Wouldn't work. What ever governments replaced the ones wiped out would become corrupt in a few, short years. Just look at Zimbabwe if you need an example.
The difference is that the criminals were impersonating a company, sub-contracting the load to a third party, then absconding with the payment for the load so that the third party never got paid.
The margins have only become that slim in the last year as the price of diesel has skyrocketed but the rate for a load has barely risen. Two years ago, something like this wouldn't put an owner/operator out of business, but between low freight pay, high fuel costs, and tight credit, something like this can be devastating for and o/o.
Except that it wasn't environmentally friendly because a truck still rolled with a load. The load got delivered, but the pay for the delivery was stolen. And, chances are the "company" that delivered the load and didn't get paid was an independent trucker, and loosing that money could put them out of business.
The criminals imitated a legitimate trucking company, bid on and won loads, then subcontracted the actual hauling out to a second trucking company. When the load was delivered, the criminals would pocket the money. When the subcontractor that did the actual hauling would contact the legitimate company to get paid, the company wouldn't know anything about it because said company was impersonated by the criminals.
The scam worked like this: Criminals hack into SaferSys.org and get the info of trucking company A. They would then go on a load board and bid on and win a load from company B. Then, as A they would contract trucking company C to haul the load for B When the load was delivered, B would pay the criminals thinking they were paying A. The criminals then disappear with the money. Meanwhile company C would contact A to get paid for actually hauling the load and A would have no idea what C was talking about.
This article is obviously biased. He gave points on video output to the MacBooks based on their video card power, which is rated elsewhere. He gave points for having optical audio out, which might be nice but does not improve the audio of the device. He gave points for items he admits are personal preference. And, then he adds an item that has no bearing on the device itself to bolster the scores of the Apple device.
Let's not forget he decided that a 10% difference in price is insignificant. (100 is 10% of 1000)
The Dell was the obvious winner getting 9 points and costing 36% less than the MacBook which both scored 8 points. The Sony, which also scored 8 points costs 8% less. And, when one takes out the questionable items, the MacBooks score even worse, while the others stay the same.
In all, I end up wondering how he chose those particular wintel laptops. I am pretty certain I could find comparable laptops that are less expensive with little effort.
It is obvious he set out to write an article showing that MacBooks are not more expensive, and he did it by manipulating the test and results.
Re:There's only ONE way to get security: JESUS CHR
on
Schneier on Security
·
· Score: 1
The athiest couple quickly put on a pair of black robes and hoods. They then exit the house, and run into the street, where a Christian is nailed to a large, wooden X. He is being burned alive. A crowd of athiests stand around him, all wearing black robes and hoods.
RANDOM ATHIEST: Damn you, Christian! We hate you! We claim to be tolerant of all religions. But we really hate your's! That's because we athiests are hypocritical like that! Die, Christian!
Funny, that sounds like Christianity from about 500CE to 1700CE. You remember such things as witch burnings, the inquisition, forced conversions, the crusades, the murders of "heretics", etc.
The fact is that nothing you posted has anything to do with being atheist, but some of it is a very good reflection of how theists have behaved in the past and continue to behave in the present.
Take yourself for an example. I have no doubt you would murder every single person who would not convert to your particular flavor of religion and believe you are justified in doing so because you did it in the name of your god. And, you would expect to go to heaven because you repented after doing so.
Re:There's only ONE way to get security: JESUS CHR
on
Schneier on Security
·
· Score: 1
Second the bible doesn't say when life begins.
Actually, the bible lists when life begins, but none are consistent with each other. It lists when blood forms, when the mother first feels movement, and others.
What is not listed in the bible is anything about abortion. The closest thing I have seen listed is a miscarriage caused due to injury to a bystander of two men fighting.
Putting a price on something can change the value of said thing, especially if the thing's desirability is tied directly to its price and availability.
The popularity of Linux is tied directly to it's price. Linux's price is why it is used by hobbyists, Google, IBM, Asus, etc. And, if they don't use and support Linux, then Linux doesn't have an ecosystem to value.
