You lack imagination. They owe more than the money they borrowed, any company that leaned on the taxpayer does. Any time a company wants to privatize profits but make losses at the risk of the public, there is a debt beyond cash.
Build the hardware and sell it at cost or maybe less then create an app store to make more money.
Yeah, brilliant plan. Surely no one will figure a way around that. All they have to do is install DRM on Linux for that to work, which will surely be bulletproof. Ask Sony or Apple or anyone else trying to have a monopoly for software on hardware they built but no longer own.
Devil's Advocate:/. is a news aggregator: They don't have journalists or reporters, just folks who sift through the cruft posted by regular users. If they can find links, they may well do. Help out and mod down stories which suck on the Firehose.
Google is a news aggregator, and all decisions are primarily based on code, not by humans. Slashdot is a technology news portal where the submissions are selected by, and then EDITED by the EDITORS, to filter out the debris and only allow the best to hit the front page. This would including adding or removing some of the links (presumably after a reasonable amount of checking and verifying the validity and relevance of the link), or sometimes combining two different submissions to provide a broader point of view. This is the theory, at least. Because speed is more important than accuracy, a large amount of leeway is given for the editing process to be a bit sloppy. Often, the story is neither timely or properly edited is the issue. It makes one wonder if the editors are having to clean windows and empty trashcans for the whole company, and just edit with the time they have left.
There are almost 7 billion people on this planet and if we were all being brutally honest that's almost 7 billion people we don't give a damn about. This isn't insightful, it's fake emotion.
I would have to agree. I'm not sure why people become attached to famous strangers while not caring about obscure strangers. In both cases, they are people you do not know and who don't know you, and never shall the two meet. Now, I get that sometimes we can empathize more with someone dying of lung cancer (as an example) if we have had a loved one die of the same disease, so we can understand how the family might feel, but again, why not a total stranger?
I would wish anyone that is dealing with illness the best of luck, but if anyone has deep emotional feelings about a 'famous' stranger, you have to ask where it comes from. My only guess is a culture of hero worship, but there has to be more to it than that.
Insurance companies, by definition, are paid to absorb the risk. That is the only reason they exist. And they are sued for the actions or negligence of the driver, not the actions of the car. When the car is at fault, the manufacturer is sued, like Toyota is being sued for the accelerator issue.
Need to mod this up, then change to a better link without the spam redirect. The one time people are trying to actually read the article on slashdot, and they all get redirected instead...irony.
You can't really compare that way. The cost to stock your software at Amazon is close to zero. They are not buying a fixed number of units from you. Technically, they aren't even buying and reselling the software, they are simply brokering the sale for you, since they never invest any money into the transaction. That said, the 30% commission is very reasonable, but not sure everyone will like Amazon setting prices. Even if Amazon does a good job with it, the fact that they are setting the price for a product that they are actually only brokering is problematic.
Not all people who call themselves conservative watch Fox News, or even call themselves Republicans. Not all conservatives are both fiscally and socially conservative either.
Most of the gains in humans rights in China can be related to other countries opening up to them, giving them an incentive to create a more market based society. China still has far to go in the area of human rights, but they have come far since Nixon opened relations in the early 70s.
So yes, it is a good thing if North Korea gets on the internet and we try to open up to them. Since they have nukes, the only other choice would likely end is a giant glass parking lot in eastern asia, about the size of the Korean peninsula.
I think the problem is that all politicians want to create a 20 year tax system that doesn't start until they get out of office. Or do nothing. I have always advocated a tax like you are talking about, small to start and grows over time in a way that businesses can plan for. You take 100% of that money and subsidize alternative fuel. You make it a self sustaining system. This would mean that Exxon can get the same money they paid in taxes BACK, if they start developing solar, wind and other renewables. I would be more interested in a tax that isn't just CO2 based, but based on pollution and the source, favoring local sources of oil for example. Total picture of *reasonable* subsidizing according to CO2, overall pollution, and national security.
