Only if people are ridiculous reactionaries over it, it is a few dozen people out of thousands, and the amounts of money are large, but not particularly significant (in comparison to say, the holdings of a typical NYC bank).
If it is about a social contract and such, I'm not so sure you should give a fuck about these people not hiring you, you obviously already don't want to work for them.
It isn't always a monopoly's best move to increase prices (basically because some of their market might be willing to simply do without rather than make a purchase).
His position is somewhat milder than that, he is simply arguing that his opinions about what to do with the money are better than Google's. Of course, given that Google is the one with the money, this argument isn't worth a great deal.
Geekoid already won with his comment about water, but it is also worth pointing out that there is plenty of dirt around the rest of the world, just not very many people interested in competing with China when it comes to environmental carnage.
All that shows is that some people find it to be an acceptable trade off (and then it doesn't show that they will always find it to be an acceptable trade off).
Such evidence does nothing to demonstrate that it is some sort of logical end state.
I mean, if you want to talk about it starting, you need to go at least back to the first time someone chose to rent some media rather than buying it.
The various techniques used have a lot more in common with cookies than they do viruses. And you have to visit a website with the javascript to make it all work.
I bet if you add everything up (including government responses and wars and such), 9/11 has done far more damage than the $50 billion Madoff racked up.
Slashdot Mirror
Or hopefully just XMP. Storing a few kilobytes in a typical snapshop is no big deal, there is no reason to be all bit efficient and obscure.
Only if people are ridiculous reactionaries over it, it is a few dozen people out of thousands, and the amounts of money are large, but not particularly significant (in comparison to say, the holdings of a typical NYC bank).
They are consistent, if you set aside your axe and grinder.
(See, it is illegal to market tobacco to children, and adults can buy all sorts of wonderful dangerous chemicals, tools and weapons)
Your example is stupid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
(especially if you bother to consider things in relation to total population and miles driven)
If it is about a social contract and such, I'm not so sure you should give a fuck about these people not hiring you, you obviously already don't want to work for them.
Except in some situations listening to audio is more convenient than reading (say, for example, when you are driving a car).
It isn't always a monopoly's best move to increase prices (basically because some of their market might be willing to simply do without rather than make a purchase).
Intel sells more stuff by the end of February than AMD sells in a year.
They are companies operating in the same industry, not competitors.
(And that is after the ATI aquisition!)
Just "Mega Office".
It's stupid, but stupid in a good way.
Right, because the one thing keeping Intel moving is AMD.
The specter of competition from AMD probably provides some motivation to Intel, but it doesn't seem to be a particularly primary source.
You get to burn in hell with actors, strippers, whores and professional athletes.
You should pay him a price that is mostly in line with competitive plumbing offers.
Actually, I would guess that lactose intolerant people enjoy eating ice cream at about the same rate as the general population.
What they don't like is the after effects.
So say some guy creates some simple app that saves users (in aggregate) 1 million man hours.
How big should that guys onetime payment be?
I don't understand why you would treat a friends-only Facebook posting any differently than you would treat an email.
You should have bought more sandwiches.
The very best frequency response possible would still not be perfect (it would far exceed the human ear, but it would lose information).
And the vinyl is limited by the fact that a record player is made with real physical bits that can only vibrate so fast and such.
And really, I hope by 'registered consciously' you mean 'the fidelity of the playback equipment'.
His position is somewhat milder than that, he is simply arguing that his opinions about what to do with the money are better than Google's. Of course, given that Google is the one with the money, this argument isn't worth a great deal.
You should complain that machines are the ones doing all the work in the U.S., not that nothing is made here.
Actually, I don't think that is a good thing to complain about either.
Geekoid already won with his comment about water, but it is also worth pointing out that there is plenty of dirt around the rest of the world, just not very many people interested in competing with China when it comes to environmental carnage.
All that shows is that some people find it to be an acceptable trade off (and then it doesn't show that they will always find it to be an acceptable trade off).
Such evidence does nothing to demonstrate that it is some sort of logical end state.
I mean, if you want to talk about it starting, you need to go at least back to the first time someone chose to rent some media rather than buying it.
There is no active. The various bits of data stored on the local computer are just nutrients for code embedded in web pages.
The various techniques used have a lot more in common with cookies than they do viruses. And you have to visit a website with the javascript to make it all work.
I bet if you add everything up (including government responses and wars and such), 9/11 has done far more damage than the $50 billion Madoff racked up.