Well, one probable side effect of the rapid and dirty expansion of Chinese manufacturing is the poisoning of their people and their children which will accelerate the development of the country and ultimately improvement in environmental standards as those living at the bottom of the ladder die young from cancers, toxic levels of heavy metals in the blood, and other pollution related health consequences and leave behind a smaller core of healthier and wealthier citizens to clean up the mess once they are developed and start caring more about such things.
There is no chance of an anti-monarchy revolt. All Thais, without exception, revere the King.
This is very true. In fact, if a foreigner were to so much as deface a picture of the king in public view he would very likely be set upon by a mob of angry Siamese and be beaten to death. The king only rarely intervenes directly in the political process and he could quell the protests and reform the government instantly with merely a word, but he has been reluctant to do that because he has worked diligently for many years now to promote democratic government and the intervention of the king, even one as revered as himself, would necessarily undermine that goal.
The problem is that countries are sovereign and can do whatever they please and it would be a very hard sell politically to get everyone in the US behind an environmental standards ban on "dirty" imports and even then the Chinese would cheat as they are already doing right now to get around the inspectors employed by the garment industry to ensure that clothing is not produced in sweatshop conditions by children. It is my own personal opinion that at some point in the future, perhaps as soon as 2050 but certainly by the end of this century, there will be a massive spasm of violence as the human population on this planet adjusts to the consequences of the environmental destruction that it failed to prevent (Gore is right, we are entering a period of consequences, although I do not share his hope and belief that humanity can cooperate globally on solutions). The only ways out are potential technical solution(s) because you will never get the majority of the planet to voluntarily do anything, least of all cut back on consumption and production to prevent serious consequences from climate change. Technology offers an outside chance of a "painless" solution to the problem but failing that we can look forward to exxtreme droughts, massive wars over dwindling resources, and mass starvation of people presently living on the margins until the equilibrium carrying capacity of hotter and more arid Earth is reached.
The knowledge of basic computer use is fast becoming, if it has not already become, a requirement for any sort of office work or non-manual labor and is not so much preparation for a specialized career involving computers as much as it is general preparation for future employment. If students wish to specialize in software or computer engineering, programming, or some other career involving in depth knowledge of computational complexity, logic, and other selected topics in computer science or engineering then they should be encouraged to go on to study these fields in a university engineering program because CS or CE degree (rightly or wrongly) is used a resume filter when recruiters look to hire in those fields (i.e. no BS == no job in most cases). The basic high school course should focus on basic computer operation (file system, command line, Operating Systems - Linux, Networks, and understanding of basically how computers work) combined with typing which pays HUGE time dividends in college and at work when typing papers, e-mails, reports, etc. If there are advanced students in the class then they should be permitted, once they have completed the assigned work, to engage in self directed study of additional relevant topics (basic programming perhaps) that interest them under the direction of the teacher.
That is why we have radar. It seems like it would not be too difficult to install a radar (if one is not installed already) and have an onboard computer continually track objects, calculate orbital trajectories, and alert the crew and ground control if any piece of junk large enough to be tracked (above a configurable threshold) will intercept the imaginary sphere which contains the ISS.
Well, just like the final episode of TNG, the Star Trek Experience is now coming to an end as well. While other people might lament its passing I think that it might actually be better for the franchise if some (most perhaps?) of the sets and models were moved into a smaller exhibit (the SF museum in Seattle has been mentioned by others) with somewhat fewer rides and attractions in exchange for attracting more serious fans who made the trip just for the Star Trek exhibit and not just as another theme stop on their Las Vegas post-modern consumer fantasy vacation. The scale and money available in Las Vegas had its pluses (bigger areas, better rides, lots of costumed actors and staff extras) but of course it also brought with it some fairly obvious minuses (large crowds of half-interested and half-drunk tourists who either wanted to gawk and laugh at more serious fans or else hekcle the staff and get someone to speak out of character). Perhaps CF, Paramount, and the SF museuem can work something out. They could call it Star Trek The Experience: Phase II or something like that. Maybe Bill Gates could stand in for Locutus of Borg and his tractor beam could fail when the communications screen displays BSOD allowing the shuttle to "escape" into the exhibit (of course that wouldn't make for a very serious experience, but it would be funny).
