The indie tabletop RPG scene really adopted Google+. Why? Damned if I know, but they've been struggling to find an alternative since the announcement was made that it was going away.
This is basically the machine that places like Burger King and Dairy Queen were using back in the 80s and 90s. I assume that something similar is still used today, but maybe that's changed.
Nobody was flipping burgers back then, you just put a frozen patty in the machine at one end, and it came out done on the other. Have the patty roll over an open flame at some point in the trip and you get your "flame broiled" part.
Some women like to share videos of their physical hobbies (yoga, dance, etc.) without a bunch of guys jerking off to them. Before they'd have to create a separate profile or kick their male friends off their FB account. This gives them another option.
Sony doesn't think "you" will pay $1200 for an MP3 player. They think that the people who pay hundreds of dollars for Monster cables will pay it, and that there are enough of them out there for the product to be profitable.
No one with any decision making ability at Sony was inconvenienced by the outage on Christmas.
It was the grunts, doing the same kinds of jobs that most of the people posting here do, who had to go in and try to fix it instead of spending the day with their families.
I actually understand his point. If Tesla just makes batteries for other companies, then they don't see Tesla as competition. If Tesla's also producing cars, then they are far less likely to do business with them regardless of how good their batteries are.
It's still a terrible idea. For the most part, the other car companies won't innovate unless they have competition. Tesla is far more likely to create real change by existing as a car company than they are by existing as a parts company.
That would have been the headline in the 70s. This is why consumers don't generally drive innovation, and why judging the prospects of a new technology before its had time to overcome some of its early weaknesses is premature.
Wal-Mart competes primarily on the illusion of price through loss leaders on a minority of items. The majority of their stock is actually the same or more expensive than many of their competitors. The company's actual strengths are logistics and marketing.
It's not just tech. TV journalism in general, and 60 Minutes in particular, gets it wrong all the time. 60 Minutes is notorious for going into every story knowing what their conclusion is going to be from the beginning and then framing and editing every second of their coverage to support that pre-determined conclusion.
This isn't something new. Before I got into the tech industry I worked in insurance for a major US retailer back in the 90s. While there, 60 Minutes did an "expose" on the dangers of shopping carts. Lots of discussion of people and children hurt around shopping carts, but not one word about now 99%+ of those accidents are a result of people stupidly using carts in ways they weren't intended to be used. Pointing that out would have gone against the narrative they were trying to construct about how inherently dangerous shopping carts were.
The truly amazing thing to me is that so many people can see journalists routinely get things wrong about subjects those people are personally knowledgeable on, yet still trust those same journalists on any other topic they cover.
This was similar to my experience. I bought about an album a month before Napster, while Napster was around I bought at least an album a week, and after it went away I dropped back to about two albums a year. I'm now back to buying the equivalent of about an album every other month through iTunes.
So, a decade later and I'm still spending a lot less money with them than I was when Napster was around. Multiply that by everyone else who acted in similar ways, and it's not so hard to determine the real reason for their declining income.
It was not designed to produce a two-party state. There's a great deal of evidence (for example, Federalist Paper #10) that many of the designers of the Constitution were, in fact, trying to create a non-partisan system. Unfortunately, with few real-world examples to take lessons from, they did not see how the system they were designing would inevitably lead to a two-party state.
It's no accident that most democracies to be founded after the United States have chosen not to directly copy its system of government.
Most of the sex cam sites house nothing but women trying to make a living. Some of them do indeed claim more hardship than they actually have in order to entice western men to send them even more money than they already paid for the sex show (usually around $1 a minute, of which the women get 25 to 50 cents at most).
Western men who get "scammed" this way are usually out a couple hundred bucks at the very most. Women legitimately looking for a husband who get scammed by western men just looking for sex often find themselves having lost their virginity in a Catholic country where that is still incredibly important.
The alternative to sex cam sites for these women is often actual prostitution. A far more dangerous occupation. It's telling that the penalties under this law were an order of magnitude higher for sex cam work than they are for prostitution. Makes you wonder what the real agenda for the law's backers was?
"sometimes they want shows in Skype, you pay by Paypal etc but the show you get will not be what you paid for"
Really? Let me guess, you paid for the girl to have sex with her underage sister, and all she did was show you her tits? Cry me a river. Most of these women are from the poorest families in a poor country. Making their quota on cam can determine whether or not they eat that day. If you're so worried about getting your money's worth, then just stick to the main sites rather than setting up private shows on Skype.
