Thumbprint, perhaps?
Why would I want to replace a fairly robust piece of plastic with a finky piece of hardware/software. And why would I want my rates to go up to afford the 5-figure (for a good one) piece of hardware?
I'd be happy if we could get a GOP w/o the religion
Are you talking about only Christianity, or are you also talking about the GOP religions of:
Toxic [among] whom?
Among conservatives who where not going to vote for a Democrat anyway. They hate her so much, they consider it a win if she gets nominated, because surely everyone else hates her as much as they do. Therefore, if she is nominated, it will be an easy victory. See also, liberals and GWB's 2nd term.
Besides, what is it with businesspeople thinking their experience automatically makes them fit to govern?
.. it's the job of government to serve all of its consituents' best interests, not to make a profit come hell or high water.
Well, to the degree to which the recognize the different roles and act accordingly, they seem to be okay.
I'd rather someone who has a record of success before they became president. Note: not 100% success. You're correct that having, and learning from, failures is a valuable skill. But I think before you become president you should have some success under your belt
What has she done that shows she learned from her failure, as opposed to deluded herself into "not my fault. To wit, what company did she successfully lead?
Also, I think business experience is not as important as management experience. I look at, for instance, generals who've become excellent presidents. Or governors. And I can certainly imagine a large non-profit giving the requisite experience.
I'd probably consider him the best President we have had in the past 40 years,
It's definitely him and Clinton at the top of that list. Although part of their benefit is being in the right place at the right time, they also were both bright and able to get their agendas through. Far better than "brainy but ineffective" or "brainless but browbeaty". And better than "idealistic to the point of ignoring reality" (which covers two in the past forty years)
Hmmm... that's interesting. I wonder how much better life would be if we simply accepted, on face, people on the internet who said "yeah, ignore that post, I regret having written it". I'm not even sure, if upheld, that would solve your issue.
Do you know whether you're having a manic or depressive episode? Maybe you could have three accounts?
Before FB there was MySpace, widely used and nobody could possibly compete with them. Then FB came along with a BETTER product.
MySpace didn't have much penetration in college students. FB started there. Now FB has penetration throughtout all demos. There is no thin-edge to exploit.
Being unable to attract customers is not a barrier to entry. Having to build your own railroad in order to sell oil is a barrier to entry.
The "product" FB sells its users is its other users. By definition, no other service provider can provide that.
You mean that if you stop using FB you have absolutely no means to communicate with your friends?
Yes. If I don't use FB, I don't get invited to events. There are other means of inviting me, but other people don't think of them.
Now, on raw communication, you are correct. I can be phoned, emailed, etc. And do.
Here are a list of his demands in order to make god happy: http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Doc... . These include MS
... VMware implementing PC speaker beeps.
And on that we can all agree.
Yeah, but they have the corpus, so in N years, when the algorithm improves, overnight revolution.
Now obviously they do lots of complicated analysis which is where a lot of the value added
Yeah, but a lot of that analysis is to figure out things about you, things you already know.
monetize their own information... I think that we need to fundamentally change the web so that Google and Facebook share their profits with us. They are after all making profits by selling your data
The problem is Facebook and Google already have sufficient amounts of information on sufficient numbers of people that your own higher quality data on your preferences isn't worth much. And FB/Google have scaling in their favor.
So, other than competing on cost (ick) what can you offer the marketer about you that FB/Google cannot?
Trusts always form by offering a deal that many people take voluntarily. That doesn't mean that it has to be allowed to use its monopoly position to keep the gains it has achieved.
Trust-breaking won the war of ideas like 100 years ago, and proved to be able to do little things like "prevent Standard Oil from running the world".
Dude, I thought that the heat couldn't dissipate through the vacuum of space. There's no "fear" about it. It's a technical question.
And, as has been said before, the best solution to incorrect facts is correct facts.
Just six plugins are used by more than 5% of users doesn't seem to be that significant. After all, 1000 plugins used by 1% of users will have far more impact than that.
Also, I do wonder if there is a correlation between people who use more plugins, and those who opt not to send anonymous data in.
If my admittedly weak knowledge of nuclear engineering is what's holding up our space program, methinks we have bigger issues..
"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics
