That's what I was thinking. Kids with self control problems in school often come from backgrounds where sitting still and having self control isn't valued. But beyond that, of course if they're still having trouble with self control as adults their income is going to suffer, people who can't or won't fit the business world are going to be making less money whether or not it's warranted. Businesses just aren't in the practice of hiring people they don't think fit their business.
Antitrust is mainly the domain of the courts to enforce, the antitrust regulations themselves are like 99% precedence, the DoJ typically tries to interpret that in a reasonable way, but usually under a conservative President the DoJ is understaffed with regards to that monitoring.
The problem is that it squelches innovation. Would Youtube be where it is today if it was relegated to a separate internet? I doubt it, video service is expensive, and all your proposal would do would be to ensure that nobody could ever hope to compete with it that isn't already a mega huge media conglomerate.
Yes, but that happened in 1984 or thereabouts IIRC, and apart from the 8 years of the Clinton presidency where he was pursuing conservative fiscal policy, there hasn't been a period up until 2008 where a liberal was in charge of the DoJ. Had any of those Presidents known anything about the economy it likely would have gone differently. The unfortunate thing about the DoJ is that it tends to reflect the priorities of the President.
I was skeptical of his point myself, then I started paying closer attention and damned if he wasn't right. Sure it depends upon the film, but ones that are properly filmed give all sorts of interesting things they can do without the extra 3D technology.
Assuming you bargain hunt they aren't that expensive. But they do require some outlay of cash, I think mine was under $300 and serves as an HDTV as well. It wasn't that long ago that 15" LCDs were going for $300+
My Samsung SyncMaster T240HD can do 1920x1200 native I forget what I paid, but I don't think it was that much more than this video card. Plus I can watch Blurays on it and use it as a TV.
Thank you for proving my point. I don't personally have a FB account because I don't trust them. But, if they're requiring you to opt out in that fashion having slipped something like that into the ToS for the site, I think that's definitely worthy of regulation.
Additionally, FB changes its privacy policy regularly enough that it's very difficult for people to keep up, just look at the/. coverage. It's really not the picture of informed consent when they need to go with subterfuge in order to trick people into allowing this sort of bullshit.
I don't have a Facebook account, but that part of the ToS that you see on those sites is to allow them to provide the service by publishing the materials you provide. Not as permission to sell the rights to third parties. That's a fundamentally different way than how that's normally interpreted and I don't think that it would stand up in court.
While I agree with the sentiment, what this really demonstrates is that the expectation of privacy needs to be revised to provide some protection. It's one thing if your face ends up in an ad or in the newspaper because it was one in a crowd, and quite another when you're the only person in the picture and they used it without your expressed permission.
Fundamentally there's something wrong with a corporation as large as Starbucks being unable or unwilling to pay for models or get permission directly from the person whom they're wanting to feature.
That's an opportunity that I didn't have. Now I probably could, but by this point it's pointless, and even if I did try there's a pretty good chance that I'd end up being turned away by the Marines for not meeting their height weight requirements, only branch of the service that wouldn't accept me.
Other than that, you're spot on depending upon what you're willing to do for the money, chances are you can get it.
Yeah, Bill Gates really had it tough, I mean his father is a prominent attorney in Seattle and he had to muck it through at an expensive private school. Then his parents had the audacity to introduce him to business contacts and loan him 50 large to get a contract with IBM.
Wake up, while there are a small number of people that do manage to genuinely pull their way up through the ranks, it's a relatively small number. Most people won't, no matter how hard they work, what you're saying is just a way of rationalizing the fact that the rich have everything.
Unless they decide that you're overqualified and won't even talk to you because of it. That definitely does happen and there is no law that requires them to take an overqualified individual unless they run afoul of antidiscrimination regulations.
They are being taxed approximately 80 times the rate as the rest of the americans. If the top 10% fled the country, the government budget would collapse.
I say good riddance to bad rubbish. They're basically parasites that are sponging off the production of the working class while shipping jobs over seas. They should be taxed heavily, and I'd argue that the taxes on them aren't high enough where they are.
The assumption that if they'd leave that something bad would happen really demands a citation. As it is they're sending jobs overseas and doing whatever they can to ensure that workers can't compete with the workers of other nations so that they can get undeserved tax breaks.
I also can't help but notice that you're not pointing out what proportion of income those same top 10% are making. As of 2005 the answer was about half of all the income. It is almost certainly worse now than it was then. Which means that at worst they're being charged double what the lower classes are. That's definitely not 80x in any reasonable way.
The problem is that intelligence has little to do with it. The forms they typically use and the job descriptions themselves are frequently discriminatory in nature. It's common for job listings to be puffed up to be much more than what they're really requiring resulting in the situation where if you don't know how to adjust the qualifications you're likely to conclude that you don't qualify.
