It's a far cry from that amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, which any other web site with that kind of hit total would be trying to monetize.
But given the porn and rude-centric nature of most of the posting, it must be hard to sell advertising lest stockholders or journalists looking to muckrake open their yappers questioning why company XYZ is buying ads on "that site".
Did you ever notice when Howard Stern was on broadcast radio, as popular as he was, his ads tended to be things like lawyers and bail bondsmen?
It's interesting that, out of all the invective he spewed, that is what you focused in on like a laser. Well, a Pavlovian dog with a laser attached to its head, the ringing bell being the word "fag", this decades' tsk-tsk word on the euphamism treadmill. I've lived long enough to see "don't use retard" go through two full cycles now, it first being beaten out of conversation as a casual derrogation in the 1970s before making a comeback 10 years ago.
It's ironic that a 4channer might reply to him with a message almost identical in content and implication as yours, but with much more florid language, and not as a Pavlovian response, but rather as a trolling one.
There's this unspoken assumption by "both sides" that serious measures, i.e. a command-and-control type solution, is what the doctor has ordered.
Yet a quick look around the world, and at history, shows we will be better off adapting and chamging rather than puttng brakes on things. The average wellbeing depends on a powerful economy to provide and invent. Command and control sucks at both, in spite of the apparently rational idea it should not. It is empirical data.
It depended on the rules you used for what counted as a punched hanging chad and so on. By two of the many rule variations, Gore won.
Unfortunately, you must use the rules in place before the vote for jist such a reason -- to prevent changing the result by changing the rules.
Gore should have won, but because of the Buchanan confusion in that one county, which would habe statistically given him about 18,000 more votes. Sadly you can't reassign votes either for even more obvious reasons.
No, the vote was fubar. No way around it but to revote and even that has ethical difficulties of giving the loser a second chance.
I used to work with a handwriting expert to, ironically, develop a handwriting training system on a computer.
Anyway, he used to quote studies that showed writing by hand (this was the early 1990s) gave you language skills you never developed growing up typing.
Losing that may be a bigger and more risky experiment than we realize at this time.
"'The point is that the true cost is in the total cost of ownership and exploitation, not just the license cost."
This has been Apple's position on the Mac line for 30 years -- that, when you factor in needing a lot less training for Apple products, Apple is a lot cheaper than the "cheaper" PC.
I'm sorry but the Supreme Court should rule there is no such thing as a secret law or secret interpretation of a law.
While details of any particular case could be secret, of course, the law itself cannot be. To suggest otherwise should be considered treason against freedom itself.
Things like limit discs and small-tank toilets were idiotic at the time. By using them, you save maybe 20% of that 10%, i.e. 2% i.e. push off need for increased. supply by about a year or two, assuming an overall 1% annual need for growth.
Just stupid. But it was done, and acknowledged as such, for the purpose of getting a population pliant with this quasi-emergency for further legislation (and, I might add, based on disproven 1970s-era theories of shortage. Disproven via actual predictive experimentation over and over again.)
The Supreme Court has already ruled the feds cannot drain off feet of water from the Great Lakes to pipe to California without getting the permission of the bordering states, to say nothing of treaty with Canada -- good luck with all of that.
Why do dumbass businesses allow login anywhere but work and from your particular machine? And have a "register tonight only" capacity for logging in from home to register that address.
Design a product and stop exposing dangerous APIs without restriction.
We do not need a panopticon, either real-world or virtual on the Internet. And there are solid reasons never to build one. See the writings of your forefathers in government, or George Orwell.
If it doesn't exist, and government is forbidden from making it, it can't possibly be misused. It's the same reason nobody should ever build a "continent buster" cobalt bomb.
This is true, but 1950s or today, I'll take the US over anywhere else. See, all governments give themselves stellar marks. Very few can make a case they even partially deserve it.
Walmart saves the American consumer well over $200 billion a year, greatly exceeding as a benefit all the "corporate welfare" charges ladled on it, "to help their underpaid employees".
I had this online conversation about 10 years ago:
Environmentalist: CO2 bad y'all, m'kay?
Me: Ya know, we had a ready-made, in-place, large-scale carbon sequestration processalready via putting yard waste into non-biodegrading landfills. Sadly this was banned because of leftover 1970s "we're running out of landfill room" innumeracy combined with a new fetish for composting. We should bring it back.
