To me, the evil of Facebook is one of centralization..... Centralization is a bug, never a feature.
A hurricane hit the eastern coast of the United States yesterday. News and government made pervasive use of Twitter and Facebook to keep people informed of critical information such as school and transit system cancellations. I found myself wondering briefly why they would use these Free, but Externally controlled mechanisms. The answer is blindingly simple... these Free systems are much cheaper than homegrown solutions of communication to a vast number of people. Do they reach everybody? No. Of course not. But the goal of communication is rarely to reach everybody. They message do, however, reach people who seek out this information.
So, generally, I agree that centralization is bad. But there are distinct examples where centralization is beneficial and critical.
It's complicated... maybe I got the 100% inflation example a bit backwards. In that situation "buying" is what you don't want to do. If you could "sell" it would be great -- but a market where buyers who buy are labeled as "stupid fools" isn't going to be a very stable market (e.g. 2005-2007). For the -10% inflation hypothetical example there is another thread where I talked about how being underwater on your mortgage causes people to do irrational things like choosing to be Foreclosed on for the purpose of personal financial gains (e.g. 2008-2010).
Exiting the [homeownership] market => become a renter (for less than your mortgage). If you're 20 years into a mortgage, exiting doesn't make sense. If you're 2 years into a mortgage and prices are crashing the idea of paying your mortgage becomes silly. A lot of people a few years ago exited the market by deciding not to pay their mortgage and waiting for Foreclosure. If it takes 9 months for foreclosure and your mortgage was $500/month (as it would be using my silly $100,000 house example) that's probably enough to pay rent for a significant amount of time (8-10 months?) after the eviction. So, hypothetically if you're underwater you can live basically for free for a year and a half... assuming that having a Foreclosure on your credit score for a bunch of years doesn't bother you (which it wouldn't if you're happy being a renter).
If you bought your house for $100,000 and currently owe $80,000...
Inflation = 4%... Next year your house is worth $104,000 and the Present Value owed to the bank is $81,000k
81,000 < 100,000.... so continuing to pay the loan is logical.
Inflation = 100%... Next year your house is worth $200,000 and the Present Value owed to the bank is $160,000k
160,000 > 200,000.... so continuing to pay the loan is not logical... because waiting for the crash is logical.
Inflation = -10%... Next year your house is worth $90,000 and the Present Value owed to the bank is $72,000k
72,000 < 80,000.... so continuing to pay the loan is not logical.... because exiting the market and waiting for the rebound in logical.
2. A fiat currency controlled by a state apparatus is not a "free market", no matter which direction they end up choosing.
IANAE (I am not an economist) but a completely "free market" would be a barter'n'trade marketplace where non-fiat goods (food, jewelery, clothing) are exchanged or services (medical, furniture making, sex) are bargained. With all due respect, having a government controlled fiat system (paper money) where goods and services have reasonably transparent values would seem to be free as long as sellers/buyers each have some choice on the fiat value of their trades.
But the hand-wave explanation used in Jurassic Park was DNA from dinosaurs extracted from blood stored in the stomach of mosquito's that had been preserved in amber. So why it remains an interesting question to ask regarding the effect of tar pits... TFS seems to glaze over the effect of mosquito/amber preservation that would specifically address whether Jurassic Park is possible. A similar article about why mosquito/amber preservation is bunk would also be relevant... because I assume we've never found amber entombed mosquito's from the Jurassic Period.
Just to nit pick... you don't need power to make coffee. Water+pot+fire, coffeebeans+mortar/pestle, and a frenchpress will do the trick quite effectively.
Note: cutting a problem (pollution, car-deaths) would do no good if you double the miles.
Doubling miles would double pollution... but your point about unintended consequences is a good one.
On the flip side, when sprawl happens businesses open up in the sprawl. Given the cost of square footage in developed "urban" and "suburban" areas an expanding area of civilized sprawl might make middle class living more affordable for more people (which has its own advantages). Myself... I pay a buttload of money on a condo mortgage and live 7 miles from work. I recently (last month) realized that running to work was feasible... so I've been doing a bit of that for a fitness benefit. Aside from access to more convenient commute options, the short distance between house and work doesn't provide much other benefits.
Will an auto-car be able to distinguish hazards like pot holes, road kill,
live animals (and people) in the road, swerving drivers, construction zones,
and any situation where crossing the double yellow line is necessary?