Additionally, the way that the educational system has been dumbed down in recent years, there's a lot of people out there with degrees and a brain roughly consisting of a rock. I personally have a degree, but I was also a very bright person before I got one. I run into an awful lot of people who managed to get a degree by putting in the time, but show no outward signs of intellect or competence in anything.
It's inevitable when a large bloc of voters believes that we're the best at everything despite clear evidence that we're not always the best. They tend to put their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala whenever the subject comes up. Also they seem to uniformly vote Republican the party of obstruction and regression.
I live in Seattle and the connections top out at 5Mbps around here. And I'm lucky. That's the top tier connection available. Comcast is a complete joke being unable to maintain a consistent connection and cheating at internet connection tests.
I live in Seattle and the fastest I can get is 5Mbps. Qwest maxes out at 5Mbps and Comcast is a complete non-starter as they can't even provide a stable connection.
Considering that I live within mere miles of an Internet Exchange Point, it's absolutely ridiculous that they can't do any better. And I'm lucky, other parts of the city have significantly lower speeds.
You've obviously never acted. What you're paying for is basically to own that person for the duration of the filming. Which means that they're dropping their entire personality in favor of the character for most if not all of the day, and you're paying compensation for the risk of damage that can happen as a result.
Additionally they're paying the cost of promotion and for not making them look like idiots by doing uncouth things when not working. Sure a lot of them can't handle that, but most of the time they get dropped if they say or do anything that pisses off the public.
It's still a lot of money and they could probably still pay less and still get the talent, but it's not anywhere near as easy to act at that level as people seem to think. It's a rather rare individual who can do that without snapping.
That isn't a reasonable solution. For one thing they're still able to track you within that day, and for another it can be challenging to figure out which cookie you've blocked is causing problems with the current page and why it's needed.
What we really need is something in place to require companies to have permission before they set a cookie, a statement about the use and a ban on them trying to cram it on the end user.
Doubtful. While it pays better to use ads that are targeted based upon tracking, I doubt that many sites are going to be doing that. Google will doubtless support the change pretty quickly, and with them the rest of the ad industry. Haven't you noticed all that JavaScript that gets loaded from another server for ads?
CAN SPAM wasn't useless, it's been far more useful than doing nothing. It just turns out that there's a limit to what legislation in America can do with a problem which originates outside our borders.
CAN SPAM has however cut down on people outside of organized crime spamming.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I was thinking. Kids with self control problems in school often come from backgrounds where sitting still and having self control isn't valued. But beyond that, of course if they're still having trouble with self control as adults their income is going to suffer, people who can't or won't fit the business world are going to be making less money whether or not it's warranted. Businesses just aren't in the practice of hiring people they don't think fit their business.
Antitrust is mainly the domain of the courts to enforce, the antitrust regulations themselves are like 99% precedence, the DoJ typically tries to interpret that in a reasonable way, but usually under a conservative President the DoJ is understaffed with regards to that monitoring.
The problem is that it squelches innovation. Would Youtube be where it is today if it was relegated to a separate internet? I doubt it, video service is expensive, and all your proposal would do would be to ensure that nobody could ever hope to compete with it that isn't already a mega huge media conglomerate.
Yes, but that happened in 1984 or thereabouts IIRC, and apart from the 8 years of the Clinton presidency where he was pursuing conservative fiscal policy, there hasn't been a period up until 2008 where a liberal was in charge of the DoJ. Had any of those Presidents known anything about the economy it likely would have gone differently. The unfortunate thing about the DoJ is that it tends to reflect the priorities of the President.
XKCD
I was skeptical of his point myself, then I started paying closer attention and damned if he wasn't right. Sure it depends upon the film, but ones that are properly filmed give all sorts of interesting things they can do without the extra 3D technology.
Assuming you bargain hunt they aren't that expensive. But they do require some outlay of cash, I think mine was under $300 and serves as an HDTV as well. It wasn't that long ago that 15" LCDs were going for $300+
My Samsung SyncMaster T240HD can do 1920x1200 native I forget what I paid, but I don't think it was that much more than this video card. Plus I can watch Blurays on it and use it as a TV.
True, but at least PayPal is stealing it rather than criminals.
Thank you for proving my point. I don't personally have a FB account because I don't trust them. But, if they're requiring you to opt out in that fashion having slipped something like that into the ToS for the site, I think that's definitely worthy of regulation.
/. coverage. It's really not the picture of informed consent when they need to go with subterfuge in order to trick people into allowing this sort of bullshit.
Additionally, FB changes its privacy policy regularly enough that it's very difficult for people to keep up, just look at the
I don't have a Facebook account, but that part of the ToS that you see on those sites is to allow them to provide the service by publishing the materials you provide. Not as permission to sell the rights to third parties. That's a fundamentally different way than how that's normally interpreted and I don't think that it would stand up in court.
