I can see AT&T's point of view, because the white areas in the maps mean different things. In Verizon's map it mean's "definitely no service" because they have no coverage other than their 3G coverage, but in AT&T's map it means "probable (slower) service" because of their large 2G network. However in relation to the map's purpose they mean the same thing: "No 3G coverage" I can see how someone might be confused by that, but as others have stated the map is accurate and I don't see how Verizon has an obligation to paint a prettier picture for AT&T.

The real danger of coming in contact with Mercury is burning yourself (seeing as how it's so close to the Sun).

True, you can be of any party you want as long as you're an atheist. (troll mod incoming)

OK I fail at slashcode

The test results pointed to "high multitaskers" being worse at it because the tests weren't designed well to measure multitasking ability, in fact they seem to be testing the OPPOSITE. From the BBC article: [quote] In the first, they were tested for their ability to ignore irrelevant information. They were briefly shown a screen with two red rectangles and either 0, 2, 4 or 6 blue rectangles. The task was to determine whether, when the screen was shown again, one of the red rectangles had been rotated. Low multitaskers were better at the task, regardless of the number of blue rectangles, whereas high multitaskers got worse at it as the number of distracting blue rectangles went up. [/quote] What?? Obviously people who are WORSE multitaskers will be BETTER at ignoring the irrelevant information and focusing only on the rotation of the red rectangles. If they really wanted to test for multitasking ability they would ask for whether the red rectangles had been rotated, how many blue rectangles there were, and whether they were bigger or smaller than the last set. The other two tests also seem to test the ability to focus on a single task rather than try to test what makes someone proficient at multitasking

I've thought about doing a game (not anything complex like an MMO) with something like a "skill economy" that would address the problem of everybody picking the same stats; you have a skill "budget" and the cost of each stat goes up with the overall demand for that stat. In theory that seems like it could address the issue of copycat builds (of course it comes with its own set of issues).

I was basically countering the parent by showing that MS (or amazon) wasn't a "top campaign contributor" as he implied.

Not that I trust your motives in general.

hardly

Reuven Carlyle and Hans Dunshee received a combined total of $1200 from MS and $900 from the "Washington software alliance". They've received more from broadband interests which might lead counter to wanting to derail a datacenter (although the broadband money is probably focused more on different legislation), and quite a bit more from other sectors.