Hey, neat, a little bit of star trek memorabilia, sounds great! And it has actual information about the shows? Very interested.
The app costs $4.99, and is available now in the App Store.
Never mind. For something that sounds like little more than a wikipedia page with some decorations, "very interested" translates into "will download if it's free."
Google having the most effective advertising is not a monopoly. There are about 266 million other webpages to advertise on. If none of them work as well as google, that's something google should be rewarded for, not punished for.
Sure, lets not let them loot, but I think it would be a mistake to reason that "This group is bad, so when they tell us to do something, it cannot be in our interests to do it."
Only on the internet in 2011 can uninformed trolls STILL be going with the "tax cuts to the wealthy" classist bullshit.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer even before they cut our healthcare and give tax cuts to the wealthy. It will become "classist bullshit" when it stops being true.
The Tea Party wants a budget - they just want it to be balanced, rather than simply pile on more and more unsustainable debt.
No, their goal is to spare their corporate masters any hardship, the alternative is making us mere mortals bear the weight.
There are three ways to deal with not enough money in a budget. One is to go deeper into debt. They're refusing to allow that to happen, having finally seen how dumb that was, though when Bush was in office, they didn't mind flying wildly into the red.
The second is to increase taxes. The Bush tax cuts caused the debt crisis, so one would think that raising taxes as PART of the solution would be a no-brainer. But they're refusing that too, saying it will prevent economic recovery.
The last option is to cut spending. That's the only one left. Military spending is a major part of the budget, but all sides are too chicken shit to talk about that. There's been some token cuts, a plane no one wanted got cut after much controversy, but no one seems to be saying "We can't pay for Iraq and Afghanistan anymore."
So the path of least resistance is cutting the citizen's healthcare and retiree benefits, since citizens aren't paying for their campaigns. And to be fair, the citizens are too stupid to fight back.
Seems to me like the Israelis have every right to decide who enters their country.
Basing it on criminal history, disease, or crowding, yes. Basing it off of imagined security concerns or reserving jobs for current residents, that's somewhat less legitimate to me.
Basing that off of political views or race (as Israel is doing)? They -can- do it, but I don't think they have a moral -right- to do it.
No legitimate claim? Go back to your history class. The Kingdom of Israel was in place for centuries before Arabs even came to existence.
A valid point, the first people to settle in an area have a claim to that land regardless of anything that has happened since then. Hey, before I forget, I'll be by sometime next week to get the keys to your house, please have your stuff moved out by Thursday.
Sincerely,
Chief Typing Bull
PS, if you don't happen to be American, insert a relevant name for the peoples your peoples replaced when they set up shop.
Facebook is in routine use by various "authorities " to profile people. So why not the Israelis?
And in other news. Bears shit in woods.
If a bear were to shit in the woods I was living in, that would be important news. A social networking site (the woods) that I use gives information (er...) to a government that acts like governments do (the bear)? That's important news to me.
It seems to me that Big Brother has decided it's far more efficient to solicit donated spying rather than paying for a camera in every house.
When you sign up they want you to give them permission to use your data anywhere in their advertising and analytics network... They have your name and all kinds of info where you browse and what you do.
You allow all that to happen. You have to use google or give permission for google analytics to run for google to know what you're looking at. Stop using google as your search engine. Stop allowing google.analytics to run on your browser. Bam, you have stopped giving information to google.
Facebook might try to target marketing for you, but at least they only do that within Facebook...
No, they sell your information to the highest bidder. If that's advertisers on facebook, that will stay on facebook yes. If it's the Israeli government trying to stifle a protest by human rights activists, then that will spill over into real life and possibly involve a full body cavity search, which I would characterize as "intrusive" and a "major invasion of privacy."
That being said, they have benefited from an illegal monopoly
What monopoly exactly? Seriously, someone please tell me which of the google services constitute a monopoly?
Search engine? There are like a dozen of them. Yahoo still technically exists. I hear there are people who actually use Bing. Why? I don't know. Are there any browsers that have google as the only search engine you can use? Even with Chrome, you can change the search engine.
Gmail? Again, plenty of e-mail services exist.
Google maps? No, mapquest still seems to be around.
Google+? Chrome? Don't be ridiculous.
Youtube? Maybe, but last I heard, that wasn't really "benefiting" them, it was costing them money, and there are other video sharing services.
They published an unfinished product on a market... This included with the constant problems on Google+, not really offering anything new... Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.
