i'm not a google employee and i'd probably downmod this too because:
a) it's pretty irrelevent to the article. it's really just a list of people you don't like, with vague reasoning that you don't expand on at all. it doesn't mention chrome or web browsers at all
b) the fact that you said someone keeps downmodding this implies that you have posted this multiple times. spam deserves to be downmodded.
Many would resort to "tooling" for their cars, in the effort to disable this.
Radar detector? Reflective licence-plate shield? Yanking the seatbelt chime?
but most people don't. i've only known one person with a radar detector (my dad used to have one), and noone i know has a reflective license plate shield or similar.
you can guarantee that someone is much, much smarter than someone else whom you don't have the faintest idea who is, and whom your entire knowledge of is 1 sentence that they wrote on some website.
When the parent says the sentence is missing an article, he is correct. It should read "the US Justice Department has sent a letter." The word before the quotation, "the," is also an article but it modifies "US Justice Department" not "letter," which itself needs an article.
Ahh i did not see that, my brain just put the a in there for me because it was expected.
but when you get to seventh or eighth grade, you'll find that your teachers call this a "run-on sentence", and penalize you for writing such sentences yourself.
No they wouldn't. because the schools i went to had english teachers who understood the language. hint:just because a sentence is long does not make it a run-on sentence.
They'll also point out that "US Justice Department has sent letter" is missing an article.
Google has admitted that it is lobbying on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), The Hill has learned, but the company is not saying what position it is taking. Therefore, it is difficult to parse what effect its lobbying may have.
Google has admitted that it is lobbying on theCyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), The Hill has learned
Here’s Google on its public stance on CISPA: “We think this is an important issue and we’re watching the process closely but we haven’t taken a formal position on any specific legislation.”
Google is not alone in supporting CISPA, if it in fact does, as it will join tech giants Microsoft and Facebook in doing so, among others.
no. you may think you understood it, however i have not seen a single reply whinging at this that was not posted by an AC. therefore i cannot know that more than 1 person cannot understand the difference between what OP said and what you claim he said.
I have seen multiple logged in accounts stating things to show they understood the sentence as what the OP said it was. i also understood it as what he is saying it meant when i first read it.
would you care to provide an example of how that sentence could have been more concisely written?
However, on September 8, 1974 the powers-that-be effectively put a stop to that kind of subversive precedent. (look it up)
Ah-ha! i had always though it an accident, but now i can see that it was really an assassination attempt on Evel Knievel. Earlier, Knievel had wanted to jump the Grand Canyon, however apparently the U.S Department of the Interior would not allow it. so what did the subversive Mr. Knievel do? why he purchased land on snake river canyon.
his downfall was hiring an ex-navy engineer to build the Sky-Cycle. Clearly the government was able to get to him so that he could rig the parachute to deploy early.
Had you read more into the story though you would understand that Fortunately, libery won out that day and despite the 600 ft Fall, Knievel walked away with only minor injuries.
Funny, cause of all the muslims i know, none of them in this country (Australia) seem to have an issue with me eating non halal food, or not covering up everywhere, or well anything. I'm sure they exist, just like there exists white australians who go around beating up people of different cultures. i just tend to not associate with people like these.
Perhaps if you weren't so afraid of speaking to people of a different culture, you would have a different view.
assimilation is a slow process. people in one country who all come from another country/share a religion will tend to band together simply because they share something in common. as time passes (generally a couple of generations) there is more mingling between cultures.
i have never heard of these culture wars you speak of and i do not believe in their existence.
Australia has the ABC which is taxpayer funded. From what i understand they are not allowed to broadcast adverstisements (apart from ads for their own products/services) i may be wrong on that one but i know for sure that they must remain impartial in any political reporting.
Just Like how in the U.S. the Department of Transportation is cutting and gutting into businesses that want to create roads and charge people to use them because you know, they're Gov't funded so can undercut these businesses even to the point of providing roads that can be travelled on for free cause they can just use funds given to them and don't need to charge the users.
No i do not see how the CBC is exceeding their funding mandate. probably because i've actually you know, read it. maybe you should give that a go too. below is an excerpt from the CBC Site which i find relevant:
"...the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;...the programming provided by the Corporation should:...be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose,
it would seem that they are doing exactly this.
The Full Broadcasting act is available here I am unable to find anything in it that makes it seem that the CBC would be exceeding their funding mandate.
This comment by starseeker really sums it up best. In short, if you're against this, you're against non-profit organisations existing at all. This is the whole purpose non-profits get a different status. CBC are doing exactly what they were created to do.
