Crook. Go to jail. Do not pass Go.
In before jokes that M$ has way too much money anyway.
3442 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
I was commenting on the creative spelling of the OP, not on the correct one. This is precisely why I said Hippocrates had nothing to do with it, because as you said, his name is very different from the *correct* spelling.
Next: The subject of the article is not an internal military memo, so your experience in the service is irrelevant. It is a legal filing. I fail to see how the disclosure of a request for Twitter records of WikiLeaks supporters can result in dead armed force personnel; but maybe you can imagine a contrived scenario for this?
This already exists to some point... There are paying services out there, that are used by companies who don't mind spending money and like to have technical support. I understand you can even get support from Google if you pay for it.
But unless you find a way to make them illegal, there will always be free email on the web, and it is very likely that the general population will flock to it. And THIS is what Google is good at, not making people pay for its services.
Even the article linked did not offer a definition.
Vendor... Affiliate... R... R... Rebate? Nah. Robot? That would be for android. Reseller? Ah, Vendor And Reseller? Weird. Ok, googled it: Value Added Resellers.
Funny, of the three words I had, Reseller is the one I would have doubted the most. I would think that the whole idea of "reseller" does not sit well with Apple. The way they see it, there is only one company allowed to sell anything to their customers; and anybody else is a parasite trying to leech off of their success. Maybe that could be why they don't encourage it?
Just coming from the New York Times website, I feel a strong case of whiplash. (The big title there says: "Frantic Effort at Plant as Japan Raises Warning Level")
Though I do feel that the concerns about the nuclear reactor are overblown considering the thousands of deaths due to the tsunami, Lewis does sound like an ostrich.
The author does explain why financial activity is desirable. It is important for business to be able to diminish their risks by trading in options and futures.
You should also not state an assumption that 1% of financial transactions are involved in financing real activities, then ask "Disprove if you can". If you have an opinion, it is your business to defend it. Otherwise you just invite answers of the type: "I believe you have no idea what you are talking about. Disprove if you can".
There is no reason to believe that a transaction that is extremely low profit is unrelated to the financing of real activities. A small business is in constant need of small sums to be repaid next week. Whenever you order something, the business you buy it from has to build it first, give it to you, then ask for your money. Where do you think they get the money for the materials? They make a small loan, for a couple of weeks. Of course, the transactions are low-profit, because the bank does not charge much interest for such a small period. One of the largest impact of the recent crisis on small businesses is that they were unable to secure these small loans from banks, because banks were too scared to lend.
They worked for an hour before stopping working due to being damaged by the tsunami.
They had also batteries, but these last only eight hours.
They will probably release the pressure into the atmosphere before a meltdown can happen. This would however release radiation.
The fix involves whitelisting gmail, and in the discussion, people are saying that Gmail is blacklisted by policy. Wonderful.
I will count that as a Fail from Google, I'm afraid. They should have seen this coming. Considering how much they are hoping to convince people to use Google Apps, this looks really bad.
Isn't the whole point of targeted advertising that the ads are more likely to advertise something that is of interest to the viewer? Isn't Google top in advertising because they do that well?
If the ad provider does not use data from the viewer, doesn't it remove the whole premise of targeted advertising, meaning they can only show random ads that are less likely to be of interest to the viewer?
Not that I care, but it seems to me that Facebook is opting to have irrelevant ads.
A friend of mine hadn't realized that after buying an Apple care package, he had to register it for his macBook Pro in order to get insured. Two years later, he brought the malfunctioning laptop with the still unopened Apple care package. He still had his laptop repaired for free, even though it should have been way too late.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019