Speaking as a non US, non European (I'm Australian), I can safely say that most US companies have no problem whatsoever alienating possible consumers in non domestic markets....
Speaking as a non US, non European (I'm Australian) alienating the rest of the world as a customer base by ignoring them doesn't seem to really worry most US companies...
I always thought (and still do think) that AND is a boolean term.
Therefore even if it ignores OR as long as it operates on AND google IS doing a boolean search.
It's just that its a limited one.
Sorry I'm a computer programmer and we're anal about langauges, in particular syntax and semantics.
Presumably if you did an nslookup on www.google.com and each person in your experiment used the ip instead of the name then they'd get the same estimated results since you would be using the same host at the same datadenter?
Or is there load balancing other than DNS round robin the load balancing?
Generally speaking I believe gun (and all other crime) to be cuased by your society. As people have pointed out some cputnrioes very very strict laws eg virtual toal abannign of all guns have very high gun criem rates, and otehr with very lax laws (pelase take your mitlary issue automatic weapon and grenades home) have very low gun crime rates.
I think the case with the US is probably economically based adn to an extent cultrual.
Ie I suspect inmany cases it is poverty that is drviing gun crime and hopelessness.
Probably drugs too but I suspect that is a symptom of poverty and hopelessness in many cases.
Here is Aust we had less gun crime even when we had access to the same guns.
What we do have is a social secuirty system that emans even if you lose your job and cant find one for the rest of your life, you wont staerve and you wont end up on the street. Similarly if you do lsoe your job, you can most liely while living onsocial security get intoa uiniversity and get a degree, given the will to make soem sacrifces.
Interstingly as far as I know there has been no real decrease in gun crime, if you exclude statisical blips such as the Port Arthur massacre(the work of a madman as oppsoed to a crime of frustrration or poverty).
Here's my view, if it saves just oen life its worth it. Well if just one person had a gun at Pt Arthur, apart from the guy who wnet burko, they could have shot him and saved 40 lives.
The geni is out of the bottle and has ben for hundereds of years. Its like nukes. We ahve them, we arent going to get rid of them. If your really scared of them, leanr about them, and get one. You can then protect yourself. Take repsonsibility for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as a non US, non European (I'm Australian), I can safely say that most US companies have no problem whatsoever alienating possible consumers in non domestic markets....
Speaking as a non US, non European (I'm Australian) alienating the rest of the world as a customer base by ignoring them doesn't seem to really worry most US companies...
I always thought (and still do think) that AND is a boolean term. Therefore even if it ignores OR as long as it operates on AND google IS doing a boolean search. It's just that its a limited one. Sorry I'm a computer programmer and we're anal about langauges, in particular syntax and semantics.
The hypothesis should be easily testable.
Presumably if you did an nslookup on www.google.com and each person in your experiment used the ip instead of the name then they'd get the same estimated results since you would be using the same host at the same datadenter?
Or is there load balancing other than DNS round robin the load balancing?
Generally speaking I believe gun (and all other crime) to be cuased by your society.
As people have pointed out some cputnrioes very very strict laws eg virtual toal abannign of all guns have very high gun criem rates, and otehr with very lax laws (pelase take your mitlary issue automatic weapon and grenades home) have very low gun crime rates.
I think the case with the US is probably economically based adn to an extent cultrual.
Ie I suspect inmany cases it is poverty that is drviing gun crime and hopelessness.
Probably drugs too but I suspect that is a symptom of poverty and hopelessness in many cases.
Here is Aust we had less gun crime even when we had access to the same guns.
What we do have is a social secuirty system that emans even if you lose your job and cant find one for the rest of your life, you wont staerve and you wont end up on the street. Similarly if you do lsoe your job, you can most liely while living onsocial security get intoa uiniversity and get a degree, given the will to make soem sacrifces.
Interstingly as far as I know there has been no real decrease in gun crime, if you exclude statisical blips such as the Port Arthur massacre(the work of a madman as oppsoed to a crime of frustrration or poverty).
Here's my view, if it saves just oen life its worth it.
Well if just one person had a gun at Pt Arthur, apart from the guy who wnet burko, they could have shot him and saved 40 lives.
The geni is out of the bottle and has ben for hundereds of years.
Its like nukes. We ahve them, we arent going to get rid of them. If your really scared of them, leanr about them, and get one.
You can then protect yourself.
Take repsonsibility for yourself.