Pretty much. Whether or not he was guilty, the blood soaked socks that were soaked through from one side rather than from both probably did a huge favor to the defense in establishing a reasonable doubt.
Who knows what would have happened without the doctored evidence. He might still have been found not guilty, but we could have had a less ambiguous result.
At age 29 you were presumably living up to at least some of your potential and not living under their roof. It's inherently different when it's a kid that you're legally responsible for that might possess things that could lead to a drug raid.
I'm generally the life of the party. It's just that I don't do stupid shit like that for shits and giggles. Stories that result from something like this are rarely of much interest to anybody later on.
Actual real life stories like the time my ATM card got stolen by a cat are much more interesting than stories about how I texted something stupid to my parents in case something funny happened anyways.
Economy of scale doesn't mean that you have a big project, it means using the size of the project to bargain down prices, which is something that the government doesn't much do. Take a look at the prescription drug law from some years back which specifically banned the haggling of prices for the drugs. Or the various no bid contracts that the GOP was fond of during the Bush administration.
And no, if they were paying out of their own pockets that wouldn't happen. Around here the city owns the utilities. The water is expensive on a per gallon basis, but the water is some of the cleanest in the country and the typical water bill is substantially lower than average. The electric company provides great service at affordable prices. And with a municipally owned ISP we'd have that kind of service for the internet as well.
No, the reason for the bridges and roads isn't corruption, it's a lack of tax revenue because we're too busy subsidizing roads and infrastructure for rural voters that are too greedy and self-entitled to let us keep some of our tax revenue to maintain our section of the infrastructure.
The issue isn't investing in infrastructure, the issue is how that investment is being done. Rather than spending that same money in more densely populated areas, it's being used to provide high speeds to a much smaller number of people.
What's more astonishing is that bridges collapse from lack of maintenance funds and we're investing in giving a small number of rural voters faster speeds than what's generally available anywhere else.
In short, it's not the infrastructure investment that's a waste, it's the priorities that lead to waste. If there were at least plans for getting the urban areas wired up, I don't think people would view this as wasteful. But ultimately rural residents chose to live there, and one of the downsides to living in the middle of nowhere is that things like this are harder to provide economically.
Not really, by subsidizing these things and having them done by Federal contract the incentive to get the most efficient work done is greatly reduced. If these people were paying out of their pockets, rather than mine, I'm curious if they'd still be expecting a level of service that's substantially higher than what's available in the city for half the price of what is presently available in cities.
To put it another way, here in Seattle I'm spending about $60 a month on a 5mbps internet connection. Which is nearly double the cost for 1/200th of the speed. The bridges are crumbling and the streets are in poor repair, but thank god that the rural folks get to siphon off my taxpayer dollars so that we don't waste any of it on fixing those bridges before they crumble in an earthquake. Or God forbid we spend it on the infrastructure that they use when they have goods shipped into or out of the US.
Why are we funding this kind of service in rural areas when the much cheaper to wire urban areas still don't have this sort of service? What's more, urban areas always seem to get the shaft on things like this where we're paying to subsidize other people's wasteful lifestyles, even as our infrastructure is crumbling.
Seriously, most of the tax revenue comes from the developed portions of the country, but most of the spending is done in less developed areas of the country.
The problem is that the people who buy it will have more of say than people who don't. There's many reasons why one might not buy one other than finding the whole thing to be repulsive. Not to mention that the people using them are selling out the rest of us.
FB was a similar problem and is pretty damning in terms of nipping this in the bud before it gets out of control. With image databases and face recognition technology, those of us that haven't handed over our data don't have any means of opting out of the system, we're included because some other wankers don't value their privacy or ours sufficiently to respect that we didn't ask to be labeled.
So yes, it might fail, but there's no way of guaranteeing that it will fail and or that the rights of people that don't want it will be respected. And Schmidt himself can go to hell.
Assuming even that much. Considering how many people are trying to catch a break, it's probably not uncommon to find folks that are working for free.
