GE already had more than that. They are selling enough shares to bring them down to that figure.
Either way, this is a terrible idea for our information access system. Mixing content with information distribution infrastructure is exactly the wrong way to go if we want broad-based content and interactivity. Regulators need to be pushing for a return to the Ma Bell model -- the common carrier that has nothing to do with the conversations on its lines. Even if Comcast were a trustworthy company, there's no way it will overcome the temptation to make its own content a little easier and cheaper to access. The owners of the cables need to choose whether to be common carriers or content providers, but not both.
I used to go there all the time. Assumed there was still a paywall or equivalent. The psychological thing is interesting -- even if it's perfectly open now I'd have to overcome some kind of habitual negative association to start again. The other thing, of course, is that everybody that didn't want to pay found good-enough alternatives in the meantime and don't necessarily want to put another name on their dance card. Rosenberg has the psychology exactly right.
children cannot be abused by the internet.
My question is, how is it that the "defenders of children" never have a clue about children? How many law enforcement resources does Australia plan to throw at answering calls from kids who just wonder what the pretty button does, who think the police should arrest Bobby for calling him a troll, who get scared of the "2012" preview they stumbled onto, who just want to stir things up?
If we really want to "protect" kids we'd be better off banning idiocy like this and restricting parenthood to those with the capacity to do the job.
This guy is "sure" they screwed, but presents nothing but his surety. There's apparently not the slightest evidence that this is more than a fantasy, however cool a brain-vid it might paint. So the story is that he's going to look some more for evidence that they not only screwed but bred. Maybe after he figures that out there will actually be a story. A pixel is a terrible thing to waste.
but keeping the perp anonymous neither guides the reader to stay away from them nor teaches the vendor a salutary lesson. The antidote to scamming retailers cooking the reviews is using your own free speech to nail them in public. In posting reviews, a retailer takes on the role of neutral umpire. When they violate that implied responsibility, they become scammers. It may be hard to sic the cops on them, but they deserve no mercy from the public. So, for starters, who was the retailer and what was the product?
Windows has pretty much a lock on the desktop, so the new chip won't have much market there. The desktop is also the declining market, so the new chip won't be missing that much. The big growth will remain in servers, where windows is optional at best, and netbooks/mobile devices where windows is a minority player. ARM may have made a rather astute decision to concede the dying segment to Wintel and make a big footprint in the markets that will continue to grow, and which also happen to do just fine without Windows. If they make sure to brilliantly showcase the not-windows OSs, ARM could come roaring back as a force to be reckoned with in consumer-level computing.
How the different delivery plans fare will depend on what music/etc is available from them and the price. Presumably the vendors will make sure ease of use is comparable.
Hate to break into the hilarity fest, but the post makes a propaganda point and a lame joke by leaving out the core of the report:
Nitrous oxide has a range of natural and human-made sources. The largest man-made source is agriculture, where the gas gets emitted after bacteria in soil break down the nitrogen in chemical fertilizers as well as in manure-based fertilizers. Nitrous oxide also comes from burning fossil fuels and from burning biomass.
Nobody's talking about laughing gas, the anesthetic and geek enhancer. They're talking about artificial and natural shit -- let the new round of hilarity begin.
at least in the US of A, as long as the "broadband" part remains at the mercy of "providers" like the cablecos and phonecos.
But I'm very happy for those who live in the developed world. Life will be good there.
One new approach from SolarNetOne strives to allow users in those developing areas to have access to an internet connection without having to depend on unreliable infrastructure.
Much as I hate to be greedy, any chance we could accomplish this in the US of A?
How would he get proof? Would he be allowed to photograph the event? No. Would the TSA confirm or deny? No. Would you believe them if they did? No. Not sayin' the story's true or not true, just that in a police state evidence is just another pr variable.
That said, the article doesn't explain why he was detained in the first place. Obviously they didn't know he had an "incriminating" script at that point. Of course, again, Big Brother ain't talking.
