Yeah, to clarify for everyone: this is notable because it's the first mobile submersible that can operate at those depths—the Trieste brought two passengers to the Challenger Deep, but it was only capable of descent and ascent, not powered lateral movement.

Wow! Facebook must cause divorces! Or, Facebook is now simply a "space" in which social activity takes place for a great many people, and that evidence of illicit affairs and other information unpalatable to a spouse can be found there just as it was previously found in desks, coat pockets, cameras, and inboxes.

Actually, I suspect that it's because Verizon just cares about what's going on in _their_ forums, and they included that clause so they could terminate the internet service of complainers / trolls in their forums without saying so explicitly. That's what I would do, if I were a myopic, profit-maximizing natural monopoly.

I'm pretty amazed too. Your post made an assessment of how all government systems should be paid for, and to support this you cited an example where others pay unfairly for rural residents' services. I merely looked at the general principle that you were proposing (that only users of public services should pay for those services) and cited an example where people's financial means prevent them from paying "their fair share" of the cost of the service, but (in my humble opinion) still deserve to enjoy the benefits of the infrastructure in question, in this case, roads. I don't see this as twisting your argument at all, just raising an example where your system fails to achieve optimal results. Unless, that is, you think that only rural users should follow this pay-for-your-own-services principle, which you did not indicate in your post--on the contrary, you seemed to be advocating the principle everywhere, without excepting poor urban areas.

In any case, if you agree that poor inner city folk need to be subsidized because they don't have the means to pay, and that this is an OK use of govt. money, then we have nothing to argue about anyway. Incidentally, I also think it's unfair that we're subsidizing rural development, and that it should stop.

Also, it sounds like multiple governments', or at least multiple government agencies' data are on the same cloud? I hope for Google's sake it doesn't get cracked, because pissing off one government sounds like no fun, let alone a handful of them.

Would that also follow for maintenance costs? In that case should poor people, and thus poor neighborhoods, get lower quality roads than rich people? Naturally, this is already happening to some extent--bad neighborhoods often have unclean roads riddled with potholes, but in your "ideal" scenario I can only imagine infrastructure being yet more unevenly distributed. This would be a great way to create something approximating a third world country, right here in America!

As another intern at IBM this summer I can say without equivocation that I don't think you understand just how big IBM is. I was in Research, and I certainly didn't know anyone who used Symphony with any regularity. There's Global Business Services (IBM's massive consulting arm), too, and I know for certain that people working there use whatever their clients want them to use, which is often MS Office.

perhaps not as many as you'd think... it's almost all in Russian(?). Oh, and don't everyone go check it out at once--we wouldn't want Slashdot blamed for the next DDoS attack on this fellow's account. I can see the headlines now...

...now that I found out that I'm still patronizing AOL in some form. Yes, I used to have AOL. For shame.

I particularly enjoyed the "child-friendly" mouse shaped like the head of Tweety Bird, where you click by jabbing his(?) eyes.

... and my experiences with AppleCare providers and Apple's genius bar itself have always been exemplary. However, my concern is not whether you or other service providers will unfairly judge my problem as user abuse, it's that these judgment calls may be taken away from the care provider and instead, through this automated sensing, allow (or force, through policy) servicepeople to skip a thorough examination and dismiss claims because the abuse sensor was triggered, in a sort of first-pass firewall fashion. I don't know that Apple will do this and I sincerely hope that they won't, but the technology seems as if it would be very well-suited to that end.

Apple would probably make money in the end through decreased support costs, but all the same I'd be a lot less inclined to get AppleCare if I felt that there was a significant risk of wear-and-tear getting interpreted by this sensor as "abuse."

I'd be a lot less inclined to get AppleCare if I felt that there was a significant risk of wear-and-tear getting interpreted by this sensor as "abuse."

sorry, dupe :(

Okay, I think I should post a clarification before someone misunderstands and moderates me down. I don't think anyone is trying to sabotage anyone--I think it would be ludicrous for Microsoft to sabotage its software, just as I think it would be ludicrous for Apple to sabotage boot camp when it is a major selling point of Macs to switchers.