I meant morals, check your qwerty keyboard. E and S are close. Anyway you're being an idiot by just contradicting what I said without any substance. If you really think morals or ethics have anything to do with corporations then you really are naive. Not just MS, any corporation.
Don't be silly. They knew. Employees at MS aren't retarded and probably almost everyone there knows about the GPL. They just chose not to follow it. It was a choice, not a mistake. For those of you whom a) never worked a day in your life, b) just plain gullible, this is how corporates work in the real world.
Are you serious? This is not about morale, this is about making money. If MS feels that it's OK to violate a license for profit then I encourage everybody to violate the licenses of MS for profit, be it monetary or not. If the opponent breaks the rules then you better break them to at least the same level, or you'll find yourself as the underdog. Why is it so difficult for people to understand business?
My point is, don't call Paris "ugly", when there's really much more ugly women out there. She's not a great beauty IMO, but she's not as hideous as many of the women I see walking around every day in the US, who need to lose 200 lbs. Every woman is "ugly" compared to someone who's more beautiful.
You assume I'm comparing Jessica to Paris. I never did. I merely used those two as examples since they are well known to almost anybody. I'd still find Paris ugly, even if she was standing next to Roseanne or Jessica, and I already explained what your question proved. I call Paris ugly because I find her ugly, not because she's in the top or bottom half on the attractive scale of all women in the world. Even if you don't it doesn't change what I think. I'm actually glad you don't because it simply proves my point.
I consider them both beautiful, just in different ways. Jessica has nice large firm breasts with a big round butt*, and Paris has small firm breasts with a tiny backside. It's all look good to me!:-)
Are you sure you consider them beautiful and not just their breasts? To me it sounds that you're putting a lot of focus on the breasts part.
Honestly? Paris Hilton. Why? I know very little about these people, I mean actual non media filtered information. Based on this data I find neither of them interesting on an intellectual level. That pretty much leaves it to pure physical attraction. Comparing the looks of Paris contra Roseanne I'd say that Paris is the winner, at least to me. Also Paris has a shitload of money which doesn't exactly hurt. All this proves is: a) I find Roseanne less attractive than Paris, b) I find economical situation almost as important as physical appearances, and c) I find both latter less important than the mind, and not in a "if she says 'wave-particle duality' I'll marry her" way, but in a "please don't let this one be an idiot" way.
Flamebait? This should be marked +5 informative. The parent is grossly stereotyping. I don't evaluate women in 1/2 a second, but I'll admit that in 1/2 a second I have some evaluation. There's a big difference. Sure physical appearances might be important since they are what's noticed at first. But this doesn't cover all cases. I've met many physically attractive women whom after having opened their mouths looked like a bag of batshit to me. So even if we do sometimes "think with our dicks", it's not the only thing we think with (as a side note don't give me any bullshit about women never "thinking with their genitalia"). There's nothing strange with sexual attraction, it is a mere biological function of ours, and the fact that people bitch about it is because they feel left out. Not because they aren't beautiful enough, but because they are simply so stupid that they think it's all about appearances which only confirms that they really are dumb.
This will sound very Oprah and I apologise but it needs to be said. Both the interior and exterior matter. Interior matters the most because you'll quickly grow accustomed to the exterior, making what was once new and exciting merely ordinary. Having said this people need to understand one thing. If you don't happen to have a beautiful "outside", then you don't automatically have a beautiful "inside". So the next time you women bitch about us men only looking for physical appearances you should perhaps stop shoving colorful goo up your faces and start working on how to be interesting, challenging and just fun to be around. At least that's what I want, and fortunately have.
Except that the standard for "beauty" changes over time. I'm not sure I'm buying this.
Also the standard for beauty changes from person to person. I consider Paris Hilton ugly and Jessica Alba beautiful, and others disagree. There's no universal "standard" for beauty, and the closest you'll get is symmetry. But even an assymetric appearance is attractive to some. I still think that the old "we grow up to marry our parents" is more accurate, or at least as close as we can get. However I'd change "parents" for "role models" to be more precise.
