Can't say that I understand your math (disclaimer: I am a mathematician) but it would seem to me that $3,822,218 divided by 10,000 shares gives $382/share, not $3822/share.
;) I'll not bother describing the current stickiness of my "2" key. You're quite right. I think the rest is OK, as well as the general conclusion: they paid a few percent of the stock value to sell, not over double the stock value. Incidentally, had it been $13.50/share of common stock, that would have been about the same as the original amount they bought in for. So in any case, that would make less than no sense, and they would never have done it. My issues with the "2" notwithstanding.
Carbon and potassium has been proven to be inaccurate and completely unreliable. It is covered in the videos as I mentioned here. Just because you have been given poor explanations in the past doesn't make evolution fact. You still need to hear both sides. http://www.creationevidence.net/offers.shtml.
I HAVE heard both sides, as I mentioned. I was RAISED hearing both sides. It seems you've never heard any real evidence to the contrary (or you're a very bored troll). Carbon and potassium dating are both fine. Just because you can find one rock that was misdated doesn't mean the whole thing is wrong. By that standard, if I can find something in the bible that's wrong, the whol book is, and I don't think you want to go with that standard.
As far as radioactive dating, it's very simple. The lifetimes of known isotopes are very well known. All rocks contain some potassium. The ratio of different isotopes very accurately predicts age. Sorry if that doesn't correlate with what you want to believe.
I looked at the site but I'm not downloading and damned Divx movies.
You also seemed to have skipped the Christian site I sent you - one can believe in a creationist-driven evolution that correlates with what's in the Bible, yet also agrees with the science that anyone with a bit of sense believes.
The great thing about science isn't that it's always right, but it's able to change its mind.
I once got into a friendly argument with an engineer over the merits of the metric system. His argument "Foot-Lbs. I know what that is - that's obvious! Newton - what the fuck is a Newton."
I hate that shit. I'm a scientist, an American even, and it drives me crazy when our on-campus machine shop acts like we're idiots when we don't have a concept of how long a mil is (no, not a millimeter, but a 1000th of an inch I believe).
As for the concept of ft-lb vs newtons - all we need to get rid of is one generation. Then it will be "I know what a Newton is - that's obvious. What the fuck is a ft-lb?" The idiotic thing is, it would take maybe a month to figure it out and have a feel for the units. And then people could mentally convert between pretty much any unit on EARTH knowing the speed of light, planck's constant, and the density of water.
There is better evidence for creation then for evolution. You must hear both sides before you make a conclution. You have been told your hole life that the world was formed billions of years ago. This makes it hard for you to beleave any differently. Please check out both side be for you claim your right. Free divx Videos http://www.creationevidence.net/offers.shtml
I was raised as a Christian and a scientist (not a Christian Scientist however;>), so your conclusion is inherently flawed at first.
Second, I checked out the site you mention, and not only is it flat wrong about many a lot of factual evidence, it isn't even one of the better creationist sites I've seen. It's one of those "this specious evidence doesn't correlate 100% with the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 bn yrs old, so the earth is really 4000 years old" sites. They ignore an immense amount of evidence that doesn't support them, while focusing on poorly measured, nearly irrelevant information that doesn't even usually support their conclusion. Care to explain carbon and potassium dating, please?
They aren't even correct about their representations about what scientists actually believe about evolution nor creation - such as modern humans evolving from Neanderthals, or "Lucy" being a chimpanzee.
A little advice - taking literal assumptions from a 3000 year old document that's been translated, poorly, many times, isn't a good idea. Try this. http://www.orisol.com/chap08.html
Obviously running schools as business also has the additional benefit of cheap labour. Labour so cheap in fact that they pay for the privilege to work er learn.
First, in many situations - including in the sciences - even undergraduate students are paid to research. Second, what pay is "low" for a 20-year-old with no experience? This is someone who couldn't make above $10/hour in most circumstances. What other opportunities does this person have to learn critical skills? Also, in most circumstances, this "work" done by undergrads is, for the most part, not that useful. I speak from experience here, and 9 times out of 10, they will (naturally) require a great deal of supervision, and much of their work will have to be redone. All in all, research by undergrads is more like learning than work, most times.
As for research by grads, we're paid. Not incredibly paid, but we are paid.
I remeber reading an article recently where the US was starting to fall behind in education, I wonder if it has anything to do with treating students like cheap lab workers.
Nope, the US is falling behind in high-school education, not college.
