Jeebus, don't take it so damn literally. I asked a subset of this forum's users a question, and it happened to be attached toy our comment. Either answer it or don't. If I've characterized you , correct me. Just stop acting like a big girl's blouse.
Then erected an argument around it
No, just went into a small amount of detail about what rebuttals I already had covered, in order to speed things up a tad. Jesus, you're a insufferable prick. Is this your first forum?
Also: 'Erected'. Tee-hee!
Answer your question? Really? Thats a fucking straw man, idiot.
Hey, thanks for removing any doubt that you have no concept what 'straw man' means! That was actually useful!
What I don't understand from those (like you) who fear that the US version of 'Net Neutrality' is basically just a grab (or will eventually turn into one) by the Executive branch is this: How the fuck are they going to impose their will on the rest of the internet, you know, the parts they don't control?
You can come back at me with the argument that not running or buying the proper government-mandated software and hardware could be made illegal, but good luck with enforcement, both practically and literally.
One more time: Look at China. No one works harder or spends more money to lock their networks than they do, and theyr'e still not perfect. You honestly think the US could do any better?
Ha! Got that beat. I once fostered a Min-Pin/Husky Mix. Min-Pins are derivatives of greyhounds, so you have a dog that runs around at top speed and has the endurance to do this all day. 20 pounds, and the most tiring dog I've ever interacted with. She now plays as a competitive Frisbee Dog.
Wrong. They got big fat retainers first, especially, in Elaine Scott's case, if they were smart.
See, lawyers hate losing cases, so if they even think they might lose, or, in harsher cases, the plaintiff's a fucking idiot, they'll want to cover themselves, and there's two ways to do that:
1. Get as much money up front.
2. Tell the client they might lose (or are fucking idiots). This isn't for their conscience, mind you, it's to stave off a possible misrepresentation suit.
Of course, even if most lawyers tell you you're a fucking idiot, you'll eventually find one who'll take your case.
But he'll still tell you you're a fucking idiot, just nicer. And he'll also get his money up front.
But the reverse is also true: If private enterprise was as good as its cheerleaders say it is, then the tobacco companies would have cured lung cancer decades ago.
True, and something I'm considering right now as I mull over whether or not to can a couple of my gmail accounts for good.
Even so, that data's technically harder for Google to prove. Start linking all your accounts together and you've done the work for them. In other words, if they're really desperate to profile me, they can do the work, not me.
What. Did anyone say Google was forcing you to use this feature?
They did last week, when my youtube account was unusable until I'd paired it with a Gmail account, so I wouldn't exactly hold my breath on this one just yet.
Just because I might want to compartmentalize my emails doesn't mean I want to have to log out and log back in every time.
Actually, that's exactly what this means. Security takes effort.
Please mod parent up. One of the primary reasons for having multiple email addresses in the first place is to compartmentalize your online activities. This isn't innovation, just a way for Google to add more granularity to their dbs.
However, it is absolutely true that the Ba'athist containment/sanction process as agreed upon by the UN fomented terrorism at the expense of US security.
Nobody's arguing that. We are, however arguing that a) that didn't amount to a hill of beans, and b) boy, was that ever the mother of overreactions.
There's also the corollary argument that if the US (and other western countries) weren't so enamored with fucking around with these dipshit little countries in the first place, many of these problems simply wouldn't exist in the first place.
Congrats on being technically correct and absolutely useless.
Slashdot Mirror
You replied to me
Jeebus, don't take it so damn literally. I asked a subset of this forum's users a question, and it happened to be attached toy our comment. Either answer it or don't. If I've characterized you , correct me. Just stop acting like a big girl's blouse.
Then erected an argument around it
No, just went into a small amount of detail about what rebuttals I already had covered, in order to speed things up a tad. Jesus, you're a insufferable prick. Is this your first forum?
Also: 'Erected'. Tee-hee!
Answer your question? Really? Thats a fucking straw man, idiot.
Hey, thanks for removing any doubt that you have no concept what 'straw man' means! That was actually useful!
Ummm, try again, Your definition of straw man is woefully bad.
Or, if you can't be arsed to answer the question, don't bother replying, twice no less.
