Because Canada is one of many countries that chooses to free ride on US development effort and subsidies. Ever notice how so many major pharmaceutical corporations are based in the US? On top of that the Canadian government has a different standard for what they consider to be safe, drugs that have been banned in the US for being dangerous don't necessarily get banned in Canada.
I'm sure I'll get modded to flamebait over this, but nations that take that approach to drug pricing risk being cut out of the loop on medications that are more specific to the region.
And a fair number of people will never play them because EA has such a dickish record with DRM. A shame really, because I've seen a few games that I'd really love to play. I'm sure that they'd be a ton of fun, I'm just not willing to buy anything that ought to have a label, lube sold separately.
That's not true, software patents shouldn't be granted unless the individuals applying for them live up to the normal standards, which they don't. They don't disclose the actual mechanics. In a similar vein, business patents shouldn't be granted because they represent an incentive in and of themselves and are more useful for stymieing competition than actual progress.
That's making some assumptions which aren't necessarily valid. The reason why one needs to have a patent in the current model is because one has to have patents to defend against other individuals who hold patents and pay off the cost of development.
A system where a single entity paid for the cost of R&D and testing on the basis of results, rather than for the patent rights itself isn't necessarily going to have less innovation. It would just have to either be paid for by the federal government or by all the medical providers.
There may be other possibilities, but to paint it as absolutely necessary rather overstates the necessity.
That conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. The ability of a person to falsely label something as balanced is not the same thing as the thing being balanced. Furthermore, the government taking half of your income might actually be a very good deal if you're getting more of the services you need than you were previously getting.
In this case it's pretty clear that they're talking about balancing the needs of the owners of copyrights, with the needs of those that use it and society in general.
The BBC is amongst the most reliable news organizations in the world. News Corp however is owned by people that bribe politicians, lie about ownership and go about lowering the quality of news as far as they can. Rupert Murdoch is quite possibly the worst thing to happen to news ever. His son is apparently the same sort of trash that he is.
Seeing as I live a third of a world away from the UK, I wouldn't be listening to and reading BBC coverage if it wasn't good. Admittedly it covers very little of the local issues, but I don't expect them to do so.
No, it's not a bug, it's an instance of computer scientists not thinking through their measurements carefully when assigning prefixes. Mega is normally 1 million and Giga is normally 1 billion, reassigning them to be defined based upon base two for one type of measurement was a serious mistake.
Not really, how many hours in a week is a lot easier to do in your head than how many bites in a terabyte. Additionally, the computer scientists shouldn't have been using prefixes that already had a meaning.
Because we need to have roads, so that area is already set aside, plus apart from the roads inside of cities a lot of stretches of roads are less used, but might still be conveniently located for smaller communities. But, you're absolutely correct when you suggest that converting the whole system to solar panels is stupid. There are cheaper places to put them and cheaper means of getting electricity.
Well, if nobody does the work then it'll definitely never happen. I'm sure if somebody had told Newton about this wonderful thing called Nuclear energy he'd've laughed in their face. Likewise, I can't imagine anybody of that era seriously believing that we'd have the internet.
The belief that it's not possible is just plain silly, it's not possible with today's technology, but there isn't really any inherent reason why it couldn't be done at some future date. Provided the funding and the future date is far enough off. On paper it's not that difficult of a problem, just put some super tough clear material over the top of the cells and you've dealt with the wear and tear, and solar cells tend to warm up as they receive light so the amount of damage from winter is less. And winter is when most of the damage is done by the weather, the cooling and heating isn't good for it.
In practice it's going to be difficult to find suitable materials, but you're definitely not going to succeed if you don't try, and the roads tend to be pretty exposed anyways. It's also great for small communities located along the interstates. And presumably it would pay for a lot of the cost of upkeep on our roads.
Baseball gets special exemptions which other sports don't. Which is coincidentally why the longest losing streaks and worst clubs virtually always come out of MLB. It's virtually impossible for a football or hockey team to do as poorly as some of the worst baseball teams do.
If that's your concern demand that your state go the way that IA and WA have by banning the practice of the winners drawing the lines. Bonus points if you also ensure that your state has a primary that allows you to vote for whatever candidate you wish to on a case by case basis ignoring party lines.
While it would be both foolhardy and a gross exaggeration to say that it doesn't generally matter a whole lot about the client side, most of the time that kind of operation is just not cost effective. More cost effective is phishing or compromising the server side stuff. Dumpster diving for insecure records is also a convenient way of doing it all too often.
I think you're either greatly over estimating the cost of a police officer or greatly underestimating the cost of installing, maintaining and monitoring videos. A thousand cameras is going to cost you a pretty substantial sum of money to keep in repair.