Why not just warn people and tell them the truth? Most will heed the warning of professionals and those few that don't may be killed. Perhaps it is just me, but why shouldn't an adult be allowed to make his own decision? It is his life to risk or lose after all. All that you, as a State Emergency Representative, should have to do is to inform them of the facts and then offer them a ride out of the area if they want to leave but cannot otherwise make it. If they still want to stay after that, then I for one would have no problem leaving them behind even if I thought that they would likely be killed. The use of force to make that 1% leave is more repugnant than any other alternative IMHO, including leaving them to take their chances when I believe the odds are against them.
So don't dig them out or rescue them from their mistakes. If there is time for a warning and message to the effect of "we suggest that you leave, but if you choose not to then you are on your own" then nothing more is needed. People should not be forced, even if you think that their decision to stay is foolish; it is their life to lose after all. There might possibly be extenuating circumstances if they are obviously not of sound mind or have minor children, but in most cases adults should be allowed to make their own decisions.
The problem is that most of those things could have been accomplished for less money.
I defy anyone reading this to name a single government program that has NOT either failed to achieve its objectives OR achieved them without costing ridiculous amounts of money with gross inefficiencies and wastefulness. If you want to have the worst possible economic outcomes then have third parties (other people) spend the money of other third parties on yet different parties (which is what government does when it taxes and spends) with committees deciding on the details based upon how many jobs it will create in their district or whose reciprocal vote is needed on an unrelated issue or any number of other political horse trades thrown into the mix.
The situation would me much more in favor of the billing companies' and bank fee-income (like in USA) if it were driven purely by free market.
The European system has advantages, but there are disadvantages as well that may not be quite as obvious at first, but show up in the larger economic picture. In Europe it is more difficult to acquire financing for you small business or start up business because nobody wants to loan you any money, or at least not at a very attractive rate, unless you have been around for a long time and already have a large and successful business (in which case you wouldn't be looking for startup capital anyway). Personal loans are also more difficult to come by, the unemployment rate is higher (it is harder to fire someone, but that also makes it harder to find a job in the first place), and the costs of goods and services reflect the additional red tape experienced by businesses and producers with the possibility of reversed payments (up to two weeks later), cumbersome data privacy and liability laws (a two edged sword, protects consumers but makes for fewer firms and higher prices due to the regulatory burden of running a business), higher taxes, and other assorted impediments to the free market. The US has its problems, yes, but it is a mistake to believe that the grass is always greener in the European Union by way of comparison. It basically boils down to a question of what do we as a society want and how much are we willing to pay/give up to get it. I would argue that the Europeans have better privacy and (in some cases, not all) better routine health care, and better social safety net, but (and this is the kicker) they overpay for these benefits compared to what they get in return.
Why not try the Max Rebo Band (the one from Star Wars). I hear that they work cheap and give a two for one deal on geek weddings (Where did you find a girl geek anyway? They seem to be in very short supply...).
Vote Libertarian, support Ron Paul, and shovel out all of the shit. The only way to separate money from politics is to cut taxes, government spending, and government responsibilities down to the minimum (i.e. what is mandated by the Constitution and required by our modern society and NOTHING else). If there is no government power to spend massive quantities of money completely arbitrarily then the lobbyists will stop chasing our elected officials for what amounts to table scraps and get real jobs that actually contribute to the economy instead. You know, Obama spoke in his speach about the government saying, "well, you are on your own..." as if that were a bad thing when in fact that is exactly what the government should be doing, getting off our backs, out of our pockets, and generally out of our way. It certainly doesn't need to get any bigger than it already is, but Obama is planning to shift current spending (from the War to Great Society style programs) and then increase spending on top of that. Increased government spending on social programs, research and development, and education all sound really good until we all get the collective bill after the programs have failed to deliver on their promises and the high hopes fail to pan out. Of course, by then the advocates are long gone and our children are stuck with the bills and not much to show for it. My response to Obama and McCain is: please don't do that (but of course they will do it anyway...sigh).
the simple fact of the matter is that the telecom companies committed to deploying massive fiber networks and managed to squirm out of it (mostly thorough regulator-capture).
