The link has been sponsored to appear, i.e. some form of support, in this case financially, has been forthcoming to cause the link to be there. As such the link is sponsored, or to phrase it slightly differently, it's a sponsored link. This is not an example of weasel words, it's a case of basic English comprehension. In the words of George Carlin, "Lets try to stick with the language we've all agreed on".
To be a little more clear on the point, an advertisement is a thing which tells of some form of service or good being available. It is/not/ necessarily paid for. Google may have decided to advertise a site out of the goodness of its heart, saying that they are sponsored is in fact being more truthful. They could perhaps go one or two steps further and state that the links are "Third party, financially sponsored links," but most people work that bit out for themselves.
No, no, no. Sponsored means supported by, usually financial support. If I pay for a thing to happen, I am sponsoring that thing. This is not a complicated example folks.
Microsoft know exactly what the problem is, and know exactly how to fix it. They are being deceptive in their claim that they're not doing anything because Lundis are not cooperating. The bug is that they have decided to implement a legacy feature in DHCP, one that servers are not required to support, as being on by default in Vista. This was a legacy feature in 93, so there's no need for it to be on by default. In fact, the standard which specifies the flag states that the flag is for cases where you have no choice but to use it. The fact that it can be turned off in Vista shows this is not the case.
There are also reports that Cisco equipment won't work with it either.
Ok, I read this, re-read it, and even tried to find some definition online that would cause it to make more sense. I failed. Anyway you cut it the author still retains their copyright.
Each person sneaking in is depriving the other concert goers a little of the space in the gig they've paid for. Whereas, duplicating a CD deprives no-one of anything.
Stealing/theft is depriving someone else of goods/services. The semantic games are being played by those who have no other recourse than to lie in order to prop up failing business models. I am willing to pay artists for their work. I have no desire to fund the legal teams of those who have been the major cause of artists not being appropriately rewarded for far longer than Napster has existed. I think you'll find people have been listening to music, and making a living out of producing music for far longer than there has been a recording industry.
Most people pirate music because it's convenient, not out of some desire to get something for nothing. I could traipse about town searching for copies of In Extremo CDs, or I could ask Google without leaving my chair. My preferred method is to give money to Last.fm, and have the music piped directly to my ears.
This is a prime example of why/. needs a moderation tag "Not even wrong". Not only is your argument wrong, but you're arguing the against the strawman the poster says doesn't exist. Well done.
As others have said, you're free to give away or sell as much Pepsi/Coke as you like, just don't call it Pepsi/Coke or put it in bottles or cans that look like Pepsi/Coke bottles or cans. But they key thing you missed, is that by doing this, you are not depriving Pepsi/Coke of any goods, and as such it is not theft.
If someone clones your car, you still have your car. If someone steals your car you don't have your car. This is the distinction being made by the GP.
Ethanol, and hydrogen are a different matter, both related to the electric car. If we replace oil with electricity for our transport, heating, etc... we need to ditch a huge oil distribution network. If we replace it with hydrogen or ethanol the existing infrastructure just has to be converted. Yes it would cost, but that would benefit the economy (in a crazy short sighted way). Remember, an efficient economy is a jobless economy.
Of course this is all speculation, but politicians never speak their mind so all we can do is speculate.
Around $1,000 per KW of generating capacity according to wikipedia, given that you seem to be trolling for info I can't be arsed doing more research than that. For 100GW that's an outlay of $100B.
TBH that figure surprised me, a small cooking fire generates well more than a KW, however this http://www.power-technology.com/projects/blackpoin t/ shows just under $1M per KW. It really does seem that none of these numbers add up. Perhaps the problem is not dependence on oil/coal/pixie dust but the centralised power generation model.
Depends if you want your job to be a nightmare hell or not. In my experience, people get the most job satisfaction when they are helping their employer do well. I work in a MS shop and the company has spent a lot of time running to stay still recently, mostly due to IIS servers deciding they don't want to play, and it pains me to think how much better/the company/ would be doing with Apache servers. It's not about being a zealot, it's about seeing your own work go down the tubes due to crappy software.
