Jesus. I understand that English is not your native language. I understand that we are having a communication problem. I will try one more time to make this as clear as I can.
And I understand that you are just trying to be insulting.
The police said there were about 200,000 people at the San Francisco protest. They were wrong. There were about 65,000. We know this because of aerial photographs.
We don't KNOW this, they surmise this based on some examination of Arial photographs.
We do not have aerial photographs of other protests. We have only police estimates.
As I told you earlier the all the TV stations were airborn with television cameras, and I seem to recall the newspapers having Arial photographs. But either way, just because the SF police were bad at making an estimate doesn't mean everyone else was. You choose to believe so because it helps to maintain the illusion of whatever it is you believe.
Try this article for a good overview of how the survey was conducted.
Somewhat intersting. Somewhat interesting. Of course if you want to play with numbers there is the generally held statistical belief that for every person showing up, there are 10 who would have liked to attend but were unable because of various reasons (work etc).
Hoo boy. Did you read? The San Francisco protest is the only one for which we have even remotely reliable attendence numbers.
So you keep saying since you need to maintain that fallacy to back up your illusion that only a few people were in the streets.. But its not true. The police monitored the demonstrations in all the Western cities.
Don't just say, "The other big demonstrations around the world were also covered from the sky" if it isn't true.
It is true, it was show on TV for instance. Of course I wouldn't be suprised if they don't show that over there - disrespectful to the president an all.
Just blatantly making stuff up is not a good way to win an argument.
Oh, hello Kettle.
The San Francisco protest was estimated by both organizers and police as having about 250,000 attendees. The actual number was 65,000, with a 10% margin of error.
Estimated before or after? Before it was irrelevant, if its afterwards it just goes to show that the San Francisco police are pretty nearsighted. But then how did they arrive at the 65,000 number? Did they tell everybody raise their hands and be counted?
If you have any kind of source for this by all means disclosed it - we'll see if its credible or more spindoctoring.
"Anyway, as a final comment to this nonsense i did go ahead and waste some time trying to find a reference (though much like your president you are going to dismiss it)"
Jesus. You must be really unpleasant to be around. Ditto
I'm not about to dismiss anything; I'm going to debunk. There's a difference.
Semantically, but what you do is dismiss. First there is your nonsense that only the San Francisco march is somehow relevant, which - to put it bluntly is crap. The other big demonstrations around the world were also covered from the sky. Second, is the nonsense about diving it by 4 because you feel more comfortable by trying to dismiss the large numbers.
As I said before, I really don't mind if you want to bash my country.
And as I said before I don't, but your jingoism seems to blind you to certain facts - or perhaps you have trouble reading.
But I think it would be a good idea on your part if you were to understand just the most basic of facts before doing so.
Like so many, you seem to think that if one doesn't agree with you its because one doesn't understand something. Those people are usually hopeless.
But I think it would be a good idea on your part if you were to understand just the most basic of facts before doing so.
As soon as the increase the amount of storage they want to store more!! It's a natural law or something... 23 GB... and what do we get?? TWO hours worth of TV... oh joy...
On the other hand it should be about 50 episodes in VCD format;)
>Stealing is when you are depriving someone of something
This is the definition of steal.
A dictionary definition is irrelevant. Show me the law if you can.
I know the law of my country (which grated is not America, but until *proven* otherwise I will assume they have adopted the same laws as the rest of the world)
This is not theft. This is not stealing. The law knows this, its time you wake up and understand it yourself:
If someone downloads an mp3 with Britney Spears what she been stolen from her? Nothing. A few bits have been rearranged on the harddrive, but nothing has been removed from her. If she wasn't told about it she would never know. This is not stealing, stealing is when you remove something and there is as void because of it. Stealing is when something of value you had was taken from you.
