In this day and age, there could be a huge difference. For example, if one of those customers were a large employer purchasing machines for offices in a geographic region, one customer could well acquaint to several dozen units.
Of course, five hundred of either is hardly enough business volume to justify being unable to fulfill demand. The thing isn't exactly new and cutting-edge technology (unless they've found a way to make the microphones work correctly, or to clean up remote audio, or even to correct for the fact that most of humanity are not cinematographers and have no idea how to compose or light a scene for video transmission).
Teleconferencing looks great on television - but there's a reason it hasn't already caught on like wildfire. Hint: it's because on television there is at least one director and/or one cinematographer to make it look right. In reality, most people can't even frame a snapshot correctly.
You're exactly the reason I threw those two words in there. Frankly, I don't believe it either - but it is the ideal state of our form of government. Never mind that it doesn't really work that way.
We all agreed to the law (or at least, in theory a majority of us enacted this law). It's a classic demonstration of the weakness of our form of republican democracy - the wisdom of a few who crafted our government included a constitution which prohibits certain activities which the voting majority may wish to permit. Thus, racism and slavery (for example) while once quite popular among voting citizens are no longer permissible, even if we vote for a law which violates that prohibition. Now, we have the DMCA - a law we must collectively have agreed to, as it is no long merely a bill but a law. It now remains for a "minority" such as a special interest group like the EFF to prove that we (collectively) were wrong to enact the DMCA because it violates certain constitutional prohibitions.
Really - three nearly identical posts - and in all three, you seem almost desperate to have someone acknowledge that you are an insider with super-meaningful knowledge.
Yes, I'm impressed. Hey, do you know an anonymous poster, goes by the handle APK? I'm just curious if you're trying to astroturf or just plain lonely?
How many of these had sideloaded software (malware?) because Johnny wants to watch some, er, interesting videos or play games for money? Does NSA/DARPA/GAO really believe iPhone will do any better?
It reminds me of a potential advertisement a past employer of mine considered - never mind the visuals, the tagline was "They offered me an iPhone. I offered them a head-start!"
You see, you have to believe MS's position that the Trident rendering engine is significantly more efficient than Gecko in something other than a test designed to showcase Edge's not-so-obvious superiority. I wonder if that render efficiency "egde" is due to the lack of plugin support?
...somebody please explain when it became okay for the police to blow people up? I thought the police here in these United States were barred from using military equipment?
Oh, wait . . . that hasn't been true since forever. But hey - since they aren't military, this isn't the government using the military against civilians. Never mind the BDU's, assault rifles, helicopters, armored vehicles, flak jackets, tactical training . . . nothing to see here, people. Move along.
The blade cuts both ways . . . and based on the way the world actually is, the answer is a resounding "YES"! Done it myself a few times - employer dishonesty being the primary cause (like employees, employers can be shiesty).
CBS and Paramount Pictures reserve the right to revise, revoke and/or withdraw these guidelines at any time in their own discretion. These guidelines are not a license and do not constitute approval or authorization of any fan productions or a waiver of any rights that CBS or Paramount Pictures may have with respect to fan fiction created outside of these guidelines. - See more at: http://www.startrek.com/fan-fi...
This has nothing to do with CBS/Paramount's legal rights (which haven't changed and can't be changed by them unilaterally). This is basically a statement to the effect "Hey, we have these rules. If you break them, we're more likely to assert our rights in court. Not saying we will, just reminding you that we can."
Of course, if CBS/Paramount sicks the MPAA on them or starts doing the takedown tap-dance on them that'll be proof that I'm wrong. Until they actually do something like this, the whole article is little more than CBS/Paramount clearing their throat and aiming a (well-desserved?) "ahem" at those fans who think they can make money off the franchise.
It's not surprising to me that "so many people spend so much money on unprofitable companies" - all you need is one fifty-to-one hit and you're way ahead on the nine total losers you threw money at. It's all about greed. Lovely, eternal greed.
The vast majority of the CO2 we've been pumping into the atmo has been from the use of fossil fuels. That's carbon that was in the slow carbon cycle. By burning fossil fuels, we've been pumping that carbon out of the slow carbon cycle and injecting it into the fast carbon cycle.
