The main difference (if I understand correctly) is that oceans absorb CO2, while coal does not just spontaneously form. So they'd be taking carbon from the ocean, creating fuel out of it with carbon-neutral energy, burning it and releasing the carbon into the air, and then the oceans would reabsorb that carbon bringing you back to square one.
If (IF!) they can pull it off, it would be pretty darn slick.
Cookies are used for tracking, so cookies should be regulated.
Whatever happened to "if it's not the only thing it's used for, we shouldn't treat it like it is"?
If "p2p is used for piracy, so p2p should be regulated" were ever uttered around here, someone would get shot. Cookies should not be regulated. Cookies themselves are harmless, just like p2p itself is harmless. It's nefarious uses of either that people have problems with.
Besides the fact that you ultimately have full control over accepting cookies anyway, this is the government we're talking about. They have the power to get into every aspect of your life far deeper than any other organization ever could. Are you honestly worried about what are 99.99% ilkely to be completely harmless cookies?
Amazon affiliates are entities who link to Amazon's site with a referral code and then get a commission based on that purchase. They're basically advertisers.
California's considering a similar bill very, very soon, and this will likely turn a few heads in Sacramento. Laws like this actually hurt the states - instead of bringing in extra revenue, they decrease revenue because people in those states lose income and then pay less in taxes.
The businesses can afford to walk away from the affiliates. The states can not afford to lose taxes from the people who get cut off.
Don't submit videos with music by the big labels. Using creative commons music or music from labels who approve of the free advertising will simultaneously keep you from having your videos taken down and provide more visibility to non-RIAA-label artists, helping to make their cartel useless.
Google is doing exactly what they're required to be doing here by taking down the videos. The fair users are supposed to be filing DMCA counterclaims saying that their work does not infringe, and at that point the work will be put back up.
It's not Google's job to be a mediator here. In fact, they open themselves up to legal liability (which they're trying really, really hard not to do with respect to Youtube) if they start becoming one.
So the solution is for you to buy a computer that fits your needs (subscription-free) and people who want a subsidized computer to buy one with their data plan. I fail to see the issue here unless you'll no longer be able to order a laptop without a subscription.
For the vast, vast majority of people, forcing updates on them is by far the best way to go. How many computers could be virus-free right now if everything were always automatically patched?
That said, there SHOULD be a way to disable it without having to jump through hoops.
That's ridiculous. The browser is a feature of the OS that users expect to be there, and other browsers can EASILY and often ARE set as default. Those browsers should be competing on their merits, and they ARE. Look at the growing share of Firefox.
What's next? Requiring that they allow for the customer to choose what notepad program they want to use? What media player? What registry editor? What shell? Where does it end? A featureless OS? You can set different program defaults in Windows already quite easily, what more is needed? Is it REALLY in the user's best interest if they get a new computer that doesn't include any of the above because governments have forced MS to strip all the features out of their OS?
Imagine for a moment that a car manufacturer had 95% marketshare and the government forced them to offer air conditioning units from three other companies in addition to their own - it's the same level of ridiculousness.
Not only is the service opt-in and very clear about what you're opting into, but I received an email a couple of days later reminding me that I was broadcasting my location.
It's hard to have privacy concerns about something you choose to do that is so straightforward about what it does.
Isn't the BBC almost entirely funded by taxing everyone in the UK with a TV? How is this any different?
If that tax meant that I could download all the movies and music I wanted for free, I'd jump on that in an instant. I spend far more than that on legit music downloads in a year already.
Once again, people need to remember that correlation != causation, even when it's contrary to what you want to believe.
What if it's just that people who are more interested in watching media are both more prone to purchase or illegally download it, and that if they could not 'pirate' it, they would buy more?
Slashdot Mirror
The main difference (if I understand correctly) is that oceans absorb CO2, while coal does not just spontaneously form. So they'd be taking carbon from the ocean, creating fuel out of it with carbon-neutral energy, burning it and releasing the carbon into the air, and then the oceans would reabsorb that carbon bringing you back to square one.
If (IF!) they can pull it off, it would be pretty darn slick.
Cookies are used for tracking, so cookies should be regulated.
Whatever happened to "if it's not the only thing it's used for, we shouldn't treat it like it is"?
If "p2p is used for piracy, so p2p should be regulated" were ever uttered around here, someone would get shot. Cookies should not be regulated. Cookies themselves are harmless, just like p2p itself is harmless. It's nefarious uses of either that people have problems with.