Now their argument goes "But you 'might' have bought it, and thereby she is missing out on the money you would then have paid her." Which is a bit like applying for a job, NOT getting it and then suing the company for the money you have lost because you don't get the salary you would have gotten if they had hired you... and winnning. However the courts have agreed that you 'might' have bought it and thusly made it illegal, it is a copyright violation. But its not stealing.
Don't try to justify theft.
There are times when theft is quite justified (just as your president thinks there are times when its quite justified to kill civilians in far of countries) - this however is not one of them, since its not theft.
This is a simple case of "I don't want to buy it, so I'm going to steal it."
Actually, I think you'll find it's more a case of "I can't afford this so they are not going to loose money on me" - assuming of course it's something that you can actually buy - I am told there is a lot of material on the next that you can't actually buy.
I'm not going to go overboard like certain(overpaid) senators and say it's like murder. I'm not going to call it piracy. It's stealing.
No it's not. Stealing is when you are depriving someone of something. If you take a car, the owner has lost his car. If you take a copy, its not certain someone actually lost something. Because of this it's "copyright infringement" not stealing.
"There is going to be some lag time between the domain-name switch-over," one attorney said. "But the domain name isonews.com now belongs to the federal government."
Intersting... so the american government can hijack any domain name it likes? Intersting since it was owned and registered by a Dutch guy...
Why would FOX pay to have the set taken down if they want the show to continue?
Well, they might need the stage for something else. But Fox is not the only option. Whedon said they had allowed him to try and sell it to others, and wouldn't block him. Perhaps another company might be interested in a few telemovies?
Don't forget Fox owns the rights to Angel and Buffy, but they are not actually showing either of the series.
Will we see more of Known Space?
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 0
I mean, we don't wanna write it ourselves, we want you to do it:)
Nathan Fillion who played Captain Mal, returned to the official Fox webboard (which is still very busy) and posted a message the other day. (The cast were originally given login names by the Fox admins, and a little gavel is next to the name to indicate authenticity)
His message is:
Just passin' it along for y'all...
Hello all! Hope your winter/spring has been as productive and busy as mine. I've had my nose to the grindstone looking for work. Been hanging with castmembers and remembering the "good times" as we like to call them. We are all still waiting to hear Joss' news about Firefly. He has been hard at work and keeping us all updated, it looks as though something is close! I can't wait to get those tightpants on again. I've had a little time on my hands, been able to go hiking much more than i used to during crazy Firefly hours. Visited the Fox lot yesterday to see that they have dismantled the ship. Not to worry, I'm told it can be put together in a jiffy, and the crew is anxious to do just that. Meantime, I'm auditioning like crazy, praying for a job I can love as much as Firefly. FAT CHANCE!
I haven't been lurking for some time, so I'm not up on all the news, but just to dispel rumours, I DO have a computer, I DON'T have internet. So long, all.
Tara was much loved? She looked like she was missing chromosome 23. She was a terrible actress, she needed to lose around 20 lbs and get a face transplant.
Actually she looked like a woman, unlike the rest of anorexic females on that show
While she is certainly an attractive woman, SMG has always been one of those Hollywood women who really needs to eat a sandwitch sometime.
You can keep the Jenifer Garners and Calista Flockharts of the world. They're all knees and elbows. I like woman-shaped women. I like soft curves.
As do most, a study recently (and i forget all references, believe it or not as you please) showed that 83% of males preferred curvy women with a bit of padding. However, consider this: The metabolism of the body change when you grow older. If you keep eating as you always have to tend to put on weight. In fact most people need to actively do something to avoid putting on weight when they grow older. Thusly, most people - on a subconscious level have tended to associate fatness with age, being older. And since TV is only being made for profit, and since advertisers prefer to target a younger audience (not that they have more money, they are just more gullible;-) they pick actors with the starved look to get at younger demographics. (Even this doesn't always work, check out usenet sometime for just about any show and se kids bitch about how fat some of the actors are, when in fact they have a low BMI)
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus. I understand that English is not your native language. I understand that we are having a communication problem. I will try one more time to make this as clear as I can.
