The point is you don't need Green to advance technology. You are falling for the scam. All you need is a need to fulfill. In this case, Years ago, before the green movement, the Zamboni corporation made Electric Ice Scrapers because Gasoline and Natural Gas vehicles would not work! The problem with your thinking is that all these technologies you mention are subsidized because NO ONE NEEDS THEM.
The whole Green movement is "Feel Good" Games. The other posters have hit the nail on the head. Electric is needed because you can not expel CO in an enclosed area. Something that is so obvious. However, everyone will feel good my labeling it "Green"
I disagree, I also develop for the win mo and its several iterations and the visual studio interface is so easy to use, the learning curve was minimal. I can do anything I want with it. As usual, Microsoft wanted a one size fits all business model for windows mobile that it is my only complaint. There are so many version of mobile (even with the same version number) while there is only one version of iPhone per release. That is the trade off of Apple's business model. Still, even with all the versions, I have had no difficulties programing mobile apps.
Google is consistent and not hypocritical. They are sticking to their guns. That being said, their decision is still wrong. History has shown that embargoes/boycotts rarely works towards the goals of making the powerful change their minds. However becoming involved is effective in changing minds. Why does china have quasi-capitalism? Because Hong Kong is now part of China
So those that survived the terrorist attack came out a-ok with no issues. As cold as it seems, a car accident has a more narrow effect radius than terrorist attacks. I live in Pennsylvania, 500 miles away from the towers and i was affected by the terrorist attacks. Although it was not as dramatic as dying in the attack, I lost my job, my company closed and took me 7 years to return to the same pay scale before the attack happen, how does that fit into your neat "No-one-is-affected-unless-they-died" stats.
That is a really interesting argument which brings the thought to mind that is Microsoft were to become involved with Mozilla, it would clear up all sorts of issues that Microsoft has and would be a stroke of genius for them (Microsoft).
No, No, No, it is not a burden to keep track of the taxes. The burden is the paying and collecting of the taxes. The burden is on the customers. The Burden is we, the customers, have to pay more.
This is the main problem in the way you and others like you think. It is not Amazon that pays taxes. It is you and all the other customers that pays. It is silly to want to pay additional taxes when enough is already collected. I have a deal for you, send me the extra taxes you want to pay and I promise to send them to the government.
THe real point is the European Governments just wanted to shake down Microsoft. Why is it so difficult to understand that all that matters is a product that people want. Despite all the supposedly users too dumb to choose the "right" browser, examine the market share of FF and how it is growing. Why? because it is a product people want. No need for more laws or punishments.
The flaw in your argument is the cable company which was not subsidized by the government early on. ISPs fall more into that category than highways. Certainly the telegraph wires where at one time very abundant without government intervention. Once government got into it we got the bell monopoly. Government always screw up any venture. Next time to advocate public ownership of anything, think about public toilets and how pleasant those are.
I like your subject line. It is an interesting questions. I think the fascist are both those who govern and those who are governed. And it goes to the very heart of this argument for government control of internet providers (and any industry) Those who clamor for more regulations are asking for...more regulation in their lives. Just ask yourself, in your opinion, what services are being favored over the end user? If that other service is being favored, what is the point of that other service? I guarantee that there are more consumers for the favored service, since after all, AT&T has to make a profit. The government on the other hand has to make no profit and when the give favorite status to something it benefits no one and will really cause detriment to more end users than you are afraid of. At some point, government will play favorites with band width since it is finite. And then there will be the internet version of PBS will have priority over what you want to watch.
It always amuses me how so many of you will jump on the band wagon that a company using the government's regulations to its benefits means that there isn't enough regulation, or that the overpowering government in all aspects of life as abhorred by Orwell is the same as AT&T business practices.
Stop and take a look at what those who want net neutrality are actually asking for: The government should create rules that force service providers to charge the same regardless of usage. Who sets the price? Who sets the service requirements? Since it has to be "Fair" this always means everyone is equally miserable excepts those who set the price and service levels who always get the best while the public gets the worse. This is exactly what Orwell warned about in his work. Remember, inner party gets the best food and even some privacy while the others get the worse or none at all. Yes, I do not want any government in my life except as strictly spelled out in the preamble of the constitution.
Now about the robber barons of 1800, that was also over regulation and the government getting too involved. When a business gets support from customers it caters to customers, when support comes from the government it doesn't need customers.
This statement is just silly to make people who like feeling good, feel good. However, it has nothing to do with reality. People are hired to do a job. If there is work to be done, a person is hired, no work means no need to hire. It is as simple as that. Granted that it is possible to hire someone so that a specific person is not available to the competition, but this is limiting as a person with no work to do will start hating their job. So what google is saying is that it is purposely leaving things undone because of their ideal of what? Not hiring unemployed people? Keeping people out? I bet they have all the people they need so they decided to say something so off the wall the bs meter is off the charts.
Your post shows your fear and bigotry. None of those example have to do with anything you discussed. The opposite of free market is central planning. Regulations of any kind are planned by a group of people outside of the market being regulated, e.g. a central planning bureaucracy. Communism is the extreme case of central planning but there are many instances of "run-of-the-mill" socialist governments that have a this kind of bureaucracy. Be that as it may, this case in Virginia is not an excuse to eliminate all third party solutions and replace them with even more rules that are designed to prevent stupidity. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY. You go ahead and keep trying and see if your movie will be legislated out of existence.
