If you meant coding the machines that actually make the decisions, then yes.
Honestly, I don't know why somebody hasn't made a fucking fortune tricking the high speed trading machines. Remember a couple years ago when a story about the anniversary of a plane crash got picked up by Bloomberg and fed into the machines, crashing United's stock?
http://revealingerrors.com/google_news_ual
Why hasn't somebody applied SEO skills to a fake news story in order to manipulate a stock? Sure, SEC, yada yada - but I bet tracks could be covered.
I unfriended Facebook. Google may not be any less evil, but they make it dead easy to control who my posts go to, don't spam me with game spam bullshit every couple of days and they don't change my profile and settings every couple of months without so much as a "by-your-leave."
I think that's a start in the direction of 'less evil'. I know the pendulum has switched from geeks loving Google, to it being chic to bash them. But overall, I think they've been pretty solid corporate citizens for a company of their size.
That's a whole lot of assertions based on precisely no evidence. No statements from Microsoft. No actions by Microsoft, other than their intention to use UEFI. In fact, if one can disable UEFI in hardware after boot, that would render the issue moot. Is MS also going to strongarm manufacturers to exclude that feautre?
And while it is still a rumor it can probably be taken as a fact that disabling this feature (if made possible by the manufacturers) will likely cause Windows to not star
According to this post on msdn.com, that would appear to not be true. MS claims to support legacy BIOS as well as allow dual booting. They don't specifically mention Linux, but I don't think that was an intentional slight.
Not to mention which, since the last round of DOJ suits, MS has seemed to stay away from blatantly anticompetitive tactics. And this would probably be the most blatant they've ever done, if they were to do it.
Basically, while I like to bash MS as much as the next guy (as long as you're not the next guy, apparently), do you have absolutely ANYTHING to back up some rather bold claims?
Well, a number of reputable sites also use email to authenticate users, provide a means of recovering lost passwords, and to avoid the dance where users try to find a valid username.
Thanks for the link, that was a great read. Interesting how a series of somewhat justifiable decisions leads to a result that pretty much sucks.
I wish Lucas could take a lesson from the New Coke guys - 1) bring back the original, 2) become a hero, 3) Stop fucking with shit, 4) Profit (even more!). Just re-release the first 3 movies restored as close to original condition as possible.
Then, if that doesn't get the fans to love him long time, re-release a version of the prequels without Jar-Jar. Or all the shitty green-screen scenes. Or the terribly acted scenes with grown-up Anniken. Or the cartoonish CGI. I think that would leave Natalie Portman, and that's about it.
But that only makes sense if they can preferentially drive off the customers that lose them money. Otherwise, they could raise their prices a bizillonety percent, and have a business with fantastic margins and zero revenue
It is quite likely that many of those being driven off by higher streaming prices were the money-losing group, but I'm sure they lost more than they'd like. And clearly Wall Street is pretty concerned for what this portends.
It has also brought businesses, restaurants and everything to one single page with one unified interface, so you don't have to hunt them from Google or other search engines.
So you're saying it's a good thing that FB is effectively turning the web into a walled garden that is run by Mark Zuckerburg? Yeah, great, totally.
I find it quite amusing that the common folk just assumes every corporation has some evil voodoo master accountant, probably wearing a green visor with a bean counter too, sitting in the back room scheming how to make the common tax payer subsidize his/her (to be pc) business.
You mean there's a company out there who's accounting department isn't trying to minimize their tax burden? Isn't that their job? Accountants don't come up with new laws for tax breaks, of course. Big companies have lobbyists for that. And if there's a large-ish company that doesn't lobby the feds or local governments for tax breaks, again, I'd be absolutely shocked.
And to heck with tax breaks. These days the real money is in grants from the government. Saving your own money is great - being given money is even better.
No need to invoke smoke filled rooms, green visors, beans, or evil henchmen. Just how the game is played.
Why do you fear the hood, that you surely have managed to avoid without an Apple architect, so much that you see it lurking in the shadows of an architecture review that doesn't have it?
Of course it doesn't. Because that's not how academics (like the one cited) speak. I'm reading between the lines on that comment about "shared responsibility" for the "urban realm". While the article deals with Cupertino, that line was lifted from a book that wasn't about Apple. So the author of that book had something else in mind entirely. It seems pretty clear what the author is saying - she's blaming corporations for "turning their backs" on cities, which encourages their employees to drive to work, and then by providing them with nice places, it keeps them from engaging with the urban core. That's what she's talking about with regard to the "shared responsibility", "collective", and "metropolitan realm".
