Well, Britain manages to have a much livelier, independent, and diverse news environment than we do in the US. Much of the reason is that high inheritance taxes inclined privately owned news chains to go to nonprofit status. Plus of course there's the BBC competing with the private journalism outlets. In the case of Britain, I'm pretty sure they get to make candidate endorsements -- not that anybody cares about such things anyway, except the candidates. I can't believe anybody in the US believes that the "free" corporate press system has led to journalism that's worth a damn.
There was/is a banner that reads: "No more due dates for Blockbuster Total Access exchanges". No hint that this might be a policy change that will be adverse for most customers, and that cancels a feature that the was part of the deal when the customer signed up. The notice fits somewhere between "sneaky" and "dishonest". It's still not a bad deal, but I'll be rechecking the comparison between Netflix and BB. It's kind of amazing that the only 2 US movie-by-mail services are both so much crappier than they need to be.
Hearing the Wingnuts for Jesus attack all who dare disagree with their dumbass superstitions as a threat it "diversity" is like hearing the thunder after seeing the lightning: fully expected random noise. Ho hum.
I does seem like Feinstein could be primaried into oblivion in CA, ground central for net nerddom. Nobody there seems to really like her, she's just sort of there already. If net neutrality/free information partisans want to publicly flex their muscles, CA is the place for the test run.
Within the industry, desktops took the hardest hit, as was expected. Sales of non-portable computers were down about 16 per cent as consumers opted instead for the rising 'netbook' and similar hybrids.
That doesn't really make much sense. Laptops and notebooks are probably replacing desktops, but why would a desktop user go from a powerful machine with a big screen and keyboard to an underpowered netbook with a tiny screen and keyboard? It would be a whole different experience. The slow sales growth much more likely comes from the economic crash and a move to notebooks/laptops that finally compete with desktops on the price/power front. The article writer seems to be trying to latch onto the current buzz to make the piece more "edgy". If netbooks were the alternative of choice, we should be seeing the biggest bite coming out of notebook/laptop sales, not desktops.
And what kind of hybrids are "similar" to netbooks?
I know nothing about generators, but the post reminded me that I'd seen a review that almost made me wish I needed one. It's from the regularly reliable Cool Tools site. Costs around $3000 for 10-12kW standby power. Sounds as simple as it gets and might be just what you're looking for.
Generac Guardian Automatic Standby Generator
Right now, the electrical power I'm using to submit this entry as I watch television in my warm home is being supplied by my Generac Guardian 12kw generator. It's been running continuously for more than 40 hours now since the latest ice storm left 250,000 people in Maine without power. I've had this unit for nearly ten years now, and it has reliably provided power whenever the grid fails, which can happen a few times a year in this pretty rural part of the country.
The exact model I have is a 04456-0 which is 10kw when used on Natural Gas or 12kw when used with LP (Liquified Petroleum) Gas. Ours sits on a small pad in the backyard hooked up to the same buried LP gas tank I use to heat the house, provide hot water, etc. Since the unit is air cooled, there's no radiator or water pump to worry about. No fan belts. And very little maintenance. Essentially, you have a 5-year battery to replace and an oil change every six months. It "exercises" once a week for 20 minutes and will indicate if there is a problem. The most that's ever gone wrong with it in all these years was a bad spark plug that I fixed in minutes. Mostly, you ignore it until the power goes out. I test mine in the fall or if I hear a big storm is coming; I do that by walking over to the master breaker switch from the power company and shutting it off. Like clockwork, 45 seconds later the house is lit back up as the generator is up and running.
Like they're saying you'll be able to control the feature but there's a good chance they're lying? What's with the casting of doubt on their "real" intentions? Slash. could at least try to keep the tinfoil hats out of product announcements -- save it for the politicians.
Maybe their goal is more "not IE" than "only Chrome". IE dominates because of habit and mindset, not any inherent benefits. If a "big-gun" company puts out a big-buzz browser, that mindset is weakened. It's the idea that MS = computer that maintains the status quo. Get people interested in venturing outside the locked "suite", and anything could happen. Marketingwise, Chrome is Google's ploy for driving people to online apps and away from the MS ones on their desktop. So, much as I'd like it to be otherwise, they'd be fools to concentrate on platforms whose users are already relying on not-MS apps.
