That's the sad problem. It doesnt cost more to do so. But yes, ad revenue from showing the ads that you and others may or may not watch, does increase the revenue base - the advertisers do pay for the ads shown to x number of viewers whether the viewers actually watch them or go make a cup of coffee while the ads are showing. In this respect, them and the various channels are also getting smarter in running commercials at the same time and/or even running the same ads on channels they think may have competing shows on (I've seen more and more that if I am watching "Some SciFi show #1" on one channel and switch to "Some SciFi show #2" on another channel, that the major ad spot is the same on both channels, at the exact same time). That mentality doesnt help either, when it comes to more shows moving to Internet delivery - which then of course doesnt help us who want to get cheap Internet without the cost of (or need to get) cable tacked on.

I suspect one day advertisers and content producers will all be on board with having a good method of maintaining those revenues via Internet delivery. Some big advertisers have already jumped onto that bandwagon (for instance Reebok and Legend of the Seeker online).

Therein lies the problem. The studios and advertisers are (as always) behind the times when it comes to figuring out how to monetize their products online.

Sad huh? And thusly, for people like you and me, a combined package becomes our only alternative to get cheap-yet-fast Internet.

This definition is probably looser than most, but here's a quick and dirty view:

The Web is a huge collection of interlinked documents addressable by URLs and served with HTTP. The Internet is the world-wide TCP/IP network over which the Web and many other services operate.

It depends on the terms, I doubt Adobe would want to give Apple a 30% cut.

What do retailers make on it now?

A government agency, they do have some kind of fourth amendment obligations regarding their students; the precedent doesn't seem to make it really clear just how far those obligations go, however.

(This is my non-lawyerly memory, so maybe the rules look coherent to lawyers, but I doubt it.)

But who would want to move away from Windows?

Do your really need to ask this on Slashdot?

More seriously, they're limited to only versions of Windows on which IE6 runs. As XP gets rather long in the tooth and 7 isn't looking so bad, their hands are tied until they deal with the IE6 app.

On the script writers deal in absolutes!

I don't know what the GP had in mind, but maybe it's a significant bug (e.g., showstopper) on a production system?

Yet another reason to buy with plastic.

He didn't say that borrowing was unique to English, just that it is unusually common in English. No one said that that makes English inherently better, only that it can be an advantage in some circumstances.

I don't know if the GP's thesis is right, but it's much more reasonable than you make it seem.

Considering that Christmas was a subversion of a pagan holiday, you really don't have much room to complain.

A bit off-topic, but the winter solstice was not an important holiday in the parts of the pagan world Christians were mainly concerned with at the time: Calculating Christmas. The date apparently has more to do with odd ideas about when prophets die.

Perhaps the objection is that the state partnership gives it the appearance of neutrality? Not sure.

Wait, what? The people who want to depress the price of labor *like* immigration of virtually all kinds: It adds supply to the labor pool.

Many nuclear power plants in US have Windows as part of their systems.

Why isn't there a +1 Terrifying?

Where does this idea come from? I remember being told it in grade school, but the practice of saying "and" between hundreds and tens has a long pedigree in English.

Windows ME hit it's peak in a few months, and steadily declined after that, something Vista isn't doing.

But Microsoft kept selling Windows 98 for those who didn't want ME. This time around they aren't being so helpful.