I do agree with you that straightforward per-GB charging is not ideal. However, the fact is that if people actually paid a fair price for guaranteed service, they would be quite surprised. In the same way that hotels overbook rooms and airlines overbook flights, it cuts costs all round if this practice exists. Not an entirely simple problem, and not one that is easily solved by capping, either.
Oh please. We don't score so well on the milk and flowers content of our own holy texts either. As for al-Andalus - I hate to tell you, but the etymolygy of the word predates the Islamic incursion, so I have no idea what you meant. Who is they? And do you have a citation or are you just talking out your ass?
I can only presume that this is a troll with some well co-ordinated sock-puppetry. Seriously, if this is the kind of bullshit Slashdot finds insightful, I'm out of here.
And you would lose a shit load of money, because Amazon is not fundamentally over-valued, which is the only situation in which shorting makes sense. Also, movements in a company's share price mean nothing other than PR value; nothing actually changes when a company's share price goes up or down.
If there's information that readers really need to get to journalists, there are channels for that. Other than that, I am yet to be convinced that comments sections on *any* mainstream news website are anything other than places for idiots to vent about things they obviously don't understand. To my mind, the lengths to which some outlets, like the BBC, go to accommodate blatant racists, homophobes, bigots, etc, undermine intelligent debate and reporting. I wonder how it feels as a reporter knowing that you cannot represent the issue as you should because it is too complex for your audience? Even somewhere like the Economist's website is smothered in nationalists of one stripe or another who drown out intelligent conversation in favour of mis-informed rants.
Your friends must post in some wierd places. My email address is wide open: it's posted in the clear on my website, right here, and even on usenet. Yet I only get ~3-400 spam a month. Lord knows why:-/
P.G. Wodehouse (author of the Jeeves novels, amongst other things) used to write his letters, stamp and address them, and then throw them out the window on the pavement. His theory was that anyone finding such a letter would simply pop it in the nearest post-box; which apparently, they did. He claimed never to have lost a letter this way.
I seriously wonder who the hell their base belong to when they come up with idiocy like this. 4chan? Terrorists? Yeah, they terrorise people with pictures of cats with bad grammar skills. Sometimes they post foolish people's personal details. Clearly a threat to the free world as we know it. *shakes head*
Interesting. I had always thought that bicycles maintained their stability because they follow a (very large) circular path and hence all the rider has to do is balance against the force of the turn (mv^2/r) which is typically pretty small.
I can't believe I'm defending the election of officials involved in the administration of justice, but given that whoever it is that screwed this up will be standing for re-election at some point - I'd say there definitely is a cost of misconduct.
From a military point of view, yes. If they want to fight, rock their world. But the calculus changes when you are talking about operations in an environment where substantial numbers of civilians are present. You have serious and substantial obligations under military law and you cannot ignore them just because it is convenient. A great deal of what supposedly went on in Fallujah falls under that.
Western militaries are still tooled and trained to fight WWII. We need to wise up and move on and recognise that blindly teaching the doctrines that won the last war may not win the next one.
I'm not so foolish to think that there are aren't ways in which someone who really wanted to could cause serious damage, but I don't include any of the large botnets in this category. These guys want to spam, phish, harvest data, and sell network time. 1995 style penis stroking attacks are not hugely interesting when you're coining it like these operators are.
Strictly speaking, it's common law that has not been practiced for some considerable time. In Scotland you could probably get away with a desutuede defence, but in England, it stands until explicitly overturned by statute.
That's not a huge amount of data, relatively speaking. Google catalogues every touch ever made, and they don't even have much of an idea what to do with a lot of it.
The big problem is that the King can't pardon anyone until someone has been actually sentenced. Rather convenient when *you* set the trial date.
This issue really has nothing to do with monarchy; even in the UK similar laws exist, we're just sensible enough to ignore them most of the time. More to the point, Prime Minister Blair was bad enough. We don't like the idea of President Blair.
Total nuclear disarmament is a very long game indeed. I can't imagine material progress over anything less than generational timespans. Still, it would be nice to think we made a start.