Plus, the CBC being a Crown Corporation, is run by the state and funded by tax dollars, which also allows for many unfair advantages - They're claiming non-proft, getting the tax break, and being funded by tax dollars to begin with, don't even need to be profitable or self-sustaining, and is, as a result, undercutting big media.
Contrary to what people here (who really will just say anything to avoid just coming out and saying that all this hoopla is because they want things for free), might insist, this is a huge dick move by the CBC, and they have every reason to be pissed.
How is it a dick move to do precisely what they were set up to do? from their mandate:
The 1991 Broadcasting Act states that... "...the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;... be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and...
this would seem to be the most efficient means to provide this service. the fee was negotiated and agreed to. you can't change your mind afterwards unless you hold that right as part of the initial agreement.
Canada has decided as a country that they wanted to set up a body to make entertainment available to all its citizens the CBC is doing that in the best way possible. sorry if you don't like that but well, deal with it.
And all this talk about innovation is patently absurd, you'll see these very same people in any other thread arguing about how "blah blah blah ON A TABLET" is invalid and not innovative, but now, "blah blah blah, BUT FOR FREE" is the be all, end all of innovation?
1. They're not trying to patent a model for free distribution of music. 2. Their distribution method is not exactly the same as big media, only free.
a creadit/debit card is not a form of currency. you do not trade credit cards with other people. it is essentially part of an authentication system that allows you to connect to a banks system and authorise a payment to someone else. you can not recieve payment using one.
digital distribution, thank god, those fucking analog CD's and DVD's were so poor sounding when I copied them in my car
those cd's and dvd's that contain digital content however were distributed via physical means. unless you have some sort of futuristic 3d printer and access to a service which will digitally transfer the required data for said printer to 'create' a copy this cd/dvd.
digital download, how the hell else is that going to work?
this is a stupid term and the digital is redundant.
Slashdot Mirror
i'm not a google employee and i'd probably downmod this too because:
a) it's pretty irrelevent to the article. it's really just a list of people you don't like, with vague reasoning that you don't expand on at all. it doesn't mention chrome or web browsers at all
b) the fact that you said someone keeps downmodding this implies that you have posted this multiple times. spam deserves to be downmodded.
what do you know, people going to microsoft.com are more likely to be IE users.
not really, i use it to find typos.
Many would resort to "tooling" for their cars, in the effort to disable this.
Radar detector? Reflective licence-plate shield? Yanking the seatbelt chime?
but most people don't.
i've only known one person with a radar detector (my dad used to have one), and noone i know has a reflective license plate shield or similar.
I can guarantee he's much, much smarter than you.
you can guarantee that someone is much, much smarter than someone else whom you don't have the faintest idea who is, and whom your entire knowledge of is 1 sentence that they wrote on some website.
i didn't capitalize because i want trying to write a grammatically correct sentence. all i really cared about was people understanding what i wrote.
When the parent says the sentence is missing an article, he is correct. It should read "the US Justice Department has sent a letter." The word before the quotation, "the," is also an article but it modifies "US Justice Department" not "letter," which itself needs an article.
Ahh i did not see that, my brain just put the a in there for me because it was expected.
but when you get to seventh or eighth grade, you'll find that your teachers call this a "run-on sentence", and penalize you for writing such sentences yourself.
No they wouldn't. because the schools i went to had english teachers who understood the language. hint:just because a sentence is long does not make it a run-on sentence.
They'll also point out that "US Justice Department has sent letter" is missing an article.
what would you call that word before it.
nope but i feel for you mr whooshie
if you found that hard to read, your probably the won in need of communications lessons.
And the end of your first quote:
Google has admitted that it is lobbying on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), The Hill has learned, but the company is not saying what position it is taking. Therefore, it is difficult to parse what effect its lobbying may have.
Google has admitted that it is lobbying on theCyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), The Hill has learned
Here’s Google on its public stance on CISPA: “We think this is an important issue and we’re watching the process closely but we haven’t taken a formal position on any specific legislation.”
Google is not alone in supporting CISPA, if it in fact does, as it will join tech giants Microsoft and Facebook in doing so, among others.
Still want to argue about this?
One could argue that a car has a motor and is thus exempted from what GP said had GST only.
yeah, but you might as well choose how you're gonna get fucked
except for the cases that it is.
Depending on your data set median may be a more valid average than mean.
e.g. housing prices or income.
no. you may think you understood it, however i have not seen a single reply whinging at this that was not posted by an AC. therefore i cannot know that more than 1 person cannot understand the difference between what OP said and what you claim he said.
