Last summer Counting Crows Hard Candy album had a 'secret' website that used a code from the CD. They had a lot of live tracks for downloading on the site.
Counting who? Aren't they that one-hit wonder whining band with the singer in dredds?
This album is way better than Load or Reload (not saying much, I know).
So were the collective works of Britney SPears and Christina Aguilerra. And along with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilerra, I'd like to fuck Metallica up the ass with my metal dick.
I'll make them *see* exactly what metal up the ass is all about...
Everything you said was true, but irrelevant. If IBM is doing the right thing, then we should cheer them, right? Isn't that what we're doing?
When IBM does the wrong thing again, we'll take sides with their adversary, whoever it may be (even if it's Microsoft, and MS is actually doing the right thing). While we have a tendency to support the little guys, fact is, we don't support the little guys. We support what we, each as individuals, think is right, from whatever direction it comes.
To put it clearer, The Enemy of my enemy is my ally.
The only remaining question regarding 802.11g: what are the marketroids going to call it? Super-Wi-Fi? Ultra Wi-Fi? Wi-Fi II? X-Fi?
If they're marketing on the internet, they'll call it "wi fi", "wireless ethernet", "wireless internet", etc. The day is coming when marketing droids can no longer exaggerate too much, or else nobody will find their stuff (Thanks Google!).
Ahh...excellent question! The answer is the Constitution. That part where it says "Congress shall make no laws regulating the freedom of speech."
So why is it, then, that if I tell a cop to fuck off he'll arrest me? Ok, that's a little trite...
How about the FCC regulations about decency on the airwaves? Isn't it still *illegal* to say "fuck" on the radio? I'm surprised they haven't managed to pull off that sort of law on the internet, but if you consider that 90% of the content on the internet is generated by people like you and me that like to say "fuck" whenever we fuckin' feel like it, then it ain't no fuckin' surprise that the fuckin' government hasn't figured out a fuckin' way to limit our fuckin' speech on the fuckin' internet.
Better than the fuckin' radio, where you go to jail if you say f***.
A lot. And yet their taxes are still used to pay for roads. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
Well, let's see, if their tax dollars are no longer used to build roads, then they shouldn't receive any benefit of the road. Is that what you mean by "Fair"?
So the food in the grocery store that gets shipped by, you guess it, 18-wheel trucks barreling down the highways, well, that's off-limits.
Public buses? No way. Can't use that either.
Friend offer you a ride? "Sorry, I can't use the roads, I don't pay taxes for their construction."
Dude, *everybody* benefits from the roads. There's a reason that roads are a staple in every advanced civilization in history.
Roads arent maintained with tax dollars they are maintained via tolls and tickets.
Um, dude? I think that depends entirely on your municipality. Out here in the Great West we don't have that many toll roads. In Travis County they pay for the roads by taxing utilities, and with the money raised from car registration. They might subsidize with tickets and stuff. Here in Pierce county they charge a "Use Tax", and I understand that goes directly into the roads.
If IBM really wanted to make a point about not filing silly-ass lawsuits against them like what SCO has done, they'd file 30,000 simultaneous lawsuits against SCO for violating every single one of IBM's patents. Now, let's see if SCO's legal team (which is essentially all that is left of SCO) figure out how to prepare themselves for 30,000 lawsuits.
So, IBM should attack SCO with a cluster, then? Show SCO some distributed computing? I think that's how Google would fight, but do you really think IBM would do something like that? Wouldn't they just file 30,000 suits one at a time, each with a reduced set of claims?
When a person kills an animal to eat the animal, that only benefits the person. That doesn't benefit the animal to take it's life.
Disrupt the food chain, cause genocide. There's a time and place when it's better for you, better for them, and better for everyone (the chickens included) to take your place in the world, and the food chain is one of those places.
Actually, I enjoy eating a lot of soy which, if you didn't know, has more protein than any kind of meat. Thank you for your worthless comment, and next time, before you try to make a point, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about.
It also causes brain damage. Apparently, the reason this doesn't happen in asian countries is because there's something in the fish they eat that counteracts this.