They already have a "reviews" restrict, and they have an entire section dedicated to commerce:
http://www.google.com/search?q=laserjet%204000&hl=en&output=search&tbs=rvw:1&tbo=1
http://www.google.com/products?q=laserjet+4000&aq=f
And with the battery life of the g1 you need to connect it to a loader as much as you can
Err, I get over 3 days of life out of my G1 on the standard battery with moderate use.
Nothing. Android is an open platform that can install apps from non-authorized sources. The market is just there for convenience.
In fact, if you wanted, you could skip the telecoms entirely and only use an Android phone over wifi with VoIP.
That sure worked well for AIG and Enron, hm?
Honestly, think about it for a second.
Besides the fact that you ultimately have full control over accepting cookies anyway, this is the government we're talking about. They have the power to get into every aspect of your life far deeper than any other organization ever could. Are you honestly worried about what are 99.99% ilkely to be completely harmless cookies?
Well, the name is certainly a lot catchier...
With bandwith use increasing like crazy, who's to say this isn't the alternative to raising rates?
Not that I like it, but I'd prefer this to a more expensive cable bill.
You're thinking of the Amazon marketplace stores.
Amazon affiliates are entities who link to Amazon's site with a referral code and then get a commission based on that purchase. They're basically advertisers.
California's considering a similar bill very, very soon, and this will likely turn a few heads in Sacramento. Laws like this actually hurt the states - instead of bringing in extra revenue, they decrease revenue because people in those states lose income and then pay less in taxes.
The businesses can afford to walk away from the affiliates. The states can not afford to lose taxes from the people who get cut off.
At least we know it's not lupus.
Really, how is it a bad thing if Google says to Yahoo, "Hey, we won't try to hire away your employees if you don't try to hire away mine"?
If anything, that's far less evil than trying to steal anyone they can.
They probably don't mean actual GPS. It would be trivial to set up signal broadcasters in the stores to have the devices navigate by.
Don't submit videos with music by the big labels. Using creative commons music or music from labels who approve of the free advertising will simultaneously keep you from having your videos taken down and provide more visibility to non-RIAA-label artists, helping to make their cartel useless.
The only games they'd do this for are console games, which don't have DRM worries. PC games, AFAIK, are all sold sealed.
Google is doing exactly what they're required to be doing here by taking down the videos. The fair users are supposed to be filing DMCA counterclaims saying that their work does not infringe, and at that point the work will be put back up.
It's not Google's job to be a mediator here. In fact, they open themselves up to legal liability (which they're trying really, really hard not to do with respect to Youtube) if they start becoming one.
So the solution is for you to buy a computer that fits your needs (subscription-free) and people who want a subsidized computer to buy one with their data plan. I fail to see the issue here unless you'll no longer be able to order a laptop without a subscription.
For the vast, vast majority of people, forcing updates on them is by far the best way to go. How many computers could be virus-free right now if everything were always automatically patched?
That said, there SHOULD be a way to disable it without having to jump through hoops.
You mean the one that they specifically announced multiple easy ways to disable? That one?
That's ridiculous. The browser is a feature of the OS that users expect to be there, and other browsers can EASILY and often ARE set as default. Those browsers should be competing on their merits, and they ARE. Look at the growing share of Firefox.
What's next? Requiring that they allow for the customer to choose what notepad program they want to use? What media player? What registry editor? What shell? Where does it end? A featureless OS? You can set different program defaults in Windows already quite easily, what more is needed? Is it REALLY in the user's best interest if they get a new computer that doesn't include any of the above because governments have forced MS to strip all the features out of their OS?
Imagine for a moment that a car manufacturer had 95% marketshare and the government forced them to offer air conditioning units from three other companies in addition to their own - it's the same level of ridiculousness.
Not only is the service opt-in and very clear about what you're opting into, but I received an email a couple of days later reminding me that I was broadcasting my location.
It's hard to have privacy concerns about something you choose to do that is so straightforward about what it does.
Isn't the BBC almost entirely funded by taxing everyone in the UK with a TV? How is this any different?
If that tax meant that I could download all the movies and music I wanted for free, I'd jump on that in an instant. I spend far more than that on legit music downloads in a year already.
Once again, people need to remember that correlation != causation, even when it's contrary to what you want to believe.
What if it's just that people who are more interested in watching media are both more prone to purchase or illegally download it, and that if they could not 'pirate' it, they would buy more?
If you click through to the article this is referencing, though, you see the following:
When it came to memorising, the pencil-and-paper group recorded a 33 per cent improvement, while the Nintendo children were 17 per cent worse.