Oh, yeah. That'll work ever so well. Everybody will do things in a way that is completely inoperable with every other company and it will be left up to yet another party to integrate it. I mean, it worked great for the American telcos, didn't it?
Actually, it wasn't as bad as what Australia is going through now, IIUC. There are issues with rural areas being woefully underserved, and there are many places where the costs are out of line (often because there is only ONE choice of broadband provider in the area), but overall most people have good broadband available.
I think South Korea has done things very well, and that was with heavy government control. But then South Korea's government is much more functional than either Australia's or the US.
They hire the highest contributor, and the talent running the project is not cream of the crop because they've already spent the money for technical resources on lobbyists instead.
Would be more accurate.
Public-Private Partnerships [wikipedia.org] seem to work address a lot of these issues. Expect to see more of them in the future.
No, it makes it worse. Public-Private Partnerships is just a fancy Orwellian term for what used to be referred to as Musollini-style Fascism.
there used to be a pretty prevalent scam in which a firm would send something of value unsolicited and then bill the recipient. When the recipient did not pay, the firm would harrasss the recipient and do whatever nasty thing they could to get the money.
There are companies that still do that, but it's typically just something like a magazine subscription. Magazines start showing up, and after a few months you get a bill in the mail. Happened to me several times. I just toss the bill in the same circular file where the magazines went.
In the US if a vendor sends you an unrequested product you are allowed to keep it. The law is to protect people from bogus sales scams. No idea what the law is in the EU though.
It looks very similar (you could have just RTFA yourself):
The Hut Group based its threat of legal action on its understanding of the UK's distance selling regulations.
Although they state that "unsolicited goods" can be treated as unconditional gifts that do not need to be returned, and that it is illegal for the sender to threaten legal action - the legislation they are based on adds the qualification that this only applies if there was no "prior request made by or on behalf of the recipient".
He no longer needs to pay for the Internet, so he's saving lots of money!... but how did he post?!
Thank you for pointing out the biggest problem with the Internet today - people think if the don't have an agreement with one of the big Internet corporations, and use their services, that there is nothing to use the Internet for. I assure you, this is incorrect. And we'd all be a lot better off if more people would realize that.
Just because you don't shop at Walmart or Target doesn't mean there's nowhere to go shopping.
Yet they came up with the curriculum, dubbed it "Common Core", and are helping fund the implementation. But, yea, they expect the middle class taxpayers to fund the actual training for the next generation of corporate cogs.
yeah spending hundreds of millions of dollars eradicating diseases like malaria in poor countries is so immoral...oh right but you only care that Windows is closed source.
The harm done by the organization and the companies that the foundation fund invests in does too much damage for the disease mitigation efforts they spend some of the money on. They created, lobbied for and are funding the implementation of "Common Core" (and, yes, Common Core is bad. I trust what the teachers say about it).
And despite what you have heard about the foundation's funding for immunizations in poor countries, a great amount of money goes to fund sterilization and abortion programs. It's all part of the foundation's population control efforts. This is Bill Gate's plan for dealing with climate change: depopulation through vaccines.
Seriously, why would anyone trust a 21st century corporation with something as dangerous as nuclear energy?
Because the only other option is the government - which has shown just how competent it is at running projects by proving they can't even build a website given 3 years to do it.
Talk to Harry Reid. The scientists figured it out decades ago, but some politicians refuse to act.
Indeed. It's so dead (for purely political reasons, BTW), that the courts have said the DoE needs to stop charging consumers for it. Don't expect a refund for all the money they wasted, though.
If it is all tossed into the Marianas Trench, you won't be endangered by any radiation from it at all unless you happen to wander within a few feet from it. How often do you go about cruising down the MT in James Cameron's yellow submarine, if I may so boldly ask?
Concerned about cost?!? This will be the same dipshit buying a single $7 pack of cigarettes, and a $2 bottle of Coke, telling you that the cost of $20 a year for premium is too much.
... says the mathematically challenged.
12,000 miles / 30 MPG (generous) * $.40 premium = $160 / year
That's fine if you're driving a sensitive car that requires or is designed for high octane gas. Otherwise, it's just being an idiot for paying more for something that you don't need.
