i laugh at your comment that hdmi is an entirely digital signal path. the concpet of that is really just a gimic. also, it's WHAT content is on the discs that matters, not sheer volume of discs released.
the number of movies released is not an indication of who has won the war, the ONLY thing that indicates that is which format was purchased by most consumers. you can release all the movies you want it doesn't make a fucking difference if no one buys them. watch next thing sony will be blaming pirates for the failure of blue ray, possibly the terrorists as well
"Please note that I am not commenting on Cosmic Ray/Cloud formation experiment" - right thats why you called the guy leading the research team a lone nut in an attempt to discredit his theory. more like your trying to back out of a hole you dug for yourself. oh and btw, you still don't prove your point in the above post in anyway. show me somthing better then a couple of anecdotal examples.
i guess trying to reason with a self confessed fanboy type is pointless, your doomed like a life of stupidity.
you didn't even read the article did you you moron. then again it's what i'd expect from someone with a blog called whineymacfanboy.
infact it doesn't even look like you read past the past line of the submitters description, since it clearly starts he in conjunction of a TEAM of scientists have shown that cosmic radiation creates cloud cover. so he is qualified to be commenting, and he is not a lone nut.
co2 alone is not sufficent to raise the greenhouse effect by any appreciable amount. this is a fact global warming nuts tend not to like have outed but it's true if you only stop taking spoon feedings.
i can't see how they could hold a valid patent on smb when it was developed at IBM, prior art people. this sounds a lot like extortion money to me - pay us or we will open our obvious patent's war chest on you.
again you people seem to not understand google offers a service to the public, obligations come with that. they for example cannot turn away users based on their religion anymore then they can remove video's based on that same reasoning. the fact that it's owned by a company makes zero difference. this has nothing to do with property law either, your confusing the issue. the free expression of all religious beliefs is protected in most countries, hence they cannot censor his video's because of his views on islam.
"No one discriminated against anyone" also as a side note i'd like to answer that statment. this guy is obviously an athiest, it looks like no one had a problem with this when he was debunking christianity but the moment he goes after islam his video's get pulled. could be some islamic manager at google didn't like it, who knows, but religious grounds should never be a reason to do something like this.
the corn you grow negates the co2 produced when you ferment it. i will however agree that enthanol from corn is a shitty way to produce ethanol. sugar cane is far better.
horse shit. even if you took away all the guns, which never happens, crooks find something else to use in the commiting of crimes, only with gun control they can feel safer knowing the house they are breaking into won't have anyone armed to defend it. remmeber, the only thing that will stop a rampaging lunatic with a gun, is another person with a gun.
it sounds funny, but it really is fucking scary what these maniacs will do to save a single chicken. it's always the case with moralists - they don't think they need to show reason behind their actions or that they ever possibly be wrong.
TOS don't trump the law. it doesn't matter what they put in a TOS, they aren't even a real contract, since a contract requires that both parties be able to negotiate terms, which is impossible on a web form in which "i agree" is the only option. the fact remains that they removed legitimate video's (i'm assuming they contained nothing insighting hate or violence towards muslims) based entirely on religious grounds, which is illegal in america and most other western countries, no matter be it a government organisation or private.
i purchased a dell axim and it arrived with a dent in it, they were great, let me use it for a month because i was leaving for europe for a month then replaced it with a new one when i got home. i have a hard time believing this guys story based on my own expereinces with dell.
yes, because the kids need to be paying attention to the ads on their computer, and not to getting an education. "come get these free computers, all it costs is your education"
"On Thursday, so many people bombarded Amazon's main number with calls that it added a special message for them in which a smug, anodyne voice offered a terse lecture on free-speech rights before directing them to the company Web site to email complaints or post comments."
it's not the human society making these calls though, as TFA states. it looks like a reasonable response to me. all these self rightous pricks calling would be doing nothing more then abusing service reps, which NOT what they have the right to do. if i was the manager of their call center i'd do the same thing to protect my workers. if you ignore the factless descriptive words in that paragraph thats what you get, a manager preventing his staff being abused just for doing their job. besides, a written complaint is much more effective in these circumstances then talking to some service rep who has no power to do anything for you.
your analogy is flawed because youtube is NOT a private residence, it's more like a public billboard, and if you run a public service anti discrimination laws apply to you. you are not allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs in a private or public arena for that matter.
also, with amazon, there are laws protecting customers rights, and one of those rights is to have your complains heard. amazon isn't compelled to make a decision the customer is happy with (within the bounds of the law), but they do HAVE to listen (provided the complaint was rational and not abusive, which i'm sure is wasn't coming from PETA types)
"Amazon hung up on customers wanting to comment on its continuing practice of selling animal-fighting magazines"
i've dealt with animal protection fanatics before, and i know this statement is misleading bullshit. a more accurate picture of the situation would that be one of them would have rung up and abused the service rep over the phone and they had no choice but to hang up on them. manners and due process don't ever occur to people like this who try take the moral high ground. while i am against animal cruelty, i hate groups like PETA in the people who side with them.
