You are assuming that average american actually likes what the American government is doing.
If anything, wikileaks has shown how the government itself is putting national security, diplomatic relations and its citizens at risk just to benefit the military industrial and oil industry faction.
Not everyone in public is a stubborn moron like you, who refuses to appreciate being shown the truth.
Get off your soap box, Guardian Reader. Nowhere in my post, did I express my personal opinion. I was pointing out the flawed assumption that most Amazon customers would support Wiki-leaks actions.
Considering how the public opinion is always favored towards the underdog and the whistle-blower, it is seriously debatable whether Amazon would take this kind of risky decision by themselves. Any business would rather weather the few DDOS attacks for a few days and grin and bear the loss, instead of being seen as an "evil company". Instead, it is definitely the American government twisting their arm.
You're right. American consumers love nothing more than a foreigner posting classified information that puts national security, diplomatic relations, and civilian and military personnel at risk while making us all look like @ssholes. Your POV != public opinion. Right or wrong, I'm not sure Amazon will alienate more consumers than it gains from this move.
No, but they could put a bandwidth fee structure in place either with L3-type companies or household subscribers. If you use more bandwidth, you pay more. Cost should not be based on the source of content, but how much is going through.
Because your question implies that the asker is actually competent at their job. Anyone with half a brain would have already come up with that solution a long time ago.
You are assuming that this is a centrally controlled provisioning environment. This does not work in a setting where people bring their own computers - like in a university classroom.
BTW - why are you such an @sshole? The whole point of ask slashdot is to generate discussion about how to solve problems - not attract personal character attacks from ACs.
I feel no need to respond to tweets about public transport closures, surf reports, or any of the other numerous public service alerts now on Twitter, but I value them nonetheless.
Yeah. The stock price really tanked under Hurd compared to the last CEO, and the market has total confidence in the board's decision. This is not about HP's financial performance. That's why it's controversial.
You missed the point. I want the freedom to choose a community where its harder for people to get guns, so I don't have to spend time and money participating in a personal arms race. If I wanted to live next to fundamentalist pricks with guns, I'd move to your neighborhood.
Unfortunately, the courts are forcing other communities, where residents almost unanimously do not want easy access to guns (like the District of Columbia), to adopt your dogma -- and therefore are taking away our freedom to choose communities where weapons are banned. I respect your right to want a gun and live somewhere in the US where it's easy to get one, and I expect you to respect my right to live somewhere in the US where guns are banned. There's enough room in the US for both types of communities. Let the residents of the states and municipalities choose -- not the courts.
No it's not. No one is allowed to prevent you from obtaining and carrying said arm but no one is obligated to provide you with one either. That's the difference.
Yes it is. Your right to own a gun forces me to find extra protections from crazy people with guns.
Hope you don't use facebook connect, play any facebook games, or use any facebook applications that require you to click that "allow this application to read your profile..." button.
What about business users that need to review lots of data or input limited amounts of data while not tied to a desk? Like, those who work in hospitals or warehouses.
Imagine a world in which one of those companies just disappeared tomorrow, tell me which one do you think would have the much more drastic effect on the world...
MSFT. Imagine a world without blue screen of death.
I guess you'll have to choose your master: the telcos or the government. I'm sure Comcast won't do anything wrong there. Because they care about you as an individual. Really. They do.
Not even close. Many of the posters here are describing the "free market" as perfect competition. For perfect competition, the following must be in place: 1) liquidity (lots of buyers and sellers), 2) Low market entry/exit barriers, 3) Perfect information, 4) free (as in beer) transactions, 5) no differentiation between products other than cost, and 6) all market participants try to maximize profits.
Most "free market" ass hats have been snookered by corporate interests to believe that all you need is #6 to have a free market and ignore the rest. The result, is that libertarians unwittingly support oligopolies, where corporations use their size an power to minimize #s 1 through 5, and therefore destroy "free markets" (perfect competition). If you look at the players fighting net neutrality, they are trying to tilt 1 through 5 in their favor.
Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg did not complete their University degrees. They are all smarter and more worldly from than you and many of the rest of us who spent four years in the ivory tower.
Slashdot Mirror
Overall, not worth the money...
What did you expect for 5 bucks?
But no android app.
But, does it run on Linux?
You are assuming that average american actually likes what the American government is doing. If anything, wikileaks has shown how the government itself is putting national security, diplomatic relations and its citizens at risk just to benefit the military industrial and oil industry faction.
Not everyone in public is a stubborn moron like you, who refuses to appreciate being shown the truth.
