I remember the Aphex Twin encoding data into a track such that when run through a spectrum analyser visualisation (like that in WinAmp) a picture of his face appeared. I also remember that this was well over a decade ago.
Ever notice how when there's some story from somewhere obscure in US a whole bunch of arseholes jump in with "is that a real place, lol"? No, me neither, because as residents of other countries we aren't brought up to be arrogant parochial dickheads.
I remember the last line (and have it as well as Rage on my bookshelf) from another short story Stephen King wrote about going postal (Cain Rose Up, in Skeleton Crew): '"Good God, let's eat", he said, and started squeezing the trigger again.'
You only need a stick and to know which direction south is (for Northern hemisphere) to tell the time during the day. Trust an engineer to over complicate things.
Oh well, you can always eat the rats that outnumber the population in cities by about three to one...
The reason there was a massive reduction in the number of farm animals and viable crops during the Black Death is because it killed those who farmed them. Seems like your studies weren't that extensive if you didn't pick up that major point.
This is one of the few comments to mention animal husbandry, and even then obliquely. The only farming mentioned is arable, and just go out and shoot stuff you want to eat something that can run away from you. Maybe it's an artifact of having the right to bear arms ingrained in the psyche that encourages the "well, if we want meat, we'll hunt it", but it comes across as trigger happy weapon obsession by a bunch of city slickers that would only lead to massive wastage of the finite resources.
We already have cattle that near enough *do* come up to humans saying "eat me". What we don't have - certainly in this discussion - are sufficient people stating they are capable of keeping them alive instead of going "ooh, steak!", blazing away and then wondering what to do next with half a ton of dead creature.
Bzzzt. Wrong. It breaches contract law and your consumer rights and they take precedence. Even if you "agree" your rights are still in place as not even you can sign them away. The option to "shop elsewhere" is irrelevant.
As to your strikeouts, who cares? Those were unenforceable clauses in the first place and thus automatically null and void. If they get pissy about it the *entire contract* can be rendered null and void, meaning they would have to refund any and all monies already paid to them.
Given the amount of laws on the books you've probably broken three of them without knowing it just by making that post. But that's OK, apparently.
"Ignorance of the law is not an excuse" is an excuse in itself used to oppress as the assumption is made that you *did* know a certain action was illegal, did it anyway and feigned ignorance. In other words, you're a liar too. Just for that you can have another six months in chokey.
The 85% who thought it wasn't illegal to make a backup were correct as it isn't illegal to do so. However, it was a copyright infringement to do so. So you have something you are entitled to do that is also illegal. Since your consumer rights trump a civil misdemeanour (never tested, but your rights are inviolable) no one wanted the hassle of upholdng that law.
Proper beer (learn from a Brit)
on
Klingon Beer
·
· Score: 1
Seriously, cutting back on the hops and using wheat is just plain wrong, no Brit would call lager beer.
Then again a whole generation has had John Smiths Smooth at knockdown prices in university so when they don't know what real beer is. Bloody yuppie kids.
I'm more of a mead guy, myself.
Re:the prime directive
on
Klingon Beer
·
· Score: 1
Methinks GP is possibly a UK real ale drinker. However as this new brew is supposed to be a Dunkelweizen he may be pleasantly surprised. It all depends on how heavy they are with the gruit.
Not until they'd finished the scouring of the Shire it wasn't. The Party Tree had been felled and the Gaffer was in lock-up (though some privately thought that was the best place for him).
If a contract contains a clause that abrogates inalienable rights then that clause can be deemed as unenforceable and should be removed in order that you have a fair contract fully agreed by both parties. If that part cannot be removed then the whole contract is null and void. This is basic contract law.
Of course this relies on the agreement of a EULA forming a valid contract in the first place due to there being no signatories, other identifying marks or even a verbal agreement noted on it. A click on a button is not any of those, yet somehow it *is* a legally binding contract when the company wants it to be but never is when the other party wants it to be. And they have an army of lawyers who will bankrupt you if you don't like it.
Slashdot Mirror
The former.
No one who knows me by name and is on Facebook posts anything about me. I've asked.
I remember the Aphex Twin encoding data into a track such that when run through a spectrum analyser visualisation (like that in WinAmp) a picture of his face appeared. I also remember that this was well over a decade ago.
Ever notice how when there's some story from somewhere obscure in US a whole bunch of arseholes jump in with "is that a real place, lol"? No, me neither, because as residents of other countries we aren't brought up to be arrogant parochial dickheads.
