Because a city you lived in screwed up their municipal internet project and provided "crap service", you'd rather have a law that would prevent even that so that everyone would have been left with no broadband service at all?
Aside from that, the device is a building block for massively parallel computers with extremely high memory bandwidth for the processors. The tasks it would be used for are the same tasks that other massively parallel supercomputers are used for today; simulating complex systems, graphics rendering, etc.
Summaries aren't meant to be complete explanations of everything you need to know. They're meant to be short. If you don't understand a word, look it up on Google, Bing, Yahoo, Duck Duck Go or whatever other search engine you favor.
Using an unlicensed decryption program to decrypt a Blu-Ray DVD that you own, rented or borrowed in order to watch it on a non HDCP compliant system it is not piracy, no matter what the MPAA tells you. It may or may not violate the DMCA, but it is absolutely not piracy.
I'm fairly sure nobody is accusing anyone of being a shill for the yeast industry, so it's kinda pointless to post this under a story about forced evolution in yeast cells.
While I'm disgusted by the all too frequent abuses of power that Tasers involved in, I have to admit that Tasers are much less lethal than gunshots so they are a step in the right direction.
We're never going to eliminate violence between humans (though it'd be nice if we did), so I'd much rather see society spending time and money spent developing weapons that are less lethal than see the focus shift to developing weapons that are more lethal.
Depends on the model. They all deliver a varying AC Voltage, but some models, like the X26, add pulses of DC as well. The waveform also varies and isn't a simple sine wave.
Don't be silly. We're bashing Windows here. The fact that Windows 7 has UAC is irrelevant, as is the fact that every email program I've seen on Windows in the last decade asks you if you want to run the attachment you just clicked on rather than just launching it.
> How is this different from MS integrating IE into Windows to beat Netscape?
The difference is the consumer's ability to choose.
Consumers aren't forced to use Google+ if they use Google search and they aren't forced to use Google search if they have Google+. They can even forgo both if they wish.
A consumer who bought a Windows system, on the other hand, had Internet Explorer installed and set as your default browser. Even if they took the time to download another browser, install it and set it as the default, they still could not uninstall IE because MS had integrated IE into the OS to the point where it could not be removed. Consumers were forced to have IE on their systems.
No. Yesterday there was an article about one small group of scientists who claim that the next ice age should begin in 1500 years based on the frequency of ice ages in past history. One group's predictions hardly qualifies as "general consensus from the scientific community."
This really shouldn't be marked as flamebait. A person buying a house will generally pay for it through a mortgage and they'll have to pay more than twice the price of the house thanks to the magic of compound interest. That interest is profit for the bank and its shareholders, who are quite likely to include the 1%.
Home buyers actually do help pay for the 200' yachts that the 1% enjoy.
The refund official Android market does include a refund, but you only have a 15 minute window in which to request the refund. I've used it and it works.
For simple programs and games, that's enough to determine whether you want to keep it or not. For more complex programs, it can be a bit of a race trying to figure out whether the program suits your purposes or not.
First, there are virtually no single-player markets and that's clearly not what I was suggesting would cost money to investigate. Even so, investigating a single-player market is not the almost-free affair that you claim. A single-player market can be due to a company making it impossible for competitors to survive and the only way to determine that is to find records and obtain testimony from the companies that are no longer competitors. That would be HARDER than investigating a company with current competitors and would be more expensive as a result.
Second, in a situation like the search market, which is clearly what this entire topic is about, consumers are free to choose whatever they want and advertisers are free to advertise wherever they want You're suggesting that Google be investigated for no reason other than that it has the majority of the market share. That is not an open and shut investigation. That is a years-long-with-many-people-doing-nothing-else investigation which is expensive as hell.
Third, you're suggesting that competitors like Bing won't complain because they don't want their own unfair behavior stopped, yet we can plainly see that they are complaining. And don't even try to claim that Microsoft doesn't engage in anti-competitive behavior.
Fourth, cartels do not include monopolies. Cartels divide up the market between the included companies and only shut out companies outside of the cartel. If one company demanded the majority of the market, the cartel would fall apart overnight. Since none of the included companies would have the majority market share that you want to kick off automatic investigates for, they'd never be caught by what you're proposing (and you've confused monopoly with cartel, BTW... totally different things).
Fifth, consumers complaints are heard by the FTC and companies are investigated on the basis of them when there are repeated complaints of a similar nature. Consumers aren't being ignored. Getting the FTC to do anything is another matter, of course, but nothing in your suggestion will correct the FTC's corruption. It would likely become worse because they would have many more opportunities to hurt or help corporations.
Your original suggestion wasn't a very good one to begin with and the arguments you're putting forth to support it are even worse.
