I shouldn't say giant casinos, more like mini casinos. But since there really aren't but a handful of Indian casinos in Florida, it is as close as you get.
Actually, greyhound racing is probably a lot bigger, even in the North. Jai-alai was supposed to be a betting sport, but I don't know if it still is. Never saw it north of Daytona.
In fact, I would not be surprised to find smudgy fingerprints from the racetracks all over the design of this and similar bills.
never knew united states of America has internet café. seen them in France, Germany, Italy and Hungary. thought every body in u.s.a. use their mobile phones to surf the internet while on holiday. learned something new today. didn't know gamaling was illegal in the states of Florida. guess it is legal in Nevada and Atlantic city, new jersey and on cruise ships. oh yea, remember that fbi or dept of justice closed some online gaming sites like a year ago.
There is a problem in terminology here. The State of Florida has been using the term "Internet Café" in a way that implies that any establishment offering internet services is also a (unlicensed) gambling establishment. I haven't read the law itself, so it may be that the law knows better and it's just sloppy reporting, but there is definitely a difference.
The US started out with Internet Cafés similar to what you are describing, but as home Internet service became more and more common and WiFi eliminated the need for a clumsy cable kit, the actual "café" part often moved into literal cafés, such as Starbucks and McDonalds. And into public places such as libraries. The older-style establishment became more known for "LAN Party" style gaming. The last time I was in an Internet café, it was across the street from a major university, its patrons were mostly students, and if there was any gambling, I didn't know about it.
The first I heard of widespread commercial unlicensed gambling was things like the "video poker" machines in bars. The idea of having a networked operation is something I only heard about when the lid blew off and the dishonesty of the "veterans benefit" organization that only minimally benefited veterans and the collusion of the Lieutenant Governor.
Incidentally, Florida pretty well divides at the Interstate 4 corridor. North of it is conservative Bible-belt types who have been fighting a slow losing battle against any sort of gambling for decades. South of it is where you'll find the commercial gambling establishments and people who support them.
You can have your own opinions about gambling. Some people claimed that they went there for the social atmosphere. At least one Veterans service organization did get enough money out of the scam that they're really hurting now. My own greatest hope is that the actual law really does target the gambling and not take a wider indiscriminate chunk out of more legitimate endeavors. The Florida Legislature is currently packed with Republicans whose primary goal in life seems to be to micro-manage everyone else's lives and has been for quite a few years now. Also, unless I missed something, they're not on the list of people who have to be tested for drugs before they can receive state money. Not that legislators would ever do drugs...
Do it. Nine times out of 10 or more, I'll bet the attendant will say "Nice try buddy. That's a dime. It's worth 10 cents. Now pay up!"
Are you serious? If you try to cash in a silver dime for it's face value, you would be an idiot. Just like you would be pretty dumb to cash in a gold dollar for 1 dollar.
If you want the gallon of gas, you would first exchange your valuable silver coin for something that the the gas station would accept, most likely paper dollars.
The point is that the silver dime preserved it's value not because it is a dime, but because it is made out of silver.
No, the point is, that unless you take it to the proper exchange point, a dime is worth a dime, because that's what people say it's worth, just as a dollar is worth a dollar and there are a lot of "idiots" out there. In terms of legal tender, the age and silver content don't count.
Aaaaand they were moving the touchdown zone elevation below ground, which is not a function of the signals being transmitted but of the physical location of the transmitting antennas. In fact, the entire ILS system is based on the physical properties of the antennas (bolted in place).
Now, I suppose you could put the high beam audio onto the low beam and vice versa IF the transmitters were computer controlled (and they almost certainly aren't.). All that would do is create confusion as the pilot intercepted the glideslope and noticed that he was flying into the glideslope from below yet the instrument said he was intercepting it from above. I don't think that would flag the display, but it certainly would have the pilot ignoring the ILS at least, and going around as a precaution.
But move the TDZE down? Impossible.
Hey! You are talking about a movie where they faxed fingerprints (100dpi) and got clear identification. Obviously they know more about science than YOU do!
The Fed loaned trillions of dollars to foreign central banks and gave untold billions to select private companies. There is nothing that states the Fed cannot create as much currency as it desires.