The LA Times writer then makes a specific link from that analysis to Apple, to criticize them for a campus that isn't sufficiently urban. The connection is clear - he thinks that companies shouldn't build employees nice places to work so that they can have an opportunity to experience the problems around them, so that they might be compelled to fix them. If that's not the point, then the article is simply pointless rambling and a random citation from some professor at Berkeley.
My questions are simple: What does 'urban' mean in this context? Why should it be increased? What problem is it solving, and for whom? And whose job is it to fix it?
Is it your guilt over not fixing it?
Nope. I didn't make the problem.
Because the only place your complaint could have come from is inside your own psychology. Not the review you're using as a way to get it out there in front of us.
Yay, another armchair internet psychologist practicing without a license! You're pretty far offbase there - "Doc".
Monoculture isn't healthy, no matter how green it is.
I'd agree, and if that were the crux of the article, I'd wholeheartedly agree with it. But it wasn't. All they had was one throwaway line about interacting with your coworkers - which is, I'll repeat again, *what they pay you to do*. Instead, the article focused on urban density and greenspace, not corporate culture. All of the harms they claim were to society from not having the claimed advantages of urbanization. None of the harms dealt with the disadvantages of monoculture, which would be incurred by the company.
So we're back where we started. Why is density a good thing? Who does urban density help? Why should that be so important that a company should be attacked for daring to build a campus that isn't dense?
2) The reason precise positioning is so important in this case is because they need to make sure to not cross the border. This matters less in wartime. There are things that call for precise positioning but not ever flight needs it all the time.
Precise positioning is pretty important in wartime as well. Timing is important which makes routes important. Hitting the right target is important. Surely you don't think they ratcheted up the price of the plane so they could enhance it's *peacetime* performance?
3) They managed to get one plane to land. Oh wow, that would be useful if the US had 2 planes but they don't, they have thousands. Does the system work so well against that many?
You mean jamming? Yes, it works against multiple planes. Also, the days of thousands of planes in the air at once is antiquated, war hasn't been fought like that since WWII.
Anything generating a signal is a target. Lock on the signal and blast it. There are even missiles for that sort of thing called AGM-88 HARMs. Their design is to nail radar facilities but it wouldn't take much change to make them nail GPS jammers, and the US may already have models for that.
And certainly EW is going to play a major role at the opening of any campaign. However, best case scenario is you just took out a $50 transmitter with a missile that cost a quarter million dollars. Something like a GPS jammer (ie, radio transmitter) is inherently mobile, camouflagable, and cheap. It would be easy to deploy hundreds, perhaps thousands of them, prior to a conflict and fire them up at will. If you think you'll just be able to take them all out, you're nuts. Operations and planes need to be hardened against GPS jamming. This is, in fact, an issue of legitimate concern for the military.
5) How well is this going to work if you don't know the planes are even there, like say the B-2Bs, which they can't detect to target, and yet which can carry tons (literally) of precision munitions?
Leave it turned on. In fact, the radar part would be so much more expensive than the transmitter, it would be easier from a cost standpoint to simply not care where planes actually are, and jam the entire airspace.
While I'm sure the US isn't pleased about this and it doesn't help, it isn't as though this would suddenly stop US craft from functioning. All it can do is stop precise navigation in whatever area it is effective in. It also can only do so as long as it can transmit. Anything hostile that broadcasts a signal had better be able to move fast and defend itself. If not, it will go 'asplode in a big hurry.
Quite true. But that's a value proposition I'm certain our enemies would be OK with. If they can defeat a $1B plane with a $50 transmitter, they'll be elated. If it takes them 10,000 transmitters, they're still way ahead.
Put another way - it wouldn't be the first time we've lost a war to a technologically deprived enemy who defeated very expensive weaponry by throwing a whole lot of cheap stuff at it. $100 IED > $20M tank.
'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."
Yeah and...so what? Is that a fancy way of saying that office workers should work in the 'hood so, what, I feel some personal responsibility for fixing it? Does that mean I need to work in the hood so I can stare at it all day?
'If all you see in your workday are your co-workers and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property,
Of course I see my coworkers when I'm at work. That's why they call it work. That's what I'm there to do. And if my workplace can be nice and in nature, hey, cool.
Look, I'm not an Apple fan. I give them shit for all kinds of things. Building a nice work environment for their employees is not on the list of things I will give them shit for. And I don't see it as the job of any company, or any employee, to intentionally increase their connection, proximity, or exposure to increasing urban density. Some people like dense urban areas, some don't, but it's not anybody's responsibility to specifically increase density.