Slashdot Mirror
I do agree with you that straightforward per-GB charging is not ideal. However, the fact is that if people actually paid a fair price for guaranteed service, they would be quite surprised. In the same way that hotels overbook rooms and airlines overbook flights, it cuts costs all round if this practice exists. Not an entirely simple problem, and not one that is easily solved by capping, either.
Oh please. We don't score so well on the milk and flowers content of our own holy texts either. As for al-Andalus - I hate to tell you, but the etymolygy of the word predates the Islamic incursion, so I have no idea what you meant. Who is they? And do you have a citation or are you just talking out your ass?
Care to back that up with citations? "Thou shalt not kill" may look fairly clear-cut, but frankly, there are in fact quite a few codicils.
I can only presume that this is a troll with some well co-ordinated sock-puppetry. Seriously, if this is the kind of bullshit Slashdot finds insightful, I'm out of here.
And you would lose a shit load of money, because Amazon is not fundamentally over-valued, which is the only situation in which shorting makes sense. Also, movements in a company's share price mean nothing other than PR value; nothing actually changes when a company's share price goes up or down.
If there's information that readers really need to get to journalists, there are channels for that. Other than that, I am yet to be convinced that comments sections on *any* mainstream news website are anything other than places for idiots to vent about things they obviously don't understand. To my mind, the lengths to which some outlets, like the BBC, go to accommodate blatant racists, homophobes, bigots, etc, undermine intelligent debate and reporting. I wonder how it feels as a reporter knowing that you cannot represent the issue as you should because it is too complex for your audience? Even somewhere like the Economist's website is smothered in nationalists of one stripe or another who drown out intelligent conversation in favour of mis-informed rants.
Your friends must post in some wierd places. My email address is wide open: it's posted in the clear on my website, right here, and even on usenet. Yet I only get ~3-400 spam a month. Lord knows why :-/
P.G. Wodehouse (author of the Jeeves novels, amongst other things) used to write his letters, stamp and address them, and then throw them out the window on the pavement. His theory was that anyone finding such a letter would simply pop it in the nearest post-box; which apparently, they did. He claimed never to have lost a letter this way.
...this is why centrally planned aconomies don't work.
Well, you *did* ask.
Frankly, I would sign up to that even if they weren't terrorists. Fukken sheep.
Mmm. With any luck, this might be recognised as the moment that the terrorism witch-hunt jumped the shark.
I seriously wonder who the hell their base belong to when they come up with idiocy like this. 4chan? Terrorists? Yeah, they terrorise people with pictures of cats with bad grammar skills. Sometimes they post foolish people's personal details. Clearly a threat to the free world as we know it. *shakes head*
I just wondered if there's a slashdot achievement for posting in worst story ever (in before Jon Katz new here etc).
Man, what interesting friends you have ;)
Interesting. I had always thought that bicycles maintained their stability because they follow a (very large) circular path and hence all the rider has to do is balance against the force of the turn (mv^2/r) which is typically pretty small.
Hello, my name is King John. I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I can't believe I'm defending the election of officials involved in the administration of justice, but given that whoever it is that screwed this up will be standing for re-election at some point - I'd say there definitely is a cost of misconduct.
Western militaries are still tooled and trained to fight WWII. We need to wise up and move on and recognise that blindly teaching the doctrines that won the last war may not win the next one.
I'm not so foolish to think that there are aren't ways in which someone who really wanted to could cause serious damage, but I don't include any of the large botnets in this category. These guys want to spam, phish, harvest data, and sell network time. 1995 style penis stroking attacks are not hugely interesting when you're coining it like these operators are.
Strictly speaking, it's common law that has not been practiced for some considerable time. In Scotland you could probably get away with a desutuede defence, but in England, it stands until explicitly overturned by statute.
That's not a huge amount of data, relatively speaking. Google catalogues every touch ever made, and they don't even have much of an idea what to do with a lot of it.
This issue really has nothing to do with monarchy; even in the UK similar laws exist, we're just sensible enough to ignore them most of the time. More to the point, Prime Minister Blair was bad enough. We don't like the idea of President Blair.
Is the sheep raping *strictly* necessary?
Total nuclear disarmament is a very long game indeed. I can't imagine material progress over anything less than generational timespans. Still, it would be nice to think we made a start.