Being in a younger generation he is more in tune with technology? Also, it's not like he bought an iPod off the shelf and handed it to her - someone did spend time and put on music that she might like. That is thoughtful...then again she gave the President of the United States a picture of her, signed. That's very original and generous of her. I wonder how much thought the Queen put into that gift. So shouldn't you rant on her a bit? The gift he gave was different and thoughtful. Not every gift has to be expensive and extraveggant...and to be honest, she's the f'n Queen of England - it's kind of hard to flash expensive gifts in front of her face and make her go "ohh"..remember she wears the royal jewelry which is worth millions.
Do you have proof he did something questionable? I can buy an iPod, and buy music from Applie iTunes (or some other legal source) and then give it to someone as a gift. it's done all the time. So if you don't have proof that he pirated music we need to get you modded down.
A lot of election races are dead-heat races. Imagine if you organized a grass-roots program to vote for the guy you wanted who supported your viewpoints? You would be surprised how powerful a large, organized, voting block can be when it wants to influence an elected official (or a potential one).
You could run for office - start small and work your way up. Eventually make the correct changes
You could create websites, or write well-written articles to get them published in general newspapers (not specialized magazines).
Lot's of stuff out there that you can do...or you can, as you said, bitch on/.
Problem is the new Star Trek movie is too much like Fast and Fury which won't be appealing to older audience. Young audience might like it but I think the movie overall will fail.
What are you defining as older/younger? How do you know who it will appeal to? Is it because this is an action movie you think older folks won't like it? You think older folks on like non-action movies? I grew up with star trek (shatner) all the way through. I've seen all the tv shows (every single episode), and all of the movies. I'd like to judge this movie myself, but if I were going straight on previews I already love it.
Your statement makes huge assumptions about the population.
How about you give this movie a chance before stating how much you think it will suck for a certain audience group. When you do watch it then poll about 40 "older" folks and ask them "so what did you think?"
$73,000 is amazing money no matter where you live. In the US the AVERAGE american HOUSEHOLD (meaning family of 4) makes about 40k/year. You are also forgetting these people have their living expenses covered which is equivelant to lots of cash.
Give me a Ps3 with plenty of games, lots of pr0n and I am good to go for the next 3 months.
And the response from the guys down below
"Astronauts who do not obey our rules will never fly for us again"
"Cosmonauts who do not obey our rules will never come to earth again"
Under unwinds more then over. Trust me I bitch at my g/f all the time for putting it under instead of over. She's also clumsy and oblivious to her knocking of the roll causing it to spin all over the floor.
More importantly, given the nature of living in the space station (cramped, dangerous, lacking in contact with more then a few people) why don't these astronauts/cosmonauts just say "Comrade's, f them. Use my toilet when you want. If you want my vodka feel free, just let me get a drink of your J Bean." Honestly - as long as they do even trades nobody will know. It would be an issue if one sides resources gets used twice as fast.
So much for international community. I wonder if they say the same thing about the oxygen, medical treatement, electricity, etc.
There's an argument to be made that they are, indirectly, profiting through the strengthened brand they are creating by increasing traffic to a Google branded website but it is a weak argument. Of course, the whole premise is weak.
Not exactly true. brand recognition is HUGE for a company. At HP headquarters it is corporate taboo to say "I am going to Xerox this document" - Xerox has an amazing brand name it is synonymous with photo-copies. Most people think "Cola" is a brand name for Coke corporation when in reality Cola is a type of soft-drink...but it's Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola (though people say coca-cola more then pepsi-cola). How many times have you heard on TV/movie "google it"? I've heard it in many shows...off the top of my head NCIS where Gibbs told his people to "google it". Also I've heard it on the West Wing (also once on the West Wing Toby said "try Amazon.com"). Remember the Tim McVay bombing? Remember the rental truck he used? Ryder. Before the tragic event Ryder was doing alright but couldn't compete with U-Haul. After the event the name Ryder was on the news 24/7 for months....their sales jumped big time. Brand recognition = VERY REAL dollars. Anyone who tells you otherwise is dellusional.
