The kind of model I would hope to see is as follows.
Play a 10 to 15 second advertisement before the video, then show the video, but do not cross merge the video files with advertisements.
Maybe set a cookie on the user's computer so once someone has viewed an advertisement within the past 24 hours or so, they won't get another commercial until that time is up.
Given the current model, this is only a minor change, which should bring revenue into their system. They only need to break even ideally, right? Google has other ways to make money, correct?
There are too many comments for me to check through to see if anyone mentioned this already. Additionally, by the mere fact there are so many already makes it unlikely I will get noticed. Here it goes anyway.
Whatever happened to the real issues? Who cares if they believe in evolution or not? Last time I checked, the President for these united States is the executive, the person who enforces the laws. Sure, the President has a lot of influence, but it is mainly Congress that gets to decide a lot of things.
The real issues that need to be addressed are things like tax reform, health care, etc. Education is a simply issue to deal with: Leave it to the individual states to decide how to do it, but provide them no-strings-attatched type aid.
How is this any different...
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
than what they're doing in with the Narrows bridge in Washington state? I think they're taking pictures of license plates and fining people who skip the toll.
Employers shouldn't decide who is and isn't healthy by various factors. As I said, it would be better for a doctor to decide. A doctor can really get a good look at a person to see how they are doing overall. After all, assuming the smoking question is a yes or no answer, what happens to those who only smoke one cigarette per week?
Agreed. BMI doesn't factor in frame size or muscle mass. Why doesn't the employer just require the employee to get a physical, from a licensed doctor, once every 18 months? If the employee is unhealthy, the employee would have to pay more. Simple as that.
"If the driver is drowsy it triggers the seat belt to tighten and this movement will hopefully snap the driver out of their drowsiness or prompt them to take a rest."
Notice the word hopefully. I figure an airhorn will be undoubtedly effective in the goal of snapping the driver out of his or her drowsiness. Well, if it doesn't startle them into an accident.
She shouldn't have video taped any part of the movie. It was just something stupid she had done.
How does a theatre know if you're video taping all of the movie or just part of it? How do they know which person in a theatre is using the video camera for "fair use" or for "piracy"? I think they need to take a stand, but that doesn't mean she deserves a harsh punishment.
I would think a 19 year old would have more common sense, but maybe common sense is relative. Having a camcorder in a movie theatre just seems like a real bad idea to me.
Stupid people will do stupid things. She shouldn't have done that. If this is going to be a criminal case, then hopefully she will be let off easy with community service or something. Hopefully there is no mandatory minimum sentence.
The article mentions "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" and it also mentions it has to have a value over $1000. I'm thinking it is an attempt to clamp down on piraters, the true pirates, the ones that steal and sell other people's copyrighted material.
However, intent needs to be proven, and the fact that it is "attempting" and not "actually committing" the infringement brings up some problems. How do you prove it exactly?
Will or won't you eventually count the money at some point, even if it means once you get back home where it is safe to count it? I think after a few days, someone will realize they have extra money.
1. What about the number of people who will be in a daze for minutes, if not hours, staring at a new Google website once it goes black? How much electricity will that waste?
2. As someone else pointed out, will it make a difference on LCDs?
3. Is it more difficult to read lettering on a black screen? What about the confort issue?
4. 750 megawatt hours per year. Do you have any idea of what that is representative? Don't people tend to use about 10 megawatt hours per year for an individual household? That is 75 households worth of electricity per year. But wait a second! This is amongst what, millions and millions of people?
As much as I think we need to conserve energy for the sake of conservation, we also need to factor in comfort and whether something is really necessary or not.
If someone goes to civil court, and is found "not liable", wouldn't the defendant be able to bring action against the plantiff for termination of services?
In my opinion, even if someone signs a contract stating that evidence, not a conviction, is needed to terminate a service, that doesn't necessarily mean that is lawful.
If they cut off someone's Internet access before conviction, so be it. But if they go to court and they are NOT found guilty, don't you think the school may have a lawsuit on their hands if they fail to re-enable the student's access?
Sure, I can understand temporarily suspending (or limiting bandwidth) of someone's Internet account to begin with, but after a verdict is reached, further action needs to be taken by the college. If found not guilty, the Internet access should be re-enabled fully.
I mean we're on a slippery slope. If we keep allowing them to infringe on some things, regardless of how justified it may be, once they're done with that "problem", they will begin looking for another "problem" to "fix".
First television, then the Internet. Kids are going to learn swear words somewhere. If not from t.v., then from the Net.
The real issue is this. If you cannot solve health care, the rising cost of tuition, tax reform, etc., you might as well do something that will make some people happy back in your district. As long as it gets you re-elected, right?
Slashdot Mirror
The kind of model I would hope to see is as follows.
Play a 10 to 15 second advertisement before the video, then show the video, but do not cross merge the video files with advertisements.
Maybe set a cookie on the user's computer so once someone has viewed an advertisement within the past 24 hours or so, they won't get another commercial until that time is up.
Given the current model, this is only a minor change, which should bring revenue into their system. They only need to break even ideally, right? Google has other ways to make money, correct?
