Thanks man, I'm going to use that one today. "I'm sorry babe, just remember, we're not breaking up, I just upped my standards till you no longer qualify."
Which would mean that if she in the future manages to improve herself to meet your standards, you can two can date again. Same with light bulbs: If I can figure out how to improve the efficiency of an incandescent bulb enough that it meets the standards, I can sell it without having to first convince the government to repeal the ban that was put in place for the old incandescent bulbs. You mock, but a few second's thought makes it clear this is a very relevant difference.
So some people are trying to silence magazines about a subject they object to
Does the term 'about' accurately describe these magazines? I can write a magazine about child pornography and it's fine^H^H^H^Hlegal and shouldn't be banned. When I start including photos, suggested acquisition/distribution channels, or tips on abducting potential models, Amazon should refuse to sell it. I suspect the animal fighting magazines learn towards the latter. Child pornography is a more serious offence, but they're both illegal, and rightly so.
What if I upload (in fifteen-minute(?) segments) The Wizard of Oz with Dark Side of the Moon for the soundtrack? How about if I splice together clips from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Simpsons, Stargate SG1, and Monty Python to make my own bizarre tv series? If I'm clearly staying within my Fair Use rights, then cool, but if I'm not, should we divide between the shows' creators by screentime? Do I get any credit (=money) for my creative splicing? What if Buffy talks while the camera shows Jack O'Neil's reaction?
It's an excellent idea, but as with nearly every solution, there are iffy cases that are hard to address.
No, it's the result of China's firewall redirecting to google.cn
I think it's Google's--not China's--doing. When I was in Germany, going to google.com sent me to the German Google. This was my brother's laptop, which I think still had English as the preferred language in Firefox, meaning the redirection was likely based solely on my ip address, and not done by a Great German Firewall.
I thought maps were for finding your way around. Seems like if my house had 'Wesc's House' painted on the roof, it would be beneficial.
I think putting something up just for the mapping and then removing it could be problematic, as you're intentionally making the map quickly become out-of-date, but unless your banner obscures something, still no real harm. Though, I suppose it could get annoying if everyone did it.
Bad things you can do online:
-camwhore for strangers
-give those strangers your address and phone number
-fly to California to meet strangers
Kids don't just endanger themselves. They fuck things up for other people as well:
Go to sites like Neopets, try to guess or otherwise acquire other kids passwords, and then mess up seven-year-olds' accounts for kicks. Or scam seven-year-olds with fake auctions.
Go to random websites and troll or flood the forums with spam. Or death threats.
I help out at what's basically a much smaller version of Neopets, and let me assure you: kids can be total dicks. If parents monitored their kids online activities better, I'm certain my job would be so much easier, because permanent grounding would ensue in many of the cases. This is more pre-and-early-teens than six-year-olds, but jeez. When I warn them to stop spamming, they reply with 'fuck you', and when I ban them for continuing to spam, they'll sometimes circumvent it and post that mean Wesc banned them for no reason, or several times that mean Wesc raped them. On various sites I've received the occasional death threat from kids I've annoyed, and worse, and so do other kids. They're obviously not very serious threats, but that's a lot harder to realise when you're young.
While you're telling your kid not to share private information, could you also mention that spamming and death threats and such are not acceptable behaviours even when they're not in 'real life'? Here's a tip: if your kid thinks that the people they talk to online are as real as everybody else and deserve the same respect, keep them offline, because I don't want to deal with them anymore. There are plenty of decent people--both kids and adults--around to fill their place. Thanks.
Yes, and about half chose to not bother voting for any of his opponents. 'Don't blame me. I was merely complacent.' is not a defence I'd ever want to resort to.
You're missing the best example. Remember Phaedrus? Socrates quoting the god Theus on the invention of writing: '...for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves.' Writing is evil!;-)
If he doesn't care if pages work in someone else choice of browser why would anyone care if they work in his?
Users and web designers have different sets of things they should care about.
More imporantly, though, you're misinterpreting his comment. Taken by itself, you're pretty much right, but here's the context (roughly):
Derspatchel: It doesn't work on Opera.
