I'd say everyone who is like me and refuses to "pay for TV". Really, have you ever actually watched what they pay for? Commercials with commercials embedded in them, that is what people who think you "pay for TV" pay for.
...to say we did it just to prove that we could is a pretty big motivator in itself. Suprisingly enough to the 1%, profit is not the only motivation in life.
Maybe it will save energy, but it would keep me subservient to the content producers and that is a cost I'm just not willing to incur. When I "own" the contents of a DVD I expect to be able to watch it whenever I want on whichever device I choose.
What else could explain a man's willingness to become monogamous despite his overwhelming desire to lay every female he encounters? The desire to procreate is overwhelming in normal human beings and only a genetic deathwish could motivate one to not pass on his DNA.
The poorer the background of the student, the more that should be spent on his education. The way things are now, what with those with the nmost getting the most, is completely backwards for an equality for everyone society.c
Not being a gamer, I'm all okay with waiting for the rich kid's hardware to catch up. Besides, too much graphics capibility seems to do nothing but encourage developers to force all sorts of ridiculous visual doodads on software that really needs to do nothing but serve as point and click program launchers.
How can a seed that has been released into nature not be open source? Seeds, by there very nature, seek to profilierate sot it would obviously take unnatural forces to prevent them from doing so. Certainly, at least, no human govenment would make it illegal to not prevent nature from taking it's course.
I predict that Republicans will be in charge in 2018, so only the 1% will be able to buy a new car. For the other 99% this won't be an issue until 2025, if man is still alive and woman can survive.
First I played the bunny because you lied to me about your memaw, then you beat my Crushers by breaking up a relationship, but I robbed you of the lost 21 seconds. Bazinga!!!!
If enought want to support Firefox on Win8, then Win8 will succeed! As of now though, Microsoft doesn't want Firefox to succeded on Win8. Savvy consumers will only buy the things that support the things they want to be supported.
So heaven is available to anyone whether or not they follow your God's law? Say, for instance, that I preach that your particular God sucks donkey balls, would he/she hold that against me? We all know a human would, but what about a God?
...synomous with being spied upon. Because of their past goodness I would like to defend them, but when even the login to their services defaults to "staying logged in" even though they present that staying logged in could be a security risk makes one question Google's ultimate motives here. One would think that if Google truly valued privacy above all else Google would do what ever it takes to keep their user's secure above all else. I hate to hate on someone who has done me so good in the past, but what Google does in the present is what counts.
...to a "higher authority" is pretty damn stressfull in itself. Are there any Gods out there that don't require some type of worship or submission to their will to avoid being punished in some manner? Am I the only who feels that what they demand is more human than Godlike?
So what would work for everyone, for both the people who want to take pictures and for those that don't want their picture taken simply because they were in a public forum? Maybe public "privacy" zones? Seems quite the delimna for me.
True, it was the USSR's hunger for land that contributed to the fall of Poland. In the end that hunger led to the deaths of tens of millions of Russian's, but the USSR felt at the time the lives of tens of millions of Russian's was a fair price to pay.
So do you think it would ethical and legal to do everything within your power to prevent a child from plummeting into an abyss? It is their network, it is their property. Unless you are okay with letting anyone and everyone trespass over what is yours then you have to agree that the owners of property have a right to control access to that property.
If I post a link to a website that which at that moment doesn't host "forbidden" content but later does, am I liable for providing access to said "forbidden" content? Logic would dictate that a person can only be held accountable for their own actions, not the actions of another.
Tyson has the artificial chicken market cornered. Seriously, try cooking up one of their birds and see if it actually taste like chicken. They are the reason why brining and marinating has become necessary before you can consume breast meat.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say everyone who is like me and refuses to "pay for TV". Really, have you ever actually watched what they pay for? Commercials with commercials embedded in them, that is what people who think you "pay for TV" pay for.
...to say we did it just to prove that we could is a pretty big motivator in itself. Suprisingly enough to the 1%, profit is not the only motivation in life.
