There is no need. They profit by providing convenience (assuming they make more than the cost to host). Anyone can post a torrent and then send a link out or post it somewhere. Just subvert Twitter or Pintrest or any number of social systems that let you follow someone.
And it has been this way for millennia. Tens of thousands of years of people persuading, cajoling, bribing and yes forcing others to do something in their favor. Believing anything else is delusion and fantasy.
The people who understand this use it even more to their advantage and gain power. Those who do not are pawns, victims, chattel or scenery.
Personally I choose mostly to be scenery though I wield the advantage when necessary or in a limited venue. The world stage is too risky for anyone without a legacy to bring to the table.
So yes an individual can act out common sense and be virtuous but when conflicting agendas meet you must throw out common sense and assume corruption will win the day. Good guys finish last, as the saying goes.
I hate those towns. They are built as speed traps. If they took the money and used it to build a raised road with on/off ramps and under the road crossings or even bridges to cross then fine away but they don't. They put their citizens at risk and pocket the money or use it for unrelated improvements so they can keep the money rolling in.
If you can't survive as a town without ripping people off who just want to get to work, you should just board up and move.
It's been a while but try modx. Powerful event system, easy to extend. Good dev community. The maintainer is in Dallas and is a nice guy (more than one guy but he's the head honcho).
And those things have nothing to do with the rendering engine or JS engine.
Mozilla could absolutely provide something that could support those features on iOS.
BTW Safari does support extensions and has an adblocker and user script support available via 3rd party, as does Chrome. Clearly you haven't cred to look at options in 2-3 years, being smug and all.
So the answer is no. In FirefoxOS there will be only one browser engine. They are providing access to the API (for compatibility with apps) and kernel but after that you're on your own and will be distributing your own fork and btw the Firefox browser won't work on it either unless you also fork that and roll your own as well.
"The hard part is to hold an engaging social conversation talking about nothing, but that's a story for another day."
Actually the hard part is doing so while reinforcing or improving your social status through word choice, topic choice, tone of voice and non-verbal cues. Then after having set the stage you can proceed to collect information about the subjects of your interview, I mean the people you are talking to, filed away for later use. The goal in these situations is to socialize without offending and while making the others feel like they a) were the most important person in the room or b) that you had disclosed something useful about yourself.
Uh they aren't parsing your client, they're parsing your inbox... doesn't matter if you use gmail.com web or an app on a phone/tablet or Opera's/Mozilla's/Native pop mail client.
You won't see ads outside of the web client but your search results on google.com are impacted and banners you see on other websites (if they are managed by google) will be impacted.
Sure. OTOH gold is useless to me as anything other than currency. It's real scarcity has no impact on its value to me and practically it can be split into enough fractional quantities as to make its scarcity a non-issue and no better than an artificially scarce currency such as promissory notes or bitcoins. In fact gold value would have to be propped up with the exact same artificial scarcity as it is not practical at all to require accurate assessment of raw gold and so would need backing by a mint to authenticate its value at which point the mint controls the scarcity.
So to use raw gold as currency we would have to have a cheap and fast way to verify its purity (melting it down would not be viable). Even then it could inflate / deflate on the value per weight scale, down to nano grams if necessary, making its "scarcity" pointless.
The above reasons are why paper/digital currency is as good as any assuming you don't just jump straight to the actual reason. Currency is simply a proxy for work done or promised to be done. It has no value outside of this proxy agreement. Anyone who says otherwise is scamming you. Why should I value the work of gold miners anymore than the work of a doctor? Why not trade in health credits instead? It would have way more transferable value than a bit of shiny yellow conductive molecules.
Go back to your hidey hole with your prepper shelves full of canned fruits and beans. The rest of us will continue to build civilization just fine without you.
And yet we live in a world where every artist / writer / collective CAN have their own publishing company and it is trivial to set up. The cost of distribution is nearly zero, the cost of transaction is the same as any business and again trivial. The cost of marketing is probably the biggest expense and time consumer.