Globe: It works on Firefox.
Derspatchel: I don't care. My problem is that it doesn't work in Opera.
To a bug report, 'This doesn't occur under X condition' is useful information for debuggers, but it's not a solution to tout to end-users. He says he doesn't care that it works in whatever browser because that's really irrelevant. It's not a legitimate solution to the issue he raised. He probably would care (a little, anyway) if it didn't work in Firefox, but insofar as he's talking about the problem of it not working in Opera, he doesn't care about Firefox.
Poorly stated, sure, but that line has a lot more truth in it than is immediately apparent.
Ah, Slashdot, champion of privacy rights. Constantly bemoaning data retention policies.
...And linking to the data file rather than just reporting about it.
What Slashdot did with this article is as bad as what AOL did. At least AOL had the guts to remove it and claim it was wrong--though likely due largely to the public outcry. I doubt the Slashdot editors (such as they are) will remove their link.
Progress = Walk forward
Congress = Walk together/with
'-gress' is from the Latin 'gradi' (to walk)/gradus (a step). 'ghredh' comes from the same place, but 'go' obviously makes less sense than 'walk' (which it also means).
Here's a thought: what if tomorrow a report comes out showing that African elephants have increased 50% over the last three years... what will the Wikipedia moderators do?
The US retains nothing. If the US wanted to enforce anything crucial that the EU does not agree with, the EU could create its own root servers and the result would be two internets. The US can't afford to let this happen. So in fact they have no power.
The US can't afford to let that happen but the EU can?
It suggests that most people who've heard of it, use it. Thus, to convert people, we merely need to inform them. Much preferable to the possibility that Firefox just isn't good enough for people to use once they know about it.
Could be worse. The guy at a law firm I ITed asked me to uninstall Firefox for him because after its installation, he couldn't view TIFFs. Had it, knew what it was, didn't use it, saw it screw his computer up, and didn't want it anymore.
While I agree that MySpace is inane, it's also unrealistic to expect that if you give millions of people a platform, they'll come up with anything inspirational, informative, or meaningful.
In most(?) states, there's a three (or thereabouts) year limit. A person over eighteen can have sex with a minor who is up to three years younger than him/her.
Are you serious? Ask.com is one of the worst search engines I've ever seen. I'll admit it has improved as of late, but what exactly arer you searching for that it has better results and any other engine? 'Who is George Bush's father?' (Actually, I just tried that, and even on natural language, Google still beats Ask.com.)
Slashdot Mirror
Does the term 'about' accurately describe these magazines? I can write a magazine about child pornography and it's fine^H^H^H^Hlegal and shouldn't be banned. When I start including photos, suggested acquisition/distribution channels, or tips on abducting potential models, Amazon should refuse to sell it. I suspect the animal fighting magazines learn towards the latter. Child pornography is a more serious offence, but they're both illegal, and rightly so.
Three whole deaths? Goodness, gracious, something must be done!
1. Washington, DC.
2. Arlington, VA.
What if I upload (in fifteen-minute(?) segments) The Wizard of Oz with Dark Side of the Moon for the soundtrack? How about if I splice together clips from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Simpsons, Stargate SG1, and Monty Python to make my own bizarre tv series? If I'm clearly staying within my Fair Use rights, then cool, but if I'm not, should we divide between the shows' creators by screentime? Do I get any credit (=money) for my creative splicing? What if Buffy talks while the camera shows Jack O'Neil's reaction?
It's an excellent idea, but as with nearly every solution, there are iffy cases that are hard to address.
I think it's Google's--not China's--doing. When I was in Germany, going to google.com sent me to the German Google. This was my brother's laptop, which I think still had English as the preferred language in Firefox, meaning the redirection was likely based solely on my ip address, and not done by a Great German Firewall.
I thought maps were for finding your way around. Seems like if my house had 'Wesc's House' painted on the roof, it would be beneficial.
I think putting something up just for the mapping and then removing it could be problematic, as you're intentionally making the map quickly become out-of-date, but unless your banner obscures something, still no real harm. Though, I suppose it could get annoying if everyone did it.
