The United States, it seems, is the only country in the world that prefers to use the name football to refer to a game that doesn't actually use the feet. You forgot Canadia: English: Soccer French: Le soccer
And they OCCASIOANLLY kick the "ball", you know.
P.S. But you said "American", so I assume you included other countries of america in there, maybe I shouldn't corect you;-)
accounts and credit cards for illegal aliens!! aiding and abetting law breakers You know what irks me about you people and your "illegal aliens (many exclamation marks)"? It's that I have a hard time believe that you are without sin. You never broke a law? Never jaywalked? Nothing?
Should banks also refuse to give accounts or credit to people on trial, or with a past conviction? How about blackballing anyone ever involved in any kind of scam or fraud? How far past "foreign people" are you willing to take your hard line on criminals?
I think "illegal aliens" is to "dirty foreigners" as "public sanitation technician" is to "janitor": A sanitized politically correct wrapper applied to a dirty thought.
2. A bunch of players maneuvering a ball around a field measured with the 'english' system? Football Since neither of the sports uses just one foot, shouldn't it be feetball? Official NFL rules: THE FIELD The field measures 100 yards long and 53 yards wide.
And how many fucking times have you seen someone apply both feet to the ball? I've seen that... NEVER. You kick a ball with your foot, never with both your feet! Sheesh!
Why do these things, or any creature that spend their lives at such depths have eyes and coloration? Granted, it doesn't appear that many of these creatures has evolved in a long time, but many cave dwelling creatures seem to loose their eyes and pigmentation relatively fast. Maybe because a lot of them can MAKE light?
and how the hell are you supposed to lend and album to a friend who wants to listen to it? or bring an album to a party? like generations did before with vinyl and cd's ? They've been working hard to stop you from doing that for years. In the future, you'll have a chip in your head that will generate noise over any music who's RFID isn't recognized in your monthly listening-right bill.
... bring an album to a party? That's unauthorized public use man! That's, like, a crime! It's like stealing! no, not stealing... murder! No, rape and murder... of a kid, no, kids! With racial slurs making it a hate crime too!
you'd have to have readers installed everywhere Well then, people would only allow that if there was some kind of boogey man so scary that they would gladly give up their freedoms at the slightest assurance that this will protect them. Of course, first you'd want to implement full deployment of a more conventional surveillance technology... CCTV cameras, for instance. But, you're right, privacy advocates old be up in arms about that, it'll never happen.
Part of the split between Protestant and Catholic has to do with the interpretation of various passages. I'm pretty sure the split between protestant (anglican) and catholic was about the right to divorce your queen if it turns out she has three nipples.
Maybe there's a bible passage about this, if anyone cares to quote, but as far as I know, it's not a question of translation as a question of "ewwww!".
when a bunch of Christians happened to be at the helm of Europe, if anyone was trying to combat them in even the mildest of ways, they were punished, and sometimes this meant death. The fallacy so many love adhere to is that that somehow all Christians in 1000 AD or so were murdering crazies. It meant death on a public square with a huge, frenzied audience. It's not like ONLY the guy at the top was out for blood, don't downplay the horrors.
I'm guessing that what we are seeing here is not protection of religion, but protection is Islam I dunno, they might just be covering their asses, like in the 90s, when the card game "Jihad" was renamed "Vampire" because some people pointed out that if they didn't rename it, they'd learn the true meaning of the word.
Sometimes it's political correctness, sometimes it's fear for your safety.
OK, perhaps I've misquoted Jobs per se, but other Apple executives have gone on record as stating that Apple would still use DRM for iTunes even if the labels didn't require it. And some groups (e.g., Bare Naked Ladies) have offered to let their songs be sold without DRM, and Apple has refused. Clearly there is no technical reason, and Apple has never intimated that their contract with the labels is what is holding this up. On record? I've never heard that, gimme the link plz... IF this is true, my guess is those would be the same executives that fired Jobs in the 90s and nearly caused the company to go bankrupt... their types are in every business, they're drawn by the smell of money like lampreys to a rotting corpse.
As for Apple not talking publically about the content of their contract, I have three letters for you: NDA
Jobs' and Apple's position as been the same for as long as they've been in the music biz: DRM is a fool's errand. I dunno why you want to believe otherwise, but it would be great if your beliefs were more in tune with relity, and less in tune with FUD. Not just on this issue, but on the whole.
