First, make our own energy use more efficient. Second, increase abortion and contraception assistance to the Third World. Third, cease all food and medical aid to the Third World. Problem solved.
Almost all industrialized countries have birth rates that are at or have fallen below the replacement rate of 2.1 babies per family. All population growth is coming from the developing world. HIREZ.
Disturbingly, this administration is not pushing YouTube to modify their policies for the White House channel.
FTFA: "In just the past couple weeks, YouTube has launched dedicated pages for both the House and Senate to show off their own videos, and the site also recently started allowing users to directly download copies of some videos. This latter feature has not yet been widely deployed across the site, and is seems to be limited to videos posted by Obama's team."
So there may in fact be some push from the White House to modify YouTube's policies. We'll see.
in my view
does for me
I just want
I'm looking for
But for me
I haven't seen any need
I've really liked
I like that I don't have to
I look forward to
I like the new
I had to enable
I don't like that
I do kind of have to
"Why do I care?"
I usually only
I've reorganized my
I rarely have
I don't notice
I don't own a
I like the new
I like the new
I like the new
I like that I can
I have to look
I didn't want
I can't stand that
I don't like that I can't have
I like being able
I like the updates
I like the jump
I look forward to
And I look forward to
just the things I can think of
that I expect from
What did I get
Not a direct ripoff, but they certainly integrated some of the key ideas of The Dock into the new taskbar. The article says so quite plainly:
The rather vociferous supporters of a certain Cupertino-based company will probably say that this aspect of the new taskbar (in conjunction with its large icons) shows that Microsoft has simply copied Apple. That may be so, but I'm not sure why anyone should care. The new taskbar works better than the old one, and that alone justifies the decisions Microsoft has taken.
I don't think it's supposed to fix anything fundamental. The article makes it clear that Windows 7 seems to focus on all-around issues of polish and usability. There are a few significant under-the-hood changes, but this remains a minor point-release based on the major changes that Vista made. Pushing this out as Windows 7 instead of Vista SP2 probably has to do with the widespread negative association people have with the "Vista" name itself. Vista got so much bad press, even if SP2 introduced all these fixes and made Vista usable and polished, people still wouldn't adopt it. Releasing it as Windows 7 solves that problem.
I'm an Apple user, but it seems to me that Microsoft is focusing on the same things that Apple usually gets right: polish and user experience. As long as Windows 7 doesn't run like a dog, I think it will be a competitive release, and not one that Apple will be able to mock with the same ease as Vista in their Mac-vs-PC commercials. Meanwhile, Apple seems to be doing the opposite--taking time off from features and user experience to work on the under-the-hood changes. Windows 7 and Snow Leopard will be an interesting match-up.
The Macbook Air is for roadwarriors. Unfortunately, it too has an integrated (non-user replaceable) battery. However, the replacement process nevertheless appears to be easier than expected.
Because you were never actually arguing against me. I was talking about civil society while you were busy destroying your Randian-free-market-fundamentalist-strawman. I can stand at a remove from things, because I wasn't really involved in your pre-written script argument against the strawman you created. You obviously weren't reading any of my posts nor responding to any of the points I made--I didn't even really need to be there.
It's like putting A.L.I.C.E. and SmarterChild into the same chat window and seeing them go back and forth with one another in an infinite loop of retarded pre-written scripts.
Steinmo examined the tax structures of Sweden compared to the U.S. and determined that when you examine the sociology of the taxes, rather than just their statutorily defined rates, Sweden is actually far less progressive than the United States.
Source.
having the same entity glean a clear and direct benefit from the not-for-profit organization.
Remember that there are two entities here: Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corp. Mozilla Foundation is non-profit whereas Mozilla Corp is for-profit. Mozilla Corp's revenue does not come from donations but comes from services rendered to Google (placing Google as the default search engine). There should be no problem with a for-profit company receiving its revenue from one major buyer. The question is then, has the proper relationship between the non-profit Foundation and for-profit Corp been maintained. I think this is what the IRS is checking.
Second, I think Mozilla and Google's relationship is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Now that Google has released Chrome, Mozilla and Google can be seen as competitors. The "clear and direct benefit" that you cite Google as having in Mozilla's continued health is not so clear and direct now that Google has their own free browser competing for market share.
