You wouldn't know it if you listened to the BB stock pumpers who frequent many online forums. They're constantly talking about BB's incredible security as opposed to Apple and Android.
How long has being able to own a personal copy of a movie been around. I know home VCRs have been around since the 1970s, but the cost of buying a videotape even in the 1980s was pretty darned high. I don't think it became common to have large personal movie libraries until the 1990s. So really, the whole personal copy angle has been around maybe 20 or 25 years, a small portion of the amount of time the film industry has been around. I get that DVD sales may be dropping, and you're right, it has been just gravy, for the most part. I imagine there are some marginal losers out there that may have squeaked through a net profit due to video sales, and I know there's money to be made off of releasing TV series, though I'd wager streaming has taken a cut out of that as well.
The real problem here is that the TV and film industry long ago plateaued on how much money they could make. Now it's about how the pie gets distributed, with streaming taking a large piece by cannibalizing sales in other distribution streams.
But studios have always had a mix of huge successes, moderate successes, moderate failures and colossal flops. Is there any evidence that that trend is worse now than it was, say, in 1963, when Cleopatra became one of the biggest and most expensive flops in movie history?
That's not the argument at all. The argument is that the claims that any film industry financial problems are due to pirating is rubbish. That's not a defense of pirating, that's a statement that the MPAA's frequently floated claim is garbage.
Now, the music industry, on the other hand, is another matter. I guess it comes down to the point that people think music is worth less than movies.
Considering Deadpool has alone has made over $750 million dollars globally, on a budget of less than $60 million, and that's not counting big blockbusters of late like Star Wars VII and even Batman vs Superman, I think claims of the movie industry's demise are heavily overstated. Hell, Deadpool and Star Wars are still playing on screens near where I live.
Yes, there have been flops, but I doubt anyone can link those flops to pirating.
It's faster and less power intensive likely because it's so feature-poor. That's why both Firefox and Chrome, back in their early days, were faster browsers, but bloat is inevitable to support feature sets. But for me, Edge's instability is the reason I avoid it more than anything else. It's a long way from what I consider to be a production product, and I'm not much interested in helping Redmond work out the kinks in a beta product that shouldn't even be in a mainline distribution of their operating system.
We've had numerous problems at work with Windows 10 upgrades. Edge is badly unstable, to the point that we've used GPOs to make Chrome the default browser, and make sure Edge isn't the default application for anything. Even using Firefox's nightly builds back in the day didn't produce the erratic and buggy browsing experience that Edge does. But I don't think Microsoft had much choice. The IE engine is badly out of date, and if they didn't move to some other solution, they'd be completely screwed. Still, you think they could have put more effort into getting it to a base point of reliability before throwing it at the world.
I'm impressed with how quickly you moved the goal posts. Yes, they have a vagina and a clitoris, constructed to be sure, but then again, there are women out there that for a number of reasons have had to have genital reconstruction. As to whether you could do anything with it, that's a question only you can answer. My feeling is that women, whatever their original gender identity, probably aren't keen for you to do anything with their genitals.
You draw the line as you do with anything, with even handed reasonableness. Since a judge is going to quickly determine that you're a liar, and your actions within the women's washroom will be as a leering pervert, it doesn't even matter if you are really a woman. You will likely end up in some heap of trouble.
Unisex washrooms have been around in some jurisdictions for years and there has been no evidence of large numbers of perverts claiming they're mentally preteen girls using the shared bathrooms as a place to commit sex crimes. I'd happily go for unisex washrooms where urinals were as private as toilets, and since the primary bodily functions for men and women are largely the same, with only relatively small differences in plumbing between the bladder and the urethra, public washrooms will be what they always have been, a place you want to do your business as quickly in as possible and then get the hell out of.
"Vote with your money" didn't fix segregation. The Supreme Court and the National Guard did. In other words, left to its own devices, it appears that Jim Crow would have kept on going for years, largely because African-Americans were a minority, disadvantaged economically, politically and judicially. Arguing that the free market would have fixed it is like arguing that an army of talking penguins would have fixed it.
And the one poster who frequently has his posts outright removed from Slashdot appears, to demonstrate that there is a level of insane trolling that not even the/. editors will tolerate.
So far as it goes, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw. They have found a pretty strong statistical correlation between writers who are female or non-white. If you read some of the analysis, there is some good points that there may be some selection bias going on, particularly as some moderation doesn't appear to follow the Guardian's community standards, but even with that in mind, there's a strong enough signal there to suggest that women and non-whites who contribute to the Guardian are more likely to attract certain kinds of posters.
Since you can turn off all moderation filtering (which I do, the site is quite boring if you read at higher mod levels), it's up to you as the reader. That seems to me to be the best approach. In other words, short of a few rather abusive posters (like APK when he goes off his meds), moderation only exists if you, the reader, decides it does.
Slashdot allows you to read at -1, so there's a way around its moderation. What you write certainly applies to sites like the Guardian, but it cannot be said to apply to Slashdot to the same degree at all.
What I've found from the news sites that have gone to Facebook is not only a much smaller set of comments, but a great increase in spam. By putting their faith in Facebook to weed out the malcontents, many sites literally destroy their comment sections.
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't know it if you listened to the BB stock pumpers who frequent many online forums. They're constantly talking about BB's incredible security as opposed to Apple and Android.
Just one more nail in the coffin.
How long has being able to own a personal copy of a movie been around. I know home VCRs have been around since the 1970s, but the cost of buying a videotape even in the 1980s was pretty darned high. I don't think it became common to have large personal movie libraries until the 1990s. So really, the whole personal copy angle has been around maybe 20 or 25 years, a small portion of the amount of time the film industry has been around. I get that DVD sales may be dropping, and you're right, it has been just gravy, for the most part. I imagine there are some marginal losers out there that may have squeaked through a net profit due to video sales, and I know there's money to be made off of releasing TV series, though I'd wager streaming has taken a cut out of that as well.