This is the inevitable and inescapable result of attempts to use the power of government to regulate the marketplace because regulatory capture will always occur given enough time and money. Clearly this is a case of an adversarial system (i.e. the customer wants the best speeds at the lowest prices and the telecoms want profit) so why not let the marketplace decide who the winners and losers are and let the disputes, when they arise, be settled in court at the losers expense? Before you excoriate me for having the temerity to suggest this ask yourself what have you gotten under the present system of government regulated telecoms? Crappy Internet service at very high prices, high priced private parties for your elected officials and regulators complete with booze, bribes (gifts, cash, or insider opportunities...your choice), and call girls for all of the attendees (why else would they want to to keep their parties secret with loads of private security?), and higher taxes on your phone and cable bill to pay for all of it? Is that a "change that we can believe in"? It seems that the Democratic Party has two messages, one for all of the little people in the stadium and one for their lawyer lobbyist friends and big money corporate backers at the private invitation only party. The Republicans are just as bad in many cases and for different reasons, but at least they don't make any bones about being for big business so you know where you stand if you vote Republican.
The whole network over power lines has been hyped before (remember Enron? Yeah...they were in on that) but the problem has always been those pesky transformers. As far as I know there has been no solution to the stepping transformers effectively acting as filters which strip out any modulation or attempt to encode data upon the electric current running through the grid lines. Even if someone does manage to solve that problem, unless it is very cheap to implement OR requires little or no modification to existing transformers, it will not be rolled out any time soon. Power companies are notoriously cheap about upgrading transformers and transmission lines. It practically takes an Act of Congress to prod them into doing anything about upgrades because upgrades cost money that could otherwise be paid out as dividends. In fact, when regulators have allocated money in the form of higher utility taxes and fees the power companies just pocket the money instead of using it for upgrades as they promised and as the regulators intended.
"A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him." - Napoleon
Either he didn't consider pieces of colored ribbon to be petty distinctions or he contradicted himself.
The primary reasons why motherboards don't include as many nVidia chipsets (or any other good chipsets for that matter) as they might otherwise are (1) cost, (2) heat, and (3) space. The mainboard attempts to combine as many functions as are practical into the smallest and cheapest to manufacture area possible. Those who want the nVidia chipsets were always free to purchase the video card of their choice aftermarket and install that into the graphics slot on their motherboard. For everyone else (mostly consumers) who didn't want to pay $400+ for their motherboard there were the Intel onboard graphics controllers that delivered an acceptable non-gaming performance for most people and kept the motherboard at just over $100 or so instead of 4+ times that price for nVidia graphics that they might not need or want.
Maybe that is where some journalist got mixed and where all this "nVidia is preparing a x86 chip" rumor began?
This is what happens when technical information is filtered through the brain of a salesperson, manager, or executive. It comes out completely mangled on the opposite side or, even worse, it morphs into something which while technically correct is NOT the information that the non-technical person thought they were conveying (i.e. they have unknowingly modified the requirements specification in a way that is logically consistent from a technical standpoint, but will result in the wrong product being built).
Apple will just kill retail sales of OS X upgrades, and do it all through the iTunes store.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Psystar does prevail in its case against Apple (Apple would probably make a buy out offer on Psystar if it looks like the outcome would set unfavorable precedents in federal court). Is not the method by which the offending product(s) are distributed irrelevant to the issue of bundling and anti-trust? If Apple looses then merely switching sales to iTunes store only would not in any way dodge the authority of the court to impose remedies (Apple is an American company with substantial assets here in the United States and their iTunes servers are probably located in a US data center as well). IANAL, but I seem to remember the courts generally take a rather dim view of people who use technology or trickery to dodge penalties or make end runs around rulings.
The route subsidizing also ensured that just about every packet that passed from Europe to Asia or from South America to points elsewhere took a trip through the embark and debark points through the United States on their way across the undersea cable networks. Does anyone else remember the disclosure a while back of the "secret room" at the Verizon central office in San Francisco (where the cables go out from under the water and across the ocean floor) where a prism was installed to split off a copy of the data stream for processing by equipment in the hidden and off-limits room? Obviously the more of the worlds traffic passes through that room the better (from an intelligence gathering standpoint) so it makes sense to make that particular node a fast, cheap, and convenient hop on the route to all points elsewhere (so that everyone passes through there at some point along their way to somewhere else).
You need to be able to offer a better path from Point A to Point B than the existing Internet topology.
It has been done before. In fact for many decades during and after the Cold War the United States offerred some of the best quality data services at the highest speeds for cheap prices (subsidized by your tax dollars) merely to ensure that the majority of the international telephone and non-satellite data traffic passed through the United States somewhere along the way from Point A to Point B.
