Me as well - though I've gone through one power supply and two hard drives. I am contemplating an upgrade, though I am waiting for the latest batch of processors and SSDs to shake out.
I am surprised it took this long for anyone to suggest this. I suggest an automatic reference to their largest competitor, say McDonalds? This a few times, and maybe companies would get the hint to not abuse it.
So this. I remember listening to two Microsoft guys a long time ago, and one of them asked the other, "what is.net to you?". Neither one knew what it really was.
Not as prevalent, but I also remember Microsoft muddying the waters with XML vs Java, and speaking of XML as if it were a programming language that would supersede java at the time.
They should be banned from using the english language.
That said, the F-35 is not designed to be a visual dogfighter. It has dogfighting capabilities, but its main design principle is high situational awareness enabling kills from far away - seeing the enemy from long before it itself is seen.
That's fine - but the only issue there is what rules of engagement will it be forced to operate under? It's a little hard to maintain a bvr fight when you are forced to visually id someone.
In today progressing world of stealth I also question that it will not later face opponents that can get in close before they are themselves detected.
Like them or not, they are pretty much the only game in town if you are really going to be rural. Every once in awhile when visiting a small rural town I'll ask someone what the recommended provider is in their area - and the answers are pretty much all Verizon.
... the Arctic Sea (from which to access both Atlantic and Pacific with no "straits" to run through)
We're talking about carriers here, right? How many of those do you think the Russians can run through the Artic, let alone most of the other places you mentioned, in the winter?
Spoken like a real self-obsessed, greed worshipping USian.
You probably consider yourself very enlightened and open minded.
In addition to what demonlapin said, remember that the Soviets 1st priority (as was ours) was a nuclear deterrent. An effective submarine force that could stay hidden and provide a 2nd-launch capability would provide that. The irony is that the Soviets attempts at building a force that could stay hidden long enough to accomplish this mission wasn't reliably achieved until the 80's, and at that point their efforts had in part bankrupted their country.
There was no money left over for carriers.
The USSR was basically an armed occupier of Eastern Europe from 1945 until 1989, so yeah, how would anyone get the idea that the Soviet Union had anything but altruistic motives?
Soviet tanks crushing a democratic movement in 1956 Hungary must have been a misunderstanding (this was three years after Stalin).
Look at the conditions the people of the USSR and its client states lived in to support their military expenditures. This wasn't voluntary, it was done forcefully to support a military infrastructure that the West had a right to fear.
No it didn't. You haven't lost any money until you sell the stock, and only then if you sell it for less than what you paid for it. Bad news does not cause a stock price to stay depressed forever. If it did, the stock market would be at zero.
My opinion, if you're trading on a short term basis, and trading on rumor and speculation (instead of long term fundamentals), you're putting yourself at risk.
It's already been stated, but the only reason the SEC would investigate is due to someone releasing this information on purpose to profit from it, i.e. manipulating the companies stock price.
Galileo is a jobs program. High tech, technically advanced, but a jobs program. Notice the problems they had funding it - each country was hesitant to put of x percent of the funding when they thought they were only going to get x-n percent of the work. Also note that to even alleviate that, they have committed to charging for it - and I believe in commercial shipping across Europe, also requiring Galileo based receivers.
Glonass started out for the Soviet military, so they could have a system if (at the time, it was a "when") the US shut off GPS. Now, I think it's a nationalistic pride thing. Seems to be how Putin operates.
Here in Washington State we have "Level 1", "Level 2", and "Level 3" classifications. Level 3, being the highest rating is basically defined as likely to recommit.
I have two daughters, 4 and 6, and we have a level 3 living six houses down from us now. He is only 22 years old, has had 3 separate convictions, and is already out of jail for the last one. If the State is going to define him as likely to recommit, can you show me the logic of them letting him out of jail?
As a parent, it isn't vengeance I want, but protection. That can come in the form of reform, but in quite a few of these cases, that is simply not going to happen (if possible).
Apparently the supplier and GM are using a nanophosphate version of the LI battery, supposedly a lot safer (and I've read elsewhere closer to what is in a hand held power drill than a laptop).