I'd like to see these women have better alternatives to working the cam sites, not forced to go into even more degrading work because the law created outrageous penalties.
They were probably thinking about previous concessions they'd made only to see that money go to executive bonuses and attorney's fees instead of the capital improvements that the money was supposed to be spent on. http://www.vendingmarketwatch.com/news/10829363/bctgm-union-responds-to-hostess-facility-closings
They were probably also thinking of the 300% pay raise that the CEO gave himself while preparing for bankruptcy, along with the lesser raises other executives got at the same time.
I'm still not convinced this was a smart move on the part of the Union, but I can certainly understand what they were thinking!
The Philippines is one of the last countries in the world where the Catholic Church has a dominant voice in politics, so laws attempting to enforce morality are a fairly common thing. For example, it's one of the only countries in the world where divorce is illegal. As a result, many couples today either don't get married in the first place, or else are in a long term live-in relationship with someone while still being married to someone else.
Cybersex in the Philippines was already legally considered to be a form of prostitution before this law was passed. Now it would appear that the punishment for getting naked on a webcam will be harsher than that for having actual sex for pay, which will only serve to drive women away from the relatively safe jobs involving cybersex and into the more dangerous work of actual prostitution.
Just how much more severe is the punishment for cybersex? The fine for prostitution is 200 to 2,000 pesos. The fine for cybersex is 200,000 to 1,000,000 pesos. Average annual family income in the Philippines is 206,000 pesos as of 2009.
Slashdot Mirror
The indie tabletop RPG scene really adopted Google+. Why? Damned if I know, but they've been struggling to find an alternative since the announcement was made that it was going away.
This is basically the machine that places like Burger King and Dairy Queen were using back in the 80s and 90s. I assume that something similar is still used today, but maybe that's changed.
Nobody was flipping burgers back then, you just put a frozen patty in the machine at one end, and it came out done on the other. Have the patty roll over an open flame at some point in the trip and you get your "flame broiled" part.
Some women like to share videos of their physical hobbies (yoga, dance, etc.) without a bunch of guys jerking off to them. Before they'd have to create a separate profile or kick their male friends off their FB account. This gives them another option.
Sony doesn't think "you" will pay $1200 for an MP3 player. They think that the people who pay hundreds of dollars for Monster cables will pay it, and that there are enough of them out there for the product to be profitable.
No one with any decision making ability at Sony was inconvenienced by the outage on Christmas.
It was the grunts, doing the same kinds of jobs that most of the people posting here do, who had to go in and try to fix it instead of spending the day with their families.
Exactly. (Responding to cancel out a mis-rating)
"Sign up for other services and you volunteer to participate in random experiments" is NOT ethical.
For it to be ethical it would have to be a very clear opt-in procedure, not something buried in a ToS somewhere.
Yes, but the description above indicates that they are trained not to take "no" for an answer.
It's not good business to irritate your customers, unless it doesn't matter because you have them locked into your service due to a virtual monopoly.
Looking to find and fill a genuine need for your customer = good.
Trying to sell them something they obviously aren't there for (such as additional services when they are looking for tech support) = bad.
Continuing to bother a customer when they tell you that they're not interested = terrible.
RTFA. It's not so much about workplace harassment as it is about harassment because of their work.
Unfortunately, the summary doesn't really make that clear.
She's not talking about comments like "nice ass" as much as she's talking about comments like "die, you fucking cunt!"
I actually understand his point. If Tesla just makes batteries for other companies, then they don't see Tesla as competition. If Tesla's also producing cars, then they are far less likely to do business with them regardless of how good their batteries are.
It's still a terrible idea. For the most part, the other car companies won't innovate unless they have competition. Tesla is far more likely to create real change by existing as a car company than they are by existing as a parts company.
This is an example of why listening to "investors" is a terrible idea. It's like listening to a gambler advise you on how to coach a sports team.
That would have been the headline in the 70s. This is why consumers don't generally drive innovation, and why judging the prospects of a new technology before its had time to overcome some of its early weaknesses is premature.
Welcome to April 1st. Your wish will be granted on April 2nd.
As soon as they can guarantee reliable cell service to everyone, they can be allowed to cease providing land line service to everyone.
Citation here: http://www.businessinsider.com...
Wal-Mart competes primarily on the illusion of price through loss leaders on a minority of items. The majority of their stock is actually the same or more expensive than many of their competitors. The company's actual strengths are logistics and marketing.