So it's similar to facebook in the early days when we all used myspace. "Why would I switch to facebook? I've got myspace! All my friends are already on myspace! I've never even heard of facebook." Most of the features of facebook weren't there in those early days (unfinished). I think there was photo sharing, not sure if myspace did that, but I can't remember being impressed with facebook over myspace, aside from the lack of annoying music (and by parallel, I like that google+ doesn't have annoying app notifications about farmville).
I thought for certain that facebook was going to die a quiet death, that no one would ever use it. Since then I've learned that making far flung predictions of doom and gloom are best left to idiots on cable news, since either it happens or it don't.
even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook
Such as? People who spread FUD usually make similarly vague statements. Be more specific or shut up. All the privacy concerns I've heard of have been from people who haven't properly configured their settings and/or forgot AGAIN that social networking sites aren't for secret information. Those settings seem to have stayed set since the launch of google+, which is longer than your privacy settings stay set on facebook.
Given that they track EVERYTHING you do, and there are other competing search engines which do not do that, why would anyone use google any more?
Why would I care if they track my searches? Will they e-mail porn searches to my parents? Because that would be rather awkward, but otherwise it doesn't matter.
There are search engines that don't track me, have equal or better methods of keeping junk from polluting the top hits, don't actually track me, don't have intrusive ads, and scout's honor don't really track me? Well then, I'll use them if I have any reason to.
But the climate alarmists like to take advantage of people's limited memory and lack of knowledge of history.
Nice! My turn:
Whereas those who want so badly to believe climate change isn't happening prefer to take advantage of people's inability to understand complicated things.
"You mean all those coal power plants and gas guzzlers might be having unintended consequences? Oh no, I'm starting to feel guilty! Wait wait wait... no, it has to be natural because it's happened like this before. If it were unnatural, this thing would have NEVER happened before. Alright, time to start bugging my congressman to spend taxes to make gas cheaper through subsidies."
Isn't it so much fun to paint those on the other side of a disagreement as being stupid and/or evil!?! Ad homenim attacks are -so- much simpler than trying to grapple with tough issues like "is climate change actually occurring."
[/sarcasm]
The area along its abdomen that the bug uses to make the noise is only about the width of a human hair, and researchers aren't sure exactly how it produces so loud a song
It's probably -because- it's only the width of a hair that the bug makes such loud noises. If mine were the size of a hair, I'd probably be pretty upset and yell pretty loudly too.
Different places, different cultures. Violence is ok in the USA, sex is ok in Europe. You take your choice and live where you feel comfortable I suppose...
Europe being the -only- non-american example you could think up? Don't get me wrong, we have some stupid hangups about sex, but compare us to, say, Saudi Arabia and we look like sluts. I hear Bollywood movies won't show lip-to-lip kissing on their movies. It's all relative. Europe today seems pretty uptight compared to the roman orgies.
America's media masters have a very fucking twisted sense of what's "acceptable" and what's not.
Their definition of what's "acceptable" is "what can we show that will sell well and won't get us into trouble with the ridiculous puritan groups."
It's not suits in a corporate boardroom at Konami that are deciding sex is bad but ultraviolence good. That's decided by small groups of obsessed, socially conservative, religious people with too much time and money on their hands. The parents television council got in a tizzy because of the SNL sketch "dick in a box." The media research center whose mission is to prove that there is a "liberal bias" in media, pitched a fit about a female nipple being revealed at the superbowl. Jerry Fallwell was the one getting upset about a purple teletubby with a triangle on his head.
Fortunately, those morons are literally dying off.
Sorry Hsien-Ko, but it looks like you haven't had a game in 10 years anyway. And, that's a Japanese game, so this should have little bearing on any future game. You and your sister, the living little slip of paper, should instead beat up on Capcom until they release it, THEN worry about it getting to the US.
Sex is taboo, violence and carnage is great, I guess they never watch TV in America?
One point that is often overlooked is "Which is more likely: that your son or daughter will engage in sex or violence?"
I think most people who want more censorship aren't opposed to -sex-, they're opposed to their children having it. They know their children are going through puberty and know that having a sex drive is normal, whereas committing murder is less likely. They might think that depictions of sex will make their children more likely to have sex, whereas depictions of violence will probably not nudge their children towards violence. That's not entirely unreasonable. Watching porn makes me want to have sex. Watching violence does not make me want to kill.
