Enlightenment still exists? Whoa. You have to hand it to Rasterman. He pretty much changed they way people thought of customization. Thankfully themes have pretty much gone away (or at least the themes craze), but the (pseudo)transparent terminals are here to stay.
The researcher seems to expect ball players to gamble with every such run, betting their play on what the researcher thinks is "almost certain".
If you've hit in the gap it's clear you're going to get a double. Everyone knows that.
That means that, while trying to hit the ball, the player must know the tactics and maximum speeds of all the opponent fielders. I don't think that's going to happen.
If only they had scouts and game film, and played like 162 games.
In all seriousness, you've never watched a sporting event at any level have you?
Hate to break it to you but the tea party formed way before any politician or media outlet even knew what it was. The original organizers even banned Republican politicians from speaking at the first meets.
Spoken like someone who has never even flown over rural America.
What presents them from moving? A lack of money.
It actually costs quite a bit of money to move, epsecially to a desirable location. I don't know too many people that could afford to move from Buffalo County, South Dakota to say Santa Clara County, California. I mean simply paying the movers, finding a home, and rocking until a job is found. That's not cheap. And that's not even accounting for the costs of leaving your entire social network. Add in the fact that the poor typically have lower education and less skills, they aren't exactly going to stand out from the locals competing for same jobs. We're talking about people who live paycheck to paycheck. Save? How? By cutting it down to one meal small meal a day? We have a negative savings rate in this country for a reason.
"Free to keep on doing whatever they were doing before the plant opened"? So welfare? Do you think that rural folks are too "simple" (i.e. stupid) to realize that they're getting screwed? Of course the realize it. It's just that it is marginally better than the status quo. No one aspires to work the double shift at Walmart, but you do it because you don't have any other option. No one says, "I really want to work at some death trap like a Massey Energy coal mine," but they do because that's the only job around. Throw a drowning man a plutonium life preserver, and he'll take it everytime.
No; no, they would have. It would have been a good thing, long term, for the automotive industry and transportation in general. They'd have had restructuring - firings, in part, but also re-examination of their design processes and the like to try to save money/improve the designs. The "brand" would suffer, as would their bottom line, as they went from 'shiney crap at inflated prices' to 'well made dull stuff at cheaper prices'
Restructuring? Well golly! It sounds like you're talking about a bankruptcy. Gee. If only they thought of that. Well fuck. they did!
1) While the private sector will frequently lie, it tends to result in nothing but negative outcomes for the company in question (long term).
Good thing Philip Morris, err I mean Altria, is out of business. Oh wait. they're not. How about Union Carbide, I mean Dow Chemical? Gee. They're doing just fine too. How about AIG? They're still around, as are all the rating agencies and the investment firms. At least BP came clean about about how bad the oil leak was. But, wait they didn't did they? Well I'm sure someone lied and didn't make a handsome profit doing so!
Seriously dude, you've asserted this, but history just doesn't back you up.
It is financially not in their interest to lie to frequently, as this creates long-term brand distrust
No. It's not in their interest to get caught, and even then market share, substantial cash reserves, and quick rebranding campaign, and everything is back to as it was. The public has a very short attention span when it comes to scandals. At worse what happens is some the "few bad apples" are spun off along with all their liabilities, while the "independent" parent company keeps the profits since the bad apples had to buy themselves out of the parent.
Furthermore, the government is there to keep them in check, and is constantly busting knuckles due to private sector lies (unless there is money involved for them, of course).
It's like the tag says: they're lying because they're government owned and operated now.
And we all know private sector never lies!
That, and they're GM: one of the best examples of incompetence screwing over good concept and design to result in a bad products since... uh, well, quite a while.
Good thing they're "government operated," because they surely wouldn't have gone bankrupt with capitalists running the company!
Buy a gas/diesel car. If you are going on long trips regularly, then you are better off doing this.
Okay.
Buy/rent a trailer with the generator. Seriously, if you need a range extender say once a year, then simply rent a trailer that has the ability to provide the electricity. Of course, the car has to be rigged for that.
