No, the Nexus lines are a bit more closely-related to Google than other phones. The Nexus devices have all been marketed by Google, have all had a vanilla Android installed on them, and have generally been well-supported by Google themselves in terms of updates. They're basically Google's reference implementation of Android hardware.
then patenting it and charging those same citizens to use what they paid to invent.
Or, in this case, charging billion-dollar companies incorporated in another country. Australian taxes should fund research for American companies - that way the tax-payers are sure to get their money's worth!
The headline's trying to beat-up the Facebook connection, to tie into the anti-Facebook zeitgeist that pervades Slashdot. The actual story is that police didn't actually investigate thoroughly, and ignored all other evidence. That would have been a problem even if they'd used, say, a photo from a school yearbook, or from a publicity shot from her art exhibition.
In short, the summary's trying to turn the story into a "OH NOES! Facebook is the end of privacy!" when really it's a "OH NOES! Police are sloppy and lazy" story.
The nimbleness of a company is more of a function of how it's managed than of its size, but of course it's a lot easier to spin layoffs by pretending that a smaller company is somehow better performing than a larger one (if that was the case why would companies ever hire? it'd be much simpler to just remain "nimble" by staying small).
Small companies are generally more nimble.
Small companies are usually new companies - or ones that have experienced only minimal growth since their founding. As a company gets bigger, the ratio of manager:workers increases. New companies and start-ups have a very low manager:worker ratio. They're "lean" and "nimble". As they expand, the manager:worker ratio goes up, and they become less nimble, because although the total workforce has increased, the actual hands-to-the-plow segment of that force hasn't. In addition, you start getting turf wars, and chinese whispers going on, as everything needs to be filtered through multiple layers of management.
Big companies see this, and decides that small companies are nimble because they are small. They therefore fire more of their workers, further increasing their manager:worker ratio, and descending very quickly into the spiral of bankruptcy.
Yes, but somebody had to pay for them. That somebody was the school, through the taxpayer.
What's your point? That these Polish textbooks are somehow magically free and nobody's had to pay for them? Your post is a non-answer to a question nobody asked.
Certain parts of the world are overpopulated. But just as many are underpopulated. The inside of America is both fairly empty, and fairly habitable. The interior of my own country (Australia) is far less habitable, but there are still many, many areas that aren't. We produce more than enough food to feed the world - it's the distribution that's problematic, not the production. Malthus has been proved wrong again and again.
Further economic growth is neither possible
Citation?
Since when is economic growth dependant on population growth? America's economic boom-time wasn't caused by a sudden increase of population (although it led to it, as migration to America became popular). Economic growth can either come from an increasing supply of raw material (which are finite, yes), but also from coming up with new ways to process those raw materials to increase their value (ie: make useful stuff out of them).
nor desirable
Citation?
What's one good reason we wouldn't want economic growth? Yeah, the richer always benefit the most when there's growth, but the poor benefit too, if not in the same proportion.
the origin of their discontent comes from the end of growth
What free speech amounts to is the right to say what you have to say then dare the government to do something about it.
No, that's freedom from prior restraint. It's part of the overall concept of free speech, but not the totality of it.
Freedom of Speech is poorly defined, but it generally means that you can say what you want, apart from a few specifically defined instances. Think of it as "default allow" for speech. Basically, if there are no laws against what you are saying, then the government can't punish you for saying it.
That might sound like a truism, but historically, it isn't. Historically, governments have arrested (and imprisoned, and executed) people for saying things they don't like, regardless of what the law says.
I think the key is that she offered to change it all for money. I think that's the part that should be illegal, not posting all that stuff in the first place.
No, they should both be illegal. She should be charged with libel for posting malicious untruths, and with extortion for trying to extract money from her marks by ceasing her libel.
Its maybe time to put the failed beliefs aside. Private Enterprise has dug us all into a very neat hole, and separating it from Government is probably one of the few answers that holds any hope of saving this smoking hole that is the remains of our economy.
Your first paragraph contradicts your title. Libertarianism is all about separating the government from private industry. Stuff like bail outs, government-granted monopolies, and hell, even the very existence of corporate charters are explicitly against the libertarian ideal that the government has strictly limited and delineated powers.
What you're railing against is closer to fascism - the merging of the state and industry. Of course, in America's case it looks like the merger is being accomplished by industry devouring the state, but the final result is going to be fairly similar to the historical course of the state swallowing industry.
