The Microsoft article is not less critical of Microsoft than the Google article is of Google. The Microsoft article merely displays a summary of some critisms of Microsoft, with a link to the full article (which is so long that it needed to be seperated) clearly displayed.
Don't be so sure. I believe one of her lines was, "According to quantum mechanics, the unobserved booty is described as a superposition of 'decayed bootyliciousness' and 'undecayed bootyliciousness'. However, when the skirt is opened the playa sees only a 'decayed bootyliciousness/white fright' or an 'undecayed bootyliciousness/baby got back.'"
I'm pretty sure that some businesses would realize that they were already just renting, only from Microsoft. If they don't upgrade (and agree to before even knowing what they're getting) for $$$$$$, lots of things break. Google would possibly offer their office suite for free, or, at least, much cheaper than M$$$$$$. Even if it was a small monthly fee, it would be much cheaper than Microsoft, and it would probably be better and updated more.
I agree that going back to exactly where you were when you look somewhere else in a page can be burdensome. The simple solution is to have doubleclicking the scroll bar(s) create an arrow or something that can be doubleclicked (no accidental clicking) to send you back to exactly where you where. Too bad this will NEVER happen.
Actually, a lot of it is pretty simple. Oil costs $X to pump out of the ground. X is not the same for every oil field. There is no point in reducing the price you charge for a barrel of oil from a more economical field, as your cheaper oil would have been bought at full price anyway. As the world's depletion of excellent oil fields causes oil to be pumped from less and less economical oil fields (along with demand climbing ever higher relative to supply), the price of a barrel of oil increases. This means that more economical oil fields will give much more generous profits than crappy ones, thus giving them greater profits.
In reality, most of the higher price for oil is due to demand, which has driven the price up, due to spare capacity (which would foster price competition) being exhausted. Therefore, the market is charged whatever it will pay so that everyone that will pay gets their oil. If it charged less, some people that would pay wouldn't be able to receive their oil anyway, so the market "decides" (and profits most) by raising the price.
I believe something at least similar to this is done in England. The problem is that you then can't afford to sue unless you know you'll win (or have lots of money). Obviously, you can't easily sue corporations that will slap you with millions in legal fees when they weasel out of it. I think a better solution would be for either side to pay the others legal (and transportation, time wasted, stress caused, etc.) fees when they were ruled to have been clearly and knowingly wrong (i.e. didn't have a case) in suing or defending. If neither side can be ruled to be that, then the government would pay both side's fees. It's true that this means higher taxes, but at least poor people can sue, and it should cut back on frivolous lawsuits as well, as you could be forced to pay the defendant's fees. Of course, it will never happen, and, if it did, it would still be made to favor the rich, as everything is, but it would still likely be an improvement.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you mean papyr?
The Microsoft article is not less critical of Microsoft than the Google article is of Google. The Microsoft article merely displays a summary of some critisms of Microsoft, with a link to the full article (which is so long that it needed to be seperated) clearly displayed.
Welcome to Ampaari(c)aa.
That's not booze!!!
Lol; I now have bad karma instead of good because of the original post.
Actually, I was hoping that posting first would increase the chances of an executive at Disney noticing my signature.
Am I joking? You decide.
Don't be so sure. I believe one of her lines was, "According to quantum mechanics, the unobserved booty is described as a superposition of 'decayed bootyliciousness' and 'undecayed bootyliciousness'. However, when the skirt is opened the playa sees only a 'decayed bootyliciousness/white fright' or an 'undecayed bootyliciousness/baby got back.'"
He's funny, Jim.
Just don't smack your female weiner around too hard, okay?
What, you don't do that?
Isn't it a little early in the morning for onanism?
I'm pretty sure that some businesses would realize that they were already just renting, only from Microsoft. If they don't upgrade (and agree to before even knowing what they're getting) for $$$$$$, lots of things break. Google would possibly offer their office suite for free, or, at least, much cheaper than M$$$$$$. Even if it was a small monthly fee, it would be much cheaper than Microsoft, and it would probably be better and updated more.
I agree that going back to exactly where you were when you look somewhere else in a page can be burdensome. The simple solution is to have doubleclicking the scroll bar(s) create an arrow or something that can be doubleclicked (no accidental clicking) to send you back to exactly where you where. Too bad this will NEVER happen.
I misread your comment as "News Corpse". That's even more satisfying!
Thank you for replying so well; otherwise, I would've had to have done it.
--Agnostic atheist
I'm confused; what am I supposed to be listening to?
Well, you do. It's just that now the cold war is with China, and it's getting chillier every year.
It'snotthemostfrequentlyusedkeyforme,soshoveit!!1! 11
Actually, a lot of it is pretty simple. Oil costs $X to pump out of the ground. X is not the same for every oil field. There is no point in reducing the price you charge for a barrel of oil from a more economical field, as your cheaper oil would have been bought at full price anyway. As the world's depletion of excellent oil fields causes oil to be pumped from less and less economical oil fields (along with demand climbing ever higher relative to supply), the price of a barrel of oil increases. This means that more economical oil fields will give much more generous profits than crappy ones, thus giving them greater profits.
In reality, most of the higher price for oil is due to demand, which has driven the price up, due to spare capacity (which would foster price competition) being exhausted. Therefore, the market is charged whatever it will pay so that everyone that will pay gets their oil. If it charged less, some people that would pay wouldn't be able to receive their oil anyway, so the market "decides" (and profits most) by raising the price.
You can get toxoplasmosis by eating raw meat or fresh feces
Oh, that's okay then. I only eat rancid feces.
I believe something at least similar to this is done in England. The problem is that you then can't afford to sue unless you know you'll win (or have lots of money). Obviously, you can't easily sue corporations that will slap you with millions in legal fees when they weasel out of it. I think a better solution would be for either side to pay the others legal (and transportation, time wasted, stress caused, etc.) fees when they were ruled to have been clearly and knowingly wrong (i.e. didn't have a case) in suing or defending. If neither side can be ruled to be that, then the government would pay both side's fees. It's true that this means higher taxes, but at least poor people can sue, and it should cut back on frivolous lawsuits as well, as you could be forced to pay the defendant's fees. Of course, it will never happen, and, if it did, it would still be made to favor the rich, as everything is, but it would still likely be an improvement.
Don't you mean Nintenekos?
No. You call it a shyte.
Isn't it possible that most people that changed their gender are ugly, and that being an ugly woman is often harder than being an ugly man?