I said no such thing. I said in fact that they are NOT the dominant search engine.
Google don't dominate in China. They are losing potential revenue on a sector which is seeing a lot of internet growth. Why wouldn't they want to tap that market?
The loyalty of a company is - in the end - to its shareholders. Shareholders want more profits, and everything a company does is an attempt to do that.
I'm sure Google did that because they believe in the right of unfiltered search results, and not because in China they are not the dominant search engine.
Or are our search engine companies the Vigilantes of the future? Saving us from the evil governments who want to take away our freedom?
Today it was about censorship - tomorrow it might be another company, and it might be about something else - like Net Neutrality
Yeah, but celebrate their breakthroughs and changes, not the person. They should make a movie on the leaks themselves, not some inspirational film about J's life.
You don't need to be a doctor of social studies to realise that technology makes everyone's life better. Even if you're an idiot who knows nothing, you realise that you can now take a mini computer in your pocket which is more powerful than the large tower you had 10 years ago.
I don't think having more people who can recall the date of the Vietnam war is going to be as useful as having more people who are technologically inclined.
I don't think China is communist by any sense of the word. It is a dictatorship and that's true. And I do think democracy is a mess.
But I don't think a country which lets large foreign corporations open large factories on its soil can be described as "Communism" by any sense of the term. In fact:
"7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. "... "all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation"
I still find it weird that you can get into a really big university on a scholarship because you're good at playing sports. When someone told me about that I thought they were joking.
But at least pushing children to excel in sports makes them fitter and healthier - so they're likely to live longer and happier anyway.
Capitalism dictates that the price of things depend on the demand and the supply.
In Libya, you can get your car filled up with petrol for 5 euros or so. In most other countries, it'll cost you 20-25 euros.
So that 2.50 a day doesn't necessarily mean anything. If you're talking about very poor countries, then the price of basic goods will cost less than what Americans would pay for. Its as simple as that. So I don't know about how this value was calculated, but 2.50 will definitely buy you more stuff in a poor country, and less stuff in a rich one. Money is relative.
Unfortunatly the human eye sees green as the brightest colour. If you're putting filters on the pilot's eyes, he'll be seeing less at night, or in foggy conditions or something similar.
While its true you can buy screwdrivers to open them...
Why aren't they using Philips? What's the point? Why are they REPLACING the Philips?
Its clear that its an attempt to have less people open them. Its just like DRM. You just piss off some consumers, even though in the end you have no real effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't they already do this sort of thing using broomsticks and artificial neural networks? Its basically the same thing isn't it?
We already knew that fact. This is just more proof for the giant pile.
I said no such thing. I said in fact that they are NOT the dominant search engine.
Google don't dominate in China. They are losing potential revenue on a sector which is seeing a lot of internet growth. Why wouldn't they want to tap that market?
The loyalty of a company is - in the end - to its shareholders. Shareholders want more profits, and everything a company does is an attempt to do that.
I'm sure Google did that because they believe in the right of unfiltered search results, and not because in China they are not the dominant search engine.
Or are our search engine companies the Vigilantes of the future? Saving us from the evil governments who want to take away our freedom?
Today it was about censorship - tomorrow it might be another company, and it might be about something else - like Net Neutrality
Two sides to every story -
I viewed the China censorship affair as a large corporation ignores a country's laws because it was powerful enough to be above the government.
I don't think that's a force for good at all, I think that it sets a very dangerous precedent.
Yeah, but celebrate their breakthroughs and changes, not the person. They should make a movie on the leaks themselves, not some inspirational film about J's life.
If his ego gets any bigger, his head will burst out of any cell they try to put him in.
You don't need to be a doctor of social studies to realise that technology makes everyone's life better. Even if you're an idiot who knows nothing, you realise that you can now take a mini computer in your pocket which is more powerful than the large tower you had 10 years ago.
I don't think having more people who can recall the date of the Vietnam war is going to be as useful as having more people who are technologically inclined.
I don't think China is communist by any sense of the word. It is a dictatorship and that's true. And I do think democracy is a mess.
But I don't think a country which lets large foreign corporations open large factories on its soil can be described as "Communism" by any sense of the term. In fact:
"7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. " ... "all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation"
I still find it weird that you can get into a really big university on a scholarship because you're good at playing sports. When someone told me about that I thought they were joking.
But at least pushing children to excel in sports makes them fitter and healthier - so they're likely to live longer and happier anyway.
I never claimed that there are no poor people, I just complained about the metric he used to compare poverty.
2.50 gets you a coffee in an expensive country, but if you sell it at that price in a 3rd world one, nobody will afford it.
Yeah I realise poor countries have it tough, I was just complaining about using dollars/day as a metric of poverty.
No time to read this article, I have to see what my favourite hollywood actress is doing with her hair this week
I don't agree with that value - and here's why.
Capitalism dictates that the price of things depend on the demand and the supply.
In Libya, you can get your car filled up with petrol for 5 euros or so. In most other countries, it'll cost you 20-25 euros.
So that 2.50 a day doesn't necessarily mean anything. If you're talking about very poor countries, then the price of basic goods will cost less than what Americans would pay for. Its as simple as that. So I don't know about how this value was calculated, but 2.50 will definitely buy you more stuff in a poor country, and less stuff in a rich one. Money is relative.
Unfortunatly the human eye sees green as the brightest colour. If you're putting filters on the pilot's eyes, he'll be seeing less at night, or in foggy conditions or something similar.
How about a camera to outside instead?
If you outlaw laser pointers, only outlaws will have laser pointers.
...with these **********ing lasers on this **********ing plane!
If (Cyberattack){
Cyberattack;
}
Nobody see the problem?
Of course not. Google has good lawyers. Now if it was your personal repository on the other hand...
or whether the guy who designed the kit was formidable.
While its true you can buy screwdrivers to open them...
Why aren't they using Philips? What's the point? Why are they REPLACING the Philips?
Its clear that its an attempt to have less people open them. Its just like DRM. You just piss off some consumers, even though in the end you have no real effect.
*sings*
Cellular, Modular, screws are Pentalobular.
Bonus points to who gets the reference
If they ever got a leak.
It'll be like Deepwater Horizon all over again. But with radioactive stuff. This sounds like disaster-film material!
Nope, that's polynomial
N^naturalNumber is a polynomial (remember Math class?)
Its not an exponential increase - and its not anything as bad as an exponent
To demonstrate:
n = 1000
O(N) = 1000
O(N^2) = 1000000
O(2^N) = 1.07 * 10^301
HTML ME, closly followed by HTML XP
Sorry, I meant 'the basic SORTING' algorithm. Search is N time.