I definitely agree that people won't always drink more of a soda even when thirsty.. I know for myself that there are times when the acidic content of a soda can be a problem, and some sodas have enough sugar to feel sickly sweet too me (so I wouldn't drink as much of the soda compared to water even if I'm thirsty.)
There's a problem with your thinking. You would be right if all drugs were being produced by one company but there are actually many competing companies. So a company that currently isn't making any money off of cancer treatments would love to have a pill that cures cancer even if they could only charge $10 a pill (assuming that gives that some profit.)
You were doing okay until that last statement. It's a popular myth that drinking a soda will dehydrate but studies have shown that the water loss due to the small amount of caffeine in a typical soda is greatly outweighed the water provided by the soda. So if you drink multiple sodas all day long you won't end up dehydrated due to the caffeine (though you may gain weight from all of the 'empty' calories.)
I don't think you want a choke point in a school since you have to consider what might happen there if something goes wrong like a fire in the school. Kids are more likely to panic in that situation and having a choke point is just going to cause more problems especially if there is a real danger to the kids.
Hey, I'm an American and I came up with that idea (reinvented on my own) back when I was a kid. If I was hungry and dinner was off a ways I would sometimes fry up some potatoes (though I cut across them so I cut nice circles that were about a 16th of an inch thick instead of the normal french fry wedge) and then stick them between two slices of bread. It's not high cuisine but it works well when you are hungry and there's nothing else ready to eat.
I'm sure it will. Though I suspect most won't move away from.com but will add on other domains. So you might have a www.com and a www.es and a www.se. For an operation that is turning a profit (not your average website) it's not much of an additional cost or administration headache.
Apparently they decided that name was too well known so they are now known as Academi. At least you can actually find that one with a web search and not get lost in all the other references such as those to Xenon.
It's true that we can use much less water in growing our food but it's not easily done. More to the point it's not done cheaply and that's the biggest issue. So long as it adds to the cost of food (even if it's only pennies to a pound of tomatoes) there's going to be an issue with getting the majority of farmers to change their practices. Especially in third world countries where getting those improved practices out to the farmers can prove difficult.
It's certainly a worth while thing if an area is experiencing a lack of rainfall (as in much of Africa) or if their aquifer is beginning to run low (apparently an issue in some areas of the Outback in Australia) but without some incentive it's going to be difficult to get people to change.
I don't know that you are correct since one of the items they mention in their example of Federal Aid is college tuition aid. That can easily be seen as an investment in the future as it is likely that someone receiving college tuition aid will make more money in the future and will then pay back any aid they received.
They can't do that because they would have to pay for every time they played any of the songs. One of the advantages of using Bach, Handel and Mozart is that no one is collecting royalties on their music and you can find royalty free performances. So they can play the music 24/7 without having to pay anyone for that performance.
If you really wanted a 64 bit version of Firefox you woud have already found and downloaded it since they've been building one for a while. Don't blame them for not walking up to you and handing it to you on a silver platter.
They aren't worried about Mobage because that game IS Tiny Tower. As it says on the web page
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.mobage.ww.a560.tinytower_android"The #1 iPhone Game Tiny Tower comes to Android for the 1st Time" so there must be some sort of licensing between the two companies. Zynga could have taken that approach after the company decided not to be purchased but instead of working out some sort of licensing that would have benefited both companies they decided it would be cheaper to copy the game. I'm sure there are some differences (that's natural unless two people are forced to build the same product) but those two games look almost exactly the same. Far too close for it to be anything other than an intentional copy.
It's possible due to automated trading. If Google reported that their earnings were lower than expected even if only a small amount that could lead to some automated selling. That wouldn't require an analyst to read the report and decipher it before making a decision to sell/buy/hold.
Did you not notice that the OP was quoting Andy Warhol? I think there wasn't a McDonald's in those locations back when he made those quotes. Things change over time and not always for the better.