Will an auto-car be able to be directly safely by a police officer controlling
a traffic situation? Will an auto-car be able to navigate toll booth plazas?
Will an auto-car be able to navigate roads when traffic signals aren't
working because of a power outage?
Here's my test for auto-car road-worthiness... Have the car find parking in a crowded suburban mall parking lot on a
weekend in December. If it can safely enter the lot, find a spot, and
exit the lot ten times then it gets approval for everyday life.
Developers (myself included) are self-assured of their work to the point where they can't be expected to test things thoroughly between the critical points in the timeline when (a) it's done, and (b) it's being used by customers.
The exception to this rule is when a customer has discovered a problem and it requesting a fix because the service "is broken". In cases like this there is a strong desire to minimize the timeline between (a) and (b) so having a short-list of developers who can circumvent/expedite the formal test/release process in these cases is a good thing.
But yeah... for scheduled upgrades of software that "must work" you've got to put QA barriers between the development team and the team who takes care of the systems that customers use.
I'll have to write off a fair few before I come out negative
But the OP is a cell phone liability. He or she admits to breaking numerous phones and to-my-knowledge "replacement phones" don't get the same "low-cost-subsidy" as the phones you'd get for doing a new contract. I don't know the deals that Verizon or AT&T are offering for the current iPhone5, but I assume 2 million people aren't paying $500-700 each. More likely, most are getting the phones with a $200-300 "new contract" discount because that's how the business is run in the states.
All that aside... a few years back I put my college aged brother on my family plan with a Motorola Droid. I opted for the insurance on his phone. He eventually managed to drop it into water and it stopped working. I think the crux of the issue isn't "which insurance to go with" but what level of insurance is needed (and that's a *very* individualized question that isn't appropriate for Ask Slashdot). Another post mentioned being mugged and extreme sports as reasons why phone insurance might be necessary. My guess is that the OP is somewhat of a klutz and buys the insurance because it's a good value for him or her. Just because it isn't a good value for *most* people, doesn't mean the OP should avoid it. That said... this is not a good question for the stingy, risk-adverse Slashdot crowd who -- I believe -- avoids paying extra for things like cell phone insurance.
Just look at all the post 9-11 terror plots "foiled" by the FBI; they've been primarily cultivated from sub-stupid imbeciles hand-picked from the pinnacles of ineptitude.
If the only domestic people who pose a threat to security are sub-stupid imbeciles, then targeting and protecting society from sub-stupid imbeciles is the correct course of action. If you're trying to suggest the possibility of well-educated, coordinated groups posing a threat, then I'd suggest figuring out the motives that would cause this group to take action against the state.
One difference, I think, between sub-stupid imbeciles and well-educated, coordinated groups is that "being pissed off that their lives suck" is enough of a motive for sub-stupid imbeciles. Whereas well-educated, coordinated groups have the advantage - most likely - of having comfortable lives in a meritocratic democracy.... so you'd need to look towards more rational motives like financial or political gain. I think... it turns out that being an enemy of the state is not the best way to gain financial or political power within the US... so intrinsically you don't see well-educated, coordinated groups "getting their plots foiled" by the FBI.
Except for the fact that small regulations always allowed the government to gain more and more control.
In case you haven't noticed, the government is trying and always will try to take away our rights.
Government has two jobs: (1) ensure freedom; (2) provide security. Draconian laws seem to keep people safe, but saying that they are the *only* laws out there is simply ignorant.
Right now groups are rallying for the freedom of a society that allows Gay Marriage. Meanwhile, there are group rallying against the freedom of women to exercise medically safe Reproductive Rights. In terms of "ensuring freedom" the arguments boil down to "Does allowing Group X do Activity Y cause undue harm or penalties to people not in Group X?"
Arguments -- whether they are correct or not -- is that Gay Marriage doesn't harm anybody and evidence is given that children of Gay Couples do well. On the other hand, allowing Gay Marriage means taking the terms Wife and Husband out of anything related to Marriage and replacing it with Spouse and Spouse... which is a tremendous amount of paperwork for Hospitals and the IRS. And nutjobs also argue that Gay Marriage will eventually lead to people wanting to marry Cats, Dogs, and Goats... which is a dumb argument but that's the best that nutjobs can do.
For Reproductive Rights, you make the case that the potential for life of a fetus... who is not in Group X.... is irreparably harmed by allowing abortions.