Sure, the motives for Steve suddenly deciding that DRM is bad may be suspect Suddenly?
He's been saying that since before the iTunes Store opened! His motives then were the same as now: DRM can't work, he'll make more money if he sells songs without DRM.
"We have no doubt that a technology company as sophisticated and smart as Apple could work with the music community to make that happen," Bainwol said in a statement. So, Jobs says "it's no technologically possible", their response is "we're sure they can do it". Can't the RIAA suits all get in a plane together and go the way of the Big Bopper and friends? Please? Pretty please?
Why would Apple want to lose DRM, even if they could? That would potentially break their iTunes-iPod monopoly (since you could play non-DRM'ed songs on other players besides the iPod). Because the iTunes-iPod monoply is FUD? iTunes lets you remove DRM for the files you buy in it's store by burning them to standard CD audio. You can then play that CD in any non-apple CD player, re-rip them to any non-apple format, and upload them to any non-apple MP3 player.
locking you into the iPod. Once you have a $500 collection of iTMS music, it becomes too much of a waste of money to make your next purchase *not* an iPod. Protects their revenue stream. The hardware. iTunes itself will let you burn your collection to a CD, stripping off it's own DRM.
The "lock-in" issue is a red herring. Jobs has been trying to get the labels to let him sell music without DRM since before the launch of the itunes Store, but a lot of people have been ignoring that and paying attention to FUD instead. I dopn't know why you want to believe that Jobs wants DRM, but every single thing he's done and said points to the contrary. It's very clear that the RIAA members are the ones pushing for DRM, not him.
In the case of digital audio, the iTunes DRM songs can only be played in the player(s) produced by a single manufacturer, and are incompatible with any other. That's not true.
iTunes lets you burn your purchases to a CD in standard CD format, stripping off it's own DRM.
RE4 wasn't really the same sort of game as previous RE games It had the gameplay mechanics of the Metal Gear Solid series, so much so that I kept trying to sneak past guards for the first hour of play (pointless, since you're meant to kill, not to sneak), and no actual zombies, unless you count Chekov from Wrath of Khan as a zombie.
people want digital downloads, and Apple is the only company that's doing it in a way that's profitable for the record labels. Incidently, it's also the only company that's fighting them on DRM. Coincidence?
MS has just released a new OS that is more locked down with DRM than any other OS so far.
Which MS did in order to deliver HD-DVD, using the same excuse that Jobs uses to justify iTunes/FairPlay ("they won't let us sell content without it"). Let's see what Apple does or doesn't do to their OS to support HD movies before we judge them less evil than MS in this regard. The difference being that everyone WANTS to download music, which the studios fight against, and most people don't give a fuck about HD movies, which the studios are pushing.
"I bet the latest Wayan Bros. movie would have rocked if only it was in HD!"
My only complaint with the apple drm is the quality. I like everything to be 192+ as I can hear the difference in anything under 192. # AAC compressed audio at 128 Kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be "indistinguishable" from the original uncompressed audio source. # AAC compressed audio at 96 Kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 Kbps. AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps.
I don't know anyone who passed that hurdle by themselves, everyone I asked checked out a walkthrough on the net. I blame the translation, the instruction for the puzzle can't be followed to solve it.
When Safari came out, I downloaded version 1.0 the very first day, and used it to go to hotmail, check out my messages, download attachement, everything worked fine.
Three days later, I could no longer download attachments... My version of Safari hadn't changed, but somehow, after three days, it didn't work as well as it did. Hmmm...
In a less anecdotal way, you might remember Microsoft "borking" Opera, or the infamous Microsoft hack that screwed with Netscape back in the 90s. If we're lucky, "leaked" memos will show up in a few years detailing how Microsoft purposefully decided to screw with their competition for their new zune.
User story placement - developing and placing MS-DOS related stories in key publications, both trade and vertical, to communicate that corporations have a large investment in MS-DOS and will continue to trust in it. Develop user profiles?
And it goes on and on. The targets today are the ones that survived, IBM, Novel, and friends but now include the free software that everyone but M$ has agreed to use because it's better. Instead of fudding BBS, they are here and in the newspapers and TV networks they purchased for the purpose. If these dorks spent half the time wasted on improving their product, they might have a product that works. I saw a job ad a couple weeks ago, someone was looking for a professional forum poster with an established web presence to astroturf their products. The more known and respected alias, the better. Beware the forces of marketing, their evil knows no bounds.