When any institution shifts it focus from its primary function, the primary function suffers as resources are lost.
You're only focusing on undergrads - for graduate students, research IS your job. If my school shifted its focus from research, my education will suffer. You also have to understand, at the best schools, 90+% of the students will ultimately find jobs doing some form of research. Not introducing research early to these students would be a crime.
Also, resources aren't "lost." You have to realize, not only do grants pay for research, they pay, in large part, to run the school. Where I am, a very large fraction of every grant dollar spent is taken off the top to run the general overhead of the school. Basically, you cut off grants, the school has no money. Research also increases the profile of the school, which brings in donations.
Doing monkey work in a lab is not the best form of education.
I completely agree, which is why those sorts of situations are generally avoided. At my school, there is a process by which undergrads can request a change in advisor if he/she feels they aren't doing real work. But research is the core function of grad students, and it is a critical part of the education of undergrads.
Seriously, would you run a college like our failing high schools? The American collegiate system is the only decent thing we have left.
ah, but when the church uses the term evidence but it's not direct evidence many say that because it's not direct evidence that you can't believe what is derived.
But, when the science claims that then have evidence but no direct evidence I am supposed to believe it. And now they have one piece of direct evidence and I am supposed completely believe it.
It's not the "directness" in the "evidence" claimed by a lot of religious nuts, it's that what is usually claimed as evidence isn't. When scientists criticize the flavor of such evidence, it's frequently because it's reported fifth-hand between 100 and 10,000 years later, because "God said so" is taken as evidence, and because the religious crowd is decidedly unscientific in "picking and choosing" its evidence, focusing on one single piece of crappy evidence while ignoring a wealth of good information.
Also, it's generally the religious crowd that's the worst about the whole "higher standards on the other side" thing. A while back, someone found a discrepancy of a few days over millions of years in the earth's orbit, and the religious crowd took this to mean that God made the sun stand still during the siege of Jericho. That sounds a bit stretched. However, they expect anthropologists to find every single Australopithecus variant, and anything left out is proof that evolution is dead wrong. Also, any single fossil that has its radioactive dating done incorrectly is somehow proof that the whole thing doesn't work, and the universe really is 4000 years old. Seems a bit off, there.
I know a bit about science and I still find this sketchy and I really wonder that if this were a court case and this level of info was provided if a conviction would happen.
Regarding this meteor in Australia? No, there wouldn't be a conviction. You might get a judgement in a civil court though. But the thing is, this isn't being reported as complete fact at this point.
If you have any particulary religious "science" that you feel has been unfairly treated, I'll report more specifically.
it's pretty pathetic that the "academic tradition" of openness at universities (i'm speaking of public state schools, not private unis which can do whatever they want for all i care) is slowly being pushed to the wayside. universities are no longer run like places of education, but more like businesses. business has no place in education.
Business has a significant role in a college, as those are the prospective employers for graduates. Without having some business in a school, you end up teaching a lot of kids completely useless skills
my state's Constitution states that (state college/uni) education must be affordable. in the past 2.5 years since we got stuck with a new president, tuition has consistently gone up. 5 new buildings have been built or are currently under construction, only one of which is used (partially) for teaching. the rest are completely dedicated to research.
Don't know who you think is doing the research, but it's mainly students. Learning how to do research is still learning. Besides, how many classrooms does a university need? You can't run a college like high school, people learn by doing.
the kicker is that this research is almost always funded by gov't grants (read: my and yours $$). yet, if i want to use technology developed on those grants, i have to pay for a license to use it... i pay twice.
The fact that you get the technology at all is the benefit. Not to mention which, the government has many programs that don't directly benefit all citizens. I don't get welfare, for example.
Also, students at schools should be damned glad for those grants, as they pay to run the school through the significant "overhead" fees the school takes out of each grant.
if a researcher here finds a cure for cancer, the uni's corporate arm will take ownership, and license it. that's damn sad. the days of places of higher education putting out freely available innovations are long gone thanks to the almighty ustpo
I'm not sure what you think was the situation 50 years ago, but what happened then was profs would develop something, start a company, patent it themselves, and screw everyone including the university. If the school develops something that will make someone some money, why shouldn't they use that money to subsidize operations that benefit all students?
if UV rays aren't blocked by water clouds very well, why would they be blocked by pollution clouds? not cleaning up the air can never be considered a good thing.