Environmentalist (as god is my witness): Well, CO2 isn't really a very big greenhouse gas.
Just to be sure: It **is** an important gas, right? So sequestering gigatons of yard waste a year would be helpful.
It's a good thing reckless behavior can be punished, to say nothing of damaging someone else's property.
But the FAA?!?!?. This is the realm of local laws and government, responsive to politicians and actual voyers, not unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away passing law by decree.
This. The FAA should be concerned with intrusion into air lanes and restricted airspace, not some ass crashing it onto a bicyclist. The BATF generally does not concern itself with people misusing guns in general as that is a local police issue.
In any case, are the Regulation-4-Everything Yes!!! types starting to see an issue with agencies adopting new memes to self-authorize control in new areas, outside normal political channels, which is to say, channels directly responsive to the voter?
You're really kind of confused about freedom of speech, aren't you?
Any politician tying to "get around" the first amendment is not someone I want anywhere near power.
I'm also not keen on "the press" having more free speech rights than "normal" people. That clause is more about forbidding Congress from interfering in actual publication and distribution, including modern things like distributing over the Internet.
If first amendment issues mean there must be more than an asinine "rational basis" test and more of a strict scrutiny one, yey. Evil is partially thwarted.
The only thing worse than Congress controling this is unelected officials controlling what is a heavily political decision. That you want to work around the first amendment emphasizes this.
There's more to this than the cloying meme "level playing field". In this case there's legitimate foreign policy issues -- the US buys agreeability from foreign governments via contracts for cold, hard western cash, not just foreign aid.
Depending on the framework Congress laid out, this could be an unconstitutional infringement on the legislative and executive branches,, the latter of which is constitutionally charged with foreign policy.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a far cry from that amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, which any other web site with that kind of hit total would be trying to monetize.
But given the porn and rude-centric nature of most of the posting, it must be hard to sell advertising lest stockholders or journalists looking to muckrake open their yappers questioning why company XYZ is buying ads on "that site".
Did you ever notice when Howard Stern was on broadcast radio, as popular as he was, his ads tended to be things like lawyers and bail bondsmen?
It's interesting that, out of all the invective he spewed, that is what you focused in on like a laser. Well, a Pavlovian dog with a laser attached to its head, the ringing bell being the word "fag", this decades' tsk-tsk word on the euphamism treadmill. I've lived long enough to see "don't use retard" go through two full cycles now, it first being beaten out of conversation as a casual derrogation in the 1970s before making a comeback 10 years ago.
It's ironic that a 4channer might reply to him with a message almost identical in content and implication as yours, but with much more florid language, and not as a Pavlovian response, but rather as a trolling one.
There's this unspoken assumption by "both sides" that serious measures, i.e. a command-and-control type solution, is what the doctor has ordered.
Yet a quick look around the world, and at history, shows we will be better off adapting and chamging rather than puttng brakes on things. The average wellbeing depends on a powerful economy to provide and invent. Command and control sucks at both, in spite of the apparently rational idea it should not. It is empirical data.
Gore lost on every recount. Get over it.
It depended on the rules you used for what counted as a punched hanging chad and so on. By two of the many rule variations, Gore won.
Unfortunately, you must use the rules in place before the vote for jist such a reason -- to prevent changing the result by changing the rules.
Gore should have won, but because of the Buchanan confusion in that one county, which would habe statistically given him about 18,000 more votes. Sadly you can't reassign votes either for even more obvious reasons.
No, the vote was fubar. No way around it but to revote and even that has ethical difficulties of giving the loser a second chance.
I used to work with a handwriting expert to, ironically, develop a handwriting training system on a computer.
Anyway, he used to quote studies that showed writing by hand (this was the early 1990s) gave you language skills you never developed growing up typing.
Losing that may be a bigger and more risky experiment than we realize at this time.
Not only that but...
This has been Apple's position on the Mac line for 30 years -- that, when you factor in needing a lot less training for Apple products, Apple is a lot cheaper than the "cheaper" PC.
I'm sorry but the Supreme Court should rule there is no such thing as a secret law or secret interpretation of a law.
While details of any particular case could be secret, of course, the law itself cannot be. To suggest otherwise should be considered treason against freedom itself.
> tidal
"Not off the shore of my multimillion-dollar seaside mansion!" screamed every Hoywood environmenal elitest.
Any bet takers?
> urban populations using 10% of the water.