Creative people don't need publishers, they just need good PR. They don't need to sell their copyrights for that. There is no need to allow businesses to own copyrights.
My understanding was that burning involves fire aka heat and light radiation so a more intense reaction. The description in TFA was that of chemical combustion but with only heat radiation confined to the oxidized iron pellets. "Burning" is probably just an imprecise term whether used by laymen or by experts.
Yes but then you have to transport the coal fuel stock to all of these small plants. That could eat up a large amount of the new efficiency. Nice thought though.
There is no burning. Apparently that is the key innovation. The chemical reaction between the coal dust and the rust pellets releases the CO2 in a very controlled manner with the CO2 being separated cleanly rather than mixed up with smoke aka carbon molecules. That must make the CO2 capture much much easier.
Blah blah blah second amendment blah blah blah. All you guys have the same broken record reason for needing assault rifles and automatic handguns (Uzi).
Why not heavy machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers? Why not let people drive 120 mph down school streets? That's right, it's irresponsible, dangerous, reckless and indefensible behavior putting lives at risk for the selfish pleasure of selfish assholes.
The second amendment. Sure. I'll remember that each time I hear about a shooting death. The blood of the innocent and all that... because those kids (urban or suburban) were a fair trade off so some people can pretend that they are maintaining sovereignty and freedom for us all.
You'll find yourself on the wrong side of history soon my friend because the rest of us are growing up and putting aside our childish ways.
So. I grew up shooting guns for sport. Arrows too actually. Small gauge as I was a child. It was fun. We'd shot targets and cans off fences and shoot squirrels out of our Pecan trees and rabbits and gophers and birds. Later I went deer and boar hunting with larger gauge and duck hunting. Never once needed a sem-automatic weapon and my grandfather and father (both ex military) never felt the need to own high powered rifles of this sort.
I can recall watching documentaries about people hunting and shooting in the 90s and before and never saw high powered rifles with clips. Those were military weapons for killing people since the only reason you might need to shoot more than a few rounds was if your target was shooting back. They only showed up in action flicks and usually in the hands of the bad guys who bought them from some South African arms dealer or the like.
When did that change? When did America become a place where people needed to have an semi-automatic rifle to 'defend' themselves against other Americans? Could it be that the availability of such weapons for sale to civilians created an arms race? Criminals got them easily so regular people needed them too? Maybe their very existence on the market made it so you just couldn't know who had one and might turn on you.
It's a sorry place to be when you feel so unsafe in your home that a simple handgun isn't enough protection. It's embarrassing that the idea of sport shooting is to guarantee a kill by taking as many shots as you like from your rifle. That's like the kid who wants 10 do overs to make a free throw or needs an extra down to get to the end zone (its pathetic and reserved for 'special kids' so they can feel good about themselves).
At the end of the day it has to be a complete lack of confidence in yourself and your country that makes you want to own these kinds of guns. Either you need a clip full of "do over" bullets because you need to feel good about your lack of shooting skill or you need to stock up on weapons to protect yourself from the boogeyman because you don't believe in the local, state and federal law enforcement to keep your property and life safe. I get the last one. However by making high powered auto rifles legal and available at all you make it nearly impossible for them to do their job. You shouldn't need more than a handgun at most to protect against a similarly armed bad guy.
Regardless of whether they are responsible for a majority of killing or not there just isn't a defensible reason for civilian owned auto style rifles. Get them off the streets and out of homes. Rent them at a shooting range or hunting preserve, fine. As long as they are counted and stiff penalties are in place for missing and unreported losses. Their absence will reduce the need for SWAT teams in every inner city, reduce the need for snipers in our civilian police force, reduce the cost to keep streets safe (by not requiring police to be ready for these weapons on every shots fired call). Having possession of one should be a crime unless you are turning it in or have a shooting range license (maybe that's how rural land owners can get a blanket license).