I'm a teensy bit surprised it's that little. IIRC my first and only paycheck as an actor was for about $25 probably 20 years ago. Then again, I'm not in LA or NYC where people tend to flock to with dreams of becoming a star.
It can translate into a big fat flop, but the likelihood is substantially less than if you're dealing with people that don't know how to work the talk show circuit and whose name isn't already known to the audience.
Bottom line is that all things being equal a Johnny Depp film is substantially more likely to be a blockbuster than one by Joe Shmoe. And even if you're talking about somebody that's relatively untalented like Keanu is likely to fill far more theater seats than an unknown actor with substantially more talent.
Having a big name star that's being well paid does not generally mean that the other standards are lowered. Most of the true big name talent has the experience and drive necessary to make the material work. Unknown actors likely have drive, but they are unknown quantities that may or may not be successful in the film.
Sigh, I take it you've never worked as an actor or studied film in any meaningful way.
$10m is a lot of money, but with top rate talent that can easily translate into a much larger profit than going with a nobody, even after you pay the huge salary. What's more, it's not just 'looking pretty while pretending to be someone else in front of a video camera for a few months." There's often times a ton of work that goes into learning not just the lines, but how the character reacts to the situations that he or she has been presented. To make the film come alive.
There's the incredibly uncomfortable scenes at times where you're hot or cold or having to have sex with somebody that you probably don't want to have sex with. The endless stalking by the paparazzi and random fans. The TV show appearances during the media blitz and the loss of the ability to do normal things like going to the beach without people staring.
To say that the money is being paid for a few months work is really only applicable to minor actors, anybody being paid that kind of cash is doing a lot more work than that. And what's more potential actors are a dime a dozen, Hollywood would not be paying that kind of scratch if it weren't the most profitable way of doing it.
That's how unions work. If you don't have to be in the union to work a job then it greatly weakens the power that the union has to protect the members and advocate for better compensation and conditions.
As for indie studios, unions negotiate with the studios and ultimately the union isn't just a one dimensional entity. Having more roles being available for members is something that they also have to worry about along side having the best working conditions and compensation.
This is a large problem, but another problem is that executives watch the pilot and it isn't an up or down vote. Sometimes they'll like the idea, but decide that the lead is wrong or that they need to tweak something, and an audience would probably have no clue as to how to do that. So, you get shows being rejected which the networks might have approved with minor tweaks.
It's not a misleading title, Amazon is commissioning the pilot episodes and then making them available for viewing. If there's enough interest they order more episodes.
I assume this is some sort of lame joke, but it's too lame to be a joke and too stupid to be serious.
Not really, Fox drops shows if they don't immediately have a huge following and regularly moves shows around so that they don't have any chance to earn a following. Futurama is a good example, they moved the timeslot around so much that it was a real bitch to find it unless one was constantly looking at TV listings. Now with DVRs it's not as big of a deal, but they have some rather unrealistic expectations. Sometimes shows need some consistent scheduling in order to pick up a following.
The main reason why these shows attract a cult following is that it's the only following they're going to attract seeing as they aren't being given a chance to really shine.
When my parents first signed up for cable it cost $5 a month during the mid '80s. There were about 30 stations available. When they canceled their Cable in favor of DirecTV the selections were like 70 and the cost per month had risen to about $70 a month, IIRC. The cost of the cabling was mostly paid for in the '80s and the maintenance should be substantially less than the cost of putting out all the cable, especially given the crap quality.
So, my question is, what precisely is it that caused the cost of the service to increase by over 1000%? Because it sure as hell wasn't the result of them spending more money on service alone.
As somebody has already said, the current telecos do that as well. The speed ranges in Seattle last time I checked were anywhere between 1.5mbps to a max of about 10mbps, IIRC. With little rhyme or reason as to where the good service would be. I know my neighborhood is farther from their equipment than Capital Hill, but the connection speed here was substantially faster.
