I'm all for funding NASA, so many good and not directly things have come from our space program, plus it's just darn cool. But I have not heard any sound justification for public funding of commercial development. This has happend many times in the pharmaceuticals industry, where public funded basic research provided excellent treatments which private firms then took over and distributed (profiting immensely), without giving back to public coffers. Also, I think this happened with broadband funding in the 90s.
Forgive the sidetrack, but it's this kind of thinking that fully exemplifies what's wrong with the U.S. (and increasingly, the world) corporatist capitalism. When the prime directive is profit, serving people becomes secondary. And when so much of energy is away froms serving people, having a useful union "of the people, for the people" becomes impossible, and all kinds of suffering result.
By understanding and mapping the user experience touchpoints and extracting intelligence and sharing that data across the rest of the value chain as actionable insight via our Expert Services and Tools, our customers are better positioned to connect and optimize the entire user journey, differentiate their offer and protect profitability.
Well, that guy, what you are witnessing isn't necessarily poor grammer skill, but rather a messy brain. Even folks like myself, who know the different usages of lose and loose, their and there, and even who and whom, still sometimes think the right word and type the wrong one. In a/. post, where discussion is supposed to be frank and lose (!), it isn't worth the effort to apply 100% proofreading skills.
Why not seize control of some means of production?
Central Illinois, for example, has nearly everything necessary to self-sustain. Several heavy industries, coal and natural gas, iron and other ores, and the best farmland in the world. Also good-looking, fertile women.
We simply move in, and move ADM and Caterpillar out.
Or government should be for generally. Ideally, government aggregates and applies the collective will and power of the people, for the good of the people, in those instances where individuals acting individually have little to no effect.
Not that the recent supreme court decision about binding arbitration runs counter to this principle.
You seem to be claiming that all rights are, derivatively, what I have been calling "Natural" Rights. I personally think that many rights, especially property rights, are created by consent or by force.
In the U.S. legal view, and enforced by consent or coercion depending on your perspective, "Natural Rights" are granted by your creator, and are said to be inalienable. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.
On the other hand, "Legal" Rights are granted by laws. These include, for example, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They also include contract rights, such as your right to connect to Comcast's network, subject to the terms in the ToS, in consideration for the money you pay them.
You can, in fact, waive any right to make use of the Courts. Personally, I find the term distasteful, but less unconscionable than the clause at issue in the Supreme's recent ruling (ATT was it?) that it was not unconscionable to require binding arbitration on the issue of whether a binding arbitration clause was unconscionable.
it's a telling comment on the horrible shape of our educational system that NASA has to explain there is no such thing as a black dwarf, and other misconceptions.
Then I thought, more hopefully, that if there are so many people who have so much time and consternation to devote to the possibility of a 3-day comet eclipse, such that NASA has to officially respond, then things overall are probably not that bad.
Slashdot Mirror
When a market player has a monopolistic position, it will optimise price to maximise profit/income.
They price the higher plans higher because they know options are limited, and anyone who at all can afford it will pay for it.
I'm all for funding NASA, so many good and not directly things have come from our space program, plus it's just darn cool. But I have not heard any sound justification for public funding of commercial development. This has happend many times in the pharmaceuticals industry, where public funded basic research provided excellent treatments which private firms then took over and distributed (profiting immensely), without giving back to public coffers. Also, I think this happened with broadband funding in the 90s.
". . . a right to charge . . ."
What kind of right?
And most importantly, what is the source of this right?
I have yet to read any factual statements telling why Gmail is any better than Yahoo. . .
Free imap?
Wish I had a mod point for you.
I was going to argue about the ridiculousness of 2) until I read 3); very well stated.
Forgive the sidetrack, but it's this kind of thinking that fully exemplifies what's wrong with the U.S. (and increasingly, the world) corporatist capitalism. When the prime directive is profit, serving people becomes secondary. And when so much of energy is away froms serving people, having a useful union "of the people, for the people" becomes impossible, and all kinds of suffering result.
How is the government telling us to do this?
From their website:
[comment withheld]
It was pretty awesome until Yahoo bought it. Also babelfish.
If people would vote in the primaries.
My guess is cocaine in the executive bathroom.
Well, that guy, what you are witnessing isn't necessarily poor grammer skill, but rather a messy brain. Even folks like myself, who know the different usages of lose and loose, their and there, and even who and whom, still sometimes think the right word and type the wrong one. In a /. post, where discussion is supposed to be frank and lose (!), it isn't worth the effort to apply 100% proofreading skills.
It's not a perfect world.
Why not seize control of some means of production?
Central Illinois, for example, has nearly everything necessary to self-sustain. Several heavy industries, coal and natural gas, iron and other ores, and the best farmland in the world. Also good-looking, fertile women.
We simply move in, and move ADM and Caterpillar out.
And so I have to say, I can't believe Dick isn't in the top 10. For Chrissake, he has an award named after him.
I also can't believe A Wrinkle in Time isn't on there.
Also, no Lester Del Ray.
And Ender's Game, number three, really?
I was surprised and gratified to see that The Mote in God's Eye made it.
Time for Teletubbies!
Or government should be for generally. Ideally, government aggregates and applies the collective will and power of the people, for the good of the people, in those instances where individuals acting individually have little to no effect.
Not that the recent supreme court decision about binding arbitration runs counter to this principle.
You seem to be claiming that all rights are, derivatively, what I have been calling "Natural" Rights. I personally think that many rights, especially property rights, are created by consent or by force.
In the U.S. legal view, and enforced by consent or coercion depending on your perspective, "Natural Rights" are granted by your creator, and are said to be inalienable. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.
On the other hand, "Legal" Rights are granted by laws. These include, for example, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They also include contract rights, such as your right to connect to Comcast's network, subject to the terms in the ToS, in consideration for the money you pay them.
While it may not be a *natural* right, it is certainly a legal right. The government in both cases has granted the rights.
You can, in fact, waive any right to make use of the Courts. Personally, I find the term distasteful, but less unconscionable than the clause at issue in the Supreme's recent ruling (ATT was it?) that it was not unconscionable to require binding arbitration on the issue of whether a binding arbitration clause was unconscionable.
And I highly doubt the Supremes will rule differently, if they agree to hear it at all.
I wonder whether you pat-down was before or after the implementation of TSA's "enhanced" pat-down procedure.
...the truth which, along with ethics, seems to be scarce commodities in business these days.
Has it ever been plentiful?
Games with stories and epic gameplay that are worth a damn are what I want to play. I can't imagine I'm so special as to be among a 10% minority.
The Judge *denied a motion,* not *dismissed a complaint.*
it's a telling comment on the horrible shape of our educational system that NASA has to explain there is no such thing as a black dwarf, and other misconceptions.
Then I thought, more hopefully, that if there are so many people who have so much time and consternation to devote to the possibility of a 3-day comet eclipse, such that NASA has to officially respond, then things overall are probably not that bad.