If your presence at work is critical, you can get a deferral (I've done this in NY & NJ). In my experience, this is done via a letter from your employer (or self, if self-employed) to the court requesting it. Eventually you'll need to serve or face a contempt-of-court charge.
This allows companies and individuals to not face undue hardship from jury duty.
When I was called in NJ, I was once even given the opportunity to select when I would be available, and I scheduled projects/coverage at work around it.
My wife is a doctor; if she's empaneled, all her patients will have their appointments canceled with minimal to no notice.
I've been called fo jury duty four times. Never did I have less than two months notice.
Although, for the petit jury notices, I didn't know until the night before if I would actually serve the next day... I did know that I had to be available for the entire week (and thus cleared my work schedule of conference calls, meetings, etc).
Well, poor people are over-represented in the US military. And minorities are over-represented in those classed as poor.
So even if what you say is still true (I think recent recruitment demographics would be telling), it doesn't necessarily mean that poor minorities are under-represented.
One other note: the analysis you recall reading was probably referring to the demographics of the 2003 study, which does not consider "Hispanic" a race (let alone a minority).
All in all, I don't think we have an accurate or telling measure of minority representation in the military.
it even worked for the United States until Washington got it into his head that he needed a regular army to be a proper respectable general.
Washington needed a regular army in order to have an army. Broke colonies couldn't pay for their militias much longer.
And it's important to note that Washington abhorred the idea of a standing army... the army was disbanded after the Revolutionary war. The first military action of the new republic, the put-down of the Whiskey Rebellion, was done with an all-volunteer army.
I suspect that way back in the past jurors were decently compensated.
Yes, they were compensated the same way we are now -- knowing that if you are indicted, you have the right to trial by jury. Jurors in the US have never been compensated well fiscally (excepting bribery:)) -- it's civic duty to serve.
You are compensated for your time as a juror by the fact that you live in a more-or-less orderly society where you (in principle) have rights that the government cannot take away.
Oh, you mean he didn't get the jury notice far in advance like everyone else does? And the doctor didn't bother to free up his schedule for when he'd need to be available for jury duty?
If there were scheduled patients on that day, the blame for the missed appointments lies solely at the feet of the doctor.
And when you buy from a newsstand, the newsstand makes a profit (shocking, I know!). And if you think that's a razor-thin profit, think again. At one point the Sunday Los Angeles Times cost me 37.5 cents a paper, while I turned around and sold it for the newsstand price of $1.50.
Many publishers lose money on newsstand sales. Not only does the newsstand take a cut, but you have to *pay* for the privilege of having your magazine on the shelf, and you have to *pay* for good placement, simlar to getting your products in a supermarket.
The trade-off of the loss on newsstand sales is the beneficial impact the NS sales numbers have on your ad sales.
No. It's because 12 * 3 > 4 * 5.
You're only considering 1/2 of the equation -- revenue. What about expense? Expenses are far higher nor NS sales than they are for sub sales.
Someone who buys at a newsstand will, on average, NOT buy anywhere near the full year's worth of issues. They'll buy, on average, 3 or 4 issues over the entire year.
Where are you getting this estimation from, I'd be curious to read up on it -- I don't recall seeing numbers as high as 3-4/yr for monthlies (I've been out of publishing a long time) -- IIRC, it was something like 1-2.
At one point the Sunday Los Angeles Times cost me 37.5 cents a paper, while I turned around and sold it for the newsstand price of $1.50.
I don't know how much newspapers differ from magazines, since I was never involved in newspaper publishing. But for magazines, the retail markups I've seen were around 100%, not 300%... it might have something to do with the fact that newspapers have a much higher percentage of their sales from NS than magazines do.
Several niche magazines are published by non-profits.
Whether or not a business is a non-profit is ancillary to their business model; publishing is a competitive business and margins are thin, for both for-profit and non-profit publishers.
Consumer Reports is a niche magazine with a subscription-driven revenue model. One of the woodworking magazines I subscribe to also shares this model.
One of the publishers I used to work for had a few titles on this model, and a title on the advertising centric revenue model.