Get off your soap box, Guardian Reader. Nowhere in my post, did I express my personal opinion. I was pointing out the flawed assumption that most Amazon customers would support Wiki-leaks actions.
Except for Chicago, which is leagues above the rest of us.
Ken Livingston would beg to differ.
Considering how the public opinion is always favored towards the underdog and the whistle-blower, it is seriously debatable whether Amazon would take this kind of risky decision by themselves. Any business would rather weather the few DDOS attacks for a few days and grin and bear the loss, instead of being seen as an "evil company". Instead, it is definitely the American government twisting their arm.
You're right. American consumers love nothing more than a foreigner posting classified information that puts national security, diplomatic relations, and civilian and military personnel at risk while making us all look like @ssholes. Your POV != public opinion. Right or wrong, I'm not sure Amazon will alienate more consumers than it gains from this move.
Last I heard, Julian Assange does not have diplomatic immunity.
No, but they could put a bandwidth fee structure in place either with L3-type companies or household subscribers. If you use more bandwidth, you pay more. Cost should not be based on the source of content, but how much is going through.
Because your question implies that the asker is actually competent at their job. Anyone with half a brain would have already come up with that solution a long time ago.
You are assuming that this is a centrally controlled provisioning environment. This does not work in a setting where people bring their own computers - like in a university classroom.
BTW - why are you such an @sshole? The whole point of ask slashdot is to generate discussion about how to solve problems - not attract personal character attacks from ACs.
I feel no need to respond to tweets about public transport closures, surf reports, or any of the other numerous public service alerts now on Twitter, but I value them nonetheless.
Agreed. On /., a response increases the probability that the story was *not* read.
Yeah. The stock price really tanked under Hurd compared to the last CEO, and the market has total confidence in the board's decision. This is not about HP's financial performance. That's why it's controversial.
Crap. Sorry. meant to mod funny.
I read the headline as "Skype Fails for IPO"
Prophetic. without the hardware.
You missed the point. I want the freedom to choose a community where its harder for people to get guns, so I don't have to spend time and money participating in a personal arms race. If I wanted to live next to fundamentalist pricks with guns, I'd move to your neighborhood.
Unfortunately, the courts are forcing other communities, where residents almost unanimously do not want easy access to guns (like the District of Columbia), to adopt your dogma -- and therefore are taking away our freedom to choose communities where weapons are banned. I respect your right to want a gun and live somewhere in the US where it's easy to get one, and I expect you to respect my right to live somewhere in the US where guns are banned. There's enough room in the US for both types of communities. Let the residents of the states and municipalities choose -- not the courts.
No it's not. No one is allowed to prevent you from obtaining and carrying said arm but no one is obligated to provide you with one either. That's the difference.
Yes it is. Your right to own a gun forces me to find extra protections from crazy people with guns.
Who DOESNT set their facebook as friends-only?
Hope you don't use facebook connect, play any facebook games, or use any facebook applications that require you to click that "allow this application to read your profile..." button.
What about business users that need to review lots of data or input limited amounts of data while not tied to a desk? Like, those who work in hospitals or warehouses.
Imagine a world in which one of those companies just disappeared tomorrow, tell me which one do you think would have the much more drastic effect on the world...
MSFT. Imagine a world without blue screen of death.
I guess you'll have to choose your master: the telcos or the government. I'm sure Comcast won't do anything wrong there. Because they care about you as an individual. Really. They do.
Literally, one with as few rules as possible.
Not even close. Many of the posters here are describing the "free market" as perfect competition. For perfect competition, the following must be in place: 1) liquidity (lots of buyers and sellers), 2) Low market entry/exit barriers, 3) Perfect information, 4) free (as in beer) transactions, 5) no differentiation between products other than cost, and 6) all market participants try to maximize profits.
Most "free market" ass hats have been snookered by corporate interests to believe that all you need is #6 to have a free market and ignore the rest. The result, is that libertarians unwittingly support oligopolies, where corporations use their size an power to minimize #s 1 through 5, and therefore destroy "free markets" (perfect competition). If you look at the players fighting net neutrality, they are trying to tilt 1 through 5 in their favor.
I would like this for google analytics. I have a GA account at work that is different from my personal e-mail account.
Yes, but designing buildings is like designing buildings -- which is what the author suggests SketchUp can be used for.
This demo link works in Chrome without changing the user agent.
Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg did not complete their University degrees. They are all smarter and more worldly from than you and many of the rest of us who spent four years in the ivory tower.
and take gymnastics and diving and figure skating out of the olympics then?
Yes, please.