Google has viewers because it has integrity and quality. If it abuses its position, it first loses integrity and quality and then loses viewers. No government intervention needed.
This isn't comparable with monopoly cases, hell, this isn't even a market liquidity case (i.e. Ebay is dominant because it is dominant, it doesn't pay to auction elsewhere because everybody auctions at Ebay...). Anybody clever enough can set up a server farm and get viewers if they have a Google beating engine quality.
On the legal side, this might be an unfair competition case but its difficult for a competitor (A) to claim that a company's (B) actions within B's business are unfair as they stop A's manipulation of B's business... You have to have clean hands as well to succeed with unfair competition claims.
No developed country in the world spends 30% GDP on health care or anything like that on any budgetary item. Government, provincial and national Canadian spending on health is somewhere like 6%.
30% GDP on an item is enough to wreck any economy. Ask the Soviets...
Oh and England (which is actually called the United Kingdom and consists of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England) has a National Health Service. It may not be Canadian but its still pretty good. And if you have a modicum of money, you don't have to go to the US to get private care, you go to Harley Street.
To be honest, check your facts before you comment.
The US is in a global economy. Tiny turbulations around the world can change domestic prices. For two very simple reasons: 1) Oil moves around the world. If Europe is paying $50 a barrel, then Texas is going to export oil to Europe, not sell it domestically for $25; 2) A tiny change in supply can cause a huge change in prices. Industries and economies are locked into rates of consumption that cannot be changed easily. They simply have to have the oil and will therefore start bidding wars for it. Knocking out 5% of US imports would screw the economy.
Rubbish. OTP changes the value of every single bit in a different way. Simple example: A might be encrypted as D as the third letter but then its encrypted as K when its the thirtieth.
Its not the US 'winning'. Its not the EU 'winning'. European consumers win with the European GSM standard. They don't need streaming internet content on their cellulars. At least not until every cellular is its own PDA (and by the time PDA cellulars become both functional and desirable by consumers, we'll have another acronym standard implemented or on the horizon that blows the previous ones away).
What consumers need is network coverage. Practically all of Europe is covered densely. With very few dead spots. You can take your UK phone with you and chat to your girlfriend at the top station in the Austrian alps. You can also use the same phone on a ferry to Sweden from Poland or when lying on a beach in Cyprus. When you arrive in a country, you don't need to do anything to change networks. Nothing. Its done automatically by your phone (though you can change manually to choose between networks).
Europeans are used to being available on their mobiles at all times and anywhere. This is incredibly convenient (though sometimes annoying) and has changed European culture, especially as relates to teenage behaviour. You can't really imagine how convenient the GSM standard is for Europeans (and the citizens of other countries) if you're living in the US. Its like having email at home instead of having it only at the library. Or better. I certainly sms (a new verb, relates to text messaging, Short Message Service) more than I email, especially when abroad (cheap, convenient and fast).
And how exactly does that refer to criminal procedures? Jurisdiction is extremely complicated when it comes to criminal procedures. To be absolutely honest, it is also horrendously complicated in civil procedures as well.
Ahem. Console sales will compensate. A chip maker will not make a loss making a chip for a console that is sold at a loss by its final distributor. The chip maker will make a profit selling the chip. The losses do not go up the line, the maker has no incentive in selling at a loss as it has no licensing fees to earn.
The chip maker might make a killing larger on a huge market of console players requiring a certain chip in large numbers (economics of scale) than that on a limited market of upgrade obsessed ubergeek market (you make more money on selling huge amounts with a small margin than small amounts on a huge margin).
Further, the high end chips aren't used exclusively by ubergeeks for home gaming. They go into other environments in larger numbers.
No, the Gulf War was fought to keep the prices low. If Saddam had invaded Saudi Arabia, then oil could have hit $100 per barrel. And that means world economic depression, 1930's style not recession. The US and world economy is dependent on foreign oil sources (regardless of the comparative US/Venezuela/Canda import export figures), high oil prices=economic implosion.
Stating that the war was fought to keep prices high is so incredibly obtuse, I can't even begin to figure out where you're coming from with that statement unless its a paranoid deduction that Bush made money on oil=Bush must wage war to keep oil prices high.
Oh and alternative energy sources are on their way... for now though keeping oil flowing smoothly seems to be a good thing. Keeps your car going and the power station in Lagos humming.
The theft from the colonies line is Marxist rubbish.
