Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths
True - they have.
But maybe you forget the whole "feeling your pain" thing that some dude leveraged to win the Presidency back in 1992? Appeal to emotion is a key tactic for many many politicians. It just tends to be that people don't notice when "their side" does it.
I don't think that'll be the solution... Since Microsoft is trying to do that anyway. They've been quite involved in setting up defensive patents. In fact, the idea of defensive patents seems quite absurd to me anyway. If you come up with an idea, but you aren't planning on making anything with it... Why not just release it? Or is the idea that they *could* do something with it, and they don't want anyone else to know what that something is?
Anyway, in this case, it appears that MS just stole the idea that was pitched to them. So, they got what they deserved. I know... It's shocking... Well, sorta.
Actually, in the few experiences I've had trying to use a SIM on a Verizon phone, I've only received error messages. When I've gone overseas, I've declined to take my Verizon phone for that exact reason. The SIM slot is there either for show, to make manufacturing easier, or because you have to buy a card from Verizon to allow access to overseas networks... Which means paying Verizon's international rape fee to use your phone.
I leave the possibility that something has changed. I'm also willing to leave the door open for someone to state that I am wrong and hopefully provide information.
As for you AC - I'm quite willing to bet that you've never tried to put a card in your Storm. I'm quite confident that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Do you trust those currently in power in your country to uphold it? Do you think the European Comission cares about "the spirit" of anything?
I trust those in power to do whatever they are told to by their biggest donors. I think the EC and the US government will do whatever they can, and enact any law they can to further the "spirit" of those donations.
My initial reaction is just pure anger. I have settings, I like those settings. To have them just overwritten, and to take away my choice of a search provider just reeks to me. BTW - Way to go pushing that Google Android based phone, and then piss off your BB users with a Bing deal.
One of the critical failures has been GM's treatment of Saab. I don't know if Saab really has any good cars left.
Specifically, GM has not allowed Saab to be the unconventional car it used to be. Last year, I was looking at various models of all sorts of cars, and here's what stuck out to me:
4 speed transmission, when the rest of GM was moving to a 6-speed. Much less in terms of options than other GM brands Higher price tag Less efficiency
Based on the advertising alone, Saab was the step-child in the GM family. No innovation was driven into that brand, and it lost its identity because GM just quite simply didn't care about it.
But in this case they will have a monopoly simply because no one else has bothered to do what they're planning to do. Why should they be punished for being the only ones who want to digitize everything?
Keeping an eye on someone, and watching what they do != punishment. It's called oversight. My impression from TFA is that the ALA wants to make sure Google doesn't try to leverage what it creates to become a monopoly.
I don't think so. I mean, most libraries exist to provide free or low cost access to as much of this information as they can.
I wonder if the library association is interested in this because they worry about their own existence?
Personally, I don't think this is a terrible idea. I mean, many of us don't doubt Google's intentions... But I like this sort of mindset when someone has a de facto monopoly. I'd rather err on the side of suspicion and actually put emphasis protecting competitors.
The other thing you've done is probably continued to pay them in the form of apps or possibly music. In fact, Apple is very interested in keeping you happy since they have alternate revenue streams (in addition to buying a new phone).
Mobile carriers are only interested in getting you to pay them as much per month as possible... Hence disabling most functionality of the phone unless you pay extra "service fees" to access those functions. My own case: Verizon only allows applications in a token way... If I get a new phone, I have to buy the apps that I want all over again if I get them out of their store.
Most other device makers are more interested in getting you to buy the newest toy. Which is why they aren't too keen on keeping them updated, or even working after you've paid for it.
so go to a competitor. The market will sort things out in the end.
What's interesting here is that those competitors have similar contracts, setups, fees, etc. At what point does regulation step in and say, "You aren't playing by the rules?"
Suppose the major vendors decide that when one of them raises prices, rather than compete with an advantage, they raise their own prices to match? At what point does it become collusion and price gouging?
I ask because it appears to me like the market is nearly impossible for new players to jump into.
Your case assumes true randomness. We're dealing with a large group of humans, and humans have tendencies. This is more like predicting what the caller will say based on data like previous flips...
Of course, my example is still overly simplified, but closer to the intent and idea of the article... I think.
Mods. That comment may be redundant, it may be old and tired, but it is certainly not offtopic. In fact, in the grand scheme of frist psots!, it might be the most on-topic one I've seen in years.
It's a case of simple dishonesty. Intel put more effort into making their compiler perform poorly on non-Intel platforms. They spent extra resources resources to make it happen. Suppose Microsoft decided to modify their products to perform slower on any hardware that was branded by Apple? It wouldn't affect most users, just the ones who also presumably bought a competitive OS (OS X). If they purchased Office for OS X, Microsoft could claim, "Oh that's because you're running it on a Mac, Macs don't perform as well with Office applications."
Simply: It's bad faith. You're spending your time trying to hurt your competition, and not trying to make a better product. That's the simple definition of anti-competitive.