Unless you are Dr. Evil and can afford infinite bandwidth, this better path had better not also apply to a large chunk of the Internet, or you will get hosed with a lot of bandwidth.
As I mentioned above the US Government can afford a lot of bandwidth when they want to and they want to ensure that as many ISPs around the world chose our fast subsidized fiber backbones (I say backbones because last-mile service for consumers in the US still sucks hard core compared to Korea, Japan, and even Europe) to route their traffic across the globe (i.e. they lease bandwidth from US companies and the data passes through US borders). If some people don't think that US companies are complicit in this, *cough* AT&T *cough*, then the whole telecom immunity debate just went over their heads.
So, to me, this is a might work sometimes for some people in some places, but probably not that well on a general basis.
Better than none of the time so why not try and make the best of it if you can (NSA's point of view).
Nay, this would best be used against other countries, where the NSA actually works.
Which is probably why nothing was done about it all of these years. The Congressional testimony was quickly buried as an 'unproven curiosity' in the footnotes of the meeting minutes and the NSA, CIA, and FBI probably took careful notes during the 'private demonstration' and then after shaking his hand told him that none of it ever happened 'or else' and quitely began exploiting it. This wouldn't be the first time that the NSA kept mum about flaws in commercial technologies in order to draw out the amount of time that the exploit remains viable (although they probably advised the US goverment to avoid BGP for sensitive or encrypted traffic).
I don't think that you can appeal in small claims court (at least not here in the US) the parties agree to settle their claims without appeals in exchange for limited claims (I think that it is only $5000 or less in US small claims court), no depositions, no settling out of court (always goes to trial), and no jury (judge is the sole arbiter) among other limitations. IANAL, but I am fairly certain that this is how it works, at least here in the US.
You could always try to, well negotiate. The companies put out crap terms because they know that most people will just take it or leave it and don't have the spine to actually try and haggle. If they don't want to negotiate and you don't like the deal then say 'NO' and walk away. Telling a sales person 'NO' and turning to walk out the door can sometimes break through their resistance to negotiations, but you have to be willing to walk away and play hardball to get what you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, one probable side effect of the rapid and dirty expansion of Chinese manufacturing is the poisoning of their people and their children which will accelerate the development of the country and ultimately improvement in environmental standards as those living at the bottom of the ladder die young from cancers, toxic levels of heavy metals in the blood, and other pollution related health consequences and leave behind a smaller core of healthier and wealthier citizens to clean up the mess once they are developed and start caring more about such things.
There is no chance of an anti-monarchy revolt. All Thais, without exception, revere the King.
This is very true. In fact, if a foreigner were to so much as deface a picture of the king in public view he would very likely be set upon by a mob of angry Siamese and be beaten to death. The king only rarely intervenes directly in the political process and he could quell the protests and reform the government instantly with merely a word, but he has been reluctant to do that because he has worked diligently for many years now to promote democratic government and the intervention of the king, even one as revered as himself, would necessarily undermine that goal.
The problem is that countries are sovereign and can do whatever they please and it would be a very hard sell politically to get everyone in the US behind an environmental standards ban on "dirty" imports and even then the Chinese would cheat as they are already doing right now to get around the inspectors employed by the garment industry to ensure that clothing is not produced in sweatshop conditions by children. It is my own personal opinion that at some point in the future, perhaps as soon as 2050 but certainly by the end of this century, there will be a massive spasm of violence as the human population on this planet adjusts to the consequences of the environmental destruction that it failed to prevent (Gore is right, we are entering a period of consequences , although I do not share his hope and belief that humanity can cooperate globally on solutions). The only ways out are potential technical solution(s) because you will never get the majority of the planet to voluntarily do anything, least of all cut back on consumption and production to prevent serious consequences from climate change. Technology offers an outside chance of a "painless" solution to the problem but failing that we can look forward to exxtreme droughts, massive wars over dwindling resources, and mass starvation of people presently living on the margins until the equilibrium carrying capacity of hotter and more arid Earth is reached.