Slashdot Mirror
you just controdicted yourself in the same sentence. any form of reprisal WILL take the form of legal action, hence the legality of it is the issue.
watch the fanboys wriggle.
i laugh at your comment that hdmi is an entirely digital signal path. the concpet of that is really just a gimic. also, it's WHAT content is on the discs that matters, not sheer volume of discs released.
the number of movies released is not an indication of who has won the war, the ONLY thing that indicates that is which format was purchased by most consumers. you can release all the movies you want it doesn't make a fucking difference if no one buys them. watch next thing sony will be blaming pirates for the failure of blue ray, possibly the terrorists as well
"Please note that I am not commenting on Cosmic Ray/Cloud formation experiment" - right thats why you called the guy leading the research team a lone nut in an attempt to discredit his theory. more like your trying to back out of a hole you dug for yourself. oh and btw, you still don't prove your point in the above post in anyway. show me somthing better then a couple of anecdotal examples. i guess trying to reason with a self confessed fanboy type is pointless, your doomed like a life of stupidity.
unlikely since this is a 5 year long research project recently completed. even less likely since it's nothing to do with oil.
you don't do anything to support your argument in that quote.
because you seem extra slow and posted the same thing below, i'll say it again. he was part of a team. not a lone nut. READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
infact it doesn't even look like you read past the past line of the submitters description, since it clearly starts he in conjunction of a TEAM of scientists have shown that cosmic radiation creates cloud cover. so he is qualified to be commenting, and he is not a lone nut.
co2 alone is not sufficent to raise the greenhouse effect by any appreciable amount. this is a fact global warming nuts tend not to like have outed but it's true if you only stop taking spoon feedings.
oh noes he discredited the cult of global warming! he MUST be in the pocket of big business.
really difficult, if not impossible.
you have a pointless life don't you.
i can't see how they could hold a valid patent on smb when it was developed at IBM, prior art people. this sounds a lot like extortion money to me - pay us or we will open our obvious patent's war chest on you.
again you people seem to not understand google offers a service to the public, obligations come with that. they for example cannot turn away users based on their religion anymore then they can remove video's based on that same reasoning. the fact that it's owned by a company makes zero difference. this has nothing to do with property law either, your confusing the issue. the free expression of all religious beliefs is protected in most countries, hence they cannot censor his video's because of his views on islam.
"No one discriminated against anyone" also as a side note i'd like to answer that statment. this guy is obviously an athiest, it looks like no one had a problem with this when he was debunking christianity but the moment he goes after islam his video's get pulled. could be some islamic manager at google didn't like it, who knows, but religious grounds should never be a reason to do something like this.
the corn you grow negates the co2 produced when you ferment it. i will however agree that enthanol from corn is a shitty way to produce ethanol. sugar cane is far better.
horse shit. even if you took away all the guns, which never happens, crooks find something else to use in the commiting of crimes, only with gun control they can feel safer knowing the house they are breaking into won't have anyone armed to defend it. remmeber, the only thing that will stop a rampaging lunatic with a gun, is another person with a gun.
it sounds funny, but it really is fucking scary what these maniacs will do to save a single chicken. it's always the case with moralists - they don't think they need to show reason behind their actions or that they ever possibly be wrong.
TOS don't trump the law. it doesn't matter what they put in a TOS, they aren't even a real contract, since a contract requires that both parties be able to negotiate terms, which is impossible on a web form in which "i agree" is the only option. the fact remains that they removed legitimate video's (i'm assuming they contained nothing insighting hate or violence towards muslims) based entirely on religious grounds, which is illegal in america and most other western countries, no matter be it a government organisation or private.
i purchased a dell axim and it arrived with a dent in it, they were great, let me use it for a month because i was leaving for europe for a month then replaced it with a new one when i got home. i have a hard time believing this guys story based on my own expereinces with dell.
yes, because the kids need to be paying attention to the ads on their computer, and not to getting an education. "come get these free computers, all it costs is your education"
so when you give away something for free it allows you to circumvent anti discrimination laws? don't think so chump.
it's not the human society making these calls though, as TFA states. it looks like a reasonable response to me. all these self rightous pricks calling would be doing nothing more then abusing service reps, which NOT what they have the right to do. if i was the manager of their call center i'd do the same thing to protect my workers. if you ignore the factless descriptive words in that paragraph thats what you get, a manager preventing his staff being abused just for doing their job. besides, a written complaint is much more effective in these circumstances then talking to some service rep who has no power to do anything for you.
also, with amazon, there are laws protecting customers rights, and one of those rights is to have your complains heard. amazon isn't compelled to make a decision the customer is happy with (within the bounds of the law), but they do HAVE to listen (provided the complaint was rational and not abusive, which i'm sure is wasn't coming from PETA types)
i've dealt with animal protection fanatics before, and i know this statement is misleading bullshit. a more accurate picture of the situation would that be one of them would have rung up and abused the service rep over the phone and they had no choice but to hang up on them. manners and due process don't ever occur to people like this who try take the moral high ground. while i am against animal cruelty, i hate groups like PETA in the people who side with them.