On top of that, criminals no where the cameras are pointed, if you spend enough time around them you can spot which way they're pointed without looking too hard. On top of that a police office can be sent to other areas of the city as needed and get information which is completely inaccessible to a camera. And an officer is already there and in these parts ready to respond to anything that might be going on, not just crimes, but medical emergencies and such as well.
That's not a fair comparison at all, unless I missed the part where the plaintiff committed suicide. This sort of shoddy reasoning is exactly why things are going to hell. Additionally being anonymous is different than pretending to be a real person that isn't you and using that deception to willfully inflict harm on others.
In fact I'm not sure that there really is anything at all in common to there besides the net and attorneys.
Not really, the city didn't ever lose money on that. Most of the time somebody wouldn't be parking in them until the time ran out. And even if somebody did, the city already got it's money the next driver would have to pony up for the rest of their time.
But, that's really beside the point, the point of parking meters isn't for the city to make money it's to keep people moving around so that there's actually street parking available. Which is why around here parking in metered areas for longer than 2 hours is a ticket. For some spots it's even less than that. Around here, the city makes a small amount of money and basically breaks even on it.
Around here we're moving to a similar sort of system. It's better, you never have to walk more than about 50 feet and there's at least one machine per side of the street on each block. I'm not positive,but I think that you can pay via credit.
But the parking enforcement recently got special cameras mounted on a few cars that monitors for cars that are parked for more than 2 hours.
That hasn't been true for a very long time. Something like 2/3 of net traffic is spam, malware or DDOS. It might be that 50% of legitimate traffic is video and such, but the lion's share of bandwidth goes to cybercriminals.
Around here, the cable company is complete crap. There are very few regulations compared with DSL and they don't even keep an eye on the quality of service they're providing. They could quite literally not provide any service all month if you didn't tell them and still expect to be paid.
Perhaps it's different where you live, but around here the cable company is a government granted monopoly with very little competition to make it keep costs down and service of quality.
In case people didn't figure it out, the company here is Comcast.
That's just the thing. They don't ever admit to overselling their bandwidth nor do they typically acknowledge that the 1% that are "abusing" the bandwidth are using the bandwidth that they were promised. What we really need is a set of truth in advertising regulations here. I don't personally think that the ISP necessarily needs to be able to cover everybody at all times with 100% of their promise, but there should be agreed upon quantities provided.
It's like a number of other industries, overselling bandwidth is just another form of leverage, and there should be similar rules applied to ISPs in that regard. If they were required to publish such information as when caps if any come into play and provided some sort of reasonable plan for those that need or want more, it would be a very different matter indeed. It's very difficult for markets to function when one side is permitted to keep such things secret, depriving the customer of the ability to make an informed decision.
I have no idea as to how many people would, but it's a good start towards a reasonable solution.
No, not really, we need to have higher tariffs to balance out the trade deficits. Having money being pooled in a few economies without them having earned the money causes huge problems, especially when the money is being paid by people that don't have it.
To be clear, the Chinese didn't earn more than a fraction of the money they've got, most of it was the result of American politicians handing them the cash and refusing to enforce their WTO obligations. I wouldn't be bitter about the Chinese bettering themselves if they weren't so blatantly cheating. It is in nobody's best interest to allow the Chinese to currency manipulate, refuse to enforce safe labor practices and invest the Chinese workers' salary in bonds to continue the whole charade.
Meh, I know I'll be modded troll for this, but somebody has to say it.
It's more than that, but suggesting the problem stems from earlier is right on. Technically it would be the Carter and Reagan administrations that are most to blame for the current issues. I believe that is was the Carter administration that unjustifiably increased the FDIC insurance coverage on bank accounts to 100k, without having any clear reason for doing it.
And Reagan was in charge when the banking regulations were first shredded.
The best cure for this sort of problem is two fold. One you yank back the ridiculous amount of insurance that people are afforded and secondly you jack up the short term tax rate on investments to something that's really expensive. The fact that people expect to make huge profits over just a few weeks, or holding periods of less than a day is a huge part of what causes these sorts of problems.
Think of it this way, even with the Enrons, Lehman brothers and such far, far more people made profit in trading those companies than were ultimately burned. The message that most people gather from those failures was to not be the last one out of the building, not that longer holding periods are good.
Citation required. During Bush's 8 years the federal government spent roughly 6.7 trillion dollars through September 2008. Leaving the total at around 10 trillion with some change. I must have missed the debt ballooning up to 16 trillion dollars.
It's hard to say what the current national debt is precisely right now, but I can pretty much guarantee you that it isn't 16 trillion dollars. The incompetence of so called fiscal responsibility has put us in the position where we've got roughly 90% of our GDP owed out to somebody else. Makes me wonder how in the hell the Republican party can pretend like we can cut taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Canada is one of many countries that chooses to free ride on US development effort and subsidies. Ever notice how so many major pharmaceutical corporations are based in the US? On top of that the Canadian government has a different standard for what they consider to be safe, drugs that have been banned in the US for being dangerous don't necessarily get banned in Canada.
