You can already send messages to most people you're not connected to. If you do so, however, it will land in the "other" category, which is more or less a black hole, as it doesn't cause a notification/unread count. This fee will mean that you can pay $1 to have your message land in the "inbox" of your random recipient instead of "other", making it more visible, despite the fact that you're unconnected and normally the message would have landed in "other". Nothing in the article says anything about sending messages to profiles that are hidden/secret - you still need to have a link to their page to click the message button in the first place.
You just ignored the content of the article and assumed that Facebook was rolling out a feature to invalidate privacy settings.
And yet, I'd be willing to bet that if the ratio changed to make it worse, like AUD$1 == US$.25, they'd have jacked up the Australian prices to reflect that. It's greed, not sloth or ignorance.
Whenever Facebook reports user numbers, they report *active* users, which they define as using the site once in the last 30 days. You can argue how "active" someone is if they use it once a month, but they don't count your friends who "haven't checked their facebook page in months".
You need 60 to break the filibuster. However other than that you are totally right - the Democrats had 60 votes from July 7th, 2009 to August 25th, 2009 and from September 25th, 2009 to February 4th, 2010 ONLY IF you count Sanders and Lieberman as Democrats - and the latter assumption is not particularly accurate.
You can pay an arbitrary amount of money (above a baseline) for this system - whoever pays the most, gets the best treatment at traffic lights. The potential for revenue is limitless!
He's going to a minimum or low security facility, which is typically almost completely unsecured, and has a focus on work and job programs. We are not talking about "hard time" here. He'll be serving alongside white-collar criminals, not exactly a dangerous bunch.
The wisdom of Office Space seems applicable here.
Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right. Why do you ask, anyway?
IF we're going to get mad at Google for roaming around in a car picking up SSID's than WHY can't we get mad at Zynga for taking whatever information they have about me and making money by selling it?
Because Zynga only gets the data that YOU give them; you ultimately have control over how much information Zynga gets about you. Don't want them to have information about you? Don't use their applications.
Now if you don't like the law, think it should be changed, the answer is to let your representatives know. They are the ones who make the laws, they can unmake them.
No, but really... all you need is some flexibility in the meaning of "non-secular" and enough dislike of the United States to accept "evil", and this matches the United States pretty well.
Can you please explain why you feel this statement suggest the student hasn't grasped the substance of the lesson?
It depends on whether or not you think the student approved of the lesson. If he is endorsing the exercise, then his statement is along the lines of "We weren't actually being terrorists, we were learning about it, it's a good idea and negative reactions are overblown" and he has clearly grasped the substance of the lesson. If he was disapproving, his comment was more along the lines of "We shouldn't be pretending to be terrorists in order to learn about terrorists" and he missed the point of the exercise. So, it depends on the context of the quote given by the student.
I'd posit that the United States has a higher susceptibility to arguments of the form "b..b..but terrorists" (moreso than India, Spain, or Russia), and while I cannot cite specific examples of national transport projects getting held up, I'd say that it is likely to occur in the future, given proper stimuli. Consider restrictions on liquids on aircrafts, removing shoes to go through airport security, the entire Department of Homeland Security; all knee-jerk, ill-considered reactions to superficial threats. I see no reason not to assume a similar reaction could occur affecting a national transport project under the right circumstances.
This is, of course, totally different from the question of intellectually validity; but intellectual validity isn't really relevant, most of the time...
...why would any law-abiding resident ever volunteer to scan their irises into a public database, and sacrifice their privacy? GRI hopes that the immediate value the system creates will alleviate any concern... And he has a warning for those thinking of opting out: "When you get masses of people opting-in, opting out does not help. Opting out actually puts more of a flag on you than just being part of the system. We believe everyone will opt-in."
If you're a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to hide, and thus couldn't possibly object.
...longer than 15 minutes at a time, it's not a good idea -- you'll hand will get sore in no time.
Maybe they anticipate that their users will have lots of practice making repetitive hand motions for extended periods of time and will be able to avoid this problem. Can't imagine why, though.
When I was in elementary school, the only class I could stand was gym class. So, I would stick it out through the day until gym class, after which I would develop serious symptoms that demanded I be sent home. As it so happened, gym almost always was scheduled directly after lunch. I was a good enough actor that my symptoms usually got attention even if they didn't get me sent home, which led to all sorts of theories about why I was mysteriously sick, usually focusing on the food that I ate for lunch... all sorts of allergies and intolerances were postulated, and more than once my parents got furiously angry at various administrators for the food they were serving in the cafeteria. Eventually, somebody realized what was really going on, and it all got quietly dropped.
So in conclusion, kids will pretend to be sick to get out of school, and parents will come up with crazy theories to avoid concluding that's what's going on.
Probably would only work in the local/regional court, but:
Judge: "Any reason you think you would be biased for or against this defendant?"
Jury candidate #1: "Well, I'm pretty sure I saw him pop up in my facebook newsfeed for driving drunk."
Defense Lawyer: "Dismissed."
Would work best when the defendant is charged with something vaguely related but not the same as DUI, like disorderly conduct or domestic violence.
Slashdot Mirror
Thousands? Try millions. All of North Korea is starving.
His name is Carl Bergmanson, not "Bermanson". Come on, editors, what purpose do you even serve?
