Comment Re:Try Amazon.ca (Score 1) 174
It does not. It's more expensive and has about 1% of the products that are available on Amazon.com, the difference is even worse than it is between US and Canadian Netflix-es.
It does not. It's more expensive and has about 1% of the products that are available on Amazon.com, the difference is even worse than it is between US and Canadian Netflix-es.
Try finding the same products on Amazon.ca - it's mostly just books and maybe a 1-2% fraction of other products offered on
That is definitely what I use it for, since they don't ship to Canada so I have to find other places to buy the products that have good reviews/photos/details on Amazon.
They could do even better if 9 out of 10 products they sell didn't spit out "We are unable to ship to your address" for Canadian buyers. I am all but given up shopping on Amazon for that reason... they can't even provide a way to filter out items they can't ship to you!
People actively seek out and view the webpage
Notice how you didn't say "I spam my oversized/bliking/popup banner all over other sites to get people to view my webpage"? People find your page because you provide information they need, not because they see your ads. Personally, I can honestly say that not once in my life have I read/viewed/purchased anything from clicking a banner. And yeah, I know the whole subconscious brand recognition shpeel... Still - I never buy anything on the brand name alone. Except for Sony, their products I don't buy specifically because of their brand name. But I digress.
Wait, is this not a conflict of interest? I feel a mistrial coming up.
This would give the government a very scary legal precedence to scare script kiddies with.
The entire domain system should be scrapped in favor of a similar system like newsgroup organization
AOL tried that.
They don't even make sense if you are a mega-corp. Seriously, who cares if it's "kindle.amazon.com" or just "kindle.amazon"? The latter looks gimped anyways.
I would much rather they worked with Microsoft to bring native Skype applications to their platform.
Why would they pick someone so irrelevant as McAfee then?
Nobody is debating that it's occurring. What is being debated is the egocentric claims that humans are significant enough to upset the CO2 balance of the entire planet... while they're releasing measly 0.04% of all CO2 being released into the atmosphere naturally every year... which is what 29,000,000,000 tons of CO2 into 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of atmosphere? I included all the zeros so it's easier to comprehend without doing the math, but that about 0.0000006% of the atmosphere. citation.
I don't see anybody else dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere year after year.
How about ice? http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env99424.htm
I'm sure there's more if you scroll through a google search.
Where's the CO2 released from the melting icecaps in that handy diagram? What if it's not an effect, but rather the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere?
Do you happen to have a link to a source of that pre-industrial emission measurement? Before I take the time to research the connection between the two, I'd like to see that it's actually true please.
Modeling paged and segmented memories is tricky business. -- P.J. Denning
