And, frankly, the small states have such an inordinate amount of legislative clout in the Senate, I really don't care if they don't get a lot of say in the Executive. Executive branch representation should be based on the wants of the majority of citizens.
You do realize why it was setup that way? Otherwise, what possible reason would there be for small states to join the union if they are always outvoted by the larger states?
Saying the civil war put an end to state rights is stupid; quite frankly, you're stupid if you think you have any clout at all against 300 million other Americans. Power should be local, not national.
you can't argue fact. If *all* windows user have IE included, FF means always to abandon IE in favour of FF. So it is no equal start position.
It's not a fact unless you can show that people WOULDN'T be picking IE if it didn't come with the OS. I think you're confused as to the meaning of "fact." I'm willing only to say that we don't know, because right now it is. But not knowing and asserting that the ONLY reason people are using IE is because it's bundled is quite a leap. So please, if you have some kind of study to back up your point, show it. Otherwise you're simply stating your opinion.
Everyone who uses FF does it as his deliberate choice. So 20% of all webbrowser users explicitly chose another browser. No one needs to make a choice explicit for IE because it comes prepackaged.
Maybe that is the choice they made; they know of FF, and simply don't care. They choose to stick with the browser that came with their OS. The fact that they do nothing doesn't mean they didn't make a choice. The point is we don't know for sure. Would I pick IE6? Hell no... but I'd certainly use IE7 and IE8. I actually HAVE been making just that choice, and find myself favoring IE over FF. But I'm not going to say everyone is like that.. but we don't know. Stop pretending that people care enough to even choose, and that if they did, they would CERTAINLY pick FF over IE.
Your argument hinges on what you call a fact, but it's not. So please, show me some study that backs up "people only use IE because it's there."
We have had other periods called depressions, as well. There was, for example, the Long Depression [wikipedia.org] in 1873.
Still, if you look at Wikipedia, it acknowledges we don't have any kind of real definition. We label periods as such.. either because we look after the fact and say "wow, that sounds REALLY bad" or perhaps due to the headlines of the time. Headlines today sound familar to me. I've seen several already claiming we already ARE in another Great Depression.
True, about $150 per month per person (I know quite a few people who depend on them).
That's about what I thought, so I'd expect that even with food stamps we'd see ALOT more people at the food shelters if things were as bad as they were in the great depression.
They haven't been laying state workers off. They've done things like delay payments to medical providers, nursing homes, etc, but this affects the state as a whole rather than just Springfield. Construction workers I know are in trouble, though.
Pay cuts? Reduction in benefits? I'd be suprised if state workers have been completely unaffected so far. Vermont has a rainy day fund, and so far is one of the states least hit by the recession... and they've already laid off state workers.
When disgraced former Governor Blogabitch first took office he pared the state's workforce down considerably, giving early retirement and laying off a whole lot of clerical workers and front line personnel. But there haven't been any recently. California, otoh, has laid off a lot of state workers and reduced some pay.
So what's your explaination for employed people needing help getting food?
True, but by the time the war started unemployment had gone from 30% at its highest in 1932 to 20% (they just had a show on that on the History channel a week or so ago).
Heh. It was a show on the History Channel where I most recently was told the war got us out of WW2 (the first being history class, and I've seen this said plenty of times inbetween). There was on about the current crisis on recently.
Ugh. You can't find anything, anything at all, to back up your argument.. and you expect me to buy it. Please, just shut your mouth with this garbage. I've kept up just fine... you ramble about poor literacy rates and that dsylexia is the cause.. and you've not been able to show anything or anyone that agrees with you. Just admit you're full of shit already. Or provide some proof.. not "I don't believe studies."
Sorry, the US don't believe in dyslexia? Is that why there are medical billing codes for it?
You seem to not have learned anything in school; there's a difference between "thinking for yourself" and "I'm going to ignore actual research in favor of my own biased beliefs, and no one will tell me a problem when I know there is."
Please, get over yourself already. You're not an expert in the field, you've done no research yourself to see if there really is a problem, yet you're arrogent enough to dismiss studies that don't fit your world view. Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you with facts.
Why can't you provide a single link? Just one. I've asked probably 10 times now.. and you never, ever provide one. I'm not the one claiming to have a solution to a problem that's likely to increase cost for everyone.. so it's on you to back up your argument. You can't, because it's not true. Notice the blue shaded countries have >97% literacy rates.
It's market share is less than what you would expect without bundling.
Oh? And you have research or something to prove this? Or you're just assuming it?
Imagine Microsoft bundled Zunes with Notebooks powered by Windows.