Getting net energy production was right around the corner in the '70s and apparently still is, except now the corner is a century away. There were tokamaks, magnetic bottles, laser inertial confinement systems, and other efforts in the 70s. The primary commercial fusion power developer, General Atomic, said fusion would account for significant amounts of commercial energy production by the year 2000. The milestone everyone was waiting for then, as now, was net energy production.
It may well get on your nerves, but so far there's no good reason to think that more research would have made any difference. There's no proof that the concept is workable now, any more than there was 40 years ago. Is it worth funding some research? Yeah. But is it a bigger longshot as the years go by? Yeah.
In the middle of the 70s, controlled fusion was just around the corner. Many times. 100 years is some corner. Far as I know there's been no progress, even in the lab, since then.
Just happened to scroll down some after reading this. Not only will the batteries keep our mechanical add-ons working, they can have a Repo Man. No more late payments to our poor "health care" enforcers.
No, s/he's asking if the fungicides used to treat yeast infections would also attack the "good" yeast. And while we're at it, what about reglar ol' antibiotics?
That's the part I don't get: the complainers don't seem to know that when you click a link in google, you go to the Guardian site (or whatever). They'd have a case if you could read the story on google, but you can't. So google is funneling readers to the content provider (which does not pay, AFAIK, for the service). It's kind of like wanting the Yellow Pages to pay for listing your business. And of course the complainers have a simple recourse: don't let any search engines link to their content. So easy, if that's really the issue. The question then becomes, can these lawyers really be this pig ignorant, or so they just like pathetic whining, or are they counting on some judge/pols being ignorant enough not to laugh them out of the room?
By the Guardian's standard, I guess/. should be paying them for referring to this story. And of course the Guardian should be paying the subjects of every story they cover, since they generated the content. There's a nice recursion in there somewhere. Perhaps with geniuses like these running our media we can look forward to a new era of total silence. Not an entirely unpleasant outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
GE already had more than that. They are selling enough shares to bring them down to that figure. Either way, this is a terrible idea for our information access system. Mixing content with information distribution infrastructure is exactly the wrong way to go if we want broad-based content and interactivity. Regulators need to be pushing for a return to the Ma Bell model -- the common carrier that has nothing to do with the conversations on its lines. Even if Comcast were a trustworthy company, there's no way it will overcome the temptation to make its own content a little easier and cheaper to access. The owners of the cables need to choose whether to be common carriers or content providers, but not both.
I used to go there all the time. Assumed there was still a paywall or equivalent. The psychological thing is interesting -- even if it's perfectly open now I'd have to overcome some kind of habitual negative association to start again. The other thing, of course, is that everybody that didn't want to pay found good-enough alternatives in the meantime and don't necessarily want to put another name on their dance card. Rosenberg has the psychology exactly right.
children cannot be abused by the internet. My question is, how is it that the "defenders of children" never have a clue about children? How many law enforcement resources does Australia plan to throw at answering calls from kids who just wonder what the pretty button does, who think the police should arrest Bobby for calling him a troll, who get scared of the "2012" preview they stumbled onto, who just want to stir things up? If we really want to "protect" kids we'd be better off banning idiocy like this and restricting parenthood to those with the capacity to do the job.
This guy is "sure" they screwed, but presents nothing but his surety. There's apparently not the slightest evidence that this is more than a fantasy, however cool a brain-vid it might paint. So the story is that he's going to look some more for evidence that they not only screwed but bred. Maybe after he figures that out there will actually be a story. A pixel is a terrible thing to waste.
but keeping the perp anonymous neither guides the reader to stay away from them nor teaches the vendor a salutary lesson. The antidote to scamming retailers cooking the reviews is using your own free speech to nail them in public. In posting reviews, a retailer takes on the role of neutral umpire. When they violate that implied responsibility, they become scammers. It may be hard to sic the cops on them, but they deserve no mercy from the public. So, for starters, who was the retailer and what was the product?
