Those are two guys who will never work for me or anyone I know. Such intentional bullshit claims caused a tremendous amount of angst among too many people, not to mention the effort various developers went to in attempting to validate their claims.
i am in the market for a new player and was actually considering this, until "At least in the initial release, Zune's Wi-Fi won't connect to a network. It's peer-to-peer only."
I suspect the patch to make it a fully capable machine will be found at http://www.debian.org/>here soon enough.
Not necessarily just gloabal warming - more like, "we will support those candidates who carefully evaluate the scientific data... and come to the same conclusion we do"
Your US cell phone market is a slightly better example. We are drastically behind with our cell phones.
and that's because we created legislation allowing monopolies, instead of letting a market determine what should happen. We are paying for the rapid creation of wireless infrastructure by suffering the entrenched system.
The point is that someone in the lower brackets needs an extra few thousand dollars a lot more than someone in the top bracket needs a few extra hundred million.
If the oil companies don't want to make their oil distribution system and properties profitable in California, I'm sure the state would have a lot of fun condemning all the properties and putting them to use with someone else.
Yeah, nationalization has worked so well elsewhere.
That is exactly the short-sightedness I'm talking about. There's plenty of room at this sow's tit.
This sow's tit is the pocketbook of the taxpayer - and apparantly the departure of so many of those paying taxes from the state is read as an incentive to 'squeeze 'em more".
Which is why I am completely in favor of California raising its gas prices to pay for research into alternatives.
But!... this legislation is being sold as "someone else" (i.e. the evil oil companies) is paying for it - and that the consumer is not going to be out a nickel more. That particular point is unmitigated bullshit, but is how this will convince all those economically astute voters to pass legislation of immediate and calculable benefit to a small group and of, at best, long-term and indeterminate benefit to those footing the bill.
How about this? If Californians think that alternative fuels are the best path, then they can take the money that they'd be paying in additional taxes, and invest it in the company of their choice - and if they think it's a waste of their money, they can spend it on DRM-restricted songs. Ah, they wouldn't invest? Then, by golly, we'll legislate them to do so, for their own good of course.
So how come whenever anyone proposes stuff like net neutrality or alternative fuels the conservatives say "the free market will take care of it"?
The reason net neutrality would protect consumers is because the legislation would offset the already existant legislation that allows (near) monopolies to be the carriers. Being a monopoly is good business. If the first monopoly had not been created, by legislation, to "facilitate" the telecommunications world, then people would have grouped together and created such infrastructure themselves (i.e. a co-op).
Until I have a choice of a dozen independent cable providers there is no competition - and so I also need laws preventing them from taking advantage of my dependence on their monopoly status.
Why not instead create a regulatory body that sets the maximum price at which gasoline can be sold?
Good God, no. The only "board" that should determine what the maximum price of gasonline should be is the person doing the buying - and that definitely ain't the supposed insightful board. Every individual decides whether it's worth spending his own money for a gallon of gas or yet-another ipod download. Who is this omniscient board compaosed of to know what is best for each consumer?
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, they were just having fun?
Those are two guys who will never work for me or anyone I know. Such intentional bullshit claims caused a tremendous amount of angst among too many people, not to mention the effort various developers went to in attempting to validate their claims.
Yea....a name like 'hahiss' commands MUCH more respect than anonymous coward....
Infinitely more.
of my PC having its resources tied up for someone else's phone call is frankly maddening to me
... but I have no problem with tying up someone else's resources when it's for my convenience ... ?
Umm, the way to do that is to say "no thank you" and move on when asked by an exit poll taker. What you're doing is just being a prick.
No, they're being pricks for asking me something that is none of their damn business.
That's an urban legend
... (a'la in Soviet ...)
But, on slashdot, it's an insightful urban legend
Who are we to argue with what Taco chooses to put on his own site?
The people who pay his bills?
It's just so painful.
i am in the market for a new player and was actually considering this, until "At least in the initial release, Zune's Wi-Fi won't connect to a network. It's peer-to-peer only."