So then there's Net Neutrality... Group X is Network Company's, Group X' is Network Users, Activity Y is Censor other Company's Networks from Your Network Users. The arguments are, "(1) Sure, why not? A company's gotta earn profits to build infrastructure," and, "(2) Network Companies engage in territorial monopolies that limit consumer choice on a local level so if Net Neutrality were not allowed Users might end not having access to parts of the Global Network unless the User can successfully petition their Local Government not to renew a lucrative Contract with the Incumbent Network Company the next time it expires (however many years that is)."
All kidding aside... they are *probably* trying to go paperless. Laptops/desktops allow a paperless office (e-mail, databases of information), but when you're reading and reviewing documents printed pages were king right up until the Kindle Touch. I'm actually surprised it just says Touch and not DX since the bigger size is supposed to be better for displaying graphs/charts/tables. But for reviewing and commenting on straight-text the Touch is a phenomenal platform.
Now... I can't guess what the savings is for switching top paper-users to e-Ink, but I can imagine 100 pages/day * 5 * 50 = 25,000 pages/year. Assuming a cost $0.01 for each page, toner, and maintaining the printer... $250 per person per year. This could very well be off by an order of magnitude in either direction, but without having the data for office product costs in the State Department it's okay to make WAGs.
If they are in an exploratory phase.... $6,600 per person is justified if they've got plans to roll it out to an extra 20,000 if the "pilot program" is successful for a more reasonable market rate (call it $500 per device... and $10M order). In this case, the $16.5 M + $10 M e-Ink project pays for itself in less than 4.5 years (assuming paper use drops precipitously).
Though after throwing around this speculation, it'd be nice if TFS gave more insight into the actual goals of the Contract that's in question. I could easily be completely wrong. Sometimes government wonks - as with business wonks - just want shiny new toys paid for with the shareholders (taxpayers) dime.
I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but a device with the 4 features you listed will end up costing far more than $100k/each. But given the features listed... the only application that comes to mind is exploring lakes/oceans on a celestial body that isn't Earth.... which would be awesomely remarkable.
What is holy water actually supposed to do that you would be able to come up with any kind of complaint about?
The bar is pretty low here. I'm pretty sure being "wet" is enough. As long as the contents of the package don't evaporate before they reach the buyer, the seller is getting what they bargained for.
I'd wonder if anybody would buy Holy Gatorade on eBay... there must be enough religious jocks in the world to tap into that target demographic.
I agree. For space missions, Goldilocks Zone is much more valuable to study than Non-Goldilocks Zone. This also explains the investment in Telescopes capable of finding Earth-sized planets in *other star systems* which could become targets for probes in the future when Faster Than Light travel becomes possible.
I'd say a tool shed might be a viable place to relocate. Leave the original foundation in the old place... build a new one and just bring the walls/shelves to the new place. A savvy vacationer might also have the option of relocation their mobile home. I suppose technically those count as "places".
Yeah... but adding $38 * N (where N is the number of shares sold during the IPO) to the Facebook balance sheet is better than adding $24 * N. An IPO is an opportunity to fund the operations of a business. Facebook's war chest has $38 * N more than it used to have. They can buy other companies, buy buildings, make payroll, fund lobbyists, and other things that an expanding company needs to do. The fact that the stock is down $14 * N (36%) since the IPO means shareholders have lost a lot of money, but this isn't a Facebook mistake. I'm sure Zuck is happy about having $11 Billion compared to $16 Billion that was theoretically available to him at the time of the IPO. And having a $50 Billion company with $38 * N instead of a $50 Billion company with only $24 * N.... Facebook is in pretty good shape.
It implies 15% of the traffic care about IE. Lots of web developers use multiple browsers.
I might be that they need to switchover to IE to read articles that describe how IE renders
things incorrectly when given certain inputs. It wouldn't surprise me that w3schools has
pages that demonstrate how things appear differently in different browsers...
That being said... 85% traffic from other browsers is a good thing. This is a solid B.
I have a theory that 10% of people are simply very bad drivers, bikers, and/or pedestrians
who don't pay close attention to there environment. I find it *comforting* that this statistic
suggests that 90% of people are good drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. I mean... 90% is an A-.
Slashdot Mirror
To me, the evil of Facebook is one of centralization. .... Centralization is a bug, never a feature.
