Mobile technology is in anything but a recession. Even if it were 1997, mobile couldn't be doing much better than right now. In fact, it might do worse as people could spend money doing things that don't make so much use of phones.
You are correct. But in the real world, only Exxon stopping would cause an increase in production at other companies. Exxon would be taking on so many charges that they would be heading quickly toward bankruptcy. Then their assets would get bought up to contribute to even more production by the other companies.
That would cause a short term spike in the price of oil/gas. It would be a HUGE spike that might spur alternative ideas (work from home) and technologies (natural gas, solar, hydrogen). But it would be short lived.
If Apple stopped production, people would switch to Windows OS, Android mobile, and Amazon/Google/Walmart music. There would be outrage, but the replacement by alternatives would be so quick, it would be done before Apple could even think about liquidating assets.
It was such a terrible comparison, given that there is a great comparison for companies when comparing GDP; and it isn't their market cap:
I really fail to see how iPhones, iTunes, and iPads are worth even remotely close to that number. Every one of those products are replaceable. Most become obsolete in a year. This could be the biggest bubble in corporate history. At least Microsoft had a monopoly when they reached that level. In fact, that is the only thing that kept them afloat (Windows OS).
And I don't dismiss that Google is in the same boat. A new technology could quickly wipe out 90% of their value in a year.
I would assume that he would bring up the ignored part about the debate. If the company is a protected monopoly, then get rid of that protection. If you can't get rid of it, then net neutrality grants the most freedom under that restriction. All government granted monopolies are essentially government. So steps would be taken to maximize freedom. Removal of the monopoly takes priority over net neutrality though.
It is these ideas that baffle me. Our recent history (100 yrs) comes down to the fundamental question/option. Is big government chasing corporatism or is corporatism chasing big government?
You believe that we have big government order to counter the growing corporatism. In order to keep it in check. The other side believes that we have corporatism because big government enables crony capitalism with moves monetary and regulatory subsidies to special interests.
So what is wrong today? Corporations are out of control and government is trying to reign them in? Or government is too powerful and is favoring their special interests?
If you think politicians are corrupt or are listening to the corporations, then government is too big. If you think politicians are honest and listen to the people, then your comment is right. That is what is baffling. They are honest and listen to the people? Ha!
It is not "Christian". It is only certain Protestant Christians. Catholics have been on the evolution bandwagon for quite a long time. Long enough that today's 70 yr old people were taught evolution when they went to Catholic HS.
Except the point being argued is that the lack of attribution made the article feel more localized. The engagement of people not in Boston and Philadelphia by making it feel like it was their war too was a major reason for the success of the War. The argument here is about how much of a role unattributed news played a role in bringing the War to the locals.
Meanwhile, the $2 billion went to the real secret mission to the "face" on Mars, where they found aliens in 2004 with the previous decoy Spirit mission.
But that printed money slowly defaults (inflation) and could lead to rapid decline in value (hyperinflation). That is why it isn't AAA. Sure, you wouldn't lose your money, but your money would be worthless.
Projects that never complete are not completely wasted money. An MBA might think that. But knowledge is developed and it reduces the cost on future projects.
Look, let's not mince words here. We all know that it's the fault of Democrats & Republicans. The People are trying their best but their opposition refuses to compromise.
If the minimum transmission rate is X, you can be sure that they are testing X/10 transmission speeds on the copy on earth. Also, they are testing partial transmissions and corrupted transmissions.
There would need to be an aggressiveness setting for certain areas. In NYC, it would merge with just the slightest clearance. When it can't get clearance, it can slowly merge to push the other cars out of the way. That is all possible.
That is what they need to do next. Take over the taxi market. But I guess that won't happen because of the fear of "job loss".
I would think this is an area where it would excel most. There are already self parking cars.
The problem for humans in that case is the limited visibility. Think of being in a sedan with minivans on either side. You can't see crap.
For a self driving car, it has cameras and radar all over the place. If the back end just inches out far enough, it can see the full isle between cars. For you, the car needs to be nearly the whole way out.
But for #2, would it stop/slow for a leaf blowing across the street? If it doesn't, then would it really recognize a baseball as different and treat it differently?
Slashdot Mirror
Are they going to leave it up to the 'mericans (with a strong accent) & JPL to fly it this time?
Mobile technology is in anything but a recession. Even if it were 1997, mobile couldn't be doing much better than right now. In fact, it might do worse as people could spend money doing things that don't make so much use of phones.
