If anyone actually uses Yahoo, stay clear. I'm 0 for 2 on employees that use it. One thankfully left of her own accord, the other I had to dismiss. Neither were worth half their salary.
Two is a valid statistical sample now? People have hundreds of preferences, the probability is nearly 100% that for one of these preferences, everyone that goes a certain way is a bad employee.
I really don't like this argument that if you financially penalize a corporation they'll just pass the cost to their consumers. If a corp is selling service, for example, at $45 per month, and they get a $900-billion slap from the EU, and they increase costs to $60 per month, why weren't they selling service for $60/month earlier?. Corporations don't set a profit goal and toe that line exactly, they charge what will get them the most profit. A penalty is a sunk cost, and is completely irrelevant when making future profit optimization analyses.
We're not talking about voltage, we're talking about energy. Energy = voltage * charge. A volt is a unit of voltage and an electron is a unit of charge.
The most annoying part about the short scale is that the prefixes are offset from the exponent by one - 1000^3 is a million, 1000^4 is a trillion. Unfortunately, just like that weird time system that jumps from 11 AM to 12 PM to 1 PM, it's the one that most people use.
Hash the card contents, encrypt the hash with a government private key, put that into the card as well, hand out the public key to every card reader, then when someone wants to read your card, he can scan the contents, have his machine hash them itself and decrypt the encrypted hash already in the card with the public key. If the two match, the card is authentic. In theory, this is unbreakable.
If you read the comments you'll see that there isn't much forgiveness going on, and more about how Apple isn't "different", it's just another large corporation out to make a profit.
Aside from establishing Linux and OSX footholds in a whole bunch of jurisdictions and quadrupling the incentive for commercial software makers to release Linux versions that would be extremely effective.
Chrome is Google's attempt to get more people off IE and onto a standards-compliant browser that Google can run their web apps on. Notice how Google advertises Chrome on their sites to IE users but not Firefox users. OSX and Linux have no IE users (except maybe 5 people running it under Wine for whatever reason), so Google has no incentive to put Chrome on OSX or Linux. Despite all this, Linux has a functional, stable beta version on Linux (that I use every day).
If a car was intended to go 40 mph, then I don't see a problem with the brakes failing at 72. Windows is not intended for mission-critical applications, so people that use it there are abusing the tool and are themselves solely responsible for the harm they cause.
If Sony wanted to they could (at least start to) make up for their BMG rootkit debacle by fully embracing open formats and the consumer's right to tinker with his own property. Will they? Only time can tell
2000 is a fairly low threshold - if you have 2000, the industry is not monopolized, but that one provider has enough power to make the industry uncompetitive. Everyone has different definitions of a monopoly and an uncompetitive market, but the algorithm I described is, without any specific thresholds, a good indicator of the competitiveness of an industry - industries with a lower score are almost always more competitive.
1) You assume that anti-drug laws reduce drug taking. This has not been proven, and there is some evidence (see: Amsterdam, other places that have greater drug freedoms) to the contrary. It it clear and obvious that there is a considerable cost to society from anti-drug policies - prisons and judicial systems get overcrowded to the point that dangerous criminals are set free, taxpayer money is wasted, police need additional rights to infringe on people's privacy to enforce the laws.
2. Not all drug takers steal to feed their addictions, go on murderous rampages or leave their babies to die of neglect. That only happens to the most hardcore drug users and also, stealing, going on a murderous rampage, and negligence are all already illegal. So taking drugs to that extent is already legally risky and by adding additional drug laws we'll catch people who aren't dangerous more than we'll stop people from committing crime under influence.
Conclusion: Drugs aren't bad, doing bad stuff while drugged is bad, in the same way that doing bad stuff while sober is bad.
The result would essetially be a totalitarian dictatorship. The government has two ways of reaching this endpoint - first, take from everyone a few civil liberties at a time, and second, take all civil liberties from a few people at a time. By taking this quadratic approach, the time when a lot of people have a lot of ability to threaten the government is minimized.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, people consdier these risks acceptable and keep driving. Therefore, people will continue file sharing.
If anyone actually uses Yahoo, stay clear. I'm 0 for 2 on employees that use it. One thankfully left of her own accord, the other I had to dismiss. Neither were worth half their salary.
Two is a valid statistical sample now? People have hundreds of preferences, the probability is nearly 100% that for one of these preferences, everyone that goes a certain way is a bad employee.