I guess the point of this post is, what does Consumer Reports business status have to do with whether their business model is [advertising|circulation]-revenue centric?
As an aside, Consumer Reports is more profitable than many for-profit publishers. What they do with their profits is a different matter (reinvestment in the business vs. distribution to shareholders/partners).
Actually, sexconker is partially correct. The guy who "clearly knows quite about about how the magazine publishing world actually works" does not know as much as you think he does.
As for my credentials, I worked in magazine publishing for 7 years (as an accountant, but I also was involved in ABC [Audit Bureau of Circulations] audits), then audited financials of magazine publishers (among other companies) for three years.
People like you don't matter to the magazine publishers. Indeed, magazine publishers could do just fine without the newsstand vending because that's not where the bulk of their subscribers come from. The only thing newsstand vending does for them, really, is get new subscribers to sell ads for.
You obviously don't know the magazine business very well -- it could be your knowledge is only of the bigger magazines.
Newsstand sales are vital to magazines, because it affects their advertising sales and the rates they can charge. Relative newsstand sales indicate a couple things to advertisers -- does your magazine entice people who buy on impulse? Will your subscribers also be enticed by your magazine, and thus be more likely to view the ad buys? Also, newsstand sales are full-price sales; the revenue is disproportionate to the sales volume.
Indeed, the vast bulk of the money they make is from advertisers, not from the subscriptions. The subscriptions are gravy.
There are a mix of business models for magazines; while most major magazines have the majority of their revenue coming from advertising, circulation revenue is also important. And for niche or small magazines, subscriptions can easily outweigh advertising for revenue. These are the magazines that tend to have the best content, IMO.
All that said, demographics are key to ad sales. It IS a big deal, as you say, for them not to have the demographics. Which is humorous, IMO, since I've never audited a publishing company that didn't play a little fast-and-loose with circulation demographics. Subscriber surveys, etc. This makes me think there's another reason besides demographics that the magazines want that info. And I think that reason is subscriber renewals. A couple circulation studies I've seen showed that third-party subscriptions had renewal rates far, far lower than direct subs. When a publisher can use direct mail to contact those lost renewals, the conversion rate is much higher than related-interest (non-former-subscriber) DM campaigns. So really, I think it's about being able to get renewals.
Also, it's important for cross-marketing of other titles by the same publisher.
If you don't think taxation is robbery, then try levying your own taxes.
Levying your own taxes with the threat of violence is against the law, and therefore is robbery.
Legal taxes instituted by law are not robbery. By definition, they are not robbery.
I really don't care that you don't like taxes. But taxes are not robbery by any stretch.
as long as you believe in the existence of "legitimate authorities" you remain vulnerable to the agentic state described by Stanley Milgram in Obedience to Authority
Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that taxes are not robbery.
Viewers don't realize their ears are tricking them.
I realize my ears are tricking me, and it makes no damn difference. I perceive the commercials to be too loud, therefore they are too loud (it's a subjective matter).
I couldn't give a rat's ass that the volume levels peak no higher than what's on the show. I DO give a rat's ass about the fact that the commercials are annoying as hell because of how they saturate the dynamic range.
If you claim to be a proponent of free markets, which means markets without any regulation whatsoever, then you must reject this law.
I disagree with your definition of the term "free market". That is the definition anarchists use when they describe how they want to see markets operate; the economic definition of a free market is very different, and requires regulation to remain free.
I think we agree in general on this topic... it just pains me to see someone I respect allowing that definition to stand.
One more thing...
Right? Eh? Right, you libertarian Slashdotters? The fact that loud commercials didn't bring on the death of television is proof positive that people love and want loud commercials, right?
Reminds me of a joke...
A Keynesian economist and a Chicago school economist are walking down the street. The Keynesian spots a $10 bill on the ground, and exclaims, "Hey! $10! Let's give it to a beggar so he can buy a sandwich which will help support the sandwich-shop owner who is flirting with bankruptcy in this recession.
The Chicago economist replies, "A $10 bill? Nonsense... there cannot be a $10 bill, someone would have picked it up already."
