If you're smart enough to know a word like paean, surely you're smart enough to spell it correctly. It only takes a moments to check the spelling of a difficult word. You don't want to look silly do you?
The government doesn't need a "natural" right, it just needs a legal right. There's no such thing as a "natural" right - who would endow it? Go and live in the jungle and you'll see what your "natural" rights are.
Violent fantasies are completely harmless by themselves. Also, you wouldn't insist on showing a four year-old child graphic images of bite victims before giving them a toy T-Rex.
But you'd be jeopardising your job. That's as very strong disincentive. And yet you aren't protesting for the freedom to be rude to your boss. But according to you, not having that freedom is an outrage! So why aren't you protesting for that freedom? There are restrictions on your speech, admit that there are, but you haven't done anything about it, you haven't even complained about this restriction, or even recognised it as such. But I though you were an ardent advocate of free speech?
Say you started a new job and met your new boss, and he had a hideous wart on his face which looked disgusting. Would you say "Hi, boss, gee that's a disgusting wart on your face"? No, you wouldn't. What happened to your treasured freedom of speech?
Really, some topics of speech don't need protection. Some do, of course. But some don't. It really isn't as inconceivable as you imagine to be able to distinguish between these topics.
We don't have free action, so why do we need free speech? You aren't permitted to inflict physical harm with violence (as much as I'm sure many people would adore being able to do that), so why should you be permitted to inflict psychological harm with words? The American ideal of free speech being amazingly noble is fallacious, romanticized nonsense. Actions have consequences, and should be moderated. We should have respect for others. Say what you want in the privacy of your own home, but in public, you can be nice. It's not draconian, any more than other laws circumscribing action towards other people are draconian. Americans just have a distorted viewpoint due to associating free speech with patriotism feelings, and with their love of individualism, self-determination, libertarianism, and such self-centred, self-righteous attitudes.
Re. promotion, I've bought 10 albums in the last month or so, after listening to them on Spotify and deciding I liked them. Without Spotify allowing me to listen to the albums, I wouldn't have bought them. So Spotify does generate sales. I guess the question is, what proportion of people do buy stuff after hearing it on Spotify?
A licence is only needed if you watch TV as it is being broadcasted. You don't need one if you watch it later on iPlayer.
The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV...
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.
That's not enough you have to own nothing capable of receiving tv signal and thanks to tv channel repeater sites that includes a computer.
Nonsense, I don't have a TV licence, but I do have a computer. The ONLY stipulation is that you don't watch programmes as they are being broadcast. You are still allowed to watch them later on iPlayer without having a licence.
What does "SanDisk sampling" mean? Does it mean SanDisk *is* sampling? What are they sampling? I don't understand what it means in this context.
And Moore's Law is not a "self-fulfilling" prophecy. In what way it is "self-fulfilling"? To be self-fulfilling the prophecy would have to make itself come true somehow. Are you saying if people hadn't been trying to keep up with Moore's law, electronic technology would have advanced more slowly?
The story summary is complete gibberish. Why was it posted like this?
Yes, I'm having to re-download Modern Warfare 2. Lame. Isn't not making your program randomly delete files the first thing they teach you in programming school? Bad show Valve, go and sit in the corner and put on your fricking dunce hat, idiots!!
The desire for privacy arises out of a concern for what others think of you, a concern for your status, and the desire not to be humiliated. But too great a concern for what others think of us, our social status in relation to others, and a great fear of humiliation, from which the desire for privacy stems, all result from our having evolved in an environment where higher social status was selected for due to the statistical accident that it generated more offspring which inherited the trait of desiring high status. Beyond a certain level, therefore, all the benefits of status are benefits to our genetic material, not to us as individuals - Expending effort to preserve a trait the ultimate function of which is to preserve itself is ridiculous in the context of what we have come to understand as human wellbeing. It is wasted effort, since it is not used for our own fulfilment, but to ensure that the trait to preserve the trait is inherited by as many individuals as possible. To acquire status which is only beneficial to the trait for acquiring status is stupid, therefore the psychological (pre-programmed by evolution) emphasis we place on our own status is also stupid, and what's more, it causes inestimable damage to our welfare. The desire for privacy is a result of this obsession with status and our place in relation to others, and the accompanying fear of humiliation. We have to let go of these things. Really, it doesn't matter if your neighbours see that picture of you in women's underwear. Really, it doesn't. Let go of it. Humiliation is a purely imagined, purely psychological pain. Let go of it. It is your instincts making you feel like that, instincts which do not care about your happiness, which in fact rely on you never being happy to ensure they are passed on to your offspring - your constant striving for success, which causes you so much stress and effort, your constant dissatisfaction with your status, your misery, is solely a result of this instinct which has been blindly selected for because those with it, while less happy, outnumbered those who didn't have it. We can remove it from ourselves by ignoring it. It is not that important to have high status, endless wealth. You only need one house, one partner, enough food for your family, you don't need dozens of houses, dozens of cars. We are psychologically unbalanced, humanity, because of evolution, and the insecure desire for privacy, the fear of being exposed in society, is a result of this, and is illogical. Let go.