Difficult I imagine, because MS doesn't make notebooks. Since DELL is offering BluRay movies as part of their laptops (you can pick to get one or not), I don't see anything wrong if they were to choose to offer Zune. Or even if they wanted to throw it in for free. As long as MS isn't presuring them not to include an iPod, and they aren't.
But honestly no one buys Zune
I opted for Zune after seeing the numerous problems my wife has with her iPod, and the only "solution" offered by Apple / iPod fanboys was "oh, well, why not just get a new one?"
less people would take IE if it wasn't preinstalled.
Really? Again, what evidence do you have of this? IE currently IS pre-installed, and FF can still gain market share. You believe that if there was no browser, people would choose Mozilla Firefox over Microsoft Internet Explorer? I don't buy it.
So far you're right. Unemployment in the Great Depression was around 30% and was still 20% when WWII started. By next year we could very well be in a depression, though.
That's a hard statement for me to accept.. given that we don't even really have a definition of depression. We have a period in history called the Great Depression.. that's about it. Saying we may well get that bad I feel is a stretch.
Actually, yes. I know employed people who eat at the St. John's breadline. And there's a charity food bank on South Grand that has lines going down the street on Saturday mornings.
I'd have to double check, but I believe IL has been one of the states harder hit by the economy. I certainly haven't seen anything in my city. Food banks have seen a rise in need, but I hardly think it matches anything in the Great Depression.
AND they didn't have food stamps back in the '30s.
Food stamps pay very little. I'm guessing you're suggesting that we might not see breadlines is because people are getting food stamps.
And Springfield hasn't really been hit that hard by the recession, as its main "industry" is state government.
Huh? IL state goverment is in some pretty serious finanical trouble, according to this. State employees all over are being let go or having pay cut as state goverments suddenly have no income. So I wouldn't be suprised if things were worse in Springfield accordingly.
Actually the 70s were worse than now (so far); higher unemployment, stagnant wages, and high inflation. Economically it was a very bad time to be a young man. However, in other respects I miss the 70s.
Well, I can't say I have any firsthand knowledge, just the research I did on recessions of the past. I think it's encouraging that we aren't as bad as the 70s.. we might not get that bad either. Nobody really knows. Of course, government spending didn't get us out of the Great Depression, WW2 did. Hopefully that won't be the only way for us to get out of this mess... but fortunately we seem pretty far off from getting that bad.
Pot was going to be lagal "any day now", and as there was cheap and effective birth control and there were no STDs that weren't easily curable, women would come up and ask "wanna fuck?" The only ones that do that these days are prostitutes.
Ha. Well HIV started in mainly gay populations in the late 70s. If I'm remembering my health classes correctly. But yes, that does sound nicer than today... which Bush and his policy of "abstence is the only form of birth control" religious nonsense. Although I'm hearing PP advertising on the radio to ask about free birth control and family planning.. so hopefully that's Obama's influence helping turn things around.
The US bicentennial was one hell of a nationwide stoned drunken orgy. It was a great time to be a young man, despite the recession and inflation and gas lines.
Well, maybe if you have nothing, might as well get stoned, drunk and laid! Maybe some good can come of this after all!;-)
Bingo! That is called a technical barrier to trade.
So why is FF gaining market share then? If it were a barrier to trade, FF could not be able to gain significant market share.
A competitor as opera has less possibilities to sell his product because it breaks when it adheres to standards and IE as the dominant browser does not adhere to the standard.
Sell? Sell what? They give it away for free.
When only IE renders websites I cannot simply switch to Linux and browse the web. With FF we can.
But websites are working fine in FF... so where's the barrier?
I am sure the Commission has additional hard evidence in their drawers. Basically there is no need to argue.
Oh.. right. Government NEVER, EVER lies or pushes it's own agenda. If there is such evidence, why not present it?
The Commission would possibly just enforce choice of OEMs or find another remedy. Unbundling is the most simple solution to an objective violation of antitrust laws.
Interesting, because the argument is dead in 1999. It didn't survive.. and again, I'll point to FF 20% market share as proof bundling isn't hurting competitors. Perhaps Opera just makes a product nobody wants?
Oh.. just because you say the antitrust issues are objective doesn't mean they are. Or do you have a better explaination of FF's 20% market share?
Oooh. And there are more people in the US arguing that Christianity is the One True Religion. Does that make it true? How about if you were to ask the same question in Indonesia? There, the Muslims outnumber all others. Just because you are taking the popular line doesn't mean a thing.
Thanks for the strawman. Oh, and when it comes to something like that, what the majority of people expect is fair and right is all that matters.