As for caps, I"m not sure if that will ever happen, or even be necessary. If 30 years from now, solar, wind and nuclear are cheaper than oil, a cap wouldn't be needed. Some forms of CO2 may never be avoided. Gas plants are the best source of electricity to meet peek electrical demand during parts of the day. Like hydroelectric, they can be turned on and off with a switch, unlike nuclear or coal.
I'm not a global warming denier. I'm someone who thinks the globe is warming, but we don't know how much of it is man made. Likely much, maybe most, maybe less than half. But it doesn't matter if we can meet half way and make some of the changes while we debate, the changes that will improve life even if global warming was a myth: better fuel economy means less reliance on Arab countries and less pollution.
I think you will find many, many outdoor types agree with me. I'm not Johnny Huntalot, I just fish regularly and I am outdoors a lot. I also live in a county with no manufacturing, few humans, and yet we fail EPA every month from pollution from areas 90 miles from here in two different directions. (between Charlotte and Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC) If you bother to ask, and don't ask in framing the question around global warming, you will find that most people like the idea of reducing pollution and dependence on Arab oil. Over half the nation has consumption warnings on fish from our lakes due to years of dumping PCBs in the water, for instance.
Many people who enjoy the outdoors, live in the south and are either Republican or Libertarian (like myself) or otherwise conservative at least fiscally, would agree with half the points if you don't make it a debate about global warming. There are reasons to doubt the motives on some people on both sides of the debate. The smart money avoids the debate and simply focuses on things we all already agree on. You keep harping about "global warming", you tune out half the people who would agree on half the ideas you would like to see implemented. Does it matter if people disagree on the reasons, if they agree with you on at least some of the methods?
And except that before the industrial revolution, it was also at a plateau for centuries, at almost the highest level for at least 400,000 years, before the industrial revolution, so perhaps something besides Buicks was causing it for the many centuries before 1800. Yes it took off after the IR, but why was it so much higher before then, when human populations were rather sparse? That is the point that people like YOU keep ignoring. There is an issue, but the cause/effect is NOT as cut and dry as you would like to make it.
People like ME are saying, yes, lets cut emissions, lets cut CO2, but in a measured, progressive but sustainable way that might even provide jobs, and there are reasons and justifications for it even if you don't believe the science. People like you TWIST the words of conservationists, who want the same thing you want but in a more reasonable way. We aren't saying to not make changes, we are saying to meet in the middle with serious, ongoing changes with a wider base of benefit, and instead you jump on a soap box and tell everyone that either we agree with your ideas, or we just want to shit on the planet. It is no wonder that people tell environmentalists to fuck off when you are so arrogant. No wonder you post as AC. I'm not ashamed of what I know, or believe.
A quick search only showed news articles from 2003 (behind a pay wall...), but I am pretty sure I heard the same claims before 2000. I have no idea what the technical hurdles are, but there has been much talk and little action on killing BIOS.
On the plus side, I'm looking forward to using more than 640k of ram, which is no longer enough for anyone.
Granted, but in AZ, once you are "cured enough", you go to jail. It does keep dangerous people from simply being institutionalized for a couple years then set free, however.
Maybe it is the warmest year on record. So what? Keep records for long enough and you'll wind up with a coldest year too.
That is the point that gets me. I don't doubt that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere raised the temp a little, but history is flooded with examples of rising temps, lower temps, higher CO2, lower CO2, and I don't quite see how what we are doing rises above being background noise, in the larger picture.
That said, I do like cars that pollute less, developing better technologies that use less energy or pollute less, but not because of global warming. I just like to breath, drink water, fish, and want to have a national energy policy that isn't dependent on people half way around the globe. If were were making decisions based on those issues, it would make more sense as those are issues we can all agree on and benefit from, and don't require drastic, job killing measures, nor as heated of a debate.
Even if they prove he is insane, he can still be found "guilty, but insane" in Arizona. According to some sources, you can not be found "innocent by reason of insanity" in Arizona under most circumstances. More importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has already reviewed this Arizona law and upheld the constitutionality of it.
