Well, then you haven't been paying attention. It does not require paying for TV time. It requires doing a lot of work and convincing people. If you were to commit your life to it, and you are a charismatic person, you could easily accomplish it in 20-40 years.
Where do you have any evidence that she ever believed in magic? The story is, she went on a date with a guy, they went someplace and had a midnight picnic, she discovered later that the site of the picnic was a witch altar. Oh by the way, Coons wasn't just "interested in communism", he went to South Africa to do volunteer work with a communist organization.
How about having been to all of the 57 states? There are more, but I'm not going to go and dig them all up. It just shows my point, the press doesn't report Obama's slip ups. When Obama gets off of the Teleprompter, he is just as much of a comedy goldmine as Bush was.
Oppossums aren't actually a new species in New York. It's just that the population was wiped out years ago. This was a re-introduction.. That being said, this was stupid. Opossums are as much pests as rats.
I don't know, but could you list some real papers. You do realize that reporters for the National Enquirer are fact-checked more often than those for the NYT or the Wa-Po.
I am pretty sure that Brooklyn already encourage raptors to deal with pigeons (most large cities do). Sometime in the 80s, someone did a study and found that not only do raptors (in particular peregrine falcons) significantly diminish the pigeon population but there crap is less corrosive, so it reduces the impact of bird crap on structures such as bridges.
Really, you have seen Jon Stewart lampoon Obama's mis-speaks as much as he did Bush's? Obama makes as many bloopers as Bush did, you just don't hear about them ad nauseum.
And her opponent was an avowed Communist at the same point in his life. Which is more dangerous a man who at one time (and possibly still) wanted to turn this country into the Soviet Union, or a woman who at one time dated men who practiced witchcraft?
Well, see the problem with that is I would have to see the questions in order to necessarily believe that the results actually reflect how well people know what is going on. The last such poll I saw had at least 25% of the questions to which the answer was a matter of opinion, not fact, yet those who did not give the preferred answer of the pollster were considered "wrong".
I wish I had waited to post until I read this. Two of the three names on the application for the permit for this rally are political operatives from the Clinton Administration, so yeah this is really non-partisan.
Yes, since the actual Democrats can't stand a chance getting a significant turnout for a rally, they got Stewart and Colbert to front for them so that they can pretend that this is a non-partisan rally. Take a look at the names on the application for the permit for this. Two of the three are former members of the Clinton Whitehouse. The third is a corporation that I didn't do the research to find out its background.
That is exactly what I thought when I first read the title. "Doesn't it just go away when I empty the trash folder? Do computers in Australia have some sort of design flaw that causes deleted computer files to continue to clutter up the hard drive?" Then I realized that they were talking about tech equipment like computers, cell phones, copy machines, etc.
It would be nice if headline writers would use terms with consistency.
Most people don't go looking for a pirated version at all, they just go out and buy it. A small, but possibly significant number, have problems with the game because of the DRM. They don't, for the most part, go, "Oh DRM sucks, I won't buy another game with DRM." Instead they go, "Game Publisher XYZ sucks, I won't buy another game from them." The question is, does the game publisher increase its sales by enough to justify the cost of DRM? The other important question is, how much does the inconvenience of DRM on this title hurt sales of future titles?
The publishers don't seem to be asking these questions. They don't seem to realize that most of those who pirate games are not their customers, have never been their customers and will never be their customers (except as the result of natural changes in period of life that are not positively affected by DRM).
I first heard of GOG about a month ago here on slashdot. I planned on going to them for my next game purchase. There are several old games that I never got around to purchasing that I would like to have. As soon as I got my budget back to its base point from the unanticapted early upgrade of my PC, I was going to go pick up a couple of games from tehm. Oh well, I guess that money can stay in my savings instead.
Now you are arguing as to whether or not the acts that one colludes to accomplish should be illegal. That is a different question than whether collusion should be illegal. Part of the definition of the word is that what you are doing is illegal. If none of the things upon which people collude were illegal, people would not be able to collude. The question is not whether collusion should be illegal, but whether the acts for which people collude should be illegal. That would need to be addressed by discussing all of the various things that one could collude on.
My initial post was to point out that the post that said that "Collusion of any kind should never be allowed" was begging the question.
If what you are doing is not a crime, it is not collusion. Collusion is coordinating activity for the purpose of committing a crime. If collusion shouldn't be a crime, then neither should conspiracy.
Because collusion is by definition something done for the purpose of taking illegal action. That is the definition of the word collude. If one is not cooperating for the purpose of committing illegal action, it isn't collusion. Or to put it another way, if what you are doing isn't illegal, it isn't collusion.
NO, the OP was hiding behind a word. Actually, he was hiding an unsupported conclusion behind a word and hoped no one noticed. The OP said that collusion of any kind should not be allowed, which is of course true, since by definition all collusion is wrong. What he hopes no one notices is that not all cooperation between companies is collusion.
What? "Distorts freedom?" What about the freedom to collude?
Since by definition colluding (Collude: To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose) is an attempt to defraud or otherwise deceive, there is no rational system that says it is something that you are free to do. The problem with the OPs statement is that he assumes that what these companies were doing was collusion.
You are right, collusion ( A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.) should never be allowed. The question of course is whether these companies were colluding or merely cooperating.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then you haven't been paying attention. It does not require paying for TV time. It requires doing a lot of work and convincing people. If you were to commit your life to it, and you are a charismatic person, you could easily accomplish it in 20-40 years.