I gather that american parents in general -are- more squeamish about their children actually having sex than european parents are. That type of thing dies hard though. My parents and I have only had very awkward conversations about sex. I have no template for having a non-awkward conversation with my children if and when I have them. I laugh at my parents for giving me "the talk" several years after my classmates had already given me the talk (albeit full of errors) but I'll likely end up bungling it as well when it's my turn. I was always annoyed when my family would be watching a movie and a sex scene would come up, and my mother would fast forward, but she still does it now that I'm an adult and now I realize it would be very uncomfortable to watch people getting it on with my mother in the room.
In other words, being squeamish about your children's sex lives is to some degree an inherited thing, and isn't easy to erase. We don't want to think of our children as sexual beings, a consequence of that is to try to ignore it. We -don't- think of our children as violent, since we naturally assume our kids aren't psychopaths. And for the most part, they're not.
Just to be clear though, this is in no way advocating government censorship of either sex or violence just because of my squeamishness. If I'm uncomfortable with my kids seeing sex in entertainment, I'll either regulate them directly or get over it. Having the government crack down to make it so you don't have to discuss sex with your children is truly idiotic and indefensible.
My plan is to do so much messed up stuff they decide to ignore it because they don't want to get stuck with the paperwork.
My plan is to do stuff that is SO messed up, they ignore it because they don't want to lose their lunch.
FBI agent: "Sir, we had to stop monitoring interkin3tic"
FBI head: "What? Why?!? That guy's too dangerous to ignore!"
FBI agent: "You've heard of two chicks one cup?"
FBI head: "Sadly yes... why?"
FBI agent: "Well sir, the last 3 agents assigned to monitor his computer went completely catatonic. The fourth just rocks back and forth muttering 'ten chicks, no cup.'"
Slashdot Mirror
The app costs $4.99, and is available now in the App Store.
Never mind. For something that sounds like little more than a wikipedia page with some decorations, "very interested" translates into "will download if it's free."
Google having the most effective advertising is not a monopoly. There are about 266 million other webpages to advertise on. If none of them work as well as google, that's something google should be rewarded for, not punished for.
Sure, lets not let them loot, but I think it would be a mistake to reason that "This group is bad, so when they tell us to do something, it cannot be in our interests to do it."
I don't know about a few days ago, but I've seen "first post" for years, so it wouldn't surprise me.
Only on the internet in 2011 can uninformed trolls STILL be going with the "tax cuts to the wealthy" classist bullshit.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer even before they cut our healthcare and give tax cuts to the wealthy. It will become "classist bullshit" when it stops being true.
The Tea Party wants a budget - they just want it to be balanced, rather than simply pile on more and more unsustainable debt.
No, their goal is to spare their corporate masters any hardship, the alternative is making us mere mortals bear the weight.
There are three ways to deal with not enough money in a budget. One is to go deeper into debt. They're refusing to allow that to happen, having finally seen how dumb that was, though when Bush was in office, they didn't mind flying wildly into the red.
The second is to increase taxes. The Bush tax cuts caused the debt crisis, so one would think that raising taxes as PART of the solution would be a no-brainer. But they're refusing that too, saying it will prevent economic recovery.
The last option is to cut spending. That's the only one left. Military spending is a major part of the budget, but all sides are too chicken shit to talk about that. There's been some token cuts, a plane no one wanted got cut after much controversy, but no one seems to be saying "We can't pay for Iraq and Afghanistan anymore."
So the path of least resistance is cutting the citizen's healthcare and retiree benefits, since citizens aren't paying for their campaigns. And to be fair, the citizens are too stupid to fight back.
Seems to me like the Israelis have every right to decide who enters their country.
Basing it on criminal history, disease, or crowding, yes. Basing it off of imagined security concerns or reserving jobs for current residents, that's somewhat less legitimate to me.
Basing that off of political views or race (as Israel is doing)? They -can- do it, but I don't think they have a moral -right- to do it.
No legitimate claim? Go back to your history class. The Kingdom of Israel was in place for centuries before Arabs even came to existence.
A valid point, the first people to settle in an area have a claim to that land regardless of anything that has happened since then. Hey, before I forget, I'll be by sometime next week to get the keys to your house, please have your stuff moved out by Thursday.
Sincerely,
Chief Typing Bull
PS, if you don't happen to be American, insert a relevant name for the peoples your peoples replaced when they set up shop.
