No, they didn't claim the word thanks, they claimed a loyalty reward program called "Thank you". If you're mad about this then you've been mad at Google over their trademark of "Android" for a long time now.
No, they claimed a loyalty reward program called "THANKYOU". Not "Thank you", and certainly not "Thanks", and most certainly not "ATT Thanks". Those are all different. Whether they are too similar is apparently up to a judge/jury.
I read a science fiction story a couple decades ago that had network and phone communications being sent by a floating station. So the basic idea had been considered and thought out by at least one popular author, and all the people who read his works.
I stopped using FF about a year ago now. I guess when I got my new laptop. I just never bothered adding it. I don't like Chrome as much as I liked Firefox years ago, but Firefox kept morphing into Chrome. So why bother with both programs?
"...let along provide a fix for..." a bug that was just found yesterday. Those lazy bastards!
Except that this actually happens all the time in apps, where the fix is simple and the developer is paying attention.
I don't follow such events (I'm not a programmer), so I'll take your word for it. It still seems a bit overblown to complain the day after someone wrote about the flaw in a blog somewhere.
And this is a particularly pathetic bug. People who don't do input checking or bounds checking are spectacular idiots. What other spectacularly idiotic decisions did they make during development?
This I totally agree with. I can see not doing checks on test code, or for classwork in school. But for any production code, bounds checking and other similar issues should be the default for every programmer. With all the buffer overflow attacks we see, we should expect paid programmers to be more security conscious.
I just googled about it, and came across this discussion on Stackoverflow. It has some good pro/con points.
I've never really watched the show. I saw part of one episode that was the same stupid stuff I see in every zombie/apocolypse movie. People did stupid stuff, never watched their backs, and the least interisting / newest joined member died. At that rate, how is anyone still alive?
I doubt it lasted two full seasons before running out of ideas.
More people are killed in car accidents each year than in shootings. Are you going to ban cars? Maybe just SUVs? How about just limiting their capacity to only two passengers? And maximum speed to 30 mph? That would help save more lives than banning guns, so I'm sure you'd be more than happy to campaign for it.
The people who make this argument are tedious,
Not as tedious as the poster's rant of "Oh no, guns kill so many, why can't we do anything to save lives?", without any thought as to what the numbers break down to. If 13,000 drug dealers are killed by other drug dealers, I don't care. If 13,000 children are killed on the playground, I care a lot more. With the reality being somewhere in between, the number is truly meaningless, especially in a country of over 300,000,000 people.
because the fact is, car safety regulation is a serious concern
I never said it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that more people are killed by them than by guns. If the OP's point is that we should ban things that kill people, cars have to be on the list.
AND exposure to automotive vehicles is comparatively high.
In comparison to brussels sprouts, maybe.
Fun Fact #1: There are more guns in the US than there are cars. Fun Fact #2: There are more guns in the US than there are people.
In light of those two facts, I would think that exposure to guns is comparatively high as well. In comparison to cars, even.
Your average American will be exposed to a lot more cars in operation than guns.
Using the standard definition of "average", and in light of the two facts above, the average American is exposed to more guns than cars.
Why do I bring these up?
Because you don't actually know what your agrument is?
So people like you will acknowledge that we do take automobile safety as a serious and real concern,
Was that even part of the discussion? Are you implying that gun safety isn't a serious concern? Have you ever been to a gun safety course?
and that your raw number comparison is a useless statistic with no value except being vacuous rhetoric.
Useless to people who want to take away my rights, and not so useless in pointing out that it would save fewer lives than removing everyone's 'privilege' of driving.
You won't though, it'd hurt your brain too much.
Why would acknowledging the validity of automobile safety hurt my brain? How about you acknowledging the fact that there are fewer cars in the US than there are guns, yet they are responsible for more deaths than guns? Or does that fact hurt your brain?
You're presenting me with a list of tweets from cowardly little sociopaths making brave noises to impress their friends sitting across from them at their high school lunch table. Looks like Slashdot on any given Wednesday.
This discussion is not about Internet Tough Guys and Online Bullies making fun of the unicorns in your Safe Space, it's about Institutionalized Violence! Entire nations whose court systems still believe that cutting off the hands of thieves and stoning adulterers is valid justice!
We're talking about bullets, you're showing us tweets. Try to keep up...
I hope you don't mind if I take your last line there for my signature, with credit of course.
At least I'm not such an idiot to fail to realize that other groups of poor do not have the same level of violence, especially against their own, as the blacks do. You do realize that there are groups of poor people who are not black, right?