You are correct. But in the real world, only Exxon stopping would cause an increase in production at other companies. Exxon would be taking on so many charges that they would be heading quickly toward bankruptcy. Then their assets would get bought up to contribute to even more production by the other companies.
That would cause a short term spike in the price of oil/gas. It would be a HUGE spike that might spur alternative ideas (work from home) and technologies (natural gas, solar, hydrogen). But it would be short lived.
If Apple stopped production, people would switch to Windows OS, Android mobile, and Amazon/Google/Walmart music. There would be outrage, but the replacement by alternatives would be so quick, it would be done before Apple could even think about liquidating assets.
It was such a terrible comparison, given that there is a great comparison for companies when comparing GDP; and it isn't their market cap:
I really fail to see how iPhones, iTunes, and iPads are worth even remotely close to that number. Every one of those products are replaceable. Most become obsolete in a year. This could be the biggest bubble in corporate history. At least Microsoft had a monopoly when they reached that level. In fact, that is the only thing that kept them afloat (Windows OS).
And I don't dismiss that Google is in the same boat. A new technology could quickly wipe out 90% of their value in a year.
I would assume that he would bring up the ignored part about the debate. If the company is a protected monopoly, then get rid of that protection. If you can't get rid of it, then net neutrality grants the most freedom under that restriction. All government granted monopolies are essentially government. So steps would be taken to maximize freedom. Removal of the monopoly takes priority over net neutrality though.
How is this modded up?
It is these ideas that baffle me. Our recent history (100 yrs) comes down to the fundamental question/option. Is big government chasing corporatism or is corporatism chasing big government?
You believe that we have big government order to counter the growing corporatism. In order to keep it in check. The other side believes that we have corporatism because big government enables crony capitalism with moves monetary and regulatory subsidies to special interests.
So what is wrong today? Corporations are out of control and government is trying to reign them in? Or government is too powerful and is favoring their special interests?
If you think politicians are corrupt or are listening to the corporations, then government is too big. If you think politicians are honest and listen to the people, then your comment is right. That is what is baffling. They are honest and listen to the people? Ha!
Would the be on the level of our government arresting Neil Armstrong or John Glenn for protesting?
It is not "Christian". It is only certain Protestant Christians. Catholics have been on the evolution bandwagon for quite a long time. Long enough that today's 70 yr old people were taught evolution when they went to Catholic HS.
It depends on what your definition of is is.
Except the point being argued is that the lack of attribution made the article feel more localized. The engagement of people not in Boston and Philadelphia by making it feel like it was their war too was a major reason for the success of the War. The argument here is about how much of a role unattributed news played a role in bringing the War to the locals.
Are you saying trickle down economics works? And you are saying that on /.?
Meanwhile, the $2 billion went to the real secret mission to the "face" on Mars, where they found aliens in 2004 with the previous decoy Spirit mission.
They can revoke it, but they must still allow the individuals leave the country.
So why does the rest of the world come to use the US healthcare system? I am not saying it is the best, but there are advantages and disadvantages.
You aren't considering expenses in your profit number.
But that printed money slowly defaults (inflation) and could lead to rapid decline in value (hyperinflation). That is why it isn't AAA. Sure, you wouldn't lose your money, but your money would be worthless.
Projects that never complete are not completely wasted money. An MBA might think that. But knowledge is developed and it reduces the cost on future projects.
Look, let's not mince words here. We all know that it's the fault of Democrats & Republicans. The People are trying their best but their opposition refuses to compromise.
Expanded the variables for ya...
Is NASA not the military?
But democracy is the answer to everything. Only the majority matters.
If the minimum transmission rate is X, you can be sure that they are testing X/10 transmission speeds on the copy on earth. Also, they are testing partial transmissions and corrupted transmissions.
There would need to be an aggressiveness setting for certain areas. In NYC, it would merge with just the slightest clearance. When it can't get clearance, it can slowly merge to push the other cars out of the way. That is all possible.
That is what they need to do next. Take over the taxi market. But I guess that won't happen because of the fear of "job loss".
I would think this is an area where it would excel most. There are already self parking cars.
The problem for humans in that case is the limited visibility. Think of being in a sedan with minivans on either side. You can't see crap.
For a self driving car, it has cameras and radar all over the place. If the back end just inches out far enough, it can see the full isle between cars. For you, the car needs to be nearly the whole way out.
But for #2, would it stop/slow for a leaf blowing across the street? If it doesn't, then would it really recognize a baseball as different and treat it differently?
I'm impressed that they found budget dollars for proper testing. Maybe they estimated the cost of failure to be $2.5b. I wish I could do that at work.