Technically true, but tell that to Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic. Money is "worth" what people want it to be worth. The more money floating around, the less people value it. This is what gives gold the illusion of "absolute" value. People value gold at a more or less constant level regardless of how many dollars or marks are floating around, because they don't actually value the gold in dollars or marks. Of course, people value pizza regardless of how many dollars are floating around as well. The main advantage of gold is that since the sum total of the entire planetary supply is supposed to be containable in a cube 30 meters on a side the relative value per ounce is a lot higher. Plus, of course, gold has a longer shelf life than pizza, although perhaps not longer than Twinkies.
The Powers that be are quite aware of this, which is why they don't print money as freely as the accusations would suggest. Nevertheless, the amount of "value" on the planet is still (so far), a growth item as we create new toys to buy, import fancier foods and find other ways to dispose of our incomes. So if value grows, a static monetary basis isn't really what you want as your standard. Thus they print more money. And, from time to time, cheat a bit while doing it. But not enough to kill the goose that lays the fiat-golden eggs. The Ford-Carter years are still remembered. No one wants to go back there.
To illustrate this, take a dime from 1942, you could buy a gallon of gas with it back then. But you can still buy a gallon of gas with the same dime _because_ it is made out of silver.
Do it. Nine times out of 10 or more, I'll bet the attendant will say "Nice try buddy. That's a dime. It's worth 10 cents. Now pay up!"
Fiat currency works both ways. You want to get your $1.99 out of the dime, melt it down and take it to somebody who buys silver. Less fees and commissions. If it's a collectable dime, you might get more selling it to a numismatist, but the "value" of the dime will be in in its collectability, not in its silver content.
Even in 1971 the idea that everything in the world had a gold equivalent was absurd. These days we have computers and big-screen HDTVs that no amount of gold could give you back then. For a little while, these items may be worth hundreds or thousands of dollars, despite being made from inexpensive materials, then their value will plummet as something newer and better comes along. The amount of gold is limited and so, too is the value of the goods and services you can buy with it. If you owned all the gold in the world and spent it, you would still not own most of the world.
Value is what people give to things, not what things inherently have. To a parent of starving children, the only value gold has is if you can convince someone to accept it in exchange for food.
One of the advantages of being a non-profit organization is that you can (and they cheerfully will) do things that cost way more than they recoup just to set an example.
If you keep your money in a bank account (not a deposit box) then you are trusting the bank's guarantee they will not tamper with your balance.
Actually, that's not a good example. FDIC regulations, I think. The goddam gubmint guarantees your balance as long as it doesn't exceed the FDIC insurance limit, and despite all the recent shenanigans, there are some things that banks know better than to screw around with even today.
Deposit boxes, if what I'm told is true, have very little protection at all, once you get beyond the "big locked vault" part.
So my regular (snail) mail is kept in U.S. Post Office bins, trucks, planes, etc. during its transit to destination. Because it's "stored" on/in other people's equipment, it's fair game?
Do you really think the government hasn't opened your mail?
The Postal Service has a legal right, and sometimes duty to open items for inspection. But that right was not granted in order to facilitate "fishing expeditions".
Opening them at the behest of other agencies, government or private, should only be permissible when a legal basis has been presented.
Are they? I haven't heard a good argument on why anyone should expect an email to be private. It's read and scanned by countless systems just to get it to its destination.
Hint:postcards aren't private either.
I am under the impression that actual separate envelopes for mail, at least as an everyday thing, are a fairly recent development. Farther back - when the US was formulating the laws about privacy that we're now busy shredding along with virtually every other ideal - a letter was "private" if you folded it up and sealed it with wax or a stamp.
Technically, I think even postcards are supposed to be "private", despite having their entire content in plain sight.
So just because email is transmitted over open channels in plain text doesn't mean that it should be any different than similar communications done on paper.
Disclaimer I: As far as I know, the entire concept of private communications is legally only guaranteed for as long as the transporters of those communications are the US Postal Service. Since most email travels through non-government channels, there's probably a loophole there. Mostly that the various private/corporate intermediaries wouldn't be held to USPS standards of non-snooping. It should still require a warrant for government inspection via those intermediates, though.
Disclaimer II: IANAL. The above is common-sense reasoning. Which is in short supply where people, corporations, governments and the law are concerned. Actual results can and most likely will vary.
Not possible. Toot is the same as full access to everything - root has no access restrictions whatsoever. being root is being god on that computor.
Thus no one sane accept ssh to root.
While it's rarely possible to login directly as root via ssh on current *n*x systems, it is common to be able to elevate oneself once logged in as an ordinary user. Otherwise remote administration would not be possible.