Now I'm a Christian myself, but I don't have problems with embryonic stem cell research, nor the similarly controversial abortions (reasonable abortions that is; I won't bother you with my definition of reasonable).
Flamebait aside brother, but that's just fucking convenient. Is it really that difficult to let go of the fairy tale? You're compromising about the very essance of Christian belief, the existance of the soul, to what purpose? So you may sleep well at night? I really don't understand this. You've clearly poked a hole in the very concept by recognizing the importance of stem cell research, yet you try to build your walls of religion around it? How many times are you willing to compromise? What will be the next big Christian controversy? You have to make up your mind brother.
A used bookstore would be a bookstore that has been used. A used book store would be a bookstore with used books. In a strange irrelevant way you're both right.
You see it's that kind of bullshit that makes people hate you. Saying that abortion is killing is the same as saying that copying is stealing. Sure I admit that they are very similar, but they are not the same and most importantly they have different consquences. The only reason to claim such is to manipulate your audience through powerful and easilly associable words, such as stealing, killing, raping, hating, etc. If you're trying to make a point then don't come out sounding like an asshole preaching to a choir.
I'll even start. The reason why people don't consider abortion as a big deal is because people don't consider human embryos as humans. The same way as they don't consider a human arm as a human. You're saying they should, they're asking why. In between this conflict people trying to convince eachother are presenting data to turn the argument around. Data about DNA, genome, RNA, even "souls" are used to convince the other side. In the end it's a question of definition. You'll never win the argument by claiming that emryos are humans, because they simply are not, the same way that amino acids are not embryos. The side that has already separated these two will never accept that they aren't as such, so you'd have to convince that side that the embryo itself is something to protect, disregarding human values. Do this and you will convince the other side. And also, skip the "soul" nonsense. The other side considers this as complete and utter bullshit, and if they say they don't then they're hipocrites just like everybody else, since clearly it's just convenient to believe in the existance of the soul and be OK with abortions.
I'm an Insulin dependent Type 2 Diabetic... While I have the ability to match insulin with sugar intake, I agree with the parent comment,"I would never volunteer for this study". Asking a Diabetic to eat chocolate is just wrong! If I were able to maintain my glucose levels without insulin, I surely couldn't do it while eating candy.
Surely they aren't giving the subjects any chocolate containing massive amount of sugar. Also my guess is that there are a few doctors present as well.
You're trying to redefine the word visible. It's within the visible spectrum. Which means that while we have one ingredient to the recipe, we're still lacking enough quantity. This makes it invisible. Same goes with your star example.
First of all, what are you talking about? Java is Sun, not MS. Second B2B negotiation is very, very different to B2C. We're talking about a license, not the consumer license. You do realise that with a license you can renounce any responsibility regarding the usage, so your jury nonsense doesn't hold water. It's up to the client to decide if it's a reasonable offer or not. If the plant wishes for 100% responsibility from the software supplier then no, MS would probably not agree to such a deal, but if the responsibility would be reduced then I see no reason why they wouldn't. Again, quit assuming that consumer trade policies = company trade policies.
Just a reminder, Chernobyl killed and mutilated far more victims than the initial 46 firefighters, through cancer and mutation. Not that I understood why you mentioned it in the first place...
No it's not, it's coined, not common. How often do you say "vacuum leak" during a lifetime? Exactly. Still that's not the point. Choice of words does not mean fake English. I simply pointed out that vacuum doesn't leak.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant morals, check your qwerty keyboard. E and S are close. Anyway you're being an idiot by just contradicting what I said without any substance. If you really think morals or ethics have anything to do with corporations then you really are naive. Not just MS, any corporation.
Don't be silly. They knew. Employees at MS aren't retarded and probably almost everyone there knows about the GPL. They just chose not to follow it. It was a choice, not a mistake. For those of you whom a) never worked a day in your life, b) just plain gullible, this is how corporates work in the real world.
