That and to be fare, Enterprise drives may have a much higher level of usage then personal drives.
1. It is ineffective. The Koch brothers stance that there is some Liberal Conspiracy going on, hacking them and creating a DOS only proves their paranoia, and only makes them more resolved to continue.
2. It could hurt the wrong people. Are you hitting only their data center, or is that data center shared with other organizations as well. I had a job at a placed that hosted Electronic medical records. We had an external hosting site... They also hosted a big evil bank. They DOS the Bank but they also DOS thousands of doctors EMR systems. Granted we had a backup route, but that may not be the case.
3. You put your views on the moral low ground. Are your point so week and irrational that you need to jump into a technological bulling to get your point across.
At the saving of battery life and natural non back-lighting you loose refresh speed, and brightness of the device, and the ability to use it in the dark without some external light shining on it.
We have the Kindle and the Kindle Fire. One with ePaper and one with an LCD display. The Kindle is only for reading, the Kindle Fire is for much more.
When given an option people usually choose more.
In countries such as Korea and China, battery life may be more necessity over more features.
Also companies like to try out product ideas in other countries as to get a general feel for the product before they go into mass production.
Freedom of speech isn't safe. In fact it is very dangerous. That is why the United States has that first in its bill of rights, because it is so dangerous, you need a powerful law to keep it intact.
But it is really fair for the Government to say protect Far Left ideas while trying to hinder far right ones?
Now I do not support this ideology, and I agree it could lead to dangerous behavior. But trying to suppress it, could be worse. That means you could have a large population afraid to speak their minds. And if there was a government shift to the Far Right, there could be far more supporters then you would think. With little education to help moderate many of them.
Freedom of Speech and Democracy are hand and hand. Now Democracy isn't about getting the best leader, it is about balancing safety with freedom of speech.
If you have Far Right ideas and you are vocal about them, and you still loose each election, it means you probably will not be able to take over the government, any attempt including military fill fail as bulk of the citizens will be against you. However if you hinder the freedom of speech, you could have the majority to join on your side in case of some revolution happens.
Now many bible stories probably have a source of truth to them... However I doubt they are rarely as grandiose as the stories make them out to be.
However if a story in the Bible is shown to be true or false, it really doesn't but a final clinch in is their a god or not belief.
Now did Noah build a massive boat. Or was a merchant, with a set of connecting rafts, and when a big flood came he got lucky, he had enough supplies to wait it out and get to a safe spot... Perhaps in Europe were there wasn't much population...
That stated, Europeans probably came from a small group of nomads who have been out casted from their home land... (The family of Kian?) and probably made their own society there, growing over time.
Yes the corporate interest is to not leave any money on the table, however if by lowering the cost you can get more people, there is a happy medium where you can maximize profit.
As the consumer you will want to get the most for less, or enough for less. However they are willing to pay a little more to get what they feel is in value.
It meets in the middle.
When people say Innovative, we think of something that when we see it, we go Wow this is so cool I would never think of of that myself, and usually throws the rest of the industry in catch up mode.
Now the iPhone (not the iPad) was an innovative idea. Phones before the iPhone had external keyboards, at the expense of of screen size, or thickness. The idea of very few real buttons at the time was very foreign to us. And using gestures seemed almost impossible, as many early gesture systems had a lot of complicated gestures to get tasks done.
The iPhone wasn't innovative based on its features, there were other companies that had phones with more features or better hardware. But the innovation was able to successfully make a phone, that the advance feature were accessible and to the end users. The idea of say browsing the web on your phone, or have it as your main method to check for email seemed silly before, today it is quite common.
What happened after the iPhone kicked off, it threw the Industry in catch up mode. It took years for good Android phones to get into the market to start competing, and these new phones all are based on the iPhone.
Now the iPad isn't that innovative, it was easy to realize you take your iPhone and just give it a bigger screen, and fit better processing.
Other innovative products.