Mozilla hoardes the money, it's not being taxed or used.
That's a clear-cut violation of tax law, involving a non-profit. Google paid enough into a non-profit so that they actually SHOWED a profit.
I don't think this interpretation is correct. First, Google paid Mozilla for services rendered by Mozilla (making Google the default search engine). Google, as far as I know, did not donate any money to Mozilla at all.
Second, Mozilla Foundation hasn't shown a profit. It's Mozilla Corporation that has shown a profit. This is the reason for having two different entities--one a taxable organization (Corp) and one a non-profit (Foundation). All the profits that the Mozilla Corp makes are reinvested back into the project, not transferred to Mozilla Foundation. So there shouldn't be a problem with Mozilla Foundation's non-profit status.
The IRS is probably just checking to make sure that Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corp have kept all their ducks in a row.
Microsoft learned this lesson with Windows 2000. By stripping down their "Server" OS, they (possibly inadvertently) produced what was arguably the desktop best operating ever made by the company.
Actually, they have sorta retained this lesson. When Longhorn got bogged down, they scrapped most of the work and started over with the codebase from Server 2003 SP1. Likewise, Windows 7 and Server 2008 are closely developed together.
Also, the next release, Snow Leopard, is specifically designed for mobile machines (laptops and iPhones). Should see significant gains in battery life, memory footprint, and performance on low power systems.
The US Gov has more US dollars, the US citizens become poorer (boohoo), but more importantly, it means the rest of the world holding trillions of USD become poorer.
This is one of the reasons I heard discussed on NPR as to why Greenspan kept the interest rates below the rate of inflation for so long. On the one hand, it was to address potential recession in the U.S., but on the other hand, there was a strategic reason: the amount of debt being bought and held by the Chinese among others.
If the Chinese have to buy U.S. securities in order to keep the value of their currency low relative to the dollar--and they do this in order to make their products competitive in the United States so that their export-led growth model will continue to function--then the United States will eventually owe a lot of interest on those securities that China buys.
But if China buys securities with an interest rate that's below the inflation rate, they actually lose money on the investment, because the inflation rate of 2-3% (or higher) is greater than the earnings of 1% on a U.S. treasury. So in order to keep its economy going, China has to take a loss on its $1 trillion and counting. Essentially, keeping the interest rate low while China was buying a lot of U.S. securities was a way for the U.S. to profit (albeit in a roundabout and somewhat self-destructive way) from China's export-led growth model and from the U.S. position as a reserve currency issuer and the world's largest consumer.
Oswald spenglers decline of the west should be required reading for every student before they enter the world.
You have a very scary position. Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West argued that the only thing that can counter the power of money in "parliamentarism" was "blood and soil." Within the context of Hitler's subsequent rise, emphasizing the German race and its mystical connection with the land, Spengler's words become a very stark warning, not a model to follow.
Soros's criticisms of capitalism are particularly rich, insofar as he goes out of his way to cause turmoil. Soros's manipulation of the Thai Bhat set off the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 that spread around the world, ultimately resulting in the hyperinflation of the Russian Ruble in 1998 and their default on IMF loans. He engaged in a political attack on the British Pound in the 1980s with the object of driving Britain out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. It's hard to see his criticisms of the system as particularly constructive given his otherwise politically destructive behavior.
If I had the money, I would have a standing short on every day that Apple has a conference. There's always a speculative run-up in the price and a drop when the actual announcement is made.
You're right that stochastic events cannot be predicted--by definition. However, the effects of stochastic events can be modeled for the sake of contingency planning. Such effects might include: a decline in housing prices; a sudden or otherwise significant rise in interest rates; a sudden rise in mortgage defaults; a cessation in foreign (e.g. Chinese government or Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds) willingness/ability to buy U.S. debt instruments; and so on. While the trigger event may not be knowable, the potential effects of such an event can be explored. Since hedge funds are ostensibly about mitigating risk, what's most surprising that they were not exploring such scenarios and insulating themselves, even to a modest degree, against such possibilities.