It's not an ad hominem attack, I simply think you are a disgusting hypocrite, and wanted to let you know that.
As for why you are a hypocrite, you think you have the right to own a gun, but not others who are not of your class. In this case, your class of appropriate mental health beliefs. There are already laws that prohibit guns to people who have been found to be mentally ill, and now doctors can tell the FBI directly if their patients may need to be added to the list. But you are saying that you think everyone should have to be examined by psychiatrists just to enjoy their Constitutionally protected right to defend themselves. And I'm sure the bar would be set very high, just to make it worthwhile doing the check; after all, it's pointless if everyone passes. Of course, for those who refuse to agree to that restriction, they would automatically be stripped of that same right.
Secondly, if you think your gun is so much more dangerous than your car, since the car was not designed to kill, you should have already purchased an insurance policy to cover any injuries or deaths that may come as a result of your possession of the gun. The fact that you are not putting your money where your mouth is is quite hypocritical.
Third, just re-read your final point. People with money (such as yourself) deserve to have guns, but poor people don't measure up. It's just that simple. This is why you are disgusting, in addition to being a hypocrite.
Is that enough to erase the stigma of your claim of 'ad hominem attack'?
More people are killed in car accidents each year than in shootings. Are you going to ban cars? Maybe just SUVs? How about just limiting their capacity to only two passengers? And maximum speed to 30 mph? That would help save more lives than banning guns, so I'm sure you'd be more than happy to campaign for it.
Slashdot Mirror
At AC/DC I saw scalpers trying to hawk tickets that I know were about $90 for $50 or $60. In other words, they were taking a big hit.
Well, sure, they lose $40 per ticket. But they make up for it in volume.
That movie depicts one of the possible futures of our planet. Space is vast and big. We know now that FTL travel is an impossible thing.
One guy writes a paper saying the impossible is truly impossible, and you believe him?
Don't worry about them. Some idiots just can't figure out humor, and have to let their pet peeve control their lives.
No, they didn't claim the word thanks, they claimed a loyalty reward program called "Thank you". If you're mad about this then you've been mad at Google over their trademark of "Android" for a long time now.
No, they claimed a loyalty reward program called "THANKYOU". Not "Thank you", and certainly not "Thanks", and most certainly not "ATT Thanks". Those are all different. Whether they are too similar is apparently up to a judge/jury.
I read a science fiction story a couple decades ago that had network and phone communications being sent by a floating station. So the basic idea had been considered and thought out by at least one popular author, and all the people who read his works.
It's not the carbon dioxide he is hoping to evade.
I stopped using FF about a year ago now. I guess when I got my new laptop. I just never bothered adding it. I don't like Chrome as much as I liked Firefox years ago, but Firefox kept morphing into Chrome. So why bother with both programs?
"...let along provide a fix for ..." a bug that was just found yesterday. Those lazy bastards!
Except that this actually happens all the time in apps, where the fix is simple and the developer is paying attention.
I don't follow such events (I'm not a programmer), so I'll take your word for it. It still seems a bit overblown to complain the day after someone wrote about the flaw in a blog somewhere.
And this is a particularly pathetic bug. People who don't do input checking or bounds checking are spectacular idiots. What other spectacularly idiotic decisions did they make during development?
This I totally agree with. I can see not doing checks on test code, or for classwork in school. But for any production code, bounds checking and other similar issues should be the default for every programmer. With all the buffer overflow attacks we see, we should expect paid programmers to be more security conscious.
I just googled about it, and came across this discussion on Stackoverflow. It has some good pro/con points.
Remember the one that warned about zombies ahead?
Back when I was a teenager, my friends had a street sign in their garage. They would cut pieces out of it to make their own "Ninja throwing stars".
If you had friends like that, you know why I put that in quotes. :^)
Almost as if the craze were 'undead'?
Exactly. Can anyone say "Scheherazade"?
Oh shit! I meant:
SPOILER ALERT!!! Don't read this if you are binge watching this series from season one!!!
So you're saying your favorite character isn't the guy fucking his sister?
So you're saying your favorite character wasn't the guy fucking his sister?
I've never really watched the show. I saw part of one episode that was the same stupid stuff I see in every zombie/apocolypse movie. People did stupid stuff, never watched their backs, and the least interisting / newest joined member died. At that rate, how is anyone still alive?
I doubt it lasted two full seasons before running out of ideas.
I was wondering about that wording myself.
"...let along provide a fix for ..." a bug that was just found yesterday. Those lazy bastards!