ID software 3D shooter. Wolfinstine 3d and Doom. They had some wire-frame attempts, and a few polygon based games. But games before that for the most part where 2d sprite based (Side Platform like Mario, or top down like Zelda), specificity for fast paced action games.
Nintendo Entertainment System. Unlike the Atari and other predecessors it didn't give any allusion that it was a person computer, just a straight game console. Priced more affordable than the others, and focusing on games.
Innovation is very rare. Most of the time it is copying someone else idea and tweaking it so there are different set of trade offs. Now their tweaks may change the market, but not as much as a innovative product.
How you choose to license your product, isn't really that big of a deal. Open Source, sure people can tinker with it coming with some new ideas. Commercial Software will have paid employees trying to come up with something new.
"America's system can't ever work"
Dumb ass hippy comment.
The system can work, but you need to put the right controls in place to insure that corporate interests align with the patients interests.
America has a good health care system. The only thing is it is financed by private companies, and less by government.
We have a strong health care infrastructure, Hospitals, Dr. Offices, Clinics. Access to advanced medical equipment.
However our system take a capitalistic approach to health care, the more money you got the better your care.
Now this has its advantages.
1. Being that the rich are willing to pay for better services, it allows institutions to have better equipment.
2. Being that health care is on the persons dime (either directly or threw insurance) they are more likely to make decision if a particular care is worth it or not to take care of. Vs. a single payer system, where some procedures will be deemed by a higher authority as not worthy.
And it has its disadvantages.
1. Unequal quality of care
2. Basic services are more expensive.
But this study is about countries with out a proper health care network. And your obvious statement is only obvious after the evidence is shown, before that it was just a theory. Health Care may have a less impact, as the money saved in not spending on health care can go toward other things, to improve life. Or the amount of investment may be lower at 5% or higher say 25%
In the other countries you let these people have control of their lives too. They are just brainwashed so they don't mention their problems outside their homes.
Corn is a major export crop of the United States.
Europe government wants to promote food that is grown within the Union. It really makes sense that a European scientist would feel pressured to find evidence against a primary US import.
As the US agriculture system is very efficient at making low cost food.
I know it is trendy to be Anti-American as it must be some conspiracy from big US companies to hide the truth, like with Big Tobacco.
But what if GM Food is actually perfectly safe like the science says it is.
They are disadvantage on almost every thing out there.
You can pine on the disadvantages, or you can rate them and see how to fix them, without cutting into an other advantage, or increasing an other disadvantage.
Normally if a protocol is Fast, it is unsecured. if it is Secure, it is slow. If it is complex and full featured, there are a lot of failures in implementation, if it is solid, there is a lot less features.
Life is full of tradeoffs, Stop pining on the road you didn't take, and work on the road you took to make it better.
Group think is the Opposite of Synergy.
Well it is the opposite outcome.
Unlike most people I actually know what Synergy means, and see how it is greatly misused.
Synergy is the process where a group of people working on a problem come up with a solution which is greater then the sum of what any individual could make.
Group Think is where the a group of people working on a problem come up with a solution which is less then the sum of what any individual could make.
Obtaining Synergy in an environment is very hard to achieve, because you need to make sure you don't have strong personalities trying pushing bad ideas thew their own force of will, or intimating position. People getting tired out from the process and settling on lesser ideas, reserved personalities not giving their ideas, and a slew of other things going on as well.
Group think is what usually comes out of these events, where the strongly supported stupid idea is forced down the thought, with issues not properly evaluated, and blank assumptions made.
Well yes and no.
The problem during the Tech Bubble, was the industry was Employee Driven. In order to get employees you needed to offer them a lot to get them. Hence the 6 Figure Web developers, and all this other stuff.
The bubble popped, and it became Employer driven. So the Employees want these jobs and will follow the demands of the employer.
So right now trickle down isn't working, because we still have an Employer market.
That said they are hiring more as their companies grows and that does trickle down.
Trickle down does work, but it isn't the end all be all that the republicans want you to think. Trickle down is a small factor, larger factors is good old Supply and Demand.
You can be Smart and Evil at the same time.