Was that his point? That it would be logical for the FBI to seek records of his other recent activities. It is assumed to deduce his motive, which is commonly looked for in a murder case. Perhaps to confirm that he was working alone as well. Those are just educated guesses.
What twitter case do you refer to? This one. It has been a bit of a topic on the internet, in case you missed it.
What is a logical thing to do? See #1.
What didn't matter? It didn't matter whether there are dozens of witnesses or not, he has been arrested and is being charged, legally. "(which I'll leave the validity of to the side)" means even if the poster (or anyone else) disagreed with their conclusion, he agreed that the FBI has a justification for the information.
To me, if you buy an iPhone or Kindle, you have no reason to bitch about the app store model. You already knew about it when you made the purchase. This is like going to McDonalds and bitching because the hamburgers aren't flame broiled. Besides, I have an easy workaround.
I buy dead tree books only. I won't own a smart phone, and just use old fashioned laptops and desktops. (it isn't that hard to live without, get a Linux netbook if you need portable) I don't hate proprietary apps or software per se, I just avoid using it where there is an alternative, which is 90% of the time or better, even on a proprietary Windows desktop. I will never have an iPhone or Kindle, even if you paid me to take one. I don't preach it as a religion, I just have decided to avoid those pitfalls whenever possible. Avoiding them is easier than living with them, short and long term.
Honestly, I spend over half my day, every day, involved with computers in one way or another. I may not get to play with the newest toys, but what the iPhone does isn't all that interesting compared to a real computer anyway, and certainly not worth the price of lock-in.
:Say what? You'll leave that to the side, will you? Well color me flabbergasted.
I hope you are just trolling and not serious. His point was that he it didn't matter. If he is a suspect, then it is a logical thing to do, and should NOT be compared to the Twitter case.
Slashdot Mirror
You lack imagination. They owe more than the money they borrowed, any company that leaned on the taxpayer does. Any time a company wants to privatize profits but make losses at the risk of the public, there is a debt beyond cash.
Go G-S is trying to be good guys, and pay back the US taxpayer by screwing everyone but US investors?
Build the hardware and sell it at cost or maybe less then create an app store to make more money.
Yeah, brilliant plan. Surely no one will figure a way around that. All they have to do is install DRM on Linux for that to work, which will surely be bulletproof. Ask Sony or Apple or anyone else trying to have a monopoly for software on hardware they built but no longer own.
Devil's Advocate: /. is a news aggregator: They don't have journalists or reporters, just folks who sift through the cruft posted by regular users. If they can find links, they may well do. Help out and mod down stories which suck on the Firehose.
Google is a news aggregator, and all decisions are primarily based on code, not by humans. Slashdot is a technology news portal where the submissions are selected by, and then EDITED by the EDITORS, to filter out the debris and only allow the best to hit the front page. This would including adding or removing some of the links (presumably after a reasonable amount of checking and verifying the validity and relevance of the link), or sometimes combining two different submissions to provide a broader point of view. This is the theory, at least. Because speed is more important than accuracy, a large amount of leeway is given for the editing process to be a bit sloppy. Often, the story is neither timely or properly edited is the issue. It makes one wonder if the editors are having to clean windows and empty trashcans for the whole company, and just edit with the time they have left.
It would appear that Slashdot is open sourcing its editing, and is now in perpetual Beta.
There are almost 7 billion people on this planet and if we were all being brutally honest that's almost 7 billion people we don't give a damn about. This isn't insightful, it's fake emotion.
I would have to agree. I'm not sure why people become attached to famous strangers while not caring about obscure strangers. In both cases, they are people you do not know and who don't know you, and never shall the two meet. Now, I get that sometimes we can empathize more with someone dying of lung cancer (as an example) if we have had a loved one die of the same disease, so we can understand how the family might feel, but again, why not a total stranger?
I would wish anyone that is dealing with illness the best of luck, but if anyone has deep emotional feelings about a 'famous' stranger, you have to ask where it comes from. My only guess is a culture of hero worship, but there has to be more to it than that.
Nope, I just telnet direct into the webserver using port 80 and manually GET all the files. The only perfectly safe way to surf the interweb.