Let's assume a 10 gallon tank, and $1/gal for 87 and $1.20/gal for 92 (typical price difference in the US). It takes $10 to fill up on 87, $12 on 92. $10 / 250 miles = $0.04 per mile. $12 / 320 miles = $0.0375 per mile. So yes, there is a cost savings, though, very small per mile. You'll typically see some wear and tear (read: maintenance) savings on the engine as well, since there should be less build-up, etc. due to the higher octane.
Of course, that all assume the GP's numbers are true.
Well we know that your numbers are not. Good luck finding premium gas at $.20 higher than regular. It's usually more like $.30 - $.40 higher, at least.
The problem here is that folks with the conspiracy bent end up having no way to find information that might clear up their confusion if all they are getting is wattsup or alex jones or whatever.
This is the first time I've seen anyone try to claim that Anthonny Watt's blog was the stuff of conspiracy theory. It's a clever technique. If we can associate anyone that questions the IPCC with the likes of Alex Jones and David Icke, we can avoid having to address any questions they have at all.
I love it when people point that out in an argument. It completely outs them as a person that takes the statements at face value, and have never learned to think critically on their own.
I already declined to participate in your hallucination. Did you think I would feel anything less than relief that your imaginary version of "critical thinking" does not apply to me?
So "critical thinking" is something "imaginary" that only other people do? Right, okay. Got it.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it as bad a Symantec?
No. In fact, I can't really think of anything that is. Maybe there are a few viruses that are as bad.
Oh, yeah. That'll work ever so well. Everybody will do things in a way that is completely inoperable with every other company and it will be left up to yet another party to integrate it. I mean, it worked great for the American telcos, didn't it?
Actually, it wasn't as bad as what Australia is going through now, IIUC. There are issues with rural areas being woefully underserved, and there are many places where the costs are out of line (often because there is only ONE choice of broadband provider in the area), but overall most people have good broadband available.
I think South Korea has done things very well, and that was with heavy government control. But then South Korea's government is much more functional than either Australia's or the US.
They hire the highest contributor, and the talent running the project is not cream of the crop because they've already spent the money for technical resources on lobbyists instead.
Would be more accurate.
Public-Private Partnerships [wikipedia.org] seem to work address a lot of these issues. Expect to see more of them in the future.
No, it makes it worse. Public-Private Partnerships is just a fancy Orwellian term for what used to be referred to as Musollini-style Fascism.
(the no one knows, there is no oversight... and that's the problem).
That's called freedom. No wonder the government has an issue with it.
It's more like XBMC with gaming..and apps, cause it will stream all your media and play steam games.
Now if it had Blackjack and Hookers, they would be on to something.
In fact, just never mind about the games.
there used to be a pretty prevalent scam in which a firm would send something of value unsolicited and then bill the recipient. When the recipient did not pay, the firm would harrasss the recipient and do whatever nasty thing they could to get the money.
There are companies that still do that, but it's typically just something like a magazine subscription. Magazines start showing up, and after a few months you get a bill in the mail. Happened to me several times. I just toss the bill in the same circular file where the magazines went.
In the US if a vendor sends you an unrequested product you are allowed to keep it. The law is to protect people from bogus sales scams. No idea what the law is in the EU though.
It looks very similar (you could have just RTFA yourself):
He no longer needs to pay for the Internet, so he's saving lots of money!... but how did he post?!
Thank you for pointing out the biggest problem with the Internet today - people think if the don't have an agreement with one of the big Internet corporations, and use their services, that there is nothing to use the Internet for. I assure you, this is incorrect. And we'd all be a lot better off if more people would realize that.
Just because you don't shop at Walmart or Target doesn't mean there's nowhere to go shopping.
At least they are doing something. What have YOU done?
Cancelled my accounts on Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo.
It isnt their responsibility to train you
Yet they came up with the curriculum, dubbed it "Common Core", and are helping fund the implementation. But, yea, they expect the middle class taxpayers to fund the actual training for the next generation of corporate cogs.
yeah spending hundreds of millions of dollars eradicating diseases like malaria in poor countries is so immoral...oh right but you only care that Windows is closed source.