I really don't like this argument that if you financially penalize a corporation they'll just pass the cost to their consumers. If a corp is selling service, for example, at $45 per month, and they get a $900-billion slap from the EU, and they increase costs to $60 per month, why weren't they selling service for $60/month earlier?. Corporations don't set a profit goal and toe that line exactly, they charge what will get them the most profit. A penalty is a sunk cost, and is completely irrelevant when making future profit optimization analyses.
We're not talking about voltage, we're talking about energy. Energy = voltage * charge. A volt is a unit of voltage and an electron is a unit of charge.
The Holy Bible Written By God Almighty Himself is 100 times worse than Shakespeare.
"I'm not a crazed gunman, Dad, I'm an assassin! The difference being, one is a job and the other's mental sickness!"
Did you mean that respectively?
Even with the RIAA, file sharing piracy isn't that risky - it's about as bad as driving a car in terms of risk, if not milder.
The most annoying part about the short scale is that the prefixes are offset from the exponent by one - 1000^3 is a million, 1000^4 is a trillion. Unfortunately, just like that weird time system that jumps from 11 AM to 12 PM to 1 PM, it's the one that most people use.
Hash the card contents, encrypt the hash with a government private key, put that into the card as well, hand out the public key to every card reader, then when someone wants to read your card, he can scan the contents, have his machine hash them itself and decrypt the encrypted hash already in the card with the public key. If the two match, the card is authentic. In theory, this is unbreakable.
It's a start.
your dad is a part of an international crime ring and he really is a cracker
Can I eat him?
Mod parent up.
[throws mic on floor]
Sorry, can't do that, it's too similar to an existing patent owned by Steve Ballmer.
It's a cool new website that allows people from all around the world to talk to their friends and do many useful and interesting things like
If you read the comments you'll see that there isn't much forgiveness going on, and more about how Apple isn't "different", it's just another large corporation out to make a profit.
Aside from establishing Linux and OSX footholds in a whole bunch of jurisdictions and quadrupling the incentive for commercial software makers to release Linux versions that would be extremely effective.
Chrome is Google's attempt to get more people off IE and onto a standards-compliant browser that Google can run their web apps on. Notice how Google advertises Chrome on their sites to IE users but not Firefox users. OSX and Linux have no IE users (except maybe 5 people running it under Wine for whatever reason), so Google has no incentive to put Chrome on OSX or Linux. Despite all this, Linux has a functional, stable beta version on Linux (that I use every day).
If a car was intended to go 40 mph, then I don't see a problem with the brakes failing at 72. Windows is not intended for mission-critical applications, so people that use it there are abusing the tool and are themselves solely responsible for the harm they cause.
If Sony wanted to they could (at least start to) make up for their BMG rootkit debacle by fully embracing open formats and the consumer's right to tinker with his own property. Will they? Only time can tell
Stupid english language ambiguity... deaths from sharks, not of sharks.
2000 is a fairly low threshold - if you have 2000, the industry is not monopolized, but that one provider has enough power to make the industry uncompetitive. Everyone has different definitions of a monopoly and an uncompetitive market, but the algorithm I described is, without any specific thresholds, a good indicator of the competitiveness of an industry - industries with a lower score are almost always more competitive.
Don't worry, he'll have a computer in his grave so he'll be happily playing the not-known-to-the-living-world Scourge expansion.
1) You assume that anti-drug laws reduce drug taking. This has not been proven, and there is some evidence (see: Amsterdam, other places that have greater drug freedoms) to the contrary. It it clear and obvious that there is a considerable cost to society from anti-drug policies - prisons and judicial systems get overcrowded to the point that dangerous criminals are set free, taxpayer money is wasted, police need additional rights to infringe on people's privacy to enforce the laws.
2. Not all drug takers steal to feed their addictions, go on murderous rampages or leave their babies to die of neglect. That only happens to the most hardcore drug users and also, stealing, going on a murderous rampage, and negligence are all already illegal. So taking drugs to that extent is already legally risky and by adding additional drug laws we'll catch people who aren't dangerous more than we'll stop people from committing crime under influence.
Conclusion: Drugs aren't bad, doing bad stuff while drugged is bad, in the same way that doing bad stuff while sober is bad.
if indentation_error == 1: return your_geek_card(now,please)
The result would essetially be a totalitarian dictatorship. The government has two ways of reaching this endpoint - first, take from everyone a few civil liberties at a time, and second, take all civil liberties from a few people at a time. By taking this quadratic approach, the time when a lot of people have a lot of ability to threaten the government is minimized.