Why not? It's been our philosophy for centuries not to worry about the future and just expect that future generations will have more wits and basic decency than us.
All you're doing is delinking from a search engine. If someone else comes along and builds a search engine and spiders your false accusation, then your right back in.
The rule is moronic, passed down by malicious halfwits.
If Microsoft, with orders of a magnitude more cash available to burn is finding it almost impossible to break the Android-iOS duopoly, I'm thinking BB's chances of making a comeback sufficient to create a third player in the market are somewhat on the same order of a extrasolar comet flying into the solar system, slingshoting around Jupiter, hooking off Neptune, doing four orbits of the sun before being captured for three orbits by Saturn, being flung at Earth, breaking up under the Moon's gravitational pull and a one inch piece flying to earth severing John Chen's left testicle as he takes a leak.
Our staff's Android and iOS devices all hook into Exchange and can use its address book, all via SSL connections. Maybe BB is a bit more feature rich, but having to run BES as an integrator between BB devices and an Exchange server is a resource-hungry pain in the ass. ActiveSync does the job well enough.
They're thinking "Hmmm, do we hand this mountain of cash we're still sitting on back to the shareholders and close up shop, or do we spend that cash frivolously on doomed loss leaders schemes and executive salaries?"
I think you can probably guess at the answer. But really, anyone still holding BB stock at this point is staking more of a religious position than a business one. Anyone with any interest in meaningfully profitable investment strategies dumped BB a long time ago.
The next stage, I'm presuming, is for BlackBerry to turn into SCO and start trying to extort license fees from Android manufacturers and Apple.
They have virtually no sales, but a huge amount of cash from their halcyon days. Rather than simply hand that money back to investors and close shop, they've decided that a "flush it all down the toilet" strategy is in order.
I get that they're trying to do the loss leader game, but if this is successful, BB will be out of pocket a heap load of cash with little immediate benefit. If it isn't successful, then the stunt demonstrates they're fate is to be a bit player with a niche in keyboard smartphones, and no hopes of ever taking on Android and iOS devices.
Toxic to whom? Bill Clinton left office in 2000 with astonishingly good approval ratings, despite Gingrich's and Co's endless attempts to destroy him.
Now Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, but I don't think the Clinton name in general is nearly as toxic as, say, the Bush name (although, in Jeb's defense, I don't think he's the mumbling bumbling alcohol-fried moron his brother is).
Yes, because apparently technologies don't get developed from inefficient proof of principle prototypes through to efficient production units, but either spring forth fully developed or not at all.
Nuclear is certainly a good stop gate, but unless we come up with cheap fusion, fission has all sorts of problems; everything from finding fissile materials to getting rid of them.
Research isn't propaganda, unless you're an anti-science denier.
This is exactly the same kind of claim that Creationists make about government's funding biology research. The anti-AGW and Creationist camps really are cut from the same anti-intellectual cloth.
I guarantee you, by the time the day is through, 2/3s of the posts here will say something along the lines of "What's the problem with the book? It's just like real life!"
They're also handing out money to people like Roy Spencer, whose area of research (though none of his published research) align nicely with the pro-oil message they want to get out.
The idea that even the best funded "eco" organization has anything approaching the money that the fossil fuel industry can bring to bear is laughable. Does someone like Greenpeace even have the money to buy one Senator, let alone an entire political party?
I agree. Showing statements that you haven't paid for is quite appropriate.
But tell me, do you think, for instance, having Dr. Roy Spencer being paid by the Koch Brothers to make anti-AGW statements that don't even have any backing in any peer reviewed research he's ever done fit within those ethical lines?
Um, since when was skepticism the foundation of science? Repeatability of observations and utility of prediction are the foundations of science. Skepticism has its place, but only if it is informed. What Forbes publishes is hardly informed skepticism, and even its toy climatologists like Roy Spencer are notable for the fact that their bought-and-paid for skepticism never actually enters the published literature. Guys like Spencer are playing the same game with their discipline that Intelligent Design-advocate Michael Behe plays with his (microbiology). They make a very loud skeptical sound in the press, but when it comes to actually doing science, oddly their published record is in the mainstream.
Maybe the problem here is that you're too bloody infantile to accept that the universe doesn't give a fuck about your political and economic ideology.
And before you accuse me of being some commie greenie, well let me educate you. I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative. What I'm not is a pathetic man-child who stomps his feet and declares "that science makes things difficult, it must be wrong!!!!!"
Slashdot Mirror
All I know is that evolution is a lie. Have you ever soon an HIV virus turn into a fish or a dog? Well, HAVE YOU???
Why not? It's been our philosophy for centuries not to worry about the future and just expect that future generations will have more wits and basic decency than us.
All you're doing is delinking from a search engine. If someone else comes along and builds a search engine and spiders your false accusation, then your right back in.
The rule is moronic, passed down by malicious halfwits.
