You sir ought to look up the Lisbon Treaty and generally do a smidgeon of considering-whether-are-actually-the-case regarding this set of completely incorrect points.
You really can't move to another country which [has...] 2) A level of freedom -guaranteed- in a restricted level of power of the gov't, such as freedom of speech (Which most of Europe does not have).
Assuming the summary isn't completely wrong, this is an excellent idea. In the UK we are under severe threat of a draconian three-strikes law. This is without question due to the behind-the-scenes lobbying of the record and movie industries. And also, of course, the general attitude of compliance of the government towards those interests at the expense of the original, liberal copyright law that benefits culture and the public.
Convincing the ISPs that the filtering/monitoring requirements of the draconian-copyright brigade are worse than having to deal with P2P traffic may be the only hope.
This person has no place being [i]angry[/i] that his computer's graphics card couldn't be upgraded. That information is plain and available for all the world to see. He bought something and is now [i]fuming at the manufacturer[/i] that he didn't do basic research and buy something more appropriate to his needs?
Please. We have to take some responsibility for our own actions.
When you look at the calculation in detail, they work out the amount of farmland per dog (0.83 hectares), then convert the amount of energy used by an SUV into acres of land, by using THE INTENSITY OF SUNLIGHT on that land surface.
The other thing is that there's a reason we have phrases like "eat your own dogfood". The meat in dog-food is not being farmed specifically for that purpose. It largely consists of the parts of food animals that cannot be sold as meat for humans.
Overall the use of this meat as dogfood can have no net effect in carbon emissions, because the alternative is to put it in landfill, where it will be swiftly putrified, returning its carbon content to the atmosphere. When it gets eaten, a large percentage of the carbon is temporarily sequestered in the dog, but then gradually released as carbon dioxide, true. In both cases, there is also a fertilisation effect, whereby the nitrogen (and some carbon) in the meat will be fixed by producers in the ecosystem.
The net carbon emission is the same in either case.
As arstechnica mad explicit, Intel's response that they "never sold below cost" is beside the point:
But, in the face of some of the specific allegations made by the EU, some of Otellini's statements seem almost besides the point. For example, Otellini states that, "Intel never sells products below cost," and "there has been absolutely zero harm to consumers." Both of those may be true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Intel wasn't abusing its dominant market position.
What's more:
Intel has already said that they are going to appeal the fine, and that it âoeignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor market.â Notably, they arenâ(TM)t appealing the facts, but rather the conclusion (that it was harmful to consumers) and the fine. Itâ(TM)s likely that any appeal will take just as long as the initial examination, so itâ(TM)s unlikely that this will be over before 2011, if not later.
I know it's a joke, and mod me down for being a poopsack, but it's important to be clear that what Intel's been fined for is some nasty shit, and there's little question they're guilty. LA Times has a good write up:
"The Commission finds that Intel did not compete fairly, frustrating innovation and reducing consumer welfare in the process," Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Competition Policy, said at a Brussels news conference announcing the fine. "Given that Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for over five years, the size of the fine should come as no surprise."
The violations took place between 2002 and 2007, when Intel controlled at least 70% of the world market for microprocessors, Kroes said.
"Intel awarded major computer manufacturers rebates on condition that they purchased all or almost all of their supplies, at least in certain defined segments, from Intel," the Commission concluded.
...
The Europeans began their investigation in July 2007, and their findings should help U.S. regulators, said David Balto, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former antitrust official at the FTC and the Department of Justice. He noted that Intel also has been found in violation of antitrust laws by Japan and Korea.
"The relief that the Europeans imposed I think will provide an excellent guide to U.S. enforcers as they try to determine what to do about Intel's exclusionary conduct," Balto said today.
...
"Their website invites visitors to add their 'vision of tomorrow,' " [Kroes] said. "Well, I can give my vision of tomorrow for Intel here and now: "Obey the law"."
Oh, completely. There's absolutely no way, and nobody is seriously suggesting, that apple can or should manufacture chips. I think there's a growing consensus, though, that apple is going to be doing some serious customizing on an ARM basis.
Conference call can be accessed from here: http://www.oracle.com/sun/index.html
Login required for web access, or call +1.719.884.8882 and use passcode 923645
What's more, Safari is playing a great role in creating an "arms race of web standards". All in all, I'd say Safari, though not as much as Firefox, is more *important* than IE.
Slashdot Mirror
You sir ought to look up the Lisbon Treaty and generally do a smidgeon of considering-whether-are-actually-the-case regarding this set of completely incorrect points.
You really can't move to another country which [has...] 2) A level of freedom -guaranteed- in a restricted level of power of the gov't, such as freedom of speech (Which most of Europe does not have).
Err... pardon?
