All monopolies are theoretically cheaper. They don't have to waste money on marketing, and can dictate terms to their suppliers. I can't think of any industries where competition drives down the cost of production; I don't know what you mean by an "upscale" restaurant. It helps not to make up words when you're trying to make a point.
No, the reason you can't build a fiber ring in your small town is because you're a penniless hippy who nobody in their right mind would lend millions of dollars to. If you had the resources to compete with the cartel, you'd be a member of it.
Free markets are a charming childhood fiction, like Santa Claus, the Easter bunny or male-friendly lesbians. Once you grow up, you realize that there's no such creature.
We're taking advice from a company that gives its product away, and (despite amusing claims to the contrary) is still living on the proceeds of a huge IPO that was based on... giving its product away.
Personally I'd rather ask someone who's in the browser business, not an imminent footnote.
Free markets would work, but unfortunately they don't exist, at least not for long. The inevitable state for a mature market is monopoly or cartel, and the price of freedom is eternal regulation.
You think judges don't know where the money for their yachts and golf carts comes from? You might as well ask for the gavels out of their hands, and their mistresses' and rent boys' phone numbers, while you're at it.
Getting the code into publishable shape takes time and manpower
ORLY? I would have thought it'd take, what, 5 minutes to publish the same source that's already been shared[*]. Since that's the code that's causing them concern, they'd only harm themselves by trying to massage it before publishing.
[* Copying information is "sharing", right, not theft?]
Let me spell it out for you. This phone was not "found in a bar". That's an absolutely risible explanation, and only a cretin would give it a moment's credence. You're not a cretin, are you?
It was stolen from Apple, by or from an employee, and sold to the highest bidder.
Gizmondo bought these stolen goods from the thief, directly or indirectly. Is that ethical? No way, no how? Is it legal? I'm thinking not, even if you accept their incredible story: "found" property is still not the "finders" to sell. Will Apple take action against them? Now, that's where we fetch the popcorn.
This was likely agreed on a handshake back in nineteen-dickety-six. Heck, the guy has probably got a fishing boat and a lifetime's supply of Cubans (cigars, gardeners, whatever) written into his pension.
When a sentence begins with something like this, it's written by either a troll, a political tool, or a honest to goodness moron. Which one are you?
Sir, you insult me. I have been multitasking online since before there was an online.
So in short, the 5th amendment has no meaning. You can only refuse to answer if you're guilty, and the jury knows that, so it's as good as a confession.
Well, it took you long enough to get there, but I'm glad we're on the same page at last.
They still mop up handsomely collecting settlements.
That's actually better for them, since the money goes directly to the lawyers that run them, skipping the usual retail and middlemen that parasite off of their business (making meat puppets mime in order to transfer money from teens to lawyers).
Based on this research, it would appear that women are better at cooking and talking on the phone. Gasps of surprise, and film at 11, probably something with Renee Zellweger being charmingly quirky.
"95% of games sold[*] are rewarmed sequels or annual rehashes, and play times are getting shorter and shorter. Most demos will only serve to highlight how stale the gameplay actually is, while giving away proportionately more and more of the content. Our target market of sequel-monkeys is going to buy the next iteration of our franchise anyway - a demo can only serve to dissuade them from doing so."
[*] For the hard of understanding, 95% of games sold does not mean 95% of games developed. There are original games out there, and demos serve them well. But the majority of purchases - i.e. the big money - is not in original, risky games. It's in selling the next hit of the crack pipe.
Now, bleeding heart hippy liberals (hello, Slashdot!) think that means that you can refuse to answer any question, but that's not a protection afforded you by the Bill of Rights. Your only protection is against being compelled to make a statement which would incriminate yourself.
Thus, if you are asked a question of the form "Did you take pictures of nekkid kids?" then you can invoke the Fifth. However, if you are asked "Only you and Bob could have taken the pictures? Which one of you did it?" then you can only refuse to answer if you did it. If Bob did it, then you have no Fifth Amendment protection, and you must incriminate Bob, or be held in contempt. If you refuse to answer, a jury draw inference from your refusal. The Bill of Rights offers you no protection from that.
IANAL either, but I can't see why saying "Fifth Amendment" is some sort of required magic ritual. Surely right exists regardless of whether you speak of it, or even know of it?
Better data (some of them are very nearly human), cheaper (they supply their own meth) and fewer repercussions since PETA care far more about sheep than about the inhabitants of Crackhead Penitentiary.
Slashdot Mirror
All monopolies are theoretically cheaper. They don't have to waste money on marketing, and can dictate terms to their suppliers. I can't think of any industries where competition drives down the cost of production; I don't know what you mean by an "upscale" restaurant. It helps not to make up words when you're trying to make a point.
No, the reason you can't build a fiber ring in your small town is because you're a penniless hippy who nobody in their right mind would lend millions of dollars to. If you had the resources to compete with the cartel, you'd be a member of it.