....you put online stays online. Forever!!
Maybe it will save energy, but it would keep me subservient to the content producers and that is a cost I'm just not willing to incur. When I "own" the contents of a DVD I expect to be able to watch it whenever I want on whichever device I choose.
And for those who wish to pass on their DNA to future generations.
What else could explain a man's willingness to become monogamous despite his overwhelming desire to lay every female he encounters? The desire to procreate is overwhelming in normal human beings and only a genetic deathwish could motivate one to not pass on his DNA.
The "tea partiers" are just Republicans trying to keep true libertarians in the fold. They won't go anywhere until they finally cut the cord.
The poorer the background of the student, the more that should be spent on his education. The way things are now, what with those with the nmost getting the most, is completely backwards for an equality for everyone society.c
Not being a gamer, I'm all okay with waiting for the rich kid's hardware to catch up. Besides, too much graphics capibility seems to do nothing but encourage developers to force all sorts of ridiculous visual doodads on software that really needs to do nothing but serve as point and click program launchers.
They lost the battle when they couldn't force everyone to use their shit on every device owned. High five to them for trying though.
Just that episode explains why I love Big Bang Theory, it is so much fun to laugh at yourself! Maybe I'm just not geeky enough to get offended?
How can a seed that has been released into nature not be open source? Seeds, by there very nature, seek to profilierate sot it would obviously take unnatural forces to prevent them from doing so. Certainly, at least, no human govenment would make it illegal to not prevent nature from taking it's course.
Of course it happened, which is why BP will be chosen to head up this project.
I predict that Republicans will be in charge in 2018, so only the 1% will be able to buy a new car. For the other 99% this won't be an issue until 2025, if man is still alive and woman can survive.
First I played the bunny because you lied to me about your memaw, then you beat my Crushers by breaking up a relationship, but I robbed you of the lost 21 seconds. Bazinga!!!!
If enought want to support Firefox on Win8, then Win8 will succeed! As of now though, Microsoft doesn't want Firefox to succeded on Win8. Savvy consumers will only buy the things that support the things they want to be supported.
So heaven is available to anyone whether or not they follow your God's law? Say, for instance, that I preach that your particular God sucks donkey balls, would he/she hold that against me? We all know a human would, but what about a God?
...synomous with being spied upon. Because of their past goodness I would like to defend them, but when even the login to their services defaults to "staying logged in" even though they present that staying logged in could be a security risk makes one question Google's ultimate motives here. One would think that if Google truly valued privacy above all else Google would do what ever it takes to keep their user's secure above all else. I hate to hate on someone who has done me so good in the past, but what Google does in the present is what counts.
...to a "higher authority" is pretty damn stressfull in itself. Are there any Gods out there that don't require some type of worship or submission to their will to avoid being punished in some manner? Am I the only who feels that what they demand is more human than Godlike?
So what would work for everyone, for both the people who want to take pictures and for those that don't want their picture taken simply because they were in a public forum? Maybe public "privacy" zones? Seems quite the delimna for me.
True, it was the USSR's hunger for land that contributed to the fall of Poland. In the end that hunger led to the deaths of tens of millions of Russian's, but the USSR felt at the time the lives of tens of millions of Russian's was a fair price to pay.
Just what is it that you think is wrong here?
So do you think it would ethical and legal to do everything within your power to prevent a child from plummeting into an abyss? It is their network, it is their property. Unless you are okay with letting anyone and everyone trespass over what is yours then you have to agree that the owners of property have a right to control access to that property.
If I post a link to a website that which at that moment doesn't host "forbidden" content but later does, am I liable for providing access to said "forbidden" content? Logic would dictate that a person can only be held accountable for their own actions, not the actions of another.
Tyson has the artificial chicken market cornered. Seriously, try cooking up one of their birds and see if it actually taste like chicken. They are the reason why brining and marinating has become necessary before you can consume breast meat.