I wish I had mod points. This is a spot-on refutation of the grand parent’s comically myopic view of what’s “ethical”
The distance from Earth to Mars varies between 3 and 22 light minutes.
Assuming the summary isn't completely wrong, this is an excellent idea. In the UK we are under severe threat of a draconian three-strikes law. This is without question due to the behind-the-scenes lobbying of the record and movie industries. And also, of course, the general attitude of compliance of the government towards those interests at the expense of the original, liberal copyright law that benefits culture and the public.
Convincing the ISPs that the filtering/monitoring requirements of the draconian-copyright brigade are worse than having to deal with P2P traffic may be the only hope.
Reference: TalkTalk will resist net piracy plans
This person has no place being [i]angry[/i] that his computer's graphics card couldn't be upgraded. That information is plain and available for all the world to see. He bought something and is now [i]fuming at the manufacturer[/i] that he didn't do basic research and buy something more appropriate to his needs?
Please. We have to take some responsibility for our own actions.
When you look at the calculation in detail, they work out the amount of farmland per dog (0.83 hectares), then convert the amount of energy used by an SUV into acres of land, by using THE INTENSITY OF SUNLIGHT on that land surface.
The other thing is that there's a reason we have phrases like "eat your own dogfood". The meat in dog-food is not being farmed specifically for that purpose. It largely consists of the parts of food animals that cannot be sold as meat for humans.
Overall the use of this meat as dogfood can have no net effect in carbon emissions, because the alternative is to put it in landfill, where it will be swiftly putrified, returning its carbon content to the atmosphere. When it gets eaten, a large percentage of the carbon is temporarily sequestered in the dog, but then gradually released as carbon dioxide, true. In both cases, there is also a fertilisation effect, whereby the nitrogen (and some carbon) in the meat will be fixed by producers in the ecosystem.
The net carbon emission is the same in either case.
Actually he said "from lunch", so I'm going to have to go with Vampire.
But, in the face of some of the specific allegations made by the EU, some of Otellini's statements seem almost besides the point. For example, Otellini states that, "Intel never sells products below cost," and "there has been absolutely zero harm to consumers." Both of those may be true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Intel wasn't abusing its dominant market position.
What's more:
Intel has already said that they are going to appeal the fine, and that it âoeignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor market.â Notably, they arenâ(TM)t appealing the facts, but rather the conclusion (that it was harmful to consumers) and the fine. Itâ(TM)s likely that any appeal will take just as long as the initial examination, so itâ(TM)s unlikely that this will be over before 2011, if not later.
(AnandTech)
"The Commission finds that Intel did not compete fairly, frustrating innovation and reducing consumer welfare in the process," Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Competition Policy, said at a Brussels news conference announcing the fine. "Given that Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for over five years, the size of the fine should come as no surprise."
...
...
The violations took place between 2002 and 2007, when Intel controlled at least 70% of the world market for microprocessors, Kroes said.
"Intel awarded major computer manufacturers rebates on condition that they purchased all or almost all of their supplies, at least in certain defined segments, from Intel," the Commission concluded.
The Europeans began their investigation in July 2007, and their findings should help U.S. regulators, said David Balto, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former antitrust official at the FTC and the Department of Justice. He noted that Intel also has been found in violation of antitrust laws by Japan and Korea.
"The relief that the Europeans imposed I think will provide an excellent guide to U.S. enforcers as they try to determine what to do about Intel's exclusionary conduct," Balto said today.
"Their website invites visitors to add their 'vision of tomorrow,' " [Kroes] said. "Well, I can give my vision of tomorrow for Intel here and now: "Obey the law"."
Link.
1b. For extra credit, run said cron job on supercomputer.
Oh, completely. There's absolutely no way, and nobody is seriously suggesting, that apple can or should manufacture chips. I think there's a growing consensus, though, that apple is going to be doing some serious customizing on an ARM basis.
17 petabyte! Good grief, who are you working for?!
Man, you craazy.
I'm listening to the conference call now.
Conference call can be accessed from here: http://www.oracle.com/sun/index.html Login required for web access, or call +1.719.884.8882 and use passcode 923645
A Google Earth .kmz file linking to the location is here.
That will be Safari 3.
Not very long ago, Cuba targeted the United States with armed nuclear missiles.
Erm, yeaaaaahhhh....
Wil Shipley, is that really you?
And averaging out your opinions with those of Apple's minions, we have a stab at getting reasonably near the truth!
Is there any particular reason this is modded +5 Insightful?
Oh, well then, QED!
What's more, Safari is playing a great role in creating an "arms race of web standards". All in all, I'd say Safari, though not as much as Firefox, is more *important* than IE.
It's the most important for mac users. Mac users may not be the majority but I don't think it's contentious to say they're an important minority.
An update addressing one of the most important shortcomings of one of the most important web browsers; I fail to fail to find this noteworthy.