Hmmz. I guess that the logical conclusion is that everyone runs their own streamripper locally with piracy-from-elsewhere and buying/renting (looo......ooool) the experience of listening to their formulaic nonsense as fallback positions?
Yep; well-spotted - this is the business model in use via Slashdot. Content-creators bust their ass to type in snarky comments about iGadgets, US corruption (the word corruption being largely redundant now when discussing things US) etc and that-company-we-all-love leverages their effort to do whatever it is they do to turn a profit.
They aren't charging for this service when using these cars at this point. They are testing, and the rides are free. Your point is valid in the future however.
It's only free if you consider your time, the use of your brain as uber video you freaking-out to differing degrees as an indicator of driving quality and (let's not forget) your health - to be worthless
Nu-uh - if one is driving, one is fully immersed in the flow of information streaming in to the extent of predicting what's going to happen next.
Dependent on the extent that the human copilot trusts the SkyNet prototype, they will be more or less engaged. The delay when switching from observation- to participation-mode will be too great.
[In the UK], it's virtually impossible to avoid - unless one eats the leaf nodes from the tree of food combination. e.g. a ready-to-eat chicken from the local supermarket has added sugar!
It seems as though the response is "oops, our bad, we've helped destroy the world's health" - I'd like to see GRATUITOUS (50% of total assets at minimum) applied and everyone involved should be forced to eat a high-sugar diet.
the publicize the bigger dollar figure in order to scare others into buying Transformers instead of downloading it, and make their money by not losing quite as many sales.
Is this considered a function of the free market?
In my day, they had writers who would develop and plot and lure the consumer in with a film which appealed to them.
The remaining budget is clearly lower than estimated for this mop-up if you believe your response is in any way related to the concept 'analysis.'
If you're going to demonstrate that my points are nonsense, address them rather than asking questions which draw attention away from the issues
Who? What "untoward" thing happened?
Dude, what's this whole post about? Hello? The idea, I believe is that we don't know the truth of 9/11 - that the buildings were demolished deliberately - that these weren't passenger planes - that... well, I'm sure you're more familiar with the details than most.
Is the hijacking of planes, destruction of landmarks, and killing of 3000 people not "untoward" enough?
Enough for what? It's pretty awful - I'll say that.
Why, if you're the government and you've planned this conspiracy, not just wait for the media to get wind of it the normal way? (I mean, I'm sure someone in the largest city in the country would have noticed the tallest building bursting into flames). Why leak the story to them early?
I have no idea - I wasn't part of the conspiracy - perhaps *you* could enlighten *us* ?
Failure on my part to understand why this would have been leaked before the fact in no way removes from the historical record, the accidental reporting of this event before it happened. History isn't block chain - history isn't a matter of a majority repeating a falsehood which then is considered true - it's a matter of what actually happened.
So YouTube, which didn't exist until 2005, had these videos at one point that have since mysteriously vanished.
They were there; now they're not. Got it in one.
It's kind of you to update us on YouTube's start date. You do know, I presume that YouTube is capable of hosting videos which were recorded before 2005?
In spite of the government being unable to stop ISIS recruiting people, child pornography, piracy... this is the one thing they've managed to completely erase without a single copy being hosted by anyone, anywhere?
Not sure where to begin with this one - there are almost certainly many other removals - how is any one party to know? You appear to imply that I've said that this is the one topic to be removed from YouTube - by casting it into a one-in-a-billion scenario you appear to make it more unlikely. Is that the logic?
1. These couldn't have been commercial flights with civilians passengers, right?
Agreed - that seems plausible but then you go on to say:
If the missiles were noticeable from the ground while the planes struck the buildings at 500mph, surely passengers with a window seat would have noticed something. Where are the people who died (or rather, didn't die) on that flight? What about the crews, who were United and American Airlines employees? Where did they disappear to?
Which passengers? Remember, this wasn't a commercial airliner - also still part of the historical record - eye-witnessed on camera by mainstream new personnel.
2. They couldn't have taken off from a civilian airport, or else the ground crew, who spend all day every day staring at the underside of aircraft would have probably noticed a few extra engines that look nothing like engines.
Again... where to begin? (a) there are private airstrips all over the place (b) a section of a civilian airport could have been cordened off (c) If someone were prepping a non-commercial airliner with underwing rockets, ready for a domestic attack - simply so that your government can then start stomping around the world - why would they choose to take off from a civilian airport? Just a thought - I'm thinking that's not from page 1 of the CIA playbook. I wouldn't really know though - perhaps
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Music-distribution-via-radio still exists as a thing?