The simple proof is that European economies picked up once they got rid of their colonies. More money was spent on colonies than was generated from them. Armies, navies, administration (including education and health care), all cost a lot of money that the colonies didn't return. The economies of Europe used the raw materials from the colonies but the real wealth was generated in Europe. Wealth is built through processing of materials, not their gathering. For instance the Netherlands were a greater source of income for the Spanish Empire than the gold mines of South America. The British Empire became noticeably richer after the burden of the American colonies was removed (the British attempts to tax the colonists were motivated by a wish to cover the costs of protecting and administering the colonists, not to buy King George a new palace). Etc.
European wealth wasn't built on theft but on trade and production. Europe isn't rich because it stole but because it worked innovatively. Thieving empires (Spain after it destroyed its economy supporting its warfare and colonies, the USSR, late imperial China, Rome after 100AD) collapse as external theft is never as good a source of wealth as internal generation.
The developed world is not rich because the rest of the world is poor. Its rich because it started using better methods to produce, manufacture and trade earlier.
Note on your history. Millions were still imprisoned after Stalin's rule. Heard of the Gulag system? Wasn't taken apart after his death. Actually they weren't so much imprisoned as sent to die in the Siberian wastes. Exterminated. Think chain gang in a climate so cold that your eyes froze. Without proper clothing. After Stalin.
Millions are still imprisoned in China in labour camps. Millions.
Ignoring costs is possible if you have a decision process that goes like this - We must do something -> how do we do it? Regardless of the costs, i.e. the Moon shot and nuclear bomb programs - politically motivated.
Most things aren't worth doing at any cost, that includes putting an astronaut in space.
A normal decision process is: What benefit are we trying to achieve? How much will it cost to do with an acceptable chance of success? Does the benefit exceed the cost?
Acceptable chance of success takes into account risks (including life) and necessity.
NASA has switched from at any cost, as failsafe as possible with best possible materials and technology to as cheap as possible for a good chance of success. Giving it a lot more shots at a given target with a higher chance of success (10 shots at 10 mln a go with 90% chance of success, one shot at 100 mln with 99%, calculate the probability)
Money is a resource that cannot be ignored. If you can do a lot of things cheaply with good chances of success its better than doing one thing expensively with an excellent chance of success.
Then again the bearings were designed in the good old days of best possible at any cost. Designs will fail no matter how much money is spent on them.
Furthermore, pumping more money in will not save lives in the space program, the technology is limited, most problems aren't caused by lack of money.
If the people of Bhutan want to watch tv, then it's their choice. If they want to pray instead, then it's also their choice. If Hulk Hogan is a threat to Buddhist culture then that says something about Buddhism. I don't like the tone of editorial comment, is Slashdot, another example of global, if not blatantly US, culture that also should be 'escaped' from by government restriction?
"So if you right a FAQ about something general like 10 FAQ's about tanning, then of course the content isn't copyright protected, unless of course, you have unique information about some factor of tanning."
Not true. General/unique, it doesn't matter what the content is. Anything that isn't an exact copy of a previous combination of words and layout is copyright protected. Even if there are no new ideas
Some other, equally idiotic, proposals, off the top of my head:
a) Sick people pay 1% on medicine to Medicare.
b) Unemployed, disabled pay 1% tax on benefits to Social Security.
c) Crime victims pay 1% on home security devices to fund police.
d) Students and parents pay 1% on income for schools.
e) Political candidates pay 1% on campaign contributions for brain research.
They're all parties interested in the particular field they're funding. My position is, if I want to fund something, I'll contribute to it directly, thank you very much. And if I want to read sci-fi, I shouldn't be taxed for it, what about freedom of speech and thought?
Ahh. 'Law enforcement' also means to stop people committing crimes. The law isn't "If you kill you go down for 10 to life", it's "Don't kill. If you do, you go down for 10 to life". Law enforcement deals with a) stopping the event happening ("Stopping the killing"), b) wreaking vengeance for it if it can't be prevented ("Sending them down"). Thus the first and second part of the law is fulfilled.
Technically you're spouting nonsense about law enforcement only being about punishment.
How exactly a belief in the afterlife and a soul is linked to alternative medicine I'm not sure... are you?
Normally reasonable people throw out an entire realm of bullshit when they cannot find properly gathered substantive evidence correlating with the hypothesises of the bullshit. Alex Chiu's friction theories threaten my superiority complex that I have some idea about why the sun shines but they are still bullshit. Oh and I'm calling it bullshit because science has ground rules about testing hypothesises, i.e. 'Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit'
Oh and the fact that my appendix would have ruptured and killed me if my parent hadn't had it removed by a mainstream surgeon in a mainstream hospital in a mainstream manner when I was a tiny kid, is anecdotal evidence of the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a subtle troll or just rubbish?
Google has viewers because it has integrity and quality. If it abuses its position, it first loses integrity and quality and then loses viewers. No government intervention needed.