No offense, but that would be a huge waste of taxpayers' money. There are many markets where one company takes the majority share of the market simply by producing the best product and/or the having the best advertising.
The current system works far better than what you're suggesting. Companies don't hesitate to complain if they think that a competitor is behaving illegally, so these things go unnoticed.
Investigations of companies with no complaints against them are almost guaranteed to be pointless and those are the only investigations that automatically investigating any company with too much market share would add.
What changed was the advent of firearms and the ability of even the most untrained peasant to kill even the most trained soldier. Jesus didn't give the common people ability to fight back and destroy their oppressors.. Science did.
"Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of... An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public."
So, if I owe the government money, I can force them to use my tax dollars to only pay down public debt rather than the more typical pay-for-bombs-to-bomb-the-shit-out-of-some-third-world-country?
Could this be possibly be applied to the income tax I owe? This requires further research!
They even messed up with the opt out option to make it hard to opt-out. I am specially offended by that *because* it is such a petty thing to muck with. It was a simple, straight forward Windows form but the opt-out option was semi-disabled. Oh come on that's just childish!
You should at least put the blame where it belongs. Google doesn't write the installer, nor does it require that the opt-out be hard to find or use. They do pay a small amount for installations via the installer. The decision to make it hard to opt-out was made by the greedy people who wrote (or repackaged) the software you're installing.
Such optimism brings a tear to my eye. Unfortunately, I'm probably going to destroy it.
After they vote, go to this page. I predict that you'll see that almost everyone listed in the supporting section voted yes and at least half of the people listed in the opposing section abstained because voting yes would alienate their backers. The only reason this would happen is if they vote according to the money, not the public's interest.
What I see is a bill that is being rammed through congress. The record and movie companies have gotten their way with virtually every other piece of anti-piracy legislation to date and I have little hope that this will be different. Maybe my cynical viewpoint is wrong and your optimistic belief congress will vote to protect the public's interest will prevail. It would be nice if I was wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Lies! Wikipedia is the source of all knowledge!
I know this because I looked it up on Wikipedia and it told me so.
So, let's see if I've got this straight...
Because a city you lived in screwed up their municipal internet project and provided "crap service", you'd rather have a law that would prevent even that so that everyone would have been left with no broadband service at all?
Are you Amish?
which begs the question: what's it _for_?
"begging the question" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Aside from that, the device is a building block for massively parallel computers with extremely high memory bandwidth for the processors. The tasks it would be used for are the same tasks that other massively parallel supercomputers are used for today; simulating complex systems, graphics rendering, etc.
Considering the topic, it might be more suitable to say you meant "throw an exception here"
Summaries aren't meant to be complete explanations of everything you need to know. They're meant to be short. If you don't understand a word, look it up on Google, Bing, Yahoo, Duck Duck Go or whatever other search engine you favor.
Using an unlicensed decryption program to decrypt a Blu-Ray DVD that you own, rented or borrowed in order to watch it on a non HDCP compliant system it is not piracy, no matter what the MPAA tells you. It may or may not violate the DMCA, but it is absolutely not piracy.
Don't forget the song!
I'm fairly sure nobody is accusing anyone of being a shill for the yeast industry, so it's kinda pointless to post this under a story about forced evolution in yeast cells.
While I'm disgusted by the all too frequent abuses of power that Tasers involved in, I have to admit that Tasers are much less lethal than gunshots so they are a step in the right direction.
We're never going to eliminate violence between humans (though it'd be nice if we did), so I'd much rather see society spending time and money spent developing weapons that are less lethal than see the focus shift to developing weapons that are more lethal.
Depends on the model. They all deliver a varying AC Voltage, but some models, like the X26, add pulses of DC as well. The waveform also varies and isn't a simple sine wave.
Don't be silly. We're bashing Windows here. The fact that Windows 7 has UAC is irrelevant, as is the fact that every email program I've seen on Windows in the last decade asks you if you want to run the attachment you just clicked on rather than just launching it.
That's about as stupid as saying humans don't exist because they're actually homo sapiens.
They're using up all the megabits! What will our children and grandchildren do when they're all gone?
> How is this different from MS integrating IE into Windows to beat Netscape?
The difference is the consumer's ability to choose.
Consumers aren't forced to use Google+ if they use Google search and they aren't forced to use Google search if they have Google+. They can even forgo both if they wish.
A consumer who bought a Windows system, on the other hand, had Internet Explorer installed and set as your default browser. Even if they took the time to download another browser, install it and set it as the default, they still could not uninstall IE because MS had integrated IE into the OS to the point where it could not be removed. Consumers were forced to have IE on their systems.
