As an owner of a Chrome OS laptop, the only way I'd get one of these (or recommend it to a friend) is if they came with unlimited 3G. The 100mb cap is not nearly enough.
If you're new to the site, it can be a bit overwhelming, I'll admit. However, for a vet like me (And you have no idea how much it hurts to admit that I'm a Fox veteran) the information is right there. I know what to look for and where to go.
From a paranoid (in the best sort of way) viewpoint, sure- but from an aesthetic viewpoint, I can get the headline and many top stories without scrolling from CNN. No such luck on DrudgeReport.
I'm on a computer at 1440x900 resolution and I can barely see the top quarter of that headline. I had to scroll down two or three screen heights to see it on my netbook. That is NOT a well-designed site.
IF Osama was putting up a fight and was shot, that's disappointing but excusable. As of this time, it seems that this is the most likely scenario. However, if Osama wasn't putting up a fight and was summarily executed, we lower ourselves to the level of our enemies and and violate the constitution.
Congratulations! You're only the third person to point that out, and the third to miss my point entirely.
I used hearsay to give a situation where justified homicide (Dude's pointing a gun at you/another person, blast away) turns into execution without trial (Which the constitution kinda sorta frowns upon).
I think it's much more likely that Osama did put a fight and was killed for it- but a slight change in scenario changes the result from justifiable to summary execution.
You'll note I didn't say that's what happened. I was merely using an anecdote to explain a situation where we should have captured Osama alive. I think it's much more likely that Osama did try to put up a fight and was killed because of it- but if he did surrender/was captured without a fight and was executed, I'd have a harder time getting excited about it.
I've heard hearsay that they pulled him out, took him to another floor, and shot him there along with his family. I'm not saying that's what happened, but if it is, I don't see how you could endorse that.
I have no problem with killing someone who won't surrender- but capturing someone and then shooting them, that's inexcusable.
And herein the difference between a fundamentalist and a scientist is revealed. A fundamentalist says "God did it" and walks away. A scientist says "I don't know how it happens, but I'm willing to spend time and money to find out."
There are asshole theists and asshole atheists, yes- but there are also non-assholes on both sides. The assholes on either side are just as bad, because they both dismiss each other's viewpoint without a thought. Unfortunately, it seems that it's impossible to be a fundamentalist without being an asshole theist- at any rate, I've not seen one. Ordinary religious folks, though, they're alright.
What irks me so bad about this debate is that people on the fundie side are either simply willfully ignorant (Which is terrible, but at least they're only deceiving themselves) or, much worse, they know the other side's argument, and completely disregard it in favor of spreading misinformation. That is simply unconscionable, and unfortunately, both of these are nearly impossible to convince, because god is on their side.
We've already proven that amino acids + lighting = a very basic cell. It seems very likely that, at some point in the trillions of years the universe has existed, that at some point some amino acids got together and got shocked. There's a lot of universe, and a lot of time. Something had to happen eventually.
I have an online DnD group that I play with on weekends. Between then, we keep in touch using the text chat built into Skype. We don't use video, either (although that might change due to some friends from a different DnD session moving away).
Having it all in one nice, compact package is really nice. Keeps problems to a minimum, too. Lord knows trying to coordinate seven people between three different programs is a nightmare and half.
Apple collects data, too. The difference is, I trust Google with my data. Same with Sony.
Google's never sued their customers for modifying devices they bought. Can't say the same for Apple or Sony. Overall, of the three, Google acts like it gives more of a crap about its customers than its competitors.
Bottom line, I use Gmail for my mail, I have a Chrome OS laptop, I have a (rooted) Android phone, I use Chrome for my browser, and I use Docs for storing all my documents- and I've yet to get screwed over yet.
Slashdot Mirror
As an owner of a Chrome OS laptop, the only way I'd get one of these (or recommend it to a friend) is if they came with unlimited 3G. The 100mb cap is not nearly enough.
*koff*
1440x900. 1024x768 on my netbook. Also, people who need to scroll are jerks.
If you're new to the site, it can be a bit overwhelming, I'll admit. However, for a vet like me (And you have no idea how much it hurts to admit that I'm a Fox veteran) the information is right there. I know what to look for and where to go.
No excuse, I know, but again, no scrolling.
I could read the headline without scrolling. It's an improvement, anyway.
On a computer rendering at 1440x900 I have to scroll down to see the headline.
