I'm sure that Google hands over just as much info to the government/law enforcement, and also take their "compensation". If one had to scratch a little deeper I'm positive one would find that the social network sites all make a relatively good income from this. In fact I would not be surprised either if this was Facebook's primary source of income.
Yes but will it? Or will it simply get glossed over? It will be interesting to observe how this finally pans out. If this is actually a scientific precedent and not a political one, I expect to see new findings based on the research, else it will surely indicate that political manipulation was actually the objective all along.
Of course Atheists are charitable. Altruism is a human trait that we perpetuate in spite of any religious conditioning. Some of the most thoughtful and kind people I know are atheists.
This is 100% correct. Print media is frightfully expensive. Tycoons like Murdoch have billions invested in infrastructure which is busy going up in smoke. This is besides his political relevance which is also beginning to erode as the news delivery mechanisms change.
Without the cost of printing, The cost of news comes right down. Advertising can easily fund this and still turn a decent (not obscene) profit for the a news agency.
The advertising industry won't disappear. It will simply transform, like it it currently is. Yes, the other industries you mentioned will disappear, but there are also many new types of businesses that have sprung up as well because of new media. People still want their news - its just the delivery mechanism that has changed.
Personally, I am glad that the power to focus public opinion for the purpose of selfish interests has dissipated slightly - because this is of course what this battle Murdoch has started is really about.
I concur. If Murdoch wants to directly control his links, then he should buy pay-per-click advertising on Google, like everyone else does. That's Google's business model. If Murdoch doesn't like it, well, tough luck.
I think Google should humor him and stop indexing his sites completely. It would be interesting to see how long it would take from him to complain about it. If Murdoch's hegemony want advertising based links, then they need to follow Google's advertising policy - like everyone else does, and buy pay per click links - like everyone else does.
I agree that exercise is essential, but you are wrong about the body regaining weight on a low GL diet. This does not happen. Part of the low GL diet requires one to eat regular meals (about 5 meals a day). This really works well for maintaining a healthy metabolism. After a few months the key health indicators (lipidation, methylation, oxidation, hydration, and glycation) start to normalise. When this happens ones health remains good and the body no longer stores excess fat (among other health benefits).
The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is that they approach it as a way to lose weight.
Actually the only way to do this effectively is to approach it as a change in lifestyle, and accept that this is how you are going to be eating for the rest of your life (if you want to stay in good health that is). The next step is to find a diet that can match this requirement. diets like weight watchers do work, but the most effective diet that I have found is a Low Glycemic Load diet. Stabilizing ones blood sugar automatically creates an environment where the body begins to rid itself of excess weight. I use the word diet in the context of a way to eat, and not as a means to an end. The next step is to learn to eat correctly and stick to
It. It takes about 3 months to learn to eat correctly, and can take about 6 months to become acclimatised to the new lifestyle. On a low GL diet one can lose 1 to 2 pounds a week. This continues until you are within your normal body weight range, and then it stabilizes.
I would really recommend a low GL diet to anyone who is serious about wanting to switch to a healthy and vibrant lifestyle.
I live in South Africa. We are a developing nation. I pay about US$100 per month for a 384K line and 5 Gigs of data (shaped during the day). We are being totally reamed here for connectivity. We have very little choice in the matter. I wish it was different. I know several highly competent people who have left the country purely because of this issue.
Apparently the Rocket Industry Association of America found out that people were planning to travel for free by stealing gravity from nearby planets. They also discovered that gravitational currents are aiding and abetting these crimes by making it easy to find and use the gravity. These pirates think they can escape prosecution by relocating to the Jovian moon system, but the RIAA lawyers were able to track them down and sue them within a few months.
I agree with the parent. One of the major issues with Malware is that it cannot be detected locally. As much at it gives me the creeps, detecting Malware from a third party location, like an ISP is definitely a feasible solution, especially when dealing with non savvy end users.
This is such bullshit. Our business would never move our systems into a cloud environment - ever - not in a million years. The value of our business is in our data. Moving that into the control of some third party is en extremely risky proposition. That will never change no matter how much encryption is thrown at it...
This may be cases where using the cloud makes sense - especially for vanilla systems like email or off-the -shelf packages like Sugar CRM, but there will never be a case for us to move our core systems into a cloud.
I honestly don't think Microsoft are this stupid. Getting into the hardware game will give them absolutely no advantage. If anything, it will isolate them from their strongest allies who will definitely begin to step up a unified Linux agenda if MS were to make such a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure that Google hands over just as much info to the government/law enforcement, and also take their "compensation". If one had to scratch a little deeper I'm positive one would find that the social network sites all make a relatively good income from this. In fact I would not be surprised either if this was Facebook's primary source of income.
Yes but will it? Or will it simply get glossed over? It will be interesting to observe how this finally pans out. If this is actually a scientific precedent and not a political one, I expect to see new findings based on the research, else it will surely indicate that political manipulation was actually the objective all along.