Which of course kills all your endurance, since the cars aren't designed to haul a load.
Buy a car that has fast charge.
Which are sold where? The Unicorn Stagecoach store? Seriously. These things simply don't exist.
One out of three. Good enough for the Baseball Hall of Fame, and apparently good enough for/.
The hybrid is a transitional technology that only exists because... there isn't an infrastructure for plug-in electric cars. There are no quick charge batteries. There are no battery changing stations. There are no cars that support battery changers. And the number of places where you can plug in your electric car can be counted on one hand. Seriously, I know of exactly three places where I could plug in an electric car. The engineering parking garage at UCSC, downtown Berkeley, and SFO. What's notably missing? My apartment. Drive your electric car to work, and you can't charge it. Drive your electric car to the store, and you can't charge it.
Because collusion is by definition something done for the purpose of taking illegal action. That is the definition of the word collude. If one is not cooperating for the purpose of committing illegal action, it isn't collusion. Or to put it another way, if what you are doing isn't illegal, it isn't collusion.
You're really sticking to a very limited definition of "collusion," but let's look at how it's used. Specifically what are those "illegal actions." One "colludes" to manipulate prices. One "colludes" to maintain market share. One does not "collude" to rob a bank a bank, or kill someone. Those are "conspiracies." That's very telling. You're not examining what your defending and instead simply arguing from authority, the logical fallacy endemic to all conservative thought.
Because collusion is by definition something done for the purpose of taking illegal action.
So you're saying it's just a gussied up word? Fine. But aren't acts not agreements (i.e. actually executing the agreement, as opposed to just saying "Yeah, lets do this.") really what's illegal? One is just words and ideas. And words and ideas don't hurt anyone. By supporting "collusion" as a crime, you're supporting the criminalization of thoughts, and therefore are supporting Government intrusion, and the limitation of Freedom.
I say no rational system says that thoughts are a crime.
Don't try and pass the buck. We're whether the government should monitor private agreements between two businesses, in other words, run businesses. You already agree that collusion is wrong, or you wouldn't have said, "[T]here is no rational system that says [collusion] is something that you are free to do."
My question is why shouldn't you be free to collude, and now you're trying dodge it. So I'll ask it again: Why shouldn't two companies be free to collude?
Since by definition colluding (Collude: To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose) is an attempt to defraud or otherwise deceive, there is no rational system that says it is something that you are free to do. The problem with the OPs statement is that he assumes that what these companies were doing was collusion.
All you're doing is hiding behind a word. We're calling an agreement that two individuals freely and commit to in the running of their business "collusion," so it must be wrong! We call tying someone to a bed and then drowning them "enhanced interrogation" so it must not be torture!
Why shouldn't two people make any agreement they want? Why should the government tell someone how they can and can not run their business? Do you want Thought Police? No rational person would deal with someone defrauding him, so no one committing fraud would stay in business. The Free Market self-regulates! Why are you against freedom Attila Dimedici? I ask because your comments show that you are objectively pro-facist.
See how quickly tossing around the word "freedom" quickly degenerates any discussion into to Glenn Beck / Sean Hannity / Tea Party nonsense?
Collusion of any kind should never be allowed, as it distorts freedom and hurts consumers (and workers).
What? "Distorts freedom?" What about the freedom to collude?
That's the problem with tossing around nebulous concepts like freedom, like it's some sort of absolute. It's the tactics of the lazy. I don't have to justify the results of my actions, because I'm for FREEDOM! If you're against me, you hate FREEDOM! What's freedom? Doing what I want, when I want, no matter what. If you want do something to you, that's freedom. If you want to stop me, you hate freedom. It's intellectual bullshit. Think about this: The Confederacy of fighting a war for freedom. The freedom to own slaves.
I wonder how long before the iOS products are relegated to 10% marketshare like their desktop offerings are.
Way to troll. It's profit per unit. Market share is irrelevant. Googzilla is trying to be McDonald's, cheap and crappy, and with a big sandpaper dick right up everyone's ass. Nah. Fuck Google. They're Former Lord Bill's wet dream come true.