And, to be honest, Linux's popularity is tied to it's Unix-like nature leading to it's adoption GNU because they could not get HURD finished. And, it's the fact that it came out before so many other "free" O/Ses. Linux is not better than many other O/Ses, just different. If Linux had not been adopted by GNU, other O/Ses like FreeBSD, Minuette or even MMURTL(a truly free O/S because it is in the public domain), would probably be taking Linux's place in a number of niches.
Nope. Those companies will reference the Pareto principle and decide that the 5% increase in sales is not worth the cost of support and development and the possibility they may infringe on the GPL.
As very few people actually have jobs that require them to surf the internet and the browser is supposed to be used only for business purposes, there is no reason to allow Firefox.
Where I toil, there are internal websites that won't work properly with Firefox because they are designed to work with the company standard browser, IE. And, we are a tech company.
You are the one "talkin' smack", because most open source projects are not considered charities so any donations to them are not tax-deductable. If the entity receiving the donation is not a legal charity, then the donation is not a tax deduction. Learn to fucking read the law, you stupid shithead.
No. What you did does not count as any kind of charitable action. In fact, as most, if not all, open source projects are not charitable organizations, donations to projects, whether work, code, or money, do not count as tax write offs.
The problem with your analogy is that it is not rat turds in a hamburger to most people. To most people it is pickles in tuna salad. You hate pickles and are mad that there is pickles in the tuna salad. You want the company to remove the pickles and they won't do it. Most people don't care whether the tuna salad has pickles in the tuna salad. In fact, some people LIKE the pickles in the tuna salad.
You and your "cabal" screaming your head off about how the tuna salad has pickles and how horrible pickles in it just makes you all look like a bunch of paranoid flakes. And, the manner in which you are spreading the word about the pickles damages your message.
Reasons why your suggestion would fail to be proof of anything:
The site you propose would need to have a way to limit people to "speaking out" once. If someone has no problem violating someone else's rights, said someone would not have a problem making multiple accounts to speak out multiple times thus having duplicate "votes".
The sites you mentioned are biased against DRM. For proof, just read the sites. This is known as a biased sample fallacy. One would have to allow people to speak out both for and against the DRM; publicize, without bias, the site to the entire population and; convince, without bias, the entire population to care enough to bother to take the time and make the effort to "speak out".
The sites you mentioned are not limited to the United States only, therefore one would have to either limit access to the "speak out" site to only the U.S.(which would not necessarily work due to technical work-arounds) or, one would have to use the world population figures.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't work. What ever governments replaced the ones wiped out would become corrupt in a few, short years. Just look at Zimbabwe if you need an example.
Maybe, but with my current t-mobile phone, I get free calls to and from my phone anywhere there is an open wifi network.
It can be used to call. But, the data side is still the old, slow technology.
Con:
9. No free wifi calling.
Google didn't hype the G1 for months, unlike Apple. And, Google didn't have a launching pad product, aka the iPod.
Diesel always trails gasoline. Diesel is normally more expense than gas, but not to long ago gas was more expensive because prices went up so fast.
Defeats the purpose of stealing all the money. Also, chances are they are offering the sub more than they are getting paid.
The difference is that the criminals were impersonating a company, sub-contracting the load to a third party, then absconding with the payment for the load so that the third party never got paid.
It is part of the economic problems.
The margins have only become that slim in the last year as the price of diesel has skyrocketed but the rate for a load has barely risen. Two years ago, something like this wouldn't put an owner/operator out of business, but between low freight pay, high fuel costs, and tight credit, something like this can be devastating for and o/o.
This would be happening in America if Christians had their way.
Except that it wasn't environmentally friendly because a truck still rolled with a load. The load got delivered, but the pay for the delivery was stolen. And, chances are the "company" that delivered the load and didn't get paid was an independent trucker, and loosing that money could put them out of business.
No.
The criminals imitated a legitimate trucking company, bid on and won loads, then subcontracted the actual hauling out to a second trucking company. When the load was delivered, the criminals would pocket the money. When the subcontractor that did the actual hauling would contact the legitimate company to get paid, the company wouldn't know anything about it because said company was impersonated by the criminals.
The scam worked like this:
Criminals hack into SaferSys.org and get the info of trucking company A.
They would then go on a load board and bid on and win a load from company B.
