This certainly a current and intersting subject. I wonder if someone care to enlighten me (and I suppose a lot of other people as well).

I am very uncertain why this millisecond trading is so important. What in the market makes this a viable way of doing business? Appearantly most bids in the market has a lifetime of 3 ms or less and are never realized. To me this seems like a way of manipulating the market. Personally I think available bids or offers should be secret. Only realized deals should be common information. This way it would not be possible to affect the market without cost. E.g. by leaving a bid or offer just to withdraw it milliseconds later.
Another thing I am uncertain off is how a buyer and seller is matched? When I leave an offer to buy shares for a specific price. What happens next? Anyway, I think these are important aspects to understand whether highfrequency trading provides a real value or not.

In my opionon it doens't matter if their practices at this point of time is as bad as everyone else. If ad campaigns like this makes any difference, companies will start to realize that privacy does matter to a large enough number of people will decrease profits (or losses increase, in the case of Bing...).

Water consumption is needed to maximise efficiency. With evaporation cooling you can almost have vacuum after the turbine (increasing pressure with~1 bar over turbine) thus producing much more power.
the alternative is air cooling and then efficiency becomes dependent on ambient temp.

First time I heard Bing used as a verb. This surely must be a great moment for Microsoft!

You design notation....

Please give an alternative to how wealth should be calculated!

It would be really cool if it put pictures together realtime and sent it to a display like this: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/benko/projects/sphere/

Personally I think a picture can be described as objective if it depicts what the photographer saw or feel he saw.

Cameras do not lie. Photographers take pictures to pass on a message. This is not a lie nor a truth. It's what the photographers message and should be treated no differently than a written article. The photo journalist's task is not to truthfully document what he sees, it is to provide illustrations to an article.

I see several scenarios for this guy and they all change what kind of bags he need. Personally I do work mostly with people and urban scenery, which is my perspective.

Anyway, according to his story has experience of traveling, which means that he knows about the hazzle of carrying equipment. But I agree, travelling with a 17" does not seem wise if a netbook would do (which it would in most circumstances).

If the guy is doing professional work and he needs to send pics during work, I certainly understand his request for this kind of bag.

Otherwise I would just recommend getting a big bag for clothes accessories and laptop + small bag for day trips. Carrying less equipment improves your pictures a lot! Unless of course you are doing nature photography, when you are better of with a mule to carry the 50 pound tripod needed for shooting panther's in the dark with your 200mm f2 (possible with 2x extender).

Hey, people in the land of freedom. How do you consider regulation such as this? It certainly is regulation, but it also certainly promotes freedom. I know there people who cannot fathom that freedom and regulation are not xor, infact I think you have minimum freedom in both the the minimum and the maximum end of the how-much-regulation-scale.
Maximum freedom is achieved some amount of regulation. How much regulation is dependent on the society, and I think it is an unstable maximum, which is why we need to update regulations continuously.
Or something.

Dont know why you are modded down but yes. I kind of agree. It is an important part of mind control. If you control your followers sex life, you can also control them.

This however only a part of the answer. I think before condoms sex should certainly be mostly between two lovers. A lot of random unprotected sex leads to a lot random sex diseases and relatively unwanted children. I would think.

I think the sex-regulation by religions might also have a third reason. Jealous males killing their neighbors. No seriously. Some people have always been killed because they had sex with someone they shouldnt have.
Whether you like it or not, religions have usually striven to lessen the impact of random violence in society. At least the founders of the religions have usually been quite against violence. It is usually the followers that are the problem ;)

Beg all you want, but this is were you and a lot of others dont get it!
After buying and eating the big mac it does not cost the customer a dime to change provider of food. If you want to change your provider of ebooks (or phone apps) you have to buy new equipment + you can not always bring with you old ebooks to your new reader.
As a consumer you feel effectively locked in. In this way the whole ebook market will be fragmented and will infact be many different markets. So there can infact be many monopolies on the same market, while this might at first seem strange, I think everybody must be capable of realizing why this is the wet dream of many companies.

All right. Then it's just me that so used to the dark side of the apple I think everybody else is evil too :)

This is not the only question to ask. I am really surprised at Americans (I am not sure you are, but I see this argument a lot) who say 'well if you dont like apple/amazon/evil-megacrop restricting what content they are distributing you can always get it some other way, it's not like they have a monopoly'. In fact, they DO have a monopoly and I am going to explain why:

A monopoly is when you have 100 % control of the market. While amazon do not control all electronic distribution. They do control the distribution to all Kindles. Basically you can take everybody who owns a kindle and consider them a separate market. And this market they control. To a 100 %. This is the same thing apple does, google and everybody else wants to do this.

This is really the new black. Do not be a monopoly. Create a market (for e.g. stupid apps). Do not conquer the whole market because then you will be regulated. When someone complains about you locking up your market you can always say they can go buy a nokia or whatever.

I think it is really important to realize that these companies are trying to create monopolies that do not look like traditional monopolies. This is no conspiration theory. It's just nobody likes the free market and if you want it free, it must be regulated.

A system like this basically opens up a lot of interfaces to share information with. Which sounds good. The shit part is that it takes up a shitload of resources to do this. The guys who are supposed to do something instead ends up reading and writing responses to a lot of shitty ideas without any real insight into the problems.