I have seen multiple logged in accounts stating things to show they understood the sentence as what the OP said it was. i also understood it as what he is saying it meant when i first read it.
would you care to provide an example of how that sentence could have been more concisely written?
Are you sticking to you views despite the scientific evidence? Check
which scientific evidence is he apparently 'ignoring'?
However, on September 8, 1974 the powers-that-be effectively put a stop to that kind of subversive precedent.
(look it up)
Ah-ha! i had always though it an accident, but now i can see that it was really an assassination attempt on Evel Knievel.
Earlier, Knievel had wanted to jump the Grand Canyon, however apparently the U.S Department of the Interior would not allow it. so what did the subversive Mr. Knievel do? why he purchased land on snake river canyon.
his downfall was hiring an ex-navy engineer to build the Sky-Cycle. Clearly the government was able to get to him so that he could rig the parachute to deploy early.
Had you read more into the story though you would understand that Fortunately, libery won out that day and despite the 600 ft Fall, Knievel walked away with only minor injuries.
Funny, cause of all the muslims i know, none of them in this country (Australia) seem to have an issue with me eating non halal food, or not covering up everywhere, or well anything. I'm sure they exist, just like there exists white australians who go around beating up people of different cultures. i just tend to not associate with people like these.
Perhaps if you weren't so afraid of speaking to people of a different culture, you would have a different view.
assimilation is a slow process. people in one country who all come from another country/share a religion will tend to band together simply because they share something in common. as time passes (generally a couple of generations) there is more mingling between cultures.
i have never heard of these culture wars you speak of and i do not believe in their existence.
Australia has the ABC which is taxpayer funded.
From what i understand they are not allowed to broadcast adverstisements (apart from ads for their own products/services) i may be wrong on that one but i know for sure that they must remain impartial in any political reporting.
Just Like how in the U.S. the Department of Transportation is cutting and gutting into businesses that want to create roads and charge people to use them because you know, they're Gov't funded so can undercut these businesses even to the point of providing roads that can be travelled on for free cause they can just use funds given to them and don't need to charge the users.
No i do not see how the CBC is exceeding their funding mandate. probably because i've actually you know, read it. maybe you should give that a go too.
below is an excerpt from the CBC Site which i find relevant:
"...the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains; ...the programming provided by the Corporation should: ...be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose,
it would seem that they are doing exactly this.
The Full Broadcasting act is available here
I am unable to find anything in it that makes it seem that the CBC would be exceeding their funding mandate.
This comment by starseeker really sums it up best.
In short, if you're against this, you're against non-profit organisations existing at all. This is the whole purpose non-profits get a different status.
CBC are doing exactly what they were created to do.
Plus, the CBC being a Crown Corporation, is run by the state and funded by tax dollars, which also allows for many unfair advantages - They're claiming non-proft, getting the tax break, and being funded by tax dollars to begin with, don't even need to be profitable or self-sustaining, and is, as a result, undercutting big media.
Contrary to what people here (who really will just say anything to avoid just coming out and saying that all this hoopla is because they want things for free), might insist, this is a huge dick move by the CBC, and they have every reason to be pissed.
How is it a dick move to do precisely what they were set up to do?
from their mandate:
The 1991 Broadcasting Act states that... ... ...
"...the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;
be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
this would seem to be the most efficient means to provide this service.
the fee was negotiated and agreed to. you can't change your mind afterwards unless you hold that right as part of the initial agreement.
Canada has decided as a country that they wanted to set up a body to make entertainment available to all its citizens the CBC is doing that in the best way possible. sorry if you don't like that but well, deal with it.
And all this talk about innovation is patently absurd, you'll see these very same people in any other thread arguing about how "blah blah blah ON A TABLET" is invalid and not innovative, but now, "blah blah blah, BUT FOR FREE" is the be all, end all of innovation?
1. They're not trying to patent a model for free distribution of music.
2. Their distribution method is not exactly the same as big media, only free.
digital currency, fucking already have it
a creadit/debit card is not a form of currency. you do not trade credit cards with other people. it is essentially part of an authentication system that allows you to connect to a banks system and authorise a payment to someone else. you can not recieve payment using one.
digital distribution, thank god, those fucking analog CD's and DVD's were so poor sounding when I copied them in my car
those cd's and dvd's that contain digital content however were distributed via physical means. unless you have some sort of futuristic 3d printer and access to a service which will digitally transfer the required data for said printer to 'create' a copy this cd/dvd.
digital download, how the hell else is that going to work?
this is a stupid term and the digital is redundant.