And, no, I don't have a source for this. You'll have to google it up yourself.
Re:but it's more humane!
on
Chicken Run
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You do realize that even people on death row have to be killed humanely, right?
For the same reasons, actually. Stressing a person before killing them pumps them up full of hormones (adrenaline) that totally screws up the flavor. Also makes the meat pretty tough.
Actually, I'm surprised there are this many comments and I'm the first to make a cannibalism joke.
"Restrictive" is a relative term. That's why I say, make all Open Source apps double-license - one Open Source license of choice, the other - binary only regular EULA with all its conditions. Let users choose which one they want. They will not call this software "restrictive", "cancerous" or any other names anymore.
Including "free". Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, homeboy.
Hmmm this is usually the argument really really ugly chicks and lesbians use.
Except that I'm a man with a pretty attractive wife.:) We've eliminated sexism in our house completely. She opens doors for me, I open them for her, and so forth. We have a 4-year-old daughter (and a son, and another one coming) to whom we intend not to teach sexism as a way of life. They'll learn about it sooner or later, but we want them to learn it as something "some people do", rather than "the way it is".
For fuck sake, I opened the door for the woman once who was obviously struggling as she had her arms full of books. Instead of saying thank you the bitch went off at me saying she could have handled it herself and didn't need a man to be helping her in any way. Reminds me of the time I got up off the seat in a train for a pregnant woman who also started rambling the same shit.
Man, fuck those women. I hate that shit. If you had opened the door for a man, would he have gone off on you? Probably not. He'd probly say thank you and go in the door. Would those same chicks have done the same if the tables were turned? (Obviously you wouldn't be pregnant with a woman offering you a seat on the bus... hmmm....) If the psycho lady who didn't like you opening the door for her would have opened the door for you if your arms were full, then who the fuck is she to bitch? Sorry, this stuff pisses me off. Pisses me off when it happens to me, pisses me off when it happens in general. It's obviously people not thinking. YOu should've kicked her ass. "Bitch, want to be equal? Then you can take an equal beating." Heh. It's amazing, to me, how many of these women shy away when you offer to smack 'em the same way you'd smack a man for the same shit. "I'm a woman, don't hit me!"
Not that I think violence is a good thing, or anything, but in these cases a little fist-waving can be very revealing (and can get your ass kicked).
If she's going to market herself as a sex-symbol, then she should *be* a sex symbol, not a paunchy chick in a thong that looks like she ate the chick that's _supposed_ to be in the picture.
At least she won't pass out during sex. She's obviously healthy. Actually, she looks like she might still be a little under-weight, but not dangerously so. You obviously want her to risk her life at a dangerously low weight just so you can get your rocks off with a picture.
Asshole, women are people, NOT sex objects. I could give a flying rat-fuck how she markets herself, she's still not a sex object. A sex object is something you pay $19.99 with a credit card to have delivered at your door step in an opaque box. There ain't no picture worth starving yourself for, and no man worth it either.
I'll bet she takes better care of herself than you do. How much do YOU weigh? Is it healthy? Or are you a fat pig that's gonna die of a heart attack before the age of 40? Worse yet, are you one of those skeletons that pukes after every meal?
Slashdot Mirror
Next he will sue Philips and Sony to remove the volume controls from cd players, or else listeners have to much control over their "IP".
Actually, I anticipate it going in these steps:
Maybe if you'd read what I said rather than filtering it down to a few words that caught your eye you might have figured out what I meant...
If I had mod points I'd have modded your post as Redundant, because it was! :)
[1] The band puts an "a" in the word "Pearl". Weirdos :-)
Not that weird. Considering that the phrase they actually took their name from is "Pearl Necklace", as in "Eddie Vedder's got a pearl necklace".
Last summer Counting Crows Hard Candy album had a 'secret' website that used a code from the CD. They had a lot of live tracks for downloading on the site.
Counting who? Aren't they that one-hit wonder whining band with the singer in dredds?
This album is way better than Load or Reload (not saying much, I know).