I have no interest in any of these products but I do find them interesting. Touchfire looks like a good product for someone that has decided to use an Ipad (though if you really need a keyboard that much why not use a laptop?) The virtual computer is neat just for the way it handles mouse and keyboard inputs without actually having a keyboard/mouse. The last product they talked about, Snapkeys, would irritate me since it would force you to learn an entirely new way to type in order to use it. It's another case of forcing the user to change his behavior to accommodate the lack of a keyboard on a tablet.
The most likely answer is when some one is willing to pay for it. What you have described above isn't a trivial effort and it's unlikely someone is going to do the work for free so it will have to wait until someone is willing to pay for the development. Even then it's likely that the developer may keep it closed source in order to recoup the investment.
Not at all. It's certainly possible for someone in the military that is involved in procurement/budgeting to be corrupted by the thought of easy money. However there are real consequences if they are caught, including the possibility of jail time. With Congress there's not much that can be done as they get a lot of legal protection that a normal citizen doesn't get.
LOL. Hardware engineers can often make more than software engineers in the same company. What you are talking about is people that go off and make their own products that other people buy. That could be hardware or software. Consider the case of two guys named Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak that built a company started out with a hardware product (and some software to drive it.)
It doesn't matter what your background is so long as you can come up with a decent product that people want. Hardware/software/literature/movie/clothing. Come up with a good product at a decent price and figure out how to market it and you too can make millions. T
Huh? It seems like you are suggesting that Georgia residents get to attend Georgia colleges free of charge. While that would be a nice idea it certainly isn't the case as a visit to any of the Georgia universities web sites would quickly verify. It looks like even North Carolina doesn't provide free tuition for NC residents as a visit to the UNC web site shows a $7,008 cost for tuition and fees for a year.
And some are even carrying this even further with plans for moving their corporate headquarters out of the country to avoid this scrutiny. After all it's easy to point the finger at a company that is only registered in a foreign country on paper but it's harder if their corporate headquarters are physically in that country.
Looks like there is a company called QuickFlix in Australia that already has the qwickflix domain name. My guess is that is why Netflix didn't go with the more obvious name.
But they don't have Motorola's patents. They have the patents related to Motorola Mobility. Now those patents are certainly going to be important in fighting off these lawsuits but it's not as comprehensive as you suggest above (which would have included buying at least the patents of the entire Motorola corporation and not just those of Motorola Mobility.)
I understand where you are coming from but you make the same complaint that many others do that isn't fair to major media. I've watched CNN and CNBC and MSNBC and have seen their coverage of the deaths in Mexico. CNBC even did an entire hour on the drug deaths in Mexico and how it relates to the USA. However, you aren't going to see the issue being discussed many times each day because it doesn't directly impact US citizens. That's a bias that's been there as long as I can remember. If something isn't directly impacting our lives or wallets then it's going to get short shrift on the US major media.
I suspect that's because they've discovered that most people don't want to hear about foreign news on a regular basis. I realize that isn't what you want (and it isn't what I want) but they are a business and they will naturally move towards the kind of coverage that draws in the most viewers. Hence the flooding of our airwaves with discussions of celebrities and even celebrity want to bes like Snookie. While it's light weight coverage it draws in the viewers where discussing the high number of deaths in Mexico due to the drug cartels and even the murder of innocent civilians to maintain their control isn't the sort of coverage that people (on the whole) want to see.
I don't see any way to fix it unless viewers change or we demand that PBS cover it more. (Since PBS doesn't depend as much on the viewer count as the typical commercial news station.)
It is brilliant because it's almost always the case that ordering over the Internet is cheaper than buying from a brick and mortar store. That's really no surprise since it's going to be much cheaper to have stuff in 1 big warehouse than fifty B&M storefronts with rent/utilities/salaries and local ads. If B&M could compete on price with Internet based companies like Amazon then more people would be willing to buy locally because the shipping costs (when not free) would outweigh the sales tax but that's not likely the case due to all of those costs associated with having a real storefront.