This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.
It's already illegal. Corporations are barred from donating to any specific candidate... BUT they can donate all they want to a party fund.
That doesn't prevent it from happening....Members of those organizations can donate, so corporations tent to find a way to make sure their members "volunteer" to donate all that money. It's been done before, it'll be done again.
I hate being the obnoxious citation guy... But this is something that (if true) is VERY interesting. Does someone have a list of similar cases? If so, is this true?
No, of course not. Good ideas and bad ideas usually have a good mix of qualified and unqualified folks arguing against each other.
That doesn't change the fact that regardless of how a person feels in regards to climate change/global warning/whatever it's going to be called, the opposing viewpoint will rarely (if ever) listen to a counter argument. Take your viewpoint, think of arguing against someone with the opposing viewpoint. If you think to yourself, "There's no way I'm going to get through to that idiot," the debate's done. There's no point in trying.
Madam Palin will ridicule you when you say it exists or indicate that humans are responsible.
Sir Gore will banish you if you say it doesn't, or that it's not our fault.
There is one fact that nobody can deny.... Someone's trying to profit. Gore stands to make a lot of money by being a "Carbon broker," and Palin stands to make money in the forms of political donation and support (assuming no other business interests). I think this is why there's such religious vigor in the argument (I can't grace it by calling it a debate). I'm absolutely sure this comes down to money, and sadly, the truth is often neglected when cash is involved.
From the NFL: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited." So, if we publicly think about a movie, and we have the technology to pick it up, is that a public account? I understand we don't have that, but we all know that laws don't really take any future state into account (like they could anyway). I think it's an interesting idea anyway.
I think this is a pretty simple matter... There's clearly no intent to pirate the movie. I'm surprised that they locked someone up for two days, and are making them face up to three years. I think the defendant in this case should be looking to sue the MPAA over this... Maybe even a violation of due process? Sadly, IANAL...
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case folks need a citation for the above
Please disregard the last line in that post. After looking around and seeing the text... I'm totally wrong. This patent looks scary as hell.
Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths
True - they have.
But maybe you forget the whole "feeling your pain" thing that some dude leveraged to win the Presidency back in 1992? Appeal to emotion is a key tactic for many many politicians. It just tends to be that people don't notice when "their side" does it.
I don't think that'll be the solution... Since Microsoft is trying to do that anyway. They've been quite involved in setting up defensive patents. In fact, the idea of defensive patents seems quite absurd to me anyway. If you come up with an idea, but you aren't planning on making anything with it... Why not just release it? Or is the idea that they *could* do something with it, and they don't want anyone else to know what that something is?
Anyway, in this case, it appears that MS just stole the idea that was pitched to them. So, they got what they deserved. I know... It's shocking... Well, sorta.
Actually, in the few experiences I've had trying to use a SIM on a Verizon phone, I've only received error messages. When I've gone overseas, I've declined to take my Verizon phone for that exact reason. The SIM slot is there either for show, to make manufacturing easier, or because you have to buy a card from Verizon to allow access to overseas networks... Which means paying Verizon's international rape fee to use your phone.
I leave the possibility that something has changed. I'm also willing to leave the door open for someone to state that I am wrong and hopefully provide information.
As for you AC - I'm quite willing to bet that you've never tried to put a card in your Storm. I'm quite confident that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Do you trust those currently in power in your country to uphold it? Do you think the European Comission cares about "the spirit" of anything?
I trust those in power to do whatever they are told to by their biggest donors. I think the EC and the US government will do whatever they can, and enact any law they can to further the "spirit" of those donations.
As does my BB... But like I said, I'm pretty sure it's disabled.
Verizon doesn't use SIMs. In fact, I'm pretty sure the SIM slot in my Verizon phone is disabled.
Go download the Google app in the meantime.
My initial reaction is just pure anger. I have settings, I like those settings. To have them just overwritten, and to take away my choice of a search provider just reeks to me. BTW - Way to go pushing that Google Android based phone, and then piss off your BB users with a Bing deal.
Insignificant can mean that the population as a whole experienced a similar increase independent of cellphone usage.
It's certainly not insignificant that there was an overall 15% increase, it's just not likely that cellphones were the culprit.
One of the critical failures has been GM's treatment of Saab. I don't know if Saab really has any good cars left.
Specifically, GM has not allowed Saab to be the unconventional car it used to be. Last year, I was looking at various models of all sorts of cars, and here's what stuck out to me:
4 speed transmission, when the rest of GM was moving to a 6-speed.
Much less in terms of options than other GM brands
Higher price tag
Less efficiency
Based on the advertising alone, Saab was the step-child in the GM family. No innovation was driven into that brand, and it lost its identity because GM just quite simply didn't care about it.
But in this case they will have a monopoly simply because no one else has bothered to do what they're planning to do. Why should they be punished for being the only ones who want to digitize everything?
