It's ludicrously jingoistic, the characters typically die before there's a hint of development (except Miller!), the special effects are ropey at best, and the plots are contrived for maximum "drama" and minimal sense. But, yeah, it's still fun. Plus, Peter Weller's ripping the arse out it all as the baddy this season.
Wouldn't 1AU be too close for the inner surface (for humans, anyway)? You'd be dealing with radiant energy reflected back from the rest of the inside as well as the radiation directly from the sun. Toasty.
Uber cabs are not public hire (that would be black cabs in London), they're private hire. You can't flag them on the street. But I have no problem with the ruling. You need to be able to talk to your taxi driver. You might have a preferred route, or need to give instructions round a one-way system, or tell them to let you out at the shops. It's a customer-facing position and it demands a certain level of communication skills, in this case an acceptable standard in the nation's official language.
And it's not like Uber are sticking up for the hard-working, hard-done-by drivers here. They just need warm bodies to keep accruing marketshare until the Johnnycabs are certified and they can ditch the lot of them.
Not wasting a cent on any performer who engages in this nonsense.
Good. You stick to your guns and never go to another live show again.
I'm sick of people like you trying to film shows and blocking my view. Instead of me being able to enjoy a show, I have the experience stolen from me so while some narcissistic tool holds their iPad above their head to take shakycam footage with abysmal audio, and all I can see is their poorly exposed image on the iPad's screen.
It's a LIVE performance. The entire point of the exercise is what's happening right in front of you at that very second. Whatever you're recording on your phone or iPad is a miserable substitute. Try actually paying attention to the show instead of fiddling with your widget.
The smart move is to try and figure out how to access the admin console and object browser. Then, instead of 'escaping' to a reality you're not equipped to survive, you can make this shit show into your own personal paradise.
No one has a "right" to live anywhere. Ridiculous.
That is pants-on-head Tea Party retarded. So, unless you're a mortgage-free homeowner, whoever holds the title on your property has the right (no quotes) to force you into indigency on a whim? Well, that'll do wonders for a stable society. But, of course, society's not your problem - it's not like you live in it or anything.
If it is indeed the content providers, why can't Netflix stand up to them?
Because the content providers are effectively operating as a cartel. Maybe not formally, but you can guarantee they're talking to each other, sneaking a look at each other's contracts, and making sure their licensing terms don't diverge too far. It is very much in the content providers' interests to make sure they can still apply pricing discrimination between markets so they can maximise their profits and not have Netflix cannibalise all their other regional sales channels (e.g. Blu-Ray/DVD sales) too. What customers want is next to irrelevant to content providers - all they care about is what the market will bear for their product.
More's the pity. Still bitter about having worked for a startup that bootstrapped to profitability and never sold out. Because there were no VCs, the board was beholden to nobody. Founders didn't even shop the place out. Options ended up worthless. Eventually the company will end up worthless too. The company ended up working for the continued job preservation of its management. And the CEO didn't care.
If it was so important to be CEO, why not sell the company at a premium and use the money to start another one? We've wasted multiple startups' worth of funding on internal projects that went nowhere except to give product managers a product to manage, and developers a way to train for their next jobs at companies with futures.
They're managing the company responsibly as a going concern, not as a pump-and-dump opportunity. They're keeping the lights on and the workers paid. And you're pissed because you've got a steady job with training opportunities, a salary, and some moderately valuable shares, instead of an unearned, over-valued payday?
Sign your letter of resignation and cash in, if you're that upset about it. Use that money to found your own company and whore it out to the biggest billionaire idiots you can find. Not willing to take that risk? Then quit whining, you whiner.
And in that sense, Stross has a point: he's identifying tropes that separate the authors that base their work on scientific plausibility from those that base their work on science-sounding fantasy truthiness, hence "shibboleths".
Parent fails English interpretation. The first sentence groups Ashley Madison members with other freethinkers as the subjects of illegal action. Freethinkers aren't the perpetrators, they're another class of victim roped in by the AM crowd to make out that hacking a cheaters website was just gosh-darned un-American.
Of course, the hackers aren't doing this out a sense of morality. Quite the opposite in fact - they just want to stir shit up and cause havoc.
Did we read the same articles? Neither commented on the profitability or productivity of Gravity Payments following the bump in pay at all. What they did say was, out of 120 employees, 2 whiny millennial narcissists threw their toys out the cot and quit when they found out they couldn't differentiate themselves from their colleagues by the heft of their pay packet. And that their friends might tap them for a loan what with all that extra cash they used to be taking home.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...
Isn't by definition a new law legal (assuming it isn't against a constitution or any higher law)?
Is the only threshold that it would not cause financial harm if that is the case most laws should be illegal as they all cause financial harm to someone.