This isn't comparable with monopoly cases, hell, this isn't even a market liquidity case (i.e. Ebay is dominant because it is dominant, it doesn't pay to auction elsewhere because everybody auctions at Ebay...). Anybody clever enough can set up a server farm and get viewers if they have a Google beating engine quality.
On the legal side, this might be an unfair competition case but its difficult for a competitor (A) to claim that a company's (B) actions within B's business are unfair as they stop A's manipulation of B's business... You have to have clean hands as well to succeed with unfair competition claims.
I think that anybody with a legal background or an interest in law might like to take a look at the documents filed. They are rather brief.
Documents
No developed country in the world spends 30% GDP on health care or anything like that on any budgetary item. Government, provincial and national Canadian spending on health is somewhere like 6%.
30% GDP on an item is enough to wreck any economy. Ask the Soviets...
Oh and England (which is actually called the United Kingdom and consists of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England) has a National Health Service. It may not be Canadian but its still pretty good. And if you have a modicum of money, you don't have to go to the US to get private care, you go to Harley Street.
To be honest, check your facts before you comment.
The US is in a global economy. Tiny turbulations around the world can change domestic prices. For two very simple reasons: 1) Oil moves around the world. If Europe is paying $50 a barrel, then Texas is going to export oil to Europe, not sell it domestically for $25; 2) A tiny change in supply can cause a huge change in prices. Industries and economies are locked into rates of consumption that cannot be changed easily. They simply have to have the oil and will therefore start bidding wars for it. Knocking out 5% of US imports would screw the economy.
For more info: CSIS report on US Use of Energy and Energy Imports
War will raise prices.
Rubbish. OTP changes the value of every single bit in a different way. Simple example: A might be encrypted as D as the third letter but then its encrypted as K when its the thirtieth.
Its not the US 'winning'. Its not the EU 'winning'. European consumers win with the European GSM standard. They don't need streaming internet content on their cellulars. At least not until every cellular is its own PDA (and by the time PDA cellulars become both functional and desirable by consumers, we'll have another acronym standard implemented or on the horizon that blows the previous ones away).
What consumers need is network coverage. Practically all of Europe is covered densely. With very few dead spots. You can take your UK phone with you and chat to your girlfriend at the top station in the Austrian alps. You can also use the same phone on a ferry to Sweden from Poland or when lying on a beach in Cyprus. When you arrive in a country, you don't need to do anything to change networks. Nothing. Its done automatically by your phone (though you can change manually to choose between networks).
Europeans are used to being available on their mobiles at all times and anywhere. This is incredibly convenient (though sometimes annoying) and has changed European culture, especially as relates to teenage behaviour. You can't really imagine how convenient the GSM standard is for Europeans (and the citizens of other countries) if you're living in the US. Its like having email at home instead of having it only at the library. Or better. I certainly sms (a new verb, relates to text messaging, Short Message Service) more than I email, especially when abroad (cheap, convenient and fast).
And how exactly does that refer to criminal procedures? Jurisdiction is extremely complicated when it comes to criminal procedures. To be absolutely honest, it is also horrendously complicated in civil procedures as well.
Ahem. Console sales will compensate. A chip maker will not make a loss making a chip for a console that is sold at a loss by its final distributor. The chip maker will make a profit selling the chip. The losses do not go up the line, the maker has no incentive in selling at a loss as it has no licensing fees to earn.
The chip maker might make a killing larger on a huge market of console players requiring a certain chip in large numbers (economics of scale) than that on a limited market of upgrade obsessed ubergeek market (you make more money on selling huge amounts with a small margin than small amounts on a huge margin).
Further, the high end chips aren't used exclusively by ubergeeks for home gaming. They go into other environments in larger numbers.
No, the Gulf War was fought to keep the prices low. If Saddam had invaded Saudi Arabia, then oil could have hit $100 per barrel. And that means world economic depression, 1930's style not recession. The US and world economy is dependent on foreign oil sources (regardless of the comparative US/Venezuela/Canda import export figures), high oil prices=economic implosion.
Stating that the war was fought to keep prices high is so incredibly obtuse, I can't even begin to figure out where you're coming from with that statement unless its a paranoid deduction that Bush made money on oil=Bush must wage war to keep oil prices high.
Oh and alternative energy sources are on their way... for now though keeping oil flowing smoothly seems to be a good thing. Keeps your car going and the power station in Lagos humming.
Ahem, in this case: settlement=no jury - agreed by parties.
Other cases: verdict=jury - jury sets punitive.
The theft from the colonies line is Marxist rubbish.
