You are condemned to eternal disappointment. No matter how thickly you lay on the sarcasm there will be at least one Slashdotter who will miss it (and let's not discuss irony at all).
> Figure it out yourselves or we'll sue you for one billyun dollars!
That is exactly the situation Google would be in were it not for the DMCA Safe Harbor clause (except, of course, there would be no YouTube. And no low-cost Web hosting. And no blogs.)
Owning and maintaining all that fiber is costing Google money. Even if they are not paying anything to other providers for handling YouTube traffic it is using bandwidth on their own fiber that they could otherwise sell or use for something else.
Nor should they, nor should they give you credit for citing Britannica or any other secondary source. You should only cite primary sources. Fortunately, Wikipedia provides links to them.
It's too soon to standardize this. We don't yet know what will be optimum voltages, currents, or charging times. Might turn out to be better to use DC or high frequency AC and an inductive scheme.
I doubt that they seriously expected China to exempt them from censorship. They just felt they had to make the gesture. This way Google can say "We tried to work something out" while China looks inflexible.
Slashdot Mirror
A hub can handle that with no other traffic. Now hook up two more computers and try for two 400mbps streams at once.
I guess that explains why soldiers never wear camoflage. After all, they can see you with infrared, so why not wear blaze orange?
> it just tells us that lots of things can be deformed into spheres and gives
> us a simple test for determining if something can.
3-spheres ("ordinary" spheres are 2-spheres). Equivalent results have existed for all other spheres for some time.
> I expected more from you, Slashdot!
You are condemned to eternal disappointment. No matter how thickly you lay on the sarcasm there will be at least one Slashdotter who will miss it (and let's not discuss irony at all).
Nothing interesting. The light would collapse the wave function.
> No, actually it's a *good* thing our legal system won't let you file rants
> and PR puff pieces as legal responses.
Actually it will, but the judge will make you _really_ wish you hadn't.
> Figure it out yourselves or we'll sue you for one billyun dollars!
That is exactly the situation Google would be in were it not for the DMCA Safe Harbor clause (except, of course, there would be no YouTube. And no low-cost Web hosting. And no blogs.)
n/t
Owning and maintaining all that fiber is costing Google money. Even if they are not paying anything to other providers for handling YouTube traffic it is using bandwidth on their own fiber that they could otherwise sell or use for something else.
As Wikipedia is not a primary source your paper agreeing with it is irrelevant.
Nor should they, nor should they give you credit for citing Britannica or any other secondary source. You should only cite primary sources. Fortunately, Wikipedia provides links to them.
Because, of course, no one would ever lie about being X Company.
> Imagine the land amount all those oceans would free if dried up.
Imagine all the land that would become uninhabitable if the oceans dried up.
> These creatures probably depend on free oxygen to live, which comes from
> plant life on the unglaciated parts of the Earth's surface.
How did the oxygen get down there?
> VMWare Workstation if they want commercial support, or VirtualBox if they
> desire an open source solution.
You know very well that commercial support is available for Open Source.
Aren't those called "exploits"?
...when it is being built right into HTML?
It's too soon to standardize this. We don't yet know what will be optimum voltages, currents, or charging times. Might turn out to be better to use DC or high frequency AC and an inductive scheme.
I doubt that they seriously expected China to exempt them from censorship. They just felt they had to make the gesture. This way Google can say "We tried to work something out" while China looks inflexible.
> They'll just open a subsidiary in China and operate within the law.
They did. It was called Google.cn.
> How free is the market in China?
The market for what? Lots of different things are sold in China. For some the market is quite free. Others are controlled by government monopolies.
> I mean this as a genuine question: why is the US so far behind Europe in
> this?
Because the USA was far ahead of adopting cheques to begin with.
Wire transfers are readily available here but I rarely use them. Why should I?
...the Orient Express?
> ...considering where we are, in relation to other inhabited patches of the
> universe, that is no surprise to me
And you are keeping your knowledge of the locations of these inhabited patches secret for what reason?
> And how can electrons kill without current?
You can call them "high-energy beta particles" if it makes you more comfortable.