The knowledge of basic computer use is fast becoming, if it has not already become, a requirement for any sort of office work or non-manual labor and is not so much preparation for a specialized career involving computers as much as it is general preparation for future employment. If students wish to specialize in software or computer engineering, programming, or some other career involving in depth knowledge of computational complexity, logic, and other selected topics in computer science or engineering then they should be encouraged to go on to study these fields in a university engineering program because CS or CE degree (rightly or wrongly) is used a resume filter when recruiters look to hire in those fields (i.e. no BS == no job in most cases). The basic high school course should focus on basic computer operation (file system, command line, Operating Systems - Linux, Networks, and understanding of basically how computers work) combined with typing which pays HUGE time dividends in college and at work when typing papers, e-mails, reports, etc. If there are advanced students in the class then they should be permitted, once they have completed the assigned work, to engage in self directed study of additional relevant topics (basic programming perhaps) that interest them under the direction of the teacher.
That is why we have radar. It seems like it would not be too difficult to install a radar (if one is not installed already) and have an onboard computer continually track objects, calculate orbital trajectories, and alert the crew and ground control if any piece of junk large enough to be tracked (above a configurable threshold) will intercept the imaginary sphere which contains the ISS.
Well, just like the final episode of TNG, the Star Trek Experience is now coming to an end as well. While other people might lament its passing I think that it might actually be better for the franchise if some (most perhaps?) of the sets and models were moved into a smaller exhibit (the SF museum in Seattle has been mentioned by others) with somewhat fewer rides and attractions in exchange for attracting more serious fans who made the trip just for the Star Trek exhibit and not just as another theme stop on their Las Vegas post-modern consumer fantasy vacation. The scale and money available in Las Vegas had its pluses (bigger areas, better rides, lots of costumed actors and staff extras) but of course it also brought with it some fairly obvious minuses (large crowds of half-interested and half-drunk tourists who either wanted to gawk and laugh at more serious fans or else hekcle the staff and get someone to speak out of character). Perhaps CF, Paramount, and the SF museuem can work something out. They could call it Star Trek The Experience: Phase II or something like that. Maybe Bill Gates could stand in for Locutus of Borg and his tractor beam could fail when the communications screen displays BSOD allowing the shuttle to "escape" into the exhibit (of course that wouldn't make for a very serious experience, but it would be funny).
Why not just warn people and tell them the truth? Most will heed the warning of professionals and those few that don't may be killed. Perhaps it is just me, but why shouldn't an adult be allowed to make his own decision? It is his life to risk or lose after all. All that you, as a State Emergency Representative, should have to do is to inform them of the facts and then offer them a ride out of the area if they want to leave but cannot otherwise make it. If they still want to stay after that, then I for one would have no problem leaving them behind even if I thought that they would likely be killed. The use of force to make that 1% leave is more repugnant than any other alternative IMHO, including leaving them to take their chances when I believe the odds are against them.
So don't dig them out or rescue them from their mistakes. If there is time for a warning and message to the effect of "we suggest that you leave, but if you choose not to then you are on your own" then nothing more is needed. People should not be forced, even if you think that their decision to stay is foolish; it is their life to lose after all. There might possibly be extenuating circumstances if they are obviously not of sound mind or have minor children, but in most cases adults should be allowed to make their own decisions.
The problem is that most of those things could have been accomplished for less money.
I defy anyone reading this to name a single government program that has NOT either failed to achieve its objectives OR achieved them without costing ridiculous amounts of money with gross inefficiencies and wastefulness. If you want to have the worst possible economic outcomes then have third parties (other people) spend the money of other third parties on yet different parties (which is what government does when it taxes and spends) with committees deciding on the details based upon how many jobs it will create in their district or whose reciprocal vote is needed on an unrelated issue or any number of other political horse trades thrown into the mix.
The situation would me much more in favor of the billing companies' and bank fee-income (like in USA) if it were driven purely by free market.
The European system has advantages, but there are disadvantages as well that may not be quite as obvious at first, but show up in the larger economic picture. In Europe it is more difficult to acquire financing for you small business or start up business because nobody wants to loan you any money, or at least not at a very attractive rate, unless you have been around for a long time and already have a large and successful business (in which case you wouldn't be looking for startup capital anyway). Personal loans are also more difficult to come by, the unemployment rate is higher (it is harder to fire someone, but that also makes it harder to find a job in the first place), and the costs of goods and services reflect the additional red tape experienced by businesses and producers with the possibility of reversed payments (up to two weeks later), cumbersome data privacy and liability laws (a two edged sword, protects consumers but makes for fewer firms and higher prices due to the regulatory burden of running a business), higher taxes, and other assorted impediments to the free market. The US has its problems, yes, but it is a mistake to believe that the grass is always greener in the European Union by way of comparison. It basically boils down to a question of what do we as a society want and how much are we willing to pay/give up to get it. I would argue that the Europeans have better privacy and (in some cases, not all) better routine health care, and better social safety net, but (and this is the kicker) they overpay for these benefits compared to what they get in return.
you will have to expect them trying to get you into heated discussions about American presidents, especially Bush...