Surely the answer to questions such as this is, "What the hell are you paying me for?" Surely our job (those of use who end up facing these questions) is to fix things when they break and make them do the things they are supposed to do.
I think you've failed to take one factor of geothermal energy extraction into account, and that's the large initial outlay cost. Digging a really deep hole costs a lot, but fortunately costs almost nothing to maintain (the turbines of course need maintaining). This gives a very long time before any generator plant hits the break even point. In this case they're talking about 40 years, that's half a life time, for a politician it's about 4 careers. Who's going to invest in something that isn't going to pay off until they're dead, or almost dead? This is why it hasn't been done a large scale, perhaps we should collectively persuade those in charge that the outlay is worth it.
As for outlay of $1B per week on Iraq, yes that's a shitload of wasted money, which would be much better spent elsewhere, geothermal plants perhaps? But weapons are expensive, your average cruise missile costs the average western persons lifetime salary, hole in the ground are cheap in comparison.
Are you suggesting that Australian aborigines are irresponsible in using fire as part of their land management? Or do you just like saying the word Abo? Do you spit when you say it?
If there is a surplus, taxes get to be cut next year, making the gov. look better. However if a bridge falls down, most people don't actually care, so votes aren't affected.
1) Linux does not stop you using non FOSS. 2) 'Hidden' agenda? Hidden by screaming it from the rooftops presumably. 3) Bribery is illegal in most jurisdictions.
Wrong, the only generally accepted way to evaluate a hypothesis such as this is by statistical means. That is, mathematical means, hypothesis testing to be precise. Thank you, come again.
Slashdot Mirror
True the listener is allowed to walk away. When armed thugs drag the speaker away you're playing a different game.
Ok, let's try this again.
/not/ necessarily paid for. Google may have decided to advertise a site out of the goodness of its heart, saying that they are sponsored is in fact being more truthful. They could perhaps go one or two steps further and state that the links are "Third party, financially sponsored links," but most people work that bit out for themselves.
The link has been sponsored to appear, i.e. some form of support, in this case financially, has been forthcoming to cause the link to be there. As such the link is sponsored, or to phrase it slightly differently, it's a sponsored link. This is not an example of weasel words, it's a case of basic English comprehension. In the words of George Carlin, "Lets try to stick with the language we've all agreed on".
To be a little more clear on the point, an advertisement is a thing which tells of some form of service or good being available. It is
No, no, no.
Sponsored means supported by, usually financial support. If I pay for a thing to happen, I am sponsoring that thing. This is not a complicated example folks.
Microsoft know exactly what the problem is, and know exactly how to fix it. They are being deceptive in their claim that they're not doing anything because Lundis are not cooperating. The bug is that they have decided to implement a legacy feature in DHCP, one that servers are not required to support, as being on by default in Vista. This was a legacy feature in 93, so there's no need for it to be on by default. In fact, the standard which specifies the flag states that the flag is for cases where you have no choice but to use it. The fact that it can be turned off in Vista shows this is not the case.
There are also reports that Cisco equipment won't work with it either.
Or, running scheduler that is appropriate for any workload.
Ok, I read this, re-read it, and even tried to find some definition online that would cause it to make more sense. I failed. Anyway you cut it the author still retains their copyright.
Each person sneaking in is depriving the other concert goers a little of the space in the gig they've paid for. Whereas, duplicating a CD deprives no-one of anything.
Yes that's exactly what I said.
Or on the other hand it's not.
Stealing/theft is depriving someone else of goods/services. The semantic games are being played by those who have no other recourse than to lie in order to prop up failing business models. I am willing to pay artists for their work. I have no desire to fund the legal teams of those who have been the major cause of artists not being appropriately rewarded for far longer than Napster has existed. I think you'll find people have been listening to music, and making a living out of producing music for far longer than there has been a recording industry.
Most people pirate music because it's convenient, not out of some desire to get something for nothing. I could traipse about town searching for copies of In Extremo CDs, or I could ask Google without leaving my chair. My preferred method is to give money to Last.fm, and have the music piped directly to my ears.