First, water clouds DO block UV fairly well - you don't get a sunburn nearly as fast on a cloudy day. Second, pollution may not be absorbing UV - it's more likely scattering it.
If you are unhappy with corporate life in the US, get out of corporate life, not the US. Insurance is one of those industries dominated very large companies. Lots of rules, regulations and PHB. Go find a (stable, profitable, non-high tech) company with 80 - 200 employees. It is a whole 'nother world working for a small to midsized company.
No kidding. Judging all American businesses based on the insurance industry is like judging the whole human race after hanging around a bunch of cannibals. Or lawyers, same thing.
It's nice that you read that somewhere, but you have no fucking clue how to actually do it, and neither do any of the junk faxers/telemarketers.
Conclusions jumped to a bit quickly. I don't have to know how, because you can buy shit to do it, like Here. And I imagine spammers of whatever ilk are their main customers. So you're wrong on both counts.
An inbound call blocker based on caller ID is a brilliant idea and would sell very well, especially if it had an RS-232 interface on it.
So brilliant it was invented years ago. You have no idea what you're talking about AC.
Umm, dude, i've been in business probably longer than you have. People like you are the people I make irrelevant and replace. They fail to implement solutions. Your willingness to accept anachronisms is the problem, not my desire to fix problems. You can argue the details all day long - there is a solution to every problem.
Unless you're willing to work for free, not everyone has the willingness or ability to pay you. As for your "solution," caller ID can be spoofed, and you ignore the problem where businesses don't have the luxury to lose business to the multitude of people behind PBX's. I have to deal constantly with smartasses who thought they could fix things but screw them up even worse. People would rather deal with a few junk faxes than lose business because a customer's order got rejected.
Make sure your "solution" doesn't cause more problems than it fixes. In this case, the best solution is a garbage can near the fax.
Woops, sorry, this solution requires more effort than plugging the machine into the wall. How could I have even brought it up.
When you work for a company someday, you'll find that no one wants to pay someone to hack a damned fax machine solution. Believe it or not, most people have jobs that don't allow them such free time. Wanting to "just plug it in" is a quite reasonable expectation. Just because everyone around here has the time, skill, and disposition to fuck around with their hardware doesn't everybody does
Not to mention that a standard fax machine is simpler and more stable than a computer-based solution for those companies that aren't large enough to really devote time to doing it right.
Also, there are a lot of reasons why someone's info might not show up on Caller ID - such as being behind a PBX in some instances - and that would basically be giving up on business.
All in all, that was a very good suggestion for those who don't actually have to run a real business.
OMG, someone lying about something so that they don't have to pay for it?
that's never happened before in any type of company before!
who cares. It's not like it's not a tax write off.
Lying's lying. Also, nice classical rationalization behavior. Whatever helps you sleep at night being a dirtball.
BTW, it's not a tax writeoff, but it's an actual loss, which is even worse.
Start making it like those cars who's bonnets are welded closed, if oyu don't want us in there, don't put screws in it.
Horseshit. Don't buy the proverbial car with the welded hood. If you do, and you lie when you fuck it up, then you are a lying scumbag.
in a room full of computer dorks, someone says things like "don't open your own case and fix your machine..." !
More like "Don't do it under warranty." Once your warranty period's up, it's your option. But presumably no one's dumb enough to void the Apple warranty, especially if you paid for Apple care. And he's also saying it's fraudulent to LIE about not opening the case.
Well, that's a nice idea and all, and the initial logic seems to follow, but... will the US actually follow suit? The US isn't exactly known for following the rest of the world. Think of the metric system, for one...
If that logic made any sense, the US would be using the metric system by now. Whether it be a quality or a flaw, we're damn stubborn, and we don't like chaning the way we do things, especially if it's seen as bowing to international pressure.
What I'm saying is, with the decision to split Fedora from the core product lines, Red Hat essentially removed their own motive for expending huge amounts of time in evaluating user input, particularly user-submitted code.
I think they made it so Fedora would basically run itself, probably owing to the fact that, with OSS, you have 9 useless twits submitting useless patches for every useful one (and I'm being generous here). This way, if Fedora develops something, it gets improved, integrated, and included in RHEL.
It's simple economics: where's the money in it? "User loyalty," you say. Really? Aren't Fedora users the ones who don't need RH Enterprise or just don't want to pay for anything? Seems to me that they're the same ones who, if they convince an employer to go OSS, will also try to do it all themselves, to avoid "evil" licensing fees.
Pretty much.
It seems to me that Red Hat is just looking out for number 1 by not spending huge amounts of time with non-paying users; even when those users have valid input, the time involved in building a trusted developer base makes it prohibitive.
Why bother when you can get input from people developing/using RHEL? At some point, you have enough "help."
I sense a disturbing over-dependence on Google. If they turn to the dark side (& it's bound to happen), where we will go next?
I used to like hotbot before they got eaten by Lycos. They used Inktomi's engine, which I think MSN licensed for a while.
nlsearch had cool features, but died out. (I think they sell their engine for enterprise use at northernlight.com).
altavista was cool when it was run by DEC (which got ate by Compaq, which was swallowed by HP).
Methinks you answered your own question. If google turns "evil" and people can't find the results they want among the craphole of ads, or if Google can't continue to extract useful info, someone else will come along with a great algorithm. Just like happened to all the others.
There is no recourse. That's the point. The FCC Class B Licence says you should avoid interfering with other devices and tough luck if somethin else interferes with you. No recourses specified. More of a "use at your own risk" type of thing.
Right, my question was a bit rhetorical. I've never understood what the purpose of that clause was. What, as if I'd sue the FCC otherwise?
Even worse. It will allow them to snoop on your devices if you NEIGHBOR gets this device. Consider this scenario A well behaved device would never do this, but, if Comcast decides to shut down Vonage, your neighbor could "notice" that you are using Vonage and generate disruptive traffic. Provided they meerly disrupted you, rather than tapped your line, it's even within the class of FCC license granted to your receiver. You know that "must accept any interference" clause?
Yeah, it goes well with the "must not generate destructive interference" clause right before. And what does that "must accept interference" clause mean? I can't shield stuff?
Slashdot Mirror
;) I'll not bother describing the current stickiness of my "2" key. You're quite right. I think the rest is OK, as well as the general conclusion: they paid a few percent of the stock value to sell, not over double the stock value. Incidentally, had it been $13.50/share of common stock, that would have been about the same as the original amount they bought in for. So in any case, that would make less than no sense, and they would never have done it. My issues with the "2" notwithstanding.
I almost believed you might not be a troll, but you went too far with that one. Good job though, you got a bunch of us!
I HAVE heard both sides, as I mentioned. I was RAISED hearing both sides. It seems you've never heard any real evidence to the contrary (or you're a very bored troll). Carbon and potassium dating are both fine. Just because you can find one rock that was misdated doesn't mean the whole thing is wrong. By that standard, if I can find something in the bible that's wrong, the whol book is, and I don't think you want to go with that standard.
As far as radioactive dating, it's very simple. The lifetimes of known isotopes are very well known. All rocks contain some potassium. The ratio of different isotopes very accurately predicts age. Sorry if that doesn't correlate with what you want to believe.
I looked at the site but I'm not downloading and damned Divx movies.
You also seemed to have skipped the Christian site I sent you - one can believe in a creationist-driven evolution that correlates with what's in the Bible, yet also agrees with the science that anyone with a bit of sense believes.
The great thing about science isn't that it's always right, but it's able to change its mind.
I hate that shit. I'm a scientist, an American even, and it drives me crazy when our on-campus machine shop acts like we're idiots when we don't have a concept of how long a mil is (no, not a millimeter, but a 1000th of an inch I believe).
As for the concept of ft-lb vs newtons - all we need to get rid of is one generation. Then it will be "I know what a Newton is - that's obvious. What the fuck is a ft-lb?" The idiotic thing is, it would take maybe a month to figure it out and have a feel for the units. And then people could mentally convert between pretty much any unit on EARTH knowing the speed of light, planck's constant, and the density of water.
I was raised as a Christian and a scientist (not a Christian Scientist however ;>), so your conclusion is inherently flawed at first.
Second, I checked out the site you mention, and not only is it flat wrong about many a lot of factual evidence, it isn't even one of the better creationist sites I've seen. It's one of those "this specious evidence doesn't correlate 100% with the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 bn yrs old, so the earth is really 4000 years old" sites. They ignore an immense amount of evidence that doesn't support them, while focusing on poorly measured, nearly irrelevant information that doesn't even usually support their conclusion. Care to explain carbon and potassium dating, please?
They aren't even correct about their representations about what scientists actually believe about evolution nor creation - such as modern humans evolving from Neanderthals, or "Lucy" being a chimpanzee.
