Virginia City, Nevada has similar problems but on a smaller scale. Seems to be rare enough that folks don't worry too much, but a few years ago a collapsed mine sucked up part of the road leading there.
While I still disagree with the monopoly theories, the biggest leverage you're missing is leveraging iTunes and the iPod dominance to gain smartphone market dominance. Playing your iTunes purchased music is (typically) more effort on non-apple smartphones and may even be impossible on some. Personally I don't think anything is to the point of screaming at the Feds to get involved (iPod and iPhone market share are each significant but not a monopoly), but it is worthy of the raised eyebrows it's getting.
So no, the link isn't fundamentally different, but the results are. When the Apple market dominance in music players and smartphones rivals Microsoft's in OSes and web browsers, then take action. Until then.... business as usual I suppose.
Emphasis on this line - Google's search monopoly will not give them an automatic OS or web browser monopoly (like MS tying IE into the OS). Sure, somebody could make the argument that it is or will, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Ah, clearly better pursuits of the mind because they get CHICKS! Yeah dude, chicks.
Nice toys bro, but really get over yourself. Some folks play games, some folks race cars, some folks do both, some folks do neither. Nobody's right or wrong until you start claiming your way is the best way.
Pro Tip #1: Find a decent beer you *like* and bring a six pack to said social gatherings. Reserve 2 for yourself, share the rest.
Pro Tip #2: Replace "decent beer" above with "moderate quality sipping alcohol." Pour a round for bonus points. This is tougher, as most hard liquors taste horrible unless you spend a ton.
Pro Tip #3: Pre-game! Nothing wrong with downing a shot before heading over (assuming walking around the neighborhood) or packing a flask.
The single online activation I'm not *as* concerned about. What really bugs me though is the lack of multiplayer games independent from Battle.net. Now, I certainly expect things to be better in release than they have been in the beta- frequent outages and server-side game lag seem pretty common- but being reliant on their servers to play a game that doesn't need to involve them is kind of a dick move. It's all based on control.
Hopefully, down the road, Blizzard will release a patch allowing LAN play (and non-battle.net multiplayer) when they're sick of supporting the game.
Oh what we would give for a -1 Pedantic moderation...
In the given context he pretty clearly means "general purpose computer" versus a special purpose device. Of course, who am I to argue with geeks and our need to be right about *something* regardless how little anybody else cares. Obviously I cared enough to respond...:P
...Hence why I called it a "big problem" and "we (of course by "we" I mean "somebody more qualified than/.") need to deal with it." It is not disingenuous or misleading to point out that there is always oil seeping into the oceans naturally and the fishes are still A-OK to eat. Hell, I agree with you! Let's be friends.
Risk mitigation and risk aversion - Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean you don't do it. Thousands of people die daily in car accidents, but we still drive. Well, *you* may not drive, but I accept the risk and take reasonable steps to mitigate that risk. While I'm certain some failings will be identified, you can be damn sure BP did a greater risk assessment before drilling than I did before driving to work this morning. Fact is you really don't get anywhere unless you're willing to accept *some* risk. Sure, BP may have taken on too much risk - but "this might be dangerous, don't do it. Period." is a terrible knee-jerk response.
Personally, I rather enjoyed the blanket claim that oil is a poison and utter disregard for the natural seepage that happens (and is delt with) naturally.
Yes, big problem. Yes, we (of course by "we" I mean "somebody more qualified than/.") need to deal with it. No, I'm not going to stop eating shrimp.
Granted, the motivation is more my quest for ROCK HARD BUNS OF STEEL than it is for saving the world from The Swamp Thing, but either excuse works out great on the hipsters at the coffee shop downtown!
The problem we're running up against is wrapping up too much religious influence in them carrying out their jobs. Calling the US a "christian nation" to me would be like calling the Model T a "christian car" because Henry Ford was a devout Protestant (Pedants - I made up this analogy and it is probably factually very wrong. Use it for analogies-sake only pretty please!!). I think the biggest lesson to take away is that although many of the founders *were* devoutly religious, they went to great lengths to take that out of government and leave religion entirely up to the individual. These are the very people who would know what happens when religion gets political, realized the diverse group of people and religions that would need to co-exist, and went through pains to ensure a secular state.
What all of us realize but really don't pay enough attention to is that the US was founded on individual liberties, setting aside religious control for the right to practice what you please.
Texas would NEVER have been allowed to leave the orbit of the United States...
I'm not sure I'd take that as fact. At the time the US federal government was *far* less cohesive - half of the states had it in mind a few decades later that it was OK to leave the union if they wanted to - so I imagine that if Texas decided not to join the Union, it probably could have remained independent for some time. The US initially opposed annexation at the risk of war with Mexico. Whether or not Texas could have remained independent from Mexico and the US in the long run is entirely up to hypothetical discussion and fiction novels.
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit, I *told* you not to go outside without your tin foil hat on!
Seriously... everybody knows all the cool kids play Druids.
Tried that, but the bear suit just made tanking impossible- I can't click with claw-gloves on, and everybody claimed I was too muffled on ventrilo.
...except for the lack of built in networking
Virginia City, Nevada has similar problems but on a smaller scale. Seems to be rare enough that folks don't worry too much, but a few years ago a collapsed mine sucked up part of the road leading there.