Facebook is in routine use by various "authorities " to profile people. So why not the Israelis? And in other news. Bears shit in woods.
If a bear were to shit in the woods I was living in, that would be important news. A social networking site (the woods) that I use gives information (er...) to a government that acts like governments do (the bear)? That's important news to me.
It seems to me that Big Brother has decided it's far more efficient to solicit donated spying rather than paying for a camera in every house.
When you sign up they want you to give them permission to use your data anywhere in their advertising and analytics network... They have your name and all kinds of info where you browse and what you do.
You allow all that to happen. You have to use google or give permission for google analytics to run for google to know what you're looking at. Stop using google as your search engine. Stop allowing google.analytics to run on your browser. Bam, you have stopped giving information to google.
Facebook might try to target marketing for you, but at least they only do that within Facebook...
No, they sell your information to the highest bidder. If that's advertisers on facebook, that will stay on facebook yes. If it's the Israeli government trying to stifle a protest by human rights activists, then that will spill over into real life and possibly involve a full body cavity search, which I would characterize as "intrusive" and a "major invasion of privacy."
That being said, they have benefited from an illegal monopoly
What monopoly exactly? Seriously, someone please tell me which of the google services constitute a monopoly?
Search engine? There are like a dozen of them. Yahoo still technically exists. I hear there are people who actually use Bing. Why? I don't know. Are there any browsers that have google as the only search engine you can use? Even with Chrome, you can change the search engine.
Gmail? Again, plenty of e-mail services exist.
Google maps? No, mapquest still seems to be around.
Google+? Chrome? Don't be ridiculous.
Youtube? Maybe, but last I heard, that wasn't really "benefiting" them, it was costing them money, and there are other video sharing services.
What he's saying is that they cite its so-called prerelease status as justification for the existence of such mistakes.
And what GP was saying is that "it is, in fact, pre-release, not the fake pre-release google often does, so it's actually justified."
They published an unfinished product on a market... This included with the constant problems on Google+, not really offering anything new... Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.
So it's similar to facebook in the early days when we all used myspace. "Why would I switch to facebook? I've got myspace! All my friends are already on myspace! I've never even heard of facebook." Most of the features of facebook weren't there in those early days (unfinished). I think there was photo sharing, not sure if myspace did that, but I can't remember being impressed with facebook over myspace, aside from the lack of annoying music (and by parallel, I like that google+ doesn't have annoying app notifications about farmville).
I thought for certain that facebook was going to die a quiet death, that no one would ever use it. Since then I've learned that making far flung predictions of doom and gloom are best left to idiots on cable news, since either it happens or it don't.
even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook
Such as? People who spread FUD usually make similarly vague statements. Be more specific or shut up. All the privacy concerns I've heard of have been from people who haven't properly configured their settings and/or forgot AGAIN that social networking sites aren't for secret information. Those settings seem to have stayed set since the launch of google+, which is longer than your privacy settings stay set on facebook.
A reason is that orkut is FULL of low-brow content.
Low brow content such as "virtual farming" and cat pictures with text added?
Good gravy! I can't imagine what that must be like!
Given that they track EVERYTHING you do, and there are other competing search engines which do not do that, why would anyone use google any more?
Why would I care if they track my searches? Will they e-mail porn searches to my parents? Because that would be rather awkward, but otherwise it doesn't matter.
There are search engines that don't track me, have equal or better methods of keeping junk from polluting the top hits, don't actually track me, don't have intrusive ads, and scout's honor don't really track me? Well then, I'll use them if I have any reason to.
But the climate alarmists like to take advantage of people's limited memory and lack of knowledge of history.
Nice! My turn:
Whereas those who want so badly to believe climate change isn't happening prefer to take advantage of people's inability to understand complicated things.
"You mean all those coal power plants and gas guzzlers might be having unintended consequences? Oh no, I'm starting to feel guilty! Wait wait wait... no, it has to be natural because it's happened like this before. If it were unnatural, this thing would have NEVER happened before. Alright, time to start bugging my congressman to spend taxes to make gas cheaper through subsidies."
Isn't it so much fun to paint those on the other side of a disagreement as being stupid and/or evil!?! Ad homenim attacks are -so- much simpler than trying to grapple with tough issues like "is climate change actually occurring." [/sarcasm]
Did I miss something in the story?
Not in the story, but I think you missed the part where geography, geology, and climatology are interesting to some nerds.