A hurricane hit the eastern coast of the United States yesterday. News and government made pervasive use of Twitter and Facebook to keep people informed of critical information such as school and transit system cancellations. I found myself wondering briefly why they would use these Free, but Externally controlled mechanisms. The answer is blindingly simple... these Free systems are much cheaper than homegrown solutions of communication to a vast number of people. Do they reach everybody? No. Of course not. But the goal of communication is rarely to reach everybody. They message do, however, reach people who seek out this information.
So, generally, I agree that centralization is bad. But there are distinct examples where centralization is beneficial and critical.
It's complicated... maybe I got the 100% inflation example a bit backwards. In that situation "buying" is what you don't want to do. If you could "sell" it would be great -- but a market where buyers who buy are labeled as "stupid fools" isn't going to be a very stable market (e.g. 2005-2007). For the -10% inflation hypothetical example there is another thread where I talked about how being underwater on your mortgage causes people to do irrational things like choosing to be Foreclosed on for the purpose of personal financial gains (e.g. 2008-2010).
Exiting the [homeownership] market => become a renter (for less than your mortgage). If you're 20 years into a mortgage, exiting doesn't make sense. If you're 2 years into a mortgage and prices are crashing the idea of paying your mortgage becomes silly. A lot of people a few years ago exited the market by deciding not to pay their mortgage and waiting for Foreclosure. If it takes 9 months for foreclosure and your mortgage was $500/month (as it would be using my silly $100,000 house example) that's probably enough to pay rent for a significant amount of time (8-10 months?) after the eviction. So, hypothetically if you're underwater you can live basically for free for a year and a half... assuming that having a Foreclosure on your credit score for a bunch of years doesn't bother you (which it wouldn't if you're happy being a renter).
If you bought your house for $100,000 and currently owe $80,000...
Inflation = 4%... Next year your house is worth $104,000 and the Present Value owed to the bank is $81,000k
81,000 < 100,000.... so continuing to pay the loan is logical.
Inflation = 100%... Next year your house is worth $200,000 and the Present Value owed to the bank is $160,000k
160,000 > 200,000.... so continuing to pay the loan is not logical... because waiting for the crash is logical.
Inflation = -10%... Next year your house is worth $90,000 and the Present Value owed to the bank is $72,000k
72,000 < 80,000.... so continuing to pay the loan is not logical.... because exiting the market and waiting for the rebound in logical.
2. A fiat currency controlled by a state apparatus is not a "free market", no matter which direction they end up choosing.
IANAE (I am not an economist) but a completely "free market" would be a barter'n'trade marketplace where non-fiat goods (food, jewelery, clothing) are exchanged or services (medical, furniture making, sex) are bargained. With all due respect, having a government controlled fiat system (paper money) where goods and services have reasonably transparent values would seem to be free as long as sellers/buyers each have some choice on the fiat value of their trades.
But the hand-wave explanation used in Jurassic Park was DNA from dinosaurs extracted from blood stored in the stomach of mosquito's that had been preserved in amber. So why it remains an interesting question to ask regarding the effect of tar pits... TFS seems to glaze over the effect of mosquito/amber preservation that would specifically address whether Jurassic Park is possible. A similar article about why mosquito/amber preservation is bunk would also be relevant... because I assume we've never found amber entombed mosquito's from the Jurassic Period.
That sounds like the exact opposite of what it means.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Just to nit pick... you don't need power to make coffee. Water+pot+fire, coffeebeans+mortar/pestle, and a frenchpress will do the trick quite effectively.
Note: cutting a problem (pollution, car-deaths) would do no good if you double the miles.
Doubling miles would double pollution... but your point about unintended consequences is a good one.
On the flip side, when sprawl happens businesses open up in the sprawl. Given the cost of square footage in developed "urban" and "suburban" areas an expanding area of civilized sprawl might make middle class living more affordable for more people (which has its own advantages). Myself... I pay a buttload of money on a condo mortgage and live 7 miles from work. I recently (last month) realized that running to work was feasible... so I've been doing a bit of that for a fitness benefit. Aside from access to more convenient commute options, the short distance between house and work doesn't provide much other benefits.
Will an auto-car be able to distinguish hazards like pot holes, road kill, live animals (and people) in the road, swerving drivers, construction zones, and any situation where crossing the double yellow line is necessary?
Will an auto-car be able to be directly safely by a police officer controlling a traffic situation? Will an auto-car be able to navigate toll booth plazas? Will an auto-car be able to navigate roads when traffic signals aren't working because of a power outage?