More people are killed in car accidents each year than in shootings. Are you going to ban cars? Maybe just SUVs? How about just limiting their capacity to only two passengers? And maximum speed to 30 mph? That would help save more lives than banning guns, so I'm sure you'd be more than happy to campaign for it.
The people who make this argument are tedious,
Not as tedious as the poster's rant of "Oh no, guns kill so many, why can't we do anything to save lives?", without any thought as to what the numbers break down to. If 13,000 drug dealers are killed by other drug dealers, I don't care. If 13,000 children are killed on the playground, I care a lot more. With the reality being somewhere in between, the number is truly meaningless, especially in a country of over 300,000,000 people.
because the fact is, car safety regulation is a serious concern
I never said it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that more people are killed by them than by guns. If the OP's point is that we should ban things that kill people, cars have to be on the list.
AND exposure to automotive vehicles is comparatively high.
In comparison to brussels sprouts, maybe.
Fun Fact #1: There are more guns in the US than there are cars.
Fun Fact #2: There are more guns in the US than there are people.
In light of those two facts, I would think that exposure to guns is comparatively high as well. In comparison to cars, even.
Your average American will be exposed to a lot more cars in operation than guns.
Using the standard definition of "average", and in light of the two facts above, the average American is exposed to more guns than cars.
Why do I bring these up?
Because you don't actually know what your agrument is?
So people like you will acknowledge that we do take automobile safety as a serious and real concern,
Was that even part of the discussion? Are you implying that gun safety isn't a serious concern? Have you ever been to a gun safety course?
and that your raw number comparison is a useless statistic with no value except being vacuous rhetoric.
Useless to people who want to take away my rights, and not so useless in pointing out that it would save fewer lives than removing everyone's 'privilege' of driving.
You won't though, it'd hurt your brain too much.
Why would acknowledging the validity of automobile safety hurt my brain?
How about you acknowledging the fact that there are fewer cars in the US than there are guns, yet they are responsible for more deaths than guns? Or does that fact hurt your brain?
Sorry, I thought it was the lives that mattered, not the intent behind their ending.
I'm wide awake, son, thanks for asking.
You're presenting me with a list of tweets from cowardly little sociopaths making brave noises to impress their friends sitting across from them at their high school lunch table. Looks like Slashdot on any given Wednesday.
This discussion is not about Internet Tough Guys and Online Bullies making fun of the unicorns in your Safe Space, it's about Institutionalized Violence! Entire nations whose court systems still believe that cutting off the hands of thieves and stoning adulterers is valid justice!
We're talking about bullets, you're showing us tweets. Try to keep up...
I hope you don't mind if I take your last line there for my signature, with credit of course.
If you swing a rifle at someone's head, the gun can certainly claim a direct kill.
And the bullets usually don't do much except let the blood treasonously leave the body. That's what kills, the blood.
At least I'm not such an idiot to fail to realize that other groups of poor do not have the same level of violence, especially against their own, as the blacks do. You do realize that there are groups of poor people who are not black, right?
Today, not a century ago.
I'm not the one who claimed that black-on-black violence is equivalent to poor-on-poor violence.
It's not an ad hominem attack, I simply think you are a disgusting hypocrite, and wanted to let you know that.
As for why you are a hypocrite, you think you have the right to own a gun, but not others who are not of your class. In this case, your class of appropriate mental health beliefs. There are already laws that prohibit guns to people who have been found to be mentally ill, and now doctors can tell the FBI directly if their patients may need to be added to the list. But you are saying that you think everyone should have to be examined by psychiatrists just to enjoy their Constitutionally protected right to defend themselves. And I'm sure the bar would be set very high, just to make it worthwhile doing the check; after all, it's pointless if everyone passes. Of course, for those who refuse to agree to that restriction, they would automatically be stripped of that same right.
Secondly, if you think your gun is so much more dangerous than your car, since the car was not designed to kill, you should have already purchased an insurance policy to cover any injuries or deaths that may come as a result of your possession of the gun. The fact that you are not putting your money where your mouth is is quite hypocritical.
Third, just re-read your final point. People with money (such as yourself) deserve to have guns, but poor people don't measure up. It's just that simple. This is why you are disgusting, in addition to being a hypocrite.
Is that enough to erase the stigma of your claim of 'ad hominem attack'?
So you're saying all the Irish Americans are in the Irish Mob? And that they kill dozens of other Irish Americans every week?
More people are killed in car accidents each year than in shootings. Are you going to ban cars? Maybe just SUVs? How about just limiting their capacity to only two passengers? And maximum speed to 30 mph? That would help save more lives than banning guns, so I'm sure you'd be more than happy to campaign for it.