I agree. This seems like a public beta. Early adopted types downloaded it and probably gave Google a lot of feedback. Now Google is probably working on a second version that addresses the bugs and lacunae of the first beta. Once Chrome fixes basic aspects of usability and security, we might see Google more heavily promoting it. Why would they heavily promote a public beta for mass consumption anyway? It would just give the casual user a bad impression that Google would have to work even harder to overcome in order to get them to download a 1.0 version. The limited pulse of advertising on the initial public beta makes sense.
put together a high powered group of mathemeticians and economists to investigate this
What do you think this is, the Challenger disaster? We're going to get a politicized circus packed with partisan showboaters, not scientists. Certainly no one with a comparable stature to Feynman.
Slashdot Mirror
First, make our own energy use more efficient. Second, increase abortion and contraception assistance to the Third World. Third, cease all food and medical aid to the Third World. Problem solved.
Almost all industrialized countries have birth rates that are at or have fallen below the replacement rate of 2.1 babies per family. All population growth is coming from the developing world. HIREZ.
FTFA: "In just the past couple weeks, YouTube has launched dedicated pages for both the House and Senate to show off their own videos, and the site also recently started allowing users to directly download copies of some videos. This latter feature has not yet been widely deployed across the site, and is seems to be limited to videos posted by Obama's team."
So there may in fact be some push from the White House to modify YouTube's policies. We'll see.
HOLY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, BATMAN!
I don't think it's supposed to fix anything fundamental. The article makes it clear that Windows 7 seems to focus on all-around issues of polish and usability. There are a few significant under-the-hood changes, but this remains a minor point-release based on the major changes that Vista made. Pushing this out as Windows 7 instead of Vista SP2 probably has to do with the widespread negative association people have with the "Vista" name itself. Vista got so much bad press, even if SP2 introduced all these fixes and made Vista usable and polished, people still wouldn't adopt it. Releasing it as Windows 7 solves that problem.
I'm an Apple user, but it seems to me that Microsoft is focusing on the same things that Apple usually gets right: polish and user experience. As long as Windows 7 doesn't run like a dog, I think it will be a competitive release, and not one that Apple will be able to mock with the same ease as Vista in their Mac-vs-PC commercials. Meanwhile, Apple seems to be doing the opposite--taking time off from features and user experience to work on the under-the-hood changes. Windows 7 and Snow Leopard will be an interesting match-up.
The Macbook Air is for roadwarriors. Unfortunately, it too has an integrated (non-user replaceable) battery. However, the replacement process nevertheless appears to be easier than expected.
Because you were never actually arguing against me. I was talking about civil society while you were busy destroying your Randian-free-market-fundamentalist-strawman. I can stand at a remove from things, because I wasn't really involved in your pre-written script argument against the strawman you created. You obviously weren't reading any of my posts nor responding to any of the points I made--I didn't even really need to be there.
It's like putting A.L.I.C.E. and SmarterChild into the same chat window and seeing them go back and forth with one another in an infinite loop of retarded pre-written scripts.
Wow, you just copy-pasted your ludicrous rant from kuro5hin directly into this thread. Truly amazing trolling.
No, that would be an Italian firewall used to censor Scottish content.
Britain cutting itself off from the rest of the world is better represented by the Channel Fogwall.
Steinmo examined the tax structures of Sweden compared to the U.S. and determined that when you examine the sociology of the taxes, rather than just their statutorily defined rates, Sweden is actually far less progressive than the United States. Source.
Remember that there are two entities here: Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corp. Mozilla Foundation is non-profit whereas Mozilla Corp is for-profit. Mozilla Corp's revenue does not come from donations but comes from services rendered to Google (placing Google as the default search engine). There should be no problem with a for-profit company receiving its revenue from one major buyer. The question is then, has the proper relationship between the non-profit Foundation and for-profit Corp been maintained. I think this is what the IRS is checking.
Second, I think Mozilla and Google's relationship is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Now that Google has released Chrome, Mozilla and Google can be seen as competitors. The "clear and direct benefit" that you cite Google as having in Mozilla's continued health is not so clear and direct now that Google has their own free browser competing for market share.
I don't think this interpretation is correct. First, Google paid Mozilla for services rendered by Mozilla (making Google the default search engine). Google, as far as I know, did not donate any money to Mozilla at all.