Here's my test for auto-car road-worthiness... Have the car find parking in a crowded suburban mall parking lot on a weekend in December. If it can safely enter the lot, find a spot, and exit the lot ten times then it gets approval for everyday life.
Developers (myself included) are self-assured of their work to the point where they can't be expected to test things thoroughly between the critical points in the timeline when (a) it's done, and (b) it's being used by customers.
The exception to this rule is when a customer has discovered a problem and it requesting a fix because the service "is broken". In cases like this there is a strong desire to minimize the timeline between (a) and (b) so having a short-list of developers who can circumvent/expedite the formal test/release process in these cases is a good thing.
But yeah... for scheduled upgrades of software that "must work" you've got to put QA barriers between the development team and the team who takes care of the systems that customers use.
I'll have to write off a fair few before I come out negative
But the OP is a cell phone liability. He or she admits to breaking numerous phones and to-my-knowledge "replacement phones" don't get the same "low-cost-subsidy" as the phones you'd get for doing a new contract. I don't know the deals that Verizon or AT&T are offering for the current iPhone5, but I assume 2 million people aren't paying $500-700 each. More likely, most are getting the phones with a $200-300 "new contract" discount because that's how the business is run in the states.
All that aside... a few years back I put my college aged brother on my family plan with a Motorola Droid. I opted for the insurance on his phone. He eventually managed to drop it into water and it stopped working. I think the crux of the issue isn't "which insurance to go with" but what level of insurance is needed (and that's a *very* individualized question that isn't appropriate for Ask Slashdot). Another post mentioned being mugged and extreme sports as reasons why phone insurance might be necessary. My guess is that the OP is somewhat of a klutz and buys the insurance because it's a good value for him or her. Just because it isn't a good value for *most* people, doesn't mean the OP should avoid it. That said... this is not a good question for the stingy, risk-adverse Slashdot crowd who -- I believe -- avoids paying extra for things like cell phone insurance.
...which is a real problem if you are a journalist, let alone a twitterer.
The correct adjective is "twit". HTH.
<pedantic>The correct noun is "noun".</pedantic>
If you got 2 weeks... a single day off for an interview would be 10%.
Just look at all the post 9-11 terror plots "foiled" by the FBI; they've been primarily cultivated from sub-stupid imbeciles hand-picked from the pinnacles of ineptitude.
If the only domestic people who pose a threat to security are sub-stupid imbeciles, then targeting and protecting society from sub-stupid imbeciles is the correct course of action. If you're trying to suggest the possibility of well-educated, coordinated groups posing a threat, then I'd suggest figuring out the motives that would cause this group to take action against the state.
One difference, I think, between sub-stupid imbeciles and well-educated, coordinated groups is that "being pissed off that their lives suck" is enough of a motive for sub-stupid imbeciles. Whereas well-educated, coordinated groups have the advantage - most likely - of having comfortable lives in a meritocratic democracy.... so you'd need to look towards more rational motives like financial or political gain. I think... it turns out that being an enemy of the state is not the best way to gain financial or political power within the US... so intrinsically you don't see well-educated, coordinated groups "getting their plots foiled" by the FBI.
Except for the fact that small regulations always allowed the government to gain more and more control.
In case you haven't noticed, the government is trying and always will try to take away our rights.
Government has two jobs: (1) ensure freedom; (2) provide security. Draconian laws seem to keep people safe, but saying that they are the *only* laws out there is simply ignorant.
Right now groups are rallying for the freedom of a society that allows Gay Marriage. Meanwhile, there are group rallying against the freedom of women to exercise medically safe Reproductive Rights. In terms of "ensuring freedom" the arguments boil down to "Does allowing Group X do Activity Y cause undue harm or penalties to people not in Group X?"
Arguments -- whether they are correct or not -- is that Gay Marriage doesn't harm anybody and evidence is given that children of Gay Couples do well. On the other hand, allowing Gay Marriage means taking the terms Wife and Husband out of anything related to Marriage and replacing it with Spouse and Spouse... which is a tremendous amount of paperwork for Hospitals and the IRS. And nutjobs also argue that Gay Marriage will eventually lead to people wanting to marry Cats, Dogs, and Goats... which is a dumb argument but that's the best that nutjobs can do.
For Reproductive Rights, you make the case that the potential for life of a fetus... who is not in Group X.... is irreparably harmed by allowing abortions.