Windows has pretty much a lock on the desktop, so the new chip won't have much market there. The desktop is also the declining market, so the new chip won't be missing that much. The big growth will remain in servers, where windows is optional at best, and netbooks/mobile devices where windows is a minority player. ARM may have made a rather astute decision to concede the dying segment to Wintel and make a big footprint in the markets that will continue to grow, and which also happen to do just fine without Windows. If they make sure to brilliantly showcase the not-windows OSs, ARM could come roaring back as a force to be reckoned with in consumer-level computing.
or we burnt the wrong animal at the sacrifice. But let us take this setback as a call to redouble our faith: Soon the saucer will land.
Some more than others.
How the different delivery plans fare will depend on what music/etc is available from them and the price. Presumably the vendors will make sure ease of use is comparable.
to step on one.
My bathroom has enough slime and mold to corner the market with. I knew I was keeping it for something big.
Nobody's talking about laughing gas, the anesthetic and geek enhancer. They're talking about artificial and natural shit -- let the new round of hilarity begin.
Stupid question: does GPS on a smartphone use up network minutes? How do you pay for the GPS use, compared to a standalone?
at least in the US of A, as long as the "broadband" part remains at the mercy of "providers" like the cablecos and phonecos. But I'm very happy for those who live in the developed world. Life will be good there.
"Reliable" would be good enough for me.
Much as I hate to be greedy, any chance we could accomplish this in the US of A?
How would he get proof? Would he be allowed to photograph the event? No. Would the TSA confirm or deny? No. Would you believe them if they did? No. Not sayin' the story's true or not true, just that in a police state evidence is just another pr variable. That said, the article doesn't explain why he was detained in the first place. Obviously they didn't know he had an "incriminating" script at that point. Of course, again, Big Brother ain't talking.
Getting net energy production was right around the corner in the '70s and apparently still is, except now the corner is a century away. There were tokamaks, magnetic bottles, laser inertial confinement systems, and other efforts in the 70s. The primary commercial fusion power developer, General Atomic, said fusion would account for significant amounts of commercial energy production by the year 2000. The milestone everyone was waiting for then, as now, was net energy production. It may well get on your nerves, but so far there's no good reason to think that more research would have made any difference. There's no proof that the concept is workable now, any more than there was 40 years ago. Is it worth funding some research? Yeah. But is it a bigger longshot as the years go by? Yeah.
In the middle of the 70s, controlled fusion was just around the corner. Many times. 100 years is some corner. Far as I know there's been no progress, even in the lab, since then.
So maybe MS will soon be able to dispense with that troublesome outsourcing and hire true American programmers for chickenfeed.
Only massive metabolizing can save us now. Pass it on.
Just happened to scroll down some after reading this. Not only will the batteries keep our mechanical add-ons working, they can have a Repo Man. No more late payments to our poor "health care" enforcers.
My own private vampire.
No, s/he's asking if the fungicides used to treat yeast infections would also attack the "good" yeast. And while we're at it, what about reglar ol' antibiotics?
That's the part I don't get: the complainers don't seem to know that when you click a link in google, you go to the Guardian site (or whatever). They'd have a case if you could read the story on google, but you can't. So google is funneling readers to the content provider (which does not pay, AFAIK, for the service). It's kind of like wanting the Yellow Pages to pay for listing your business. And of course the complainers have a simple recourse: don't let any search engines link to their content. So easy, if that's really the issue. The question then becomes, can these lawyers really be this pig ignorant, or so they just like pathetic whining, or are they counting on some judge/pols being ignorant enough not to laugh them out of the room? By the Guardian's standard, I guess /. should be paying them for referring to this story. And of course the Guardian should be paying the subjects of every story they cover, since they generated the content. There's a nice recursion in there somewhere. Perhaps with geniuses like these running our media we can look forward to a new era of total silence. Not an entirely unpleasant outcome.