Conversely, root is not god if you have selinux switched on. Still immensely powerful, but not god.
But I'm sure most civilians prefer an empty computer rather than being dead...
Civilian computers are not the primary target. A military cyber-attack would primarily be focussed on leaving the target area without electrical power, water, transportation (including traffic lights) or communications, with its banking and financial capabilities damaged. Consider, for example, how Iran was targeted. Their nuclear centrifuges were deliberately made to spin "off-key" with the intent that the results would be useless and the centrifuges would be physically ruined.
Obviously, if you can keep everyone busy trying to restore their personal computers and devices at the same time, it's a bonus. That way they're distracted from working on core infrastructure.
Yes, you are missing something. That something being you are a lying piece of shit. Your phone came with Google search prominently displayed right in the middle of the fucking screen.
Oh, you saw my phone when I bought it. mr. polite person?
HTC Sense is a multi-screen UI, and the phone doesn't have a very large screen, since it's not one of the modern-day units that thinks it has to be a tablet-in-a-pocket
If Google Search was ever on the home screen, I removed it, because it isn't now and hasn't been there any time recently.
Not quite the same thing as having a Bing search right smack in the middle of things.
I wasn't lying. I really don't have any Google-specific widgets on the home screen, and Google didn't force me to.
You are doing a good job teaching them why libertarianism ultimately leads to a hypercapitalist dystopia. The vast majority of people making up "the market" are not informed, do not want to become informed, and probably cannot become informed in any meaningful way for any appreciable percentage of the product categories they participate in.
You might be the smartest, most savvy consumer around, always rationally voting with your dollars--but most people aren't, and they're going to dilute your good choices with their bad, uninformed, irrational or random ones.
Even worse. Many of the ones who are informed don't care enough to do something. They want their Lower Prices Everyday and their "you-can-only-get-it-from-here" name products and so they collude to feed the beasts.
Wow, could that summary be more biased and incorrect? The complaint isn't that Android is an underhanded bid to control the entire mobile market. The complaint is that Android is abusing their (potentially) monopoly position to unfairly position their other products in dominant positions, hindering competition. You know, things like positioning Google Docs in a preferred position on the home screen thereby harming competition with Microsoft Office (as an example).
This is EXACTLY the behaviour that got Microsoft into trouble when they used their dominant market position to push IE on users and hurt competition from other browsers. This is EXACTLY the sort of behaviour that most on Slashdot feel Microsoft was in the wrong for. But, I'm sure most on Slashdot are now going to claim Microsoft is getting their just desserts and its now ok because Google is doing it to them rather than being rightly offended at the actions, regardless of who does it and to whom it is done.
I'm not sure I buy that. My HTC phone has an HTC Sense home screen, even though the word "Googe" is etched across the back of the case.
In fact, I don't think a single widget on my phone's home screen is or ever was unmodified Google code.
I could be missing something, but I was definitely under the impression that the source code for the entire Android system is available for use and abuse (subject to licensing limits like GPL) and that third parties can pretty much adapt it at will. Nor am I aware that Google makes you sign in blood that you will present preferred Google apps over other possible apps before you can build and sell an Android product.
Yes, Android devices tend to like to "keep it in the family" and use other Google apps because they tend to play well together, but unlike Microsoft, Google apps generally don't lock you in to other Google apps, nor are you required by license to include any Google apps if you don't want to.
Then it was a waste of time for you to take the class. And depending on the country you're from, you were just wasting your own money if it was a university class. Speaking as someone who's been in academics for decades, I simply asked to move onto a harder class in that case.
And there are classes that I could teach now where, if for some reason I was sitting in, it would still be meaningful for the instructor to know if I looked at the book, and things I could learn even if I know the subject.
In the Florida State University system, if you are in the CIS track and you transfer to another institution within the system, you are required to take their "Introduction to Computers" class again. I did, and by that time, I had 15 years professional experience, and had even taught a programming language at one of the schools within that system.
The cynic in me says that that requirement was just a revenue ploy, but speaking more charitably, it did provide the point at which the students were introduced to that school's computer lab. And this was back when they didn't automatically assume - or require - that you had a PC (or mainframe) of your own, much less VPN access to the campus network.
There may have been a textbook for that course. I never bought it, if there was. I never missed it.
Having savings or being able to risk them is not dependant on 'class'.