Many US cities are trying to reinvigorate their downtown but it is a chicken and egg problem. They need the density to make the services profitable and they need the services to generate the density. The crime, etc is just an excuse to avoid investing.
If by private you mean publicly funded infrastructure such as roads, bridges, highways, traffic systems and policing then you are correct. The only thing private are the cars.
No it's not the existence of this vast asphalt and concrete ball and chain that prevents the US from having a good public transportation system.
It is however the fact that land is plentiful outside metro areas and many people prefer to commute. There are a variety of reasons for this. Historically it has been the industrialization of the inner city areas with businesses wanting to be close to the transportation hubs the cities grew up around. This lead to the residential areas moving further away to avoid pollution and activities they wanted to avoid (bars, worker riots, etc). Which turned the inner city residential areas into lower class neighborhoods and eventually impoverished areas.
So now we have huge suburban communities that sprawl across the land and require decentralized transportation as each area may have residents commuting to entirely different business regions. People now choose where to live based on many factors other than where they work (neighborhood, price, schools, amenities like parks or natural environments) but they still need to commute to work each day.
Centralized transportation of any kind is a failed proposition for many US metro areas. At best it could be a long term strategy if attractive housing and amenities can be set up within walking distance so that young workers can have the choice rather than impoverishing themselves trying to afford a downtown lifestyle.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no need. They profit by providing convenience (assuming they make more than the cost to host). Anyone can post a torrent and then send a link out or post it somewhere. Just subvert Twitter or Pintrest or any number of social systems that let you follow someone.
And it has been this way for millennia. Tens of thousands of years of people persuading, cajoling, bribing and yes forcing others to do something in their favor. Believing anything else is delusion and fantasy.
The people who understand this use it even more to their advantage and gain power. Those who do not are pawns, victims, chattel or scenery.
Personally I choose mostly to be scenery though I wield the advantage when necessary or in a limited venue. The world stage is too risky for anyone without a legacy to bring to the table.
So yes an individual can act out common sense and be virtuous but when conflicting agendas meet you must throw out common sense and assume corruption will win the day. Good guys finish last, as the saying goes.
Apple did it and it seems to be working out just fine. They could have tried to use X but probably had the same reasons as Canonical, full control.
Sometimes the only way to get better results is to tear it all down and start over. You learn from the past but let go of the baggage.
How much lower? If 10% then okay that could be mitigated but if you have to lower it 25% or more then it becomes untenable.
I hate those towns. They are built as speed traps. If they took the money and used it to build a raised road with on/off ramps and under the road crossings or even bridges to cross then fine away but they don't. They put their citizens at risk and pocket the money or use it for unrelated improvements so they can keep the money rolling in.
If you can't survive as a town without ripping people off who just want to get to work, you should just board up and move.
It's been a while but try modx. Powerful event system, easy to extend. Good dev community. The maintainer is in Dallas and is a nice guy (more than one guy but he's the head honcho).
And those things have nothing to do with the rendering engine or JS engine.
Mozilla could absolutely provide something that could support those features on iOS.
BTW Safari does support extensions and has an adblocker and user script support available via 3rd party, as does Chrome. Clearly you haven't cred to look at options in 2-3 years, being smug and all.
http://safariadblock.com/
http://extensions.apple.com/
https://github.com/os0x/NinjaKit
So the answer is no. In FirefoxOS there will be only one browser engine. They are providing access to the API (for compatibility with apps) and kernel but after that you're on your own and will be distributing your own fork and btw the Firefox browser won't work on it either unless you also fork that and roll your own as well.
Can someone moderate this as a troll please.
"The hard part is to hold an engaging social conversation talking about nothing, but that's a story for another day."
Actually the hard part is doing so while reinforcing or improving your social status through word choice, topic choice, tone of voice and non-verbal cues. Then after having set the stage you can proceed to collect information about the subjects of your interview, I mean the people you are talking to, filed away for later use. The goal in these situations is to socialize without offending and while making the others feel like they a) were the most important person in the room or b) that you had disclosed something useful about yourself.
