Problem with lithium, it isn't mushroom and berries. You can just walk in there and pick it up. It's also not oil. You can't just put a hole in the ground, connect it to the pumping machinery and have oil. You need to have an actual ore mines, with huge, easy to sabotage, hard to fix machinery.
And finally, it's solid and heavy. It's a total bitch to move from center of war-torn nation that has world's best specialists in asymmetric warfare fighting against you both economically and in terms of general feasibility.
Many are also not aware that media clampdown during occupy wall street reporting dropped USA from 20th to 47th spot in yearly Reporters without Borders study. It's officially a third world country in terms of press freedom now, stuck somewhere between Ghana and Haiti.
It's quite sad how USA still sees itself as a paragon of freedom, and often complains about other countries clamping down on their press.
Yes, they've been selling a "few percent less" of these dumb phones, and are still selling more of them then next top two (or was it next top three) combined.
You know, this is slashdot. Failing to understand basic relativity between numbers is not really normal here.
Europe is a sum of the countries. In cases where EU intervention is generally needed and welcomed is rules that are needed to improve economy in all member states. I.e. finances, competition, or in this case, copyright.
Guns are a local issue. They're not going to be easily allowed over borders, and few will care if us finns own a shitload of guns that may not be even legal in many member states. Because it's not an issue which requires pan-European input.
1. Last news quote the following: Still making profit on mobile phones (200 mil euro, down from one billion), sold 113.5 million phones during last year. Took another hit in smartphones. Largest loss maker in the company is the location services, 1.2 billion euro losses.
2. To think that they are not in transition is akin to thinking that apple doesn't make a profit. Besides the obvious announcements, you have official company reports, budgeting, analyst comments and so on. Only someone in a very delusional relationship with reality could deny that nokia is in very clear transition process on multiple levels.
They are dedicated to symbian at least until 2016 according to the official roadmap. Considering the continuous success of symbian in low end phones, unless WP7 policy under Elop pulls off a miracle, you can expect a fair extension to this number, possibly into reasonable perpetuity, as there is still no functional and widespread mobile OS that can function on as little power (both electrical and processing) as symbian.
Losing money on symbian? Do you actually follow the company, or just the singleminded apple/google fansites? Nokia has been hemorrhaging money because of its transition policy to from symbian to meego to WP7 in high end phones. Symbian on mid and low range phones is the thing that keeps the money coming into the company - it's still making a very decent profit for a company in transition, in spite of massive spending on trying to develop and sell WP7 phones.
Look up the latest earnings reports. They are public, as nokia is a publicly traded company. Symbian-based mid and low end phones are about the only clearly profitable part of the company. Smartphones are in the shitters because of Elop's paradigm shift essentially ripping the company to pieces, and NSN has never recovered from scandals that followed the fusion.
So, it's about 4-6 times more expensive then low end nokia, and is a chinese build which will break in a year, unlike nokia which will work for a decade. Not to mention it's most likely skipping licensing fees (i.e. manufacturing volume is small enough for microsoft not to care). Also, it's a wholesale price. Wholesale price for low end nokias is around 15 USD.
Finally, yes, it's unlikely to get cheaper. Because below a certain price threshold, it's not longer the cost of hardware that matters, but your logistics chain. And nokia is known to have one of the best logistics chains in history of Western world, and is quite probably one of its most valuable assets.
Seriously, get off the fanboy horse and look at the market in places like Africa. Actually, scratch that, take a look at the market in India and China. While nokia has taken a hit, mostly from dual sim phones, its cheap, reliable phones are still the elephant in the room.
Err, I'm a finn myself, so I may be perverted in some puritan point of view, but yes, it's vanilla sex in my book. It's straight up vaginal penetration from front/back with a person who has accepted to have sex with you.
What exactly is vanilla sex in your book if not that?
None whatsoever, and I'm not blind. Low end symbian phones go for ~20-30 USD right now. Each android phone pays about 10 USD to microsoft in licensing costs. Then you have to factor in the reality that symbian requires almost an order of magnitude less computing power and RAM to run.
