> BUT because Comcast operates a virtual monopoly...
Not a virtual monopoly: a government-created and protected one. Try to get permission to string cable to compete with them in a jurisdiction where they have a "franchise". The free market is deliberately crippled in the case of cable companies.
Which, being under the control of bots, will pass the information on to the masters in Ukraine who will download templates for suitable viruses which will be passed on to the nanobots which will synthesize them and infect you. The botmasters will then blackmail you for the cure.
The correct question is "Should children be rewarded for doing well in school?" "Bribed" has severe negative connotations: its use is clearly intended to provoke hostility.
How representative of the stuff that actually gets large numbers of hits are your examples? Inefficient transmission of a noisy, poorly-lit video of some kid complaining about his life is unimportant if it only gets downloaded nine times.
> However I'm at a loss as to how packing them closer together would make any > difference whatsoever.
High density combined with cultural uniformity means that everyone is interested in the same stuff and so they are all more likely to read the same paper.
What was foolish was attempting to come up with an algorithmic definition of planet instead of accepting that a planet (in our solar system) is any one of the nine objects on the list of planets.
> Although I hear diebold does better with ATM's, I can't help but wonder how > much effort they put into ATM security versus the voting machine fiasco.
Probably completely unrelated. They got into the voting machine business by purchasing a company that was showing a prototype and then rushing the prototype into production without bothering to develop an actual product. That says a lot (none of it good) about their top management, but nothing about the people in their ATM division.
They eventually dumped the voting machine business, and it is possible that they learned from the experience.
> Neither stands a chance of getting in this time, so a vote for them would be > wasted.
That line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that there is no point in voting at all in any election which is unlikely to be decided by a single vote since your vote cannot alter the outcome.
I'm not. It is extremely unlikely that the observable universe (14B lightyear radius) does not contain at least one species more technologically advanced than us.
Slashdot Mirror
> Why install a dense and costly sensor grid when you can... ...stick someone else with the bill.
> I'm hoping they'll get to Heinlein and Niven soon though...
Niven, as in the death penalty for speeding?
You've just described the entire Department of Homeland Security (and most of government, for that matter).
> BUT because Comcast operates a virtual monopoly...
Not a virtual monopoly: a government-created and protected one. Try to get permission to string cable to compete with them in a jurisdiction where they have a "franchise". The free market is deliberately crippled in the case of cable companies.
> If another site pretends to be me or tries to sell products that sound like ...you sue them for trademark infringement.
> my product...
> But in many, many, searches, there are going to be a hundred sites with
> roughly the same quality. In that case, I want the fastest to win.
I want the one that is ridiculously slow ranked last, but other than that I don't want speed to be considered.
> If there was an ISP between google and two webpages...
A big if. Google _is_ a backbone. Besides, when you find out you are being throttled you can move.
I expect that their paywall works perfectly on 99.9% of their users.
Mostly by causing them to give up and go elsewhere, of course.
> ...reporting to our home computers.
Which, being under the control of bots, will pass the information on to the masters in Ukraine who will download templates for suitable viruses which will be passed on to the nanobots which will synthesize them and infect you. The botmasters will then blackmail you for the cure.
The correct question is "Should children be rewarded for doing well in school?" "Bribed" has severe negative connotations: its use is clearly intended to provoke hostility.
And the answer is "Yes".
> I'm not holding my breath for this one.
Sorry to hear that. We were looking forward to seeing you turn blue again.
> No, it was not representative at all.
How representative of the stuff that actually gets large numbers of hits are your examples? Inefficient transmission of a noisy, poorly-lit video of some kid complaining about his life is unimportant if it only gets downloaded nine times.
> This suggests that you can still link to their front page...
Yes, but it appears that they still want you to ask for permission before doing so.
> However I'm at a loss as to how packing them closer together would make any
> difference whatsoever.
High density combined with cultural uniformity means that everyone is interested in the same stuff and so they are all more likely to read the same paper.
> I say we stick with the good an ancient definition of planets, which
> includes the Moon and the Sun, but not Uranus or Neptune.
And not the Earth.
I say we stick with the traditional nine, and define "planet" as an object on the list of planets.
What was foolish was attempting to come up with an algorithmic definition of planet instead of accepting that a planet (in our solar system) is any one of the nine objects on the list of planets.
> WATCH OUT, IT MAY HAVE WMD'S
If it had nukes it would be a star, not a brown dwarf.
Yes, in 100 years or less we may be able to make a robot probe that could get there.
> But you would have to get that DLL or SO there in the first place no?
Yes, but this is on Windows. The bot that controls your machine will already have installed all the standard malware libraries and utilities.
> Actually it affected Linux browsers too.
Only ones with Java enabled, something I've never needed.
> The new recommended term which looks to a more positive future is:
> "Presently Accreting Planets".
That's not so positive if you live on one.
> Although I hear diebold does better with ATM's, I can't help but wonder how
> much effort they put into ATM security versus the voting machine fiasco.
Probably completely unrelated. They got into the voting machine business by purchasing a company that was showing a prototype and then rushing the prototype into production without bothering to develop an actual product. That says a lot (none of it good) about their top management, but nothing about the people in their ATM division.
They eventually dumped the voting machine business, and it is possible that they learned from the experience.
> Neither stands a chance of getting in this time, so a vote for them would be
> wasted.
That line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that there is no point in voting at all in any election which is unlikely to be decided by a single vote since your vote cannot alter the outcome.
The griefers will love it.
> i'm half joking
I'm not. It is extremely unlikely that the observable universe (14B lightyear radius) does not contain at least one species more technologically advanced than us.