* Note: feel free to substitute "Austrian" for "Chicago", except we'd probably need to change the $10 bill to a nugget of gold.
Why would that be? You're the one who chose to make a post challenging a semantic definition. When arguing semantics and definitions (which you started, pal) -- referring to a dictionary is perfectly valid. There must be a common basis in language for a discussion to take place. You chose to interpret words in such a way that normal understanding of the meanings of words invalidates your point.
I maintain, go take your horseshit somewhere else -- don't make up definitions of words to try to make a semantic argument.
While Slashdot editors make their fair share of mistakes, how can they know that every fool has had to go back on his words?
It was a writing error -- Timothy stupidly used the present tense instead of the past tense when referring to something that happened yesterday. If he's going to use the present tense, he damn well sure should check to see if anything has changed since yesterday morning when Flanagan made his outrageous comments.
What Timothy wrote was false, and while in this case it does not seem likely that there would be any lawsuits, this isn't the first time, and it surely won't be the last, that an untruth has been written by a slashdot editor -- and one of these times, they're gonna get bit in the ass for it.
When acting purely as an aggregator, fact-checking isn't a big deal, as the responsibility for the falsehoods are with the original publisher. But this is editorialism and reporting -- if slashdot wishes to keep their noses clean and maintain some degree of respectability, they've got to fact-check responsibly (i.e., on the content they write themselves).
Can we please dispense with not knowing the definition of words we are attempting to assign as the meaning of other words?
Taxes are not robbery. Robbery is generally defined as "an act of larceny carried out via the use or threat of violence". Larceny is defined as "the act of taking something from someone unlawfully".
Taxes are lawful; therefore they cannot be construed as larceny; therefore they cannot be construed as robbery.
It got buried down below, but I already made a post explaining that Flanagan recanted. The recantment was reported in lots of places yesterday, I saw it on the late news here in the NY metro area.
Flanagan explained it away as a "glib" response that doesn't actually represent what he feels to be the best course of action.
But, of course, you fed the troll editorialization. Don't worry, we all do it sometimes.
I just wish that Timothy and the other editors would fact-check their editorializations before they get into hot water.
Summary is false. Flanagan does NOT currently openly advocate assassination of Assange. Flanagan recanted.
C'mon guys... I know it's too much to ask to have you guys fact-check the actual submissions... but you should seriously consider fact-checking your editorializations that succede them. Not only would it help ensure a better project, but would also help prevent getting your asses sued.
Slashdot Mirror
If your presence at work is critical, you can get a deferral (I've done this in NY & NJ). In my experience, this is done via a letter from your employer (or self, if self-employed) to the court requesting it. Eventually you'll need to serve or face a contempt-of-court charge.
This allows companies and individuals to not face undue hardship from jury duty.
When I was called in NJ, I was once even given the opportunity to select when I would be available, and I scheduled projects/coverage at work around it.
I've been called fo jury duty four times. Never did I have less than two months notice.
Although, for the petit jury notices, I didn't know until the night before if I would actually serve the next day... I did know that I had to be available for the entire week (and thus cleared my work schedule of conference calls, meetings, etc).
Well, poor people are over-represented in the US military. And minorities are over-represented in those classed as poor.
So even if what you say is still true (I think recent recruitment demographics would be telling), it doesn't necessarily mean that poor minorities are under-represented.
One other note: the analysis you recall reading was probably referring to the demographics of the 2003 study, which does not consider "Hispanic" a race (let alone a minority).
All in all, I don't think we have an accurate or telling measure of minority representation in the military.
Washington needed a regular army in order to have an army. Broke colonies couldn't pay for their militias much longer.
And it's important to note that Washington abhorred the idea of a standing army... the army was disbanded after the Revolutionary war. The first military action of the new republic, the put-down of the Whiskey Rebellion, was done with an all-volunteer army.
Yes, they were compensated the same way we are now -- knowing that if you are indicted, you have the right to trial by jury. Jurors in the US have never been compensated well fiscally (excepting bribery :)) -- it's civic duty to serve.