So then there's Net Neutrality... Group X is Network Company's, Group X' is Network Users, Activity Y is Censor other Company's Networks from Your Network Users. The arguments are, "(1) Sure, why not? A company's gotta earn profits to build infrastructure," and, "(2) Network Companies engage in territorial monopolies that limit consumer choice on a local level so if Net Neutrality were not allowed Users might end not having access to parts of the Global Network unless the User can successfully petition their Local Government not to renew a lucrative Contract with the Incumbent Network Company the next time it expires (however many years that is)."
All kidding aside... they are *probably* trying to go paperless. Laptops/desktops allow a paperless office (e-mail, databases of information), but when you're reading and reviewing documents printed pages were king right up until the Kindle Touch. I'm actually surprised it just says Touch and not DX since the bigger size is supposed to be better for displaying graphs/charts/tables. But for reviewing and commenting on straight-text the Touch is a phenomenal platform.
Now... I can't guess what the savings is for switching top paper-users to e-Ink, but I can imagine 100 pages/day * 5 * 50 = 25,000 pages/year. Assuming a cost $0.01 for each page, toner, and maintaining the printer... $250 per person per year. This could very well be off by an order of magnitude in either direction, but without having the data for office product costs in the State Department it's okay to make WAGs.
If they are in an exploratory phase.... $6,600 per person is justified if they've got plans to roll it out to an extra 20,000 if the "pilot program" is successful for a more reasonable market rate (call it $500 per device... and $10M order). In this case, the $16.5 M + $10 M e-Ink project pays for itself in less than 4.5 years (assuming paper use drops precipitously).
Though after throwing around this speculation, it'd be nice if TFS gave more insight into the actual goals of the Contract that's in question. I could easily be completely wrong. Sometimes government wonks - as with business wonks - just want shiny new toys paid for with the shareholders (taxpayers) dime.
yours for $127,343.36 per copy
I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but a device with the 4 features you listed will end up costing far more than $100k/each. But given the features listed... the only application that comes to mind is exploring lakes/oceans on a celestial body that isn't Earth.... which would be awesomely remarkable.
What is holy water actually supposed to do that you would be able to come up with any kind of complaint about?
The bar is pretty low here. I'm pretty sure being "wet" is enough. As long as the contents of the package don't evaporate before they reach the buyer, the seller is getting what they bargained for.
I'd wonder if anybody would buy Holy Gatorade on eBay... there must be enough religious jocks in the world to tap into that target demographic.
potentially habitable by humans
I agree. For space missions, Goldilocks Zone is much more valuable to study than Non-Goldilocks Zone. This also explains the investment in Telescopes capable of finding Earth-sized planets in *other star systems* which could become targets for probes in the future when Faster Than Light travel becomes possible.
I'd say a tool shed might be a viable place to relocate. Leave the original foundation in the old place... build a new one and just bring the walls/shelves to the new place. A savvy vacationer might also have the option of relocation their mobile home. I suppose technically those count as "places".
My corporate firewall warns me that the link to openmint.net contains a Trojan Virus. Buyer Beware.
Yeah... but adding $38 * N (where N is the number of shares sold during the IPO) to the Facebook balance sheet is better than adding $24 * N. An IPO is an opportunity to fund the operations of a business. Facebook's war chest has $38 * N more than it used to have. They can buy other companies, buy buildings, make payroll, fund lobbyists, and other things that an expanding company needs to do. The fact that the stock is down $14 * N (36%) since the IPO means shareholders have lost a lot of money, but this isn't a Facebook mistake. I'm sure Zuck is happy about having $11 Billion compared to $16 Billion that was theoretically available to him at the time of the IPO. And having a $50 Billion company with $38 * N instead of a $50 Billion company with only $24 * N.... Facebook is in pretty good shape.
For instance; which.. of ...these ... ellipsis.... is...used... correctly?
They're all correct if the speaker is Captain Kirk.
The semi-colon after "instance" is, however, completely and totally wrong.
It implies 15% of the traffic care about IE. Lots of web developers use multiple browsers.
I might be that they need to switchover to IE to read articles that describe how IE renders
things incorrectly when given certain inputs. It wouldn't surprise me that w3schools has
pages that demonstrate how things appear differently in different browsers...
That being said... 85% traffic from other browsers is a good thing. This is a solid B.
I have a theory that 10% of people are simply very bad drivers, bikers, and/or pedestrians
who don't pay close attention to there environment. I find it *comforting* that this statistic
suggests that 90% of people are good drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. I mean... 90% is an A-.