And I understand that you are just trying to be insulting.
The police said there were about 200,000 people at the San Francisco protest. They were wrong. There were about 65,000. We know this because of aerial photographs.
We don't KNOW this, they surmise this based on some examination of Arial photographs.
We do not have aerial photographs of other protests. We have only police estimates.
As I told you earlier the all the TV stations were airborn with television cameras, and I seem to recall the newspapers having Arial photographs. But either way, just because the SF police were bad at making an estimate doesn't mean everyone else was. You choose to believe so because it helps to maintain the illusion of whatever it is you believe.
Try this article for a good overview of how the survey was conducted.
Somewhat intersting. Somewhat interesting. Of course if you want to play with numbers there is the generally held statistical belief that for every person showing up, there are 10 who would have liked to attend but were unable because of various reasons (work etc).
Hoo boy. Did you read? The San Francisco protest is the only one for which we have even remotely reliable attendence numbers.
So you keep saying since you need to maintain that fallacy to back up your illusion that only a few people were in the streets.. But its not true. The police monitored the demonstrations in all the Western cities.
Don't just say, "The other big demonstrations around the world were also covered from the sky" if it isn't true.
It is true, it was show on TV for instance. Of course I wouldn't be suprised if they don't show that over there - disrespectful to the president an all.
Just blatantly making stuff up is not a good way to win an argument.
Oh, hello Kettle.
The San Francisco protest was estimated by both organizers and police as having about 250,000 attendees. The actual number was 65,000, with a 10% margin of error.
Estimated before or after? Before it was irrelevant, if its afterwards it just goes to show that the San Francisco police are pretty nearsighted. But then how did they arrive at the 65,000 number? Did they tell everybody raise their hands and be counted?
If you have any kind of source for this by all means disclosed it - we'll see if its credible or more spindoctoring.
"Anyway, as a final comment to this nonsense i did go ahead and waste some time trying to find a reference (though much like your president you are going to dismiss it)"
Jesus. You must be really unpleasant to be around.
Ditto
I'm not about to dismiss anything; I'm going to debunk. There's a difference.
Semantically, but what you do is dismiss. First there is your nonsense that only the San Francisco march is somehow relevant, which - to put it bluntly is crap. The other big demonstrations around the world were also covered from the sky. Second, is the nonsense about diving it by 4 because you feel more comfortable by trying to dismiss the large numbers.
As I said before, I really don't mind if you want to bash my country.
And as I said before I don't, but your jingoism seems to blind you to certain facts - or perhaps you have trouble reading.
But I think it would be a good idea on your part if you were to understand just the most basic of facts before doing so.
Like so many, you seem to think that if one doesn't agree with you its because one doesn't understand something. Those people are usually hopeless.
But I think it would be a good idea on your part if you were to understand just the most basic of facts before doing so.
As soon as the increase the amount of storage they want to store more!! It's a natural law or something... 23 GB... and what do we get?? TWO hours worth of TV ... oh joy...
;)
On the other hand it should be about 50 episodes in VCD format
..you are american and Bush will invade their country if they are not nice to you. They'll probably believe it ;)
lameness filter is lame!
No, actually he's dead--at least last time I checked he was still dead. Unless you believe in Elvis like sitings.
Moderation Score:
-1 No sense of humor
-2 Doesn't Watch Angel
I mean he's Lorne, and he's.... oh well...
The germs are gonna win!
Fortunately for the sick, there are people who want to make money off of them.
They'd be more fortunate if someone wanted to help them.
...is to make make of of the sick.
Other excellent ways are weapons of mass destruction and reality shows.
I don't care where you are from.
And I don't care what you believe, i KNOW the law, and this is not stealing. But you are right, enough of this nonsense.
>Stealing is when you are depriving someone of something
This is the definition of steal.
A dictionary definition is irrelevant. Show me the law if you can.
