I can see some modest value in a display that shows where related items are, being a guy who doesn't go shopping often. I might actually use it.
Therein lies a juicy new source of income for the stores. In order to get "listed" in the product directory, I can see the stores charging a fee to the suppliers, much in the way shelf space is sold to those vendors who are willing to pay for it. For example, look at the soft drink isle in any grocery - Coke and Pepsi products get 2/3 or more of the shelf space, while off brands get enough for a row of 6 packs. It's a big barrier to new product entry and limits choices to the consumer.
The whole idea of ringer equivalence existed so they could shoot a charge down your line and know how many phones you had. If it didn't match, they'd come over for a "technical visit".
Ah, yes, the good ol' days when finding a used telephone was a treasure. All you had to remember was that when you wired it in, you ONLY hooked up the red and green wires so they couldn't tell you had other phones hooked up. The phone didn't ring, but they didn't know you had it, either...
Anyone care to comment on why the good ol' US Federal Gov't, that tireless defender of capitalism and free market enterprise, feels it has any business dictating "solutions" (what's the problem, anyway?) to said "free" markets? If DTV is a benefit to consumers, they will buy it. If not, can you say Edsel?
Re:What is an example that can't run in parallel?
on
Forget Moore's Law?
·
· Score: 1
... so googling should turn up information from people who actually know this stuff (I'm just going from memory here!)
Assuming, of course, that the archaic hardware at google can handle all those/. queries...
Access to source code results in insecurity as the viewer may find holes in your application that they can exploit.
A pathetic restatement of the largely debunked philosophy of "security through obscurity".
All this does is create a black market for MS source code, be it stolen or reverse engineered.
"Personally, I don't like advertisements tapdancing on the chest of my own free will...What do you think?"
I think that if you buy into the belief that advertisers can actually control what you buy, with this or any other technique, then you have no free will anyway and what the advertisers do is moot.
The problem is (and others have touched on this) is that people don't THINK about what they buy anymore. They let other people do the thinking for them, because it's easier. The fashion industry is the perfect example. Every year they come out and tell people what they should wear this year. People aren't being controlled... they've abdicated control over their lives to others. There's a difference.
And you know what? It's all those mindless droids out there who create opportunity for those people who can and do use their heads. It's up to each individual to decide which type of person they want to be...
How about United Devices? They have a project that's helping find a cancer cure. Plus, they have a really cool screen saver of a model of the current protein you're working on floating around your screen.
Slashdot Mirror
Therein lies a juicy new source of income for the stores. In order to get "listed" in the product directory, I can see the stores charging a fee to the suppliers, much in the way shelf space is sold to those vendors who are willing to pay for it. For example, look at the soft drink isle in any grocery - Coke and Pepsi products get 2/3 or more of the shelf space, while off brands get enough for a row of 6 packs. It's a big barrier to new product entry and limits choices to the consumer.
Why?
Here's the thing. I'll agree to let these insane folks out on the street again if you'll agree to let them live with you while they're out.
Ah, yes, the good ol' days when finding a used telephone was a treasure. All you had to remember was that when you wired it in, you ONLY hooked up the red and green wires so they couldn't tell you had other phones hooked up. The phone didn't ring, but they didn't know you had it, either...
Anyone care to comment on why the good ol' US Federal Gov't, that tireless defender of capitalism and free market enterprise, feels it has any business dictating "solutions" (what's the problem, anyway?) to said "free" markets? If DTV is a benefit to consumers, they will buy it. If not, can you say Edsel?
Assuming, of course, that the archaic hardware at google can handle all those /. queries...
A pathetic restatement of the largely debunked philosophy of "security through obscurity". All this does is create a black market for MS source code, be it stolen or reverse engineered.
I think that if you buy into the belief that advertisers can actually control what you buy, with this or any other technique, then you have no free will anyway and what the advertisers do is moot.
The problem is (and others have touched on this) is that people don't THINK about what they buy anymore. They let other people do the thinking for them, because it's easier. The fashion industry is the perfect example. Every year they come out and tell people what they should wear this year. People aren't being controlled... they've abdicated control over their lives to others. There's a difference.
And you know what? It's all those mindless droids out there who create opportunity for those people who can and do use their heads. It's up to each individual to decide which type of person they want to be...
How about United Devices? They have a project that's helping find a cancer cure. Plus, they have a really cool screen saver of a model of the current protein you're working on floating around your screen.