This is a prime example of why /. needs a moderation tag "Not even wrong". Not only is your argument wrong, but you're arguing the against the strawman the poster says doesn't exist. Well done.
As others have said, you're free to give away or sell as much Pepsi/Coke as you like, just don't call it Pepsi/Coke or put it in bottles or cans that look like Pepsi/Coke bottles or cans. But they key thing you missed, is that by doing this, you are not depriving Pepsi/Coke of any goods, and as such it is not theft.
If someone clones your car, you still have your car. If someone steals your car you don't have your car. This is the distinction being made by the GP.
It is being alleged by many that they're all terrorist maniacs. And past persecution gives you no right to bear a chip on your shoulder.
The Big Bang isn't Einstein. Einstein thought /he/ was wrong about the cosmological fudge factor/dark energy.
What long term effects?
And yes there are people like that, Abo is usually considered a derogatory term.
Ethanol, and hydrogen are a different matter, both related to the electric car. If we replace oil with electricity for our transport, heating, etc... we need to ditch a huge oil distribution network. If we replace it with hydrogen or ethanol the existing infrastructure just has to be converted. Yes it would cost, but that would benefit the economy (in a crazy short sighted way). Remember, an efficient economy is a jobless economy.
Of course this is all speculation, but politicians never speak their mind so all we can do is speculate.
:-)
I see we have welcomed our new the-internet-is-made-of-tubes overlords then.
Around $1,000 per KW of generating capacity according to wikipedia, given that you seem to be trolling for info I can't be arsed doing more research than that. For 100GW that's an outlay of $100B.
n t/ shows just under $1M per KW. It really does seem that none of these numbers add up. Perhaps the problem is not dependence on oil/coal/pixie dust but the centralised power generation model.
TBH that figure surprised me, a small cooking fire generates well more than a KW, however this http://www.power-technology.com/projects/blackpoi
Or use OTR. http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/
Depends if you want your job to be a nightmare hell or not. In my experience, people get the most job satisfaction when they are helping their employer do well. I work in a MS shop and the company has spent a lot of time running to stay still recently, mostly due to IIS servers deciding they don't want to play, and it pains me to think how much better /the company/ would be doing with Apache servers. It's not about being a zealot, it's about seeing your own work go down the tubes due to crappy software.
Surely the answer to questions such as this is, "What the hell are you paying me for?" Surely our job (those of use who end up facing these questions) is to fix things when they break and make them do the things they are supposed to do.
I think you've failed to take one factor of geothermal energy extraction into account, and that's the large initial outlay cost. Digging a really deep hole costs a lot, but fortunately costs almost nothing to maintain (the turbines of course need maintaining). This gives a very long time before any generator plant hits the break even point. In this case they're talking about 40 years, that's half a life time, for a politician it's about 4 careers. Who's going to invest in something that isn't going to pay off until they're dead, or almost dead? This is why it hasn't been done a large scale, perhaps we should collectively persuade those in charge that the outlay is worth it.
As for outlay of $1B per week on Iraq, yes that's a shitload of wasted money, which would be much better spent elsewhere, geothermal plants perhaps? But weapons are expensive, your average cruise missile costs the average western persons lifetime salary, hole in the ground are cheap in comparison.
Are you suggesting that Australian aborigines are irresponsible in using fire as part of their land management? Or do you just like saying the word Abo? Do you spit when you say it?
Some engineers said it was old and busted: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and _americas/article2186631.ece
If there is a surplus, taxes get to be cut next year, making the gov. look better. However if a bridge falls down, most people don't actually care, so votes aren't affected.
And you have every right to a full refund, in the UK anyway.
Or just following orders...
1) Linux does not stop you using non FOSS.
2) 'Hidden' agenda? Hidden by screaming it from the rooftops presumably.
3) Bribery is illegal in most jurisdictions.
Thanks for playing.
Wrong, the only generally accepted way to evaluate a hypothesis such as this is by statistical means. That is, mathematical means, hypothesis testing to be precise.
Thank you, come again.