Perhaps. But be careful not to equate a monkey image of a person who is a member of a race historically and commonly referred to using monkey imagery, and a person who is not. Only a jackass, a racist, or a wag would try to claim that a Bush-monkey image carries the same significance as an Obama-monkey image. (To me, you do not seem to be making that mistake.) Both images may (or may not) be offensive, but to be sure they ARE NOT offensive for the same reasons.
I just want to make sure you know that Americans also drink a staggering variety of delicious, high-quality beers with all sorts of crazy-ass names. We just don't export them to you. My faves these days are Fat Tire, Long Trail, Alaska Amber, and Spotted Cow, but there are hundreds more available where I am and thousands more that I sadly will never taste.
And don't blame America for Budweiser, either; we sold that to you all on the other side of the pond. Enjoy that.
Dude, don't take this from him, okay? irfanview might be all he has. Some people still use pine and vi, so if this guy wants to use irfanview, then we should just let it go.
And we know the left (with an agreeable media) NEVER tries to take down someone they don't like. Just like the claims of Rush Limbaugh and racism...oh wait!
Wait a sec, I'm not sure what you mean. Rush Limbaugh is definitely a minor-league racist, that's very clear. What are you trying to say?
Oh my goodness, here I thought that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, but maybe actually PENGUIN_DANCE RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990!!
Penguin_dance, will you deny, here on the record, that YOU RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990? Will you finally release the documents to disprove the allegation that YOU RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990?
Hey, dude, don't overreact. Nobody is saying that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, we're just asking why he refuses to deny it. If it's not true that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, then why won't he just come out and say so?
Look, to prove that it isn't true that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, he needs to show us the videotape from 1990. I mean, the entire year, every moment of his life. What other standard could demonstrate whether or not GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990? To determinde whether or not GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 we must have the tape, and the longer he withholds the tape, the more clear it becomes that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990.
Speaking of Glenn Beck, I heard that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990. Do you think that could be true? I know for a fact that he refuses to deny that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990.
Yeah, it's weird. I, too heard that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990. I don't know whether it's true that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 but I wish he would deny it so we can all move on. I don't want to wait around wondering whether GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990.
I have a uniform base password which mixes letters and numbers and punctuation, then for each different password I modify it in a predictable way. From time to time, maybe once a year, I change the base password and the form of modification. I actually picked up that habit after reading it from a comment on Slashdot.
For instance, if the base password is p@ssw0rd, then the password at slashdot might be SLp@ssw0rd and the password at Digg might be DIp@ssw0rd.
For me that's a medium-security way to partially obfuscate a shared password.
Uh huh, okay, wow you seem to have a strong opinion there.
What if a person wants to use Google *AND* doesn't want them to know anything about the person? It's fine to want one or the other, and it's fine to want both.
What if a person would prefer to live in a society with automatic privacy protections, instead of everyone having to constantly advocate for their own privacy? It's fine to prefer to do everything yourself the hard way, and it's also fine to prefer to have some general rules or laws to cover most of the needs, and make that all easier.
We also don't have to choose either extreme, we can settle anywhere along the continuum if we want.
It's fine that you haven't had the evidence presented to you yet, but here it is. On your YouTube settings page for Privacy is this paragraph:
We want to make advertising on YouTube as useful and interesting to you as possible. To do this, we sometimes choose ads based on search terms you enter or the topic of the video you're watching. For some pages, we also choose ads that we think will reflect your interests, based on the types of videos you like to watch and other site activity. To learn more or customize your advertising preferences, please go to the Ads Preferences Manager, or to opt out of interest-based advertising completely click here.
That is pretty clear. I haven't looked around for other similar statements on other Google services.
So, now that you have the evidence, you should retract the last phrase of your last sentence.
To switch a language, the website must read some information from your computer: a cookie, maybe a user agent string or some other browser-provided setting. What other method could it use? If you don't like cookies generally, you can allow this cookie (which is equivalent to a browser setting) and disallow all others.
Yeah, maybe. For me it's not an issue of "rights", it's simply a matter of share-and-share-alike. I would rather have greater and more widespread technology than I would a tightly regulated royalty system.
Yeah, I can see what you are saying, but I guess my opinion is that I support a robust and useful public domain, and assuring the freedom of publicly funded research is an essential part of that. I'm less interested in making fine-line distinctions about who deserves to get something for free than I am in bolstering human ingenuity.
If you think hard about this, you will be forced to side with the original poster. Consider changing 100% to 50% and it's mostly clear that "was" is the correct word. It's not important that more than one piece of software comprises the 100%, the important thing is that the verb must agree with the percentage (not the warez), and a percentage is singular. Or, consider removing the phrase "of the warez", so only the percentage is left in the sentence, and obviously "was" is correct. Still, it's fairly subtle, it's not a huge glaring error like "there/their" or "you're/your", or even "its/it's".
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps. But be careful not to equate a monkey image of a person who is a member of a race historically and commonly referred to using monkey imagery, and a person who is not. Only a jackass, a racist, or a wag would try to claim that a Bush-monkey image carries the same significance as an Obama-monkey image. (To me, you do not seem to be making that mistake.) Both images may (or may not) be offensive, but to be sure they ARE NOT offensive for the same reasons.