Whatever the validity, or lack thereof, of the rest of the post, I have to love the beauty of this self-fulfilling Catch 22 statement:
"As far as I can tell, ObamaCare has not a single defender outside the ranks of Obama's defenders and the Democratic Party."
Let me guess, how can you tell if someone is an "Obama defender?": they defend "ObamaCare!"
It's not just tech. TV journalism in general, and 60 Minutes in particular, gets it wrong all the time. 60 Minutes is notorious for going into every story knowing what their conclusion is going to be from the beginning and then framing and editing every second of their coverage to support that pre-determined conclusion.
This isn't something new. Before I got into the tech industry I worked in insurance for a major US retailer back in the 90s. While there, 60 Minutes did an "expose" on the dangers of shopping carts. Lots of discussion of people and children hurt around shopping carts, but not one word about now 99%+ of those accidents are a result of people stupidly using carts in ways they weren't intended to be used. Pointing that out would have gone against the narrative they were trying to construct about how inherently dangerous shopping carts were.
The truly amazing thing to me is that so many people can see journalists routinely get things wrong about subjects those people are personally knowledgeable on, yet still trust those same journalists on any other topic they cover.
The one time I don't have mod points...
This was similar to my experience. I bought about an album a month before Napster, while Napster was around I bought at least an album a week, and after it went away I dropped back to about two albums a year. I'm now back to buying the equivalent of about an album every other month through iTunes.
So, a decade later and I'm still spending a lot less money with them than I was when Napster was around. Multiply that by everyone else who acted in similar ways, and it's not so hard to determine the real reason for their declining income.
It was not designed to produce a two-party state. There's a great deal of evidence (for example, Federalist Paper #10) that many of the designers of the Constitution were, in fact, trying to create a non-partisan system. Unfortunately, with few real-world examples to take lessons from, they did not see how the system they were designing would inevitably lead to a two-party state.
It's no accident that most democracies to be founded after the United States have chosen not to directly copy its system of government.
Most of the sex cam sites house nothing but women trying to make a living. Some of them do indeed claim more hardship than they actually have in order to entice western men to send them even more money than they already paid for the sex show (usually around $1 a minute, of which the women get 25 to 50 cents at most).
Western men who get "scammed" this way are usually out a couple hundred bucks at the very most. Women legitimately looking for a husband who get scammed by western men just looking for sex often find themselves having lost their virginity in a Catholic country where that is still incredibly important.
The alternative to sex cam sites for these women is often actual prostitution. A far more dangerous occupation. It's telling that the penalties under this law were an order of magnitude higher for sex cam work than they are for prostitution. Makes you wonder what the real agenda for the law's backers was?
"sometimes they want shows in Skype, you pay by Paypal etc but the show you get will not be what you paid for"
Really? Let me guess, you paid for the girl to have sex with her underage sister, and all she did was show you her tits? Cry me a river. Most of these women are from the poorest families in a poor country. Making their quota on cam can determine whether or not they eat that day. If you're so worried about getting your money's worth, then just stick to the main sites rather than setting up private shows on Skype.
I'd like to see these women have better alternatives to working the cam sites, not forced to go into even more degrading work because the law created outrageous penalties.
22 attacked, and none killed.
Point still stands.
They were probably thinking about previous concessions they'd made only to see that money go to executive bonuses and attorney's fees instead of the capital improvements that the money was supposed to be spent on. http://www.vendingmarketwatch.com/news/10829363/bctgm-union-responds-to-hostess-facility-closings
They were probably also thinking of the 300% pay raise that the CEO gave himself while preparing for bankruptcy, along with the lesser raises other executives got at the same time.
I'm still not convinced this was a smart move on the part of the Union, but I can certainly understand what they were thinking!
The Philippines is one of the last countries in the world where the Catholic Church has a dominant voice in politics, so laws attempting to enforce morality are a fairly common thing. For example, it's one of the only countries in the world where divorce is illegal. As a result, many couples today either don't get married in the first place, or else are in a long term live-in relationship with someone while still being married to someone else.
Cybersex in the Philippines was already legally considered to be a form of prostitution before this law was passed. Now it would appear that the punishment for getting naked on a webcam will be harsher than that for having actual sex for pay, which will only serve to drive women away from the relatively safe jobs involving cybersex and into the more dangerous work of actual prostitution.
Just how much more severe is the punishment for cybersex? The fine for prostitution is 200 to 2,000 pesos. The fine for cybersex is 200,000 to 1,000,000 pesos. Average annual family income in the Philippines is 206,000 pesos as of 2009.