Shareholders shouldn't get anything more than a share of profits relative to their share of shares. Just because you've put a bit of money in a company (alongside thousands to millions of other people) doesn't mean you should get a say in anything.
Exactly! Businesses should look to Slashdot for advice rather than people that are invested in their company.
Anyone that even states they will meet with Trump are faced by backlash, protests, and boycotts.
The idea of forcing Trump to stay solely within his echo chamber just shows that these whiny people and businesses (including all the people that threaten to boycott anyone that might even sing at a Trump event) are nothing more than pouting children.
I hope Trump just keeps moving forward. These are not people that will ever be satisfied or content with Trump. There is no reason to cater to them at all.
some reason become terrified when governments do what they are supposed to do and represent the interests of the people.
Because once government has that power, it has that power. For those scared of Obama, this was a real fear. For those scared of Trump, this is a real fear. And usually, government breaks things even more, then get tasked with coming up for a solution for stuff they broke.
It's about freedom of interference from government. That freedom of interference doesn't just go away to give you discounts on your cell phone bill.
It amazes me how deeply people want government to be controlling everything (and yes, I aware people think subsidies should entitle the government to take over a business - just wait until that logic is applied to people on social security or welfare.)
But fortunately, if this is something you think is well within governmental roles, you got a lot of places in the European Union to move to.
Just curious, does MS allow now for you to make a copy of your windows for a virtual machine as long as it's on the same machine or do you need to purchase to licensees for it?
It was about users being able to go into a mode indicating they wanted to receive compressed video at lower resolutions in exchange for not having it apply to their cap, (or in some cases, using their allotment less quickly). The "deals" made with content providers were contractual agreements, available to every content provider, even the tiniest of startups, at no cost. The agreement with the providers was either 1: do nothing, and if we notice you streaming HD video to a binge-on user, we'll try to compress/reduce it; but user still pays normal data rates. 2: work with us so we can know when data you serve up is streaming video, then we'll compress/reduce it when sending it to Binge-on users, and user gets free bandwidth. 3: Compress/reduce the video yourself, work with us so we can know when you're sending compressed video to binge-on users, and promise that you'll only send decent quality compressed video with binge-on users; and user gets free bandwidth 4: let us know you're opting out and that we shouldn't try to compress your data, regardless of the user requesting video being compressed by nature of being in binge-on mode.
You gave a much better description than I did
Arguably, there are problems with this offer, but it's far from the preferential-treatment anti-competitive deals that really get people up in arms about net-neutrality.
Climate change changes resource availability. Particularly water. If areas that once had water no longer have water that will put stress on their economy potentially making them less politically stable.
And for the areas that now have water but didn't before will be rich! Do you really think the environment will just change from one day to the next giving economies and people no chance to adept?
t's very expensive to install infrastructure for the last mile, and many places don't want 5 different companies installing five different poles in the same location.
And these would be places that are choosing to deal with one company.
Because net neutrality is great in theory but not so great in the way people want it implemented.
For example - all the people going after T-Mobile for offering "binge" services. They didn't drop the amount of GB people could download but they made some deals with content providers to offset the cost for some services and are able to offer them to the end-user at now data charge. But this is a bad thing because net neutrality is such a broad idea that it destroys companies ability to make deals like this.
It would be like fining Disney for licensing some shows to netflix but not amazon.
They are simply taking issue with your assertion that tabs are a substitute for bookmarks. They emphatically are not, and no reasonable person could take that position.
I explicitly added a qualifier so I would not come across as saying they always are. Do I have to add <BLINK> tags? Of course there are other uses. I never said otherwise.
But when someone has a huge number of tabs open, and don't look at most of them, yes, they are used as bookmark substitutes. Walk around your office. Watch how prevalent this is.
I use them more as disposable pages. Stuff that I might get to if an early page doesn't answer a question or a page I might want to read but don't care enough to bookmark it.
This. The financial situation of a student or his parents should not impact the choice of education the student makes.
I like your ideas of having people ignore the reality of their situation. Let me take that further and ask what other non-life saving things/services should be covered for free.
Also, do you get to free by making everyone in education jobs work for free or do you get it by taking other people's money through taxes and having them pay for the school - which is not really a definition of free that I am aware of.
