So you are saying if a company is successful they cease being able to operate in a manner that made them successful and now much be run by politicians whose job it is to protect other businesses, while destroying yours?
The buisness would be harmed, but that does not show the customers are harmed. Under the same logic a business choosing not to sell their product to another buisness harms the second buisness and should be charged with the anti-trust laws.
Companies can dictate what search engines people use to find them, they can opt out of letting google index them, they just cant force the people to use those search engine.
So what does DuckDuckGo do differently, besides putting up cheeky billboards in San Francisco? DuckDuckGo works by using both its own Web crawler and data from other search engines, including Yahoo, Bing, and Blekko—but not Google. The company claims not to log IP addresses or user agents, and “no cookies are used by default." It also uses default encryption modeled after HTTPS Everywhere.
This is consumer protection laws, not business protection laws.. Anti-trust laws are written how how business harm customers focusing on how they interact with businesses int he same general field and how it works on the market for that product.
because you are using their search engine. If you are using another search engine you would not have that issue. or are you flip flopping from a consumer issue to a business issue now?
Why do you have to convince others to switch in order for you to use ddg or some other search engine? Could it be because googles business practices made it the engine that everyone uses?
Who said it autoexecuted? He went in there to actually do work on the computer, supposedly. I did not see anything in the report that shows he just plugged it in and left.
What a defeatest attitude you got there... Without knowing the limits of the tech you think the tech cannot get us to the point we need. Who cares that solar panels only can convert about 10-15% of the power it receives now, screw it we cannot get what we need out of it.../s
It depends on how many of the engineers are left to rebuild with the knowledge we have now. Fissile fuels are the easiest so without that engineering knowledge we will need to use at least some, but not as much.
When you look at benefits as a portion of their income yes, but that is not the only benefit one has. Without Roads everywhere buisness like Amazon would not be able to survive, however a road in Iowa is not very beneficial to a person in Florida, therefore the tax money spent on that road is vastly more beneficial to Amazon than it is to any Floridians.
There are mathematical formula that can calculate fair share. It is generally tough before even college algebra, I used to tutor it. In short it relies on the value generated by the item being gained. It would be hard to argue that the rich do not gain more value form the US taxes than the poor or middle class do, therefore a scaled tax rate is fair.
SO a super regressive tax plan that would bankrupt most poor and lower middle class? No thank you. while I may benefit from the program it would be hard to argue the morality of it.
It is 53 million, not 1.7m. The other poster got his number mixed up. The "only invested a collective $1.7 million so far" part was what the companies invested, not the state.
Where do you see that they only spent $1.7m? They spent $53m. The 1.7m number was the contribution form the companies involved. Would you like to redo your calculation there?
Ph level is a sliding scale with acid on one side and alkaline on the other. If Ocean water is moves from alkaline to neutral to below 7 on the scale, which is what tehy are saying is/will happen, then it is becoming acidic. It is currently at an 8.1 out of a 14 point scale.
So you are saying MS and apple should be forced to release their industry standard patents for free, or at least a magnitude cheaper than they are now?
Slashdot Mirror
way to stereotype all unions there. While some, or even many, but not all of them.
win/win? win/win means it is a win for both sides, not a win for one side 2x.
So you are saying if a company is successful they cease being able to operate in a manner that made them successful and now much be run by politicians whose job it is to protect other businesses, while destroying yours?
now you are adding in more subjective and asking why it is hard to understand.
The buisness would be harmed, but that does not show the customers are harmed. Under the same logic a business choosing not to sell their product to another buisness harms the second buisness and should be charged with the anti-trust laws.
Companies can dictate what search engines people use to find them, they can opt out of letting google index them, they just cant force the people to use those search engine.
Actually it does go to bing and yahoo, just not google.
http://arstechnica.com/busines...
So what does DuckDuckGo do differently, besides putting up cheeky billboards in San Francisco? DuckDuckGo works by using both its own Web crawler and data from other search engines, including Yahoo, Bing, and Blekko—but not Google. The company claims not to log IP addresses or user agents, and “no cookies are used by default." It also uses default encryption modeled after HTTPS Everywhere.
This is consumer protection laws, not business protection laws.. Anti-trust laws are written how how business harm customers focusing on how they interact with businesses int he same general field and how it works on the market for that product.
because you are using their search engine. If you are using another search engine you would not have that issue. or are you flip flopping from a consumer issue to a business issue now?
Why do you have to convince others to switch in order for you to use ddg or some other search engine? Could it be because googles business practices made it the engine that everyone uses?
Their business practices in an industry where you are not required to use their product, there is no physical cost and no time lost.
Who said it autoexecuted? He went in there to actually do work on the computer, supposedly. I did not see anything in the report that shows he just plugged it in and left.
That was not the argument the OP made. He said it is impossible for renewables to power current tech.
However it is also not necessarily true that the current panels would not last long enough to give that sort of boost to get new ones made.
What a defeatest attitude you got there... Without knowing the limits of the tech you think the tech cannot get us to the point we need. Who cares that solar panels only can convert about 10-15% of the power it receives now, screw it we cannot get what we need out of it.../s
Who needs roads when you can have flying cars!!!!
It depends on how many of the engineers are left to rebuild with the knowledge we have now. Fissile fuels are the easiest so without that engineering knowledge we will need to use at least some, but not as much.
When you look at benefits as a portion of their income yes, but that is not the only benefit one has. Without Roads everywhere buisness like Amazon would not be able to survive, however a road in Iowa is not very beneficial to a person in Florida, therefore the tax money spent on that road is vastly more beneficial to Amazon than it is to any Floridians.
So then all you have to do is funnel all your expenses through your business and not get a paycheck of greater than 20k per year.
There are mathematical formula that can calculate fair share. It is generally tough before even college algebra, I used to tutor it. In short it relies on the value generated by the item being gained. It would be hard to argue that the rich do not gain more value form the US taxes than the poor or middle class do, therefore a scaled tax rate is fair.
SO a super regressive tax plan that would bankrupt most poor and lower middle class? No thank you. while I may benefit from the program it would be hard to argue the morality of it.
It is 53 million, not 1.7m. The other poster got his number mixed up. The "only invested a collective $1.7 million so far" part was what the companies invested, not the state.
Where do you see that they only spent $1.7m? They spent $53m. The 1.7m number was the contribution form the companies involved. Would you like to redo your calculation there?
What it a split from the books, or was it that the author of the books would not be assisting in the writing of the season?
Ahh, but it is not that the ocean being at this low of a ph, but that this much of a change in this amount of time.
Ph level is a sliding scale with acid on one side and alkaline on the other. If Ocean water is moves from alkaline to neutral to below 7 on the scale, which is what tehy are saying is/will happen, then it is becoming acidic. It is currently at an 8.1 out of a 14 point scale.
So you are saying MS and apple should be forced to release their industry standard patents for free, or at least a magnitude cheaper than they are now?