In fact, only ONE topic about RIAA on the front page. This particular page about RIAA is, however, almost entirely about this one person's gripe with the admins. Your comparison was absolutely ridiculous, and "childish" since you're wanting to go in that direction.
You're not proving your point. Just give it up. Some people want to read this -- me for instance. Complain to the site admins, not the site readers. You've thrown this discussion way off course. I saw you claim "If you don't like what I've written, don't complain to me, lest you're a hypocrite." Well, honestly, how can anyone NOT read your crap seeing that you've taken up 3/4 of the god damn discussion. Suddenly this entire topic became about YOU and YOU alone.
Don't/. readers have a say in what makes it to the front page? Maybe your beef is with the community. I for one like keeping up on this topic, and I'll continue supporting it, as it has the potential to really affect the internet as a whole, which as you know it is very important to our daily lives.
I believe strongly in scientific fact over what the pious wrote in a book. I feel the Bible is symbolic in many aspects. I would rather not have this discussion on/. though, it's not the appropriate place, nor the appropriate thread. There are many Christian scientists who feel the same as I. If you want to believe that's superstition, I ask you to look at all theoretical science. Science does not disprove a higher life form.
Not all of us conservative Christians are superstitious like you illustrate. Some of us even believe in evolution. Some of us don't mind gays getting married. People want to believe that the stereotype is real though, and you don't help the situation.
What's wrong with HAM fanatics? They were geeks before geeks were cool. I remember my Dad bouncing radio signals of the Moon. That was cooler than Christmas.
Yes, they always showed broadcast stations, but the remainder of the stations for the most part were commercial free, and that's what people felt they were paying for, not the stations you could tune in over your bunny ears.
With online voting there's a record you can review. That vote can't be altered without you knowing. Once you place a paper ballot in the box, that's it, it's left to the integrity of the officials in charge of the ballot station. I think I'd prefer placing my money in an electronic safe keeping rather than a cardboard box for strangers to do the accounting after Lord knows how many hands have passed over it. I'd rather deposit electronic currency rather than cash, in other words. That wasn't always the case however, much like this online voting topic, people used to be highly skeptical of online banking. I think it's safe to say the system has proved itself.
But people are worried about their bosses holding guns up to their heads and making them vote at work and according to that morning's memo. Ok maybe the gun was an exaggeration. But you can't deny the tyranny in the work place! This reminds me of my Dad's story about old coworkers demanding he donate money to the Democratic party. He never did, and it didn't get him fired. At any rate, I'm just rambling since I can't mod you up. Online voting is in our future, that is to be certain. We have the technology to make it successful. No amount of fear-mongering is going change that.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're blaming your shortcoming on others? That's a fair discussion.
No, let's take it to the other RIAA topics which are so ridiculously inundating all of Slashdot. Oh wait.
Not about RIAA
Not about RIAA
Not about RIAA
In fact, only ONE topic about RIAA on the front page. This particular page about RIAA is, however, almost entirely about this one person's gripe with the admins. Your comparison was absolutely ridiculous, and "childish" since you're wanting to go in that direction.
Don't be so absolutely ridiculous.
This could be the answer Nielsen is looking for.
You're not proving your point. Just give it up. Some people want to read this -- me for instance. Complain to the site admins, not the site readers. You've thrown this discussion way off course. I saw you claim "If you don't like what I've written, don't complain to me, lest you're a hypocrite." Well, honestly, how can anyone NOT read your crap seeing that you've taken up 3/4 of the god damn discussion. Suddenly this entire topic became about YOU and YOU alone.
Who's on first.
Don't /. readers have a say in what makes it to the front page? Maybe your beef is with the community. I for one like keeping up on this topic, and I'll continue supporting it, as it has the potential to really affect the internet as a whole, which as you know it is very important to our daily lives.
This thing sounds worse than a Politician to me.
Fixed that for you.
As mentioned in the article, you can get fly-by information from Nasa's ISS tracker
Hot
Someone got the wiring wrong. Poor fishies.
I believe strongly in scientific fact over what the pious wrote in a book. I feel the Bible is symbolic in many aspects. I would rather not have this discussion on /. though, it's not the appropriate place, nor the appropriate thread. There are many Christian scientists who feel the same as I. If you want to believe that's superstition, I ask you to look at all theoretical science. Science does not disprove a higher life form.
Not all of us conservative Christians are superstitious like you illustrate. Some of us even believe in evolution. Some of us don't mind gays getting married. People want to believe that the stereotype is real though, and you don't help the situation.
For the porn industry.
What's wrong with HAM fanatics? They were geeks before geeks were cool. I remember my Dad bouncing radio signals of the Moon. That was cooler than Christmas.
Yes, they always showed broadcast stations, but the remainder of the stations for the most part were commercial free, and that's what people felt they were paying for, not the stations you could tune in over your bunny ears.
All the more reason to pursue a grant for breasts research.
Billy Mays' last words were "But wait! There's more!" Apparently we understand why now. He already had a contract with God.
I remember first getting Cable, and its biggest selling point was no commercials. You had (and still have) infommercials late at night.
I got dibs on breasts.
That's how Cable started out -- free of commercials. People got greedy though.
You must be related to Bill Gates.
Plain and simple. Find a solution that utilizes veggies instead.
With online voting there's a record you can review. That vote can't be altered without you knowing. Once you place a paper ballot in the box, that's it, it's left to the integrity of the officials in charge of the ballot station. I think I'd prefer placing my money in an electronic safe keeping rather than a cardboard box for strangers to do the accounting after Lord knows how many hands have passed over it. I'd rather deposit electronic currency rather than cash, in other words. That wasn't always the case however, much like this online voting topic, people used to be highly skeptical of online banking. I think it's safe to say the system has proved itself.
But people are worried about their bosses holding guns up to their heads and making them vote at work and according to that morning's memo. Ok maybe the gun was an exaggeration. But you can't deny the tyranny in the work place! This reminds me of my Dad's story about old coworkers demanding he donate money to the Democratic party. He never did, and it didn't get him fired. At any rate, I'm just rambling since I can't mod you up. Online voting is in our future, that is to be certain. We have the technology to make it successful. No amount of fear-mongering is going change that.