This is predictable coming from an urban paper like the LA Times. They see concrete and steel as desirable. Green things are to be assaulted at all turns. But there are others of us who like trees, shade, grass, and other nice things. The goal isn't to be disconnected from anything - it's to be able to hear something other than traffic noise, and see something other than dirty man-made surfaces while at work.
Hey, I think it sounds nice. I think the LA Times needs to go camping and discover that there's more to life than concrete.
But you know that it could blow up. That would make it a 'known unknown' in the Rumsfeldian space. If it had never occurred to you that your car might need maintenance, and you hadn't set any money aside, that would be an 'unknown unknown' to you. That's the kind of thing you want to avoid.
You're doing something nobody has done before, inventing it as you go, and people expect you to know in advance how much it's going to cost. There are always unforeseen things that crop up
Which is why one hires good system engineers who have managed large projects before, and have a feel for how much to keep in reserve to deal with those things. Not to go totally Rumsfeldian, but there are known issues or unknowns, and you can generally budget for that. You want to make sure to understand the project well enough that you're not walking into things you don't even realize are problems.
This is why you can't just hand control of a project to a team of scientists without putting someone in charge who can understand the issues and budget for them. Otherwise you're handing over a blank check.
Just as a warning to those trying star-hunting for the first time: finding this guy can be tricky. Best thing is to get some charts from AAVSO.org. Use 2011fe as the search. Print a 15 degree chart for finding the general area from the big dipper, then 1 degree and 2 degree charts for finding the supernova.
For now, the supernova is getting easier to find by the day - I tried last week and couldn't find it, but now it's pretty bright. However, finding the correct area can be tough because there's no obvious landmarks in the area unless your sky is dark enough to make out the face of the galaxy. And, unless you live in an exurban or rural area, it won't be. Otherwise, you'll need to rely on patterns of stars at the 1 degree scale. Otherwise, you can easily be looking at the supernova but not know which star it is.
There are good threads over at cloudynights.com that provide helpful images and advice. Good luck all! It's really fun to know that you're looking at something that didn't exist last month (correcting for travel time of the light, of course).
to truly make encryption and Tor impossible would mean changing the way the net works so radically that it would become a lot less useful.
Ah, but to defeat Tor or encryption, it doesn't have to be made impossible - it just has to be made so as to be not trustworthy. So let's say a friendly agency captured a few (or more) Tor nodes, and co-opted a few root certificates (ahem, Iran). These tools don't have to be defeated 100% of the time, they just have to be defeated in principle for them to crumble.
It's sort of like privacy terrorism - the targets are largely symbolic rather than practical, and the goal is to instill fear rather than defeat in a straightforward manner.
And then people will come up with some way around that, like adhoc wifi networks or something of that sort.
Which, I fear, would allow even easier avenue of attack for certain organizations who like to do that. Anything ad-hoc has to be able to find a way to trust something it's never met before (by definition). That's prone to attack too. There are advantages and weaknesses to both centralization and decentralization.
I might also consider that the teacher was working at an 'alternative' school. So you're buying a computer at a suspiciously low price from a student who's been subject to significant disciplinary action? I think any intelligent person should question the source of said computer.
...in which the users of slashdot collaborate on an adaptation of Elton John's 'Rocket Man' to suit the occasion. High marks for recording it and posting the link. Extra credit for a Shatner-style rendition.
It would seem to be a new legal theory regarding the nature of leveraging a monopoly. Presumably the notion is that the money earned from the monopoly is the leverage, not the monopoly per se. However, last I checked, Google doesn't have a monopoly on search.
If this were to pass the smell test, I imagine any sufficiently large company that has ever run a loss leader would be guilty.
Note I'm not a lawyer, I just like giving bad advice in general.
That *is* their internet. You put your packets in the donkeys, whack them with the rocks, and away they go. The latency's a bitch, and there's pretty rough packet loss when the donkeys get concussed from the rocks or get lost in the mountains. Still, the bandwidth is surprisingly respectable.
Slashdot Mirror
The cure is latex, it works, it has been tried and tested. Not science, or as you put it, the futures fault you refuse to take your medicine.
...
Odd stuff, just because we got cure for food poisoning doesn't mean people started eating rotten food on purpose.
If rotten food tasted a whole helluvalot better than safe food, they would.