You are compensated for your time as a juror by the fact that you live in a more-or-less orderly society where you (in principle) have rights that the government cannot take away.
But not half so well as they treat churros.
Delicious cinnamon-y churros.
Oh, you mean he didn't get the jury notice far in advance like everyone else does? And the doctor didn't bother to free up his schedule for when he'd need to be available for jury duty?
If there were scheduled patients on that day, the blame for the missed appointments lies solely at the feet of the doctor.
WRT the US -- there is precedent that a journalist publisher of leaks is not prosecutable.
So organizations like the New York Times or Vanity Fair, for example, might be willing to take on the risk of publication.
Let's see if they try to arrest the founder of Wookieleaks.
We might get to see arms ripped off!
Yes.
1. People who aren't egomaniacs don't want to be the face of a cause.
2. Causes aren't successful without faces attached to them.
Thus, causes that become popular will always have egomaniacs leading them. Even Gandhi was a bit of an egomaniac, though less reprehensibly than most.
I resent this entire line of discussion.
I always say I'm calling out sick due to an acute case of "anal myopia".
As in, "I can't see my ass going in to the office today".
Many publishers lose money on newsstand sales. Not only does the newsstand take a cut, but you have to *pay* for the privilege of having your magazine on the shelf, and you have to *pay* for good placement, simlar to getting your products in a supermarket.
The trade-off of the loss on newsstand sales is the beneficial impact the NS sales numbers have on your ad sales.
You're only considering 1/2 of the equation -- revenue. What about expense? Expenses are far higher nor NS sales than they are for sub sales.
Where are you getting this estimation from, I'd be curious to read up on it -- I don't recall seeing numbers as high as 3-4/yr for monthlies (I've been out of publishing a long time) -- IIRC, it was something like 1-2.
I don't know how much newspapers differ from magazines, since I was never involved in newspaper publishing. But for magazines, the retail markups I've seen were around 100%, not 300%... it might have something to do with the fact that newspapers have a much higher percentage of their sales from NS than magazines do.
Several niche magazines are published by non-profits.
Whether or not a business is a non-profit is ancillary to their business model; publishing is a competitive business and margins are thin, for both for-profit and non-profit publishers.
Consumer Reports is a niche magazine with a subscription-driven revenue model. One of the woodworking magazines I subscribe to also shares this model.
One of the publishers I used to work for had a few titles on this model, and a title on the advertising centric revenue model.
I guess the point of this post is, what does Consumer Reports business status have to do with whether their business model is [advertising|circulation]-revenue centric?
As an aside, Consumer Reports is more profitable than many for-profit publishers. What they do with their profits is a different matter (reinvestment in the business vs. distribution to shareholders/partners).
Actually, sexconker is partially correct. The guy who "clearly knows quite about about how the magazine publishing world actually works" does not know as much as you think he does.
As for my credentials, I worked in magazine publishing for 7 years (as an accountant, but I also was involved in ABC [Audit Bureau of Circulations] audits), then audited financials of magazine publishers (among other companies) for three years.
You obviously don't know the magazine business very well -- it could be your knowledge is only of the bigger magazines.
Newsstand sales are vital to magazines, because it affects their advertising sales and the rates they can charge. Relative newsstand sales indicate a couple things to advertisers -- does your magazine entice people who buy on impulse? Will your subscribers also be enticed by your magazine, and thus be more likely to view the ad buys? Also, newsstand sales are full-price sales; the revenue is disproportionate to the sales volume.
There are a mix of business models for magazines; while most major magazines have the majority of their revenue coming from advertising, circulation revenue is also important. And for niche or small magazines, subscriptions can easily outweigh advertising for revenue. These are the magazines that tend to have the best content, IMO.
All that said, demographics are key to ad sales. It IS a big deal, as you say, for them not to have the demographics. Which is humorous, IMO, since I've never audited a publishing company that didn't play a little fast-and-loose with circulation demographics. Subscriber surveys, etc. This makes me think there's another reason besides demographics that the magazines want that info. And I think that reason is subscriber renewals. A couple circulation studies I've seen showed that third-party subscriptions had renewal rates far, far lower than direct subs. When a publisher can use direct mail to contact those lost renewals, the conversion rate is much higher than related-interest (non-former-subscriber) DM campaigns. So really, I think it's about being able to get renewals.
