Google are providing a service. Microsoft have written software to access that service. Google say the way the Microsoft software is accessing the service is against the terms of use for the service.
This is superb. No mod points but take my thanks. However does Steve Forbes really think the US should go back on the gold standard? No sane person thinks this, surely?
Where you have wired/cable/fibre connections, someone needs to pay for getting it to your house, and I'm fucked if I'm paying Richard Branson 25 grand for the privilege. Like the National Grid, it's a common good that should be equally available to everybody, irrespective of location or income.
Why, precisely, should telecoms companies be able to make money out of literal thin air?
I agree. Amusingly, the government have made money "out of thin air" with selling off mobile spectrum.:) And they generate money out of thin air with quantitative easing.
Frankly, in view of the recent alternatives, with posh twats like Tony Blair and Cunt Cameron growing ever richer through diligently applied selfishness and amorality, yes.
The personal finances of the PM and any ex-PMs is not as relevant as their actions when in office.
That is the case right now, or at least it was in 2009, and I don't see how it could possibly have changed so dramatically as you assert in a few years. I think you're repeating propaganda straight from the Telegraph.
I have never read the Telegraph. Please don't sink to that level. The waiting lists for phones back in the GPO's day was greater than it is now. I say weeks but maybe I should have said months. I never waited weeks for my phone connection in 2008. It was done within 7 days. And had I decided to use the cable provider then I'd have had one much quicker. Being able to choose your provider isn't possible with a state-owned monopoly.
I don't know what UK you live in, but I pay an outrageous price for the maximum sync speed my connection can handle: 1Mbps. There are many people in the same situation, and our country has fallen far behind much of the rest of the world (even Australia now) in terms of speeds and value for money. The national average "broadband" speed is equivalent to that of a domestic connection in Stockholm of 1996. There is no planned resolution of such abysmal speeds, there is only heel-dragging and claims that "people don't want such speeds" from BT. We, the consumers, have lost entirely. BT only makes (very marginal) improvements when forced to by regulators. Competition has nothing to do with it.
Competition has a great deal to do with it. We're in a bad situation with regards to BT and its place in the market.
By the way, closed shops are a vital component of a free market. Secondary action is too, but to a lesser extent. Please do try to deny it; you'll show yourself up as even more of a dogmatist.
I am not for unfettered laissez-faire business practices.
The public have never owned any mobile network infrastructure. The government are selling licences to use a particular part of the spectrum.
If you want to go back to the bad old days of waiting weeks for a phone then feel free to do so, but elsewhere, not in the UK. Telecoms is without doubt one of the most successful privatisations. BT was challenged by competition and had to up its game in all areas. We, the consumers, won and moribund management lost out.
Do you pine for the days of union closed shops and secondary action too?
Must say it took a little while for me to work out that they meant to say "speak for" instead if "speak to". The English is so clunky any humour kind of got lost anyway. "I can't say if it works or not" would.have been shorter and clearer.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah he is a total saint. If he had any reasonable morals he would do something. Which he doesn't.
Shit waste of money that should go on making radio and TV programmes.
Is the BBC public sector? That is an interesting idea. It is not taxpayer funded. It is licence fee funded.
That is probably as good as you could hope for in such a car on a commute.
Thank you! I thought Americans didn't do sarcasm but you, sir, are shining proof of the contrary. :-)
Google are providing a service. Microsoft have written software to access that service. Google say the way the Microsoft software is accessing the service is against the terms of use for the service.
Does this explain it for you?
I was thinking more Peer Gynt Suite Nr. 1 op 46 Morgenstimmung
This isn't funny and it doesn't work like that. I would say try again, but please don't bother.
This is superb. No mod points but take my thanks. However does Steve Forbes really think the US should go back on the gold standard? No sane person thinks this, surely?
Where you have wired/cable/fibre connections, someone needs to pay for getting it to your house, and I'm fucked if I'm paying Richard Branson 25 grand for the privilege. Like the National Grid, it's a common good that should be equally available to everybody, irrespective of location or income.
Why, precisely, should telecoms companies be able to make money out of literal thin air?
I agree. Amusingly, the government have made money "out of thin air" with selling off mobile spectrum. :)
And they generate money out of thin air with quantitative easing.
Frankly, in view of the recent alternatives, with posh twats like Tony Blair and Cunt Cameron growing ever richer through diligently applied selfishness and amorality, yes.
The personal finances of the PM and any ex-PMs is not as relevant as their actions when in office.
That is the case right now, or at least it was in 2009, and I don't see how it could possibly have changed so dramatically as you assert in a few years. I think you're repeating propaganda straight from the Telegraph.
I have never read the Telegraph. Please don't sink to that level.
The waiting lists for phones back in the GPO's day was greater than it is now. I say weeks but maybe I should have said months.
I never waited weeks for my phone connection in 2008. It was done within 7 days. And had I decided to use the cable provider then I'd have had one much quicker.
Being able to choose your provider isn't possible with a state-owned monopoly.
I don't know what UK you live in, but I pay an outrageous price for the maximum sync speed my connection can handle: 1Mbps. There are many people in the same situation, and our country has fallen far behind much of the rest of the world (even Australia now) in terms of speeds and value for money. The national average "broadband" speed is equivalent to that of a domestic connection in Stockholm of 1996. There is no planned resolution of such abysmal speeds, there is only heel-dragging and claims that "people don't want such speeds" from BT. We, the consumers, have lost entirely. BT only makes (very marginal) improvements when forced to by regulators. Competition has nothing to do with it.
Competition has a great deal to do with it. We're in a bad situation with regards to BT and its place in the market.
By the way, closed shops are a vital component of a free market. Secondary action is too, but to a lesser extent. Please do try to deny it; you'll show yourself up as even more of a dogmatist.
I am not for unfettered laissez-faire business practices.
The public have never owned any mobile network infrastructure.
The government are selling licences to use a particular part of the spectrum.
If you want to go back to the bad old days of waiting weeks for a phone then feel free to do so, but elsewhere, not in the UK. Telecoms is without doubt one of the most successful privatisations. BT was challenged by competition and had to up its game in all areas. We, the consumers, won and moribund management lost out.
Do you pine for the days of union closed shops and secondary action too?
And some wonder why people vote for Alex Salmond...!
Yeah. You forgot Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. ;-)
Um..websites wouldn't exist without Sir Tim! You may mean Marc's addition. :-)
If I had mod points for "funny"...
Speaking of people imagining things..here's IQ as a meaningful measure of intelligence again!
You know, I don't even like Apple and their stupid lock-in, and I won't buy their products. But you are right.
Must say it took a little while for me to work out that they meant to say "speak for" instead if "speak to". The English is so clunky any humour kind of got lost anyway.
"I can't say if it works or not" would.have been shorter and clearer.
Nice, but hand me downs aren't sold by Walmart. It is a good example of reuse of consumer goods.
True enough. My mother flew out on holiday to New Zealand in 2003 and I am sure the Wrights beat her to it.
Why should everyone know what SDL is? You assume it is relevant to everyone.
The famous hacker/sportsman.
What a superb idea!
Oh god that is the funniest thing I have read for ages. Thank you. :-)