No. Yesterday there was an article about one small group of scientists who claim that the next ice age should begin in 1500 years based on the frequency of ice ages in past history. One group's predictions hardly qualifies as "general consensus from the scientific community."
You know that was just a figure of speech, right? I wasn't actually saying that compound interest is actually magic.
This really shouldn't be marked as flamebait. A person buying a house will generally pay for it through a mortgage and they'll have to pay more than twice the price of the house thanks to the magic of compound interest. That interest is profit for the bank and its shareholders, who are quite likely to include the 1%.
Home buyers actually do help pay for the 200' yachts that the 1% enjoy.
The refund official Android market does include a refund, but you only have a 15 minute window in which to request the refund. I've used it and it works.
For simple programs and games, that's enough to determine whether you want to keep it or not. For more complex programs, it can be a bit of a race trying to figure out whether the program suits your purposes or not.
First, there are virtually no single-player markets and that's clearly not what I was suggesting would cost money to investigate. Even so, investigating a single-player market is not the almost-free affair that you claim. A single-player market can be due to a company making it impossible for competitors to survive and the only way to determine that is to find records and obtain testimony from the companies that are no longer competitors. That would be HARDER than investigating a company with current competitors and would be more expensive as a result.
Second, in a situation like the search market, which is clearly what this entire topic is about, consumers are free to choose whatever they want and advertisers are free to advertise wherever they want You're suggesting that Google be investigated for no reason other than that it has the majority of the market share. That is not an open and shut investigation. That is a years-long-with-many-people-doing-nothing-else investigation which is expensive as hell.
Third, you're suggesting that competitors like Bing won't complain because they don't want their own unfair behavior stopped, yet we can plainly see that they are complaining. And don't even try to claim that Microsoft doesn't engage in anti-competitive behavior.
Fourth, cartels do not include monopolies. Cartels divide up the market between the included companies and only shut out companies outside of the cartel. If one company demanded the majority of the market, the cartel would fall apart overnight. Since none of the included companies would have the majority market share that you want to kick off automatic investigates for, they'd never be caught by what you're proposing (and you've confused monopoly with cartel, BTW... totally different things).
Fifth, consumers complaints are heard by the FTC and companies are investigated on the basis of them when there are repeated complaints of a similar nature. Consumers aren't being ignored. Getting the FTC to do anything is another matter, of course, but nothing in your suggestion will correct the FTC's corruption. It would likely become worse because they would have many more opportunities to hurt or help corporations.
Your original suggestion wasn't a very good one to begin with and the arguments you're putting forth to support it are even worse.
No offense, but that would be a huge waste of taxpayers' money. There are many markets where one company takes the majority share of the market simply by producing the best product and/or the having the best advertising.
The current system works far better than what you're suggesting. Companies don't hesitate to complain if they think that a competitor is behaving illegally, so these things go unnoticed.
Investigations of companies with no complaints against them are almost guaranteed to be pointless and those are the only investigations that automatically investigating any company with too much market share would add.
What changed was the advent of firearms and the ability of even the most untrained peasant to kill even the most trained soldier. Jesus didn't give the common people ability to fight back and destroy their oppressors.. Science did.
And just to beat the dead horse...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/youtube-universal-megaupload/
UMG was lying about the supposed agreement. The court case is going forward and UMG is undoubtedly going to lose.
Kinda messes with your Google-bashing and trying to claim that they're the evil ones in this mess, doesn't it.
Whoa!
"Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of... An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public."
So, if I owe the government money, I can force them to use my tax dollars to only pay down public debt rather than the more typical pay-for-bombs-to-bomb-the-shit-out-of-some-third-world-country?
Could this be possibly be applied to the income tax I owe? This requires further research!
They even messed up with the opt out option to make it hard to opt-out. I am specially offended by that *because* it is such a petty thing to muck with. It was a simple, straight forward Windows form but the opt-out option was semi-disabled. Oh come on that's just childish!
You should at least put the blame where it belongs. Google doesn't write the installer, nor does it require that the opt-out be hard to find or use. They do pay a small amount for installations via the installer. The decision to make it hard to opt-out was made by the greedy people who wrote (or repackaged) the software you're installing.
Such optimism brings a tear to my eye. Unfortunately, I'm probably going to destroy it.
After they vote, go to this page. I predict that you'll see that almost everyone listed in the supporting section voted yes and at least half of the people listed in the opposing section abstained because voting yes would alienate their backers. The only reason this would happen is if they vote according to the money, not the public's interest.
What I see is a bill that is being rammed through congress. The record and movie companies have gotten their way with virtually every other piece of anti-piracy legislation to date and I have little hope that this will be different. Maybe my cynical viewpoint is wrong and your optimistic belief congress will vote to protect the public's interest will prevail. It would be nice if I was wrong.