Just smile, nod, and say "yes", it is better that way.
Why not try the Max Rebo Band (the one from Star Wars). I hear that they work cheap and give a two for one deal on geek weddings (Where did you find a girl geek anyway? They seem to be in very short supply...).
Having a large base of reliable free software is a big enough advantage for some companies that they happily underwrite its development.
It is only an advantage if you can keep your competitors from using it too; othewrise it is just a cost of doing business.
Vote Libertarian, support Ron Paul, and shovel out all of the shit. The only way to separate money from politics is to cut taxes, government spending, and government responsibilities down to the minimum (i.e. what is mandated by the Constitution and required by our modern society and NOTHING else). If there is no government power to spend massive quantities of money completely arbitrarily then the lobbyists will stop chasing our elected officials for what amounts to table scraps and get real jobs that actually contribute to the economy instead. You know, Obama spoke in his speach about the government saying, "well, you are on your own..." as if that were a bad thing when in fact that is exactly what the government should be doing, getting off our backs, out of our pockets, and generally out of our way. It certainly doesn't need to get any bigger than it already is, but Obama is planning to shift current spending (from the War to Great Society style programs) and then increase spending on top of that. Increased government spending on social programs, research and development, and education all sound really good until we all get the collective bill after the programs have failed to deliver on their promises and the high hopes fail to pan out. Of course, by then the advocates are long gone and our children are stuck with the bills and not much to show for it. My response to Obama and McCain is: please don't do that (but of course they will do it anyway...sigh).
the simple fact of the matter is that the telecom companies committed to deploying massive fiber networks and managed to squirm out of it (mostly thorough regulator-capture).
This is the inevitable and inescapable result of attempts to use the power of government to regulate the marketplace because regulatory capture will always occur given enough time and money. Clearly this is a case of an adversarial system (i.e. the customer wants the best speeds at the lowest prices and the telecoms want profit) so why not let the marketplace decide who the winners and losers are and let the disputes, when they arise, be settled in court at the losers expense? Before you excoriate me for having the temerity to suggest this ask yourself what have you gotten under the present system of government regulated telecoms? Crappy Internet service at very high prices, high priced private parties for your elected officials and regulators complete with booze, bribes (gifts, cash, or insider opportunities...your choice), and call girls for all of the attendees (why else would they want to to keep their parties secret with loads of private security?), and higher taxes on your phone and cable bill to pay for all of it? Is that a "change that we can believe in"? It seems that the Democratic Party has two messages, one for all of the little people in the stadium and one for their lawyer lobbyist friends and big money corporate backers at the private invitation only party. The Republicans are just as bad in many cases and for different reasons, but at least they don't make any bones about being for big business so you know where you stand if you vote Republican.
The whole network over power lines has been hyped before (remember Enron? Yeah...they were in on that) but the problem has always been those pesky transformers. As far as I know there has been no solution to the stepping transformers effectively acting as filters which strip out any modulation or attempt to encode data upon the electric current running through the grid lines. Even if someone does manage to solve that problem, unless it is very cheap to implement OR requires little or no modification to existing transformers, it will not be rolled out any time soon. Power companies are notoriously cheap about upgrading transformers and transmission lines. It practically takes an Act of Congress to prod them into doing anything about upgrades because upgrades cost money that could otherwise be paid out as dividends. In fact, when regulators have allocated money in the form of higher utility taxes and fees the power companies just pocket the money instead of using it for upgrades as they promised and as the regulators intended.
"A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him." - Napoleon
Either he didn't consider pieces of colored ribbon to be petty distinctions or he contradicted himself.
The primary reasons why motherboards don't include as many nVidia chipsets (or any other good chipsets for that matter) as they might otherwise are (1) cost, (2) heat, and (3) space. The mainboard attempts to combine as many functions as are practical into the smallest and cheapest to manufacture area possible. Those who want the nVidia chipsets were always free to purchase the video card of their choice aftermarket and install that into the graphics slot on their motherboard. For everyone else (mostly consumers) who didn't want to pay $400+ for their motherboard there were the Intel onboard graphics controllers that delivered an acceptable non-gaming performance for most people and kept the motherboard at just over $100 or so instead of 4+ times that price for nVidia graphics that they might not need or want.
