>>>both seem to me to be pretty much closely connected
First Yellowstone is a VOLCANO not an earthquake. It doesn't have any connection to the Japanese or California tragedies.
That sure is some nice selective quoting you've got there. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it...:P
both seem to me to be pretty much closely connected and one is likely to set off the other.
Now I'm not saying an earthquake is capable of setting off a volcano, but your apparent avoidance of why GP thinks of San Andreas and Yellowstone as "pretty much closely connected" makes me question your motivations for posting in the first place.
Yeah, but jukebox owners didn't then pay a portion of the income generated by the jukebox back to the RIAA/artists/whoever, did they? I didn't read the entire entry, but a keyword search didn't seem to indicate it.
I'm guessing Scott-Bert is referring to Scott Adams? If so, Mr Adams never said that he personally would want to live in such a place. Only that there exists people who wouldn't mind it.
Oh I don't believe I'm ever throwing my vote away. I was just trying to appeal to those who feel that voting for someone who isn't a donkey or an elephant is a waste of a vote.
Though in retrospect, I suppose someone could look at my post and think to themselves, "well my chosen animal is guaranteed to not win, so instead of voting for someone who best fits my interests, I'll just stay home".
Unless you've reserved the bar, restricting access to just those on a specific guest list, why shouldn't it count as "in public"? I'm not saying it should, I just don't see the difference between a bar and a sports stadium. Hell, if anything shouldn't the sports stadium should be less public than the bar since there's an admission price?
You can't knock out any one party - it's that bit where if you split the voter bloc of one, the other wins First Past Post.
Only in certain states. If your state is solidly democrat and you vote republican, or solidly republican and you vote democrat, you are throwing your vote away just the same as if you had voted 3rd party.
The difference is that science can at least admit that it could be wrong.
Unfortunately, some of the more hardheaded religious folks consider that to be a reason why religion is superior. I can't find the link, but a while back I came across a site that among other things had a series of one-panel comics by a creationist, and one of those comics made fun of science precisely because of its ability to change its mind about things.
"Reporter: A new discovery changes everything you thought you knew about the origin of life.... wait, no, that discovery was just debunked by an even newer discovery."
Something tells me they aren't gonna just say "oh well" and leave it at that. They'll investigate why it isn't working, and if they find it isn't working because of intentional interference by you (via the GPS jammer), well, sucks to be you.
Demanding a notebook that a bunch of students are giggling around, thereby causing a disturbance in the classroom, is not the same thing as stopping a student in the hallway and demanding access to their cellphone.
Here's a better example. A teacher stops a student in the hallway and demands they hand over their backpack. Is this an encroachment on human rights? Some would say yes, some would say no. I'm not here to debate which it is, but at least now we've got a more accurate analogy.
an Infinite Force that a person can simultaneously pray to, yet cannot affect the world (free will) *and* is undetectible by any measurement process (including prayer!) creates a paradox of such proportions that all rational thought just melts completely.
Not everyone defines God like you just did.
Disclaimer: For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist. I can accept the idea of a creator to the universe. I cannot accept the idea of an Invisible Sky Daddy.
Claiming that abortion is equivalent to actual murder is an emotional argument.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you trying to claim that abortion is never equivalent to actual murder? Because in some cases, it certainly is.
I'm sure most everyone would agree that killing a child one day after they exit the womb is no different than killing it one day before it exits. Or two days before. Or three days before. The problem is that the point at which it does become different is not the same for everyone.
Disclaimer: I believe the only ones who should be in on any given abortion debate are the mother, her doctor, and her chosen deity. I also, in the interest of keeping it to just those 3, tend to share Dr House's views on the matter.
The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters but ultimately, there's a nice clean line: birth. Morally there isn't a lot of difference. Practically, huge.
Not confused, just not an iDevice developer, so not exactly up on the intricacies of the operations. All I had was what was provided in the link.