I know the law of my country (which grated is not America, but until *proven* otherwise I will assume they have adopted the same laws as the rest of the world)
This is not theft. This is not stealing. The law knows this, its time you wake up and understand it yourself:
If someone downloads an mp3 with Britney Spears what she been stolen from her? Nothing. A few bits have been rearranged on the harddrive, but nothing has been removed from her. If she wasn't told about it she would never know. This is not stealing, stealing is when you remove something and there is as void because of it. Stealing is when something of value you had was taken from you.
Now their argument goes "But you 'might' have bought it, and thereby she is missing out on the money you would then have paid her." Which is a bit like applying for a job, NOT getting it and then suing the company for the money you have lost because you don't get the salary you would have gotten if they had hired you... and winnning. However the courts have agreed that you 'might' have bought it and thusly made it illegal, it is a copyright violation. But its not stealing.
Don't try to justify theft.
There are times when theft is quite justified (just as your president thinks there are times when its quite justified to kill civilians in far of countries) - this however is not one of them, since its not theft.
This is a simple case of "I don't want to buy it, so I'm going to steal it."
Actually, I think you'll find it's more a case of "I can't afford this so they are not going to loose money on me" - assuming of course it's something that you can actually buy - I am told there is a lot of material on the next that you can't actually buy.
I'm not going to go overboard like certain(overpaid) senators and say it's like murder. I'm not going to call it piracy. It's stealing.
No it's not. Stealing is when you are depriving someone of something. If you take a car, the owner has lost his car. If you take a copy, its not certain someone actually lost something. Because of this it's "copyright infringement" not stealing.
"There is going to be some lag time between the domain-name switch-over," one attorney said. "But the domain name isonews.com now belongs to the federal government."
Intersting... so the american government can hijack any domain name it likes? Intersting since it was owned and registered by a Dutch guy...
See the shocking Truth!
Why would FOX pay to have the set taken down if they want the show to continue?
Well, they might need the stage for something else. But Fox is not the only option. Whedon said they had allowed him to try and sell it to others, and wouldn't block him. Perhaps another company might be interested in a few telemovies?
Don't forget Fox owns the rights to Angel and Buffy, but they are not actually showing either of the series.
I mean, we don't wanna write it ourselves, we want you to do it :)
His message is:
Here is the link.
Tara was much loved? She looked like she was missing chromosome 23. She was a terrible actress, she needed to lose around 20 lbs and get a face transplant.
Actually she looked like a woman, unlike the rest of anorexic females on that show
This just barely skirts around the Jump the Shark law that states that adding a kid kills a show or at least indicates the show is dying.
;)
Great, that means 7th Heaven must be near death now
While she is certainly an attractive woman, SMG has always been one of those Hollywood women who really needs to eat a sandwitch sometime.
;-) they pick actors with the starved look to get at younger demographics. (Even this doesn't always work, check out usenet sometime for just about any show and se kids bitch about how fat some of the actors are, when in fact they have a low BMI)
You can keep the Jenifer Garners and Calista Flockharts of the world. They're all knees and elbows. I like woman-shaped women. I like soft curves.
As do most, a study recently (and i forget all references, believe it or not as you please) showed that 83% of males preferred curvy women with a bit of padding.
However, consider this: The metabolism of the body change when you grow older. If you keep eating as you always have to tend to put on weight. In fact most people need to actively do something to avoid putting on weight when they grow older. Thusly, most people - on a subconscious level have tended to associate fatness with age, being older. And since TV is only being made for profit, and since advertisers prefer to target a younger audience (not that they have more money, they are just more gullible
Just call it something juicy, put it on kazaa... instant distributed backup!
Yeah, but retrival can be a bitch!
Don't forget Buffy:
Willow: "Have you googled her yet?"
Xander: "Willow, she's seventeen!"
The United States of America ... the land of the free.
You mean, the country previously know as free?