1. Just because something may go wrong is no reason not to do something.
2. That's why they have wireless grid technology and wind up power chargers. Or do you not know anything about this project?
3. Having a computer in the home where you can mess with it many hours per day is the best way to learn the most. If you never had this opportunity, you wouldn't understand.
I think you may have a point about the sizzle and steak from a pure price point perspective, however. And say that five times fast;-)
I wish I was as sanguine as you seem to be about the future of the net, though. I don't see it getting any free-er any time soon. China's Great Firewall actually does a pretty fantastic job of censoring the net--even if someone can trivially bypass it, the fact is they *have* to, which has much more moral force than I'd certainly originally considered.
The future looks wireless, and right now wireless is a hellhole of proprietary bullshit.
And if you don't think our political and judicial systems are already tightly controlled by megacorporations, well, I don't know which world you grew up in.
I'm not saying it's dystopic, yet, but that possibility doesn't seem the least bit unrealistic to me. Wikileaks and bittorrent are under relentless legal attacks, and both of them rely on actual servers in actual places, which makes them vulnderable (even if widely distributed at the moment).
So uh...how *do* you explain the huge atmospheres of the Gas Giants?
You say that like it's a known, or that there is a whole lot other "known" information on this subject. There is not. And therefore your off the cuff skepticism is quite premature. At this point we're still in the stage of needing to consider all the possibilities, with all the creativity that entails.
There could be some real merit to this theory, even if not on the surface.
If I'm not using a copyrighted work to make money, even indirectly, it should be fair use. Absolutely, if I'm using your copyrighted work for profit, I need to have made a deal with you, first, fair cop. But otherwise, fair use needs to be greatly expanded (and will be sooner or later, it's just a question of how much pain we all suffer in the meantime because of these retards. Seriously, it's been over a decade and they still haven't figured it out).
No, they can innovate. They just can't figure out how to make money off it.
They could if they weren't so greedy. I actually respect the fact that MS sponsors pure research, more or less. But they should look to GOOG to learn how to capitalize the results properly (instead of being douchebags).
The question here is who is more powerful--the phone company or its customers. To date, the phone company has become accustomed to overwhelming advantages, born of its original monopoly status.
For the first time, I believe they shall find that their customer's have more power, and Google understands this, which is why they will continue to tell them to stick their shakedown where the sun don't shine.
It won't look good to the Board of Directors when customers flee to the competition in droves the minute their contracts are up.
The law is that public companies have to be transparent to their shareholders--nothing else. This is why there are entire "ethical investing" mutual funds--many people only want to invest in companies that behave ethically. Not to mention they may feel it's a better long term bet....
Please don't spread this nonsense, it's very damaging.
There is such a thing as the long term, my friend, including long term profitability.
A world with censorship and authoritarianism is, by definition, a less prosperous one. Companies (and their leaders) have no less an ethical responsibility to make the world a better place than do individuals.
There is such a thing as the long term, my friend, including long term profitability.
A world with censorship and authoritarianism is, by definition, a less prosperous one. Companies (and their leaders) have no less an ethical responsibility to make the world a better place than do individuals.
You've got a point, but on the other hand I think you've never gotten to know a sociopath well. I've know two very well, and I can assure you--no empathy. Just ain't there.
Dude--we don't have to give a reason. The free market = reality. It's *their* problem to figure out how to make money in the new reality.
In the final analysis, that's the truth. You don't have to see how it's going to happen. And theoretically, at least, they could all go out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely. But what are you going to replace it with to create content-rich sites?
No, you're mostly wrong, point by point:
;-)
1. Just because something may go wrong is no reason not to do something.
2. That's why they have wireless grid technology and wind up power chargers. Or do you not know anything about this project?
3. Having a computer in the home where you can mess with it many hours per day is the best way to learn the most. If you never had this opportunity, you wouldn't understand.
I think you may have a point about the sizzle and steak from a pure price point perspective, however. And say that five times fast
I wish I was as sanguine as you seem to be about the future of the net, though. I don't see it getting any free-er any time soon. China's Great Firewall actually does a pretty fantastic job of censoring the net--even if someone can trivially bypass it, the fact is they *have* to, which has much more moral force than I'd certainly originally considered.