Yeah, where you draw the line for "residential use" is when someone is paid for performing that act. Where I draw the line for "residential use" is where it is no longer residential use. Your opinion differs with mine, so you call me names and claim that you are more right because more people agree with you. You can't use logic to defend your statement because there is no logic that will make professional software development (even if done as a hobby) a "residential use." It may be non-business use, and you are whining like a little bitch because my recommendation for non-residential use was to get the business package and see if that addresses his issues. But just because the provider doesn't sell a "more than residential but not quite business" package doesn't mean that isn't exactly what he is doing, and that the business package may be more approriate than non-residential use on a residential line.
I call you names because you're a moron that thinks YOU define what "residential use" means. Commerical use means you're using it as part of your process to make money. Either's either residental or commercial. Residental use might very well and does include things that take a lot of bandwidth. Or is downloading an ISO somehow different than streaming an HD movie? In other words, you're a tool that believes business can do whatever they want, including pulling a bait and switch scheme.
I never stated it was business use. You have implied that I have, then bashed me for it. Professional software development is not "residential" use. Uploading cat pictures is. Hosting cat pictures on a server and selling advertising on that server is not. My argument doesn't break down. It's consistent. It is just that your opinion differs from mine, so you have to pretend to be a big man and bash me for having a different opinion. Good for you. Do you feel better?
No, you're argument is moronic, because not all software development is "professional." It's pretty clear there's hobbist programmers out there too.
And yes, pointing out morons like you does make me feel better. Now go cry in a corner bitch.
I've pointed out to you, several times, that back before anybody had come up with the idea of dyslexia, well over 90% of the children who went to school learned to read, and that's not true any more. You've never denied it
Fine. It's not true. Prove it with a link. You'd think you'd want to draw my attention to something like that by providing a link backing you up, you haven't.
I think that says more than any study, especially as it's hard to dismiss it as "biased" if it doesn't fit your preconceptions. Of course, considering some of the things you've already written, I'm sure you'll try.
No, because the fact that you posted it doesn't mean it's true. Go ahead, so me a link to a study that PROVES less than 90% of US citizens that go to school can't read.
Well, if most aren't willing to spend, that surely includes people that could get credit, right? I'm just not seeing where the demand is for credit of no one is willing to spend.. regardless of their credit score. Credit card debt has shurnk for the first time EVER. People AREN'T wanting to spend, and they want to get RID of the credit they have. So "frozen credit" is not an issue.
If you listen to the newspapers, we are in the midst of the second Great Depression. Reality is more like we're in a 70s style recession. At least, I've not seen breadlines everywhere, are you? The news is overhyping things to sell papers... gloom and doom headlines move papers and get people watching. The side effect though is that people get easily scared and thus cut spending more... and creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
Take the PB salmonila. If you take 600 / 3000000 you get a REALLY low number. That's the percentage of the population that got sick from PB. Clearly, your chances of getting sick are low... especially when you factor in that 300 of those cases are children, and the rest likely elderly. Then think about what happens if you actually are infected with salmonila. You get diherria. It's almost never life threatening... but people are treating PB as if it carried HIV. So again.. the news pumping up nothing really and getting everyone afraid, and having a real effect.
Actually BluRay is one of the reasons I'm picking a PS3 over an Xbox. For the value, you get quite a bit. It will play games AND bluray movies.. when bluray players are only slightly cheaper. With the Xbox, I get a high end machine like the ps3.. but HDDVD is dead.
Zune isn't doing well, unfortunately, but it's a good product. XBox being a fiasco though? It's posed to be the #1 console this time around. The PS3 is much more expensive, and the Wii can't get good games. Personally I'll take the PS3... but that doesn't seem to be where the market is going.
The Zune IS a great product, poorly marketed. The software is better than iTunes, and it works better than my wife's Nano 2g.
As for the DRM... I don't buy anything on the marketplace for the same reason I don't buy on iTunes. I'd rather just goto Amazon and get the MP3 for the same price.
It's not their money. It's MS' money. If they don't like how much MS is spending on R&D, they are free to sell their shares and buy another company's stock. Of course, I think this is the whole problem with allowing "public" stock to begin with; a bunch of idiots that have no idea buy it because "it sounds good" and some talking head fincial guy tha pretends to know the industry says it's good, they you get crap like this. Public stocks seem to cause more harm than good.
the Zune. Erm, ok, so its market segment imploded to nearly zero during the Christmas period
Which is a shame. The Zune software is leaps and bounds better than that horrid abortion of software which is iTunes. The hardware seems better too; it's worked flawless for me (I have the 8GB model, so mine functioned fine on 1/1 or whatever that day was that the 120GB stopped). Even if I had one of the malfuctioning ones, it started working fine again the next day... unlike my wife's iPod Nano 2G, which has been nothing but trouble since day one. Skipping playback, repeating the same song over and over and over again, locking up, locking up iTunes just after it finishes syncing. I can't tell you how many time's I've had to totally reflash it, which keeps it working for about a day.
