This is still really irrelevant though. If you do decide to impeach them both, you are doing a coup d'état against a democratically elected government.
Why? Because impeachment isn't the right of Congress? Or congress wasn't elected? What are you smoking? The President is *not* "the government."
I thought Americans didn't care what the rest of the world did? har har. I still think that's pushing it. Americans are broadly against any kind of drug legalization (a couple states don't, still not a mandate). So maybe a congressman is abusing the mandate to prop up prisons, but it's more of a conspiracy theory than fact.
... Maybe use a better example. I can't imagine the US trying to push that policy except because they think it works (even if they are wrong). Use one that involves the US just trying to keep power, there are plenty of them.
The big 5 actually want the UN to be an ineffective joke. If it was not, it would be a threat to their power.
Give me *your* bank account number, I want to do good with it. What good? Whatever I decide. But it will be good, I promise, because I'm small and therefore have no desire to get more money and/or power.
"But there is a certain point at which the stench, impossibility of finding important items, and spousal/co-worker nagging will counter any increased productivity."
And the sun revolves around the earth, I see it every day!... How about doing some objective study instead of just pulling "data" out of your ass? The argument is that neatness hurts productivity. Although, the argument doesn't really matter, this book claims to have done a study. Indeed!
Absolutely correct. However, I believe Apple is the lesser evil here. If Apple opens up their DRM then the music industry will get to prop up all their (historically) awful music stores. Then they won't have any incentive to get rid of DRM. Goooo Apple.
The revolution was backed by those who felt the mandate of the local oil industry should be to benefit the society.
The nationalization of the oil industry was a democratic decision, not part of the revolution. The revolution happened because the Shah was oppressive, secular, and pro-western. I'm not nitpicking dates or names here, you guys are just way off.
But hey, I'll cut you a break, let's switch revolution with "democratic decision by the prime minister." You're still using the PM's subjective reasoning. The oil industry depended on international investment which was lost when the PM nationalized it. The whole reason the Shah took over was because Iranians were pissed off that Mossadegh tanked the oil industry.
And of course, by America, who did want a return on investing in Iranian oil.
Yes, learn from history. US is to McCarthyism as Iran is to Anti-Americanism.
Remember the history between Iran and the United States. About 50 years ago, the US went out and knocked out a 'too left' democratic government. Iran nationalized the oil industry, which brought down foreign investment, trashed the economy, and made the government unpopular. The "coup" was backed by Iranians.
About 25 years ago, the US gave weapons to Iraq to attack Iran, supporting a decade-long war..... *sigh* The Shah bought F-14s from the US. After the revolution they took our embassy hostage. After Iraq attacked Iran (they were weak because of their revolution), they begged the US to supply them with weapons and return their frozen money.
Learn more than one or two facts about history before lecturing other people.
That's makes much more sense. I still think that it should be used on people who are actively resisting (that college student was physically resisting arrest. passive resistance would be yelling like he did), and in the same category as pepper spray. If someone is willing to resist, they are likely going to respond with all the power they have available. Who knows that they may have? A taser ends it immediately, and is less damaging pepper spray or a nightstick.
Could you show me where I said anything like "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies"?
>I didn't say Apple should license fairplay, I implied that Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).
Lock out of what exactly?... So Apple is locking out others out of not offering an online music store? Or not offering an iPod? Or being better than Apple?
Have you figured out what's being locked out yet? Dumb dumb dumb.
So... Microsoft Word isn't an attempt at vendor lockin through a proprietary format because anybody can buy/create a different word processor?
Other companies can't start music stores easily because they don't have a DRM scheme that's acceptable to music companies and can also play on devices. If Apple were to license their DRM scheme then another company could make a music store that could sell DRM to music iPod (and the music corps require DRM), or they could make a music player that plays iTMS music.
If you're fine with companies milking proprietary formats, fine, but cut the "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies" BS. It just makes you look dumb.
Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).
Music companies only give rights to music stores that use DRM, Apple has the most popular player that supports playing DRM, but the DRM is proprietary. You get it now?