Maybe that is where some journalist got mixed and where all this "nVidia is preparing a x86 chip" rumor began?
This is what happens when technical information is filtered through the brain of a salesperson, manager, or executive. It comes out completely mangled on the opposite side or, even worse, it morphs into something which while technically correct is NOT the information that the non-technical person thought they were conveying (i.e. they have unknowingly modified the requirements specification in a way that is logically consistent from a technical standpoint, but will result in the wrong product being built).
Apple will just kill retail sales of OS X upgrades, and do it all through the iTunes store.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Psystar does prevail in its case against Apple (Apple would probably make a buy out offer on Psystar if it looks like the outcome would set unfavorable precedents in federal court). Is not the method by which the offending product(s) are distributed irrelevant to the issue of bundling and anti-trust? If Apple looses then merely switching sales to iTunes store only would not in any way dodge the authority of the court to impose remedies (Apple is an American company with substantial assets here in the United States and their iTunes servers are probably located in a US data center as well). IANAL, but I seem to remember the courts generally take a rather dim view of people who use technology or trickery to dodge penalties or make end runs around rulings.
The route subsidizing also ensured that just about every packet that passed from Europe to Asia or from South America to points elsewhere took a trip through the embark and debark points through the United States on their way across the undersea cable networks. Does anyone else remember the disclosure a while back of the "secret room" at the Verizon central office in San Francisco (where the cables go out from under the water and across the ocean floor) where a prism was installed to split off a copy of the data stream for processing by equipment in the hidden and off-limits room? Obviously the more of the worlds traffic passes through that room the better (from an intelligence gathering standpoint) so it makes sense to make that particular node a fast, cheap, and convenient hop on the route to all points elsewhere (so that everyone passes through there at some point along their way to somewhere else).
You need to be able to offer a better path from Point A to Point B than the existing Internet topology.
It has been done before. In fact for many decades during and after the Cold War the United States offerred some of the best quality data services at the highest speeds for cheap prices (subsidized by your tax dollars) merely to ensure that the majority of the international telephone and non-satellite data traffic passed through the United States somewhere along the way from Point A to Point B.
Unless you are Dr. Evil and can afford infinite bandwidth, this better path had better not also apply to a large chunk of the Internet, or you will get hosed with a lot of bandwidth.
As I mentioned above the US Government can afford a lot of bandwidth when they want to and they want to ensure that as many ISPs around the world chose our fast subsidized fiber backbones (I say backbones because last-mile service for consumers in the US still sucks hard core compared to Korea, Japan, and even Europe) to route their traffic across the globe (i.e. they lease bandwidth from US companies and the data passes through US borders). If some people don't think that US companies are complicit in this, *cough* AT&T *cough*, then the whole telecom immunity debate just went over their heads.
So, to me, this is a might work sometimes for some people in some places, but probably not that well on a general basis.
Better than none of the time so why not try and make the best of it if you can (NSA's point of view).
Nay, this would best be used against other countries, where the NSA actually works.
Which is probably why nothing was done about it all of these years. The Congressional testimony was quickly buried as an 'unproven curiosity' in the footnotes of the meeting minutes and the NSA, CIA, and FBI probably took careful notes during the 'private demonstration' and then after shaking his hand told him that none of it ever happened 'or else' and quitely began exploiting it. This wouldn't be the first time that the NSA kept mum about flaws in commercial technologies in order to draw out the amount of time that the exploit remains viable (although they probably advised the US goverment to avoid BGP for sensitive or encrypted traffic).
I don't think that you can appeal in small claims court (at least not here in the US) the parties agree to settle their claims without appeals in exchange for limited claims (I think that it is only $5000 or less in US small claims court), no depositions, no settling out of court (always goes to trial), and no jury (judge is the sole arbiter) among other limitations. IANAL, but I am fairly certain that this is how it works, at least here in the US.
Is this even legal? Probably... can we change it?
You could always try to, well negotiate. The companies put out crap terms because they know that most people will just take it or leave it and don't have the spine to actually try and haggle. If they don't want to negotiate and you don't like the deal then say 'NO' and walk away. Telling a sales person 'NO' and turning to walk out the door can sometimes break through their resistance to negotiations, but you have to be willing to walk away and play hardball to get what you want.