Internet use has almost completely replaced television viewing for me. I used to spend 2 hours a night watching crap on telly, now I spend 2 hours a night posting crap on the internet. It's still crap but at least I'm participating.
I never watch videos over the net though, I want to sit back, not sit up like you do at a PC.
My experiences trying to turn off Google Instant, the fade-in effects and the hidden redirection links on the search page have turned me against Google. I certainly wouldn't want to use a device where they controlled the OS.
I thought their argument was flawed but I didn't realise there were quite so many holes in it, it's a pity though that some of the people targeted will have settled out of court already.
"If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right."
What if our enemies are people who slaughter civilians for 'shock and awe' purposes, and torture others and imprison them without trial? Could you please include an extra line in your signatroll to inform us about whether we, too, are doing something right.
British law has ALWAYS been this way, it's not just something sneaked in by communists in 1953. You do not forfeit the protection of one law by breaking another, just as you cannot escape the obligations of one law by adhering to another. We have a murder rate 2 orders of magnitude below the US one - if the vigilante scum like the American model so much they're welcome to go and live there. Just so long as they don't complain to me when their bullet riddled corpses are shipped home.
Indian call centres are a classic example of the race to the bottom that occurs when capitalists compete to supply the minimum possible standard of service.
People trust Google more (if indeed they do) because they expect less from them. Google's free services promise nothing (in a legal sense) but usually deliver an acceptable service; banks have definite legal obligations which they often fail to meet. If you have to deal with Google in an IRL sense (trying to get them to fulfil their data protection obligations, for example) you'll form a different impression - you might well prefer to be on the phone to a bank's Indian call centre, staffed by people who can't understand you and couldn't help you if they could.
Got: LISP book Wants: Peg for publicity
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
You could make the same arguments for immediacy and ease of installation for Perl or tens of other freely available modern PC languages. And they don't have LISP's nightmarish tangle of parentheses. LISP rivals APL for the 'language handicapped by its notation' award, and at least APL looks cool.
Interesting to see btw that the Trek variant in that Atari book is actually called Star Trek, and that they went to the trouble of begging Paramount for permission to use the name.
The British government knows whereof it speaks when it comes to inciting cold blooded murder - indeed I remember a certain T. Blair comparing anyone who didn't agree with his murder plans in Iraq to those who wanted to appease Hitler.
Don't sound so pleased about it - today they might be censoring material you disapprove of, tomorrow it might be Ayn Rand worship videos that get the chop. Still happy with the idea?
A classic example of authoritarians offering a spurious choice in the hope that everyone, including the victim, will see the process as legitimate. The Atlanta, GA police force would be truly proud.
I have no love for BA - Tory privatisation collaborators the lot of them - but it's good to see them standing up to the terror forces here. I'd also like to see a more rigorous policy of prosecution for securithugs who make false accusations against passengers, particularly in cases where threats have been admitted to be non-credible but violent action has been taken anyway.
Note the use of the New Labour asset seizure law, which allows the police to seize the whole of a person's assets on the assumption that they all derive from illegal acts. The victim then has to prove that they came by the assets legally in order to get them back...
The concept of being prosecuted for stealing electricity is laughable when you recall how private companies got control of electricity generation and distribution in the UK in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the user who's in the sandbox with Google software. No chance of turning off the fade-in, or the instant search keylogger.
Internet use has almost completely replaced television viewing for me. I used to spend 2 hours a night watching crap on telly, now I spend 2 hours a night posting crap on the internet. It's still crap but at least I'm participating. I never watch videos over the net though, I want to sit back, not sit up like you do at a PC.
They have clearly been watching the Doctor Who story 'The Green Death' (1973) and decided to reverse the oil-to-sludge process described therein.
My experiences trying to turn off Google Instant, the fade-in effects and the hidden redirection links on the search page have turned me against Google. I certainly wouldn't want to use a device where they controlled the OS.
Really encouraging to see at least one US politician prepared to stand up for the principle of whistleblowing.
I thought their argument was flawed but I didn't realise there were quite so many holes in it, it's a pity though that some of the people targeted will have settled out of court already.
"If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right." What if our enemies are people who slaughter civilians for 'shock and awe' purposes, and torture others and imprison them without trial? Could you please include an extra line in your signatroll to inform us about whether we, too, are doing something right.
I wonder what's really in the jars, and why the place actually has to be blown up?
A rectangle is indeed a trapezoid I believe.
But the Cold War is over! David Kuo told me that the US won. Say it's still so, Kuo!
Without reference to any particular case, it is good to know that cases where demands have been made in bad faith are being properly investigated.
Doubtless the Chinese are following the fine democratic example set by the UK terror police in similar matters.
That's the last time anyone on Slashdot tricks me into clicking through to Faux News. Now I have to wash my computer.
I suspect the OP is trailing a coat there and hoping someone will step on it.
Excellent summary sir
British law has ALWAYS been this way, it's not just something sneaked in by communists in 1953. You do not forfeit the protection of one law by breaking another, just as you cannot escape the obligations of one law by adhering to another. We have a murder rate 2 orders of magnitude below the US one - if the vigilante scum like the American model so much they're welcome to go and live there. Just so long as they don't complain to me when their bullet riddled corpses are shipped home.
Indian call centres are a classic example of the race to the bottom that occurs when capitalists compete to supply the minimum possible standard of service.
People trust Google more (if indeed they do) because they expect less from them. Google's free services promise nothing (in a legal sense) but usually deliver an acceptable service; banks have definite legal obligations which they often fail to meet. If you have to deal with Google in an IRL sense (trying to get them to fulfil their data protection obligations, for example) you'll form a different impression - you might well prefer to be on the phone to a bank's Indian call centre, staffed by people who can't understand you and couldn't help you if they could.
You could make the same arguments for immediacy and ease of installation for Perl or tens of other freely available modern PC languages. And they don't have LISP's nightmarish tangle of parentheses. LISP rivals APL for the 'language handicapped by its notation' award, and at least APL looks cool. Interesting to see btw that the Trek variant in that Atari book is actually called Star Trek, and that they went to the trouble of begging Paramount for permission to use the name.
The British government knows whereof it speaks when it comes to inciting cold blooded murder - indeed I remember a certain T. Blair comparing anyone who didn't agree with his murder plans in Iraq to those who wanted to appease Hitler.
Don't sound so pleased about it - today they might be censoring material you disapprove of, tomorrow it might be Ayn Rand worship videos that get the chop. Still happy with the idea?
A classic example of authoritarians offering a spurious choice in the hope that everyone, including the victim, will see the process as legitimate. The Atlanta, GA police force would be truly proud.
I have no love for BA - Tory privatisation collaborators the lot of them - but it's good to see them standing up to the terror forces here. I'd also like to see a more rigorous policy of prosecution for securithugs who make false accusations against passengers, particularly in cases where threats have been admitted to be non-credible but violent action has been taken anyway.
If I pay actual money for something I expect to possess it unconditionally. This news only makes me keener not to pay for DRM-restricted media.
Note the use of the New Labour asset seizure law, which allows the police to seize the whole of a person's assets on the assumption that they all derive from illegal acts. The victim then has to prove that they came by the assets legally in order to get them back... The concept of being prosecuted for stealing electricity is laughable when you recall how private companies got control of electricity generation and distribution in the UK in the first place.