How is it that a politician is reviewing the evidence in an ongoing police case and furthermore, commenting on it in public? In most civilized countries that would be cause for an investigation into the police,
And exactly why shouldn't an Icelander comment on a Swedish investigation?
if there had never been a profitability aspect of the internet it would not have become as big and powerful as it is now.
That's interesting, because there never was a profitability aspect to the Internet.
Allow me to drag up a popular quote from 2001 (Taming the Wild, Wild Web from July 26, 2001 LA Times). It's a great time to revisit that article, since even then the foundations of Net Discrimination were being laid.
Telcom consultant, Thomas Nolle said:
The Internet is an important cultural phenomenon, but that doesn't excuse its failure to comply with basic economic laws. The problem is that it was devised by a bunch of hippie anarchists who didn't have a strong profit motive. But this is a business, not a government-sponsored network.
Let's not make any bones about this. This anti-neutrality movement started with the dot-com boom when the telcoms become no longer content in their roles as a utility, but now wanted to extract commission from everyone using the wires. This is no different if PG&E wanted to a cut for everything a factory made, because PG&E's electricity is being used for someone else's profit.
We've seen the world of dumb ends and smart wires. It was bad old days of Ma Bell. We would not have seen the growth and revolution that the Internet has given if the entrenched monied establishment. Like all businesses, they do no want competition. They do no want change. They want everything to remain the same, except for the prices, which always go higher. They want control, of each and everyone of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Enlightenment still exists? Whoa. You have to hand it to Rasterman. He pretty much changed they way people thought of customization. Thankfully themes have pretty much gone away (or at least the themes craze), but the (pseudo)transparent terminals are here to stay.
Funny, I always thought Havoc Pennington, while Miguel was off getting pointlessly masturbating to C#.
If that really worked, everybody would be doing it already.
Tell that to Dick Fosbury.
The researcher seems to expect ball players to gamble with every such run, betting their play on what the researcher thinks is "almost certain".
If you've hit in the gap it's clear you're going to get a double. Everyone knows that.
That means that, while trying to hit the ball, the player must know the tactics and maximum speeds of all the opponent fielders. I don't think that's going to happen.
If only they had scouts and game film, and played like 162 games.
In all seriousness, you've never watched a sporting event at any level have you?
Hate to break it to you but the tea party formed way before any politician or media outlet even knew what it was. The original organizers even banned Republican politicians from speaking at the first meets.
That's why former house majority leader Dick Armey is their leader.
The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.
Huh? While that may be true for some groups. Saying only hermits are "real Christians" is absurd, and quite prideful.
Anyway, why are you on the Internet> There are bare ankles on this network!
No, it's not ironic as people automatically hold them to higher standards for exactly that reason.
And with the Catholic church, even pathetically low standards can't be met.
Spoken like someone who has never even flown over rural America.
What presents them from moving? A lack of money.
It actually costs quite a bit of money to move, epsecially to a desirable location. I don't know too many people that could afford to move from Buffalo County, South Dakota to say Santa Clara County, California. I mean simply paying the movers, finding a home, and rocking until a job is found. That's not cheap. And that's not even accounting for the costs of leaving your entire social network. Add in the fact that the poor typically have lower education and less skills, they aren't exactly going to stand out from the locals competing for same jobs. We're talking about people who live paycheck to paycheck. Save? How? By cutting it down to one meal small meal a day? We have a negative savings rate in this country for a reason.
"Free to keep on doing whatever they were doing before the plant opened"? So welfare? Do you think that rural folks are too "simple" (i.e. stupid) to realize that they're getting screwed? Of course the realize it. It's just that it is marginally better than the status quo. No one aspires to work the double shift at Walmart, but you do it because you don't have any other option. No one says, "I really want to work at some death trap like a Massey Energy coal mine," but they do because that's the only job around. Throw a drowning man a plutonium life preserver, and he'll take it everytime.