Hell, don't take it from me. Take it from the person who known a whole lot more then you or I about the issue: samsung. They explicitly and publicly state that they cannot compete with nokia in low end phones. End of story.
I can. Most of the phones in the world will still be nokia's basic phones just like they have been for last ten years or so. Why? Because in the biggest markets (in terms of numbers sold), people can't afford anything else.
Remember to mention that you're talking about SMARTphones if you want a discussion about rich markets and place where android, ios and black berry have a standing.
That is a blatant lie. "Movement" as you call it, or more specifically understating that world is warming up and CO2 emitted by humans is at least a partial cause is the cause has significant pull with many world's leaders, as well as general populace. Just because a few claims of a single person were proven false, and people who are paid to spread FUD spread it as far as their money would allow so their paymasters can keep on building coal plants and earning good return on that investment doesn't mean that there aren't measures being taken to reduce the increase of CO2 emissions all over the world.
Far bigger problem is the economy, which is dependent on industries which emit a lot of CO2. The public image issues because a former vice president of US made himself a few million on being overly alarmist is a bucket in the ocean, a largely meaningless one at that.
Now you're trying to turn the thing on its head. The original argument was that people who understand and support global warming should have fought against Al Gore. Counter argument to this was that they were too busy fighting those who were completely denying that global warming even exists. Many still do.
So for obvious reasons, people went after the elephant in the room (people who are denying) and didn't bother fighting Al Gore (fly on the window outside).
So stop squirming and answer the question why fighting Al Gore was more important for movement that is trying to get people to understand that our planet is warming up would be far more important then fighting people who deny that such warming is happening completely.
You dodged the obvious elephant in the room again, "why is fighting those in complete denial less important then fighting someone who while exaggerating the problem, is at least going into the right general direction"?
Actually, many species have very different habitat requirements then humans. Take a look at Tsernobyl as a great example of what happens when area become uninhabitable by humans, and how many species suddenly populate it just fine. And that's just for the land mass. Consider all the life in oceans that would have a much larger habitat if much of land mass goes under water for example.
Now, if you cut down your definition of "other species" to "large mammals who have largely similar habitat requirements to humans" then yes, these compete with us directly. But they are only a small portion of all species in the biosphere of our planet.
What the hell is a "warmist" and umm, "won't suddenly spell the extinction of human life on Earth"?
Hey, I hear it will also not cause the Sun to shut down, or the tea cup that controls the world from orbit between Mars and Earth to come down the surface and give its order directly. Now, can we talk about realistic things, like the "worst case scenario comparable to what CO2 can do", i.e. global warning? You know, the thing we were talking about here before you tried to strawman it into oblivion?
Al Gore is bad because, while generally attracting attention to worthy cause, he spun it to make a profit on it. Denialists are much better, because they have much better visibility, are completely off scale in terms of self-delusion, and are also making a huge profit.
Worth noting that there is something of a mass extinction event currently ongoing. Cause is humanity, its population explosion and means it's taking to feed it.
If anything, reduction of humanity's livable area is going to stop the this mass extinction event.
It's not the CO2 from glaciers that's worrisome, but methane in the sediments. It's far more potent greenhouse has then CO2, and we have quite a bit of evidence in our studies of the issue (specifically historic evidence in relation to atmospheric concentrations of methane relative to temperature of the period) that suggests that once we hit the critical point where methane starts to get released, reaction will accelerate at a completely different rate from now and become utterly unstoppable.
Latter isn't much of a problem as it's not stoppable now either, but acceleration is indeed worrisome, as it cuts down on our ability to adapt.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem with lithium, it isn't mushroom and berries. You can just walk in there and pick it up. It's also not oil. You can't just put a hole in the ground, connect it to the pumping machinery and have oil. You need to have an actual ore mines, with huge, easy to sabotage, hard to fix machinery.