Kids don't just endanger themselves. They fuck things up for other people as well:
I help out at what's basically a much smaller version of Neopets, and let me assure you: kids can be total dicks. If parents monitored their kids online activities better, I'm certain my job would be so much easier, because permanent grounding would ensue in many of the cases. This is more pre-and-early-teens than six-year-olds, but jeez. When I warn them to stop spamming, they reply with 'fuck you', and when I ban them for continuing to spam, they'll sometimes circumvent it and post that mean Wesc banned them for no reason, or several times that mean Wesc raped them. On various sites I've received the occasional death threat from kids I've annoyed, and worse, and so do other kids. They're obviously not very serious threats, but that's a lot harder to realise when you're young.
While you're telling your kid not to share private information, could you also mention that spamming and death threats and such are not acceptable behaviours even when they're not in 'real life'? Here's a tip: if your kid thinks that the people they talk to online are as real as everybody else and deserve the same respect, keep them offline, because I don't want to deal with them anymore. There are plenty of decent people--both kids and adults--around to fill their place. Thanks.
Yes, and about half chose to not bother voting for any of his opponents. 'Don't blame me. I was merely complacent.' is not a defence I'd ever want to resort to.
You're missing the best example. Remember Phaedrus? Socrates quoting the god Theus on the invention of writing: '...for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves.' Writing is evil! ;-)
Users and web designers have different sets of things they should care about.
More imporantly, though, you're misinterpreting his comment. Taken by itself, you're pretty much right, but here's the context (roughly):
Derspatchel: It doesn't work on Opera.
Globe: It works on Firefox.
Derspatchel: I don't care. My problem is that it doesn't work in Opera.
To a bug report, 'This doesn't occur under X condition' is useful information for debuggers, but it's not a solution to tout to end-users. He says he doesn't care that it works in whatever browser because that's really irrelevant. It's not a legitimate solution to the issue he raised. He probably would care (a little, anyway) if it didn't work in Firefox, but insofar as he's talking about the problem of it not working in Opera, he doesn't care about Firefox.
Poorly stated, sure, but that line has a lot more truth in it than is immediately apparent.
Nice to see you care so much about users' privacy that you're willing to distribute half a million users' private data.
Oh, but they're AOLers, so they don't have any rights. Rights only apply to the technologically literate, I suppose. Never mind then.
Ah, Slashdot, champion of privacy rights. Constantly bemoaning data retention policies.
...And linking to the data file rather than just reporting about it.
What Slashdot did with this article is as bad as what AOL did. At least AOL had the guts to remove it and claim it was wrong--though likely due largely to the public outcry. I doubt the Slashdot editors (such as they are) will remove their link.
Progress = Walk forward
Congress = Walk together/with
'-gress' is from the Latin 'gradi' (to walk)/gradus (a step). 'ghredh' comes from the same place, but 'go' obviously makes less sense than 'walk' (which it also means).
I don't know. What does the policy dictate?
It suggests that most people who've heard of it, use it. Thus, to convert people, we merely need to inform them. Much preferable to the possibility that Firefox just isn't good enough for people to use once they know about it.
Could be worse. The guy at a law firm I ITed asked me to uninstall Firefox for him because after its installation, he couldn't view TIFFs. Had it, knew what it was, didn't use it, saw it screw his computer up, and didn't want it anymore.
Oh yes, I, for one, totally use Google just because it's a verb. Or maybe I found Google because it's a verb. Yeah, that must be it.
It used to get errors all the time. It seems better lately though. Maybe because of your later post explaining that it's no longer pure CFML.
In most(?) states, there's a three (or thereabouts) year limit. A person over eighteen can have sex with a minor who is up to three years younger than him/her.
Are you serious? Ask.com is one of the worst search engines I've ever seen. I'll admit it has improved as of late, but what exactly arer you searching for that it has better results and any other engine? 'Who is George Bush's father?' (Actually, I just tried that, and even on natural language, Google still beats Ask.com.)
Firstly, if the US is a Republic, it's a Democracy. Dictionary time!
A Republic is a Representative Democracy.