Not a big fan of this commercial, but only because I don't see an issue with paying for a bigger pipe. I think it's fair that I pay more for higher raw throughput for multiple streaming devices than my neighbour that only streams through one TV.
But add a "Fast Lane, sponsored by Coca-Cola" to the mix, where Burger King can push you to buy Coca-Cola instead of Pepsi, because Coca-Cola bid higher than Pepsi for prioritization privileges, and the real problem with repealing NN becomes apparent.
$10/mo is 25-30 minutes of voice service prepaid in Canada. Not all that many, but more than enough for data-users.
For reference, I pay $13.75+tax for 100MB data and 30 outbound texts, +$3 for voice calls a month. Good luck finding any post-paid plan that comes anywhere close to that. Bell retentions started quoting at $27, not including any data or text messages, and not including call display.
Twenty minutes to demonstrate binary sort by tearing apart (literally!) phone books to find a person listed there, is how CS50 opens its classes. Take a look at the opencourseware site cs50.tv. It's practical, it's interactive, and it really shows the computational aspects that we take for granted. Twenty minutes to demonstrate selection sort and merge sort might be a bit tight though.
I think a discussion of the more "non-computer" parts of computer science would keep an audience more interested than a discussion about programming languages, which could easily lose people in the first five minutes.
The days of secure employment are long over, and management will eliminate your role if it makes financial sense to. You should stay "loyal" only insofar as that the employment is mutually beneficial and both sides get good value of the other.
The major restriction is on the redistribution part. I can modify all I want and not redistribute, and that's fine too. This "modify and not redistribute" might be called "using" the software.
Under copyright law, you never had any license of redistribution in the first place. The GNU GPL is a license which stipulates you must also redistribute your changes if you redistribute at all. That is, you're allowed to download and install and use Linux whether or not you accept the GPL. But you can't distribute Linux (the kernel) without also opening the source and modifications.
So the CEO gets very good pay for things they didn't cause either? Don't give me that when a company fails it's always due to market circumstances (justifying the parachute) but when it's successful it's due to sound leadership (justifying the very high compensation).
Encrypted connections are used for online banking. Or would you prefer to have a man listening in for your passwords and emptying your bank account with your login?
You're actually asking readers to "construct you a curriculum," without even starting to discuss what you've found so far. That reeks of laziness and apathy. More important than actually going through the material is the motivation to get through it. You seem to be of the mind that you'll "get around to it." That's not motivation.
Still, that's not a very helpful reply, so I'll give you a hint: MIT OpenCourseWare. Or go to any university website, look through their "Physics" program, check the degree prerequisites, and start grabbing the textbooks for those courses. That'll be a comprehensive curriculum on its own.
I don't think the restricted share units is the problem, it's the sheer number of them. Sure, he "participates with the shareholders" but I don't think he'll be particularly hurt if those shares lose 75% of their value. I can't honestly see anybody caring about losing $300 million if they still get to keep $100 million afterwards.
$100 million is probably 30 times what you'll make in a lifetime.
Even professional math/finance PhD folks can make disastrous mistakes. Long Term Capital Management was founded with two Nobel Prize winners in Finance... didn't stop them from blowing up and needing a bailout.
Cry me a river about "the highway" when the developers already dismiss the best alternative application marketplace (Android). To the developers: Android dollars or no dollars. Or bending over for the will of Apple.
This seems like a fast way to force Net Neutrality laws, as the resulting carnage of takeovers and mergers create segregated islands of content. Even congressmen and senators should find it difficult to swallow needing all of a Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon connections to obtain their Disney, FOX, and HGTV channels.
Although I also think the telecoms are underestimating the power of the "independent" content providers, like Google or Yahoo. Clout-wise, companies like that might actually be able to extract payment from the backbones for the privilege of getting customers to them. What's Comcast going to do, say "sorry you can't do that" to their customers because they don't have an agreement with Google?
The richer people don't become infected, but that's not a right deigned upon the rich. Rather, it's a consequence of that the rich have the resources to avoid and treat it.
There is nothing that says only the poor should be infected, nor that the rich have the right to not be infected. That only the poor do become infected is what Mr. Gates was commenting on. And on that, he's dead accurate.
This is effectively a dividend increase. They think the rate of return on other companies is not good enough at the moment, and the cash is just sitting there. So they'll return it back to shareholders.