If you meant coding the machines that actually make the decisions, then yes.
Honestly, I don't know why somebody hasn't made a fucking fortune tricking the high speed trading machines. Remember a couple years ago when a story about the anniversary of a plane crash got picked up by Bloomberg and fed into the machines, crashing United's stock?
http://revealingerrors.com/google_news_ual
Why hasn't somebody applied SEO skills to a fake news story in order to manipulate a stock? Sure, SEC, yada yada - but I bet tracks could be covered.
I unfriended Facebook. Google may not be any less evil, but they make it dead easy to control who my posts go to, don't spam me with game spam bullshit every couple of days and they don't change my profile and settings every couple of months without so much as a "by-your-leave."
I think that's a start in the direction of 'less evil'. I know the pendulum has switched from geeks loving Google, to it being chic to bash them. But overall, I think they've been pretty solid corporate citizens for a company of their size.
That's a whole lot of assertions based on precisely no evidence. No statements from Microsoft. No actions by Microsoft, other than their intention to use UEFI. In fact, if one can disable UEFI in hardware after boot, that would render the issue moot. Is MS also going to strongarm manufacturers to exclude that feautre?
The Ars article was a lot less 'chicken little':
And while it is still a rumor it can probably be taken as a fact that disabling this feature (if made possible by the manufacturers) will likely cause Windows to not star
According to this post on msdn.com, that would appear to not be true. MS claims to support legacy BIOS as well as allow dual booting. They don't specifically mention Linux, but I don't think that was an intentional slight.
Not to mention which, since the last round of DOJ suits, MS has seemed to stay away from blatantly anticompetitive tactics. And this would probably be the most blatant they've ever done, if they were to do it.
Basically, while I like to bash MS as much as the next guy (as long as you're not the next guy, apparently), do you have absolutely ANYTHING to back up some rather bold claims?
Well, a number of reputable sites also use email to authenticate users, provide a means of recovering lost passwords, and to avoid the dance where users try to find a valid username.
And to spam.
Thanks for the link, that was a great read. Interesting how a series of somewhat justifiable decisions leads to a result that pretty much sucks.
I wish Lucas could take a lesson from the New Coke guys - 1) bring back the original, 2) become a hero, 3) Stop fucking with shit, 4) Profit (even more!). Just re-release the first 3 movies restored as close to original condition as possible.
Then, if that doesn't get the fans to love him long time, re-release a version of the prequels without Jar-Jar. Or all the shitty green-screen scenes. Or the terribly acted scenes with grown-up Anniken. Or the cartoonish CGI. I think that would leave Natalie Portman, and that's about it.
But that only makes sense if they can preferentially drive off the customers that lose them money. Otherwise, they could raise their prices a bizillonety percent, and have a business with fantastic margins and zero revenue
It is quite likely that many of those being driven off by higher streaming prices were the money-losing group, but I'm sure they lost more than they'd like. And clearly Wall Street is pretty concerned for what this portends.
It has also brought businesses, restaurants and everything to one single page with one unified interface, so you don't have to hunt them from Google or other search engines.
So you're saying it's a good thing that FB is effectively turning the web into a walled garden that is run by Mark Zuckerburg? Yeah, great, totally.
I find it quite amusing that the common folk just assumes every corporation has some evil voodoo master accountant, probably wearing a green visor with a bean counter too, sitting in the back room scheming how to make the common tax payer subsidize his/her (to be pc) business.
You mean there's a company out there who's accounting department isn't trying to minimize their tax burden? Isn't that their job? Accountants don't come up with new laws for tax breaks, of course. Big companies have lobbyists for that. And if there's a large-ish company that doesn't lobby the feds or local governments for tax breaks, again, I'd be absolutely shocked.
And to heck with tax breaks. These days the real money is in grants from the government. Saving your own money is great - being given money is even better.
No need to invoke smoke filled rooms, green visors, beans, or evil henchmen. Just how the game is played.
Why do you fear the hood, that you surely have managed to avoid without an Apple architect, so much that you see it lurking in the shadows of an architecture review that doesn't have it?
Of course it doesn't. Because that's not how academics (like the one cited) speak. I'm reading between the lines on that comment about "shared responsibility" for the "urban realm". While the article deals with Cupertino, that line was lifted from a book that wasn't about Apple. So the author of that book had something else in mind entirely. It seems pretty clear what the author is saying - she's blaming corporations for "turning their backs" on cities, which encourages their employees to drive to work, and then by providing them with nice places, it keeps them from engaging with the urban core. That's what she's talking about with regard to the "shared responsibility", "collective", and "metropolitan realm".
