No, when people do something immoral, then they are people. All Christians believe that everyone sins - even other Christians. Doing something immoral is, by definition, sinning. So, once again, bullshit. There are not two spheres here - there is one - sinners. People who are doing immoral things.
If people won't pay, and they can't afford to provide free content, then they will fail, and there will be no content. Happy?
There is nothing wrong with them not providing content for free, if they cannot afford to do so.
The source isn't the problem. Don't you understand? If you have no idea how to parse the information to see if it's true, then sure - last ditch, check the source. Otherwise, you are a fool. blueZ3, what you are saying is that because some group in a monolithic company provided products that you consider insecure, every group in that company is incapable of providing ideas that are worth exploring, in the area of secure applications. If you honestly believe this falsity, then you truly should be ashamed - because you aren't being fooled - you are one.
Do you always refuse to believe that something could be right and true because of your own bias against the person or persons who are communicating it? Do you always succumb to the fallacy of ad hominem? It seems to me that anyone willingly blinding themselves to new information due to its source is condemning themselves to denying truth for the rest of their lives.
Grow up.
We are getting there. I'm engaged in an attempt to slow, and someday, perhaps, reverse the process through peaceful means, instead of the normal means - radical revolution, kill half the population and all the government, and start over. I'd like to avoid that, if possible.
Monoculture problems a anti-trust make, thank all that is good. Monoculture might be bad, but it's not illegal. And I do hope it stays that way. We don't need to legislate against EVERYTHING, you know.
A distinction between single-firm and multi-firm conduct is fundamental to the structure of U.S. antitrust law, which, as noted antitrust scholar Phillip Areeda has pointed out, "contains a 'basic distinction between concerted and independent action.'"[2] Multi-firm conduct tends to be seen as more likely than single-firm conduct to have an unambiguously negative effect and "is judged more sternly."[3] European competition law also includes a fundamental distinction between single-firm and multi-firm conduct, but a different analytical structure is applied. In U.S. antitrust law, the Sherman Act addresses single-firm conduct by providing a remedy against "[e]very person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize...any part of the trade or commerce among the several States."[4] This prohibition does not condemn monopoly per se but only monopoly that has been acquired or maintained through prohibited conduct: Most businessmen don't like their competitors, or for that matter competition. They want to make as much money as possible and getting a monopoly is one way of making a lot of money. That is fine, however, so long as they do not use methods calculated to make consumers worse off in the long run.[5]
With regard to multi-firm conduct, the Sherman Act addresses this by prohibiting "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce."[6] Conduct falls within the scope of this prohibition only if some form of agreement or concerted action can be proven.
In considering multi-firm conduct, another distinction is also fundamental: the distinction between conduct that is deemed anticompetitive per se and conduct that may be found to be anticompetitive after a reasoned analysis. There does not appear to be a precedent for per se condemnation of single-firm conduct. Monopoly power alone, without some act of wrongful exclusion or other legally cognizable anticompetitive conduct, is not prohibited. To the contrary, as the respected jurist Learned Hand noted, "[t]he successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned on when he wins."[7] U.S. antitrust law thus does not attack monopoly power obtained through "superior skill, foresight and industry".[8]
While the prohibition against multi-firm anticompetitive goes against agreements "in restraint of trade", it is not enough to show that an agreement in some technical way restrains trade. Under U.S. law, at least, the scope of the prohibition is limited to those agreements where the restraint of trade is unreasonable:
Every agreement concerning trade, every regulation of trade, restrains. To bind, to restrain, is of their very essence. The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition.[9]
One such obviously anticompetitive conduct as overt price fixing, for example, is placed into this per se category of conduct so clearly detrimental to competition that detailed analysis is unnecessary. Otherwise, antitrust plaintiffs are required to demonstrate, by "the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied", the nature of the challenged conduct and why it is harmful to competition.[10]
This doesn't pass the smell test, much less the legal one, as far as I can tell.
Does she not know what a monopoly is? Or is she ignorant about online advertising?
The existence of a very high market share does not always mean consumers are paying excessive prices since the threat of new entrants to the market can restrain a high-market-share firm's price increases. Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices.
