The picture would be covered by copyright, since you took it.
More generally, why should you have the right to control what (true) things others publish about you? Why does anyone deserve such privacy?
The article suggests that the change really isn't that big. In fact, the summary is a little misleading, as they have a very good idea of why the fish are surviving.
As I said to them a while ago, I'd be more impressed if they allowed the use of protocol-relative URIs in links (so users can maintain their HTTPS browsing when following links to my site, which supports both protocols).
Frankly, the discouragement of user-to-user communication is for the best. All my problems with Wikipedia have involved other users!
Re:Time to rename the GNU Image Manipulation Progr
on
When Software Offends
·
· Score: 2
Judging by Google, it's taken over the phrase. Perhaps this is a good way to get rid of sexually suggestive or offensive terms - name popular open-source projects after them.
I've found the key is not to make it too easy to remove someone's opinion in a single instance - and, I guess, to cultivate an audience willing to listen to dissenting views and vote reasonably upon the merits of the argument. The first is a matter of choosing appropriate moderation points for your site; the second is trickier.
I did just this in Javascript for my Drupal-based news site - the primary objective being to discourage argument threads that nobody wanted to continue except the two people involved.
The system fades out posts that are poorly rated, and folds them if they get below about 55% opacity. The parent post's opacity factors into that of children. It also uses the user's global rating from past comments as an initial vote. The levels are set so that comments by "good" users take three "poor" votes to fold, while new accounts require two and regular trolls only require one.
Slashdot Mirror
If telling people accurately you were a criminal is an 'attack on your reputation', we are going to have a problem.
What right to privacy? Why is that suddenly a right?
The picture would be covered by copyright, since you took it. More generally, why should you have the right to control what (true) things others publish about you? Why does anyone deserve such privacy?
No, but you have to login to file a complaint.
In this economy? They're simply going to end up without any business.
Finally, wearing sunglasses at night is cool again!
Maybe your screen is wide, but what about phones consuming the RSS feed?
Besides, people only read the first 11 characters, so short is sweet.
Now, mulls may not be the best word in this particular situation, but to rule it out in all situations is silly.
If you use C, it's "large enough to hold any member of the basic character set of the execution environment". That can be a fair bit larger than 8 bits in some implementations.
The article suggests that the change really isn't that big. In fact, the summary is a little misleading, as they have a very good idea of why the fish are surviving.
As I said to them a while ago, I'd be more impressed if they allowed the use of protocol-relative URIs in links (so users can maintain their HTTPS browsing when following links to my site, which supports both protocols).
Maybe you should do some things that should have been discussed on the list, but couldn't be because you weren't on it.
I know of a furry porn site that did this once for April Fools day. Good times.
Frankly, the discouragement of user-to-user communication is for the best. All my problems with Wikipedia have involved other users!
Judging by Google, it's taken over the phrase. Perhaps this is a good way to get rid of sexually suggestive or offensive terms - name popular open-source projects after them.
What use is that to a console gamer?
Sadly, they are.
I like to call it a set of stacks, but it's really more of a heap. Old stuff goes in a boxed linked list.
I don't think "paranoid" is quite the right term. People really are out to get them.
I've found the key is not to make it too easy to remove someone's opinion in a single instance - and, I guess, to cultivate an audience willing to listen to dissenting views and vote reasonably upon the merits of the argument. The first is a matter of choosing appropriate moderation points for your site; the second is trickier.
I did just this in Javascript for my Drupal-based news site - the primary objective being to discourage argument threads that nobody wanted to continue except the two people involved.
The system fades out posts that are poorly rated, and folds them if they get below about 55% opacity. The parent post's opacity factors into that of children. It also uses the user's global rating from past comments as an initial vote. The levels are set so that comments by "good" users take three "poor" votes to fold, while new accounts require two and regular trolls only require one.
We just made our own dating site. Problem solved!
Choices are good! I appreciate a plain zip or MSI myself. It's mostly about getting into as many distribution channels as possible.
I would love to see something like this on Impulse - and it'd help with the price, since the market for such games is very competitive.
Of course, nowadays we can use graphics cards as co-processors.
Yeah, but you can still go to jail for that in the UK, unlike TRIM.