What I don't understand from those (like you) who fear that the US version of 'Net Neutrality' is basically just a grab (or will eventually turn into one) by the Executive branch is this: How the fuck are they going to impose their will on the rest of the internet, you know, the parts they don't control?
You can come back at me with the argument that not running or buying the proper government-mandated software and hardware could be made illegal, but good luck with enforcement, both practically and literally.
One more time: Look at China. No one works harder or spends more money to lock their networks than they do, and theyr'e still not perfect. You honestly think the US could do any better?
And the answer would be simple: DON'T question the creator.
Ha! Got that beat. I once fostered a Min-Pin/Husky Mix. Min-Pins are derivatives of greyhounds, so you have a dog that runs around at top speed and has the endurance to do this all day. 20 pounds, and the most tiring dog I've ever interacted with. She now plays as a competitive Frisbee Dog.
Same here, first with Session Saver then with FF's built-in tab restorer.
Mix it in with the awesome bar, and bookmarks are almost useless.
Oh, very nice. Hadn't seen that one before.
and there absolutely was no 'democracy' in it.
Yeah, you already said it's a Republic - so what's your problem again?
Wrong. They got big fat retainers first, especially, in Elaine Scott's case, if they were smart.
See, lawyers hate losing cases, so if they even think they might lose, or, in harsher cases, the plaintiff's a fucking idiot, they'll want to cover themselves, and there's two ways to do that:
1. Get as much money up front.
2. Tell the client they might lose (or are fucking idiots). This isn't for their conscience, mind you, it's to stave off a possible misrepresentation suit.
Of course, even if most lawyers tell you you're a fucking idiot, you'll eventually find one who'll take your case.
But he'll still tell you you're a fucking idiot, just nicer. And he'll also get his money up front.
Here endeth the lesson.
and you've found the perfect way to finish it off.
I aim to please. Sadly, you had to respond and ruin it all.
It took you that long to come up with that? Fail troll is failing.
Disappointing...
That's okay, so did you. You wanna go first?
You download porn on your servers? Man, that's stupid. I use my mac desktop for that.
Yeah, runs my web/fileserver, and does a great job. The windows equivalent (in my case, Windows XP), needs to be rebooted once a day at this point.
Story's been up for almost 15 minutes and no comments. Is linux dying?
Just kidding. Suse rocks.
Don't feed the trolls, I know...
But the reverse is also true: If private enterprise was as good as its cheerleaders say it is, then the tobacco companies would have cured lung cancer decades ago.
c'mon, it's google, and they already know.
True, and something I'm considering right now as I mull over whether or not to can a couple of my gmail accounts for good.
Even so, that data's technically harder for Google to prove. Start linking all your accounts together and you've done the work for them. In other words, if they're really desperate to profile me, they can do the work, not me.
Hey, don't reply to me either, I run my own domains too and use Gmail. Sheesh!
What. Did anyone say Google was forcing you to use this feature?
They did last week, when my youtube account was unusable until I'd paired it with a Gmail account, so I wouldn't exactly hold my breath on this one just yet.
Just because I might want to compartmentalize my emails doesn't mean I want to have to log out and log back in every time.
Actually, that's exactly what this means. Security takes effort.
Please mod parent up. One of the primary reasons for having multiple email addresses in the first place is to compartmentalize your online activities. This isn't innovation, just a way for Google to add more granularity to their dbs.
a) Embassies, WTC, Cole, WTC again, Pentagon
Silly me, I thought we were talking about Iraq!
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls...
Now people's heads will hurt. Great Job!
However, it is absolutely true that the Ba'athist containment/sanction process as agreed upon by the UN fomented terrorism at the expense of US security.
Nobody's arguing that. We are, however arguing that a) that didn't amount to a hill of beans, and b) boy, was that ever the mother of overreactions.
There's also the corollary argument that if the US (and other western countries) weren't so enamored with fucking around with these dipshit little countries in the first place, many of these problems simply wouldn't exist in the first place.
Congrats on being technically correct and absolutely useless.
You're making the same mistake as GP in thinking that the answer is that simple.
Long story short: The oil companies have plenty of money invested in keeping things the way they are. Regulations don't just write themselves.