A little advice - taking literal assumptions from a 3000 year old document that's been translated, poorly, many times, isn't a good idea. Try this. http://www.orisol.com/chap08.html
First, in many situations - including in the sciences - even undergraduate students are paid to research. Second, what pay is "low" for a 20-year-old with no experience? This is someone who couldn't make above $10/hour in most circumstances. What other opportunities does this person have to learn critical skills? Also, in most circumstances, this "work" done by undergrads is, for the most part, not that useful. I speak from experience here, and 9 times out of 10, they will (naturally) require a great deal of supervision, and much of their work will have to be redone. All in all, research by undergrads is more like learning than work, most times.
As for research by grads, we're paid. Not incredibly paid, but we are paid.
I remeber reading an article recently where the US was starting to fall behind in education, I wonder if it has anything to do with treating students like cheap lab workers.
Nope, the US is falling behind in high-school education, not college.
When any institution shifts it focus from its primary function, the primary function suffers as resources are lost.
You're only focusing on undergrads - for graduate students, research IS your job. If my school shifted its focus from research, my education will suffer. You also have to understand, at the best schools, 90+% of the students will ultimately find jobs doing some form of research. Not introducing research early to these students would be a crime.
Also, resources aren't "lost." You have to realize, not only do grants pay for research, they pay, in large part, to run the school. Where I am, a very large fraction of every grant dollar spent is taken off the top to run the general overhead of the school. Basically, you cut off grants, the school has no money. Research also increases the profile of the school, which brings in donations.
Doing monkey work in a lab is not the best form of education.
I completely agree, which is why those sorts of situations are generally avoided. At my school, there is a process by which undergrads can request a change in advisor if he/she feels they aren't doing real work. But research is the core function of grad students, and it is a critical part of the education of undergrads.
Seriously, would you run a college like our failing high schools? The American collegiate system is the only decent thing we have left.
It's not the "directness" in the "evidence" claimed by a lot of religious nuts, it's that what is usually claimed as evidence isn't. When scientists criticize the flavor of such evidence, it's frequently because it's reported fifth-hand between 100 and 10,000 years later, because "God said so" is taken as evidence, and because the religious crowd is decidedly unscientific in "picking and choosing" its evidence, focusing on one single piece of crappy evidence while ignoring a wealth of good information.
Also, it's generally the religious crowd that's the worst about the whole "higher standards on the other side" thing. A while back, someone found a discrepancy of a few days over millions of years in the earth's orbit, and the religious crowd took this to mean that God made the sun stand still during the siege of Jericho. That sounds a bit stretched. However, they expect anthropologists to find every single Australopithecus variant, and anything left out is proof that evolution is dead wrong. Also, any single fossil that has its radioactive dating done incorrectly is somehow proof that the whole thing doesn't work, and the universe really is 4000 years old. Seems a bit off, there.
I know a bit about science and I still find this sketchy and I really wonder that if this were a court case and this level of info was provided if a conviction would happen.
Regarding this meteor in Australia? No, there wouldn't be a conviction. You might get a judgement in a civil court though. But the thing is, this isn't being reported as complete fact at this point.
If you have any particulary religious "science" that you feel has been unfairly treated, I'll report more specifically.
Business has a significant role in a college, as those are the prospective employers for graduates. Without having some business in a school, you end up teaching a lot of kids completely useless skills
my state's Constitution states that (state college/uni) education must be affordable. in the past 2.5 years since we got stuck with a new president, tuition has consistently gone up. 5 new buildings have been built or are currently under construction, only one of which is used (partially) for teaching. the rest are completely dedicated to research.
Don't know who you think is doing the research, but it's mainly students. Learning how to do research is still learning. Besides, how many classrooms does a university need? You can't run a college like high school, people learn by doing.
the kicker is that this research is almost always funded by gov't grants (read: my and yours $$). yet, if i want to use technology developed on those grants, i have to pay for a license to use it ... i pay twice.
The fact that you get the technology at all is the benefit. Not to mention which, the government has many programs that don't directly benefit all citizens. I don't get welfare, for example.
Also, students at schools should be damned glad for those grants, as they pay to run the school through the significant "overhead" fees the school takes out of each grant.
if a researcher here finds a cure for cancer, the uni's corporate arm will take ownership, and license it. that's damn sad. the days of places of higher education putting out freely available innovations are long gone thanks to the almighty ustpo
I'm not sure what you think was the situation 50 years ago, but what happened then was profs would develop something, start a company, patent it themselves, and screw everyone including the university. If the school develops something that will make someone some money, why shouldn't they use that money to subsidize operations that benefit all students?