Well, I tried to check whether I'm running ICS, so ran services.msc, and couldn't find it. The I noticed the firewall and ICS are listed together as one service, called Windows Firewall/Internet Connection Service (ICS). So it seems to two services have been merged together somehow, and running one entails running the other.
Consumer electronics are ALWAYS more expensive over here. I am always surprised by the low prices listed for the US. Maybe it's something to do with the fact the sterling is worth more than dollars, so whilst the prices are numerically equivalent (i.e. both in the 400s) the value is higher for the UK price. It's fucking mindbendingly cynical the way these motherfuckers are ripping us off because of what amounts to cultural differences. UK people shell out more because they've been conditioned to by consistently higher prices (this applies to CDs and everything as well).
Wow! When I joined the computer club in school as a 13 year-old they had a Commodore Pet. it was the first time i'd ever seen one. i was used to the far superior Commodore 16 which I had at home. I don't remember using the pet though, I thought it was ancient even back then. Come to think of it this must have been around 1988! But it was cool, in a way. Kind of unusual for a school at that time, I think. Why, what are your memories of that computer?
Somehow or other, by the complexity, the cost and the undesirability of themselves and their format, which no doubt stink since it was dreamt up in the revolting inhumane and frankly criminally sick minds. Die MS, and all other corporations. You make me want to puke. You crush the flower of happiness beneath you steal jackboots.
It's a shame that nobody I know who has a computer is even remotely interested in computer security, they barely have any idea of what computer security means. Most people I know prefer to ignore it -- they find it too much of a chore to worry about, and I don't blame them. They prefer to ignore all aspects of computer security and will certainly never bother to turn off such features as remote desktop access, if they are enabled by default, and certainly would not worry about not doing so. Microsoft genuinely is utterly culpable for all the supposed millions of dollars lost to computer viruses. They provide the computer systems which are, by default, vulnerable. They suck.
would everyone equate a driver's license with a universal id card. is it really the assumption in the US that every last individual will wish to drive a goddamn car?
it is a copy of the real website. apparently the whole interview was organised by email and no other validation was used apart from the appearance of the website as being real. they just said as much on the bbc news channel.
i actually saw the interview this morning and thought it was real. anyway the hoax is by these people:
Slashdot Mirror
If you're smart enough to know a word like paean, surely you're smart enough to spell it correctly. It only takes a moments to check the spelling of a difficult word. You don't want to look silly do you?
http://grammarist.com/usage/pa...
The government doesn't need a "natural" right, it just needs a legal right. There's no such thing as a "natural" right - who would endow it? Go and live in the jungle and you'll see what your "natural" rights are.
Violent fantasies are completely harmless by themselves. Also, you wouldn't insist on showing a four year-old child graphic images of bite victims before giving them a toy T-Rex.
But you'd be jeopardising your job. That's as very strong disincentive. And yet you aren't protesting for the freedom to be rude to your boss. But according to you, not having that freedom is an outrage! So why aren't you protesting for that freedom? There are restrictions on your speech, admit that there are, but you haven't done anything about it, you haven't even complained about this restriction, or even recognised it as such. But I though you were an ardent advocate of free speech?
Say you started a new job and met your new boss, and he had a hideous wart on his face which looked disgusting. Would you say "Hi, boss, gee that's a disgusting wart on your face"? No, you wouldn't. What happened to your treasured freedom of speech? Really, some topics of speech don't need protection. Some do, of course. But some don't. It really isn't as inconceivable as you imagine to be able to distinguish between these topics.
We don't have free action, so why do we need free speech? You aren't permitted to inflict physical harm with violence (as much as I'm sure many people would adore being able to do that), so why should you be permitted to inflict psychological harm with words? The American ideal of free speech being amazingly noble is fallacious, romanticized nonsense. Actions have consequences, and should be moderated. We should have respect for others. Say what you want in the privacy of your own home, but in public, you can be nice. It's not draconian, any more than other laws circumscribing action towards other people are draconian. Americans just have a distorted viewpoint due to associating free speech with patriotism feelings, and with their love of individualism, self-determination, libertarianism, and such self-centred, self-righteous attitudes.
Re. promotion, I've bought 10 albums in the last month or so, after listening to them on Spotify and deciding I liked them. Without Spotify allowing me to listen to the albums, I wouldn't have bought them. So Spotify does generate sales. I guess the question is, what proportion of people do buy stuff after hearing it on Spotify?
Also mouse gestures.
The poster doesn't need a licence if he only uses catch-up services like iPlayer. Source
The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV... You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.
Source
That's not enough you have to own nothing capable of receiving tv signal and thanks to tv channel repeater sites that includes a computer.
Nonsense, I don't have a TV licence, but I do have a computer. The ONLY stipulation is that you don't watch programmes as they are being broadcast. You are still allowed to watch them later on iPlayer without having a licence.
