I agree with that. However, you missed your own point entirely. These folks are not being held for "capital crimes", which is a technical definition. In fact, the letter of the law says that we don't have to charge them with anything. The fifth amendment does not come into play. So while your post is well-intentioned, it is not rigorously correct.
Are you married? Does your spouse work? How much money do you have saved up? What was your income? Where do you live? How old are you? How much experience do you have? etc, etc.
You really need that much information to post a kneejerk response to an intentionally vague question? You must be new here... *grin*
No, the parent comment doesn't hold up. If there is widespread agreement that the movies sucked, and that the original 3 movies were far better, than it's grandparent-poster's right to call it a disgrace.
Did parent somehow think that "disgrace" was anything but a person's opinion? Or that the grandparent somehow didn't know that they could not watch the movie if they didn't like it? That's like telling me that I need to "get real" because I don't like to eat bell peppers (I don't, really.) Of course it's his opinion - pointing that out didn't add anything to the discussion. He's far from alone in his opinion, and he has a right to post it without being told to "get real" by someone who posts a canned, tired response.
Sure, Lucas can take the franchise in any direction he wants. In the minds of an large number of people, he took it in a sappy, thinly-plotted, clumsily scripted direction, marked by brilliant special effects, uneasy scenes, mediocre editing, and some poor acting from otherwise-usually-good actors. Lucas has the freedom to do this because he knows he has a franchise that will sell no matter what; it's just too bad that he did it in this fashion. (Yes, parent, this is my opinion. You need not point that out.)
Parent's arguments are specious and scarcely relevant; mod accordingly.
oh I'm killing them too? excellent! My plan to take over is nearly complete, only 100,000 more cartons and you should all be dead!
Dude, you totally just made up your "plan" just now when you found out that cigarettes kill people. Stop trying to sound like you meant to take over the world all along, cuz, like, everybody *knows* better.
Do we really need a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Actually, it's pretty handy to have a stockpile of them when you want a strategic deterrent against other governments. Like it or not, we're not yet at a point in this world's history when having a massive strategic deterrent isn't useful.
Crap. I was just gonna try and buy a house in Kandahar, and now land mine sensors come along and drive the freaking price through the proverbial mud roof... Just what I needed.
Well, as a U.S. programmer, I have to say that if I can get my 15 minutes of fame on TV, I don't particularly care if it's with David Attenborough simply because I'm listed as endangered... Any TV face time is good TV face time.
Agreed, but the details of what we're talking about are minor: assuming the engineers who crafted these satellites don't have their heads crammed too far up their colons, they've accounted for all that, and the temperature readings are accurate nonetheless, which invalidates the original post's point.
No, that's incorrect. The satellites measure temperature, which is based strictly on the wavelengths of the emitted radiation from the surface. That doesn't change if you put a bunch of CO2 in the way - it just reduces the number of photons that get back to the satellite. They're not measuring the *amount* of "radiated energy", which is what you based your statement on.
The lack of temperature change is still significant. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions - global warming may still very well be a problem - but it will take a good deal more to counter the argument about the temperature remaining flat than what you mentioned.
OS makers are dumb, and yes, should be held accountable when appropriate. However, I hope you're not seriously suggesting that we should *not* hold the spyware makers accountable as well... It's not one or the other - we can hold both accountable, and should.
I'm sorry to ask a personal question, but are you nuts?
Dissection:
say to yourself will the world be a better place with yet another law Are you saying that we should add no more laws, simply because we have too many, regardless of that law's merits?
like Nielsen rating system by which advertisers use to by spots on TV, somewhere there has to be a way to understand what works on the internet. Someone else covered this already, but Nielsen pays you, in an arrangement made in the clear and with your permission, and you're damn well aware that you're helping them with their marketing data. They don't take over your TV while you think you're just installing TiVo, and they don't make your TV work less efficiently or steal your credit card numbers. This is a dumb, dumb analogy you have made here.
The law bill Are we an ESL student?
installing tracking devices on someone else computer will be punishable by imprisonment - you will no longer to be able to track logins via cookies Even the lowliest n00b on/. knows the semantic difference between a cookie and spyware. It's absurd to compare the two, particularly when you're claiming that the difference would somehow be overlooked in court with any lawyer worth the paper their bar scores are printed on.