First it is necessary to determine whether a firm is dominant, or whether it behaves "to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumer."[7] As with collusive conduct, market shares are determined with reference to the particular market in which the firm and product in question is sold.
There almost no barrier to entry to advertising on the internet - the costs are negligible. And I've yet to hear how Google is using its leverage to stifle competition and/or gouge its customers. Maybe it IS, but I've yet to hear anything about it...
[blockquote]if the results come out on the "wrong" side of the scientist's claimed 60:40 odds.[/blockquote]
Where the hell did you pull that out from? I looked and looked for an actual probability measurement - you know, something scientific? All I can find is a "quite possible" in a press release. So, [cite needed] perhaps?
Why didn't the climate scientists factor those things in when making predictions for this year? It seems to me that they should have been mentioned - if not in the crap science "articles" - then at least in the statements actually made by various scientific groups. Including the group that said it was "quite possible" there would be no ice in the arctic this last year. WTF man. Come on - we need predictions that work. I don't need to know tomorrow's temperature, but I certainly expect the models to give us next year's average temperature, with a degree of accuracy. Don't you?
If not, then why are you will to gamble trillions of dollars on the predictions being made?
Er, no, they said it was possible and later quote "a 59% chance of a new record minimum this year". How the media chose to report this is another matter... Oh yes, note the date: May 2008.
To be perfectly accurate (unlike the measurements:)), from the article (linked to in the summary):
Taken together, an assessment of the available evidence, detailed below, points to another extreme September sea ice minimum. Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Given
that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible.
I was specific enough that your little BS rant doesn't apply. I see that you are too much on remote control to notice however. Anger leads to perceptual bias. You might want to look into that, before you piss away ALL your friends, if you have any.
Don't worry. If it DOES finally get people off their fat asses (mine included), they'll probably die of a coronary before they can do anything with their "rage". It's hard to riot when you get winded walking to the damn fridge.
That IS funny. But if those too stupid to figure this out LEAVE their couch, it might kill them! Thus, hopefully, removing them from the possible (and most likely accidental) gene pool!
Why the heck are we getting a story posted on this almost daily? Who cares? I've read the threads, and it's not a big deal. Anyone with half a brain will be fine. Anyone else, well, maybe there are survival of the fittest selection standards still hitting us, on occasion. I don't see that as a bad thing.
The state I live in has never chosen the president I wanted. However, I'd still rather have my state pick A president, instead of picking 2/3rds of that guy, and 1/3rd of that guy. The STATE is voting for a president - not you. You are voting to determine who your state chooses. Why is everyone against a representative democracy? It allows us to not be full time politicians. Hello! Do you WANT to be a politician? Do you WANT to have to know everything about every possible issue to hit your area/state/country? If so, then tell me - should we put a street light on the corner of 185 and Grand? If so, why? If not, why not? Do you have any backing for your opinion? Hurry up! Educate yourself, ya fool!
Is the chip design patented? Do you have to purchase from them from the company "leading the charge" or can you make your own?
The answers to those questions will determine whether I give a shit or not.
I notice that #3 is Network Solutions. Then I look at the graphs, and they aren't listed at all. Are they using a different name for them in the graphs?
Population has ZERO to do with development. Other than that, your statement is fine & dandy & true. Of course, no one is going to take it seriously, posted by an AC and being ignorant about what makes for a developing country and all...
Slashdot Mirror
No, when people do something immoral, then they are people. All Christians believe that everyone sins - even other Christians. Doing something immoral is, by definition, sinning. So, once again, bullshit. There are not two spheres here - there is one - sinners. People who are doing immoral things.
If people won't pay, and they can't afford to provide free content, then they will fail, and there will be no content. Happy? There is nothing wrong with them not providing content for free, if they cannot afford to do so.
The source isn't the problem. Don't you understand? If you have no idea how to parse the information to see if it's true, then sure - last ditch, check the source. Otherwise, you are a fool. blueZ3, what you are saying is that because some group in a monolithic company provided products that you consider insecure, every group in that company is incapable of providing ideas that are worth exploring, in the area of secure applications. If you honestly believe this falsity, then you truly should be ashamed - because you aren't being fooled - you are one.