Because it violates the Treaty on the Functioning of Europe. Treaties take precedence over parliamentary laws. That's why they're so dangerous and shouldn't be negotiated in secret.
The ad-blocking better include those bloody irritating ads that switch you out of the browser with no warning to the App Store for Clash of Clans, or some other flavour of freemium shiteware the kids are degrading themselves with these days.
So the camera's set up in the hall facing the front door and the end times have come. My sanity's being eroded by the eldritch horrors nibbling at my numinous being AND the parquet floor in my hallway's going to get scorched by my incinerating corpse when I try to see if that's the newspaper or the hand of a shambling lunatic poking through my letterbox..? Bloody typical.
Never say never. If you do, start your sampling with an IBM 5100. That'll be the best for debugging the big UNIX problem coming up in 2038. That model can read all the old IBM codes.
Or 125m towers on each side. That's a bit more doable. But... then there's a chance an Islander will climb Satan's ladder and glimpse the beguiling lights of civilisation. Won't end well.
Me too. Although it's not all roses. Page loads do seem to have gotten quite a bit slower since the ISP filters went in. And I'm fairly sure they've started banning sites before they get court orders.
Other traffic seems unaffected though.
You're assuming that the art is solely the product of the sculptor but it's not. The piece is a collaboration between Scott and Van Hoeydonck. Without Scott to commission (in whatever sense), transport, and arrange the installation, then neither the sculpture or the the plaque (Van Hoeydonck's sense of artistic fulfillment notwithstanding) would have had a lot of significance.
If you want to get all classical greek about it, Van Hoeydonck, controlled the material and formal causes of the installation but Scott controlled the effective cause and, without Scott, there could not have been a teleological cause for the piece. So Scott definitely gets equal standing weighing in on "what it was meant for".
So he broke into a secure environment, serruptitiously obtained confidential and/or classified information, and used his take to successfully gain a competive advantage over his peers? And somehow this makes him unsuitable for employment at the NSA? If he'd just 'fessed up he'd be the first new guy to start his job with an employee of the month award.
Slashdot Mirror
It's ludicrously jingoistic, the characters typically die before there's a hint of development (except Miller!), the special effects are ropey at best, and the plots are contrived for maximum "drama" and minimal sense. But, yeah, it's still fun. Plus, Peter Weller's ripping the arse out it all as the baddy this season.
Wouldn't 1AU be too close for the inner surface (for humans, anyway)? You'd be dealing with radiant energy reflected back from the rest of the inside as well as the radiation directly from the sun. Toasty.
He's been hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy's broom cupboard for the last 4.5 years for no reason, until now? Bwahahahaha!
Uber cabs are not public hire (that would be black cabs in London), they're private hire. You can't flag them on the street. But I have no problem with the ruling. You need to be able to talk to your taxi driver. You might have a preferred route, or need to give instructions round a one-way system, or tell them to let you out at the shops. It's a customer-facing position and it demands a certain level of communication skills, in this case an acceptable standard in the nation's official language.
And it's not like Uber are sticking up for the hard-working, hard-done-by drivers here. They just need warm bodies to keep accruing marketshare until the Johnnycabs are certified and they can ditch the lot of them.
And Bill Hicks.
Not wasting a cent on any performer who engages in this nonsense.
Good. You stick to your guns and never go to another live show again.
I'm sick of people like you trying to film shows and blocking my view. Instead of me being able to enjoy a show, I have the experience stolen from me so while some narcissistic tool holds their iPad above their head to take shakycam footage with abysmal audio, and all I can see is their poorly exposed image on the iPad's screen.
It's a LIVE performance. The entire point of the exercise is what's happening right in front of you at that very second. Whatever you're recording on your phone or iPad is a miserable substitute. Try actually paying attention to the show instead of fiddling with your widget.
The smart move is to try and figure out how to access the admin console and object browser. Then, instead of 'escaping' to a reality you're not equipped to survive, you can make this shit show into your own personal paradise.
No one has a "right" to live anywhere. Ridiculous.
That is pants-on-head Tea Party retarded. So, unless you're a mortgage-free homeowner, whoever holds the title on your property has the right (no quotes) to force you into indigency on a whim? Well, that'll do wonders for a stable society. But, of course, society's not your problem - it's not like you live in it or anything.
Also speaking as a BT customer with Infinity 2, I can ditch their router and plug in my own as long as it can do PPPoE. All my bits are belong to me.
If it is indeed the content providers, why can't Netflix stand up to them?