Uh they aren't parsing your client, they're parsing your inbox... doesn't matter if you use gmail.com web or an app on a phone/tablet or Opera's/Mozilla's/Native pop mail client.
You won't see ads outside of the web client but your search results on google.com are impacted and banners you see on other websites (if they are managed by google) will be impacted.
Sure. OTOH gold is useless to me as anything other than currency. It's real scarcity has no impact on its value to me and practically it can be split into enough fractional quantities as to make its scarcity a non-issue and no better than an artificially scarce currency such as promissory notes or bitcoins. In fact gold value would have to be propped up with the exact same artificial scarcity as it is not practical at all to require accurate assessment of raw gold and so would need backing by a mint to authenticate its value at which point the mint controls the scarcity.
So to use raw gold as currency we would have to have a cheap and fast way to verify its purity (melting it down would not be viable). Even then it could inflate / deflate on the value per weight scale, down to nano grams if necessary, making its "scarcity" pointless.
The above reasons are why paper/digital currency is as good as any assuming you don't just jump straight to the actual reason. Currency is simply a proxy for work done or promised to be done. It has no value outside of this proxy agreement. Anyone who says otherwise is scamming you. Why should I value the work of gold miners anymore than the work of a doctor? Why not trade in health credits instead? It would have way more transferable value than a bit of shiny yellow conductive molecules.
Go back to your hidey hole with your prepper shelves full of canned fruits and beans. The rest of us will continue to build civilization just fine without you.
And yet we live in a world where every artist / writer / collective CAN have their own publishing company and it is trivial to set up. The cost of distribution is nearly zero, the cost of transaction is the same as any business and again trivial. The cost of marketing is probably the biggest expense and time consumer.
Creative people don't need publishers, they just need good PR. They don't need to sell their copyrights for that. There is no need to allow businesses to own copyrights.
My understanding was that burning involves fire aka heat and light radiation so a more intense reaction. The description in TFA was that of chemical combustion but with only heat radiation confined to the oxidized iron pellets. "Burning" is probably just an imprecise term whether used by laymen or by experts.
It's always windy somewhere. So plenty of redundancy seems to be the solution.
Yes but then you have to transport the coal fuel stock to all of these small plants. That could eat up a large amount of the new efficiency. Nice thought though.
99% of the CO2 as a pure gas. That pure CO2 can be converted to methanol (at what cost?) ala:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=turning-carbon-dioxide-back-into-fuel
If not commercially viable as fuel stock it could be used for a variety of applications that adulterated CO2 can not.
There is no burning. Apparently that is the key innovation. The chemical reaction between the coal dust and the rust pellets releases the CO2 in a very controlled manner with the CO2 being separated cleanly rather than mixed up with smoke aka carbon molecules. That must make the CO2 capture much much easier.
That's for a Design Patent not copyright or even Utility Patents. Whole different beast.
Who is going to stop a competing firm from taking the claim for themselves? It will be Wild West laws aka no laws at all.
Blah blah blah second amendment blah blah blah. All you guys have the same broken record reason for needing assault rifles and automatic handguns (Uzi).
Why not heavy machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers? Why not let people drive 120 mph down school streets? That's right, it's irresponsible, dangerous, reckless and indefensible behavior putting lives at risk for the selfish pleasure of selfish assholes.
The second amendment. Sure. I'll remember that each time I hear about a shooting death. The blood of the innocent and all that... because those kids (urban or suburban) were a fair trade off so some people can pretend that they are maintaining sovereignty and freedom for us all.
You'll find yourself on the wrong side of history soon my friend because the rest of us are growing up and putting aside our childish ways.