No; no, they would have. It would have been a good thing, long term, for the automotive industry and transportation in general. They'd have had restructuring - firings, in part, but also re-examination of their design processes and the like to try to save money/improve the designs. The "brand" would suffer, as would their bottom line, as they went from 'shiney crap at inflated prices' to 'well made dull stuff at cheaper prices'
Restructuring? Well golly! It sounds like you're talking about a bankruptcy. Gee. If only they thought of that. Well fuck. they did!
1) While the private sector will frequently lie, it tends to result in nothing but negative outcomes for the company in question (long term).
Good thing Philip Morris, err I mean Altria, is out of business. Oh wait. they're not. How about Union Carbide, I mean Dow Chemical? Gee. They're doing just fine too. How about AIG? They're still around, as are all the rating agencies and the investment firms. At least BP came clean about about how bad the oil leak was. But, wait they didn't did they? Well I'm sure someone lied and didn't make a handsome profit doing so!
Seriously dude, you've asserted this, but history just doesn't back you up.
It is financially not in their interest to lie to frequently, as this creates long-term brand distrust
No. It's not in their interest to get caught, and even then market share, substantial cash reserves, and quick rebranding campaign, and everything is back to as it was. The public has a very short attention span when it comes to scandals. At worse what happens is some the "few bad apples" are spun off along with all their liabilities, while the "independent" parent company keeps the profits since the bad apples had to buy themselves out of the parent.
Furthermore, the government is there to keep them in check, and is constantly busting knuckles due to private sector lies (unless there is money involved for them, of course).
Wow. You really haven't been paying attention have you? When is money not involved?
2) The point is that government rarely doesn't lie.
Again an assertion.
It's like the tag says: they're lying because they're government owned and operated now.
And we all know private sector never lies!
That, and they're GM: one of the best examples of incompetence screwing over good concept and design to result in a bad products since... uh, well, quite a while.
Good thing they're "government operated," because they surely wouldn't have gone bankrupt with capitalists running the company!
Buy a gas/diesel car. If you are going on long trips regularly, then you are better off doing this.
Okay.
Buy/rent a trailer with the generator. Seriously, if you need a range extender say once a year, then simply rent a trailer that has the ability to provide the electricity. Of course, the car has to be rigged for that.
Which of course kills all your endurance, since the cars aren't designed to haul a load.
Buy a car that has fast charge.
Which are sold where? The Unicorn Stagecoach store? Seriously. These things simply don't exist.
One out of three. Good enough for the Baseball Hall of Fame, and apparently good enough for /.
The hybrid is a transitional technology that only exists because... there isn't an infrastructure for plug-in electric cars. There are no quick charge batteries. There are no battery changing stations. There are no cars that support battery changers. And the number of places where you can plug in your electric car can be counted on one hand. Seriously, I know of exactly three places where I could plug in an electric car. The engineering parking garage at UCSC, downtown Berkeley, and SFO. What's notably missing? My apartment. Drive your electric car to work, and you can't charge it. Drive your electric car to the store, and you can't charge it.
That's what Seinfeld's Dad said in Independence Day
No. he doesn't. Taxi driver, Alex Reiger says that.
for a second thought this had something to do with movies since it mentioned Michael Mann.
Well that sounds like a personal problem. Perhaps you were thinking of Michael Moore?
You must have a very large penis.
How are you getting it to record with Myth?
Because collusion is by definition something done for the purpose of taking illegal action. That is the definition of the word collude. If one is not cooperating for the purpose of committing illegal action, it isn't collusion. Or to put it another way, if what you are doing isn't illegal, it isn't collusion.
You're really sticking to a very limited definition of "collusion," but let's look at how it's used. Specifically what are those "illegal actions." One "colludes" to manipulate prices. One "colludes" to maintain market share. One does not "collude" to rob a bank a bank, or kill someone. Those are "conspiracies." That's very telling. You're not examining what your defending and instead simply arguing from authority, the logical fallacy endemic to all conservative thought.
And that is why you hate Freedom.
Because collusion is by definition something done for the purpose of taking illegal action.