The simple proof is that European economies picked up once they got rid of their colonies. More money was spent on colonies than was generated from them. Armies, navies, administration (including education and health care), all cost a lot of money that the colonies didn't return. The economies of Europe used the raw materials from the colonies but the real wealth was generated in Europe. Wealth is built through processing of materials, not their gathering. For instance the Netherlands were a greater source of income for the Spanish Empire than the gold mines of South America. The British Empire became noticeably richer after the burden of the American colonies was removed (the British attempts to tax the colonists were motivated by a wish to cover the costs of protecting and administering the colonists, not to buy King George a new palace). Etc.
European wealth wasn't built on theft but on trade and production. Europe isn't rich because it stole but because it worked innovatively. Thieving empires (Spain after it destroyed its economy supporting its warfare and colonies, the USSR, late imperial China, Rome after 100AD) collapse as external theft is never as good a source of wealth as internal generation.
The developed world is not rich because the rest of the world is poor. Its rich because it started using better methods to produce, manufacture and trade earlier.
Note on your history. Millions were still imprisoned after Stalin's rule. Heard of the Gulag system? Wasn't taken apart after his death. Actually they weren't so much imprisoned as sent to die in the Siberian wastes. Exterminated. Think chain gang in a climate so cold that your eyes froze. Without proper clothing. After Stalin.
Millions are still imprisoned in China in labour camps. Millions.
Ignoring costs is possible if you have a decision process that goes like this - We must do something -> how do we do it? Regardless of the costs, i.e. the Moon shot and nuclear bomb programs - politically motivated.
Most things aren't worth doing at any cost, that includes putting an astronaut in space.
A normal decision process is: What benefit are we trying to achieve? How much will it cost to do with an acceptable chance of success? Does the benefit exceed the cost?
Acceptable chance of success takes into account risks (including life) and necessity.
NASA has switched from at any cost, as failsafe as possible with best possible materials and technology to as cheap as possible for a good chance of success. Giving it a lot more shots at a given target with a higher chance of success (10 shots at 10 mln a go with 90% chance of success, one shot at 100 mln with 99%, calculate the probability)
Money is a resource that cannot be ignored. If you can do a lot of things cheaply with good chances of success its better than doing one thing expensively with an excellent chance of success.
Then again the bearings were designed in the good old days of best possible at any cost. Designs will fail no matter how much money is spent on them.
Furthermore, pumping more money in will not save lives in the space program, the technology is limited, most problems aren't caused by lack of money.
If the people of Bhutan want to watch tv, then it's their choice. If they want to pray instead, then it's also their choice. If Hulk Hogan is a threat to Buddhist culture then that says something about Buddhism. I don't like the tone of editorial comment, is Slashdot, another example of global, if not blatantly US, culture that also should be 'escaped' from by government restriction?
Your can of beans expires. Because it becomes stale. Because it can't be eaten. Your license expires. Because you stop paying.
Your contract is "terminated". "Norwegian Government Terminates Microsoft Contract".
Sheez.
STANISLAW as in STAN not STAIN
This is an Ask Slashdot?
Wasn't there a fragging story about this yesterday which stated exactly why code sucks? And didn't that story contain the answer?
Just a note:
The Soviet Union had thousands of thousands of tanks, not hundreds. That's why its farmers didn't have tractors and people cars.
I think you're misunderstanding the previous poster, he stated that nukes defeated Japan. So do you. No disagreement there.
Not true. General/unique, it doesn't matter what the content is. Anything that isn't an exact copy of a previous combination of words and layout is copyright protected. Even if there are no new ideas
Man, are you overpaying on your .com registrations. Make it 30 times...
a) Sick people pay 1% on medicine to Medicare.
b) Unemployed, disabled pay 1% tax on benefits to Social Security.
c) Crime victims pay 1% on home security devices to fund police.
d) Students and parents pay 1% on income for schools.
e) Political candidates pay 1% on campaign contributions for brain research.
They're all parties interested in the particular field they're funding. My position is, if I want to fund something, I'll contribute to it directly, thank you very much. And if I want to read sci-fi, I shouldn't be taxed for it, what about freedom of speech and thought?
The insanity contained on this page is cringe worthy and laughable but is it Stuff That Matters? Wrong site, IMHO.
Technically you're spouting nonsense about law enforcement only being about punishment.
Normally reasonable people throw out an entire realm of bullshit when they cannot find properly gathered substantive evidence correlating with the hypothesises of the bullshit. Alex Chiu's friction theories threaten my superiority complex that I have some idea about why the sun shines but they are still bullshit. Oh and I'm calling it bullshit because science has ground rules about testing hypothesises, i.e. 'Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit'
Oh and the fact that my appendix would have ruptured and killed me if my parent hadn't had it removed by a mainstream surgeon in a mainstream hospital in a mainstream manner when I was a tiny kid, is anecdotal evidence of the same.