She was elected exactly the same way every other PM was elected.
Uh, not really. Since 1910, she's only the second PM to have been put into position due to a hung parliament. The previous PM elected in such a fashion, Menzies, lasted only a year before the people who'd put him in power, turned on him, and dumped him for Curtin. In both situations, the party in power was decided not by the will of the people, but by politicking. It wasn't the electorate who decided to put a Labor government in power; the electorate voted for a 72-72 split. It was the Greens and the independents. Now, you can say that, as a representative system, those officials' votes represented the will of the people, but there's at least one clear case (Oakshott) who went decidedly against the will of his electorate.
Rob Oakeshott. He was one of the three independents on whom the results of the hung parliament depended. Lyne (his electorate) has been a National stronghold, regularly polling around Nationals 63% to Labour 36%, two-party preferred. Oakeshott was an ex-National member, turned independent. He knew his electorate, knew they'd voted him in on a conservative platform, but he still backed the formation of a Labor minority government.
Katter has said his decision to back Labor was only because both the other independents had already done so, making any action of his futile. If Oakeshott had actually represented the wishes of his electorate, the outcome would have been very different.
Sure I will give you access to all my facebook data for a cheap beer...
Why are you assuming that my facebook data is not worth a cheap beer, to me? A transaction in which I gain something of value to me, in return for something of value to the other person, which I value less than the goods I receive is the fundamental bedrock of economics.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the Nexus lines are a bit more closely-related to Google than other phones. The Nexus devices have all been marketed by Google, have all had a vanilla Android installed on them, and have generally been well-supported by Google themselves in terms of updates. They're basically Google's reference implementation of Android hardware.
then patenting it and charging those same citizens to use what they paid to invent.
Or, in this case, charging billion-dollar companies incorporated in another country. Australian taxes should fund research for American companies - that way the tax-payers are sure to get their money's worth!
I think you're missing the point.
The headline's trying to beat-up the Facebook connection, to tie into the anti-Facebook zeitgeist that pervades Slashdot. The actual story is that police didn't actually investigate thoroughly, and ignored all other evidence. That would have been a problem even if they'd used, say, a photo from a school yearbook, or from a publicity shot from her art exhibition.
In short, the summary's trying to turn the story into a "OH NOES! Facebook is the end of privacy!" when really it's a "OH NOES! Police are sloppy and lazy" story.
The nimbleness of a company is more of a function of how it's managed than of its size, but of course it's a lot easier to spin layoffs by pretending that a smaller company is somehow better performing than a larger one (if that was the case why would companies ever hire? it'd be much simpler to just remain "nimble" by staying small).
Small companies are generally more nimble.
Small companies are usually new companies - or ones that have experienced only minimal growth since their founding. As a company gets bigger, the ratio of manager:workers increases. New companies and start-ups have a very low manager:worker ratio. They're "lean" and "nimble". As they expand, the manager:worker ratio goes up, and they become less nimble, because although the total workforce has increased, the actual hands-to-the-plow segment of that force hasn't. In addition, you start getting turf wars, and chinese whispers going on, as everything needs to be filtered through multiple layers of management.
Big companies see this, and decides that small companies are nimble because they are small. They therefore fire more of their workers, further increasing their manager:worker ratio, and descending very quickly into the spiral of bankruptcy.
Google "battery"
Yes, but somebody had to pay for them. That somebody was the school, through the taxpayer.
What's your point? That these Polish textbooks are somehow magically free and nobody's had to pay for them? Your post is a non-answer to a question nobody asked.
The world is full
Citation?
Certain parts of the world are overpopulated. But just as many are underpopulated. The inside of America is both fairly empty, and fairly habitable. The interior of my own country (Australia) is far less habitable, but there are still many, many areas that aren't. We produce more than enough food to feed the world - it's the distribution that's problematic, not the production. Malthus has been proved wrong again and again.
Further economic growth is neither possible
Citation?
Since when is economic growth dependant on population growth? America's economic boom-time wasn't caused by a sudden increase of population (although it led to it, as migration to America became popular). Economic growth can either come from an increasing supply of raw material (which are finite, yes), but also from coming up with new ways to process those raw materials to increase their value (ie: make useful stuff out of them).
nor desirable
Citation?