Around here the fastest you can get is 5mbps/896kbps and I think the unbundled price ends up being like $60 a month when you include taxes, but I'm too lazy to pull up the Centurylink page. In some parts of the city, the best you can get is 1.5mbps/896kbps. Although that might have changed, I see a lot of Centurylink trucks out and about and they may have made the upgrades necessary to improve the situation in those neighborhoods.
And as somebody who lives about 3 blocks outside of the deployment zone, this isn't likely to do me any good any time soon. What's more there's no guarantee that the service will ever be available outside of those test areas.
Centurylink is doing a better job than Qwest did, but the city seriously needs to sue them and Comcrap for lieing about the future deployment plans for fiber optic as they don't seem to be planning to do so, even though they told the city they would be. OK, technically it was Qwest that claimed they were going to be doing something about the connection speeds and didn't do crap, but either way we'd likely have FTTH by now through a municipal provider had they not lied about their plans.
You seriously think this is any different from now? The incentive here for Google is for people to hit more pages per unit of time. More pages means more impressions which means more ad revenue for them. What's more with the increased bandwidth, it's less likely that people will be blocking ads to speed up the download of the pages they're viewing.
Google already tracks pretty much everything you do, if you haven't specifically set things up to prevent that, this wouldn't change that. For those that care, you can always use a VPN and after the increased bandwidth probably not see too much reduction in speed.
Pretty much, it's specifically an issue that the WA AG has with the way the advertisements were handled. Seeing one of the advertisements I can see why. There isn't even any fine print involved. They're blatantly making claims which aren't true and not even disclaiming them in fine print.
I generally like T-Mobile because they've shown some willingness to act out of lock step with the other carriers, but in this case it appears that the advertisements needed a lot more information to be included.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much. Whether or not he was guilty, the blood soaked socks that were soaked through from one side rather than from both probably did a huge favor to the defense in establishing a reasonable doubt.
Who knows what would have happened without the doctored evidence. He might still have been found not guilty, but we could have had a less ambiguous result.
At age 29 you were presumably living up to at least some of your potential and not living under their roof. It's inherently different when it's a kid that you're legally responsible for that might possess things that could lead to a drug raid.
I'm generally the life of the party. It's just that I don't do stupid shit like that for shits and giggles. Stories that result from something like this are rarely of much interest to anybody later on.
Actual real life stories like the time my ATM card got stolen by a cat are much more interesting than stories about how I texted something stupid to my parents in case something funny happened anyways.
Because nothing good can come from texting that to your parents.
At best, they just ignore it. At worst, well, there's all sorts of possibilities for that.
Now these people know that their children are morons.
Economy of scale doesn't mean that you have a big project, it means using the size of the project to bargain down prices, which is something that the government doesn't much do. Take a look at the prescription drug law from some years back which specifically banned the haggling of prices for the drugs. Or the various no bid contracts that the GOP was fond of during the Bush administration.
And no, if they were paying out of their own pockets that wouldn't happen. Around here the city owns the utilities. The water is expensive on a per gallon basis, but the water is some of the cleanest in the country and the typical water bill is substantially lower than average. The electric company provides great service at affordable prices. And with a municipally owned ISP we'd have that kind of service for the internet as well.
No, the reason for the bridges and roads isn't corruption, it's a lack of tax revenue because we're too busy subsidizing roads and infrastructure for rural voters that are too greedy and self-entitled to let us keep some of our tax revenue to maintain our section of the infrastructure.
The issue isn't investing in infrastructure, the issue is how that investment is being done. Rather than spending that same money in more densely populated areas, it's being used to provide high speeds to a much smaller number of people.
What's more astonishing is that bridges collapse from lack of maintenance funds and we're investing in giving a small number of rural voters faster speeds than what's generally available anywhere else.
