron" model). The prints (or digital copies) are given to you for a token sum, or even for free.
Yes, but what professional wedding photographers don't do is spend several hours of their own time at the wedding using equipment that they've had to pay for, then give you a copy of all the photos on a memory stick and rely on your goodwill to pay them for copies of any you like.
And in reality, there's no difference between paying (made up figures) five hundred quid for the photographer's time and getting 'free' prints, or paying him nothing and spending five hundred quid on a reasonable choice of photos.
Copying is, in fact, a natural right: you need to exert violence to avoid it. Copy rights are in fact not rights but a privilege: you apply state violence against those that otherwise could freely copy/distribute what they know/they have
Found the libertarian.
By this definition, any law requires 'violence' to enforce it, as the penalty for breaking a law has to involve some form of constraint on property or person.
How about they just order it from Amazon prime? Free shipping and two day delivery.
This would appear to solve the problem of interstellar travel too.
No.
The iceberg will be melting the whole time. Most of the fresh water will escape into the ocean and become useless seawater by the time it's at Dubai.
How the hell is that different than what will happen anyway? Icebergs melt..... That's all they do... I take that back, sometimes they sink ships.... Sink ships and melt... That's all...
There's two things that icebergs do: melt, sink ships and display an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
People forget that the current way of working on a PC evolved over 150ish years
I appear to have fallen asleep and woken up 100 years in the future.
Hello world!
the last three startups I've worked at
I know it's hard to believe, but most people don't work at startups.
What the hell does a fridge need a screen for?
You can connect it to a webcam inside the fridge and see if the light goes out when you close the door.
Truly, we live in magical times.
Good read, but what a goddam depressing book!
That's kind of the deal with Dystopias.
To me cinema was never about the movies.It was more about have an experience with friends. When I was younger, we would go with some people, watch it and talk about it over a few beers (Europe, differ drinking age)
When I was younger, a movie was just two hours of drinking time wasted. If you want crap to talk about, just watch the TV.
How much experience do you have with methane winds at -180 degrees on a gas giant with high gravity? Just wondering.
Is that a trick question to see whether he's an alien visitor?
Always good to hear the feminist take on things.
She should be. A total fraud. Too rich to jail?
I believe it is customary to have something called "a trial" first.
No doubt the slashdot preference would be for a good old-fashioned 'trial by water' i.e. chucking her in a pond tied to a chair.
I do wonder where the justification for this comes from? Most people have problems managing to charge their phone at night, why would they manage to keep their car charged if the phone is too challenging?
Unless you are taking serious drugs or passing out from excess alcohol each night, charging your phone is really not an issue for most people.
"after a commotion he was terminated" Not sure if dysphemism for "fired", or ... "
Just a shoddy translation is my guess.
Spoilsport.
Not anybody's experience but yours.
Last time I had to get a carb prime button for my 25 year old 2 stroke mower, the guy at the mower shop offered me $600 for it. When lawn guys drive by and I'm mowing they slow down. I have to lock it up.
You guys sure are competitive about your garden implements.
Anyone with eyeballs. Just watch cars go by. 70-80% have a single occupant. That is "normal use".
That car will be quite usable, quite comfortable, to drive under all conditions, save the occasional wildfire fire, flood, earthquake, blizzard and so on. When you need passenger or cargo space, it will be there. When you need range, speed or acceleration, it will be there.
That is assuming the current model of owning one vehicle to do everything. The point is that if it was economically and technically possible, it would make much more sense to have a one-seater with a lunchbox-carrying capacity for your solo commute, a two-seater with some luggage capacity for taking your partner shopping and a six-seater with a trailer for taking the whole family camping once a year.
Three wheels isn't considered a motorcycle. That's why you can drive a trike without a motorcycle license.
At least here in the UK, bubble cars, Reliants and trikes were only really ever a thing precisely because you COULD drive them on a motorcycle license. Back in the 1950s/60s car licenses were relatively unusual and it was extremely easy to get a motorcycle license.
Once you have a car license there are no obvious advantages of a 3 wheeler over 4.
Oxford (fucking) university gives out Masters of Science degrees in 'Women's Studies'. WTF?
A quick google suggests it is actually an MSt (Master of Studies) degree in Women's Studies.
At Oxford, you always used to be able to get an MA as a freebie (basically just by staying alive for a few years after getting your BA and paying a nominal fee) so they needed to have a different award for a Master's degree where you did some actual work, hence the MSt.
Sorry to spoil the fun.
It's not racist but
Just like any comment starting "No offence, but..." is going to be offensive, so any sentence starting "It's not racist but.." is going to sound like Donald Trump.
It helps if you have a vagina.
Yes, it is a scientific fact that the vast majority of CEOs are women. There's no real evidence for it, but it's scientific fact.
By demanding some insanely high minimum "living wage", what you are really doing is killing millions of small part time jobs that would otherwise exist and let people choose to work at the level they desired. Your train of thought is literally forcing people into full time jobs (since full time work are the only kind of jobs left beyond a certain minimum wage), the ones that can find them that is as lower end jobs shut down... truly you are a monster, nearly on the level of Stalin but honestly more cruel to your fellow man. You are forcing more people than ever before to be cogs at a time when everyone could truly be free, you seek to shackle and enslave them forever more. A pox on both your houses.
Well, here in the UK "living wage" refers to the hourly rate, just like "minimum wage". Obviously, if you only work 10 hours a week you're not going to be on the same as someone working 40 regardless.
So tell us, what actually is his salary? Actual salary, not the stock and options compensation typical of start-ups. It's a public company, it should be out there. Or are you yourself hand-waving to imply that he's one of those evil rich guys draining the business dry with his salary while his workers starve?
Ah yes, the old "CEO agreed to only pay himself $1 salary this year" gag.
This, exactly, is the problem. Every CEO of every major company these days is paid like a precious, one-of-a-kind, irreplaceable snowflake. Very few actually are. Thanks to my career choices I've worked directly with a good number of top-level executives in several companies from small to 5000+ employees.
OK, but why didn't you take the job then? You could have made dramatically more money.
I've worked with people in sales who earned a lot more money than me. It doesn't mean that I could do their job, even if I wanted to. The point is that there are plenty of other people who could. They have a specific skill set, but they are not uniquely talented geniuses like Albert Einstein (or George Clooney or Usain Bolt).
Same with CEOs.
"Last year, McDonald’s boss Steve Easterbrook earned $21.7m while the McDonald’s workers earned a median wage of just $7,017 – a CEO to worker pay ratio of 3,101 to one."
$7,017 is less than half the federal minimum wage. Clearly this "study" includes part time workers.
OK, so say the pay ratio is more like 1000 to 1. Does that really make any difference to the argument? It's still hugely disproportionate compared to 50 years ago.