Try that shit in UK, with our contract laws and consumer rights and see how far you get.
I remember the last line (and have it as well as Rage on my bookshelf) from another short story Stephen King wrote about going postal (Cain Rose Up, in Skeleton Crew): '"Good God, let's eat", he said, and started squeezing the trigger again.'
You only need a stick and to know which direction south is (for Northern hemisphere) to tell the time during the day. Trust an engineer to over complicate things.
Oh well, you can always eat the rats that outnumber the population in cities by about three to one...
The reason there was a massive reduction in the number of farm animals and viable crops during the Black Death is because it killed those who farmed them. Seems like your studies weren't that extensive if you didn't pick up that major point.
This is one of the few comments to mention animal husbandry, and even then obliquely. The only farming mentioned is arable, and just go out and shoot stuff you want to eat something that can run away from you. Maybe it's an artifact of having the right to bear arms ingrained in the psyche that encourages the "well, if we want meat, we'll hunt it", but it comes across as trigger happy weapon obsession by a bunch of city slickers that would only lead to massive wastage of the finite resources.
We already have cattle that near enough *do* come up to humans saying "eat me". What we don't have - certainly in this discussion - are sufficient people stating they are capable of keeping them alive instead of going "ooh, steak!", blazing away and then wondering what to do next with half a ton of dead creature.
The "only following orders" defence was invalid 70 years ago. Why do you think it is valid now?
Then they'd be asking themselves and marking their own homework. Isn't Obama a lawyer who specialised in the Constitution? That's worked out well.
You *douse* the meat with beer should it catch fire. If it doesn't then you souse yourself with it instead.
"I've been on the internet since roughly 1998, and it's relatively challenging to find information on me from that far back."
You're doing it wrong. I've been on the internet since 1994 and it's relatively challenging to find information on me from last Tuesday.
What does a plane have to do with it? Iron Maiden have one, too.
Bzzzt. Wrong. It breaches contract law and your consumer rights and they take precedence. Even if you "agree" your rights are still in place as not even you can sign them away. The option to "shop elsewhere" is irrelevant.
As to your strikeouts, who cares? Those were unenforceable clauses in the first place and thus automatically null and void. If they get pissy about it the *entire contract* can be rendered null and void, meaning they would have to refund any and all monies already paid to them.
[Citation needed]
Not that I don't believe you but there's a lot of assholes on the net nowadays.
Given the amount of laws on the books you've probably broken three of them without knowing it just by making that post. But that's OK, apparently.
"Ignorance of the law is not an excuse" is an excuse in itself used to oppress as the assumption is made that you *did* know a certain action was illegal, did it anyway and feigned ignorance. In other words, you're a liar too. Just for that you can have another six months in chokey.
We're doing quite well in EU without software patents.
I see the last moments of my victims every time I close my eyes. Keeps me warm at night.
The 85% who thought it wasn't illegal to make a backup were correct as it isn't illegal to do so. However, it was a copyright infringement to do so. So you have something you are entitled to do that is also illegal. Since your consumer rights trump a civil misdemeanour (never tested, but your rights are inviolable) no one wanted the hassle of upholdng that law.
Seriously, cutting back on the hops and using wheat is just plain wrong, no Brit would call lager beer.
Then again a whole generation has had John Smiths Smooth at knockdown prices in university so when they don't know what real beer is. Bloody yuppie kids.
I'm more of a mead guy, myself.
Methinks GP is possibly a UK real ale drinker. However as this new brew is supposed to be a Dunkelweizen he may be pleasantly surprised. It all depends on how heavy they are with the gruit.
Not until they'd finished the scouring of the Shire it wasn't. The Party Tree had been felled and the Gaffer was in lock-up (though some privately thought that was the best place for him).
That used the "original" work which is public domain. There is no way this one will get made into a film.
If a contract contains a clause that abrogates inalienable rights then that clause can be deemed as unenforceable and should be removed in order that you have a fair contract fully agreed by both parties. If that part cannot be removed then the whole contract is null and void. This is basic contract law.
Of course this relies on the agreement of a EULA forming a valid contract in the first place due to there being no signatories, other identifying marks or even a verbal agreement noted on it. A click on a button is not any of those, yet somehow it *is* a legally binding contract when the company wants it to be but never is when the other party wants it to be. And they have an army of lawyers who will bankrupt you if you don't like it.