Nice selective quoting by the way. You completely omitted the part where I illustrated how money is flowing into Apple (aka, charging) but not out of them (aka, paying). Turns out I was wrong about the process as 2 others nicely informed me, but still, thanks for making it sound like I hadn't even considered Apple's side.
Ah, that makes sense. Not being an iDevice developer, I'm not up on the intricacies of the operations, so all I had was what was provided in the link. Thanks to you too for being so nice about the reply.
Ah, that makes sense. Not being an iDevice developer, I'm not up on the intricacies of the operations, so all I had was what was provided in the link. Thanks for being so nice about the reply.
Readability charges users a fee. Readability pays writers and publishers 70% of that fee.
Apple says that if there is a fee for using your app, you must use the "In App Purchase API" in order to charge your users. This API takes 30% of whatever you are charging your users, and gives it to Apple. I'm not seeing where money is leaving Apple, just where it is going into Apple.
It wouldn't be hard for them to make a plastic laptop case with no branding on it.
Except that in the real world, laptops do have branding on them.
Though your comment has reminded me of those protective shells I see some people use on their laptops, so I guess something like that could always be used.
Wait, showing the logo pulls you out of the movie? Really?
"Hey Bob, why do you have this giant sticker on the lid of your laptop?"
"Oh, we don't want anyone who might happen to wander down here to get the idea that Company X is the best because we use them."
"But Bob, we're in a secure underground laboratory. Who the hell is going to 'wander down here'?"
*both actors slowly turn towards the camera and stare for a few seconds*
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said, I'm not saying it's capable of it. I just despise selective quoting.
>>>both seem to me to be pretty much closely connected
First Yellowstone is a VOLCANO not an earthquake. It doesn't have any connection to the Japanese or California tragedies.
That sure is some nice selective quoting you've got there. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it... :P
both seem to me to be pretty much closely connected and one is likely to set off the other.
Now I'm not saying an earthquake is capable of setting off a volcano, but your apparent avoidance of why GP thinks of San Andreas and Yellowstone as "pretty much closely connected" makes me question your motivations for posting in the first place.
Yeah, but jukebox owners didn't then pay a portion of the income generated by the jukebox back to the RIAA/artists/whoever, did they? I didn't read the entire entry, but a keyword search didn't seem to indicate it.
I'm guessing Scott-Bert is referring to Scott Adams? If so, Mr Adams never said that he personally would want to live in such a place. Only that there exists people who wouldn't mind it.
I don't get it. Why would one need one dishwasher for dirty dishes and another for clean?
Is the point simply to avoid storing dishes in cabinets?
Ditto.
Two-Face, on the other hand, sounded slightly off, but still not bad.
Oh I don't believe I'm ever throwing my vote away. I was just trying to appeal to those who feel that voting for someone who isn't a donkey or an elephant is a waste of a vote.
Though in retrospect, I suppose someone could look at my post and think to themselves, "well my chosen animal is guaranteed to not win, so instead of voting for someone who best fits my interests, I'll just stay home".
Unless you've reserved the bar, restricting access to just those on a specific guest list, why shouldn't it count as "in public"? I'm not saying it should, I just don't see the difference between a bar and a sports stadium. Hell, if anything shouldn't the sports stadium should be less public than the bar since there's an admission price?
You can't knock out any one party - it's that bit where if you split the voter bloc of one, the other wins First Past Post.
Only in certain states. If your state is solidly democrat and you vote republican, or solidly republican and you vote democrat, you are throwing your vote away just the same as if you had voted 3rd party.
Does a robot where the only organic part is a "suit" really count as a cyborg?
The difference is that science can at least admit that it could be wrong.
Unfortunately, some of the more hardheaded religious folks consider that to be a reason why religion is superior. I can't find the link, but a while back I came across a site that among other things had a series of one-panel comics by a creationist, and one of those comics made fun of science precisely because of its ability to change its mind about things.
"Reporter: A new discovery changes everything you thought you knew about the origin of life.... wait, no, that discovery was just debunked by an even newer discovery."