Before we declare victory on the greenhouse gasses issue, what's this gonna cost? There are already several effective solutions to this problem, but nobody seems willing to pay for what they want. Much of that energy is spent feeding and clothing the rapidly growing human population of this planet, and I don't see the poor (surprisingly, one of the beneficiaries of cheap energy) volunteering to stop eating. Just to be clear - all of that cheap industrially grown food actually has a pretty large carbon footprint associated with it. Mechanized farming is what permits us to feed so many (not enough) people; make that more expensive, and those at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid will have to give up on that whole surviving thing.
So to ask more directly - what's it gonna cost, and what am I gonna get for it? What percentage of atmospheric CO2 can this reasonably be expected to remove, how quickly, and what's that going to cost those who will actually do it? Oh, and will this kill or save people?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, five hundred of either is hardly enough business volume to justify being unable to fulfill demand. The thing isn't exactly new and cutting-edge technology (unless they've found a way to make the microphones work correctly, or to clean up remote audio, or even to correct for the fact that most of humanity are not cinematographers and have no idea how to compose or light a scene for video transmission).
Teleconferencing looks great on television - but there's a reason it hasn't already caught on like wildfire. Hint: it's because on television there is at least one director and/or one cinematographer to make it look right. In reality, most people can't even frame a snapshot correctly.
You're exactly the reason I threw those two words in there. Frankly, I don't believe it either - but it is the ideal state of our form of government. Never mind that it doesn't really work that way.
Which one - Hillary or Melania?
I thought Chris Christie was more like a marine mammal than a shark.
Change is always harder than the status quo.
and then on the plank . . .
Regardless - karma to burn. Use your mod points. Strike me down! With each passing post you make yourself more and more my servant!
About standards
(*waits for angry mob with torches and pitchforks*)
Consider the previous comment suitably modified.
Yes, I'm impressed. Hey, do you know an anonymous poster, goes by the handle APK? I'm just curious if you're trying to astroturf or just plain lonely?
It reminds me of a potential advertisement a past employer of mine considered - never mind the visuals, the tagline was "They offered me an iPhone. I offered them a head-start!"
You see, you have to believe MS's position that the Trident rendering engine is significantly more efficient than Gecko in something other than a test designed to showcase Edge's not-so-obvious superiority. I wonder if that render efficiency "egde" is due to the lack of plugin support?
My firstborn is already fully grown and moved out. Now, where was this 'NameDrop' thing when I was, say, in my 20's?
Oh, wait . . . that hasn't been true since forever. But hey - since they aren't military, this isn't the government using the military against civilians. Never mind the BDU's, assault rifles, helicopters, armored vehicles, flak jackets, tactical training . . . nothing to see here, people. Move along.
The blade cuts both ways . . . and based on the way the world actually is, the answer is a resounding "YES"! Done it myself a few times - employer dishonesty being the primary cause (like employees, employers can be shiesty).
This has nothing to do with CBS/Paramount's legal rights (which haven't changed and can't be changed by them unilaterally). This is basically a statement to the effect "Hey, we have these rules. If you break them, we're more likely to assert our rights in court. Not saying we will, just reminding you that we can."
Of course, if CBS/Paramount sicks the MPAA on them or starts doing the takedown tap-dance on them that'll be proof that I'm wrong. Until they actually do something like this, the whole article is little more than CBS/Paramount clearing their throat and aiming a (well-desserved?) "ahem" at those fans who think they can make money off the franchise.
Sam Flynn was seen jumping off the Encom Tower . . .
(N/T)
Somebody with points fix that. UPZ is dead on-target and (IMHO) +1 insightful.
It's not surprising to me that "so many people spend so much money on unprofitable companies" - all you need is one fifty-to-one hit and you're way ahead on the nine total losers you threw money at. It's all about greed. Lovely, eternal greed.
Thank you (C) for being a friend . . .
So the US economy is great!
Before we declare victory on the greenhouse gasses issue, what's this gonna cost? There are already several effective solutions to this problem, but nobody seems willing to pay for what they want. Much of that energy is spent feeding and clothing the rapidly growing human population of this planet, and I don't see the poor (surprisingly, one of the beneficiaries of cheap energy) volunteering to stop eating. Just to be clear - all of that cheap industrially grown food actually has a pretty large carbon footprint associated with it. Mechanized farming is what permits us to feed so many (not enough) people; make that more expensive, and those at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid will have to give up on that whole surviving thing.
So to ask more directly - what's it gonna cost, and what am I gonna get for it? What percentage of atmospheric CO2 can this reasonably be expected to remove, how quickly, and what's that going to cost those who will actually do it? Oh, and will this kill or save people?
The fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot;
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot! . . .