So you're saying it's just a gussied up word? Fine. But aren't acts not agreements (i.e. actually executing the agreement, as opposed to just saying "Yeah, lets do this.") really what's illegal? One is just words and ideas. And words and ideas don't hurt anyone. By supporting "collusion" as a crime, you're supporting the criminalization of thoughts, and therefore are supporting Government intrusion, and the limitation of Freedom.
I say no rational system says that thoughts are a crime.
If you don't agree with this, you hate Freedom.
Don't try and pass the buck. We're whether the government should monitor private agreements between two businesses, in other words, run businesses. You already agree that collusion is wrong, or you wouldn't have said, "[T]here is no rational system that says [collusion] is something that you are free to do."
My question is why shouldn't you be free to collude, and now you're trying dodge it. So I'll ask it again: Why shouldn't two companies be free to collude?
Since by definition colluding (Collude: To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose) is an attempt to defraud or otherwise deceive, there is no rational system that says it is something that you are free to do. The problem with the OPs statement is that he assumes that what these companies were doing was collusion.
All you're doing is hiding behind a word. We're calling an agreement that two individuals freely and commit to in the running of their business "collusion," so it must be wrong! We call tying someone to a bed and then drowning them "enhanced interrogation" so it must not be torture!
Why shouldn't two people make any agreement they want? Why should the government tell someone how they can and can not run their business? Do you want Thought Police? No rational person would deal with someone defrauding him, so no one committing fraud would stay in business. The Free Market self-regulates! Why are you against freedom Attila Dimedici? I ask because your comments show that you are objectively pro-facist.
See how quickly tossing around the word "freedom" quickly degenerates any discussion into to Glenn Beck / Sean Hannity / Tea Party nonsense?
Collusion of any kind should never be allowed, as it distorts freedom and hurts consumers (and workers).
What? "Distorts freedom?" What about the freedom to collude?
That's the problem with tossing around nebulous concepts like freedom, like it's some sort of absolute. It's the tactics of the lazy. I don't have to justify the results of my actions, because I'm for FREEDOM! If you're against me, you hate FREEDOM! What's freedom? Doing what I want, when I want, no matter what. If you want do something to you, that's freedom. If you want to stop me, you hate freedom. It's intellectual bullshit. Think about this: The Confederacy of fighting a war for freedom. The freedom to own slaves.
Name names.
But don't you know? Exploiting workers is moral! Not only is greed Good, but altruism is immoral!
>They're Former Lord Bill's wet dream come true.
Commodity computing that anyone can afford ?
Absolute control of users from cradle to grave?
I wonder how long before the iOS products are relegated to 10% marketshare like their desktop offerings are.
Way to troll. It's profit per unit. Market share is irrelevant. Googzilla is trying to be McDonald's, cheap and crappy, and with a big sandpaper dick right up everyone's ass. Nah. Fuck Google. They're Former Lord Bill's wet dream come true.
How is it that a politician is reviewing the evidence in an ongoing police case and furthermore, commenting on it in public? In most civilized countries that would be cause for an investigation into the police,
And exactly why shouldn't an Icelander comment on a Swedish investigation?
if there had never been a profitability aspect of the internet it would not have become as big and powerful as it is now.
That's interesting, because there never was a profitability aspect to the Internet.
Allow me to drag up a popular quote from 2001 (Taming the Wild, Wild Web from July 26, 2001 LA Times). It's a great time to revisit that article, since even then the foundations of Net Discrimination were being laid.
Telcom consultant, Thomas Nolle said:
Let's not make any bones about this. This anti-neutrality movement started with the dot-com boom when the telcoms become no longer content in their roles as a utility, but now wanted to extract commission from everyone using the wires. This is no different if PG&E wanted to a cut for everything a factory made, because PG&E's electricity is being used for someone else's profit.
We've seen the world of dumb ends and smart wires. It was bad old days of Ma Bell. We would not have seen the growth and revolution that the Internet has given if the entrenched monied establishment. Like all businesses, they do no want competition. They do no want change. They want everything to remain the same, except for the prices, which always go higher. They want control, of each and everyone of us.