Something tells me they aren't gonna just say "oh well" and leave it at that. They'll investigate why it isn't working, and if they find it isn't working because of intentional interference by you (via the GPS jammer), well, sucks to be you.
Demanding a notebook that a bunch of students are giggling around, thereby causing a disturbance in the classroom, is not the same thing as stopping a student in the hallway and demanding access to their cellphone.
Here's a better example. A teacher stops a student in the hallway and demands they hand over their backpack. Is this an encroachment on human rights? Some would say yes, some would say no. I'm not here to debate which it is, but at least now we've got a more accurate analogy.
respect his rights not to be force fed
Yes, actually. It's called "being sent to your room without supper".
an Infinite Force that a person can simultaneously pray to, yet cannot affect the world (free will) *and* is undetectible by any measurement process (including prayer!) creates a paradox of such proportions that all rational thought just melts completely.
Not everyone defines God like you just did.
Disclaimer: For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist. I can accept the idea of a creator to the universe. I cannot accept the idea of an Invisible Sky Daddy.
Claiming that abortion is equivalent to actual murder is an emotional argument.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you trying to claim that abortion is never equivalent to actual murder? Because in some cases, it certainly is.
I'm sure most everyone would agree that killing a child one day after they exit the womb is no different than killing it one day before it exits. Or two days before. Or three days before. The problem is that the point at which it does become different is not the same for everyone.
Disclaimer: I believe the only ones who should be in on any given abortion debate are the mother, her doctor, and her chosen deity. I also, in the interest of keeping it to just those 3, tend to share Dr House's views on the matter.
The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters but ultimately, there's a nice clean line: birth. Morally there isn't a lot of difference. Practically, huge.
Not a hater, just not an iDevice developer, so not exactly up on the intricacies of the operations. All I had was what was provided in the link.
But thanks for assuming I hadn't even considered Apple's side. I see BasilBrush's selective quoting of my post worked.
Not confused, just not an iDevice developer, so not exactly up on the intricacies of the operations. All I had was what was provided in the link.
Nice selective quoting by the way. You completely omitted the part where I illustrated how money is flowing into Apple (aka, charging) but not out of them (aka, paying). Turns out I was wrong about the process as 2 others nicely informed me, but still, thanks for making it sound like I hadn't even considered Apple's side.
Ah, that makes sense. Not being an iDevice developer, I'm not up on the intricacies of the operations, so all I had was what was provided in the link. Thanks to you too for being so nice about the reply.
Ah, that makes sense. Not being an iDevice developer, I'm not up on the intricacies of the operations, so all I had was what was provided in the link. Thanks for being so nice about the reply.
In the same way Apple doesn't charge, they pay.
Erm, who exactly is Apple paying?
Readability charges users a fee. Readability pays writers and publishers 70% of that fee.
Apple says that if there is a fee for using your app, you must use the "In App Purchase API" in order to charge your users. This API takes 30% of whatever you are charging your users, and gives it to Apple. I'm not seeing where money is leaving Apple, just where it is going into Apple.
It wouldn't be hard for them to make a plastic laptop case with no branding on it.
Except that in the real world, laptops do have branding on them.
Though your comment has reminded me of those protective shells I see some people use on their laptops, so I guess something like that could always be used.
It pulls me out of the movie
Wait, showing the logo pulls you out of the movie? Really?
"Hey Bob, why do you have this giant sticker on the lid of your laptop?"
"Oh, we don't want anyone who might happen to wander down here to get the idea that Company X is the best because we use them."
"But Bob, we're in a secure underground laboratory. Who the hell is going to 'wander down here'?"
*both actors slowly turn towards the camera and stare for a few seconds*
It may be free for us to listen, but I thought radio stations had to pay for the songs?
The one-loan-per-license restriction is the only compromise I am willing to make.
I hope you mean one loan at a time per license (ie, the same as a physical book in a library).