While I still disagree with the monopoly theories, the biggest leverage you're missing is leveraging iTunes and the iPod dominance to gain smartphone market dominance. Playing your iTunes purchased music is (typically) more effort on non-apple smartphones and may even be impossible on some. Personally I don't think anything is to the point of screaming at the Feds to get involved (iPod and iPhone market share are each significant but not a monopoly), but it is worthy of the raised eyebrows it's getting.
So no, the link isn't fundamentally different, but the results are. When the Apple market dominance in music players and smartphones rivals Microsoft's in OSes and web browsers, then take action. Until then.... business as usual I suppose.
Do you need to use Chrome to use Google - no
Emphasis on this line - Google's search monopoly will not give them an automatic OS or web browser monopoly (like MS tying IE into the OS). Sure, somebody could make the argument that it is or will, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Ah, clearly better pursuits of the mind because they get CHICKS! Yeah dude, chicks.
Nice toys bro, but really get over yourself. Some folks play games, some folks race cars, some folks do both, some folks do neither. Nobody's right or wrong until you start claiming your way is the best way.
Pro tips from an ex-wallflower!
Pro Tip #1: Find a decent beer you *like* and bring a six pack to said social gatherings. Reserve 2 for yourself, share the rest.
Pro Tip #2: Replace "decent beer" above with "moderate quality sipping alcohol." Pour a round for bonus points. This is tougher, as most hard liquors taste horrible unless you spend a ton.
Pro Tip #3: Pre-game! Nothing wrong with downing a shot before heading over (assuming walking around the neighborhood) or packing a flask.
The single online activation I'm not *as* concerned about. What really bugs me though is the lack of multiplayer games independent from Battle.net. Now, I certainly expect things to be better in release than they have been in the beta- frequent outages and server-side game lag seem pretty common- but being reliant on their servers to play a game that doesn't need to involve them is kind of a dick move. It's all based on control.
Hopefully, down the road, Blizzard will release a patch allowing LAN play (and non-battle.net multiplayer) when they're sick of supporting the game.
Go back to your beowulf cluster of PS3 android pads, you clueless fanboy idiot loser.
Strange, that's also Switzerland's national defense policy...
Don't hold back now, tell us how you really feel!
Oh what we would give for a -1 Pedantic moderation...
:P
In the given context he pretty clearly means "general purpose computer" versus a special purpose device. Of course, who am I to argue with geeks and our need to be right about *something* regardless how little anybody else cares. Obviously I cared enough to respond...
I thought it was an Austrian lauding his nation finally getting credit where due...
...Hence why I called it a "big problem" and "we (of course by "we" I mean "somebody more qualified than /.") need to deal with it." It is not disingenuous or misleading to point out that there is always oil seeping into the oceans naturally and the fishes are still A-OK to eat. Hell, I agree with you! Let's be friends.
Risk mitigation and risk aversion - Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean you don't do it. Thousands of people die daily in car accidents, but we still drive. Well, *you* may not drive, but I accept the risk and take reasonable steps to mitigate that risk. While I'm certain some failings will be identified, you can be damn sure BP did a greater risk assessment before drilling than I did before driving to work this morning. Fact is you really don't get anywhere unless you're willing to accept *some* risk. Sure, BP may have taken on too much risk - but "this might be dangerous, don't do it. Period." is a terrible knee-jerk response.
Personally, I rather enjoyed the blanket claim that oil is a poison and utter disregard for the natural seepage that happens (and is delt with) naturally.
/.") need to deal with it. No, I'm not going to stop eating shrimp.
Yes, big problem. Yes, we (of course by "we" I mean "somebody more qualified than
Were you even awake two years ago?
Well, I rode my bike in to work today...
Granted, the motivation is more my quest for ROCK HARD BUNS OF STEEL than it is for saving the world from The Swamp Thing, but either excuse works out great on the hipsters at the coffee shop downtown!
We're keeping New Mexico
Good call! There's a *really* good restaurant in Las Cruces! I'd hate to have to carry my passport to stop by for a burrito...
The problem we're running up against is wrapping up too much religious influence in them carrying out their jobs. Calling the US a "christian nation" to me would be like calling the Model T a "christian car" because Henry Ford was a devout Protestant (Pedants - I made up this analogy and it is probably factually very wrong. Use it for analogies-sake only pretty please!!). I think the biggest lesson to take away is that although many of the founders *were* devoutly religious, they went to great lengths to take that out of government and leave religion entirely up to the individual. These are the very people who would know what happens when religion gets political, realized the diverse group of people and religions that would need to co-exist, and went through pains to ensure a secular state.
What all of us realize but really don't pay enough attention to is that the US was founded on individual liberties, setting aside religious control for the right to practice what you please.
Texas would NEVER have been allowed to leave the orbit of the United States...
I'm not sure I'd take that as fact. At the time the US federal government was *far* less cohesive - half of the states had it in mind a few decades later that it was OK to leave the union if they wanted to - so I imagine that if Texas decided not to join the Union, it probably could have remained independent for some time. The US initially opposed annexation at the risk of war with Mexico. Whether or not Texas could have remained independent from Mexico and the US in the long run is entirely up to hypothetical discussion and fiction novels.
Actually the "settlers" were illegal immigrants
Oh
My
God
Clearly, Mexico is trying to take back Arizona, using our own tactics no less!
mmmmmmm.... long pig.....