Only in America is "class" equated with wealth. Class is an indicator of your position - or lack of one - in an aristocratically structured society. Upper-class people are typically wealthier than their lower-class counterparts, but that has more with the fact than before "them that has the gold makes the rules" there was "them that makes the rules gets the gold".
Wealth, on the other hand is largely measured in terms of disposable income. If every cent you make goes immediately out for necessities, you don't have wealth. And wealth is what determines ones ability to invest, not class.
If you're still running 16bit DOS, your machines are highly malware resistant today. I know of no virus or malware circulating currently that will infect your machine.
Then you aren't paying close attention. I still see SQL Slammer attempts several times a day even though it has been something like 10 years since that particular loophole was addressed.
One share one vote is democracy. In politics, each human counts, because each human has a stake; in business, each share counts, because you can have different stakes. (Of course, that doesn't count the electoral college etc.) It's the "default is you agree" instead of "no vote means no vote" that makes it autocratic.
demo- a combining form occurring in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “people” ( democratic ); on this model, used in the formation of compound words ( demography ).
So no. Feel free to find an equivalent term for "share-ocracy". My Greek doesn't extend that far.
Pedantry aside, however, what I was lamenting is that too many people think that corporate voting actually is a literal democratic vote and forget that not all people have the same number of shares. Or, for that matter, that all shares are directly owned by people.
Apparently he also managed to insult everyone who doesn't live in a major metropolitan area. SOMEONE has to live in Blacksburg Virginia!
A very telling point, however, is that there is a significant group of people who have little or no Internet access of any type: military personnel. Whether for security reasons or just being out on the nether end of nowhere. If they can't play without Internet, they'll find systems that can.
Slashdot Mirror
I shouldn't say giant casinos, more like mini casinos. But since there really aren't but a handful of Indian casinos in Florida, it is as close as you get.
Actually, greyhound racing is probably a lot bigger, even in the North. Jai-alai was supposed to be a betting sport, but I don't know if it still is. Never saw it north of Daytona.
In fact, I would not be surprised to find smudgy fingerprints from the racetracks all over the design of this and similar bills.
never knew united states of America has internet café. seen them in France, Germany, Italy and Hungary. thought every body in u.s.a. use their mobile phones to surf the internet while on holiday. learned something new today. didn't know gamaling was illegal in the states of Florida. guess it is legal in Nevada and Atlantic city, new jersey and on cruise ships. oh yea, remember that fbi or dept of justice closed some online gaming sites like a year ago.
There is a problem in terminology here. The State of Florida has been using the term "Internet Café" in a way that implies that any establishment offering internet services is also a (unlicensed) gambling establishment. I haven't read the law itself, so it may be that the law knows better and it's just sloppy reporting, but there is definitely a difference.
The US started out with Internet Cafés similar to what you are describing, but as home Internet service became more and more common and WiFi eliminated the need for a clumsy cable kit, the actual "café" part often moved into literal cafés, such as Starbucks and McDonalds. And into public places such as libraries. The older-style establishment became more known for "LAN Party" style gaming. The last time I was in an Internet café, it was across the street from a major university, its patrons were mostly students, and if there was any gambling, I didn't know about it.
The first I heard of widespread commercial unlicensed gambling was things like the "video poker" machines in bars. The idea of having a networked operation is something I only heard about when the lid blew off and the dishonesty of the "veterans benefit" organization that only minimally benefited veterans and the collusion of the Lieutenant Governor.
Incidentally, Florida pretty well divides at the Interstate 4 corridor. North of it is conservative Bible-belt types who have been fighting a slow losing battle against any sort of gambling for decades. South of it is where you'll find the commercial gambling establishments and people who support them.
You can have your own opinions about gambling. Some people claimed that they went there for the social atmosphere. At least one Veterans service organization did get enough money out of the scam that they're really hurting now. My own greatest hope is that the actual law really does target the gambling and not take a wider indiscriminate chunk out of more legitimate endeavors. The Florida Legislature is currently packed with Republicans whose primary goal in life seems to be to micro-manage everyone else's lives and has been for quite a few years now. Also, unless I missed something, they're not on the list of people who have to be tested for drugs before they can receive state money. Not that legislators would ever do drugs...
Do it. Nine times out of 10 or more, I'll bet the attendant will say "Nice try buddy. That's a dime. It's worth 10 cents. Now pay up!"
