"It's much easier to post a baby announcement on facebook than to send out individual emails."
Group email. You know, take the time you did with FB and include those you want in the group. No difference.
"Casual multiplayer games..."
You have me there. No interest in Farmville whatsoever.
Everyone keeps listing reasons *THEY* like FB and then projects those as reasons *OTHERS* should. Then they act as if it's somehow the others failure to desire the same trinkets.
Erm, no. It's a personal thing. It's also a personal thing to drop a friendship because you can't click an alternate icon.
3) Friends and self aren't 'tards who post about not being able to find product ??? at the store and have no interest in hearing about that happening to others.
"Just realize that if you have friends who are on social sites, they're probably leaving you out - intentionally or unintentionally - because if you're not on them you're simply not around for all of the conversations."
Clue to you. Your friends*don't* leave you out through neglect. Not in the base definition.
That would be the company he worked for when he did the writing. You know, got paid for working for someone else and all? Hence the copyright not being
his.
Writer != owner. Your apple, your orange.
Once paid, the writer has no claim on the product if so contracted and I'll bet you real money he signed a contract to that effect.
Because making it easier to proclaim that something someone has should be taken from them because you can't access it easily enough would be sooo much more moral?
Planning that spring release for your book is just too annoying for someone who wants it *now* (and most likely, free), so your copyright is yanked.
If you believe trust has anything to do with science, you are sadly ignorant. Science is *all about* not trusting someone's conclusions. Kind of the entire point of the AGW fiasco - they didn't have either data or algorithms or even the rationale behind their data choices presented so as to allow others to *duplicate* their work.
Note that word - duplicate.
And no, I don't "doesn't trust their contemporaries distilling the truth" - period. If I can't fact check your work, I have no reason to believe you.
run twisty, twisty, kill someone.
run twisty, twisty, touch something
run twisty, twisty, kill twenty someones.
run twisty, wind up behind a closing door and kill a big someone with helpers.
get a new style for your armor.
And you know he doesn't have an email for business contacts only how? I have one too, it's called "tarbaby@...." and all it does is delete anything incoming.
If they can't figure out the hint, it's not my fault.
"Unfortunately, the federal government likes to promote drug testing, and so they push for companies that bid on contracts to do drug testing as a matter of course."
My entire IT career was spent in various contracts for various levels of gov. Not one time has an agency asked me to drug test. I worked on the Marines ROSCOE(?) systems without such. I'd say you're wrong. Or perhaps that "push" was so light it didn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's much easier to just go to facebook when I need to contact someone..."
Click email icon, click desired recipient, type email, click send. Rough stuff.
"It's much easier to post a baby announcement on facebook than to send out individual emails."
Group email. You know, take the time you did with FB and include those you want in the group. No difference.
"Casual multiplayer games..."
You have me there. No interest in Farmville whatsoever.
Everyone keeps listing reasons *THEY* like FB and then projects those as reasons *OTHERS* should. Then they act as if it's somehow the others failure to desire the same trinkets.
Erm, no. It's a personal thing. It's also a personal thing to drop a friendship because you can't click an alternate icon.
3) Friends and self aren't 'tards who post about not being able to find product ??? at the store and have no interest in hearing about that happening to others.
"Just realize that if you have friends who are on social sites, they're probably leaving you out - intentionally or unintentionally - because if you're not on them you're simply not around for all of the conversations."
Clue to you. Your friends *don't* leave you out through neglect. Not in the base definition.
A group email does the same thing.
FB, etc are no more than Fischer Price versions of email.
"The second group misses out on an important social component."
Fuck you, asshole. You don't get to define what I consider an "important" social component.
"The original author is involved with this episode."
On material he has already been paid for and contractually relinquished copyright of.
What, pray tell, is your problem with honoring contracts?
Just put in my DVD of 200 old cartoons in and watched it expressly for the purpose of telling you that it, and the other 199, cost me $5.
Is your point that 2.5 cents for a digital copy is excessive?
Why didn't the movie makers ask first?
Altruism is a truly wonderful thing in the abstract.
"It's the copyright holder that's blocking it."
That would be the company he worked for when he did the writing. You know, got paid for working for someone else and all? Hence the copyright not being his.
Writer != owner. Your apple, your orange.
Once paid, the writer has no claim on the product if so contracted and I'll bet you real money he signed a contract to that effect.
The original writer was working for someone and being paid when he wrote those things *for* that someone else.
Did you miss, or ignore, that part?
Because making it easier to proclaim that something someone has should be taken from them because you can't access it easily enough would be sooo much more moral?
Planning that spring release for your book is just too annoying for someone who wants it *now* (and most likely, free), so your copyright is yanked.
Very moral.
If you believe trust has anything to do with science, you are sadly ignorant. Science is *all about* not trusting someone's conclusions. Kind of the entire point of the AGW fiasco - they didn't have either data or algorithms or even the rationale behind their data choices presented so as to allow others to *duplicate* their work.
Note that word - duplicate.
And no, I don't "doesn't trust their contemporaries distilling the truth" - period. If I can't fact check your work, I have no reason to believe you.
Rather than the pirates?
State dependent. Some states will not enforce some agreements.
"Maybe the right to privacy we were told so much about has simply become old-fashioned, a barrier to progress.'"
Knowing that someone would seriously entertain that concept kinda tastes like mental bile.
Your projection onto society of your obsession has inflated your idea of how many people use FB or other networks.
run twisty, twisty, kill someone.
run twisty, twisty, touch something
run twisty, twisty, kill twenty someones.
run twisty, wind up behind a closing door and kill a big someone with helpers.
get a new style for your armor.
"... goes to show that if you ask a sheep..."
And you know he doesn't have an email for business contacts only how? I have one too, it's called "tarbaby@...." and all it does is delete anything incoming.
If they can't figure out the hint, it's not my fault.
Apparently you've forgotten that the context is during the *interview*, not the job.
"Unfortunately, the federal government likes to promote drug testing, and so they push for companies that bid on contracts to do drug testing as a matter of course."
My entire IT career was spent in various contracts for various levels of gov. Not one time has an agency asked me to drug test. I worked on the Marines ROSCOE(?) systems without such. I'd say you're wrong. Or perhaps that "push" was so light it didn't matter.
What happens if they log onto /. and find you talking to yourself as if you were someone else?
"...only to be accused by said interviewer of pretending they don't have one..."
Bullshit. That would be an open invitation to sue.
"And it's standard procedure to get that information..."
No, it's not.
Good fucking gods. Do you actually believe what you write? Better yet, do you even read the news?
Turn it loose. That was one point in twenty-one, not *the reason*.
You cannot blame the OS for a game company's choices. The low-end PC *would* run those, if they were designed and developed correctly.