Where do you have any evidence that she ever believed in magic? The story is, she went on a date with a guy, they went someplace and had a midnight picnic, she discovered later that the site of the picnic was a witch altar. Oh by the way, Coons wasn't just "interested in communism", he went to South Africa to do volunteer work with a communist organization.
How about having been to all of the 57 states? There are more, but I'm not going to go and dig them all up. It just shows my point, the press doesn't report Obama's slip ups. When Obama gets off of the Teleprompter, he is just as much of a comedy goldmine as Bush was.
You are correct, I do not believe that DRM ever helps sales. At least not enough to offset the cost of introducing it.
Oppossums aren't actually a new species in New York. It's just that the population was wiped out years ago. This was a re-introduction.. That being said, this was stupid. Opossums are as much pests as rats.
I don't know, but could you list some real papers. You do realize that reporters for the National Enquirer are fact-checked more often than those for the NYT or the Wa-Po.
I am pretty sure that Brooklyn already encourage raptors to deal with pigeons (most large cities do). Sometime in the 80s, someone did a study and found that not only do raptors (in particular peregrine falcons) significantly diminish the pigeon population but there crap is less corrosive, so it reduces the impact of bird crap on structures such as bridges.
Really, you have seen Jon Stewart lampoon Obama's mis-speaks as much as he did Bush's? Obama makes as many bloopers as Bush did, you just don't hear about them ad nauseum.
If you were to claim that Karl Rove or Mike Huckabee were prime movers behind a "non-partisan" rally, how many people do you think would believe you?
And her opponent was an avowed Communist at the same point in his life. Which is more dangerous a man who at one time (and possibly still) wanted to turn this country into the Soviet Union, or a woman who at one time dated men who practiced witchcraft?
Yes this one is partisan. Its for all those that are against the party that uses fear and petty name calling to put down our party.
No, as I pointed out this rally is for the Democratic Party, not against it as you appear to believe.
Well, see the problem with that is I would have to see the questions in order to necessarily believe that the results actually reflect how well people know what is going on. The last such poll I saw had at least 25% of the questions to which the answer was a matter of opinion, not fact, yet those who did not give the preferred answer of the pollster were considered "wrong".
a small vocal minority can ram through its agenda by being the craziest, loudest, most passionate in your face types around
Which explains how we got Obamacare perfectly.
I wish I had waited to post until I read this. Two of the three names on the application for the permit for this rally are political operatives from the Clinton Administration, so yeah this is really non-partisan.
Yes, since the actual Democrats can't stand a chance getting a significant turnout for a rally, they got Stewart and Colbert to front for them so that they can pretend that this is a non-partisan rally. Take a look at the names on the application for the permit for this. Two of the three are former members of the Clinton Whitehouse. The third is a corporation that I didn't do the research to find out its background.
That is exactly what I thought when I first read the title. "Doesn't it just go away when I empty the trash folder? Do computers in Australia have some sort of design flaw that causes deleted computer files to continue to clutter up the hard drive?" Then I realized that they were talking about tech equipment like computers, cell phones, copy machines, etc.
It would be nice if headline writers would use terms with consistency.
Most people don't go looking for a pirated version at all, they just go out and buy it. A small, but possibly significant number, have problems with the game because of the DRM. They don't, for the most part, go, "Oh DRM sucks, I won't buy another game with DRM." Instead they go, "Game Publisher XYZ sucks, I won't buy another game from them." The question is, does the game publisher increase its sales by enough to justify the cost of DRM? The other important question is, how much does the inconvenience of DRM on this title hurt sales of future titles?
The publishers don't seem to be asking these questions. They don't seem to realize that most of those who pirate games are not their customers, have never been their customers and will never be their customers (except as the result of natural changes in period of life that are not positively affected by DRM).
I first heard of GOG about a month ago here on slashdot. I planned on going to them for my next game purchase. There are several old games that I never got around to purchasing that I would like to have. As soon as I got my budget back to its base point from the unanticapted early upgrade of my PC, I was going to go pick up a couple of games from tehm. Oh well, I guess that money can stay in my savings instead.
Now you are arguing as to whether or not the acts that one colludes to accomplish should be illegal. That is a different question than whether collusion should be illegal. Part of the definition of the word is that what you are doing is illegal. If none of the things upon which people collude were illegal, people would not be able to collude. The question is not whether collusion should be illegal, but whether the acts for which people collude should be illegal. That would need to be addressed by discussing all of the various things that one could collude on.
My initial post was to point out that the post that said that "Collusion of any kind should never be allowed" was begging the question.
If what you are doing is not a crime, it is not collusion. Collusion is coordinating activity for the purpose of committing a crime. If collusion shouldn't be a crime, then neither should conspiracy.
Because collusion is by definition something done for the purpose of taking illegal action. That is the definition of the word collude. If one is not cooperating for the purpose of committing illegal action, it isn't collusion. Or to put it another way, if what you are doing isn't illegal, it isn't collusion.
There would either be a way to reverse engineer the algorithm used to generate the number or a way to read the number off of the chip (or both).
NO, the OP was hiding behind a word. Actually, he was hiding an unsupported conclusion behind a word and hoped no one noticed. The OP said that collusion of any kind should not be allowed, which is of course true, since by definition all collusion is wrong. What he hopes no one notices is that not all cooperation between companies is collusion.
What? "Distorts freedom?" What about the freedom to collude?
Since by definition colluding (Collude: To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose) is an attempt to defraud or otherwise deceive, there is no rational system that says it is something that you are free to do. The problem with the OPs statement is that he assumes that what these companies were doing was collusion.
You are right, collusion ( A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.) should never be allowed. The question of course is whether these companies were colluding or merely cooperating.