Free markets are a charming childhood fiction, like Santa Claus, the Easter bunny or male-friendly lesbians. Once you grow up, you realize that there's no such creature.
We're taking advice from a company that gives its product away, and (despite amusing claims to the contrary) is still living on the proceeds of a huge IPO that was based on... giving its product away.
Personally I'd rather ask someone who's in the browser business, not an imminent footnote.
"like" seems somewhat redundant.
Free markets would work, but unfortunately they don't exist, at least not for long. The inevitable state for a mature market is monopoly or cartel, and the price of freedom is eternal regulation.
You think judges don't know where the money for their yachts and golf carts comes from? You might as well ask for the gavels out of their hands, and their mistresses' and rent boys' phone numbers, while you're at it.
ORLY? I would have thought it'd take, what, 5 minutes to publish the same source that's already been shared[*]. Since that's the code that's causing them concern, they'd only harm themselves by trying to massage it before publishing.
[* Copying information is "sharing", right, not theft?]
Let me spell it out for you. This phone was not "found in a bar". That's an absolutely risible explanation, and only a cretin would give it a moment's credence. You're not a cretin, are you?
It was stolen from Apple, by or from an employee, and sold to the highest bidder.
Gizmondo bought these stolen goods from the thief, directly or indirectly. Is that ethical? No way, no how? Is it legal? I'm thinking not, even if you accept their incredible story: "found" property is still not the "finders" to sell. Will Apple take action against them? Now, that's where we fetch the popcorn.
And they "got" it from whom? Directly from Larry Lightfingers, or via Frankie the Fence?
J'accuse: they're dealing in stolen property, and they know it, or should know it. But ethics be damned, because ZOMG IPHOAAAN!!!!11! Right?
Even in public? Photography or journalism must be a risky occupation then.
But as we're constantly being told, File Sharers == Hackers == Organized Crime == Drug Lords == Kiddie Pornographers == TEH TERRARISTS!!!!!1!!!
How about we use that line of... "reasoning"... for good for once?
This was likely agreed on a handshake back in nineteen-dickety-six. Heck, the guy has probably got a fishing boat and a lifetime's supply of Cubans (cigars, gardeners, whatever) written into his pension.
Sir, you insult me. I have been multitasking online since before there was an online.
Well, it took you long enough to get there, but I'm glad we're on the same page at last.
Oh, please, there will be exemptions for "sensitive Government and Commercial systems". The pee never flows uphill.
That's actually better for them, since the money goes directly to the lawyers that run them, skipping the usual retail and middlemen that parasite off of their business (making meat puppets mime in order to transfer money from teens to lawyers).
Based on this research, it would appear that women are better at cooking and talking on the phone. Gasps of surprise, and film at 11, probably something with Renee Zellweger being charmingly quirky.
The death toll from 9/11 was under 3000. 1500 Americans die from anaphylactic shock every year .
Seriously, without a hint of hyperbole, we - and Congress and the White House - should be more concerned about the threat from wasps than terrorists.
"95% of games sold[*] are rewarmed sequels or annual rehashes, and play times are getting shorter and shorter. Most demos will only serve to highlight how stale the gameplay actually is, while giving away proportionately more and more of the content. Our target market of sequel-monkeys is going to buy the next iteration of our franchise anyway - a demo can only serve to dissuade them from doing so."
[*] For the hard of understanding, 95% of games sold does not mean 95% of games developed. There are original games out there, and demos serve them well. But the majority of purchases - i.e. the big money - is not in original, risky games. It's in selling the next hit of the crack pipe.
The point of the article is that if they suck hard enough, then they also blow.
Terrorists, OK, but what are their plans for the Deep Crows?
Correct! You win an Internets.
The only protection afforded by the Fifth is that No person [...] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself .
Now, bleeding heart hippy liberals (hello, Slashdot!) think that means that you can refuse to answer any question, but that's not a protection afforded you by the Bill of Rights. Your only protection is against being compelled to make a statement which would incriminate yourself.
Thus, if you are asked a question of the form "Did you take pictures of nekkid kids?" then you can invoke the Fifth. However, if you are asked "Only you and Bob could have taken the pictures? Which one of you did it?" then you can only refuse to answer if you did it. If Bob did it, then you have no Fifth Amendment protection, and you must incriminate Bob, or be held in contempt. If you refuse to answer, a jury draw inference from your refusal. The Bill of Rights offers you no protection from that.
IANAL either, but I can't see why saying "Fifth Amendment" is some sort of required magic ritual. Surely right exists regardless of whether you speak of it, or even know of it?
Better data (some of them are very nearly human), cheaper (they supply their own meth) and fewer repercussions since PETA care far more about sheep than about the inhabitants of Crackhead Penitentiary.
Those tools are called "developers" and mature people use them to earn productivity bonuses which they spend on boats, Bollinger and blow.
Hey, hey, why skip over India, where the best 'Japanese' motorcycles are made?