Wow it's North Korean Laverne and Shirley. Amazing. Guess that makes the fearless leader "Squiggy". Quite apropos.
http://youtu.be/mRmKzxhMzwo
And an episode with a horse in it:
http://youtu.be/-8_GSk2ptMo
So. I grew up shooting guns for sport. Arrows too actually. Small gauge as I was a child. It was fun. We'd shot targets and cans off fences and shoot squirrels out of our Pecan trees and rabbits and gophers and birds. Later I went deer and boar hunting with larger gauge and duck hunting. Never once needed a sem-automatic weapon and my grandfather and father (both ex military) never felt the need to own high powered rifles of this sort.
I can recall watching documentaries about people hunting and shooting in the 90s and before and never saw high powered rifles with clips. Those were military weapons for killing people since the only reason you might need to shoot more than a few rounds was if your target was shooting back. They only showed up in action flicks and usually in the hands of the bad guys who bought them from some South African arms dealer or the like.
When did that change? When did America become a place where people needed to have an semi-automatic rifle to 'defend' themselves against other Americans? Could it be that the availability of such weapons for sale to civilians created an arms race? Criminals got them easily so regular people needed them too? Maybe their very existence on the market made it so you just couldn't know who had one and might turn on you.
It's a sorry place to be when you feel so unsafe in your home that a simple handgun isn't enough protection. It's embarrassing that the idea of sport shooting is to guarantee a kill by taking as many shots as you like from your rifle. That's like the kid who wants 10 do overs to make a free throw or needs an extra down to get to the end zone (its pathetic and reserved for 'special kids' so they can feel good about themselves).
At the end of the day it has to be a complete lack of confidence in yourself and your country that makes you want to own these kinds of guns. Either you need a clip full of "do over" bullets because you need to feel good about your lack of shooting skill or you need to stock up on weapons to protect yourself from the boogeyman because you don't believe in the local, state and federal law enforcement to keep your property and life safe. I get the last one. However by making high powered auto rifles legal and available at all you make it nearly impossible for them to do their job. You shouldn't need more than a handgun at most to protect against a similarly armed bad guy.
Regardless of whether they are responsible for a majority of killing or not there just isn't a defensible reason for civilian owned auto style rifles. Get them off the streets and out of homes. Rent them at a shooting range or hunting preserve, fine. As long as they are counted and stiff penalties are in place for missing and unreported losses. Their absence will reduce the need for SWAT teams in every inner city, reduce the need for snipers in our civilian police force, reduce the cost to keep streets safe (by not requiring police to be ready for these weapons on every shots fired call). Having possession of one should be a crime unless you are turning it in or have a shooting range license (maybe that's how rural land owners can get a blanket license).
Many US cities are trying to reinvigorate their downtown but it is a chicken and egg problem. They need the density to make the services profitable and they need the services to generate the density. The crime, etc is just an excuse to avoid investing.
If by private you mean publicly funded infrastructure such as roads, bridges, highways, traffic systems and policing then you are correct. The only thing private are the cars.
No it's not the existence of this vast asphalt and concrete ball and chain that prevents the US from having a good public transportation system.
It is however the fact that land is plentiful outside metro areas and many people prefer to commute. There are a variety of reasons for this. Historically it has been the industrialization of the inner city areas with businesses wanting to be close to the transportation hubs the cities grew up around. This lead to the residential areas moving further away to avoid pollution and activities they wanted to avoid (bars, worker riots, etc). Which turned the inner city residential areas into lower class neighborhoods and eventually impoverished areas.
So now we have huge suburban communities that sprawl across the land and require decentralized transportation as each area may have residents commuting to entirely different business regions. People now choose where to live based on many factors other than where they work (neighborhood, price, schools, amenities like parks or natural environments) but they still need to commute to work each day.
Centralized transportation of any kind is a failed proposition for many US metro areas. At best it could be a long term strategy if attractive housing and amenities can be set up within walking distance so that young workers can have the choice rather than impoverishing themselves trying to afford a downtown lifestyle.