You're aware that anything that'll work on a billionaire will work equally well on your IRA/401K/whatever, right? How hard would it be to send a couple thousand emails to a couple thousand money managers and skim off 5-10K each?
Just a simple general rule change: All sources must pay a fee to appear in search results/FB feeds, the amount equal to whatever fees, payments, taxes, levies, etc that source charges Google/FB.
The spineless conservatives will simply give it to them and they'll never see what they did wrong.
Interesting. On this side of the pond, it's the liberals who are all gung-ho about giving out government money when something doesn't work as it should. And the media (mostly) is pretty liberal here also (with a few notable exceptions, of course).
Do news organizations really not want Google to link to them?
Of course they want Google to link to them! They also want Google to give them billions and billions of dollars, because, you know, those links are utterly priceless!
"At risk of hunger" would suggest only that these people are living in poverty...
It doesn't even suggest that.
You can be "at risk of hunger" if you missed a meal last month. Which puts me "at risk of hunger". Mind you, having no pancreas makes missing a meal slightly more serious than for the population at large, but it's still not worth worrying about unless I make a habit of it....
40% of them have, as their one ISP, a company that has violated net neutrality.
Another 50 million have two choices for ISP, both of which have done things that violated net neutrality.
So, given that information from the summary, why is the headline "129 million Americans can only get Internet Services from Companies that have violated net neutrality"?
I mean, it's not all that hard to add the 50 million from the first paragraph to the 50 million from the second. And it's not like/.'ers are innumerate...Oh, wait. Never mind....
The grad students who were buzzing the Earth as part of the "research" for their theses on primitive cultures have all graduated, and no longer need to waste time in the sticks....
But to be fair, most of humanity simply isn't ready for the Internet. The Internet is still the Wild West, full of garbage, and most people are simply not smart or savvy enough to deal with it.
Don't tell me, let me guess...
You, personally, are, in fact, smart or savvy enough to deal with the internet?
The awesome thing about the wall is that it managed to stop suicide attacks before it was completed. It's still not quite complete, amusingly. It's almost as though Palestinians decided to stop the suicide bombings, and the Israelis just wanted more land....
Your conclusion would make more sense if the suicide attacks that you mentioned were stopped before the wall was started, rather than before it was completed....
(I guess the "half the planet earthlings are starving" hasn't take its toll in their minds)
Possibly because it's false. No, there are not 3.5 billion people starving right now.
There aren't even that many who fit the (rather generous) definition of "hungry" commonly used to describe the problem.
By the by, the number you're looking for for "hunger" is ~800 million (11% or so). The number of people starving is a very small fraction of that, but the exact value is unknown (there are places still that don't like to talk about that sort of thing - North Korea comes to mind)....
The Dutch bought New York for some glass beads and a couple blankets. Maybe the Indians should have asked for a little more, but it was perfectly legal.
Why? They got some glass beads that they could not make for any price, in exchange for a piece of land they didn't own.
I'd call that a bargain, the best I'd ever had, if I'd managed to pull it off....
Signatories include the EU, and nine nations: Canada, Denmark(Greenland), Norway, Russia, United States, Japan, China, South Korea, and Iceland. That's a lot of fish that will be left alone for the next 16 years. I'd say that will make an impact.
No, that's a lot of countries that won't be fishing in the specified area. If, for instance, North Korea were to send fishing boats there, well, they'd be catching as much as they wanted to, what with no competition for the fish...
As to whether it'll make an impact? Probably, assuming no major crop failures anywhere in the next decade or so. On the other hand, Global Warming (whether A or not) will tend to make crop failures more likely. So it's a toss-up.
On balance, I personally think it'll be a good thing. Of course, I believe we should be farming/herding fish, rather than hunting them (we've been doing farming/herding on land for 10K years, about time we stopped this stone-age hunting crap on the oceans)....
Slashdot Mirror
You're aware that anything that'll work on a billionaire will work equally well on your IRA/401K/whatever, right? How hard would it be to send a couple thousand emails to a couple thousand money managers and skim off 5-10K each?
Two things:
"Administrate" == BAD. "Administer" == GOOD.
Do money managers really move millions around based on an unauthenticated email?? The mind boggles at the abject stupidity implied....
