The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.
I
"[Y]et they pull crap like this." They don't like their wealth being taken, so they take steps to keep it. How is that any way contradictory?
I should've put in a sarcasm flag. Of *course* governments use regulatory power to curtail free speech.
I think net neutrality proponents are naive to seek a government solution to a hypothetical problem without thinking about the unintended consequences of the regulations that would have to be imposed. How do we ensure companies aren't throttling packets from some source? We'll have to monitor that data. So now we have the government keeping track of how much data comes from what sources. That's a system ripe for abuse.
Fortunately for the proponents of net neutrality, there's never been a case of a government using its regulatory power to curtail free speech. Only private corporations do that.
Markets correct better than individuals. In a market dominated system, the effects of irrational decision hurt the individuals who make the decisions. In a top-down economy, the irrational decision of those guiding the economy hurt everyone.
Instead of running from it, they should embrace the "airship" designation and use a steampunk motif for all styling, both interior and exterior. I'd be more likely to buy a ticket.
I agree: it's your phone. I think the better way to have handled it would be for Google to send out a notice explaining why they think the software should be removed, and allow the user to decide.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm hoping it will soon get an RPN mode.
Kidding aside, tt's their wifi, so they can dish it out to users however they want.
High house prices generate high salaries. ...
High house prices don't generate high salaries. They drive out people with low salaries.
Even if an efficient method of producing hydrogen is discovered, the waste product, H20, is a worse greenhouse gas than C02.
Yep, the path toward innovation is giving the government the power to make sure that things stay the way they are now.
Only three things are certain in life. Death, taxes, and getting your organs harvested by the government.
I think the third is a special case of the second.
The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.
I "[Y]et they pull crap like this." They don't like their wealth being taken, so they take steps to keep it. How is that any way contradictory?
I should've put in a sarcasm flag. Of *course* governments use regulatory power to curtail free speech. I think net neutrality proponents are naive to seek a government solution to a hypothetical problem without thinking about the unintended consequences of the regulations that would have to be imposed. How do we ensure companies aren't throttling packets from some source? We'll have to monitor that data. So now we have the government keeping track of how much data comes from what sources. That's a system ripe for abuse.
Fortunately for the proponents of net neutrality, there's never been a case of a government using its regulatory power to curtail free speech. Only private corporations do that.
Cut subsidies for all forms of transportation. Then, tax in proportion to carbon emissions. Trains win in every densely populated region, hands down.
So, stop distorting the market with subsidies, start distorting the market with punitive taxes.
Markets correct better than individuals. In a market dominated system, the effects of irrational decision hurt the individuals who make the decisions. In a top-down economy, the irrational decision of those guiding the economy hurt everyone.
In one of the pictures in the article, the robot did appear to be attaching the smug-looking goateed fellow.
Instead of running from it, they should embrace the "airship" designation and use a steampunk motif for all styling, both interior and exterior. I'd be more likely to buy a ticket.
I agree: it's your phone. I think the better way to have handled it would be for Google to send out a notice explaining why they think the software should be removed, and allow the user to decide.
According to the Council of Nicea, Jesus was fully human, so no, it wouldn't apply.
As the saying goes, "Two months in the lab can often save you two hours in the library."
California may as well be a whole 'nother country...
We can only hope.