Student loans are the single most significant reason that post-secondary education is expensive even at state colleges and universities not only in the United States of America but in other countries such as Canada.
Correct, because with student loans and grants, most people don't see the true cost and this allows the schools to hike up costs.
I agree with the suggestion that the first year is cost-free to students and subsequent years the amount paid is based on GPA ranging from 100% subsidised (B and above) to 0% subsidised (D and below).
Well, your solution just made the problem worse.
Also employers should be responsible for providing on-the-job training so universities are no longer the modern-day white-collar trade schools.
Guarantee you that big business will love this as it will force small companies out of business. It's kind of like Big HealthCare doesn't mind HCR. The smaller insurance companies have collapse and been bought out by the large insurance companies since the smaller companies didn't have the resources to keep up with all the new regs. We saw this in Big Pharma and the DME world as well.
No. I was thinking of Robert Byrd who did his best to continue segregation until political reasons forced his to pretend to change. And pretend was all it was. You just had to listen to the man.
Democrat Senator Reid is the same way (but he is bat-shit crazy so I almost want to give him a pass.) http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITI... He made these comments in 2008, long after Thurmond dies (so much more recent.)
If you don't want to binge-watch, you could exert self-control and...not.
And if you do binge watch, you can exercise some self control and wait for the whole season to come out rather than watching them one at a time as they come out.
Either method results in about a year gap for binge watchers.
So you'd rather wait for a year while they make the next season after they release their big batch?
Having it all at once lets me watch it on my schedule, and I don't mind waiting for that in the slightest.
Wait until its all released and watch as you choose?
No! He want's to watch it this way so everyone should. Asking him to wait to watch an episode that is already out there requires discipline and is very un-millennial of you.
Slashdot Mirror
Shareholders shouldn't get anything more than a share of profits relative to their share of shares. Just because you've put a bit of money in a company (alongside thousands to millions of other people) doesn't mean you should get a say in anything.
Exactly! Businesses should look to Slashdot for advice rather than people that are invested in their company.
Anyone that even states they will meet with Trump are faced by backlash, protests, and boycotts.
The idea of forcing Trump to stay solely within his echo chamber just shows that these whiny people and businesses (including all the people that threaten to boycott anyone that might even sing at a Trump event) are nothing more than pouting children.
I hope Trump just keeps moving forward. These are not people that will ever be satisfied or content with Trump. There is no reason to cater to them at all.
some reason become terrified when governments do what they are supposed to do and represent the interests of the people.
Because once government has that power, it has that power. For those scared of Obama, this was a real fear. For those scared of Trump, this is a real fear.
And usually, government breaks things even more, then get tasked with coming up for a solution for stuff they broke.
It's about freedom of interference from government. That freedom of interference doesn't just go away to give you discounts on your cell phone bill.
It amazes me how deeply people want government to be controlling everything (and yes, I aware people think subsidies should entitle the government to take over a business - just wait until that logic is applied to people on social security or welfare.)
But fortunately, if this is something you think is well within governmental roles, you got a lot of places in the European Union to move to.
Just curious, does MS allow now for you to make a copy of your windows for a virtual machine as long as it's on the same machine or do you need to purchase to licensees for it?
If only someone could invent some kind of water purification system...
It was about users being able to go into a mode indicating they wanted to receive compressed video at lower resolutions in exchange for not having it apply to their cap, (or in some cases, using their allotment less quickly). The "deals" made with content providers were contractual agreements, available to every content provider, even the tiniest of startups, at no cost. The agreement with the providers was either 1: do nothing, and if we notice you streaming HD video to a binge-on user, we'll try to compress/reduce it; but user still pays normal data rates. 2: work with us so we can know when data you serve up is streaming video, then we'll compress/reduce it when sending it to Binge-on users, and user gets free bandwidth. 3: Compress/reduce the video yourself, work with us so we can know when you're sending compressed video to binge-on users, and promise that you'll only send decent quality compressed video with binge-on users; and user gets free bandwidth 4: let us know you're opting out and that we shouldn't try to compress your data, regardless of the user requesting video being compressed by nature of being in binge-on mode.
You gave a much better description than I did
Arguably, there are problems with this offer, but it's far from the preferential-treatment anti-competitive deals that really get people up in arms about net-neutrality.
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/d...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/to...
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/s...