Some words are made-upperer than others.
You can already send messages to most people you're not connected to. If you do so, however, it will land in the "other" category, which is more or less a black hole, as it doesn't cause a notification/unread count. This fee will mean that you can pay $1 to have your message land in the "inbox" of your random recipient instead of "other", making it more visible, despite the fact that you're unconnected and normally the message would have landed in "other". Nothing in the article says anything about sending messages to profiles that are hidden/secret - you still need to have a link to their page to click the message button in the first place.
You just ignored the content of the article and assumed that Facebook was rolling out a feature to invalidate privacy settings.
And yet, I'd be willing to bet that if the ratio changed to make it worse, like AUD$1 == US$.25, they'd have jacked up the Australian prices to reflect that. It's greed, not sloth or ignorance.
Whenever Facebook reports user numbers, they report *active* users, which they define as using the site once in the last 30 days. You can argue how "active" someone is if they use it once a month, but they don't count your friends who "haven't checked their facebook page in months".
You need 60 to break the filibuster. However other than that you are totally right - the Democrats had 60 votes from July 7th, 2009 to August 25th, 2009 and from September 25th, 2009 to February 4th, 2010 ONLY IF you count Sanders and Lieberman as Democrats - and the latter assumption is not particularly accurate.
You can pay an arbitrary amount of money (above a baseline) for this system - whoever pays the most, gets the best treatment at traffic lights. The potential for revenue is limitless!
What TV show has 30+ episodes in a season ($100/$3)? TV seasons are usually fewer than 25 episodes.
He was probably (quite reasonably) including tax and shipping and handling.
He's going to a minimum or low security facility, which is typically almost completely unsecured, and has a focus on work and job programs. We are not talking about "hard time" here. He'll be serving alongside white-collar criminals, not exactly a dangerous bunch.
The wisdom of Office Space seems applicable here.
Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right. Why do you ask, anyway?
Smells like... defeat.
IF we're going to get mad at Google for roaming around in a car picking up SSID's than WHY can't we get mad at Zynga for taking whatever information they have about me and making money by selling it?
Because Zynga only gets the data that YOU give them; you ultimately have control over how much information Zynga gets about you. Don't want them to have information about you? Don't use their applications.
Now if you don't like the law, think it should be changed, the answer is to let your representatives know. They are the ones who make the laws, they can unmake them.
You must be new here...
...the United States?
No, but really... all you need is some flexibility in the meaning of "non-secular" and enough dislike of the United States to accept "evil", and this matches the United States pretty well.
Can you please explain why you feel this statement suggest the student hasn't grasped the substance of the lesson?
It depends on whether or not you think the student approved of the lesson. If he is endorsing the exercise, then his statement is along the lines of "We weren't actually being terrorists, we were learning about it, it's a good idea and negative reactions are overblown" and he has clearly grasped the substance of the lesson. If he was disapproving, his comment was more along the lines of "We shouldn't be pretending to be terrorists in order to learn about terrorists" and he missed the point of the exercise. So, it depends on the context of the quote given by the student.
The Big 3 (Win, OSX, Linux).
I want steam on Plan 9, dammit!
I'd posit that the United States has a higher susceptibility to arguments of the form "b..b..but terrorists" (moreso than India, Spain, or Russia), and while I cannot cite specific examples of national transport projects getting held up, I'd say that it is likely to occur in the future, given proper stimuli. Consider restrictions on liquids on aircrafts, removing shoes to go through airport security, the entire Department of Homeland Security; all knee-jerk, ill-considered reactions to superficial threats. I see no reason not to assume a similar reaction could occur affecting a national transport project under the right circumstances.
This is, of course, totally different from the question of intellectually validity; but intellectual validity isn't really relevant, most of the time...
If you're a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to hide, and thus couldn't possibly object.
what the FUCK
I have RTFA, and one major issue remains unclear to me. From where would Congress derive the authority to mandate putting radios in all cell phones?
...longer than 15 minutes at a time, it's not a good idea -- you'll hand will get sore in no time.
Maybe they anticipate that their users will have lots of practice making repetitive hand motions for extended periods of time and will be able to avoid this problem. Can't imagine why, though.
When I was in elementary school, the only class I could stand was gym class. So, I would stick it out through the day until gym class, after which I would develop serious symptoms that demanded I be sent home. As it so happened, gym almost always was scheduled directly after lunch. I was a good enough actor that my symptoms usually got attention even if they didn't get me sent home, which led to all sorts of theories about why I was mysteriously sick, usually focusing on the food that I ate for lunch... all sorts of allergies and intolerances were postulated, and more than once my parents got furiously angry at various administrators for the food they were serving in the cafeteria. Eventually, somebody realized what was really going on, and it all got quietly dropped.
So in conclusion, kids will pretend to be sick to get out of school, and parents will come up with crazy theories to avoid concluding that's what's going on.
Probably would only work in the local/regional court, but:
Judge: "Any reason you think you would be biased for or against this defendant?"
Jury candidate #1: "Well, I'm pretty sure I saw him pop up in my facebook newsfeed for driving drunk."
Defense Lawyer: "Dismissed."
Would work best when the defendant is charged with something vaguely related but not the same as DUI, like disorderly conduct or domestic violence.