Slashdot Mirror
I definitely agree that people won't always drink more of a soda even when thirsty.. I know for myself that there are times when the acidic content of a soda can be a problem, and some sodas have enough sugar to feel sickly sweet too me (so I wouldn't drink as much of the soda compared to water even if I'm thirsty.)
Or just censor all of *.uk for a week or two.
There's a problem with your thinking. You would be right if all drugs were being produced by one company but there are actually many competing companies. So a company that currently isn't making any money off of cancer treatments would love to have a pill that cures cancer even if they could only charge $10 a pill (assuming that gives that some profit.)
You were doing okay until that last statement. It's a popular myth that drinking a soda will dehydrate but studies have shown that the water loss due to the small amount of caffeine in a typical soda is greatly outweighed the water provided by the soda. So if you drink multiple sodas all day long you won't end up dehydrated due to the caffeine (though you may gain weight from all of the 'empty' calories.)
I don't think you want a choke point in a school since you have to consider what might happen there if something goes wrong like a fire in the school. Kids are more likely to panic in that situation and having a choke point is just going to cause more problems especially if there is a real danger to the kids.
Hey, I'm an American and I came up with that idea (reinvented on my own) back when I was a kid. If I was hungry and dinner was off a ways I would sometimes fry up some potatoes (though I cut across them so I cut nice circles that were about a 16th of an inch thick instead of the normal french fry wedge) and then stick them between two slices of bread.
It's not high cuisine but it works well when you are hungry and there's nothing else ready to eat.
I'm sure it will. Though I suspect most won't move away from .com but will add on other domains. So you might have a www.com and a www.es and a www.se. For an operation that is turning a profit (not your average website) it's not much of an additional cost or administration headache.
Apparently they decided that name was too well known so they are now known as Academi. At least you can actually find that one with a web search and not get lost in all the other references such as those to Xenon.
It's true that we can use much less water in growing our food but it's not easily done. More to the point it's not done cheaply and that's the biggest issue. So long as it adds to the cost of food (even if it's only pennies to a pound of tomatoes) there's going to be an issue with getting the majority of farmers to change their practices. Especially in third world countries where getting those improved practices out to the farmers can prove difficult.
It's certainly a worth while thing if an area is experiencing a lack of rainfall (as in much of Africa) or if their aquifer is beginning to run low (apparently an issue in some areas of the Outback in Australia) but without some incentive it's going to be difficult to get people to change.
I don't know that you are correct since one of the items they mention in their example of Federal Aid is college tuition aid. That can easily be seen as an investment in the future as it is likely that someone receiving college tuition aid will make more money in the future and will then pay back any aid they received.
They can't do that because they would have to pay for every time they played any of the songs. One of the advantages of using Bach, Handel and Mozart is that no one is collecting royalties on their music and you can find royalty free performances. So they can play the music 24/7 without having to pay anyone for that performance.
If you really wanted a 64 bit version of Firefox you woud have already found and downloaded it since they've been building one for a while. Don't blame them for not walking up to you and handing it to you on a silver platter.
They aren't worried about Mobage because that game IS Tiny Tower. As it says on the web page https://market.android.com/details?id=com.mobage.ww.a560.tinytower_android "The #1 iPhone Game Tiny Tower comes to Android for the 1st Time" so there must be some sort of licensing between the two companies. Zynga could have taken that approach after the company decided not to be purchased but instead of working out some sort of licensing that would have benefited both companies they decided it would be cheaper to copy the game. I'm sure there are some differences (that's natural unless two people are forced to build the same product) but those two games look almost exactly the same. Far too close for it to be anything other than an intentional copy.
It's possible due to automated trading. If Google reported that their earnings were lower than expected even if only a small amount that could lead to some automated selling. That wouldn't require an analyst to read the report and decipher it before making a decision to sell/buy/hold.
Did you not notice that the OP was quoting Andy Warhol? I think there wasn't a McDonald's in those locations back when he made those quotes. Things change over time and not always for the better.