I'm sure I'll get modded to flamebait over this, but nations that take that approach to drug pricing risk being cut out of the loop on medications that are more specific to the region.
And a fair number of people will never play them because EA has such a dickish record with DRM. A shame really, because I've seen a few games that I'd really love to play. I'm sure that they'd be a ton of fun, I'm just not willing to buy anything that ought to have a label, lube sold separately.
Hmm, that's odd, when I add more women to that analogy, I get offers from Hustler.
That's not true, software patents shouldn't be granted unless the individuals applying for them live up to the normal standards, which they don't. They don't disclose the actual mechanics. In a similar vein, business patents shouldn't be granted because they represent an incentive in and of themselves and are more useful for stymieing competition than actual progress.
That's making some assumptions which aren't necessarily valid. The reason why one needs to have a patent in the current model is because one has to have patents to defend against other individuals who hold patents and pay off the cost of development.
A system where a single entity paid for the cost of R&D and testing on the basis of results, rather than for the patent rights itself isn't necessarily going to have less innovation. It would just have to either be paid for by the federal government or by all the medical providers.
There may be other possibilities, but to paint it as absolutely necessary rather overstates the necessity.
That conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. The ability of a person to falsely label something as balanced is not the same thing as the thing being balanced. Furthermore, the government taking half of your income might actually be a very good deal if you're getting more of the services you need than you were previously getting.
In this case it's pretty clear that they're talking about balancing the needs of the owners of copyrights, with the needs of those that use it and society in general.
The BBC is amongst the most reliable news organizations in the world. News Corp however is owned by people that bribe politicians, lie about ownership and go about lowering the quality of news as far as they can. Rupert Murdoch is quite possibly the worst thing to happen to news ever. His son is apparently the same sort of trash that he is.
Seeing as I live a third of a world away from the UK, I wouldn't be listening to and reading BBC coverage if it wasn't good. Admittedly it covers very little of the local issues, but I don't expect them to do so.
No, it's not a bug, it's an instance of computer scientists not thinking through their measurements carefully when assigning prefixes. Mega is normally 1 million and Giga is normally 1 billion, reassigning them to be defined based upon base two for one type of measurement was a serious mistake.
Not really, how many hours in a week is a lot easier to do in your head than how many bites in a terabyte. Additionally, the computer scientists shouldn't have been using prefixes that already had a meaning.
And BTW, the answer is 168.
Because we need to have roads, so that area is already set aside, plus apart from the roads inside of cities a lot of stretches of roads are less used, but might still be conveniently located for smaller communities. But, you're absolutely correct when you suggest that converting the whole system to solar panels is stupid. There are cheaper places to put them and cheaper means of getting electricity.
Well, if nobody does the work then it'll definitely never happen. I'm sure if somebody had told Newton about this wonderful thing called Nuclear energy he'd've laughed in their face. Likewise, I can't imagine anybody of that era seriously believing that we'd have the internet.
The belief that it's not possible is just plain silly, it's not possible with today's technology, but there isn't really any inherent reason why it couldn't be done at some future date. Provided the funding and the future date is far enough off. On paper it's not that difficult of a problem, just put some super tough clear material over the top of the cells and you've dealt with the wear and tear, and solar cells tend to warm up as they receive light so the amount of damage from winter is less. And winter is when most of the damage is done by the weather, the cooling and heating isn't good for it.
In practice it's going to be difficult to find suitable materials, but you're definitely not going to succeed if you don't try, and the roads tend to be pretty exposed anyways. It's also great for small communities located along the interstates. And presumably it would pay for a lot of the cost of upkeep on our roads.
Baseball gets special exemptions which other sports don't. Which is coincidentally why the longest losing streaks and worst clubs virtually always come out of MLB. It's virtually impossible for a football or hockey team to do as poorly as some of the worst baseball teams do.
If that's your concern demand that your state go the way that IA and WA have by banning the practice of the winners drawing the lines. Bonus points if you also ensure that your state has a primary that allows you to vote for whatever candidate you wish to on a case by case basis ignoring party lines.
While it would be both foolhardy and a gross exaggeration to say that it doesn't generally matter a whole lot about the client side, most of the time that kind of operation is just not cost effective. More cost effective is phishing or compromising the server side stuff. Dumpster diving for insecure records is also a convenient way of doing it all too often.
I think you're either greatly over estimating the cost of a police officer or greatly underestimating the cost of installing, maintaining and monitoring videos. A thousand cameras is going to cost you a pretty substantial sum of money to keep in repair.