And finally, it's solid and heavy. It's a total bitch to move from center of war-torn nation that has world's best specialists in asymmetric warfare fighting against you both economically and in terms of general feasibility.
Many are also not aware that media clampdown during occupy wall street reporting dropped USA from 20th to 47th spot in yearly Reporters without Borders study. It's officially a third world country in terms of press freedom now, stuck somewhere between Ghana and Haiti.
It's quite sad how USA still sees itself as a paragon of freedom, and often complains about other countries clamping down on their press.
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html
"Shitstorm Incorporated" will be the name of the company?
Yes, they've been selling a "few percent less" of these dumb phones, and are still selling more of them then next top two (or was it next top three) combined.
You know, this is slashdot. Failing to understand basic relativity between numbers is not really normal here.
Europe is a sum of the countries. In cases where EU intervention is generally needed and welcomed is rules that are needed to improve economy in all member states. I.e. finances, competition, or in this case, copyright.
Guns are a local issue. They're not going to be easily allowed over borders, and few will care if us finns own a shitload of guns that may not be even legal in many member states. Because it's not an issue which requires pan-European input.
How is that funny and not insightful?
1. Last news quote the following: Still making profit on mobile phones (200 mil euro, down from one billion), sold 113.5 million phones during last year. Took another hit in smartphones. Largest loss maker in the company is the location services, 1.2 billion euro losses.
2. To think that they are not in transition is akin to thinking that apple doesn't make a profit. Besides the obvious announcements, you have official company reports, budgeting, analyst comments and so on. Only someone in a very delusional relationship with reality could deny that nokia is in very clear transition process on multiple levels.
They are dedicated to symbian at least until 2016 according to the official roadmap. Considering the continuous success of symbian in low end phones, unless WP7 policy under Elop pulls off a miracle, you can expect a fair extension to this number, possibly into reasonable perpetuity, as there is still no functional and widespread mobile OS that can function on as little power (both electrical and processing) as symbian.
Losing money on symbian? Do you actually follow the company, or just the singleminded apple/google fansites? Nokia has been hemorrhaging money because of its transition policy to from symbian to meego to WP7 in high end phones. Symbian on mid and low range phones is the thing that keeps the money coming into the company - it's still making a very decent profit for a company in transition, in spite of massive spending on trying to develop and sell WP7 phones.
Look up the latest earnings reports. They are public, as nokia is a publicly traded company. Symbian-based mid and low end phones are about the only clearly profitable part of the company. Smartphones are in the shitters because of Elop's paradigm shift essentially ripping the company to pieces, and NSN has never recovered from scandals that followed the fusion.
So, it's about 4-6 times more expensive then low end nokia, and is a chinese build which will break in a year, unlike nokia which will work for a decade. Not to mention it's most likely skipping licensing fees (i.e. manufacturing volume is small enough for microsoft not to care). Also, it's a wholesale price. Wholesale price for low end nokias is around 15 USD.
Finally, yes, it's unlikely to get cheaper. Because below a certain price threshold, it's not longer the cost of hardware that matters, but your logistics chain. And nokia is known to have one of the best logistics chains in history of Western world, and is quite probably one of its most valuable assets.
Seriously, get off the fanboy horse and look at the market in places like Africa. Actually, scratch that, take a look at the market in India and China. While nokia has taken a hit, mostly from dual sim phones, its cheap, reliable phones are still the elephant in the room.
As opposed to seducing your reluctant partner for example. You should try it sometime.
Err, I'm a finn myself, so I may be perverted in some puritan point of view, but yes, it's vanilla sex in my book. It's straight up vaginal penetration from front/back with a person who has accepted to have sex with you.
What exactly is vanilla sex in your book if not that?
None whatsoever, and I'm not blind. Low end symbian phones go for ~20-30 USD right now. Each android phone pays about 10 USD to microsoft in licensing costs. Then you have to factor in the reality that symbian requires almost an order of magnitude less computing power and RAM to run.