Plus, Chrome is open-source so anybody can port/modify it. What I'm wondering is, does Chrome code open up any opportunities for mozilla to enhance its products, or are the engines too incompatible to mate and reproduce?
As I recall, the physical manufacturing and distribution of a book costs around 60% of its price. Seems like the publisher could pass some of that savings along. I mean, how much does it cost to upload a bunch of pdf?
At least wait and see if he keeps his promise to fight the immunity provision. If he does, and succeeds, Bush has promised to veto the whole bill. In that case Obama would come out a hero for standing up for American democracy.
The "statement" will be pro-forma. The GOP leadership has already said so. Here's part of the ACLU's analysis:
H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal - only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.
This is just a runaround to try and sell this shameful cave-in as a "compromise". It ain't. It's everything Bush and Cheney wanted.
What happens now will depend on Obama. If he comes out strong in opposition to the immunity part of this bad bill as promised, and even helps lead a filibuster, he can probably kill it. It would be hard for his own party leaders to work for Bush instead of the head of their party.
If he succeeds in getting the immunity provision out, Bush has promised to veto the bill. So the current bill will have to be extended and a new version taken up in the next, hopefully not-total-coward Congress and not-criminal administration. Obama can still come out of this like a hero fighting for American freedom. From the servile tone of his statement, I'm not betting on it, but still hoping.
Seems like the antitrust guys need to look at this marriage between AT&T and Starbucks. With this duopoly in place nobody else will have a chance in the overpriced crap market.
I think they'd have an excellent chance of being found guilty in a criminal prosecution. The roadblock will be getting a prosecutor or press charges. Once they are in court, they really ahve no defense. Far as I know, the "I didn't know the gun was loaded" excuse has a very bad track record. Any random jury would be very likely to send these crooks to prison, and rightly so.
Critics liken it to a phone company listening in on conversations.
Um, my ISP IS my phone company. If they can get away with reading my emails and stuff like this comment, what's to stop them from listening to my phone calls?
We're really at a crossroads: either the law makes ISPs common carriers with no interest in, or control over, content like a real phone company, or we lose most of the potential of the communications tech revolution.
Remember when Microsoft was the first word that came to peoples' minds when "tech innovation" was mentioned? (It was never true, but that was the perception.) Who would have believed that this once-revered company could slide down to the level of SCO with its own sleazy scam to intimidate by claiming mystery "patent infringement" that it refuses to name? The giant has declared itself just another desperate pipsqueak. The dustbin of history awaits them.
The other ground-shaking part of the decision is this: "mental processes -- or processes of human thinking -- standing alone aren't patentable even if they have practical application." That would seem like grounds for invalidating a whole universe of bogus "business method" patents. Amazing what one judge's application of simple common sense can do to highlight the idiocy and cravenness of the rest of the corporate-government complex. This guy should go into the history books as a hero in the war for liberty and reason.
of defensive bullshit. It wasn't about getting it wrong. It was about getting it wrong based on looking at the evidence and insisting that it meant the opposite of what it obviously showed. SCO never showed a single line of code or anything else that had been "infringed". Notice how he changes the subject to bad people attacking his integrity. But it's one of the few rational explanations left when somebody watches a a dog running by and insists that it's a crack pipe. He may not have been bribed, but he clearly let his own pro-corporate prejudices persuade him that black is white.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Britain manages to have a much livelier, independent, and diverse news environment than we do in the US. Much of the reason is that high inheritance taxes inclined privately owned news chains to go to nonprofit status. Plus of course there's the BBC competing with the private journalism outlets. In the case of Britain, I'm pretty sure they get to make candidate endorsements -- not that anybody cares about such things anyway, except the candidates. I can't believe anybody in the US believes that the "free" corporate press system has led to journalism that's worth a damn.
There was/is a banner that reads: "No more due dates for Blockbuster Total Access exchanges". No hint that this might be a policy change that will be adverse for most customers, and that cancels a feature that the was part of the deal when the customer signed up. The notice fits somewhere between "sneaky" and "dishonest". It's still not a bad deal, but I'll be rechecking the comparison between Netflix and BB. It's kind of amazing that the only 2 US movie-by-mail services are both so much crappier than they need to be.
Hearing the Wingnuts for Jesus attack all who dare disagree with their dumbass superstitions as a threat it "diversity" is like hearing the thunder after seeing the lightning: fully expected random noise. Ho hum.