On top of that, criminals no where the cameras are pointed, if you spend enough time around them you can spot which way they're pointed without looking too hard. On top of that a police office can be sent to other areas of the city as needed and get information which is completely inaccessible to a camera. And an officer is already there and in these parts ready to respond to anything that might be going on, not just crimes, but medical emergencies and such as well.
They can already do this using, my special negative-sized ruler.
That's not a fair comparison at all, unless I missed the part where the plaintiff committed suicide. This sort of shoddy reasoning is exactly why things are going to hell. Additionally being anonymous is different than pretending to be a real person that isn't you and using that deception to willfully inflict harm on others.
In fact I'm not sure that there really is anything at all in common to there besides the net and attorneys.
Not really, the city didn't ever lose money on that. Most of the time somebody wouldn't be parking in them until the time ran out. And even if somebody did, the city already got it's money the next driver would have to pony up for the rest of their time.
But, that's really beside the point, the point of parking meters isn't for the city to make money it's to keep people moving around so that there's actually street parking available. Which is why around here parking in metered areas for longer than 2 hours is a ticket. For some spots it's even less than that. Around here, the city makes a small amount of money and basically breaks even on it.
Around here we're moving to a similar sort of system. It's better, you never have to walk more than about 50 feet and there's at least one machine per side of the street on each block. I'm not positive,but I think that you can pay via credit.
But the parking enforcement recently got special cameras mounted on a few cars that monitors for cars that are parked for more than 2 hours.
That hasn't been true for a very long time. Something like 2/3 of net traffic is spam, malware or DDOS. It might be that 50% of legitimate traffic is video and such, but the lion's share of bandwidth goes to cybercriminals.
Around here, the cable company is complete crap. There are very few regulations compared with DSL and they don't even keep an eye on the quality of service they're providing. They could quite literally not provide any service all month if you didn't tell them and still expect to be paid.
Perhaps it's different where you live, but around here the cable company is a government granted monopoly with very little competition to make it keep costs down and service of quality.
In case people didn't figure it out, the company here is Comcast.
That's just the thing. They don't ever admit to overselling their bandwidth nor do they typically acknowledge that the 1% that are "abusing" the bandwidth are using the bandwidth that they were promised. What we really need is a set of truth in advertising regulations here. I don't personally think that the ISP necessarily needs to be able to cover everybody at all times with 100% of their promise, but there should be agreed upon quantities provided.
It's like a number of other industries, overselling bandwidth is just another form of leverage, and there should be similar rules applied to ISPs in that regard. If they were required to publish such information as when caps if any come into play and provided some sort of reasonable plan for those that need or want more, it would be a very different matter indeed. It's very difficult for markets to function when one side is permitted to keep such things secret, depriving the customer of the ability to make an informed decision.
I have no idea as to how many people would, but it's a good start towards a reasonable solution.
No, not really, we need to have higher tariffs to balance out the trade deficits. Having money being pooled in a few economies without them having earned the money causes huge problems, especially when the money is being paid by people that don't have it.
To be clear, the Chinese didn't earn more than a fraction of the money they've got, most of it was the result of American politicians handing them the cash and refusing to enforce their WTO obligations. I wouldn't be bitter about the Chinese bettering themselves if they weren't so blatantly cheating. It is in nobody's best interest to allow the Chinese to currency manipulate, refuse to enforce safe labor practices and invest the Chinese workers' salary in bonds to continue the whole charade.
Meh, I know I'll be modded troll for this, but somebody has to say it.
It's more than that, but suggesting the problem stems from earlier is right on. Technically it would be the Carter and Reagan administrations that are most to blame for the current issues. I believe that is was the Carter administration that unjustifiably increased the FDIC insurance coverage on bank accounts to 100k, without having any clear reason for doing it.
And Reagan was in charge when the banking regulations were first shredded.
The best cure for this sort of problem is two fold. One you yank back the ridiculous amount of insurance that people are afforded and secondly you jack up the short term tax rate on investments to something that's really expensive. The fact that people expect to make huge profits over just a few weeks, or holding periods of less than a day is a huge part of what causes these sorts of problems.
Think of it this way, even with the Enrons, Lehman brothers and such far, far more people made profit in trading those companies than were ultimately burned. The message that most people gather from those failures was to not be the last one out of the building, not that longer holding periods are good.
Citation required. During Bush's 8 years the federal government spent roughly 6.7 trillion dollars through September 2008. Leaving the total at around 10 trillion with some change. I must have missed the debt ballooning up to 16 trillion dollars.
It's hard to say what the current national debt is precisely right now, but I can pretty much guarantee you that it isn't 16 trillion dollars. The incompetence of so called fiscal responsibility has put us in the position where we've got roughly 90% of our GDP owed out to somebody else. Makes me wonder how in the hell the Republican party can pretend like we can cut taxes.
The sourcing on that is from wikipedia: US Debt