I have no interest in any of these products but I do find them interesting. Touchfire looks like a good product for someone that has decided to use an Ipad (though if you really need a keyboard that much why not use a laptop?) The virtual computer is neat just for the way it handles mouse and keyboard inputs without actually having a keyboard/mouse. The last product they talked about, Snapkeys, would irritate me since it would force you to learn an entirely new way to type in order to use it. It's another case of forcing the user to change his behavior to accommodate the lack of a keyboard on a tablet.
The most likely answer is when some one is willing to pay for it. What you have described above isn't a trivial effort and it's unlikely someone is going to do the work for free so it will have to wait until someone is willing to pay for the development. Even then it's likely that the developer may keep it closed source in order to recoup the investment.
Not at all. It's certainly possible for someone in the military that is involved in procurement/budgeting to be corrupted by the thought of easy money. However there are real consequences if they are caught, including the possibility of jail time. With Congress there's not much that can be done as they get a lot of legal protection that a normal citizen doesn't get.
LOL. Hardware engineers can often make more than software engineers in the same company. What you are talking about is people that go off and make their own products that other people buy. That could be hardware or software. Consider the case of two guys named Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak that built a company started out with a hardware product (and some software to drive it.) It doesn't matter what your background is so long as you can come up with a decent product that people want. Hardware/software/literature/movie/clothing. Come up with a good product at a decent price and figure out how to market it and you too can make millions. T
Huh? It seems like you are suggesting that Georgia residents get to attend Georgia colleges free of charge. While that would be a nice idea it certainly isn't the case as a visit to any of the Georgia universities web sites would quickly verify. It looks like even North Carolina doesn't provide free tuition for NC residents as a visit to the UNC web site shows a $7,008 cost for tuition and fees for a year.
And some are even carrying this even further with plans for moving their corporate headquarters out of the country to avoid this scrutiny. After all it's easy to point the finger at a company that is only registered in a foreign country on paper but it's harder if their corporate headquarters are physically in that country.
Looks like there is a company called QuickFlix in Australia that already has the qwickflix domain name. My guess is that is why Netflix didn't go with the more obvious name.
But they don't have Motorola's patents. They have the patents related to Motorola Mobility. Now those patents are certainly going to be important in fighting off these lawsuits but it's not as comprehensive as you suggest above (which would have included buying at least the patents of the entire Motorola corporation and not just those of Motorola Mobility.)
I understand where you are coming from but you make the same complaint that many others do that isn't fair to major media. I've watched CNN and CNBC and MSNBC and have seen their coverage of the deaths in Mexico. CNBC even did an entire hour on the drug deaths in Mexico and how it relates to the USA. However, you aren't going to see the issue being discussed many times each day because it doesn't directly impact US citizens. That's a bias that's been there as long as I can remember. If something isn't directly impacting our lives or wallets then it's going to get short shrift on the US major media.
I suspect that's because they've discovered that most people don't want to hear about foreign news on a regular basis. I realize that isn't what you want (and it isn't what I want) but they are a business and they will naturally move towards the kind of coverage that draws in the most viewers. Hence the flooding of our airwaves with discussions of celebrities and even celebrity want to bes like Snookie. While it's light weight coverage it draws in the viewers where discussing the high number of deaths in Mexico due to the drug cartels and even the murder of innocent civilians to maintain their control isn't the sort of coverage that people (on the whole) want to see.
I don't see any way to fix it unless viewers change or we demand that PBS cover it more. (Since PBS doesn't depend as much on the viewer count as the typical commercial news station.)
It is brilliant because it's almost always the case that ordering over the Internet is cheaper than buying from a brick and mortar store. That's really no surprise since it's going to be much cheaper to have stuff in 1 big warehouse than fifty B&M storefronts with rent/utilities/salaries and local ads. If B&M could compete on price with Internet based companies like Amazon then more people would be willing to buy locally because the shipping costs (when not free) would outweigh the sales tax but that's not likely the case due to all of those costs associated with having a real storefront.