Are you serious? If you try to cash in a silver dime for it's face value, you would be an idiot. Just like you would be pretty dumb to cash in a gold dollar for 1 dollar.
If you want the gallon of gas, you would first exchange your valuable silver coin for something that the the gas station would accept, most likely paper dollars.
The point is that the silver dime preserved it's value not because it is a dime, but because it is made out of silver.
No, the point is, that unless you take it to the proper exchange point, a dime is worth a dime, because that's what people say it's worth, just as a dollar is worth a dollar and there are a lot of "idiots" out there. In terms of legal tender, the age and silver content don't count.
Aaaaand they were moving the touchdown zone elevation below ground, which is not a function of the signals being transmitted but of the physical location of the transmitting antennas. In fact, the entire ILS system is based on the physical properties of the antennas (bolted in place).
Now, I suppose you could put the high beam audio onto the low beam and vice versa IF the transmitters were computer controlled (and they almost certainly aren't.). All that would do is create confusion as the pilot intercepted the glideslope and noticed that he was flying into the glideslope from below yet the instrument said he was intercepting it from above. I don't think that would flag the display, but it certainly would have the pilot ignoring the ILS at least, and going around as a precaution.
But move the TDZE down? Impossible.
Hey! You are talking about a movie where they faxed fingerprints (100dpi) and got clear identification. Obviously they know more about science than YOU do!
The Fed loaned trillions of dollars to foreign central banks and gave untold billions to select private companies. There is nothing that states the Fed cannot create as much currency as it desires.
Technically true, but tell that to Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic. Money is "worth" what people want it to be worth. The more money floating around, the less people value it. This is what gives gold the illusion of "absolute" value. People value gold at a more or less constant level regardless of how many dollars or marks are floating around, because they don't actually value the gold in dollars or marks. Of course, people value pizza regardless of how many dollars are floating around as well. The main advantage of gold is that since the sum total of the entire planetary supply is supposed to be containable in a cube 30 meters on a side the relative value per ounce is a lot higher. Plus, of course, gold has a longer shelf life than pizza, although perhaps not longer than Twinkies.
The Powers that be are quite aware of this, which is why they don't print money as freely as the accusations would suggest. Nevertheless, the amount of "value" on the planet is still (so far), a growth item as we create new toys to buy, import fancier foods and find other ways to dispose of our incomes. So if value grows, a static monetary basis isn't really what you want as your standard. Thus they print more money. And, from time to time, cheat a bit while doing it. But not enough to kill the goose that lays the fiat-golden eggs. The Ford-Carter years are still remembered. No one wants to go back there.
To illustrate this, take a dime from 1942, you could buy a gallon of gas with it back then. But you can still buy a gallon of gas with the same dime _because_ it is made out of silver.
Do it. Nine times out of 10 or more, I'll bet the attendant will say "Nice try buddy. That's a dime. It's worth 10 cents. Now pay up!"
Fiat currency works both ways. You want to get your $1.99 out of the dime, melt it down and take it to somebody who buys silver. Less fees and commissions. If it's a collectable dime, you might get more selling it to a numismatist, but the "value" of the dime will be in in its collectability, not in its silver content.
Even in 1971 the idea that everything in the world had a gold equivalent was absurd. These days we have computers and big-screen HDTVs that no amount of gold could give you back then. For a little while, these items may be worth hundreds or thousands of dollars, despite being made from inexpensive materials, then their value will plummet as something newer and better comes along. The amount of gold is limited and so, too is the value of the goods and services you can buy with it. If you owned all the gold in the world and spent it, you would still not own most of the world.
Value is what people give to things, not what things inherently have. To a parent of starving children, the only value gold has is if you can convince someone to accept it in exchange for food.
oops.
http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_720838.html
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-017-013.html
One of the advantages of being a non-profit organization is that you can (and they cheerfully will) do things that cost way more than they recoup just to set an example.
If you keep your money in a bank account (not a deposit box) then you are trusting the bank's guarantee they will not tamper with your balance.
Actually, that's not a good example. FDIC regulations, I think. The goddam gubmint guarantees your balance as long as it doesn't exceed the FDIC insurance limit, and despite all the recent shenanigans, there are some things that banks know better than to screw around with even today.
Deposit boxes, if what I'm told is true, have very little protection at all, once you get beyond the "big locked vault" part.
So my regular (snail) mail is kept in U.S. Post Office bins, trucks, planes, etc. during its transit to destination. Because it's "stored" on/in other people's equipment, it's fair game?