Are you serious? This is not about morale, this is about making money. If MS feels that it's OK to violate a license for profit then I encourage everybody to violate the licenses of MS for profit, be it monetary or not. If the opponent breaks the rules then you better break them to at least the same level, or you'll find yourself as the underdog. Why is it so difficult for people to understand business?
Alas, let's not neglect freedom to torture.
Yet another reason that I cannot take the entertainment industry seriously.
Fixed it sir.
Worst is when they ask you if they look fat when they know I only see the tip of the iceberg!
No matter how silly the movie is, they'll at least get my money for sheer nostalgia.
Oops, you just defined the source to 90% of Disney's revenue.
My point is, don't call Paris "ugly", when there's really much more ugly women out there. She's not a great beauty IMO, but she's not as hideous as many of the women I see walking around every day in the US, who need to lose 200 lbs. Every woman is "ugly" compared to someone who's more beautiful.
You assume I'm comparing Jessica to Paris. I never did. I merely used those two as examples since they are well known to almost anybody. I'd still find Paris ugly, even if she was standing next to Roseanne or Jessica, and I already explained what your question proved. I call Paris ugly because I find her ugly, not because she's in the top or bottom half on the attractive scale of all women in the world. Even if you don't it doesn't change what I think. I'm actually glad you don't because it simply proves my point.
I consider them both beautiful, just in different ways. Jessica has nice large firm breasts with a big round butt*, and Paris has small firm breasts with a tiny backside. It's all look good to me! :-)
Are you sure you consider them beautiful and not just their breasts? To me it sounds that you're putting a lot of focus on the breasts part.
Honestly? Paris Hilton. Why? I know very little about these people, I mean actual non media filtered information. Based on this data I find neither of them interesting on an intellectual level. That pretty much leaves it to pure physical attraction. Comparing the looks of Paris contra Roseanne I'd say that Paris is the winner, at least to me. Also Paris has a shitload of money which doesn't exactly hurt. All this proves is: a) I find Roseanne less attractive than Paris, b) I find economical situation almost as important as physical appearances, and c) I find both latter less important than the mind, and not in a "if she says 'wave-particle duality' I'll marry her" way, but in a "please don't let this one be an idiot" way.
Flamebait? This should be marked +5 informative. The parent is grossly stereotyping. I don't evaluate women in 1/2 a second, but I'll admit that in 1/2 a second I have some evaluation. There's a big difference. Sure physical appearances might be important since they are what's noticed at first. But this doesn't cover all cases. I've met many physically attractive women whom after having opened their mouths looked like a bag of batshit to me. So even if we do sometimes "think with our dicks", it's not the only thing we think with (as a side note don't give me any bullshit about women never "thinking with their genitalia"). There's nothing strange with sexual attraction, it is a mere biological function of ours, and the fact that people bitch about it is because they feel left out. Not because they aren't beautiful enough, but because they are simply so stupid that they think it's all about appearances which only confirms that they really are dumb.
This will sound very Oprah and I apologise but it needs to be said. Both the interior and exterior matter. Interior matters the most because you'll quickly grow accustomed to the exterior, making what was once new and exciting merely ordinary. Having said this people need to understand one thing. If you don't happen to have a beautiful "outside", then you don't automatically have a beautiful "inside". So the next time you women bitch about us men only looking for physical appearances you should perhaps stop shoving colorful goo up your faces and start working on how to be interesting, challenging and just fun to be around. At least that's what I want, and fortunately have.
"There can be only five."
Wait -- what?
Except that the standard for "beauty" changes over time. I'm not sure I'm buying this.
Also the standard for beauty changes from person to person. I consider Paris Hilton ugly and Jessica Alba beautiful, and others disagree. There's no universal "standard" for beauty, and the closest you'll get is symmetry. But even an assymetric appearance is attractive to some. I still think that the old "we grow up to marry our parents" is more accurate, or at least as close as we can get. However I'd change "parents" for "role models" to be more precise.