If the packaging is nicer than the product, why bother at all?
Shoot one - it fragnents into four (five?) more.
Hmmz. I guess that the logical conclusion is that everyone runs their own streamripper locally with piracy-from-elsewhere and buying/renting (looo......ooool) the experience of listening to their formulaic nonsense as fallback positions?
They skipped over YouTube itself then? Interesting approach
That's nothing. My new crowd-sourced-transport startup will have mostly robotic passengers by 2017!
Fumble-fail or javascript bug?
Please ignore.
Serves us with carrots, green beans and an high-fat sauce.
Ahaha; the what is what?
Ahhahhahha rofl.
Where would one find such a place?
Holy fuck! That's almost as long as one of those hosts-file rants...
There's always war as a fallback.
I for one welcome with open arms the opportunity to rip the plastic johnny-cab driver torso out and take the wheel.
Yep; well-spotted - this is the business model in use via Slashdot. Content-creators bust their ass to type in snarky comments about iGadgets, US corruption (the word corruption being largely redundant now when discussing things US) etc and that-company-we-all-love leverages their effort to do whatever it is they do to turn a profit.
It's only free if you consider your time, the use of your brain as uber video you freaking-out to differing degrees as an indicator of driving quality and (let's not forget) your health - to be worthless
Me either. I can't wait to ride in a car which smells like old pizza and dog farts because the previous customer is a cool guy.
Nu-uh - if one is driving, one is fully immersed in the flow of information streaming in to the extent of predicting what's going to happen next.
Dependent on the extent that the human copilot trusts the SkyNet prototype, they will be more or less engaged. The delay when switching from observation- to participation-mode will be too great.
...being raped by a self-driving car.
[In the UK], it's virtually impossible to avoid - unless one eats the leaf nodes from the tree of food combination. e.g. a ready-to-eat chicken from the local supermarket has added sugar!
It seems as though the response is "oops, our bad, we've helped destroy the world's health" - I'd like to see GRATUITOUS (50% of total assets at minimum) applied and everyone involved should be forced to eat a high-sugar diet.
Yah; back in the heyday of free range dinos.
Is this considered a function of the free market?
In my day, they had writers who would develop and plot and lure the consumer in with a film which appealed to them.
How so? Dollars 1M == five mp3s downloaded by a grandma.
Comparing the movie-viewing experience with the exclusive of reading the ISO as raw bytes in a hex editor.
On this point I'm pwnd - I hadn't noticed lol.
Each point was referred to - not the same as addressed.
I responded to point out that you don't have an argument.
The remaining budget is clearly lower than estimated for this mop-up if you believe your response is in any way related to the concept 'analysis.'
If you're going to demonstrate that my points are nonsense, address them rather than asking questions which draw attention away from the issues
Dude, what's this whole post about? Hello? The idea, I believe is that we don't know the truth of 9/11 - that the buildings were demolished deliberately - that these weren't passenger planes - that ... well, I'm sure you're more familiar with the details than most.
Enough for what? It's pretty awful - I'll say that.
I have no idea - I wasn't part of the conspiracy - perhaps *you* could enlighten *us* ?
Failure on my part to understand why this would have been leaked before the fact in no way removes from the historical record, the accidental reporting of this event before it happened. History isn't block chain - history isn't a matter of a majority repeating a falsehood which then is considered true - it's a matter of what actually happened.
They were there; now they're not. Got it in one.
It's kind of you to update us on YouTube's start date. You do know, I presume that YouTube is capable of hosting videos which were recorded before 2005?
Not sure where to begin with this one - there are almost certainly many other removals - how is any one party to know? You appear to imply that I've said that this is the one topic to be removed from YouTube - by casting it into a one-in-a-billion scenario you appear to make it more unlikely. Is that the logic?
Agreed - that seems plausible but then you go on to say:
Which passengers? Remember, this wasn't a commercial airliner - also still part of the historical record - eye-witnessed on camera by mainstream new personnel.
Again... where to begin? (a) there are private airstrips all over the place (b) a section of a civilian airport could have been cordened off (c) If someone were prepping a non-commercial airliner with underwing rockets, ready for a domestic attack - simply so that your government can then start stomping around the world - why would they choose to take off from a civilian airport? Just a thought - I'm thinking that's not from page 1 of the CIA playbook. I wouldn't really know though - perhaps
You've implicitly answered my question - the rates have gone down.