The premise of your argument is completely incorrect. There is no rationalization, fact: government was involved; the customer has to do due diligence on any contract. As for your other points, they are false also, deregulation did take place but then the administrations you mentioned did increased regulation by forcing banking institutions to make bad loans (this is additional regulations) and force banks to take government loan (more regulation) so yes, regulation is bad. Adding the banking panics of 1800 to prove free markets are bad actually disprove your points, those failures were brought about by the increase regulation of trade and isolationist ideals (more regulation). In fact the regulations that came later made things worse.
Bottom line is, what is the alternative to free markets? Is it Central Planning? Study your history and tell me where central planning has succeeded!
These scientists are completely off their rockers. Don't they know that it is embryonic stem cells and the defeat of Bush that is the real cure for Parkinsons. Thank you Michael J Fox!
Each type is just an additional choice that consumers have which is good. I explain it to those who seek my advice like this:
Mac - Sacrifice software choice while having less chance of things going wrong
PC - More choice of software and hardware, things may go wrong.
Linux - Good Luck!
Another ridiculous article. Supply will always follow demand. WHo will fix the internet? It doesn't matter, it will always be there as long as there is a demand.
I so sick of these type of meaningless statistics that just serve to give good feelings without doing anything useful. They also serve to make things worse when some fool law maker reads this and creates a tax for those farmers who don't reduce their output. The law maker can claim he took half a million cars off the road and meat just costs more while methane will stay the same or increase.
This is just the attitude that will keep Linux out of the main stream. Instead of praising the one organization that is actually gaining market share for a Linux OS, The/. community is branding them unworthy of geekdom. Reminds me of the novices asking for Linux advice being ridiculed and call noobs by the establishment.
How is this even interesting since it is completely false! Nixon did not call the national guard, the Ohio Governor did. How is this even relevent, Did the perp set fire to the stage?
I've seen so many post with the theme of Microsoft patching something, the cause of which is themselves. Why is there no blame placed on the author's of the viruses. I will wager that these virus programmers can and will target any OS that gets too popular.
I believe the blame should go to the virus writers and those who will send their bank account numbers to any one who asks in an email.
On the other hand, 40 % of my revenue comes from these people. Thanks virus, and spyware writers!
Slashdot Mirror
The point is you don't need Green to advance technology. You are falling for the scam. All you need is a need to fulfill. In this case, Years ago, before the green movement, the Zamboni corporation made Electric Ice Scrapers because Gasoline and Natural Gas vehicles would not work! The problem with your thinking is that all these technologies you mention are subsidized because NO ONE NEEDS THEM.
The whole Green movement is "Feel Good" Games. The other posters have hit the nail on the head. Electric is needed because you can not expel CO in an enclosed area. Something that is so obvious. However, everyone will feel good my labeling it "Green"
Although your statement is true, still it is the number of platforms microsoft programs for that is its bane and blessing.
I disagree, I also develop for the win mo and its several iterations and the visual studio interface is so easy to use, the learning curve was minimal. I can do anything I want with it. As usual, Microsoft wanted a one size fits all business model for windows mobile that it is my only complaint. There are so many version of mobile (even with the same version number) while there is only one version of iPhone per release. That is the trade off of Apple's business model. Still, even with all the versions, I have had no difficulties programing mobile apps.
Google is consistent and not hypocritical. They are sticking to their guns. That being said, their decision is still wrong. History has shown that embargoes/boycotts rarely works towards the goals of making the powerful change their minds. However becoming involved is effective in changing minds. Why does china have quasi-capitalism? Because Hong Kong is now part of China
So those that survived the terrorist attack came out a-ok with no issues. As cold as it seems, a car accident has a more narrow effect radius than terrorist attacks. I live in Pennsylvania, 500 miles away from the towers and i was affected by the terrorist attacks. Although it was not as dramatic as dying in the attack, I lost my job, my company closed and took me 7 years to return to the same pay scale before the attack happen, how does that fit into your neat "No-one-is-affected-unless-they-died" stats.
That is a really interesting argument which brings the thought to mind that is Microsoft were to become involved with Mozilla, it would clear up all sorts of issues that Microsoft has and would be a stroke of genius for them (Microsoft).
No, No, No, it is not a burden to keep track of the taxes. The burden is the paying and collecting of the taxes. The burden is on the customers. The Burden is we, the customers, have to pay more.
This is the main problem in the way you and others like you think. It is not Amazon that pays taxes. It is you and all the other customers that pays. It is silly to want to pay additional taxes when enough is already collected. I have a deal for you, send me the extra taxes you want to pay and I promise to send them to the government.
THe real point is the European Governments just wanted to shake down Microsoft. Why is it so difficult to understand that all that matters is a product that people want. Despite all the supposedly users too dumb to choose the "right" browser, examine the market share of FF and how it is growing. Why? because it is a product people want. No need for more laws or punishments.