The area along its abdomen that the bug uses to make the noise is only about the width of a human hair, and researchers aren't sure exactly how it produces so loud a song
It's probably -because- it's only the width of a hair that the bug makes such loud noises. If mine were the size of a hair, I'd probably be pretty upset and yell pretty loudly too.
MvC3 was terrible so I can understand the denial of the existence.
Ah, I was talking about a Darkstalkers title, which has been dead for years. I failed to think about DS characters appearing elsewhere.
Different places, different cultures. Violence is ok in the USA, sex is ok in Europe. You take your choice and live where you feel comfortable I suppose...
Europe being the -only- non-american example you could think up? Don't get me wrong, we have some stupid hangups about sex, but compare us to, say, Saudi Arabia and we look like sluts. I hear Bollywood movies won't show lip-to-lip kissing on their movies. It's all relative. Europe today seems pretty uptight compared to the roman orgies.
America's media masters have a very fucking twisted sense of what's "acceptable" and what's not.
Their definition of what's "acceptable" is "what can we show that will sell well and won't get us into trouble with the ridiculous puritan groups."
It's not suits in a corporate boardroom at Konami that are deciding sex is bad but ultraviolence good. That's decided by small groups of obsessed, socially conservative, religious people with too much time and money on their hands. The parents television council got in a tizzy because of the SNL sketch "dick in a box." The media research center whose mission is to prove that there is a "liberal bias" in media, pitched a fit about a female nipple being revealed at the superbowl. Jerry Fallwell was the one getting upset about a purple teletubby with a triangle on his head.
Fortunately, those morons are literally dying off.
Sorry Hsien-Ko, but it looks like you haven't had a game in 10 years anyway. And, that's a Japanese game, so this should have little bearing on any future game. You and your sister, the living little slip of paper, should instead beat up on Capcom until they release it, THEN worry about it getting to the US.
Sex is taboo, violence and carnage is great, I guess they never watch TV in America?
One point that is often overlooked is "Which is more likely: that your son or daughter will engage in sex or violence?"
I think most people who want more censorship aren't opposed to -sex-, they're opposed to their children having it. They know their children are going through puberty and know that having a sex drive is normal, whereas committing murder is less likely. They might think that depictions of sex will make their children more likely to have sex, whereas depictions of violence will probably not nudge their children towards violence. That's not entirely unreasonable. Watching porn makes me want to have sex. Watching violence does not make me want to kill.
I gather that american parents in general -are- more squeamish about their children actually having sex than european parents are. That type of thing dies hard though. My parents and I have only had very awkward conversations about sex. I have no template for having a non-awkward conversation with my children if and when I have them. I laugh at my parents for giving me "the talk" several years after my classmates had already given me the talk (albeit full of errors) but I'll likely end up bungling it as well when it's my turn. I was always annoyed when my family would be watching a movie and a sex scene would come up, and my mother would fast forward, but she still does it now that I'm an adult and now I realize it would be very uncomfortable to watch people getting it on with my mother in the room.
In other words, being squeamish about your children's sex lives is to some degree an inherited thing, and isn't easy to erase. We don't want to think of our children as sexual beings, a consequence of that is to try to ignore it. We -don't- think of our children as violent, since we naturally assume our kids aren't psychopaths. And for the most part, they're not.
Just to be clear though, this is in no way advocating government censorship of either sex or violence just because of my squeamishness. If I'm uncomfortable with my kids seeing sex in entertainment, I'll either regulate them directly or get over it. Having the government crack down to make it so you don't have to discuss sex with your children is truly idiotic and indefensible.
My plan is to do so much messed up stuff they decide to ignore it because they don't want to get stuck with the paperwork.
My plan is to do stuff that is SO messed up, they ignore it because they don't want to lose their lunch.
FBI agent: "Sir, we had to stop monitoring interkin3tic"
FBI head: "What? Why?!? That guy's too dangerous to ignore!"
FBI agent: "You've heard of two chicks one cup?"
FBI head: "Sadly yes... why?"
FBI agent: "Well sir, the last 3 agents assigned to monitor his computer went completely catatonic. The fourth just rocks back and forth muttering 'ten chicks, no cup.'"
I think GP was referring to the EMP effect of nukes zeroing out the drives.
You give me too much credit: I was just suggesting we destroy the people who get infected and their computers. With nuclear weapons.