Consequences: lower float -> higher earnings per share.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the details of this software. Does this SplashVM provide hard disk access (since it obviously provides sound access for Skype)? If so, think VMware or Xen built straight into the image or early parts of boot... virtualization and absolute rollbacks for the masses.
As an eeepc user, I am very much applauding Asus for their use of Linux to provide further value to their products. Ubiquitous Linux in this fashion can't be wrong!
Setting aside the Net Neutrality implications of this development if it were to enter mass deployment (use this P2P software!), ISPs will loathe to actually install this technology. It would leave them implicitly condoning P2P, the majority of which is used for copyright infringement. Besides, it'd cost them actual money, compared to lobbying and whining at government.
Making these changes to copyright law, regardless of whether they're net beneficial to multinational corporations or individuals, means little with the international agreements on copyright. An American multinational corporation may do their "owner search" and find nothing, but still be on the hook when the true owner is outside the United States. United States limitations don't matter to a copyright holder suing from Canada to a Canadian operation.
Initial reviews of these devices unsurprisingly expose them to be underpowered and lacklustre.
I am not the type that needs to do big Excel Solver sheets or Matlab simulations while on the go. Why carry more than twice the weight for what amounts to a bigger power draw and little marginal value? A computer that consistently hits 40% CPU utilization (fairly high for a desktop) is a computer that is still idle 60% of the time, and that's what my Eee PC is right now.
Gimme lightweight any day; if I need CD-ROM data or more CPU performance, I'll wait until I get to either home or work to do the big grinding.
If you're going to complain about how cookie-cutter movies these days are, then it behooves you to not give the labels any money until they... well... make something original.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a big fan of this commercial, but only because I don't see an issue with paying for a bigger pipe. I think it's fair that I pay more for higher raw throughput for multiple streaming devices than my neighbour that only streams through one TV.
But add a "Fast Lane, sponsored by Coca-Cola" to the mix, where Burger King can push you to buy Coca-Cola instead of Pepsi, because Coca-Cola bid higher than Pepsi for prioritization privileges, and the real problem with repealing NN becomes apparent.
"Transaction Accelerators" already exist to induce miners to confirm a particular transaction. And they take payment in not-Bitcoin.
https://pushtx.btc.com/
Sure there is. They're called Pay-by-the-Minute plans.
Rogers: 40c/min anytime, monthly fee 0.75c for 911, $10/mo declining balance
Bell: 30c/min anytime, monthly fee 0.75c, $10/mo declining balance
Fido: 30c/min anytime, monthly fee 0.75c
Telus: 30c/min anytime, monthly fee 0.75c
$10/mo is 25-30 minutes of voice service prepaid in Canada. Not all that many, but more than enough for data-users.
For reference, I pay $13.75+tax for 100MB data and 30 outbound texts, +$3 for voice calls a month. Good luck finding any post-paid plan that comes anywhere close to that. Bell retentions started quoting at $27, not including any data or text messages, and not including call display.
Twenty minutes to demonstrate binary sort by tearing apart (literally!) phone books to find a person listed there, is how CS50 opens its classes. Take a look at the opencourseware site cs50.tv. It's practical, it's interactive, and it really shows the computational aspects that we take for granted. Twenty minutes to demonstrate selection sort and merge sort might be a bit tight though.
I think a discussion of the more "non-computer" parts of computer science would keep an audience more interested than a discussion about programming languages, which could easily lose people in the first five minutes.
The days of secure employment are long over, and management will eliminate your role if it makes financial sense to. You should stay "loyal" only insofar as that the employment is mutually beneficial and both sides get good value of the other.
The major restriction is on the redistribution part. I can modify all I want and not redistribute, and that's fine too. This "modify and not redistribute" might be called "using" the software.
Under copyright law, you never had any license of redistribution in the first place. The GNU GPL is a license which stipulates you must also redistribute your changes if you redistribute at all. That is, you're allowed to download and install and use Linux whether or not you accept the GPL. But you can't distribute Linux (the kernel) without also opening the source and modifications.
So the CEO gets very good pay for things they didn't cause either? Don't give me that when a company fails it's always due to market circumstances (justifying the parachute) but when it's successful it's due to sound leadership (justifying the very high compensation).
Encrypted connections are used for online banking. Or would you prefer to have a man listening in for your passwords and emptying your bank account with your login?