Companies have been taking advantage of the things their competitors leave in the public domain, virtually, forever. Think about all the little businesses that use the location of stores like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, etc. to pick locations. They're taking advantage of all the work done by employees of those, larger, companies to pick locations with high profit potential due to things like high traffic, good visibility, etc.
This may or may not be true. Large companies like Wal-Mart tend to go into small towns that have small stores. These stores fail to compete (price-wise) and go out of business. Now medium to large chains follow in after wal-mart. So you would be correct if you applied your statement to that kind of business. They don't, however, compete with wal-mart they supplement it. Wal-mart moves in and right behind it is a major restaurant (ala Dennys) chain because people like to eat after shopping at wal-mart
So is google helping or harming the news agencies? are they complementing or competing with them? That is an argument for people smarter then us, with regards to marketing/advertising/branding, to make. One thing is fact - the information this news company publishes belongs to them and if they do not want Google (a for profit company) to post it then they have the right to request Google not post it. Google does have this ability and they exercise it all the time for sites that are very questionnable.
The INTERNET, and the Web on it...were never created with the purpose of generating revenue for companies
Wow that's a dumb argument. The INTERNET was never created with the purpose of spreading pr0n but I'd wager pr0n is the number 1 type of data flowing on the net.
Users who went on the Internet to sell something being late-comers? Selling in the early 90's, is not exactly late unless you are calling the INTERNET of today, hell even 15 years ago, the same as it's early inception back when it was the military and some universities. The INTERNET, back then, was not even an INTERNET and more like an INTRANET and really more like a usenet group.
Listening to well-thought out arguments is great, but this one is not one of those. By-the-way the newspaper has to pay reporters, editors, and other staff members plus other overhead costs to get the news setup. If they want to charge Google for it they have the right to do so. If Google does not want to pay they have the right to block the content of said newspaper company. How it affects the newspaper companies business model is THEIR problem not yours. If they lose more revenue due to this and close house well too bad for them. If they increase revenue and get bigger then good for them. Google does not get to make the choice of what information they can use - that right belongs to the owners of said information. Frankly - Google is profitting nicely from sites such as news organizations so let's not make this out like a Google is not in it for the money.
They called in the packaging specialists at IKEA! They'll manage to get everything in the container but still forget the screws!
Some people told me the trips is only a few months, I thought it was 2 years, but a couple of sources disagreed with that. BY couple of sources I mean people, not anything official:)
I agree - that shit is way too small. They need shuttle size at LEAST! Talk about fish in a sardine can. At least the space shuttle is more like a small aquarium - again a bit too small but doable. I would honestly pass on that trip. Space is an issue for people - and everyone needs some alone time and space to stretch out and work-out. That's a death-trap ala mazda miata style.
Life isn't that simple. If we didn't have leaders of countries comitting attrocities (ala rowanda, iraq before hussein was deposed, afghanistan, serbia, nazi germany, etc) and then other countries fighting over dumb ass shit (ala US vs Soviet Russia) and then other countries oppressing their people when they really don't need to (ala China) then we wouldn't have a need for a military. Trust me I wish we didn't need it. I wish we didn't need guns or other weapons. I wish we lived in a happy place. But humans are violent in nature and as long as there is someone out there who may decide to blow me up then I want my team to have the biggest and most powerful guns to keep them at bay.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn I wanted a copy of it and to be honest I will still see it in theatres. Shame this leaked though.
but Obama? why is he pulling this crap?
Being in a younger generation he is more in tune with technology? Also, it's not like he bought an iPod off the shelf and handed it to her - someone did spend time and put on music that she might like. That is thoughtful...then again she gave the President of the United States a picture of her, signed. That's very original and generous of her. I wonder how much thought the Queen put into that gift. So shouldn't you rant on her a bit? The gift he gave was different and thoughtful. Not every gift has to be expensive and extraveggant...and to be honest, she's the f'n Queen of England - it's kind of hard to flash expensive gifts in front of her face and make her go "ohh"..remember she wears the royal jewelry which is worth millions.
