sure but it's far easier to remain anon when you don't want to funnel customers money into your own accounts and it's not like they're going to believe the company who are claiming that the robocalls selling their product are all an evil conspiracy against them since people have an almost pavlovian response to accusations of conspiracy like that.
not really, especially over the net it's trivial to remain anon and it's not like they're going to believe the company when they claim it's all a conspiracy against them.
no no, you don't buy and ship their product, you genuinely get people to buy from your competitor.You use the credit card numbers supplied to actually place orders with your competitors so that the money trail leads back to them.
It isn't highway robbery when you hand someone your money and say "please take this, I want you to have it"
Don't want google's "highway robbery"? change one line on your site and it's done, google won't be a problem any more for you.
these sites should pay google, these newspapers get valuable traffic thanks to google, they have ads on their pages which they make money from every time google provide a new set of eyes to look at their page. But they don't pay google, they expect to get this service for free.
make sure shut down the telescopes too, after all the starlight they pick up is just a snapshot of the stars state in the distant past. and there's obviously nothing of value we can learn from things which happened in the past.
Oh and comparative genomics too. who needs to know about the history of mutation in genes, that's in the past! we need to focus on the future! There's nothing of value to be learned from looking at things which happened in the past!
yes and doctors of the past didn't wash their hands between autopsies and surgery.
yet a modern doctor knows better and could be jailed for criminal negligence for doing the same now.
same deal.
The explorers of the past were mostly just treasure hunters looking for gold rather than information about the past.
indeed many sites which are known about but which aren't in peril are intentionally left as they are because they know very well that in 50 years we'll probably be able to pull info from a site that we wouldn't now.
That's not shooting someone just because you're pissed off. if you invite someone round to your house and he says god isn't real and you get pissed off that doesn't give you the right to shoot him.
if someone breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife it isn't the fact that you're pissed off which gives you the right to shoot him, it's the fact that he's threatening you or has invaded your home.
being pissed off it utterly irrelevant to the matter it neither grants nor removes rights from you or changes when you can shoot someone.
and that's exactly what I said. cyclists may choose to act cautiously and assume that the drivers they encounter are fools who don't know how to drive like temporalbeing. what I took issue with was his claim that if he hits a cyclist when they have right of way it's their fault for not avoiding his shiny car.
You are apparently the problem. You don't even seem to know the basic rules of the road.
hint: You are at fault if you ram into the back of another car. You are at fault if you ram into the back of a a cyclist. You are at fault if you join a main road without looking at slam into the side of a car who has right of way. You are utterly at fault if you join a main road without looking at slam into the side of a cyclist who has right of way.
It's not their fault for not avoiding you and your terrible driving.
If the cyclist has right of way then it is utterly your fault.
they may also choose to act cautiously and assume that you're an nutter with a car he can't drive who doesn't believe things like speed limits or stop signs apply to him but failing to avoid accidents you cause does not make it their fault.
I'm sure you've avoided crashed for a while because even the shittiest drivers can go years and hundreds of thousands of miles without a crash and they use it to convince themselves that they're good drivers when they're really really not.
quick tip: if you can't even control your car enough to keep to the speed limit then you shouldn't be driving.
your statement makes no sense: they're talking about a situation where all the fault is entirely and utterly 100% on one side: car drivers who pull out without looking for cyclists.
and it's not a game. if you get hit by one you don't get to shout "no fair" becuse you're dead.
I imagine it's hard to go after someone who would argue that they were commenting on his post for copyright and that would also argue that the intention wasn't to cause offense but rather to inform people about someone being offensive.
the law covers intentionally trying to deeply upset people but not with introducing people to things which will upset them.
it gets into that sort of silly tripe when people bring in censorship.
"That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page."
So he did post it on his own wall. It should have been a case of "who cares". but some offense junkie took a screengrab and reposted it for shits and giggles on the support page.
Probably with some equivilent to "hey look at this sick fuck everyone, look and be offended while I bask in the joy of having brough this guys wall post to your attention, now quickly get the pitchforks"
the world is full of self righteous assholes who aren't just easily offended but actively seek out offense and make sure to tell everyone else who they think should be offended as well.