I suspect the patch to make it a fully capable machine will be found at http://www.debian.org/>here soon enough.
"MySpace had it's 15 seconds, and IMO is heading out the door."
Why on earth would you say that?
It's called wishful thinking. Myspace - AOL without the charm.
Not necessarily just gloabal warming - more like, "we will support those candidates who carefully evaluate the scientific data ... and come to the same conclusion we do"
What ever happened to just trying to educate the voters?
Great question. Wha[t] ever happened to education?
We created the Deptartment of Education and Teacher's Unions.
Emotion and logic are not necessarily opposed. When they are opposed, of course logic should take precedence
What an emotionally derived conclustion.
this is not a tax on profit
...
All tax is on profit. Without profit a system ceases to exist
Your US cell phone market is a slightly better example. We are drastically behind with our cell phones.
and that's because we created legislation allowing monopolies, instead of letting a market determine what should happen. We are paying for the rapid creation of wireless infrastructure by suffering the entrenched system.
Why do socialists insist on making the same economic mistakes over and over again?
Well, when those doing the voting are allowed to remain uneducated, you can sell them the same swill over and over.
The point is that someone in the lower brackets needs an extra few thousand dollars a lot more than someone in the top bracket needs a few extra hundred million.
Why? Is it not his money in either case?
If the oil companies don't want to make their oil distribution system and properties profitable in California, I'm sure the state would have a lot of fun condemning all the properties and putting them to use with someone else.
Yeah, nationalization has worked so well elsewhere.
Do you know of any consumers who would object to a price cap on gasoline?
Only those who were smart enough to take an economics class.
That is exactly the short-sightedness I'm talking about. There's plenty of room at this sow's tit.
This sow's tit is the pocketbook of the taxpayer - and apparantly the departure of so many of those paying taxes from the state is read as an incentive to 'squeeze 'em more".
Which is why I am completely in favor of California raising its gas prices to pay for research into alternatives.
... this legislation is being sold as "someone else" (i.e. the evil oil companies) is paying for it - and that the consumer is not going to be out a nickel more. That particular point is unmitigated bullshit, but is how this will convince all those economically astute voters to pass legislation of immediate and calculable benefit to a small group and of, at best, long-term and indeterminate benefit to those footing the bill.
But!
How about this? If Californians think that alternative fuels are the best path, then they can take the money that they'd be paying in additional taxes, and invest it in the company of their choice - and if they think it's a waste of their money, they can spend it on DRM-restricted songs. Ah, they wouldn't invest? Then, by golly, we'll legislate them to do so, for their own good of course.
Californians have already seen the result of not allowing utilities to pass on higher costs to the consumers
Right - this explains the sudden demand by the left coasters to build cost-effective and safe nuclear power stations in the Golden State.
Oh, wait...
So how come whenever anyone proposes stuff like net neutrality or alternative fuels the conservatives say "the free market will take care of it"?
The reason net neutrality would protect consumers is because the legislation would offset the already existant legislation that allows (near) monopolies to be the carriers. Being a monopoly is good business. If the first monopoly had not been created, by legislation, to "facilitate" the telecommunications world, then people would have grouped together and created such infrastructure themselves (i.e. a co-op).
Until I have a choice of a dozen independent cable providers there is no competition - and so I also need laws preventing them from taking advantage of my dependence on their monopoly status.
Why not instead create a regulatory body that sets the maximum price at which gasoline can be sold?
Good God, no. The only "board" that should determine what the maximum price of gasonline should be is the person doing the buying - and that definitely ain't the supposed insightful board. Every individual decides whether it's worth spending his own money for a gallon of gas or yet-another ipod download. Who is this omniscient board compaosed of to know what is best for each consumer?
It's cool to be green.
as long as someone else can be made to pay for it.
anyone could buy it and then resell it in california, just raises the price a tad
Which either reduces the demand for it or leaves even less money in the consumer's pockets.