The killer is that everyone else she's talked to has problems; their solution.. buy a new one! Incredible. That seems to be a standard answer from "Mac Geniuses" too if something with Apple isn't working. They told me that, and the guy before me, and they guy after me. "well, it's 2g, and there's 3g now so just get that." Piss off.
If someone is creditworthy and being stingy, why would they want credit? They aren't looking to spend.. regardless of available credit or not. Someone who's income is not secure is not creditworthy, I think you'll agree.
I was truely suprised when people said credit was impossible to get. My side business got a credit card at double the amount of my previous one, with a 0% APR for one year to boot. I know it's not the norm, but it disproves "nobody can get any regardles of their credit rating."
Fuck that shit. I have no goddamn sympathy for people who bought more home than they could afford. This notion that the rest of us have to bail them out is infuriating. If I had known the Government was going to bail out bad mortgages I would have stopped paying mine months ago.
I see where you are coming from, but not all homeowners in trouble right now were guilty of overspending. There was quite a bit of preditory lending and vague language to mislead a good deal of them. Even for those that did exactly what you say, it's in everyone's best interest that people have a place to live. In my suggestion, only those that invested in these loans lose out. It doesn't cost us a cent, and it keeps us from having to pay more to expand shelters and feed people that now no longer have a home.
Instead of being homeless, these people can now spend money because a large part of their debt is gone, and this will further help get the economy going.
Yea, the same government that since before George 1 forced banks to take out risky loans (through the CRA and other tactics) and during Clinton ended up increasing the required amounts of risk loans for every good loan. It is the same government who did this in an attempt to drive up home values so certain members and their contributors could profit from artificially inflated prices and the use of other people's money. There is more, but I'm sure you already know that right. It's the same government that under Clinton put the US back on the world oil markets leading to the speculation runs that doubled the costs of gas and energy after 2006 coincidentally when the democrats took congress, that stressed all that risk and caused it to fail becoming "toxic".
You're spouting a myth. No bank was forced to make risky loans. Banks always have the option of saying no if they felt the applicant was too much of a risk. They had to prove that was the case, and that the decision wasn't race based if they were audited, but they could say no.
If I put dynamite inside a hole in a dam, then detonate it causing the dam to breach, is it really a flaw in the dam that failed? If a drunk got behind the wheel of a car and lost control of it on a seemingly dry and safe night but ended up killing a family of five, did the car's safety system's fail or was it something else? If your walking down the street and pass through a road closed baracade, walk past warnings that say dangerous open holes ahead, and then fall into one, is it the failure of government for not providing you with a safe public street?
I'm not going to argue strawmen when the facts are quite clear. I suggest you try doing some research before you spout off nonsense.
In all of those, the failures rest outside the system. It's no different with capitalism and this current problem. The failures were outside the system and not with the system itself. I know this is dificult for people like you to understand so I will repeat what I told the OP, You would do yourself a little good to find out some of the fact about what your talking about. Also, if I was you, I would stay away from political biased sources who's end game is going to be having you clueless and blindly supporting their ideals.
We've seen what capitalism will do if left alone. You get the lovely choice of starving to death or work and everyday risk your arm being torn off because safety costs too much. We also see what blind greed will do.. the investors didn't have any idea what they were really investing in. So ya, I say let them take the hit.
I'm not against doing that but they would at minimum have to pay the principle amount borrowed. I'm not for taking from one to give to another. But I can see where dropping the interest on the failed mortgages in order to repay the original lending amount would be a benefit. The reason the government is so interested in bailing these lending institutions out is because they are complicit in their demise.
Why? The investors didn't look into the house of cards they were investing into, so they deserve to get reamed up the ass. Some of the homeowners are just as guilty as well.. but the greatest good right now would be to forgive the loans. The investors learn a very hard but much needed lesson, and people aren't out in the street leaving houses sitting uninhabited with no one wanting to buy them.
The government is trying to bail the banks out because they are in bed with Wall Street, and it benifits them individually to do so.
Jail the telco execs anyway. I'm betting they knowingly lied to congress to get tax breaks and never had any intention of actually doing anything but keeping the extra money.
Slashdot Mirror
And, frankly, the small states have such an inordinate amount of legislative clout in the Senate, I really don't care if they don't get a lot of say in the Executive. Executive branch representation should be based on the wants of the majority of citizens.
You do realize why it was setup that way? Otherwise, what possible reason would there be for small states to join the union if they are always outvoted by the larger states?