CD that you have legitimately bought on to iTunes.
iTunes sells CD's? If they do then I've been ripped off cause I never got a CD.
Do you have proof he did something questionable? I can buy an iPod, and buy music from Applie iTunes (or some other legal source) and then give it to someone as a gift. it's done all the time. So if you don't have proof that he pirated music we need to get you modded down.
Britain has yet to seriously discuss reparations for the damage done to Africa from the profits they made in the slave trade.
Find me a living slave, or hell at least their kids or grand-kids, from what Britain did 200 years ago and we can discuss reparations.
Yeah but what can we do?
A lot of election races are dead-heat races. Imagine if you organized a grass-roots program to vote for the guy you wanted who supported your viewpoints? You would be surprised how powerful a large, organized, voting block can be when it wants to influence an elected official (or a potential one).
/.
You could run for office - start small and work your way up. Eventually make the correct changes
You could create websites, or write well-written articles to get them published in general newspapers (not specialized magazines).
Lot's of stuff out there that you can do...or you can, as you said, bitch on
I want a pink one. With a scarf. And candies!
First time I will ever say "Thank God for work Internet filters!"
Problem is the new Star Trek movie is too much like Fast and Fury which won't be appealing to older audience. Young audience might like it but I think the movie overall will fail.
What are you defining as older/younger? How do you know who it will appeal to? Is it because this is an action movie you think older folks won't like it? You think older folks on like non-action movies? I grew up with star trek (shatner) all the way through. I've seen all the tv shows (every single episode), and all of the movies. I'd like to judge this movie myself, but if I were going straight on previews I already love it.
Your statement makes huge assumptions about the population.
How about you give this movie a chance before stating how much you think it will suck for a certain audience group. When you do watch it then poll about 40 "older" folks and ask them "so what did you think?"
mindless sex and violence...so what's your problem with this movie?
$73,000 is amazing money no matter where you live. In the US the AVERAGE american HOUSEHOLD (meaning family of 4) makes about 40k/year. You are also forgetting these people have their living expenses covered which is equivelant to lots of cash.
Give me a Ps3 with plenty of games, lots of pr0n and I am good to go for the next 3 months.
return the Internet to its original pure / virginal white
I agree. http://www.xnxx.com/ has been tainted long enough!
And the response from the guys down below
"Astronauts who do not obey our rules will never fly for us again"
"Cosmonauts who do not obey our rules will never come to earth again"
Whenever me and my g/f split the bill I always tip the waiter less if he charges me the extra penny on an add numbered bill ;)
That'll teach him to assume the guy should pay more.
The cosmonauts complained about the piles of junk, though not publicly.
If not publicaly then how do you know about comrade?
Under unwinds more then over. Trust me I bitch at my g/f all the time for putting it under instead of over. She's also clumsy and oblivious to her knocking of the roll causing it to spin all over the floor.
No but u can haz cheezeburg3r
The list is long and not so distinguished.
More importantly, given the nature of living in the space station (cramped, dangerous, lacking in contact with more then a few people) why don't these astronauts/cosmonauts just say "Comrade's, f them. Use my toilet when you want. If you want my vodka feel free, just let me get a drink of your J Bean." Honestly - as long as they do even trades nobody will know. It would be an issue if one sides resources gets used twice as fast.
So much for international community. I wonder if they say the same thing about the oxygen, medical treatement, electricity, etc.
There's an argument to be made that they are, indirectly, profiting through the strengthened brand they are creating by increasing traffic to a Google branded website but it is a weak argument. Of course, the whole premise is weak.
