citizens are consumers of government services, the same way customers are consumers of company services. Except in Google's case, they are not.
Just like with TV, the people who consume the content hosted by Google are the product. The real consumers (i.e. the people who purchase access to this product from Google) are the advertisers. As for the content producers, I guess they would be the smizmars.
got diabetes, you are far more likely to create acetone which breathilzers may read as alcohol. Further a low blood sugar reaction may produce impairment results outwardly similar to driving drunk. If someone is impaired--and I don't care whether they have been drinking, doing drugs, staying awake too many hours, have low blood sugar or whatever--they should not be operating a vehicle.
I can't remember who it was--perhaps George Carlin--who made the following analogy:
Imagine if speed limits were strictly enforced by police, but cars didn't have speedometers. You only know you are speeding when the police pull you over with their fancy radar guns.
It will probably be uploaded on Youtube and a lot of innocent, curious kids will end up with one fewer eye as a result of this video. Yes, but on the bright side the eye patches will help identify the willing-to-do-anything children at a distance, and we need more pirates anyway.
Up here in Canada, the government pays for most health costs, so it is only fitting that they charge higher taxes on tobacco--in part to discourage it, and in part to recover the costs.
So I wondered, what if the U.S. tried a similar thing with a tobacco tax (hypothetically, of course). Since the government doesn't pay for the health system like it does up in Canada, this tobacco tax would have to work differently.
Say, for example, money from that tobacco tax went into a pool, then insurance companies apply to be reimbursed from that pool for expenses related to tobacco-caused diseases.
While the manifest benefits are negligible (potential for lower prices for nonsmokers, though much more red tape), the latent benefits would be tremendous: the tobacco companies would finally have someone their own size to investigate links between tobacco and various diseases.
I mean, right now, insurance companies could theoretically save money if they invested in research on various diseases, but we all know that type of spending is not what large companies do. Give them the prospect of recovering funds if they can demonstrate a link, and all of a sudden those investments start looking profitable.
Repeat for other unhealthy products and activities.
What about an epileptic, getting a crisis AND omitting at the same time. Guaranteed drowning in one own puke, followed by a civil lawsuit against the government? And to add salt to the injury, possibly also losing the suit due to the "we thought s/he was a terrorist so it was ok to use it on them" argument?
Scientists say this geothermal energy, clean, quiet and virtually inexhaustible, could fill the world's annual needs 250,000 times over with nearly zero impact on the climate or the environment. How many significant digits, exactly, are in "nearly zero"?
One would hope that it is far more digits than "a single person driving a car has nearly zero impact on the environment."
Indeed. And that hyped coverage might scare lawmakers into creating new laws, so that the hackers' currently-legal activities would be defined as criminal.
He states on the page (perhaps after you wrote your comment) that Windows did not have ClearType on, presumably because ClearType is not on by default. That's not exactly unfair to windows.
If you show up to a race with your tires deflated, it's not the judges' fault you lose.
Hard to find the info on the battery replacement? Google "iphone battery" and you'll get this... I think these guys are also suing Google, for also not putting a warning on the Google home page that the iPhone's battery is not user-serviceable.
Regardless, 400 full discharge-recharge cycles to get to 80% capacity will extend beyond 2 years for the vast majority of people. Well obviously if these people sued Apple, their batteries must have died after a only year of using the iPhone!
I had a great idea like this once. I called it the "Jump to Conclusions Mat". I remember reading the proposal for that one. I only skimmed the beginning and the end of it, but it looked like it would work!
Let's say, for example, that my friend John had a company that produced a beverage based on a secret formula. For the sake of simplicity, let's call his company "Coke".
If I were to create another company (let's call it, oh, I dunno... "Pepsi") and created a similar beverage from reverse-engineering John's Coke-Drink, would I be guilty of attempted IP infringement?
The police have no legitimate interest in tracking the driving patterns of people who have not committed a crime and are not under suspicion of having committed a crime. So what if a private company (say, Google) started doing it?