Saying the civil war put an end to state rights is stupid; quite frankly, you're stupid if you think you have any clout at all against 300 million other Americans. Power should be local, not national.
you can't argue fact. If *all* windows user have IE included, FF means always to abandon IE in favour of FF. So it is no equal start position.
It's not a fact unless you can show that people WOULDN'T be picking IE if it didn't come with the OS. I think you're confused as to the meaning of "fact." I'm willing only to say that we don't know, because right now it is. But not knowing and asserting that the ONLY reason people are using IE is because it's bundled is quite a leap. So please, if you have some kind of study to back up your point, show it. Otherwise you're simply stating your opinion.
Everyone who uses FF does it as his deliberate choice. So 20% of all webbrowser users explicitly chose another browser. No one needs to make a choice explicit for IE because it comes prepackaged.
Maybe that is the choice they made; they know of FF, and simply don't care. They choose to stick with the browser that came with their OS. The fact that they do nothing doesn't mean they didn't make a choice. The point is we don't know for sure. Would I pick IE6? Hell no... but I'd certainly use IE7 and IE8. I actually HAVE been making just that choice, and find myself favoring IE over FF. But I'm not going to say everyone is like that.. but we don't know. Stop pretending that people care enough to even choose, and that if they did, they would CERTAINLY pick FF over IE.
Your argument hinges on what you call a fact, but it's not. So please, show me some study that backs up "people only use IE because it's there."
We have had other periods called depressions, as well. There was, for example, the Long Depression [wikipedia.org] in 1873.
Still, if you look at Wikipedia, it acknowledges we don't have any kind of real definition. We label periods as such.. either because we look after the fact and say "wow, that sounds REALLY bad" or perhaps due to the headlines of the time. Headlines today sound familar to me. I've seen several already claiming we already ARE in another Great Depression.
True, about $150 per month per person (I know quite a few people who depend on them).
That's about what I thought, so I'd expect that even with food stamps we'd see ALOT more people at the food shelters if things were as bad as they were in the great depression.
They haven't been laying state workers off. They've done things like delay payments to medical providers, nursing homes, etc, but this affects the state as a whole rather than just Springfield. Construction workers I know are in trouble, though.
Pay cuts? Reduction in benefits? I'd be suprised if state workers have been completely unaffected so far. Vermont has a rainy day fund, and so far is one of the states least hit by the recession... and they've already laid off state workers.
When disgraced former Governor Blogabitch first took office he pared the state's workforce down considerably, giving early retirement and laying off a whole lot of clerical workers and front line personnel. But there haven't been any recently. California, otoh, has laid off a lot of state workers and reduced some pay.
So what's your explaination for employed people needing help getting food?
True, but by the time the war started unemployment had gone from 30% at its highest in 1932 to 20% (they just had a show on that on the History channel a week or so ago).
Heh. It was a show on the History Channel where I most recently was told the war got us out of WW2 (the first being history class, and I've seen this said plenty of times inbetween). There was on about the current crisis on recently.
I'll drink to that!
Now all we need are the horny girls ;-)
Ugh. You can't find anything, anything at all, to back up your argument.. and you expect me to buy it. Please, just shut your mouth with this garbage. I've kept up just fine... you ramble about poor literacy rates and that dsylexia is the cause.. and you've not been able to show anything or anyone that agrees with you. Just admit you're full of shit already. Or provide some proof.. not "I don't believe studies."
Idiot. There's only two classes of service Charter provides: residental or commercial. You lose, moron.
Sorry, the US don't believe in dyslexia? Is that why there are medical billing codes for it?
You seem to not have learned anything in school; there's a difference between "thinking for yourself" and "I'm going to ignore actual research in favor of my own biased beliefs, and no one will tell me a problem when I know there is."
Please, get over yourself already. You're not an expert in the field, you've done no research yourself to see if there really is a problem, yet you're arrogent enough to dismiss studies that don't fit your world view. Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you with facts.
Why can't you provide a single link? Just one. I've asked probably 10 times now.. and you never, ever provide one. I'm not the one claiming to have a solution to a problem that's likely to increase cost for everyone.. so it's on you to back up your argument. You can't, because it's not true. Notice the blue shaded countries have >97% literacy rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_literacy_map_UNHD_2007_2008.png
It's market share is less than what you would expect without bundling.
Oh? And you have research or something to prove this? Or you're just assuming it?
Imagine Microsoft bundled Zunes with Notebooks powered by Windows.
Difficult I imagine, because MS doesn't make notebooks. Since DELL is offering BluRay movies as part of their laptops (you can pick to get one or not), I don't see anything wrong if they were to choose to offer Zune. Or even if they wanted to throw it in for free. As long as MS isn't presuring them not to include an iPod, and they aren't.
