I know. Everyone knows that a trillion dollars is just chump change. Pffft you can barely even buy candy with that measly pittance. It's not like that's more than GDPs of 92% of the world's countries. Yeah some serious chump change that is.
So then why aren't they wanting to ban radios? It's a far, far larger source of distraction than cellphones. Oh right, that's cause the goal is anti-cellphone not pro-safety.
One of the big problems is that these safety nannies don't even go after what are bigger causes of distraction and accidents like eating while driving, fiddling with your radio, or trying to find something while driving. No instead they attack only cellphones which statistically are far less of a factor than the three things I mentioned. If we're going to go all out ban radios because they are far bigger distractions than cellphones. But you'll never gear the safety nannies try to pass this because their agenda is anti-cellphone not pro-safety.
So now we have to by law have both hands on the wheel? Really? So i can't shift my transmission, cover my mouth when coughing or sneezing, can't adjust my mirrors if I'm having issues, etc? I do love your cop out about radios, though, since fiddling with your radio is a far bigger cause of distracted driving than cellphones and only less of a cause for distraction than eating or trying to find something you dropped while driving. Let's ignore that cause teh cellphones are ebil!!!!!
Because political influence has nothing to do with quarterly revenue. Secondly you seem to be wrongfully looking at the subsidiary level for revenue. Time Warner makes $27 billion in revenue, NBC Universal is $17 billion, Vivendi makes $29 billion, Viacom $15 billion, Walt Disney Company makes $38 billion, News Corp $33 billion, Sony at $87 billion. These companies have far more resources and power than Google and are far more entrenched since they are far older.
Consider that an e-book costs mere cents to create
This just in: products have more to their cost than just the cost of replication and materials. I'm pretty sure the author(s), editors, typesetters, etc. that have a hand in the creation of the work want to get paid, too, no?
Bullshit. Viewing the Android phones at the majority of the US telecoms sites the phones with FFCs are in a tiny minority of all Android phones they are selling. But one doesn't really expect truth from a fandroid.
Really? That's funny because going to T-Mobile and viewing their Android phones almost none of them have a front facing camera. And that's including newer models like the MyTouch Q, Samsung Gravity, Samsung Exhibit II, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I know. Everyone knows that a trillion dollars is just chump change. Pffft you can barely even buy candy with that measly pittance. It's not like that's more than GDPs of 92% of the world's countries. Yeah some serious chump change that is.
So then why aren't they wanting to ban radios? It's a far, far larger source of distraction than cellphones. Oh right, that's cause the goal is anti-cellphone not pro-safety.
One of the big problems is that these safety nannies don't even go after what are bigger causes of distraction and accidents like eating while driving, fiddling with your radio, or trying to find something while driving. No instead they attack only cellphones which statistically are far less of a factor than the three things I mentioned. If we're going to go all out ban radios because they are far bigger distractions than cellphones. But you'll never gear the safety nannies try to pass this because their agenda is anti-cellphone not pro-safety.
So now we have to by law have both hands on the wheel? Really? So i can't shift my transmission, cover my mouth when coughing or sneezing, can't adjust my mirrors if I'm having issues, etc? I do love your cop out about radios, though, since fiddling with your radio is a far bigger cause of distracted driving than cellphones and only less of a cause for distraction than eating or trying to find something you dropped while driving. Let's ignore that cause teh cellphones are ebil!!!!!
Because political influence has nothing to do with quarterly revenue. Secondly you seem to be wrongfully looking at the subsidiary level for revenue. Time Warner makes $27 billion in revenue, NBC Universal is $17 billion, Vivendi makes $29 billion, Viacom $15 billion, Walt Disney Company makes $38 billion, News Corp $33 billion, Sony at $87 billion. These companies have far more resources and power than Google and are far more entrenched since they are far older.
Except that John McCain is a co-sponsor of PIPA?
Google's lobbying power is next to nothing compared to the copyright regimes that own both major parties.
Aren't fast and quick the same thing?
Why is it way too high? Cause you said so?
You're an order of magnitude off. US GDP is $15 trillion so that's only 3.3%. Learn2maths.
Our instead of making up conspiracies you can notice how the article quotes Google that this is routine procedure.
It's Open Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade. The bolded letters is how they get OPEN.
>>Slashdot
>>unbiased
You're joking, right?
If that were true why did the iPad marketshare increase by 3% in the same quarter?
IDC. The same place the person i responded to got the iPad share figures from.
Losing 8% marketshare in a single.fiscal quarter == flying off the shelves? LOL @ fandroid spin.
So that's why Android tablets lost 8% marketshare last fiscal quarter?
And Android marketshare went from 34% to 26%. iPad is also expected to grow back to 75% share.
Consider that an e-book costs mere cents to create
This just in: products have more to their cost than just the cost of replication and materials. I'm pretty sure the author(s), editors, typesetters, etc. that have a hand in the creation of the work want to get paid, too, no?
Bullshit. Viewing the Android phones at the majority of the US telecoms sites the phones with FFCs are in a tiny minority of all Android phones they are selling. But one doesn't really expect truth from a fandroid.
Really? That's funny because going to T-Mobile and viewing their Android phones almost none of them have a front facing camera. And that's including newer models like the MyTouch Q, Samsung Gravity, Samsung Exhibit II, etc.
And any person can now have the head of jarjar binks!
None. To buy an Android tablet comparable would be as much if not more.
You're welcome.
Except that's not all that interesting. This just in: technology used in different areas than originally designed for. zOMG!!!