So were the collective works of Britney SPears and Christina Aguilerra. And along with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilerra, I'd like to fuck Metallica up the ass with my metal dick.
I'll make them *see* exactly what metal up the ass is all about...
Am i the only person in the world who likes the new metallica album?
Yes.
Maybe the dead guy should team up with dave mustaine to create the ultimate heavy metal band..
That'd be either Metallica without Kirk Hammett (they already did that), or 74 minutes of silence, since neither of them can play anymore.
Yeah, two year olds. You build them something, and they bash it to pieces, laughing all the while.
Then they cry when they realize that their toy is broke. It's so sad...
Everything you said was true, but irrelevant. If IBM is doing the right thing, then we should cheer them, right? Isn't that what we're doing?
When IBM does the wrong thing again, we'll take sides with their adversary, whoever it may be (even if it's Microsoft, and MS is actually doing the right thing). While we have a tendency to support the little guys, fact is, we don't support the little guys. We support what we, each as individuals, think is right, from whatever direction it comes.
To put it clearer, The Enemy of my enemy is my ally.
Dude, you need to install the latest sarcasm detector. Maybe I should've put one of those smiley thingies in there.
Sorry, dude. I was using the one that came with XP. I guess it doesn't work...
The only remaining question regarding 802.11g: what are the marketroids going to call it? Super-Wi-Fi? Ultra Wi-Fi? Wi-Fi II? X-Fi?
If they're marketing on the internet, they'll call it "wi fi", "wireless ethernet", "wireless internet", etc. The day is coming when marketing droids can no longer exaggerate too much, or else nobody will find their stuff (Thanks Google!).
Ahh...excellent question! The answer is the Constitution. That part where it says "Congress shall make no laws regulating the freedom of speech."
So why is it, then, that if I tell a cop to fuck off he'll arrest me? Ok, that's a little trite...
How about the FCC regulations about decency on the airwaves? Isn't it still *illegal* to say "fuck" on the radio? I'm surprised they haven't managed to pull off that sort of law on the internet, but if you consider that 90% of the content on the internet is generated by people like you and me that like to say "fuck" whenever we fuckin' feel like it, then it ain't no fuckin' surprise that the fuckin' government hasn't figured out a fuckin' way to limit our fuckin' speech on the fuckin' internet.
Better than the fuckin' radio, where you go to jail if you say f***.
A lot. And yet their taxes are still used to pay for roads. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
Well, let's see, if their tax dollars are no longer used to build roads, then they shouldn't receive any benefit of the road. Is that what you mean by "Fair"?
So the food in the grocery store that gets shipped by, you guess it, 18-wheel trucks barreling down the highways, well, that's off-limits.
Public buses? No way. Can't use that either.
Friend offer you a ride? "Sorry, I can't use the roads, I don't pay taxes for their construction."
Dude, *everybody* benefits from the roads. There's a reason that roads are a staple in every advanced civilization in history.
Yeah, I'd be reading a lot of books.. you know, the old fashioned kind, with paper.
They *still* make those? Wow. Learn something new...
Roads arent maintained with tax dollars they are maintained via tolls and tickets.
Um, dude? I think that depends entirely on your municipality. Out here in the Great West we don't have that many toll roads. In Travis County they pay for the roads by taxing utilities, and with the money raised from car registration. They might subsidize with tickets and stuff. Here in Pierce county they charge a "Use Tax", and I understand that goes directly into the roads.
UPS
what're they gonna do? Deliver a generator? Believe me, that fuckin' UPS truck is the LAST thing I want to see....
Wait a minute. That's not the UPS you're talking about, is it?
Um . . David won. So wouldn't it be David w/ Tactical Nukes vs Goliath?
No, the Bible's just FUD. David really lost. This is an apt comparison.
If IBM really wanted to make a point about not filing silly-ass lawsuits against them like what SCO has done, they'd file 30,000 simultaneous lawsuits against SCO for violating every single one of IBM's patents. Now, let's see if SCO's legal team (which is essentially all that is left of SCO) figure out how to prepare themselves for 30,000 lawsuits.
