Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Urgh (Score 1) 444

by GNious (#47758191) Attached to: Net Neutrality Is 'Marxist,' According To a Koch-Backed Astroturf Group

I'm Scandinavian.
I consider the Scandinavian (Nordic) countries Socialist, as would most-anyone in Scandinavia as far as I've seen.

Current PM in Denmark is the head of the Social Democrats.
Previous PM in Sweden represented the Swedish Social Democratic Party.
In Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, socialist parties are amongst the largest parties.
(Norway recently turned toward Neo-nazism, so not going to use them as example)

Being Socialist doesn't explicitly impair your ability to have a free market.

+ - Transparent Solar Collectors May Replace Conventional Windows-> 1

Submitted by Zothecula
Zothecula (1870348) writes "Researchers working at Michigan State University (MSU) have created a completely transparent solar collector which is so clear that it could replace conventional glass in windows. The new devices – dubbed transparent luminescent solar concentrators – have the potential to not only turn windows into solar electric generators, but the screens of smartphones, vehicle glazing, and almost anything else that has a see-through surface."
Link to Original Source

Comment: I'm missing something about this product, I think. (Score 1) 78

by GNious (#47741411) Attached to: Major Delays, Revamped Beta For Credit-Card Consolidating Gadget Coin

Reading, it sounds like it is able to replicate various mag-stripes, and therefore can replicate various credit-cards.

This, in a world where credit-card issuers are trying real hard to get away from mag-stripes and over to chip-only operation, makes no sense.
Personally, I've seen a LOT of stores over the last 4-5 years, where the mag-reader has been taped over (or a standard cardboard thing inserted), so the only option is to use the card-chip; likewise, several new portable readers (in restaurants, taxis), that only read chips and not mag-strips.

Sooo.. what is it about this product, that makes it worth however little money it may cost??

Comment: Re:Reputation (Score 1) 210

by GNious (#47740925) Attached to: Oregon Sues Oracle For "Abysmal" Healthcare Website

It sounds like Oracle's fucking business model. Overcommit, underbudget, get the job by being the "cheapest". Once the client's committed to your implementation, claim that the project brief was misleading or something and massively jack up the budget or leave the client with a stinking piece of shit.

Can confirm is not only Oracle, but any large (IT? Consulting?) company, that thinks they can get away with it, uses this strategy.

Comment: Re:That's it? (Score 1) 609

by GNious (#47726617) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

Yes, if you pay for a paper-copy of the Mail, you get ads ... and paper ... Naturally, this would only work if you could buy an ad-free service, i.e. it would be dependent on the content-provider to be willing to sell you an ad-free product; This is why I noted that sat-tv used to be ad-free, due to people paying for it, but contains ads despite the subscription fees.

Also, at rates of 1-10GBP, there is room for more than 4 sites before you hit 140GBP - I didn't enumerate every site on the planet, just some examples. I'm sure some are already ad-free, some have ads you do not mind or that you can ignore, so you could chose to only pay a subscription at those site where it would help you the most?

Comment: Re:Working from home (Score 1) 159

by GNious (#47723527) Attached to: Calif. Court Rules Businesses Must Reimburse Cell Phone Bills

My last employer paid our private internet-bill (up to some amount), as everyone in my team needed internet when working from home during night- and weekend-shifts.

This went well until they repeatedly "forgot" to pay the bill, and the provider cut internet, phone and TV to some of the guys in the team, due to considering them all part of a single package (despite being billed separately).

Comment: Re:That's it? (Score 1) 609

by GNious (#47720871) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

I don't think you're looking at this the right way....

Ads are per-site.
Those sites are generally free (ignoring the various ads).

To pay for an "ad-free internet", you would pay the sites you use directly, to get an ad-free experience with them.
You use YouTube? Pay them 3GBP/month.
You use Slashdot? Pay them 1GBP/month.
You use Reddit? ...uki, they should then pay you...
You use The Daily Mail? Pay them 9.99GBP/month. ...and so on. Eventually, the internet bits that you use, are ad-free for you.

Yes, this doesn't make the complete internet ad-free, but it makes everything you use on the internet ad-free; your experience becomes an ad-free one.
No issues with a central collection and distribution, no licensing headaches, no cumbersome barrier-of-entry for new sites, and still the presence of this "democracy" thing you talk about.

Note: The idea of for-pay TV (Satellite TV in the form of Sky) was that the consumers would pay directly, and not have any ads ... not sure that worked out very well.

Despite all appearances, your boss is a thinking, feeling, human being.

Working...