I already stated that, making your post redundant. Let me state it again. It WILL still cost the same amount. The difference is that the FCC would have to get approval to spend this amount from Congress, which will not be happy about it (and therefore possibly drive them to find either a cheaper alternative or take a hard look at *why* it is needed.
Why doesn't the FCC pay for it? I bet that will get them to have some common sense. I of course realise this means that the cost will still be the same or more. What it will also do is raise more congressional concern as the FCC will have to request that amount.
Yet another company purchasing another completely unrelated company simply because they feel the need to dump their cash somewhere. In te end, one company always ends up dragging the other down.
I'm still shocked at what my high school district did (I only attended there my senior year). Instead of running fiber to each school for net access and meshing them for the WAN, they decided to build very large directional radio transmitters on towers at every building in the district. At *one* of these sites, the WAN is linked to an outside line (I believe it was only something like a T1 for the entire district). At the board meeting which I attended, the board members apparently believed that this solution is scalable at a low cost and will allow full video conferencing throughout the district. I tried not to laugh.
Thanks, that is exactly what I meant. I could have spent an hour finding all the exact figures, but the results would be the same. I was using the numbers for scale. It wouldn't matter if therewere 1000 seats of 9000, it is still a very tiny portion of the population.
Take any movie of any size and have screenings in 10 cities. It WILL sell out. With ~300M people and lets say 1000 seats, it is not hard to find a few people excited to see it.
"There will be no discussion of the matters raised in the linked article above here. As puppy18 has said, this is a support forum.
Any threads about this will be deleted. This is NOT an attempt to stop news or prevent discussion - it really is the case that this forum just is not the place for such a discussion to happen. "
"In addition, a 1 per cent sales tax would be placed on Internet services and new computers -- two industries that many argue have profited enormously from rampant file-sharing, but haven't had to compensate artists."
Most of their revenue wouldn't be coming from the songs, it would come from the tax this would create.
I may have come off a bit harsh on that. I agree that Firefox doesn't require technical knowledge. What it does require is the ability to adapt to change. I know a lot of people who are unable to make the transition from AOL to broadband because they can't figure out (even with extensive training) how to use IE or Outlook Express. Change is simply too difficlt.
...and I will say it again. There's a catch22 with the whole situation. Users dumb enough to have lots of spyware and other crap installed are usually unable to understand how to use Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing I have ever liked abut the MRE was the strawberry? jelly that was found on occassion. Everything else is horrible.
The gum was the only good thing inside a MRE (other than the rare bag of Skittles).
I already stated that, making your post redundant. Let me state it again. It WILL still cost the same amount. The difference is that the FCC would have to get approval to spend this amount from Congress, which will not be happy about it (and therefore possibly drive them to find either a cheaper alternative or take a hard look at *why* it is needed.
Why doesn't the FCC pay for it? I bet that will get them to have some common sense. I of course realise this means that the cost will still be the same or more. What it will also do is raise more congressional concern as the FCC will have to request that amount.
"Exactly correct. Even LEXX was better than some of those listed."
Wow, that's harsh!
One report is almost meaningless. Take a look at ALL the reports and see which way things are looking.
Yet another company purchasing another completely unrelated company simply because they feel the need to dump their cash somewhere. In te end, one company always ends up dragging the other down.
I'm still shocked at what my high school district did (I only attended there my senior year). Instead of running fiber to each school for net access and meshing them for the WAN, they decided to build very large directional radio transmitters on towers at every building in the district. At *one* of these sites, the WAN is linked to an outside line (I believe it was only something like a T1 for the entire district). At the board meeting which I attended, the board members apparently believed that this solution is scalable at a low cost and will allow full video conferencing throughout the district. I tried not to laugh.
Thanks, that is exactly what I meant. I could have spent an hour finding all the exact figures, but the results would be the same. I was using the numbers for scale. It wouldn't matter if therewere 1000 seats of 9000, it is still a very tiny portion of the population.
Take any movie of any size and have screenings in 10 cities. It WILL sell out. With ~300M people and lets say 1000 seats, it is not hard to find a few people excited to see it.
I posted it, i'm not saying it was entirely unreasonable. The fact of the matter is that it was the only place to discuss it anywhere on the site.
as posted by "Podz" on the Wodpress forums.
"There will be no discussion of the matters raised in the linked article above here. As puppy18 has said, this is a support forum.
Any threads about this will be deleted.
This is NOT an attempt to stop news or prevent discussion - it really is the case that this forum just is not the place for such a discussion to happen. "
You forgot to mention how much disc space the analysis files take.
"In addition, a 1 per cent sales tax would be placed on Internet services and new computers -- two industries that many argue have profited enormously from rampant file-sharing, but haven't had to compensate artists."
Most of their revenue wouldn't be coming from the songs, it would come from the tax this would create.
This news is at least 2 or 3 days old, what's wrong with /. lately???
"Like usual it was spread by e-mails"
No, it was spread by stupid users.
That is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard. There is something worse than reality tv!
I may have come off a bit harsh on that. I agree that Firefox doesn't require technical knowledge. What it does require is the ability to adapt to change. I know a lot of people who are unable to make the transition from AOL to broadband because they can't figure out (even with extensive training) how to use IE or Outlook Express. Change is simply too difficlt.
...and I will say it again. There's a catch22 with the whole situation. Users dumb enough to have lots of spyware and other crap installed are usually unable to understand how to use Firefox.
Would you happen to have any proof of this? Contact me at the website shown if you'd like. I'd be interested in seeing some of this.
here's a mirror...at least until my bandwidth is raped
t tp://www.sarcasticdwarf.com/page_1_book.jpg
http://www.sarcasticdwarf.com/cover_book.jpg
h
Yeah, when they found out that a vote was tallied for Bush regardless of what was pressed, it was passed!
Does anyone know if there is something similar to Mankind out there? I played that game for 3 years before I quit out of disgust.
Yet another invention that those of us who are colorblind can't use.
So this is where the traffic has been comming from. It really is too bad ibdb.com was already taken, grrr.