Again, utilitarianism and simplicity are my friends, but when I have to scroll to see the info there are better sites. Fox, or CNN for example.
(note- this is not an endorsement of the content of Fox or CNN, merely they way they lay out their site)
Minimalism I have no problem with- it's just that it can't be hard to design a site so you can get most of the info without having to scroll.
Actually, the design reeks of a mobile site- two birds with one stone, perhaps?
From a paranoid (in the best sort of way) viewpoint, sure- but from an aesthetic viewpoint, I can get the headline and many top stories without scrolling from CNN. No such luck on DrudgeReport.
I'm on a computer at 1440x900 resolution and I can barely see the top quarter of that headline. I had to scroll down two or three screen heights to see it on my netbook. That is NOT a well-designed site.
It might just be my connection, but for being such an important site, DrudgeReport.com is one uuuuugly site.
Let me simplifiy.
IF Osama was putting up a fight and was shot, that's disappointing but excusable.
As of this time, it seems that this is the most likely scenario. However, if Osama wasn't putting up a fight and was summarily executed, we lower ourselves to the level of our enemies and and violate the constitution.
Congratulations! You're only the third person to point that out, and the third to miss my point entirely.
I used hearsay to give a situation where justified homicide (Dude's pointing a gun at you/another person, blast away) turns into execution without trial (Which the constitution kinda sorta frowns upon).
Rebellion: Resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
Mutiny: Revolt or rebellion against constituted authority.
How can you rebel when there's no leadership to rebel against?
This is, at best, a schism, and anon has survived schisms before- see Boxxy or the Scientology protests.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but if it is
I think it's much more likely that Osama did put a fight and was killed for it- but a slight change in scenario changes the result from justifiable to summary execution.
You'll note I didn't say that's what happened. I was merely using an anecdote to explain a situation where we should have captured Osama alive. I think it's much more likely that Osama did try to put up a fight and was killed because of it- but if he did surrender/was captured without a fight and was executed, I'd have a harder time getting excited about it.
I've heard hearsay that they pulled him out, took him to another floor, and shot him there along with his family. I'm not saying that's what happened, but if it is, I don't see how you could endorse that.
I have no problem with killing someone who won't surrender- but capturing someone and then shooting them, that's inexcusable.
And herein the difference between a fundamentalist and a scientist is revealed. A fundamentalist says "God did it" and walks away. A scientist says "I don't know how it happens, but I'm willing to spend time and money to find out."
There are asshole theists and asshole atheists, yes- but there are also non-assholes on both sides. The assholes on either side are just as bad, because they both dismiss each other's viewpoint without a thought. Unfortunately, it seems that it's impossible to be a fundamentalist without being an asshole theist- at any rate, I've not seen one. Ordinary religious folks, though, they're alright.
What irks me so bad about this debate is that people on the fundie side are either simply willfully ignorant (Which is terrible, but at least they're only deceiving themselves) or, much worse, they know the other side's argument, and completely disregard it in favor of spreading misinformation. That is simply unconscionable, and unfortunately, both of these are nearly impossible to convince, because god is on their side.
koff
We've already proven that amino acids + lighting = a very basic cell. It seems very likely that, at some point in the trillions of years the universe has existed, that at some point some amino acids got together and got shocked. There's a lot of universe, and a lot of time. Something had to happen eventually.
/blush
Well THERE'S your problem.
IANAL, but shouldn't users have the reasonable expectation that their data would be secured? Is there a suit here?
I have an online DnD group that I play with on weekends. Between then, we keep in touch using the text chat built into Skype. We don't use video, either (although that might change due to some friends from a different DnD session moving away).
Having it all in one nice, compact package is really nice. Keeps problems to a minimum, too. Lord knows trying to coordinate seven people between three different programs is a nightmare and half.
My apologies, I did remember incorrectly. However, it is Apple's formal stance that jailbreaking is a violation of copyright law.
Last time I checked, I paid for the device with my money.
(Also, hello again! Was wondering where you were.)
Apple collects data, too. The difference is, I trust Google with my data. Same with Sony.
Google's never sued their customers for modifying devices they bought. Can't say the same for Apple or Sony. Overall, of the three, Google acts like it gives more of a crap about its customers than its competitors.
Bottom line, I use Gmail for my mail, I have a Chrome OS laptop, I have a (rooted) Android phone, I use Chrome for my browser, and I use Docs for storing all my documents- and I've yet to get screwed over yet.