It's very important that Mac OS be seen as part of the Mac -experience-, not something that you can install on any computer. Trust me, they would find some grounds upon which to shut down such a project if it ever became popular. Like how they recently released Safari 3 for Windows?
You're supposed to drink it. A couple of shots of Troll-be-gone and suddenly everyone you meet is +5 insightful. I can certainly testify to that! The folks at the Poison Control centre were very professional with me the last time I drank that stuff!
The joke's on me. I got a Bachelor's in Social Sciences, and it's not very useful if you don't plan to just keep studying.
Nowadays, you need at least a couple of bachelor's degrees or a master's in order to get a job in the field. I'd expect the cost of that to approach a single bachelor's degree in maths or science.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like with TV, the people who consume the content hosted by Google are the product. The real consumers (i.e. the people who purchase access to this product from Google) are the advertisers. As for the content producers, I guess they would be the smizmars.
- RG>
- RG>
I can't remember who it was--perhaps George Carlin--who made the following analogy:
Imagine if speed limits were strictly enforced by police, but cars didn't have speedometers. You only know you are speeding when the police pull you over with their fancy radar guns.
That's how drunk driving laws work.
- RG>
- RG>
Chances are, when you buy a new computer, by the time you got it it already has an outdated version of IE.
That's why it's important to upgrade IE at http://www.ie7.com/
- RG>
- RG>
Up here in Canada, the government pays for most health costs, so it is only fitting that they charge higher taxes on tobacco--in part to discourage it, and in part to recover the costs.
So I wondered, what if the U.S. tried a similar thing with a tobacco tax (hypothetically, of course). Since the government doesn't pay for the health system like it does up in Canada, this tobacco tax would have to work differently.
Say, for example, money from that tobacco tax went into a pool, then insurance companies apply to be reimbursed from that pool for expenses related to tobacco-caused diseases.
While the manifest benefits are negligible (potential for lower prices for nonsmokers, though much more red tape), the latent benefits would be tremendous: the tobacco companies would finally have someone their own size to investigate links between tobacco and various diseases.
I mean, right now, insurance companies could theoretically save money if they invested in research on various diseases, but we all know that type of spending is not what large companies do. Give them the prospect of recovering funds if they can demonstrate a link, and all of a sudden those investments start looking profitable.
Repeat for other unhealthy products and activities.
- RG>
- RG>
- RG>
One would hope that it is far more digits than "a single person driving a car has nearly zero impact on the environment."
- RG>
- RG>
Indeed. And that hyped coverage might scare lawmakers into creating new laws, so that the hackers' currently-legal activities would be defined as criminal.
- RG>
"Going..."
...
"Going..."
...
"kthxbye!"
- RG>
He states on the page (perhaps after you wrote your comment) that Windows did not have ClearType on, presumably because ClearType is not on by default. That's not exactly unfair to windows.
If you show up to a race with your tires deflated, it's not the judges' fault you lose.
- RG>
I don't see what use this could have.
I mean, sure they might have found a way to get monkeys to learn things, but do they really expect to apply that research to teenagers?
- RG>
I don't think you got it...
- RG>
- RG>
- RG>
- RG>
Let's say, for example, that my friend John had a company that produced a beverage based on a secret formula. For the sake of simplicity, let's call his company "Coke".
If I were to create another company (let's call it, oh, I dunno... "Pepsi") and created a similar beverage from reverse-engineering John's Coke-Drink, would I be guilty of attempted IP infringement?
- RG>
Of all the pork-barrelling that he did, he's probably hitting himself now for not getting federal funding for that five-star prison in Hawaii.
- RG>
No, seriously, what?
- RG>
- RG>
- RG>
The joke's on me. I got a Bachelor's in Social Sciences, and it's not very useful if you don't plan to just keep studying.
Nowadays, you need at least a couple of bachelor's degrees or a master's in order to get a job in the field. I'd expect the cost of that to approach a single bachelor's degree in maths or science.
- RG>