"Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think humanity is selfless enough to support a thriving software market on the honor system." just about hits the nail on the head for some areas, especially things seen as trivial and non-critical as games. I'd mod up for that if this were really the place for this sort of discussion and I had any mod points.
A link: http://www.asus.com/News.aspx?N_ID=YBiaw0wVP6GVZdpn.
In the small print, though: "Unlimited calling: All calls are subject to Skype's fair usage policy which is set at 10,000 minutes per month (with a maximum of 6 hours per day)." Still, something to consider. Good luck.
The only good joke I know about Playboy (aside from the disgusting Joe Rogan routine which you should never, ever look up on youtube) is
"I can't believe people say they read Playboy for the articles." "Why else would they? The pornography content is woefully inadequate."
I understood that it uses the same channels, but the fact that it uses them more efficiently frees up bandwidth for other things. I was assuming this is going to be sold off to commercial enterprises.
Have the example of Warren Anderson: arrested and charged with manslaughter over the Union Carbide disaster at Bhopal, India. He skipped bail, returned to the US and lawyered up. Extradition was subsequently defeated on the basis of 'insufficient evidence'. _The incident was in India. It was a matter for Indian courts, and the man had the best lawyers in the world_. The point being that US courts have a mandate to interpret and enforce law IN THE US. And nowhere else.
You didn't read the link, maybe? The whole point of turning off analogue signals is to free up space in the broadcast spectrum, which will be sold off to commercial firms.
Yes, I'll be happy for compentitors. Whatever or whomever they may be. But, if you bought your BT shares when it was floated by the previous tory government, you got them well below their actual value. (Sorry to seem a speling NAzee but I thought the pun was entertaining).
BT just announced they're putting their phone charges up by 10%: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10676934. Not one red cent of which will go towards infrastructure. So you'll be happy then.
The legal element of the license fee is mitigated solely by the public service element of the BBC. I'm not claiming to like giving money to the likes of Jonathan Ross, Chris Moyles or any other folks I never pay any attention to, but I would gladly pay that fee just for the BBC nature unit to continue, let alone the rest of the mountain of stuff I have gotten from them over the years. It's far from perfect, a lot of it is annoying, irrelevant or utter crap, but the point I was attempting to make is that it's better value than the Times, considering not only your consumption of it but also that of the rest of the people of the UK (or world).
Here's the calculation:
All of the BBC's content (TV,radio,news): £145.50 pa
The Times and Sunday Times: £104 pa
On a free market basis Rupees business model doesn't work. But business model inclues political interference in the financing of the BBC, on the basis that its competition is unfair. _On the contrary_. We in the UK pay for the BBC willingly because it is worth the price, and we don't for the Times because it's, well, who cares? The WSJ, FT and Economist are worth paying for to the folks in those industries. The Times is just some more crap from a Murdoch company.
Robotic surgery was mentioned on Radio 4's "News Quiz" last lear I think, with the robot operating and real-life surgeons standing by. Jeremy Hardy quipped "and they didn't try to stop it? [What is the world coming to when robots can march around performing surgery willy-nilly]." As Bender said: "And I need a heart. A human heart. (I need to pump a lot of blood out of my basement.)"
Slashdot Mirror
"Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think humanity is selfless enough to support a thriving software market on the honor system." just about hits the nail on the head for some areas, especially things seen as trivial and non-critical as games. I'd mod up for that if this were really the place for this sort of discussion and I had any mod points.
Next week on how to be an asshole. Well, the point was, I've never met anyone with an MBA on their business card who was any bloody use.
Never personally met anyone with an MBA who knew their ass from their elbow about engineering. Or had an agenda
Yes - but they'd apply to the AiGuru if the OP chooses that option. For completeness (and anyone who's still reading), the skype fair use policy is at http://www.skype.com/intl/en/legal/terms/fair_usage/.