Do the plaintiffs need donations to cover costs? If so, where?
I does seem like Feinstein could be primaried into oblivion in CA, ground central for net nerddom. Nobody there seems to really like her, she's just sort of there already. If net neutrality/free information partisans want to publicly flex their muscles, CA is the place for the test run.
That doesn't really make much sense. Laptops and notebooks are probably replacing desktops, but why would a desktop user go from a powerful machine with a big screen and keyboard to an underpowered netbook with a tiny screen and keyboard? It would be a whole different experience. The slow sales growth much more likely comes from the economic crash and a move to notebooks/laptops that finally compete with desktops on the price/power front. The article writer seems to be trying to latch onto the current buzz to make the piece more "edgy". If netbooks were the alternative of choice, we should be seeing the biggest bite coming out of notebook/laptop sales, not desktops. And what kind of hybrids are "similar" to netbooks?
Like they're saying you'll be able to control the feature but there's a good chance they're lying? What's with the casting of doubt on their "real" intentions? Slash. could at least try to keep the tinfoil hats out of product announcements -- save it for the politicians.
Maybe their goal is more "not IE" than "only Chrome". IE dominates because of habit and mindset, not any inherent benefits. If a "big-gun" company puts out a big-buzz browser, that mindset is weakened. It's the idea that MS = computer that maintains the status quo. Get people interested in venturing outside the locked "suite", and anything could happen. Marketingwise, Chrome is Google's ploy for driving people to online apps and away from the MS ones on their desktop. So, much as I'd like it to be otherwise, they'd be fools to concentrate on platforms whose users are already relying on not-MS apps. Plus, Chrome is open-source so anybody can port/modify it. What I'm wondering is, does Chrome code open up any opportunities for mozilla to enhance its products, or are the engines too incompatible to mate and reproduce?
to steal into the White House when all he needed was a shrinky dink? I bet he has lots of shrinky dinks. Damn shame.
So basically vista is an STD that's killing SSDs. I hope it doesn't mutate and jump to humans.
Nah. A talking paper clip would definitely do the trick.
Murdoch is Proof One that rich /= smart.
Does using to add-on to look like IE change anything? That would be pretty revealing.
As I recall, the physical manufacturing and distribution of a book costs around 60% of its price. Seems like the publisher could pass some of that savings along. I mean, how much does it cost to upload a bunch of pdf?
At least wait and see if he keeps his promise to fight the immunity provision. If he does, and succeeds, Bush has promised to veto the whole bill. In that case Obama would come out a hero for standing up for American democracy.
Seems like the antitrust guys need to look at this marriage between AT&T and Starbucks. With this duopoly in place nobody else will have a chance in the overpriced crap market.
I think they'd have an excellent chance of being found guilty in a criminal prosecution. The roadblock will be getting a prosecutor or press charges. Once they are in court, they really ahve no defense. Far as I know, the "I didn't know the gun was loaded" excuse has a very bad track record. Any random jury would be very likely to send these crooks to prison, and rightly so.
It ain't heavy, it's my brother.
I guess the RIAA will be moving its headquarters to Kabul.
Remember when Microsoft was the first word that came to peoples' minds when "tech innovation" was mentioned? (It was never true, but that was the perception.) Who would have believed that this once-revered company could slide down to the level of SCO with its own sleazy scam to intimidate by claiming mystery "patent infringement" that it refuses to name? The giant has declared itself just another desperate pipsqueak. The dustbin of history awaits them.
The other ground-shaking part of the decision is this: "mental processes -- or processes of human thinking -- standing alone aren't patentable even if they have practical application." That would seem like grounds for invalidating a whole universe of bogus "business method" patents. Amazing what one judge's application of simple common sense can do to highlight the idiocy and cravenness of the rest of the corporate-government complex. This guy should go into the history books as a hero in the war for liberty and reason.
of defensive bullshit. It wasn't about getting it wrong. It was about getting it wrong based on looking at the evidence and insisting that it meant the opposite of what it obviously showed. SCO never showed a single line of code or anything else that had been "infringed". Notice how he changes the subject to bad people attacking his integrity. But it's one of the few rational explanations left when somebody watches a a dog running by and insists that it's a crack pipe. He may not have been bribed, but he clearly let his own pro-corporate prejudices persuade him that black is white.