Reference
What does "SanDisk sampling" mean? Does it mean SanDisk *is* sampling? What are they sampling? I don't understand what it means in this context. And Moore's Law is not a "self-fulfilling" prophecy. In what way it is "self-fulfilling"? To be self-fulfilling the prophecy would have to make itself come true somehow. Are you saying if people hadn't been trying to keep up with Moore's law, electronic technology would have advanced more slowly? The story summary is complete gibberish. Why was it posted like this?
Yes, I'm having to re-download Modern Warfare 2. Lame. Isn't not making your program randomly delete files the first thing they teach you in programming school? Bad show Valve, go and sit in the corner and put on your fricking dunce hat, idiots!!
The desire for privacy arises out of a concern for what others think of you, a concern for your status, and the desire not to be humiliated. But too great a concern for what others think of us, our social status in relation to others, and a great fear of humiliation, from which the desire for privacy stems, all result from our having evolved in an environment where higher social status was selected for due to the statistical accident that it generated more offspring which inherited the trait of desiring high status. Beyond a certain level, therefore, all the benefits of status are benefits to our genetic material, not to us as individuals - Expending effort to preserve a trait the ultimate function of which is to preserve itself is ridiculous in the context of what we have come to understand as human wellbeing. It is wasted effort, since it is not used for our own fulfilment, but to ensure that the trait to preserve the trait is inherited by as many individuals as possible. To acquire status which is only beneficial to the trait for acquiring status is stupid, therefore the psychological (pre-programmed by evolution) emphasis we place on our own status is also stupid, and what's more, it causes inestimable damage to our welfare. The desire for privacy is a result of this obsession with status and our place in relation to others, and the accompanying fear of humiliation. We have to let go of these things. Really, it doesn't matter if your neighbours see that picture of you in women's underwear. Really, it doesn't. Let go of it. Humiliation is a purely imagined, purely psychological pain. Let go of it. It is your instincts making you feel like that, instincts which do not care about your happiness, which in fact rely on you never being happy to ensure they are passed on to your offspring - your constant striving for success, which causes you so much stress and effort, your constant dissatisfaction with your status, your misery, is solely a result of this instinct which has been blindly selected for because those with it, while less happy, outnumbered those who didn't have it. We can remove it from ourselves by ignoring it. It is not that important to have high status, endless wealth. You only need one house, one partner, enough food for your family, you don't need dozens of houses, dozens of cars. We are psychologically unbalanced, humanity, because of evolution, and the insecure desire for privacy, the fear of being exposed in society, is a result of this, and is illogical. Let go.
How is Starbucks irrelevant? People go there every day!!
Well, I tried to check whether I'm running ICS, so ran services.msc, and couldn't find it. The I noticed the firewall and ICS are listed together as one service, called Windows Firewall/Internet Connection Service (ICS). So it seems to two services have been merged together somehow, and running one entails running the other.
Consumer electronics are ALWAYS more expensive over here. I am always surprised by the low prices listed for the US. Maybe it's something to do with the fact the sterling is worth more than dollars, so whilst the prices are numerically equivalent (i.e. both in the 400s) the value is higher for the UK price. It's fucking mindbendingly cynical the way these motherfuckers are ripping us off because of what amounts to cultural differences. UK people shell out more because they've been conditioned to by consistently higher prices (this applies to CDs and everything as well).
and windows is nothing but mind-controlling fascistic fucking evil putrid cunting shit.
Wow! When I joined the computer club in school as a 13 year-old they had a Commodore Pet. it was the first time i'd ever seen one. i was used to the far superior Commodore 16 which I had at home. I don't remember using the pet though, I thought it was ancient even back then. Come to think of it this must have been around 1988! But it was cool, in a way. Kind of unusual for a school at that time, I think. Why, what are your memories of that computer?
Somehow or other, by the complexity, the cost and the undesirability of themselves and their format, which no doubt stink since it was dreamt up in the revolting inhumane and frankly criminally sick minds. Die MS, and all other corporations. You make me want to puke. You crush the flower of happiness beneath you steal jackboots.
It's a shame that nobody I know who has a computer is even remotely interested in computer security, they barely have any idea of what computer security means. Most people I know prefer to ignore it -- they find it too much of a chore to worry about, and I don't blame them. They prefer to ignore all aspects of computer security and will certainly never bother to turn off such features as remote desktop access, if they are enabled by default, and certainly would not worry about not doing so. Microsoft genuinely is utterly culpable for all the supposed millions of dollars lost to computer viruses. They provide the computer systems which are, by default, vulnerable. They suck.
After the first word of this story? I don't think so. What is wrong with the world?
would everyone equate a driver's license with a universal id card. is it really the assumption in the US that every last individual will wish to drive a goddamn car?
This is the website which duped the BBC news producer:
l
http://dow-chemical.va.com.au/
it is a copy of the real website. apparently the whole interview was organised by email and no other validation was used apart from the appearance of the website as being real. they just said as much on the bbc news channel.
i actually saw the interview this morning and thought it was real. anyway the hoax is by these people:
http://www.theyesmen.org/dow/articlenytimes.htm
I appreciate the drollery of the Boston IT party joke. Hilarious, well done!