The future looks wireless, and right now wireless is a hellhole of proprietary bullshit.
And if you don't think our political and judicial systems are already tightly controlled by megacorporations, well, I don't know which world you grew up in.
I'm not saying it's dystopic, yet, but that possibility doesn't seem the least bit unrealistic to me. Wikileaks and bittorrent are under relentless legal attacks, and both of them rely on actual servers in actual places, which makes them vulnderable (even if widely distributed at the moment).
The only thing that will save our patent system now is for the big boys to get repeatedly dinged with massive patent troll judgements.
That'll get them using their lobbying power properly.
It's different if the crime is more serious. Lots of people change, all of a sudden.
Uh, have you ever set your threshold to 1? It's bad, like everywhere.
Apparently one of the better moderation systems around.
So uh...how *do* you explain the huge atmospheres of the Gas Giants?
You say that like it's a known, or that there is a whole lot other "known" information on this subject. There is not. And therefore your off the cuff skepticism is quite premature. At this point we're still in the stage of needing to consider all the possibilities, with all the creativity that entails.
There could be some real merit to this theory, even if not on the surface.
If I'm not using a copyrighted work to make money, even indirectly, it should be fair use.
Absolutely, if I'm using your copyrighted work for profit, I need to have made a deal with you, first, fair cop. But otherwise, fair use needs to be greatly expanded (and will be sooner or later, it's just a question of how much pain we all suffer in the meantime because of these retards. Seriously, it's been over a decade and they still haven't figured it out).
Excellent post. Hear hear!
Just a thought--if everyone was as sharp as you--can you imagine the competition? ;-)
Dude, 'man -k <keyword>'.
Sounds like you need to read the man page on 'man'!!!
lol funny so Singtel wasn't ever a monopoly?
Besides my point, in any case.
No, they can innovate. They just can't figure out how to make money off it.
They could if they weren't so greedy. I actually respect the fact that MS sponsors pure research, more or less. But they should look to GOOG to learn how to capitalize the results properly (instead of being douchebags).
And we're extraditing an Englishman who embarrassingly hacked some government websites looking for UFO's.
Madness.
Those are second parties you refer to, not third. The government/police would be the third party here.
Subtle, but significant, difference.
That's about all it's good for, but it's pretty good for that.
I bet I know who wins this battle.
The question here is who is more powerful--the phone company or its customers. To date, the phone company has become accustomed to overwhelming advantages, born of its original monopoly status.
For the first time, I believe they shall find that their customer's have more power, and Google understands this, which is why they will continue to tell them to stick their shakedown where the sun don't shine.
It won't look good to the Board of Directors when customers flee to the competition in droves the minute their contracts are up.
Yeah, but think about the competition.
Could get ugly. At some point.
Really? Which law would that be?
The law is that public companies have to be transparent to their shareholders--nothing else. This is why there are entire "ethical investing" mutual funds--many people only want to invest in companies that behave ethically. Not to mention they may feel it's a better long term bet....
Please don't spread this nonsense, it's very damaging.
There is such a thing as the long term, my friend, including long term profitability.
A world with censorship and authoritarianism is, by definition, a less prosperous one. Companies (and their leaders) have no less an ethical responsibility to make the world a better place than do individuals.
So fuck you, too.
There is such a thing as the long term, my friend, including long term profitability.
A world with censorship and authoritarianism is, by definition, a less prosperous one. Companies (and their leaders) have no less an ethical responsibility to make the world a better place than do individuals.
So fuck you.
Uh, I don't think he said what you said he said.
Usually you're a better poster than this, circletimesquare.
You've got a point, but on the other hand I think you've never gotten to know a sociopath well. I've know two very well, and I can assure you--no empathy. Just ain't there.
of all places:
http://www.slate.com/id/2223478/
Dude--we don't have to give a reason. The free market = reality. It's *their* problem to figure out how to make money in the new reality.
In the final analysis, that's the truth. You don't have to see how it's going to happen. And theoretically, at least, they could all go out of business.
But do you really think so?