Amazon is acting as an intermediary for the end user, and providing the infrastructure for that functionality, but Amazon themselves do not have license for these.
... and your second reaction was to log in, scroll down the posts until you found one tangentially related to your mood, and post a snotty reply.
At the least you could clue us in as to what fame threshold you're looking for in your plagiarism news. I have my account options set to.25 deciSheens, so I usually see everything.
Not really, if you worked in multiple countries you could do the same thing.
I used to work for a smaller payroll company, and I can tell you that the average person who works in multiple countries pays multiple taxes. There's no simple LOL THAILAND trick that everybody uses, they just pay through the nose.
If the investment banks get some of the top engineering talent then they can build better systems that can be more nimble at identifying tech sectors which could use cash to find these new and exciting projects. Then those companies will be able to hire more engineers to work on the projects.
... but somehow we end up with another company designed to scrape marketing data off Facebook posts.
I guess if we're lucky these same engineers will eventually realize they're living a life devoid of meaning and, in their late 60's, decide that they need to leave behind a legacy that goes beyond "enormous shithead, poor tipper".
But I have never heard about a high ranking NASA spokesman going to congress and saying "We need money for advanced, non-chemical launch technologies".
Isn't that precisely what killed the Ares heavy lift rockets?
It is black and white. Nuclear power is safe when done properly; full stop.
Yes, and the problem is that this has been claimed since the dawn of the industry. What engineers never seem to grasp is that nobody believes you when you say that nothing could possiblie go wrong. Because it will, and at the worst possible time. There used to be posters with quotes to this effect hanging on engineer's walls, but I guess this has gone out of style.
I am entirely pro-nuke, and I am sick as fuck of you industry apologists poisoning the debate. Of course nuclear power isn't safe. There hasn't been a "safe" form of power since the dawn of mankind. What needs to be emphasized, repeatedly, is that the benefits of nuclear power massively outweigh the problems it creates. On environmental, social, and political levels nuclear power provides so many answers to serious problems that its widespread adoption would seem to be a foregone conclusion. However, the debate will never be won when there are people like you on "our" side intent on hand-waving the many problems away.
You are seriously damaging the cause you are attempting to champion.
Your mistake is thinking that picking one side of the "it's perfectly safe it's behind six feet of concrete/it's fantastically dangerous so it's behind six feet of concrete" dichotomy is a good idea. Until you grow up you'll never understand why people don't agree with you or what you can do to change their perceptions.
I'd argue that people like yourself are a large hindrance to the adoption of widespread nuclear power.
Because the censorship covered by the First Amendment deals only with the Government. Your right of free speech does not imply that any third party has a duty to help you spread it. E.g. Hustler can print porn but Wal-mart are free to choose not to sell it.
I get what you're saying, that the first amendment doesn't cover censorship by private citizens, but that doesn't have anything to do with my post.
You seem to be saying that private citizens cannot be censors, and that only when governments remove or alter material is that considered censorship. This is an incorrect definition, and you can see that for yourself by looking the word up.
There's nothing to argue about here. You can either look the word up in a dictionary and admit that you were wrong or go sulk in a corner.
I don't understand why censorship is always seen as something only a government can do. If you alter or remove something based on it's content (i.e. not because you need the disk space or similar) you are literally a censor. That's the definition of censorship.
In the U.S. the right likes to think they have a strong libertarian streak.
FTFY. There's nothing really libertarian about the American right wing. Libertarian is Whitman, who the Right would dismiss as a fag.
Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and
were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not
learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against
you, and disputed passage with you?
Peer review seemed like a good idea at the time, but these days it increasingly seems to be a way for the most powerful clique to ensure their papers get published and no-one else does.
Ultimately consensus is worthless in science because it's so often been wrong.
Peer review isn't about the most powerful clique "these days", it's always been like that. If anything peer review is becoming more democratic and open.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon is acting as an intermediary for the end user, and providing the infrastructure for that functionality, but Amazon themselves do not have license for these.
How is this different from an iPod?
There never should have been a story in the first place.
"Hotmail HTTPS temporarily disabled in scary-dictator-lands" is still news, even if it was the result of a mistake.
... and your second reaction was to log in, scroll down the posts until you found one tangentially related to your mood, and post a snotty reply.
.25 deciSheens, so I usually see everything.
At the least you could clue us in as to what fame threshold you're looking for in your plagiarism news. I have my account options set to
Ballmer: "I want a Zune you can make calls from."