There are too many comments for me to check through to see if anyone mentioned this already. Additionally, by the mere fact there are so many already makes it unlikely I will get noticed. Here it goes anyway.
Whatever happened to the real issues? Who cares if they believe in evolution or not? Last time I checked, the President for these united States is the executive, the person who enforces the laws. Sure, the President has a lot of influence, but it is mainly Congress that gets to decide a lot of things.
The real issues that need to be addressed are things like tax reform, health care, etc. Education is a simply issue to deal with: Leave it to the individual states to decide how to do it, but provide them no-strings-attatched type aid.
than what they're doing in with the Narrows bridge in Washington state? I think they're taking pictures of license plates and fining people who skip the toll.
Employers shouldn't decide who is and isn't healthy by various factors. As I said, it would be better for a doctor to decide. A doctor can really get a good look at a person to see how they are doing overall. After all, assuming the smoking question is a yes or no answer, what happens to those who only smoke one cigarette per week?
Agreed. BMI doesn't factor in frame size or muscle mass. Why doesn't the employer just require the employee to get a physical, from a licensed doctor, once every 18 months? If the employee is unhealthy, the employee would have to pay more. Simple as that.
"If the driver is drowsy it triggers the seat belt to tighten and this movement will hopefully snap the driver out of their drowsiness or prompt them to take a rest."
Notice the word hopefully. I figure an airhorn will be undoubtedly effective in the goal of snapping the driver out of his or her drowsiness. Well, if it doesn't startle them into an accident.
What about false positives?
Tighten the seat belt? Wouldn't an airhorn be more effective?
Does anyone trust a self-tightening seat belt?
Whatever happened to people taking responsibility for drinking?
Then let us hope the judicial system does the right thing.
I would think that would be the point of fines, at least for big crimes.
I disagree.
Likely it will end up hurting their business.
She shouldn't have video taped any part of the movie. It was just something stupid she had done.
How does a theatre know if you're video taping all of the movie or just part of it? How do they know which person in a theatre is using the video camera for "fair use" or for "piracy"? I think they need to take a stand, but that doesn't mean she deserves a harsh punishment.
I would think a 19 year old would have more common sense, but maybe common sense is relative. Having a camcorder in a movie theatre just seems like a real bad idea to me.
Sorry for what I'm about to say...
Stupid people will do stupid things. She shouldn't have done that. If this is going to be a criminal case, then hopefully she will be let off easy with community service or something. Hopefully there is no mandatory minimum sentence.
In other words, let us hope that the judicial branch of our government attempts to stay true to its purpose.
Interpretation is key, and I hope judges have enough common sense to do what was intended.
You mean someone going multiple times to an ATM and going back to a bar to drink? Can drunks remember their pin number?
The article mentions "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" and it also mentions it has to have a value over $1000. I'm thinking it is an attempt to clamp down on piraters, the true pirates, the ones that steal and sell other people's copyrighted material.
However, intent needs to be proven, and the fact that it is "attempting" and not "actually committing" the infringement brings up some problems. How do you prove it exactly?
Will or won't you eventually count the money at some point, even if it means once you get back home where it is safe to count it? I think after a few days, someone will realize they have extra money.
And why wouldn't someone bother to count the money after withdrawing it to make sure they received the correct amount?
1. What about the number of people who will be in a daze for minutes, if not hours, staring at a new Google website once it goes black? How much electricity will that waste?
2. As someone else pointed out, will it make a difference on LCDs?
3. Is it more difficult to read lettering on a black screen? What about the confort issue?
4. 750 megawatt hours per year. Do you have any idea of what that is representative? Don't people tend to use about 10 megawatt hours per year for an individual household? That is 75 households worth of electricity per year. But wait a second! This is amongst what, millions and millions of people?
As much as I think we need to conserve energy for the sake of conservation, we also need to factor in comfort and whether something is really necessary or not.
That doesn't mean it is necessarily lawful. I would love to see people constantly challenging contracts that are "unlawful".
If someone goes to civil court, and is found "not liable", wouldn't the defendant be able to bring action against the plantiff for termination of services?
In my opinion, I don't think so.
In my opinion, even if someone signs a contract stating that evidence, not a conviction, is needed to terminate a service, that doesn't necessarily mean that is lawful.
If they cut off someone's Internet access before conviction, so be it. But if they go to court and they are NOT found guilty, don't you think the school may have a lawsuit on their hands if they fail to re-enable the student's access?
Sure, I can understand temporarily suspending (or limiting bandwidth) of someone's Internet account to begin with, but after a verdict is reached, further action needs to be taken by the college. If found not guilty, the Internet access should be re-enabled fully.
I mean we're on a slippery slope. If we keep allowing them to infringe on some things, regardless of how justified it may be, once they're done with that "problem", they will begin looking for another "problem" to "fix".
First television, then the Internet. Kids are going to learn swear words somewhere. If not from t.v., then from the Net.
The real issue is this. If you cannot solve health care, the rising cost of tuition, tax reform, etc., you might as well do something that will make some people happy back in your district. As long as it gets you re-elected, right?