Also, it's important for cross-marketing of other titles by the same publisher.
Levying your own taxes with the threat of violence is against the law, and therefore is robbery.
Legal taxes instituted by law are not robbery. By definition, they are not robbery.
I really don't care that you don't like taxes. But taxes are not robbery by any stretch.
Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that taxes are not robbery.
I realize my ears are tricking me, and it makes no damn difference. I perceive the commercials to be too loud, therefore they are too loud (it's a subjective matter).
I couldn't give a rat's ass that the volume levels peak no higher than what's on the show. I DO give a rat's ass about the fact that the commercials are annoying as hell because of how they saturate the dynamic range.
I disagree with your definition of the term "free market". That is the definition anarchists use when they describe how they want to see markets operate; the economic definition of a free market is very different, and requires regulation to remain free.
I think we agree in general on this topic... it just pains me to see someone I respect allowing that definition to stand.
One more thing...
Reminds me of a joke...
A Keynesian economist and a Chicago school economist are walking down the street. The Keynesian spots a $10 bill on the ground, and exclaims, "Hey! $10! Let's give it to a beggar so he can buy a sandwich which will help support the sandwich-shop owner who is flirting with bankruptcy in this recession.
The Chicago economist replies, "A $10 bill? Nonsense... there cannot be a $10 bill, someone would have picked it up already."
* Note: feel free to substitute "Austrian" for "Chicago", except we'd probably need to change the $10 bill to a nugget of gold.
Why would that be? You're the one who chose to make a post challenging a semantic definition. When arguing semantics and definitions (which you started, pal) -- referring to a dictionary is perfectly valid. There must be a common basis in language for a discussion to take place. You chose to interpret words in such a way that normal understanding of the meanings of words invalidates your point.
I maintain, go take your horseshit somewhere else -- don't make up definitions of words to try to make a semantic argument.
It was a writing error -- Timothy stupidly used the present tense instead of the past tense when referring to something that happened yesterday. If he's going to use the present tense, he damn well sure should check to see if anything has changed since yesterday morning when Flanagan made his outrageous comments.
Timothy used the present tense in his summary.
What Timothy wrote was false, and while in this case it does not seem likely that there would be any lawsuits, this isn't the first time, and it surely won't be the last, that an untruth has been written by a slashdot editor -- and one of these times, they're gonna get bit in the ass for it.
When acting purely as an aggregator, fact-checking isn't a big deal, as the responsibility for the falsehoods are with the original publisher. But this is editorialism and reporting -- if slashdot wishes to keep their noses clean and maintain some degree of respectability, they've got to fact-check responsibly (i.e., on the content they write themselves).
Can we please dispense with not knowing the definition of words we are attempting to assign as the meaning of other words?
Taxes are not robbery. Robbery is generally defined as "an act of larceny carried out via the use or threat of violence". Larceny is defined as "the act of taking something from someone unlawfully".
Taxes are lawful; therefore they cannot be construed as larceny; therefore they cannot be construed as robbery.
Go take your horseshit elsewhere.
It got buried down below, but I already made a post explaining that Flanagan recanted. The recantment was reported in lots of places yesterday, I saw it on the late news here in the NY metro area.
Flanagan explained it away as a "glib" response that doesn't actually represent what he feels to be the best course of action.
But, of course, you fed the troll editorialization. Don't worry, we all do it sometimes.
I just wish that Timothy and the other editors would fact-check their editorializations before they get into hot water.
Summary is false. Flanagan does NOT currently openly advocate assassination of Assange. Flanagan recanted.
C'mon guys... I know it's too much to ask to have you guys fact-check the actual submissions... but you should seriously consider fact-checking your editorializations that succede them. Not only would it help ensure a better project, but would also help prevent getting your asses sued.