"That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page."
He didn't write that joke on the page for the victims. someone else did but with a screenshot of his personal page.
Probably reposted to the page by an offense junkie who gets off on showing off things they think people should be offended by.
"That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page."
so no, he didn't write that joke on the Facebook page run by the people trying to find the little girl.
someone else did but with a screenshot of his personal page.
believe it or not the roads are for *everyone* not just you. roads were made for cars,truck *and* bikes you fucking crettin.
You see bikes breaking the traffic laws 15-20 times a week? sit by an interstate and you'll see shitty car drivers like you breaking traffic laws 15-20 times a minute because they don't believe the speed limit really applies to them.
Drivers percieve cyclists wearing helmets as less fragile and drive closer to them and take more risks when overtaking. this of course means that they're more likely to hit and kill them.
As always the problem can be summed up as:"Bad Drivers"
you need 1: massive amounts of land.Expensive. 2: massive amounts of water.Region dependant. 3: to be willing to lose about 50% of the energy in the process of storing and releasing it.
I remember CFL bulbs like you describe.... when I was a small child my parents got a cheapy one for one of the rooms.
When people tell you to get ones made this century it's for a reason.
I have my own problems with CFLs: for craft work where color is important they don't provide as good a spread of light but your description is like something from decades ago.
I have my house kitted out with Philips 23 watt CFL bulbs (light equivilent to 100 watt) which light up well in about a second and a half .
Slashdot Mirror
sure but it's far easier to remain anon when you don't want to funnel customers money into your own accounts and it's not like they're going to believe the company who are claiming that the robocalls selling their product are all an evil conspiracy against them since people have an almost pavlovian response to accusations of conspiracy like that.
not really, especially over the net it's trivial to remain anon and it's not like they're going to believe the company when they claim it's all a conspiracy against them.
no no, you don't buy and ship their product, you genuinely get people to buy from your competitor.You use the credit card numbers supplied to actually place orders with your competitors so that the money trail leads back to them.
so yes. that simple.
fantastic. when I want to put my competitors out of buisness all I have to do is pay for some robocalls advertising their products.
It isn't highway robbery when you hand someone your money and say "please take this, I want you to have it"
Don't want google's "highway robbery"? change one line on your site and it's done, google won't be a problem any more for you.
these sites should pay google, these newspapers get valuable traffic thanks to google, they have ads on their pages which they make money from every time google provide a new set of eyes to look at their page. But they don't pay google, they expect to get this service for free.
make sure shut down the telescopes too, after all the starlight they pick up is just a snapshot of the stars state in the distant past. and there's obviously nothing of value we can learn from things which happened in the past.
Oh and comparative genomics too. who needs to know about the history of mutation in genes, that's in the past! we need to focus on the future! There's nothing of value to be learned from looking at things which happened in the past!
yes and doctors of the past didn't wash their hands between autopsies and surgery.
yet a modern doctor knows better and could be jailed for criminal negligence for doing the same now.
same deal.
The explorers of the past were mostly just treasure hunters looking for gold rather than information about the past.
indeed many sites which are known about but which aren't in peril are intentionally left as they are because they know very well that in 50 years we'll probably be able to pull info from a site that we wouldn't now.
He wasn't quite accurate.
It is illegal to dig for archeological objects and to use metal detectors for such a purpose without a special licence.
You can use a metal detector to find bottle caps in your lawn or to locate pipes.
but too many amature treasure hunters have fucked up sites.
That's not shooting someone just because you're pissed off. if you invite someone round to your house and he says god isn't real and you get pissed off that doesn't give you the right to shoot him.
if someone breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife it isn't the fact that you're pissed off which gives you the right to shoot him, it's the fact that he's threatening you or has invaded your home.
being pissed off it utterly irrelevant to the matter it neither grants nor removes rights from you or changes when you can shoot someone.
the right to bear arms doesn't include the right to shoot anyone who pisses you off.
and that's exactly what I said. cyclists may choose to act cautiously and assume that the drivers they encounter are fools who don't know how to drive like temporalbeing. what I took issue with was his claim that if he hits a cyclist when they have right of way it's their fault for not avoiding his shiny car.
sampling bias would be an explanation is it was say 15K against and 4K in favor.
that explanation gets a bit insane when it's 19000 to 0
You are apparently the problem. You don't even seem to know the basic rules of the road.
hint:
You are at fault if you ram into the back of another car.