In a murder case, if they traced a bullet back to your gun, and you said "that's my old gun I keep out on my porch!" I bet they would look for prints, gun powder residue, all that stuff. In a case like this, they'd look at your computer for the files that they thought you were sharing. So while not air tight in terms of lying, if you were honest about some 3rd party using your network connection to share files, that you wouldn't be convicted in a criminal case.
This is Slashdot. Obviously, Viacom is afraid of YouTube's popularity competing with Viacom's. So they send a broad DMCA (they bought it for a reason!) takedown notice in order to YouTube. Duh.
I am looking up articles on this missile, and I don't get it. Is it a ballistic missile or not? If it's a ballistic missile, then it has a more or less predictable path. If it could change direction significantly (start flying back up into the sky, or even go level), then that's more of a cruise missile and probably couldn't be countered with an anti ballistic missile battery. Instead, a regular air to air/surface to air missile would be used.
If they haven't more info than "we have a missile that can't be countered," I agree that it's a paper tiger. There's no point in worrying about it. Yes, they should think ahead and look to counter anti-missile-counter missiles, and maybe they are, but it's a lot more difficult if they don't know exactly what they're dealing with (how much does it zigzag)?
Yes it is sniping. People made up the term to mean when "someone bid at the last second so I didn't get another chance to bid!" They hate it because people like to get into a bidding war for some reason. The other users don't care how you "sniped" them, and don't know how. Non-snipers made up the term, not snipers.
If you don't see anything wrong with the way you snipe, you should understand why nobody that uses common sense has a problem with sniping. Automated or not.
Slashdot Mirror
This is still really irrelevant though. If you do decide to impeach them both, you are doing a coup d'état against a democratically elected government.
Why? Because impeachment isn't the right of Congress? Or congress wasn't elected? What are you smoking? The President is *not* "the government."
I don't browse at -1, I just have a flamebait modifier of +5. And let you tell you, it's *hilarious*.
You are the guy that sued Pepsi for not giving you a Harrier for your Pepsi points.
I thought Americans didn't care what the rest of the world did? har har. I still think that's pushing it. Americans are broadly against any kind of drug legalization (a couple states don't, still not a mandate). So maybe a congressman is abusing the mandate to prop up prisons, but it's more of a conspiracy theory than fact.
... Maybe use a better example. I can't imagine the US trying to push that policy except because they think it works (even if they are wrong). Use one that involves the US just trying to keep power, there are plenty of them.
And now alcohol is legal, but is super regulated. How is that different from gambling?
Because WMV is great for streaming (except for belonging to MS), and Real has better Linux support than Quicktime.
The big 5 actually want the UN to be an ineffective joke. If it was not, it would be a threat to their power.
Give me *your* bank account number, I want to do good with it. What good? Whatever I decide. But it will be good, I promise, because I'm small and therefore have no desire to get more money and/or power.
"But there is a certain point at which the stench, impossibility of finding important items, and spousal/co-worker nagging will counter any increased productivity."
... How about doing some objective study instead of just pulling "data" out of your ass? The argument is that neatness hurts productivity. Although, the argument doesn't really matter, this book claims to have done a study. Indeed!
And the sun revolves around the earth, I see it every day!
Absolutely correct. However, I believe Apple is the lesser evil here. If Apple opens up their DRM then the music industry will get to prop up all their (historically) awful music stores. Then they won't have any incentive to get rid of DRM. Goooo Apple.
The reaction to the iPhone neatly mirrors the reaction to the iPod.
... LINDOWS. How do you like *that*?!
Yeah, go ahead and keep on clinging to your one counter-example. I counter with
The revolution was backed by those who felt the mandate of the local oil industry should be to benefit the society.
The nationalization of the oil industry was a democratic decision, not part of the revolution. The revolution happened because the Shah was oppressive, secular, and pro-western. I'm not nitpicking dates or names here, you guys are just way off.