Do you really think the government hasn't opened your mail?
The Postal Service has a legal right, and sometimes duty to open items for inspection. But that right was not granted in order to facilitate "fishing expeditions".
Opening them at the behest of other agencies, government or private, should only be permissible when a legal basis has been presented.
Are they? I haven't heard a good argument on why anyone should expect an email to be private. It's read and scanned by countless systems just to get it to its destination.
Hint:postcards aren't private either.
I am under the impression that actual separate envelopes for mail, at least as an everyday thing, are a fairly recent development. Farther back - when the US was formulating the laws about privacy that we're now busy shredding along with virtually every other ideal - a letter was "private" if you folded it up and sealed it with wax or a stamp.
Technically, I think even postcards are supposed to be "private", despite having their entire content in plain sight.
So just because email is transmitted over open channels in plain text doesn't mean that it should be any different than similar communications done on paper.
Disclaimer I: As far as I know, the entire concept of private communications is legally only guaranteed for as long as the transporters of those communications are the US Postal Service. Since most email travels through non-government channels, there's probably a loophole there. Mostly that the various private/corporate intermediaries wouldn't be held to USPS standards of non-snooping. It should still require a warrant for government inspection via those intermediates, though.
Disclaimer II: IANAL. The above is common-sense reasoning. Which is in short supply where people, corporations, governments and the law are concerned. Actual results can and most likely will vary.
Yes, actually. Especially if you can get a FOIA request written in such a way as to include them. Not saying it is easy, but it could be done.
Maybe they might not return a big black box on a sheet of paper with the page number being the only thing that isn't redacted.
Hey! those page numbers are a matter of national security! No telling what a terrorist organization could do with a sensitive set of page numbers.
Not possible. Toot is the same as full access to everything - root has no access restrictions whatsoever. being root is being god on that computor.
Thus no one sane accept ssh to root.
While it's rarely possible to login directly as root via ssh on current *n*x systems, it is common to be able to elevate oneself once logged in as an ordinary user. Otherwise remote administration would not be possible.
Conversely, root is not god if you have selinux switched on. Still immensely powerful, but not god.
But I'm sure most civilians prefer an empty computer rather than being dead...
Civilian computers are not the primary target. A military cyber-attack would primarily be focussed on leaving the target area without electrical power, water, transportation (including traffic lights) or communications, with its banking and financial capabilities damaged. Consider, for example, how Iran was targeted. Their nuclear centrifuges were deliberately made to spin "off-key" with the intent that the results would be useless and the centrifuges would be physically ruined.
Obviously, if you can keep everyone busy trying to restore their personal computers and devices at the same time, it's a bonus. That way they're distracted from working on core infrastructure.
Yes, you are missing something. That something being you are a lying piece of shit. Your phone came with Google search prominently displayed right in the middle of the fucking screen.
Oh, you saw my phone when I bought it. mr. polite person?
HTC Sense is a multi-screen UI, and the phone doesn't have a very large screen, since it's not one of the modern-day units that thinks it has to be a tablet-in-a-pocket
If Google Search was ever on the home screen, I removed it, because it isn't now and hasn't been there any time recently.
Not quite the same thing as having a Bing search right smack in the middle of things.
I wasn't lying. I really don't have any Google-specific widgets on the home screen, and Google didn't force me to.
You are doing a good job teaching them why libertarianism ultimately leads to a hypercapitalist dystopia. The vast majority of people making up "the market" are not informed, do not want to become informed, and probably cannot become informed in any meaningful way for any appreciable percentage of the product categories they participate in.
You might be the smartest, most savvy consumer around, always rationally voting with your dollars--but most people aren't, and they're going to dilute your good choices with their bad, uninformed, irrational or random ones.
Even worse. Many of the ones who are informed don't care enough to do something. They want their Lower Prices Everyday and their "you-can-only-get-it-from-here" name products and so they collude to feed the beasts.
Wow, could that summary be more biased and incorrect? The complaint isn't that Android is an underhanded bid to control the entire mobile market. The complaint is that Android is abusing their (potentially) monopoly position to unfairly position their other products in dominant positions, hindering competition. You know, things like positioning Google Docs in a preferred position on the home screen thereby harming competition with Microsoft Office (as an example).