This is why i setup my browser to ignore javascript, css and html. Better safe than sorry....
Insurance companies, by definition, are paid to absorb the risk. That is the only reason they exist. And they are sued for the actions or negligence of the driver, not the actions of the car. When the car is at fault, the manufacturer is sued, like Toyota is being sued for the accelerator issue.
Pictures of naked people should not be classified as porn simply because of the lack of clothes.
If God® wanted you naked, he would have made you born that way.
Need to mod this up, then change to a better link without the spam redirect. The one time people are trying to actually read the article on slashdot, and they all get redirected instead...irony.
You can't really compare that way. The cost to stock your software at Amazon is close to zero. They are not buying a fixed number of units from you. Technically, they aren't even buying and reselling the software, they are simply brokering the sale for you, since they never invest any money into the transaction. That said, the 30% commission is very reasonable, but not sure everyone will like Amazon setting prices. Even if Amazon does a good job with it, the fact that they are setting the price for a product that they are actually only brokering is problematic.
Not all people who call themselves conservative watch Fox News, or even call themselves Republicans. Not all conservatives are both fiscally and socially conservative either.
Most of the gains in humans rights in China can be related to other countries opening up to them, giving them an incentive to create a more market based society. China still has far to go in the area of human rights, but they have come far since Nixon opened relations in the early 70s.
So yes, it is a good thing if North Korea gets on the internet and we try to open up to them. Since they have nukes, the only other choice would likely end is a giant glass parking lot in eastern asia, about the size of the Korean peninsula.
I think the problem is that all politicians want to create a 20 year tax system that doesn't start until they get out of office. Or do nothing. I have always advocated a tax like you are talking about, small to start and grows over time in a way that businesses can plan for. You take 100% of that money and subsidize alternative fuel. You make it a self sustaining system. This would mean that Exxon can get the same money they paid in taxes BACK, if they start developing solar, wind and other renewables. I would be more interested in a tax that isn't just CO2 based, but based on pollution and the source, favoring local sources of oil for example. Total picture of *reasonable* subsidizing according to CO2, overall pollution, and national security.
As for caps, I"m not sure if that will ever happen, or even be necessary. If 30 years from now, solar, wind and nuclear are cheaper than oil, a cap wouldn't be needed. Some forms of CO2 may never be avoided. Gas plants are the best source of electricity to meet peek electrical demand during parts of the day. Like hydroelectric, they can be turned on and off with a switch, unlike nuclear or coal.
I'm not a global warming denier. I'm someone who thinks the globe is warming, but we don't know how much of it is man made. Likely much, maybe most, maybe less than half. But it doesn't matter if we can meet half way and make some of the changes while we debate, the changes that will improve life even if global warming was a myth: better fuel economy means less reliance on Arab countries and less pollution.
I think you will find many, many outdoor types agree with me. I'm not Johnny Huntalot, I just fish regularly and I am outdoors a lot. I also live in a county with no manufacturing, few humans, and yet we fail EPA every month from pollution from areas 90 miles from here in two different directions. (between Charlotte and Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC) If you bother to ask, and don't ask in framing the question around global warming, you will find that most people like the idea of reducing pollution and dependence on Arab oil. Over half the nation has consumption warnings on fish from our lakes due to years of dumping PCBs in the water, for instance.
Many people who enjoy the outdoors, live in the south and are either Republican or Libertarian (like myself) or otherwise conservative at least fiscally, would agree with half the points if you don't make it a debate about global warming. There are reasons to doubt the motives on some people on both sides of the debate. The smart money avoids the debate and simply focuses on things we all already agree on. You keep harping about "global warming", you tune out half the people who would agree on half the ideas you would like to see implemented. Does it matter if people disagree on the reasons, if they agree with you on at least some of the methods?
And except that before the industrial revolution, it was also at a plateau for centuries, at almost the highest level for at least 400,000 years, before the industrial revolution, so perhaps something besides Buicks was causing it for the many centuries before 1800. Yes it took off after the IR, but why was it so much higher before then, when human populations were rather sparse? That is the point that people like YOU keep ignoring. There is an issue, but the cause/effect is NOT as cut and dry as you would like to make it.