I'm curious. When was being a lobbyist treated as treason (a crime defined in the Constitution)?
Plus 10%. To handle the inevitable overhead....
Interesting. On this side of the pond, it's the liberals who are all gung-ho about giving out government money when something doesn't work as it should. And the media (mostly) is pretty liberal here also (with a few notable exceptions, of course).
Of course they want Google to link to them! They also want Google to give them billions and billions of dollars, because, you know, those links are utterly priceless!
Stop linking to any news from the group(s) that don't want them "making billions" by linking news articles.
Wonder how long those news agencies will take to change their minds?
A quick check with my calculator shows that the 11000 number assumes 60W incandescent bulbs.
Which is all well and good, but do people still use incandescent light bulbs?
It doesn't even suggest that.
You can be "at risk of hunger" if you missed a meal last month. Which puts me "at risk of hunger". Mind you, having no pancreas makes missing a meal slightly more serious than for the population at large, but it's still not worth worrying about unless I make a habit of it....
So, 129 million have only one ISP available.
40% of them have, as their one ISP, a company that has violated net neutrality.
Another 50 million have two choices for ISP, both of which have done things that violated net neutrality.
So, given that information from the summary, why is the headline "129 million Americans can only get Internet Services from Companies that have violated net neutrality"?
I mean, it's not all that hard to add the 50 million from the first paragraph to the 50 million from the second. And it's not like /.'ers are innumerate...Oh, wait. Never mind....
The grad students who were buzzing the Earth as part of the "research" for their theses on primitive cultures have all graduated, and no longer need to waste time in the sticks....
No, ion engines require "reaction mass". Which is not quite the same thing as "fuel".
Since you apparently don't know the difference, I suspect you know rather less about the subject than you think you do....
Don't tell me, let me guess...
You, personally, are, in fact, smart or savvy enough to deal with the internet?
Full of yourself much?
Your conclusion would make more sense if the suicide attacks that you mentioned were stopped before the wall was started, rather than before it was completed....
The real problem here is that 2.35MW it peanuts. Half a dozen 18-wheeler engines hooked to generators could do that much.
Let me know when they put together a 500MW power plant using these techniques....
Possibly because it's false. No, there are not 3.5 billion people starving right now.
There aren't even that many who fit the (rather generous) definition of "hungry" commonly used to describe the problem.
By the by, the number you're looking for for "hunger" is ~800 million (11% or so). The number of people starving is a very small fraction of that, but the exact value is unknown (there are places still that don't like to talk about that sort of thing - North Korea comes to mind)....
No, 400 mega-acres for 92 mega-cows is 4 acres per cow/calf pair...
Always remember, acres/cow is what you get when you divide land by number of cows....
Why? They got some glass beads that they could not make for any price, in exchange for a piece of land they didn't own.
I'd call that a bargain, the best I'd ever had, if I'd managed to pull it off....
So, about a foot (30cm) of sea-level rise by 2100, then?
And in some, the damage makes them unable to distinguish between "their" and "they're"....
Umm, no. "Free fall" is a much more useful term, since it describes what actually happens - we fall toward the ground and miss.
No, there are no "forces from traveling at such incredible speeds" involved. Just gravity. And going fast enough to miss the ground....
The trick to success is NOT to drag everyone around you down, it's to life yourself up. Weakening Germany won't really improve things for others.
Notice that even bombing them into ruin 75 years ago didn't work all that well....
EU.
How much you willing to bet that if Germany succeeds here, they'll push for an EU-wide version?
And "astonishing" is bullshit also. Nothing astonishing about it....
No, that's a lot of countries that won't be fishing in the specified area. If, for instance, North Korea were to send fishing boats there, well, they'd be catching as much as they wanted to, what with no competition for the fish...
As to whether it'll make an impact? Probably, assuming no major crop failures anywhere in the next decade or so. On the other hand, Global Warming (whether A or not) will tend to make crop failures more likely. So it's a toss-up.
On balance, I personally think it'll be a good thing. Of course, I believe we should be farming/herding fish, rather than hunting them (we've been doing farming/herding on land for 10K years, about time we stopped this stone-age hunting crap on the oceans)....