You are at fault if you ram into the back of a a cyclist.
You are at fault if you join a main road without looking at slam into the side of a car who has right of way.
You are utterly at fault if you join a main road without looking at slam into the side of a cyclist who has right of way.
It's not their fault for not avoiding you and your terrible driving.
If the cyclist has right of way then it is utterly your fault.
they may also choose to act cautiously and assume that you're an nutter with a car he can't drive who doesn't believe things like speed limits or stop signs apply to him but failing to avoid accidents you cause does not make it their fault.
I'm sure you've avoided crashed for a while because even the shittiest drivers can go years and hundreds of thousands of miles without a crash and they use it to convince themselves that they're good drivers when they're really really not.
quick tip: if you can't even control your car enough to keep to the speed limit then you shouldn't be driving.
your statement makes no sense: they're talking about a situation where all the fault is entirely and utterly 100% on one side: car drivers who pull out without looking for cyclists.
and it's not a game. if you get hit by one you don't get to shout "no fair" becuse you're dead.
[citation needed]
From a quick google: he admitted that he posted comments on his own facebook page.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-matthew-woods-jailed
do you have anything showing he posted to the support page?
I imagine it's hard to go after someone who would argue that they were commenting on his post for copyright and that would also argue that the intention wasn't to cause offense but rather to inform people about someone being offensive.
the law covers intentionally trying to deeply upset people but not with introducing people to things which will upset them.
it gets into that sort of silly tripe when people bring in censorship.
Someone pointed out elsewhere:
"That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page."
So he did post it on his own wall.
It should have been a case of "who cares". but some offense junkie took a screengrab and reposted it for shits and giggles on the support page.
Probably with some equivilent to "hey look at this sick fuck everyone, look and be offended while I bask in the joy of having brough this guys wall post to your attention, now quickly get the pitchforks"
the world is full of self righteous assholes who aren't just easily offended but actively seek out offense and make sure to tell everyone else who they think should be offended as well.
Someone pointed out elsewhere:
"That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page."
He didn't write that joke on the page for the victims. someone else did but with a screenshot of his personal page.
Probably reposted to the page by an offense junkie who gets off on showing off things they think people should be offended by.
Someone pointed out further up:
"That's apparently not what happened. This guy posted the joke on his own wall; someone else took a screen grab of it and posted it on the April Jones page."
so no, he didn't write that joke on the Facebook page run by the people trying to find the little girl.
someone else did but with a screenshot of his personal page.
I too tried to follow the citation chain on this one. no luck and a paywall or 2.
no. cyclists can get fined for cycling on the footpaths just like you can for driving on them.
cyclists are not pedestrians.
believe it or not the roads are for *everyone* not just you. roads were made for cars ,truck *and* bikes you fucking crettin.
You see bikes breaking the traffic laws 15-20 times a week? sit by an interstate and you'll see shitty car drivers like you breaking traffic laws 15-20 times a minute because they don't believe the speed limit really applies to them.
there's also an element of risk compensation.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
Drivers percieve cyclists wearing helmets as less fragile and drive closer to them and take more risks when overtaking. this of course means that they're more likely to hit and kill them.
As always the problem can be summed up as:"Bad Drivers"
you need
1: massive amounts of land.Expensive.
2: massive amounts of water.Region dependant.
3: to be willing to lose about 50% of the energy in the process of storing and releasing it.
I remember CFL bulbs like you describe.... when I was a small child my parents got a cheapy one for one of the rooms.
When people tell you to get ones made this century it's for a reason.
I have my own problems with CFLs: for craft work where color is important they don't provide as good a spread of light but your description is like something from decades ago.
I have my house kitted out with Philips 23 watt CFL bulbs (light equivilent to 100 watt) which light up well in about a second and a half .