But honestly no one buys Zune
I opted for Zune after seeing the numerous problems my wife has with her iPod, and the only "solution" offered by Apple / iPod fanboys was "oh, well, why not just get a new one?"
less people would take IE if it wasn't preinstalled.
Really? Again, what evidence do you have of this? IE currently IS pre-installed, and FF can still gain market share. You believe that if there was no browser, people would choose Mozilla Firefox over Microsoft Internet Explorer? I don't buy it.
So far you're right. Unemployment in the Great Depression was around 30% and was still 20% when WWII started. By next year we could very well be in a depression, though.
That's a hard statement for me to accept.. given that we don't even really have a definition of depression. We have a period in history called the Great Depression.. that's about it. Saying we may well get that bad I feel is a stretch.
Actually, yes. I know employed people who eat at the St. John's breadline. And there's a charity food bank on South Grand that has lines going down the street on Saturday mornings.
I'd have to double check, but I believe IL has been one of the states harder hit by the economy. I certainly haven't seen anything in my city. Food banks have seen a rise in need, but I hardly think it matches anything in the Great Depression.
AND they didn't have food stamps back in the '30s.
Food stamps pay very little. I'm guessing you're suggesting that we might not see breadlines is because people are getting food stamps.
And Springfield hasn't really been hit that hard by the recession, as its main "industry" is state government.
Huh? IL state goverment is in some pretty serious finanical trouble, according to this. State employees all over are being let go or having pay cut as state goverments suddenly have no income. So I wouldn't be suprised if things were worse in Springfield accordingly.
Actually the 70s were worse than now (so far); higher unemployment, stagnant wages, and high inflation. Economically it was a very bad time to be a young man. However, in other respects I miss the 70s.
Well, I can't say I have any firsthand knowledge, just the research I did on recessions of the past. I think it's encouraging that we aren't as bad as the 70s.. we might not get that bad either. Nobody really knows. Of course, government spending didn't get us out of the Great Depression, WW2 did. Hopefully that won't be the only way for us to get out of this mess... but fortunately we seem pretty far off from getting that bad.
Pot was going to be lagal "any day now", and as there was cheap and effective birth control and there were no STDs that weren't easily curable, women would come up and ask "wanna fuck?" The only ones that do that these days are prostitutes.
Ha. Well HIV started in mainly gay populations in the late 70s. If I'm remembering my health classes correctly. But yes, that does sound nicer than today... which Bush and his policy of "abstence is the only form of birth control" religious nonsense. Although I'm hearing PP advertising on the radio to ask about free birth control and family planning.. so hopefully that's Obama's influence helping turn things around.
The US bicentennial was one hell of a nationwide stoned drunken orgy. It was a great time to be a young man, despite the recession and inflation and gas lines.
Well, maybe if you have nothing, might as well get stoned, drunk and laid! Maybe some good can come of this after all! ;-)
Bingo! That is called a technical barrier to trade.
So why is FF gaining market share then? If it were a barrier to trade, FF could not be able to gain significant market share.
A competitor as opera has less possibilities to sell his product because it breaks when it adheres to standards and IE as the dominant browser does not adhere to the standard.
Sell? Sell what? They give it away for free.
When only IE renders websites I cannot simply switch to Linux and browse the web. With FF we can.
But websites are working fine in FF... so where's the barrier?
I am sure the Commission has additional hard evidence in their drawers. Basically there is no need to argue.
Oh.. right. Government NEVER, EVER lies or pushes it's own agenda. If there is such evidence, why not present it?
The Commission would possibly just enforce choice of OEMs or find another remedy. Unbundling is the most simple solution to an objective violation of antitrust laws.
Interesting, because the argument is dead in 1999. It didn't survive.. and again, I'll point to FF 20% market share as proof bundling isn't hurting competitors. Perhaps Opera just makes a product nobody wants?
Oh.. just because you say the antitrust issues are objective doesn't mean they are. Or do you have a better explaination of FF's 20% market share?
Do you love them more than /. idiots that think they own personal experience is the average experience of everyone else in society?
Oooh. And there are more people in the US arguing that Christianity is the One True Religion. Does that make it true? How about if you were to ask the same question in Indonesia? There, the Muslims outnumber all others. Just because you are taking the popular line doesn't mean a thing.
Thanks for the strawman. Oh, and when it comes to something like that, what the majority of people expect is fair and right is all that matters.
