I'm uncertain as to how you can posit a break-even point without any mention of costs.
What costs are associated with selling this content that aren't already incurred by running the service as it is now?
They're seeking to monetize something they're already doing, and I'm willing to bet the odd settlement for legal issues would be more than compensated for by the sheer volume of sales, as you mention in your example.
Visual email?
As opposed to what? Voicemail? Braille-mail?
Google Trends accurately measures what it purports to: people using Google to search for something.
TED doesn't detect earthquakes. It detects people twittering about earthquakes, and assumes either that correlation equals causation, or that false tweets won't rise above the level of background noise.
The real question is... twenty minutes for other reports? We can't put a seismograph online in real time, or are we afraid to do so?
How about a free, open source, crowdsourced Kickstarted network of online jury-rigged seismographs, then?
You don't even need that. This isn't an app, it's a KML layer for Google Earth, which is already in the store. Put the info into a KML file, put it online, and then enter the URL of the KML file in the Google Earth search field.
Of course, this only gets the information out there in a useable form. It doesn't let you draw attention to yourself by claiming you've been censored by Apple. Which was really the entire point of this.
and he isn't declared innocent either if he isn't charged.
Actually, he is. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means, and that is the legal status of any person in the US who has not been tried and convicted.
Actually, he's not. You focused on the word "innocent" and ignored the word "declared". If he is not charged, he cannot be declared innocent. He is presumed innocent. They are not the same. The former is a positive statement to establish the proposition that the individual did not commit the alleged crime, and that there was never any evidence to the contrary. The latter is a presumption that applies to all people, whether charged or not, that they are innocent of any allegation until evidence is brought forth. The two statements are categorically different.
This story doesn't need a correction, it needs a retraction. The only item of significance was the misattributed quote.
That eventuality is presumed within the question of "whether the US military would be able to perform operations in North Korea". The question being asked is whether or not, should the need arise, the US military would be able to function in or near North Korea given the situation described above. The "need arising" means war. So, yes, presumably in peactime North Korea is able to disrupt the navigation systems of US recon planes in the area, and removing that capability would be an act of war.
Should hostilities start, presumably those capabilities would be disabled (or at least such disabling would be attempted) and whether or not that would be an act of war would be a moot question-- else why is there a need for the US to "conduct operations" in North Korea?
waste of real estate and too little energy. The Blythe plant output sounds impressive, until you realize it can't take sunlight 24x7. So divide its 960 MW by four or more. That's a tenth of the power of modern two reactor nuclear facility that would take up less than a square mile compared to the 12 square miles it occupies. Then realize its $6 billion price tag. Compared to nuclear power, it's a farce.
Factor in the cost of the environmental damage of a worst-case failure scenario for each plant, and the chance of such a failure in each year of the plant's operating lifetime. Nuclear's worst case scenario is so much worse, for just about any design currently in use, that even if the chance of such failure in each year, for each plant, is vanishingly small, it may be justifiable to invest more cash and real estate in a system that has no such catastrophic potential consequences.
If and when such failures occur, which is more of a farce-- spending more money on power that's safer, or risking some extremely expensive accident consequences for saving a few bucks now?
It's a marvelous way to relax.
The USPS doesn't want to change, or can't. They are an supertanker with 2 steering wheels- the USPS leadership on one and congress on the other. They already do USPS money orders, why not make them electronic? They feed letters into automatic sorting machines at various points along the delivery route, why can't they have a scannable barcode with tracking information on each piece of first class mail?
How would that help the current situation? Nearly every kind of improvement you can make here either increases the quality of the service (which does not address the problem, as nice as it would be) or only realizes cost reductions by reducing head count-- which they cannot do because of labor agreements. The kind of automation that usually makes operations better and more efficient here can't make things cheaper because they can't lay off the extra workers; in fact, it only makes things worse, because you have to invest capital into the automation but can't realize the savings-- and you can't gain more revenue.
The ability to either reduce costs or increase revenue would solve this problem, but both are legally prohibited in this case. Increased automation probably isn't necessary to see cost reductions if layoffs were allowed; decreased volume per capita in the system, as email has taken over, would probably achieve that all by itself. That's why the only proposals on the table are things like curtailing Saturday delivery-- keep people on the payroll, but have them work fewer days or fewer hours. Fewer days of delivery means lower fixed costs for utilities and fuel for vehicles.
Neither the article linked nor the BBC article cited near the top of the thread even included the word "favour". One included the phrase "level playing field" suggesting that, rather than favoring one thing or another, all were to compete fairly. The other mentions open standards, not open source, which is not the same thing at all.
The summary is a bit of agenda-driven bile with no almost relation to the article it links to.
The summary appears to be deliberately misleading, saying the government "promised to favour open source" whereas the BBC article you cite merely says that open source should be considered "on a level playing field".
That's not favouring. That's the opposite of favouring; it's a goal to stop favouring non-open source projects just because they're open source.
Monopolies are prohibited, right?
Actually no, they're not. Abuse of the power that comes with having one is, but merely being one is not prohibited.
We know he lied about not being able to enjoy movies, though, because many completely blind people do.
What kind of fucking twisted un-logic is that? Because many completely blind people enjoy movies, therefore this person also must enjoy movies? I just happen to do charity work with visually impaired and blind people, and know that the majority of them do not enjoy movies, specifically because they can't see them.
It's perfectly good logic. This individual's defense boils down to 1) All blind people cannot enjoy movies. 2) I am a blind person. 3) Therefore, I cannot enjoy movies, had no motive for downloading this movie, and could not have done so.
The existence of any significant minority of people who legally blind, or at least as blind if not more blind than the individual in question, who are capable of enjoying movies, invalidates his first assumption. That the "majority" of blind people do not enjoy them does not establish his premise, which was that ALL blind people not only do not enjoy movies, but are essentially incapable of doing so.
For each example you could throw at me of those people, I could counter it with an example of people that consider them to be overpriced gimmicks. And the very fact that they are not selling well outside of iPad suggest that only the fanbois want them.
I've always wondered about this. How is it that there were only enough fanbois to garner Apple 3-5% of the PC market, but enough to get 70%+ of the MP3 player market, enough to move Apple past companies with much more experience in handsets in the smartphone market segment, and now to sell millions of tablets?
In the last (calendar) quarter of 2009, Apple sold 3.3 million computers-- their best quarter ever at the time. In that same quarter they sold 8.7M iPhones.
Where did Apple, a company with such a vanishingly small share of the personal computer market, get all of these "fanbois" from? Is every person who owns an Apple computer buying 2-3 iPads and iPhones each? If someone buys an iPhone or an iPad without previously having owned a Mac, or any other Apple product, are they a "fanboi"?
The problem with your argument is that you're trying to prove a negative, and you can't. Even a handful of people who bought the device because they have a legitimate use for it establishes firmly that there is, at least theoretically, a legitimate use for the device. If it were not selling well one could say that those who have a need for such a product don't constitute an addressable market, but that appears not to be the case.
Conversely, any number of people who don't consider the device to have a legitimate use does not establish that to be a fact, since the assertion is of a negative-- that the device lacks any legitimate use. I'm not sure why you'd choose to frame your argument this way, since it precludes you from actually winning.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