A link: http://www.asus.com/News.aspx?N_ID=YBiaw0wVP6GVZdpn. In the small print, though: "Unlimited calling: All calls are subject to Skype's fair usage policy which is set at 10,000 minutes per month (with a maximum of 6 hours per day)." Still, something to consider. Good luck.
I just wish he'd ended the sentence with 'bwahahaha'.
Now that they're using the blind ultimate evil that is BitTorrent.
If they could somehow merge the knowledge-base of ARSE and ELBOW it would be a boon.
And it doesn't even apply to porn in this case. Or at least I hope that's not porn.
The only good joke I know about Playboy (aside from the disgusting Joe Rogan routine which you should never, ever look up on youtube) is "I can't believe people say they read Playboy for the articles." "Why else would they? The pornography content is woefully inadequate."
I understood that it uses the same channels, but the fact that it uses them more efficiently frees up bandwidth for other things. I was assuming this is going to be sold off to commercial enterprises.
Have the example of Warren Anderson: arrested and charged with manslaughter over the Union Carbide disaster at Bhopal, India. He skipped bail, returned to the US and lawyered up. Extradition was subsequently defeated on the basis of 'insufficient evidence'. _The incident was in India. It was a matter for Indian courts, and the man had the best lawyers in the world_. The point being that US courts have a mandate to interpret and enforce law IN THE US. And nowhere else.
Oh. Getting it now. I was being a twit.
You didn't read the link, maybe? The whole point of turning off analogue signals is to free up space in the broadcast spectrum, which will be sold off to commercial firms.
Yes, I'll be happy for compentitors. Whatever or whomever they may be. But, if you bought your BT shares when it was floated by the previous tory government, you got them well below their actual value. (Sorry to seem a speling NAzee but I thought the pun was entertaining).
Um, they're doing it soon. http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/
Come to think of it, if your shares are making you unhappy, throw in a tenner and I'll take them off your hands.
BT just announced they're putting their phone charges up by 10%: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10676934. Not one red cent of which will go towards infrastructure. So you'll be happy then.
The legal element of the license fee is mitigated solely by the public service element of the BBC. I'm not claiming to like giving money to the likes of Jonathan Ross, Chris Moyles or any other folks I never pay any attention to, but I would gladly pay that fee just for the BBC nature unit to continue, let alone the rest of the mountain of stuff I have gotten from them over the years. It's far from perfect, a lot of it is annoying, irrelevant or utter crap, but the point I was attempting to make is that it's better value than the Times, considering not only your consumption of it but also that of the rest of the people of the UK (or world).
Here's the calculation: All of the BBC's content (TV,radio,news): £145.50 pa The Times and Sunday Times: £104 pa On a free market basis Rupees business model doesn't work. But business model inclues political interference in the financing of the BBC, on the basis that its competition is unfair. _On the contrary_. We in the UK pay for the BBC willingly because it is worth the price, and we don't for the Times because it's, well, who cares? The WSJ, FT and Economist are worth paying for to the folks in those industries. The Times is just some more crap from a Murdoch company.
(Sorry: replied to the wrong thread) Before the election: Cameron: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdHlYwIHO8Y&feature=channel [youtube.com] Clegg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXCQwwjDkTA [youtube.com] For completeness, Brown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBH914AUkfg&feature=channel [youtube.com] Bet you 10p there's no substantial change, though.
Before the election: Cameron: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdHlYwIHO8Y&feature=channel Clegg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXCQwwjDkTA For completeness, Brown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBH914AUkfg&feature=channel Bet you 10p there's no substantial change, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH_tCxmug6E
Robotic surgery was mentioned on Radio 4's "News Quiz" last lear I think, with the robot operating and real-life surgeons standing by. Jeremy Hardy quipped "and they didn't try to stop it? [What is the world coming to when robots can march around performing surgery willy-nilly]." As Bender said: "And I need a heart. A human heart. (I need to pump a lot of blood out of my basement.)"
Don't y'all be dissin on my one-world-government technology. Also the forehead model is the exact shape of my 666 ^h^h^h birthmark. And so forth.