Yeah, where you draw the line for "residential use" is when someone is paid for performing that act. Where I draw the line for "residential use" is where it is no longer residential use. Your opinion differs with mine, so you call me names and claim that you are more right because more people agree with you. You can't use logic to defend your statement because there is no logic that will make professional software development (even if done as a hobby) a "residential use." It may be non-business use, and you are whining like a little bitch because my recommendation for non-residential use was to get the business package and see if that addresses his issues. But just because the provider doesn't sell a "more than residential but not quite business" package doesn't mean that isn't exactly what he is doing, and that the business package may be more approriate than non-residential use on a residential line.
I call you names because you're a moron that thinks YOU define what "residential use" means. Commerical use means you're using it as part of your process to make money. Either's either residental or commercial. Residental use might very well and does include things that take a lot of bandwidth. Or is downloading an ISO somehow different than streaming an HD movie? In other words, you're a tool that believes business can do whatever they want, including pulling a bait and switch scheme.
I never stated it was business use. You have implied that I have, then bashed me for it. Professional software development is not "residential" use. Uploading cat pictures is. Hosting cat pictures on a server and selling advertising on that server is not. My argument doesn't break down. It's consistent. It is just that your opinion differs from mine, so you have to pretend to be a big man and bash me for having a different opinion. Good for you. Do you feel better?
No, you're argument is moronic, because not all software development is "professional." It's pretty clear there's hobbist programmers out there too.
And yes, pointing out morons like you does make me feel better. Now go cry in a corner bitch.
I've pointed out to you, several times, that back before anybody had come up with the idea of dyslexia, well over 90% of the children who went to school learned to read, and that's not true any more. You've never denied it
Fine. It's not true. Prove it with a link. You'd think you'd want to draw my attention to something like that by providing a link backing you up, you haven't.
I think that says more than any study, especially as it's hard to dismiss it as "biased" if it doesn't fit your preconceptions. Of course, considering some of the things you've already written, I'm sure you'll try.
No, because the fact that you posted it doesn't mean it's true. Go ahead, so me a link to a study that PROVES less than 90% of US citizens that go to school can't read.
Well, if most aren't willing to spend, that surely includes people that could get credit, right? I'm just not seeing where the demand is for credit of no one is willing to spend.. regardless of their credit score. Credit card debt has shurnk for the first time EVER. People AREN'T wanting to spend, and they want to get RID of the credit they have. So "frozen credit" is not an issue.
If you listen to the newspapers, we are in the midst of the second Great Depression. Reality is more like we're in a 70s style recession. At least, I've not seen breadlines everywhere, are you? The news is overhyping things to sell papers... gloom and doom headlines move papers and get people watching. The side effect though is that people get easily scared and thus cut spending more... and creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
Take the PB salmonila. If you take 600 / 3000000 you get a REALLY low number. That's the percentage of the population that got sick from PB. Clearly, your chances of getting sick are low... especially when you factor in that 300 of those cases are children, and the rest likely elderly. Then think about what happens if you actually are infected with salmonila. You get diherria. It's almost never life threatening... but people are treating PB as if it carried HIV. So again.. the news pumping up nothing really and getting everyone afraid, and having a real effect.
Actually BluRay is one of the reasons I'm picking a PS3 over an Xbox. For the value, you get quite a bit. It will play games AND bluray movies.. when bluray players are only slightly cheaper. With the Xbox, I get a high end machine like the ps3.. but HDDVD is dead.
Zune isn't doing well, unfortunately, but it's a good product. XBox being a fiasco though? It's posed to be the #1 console this time around. The PS3 is much more expensive, and the Wii can't get good games. Personally I'll take the PS3... but that doesn't seem to be where the market is going.
The Zune IS a great product, poorly marketed. The software is better than iTunes, and it works better than my wife's Nano 2g.
As for the DRM... I don't buy anything on the marketplace for the same reason I don't buy on iTunes. I'd rather just goto Amazon and get the MP3 for the same price.
It's not their money. It's MS' money. If they don't like how much MS is spending on R&D, they are free to sell their shares and buy another company's stock. Of course, I think this is the whole problem with allowing "public" stock to begin with; a bunch of idiots that have no idea buy it because "it sounds good" and some talking head fincial guy tha pretends to know the industry says it's good, they you get crap like this. Public stocks seem to cause more harm than good.
the Zune. Erm, ok, so its market segment imploded to nearly zero during the Christmas period
Which is a shame. The Zune software is leaps and bounds better than that horrid abortion of software which is iTunes. The hardware seems better too; it's worked flawless for me (I have the 8GB model, so mine functioned fine on 1/1 or whatever that day was that the 120GB stopped). Even if I had one of the malfuctioning ones, it started working fine again the next day... unlike my wife's iPod Nano 2G, which has been nothing but trouble since day one. Skipping playback, repeating the same song over and over and over again, locking up, locking up iTunes just after it finishes syncing. I can't tell you how many time's I've had to totally reflash it, which keeps it working for about a day.