Wow, more mandates and more laws. The real hint is to not do it since the Europeans have done this travesty!
The flaw in your argument is the cable company which was not subsidized by the government early on. ISPs fall more into that category than highways. Certainly the telegraph wires where at one time very abundant without government intervention. Once government got into it we got the bell monopoly. Government always screw up any venture. Next time to advocate public ownership of anything, think about public toilets and how pleasant those are.
I like your subject line. It is an interesting questions. I think the fascist are both those who govern and those who are governed. And it goes to the very heart of this argument for government control of internet providers (and any industry) Those who clamor for more regulations are asking for ...more regulation in their lives. Just ask yourself, in your opinion, what services are being favored over the end user? If that other service is being favored, what is the point of that other service? I guarantee that there are more consumers for the favored service, since after all, AT&T has to make a profit. The government on the other hand has to make no profit and when the give favorite status to something it benefits no one and will really cause detriment to more end users than you are afraid of. At some point, government will play favorites with band width since it is finite. And then there will be the internet version of PBS will have priority over what you want to watch.
It always amuses me how so many of you will jump on the band wagon that a company using the government's regulations to its benefits means that there isn't enough regulation, or that the overpowering government in all aspects of life as abhorred by Orwell is the same as AT&T business practices. Stop and take a look at what those who want net neutrality are actually asking for: The government should create rules that force service providers to charge the same regardless of usage. Who sets the price? Who sets the service requirements? Since it has to be "Fair" this always means everyone is equally miserable excepts those who set the price and service levels who always get the best while the public gets the worse. This is exactly what Orwell warned about in his work. Remember, inner party gets the best food and even some privacy while the others get the worse or none at all. Yes, I do not want any government in my life except as strictly spelled out in the preamble of the constitution. Now about the robber barons of 1800, that was also over regulation and the government getting too involved. When a business gets support from customers it caters to customers, when support comes from the government it doesn't need customers.
This statement is just silly to make people who like feeling good, feel good. However, it has nothing to do with reality. People are hired to do a job. If there is work to be done, a person is hired, no work means no need to hire. It is as simple as that. Granted that it is possible to hire someone so that a specific person is not available to the competition, but this is limiting as a person with no work to do will start hating their job. So what google is saying is that it is purposely leaving things undone because of their ideal of what? Not hiring unemployed people? Keeping people out? I bet they have all the people they need so they decided to say something so off the wall the bs meter is off the charts.
Your post shows your fear and bigotry. None of those example have to do with anything you discussed. The opposite of free market is central planning. Regulations of any kind are planned by a group of people outside of the market being regulated, e.g. a central planning bureaucracy. Communism is the extreme case of central planning but there are many instances of "run-of-the-mill" socialist governments that have a this kind of bureaucracy. Be that as it may, this case in Virginia is not an excuse to eliminate all third party solutions and replace them with even more rules that are designed to prevent stupidity. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY. You go ahead and keep trying and see if your movie will be legislated out of existence.
The premise of your argument is completely incorrect. There is no rationalization, fact: government was involved; the customer has to do due diligence on any contract. As for your other points, they are false also, deregulation did take place but then the administrations you mentioned did increased regulation by forcing banking institutions to make bad loans (this is additional regulations) and force banks to take government loan (more regulation) so yes, regulation is bad. Adding the banking panics of 1800 to prove free markets are bad actually disprove your points, those failures were brought about by the increase regulation of trade and isolationist ideals (more regulation). In fact the regulations that came later made things worse. Bottom line is, what is the alternative to free markets? Is it Central Planning? Study your history and tell me where central planning has succeeded!
These scientists are completely off their rockers. Don't they know that it is embryonic stem cells and the defeat of Bush that is the real cure for Parkinsons. Thank you Michael J Fox!
Each type is just an additional choice that consumers have which is good. I explain it to those who seek my advice like this: Mac - Sacrifice software choice while having less chance of things going wrong PC - More choice of software and hardware, things may go wrong. Linux - Good Luck!
Another ridiculous article. Supply will always follow demand. WHo will fix the internet? It doesn't matter, it will always be there as long as there is a demand.
I so sick of these type of meaningless statistics that just serve to give good feelings without doing anything useful. They also serve to make things worse when some fool law maker reads this and creates a tax for those farmers who don't reduce their output. The law maker can claim he took half a million cars off the road and meat just costs more while methane will stay the same or increase.
This is just the attitude that will keep Linux out of the main stream. Instead of praising the one organization that is actually gaining market share for a Linux OS, The /. community is branding them unworthy of geekdom. Reminds me of the novices asking for Linux advice being ridiculed and call noobs by the establishment.
How is this even interesting since it is completely false! Nixon did not call the national guard, the Ohio Governor did. How is this even relevent, Did the perp set fire to the stage?
I've seen so many post with the theme of Microsoft patching something, the cause of which is themselves. Why is there no blame placed on the author's of the viruses. I will wager that these virus programmers can and will target any OS that gets too popular. I believe the blame should go to the virus writers and those who will send their bank account numbers to any one who asks in an email. On the other hand, 40 % of my revenue comes from these people. Thanks virus, and spyware writers!