I think that overlooks the fact that the telcos would carry the burden for anyone using the services. That said: You loose the loss of automated emergency services.
Remember this isn't about Skype, it's about Skype out.
"France taxes the crap out of its citizens so we should have seen this coming." which has nothing to do with this issue.
But hay, just jump on your ignorant bandwagon and toot the crazy horn.
France's person income tax is 0% to 75%..not just 75%. and with Bouclier Fiscal I don't think very many people, if any, pay 75% since it needs to be 1.2million pr more with 2 adults. Not only to the France have a different word for everything, they also have a different tax system.
Perspective: If you were a family of 2 adults and 3 children making 100,000 Euros you tax rate would be 14%
France taxes, in the real world, are on par, and sometime less then the US taxes..and they have more services.
And of cours,e saying;'high taxes' is pretty meaningless. What are the service you get? whats the VALUE overall
As am I; however most telco system have regulatory requirements, so it's reasonable that anyone using the phone system would also need to have the regulations. This is specifically about that features in Skype, not calls that are strictly voip.
"many local, state and federal government bodies would just as soon never tell you anything." Not true. 1) There isn't a procedure in place 2) To make systems online and available takes time. 3) It cost money to do so. 4) request for information is growing at a very fast rate.
He wanted to embarrass the government. He didn't know of anything wrong, he didn't want to fix something, he didn't see some injustice. He just released documents in mass in the hopes that something would show up.\
And it severely undercut the trust needed to bring an end to those crimes. Not that I expect anyone at/. to actually understand any thing more complex then a binary decision.
No, thye damage relationships, put peoples lives at risk for nothing.
"He was basically IT like most of us." No, he was a US soldier first.
" are made based on grade school playground spats. " as it turned out, the cable confirmed that isn't the case, and that the US has been honest about what they are doing.All in all the US looks pretty good on the diplomatic side.
Well then, you are stupid. I suggest you look at the history of the NYT.
all they would have done is keep information out that puts peoples lives at risk. It's called journalistic integrity. It's true of any good news, regardless of the media in which is distributes information.
Of course, there are several news organizations he could have sent it to all at the same time.
History says otherwise. T hate to bust you preconceived emotional based bias bubble. The would have left some pieces out, becasue some of it put peoples lives at risk. People doing good things. On the plus side, the data showed that US was being honest about what they where doing, and the diplomats are smart and very well written.
Stop. "Global cooling, " no. in 1975 there was concern about the incoming glacial period. THAT is what they were talking about.
" Global warming" was about the increase in temperature do to trapped carbon.
They are both real, they are both happening, and global warming effects are having a greater influences.
STOP repeating that, it makes you look like a numb nuts.
"Climate change " it was changed to climate change becasue numb nuts like you assumed global warming meant the weather would get warmer, and every time there was a heavy winter you would be like 'where is the warming herp, derp."
Setting aside the fact that sience, by it's nature, can change with new data. Those links have be thoroughly debunked.That don't stand up against the data.
Interesting the the picture you link to supports the paper. But you probably just saw some line you thought support you ignorance and posted a link. You are comparing multi 1000 year rise to a 100 year rise. Did you even know that? do you even know what that means?
Why are you so hell bent in not learning the actual science but still post an opinion based on ignorance? Did you note that accounted for the issue you brought up?
It isn't 1975 anymore. We have a ton of data. They only signification place climatologist have been show to be wrong is that they didn't think it would happen as fast as it is.
2) Why do you over look the the previous cycles took several thousands of years, and the current trend has taken 100 years?
"We're - in fact - overdue for our most recent pulse of warmth." we are in the middle of an ice age, between glacial and interglacial cycles.
Those aren't pulses, it only look that's what compared to the rest of the graph because it's measures a shorter period of time.are shorter. You fail and understanding charts.
Shame on you for linking to an out of context graph, btw.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing, but it in no way applies.
Let me know when text messaging as the regulation for emergency services to know who is calling immediately.
I think that overlooks the fact that the telcos would carry the burden for anyone using the services. That said:
You loose the loss of automated emergency services.
Remember this isn't about Skype, it's about Skype out.
No. This is about a specif features. Features that are not part of text.
You are making a knee jerk reaction to France*, for some stupid reason or another.
How about you read the article and TRY to run your remaining brain cells together in the hope you might actually have a thought?
*the Us's firsts and oldest ally, btw.
"France taxes the crap out of its citizens so we should have seen this coming."
which has nothing to do with this issue.
But hay, just jump on your ignorant bandwagon and toot the crazy horn.
France's person income tax is 0% to 75%..not just 75%. and with Bouclier Fiscal I don't think very many people, if any, pay 75% since it needs to be 1.2million pr more with 2 adults. Not only to the France have a different word for everything, they also have a different tax system.