The killer is that everyone else she's talked to has problems; their solution.. buy a new one! Incredible. That seems to be a standard answer from "Mac Geniuses" too if something with Apple isn't working. They told me that, and the guy before me, and they guy after me. "well, it's 2g, and there's 3g now so just get that." Piss off.
If someone is creditworthy and being stingy, why would they want credit? They aren't looking to spend.. regardless of available credit or not. Someone who's income is not secure is not creditworthy, I think you'll agree.
I was truely suprised when people said credit was impossible to get. My side business got a credit card at double the amount of my previous one, with a 0% APR for one year to boot. I know it's not the norm, but it disproves "nobody can get any regardles of their credit rating."
Fuck that shit. I have no goddamn sympathy for people who bought more home than they could afford. This notion that the rest of us have to bail them out is infuriating. If I had known the Government was going to bail out bad mortgages I would have stopped paying mine months ago.
I see where you are coming from, but not all homeowners in trouble right now were guilty of overspending. There was quite a bit of preditory lending and vague language to mislead a good deal of them. Even for those that did exactly what you say, it's in everyone's best interest that people have a place to live. In my suggestion, only those that invested in these loans lose out. It doesn't cost us a cent, and it keeps us from having to pay more to expand shelters and feed people that now no longer have a home.
Instead of being homeless, these people can now spend money because a large part of their debt is gone, and this will further help get the economy going.
Yea, the same government that since before George 1 forced banks to take out risky loans (through the CRA and other tactics) and during Clinton ended up increasing the required amounts of risk loans for every good loan. It is the same government who did this in an attempt to drive up home values so certain members and their contributors could profit from artificially inflated prices and the use of other people's money. There is more, but I'm sure you already know that right. It's the same government that under Clinton put the US back on the world oil markets leading to the speculation runs that doubled the costs of gas and energy after 2006 coincidentally when the democrats took congress, that stressed all that risk and caused it to fail becoming "toxic".
You're spouting a myth. No bank was forced to make risky loans. Banks always have the option of saying no if they felt the applicant was too much of a risk. They had to prove that was the case, and that the decision wasn't race based if they were audited, but they could say no.
If I put dynamite inside a hole in a dam, then detonate it causing the dam to breach, is it really a flaw in the dam that failed? If a drunk got behind the wheel of a car and lost control of it on a seemingly dry and safe night but ended up killing a family of five, did the car's safety system's fail or was it something else? If your walking down the street and pass through a road closed baracade, walk past warnings that say dangerous open holes ahead, and then fall into one, is it the failure of government for not providing you with a safe public street?
I'm not going to argue strawmen when the facts are quite clear. I suggest you try doing some research before you spout off nonsense.
In all of those, the failures rest outside the system. It's no different with capitalism and this current problem. The failures were outside the system and not with the system itself. I know this is dificult for people like you to understand so I will repeat what I told the OP, You would do yourself a little good to find out some of the fact about what your talking about. Also, if I was you, I would stay away from political biased sources who's end game is going to be having you clueless and blindly supporting their ideals.
We've seen what capitalism will do if left alone. You get the lovely choice of starving to death or work and everyday risk your arm being torn off because safety costs too much. We also see what blind greed will do.. the investors didn't have any idea what they were really investing in. So ya, I say let them take the hit.
I'm not against doing that but they would at minimum have to pay the principle amount borrowed. I'm not for taking from one to give to another. But I can see where dropping the interest on the failed mortgages in order to repay the original lending amount would be a benefit. The reason the government is so interested in bailing these lending institutions out is because they are complicit in their demise.
Why? The investors didn't look into the house of cards they were investing into, so they deserve to get reamed up the ass. Some of the homeowners are just as guilty as well.. but the greatest good right now would be to forgive the loans. The investors learn a very hard but much needed lesson, and people aren't out in the street leaving houses sitting uninhabited with no one wanting to buy them.
The government is trying to bail the banks out because they are in bed with Wall Street, and it benifits them individually to do so.
. in which case can you be prosecuted for something you did when it was legal after its been made legal?
No, not in the US.
What consumer is going to borrow money if they are afraid of being laidoff?
What commerical entity is going to borrow money if they are afraid consumers are not spending (and they're not)?
The problem isn't credit anymore. Please try to keep up.
Jail the telco execs anyway. I'm betting they knowingly lied to congress to get tax breaks and never had any intention of actually doing anything but keeping the extra money.