In short, it's not the infrastructure investment that's a waste, it's the priorities that lead to waste. If there were at least plans for getting the urban areas wired up, I don't think people would view this as wasteful. But ultimately rural residents chose to live there, and one of the downsides to living in the middle of nowhere is that things like this are harder to provide economically.
BTW, good luck producing that food without the goods that come through our ports and the tools and supplies that are produced in our factories.
Not really, by subsidizing these things and having them done by Federal contract the incentive to get the most efficient work done is greatly reduced. If these people were paying out of their pockets, rather than mine, I'm curious if they'd still be expecting a level of service that's substantially higher than what's available in the city for half the price of what is presently available in cities.
To put it another way, here in Seattle I'm spending about $60 a month on a 5mbps internet connection. Which is nearly double the cost for 1/200th of the speed. The bridges are crumbling and the streets are in poor repair, but thank god that the rural folks get to siphon off my taxpayer dollars so that we don't waste any of it on fixing those bridges before they crumble in an earthquake. Or God forbid we spend it on the infrastructure that they use when they have goods shipped into or out of the US.
Your point being? These people aren't giving away the food and whatnot for free, I pay for that.
Again, I ask, why am I forced to subsidize them because they don't know how to pay for the services that they use.
Why are we funding this kind of service in rural areas when the much cheaper to wire urban areas still don't have this sort of service? What's more, urban areas always seem to get the shaft on things like this where we're paying to subsidize other people's wasteful lifestyles, even as our infrastructure is crumbling.
Seriously, most of the tax revenue comes from the developed portions of the country, but most of the spending is done in less developed areas of the country.
The problem is that the people who buy it will have more of say than people who don't. There's many reasons why one might not buy one other than finding the whole thing to be repulsive. Not to mention that the people using them are selling out the rest of us.
FB was a similar problem and is pretty damning in terms of nipping this in the bud before it gets out of control. With image databases and face recognition technology, those of us that haven't handed over our data don't have any means of opting out of the system, we're included because some other wankers don't value their privacy or ours sufficiently to respect that we didn't ask to be labeled.
So yes, it might fail, but there's no way of guaranteeing that it will fail and or that the rights of people that don't want it will be respected. And Schmidt himself can go to hell.
Assuming even that much. Considering how many people are trying to catch a break, it's probably not uncommon to find folks that are working for free.
I'm a teensy bit surprised it's that little. IIRC my first and only paycheck as an actor was for about $25 probably 20 years ago. Then again, I'm not in LA or NYC where people tend to flock to with dreams of becoming a star.
It can translate into a big fat flop, but the likelihood is substantially less than if you're dealing with people that don't know how to work the talk show circuit and whose name isn't already known to the audience.
Bottom line is that all things being equal a Johnny Depp film is substantially more likely to be a blockbuster than one by Joe Shmoe. And even if you're talking about somebody that's relatively untalented like Keanu is likely to fill far more theater seats than an unknown actor with substantially more talent.
Having a big name star that's being well paid does not generally mean that the other standards are lowered. Most of the true big name talent has the experience and drive necessary to make the material work. Unknown actors likely have drive, but they are unknown quantities that may or may not be successful in the film.
Sigh, I take it you've never worked as an actor or studied film in any meaningful way.
$10m is a lot of money, but with top rate talent that can easily translate into a much larger profit than going with a nobody, even after you pay the huge salary. What's more, it's not just 'looking pretty while pretending to be someone else in front of a video camera for a few months." There's often times a ton of work that goes into learning not just the lines, but how the character reacts to the situations that he or she has been presented. To make the film come alive.
There's the incredibly uncomfortable scenes at times where you're hot or cold or having to have sex with somebody that you probably don't want to have sex with. The endless stalking by the paparazzi and random fans. The TV show appearances during the media blitz and the loss of the ability to do normal things like going to the beach without people staring.
To say that the money is being paid for a few months work is really only applicable to minor actors, anybody being paid that kind of cash is doing a lot more work than that. And what's more potential actors are a dime a dozen, Hollywood would not be paying that kind of scratch if it weren't the most profitable way of doing it.