Is Microsoft making the employees sign non-competes after the fact? Is that legal? If I were an employee, I am not sure there is much incentive to do so, if you think they are going to deep six your job anyways.
It's a fine line with lots of variables, and arguments. I think thought a lot of people feel that these companies are trying to manipulate the labor market in their own countries to their own benefit, through the hiring of illegal immigrants, or the over user of H1-B's.
In your two examples, in the US on an H1-B, or working illegally in Argentina, there is sometimes not a lot of difference. Both sets of workers are in a foreign country, working for a lower wage (in your example) than what domestic workers would require. Shouldn't it be the right of people in those countries, native citizens and currently legal immigrants, to have first crack at those jobs?
So cutting the tax rate of a company to keep them in state is a greater subsidy than no interest - no risk loans? If it is Boeings money to begin with, and the state is just taking less of it, how is that a subsidy?
Given the choice as a business owner - lower taxes, or development loans that I only have to repay upon profit, I believe I know which one I'd be going for.
I had a similiar 1st thought, that being that I could care less about combining a phone and camera. As a parent, if I'm taking pictures of my kids, I want *quality*. If we're combining devices, I'm more interested in quality video out of my camera, than pictures out of my phone. This market is still pretty imature, but this Sanyo is a start.
See this article and this other article from back in January. Interesting that back in January, from the article, Anderson's statement is
And last week, a lawyer for Fred Anderson, Apple's former CFO, released a prepared statement that his client "did not play any day-to-day role in the granting, reporting, and accounting of stock options and he was not involved in any knowing manipulation of the process."
Yet, now having claimed he knew that Jobs was awarded or considering these backdated options, he would either violated his SEC ethics obligations, or was so insanely incompetent he should have been fired anyway. So by settling with the SEC he basically admits he did act improperly. It's obvious he most likely lied (or sneakily phrased his statement) back in January.
Excellent points. My vote is that he lied - by ommission. Of course he had nothing to do with the day to day role of granting stock options, that is for the hired help. It can almost be guaranteed though that he knew exactly what high level managers were getting, especially if there was a question of legality. Like you said, he was either grossly imcompetent, or he's not being honest.
The fact that he is pretty much contradicting himself to get back at Jobs blows me away though...
Doesn't california have emissions laws? Are those laws being met? I don't live in California, but I assume that everyone with a vehicle is required to go through regular emissions testing. If those pre-set and published standards are being met, what leg does California have to stand on here? You can't retroactively set standards like that and expect to be taken seriously.
The best compromise I can think of is if the packs were swappable. So you basically keep the "gas" stations. When you want to charge up, they take out your battery, put in a freshly charged one, you pay your money and off you go.
A cool idea. It would remove one of the drawbacks to electric vehicles, battery maintenance and replacement.
Thinking a bit more though, there might be a few drawbacks. The government would most likely have to get involved to standardize battery form factors and power output, not sure if that would ever happen. If it did happen, and people were trading their batteries in every week or so, it would also pretty much destroy any incentive for battery research - why buy a high performance battery when you're going to lose it in a week or so....
Emissions laws are good, and that is the ironic part. Car manufactures are right now meeting Californias emissions standards. How can California now turn around and sue after their own set standards have been met?
Sounds to me like a politician trying to find a new golden trough to feed at.
If you don't like their policies, don't buy their products.
I believe that's the whole point. Try buying a PC w/o their product, somewhat difficult to do, especially if you want to buy one from one of the top tier manufacturers. There are people who would LOVE to buy PCs w/o msft products preinstalled, it's just hard to do. This is because, you guessed it, microsoft uses their position to force pc manufacturers into making it that way. For them to now come out and basically equate Novell/Redhat/Ubuntu/All-Other-Linux-Distro customers with piracy is asinine. I'm not sure how you can get much more anticompetitive than that.
As an aside, I would love for some msft shill to knock on my door and accuse me of piracy.
That wouldn't be good for NATO, would it? No... I think they'll get the code... Or maybe they will what they think is all of the code... Too big a deal not just in money but relationships as well.
As to NATO, you're right. The probable irritant here from the US side though is that the EU is increasingly close to Russia with regards to defense deals (co-development items). The US is worried about its technology walking away, and someday having to fight against that tech in the form of Russian or Chinese equipment.
