links vom 19.06.2012

  oleb.net: Pro­gress   #

pas­sen­der ver­gleich ei­nes w-201 und 2010er mer­ce­des mo­tor­raum und ei­nes ap­ple II und 2012 mac­book pro ma­schi­nen­raums. /dar­ing­fi­re­ball.net

  mi­ros­law.tumb­lr.com: YOU­TUBE   #

sehr, sehr gu­tes bild.

  six­tus.cc: Wie man sich mit dem Leis­tungs­schutz­recht eine Goog­le-Melk­ma­schi­ne baut   #

oder wie der ge­setz­ge­ber sich mit re­fe­ren­ten­ent­wür­fen zum hans wurst macht.

  ny­ti­mes.com: How a Me­xi­can Drug Car­tel Makes Its Bil­li­ons   #

faz­si­nie­ren­de ge­schich­te über die me­xi­ka­ni­schen dro­gen­kar­tel­le:

The­re's a re­ason coke and he­ro­in cost so much more on the street than at the farm gate: you'­re not pay­ing for the drugs; you'­re com­pen­sa­ting ever­yo­ne along the dis­tri­bu­ti­on chain for the risks they as­su­med in get­ting them to you. Smugg­lers of­ten nego­tia­te, in ac­tua­ri­al de­tail, about who will be held lia­ble in the event of lost in­ven­to­ry. Af­ter a bust, ar­res­ted traf­fi­ckers have been known to de­mand a re­ceipt from aut­ho­ri­ties, so that they can pro­ve the loss was not be­cau­se of their own ne­gli­gence (which would mean they might have to pay for it) or their own thie­very (which would mean they might have to die). Some Co­lom­bi­an car­tels have ac­tual­ly of­fe­red insu­rance po­li­ci­es on nar­co­tics, as a safe­guard against loss or sei­zu­re.

It's not just the fe­de­ra­les that the nar­cos fear; it's also one an­o­ther. The bru­tal op­por­tu­nism of the un­der­world eco­no­my me­ans that most part­ner­ships are tem­po­ra­ry, and tre­a­chery abounds. For de­ca­des, Chapo work­ed clo­se­ly with his child­hood fri­end Ar­turo Bel­trán Ley­va, a fe­ar­so­me traf­fi­cker who ran a pro­fi­ta­ble sub­si­dia­ry of Si­na­loa. But in 2008, the two men split, then went to war, and Bel­trán Ley­va's ass­as­sins were la­ter bla­med for mur­de­ring one of Chapo's sons. To re­du­ce the li­keli­hood of clas­hes like the­se, the car­tel has re­vi­ved an un­li­kely cus­tom: the an­ci­ent art of dy­nastic mar­ria­ge.

ei­gent­lich eine ge­schich­te für die brand­eins: un­ter­neh­mer­tum at it's best. oder so.

  netz­po­li­tik.org: DJU/ver.di: Leis­tungs­schutz­recht ir­gend­wie in Ord­nung   #

in­ter­es­sant auch wie künf­tig un­ter dem leis­tungs­schutz­recht mit in­ter­views um­ge­gan­gen wer­den könn­te; in­ter­viewt eine zei­tung je­man­den, könn­te es il­le­gal/li­zenz­pflich­tig sein, als in­ter­view­ter dar­auf hin­zu­wei­sen.

  po­pe­hat.com: The Oat­me­al v. Fun­ny­Junk, Part IV: Charles Car­re­on Sues Ever­y­bo­dy   #

das wird im­mer ab­sur­der. trotz­dem, in­ter­es­san­te es­ka­la­ti­on.

  scrip­ting.com: Be a re­vo­lu­tio­na­ry, turn off the TV   #

apro­pos fil­ter-bubble. ist nor­ma­les fern­se­hen, nicht die schlimms­te form ei­ner fil­ter bubble?

  alex.pt: The Screen of Each Lap­top in the Ap­ple Store Is Set to the Exact Same Ang­le   #

70°.