Hell, don't take it from me. Take it from the person who known a whole lot more then you or I about the issue: samsung. They explicitly and publicly state that they cannot compete with nokia in low end phones. End of story.
I can. Most of the phones in the world will still be nokia's basic phones just like they have been for last ten years or so. Why? Because in the biggest markets (in terms of numbers sold), people can't afford anything else.
Remember to mention that you're talking about SMARTphones if you want a discussion about rich markets and place where android, ios and black berry have a standing.
After reading the "I woke up after the night of sex with him inside me yet again", I think he knows lots about vanilla Nordic sex at best.
Can't speak for kinky Aussie sex though. Nothing in police reports about that.
That is a blatant lie. "Movement" as you call it, or more specifically understating that world is warming up and CO2 emitted by humans is at least a partial cause is the cause has significant pull with many world's leaders, as well as general populace. Just because a few claims of a single person were proven false, and people who are paid to spread FUD spread it as far as their money would allow so their paymasters can keep on building coal plants and earning good return on that investment doesn't mean that there aren't measures being taken to reduce the increase of CO2 emissions all over the world.
Far bigger problem is the economy, which is dependent on industries which emit a lot of CO2. The public image issues because a former vice president of US made himself a few million on being overly alarmist is a bucket in the ocean, a largely meaningless one at that.
Now you're trying to turn the thing on its head. The original argument was that people who understand and support global warming should have fought against Al Gore. Counter argument to this was that they were too busy fighting those who were completely denying that global warming even exists. Many still do.
So for obvious reasons, people went after the elephant in the room (people who are denying) and didn't bother fighting Al Gore (fly on the window outside).
So stop squirming and answer the question why fighting Al Gore was more important for movement that is trying to get people to understand that our planet is warming up would be far more important then fighting people who deny that such warming is happening completely.
You dodged the obvious elephant in the room again, "why is fighting those in complete denial less important then fighting someone who while exaggerating the problem, is at least going into the right general direction"?
Actually, many species have very different habitat requirements then humans. Take a look at Tsernobyl as a great example of what happens when area become uninhabitable by humans, and how many species suddenly populate it just fine. And that's just for the land mass. Consider all the life in oceans that would have a much larger habitat if much of land mass goes under water for example.
Now, if you cut down your definition of "other species" to "large mammals who have largely similar habitat requirements to humans" then yes, these compete with us directly. But they are only a small portion of all species in the biosphere of our planet.
What the hell is a "warmist" and umm, "won't suddenly spell the extinction of human life on Earth"?
Hey, I hear it will also not cause the Sun to shut down, or the tea cup that controls the world from orbit between Mars and Earth to come down the surface and give its order directly. Now, can we talk about realistic things, like the "worst case scenario comparable to what CO2 can do", i.e. global warning? You know, the thing we were talking about here before you tried to strawman it into oblivion?
So, just to get the facts straight:
Al Gore is bad because, while generally attracting attention to worthy cause, he spun it to make a profit on it.
Denialists are much better, because they have much better visibility, are completely off scale in terms of self-delusion, and are also making a huge profit.
Hmmm...
So, between the total denialists and Al Gore, they were supposed to focus on Al Gore.
Can you explain why?
No, that will just let him blame the government for failing to save West Coast and insist that corporations could have done better.
Worth noting that there is something of a mass extinction event currently ongoing. Cause is humanity, its population explosion and means it's taking to feed it.
If anything, reduction of humanity's livable area is going to stop the this mass extinction event.
It's not the CO2 from glaciers that's worrisome, but methane in the sediments. It's far more potent greenhouse has then CO2, and we have quite a bit of evidence in our studies of the issue (specifically historic evidence in relation to atmospheric concentrations of methane relative to temperature of the period) that suggests that once we hit the critical point where methane starts to get released, reaction will accelerate at a completely different rate from now and become utterly unstoppable.
Latter isn't much of a problem as it's not stoppable now either, but acceleration is indeed worrisome, as it cuts down on our ability to adapt.