Second, Mozilla Foundation hasn't shown a profit. It's Mozilla Corporation that has shown a profit. This is the reason for having two different entities--one a taxable organization (Corp) and one a non-profit (Foundation). All the profits that the Mozilla Corp makes are reinvested back into the project, not transferred to Mozilla Foundation. So there shouldn't be a problem with Mozilla Foundation's non-profit status.
The IRS is probably just checking to make sure that Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corp have kept all their ducks in a row.
Nixon WAS A ROBOT !
Actually, they have sorta retained this lesson. When Longhorn got bogged down, they scrapped most of the work and started over with the codebase from Server 2003 SP1. Likewise, Windows 7 and Server 2008 are closely developed together.
Being a Digg user and an admin at Wikipedia has destroyed my faith in any kind of internet-based social governance.
Also, the next release, Snow Leopard, is specifically designed for mobile machines (laptops and iPhones). Should see significant gains in battery life, memory footprint, and performance on low power systems.
This is one of the reasons I heard discussed on NPR as to why Greenspan kept the interest rates below the rate of inflation for so long. On the one hand, it was to address potential recession in the U.S., but on the other hand, there was a strategic reason: the amount of debt being bought and held by the Chinese among others.
If the Chinese have to buy U.S. securities in order to keep the value of their currency low relative to the dollar--and they do this in order to make their products competitive in the United States so that their export-led growth model will continue to function--then the United States will eventually owe a lot of interest on those securities that China buys.
But if China buys securities with an interest rate that's below the inflation rate, they actually lose money on the investment, because the inflation rate of 2-3% (or higher) is greater than the earnings of 1% on a U.S. treasury. So in order to keep its economy going, China has to take a loss on its $1 trillion and counting. Essentially, keeping the interest rate low while China was buying a lot of U.S. securities was a way for the U.S. to profit (albeit in a roundabout and somewhat self-destructive way) from China's export-led growth model and from the U.S. position as a reserve currency issuer and the world's largest consumer.
You should really look into a newer framework for your web interfaces: Cobol on Cogs.
You have a very scary position. Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West argued that the only thing that can counter the power of money in "parliamentarism" was "blood and soil." Within the context of Hitler's subsequent rise, emphasizing the German race and its mystical connection with the land, Spengler's words become a very stark warning, not a model to follow.
Soros's criticisms of capitalism are particularly rich, insofar as he goes out of his way to cause turmoil. Soros's manipulation of the Thai Bhat set off the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 that spread around the world, ultimately resulting in the hyperinflation of the Russian Ruble in 1998 and their default on IMF loans. He engaged in a political attack on the British Pound in the 1980s with the object of driving Britain out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. It's hard to see his criticisms of the system as particularly constructive given his otherwise politically destructive behavior.
If I had the money, I would have a standing short on every day that Apple has a conference. There's always a speculative run-up in the price and a drop when the actual announcement is made.
You're right that stochastic events cannot be predicted--by definition. However, the effects of stochastic events can be modeled for the sake of contingency planning. Such effects might include: a decline in housing prices; a sudden or otherwise significant rise in interest rates; a sudden rise in mortgage defaults; a cessation in foreign (e.g. Chinese government or Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds) willingness/ability to buy U.S. debt instruments; and so on. While the trigger event may not be knowable, the potential effects of such an event can be explored. Since hedge funds are ostensibly about mitigating risk, what's most surprising that they were not exploring such scenarios and insulating themselves, even to a modest degree, against such possibilities.
I agree. This seems like a public beta. Early adopted types downloaded it and probably gave Google a lot of feedback. Now Google is probably working on a second version that addresses the bugs and lacunae of the first beta. Once Chrome fixes basic aspects of usability and security, we might see Google more heavily promoting it. Why would they heavily promote a public beta for mass consumption anyway? It would just give the casual user a bad impression that Google would have to work even harder to overcome in order to get them to download a 1.0 version. The limited pulse of advertising on the initial public beta makes sense.
What do you think this is, the Challenger disaster? We're going to get a politicized circus packed with partisan showboaters, not scientists. Certainly no one with a comparable stature to Feynman.