You don't have to use Flash with youtube. http://youtube.com/html5

So you'd have a bunch over local wifi networks, interconnected to make one large network? Someone in one city could access something in another city by these "inter-network" links, right? That network of inter-network links could be called the "internetwork". Maybe shorten that to "internet". Seriously, you're proposing nothing more or less than rebuilding the internet over again. The only change you're really suggesting is to use wifi rather than fiber to connect between cities. There's actually a reason we use fiber, not wifi, to connect between cities, and between campae. Fiber is a lot better for that purpose than wifi is. Wifi is designed for, and good at, letting you walk around your house with a tablet. It's not designed for, and not good at, links more than 30-100 feet.

Sounds like you know WTF you're talking about. Those of us with zero combat hours ought to listen to you.
I've only flown at 60 knots, 1/10th the speed of a combat aircraft, and noone was shooting at me. A sim couldn't prepare me for that, an ultralight. Flying almost straight down at the ground (it seems) from 2000 feet up and keeping your noise pointed at the ground until a few seconds before you hit, without freaking out requires more than pretending on a computer screen. That's in a $2,500 plane that goes 65 mph and the sim can't replicate it. I can't imagine what it's like to be a combat aviator, but I'm pretty damn sure playing an expensive video game isn't proper preparation!

The overwhelming majority of lottery winners are broke again within a few years. That proves throwing money doesn't solve the problem of "50 inch plasma in a trailer" culture.

The problem is that some subcultures, and also general American culture more than some others, value flash over investment, rims over tuition. Throwing money at many people just means they'll have bigger rims on their hoopty, more gold around their neck.

  If someone from Japan or India gets $10,000, they'll turn it into a college degree or a business. Give some. Americans $10,000 and they'll put a fown payment on a tricked out 2006 Cadillac at the note lot.

On the other hand, Google could have reasonably decided that if they start paying every site they index, that would put then out of business. Better to give up French news than signal they are ready to pay people for the privilege of sending them traffic. So paying off the French newspapers could increase profit in they very short term, but make business impossible in the long term. That would be dumb to set such a precedent, of course.

Also, t's not just the direct effect on Google. As someone else pointed out, sites like Slashdot post even longer summaries. Under such precedent, Slashdot can't have any more summaries without paying the site they link to. That is / would be bad for the internet, and Google knows that what's bad for the internet is bad for Google.

Linux followed the IEFI standard. Samsung did not. Unambiguous foul on samsung.

More specifically, Samsung tried to implement version 2 of the standard and advertised it as version 2, but accidentally left in code which required version 1 behavior. Additionally, if an OS implemented version 2, when Samsung's firmware got confused, it didn't throw the proper error message, but instead returned it's own address to be overwritten. So at least two failures on Samsung's part. Linux simply followed the standard as written.

Enemy plan:
Fire 100 "cheap missiles" to get intercepted
Wait for the US to use up it's anti-missile capabilities shooting those down
Fire more, more better missiles to hit target.

What would really happen
Fire 6 "cheap" missiles
Die in a hail of US missiles you have no defense against

In economics, "business failures" is defined as discontinuation of operations resulting in losses to creditors. In other words, companies that went out of business AND couldn't pay their outstanding bills when they did. That's easier to measure than just "companies that stopped doing business" because the creditors report the loss, whereas a company that just stops may not report anything.

I'd say it was 70% indirect, but I'll give a few examples of direct effects of his policies. We'll limit it to just health insurance policies to keep this from going on for 20 pages.
We've long had pretty good health insurance, which we were happy with. We paid 100% of the cost even for part time employees. In two years, as Obamacare is being phased in, the base premium increased by more than 50%. Total cost close to doubled, as I'll explain.
Also, half of our employees have a profit share, they each own a few percent of the company. Under Obama, the law was changed so that we had to report their insurance cost as taxable income on their W-2 AND the company could no longer deduct health insurance cost. (Under Obama everyone's insurance cost is deductible EXCEPT business owners', including 2% owners like our employees. Did I mention he's anti-business.) That penalty for making our employees owners increased cost another 30%, on top of the 50% premium increase. So that's one example, Obamacare nearly doubled our insurance cost.