The LA Times writer then makes a specific link from that analysis to Apple, to criticize them for a campus that isn't sufficiently urban. The connection is clear - he thinks that companies shouldn't build employees nice places to work so that they can have an opportunity to experience the problems around them, so that they might be compelled to fix them. If that's not the point, then the article is simply pointless rambling and a random citation from some professor at Berkeley.
My questions are simple: What does 'urban' mean in this context? Why should it be increased? What problem is it solving, and for whom? And whose job is it to fix it?
Is it your guilt over not fixing it?
Nope. I didn't make the problem.
Because the only place your complaint could have come from is inside your own psychology. Not the review you're using as a way to get it out there in front of us.
Yay, another armchair internet psychologist practicing without a license! You're pretty far offbase there - "Doc".
Monoculture isn't healthy, no matter how green it is.
I'd agree, and if that were the crux of the article, I'd wholeheartedly agree with it. But it wasn't. All they had was one throwaway line about interacting with your coworkers - which is, I'll repeat again, *what they pay you to do*. Instead, the article focused on urban density and greenspace, not corporate culture. All of the harms they claim were to society from not having the claimed advantages of urbanization. None of the harms dealt with the disadvantages of monoculture, which would be incurred by the company.
So we're back where we started. Why is density a good thing? Who does urban density help? Why should that be so important that a company should be attacked for daring to build a campus that isn't dense?
2) The reason precise positioning is so important in this case is because they need to make sure to not cross the border. This matters less in wartime. There are things that call for precise positioning but not ever flight needs it all the time.
Precise positioning is pretty important in wartime as well. Timing is important which makes routes important. Hitting the right target is important. Surely you don't think they ratcheted up the price of the plane so they could enhance it's *peacetime* performance?
3) They managed to get one plane to land. Oh wow, that would be useful if the US had 2 planes but they don't, they have thousands. Does the system work so well against that many?
You mean jamming? Yes, it works against multiple planes. Also, the days of thousands of planes in the air at once is antiquated, war hasn't been fought like that since WWII.
Anything generating a signal is a target. Lock on the signal and blast it. There are even missiles for that sort of thing called AGM-88 HARMs. Their design is to nail radar facilities but it wouldn't take much change to make them nail GPS jammers, and the US may already have models for that.
And certainly EW is going to play a major role at the opening of any campaign. However, best case scenario is you just took out a $50 transmitter with a missile that cost a quarter million dollars. Something like a GPS jammer (ie, radio transmitter) is inherently mobile, camouflagable, and cheap. It would be easy to deploy hundreds, perhaps thousands of them, prior to a conflict and fire them up at will. If you think you'll just be able to take them all out, you're nuts. Operations and planes need to be hardened against GPS jamming. This is, in fact, an issue of legitimate concern for the military.
5) How well is this going to work if you don't know the planes are even there, like say the B-2Bs, which they can't detect to target, and yet which can carry tons (literally) of precision munitions?
Leave it turned on. In fact, the radar part would be so much more expensive than the transmitter, it would be easier from a cost standpoint to simply not care where planes actually are, and jam the entire airspace.
While I'm sure the US isn't pleased about this and it doesn't help, it isn't as though this would suddenly stop US craft from functioning. All it can do is stop precise navigation in whatever area it is effective in. It also can only do so as long as it can transmit. Anything hostile that broadcasts a signal had better be able to move fast and defend itself. If not, it will go 'asplode in a big hurry.
Quite true. But that's a value proposition I'm certain our enemies would be OK with. If they can defeat a $1B plane with a $50 transmitter, they'll be elated. If it takes them 10,000 transmitters, they're still way ahead.
Put another way - it wouldn't be the first time we've lost a war to a technologically deprived enemy who defeated very expensive weaponry by throwing a whole lot of cheap stuff at it. $100 IED > $20M tank.
'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."
Yeah and...so what? Is that a fancy way of saying that office workers should work in the 'hood so, what, I feel some personal responsibility for fixing it? Does that mean I need to work in the hood so I can stare at it all day?
'If all you see in your workday are your co-workers and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property,
Of course I see my coworkers when I'm at work. That's why they call it work. That's what I'm there to do. And if my workplace can be nice and in nature, hey, cool.