What's one good reason we wouldn't want economic growth? Yeah, the richer always benefit the most when there's growth, but the poor benefit too, if not in the same proportion.
the origin of their discontent comes from the end of growth
Citation?
What free speech amounts to is the right to say what you have to say then dare the government to do something about it.
No, that's freedom from prior restraint. It's part of the overall concept of free speech, but not the totality of it.
Freedom of Speech is poorly defined, but it generally means that you can say what you want, apart from a few specifically defined instances. Think of it as "default allow" for speech. Basically, if there are no laws against what you are saying, then the government can't punish you for saying it.
That might sound like a truism, but historically, it isn't. Historically, governments have arrested (and imprisoned, and executed) people for saying things they don't like, regardless of what the law says.
I think the key is that she offered to change it all for money. I think that's the part that should be illegal, not posting all that stuff in the first place.
No, they should both be illegal. She should be charged with libel for posting malicious untruths, and with extortion for trying to extract money from her marks by ceasing her libel.
It is. Read the summary - she got slapped with a fine for defamation. Libel and slander are types of defamation.
Its maybe time to put the failed beliefs aside. Private Enterprise has dug us all into a very neat hole, and separating it from Government is probably one of the few answers that holds any hope of saving this smoking hole that is the remains of our economy.
Your first paragraph contradicts your title. Libertarianism is all about separating the government from private industry. Stuff like bail outs, government-granted monopolies, and hell, even the very existence of corporate charters are explicitly against the libertarian ideal that the government has strictly limited and delineated powers.
What you're railing against is closer to fascism - the merging of the state and industry. Of course, in America's case it looks like the merger is being accomplished by industry devouring the state, but the final result is going to be fairly similar to the historical course of the state swallowing industry.
Well, yes. And the obvious defence against a torpedo is "just don't blow up".
If you sign off on a doggy bridge design and the bridge falls down
The poor little pooches :(
She was elected exactly the same way every other PM was elected.
Uh, not really. Since 1910, she's only the second PM to have been put into position due to a hung parliament. The previous PM elected in such a fashion, Menzies, lasted only a year before the people who'd put him in power, turned on him, and dumped him for Curtin. In both situations, the party in power was decided not by the will of the people, but by politicking. It wasn't the electorate who decided to put a Labor government in power; the electorate voted for a 72-72 split. It was the Greens and the independents. Now, you can say that, as a representative system, those officials' votes represented the will of the people, but there's at least one clear case (Oakshott) who went decidedly against the will of his electorate.
No, I meant Oakeshott. More detailed response on your other post.
Rob Oakeshott. He was one of the three independents on whom the results of the hung parliament depended. Lyne (his electorate) has been a National stronghold, regularly polling around Nationals 63% to Labour 36%, two-party preferred. Oakeshott was an ex-National member, turned independent. He knew his electorate, knew they'd voted him in on a conservative platform, but he still backed the formation of a Labor minority government.
Katter has said his decision to back Labor was only because both the other independents had already done so, making any action of his futile. If Oakeshott had actually represented the wishes of his electorate, the outcome would have been very different.
I thought Australian's don't directly elect their prime-minister.
Fine, we didn't elect her party. Happy?
And how can an independent back-stab... they're independent.
They back-stab by being voted in on a conservative platform by their electorate, and then jumping ship to back the Labor party.
There's still hope that someone will pull a Julia on Abbot and stick Turnbull back in the top spot.
I guess that's true. It's not like she was elected PM, after all - she only got there due to a particular back-stabbing independant.
Please, any non-Aussies reading this story, do not judge our nation on our Prime Minister's elocution in that video. We know. We're sorry.
So, basically, this story is that Gawker is switching to OpenID for their authentication system - just twisted around into flamebait.
Stay classy, slashdot
You might not have heard of it, but if you've ever typed a comment on a site with a richtext editor, you've probably used it (it or CKEditor)
puts an unbelievable amount of tentacles into your system
Citation?
I've seen no evidence (nor even claims, before yours) of this.
Uh-huh. Using Facebook is equivalent to supporting the slave trade.
Well, I can definitely ignore your opinions from now on.
Sure I will give you access to all my facebook data for a cheap beer...
Why are you assuming that my facebook data is not worth a cheap beer, to me? A transaction in which I gain something of value to me, in return for something of value to the other person, which I value less than the goods I receive is the fundamental bedrock of economics.