The richest man alive and a prestigious university offer to pay development costs a single educational software package, while N parties develop each their own, and he gets to choose who is the best, ie who he'd like to sponsor. GATES THE ORPHAN SAVER! -_-
What's wrong with Windows 8 on mobile platforms? AFAIK, it's just that it's unsuitable for desktop. Not that I care about non-free OS', I'm just saying.
Who is "we"? And how do we refuse the patent-encumbered standard next time? How is next time more appropriate than right now?
You're basically saying that lack of competition doesn't matter because eventually someone will catch up. Not only is that faulty logic, that "eventually" can last for decades, as was/is the case with Microsoft's products.
Monopolies should be cut at the root whenever possible. Which is exactly why Adam Smith's invisible hand of free markets sometimes needs help from the state.
Enable WebRTC in Chromium (about:flags), and use https://apprtc.appspot.com/. Here's the code if they block the rendes-vouz server: http://www.webrtc.org/blog/sourcecodetoapprtcappspotcomexampleappavailable
Thank you, master teacher! You have bestowed upon us poors the light of your first world wisdom! Let us hurry, and fix our country. We will tell El Presidente to stop being a dictator. And we will tell our politicians to be honest. And then we shall renew by sprinkling 1000s of public schools accross the country. Alas, the dawn of the new world is here!
-With utmost respect for the holy IPO, Poor_Man_12000001
P.S. In fear that your 1st world education will not allow you to see my point: You have been planted into prosperity, and are no more responsible for it than the guy in the 3rd world. And if you are, it's only because you pay El Presidente to be able to exploit the resources of the poor countries. Now meditate on the eye of the needle, camel.
TL;DR: The Rich are Blind
I thought they finally "invented" something a common Joe haven't thought of: Recognizing actors/actress' faces and recommending shows which feature our favorites. But it seems it's just spy tech again.
Taking it further: Software might also recognize a genre by analyzing program textual info, music, natural language phrases or even objects in the video, and might augment the remote, or the TV guide.
When Microsoft paid that antitrust fine a long time ago I thought: This is nothing more than tax for them. Their browser's popularity owes EVERYTHING to that disloyal behavior. The Apple case sounds just like that. I think research should be conducted into how much companies earned by their unethical practices, then fine them with twice as much. If they were willing to con/force people to give them money, let them return it, and ensure they don't think of it again. Otherwise it'll be business as usual.
No, x in that f(x) is not a number of globally registered domains, it is the number of domains owned by an individual/company. That is, for every subject, registration of the first domain is cheap. The more *they* buy, the more they pay for the next one. Thus, moderation is advised (and cybersquatting eliminated). Again, just an idea, I don't claim it's bulletproof. For example there may be places on earth where starting a "company" is extremely easy. Also, abuses such as having employees register domains in their names are possible, and would have to be regulated, which wouldn't be convenient. At least transferring to the real subject behind the buy could easily be regulated.
P.S. During the auction, it'd be necessary to differentiate two kinds of costs: "base"(same as after the auction), and "bid"(whatever the highest bid is). The company would pay the bid cost of course, but the next base value is independent of it (function f is independent of the bid values).
Maybe I'm uninformed on the matter, but if you ask me, they should drop top level domains altogether. Everyone has a
7. Your vote is readily availible to be tampered with by banks.
Oh, cut the crap, 2641925.
Alcohol and marijuana do not make you inventive. Creative? Sure, since anything is called art these days.
I do realize you didn't argue in favor of alcohol. But if "wandering" is the key, and it is what drugs do, then so does alcohol. In fact, you can just start flapping around on the floor like a fish, or rolling in the dirt, like they used to do in psychiatric sessions of the 70s. You'll achieve the same "wandering" state of mind.
No. It is when you learn things, and then your mind wanders, that you make connections, discover, imagine new things. It's also called called thinking about things. If you go into a world with white rabbits that lead you through holes, it might make for a wild children story, but it won't cure cancer. Despite the fact that those 3 or so Nobel prize winners, whom you can undoubtedly name by heart, experimented with LSD.
P.S. While often arguing "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" is a description of a trip, none of Lewis Caroll's biographers implied drug abuse on his part. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (real name of Lewis Caroll) was a mathematician, and a logician.
Not sure whom, but I've heard someone did something like this (>5?) years ago.
Wrong thread.
Not sure by whom, but I've heard about something like this (>5?) years ago.
One of the chief duties of the mathematician in acting as an advisor... is to discourage... from expecting too much from mathematics. -- N. Wiener