The best explanation I've read is that they cannot adapt their weapons for use on the JSF w/o Lockheed/US Govt help. It has nothing to do with the US being able to *turn off* their JSF's.
I've also read that the French giving the Brits more than they were asking for with the design of their new carriers notes a possible side deal, that being them buying French Rafale's. If this is the case, the JSF issue has already been decided, and what we're seeing here is simply public posturing. Never seen a politician do that before:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you think it strange (and very stupid) that Tidal would rig the numbers so that they have pay *more* money to artists?
Yeah - either something is not being explained correctly, or someone is chasing their tail.
Me as well - though I've gone through one power supply and two hard drives. I am contemplating an upgrade, though I am waiting for the latest batch of processors and SSDs to shake out.
I am surprised it took this long for anyone to suggest this. I suggest an automatic reference to their largest competitor, say McDonalds? This a few times, and maybe companies would get the hint to not abuse it.
So this. I remember listening to two Microsoft guys a long time ago, and one of them asked the other, "what is .net to you?". Neither one knew what it really was.
Not as prevalent, but I also remember Microsoft muddying the waters with XML vs Java, and speaking of XML as if it were a programming language that would supersede java at the time.
They should be banned from using the english language.
That said, the F-35 is not designed to be a visual dogfighter. It has dogfighting capabilities, but its main design principle is high situational awareness enabling kills from far away - seeing the enemy from long before it itself is seen.
That's fine - but the only issue there is what rules of engagement will it be forced to operate under? It's a little hard to maintain a bvr fight when you are forced to visually id someone. In today progressing world of stealth I also question that it will not later face opponents that can get in close before they are themselves detected.
Like them or not, they are pretty much the only game in town if you are really going to be rural. Every once in awhile when visiting a small rural town I'll ask someone what the recommended provider is in their area - and the answers are pretty much all Verizon.
... the Arctic Sea (from which to access both Atlantic and Pacific with no "straits" to run through)
We're talking about carriers here, right? How many of those do you think the Russians can run through the Artic, let alone most of the other places you mentioned, in the winter?
Spoken like a real self-obsessed, greed worshipping USian.
You probably consider yourself very enlightened and open minded.
In addition to what demonlapin said, remember that the Soviets 1st priority (as was ours) was a nuclear deterrent. An effective submarine force that could stay hidden and provide a 2nd-launch capability would provide that. The irony is that the Soviets attempts at building a force that could stay hidden long enough to accomplish this mission wasn't reliably achieved until the 80's, and at that point their efforts had in part bankrupted their country. There was no money left over for carriers.
The USSR was basically an armed occupier of Eastern Europe from 1945 until 1989, so yeah, how would anyone get the idea that the Soviet Union had anything but altruistic motives?
Soviet tanks crushing a democratic movement in 1956 Hungary must have been a misunderstanding (this was three years after Stalin).
Look at the conditions the people of the USSR and its client states lived in to support their military expenditures. This wasn't voluntary, it was done forcefully to support a military infrastructure that the West had a right to fear.
No it didn't. You haven't lost any money until you sell the stock, and only then if you sell it for less than what you paid for it. Bad news does not cause a stock price to stay depressed forever. If it did, the stock market would be at zero.
My opinion, if you're trading on a short term basis, and trading on rumor and speculation (instead of long term fundamentals), you're putting yourself at risk.
It's already been stated, but the only reason the SEC would investigate is due to someone releasing this information on purpose to profit from it, i.e. manipulating the companies stock price.
The OP was referring to Countries, not cities.
Galileo is a jobs program. High tech, technically advanced, but a jobs program. Notice the problems they had funding it - each country was hesitant to put of x percent of the funding when they thought they were only going to get x-n percent of the work. Also note that to even alleviate that, they have committed to charging for it - and I believe in commercial shipping across Europe, also requiring Galileo based receivers.
Glonass started out for the Soviet military, so they could have a system if (at the time, it was a "when") the US shut off GPS. Now, I think it's a nationalistic pride thing. Seems to be how Putin operates.