Now I'm a Christian myself, but I don't have problems with embryonic stem cell research, nor the similarly controversial abortions (reasonable abortions that is; I won't bother you with my definition of reasonable).
Flamebait aside brother, but that's just fucking convenient. Is it really that difficult to let go of the fairy tale? You're compromising about the very essance of Christian belief, the existance of the soul, to what purpose? So you may sleep well at night? I really don't understand this. You've clearly poked a hole in the very concept by recognizing the importance of stem cell research, yet you try to build your walls of religion around it? How many times are you willing to compromise? What will be the next big Christian controversy? You have to make up your mind brother.
A used bookstore would be a bookstore that has been used. A used book store would be a bookstore with used books. In a strange irrelevant way you're both right.
You see it's that kind of bullshit that makes people hate you. Saying that abortion is killing is the same as saying that copying is stealing. Sure I admit that they are very similar, but they are not the same and most importantly they have different consquences. The only reason to claim such is to manipulate your audience through powerful and easilly associable words, such as stealing, killing, raping, hating, etc. If you're trying to make a point then don't come out sounding like an asshole preaching to a choir.
I'll even start. The reason why people don't consider abortion as a big deal is because people don't consider human embryos as humans. The same way as they don't consider a human arm as a human. You're saying they should, they're asking why. In between this conflict people trying to convince eachother are presenting data to turn the argument around. Data about DNA, genome, RNA, even "souls" are used to convince the other side. In the end it's a question of definition. You'll never win the argument by claiming that emryos are humans, because they simply are not, the same way that amino acids are not embryos. The side that has already separated these two will never accept that they aren't as such, so you'd have to convince that side that the embryo itself is something to protect, disregarding human values. Do this and you will convince the other side. And also, skip the "soul" nonsense. The other side considers this as complete and utter bullshit, and if they say they don't then they're hipocrites just like everybody else, since clearly it's just convenient to believe in the existance of the soul and be OK with abortions.
Confiscate his PC and don't give it back until he says he's sorry, and he has to really mean it.
Honestly, who cares?
I bet all 5 players are very disappointed.
I'm an Insulin dependent Type 2 Diabetic... While I have the ability to match insulin with sugar intake, I agree with the parent comment,"I would never volunteer for this study". Asking a Diabetic to eat chocolate is just wrong! If I were able to maintain my glucose levels without insulin, I surely couldn't do it while eating candy.
Surely they aren't giving the subjects any chocolate containing massive amount of sugar. Also my guess is that there are a few doctors present as well.
Try some dark chocolate with an 80 or 90% cacao content and then tell me it's candy.
Don't! It's a trap!
Especially when it comes to electronics.
You're trying to redefine the word visible. It's within the visible spectrum. Which means that while we have one ingredient to the recipe, we're still lacking enough quantity. This makes it invisible. Same goes with your star example.
First of all, what are you talking about? Java is Sun, not MS. Second B2B negotiation is very, very different to B2C. We're talking about a license, not the consumer license. You do realise that with a license you can renounce any responsibility regarding the usage, so your jury nonsense doesn't hold water. It's up to the client to decide if it's a reasonable offer or not. If the plant wishes for 100% responsibility from the software supplier then no, MS would probably not agree to such a deal, but if the responsibility would be reduced then I see no reason why they wouldn't. Again, quit assuming that consumer trade policies = company trade policies.
Just a reminder, Chernobyl killed and mutilated far more victims than the initial 46 firefighters, through cancer and mutation. Not that I understood why you mentioned it in the first place...
I doubt Microsoft would be willing to sell a license to such a facility for any reasonable price.
I don't. Why wouldn't they?
No it's not, it's coined, not common. How often do you say "vacuum leak" during a lifetime? Exactly. Still that's not the point. Choice of words does not mean fake English. I simply pointed out that vacuum doesn't leak.