No - the French dug it to keep the Poms out.
I think this is fine. But I suggest Google then allow me the option to remove articles that I cannot freely access.
Of course Atheists are charitable. Altruism is a human trait that we perpetuate in spite of any religious conditioning. Some of the most thoughtful and kind people I know are atheists.
They weren't hacked. They were published on a blog.
More interestingly, would Microsoft de-list from Google? :-) I think not....
This is 100% correct. Print media is frightfully expensive. Tycoons like Murdoch have billions invested in infrastructure which is busy going up in smoke. This is besides his political relevance which is also beginning to erode as the news delivery mechanisms change.
Without the cost of printing, The cost of news comes right down. Advertising can easily fund this and still turn a decent (not obscene) profit for the a news agency.
The advertising industry won't disappear. It will simply transform, like it it currently is. Yes, the other industries you mentioned will disappear, but there are also many new types of businesses that have sprung up as well because of new media. People still want their news - its just the delivery mechanism that has changed.
Personally, I am glad that the power to focus public opinion for the purpose of selfish interests has dissipated slightly - because this is of course what this battle Murdoch has started is really about.
I concur. If Murdoch wants to directly control his links, then he should buy pay-per-click advertising on Google, like everyone else does. That's Google's business model. If Murdoch doesn't like it, well, tough luck.
I think Google should humor him and stop indexing his sites completely. It would be interesting to see how long it would take from him to complain about it. If Murdoch's hegemony want advertising based links, then they need to follow Google's advertising policy - like everyone else does, and buy pay per click links - like everyone else does.
I agree that exercise is essential, but you are wrong about the body regaining weight on a low GL diet. This does not happen. Part of the low GL diet requires one to eat regular meals (about 5 meals a day). This really works well for maintaining a healthy metabolism. After a few months the key health indicators (lipidation, methylation, oxidation, hydration, and glycation) start to normalise. When this happens ones health remains good and the body no longer stores excess fat (among other health benefits).
The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is that they approach it as a way to lose weight.
Actually the only way to do this effectively is to approach it as a change in lifestyle, and accept that this is how you are going to be eating for the rest of your life (if you want to stay in good health that is). The next step is to find a diet that can match this requirement. diets like weight watchers do work, but the most effective diet that I have found is a Low Glycemic Load diet. Stabilizing ones blood sugar automatically creates an environment where the body begins to rid itself of excess weight. I use the word diet in the context of a way to eat, and not as a means to an end. The next step is to learn to eat correctly and stick to
It. It takes about 3 months to learn to eat correctly, and can take about 6 months to become acclimatised to the new lifestyle. On a low GL diet one can lose 1 to 2 pounds a week. This continues until you are within your normal body weight range, and then it stabilizes.
I would really recommend a low GL diet to anyone who is serious about wanting to switch to a healthy and vibrant lifestyle.
I live in South Africa. We are a developing nation. I pay about US$100 per month for a 384K line and 5 Gigs of data (shaped during the day). We are being totally reamed here for connectivity. We have very little choice in the matter. I wish it was different. I know several highly competent people who have left the country purely because of this issue.
Well it is the year 5770 in Israel.
What right do you think you have to recommend anything for the sovereign countries of Iran or Afghanistan?
The little red light on my scam-o-meter is blinking furiously.
Seriously. What do you expect Michale Dell to say? That Windows 7 is crap? Why is this marketing drivel being reported on Slashdot any way?
It is more likely that a representative from the Intergalactic Patent office will show up and attempt to begin negotiations for royalty premiums.
Apparently the Rocket Industry Association of America found out that people were planning to travel for free by stealing gravity from nearby planets. They also discovered that gravitational currents are aiding and abetting these crimes by making it easy to find and use the gravity. These pirates think they can escape prosecution by relocating to the Jovian moon system, but the RIAA lawyers were able to track them down and sue them within a few months.
When dreams of Slashdot go bad........
I agree with the parent. One of the major issues with Malware is that it cannot be detected locally. As much at it gives me the creeps, detecting Malware from a third party location, like an ISP is definitely a feasible solution, especially when dealing with non savvy end users.
This is such bullshit. Our business would never move our systems into a cloud environment - ever - not in a million years. The value of our business is in our data. Moving that into the control of some third party is en extremely risky proposition. That will never change no matter how much encryption is thrown at it...
This may be cases where using the cloud makes sense - especially for vanilla systems like email or off-the -shelf packages like Sugar CRM, but there will never be a case for us to move our core systems into a cloud.
Articles are not scientific research. The data has simply never been made available for peer review.
Actually, the science has never been presented for peer review. by the celeb scientists, which is the key issue that is continuously overlooked.
I honestly don't think Microsoft are this stupid. Getting into the hardware game will give them absolutely no advantage. If anything, it will isolate them from their strongest allies who will definitely begin to step up a unified Linux agenda if MS were to make such a mistake.