The real problem here is that the TV and film industry long ago plateaued on how much money they could make. Now it's about how the pie gets distributed, with streaming taking a large piece by cannibalizing sales in other distribution streams.
Well, it's not like he did something really bad like taking a bunch of JSTOR documents.
But studios have always had a mix of huge successes, moderate successes, moderate failures and colossal flops. Is there any evidence that that trend is worse now than it was, say, in 1963, when Cleopatra became one of the biggest and most expensive flops in movie history?
That's not the argument at all. The argument is that the claims that any film industry financial problems are due to pirating is rubbish. That's not a defense of pirating, that's a statement that the MPAA's frequently floated claim is garbage.
Now, the music industry, on the other hand, is another matter. I guess it comes down to the point that people think music is worth less than movies.
Considering Deadpool has alone has made over $750 million dollars globally, on a budget of less than $60 million, and that's not counting big blockbusters of late like Star Wars VII and even Batman vs Superman, I think claims of the movie industry's demise are heavily overstated. Hell, Deadpool and Star Wars are still playing on screens near where I live.
Yes, there have been flops, but I doubt anyone can link those flops to pirating.
Any private enterprise is allowed to deny free speech at their whim. Your choice, as a free individual, is to decide not to contribute to such sites.
No, it's just a lazy label like "feminazi" or "cultural Marxist". What it usually indicates is that the person using it is being intellectually lazy.
Shut up, APK
And APK's other trick, to pose as his own defender. Do you think we're all idiots?
It's faster and less power intensive likely because it's so feature-poor. That's why both Firefox and Chrome, back in their early days, were faster browsers, but bloat is inevitable to support feature sets. But for me, Edge's instability is the reason I avoid it more than anything else. It's a long way from what I consider to be a production product, and I'm not much interested in helping Redmond work out the kinks in a beta product that shouldn't even be in a mainline distribution of their operating system.
We've had numerous problems at work with Windows 10 upgrades. Edge is badly unstable, to the point that we've used GPOs to make Chrome the default browser, and make sure Edge isn't the default application for anything. Even using Firefox's nightly builds back in the day didn't produce the erratic and buggy browsing experience that Edge does. But I don't think Microsoft had much choice. The IE engine is badly out of date, and if they didn't move to some other solution, they'd be completely screwed. Still, you think they could have put more effort into getting it to a base point of reliability before throwing it at the world.
Marriage; a civil and conjugal union between two people.
There, now you know what marriage is.,
Don't you see how not letting some fine upstanding God-fearing American deny someone in a wheel chair access is tyranny!!!!
I'm impressed with how quickly you moved the goal posts. Yes, they have a vagina and a clitoris, constructed to be sure, but then again, there are women out there that for a number of reasons have had to have genital reconstruction. As to whether you could do anything with it, that's a question only you can answer. My feeling is that women, whatever their original gender identity, probably aren't keen for you to do anything with their genitals.
Have some evidence that shared unisex washrooms increase rates of sex offense.
Not to worry, I'll wait while you prove your assertion.
If it's such an easy search, why didn't you provide the results?
You draw the line as you do with anything, with even handed reasonableness. Since a judge is going to quickly determine that you're a liar, and your actions within the women's washroom will be as a leering pervert, it doesn't even matter if you are really a woman. You will likely end up in some heap of trouble.
Unisex washrooms have been around in some jurisdictions for years and there has been no evidence of large numbers of perverts claiming they're mentally preteen girls using the shared bathrooms as a place to commit sex crimes. I'd happily go for unisex washrooms where urinals were as private as toilets, and since the primary bodily functions for men and women are largely the same, with only relatively small differences in plumbing between the bladder and the urethra, public washrooms will be what they always have been, a place you want to do your business as quickly in as possible and then get the hell out of.
"Vote with your money" didn't fix segregation. The Supreme Court and the National Guard did. In other words, left to its own devices, it appears that Jim Crow would have kept on going for years, largely because African-Americans were a minority, disadvantaged economically, politically and judicially. Arguing that the free market would have fixed it is like arguing that an army of talking penguins would have fixed it.
Except that that only applies to people reading with mod filters on.
Unless this is some sort of game for you where you think you don't win the golden ticket if people don't think your posts are great.
And the one poster who frequently has his posts outright removed from Slashdot appears, to demonstrate that there is a level of insane trolling that not even the /. editors will tolerate.
Do you ever actually post anywhere else?
So far as it goes, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw. They have found a pretty strong statistical correlation between writers who are female or non-white. If you read some of the analysis, there is some good points that there may be some selection bias going on, particularly as some moderation doesn't appear to follow the Guardian's community standards, but even with that in mind, there's a strong enough signal there to suggest that women and non-whites who contribute to the Guardian are more likely to attract certain kinds of posters.
Since you can turn off all moderation filtering (which I do, the site is quite boring if you read at higher mod levels), it's up to you as the reader. That seems to me to be the best approach. In other words, short of a few rather abusive posters (like APK when he goes off his meds), moderation only exists if you, the reader, decides it does.
Slashdot allows you to read at -1, so there's a way around its moderation. What you write certainly applies to sites like the Guardian, but it cannot be said to apply to Slashdot to the same degree at all.
What I've found from the news sites that have gone to Facebook is not only a much smaller set of comments, but a great increase in spam. By putting their faith in Facebook to weed out the malcontents, many sites literally destroy their comment sections.