Because the content providers are effectively operating as a cartel. Maybe not formally, but you can guarantee they're talking to each other, sneaking a look at each other's contracts, and making sure their licensing terms don't diverge too far. It is very much in the content providers' interests to make sure they can still apply pricing discrimination between markets so they can maximise their profits and not have Netflix cannibalise all their other regional sales channels (e.g. Blu-Ray/DVD sales) too. What customers want is next to irrelevant to content providers - all they care about is what the market will bear for their product.
More's the pity. Still bitter about having worked for a startup that bootstrapped to profitability and never sold out. Because there were no VCs, the board was beholden to nobody. Founders didn't even shop the place out. Options ended up worthless. Eventually the company will end up worthless too. The company ended up working for the continued job preservation of its management. And the CEO didn't care.
If it was so important to be CEO, why not sell the company at a premium and use the money to start another one? We've wasted multiple startups' worth of funding on internal projects that went nowhere except to give product managers a product to manage, and developers a way to train for their next jobs at companies with futures.
They're managing the company responsibly as a going concern, not as a pump-and-dump opportunity. They're keeping the lights on and the workers paid. And you're pissed because you've got a steady job with training opportunities, a salary, and some moderately valuable shares, instead of an unearned, over-valued payday? Sign your letter of resignation and cash in, if you're that upset about it. Use that money to found your own company and whore it out to the biggest billionaire idiots you can find. Not willing to take that risk? Then quit whining, you whiner.
And in that sense, Stross has a point: he's identifying tropes that separate the authors that base their work on scientific plausibility from those that base their work on science-sounding fantasy truthiness, hence "shibboleths".
Parent fails English interpretation. The first sentence groups Ashley Madison members with other freethinkers as the subjects of illegal action. Freethinkers aren't the perpetrators, they're another class of victim roped in by the AM crowd to make out that hacking a cheaters website was just gosh-darned un-American.
Of course, the hackers aren't doing this out a sense of morality. Quite the opposite in fact - they just want to stir shit up and cause havoc.
Did we read the same articles? Neither commented on the profitability or productivity of Gravity Payments following the bump in pay at all. What they did say was, out of 120 employees, 2 whiny millennial narcissists threw their toys out the cot and quit when they found out they couldn't differentiate themselves from their colleagues by the heft of their pay packet. And that their friends might tap them for a loan what with all that extra cash they used to be taking home.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...
Isn't by definition a new law legal (assuming it isn't against a constitution or any higher law)? Is the only threshold that it would not cause financial harm if that is the case most laws should be illegal as they all cause financial harm to someone.
Because it violates the Treaty on the Functioning of Europe. Treaties take precedence over parliamentary laws. That's why they're so dangerous and shouldn't be negotiated in secret.
The ad-blocking better include those bloody irritating ads that switch you out of the browser with no warning to the App Store for Clash of Clans, or some other flavour of freemium shiteware the kids are degrading themselves with these days.
So the camera's set up in the hall facing the front door and the end times have come. My sanity's being eroded by the eldritch horrors nibbling at my numinous being AND the parquet floor in my hallway's going to get scorched by my incinerating corpse when I try to see if that's the newspaper or the hand of a shambling lunatic poking through my letterbox..? Bloody typical.
I'm sorry that death frightens and confuses you.
Never say never. If you do, start your sampling with an IBM 5100. That'll be the best for debugging the big UNIX problem coming up in 2038. That model can read all the old IBM codes.
Or 125m towers on each side. That's a bit more doable. But... then there's a chance an Islander will climb Satan's ladder and glimpse the beguiling lights of civilisation. Won't end well.
Me too. Although it's not all roses. Page loads do seem to have gotten quite a bit slower since the ISP filters went in. And I'm fairly sure they've started banning sites before they get court orders. Other traffic seems unaffected though.
Wouldn't you need a 500m tall tower for LoS comms with an island 80km away? Good luck keeping that standing in an Atlantic gale.
You're assuming that the art is solely the product of the sculptor but it's not. The piece is a collaboration between Scott and Van Hoeydonck. Without Scott to commission (in whatever sense), transport, and arrange the installation, then neither the sculpture or the the plaque (Van Hoeydonck's sense of artistic fulfillment notwithstanding) would have had a lot of significance.
If you want to get all classical greek about it, Van Hoeydonck, controlled the material and formal causes of the installation but Scott controlled the effective cause and, without Scott, there could not have been a teleological cause for the piece. So Scott definitely gets equal standing weighing in on "what it was meant for".
So he broke into a secure environment, serruptitiously obtained confidential and/or classified information, and used his take to successfully gain a competive advantage over his peers? And somehow this makes him unsuitable for employment at the NSA? If he'd just 'fessed up he'd be the first new guy to start his job with an employee of the month award.
Cochineal. That lovely red colour.