Things like limit discs and small-tank toilets were idiotic at the time. By using them, you save maybe 20% of that 10%, i.e. 2% i.e. push off need for increased. supply by about a year or two, assuming an overall 1% annual need for growth.
Just stupid. But it was done, and acknowledged as such, for the purpose of getting a population pliant with this quasi-emergency for further legislation (and, I might add, based on disproven 1970s-era theories of shortage. Disproven via actual predictive experimentation over and over again.)
The Supreme Court has already ruled the feds cannot drain off feet of water from the Great Lakes to pipe to California without getting the permission of the bordering states, to say nothing of treaty with Canada -- good luck with all of that.
And not only that, the left eats its own:
> "It takes years of planning and overcoming red tape to launch a project."
Red tape interferes even with big government projects those who created the red tape ostensibly like.
We really need a popcorn gif for this scene. I leave you with a quote: It's a joke. It's all a joke.
Why do dumbass businesses allow login anywhere but work and from your particular machine? And have a "register tonight only" capacity for logging in from home to register that address.
Design a product and stop exposing dangerous APIs without restriction.
Mr. Kerry,
We do not need a panopticon, either real-world or virtual on the Internet. And there are solid reasons never to build one. See the writings of your forefathers in government, or George Orwell.
If it doesn't exist, and government is forbidden from making it, it can't possibly be misused. It's the same reason nobody should ever build a "continent buster" cobalt bomb.
This is true, but 1950s or today, I'll take the US over anywhere else. See, all governments give themselves stellar marks. Very few can make a case they even partially deserve it.
Walmart saves the American consumer well over $200 billion a year, greatly exceeding as a benefit all the "corporate welfare" charges ladled on it, "to help their underpaid employees".
So CO2 is important, then?
I had this online conversation about 10 years ago:
Environmentalist: CO2 bad y'all, m'kay?
Me: Ya know, we had a ready-made, in-place, large-scale carbon sequestration processalready via putting yard waste into non-biodegrading landfills. Sadly this was banned because of leftover 1970s "we're running out of landfill room" innumeracy combined with a new fetish for composting. We should bring it back.
Environmentalist (as god is my witness): Well, CO2 isn't really a very big greenhouse gas.
Just to be sure: It **is** an important gas, right? So sequestering gigatons of yard waste a year would be helpful.
> "on theBortle Dark Sky Scale"
Oh come on man, that sounds like something they made up for Ghostbusters.
This isn't a troll, you ignorant savages. It's genius. Please thiink before allowing a hook to snag your mouth.
Responsive to voters I mean. Drone use responsive to voyers is still in its infancy.
It's a good thing reckless behavior can be punished, to say nothing of damaging someone else's property.
But the FAA?!?!?. This is the realm of local laws and government, responsive to politicians and actual voyers, not unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away passing law by decree.
This. The FAA should be concerned with intrusion into air lanes and restricted airspace, not some ass crashing it onto a bicyclist. The BATF generally does not concern itself with people misusing guns in general as that is a local police issue.
In any case, are the Regulation-4-Everything Yes!!! types starting to see an issue with agencies adopting new memes to self-authorize control in new areas, outside normal political channels, which is to say, channels directly responsive to the voter?
If they can prove it was a trade secret, maybe. You don't get to take that "know-how" (depending on laws and agreements) if it's not out.
I wish this were a modern web site where we could paste reaction gifs like Michael Scott screaming calmly, "No! God no! No! God no! Nooooooooooo"
You're really kind of confused about freedom of speech, aren't you?
Any politician tying to "get around" the first amendment is not someone I want anywhere near power.
I'm also not keen on "the press" having more free speech rights than "normal" people. That clause is more about forbidding Congress from interfering in actual publication and distribution, including modern things like distributing over the Internet.
If first amendment issues mean there must be more than an asinine "rational basis" test and more of a strict scrutiny one, yey. Evil is partially thwarted.
The only thing worse than Congress controling this is unelected officials controlling what is a heavily political decision. That you want to work around the first amendment emphasizes this.
There's more to this than the cloying meme "level playing field". In this case there's legitimate foreign policy issues -- the US buys agreeability from foreign governments via contracts for cold, hard western cash, not just foreign aid.
Depending on the framework Congress laid out, this could be an unconstitutional infringement on the legislative and executive branches,, the latter of which is constitutionally charged with foreign policy.