I just want to make sure you know that Americans also drink a staggering variety of delicious, high-quality beers with all sorts of crazy-ass names. We just don't export them to you. My faves these days are Fat Tire, Long Trail, Alaska Amber, and Spotted Cow, but there are hundreds more available where I am and thousands more that I sadly will never taste.
And don't blame America for Budweiser, either; we sold that to you all on the other side of the pond. Enjoy that.
iPhone has fart apps?! I gotta get me an iPhone!
Dude, don't take this from him, okay? irfanview might be all he has. Some people still use pine and vi, so if this guy wants to use irfanview, then we should just let it go.
I encourage you to watch this as an example of innovative sampling that you might like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
free speech? what do you mean?
i don't want the government to force Beck to shut up, i want him to shut up due to social pressure.
And we know the left (with an agreeable media) NEVER tries to take down someone they don't like. Just like the claims of Rush Limbaugh and racism...oh wait!
Wait a sec, I'm not sure what you mean. Rush Limbaugh is definitely a minor-league racist, that's very clear. What are you trying to say?
Oh my goodness, here I thought that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, but maybe actually PENGUIN_DANCE RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990!!
Penguin_dance, will you deny, here on the record, that YOU RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990? Will you finally release the documents to disprove the allegation that YOU RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990?
Hey, dude, don't overreact. Nobody is saying that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, we're just asking why he refuses to deny it. If it's not true that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, then why won't he just come out and say so?
Look, to prove that it isn't true that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, he needs to show us the videotape from 1990. I mean, the entire year, every moment of his life. What other standard could demonstrate whether or not GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990? To determinde whether or not GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 we must have the tape, and the longer he withholds the tape, the more clear it becomes that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990.
I read on the internet that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 and apparently he refuses to deny it.
Speaking of Glenn Beck, I heard that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990. Do you think that could be true? I know for a fact that he refuses to deny that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990.
Yeah, it's weird. I, too heard that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990. I don't know whether it's true that GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990 but I wish he would deny it so we can all move on. I don't want to wait around wondering whether GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990.
I have a uniform base password which mixes letters and numbers and punctuation, then for each different password I modify it in a predictable way. From time to time, maybe once a year, I change the base password and the form of modification. I actually picked up that habit after reading it from a comment on Slashdot.
For instance, if the base password is p@ssw0rd, then the password at slashdot might be SLp@ssw0rd and the password at Digg might be DIp@ssw0rd.
For me that's a medium-security way to partially obfuscate a shared password.
If that's true, you're boring.
Uh huh, okay, wow you seem to have a strong opinion there.
What if a person wants to use Google *AND* doesn't want them to know anything about the person? It's fine to want one or the other, and it's fine to want both.
What if a person would prefer to live in a society with automatic privacy protections, instead of everyone having to constantly advocate for their own privacy? It's fine to prefer to do everything yourself the hard way, and it's also fine to prefer to have some general rules or laws to cover most of the needs, and make that all easier.
We also don't have to choose either extreme, we can settle anywhere along the continuum if we want.
It's fine that you haven't had the evidence presented to you yet, but here it is. On your YouTube settings page for Privacy is this paragraph:
We want to make advertising on YouTube as useful and interesting to you as possible. To do this, we sometimes choose ads based on search terms you enter or the topic of the video you're watching. For some pages, we also choose ads that we think will reflect your interests, based on the types of videos you like to watch and other site activity. To learn more or customize your advertising preferences, please go to the Ads Preferences Manager, or to opt out of interest-based advertising completely click here.
That is pretty clear. I haven't looked around for other similar statements on other Google services.
So, now that you have the evidence, you should retract the last phrase of your last sentence.
To switch a language, the website must read some information from your computer: a cookie, maybe a user agent string or some other browser-provided setting. What other method could it use? If you don't like cookies generally, you can allow this cookie (which is equivalent to a browser setting) and disallow all others.
I don't see Web History on my Dashboard page. Is "Web History" exclusively a byproduct of Google Toolbar?
Yes that's true, but the community prefers GNU/aweful.
Yeah, maybe. For me it's not an issue of "rights", it's simply a matter of share-and-share-alike. I would rather have greater and more widespread technology than I would a tightly regulated royalty system.
Yeah, I can see what you are saying, but I guess my opinion is that I support a robust and useful public domain, and assuring the freedom of publicly funded research is an essential part of that. I'm less interested in making fine-line distinctions about who deserves to get something for free than I am in bolstering human ingenuity.
That sound reasonable but difficult. What would be your threshold for how much activity a company has to have within your country?
By that reasoning, would you say that never should the results of publicly funded research be freely released?
If you think hard about this, you will be forced to side with the original poster. Consider changing 100% to 50% and it's mostly clear that "was" is the correct word. It's not important that more than one piece of software comprises the 100%, the important thing is that the verb must agree with the percentage (not the warez), and a percentage is singular. Or, consider removing the phrase "of the warez", so only the percentage is left in the sentence, and obviously "was" is correct. Still, it's fairly subtle, it's not a huge glaring error like "there/their" or "you're/your", or even "its/it's".