Do you always refuse to believe that something could be right and true because of your own bias against the person or persons who are communicating it? Do you always succumb to the fallacy of ad hominem? It seems to me that anyone willingly blinding themselves to new information due to its source is condemning themselves to denying truth for the rest of their lives. Grow up.
We are getting there. I'm engaged in an attempt to slow, and someday, perhaps, reverse the process through peaceful means, instead of the normal means - radical revolution, kill half the population and all the government, and start over. I'd like to avoid that, if possible.
Well, look at that! I appreciate you actually pulling together a cite. I was wrong to doubt it, and I'm saying it here. Thanks, Chris.
Monoculture problems a anti-trust make, thank all that is good. Monoculture might be bad, but it's not illegal. And I do hope it stays that way. We don't need to legislate against EVERYTHING, you know.
This doesn't pass the smell test, much less the legal one, as far as I can tell.
There almost no barrier to entry to advertising on the internet - the costs are negligible. And I've yet to hear how Google is using its leverage to stifle competition and/or gouge its customers. Maybe it IS, but I've yet to hear anything about it...
[blockquote]if the results come out on the "wrong" side of the scientist's claimed 60:40 odds.[/blockquote] Where the hell did you pull that out from? I looked and looked for an actual probability measurement - you know, something scientific? All I can find is a "quite possible" in a press release. So, [cite needed] perhaps?
Why didn't the climate scientists factor those things in when making predictions for this year? It seems to me that they should have been mentioned - if not in the crap science "articles" - then at least in the statements actually made by various scientific groups. Including the group that said it was "quite possible" there would be no ice in the arctic this last year. WTF man. Come on - we need predictions that work. I don't need to know tomorrow's temperature, but I certainly expect the models to give us next year's average temperature, with a degree of accuracy. Don't you? If not, then why are you will to gamble trillions of dollars on the predictions being made?
To be perfectly accurate (unlike the measurements :)), from the article (linked to in the summary):
There are emergency broadcasts. A rare occurrence, and much ranted on here. Take a look. It WILL effect the slow-of-brain.
I was specific enough that your little BS rant doesn't apply. I see that you are too much on remote control to notice however. Anger leads to perceptual bias. You might want to look into that, before you piss away ALL your friends, if you have any.
Don't worry. If it DOES finally get people off their fat asses (mine included), they'll probably die of a coronary before they can do anything with their "rage". It's hard to riot when you get winded walking to the damn fridge.
That IS funny. But if those too stupid to figure this out LEAVE their couch, it might kill them! Thus, hopefully, removing them from the possible (and most likely accidental) gene pool!
Why the heck are we getting a story posted on this almost daily? Who cares? I've read the threads, and it's not a big deal. Anyone with half a brain will be fine. Anyone else, well, maybe there are survival of the fittest selection standards still hitting us, on occasion. I don't see that as a bad thing.
The state I live in has never chosen the president I wanted. However, I'd still rather have my state pick A president, instead of picking 2/3rds of that guy, and 1/3rd of that guy. The STATE is voting for a president - not you. You are voting to determine who your state chooses. Why is everyone against a representative democracy? It allows us to not be full time politicians. Hello! Do you WANT to be a politician? Do you WANT to have to know everything about every possible issue to hit your area/state/country? If so, then tell me - should we put a street light on the corner of 185 and Grand? If so, why? If not, why not? Do you have any backing for your opinion? Hurry up! Educate yourself, ya fool!
I knew there was a reason! Thank you so much! I'm going to go "secure" my job right now! (thank goodness for uninstall options with MS patches!)
Or, you know, you could install the patch, and not worry about the workarounds...
Is the chip design patented? Do you have to purchase from them from the company "leading the charge" or can you make your own? The answers to those questions will determine whether I give a shit or not.
Thank you.
I notice that #3 is Network Solutions. Then I look at the graphs, and they aren't listed at all. Are they using a different name for them in the graphs?
Population has ZERO to do with development. Other than that, your statement is fine & dandy & true. Of course, no one is going to take it seriously, posted by an AC and being ignorant about what makes for a developing country and all...
What's the big deal, anyway? I'm wondering if I just don't understand something about how this is going down.