Of course his policies were doing the same thing to our customers, doubling THEIR costs, leaving them with less money to by our products. Less sales + higher costs = we're out of business and te employees are jobless. That's the result of making policy based on feelings rather than actually thinking through the results.

Sometimes pretty difficult. My fiance told me there was no way I was going to git init.

Some Slashdot readers are like a certain type of abused spouse who keeps finding someone to abuse them, and actually believing that he won't do it again. Fool me once - shame on you, fool me twice - shame on me, get fooled for 30 years running - you're deliberately choosing to be an idiot.

That'll be great. Often, such as during the primaries while there are still 8 candidates, or when the two candidates are otherwise tied, I eliminate candidates based on relative honesty. I was wishing for a real-time politifact scroller. They all stretch the truth, of course, but some WAY more than others.

This, or later versions, could really be a boon to voters who aren't really interested in politics, so they often don't know an "obvious" lie when they hear it. For example, in some polls most Obama voters didn't recognize the name of the then-current vice president. How are they supposed to judge the veracity of a candidate's statements when they have no interest in, and little knowledge of, politics? (Not saying they are dumb, they just spend their time on things other than politics.)

I had envisioned some invited experts typing quick notes like "factually false" into a chat type system, but if a machine can be more objective, great.

Sure, most of the time I like small things, especially small, dedicated single purpose software that does one thing well. I watch all of my porn with mplayer. For the home entertainment system, though, scheduling TV recordings, etc., clicking a the menu an integrated suite is much nicer.

As a business owner, I strongly disagree. Being the first to market with something cool is a huge advantage. If you're a tech geek, consider the early versions of Java. It was HORRIBLE. Because it was conceived, designed, implemented, "tested" and sent to market in about a year, it was perhaps the worst programming language ever. There's a reason they wanted it out in a year, though - to be the first browser app language available. Do you remember the competing languages that came out in the months to follow, between 1996 and 1999? Neither does anyone else. Java was first to market and that pretty much solidified their dominance for the next fifteen years. So buying the first license for say $50,000 would be much smarter than waiting a month and paying $49,000, sometimes.

ROTFL. The private sector is doing fine, right? Even you President Kardashian couldn't say that with a straight face. When he tried to say it, he had to come back out and retract that statement, saying "It is absolutely clear that the economy is NOT doing fine."

I've been in business twenty years. (or 25 if you count part time businesses). I've launched four completely different companies. Our business, and thousands of others, was taken down when Obama launched his attack on business. We were fine under Reagan. We hired people under Bush I. We did fine with the fast and loose economy of Clinton. No problems under Bush II. (Though the last year of Bush II wasn't awesome.) If it was us, we wouldn't have been around that long. In the two years following Obama's election, business failures increased by 40%. 40% man. If you like Obama, fine. Maybe you like his smile. Maybe you think he smells nice, whatever. But don't lie to yourself - he's radically anti-business.

There's no bigger supporter of Obama than liberal journalist Fareed Zakaria. Zakaria is honest with himself, though, saying Obama is "at his core, anti-business."

If you don't know how you end up paying AT LEAST 63% in taxes, this should be educational for you. I guess the numbers in my original post were hard to read because they were mixed with the prose. Maybe better formatting will help you. But first, let's agee on some averge rates to use in our example:

The first tax we'll consider, corporate income tax, ranges from about 24% to 44% in different places. For example, in California, USA, a medium sized business pays 35% federal, 8.84% state, plus local. In the UK, it's 24% income tax, but then also 20% VAT which compounds to about 35% total VAT.
We'll use a mid-range number - 30% corporate income tax.

Then that same money goes to you, the owner, and you pay tax on the same money again. 28% is the UK rate, and it's about the average of the several US rates.

Then when you spend that same money, you pay tax on it again. 12% if you spend it on gas/petrol, 27% if you use it to pay your mortgage. We'll use 18% as an average.

For every 100 dollars/euros/punds you earn:
100 earned
70 after corporate income tax
50 remains after owner's income tax
41 of goods can be purchased after paying "spending that income" tax. (Gas, property, or sales tax)

So you earned 100, and can buy 41 worth of stuff after taxes. You paid 59% taxes in this example. That doesn't even count the taxes you paid before calculating profit, like business personal property tax, etc.