Look, I'm not an Apple fan. I give them shit for all kinds of things. Building a nice work environment for their employees is not on the list of things I will give them shit for. And I don't see it as the job of any company, or any employee, to intentionally increase their connection, proximity, or exposure to increasing urban density. Some people like dense urban areas, some don't, but it's not anybody's responsibility to specifically increase density.
This is predictable coming from an urban paper like the LA Times. They see concrete and steel as desirable. Green things are to be assaulted at all turns. But there are others of us who like trees, shade, grass, and other nice things. The goal isn't to be disconnected from anything - it's to be able to hear something other than traffic noise, and see something other than dirty man-made surfaces while at work.
Hey, I think it sounds nice. I think the LA Times needs to go camping and discover that there's more to life than concrete.
But you know that it could blow up. That would make it a 'known unknown' in the Rumsfeldian space. If it had never occurred to you that your car might need maintenance, and you hadn't set any money aside, that would be an 'unknown unknown' to you. That's the kind of thing you want to avoid.
You're doing something nobody has done before, inventing it as you go, and people expect you to know in advance how much it's going to cost. There are always unforeseen things that crop up
Which is why one hires good system engineers who have managed large projects before, and have a feel for how much to keep in reserve to deal with those things. Not to go totally Rumsfeldian, but there are known issues or unknowns, and you can generally budget for that. You want to make sure to understand the project well enough that you're not walking into things you don't even realize are problems.
This is why you can't just hand control of a project to a team of scientists without putting someone in charge who can understand the issues and budget for them. Otherwise you're handing over a blank check.
And I'm saying this as a scientist.
What?
Also known as the "if we had had this shit in the 30's, we could have gotten Capone for more than fucking tax evasion" act.
Just as a warning to those trying star-hunting for the first time: finding this guy can be tricky. Best thing is to get some charts from AAVSO.org. Use 2011fe as the search. Print a 15 degree chart for finding the general area from the big dipper, then 1 degree and 2 degree charts for finding the supernova.
For now, the supernova is getting easier to find by the day - I tried last week and couldn't find it, but now it's pretty bright. However, finding the correct area can be tough because there's no obvious landmarks in the area unless your sky is dark enough to make out the face of the galaxy. And, unless you live in an exurban or rural area, it won't be. Otherwise, you'll need to rely on patterns of stars at the 1 degree scale. Otherwise, you can easily be looking at the supernova but not know which star it is.
There are good threads over at cloudynights.com that provide helpful images and advice. Good luck all! It's really fun to know that you're looking at something that didn't exist last month (correcting for travel time of the light, of course).
to truly make encryption and Tor impossible would mean changing the way the net works so radically that it would become a lot less useful.
Ah, but to defeat Tor or encryption, it doesn't have to be made impossible - it just has to be made so as to be not trustworthy. So let's say a friendly agency captured a few (or more) Tor nodes, and co-opted a few root certificates (ahem, Iran). These tools don't have to be defeated 100% of the time, they just have to be defeated in principle for them to crumble.
It's sort of like privacy terrorism - the targets are largely symbolic rather than practical, and the goal is to instill fear rather than defeat in a straightforward manner.
And then people will come up with some way around that, like adhoc wifi networks or something of that sort.
Which, I fear, would allow even easier avenue of attack for certain organizations who like to do that. Anything ad-hoc has to be able to find a way to trust something it's never met before (by definition). That's prone to attack too. There are advantages and weaknesses to both centralization and decentralization.
I might also consider that the teacher was working at an 'alternative' school. So you're buying a computer at a suspiciously low price from a student who's been subject to significant disciplinary action? I think any intelligent person should question the source of said computer.
...in which the users of slashdot collaborate on an adaptation of Elton John's 'Rocket Man' to suit the occasion. High marks for recording it and posting the link. Extra credit for a Shatner-style rendition.
How many of them have umlauts over the 'e'?
It would seem to be a new legal theory regarding the nature of leveraging a monopoly. Presumably the notion is that the money earned from the monopoly is the leverage, not the monopoly per se. However, last I checked, Google doesn't have a monopoly on search.
If this were to pass the smell test, I imagine any sufficiently large company that has ever run a loss leader would be guilty.
Note I'm not a lawyer, I just like giving bad advice in general.
As long as you like goats in your porn, totally.
That *is* their internet. You put your packets in the donkeys, whack them with the rocks, and away they go. The latency's a bitch, and there's pretty rough packet loss when the donkeys get concussed from the rocks or get lost in the mountains. Still, the bandwidth is surprisingly respectable.
Wait, you're saying twitter could be more of a nuisance?