It is good thing that 10% of the market is either running an alternative browser and/or operating system preventing those infections. But being victimized via email I tend to say that email isn't secure therefore nothing in email can be trusted - thus let the buyer (user) beware. Over the long haul, Darwinism will balance things out and the law will be just a hoop and dance show for elections. I would like to point out that each of these sentences has nothing to do with the sentence previous to it, that none of the three is particularly relevant, and that you are clearly way over your head. You successfully pointed out the fact that email can't be trusted - a statement implicit in the fact that a law was just passed addressing criminal activity perpetrated with email as its medium. Then you point out that Darwinism balances things out. Have you had children? If so, your statement is invalid. I don't see how these laws, passed essentially unanimously, are going to be a "hoop and dance show" for either party. Would you like to illuminate us on that aspect of your glorious deconstruction?
Build complete sentences, proofread your work, and don't try to sound brighter than you actually are. These laws are a fine thing. It's easy for anyone to look at anything the government does and go "Oh Noooo!" and think they sound wise.
Marketing should come without illicit invasions of privacy, hijacking of personal resources, and the aggravation of an often-painstaking removal process. If it has to "come from somewhere", as you stated, it should come from a place that has some moral and ethical footing. By your argument, I could break into your cardboard box and check out what brand of cheap wine you buy, if it allowed me to market cheap wine to you more effectively. Removing the ethical aspect, as you implicitly did (whether or not you meant to) is foolish.
"Will the world be a better place with yet another law?" (I added the question mark for you - I think you might have forgotten it.) Yeah, it'll be a better place with this law. By the time you'd typed those words, everyone who read the article had already thought about it, and most had come to the conclusion "yes, it will." I can think of a ton of laws that would make the world a better place. "Yet another law" is a dumb, dumb way to look at things, on a number of levels.
You should stick to topics you (a) understand and (b) have something interesting to say about.
Well, if he was unimaginative enough not to come up with anything better than 'limited only by our imagination', then maybe the limits of his imagination are a fairly reasonable approximation of how useful these little guys will be.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with that. However, you missed your own point entirely. These folks are not being held for "capital crimes", which is a technical definition. In fact, the letter of the law says that we don't have to charge them with anything. The fifth amendment does not come into play. So while your post is well-intentioned, it is not rigorously correct.
Sheesh.
Did you read any of the words after "no person" or did you just stop there?
I sit at my desk all day rather than walking around and being active. I tell you, it saves me a ton of energy...
You really need that much information to post a kneejerk response to an intentionally vague question? You must be new here... *grin*
Yeah, I hate it when people don't capitalize... or can't spell. Grammer? Sinlge?
Yeah, you earth-centrist bastard...
Did parent somehow think that "disgrace" was anything but a person's opinion? Or that the grandparent somehow didn't know that they could not watch the movie if they didn't like it? That's like telling me that I need to "get real" because I don't like to eat bell peppers (I don't, really.) Of course it's his opinion - pointing that out didn't add anything to the discussion. He's far from alone in his opinion, and he has a right to post it without being told to "get real" by someone who posts a canned, tired response.
Sure, Lucas can take the franchise in any direction he wants. In the minds of an large number of people, he took it in a sappy, thinly-plotted, clumsily scripted direction, marked by brilliant special effects, uneasy scenes, mediocre editing, and some poor acting from otherwise-usually-good actors. Lucas has the freedom to do this because he knows he has a franchise that will sell no matter what; it's just too bad that he did it in this fashion. (Yes, parent, this is my opinion. You need not point that out.)
Parent's arguments are specious and scarcely relevant; mod accordingly.
I modded my EZ Bake. Now it's an EZ Fry, too, but I'm worried Microsoft will shut off its net access...
6 frames per second in The Sims 2, at least while you're moving the camera. Otherwise 160 FPS, when the camera is set. :)
Dude, you totally just made up your "plan" just now when you found out that cigarettes kill people. Stop trying to sound like you meant to take over the world all along, cuz, like, everybody *knows* better.
Actually, it's pretty handy to have a stockpile of them when you want a strategic deterrent against other governments. Like it or not, we're not yet at a point in this world's history when having a massive strategic deterrent isn't useful.
This company has no chance to survive make its time.
Ugh, what a best-selling train wreck that was.
Crap. I was just gonna try and buy a house in Kandahar, and now land mine sensors come along and drive the freaking price through the proverbial mud roof... Just what I needed.