While I agree with the sentiment, what this really demonstrates is that the expectation of privacy needs to be revised to provide some protection. It's one thing if your face ends up in an ad or in the newspaper because it was one in a crowd, and quite another when you're the only person in the picture and they used it without your expressed permission.
Fundamentally there's something wrong with a corporation as large as Starbucks being unable or unwilling to pay for models or get permission directly from the person whom they're wanting to feature.
Join the military
That's an opportunity that I didn't have. Now I probably could, but by this point it's pointless, and even if I did try there's a pretty good chance that I'd end up being turned away by the Marines for not meeting their height weight requirements, only branch of the service that wouldn't accept me.
Other than that, you're spot on depending upon what you're willing to do for the money, chances are you can get it.
Yeah, Bill Gates really had it tough, I mean his father is a prominent attorney in Seattle and he had to muck it through at an expensive private school. Then his parents had the audacity to introduce him to business contacts and loan him 50 large to get a contract with IBM.
Wake up, while there are a small number of people that do manage to genuinely pull their way up through the ranks, it's a relatively small number. Most people won't, no matter how hard they work, what you're saying is just a way of rationalizing the fact that the rich have everything.
Unless they decide that you're overqualified and won't even talk to you because of it. That definitely does happen and there is no law that requires them to take an overqualified individual unless they run afoul of antidiscrimination regulations.
They are being taxed approximately 80 times the rate as the rest of the americans. If the top 10% fled the country, the government budget would collapse.
I say good riddance to bad rubbish. They're basically parasites that are sponging off the production of the working class while shipping jobs over seas. They should be taxed heavily, and I'd argue that the taxes on them aren't high enough where they are.
The assumption that if they'd leave that something bad would happen really demands a citation. As it is they're sending jobs overseas and doing whatever they can to ensure that workers can't compete with the workers of other nations so that they can get undeserved tax breaks.
I also can't help but notice that you're not pointing out what proportion of income those same top 10% are making. As of 2005 the answer was about half of all the income. It is almost certainly worse now than it was then. Which means that at worst they're being charged double what the lower classes are. That's definitely not 80x in any reasonable way.
The problem is that intelligence has little to do with it. The forms they typically use and the job descriptions themselves are frequently discriminatory in nature. It's common for job listings to be puffed up to be much more than what they're really requiring resulting in the situation where if you don't know how to adjust the qualifications you're likely to conclude that you don't qualify.
Additionally, the way that the educational system has been dumbed down in recent years, there's a lot of people out there with degrees and a brain roughly consisting of a rock. I personally have a degree, but I was also a very bright person before I got one. I run into an awful lot of people who managed to get a degree by putting in the time, but show no outward signs of intellect or competence in anything.
It's inevitable when a large bloc of voters believes that we're the best at everything despite clear evidence that we're not always the best. They tend to put their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala whenever the subject comes up. Also they seem to uniformly vote Republican the party of obstruction and regression.
I live in Seattle and the connections top out at 5Mbps around here. And I'm lucky. That's the top tier connection available. Comcast is a complete joke being unable to maintain a consistent connection and cheating at internet connection tests.
I live in Seattle and the fastest I can get is 5Mbps. Qwest maxes out at 5Mbps and Comcast is a complete non-starter as they can't even provide a stable connection.
Considering that I live within mere miles of an Internet Exchange Point, it's absolutely ridiculous that they can't do any better. And I'm lucky, other parts of the city have significantly lower speeds.
I'm not sure about 7 or Vista, but XP used to sometimes come pre-activated by the OEM.
You've obviously never acted. What you're paying for is basically to own that person for the duration of the filming. Which means that they're dropping their entire personality in favor of the character for most if not all of the day, and you're paying compensation for the risk of damage that can happen as a result.
Additionally they're paying the cost of promotion and for not making them look like idiots by doing uncouth things when not working. Sure a lot of them can't handle that, but most of the time they get dropped if they say or do anything that pisses off the public.
It's still a lot of money and they could probably still pay less and still get the talent, but it's not anywhere near as easy to act at that level as people seem to think. It's a rather rare individual who can do that without snapping.
That isn't a reasonable solution. For one thing they're still able to track you within that day, and for another it can be challenging to figure out which cookie you've blocked is causing problems with the current page and why it's needed.
What we really need is something in place to require companies to have permission before they set a cookie, a statement about the use and a ban on them trying to cram it on the end user.
Doubtful. While it pays better to use ads that are targeted based upon tracking, I doubt that many sites are going to be doing that. Google will doubtless support the change pretty quickly, and with them the rest of the ad industry. Haven't you noticed all that JavaScript that gets loaded from another server for ads?
CAN SPAM wasn't useless, it's been far more useful than doing nothing. It just turns out that there's a limit to what legislation in America can do with a problem which originates outside our borders.
CAN SPAM has however cut down on people outside of organized crime spamming.