So, IBM should attack SCO with a cluster, then? Show SCO some distributed computing? I think that's how Google would fight, but do you really think IBM would do something like that? Wouldn't they just file 30,000 suits one at a time, each with a reduced set of claims?
why am I even arguing with you?
Here I go again...
My mommy told me not to argue with my food.
When a person kills an animal to eat the animal, that only benefits the person. That doesn't benefit the animal to take it's life.
Disrupt the food chain, cause genocide. There's a time and place when it's better for you, better for them, and better for everyone (the chickens included) to take your place in the world, and the food chain is one of those places.
Actually, I enjoy eating a lot of soy which, if you didn't know, has more protein than any kind of meat. Thank you for your worthless comment, and next time, before you try to make a point, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about.
It also causes brain damage. Apparently, the reason this doesn't happen in asian countries is because there's something in the fish they eat that counteracts this.
And, no, I don't have a source for this. You'll have to google it up yourself.
You do realize that even people on death row have to be killed humanely, right?
For the same reasons, actually. Stressing a person before killing them pumps them up full of hormones (adrenaline) that totally screws up the flavor. Also makes the meat pretty tough.
Actually, I'm surprised there are this many comments and I'm the first to make a cannibalism joke.
"Restrictive" is a relative term. That's why I say, make all Open Source apps double-license - one Open Source license of choice, the other - binary only regular EULA with all its conditions. Let users choose which one they want. They will not call this software "restrictive", "cancerous" or any other names anymore.
Including "free". Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, homeboy.
Hmmm this is usually the argument really really ugly chicks and lesbians use.
Except that I'm a man with a pretty attractive wife. :) We've eliminated sexism in our house completely. She opens doors for me, I open them for her, and so forth. We have a 4-year-old daughter (and a son, and another one coming) to whom we intend not to teach sexism as a way of life. They'll learn about it sooner or later, but we want them to learn it as something "some people do", rather than "the way it is".
For fuck sake, I opened the door for the woman once who was obviously struggling as she had her arms full of books. Instead of saying thank you the bitch went off at me saying she could have handled it herself and didn't need a man to be helping her in any way. Reminds me of the time I got up off the seat in a train for a pregnant woman who also started rambling the same shit.
Man, fuck those women. I hate that shit. If you had opened the door for a man, would he have gone off on you? Probably not. He'd probly say thank you and go in the door. Would those same chicks have done the same if the tables were turned? (Obviously you wouldn't be pregnant with a woman offering you a seat on the bus... hmmm....) If the psycho lady who didn't like you opening the door for her would have opened the door for you if your arms were full, then who the fuck is she to bitch? Sorry, this stuff pisses me off. Pisses me off when it happens to me, pisses me off when it happens in general. It's obviously people not thinking. YOu should've kicked her ass. "Bitch, want to be equal? Then you can take an equal beating." Heh. It's amazing, to me, how many of these women shy away when you offer to smack 'em the same way you'd smack a man for the same shit. "I'm a woman, don't hit me!"
Not that I think violence is a good thing, or anything, but in these cases a little fist-waving can be very revealing (and can get your ass kicked).
If she's going to market herself as a sex-symbol, then she should *be* a sex symbol, not a paunchy chick in a thong that looks like she ate the chick that's _supposed_ to be in the picture.
At least she won't pass out during sex. She's obviously healthy. Actually, she looks like she might still be a little under-weight, but not dangerously so. You obviously want her to risk her life at a dangerously low weight just so you can get your rocks off with a picture.
Asshole, women are people, NOT sex objects. I could give a flying rat-fuck how she markets herself, she's still not a sex object. A sex object is something you pay $19.99 with a credit card to have delivered at your door step in an opaque box. There ain't no picture worth starving yourself for, and no man worth it either.
I'll bet she takes better care of herself than you do. How much do YOU weigh? Is it healthy? Or are you a fat pig that's gonna die of a heart attack before the age of 40? Worse yet, are you one of those skeletons that pukes after every meal?