Well, as a U.S. programmer, I have to say that if I can get my 15 minutes of fame on TV, I don't particularly care if it's with David Attenborough simply because I'm listed as endangered... Any TV face time is good TV face time.
Doubt it's straightforward. What I don't doubt is that they have it fairly well in hand.
Agreed, but the details of what we're talking about are minor: assuming the engineers who crafted these satellites don't have their heads crammed too far up their colons, they've accounted for all that, and the temperature readings are accurate nonetheless, which invalidates the original post's point.
No, that's incorrect. The satellites measure temperature, which is based strictly on the wavelengths of the emitted radiation from the surface. That doesn't change if you put a bunch of CO2 in the way - it just reduces the number of photons that get back to the satellite. They're not measuring the *amount* of "radiated energy", which is what you based your statement on. The lack of temperature change is still significant. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions - global warming may still very well be a problem - but it will take a good deal more to counter the argument about the temperature remaining flat than what you mentioned.
OS makers are dumb, and yes, should be held accountable when appropriate. However, I hope you're not seriously suggesting that we should *not* hold the spyware makers accountable as well... It's not one or the other - we can hold both accountable, and should.
Dissection:
- say to yourself will the world be a better place with yet another law
- like Nielsen rating system by which advertisers use to by spots on TV, somewhere there has to be a way to understand what works on the internet.
- The law bill
- installing tracking devices on someone else computer will be punishable by imprisonment - you will no longer to be able to track logins via cookies
/. knows the semantic difference between a cookie and spyware. It's absurd to compare the two, particularly when you're claiming that the difference would somehow be overlooked in court with any lawyer worth the paper their bar scores are printed on. - It is good thing that 10% of the market is either running an alternative browser and/or operating system preventing those infections. But being victimized via email I tend to say that email isn't secure therefore nothing in email can be trusted - thus let the buyer (user) beware. Over the long haul, Darwinism will balance things out and the law will be just a hoop and dance show for elections.
Build complete sentences, proofread your work, and don't try to sound brighter than you actually are. These laws are a fine thing. It's easy for anyone to look at anything the government does and go "Oh Noooo!" and think they sound wise.Are you saying that we should add no more laws, simply because we have too many, regardless of that law's merits?
Someone else covered this already, but Nielsen pays you, in an arrangement made in the clear and with your permission, and you're damn well aware that you're helping them with their marketing data. They don't take over your TV while you think you're just installing TiVo, and they don't make your TV work less efficiently or steal your credit card numbers. This is a dumb, dumb analogy you have made here.
Are we an ESL student?
Even the lowliest n00b on
I would like to point out that each of these sentences has nothing to do with the sentence previous to it, that none of the three is particularly relevant, and that you are clearly way over your head. You successfully pointed out the fact that email can't be trusted - a statement implicit in the fact that a law was just passed addressing criminal activity perpetrated with email as its medium.
Then you point out that Darwinism balances things out. Have you had children? If so, your statement is invalid. I don't see how these laws, passed essentially unanimously, are going to be a "hoop and dance show" for either party. Would you like to illuminate us on that aspect of your glorious deconstruction?
Marketing should come without illicit invasions of privacy, hijacking of personal resources, and the aggravation of an often-painstaking removal process. If it has to "come from somewhere", as you stated, it should come from a place that has some moral and ethical footing. By your argument, I could break into your cardboard box and check out what brand of cheap wine you buy, if it allowed me to market cheap wine to you more effectively. Removing the ethical aspect, as you implicitly did (whether or not you meant to) is foolish.
"Will the world be a better place with yet another law?" (I added the question mark for you - I think you might have forgotten it.) Yeah, it'll be a better place with this law. By the time you'd typed those words, everyone who read the article had already thought about it, and most had come to the conclusion "yes, it will." I can think of a ton of laws that would make the world a better place. "Yet another law" is a dumb, dumb way to look at things, on a number of levels.
You should stick to topics you (a) understand and (b) have something interesting to say about.
CRAP!!! I thought that one special geeky woman was still out there, somewhere... And now I find out she's taken.
*grumble*
Well, if he was unimaginative enough not to come up with anything better than 'limited only by our imagination', then maybe the limits of his imagination are a fairly reasonable approximation of how useful these little guys will be. :)
I don't see what Canadian rock bands have to do with F911...
Are people too poor to own computers allowed to vote??? I'm really not sure they should be.