Not exactly true. brand recognition is HUGE for a company. At HP headquarters it is corporate taboo to say "I am going to Xerox this document" - Xerox has an amazing brand name it is synonymous with photo-copies. Most people think "Cola" is a brand name for Coke corporation when in reality Cola is a type of soft-drink...but it's Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola (though people say coca-cola more then pepsi-cola). How many times have you heard on TV/movie "google it"? I've heard it in many shows...off the top of my head NCIS where Gibbs told his people to "google it". Also I've heard it on the West Wing (also once on the West Wing Toby said "try Amazon.com"). Remember the Tim McVay bombing? Remember the rental truck he used? Ryder. Before the tragic event Ryder was doing alright but couldn't compete with U-Haul. After the event the name Ryder was on the news 24/7 for months....their sales jumped big time. Brand recognition = VERY REAL dollars. Anyone who tells you otherwise is dellusional.
Companies have been taking advantage of the things their competitors leave in the public domain, virtually, forever. Think about all the little businesses that use the location of stores like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, etc. to pick locations. They're taking advantage of all the work done by employees of those, larger, companies to pick locations with high profit potential due to things like high traffic, good visibility, etc.
This may or may not be true. Large companies like Wal-Mart tend to go into small towns that have small stores. These stores fail to compete (price-wise) and go out of business. Now medium to large chains follow in after wal-mart. So you would be correct if you applied your statement to that kind of business. They don't, however, compete with wal-mart they supplement it. Wal-mart moves in and right behind it is a major restaurant (ala Dennys) chain because people like to eat after shopping at wal-mart
So is google helping or harming the news agencies? are they complementing or competing with them? That is an argument for people smarter then us, with regards to marketing/advertising/branding, to make. One thing is fact - the information this news company publishes belongs to them and if they do not want Google (a for profit company) to post it then they have the right to request Google not post it. Google does have this ability and they exercise it all the time for sites that are very questionnable.
The INTERNET, and the Web on it...were never created with the purpose of generating revenue for companies
Wow that's a dumb argument. The INTERNET was never created with the purpose of spreading pr0n but I'd wager pr0n is the number 1 type of data flowing on the net.
Users who went on the Internet to sell something being late-comers? Selling in the early 90's, is not exactly late unless you are calling the INTERNET of today, hell even 15 years ago, the same as it's early inception back when it was the military and some universities. The INTERNET, back then, was not even an INTERNET and more like an INTRANET and really more like a usenet group.
Listening to well-thought out arguments is great, but this one is not one of those. By-the-way the newspaper has to pay reporters, editors, and other staff members plus other overhead costs to get the news setup. If they want to charge Google for it they have the right to do so. If Google does not want to pay they have the right to block the content of said newspaper company. How it affects the newspaper companies business model is THEIR problem not yours. If they lose more revenue due to this and close house well too bad for them. If they increase revenue and get bigger then good for them. Google does not get to make the choice of what information they can use - that right belongs to the owners of said information. Frankly - Google is profitting nicely from sites such as news organizations so let's not make this out like a Google is not in it for the money.
Hybrid fuel technology meet hybrid car driver.
welcome our new bucket wearing overlords! All hail Lord Bucket!
They called in the packaging specialists at IKEA! They'll manage to get everything in the container but still forget the screws!
:)
Some people told me the trips is only a few months, I thought it was 2 years, but a couple of sources disagreed with that. BY couple of sources I mean people, not anything official
I agree - that shit is way too small. They need shuttle size at LEAST! Talk about fish in a sardine can. At least the space shuttle is more like a small aquarium - again a bit too small but doable. I would honestly pass on that trip. Space is an issue for people - and everyone needs some alone time and space to stretch out and work-out. That's a death-trap ala mazda miata style.
Life isn't that simple. If we didn't have leaders of countries comitting attrocities (ala rowanda, iraq before hussein was deposed, afghanistan, serbia, nazi germany, etc) and then other countries fighting over dumb ass shit (ala US vs Soviet Russia) and then other countries oppressing their people when they really don't need to (ala China) then we wouldn't have a need for a military. Trust me I wish we didn't need it. I wish we didn't need guns or other weapons. I wish we lived in a happy place. But humans are violent in nature and as long as there is someone out there who may decide to blow me up then I want my team to have the biggest and most powerful guns to keep them at bay.