That's how unions work. If you don't have to be in the union to work a job then it greatly weakens the power that the union has to protect the members and advocate for better compensation and conditions.
As for indie studios, unions negotiate with the studios and ultimately the union isn't just a one dimensional entity. Having more roles being available for members is something that they also have to worry about along side having the best working conditions and compensation.
This is a large problem, but another problem is that executives watch the pilot and it isn't an up or down vote. Sometimes they'll like the idea, but decide that the lead is wrong or that they need to tweak something, and an audience would probably have no clue as to how to do that. So, you get shows being rejected which the networks might have approved with minor tweaks.
It's not a misleading title, Amazon is commissioning the pilot episodes and then making them available for viewing. If there's enough interest they order more episodes.
I assume this is some sort of lame joke, but it's too lame to be a joke and too stupid to be serious.
Not really, Fox drops shows if they don't immediately have a huge following and regularly moves shows around so that they don't have any chance to earn a following. Futurama is a good example, they moved the timeslot around so much that it was a real bitch to find it unless one was constantly looking at TV listings. Now with DVRs it's not as big of a deal, but they have some rather unrealistic expectations. Sometimes shows need some consistent scheduling in order to pick up a following.
The main reason why these shows attract a cult following is that it's the only following they're going to attract seeing as they aren't being given a chance to really shine.
Bullshit.
When my parents first signed up for cable it cost $5 a month during the mid '80s. There were about 30 stations available. When they canceled their Cable in favor of DirecTV the selections were like 70 and the cost per month had risen to about $70 a month, IIRC. The cost of the cabling was mostly paid for in the '80s and the maintenance should be substantially less than the cost of putting out all the cable, especially given the crap quality.
So, my question is, what precisely is it that caused the cost of the service to increase by over 1000%? Because it sure as hell wasn't the result of them spending more money on service alone.
As somebody has already said, the current telecos do that as well. The speed ranges in Seattle last time I checked were anywhere between 1.5mbps to a max of about 10mbps, IIRC. With little rhyme or reason as to where the good service would be. I know my neighborhood is farther from their equipment than Capital Hill, but the connection speed here was substantially faster.
Around here the fastest you can get is 5mbps/896kbps and I think the unbundled price ends up being like $60 a month when you include taxes, but I'm too lazy to pull up the Centurylink page. In some parts of the city, the best you can get is 1.5mbps/896kbps. Although that might have changed, I see a lot of Centurylink trucks out and about and they may have made the upgrades necessary to improve the situation in those neighborhoods.
And as somebody who lives about 3 blocks outside of the deployment zone, this isn't likely to do me any good any time soon. What's more there's no guarantee that the service will ever be available outside of those test areas.
Centurylink is doing a better job than Qwest did, but the city seriously needs to sue them and Comcrap for lieing about the future deployment plans for fiber optic as they don't seem to be planning to do so, even though they told the city they would be. OK, technically it was Qwest that claimed they were going to be doing something about the connection speeds and didn't do crap, but either way we'd likely have FTTH by now through a municipal provider had they not lied about their plans.
You seriously think this is any different from now? The incentive here for Google is for people to hit more pages per unit of time. More pages means more impressions which means more ad revenue for them. What's more with the increased bandwidth, it's less likely that people will be blocking ads to speed up the download of the pages they're viewing.
Google already tracks pretty much everything you do, if you haven't specifically set things up to prevent that, this wouldn't change that. For those that care, you can always use a VPN and after the increased bandwidth probably not see too much reduction in speed.
Pretty much, it's specifically an issue that the WA AG has with the way the advertisements were handled. Seeing one of the advertisements I can see why. There isn't even any fine print involved. They're blatantly making claims which aren't true and not even disclaiming them in fine print.
I generally like T-Mobile because they've shown some willingness to act out of lock step with the other carriers, but in this case it appears that the advertisements needed a lot more information to be included.