First, water clouds DO block UV fairly well - you don't get a sunburn nearly as fast on a cloudy day. Second, pollution may not be absorbing UV - it's more likely scattering it.
How would you like some che4P V!@gr4?
No kidding. Judging all American businesses based on the insurance industry is like judging the whole human race after hanging around a bunch of cannibals. Or lawyers, same thing.
Actually, that would be "bullshit, you anti-commerce net-communist fuck," there, gorbachev.
Yeah? Fuck you too.
Conclusions jumped to a bit quickly. I don't have to know how, because you can buy shit to do it, like Here. And I imagine spammers of whatever ilk are their main customers. So you're wrong on both counts.
An inbound call blocker based on caller ID is a brilliant idea and would sell very well, especially if it had an RS-232 interface on it.
So brilliant it was invented years ago. You have no idea what you're talking about AC.
Unless you're willing to work for free, not everyone has the willingness or ability to pay you. As for your "solution," caller ID can be spoofed, and you ignore the problem where businesses don't have the luxury to lose business to the multitude of people behind PBX's. I have to deal constantly with smartasses who thought they could fix things but screw them up even worse. People would rather deal with a few junk faxes than lose business because a customer's order got rejected.
Make sure your "solution" doesn't cause more problems than it fixes. In this case, the best solution is a garbage can near the fax.
When you work for a company someday, you'll find that no one wants to pay someone to hack a damned fax machine solution. Believe it or not, most people have jobs that don't allow them such free time. Wanting to "just plug it in" is a quite reasonable expectation. Just because everyone around here has the time, skill, and disposition to fuck around with their hardware doesn't everybody does
Not to mention that a standard fax machine is simpler and more stable than a computer-based solution for those companies that aren't large enough to really devote time to doing it right.
Also, there are a lot of reasons why someone's info might not show up on Caller ID - such as being behind a PBX in some instances - and that would basically be giving up on business.
All in all, that was a very good suggestion for those who don't actually have to run a real business.
Lying's lying. Also, nice classical rationalization behavior. Whatever helps you sleep at night being a dirtball.
BTW, it's not a tax writeoff, but it's an actual loss, which is even worse.
Start making it like those cars who's bonnets are welded closed, if oyu don't want us in there, don't put screws in it.
Horseshit. Don't buy the proverbial car with the welded hood. If you do, and you lie when you fuck it up, then you are a lying scumbag.
More like "Don't do it under warranty." Once your warranty period's up, it's your option. But presumably no one's dumb enough to void the Apple warranty, especially if you paid for Apple care. And he's also saying it's fraudulent to LIE about not opening the case.
If that logic made any sense, the US would be using the metric system by now. Whether it be a quality or a flaw, we're damn stubborn, and we don't like chaning the way we do things, especially if it's seen as bowing to international pressure.
Not that this should be a surprise to anyone.
Gmail actually works.
I think they made it so Fedora would basically run itself, probably owing to the fact that, with OSS, you have 9 useless twits submitting useless patches for every useful one (and I'm being generous here). This way, if Fedora develops something, it gets improved, integrated, and included in RHEL.
It's simple economics: where's the money in it? "User loyalty," you say. Really? Aren't Fedora users the ones who don't need RH Enterprise or just don't want to pay for anything? Seems to me that they're the same ones who, if they convince an employer to go OSS, will also try to do it all themselves, to avoid "evil" licensing fees.
Pretty much.
It seems to me that Red Hat is just looking out for number 1 by not spending huge amounts of time with non-paying users; even when those users have valid input, the time involved in building a trusted developer base makes it prohibitive.
Why bother when you can get input from people developing/using RHEL? At some point, you have enough "help."
Methinks you answered your own question. If google turns "evil" and people can't find the results they want among the craphole of ads, or if Google can't continue to extract useful info, someone else will come along with a great algorithm. Just like happened to all the others.
Right, my question was a bit rhetorical. I've never understood what the purpose of that clause was. What, as if I'd sue the FCC otherwise?
The recourse being what, precisely, anyway?
Yeah, it goes well with the "must not generate destructive interference" clause right before. And what does that "must accept interference" clause mean? I can't shield stuff?