Here in Washington State we have "Level 1", "Level 2", and "Level 3" classifications. Level 3, being the highest rating is basically defined as likely to recommit.
I have two daughters, 4 and 6, and we have a level 3 living six houses down from us now. He is only 22 years old, has had 3 separate convictions, and is already out of jail for the last one. If the State is going to define him as likely to recommit, can you show me the logic of them letting him out of jail?
As a parent, it isn't vengeance I want, but protection. That can come in the form of reform, but in quite a few of these cases, that is simply not going to happen (if possible).
Apparently the supplier and GM are using a nanophosphate version of the LI battery, supposedly a lot safer (and I've read elsewhere closer to what is in a hand held power drill than a laptop).
Is Microsoft making the employees sign non-competes after the fact? Is that legal? If I were an employee, I am not sure there is much incentive to do so, if you think they are going to deep six your job anyways.
It's a fine line with lots of variables, and arguments. I think thought a lot of people feel that these companies are trying to manipulate the labor market in their own countries to their own benefit, through the hiring of illegal immigrants, or the over user of H1-B's.
In your two examples, in the US on an H1-B, or working illegally in Argentina, there is sometimes not a lot of difference. Both sets of workers are in a foreign country, working for a lower wage (in your example) than what domestic workers would require. Shouldn't it be the right of people in those countries, native citizens and currently legal immigrants, to have first crack at those jobs?
So cutting the tax rate of a company to keep them in state is a greater subsidy than no interest - no risk loans? If it is Boeings money to begin with, and the state is just taking less of it, how is that a subsidy?
Given the choice as a business owner - lower taxes, or development loans that I only have to repay upon profit, I believe I know which one I'd be going for.
I had a similiar 1st thought, that being that I could care less about combining a phone and camera. As a parent, if I'm taking pictures of my kids, I want *quality*. If we're combining devices, I'm more interested in quality video out of my camera, than pictures out of my phone. This market is still pretty imature, but this Sanyo is a start.
Doesn't california have emissions laws? Are those laws being met? I don't live in California, but I assume that everyone with a vehicle is required to go through regular emissions testing. If those pre-set and published standards are being met, what leg does California have to stand on here? You can't retroactively set standards like that and expect to be taken seriously.
A cool idea. It would remove one of the drawbacks to electric vehicles, battery maintenance and replacement.
Thinking a bit more though, there might be a few drawbacks. The government would most likely have to get involved to standardize battery form factors and power output, not sure if that would ever happen. If it did happen, and people were trading their batteries in every week or so, it would also pretty much destroy any incentive for battery research - why buy a high performance battery when you're going to lose it in a week or so ....
Emissions laws are good, and that is the ironic part. Car manufactures are right now meeting Californias emissions standards. How can California now turn around and sue after their own set standards have been met?
Sounds to me like a politician trying to find a new golden trough to feed at.
I believe that's the whole point. Try buying a PC w/o their product, somewhat difficult to do, especially if you want to buy one from one of the top tier manufacturers. There are people who would LOVE to buy PCs w/o msft products preinstalled, it's just hard to do. This is because, you guessed it, microsoft uses their position to force pc manufacturers into making it that way. For them to now come out and basically equate Novell/Redhat/Ubuntu/All-Other-Linux-Distro customers with piracy is asinine. I'm not sure how you can get much more anticompetitive than that.
As an aside, I would love for some msft shill to knock on my door and accuse me of piracy.
That wouldn't be good for NATO, would it? No... I think they'll get the code... Or maybe they will what they think is all of the code... Too big a deal not just in money but relationships as well.
As to NATO, you're right. The probable irritant here from the US side though is that the EU is increasingly close to Russia with regards to defense deals (co-development items). The US is worried about its technology walking away, and someday having to fight against that tech in the form of Russian or Chinese equipment.
The best explanation I've read is that they cannot adapt their weapons for use on the JSF w/o Lockheed/US Govt help. It has nothing to do with the US being able to *turn off* their JSF's.
I've also read that the French giving the Brits more than they were asking for with the design of their new carriers notes a possible side deal, that being them buying French Rafale's. If this is the case, the JSF issue has already been decided, and what we're seeing here is simply public posturing. Never seen a politician do that before :-)