Then, as A they would contract trucking company C to haul the load for B
When the load was delivered, B would pay the criminals thinking they were paying A.
The criminals then disappear with the money.
Meanwhile company C would contact A to get paid for actually hauling the load and A would have no idea what C was talking about.
Got it?
This article is obviously biased. He gave points on video output to the MacBooks based on their video card power, which is rated elsewhere. He gave points for having optical audio out, which might be nice but does not improve the audio of the device. He gave points for items he admits are personal preference. And, then he adds an item that has no bearing on the device itself to bolster the scores of the Apple device.
Let's not forget he decided that a 10% difference in price is insignificant. (100 is 10% of 1000)
The Dell was the obvious winner getting 9 points and costing 36% less than the MacBook which both scored 8 points. The Sony, which also scored 8 points costs 8% less. And, when one takes out the questionable items, the MacBooks score even worse, while the others stay the same.
In all, I end up wondering how he chose those particular wintel laptops. I am pretty certain I could find comparable laptops that are less expensive with little effort.
It is obvious he set out to write an article showing that MacBooks are not more expensive, and he did it by manipulating the test and results.
Funny, that sounds like Christianity from about 500CE to 1700CE. You remember such things as witch burnings, the inquisition, forced conversions, the crusades, the murders of "heretics", etc.
The fact is that nothing you posted has anything to do with being atheist, but some of it is a very good reflection of how theists have behaved in the past and continue to behave in the present.
Take yourself for an example. I have no doubt you would murder every single person who would not convert to your particular flavor of religion and believe you are justified in doing so because you did it in the name of your god. And, you would expect to go to heaven because you repented after doing so.
Actually, the bible lists when life begins, but none are consistent with each other. It lists when blood forms, when the mother first feels movement, and others.
What is not listed in the bible is anything about abortion. The closest thing I have seen listed is a miscarriage caused due to injury to a bystander of two men fighting.
Putting a price on something can change the value of said thing, especially if the thing's desirability is tied directly to its price and availability.
The popularity of Linux is tied directly to it's price. Linux's price is why it is used by hobbyists, Google, IBM, Asus, etc. And, if they don't use and support Linux, then Linux doesn't have an ecosystem to value.
And, to be honest, Linux's popularity is tied to it's Unix-like nature leading to it's adoption GNU because they could not get HURD finished. And, it's the fact that it came out before so many other "free" O/Ses. Linux is not better than many other O/Ses, just different. If Linux had not been adopted by GNU, other O/Ses like FreeBSD, Minuette or even MMURTL(a truly free O/S because it is in the public domain), would probably be taking Linux's place in a number of niches.
Nope. Those companies will reference the Pareto principle and decide that the 5% increase in sales is not worth the cost of support and development and the possibility they may infringe on the GPL.
As very few people actually have jobs that require them to surf the internet and the browser is supposed to be used only for business purposes, there is no reason to allow Firefox.
Where I toil, there are internal websites that won't work properly with Firefox because they are designed to work with the company standard browser, IE. And, we are a tech company.
You are the one "talkin' smack", because most open source projects are not considered charities so any donations to them are not tax-deductable. If the entity receiving the donation is not a legal charity, then the donation is not a tax deduction. Learn to fucking read the law, you stupid shithead.
No. What you did does not count as any kind of charitable action. In fact, as most, if not all, open source projects are not charitable organizations, donations to projects, whether work, code, or money, do not count as tax write offs.
The sites you listed are a biased sample, therefore your results would be biased.
The problem with your analogy is that it is not rat turds in a hamburger to most people. To most people it is pickles in tuna salad. You hate pickles and are mad that there is pickles in the tuna salad. You want the company to remove the pickles and they won't do it. Most people don't care whether the tuna salad has pickles in the tuna salad. In fact, some people LIKE the pickles in the tuna salad.
You and your "cabal" screaming your head off about how the tuna salad has pickles and how horrible pickles in it just makes you all look like a bunch of paranoid flakes. And, the manner in which you are spreading the word about the pickles damages your message.
To you maybe. To most of the human race, not so much.
It is not a troll. That is exactly what wvmarle said, just not is so few words.
Reasons why your suggestion would fail to be proof of anything:
You would make a good politician.