Jobs: "I want a fucking star trek datapad, but awesomer."
THAT is the problem with Microsoft.
Not really, if you worked in multiple countries you could do the same thing.
I used to work for a smaller payroll company, and I can tell you that the average person who works in multiple countries pays multiple taxes. There's no simple LOL THAILAND trick that everybody uses, they just pay through the nose.
This isn't a "you can do it too" scenario.
If the investment banks get some of the top engineering talent then they can build better systems that can be more nimble at identifying tech sectors which could use cash to find these new and exciting projects. Then those companies will be able to hire more engineers to work on the projects.
... but somehow we end up with another company designed to scrape marketing data off Facebook posts.
I guess if we're lucky these same engineers will eventually realize they're living a life devoid of meaning and, in their late 60's, decide that they need to leave behind a legacy that goes beyond "enormous shithead, poor tipper".
Here you go.
And reading is just facing more -- legitimate -- competition now.
Pirating ebooks should be funded by the government. Anything, anything at all to get people reading more.
You've turned something he did as a ... lark ... for a few years into a colossal waste of time!
But I have never heard about a high ranking NASA spokesman going to congress and saying "We need money for advanced, non-chemical launch technologies".
Isn't that precisely what killed the Ares heavy lift rockets?
The Pope really shouldn't need to stoop to making anonymous comments.
You're better than that, Ratzinger.
Sixty years ago your kind were saying the same thing about miscegenation, and with many of the same justifications.
Too soon, too soon.
Oh, no! I know what you want! You coveteth my ice cream bar!
It is black and white. Nuclear power is safe when done properly; full stop.
Yes, and the problem is that this has been claimed since the dawn of the industry. What engineers never seem to grasp is that nobody believes you when you say that nothing could possiblie go wrong. Because it will, and at the worst possible time. There used to be posters with quotes to this effect hanging on engineer's walls, but I guess this has gone out of style.
I am entirely pro-nuke, and I am sick as fuck of you industry apologists poisoning the debate. Of course nuclear power isn't safe. There hasn't been a "safe" form of power since the dawn of mankind. What needs to be emphasized, repeatedly, is that the benefits of nuclear power massively outweigh the problems it creates. On environmental, social, and political levels nuclear power provides so many answers to serious problems that its widespread adoption would seem to be a foregone conclusion. However, the debate will never be won when there are people like you on "our" side intent on hand-waving the many problems away.
You are seriously damaging the cause you are attempting to champion.
Your mistake is thinking that picking one side of the "it's perfectly safe it's behind six feet of concrete/it's fantastically dangerous so it's behind six feet of concrete" dichotomy is a good idea. Until you grow up you'll never understand why people don't agree with you or what you can do to change their perceptions. I'd argue that people like yourself are a large hindrance to the adoption of widespread nuclear power.
Can we just add this post to the article summary and close the thread?
Because the censorship covered by the First Amendment deals only with the Government. Your right of free speech does not imply that any third party has a duty to help you spread it. E.g. Hustler can print porn but Wal-mart are free to choose not to sell it.
I get what you're saying, that the first amendment doesn't cover censorship by private citizens, but that doesn't have anything to do with my post.
You seem to be saying that private citizens cannot be censors, and that only when governments remove or alter material is that considered censorship. This is an incorrect definition, and you can see that for yourself by looking the word up.
There's nothing to argue about here. You can either look the word up in a dictionary and admit that you were wrong or go sulk in a corner.
I don't understand why censorship is always seen as something only a government can do. If you alter or remove something based on it's content (i.e. not because you need the disk space or similar) you are literally a censor. That's the definition of censorship.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
What's so confusing about 'one dollar one vote'?
In the U.S. the right likes to think they have a strong libertarian streak.
FTFY. There's nothing really libertarian about the American right wing. Libertarian is Whitman, who the Right would dismiss as a fag.
Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and
were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not
learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against
you, and disputed passage with you?
No, because you're a total asshole.
All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.
Nope, and you can go to their web site and see for yourself.
Here is a wikipedia article on the subject.
The 60's called, they want their right-wing rhetoric back.
(and they think your hair is too long, hippy)
Peer review seemed like a good idea at the time, but these days it increasingly seems to be a way for the most powerful clique to ensure their papers get published and no-one else does.
Ultimately consensus is worthless in science because it's so often been wrong.
Peer review isn't about the most powerful clique "these days", it's always been like that. If anything peer review is becoming more democratic and open.