Because iOS and Android have no email and calendaring support whatsoever...
If Microsoft, with orders of a magnitude more cash available to burn is finding it almost impossible to break the Android-iOS duopoly, I'm thinking BB's chances of making a comeback sufficient to create a third player in the market are somewhat on the same order of a extrasolar comet flying into the solar system, slingshoting around Jupiter, hooking off Neptune, doing four orbits of the sun before being captured for three orbits by Saturn, being flung at Earth, breaking up under the Moon's gravitational pull and a one inch piece flying to earth severing John Chen's left testicle as he takes a leak.
BlackBerry is the Windows Phone of phones!
???
Our staff's Android and iOS devices all hook into Exchange and can use its address book, all via SSL connections. Maybe BB is a bit more feature rich, but having to run BES as an integrator between BB devices and an Exchange server is a resource-hungry pain in the ass. ActiveSync does the job well enough.
They're thinking "Hmmm, do we hand this mountain of cash we're still sitting on back to the shareholders and close up shop, or do we spend that cash frivolously on doomed loss leaders schemes and executive salaries?"
I think you can probably guess at the answer. But really, anyone still holding BB stock at this point is staking more of a religious position than a business one. Anyone with any interest in meaningfully profitable investment strategies dumped BB a long time ago.
The next stage, I'm presuming, is for BlackBerry to turn into SCO and start trying to extort license fees from Android manufacturers and Apple.
They have virtually no sales, but a huge amount of cash from their halcyon days. Rather than simply hand that money back to investors and close shop, they've decided that a "flush it all down the toilet" strategy is in order.
I get that they're trying to do the loss leader game, but if this is successful, BB will be out of pocket a heap load of cash with little immediate benefit. If it isn't successful, then the stunt demonstrates they're fate is to be a bit player with a niche in keyboard smartphones, and no hopes of ever taking on Android and iOS devices.
Toxic to whom? Bill Clinton left office in 2000 with astonishingly good approval ratings, despite Gingrich's and Co's endless attempts to destroy him.
Now Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, but I don't think the Clinton name in general is nearly as toxic as, say, the Bush name (although, in Jeb's defense, I don't think he's the mumbling bumbling alcohol-fried moron his brother is).
The technical problem around renewables are not insurmountable either.
Because "digging deeper" poses no substantial technological problems.
I'd say solving our economic need for oil far outstrips billions of dollars.
Yes, because apparently technologies don't get developed from inefficient proof of principle prototypes through to efficient production units, but either spring forth fully developed or not at all.
Nuclear is certainly a good stop gate, but unless we come up with cheap fusion, fission has all sorts of problems; everything from finding fissile materials to getting rid of them.
With a network of solar satellites, night, day and weather wouldn't mean much at all.
Why, the unchallengeable phantasmic aura of his bias.
Christ, there are enough real examples of police brutality against minorities without having to resort to one that appears so dubious.
Only by those who have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
"We've come to take your liver..."
Research isn't propaganda, unless you're an anti-science denier.
This is exactly the same kind of claim that Creationists make about government's funding biology research. The anti-AGW and Creationist camps really are cut from the same anti-intellectual cloth.
I guarantee you, by the time the day is through, 2/3s of the posts here will say something along the lines of "What's the problem with the book? It's just like real life!"
They're also handing out money to people like Roy Spencer, whose area of research (though none of his published research) align nicely with the pro-oil message they want to get out.
The idea that even the best funded "eco" organization has anything approaching the money that the fossil fuel industry can bring to bear is laughable. Does someone like Greenpeace even have the money to buy one Senator, let alone an entire political party?
I agree. Showing statements that you haven't paid for is quite appropriate.
But tell me, do you think, for instance, having Dr. Roy Spencer being paid by the Koch Brothers to make anti-AGW statements that don't even have any backing in any peer reviewed research he's ever done fit within those ethical lines?
And yet there are crises that only governments can solve. War is an awfully good example.
Um, since when was skepticism the foundation of science? Repeatability of observations and utility of prediction are the foundations of science. Skepticism has its place, but only if it is informed. What Forbes publishes is hardly informed skepticism, and even its toy climatologists like Roy Spencer are notable for the fact that their bought-and-paid for skepticism never actually enters the published literature. Guys like Spencer are playing the same game with their discipline that Intelligent Design-advocate Michael Behe plays with his (microbiology). They make a very loud skeptical sound in the press, but when it comes to actually doing science, oddly their published record is in the mainstream.
Maybe the problem here is that you're too bloody infantile to accept that the universe doesn't give a fuck about your political and economic ideology.
And before you accuse me of being some commie greenie, well let me educate you. I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative. What I'm not is a pathetic man-child who stomps his feet and declares "that science makes things difficult, it must be wrong!!!!!"
Grow the fuck up.
Who would have thought these bots could get mod points?