You're actually asking readers to "construct you a curriculum," without even starting to discuss what you've found so far. That reeks of laziness and apathy. More important than actually going through the material is the motivation to get through it. You seem to be of the mind that you'll "get around to it." That's not motivation.
Still, that's not a very helpful reply, so I'll give you a hint: MIT OpenCourseWare. Or go to any university website, look through their "Physics" program, check the degree prerequisites, and start grabbing the textbooks for those courses. That'll be a comprehensive curriculum on its own.
I don't think the restricted share units is the problem, it's the sheer number of them. Sure, he "participates with the shareholders" but I don't think he'll be particularly hurt if those shares lose 75% of their value. I can't honestly see anybody caring about losing $300 million if they still get to keep $100 million afterwards.
$100 million is probably 30 times what you'll make in a lifetime.
Had to post this link...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121219687026134617.html
Building inadequate sewage infrastructure... and its consequences.
This is why the FSF asks for copyright assignment in GNU projects. They become party to the license, and can act on its infringement.
Even professional math/finance PhD folks can make disastrous mistakes. Long Term Capital Management was founded with two Nobel Prize winners in Finance... didn't stop them from blowing up and needing a bailout.
Cry me a river about "the highway" when the developers already dismiss the best alternative application marketplace (Android). To the developers: Android dollars or no dollars. Or bending over for the will of Apple.
I'm nowhere near the top 5% of typists, but it was not all that hard to get 85WPM. Perhaps the sample studied is not representative of the population?
I'm reminded of a Miss Manners quote.
"If you're willing to marry a man that will cheat on his wife, you are marrying a man that will cheat on his wife."
This seems like a fast way to force Net Neutrality laws, as the resulting carnage of takeovers and mergers create segregated islands of content. Even congressmen and senators should find it difficult to swallow needing all of a Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon connections to obtain their Disney, FOX, and HGTV channels.
Although I also think the telecoms are underestimating the power of the "independent" content providers, like Google or Yahoo. Clout-wise, companies like that might actually be able to extract payment from the backbones for the privilege of getting customers to them. What's Comcast going to do, say "sorry you can't do that" to their customers because they don't have an agreement with Google?
A better name than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party of the UK.
The richer people don't become infected, but that's not a right deigned upon the rich. Rather, it's a consequence of that the rich have the resources to avoid and treat it.
There is nothing that says only the poor should be infected, nor that the rich have the right to not be infected. That only the poor do become infected is what Mr. Gates was commenting on. And on that, he's dead accurate.
This is effectively a dividend increase. They think the rate of return on other companies is not good enough at the moment, and the cash is just sitting there. So they'll return it back to shareholders.
Consequences: lower float -> higher earnings per share.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the details of this software. Does this SplashVM provide hard disk access (since it obviously provides sound access for Skype)? If so, think VMware or Xen built straight into the image or early parts of boot... virtualization and absolute rollbacks for the masses.
As an eeepc user, I am very much applauding Asus for their use of Linux to provide further value to their products. Ubiquitous Linux in this fashion can't be wrong!
Setting aside the Net Neutrality implications of this development if it were to enter mass deployment (use this P2P software!), ISPs will loathe to actually install this technology. It would leave them implicitly condoning P2P, the majority of which is used for copyright infringement. Besides, it'd cost them actual money, compared to lobbying and whining at government.
Making these changes to copyright law, regardless of whether they're net beneficial to multinational corporations or individuals, means little with the international agreements on copyright. An American multinational corporation may do their "owner search" and find nothing, but still be on the hook when the true owner is outside the United States. United States limitations don't matter to a copyright holder suing from Canada to a Canadian operation.
Initial reviews of these devices unsurprisingly expose them to be underpowered and lacklustre.
I am not the type that needs to do big Excel Solver sheets or Matlab simulations while on the go. Why carry more than twice the weight for what amounts to a bigger power draw and little marginal value? A computer that consistently hits 40% CPU utilization (fairly high for a desktop) is a computer that is still idle 60% of the time, and that's what my Eee PC is right now.
Gimme lightweight any day; if I need CD-ROM data or more CPU performance, I'll wait until I get to either home or work to do the big grinding.
But it's still garbage-in, garbage-out.
If you're going to complain about how cookie-cutter movies these days are, then it behooves you to not give the labels any money until they... well... make something original.