People like ME are saying, yes, lets cut emissions, lets cut CO2, but in a measured, progressive but sustainable way that might even provide jobs, and there are reasons and justifications for it even if you don't believe the science. People like you TWIST the words of conservationists, who want the same thing you want but in a more reasonable way. We aren't saying to not make changes, we are saying to meet in the middle with serious, ongoing changes with a wider base of benefit, and instead you jump on a soap box and tell everyone that either we agree with your ideas, or we just want to shit on the planet. It is no wonder that people tell environmentalists to fuck off when you are so arrogant. No wonder you post as AC. I'm not ashamed of what I know, or believe.
Yes, BIOS is a kludge but it's on the way out.
A quick search only showed news articles from 2003 (behind a pay wall...), but I am pretty sure I heard the same claims before 2000. I have no idea what the technical hurdles are, but there has been much talk and little action on killing BIOS.
On the plus side, I'm looking forward to using more than 640k of ram, which is no longer enough for anyone.
Sorry, I just thought it was more clear than perhaps it was.
Granted, but in AZ, once you are "cured enough", you go to jail. It does keep dangerous people from simply being institutionalized for a couple years then set free, however.
Maybe it is the warmest year on record. So what? Keep records for long enough and you'll wind up with a coldest year too.
That is the point that gets me. I don't doubt that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere raised the temp a little, but history is flooded with examples of rising temps, lower temps, higher CO2, lower CO2, and I don't quite see how what we are doing rises above being background noise, in the larger picture.
That said, I do like cars that pollute less, developing better technologies that use less energy or pollute less, but not because of global warming. I just like to breath, drink water, fish, and want to have a national energy policy that isn't dependent on people half way around the globe. If were were making decisions based on those issues, it would make more sense as those are issues we can all agree on and benefit from, and don't require drastic, job killing measures, nor as heated of a debate.
Even if they prove he is insane, he can still be found "guilty, but insane" in Arizona. According to some sources, you can not be found "innocent by reason of insanity" in Arizona under most circumstances. More importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has already reviewed this Arizona law and upheld the constitutionality of it.
Here is one article on it.
Was that his point?
That it would be logical for the FBI to seek records of his other recent activities. It is assumed to deduce his motive, which is commonly looked for in a murder case. Perhaps to confirm that he was working alone as well. Those are just educated guesses.
What twitter case do you refer to?
This one. It has been a bit of a topic on the internet, in case you missed it.
What is a logical thing to do?
See #1.
What didn't matter?
It didn't matter whether there are dozens of witnesses or not, he has been arrested and is being charged, legally. "(which I'll leave the validity of to the side)" means even if the poster (or anyone else) disagreed with their conclusion, he agreed that the FBI has a justification for the information.
I hope this helps.
To me, if you buy an iPhone or Kindle, you have no reason to bitch about the app store model. You already knew about it when you made the purchase. This is like going to McDonalds and bitching because the hamburgers aren't flame broiled. Besides, I have an easy workaround.
I buy dead tree books only. I won't own a smart phone, and just use old fashioned laptops and desktops. (it isn't that hard to live without, get a Linux netbook if you need portable) I don't hate proprietary apps or software per se, I just avoid using it where there is an alternative, which is 90% of the time or better, even on a proprietary Windows desktop. I will never have an iPhone or Kindle, even if you paid me to take one. I don't preach it as a religion, I just have decided to avoid those pitfalls whenever possible. Avoiding them is easier than living with them, short and long term.
Honestly, I spend over half my day, every day, involved with computers in one way or another. I may not get to play with the newest toys, but what the iPhone does isn't all that interesting compared to a real computer anyway, and certainly not worth the price of lock-in.
:Say what? You'll leave that to the side, will you? Well color me flabbergasted.
I hope you are just trolling and not serious. His point was that he it didn't matter. If he is a suspect, then it is a logical thing to do, and should NOT be compared to the Twitter case.