The harm done by the organization and the companies that the foundation fund invests in does too much damage for the disease mitigation efforts they spend some of the money on. They created, lobbied for and are funding the implementation of "Common Core" (and, yes, Common Core is bad. I trust what the teachers say about it).
And despite what you have heard about the foundation's funding for immunizations in poor countries, a great amount of money goes to fund sterilization and abortion programs. It's all part of the foundation's population control efforts. This is Bill Gate's plan for dealing with climate change: depopulation through vaccines.
This will turn into just another way to utilize untapped resources instead of trying to do things like hunter-gatherers.
FTFY
Seriously, why would anyone trust a 21st century corporation with something as dangerous as nuclear energy?
Because the only other option is the government - which has shown just how competent it is at running projects by proving they can't even build a website given 3 years to do it.
Talk to Harry Reid. The scientists figured it out decades ago, but some politicians refuse to act.
Indeed. It's so dead (for purely political reasons, BTW), that the courts have said the DoE needs to stop charging consumers for it. Don't expect a refund for all the money they wasted, though.
If it is all tossed into the Marianas Trench, you won't be endangered by any radiation from it at all unless you happen to wander within a few feet from it. How often do you go about cruising down the MT in James Cameron's yellow submarine, if I may so boldly ask?
But ... but ... Godzilla!
sounds like this "journalist" never even heard of Denisovans before now.
Yea, well, neither have I. But then I'm not a professional that is expected to know anything about it.
So what exactly is the "clues" that have been gained?
are
Concerned about cost?!? This will be the same dipshit buying a single $7 pack of cigarettes, and a $2 bottle of Coke, telling you that the cost of $20 a year for premium is too much.
... says the mathematically challenged.
12,000 miles / 30 MPG (generous) * $.40 premium = $160 / year
That's fine if you're driving a sensitive car that requires or is designed for high octane gas. Otherwise, it's just being an idiot for paying more for something that you don't need.
Let's assume a 10 gallon tank, and $1/gal for 87 and $1.20/gal for 92 (typical price difference in the US). It takes $10 to fill up on 87, $12 on 92. $10 / 250 miles = $0.04 per mile. $12 / 320 miles = $0.0375 per mile. So yes, there is a cost savings, though, very small per mile. You'll typically see some wear and tear (read: maintenance) savings on the engine as well, since there should be less build-up, etc. due to the higher octane.
Of course, that all assume the GP's numbers are true.
Well we know that your numbers are not. Good luck finding premium gas at $.20 higher than regular. It's usually more like $.30 - $.40 higher, at least.
The claim above that money has only been in use as we know it for a few hundred years is simply ludicrous, though.
Oh, absolutely. In fact, people still collect Aeginian "Turtles", some from as early as 500 B.C.
The problem here is that folks with the conspiracy bent end up having no way to find information that might clear up their confusion if all they are getting is wattsup or alex jones or whatever.
This is the first time I've seen anyone try to claim that Anthonny Watt's blog was the stuff of conspiracy theory. It's a clever technique. If we can associate anyone that questions the IPCC with the likes of Alex Jones and David Icke, we can avoid having to address any questions they have at all.
What is a "real zombie movie?" Do we compare this to fake zombie movies?
Google+ has about a third as many actual people as Facebook at this point, and growing.
90% of whom would tell you they don't if you asked them.
They'd lie?
They wouldn't know. There are LOTS of people that ended up with G+ accounts without realizing it. It's just the way Google's services work.
Google+ has about a third as many actual people as Facebook at this point, and growing.
90% of whom would tell you they don't if you asked them.
So it's a social network that "protects your data" ... and requires Google Chrome. :/
Why am I skeptical?
I love it when people point that out in an argument. It completely outs them as a person that takes the statements at face value, and have never learned to think critically on their own.
I already declined to participate in your hallucination. Did you think I would feel anything less than relief that your imaginary version of "critical thinking" does not apply to me?
So "critical thinking" is something "imaginary" that only other people do? Right, okay. Got it.