preparing a building for implosion is a major construction project. A standard Boeing 737 holds 6,707 gallons of fuel at full capacity @ about $2/gallon. 6700 x $2 = about $13400
If you are to believe the "official explanations", instead of spending weeks and 100s of thousands of $$ to pay demolition experts, you get a couple of guys (anybody realy) have them haul up 6K gallons of jet fuel in pretty much any where in the building, light up the fuel and wait 1 or 2 hours before the building gracefully comes down on its own foot print... I bet it could be done in a day. Cost of this NEW technic? around $15K! Savings = 100s of thounsand of $$$ (maybe millions?).
...I believe that this historical attack on customers has been uniquely confined to the software industry, that is until the RIAA got a hold of the business model...
Actually there is another well known case. That of the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers vs Ford's Customers:
From http://artofinvention.tripod.com/Automobile-Selden Story.htm/:
"Henry Ford writes in his book, My Life and Work, Doubleday, 1926, that the Association of Automobile Manufacturers then began to advertise warnings to prospective Ford customers against purchasing Ford automobiles implying that those who purchased or owned a Ford automobile might be prosecuted on criminal and civil charges and that buying a Ford automobile "might well be buying a ticket to jail." Ford ran a four page ad in newspapers across the country offering legal protection to all Ford auto owners based on the $6,000,000 assets of the Ford company plus a $6,000,000 bond. Hence, $12,000,000 of legal protection for each and every Ford owner. The lawsuit had the affect of increasing Ford Motor Company sales - sales nearly doubled that year to 18,000 cars. Ford states that about fifty Ford automobile owners asked for the bond. The public was not intimidated."
I think it is interresting to note the conclusion: "The public was not intimidated". We might soon find out if indeed "History often repeats itself"!!
I think the title of this item should have been "Microsoft agrees with the SFLC"!
It is my understanding that the SFLC's position hasn't changed. It is just Microsoft's position which is surprising.
What? Microsoft defending the rights of countries that do NOT support patents? I for one am surprised!
That would be "nouveau" Overlord. Not "nouvelle". Because nouveau is the "male" form and Overlord is considered "male"... well... huuuh... at least it is in french. But, since this is meaningless in English, would that imply that both forms are appropriate?
Slashdot Mirror
Living in a Windows free home since 2003!
May I offer a simple and easy explanation?
"Education increases the ingestion of propaganda. In fact it is a prerequisite."
From "Propaganda" by jacques Ellul, 1973
...I believe that this historical attack on customers has been uniquely confined to the software industry, that is until the RIAA got a hold of the business model...Actually there is another well known case. That of the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers vs Ford's Customers:
From http://artofinvention.tripod.com/Automobile-Selde
I think it is interresting to note the conclusion: "The public was not intimidated". We might soon find out if indeed "History often repeats itself"!!
I think the title of this item should have been "Microsoft agrees with the SFLC"! It is my understanding that the SFLC's position hasn't changed. It is just Microsoft's position which is surprising. What? Microsoft defending the rights of countries that do NOT support patents? I for one am surprised!
That would be "nouveau" Overlord. Not "nouvelle". Because nouveau is the "male" form and Overlord is considered "male"... well... huuuh... at least it is in french. But, since this is meaningless in English, would that imply that both forms are appropriate?
My favorite quote: "If voting could change anything... it would be illegal in the USA".