Perspective:
If you were a family of 2 adults and 3 children making 100,000 Euros you tax rate would be 14%
France taxes, in the real world, are on par, and sometime less then the US taxes..and they have more services.
And of cours,e saying ;'high taxes' is pretty meaningless.
What are the service you get? whats the VALUE overall
two word.
Wrong, asswipe.
Running a business that has certain regulations, it isn't unreasonable to want other people using your business to comply.
the interest isn't sudden. It started as soon as skype started selling this feature in France.
"Regulations designed to protect the incumbent status quo,"
false.. and delusional..AND ignorant, bordering on stupid.
" France out of the picture for innovation. "
Are you high? Or do you really think silicon valley is the only type of innovation there is?
As am I; however most telco system have regulatory requirements, so it's reasonable that anyone using the phone system would also need to have the regulations. This is specifically about that features in Skype, not calls that are strictly voip.
I would suspect any Telco would do the same.
And they are correct. You tie into the Telco, you need to play by the regulations for Telco.
No. Sorry, but system don't magical change themselves to add new features.
Because taxes are magical.
We don't want to pay more in taxes, but we demand you add these new line items. herp derp.
We pay taxes for existing budget, want to add billion dollar systems to make everything online all at one? need more revenues. i.e. higher taxes.
"many local, state and federal government bodies would just as soon never tell you anything."
Not true.
1) There isn't a procedure in place
2) To make systems online and available takes time.
3) It cost money to do so.
4) request for information is growing at a very fast rate.
He wanted to embarrass the government. He didn't know of anything wrong, he didn't want to fix something, he didn't see some injustice. He just released documents in mass in the hopes that something would show up.\
And it severely undercut the trust needed to bring an end to those crimes. Not that I expect anyone at /. to actually understand any thing more complex then a binary decision.
No, thye damage relationships, put peoples lives at risk for nothing.
"He was basically IT like most of us."
No, he was a US soldier first.
" are made based on grade school playground spats. "
as it turned out, the cable confirmed that isn't the case, and that the US has been honest about what they are doing.All in all the US looks pretty good on the diplomatic side.
Well then, you are stupid.
I suggest you look at the history of the NYT.
all they would have done is keep information out that puts peoples lives at risk.
It's called journalistic integrity.
It's true of any good news, regardless of the media in which is distributes information.
Of course, there are several news organizations he could have sent it to all at the same time.
History says otherwise.
T hate to bust you preconceived emotional based bias bubble. The would have left some pieces out, becasue some of it put peoples lives at risk. People doing good things. On the plus side, the data showed that US was being honest about what they where doing, and the diplomats are smart and very well written.
the person who turned over Watergate evidence remained anonymous.
Stop.
"Global cooling, "
no. in 1975 there was concern about the incoming glacial period. THAT is what they were talking about.
" Global warming"
was about the increase in temperature do to trapped carbon.
They are both real, they are both happening, and global warming effects are having a greater influences.
STOP repeating that, it makes you look like a numb nuts.
"Climate change "
it was changed to climate change becasue numb nuts like you assumed global warming meant the weather would get warmer, and every time there was a heavy winter you would be like 'where is the warming herp, derp."
Setting aside the fact that sience, by it's nature, can change with new data.
Those links have be thoroughly debunked.That don't stand up against the data.
Interesting the the picture you link to supports the paper. But you probably just saw some line you thought support you ignorance and posted a link.
You are comparing multi 1000 year rise to a 100 year rise. Did you even know that? do you even know what that means?
Why are you so hell bent in not learning the actual science but still post an opinion based on ignorance? Did you note that accounted for the issue you brought up?
It isn't 1975 anymore. We have a ton of data. They only signification place climatologist have been show to be wrong is that they didn't think it would happen as fast as it is.
1) answered in the article
2) Why do you over look the the previous cycles took several thousands of years, and the current trend has taken 100 years?
"We're - in fact - overdue for our most recent pulse of warmth."
we are in the middle of an ice age, between glacial and interglacial cycles.
Those aren't pulses, it only look that's what compared to the rest of the graph because it's measures a shorter period of time.are shorter.
You fail and understanding charts.
Shame on you for linking to an out of context graph, btw.
How about you read the article? Then apologize for making such a stupid statement.
No one is stopping the Coal industry from expanding into thorium reactors to proved energy.
Actually we are in the middle of an ice age. I think he means glacial and interglacial periods.
And how well iwll they fare when crop lands become arid? when water is scarce? when other countries begin to become more impoverished?
How about we star reducing CO2, and develop technologies and industries that hire people?
at our current rat, there great grand children wont' have much to live for.