This is EXACTLY the behaviour that got Microsoft into trouble when they used their dominant market position to push IE on users and hurt competition from other browsers. This is EXACTLY the sort of behaviour that most on Slashdot feel Microsoft was in the wrong for. But, I'm sure most on Slashdot are now going to claim Microsoft is getting their just desserts and its now ok because Google is doing it to them rather than being rightly offended at the actions, regardless of who does it and to whom it is done.
I'm not sure I buy that. My HTC phone has an HTC Sense home screen, even though the word "Googe" is etched across the back of the case.
In fact, I don't think a single widget on my phone's home screen is or ever was unmodified Google code.
I could be missing something, but I was definitely under the impression that the source code for the entire Android system is available for use and abuse (subject to licensing limits like GPL) and that third parties can pretty much adapt it at will. Nor am I aware that Google makes you sign in blood that you will present preferred Google apps over other possible apps before you can build and sell an Android product.
Yes, Android devices tend to like to "keep it in the family" and use other Google apps because they tend to play well together, but unlike Microsoft, Google apps generally don't lock you in to other Google apps, nor are you required by license to include any Google apps if you don't want to.
Then it was a waste of time for you to take the class. And depending on the country you're from, you were just wasting your own money if it was a university class. Speaking as someone who's been in academics for decades, I simply asked to move onto a harder class in that case.
And there are classes that I could teach now where, if for some reason I was sitting in, it would still be meaningful for the instructor to know if I looked at the book, and things I could learn even if I know the subject.
In the Florida State University system, if you are in the CIS track and you transfer to another institution within the system, you are required to take their "Introduction to Computers" class again. I did, and by that time, I had 15 years professional experience, and had even taught a programming language at one of the schools within that system.
The cynic in me says that that requirement was just a revenue ploy, but speaking more charitably, it did provide the point at which the students were introduced to that school's computer lab. And this was back when they didn't automatically assume - or require - that you had a PC (or mainframe) of your own, much less VPN access to the campus network.
There may have been a textbook for that course. I never bought it, if there was. I never missed it.
Having savings or being able to risk them is not dependant on 'class'.
Only in America is "class" equated with wealth. Class is an indicator of your position - or lack of one - in an aristocratically structured society. Upper-class people are typically wealthier than their lower-class counterparts, but that has more with the fact than before "them that has the gold makes the rules" there was "them that makes the rules gets the gold".
Wealth, on the other hand is largely measured in terms of disposable income. If every cent you make goes immediately out for necessities, you don't have wealth. And wealth is what determines ones ability to invest, not class.
^^this.
If you're still running 16bit DOS, your machines are highly malware resistant today. I know of no virus or malware circulating currently that will infect your machine.
Then you aren't paying close attention. I still see SQL Slammer attempts several times a day even though it has been something like 10 years since that particular loophole was addressed.
Anyone can invest.
Unless you have a voting share, it doesn't matter.
Unless you have a lot of voting shares, it still doesn't matter.
One share one vote is democracy. In politics, each human counts, because each human has a stake; in business, each share counts, because you can have different stakes. (Of course, that doesn't count the electoral college etc.) It's the "default is you agree" instead of "no vote means no vote" that makes it autocratic.
demo-
a combining form occurring in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “people” ( democratic ); on this model, used in the formation of compound words ( demography ).
So no. Feel free to find an equivalent term for "share-ocracy". My Greek doesn't extend that far.
Pedantry aside, however, what I was lamenting is that too many people think that corporate voting actually is a literal democratic vote and forget that not all people have the same number of shares. Or, for that matter, that all shares are directly owned by people.
Apparently he also managed to insult everyone who doesn't live in a major metropolitan area. SOMEONE has to live in Blacksburg Virginia!
A very telling point, however, is that there is a significant group of people who have little or no Internet access of any type: military personnel. Whether for security reasons or just being out on the nether end of nowhere. If they can't play without Internet, they'll find systems that can.
I wish Lovecraft was alive so we could ask him what the heck a "strange aeon" is.
Angled Time, of course!
If you see it, it will drive you insane.
Roll a terror check.
I have no problem envisioning Richard Billington on his tower in the Misquacamacus chatting up these things.
Er, "holding strange converse with these beings".
Remember: Yog-Sothoth is the Gate! Yog-Sothoth is the Key! Ïa! Ïa!
Say "ass". You know you want to. We're all adults here, we can take a vulgar reference every now and then.
Seriously, either curse or don't; this *bleeb* business is simply pathethic.
HEE-haw!