Slashdot Mirror
refer to a game that doesn't actually use the feet. You forgot Canadia:
English: Soccer
French: Le soccer
And they OCCASIOANLLY kick the "ball", you know.
P.S. But you said "American", so I assume you included other countries of america in there, maybe I shouldn't corect you
aiding and abetting law breakers You know what irks me about you people and your "illegal aliens (many exclamation marks)"?
It's that I have a hard time believe that you are without sin. You never broke a law? Never jaywalked? Nothing?
Should banks also refuse to give accounts or credit to people on trial, or with a past conviction? How about blackballing anyone ever involved in any kind of scam or fraud? How far past "foreign people" are you willing to take your hard line on criminals?
I think "illegal aliens" is to "dirty foreigners" as "public sanitation technician" is to "janitor": A sanitized politically correct wrapper applied to a dirty thought.
But: Australian Rules Football > other Footballs;//granted
Since neither of the sports uses just one foot, shouldn't it be feetball? Official NFL rules: THE FIELD
The field measures 100 yards long and 53 yards wide.
And how many fucking times have you seen someone apply both feet to the ball?
I've seen that... NEVER. You kick a ball with your foot, never with both your feet! Sheesh!
Go watch Nemo, fer crying out loud.
Maybe there's a bible passage about this, if anyone cares to quote, but as far as I know, it's not a question of translation as a question of "ewwww!".
It's not like ONLY the guy at the top was out for blood, don't downplay the horrors.
Sometimes it's political correctness, sometimes it's fear for your safety.
IF this is true, my guess is those would be the same executives that fired Jobs in the 90s and nearly caused the company to go bankrupt... their types are in every business, they're drawn by the smell of money like lampreys to a rotting corpse.
As for Apple not talking publically about the content of their contract, I have three letters for you: NDA
Jobs' and Apple's position as been the same for as long as they've been in the music biz: DRM is a fool's errand. I dunno why you want to believe otherwise, but it would be great if your beliefs were more in tune with relity, and less in tune with FUD. Not just on this issue, but on the whole.
He's been saying that since before the iTunes Store opened!
His motives then were the same as now: DRM can't work, he'll make more money if he sells songs without DRM.
Can't the RIAA suits all get in a plane together and go the way of the Big Bopper and friends? Please? Pretty please?
iTunes lets you remove DRM for the files you buy in it's store by burning them to standard CD audio. You can then play that CD in any non-apple CD player, re-rip them to any non-apple format, and upload them to any non-apple MP3 player.
The "lock-in" issue is a red herring. Jobs has been trying to get the labels to let him sell music without DRM since before the launch of the itunes Store, but a lot of people have been ignoring that and paying attention to FUD instead. I dopn't know why you want to believe that Jobs wants DRM, but every single thing he's done and said points to the contrary. It's very clear that the RIAA members are the ones pushing for DRM, not him.
iTunes lets you burn your purchases to a CD in standard CD format, stripping off it's own DRM.
BUT, fun!
Let's see what Apple does or doesn't do to their OS to support HD movies before we judge them less evil than MS in this regard. The difference being that everyone WANTS to download music, which the studios fight against, and most people don't give a fuck about HD movies, which the studios are pushing.
"I bet the latest Wayan Bros. movie would have rocked if only it was in HD!"
# AAC compressed audio at 96 Kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 Kbps. AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps.
I don't know anyone who passed that hurdle by themselves, everyone I asked checked out a walkthrough on the net.
I blame the translation, the instruction for the puzzle can't be followed to solve it.
When Safari came out, I downloaded version 1.0 the very first day, and used it to go to hotmail, check out my messages, download attachement, everything worked fine.
Three days later, I could no longer download attachments... My version of Safari hadn't changed, but somehow, after three days, it didn't work as well as it did. Hmmm...
In a less anecdotal way, you might remember Microsoft "borking" Opera, or the infamous Microsoft hack that screwed with Netscape back in the 90s.
If we're lucky, "leaked" memos will show up in a few years detailing how Microsoft purposefully decided to screw with their competition for their new zune.
Beware the forces of marketing, their evil knows no bounds.