But hey, I'll cut you a break, let's switch revolution with "democratic decision by the prime minister." You're still using the PM's subjective reasoning. The oil industry depended on international investment which was lost when the PM nationalized it. The whole reason the Shah took over was because Iranians were pissed off that Mossadegh tanked the oil industry.
And of course, by America, who did want a return on investing in Iranian oil.
The US exports oil too. Doesn't mean OPEC can't screw us all.
Yes, learn from history. US is to McCarthyism as Iran is to Anti-Americanism.
... *sigh*
Remember the history between Iran and the United States. About 50 years ago, the US went out and knocked out a 'too left' democratic government.
Iran nationalized the oil industry, which brought down foreign investment, trashed the economy, and made the government unpopular. The "coup" was backed by Iranians.
About 25 years ago, the US gave weapons to Iraq to attack Iran, supporting a decade-long war..
The Shah bought F-14s from the US. After the revolution they took our embassy hostage. After Iraq attacked Iran (they were weak because of their revolution), they begged the US to supply them with weapons and return their frozen money.
Learn more than one or two facts about history before lecturing other people.
Nerd. I can't quite figure out why you think that anybody cares about your post.
That's makes much more sense. I still think that it should be used on people who are actively resisting (that college student was physically resisting arrest. passive resistance would be yelling like he did), and in the same category as pepper spray. If someone is willing to resist, they are likely going to respond with all the power they have available. Who knows that they may have? A taser ends it immediately, and is less damaging pepper spray or a nightstick.
Could you show me where I said anything like "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies"?
>I didn't say Apple should license fairplay, I implied that Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).
Lock out of what exactly?
Have you figured out what's being locked out yet? Dumb dumb dumb.
So ... Microsoft Word isn't an attempt at vendor lockin through a proprietary format because anybody can buy/create a different word processor?
Other companies can't start music stores easily because they don't have a DRM scheme that's acceptable to music companies and can also play on devices. If Apple were to license their DRM scheme then another company could make a music store that could sell DRM to music iPod (and the music corps require DRM), or they could make a music player that plays iTMS music.
If you're fine with companies milking proprietary formats, fine, but cut the "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies" BS. It just makes you look dumb.
Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).
Music companies only give rights to music stores that use DRM, Apple has the most popular player that supports playing DRM, but the DRM is proprietary. You get it now?
I see the taser as a weapon designed to be used in the place of a gun in a situation where a gun would otherwise have to be used
You want to bring a taser to a gun fight? Idiot.
In a murder case, if they traced a bullet back to your gun, and you said "that's my old gun I keep out on my porch!" I bet they would look for prints, gun powder residue, all that stuff. In a case like this, they'd look at your computer for the files that they thought you were sharing. So while not air tight in terms of lying, if you were honest about some 3rd party using your network connection to share files, that you wouldn't be convicted in a criminal case.
*Ahem* in order to hurt YouTube.
Like I said, this is Slashdot.
although it'd be nice to know why.
This is Slashdot. Obviously, Viacom is afraid of YouTube's popularity competing with Viacom's. So they send a broad DMCA (they bought it for a reason!) takedown notice in order to YouTube. Duh.
I am looking up articles on this missile, and I don't get it. Is it a ballistic missile or not? If it's a ballistic missile, then it has a more or less predictable path. If it could change direction significantly (start flying back up into the sky, or even go level), then that's more of a cruise missile and probably couldn't be countered with an anti ballistic missile battery. Instead, a regular air to air/surface to air missile would be used.
If they haven't more info than "we have a missile that can't be countered," I agree that it's a paper tiger. There's no point in worrying about it. Yes, they should think ahead and look to counter anti-missile-counter missiles, and maybe they are, but it's a lot more difficult if they don't know exactly what they're dealing with (how much does it zigzag)?
Yes it is sniping. People made up the term to mean when "someone bid at the last second so I didn't get another chance to bid!" They hate it because people like to get into a bidding war for some reason. The other users don't care how you "sniped" them, and don't know how. Non-snipers made up the term, not snipers.
If you don't see anything wrong with the way you snipe, you should understand why nobody that uses common sense has a problem with sniping. Automated or not.