I believe there is even a few Slashdot article about it as well.
Climate change changes resource availability. Particularly water. If areas that once had water no longer have water that will put stress on their economy potentially making them less politically stable.
And for the areas that now have water but didn't before will be rich!
Do you really think the environment will just change from one day to the next giving economies and people no chance to adept?
You don't understand!!!
There is a red button on his desk and all he has to do is push it and the missiles will soar!!! It is the end!
At least, this is how a lot of people seem to think nuclear missiles are launched.
I love your signature line.
t's very expensive to install infrastructure for the last mile, and many places don't want 5 different companies installing five different poles in the same location.
And these would be places that are choosing to deal with one company.
Because net neutrality is great in theory but not so great in the way people want it implemented.
For example - all the people going after T-Mobile for offering "binge" services. They didn't drop the amount of GB people could download but they made some deals with content providers to offset the cost for some services and are able to offer them to the end-user at now data charge. But this is a bad thing because net neutrality is such a broad idea that it destroys companies ability to make deals like this.
It would be like fining Disney for licensing some shows to netflix but not amazon.
Well, he already saved a billion on the Airforce One contract with Boeing and that was negotiating before he was even signed in.
You are view Trump and money in terms of previews politicians and how they view money.
They are simply taking issue with your assertion that tabs are a substitute for bookmarks. They emphatically are not, and no reasonable person could take that position.
I explicitly added a qualifier so I would not come across as saying they always are. Do I have to add <BLINK> tags?
Of course there are other uses. I never said otherwise.
But when someone has a huge number of tabs open, and don't look at most of them, yes, they are used as bookmark substitutes. Walk around your office. Watch how prevalent this is.
I use them more as disposable pages. Stuff that I might get to if an early page doesn't answer a question or a page I might want to read but don't care enough to bookmark it.
Who said "free"?
The 1 sentence post that you affirmed
Community college and state colleges should be free, like it is in civilized countries.
This. The financial situation of a student or his parents should not impact the choice of education the student makes.
I like your ideas of having people ignore the reality of their situation. Let me take that further and ask what other non-life saving things/services should be covered for free.
Also, do you get to free by making everyone in education jobs work for free or do you get it by taking other people's money through taxes and having them pay for the school - which is not really a definition of free that I am aware of.
Student loans are the single most significant reason that post-secondary education is expensive even at state colleges and universities not only in the United States of America but in other countries such as Canada.
Correct, because with student loans and grants, most people don't see the true cost and this allows the schools to hike up costs.
I agree with the suggestion that the first year is cost-free to students and subsequent years the amount paid is based on GPA ranging from 100% subsidised (B and above) to 0% subsidised (D and below).
Well, your solution just made the problem worse.
Also employers should be responsible for providing on-the-job training so universities are no longer the modern-day white-collar trade schools.
Guarantee you that big business will love this as it will force small companies out of business. It's kind of like Big HealthCare doesn't mind HCR. The smaller insurance companies have collapse and been bought out by the large insurance companies since the smaller companies didn't have the resources to keep up with all the new regs. We saw this in Big Pharma and the DME world as well.
There is a pretty big difference in the importance of those two things.
I know it's probably a different division but my LG Urbane has gotten almost monthly security updates.
Bill Clinton?
No. I was thinking of Robert Byrd who did his best to continue segregation until political reasons forced his to pretend to change. And pretend was all it was. You just had to listen to the man.
Quick google search would show you that
http://www.azquotes.com/author...
Democrat Senator Reid is the same way (but he is bat-shit crazy so I almost want to give him a pass.)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITI... He made these comments in 2008, long after Thurmond dies (so much more recent.)
I'm in the minority where the time war and the Xindi stuff where my favorite parts of the show.
If you don't want to binge-watch, you could exert self-control and...not.
And if you do binge watch, you can exercise some self control and wait for the whole season to come out rather than watching them one at a time as they come out.
Either method results in about a year gap for binge watchers.
So you'd rather wait for a year while they make the next season after they release their big batch?
Having it all at once lets me watch it on my schedule, and I don't mind waiting for that in the slightest.
Wait until its all released and watch as you choose?
No! He want's to watch it this way so everyone should. Asking him to wait to watch an episode that is already out there requires discipline and is very un-millennial of you.
Is it better than the mess that was season 3?