Keeping an eye on someone, and watching what they do != punishment. It's called oversight. My impression from TFA is that the ALA wants to make sure Google doesn't try to leverage what it creates to become a monopoly.
Currently, the academic and research libraries
I don't think so. I mean, most libraries exist to provide free or low cost access to as much of this information as they can.
I wonder if the library association is interested in this because they worry about their own existence?
Personally, I don't think this is a terrible idea. I mean, many of us don't doubt Google's intentions... But I like this sort of mindset when someone has a de facto monopoly. I'd rather err on the side of suspicion and actually put emphasis protecting competitors.
The other thing you've done is probably continued to pay them in the form of apps or possibly music. In fact, Apple is very interested in keeping you happy since they have alternate revenue streams (in addition to buying a new phone).
Mobile carriers are only interested in getting you to pay them as much per month as possible... Hence disabling most functionality of the phone unless you pay extra "service fees" to access those functions. My own case: Verizon only allows applications in a token way... If I get a new phone, I have to buy the apps that I want all over again if I get them out of their store.
Most other device makers are more interested in getting you to buy the newest toy. Which is why they aren't too keen on keeping them updated, or even working after you've paid for it.
so go to a competitor. The market will sort things out in the end.
What's interesting here is that those competitors have similar contracts, setups, fees, etc. At what point does regulation step in and say, "You aren't playing by the rules?"
Suppose the major vendors decide that when one of them raises prices, rather than compete with an advantage, they raise their own prices to match? At what point does it become collusion and price gouging?
I ask because it appears to me like the market is nearly impossible for new players to jump into.
Your case assumes true randomness. We're dealing with a large group of humans, and humans have tendencies. This is more like predicting what the caller will say based on data like previous flips...
Of course, my example is still overly simplified, but closer to the intent and idea of the article... I think.
Mods. That comment may be redundant, it may be old and tired, but it is certainly not offtopic. In fact, in the grand scheme of frist psots!, it might be the most on-topic one I've seen in years.
I applaud you for the quick, decisive victory. Clean delivery, concise answers, and overall quality is astounding.
Well done.
I say, yes. There is a big difference.
It's a case of simple dishonesty. Intel put more effort into making their compiler perform poorly on non-Intel platforms. They spent extra resources resources to make it happen. Suppose Microsoft decided to modify their products to perform slower on any hardware that was branded by Apple? It wouldn't affect most users, just the ones who also presumably bought a competitive OS (OS X). If they purchased Office for OS X, Microsoft could claim, "Oh that's because you're running it on a Mac, Macs don't perform as well with Office applications."
Simply: It's bad faith. You're spending your time trying to hurt your competition, and not trying to make a better product. That's the simple definition of anti-competitive.
This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.
It's already illegal. Corporations are barred from donating to any specific candidate... BUT they can donate all they want to a party fund.
That doesn't prevent it from happening....Members of those organizations can donate, so corporations tent to find a way to make sure their members "volunteer" to donate all that money. It's been done before, it'll be done again.
Example.
I hate being the obnoxious citation guy... But this is something that (if true) is VERY interesting. Does someone have a list of similar cases? If so, is this true?
"You take them to court where they do business." At least, that's what my professor said... in the one business law class I took.
So, all these businesses sell to people in Marchall (or at least can)... So they are certainly allowed to do this... Even if it sucks.
I think that once they're on public record, they should simply be required to either make good on their promise or publically recant.
Politicians too, for that matter.
That would totally kill the lobbying industry. That or politicians would have to shut up and only speak when they absolutely had..... to......
No, of course not. Good ideas and bad ideas usually have a good mix of qualified and unqualified folks arguing against each other.
That doesn't change the fact that regardless of how a person feels in regards to climate change/global warning/whatever it's going to be called, the opposing viewpoint will rarely (if ever) listen to a counter argument. Take your viewpoint, think of arguing against someone with the opposing viewpoint. If you think to yourself, "There's no way I'm going to get through to that idiot," the debate's done. There's no point in trying.
Madam Palin will ridicule you when you say it exists or indicate that humans are responsible.
Sir Gore will banish you if you say it doesn't, or that it's not our fault.
There is one fact that nobody can deny.... Someone's trying to profit. Gore stands to make a lot of money by being a "Carbon broker," and Palin stands to make money in the forms of political donation and support (assuming no other business interests). I think this is why there's such religious vigor in the argument (I can't grace it by calling it a debate). I'm absolutely sure this comes down to money, and sadly, the truth is often neglected when cash is involved.
Actually... Are we so sure about that?
From the NFL: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited." So, if we publicly think about a movie, and we have the technology to pick it up, is that a public account? I understand we don't have that, but we all know that laws don't really take any future state into account (like they could anyway). I think it's an interesting idea anyway.
I think this is a pretty simple matter... There's clearly no intent to pirate the movie. I'm surprised that they locked someone up for two days, and are making them face up to three years. I think the defendant in this case should be looking to sue the MPAA over this... Maybe even a violation of due process? Sadly, IANAL...