Your last suggestion makes a lot of sense. Then the botters can brag about besting other botters. Of course, a lot of them are in it explicitly to harsh someone else's game. But, screw them.
You cannot copyright dynamic. The page they send me may have copyrighted *content*, which I do not modify, but the ads placed into rectangles of space is not copyrighted by them and I would suggest you argue with the advertisers as to who exactly owns the copyright on their content. Blocking said ad is synonymous with not visiting their site to view their content.
The advertiser lobbied the movie production's responsible parties. Those are the people who decided to go ahead, they could have simply refused. Similar to an actor lobbying for the part, it's just that the money flows the opposite direction. Your scenario would have an advertiser sneaking into props and putting that coke bottle in the set item group. So yeah, the advertiser didn't put it in the shot.
Many little snowflakes nowadays make the accusation that they've been "coerced" once they make a bad decision that is freely theirs to make.
coerce: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
I do believe you're calling it coercion because you fell for their clever manipulations and encouragements that enticed you to open your wallet and freely draw out your reserves to make an adult exchange. All without using any force or threats.
By the way that free adult exchange thingie doesn't qualify as theft.
Some parting adult advice to those delicate snowflakes - learn delayed gratification. It works wonders for preventing you from accumulating piles of unwanted crap.
Context. This is about some dumbass zipping ahead, swerving into the front and then slowing down radically. We've all seen it. When was the last time *you* saw some dumbass do that by outdistancing the truck by a friggin' football field's worth?
As opposed to the crystal-rubbing, holistic believing, anti-vaccine touting liberal Democrats? Both parties have dumbasses and display cognitive dissonance.
I don't. Explain it more thoroughly. Please include in your definition the differences between companies and school systems, which you neglected in your snark.
Actually, you should have bolded Pearson Those people produce horrid tests.
About a decade ago I wrote science essay tests for them. I quit because they kept asking for dumbing down. Example: They insisted that an essay on hot air balloons tell the reader what a basket was and what it was for on the balloon. The what it was for was already described functionally in the text. They wanted an explicit, dictionary type description. It was very much worse on the non-technical essay tests. Enough so that so many writers stopped, Pearson used their own editors to write the essays.
Short of it is, those are the people producing the bulk of the terrible test examples you'll find in complaints; 'Indicate the box that is correctly shaded.' with none of the boxes shaded, 'Lincoln was a Democrat.' , etc.
I notice that you make the speedster mode easy and then arbitrarily make returning to normal difficulty difficult. You purposely loaded your example why?
Did the pedestrian knowingly walk or jump in front of the vehicle?
Yes they can. Did the driver do so in intelligent conditions (appropriately constructed and marked road?) or in a residential area?
The last one is at least less vague. They bear responsibility for external persons but did the driver warn the passengers of their dereliction of safety? Those are less clear cut.
I can walk you down to the details of any example you choose to ignore the context of.
Perceptions do not alter reality, otherwise a person hallucinating would affect the reality of others. And if you fall back onto the argument that the others are seeing the person hallucinate, you're stretching the meaning of your query into nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Your last suggestion makes a lot of sense. Then the botters can brag about besting other botters. Of course, a lot of them are in it explicitly to harsh someone else's game. But, screw them.
Responding as if you weren't kidding, I don't have to answer my door when someone knocks.
You cannot copyright dynamic. The page they send me may have copyrighted *content*, which I do not modify, but the ads placed into rectangles of space is not copyrighted by them and I would suggest you argue with the advertisers as to who exactly owns the copyright on their content. Blocking said ad is synonymous with not visiting their site to view their content.
The advertiser lobbied the movie production's responsible parties. Those are the people who decided to go ahead, they could have simply refused. Similar to an actor lobbying for the part, it's just that the money flows the opposite direction. Your scenario would have an advertiser sneaking into props and putting that coke bottle in the set item group. So yeah, the advertiser didn't put it in the shot.
Many little snowflakes nowadays make the accusation that they've been "coerced" once they make a bad decision that is freely theirs to make.
coerce: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
I do believe you're calling it coercion because you fell for their clever manipulations and encouragements that enticed you to open your wallet and freely draw out your reserves to make an adult exchange. All without using any force or threats.
By the way that free adult exchange thingie doesn't qualify as theft.
Some parting adult advice to those delicate snowflakes - learn delayed gratification. It works wonders for preventing you from accumulating piles of unwanted crap.
Heh, no. That's part of the scam.
And that has what to do with discrimination against Asian Americans?
The Romans disagree with that outlook. Problem is, when it's free, there's no cap on the demand.
Context. This is about some dumbass zipping ahead, swerving into the front and then slowing down radically. We've all seen it. When was the last time *you* saw some dumbass do that by outdistancing the truck by a friggin' football field's worth?
So no, won't do diddly.
Why should they take those things into account? Bad is bad. Not everyone deserves a ribbon in the race.
Every book of the New Testament was edited. Matthew is no exception.
As opposed to the crystal-rubbing, holistic believing, anti-vaccine touting liberal Democrats? Both parties have dumbasses and display cognitive dissonance.
I don't. Explain it more thoroughly. Please include in your definition the differences between companies and school systems, which you neglected in your snark.
May we then not pay in said money? We're where it came from in the first place.
Pro-tip: Being a pedant or supporting one decreases your credibility in a discussion as well. Ignoring typos and addressing the points made does.
Actually, you should have bolded Pearson Those people produce horrid tests.
About a decade ago I wrote science essay tests for them. I quit because they kept asking for dumbing down. Example: They insisted that an essay on hot air balloons tell the reader what a basket was and what it was for on the balloon. The what it was for was already described functionally in the text. They wanted an explicit, dictionary type description. It was very much worse on the non-technical essay tests. Enough so that so many writers stopped, Pearson used their own editors to write the essays.
Short of it is, those are the people producing the bulk of the terrible test examples you'll find in complaints; 'Indicate the box that is correctly shaded.' with none of the boxes shaded, 'Lincoln was a Democrat.' , etc.
I notice that you make the speedster mode easy and then arbitrarily make returning to normal difficulty difficult. You purposely loaded your example why?
Did the pedestrian knowingly walk or jump in front of the vehicle?
Yes they can. Did the driver do so in intelligent conditions (appropriately constructed and marked road?) or in a residential area?
The last one is at least less vague. They bear responsibility for external persons but did the driver warn the passengers of their dereliction of safety? Those are less clear cut.
I can walk you down to the details of any example you choose to ignore the context of.
Provide a cite or you're talking out your ass. Best they've done that I can find is 3x.
Perceptions do not alter reality, otherwise a person hallucinating would affect the reality of others. And if you fall back onto the argument that the others are seeing the person hallucinate, you're stretching the meaning of your query into nonsense.
So is not going anywhere at all. Bet you don't let your kid make an airfoil with their hand on the hiway either. Curmudgeon.
Nose candy. Dogs smell things we don't. When I visit friends and drive through the forest, the dogs damn near hang out the windows.
Oh, and it's fun.
No, the ferocity of the wife's divorce lawyer is much more dependent on the ferocity of the divorcing wife, be she the offending party or not.
Nothing makes you as dependent as an on-line accessible only feature.
Most companies don't give a damn if you have a second job.